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

[Loco Bob]

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.

If Mike tailors his offense to the QB, he has the wrong OC. You should know that the Eagles led the league last year in TDs on four plays or less. That is not WCO. Donovan goes down field. That is his game. His glaring weakness is the short to intermediate throws, the basis of WCO. Don't believe anything Mike says.

I'm looking forward to finding our QB of the future, prior to drafting McNabb is was hoping for Colt McCoy/Tebow in the 2nd/3rd rounds.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

How is it that every single person involved with the Broncos from 1983 (Reeves) to 1998 (Beake) had some credit in building a successful roster, with the exception of Mike Shanahan?

Please, explain how literally everyone but Shanahan is responsible for building the team. As if he made no personnel decisions until he had VP added to his business card in 1999.

OF, this is what I'm talking about when I say your assumptions are blown out of the water.

You're giving Shanahan no credit since he inherited pieces of a championship team before fine-tuning it for 3 years and winning back-to-back titles. However, you give Belichick full credit for winning a championship in year 2 despite having roughly the same number of pieces in place when he took over.

You're assigning different standards when evaluating the two men. Everything you spin and massage in that effort is tainted. Anytime a coach takes over a team, he'll inherit some pieces. No one is going to gut a roster and replace all 53 players...so it gets very tough to discern these things.

The fact is that Shanahan took over, made plenty of roster moves between 1995 and 1997 (as TT detailed a few pages ago), and then Denver won two Super Bowls on his watch. I would think that most people without an agenda would consider that pretty comparable (albeit not as impressive) as what Belichick did between 2001 and 2004.

If Shanahan could replicate that success in DC, every single Redskin fan who has sat through almost 2 decades of losing should rejoice...not wonder why we aren't re-creating the New England Patriots of the early 2000s.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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. So, the QB position in his scheme has more value than it does in other schemes. It is also going to be harder to find a really good one in the draft.

I agree with everything but your last line. Couldn't you say that it might be easier to fill this position since we might be looking for something slightly different than some teams (not a classic, drop-back QB)? We might find that, even though there are fewer guys who could perform well as his QB, they might be more available if most teams desire a Manning/Brady.

[Oldfan]

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.

Did you hear Mike say that Donovan McNabb was brought here because he fit Mike's scheme? He does. Kyle didn't run HIS scheme in Texas. He ran Kubiak's scheme which is not at all like Mike's. 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.

[Oldfan]

I agree with everything but your last line. Couldn't you say that it might be easier to fill this position since we might be looking for something slightly different than some teams (not a classic, drop-back QB)? We might find that, even though there are fewer guys who could perform well as his QB, they might be more available if most teams desire a Manning/Brady.

I see your point, but we're talking about a rare player who is unlikely to escape notice at the college level. Stafford and Cutler are the only two I can think of in the past five or six years -- and it took a number one pick to land them.

EDIT: I forgot about Romo sits to pee. He would fit Mike's offense.

[Oldfan]

OF, this is what I'm talking about when I say your assumptions are blown out of the water.

You're giving Shanahan no credit since he inherited pieces of a championship team before fine-tuning it for 3 years and winning back-to-back titles. However, you give Belichick full credit for winning a championship in year 2 despite having roughly the same number of pieces in place when he took over.

You're assigning different standards when evaluating the two men.

No, I'm not assigning different standards. You don't seem to be able to stay on point. Where did you get the idea that Belichick's championship in 2001 was a related issue?

The issue on the table has to do with roster- building.

I'm not inclined to give Mike credit for building a roster in 1997 and 1998 when he was not in charge of building those rosters. He later replaced the man who was.

As for Belichick, it doesn't matter whether the 2001 championship team had lots of players left over from the 8-win team Bill inherited. The point is that he built a roster capable of winning 112 games over the next ten seasons.

[Dukes and Skins]

This is an easy answer, simply put Bruce and Mike are using the idea of win now to help them acquire players that they feel can immediately improve the team but not at the expense of giving up the entire farm

When you look at the McNabb trade yes it was for 2 picks but those 2 picks could of been busts or they could end up being perennial pro bowl players we will never know but that is the gamble you take with the trade, but at the same time you acquire a top 10 QB in the game who will instantly improve the offense

With the Brown trade you bolster the weak part of your team last year with a pro bowl player who up until last year was a very durable player for the Saints.

