Boswell: Skins To Be Bad For Several More Years

[Irn-Bru]

I think Griffin is a decade long gamble because if he busts as I think he's going to do than the 4 squandered picks will take a decade to overcome. Three first round picks and 1 second should have produced 4 starters

Ten years is way overstating things. Saying it would take 10 years to overcome the lost picks we traded is so hilariously wrong that I can't actually tell whether or not you're joking.

Look at where the league was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Seriously, take a good, hard look at the stat leaders, coaches, etc., who were large and in charge then: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

Now look at the Top 100 list that just finished: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-top100-2015

That's near-total turnover you'll see.

It's a young man's game.

We are nowhere near 10 years out from competition or even domination. With competent personnel management and coaching, five seasons would be a very long turn-around time. If McCloughan is what we think he is, and if we can settle our HC within the next two seasons (whether that's Gruden or someone else), we'll be in competition within 3-4 seasons.

[OldSchool]

This is year 4 of the 10 years so if Griffin busts and Boswell is right and the Skins are 5 or 6 years away from respectability the 4 high draft choices for 1 player who busts than it was a decade gamble. The Skins could have something like the Dallas offensive line if they had someone like SM drafting since 2012 instead of Snyder calling the shots.

Let's hope Snyder lets SM continue to manage the roster and with SM's help Gruden becomes a good HC with or without Griffin. Five or six wins and a team that is more competitive is what I am hoping for this season. I want to see SM's choices pan out and Gruden gets Griffin or 1 of the others play smart this year. That would look like progress to me. An improve defense and a more balanced offense with an improved offensive line could get the Skins moving in the right direction.

[SkinsJock]

This franchise could be better in a few years if we continue under Scott's guidance whether Gruden is HC or not and whether Griffin shows he can play QB well or not - this franchise only needs decent management in order to improve - if on the other hand, either Gruden or Griffin show that they can do their jobs well, and Scott is still making the decisions here, then Boswell's prediction is just a bunch of hogwash

[Irn-Bru]

This is year 4 of the 10 years so if Griffin busts and Boswell is right and the Skins are 5 or 6 years away from respectability the 4 high draft choices for 1 player who busts than it was a decade gamble.

You're trying to have it both ways.

Look, we spent three years since drafting Griffin without a competent GM. Even with the 24 picks we did have (that is, minus the three we traded for Griffin) we only got 6 players capable of winning a starting spot . . . on a team with below average talent. That's one in four players. To put that in perspective, consider that McCloughan's batting average as a GM in San Fran — where the roster talent he began with was much worse than ours — was about 45 percent of drafted players starting. 18 percent of his players made at least one Pro Bowl.

You can't tell me that, even with the Griffin trade as a handicap, Scot McCloughan would need anything close to 10 years to build out a roster. With 8 picks a year on average, he'll be fielding 3-5 new starters per year, with 1-2 being capable of at least one Pro Bowl season. Even if you assume, unrealistically, that every Redskin needed to be replaced, you'd have a brand new team in about 5 seasons between the draft and free agency.

So which is it? Assuming Griffin fizzles out this year, did the trade cost us 10 years of rebuilding simply because of the picks we gave away, or did it cost us 10 years because we didn't have a competent GM? I've just proven that it can't be just a function of the trade, so you have to mean that the Griffin trade + an incompetent GM means we need 10 years to rebuild.

But here's the problem with that: an incompetent GM won't build a good team in 10, 20, or 30 years. We've watched a string of incompetent GMs run the Skins since 2000 show exactly that. So in that respect the Griffin trade + bust doesn't mean a whole lot. The 10 years estimate is basically meaningless and doesn't apply to our situation whatsoever.

[OldSchool]

I guess will have to agree to disagree but in my mind this is going to be year 4 of the Griffin gamble. They had the opportunity to build a Dallas like OL or something else with those 4 picks and chose to go all in on a what they expected to be a game changing quarterback. Many though it was worthwhile in 2012 until what I considered inevitable happened, an option quarterback got knocked out running the football.

If Griffin, who is being gifted the starting job again, and the Skins flounder this year Boswell may be right it my take another 6 years for them to be really competitive. I am hoping Griffin or one of the others thrive this year and with SM picks they get on track but I stand by what I said, Griffin was a gamble that effects things for a decade.

