The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[DogofWar1]

One thing I'd like to point out is that this whole debate we're having over Hanesworth is another reason why I don't envy Shanahan's job. If someone was looking for a HC job, and were told you'd have to deal with a guy like Haynesworth, an ancient roster, and on top of that, no QB solution, I think they'd run the other way going "nope, nope, nope, I like challenges, but this is ridiculous."

[KCClybun]

Why didn't we just trade Haynesworth after April 1, when we paid him $20 million, but before July when that whole circus with fitness tests happened?

It's not like he contributed anything to the 2010 season, and we still got a fifth round pick, worth approximately a seventh round pick based on the fact it was two years later.

If we got a current year sixth or fifth or fourth that would have all been better than what we eventually got.

Because, as I've said multiple times, the whole reason we had to restructure him in the first place was to make him tradeable at all, in addition to not allowing his substantial cap hit to destroy our finances. Albert made around 14.5 million in 2009. He was due to make at least that, if not more more than, in the remaining years of his contract.

No one wants to trade for a 29 year old malcontent coming of an average (at best) season that cost $10-15 million dollars a year. Except maybe Al Davis, but he'd already traded for the much better, much classier Richard Seymour in 2009.

Vinny put a player voidable clause into Haynesworth's contract, and because of the way the cap worked, his signing bonus following that clause wouldn't prorate through the remainder of his contract. Bruce Allen worked that loophole and...basically, as I understand, gave Haynesworth a huge $21 million "signing bonus" in 2010 to absorb the hit in the uncapped year, which took that money off the books. That gave Haynesworth a much more manageable, much more tradeable 3-year, $16 million dollar deal, while also freeing up cap space in the future.

The problem is that whole "I just paid you $21 million dollars" thing.

Without reworking his contract, Haynesworth was practically untradeable. Haynesworth only took a "pay cut" because he got a huge chunk of his money up front. It's not very likely that another team would've traded for him and either 1.) paid him his huge yearly salary or 2.) front loaded his deal in the way the Redskins did up front, without even seeing him play. Not for a 3rd round pick or for a 7th round pick; the financial risk, not to mention the risk on the field and in the lockerroom, was too much.

Once Albert took that $21 mil under the condition he play nose, and then started acted like a jerk after he got his money, the Redskins were in between a rock and a hard place. Any trade offer would have to be perfect; a high draft pick, and a willingness to take on some of that $21 million paycheck.

Vinny would've given Albert $21 million, then traded him for a fifth. That'd totally be a Vinny move.

[Mahons21]

That's why they pay him the big bucks.

[8181]

11. Please do not use the “Quote” feature to quote any large sections of text.

It unnecessarily extends and clutters threads and is annoying.

If you would like to respond to the contents of a particular post, simply quote the sentence or idea that you're commenting upon, not the entire post if it's lengthy.

I still am willing to bet Albert taking the $21 million and acting like a jerk would have gotten a higher pick than Albert taking the $21 million, acting like a jerk, and playing like ass the entire 2010 season.

[Hitman21ST]

Yes, I know. But Mike was told otherwise in meetings, and also told there would be consequences. Mike took the risk associated with it. Had he traded him prior to paying him, there would be no impact on the salary cap and no risk.

No one on ES was privy to the information MS was. Of course, if there's no risk associated with it, it was a smart move. Had you told ES, the competition committee has warned that there may be serious consequences if the uncapped year is used to gain a competitive advantage, there would have been a much more divided ES.

1. The cap hit was an unprecedented penalty, there's no way MS could have predicted that. He was probably thinking some sort of fine.

2. The fact that only the Skins and Cowboys were punished when there were more than our two teams using the uncapped year to clear cap space or what have you means that other GMs/coaches felt the same way we did. The only reason we were punished is because Mara is the head of the CC, and there's no way Mike could have thought that Mara would stoop to those levels.

[elkabong82]

No I didn't, you just didn't take the time to follow the sequence of a discussion came in late and made an incorrect assumption. Qualifiers weren't necessary at that point in the discussion, as they'd already been used on numerous occasions.

