(March, 2011) Hey, Mike. You're Losing Me, Man.

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot -- You know that there is a difference between what a coach says publically and what he actually does. The "opinion" that matters is where the player stands on the roster.

Well, of course. When Capers is inserted into the starting lineup, I will assume that the coaches think he has the potential to be an NFL starter. Either that, or they have given up on everyone esle.

Which you can say for about any player, say, past the third round. Considering that I think that it was unlikely that any of our players would have fetched at least a third round pick from another team last year (You can argue Cooley, but I think a player coming off an injury will be devalued unless there is some desperate need by another team.), I don't think the return was going to be there. And, unless it is a player who you do not have plans for and want off your roster, it doesn't make much sense to deal them for less.

You're straining to find fault with a simple, strightforward plan to get some future value for veteran players who have no value for a team that cannot compete now. We won six games in 2010. Maybe we would have only won three if we had traded away vets who didn't fit the schemes and a couple who are surplus parts for other reasons. Since there are 31 other teams constituting a "market," there's no reason to believe we would not get fair market value for those players. We should have been willing to take "market value."

Had we not traded for McNabb, and had we traded away our tradeable vets, we could have added six or seven draft picks to the current number of picks. With good drafting, that's two or three useful young players.

There is a difference between "bringing players in for trials" (which all NFL teams do) and actually putting them on the field in the regular season over more experienced veterans just because. No business runs things that way, and I'm not sure why you think the NFL should be different: If you don't impress on an interview, you don't get a shot at making the team. If you show promise but are a little raw, you don't get rid of your more experienced employees to have him run the show. You mentor him and through that see if he has the stuff to move up to your front line.

Why don't you just say you aren't willing to sacrifice half a season and be done with it?

If those "experienced veterans" are useless to a rebuilding team, and the younger players have real potential, then playing them as a trial is exactly what should be done. We had young players who came in at the end of last season who played better than the vets they replaced. They had been sitting on the sidelines all year. Yet, because of their brief trial in game conditions, we still don't know for sure if they can play. In the second half of the season, the Skins did what I'm saying they should have been doing all year.

Actually, the days where one guy carry the RB position are going away in the NFL.

Are you saying that a team with a legit #1 back, like Adrian Peterson, would be better off with two #2 backs splitting the load? I hope not.

While I agree that Shanahan has had only two great RBs in his career, he rarely has had a running game that wasn't productive. Considering that during that time he mostly didn't have great QB play, I don't see how people were "fooled" by that.

What does the QB have to do with it? In Denver, the ZBS stretch allowed the back to break for long gains -- which inflated the YPC stats of average backs. The only time we saw that happen last season was in the first half of the Tampa Bay game (Torain had 170 yards in the half). When the defense adjusted in the second half, they shut down our running game down.

The ZBS has been around for 15 years now, and all football schemes have a shelf life. Alex Gibbs has been with three other teams since Denver without great success. Maybe Mike can find the magic again, but then again, maybe he needs a #1 back to do it this time..

[darrelgreenie]

I think the QB "signal" you're looking for is a matter of chance. If Mike can trade or pick up another Jake Plummer in FA, he'll go that way. If he sees another Jay Cutler in the draft, he will go that direction. Our direction is in the hands of the football gods.

I got the signal I was waiting for and it smell like fresh win now.

[Hitman21ST]

I got the signal I was waiting for and it smell like fresh win now.

Not quite following dg...

[KDawg]

Not quite following dg...

Yeah, seemed like an odd statement to me as well.

[MartinC]

Not quite following dg...

I think DG's theory is that Mike has no intention of taking and developing a young QB but is searching for a veteran option who can help him win right now with what is being built around him. He is taking the fact Mike passed on QBs this year as evidence of this.

I disagree with him personally - its probably as simple as Mike did not rate the QBs available when we were on the board and I think its a stretch to use this as evidence that he has no interest in developing a young QB we draft period.

[SoCalSkinsFan1975]

. . .

Please stop your prattle about "building the right way." You didn't do it in Denver; you didn't do it last year; and you're not likely to do it this year.

