The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Only 3? I'm hoping for 5.

So am I, but I was referring to attaining a record that would show clear progress in year 3. Winning at least 8 games does that. If we win 10, well that's even better. I just think ending the year on a 7-0 or 6-1 streak is a tall order. I would still feel extremely excited with 8-8 after the way we started the season, the injuries we've been hit with, etc.

[Oldfan]

OK, hypothetical time.

Two players are available when we pick in the second round. Grade A (for our system) Right Tackle, Grade A (for our system) Cornerback. If you're the GM, who are you picking?

Tough call, but I'd take the corner -- the position has much greater value. Shananhan can continue to scheme around the RT.

[Hitman21ST]

If not for Robert's sake, I would not want Mike to keep his job. I had hoped to see progress toward far better results than he gave Pat Bowlen for ten years of full control. It hasn't happened.

Fair enough.

Here's to hoping RG3 gets us that progress, right?

---------- Post added November-23rd-2012 at 08:10 PM ----------

So am I, but I was referring to attaining a record that would show clear progress in year 3. Winning at least 8 games does that. If we win 10, well that's even better. I just think ending the year on a 7-0 or 6-1 streak is a tall order. I would still feel extremely excited with 8-8 after the way we started the season, the injuries we've been hit with, etc.

True. I was just being snarky for snark's sake

Tough call, but I'd take the corner -- the position has much greater value. Shananhan can continue to scheme around the RT.

Sounds like a plan. I just hope that he gets a whole lot better at finding defensive talent or he gets someone (DC, personnel guy) who can do that. Then we'll be cooking.

[Jumbo]

If not for Robert's sake, I would not want Mike to keep his job. I had hoped to see progress toward far better results than he gave Pat Bowlen for ten years. It hasn't happened.

I basically agree. RG3 helps MS's job security IMO. I'm hoping these last two games are more substantive than illusory in terms of team/scheme maturation. I want (and still consider it reasonable) to believe that MS is competent enough a HC to get the job done here--but then, my idea of "the job" isn't the same as yours OF. My goal for the next 2 years (if MS plays out current contract) is playoff wins each year.

Then,were that to be done, and be all that's done (no SB), I'd be re-evaluating.

I don't see MS as likely capable of a dynasty (your standard), looking at his history with DEN and here to date, especially with his flaws as an administrator in staff decisions. If he changes that (like getting a quality DC and turning the reins over) in the next two years and we do make the play-offs, and improve via solid new talent choice, then I'd consider extending his reign even if I'm not seeing "dynasty."

Also, re: your standard (which I get), I think "dynasty level" coaches are more rare than franchise QBs.

I guess I see dynasty as a legitimate goal to claim in terms of saying "I am setting the highest standard", but I think pragmatically, even when you have a Walsh or Belichik, you're dependent on so many other things to make something like a dynasty occur, that fortune has to play a serious role in establishing such. Of course, Uncle Louis said "fortune favors the prepared mind." So....

[Oldfan]

...I guess I see dynasty as a legitimate goal to claim in terms of saying "I am setting the highest standard", but I think pragmatically, even when you have a Walsh or Belichik, you're dependent on so many other things to make something like a dynasty occur, that fortune has to play a serious role in establishing such. Of course, Uncle Louis said "fortune favors the prepared mind." So....

I don't need to play games anymore, but I still think like a competitor. In Dan Snyder's shoes, my gaze would be toward Foxboro and Belichik. How do I beat that SOB and take his spot at Number One would be the only thing on my mind.

[RedBeast]

RG3 year 3, we will be out of cap hell, our 1st round picks back...maybe year 4...wait, have patience.

[RedskinParadigm]

While I disagree with the notion that Shanahan can/will not turn this team into the #1 team in football, I do agree with the premise that you have to marry the QB with the proper coach in order to maximize the production of both. Cutler WAS a blossoming top QB in the NFL, and his development was stunted with the firing of Shanahan (and subsequent trade to Chicago). In fact, the entire Denver offense was blossoming into one of the best in the NFL (with Cutler, Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal, Ryan Clady, Tony Scheffler, Peyton Hillis, pre-injury Ryan Torain, etc.) before Shanahan's exit. McDaniels came in, wanted his guys, and proceeded to gut the roster. Denver went from having maybe the best young talent on offense in the league to a team that had one of the least talented offenses built around the powerhouse 1st round pick of Knowshon Moreno. That's the risk you run when you make wholesale coaching/FO changes (which will need to happen if Shanahan leaves).

