Planning for a Redskins Dynasty

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

First off, thank you Oldfan for your detailed response to my request, and I don't really have much to nitpick at, but there's one thing that's interesting to me - the Jim Zorn WCO (which is really the Holmgren WCO), the Pittsburgh 3-4, and the Saunders Coryell derivative are some of the best and most consistent schemes in the NFL. Not only that, Pittsburgh never has a problem plugging in young talent, those WCO teams never skip a beat when they lose a key piece, and the ZBS has been generally effective whenever it's been implemented (even here), and those ZBS teams have usually been able to plug and play on the line. Would it lead you to believe that these coaches are exaggerating the complexity of their schemes, or are they simply finding players that can learn them quickly?

As for Haslett saying he wants to duplicate the Pittsburgh 3-4, I think such a statement is a tad misleading, in that, he may want to implement ideas based on what Pittsburgh did while he was a coach - but keep in mind he hasn't coached Pittsburgh since the late 90s, and he hasn't coached the 3-4 since the late 90s. So how can he possibly copy a scheme that must be markedly different than how it was when he coached, assuming that he is directly copying his scheme from the 90s? I think the statement "I want to copy the Pittsburgh 3-4" is (intentionally) vague, because:

1: There's no way he can know what the "Pittsburgh 3-4" is circa 2010.

2: There's little chance he would intentionally tip his hand schematically.

3: He doesn't want to explain his scheme in detail, so he tells reporters he's implementing the Pittsburgh 3-4 because he coached it a decade ago/

The panel idea is very interesting, though it seems like a radical departure from traditional NFL front office structures. At most, I think it could be implemented in a limited form that nominally retains standard NFL management structures. From there, it could be changed to something more akin to what you have in mind.

For example, you would have 5 "panel members" - the head coach, a general manager, a director of player personnel, the offensive and defensive coordinators, and 1 "facilitator", who would be "president of football operations". You could probably pull this off without firing anyone from our current staff; you would likely strip Shanahan of formal personnel selection duties, make Bruce Allen the facilitator, and add in a highly regarded "general manager" and "director of player personnel", with the mandate you proposed coming from Snyder. Even though our current management have some weaknesses, the Shanahans, as well as Allen and Haslett are quality football minds in their particular specialty, so they do not need to be replaced. You could also add more specialization by adding a "director of scouting" with a well-funded scouting department utilizing the latest, most detailed, and most accurate scouting techniques. As you said before, each member would have equal say in the process, though it may not be a "vote" per se, simply a consensus.

[scott.sharrer]

True enough, coaches are thieves no doubt. Rex Ryan is a very unique coordinator and even he is just meshing a bunch of ideas and schemes together. What makes the jets blitz package tuff on third and long type situations is Rex isn't affriad to not be gap sound. So you get three guys free to the QB and 3 blockers looking at air.

Fear I would say is the biggest factor in lack of original thinking in the NFL.

Fear is the root of failure......

Can't remember who said that but it was a quote we memorized in boot camp

[KDawg]

I agree with the draft strategy. It can't be pure need and it can't be pure BPA, that's how you wind up with a runningback every year, or a wide receiver. I think your grade on a player needs to be based on a number of factors...

1) Your Needs

2) Best Players Available

3) Work Ethic

4) Fit

5) Attitude

And those are in no particular order. The grade needs to reflect all of those things.

I also like the panel idea. But my panel would consist of four football people (who have a knowledge of math and can coach), and three non football people, including: Salary Cap Experts, Collegiate Scout, NFL Scout. The scouts would help devise a plan for the future, what's coming, possible free agents, scheme fit, etc. The owner would always be in attendance, but his input should be set aside until the actual football conversation subsides, and his role really should be signing the checks. But as someone that owns the team, they have ultimate authority, but I wouldn't want them on my panel.