Uhhhhh, I believe he orchestrated TWO Superbowl wins in Denver. Back-to-Back nonetheless. The way we have been doing it does not work. Building through the draft is a proven strategy, but if you are unhappy please feel free to "get lost". Plenty of other teams would be happy to have bandwagon fans such as yourself. HTTR!!!!!

[KDawg]

Uhhhhh, I believe he orchestrated TWO Superbowl wins in Denver. Back-to-Back nonetheless. The way we have been doing it does not work. Building through the draft is a proven strategy, but if you are unhappy please feel free to "get lost". Plenty of other teams would be happy to have bandwagon fans such as yourself. HTTR!!!!!

OF is the furthest thing from a bandwagon fan on this forum.

[SoCalSkinsFan1975]

OF is the furthest thing from a bandwagon fan on this forum.

I am saying if he leaves like he says he is ready to, he would be a bandwagon fan to whatever new team he chooses to align himself with as they operate in a manner he finds appropriate.

[GetWrecked]

In hindsight doesn't this thread look dumb, specifically the part about the team not building through the draft, refusing to stockpile young talent, etc, etc.

[darrelgreenie]

Not quite following dg...

Awhile back Oldfan and myself were discussing wether Mike Shanahan was in: win, win soon or rebuild mode.

My thinking was that Mike's decision at the QB position along with other moves (e.g. OJ Atwoge) will indicate which determining .for me,which direction this team is going in.

I was just letting Oldfan know that I got my answer: win now.

I can't because I don't think it was a retooling move.

I think last season was an illistration of one of the inherent problems with a HC as GM is because the two position are often at odds and the HC often wins.

Coaches generally think they can win and thusly often think in a very immediate in the moment manner: what can help me win now, as in right now, asap.

My view of the past season and its moves (McNabb et al) was essentially a win now.

And I actually don't begrudge Mike taking a chance to 'shoot the moon' if you will.

(I think in the back of everyone mind we all thought what if things click? playoffs? more?)

It clearly failed but I can understand the attempt.

I think he over estimated the talent on this team and maybe thought he could make a run w/ the team as is by only adding a few key pieces.

I'm think our up coming moves will go a long way to announcing the direction of the team.

...Over his last ten years in Denver, Mike made similar conflicting moves. Reload each year with a batch of free agents, then try a different DC or defensive scheme every other year.

I think the QB "signal" you're looking for is a matter of chance. If Mike can trade or pick up another Jake Plummer in FA, he'll go that way. If he sees another Jay Cutler in the draft, he will go that direction. Our direction is in the hands of the football gods.

[SkinsFTW]

It's always win now. Some believed that things would change. I still doubt it. I hope they would rebuild, just not going to happen.

[skinzwiz]

. . .

I've been a Redskins fan for 65 of my 75 years, but you're THIS close to losing me. I don't mean you personally. I mean the organization which is now in your control.

Please stop your prattle about "building the right way." You didn't do it in Denver; you didn't do it last year; and you're not likely to do it this year. Please stop treating me like I'm a dunce. If things shake out as we expect them to, there will be a double-dose of free agents on the market. There's no way in hell you're going to resist filling our roster with castoffs.

I had hoped to see the Redskins rise to the top before I die: Number One in the NFL. That's never going to happen as long as Dan Snyder owns the team. So, I'm willing to settle: If winning next season will be the team's goal every year, then let's, at the very least, have a sound plan to achieve that goal. Here are my thoughts on that:

The Fletcher Prototype: Trade draft picks for, or search free agency, for players who remind you of London Fletcher: They are smart, technically sound, productive and healthy -- and they are underrated because they played on losing teams. Pass on the Big Name free agents to stay within the salary cap.

Quarterback: Get a 27 - 30 year old, veteran QB who fits the Fletcher Prototype. Don't worry about his fit to your scheme. Get the best QB available and adapt your scheme to his skillset.

Strong Core: Eleven positions form the core: A number one WR, two OTs, a QB and a RB on offense. On a 34 defense: A number one corner, two edge rushers, a nose and a FS. Special teams: a dangerous return man. Focus hard on filling these positions.