Unfortunately I expect Griffin to continue to struggle and not return in 2016. I may be wrong but I don't think even Dan Snyder would want to pay a struggling Griffin 16M for a fifth bite at the apple. Maybe they can renegotiate with him so they don't have cut him. I think Cousins will decide to look for a fresh start and a chance to compete for a starting spot. The Skins may have McCoy battling a draft choice or a free agent for the starting job 2016, year 5 of the Griffin gamble.

[DarthMonk]

This hyperbole is out of control; Snyder couldn't have destroyed spurrier's chance for success. Spurrier did it way too fast for dan to do it. Exhibits a through z was bringing in former Florida QBs.

Good points on Spurrier.

I still think one of Snyder's biggest mistakes was his impatience with Marty. It kind of kills me to think how different things might have gone if he'd allowed that coach to continue another year.

Amen! I knew Snyder was going to be a problem when he fired Marty. Marty's team finished strong that year and looked on their way. Years later an insider explains the Snyder fired Marty because he acted like it was his team and he was in charge so it wasn't any fun for Snyder. Snyder should've focused on the sales end of the business and let Marty run the team. If he'd had been smart enough to that he'd have become a winner on the field instead of an annoyance.

Check me but off the top of my head Marty inherited the first 100 million dollar payroll, got it under 60, had 23 new players, 13 rookies, and went 8-3 with Tony Banks after starting 0-5.

His right hand man was the current man in charge of personnel with Seattle.

[OldSchool]

Check me but off the top of my head Marty inherited the first 100 million dollar payroll, got it under 60, had 23 new players, 13 rookies, and went 8-3 with Tony Banks after starting 0-5.

His right hand man was the current man in charge of personnel with Seattle.

That is the way I remember it also I was pumped the way the team finished and excited about the future with Marty. I recently read that one of Snyder's friends said Dan fired Marty because it wasn't any fun for Dan with Marty in control of things.

[SkinsJock]

woulda, coulda, shoulda ...

it means squat - we are here with this owner and the only way we improve regardless of HC or QB is by having better management ...

it will not take Scott near as long if Dan Snyder stays out of things ... Boswell's premise is based on our history under this stupid owner

then again, if Dan gets involved again not even the best NFL QB coupled with the best HC in the NFL will make a difference because you have to build a team and Dan Snyder does not know squat about that

[Irn-Bru]

I guess will have to agree to disagree but in my mind this is going to be year 4 of the Griffin gamble. They had the opportunity to build a Dallas like OL or something else with those 4 picks and chose to go all in on a what they expected to be a game changing quarterback. Many though it was worthwhile in 2012 until what I considered inevitable happened, an option quarterback got knocked out running the football.

OK. I don't see what this has to do with what we were discussing.

If Griffin, who is being gifted the starting job again, and the Skins flounder this year Boswell may be right it my take another 6 years for them to be really competitive. I am hoping Griffin or one of the others thrive this year and with SM picks they get on track but I stand by what I said, Griffin was a gamble that effects things for a decade.

No. My last post refutes this. Are you interested in dissecting my argument, or do you just want to say "I'll agree to disagree" and then repeat the same tired stuff?

[OldSchool]

I guess will have to agree to disagree but in my mind this is going to be year 4 of the Griffin gamble. They had the opportunity to build a Dallas like OL or something else with those 4 picks and chose to go all in on a what they expected to be a game changing quarterback. Many though it was worthwhile in 2012 until what I considered inevitable happened, an option quarterback got knocked out running the football.

OK. I don't see what this has to do with what we were discussing.

If Griffin, who is being gifted the starting job again, and the Skins flounder this year Boswell may be right it my take another 6 years for them to be really competitive. I am hoping Griffin or one of the others thrive this year and with SM picks they get on track but I stand by what I said, Griffin was a gamble that effects things for a decade.

No. My last post refutes this. Are you interested in dissecting my argument, or do you just want to say "I'll agree to disagree" and then repeat the same tired stuff?

