True or False: Mike and Bruce want to win now AND build for the future

[Dukes and Skins]

what makes me mad are that those guys were not world beaters when young ( Holiday ,kemoeatu and perhaps draft excepted) so we added old end of the bench guys. yay us.

If we actually start digging for talent and finding some Ill get excited.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here, Vonnie Holliday has been known as a good pass rusher he wasn't ever an amazing Reggie White DE but over his career he has gotten 60 sacks. It's not a wowing number but it's a number I would be impressed by. Kemoeatu isn't going to be a world beater his job is to plug holes to really look at his impact look at the linebackers behind him and the tackles and plays they were able to make

It also did hamper us with the CBA as well as help us because the CBA allowed us to get rid of cap waste players but also it hindered because any young player we could of considered to add to our team was pretty much a restricted free agent and was tendered or re-signed by their team

Basically what I'm saying is yes they weren't the upper echelon type of players in their era but they have been very good and they will continue to help us now while we are able to continue into the future and replace them with drafted players

[Ryman of the North]

You dont have to be sorry, you agreed with me, note where I said "HOLIDAY, KEMOEATU AND PERHAPS DRAFT EXCEPTED" We only Got Kemo because he is coming off an achilles injury, and Draft is a solid journeyman, Holiday had some good years but not for a while.

the rest were guys who are not exactly exciting.

[Dukes and Skins]

You dont have to be sorry, you agreed with me, note where I said "HOLIDAY, KEMOEATU AND PERHAPS DRAFT EXCEPTED" We only Got Kemo because he is coming off an achilles injury, and Draft is a solid journeyman, Holiday had some good years but not for a while.

the rest were guys who are not exactly exciting.

I'm sorry then my apologies I mis-read your post I could of sworn you were making a different point but hey I'm wrong its all good

[Mahons21]

A lot of the guys weren't and won't be world beaters, but what they have been and what I believe the Redskins hope them to be is solid knowledgeable veterans who will fulfill there assignments. Having such players will give the Redskins FO a better opportunity to judge much of the current talent we have that might actually be part of the future.

Basically it will help the FO answer any questions they might have about the roster.

[NoVaSkins21]

the team is definitely win now and build for the future. the ONLY player we have currently thats "win now" is mcnabb. if we didnt have mcnabb, we'd be in total rebuild mode, but because we now have a QB that is so good, even in rebuild mode we can stay competitive. look at the team:

defense is in 100% transition with tons of young players at key spots. hall, orakpo, jarmon, alexander, wilson, landry, horton, tryon, barnes, carriker, golston, mcintosh: all of these guys are young and have never played in a 3-4. If we still have campbell or another unknown/poor QB, this team is still a bottom feeder with mystery defense that could go either way.

the offense has youngsters at oline, WR, TE. yeah our RBs are beat up and we still need some help on the interior oline but rome wasnt built in a day. the only reason our offense will compete this season is because of mcnabb. hes the lynchpin in this entire equation. and he didnt cost a whole lot to get.

so for the time being we get to keep mcnabb and remain competitive, all while still adding youth thru trades and the draft. next season i expect another semi purge of some of these older guys and draft picks or UDFA/trades to take their place. this is exactly how teams rebuild. you bring in rookies and vets, the vets get to play and teach and the rookies get to learn and get some playing time. no team fields a whole roster of 24 year old kids and wins.

somebody brought up the nationals, and how they do it "the right way". lets not forget how many important vets are currently on that team. willingham, dunn, guzman, morgan, all dudes pushing 30 and without them our offense is sunk. guys like zimmerman/desmond/bernadina all thrive because of the vets around them, and at some point they will be the vets. anyone thinking strasburg pitches as well as he does without pudge, think again. the nats just took a little more drastic approach to rebuilding because they were literally left with nothing. the skins at least had a couple key young pieces to already build on.

were on the right track guys. this season is going to be fun and the future is looking a hell of a lot better than it was with zorn and cerrato.

Agreed with everything especially the last point. Shanahan and Allen definitely have a plan and they're implementing it. This team is getting younger at the positions they're supposed to and have veterans at other respective positions.

[Jeff in D.C.]

Mike's win-now approach is a virtual guarantee of mediocrity.

Based on Shanahan's track record, Haslett will be fired in a year or two.

I don't know the NFL personalities well enough to answer that question. It's simply my opinion that we should not have hired two men who, over long careers, are proven mediocrities with their self-serving, win-now approaches to the game.

