State of the Redskins: Insider Style

by Skin Patrol on Mar 21, 2007 4:15 PM EDT in Analysis Comment 4 comments

Jason La Canfora has an epic rant on the Adam Archuleta trade expressing his frustration with a candor that I find refreshing. I don't necessarily agree with everything Jason says, but I suspect the post will generate enormous discussion in the Blogsophere and Message Board communities. Some of the things mentioned demand attention and I agree with the overall point of it: Redskins fans desparately need to start accounting for how we are evaluating the decisions of this franchise holistically. I pined guardedly about the trade and its impact earlier today -- mostly because I'm ready to put the fiasco behind us. Anyways, onward to Redskins Insider, much of it a needed recent history lesson in pecuniary mismanagement:

Ryan Clark wants an average of $1.5 million a season to re-sign here and Danny tells his agent he'll never get that kind of money.

Snyder was right, he wouldn't get that kind of money. He got more.

He then procedures to pay Arch Deluxe double what anyone else in the league would have.

The other argument in the blog comments that seemed to crop up, was, "Well, the Skins couldn't whack AD and Lloyd in the same season and take the cap hits, so they had to do something?" And to that I ask you yet again, what the hell does that have to do with football? That's just more bad contracts and more salary cap BS...

They make mistakes then try to buy their way back out of them with the same old stuff. Sorry, I'm not tipping my cap - excuse the pun - to them for that. It's closer to insane than astute.

There is a philosophical disagreement between two groups of fans that pops up repeatedly in discussion. On one hand we have Redskins cap cynics, and I consider myself among that group. I view signings based on costs and although I'm not as cynical as many, my opinion generally is that less is more (when it comes to spending). I would qualify as one of the people who says the Redskins are perennially headed for "cap disaster".

The alternative philosophy is that the Redskins have been in "cap disaster" for years and that those of us worried about the financial future of this team are merely chicken-littles bemoaning a fallen sky. Afterall, the Redskins always find their way out of cap trouble each year they loom near disaster, right?

The problem is that the Redskins aren't doing anything unique to liberate themselves from fiscal ruin. All 32 teams can cut players or restructure contracts. The Redskins are operating in the same salary cap as everyone else, they just do so in a manner that produces fewer wins than the majority of other franchises. We can be thrilled about that or flustered. I choose the latter, as I don't want to enable losing.

And that's why I find Canfora's rant so refreshing. What are we celebrating when we say -- as I did in the comments section earlier -- that the Redskins freed themselves of 5M of Archuleta's contract? That's still just damage control which, as Jason points out, is the result of damage control from earlier damage control from earlier damage control... If I start a fire in my kitchen there isn't anything to celebrate when I put it out, right?

Had your owner, who is so willing to outspend anyone else to field a winner, as I always hear, simply matched Antonio Pierce's deal back in 2004, and just matched Ryan Clark's deal in 2005, just think, your front office would have had plenty of cap space and actually been positioned to address other real needs the past few years, most notably an aging and unproductive defensive line.

A familiar argument to Redskins fans. I'm not nearly as hostile on the Clark/Pierce point as Jason is, as hindsight is 20/20 and I think the Redskins had good reasons to let Pierce walk. But those good reasons were contingent on their inability to recognize him as a Pro Bowl talent. That's an indictment of them as personnel scouts. But why couldn't we afford Pierce in the first place?

But wait a minute, why couldn't they just keep AP in the first place? Hmm, that $9 million cap hit in the Coles trade surely had nothing to do with it, right?

And we are reminded that Coles was forced out of town for airing our dirty laundry. That's familiar.

Another, considering we just brought Smoot back:

Keep Fred Smoot the first time, and all of a sudden you don't need to draft a corner 9th overall in 2005, when this Merriman kid from Maryland was on the board (I heard he actually gets to the quarterback sometimes).

The point of all this is to say that decisions should be viewed holistically and you cannot honestly evaluate contractual moves unless you acknowledge the proximate causes of them. Signing Archuleta had something to do with not signing Ryan Clark. Signing Fletcher had something to do with not signing Pierce (who is a Pro Bowler). Signing Smoot had something to do with cutting Kenny Wright and Mike Rumph -- neither of whom should have been on the field in the first place. And they were brought in to bolster an injured secondary that put a 2nd year CB in a position he wasn't ready for. And that 2nd year CB (Carlos Rogers) was drafted because we let Smoot walk the first time.

I don't agree with Jason about everything in his post, but the sentiment I find important. Are Redskins fans holding their team to productive standards? Am I? I love the team virtually unconditionally and will try to positively spin no matter what they do if only as a form of self-deception. But at the end of the day I want what we all want; for Your Washington Redskins to win some damn football games. Cheerleading damage control won't produce that (or hasn't).

