Facts on rebuilding; the Myth of the "One Year Turn Around"

[Mursilis]

Signing the veteran players like Galloway and Roydell mirrors signing Stallworth, Gaffney and almost signing Stokley. You bring in the veterans to compete and push the young guys and build a competitive environment. What guys like Niles Paul and Leonard Hankerson did was exactly what Malcolm Kelly couldn't and Devin Thomas wouldn't do; you fight for you opportunity. You earn everything you're given. Hank wasn't quite ready to start at the beginning of the season, but when Armstrong proved ineffective, he got his shot, and came out like gang busters in the Miami game. Meanwhile, Niles Paul has carved a great niche for himself as a gunner on special teams and as run support on certain formations.

I don't get the whole "bring in veterans" mentality. Guys like Galloway and Roydell, and the used-up running backs, aren't going to be on the team when it gets good in a few years, so why bother? I get the importance of competition, but why not bring in young, undrafted players for that competition? Undrafted players tend to be very hungry, because they know the team has no investment in them and they could be on the street at any moment, they're cheap, and they're YOUNG, so if they turn out to be studs, you've got them for a few years. Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Priest Holmes, Rod Smith, Adam Vinitari, Jeff Garcia, Jeff Saturday, LONDON FLETCHER, ADEWALE OGUNLEYE, Wes Welker - you could almost form an All-Pro team from overlooked and undrafted talent. Of course we have Fletcher and Ogunleye now, but we didn't discover them. I would have preferred Shanahan to ignore the retreads last year and try to find a few diamonds in the rough.

[Oldfan]

How is my OP biased in favor of Mike?

In order to answer this question properly I would have to rehash those old arguments that you raised about the 2010 season and rehash others that you didn't raise. I'm not going to do that.

And I did not make my thread to "counter" anyone's thread. This is something I've been seeing said all over the board for some time now.

If it wasn't your motive, it nevertheless served that purpose.

[Mursilis]

But aging veterans who are ending their careers are really not much different than younger guys who can't play...at least not to a new coach who is tasked with rebuilding a franchise. If they aren't viable options for a new coach moving forward, regardless of the reason, his job is more difficult. It's irrelevant if Chris Samuels or Randy Thomas was good enough to play in the league in the beginning of 2009. What matters is that they were either too beaten up or too old to continue with this franchise after that time. They were both great-to-solid players, but if they were unable to even catch on with a team that was ready to win immediately, then it means that Shanahan would have had to replace them by this point in time anyway.

Well, obviously - every team has to deal with the age issue. Just look at how Farve aged overnight in Minny last year.

And the 2009 was an OLD roster, no doubt, which is why it was all the more strange that Shanny brought in MORE old players in his first year, getting older at QB, WR, and RT. That didn't help at all.

[PeterMP]

No, we'll talk about how bad those individual units were...because if you think 50% of our defense is gonna be out of the NFL after next season you're delusional.

And everybody is already talking about how bad Grossman and Beck are ...so that won't be a surprise, will it? But you really think that Moss and Gaffney will be out of the league in 2 years? Or that nobody will see value in guys like Armstrong or Hankerson if Shanny lets them go?

Remember Keiland Williams? A Shanahan UDFA that played pretty decently for us last season but who was let go this season?...He got picked up by the Lions, and is scoring TDs for them. The guys Shanahan put on the roster will go on to play elsewhere unless they were simply too old. The guys Vinny put on the roster...not so much.

He's got 2 TDs.

People have picked up people like Cartwright, Thomas, and Heyer (I can't believe Cartwright still has a job in this league).

Most of the guys on that team have aged out. People like Thomas, Samuals, and Griffin were good NFL players that just got to old/injured.

I'd not be at all surpised if out of Stallworth, Gaffney, Moss, and Armstrong, if half of them were out of the NFL after the 2012 season. I'd not at all be surprised if another WR on our current roster was out of the NFL due to just not it cutting/injuries.