[DC9]

This board has a lot of crazy (we're sports fans--check that---we're extreme NFL fans ).

It just shifts some tones, or "kinds of the crazy", between wins and losses, among other things.

I think this year has been one of the worst for me when it comes to the Redskins.

I agree with the OP here, it's just hard to see us lose some of the types of games that we've had and still keep the same staff around. But, at the same time, it's been a long time since I've seen a two game run (under the same circumstances) that we've had the last two weeks... must win, short week... you name it... we nailed both of these games and we're rolling. Our young talent is finally producing under the proper on the field leadership... and it looks like the off the field leadership has finally found a way to motivate these guys.

I thought reverse psychology was a hail mary... but this guy has a couple of rings and seems to know what he's doing.

But to your point Jumbo... we love the roller coaster. We sit through the slow, the fast, and the peaks and valleys... right now I think everyone sees something really cool headed our way... no use in jumping off right now!

[Oldfan]

.... That's the risk you run when you make wholesale coaching/FO changes (which will need to happen if Shanahan leaves).

Wholesale changes probably would be made, so we agree that it is better to stick with Shanahan. However, it isn't a given that wholesale changes have to be made.

Ideally, we want to keep the parts that are working well while dumping the parts that don't. For me, that would mean keeping the offensive scheme and dumping Mike Shanahan's grip on the GM roster responsibilities and his control of the defense. If a way could be found to do all that, then we don't need Mike.

[DogofWar1]

We see things differently. Mike inherited a veteran Elway is his role as head coach. He was given full control in 1999 and won one playoff game until fired in 2008. In his three years here, as I see it, there's been no indication of substantial progress. The book isn't closed on him, but Mike doesn't look capable of knocking Belichik off his perch -- and that's what I had hoped to see.

To be fair, Belichick didn't look great until finding his franchise QB in Brady.

I don't want to launch into another QB vs. Coach discussion, since there's another thread with that, but I think it's an interesting comparison. Belichick, as a head coach, went through Kosar, Testaverde, and Bledsoe before finding Brady. All three of those guys had Pro-Bowls at some point in their careers, and yet never won the Superbowl on their own (Kosar and Bledsoe won as backups). I feel like Shanahan had a similar situation with Plummer and Griese, good but not great guys. The Broncos were improving under Cutler, but finally cut ties with Shanahan. Considering the Broncos started 6-0 with Orton, and then finished 2-8, it'd be very interesting to see what their '09 season would have looked like with Cutler and Shanahan one more year.

I think Shanahan understands that success begins with the QB, which is both a good and bad thing. It's a good thing because he's willing to spend to go get his A+ guy, and once he gets his A+ guy, he's going to do amazing things, but it's also bad because I think it creates a bit of tunnel vision. However, of the past ten years, the only time a journeyman QB won a SB was 2002 with Johnson (unless Brees is being counted as a journeyman). Beyond that it's been Brady (2 of his 3), the Mannings (1 and 2), Big Ben (2), Rodgers (1), and Brees (1). So his head I think is, for the most part, in the right place. And he's got his guy now, so there should be major improvement.

Anyways, I think Shanahan has shown potential progress. Potential being the key word there atm, but still very likely. We're 5-6 with a rookie QB who is miles ahead of McNabb or Grossman, and will likely continue improving. If we can beat the Browns and Eagles, two much weaker teams, we'll have at least 7 wins. If we're lucky enough to knock off either the Giants, Cowboys, or Ravens too, we're 8-8. I would argue that's substantial progress. Now, if we lay an egg and end up 5-11, it would be bad, but I think we find at least 2 more wins this season. QB position was a huge upgrade.

I think he's also helped a lot on the Oline, with the exception of RT. Our line was old and injury prone when he arrived, and this year, besides Polumbus, they've been pretty good, and everyone there is a Shanahan guy. WRs too, in 2010, he was given a corp who had Moss and Armstrong, the latter of which can't even stick with a roster now, and that was pretty much it. We now have Garcon, who's proving to be a home run threat when healthy, Morgan, who's been a solid possession guy, Robinson, a deep threat, and Hankerson, who's struggled, but I still see potential there. Even if we can't necessarily say it's a great squad, we can say for certain it's much MUCH better than what we had in 2010. There's still room for improvement on offense, but I think he took units that were Cs and Ds and has brought them up to Bs.