Screw the draft: If the "future is now," then George Allen's plan is the way to go. Trade those picks for vets who fit the Fletcher Prototype. Exceptions: Find your RB and your return man in the draft.

In other words, continue doing what got the redskins in this poor predicament. Players that play like London Fletcher are often NOT underrated so I dont understand your logic. NO MORE TRADING DRAFT PICKS. Good draft picks win super bowls if you hadn't noticed-Packers, Saints, Steelers, Patriots, etc.

[SkinsFTW]

Is oldfan still trying to figure out what happened during the draft or what? I know, it's a lot more picks to go over than usual around here, lol.

[DavidGQ]

Is oldfan still trying to figure out what happened during the draft or what? I know, it's a lot more picks to go over than usual around here, lol.

He's still in shock with the draft

[RedBeast]

"Shanahan, I'm holding YOU responsible"

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[Going Commando]

It's always win now. Some believed that things would change. I still doubt it. I hope they would rebuild, just not going to happen.

I'm not sure we can ever expect a true rebuild while Dan Snyder is the owner.

Hiring Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen in the first place was not conducive to a true rebuild. They are retreads. Retreads don't rebuild. You've got to have a young or first time HC to really rebuild.

[Gator Bait]

Retreads don't rebuild. You've got to have a young or first time HC to really rebuild.

this isn't true at all....you don't think Parcels started a rebuild on the Dolphins or Belichek on the Patriots. How about Holmgrem?

In my opinion Mike and Bruce are currently rebuilding the redskins. Turnover of our roster in the last year and several months has been significant. The Donovan McNabb move doesn't go inline with a full rebuild, but pretty much everything else they've done has.

I can't wait to see the finalized roster for the 2011 season and compare it to the roster of 2009 under Jim Zorn/Vinny Cerato and see what the turnover rate is. I bet it is over 60%

[ouvan59]

I don't get the handwringing on here. Why does the team have to do a total rebuild? I'd much prefer rebuilding in stages. Are you guys advocating cutting all the veterans? And just because we didn't draft a QB doesn't mean we are in win now mode. It just means that we liked the options we have on the roster more than what was available in the draft.

[SilkyDiamonds]

U could bring Tom Brady or Peyton Manning in here and we wouldn't be better than a 8 or 9 win team this year. Things are fine, we'll get a QB that fits. I like that we aren't trying to force one to fit. I always like when a new coach comes in that he takes the opportunity when drafting high to nab a QB, but it didn't happen. Now we'll have an I'm proving team LEARNING to win, with the only missing piece being the QB. Ala NYJ. We'll nab 1 right when the team is on the precipice of being legit. We'll have a down year the QB's 1st then shoot strI up. WATCH!

[MassSkinsFan]

Awhile back Oldfan and myself were discussing wether Mike Shanahan was in: win, win soon or rebuild mode.

My thinking was that Mike's decision at the QB position along with other moves (e.g. OJ Atwoge) will indicate which determining .for me,which direction this team is going in.

I was just letting Oldfan know that I got my answer: win now.

I've had a few goes with OF over the idea that you can do both.

The prevailing wisdom is that it can't be done in football. However I've seen other industries do it, so I wonder "why not in football?" It's a matter of good management and finding the right people to support growth in the short term while you develop those who will provide sustained improvement in the long term.

Regardless of whether it is feasible, I'm convinced this is what our FO is trying to do.

FO ≠ OF

[Darth Tater]

I've had a few goes with OF over the idea that you can do both.

The prevailing wisdom is that it can't be done in football. However I've seen other industries do it, so I wonder "why not in football?" It's a matter of good management and finding the right people to support growth in the short term while you develop those who will provide sustained improvement in the long term.

Regardless of whether it is feasible, I'm convinced this is what our FO is trying to do.

FO ≠ OF

You've got 3-4 seasons MAX to accomplish a rebuild (and usually there are indications of plan failure in 1-2 seasons), after that you MUST go a new direction because if the rebuild is not completed in that time, it IS a failure (though the previous rebuild may provide a better starting platform for the next plan).

