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

[pimpumd]

Let's wait and see how many starters this year are rookies, and how many are free agents.

What does that have to do with a the fact that we just drafted 12 rookies as a part of a youth infusion? Let's suppose Kerrigan, Jenkins and Hankerson/Helu/xxxdraftee manage to be starters by opening day. Now suppose we sign a new RT and G (we already signed Otogwe) both of which are big needs. The fact that those 3 free agents could come in and start right away doesn't mean we still didn't infuse the roster with young talent through the draft. It means the team needs starters and depth at a lot of positions.

[Mahons21]

Fans will still buy season tickets if they think the organization has a plan and will trend upwards over the next few years. Fans are not as stupid as they seem. Fans also want to be there for the beginning of something great if they actually think the FO can pull it off.

Never said they wouldn't. The beginning of something great is not a rebuild year. The beginning of something great is Peyton Manning's rookie season, you think they called that "rebuild year" to the fans?

[Going Commando]

Except instead of following up with his promise of a youth infusion, he traded 3 valuable draft pick (which would have been pretty helpful for a youth infusion) for 2 aging, injury prone vets.

So no, I don't consider that being straight forward.

Don't forget we also signed a bunch of old FA starters at the beginning of the year who took roster spots and starting reps away from younger players:

- McNabb over Jason Campbell

- Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams effectively kept Devin Thomas from being promoted beyond the fourth string and had Malcolm Kelly put on IR.

- Phil Buchanon effectively got Justin Tyron traded and that looks like a bad mistake now

- Kemo kept Bryant on the bench most of the year despite the fact it was immediately clear he was four shades of washed up

- Vonnie Holliday ensured Jeremy Jarmon only got 60 snaps

- Larry Johnson and Willie Parker were probably kept around too long

- Now OJ Atogwe being signed to take the job from Kareem Moore and Kevin Barnes

If we were truly rebuilding, we wouldn't still be among the oldest teams in the league. That's really all the proof you need to demonstrate that this FO hasn't actually committed to rebuilding with youth through the draft.

---------- Post added May-11th-2011 at 12:11 AM ----------

Never said they wouldn't. The beginning of something great is not a rebuild year. The beginning of something great is Peyton Manning's rookie season, you think they called that "rebuild year" to the fans?

Taking Peyton Manning first overall was absolutely the foundation of a true rebuild. I don't see how that example is in conflict with the notion of the rebuild.

Typically a successful rebuild begins the year your organization commits to a drafted QB (usually first rounder). You can't really rebuild without drafting a QB IMO unless you get a blue moon franchise QB through FA or trade (Cutler or Brees).

[pimpumd]

What advantage? How on Earth does it effect us if other teams know we're not going to go spending for FA starters? It only effects us if we actually do want to spend for FA starters and they know it.

I think it was Tris that provided citations to a press conference with GM Martin Mayhew (who Tris likes and thinks has a good philosophy--Tris, please correct me if I'm wrong). Here is a quote directly from Martin Mayhew regarding this so-called "competitive advantage":

On Mayhew's philosophies and what his plan will be:

MM: "I'll speak on that a little bit, but let me preface that - talking about that - by saying that I think where we've hurt ourselves in the past is by talking too much. I've been there prior to the draft and I've seen us get out there and talk about our needs and what kind of players that we're looking for and I've seen you guys and others hone in on what our needs are. I read the clips for every NFL team 365 days a year; I read everybody's clips and I read what's going on. And I'm doing that looking for a competitive edge and what I don't want to do is be the person that gives somebody else a competitive edge on us. So I'll talk a little bit about that, but I won't get into a lot of detail about what our needs our and what direction that we plan on going.

So, apparently some NFL GM's do in fact feel that discussing their respective team's plans and/or philosophies does indeed have an affect on maintaining a competitive advantage. Just throwing that out there.