Schemes? I don't think you can every have a truly unique scheme. Everything is copying something, but your scheme needs to fit your personnel. Whether you inherited the personnel and couldn't do a complete roster overhaul or you pieced the entire roster together. Schemes can change slightly on a year to year basis and the hardest part of scheme is learning the language. Keep language consistent. Change aspects of your scheme as your personnel changes. The only thing that should really define a coach is tendencies, and those tendencies should be monitored in order to avoid having too many of them.

I also like the idea you gave me a few weeks back about playcalling with the red, green, yellow system. This needs to be incorporated. Almost all scenarios should be scripted out and put onto a call sheet. What plays you're comfortable with in each situation, and someone needs to monitor your calls, as I mentioned above.

As far as your request, here's how I would rate the guys, according to the roster alphabetically as far as how important they are to the team (I've included zeroes):

Anthony Armstrong: 2.5

Brandon Banks: 4

John Beck: 0

Jamaal Brown: 2.5

Chris Cooley: 4

Fred Davis: 2

Derrick Dockery: 2

Joey Galloway: 0

Rex Grossman: 2

Stephon Heyer: 1.5

Artis Hicks: 2

Kory Lich: 2

Donovan McNabb: 3 (because of draft picks involved)

Will Montgomery: 1

Santana Moss: 2.5

Logan Paulsen: 1

Clinton Portis: 2.5

Casey Rabach: 1

Mike Sellers: 2

Chad Simpson: 0

Ryan Torain: 3

Keiland Williams: 1.5

Roydell Williams: 0

Trent Williams: 5

Darrel Young: 1

Lorenzo Alexander: 4 (multi faceted player)

Kevin Barnes: 2

HB Blades: 2

Anthony Bryant: 1.5

Philip Buchanon: 2

Adam Carricker: 2.5

Andre Carter: 1.5

Phillip Daniels: 1.5

Reed Doughty: 1.5

London Fletcher: 3 (I'd have him higher, but his age is catching up, unfortunately.)

Kedric Golston: 2.25

DeAngelo Hall: 4

92: 2.5 (halfway, because if motivated he's a 5. If he's not he's a 0.)

Vonnie Holliday: 1

Chris Horton: 1.5

Jeremey Jarmon: 1.5

Ma'ake Kemoeatu: 2

LaRon Landry: 5

Rocky McIntosh: 2.5

Kareem Moore: 1.5

Brian Orakpo: 5

Perry Riley: 2.5

Carlos Rogers: 2.5

Byron Westbrook: 1

Chris Wilson: 1

Graham Gano: 1.5

Hunter Smith: 2

Nick Sundberg: 0

[scott.sharrer]

First off, thank you Oldfan for your detailed response to my request, and I don't really have much to nitpick at, but there's one thing that's interesting to me - the Jim Zorn WCO (which is really the Holmgren WCO), the Pittsburgh 3-4, and the Saunders Coryell derivative are some of the best and most consistent schemes in the NFL. Not only that, Pittsburgh never has a problem plugging in young talent, those WCO teams never skip a beat when they lose a key piece, and the ZBS has been generally effective whenever it's been implemented (even here), and those ZBS teams have usually been able to plug and play on the line. Would it lead you to believe that these coaches are exaggerating the complexity of their schemes, or are they simply finding players that can learn them quickly?

The panel idea is very interesting, though it seems like a radical departure from traditional NFL front office structures. At most, I think it could be implemented in a limited form that nominally retains standard NFL management structures. From there, it could be changed to something more akin to what you have in mind.

For example, you would have 5 "panel members" - the head coach, a general manager, a director of player personnel, the offensive and defensive coordinators, and 1 "facilitator", who would be "president of football operations". You could probably pull this off without firing anyone from our current staff; you would likely strip Shanahan of formal personnel selection duties, make Bruce Allen the facilitator, and add in a highly regarded "general manager" and "director of player personnel", with the mandate you proposed coming from Snyder. Even though our current management have some weaknesses, the Shanahans, as well as Allen and Haslett are quality football minds in their particular specialty, so they do not need to be replaced. You could also add more specialization by adding a "director of scouting" with a well-funded scouting department utilizing the latest, most detailed, and most accurate scouting techniques. As you said before, each member would have equal say in the process, though it may not be a "vote" per se, simply a consensus.

