Breaking down Shanahan's last 3 drafts in Denver....we are in good hands

[Shanahanigans]

Well, it would seem that Kyle has lots of influence, if what you say is true. Because the scheme was NOT fit to the players. McNabb is not a fit for the scheme Kyle runs at all, and that was a huge issue. They wouldn't adapt it to better suit his strengths.

And that's not even mentioning the switch to the 3-4, which didn't fit our personnel at all. But that's a looking-towards-the-future move that I'll let slide, because the only explanation is that he wanted to start the change as early as possible, knowing we weren't going to win it all anytime soon.

The switch to a 3-4 is so much more fundamental so I agree with you.

With regards to McNabb, I'm sorry, I can't explain it. But, when it comes to QB's, I just absolutely trust Shanahan's decisions. It's the one position that I never questioned Shanahan's ability to evaluate. Sorry it came too late, but the only thing I have to go on is Jake Plummer. Plummer fell out of favor with Shanny when he didn't show up to voluntary camp. He frowns upon complete commitment from his QB and he almost never forgives once he's pushed past a certain point.

For what it's worth, I feel he gave Plummer a chance to keep his job in 2006 with Cutler at his heels, but when the chips were down, Plummer folded like a tent. I questioned his decision to start Cutler. I felt he was throwing away the season, but in retrospect, Plummer was crap that year and wouldn't take us anywhere. Shanny made a choice. Even if Plummer took us to the playoffs, we would have been one and done. Starting Cutler early at least gave him some valuable playing time.

I also don't think you gave your players enough time to 1) be evaluated and 2) learn the system. See how it goes this year. I think you will progress... if there's football at all.

[Oldfan]

--

Hey, Shanahanigans, glad you dropped in. If you missed it, I mentioned you in an earlier post re: the Goodmans.

In trying to explain the Broncos very good 2006 and 2008 drafts for the offense there are these possibilities:

1) Mike learned how to pick good people and depend on them;

2) Mike got lucky when he picked the Goodmans;

3) The Goodmans aren't really that good; they just got lucky with their picks; Redskins fans know about getting lucky in drafts (see Beathard, 1981).

The OP argues in this thread that we should have confidence in Mike Shanahan's drafting based on the evidence of Mike's last three drafts. Your opinion that Mike learned how to pick good people and depend on them seems to agree since that new knowledge is something he could bring to the Redskins. However, you didn't say how you arrived at that opinion. What makes you think that he can duplicate the success that he had with the Goodmans with the Skins?

On the other point:

The word "rebuild," as you say, need to be defined. To me, the word "rebuilding" describes a plan just as "reloading" describes a different plan. I associate rebuilding with draft picks since no great NFL team has ever built the core of the roster any other way. The team that is reloading will aggressively pursue free agents. The team that is rebuilding will not.

The mere fact that the 2006 and 2008 drafts produced five or six good players is not evidence that a rebuilding plan was in progress.

My impression is that this Broncos fan from an earlier linked thread has it right:

i think the Broncos drafts overall during the Shanny years are not too well regarded. they weren't necessarily horrific, they just didn't produce as many impact players as we would have liked. Shanny was always trying to "reload" rather than "rebuild", so the draft didn't seem to be as crucial to the Broncos on field success as it is elsewhere.

Do you disagree?

[Shanahanigans]

--

Hey, Shanahanigans, glad you dropped in. If you missed it, I mentioned you in an earlier post re: the Goodmans.

In trying to explain the Broncos very good 2006 and 2008 drafts for the offense there are these possibilities:

1) Mike learned how to pick good people and depend on them;

2) Mike got lucky when he picked the Goodmans;

3) The Goodmans aren't really that good; they just got lucky with their picks; Redskins fans know about getting lucky in drafts (see Beathard, 1981).

The OP argues in this thread that we should have confidence in Mike Shanahan's drafting based on the evidence of Mike's last three drafts. Your opinion that Mike learned how to pick good people and depend on them seems to agree since that new knowledge is something he could bring to the Redskins. However, you didn't say how you arrived at that opinion. What makes you think that he can duplicate the success that he had with the Goodmans with the Skins?

