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

[Darth Tater]

Last year, lots of people were saying "look at Tampa Bay", well, they did go 10-6 last season but they're at best going to be 6-10 this year. So I'd say the people saying "look at San Francisco" or "look at Detroit" as examples of how to rebuild are pursuing questionable logic. Do teams appear to turn it around quick? Yes, but its most likely that the results in the W-L column are just the last place that building a winner show itself.

Also, this makes me ask: should a Steelers fan in 1971 said "look at the Redskins"? I mean, we went from a 6 win team with just 5 non-losing seasons over 20+ years to the playoffs while the Steelers experienced the 3rd straight losing year under Chuck Noll.

[elkabong82]

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:

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.

McNabb makes sense when you realize the Skins used him to try and trade up from the Rams and get Bradford. That aside, it was mentioned on here queit frequently that a bunch of the 2010 moves, year 1 of Shanny, resulted from him trying to build a competitive team (bringing young guys into a culture of winning), but he was handcuffed both by a VERY limited FA class due to the CBA ending and taking away lots of talented young guys by extending requirements to 6 years to be a FA, and then we were VERY limited in the draft due to the previous regime. But we focused mostly on the OL, which is a great way to start off, especially when limited in a draft.

[Oldfan]

McNabb makes sense when you realize the Skins used him to try and trade up from the Rams and get Bradford...

Makes more sense? The idea that the Skins would sign off on a trade for McNabb with no guarantee they could complete the trade to the Rams makes them sound dumber than dirt.

[Darth Tater]

First thing you MUST do to rebuild is clear out as much loseritas as possible. Given limited resources to bring in young guys, the external environment in the NFL and the need to create a positive platform for rookie development, the BEST course of action was to sign those guys.

[PeterMP]

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.

Your missing the point. I said they were a bad/old team already.

AND I have been pointing out this would be an issue for YEARS:

http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-308516.html

"Betts and Rock are good players, but on this team they aren't a dynamic enough player for the team to go all the way (or even very far).

In that sense, it makes sense to see if you can AT LEAST find a younger version of them long term (giving the possiblity that they player might not be as good this year) and MAYBE you'll get lucky and find a player that really is a difference maker.

Having Portis, Betts, and Rock makes sense on a team that really thinks they can challenge for a SuperBowl makes some sense. It gives you some real flexibility in case of injury. On this team, not so much, and Portis wasn't going anywhere due to his contract."

(From 2009)

http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-220147.html

"Cut them both (Thrash and Caldwell and Lloyd to if you can make the cap room fit), and go get some young guys off of some other teams practice squad. See if you can't find a young guy who will be able to contribute to a championship in 3-5 years because they ain't go this year or next and that will certainly be the end for them."

(From 2007)

http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-282835.html

"How do I feel?

About the same as I do about the prospect of Phillip Daniels, Renaldo Wynn or Marcus Washington coming back.

Disgusted.

We should be trying to get younger and not continue to try and build this team from season to season.

We're not winning the Super Bowl next year. Hell even if we were a contender, Daniels, Wynn, Washington or Alexander are not going to be be a big part of putting us "over the top". They're just filler/a stopgap.

Washington I can at least buy is young/good enough and has enough left in the tank that if you play him a moderate amount of time can still have an impact.

The rest of them are the kind of move that makes sense if you are a SB caliber team, which this team isn't.

This team would be much better to take a flier on a young guy and see if he works out."

(From 2009)

What some of us in this thread are saying is the old organization derseved an F for bringing in and developing young players. Based on BOTH of Shanhans years here combined, he's at maybe a C.

We'd like to see somebody we could give a higher grade to.

**EDIT**

I don't even mind Fletcher. Highly contributing/high character vets like Fletcher are fine with me. It is when the guy is 2nd and 3rd string that it doesn't make sense to me (e.g. Sellers, Stallworth, etc.) in terms of the roster spot.

(Though, I don't know if I'd resign Fletcher. It would have to be a very reasonable contract.)

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 06:08 PM ----------

Makes more sense? The idea that the Skins would sign off on a trade for McNabb with no guarantee they could complete the trade to the Rams makes them sound dumber than dirt.

