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

[Oldfan]

I think building a dynasty is extremely difficult to do, no matter what path you take.

Absolutely -- and you have just made a good argument against your position. It takes a plan that makes no compromises. "Let's win-now and still try to build for the future," just won't cut it.

Due to this we have very few examples of dynasties in recent history, and it is only these examples that are pertinent in this debate.

I suspect many, if not most, teams aren't trying, so mediocrity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Skins won't do it. It will take one huge run of luck, like the Giants had, for us to win a Super Bowl.

The Eagles and the Lions seem to be doing things right, but I think Belichick will reload and will be back in a couple of years to do it again.

Because of the manner in which the NFL has changed from era to era. The Patriots are one example, and no one can deny they're draft geniuses. Every year on draft day the Patriots perform a work of art, they trade up down and side to side, and by them time they're finished they almost always come out on top.

Belichick follows Walsh's example. He's very good at finding players in the draft who fit his scheme. These same players wouldn't be that good playing elsewhere.

Though I think the Saints might be a team that could counter your argument.

I don't think so. Brees is an exceptional free agent -- a very high risk that paid off. But, aside from him, the core of that team is comprised of drafted players.

[MassSkinsFan]

If Mike Shanahan's trade for Donovan had much to do with his concern for the leadership factor, as you imply, can you credibly explain why he cut Rock Cartwright, one of the most respected players on the team? Wouldn't he have sent a stronger "team first" message by cutting Clinton Portis? -- I don't think Mike's transactions show much concern for the leadership factor; nor am I saying they should.

This is a poor example.

Portis' numbers are much better than Cartwright's across the board.

Campbell is not even close to McNabb.

So, you are comparing a situation where you upgrade the talent AND the leadership to one where you downgrade the talent in order to keep some leadership.

[Dukes and Skins]

LD, OF was right you're making an argument others and I attempted to make earlier in this thread, however you are able to portray it much more eloquently.

I look at it this way, you have to set the table before serving dinner. We had to make some serious changes at Redskins park before we could start building for the future. You don't want a bunch of rookies to join the Redskins and inherit the same lackadaisical approach that so many of out Vets have possessed most of this decade.

I agree with this post a lot. What we have done this year alone is basically said we are going to bring in some hungry vets who want to prove themselves to the doubters. If Kemoeatu comes back to his old self our 3-4 could thrive right away and it could be one of those switches we weren't sure about before but now are really a fan of. Johnson could be our #2 and COULD become a #1 again in the league.

We have set a foundation now with those free agents but not one that is a laid back no worries attitude, it has now become one that says we will work hard to get on this field and we don't care what others think of us. With those FA's and then adding players through the draft who also have that approach(you can assume it from Allen and Shanny drafting them) you have now laid a foundation for success over a period of time

[Oldfan]

OF, I get your point, I just think it is a somewhat narrow view of what it takes to build a team. There's more to it than just the roster. Yes, we need young talent coming in, but they have to grow within a framework that fosters successful play. The Skins have been the antithesis of that for a long time.

I think you are confusing cause with effect. Just as success causes confidence, winning causes team spirit and togetherness -- not the other way around.

If the Skins start 5-0 this season, you will read all about McNabb's leadership and the team spirit. If we go 0-5, you will read about people pointing fingers and shifting blame. It's human nature.

[Mahons21]

Absolutely -- and you have just made a good argument against your position. It takes a plan that makes no compromises. "Let's win-now and still try to build for the future," just won't cut it.

This is where we disagree. I don't agree with having one sole plan, and making no compromises, that's too black and white. If a great FA opportunity comes your way, or a great trade offer is on the table, you should take it.

I suspect many, if not most, teams aren't trying, so mediocrity becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Skins won't do it. It will take one huge run of luck, like the Giants had, for us to win a Super Bowl.

I would have to agree. The short shelf life of any coaching position in the NFL these days, has put coaches in a position where they feel they must improve immediately. Even if such improvement would prevent the team from achieving sustained success in the future.

The Eagles and the Lions seem to be doing things right, but I think Belichick will reload and will be back in a couple of years to do it again.