The thing to look at though is that Bruce and Mike are now allowing themselves to follow the Vinny Cerrato trend of trade the farm for a player. They are using smart acquisitions to help the team win now and in the future as well.

[addicted]

No, I'm not assigning different standards. You don't seem to be able to stay on point. Where did you get the idea that Belichick's championship in 2001 was a related issue?

The issue on the table has to do with roster- building.

As for Belichick, it doesn't matter whether the 2001 championship team had lots of players left over from the 8-win team Bill inherited. The point is that he built a roster capable of winning 112 games over the next ten seasons.

Fact - The Patriots are suspected of cheating when they won those games and championships. You can win a lot of games cheating. You can look past Spygate if you want but after the news was revealed they might be cheating how many titles did they win - ZERO

Fact - The Patriots used plenty of Veterans to win those games. They did not win those games with just draft picks like you want to spin. They were consistently able to lure very good players who wanted to win a championship to there team before retiring for much cheaper cap friendly contracts in the salary cap age then other teams. They used the belief they were going to the Superbowl every year better then any other team in that decade and that involved older aged players, not draft picks. If you try and say that the 2000-2010 Patriots didn't mix together teams of win now and build for the future players like the OP asked then your wrong. Since you are a Patriots fan you should know this better then most.

Fact - They struck gold when he drafted Tom Brady. No one in that organization knew or even thought when they drafted him in the 6th round he'd be able to go on to win 3 titles and lose another when they picked him in the 6th round. They got lucky with that pick, it wasn't anything more then dumb luck. If they thought he was that good he doesn't get drafted that late. They found lightening in a bottle. Look at Belichecks history prior to landing Brady, it's dismal. He got lucky once.

Fact - They play in a devision with some of the worst teams in it this past decade - Buffalo Bills, Miami Dolphins, and New York Jets - Even we would have won many more games playing 6 times a year against those crappy teams. The won lost record they sport over the past 10 years wasn't done in a division like ours with every team competing. While they still needed to win those games to have the best record for the decade they had a lot of help doing it with the play of those inept teams.

I'm not inclined to give Mike credit for building a roster in 1997 and 1998 when he was not in charge of building those rosters. He later replaced the man who was.

Fact - The only thing we have today is today. The past is gone. The man is starting over and regardless of what you want to believe he needs to be judged by what he does here in DC. The days of Denver are long over and every Redskin fan should be rooting for him to succeed not wishing or believing the mans a failure. He won those championships a long time ago and would not have come back to the game after taking a year off without the hunger to win again. I find it depressing that someone with as much knowledge as you possess can't seem to understand that it's better to go into this with an open mind then a closed one and actually find some silver lining of hope for this depressed team which hasn't done crap in 20 years. If you don't see that we are a much better team today then the sorry excuse of a team we ended last season with then really why bother even posting here? Is your purpose simply to depress those of us around here holding onto some hope that we might return to greatness because you take some pleasure in making people think you are right and want others to be pessimistic like you are? It's one thing to have some normal skepticism about the teams future, it's another to be down right depressing about the season when it's not even preseason yet. Take a chill pill or go watch some Patriot games and be happy.

I'll shut up for another 50 posts by Oldfan for now. I'm sure they are coming, when he squats on a thread and he can suck up to the Patriots he's usually here a very long time. Have at it

[darrelgreenie]

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.

Did you hear Mike say that Donovan McNabb was brought here because he fit Mike's scheme? He does. Kyle didn't run HIS scheme in Texas. He ran Kubiak's scheme which is not at all like Mike's.

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).

Having read Mike's book, if you look at Texans offense the philosophical similarities between Kyle and Mike are evident as are more concrete similarities like moving the pocket and the QB.

Did you hear Mike say that Donovan McNabb was brought here because he fit Mike's scheme? He does

Actually no i didn't, but i agree that McNabb certainly fits both Mike and Kyle's schemes, I never said that McNabb didn't.

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.

