About Sticking to Plans

[Oldfan]

How much value is there in sticking to a plan?

Some baseball coaches believe that, if a hitter is getting decent results, he should be left alone even if his swing is unorthodox. They argue that, over time, by sticking with his approach, the hitter will improve with practice. This idea is similar to football coaches like George Allen who said that the plan itself isn't as important as the fact that you have a plan and stick to it.

This is a flawed premise because a hitter who practices a sweet swing has more potential than one who doesn't; and a football team that sticks to a sound plan is more likely to win a Super Bowl ring than one that doesn't have a sound plan. George Allen never won a Super Bowl because his "the future is now" plan was not well-designed to accomplish the task.

So, I don't have a problem with the Redskins not sticking to plans. I've not seen one worth sticking to for a very long time. That's been the problem.

Do we have a sound roster-building plan now?

I think we are closer now than we have been for many years. I like the modular structure of the personnel department which enables a FA talent evaluator to be replaced while retaining a draft talent evaluator; and I like the idea that we don't seem to be interested in coaches or GMs who insist on having full control; the modular structure is better.

I like the idea that our decision-making is more a long-term approach than it has been in the past. We are relying primarily on the draft and drafting on the BPA plan. This is the kind of plan worth sticking to and it will require the discipline to avoid short-term decisions like the trade of picks for Jason Taylor or making a long reach to draft for need.

Do we have a sound offensive scheme now?

I think we now have the basics of a better plan than we've seen since 1981. Like Bill Walsh, Zorn wants to attack. He wants his offense to win the game rather than playing not to lose on offense; and going for big receivers in the draft, the kind who can bully smaller DBs both as blockers and receivers, offers exciting potential in scheming for the future.

I didn't like hearing that it take three years for a QB to reach his full potential in the scheme. I didn't like that it takes so long for the receivers to learn their assignments either. I think the scheme is too complex and JZ will need to find ways to simplify it. In today's NFL, that lag time just does not fit a sound scheme.

Do we now have a sound defensive scheme now?

Jim Zorn wants to attack on defense also. He told us that just recently.

If Greg Blache is the good soldier I think he is. He will do his best to make his units more aggressive next season. He'll allow his edge rushers more opportunities to pin their ears back and go after QBs; he'll have his corners and safeties tighter and jumping more routes and the defense will get more takeaways. The defense will get burned more often, but if the risks are taken wisely, we'll win another game or two on defense alone.

The bottom line:

We now have a plan that will need refinement but it's basically sound and it's one worth sticking to.

[IbleedBnG83]

The bottom line:

We now have a plan that will need refinement but it's basically sound and it's one worth sticking to.

I agree for the first time in a while. HOWEVER, just because it has been the best plan that we have had in your and my opinion for a while, doesn't make it the best plan available or out there. I think for the most part, it needs to be blown up from the top and trickle down to the bottom.

[Oldfan]

I agree for the first time in a while. HOWEVER, just because it has been the best plan that we have had in your and my opinion for a while, doesn't make it the best plan available or out there. I think for the most part, it needs to be blown up from the top and trickle down to the bottom.

How would you do it? You blow it up at the top. What's your replacement plan?

[zCommander]

And how long should we stick to this plan?

[ttr77]

This post makes the assumption that the powers-that-be in this organization have the ability to get the right personnel to carry out this plan. It also assumes that there is a automatically an improvement in skills and scheme from Year 1 to Year 2. Both of these are MAJOR assumptions since we have very little evidence that either can or will happen.

[Oldfan]

And how long should we stick to this plan?

Until we have a clear indication that it's going to fail.

I hope you weren't looking for a more specific answer.

[budski]

Zorn may have a plan Blache may a plan; problem is our opponents seem to know the plan also.

[Oldfan]

This post makes the assumption that the powers-that-be in this organization have the ability to get the right personnel to carry out this plan.

The draft talent evaluators have done well with their limited picks in the past. The FA evaluator has been replaced by one who has a good resume.

It also assumes that there is a automatically an improvement in skills and scheme from Year 1 to Year 2. Both of these are MAJOR assumptions since we have very little evidence that either can or will happen.

Nothing is assumed to be "automatic." However, you have a ton of evidence proving that more experience will probably result in better execution.

[IbleedBnG83]

How would you do it? You blow it up at the top. What's your replacement plan?

I would replace Vinny. I know how you are feeling at this point from the other thread so I won't begin to argue.

