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

[Oldfan]

grantarchy -- Yeah, Bowlen also hired Josh McDaniels, so what weight am I supposed to put on his assessment of free agent hires?

It doesn't matter whether Bowlen was right or wrong, the point of the post was to offer evidence that Shanahan went heavily into free agency just as the Skins did. Even after his two best drafts in 2006 and 2008, the 2008 starters were only 56% Denver draft picks.

Regarding the draft -- a very good six players: 2006 alone yielded Cutler and Marshall and Scheffler, and Elvis Dumerville who is a top defensive player. Darrent Williams (CB) from the 2005 draft was also showing great promise before he was shot.

The 2006 and 2008 drafts were both good. What point are you making relevant to our topic?

You are also the one who said that Shanahan was "unwilling" to build a dynasty. Your evidence is? Less than a molehill.

With full control of a football team, Mike has won more regular season games than he lost; but he has won only one playoff game in 11 years. That's ample evidence that he is unwilling or unable to build a dynasty. If you want to argue that he's willing, but not able, you might be right. But, I think it's both.

I just want to get it correct, but you're saying that Zorn's offense looked crisper and more explosive than Shanahan's? I am not talking stats, I am just talking a general feel of the flow of the offense.

My mistake. When you said "crisper and more explosive," I thought it had something to do with being more effective. As for "flow," we must have different meanings for the word. Mine has to do with fewer three and outs, not more.

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 06:37 AM ----------

...Senility is a *****

Probably, but so is ignorance.

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 06:58 AM ----------

veteranskinsfan --Oldfan- I think the world of London Fletcher. I hope he can play at least 3 more years for us while we try to shore up the rest of the defense and offense. I like your idea of searching for London-type players who have great character, strong work ethic and a willingness to be team players.

Fletcher is one of the few players we have worth paying to see.

When the Skins first hired Shanny I had my doubts about him interfering with the GM duties and then when this season was over I had even more doubts about both Shanahans. But tonight I listened to the Channel 4 playback of the recent Redskins show and heard clips from both coordinators who had some good observations.

I didn't hear them. I take it they got you pumped up.

So this year coming up will be huge for the coaches and especially our head coach. He will either earn the respect of the majority of our fan base or lose the respect of the fan base depending how he makes football decisions on the draft, on trades, and on running the team during the season. We simply cannot go 6-10 this season.

I predicted a six-win season in Mark the Homer's contest. The poor performance didn't bother me. What bothered me was Mike's approach. It wasn't just that his attempt to reload this team failed. It bothered me more that he would even try to reload a team that needs to be rebuilt.

If we get to eight wins this season, most fans will see that as a sign or progress. I'll look at how we got to eight wins. If we get there with a sound plan that promises more, I'll be overjoyed.

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 07:08 AM ----------

Mahons21 --Never said it was a rumor, only that a PFT rumor-mill link doesn't hold a lot of credibility.

Yes, I understood that. But, I don't think they fabricated the quote.

"Cash is an issue in the National Football League," Bowlen told the Rocky Mountain News. "I think it's pretty common knowledge our last labor agreement is not our smartest move, and that we're way beyond, and I'm not talking about just the Denver Broncos, I'm talking about just the league in general . . . we being we collectively, 32 teams, can't live with this deal."

Yes, in this quote Bowlen is talking about the CBA. In the quote I offered he was talking about free agency and his experience with it. That both quotes came from the same article doesn't really matter. In this discussion, one quote is relevant, the other isn't.

[Skinsinparadise]

[/color]After the good drafts in 2006 and 2008 for the offense, nine starters on the 2008 offense were draft picks. On defense only three starters were draft picks 3 + 9 = 12, 12/22 = 56%

Yeah though if you go back through my posts, you'll see I am critical of him on defense, they weren't good picking players on defense with some exceptions. Arguably Scott Campbell as player director for the skins has the opposite strengths good on defense but struggles on offense. Hopefully they have a good marriage working together. Apparently, Shanny likes Scott enough to keep him, many reporters though Shanny would get rid of him since he wasn't his chosen guy.

But yeah my take on Shanny isn't one extreme another. I am not Shanny's press secretary who is going to spin everything his way or some attack dog who will spin just about everything against him. I think evaluating Shanny's record and style and what he's going to do next is likely more complex than some people are giving credit for. I know if people were evaluating how I do work with static sweeping labels to characterize everything I do and what I'll do in the future, I'd think people don't get me.

[Shanahanigans]

Yeah though if you go back through my posts, you'll see I am critical of him on defense, they weren't good picking players on defense with some exceptions. Arguably Scott Campbell as player director for the skins has the opposite strengths good on defense but struggles on offense. Hopefully they have a good marriage working together. Apparently, Shanny likes Scott enough to keep him, many reporters though Shanny would get rid of him since he wasn't his chosen guy.

But yeah my take on Shanny isn't one extreme another. I am not Shanny's press secretary who is going to spin everything his way or some attack dog who will spin just about everything against him. I think evaluating Shanny's record and style and what he's going to do next is likely more complex than some people are giving credit for. I know if people were evaluating how I do work with static sweeping labels to characterize everything I do and what I'll do in the future, I'd think people don't get me.

Good post.

Yes, it's more complex than saying Shanahan is using one method over another. Did he reload in Denver? Absolutely. He had back to back SB winning teams why would have have to rebuild? The problem wasn't the method. The problem was talent evaluation. After the SB players were lost, the team was depleted of talent. Hence promoting Jim Goodman and rebuilding through the draft happened.

Now, that's my opinion and Oldfan will differ, but as a fan, I saw major sweeps across the board that were unprecedented. I know Shanahan and I was absolutely impressed with what he did in the later years. He was even among the talks of being coach of the year. If we had made the playoffs, he would have been a shoe-in.

My opinion of Shanahan changed over the years. Had he been fired around 2001-3, I wouldn't have been too upset. I wasn't happy with player movement at the time and we were missing Elway pretty bad. Once the 2006 draft happened, I fell back in love with the team. I missed some players that were lost, like Al Wilson and Tom Nalen, but I liked the new energy and youth movement that was happening.

You can sit and debate about what method should be utilized, but I know what happened with my team and if we had kept that team, Shanahan and brought in a decent DC that would have stayed with us for at least a couple of years, I have no doubt in my mind that they would have been a championship team. It all comes down to player evaluation and youth. That's the bottom line regardless of the method being used.

[darrelgreenie]

Win now.