I definitely don't think I am in a position to demand anything of a franchise that has given to me more than I could possibly give back. But as a fan of the team I can't help but feel the slightest sense of entitlement -- at a minimum we should question the direction of a team that has not proven capable of stringing together two winning seasons in ten years. Is that so much to ask?

Puuh-leeeeeeez, Washington?

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

great rant by JLC

I was very surprised and impressed by JLC's rant. I never thought I would read anything like that from anyone at the post but he was basically 100% right. I hope he doesn't lose access to his skins contacts because of this blog post.

It infuriates me how so many fans can be so hopelessly delusional about the skins. They will NEVER win a superbowl with the current front office setup the skins have and I don't see that changing as long as the danny is the owner. Gibbs and he have absolutely no business making personnel decisions and you would think it would be obvious to everyone that follows them closely that this is the case.

Anyway, it was an excellent rant. He wrote what I have thought for some time but don't have the talent to articulate.

by pookskins on Mar 21, 2007 6:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was pretty shocked too

by the entire tone. Still, Canfora and the Post have never pulled punches -- even in their regular periodical articles. The relationship between Snyder and the Post is already fairly icy, so I don't know if there are any bridges left to burn.

Still, Jason's complaint was with the ownership and he has a relationship with the players and many coaches. I imagine some of those people probably agree with him moreso than any of us, as they're living under and within the consequences of the Franchise we support but criticize.

It was pleasently surprising that he went off so candidly and I told him as much via email.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Mar 21, 2007 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Look I think the best way to put this is that

Yeah we may escape cap tragedy by just barely coming in under every year but what we really have to look at is that snowball effect it is having on this team.

The inability to sign the players we really need is infact showing up as per our record every year and restructuring bonuses and guarantees just does not work.

Ok its understandable we need to do it sometimes and I applaude Brunell for doing what he did(infact this type of restructuring should be recgonized)however when we see this word everyone of us should view this as a red flag and raise questions.

If I am a cynic to then so be it but until we can control our spending or show proper justification for it(i.e.,a few winning seasons in consecutive years not decades) then we should stop giving what is viewed as big FA contracts to anyone and just use the draft more.

I have been a skins fan since I could remember football or anything for that matter but my morale is in danger of getting back to those few years before Gibbs came back when everything seemed hopeless and while loyal fans like myself will never,ever,ever turn on coach Gibbs as we are all grateful for everything he has made this franchise into,if their is no magic this season I will be looking forward to starting over again and I'm not sure I'll be satisfied with just one or two coaches leaving!

by Sincethebeginning on Mar 21, 2007 6:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I would agree with most of the rant...

but the jarb about Merriman seems unfounded. He is an oustanding player, but he'd be much less of the threat that he has become if some team made him an everydown DE. He is the ideal player for the OLB/DE spot of a 3-4, but I don't see him being an MVP type of player as an undersized DE.

So, then who else was available at #9? Derrick Johnson (taken #15 by KC) out of UT at the LB spot and Erasmus James (taken #18 by the Vikings) at the DE spot. I'm not sure either is worthy of the #9 draft spot (or subsequent #9 money) so then the team would probably end up with Merriman.

Now, don't get me wrong: Merriman would be an outstanding pickup for the team and would be a vast improvement over everyone at the DE spot. Hell, even DeMarcus Ware of the Cowboys taken #11, or one ahead of Merriman, would also be an improvement even though he also plays that 3-4 OLB/DE role.

But think about this: the team doesn't need a CB and the player aavilable aren't exactly what they're looking for and they trade down to get JC later in the 1st. Then, they still have the picks they shipped to Denver to move up, PLUS they get some extra picks along the way.

The 2006 pick that Denver got from the Skins (#22 overall) that they shipped to San Fran was ultimately used on DE Manny Lawson from NC State. If you don't like that pickup, then still on the board are G Davin Joseph (out of Oklahoma and drafted by the Bucs at #23), DT John McCargo (out of NC State and drafted #26 by the Bills), and DE Mathias Kiwanuka from BC drafted by the Giants. Anyone think those players would help the 2006 Redskins?

The moral of the story is that by signing high priced players and trading draft picks, the team loses out on talented young players who don't cost as much.

To go along with that, I can understand why the team let AP go. He wasn't the Pro Bowler at the time that he proved to be in the Giants system. They had talented LBs (think pre-Gibbs-won't-play-me-so-I'll-cry Arrington among others) and so they had to draw the line somewhere. Like I've said before, I'm not going to be the champion of the team's fiscal responsibility and prowess... but I think that certain decisions (AP) do have an underlying logical reasoning. Now whether or not that reasoning proves correct is another matter. And in the case of Clark... well, chalk it up to another front office fuckup.

pookskins is dead on when he says the front office needs to be redone, but everyone seems to know that except the front office themselves. By my count, Vinny has run 2 NFL organizations into finincial peril, if not ruin, so how many (more) chances does a guy get?

by TexSkins on Mar 21, 2007 8:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs