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

[Oldfan]

No I'm saying there is a reason teams have OTAs/Mini-camp/training-camp/pre-season. If a player cannot stand out in these moments, and they will have moments in games, practices etc.. then they probably don't deserve a starting spot. The regular season games should not be a try out...Read above, pre-season games have a purpose in my opinion. Only when a season is lost should it become a try-out,.

Okay, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if I have your position nailed. In your view then, a team that was 0-16, the previous season and is desperately in need of an infusion of talent, should go into the upcoming season with the same plan as a team that was 16-0 the previous year.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 02:01 AM ----------

TheLongshot -- Maybe I don't agree with your definition of "rebuild". You want to cut the muscle and tendon with the fat. Given the lack of draft picks and tradable players and in a year which FA was nerfed, there isn't a huge amount that can be done.

You're in denial. We had draft picks and we had vets who could have been traded for more. The only thing lacking was the will to rebuild.

[skinsnshanny]

I love the 'trade player x for picks' theory that is repeatedly said on this board. In reality it is not easy, actually very hard to simply trade a player for picks. Most teams know when a player is going to be cut and wont trade for the player. Andre Carter for example.

Further, if a player had a bad year, teams wont be willing to give much. Yes i agree something is better than nothing, but remember a player coming off a bad year who is probably going to get cut, wont get traded for because of the contract as well.

Real life is not madden. You cannot just say ok we dont need player X lets go get a 3rd rounder for him. It isnt that easy.

Who was going to trade for portis? Who was going to trade for DT? Who was going to trade for AC? Who was going to trade for any of our guys really?

If you really believe that more often than not, teams flat out cut a player they could have traded, well....

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 04:13 AM ----------

Fact is, players changing teams in mid-season, particularly young players, have a tough climb to see playing time. Injuries are usually required, which is how Macho Harris got playing time: he had to come in due to the injuries. Even then, Barnes, a player more natural for CB, played over him. I don't know what the future holds for Thomas, but nothing about last year proved anything about him.

Really? Still holding out hope for DT? Is it possible he turns into a stud..sure, its it plausible, no.

Macho Harris went from flag football to playing for the skins. DT went from the skins, to the panthers (who had injuries) to off the panthers. But he did block a punt against us.

Given Shanahan's predilection to run, two TEs are likely very important to him. Certainly it was in Denver. BTW, I'm pretty sure the Skins could not have gotten a 2nd round pick for a guy coming off of serious injury. You can value a player all you want, but that doesn't mean squat. It is what other teams value a player at.

Totally agree. Very hard to just trade away all your guys.

Because that is all that seems to be important to you. Fortunately, most coaching staffs value team building and a winning attitude. Not to mention that Moss was the only veteran receiver worth a damn on this team. Coaches often like to have a guy who knows how to do his job and be the standard everyone else follows.

Totally agree again. Trading Moss was not an option. He allowed Armstrong to develop in his proper role. He also helped guys and was there so we could evaluate the QB position. Plus I have seen nothing to show that teams were willing to give up anything of value for him.

Personally, I think we found a lot of potential in this roster last season. Lots of young players got opportunities to play and a few proved themselves. You are expecting more, but I know that these things take time. You should know that as well.

I am not as optimistic about the potential of this roster. We need stud players not average ones.

[Wyvern]

I get the sense when someone outlines a dramatic re-build (such as what Oldfan has done) you have a better sense of the downside of such a course of action. It can be laid out on paper, but does the front office have the corporate will to endure a 2-3 (or more) year rebuilding plan, especially after the two Zorn years?

When Shanahan came into camp he inherited a lot things that would prevent an abrupt re-build as well. First and foremost was the taint of the last season of failure under Zorn which had already created a wavering in the fanbase. Second was the poor drafts and talent acquisitions of the Cerrato era, coupled with the 'maturation' of all exisiting Skins' "back-loaded" contracts starting to come due in 2010 and 2011. Third was the front-office follies with Zorn, giving legs to ex-Skins' charges about the FO's less-than-upright conduct with contractual relationships -- meaning trust would have to be rebuilt before rosters could be. Lastly, during the Zorn turmoil -- the team's "player-culture" had morphed into something that was often challenging coaching authority and more centered on individual goals than working within a team-structure under the leadership of a strong coach.

So, Shanahan had a lot more to 'rebuild' than just simply a player roster.

Most important was the weakening of the fanbase relationship -- this meant that Shanahan couldn't completely blow-up the team, probably because its very likely that Snyder impressed on him the need for continuing with a somewhat competitive but still marketable product while conducting any five year retooling plan. Likely, the message was ...while change was good, too much change was dangerous, because the franchise couldn't go through some protracted 'rebuilding' period -- especially if it involved jettisoning all its marquee value for chances at long-term prospects.