Win soon/re-tool. (1-2 year)

Rebuild. (3+ years)

I think Mike S is doing the middle.

[Oldfan]

SIP: Yeah though if you go back through my posts, you'll see I am critical of him on defense, they weren't good picking players on defense with some exceptions.

Yes, indeed you have been critical of Mike on defense while at the same time asserting that the free agency and trades were a minor interest for him. I agreed with you that 20% non-draft would be minor. Now that I've shown you 44% in 2008 even after his two best drafts in 2006 and 2008, you don't want to concede you are wrong.

Our topic is here about building a roster, it's not about building an offense.

But yeah my take on Shanny isn't one extreme another. I am not Shanny's press secretary who is going to spin everything his way or some attack dog who will spin just about everything against him.

Maybe you're not his press secretary, but you're doing pretty well as a substitute by defending him based on how well he did in building half a football team at the end of his Denver run. Here's my bottom line: Mike averaged 8+ draft picks in Denver, but he still needed to depend heavily on free agency and trades to keep his teams competitive. I've offered you evidence in stats and quotes and you're implying that I'm the one doing the spinning.

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 02:48 PM ----------

Shanahanigans: Did he reload in Denver? Absolutely. He had back to back SB winning teams why would have have to rebuild? The problem wasn't the method. The problem was talent evaluation.

Your reasoning here escapes me. Doesn't the age of the core players of your last Super Bowl team weigh heavily on whether a rebuild or reload is called for? And, even more a mystery to me is how your last Super Bowl team has any bearing on reloading for the next ten years.

After the SB players were lost, the team was depleted of talent. Hence promoting Jim Goodman and rebuilding through the draft happened.

I thought Goodman was promoted in 2006. That's eight drafts after your 98 SB. That team was pretty much history by 2001 at Shanahan's turnover rate. You can't claim a "rebuild" simply because it was a good draft. Teams try for good drafts every year. When they have one, it doesn't signal that they were on a rebuilding plan.

You can sit and debate about what method should be utilized, but I know what happened with my team and if we had kept that team, Shanahan and brought in a decent DC that would have stayed with us for at least a couple of years, I have no doubt in my mind that they would have been a championship team. It all comes down to player evaluation and youth. That's the bottom line regardless of the method being used.

My exemplar for a dynasty builder is Bill Walsh. After Belichik failed in Cleveland, he and Walsh became friends. Walsh was very generous in mentoring Bill on his methods which all make sense. I don't think Mike Shanahan sees the big picture like Walsh did and Belichik does. Mike's a mastermind of the offense. Period. That's about 10% of the big picture.

KDawg authored a thread on Mike's moves last season. He made moves in one direction then canceled them out with equal moves in the opposite direction. Example: Trading picks for McNabb was a move intended to win now. He canceled that out by switching to the 34 with misfit personnel.

In this thread I'm griping: Jesus, Man. I don't care which way you go anymore. Just pick a direction and give us a plan that makes sense.

[Oldfan]

Win now.

Win soon/re-tool. (1-2 year)

Rebuild. (3+ years)

I think Mike S is doing the middle.

I had to edit my first response because I misread your idea.

Can you explain how trading for McNabb and switching to the 34 was a retooling move to win soon? By the time we adapt to the 34, McNabb would be used up (even if he had fit the scheme).

[Skinsinparadise]

Yes, indeed you have been critical of Mike on defense while at the same time asserting that the free agency and trades were a minor interest for him. I agreed with you that 20% non-draft would be minor. Now that I've shown you 44% in 2008 even after his two best drafts in 2006 and 2008, you don't want to concede you are wrong.

Our topic is here about building a roster, it's not about building an offense.

I said free agency was a minor interest to ME in terms of what I think of rebuilding, hence the 80%/20% example. if you go back and read my example, I wasn't quantifying what Shanny did. I was saying what I believe it matters versus not. And I don't know how many different ways i have to be clear on that, the most obvious way I explained it was talking about teams like the Patriots, Giants and Eagles also being big into free agency -- and I said clearly it hasn't detered them. Obviously a big part of your premise is free agency is a big factor as being a deterrent to rebuilding -- then you are arguing the conclusion that Shanny is mismanaging it. I don't even agree with the premise, so why would I care about you trying to pull me into a debate about the conclusion?

You can produce the argument that Shanny went hog wild with free agency and i would care very little. To me rebuilding is about -- holding your picks, adding picks, doing well with your picks. If you want to supplement it with free agency, go crazy. I have been consistent on this point with the Redskins too -- the Redskins are regarded by most as in a league in itself with free agency. But i never thought bad moves like signing Adam Archuleta destroyed this franchise. For me its always been -- draft pick trades -- Duckett, Lloyd, Portis. We've had less picks than any other team in league if I recall for the last ten years. That's bad. For the most part you can survive some missteps with free agency -- Eagles made some bad signings like Jevon Kearse. Go on the Patriots fan board and read about them complaining about bad free agency moves:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/79184-2008-free-agency-worst-signing-page2.html

Maybe you're not his press secretary, but you're doing pretty well as a substitute by defending him based on how well he did in building half a football team at the end of his Denver run. Here's my bottom line: Mike averaged 8+ draft picks in Denver, but he still needed to depend heavily on free agency and trades to keep his teams competitive. I've offered you evidence in stats and quotes and you're implying that I'm the one doing the spinning.

I am giving what I think is a balanced view of Shanny. And with all respect, I just think you've hit a point with Shanny where you don't like the dude, so to me at least you seem to be in spin mode against Shanny -- when you really get pinned on something you give a begrudging half complement but by and large you seem to be on the war path against him. That's fine. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else. But for me I just think the debates on Shanny would be more interesting if we weren't arguing one wild extreme versus another -- because IMO what is striking about Shanny is when you look closer I feel you get a really mixed view, strengths and weaknesses. For me there is more good than bad but I try to get a good perspective. I've read his book, i've read what his critics and proponents say. I got no loyalty to Shanny. I don't care if he or my grandma is coaching the Skins I just want to win.

As for Shanny my take is:

Offense: On offense, he's praised by many as a guru/genius -- I've really seen almost no one challenge him on this side of the ball -- or for that matter argue the point that he scores too quickly and thus hurts his defenses, Mike Martz style. And yeah his offense invariably is called WCO, some say a run heavy variation of it. From a personnel stand point, my hunch is he is VERY good these days at culling offensive talent, we've already seen some signs of it in year one even though he didn't have many picks to work with. Torain, K. Williams,keeping A. Armstrong on the roster and dumping D. Thomas, B. Banks, even Austin showed some flashes. Be interesting to see how he does with real draft picks 5th round or up.