Statements like the above make me wonder sometimes why oldfan continues to still post here.

We replace Vinny, Zorn, and Lionel Richie with proven winners at GM, coach & QB. We trade a 4th round pick for a pro-bowl tackle and now have solid bookend tackles. Yet if you read your posts, you'd think this team is going to be worse off this year than last.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not predicting Super Bowl here by any means, but all of your negativity is making you Debbie Downer around here.

A few things to point out about Shanny - the reason he ended up not succeeding in Denver was because of the defenses and yes as GM he drafted some duds which led to that (although he did find Dumervil in the 4th round), but he had great offenses in Denver and the defensive personnel here is MUCH better than when he was in Denver. As GM he drafted Jay Cutler, Ryan Clady, & Brandon Marshall - that's a franchise QB (well until Cutler got to Chicago), a franchise LT, and a franchise WR. Sure he made some mistakes, but hard to call that list mediocre.

He won 14 games in 2005 and went to the AFC title game with Jake Plummer and he made the playoffs with a Brian Griese/Gus Frerotte QB combo.

And as for the whole "what did he win after Elway" argument - look at Mike Holmgren's first six years in Seattle post-Packers/Favre and you'll see blank space in the playoff wins column.

The smart thing to do would not be to rebuild at this point given how rarely rebuilding works in the NFL these days. Would we have been better off with Lionel Richie still at QB instead of McNabb? Would we be better off with a 4th rounder next year instead of Jamaal Brown?

And other than those two very necessary moves, please point out where they have mortgaged any part of the future to win games now. RB? older players sure, but no picks were given up for any of them. WR? nope. TE? nope. OL? nope. DL? nope. LB? nope. DB? nope. Should Bruce and Shanny be in "lose now" mode instead?

And by the way, every team in the league is in "win now" mode every season.

As for Haslett, he'll be in charge of the defense and if his schemes don't work, it'll be his fault, not Shanny's.

[Oldfan]

How can one of the top offensive coordinators in the league not have his own scheme?

Must I keep repeating myself? If it pleases you to call the Texans offense "Kyle's scheme," feel free.

Where did i say that Schaub is running the same scheme as Mike Shanahan in Denver? Here's a hint i didn't.

You said it here.

I beg to differ.

Kubiak's scheme was developed in Denver ,where he was Mike Shanahan's OC, and therefore is a direct offshoot from Mike Shanahan's scheme and by extention so is Kyle's (having been Kubiac's OC).

You're really something stopping just short of a strawman argument by throwing in the word 'if' when you know full well i said nothing close to describing Brady/Manning as mobile, there just more mobile then you make them out to be.

So, you aren't willing to say that Manning and Brady are mobile, but you get argumentative when I say they aren't mobile?

And YOU are the one saying that Mike Shanahan would use Brady/Manning in the same manner as Cutler, which is counter to both to common sense...

I never said that. You made it up.

Wouldn't it be easier just to admit that maybe you were a bit hasty in saying that 2 of the best QBs in the NFL wouldn't fit in one of the best coordinator's in the NFL offense?

You are confusing quality with fit.

When he took over from Shanahan, McDaniel wanted to trade for Cassel because Cutler didn't fit the offense he wanted to run, not because he thought Cassel was the better QB.

Anyway i don't know why i thought this discussion with you would be any different then any other discussion with you which btw is like talking to a brick wall.

You should clean up your act. This kind of personal slam is par for the course for someone incapable of intelligent civil debate.

[Oldfan]

Statements like the above make me wonder sometimes why oldfan continues to still post here.

You addressed your post to me. If you want to get me to respond civilly, cut out this personal crap.

We replace Vinny, Zorn, and Lionel Richie with proven winners at GM, coach & QB. We trade a 4th round pick for a pro-bowl tackle and now have solid bookend tackles. Yet if you read your posts, you'd think this team is going to be worse off this year than last

. We traded two picks for a 29 year old player off two injuries that the Saints found expendable. He has one year left on his contract. I hope the deal works out, but the risk is high.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not predicting Super Bowl here by any means, but all of your negativity is making you Debbie Downer around here.

If my posts bring you down, don't read them.