The first year was already going to involve some signigficant house-sweeping (coaches and players), and including some starting players who were at that stage of their contract where retaining their services was not likely. Others weren't going to fit Shanahan's long-range plans -- but because of their contracts (like Carter) they would be difficult to move. And most with real trade value were proven fan favorites (Moss, Cooley, Portis, Landry, Hall, Orakpo) and if traded, would diminish the competitive and market value of the franchise.

Key to Shanahan's development of the team were the 'talents' who MIGHT be worthy of retaining (Hall, Davis, Kelly, Thomas, McIntosh, Golsten, Blades, Rogers, Dockery, Moore, Horton, Sellars, etc). A pre-season wasn't enough to see what they could do, especially in a new offense and new defense. Improtantly the offensive talent needed a a proven NFL QB to show just how well players (especially Vinny's WRS) could perform with a bonafide leader/performer running the team -- acting as a reliable measuring stick. Exit Campbell and costly backup Collins, enter McNabb and Grossman. The same for the O-line who needed needed short fixes at RB, cheap but proven RBs who could show what an NFL RB could do in a properly executed ZBS scheme. And so on....

To cut this long post short -- Shanhan's first year couldn't be a complete re-build (even though there is some merit in Oldfan's draconian suggestions). Too many things needed changing, and not all the replacement parts could be picked up, especially since you didn't know whether the existing parts might still suffice. And it wasn't viable to insist to Snyder that the next two to three years would involve fielding a team of walkons and castoffs while hoping to hit on reliable draft picks who could develop all the right habits within a suspect supporting cast.

Shanahan's first season was more about (1) restructure, (2) review, (3) re-assess, (4) replace or retain. But his biggest goals were to (1) re-assert a working coaching structure vis-a-vis the players and owner, (2) restore confidence in the fanbase, (3) reassure them that the team was going in the right direction (something easier at 6-10, as opposed to 2-14), and (4) retain fans in the seats. It's been a real balancing act -- neither a pure rebuild, nor a pure relaod.

[paloosa]

I am sorry you feel the way you do but your way of building a team is out dated and never really works for the long term. Everyone wants to win now and I am no exception but to just say screw the draft is insane. The George Allen plan never worked very well either and neither will yours. If the Skins lose a fan that has been following them for 60 years then I say let him go. The ownership, the coaches and the players may have changed but the history is very similar. The Redskins have never been a team known for it's winning teams year in and year out like Green Bay, Pittsburg or even Dallas. If you look at their history they have just as many losing years as they do winning. Yes they have won championships and Super Bowls but they have struggled a lot of the years in between some of them. So don't give me that "it's all Dan Snyder's fault" type of line when all the other owners didn't do any better at running the team.

[TheLongshot]

You're in denial. We had draft picks and we had vets who could have been traded for more. The only thing lacking was the will to rebuild.

I could say the same for you. Last year, vets didn't trade for a whole lot, mainly because of labor unrest and the draft being one of the stronger ones because of it. It is why, in general, I believe that you really should only deal the players who are no longer in your plans and you can't use, because most of the time the value you get in return isn't there. I don't doubt that if a team made the right offer that some players wouldn't have been on this team, but those offers never happened.

Really? Still holding out hope for DT? Is it possible he turns into a stud..sure, its it plausible, no.

Not really. Just pointing out the reality that players switching teams midseason often don't have much of an impact on their new team unless injuries get involved. Fact is, teams have a roster that they have been dealing with the whole offseason. Anyone new has to start from the bottom and prove to the coaching staff that they need to be in the game. I used the example of Andre Brown, a player many hoped would be a stud when we signed him to the PS. But I knew that he wasn't likely to have much of an impact this season because he needed to learn the offense and convince the coaching staff that he deserved to play. I think he only appeared in one game. That doesn't make him a bad player or someone who ended up being a bum.

Most important was the weakening of the fanbase relationship -- this meant that Shanahan couldn't completely blow-up the team, probably because its very likely that Snyder impressed on him the need for continuing with a somewhat competitive but still marketable product while conducting any five year retooling plan. Likely, the message was ...while change was good, too much change was dangerous, because the franchise couldn't go through some protracted 'rebuilding' period -- especially if it involved jettisoning all its marquee value for chances at long-term prospects.

Complete rebuilds don't happen much in the NFL. They only happen out of necessity, that there is nothing to build on. Fact is, most NFL coaches have only a couple of years to start showing results.

Combine with the fact that FA was nerfed and the lack of draft picks, a coach needs to work with some of the players he inherited.

Personally, I think Oldfan is splitting hairs a bit. He seems to value young players over old because they are young. The downside to that is that they are inexperienced and may not be ready. They also may not be no more a long-term solution than the older players he disparages, considering the average NFL career is 4 years. Despite his grousing, there were a lot of young players trying to prove their worth. There were plenty who got more opportunities as the year went on as veterans went by the wayside. I suspect many of those will make the team over veterans from last year.