You need a good percentage of your draft picks/UDFAs to make the team but you can't target therefore you NEED players who think like winners even if the wins aren't on the field and understand what is needed to be at least competitive in pro-football.

You NEED to get rid of the stinking thinkers ASAP.

An example of how a successful rebuild program works:

Year 1 --

Have a talented handful.

Bring in street vets who have been successful to replace as many of those who have been infected with loseritis as you can.

Figure out how to at least give your team a chance to be a contender ASAP.

Use what picks you have wisely.

If you are on track, you will be competitive at least (meaning you are still technically in control of your playoff destiny at the turn).

Year 2 --

Build your base.

Start replacing the vets you brought in year 1 or kept with young guns.

If you are on track you will get a sniff of the playoffs at the very least (meaning you were still in the playoff hunt in game 15).

Year 3 --

Get your franchise players (in the draft if he's not already on the roster).

Fill in any remaining holes as you can with either draft picks/UDFAs or young street vets.

Now, most of the vets you brought in in year 1 should be gone.

If you are on track, you will be at least a wild card.

[Going Commando]

this isn't true at all....you don't think Parcels started a rebuild on the Dolphins or Belichek on the Patriots. How about Holmgrem?

Holmgren rebuilt the Seahawks as their HC/GM but he's a GM now, not a coach. Ditto for Parcells and the Dolphins, who BTW, aren't rebuilt and are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck pick anyway. Parcells actually did hire a first time HC and first time GM for the Dolphins, the problem is neither of them are very good. And Parcells ****ed up his rebuild by passing on a chance at a franchise QB when he had one.

Your GM doesn't have to be a new blood to rebuild because Scott Pioli is killing it in KC right now. But I think your HC typically does because they need to totally defer to the GM on personnel matters. Seasoned coaches command more say and having a headcoach in charge of personnel doesn't work.

As for Bill Belicheck, he's not really a retread in the same way MS is. He only coached the Browns for four seasons and didn't make his name with that organization before he became the coach of the Patriots. He's a Patriot. MS is a repurposed Denver Bronco, i.e. retread.

In my opinion Mike and Bruce are currently rebuilding the redskins. Turnover of our roster in the last year and several months has been significant. The Donovan McNabb move doesn't go inline with a full rebuild, but pretty much everything else they've done has.

Our roster got older last season under this new regime. That's not symptomatic of an actual rebuild. The young turnover we're generating is mostly end of the roster types rather than excellent young drafted starters, and we still don't have a sensible plan at QB. If this is us rebuilding then it's going to take a long time to complete because we're still relying on older players (FAs and UDFAS) to fill most of our new positions. The FA moves we make now won't make it through the development of a drafted QB in 2012 or later.

What TB, KC, Detroit, St. Louis, and SF are doing is a true rebuild and that's what I want us to do when I say we need to rebuild.

[Gator Bait]

Holmgren rebuilt the Seahawks as their HC/GM but he's a GM now, not a coach.

Holmgren was the GM and the coach of the Seahawks....as you pointed out. So him being the GM of Cleveland (and very soon HC ...many believe) would make him a re-tread

Ditto for Parcells and the Dolphins, who BTW, aren't rebuilt and are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck pick anyway.

Parcells was also a GM/Coach on his former teams and brought in a ton of new players to the Dolphins. They were totally in rebuilding mode....it just didn't work. And you saying they are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck is opinion...not fact. I for one don't think the Dolphins will be terrible....I see them more as a 7-9 team

Your GM doesn't have to be a new blood to rebuild because Scott Pioli is killing it in KC right now.

didn't you say you couldn't have a GM retread in the other post?

But I think your HC typically does because they need to totally defer to the GM on personnel matters. Seasoned coaches command more say and having a headcoach in charge of personnel doesn't work.

Bill Belicheck's 3 super bowl rings would beg to differ....and yes, I do realize Pioli was there as a "GM"....but he was more of an assistant personnel guy under Belicheck.....who has always had final say on all personnel decisions with that franchise.