They will be two examples who will be fun to follow in coming years, especially the Lions. I really hope DET can hold that nucleus together, could become one of the more explosive offenses the NFL has seen in quite sometime.

Belichick follows Walsh's example. He's very good at finding players in the draft who fit his scheme. These same players wouldn't be that good playing elsewhere.

He is exceptional at it.

I don't think so. Brees is an exceptional free agent -- a very high risk that paid off. But, aside from him, the core of that team is comprised of drafted players.

I'm not saying the core isn't comprised of drafted players, but much of the talent on that team has come via FA. It's as I stated earlier, in my opinion, a great blend of both. The Saints FO, made the most of the opportunities afforded to them, and yes one of the biggest moves they made was for Brees and he was a humongous risk at the time.

[Oldfan]

This is a poor example.

Portis' numbers are much better than Cartwright's across the board.

Campbell is not even close to McNabb.

So, you are comparing a situation where you upgrade the talent AND the leadership to one where you downgrade the talent in order to keep some leadership.

I wasn't drawing a comparison between the two moves. I used the example to estimate how much weight Mike gives to the leadership factor.

It would cost zero draft picks to cut Portis and keep Rock, thus making a serious upgrade in team morale. So, it seems obvious that Mike valued the talent difference far more than the upgrade of team morale. -- So, the example supports my point that "leadership" wasn't much of a factor in Mike's decision to trade for McNabb.

[Oldfan]

This is where we disagree. I don't agree with having one sole plan, and making no compromises, that's too black and white. If a great FA opportunity comes your way, or a great trade offer is on the table, you should take it.

I gave you an example of what I meant by a compromise: "Let's win now and build for the future at the same time." I did not rule out a FA or trade opportunity not in serious conflict with reaching the goal.

[MassSkinsFan]

It would cost zero draft picks to cut Portis and keep Rock, thus making a serious upgrade in team morale. So, it seems obvious that Mike valued the talent difference far more than the upgrade of team morale. -- So, the example supports my point that "leadership" wasn't much of a factor in Mike's decision to trade for McNabb.

Damn you're insufferable!

It cost zero draft picks to cut Rock and keep Portis, and you don't know what the morale impact would have been since it didn't happen. I tend to doubt that it would have been as effective as the addition of Donovan McNabb.

McNabb did help boost morale. We know that. He's also a better QB than JC. We know that too.

So it seems obvious that Mike valued the combination of talent and leadership far more than the loss of a better RB for a possible return of improved morale (plus the fact that you'd still have an under-performing RB on the roster in Rock).

So your example is flawed.

[MassSkinsFan]

I wasn't drawing a comparison between the two moves. I used the example to estimate how much weight Mike gives to the leadership factor.

And you imply that he uses a "formula" to weigh leadership as a factor in decision-making, and that its weight is the same no matter what the decision. That's not realistic.

[Oldfan]

Damn you're insufferable!

Just imagine how well I could do if I was trying to be.

It cost zero draft picks to cut Rock and keep Portis, and you don't know what the morale impact would have been since it didn't happen. I tend to doubt that it would have been as effective as the addition of Donovan McNabb. ....McNabb did help boost morale. We know that. He's also a better QB than JC. We know that too.

Your speculations about morale are fascinating but irrelevant to my argument that Mike Shanahan values talent much more than leadership when evaluating his transactions, an opinion supported by my formidable example.:cool:

[Oldfan]

And you imply that he uses a "formula" to weigh leadership as a factor in decision-making, and that its weight is the same no matter what the decision. That's not realistic.

The word "weight" doesn't imply a formula, but when we make repetitive decisions, we give factors roughly the same weight (importance) even when we don't give it a number.

From previous discussions, we know that you would give far more weight to the emotional factors in explaining the results of a football game than I would.

[addicted]

I am so convinced this OF is just a wolf in sheep clothing pretending to be a Skins fan it's not even funny anymore.

Cut Portis and make Rock Cartwrite the starter? Only a fool would think that was a good idea under any circumstances or any reason. CP is 10 times the RB that Rock was or is today. Why would you cut your best RB? It makes no sense unless of course your rooting for another team.

