Sigh...the Washington Redskins

Note: This post has nothing to do with the Redskins' team nickname, other than its use of the nickname in discussion.

So the Redskins are pretty bad. I mean, they've been competitive in some games this year, and they've even won a couple, but overall, they're just not very good. Historically, I'd have a standard response to this issue, but the more I think about it, the more I believe that my old solutions are symptomatic of the overall problem with the Skins (and to a lesser extent, the Capitals).

A change in personnel will not improve this team.

In the past, I've constantly come up with trade ideas or exciting potential free agent acquisitions, always thinking of ways to "win the offseason" in order to become a better team. This very rarely works. Teams that are good tend to have gotten good over the course of time. The Seahawks didn't show up out of nowhere; they'd been building up for years.

Now, with the impending change from Robert Griffin III to Colt McCoy, there's a lot of frustration in the air, and with good reason. Some people think Griffin deserves to finish out the season on merit. Others believe McCoy doesn't have a future as a starting QB, so any game he starts is a waste of an opportunity to learn about other QBs like Griffin or Kirk Cousins. And a lot of people are just pissed off that we're in this situation less than two years after the Griffin-led Redskins beat the Cowboys in week 17 to get into the playoffs. They're all valid gripes, and par for the course in Washington...which is exactly the problem.

I didn't agree with signing Ryan Clark in the offseason. He's past his prime, and I never thought he was a great player to begin with; he benefited from one of the most consistently strong defenses in the league in Pittsburgh. But he did have a history of playing on good teams, and I think that's what this Redskins team lacks the most. So many of the Skins' players are longtime Redskins, which means they're longtime losers. The culture of failure and disappointment is I think what's most problematic in Washington. That doesn't get solved overnight, and it doesn't get solved by addressing a skill concern.

The way I would approach trying to fix the Redskins is a "five-point plan" overhaul (I'm still feeling political; Election Day wasn't that long ago):

1. Refuse to accept losing. After a near lifetime of disappointment, we in Washington expect to fail. So, why not "fail big" in order to improve draft status? I would cite the 76ers, the Raiders, and the Jaguars. The players you acquire have to hate losing. Fighting tooth and nail for every win is a direct way to improving the team's culture. And that means giving Colt McCoy a chance.
2. Stick with the same coach. Some people don't like Jay Gruden, but I think his tell-it-like-it-is nature is refreshing. And by the way, other than Marty Schottenheimer, the Redskins' fan base was on board with every coaching change the Redskins have made in recent years. Steve Spurrier was panned, Jim Zorn was despised, and Mike Shanahan was soured upon. Don't get pissed at Dan Snyder for changing coaches when you call for exactly the same moves.
3. Draft people, not skillsets. The players who pay off the most are players who are driven to perform from within. JaMarcus Russell was an impressive physical specimen with great arm strength and size, but he seemed to coast along, expecting those skills to carry him. You want guys who have fight in their hearts, who strive to improve every day. Football is such an intense sport that guys who take plays off are going to cost you, on the field and in the locker room.
4. Stop signing bad players to bad contracts. Albert Haynesworth was one of the worst signings in NFL history, but he's far from the only mistake Washington's made in recent years. Signing guys off their best seasons, signing accomplished veterans for starter money when they aren't worthy of starting any more, signing guys because of their names and not because of their skills. All bad. I don't know if it's a scouting issue, or an "owner-involvement" issue, but the Skins have had trouble using their funds appropriately of late. So, in the same vein...
5. Sign the "right" guys. There are thousands of guys trying to play professional football, and hundreds more come in from college every year. But there are a few key components the Skins have been missing. This past offseason was the first time they'd spent any legitimate money on a punt/kickoff return guy, even though it's been a weakness for a decade. They still lack a LOT in the leadership department; when DeAngelo Hall went down, could anybody name a leader on this defense? Plenty of good players, but no leaders. If I could draw a blueprint for the perfect guy for the Skins to sign, he'd be a productive middle linebacker with pedigree, leadership skills, a clean bill of health, and experience winning in the playoffs. I know that's a narrow definition, but I'm not saying it's got to be Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis. Just someone who can play.

