The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Well Polian is rumored to be interested in returning to the NFL…I’d make a big push for him!!! But I doubt he would have any interest here…rumor has him returning to Buffalo.

Oddly enough he turned down Buffalo - apparently because they couldn't agree on the $$.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ver-money/

Polian told Carucci that the scope of the role dramatically shifted with the retirement of quarterback Kyle Orton and the sudden departure of Marrone, who opted out of his contract on Wednesday.

With the job morphing into a "real heavy lift," Polian, 72, acknowledged that he wasn't ready to step in, saying: "It would have required a really long commitment to a new coach who deserved a long commitment that I wasn't prepared to make."

Polian recently signed a new contract with ESPN but admits the deal "certainly wouldn't have been as lucrative" as what Buffalo would have forked over.

StorminMormon86 wrote:2015 DC is going to be Raheem Morris. I don't want to be right on this one, but I got a feeling it's going to happen.

Irn-Bru wrote:

DEHog wrote:As for our Skins, the future starts with admitting you’re a very poorly run football team/organization. I may be wrong but to me the Skins act like they are a perennial playoff team, they aren’t even a perennial playoff contender!!

I have no idea what this means. Did something about the team's mentality or the way they carried themselves on the field scream "we're a perennial playoff team" to you this year? Did anything Snyder or Bruce Allen said give you that impression? Anything Gruden said? Everyone top to bottom appears to recognize that we are a team who has lost more than won in recent years and is looking to "right the ship" (to borrow a phrase the organization likes to use).

I do not get the same impression as you from the Redskins at all.

The formula for success just doesn’t seem that difficult to me. It’s a copycat league; they’re plenty of examples to follow. When you look at organizations like the Pats, Steelers, Ravens and now even the Hawks its not that they draft BETTER than us, it’s that they draft MORE than us.

I disagree; it's definitely that they draft better than us.

Total draft picks, 2010-2014:
Ravens: 42
Steelers: 44
Patriots: 44
Seahawks: 48

Redskins: 42

Are you telling me that 2 extra players over the course of five years is what has made the difference in depth and talent between some of the league's best teams and the Redskins?

Something else to consider, total draft picks during the same time period of selected interesting good/bad teams:

Vikings: 47
Texans: 44
Cowboys: 37
Saints: 27

If you are looking for correlations, it seems to me like a smart head coach + QB has a much higher match with the good teams than something like "lots of draft picks."

I don’t know the numbers but I’d be willing to bet that the percentage of players drafted (who play meaningful years) by those teams is similar to the ones we draft.

It might be worth checking out the numbers to figure this out, rather than dismissing the idea. We've had some years where almost no players make any impact and almost all are gone within 2-3 seasons. When you look at the Ravens recent drafts, most all of their picks are at least contributors to a team that is considered to have decent talent generally. That tells me that there is a quality dimension to this which you may be leaving out.

It’s just that while we are drafting 3 to 7 players a year they are drafting upward of 10 to a dozen.

Your info is outdated. I think you have in mind the 2006 Redskins, not the 2014 Redskins.

This organization, for whatever reason, hasn’t had the patients to build through the draft.

I'm not sure what this means. We've drafted as many players as some of the big boys. Are you saying that we didn't give some of those players enough of a chance to be starters on the team, choosing instead to go after free agents? Who do you have in mind?

The model has been that we are only a few players away and we go out and make the big slash, for the life of me I don’t understand why or who believes that will work.

Again, 2006 Redskins, not 2014.

Look, I sympathize with a lot of what you say, DEHog, but your winning formula reminds me of Homer Simpson's investment advice: "I like to buy low and sell high." Easy to say, but the real question is how to do it.

Common sense tells you the more players you draft the better chance you have of finding contributors to your football team…I think Shanahan proved that.

DEHog wrote:You conveniently left out...

Common sense tells you the more players you draft the better chance you have of finding contributors to your football team…I think Shanahan proved that.

Under Snyder (before Shanny) we"ve had six drafts where we drafted 6 players or less!!