I keep calling the defense tricky, but I think that's an accurate description due to the injuries and cap penalty. If we didn't have injuries and suspensions, Orakpo, Carriker, Meriweather, and Jackson would all still be on the field, and I feel pretty confident that if they were still out there we'd have won at least 2-3 games we lost. Substituting Golston for Carriker gave the Rams a huge hole to run through they exploited all day. The Giants don't get that last second TD on us with the safeties. Cincy maybe doesn't beat us deep three times. Heck, even the Atlanta game, we were up 10-7 going into the 4th, and with about 12:00 left were up 17-14. Then we let them score 10 points on us and win, 17 points in the 4th quarter. Maybe it sounds crazy, but if we have those four guys, or even just Orakpo, Carriker, and Meriweather (leaving out Jackson for suspension), I think we're 7-4 or maybe even 8-3 right now. No joke. We saw how much difference one safety made in the Philly game, imagine that all season.

The second problem is the cap penalty. Our secondary would probably look completely different if not for the penalty. Maybe we'd have Carr instead of the Boys, a new safety, who knows.

The third issue is the switch from 4-3 to 3-4. We basically had to do away with most of the front seven personnel, and replace them with new guys (I'm fine with the switch, but it was an overhaul one way or another). He tossed Hanesworth(less), Carter, and a number of others, and brought in our current guys. The starters I think are good, at the very least on par with our previous bunch, but the injuries hurt a lot, and the depth can't compensate.

In fact, the only unit I'd say that's regressed is the secondary, but I don't blame Shanahan for that much. That was Rogers and Landry being themselves, and forcing us to burn bridges with them.

Shanahan, I feel, is making progress, but he's being hindered by injuries and penalties beyond his control. If we can finish this year strong, 8-8 or better, I'll be really looking forward to next year when hopefully we'll be healthier, and hopefully with some new recruits at RT, S, and CB. I think the window is just opening, and so far we're moving in the right direction to be in the picture every year.

[Oldfan]

To be fair, Belichick didn't look great until finding his franchise QB in Brady.

I think you have confused coincidence with cause. I'm of the opinion that QBs get way too much credit for wins and way too much blame for losses. But I don't want to debate that again in this thread.

I think Shanahan understands that success begins with the QB...

Mike also understands that quarterbacks need a good support system to succeed. We should know that because he has said it many times.

Anyways, I think Shanahan has shown potential progress.

Brady's support system is improving faster than RG3's. And, the three ones and a two paid for Griffin will make it more difficult to catch up.

On a quick check a few days ago, I found that Mike has added five starters through the draft since 2010. In the same time frame, Belichik added eight to his even while drafting in the lower rounds and having fewer holes to fill.

I think he's also helped a lot on the Oline, with the exception of RT.

Our O-line is overrated. Mike knows how to use a mobile QB to cover up for his line's deficiencies. He did it in 2008 with Cutler. But the offense isn't our main problem going forward.

Shanahan, I feel, is making progress, but he's being hindered by injuries and penalties beyond his control.

As GM or Coach, Mike does have some control of injuries and penalties.

Some injuries happen when stronger players with better leverage hurt weaker opponents. More injuries occur when you rely too much on vet free agents with injury histories. Most penalties occur because an inferior player is trying to cheat to get an edge on a superior opponent. Some occur with multiple formations making the play more complex or when the play hasn't been practiced enough.

The second problem is the cap penalty.

Mike knew, or should have known, the risk he was taking.

[Chump Bailey]

If we can beat the Browns and Eagles, two much weaker teams, we'll have at least 7 wins.

It would be a mistake to look past the Browns Dog IMO. Their defense can and will give us fits I think. OF is right. Our OL is overrated - grossly so IMO. We're sacrificing too much upfront for the ZBS IMO. Our pass pro leaves much room for improvement. I have also felt that although Trent Williams is a solid LT, I would have opted to trade down that year in an effort to spare some cap room, which we could use right about now. The rookie contracts changed the year after IIRC and that would have been a great time to get your LT of the future.