A few things to point out about Shanny - the reason he ended up not succeeding in Denver was because of the defenses and yes as GM he drafted some duds which led to that (although he did find Dumervil in the 4th round), but he had great offenses in Denver and the defensive personnel here is MUCH better than when he was in Denver. As GM he drafted Jay Cutler, Ryan Clady, & Brandon Marshall - that's a franchise QB (well until Cutler got to Chicago), a franchise LT, and a franchise WR. Sure he made some mistakes, but hard to call that list mediocre.

In ten years, with full control of the team, he made the playoffs four times and had one playoff win.

And as for the whole "what did he win after Elway" argument - look at Mike Holmgren's first six years in Seattle post-Packers/Favre and you'll see blank space in the playoff wins column.

I never made the Elway argument; so, why am I hearing your counter to it?

The smart thing to do would not be to rebuild at this point given how rarely rebuilding works in the NFL these days.

Rebuilding will work "these days" as well as it ever did -- by implementing a sound plan.

And other than those two very necessary moves, please point out where they have mortgaged any part of the future to win games now.

The McNabb move was only necessary with a win-now goal. As for Jamal Brown, I don't know enough about his condition or his skills to have an intelligent opinion on the move (and neither do you). However, thinking of the Skins history -- I can't think of a single trade of picks for vets that ever worked out in our favor. Can you?

[darrelgreenie]

Must I keep repeating myself? If it pleases you to call the Texans offense "Kyle's scheme," feel free.

It pleases me and its also the truth.

How can one of the top offensive coordinator in the league not have his own scheme i.e. gameplanning and playcalling identity?

There's a difference between similar and same.

Kubiaks offense is an offshoot from Mike's offense and by extention Kyle's is an offshoot of Mike's, therefore the schemes are similar not the same.

Just like Andy Reid is from the Holmgren tree it doesn't mean their offenses are the same, similar? yes.

So, you aren't willing to say that Manning and Brady are mobile, but you get argumentative when I say they aren't mobile?

No, i get 'argumentative' when you say that Brady and Manning couldn't run Mike Shanahan's offense.

And YOU are the one saying that Mike Shanahan would use Brady/Manning in the same manner as Cutler, which is counter to both to common sense and to one of Mike Shanahan's earliest statements as a Redskins: you build the offense arounf the players.

I never said that. You made it up.

Huh? Remember whe you said this:

Try to imagine Peyton or Brady on the move as often as Jay Cutler was in 2008. I have to laugh just trying to imagine it.

Why else would you imagine Peyton/Brady on the move as often as Jay Cutler if you aren't imagining that Shanahan would use them in the same manner?

C'mon oldfan, enough with the semantics lets just be straight.

You are confusing quality with fit.

When he took over from Shanahan, McDaniel wanted to trade for Cassel because Cutler didn't fit the offense he wanted to run, not because he thought Cassel was the better QB.

If i'm confusing quality with fit then you're undervaluing the ability of quality to adapt to scheme.

Again like Mike Shanahan said a good coach tailors the offense to the QB.

The notion that Mike Shanahan wouldn't be able tailor his offense to allow Brady/Manning to flourish is a huge slight to both parties.

We'll never know exactly what happened with Cutler/McDaniels.

I recall that after McDaniels initial trade inquiry for Cassel he actually wanted Cutler to stay but Cutler didn't take fondly to being mentioned in a trade.

I think McDaniels seeking Cassel had more to do with wanting to bring in a QB that already knew his offense rather then a dislike for Cutler.

Either way i think it was pretty dumb/lazy move on McDaniels part.

And i don't think McDaniels mistake supports your opinion that Brady/Manning wouldn't be able to run Mike Shanahan's offense.

You should clean up your act. This kind of personal slam is par for the course for someone incapable of intelligent civil debate.

[/url]

Huh?

C'mon oldfan, how was my statement a personal attack.

Pointing out that debating with you is often a fruitless endeavor, is not a personal attack its a statement of opinion, an opinion that i doubt i'm alone in having.

Now on the other hand, you're statement above, is an actual personal.

Just a reminder of where this all started:

On this point -- Mike's offense would not work without an athletic, very talented QB. He needs an Elway or a Cutler. Tom Brady or Peyton Manning would not fit.

I think you're underestimating Kyle's impact on the offense, especially the passing game, afterall he's the OC and a damn good one.

Kyle's offense works just fine with Matt Schaub who isn't any more athletic then Brady or Manning who i think would certainly fit in Kyle's or Mike's offense.

One of the 1st things Mike said is that as coach (speaking specifically about QBs) you tailor your offense to suit your QB.