[Going Commando]

What does that have to do with a the fact that we just drafted 12 rookies as a part of a youth infusion? Let's suppose Kerrigan, Jenkins and Hankerson/Helu/xxxdraftee manage to be starters by opening day. Now suppose we sign a new RT and G (we already signed Otogwe) both of which are big needs. The fact that those 3 free agents could come in and start right away doesn't mean we still didn't infuse the roster with young talent through the draft. It means the team needs starters and depth at a lot of positions.

It won't be an infusion of youth if most of these draft picks don't stick or never really contribute because the starting and key reserve spots are spoken for by old veterans and old FAs. I actually fully expect that to be the case because 2/3 of our picks came from rounds 5-7 which are very low % picks.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: Where did I say it was the fair thing to do?

In the paragraph I quoted. You said it was not fair to tell them the truth.

I took a shot at finding a quote from Mike Holmgren after he was hired by Cleveland.

"The challenge of rebuilding is kind of in my blood," Holmgren said last week.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4762828

[pimpumd]

If we were truly rebuilding, we wouldn't still be among the oldest teams in the league. That's really all the proof you need to demonstrate that this FO hasn't actually committed to rebuilding with youth through the draft.

Yeah, the fact that we just drafted 12 rookies in the draft clearly signifies we're not in a rebuilding mode, but rather in a win now mode. Just like the Falcons did in their "win now" draft, right? Shanahan has been here for just a little over one year, but you're expecting him to completely overhaul and the old roster he inherited in that time? Come on man, I know you really didn't expect that to happen in one year.

---------- Post added May-11th-2011 at 04:28 AM ----------

It won't be an infusion of youth if most of these draft picks don't stick or never really contribute because the starting and key reserve spots are spoken for by old veterans and old FAs. I actually fully expect that to be the case because 2/3 of our picks came from rounds 5-7 which are very low % picks.

Well, that's your opinion. Here is a draft pundit's analysis of our draft (from Shaw Zobel):

link - http://draftheadquarters.com/current-season/2011_NFL_Draft_Grades/2011_Draft_Grades_Washington.htm

Overall, the Redskins did a masterful job of rebuilding and reloading on the fly to add young talent to their roster. While I could see 9/12 of the rookies to contribute and/or start in 2011, the Redskins did a very good job of adding players with good value at the spots that they took them who also fit well into Washington's offense and defense. With Paul's ability as a returner, they also will likely receive a boost on special teams. From a value and depth perspective alone, Washington had a fantastic draft class in 2011. If as many as five of the 12 players draft can develop into valuable starters, the Redskins will be able to consider this a successful draft class.

Notice the key use of his words "rebuilding" and "reloading" in that analysis. Clearly he thinks the Skins front office actions demonstrate a rebuilding approach.

[Going Commando]

Yeah, the fact that we just drafted 12 rookies in the draft clearly signifies we're not in a rebuilding mode, but rather in a win now mode. Just like the Falcons did in their "win now" draft, right? Shanahan has been here for just a little over one year, but you're expecting him to completely overhaul and the old roster he inherited in that time? Come on man, I know you really didn't expect that to happen in one year.

This is year two for the FO.

Second, how many of this 12 rookie class do you expect to make the roster and actually become contributors? Keep in mind the vast majority of this class is from the late rounds and most won't make the 53 man roster in year one.

Third, big draft classes don't mean you're rebuilding. Green Bay and Philly pick a ton of times each year and they never really rebuild. They're just good teams. Ditto for New England, Dallas, NYG, etc. In 2007 the Falcons drafted 11 times and they certainly weren't rebuilding at that point. They were still trying to salvage a **** situation thrust upon them by the arrest of Vick and didn't commit to a full rebuild until the next season. In 2009 Dallas and New England were tied for the most draft picks with 12 and both were teams with legit Superbowl aspirations.

