Jump to content
aceinthehouse

Our Offense got a lot faster this off season.

Recommended Posts

On 5/25/2018 at 2:37 PM, turtle28 said:

Sure, we tried it too but it didn’t work out. I’d say there’s 1/3 a shot - probably worse - of that working out.

Also, the QB the Eagles traded up to get at #2 in 2016 didn’t win them the super bowl, their 2012 3rd round pick did.

  1. Comparing the two trades is a bad idea
    • Eagles got: 2016 1.02 (2) and a conditional 2017 5th (it was upgraded to Cleveland's 2017 compensatory 4th (4.32(*) (139))
    • Browns got: 2016 1.08 (8), 3.14 (77), 4.02 (100), 2017 1st (1.13 (13)), and 2018 2nd (2.32 (64))
      • Eagles acquired 8th overall with trade before 2016 draft
        • Eagles got: 2016 1.08 (8)
        • Dolphins got: 2016 1.13 (13), Kiko Alonso (still with Dolphins), and Byron Maxwell (released after one year)
      • Eagles acquired 77th overall with trade during 2015 draft
        • Eagles got: 2016 3.14 (77)
        • Lions got: 2015 4.14 (113)
      • Eagles acquired 100th overall with trade before 2016 draft
        • Eagles got: 2016 4.02 (100)
        • Titans got: 2016 4.15 (113), DeMarco Murray
    • All total: Philadelphia (under Howie Roseman) gave up a pair of 1st rounders in 2016 and 2017, a 2018 2nd rounder, a 2016 3rd rounder that Roseman inherited, a 2016 4th rounder, Kiko Alonso, Byron Maxwell, DeMarco Murray ... for Carson Wentz and a 2017 4th (which they traded in the 2017 draft to move up for Donnel Pumphrey ... hey, they cannot all be winners)
    • Translation: nothing like the RG3 trade
  2. Unlike 2012, there were more than two options in the draft so that the Redskins could have waited to see what would happen (like Josh Rosen falling or making a play for Lamar Jackson late in the 1st).
  3. Had they decided to make the move for Josh Rosen, the cost to move up from 1.13 to 1.10 would have been cheaper than either the Wentz or the Griffin trade
    • Cardinals got: 2018 1.10 (10)
    • Raiders got: 2018 1.15 (15), 2018 3.15 (79), 2018 5.15 (152)
  4. While the QB they took at #2 didn't win them the Super Bowl, he had a fair amount to do with getting them the #1 overall seed in the NFC.
  5. While the Eagles drafted Nick Foles in 2012, they traded him 2015 to the Rams, who cut him. He then signed with the Chiefs for a year, before coming back to Philadelphia. So, he was in fact a free agent pick up. In other words, he was the alternative to trading for Alex Smith and taking a chance on a guy like Teddy Bridgewater.

 

Yes, the Griffin trade did not work out (**), but that was a sunk cost. A successful franchise will learn from its mistakes, but not allow those mistakes to control all of their actions going forward. Bruce Allen learned that making a splash deal for a rookie QB cost the Shanahans their jobs, so he decided not to make that deal. Instead he went with a safer option (again, how he made the "safe" choice by not accepting New Orleans' trade in the draft).

 

 

(*) An observant reader would say, "Shouldn't that be greater than 32 since it was a compensatory pick?" To which I would say, "Yes, but two picks in the round were either forfeited (New England's pick that they received from New Orleans due to Deflategate) or forced to happen later (New York Giants were penalized twelve spots and selected at 140 due to their usage of a walkie talkie on the sidelines)."

(**) I would say more due to his career changing injury than the actual cost in draft picks, though that was admittedly outrageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Woz said:

Bruce Allen learned that making a splash deal for a rookie QB cost the Shanahans their jobs, so he decided not to make that deal. Instead he went with a safer option (again, how he made the "safe" choice by not accepting New Orleans' trade in the draft).

Let me add one thing (yet again): I like the Payne selection. I like the idea of Jonathan Allen and Da'Ron Payne side-by-side bullying interior offensive lines, shutting down run games, and making opposing quarterbacks miserable.

At the same time, I can also point out that Allen went for the job saving route than the big franchise move. A good GM looks past the coming year; Allen is looking solely to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Woz said:

Let me add one thing (yet again): I like the Payne selection. I like the idea of Jonathan Allen and Da'Ron Payne side-by-side bullying interior offensive lines, shutting down run games, and making opposing quarterbacks miserable.

At the same time, I can also point out that Allen went for the job saving route than the big franchise move. A good GM looks past the coming year; Allen is looking solely to survive.

I just think that the front office - including from what’s been reported the scouting department too - were more comfortable with having a veteran at QB like Alex Smith. 

Is that job saving? I guess whatever you want to call it, but to me they just liked Smith better than the rookie QBs and they also wanted to focus on improving our defense and running game which, we have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

I just think that the front office - including from what’s been reported the scouting department too - were more comfortable with having a veteran at QB like Alex Smith. 

Is that job saving? I guess whatever you want to call it, but to me they just liked Smith better than the rookie QBs and they also wanted to focus on improving our defense and running game which, we have done.