I agree oldfan did hit it right on the head. I actually like the idea of the panel. I know from experience it is easy for one person who makes final decisions to get "tunnel vision" and either on purpose or mistakenly blow off other ideas without thought because they get fixated on their own plans/ideas. I do not necessarily think that is happening with the skins right now, but it is a normal human trait. The panel idea would prevent that and it would allow for all views on any player or decision be heard equally. I think it would really work, and would also agree with adding the director of scouting to the panel because scouting is a major part in finding the proper talent. I just don't see this every becoming a reality because another normal human trait is control

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, I'll respond in greater detail once I've gotten some sleep after a late night and early morning

But I think this is a great thread, and that not only are your ideas sound at first glance, but also worth lots of discussion.

I hope the thread does not only become a rankings-fest, although that is an important part...because your philosophies, and ideas on implementing them, are very interesting, and worth careful consideration.

You seem to be getting the kind of feedback you desired so far, and I hope it continues, for the sake of all the rational-minded on ES...a thread like this is needed during a long bye week filled with...well, crap, all over the board.

Thanks for the positive input. I'd be interested in your more specific comments when you have the time.

[scott.sharrer]

Casey Rabach: 1

Andre Carter: 1.5

Phillip Daniels: 1.5

Reed Doughty: 1.5

Vonnie Holliday: 1

I agree with most of your rankings, but I am quoting the ones above out of curiosity. Why do you rank Doughty equal or higher then the others I am quoting? At a minimum they offer mentorship to younger players. I see nothing the Doughty offers on or off the field other then a body to put on the field after the waterboy gets taken out by injury

[KDawg]

I agree with most of your rankings, but I am quoting the ones above out of curiosity. Why do you rank Doughty equal or higher then the others I am quoting? At a minimum they offer mentorship to younger players. I see nothing the Doughty offers on or off the field other then a body to put on the field after the waterboy gets taken out by injury

I'm not interested in mentorship when it comes to a team that should be in a rebuild. Andre Carter doesn't fit, at all. His leadership ability for a guy like Rak, as they play the same positions in the 3-4 here and the 4-3 here, really, is what got him a 1.5. Casey Rabach is useless. His mentorship means zilch to me. That's something the OL coach can do. Phillip Daniels is the epitome of a hard worker, but this team can go on without him on the roster, same can be said for Vonnie Holliday.

Reed Doughty only got the extra .5 added because of special teams contributions, or he'd be sitting at a 1 as well.

[scott.sharrer]

I'm not interested in mentorship when it comes to a team that should be in a rebuild. Andre Carter doesn't fit, at all. His leadership ability for a guy like Rak, as they play the same positions in the 3-4 here and the 4-3 here, really, is what got him a 1.5. Casey Rabach is useless. His mentorship means zilch to me. That's something the OL coach can do. Phillip Daniels is the epitome of a hard worker, but this team can go on without him on the roster, same can be said for Vonnie Holliday.

Reed Doughty only got the extra .5 added because of special teams contributions, or he'd be sitting at a 1 as well.

Valid points. Thanks for honest reply

[Oldfan]

First off, thank you Oldfan for your detailed response to my request...

You're Welcome. I didn't identify you in the OP because I didn't want you to share the blame if this thread bombed.

... the Jim Zorn WCO (which is really the Holmgren WCO), the Pittsburgh 3-4, and the Saunders Coryell derivative are some of the best and most consistent schemes in the NFL. Not only that, Pittsburgh never has a problem plugging in young talent, those WCO teams never skip a beat when they lose a key piece, and the ZBS has been generally effective whenever it's been implemented (even here), and those ZBS teams have usually been able to plug and play on the line. Would it lead you to believe that these coaches are exaggerating the complexity of their schemes, or are they simply finding players that can learn them quickly?