Defense: Obviously, the bane of his Denver tenure. He did pick some good players. I don't get the impression he minimizes the importance of defense, he's just not anything special at scoping out talent or arguably he's bad at it. As said, I am hoping Scott Campbell offsets that. Actually I like the fact that he moved his defense to 3-4. i don't think we on the board are smarter than Shanny about defense, and it was just lost on Shanny that they need more 3-4 talent -- but if you are thinking LONG TERM -- you suck it up and start the process now as opposed to when all the pieces are in place IMO. Shanny based on interviews is acutely aware that defense has been his problem. He studied NE and the Steelers when he was away from coaching, so I gather those are the teams he wants to model in that department. I'll give him some rope to do it. You seemed to do jumping jacks of joy 2 years ago when Zorn said he wants a more aggressive defense. Shanny has said the same but much more eloquently -- in fact he's pretty much sung your song entirely of what type of defense he wants -- which is the converse to the Blache style.

Personnel: I think he's well above average in procuring offensive talent. He had some hiccups mid tenure with the draft but I think he's found his stride. He's even got a little better with defense as well. Do I think he's Bill Polian, Scott Pioli, Ted Thompson? No way. Do I think he's a peg higher than Vinny, yeah. I still think he has something to prove though so will see how this draft goes. I get he has his critics here. He also has people praising him in this department as well, most notably the Washington Examiner.

Future versus short term: If you read his comments, and yeah Shanny doesn't seem the type that's obsessed with his public image and will say anything just to pander to public sentiment -- I see little to back your point that he's all about keeping his job, and just the playoffs are fine with him. He's flat out said its all about winning the next Superbowl. He's been to the playoffs 7 times with Denver -- probably around 10 times if you count his prior times with other teams, why the heck would making the playoffs again be a career capstone? I get the impression he's very aware that he is critiqued as the guy who only won the Superbowl with Elway and from a legacy stand point, nothing would beat winning one more Superbowl. And no he doesn't strike me a dummy, I think he gets our platitudes about building a long term winning roster with youth and plans to do so. I just don't agree that rebuilding is largely characterized by refraining from free agency -- I doubt he agrees with you either. So to you it will always look like reloading. He was successful at the end of his tenure in building an upcoming or as he said it Super Bowl caliber offense, on defense you can see he picked plenty of players at the side of the ball, he IMO had the want, he i would guess didn't have the competence. But I think he's smart enough to know what he doesn't know.

Overall, am I predicting greatness. I don't know, you got me. I see enough good elements about Shanny that I'll go for the ride and see where it takes me. This isn't like picking a political party where you are with or against the Redskins coach. I am with the coach, I'll give my coach the benefit of the doubt for the first 3 seasons -- and then if i don't like his approach i will be as harsh as you are on him. I didn't like Zorn (seems like a great person though) as a coach after year 1, but there was a lot about his coaching style that just bugged the heck out of me. But usually I will let the movie play out a little, I even felt that way about Spurrier.

[SkinsNoles21]

Ha. I love how people seem to think you can't do both.

Obviously, it doesn't cost draft picks to sign guys in free agency. If you sign the right guys that fill holes and fit your system then you are doing well. Don't trade picks for players, hold on to them ... and draft 7-8 rookies each year. Then, when guys start to age and decline, you trade them for anything you can get (to a team like the Redskins)... 6th rounder, etc. or cut and replace them, sometimes snagging supplementary picks. Then just continue that cycle.

It really is that simple. Look at the Patriots.

[Oldfan]

Ha. I love how people seem to think you can't do both.

You can do both. You just can't do both very well.

Look at the Patriots.

No, let's not look at the Patriots because they already have a solid core to build around. We don't.

Obviously, it doesn't cost draft picks to sign guys in free agency. If you sign the right guys that fill holes and fit your system then you are doing well. Don't trade picks for players, hold on to them ... and draft 7-8 rookies each year. Then, when guys start to age and decline, you trade them for anything you can get (to a team like the Redskins)... 6th rounder, etc. or cut and replace them, sometimes snagging supplementary picks. Then just continue that cycle.

That's a fine plan if you already have a solid core. We don't have enough talent at the core positions (identified in the OP).

[Skinsinparadise]

Ha. I love how people seem to think you can't do both.

Obviously, it doesn't cost draft picks to sign guys in free agency. If you sign the right guys that fill holes and fit your system then you are doing well. Don't trade picks for players, hold on to them ... and draft 7-8 rookies each year. Then, when guys start to age and decline, you trade them for anything you can get (to a team like the Redskins)... 6th rounder, etc. or cut and replace them, sometimes snagging supplementary picks. Then just continue that cycle.

It really is that simple. Look at the Patriots.

Exactly. Actually look at a lot of successful teams. NY Giants need a plug at MLB -- they sign Antonio Pierce. They needed a big play WR, they sign Buress. They needed to fix the safety, DT, LB positions, they sign: Canty, Boley, Rolle, and the other safety, forgot his name. The Eagles want a shut down corner they sign Asante Samuel.

The thing about free agency is lets take for example Randle El. Not great, not worth the money. But he held a roster spot until we found a better replacement, Anthony Armstrong. Brandon Lloyd (forgetting his good year in Denver), on the other hand we give up a third and 4th round pick for him. Heck, we've drafted guys like Chris Cooley in the third, Stephen Davis is the 4th round -- so if you miss on this player -- that's quite a loss, you got a bad player playing a roster spot and lose the opportunity to find a young player to replace him if it doesn't work out all at the same time. To me those draft pick trades are mostly lunacy. And we have had plenty of examples of that here.

With the Giants and Eagles loading up in BOTH free agency AND the draft almost every year -- they have been dealing with the present and the future all at once. We've ignored the future for the most part. So yeah am not going to cry over a coach who averages 8.2 picks per draft and also Giants style likes to sign some free agents. And I don't even remotely agree that its a big factor in judging rebuilding.

[Wyvern]

Good conceptual discussions! However, I wonder how well 'reload' versus 'rebuild' works in analyzing what Shanahan was trying to do in year one.