On the other point:

The word "rebuild," as you say, need to be defined. To me, the word "rebuilding" describes a plan just as "reloading" describes a different plan. I associate rebuilding with draft picks since no great NFL team has ever built the core of the roster any other way. The team that is reloading will aggressively pursue free agents. The team that is rebuilding will not.

My impression is that this Broncos fan from an earlier linked thread has it right:

Do you disagree?

Hi Oldfan! I did see your reference so I thought I'd join the discussion.

I arrived at my opinion just by watching him over the years mainly through interviews and observations. While Mike is a perfectionist, the one thing he was bad at was not being able to properly address the things he was bad at.

I think after the AFC Championship loss in 2005, he shifted his fundamental principles in building a team. But while Jim Goodman rose in the ranks in our FO, I don't think he drafted anybody. Shanahan made every final decision with regards to football operations.

As a body of work, Shanahans FA & drafts were a mixed bag. I think he is a risk/reward type of guy and that bleeds into everything he does including drafting, playcalling, FA, etc. So yes, there will be major busts like Maurice Clarett and major rewards like Ryan Clady. He is not Scott Pioli, but conversely, I don't think Scott Pioli could ever be half the coach that Shanahan is.

With regards to your definition of rebuilding, how long will that take since there are very few opportunities every year to draft players? If Shanahan had taken this approach after we won the Super Bowl, things would have been different in 2006. We would not have had a major overhaul and retooling every year would have been the MO ala the Patriots. He didn't take that approach because he scored in FA during our SB years and tried to continue on that path will little to no success. We hit rock bottom after 2005 after losing too many players to age/injury/retirement. Poor upkeep in personnel created a situation where we had to rebuild. I stand firm in my belief that we were rebuilding and we were progressing on par with the Packers and Saints around 07/08.

I think one of the things you may be overlooking is flexibility. While a plan must be in place, one needs to be open to other opportunities to improve the team. I don't think staying on one path necessarily is a good plan. I think the bigger statement rather than just picking up players through the draft is how much younger your team gets in the next two years.

I mentioned earlier that we had the second youngest team in 2008 behind the Chiefs. Did you have any opinion on that?

[Skinsinparadise]

--I don't understand why you think that the evidence of an offense improved via the draft contradicts my position that Mike doesn't rebuild, he reloads. The 2006 and 2008 drafts were very good, five or six starters were added to the offense. Is that evidence alone enough to satisfy you that it was part of a plan to rebuild the team through the draft?

The post from Shanahanigans sums it well, especially them being the 2nd youngest NFL team in the NFL in 2008. To put young players on your roster you have to dump older ones. We all have read about Gibbs liking to hold on to veterans - Shanny at least in later years didn't seem to have that inclination. Gibbs trades picks. Shanny adds them. Shanny fleeces Gibbs in trades where Gibbs loses picks and Shanny adds them. Not to pick on Gibbs but to me he's the poster child for always being in rebuild mode.

I recall reading somewhere that Shanny wanted to rebuild his team to an elite level to win another Superbowl, he thought he got it done on offense, he realized he wasn't there on defense and understood he had to fix it. I got no slant really on any Redskins coach, I just want to win with whomever is in charge. But it struck me reading about Shanny that he was far from satisfied with just sneaking into the playoffs -- and I'd gather he's astute enough to figure out what seems obvious, which is to win a Superbowl, you got to develop young talent to have staying power in the league. Whether he's successful or not at it, will see. Does he understand the rebuilding football cliches that we all put forward on the board, I suspect big time and more.

If you go back and listen to one of Shanny's conferences about the McNabb benching -- he flat out says he wants to look at drafting a QB and developing one. Again, not really words of a short sighted "reload" type of guy. I think its fair criticism that Shanny in some years has had a reload mindset but to me clearly in some years he operated otherwise. I don't know why people have to be boxed in with an all or nothing characterization. Whether its myself or people that work for me -- few of us operate the same way regardless of context. Context tends to matter and tends to influence people's approach. And yeah I've seen enough actions and comments from Shanny to believe that yeah if he thinks he can get away with reloading he will, but if he sees that's not the answer, he will take a step back to take a step forward.