[Skinsinparadise]

Actually, I think Thomas is the closest to a good example of what Oldfan is arguing. Fact is, Thomas got into the doghouse early and Shanahan was unwilling to throw him a bone, which is why he got a grand total of one offensive snap in the regular season. Considering that we had that waste of space called Galloway taking snaps away from other players. Course, Shanahan could very well be right that Thomas didn't put in enough work, but it is hard to sit here looking at what we have and say that we couldn't use his talent, considering that Galloway eventually was cut as well.

Not sure Thomas though had to be the guy. You had Austin, too. As for Thomas the impression i get based on what Shanny has said and Reid's blogs is that Shanny thinks there is a certain commitment and work ethic you need to excel in the NFL, and Devin Thomas doesn't have it. Then in Reid's blogs i recall he got some anonymous quotes from a couple of players saying something to the effect that they didn't think Devin worked hard enough to ever make it in this league. Zorn actually smoked out Devin pretty early talking about how he showed up to camp out of shape. I recall Shanny saying he likes Devin personally, he said that after the Giants game, and wishes him well.

[Rockdeep]

While I agree on the Thread starters Concept and premise... the problem I see is the team needs almost TWO of everything listed at some positions.

If you see some other teams.. not only do they draft well or stock pile picks well, they draft for depth because it is a brutal season full of injuries.We usually look at what we need as a starting point without realizing we are trying to eventually get to an end point.

Getting one of everything will be difficult enough through what we have available to us by way of draft pics this off season.... so the future isn't now. Just the need for patience.

[Oldfan]

Wyvern -- It can be laid out on paper, but does the front office have the corporate will to endure a 2-3 (or more) year rebuilding plan, especially after the two Zorn years?

Probably not, but how long it takes to rebuild depends on where you start and how well it's done. Parcells gutted the 1-15 Dolphins and won 11 in year one, but that's not a result we could reasonably expect.

When Shanahan came into camp he inherited a lot things that would prevent an abrupt re-build as well. First and foremost was the taint of the last season of failure under Zorn which had already created a wavering in the fanbase.

Has there ever been a rebuild where the fan base was happy with the team when the rebuilder arrived?

Second was the poor drafts and talent acquisitions of the Cerrato era..

Why rebuild a talented roster?

Third was the front-office follies with Zorn, giving legs to ex-Skins' charges about the FO's less-than-upright conduct with contractual relationships -- meaning trust would have to be rebuilt before rosters could be.

Molehill.

Lastly, during the Zorn turmoil -- the team's "player-culture" had morphed into something that was often challenging coaching authority and more centered on individual goals than working within a team-structure under the leadership of a strong coach.

No problem at all. Mike Shanahan solved that problem before he walked into the building. His reputation preceded him. Dan Snyder knew that buddying with Portis and Haynesworth would have to stop. Portis and a few other players knew their insubordination and malingering would have to stop.

Key to Shanahan's development of the team were the 'talents' who MIGHT be worthy of retaining (Hall, Davis, Kelly, Thomas, McIntosh, Golsten, Blades, Rogers, Dockery, Moore, Horton, Sellars, etc). A pre-season wasn't enough to see what they could do, especially in a new offense and new defense.

Sellers (age) is a cut in rebuild mode. Grossman throwing passes to Devin Thomas would be more enlightening than McNabb throwing to Galloway in rebuild mode and it would have saved two high picks.

... cheap but proven RBs who could show what an NFL RB could do in a properly executed ZBS scheme.

13 years of Denver evidence wasn't enough to establish that the ZBS works? We needed over-the-hill RBs to do it? What they proved was that they were over-the-hill and we still had a sorry O-line.

To cut this long post short -- Shanhan's first year couldn't be a complete re-build (even though there is some merit in Oldfan's draconian suggestions)

Who said it could be done in a year? Bill Parcells has never finished the job. He has never built a Super Bowl winner, but he rebuilt four teams into winners in short order.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 09:40 AM ----------

... Everyone wants to win now and I am no exception but to just say screw the draft is insane. The George Allen plan never worked very well either and neither will yours.

George Allen career (.712)

Shanny career (.585)

George would have gone crazy with free agency. George was a good judge of veteran talent. That's what it would take.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 09:52 AM ----------

While I agree on the Thread starters Concept and premise... the problem I see is the team needs almost TWO of everything listed at some positions.

If you see some other teams.. not only do they draft well or stock pile picks well, they draft for depth because it is a brutal season full of injuries.We usually look at what we need as a starting point without realizing we are trying to eventually get to an end point.

Getting one of everything will be difficult enough through what we have available to us by way of draft pics this off season.... so the future isn't now. Just the need for patience.

