"Rebuilding"

[RedskinsInFebruary]

There's a lot of talk about the strategic state the Skins are in, trading for McNabb, etc.

The concept of teams in a "rebuilding" state is baloney, imo. Every team's always in a state of flux, whether you just went 1-15 or won the sb. No team ever reaches a point of saying, "ok we're good, we're just going to try to stay the same from now on." The fact is, all teams are always in varying states of trying to improve. Teams considered "rebuilding" regularly surprise and teams considered fairly set regularly slide or collapse.

I think teams who want to win now, regardless of what state they're supposedly in, will, over the long term be far more successful than one that cashes in its chips for some magical future where things will somehow definitely be better in terms of personnel. Every team is in actuality a fairly similar mix of vets, rookies, mid-career players etc. There's actually a great deal of parity in the league right now.

"Rebuilding" is just another term for "suck." Of course there's a strategy of aspiring to suck so bad for so long you can collect a large number of high draft picks that will form a coherent unit for a number of years, but how often does that actually pan out? More often things just seem to come together for a team from a mix, or even from a team who's been successful for a while, supposed to be on the decline.

I don't think the Skins' woes over the last few years have been the result of bad strategy so much as poor judgement, in terms of acquiring personnel, coaching staff, etc.

I think you're really better off just trying to collect the best players and coaches you can, utilizing whatever means (draft, fa, etc.) you can, and that you're most likely better off trying to win now as opposed to "win later."

[GoDeep81]

I hear ya.. If we start 2-1 or 3-0, were in flux or transition.. 0-3 or 1-2 and were obviously "rebuilding".. lol

[Oldskool]

Even if the team was 3-0 or 0-3 coming into the Philly game, the team is absolutely in a "re-tooling" phase. Shanallen knew that it couldn't make a viable team with what it had on the roster when 2010 started, hence why 50% of the starters were cut and the trades for McNabb, and Brown as well as the drafting of Williams. Due to the lack of flexibility in the free agent market due to the expired CBA, they were not able to get this team as far along as they wanted or had wished to.

[DButz65]

Who ever said we were "rebuilding"? I dont care what other teams call it.... Link?

[SKIN4WAHOOZ]

If we are rebuilding then why did we trade draft pics for Mcnabb? Mcnabb is not a "rebuilding" QB. Yes, they got a good deal for him BUT those draft pics will be much more valuable to us down the road then a retired Mcnabb. We already had Rex. Obviously, Rex doesnt have the skill that Mcnabb does but he knows the system and would be a much better teacher of the system when we get our "rebuilding" QB.

If we truely are "rebuilding" then we should have saved those draft pics to move up in next years draft to get a QB. Since they traded those for an aging QB then this FO has an obligation to win now!!

[TV aka TeeVeli aka BAMBAM30]

If we're rebuilding i'm not happy about all those "R YOU IN?" commercials/billboards.

When I saw those type of things i wasn't thinking "REBUILDING".

[Oldfan]

The concept of teams in a "rebuilding" state is baloney, imo. Every team's always in a state of flux, whether you just went 1-15 or won the sb. No team ever reaches a point of saying, "ok we're good, we're just going to try to stay the same from now on." The fact is, all teams are always in varying states of trying to improve...

You are redefining the word "rebuild" to mean any team "in a state of flux." That's not what the word means as I understand it. To me, it means a team committed to an overhaul of a roster with the objective of becoming one of the league's best teams.

Teams considered "rebuilding" regularly surprise and teams considered fairly set regularly slide or collapse.

In a single year, you will see teams move up and down. But, over extended stretches, some teams are losers, some winners, and most are mediocre.

I think teams who want to win now, regardless of what state they're supposedly in, will, over the long term be far more successful than one that cashes in its chips for some magical future where things will somehow definitely be better in terms of personnel. Every team is in actuality a fairly similar mix of vets, rookies, mid-career players etc. There's actually a great deal of parity in the league right now.

I think teams with win now plans every season are guaranteed mediocrity. "Parity" for them is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Rebuilding" is just another term for "suck." Of course there's a strategy of aspiring to suck so bad for so long you can collect a large number of high draft picks that will form a coherent unit for a number of years, but how often does that actually pan out?