I understand that during the years you used that we as an organization did better and I conceded that point.
Sorry but when has this organization ever acted like or admitted that they are at the bottom of the NFL rung?
I think trading 4 players for 1 proves a lot about where they thought they were as an organization...I was against that trade and remember saying if we whiffed on it that it would set us back 3-5 years...here we are in year three. As I said… I’m will to suffer some more losing to set the franchise on a better course. I think the fan base has certainly shown they are willing to suffer…It just doesn’t seem like the organization is willing too??

Irn-Bru wrote:

DEHog wrote:You conveniently left out...

Common sense tells you the more players you draft the better chance you have of finding contributors to your football team…I think Shanahan proved that.

I left it out because I agree with you and it wasn't really relevant to the rest of my post, which was pointing out places where I disagree with you.

Under Snyder (before Shanny) we"ve had six drafts where we drafted 6 players or less!!

This is true, but it's also misleading to bring up in this thread. How are we supposed to judge anything about the 2014 Redskins based on drafts as far back as 2001? You might as well have explained our 2005 playoff run in terms of the foundation laid by the '92 Super Bowl squad!

The reason I picked 2010-2014 is that it's a nice round number of years that also happen to correlate roughly with about as many years as a team needs to build itself even from scratch. (For example, the Seahawks won their laughing-stock of a division with a 7-9 record in 2010 . . . no one is laughing at the NFC West now.) The point is that the critique of "not enough draft picks" doesn't really apply to the team today.

I understand that during the years you used that we as an organization did better and I conceded that point.
Sorry but when has this organization ever acted like or admitted that they are at the bottom of the NFL rung?
I think trading 4 players for 1 proves a lot about where they thought they were as an organization...I was against that trade and remember saying if we whiffed on it that it would set us back 3-5 years...here we are in year three. As I said… I’m will to suffer some more losing to set the franchise on a better course. I think the fan base has certainly shown they are willing to suffer…It just doesn’t seem like the organization is willing too??

I agree with you that if the RGIII trade went bust we'd be set back by about 3-5 years. It's basically been a bust, and I think after 2-3 more years it won't be a relevant excuse if the Redskins are still terrible. So, yeah, agreed about how big a bet that exchange was for us.

But still, I don't get your statements about the team "acting like" it's a playoff contender, or not being "willing to suffer." I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that those seem like meaningless phrases to me.

But still, I don't get your statements about the team "acting like" it's a playoff contender, or not being "willing to suffer." I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that those seem like meaningless phrases to me

SkinsJock wrote:for many years, I felt we were lucky to have someone, who is a Redskins fan, own the franchise and who obviously would spend whatever it took to make this franchise be successful again

DEHog wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:for many years, I felt we were lucky to have someone, who is a Redskins fan, own the franchise and who obviously would spend whatever it took to make this franchise be successful again

I always felt this was a detriment, allow players and coaches to earn their payday. For example why give a first year HC a 5 year 20 mil deal?? Give him 3 and allow him to earn a 4th and 5th etc… Stop allowing coaches and players to come here to pad their 401K's...que Wade Phillips hire.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:for many years, I felt we were lucky to have someone, who is a Redskins fan, own the franchise and who obviously would spend whatever it took to make this franchise be successful again

I always felt this was a detriment, allow players and coaches to earn their payday. For example why give a first year HC a 5 year 20 mil deal?? Give him 3 and allow him to earn a 4th and 5th etc… Stop allowing coaches and players to come here to pad their 401K's...que Wade Phillips hire.

Jay Gruden would never have come here for the 3 year deal - he demanded the 5 year deal. Any coach with half a brain will do the same thing to protect himself in agreeing to come work for Snyder. This is what happens when you've hired and lost or fired 8 coaches in twelve years or whatever it is.

DEHog wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:for many years, I felt we were lucky to have someone, who is a Redskins fan, own the franchise and who obviously would spend whatever it took to make this franchise be successful again

I always felt this was a detriment, allow players and coaches to earn their payday. For example why give a first year HC a 5 year 20 mil deal?? Give him 3 and allow him to earn a 4th and 5th etc… Stop allowing coaches and players to come here to pad their 401K's...que Wade Phillips hire.