As for Bill Belicheck, he's not really a retread in the same way MS is. He only coached the Browns for four seasons and didn't make his name with that organization before he became the coach of the Patriots. He's a Patriot. MS is a repurposed Denver Bronco, i.e. retread.

you seem to be changing/adding to your definition of retread as you go along.

Our roster got older last season under this new regime. That's not symptomatic of an actual rebuild. The young turnover we're generating is mostly end of the roster types rather than excellent young drafted starters, and we still don't have a sensible plan at QB. If this is us rebuilding then it's going to take a long time to complete because we're still relying on older players (FAs and UDFAS) to fill most of our new positions. The FA moves we make now won't make it through the development of a drafted QB in 2012 or later.

again...this is all your opinion..not fact. Shanahan already inherited the oldest team in the league. Besides the McNabb move, he was forced to bring in some older vet guys to implement his system. Rebuilds don't happen over night.....and I'm not arguing that he was in rebuild mode the first year....I think he thought he could win right away. But after watching the skins trade back a bunch of times and bring in 12 rookie draft picks to go along with Banks, Torain, Litch and all the others last year....we are in an obvious rebuilding mode. You don't have to bring a QB in year one of a rebuild for it to be a successful rebuild...actually probably better off not doing that.

[Going Commando]

I don't get the handwringing on here. Why does the team have to do a total rebuild? I'd much prefer rebuilding in stages. Are you guys advocating cutting all the veterans? And just because we didn't draft a QB doesn't mean we are in win now mode. It just means that we liked the options we have on the roster more than what was available in the draft.

Because it's the surest way to achieve sustained contention.

You can't enter into a true rebuild until you either draft a QB with the plan of him being your long term starter, or you trade for/sign a young QB (~26 or less) with the plan of him being your long term starter.

Your QB determines your window of contention. The highest percentage chance of winning Superbowls over time belongs to the organizations with the biggest windows of contention. The biggest windows of contention belong to the organizations who draft excellent young quarterbacks.

Ergo, teams that successfully rebuild have the best chances to win Superbowls over time. Obviously your attempt to rebuild will fail if you either:

1.) Fail to draft/acquire a quality long term starting QB

2.) Fail to support that QB to the point where he can't succeed on the field.

I think we're wasting time acquiring a bunch of 27+ year olds to form most of the supporting cast of the roster when we don't have a QB in place. Make no mistake, that's what we've done. Projected starting roster and their ages for the 2011 season:

QB: John Beck (30) or Rex Grossman (31)

HB: Ryan Torain (25)

FB: Mike Sellers (36)

WR: Anthony Armstrong (28), Santana Moss (32) or Leonard Hankerson (23)

TE: Chris Cooley (29)

LT: Trent Williams (23)

LG: Kory Lichtensteiger (26)

OC: Casey Rabach (34) or Will Montgomery (28)

RG: Davin Joseph (28) or Montgomery or BMW (31)

RT: Jammal Brown (30) or Ryan Harris (26)

DE: Adam Carriker (27) and Jarvis Jenkins (23) or Jeremy Jarmon (24)

NT: Anthony Bryant (30)

OLB: Brian Orakpo (25) and Ryan Kerrigan (23)

ILB: London Fletcher (36) and Robert Henson (25) or Perry Riley (23)

CB: Deangelo Hall (28) and Carlos Rogers (30) or Kevin Barnes (25) or Phil Buchanon (31)

FS: O.J. Atogwe (30)

SS: LaRon Landry (27)

So on the lowest and most optimistic end of the spectrum, the average age of our starters in 2011 will be 27.2 years old.

On the highest and least optimistic end, the average age will be 28.7 years old.

My guess is that the total will be somewhere in between those two numbers. That's a fairly old roster and not a young core to be building around a 22 year old drafted QB. This core will enter into its 30's by the time our QB is ready to compete. Key pieces like LaRon, Orakpo, Carriker, Hall, Armstrong, Cooley, Torain, (Joseph and Harris if we sign them to big deals like the rumors say we will) will all be nearing or past 30 by the time we've got a QB ready to compete assuming we draft one in 2012.