Once a complex scheme has been established, it's not going to obviously go downhill when replacing one or two players a year. However, Holmgen did have down seasons when he lost starters. As for the ZBS, it took Houston three years to get it in gear. Alex Gibbs has not been nearly as successful in stops since Denver. Zorn was here two years and never got his WCO out of first gear.

As for Haslett saying he wants to duplicate the Pittsburgh 3-4, I think such a statement is a tad misleading, in that, he may want to implement ideas based on what Pittsburgh did while he was a coach - but keep in mind he hasn't coached Pittsburgh since the late 90s, and he hasn't coached the 3-4 since the late 90s. So how can he possibly copy a scheme that must be markedly different than how it was when he coached, assuming that he is directly copying his scheme from the 90s? I think the statement "I want to copy the Pittsburgh 3-4" is (intentionally) vague, because:

1: There's no way he can know what the "Pittsburgh 3-4" is circa 2010.

2: There's little chance he would intentionally tip his hand schematically.

3: He doesn't want to explain his scheme in detail, so he tells reporters he's implementing the Pittsburgh 3-4 because he coached it a decade ago/

Haslett can look at game film of Pittsburgh's 34. He's not tipping his hand because OCs in the NFL know what the Steelers' scheme looks like.

The panel idea is very interesting, though it seems like a radical departure from traditional NFL front office structures. At most, I think it could be implemented in a limited form that nominally retains standard NFL management structures. From there, it could be changed to something more akin to what you have in mind.

It is possible to use the panel idea experimentally, in an advisory capacity, to work out the kinks before the owner is fully committed to it.

Even though our current management have some weaknesses, the Shanahans, as well as Allen and Haslett are quality football minds in their particular specialty, so they do not need to be replaced.

Allen would not qualify. I want coaching experience. I don't know if Shanahan or Haslett have the math aptitude I'd be looking for. I doubt it, frankly.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

(POST #2 of 5) THE DECISION MAKERS

...All football decisions will be made by the majority vote of a seven member expert panel of coaches on long term contracts. All members will be equal in authority. There will be no leader --no GM --no head coach. Panel members will do double-duty coaching their specialties during practices and on game day.

This idea in particular (I've shortened the quoted text) has me very intrigued. I truly believe that this would revolutionize the way teams are run. It's a board of directors. One comment though, in addition to this panel of "coaches" shouldn't there be someone who oversees the financial aspect of things (salary cap) or do you believe that issue resolves itself due to the background of the coaches in your proposal?

[Botched]

Great thread.

I agree with most of KDawg's rankings.

[Oldfan]

I agree with the draft strategy. It can't be pure need and it can't be pure BPA, that's how you wind up with a runningback every year, or a wide receiver. I think your grade on a player needs to be based on a number of factors...

1) Your Needs

2) Best Players Available

3) Work Ethic

4) Fit

5) Attitude

And those are in no particular order. The grade needs to reflect all of those things.

I think you neglected position value. I would combine work ethic, and attitude into the BPA grade, so I have four factors.

I also like the panel idea. But my panel would consist of four football people (who have a knowledge of math and can coach), and three non football people, including: Salary Cap Experts, Collegiate Scout, NFL Scout. The scouts would help devise a plan for the future, what's coming, possible free agents, scheme fit, etc.

I want my 7-member panel to have NFL coaching experience. In the hierarchy they would supervise the scouts, salary cap experts, and so on.

Schemes? I don't think you can every have a truly unique scheme. Everything is copying something, but your scheme needs to fit your personnel.

The 26 letters of the alphabet can be combined into millions of words. All the components of an offense ever invented can be be combined into millions of unique schemes.

Whether you inherited the personnel and couldn't do a complete roster overhaul or you pieced the entire roster together.

