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

[Oldfan]

It's too intertwined with inherited rosters IMO.

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

Since both inherited teams with 7-8 wins in the previous years, can't we just assume there could not be a huge disparity in the quality of the players they inherited?

[addicted]

This message is hidden because Oldfan is on your ignore list.

Man that feels good Don't listen to that fool, he's full of it and you really shouldn't argue with someone who's only going to say "I think therefore it is"....stop the maddness people. If he was a Redskins fan with so little hope for the team then why would he care to post this nonsense? He's a Pats fan in real life. Forget it. He's playing with you all

[darrelgreenie]

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

Not neccesarily many teams like to groom their QB of the future behind an already established system and QB ala Aaron Rodgers, Kevin Kolb etc.

[MassSkinsFan]

Some win-now moves do not conflict with the long-term goal.

This supports my outlook that it's an n-sum situation. I'd say the McNabb trade, though on its face a win-now move, is actually a "both" move since it upgrades the player at the position, provides a leadership boost, puts in place a potential mentor for a new QB prospect, and buys us time to either develop that guy or acquire him.

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.

I knew that would happen.

I think it's still too early for assessment of moves so far. It's been how many months now - 3.5?

Let's review periodically so one of us can gloat. :party:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Not neccesarily many teams like to groom their QB of the future behind an already established system and QB ala Aaron Rodgers, Kevin Kolb etc.

Well, they punted it down the road by a year, at least. Instead of trading up for Bradford or selecting Tebow/Clausen/McCoy, they let it slide.

I wasn't saying that as a good or a bad thing...just that, had they not acquired McNabb, they most likely would be grooming that QB starting now.

[MassSkinsFan]

Since both inherited teams with 7-8 wins in the previous years, can't we just assume there could not be a huge disparity in the quality of the players they inherited?

Hmmm. We could, but as you move into the tenured period, the proportion of inherited players could arguably make a difference. If my team is 75% guys I inherited and your team is 50% guys you inherited, then your team better represents your work as GM, right?

Sadly I have to hop out now - wish I could puzzle it out more.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Washington has six picks left in the 2011 draft

aren't two of those conditional that we could give up?

for Brown and another late pick from McNabb?

[onedrop]

Well, they punted it down the road by a year, at least. Instead of trading up for Bradford or selecting Tebow/Clausen/McCoy, they let it slide.

I wasn't saying that as a good or a bad thing...just that, had they not acquired McNabb, they most likely would be grooming that QB starting now.

Wouldn't that have left Grossman as the "mentor"? Plus the cult of colt would have experienced the largest group brain aneurism in history.

[Oldfan]

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?

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

Kyle Shanahan ran what Kubiak told him to run. If you want to call that "Kyle's scheme," go right ahead. And if you prefer to think that Matt Schaub is running the same scheme that Mike Shanahan ran in Denver with all those mobile QBs, don't let me stop you.

As for Brady and Manning's mobility -- if you would describe them as mobile QBs, then we are looking at a different game.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Wouldn't that have left Grossman as the "mentor"? Plus the cult of colt would have experienced the largest group brain aneurism in history.

I suppose...but I don't understand the point. All I'm saying is that they acquired McNabb and thus punted the decision on who would be the next long-term QB for the Redskins. Don't take it out of context, I'm not classifying it as a bad move, just a move that delayed a very crucial long-term decision they'll eventually have to make.

[onedrop]

I suppose...but I don't understand the point. All I'm saying is that they acquired McNabb and thus punted the decision on who would be the next long-term QB for the Redskins. Don't take it out of context, I'm not classifying it as a bad move, just a move that delayed a very crucial long-term decision they'll eventually have to make.

I'm not being argumentative. Just an observation that had we gone with drafting a qb we'd have had no one to mentor him. Assuming of course that we stood pat at the qb position.