This is why you have to get your QB early in your rebuild rather than waiting on him. Otherwise you're just wasting years from the careers of the rest of the roster and making your job difficult three and four years down the line by creating a necessity of rebuilding your core on the fly while drafting late.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 03:37 PM ----------

Holmgren was the GM and the coach of the Seahawks....as you pointed out. So him being the GM of Cleveland (and very soon HC ...many believe) would make him a re-tread

Holmgren is a retread HC and he stayed true to the law that retread HCs that make their name with a different organization don't win Superbowls with their new teams. The rule doesn't stand for GMs though.

Parcells was also a GM/Coach on his former teams and brought in a ton of new players to the Dolphins. They were totally in rebuilding mode....it just didn't work. And you saying they are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck is opinion...not fact. I for one don't think the Dolphins will be terrible....I see them more as a 7-9 team

We'll see what happens, but a lameduck HC and QB plus a bad GM usually spells disaster. Parcells wasn't the HC though, he had a first timer, which is why the Dolphins actually attempted to rebuild IMO. That was my original point--it's hard to rebuild with a retread HC who is used to competing every season. They're too impatient to stomach a rebuild.

didn't you say you couldn't have a GM retread in the other post?

How about in order to head off a pointless semantic argument I clarify my point: It's hard to rebuild with an older head coach coming from a successful career with another organization and heavy say in personnel matters because such a coach typically lacks the patience to execute a true rebuild.

Bill Belicheck's 3 super bowl rings would beg to differ....and yes, I do realize Pioli was there as a "GM"....but he was more of an assistant personnel guy under Belicheck.....who has always had final say on all personnel decisions with that franchise.

Pioli's personnel credentials are as rock solid as they come. I think you're diminishing his importance in NE's organization. I think a clue as to Pioli's importance for that organization was how much worse their drafts became once he left and how well Kansas City is currently drafting.

you seem to be changing/adding to your definition of retread as you go along.

Here lets define it: A retread is a coach or GM who makes their mark on the league with one team, gets fired/leaves and gets hired by another team. MS is a retread for us. John Fox is a retread for Denver. Bill Parcells was a retread for Dallas. Bill Belichek was not a retread for New England. He was an unproven HC before he got to NE.

again...this is all your opinion..not fact. Shanahan already inherited the oldest team in the league. Besides the McNabb move, he was forced to bring in some older vet guys to implement his system. Rebuilds don't happen over night.....and I'm not arguing that he was in rebuild mode the first year....I think he thought he could win right away. But after watching the skins trade back a bunch of times and bring in 12 rookie draft picks to go along with Banks, Torain, Litch and all the others last year....we are in an obvious rebuilding mode. You don't have to bring a QB in year one of a rebuild for it to be a successful rebuild...actually probably better off not doing that.

Shanahan inherited one of the oldest teams in the league and proceeded to make it older. That's not what a coach executing a plan to rebuild does.

We're not rebuilding, I think we're still attempting to win now because, once again, we're going to have to rely heavily on FA and trades for veterans to find starters and the average age of our starters is high.

The young talent we're adding are end of the roster types who, if they make the team, will end up replacing the other young talent we've got on the team (also end of the roster types).

The only significant every down starters we've got who'll be under 27 this season are Brian Orakpo, Trent Williams, Ryan Harris (if we sign him), Ryan Kerrigan, and whichever of Robert Henson or Perry Riley ends up winning the starting job. Maybe Hankerson joins that group, maybe he doesn't, but he's the only other one you can realistically count on to become an every down starter from the young talent we've got on the team.

That's not much of a core. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it very slowly because we've only added 4 or 5 significant long term pieces in two offseasons and we haven't begun to seriously address the QB position yet.

[GetWrecked]

Holmgren rebuilt the Seahawks as their HC/GM but he's a GM now, not a coach

He's actually the President of the Cleveland Browns. Tom Heckert's the GM and from all accounts Holmgren just oversee's everything, he's a big voice who brings stability and credibility to that team since it's been years since they've had any. But he doesn't have the final say in the draft room, but rather gives his highly valued opinion. Heckert runs the show there player personnel wise.