Those successful teams who draft for depth have been following a plan and executing it well. The Denver Broncos weren't one of them under Shanahan; Bruce Allen's Bucs weren't one of them; and the 2010 Redskins weren't one of them. Why are you advising patience?

[Dracula]

You're 75, you already saw them rise to the top many times...Losing your memory in your old age

[DieselPwr44]

Fact is, players changing teams in mid-season, particularly young players, have a tough climb to see playing time. Injuries are usually required, which is how Macho Harris got playing time: he had to come in due to the injuries. .

So if that's the case and DT is some "hidden gem" like his defenders propose him to be, why didn't Carolina hold on to him to see what he could offer in a full camp?

And BTW, Carolina did have a ton of injuries to their WR corp and he still couldn't get on the field for a hapless team.

The fact of the matter is, he's a true bust and I'll bet you a cup of coffee and a dozen donuts that he doesn't stick in NY either.

[Mahons21]

Okay, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if I have your position nailed. In your view then, a team that was 0-16, the previous season and is desperately in need of an infusion of talent, should go into the upcoming season with the same plan as a team that was 16-0 the previous year.

Absolutely, the NFL is a league of parity and we've seen instances of complete turnarounds before. Only when there is no statistical hope to enter into the playoffs should a coach start using regular season games as try-outs.

[TheLongshot]

So if that's the case and DT is some "hidden gem" like his defenders propose him to be, why didn't Carolina hold on to him to see what he could offer in a full camp?

And BTW, Carolina did have a ton of injuries to their WR corp and he still couldn't get on the field for a hapless team.

Why didn't they hold onto him? Because they were trying to salvage a bad season and Thomas wasn't needed anymore because their WRs were getting healthy again. Roster management is always a balance between immediate needs and building for the future. Thomas was the 53rd man on the roster.

The fact of the matter is, he's a true bust and I'll bet you a cup of coffee and a dozen donuts that he doesn't stick in NY either.

The true busts are those who are not in the league anymore, which is half of the WRs that were drafted in that 2nd round. And yes, it might be tough to stick in NY, but when you have a team that already has Manningham, Nicks, Smith, Hixon and Cruz, that shouldn't be a shock. That being said, he's proven to be a good special teams player, so that should help him stick on a roster.

[Oldfan]

Absolutely, the NFL is a league of parity and we've seen instances of complete turnarounds before.

You're making the same mistake than many NFL owners have made. They see a Giants team win a Super Bowl and they think their team is just a couple of players away from contending too. What they don't realize is the Giants were a longshot team that needed an amazing run of luck to win the prize. You see an amazing turnaround like the 1-15 Dolphins winning 11 the next season and you base your planning on that unlikely event.

What you're missing is that a good plan should make success more likely. Logically, the more time and effort spent on talent searching, the more likely it is that talent will be found. How can you possibly argue against that?

The team that spends the entire season searching for talent is more likely to find more of it than a team that stops searching for talent until it's eliminated.

The decision makers for that 0-16 team in my question have to ask themselves "Realistically, what are our chances of winning a Super Bowl with this team next season." If it's 200-1 against, it's an easy decision to toss in the towel and follow a plan that will hasten a rebound.

Bear in mind, you are competing with 31 other teams. The natural odds of winning a Super Bowl are 31-1. When you have below-average talent, the odds against go up.

[Mahons21]

You're making the same mistake than many NFL owners have made. They see a Giants team win a Super Bowl and they think their team is just a couple of players away from contending too. What they don't realize is the Giants were a longshot team that needed an amazing run of luck to win the prize. You see an amazing turnaround like the 1-15 Dolphins winning 11 the next season and you base your planning on that unlikely event.

Not necessarily, I just want the desire to win and a winning attitude engraved in my players. Show me a team that goes sub 6-10 two years in a row, and I'll show you a team that has lost all confidence in their coaches/supporting cast/scheme etc. Players will want out, FAs won't re-sign with the team, the negative attitude will spread like a cancer to younger players expected to be the future of the team.

What you're missing is that a good plan should make success more likely. Logically, the more time and effort spent on talent searching, the more likely it is that talent will be found. How can you possibly argue against that?

Yes logically the more time you spend evaluating talent the more talent you will find. However, how many repeat try-outs from the same individuals are required to finally realize they lack the talent?

Do you need to see a player fail at camp/practice/pre-season/and multiple regular season games to truly assess them?

Unless your point is that we should be bringing in UDFA, or players off the street mid-season and plugging them in to see how they fit the scheme. In that case I would argue it's silly to expect them to have the necessary knowledge of the playbook to succeed.

I think it's more logical to assume that if a player can't stand out in practices or a pre-season game (against scrubs), than it's not very likely they're going to excel when they get in a real game.