You're right getting McNabb does delay the inevitable. Going this route does enable us to see more of the rookies and other young qbs already in the NFL (potential trades/FAs for next year), further scout incoming seniors we may want to draft, allowed us to spend our best pick on a lineman and lets Colt watch a true veteran top level qb.

I tend to support the decisions the FO makes until proven to be bad moves. I think Shanny and Bruce chose the path with the most upside, least risk, while still leaving some options for next year.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I like the move too...I'm much more comfortable acquiring this future QB while McNabb is our starter.

[pjfootballer]

Win now is better than win never. Our team was dysfunctional, disenfranchised, and unmotivated (or perhaps too medium). The Shanny's are in the process of rebuilding the team from the ground up - installing incentives, motivation and the discipline to reshape the mentality of this team. We NEEDED a leader on the field that could inspire the team. We NEEDED the offseason discipline. We NEED to win, we need to believe that we can win. We need to HATE losing.

If we took a long term/rebuilding approach, why would the players give it their all next year? It would be a waste of effort. It was crucial that we turn this boat around NOW. Clearly the offense needed retooling, but why the D? Because it was outdated. We need the flexibility of being able to alternate depending on if we expect a pass our play. 3-4, 4-3 whatever. As long as nobody knows what we're going to do or can game plan against us. We were too PREDICTABLE, last year.

Good post. The number one thing the Shanny's and Allen are doing is changing the mentality of the franchise from the ground up. They needed to rid the franchise from the culture of losing. We've had that culture for too long. The attitude adjustment will go a long way with players like Portis, Moss and some of the older vets who have know nothing but losing. CP proved it last year even before he had his concussion, that he...just...didn't care.

[pjfootballer]

Our 82 SB team was pretty young, but the 87 and 91 teams were veteran teams. Age means nothing if the guys can play. And we don't always need superstars at every position. Most of Gibbs teams were Plan B free agent retreads. If every guy knows his role and accepts it, the team is very successful. That's how the Patriots have won as a team and what Shanahan is preaching to the team now.

[pjfootballer]

This is about the man who is building the team.

Mark Bulger was drafted by the Saints in the same round as Brady. Had the Saints drafted Brady, and the Patriots Bulger, Mark Bulger would be positioned now as a first-round HOF candidate when he retires.

The NFL isn't all about the QB.

I thought the Rams drafted Bulger.

I'm not sure that anyone will necessarily replace the Patriots. Also, if a team does, I'm not sure just using Shanahan's numbers in Denver automatically rule out a Shanahan-led team. I know it's a cliche example these days, but if that were the case, Bellichick would have never had a shot in NE based on what he did in Cleveland.

Shanahan dominated for a while in Denver and is now coupled with a competent GM and an owner with seemingly unlimited resources. There's no reason to think this team can't compete in the long-term.

Good points. Gibbs ran into that in 1992-93. The team was getting old and he got 12 good years out of the roster. The Broncos were at the end of the Elway era, Rod Smith was aging and Terrell Davis had injuries. I thought Shanahan did a good job of keeping them competitive despite his losing his top 3 players. Sometimes you get stale in one place and change is good.

It's odd isn't it. We have 14 draft picks over the next two seasons, and people act like we've mortgaged the future.

7 Rounds in a draft, 2 drafts... 7 x 2 = 14

You know most Americans have bad math skills.

[pjfootballer]

Well, yes, you can. You just can't do either well.

Every roster decision will be a choice. Should we trade two picks for Donovan McNabb? If win-now is your objective, the answer is YES. If you are planning for a future Patriot-like run, the answer is NO.

The Lions, Browns, Rams and Chiefs have been trying to draft at the top of the draft for that "Patriot-like" run for years. It hasn't worked out for them. The Patriot-like run was due to Belichick and Brady and nobody else.

[pjfootballer]

I can't be specific about roster moves because I lack the expertise, but I'll give you the general idea of how I'd act in Dan Snyder's shoes.

-- The team's goal would be to win our division every year; I'd consider wild-card berths an off-year.