By trading the pieces that don't fit for draft picks, you can expedite the process.

Thanks for the grades. I'm going to try to take a consensus when we have enough opinions accumulated.

[Weganator]

I'm not interested in mentorship when it comes to a team that should be in a rebuild. Andre Carter doesn't fit, at all. His leadership ability for a guy like Rak, as they play the same positions in the 3-4 here and the 4-3 here, really, is what got him a 1.5. Casey Rabach is useless. His mentorship means zilch to me. That's something the OL coach can do. Phillip Daniels is the epitome of a hard worker, but this team can go on without him on the roster, same can be said for Vonnie Holliday.

Reed Doughty only got the extra .5 added because of special teams contributions, or he'd be sitting at a 1 as well.

I wish I could find the the scouting report I read about Reed Doughty prior to the draft, because to this day it has been the best description of his play.

The article talked about how he was technically sound and intelligent, but due to his athleticism he had no business being on the football field outside of special teams.

It had a summary at the end that described his NFL chances as something like this:

Chance of making NFL Roster - 65%

Chance of being a contributor on special teams - 50%

Chance of contributing on defence - 20%

Chance of being an defensive backs coach (if he chooses to be) - 100%

With that in mind, look back at the plays where he gets beat. He is in position, he is just simply not athletic enough to be out there trying to make plays vs some of these guys.

On the Andre Johnson td, it came down to him being in the right position, but losing a jump ball to Andre Johnson. Examples like this abound. He is a sound techinal player and a fine special teamer. I hope he continues to contribute on teams and can help break things down technically for our more athletic safeties.

Reed is a great teamer and a quality locker room presence.

- Reed Doughty ... just kidding

edit... found the link, i was a bit off but the same point was made: http://dc2006draft.seventhmillenniumsportsgear.com/Reed_Doughty.php

[Oldfan]

Great thread.

I agree with most of KDawg's rankings.

Thnk you. Agreed on KDawg's ranking for the most part.

[Oldfan]

This idea in particular (I've shortened the quoted text) has me very intrigued. I truly believe that this would revolutionize the way teams are run. It's a board of directors. One comment though, in addition to this panel of "coaches" shouldn't there be someone who oversees the financial aspect of things (salary cap) or do you believe that issue resolves itself due to the background of the coaches in your proposal?

I have my coaching panel supervising salary cap experts, scouting personnel, and so on. I'm going to edit the OP to make that clear.

[MassSkinsFan]

I saw someone mention that the facilitator could be part of the FO. I think that's a mistake. I also think the facilitator needs to have some understanding of football, but doesn't have to be a true expert to the extent the 7 members do. The facilitator should be expert at getting the panel through the decision-making process. That in and of itself, when done right, is a specialty.

I've gone back and forth on the schemes issue. The strategy is sound - unique schemes are much harder to recognize and adjust to, and that's what I think you want, to always have the opponent either guessing or scrambling to adjust. But, there is a balance you need to maintain - change just for change's sake is not progress. Your panel's mission needs to include iterative assessment of schemes, and risk management to determine when it is OK to leave the schemes as they are, and when they need to change. There should be an R&D element where there are staff members working on new schemes, and those ideas might not necessarily be implemented right away, but they'd be available.

I do think you're right that you can make new schemes unique. In fact, it could be good to use the idea that there are new no schemes to camouflage a new scheme as an old one.