Committing to a rebuild is rolling the dice on a drafted young QB and sticking to your plan for better or worse. It's taking your lumps with young, drafted players in the starting positions and at key reserve spots and being patient with them while they suck. It's committing to their development and growth rather than punishing them and giving away their jobs to old vets with no future at the first sign of struggle. It's being willing to bottom out and go 2-14 or 4-12 rather than trade away the future to go 6-10 or 7-9.

[Oldfan]

pimpund: Notice the key use of his words "rebuilding" and "reloading" in that analysis. Clearly he thinks the Skins front office actions demonstrate a rebuilding approach.

I noticed that. I take it as a sign that they author is not an expert. Reloading and rebuilding are two different terms. A team can reload on the fly (he has it correct in his first paragraph), but it can't rebuild on the fly.

Reloading is probably what Mike is doing. It was his M.O. in Denver.

The Patriots have been reloading. It makes sense for them because they had a solid core.

[pimpumd]

This is year two for the FO.

If it's year two for the FO, you need to use the roster in year two to say we have one of the oldest teams in the league. Since you don't know the roster yet, how did you come to the conclusion about the average age of our roster? You can't put that on the FO until we see this year's average age.

Second, how many of this 12 rookie class do you expect to make the roster and actually become contributors? Keep in mind the vast majority of this class is from the late rounds and most won't make the 53 man roster in year one.

I expect Kerrigan, Jenkins, Hankerson, Helu, Gomes, one of Paul/Robinson to make the roster. I would hope we'd get lucky with one of our late (later than 4th round) guys just by the sheer number of picks we had. I think that would be a very good successful draft for a rebuilding team.

Third, big draft classes don't mean you're rebuilding. Green Bay and Philly pick a ton of times each year and they never really rebuild. They're just good teams. Ditto for New England, Dallas, NYG, etc. In 2007 the Falcons drafted 11 times and they certainly weren't rebuilding at that point. They were still trying to salvage a **** situation thrust upon them by the arrest of Vick and didn't commit to a full rebuild until the next season. In 2009 Dallas and New England were tied for the most draft picks with 12 and both were teams with legit Superbowl aspirations.

I think trading down and acquiring more picks is indicative of a rebuilding team (a team in need of a youth infusion). That is what Cleveland did, and we know they're rebuilding. That is also what we've done.

Committing to a rebuild is rolling the dice on a drafted young QB and sticking to your plan for better or worse. It's taking your lumps with young, drafted players in the starting positions and at key reserve spots and being patient with them while they suck. It's committing to their development and growth rather than punishing them and giving away their jobs to old vets with no future at the first sign of struggle. It's being willing to bottom out and go 2-14 or 4-12 rather than trade away the future to go 6-10 or 7-9.

That is your definition of a rebuild. A lot of people would say that you don't draft a rookie QB until you've got a majority of the supporting cast solidified. We clearly do not have the majority of our supporting cast solidified. I also think, if a team is rebuilding, one year doesn't make or break the entire rebuilding process when it comes to drafting a QB. I think either Shanny could not get the QB he wanted in this draft (Locker), or he simply didn't covet any of this year's crop of QB's highly enough (I'm inclined to believe the latter). I really believe he'll take his guy next year. Since I think we're rebuilding, I don't think picking our QB one year later is a huge deal.

---------- Post added May-11th-2011 at 04:43 AM ----------

I noticed that. I take it as a sign that they author is not an expert. Reloading and rebuilding are two different terms. A team can reload on the fly (he has it correct in his first paragraph), but it can't rebuild on the fly.

Much easier to put the guy down and say he's not an "expert" than take his analysis seriously. Perhaps he wrote that without editing or simply thought the two words analogous. BTW, Adam Schefter had this to say about Zobel:

Shawn Zobel is like a lot of college players themselves -- a young blue chipper. He knows the draft and anyone who reads his stuff also will.

Sounds like professionals consider him an expert. I'll see if I can find an email address for him and see if he'll clarify his statement.

[Oldfan]

...Much easier to put the guy down and say he's not an "expert" than take his analysis seriously.

