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

[Oldfan]

This is zero-sum thinking. You can actually do better in both areas.

What does game theory have to do with the process of reasoning? The question is: Is it possible to create a plan that will optimize the odds of winning now that will, at the same time, maximize the odds of building a Patriot-like run?

I think it's absurd to think it's possible. At the same time, I will stipulate that Redskins fans can come up with vague psychological advantages for win-now moves that can't be proved to be nonsense.

From your stance so far, it appears that you believe neither is capable of identifying their weaknesses and improving. Let's hope for our sake as fans that this is not the case.

Since neither has ever built a elite team in their long careers, it doesn't matter much whether they have been unwilling or unable. They have had ample opportunity before and have failed to do so. So, my position is that they are unlikely to do it for the Skins.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Since neither has ever built a elite team in their long careers, it doesn't matter much whether they have been unwilling or unable. They have had ample opportunity before and have failed to do so. So, my position is that they are unlikely to do it for the Skins.

That's pretty unfair. After all, if you're so interested in past performance, Shanahan won back-to-back championships in Denver. One would think that's merely one step short of this "Patriots-like run" you keep mentioning.

[Oldfan]

That's fantastic to say, but doesn't really have anything to do with how you'd staff the GM, coaching, or player positions. Additionally, you can't present that as though Allen/Shanahan have a goal to just make the playoffs via a wild card berth.

Goal-setting guides EVERY decision. If Bruce and Mike wanted to build a Patriot-like winner, then trading for McNabb was a stupid move. I don't think they're stupid. I think their goal is to win now, and the McNabb move was a smart one given that goal.

OK...and how do you find these people? How do you know that innovation is even out there? What did Bellichick do that was so innovative other than steal peoples plays? He ran a generic offense and had a very good defense. That, along with a good QB and clutch kicker allowed him to win 3 Super Bowls by 3 points each. Let's not attribute the 2007 season to the entire Patriots' run between 2001-2004...

Belichick saw the success Tom Moore had with Peyton in the shotgun, so he installed more gun for Brady. The Patriots were the first NFL team to employ the shotgun for more than half of their offensive plays.

Belichick was an early adopter of the 3-4 and the first to go to the hybrid.

Again, that's great to say, but there's no real proof that gets you anywhere closer to your first goal of winning the division every year. New England used draft picks, sure. They also added several big name players via FA or trade (Thomas, Dillon, Moss, Welker, etc.) who contributed to their on-field success. It's not like they drafted a young foundation and won a bunch of championships with those players like the 1990s Cowboys did.

The Patriots built through the draft. The trades for Welker, et al did not occur when the team was in its building phase, nor did they involve high round picks.

[Forever21]

The last ten years in Denver, with Mike having full control of the operation, and an owner who did not interfere -- added to his early moves here -- is sufficient evidence of both his ability and his intent.

I think Mike will satisfy most Redskins fans. I'm harder to please.

You're making two big assumptions here:

1) That Shanahan learned nothing from his last stint as a coach and will not do anything differently this time around. and,

2) That Allen is not at all involved in the decision making.

I don't believe either of those assumptions which is why I'm giving Shanahan more credit than you. Shanahan is obviously a smart coach who turned around a franchise once upon a time.

Shock of shocks once his HoF QB left he didn't do as well. You honestly think Belicheat would do as well over the next 5 years if Brady left? Or how about Reid with Kolb at the helm?

[MassSkinsFan]

What does game theory have to do with the process of reasoning? The question is: Is it possible to create a plan that will optimize the odds of winning now that will, at the same time, maximize the odds of building a Patriot-like run?

It's actually negotiation theory, and it is possible. Now, I don't think the question you pose IS the real question. Substitute this one:

Is it possible to find a way to optimize the potential gains in both win-now and long-term strategies?

That's more like it.

Adding value to one of those areas doesn't automatically lessen value in the other.

Since neither has ever built a elite team in their long careers, it doesn't matter much whether they have been unwilling or unable. They have had ample opportunity before and have failed to do so. So, my position is that they are unlikely to do it for the Skins.

Let's compare Shanny to Belichick, Gibbs and Lombardi:

MS - 16 seasons as HC, .598 pct in regular season, .615 in post-season, 7 post-season runs, 2 SB victories.

BB - 15 seasons as HC, .617 pct in regular season, .750 in post-season, 8 post-season runs, 3 SB victories.

JJG - 16 seasons as HC, .612 pct in regular season, .708 in post-season, 10 post-season runs, 3 SB victories.

VL - 10 seasons as HC, .738 pct in regular season, .900 in post-season, 6 post-season runs, 5 championships (2 SBs)

Sure Shanny ranks below the others but his stats put him in the company of guys like Bill Walsh, Paul Brown, and Bill Cowher, and above such HCs as Chuck Noll, Hank Stram, and Mike Holmgren.

My point is that he has not been an abject failure. In fact he's pretty good.

[Oldfan]

That's pretty unfair. After all, if you're so interested in past performance, Shanahan won back-to-back championships in Denver. One would think that's merely one step short of this "Patriots-like run" you keep mentioning.