Seriously, if that is your objective, then you carry out a 3 way trade.

[KCClybun]

Okay, I'm in a bad mood, so if I fly off the handle at any point during this post, I apologize. Bad day.

In regard to 2010, no one can honestly say that Mike did not make mistakes. The McNabb trade, in hindsight, was a mistake. (I maintain that given the other options available, at the time, the McNabb trade was justified.) I will also admit that one of Mike's mistakes in his first season may have been thinking that he had a better football team than he actually did. While that 4-12 roster was bunk and most of us knew it was bunk, perhaps Mike thought he'd be able to get more out of the team than he was actually able to.

Free agency limited his ability to replenish his football team in any meaningful way. With a switch to a new offense and a new defense, I think Mike went about signing as many bodies as possible to fill the holes we had.

The following is my position on the free agents signings we made and why they were on the field. I have tried my hardest to base these things in fact and not in opinion, trying to mold an answer around information available. This is not meant as a way to "stretch" and defend Mike's every move, because Mike is not perfect, and his every move has no been perfect.

Mistake number one was trusting Albert Haynesworth to come in and be a pro after they gave him that bonus. If you want to know why Ma'ake and Anthony Bryant were on the field, that can be attributed to the fact that Fat Al didn't want to play nose...or defensive end...or on running downs...or in the base defense...or in nickle run downs...basically he just wanted to rush the passer, and Mike thought he'd be able to play nose and Fat Albert didn't and that's that. Ma'ake and Bryant were depth signings, based on Mike and Haz thinking Albert would come in and play ball. Albert didn't want to play ball. That left us in a situation where we had to play Ma'ake and Anthony Bryant.

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson. I think he thought LJ fit our scheme and maybe had something left in the tank, but of all the moves from that first offseason, I think LJ making the opening day roster is the most questionable. (At least Parker didn't make it that far.) Maybe it was born of not trusting Ryan Torain to stay healthy for an entire season and not trusting K-Wil to be the number two back.

At wide receiver, Mike cut Antwaan Randle El and Marko Mitchell. Here, I think the signings of Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams were meant to fill those holes, because Mike looked at Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly and expected them to be able to stand up next to Santana Moss and become the next guys. Once again, Mike overestimated 1.) Malcolm's ability to stay healthy and 2.) Devin's inability to not be a prick. Two more guys that, for all intents and purposes, should've been quality depth at best, thrust up the depth chart. Kelly got hurt, like, the first week of camp. Devin Thomas' bad attitude, crappy route running and even worse work ethic screwed him over.

That pushes Galloway and Roydell up on the depth chart. Now, Armstrong was running with the number ones all training camp long, and I will admit that I do question Mike making Galloway the starter opposite Moss, especially considering Galloway had zero playing time in preseason. But I'm pretty sure that Armstrong and Galloway split snap at the "number 2" position in those first few weeks, before Armstrong became the starter versus the Colts. Terrence Austin was rawer than cookie dough ice cream, and shoving him up the depth chart for the sake of having him play would've been a mistake as well.

Mike's philosophy when it comes to young players isn't difficult to understand. He values competition tremendously, which is why he does go out and sign those vets. Competition for spots make a football team better in the long run.

Young players have to EARN everything they get. Anyone else remember Devin Thomas whining about how he wasn't getting more playing time, right before the trade deadline? He couldn't get the playbook down, ran bad routes, didn't go full speed in practice or put in the time in the film room. Devin Thomas never earned playing time. He was a second round pick who thought where he was drafted dictated how much he should play.

The perfect example of what happened this year is Leonard Hankerson. Hankerson was inconsistent in preseason and in training camp. They obviously liked him and they couldn't let him go or send him to the practice squad, so they put him on the active roster be deactivated him. And we all howled.

But Hank did everything the right way. He put in the extra time after practice to get the playbook down. He hung out in the film room. He played on the scout team and he didn't kvetch about it, just understood he had to keep working. And lo and behold, the coaches started to like what they saw from Hank. Wherein it got to the point that in practice, it was hard for our defense to cover here one on one. So he gets activated and begins to practice with the number ones, and he's even harder to cover. To the point where once Armstrong and Austin proved ineffective, Hank started...and Hank was good. And we cut Stallworth to boot, and only bought him back when Hank got hurt.