Like if I wanted the Cowboys to cut Felix Jones or the Eagles to cut Desean Jackson or the Giants to send Steve Smith packing.

I'd love for those teams to make those moves because I am a Redskins fan. I know doing that would hurt the team and hurting them is a great idea because it helps my team long term.

[MassSkinsFan]

The word "weight" doesn't imply a formula, but when we make repetitive decisions, we give factors roughly the same weight (importance) even when we don't give it a number.

From previous discussions, we know that you would give far more weight to the emotional factors in explaining the results of a football game than I would.

Yes, >0 is more.

I'm not saying weight is the key. It's the whole phrase.

Repetitive decisions do tend to produce predictable results. However roster-building decisions are not really repetitive are they? Do you think FO personnel evaluate all potential personnel moves in the same mannner? I don't.

[HailGreen28]

You really are dense and you call me clueless.

Lets start with the basics.

Due to FA rules this season who was under 28 that we could have signed? Yea thought so. You can't make up crap and call it reality. Doesn't fly with me.

Strike 1 on Addict. PLENTY OF FREE AGENTS AVAILABLE THIS OFFSEASON.

Second question, Jan 1 we had 5 draft picks. That means that we could have added 5 men to the team by the end of the draft if we made no moves. What did we end up with by the end of April? More draft picks then we had on Jan 1. Whats the problem with that? We did lose 2 draft picks, one this year and one next year. What did we gain from those 2 picks? 1 player. We are minus one pick today but if you consider we also got Adam Carriker that's a push. Your an idiot if you can'd do simple math.

Strike 2 on Addict. By your own "math", we'd be DOWN one pick overall. This is not building for the future. Nevermind that this is nowhere near the amount of people needed to start a youth movement. Particularly since most of the FA we've brought in are around 30 years old.

I really can't help that you are this dumb

Draft picks don't mean we get good players. If you think they do review every draft pick and the likelyhood they even make an NFL roster. It's not a guarentee that any of those guys drafted ever turn out to be players in this league. Your talking as if a drafted player is as good as a proven Probowler. They aren't. Get a clue

And you think a player is guaranteed to continue playing at a high level when he signs with a new team? You haven't watched the Redskins until this offseason, have you? You think a draft pick is riskier than a guy who just missed the whole season on IR? You don't realize that building for the future means you're better off signing young guys who aren't as injury prone; and if they pan out, you can sign them to long term deals while their best years are AHEAD of them.

1st of all the RT isn't coming off a serious injury. He missed last season but a simple look into his injury would show you that he's fine.* As for the DT, what did we give up to bring him in? We slid back 25 spots in the draft and got him, we basically got him for nothing.** As for Mcnabbs best days comments thats not certain at all. Look at his stats last year, they were right in line for his career.*** Nothing about them indicates he's washed up with a noodle arm like Brunell.**** As for your comment about Jason Taylor he had a freak injury that hurt him, when healthy he could still go and was productive and he is still playing in the league.***** The issue with JT was a contract issue. I can tell that talking with you is like talking with someone who didn't read the book but just the cliff notes. I'm circling you kid******

Yes, I am awed by your infantile logic. Just take this paragraph for example:

* An injury that keeps a player out all season isn't serious. No, no chance he'll get hurt again.

** Moving back about a round in the draft is nothing. Sure, no difference between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd to 4th, hell why are we holding on to the high round picks then, LOL.

***McNabb's best year was way back in 2004. And nobody's saying he didn't play well last year. What I'm saying is that he's old and his best days are behind him. Throw in that the team he played with his whole career thought trading him was a good idea, and you think this is "building for the future?"

****Nevermind Brunell still had it when he started for us in 2004. Let's hope your reference doesn't apply to McNugget in a year or two. But thanks for providing an example of the risk we took. even if you don't realize it.

*****JT was still nothing special when he finally started playing, and we moved him around. Yeah Addict, it worked out so well for us.

******Yes, you have amazed me with your ability to prove my points for me. Like the Brunell example. Thanks!

Explain to me this new math? How many draft picks does a team get? 7 right? How many do we have for 2011? 6 right? How is that a bad thing?