I think its a fair argument about whether he's good or not at doing it on the defensive side of the ball or like you say can he see the big picture. But yeah just looking at Denver and even here he doesn't strike me as a simple guy with a singular approach where he just wants to patchwork the team. And I see little to make me think that he today sees the Redskins as a reload project. Gibbs to me struck me always in reload mode. Shanny at times. But there are clear patterns to me that Shanny is future oriented. I get your questioning his ability to build a team but yeah sorry got a hard time buying into the idea that he continually has a short term philosophy.

I know if it were me as the GM I don't think there would be an absolute sweeping way to generalize my approach. I'd horde and add picks. I'd sign key free agents. I wouldn't rely just on undrafted free agents to fill holes on the roster. And yeah I'd occasionally fill in a gap with a veteran if I didn't have an obvious younger player solution. Build a young and upcoming team without per se having the team fall apart during the journey. And no I don't think that would characterize me as a reload guy. To me a reload guy would trade our first rounder for Larry Fitzgerald, sign the top 3 free agents on the market, etc.

The Eagles "hoard" picks by trading away aged vets like McNabb before they become worthless. Can you offer evidence that Mike did that routinely in Denver? Has he shown that tendency here? No, you can't and no he hasn't.

Eagles lucked out that they have a surplus of Qbs, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be worth trading the surplus but I don't think that aptly defines a trend with them trading veterans for picks -- guys like Westbrook, Dawkins, etc left as free agents. But the QB position has been gold for for them, I recall they got a pick for Feeley. The article I put a link to in a prior post gets into what Shanny does with the draft includes adding compensation picks by letting his older free agents go -- a tactic used a lot by the Eagles and Ravens. The Eagles as am sure you follow like to sign free agents, so do the Patriots. And the Eagles like the Patriots aren't magicians with the draft in terms of hitting on picks -- but they cover what Kiper likes to say which is the best way to mitigate the crap shoot aspect of the draft and that is give yourself as many picks as possible.

You have lost me. What point of mine are you referring to? Bringing what veteran to camp? Atogwe?

Am talking about the criticism that he gets and correct me if I am wrong but from you to about signing veterans last year. I mean this with no sarcasm but the idea that you go 100% young, pass up on veterans, fill remaining holes with undrafted free agents is just fun Disney land style fantasy and I just don't see teams rebuild in such a pristine absolute purist way. There are definite strong elements of rebuilding in this fashion but not completely, and yeah "rebuilding" up and young coming teams -- bring in a Larry Johnson or two to camp, they sign a Fred Robbins type.

If I had to give a cynical explanation for it -- its yeah I do think its important for teams to go 7-9 over 2-14 year after year as they are putting their teams together for likely 2 reasons:

1. Fans. Being competitive and in games versus being the laughingstock of the league -- likely affects sales and interest in the team

2. The coach -- don't know too many coaches that can survive lets say 3 years in row of awful records. I really doubt for example Jim Schwartz believed signing a veteran LB and DE will make the Lions an instant playoff team and he understands they are in rebuild mode -- but he likely thinks some veterans will bring them closer to respectability along WITH the younger/upcoming players -- and also in turn help him keep his job.

[Oldfan]

Shanahanagins: I mentioned earlier that we had the second youngest team in 2008 behind the Chiefs. Did you have any opinion on that?

Yes, I forgot to comment on that.

Whether a team is embarked on a rebuilding plan or a reloading plan, they will try to hit on each and every draft selection every year. Thus, success or failure in the draft does not tell us whether the team was rebuilding or reloading. When the team is successful in recent drafts, the average age of the team will drop as an effect. So, the average age of the team does not, on its own, tell us whether the team intended to rebuild or reload.

Here are some of the signs I look for:

[reload] Did the team trade draft picks for vets?

[reload] Did the team give substantial practice and playing time to its older players and free agent vets?

[reload] Did the team audition young players only after being mathematically from the playoffs?

[rebuild] Did the team team trade vets for draft picks?

[rebuild] Did the team keep its roster free of older vets while auditioning UDFAs and other young players from the offseason until the final game?

These are are general statements allowing for a few exceptions.

[Oldfan]

SIP: The post from Shanahanigans sums it well, especially them being the 2nd youngest NFL team in the NFL in 2008.

That argument doesn't work. See my #80 for an explanation.