I would prefer to assess my scheme, my starters strengths/weaknesses, so the correct changes can be made.

[darrelgreenie]

Not necessarily, I just want the desire to win and a winning attitude engraved in my players............................. I think it's more logical to assume that if a player can't stand out in practices or a pre-season game (against scrubs), than it's not very likely they're going to excel when they get in a real game.I would prefer to assess my scheme, my starters strengths/weaknesses, so the correct changes can be made.

Plenty of teams that had losing records had duh WINNING attitudes. (I couldn't resist)

Team attitude (or direction) isn't determined soley by its record.

Team building is a process and there are usually down years according to the record that isn't reflective of the direction the team is moving or the team's attitdue.

Re:highlighted portion

I don't think anyone is saying that players should just be out there if they stink in practice.

For example Moore played his way onto the field as a starter in training camp just like you suggest.

A flip side of the player development coin are players like Antonio Bryant.

Imo we should have taken a look at some of our young projected future starters.

Kemo wasn't getting it done in games but we didn't play Bryant until the end of the season.

And while Bryant looked good it was too small a sample size to be sure about him one way or another.

There are other players on the roster that fit that bill, that imo were under used/under developed.

[Oldfan]

---

Mahons21 -- Not necessarily, I just want the desire to win and a winning attitude engraved in my players. Show me a team that goes sub 6-10 two years in a row, and I'll show you a team that has lost all confidence in their coaches/supporting cast/scheme etc. Players will want out, FAs won't re-sign with the team, the negative attitude will spread like a cancer to younger players expected to be the future of the team.

Why is the team losing? In answering that question, I only consider psychological theories when mundane explanations like poor coaching or lack of roster talent can be ruled out (That's an application of Occam's Razor if you are familiar with it).

However, how many repeat try-outs from the same individuals are required to finally realize they lack the talent?

Varies. Only as many as it take to be reasonably sure.

Do you need to see a player fail at camp/practice/pre-season/and multiple regular season games to truly assess them?

In most cases, probably not. In some cases, yes.

Unless your point is that we should be bringing in UDFA, or players off the street mid-season and plugging them in to see how they fit the scheme. In that case I would argue it's silly to expect them to have the necessary knowledge of the playbook to succeed.

All they need to know are their assignments in a particular package.

I think it's more logical to assume that if a player can't stand out in practices or a pre-season game (against scrubs), than it's not very likely they're going to excel when they get in a real game.

True. But, there are so many examples to the contrary that the likelihood isn't strong enough to write many players off without more evidence.

I would prefer to assess my scheme, my starters strengths/weaknesses, so the correct changes can be made.

Since you can't plan to make those objectives primary and make finding more talent primary at the same time, you are less likely to find more talent. That's fine if you think that lack of roster talent isn't your primary problem.

[Mahons21]

Plenty of teams that had losing records had duh WINNING attitudes. (I couldn't resist)

Team attitude (or direction) isn't determined soley by its record.

Team building is a process and there are usually down years according to the record that isn't reflective of the direction the team is moving or the team's attitdue.

First and foremost, great Sheen reference.

I never said attitude is solely determined by record, only that attitude can be drastically altered by two sub 6 win seasons. If the Detroit Lions can pull it together they will most certainly prove me wrong, however if Megatron looks elsewhere (as I assume he will) once he becomes a FA, than my point will be spot on.

Re:highlighted portion

I don't think anyone is saying that players should just be out there if they stink in practice.

For example Moore played his way onto the field as a starter in training camp just like you suggest.

Oldfan is suggesting that the season be used as a try-out to have more time to evaluate talent(I believe that is your opinion OF sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth), to me this suggest that you're not putting your best players on the field rather you're putting players on the field that you don't have pinned down yet.

In addition, though Moore "won" the starting job in camp, he didn't exactly have much competition considering he's the only true FS we have on this team, and even though we run a left side/right side safety scheme, it's quite obvious Laron is the player they want near the LOS, and the other safety will more likely have deep zone responsibilities.

A flip side of the player development coin are players like Antonio Bryant.

Imo we should have taken a look at some of our young projected future starters.

Kemo wasn't getting it done in games but we didn't play Bryant until the end of the season.

And while Bryant looked good it was too small a sample size to be sure about him one way or another.

There are other players on the roster that fit that bill, that imo were under used/under developed.

I have a hard time believing Bryant was that good all season in practice etc, and the coaches just didn't play him. I think a more logical explanation (though obviously none of us no for any certainty) would be that Bryant was having trouble 2-gapping possibly, or he was having trouble learning the play-book.

Who are these other players in your opinion? I can think of Riley, and again I think it's logical to expect that the team first a.) wanted to give Rocky somewhat of a try-out, and b.) Riley as a rookie was taking time to adjust to the NFL.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 03:29 PM ----------

---

Why is the team losing? In answering that question, I only consider psychological theories when mundane explanations like poor coaching or lack of roster talent can be ruled out (That's an application of Occam's Razor if you are familiar with it).