Bleeding draft picks, rather than gaining and hoarding them, when you are old and 4-12 last season is bad. It is certainly not building for the future. Mmmmkay?

Ok kid if those players all turn out to be studs then how will they fit them on there 53 man roster? How will they be able to re-sign them in the future? How far has this plan of there taken them? Sure they won some devision titles but what else? They went to the Superbowl 1 time in the past 30 years and lost the game. Big whoopy doo. They obviously have not figured it all out and found the success your trying to make them sound like they did. Until they win something what they've done is found a way to stay competitive but never get over the hump. Why are you wanting us to do that?

Look up the Skins record of WIN NOW over the same time period. And then try to compare. Your stupidity is the kind that led us to the Spurrier and GM-Cerrato debacles. As opposed to being a regular playoff contender. Try to understand that the draft, like free agency, is a crapshoot where the more shots you have the better. And bringing in a bunch of highly regarded young hungry guys is a good thing even for a team that made the playoffs, let alone...us after last season.

If you could wrap your head around the fact that it is a gamble with no guarantee that any draft pick would ever be any good in this league then you might get it. Your hell bent on the wrong idea that draft picks mean the player can play. It's much more likely that the draft picks fizzle out in a year or three before ever being a good player in this league. It's rare that draft picks are excellent players for a career. When you have a player that can play at a high level you simply don't discard them when they turn 30 years old and say they are washed up. You can't say that QB's today are done at 33 years old, Farve had one of his best all time seasons at the age of 40. Warren Moon was still playing at a high level at 45. The age of a player means nothing. You just aren't honest about this. And furthermore your ****ing about something neither of us knows how it will work out. We have 6 picks today, doesn't mean we only use 6 picks in 2011. Why get all worked up about something you know nothing about?

"Age of the player means nothing". LOL! That much spinning, you ought sign up for the O'Reily Show. You've gone this long without realizing that EVERYTHING is a crap shoot in player personnel. Especially due to the nature of injuries in a violent contact sport. Pssst. I heard a rumor that young guys are less injury prone and less expensive especially in regards to dead cap money and other problems you run into with poor FO decisions. Like you've been making excuses for, like Jason Taylor. Like other old guys we've signed. Maybe you ought to look into that.

We are clearly in a Win now and Win later mode. I've outlined this for you many times but you think because we don't have a 3rd and 4th rounder next year we are screwed. Wrong answer try again. We don't know what we will have in April 2011 do we? If you simply wanted us to sit around doing nothing but trading good players for draft picks your in the wrong game. No one does that and gives up on a season. We are in fine condition, your mental condition is another story however. RELAX

So in your imaginary world of what we *might* do in 2011, we're in "win later" mode? RIIIIIIIGGGGHHHT.

When you come back to reality, let's talk about what we've actually done. Here's a hint, our focus isn't on "building for the future".

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I gave you an example of what I meant by a compromise: "Let's win now and build for the future at the same time." I did not rule out a FA or trade opportunity not in serious conflict with reaching the goal.

OF, I don't mean to jump back into the fray, but you keep implying that the McNabb move was trade/FA acquisition that was in serious conflict with reaching the goal. How so? Is it the 2nd round pick last year and 3rd round pick this coming year?

Granted, those picks would make us younger, but I don't see how 2 picks to upgrade your QB for 3+ years is in "serious conflict" with reaching the goal of winning in the future. The move doesn't help you achieve that goal, but it's not a huge price to pay either. Also, he's not blocking a young QB prospect either.

Where would you draw the line? What value would have been OK to give up for McNabb? Or do you believe that acquiring him at any cost would have seriously conflicted with building for the future?

[Conn]

I am so convinced this OF is just a wolf in sheep clothing pretending to be a Skins fan it's not even funny anymore.

Cut Portis and make Rock Cartwrite the starter? Only a fool would think that was a good idea under any circumstances or any reason. CP is 10 times the RB that Rock was or is today. Why would you cut your best RB? It makes no sense unless of course your rooting for another team.