You don't understand the math in my argument. I am not saying the Skins are going the be bad for 10 years I am saying they have already been bad because of this horrible trade. This is going to be year 4 and I expect them to sub .500 and could envision it taking another 6 years before they become good. You disagree and say SM should have them good in 3-4 more years so target year is either 7 or 8 of the Griffin gamble. I hope you are right and think you are essentially agreeing with when you say best case they'll be good in another 4 years.

[Irn-Bru]

You don't understand the math in my argument.

I understand it perfectly well. You are saying the Skins have been bad for 3 years since trading for Griffin and that they could be bad for another 5-6 as McCloughan rebuilds. Hence, 6+3=~10, and in retrospect we'll see that the Griffin trade "cost" us about a decade of poor seasons.

Now, can you reproduce my claims? I don't think so.

I am not saying the Skins are going the be bad for 10 years I am saying they have already been bad because of this horrible trade.

What I've shown is that the trade is not the reason we are bad at the moment. Suppose we never made the trade and Griffin fell to #5 (or wherever we picked). Our batting average with the draft has been so low that those extra picks wouldn't have made that much of a difference in our current state of affairs. Being generous to Allen, we'd be up only two decent starters in terms of talent. Not enough to have fundamentally changed our path up to this point or going forward.

This is going to be year 4 and I expect them to sub .500 and could envision it taking another 6 years before they become good. You disagree and say SM should have them good in 3-4 more years so target year is either 7 or 8 of the Griffin gamble. I hope you are right and think you are essentially agreeing with when you say best case they'll be good in another 4 years.

You have missed my point completely. I'm not trying to prove that the number of years it will take for the organization to field a good team from today, when added to the time already passed since the Griffin trade, will be significantly less than 10 years.

Your claim was that the Griffin trade itself caused a problem that takes 10 years to recover from. I am disputing that. The reason that's a misleading statement is that you are trying to have it both ways, attributing several years of poor franchise management AND the rebuilding period under McCloughan to a single cause (the Griffin trade). But those two things are independent of each other, and the Griffin trade itself will have no impact on the time it takes McCloughan to build a team his way. Therefore, that trade cannot be said to have caused the length of our rebuilding period, whether that's three years after McCloughan takes over or 30.

My point is that competent personnel management in the NFL can turn any situation around within five years — which I supported with facts in my previous post. It doesn't make sense to say that the Griffin trade + his being a bust could cause a decade-long rebuild period. Only bad personnel management organization-wide can cause a decade-long dry spell.

[riggofan]

woulda, coulda, shoulda ...

No doubt, SJ. Of all the boneheaded moves over the Snyder era though, the Marty thing is just the one that sticks with me. I would love to have seen that particular team play under Marty another year.

That move really bugs me the most because I'm pretty sure Snyder has admitted to that mistake. I want to see proof that he can LEARN from that mistake.

Got my fingers crossed for McCloughan.

[SkinsJock]

woulda, coulda, shoulda ...

No doubt, SJ. Of all the boneheaded moves over the Snyder era though, the Marty thing is just the one that sticks with me. I would love to have seen that particular team play under Marty another year.

That move really bugs me the most because I'm pretty sure Snyder has admitted to that mistake. I want to see proof that he can LEARN from that mistake.

Got my fingers crossed for McCloughan.

Agree 100% - that's the thing - each season, at about this time, we hope that Snyder has learned something/anything from a past that is full of big mistakes and little mistakes he has made that have hurt the franchise

we have a chance this season to begin the process of building a franchise - at this time we are pretty sure that we have a guy in charge that can assemble a staff and the players needed - all we really need is for Snyder to leave everything alone and give Scott and his FO time

there are many here with unrealistic expectations but that's what happens with this franchise and this fan base, each & every season

Boswell's estimation of how long it will take to have a decent product on the field is way off ... as long as Snyder stays out of things

[Deadskins]

My point is that competent personnel management in the NFL can turn any situation around within five years — which I supported with facts in my previous post. It doesn't make sense to say that the Griffin trade + his being a bust could cause a decade-long rebuild period. Only bad personnel management organization-wide can cause a decade-long dry spell.

This.

[Deadskins]

woulda, coulda, shoulda ...