As i said in my first post one of the 1st things that Mike Shanahan said was that a good coach design the offense are the strengths of the player.

'....i think you can always tailor an offense towards the talents of your QB...'-Mike Shanahan

While you find it laughable to see Brady or Manning trying to run around as much as Cutler i find it more laughable that you would think that a coach of Shanahan's ability would have Brady/Manning running around like Cutler.

Also, i think you're underestimating Brady's ability to move around.

Imo Brady is everybit as athletic as Schaub regularly did semi-roll outs and bootlegs and other movement/action passes which are a staple of both Mike and Kyle's offenses.

[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.

As for "flashes of greatness when building a roster," I don't think that roster-building is about flashes. It's about being consistently successful and hitting at a high average.

So Beathard didn't make you happy either? :evilg:

I probably won't have time today to go back and pull together numbers, but now that you've highlighted the need to examine how Shanny's FO moves compare to BB's, it might be worthwhile settling on some stats to find and review.

How about these?

• Number of Pro Bowl appearances by their respective acquisitions while playing for their teams (e.g. Broncs/Pats)
  
• % of their acquisitions who started (based on O, D, KR, PR, K, P) in each season
  
• % of their acquisitions who did not start or busted in each season
  
• Record, playoff record, SB wins beginning 2 years after they assumed control
  

These are just ideas off the top of my head. Anyone who wants to add or run with them, feel free.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This debate is getting stale...it's full of people supplying facts and very good points and OldFan simply replying "it's not good enough for me" or something.

So, OF, my question to you is what outcome of the Shanahan tenure would satisfy you? Don't say "to be the Pats of the 2000s"...I want you to quantify it (average wins per season, playoff appearances, division championships, conference championships, league championships, etc.) assuming that MS coaches for 5 years.

[GaryGreenMonk]

False.

Where will we be in 4-5 years if we don't win in the next 4 seasons?

We'll be without Brown, without Hicks, without Portis, without Moss, without LJ, possibly without McNabb, without Rabach, without Fletcher, etc...

who will we have in 5 seasons from now...? who is young on our team that will develop and be a prime player by then?

Orakpo, Trent Williams (maybe) .. that's it. Unless you want throw Landry in there.. but I bet you'll get flamed from a lot of people for doing that. Thomas and Kelly are huge question marks.. but even if you add one of them.. that's 3 payers. We only have 3 young developing guys that will be prime in 3-4 years.

we are not built to win later.

[The Tris]

So, OF, my question to you is what outcome of the Shanahan tenure would satisfy you? Don't say "to be the Pats of the 2000s"...I want you to quantify it (average wins per season, playoff appearances, division championships, conference championships, league championships, etc.) assuming that MS coaches for 5 years.

The problem is that OF is already resigned to failure by Shanny based on him having final say on roster moves.

No matter what team building strategy he employed, he would be wrong, based on his past performance in Denver from 1999 to 2008, when he was awarded VP of Football Ops. Since he was "high-end mediocre" at points in his career, he will be "high-end mediocre" here.

Granted, there is history of Shanahan's short comings as a GM, however, to disgard the possibility that a completely new front office combination of Shanahan and Allen, with input for Kyle Shanahan on offense and Haslett on defense, could be successful is inherently pessimistic.

I am curious OF, if not the Shanahan/Allen combo, who should we have hired? If they are not the idea group to build this team for the next decade (with the idea that Kyle Shanahan is a coach in waiting), then who? I certainly didn't see a long line of people eager to take on the dumpster fire that was the 2009 Redskins.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

False.

Where will we be in 4-5 years if we don't win in the next 4 seasons?

We'll be without Brown, without Hicks, without Portis, without Moss, without LJ, possibly without McNabb, without Rabach, without Fletcher, etc...

who will we have in 5 seasons from now...? who is young on our team that will develop and be a prime player by then?

Orakpo, Trent Williams (maybe) .. that's it. Unless you want throw Landry in there.. but I bet you'll get flamed from a lot of people for doing that. Thomas and Kelly are huge question marks.. but even if you add one of them.. that's 3 payers. We only have 3 young developing guys that will be prime in 3-4 years.

we are not built to win later.