Stallworth, who was inactive for four games in the first half off the season, to give Niles Paul and Terrence Austin and Armstrong the opportunity to prove themselves.

And I understand that doesn't jive well with some people. Some people would rather shove all the young guys out there and get them experience and let them have growing pains out there on the field. But...I hate to keep bringing up the Bucs, but I think it's important to show it here.

The Bucs are doing what some advocated we should do. In the offseason, they chose not to resign guys like Barrett Ruud and Cadillac Williams. They didn't sign any veteran wide receivers, running backs, lineman, no veteran back up QB, no veteran linebackers, only claimed our sloppy thirds on their d-line after the Pats cut them (and isn't he just a great lockerroom person for the young guys). They decided not to cut any checks to any veterans.

The "Youngry" Bucs are currently the most penalized team in the league. None of the Bucaneers young, inexperienced wide receivers are getting open, and the only one who proved he could get open consistently last year (Mike Williams) is getting double covered because the Bucs have no other receiving threats, besides maybe Kellen Winslow. LeGarrette Blount has fumbled 5 times and apparently can't pass protect, and the guys they have behind him aren't nearly as talented. Their young secondary is getting torched, and their young d-line (that featured 1st and 2nd round picks at the start of the season, before Gerald McCoy got hurt) can't stop the run. The o-line is struggling, and Josh Freeman appears to be regressing.

The Bucs training camp, from all reports, was incredible lax. Their wasn't a lot of active competition, and thing were very laid back. Probably too lazy. The worse thing that can happen to young players is that "We got this" sense, but that's pretty much all Raheem Moore and the coaching staff (and the front office) preached. We got this. We don't need more than this. Well, they did need more.

(That "We got this" mentality is half the reason Robert Henson and Anthony Bryant aren't here anymore).

That's not to say that if the Bucs had a bunch of veterans they'd be better off. But it's one case of "get rid of all the vets and go super young" not being the great thing. Raheem Moore is probably going to get canned after this. That lack of competition hurt them, and the lack of solid, reliable players you can always count on to be in the right place hurt them. Add in a few key injuries, and you've got the Bucs having a crummy season after being on the cusp of a playoff berth.

Their is a way to have a young team with key veterans in some spots to help you on the way. The Steelers and Ravens are in that in between place now.

[Oldfan]

First thing you MUST do to rebuild is clear out as much loseritas as possible. Given limited resources to bring in young guys, the external environment in the NFL and the need to create a positive platform for rookie development, the BEST course of action was to sign those guys.

"Positive platform for rookie development?" When I read vague phrases like that, I assume the writer is shoveling ****.

[chipwhich]

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson. I think he thought LJ fit our scheme and maybe had something left in the tank, but of all the moves from that first offseason, I think LJ making the opening day roster is the most questionable. (At least Parker didn't make it that far.) Maybe it was born of not trusting Ryan Torain to stay healthy for an entire season and not trusting K-Wil to be the number two back.

I'll tell you what he saw. He saw fast willie parker and larry johnson eating our defenses lunch in practice. He thought they could still play. After all, they ran through our swiss cheese defensive line at practice at will.

It took a few games for Shanny to realize the RB's sucked, and it was our defensive that made them look good.

[MrJL]

I don't think Parker made the team. Williams beat him out for the third spot.

None of the vets we signed cost a young player a job unless you think there's a slew of undrafteds that would have filled their roles.

[MrJL]

I don't think Parker made the team. Williams beat him out for the third spot.

None of the vets we signed cost a young player a job unless you think there's a slew of undrafteds that would have filled their roles.

[Oldfan]

NLC ~ In regard to 2010, no one can honestly say that Mike did not make mistakes. The McNabb trade, in hindsight, was a mistake. (I maintain that given the other options available, at the time, the McNabb trade was justified.)

We disagree on this. The trade never made sense. In two threads authored when the trade went down, I explained why McNabb was misfit for any offense other than the big play offense Andy Reid created for him. OCs don't create schemes for QBs who are inconsistent on short and medium range throws.

My guess is that Mike hoped to remodel the mechanics of a 34 year old QB. One report described Kyle trying to teach Donovan to throw on rhythm. That's like the first week of school for a WCO QB.

