HTTR24-7:Interview Transcript W/ Michael Lombardi 11/14/12..

[pjfootballer]

Re: the number of starters we added vs. the Pats in the past 3 years (5 to 8), it seems that your point makes it even MORE of an indictment of our front office. By your above post, I'm led to believe the Pats didn't have much upgrading to do, yet they added 8 starters via the draft. By contrast, we had gaping holes on our team and only added 5 starters via the draft over the same period of time. Good or bad, that supports Of's point that Belichick has done more with less (if you consider the draft position) than Shanahan has.

With less holes, Belichick has been able to play the BPA game, gambling on a player and winning. He can take more chances, knowing he has a deeper team. Hence, he'll hit on more starters because they were the "best" players available. The Redskins have only been able to have limited BPA approach the last couple of drafts because of need. No matter that people say you shouldn't draft for need, teams draft for need for a reason. They literally "need" that player for that position. The Pats have had a veteran tried and tested team. Like Lombardi said, once you get the coach (Belichick) and the QB (Brady) and they come together, the rest is easy. We're 9 games into our "coach and QB" tandem. It is NOT a fair comparison no matter how you slice it.

[Hooper]

My favorite part of the interview was when personnel guru Lombardi admits he misjudged the talent level on the Redskins roster two years in a row.

I like the guy a lot, but there's a reason he's working in the media instead of for a team.

[darrelgreenie]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that then. Legally, Mike Shanahan has the royal straight flush in this situation. That's all that would matter at the end of the day. If Mike didn't want one, he'd be well within his rights to say "I don't want one," and Dan can fire him. But Dan cannot force Mike Shanahan to have a GM.

I guess so; but are you really disagreeing? The situation you describe above isn't different from what I've said. If Dan wants a GM there will be a GM whether Mike is here or not. And your 'legal straight flush' is based on nothing more then your speculation about the language in Shanahan's contract.

[TSO]

Re: the number of starters we added vs. the Pats in the past 3 years (5 to 8), it seems that your point makes it even MORE of an indictment of our front office. By your above post, I'm led to believe the Pats didn't have much upgrading to do, yet they added 8 starters via the draft. By contrast, we had gaping holes on our team and only added 5 starters via the draft over the same period of time. Good or bad, that supports Of's point that Belichick has done more with less (if you consider the draft position) than Shanahan has.

To be fair, didn't the Pats have like 20 more draft picks than us, lol? And I'm not sure why you're just limiting it to the draft alone... I understand if I had argued that point but I didn't and, in fact, my focus was more about Free Agency and adding players that way. We were discussing the restricted FA class of 2010 in particular.

Still, my point is that the Pats are an established organization with known schemes. They know exactly what they're looking for and had most of those guys already in place. We were starting from scratch and had limited resources at that. It's very different. Overall, you simply can't compare how many starters we've acquired compared to them in the same three years.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 03:47 PM ----------

Hmm disagree with just about everything.. Locklear was getting applauded by the Giants and the media entering the Redskins game for his play. Polumbus has had some good stretches but overall had been terrible this season. Locklear is rated #49 and Polumbus #65 by profootballfocus.com.

Polumbus is 1/2 reasons we can not run our base offense with any consistency. I think Williams,Steiger, Monty, Chester have allowed 25 QB pressures combined while Polumbus has allowed 23 by himself.

Im not saying Locklear is great but you can argue he is better than Polumbus.

A big problem with using Locklear as an example of a mistake, though, is that while he was here he didn't play well. I don't remember any of us crying when he left, lol. You could argue that they should've known he'd improve, but that's tough.

[D'Pablo]

Aside from Trent Williams, none of the offensive linemen we've drafted have started a game for us this season. Even worse, only Hurt and Leribeus have been active on game day (Hurt for 8 games, and Leribeus for 1). Neither Capers nor Cook (2010 picks, albeit 7th rounders) are with our team anymore. So, we've had a weak offensive line since before Shanahan got here (with every pundit and fan knowing this), yet we've drafted one starter in three drafts. None of our interior linemen have been lights out, yet our third round pick from this past year can't even sniff our starting lineup. Worse yet, we've drafted two defensive lineman total (and Neild was nearly Mr. Irrelevant). Where is the investment in our lines? Even high powered offensive teams like the Packers (3/5 of OL were drafted [4/5 with Bulaga being included]; 2/3 of DL were drafted [5/6 out of total 3-4 DL rotation were drafted]); and Falcons (4/5 of OL were drafted; 3/4 of DL were drafted... this doesn't even include all of their key depth, most of whom were also drafted) have spent multiple picks along the trenches (both sides). Although he hasn't been terrible, Shanahan needs to do a better job with the draft.