And I can say it was likely on Raheem Morris who wanted him in TB, but had predicted he'd lose his HC gib than go on to Washington, and coach Haynesworth, but his plan was foiled.

But since neither of these arguments have any real weight, why don't we just leave them out of here? Unless you have some evidence that Haslett, who apparently can't even hire his assistants, had a profound impact on the Redskins largest player contract.

No, I did take the time to read through the read, you abandoned the original qualifier of your premise. Whatever, it's unimportant and resolved, let's move on.

Haslett was DC here, it was likely his advice about Al at NT which kept the option open. If he had said it wouldn't work, just as you assert it wouldn't have, then Shanny probably wouldn't have tried that option. Haslett having fault does hold weight, as does the DL coach having fault, they are the ones advising Shanahan on matters concerning DL. I have Haslett''s title as evidence, your evidence is an assumption Haslett has no say in players at all and Shanny controls all of those matters.

"He can do almost anything he wants. He doesn't want to do anything. To me that's the issue," Haslett said. So clearly Haslett said he did believe Haynesworth had the talent to play NT, but then following season (which this quote is from) Haslett then recognized Al would only do what Al wanted to do. Assuming Haslett had no say or influence as DC is silly, and seems more indicative of someone just trying to hype up the "Shanny control freak" angle. Whatever floats your boat.

[Mahons21]

1. The cap hit was an unprecedented penalty, there's no way MS could have predicted that. He was probably thinking some sort of fine.

From what I understand that Cap penalty is essentially the same amt they front-loaded in the off year. That would have been fairly easy to predict, as he was probably told they would act as if it was a capped year and punish anyone the amt they went over it in subsequent years. I doubt they acted as if the penalties would be minor, and then docked them 36m. 75% of other teams seemed to get the memo.

2. The fact that only the Skins and Cowboys were punished when there were more than our two teams using the uncapped year to clear cap space or what have you means that other GMs/coaches felt the same way we did. The only reason we were punished is because Mara is the head of the CC, and there's no way Mike could have thought that Mara would stoop to those levels.

No one used it nearly to the level that we did, everything was done to scale for the most part. It wasn't like the Saints used the un-capped year as much as we did, they got nothing, and we got docked 36 mil.

Now that we've got someone blaming a Mara conspiracy and another blaming Haslett, we've hit the cycle for ES in a night. A bid you gentlemen ado, maybe in the morning you'll be more sober, or I'm just giving you too much credit

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 12:53 AM ----------

No, I did take the time to read through the read, you abandoned the original qualifier of your premise. Whatever, it's unimportant and resolved, let's move on.

You're not being serious are you? Do you just enjoy being argumentative? Had you read through the discussion it would have been quite evident I was saying MS should have traded him only IF he could have.

Haslett was DC here, it was likely his advice about Al at NT which kept the option open. If he had said it wouldn't work, just as you assert it wouldn't have, then Shanny probably wouldn't have tried that option. Haslett having fault does hold weight, as does the DL coach having fault, they are the ones advising Shanahan on matters concerning DL. I have Haslett''s title as evidence, your evidence is an assumption Haslett has no say in players at all and Shanny controls all of those matters.

So Mike hires Haslett, doesn't ask him for any input on his assistants, doesn't ask him for any input on what scheme they're going to run, but then when it comes to the Redskins largest player contract that will undoubtedly have a large impact on the shape of the Redskins future, he goes to Haslett then? If you say so..

"He can do almost anything he wants. He doesn't want to do anything. To me that's the issue," Haslett said. So clearly Haslett said he did believe Haynesworth had the talent to play NT, but then following season (which this quote is from) Haslett then recognized Al would only do what Al wanted to do. Assuming Haslett had no say or influence as DC is silly, and seems more indicative of someone just trying to hype up the "Shanny control freak" angle. Whatever floats your boat.

Do you need me to pull quotes of Mike Shannahan saying he'd hang his reputation on Beck/Grossman? Does that mean he really believes in them? Or is a coaches quote to the media?