Maybe it sounds crazy, but if we have those four guys, or even just Orakpo, Carriker, and Meriweather (leaving out Jackson for suspension), I think we're 7-4 or maybe even 8-3 right now. No joke. We saw how much difference one safety made in the Philly game, imagine that all season.

I agree. Meriweather's presence seemed to make a huge difference out there. I still prefer the 43, but our defense might be stout enough to win a championship with some major tweaking in the secondary and getting Carriker and Rak back into the fold.

[DogofWar1]

I think you have confused coincidence with cause. I'm of the opinion that QBs get way too much credit for wins and way too much blame for losses. But I don't want to debate that again in this thread.

We're of differing opinions there, that's certain.

Mike also understands that quarterbacks need a good support system to succeed. We should know that because he has said it many times.

Most definitely you need a support system, but if we go back to the car and driver analogy, I think Shanahan is the kind of guy who'd find the driver first, then build the car around him, not the other way around. He won't neglect the car necessarily either, but he wants that driver badly, which is why he spent a lot for McNabb (ill advised, I'll admit), and a king's ransom for quite possibly the best young QB anyone's ever seen.

He'll build the support system, but he wants to know someone will actually be able to handle the thing.

Brady's support system is improving faster than RG3's. And, the three ones and a two paid for Griffin will make it more difficult to catch up...

On a quick check a few days ago, I found that Mike has added five starters through the draft since 2010. In the same time frame, Belichik added eight to his even while drafting in the lower rounds and having fewer holes to fill.

The Patriots have also had the luxury of adding picks through tradedowns and the like for years. They had two firsts last year, two 2nds and two 3rds the year before, and get this, THREE 2nds in 2010. They wheel and deal constantly because they can afford to take a pick in the following year vs. the current year, and they did that constantly throughout the decade. Someone trying to build a team doesn't really have that luxury, they can't trade back in the 1st for a much later pick the current year and a pick the next year because they need that pick right now to get a solid player.

So I'd hardly characterize him as drafting in the lower rounds. In fact, if all he's added are 8 starters in three years, I'd say he's actually underperforming, considering he's had a whopping 10 picks in the first 2 rounds since 2010, and another four 3rd rounders. As for the later rounds, only three of those guys are starters, Hernandez, Dennard, and Mesko, though some are performing admirably as backups (Cannon in for Vollmer).

Belichick's success comes from having a ton of picks when the talent is still very good. The last year he didn't have more than three picks in the first 3 rounds was way back in 2007. Since '08, he's had five 1sts (normal), ELEVEN 2nds (holy crap that's a lot), and eight 3rds.

Meanwhile, in the ruins of Vinny land, Shanahan didn't even have a 3rd rounder in 2010 when he walked in the door. He did make the McNabb trade, but from Shanahan's perspective, it looked like he was getting a QB with a few years left in him. Clearly he was wrong, and that took away some picks. We traded back within the year in 2011, and added some solid depth guys. As far as starters deep in the draft, 4th rounders and later usually take time to develop, but Riley, A. Robinson, K. Robinson, A. Morris, and R. Helu have all shown solid flashes of talent despite being 4th round or later guys. A couple others are there too, and might yet work out (Hurt, Compton, Crawford, Minnifield, etc.).

So yeah, while Shanahan's lack of early picks is somewhat of his own making, the simple fact is since 2010 the Pats have had 14 picks in the first 3 rounds, while we've had 6 (and even if we hadn't made ill advised trades we'd probably still have only had 8, thanks to the 2009 supplemental pick and the RGIII trade). It's thus hardly a surprise that they have a faster growing support system. But as I think a lot of people said in the other thread, that doesn't necessarily mean Shanahan is doing badly either. 6 starters since 2010 with the potential for a few more to develop with a lot of cheap depth from '11 and '12 isn't terrible.

Our O-line is overrated. Mike knows how to use a mobile QB to cover up for his line's deficiencies. He did it in 2008 with Cutler. But the offense isn't our main problem going forward.