I recall reading somewhere that Shanny wanted to rebuild his team to an elite level to win another Superbowl, he thought he got it done on offense, he realized he wasn't there on defense and understood he had to fix it.

Coaches lie (Zorn an exception).

If you go back and listen to one of Shanny's conferences about the McNabb benching -- he flat out says he wants to look at drafting a QB and developing one. Again, not really words of a short sighted "reload" type of guy.

I know what he said "flat out" but what he did was trade two high draft picks for McNabb.

Context tends to matter and tends to influence people's approach.

That's probably what Mike is doing. Reloading is a good strategy if job security comes first.

But there are clear patterns to me that Shanny is future oriented.

You have quoted him about the future and his intent. What actions can you offer that aren't more than offset by actions in the opposite direction?

I know if it were me as the GM I don't think there would be an absolute sweeping way to generalize my approach.

I haven't created absolutes. I just recognize that you can't take one step North, one step West, repeat, and expect to go West or North. Which means: As a rule, you can't make short-term moves that don't conflict with the long term.

Eagles lucked out that they have a surplus of Qbs, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be worth trading the surplus.

To me, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our 4-12 team shouldn't be trading two high picks for the Eagles' surplus QB or that we should instead be looking to trade vets for picks.

If I had to give a cynical explanation for it -- its yeah I do think its important for teams to go 7-9 over 2-14 year after year as they are putting their teams together for likely 2 reasons:

1. Fans. Being competitive and in games versus being the laughingstock of the league -- likely affects sales and interest in the team

2. The coach -- don't know too many coaches that can survive lets say 3 years in row of awful records...

Mike Shanahan's situation with the Redskins is totally unique. In 2010, Mike was in his first year with the Skins and had total control. He could do anything he wanted to do. If he had stripped this team to the bone, and gone 0-16 while adding a couple more good young players, we would all be on the edges of our seats looking for signs of progress toward a dynasty. Instead, we got six wins while rooting for McNabb, Galloway and R.Williams and an old and misfit defense for most of the season. Wasn't that fun?

Now, if the free agent market opens up as expected this offseason, we can fill our roster with castoffs and maybe get to eight wins this season.

I don't see the point. Why settle for less than being the best organization in the NFL?

[Skinsinparadise]

I know what he said "flat out" but what he did was trade two high draft picks for McNabb.

From some of your other posts, you like to talk stats, research, variables, what can be proved, what variables need to be isolated or controlled to prove a theory, etc. Why not use that same style of thinking here? The McNabb trade proves IMO little because its an outlier to Shanny's pattern not an example of it. You throw the McNabb trade at me, while I give you an article about Shanny's OVERALL record on the draft, and even lays out how McNabb is the exception to the rule -- but am the one that's not giving the info to back the idea that Shanny is future oriented? And I gave others points too, if you believe Shanny is lying about drafting a Qb this time -- does that mean if he indeed does it - that would get your attention, that he's not all about the quick fix?

I just think there are follow up questions that makes this more complex and goes beyond trying to fit everything together neatly to prove X = Y :

Can you believe in reloading when you think you are close and believe in rebuilding when you don't think you are close? And why can't one person hold that belief? its not that radical a dichotomy? Each approach makes a lot of sense based on circumstances and yes it seems feasible to me to misread circumstances and adjust accordingly. Some say adapting thinking to changing circumstances is a sign of intelligence.

Is it easier to see what you got and where you are after coaching a year with the players? I don't think its nuts to think lets see what we can do with these guys and give it our best shot -- in the heat of the battle realize the talent isn't there and start adjusting your approach based on that.

Like I pointed out in a previous post, are theories played out in an all or nothing fashion, with no shades? Rebuilding means this, if any variable is out of whack its not a true rebuild. if so says whom?

If you are playing shades of a theory versus doing it purely does that have to mean that you are playing it down the middle? You are either a liberal or conservative but if you are a liberal on 15 things and have a conservative view on one thing, you can't be a liberal anymore you are pigeonholed a moderate. I disagree, you can be shades of intensity of being a firebrand liberal versus a more toned down one. Bringing that to football, if you buy into the draft like the Eagles do and at the same time engage in free agency -- I don't think that adds up to the Eagles are not being serious about rebuilding. they just have their own theory of rebuilding that doesn't jive with yours. I detect you want your opinion to jive with the Eagles being a rebuilding team -- but they cross one of your lines if am reading you right and that is they like to indulge in free agency.