If Shanahan had built that team that went to back-to-back, and if it had happened within the last decade, I would give him more credit.

[onedrop]

You mean, other than the fact that they played for the Redskins? None were draft picks.

What point do you think you made here?

You are correct, the Skins drafted none of them yet all are on the list of 70 greatest. The draft is important sure but not to the level you suggest.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Goal-setting guides EVERY decision. If Bruce and Mike wanted to build a Patriot-like winner, then trading for McNabb was a stupid move. I don't think they're stupid. I think their goal is to win now, and the McNabb move was a smart one given that goal.

How would the Redskins have honestly believed they could win the division in 2010 if they hadn't made some of the moves they did (including McNabb)?

Belichick saw the success Tom Moore had with Peyton in the shotgun, so he installed more gun for Brady. The Patriots were the first NFL team to employ the shotgun for more than half of their offensive plays.

Belichick was an early adopter of the 3-4 and the first to go to the hybrid.

So, not innovative, just good at jumping on things that have worked in the NFL in recent history? I would say Shanahan's training camp tour of 2009 might have positioned him to do something similar (and he is also switching to the 3-4/hybrid).

The Patriots built through the draft. The trades for Welker, et al did not occur when the team was in its building phase, nor did they involve high round picks.

The price has nothing to do with it. Your bullet point of trading away veterans for picks would have probably kept you from adding key players such as Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, etc.

Plus, saying they were built through the draft doesn't make it so. Ted Washington, Rodney Harrison, Antowain Smith, etc. are all key players in the early-2000s who weren't drafted by New England. Throw in the guys I listed in my previous post as well, and you have a team that was assembled pretty evenly through the draft, FA, and trades.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If Shanahan had built that team that went to back-to-back, and if it had happened within the last decade, I would give him more credit.

OK, well something has to give. Shanahan took over in 1995 and the team didn't go back-to-back until 1997-1998. This isn't a situation where he inherited a championship-ready team and just Barry Switzer'd to the Super Bowl.

[Peeping Wizard]

FALSE.

They want to lose now and in the future.

[MassSkinsFan]

You are correct, the Skins drafted none of them yet all are on the list of 70 greatest. The draft is important sure but not to the level you suggest.

I crunched numbers on Ring of Fame players, and got this:

58% were drafted by the Skins

42% came through trade or FA

Edge to the draft, but not in a landslide.

I don't have time to do the 70 greatest right now, but it's probably similar or even slightly more even.

[Oldfan]

You're making two big assumptions here:

1) That Shanahan learned nothing from his last stint as a coach and will not do anything differently this time around. and..

If he had made some early moves to indicate that he would not be the same win-now coach he was in Denver, I'd be optimistic.

2) That Allen is not at all involved in the decision making.

I'm assuming that Bruce is involved and that he and Mike are on the same win-now page.

Shock of shocks once his HoF QB left he didn't do as well. You honestly think Belicheat would do as well over the next 5 years if Brady left? Or how about Reid with Kolb at the helm?

The Patriots are not going to be as good as they once were even with Brady. I haven't seen much of Kolb, but I haven't been impressed with Donovan in the last couple of years. I don't think they will miss him much.

[MassSkinsFan]

Plus, saying they were built through the draft doesn't make it so. Ted Washington, Rodney Harrison, Antowain Smith, etc. are all key players in the early-2000s who weren't drafted by New England. Throw in the guys I listed in my previous post as well, and you have a team that was assembled pretty evenly through the draft, FA, and trades.

Not only that, but many of the key players on the first SB team were brought in by Parcells or Carroll, not BB.

[Warhead36]

I think Allen's #1 goal has been to change the culture of the Redskins. For years we've been about big names and big money in FA, style but no substance, hype but no production. Bringing in proven winners like Shanahan and McNabb will change that culture quickly. I would have preferred a mass rebuild instead of acquiring as many veterans as we did, but I can understand why we did it. It's not so much that we want to win now at all costs, but it's that a change in culture was needed so that the future of the franchise is no longer tainted by past mistakes.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The Patriots are not going to be as good as they once were even with Brady. I haven't seen much of Kolb, but I haven't been impressed with Donovan in the last couple of years. I don't think they will miss him much.

The Patriots were a "dominant" team from 2003-2007. In 2001, they were a Cinderella story. Since 2008, they've been good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to do much once there.

So, they were built for about a 5-6 year run. By your admission, they won't be as good moving forward as they once were. Isn't a brilliant 5-year period essentially a win-now mentality?? Granted, they optimized it and won 3 rings in that window, but it's not like many teams load up to "win now" by literally being competitive for 1 or 2 seasons.

[Oldfan]

I crunched numbers on Ring of Fame players, and got this:

58% were drafted by the Skins

42% came through trade or FA

Edge to the draft, but not in a landslide.

I don't have time to do the 70 greatest right now, but it's probably similar or even slightly more even.

Over the years, the Redskins have drafted poorly with one exception: In 1981, Bobby Beathard added seven rookie starters, including three members of the Hogs that would be the foundation of a perennial winner for ten years.

In 2006, I did a study and posted it in this forum. Of the 56 Pro-Bowl players, 53 played for the team that drafted them. Only one was traded for (Champ Bailey) and there were two free agents.