I just read about it, and I believe I understand your point. My point is that though the team may be losing due to their lack of talent, the impact of numerous losing seasons can have on a "core player's" confidence in their surroundings/coaches can be sizeable. And I want to do my best, to keep the talent that I already have. I don't want to lose Laron Landry, because he doesn't think he can win here.

[Oldfan]

...I just read about it, and I believe I understand your point. My point is that though the team may be losing due to their lack of talent, the impact of numerous losing seasons can have on a "core player's" confidence in their surroundings/coaches can be sizeable. And I want to do my best, to keep the talent that I already have. I don't want to lose Laron Landry, because he doesn't think he can win here.

First, Mike Shanahan blundered by encouraging fans and players alike to get their hopes too high before the 2010 season. He set himself up to disappoint which is worse than losing ten games. Had he prepared us for the worst, losing just ten would not cause a loss of confidence in him.

But the central point here is this: if an untalented roster causes losing, which, in turn, causes lack of confidence. Then building a talented roster would cause a return to winning, which, in turn, would cause a return of confidence.

[TheLongshot]

I have a hard time believing Bryant was that good all season in practice etc, and the coaches just didn't play him. I think a more logical explanation (though obviously none of us no for any certainty) would be that Bryant was having trouble 2-gapping possibly, or he was having trouble learning the play-book.

I also think Bryant got a concussion at one point early on.

There is a learning curve for young players, and every player is different as to what that curve is. Coaches, ideally, want to keep a player off the field until the staff thinks they are ready for their responsibility. Sometimes that isn't possible when you don't have a better option and are forced to play a young player before his time. This is not a positive development most of the time, and could actually lengthen the developmental time for a player where he can pick up bad habits and his fundamentals could become unsound.

[Mahons21]

First, Mike Shanahan blundered by encouraging fans and players alike to get there hopes too high before the 2010 season. He set himself up to disappoint which is worse than losing ten games. Had he prepared us for the worst, losing just ten would not cause a loss of confidence in him.

I was not a fan of the way the 2010 season was handled either.

But the central point here is this: if an untalented roster causes losing, which, in turn, causes lack of confidence. Then building a talented roster would cause a return to winning, which, in turn, would cause a return of confidence.

I agree with you. My point is that a team should be building a talented roster AND be attempting to win regular season games. I think it's possible to do both at once. You use practices/pre-season to evaluate the talent, and you also try to win in the regular season. Rather than using the regular season as an extended practice/pre-season.

I'm nervous that the method you're suggesting to build a talented roster could cause the team to lose some of it's already developed talent. I agree that yes, it does give us a slightly higher chance of finding talent, but in my opinion you're risking losing your core players to find this talent. So what good is the talent in the end?

For example, lets say the skins didn't acquire OJ and they continued to develop Moore. Isn't it plausible that by the time Moore is developed Laron has already become so frustrated with the team/scheme that he wants to leave.

While on the other hand, by acquiring OJ, the skins are able to remain competitive, while still grooming Moore during practices etc.. Then when OJ becomes too old, a much more developed Moore can come in and hopefully succeed.

I don't want to run the risk of losing my core players with the hope that I can develop a bunch of UDFA or 7th round picks into starters.

[darrelgreenie]

First and foremost, great Sheen reference.

Thank you.

That might be my greatest contribution to this thread, lol.

I never said attitude is solely determined by record, only that attitude can be drastically altered by two sub 6 win seasons

Then we're saying the same thing then: attitude may or may not be adversely effected by record depending on the direction of the team?

Oldfan is suggesting that the season be used as a try-out to have more time to evaluate talent(I believe that is your opinion OF sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth), to me this suggest that you're not putting your best players on the field rather you're putting players on the field that you don't have pinned down yet.

I don't think that's what Oldfan is saying.

Most players at some point were unproven or hadn't been 'pinned down' yet.

No one is suggesting willfully playing an inferior player.

For example look at the approach the OL took w/ Lichtensteiger and Montgomery vs Dock and Hicks.

In addition, though Moore "won" the starting job in camp, he didn't exactly have much competition considering he's the only true FS we have on this team, and even though we run a left side/right side safety scheme, it's quite obvious Laron is the player they want near the LOS, and the other safety will more likely have deep zone responsibilities.

C'mon lets not have revisionist history here.

Many fans don't like Reed therefore forget or never even realized that but 2 years ago Reed Doughty was the FS for the last few games of the year without consequence. (Playing FS in Blache system is harder then playing S in Haslett's system)

Doughty and Moore were considered 1A and 1B during training camp so there was competition.

And Moore had been garnering good reviews in training camp ever since he was rookie.