-- I'd look for coaches with the brainpower and guts to create innovative schemes on offense and defense. This gives the competition problems in game planning, and even more importantly, it means that our scouts could look for players with skillsets that the 31 other teams are overlooking.

-- I'd keep veto power over every transaction, but would use it only in cases that clearly not aligned with our plan.

-- I'd be trading veterans near the end of the string (like McNabb) for draft picks.

Other than that last point, that sounds exactly like what our current team is doing. You just described a win now mentality.

[Oldfan]

The Lions, Browns, Rams and Chiefs have been trying to draft at the top of the draft for that "Patriot-like" run for years. It hasn't worked out for them. The Patriot-like run was due to Belichick and Brady and nobody else.

There are two elements to success or failure: the plan -- and the implementation of the plan. No one doubts your ability to find examples of poorly implemented plans.

[Oldfan]

Other than that last point, that sounds exactly like what our current team is doing. You just described a win now mentality.

IMO, Bruce and Mike are doing none of those things.

[Oldfan]

Our 82 SB team was pretty young, but the 87 and 91 teams were veteran teams. Age means nothing if the guys can play. And we don't always need superstars at every position. Most of Gibbs teams were Plan B free agent retreads. If every guy knows his role and accepts it, the team is very successful. That's how the Patriots have won as a team and what Shanahan is preaching to the team now.

Beathard's '81 draft added 7 starters, including three Hogs, to the on-board talent. This draft set the team up for the next decade.

[pjfootballer]

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.

Funny how he gives credit to Belichick when it was Pioli who was the GM, but won't give Gibbs or Shanahan any credit. Most of the time, the GM is working hand in hand with the Head Coach on player acquisition. It would be stupid for a GM to draft a player for a coach if that player didn't fit the system they are running. I'm sure Gibbs and Shanahan had plenty of input to their rosters.

[The Tris]

Funny how he gives credit to Belichick when it was Pioli who was the GM, but won't give Gibbs or Shanahan any credit. Most of the time, the GM is working hand in hand with the Head Coach on player acquisition. It would be stupid for a GM to draft a player for a coach if that player didn't fit the system they are running. I'm sure Gibbs and Shanahan had plenty of input to their rosters.

He makes the distinction that Belichick had final say, while neither Gibbs nor Shanahan (pre-99) had final say.

[pjfootballer]

There are two elements to success or failure: the plan -- and the implementation of the plan. No one doubts your ability to find examples of poorly implemented plans.

And the Patriots are the only true dynasty in the last 10 years. So it's harder to do than it looks.

IMO, Bruce and Mike are doing none of those things.

Hmm. The way I read what you wrote was different I guess.

-- they want to win the division every year (are they not trying to do that now?)

-- coaches with brainpower and innovation. (Snyder hired Shanahan and Shanahan hired his son who directed the #1 passing game in the NFL. They hired Haslett and changed us to the 3/4, 4/3 hybrid) Sounds like they did that.

-- Not sure about the veto power, but it looks like Shanahan and Allen are consulting one another on trades and player acquisitions.

[Oldfan]

He makes the distinction that Belichick had final say, while neither Gibbs nor Shanahan (pre-99) had final say.

Belichick hired and trained Pioli.

In 1981, Beathard had to sell Cooke hard on hiring Gibbs who probably had little or no input on the great 1981 draft. Toward the end of their run, Joe lobbied Cooke for final say on the roster and apparently won out, so Beathard left the team citing "philosophical differences" with Joe.

[pjfootballer]

Beathard's '81 draft added 7 starters, including three Hogs, to the on-board talent. This draft set the team up for the next decade.

The Redskins had to make due with this years draft of leftovers from the Cerrato era. We had no room to manuver. I think the team did the best with what they had this year. Also, Jacoby was an undrafted free agent. Only 2 hogs came from that draft and that was at the top of the draft. Just like we did this year (Trent Williams) we took a lineman.