Changing the concept of losing

[gobigred]

I read the article in the Washington Post by Lavar Arrington regarding this season, and I begin to think what is the root cause of this season failures year after year. I know we have the oldest roster, we have a new coaching staff and front office. I think this goes deeper. This team needs to change the concept of this team. I look at the Patriots and Steelers. What has created the concept of winning for them. I think of it has a concept. I remember when I played high school football we were not that good but I think the real causes was the team expecting to lose. I think that it went from the leadership to the team and we could not break it until the whole concept changed. I don't think Snyder is looking at how to win as an organization. the patriots did a basic over haul of the team but look at them they have not missed a beat. The Steelers were without their qb for first few games of the season but no one expected it to effect them that much based on the leadership of team. Our owner will never be a sucessful owner until he changes his concept of what it takes to win.It has been 13 weeks and we still do not have an identity has team that bothers me more then the losing.. Instead of Snyder hanging out with Jerry Jones he needs to hand out with the Rooney's and Mara's being a good business man does not mean you will be a sucessful owner. Sometimes I wonder wht this team would be like If Jack Cooke kept it in the family.

[Annonymous Source]

Problems go deeper than an old untalented roster, another new system, and a general lack of front office competence for 10 years? Wow, that is bad we should start manning the lifeboats now.

In seriousness tho, the only way to do a turnaround when it comes to a "winning attitude" is to get the talent in place and the scheme in place to play at a consistently high level. It cannot be altered until the basic components of the team are altered. Teams like the Steelers and the Patriots go out and play with arrogance because they assume they are more talented than their opponents. That arrogance combined with good coaching really allows them to be dominant.

[Sellersfan]

First off, dont put too much into what ever Lavar has to say. He has an axe to grind with the Redskins, and if anything he helped add to the culture this team finds itself in.

It has been well documented that Danny wants to win. He is just too impatient. It is the equivalent of one of us on these boards coming into a billion dollars, and buying this team as a toy. While alot of us think we could do it, ( and some on the boards could) lets be honest, most of us dont have a hot clue on how to run a pro sports franchise.

Dont expect the Mara`s or Rooneys to chill with old Danny anytime soon.

Mara`s and Rooneys were instrumental in building the NFL. Then comes along a guy with TONS of cash, and no brains who buys a team. It`s the equivalent to the Beverly Hillbillies. Don`t think for one second that they dont sit back and laugh at what has happened here, and in Dallas. Flamboyant owners with more money than brains.

[gobigred]

I agree with both post. I just see good players coming here and falling in the same rut as the rest of these players. I would like to see whole team over hauled with young talent. We cannot even get excited about the future of this team and that is almost year in year out.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't really buy into that "concept" of losing. I think that good teams win and become "winners" because of it. What did the Colts change between 1997 and 1998? They brought in Peyton Manning and, after a year of letting him learn on the job, they started winning and have been a "model franchise" for a decade. What was different about the 2000 and 2001 Patriots? They had to play Tom Brady and the team grew up around him and they are now the benchmark in the NFL. If you get good, that philosophy of winning will follow.

[#98QBKiller]

Those organizations have mapped out what works for them and how to maintain that plan throughout regimes. Teams like the Patriots and Colts are lucky enough to have some of the best QBs to ever play the game to build around. While a team like the Steelers puts a lot of emphasis on a strong defense and running game and a QB that can get them out of jams. When you have a map of how you want to build your team and what you need to win, it makes it easier to find the right pieces year after year to maintain that success.

IMO, I think we should look at building a defensive team. We're a lot closer (personnel wise) to building a dominant defense than we are a dominant offense. Adding the right guys up from to run the 3-4 would be a great start this offseason. If we can be a top ten team in terms of yardage like we have been in recent years and combine that with the turnovers and sacks that we've seen come from the 3-4, we can be a very hard team to play every year. Add in an effective run game and a big play passing attack (two things that we see developing under the Shanahans) and that seems like a good recipe for success.

[TSO]

It's pretty clear to me. There are two types of teams that can win consistently in the NFL from year to year:

1) Team with super awesome franchise QB. (Colts, Patriots, Saints)

2) Team with super awesome defense. (Steelers, Ravens)

And, yes, that's in order of relevance. The first kind of team wins more consistently than the second.