I didn't say Haslett had no influence. Uou said you believe this reflects poorly on Haslett, if that's all you say, you're asserting you believe Haslett had the largest roll in it at a bare minimum. I don't agree with that, due to the minor influence Haslett has had in so many other facets of the team.

And in no way am I hyping up Mike as a control freak, I am and have always been a firm believer in MS. I've had nothing but good things to say about our coaches for the most part. I disagreed with McNabb and Brown, and Haynesworth IF there were any trades available.

[KCClybun]

I still am willing to bet Albert taking the $21 million and acting like a jerk would have gotten a higher pick than Albert taking the $21 million, acting like a jerk, and playing like ass the entire 2010 season.

So you're saying if you gave $21 million dollars to someone to build you a house, and then that guy went back on his contract because he didn't feel like building the kind of house you wanted, you'd trade the builder to your neighbor in exchange for an RV, with no reimbursement for the fact that he did not, in fact, build you the house you paid him to build?

[Hitman21ST]

No one used it nearly to the level that we did, everything was done to scale for the most part. It wasn't like the Saints used the un-capped year as much as we did, they got nothing, and we got docked 36 mil.

Now that we've got someone blaming a Mara conspiracy and another blaming Haslett, we've hit the cycle for ES in a night. A bid you gentlemen ado, maybe in the morning you'll be more sober, or I'm just giving you too much credit

I'm not blaming a Mara conspiracy at all, and I thought you would give me more credit than that. Mike used the uncapped year for what it was, and the way he handled Haynesworth is in line with that. You seem to be of the mindset that Shanahan should have known that we would have been hit with a penalty of the level that it was and acted accordingly. Saying "there will be punishment" is a lot different from saying what the punishment actually is, it pretty much left it open for interpretation. There was no way for Mike to know what the punishment was or that it would be leveled at the worst possible time for us.

Mike's not psychic, there's no way for him to know how or when the Skins would have gotten penalized.

That's similar to a parent saying "don't spend too much at the movies, or there will be a punishment" without defining what "too much" is. The child does that, the parents don't do anything for a while, then right before their kid goes on a date, the parents take away their allowance.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the other teams didn't have nearly as bad of a contract situation as we did, hence why most of the other teams "got the memo".

[8181]

So you're saying if you gave $21 million dollars to someone to build you a house, and then that guy went back on his contract because he didn't feel like building the kind of house you wanted, you'd trade the builder to your neighbor in exchange for an RV, with no reimbursement for the fact that he did not, in fact, build you the house you paid him to build?

Yes, because at least I'll have an RV to show for it instead of whatever the analogy is for a 5th round draft pick 2 years later.

[elkabong82]

So Mike hires Haslett, doesn't ask him for any input on his assistants, doesn't ask him for any input on what scheme they're going to run, but then when it comes to the Redskins largest player contract that will undoubtedly have a large impact on the shape of the Redskins future, he goes to Haslett then? If you say so..

Do you need me to pull quotes of Mike Shannahan saying he'd hang his reputation on Beck/Grossman? Does that mean he really believes in them? Or is a coaches quote to the media?

I didn't say Haslett had no influence. Uou said you believe this reflects poorly on Haslett, if that's all you say, you're asserting you believe Haslett had the largest roll in it at a bare minimum. I don't agree with that, due to the minor influence Haslett has had in so many other facets of the team.

And in no way am I hyping up Mike as a control freak, I am and have always been a firm believer in MS. I've had nothing but good things to say about our coaches for the most part. I disagreed with McNabb and Brown, and Haynesworth IF there were any trades available.

Do you have any actual proof that Haslett had no say in the assistants? Haslett was hired before any of them, so it's hard to believe he wasn't a part of the decision-making process. Since he was hired at DC he probably did have a say.

Shanny wanted a 3-4 which is why he hired Haslett, so yeah, Haslett had input on the scheme being run and likely, as DC, input on the players.