[Skinsinparadise]

As you know, I want a dynasty and I don't think it can be achieved by a plan that tries to build and win now at the same time. So, I don't agree with the plan goals. As a consequence, I have never held out much hope that Mike Shanahan would fulfull my wishes.

He has done better than I expected in some ways. I marvel at his ability to mask the problems with his O-line and he's doing very well with his plan for free agents. I like his approach. But, he has never convinced me that he has a unified strategic plan, offense and defense. I don't see much potential in his drafting strategy either.

Aside from year #1, I don't think his problem is a hybrid win now/rebuild approach all at once, I do think he's rebuilding -- IMO his #1 issue is can he build a good defense with the right coach -- I don't put all of the defenses issues on Haslett to me Shanny is as much if not more at fault for their problems. And even if we want to put it squarely on Haslett, well who hired him? And yeah you did point that out in advance. Where he lost me completely on this point is his comment about this being a top 5 defense without the injuries.

#2 is i think he actually has been solid in terms of finding good young players in the draft and free agency but solid doesn't cut it -- he's hitting singles and doubles, not triples and home runs. I don't expect him to get every personnel decision right, no one does. But he needs to find more game changers. Guys like Jenkins, Helu, Perry R. are decent but they aren't great IMO or even very good players, even Kerrigan at this point I wouldn't say is very good but good.

Look at the Giants -- Pierre-Paul is great. Victor Cruz is very good. Nicks when healthy -- very good. When the game is on the line big time players can make big time plays. We just don't have outside of the QB IMO big time players, maybe Morris.

[daveakl]

#2 is i think he actually has been solid in terms of finding good young players in the draft and free agency -- but he's hitting singles and doubles, not triples and home runs. I don't expect him to get every personnel decision right, no one does. But he needs to find more game changers. Guys like Jenkins, Helu, Perry R. are decent but they aren't great IMO or even very good players, even Kerrigan at this point I wouldn't say is very good but good.

Question:

Which do you want first? Solid base and then add the game changers or game changers and then add the base around them.

We need a STUD at DL, DB, Right side OL. I think if those three things were addressed you would see this team in the playoffs.

The foundation is there.

[NewCliche21]

To be fair, didn't the Pats have like 20 more draft picks than us, lol? And I'm not sure why you're just limiting it to the draft alone... I understand if I had argued that point but I didn't and, in fact, my focus was more about Free Agency and adding players that way. We were discussing the restricted FA class of 2010 in particular.

Still, my point is that the Pats are an established organization with known schemes. They know exactly what they're looking for and had most of those guys already in place. We were starting from scratch and had limited resources at that. It's very different. Overall, you simply can't compare how many starters we've acquired compared to them in the same three years.

Belichick traded a fourth to pick up Randy Moss.

Had a record-breaking season with him and another very good one.

Traded him for a THIRD.

He gets a record-breaking season *AND* profits in terms of draft picks.

Yeah, they know what they're doing up there in free agency/outside of the draft, no question.

Excellent interview. We need a GM. If I had just come into football in 2010, then I would say that Shanahan has done a terrible job in that respect. The rings got him to year three with me, and I still believe in him, but Lombardi nailed everything in that interview. Breaks my heart.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 06:13 PM ----------

Question:

Which do you want first? Solid base and then add the game changers or game changers and then add the base around them.

We need a STUD at DL, DB, Right side OL. I think if those three things were addressed you would see this team in the playoffs.

The foundation is there.

We get the base first, definitely. If RGIII weren't in the draft, then we take Tannehill with the pick that we had and everything else goes to the foundation.

We don't have the foundation, by the way. We need a nose tackle, defensive end, inside linebacker, two corners, and two safeties. And that's just our starters. On the defense.