[Oldfan]

Not only that, but many of the key players on the first SB team were brought in by Parcells or Carroll, not BB.

Who were those key players? Seems to me that, besides Brady, the key players were linemen drafted by Belichick.

[Oldfan]

The Patriots were a "dominant" team from 2003-2007. In 2001, they were a Cinderella story. Since 2008, they've been good enough to make the playoffs, but not good enough to do much once there.

So, they were built for about a 5-6 year run. By your admission, they won't be as good moving forward as they once were. Isn't a brilliant 5-year period essentially a win-now mentality?? Granted, they optimized it and won 3 rings in that window, but it's not like many teams load up to "win now" by literally being competitive for 1 or 2 seasons.

The Patriots averaged 11.5 wins for a decade -- 72%

[MassSkinsFan]

Over the years, the Redskins have drafted poorly with one exception: In 1981, Bobby Beathard added seven rookie starters, including three members of the Hogs that would be the foundation of a perennial winner for ten years.

So the draft isn't necessarily the basis for success; one good draft in a sea of mediocre ones is, right?

This is interesting. Again, with limited time, I'm not able to analyze some things I'm curious about. I wanted to look at the Pats draft record during the Belichick era and see how many draftees started, how many were Pro Bowlers, etc. Time wont' let me.

In 2006, I did a study and posted it in this forum. Of the 56 Pro-Bowl players, 53 played for the team that drafted them. Only one was traded for (Champ Bailey) and there were two free agents.

I'd like to extend that to multiple years (perhaps the last ten) just to confirm validity. I suspect you'd see similar numbers. Pretty enlightening fact. Thanks for sharing.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The Patriots averaged 11.5 wins for a decade -- 72%

OK, Shanahan's Broncos averaged 10.6 wins for a decade (1996-2005) -- 67%. What are we debating here?

[Oldfan]

How would the Redskins have honestly believed they could win the division in 2010 if they hadn't made some of the moves they did (including McNabb)?

They don't have a realistic shot at the division title even with him.

So, not innovative, just good at jumping on things that have worked in the NFL in recent history? I would say Shanahan's training camp tour of 2009 might have positioned him to do something similar (and he is also switching to the 3-4/hybrid).

Be the first or an early plagarist. The 3-4 and they hybrid are passe'.

The price has nothing to do with it. Your bullet point of trading away veterans for picks would have probably kept you from adding key players such as Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, etc.

Not true. I did not say that there is never a reason to trade picks for vets.

Plus, saying they were built through the draft doesn't make it so. Ted Washington, Rodney Harrison, Antowain Smith, etc. are all key players in the early-2000s who weren't drafted by New England. Throw in the guys I listed in my previous post as well, and you have a team that was assembled pretty evenly through the draft, FA, and trades.

Belichick and Pioli used every device in the book: trading up, trading down, trading picks, FAs... but the team was built primarily through the draft. Free agents were cheap gap fillers for the most part.

[Oldfan]

OK, Shanahan's Broncos averaged 10.6 wins for a decade (1996-2005) -- 67%. What are we debating here?

I thought we were talking about teams Mike built.

[onedrop]

I crunched numbers on Ring of Fame players, and got this:

58% were drafted by the Skins

42% came through trade or FA

Edge to the draft, but not in a landslide.

I don't have time to do the 70 greatest right now, but it's probably similar or even slightly more even.

Just going through the 70 very quickly I got 33 drafted and 31 aquired otherwise. Obviously I'm missing a few but its pretty close whichever category those end up in.

[Oldfan]

This is interesting. Again, with limited time, I'm not able to analyze some things I'm curious about. I wanted to look at the Pats draft record during the Belichick era and see how many draftees started, how many were Pro Bowlers, etc. Time wont' let me.

From memory -- for the first five or six years, Belichick and Pioli couldn't miss with their early picks, but they came back to earth even before Pioli left the team.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

They don't have a realistic shot at the division title even with him.

Well, if your goal is to win the division every year, you'd have to admit that having McNabb puts you closer to YOUR stated goal, no?

Be the first or an early plagarist. The 3-4 and they hybrid are passe'.

What defensive innovation is out there that you'd select over the 3-4 right now? It might still be the best choice.

Not true. I did not say that there is never a reason to trade picks for vets.

Now all you're doing is retro-fitting conditions into your stated pillars of running a football team.

Belichick and Pioli used every device in the book: trading up, trading down, trading picks, FAs... but the team was built primarily through the draft. Free agents were cheap gap fillers for the most part.

Your goal was to stockpile draft picks and build through the draft. Now it's shifting to using all methods of player acquisition correctly. Well, yeah, that is everyone's goal and not very original. I don't think "gap filler" describes the players we've listed as FA pickups or trades. I believe that 2-3 of their starting OL was either on the team when Bellichick took over or acquired via trade/FA. I think they only drafted 1-2 of the main guys during BB's tenure.

I thought we were talking about teams Mike built.

Again, when does he start getting credit? I started in 1996 (his second year). Why does BB get credit for a 2001 team (his second year) if Shanahan doesn't?