[KCClybun]

I don't get the whole "bring in veterans" mentality. Guys like Galloway and Roydell, and the used-up running backs, aren't going to be on the team when it gets good in a few years, so why bother? I get the importance of competition, but why not bring in young, undrafted players for that competition? Undrafted players tend to be very hungry, because they know the team has no investment in them and they could be on the street at any moment, they're cheap, and they're YOUNG, so if they turn out to be studs, you've got them for a few years. Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Priest Holmes, Rod Smith, Adam Vinitari, Jeff Garcia, Jeff Saturday, LONDON FLETCHER, ADEWALE OGUNLEYE, Wes Welker - you could almost form an All-Pro team from overlooked and undrafted talent. Of course we have Fletcher and Ogunleye now, but we didn't discover them. I would have preferred Shanahan to ignore the retreads last year and try to find a few diamonds in the rough.

Finding those gems is HARD. When you bunch them altogether like that, it seems like a lot. But those guys are hard to find.

We did find a few of the diamonds in the rough; Brandon Banks, Anthony Armstrong, Keiland Williams. They all played big roles that season.

But when you find the RIGHT kind of veterans, they do more than just compete. They teach younger players had to prepare, how to practice, how to work out, how to study in the film room. They teach things that sometimes coaches don't coach. And like I said, there's more than one way to do it, but when you look at Mike's history, his way seems like it tends to work. I am not saying he's infallible, but it seems like it works.

[Mad Mike]

Where do people come up with these numbers? I love reading your posts, Mike, but the exaggeration is strong there.

He doesn't even complete 75% of his passes. He throws a higher percentage of picks than he does TDs. He takes sacks he doesn't need to take sometimes. He throws into double and triple coverage. He puts too much loft underneath the ball sometimes.

I've seen him throw more high passes and ground balls than I care to count...

I don't see Montana. At all.

I never said he completed 75% of his passes. I stand by my comment in that he often reminds me of Montana working steadily down the field with those short passes. Wen Rex is on, he *is* hard to stop. He looks almost machine like.

Like I said, it seems his strength is pre-snap reads and delivering those short to med passes with accuracy. But when he mis-reads the D, he doesn't adjust well and the results are well documented.

[Oldfan]

...But when you find the RIGHT kind of veterans, they do more than just compete. They teach younger players had to prepare, how to practice, how to work out, how to study in the film room. They teach things that sometimes coaches don't coach. And like I said, there's more than one way to do it, but when you look at Mike's history, his way seems like it tends to work. I am not saying he's infallible, but it seems like it works.

Mike's history doesn't include a rebuilding effort. He had never done it until this season.

Rebuilding teams should not be signing FAs over 30 as gap fillers. You are straining to find excuses for it.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

ya know... I get where you are coming from but when you really look at it 75% of the time he looks like Montana out there. When he's on, he's got that w coast passing game down. A about 20% of the time his short stature gives him problems, and about 5% are WTF moments where he throws a boneheaded pass.

My theory is this... Grosman is very good at pre-snap reads and he trusts them. He isn't good at reading after the ball is snapped so on those occasions that he is fooled, he ends up throwing right into the teeth of the coverage.

Honestly. I hope he comes back next year. (yes I still want that first round QB in the draft). Another good infusion of talent like we had this past draft and we might have a team that can make up for Grosman's mistakes while capitalising on his talent. When the rookie can do better he can take the reins but we could do far worse than having Grossman as our worst QB.

Loved the thread...

But I loved every single ****ing word of your post Mad Mike.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The league is designed for every team to go 8-8. You do things correct in one off-season, you can get back to the mean. You get lucky in two games and you go 10-6 and win the division.

No one seems to understand this. The objective in the NFL is not to be "dominant" because that is impossible - despite what Green Bay is doing, which by the way is a complete fluke. Your goal is to be above average and then hope that you stay healthy enough to win 11 games.

That's it. That's all there is to it. The Patriots suck on defense. The Packers are probably just as bad on defense as the Patriots. The Steelers' O-line stinks. The Saints can't win outside. Joe Flacco is awful outside of Baltimore. San Fran has Alex Smith and his tiny hands at QB. One of those teams is probably going to win the Super Bowl. Because they are really good in one or two areas and didn't have a season-shattering injury yet.

That's the NFL. However bad you are, it can be mostly fixed in one year and completely fixed in two. Then you just need to avoid having your quarterback acquire Super AIDS.