You aren't taking my observation that he confused his terms seriously. Why is that?

[pimpumd]

You aren't taking my observation that he confused his terms seriously. Why is that?

I edited my post while you were posting.

[darrelgreenie]

he simply didn't covet any of this year's crop of QB's highly enough. I really believe he'll take his guy next year. Since I think we're rebuilding, I don't think picking our QB one year later is a huge deal.

Bruce Allen has basically come out and said they're not rebuilding.

Despite his statement you choose to believe they are rebuilding.

Most people consider the QB the key piece in a rebuild.

Despite having several chances to draft a top prospect they didn't.

In fact they didn't address the QB position at all.

But, for some reason you're okay with putting off drafting the key piece in a rebuild til the next year.

Which in essence means you're okay with wasting a year of the 'rebuild'?

Maybe the FO passed on the QB position in this draft because they had no intention of drafting a QB?

Maybe they went into the draft knowing they had other plans for a the QB position that don't involve grooming a young QB.

I think the QB that starts for the Burgundy and Gold this year is going to be the Kyle's QB going forward.

I don't see them passing on a top prospect this year only to draft one next year.

[pimpumd]

Bruce Allen has basically come out and said they're not rebuilding but despite his statement you choose to believe they are rebuilding even though they had several opportunties to draft a QB the position consider by most to be the key piece in a rebuild but didn't.

If you haven't been reading this entire thread, this has already been discussed. People thinking a GM is going to come out say "this is a rebuilding year" are going to be waiting a long time for that. Nobody has provided an example of any GM ever saying that. That says something. Also, as noted by the Lions' GM, Martin Mayhew, some NFL GMs don't discuss their actual plans or philosophies in the public.

BTW, Bruce Allen also said this in February, 2010:

But right now, this team, we do need an infusion of youth into this team. We need some players that are going to be learning the system from year one under Coach Shanahan's staff, and that's exciting. Now, we don't have a third- and we don't have a sixth-[round draft pick] right now, so maybe on draft day we could move around to pick up some extra picks, because we do need an infusion of youth."

If that doesn't speak to the team needing to rebuild rather than reload or "win now," I don't know what does.

And your okay with putting off drafting the key piece in a rebuild til the next year.

So you're okay with wasting a year of the 'rebuild'?

A rebuild doesn't last one year. You don't draft a QB and then the year later you're done rebuilding. Is that how it worked with Aaron Rodgers? What is so difficult about the possibility that Mike didn't like this crop of QB's? Just because a team is in rebuilding mode doesn't mean the GM and Coach are forced into taking a QB (that perhaps they feel doesn't fit their system or just isn't good enough) in any specific year.

I don't think the FO passing on the QB position in this draft has anything to do with the QBs in the draft.

Well, that's your opinion. I disagree with it.

I think they went into the drafting knowing they had other plans for a the QB position that don't involve grooming a young QB.

Again, I disagree with this. IMO, even there are other plans involving bringing in a veteran QB, at some point the team has to have a young(er) QB for the future. Mike drafted Cutler so he's not averse to drafting a QB. I just don't think he cared for this year's class (or he liked Locker and couldn't get him).

Further I think the QB that starts for the Burgundy and Gold this year is going to be the Kyle's QB going forward.

I hope that is the case too.

I don't see them passing on a top prospect this year to draft one next year.

A lot of people didn't consider Gabbert to be a top prospect. Perhaps he was the best QB in a weak class. Perhaps he's not even the best QB in a weak class (after all, two QBs went ahead of him).

[dfbovey]

I don't see them passing on a top prospect this year only to draft one next year.

When you consider that this was a very weak QB class, and next year's QB class is projected to be one of the best in recent memory... I could definitely see the logic in waiting till next year to fill an obvious need at QB. All while strengthening the team with young talent before you draft that QB.

I think they'll be aggressive in pursuing a QB at the top of next year's draft.