I take the expression of " saving his job " to mean wanting to stay competitive, so call it that all day, I say. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oldman9er said:

I take the expression of " saving his job " to mean wanting to stay competitive, so call it that all day, I say. :) 

I call it staying mediocre.  Or as the great Jim Zorn said, we’re “staying medium”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All 3 Super Bowls that we won were savvy veterans in their 30's. It's what we do.

I personally don't care if the trade for Alex, saves Bruce's job or not.

It was the best move the Redskins could have made, given the choices available.

And the best move we could have made to win #4, imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

All 3 Super Bowls that we won were savvy veterans in their 30's. It's what we do.

  1. That was a different era of football. There was no real free agency. There were twelve round drafts. Teams could park a guy until he was in his 30s.
  2. The Hogs have long since retired and this line, as good as parts of it are, is no Hogs v2.0.
6 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

I personally don't care if the trade for Alex, saves Bruce's job or not.

If you want a guy who is only making moves to save his job and not for the long term health & growth of the franchise, okay, we'll agree to disagree.

6 hours ago, aceinthehouse said:

It was the best move the Redskins could have made, given the choices available.

No, no it was not. It may have gotten the best player out of the bunch who were available, but I disagree it was the best move. There was little to no need to make that trade in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 3:54 PM, Woz said:
  1. That was a different era of football. There was no real free agency. There were twelve round drafts. Teams could park a guy until he was in his 30s.
  2. The Hogs have long since retired and this line, as good as parts of it are, is no Hogs v2.0.

If you want a guy who is only making moves to save his job and not for the long term health & growth of the franchise, okay, we'll agree to disagree.

No, no it was not. It may have gotten the best player out of the bunch who were available, but I disagree it was the best move. There was little to no need to make that trade in January.

Most teams that make deep playoff runs still have mostly vets on their teams, at least vet qbs.

I don’t buy that Allen, Doug and the scouts made this move to just save their jobs after not being able to retain Cousins. I think they think this is the best move they could make to keep the team heading in the right direction - without taking a step back - and in the coming drafts they can draft a young QB to develop and learn behind Alex. I think they wanted to have the veteran in place that has been a good QB, a winner and is coming off a good year and then in one of the next few drafts find the young QB. We certainly could have gone the other route and traded up for a QB in the draft too and just went with him/Mccoy but I think the move to get Alex was the best move. 

The reason they made the move in January was to get the guy they wanted. If they hadn’t trade for Alex in late January/February they may have lost out on him or even had to pay a higher price if there was a bidding war that came about in March.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

Most teams that make deep playoff runs still have mostly vets on their teams, at least vet qbs.

Most teams keep their own veteran QBs, not acquire some other team's vet.

On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

I don’t buy that Allen, Doug and the scouts made this move to just save their jobs after not being able to retain Cousins. 

But there also stories that they made the trade down gamble with Guice on the board to recoup a third so as to make the trade deal not look as bad. If they were thinking that during the draft, you have to concede that it's possible at the very least.

On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

I think they think this is the best move they could make to keep the team heading in the right direction - without taking a step back -

Here I will disagree. Again, not because of the player, but because of the mechanism. It was not necessary.

On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

and in the coming drafts they can draft a young QB to develop and learn behind Alex.

If Smith is successful, then they will be out of position to draft said QB (or be forced to trade up again). If he's not ...

On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

I think they wanted to have the veteran in place that has been a good QB, a winner and is coming off a good year and then in one of the next few drafts find the young QB.

Which means they bought high.

On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

We certainly could have gone the other route and traded up for a QB in the draft too and just went with him/Mccoy but I think the move to get Alex was the best move. 

Again, as I've said before, Alex Smith was not the only veteran QB available. He might have been the best available, but the price to acquire him was higher the others. It's also possible, had the Redskins waited, that the price to acquire him would have dropped (potentially to zero, but I think that's unlikely). It's also possible some other team could have traded for him, say the Bills, which would make Teddy Bridgewater available.

On 6/3/2018 at 11:19 AM, turtle28 said:

The reason they made the move in January was to get the guy they wanted. If they hadn’t trade for Alex in late January/February they may have lost out on him or even had to pay a higher price if there was a bidding war that came about in March.

That's wrong for two reasons:

  1. By locking in on one target, they blinkered themselves to alternatives. Ones that likely might have been cheaper for the franchise. The Chiefs took advantage of this.
  2. As March approached, having Smith on the Chiefs' roster would have become more and more untenable due to his high cap number. If he were still with Kansas City as the new season loomed, his price would have dropped, not risen.

 

The process to get the 2018 starting QB for the Washington Redskins was flawed. They may have gotten "their guy" but they went about it in a foolish fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It wasn’t just the front office, Kirk also showed no signs of wanting to negotiate with the Redskins after being franchised two years in a row. 

We’re on polar opposites here woz, I just don’t agree with your opinion on this one.

Edited by turtle28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, turtle28 said:

It wasn’t just the front office, Kirk also showed no signs of wanting to negotiate with the Redskins after being franchised two years in a row. 

I suspect that's because he got tired of getting lowballed and dealing with a team that wasn't really negotiating in good faith.

19 hours ago, turtle28 said:

We’re on polar opposites here woz, I just don’t agree with your opinion on this one.

Okay then. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×