Irn-Bru wrote:
Total draft picks, 2010-2014:
Ravens: 42
Steelers: 44
Patriots: 44
Seahawks: 48

Redskins: 42

Are you telling me that 2 extra players over the course of five years is what has made the difference in depth and talent between some of the league's best teams and the Redskins?

Something else to consider, total draft picks during the same time period of selected interesting good/bad teams:

Vikings: 47
Texans: 44
Cowboys: 37
Saints: 27

If you are looking for correlations, it seems to me like a smart head coach + QB has a much higher match with the good teams than something like "lots of draft picks."

markshark84 wrote:Other perennail powers such as GB (15), DEN (18), NE (20), BAL (16), and PIT (15) were at an advantage. That means these teams have potentially 4-9 additional starters from the draft over the past 4 years. I consider that pretty significant. So overall it may have been 2 or so, but in reality the "opportunity cost" was much greater.

Irn-Bru wrote:But still, I don't get your statements about the team "acting like" it's a playoff contender, or not being "willing to suffer." I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that those seem like meaningless phrases to me.

DarthMonk wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:But still, I don't get your statements about the team "acting like" it's a playoff contender, or not being "willing to suffer." I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that those seem like meaningless phrases to me.

Made sense to me.

Seems like a huge number of our moves for several years have had "we are close" written all over them when in reality, we weren't very close at all. Making moves like that is acting like a contender.

The unwillingness to suffer is extremely ironic while being true. We want a quick fix but, ironically, extend our suffering.

“Well, I’m a player,” Jackson said. “I’m not in the front office and I don’t make the decisions. But honestly, I think we’re very close.

DEHog wrote:

DarthMonk wrote: .. Seems like a huge number of our moves for several years have had "we are close" written all over them when in reality, we weren't very close at all. Making moves like that is acting like a contender.
The unwillingness to suffer is extremely ironic while being true. We want a quick fix but, ironically, extend our suffering.

Well said, and articulated much better than me!!

SkinsJock wrote:next season we'll see all the same 'positives' being espoused by the media, the coaches and the players ... cautious optimism is here

then the season begins and we see the reality of what happens when guys that don't have a clue about the NFL, are running things

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Success for the Redskins is the implementation of a tried and true structure to the football side of the house, within this organization.

That's it. It's not wins and losses. It's not pants, picnics and charitable foundations. It's the implementation of a proven hierarchy which will enable success.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:next season we'll see all the same 'positives' being espoused by the media, the coaches and the players ... cautious optimism is here

then the season begins and we see the reality of what happens when guys that don't have a clue about the NFL, are running things

So, knowing with certainty that this is what is going to happen, why in the world would you follow the team? That would pretty much make a person an imbecile.

Personally, I agree with you and everyone else about Snyder (and Allen to a lesser extent). We've seen over the past twenty miserable years though that (very) occasionally the team is able to get past the obstacles that Snyder has created. Quality players (think Brad Johnson, Clinton Portis, Sean Taylor, RGIII/Morris as rookies) or very exceptional coaches like Gibbs or Schottenheimer are occasionally able to give the team a spark and do more than we expect - or deserve. My cautious optimism every off season has nothing to do with Dan Snyder, but with a little hope that some of these players and coaches will rise above Snyder.

riggofan wrote:My cautious optimism every off season has nothing to do with Dan Snyder, but with a little hope that some of these players and coaches will rise above Snyder.

DEHog wrote:So you call SJ a imbecile, but you are optimism every off season that some of these players and coaches will rise above Snyder...How sad it that?

riggofan wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Other perennail powers such as GB (15), DEN (18), NE (20), BAL (16), and PIT (15) were at an advantage. That means these teams have potentially 4-9 additional starters from the draft over the past 4 years. I consider that pretty significant. So overall it may have been 2 or so, but in reality the "opportunity cost" was much greater.

I'm sure its somewhat related to the fact that they had so many early round draft picks, but I can't help but notice what really separates those teams from everybody else is that they all have legit franchise QBs.