[Skin'Em84]

I don't get the whole "bring in veterans" mentality. Guys like Galloway and Roydell, and the used-up running backs, aren't going to be on the team when it gets good in a few years, so why bother? I get the importance of competition, but why not bring in young, undrafted players for that competition? Undrafted players tend to be very hungry, because they know the team has no investment in them and they could be on the street at any moment, they're cheap, and they're YOUNG, so if they turn out to be studs, you've got them for a few years. Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Priest Holmes, Rod Smith, Adam Vinitari, Jeff Garcia, Jeff Saturday, LONDON FLETCHER, ADEWALE OGUNLEYE, Wes Welker - you could almost form an All-Pro team from overlooked and undrafted talent. Of course we have Fletcher and Ogunleye now, but we didn't discover them. I would have preferred Shanahan to ignore the retreads last year and try to find a few diamonds in the rough.

Love your logic, and agree with you, but we don't have Ogunleye. Sorry.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

He's got 2 TDs.

Yeah...and? lol...

Not sure what your point was, but my point was that unlike most of Vinny's castoffs, Williams is actually producing TDs and yards. If you took all the Vinny castoffs on offense, they may not have 2 TDs this year, combined. For the record, I'm not including Campbell as a "Vinny castoff" mainly because he was kept on the roster and traded, so we at least now Shanahan felt he had some value...the other guys he simply cut outright.

People have picked up people like Cartwright, Thomas, and Heyer (I can't believe Cartwright still has a job in this league).

Nor can I lol (about Cartwright)...but as for Thomas and Heyer, Thomas has accumulated ONE catch since he left here lol...Heyer has had one start. Rinehart may have done the best of the bunch. But that's not really saying too much. Again, an UDFA that Shanahan picked up is outperforming most of Vinny's 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Most of the guys on that team have aged out. People like Thomas, Samuals, and Griffin were good NFL players that just got to old/injured.

Yeah, I addressed this earlier...being handed an aging, injury-prone roster definitely qualified as an "awful" roster. No amount of good coaching or excellent schemes is going to make players reverse their aging process or stop being injured.

I'd not be at all surpised if out of Stallworth, Gaffney, Moss, and Armstrong, if half of them were out of the NFL after the 2012 season. I'd not at all be surprised if another WR on our current roster was out of the NFL due to just not it cutting/injuries.

Sure...every roster has those players that just won't cut it in the NFL beyond a few years. But again, the thing is that the roster Shanahan inherited had way, WAY too many of those types of players on it.

[Oldfan]

The league is designed for every team to go 8-8. You do things correct in one off-season' date=' you can get back to the mean.[/quote']Your premise is correct. That's how the NFL is set up. But, your deduction doesn't follow logically from that premise.

The hidden premise in your argument is that teams do not rise or fall far from the 8-8 capability -- a premise which is obviously false.

[SJValleySkinz]

Good stuff NC.

I would add the garbage FA market in Mike's first year, incomplete host of draft picks (thanks Vinny) and first year evals to get rid of "dead weight" as a delay in rebuilding. This is the year we began to see the fruits of a functional organization. Solid picks, solid FA's - I'm pumped about the direction and competitiveness of this team.

Shanahan's lack of draft picks were his own doing. I like the direction too but there's nobody else to blame for the 2010 offseason, which judging by how well they drafted in 2011 could have really helped.

[PeterMP]

Sure...every roster has those players that just won't cut it in the NFL beyond a few years. But again, the thing is that the roster Shanahan inherited had way, WAY too many of those types of players on it.

Yet he keeps acquiring people that obviously won't be in the league for to long.

LJ, Galloway, Stallworth (and in some cases even keeps them (e.g. Sellers)).

[Dark Acre]

I've noticed over the years that you'll often see a team come out of nowhere -- the 1 year wonder -- and then fade away after that season. Such turn-arounds overlook the traditionally soft schedule last-place teams have, as well as that other teams catch on the following season. If you want to build long-haul, don't expect a sudden turn-around.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Yet he keeps acquiring people that obviously won't be in the league for to long.

LJ, Galloway, Stallworth (and in some cases even keeps them (e.g. Sellers)).

You mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).

Yet he inherited 27 players like that...twenty-stinkin-seven.

Again, as I (and even you) said earlier, every single team has some players on it that won't be in the league but a few years, for differing reasons. But if half of your roster is made up OF those types of players, something is horrendously wrong.