Like if I wanted the Cowboys to cut Felix Jones or the Eagles to cut Desean Jackson or the Giants to send Steve Smith packing.

I'd love for those teams to make those moves because I am a Redskins fan. I know doing that would hurt the team and hurting them is a great idea because it helps my team long term.

You're just looking for reasons to pimp your "OF is a Pats fan" idea.

That example was a specific response to something someone else said about Shanahan's value on leadership vs. talent, and he proved his point well. Its not something he actually wants for the team.

[pjfootballer]

Because no matter what anyone wants to say the true leader of a team is it's QB. Average Special Teams guys who are well respected are good to have on your squad but a QB who garners the respect of teammated by simply walking through the door, like McNabb, is rare and significantly more valuable.

You can add salary to the move. Cartwright cost nothing to cut, CP's money would still be on the roster. And CP is younger than Rock.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I wish we could get through one debate where someone doesn't call out someone else as not being a fan. It gets old. Agree or not, everyone here wants the best for this team.

[Conn]

I wish we could get through one debate where someone doesn't call out someone else as not being a fan. It gets old. Agree or not, everyone here wants the best for this team.

Exactly.

Its a childish, immature accusation, made only by those who not only can't fathom the reasoning behind another's opinion, but more importantly, can't handle that while its different from their own, and may even be in direct contrast, it still is said with an eye towards the ultimate success of our team.

[addicted]

Strike 1 on Addict. PLENTY OF FREE AGENTS AVAILABLE THIS OFFSEASON.

Strike one on GreenyWeenie....

Which of those guys were fits for us? What were the price tags associated with them?

Again you come with this bullspit nonsense logic that has no basis in facts just your delusional logic that age means better. Age is a number that doesn't make one player better then the other. Bring some facts to the table son, your just fooling yourself with that but not me.

Strike 2 on Addict. By your own "math", we'd be DOWN one pick overall. This is not building for the future. Nevermind that this is nowhere near the amount of people needed to start a youth movement. Particularly since most of the FA we've brought in are around 30 years old.

Ok kid lets review one more time for the slow bus riders like yourself:

Jan 1 we had 5 draft picks.

April 30th we had lost one pick in 2011 and gained:

1 - Trent Williams

2 - Donovan McNabb

3 - Perry Riley

4 - Adam Carriker

5 - Dennis Morris

6 - Terrence Austin

7 - Erik Cook

8 - Selvish Capers

8 players we added and we are still down 1 pick next year. So the sum gain here is +2 players and that includes the 2 picks we gave up for McNabb. My math's not wrong, yours is

As for 30 year old players we brought in, show us how in the long run we are hurt at all by those contracts. You want to look back at years past and say we screwed ourselves with older players when the reality is giving player incentive based contracts means making them earn the money they get. Produce and you get paid, don't produce don't let the door hit you on the way out. If they got something left in the tank we are a better team for them being here, if not is a low risk move.

GreenieWeenie fails yet again

And you think a player is guaranteed to continue playing at a high level when he signs with a new team? You haven't watched the Redskins until this offseason, have you? You think a draft pick is riskier than a guy who just missed the whole season on IR? You don't realize that building for the future means you're better off signing young guys who aren't as injury prone; and if they pan out, you can sign them to long term deals while their best years are AHEAD of them.

How do you look at yourself in the mirror everyday? If I were you I couldn't do it. Seriously.

How many draft picks make a difference on the teams that selected them? The average lifespan of an NFL player is 3 years, for a reason. Because most every draft pick turns out to be a bust.

How many injuries to you defines an injury prone player? Most of the guys you call injury prone have one injury to there credit. And how can you possibly say with fact that a rookie isn't going to be an often injured player? You can't.

And further, how could you even say that drafted players have there best years ahead of them? How do you know that? You don't. Fool the only thing you know is that you seem to think you can predict the future which you can't. Otherwise prove it.

Another failure from you.

Yes, I am awed by your infantile logic. Just take this paragraph for example:

* An injury that keeps a player out all season isn't serious. No, no chance he'll get hurt again.

** Moving back about a round in the draft is nothing. Sure, no difference between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd to 4th, hell why are we holding on to the high round picks then, LOL.