I gather based on your comments our main divide is I think there #1 factor in rebuilding is

1. Collecting draft picks and doing the best you can with the draft. As for collecting draft picks, he's above average -- and no McNabb doesn't wipe out his 10 year aggregate history. If I lost 10 points, I don't get characterized by the piece of pie that I ate in the process where I gained a pound one week, as opposed to the overall weight loss.

you seem to be saying:

1. A team that avoids free agency is the main factor in rebuilding

But in other points you have touted collecting draft picks -- its just seemed to me that Shanny's history of doing the right thing on this front from a rebuilding stand point was inconvenient to your point, considering you turned it to the Eagles getting more of their picks by trading veterans than Denver did. OK, well Denver added more picks by letting their veteran free agents go and getting compensation picks. What's the difference? I got to go back and research their trades because I can think of 2 examples with heck our team where they got picks for players. Getting a 2nd round pick with Bailey for Portis was an outright steal for them, fleecing us for a 3rd and 4th rounder in the Duckett trade.

[Oldfan]

SIP: From some of your other posts, you like to talk stats, research, variables, what can be proved, what variables need to be isolated or controlled to prove a theory, etc. Why not use that same style of thinking here? The McNabb trade proves IMO little because its an outlier to Shanny's pattern not an example of it. You throw the McNabb trade at me, while I give you an article about Shanny's OVERALL record on the draft, and even lays out how McNabb is the exception to the rule -- but am the one that's not giving the info to back the idea that Shanny is future oriented? And I gave others points too, if you believe Shanny is lying about drafting a Qb this time -- does that mean if he indeed does it - that would get your attention, that he's not all about the quick fix?

This is what you said, and what my McNabb response was based on.

If you go back and listen to one of Shanny's conferences about the McNabb benching -- he flat out says he wants to look at drafting a QB and developing one. Again, not really words of a short sighted "reload" type of guy.

For me, what coaches say is evidence of nothing. I judge them by their actions. I believe Mike will draft a QB -- unless he likes a veteran QB who drops into free agency or he can trade for another Jake Plummer. Since good QBs seldom hit free agency, and are seldom traded, he will likely draft one.

I just think there are follow up questions that makes this more complex and goes beyond trying to fit everything together neatly to prove X = Y :

My math for Mike is N + W does not equal N or W.

N (North) = a sound dynasty plan (Bill Walsh)

W (West) = a sound win-now plan (George Allen)

Mike's plan in 2009, and his plans in Denver were Northwest plans. You have argued that he says he wants to go North and he's made some North moves and he hasn't made all his moves to the West -- he hasn't traded picks for vets as a rule. Well, perhaps he should trade picks like George Allen. That would at least be a plan that makes sense.

Like I pointed out in a previous post, are theories played out in an all or nothing fashion, with no shades? Rebuilding means this, if any variable is out of whack its not a true rebuild. if so says whom?...If you are playing shades of a theory versus doing it purely does that have to mean that you are playing it down the middle?

You are creating a strawman argument. My position isn't absolute. I have said often, including twice in this very thread, that I was offering general rules, allowing for some exceptions. We don't have a coach generally headed North but who takes a step or two to the West.

KDawg echoes my thoughts on this topic. He started a thread listing Mike's 2009 moves. They were equally balanced short-term and long-term. KDawg came to the same conclusion I did. If Mike started the wholesale trading away of draft picks for decent vets, at least he'd have a good short-term plan.

[Skinsinparadise]

My math for Mike is N + W does not equal N or W.

N (North) = a sound dynasty plan (Bill Walsh)

W (West) = a sound win-now plan (George Allen)

Mike's plan in 2009, and his plans in Denver were Northwest plans. You have argued that he says he wants to go North and he's made some North moves and he hasn't made all his moves to the West -- he hasn't traded picks for vets as a rule. Well, perhaps he should trade picks like George Allen. That would at least be a plan that makes sense.