I don't think 2010 was 're-loading' -- beause that implies there was some kind of functionally working firearm to begin with. From my perspective, the firearm Shanahan inherited from Zorn was very inaccurately sighted, had a frozen trigger, an unreliable hammer, faulty cylinders and firing pin, a suspect chamber and probably needed to be re-bored. To fix all this, and get ready for the 2010 season, Shanahan was given "Vinny's old box" of assorted spare parts, old bullets of various gauges, and a lot of stuff past their expiry date. And to pick up whatever else was needed, Shanahan was also given Vinny's maxed-out credit card.

In short, this could not really be a 'reload' -- it was more like 'getting by' and avoiding getting blown up during the season, as Zorn had in 2009. That would require Shanahan looking for old but reliable parts that might do in a pinch, and who could be obtained cheaply. Because whatever Mike could cobble together to 'get him get by' in 2010 would simply allow him to use the 2010 season to assess and figure out what he had that could work, which players he had who might hold him for a while, and then those players who simply had to go. As for whoever he'd identified who couldn't work out, he'd try to get some kind value for them, assuming it was even possible.

Bottom line: The Skins were down so far in the hole -- the first task of the Shanahan/Allen team was simply to shine enough light on everything -- to see what they had, and what wasn't going to work. Shanahan needed that to truly determine what new players he needed right away, because a complete rebuild in a single year was not possible. Shanahan needs to know where to maximize his available draft picks for2011 to lay the foundation for being competitive in 2012

Once he freed up roster spots, and cap space --he could start drafting what he needed. The problem was Shanahan has way too many gaps and not enough draft picks. One of the immediate gaps -- QB -- is not something you can immediately expect to fill starting day one. And Shanahan definitely needed a QB to see who couldn't fit/perform in his offensive gameplan. It was obvious Campbell wasn't the answer, hence the gamble on McNabb.

So 2010 really couldn't be considered as an immediate re-build either. First Shanahan/Allen needed to 'review', then 'reassess', then 'replace' -- until they had something that could hold together long enough as they then considered how they'd get whoever else was needed for an effiecient re-build.

Sentiments like Oldfan's indicate just how precarious the Skins position is -- this has been a struggling franchise for so long, the Skins FO can't afford an abrupt re-build because they don't have the draft picks yet to support it, nor the corporate will to endure the marketing hit that would ensue.

In 2011, the Skins are not close enough for for a 're-load' in that familiar "The Future is Now" mode -- and they still need to stockpile more draft-picks for any re-build, because it's going to be hard to trade players for picks. So I think the Skins will go for "The Future is Now" in 2013, and push to pick up the remaining parts needed for that season. (Maybe in 2012 if we hit big in the next two offseasons.)

[Oldfan]

SIP: I said free agency was a minor interest to ME in terms of what I think of rebuilding, hence the 80%/20% example. if you go back and read my example, I wasn't quantifying what Shanny did. I was saying what I believe it matters versus not. And I don't know how many different ways i have to be clear on that, the most obvious way I explained it was talking about teams like the Patriots, Giants and Eagles also being big into free agency -- and I said clearly it hasn't detered them.

I'm having trouble understanding you because your terms are vague. You said, "...the Patriots, Giants and Eagles also being big into free agency -- and I said clearly it hasn't detered them." What percentage is "big" to you? How high would the percentage of free agency have to be before it becomes a deterrence to building through the draft? How likely is it that 44% of the Patriots roster are non-drafted players?

Since you can't start a free agent RG and develop a drafted rookie at RG at the same time, there certainly has to be a deterrence at some point.

EDIT: I just checked. 70% of the 2010 Patriots starters were obtained through the draft. That's 14% more than Shanny's 2008 group (56%) which was likely his high-water mark since it came on the heels of his two best drafts.

You can produce the argument that Shanny went hog wild with free agency and i would care very little. To me rebuilding is about -- holding your picks, adding picks, doing well with your picks.

Well, yes I understand that you want to limit the factors in "rebuilding" so that Mike's Broncos moves qualify him as a rebuilder (except for the "doing well with your picks" part). I'd call that "spinning" but I know you disagree.

I just don't agree that rebuilding is largely characterized by refraining from free agency --

That strawman, once again.

I am with the coach, I'll give my coach the benefit of the doubt for the first 3 seasons -- and then if i don't like his approach i will be as harsh as you are on him.

It would take more patience than I have for me to do that. People have different thinking styles. By nature, I'm a futurist. I study the past to look for trends and then project them into the future. Prediction is a risky business because there are often unforeseen events that can change the predictable course. However, even in the unlikely event that Mike changes course and decides he want to build a dynasty, I'm next to certain that he doesn't have what it takes to achieve that goal. That's why I'd like to see him go all out on a George Allen-like plan.

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 06:01 PM ----------

Wyvern, your premise is that Mike didn't have the option to reload or rebuild because of the mess he inherited. Here's a quick list of things he could have done to rebuild:

1) Accept the 2011 draft pick situation as a given;

2) Don't trade picks for McNabb;

3) Don't trade a pick for a one year rental of a wounded RT;

4) Trade Campbell for a pick and sign Grossman as a starter;

5) If he didn't plan to use two TEs as a base package, trade Cooley for a pick;

6) Trade Moss for a pick (Minnesota was ripe);

7) If he planned to go to a 34, trade all players who obviously don't fit for the best draft pick offers;

8) Avoid all free agents over the age of 27;

9) Cut all vets over the age of 27 except a few leaders;

10) Use the entire year, from OTAs through the final game, to bring in and audition young talent'

Rinse and repeat in 2011 until you have a strong core (see the OP for particulars). Then, and only then, he could go into free agency to find grade C gap fillers.

[Skinsinparadise]

I'm having trouble understanding you because your terms are vague. You said, "...the Patriots, Giants and Eagles also being big into free agency -- and I said clearly it hasn't detered them." What percentage is "big" to you? How high would the percentage of free agency have to be before it becomes a deterrence to building through the draft? How likely is it that 44% of the Patriots roster are non-drafted players?.

I explained quite a bit in my post, free agency isn't much of a factor in stuff I care about when it comes to rebuilding. To me it would have to be free agency gone haywire. You would have to really go big time dumb, like the AH deal, or the year, if I recall it was 2000 where Danny signed every FA it seemed on the planet including proven duds like Jeff George and dumped Brad Johnson. I haven't seen Shanny match the worst instincts of Danny in this regard. For me, its not even worth discussing, I care little about it and I explained why. I gave you a percentage, hence my 20% but that's probably even a bit high.