I will also admit that one of Mike's mistakes in his first season may have been thinking that he had a better football team than he actually did. While that 4-12 roster was bunk and most of us knew it was bunk, perhaps Mike thought he'd be able to get more out of the team than he was actually able to.

Mike probably over-estimated himself. The ego will do that to you.

Free agency limited his ability to replenish his football team in any meaningful way. With a switch to a new offense and a new defense, I think Mike went about signing as many bodies as possible to fill the holes we had.

He could have traded the players rendered useless for the best draft pick available. Playing them out of position made no sense.

The following is my position on the free agents signings we made and why they were on the field. I have tried my hardest to base these things in fact and not in opinion, trying to mold an answer around information available. This is not meant as a way to "stretch" and defend Mike's every move, because Mike is not perfect, and his every move has no been perfect.

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson.

There were about a dozen vets on the roster with no future value. They were strictly "maybe they have something left" moves.

Mike's philosophy when it comes to young players isn't difficult to understand. He values competition tremendously, which is why he does go out and sign those vets. Competition for spots make a football team better in the long run.

That's as good an excuse for signing over-the-hill vets as any. But, no... the number one job for a rebuilding team is to find new talent. You need the open roster slots and you need the snaps available to bring them in and try them out.

Stallworth, who was inactive for four games in the first half off the season, to give Niles Paul and Terrence Austin and Armstrong the opportunity to prove themselves.

Stallworth has little value for a contending team and no value for a rebuilding team.

And I understand that doesn't jive well with some people. Some people would rather shove all the young guys out there and get them experience and let them have growing pains out there on the field. But...I hate to keep bringing up the Bucs, but I think it's important to show it here.

Last year, the Bucs had five players over 30. This year, they have two. Is it your position that the absence of those three over-the-hill players, and the lack of their "veteran presence" or "mentorship," caused the Bucs season to go south?

[DieselPwr44]

Curious...

Oldfan, is it your assertion that the idea of veteran presence on a young team, to mentor, is bunk ?

[KCClybun]

Last year, the Bucs had five players over 30. This year, they have two. Is it your position that the absence of those three over-the-hill players, and the lack of their "veteran presence" or "mentorship," caused the Bucs season to go south?

I'm saying the Bucs overachieved with an easier schedule last season. This season they had money in the bank and could've afforded to bring in some smart free agent choices that would not have hurt their youth movement and instead decided not to, and now their super young team is struggling. The vets they do have, have only been the league for three years, and when one of those guys goes down, they don't have significant and developed depth behind him, with no veterans to even back-up the young guys.

I guess my overall point is that I reject the idea that there is only one way to rebuild a football team, and that's to ****can every veteran you have and put all the young guys on the field. Having someone like London Fletcher has not hurt the team, having Mike Sellers has not hurt the team, having the veterans we do has not adversely affected the team.

If you count the guys on injured reserve, we have 47 players under the age of thirty out of 63. So there's 16 guys here 30 or over. 37 of those young players have been added in the past two seasons Mike's been here. So I see no use kvetching everytime he signs a vet. The rebuild is real and tangible, and there's more than one way to do it.

I understand you feel the best way to become a Super Bowl team would be to acquire as many young bodies as possible and play them as soon as possible for as many snaps as possible...but it's fairly obvious that you and Mike have radically different philosophies.

[PeterMP]

I'm saying the Bucs overachieved with an easier schedule last season. This season they had money in the bank and could've afforded to bring in some smart free agent choices that would not have hurt their youth movement and instead decided not to, and now their super young team is struggling. The vets they do have, have only been the league for three years, and when one of those guys goes down, they don't have significant and developed depth behind him, with no veterans to even back-up the young guys.

I guess my overall point is that I reject the idea that there is only one way to rebuild a football team, and that's to ****can every veteran you have and put all the young guys on the field. Having someone like London Fletcher has not hurt the team, having Mike Sellers has not hurt the team, having the veterans we do has not adversely affected the team.