OK, I'll use your terminology. Did i think he went W in his first year with the Redskins? no. Do I think he went NW? Sure. Has he gone W in Denver at times. Yes. NW. Yes. N. Yes. Do I think he goes North this year with the Redskins. Yes. 100% North? No. But who goes 100% North, I'd like to know what team that is? if you are going 90% North -- you IMO aren't going NW but are going North.

Your point if I read you right is its better to stick with one mode and play it out fully -- because then you'd get the benefits of the full approach. Since you ran with George Allen on this point, I am guessing you think Shanny is really leaning more West than North with this team. I think he's learning much more North than West.

It's not odd to me to have your direction be dictated by circumstance. If you think you are close to being a strong contender you go NW. If you think you are a player or two away from the Superbowl, you go W. If you think your team is a mile away, you go north. And it doesn't seem to be a radical theory its pretty much what almost every team does.

And this is my key point -- the best way to protect your future is to ADD draft picks. that is what the Pats and the Eagles do. And yeah that's what Shanny's Broncos did for the most part. Shanny has about as much in common there with George Allen and Gibbs -- as Obama has politically with Sarah Palin.

If the main critique of the Redskins in the last decade is they were the team that traded the most draft picks away in the NFL -- and I've heard you make this argument too. Then how the heck can we loop in Denver as two peas in the pod with the Skins, considering they took the OPPOSITE approach. And they were actually the main team that fleeced the Skins, ironically.

All you got on Shanny on this point is he had a hiccup on this approach in year one with the Redskins by screwing up on McNabb. He also had added a couple of picks post McNabb trade. And I bet he adds more.

And if we are throwing out the idea that draft picks are the key and its mostly about free agents. Well, the teams you tout the Eagles and the Patriots have similar approaches -- both teams LIKE free agency. And if you read the link to the article I posted a few posts ago -- it talks about how Denver was able to add picks partly because of comp picks. You don't get comp picks if you add more in free agency that year then you lose -- based on a monetary scale. In other words, clearly there were years that they let more of their own free agents go then sign new ones. Its the reason why the Skins hardly ever got comp picks.

You are creating a strawman argument. My position isn't absolute. I have said often, including twice in this very thread, that I was offering general rules, allowing for some exceptions. We don't have a coach generally headed North but who takes a step or two to the West.

I am saying that the idea of a coach that goes purely to the north with no steps to the west -- is pretty much fantasy, I've not yet heard a real example of one backed with any evidence. And look, I am not saying there might not be one. I thought real hard of an example of one, no one hit me. But if a coach/team like that hits you that I am missing, I am curious, let me know.

You are IMO creating an absolute criteria for Shanny to meet -- that is generally not met by anyone or at worse by few.

[pjfootballer]

I'm putting my money on Gator Bait to win this battle, simply because he'll probably live longer Otherwise this is just two rams butting heads over and over.

This is like Sheldon arguing with Leonard about quantum theories (Big Bang Theory TV Show on CBS).

[Reaper 21]

just reading an article about redrafting on espn. mike shannahan had lots of guys go in the first round that he picked later, and didnt have anybody get really dropped.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6528474

also just thinking about the roster he could of had, if he had not gotten fired.

jay, peyton hillis, brandon marshall/eddie royal, tony sheftler, ryan clady, ryan harris, elvis dumervil, dj wiliams, champ bailey brian dawkins. this dude does build good teams. it just takes him time.

here is the 2008 roster/ i bet they wish they could redo that

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=3572022

[Bang]

--

The Eagles "hoard" picks by trading away aged vets like McNabb before they become worthless. Can you offer evidence that Mike did that routinely in Denver? Has he shown that tendency here? No, you can't and no he hasn't.

Actually, the Eagles mostly trade and maneuver with other picks to stockpile. It's not unusual at all for them to trade down in any given draft to acquire more picks for the following year. They're annually among the most active teams, because even though they do this, they still make 9-11 picks practically every draft. They have plenty of picks to work with, and that is where they do their maneuvering.

Most of the time they let these players walk when their salaries become cumbersome. They then acquire compensatory picks for losing "high end" free agents. Trading a player (like McNabb) is a rarity. They didn't get anything for Brian Westbrook, they got nothing for Brian Dawkins.

