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

[The Tris]

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.

Pardon me for a second,

BUT **** THAT.

Oh, the Cowboys that are 4-3 against us since Romo sits to pee became QB, while we were living through Brunell, Campbell, Zorn and our NO-Line? **** THAT. I don't care who you are, admitting that the Redskins are inferrior to the Cowboys is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. I am sorry, but when the average margain of victory (outside the 27-6 pasting we gave them in 07) in 6 of the past 7 Cowboys games has been less than six points (6!), I give them absolutely no credit for being some superior juggernaut that we are powerless to defeat.

I say again, **** THAT MOTHER****ING ****. Pull yourself together man, we are all tired of losing here, but the day I admit the Cowboys are better than the Redskins is the day I die. If we can beat them with Zorn and Campbell, we can certainly beat them with Shanahan and McNabb. Jesus tapdancing Christ, I thought I'd never see the day.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Pardon me for a second,

BUT **** THAT.

Oh, the Cowboys that are 4-3 against us since Romo sits to pee became QB, while we were living through Brunell, Campbell, Zorn and our NO-Line? **** THAT. I don't care who you are, admitting that the Redskins are inferrior to the Cowboys is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. I am sorry, but when the average margain of victory (outside the 27-6 pasting we gave them in 07) in 6 of the past 7 Cowboys games has been less than six points (6!), I give them absolutely no credit for being some superior juggernaut that we are powerless to defeat.

I say again, **** THAT MOTHER****ING ****. Pull yourself together man, we are all tired of losing here, but the day I admit the Cowboys are better than the Redskins is the day I die. If we can beat them with Zorn and Campbell, we can certainly beat them with Shanahan and McNabb. Jesus tapdancing Christ, I thought I'd never see the day.

We always play them in particular tough cause of the division rivalry.

but pull your head out of your a@@... they are better than us. We might beat them just cause its Redskins vs. Cowboys.. but we were a 4-12 team last year.

need only look at records and playoff appearences for the last 5 years.

I don't like admitting it.. but what u gonna do.

[The Tris]

need only look at records and playoff appearences for the last 5 years.

Oh, like how we have won the same number of playoff games the past 5 years? Is that what you mean?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

yes they are. we wont be able to see the big picture for another few seasons, but we are off to a good start. two more drafts and we should be seeing a nice influx of youth into this roster.

my only concern down the road is still QB. mcnabb is great for now, but that wont last too long and we still need that young stud to carry us for the next decade.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

BLC, I'd admit that acquiring McNabb essentially just punted the inevitable decision on a young QB.

[RandyHolt]

of course its true. but they are obviously taking the approach of winning now.

Its the Dan Snyder way. If he interviews you, say yes to win now, and you get the job. Experience not needed.

[Oldfan]

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).

Kyle doesn't have a scheme. He ran Kubiak's which is not like Mike's mobile passing game with Schaub running it.

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.

So, you are saying then that McNabb would fit Kubiak's scheme? Do you see Schaub and McNabb as having the same skillsets? If you agree they are dissimilar, you can't be right.

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

Well, of course you can. But if you don't have a QB who fits well, and who isn't outstanding (Jason), you replace him with one who does (Donovan).

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.

Quote me. Where did I say that?

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.

Brady, Manning and Schaub are pocket passers. You don't plan to move them often.

[dcdiscokid]

I think the FO is trying to do both. Most of there moves have been about the future. Like getting DM5 instead of reaching for clausen or mortgaging the farm to get bradford. They basically bought time to get the quarterback they want and still be able to win games now. Also all the vets we are brining in here will help the FO change the culture out at the park. Which is building for the future. We have 6 Draft picks next year and 14 over the next 2 years, so we are in good shape for going forward. Plus next year there will be a ton of young free agents that will help us get younger. This was not the year to be able to do that. I believe the front office is making the right decisions here, we should be trying to win now to the best of our ability, otherwise what's the point of even going to the ballpark.

[Oldfan]

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.