[pimpumd]

When you consider that this was a very weak QB class, and next year's QB class is projected to be one of the best in recent memory... I could definitely see the logic in waiting till next year to fill an obvious need at QB. All while strengthening the team with young talent before you draft that QB.

I think they'll be aggressive in pursuing a QB at the top of next year's draft.

Agreed. I don't see the problem in filling numerous holes this year and getting a better QB next year. Plus, 16-td Gabbert just didn't do it for me (sorry, that was a cheap shot at Gabbert and his supporters, but I had to get that off my chest--I know SteveMcQueen will want to kill me for saying that).

[Bang]

What you wrote sounded like a rationale for deception.

I read what Mike Holmgren told Cleveland fans a couple of years ago. He was straightforward. But, that's the way the man is.

I'll wait until our roster for the upcoming season is cut down to 53. If I don't see five or six free agents on the downhill side of their careers starting, I'll be happy and surprised.

I'll be straight forward.

If you NEED the front office to tell you that one of the oldest teams in the NFL that averages 5 or 6 wins a season for ten years is rebuilding, then you're simply an idiot.

I really don't get your hang up over this.

You worry over whether or not the team communicates it's intentions to the fans as if they

A/ should, or

B/ owe it to you, or

C/ need to explain why a team that has been so badly mismanaged needs to be rebuilt.

Personally, I kind of like that they figure I don't need to be told.

Fans in Cleveland NEEDED to be told that they, a team that has never been in a Super Bowl and has not made the playoffs in 8 years must rebuild? How about the fact that in those 8 years, they have finished out of last place only ONCE.. does anyone think they really need to be told? I sincerely doubt it.

I don't get why you hold them up anyway, Holmgren clearly lied, or he never would have signed Jake DelHomme, never would have brought in Scott Fujita, never should have signed Sheldon Brown, Eric Steinbach or Robaire Smith or Pork Chop Womack. Aging vets, all contributing on a team that admits they're rebuilding.

it's asinine.

Honestly, when you use your first draft choice on a left tackle, it is a clear message that you're rebuilding from the outset.

When you work a draft like we did a few weeks ago, you're clearly rebuilding.

It doesn't matter one iota if they tell you this or not. As a fan with two eyes and even half a brain, you should be able to figure this out on your own.

AND, i'd go one further and state that with the LARGEST roster in professional sports, NFL teams are CONSTANTLY rebuilding. Always. Because the roster is so large, you will NEVER get it to the point where you say, "There! The rebuild is done!" there's too many spots to fill, and the players in the NFL move around too much to consider all but a very small few will be with your team from the start of your run to the end.

Think about the Patriots.. the most successful team of the last ten years. How many players are with them now as to when they won their first super bowl? Or, foregoing "now" how many were with them when they won their first in 01, and appeared in their last in 07?)

Not many, I can assure you. Less than a dozen, I'd wager.

So when the Pats stockpile picks every year, are aggressive in free agency like they are every year.. what are they doing?

They're rebuilding constantly. They have changed and adapted to changing personnel over the years, with very few constants. They've gone from a team that plays conservatively on offense and won with defense to a team that went bombs away 16-0 and now back to a team with smaller receivers and scatbacks, and a defense that is young and getting better. (It got TOTALLY rebuilt while they were winning) .

Different personnel sets, with few exceptions. Different coaches, with one notable exception.

SO, quit your crying that the FO has not sent you a certified letter announcing their intentions of rebuilding. It should not be necessary. The fact you seem to think it IS is pretty comical.

Use the brain you seem so intent on proving exists and figure it out for yourself. You worry about this like they're guarding military secrets.

It's no secret. Only an idiot believes they are not rebuilding.

"Deception"...

What is the conspiracy here? That a for-profit entertainment business wants to sell tickets? Heaven forbid!

~Bang

[Mahons21]

So, apparently some NFL GM's do in fact feel that discussing their respective team's plans and/or philosophies does indeed have an affect on maintaining a competitive advantage. Just throwing that out there.