We're nowhere near where some of us thought that we were, myself included.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 06:15 PM ----------

Lombardi nailed the personnel spending, too. Spend a **** ton to get the best personnel guys in the league, and you won't have to worry about spending $7 million on a coach, ever.

[Skinsinparadise]

Question:

Which do you want first? Solid base and then add the game changers or game changers and then add the base around them.

We need a STUD at DL, DB, Right side OL. I think if those three things were addressed you would see this team in the playoffs.

The foundation is there.

Finding a D. Ware, Trent Cole, Ratliff, Pierre Paul, Victor Cruz, Nicks, McCoy, Tuck granted isn't easy but over the years our division foes have proven to be better at it than us. I've not seen Shanny really change this trend. He can find the C plus, B level players but wonder about his ability to pluck the great players. I've actually defended Shanny a lot on personnel. I don't think he's done a poor job. Heck I'd go as far as saying he's been slightly above average. I am just very concerned about his ability to build a defense. I've given him the benefit of the doubt on the issue but no longer -- the secondary personnel is a train wreck and its hard for me to imagine that they were depending on Merriweather to be the panacea -- same guy who was released by two teams last year or T. Jackson who has multiple suspensions for drug use and was let go by a team that had a bad defense.

To your point about game changers versus solid base. I am talking about drafting game changers and am sure they tried to do it. I am sure they wanted Hankerson to be their Victor Cruz, Neild to be their Ratliff, etc. IMO they haven't shown yet that they can find game changers in the draft aside from RG 3 -- and maybe Morris. Again, though I don't think Shanny is a disaster with personnel, IMO he's decent but can he build a defense and find game changing players to turn this team into one of the best teams in the league , so far IMO the answer is no.

[Mahons21]

A big problem with using Locklear as an example of a mistake, though, is that while he was here he didn't play well. I don't remember any of us crying when he left, lol. You could argue that they should've known he'd improve, but that's tough.

Not to mention he went to a power based rushing attack from a ZBS, and he remained bad in pass pro.

To the question why is Tampa Bay having success earlier?

They believe in the "football misnomer" it all starts up front.

Da'Quan Bowers

Adrian Clayborn

Gerald McCoy

Jeremy Trueblood

Carl Nicks

Donald Penn

These players may not all be standouts yet, but the represent what TB values, and that's winning in the trenches.

Until the Redskins start actually valuing linemen they will remain where they've been for the past 20 years. It should be no surprise that the few descent seasons they did have were on the backs of guys like Chris Samuels, Randy Thomas, and Jon Jansen.

[Oldfan]

Aside from year #1, I don't think his problem is a hybrid win now/rebuild approach all at once, I do think he's rebuilding...

The rebuild I would have favored was far more radical than Mike gave us. Aged vets like Moss and Fletcher would not have been kept. Others of their age, like Gaffney and Grossman would not have been added to help us win five games last season. Without them and their kind, we would probably have been able to draft RG3 without trading up.

[Mahons21]

The rebuild I would have favored was far more radical than Mike gave us. Aged vets like Moss and Fletcher would not have been kept. Others of their age, like Gaffney and Grossman would not have been added to help us win five games last season. We would probably have been able to draft RG3 without trading up.

What are your feelilngs regarding vets impact on younger players and the way the conduct themselves at practice etc?

I've heard countless younger players say, veteran x, really helped me come into my own, he showed me this and this. While I understand that this is the task of a coach, I also believe that seasoned veterans can set an example of what it takes to win for the young guys.

[KCClybun]

I respect Michael Lombardi's opinons; I think he's a smart guy with a hell of a lot of experience who's overall more right than he's wrong.

I wouldn't say his evaluation of talent has been perfect, and really, a lot of what he's saying was stuff he's said on the podcast before, or stuff that seems outdated. Nothing he said was too shocking, and all of it was fairly obvious. It's a slightly bigger deal coming from him, but is anything he said stuff we haven't all said ourselves?

I said it once and I'll say it again; winning solves everything. If we come out of this stretch of division games 5-6, stuff like Lombardi's comments and all the critiques of Mike will be temporarily forgotten and we'll (by some miracle) be looking at a potential playoff spot or at least a 7-9 or 8-8 record, which is what everyone said we'd finish as to begin with.