Here are rankings:

Alexander, Lorenzo - 3

Armstrong, Anthony - 3

Banks, Brandon – 4

Barnes, Kevin – 2.5

Beck, John – 1

Blades, H.B. – 2

Brown, Jammal - 2.5

Bryant, Anthony - 1

Buchanon, Phillip – 2.5

Carriker, Adam – 2.5

Carter, Andre - 3

Cooley, Chris – 4.5

Daniels, Phillip – 1.5

Davis, Fred - 3

Dockery, Derrick – 2.5

Doughty, Reed - 2

Fletcher, London – 3.5

Galloway, Joey – 1.5

Gano, Graham - 2.5

Golston, Kedric – 2.5

Grossman, Rex – 2

Hall, DeAngelo - 4.5

Haynesworth, Albert – 3

Heyer, Stephon – 2

Hicks, Artis – 2

Holliday, Vonnie – 1

Horton, Chris - 3

Jarmon, Jeremy – 3.5

Kemoeatu, Ma'ake - 2

Landry, LaRon – 4.5

Lichtensteiger, Kory - 2

McIntosh, Rocky – 3.5

McNabb, Donovan – 3.5

Montgomery, Will - 2

Moore, Kareem – 0.5

Moss, Santana - 3

Orakpo, Brian - 5

Paulsen, Logan - 0.5

Portis, Clinton – 2.5

Rabach, Casey – 0.5

Riley, Perry – 2.5

Rogers, Carlos - 3

Sellers, Mike – 3

Simpson, Chad – 0

Smith, Hunter – 2

Sundberg, Nick – 2

Torain, Ryan – 4

Westbrook, Byron - 1

Williams, Keiland - 2

Williams, Roydell – 0

Williams, Trent – 5

Wilson, Chris – 1.5

Young, Darrel - 1

This is a fun thread. I'll bet you enjoyed putting this together. Thanks for doing all the homework on this.

[scott.sharrer]

I have my coaching panel supervising salary cap experts, scouting personnel, and so on. I'm going to edit the OP to make that clear.

Not sure I would count out Shanny on the mathematical standpoint. When in Denver he devised a mathematical approach to the draft, and look at how players he drafted turned out to be? I would say he is a 50/50 to be considered for the panel, Haslett though, I agree, he is a good DC but I don't see a place for him on such a panel.

Just confused on one of your points and it just may be I am reading your posts wrong.

You said you wouldn't have a GM or HC or anyone in charge. Are you refering to anyone being in charge of the panel? Just asking cuz you would need the HC to be in charge during the game

[scott.sharrer]

Have A. Bryant and L. Paulsen even seen the playing field yet this season?

[Enter Apotheosis]

My biggest problem with any coordinator. They always want to be like someone else. Even if it is just as a building block that they are going to put a twist on. What happened to the creative coordinators that created their own unique schemes?

No one builds a scheme completely from scratch. Every coach has influences and every coach will borrow ideas they've seen around the league that they like, making adjustments as they see fit. Typically any "originality" that you see is merely a combination of concepts that have all been done before.

Asking someone to design an effective scheme the likes of which no one has ever seen before is like asking someone to successfully reinvent the wheel... as a square.

[Oldfan]

I saw someone mention that the facilitator could be part of the FO. I think that's a mistake. I also think the facilitator needs to have some understanding of football, but doesn't have to be a true expert to the extent the 7 members do. The facilitator should be expert at getting the panel through the decision-making process. That in and of itself, when done right, is a specialty.

You are on the right track, IMO. The Facilitator needs to do some research and then some experimenting with a panel for a dry run to work out the kinks. He doesn't have to know much about Football.

I

've gone back and forth on the schemes issue. The strategy is sound - unique schemes are much harder to recognize and adjust to, and that's what I think you want, to always have the opponent either guessing or scrambling to adjust. But, there is a balance you need to maintain - change just for change's sake is not progress. Your panel's mission needs to include iterative assessment of schemes, and risk management to determine when it is OK to leave the schemes as they are, and when they need to change. There should be an R&D element where there are staff members working on new schemes, and those ideas might not necessarily be implemented right away, but they'd be available.

I agree and I like the R&D idea.

I could write a couple more pages on the panel idea alone, but I figured that would be overkill. From your comments so far, I'd say we're on the same wavelength.

Thanks for your rankings.

This is a fun thread. I'll bet you enjoyed putting this together. Thanks for doing all the homework on this.

Imperium asked me for a bulleted list of my ideas. I ended up with this.