They mostly get nothing but compensatory picks the veterans they let walk away, if they even get that. (Occasionally they throw away a guy like Reggie Brown for a 6th round pick, even though he was a first round pick for them. )

a) exceptions don't disprove a general rule; the Lions' current decision makers have used the draft well

Well... lets look at that.

Mayhew and the new regime has been in charge for three drafts.

In that time they have taken their QB.. . yay! Matthew Stafford is their boy, and he manages to last on the average of about 5 games before he gets his shoulder destroyed. (He's broken both collarbones now on hits he's taken. His most gutsy play to date, throwing a TD to beat Tampa in OT, was done with another separated shoulder, because, you guessed it, he got massacred on the TD pass that tied the game. Big heroic play, no doubt, But that is now his third major shoulder injury.

I wonder why? Probably because they have not bothered to address his line. His left tackle is 10 year vet Jeff Backus. He's been a rock, sort of. He's not missed a start since his first game as a rookie in 2001. That is commendable.

In each of the Lions last three seasons, three different quarterbacks have started games because the guy in front of them is hurt. In each of their last three years they have reached the bottom of the QB depth chart. And the fact is each time Stafford has been hurt, he's been nailed from the blind side. Doesn't speak well for Backus.

Stafford has had a shoulder separation and both clavicles broken. (Clavicle gets weaker with each break, and only takes nine pounds of pressure to snap it when it's healthy. It's the easiest bone to break in your body, literally. The fact Stafford has broken both has the deck stacked against him. That's just an unfortunate fact, and it's a shame, because I like him, and hope he can succeed.)

But, in the last three years they have drafted only FOUR offensive linemen, (And this is counting the one they took in the 5th round this past April) Of those four, only one has started a game (Gosder Cherilous). Only one other one is even on the team. (The rookie is in lockout. He was their last pick of the draft.)

In the same time span (that you say they've been working the draft well) they have taken SEVEN defensive linemen, FIVE running backs (including a first round pick, Best, a second round pick, Mikel Leshoure, and a third round pick, Kevin Smith), 4 more wide receivers, only 4 DBs.. etc etc.

They had the same number of picks in the last two years that we did (before we made the trades).

In the same time period they have signed 38 free agents. That's 8 more than the Redskins.

(To recap, we've had more draft choices in more areas of need and signed fewer free agents, but Mike's losing you, and the Lions are doing it right.)

So they get rid of picks, they don't address a key problem on their team in any way at all in the draft, it results in their young QB getting folded like a paper airplane again and again. (The Silver Lining: He's only got to get his ER card punched one more time for a free bone setting!), they sign free agents willy nilly .. but they're doing a good job of rebuilding through the draft.

I know its all chic now to say the Lions are ready to bust loose, and here in DC wer'e all in awe because they can beat us, but they still stink, and my prediction for them this year is that they will have a nasty defensive line, a porous secondary, a great wide receiver, and a quarterback who will miss 7 or 8 games again. I figure they'll win 6 games.

I don't mean to jump on you, but you say things that have no basis in fact, and then proceed to bluster as if they do.

The Eagles do not trade older players for draft picks and stockpile using that method. They do it very rarely. They acquire picks other ways.

The Lions are not doing a good job building through the draft. They have built ONE unit. The DL. (Hey, Jim Schwartz's area of expertise! Coincidence?) Granted, it might be the nastiest DL in the NFL, and i think it may actually win them a game or two. But it still is only one unit. The OL still suffers. The secondary is awful. They've spent pick after pick in the backfield and on wideouts. They have wasted picks on the defense while filling positions with fre agents. (IN the last 3 drafts they've spent 15 picks on the defense, and they have four free agents as defensive starters. Given your own definition of why free agency can hold back young players, the Lions are doing exactly what you disagree with,,, yet somehow you say they're using the draft well.

(Calvin Johnson is, IMO, the best WR in the NFL. So there's that.. but he was Millen's last draft, and as no-brain a pick as there has ever been. Go figure,,, even Millen got it right!)

And the Patriots constantly rebuild. Constantly.

They never stop.

But that's another argument.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

Actually, the Eagles mostly trade and maneuver with other picks to stockpile.

