Planning for a Redskins Dynasty

[scott.sharrer]

And for the record yes I am a fan of Shanny and have been since he was a coordinator in SF. senior year of HS (class of 99) we had to do a 10 page report on any nationally known figure and I picked Shanny because I knew he was someone my english teacher wouldn't take the time to research. That is when I found out a lot of the facts that i state in regards to him

[Oldfan]

...Firstly, I was wondering about bringing new, young players through and trading away the vet starter, and how ruthlessly that would be implemented....An example that springs to mind is Chris Cooley and Fred Davis.

I think such decisions must be made coldly. You can't be soft and expect to win competitions against 31 competitors.

The panel would first decide if it wants to use two TEs. If it doesn't, it trades Cooley for the best offer in draft picks.

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?

Modern communications technology makes possible a number of ways the panel could exchange ideas without being in the same room. Panel members could be graded not only on their contributions to the discussion but also on their cooperative attitude.

With the Facilitator in place of our moderator, the panel might even us message board software like we're using right now on a network.

[scott.sharrer]

Modern communications technology makes possible a number of ways the panel could exchange ideas without being in the same room. Panel members could be graded not only on their contributions to the discussion but also on their cooperative attitude.

With the Facilitator in place of our moderator, the panel might even us message board software like we're using right now on a network.

I am a communications guy, and the use of any communication system to help with this system is greatly flawed when it comes to the possibility of egos. No matter what communication method you use, or if you have them in one room, you would get the same result if your panel is "infected" with egos. They panel members who have high egos will not wave from their stance no matter what method is used. And grading their opinions based on their cooperative attitude could also cause many huge flaws because egos are 50/50 in the way of being right and wrong so in turn making the panel decision that ways this in 50/50.

Your idea is probably the best I have ever read about. But the easiest way to control the ego concern is the same as any major companies board room. Who ever is the facilitator is the same as a CEO in a sense. Not that they get to over rule anyone, but everyone will have to respect them and he/she would have to be able to maintain order in all meetings of the panel

[Oldfan]

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

Your list of draft picks isn't all that impressive for seven drafts.

If we could examine his approach, we'd have more to go on. I could create a spreadsheet for the draft using seventh grade math, for example. The scouts would have to put number grades on a draft prospect such as posters are doing at my request in this thread.

If it was a math-based scheme, we should be able to convert it to use on any scheme by changing Shanny's numbers that were specific to his scheme.

[scott.sharrer]

Your list of draft picks isn't all that impressive for seven drafts.

If we could examine his approach, we'd have more to go on. I could create a spreadsheet for the draft using seventh grade math, for example. The scouts would have to put number grades on a draft prospect such as posters are doing at my request in this thread.

If it was a math-based scheme, we should be able to convert it to use on any scheme by changing Shanny's numbers that were specific to his scheme.

Yes you should be able to, but there is unfortunately no way to know. My point was that he did use one, and if his schemes were the ones the panel would move forward with, he could be helpful on the panel, but if the panel felt the team was better to go in a different direction, then I don't see him being a good fit on it.

And being that I am saying that without his schemes he wouldn't be a good fit, it should be obvious that I am being very objective and open minded when it comes to Shanny since I already stated that I am a fan of his but am willing to not include him if he is not a benefit.

[Oldfan]

I am a communications guy, and the use of any communication system to help with this system is greatly flawed when it comes to the possibility of egos. No matter what communication method you use, or if you have them in one room, you would get the same result if your panel is "infected" with egos. They panel members who have high egos will not wave from their stance no matter what method is used. And grading their opinions based on their cooperative attitude could also cause many huge flaws because egos are 50/50 in the way of being right and wrong so in turn making the panel decision that ways this in 50/50.

Your idea is probably the best I have ever read about. But the easiest way to control the ego concern is the same as any major companies board room. Who ever is the facilitator is the same as a CEO in a sense. Not that they get to over rule anyone, but everyone will have to respect them and he/she would have to be able to maintain order in all meetings of the panel

I wouldn't have them in the same room. Ideally, they wouldn't even discuss the decision with each other before the discussion.

