WP: Median Cap Dollars Spent on O-Lines

What do Bill Gates and Redmond, Washington have to do with Trent Williams and Ashburn, Virginia? And what can Barry Bonds and papayas tell us about offensive lines? 

This week's post at the Washington Post's Insider provides the answers. It's a look at how much the Redskins spend on depth on their offensive line compared with the current division leaders. Last season I wrote that their off-season needs were (in order): offensive line, offensive line, followed by offensive line. They didn't listen.

You might want to check this one out, even if you're not a Redskins fan.

  • Spread The Love
  • Digg This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Stumble This Post
  • Submit This Post To Delicious
  • Submit This Post To Reddit
  • Submit This Post To Mixx

4 Responses to “WP: Median Cap Dollars Spent on O-Lines”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Great article Brian. It´s not a must that Snyder understands OL-Play, but that he leads such a bad business with the Redskins surprises me every year. How the hell did this guy get rich? It can´t be by intelligence, so the only other way is, that he must be a criminal who "killed" his competition. Why i am not rich? Someone can help me out? Surely i possess more of a brain than him. May i am too soft (social) to people...

    Back to the OL: At least the coaches should have heard about success with OL-Consistency. It doesn´t matter how much you pay your No.1 OLer, but it matters that a OL is in sync for a long period. Injuries happen in the NFL, but one guy should be replaceable (see NO Saints for example). The other point is that your OL is only as good as your weakest member. Are those coaches so much feared of Snyder that they are all Yes-Men? It seems like, b/c i can´t imagine they don´t know football.

    What a sad story for talented and strong armed QB Beck, and for this once great organisation.

    Karl, Germany.

  2. Ian B says:

    Actually the Redskins have been one of the most profitable and valuable franchises during Snyder's ownership. Great business. Crappy football team. Part of it probably stems from playing in one of the best divisions in football. Part of it stems from never having an elite quarterback. And part of it is depth.

    Football Outsiders has compared the Colts and Redskins as two teams that are particularly aggressive about maxing out the starting lineup and ignoring depth. While Peyton Manning was healthy, that worked for the Colts. It's never really worked for the Redskins.

    Back to the O-line. According to Brian's O-line stats it's the pass blocking that's the problem. They run block very well. It's been that way for the last couple years. Does that make it a talent issue? This is only Shanahan's second year, right?

  3. Anonymous says:

    "Actually the Redskins have been one of the most profitable"

    Wasn´t the Skins the team with the highest payroll, signing expensive FA´s every year since Snyder took over?... Anyway you might be right, since the NFL isn´t about winning but making money only (see Brown in CIN). I mean your country is against communism, yet the NFL is a perfect example for it (sharing the money evenly between teams, no matter how bad they are). Sometimes way too much hypocrisy in your country;-)

    Karl, Germany

  4. Pete says:


    In the Washington Post article, you noted an analysis that found that in '01 and '02, Barry Bonds was so good, he plus a papaya batting behind him would be the value of two replacement players. This raises two questions:

    1. Wouldn't Bonds' stats have been worse with a grapefruit batting behind him? Runs scored would go down because of the papaya's minimal RBI production. Plus, in clutch situations, I'm walking Bonds and pitching to the papaya.

    2. Would Daniel Synder and a grapefruit be better NFL owners than, say, two replacement grapefruits?

Leave a Reply

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.