I think Williams, Lich, Monty, and Chester have played well, Williams and Monty especially. I think Polumbus is a huge problem but also, we have no RBs who can block, and our TEs are somewhat suspect too. Most teams have a guy who, out of the backfield, can pick up a rusher, we don't (hence why Morgan played in the backfield for a couple snaps a few games back, because he can actually block). That is the more pressing problem than the four guys besides RT. RGIII does help, but I think if you replace Polumbus with a legit RT and add one RB who can block you'd still see them performing well.

As GM or Coach, Mike does have some control of injuries and penalties.

Some injuries happen when stronger players with better leverage hurt weaker opponents. More injuries occur when you rely too much on vet free agents with injury histories. Most penalties occur because an inferior player is trying to cheat to get an edge on a superior opponent. Some occur with multiple formations making the play more complex or when the play hasn't been practiced enough.

I'll give you Brown and Carriker because of their injury history, and Jackson because of suspension history, but Meriweather and Garcon had no such history, and neither did Hightower. Davis, Orakpo, Helu, and Nield were all our own draft picks. And there are a lot of FA vets who have managed to avoid injuries. Bowen, Cofield, Wilson, the entire interior of the line (Lich didn't last year, but he's doing fine this year), Morgan. Maybe Mike deserves a little bit of the blame for injuries, but in terms of culpability he takes a minority of the blame, while the majority is just bad luck (or, as some believe but I'm unconvinced, the trainers and medical staff).

Mike knew, or should have known, the risk he was taking.

No, he shouldn't have known, because there was no risk. He operated within the rules, and Mara changed them to screw us because he could.

And if Shanahan hadn't, guess what, we'd be eating huge chunks of Hanesworth's and even Hall's contract NOW. So basically, Mike, in hindsight, was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with the cap, a situation in no way of his own making. He made the choice that, at the time, was within the rules and gave us the ability to function effectively down the road, but was then punished for it. Again, without that penalty, Shanahan probably has a new RT, and a completely different secondary.

Do not blame him for the penalty, that's a step too far.

And all the things I talked about are why I still trust Shanahan. Look at the Texans, it took them 6 years to have a winning team when they started from scratch. Shanahan came in here with an old roster that had maybe a dozen useful players on it (not all of them starters), a couple players with massive contracts that had to be dealt with, and no QB to lead the team. In many ways he was worse off than the Texans' coaches. Despite ALL of the madness, the Hanesworth, the having to cut several rosters worth of guys just to find some useful players, and this year, the injuries, he's still got us at 5-6, with a very good shot at 7-9 or better. You said keep him for RGIII's sake, I say keep him because he's making progress. Slow, rough progress, but progress nonetheless.

It would be a mistake to look past the Browns Dog IMO. Their defense can and will give us fits I think. OF is right. Our OL is overrated - grossly so IMO. We're sacrificing too much upfront for the ZBS IMO. Our pass pro leaves much room for improvement. I have also felt that although Trent Williams is a solid LT, I would have opted to trade down that year in an effort to spare some cap room, which we could use right about now. The rookie contracts changed the year after IIRC and that would have been a great time to get your LT of the future.

Oh, I don't think I'm overlooking them, they are definitely better than their record, but I think we are still the superior team. It doesn't mean we'll win, but if we play like we did these past two games we should have a solid victory. Weedon is no Romo sits to pee, and while their defense is stout, we should need to put up 30 to win.

As for the O-line, I'm still very much of the opinion that it's RT and RBs (and TEs to a lesser extent), who drag us down more than anything. We could certainly upgrade LG and RG, but they've done alright thus far. That's why the Brown and Hightower injuries (and Davis, who was finally learning to block) are so major. And Williams' contract is actually not too terrible this and next year. It's in a couple years that it balloons, when we'll have our money back. And while I agree that I wish we could have found our LT later too, I love Williams' play this year, and I'm not sure who else we'd have drafted (Okung isn't nearly as good as Williams) so I'll opt for the bird in the hand in this case

I agree. Meriweather's presence seemed to make a huge difference out there. I still prefer the 43, but our defense might be stout enough to win a championship with some major tweaking in the secondary and getting Carriker and Rak back into the fold.

Agreed, I think we're those two major injuries in the front seven and a couple new faces in the secondary away from being a top 15, maybe even top 10 defense, which, if our offense continues to play well, should put us in contention. I sincerely hope Orakpo is ok, we need him back so badly it's not even funny.