Something was horrendously wrong with the Skins' roster when Shanahan took over. I don't think anyone, anywhere, can intelligently deny that. Bringing in LJ and Galloway does not EVEN begin to negate that.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 12:31 PM ----------

I've noticed over the years that you'll often see a team come out of nowhere -- the 1 year wonder -- and then fade away after that season. Such turn-arounds overlook the traditionally soft schedule last-place teams have, as well as that other teams catch on the following season. If you want to build long-haul, don't expect a sudden turn-around.

There ya go :yes:...if you want sustainable success, allow the rebuild to take 2-3 years. Now, if you're still going 6-10 in year 4, then something's up lol :paranoid:

[FSUSkins24]

Great post NLC. You're one of the posters on here I usually see eye to eye with. You get it. Keep it up.

[Oldfan]

You [PeterMP] mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).

He mentioned three, but you know there were many more. We don't need a list.

Not surprisingly, posters biased in favor of Mike exaggerate the problems he faced and how well he has done to surmount them. My own estimate is that 50% of his 2010 moves could be classified as "rebuilding moves." The other 50% were win now moves which gained nothing or lost ground. This year, 85% were rebuilding moves, but we still had six or seven FA signings of 30+ players, plus keeping Sellers and Fletcher, as strictly win now moves which gained nothing.

My rebuilding grades:

2010 = Fail

2011 = B

[hands11]

So is it safe to come back.

Looks like they have finally committed to a plan that involves the draft and sold FAs over the quick fix.

Shanny seems to be doing a good job as the final word on talent. The biggest difference I see is in the personality of the talent. They remind me of old school Redskins. No more Portis types. Hulu is a real throw back. Gaffney is the right fit. Cofield is awesome. Kerrigan is a beast.

As long as they keep adding these types a personalities, they will get there eventually.

I say the let Landry walk. To show boaty for me. And he sees to be more worried about muscles and looking good then getting healthy and making the solid play. They have a great front 7, now they need to focus on the back 4.

That said, I still don't like the father son combo that involves Kyle. Kyle just looks like the kind of guy you would like to slap. They still don't have the front office the way I would like it but as long as Shanny is going to pull a Marty and control everything, it could work.

And I love how they retooled the O line on the fly. Now they just need depth there.

They transformed to team from older to younger during the season. Now if they could just hit the reset button and start from here, I think they would be over .500.

Another solid draft and things should look even better.

Oh, and how about the Riley kid. He is a beast.

[Jumbo]

NLC; well done. Oldfan is giving you feedback form a very solid but quite narrow perspective when taken in the much broader terms of what a message board like our is all about. There is far more to having this venue be what we want and what provides what we wish to provide than for every topical-position-based thread to reflect Oldfan's view of what classical/logical debate style arguments look like (and he's pretty good at that style; one of the better practioners of it we've had, flaws included).

Both you and he are very solid and very welcome additions to this board when you're at your best, and using your own style.

When I have more time, I'll respond more to the points of the topic/OP.

[Manny555]

plus keeping Sellers and Fletcher, as strictly win now moves which gained nothing.

The thing about cutting guys to cut guys is it says alot about a coach's character.

How can guys go to battle (sorry, may be too cliche') for a guy who doesn't care about you. I think part of keeping some of the older productive players (Fletcher) and locker room guys (Sellers) shows that he cares about his players.

Think about your work environment. I have had bosses who made me work hard for a short period of time (I transferred out) but then I left unhappy. Or bosses that you loved and busted your butt for. One's when upper management would come in and they wouldn't throw you under the bus. Those are the same bosses that are very effective and very successful. Those are the people that I would work for at a discount cuz I wouldn't be happier any where else.

That's the environment I get from Shanny.

[HigSkin]

Here's a pleasant thought. Another successful offseason and one that includes a QB means people aren't going to be fretting over draft pick position. No way we'll be below .500 again with Shanny.

[Oldfan]

NLC; well done. Oldfan is giving you feedback form a very solid but quite narrow perspective when taken in the much broader terms of what a message board like our is all about. There is far more to having this venue be what we want and what provides what we wish to provide than for every topical-position-based thread to reflect Oldfan's view of what classical/logical debate style arguments look like (and he's pretty good at that style; one of the better practioners of it we've had, flaws included).

You mistake my intentions, Old Friend.