Shanny's quote was in support of Rex and Beck, so he's inclined to be positive. Haslett was criticizing Al, so there was no need to be positive, so the fact there was that part means it was likely genuine. Why would someone lie about a positive when they are being critical? You're really stretching on your posts with no direct evidence to support any of it.

If you don't think Haslett had any say in what to do with Haynesworth, the largest contract as you put it, and as the new DC, and also say he didn't hire his assistants as proof he couldn't influence a decision on a player, then you're essentially saying Haslett doesn't have influence. That's baloney. As the new DC his opinion was certainly a factor in the decision on what to do with Haynesworth, Combine that with the actual quote where Haslett said Al could do anything, and it's clear Haslett though he could work with Al.

Shanny has the rep of being hands off with defenses, yet in this case we are then to believe that the new DC is not responsible for a decision on a defensive player? Come on. If the new DC outright said what you think was obvious, that Al couldn't play NT in a 3-4, he would have said so and Shanny wouldn't have kept an expensive player that didn't fit, that is not his MO. Therefor it took Haslett being on board to keep Al here, therefor Haslett gets blame for Al not being axed right away. If you think Haslett's opinion didn't matter and he doesn't get blame, then it would take an opinion of Shanny being a control freak to justify that. Not only is it ludicrous, it's also getting way off topic now. Bottom line is Shanny got rid of an inherited expensive mess and got draft picks for him as well, and the only reason Al even stuck around was because Haslett believed he could work with him and because Al lied about his willingness to commit. If Haslett didn't want Al then it means Shanny ignored him and stuck him with him anyway, that is very hard to believe. Haslett has been sub-par as DC, and like you said, it was obvious Al wouldn't work as a NT, so a good DC should have spotted that right away and said something, but Haslett is sub par and thought he could pull it off. THAT I find easier to believe.

And furthermore, using the handling of an inherited bad situation as judgement Shanny can or cannot build a consistent winner seems silly to me (general statement, not directed at you but at the fact this all was even brought up). The Saints operated poorly with the illegal bounty system, Pats had the taping scandal, both indicate poor leadership, yet both teams overcame that, so maybe hanging ones hat on single incidents and devolving the conversation into that instead of examining the total picture is a bad idea.

[Hitman21ST]

Yes, because at least I'll have an RV to show for it instead of whatever the analogy is for a 5th round draft pick 2 years later.

But you then wouldn't be able to pay for gas, because the money you budgeted for it got taken away from from you because there was an unwritten rule that you couldn't spend more than $10 million on your house.

[8181]

But you then wouldn't be able to pay for gas, because the money you budgeted for it got taken away from from you because there was an unwritten rule that you couldn't spend more than $10 million on your house.

Yeah, but that happened anyway. So why wouldn't you want to trade away Haynesworth as early as possible when logic dictates his value would be highest?

His contract was untradeable? Fine.

So we paid the $21 M bonus. Why not trade him away then instead of a year later? I haven't seen a good answer yet.

[Lavarleap56]

ELK- Haslett has had no say over who his assistant coached are.. Haslett wanted to run a 4-3 not a 3-4 as well ..

[elkabong82]

From Jason Reid: "Haslett, the coach who initially convinced Haynesworth that a switch to a 3-4 base defense could work for him,"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/albert-haynesworth/haslett-on-haynesworth-can-you.html

Kind of difficult, 8181, to trade a player right away when he has the biggest contract at that time, a down year prior, a bad attitude and league rep, and your DC is saying he can work with him when, as mahon21 said, Al is a 4-3 DT and wouldn't transition into a NT well, and, as I said, a good DC would have recognized that.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 01:55 AM ----------

ELK- Haslett has had no say over who his assistant coached are.. Haslett wanted to run a 4-3 not a 3-4 as well ..

Thank you for clearing that up. My question then becomes, as a DC experienced in a 3-4 why would he have felt confident in running a 4-3? Sure we had the personnel for a 4-3, but most of the players were aging and we were going to need a youth movement anyways, so despite what some ESers say about sticking with a 4-3, that actually was the right time to switch, if you were going to switch.