Since you can't start a free agent RG and develop a drafted rookie at RG at the same time, there certainly has to be a deterrence at some point.

True, but the fact that you even make this point brings my point home. I just think having blanket conversations about rebuilding is simplistic and not based on reality or at least reality most of the time. You generally have 7 picks in the draft. Bill Parcells liked to say if you are batting 500 in the draft, then that's good. But lets be better than good and say you get 4 picks right. You aren't going to fill every need on this roster with those 4 picks, so what's the difference how you fill out the other roster needs? You can see go with un drafted free agents and hope you get lucky and yeah once in awhile a team hits with an undrafted free agent but I can't think of any team that filled all their roster gaps with undrafted free agents -- these guys weren't drafted for a reason, teams didn't think they had special talent. A bigger point to me is if you sign a free agent who is young, lets take Sidney Rice, why can't he be a building block for the future?

EDIT: I just checked. 70% of the 2010 Patriots starters were obtained through the draft. That's 14% more than Shanny's 2008 group (56%) which was likely his high-water mark since it came on the heels of his two best drafts.

I haven't studied the Pats player for player but I suspect that's a high water mark for them too, over the last 2 years they did a huge veteran overall. Be curious for example, where they were at in 2007. nonetheless, I never claimed Shanny was as good as Belichick at building a roster. I flat out questioned him as you pointed out on 50% of the roster. And flat out said guys like Scott Pioli are BETTER at building teams than Shanny. Again when it comes to Shanny I think a Shanny = bad, or Shanny = good is a boring debate. IMO it doesn't break down that simply.

Well, yes I understand that you want to limit the factors in "rebuilding" so that Mike's Broncos moves qualify him as a rebuilder (except for the "doing well with your picks" part). I'd call that "spinning" but I know you disagree.

Why would I want to limit the factors in rebuilding to qualify Mike as a rebuilder? Why would i care? If you search my post history, I've said numerous times I never cared much about the Redskins signing free agents, to me its primarily about the draft. My position on this has been consistent pre Shanny. You are accusing me of being a pro-Shanny spin guy. I've praised Shanny, I've panned him. I'll take a leap of faith and throw at anybody reading these posts and ask them who between the two of us seems to be giving a more balanced opinion. Even the example, you used to make you case I am in Shanny spin mode is me saying he likes to use the draft/collect picks and then I qualify it by saying you can argue he isn't that hot per se with the picks he collects. I really doubt Shanny would hire me as his press secretary with statements like that or if he did, i'd be fired pretty fast.

I would take more patience than I have for me to do that. People have different thinking styles. By nature, I'm a futurist. I study the past to look for trends and then project them into the future. Prediction is a risky business because there are often unforeseen events that can change the predictable course. However, even in the unlikely event that Mike changes course and decides he want to build a dynasty, I'm next to certain that he doesn't have what it takes to achieve that goal. That's why I'd like to see him go all out on a George Allen-like plan.

Fair enough. My guess is he takes more of a rebuilding approach. But if you want him to avoid free agency you will be disappointed. I won't care. As for his competence building the roster -- I think its a fair debate as to whether he can do it or not. You seem fairly certain he can't. I am unsure but lean towards him pulling it off.

[darrelgreenie]

I had to edit my first response because I misread your idea.

Can you explain how trading for McNabb and switching to the 34 was a retooling move to win soon? By the time we adapt to the 34, McNabb would be used up (even if he had fit the scheme).

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.

[PlayAction]

Here's a quick list of things he could have done to rebuild:

1) Accept the 2011 draft pick situation as a given;

2) Don't trade picks for McNabb; He should have listened to his son on this one.

3) Don't trade a pick for a one year rental of a wounded RT; We would have been stuck with Heyer. It was a gamble.

4) Trade Campbell for a pick and sign Grossman as a starter; Either Grossman or Bulger would have been fine as a caretaker.

5) If he didn't plan to use two TEs as a base package, trade Cooley for a pick; Agreed. NE and Philly trade their stars when they still have maximum value.

6) Trade Moss for a pick (Minnesota was ripe); Sure but there would be no one left to catch passes

7) If he planned to go to a 34, trade all players who obviously don't fit for the best draft pick offers; The transition to the 34 was completely bungled by any standard.

8) Avoid all free agents over the age of 27; That would be a start. I'm not adverse to picking up the odd player that's older.

9) Cut all vets over the age of 27 except a few leaders; The defense would have been 32nd instead of 31st.

10) Use the entire year, from OTAs through the final game, to bring in and audition young talent' Well, you would be auditioning cast-offs and undrafted free agents. You might find some good ones but not enough.

Rinse and repeat in 2011 until you have a strong core (see the OP for particulars). Then, and only then, he could go into free agency to find grade C gap fillers.

[Oldfan]

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

Okay.

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.

Agreed.

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.

You might be right about all of that. But, even if you are, shifting to the 34 with misfit pieces was a dumb thing to do because it's a "To hell with this year, let's build for the future " move in direct conflict with making a run in 2010.

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

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.

[Shanahanigans]

---------- Post added March-13th-2011 at 02:48 PM ----------

[/color]

Your reasoning here escapes me. Doesn't the age of the core players of your last Super Bowl team weigh heavily on whether a rebuild or reload is called for? And, even more a mystery to me is how your last Super Bowl team has any bearing on reloading for the next ten years.

You say that the Patriots have a good core, so they can add where they need, but when I offer this suggestion with regards to having a championship caliber team, you dismiss my logic. I said yes, we reloaded, but the problem was not the method, it was talent evaluation and fat free agent contract busts.

It wasn't the whole ten years. You can lump it if you'd like to suit your argument, but I clearly mentioned that there was a youth movement going on.

I thought Goodman was promoted in 2006. That's eight drafts after your 98 SB. That team was pretty much history by 2001 at Shanahan's turnover rate. You can't claim a "rebuild" simply because it was a good draft. Teams try for good drafts every year. When they have one, it doesn't signal that they were on a rebuilding plan.

Yes, Goodman was promoted in 2006, but he obviously earned the promotion for work done beforehand.

And yes, teams aim for good drafts, but our starters were mostly 1-3 year players by 2008. That's starters, not young guys in special packages. Vets and aging guys were being let go.