[Skinsinparadise]

The rebuild I would have favored was far more radical than Mike gave us. Aged vets like Moss and Fletcher would not have been kept. Others of their age, like Gaffney and Grossman would not have been added to help us win five games last season. Without them and their kind, we would probably have been able to draft RG3 without trading up.

That's fine but pretty much every GM doesn't wipe the team completely of veterans, heck even the Colts who hit bottom and went for a rebuild for example kept 34 year old Reggie Wayne, and Freeney, etc. Can't think of any example of a team wiping their team completely of veterans. So tough for me to hold Shanny to a standard that no one else holds up to.

I think his ability can be compared apples to apples to great teams and their abiity to build a roster -- is Shanny weakness more driven by A. his philosophy or is it more B. the specific procurement of players. IMO its B. again not that i think he's awful at it, but agree with you that I don't think Shanny the personnel guy is going to build a roster that will take them to a superbowl based on his track record thus far, maybe playoffs.

[Oldfan]

What are your feelilngs regarding vets impact on younger players and the way the conduct themselves at practice etc?

I've heard countless younger players say, veteran x, really helped me come into my own, he showed me this and this. While I understand that this is the task of a coach, I also believe that seasoned veterans can set an example of what it takes to win for the young guys.

I agree with John Wooden who had only four rules for his teams. One of them was that he didn't want his players trying to motivate or coach their teammates. The head coach and his assistants do the teaching and motivating.

It often causes friction between players and it's often bad advice. For example, I saw a practice where Santana was mentoring another player. He was showing a defensive back how to catch a football. He was showing him how to basket catch on a crossing pattern. Santana has been dropping passes on crossing patterns for years because of poor technique. His pupil was Carlos Rogers.

[KCClybun]

That's fine but pretty much every GM doesn't wipe the team completley of veterans, heck even the colts for example kept 34 year old Reggie Wayne, and Freeney, etc.

If Shanny had cut Fletcher and Santana and all the vets and bought in nothing but new guys and we had the same record people would've demanded his head on a spike.

[Oldfan]

That's fine but pretty much every GM doesn't wipe the team completely of veterans, heck even the Colts who hit bottom and went for a rebuild for example kept 34 year old Reggie Wayne, and Freeney, etc. Can't think of any example of a team wiping their team completely of veterans. So tough for me to hold Shanny to a standard that no one else holds up to.

There are 32 teams in the NFL. You aren't going to climb to number one by doing things the way most teams do them. Most teams are mediocre. Who cares what they do?

[Skinsinparadise]

There are 32 teams in the NFL. You aren't going to climb to number one by doing things the way most teams do it. Most teams are mediocre. Who cares what they do?

Just don't think its a realistic argument. It's like writing a diet book that says drink just water and eat bread for a month and watch you lose 25 pounds, no one is going to do it. I personally am ok with wiping a roster clean but for whatever reason no team does it, I presume there isn't a single owner or coach in the NFL that condones it for whatever reason but that's a seperate debate. I think you can critique Shanny on straight apples to apples scenarios that doesn't hold him to a higher standard versus the rest of the GM's in the NFL.

For me I can take Shanny not being the all time most aggressive GM in terms of overhauling the roster -- IMO he's overhauled the roster plenty and its significantly younger -- what I can't take thus far is him doing a flat out bad job at building his defensive roster and not finding enough game changing players.

Edit: if what you were saying is true in terms of "most" I'd agree. But I'd change "most" to "all". Unless you can come up with an example of a team who has done it that way. We debated this before, heck i struggled to come up with a baseball example too.

[DC9]

I guess so; but are you really disagreeing? The situation you describe above isn't different from what I've said. If Dan wants a GM there will be a GM whether Mike is here or not. And your 'legal straight flush' is based on nothing more then your speculation about the language in Shanahan's contract.

Right, it is hypothetical. And I think this is a great thread with a great discussion, so I'll end ours on this particular topic with:

From my understanding of your first couple of posts on this issue, you basically said, "Dan owns the team, he can do what he wants."

I said, "If Mike has his contract how I think he has it, Dan can't do whatever he wants while Mike is here."

You then said "It's Dan's team, he can do whatever he wants whether Mike is here or not,"

I am still saying, "Yes, he can do whatever he wants, but not while Mike Shanahan is here if his contract is written how I think it is."