[KCClybun]

It would be a mistake to look past the Browns Dog IMO. Their defense can and will give us fits I think. OF is right. Our OL is overrated - grossly so IMO. We're sacrificing too much upfront for the ZBS IMO. Our pass pro leaves much room for improvement. I have also felt that although Trent Williams is a solid LT, I would have opted to trade down that year in an effort to spare some cap room, which we could use right about now. The rookie contracts changed the year after IIRC and that would have been a great time to get your LT of the future.

1.) There's a great deal of hindsight here. In 2010, no one knew for sure if there would be a rookie salary cap. Hell, in 2010, no one knew for sure there would be a draft period. Anyone we drafted could've had a large contract; there's no guarantee there wouldn't have been.

2.) The tackle class in 2011 was far, far worse than the class was in 2010. Tyron Smith has been okay-ish playing left tackle. Solder wasn't really a fit. Carimi is an embarassment on the Bears right now, Carpenter moved to guard, and Derek Sherrod can't stay healthy, and even when he could he couldn't start over Marshall Newhouse.

3.) Trent's not a "solid" left tackle. He's a top 5 tackle in the league. That's not homerism. Trent is left on an island constantly and flat out dominates the best past rushers week after week. You rarely see pressure come from his side, and he just mauls people in the run game. I think history has shown that Trent was absolutely the right pick. His development has been outstanding to watch, comparing where he was as a rookie to what he is now.

[justice98]

There's no doubt in my mind that the Shanahan boys can make RG3 the best QB he can be, it's everything else Papa Shanahan brings to the table (or doesn't) that scares me. The full control element will hold this franchise back, IMO. RG3 will continue to blow our socks off, but there's only so much even he can do without the proper front office setup.

[elkabong82]

I think some are forgetting what Shanahan was building in Denver on offense before he was fired and then the whole thing was dismantled by the idiocy of McDaniel.

Shanahan's fault was defense, as was covered heavily in a thread in ES not too long ago. He found a good DC in Denver but let him go for some reason, this time around he seems to have had more patience by letting Haslett stay. However, I think I saw the insiders say that Morris has had a bigger hand in things lately. If true, then Morris replacing Haslett next season could mean a good defense, in which case the team becomes one of the top ones.

My concerns are not with offense, but with defense. I am confident Shanny can maintain a great offense. All we need is a decent DC.

I also think the NE "dynasty" stuff is overblown. To have a team that annually is in the playoffs and a contender is ideal. To expect 3 superbowl wins over 4 years in this league is an unrealistic expectation IMO and an attitude that could lead one to repeating Snyder's old habit of firing coaches too soon. NE, afterall, was incredibly lucky to even get to the superbowl in 2001, with the tuck rule, the forward lateral vs. Pitt, and then Warner having a broken thumb. Then there is also the unknown of how much the illegal taping helped.

[Oldfan]

...The Patriots have also had the luxury of adding picks through tradedowns and the like for years...

You have it backwards. The Patriots were in a position to make win-now moves. Instead, they made long-term moves. Meanwhile, Shanahan who should have been rebuilding with long-term moves made win-now moves like the trade for McNabb.

Other win-now decisions were keeping or adding a dozen or more 30+ veterans to help him win a couple more games. Without Grossman, Fletcher, Moss and Gaffney, the Skins 2011 record would likely have been bad enough to draft Robert Griffin without trading up.

Why didn't Mike trade Carter and Haynesworth as the first order of business if he was switching to the 3 - 4? Why didn't he trade Cooley if he wasn't going to go to a base two TE set with Davis?

But as I think a lot of people said in the other thread, that doesn't necessarily mean Shanahan is doing badly either. 6 starters since 2010 with the potential for a few more to develop with a lot of cheap depth from '11 and '12 isn't terrible.

So, basically, you downgrade Belichik for not doing better with more picks rather than giving him credit for managing to get more picks.

Then you credit Shanahan for "not doing badly" as though not doing badly will beat Bill Belichik in roster building.