Stubborn, egotistical members would be voting in the minority more often. The frequency with which they vote in the minority could be easily computed. A member with a high rate could be fired and replaced based on the necessary assumption that the majority opinion is the correct decision based on the facts available at the time.

[MustangSteve]

There's nothing complex about it, but I'm a little short of the cash needed. Would you consider investing?

Actually it's a great plan oldfan, and I think Shanny made a point when he sent out dead weight as soon as he arrived. It's obvious he felt he could win now and rebuild at the same time, and he might be able to, we will see. I'm expecting a bigger change next season, we must get this young group like you said, but we better have a few good vets on this team, not 50 year old receivers. If I had to name a 10 man core right now to build around, this would be my pic.

Offense

McNabb stays, every team must have a good vet to groom the future.

Santana Moss will stay and go to the slot.

Chris Cooley, solid and still dangerous

Trent Williams, he's earned it

Brandon Banks, nobody in the East is bringing him back to kick our ass 2 times a year, everyone else will be replaced.

Defense

Orakpo, no brainer

Alexander is too good not to keep, plays anywhere you need him.

Landry, he's a beast in the right system.

Hall, I'm not getting rid of the NFL's leading int CB

Haynesworth, only if he buys in 100%, whats that chance?

Everyone else goes

10 men is a good core to start rolling with, and they should be some great teachers for all the young hungry talent brought in. From there on bring in the rest of the pieces to the puzzle as years go by.

[Oldfan]

Yes you should be able to, but there is unfortunately no way to know. My point was that he did use one, and if his schemes were the ones the panel would move forward with, he could be helpful on the panel, but if the panel felt the team was better to go in a different direction, then I don't see him being a good fit on it.

And being that I am saying that without his schemes he wouldn't be a good fit, it should be obvious that I am being very objective and open minded when it comes to Shanny since I already stated that I am a fan of his but am willing to not include him if he is not a benefit.

I don't want to send this thread on a tangent at this point, so I'd rather not get into specifics. But, there are a number of conflicts between Mike's plan and my idea of a good plan for a dynasty.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

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.

I'll take that, though maybe Zorn's failure was due to individual failures in designing the offense than anything.

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.

I think that creates a problem in that, well, that makes your list of candidates very, very short. NFL coaching experience, and experience in using statistics to determine game management and preparation? How do you propose we find seven of those guys?

It would be better to find one or two people who fit that criteria, and "tutor" the rest of the staff the best they could, while embedding the principles to younger staff members to take over in time.

And you did say the facilitator wouldn't need to necessarily have football experience or even knowledge; Allen's strengths are financial/cap management and the ability to direct the front office, so he seems ideal for the role.

[MustangSteve]

No one every coach will borrow ideas they've seen around the league that they like, making adjustments as they see fit. .

I think that was his point, having a coach to bring in "his own" ideas and system, not copying someone elses playbook.

[XEL]

I remember calling Oldfan's post a fail in a previous thread. I take that back. Sorry man :/

This was very well thought out

Anywho, my ranking of the starters:

Offense

McNabb - 3.5 (His play so far this year hurt his rating)

Torain - 3 (Solid starter but can improve)

Sellers - 3.2 (Not as a great a FB as he used to be but his contributions on special teams are appreciated)

Cooley - 3.5 (Yeah he has catches and touchdowns but I haven't seen him play on the Pro Bowl caliber he did in 07-08)

Moss - 3.7 ( With McNabb throwing to him, Moss has really rejuvenated)

Armstrong - 2.7 (Room for improvement)

Williams - 3.2 (Great pick up. Has shown to be able to stand his ground against top pass-rushers)

Lichtensteigher - 2 (Not much to say here)

Rabach - 2 (Age is catching up with this guy..)