Do you know WHY Haslett had no say? And if it was due to lack of confidence in Haslett, then I do have to criticize Shanahan on that hiring decision, because why would you bring someone in who wants to run a different scheme and who you don't trust to be involved in the hiring process for assistants? Or was the DC pool that thin?

[8181]

From Jason Reid: "Haslett, the coach who initially convinced Haynesworth that a switch to a 3-4 base defense could work for him,"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/albert-haynesworth/haslett-on-haynesworth-can-you.html

Kind of difficult, 8181, to trade a player right away when he has the biggest contract at that time, a down year prior, a bad attitude and league rep, and your DC is saying he can work with him when, as mahon21 said, Al is a 4-3 DT and wouldn't transition into a NT well, and, as I said, a good DC would have recognized that.

And how was the situation better one year later when they did trade him? It was worse.

[elkabong82]

And how was the situation better one year later when they did trade him? It was worse.

It wasn't, I agree it was worse. They should have talked to Al and said "hey, our DC actually knows his stuff and says you aren't suited for NT. Here's guaranteed money as part of a restructure so we can trade you to a team that will use you right. Then he has trade value with the restructure, though we still get a cap hit for it.

Instead our DC thought he could work with him, convinced Al that the switch could work for him, and then Al lied saying he would be committed when offered that guaranteed cash upfront.

[8181]

It wasn't, I agree it was worse. They should have talked to Al and said "hey, our DC actually knows his stuff and says you aren't suited for NT. Here's guaranteed money as part of a restructure so we can trade you to a team that will use you right. Then he has trade value with the restructure, though we still get a cap hit for it.

Instead our DC thought he could work with him, convinced Al that the switch could work for him, and then Al lied saying he would be committed when offered that guaranteed cash upfront.

And in the end, we got RG3 who annihilated the Cowboys. Why did this thread turn into a debate about that fat ass again?

This is what happens when you have a long week... Waiting til Monday.......

:point2sky

[elkabong82]

And in the end, we got RG3 who annihilated the Cowboys. Why did this thread turn into a debate about that fat ass again?

This is what happens when you have a long week... Waiting til Monday.......

:point2sky

because Oldfan asked why trading Haynesworth wasn't our first order of business and then we all stuck with it

like I said, other great teams have had mishaps in management/leadership, and it's best to look at an overall picture instead of harping about one or two incidents which aren't even typical of the whole

[DogofWar1]

From what I understand that Cap penalty is essentially the same amt they front-loaded in the off year. That would have been fairly easy to predict, as he was probably told they would act as if it was a capped year and punish anyone the amt they went over it in subsequent years. I doubt they acted as if the penalties would be minor, and then docked them 36m. 75% of other teams seemed to get the memo.

No one used it nearly to the level that we did, everything was done to scale for the most part. It wasn't like the Saints used the un-capped year as much as we did, they got nothing, and we got docked 36 mil.

Now that we've got someone blaming a Mara conspiracy and another blaming Haslett, we've hit the cycle for ES in a night. A bid you gentlemen ado, maybe in the morning you'll be more sober, or I'm just giving you too much credit

You have got to be freakin' kidding me. I hope the winking face means this is all sarcasm, because if it doesn't.....

Let's recap. 2010, uncapped year. NO CAP. It's in the CBA that there's no cap, and not allowed to be a cap. They aren't even allowed to make a soft cap, since that would be collusion. A bunch of teams go way over the "soft cap" in tons of different ways. We pulled signing bonuses into 2010, the Bears gave Peppers a massive contract and paid him most of it that year, the Texans used it to give Schaub some 10M extra on top of his base salary to keep him in Houston. The point is a lot of teams pulled crap.

But it's about how much we went over the soft cap of 123M, right? It's not about the size of the individual contracts, it about who went over and by how much?

Apparently not, because 14 teams had payrolls higher than 123M. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/) Redskins, Cowboys, Saints, Vikings, Seahawks, Jets, Packers, Raiders, Colts, Bears, Eagles, Pats, Giants (lololol), and 49ers were all above that figure. Yet, only the Skins, Boys, Saints, and Raiders were punished, and only the Skins and Boys got any serious punishment. If all 14 teams had been punished to the tune of the amount they went over the soft cap, one could at least argue the punishment was just. They didn't, and it wasn't.