No doubt, SJ. Of all the boneheaded moves over the Snyder era though, the Marty thing is just the one that sticks with me. I would love to have seen that particular team play under Marty another year.

You and every other Skins fan who knows football at the NFL level.

[emoses14]

I think Old School's point is that Griffin is so awful COUPLED with the fact that we used 2 additional years' #1 picks on him, plus a second means that we will be bad for the total sum of 10 years, regardless of any other factor attributable to Snyder. Moreover, year four of Griffin's tenure in DC will be just like years 2 and 3, and specifically the opposite of year 1 (because that one was a good year and thus not relevant to the point), and will produce no signs of improvement to this team, which hopefully will not unfairly cost Gruden his job as a result of the aforementioned awfulness of Griffin.

We can (continue) to be debate Griffin until we're blue in the face. The facts are he had one great year, 1 injury plagued awful year and 1 awful year. Gruden had serious problems with him last year. Griffin seems to be moving him past those problems thus far this year and appears to be the clearly best QB on roster right now. There are teammates that love him and teammates that don't (surprise! Humans!).

I'll go on the "record" as saying that the skins will be at or above .500 THIS YEAR. I'm not sure what a "good" record means, but I anticipate them fighting for a playoff spot, if not the NFC East title in 2016. Even if Scot's rate of draft/player acquisition hits slows to 2 per year, rather than DS' 4.1 clip stat, I think we have a much faster turnaround than our rampant PTSD seems to be allowing us to acknowledge. The house cleaning that Scot is bringing isn't starting at the ground floor. I actually think last year's draft (Bruce's last) is going to prove to have given us 2 really good to great players, 2 very good (these four will be some combination of Breeland, Grant, murphy and Long) and one decent to good player (Moses); AND the year before's draft will give us 3 good to really good (Amerson, Reed, Thompson (this is my homer pick)) with Reed being a possible great if he can manage to stay on the field. I'd like to add Thomas to this equation, but I suspect that ship has sailed.

I just don't think the cupboard was bare when Scot got here, and that will accelerate this process. Not to mention, I'm very excited to see how all of the players he's brought in through draft and FA work out, this year.

[SkinsJock]

we've won 7 games in 2 years, but, more importantly, we have looked even worse than that

Jay Gruden needs to take a step up and do a better job as HC

the defense and offense need to show that they can be competitive and we can find a way to win games ... maybe even 7 games

more important than either of those things though is seeing that the product on the field clearly is on the right track to becoming better

I look for possible playoffs in 2016 and an NFC East contender after that

[Irn-Bru]

I think Old School's point is that Griffin is so awful COUPLED with the fact that we used 2 additional years' #1 picks on him, plus a second means that we will be bad for the total sum of 10 years, regardless of any other factor attributable to Snyder.

Yes, I know. And that's precisely what I've argued against, is it not?

Look, it is true that we made that trade for Griffin. It's true that he might well prove to be a bust. It's also true that we have largely been a failure as a team in the 3 years since we made the trade. It's probably true that McCloughan's plan will take several years to fully implement before it bears fruit. It's not unthinkable that it will take four or five seasons, in which case we'd be looking at 8-9 years from the time we drafted Griffin to the time we next field a competitive team.

All of these things are true, but just because the Griffin trade happened at the beginning of that timeline does not necessarily imply that it is the cause of the rest of the timeline, especially not its length. The lost draft picks coupled with Griffin's bad play simply are not enough to explain a ten-year period of poor performance and rebuilding. I've brought forward a bunch of evidence in support of this claim, so to continue asserting that without making a case for it or refuting what I've demonstrated is a logical fallacy.

I'll go on the "record" as saying that the skins will be at or above .500 THIS YEAR. I'm not sure what a "good" record means, but I anticipate them fighting for a playoff spot, if not the NFC East title in 2016. Even if Scot's rate of draft/player acquisition hits slows to 2 per year, rather than DS' 4.1 clip stat, I think we have a much faster turnaround than our rampant PTSD seems to be allowing us to acknowledge. The house cleaning that Scot is bringing isn't starting at the ground floor.