[Oldfan]

Huh?

C'mon oldfan, how was my statement a personal attack.

Pointing out that debating with you is often a fruitless endeavor, is not a personal attack its a statement of opinion, an opinion that i doubt i'm alone in having.

We're done.

[MassSkinsFan]

How about winning one playoff game in 10 years? That's not even so-so.

Exactly. We've been near-dreadful for a long time. I'm ready for the improvement.

[Oldfan]

Exactly. We've been near-dreadful for a long time. I'm ready for the improvement.

You can check me on this. I believe Shanahan won one playoff game after being appointed VP (2000 - 2008).

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I would guess that everyone's made the points they want to make and neither side is budging. Many Redskin fans are very optimistic about the new regime and new direction of the organization. Many Redskin fans feel that this will eventually translate into on-field improvement and maybe even sustainable success. Oldfan believes that this organization is not set up to be the next NFL dynasty.

In the end, I think it's fair to say that we are all justified in our opinions. Anyone who isn't more excited about this team than the previous Redskin teams is probably being a bit pessimistic while anyone thinking we'll rattle off 4 Super Bowls in the next 8 years, is probably set for some disappointment.

We can probably revert back to the original point of the thread and debate the moves that were made and whether or not they will benefit us in both the short- and long-term.

[Oldfan]

We can probably revert back to the original point of the thread and debate the moves that were made and whether or not they will benefit us in both the short- and long-term.

There's not much to debate. I'm willing to concede that even those who want to describe the future advantages of the McNabb move can come up with reasons that I regard as vague nonsense, but I can't prove it -- leadership, mentoring, changing the culture, etc. And if they can argue that the McNabb move is justified, then they are all justified as long-term moves.

[The Tris]

There's not much to debate. I'm willing to concede that even those who want to describe the future advantages of the McNabb move can come up with reasons that I regard as vague nonsense, but I can't prove it -- leadership, mentoring, changing the culture, etc. And if they can argue that the McNabb move is justified, then they are all justified as long-term moves.

I think most people have conceded that the McNabb move is a win now move.

When will you concede that drafting the rawest of the top OTs, signing vets to short term stop gap contracts instead of long term deals, and switching to a 3-4 defensive scheme are all moves that build for the future?

Win Now AND Build for the Future, wasn't that the point of this thread?

[MassSkinsFan]

I think most people have conceeded that the McNabb move is a win now move.

I haven't. I think it is both.

I'm willing to concede that even those who want to describe the future advantages of the McNabb move can come up with reasons that I regard as vague nonsense, but I can't prove it -- leadership, mentoring, changing the culture, etc. And if they can argue that the McNabb move is justified, then they are all justified as long-term moves.

I already conceded on the leadership (never said culture). Mentoring is not all that vague though I know from past experience you disagree. However, buying more time to assess Colt and/or acquire the right QB of the future is concrete. Losing one pick net is reasonable for McNabb, injuries and age or not. He is an improvement over JC and TC in the short term and a stopgap while we develop someone for the long term.

What does puzzle me is Rex Grossman. Why?

[The Tris]

What does puzzle me is Rex Grossman. Why?

We as Skins fans should intimately know the value of a veteran backup with expertise in the offensive scheme.

While he has his low lights, he has accomplished twice as much as Collins even had. And its not unreasonable to expect, based on historical evidence that as a QB matures, the carelessness subsides.

[Oldfan]

I think most people have conceeded that the McNabb move is a win now move.

I don't get that idea. I think you're in a minority.

When will you conceed that drafting the rawest of the top OTs, signing vets to short term stop gap contracts instead of long term deals, and switching to a 3-4 defensive scheme are all moves that build for the future?

They drafted the OT who best fit their scheme. I don't see how that's a big concession to the future since he is expected to start this season.

Signing vets to short-term contracts is a win-now move that does not significantly hurt the long-term outlook, but you're putting a spin on it when you call that a long-term move.

Installing the 3-4 in 2010 is not an innovation.

Win Now AND Build for the Future, wasn't that the point of this thread?

Yes, it was. And, my position is that you can't come up with a first-rate plan to do both. If Bruce and Mike had a first-rate plan for the future, the McNabb move would not have been made.

[Oldfan]

... However, buying more time to assess Colt and/or acquire the right QB of the future is concrete.

Buying more time? That sounds like an unwillingness to pay the price to build a truly elite team.