I have a hard time believing Bryant was that good all season in practice etc, and the coaches just didn't play him. I think a more logical explanation (though obviously none of us no for any certainty) would be that Bryant was having trouble 2-gapping possibly, or he was having trouble learning the play-book.

I think you operating under the notion that the staff doesn't make personnel mistakes. (Haynesworth, McNabb, Galloway, Jamaal Brown)

I'm not sure what games you were watching but Bryant was much more effective at NT then Kemo and was specifically more effective at 2-gapping.

I posted some clips of Bryant in this post: (click on the link I didn't want clutter this thread w/ images)

Which begs the question why wasn't Bryant out there earlier?

[Mahons21]

I don't think that's what Oldfan is saying.

Most players at some point were unproven or hadn't been 'pinned down' yet.

No one is suggesting willfully playing an inferior player.

For example look at the approach the OL took w/ Lichtensteiger and Montgomery vs Dock and Hicks.

I don't want to speak for him but I believe OF is suggesting that. For instance if we have a 32 yr old OLB, who won't be part of the teams success in the future if ever attained, we shouldn't be playing him. Rather we should be auditioning inferior players at the position who have a chance of being part of the teams future.

C'mon lets not have revisionist history here.

Many fans don't like Reed therefore forget or never even realized that but 2 years ago Reed Doughty was the FS for the last few games of the year without consequence. (Playing FS in Blache system is harder then playing S in Haslett's system)

Doughty and Moore were considered 1A and 1B during training camp so there was competition.

And Moore had been garnering good reviews in training camp ever since he was rookie.

Doughty is much better suited to play SS. Laron has played FS in the past too, doesn't meant he isn't a SS.

I think you operating under the notion that the staff doesn't make personnel mistakes. (Haynesworth, McNabb, Galloway, Jamaal Brown)

I'm not sure what games you were watching but Bryant was much more effective at NT then Kemo and was specifically more effective at 2-gapping.

I posted some clips of Bryant in this post: (click on the link I didn't want clutter this thread w/ images)

I loved yorr info/pics on Bryant, but 2-gapping does take time to learn. In addition I didn't mean to suggest that 2-gapping WAS the problem, only that it could have been. I find it more likely that our coaching staff, saw something they didn't like in Bryant and that's why he was sat then them just being plain dumb and continuing on with Kemo(who was obviously struggling).

The only one of those 4 mistakes that I think is relevant in this scenario would be Galloway starting over Armstrong. My best guess is Armstrong was having trouble learning the playbook. They eased him in mainly with post/come-back routes, and after he learned more and more, they began using him as an every down receiver who could run all the routes. Again this is a possibility, none of us can know the true answer with any certainty. Another possibility could be he wasn't showing enough in practice on running plays. In our scheme specifically WR blocking is extremely important, it wouldn't surprise if a Vet like Joey Galloway was better off that bat at this than Armstrong.

[darrelgreenie]

I don't want to speak for him but I believe OF is suggesting that. For instance if we have a 32 yr old OLB, who won't be part of the teams success in the future if ever attained, we shouldn't be playing him. Rather we should be auditioning inferior players at the position who have a chance of being part of the teams future.

Doughty is much better suited to play SS. Laron has played FS in the past too, doesn't meant he isn't a SS.

I loved yorr info/pics on Bryant, but 2-gapping does take time to learn. In addition I didn't mean to suggest that 2-gapping WAS the problem, only that it could have been. I find it more likely that our coaching staff, saw something they didn't like in Bryant and that's why he was sat then them just being plain dumb and continuing on with Kemo(who was obviously struggling).

The only one of those 4 mistakes that I think is relevant in this scenario would be Galloway starting over Armstrong. My best guess is Armstrong was having trouble learning the playbook, hence the reason the only pattern he really was thrown to on(in the beginning) was his post route. After he learned more and more, they began using him as an every down receiver who could run all the routes. Again this is a possibility, none of us can know the true answer with any certainty. Another possibility could be he wasn't showing enough in practice on running plays. In our scheme specifically WR blocking is extremely important, it wouldn't surprise if a Vet like Joey Galloway was better off that bat at this than Armstrong.

If a player has a chance to be part of the future that means they have a chance to become a good player.

Again an unproven/developmental player is not the same thing as an inferior.

Let's also not have revisionist histroy and pretend that Landry was never a good FS.

Landry was good at both FS and SS.

I guess I forgot that in extremeskins forum a few bad games erases a career of solid play.

I never said Doughty was better suited to playing FS.

I said that Doughty played well at FS at the end of the 2009 season and that he was competition for Moore at FS.

Its hard to be wrong when you simply entertain if/then scenario's and plausibilites.

There are a whole slew of things that might have or could have been.