I understand that argument of allowing Vinny another year, so I'll give you that. However, based on what I feel and from what I have read and heard from reliable sources, I would have gotten rid of vinny at the end of the season. I would have hired Eric Decosta as the GM and allowed him to make an evaluation of the roster and coaches. I would expand the scouting department and invest in the front office more. I would then allow it to takes its course. I say this of course as if I were the owner.

[Oldfan]

Zorn may have a plan Blache may a plan; problem is our opponents seem to know the plan also.

We aren't in any different situation there than any other NFL team. One team adjusts, then the other adjusts to the adjustments, and so on.

Let's see what happens when JZ is able to move past vanilla.

[ttr77]

The draft talent evaluators have done well with their limited picks in the past. The FA evaluator has been replaced by one who has a good resume.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. Only ONE draft pick made any impact last year. The 2nd round picks couldn't even get on the field to play for a struggling offense. And the one that showed promise and is getting any discussion at all will likely never be a starter because he is behind a Pro Bowl TE.

Nothing is assumed to be "automatic." However, you have a ton of evidence proving that more experience will probably result in better execution.

The evidence goes both ways on this one. Hell, once the team has some 'experience' last year (after 8 games) they went the wrong direction. Just having a few months off and a few draft picks might not be enough to reverse that trend.

[Oldfan]

I would have hired Eric Decosta as the GM and allowed him to make an evaluation of the roster and coaches.

Why Eric DeCosta?

Do you want a team built like the Ravens have been built? If so, why?

[Oldfan]

ttr77 --- ... Only ONE draft pick made any impact last year. The 2nd round picks couldn't even get on the field to play for a struggling offense. And the one that showed promise and is getting any discussion at all will likely never be a starter because he is behind a Pro Bowl TE.

I'm taking the previous drafts into consideration and allowing more than one season to determine the merits of the 2008 draft.

The evidence goes both ways on this one. Hell, once the team has some 'experience' last year (after 8 games) they went the wrong direction. Just having a few months off and a few draft picks might not be enough to reverse that trend.

It really doesn't make sense that the added experience did not improve the execution. It seems more likely that other factors, like three OTs playing hurt and not enough O line depth, were dominant.

[TheLongshot]

I would replace Vinny. I know how you are feeling at this point from the other thread so I won't begin to argue.

I understand that argument of allowing Vinny another year, so I'll give you that. However, based on what I feel and from what I have read and heard from reliable sources, I would have gotten rid of vinny at the end of the season. I would have hired Eric Decosta as the GM and allowed him to make an evaluation of the roster and coaches. I would expand the scouting department and invest in the front office more. I would then allow it to takes its course. I say this of course as if I were the owner.

Part of the problem with this organization since Snyder took over is all the turnover that has happened throughout the organization. This type of thinking is what turned us into a mess before Gibbs got here.

Fact is, once you replace Vinny with someone from the outside, you are also saying you want to get rid of Zorn, because there are few new FO guys who are going to keep an incumbent coach unless it was arranged beforehand. That will mean that yet again the plan will change, and this time it will be before we know if this one will succeed or fail.

If we are going to be a quality organization, we are going to need to commit to a plan for a while. Whether or not you like Vinny, once he was promoted, we were pretty much committed to whatever plan he has come up with for the next few years. Either we will be successful or we will be going back to the drawing board if we find the plan isn't going to succeed or has pushed us as far as it can go.

[ttr77]

I'm taking the previous drafts into consideration and allowing more than one season to determine the merits of the 2008 draft.

How far back? Only 1 out of 5 picks in '07 made any contribution either. That makes 2 of the last 15 picks.

It really doesn't make sense that the added experience did not improve the execution. It seems more likely that other factors, like three OTs playing hurt and not enough O line depth, were dominant.

Those lineman are now a year older, and are thus more likely to be injured again. And there is still no depth. So, these factors are still very much an issue.

[Evilskinzfan47]

It all works on paper doesn't it?I build houses for a living and ive seen plenty of plans that look nice,but in reality,dont work.Sometimes you have to deviate from the plan to get it all together.Nothin major.Just a tweak here and there.

Hopefully with a healthy O-line this plan can work for more than 8 weeks.But what kind of architect is Zorn and Co.?Are we gonna have the same mistakes we had this past season?Guess time will tell.