If you count the guys on injured reserve, we have 47 players under the age of thirty out of 63. So there's 16 guys here 30 or over. 37 of those young players have been added in the past two seasons Mike's been here. So I see no use kvetching everytime he signs a vet. The rebuild is real and tangible, and there's more than one way to do it.

I understand you feel the best way to become a Super Bowl team would be to acquire as many young bodies as possible and play them as soon as possible for as many snaps as possible...but it's fairly obvious that you and Mike have radically different philosophies.

I don't see anybody arguing we should cut Moss. I don't actually see anybody arguing we should but Stallworth AND Gaffney (though I guess that might be an argument that OldFan might make, I've never seen him make it).

The argument in 2007 wasn't that they should cut Moss, ARE, Thrash, and Caldwell. It was that the bottom 2, Thrash and Caldwell should be cut.

You're arguing against a position that you rarely see expressed and haven't seen in this thread.

Nobody is kvetching about every vet he signs. People are kvetching about the vets that he signs that are clearly at or near the end of the line, and don't contribute much and that he then keeps despite the fact that it is clear to most that they are not contributing much and close to the end of their rope.

Or those that he gives up pretty valuable draft picks to get.

Nobody has mentioned Cofield and the like.

[skinny21]

I don't see anybody arguing we should cut Moss. I don't actually see anybody arguing we should but Stallworth AND Gaffney (though I guess that might be an argument that OldFan might make, I've never seen him make it).

The argument in 2007 wasn't that they should cut Moss, ARE, Thrash, and Caldwell. It was that the bottom 2, Thrash and Caldwell should be cut.

You're arguing against a position that you rarely see expressed and haven't seen in this thread.

Nobody is kvetching about every vet he signs. People are kvetching about the vets that he signs that are clearly at or near the end of the line, and don't contribute much and that he then keeps despite the fact that it is clear to most that they are not contributing much and close to the end of their rope.

Or those that he gives up pretty valuable draft picks to get.

I've been pretty happy with all the roster moves. Brown was moderate risk with potential for high reward, and McNabb I'd say was high risk with the possibility of high reward (many disagree here and I understand the reservations). Then the Hightower/Carriker/Gaffney trades were all pretty low risk affairs.

Bringing in vets in the offseason is fine by me as they push the youth and don't cost us anything.

The headscratchers as I see it are things like playing Stallworth now that we're out of contention and not having a developmental QB on the roster.

Overall, I think we see a very legitimate roster being assembled and the forecast is pretty sunny for the forseeable future.

PeterMP - good call on Cofield. Read an article about him being a large part of why Fletcher's tackle total is much higher this year over last. Probably part of why the safeties had so many tackles last year - the line struggled keeping the backers clean.

Another player is Wilson. Many thought he was pretty bad after the first few games (so was our run D). I think more experience playing in the new system (and with new teammates) has made a huge difference. We're playing good ball against good teams, definitely encouraging.

[Bang]

I'll tell you what he saw. He saw fast willie parker and larry johnson eating our defenses lunch in practice. He thought they could still play. After all, they ran through our swiss cheese defensive line at practice at will.

It took a few games for Shanny to realize the RB's sucked, and it was our defensive that made them look good.

He also saw an oft-injured Rb in our backfield, and threw **** at the wall. Warm bodies.

Plus, as has been stated, he's pushing players for their playing time. He's bringing in competition, especially last year when practically everyone on the roster was on probation. Note how many of Zorn's roster is gone.

Last year was an audition.

~Bang

[PeterMP]

I've been pretty happy with all the roster moves. Brown was moderate risk with potential for high reward, and McNabb I'd say was high risk with the possibility of high reward (many disagree here and I understand the reservations). Then the Hightower/Carriker/Gaffney trades were all pretty low risk affairs.

Bringing in vets in the offseason is fine by me as they push the youth and don't cost us anything.

The headscratchers as I see it are things like playing Stallworth now that we're out of contention and not having a developmental QB on the roster.

Overall, I think we see a very legitimate roster being assembled and the forecast is pretty sunny for the forseeable future.

PeterMP - good call on Cofield. Read an article about him being a large part of why Fletcher's tackle total is much higher this year over last. Probably part of why the safeties had so many tackles last year - the line struggled keeping the backers clean.