Here's an example. Brandon Stokely, an aging vet from Indy was still our slot receiver. While he doesn't fit into any specific "rebuild" plan, he would have been considered a reload, however, what he offered on the field to guys much younger than him was invaluable. He helped keep Brandon Marshall in line and helped guys like Eddie Royal excel. He helped our offense, not just by making plays and converting third downs at an amazing rate, he was a leader and mentor for the young guys. His experience on the field also helped benefit Cutler. He was almost always a surefire catch and that helps a young, growing QB.

My exemplar for a dynasty builder is Bill Walsh. After Belichik failed in Cleveland, he and Walsh became friends. Walsh was very generous in mentoring Bill on his methods which all make sense. I don't think Mike Shanahan sees the big picture like Walsh did and Belichik does. Mike's a mastermind of the offense. Period. That's about 10% of the big picture.

KDawg authored a thread on Mike's moves last season. He made moves in one direction then canceled them out with equal moves in the opposite direction. Example: Trading picks for McNabb was a move intended to win now. He canceled that out by switching to the 34 with misfit personnel.

In this thread I'm griping: Jesus, Man. I don't care which way you go anymore. Just pick a direction and give us a plan that makes sense.

You bring back the McNabb thing and once again, I disagree. It's going to take 3 years to install a new offense and defense. Mike's on a 3 year plan. While McNabb was a stop gap, I don't think Mike's intention was to make him a SB champion while building a new line and grooming a new QB. I think Mike wants his guy and McNabb is not the guy.

You will need to win games, no doubt. While you may be patient, how will the rest of the fans take it if you just threw away a whole season? To me, your logic doesn't make any sense. Mike needs to win games and show progress if he's going to keep the locker room. He needs players that buy in, not guys that are going to throw their bodies down on the field because they make a grip of cash. Those types of players seem to have been the Skins MO for years now. If you think Mike can turn the roster over in one year, you are sorely mistaken. I'm not sure how players will feel about coming to play for the Skins when, under your rebuild plan, they would be tossing a whole season. I don't see how any of that makes sense.

I'm not sure why you are so deadset that you think he's reloading? I think was so mismanaged before he arrived and there were some major problems in the budget department. Being handcuffed to certain players and with fat contract will handcuff him. Surely, he did it to himself in Denver... see Travis Henry.

In two years, if you don't have a completely new and younger team (which by definition would have been rebuilt to include new schemes on both sides of the ball ), then you have a leg to stand on, but for now, your argument is purely rhetorical. Your 2009 roster will be completely unrecognizable and your team will be playing a completely different game on both sides of the ball. I still don't know why this means reloading?

[Chase M]

I only read the first few sentances but if your going to stop beign a fan after this then you where never a "true fan" to even begin with.

[Oldfan]

Playaction:

OF...3) Don't trade a pick for a one year rental of a wounded RT;

PA...We would have been stuck with Heyer. It was a gamble.

OF...6) Trade Moss for a pick (Minnesota was ripe);

PA...Sure but there would be no one left to catch passes

OF...8) Avoid all free agents over the age of 27;

PA...That would be a start. I'm not adverse to picking up the odd player that's older.

OF...9) Cut all vets over the age of 27 except a few leaders;

PA...The defense would have been 32nd instead of 31st.

This is a rebuilding plan which involves sacrifices like your objections.

OF...10) Use the entire year, from OTAs through the final game, to bring in and audition young talent

PA...Well, you would be auditioning cast-offs and undrafted free agents. You might find some good ones but not enough.

How long it takes depends on where you start and how good you are at selecting young players. But, the plan calls for sticking with moves like this until a solid core is built (the 11 positions listed in the OP).

[Oldfan]

Shanahanigans -- You say that the Patriots have a good core, so they can add where they need, but when I offer this suggestion with regards to having a championship caliber team, you dismiss my logic. I said yes, we reloaded, but the problem was not the method, it was talent evaluation and fat free agent contract busts.

I'm trying to understand you. It would help if you answered the question I asked: Doesn't the age of the core players of your last Super Bowl team weigh heavily on whether a rebuild or reload is called for?

Your argument seems to be that the Patriots core and the Broncos core circa 1998 were similar, therefore reloading rather than rebuilding was justified for both. So, if you will answer my question about age, it will help me understand you.

My position is that the core has to be solid. If the Broncos core was too old and infirm after 98, then rebuilding, not reloading was called for.

It wasn't the whole ten years. You can lump it if you'd like to suit your argument, but I clearly mentioned that there was a youth movement going on.

It would help if you could be more specific. When did that youth movement take place? I'm not as familiar with the Broncos as you are, but I have done some research. If Mike made a movement to get younger, I missed it. The 2006 and 2008 drafts were good, which resulted in lowering the average age of the team. Is that what you are calling a "youth movement."

As late as 2007, he was signing about a dozen free agents. I think Javon Walker, Travis Henry, Simeon Rice, Sauerbraun and Sam Adams were in that bunch , weren't they? As late as 2008, there were only three drafted players on the defense.

Yes, Goodman was promoted in 2006, but he obviously earned the promotion for work done beforehand.

That makes sense, but the Denver drafts before 2006 were of the lackluster variety. Why didn't Jim Goodman's good work show up sooner?

And yes, teams aim for good drafts, but our starters were mostly 1-3 year players by 2008. That's starters, not young guys in special packages. Vets and aging guys were being let go.

Yes, but we are discussing Mike's planning, not Mike's luck in the draft. So, how do you rule out luck as a factor in those drafts? It happens to all teams. He didn't bring the Goodmans with him to the Skins, so if th Goodmans were great personnel guys, he left them behind.

Here's an example. Brandon Stokely, an aging vet from Indy was still our slot receiver. While he doesn't fit into any specific "rebuild" plan, he would have been considered a reload, however, what he offered on the field to guys much younger than him was invaluable.

That may be, but Mike Shananhan doesn't give a damn about that leadership crap. McNabb was supposed to be the leader in our lockerroom and Mike treated him like a doormat.

You bring back the McNabb thing and once again, I disagree. It's going to take 3 years to install a new offense and defense

.

If it takes three years, the schemes are obviously too complex for today's NFL and it's high turn rate. I checked Mike's turn rate for three years before 2005 and three years after. If it took three years to learn his schemes, he would have had eight players on the 2005 team who were up to speed and six on the 2008 team. That assumes he kept the same schemes -- which wasn't the case for the defense.

Mike's on a 3 year plan. While McNabb was a stop gap...

Two high picks for a stop gap QB? Grossman didn't cost a pick.

You will need to win games, no doubt. While you may be patient, how will the rest of the fans take it if you just threw away a whole season?