[Oldfan]

Part of the problem with this organization since Snyder took over is all the turnover that has happened throughout the organization. This type of thinking is what turned us into a mess before Gibbs got here.

We have already debated this in the past. The Gibbs plan was unworthy in my eyes. You see it differently.

Fact is, once you replace Vinny with someone from the outside, you are also saying you want to get rid of Zorn...

No, that doesn't have to be the case. In a modular management plan, if Dan thinks that Vinny can't cut it, but Zorn is doing a good job, he can replace Vinny. His successor would have to agree to the same limited authority that Vinny has now.

It isn't good business for an owner to find a guy and delegate the responsibility entirely as Dan did with Joe. Dan needs to write a mission statement describing the goal and the broad strokes of a plan. Then he has to monitor the decisions made to make sure that his subordinates stay within the guidelines he set.

Example: If building a dynasty is the goal, then it follows that decisions should fit a long-term plan. It would then be Dan's job to make the final decision when his GM proposed a trade of picks for vets like Jason Taylor since such a deal would clearly not be a long-term move. However, Dan should not interfere with transactions that are aligned with his guidelines.

[IbleedBnG83]

Part of the problem with this organization since Snyder took over is all the turnover that has happened throughout the organization. This type of thinking is what turned us into a mess before Gibbs got here.

Fact is, once you replace Vinny with someone from the outside, you are also saying you want to get rid of Zorn, because there are few new FO guys who are going to keep an incumbent coach unless it was arranged beforehand. That will mean that yet again the plan will change, and this time it will be before we know if this one will succeed or fail.

If we are going to be a quality organization, we are going to need to commit to a plan for a while. Whether or not you like Vinny, once he was promoted, we were pretty much committed to whatever plan he has come up with for the next few years. Either we will be successful or we will be going back to the drawing board if we find the plan isn't going to succeed or has pushed us as far as it can go.

Sometimes you have to cut your losses and go from there. If [you] truly believe that Vinny is not good and have an opportunity to get a guy that you feel would do a much better job, then its a move that needs to be done. Otherwise you are prolonging the inevitable.

I agree there has been too much change. But that is in large part due to the poor evaluation and FO structure in place. OK, promoting Vinny gives him most if not all the responsibility, but then again, you are giving someone who [you] don't believe to be the best man for the job a heck of a lot of responsibility.

[Oldfan]

But what kind of architect is Zorn and Co.?

The architect is a good analogy. Even if his plan is basically sound, it might take some tweaking to make it work.

[Oldfan]

How far back? Only 1 out of 5 picks in '07 made any contribution either. That makes 2 of the last 15 picks.

I'm going back to 2004 - 2007 andnot including the 2008 draft because it's too soon to evaluate it properly.

Those lineman are now a year older, and are thus more likely to be injured again. And there is still no depth. So, these factors are still very much an issue.

Yes, but those issues are not relevant to the point you were trying to prove (that the year of experience would somehow not benefit Zorn and his offense).

[ttr77]

I'm going back to 2004 - 2007 andnot including the 2008 draft because it's too soon to evaluate it properly.

Ok from 2004-2007:

21 picks.

10 stayed on the team.

6 have made a real impact.

Of those 6, 4 were 1st round picks.

Yes, but those issues and not relevant to the point you were trying to prove (that the year of experience would somehow not benefit Zorn and his offense).

I didn't say it WOULDN'T benefit them. I said it wasn't a given that it WOULD, as so many on here are apt to say.

[@DCGoldPants]

What is "The plan"?

I don't know if they have a long term plan right now.

[Oldfan]

Ok from 2004-2007:

21 picks.

10 stayed on the team.

6 have made a real impact.

Of those 6, 4 were 1st round picks.

Given that they traded away the middle, threes and fours mostly, that record is pretty good. There aren't many teams doing much better.

[ttr77]

Given that they traded away the middle, threes and fours mostly, that record is pretty good. There aren't many teams doing much better.

You should contact Karl Swanson immediately. The Skins might need some PR help.

Only finding 2 impact players outside of the 1st round in 4 years is horrible. Especially when one of them was a 2nd rounder (McIntosh) and one was a 3rd (Cooley).

Hell, I could throw darts at a draft board and probably have more success on Day 2 of the draft.

[Oldfan]

What is "The plan"?

I don't know if they have a long term plan right now.

I covered the roster building in a couple of paragraphs of the OP. We can start from there is you want to discuss it.