Who'd a thunk it?

[KDawg]

I can't believe the amount of people here who are throwing blind faith in the front office.

yes, it's improved. But a Peruvian Monkey would have been an improvement over the old front office.

They say we aren't rebuilding. So either they're lying and we are, which, I'd argue we're certainly not up to this point. Trading picks for McNabb and Brown are not rebuilding moves. But, the draft indicates we may be... So if we are rebuilding, they're lying to us and think we're idiots.

If we're truly not rebuilding, then we're going to sign a bunch of guys once FA happens.

So either the front office thinks we're all too dumb to see what's really happening and its going to be more of the same... Or they're lying and we are going with a rebuild.

Either way, it's kind of a slap in the face.

[Bang]

We might sign a bunch of free agents and still be rebuilding.

The huge difference in our draft strategy shows that we're addressing areas of need with multiple players, getting younger in a hurry. That is rebuilding 101.

But you still bolster with free agents. Rebuilding doesn't mean you stop trying to win. And like I said above, rebuilding is something you do constantly, if you do things right. Our problem has been we've never even tried to do it, preferring to try and hit a home run every time up. It isn't realistic, and our results show it.

If we have this nice draft, and then go out and drop 40 million or more on Nammdi Asomugha, ( and letting Carlos walk ) I'm not going to be upset at all. He's high price, but he's also high quality. And as the departure of Carlos would show, even if you develop young players (He was our pick, 9th overall ) occasionally they leave. He wants money. So, do we waste the last 6 or so years developing (and counting on the production) from a critical position and just go back to square one and hope Barnes is ready,, or wait to draft a replacement next year?

i say no, i say you grab the best guy available in that situation. And you're still rebuilding, because one way you rebuild is to help out young units by solidifying others. A young QBs best friend is a solid pair of tackles because they can keep him from getting massacred while he adapts to the NFL.. Same can be said for a young DL (which we drafted)... if we give them a secondary that can hold coverage for more than a few seconds, it makes their adjustment that much easier.

I totally agree that the way we've done it in the past,, throwing money on mismatched pieces and ignoring the draft.. was totally wrong.

But I like what i see now. especially after the McNabb debacle. (IMO, the fact they benched him showed me they will own up to a colossal mistake and move on, rather than allowing ego to hang it around their necks like an anchor.)

I see more reason for true optimism now than I have in a LONG time. I don't think there's any smoke being blown up our collective butts anymore. (Even if they don't send us all a text message that they're indeed rebuilding.)

The FO is still going to try to sell tickets. At the bottom of everything, that is their job. It's how they pay the bills.

~Bang

[KDawg]

Rebuilding doesn't mean you stop trying to win.

I never said that. Not sure if anyone did.

And like I said above, rebuilding is something you do constantly, if you do things right.

I disagree. What you're constantly doing is retooling. When you have a solid core in place, you can retool consistently. A rebuild is building from the ground up, with a major roster turnover in a few short seasons.

Our problem has been we've never even tried to do it, preferring to try and hit a home run every time up. It isn't realistic, and our results show it.

Agreed.

If we have this nice draft, and then go out and drop 40 million or more on Nammdi Asomugha, ( and letting Carlos walk ) I'm not going to be upset at all.

Asomugha is a youngish guy and a top flight player. This isn't what any of us are referring to.

A young QBs best friend is a solid pair of tackles because they can keep him from getting massacred while he adapts to the NFL..

Who is our young QB?

I totally agree that the way we've done it in the past,, throwing money on mismatched pieces and ignoring the draft.. was totally wrong.

So you're in agreement that up until this years draft we were doing it wrong. Okay, good. Until free agency starts, though, who knows if we're doing it right or not. We all have to wait and see.

I don't think there's any smoke being blown up our collective butts anymore. (Even if they don't send us all a text message that they're indeed rebuilding.)