Hicks - 2 (Could improve himself)

Brown - 3 (Even though he's hurt, Brown is still solid)

Defense

Golston - 2.6 (Solid player but not great)

Kemoeatu - 1 (...)

Carriker - 3 (Great pick up)

Alexander - 3 (Would've been 2.7 as he has room for improvement; Gave him three for his [great] contributions on special teams as well.)

McIntosh - 3.5 (Playing great this year)

Fletcher - 4 (He's London Fletcher)

Orakpo - 4.1 (He's Brian Orakpo. Held every play, but still gets the pressures and sacks)

Rogers - 3 (If only he could catch)

Hall - 3.7 (Great ballhawk abilities but could improve even more)

Moore - 2.7 (Room for improvement)

Landry - 4.5 (Has simply been amazing this year)

Other notable players

Banks - 4.5 (This is rating him as a RS not a WR. He's electrical but still fumbles sometimes; though clearly they've fixed it, for the most part)

Haynesworth - 4 (Like it or not, when Big Al is motivated, he is a top 5 DL.)

Portis - 3.2 (Age has caught up with him. His blocking abilities help him gain a few extra points)

Carter - 2.7 (Simply isn't the same player in the 3-4 as he was in the 4-3)

Doughty - 1.5 (Not too great but being a white DB is tough, and he is playing on the professional level)

Buchanon - 2.7 (Solid pick up)

[Warhead36]

(POST #4 of 5) BUILDING AND MAINTAINING A ROSTER

The core players of a roster for a dynasty will be acquired primarily through the draft. Minimal, very careful use of cheap free agents as gap fillers is okay once the core of the team is in hand.

In the draft, looking for attributes overlooked by most other teams seems like a good idea especially when adding depth and special teams players. Since most NFL teams seem to put their emphasis on size and speed, the panel might decide to emphasize intelligence and athleticism in the late rounds and when signing UDFAs.

The draft is not like Home Depot. You don't make a list of your needs expecting to fill them in the draft. The draft presents opportunities which must be recognized and seized. Therefore, a team can't, say, plan to build the O-line before they find the QB. They have to take what's available.

A modified "best player available" approach will work best in drafting. It is possible to use numbers to weigh the four factors of talent, scheme fit, position value, and need which will enable a spread sheet analysis when the scouting grades are added. The analysis will be a closely guarded secret. Even the scouts don't have to know which players the team will target.

Teams desperate to win now make ideal trade partners. They trade picks for vets and often want to move up in the draft. When a young player shows that he is equal to the veteran starter, trading the vet should be considered in order to keep the roster from aging. Veterans near the end of their careers should be traded for draft picks before they are useless.

From the youth leagues to the NFL, all players are system players. Those on well-coached winning teams are playing closer to their full potential than the players on losing teams. Therefore, players on winning teams are often overrated by comparison to those on losing teams. Consequently, when drafting players, care must be taken not to overrate players from winning programs. This is especially true of the QB position which is so dependent on its supporting cast.

We can bet that the stats-loving Bill Belichik and Ernie Adams duo have done an extensive study of the draft. They seem to be stockpiling picks in rounds 2,3 and 4. In the later rounds, they are trading down as often as they can to give themselves more ammunition. Just on instincts, this sounds like a good approach to me.

The coaching panel has to decide whether they want to risk a number one draft pick on the hard-to-grade QB position. It might be smarter to take a few shots with picks in the lower rounds unless they decide they'd prefer a superior athlete at the position. In that case, they would need an early pick in the first round.

Best post I've read on ES in...basically forever.

[MustangSteve]

Best post I've read on ES in...basically forever.

This was well thought out huh? Great job oldfan, should Allen start worrying about his job?

[Oldfan]

Ithink that creates a problem in that, well, that makes your list of candidates very, very short. NFL coaching experience, and experience in using statistics to determine game management and preparation? How do you propose we find seven of those guys?