Front offices who listen to the fans will be sitting with them in due time.

To me, your logic doesn't make any sense. Mike needs to win games and show progress if he's going to keep the locker room.

If he wins eventually, he'll keep the locker room. If he doesn't, he won't. However, the players in Detroit are happy because they understand they are part of a rebuilding effort, all they need to see is that the plan is working

In two years, if you don't have a completely new and younger team (which by definition would have been rebuilt to include new schemes on both sides of the ball ), then you have a leg to stand on, but for now, your argument is purely rhetorical. Your 2009 roster will be completely unrecognizable and your team will be playing a completely different game on both sides of the ball. I still don't know why this means reloading?

Having different schemes and different players doesn't constitute a "rebuilt" team to me. By your definition, the Redskins have been rebuilt a dozen times since our glory years. Much of our problem is that we have had coaches "rebuilding" by your definition too often. I define "rebuilding" as building a solid core of the 11 key positions, 5 offense, 5 defense, one special teams.

After assuming full control in 1999, Mike gave Broncos fans high-grade mediocrity for ten seasons. That's good enough for lots of fans, maybe even most of them. But, I don't see the point. I can't imagine myself jumping up and down at the stadium, hand upraised, fingers spread, yelling "We're number ten! We're number ten!

---------- Post added March-14th-2011 at 03:48 AM ----------

I only read the first few sentances but if your going to stop beign a fan after this then you where never a "true fan" to even begin with.

Another sad ego-driven dimwit needing to feel superior to someone, anyone, chimes in...

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Mores the pity the CBA didn't get resolved and free agency hasn't started already. Without that, your theory on the way forward, whilst obviously being relevant based on what's gone before for years and years in DC, is a tad premature as regards year two under Shanahan Of Sir. I've wrote numerous times on my take on how he approached year one with the limited resources for change at his disposal, and how I believe we saw the begins of a youth movement as the year went on (a quick look now on who I'd keep throws up 21 players under 27) whether through design or circumstance; and how that encourages me that things are finally changing going forward. No need to debate that again as I have with your good self in numerous threads on the subject already.

I will say I had mixed feelings on the Atogwe pick-up. A 30 year old vet. when/if next season roll's around was not exactly what I had in mind for a concerted re-build to youth. But on the other hand, to pick up a proven vet. that can contribute from the get go when we have so many other holes to fill and so little ammo to do that with makes short term sense.

Again, I'll reserve judgement on the direction this franchise is currently heading on the new regime until we get to see what personnel moves they make in year two.

Hail.

---------- Post added March-14th-2011 at 04:30 AM ----------

Wow a 75 year old on a forum

Now I've seen everything

Love him or hate him, that 75 year old poster generates some of the best debate going on these here boards; and he isn't afraid, as his tag-line say's, to "think outside the box." More often than not backed up by research and statistics and a big dose of logic if you don't flippantly dismiss the idea.

You may not always agree with Oldfan (I know I certainly don't at times and we've had many an ensuing exchange because of that); but the rich fabric of this place we like to call a "home-from-home" would be far worse off if one of the best posters on here IMHO no longer took the time to share his views.

May those "75 years" be extended for a good long time yet.

Hail.

[Shanahanigans]

I'm trying to understand you. It would help if you answered the question I asked: Doesn't the age of the core players of your last Super Bowl team weigh heavily on whether a rebuild or reload is called for?

Your argument seems to be that the Patriots core and the Broncos core circa 1998 were similar, therefore reloading rather than rebuilding was justified for both. So, if you will answer my question about age, it will help me understand you.

My position is that the core has to be solid. If the Broncos core was too old and infirm after 98, then rebuilding, not reloading was called for.

The age matters, yes. They were not spring chickens, but to call them infirm would be a gross exaggeration. I would venture to guess that our defense was younger than offense, probably by an average of 3 years. Offensive starters like Schlereth were on his way out, but Eddie Mac & Shannon were about 30ish. Eddie Mac & TD were lost to career ending injuries. Rod Smith & Tom Nalen went on through 2006/7, I believe. I'm sorry, not a stat monger, so I'm just going by memory.

Our biggest issue was losing our HOF QB to retirement. You can't win a championship without a QB.

I've stated numerous times, that Shanny reloaded. I don't think that was the problem. I think the problem was what he reloaded with.

He surely didn't need to rebuild around that time.

It would help if you could be more specific. When did that youth movement take place? I'm not as familiar with the Broncos as you are, but I have done some research. If Mike made a movement to get younger, I missed it. The 2006 and 2008 drafts were good, which resulted in lowering the average age of the team. Is that what you are calling a "youth movement."

As late as 2007, he was signing about a dozen free agents. I think Javon Walker, Travis Henry, Simeon Rice, Sauerbraun and Sam Adams were in that bunch , weren't they? As late as 2008, there were only three drafted players on the defense.

You use the free agent argument now, but when somebody argues that Mike stockpiles draft picks, it's not about Free Agency or the Draft. Why does it matter that he signed a dozen free agents in 2007 when we had the second youngest team in 2008? When I say we drafted well and they became starters right out of the gate, you say Mike lucked out. Nobody will win this argument, so I will move on.

That makes sense, but the Denver drafts before 2006 were of the lackluster variety. Why didn't Jim Goodman's good work show up sooner?

I don't have an answer for this. I don't know. I could only speculate that once Sundquist was gone (I think 2007), there was a bit of a shake-up in the office).

Yes, but we are discussing Mike's planning, not Mike's luck in the draft. So, how do you rule out luck as a factor in those drafts? It happens to all teams. He didn't bring the Goodmans with him to the Skins, so if th Goodmans were great personnel guys, he left them behind.

You insist that Mike got lucky in the draft. I can't argue this if that's your point. We moved up to get Cutler. Ryan Clady was not luck, he was the prototype for Mike's LT. Ryan Harris sat on the bench before he started. Those were all intentional moves, not luck. Some of those moves were even criticized because he had to forego players like Haloti Ngata, which many were upset about. Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis were the closest thing to luck if you can call it that. I call it having an eye for talent and good coaching. If you want to call it something different, you can ask Josh McDaniels why production for every single one of these guys fell off the chart under his tenure.

That may be, but Mike Shananhan doesn't give a damn about that leadership crap. McNabb was supposed to be the leader in our lockerroom and Mike treated him like a doormat.