We're saying the same thing, except I am saying Shanny doesn't have to hire a GM and Dan can't make him if Mike's contract gives him control of the football ops.

I only say that his contract is probably worded that way because of the Zorn thing (as I mentioned) and because it took about 4-5 days to write it up if I remember correctly. Again, just a theory of mine, but most of my "left field" theories come from about 5 or so facts that I use to put together a timeline.

[Lavarleap56]

Not to mention he went to a power based rushing attack from a ZBS, and he remained bad in pass pro.

Wrong as usual..

Yes he went to a power based rushing attack and is not a good run blocker. ZBS and Power scheme is irrelevant when it comes to pass protection and Locklear has been done well.

In ten games Locklear had a negative grade in only 2 games. He hasn't committed many penalties ( 1 or 2 ) and he has allowed 0 sacks, 5 QB hits, and 21 hurries... Hurries are not great but they are serviceable.

Polumbus had has negative grades in all but 3 games and has allowed 5 sacks, 5 QB hits and 23 hurries..

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 01:38 AM ----------

To be fair, didn't the Pats have like 20 more draft picks than us, lol? And I'm not sure why you're just limiting it to the draft alone... I understand if I had argued that point but I didn't and, in fact, my focus was more about Free Agency and adding players that way. We were discussing the restricted FA class of 2010 in particular.

Still, my point is that the Pats are an established organization with known schemes. They know exactly what they're looking for and had most of those guys already in place. We were starting from scratch and had limited resources at that. It's very different. Overall, you simply can't compare how many starters we've acquired compared to them in the same three years.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 03:47 PM ----------

A big problem with using Locklear as an example of a mistake, though, is that while he was here he didn't play well. I don't remember any of us crying when he left, lol. You could argue that they should've known he'd improve, but that's tough.

You said everyone we cut doesn't get get picked up and simply used him as a example for the debate. The counter to your " he didn't play well here " argument is easy as well. Locklear played well in previous stops before coming to DC. While a member of the Redskins we used him more at LT I believe and he didn't play well but he left and is again playing well for another team at RT.. Did we miss use him? did we not coach him up well enough to grasp the system? Chester played like crap last year but has been strong in 2012, what if we were more patient with Locklear ? would he have made the same progress this season as other OL ?

[moondog]

I understand the questions about Shanahan and his defenses and where it comes from. But I disagree wholeheartedly that he has not made sound personnel decisions. In fact, his personnel decisions should almost be beyond question given what he's done since being here.

There is, of course, the obvious example of Donovan McNabb. Outside of that, I am hard pressed to find a single error in what Shanahan has done personnel wise. His drafts have been nothing short of outstanding. He has wheeled and dealed to garner extra picks. He has been extremely successful at drafting guys, regardless of what round, that are NFL caliber players.

I get the argument of, "Why in the hell isn't our record better when other teams seem to turn it around in one year?" Honestly, I have no effing clue and that fact pisses me off too.

But again, Shanahan's free agency pick ups and drafts have been phenomenal. The questions about our offensive line and secondary are misguided - you cannot fix everything at once or get all the players you want with limited draft picks and money in free agency.

He drafted Trent Williams and has brought in several linemen that have been much better than the guys they replaced. He has also drafted several guys who fit his scheme and will, in my opinion, pay dividends in the upcoming year. Shanahan's draft history with O-linemen is about as impressive as it is with running backs if you pay attention. Much like Lombardi said, great offensive linemen rarely hit the open market - well, then you can't fault Shanahan for not bringing in guys that way. And he has spent a #4 overall pick on the line, as well as our 3rd this year and several other solid developmental guys. Again, he has had much success drafting these types of guys before. Is it where it needs to be? No, but he's building it for the future and our line has actually been pretty solid this year. A lot of that has to do with RG3 but they've blocked well for Morris and have not been bad in pass pro.