I can think of three. Detroit has two very bright young assistants on their staff.Then, there's Chris Meidt. I'm sure that if I were on the inside, I could come up with more. I would go to the college ranks if necessary to fill out the panel.

And you did say the facilitator wouldn't need to necessarily have football experience or even knowledge; Allen's strengths are financial/cap management and the ability to direct the front office, so he seems ideal for the role.

That might work.

[Oldfan]

Best post I've read on ES in...basically forever.

Wow! That's high praise. You've been here since Dec 2004. Thank you, sir.

[Oldfan]

This was well thought out huh? Great job oldfan, should Allen start worrying about his job?

All Allen has to do is read my thread and post his questions.:

[MustangSteve]

All Allen has to do is read my thread and post his questions.:

great answer!

[The Tris]

Brandon Banks: 4

Chris Cooley: 4

Donovan McNabb: 3 (because of draft picks involved)

Ryan Torain: 3

Trent Williams: 5

Lorenzo Alexander: 4 (multi faceted player)

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

DeAngelo Hall: 4

LaRon Landry: 5

Brian Orakpo: 5

I agree with your rankings. Just an observation about our core players, four of the ten were added this year.

And according to oldfan's metrics, team's can only add FAs once 11 of the 22 players are "core". Funny, if Brown had been healthy this season, we would be at that threashold (well save the QB being a 3 instead of a 4).

[Oldfan]

I agree with your rankings. Just an observation about our core players, four of the ten were added this year.

And according to oldfan's metrics, team's can only add FAs once 11 of the 22 players are "core". Funny, if Brown had been healthy this season, we would be at that threashold (well save the QB being a 3 instead of a 4).

Four on that list don't qualify by my definition. See the OP.

[4skins23]

I liked this setup so I am using it, but modified it for my own taste.

Offense

McNabb - 3

Torain - 3 (Solid starter but can improve)

Sellers - 3.5

Cooley - 3.5

Moss - 3.0 Usually a 50/50 shot if he will catch a pass.

Armstrong - 3.5 (Room for improvement)

Williams - 3.5 (Great pick up. Has shown to be able to stand his ground against top pass-rushers)

Lichtensteigher - 2.7 Not the greatest, but at least he doesn't get hurt.

Rabach - 2.5 (Age is catching up with this guy... but solid)

Hicks - 2 (Could improve himself)

Brown - 2 (IMO, average at best)

Defense

Golston - 3.0 (Solid player but not great)

Kemoeatu - 3 (I like this guy. At least average with signs of being a force)

Carriker - 3 (Great pick up, Better than ppl give him credit for)

Alexander - 2.7 (needs improvement. gets better each week)

McIntosh - 3.0 (overhyped... should be playing at a higher level)

Fletcher - 4.5 (Most under-appreciated player on the team. He is everywhere!)

Orakpo - 4.3 (He's Brian Orakpo. Held every play, but still gets the pressures and sacks)

Rogers - 3.5 (If only he could catch. It's like watching Smoot! lol GREAT coverage guy, but yup, can't catch.)

Hall - 4.7 (Great ballhawk abilities but could improve even more) (how?)

Moore - 2.0 (Room for improvement, trade coming? Never hear his name on the field.)

Landry - 4.8 (Has simply been amazing this year)

Other notable players

Banks - 3.0 (If he was that good he would be a starter. I do like him but starting him would make him less effective in both positions.)

Haynesworth - 4 (Like it or not, when Big Al is motivated, he is a top 5 DL.Perfect for stopping the runs. )

Portis - 2.7 (Age has caught up with him. His blocking abilities help him gain a few extra points)

Carter - 3.0 (Simply isn't the same player in the 3-4 as he was in the 4-3)

Doughty - 2.5 (Good in coverage, but can be better.)

Buchanon - 2.8 (Solid pick up, could be better, good for coverage.)

Grossman- (-5) (should not be playing at the NFL level.College would be a better fit.)