Now, both types of teams can have issues and can lose from time to time, if their other pieces are just woefully awful. For instance, the Colts can lose when their defense fails miserably no matter what Peyton does. The Steelers could fail if their Oline can't block worth anything no matter what their defense does.

Everyone else competing is just trying to get to either of those points and there are teams who have a little of both. A team that can truly manage both become damn near unstoppable. The Steelers have been the closest thing to that mix with Roethlisberger, but he's not super awesome and is just a notch below that.

The one exception to this rule seems to be the Chargers, who have super awesome Rivers at QB. However, I think that is an age-old case of Norvitis at work, lol. Even still, they manage to go nuts in December and make the playoffs every year, so it's not much of an exception.

I think Shanny recognized this and is trying to model the super awesome Defense of the Steelers along with the super awesome QB of teams like the Pats and Colts. Unfortunately, we're probably a ways off on both counts, though I'd say another offseason could change that. Is McNabb potentially that QB? I think so. Can our 3-4 D become super awesome with a few more pieces? I think so. If McNabb isn't, I think Shanny will be aggressive in making the change. I really liked the McNabb trade for numerous reasons, but one major reason I liked it was because I felt it pointed towards Shanahan recognizing just how important the franchise QB was to the team, therefore his willingness to trade a high draft pick. His aggression in that regard shows we got a HC who won't let a guy he doesn't believe could be super awesome to play that position for us. It's no secret we wanted Bradford as well, but unfortunately it was impossible to give the Rams what they were asking for.

[@DCGoldPants]

its not a concept. Its a mentality, a culture, a mindset. And it starts from the top.

There is no secret why the Cowboys have been so awful since the team Jimmy built started to fade away. They have weak leadership at the top and no GM.

Until last season, even with Gibbs here. We were copying that business model.

Right now it seems that the new business model is showing special case players who is in charge.

While it hasn't been perfect and they've made mistakes like not leveling with the fan base about the rebuilding project, and trading about picks for older players when it probably wasn't the best move. If they continue to phase out the "Me First" players for "Team First" guys, things will turn around.

This will start with the offseason. I keep hearing how deep the free agent class is, and that would worry me with Vinny here.

Instead of going for a couple top tier guys with big contracts. They could bring in a dozen blue collar guys and fair deals.

Instead of looking at the roster and saying "Who should they cut?"

It should be "Who's worth keeping?". That's your core, and you build around them.

[addicted]

The problem with this team hasn't changed. We want to invest too much in skill positions and refuse to invest in recreating the Hogs. No QB, no RB, no WR, no defensive player is ever going to turn this around where we win year after year until we have a powerful offensive line again. We grossly under appreciated this position, until we fix it this doesn't change. And yet the fanbase around here is split even today when the discussion of using draft picks on linemen comes up. When the team doesn't get it, the fans don't get it, and only a few seem to understand this it's impossible to turn a losing feeling into a winning one. The reason we have this losing sinking feeling is we don't have any hope that we have figured out what's missing around here. The thing that's missing is simple. It's the Hogs. When we address that we have a chance, but few actually think we will fix this and not just bandge it like we are used to so the depression is here to stay.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

He tries to hang out with the owners of the Pats and Steelers but they don't want the loser mentality to catch on where they are so they told Dan kiss off

[Rufus T Firefly]

I don't really buy into that "concept" of losing. I think that good teams win and become "winners" because of it. What did the Colts change between 1997 and 1998? They brought in Peyton Manning and, after a year of letting him learn on the job, they started winning and have been a "model franchise" for a decade. What was different about the 2000 and 2001 Patriots? They had to play Tom Brady and the team grew up around him and they are now the benchmark in the NFL. If you get good, that philosophy of winning will follow.

Thank you. That is the argument I've had here many times, specifically in regards to the McNabb deal. The same is true with the Saints. They were horrible and then get Brees and Payton and all of a sudden they're a title contender. The Colts, Pats and Saints weren't just losing franchises, they were punch lines. None of them got where they are because they made incremental changes that added a win here and win there and that "new attitude" brought them extra wins in the future.