What team is built for 5 years from now?? The only position for which that type of projection is even reasonable is QB. So, you could say that the teams who have recently added a young QB are set at QB in 2015...otherwise, that's a pretty ridiculous point to make. Almost every RB who is projected to start in 2010 is a MAJOR question mark 5 years from now!

[Dukes and Skins]

False.

Where will we be in 4-5 years if we don't win in the next 4 seasons?

We'll be without Brown, without Hicks, without Portis, without Moss, without LJ, possibly without McNabb, without Rabach, without Fletcher, etc...

who will we have in 5 seasons from now...? who is young on our team that will develop and be a prime player by then?

Orakpo, Trent Williams (maybe) .. that's it. Unless you want throw Landry in there.. but I bet you'll get flamed from a lot of people for doing that. Thomas and Kelly are huge question marks.. but even if you add one of them.. that's 3 payers. We only have 3 young developing guys that will be prime in 3-4 years.

we are not built to win later.

While I can see you point here also look at it this way, you are basing a lot of your point off of one single offseason where they pretty much spent the beginning purging the team with releasing players. Yes LJ is not the youngest person but up until about 2 or 3 years in KC he wasn't taking much of a beating at RB, so he's got pretty fresh legs for his age, so he could still be around we don't know, we can only presume and wonder. Yes the older guys will be gone but you have to think that Mike and Bruce will realize that and add players through the draft. If Mike and Bruce were so hell bent on winning now then they would be like Bruce's father George and trade every first round pick for a veteran. We aren't seeing that though because they are willing to hold onto the high picks and the later picks.

Don't get me wrong I can see your point yes we'll be without a lot of veterans but also we are going to (hopefully) keep infusing young players into our system with the draft so it's not like we are just in a win now and nothing else will matter down the road

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I am curious OF, if not the Shanahan/Allen combo, who should we have hired? If they are not the idea group to build this team for the next decade (with the idea that Kyle Shanahan is a coach in waiting), then who? I certainly didn't see a long line of people eager to take on the dumpster fire that was the 2009 Redskins.

That's the thing...he's already said he doesn't know who it would be. He just knows it's not Shanahan. That's fine to have that opinion, but he just states he wants the mythical people who would create the next Patriots' dynasty. There's not even a guarantee the 2010s (or whatever you call this next decade) will have a dynastic team.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Yes the older guys will be gone but you have to think that Mike and Bruce will realize that and add players through the draft.

With what picks?

we already gave away all but 2 picks next year..

[The Tris]

Orakpo, Trent Williams (maybe) .. that's it. Unless you want throw Landry in there.. but I bet you'll get flamed from a lot of people for doing that. Thomas and Kelly are huge question marks.. but even if you add one of them.. that's 3 payers. We only have 3 young developing guys that will be prime in 3-4 years.

I guess you are assuming that no non-starter will develop between now and then? And that you disregard several players.

Further more, how many NFL teams have quality starters now, and proven depth for the future? You act like everyone else is 2 deep with pro bowl talent.

By my count, four years from now we will have a starting T (Williams), 2 TE (Cooley, Davis), OLB (Orakpo), MLB (McIntosh), CB (Hall), SS (Landry), FS (Doughty). Eight starters under 31 in 2014. EDIT: Cooley would be 32.

And that assumes that no back ups (RT (Capers), 2 WR (Thomas, Kelly), OLB (Jarmon), MLB (Riley), 2nd CB (Barnes or Tryon), RB (Torain, Willaims), SS (Horton), FS (Moore)) develop into starters.

By contrast, I put the Cowboys at QB (Romo sits to pee), TE (Witten), WR (Austin), 2 RB (Jones, Choice), DE (Spears), 2 OLB (Spencer, Ware), maybe CB (Jenkins). Nine proven starters under 31 in 2014.

Please, find me the team that is built for the 2014 Super Bowl today.

[GaryGreenMonk]

What team is built for 5 years from now?? The only position for which that type of projection is even reasonable is QB. So, you could say that the teams who have recently added a young QB are set at QB in 2015...otherwise, that's a pretty ridiculous point to make. Almost every RB who is projected to start in 2010 is a MAJOR question mark 5 years from now!