I agree with all of this. The difference between top-10 teams and bottom-10 teams in the NFL isn't actually all that large, and multiple teams per year make the leap into "competitive" territory. Why not us? We've got a lot of the building blocks in place. Yes, we need better QB play, better defensive play, and better coaching — particularly defensive coaching. After our offseason moves, I truly believe we'll see improvement in coaching and defense. As for the QB situation . . . well . . .

I actually think last year's draft (Bruce's last) is going to prove to have given us 2 really good to great players, 2 very good (these four will be some combination of Breeland, Grant, murphy and Long) and one decent to good player (Moses); AND the year before's draft will give us 3 good to really good (Amerson, Reed, Thompson (this is my homer pick)) with Reed being a possible great if he can manage to stay on the field. I'd like to add Thomas to this equation, but I suspect that ship has sailed.

I hold very little hope for Thomas unless we see him compete for a spot this year. I have to disagree with some of your optimism regarding the other players, however. While Breeland had a great game against the Cowboys, he has a long way to go to develop into a consistently good player. Amerson has ground to make up to get back to starting quality, and while I'm hearing good things reported from the camps I know better than to rely on those reports to predict future success.

Reed is a talent but is just as likely to stay injured as he is to get healthy and have a breakout year. I liked what we've heard about (and what little we saw from) Ryan Grant last year, but with McCloughan's WR pickups chasing his tail he had better start making an impact before I'm willing to say he's "good to great" or "very good."

The one guy I'm optimistic about from your list is Trent Murphy. I think he's shown the talent and work ethic and now knows how to focus his development. My prediction is that his breakout year is this season and he becomes a fixture on our defense for years after that.

I just don't think the cupboard was bare when Scot got here, and that will accelerate this process. Not to mention, I'm very excited to see how all of the players he's brought in through draft and FA work out, this year.

I agree on both points.

[SkinsJock]

Thanks FFA - I think that most with any sense would agree that it's more likely that Boswell's pessimistic outlook is grossly over stated

[fredp45]

While I do NOT support Albert...at all (he was a total waste, a true bust), I do believe Mike was a huge part of the problem! Albert has a point -- why pay someone that much money to take on two guys...the guy excelled at rushing the passer, wrecking havoc and making plays on the qb?

Why not sign a guy for 1-2 mil to do that and then use the other money for CBs, LBs, etc...?

It was one stupid decision by Danny, after another....until he hired Scot!

Let's quit talking about Danny, Mike S and Fat Al...let's move on!

[Redskin in Canada]

Fans must be patient even if they stop watching until they see a better product on the field

Washington has one of the largest and most loyal fan bases in the NFL. Fans will be back once the product on the field is worth watching.

We have seen decreases in tickets, merchandise and even TV ratings for Skins games. I do not feel that those fans who stopped buying season tickets or those who decided to spend their time better with family and friends are less fans than those who in the name of masochism deel obliged to watch defeat and even ridicule when it is clear that the team gave up and did not even fight.

No sense in brining back the name of a terrible owner/manager like Preston Marshall, a racist, to explain the awful records of the ancient past. I became a fan around 1969 with the arrival of Vince Lombardi.

Just check what it took to turn the franchise around in the early 70's and the early 80's: good GM and a good HC. The rest, as they say, is history. Players on the field and their system are a result of those two main choices.

Players, owners and staff say the NFL is a business. It is. As a consumer, we have the right to choose the menu served. It is up to each individual to judge whether to return again for another meal. An argument can be held that BLIND LOYALTY has little to do with changing a bad menu and forcing the owner to make the necessary changes, including his own conduct and management style. I am convinced that some feel that not rewarding a bad product is the best strategy to effect the necessary changes.

But I can understand the "righteous indignation" of some who feel that even if served crap, a client should eat in the same place out of "loyalty". Others might argue that the best medicine is tough love with business and even family. You screw up, you pay the consequences. Most fans have already voted with their feet in this board, the stadium and TV whether you like it or not. I do not feel that they have great concerns or sleepless nights about anybody's opinions about what being a fan is about. After all, it is entertainment and personal stories of struggle and success that watching may be about. But I do not purport to know all reasons. Some may just not have anything else to do in life. Choice is clear in that case.

Anyway, back to the original point: Patience.