How often has it been tried? Most fanbases don't have the patience for it, so most teams don't attempt it.

I don't think the Skins' woes over the last few years have been the result of bad strategy so much as poor judgement, in terms of acquiring personnel, coaching staff, etc.

Here's an article (2006) by an economist comparing Joe Gibbs's win-now Redskins to Belichick's Patriots which disagrees with you.

LINK

I think you're really better off just trying to collect the best players and coaches you can, utilizing whatever means (draft, fa, etc.) you can, and that you're most likely better off trying to win now as opposed to "win later."

It sounds to me like you aren't willing to pay the price to become the best team in the NFL.

[NoGravity]

If you guys were rebuilding, I would think you would have an overhaul of young players with a few older guys in between. It looks like the exact opposite. I think Shannahan definitely wanted a competitive team of the bat with all of the vets he acquired.

[Special K]

I think you're really better off just trying to collect the best players and coaches you can, utilizing whatever means (draft, fa, etc.) you can, and that you're most likely better off trying to win now as opposed to "win later."

Can you please list the player acquisitions and trades we have had under Shanahan and explain how that would be considered completely rebuilding?

He is restructuring large aspects of the team but trying to enable the team to "win now" by utilizing all resources at his disposal. Problem is, we have several holes to fill that are going to take some to acquire. I'm quite confident in Shanahan's ability to understand this...

[RedskinsInFebruary]

Can you please list the player acquisitions and trades we have had under Shanahan and explain how that would be considered completely rebuilding?

He is restructuring large aspects of the team but trying to enable the team to "win now" by utilizing all resources at his disposal. Problem is, we have several holes to fill that are going to take some to acquire. I'm quite confident in Shanahan's ability to understand this...

Yeah, I don't see Allen/Shanahan's strategy as rebuilding--I think the McNabb deal is the prime example of that. I think it was a great move, considering our QB situation and the QB's available.

[DieselPwr44]

We are not rebuilding.

I don't know what you call what we're doing. From win now to retooling..whatever.

It looks like a half assed job whatever they want to call it.

This franchise needs to pick a clear cut direction and go full out in that direction. You can't do a little bit of both. :2cents:

[LD0506]

Personally I feel that a lot of people are rather shortsighted about the job that the new regime has to deal with. It is far more than roster changes and upgrades, more than installing a new offense or defensive scheme, they have had to address the fundamental nature of the franchise itself and teach a completely different mindset and mentality to the entire organization, including the owner.

Rooting out the "who cares, I get paid either way" way of thinking is in itself a major task. You not only have to cut those that bring that attitude and replace them with others more committed to an acceptable work ethic, you have to be consistent about the punishment/reward element (a la a Haynesworth or DT) for those that fight a change in atmosphere, even if it costs you in the short term.

Everyone agrees that the Skins have been teh suck for a decade, but a seemingly small % appear willing to pay the price to change that. It is not about a shiny new WR, it is not about how your 5th round draft picks pan out, it is about establishing a foundation for functioning as an effective team across the board.

There has been the tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth here for years because of short-term fixes that ignored the longterm consequences, why are the fans now clamoring for that exact thing again?

[DieselPwr44]

There has been the tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth here for years because of short-term fixes that ignored the longterm consequences, why are the fans now clamoring for that exact thing again?

I believe the fans would be more accepting if the franchise picked one direction and went all out.

If you're going to "win now" and trade picks for McNabb, don't half ass the job, go out and get the WR and the amount of linemen you need on both sides to do the job. Spare no expense picks wise or money wise.

If you're going to go full rebuild/youth movement mode, first, step up to the mike, tell the fanbase you're completely tearing down the roster, trading established vets for picks and purposely taking a few steps back in hopes of making a great leap forward.

You can't do a little of both. Big mistake to think you can.

[LD0506]

And I agree, I would like to see something a little more clear cut but at the same time I am willing to admit there are more things involved than just what I want to see or what the team does this year.

With the limited resources available and the restrictions in the FA market there was only so much that could be done. I am still willing to give the FO the benefit of the doubt. We haven't seen what they intend yet.