Personal attack instead of on-topic debate.

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.

Why do you feel you have a right to be so demanding?

[Oldfan]

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.

The last one requires the least research and the results will be so one-sided in Belichick's favor that other stats will seem pointless.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

BLC, I'd admit that acquiring McNabb essentially just punted the inevitable decision on a young QB.

definitely did. but shoring up the tackles and getting mcnabb says they want to compete now. finding skill positions isnt tough if you have a good QB. mcnabb will be here for a few years while we build up around him, then hopefully we find that QB of the future. but mcnabb should help our young receivers and help our oline with his quick release.

i expect us to just make sure the oline is ok then plug in some fast runningback. RB is such an easy position to fill, especially nowadays.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Personal attack instead of on-topic debate.

I didn't mean that as an attack. I respect your thought-out posts, I just disagree with your opinions. In my opinion, this whole thread has consisted of you essentially stating that Shanahan will "fail" but not really describing who would do better or what a coach would have to do to "succeed" here.

Why do you feel you have a right to be so demanding?

This is my point. It isn't about what I have the right to demand. I'm just curious what would you consider a success over the next 5 years. That way, if our current regime somehow attains it, you'd have to tip your cap. It's always easy, in hindsight, to say "x would have done better" if you don't quantify success up front.

[Oldfan]

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

That's another distortion of my position.

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.

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

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.

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

I am curious OF, if not the Shanahan/Allen combo, who should we have hired?

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.

[MassSkinsFan]

With what picks?

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

I've read recently in several places that we have 6 picks next year. Is that wrong?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

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.

You know, I can't really knock you for this. I disagree with you and don't rely so heavily on how things turned out in their pasts...but to each his own. I hope the combination of Allen and a refreshed Shanahan gives us something closer to the 1997-1998 Broncos...

[Oldfan]

I didn't mean that as an attack. I respect your thought-out posts, I just disagree with your opinions. In my opinion, this whole thread has consisted of you essentially stating that Shanahan will "fail" but not really describing who would do better or what a coach would have to do to "succeed" here.

My position in this thread was an answer to the question posed in the OP. Those other points you'd like me to discuss are not relevant.

This is my point. It isn't about what I have the right to demand. I'm just curious what would you consider a success over the next 5 years. That way, if our current regime somehow attains it, you'd have to tip your cap. It's always easy, in hindsight, to say "x would have done better" if you don't quantify success up front.

I consider the Patriots success in the salary cap era as realistically attainable. I'll give Mike a pass for this year, but he should average between 11 and 12 regular season wins over the next four years with a winning record in the playoffs. The Pats did it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I consider the Patriots success in the salary cap era as realistically attainable. I'll give Mike a pass for this year, but he should average between 11 and 12 regular season wins over the next four years with a winning record in the playoffs. The Pats did it.

I see. I could certainly see us falling short of those goals. We'll see...I'm hoping for the best.

[MassSkinsFan]

The last one requires the least research and the results will be so one-sided in Belichick's favor that other stats will seem pointless.

It's also probably the least indicative of GM efficacy.

[Oldfan]

It's also probably the least indicative of GM efficacy.

IMO, where the coach is pulling all the strings, as with Shanahan and Belichick, it's the best indicator.

[MassSkinsFan]

My position in this thread was an answer to the question posed in the OP.

The original question speaks to intent. Based on your response it seems you think Shanahan and Allen do not intend to plan for the future. Is that right?

One aspect of that argument seems to be the notion that there is no way to do both things.

I offer you the 2000-2007 Patriots as proof that you can do both things. Belichick made several win-now moves during 2000 and 2001 followed by other subsequent moves to adjust the winning scheme.

So, that moves us to the other part of the argument - past performance. Though it is still not fully quantified, it does appear that Shanahan and Allen have performed less effectively than Belichick (but interestingly, better than some other FOs that are thought of highly due to their ability to win SBs). What is unknown is whether they can make adjustments to improve performance. Again I think this speaks to intent.