---------- Post added November-24th-2012 at 04:21 PM ----------

...I also think the NE "dynasty" stuff is overblown. To have a team that annually is in the playoffs and a contender is ideal. To expect 3 superbowl wins over 4 years in this league is an unrealistic expectation IMO and an attitude that could lead one to repeating Snyder's old habit of firing coaches too soon. NE, afterall, was incredibly lucky to even get to the superbowl in 2001, with the tuck rule, the forward lateral vs. Pitt, and then Warner having a broken thumb. Then there is also the unknown of how much the illegal taping helped.

Jus to clarify. I didn't use the word dynasty. My goal, as stated in the OP: My goal would be to build the number one team in the NFL and to hold that position indefinitely.

And, as I said, I doubt that Dan Snyder is willing or able to get us there.

[KCClybun]

You have it backwards. The Patriots were in a position to make win-now moves. Instead, they made long-term moves. Meanwhile, Shanahan who should have been rebuilding with long-term moves made win-now moves like the trade for McNabb.

Other win-now decisions were keeping or adding a dozen or more 30+ veterans to help him win a couple more games. Without Grossman, Fletcher, Moss and Gaffney, the Skins 2011 record would likely have been bad enough to draft Robert Griffin without trading up.

Why didn't Mike trade Carter and Haynesworth as the first order of business if he was switching to the 3 - 4? Why didn't he trade Cooley if he wasn't going to go to a base two TE set with Davis?.

Why didn't Bill Belichick chuck McGuiness, Bruschi, Milloy, Bledsoe and the rest of his veterans after he went 5-11 his first year in New England?

Your goal as a coach is to win. That's the bottom line. You build your roster to in football games. If you don't win football games, you get fired for a guy who can win. That isn't some bull**** hindsight based ideology. That's fact. You don't unmake your entire roster and throw the season on the hope that it'll get you in position to draft one player. And you certainly don't do it when you have no idea who's coming out in the draft the next year, what teams are going to be better/worse than you.

You just don't care about anything fact based and rooted in reality. Why didn't Mike Shanahan trade Haynesworth? Because Haynesworth was nigh-untradeable because of his contract. The whole reason Mike and Bruce had to restructure Haynesworth's contract the way they did in the first place was to lessen the damage of his the bad contract Vinny had written. In order to restructure that contract, Mike and Bruce had to give Haynesworth a huge chunk of his money up front in the uncapped year.

Mike told Haynesworth that they could try to find him a suitable trade partner before they restructured his deal, because if they had traded Haynesworth after that, they'd be responsible for the huge bulk of his contract. Or they could keep him and give him the re-structured deal where he got a big fat chunk of his money in 2010 and he could play nose. Haynesworth took the money. And THEN Haynesworth made a huge stink about having to play nose and how it didn't use him to his strength, only a year after he ****ed about the same thing playing Greg Blanche's 4-3.

So Haynesworth had a contract that made it very, very difficult for him to be traded, especially given his attitude problems and his less-than-stellar first season in Washington. Restructuring said contract left the Redskins in a situation where they'd have to pay him the bulk of his money if he did get traded in 2010. Haynesworth took the money, then acted like a petulent child. Rather than letting Haynesworth have his cake and eat it too (read: get the Redskins to cut him a fat check, then get traded somewhere else and leave the Redskins on the hook for his paycheck), Mike stood his ground and said if he was going to get paid, he was going to play.

And then somehow, even after Haynesworth acted like an ******* that entire season, Mike and Bruce still managed to get a fifth round pick for him, in a situation where Haynesworth was basically forced to take a substantial pay cut or he'd get released and have to sign for close to vet minimum elsewhere.

Someone tell me how in the hell not letting Haynesworth steal money from us to go play somewhere else to get a pick that might've been one round better---MAYBE---was such a terrible thing?

As for Cooley, Cooley was pushing 30, coming off major knee surgery, and HE had a pretty big, expensive contract too (thank you, Vinny) with little desire to play anywhere but Washington. What trade value did he have?

Why didn't Mike do what you suggested? Because he likes having a job, probably.

[TSO]

Just like to say that elk, NLC and Dog of War's recent posts have been refreshing.

[Oldfan]

Why didn't Bill Belichick chuck McGuiness, Bruschi, Milloy, Bledsoe and the rest of his veterans after he went 5-11 his first year in New England?

Because none were over 30 and he didn't need to rebuild. He inherited a pretty good roster. I don't know why they went 5-11. New schemes possibly.