In fact, NFL history is littered with franchise that brought in aging players which bought them an extra win or two, and then they sank back to the bottom of the league. I can't find an example of a team that broguht in vets, won a couple more games, and then seemed to rise to the top after they aged because there was some "culture of winning" that carried over.

[Gart Monk]

It's painfully obvious that the "bottom line" is based on money and not victories.

This fan base has been taking it in the butt for ten years and is getting sore.

[gobigred]

I don't agree totally to that Haslett did not do to bad. I do agree building a good team starts a qb and oline.

[Horatio]

First off, dont put too much into what ever Lavar has to say. He has an axe to grind with the Redskins, and if anything he helped add to the culture this team finds itself in.

Arrington has a legitimate axe to grind with Snyder, and that doesn't make his accusations any less truthful. He's given us a lot of insight as to how this team is really run...it was Snyder, not Gibbs, who wanted him to buy out his contract to get out of DC. Yet they keep up this charade that Little Danny is not as involved as he used to be, which I don't buy for a second.

It has been well documented that Danny wants to win. He is just too impatient. It is the equivalent of one of us on these boards coming into a billion dollars, and buying this team as a toy. While alot of us think we could do it, ( and some on the boards could) lets be honest, most of us dont have a hot clue on how to run a pro sports franchise.

Snyder SAYS he wants to win, but his actions indicate he is more concerned with making oodles of cash to line his pockets with...OUR cash. He is not just impatient, he is a domineering control freak with a thin skin. The difference between one of us buying this team and Snyder is that I think the majority of us are wise enough to realize how little we know about running an NFL team, and would delegate those decisions accordingly.

[veteranskinsfan]

I agree with Buford. Also do any of you old timers remember that guy on WMAL radio- Ken Beatrice?? Remember he would always say that success of any franchise starts at the top and something about a fish stinking at the top and the smell reverberates throughout the rest of the team. Bring in blue collar guys like Buford said. Look at the 3 undrafted rookies who are doing well for us so far per today's Washington Post article. We need to create a culture of winning. Now our players are not shocked when we lose in the 4th quarter. Glad they let the punter go today- we have not had enough accountability by the players since Gibbs first time around. In those days, players did fear being cut by Gibbs. The culture of winning started to happen when Gibbs held players accountable to themselves and to their teammates. Gibbs was never afraid to cut a player his first time around. Now the second time around I admit Gibbs made mistakes. His worse mistake of all was not giving Bobby Beathard his due for his drafting abilities and it was Jack Kent Cooke who would always intercede when they had disagreements. But Gibbs and everyone else were accountable to someone. Gibbs had to be accountable to Cooke. We have lost that now and I think Cooley and some of the others know that too. I know most of you are tired of hearing about the "old days" but if you look at other good franchises today the accountability factor remains with those teams who win on a consistent basis.

[Dirt]

I don't think just because you played for the Washing Redskins should mean you can write for the Washington Post.

We're doing pretty much exactly what you're suggesting. We're doing it right now. As we speak.

Patience will never be a part of this place. As soon as we win our next Super Bowl, we won't be winning the next one soon enough.

[Darth Tater]

The hardest thing to do is change a losing culture into a winning one. Especially since the culture must change BEFORE the results change.

---------- Post added December-14th-2010 at 04:27 PM ----------

I don't really buy into that "concept" of losing. I think that good teams win and become "winners" because of it. What did the Colts change between 1997 and 1998? They brought in Peyton Manning and, after a year of letting him learn on the job, they started winning and have been a "model franchise" for a decade. What was different about the 2000 and 2001 Patriots? They had to play Tom Brady and the team grew up around him and they are now the benchmark in the NFL. If you get good, that philosophy of winning will follow.

Actually, the Colts were a mediocre team from 1987 to 1996 with 1991 being the only exception. They had just recently posted back-to-back playoff years. The big thing the Pats did was learn how to run an innovative defense which Belichick had designed. They pretty much haven't sucked for an extended period of time since 1989-1993 and before that their only other extended period of total suck was from the mid-60s to early 70s. Actually, we haven't had an extended period of suckage since 1993-1995, we have, however, had some suck teams during that period and no great teams at all.