I beg to differ. Cutler was being scolded for the way he was dealing with the media because he was horrific! Mike constantly stated that they were working on it. Al Wilson going down left a huge gaping hole in the leadership department. I guarantee you that Mike will look for a good MLB/Leader type. After Wilson went down, the front was left looking like chickens with no helmets, literally. Casey Weigmann, an 11 year vet was brought in to replace Tom Nalen, a leader on the line. Brandon Stokley, a vet receiver, Daniel Graham, team captain, etc.. etc. Mike looks for leadership qualities in certain positions. These are some the "reloads" that you are criticizing. that were quite effective, yet you only speak of the failures.

Professionalism, conduct and leadership are very important to Mike.

If it takes three years, the schemes are obviously too complex for today's NFL and it's high turn rate. I checked Mike's turn rate for three years before 2005 and three years after. If it took three years to learn his schemes, he would have had eight players on the 2005 team who were up to speed and six on the 2008 team. That assumes he kept the same schemes -- which wasn't the case for the defense.

Ask Bill Belichick who the hardest coach is to scheme against, then come back to me with this statement. You do realize that Mike Shanahan has one of the best records, if not the best record against Bill Belichick (which includes the Tom Brady era), don't you? Belichick was even quoted as saying was one of the hardest coaches to game plan. We were the first team to beat the "dynasty" era Patriots in the playoffs with a team operating at 75% of what we should have been... meaning, we didn't have a championship caliber QB. We lost to the Steelers who went on to win the SB that year.

If you don't care to have an edge in this department over other teams, then it's obvious that your predisposed opinion of Shanny outweighs any reason.

I'm sorry, but with coaching for the last two years in Denver, it's pretty obvious that we were very spoiled when it came to scheme. Josh McDaniels was touted as some offensive guru, but our offense was just awful regardless of what our pass stats say.

After having Zorn for a coach, I'd imagine that this would be a plus for Shanahan and probably one of the few things he actually does better than Belichick. But you don't look at it that way, no, "maybe it's too complicated for the NFL" is your stance. That's just a sad statement, Oldfan. This is the one thing that you should be happy with, not to find an argument against.

Two high picks for a stop gap QB? Grossman didn't cost a pick.

Front offices who listen to the fans will be sitting with them in due time.

Grossman is not better than Mcnabb and I'm pretty sure they were counting on a pick back for Campbell.

Agreed. FO's should never be dictated by the fans.

If he wins eventually, he'll keep the locker room. If he doesn't, he won't. However, the players in Detroit are happy because they understand they are part of a rebuilding effort, all they need to see is that the plan is working

Players in Detroit are the lowest standard you could possibly present. They are probably happy just to not be the worst team in the league.

Keeping the locker room is operating under the assumption that he has it to begin with. That's like the title of this thread... "Mike, you're losing me man" insinuates that he ever had you to begin with. I think there's been enough turmoil over there to safely say that Mike needs to continue to fight to win over the locker room. Winning games is all that matters. The team needs to improve in order to show progress.

Having different schemes and different players doesn't constitute a "rebuilt" team to me. By your definition, the Redskins have been rebuilt a dozen times since our glory years. Much of our problem is that we have had coaches "rebuilding" by your definition too often. I define "rebuilding" as building a solid core of the 11 key positions, 5 offense, 5 defense, one special teams.

After assuming full control in 1999, Mike gave Broncos fans high-grade mediocrity for ten seasons. That's good enough for lots of fans, maybe even most of them. But, I don't see the point. I can't imagine myself jumping up and down at the stadium, hand upraised, fingers spread, yelling "We're number ten! We're number ten!

Okay, but I added a completely turned over roster that was going to be much younger to the new schemes. You conveneniently left that out.

By your definition of a rebuild, there is absolutely no practically to it and seems completely text book to me and not realistic. You can look at history and recant how Bill Walsh did this and George Allen did that, but Shanahan is operating under a completely different set of rules compared to their time, and frankly, you're talking about two of the best ever. However, Shanny's fundamentals on team building are heavily influenced by Walsh.

I don't claim that Shanahan is the best at everything. In fact, I will be the first to tell you where I think his faults are, as I have in other threads I've posted in. I just think you are either so jaded or just hate Shanahan altogether. Nobody can win in this argument, because no matter how we justify anything, you will just take the cynical standpoint.

While the argument has been fun, I almost feel sorry for you. It's too bad you won't be able to enjoy your team because you hate Shanahan that much, but I feel for you. I couldn't stand Josh McDaniels so much during his whole tenure that it actually affected how I felt about the team altogether.

Just curious, Oldfan. What would it actually take for Shanahan to win you over by the end of 2011?

[Skinsinparadise]

If he wins eventually, he'll keep the locker room. If he doesn't, he won't. However, the players in Detroit are happy because they understand they are part of a rebuilding effort, all they need to see is that the plan is working

The Lions by the way do not meet your criteria for rebuilding at least in the form of the to do list you posted for Shanny, i know you've said things to the effect that you like Jim Schwatrz a lot and he would have been your choice here when they picked Zorn, but if you get past that, you'll see they fail your model. Personally am OK with how Schwartz does it, it represents another example of reality IMO to how teams are built in the NFL.

[KDawg]

Love him or hate him, that 75 year old poster generates some of the best debate going on these here boards; and he isn't afraid, as his tag-line say's, to "think outside the box." More often than not backed up by research and statistics and a big dose of logic if you don't flippantly dismiss the idea.

You may not always agree with Oldfan (I know I certainly don't at times and we've had many an ensuing exchange because of that); but the rich fabric of this place we like to call a "home-from-home" would be far worse off if one of the best posters on here IMHO no longer took the time to share his views.

May those "75 years" be extended for a good long time yet.

Hail.

Just quoting this to say how much I agree. Oldfan is one of my favorite posters on the forum. I don't agree all the time, but I wish more people, even if their opinion is off the wall and crazy, took the time to think things out as well as he does. Agree or not, he always thinks things through and puts forward a good argument. It's tough to not respect someone like him

[Skinsinparadise]

Just quoting this to say how much I agree. Oldfan is one of my favorite posters on the forum. I don't agree all the time, but I wish more people, even if their opinion is off the wall and crazy, took the time to think things out as well as he does. Agree or not, he always thinks things through and puts forward a good argument. It's tough to not respect someone like him

I agree with this. IMO though he is skewed about Shanny, he didn't like him before he was even hired -- still I'll spend the time debating him. IMO the key for a good thread is for it to be entertaining, and Oldfan is rarely boring.