I don't see why he has to hide it. "I don't know what rebuilding is" is a BS line. It's semi insulting if he's going to rebuild while saying we're not rebuilding. Which is why I'm nervous about FA.

[Bang]

I never said that. Not sure if anyone did.

Fair enough, all I'm saying is that rebuilding from the ground up doesn't mean that you can't upgrade a position with a solid free agent.

I disagree. What you're constantly doing is retooling. When you have a solid core in place, you can retool consistently. A rebuild is building from the ground up, with a major roster turnover in a few short seasons.

Well, i'd say they're one in the same.. for example, the Pats again, their defense got rebuilt, not retooled, over he last three seasons, rookies, the youngest secondary in the league... they moved the core of that defense out and replaced it pretty much wholesale (except Vince Willfork).

Their core really has been the coach, the QB, and most of the OL. Basically about 6 guys out of 53.

But they rebuild the rest constantly. Look at the game they run now as opposed to the game they ran when they Godzilla-Walked the league a few years ago. Then they were bombs away, attack attack, go vertical and then burn underneath with dumps to Welker. Not much run game to speak of, really. Lawrence Maroney was an afterthought.

Now they're back to small receivers, shorter patterns, fast running backs hitting the edge and quick hitting traps inside, and now they've gone and drafted two running backs, which indicates to me a continual rebuild of the offense to fit changing styles.

Their entire identity has changed in the last three years. That's not re-tooling, that's constant and continual adaptation and building to meet it.

Asomugha is a youngish guy and a top flight player. This isn't what any of us are referring to.

Good,, I get that we don't want anymore McNabb / Haynesworth/ Coles/ etc..

I'd cream my jeans if we signed Asomugha

Who is our young QB?

We don't have one yet. But if we are goingto go with one next year, our line should be better prepared to protect him. (Mostly i use the QB / OL analogy as an example of what I was talking about, not necessarily an example that fits us right now. )

I don't see why he has to hide it. "I don't know what rebuilding is" is a BS line. It's semi insulting if he's going to rebuild while saying we're not rebuilding. Which is why I'm nervous about FA.

I don't really see what he says in this regard as important at all. He plays PR just like everyone else does. It's just fluff-talk.

~Bang

[KDawg]

I don't really see what he says in this regard as important at all. He plays PR just like everyone else does. It's just fluff-talk.

I see your point here. But, personally, I wouldn't do things that way. I'd be upfront and honest. Why? A couple of reasons. First and foremost, it gives me a longer leash. It gives me a solid three years to turn the ship around by saying that we're rebuilding. It allows me to retain my job. Second, honesty is always the best policy. That's how you lose trust in people. The fans are a major part of this franchise. Vinny is gone in part thanks to the fans. Now, being honest and telling the whole world your gameplan step by step are two entirely different things. Saying you're rebuilding would be honesty (if we were rebuilding), saying we're rebuilding and explaining exactly how we're doing it and what our plan is would be stupidity.

[darrelgreenie]

If you haven't been reading this entire thread, this has already been discussed....If that doesn't speak to the team needing to rebuild rather than reload or "win now," I don't know what does.

I was posting in this thread long before you discovered it.

we do need an infusion of youth into this team

This quote is simply an acknowledgement that this team is old and needs an infusion of youth just to get back to NFL average i.e. not be so damn old.

“I don’t know what rebuild is. I think there’s an opportunity each week to do well in the NFL. Last year we had a chance to do better, we had a chance to do worse than our 6-10 record. And every opportunity that we’re gonna be given this year, we’ve got to compete. I don’t think it’s fair to a veteran player to say that we’re gonna worry about 2014 instead of 2011. London Fletcher deserves the opportunity to try to win every game we play, and that’s what our organization’s gonna focus on.”

^^If this doesn't clearly tell you they're not rebuilding, I guess nothing will.

But, I don't want to quible you think the FO is rebuilding, fine.