But it doesn't change the actuality: Armstrong was much better then Galloway, Bryant was better at NT then Kemo.

You can believe whatever you want.

For me regardless of the reason why it was a mistake to wait to play them.

Just because a coach or staff makes a mistakes doesn't make them dumb.

[Oldfan]

--

Mahons21 -- I don't want to run the risk of losing my core players with the hope that I can develop a bunch of UDFA or 7th round picks into starters.

Your point is overstated but valid; however, I think you are giving it too much weight in view of the team's current predicament. Our core is lacking a QB, RT, WR, RB, NT and another edge rusher. This team needs much more talent just to get back to mediocre.

Mike will probably make more FA moves like Atogwe, 30, which will mean that we will get back to mediocrity with a high turnover rate, so the parts will need replaced annually just to stay mediocre. The Treadmill Plan.

In that scenario, the only thing that would project us into a perennial winner would be a ridiculously lucky draft like Bethard's 1981.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 05:40 PM ----------

Mahons21 -- I don't want to speak for him but I believe OF is suggesting that. For instance if we have a 32 yr old OLB, who won't be part of the teams success in the future if ever attained, we shouldn't be playing him. Rather we should be auditioning inferior players at the position who have a chance of being part of the teams future.I don't want to speak for him but I believe OF is suggesting that. For instance if we have a 32 yr old OLB, who won't be part of the teams success in the future if ever attained, we shouldn't be playing him. Rather we should be auditioning inferior players at the position who have a chance of being part of the teams future.

You didn't offer enough information to enable me to make a decision on that player. Is that vet OLB good enough to have trade value? If he is, trade him for the best offer in a draft pick. If he is not good enough to have trade value, then why worry about him? Cut him and try a few young players at OLB and develop the best one.

[Mahons21]

If a player has a chance to be part of the future that means they have a chance to become a good player.

Again an unproven/developmental player is not the same thing as an inferior.

If your talent has not yet been developed you're inferior in talent to other players who have more talent even if it has been developed.

Let's also not have revisionist histroy and pretend that Landry was never a good FS.

Landry was good at both FS and SS.

I guess I forgot that in extremeskins forum a few bad games erases a career of solid play.

Agree to disagree. I remember Landry getting beat by every single double move that came his way, and I remember him taking poor angles. And his statistics certainly don't support the notion he was playing adequately at FS. He had three INT's in two years.

I never said Doughty was better suited to playing FS.

Then you agree, Moore had no competition from a true FS.

I said that Doughty played well at FS at the end of the 2009 season and that he was competition for Moore at FS.

But you have to agree that Moore had a leg up on him, considering it's his natural position. Even when you look at their skill sets it's obvious Moore is much better suited to FS.

Its hard to be wrong when you simply entertain if/then scenario's and plausibilites.

There are a whole slew of things that might have or could have been.

But it doesn't change the actuality: Armstrong was much better then Galloway, Bryant was better at NT then Kemo.

You can believe whatever you want.

For me regardless of the reason why it was a mistake to wait to play them.

Just because a coach or staff makes a mistakes doesn't make them dumb.

If you have a player who is struggling mightily (kemo/galloway) and someone on the roster is clearly better and you're not playing them, you're dumb. There has to be some justification, to think otherwise is illogical.

---------- Post added March-15th-2011 at 06:07 PM ----------

--

Your point is overstated but valid; however, I think you are giving it too much weight in view of the team's current predicament. Our core is lacking a QB, RT, WR, RB, NT and another edge rusher. This team needs much more talent just to get back to mediocre.

Mike will probably make more FA moves like Atogwe, 30, which will mean that we will get back to mediocrity with a high turnover rate, so the parts will need replaced annually just to stay mediocre. The Treadmill Plan.

I don't think this has to be the treadmill plan though. So long as the team isn't trading away draft-picks, and they're developing drafted talent (during practice) behind the starters, they can achieve mediocrity while re-building.

You didn't offer enough information to enable me to make a decision on that player. Is that vet OLB good enough to have trade value? If he is, trade him for the best offer in a draft pick. If he is not good enough to have trade value, then why worry about him? Cut him and try a few young players at OLB and develop the best one.

No he holds no trade value, the only value in starting him would be to give your team the best possible chance to win during a season in which the playoffs can still be reached mathematically and because you believe he gives your team the best opportunity to develop other talent ie the opposite edge-rusher. However said player is a marked improvement over everyone behind him. In my opinion you should keep this player, and let the players behind him develop their skills during practice and pre-season.

Lets look at the case of Donald Driver and the off-season following the 2008 Green Bay Packers season a 6-10 team. Here you have a 34 yr old oft injured receiver, who took time from the younger talents Nelson/Jones. I would argue you hold on to Driver as GB did, it seems you would argue that the team should have traded him. Two years later, their young talent is still developing, and they've won a SB.