Our collective hopes are pinned on Scott M. If he is who we think he is, and he receives no capricious interference from all the usual suspects, progress will come sooner than Boswell thinks. After all, we are speculating equally, are we not?

[SkinsJock]

While I do NOT support Albert...at all (he was a total waste, a true bust), I do believe Mike was a huge part of the problem! Albert has a point -- why pay someone that much money to take on two guys...the guy excelled at rushing the passer, wrecking havoc and making plays on the qb?

Why not sign a guy for 1-2 mil to do that and then use the other money for CBs, LBs, etc...?

It was one stupid decision by Danny, after another....until he hired Scot!

Let's quit talking about Danny, Mike S and Fat Al...let's move on!

what does Albert have to do with Boswell and the immediate future of the Redskins?

[Deadskins]

While I do NOT support Albert...at all (he was a total waste, a true bust), I do believe Mike was a huge part of the problem! Albert has a point -- why pay someone that much money to take on two guys...the guy excelled at rushing the passer, wrecking havoc and making plays on the qb?

Why not sign a guy for 1-2 mil to do that and then use the other money for CBs, LBs, etc...?

It was one stupid decision by Danny, after another....until he hired Scot!

Let's quit talking about Danny, Mike S and Fat Al...let's move on!

what does Albert have to do with Boswell and the immediate future of the Redskins?

I noticed that too. Think he was responding to the other thread.

[OldSchool]

Irn-Bru,

I think it is a specious argument to assert that even if the Skins had not traded and drafted Griffin they would not have gotten quality starters with those 4 high picks. Given the history of the franchise they may have squandered those picks and then I'd have a different complaint, but to assume failure with alternative draft picks as you suggest doesn't make sense to me. I am assuming they could have gotten quality starters with those 4 picks maybe not Trent Williams level players but competent starters instead of a ineffective option QB.

Going forward I am encouraged by what Scott has done. His guys haven't taken the field yet so we'll have to see but they clearly are not Snyder type pick so I expect most if not all to be contributors and I am hoping a couple of them will form the foundation of the new SM Redskins, something all of us can agree with. I am in my own fashion optimistic we will see modest improvement this season providing they focus on running Gruden's offense with whoever can best run it under center.

Maybe Griffin will surprise me and start to show some competence or Gruden will bench him for McCoy or Cousins which everyone of them he has the most confidence in to produce results in 2015. What I fear is another torturous Griffin apprenticeship year which in my mind will mean Snyder is still calling the tunes. I don't put any stock in the Griffin is doing better and is clearly the best of three talk out of the Redskin camp because too many of the media are Snyder employed shills. Hopefully the "he is better" talk will be validated with improved play but until I see it I won't believe it. After all we have suffered through who in their right mind believes preseason talk coming out of the Redskin camp with its many media camp followers.

[SkinsJock]

This article is 4 days old so you may have seen it but I just read it. His thesis is after teams have stunk for several years like the Skins with huge scoring deficts in addition to long strings of losing records it takes 5 years more years to even improve to mediocre. League statistics form the basis of his argument. He doesn't mention Daniel Snyder but he asserts the train of losing seasons is proof of a dearth of talent and a rapid turnaround is statistically unlikely.

I hope he is wrong. I'm not expecting more than 5-6 wins in 2015 but 5 more years before they'll manage a .500 year? I've never read an article quite like this before about the Skins or any other team. It is very plausible to me if Snyder meddles but he stayed out of things and let his GM and coach run the team it wouldn't take 5 years to get to mediocre. Unfortunately I think Snyder will continue to meddle and Boswell may be right. Let's hope not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/time-for-some-straight-talk-redskins-most-likely-will-be-bad-for-a-while/2015/07/02/1f9dc086-20e5-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html

Boswell's thesis is flawed - more than a few sources have pointed out that there is reason to expect that, providing Snyder stops meddling with the coaches and the players, Scott and this FO can make things better in less than 5 years

simply put, this franchise can get better soon if Snyder quits messing with the franchise - it's that simple

hopefully Gruden and/or Griffin show marked improvement this season - that will help the franchise a lot

you either think Snyder will stay out of things or you don't - you indicate both scenarios above, like the fence dweller you have proven to be