A rebuild doesn't last one year. You don't draft a QB and then the year later you're done rebuilding. Is that how it worked with Aaron Rodgers?

Funny I don't recall saying anything even close the above.

So I have no idea what you're talking but here's what I wrote:

Most people consider the QB the key piece in a rebuild.

Despite having several chances to draft a top prospect they didn't.

In fact they didn't address the QB position at all.

What is so difficult about the possibility that Mike didn't like this crop of QB's? Just because a team is in rebuilding mode doesn't mean the GM and Coach are forced into taking a QB (that perhaps they feel doesn't fit their system or just isn't good enough) in any specific year.

Is this a rhetorical question? Because you shouldn't ask if you don't want the answer.

Imo its not logical.

First off teams don't draft QBs/players based of a like.

They have a draft board.

Regardless of how different Mike/Kyle perception of this years QB class may have been its not logical that their draft board would be so different from everyone else (including other QB 'gurus') that they didn't have 1 QB with a draftable grade.

What's more then that we know from last year that Mike 'liked' Jake Locker.

We know from our insiders that Gabbert was the top rated QB on their board.

Then there's this about Mallett:

I attended a "Chalk Talk" event with Mike Shanahan on the 15th and asked him about Mallet. Specifically, my question was "Since you use a lot of roll outs would you draft a guy like Mallet in the second round even though he isn't very athletic but can get the ball down field?" He said,"Definately, the running back takes care of the roll outs and it's just something we do to move the pocket. Mallet will be gone by the second round though."

Someone else asked the question, "Which three players impressed you the most at the combine?" Shanny's answer was "Julio Jones, Ryan Mallet, & Peterson." I personally would like us to draft Mallet. He has a big strong arm and can get the ball down the field. Can you imagine how many TDs AA would've had last season had McNabb not underthrown everything?

Mike S. also commented about this was the deepest QB draft he had seen in awhile.

Again, I disagree with this. IMO, even there are other plans involving bringing in a veteran QB, at some point the team has to have a young(er) QB for the future. Mike drafted Cutler so he's not averse to drafting a QB. I just don't think he cared for this year's class (or he liked Locker and couldn't get him).

^^You HAVE to believe this in order to keep believing the plan is to rebuild.

o If the GM says he doesn't know what rebuilding means

o you pass on taking the center piece of a rebuild and

o the HC has stated that he has a plan for the QB position. (FA)

A lot of people didn't consider Gabbert to be a top prospect. Perhaps he was the best QB in a weak class. Perhaps he's not even the best QB in a weak class (after all, two QBs went ahead of him).

Funny I don't see where I said Gabbert.

I said a top prospect it could be anywhere within the draft Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton, Mallett etc..

You heard it hear first, this draft class will be consider better then next years by the time the draft rolls around.

Other then Luck there not elite talents and even Luck doesn't have the arm talent of the top of this years crop.

[pimpumd]

I see your point here. But, personally, I wouldn't do things that way. I'd be upfront and honest. Why? A couple of reasons. First and foremost, it gives me a longer leash. It gives me a solid three years to turn the ship around by saying that we're rebuilding. It allows me to retain my job. Second, honesty is always the best policy. That's how you lose trust in people. The fans are a major part of this franchise. Vinny is gone in part thanks to the fans. Now, being honest and telling the whole world your gameplan step by step are two entirely different things. Saying you're rebuilding would be honesty (if we were rebuilding), saying we're rebuilding and explaining exactly how we're doing it and what our plan is would be stupidity.

Those are good points, but no NFL GM's do that. Nobody has produced any quotes of a GM or front office coming out and saying, "We are going to start a rebuild, we need at least 3 years before we are competitive again," or anything similar to that effect. The best you're going to get out of an NFL GM is something to the effect of, "we plan on rebuilding through the draft." Allen has essentially said that in the quote I posted earlier where he repeatedly mention the team's need for a "youth infusion."