[SWFLSkins]

Hedge your bets and attempt to field a competitve team now while looking to the future and having a plan. Sounds great in theory, I hope it works out. But like Old Skool pointed out, I don't think the fans have the stomach for it.

[THEREALTOR1]

Even if the team was 3-0 or 0-3 coming into the Philly game, the team is absolutely in a "re-tooling" phase. Shanallen knew that it couldn't make a viable team with what it had on the roster when 2010 started, hence why 50% of the starters were cut and the trades for McNabb, and Brown as well as the drafting of Williams. Due to the lack of flexibility in the free agent market due to the expired CBA, they were not able to get this team as far along as they wanted or had wished to.

Its funny you should post that Oldskool, because as I was reading the OP I was thinking to myself that our roster isn't really much different from last year when you look at most of the "core" players on both sides of the ball (the obvious exceptions being the 3 you pointed out). The same people that said last years team (with those same core players) stunk, are all up in arms this past week after coming off a win against D, a hard fought loss against a good texans team, and one bad game in st. louis. Its gonna be a long year for some fans who think you can take a 4 - 12 team, swap a few players out, microwave on high for 30 seconds, and voila, a superbowl contender ready to be served (careful edges are hot).

[Mr. Grundle]

You don't rebuild an entire team, that's impossible. You rebuild your core, which is exactly what we're doing. Your core players, or the "Core Redskins" as we've come to know them, is what needs an overhaul. The "Joe Gibbs group of Core Redskins" will be systematically disassembled and replaced in the next two or three offseasons. We started this year by replacing Jason Campbell and Chris Samuels, arguably the two most important pieces. Next in line are Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Mike Sellers, Casey Rabach, Carlos Rogers, Andre Carter, and London Fletcher. They should all be off the roster by 2012, replaced by younger, cheaper, hungrier players. It's obvious the current Core Redskins have been tainted by a culture of losing. These are the guys we rely on to make big plays when we need it, and they can no longer get it done. Tripping over their own feet, dropping passes, fumbling, penalties....this is what our core has become known for.

Trent Williams, Brian Orakpo, Fred Davis, and Laron Landry are the makings of the new core. Donovan McNabb was brought in to ease the transition and help us remain competitive while providing leadership and setting an example for the younger players.

I like the strategy so far. It's not a rebuild, more of a reload or a retooling as some of said. Getting rid of Vinny was step 1. Getting rid of the core he assembled is step two of reversing this culture of losing.

So we'll get by with older guys, cheap free agents, and has-beens until the new core is in place.

[Oldfan]

I believe the fans would be more accepting if the franchise picked one direction and went all out.

If you're going to "win now" and trade picks for McNabb, don't half ass the job, go out and get the WR and the amount of linemen you need on both sides to do the job. Spare no expense picks wise or money wise.

If you're going to go full rebuild/youth movement mode, first, step up to the mike, tell the fanbase you're completely tearing down the roster, trading established vets for picks and purposely taking a few steps back in hopes of making a great leap forward.

You can't do a little of both. Big mistake to think you can.

This is a very intelligent post, in my opinion. The only question I have is... who helped you write it?

[MustangSteve]

It's obvious with the signing of McNabb and some old veteran receivers, this is NOT a rebuild. I feel that Shanny seen a team he thinks can win now while he is in the process of filling holes and weaknesses. Like I stated in another thread, we should not have blown a top 10 defense up like we did, we should have eased into it as WhoAreU stated. Now having made the aggressive switch to the 3-4, that side the ball is going to take time, and no way 2 years is enough to fill all the weaknesses on defense with the right talent.

With 2 young receivers who's not even playing now, Thomas and Kelly, we ended up with a much older roster at that position, again you don't rebuild the future with receivers who's about finished their career's. This team didn't need a total rebuild, but with the changes of schemes, injuries and the starting roster now, add in a running game that's non existent, we sure have many more holes to fill then what what I thought we should have.

[MustangSteve]

I believe the fans would be more accepting if the franchise picked one direction and went all out.

If you're going to "win now" and trade picks for McNabb, don't half ass the job, go out and get the WR and the amount of linemen you need on both sides to do the job. Spare no expense picks wise or money wise.