So do you think they will not assess their shortcomings and make adjustments to try to improve? If so, why not? And please don't say "past performance."

[Oldfan]

I see. I could certainly see us falling short of those goals. We'll see...I'm hoping for the best.

I consider myself to be a well-informed NFL fan. There's a downside to that.

While other fans can enjoy a team that is simply competitive -- winning more games than they're losing -- I can't do it if I know that the coaching staff has achieved it's results by giving up on the goal of being the best football team in the game.

[MassSkinsFan]

IMO, where the coach is pulling all the strings, as with Shanahan and Belichick, it's the best indicator.

It's too intertwined with inherited rosters IMO.

The other three link directly to player performance of guys they acquired v. guys they inherited.

[redskindan07]

I've read recently in several places that we have 6 picks next year. Is that wrong?

Washington has six picks left in the 2011 draft

[Oldfan]

The original question speaks to intent. Based on your response it seems you think Shanahan and Allen do not intend to plan for the future. Is that right?

That's right.

One aspect of that argument seems to be the notion that there is no way to do both things.

That's my position, yes.

I offer you the 2000-2007 Patriots as proof that you can do both things. Belichick made several win-now moves during 2000 and 2001 followed by other subsequent moves to adjust the winning scheme.

Some win-now moves do not conflict with the long-term goal. Belichick has always used cheap free agents as gap fillers, for example. However, when offered a first-round pick for Richard Seymour, it was Adios, Richard.

So, that moves us to the other part of the argument - past performance. Though it is still not fully quantified, it does appear that Shanahan and Allen have performed less effectively than Belichick (but interestingly, better than some other FOs that are thought of highly due to their ability to win SBs). What is unknown is whether they can make adjustments to improve performance. Again I think this speaks to intent.

So do you think they will not assess their shortcomings and make adjustments to try to improve? If so, why not? And please don't say "past performance."

Based on the (prohibited phrase) and their Skins moves so far, there is no indication of a new tricks for old dogs, Bruce and Mike.

[darrelgreenie]

Kyle doesn't have a scheme. He ran Kubiak's which is not like Mike's mobile passing game with Schaub running it.

Kyle doesn't have a scheme?

-Disagree, and i think most of the league would too.

Kubiak's scheme is not like Mike's scheme?

-Disagree, see above

Also, I like how you completely disregard the fact that Kubiak was Mike's OC in Denver?

So, you are saying then that McNabb would fit Kubiak's scheme?

Yes, because their schemes are all from the same direct tree, Kubiak's scheme is similar to both Mike and Kyles

...but i agree that McNabb certainly fits both Mike and Kyle's schemes, I never said that McNabb didn't.

Do you see Schaub and McNabb as having the same skillsets? If you agree they are dissimilar, you can't be right.

They have some similarities and some differences; McNabb has a better arm and is more mobile Schaub may be a but more accurate. But, just because 2 QB don't have the exact same skill sets doesn't mean that both cannot successfully operate under the same coach in the same offense.

Quote me. Where did I say that?

Since you asked so nicely:

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.

Well, of course you can. But if you don't have a QB who fits well, and who isn't outstanding (Jason), you replace him with one who does (Donovan).

What does Jason have to do with this discussion here?

Where you're asserting that Brady and Manning couldn't run Mike Shanahan's offense?

Remember?

I know you're arguing with like 100 people here but just a re-fresher on what you said:

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.

If you don't think Mike Shanahan could tailor an offense around Brady and Manning then we have very different opinions about Shanahan's ability to coach.

Brady, Manning and Schaub are pocket passers. You don't plan to move them often.

Again, 1) i think you underestimating Brady's ability to move and even Mannings.

2) If Shanahan is going to tailor his offense around Brady or Manning don't you think he would realize this?

3) Have you seen any Texans games?

B/c if you have you would see that movement was a key element in Kyle's offense and that's despite the fact that, Schaub isn't a particularly mobile QB.