Your goal as a coach is to win. That's the bottom line. You build your roster to in football games. If you don't win football games, you get fired for a guy who can win.

Well, obviously, if it's going to be done right, the rebuilding goal has to be set by the owner who will grade on progress, not on wins.

You just don't care about anything fact based and rooted in reality.

Let's not trade opinions of each other, shall we?

Why didn't Mike Shanahan trade Haynesworth? Because Haynesworth was nigh-untradeable because of his contract.

They knew, or should have known, that Haynesworth didn't fit the 3 - 4. Thus, they knew, or should have known, that playing him in the 3 - 4 would only decrease his market value. Thus, there is no excuse for not doing sooner what was done later at a loss. The offer of a third-round pick was rumored. That seemed reasonable before the fiasco.

As for Cooley, Cooley was pushing 30, coming off major knee surgery, and HE had a pretty big, expensive contract too (thank you, Vinny) with little desire to play anywhere but Washington. What trade value did he have?

Cooley was 28, coming off a broken ankle in 2009 which didn't stop him from having one of his best years in 2010. The knee injury which you speak of happened during the 2010 season. A third-round pick, conditioned on a physical including an exam of the ankle seemed reasonable before the 2010 season.

[Bishop Hammer]

Kyle is closer to Robert but Mike has the experience. It's hard to say without being on the inside.

Its both Mike and Kyle. And Griffin is a special player.

[Oldfan]

duplicate post

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I think some are forgetting what Shanahan was building in Denver on offense before he was fired and then the whole thing was dismantled by the idiocy of McDaniel.

Shanahan's fault was defense, as was covered heavily in a thread in ES not too long ago. He found a good DC in Denver but let him go for some reason, this time around he seems to have had more patience by letting Haslett stay. However, I think I saw the insiders say that Morris has had a bigger hand in things lately. If true, then Morris replacing Haslett next season could mean a good defense, in which case the team becomes one of the top ones.

My concerns are not with offense, but with defense. I am confident Shanny can maintain a great offense. All we need is a decent DC.

I also think the NE "dynasty" stuff is overblown. To have a team that annually is in the playoffs and a contender is ideal. To expect 3 superbowl wins over 4 years in this league is an unrealistic expectation IMO and an attitude that could lead one to repeating Snyder's old habit of firing coaches too soon. NE, afterall, was incredibly lucky to even get to the superbowl in 2001, with the tuck rule, the forward lateral vs. Pitt, and then Warner having a broken thumb. Then there is also the unknown of how much the illegal taping helped.

I agree with everything you said here except I am not sure Raheem being more involved lately or taking over next season. Either way, it couldn't be worse.

Also, I don't think anybody can realistically expect to be the #1 team in the NFL or expect a dynasty. What you hope for is a team that consistently wins the division and can sneak into the 12-13 win range some years and snag a bye. If you can do that consistently over a 10 year stretch you have a great chance to make a few SB runs based on how the matchups, health etc figure over the different years. That is how the NFL works in today's game. Just get in and hope to make a run. Having an elite QB only increases your chances of making a SB.

I think that is what we can realistically strive to be in addition to consistently having a top 5 offense. If we can get to that level we are in business with RG3 running the show.

[Oldfan]

...Also, I don't think anybody can realistically expect to be the #1 team in the NFL...

Some team is going to be #1. Why not us?

I think that is what we can realistically strive to be in addition to consistently having a top 5 offense.

I don't see the point of setting a goal to achieve a high ranking on a deceptive and meaningless ranking.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Some team is going to be #1. Why not us?

I don't see the point of setting a goal to achieve a high ranking on a deceptive and meaningless ranking.

I mean that is always what you try to be, #1 but its not realistic. Look at GB the last 3 years. The ups and downs etc. I would take GB's success but I wouldn't say they are the #1 team in the NFL or a dynasty. Its just not a realistic goal as much as the NFL changes. But I do agree it is always the goal, perhaps I wasn't clear in that.

Also, I don't think having an offense that is consistently top 5 is meaningless. Its not like Top 6 would be a failure I just meant being up there in that range means you have a great chance to win every game just by outscoring the opponent regardless of what the defense does. The teams that have run the NFL the last several years outside of a couple examples have all had top offenses. That is where our once in a lifetime player takes his snaps. Thats what we can be.