***McNabb's best year was way back in 2004. And nobody's saying he didn't play well last year. What I'm saying is that he's old and his best days are behind him. Throw in that the team he played with his whole career thought trading him was a good idea, and you think this is "building for the future?"

****Nevermind Brunell still had it when he started for us in 2004. Let's hope your reference doesn't apply to McNugget in a year or two. But thanks for providing an example of the risk we took. even if you don't realize it.

*****JT was still nothing special when he finally started playing, and we moved him around. Yeah Addict, it worked out so well for us.

******Yes, you have amazed me with your ability to prove my points for me. Like the Brunell example. Thanks!

First of all none of that you posted is what I meant. You've got the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader.

"* An injury that keeps a player out all season isn't serious. No, no chance he'll get hurt again."

Please show all of us in your infallible logic that you know for certain that one injury to a player means he'll always be injured. And in that logic how you can spot one player who's injury prone from another?

"** Moving back about a round in the draft is nothing. Sure, no difference between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd to 4th, hell why are we holding on to the high round picks then, LOL."

Did I ever say that? No, but the truth is there are just as many first round busts as there are 2nd round busts if not more. Draft selection means nothing. Tony Romo sits to pee was never drafted, I guess that means he must be crap. Brady was drafted in the 6th round, guess that means all of those QB's drafted before him must have had better careers?

I'm stopping here because your a clown who tries to say that

1. You know things no one knows

2. Fact simply don't matter to you at all

3. Drafting isn't risky and that we know with those draft picks we will get all stars

4. You know when a players career is over

5. And you put words in my posts that aren't there.

And other nonsense. You seem to have the immaturity to require the last word so go ahead. Fact is I know more about this then you do by a long shot. Go ahead fool and spit whatever nonsense you think you think but don't know at all. Feel free to impress yourself with your make believe crap and your fake ass infinite wisdom you think you have.

The answer to success is a mixture of FA, veterans, and sound drafting. The answer is not just drafting, otherwise show a team that did anything over the past 20 years who did it your way and drafted only. Wrong answer, try again.

[Oldfan]

Repetitive decisions do tend to produce predictable results. However roster-building decisions are not really repetitive are they? Do you think FO personnel evaluate all potential personnel moves in the same mannner? I don't.

I would be willing to bet that the Patriots have much of their personnel decision-making on spreadsheets. For example, evaluating college QBs could be done that way. Let's assume they have five scouts watch the same film on the player, so they can get an average grade on the accuracy factor, that multiplied by the weight assigned to the accuracy factor added to all the other graded factors would result in an overall score.

Basically, the decisions have to be classified; and you have to have enough similar decisions to automate the process. The rest would be seat-of-the pants calls.

[pjfootballer]

Most coaches in today's NFL are in a Win Now mode, because the fans, the owners and the media have "instant gratification" mentality. This is nothing new. Shanahan is near 60 and quite frankly I know he wants to win now. But that doesn't mean he's screwed us for the future:

1) He has assembled a pretty good staff (just speculation on my part, not fact) that can take over when he's gone. Not all coaches will be here in 5 years, but some may stay. You can't help coaching turnover.

2) He's tried to instill a winning mentality (even though OF disagrees) throughout the organization "Before" we've even played a game, when previous coaches couldn't even do it on the field. He may not be successful, but at least he's trying.

3) He's tried to make the team competitive this year given the load of crap he and Allen were handed. Even though the team got older, they refrained from signing guys to Haynesworth type deals and NONE of the guys over 30 that we signed will be on the books beyond this season (with exception of Larry Johnson). They will not effect the future of the club like Archuleta and Lloyd did.

4) I do believe they are trying to "win now." I also believe they want to build for the future, but that was not possible in 1 year. We need to see what happens after year 2 and 3 to pass judgement.

I would like to see a stat about the number of draft picks each team has had each year in the draft. This is my opinion (and not stated fact) that the teams who have been winning (i.e. the Patriots, Eagles, Giants, Colts, etc.) have all had multiple picks. They are able to cut, trade or let go veteran players and acquire multiple picks because the other teams feel getting a player from a winning organization will improve their team. Oakland has thrown away multiple picks over the years to the Patriots for their players.