Look, I'm no GM. I'm no head coach. I'm no scout. I never played organized football, and I'm not particularly good at disorganized football. But I see how other teams perform, and I compare their actions to the actions of my favorite team, and I find differences. I want my team to be a team that wins regularly, that always feels like they're a couple good bounces away from a division title.

I'm just trying to get there.

Gatecrash Draft Toss-Up: Kingpin's Pet vs. Skyknight Legionnaire

Gatecrash was an interesting set that played very differently from RTR-RTR-RTR and DGM-GTC-RTR. Mostly, it was considerably faster, so it was important to either set yourself up with a fast deck, or find a way to counter fast decks. Today, we'll look at two cards that do one or the other extremely well.

  vs. 

The Numbers (courtesy of Bestiaire.org)

Kingpin's Pet - #2 common, #78 overall

Skyknight Legionnaire - #4 common, #80 overall

The Analysis

One thing that stands out to me right away is how these two commons rate so low overall, despite being a couple of the top-drafted commons in the set. It could be that the data is getting skewed because it's so late in the life of Gatecrash, but still, it doesn't feel like there are 75 cards you'd want to take over these two.

Anyways, on to the cards. They're both 1[C][C], fitting into their respective guilds' curves quite nicely. They also both exemplify their guilds. Kingpin's Pet boasts the new Orzhov mechanic Extort, and does so on an already useful 2/2 flyer. Skyknight Legionnaire helps you activate your Battalion mechanics by having both evasion and haste. A turn 3 Legionnaire is a sad thing for most of your opponents to see from you.

If you're already in either guild, the cards are, in my opinion, identically useful. So the only way to solve this decision is to figure out what you'd do in a vacuum, without other cards already in your deck. In that circumstance, I'd take Kingpin's Pet. The reason is, Kingpin's Pet can do plenty of work even if you're just splashing white or black into a Dimir or Boros deck (respectively). Skyknight Legionnaire, while still useful in an Orzhov deck, doesn't quite fit the mentality (it's great in a Gruul deck though, obviously). So, because of that limited possibility, I'd take the Pet just a sliver ahead of Skyknight. Very tough decision, though.

The Verdict

Kingpin's Pet

Dragon's Maze Draft Toss-Up: Turn//Burn vs. Far//Away

Technically, this draft toss-up would be for the format of Dragon's Maze - Gatecrash - Return to Ravnica, and there are three sets worth of cards to look through there. But I'm going to focus on cards within the same sets, so we'll look at these two studs in the "DGR" draft format.

  vs.

The Numbers (courtesy of Bestiaire.org)

Far // Away - #5 uncommon, #30 overall

Turn // Burn - #4 uncommon, #28 overall

The Analysis

First off, if this is your decision, you're excited. You have an option between two really powerful cards here. They're both removal, they're both flexible, they both run at instant speed. Both cards fuse for 5 mana. In the right circumstance, each of them has the potential to be a complete blowout. And even in the wrong circumstance, each of them is a small piece of removal (Away and Burn, respectively).

So what's the difference between them? Well, Far//Away is made valuable by its ability to get through things like hexproof or regeneration, since you're forcing the player to sacrifice, and it incorporates one of my favorite effects: Unsummon. Turn and Burn is more useful as a combat trick, when you can Burn one creature and Turn another to make it susceptible to an easy block kill. Turn//Burn is also a bit more reliable, giving a guaranteed kill of one creature as long as you can cast both parts.

I think they're both really good cards, but my pick is going to be Far//Away. While fusing either card gives you a great effect, the individual pieces of Far//Away are better in my book. An Unsummon effect is always a positive, and there are plenty of circumstances where an opponent only has a single creature, where Away will do everything you need it to do. You can also always use Far during combat to save your own creature while using Away as a kill spell. Turn and Burn are good individual effects, but not great. The value of Turn//Burn is really in destroying one targeted problem enemy for five mana. Far//Away can regularly do a good deal more than that.

The Verdict

Far//Away