[Sellersfan]

Arrington has a legitimate axe to grind with Snyder, and that doesn't make his accusations any less truthful. He's given us a lot of insight as to how this team is really run...it was Snyder, not Gibbs, who wanted him to buy out his contract to get out of DC. Yet they keep up this charade that Little Danny is not as involved as he used to be, which I don't buy for a second.

Snyder SAYS he wants to win, but his actions indicate he is more concerned with making oodles of cash to line his pockets with...OUR cash. He is not just impatient, he is a domineering control freak with a thin skin. The difference between one of us buying this team and Snyder is that I think the majority of us are wise enough to realize how little we know about running an NFL team, and would delegate those decisions accordingly.

We have been able to see and hear how this organization is/ was run before Lavar began writing for the Post. Legitimate or otherwise, Lavar still has an axe to grind, which imacts his objectivity. All I'm suggesting is that there was no tradition of winning that he helped instill while he was here.

Snyder says he wants to win, and former players/ coaches all agree there isn't a person who wants to win more than him. Dont confuse how he likes to generate revenue with wanting to win.

32 owners all have something in common: They want to win, and they want to make money. Winning by the way increases their ability to make money.

[Redskins4ever]

Before Jack Kent Cooke passed away, and Snyder bought the team, there were losing seasons, but not near anything like it's been since Snyder has owned the team. 3 Playoff appearances in twelve seasons? That's extremely poor. But you have to look back to all of the poor ignorant decisions since Snyder has owned the team.

1. Firing Norv Turner while the Redskins were still in playoff contention.

2. Firing Marty Schottenheimer after the Redskins won 8 of their last 11 games in 2001(the exact same thing Gibbs did in 1981.

3. Hiring a incompetent college coach who had never even been a offensive coordinator on the NFL level who thought he could pitch and catch in the NFC EAST.

4. Hiring Jim Zorn as a coordinator before a head coach was in place. Who does this?

5. Out of all of those decisions, hiring Joe Gibbs, Bruce Allen, and Mike Shanahan is the only thing that Snyder has done right since he's purchased the team from the Cooke Estate.

Based on all of these decisions, Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan aren't going to fix what's wrong with the Redskins in two seasons. It's going to take the full length of Mike Shanahan's five year contract to return this franchise to past glory. And that's the harsh reality of it when a team has been mismanaged as poorly as the Redskins have been for the past decade, while teams like Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and New England are in the playoffs every year.

[Oldfan]

It's pretty clear to me. There are two types of teams that can win consistently in the NFL from year to year:

1) Team with super awesome franchise QB. (Colts, Patriots, Saints)

2) Team with super awesome defense. (Steelers, Ravens)

Please offer support for your claim that Brady and Manning are super awesome and not just very good quarterbacks with super awesome support.

[skinnyfan57]

My kid asked me if we could go to the game last Sunday. I made him spend 7 hours forcing $300 of his own money down a backed up toilet so he'd understand why I don't want to take him.

[Horatio]

5. Out of all of those decisions, hiring Joe Gibbs, Bruce Allen, and Mike Shanahan is the only thing that Snyder has done right since he's purchased the team from the Cooke Estate.

I disagree that hiring Gibbs 2.0 was a good decision. While I'm sure Snyder didn't expect him to fail like he did, it essentially set the franchise back by 4 years and led to the hiring of Zorn when no one else wanted the job. With Gibbs 2.0 all we got was a middle-aged man with little of the passion he displayed in his first stint for the game of football.

[TSO]

Please offer support for your claim that Brady and Manning are super awesome and not just very good quarterbacks with super awesome support.

I absolutely REFUSE to get into this with you!

But, just to make this a bit more amusing I'll humor you with this:

See Pats before Brady. See Colts before Manning.

You can have the last word.

[s0crates]

This might be a good argument against the tankers.

[Rodriggo]

Seems like those teams you mentioned are run more like football teams first and businesses second.

The football TEAM comes before any one player and thus guys like Moss and Porter get bounced sooner rather than later. They tactfully fill those holes through the draft and FA so while they "retool" and "rebuild" they're still competing and making the playoffs and building towards something.

Their basement is being competitive year in, year out.