[Oldfan]

Not sure I would count out Shanny on the mathematical standpoint. When in Denver he devised a mathematical approach to the draft, and look at how players he drafted turned out to be?

I hadn't heard that Shanny used a math approach to the draft. I'd like to know when that went into use because Denver's draft were terrible 1999 through 2005.

[scott.sharrer]

No one builds a scheme completely from scratch. Every coach has influences and every coach will borrow ideas they've seen around the league that they like, making adjustments as they see fit. Typically any "originality" that you see is merely a combination of concepts that have all been done before.

Asking someone to design an effective scheme the likes of which no one has ever seen before is like asking someone to successfully reinvent the wheel... as a square.

So what you are saying is that is impossible to create anything new? Isn't that what they said when the 3-4 was invented? I understand that it is all somehow in some form based on ideas from the past or current ones, but look at the schemes of all 32 teams. I honestly see only 5-6 unique ones per each side of the ball. Other than that I see very little difference amongst the rest.

There is NO REASON that if a coordinator took the time during the offseason to sit down and hash out a new scheme that it would be impossible to accomplish. Yes they would have to use something that is already known as a starting point, but that is all it needs to be.

It is no different then a major corporation creating new business strategies, and by the way, that is far from being unheard of, in reality it is a goal of a large group of major companies since we hit the latest recession.

So there is no way to convince me that a good coordinator who had the strive to do so couldn't create a unique scheme. You must think I mean unique as in 100% pure, which I am not, they need a starting point, but NOT an overall plan to tweak

[MassSkinsFan]

Imperium asked me for a bulleted list of my ideas. I ended up with this.

Thanks Imperium!!! Good timing during bye week too.

:applause: to you both.

[Paul_E27]

This is a really interesting thread, and clearly very well thought through. I have 2 questions, one about implementation and another about how viable the coaching/decision making process truly is.

Firstly, I was wondering about bringing new, young players through and trading away the vet starter, and how ruthlessly that would be implemented. (I use 'ruthlessly' for lack of a better word that I can think of.) I obviously understand the principle, and think it is spot on, reminding me of the Patriots trading away vets while they still have value, however I was wondering about when the younger player isn't that much younger, or the vet isn't that old. An example that springs to mind is Chris Cooley and Fred Davis. If they were to grade the same, and you didn't plan on using twin TE sets in your O (both meant as hypothetical situations), would you be looking to shop Cooley even though he is only 28, and therefore has plenty left in the tank? Alternatively would you get value from Davis in a trade, or just be happy to have an excellent backup not actually bringing that much value to the team?

Secondly, I wonder about the decision making panel and its cohesion. There are often a lot of egos in that situation, and in such an unusual set up, do you think not being the top dog would deter some of the most able people as they wish to have complete control as they could at other teams?

[scott.sharrer]

I hadn't heard that Shanny used a math approach to the draft. I'd like to know when that went into use because Denver's draft were terrible 1999 through 2005.

Al Wilson, Olandis Gary, Delthea Oneal, Mike Anderson, Ahsley Lelie, Clinton Portis, Quentin Griffin, Tatum Bell, Brandon Marshall, Elvis Dumervil......

Those were all picks by Shanny from 99-05. I know that they are not HOFers, but they were not garbage in his system at all. With the exception of Lelie and Marshall, the rest were all over looked by other teams but Shanny (who was known at the time for anyone who can remember more then 1 season ago) to use a unique mathimatical tool to grade projections for the draft, found them to be valuable to his system, which they all were. But under other systems they could of/would have flopped for the most part. (exceptions for Marshall and Portis) His math approach to the draft was unique but also only effective for the system he runs. So you have to take his way in hindsight.

I should of clarified better what I meant earlier. IF you keep Shanny as the HC and ONLY IF his systems stay in use should he be used on the panel because of his mathematical approach. If his systems are not the ones to be used, then his use on the panel would be counterproductive