Another player is Wilson. Many thought he was pretty bad after the first few games (so was our run D). I think more experience playing in the new system (and with new teammates) has made a huge difference. We're playing good ball against good teams, definitely encouraging.

I don't understand this argument about the vets pushing the young players. Can anybody explain to me how Galloway pushed the likes of Thomas, Armstrong, and Austin more than a young talented player like Victor Cruz would have?

Does anybody really believe that Young is worried that if he messes up they are going to replace him w/ a FB in his mid-30s whose best days are clearly behind him?

I'm dubious that Cofield can ever play as a proto-typical NT at a high level. On the other hand, I know that proto-typical 3-4 NTs don't grow on trees, and he might be the best way can find any time soon.

He's a reasonable age and was signed to a reasonable contract. I'm not willing to say he's the real answer at NT, but I'm not going to overly complain about his signing.

[Burgold]

I don't understand this argument about the vets pushing the young players. Can anybody explain to me how Galloway pushed the likes of Thomas, Armstrong, and Austin more than a young talented player like Victor Cruz would have?

Galloway was seen as a safe bet, a steady hand. Coaches and players could trust him to do what was expected of him in a given play. That has value. Sometimes, much more value than raw potential (see Devin Thomas), but that steady guy can and should be beaten out... it gave undrafted guys with potential an opportunity to rise up and show that they can demonstrate the same discipline, but also contribute more. That can be motivating because the younger player knows there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

When it's all young guys competing, than it's just a scrap to become the alpha dog. Of course, the mentorship, and the seeing how a ten year vet practices, studies, and acts also has a lot of value to the smart player. When the Redskins were great many reportedly tried to match the work ethic and standard of Art Monk and D Green.

Does anybody really believe that Young is worried that if he messes up they are going to replace him w/ a FB in his mid-30s whose best days are clearly behind him?

I actually thought Sellers should be cut after the preseason. I didn't think he had a place on the team, but I've read a number of articles about how Sellers has been invaluable to Young as a side line mentor and how they chat all the time about how to grow and become a better player at the position. So, Young may not be worried that Sellers would replace him, but may still benefit from his presence. Also, the team may benefit in that when Young went down, Sellers could step in and you knew you had someone that could do it and you could rely that the plays would be run correctly.

[2cents]

He also saw an oft-injured Rb in our backfield, and threw **** at the wall. Warm bodies.

Plus, as has been stated, he's pushing players for their playing time. He's bringing in competition, especially last year when practically everyone on the roster was on probation. Note how many of Zorn's roster is gone.

Last year was an audition.

~Bang

I keep trying to tell people that this year is actually year one of the rebuild, but they don't want to hear it. Last year was def an audition.

[KCClybun]

I don't understand this argument about the vets pushing the young players. Can anybody explain to me how Galloway pushed the likes of Thomas, Armstrong, and Austin more than a young talented player like Victor Cruz would have?

Does anybody really believe that Young is worried that if he messes up they are going to replace him w/ a FB in his mid-30s whose best days are clearly behind him?

The idea is that you bring a lot of bodies into camp and force them to compete for a limited number of spots. This should naturally make everyone be on their A-game, especially if the younger players see familiar faces and names. It's supposed to make you play better and push and force you to play, practice and study as a high level, because typically veterans are placed on the depth chart higher than the young guys. It's about proving and pushing a young player to become the best they can be.

The Victor Cruz argument is friggin' dumb though. For one, you never know if we offered to let Cruz come in and he chose to go to the Giants. Two, again, finding undrafted free agents who go on to start is rarer than you think. Third, Armstrong was undrafted AND practice squad fodder and STILL worked his way up to be a starter doing things the exact same way that people are saying. Banks was undrafted. Logan Paulsen was undrafted. Keiland Williams was undrafted. Hell, Paulsen made the team OVER Dennis Morris, who we actually drafted.

[chipwhich]

I am not sure why anyone would think anything other than this. Shannahan tried to win in year one with veterans. He thought he had the pieces to compete. He brought in vets to make a run for a title. He saw what a mess the team was, and blew it up and began the rebuild in year 2. All the other noise is nonsense.