The Eagles.

The eagles will have a crap ton of players in their prime in 5 years, including their RB.

And there are others like them.

The Eagles are one of the youngest teams in the league. And they have a young Kolb, DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Jeremy Maclin, and 19.. yes 19 Rookies on their current Roster.

[Dukes and Skins]

With what picks?

we already gave away all but 2 picks next year..

We have to look at it as a gradual process. Yes we all want to see results now but what will make this team different is that in 3 or 4 years if we have infused talent into our team from the draft. All teams are going to trade picks for some players in some way. Even the Patriots trade picks for players, but they also infuse talent through the draft and that is what I believe Bruce and Mike are trying to do with this team. Win now but don't ruin the future is the approach and one that many teams take

[The Tris]

The Eagles.

The eagles will have a crap ton of players in their prime in 5 years, including their RB.

And there are others like them.

The Eagles are one of the youngest teams in the league. And they have a young Kolb, DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Jeremy Maclin, and 19.. yes 19 Rookies on their current Roster.

Yeah, the eagles have a fantastic offensive core for the future...but you are talking about the statistical outlier of the whole NFL. The majority of the league is not like the Eagles, and they will look a lot different if Kolb isn't what everyone assumes he will be.

You do know that we currently have 15...yes 15 rookies on our current roster?

And we have 6 picks next year before supplimentals are awarded. But keep saying the sky is falling without going outside to check the weather.

[GaryGreenMonk]

You do know that we currently have 15...yes 15 rookies on our current roster?

sure...

but most of ours came from undrafted, practice teams, or late rounds.

7 of the Eagles rookies were picked Round 3 or under.

[The Tris]

sure...

but most of ours came from undrafted, practice teams, or late rounds.

7 of the Eagles rookies were picked Round 3 or under.

?

They had a 1, 2, and a 3 in the top three rounds.

I mean, what exactly do you want us to do? Trade every decent player we have for draft picks? Start 22 rookies?

We tried to trade down from 4, but no one wanted it. We have been hamstrung by Cerrato and Gibbs personnel mismanagement, and made the best we could have out of a crap hand.

Please, all these people with all the answers, let me know what we should have done.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The Eagles.

The eagles will have a crap ton of players in their prime in 5 years, including their RB.

And there are others like them.

The Eagles are one of the youngest teams in the league. And they have a young Kolb, DeSean Jackson, Brent Celek, LeSean McCoy, Jeremy Maclin, and 19.. yes 19 Rookies on their current Roster.

They have a nucleus, but are not the rule, they are the exception. Plus, Kolb is young, but still quite unproven. If he pans out, sure, they are set. Same with McCoy...he's good...but banking on a RB 5 years out is silly in the NFL.

[GaryGreenMonk]

?

They had a 1, 2, and a 3 in the top three rounds.

I mean, what exactly do you want us to do? Trade every decent player we have for draft picks? Start 22 rookies?

We tried to trade down from 4, but no one wanted it. We have been hamstrung by Cerrato and Gibbs personnel mismanagement, and made the best we could have out of a crap hand.

Please, all these people with all the answers, let me know what we should have done.

I appologize, it was the 4th round they had 4 picks. So they have 7 guys in the first 4 rounds.

Yeah.. i agree we got dealt a crappy hand. Which is why i think the choice was do what you can to win now. There is no building for the future going on.

Which was the point of the original post right? building for the future and win now.

We are not doing anything to build for the future at the moment. Except using our #1 pick.

The Cowboys only compare to us at the moment as far as the future because they used all their top picks and are built for this year and the next few to be THE YEARS. And they are obviously better than us,.. everyone on that team has played together for years now.. they have their problems. But out fo the gate.. they will be better than us.

The Eagles and Giants are building for the future at the moment.. and as of now.. will obviously be better than us in 3-4 years. And even probably better than us now.

This is why we are constantly at the bottom of the barrel in this division.

IMO.. we really do have no choice but to suck for a few years.. stockpile draft picks and just start over... otherwise we are stuck in the constant vortex of suck.

We'll see what Shanny can do this year.. but we are in a tough division with a tough schedule.