The secondary - well, we lost $18 million in free agency. That kind of takes you out of the market for premier guys like Finnegan and Carr. Finnegan's attitude and playing style may have kept us from targeting him anyway. Ultimately, once we lost such a hefty sum of money, we had to limit ourselves and Shanahan clearly decided it was most important to surround his young quarterback with offensive playmakers and fill out the defense with cheaper guys. I can't exactly say this was a bad plan. Ask yourself what our defense would have looked like with a healthy Orakpo/Carriker and Merriweather/Jackson at the safety positions. Our corners were not going to be anything special, but I think our defense would be performing at a markedly different level. When you lose 4 starters on defense at the start of the season, it simply hurts. Especially when you were forced into settling on risky guys like Jackson and Merriweather in the first place.

The record should be better - in my opinion the main problem is still that this team is lacking that chemistry, that swagger that they can walk into games and just be themselves and play their game. It has seemed for the longest time that a strong majority of our players feel they have to play their schemes/routes/etc perfectly and they are focusing far too much on thinking and less on playing. I am not sure why this is, but I don't see it as a problem with Shanahan's personnel decisions. I actually think we have the talent and ability to push for the division by the end of the year, but it all depends on the attitude the players bring into the game. It is easy to see when a team comes together on the field and really gels. I'm still waiting to see that, but if this team does, I think it will be a very exciting second half. We may still miss the playoffs, but it will be plenty to build on going into next year.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

With less holes, Belichick has been able to play the BPA game, gambling on a player and winning. He can take more chances, knowing he has a deeper team. Hence, he'll hit on more starters because they were the "best" players available. The Redskins have only been able to have limited BPA approach the last couple of drafts because of need. No matter that people say you shouldn't draft for need, teams draft for need for a reason. They literally "need" that player for that position. The Pats have had a veteran tried and tested team. Like Lombardi said, once you get the coach (Belichick) and the QB (Brady) and they come together, the rest is easy. We're 9 games into our "coach and QB" tandem. It is NOT a fair comparison no matter how you slice it.

I still believe it is easier to find starters when you have a dozen slots open than it is when you have a roster full of adequate starters.

[TSO]

You said everyone we cut doesn't get get picked up and simply used him as a example for the debate. The counter to your " he didn't play well here " argument is easy as well. Locklear played well in previous stops before coming to DC. While a member of the Redskins we used him more at LT I believe and he didn't play well but he left and is again playing well for another team at RT.. Did we miss use him? did we not coach him up well enough to grasp the system? Chester played like crap last year but has been strong in 2012, what if we were more patient with Locklear ? would he have made the same progress this season as other OL ?

Hey now, I didn't say "everyone", I clearly qualified it. I did that just so you couldn't hit me with that. :pfft: Here's what I said:

Let's not overlook the amount of players he's cut since he's been here that have done nothing in this league after they left. That's huge and automatically makes our situation different.

No need to apologize, I forgive you.

And I know you used him as an example, but the problem is my point still stood since I was talking in general. I may have been wrong about Locklear being a bad example, though. It was decent one, I guess.

I thought Locklear played at RT here too, though? I just remember him not playing well... but I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'll concede in this case since I don't know how Locklear has played for other teams that well. But, in all actuality, the fact that Locklear is the focus here is a good thing and makes my argument stand stronger, lol. There aren't too many examples we can pull from and the one you happened to use is pretty debatable.

[DGREENHULK]

I try to stay positive I don't like our offense I LOVE IT. The system is not the problem. Our issues on O revolve around a lack of explosive plays. Garçon and Fred have been injured (not Shannys fault), And when they were in there the O looked really good. I may be the only one but I think our O will be top 5 for years to come.

Now the D with Haz is a complete joke. True we had injuries and were limited by the salary cap penalties but even a full strength we couldn't get pressure or cover anyone. I would love for us to go back to the. 4-3 but that won't happen....because of the root of the problem Shannys EGO and Pride will be the death of his Redskins coaching tenure.

The only way to save his job will be to Fire Haz after the year and bring in someone who knows how to coach D. The O is going to be amazing to watch.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Right now, I'm expecting a team that will be fun to watch --because of RG3 -- but with a mediocre record, a team needing a perfect storm of luck to go anywhere in the postseason.

So, do you have a comparable team you could provide? Many would argue that the Giants have won 2 Super Bowls by being an above average team that got hot at the right time in 2007 and 2011. I think the Patriots are now a team that has to out score its opponents and will need to string together some good fortune to win it all in any given season. To me, the teams that SHOULD be considered favorites in today's NFL are the Texans or Ravens.