I recognize NLC as a bright poster, too bright to be wasting his time preaching to the Homer Choir. Anybody can do that and get applause.

My suggestion to him -- that he make his arguments to persuade impartial minds -- is sound advice. If we could get the majority of ES posters doing it, you wouldn't need your forum rules because everything aimed at persuading impartial minds, in addition to stronger arguments, would be positive, civil and on-topic. It's the only rule the poster would have to remember.

[GhostofSparta]

You mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).

Don't be like that Cali. Mike signed plenty of older vets last year, year 1 of a rebuild, that aren't in the NFL anymore:

-Josh Bidwell

-Sam Paulescu

-Anthony Bryant

-Ma'ake Kemoeatu

-Dononvan McNabb (may be picked up in the offseason, currently out of the NFL)

-Roydell Williams

-Joey Galloway

-Larry Johnson

-Willie Parker

-Mike Furrey (spent the year on IR, but still signed and out of the NFL)

and that's not even counting the guys that aren't on our roster, but still barely holding on as NFL depth elsewhere, like Hicks in Cle and Holliday in Ari.

That's 10 guys right there (~20% of the roster) who were older vets signed to help rebuild an abysmal team that are no longer in the NFL. That includes 2 punters, 3 WRs, 2 RBs, and 2 NTs. Now it's hard to fault Mike for the Punters, because I blame Danny Smith for the failures of all punters and kickers to come through here in the last decade, but those are still some pretty critical positions that we've either upgraded or tried to this past year. You're telling me that there were no young/UDFA NTs that we could have tried last year, that we had to rely on Anthony Bryant and Kemoeatu, who was coming back from a horrible ACL injury? An injured Ma'ake was the best Mike could do? Chris Neild was 2 or 3 picks from being a UDFA, and he's already outperformed both of those guys. Galloway and Roydell were better options than trying to find another (but hopefully younger) Armstrong?

I was not expecting a playoff team in 2010. I was ready for a major overhaul. But trading for McNabb and signing vets over 30 at key positions like WR, OL, DL, and RB did not signal rebuild. It signaled the same "we're only a few players away" mentality that has killed this franchise for a freaking decade. Mike let go of a lot of dead weight, and that was immensely helpful. But he also had the advantage of an uncapped year to clear the dead wood without murdering our cap space, and he did not take full advantage of getting a chance to start over with a young team. I understand that you can't have a roster full of rookies, but you also can't have 90% of your starters be older and especially injury prone vets on the downside of their career. Trading for McNabb and Brown means you think you have a shot this year. And you'd better be right, because they're costing you 4 mid-round picks when you're trying to rebuild (2nd, 2 3rds, and a 4th total). Those picks are key young depth guys to develop into starters starting about next year.

I recognize that Allen and Shanahan were walking into a disaster. I'm not shocked we're still not competitive. But you can't glaze over the mistakes he made ("He's only missed on like, 3 guys, and they were all just depth anyway LOL!") or you look just as bad as those who blame him for the fact that Vinny sucks at drafting and Zorn was a terrible talent evaluator so our 2010 team sucked. I think he underestimated the job his first year, and realized what he was in for before this year started. He's made a lot of progress, but his initial moves cost us some prime opportunities to be ahead of where we are.

But this team was never in a position for a 1 year turnaround. And anybody who expected as much was fooling himself. We'd traded away too many valuable picks and missed on too many others to have the kind of talent that Detroit or San Fran did when their new coaches started winning.

[Oldfan]

The thing about cutting guys to cut guys is it says alot about a coach's character.

How can guys go to battle (sorry, may be too cliche') for a guy who doesn't care about you. I think part of keeping some of the older productive players (Fletcher) and locker room guys (Sellers) shows that he cares about his players.

Think about your work environment. I have had bosses who made me work hard for a short period of time (I transferred out) but then I left unhappy. Or bosses that you loved and busted your butt for. One's when upper management would come in and they wouldn't throw you under the bus. Those are the same bosses that are very effective and very successful. Those are the people that I would work for at a discount cuz I wouldn't be happier any where else.

That's the environment I get from Shanny.

We have different ideas of what "character" is all about. Belichik cuts some of his favorite players when it's in his team's best interests. Yet, I've never heard a player condemn him for it.