If you're going to go full rebuild/youth movement mode, first, step up to the mike, tell the fanbase you're completely tearing down the roster, trading established vets for picks and purposely taking a few steps back in hopes of making a great leap forward.

You can't do a little of both. Big mistake to think you can.

Great post Deisle!

[RedskinsInFebruary]

I believe the fans would be more accepting if the franchise picked one direction and went all out.

If you're going to "win now" and trade picks for McNabb, don't half ass the job, go out and get the WR and the amount of linemen you need on both sides to do the job. Spare no expense picks wise or money wise.

If you're going to go full rebuild/youth movement mode, first, step up to the mike, tell the fanbase you're completely tearing down the roster, trading established vets for picks and purposely taking a few steps back in hopes of making a great leap forward.

You can't do a little of both. Big mistake to think you can.

This is a great post and well expressed, but it's exactly what I disagree with. I don't think you can survive (as a management) with either extreme. I think the latter is just choosing to lose with very little precedent that the strategy will pay off in any "great leap forward." (Teams with perennial high draft picks just seem to be perennial losers in many cases.) And the former, well, your team's just going to get old fast with your resources depleted.

I think today's NFL requires a much more complex strategy of out-maneuvering the level of what other teams are doing.

[Oldfan]

This is a great post and well expressed, but it's exactly what I disagree with. I don't think you can survive (as a management) with either extreme. I think the latter is just choosing to lose with very little precedent that the strategy will pay off in any "great leap forward." (Teams with perennial high draft picks just seem to be perennial losers in many cases.)

Is it a failure of the plan or the execution? If a team can't draft well, any plan based on making the draft the primary source of roster talent will obviously fail. However, Bill Walsh made such a plan work.

And the former, well, your team's just going to get old fast with your resources depleted.

George Allen won more than 70% of his games over ten years with the Skins. The drawback to a good win-now plan is that its likely to lose in the playoffs to teams which built elite rosters through the draft.

I think today's NFL requires a much more complex strategy of out-maneuvering the level of what other teams are doing.

I think a team has to first choose a direction among these options:

North = win now

West = build for the long term

Northwest = mediocrity

[Pedro]

I don't think trading for McNabb was only a benefit to the win now side of the argument. Reality is, so far, he has managed a game for a victory but not actually done the elite QB winning shizzle in two others.

What he has done really well is come in and step up to the plate, on and off the grass, as the leader we needed. There are no excuses for any player on O who is playing for a contract (which is most of them). That's got to be really beneficial long term, being able to truly evaluate half of your roster?

Same way Trent Williams will be great down the line, but he's pretty damn special already. He's win now, win later. We'll be feeling the benefit of the McNabb trade after he leaves the roster, same thing IMO. One may be weighted more one way than the other etc but it's not as simple as win now or rebuilding.

[planter]

Probably wasn't necessary but....

Intentionally, or not, Shanahan's decision to retool both the offense AND the defense places Skins squarely in the dreaded "REBUILDING MODE" !!!!

[36HAMMER]

I agree whole heartedly with oldschool, I really think they wanted to get another center and tackle as well as other players .But ther was non much to be had and they were forced to resign Rabach and go after the tackle from the Saints.I admit to being one who wanted the skins to go after the Jamall 3 months before they did but i also admit to not being aware of how much he was injured andhow little progrees there was in his healing.This tea has soo many holes but i must ask everyone 1 question.Why didn't we go after Otogwe ? Moore is really goo i have heard for 3 years now but never much seen because he is always injured.For competition sake ad havng a bonafide starter at the FS position they should have signed him and he was released and they still didn't go after him.Has his game slipped that much? he's no old so what gives o the Pats have a contract issue with a pro bowl guard named Mankins.Why not give him a sniff ? I like Jackson of the Chargers and wanted the Skins to give him a look when he was drafted but no go.But now we hve a much greater need on oline.This offense will continue to sttruggle until the oline is fixed and switching Doc and the other guy in and out isn't helping.Dock doesn't fit the zone blocking scheme at all.Rabach has been done for years and Hicks is new.Thats why the center of the line gets no push what so ever.