In 2009 and 2010, the Eagles traded these players for draft picks:

Reggie Brown

Lito Sheppard

Greg Lewis

Sheldon Brown

Chris Gocong

Donovan McNabb

Well... lets look at that... Mayhew and the new regime has been in charge for three drafts...

I'm willing to concede that there is absolutely nothing I can say that you can't find fault with one way or another. It's not a great trick. Argumentative simpletons do it daily in this forum. Genuine debate is much tougher.

Bottom line: Detroit is, to most observers, a very much improved football team since Mayhew took control and the draft has been his primary source of talent.

[Bang]

In 2009 and 2010, the Eagles traded these players for draft picks:

Reggie Brown

Lito Sheppard

Greg Lewis

Sheldon Brown

Chris Gocong

Donovan McNabb

I'm willing to concede that there is absolutely nothing I can say that you can't find fault with one way or another. It's not a great trick. Argumentative simpletons do it daily in this forum. Genuine debate is much tougher.

Bottom line: Detroit is, to most observers, a very much improved football team since Mayhew took control and the draft has been his primary source of talent.

Bottom line,, Detroit is still a 6 win football team. How your observers keep missing this fact is laughable.

You call what I give you not geniune debate. You slide in that I'm an argumentative simpleton. Well, at least I'm backing up what I'm saying with facts you can go check. You say nothing of fact, and then when you get called on it, you decide that the other person is just an argumentative simpleton. Facts old guy, You can look them up just like I can, then you can explain to the facts how they're just being argumentative simpletons when they contradict what you say. (You prefer backing your statements with "observers" and their observations.. that don't jive with the facts.)

I gave you facts. Facts. Real truths. I showed you their drafts. I showed you clearly how they've ignored their biggest weakness, and have built ONE unit. I showed you how they sign more free agents than we do, I showed you how they have lost draft picks like we do.. i showed you how they've essentially wasted picks on positions that don't need it, and as a result, allowed their number one overall draft pick QB to get killed, and potentially have his career jeopardized.

Everything they have done, and everything that has happened to them flies DIRECTLY in the face of the assertions you and these 'observers' have made. (I suppose going from a 0 win team to a 6 win team in 3 years is vast improvement. Hasn't gotten them anywhere near to being out of the cellar. And based on their offseason so far, their OL will continue to struggle next year. I very much doubt that they will be anything but last in the north again this year. The one thing they have going for them in that regard is not even anything they did,, but Minnesota starting a rookie QB might give the Lions a leg up to 3rd place. But I won't hold my breath.)

I've shown you that. You can look all of it up, because heaven knows you won't take anyone else's word for it.. they're being an argumentative simpleton and all.

So a challenge, old guy. Look it up. Make sure I have not given you single piece of false info. Let thye facts argue for themselves.

It's funny how you can say the Lions are doing well with the draft. They're clearly doing things worse than what you complain we're doing, and yet they're doing fine.

I could say "well, he's just down on the Redskins".. but I think it's more like "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

as far as the Eagles, This is fine, they managed to make some player trades last year.

Not very good ones, mind you. They basically threw these players away for garbage time picks.

Reggie Brown (first round pick) traded for a 6th

Sheldon Brown (2nd round pick) and chris Gocung (3rd round pick) for a 4th and 5th respectively

They traded Greg Lewis for a 6th (considering he was an undrafted free agent, they actually made out on that one.)

They traded Lito Sheppard (a first round pick) for a 5th round pick, and a conditional pick for next year.. and because of the Jets FO maneuverings, they won't get the conditional pick because the conditions were not met.)

They traded Mcnabb, and we know that deal. It is also the ONLY deal they made in which they did not get hosed, and basically give players away.

They traded 1st round picks for 6th round picks and 5th round picks... in terms of pick value, they lost.

They took out the trash this past offseason. Nothing less.

But in the years past, this is not what they do.

SO, you can stick to your guns and say one anomalous offseason out of 12 is what they "do".. but once again those pesky facts keep getting in there and forcing argumentative simpletons like me to ask you to account for them.

This is how they acquired a few in the last year. But over the last twelve this is the exception, far from the rule. You said that is how they "hoard" draft picks.

I showed you this is how they don't do it, You've decided that the last year overrides all the other years because it fits your incorrect statement.

~Bang