We went into the season needing a QB, LT, RT, depth on the OL, WR's, NT and LBs.

We got McNabb, drafted Williams, traded for Brown, drafted Capers and Cook, signed Furry, Galloway and Wade, signed Maake and drafted Riley. We also picked up Carriker and landed an extra pick in this past years draft from 5 to 6. I think they did about as well as they could.

I wish they could have traded off Carter and some of the other vets, but did you ever think the other teams didn't want them? What if we had have said, "oh the hell with it, you can have Carter for a 7th." Then our 7th round pick doesn't make the roster and Carter has 12 sacks. Then we'd have a bunch of pissing and moaning that the FO is stupid and they didn't get enough for this player and that player. I think they agreed that if they traded them, they had to get value and not just a fire sale.

It has also been mentioned that the 82 Redskins used the draft to win a SB. Truth is, we were a good football team in 1979-80 that Pardee didn't coach well. Gibbs came in in 1980-81 and we had a top offense despite going 8-8. In the 1981 draft, we picked up 2 of our hogs, got lucky with Jacoby, found Dexter in the 5th, turned OL Grant into a DT and Didier in the 12th. We still had a mix of good veterans like Joe T., Riggins, Starke, Mendenhall, Bostic, Milot, Olkewicz, Butz, Peters, Murphy, etc., etc. that propelled us to the SB. It wasn't the drafted "youth" that brought us the championship. The drafted youth is what made us elite, it didn't rebuild us. We also had a string of drafts after that that helped make that team sustain their dominance for the next 10 years. Darrell Green, McKenzie, Mann et al were drafted and added to the team.

[Oldfan]

OF, I don't mean to jump back into the fray but you keep implying that the McNabb move was trade/FA acquisition that was in serious conflict with reaching the goal. How so? Is it the 2nd round pick last year and 3rd round pick this coming year?

Granted, those picks would make us younger, but I don't see how 2 picks to upgrade your QB for 3+ years is in "serious conflict" with reaching the goal of winning in the future.

The move doesn't help you achieve that goal, but it's not a huge price to pay either. Also, he's not blocking a young QB prospect either.

Where would you draw the line? What value would have been OK to give up for McNabb? Or do you believe that acquiring him at any cost would have seriously conflicted with building for the future?

We can't cite one transaction and project serious harm done in reaching any goal, no matter what your goal is. However, it is this TYPE of deal that is just about the worst move you could make if you want to build a team that's capable of a Patriots-like run.

We should be on the selling end of deals like this, like the Eagles, not on the buying end.

McNabb would have no value for me. I probably would have tried to beef up the O-line in the draft, played Jason another year, hoping to build up his trade value while stockpiling a couple of young, low-round QBs in the draft.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We can't cite one transaction and project serious harm done in reaching any goal, no matter what your goal is. However, it is this TYPE of deal that is just about the worst move you could make if you want to build a team that's capable of a Patriots-like run.

We should be on the selling end of deals like this, like the Eagles, not on the buying end.

McNabb would have no value for me. I probably would have tried to beef up the O-line in the draft, played Jason another year, hoping to build up his trade value while stockpiling a couple of young, low-round QBs in the draft.

Thanks for answering...when you think about it, until this Easter trade came out of nowhere, I guess that's exactly where we were heading. Makes sense.

[Oldfan]

I wish they could have traded off Carter and some of the other vets, but did you ever think the other teams didn't want them? What if we had have said, "oh the hell with it, you can have Carter for a 7th." Then our 7th round pick doesn't make the roster and Carter has 12 sacks. Then we'd have a bunch of pissing and moaning that the FO is stupid and they didn't get enough for this player and that player. I think they agreed that if they traded them, they had to get value and not just a fire sale.

There are 31 other teams in the NFL. If the Redskins offered a player and the best offer they could get was a fifth round pick. That fifth-round pick is the player's "market value." If the Skins refuse to accept market value, that means they felt the player was worth more to them because he helps them win now. If the team was building for the future, they take the fifth round pick.