He didn't bring these old guys to push the young guys, or to be a "safe bet". He built the team year one to win now. The team was a pile of dog ****. So unlike what all our other dopey "GM's" did, he blew up the pile of ****, and brought in young blood and free agents he felt could be part of his plan.

[Skinzfever2010]

I am not sure why anyone would think anything other than this. Shannahan tried to win in year one with veterans. He thought he had the pieces to compete. He brought in vets to make a run for a title. He saw what a mess the team was, and blew it up and began the rebuild in year 2. All the other noise is nonsense.

He didn't bring these old guys to push the young guys, or to be a "safe bet". He built the team year one to win now. The team was a pile of dog ****. So unlike what all our other dopey "GM's" did, he blew up the pile of ****, and brought in young blood and free agents he felt could be part of his plan.

For all we know Dan may have been convinced enough to let Shan do whatever he wanted before the lockout season and begin the actual rebuild in year two.

[HailGreen28]

Great thread, NLC. The two main posts you've made this thread have been stellar!

I think Shanny is always in "win now" mode. He's never going to tank a season. One more reason for the team to buy into his program. Not to say he doesn't value youth. But he also values consistency, professionalism, experience. SMH at some posters oblivious to what vets bring to a team.

Difference between Shanny and Vinny, is that Shanny is smart about it. Aside from a PB caliber QB coming off a great season, Shanny hasn't overpaid for anybody. He drafts well.

Most importantly, unlike Vinny and Snyder's "win now" tactics, Shanny hasn't short-changed the team, by sacrificing way too much value in our draft to bring in "over the hill" talent. Shanny does value drafting way more than previous regimes did.

The reason Shanny has "gone young" isn't because he wants a youth movement on principle. He's trying to bring in the best guys he can period. The guys Shanny inherited are getting pushed out by the guys he drafted, because the old players weren't good anymore (or didn't fit the schemes Shanny believes are the best today). I think the Shanaplan is just that simple in concept. Executing it is the hard part requiring a genius against the NFL competition (Steelers, Pats, Packers, etc.).

[PeterMP]

Bang, nobody is talking about cutting Moss or the other vetern (in the case of last year that would have been Roydell Williams (I have no problem with keeping Williams or Galloway, but not both. I have not problem with having Moss and Stallworth or Gaffney, but not all 3)). There would still be experienced vets to act as leaders.

I think w/ respect to Sellers the loss of having a good backup and the mentorship role out weighs the roster spot.

[Oldfan]

I'm saying the Bucs overachieved with an easier schedule last season. This season they had money in the bank and could've afforded to bring in some smart free agent choices that would not have hurt their youth movement and instead decided not to, and now their super young team is struggling.

Here, you are trying to make an argument by analogy. You are claiming the ability to accurately assess both the complex Bucs roster situation and the complex Redskins roster situation to make your point. Those claims aren't going to float.

Let's stick to the Redskins roster.

I have been a proponent of the 100% rebuild which would have no player over 29 (QB exception) until the roster had a solid core of starters. After that, cheap FA gap fillers at any age can be added.

Good decisions increase the likelihood of a good outcome. Basic math supports my position: If, in a rebuilding mode, you fill the roster with 10 over-the-hill vets and 10 UDFAs, you have half the chance of finding a good, young player, maybe even a James Harrison, as you would if your roster had 20 UDFAs and no over-the-hill vets.

Mike Shanahan's 2011 offseason moves surprised and delighted me. I'd call it an 85% rebuilding effort. He did everything I have been calling for several years. I would have been happier without the resigning of Moss and the signings of Stallworth and Atogwe. I would have cut Sellers and my favorite player Fletcher.

Color me satisfied with the 2011 progress. I can't expect Mike to completely rid himself of his win-now bent. To do so might get him tossed out of the NFL coaches union.

So, I'm satisfied that 2011 was a decent rebuilding effort, but it's annoying to read attempts to revise history and claim that Shanny's 2010 campaign was anything but a waste of time.

In 2010, I rejected as baloney the argument that the McNabb acquisition was not a win now move because he was a winner who, single handedly, would provide the veteran leadership to "change the culture" at Redskins Park. I will reject as baloney all similar speculation about the need to keep vets. Coaches acquire and keep older vets to help them win now -- and that's the only reason to have them.