Heck, the Seahawks, Jets, and Packers had payrolls higher than the Raiders. That argument doesn't hold water.

The last argument Mara made was that it was "how" we gave money to the players, by moving future money into the current year. That argument makes no sense either though, because what we did was perfectly possible via the contracts we wrote. In many ways it was similar to what the Texans did with Schaub, in that they executed an option in 2010 that could have been done later, to extend Schaub's contract. In essence, they paid him extra, to free up cap space down the line. Even the Peppers deal is worth mentioning, they front loaded the crap out of that contract specifically to keep future costs down.

Every argument for why we were punished stinks to Heaven. In addition, the NFL strong armed the NFLPA, by saying that they had to either agree to the cap penalties, or the league cap would go down. The NFLPA felt that two teams losing cap and distributing it was better than the cap doing down, so we got screwed.

Oh, and of course the NFLPA is the one with the standing to sue over collusion, but since they freakin' signed off on the penalties they can't really just turn around sue for collusion. We could sue, but it'd be us against 28 owners, without the backing of the NFLPA, and Snyder probably wanted to avoid a costly legal battle to begin with, so he wussed out.

And sitting at the head of all this is Mara. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but at the same time, the guy in charge narrowly tailors the triggering mechanism for penalties in such a way that the only two teams seriously impacted are division rivals? That's about as fishy as this gets.

[KCClybun]

It wasn't, I agree it was worse. They should have talked to Al and said "hey, our DC actually knows his stuff and says you aren't suited for NT. Here's guaranteed money as part of a restructure so we can trade you to a team that will use you right. Then he has trade value with the restructure, though we still get a cap hit for it.

Instead our DC thought he could work with him, convinced Al that the switch could work for him, and then Al lied saying he would be committed when offered that guaranteed cash upfront.

I can't imagine us just eating $21 mil, whether Haynesworth agreed to play nose or not. Eating that money was as much about getting that bad contract off the books as it was about getting some trade value in return.

I think either way it's likely that we would've asked any other team to take on the burden of some of that money too.

[Jumbo]

Should I change the thread title to reflect the last four pages? :evilg:

Maybe "The Fat Al Fiasco Re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-visited"?

Or are we now moving the topic into the "****ing Mara Cap Hit Recap?"

[Oldfan]

...This is ignoring all the information we have available to us.

Albert took that money after saying he'd have no problem with playing nose tackle. Then he got his money and started complaining about playing nose when a condition of him getting the money upfront was him paying up front.

That should not have made a difference. Haynesworth's willingness to play the 3-4 is not relevant.

As I said before, Shanahan knew, or should have known, that Haynesworth did not fit the scheme. Whatever had to be done to make his contract acceptable to trade partners could have been done before the absurd confrontation in training camp which reduced his trade value.

I can't imagine us just eating $21 mil, whether Haynesworth agreed to play nose or not. Eating that money was as much about getting that bad contract off the books as it was about getting some trade value in return.

Whatever they ended up eating after the fiasco could have been eaten before.

ELKABONG ~ They should have talked to Al and said "hey, our DC actually knows his stuff and says you aren't suited for NT. Here's guaranteed money as part of a restructure so we can trade you to a team that will use you right. Then he has trade value with the restructure, though we still get a cap hit for it.

Instead our DC thought he could work with him, convinced Al that the switch could work for him, and then Al lied saying he would be committed when offered that guaranteed cash upfront.

Makes sense.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 07:13 AM ----------

...like I said, other great teams have had mishaps in management/leadership, and it's best to look at an overall picture instead of harping about one or two incidents which aren't even typical of the whole

We were looking at the overall picture. My opponents picked the Haynesworth mishandling off my list.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 07:21 AM ----------

Should I change the thread title to reflect the last four pages? :evilg:

The argument in the OP ran out of steam before we got our fill of arguing out of our system. I still think trading Champ for Portis was one of the worst trades in Skins history. What do you think?