[KDawg]

I agree with your rankings. Just an observation about our core players, four of the ten were added this year.

And according to oldfan's metrics, team's can only add FAs once 11 of the 22 players are "core". Funny, if Brown had been healthy this season, we would be at that threashold (well save the QB being a 3 instead of a 4).

Four on that list don't qualify by my definition. See the OP.

I only see two that don't qualify by your definition. McNabb as he doesn't meet the 4 requirement for a QB or the age requirement, or hell, the contract requirement.

Fletcher because he doesn't meet the age requirement.

Unless you're counting Banks and Torain as unproven. I'd agree with Torain, but not Banks. Banks has proven he's electric in the return game. Unless there's a contract situation I'm unaware of.

PS: Earlier you told me I neglected position importance. You're correct. Didn't intend to leave that off but I did. That would go into my grading criteria. But I don't lump BPA with attitude or work ethic. Attitude/Work Ethic could be combined into one category, "behavior", but you don't have to have a good work ethic to be a stud (though it helps) see Moss, Randy.

PSPS: Awesome thread here, OF. I could talk football philosophy all day. One thing that's funny is that you and I never used to see eye to eye on things, not sure what changed, but we seem to agree on most matters now. Although, you were always someone I respected even when we disagreed.

[MassSkinsFan]

I wouldn't have them in the same room. Ideally, they wouldn't even discuss the decision with each other before the discussion.

Stubborn, egotistical members would be voting in the minority more often. The frequency with which they vote in the minority could be easily computed. A member with a high rate could be fired and replaced based on the necessary assumption that the majority opinion is the correct decision based on the facts available at the time.

Two thoughts - first, it's preferable to assemble people in the same room for discussions like this. I have been involved in lots of high-conflict meetings related to risk-laden decisions, employing a model where you are to focus on the problem (not the person) and use rational thought and evidence to come to conclusions. When team members are uncomfortable with the discussion, it is very easy to discern through non-verbal cues. This is the advantage of face-to-face. Also, when someone puts their ego ahead of the facts, it is easier to talk them down off the ledge when you can use your own body language and other non-verbal influences.

Second, the selection process for the panel needs to consider temperament. Egotistical ****s can only be brought in if their technical expertise is so far above and beyond anyone else's that they are indispensible. Otherwise, you find someone slightly less technically competent who has the right mind set to weather criticism with the goal of finding the right solution instead of ensuring your own proposal is implemented. Also, in the event you do need to bring in that crusty **** who has a monopoly on a specialized area of expertise, you might want to consider putting them in a consulting role without final say. That way you can gain the benefit of their insight without being bound by their will.

[4skins23]

I have my own little requirements when deciding if the player is a player or a (Core) player.

1. Does he "bleed burgundy and gold? How committed is he? Does he buy into the system? Would he want to be a Redskin and stay a Redskin, and retire as a Redskin? What would he do for the team vs. himself?

And really, only a select few on the list qualify to me.

I question Portis's committment to the team anymore, as also Moss. A few years ago, absolutely, but now I wonder if they won't want to go somewhere else come contract time.

Haynesworth is obviously here for the money, same with McNabb, and maybe Hall?

I would label as core players ...Fletcher, Orakpo, Cooley, and maybe Sellers.

What do you think?

[MassSkinsFan]

I think that creates a problem in that, well, that makes your list of candidates very, very short. NFL coaching experience, and experience in using statistics to determine game management and preparation? How do you propose we find seven of those guys?

I can think of three. Detroit has two very bright young assistants on their staff.Then, there's Chris Meidt. I'm sure that if I were on the inside, I could come up with more. I would go to the college ranks if necessary to fill out the panel.

That might work.

Remember - it's math aptitude, not experience using stats to run a football operation. Someone who has never taken a stats class can have high aptitude in mathematics. Then it's just a matter of training them to use new tools (stats) to analyze their football decisions.

[joeknows]

sounds like a bunch of indians with no chief to me......