Losing one pick net is reasonable for McNabb, injuries and age or not.

One pick net? Why not trade Campell and let Grossman or Colt play the position? That's three picks net.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

And, my position is that you can't come up with a first-rate plan to do both. If Bruce and Mike had a first-rate plan for the future, the McNabb move would not have been made.

I think this logic is flawed. I would concede that it's impossible to put 100% of resources into doing both. You can't COMPLETELY attempt to win now and COMPLETELY attempt to build for the future. However, you can make some moves geared toward the short-term and some moves geared toward the long-term.

In fact, the answer to this thread almost certainly has to be "yes" unless you believe that every, single move being made is an attempt to win at all costs in 2010. If even one move has been made with an eye to the future, by definition we're attempting to do both. Right?

[Oldfan]

I think this logic is flawed. I would concede that it's impossible to put 100% of resources into doing both. You can't COMPLETELY attempt to win now and COMPLETELY attempt to build for the future. However, you can make some moves geared toward the short-term and some moves geared toward the long-term.

In fact, the answer to this thread almost certainly has to be "yes" unless you believe that every, single move being made is an attempt to win at all costs in 2010. If even one move has been made with an eye to the future, by definition we're attempting to do both. Right?

On an Internet forum, if there are two possible interpretations of a statement, one stupid and one intelligent, I think it's just good manners to assume that the author intended the intelligent meaning. Therefore, I rejected the interpretation that you suggest -- that the author meant that if even one move was made with an eye to the future, they are doing both.

The intelligent interpretation is that the author assumed that it is possible to plan in a win-now mode and a future mode and do both very well. My responses were written with that in mind.

[MassSkinsFan]

Buying more time? That sounds like an unwillingness to pay the price to build a truly elite team.

Nope. It's part of a long-term plan. "Paying the price" to build a truly elite team smacks of win-now.

One pick net? Why not trade Campell and let Grossman or Colt play the position? That's three picks net.

Yeah, those two are really elite guys.

[MassSkinsFan]

We as Skins fans should intimately know the value of a veteran backup with expertise in the offensive scheme.

While he has his low lights, he has accomplished twice as much as Collins even had. And its not unreasonable to expect, based on historical evidence that as a QB matures, the carelessness subsides.

I really hope you're right about the subsistence of carelessness in this case. I guess I'm gun-shy on him based on past impressions.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

On an Internet forum, if there are two possible interpretations of a statement, one stupid and one intelligent, I think it's just good manners to assume that the author intended the intelligent meaning. Therefore, I rejected the interpretation that you suggest -- that the author meant that if even one move was made with an eye to the future, they are doing both.

The intelligent interpretation is that the author assumed that it is possible to plan in a win-now mode and a future mode and do both very well. My responses were written with that in mind.

Thanks for calling my interpretation stupid...nice coming from someone who has pointed out personal attacks a few times already in this very thread.

Anyway, I still don't see how it's not possible to do both well. Move A might be short-term while Move B might be long-term. If they are both solid moves, aren't you doing a good balance of adding pieces to win now AND win in the future?

Again, it's not stupid to say that unless you're looking to completely win-now or completely build for the future, it's certainly possible to strike a balance. In fact, every NFL team has to do just that. There's really no such thing as a long-term rebuild in the NFL anymore where you gut a team and start from scratch (outside of an expansion team).

[TheLongshot]

It pleases me and its also the truth.

How can one of the top offensive coordinator in the league not have his own scheme i.e. gameplanning and playcalling identity?

There's a difference between similar and same.

Kubiaks offense is an offshoot from Mike's offense and by extention Kyle's is an offshoot of Mike's, therefore the schemes are similar not the same.

Just like Andy Reid is from the Holmgren tree it doesn't mean their offenses are the same, similar? yes.

While the O-Coordinator has a scheme, he also answers to what the head coach wants. When the head coach is from the same side as the coordinator, usually the coordinator needs to conform to what the head coach wants from him. So, simply saying it is "Kyle's Offense" isn't completely true.

That's why I kinda chuckle when people say that we aren't going to run the ball as much as Shanahan did in Denver. I still think this offense is still going to center around the run, tho it might be more dynamic in the passing game than it was in Denver.

I don't get that idea. I think you're in a minority.

I don't see how getting McNabb isn't anything but a "win now" move. He's 33 years old. Odds are that within the next 4-5 years that he's going to be gone.