[Commander Adama]

In Dan Snyder's shoes, I would not have hired Mike Shanahan. My goal would be to build the number one team in the NFL and to hold that position indefinitely. I didn't think it likely that Mike was either willing or able to achieve that goal. I still feel that way.

Oldfan within your post, I agree with most of what you said except for the first part, which I quoted. Maybe, I would not disagree with it so strongly if you hadn't added willing to that sentence. I believe every coach in the NFL wants to be #1 and wants it bad. Well maybe Zorn is an exception with his staying medium. Anyway, when Shanahan received the team, it was one of the oldest teams in the NFL. Now the average age of the team is around 26. I also believe that will continue to drop. This was all done by drafting young players, with a small transition period, from Veterans to young drafted talent, and I also do not think this process is done, so the team will continue to get younger.

So they have tried to mainly focus on building through the draft, while picking up a couple pieces here and there so we could be somewhat relevant, while they are doing there roster overhaul. While we are definitely not there yet, which is obvious by watching our secondary, and to a lesser extent, our lines. We were also saddled with that absurd $36 Million Dollar Cap space penalty. And since I brought up cap space, that is another point that was worked on with the team. Prior to Shanahan, we over-spent and built our rosters with over-hyped, older free agents. Now, we generally get free-agents that are not flashy, but are solid, and our cap space situation looks so much better than it did previously. Especially after next year, when we do not have that cap space penalty.

Now you had said, you would build the number one team in the NFL, and I wonder how you would do that? Maybe change how the team gets players and build through the draft? Reduce the average age on the team? Stop spending money on over-hyped players in free-agency and instead get good value for players? Draft a very impressive QB with tremendous upside and build your scheme around him? Start listening to your scouting department and finding hidden gems in later rounds, smaller schools, and more seniors? And wouldn't all of this building take time, like more than three years? With all that said, not only would I say that Shanahan is willing to build a number one team, I think is able, and is currently in the process of doing that.

I would definitely say that within your lifetime, the Skins will become a number one team. And yes, I will admit, I am a homer. I still think Gibbs II did a great job, and that I have been thinking that Shanahan and Allen are doing a great job with the Redskins. I said at the beginning of the year, I would stick with Shanahan regardless of our record, since I believe they are building the team correctly, and changing the atmosphere within the organization. I also said I would give him the full five years, since our organization needs continuity.

[Oldfan]

...I would definitely say that within your lifetime, the Skins will become a number one team. And yes, I will admit, I am a homer. I still think Gibbs II did a great job, and that I have been thinking that Shanahan and Allen are doing a great job with the Redskins. I said at the beginning of the year, I would stick with Shanahan regardless of our record, since I believe they are building the team correctly, and changing the atmosphere within the organization. I also said I would give him the full five years, since our organization needs continuity.

Bill Belichik and his alterego, Ernie Adams, have been heading up the number one organization in the NFL for a decade; and they appear to be poised to extend their success a while longer. In Snyder's shoes, my goal would be to knock those clowns off the top of the hill. When Dan hired Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan, he sent a message that he was willing to settle for mediocrity. Given full control for ten years in Denver, Mike produced one playoff win.

I think he has picked up his game a bit here. He's making some smart moves, like his handling of free agents. But, he and Bruce have told us that they want to win now while building for the long term. It's seems our fanbase thinks that is possible but I don't. If you want to beat the Patriots and take over number one, you have to be willing to pay the price at the beginning.

I don't think it's Snyder's goal to take over the #1 spot from the Patriots. If it is, then, as a manager, he's dumber than I thought. I foresee something like the Jurgensen era ahead for our Skins. We had the best QB in the NFL, and he and his friends were fun to watch, but the team had a mediocre record.

---------- Post added November-25th-2012 at 08:36 AM ----------

How is being the #1 team indefinitely NOT a dynasty?

I don't want to argue word definitions with you. I define "dynasty" differently than you do. For purposes of communication, that's all you need to know.