Developing a System - Patience a Must

[Rufus T Firefly]

No he did not. The 2000 Patriots were 5-11 and started off losing in 2001.

Brady experienced winning early on because, even with less than superlative stats, he was the primary reason they won games.

Well, they were 0-1 when he took over.

 

And they won mainly thru defense, running and special teams for several years.

[KDawg]

I think some of you fail to understand the crux of the matter. Continuity is an extremely important aspect in football. Why do expansion teams come in the league and generally struggle a bit?

Keep in mind, continuity isn't just coaches. GM, quarterback, etc. is important to continuity. Some teams can outlast coaching changes because of people in place.

The Falcons are a great example. Franchise QB. New coaches. Doing great. Sometimes you need the guy who can come in and put your team in position to win.

Systems matter. Coaches hang their hat on something. That's your identity.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I had a conversation with a Ravens fan this past week, where he talked about how Flacco this offseason spent it working on handling the third down blitz.  

 

Man, it must be nice to have so much continuity that you dont have to relearn everything every offseason, but instead can work on the nuances of your game.

 

Well, it would be nice to see our players in year 4 or 5 of that, but Cousins did have an opportunity to focus his off-season work to an extent this year. I remember reading that he wanted to improve his footwork and concentrate on 3rd down conversions. Both have been improved over last year, so your point is certainly valid. Imagine if our starters could all make year-to-year incremental improvements over a several-year span!

 

No he did not. The 2000 Patriots were 5-11 and started off losing in 2001.

Brady experienced winning early on because, even with less than superlative stats, he was the primary reason they won games.

 

 

WHAT??

 

Brady had 4 very good games that season, to his credit (12 TDs/0 INTs). But the Patriots won 7 other games where Brady contributed very little (3 TDs/6 INTs). They also lost 4 times with him at QB (3 TDs/6 INTs). So, without a shadow of a doubt, the 2001 Tom Brady was a game manager with flashes of great play.  

Well, they were 0-1 when he took over.

 

And they won mainly thru defense, running and special teams for several years.

 

I would argue that even as early as 2002 he was becoming a star (even though I think they went 8-8). They were beginning to win with offense rather than having the D pull the O along for the ride. 

 

But, 2001 Tom Brady was a nobody who managed games and didn't get in Belichick's way. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

I would argue that even as early as 2002 he was becoming a star (even though I think they went 8-8). They were beginning to win with offense rather than having the D pull the O along for the ride. 

Disagree. They were top 2 in scoring defense in the 03-04 title years and scored I believe 10 defensive TDs those year. They only allowed opponents to top 21 points twice in those postseasons, one being on meaningless scores late against Pittsburgh. The other being the crazy Super Bowl vs Carolina. Brady didn't get above 9th in passer rating any of those years.

 

He did what he needed to do, but what he needed to do was mainly manage games. You could see him starting to turn into a QB who could carry a team by the end of that 2004 season, but for the most part it was a title team because of Belichick and the D first and foremost. 

[ThomasRoane]

I guess we will see if Snyder gives McCloughan enough time to put a system in place, whether that is with Gruden or not.  I think part of the problem is that Snyder is a "fan".  It appears he gets emotional and makes decisions which aren't always sound.  I, too, would have liked to have seen what Marty could have done here for 5 years or more.  When Gibbs II left, it appeared we had a smooth transition in place to have Gregg Williams be the next head coach, but we ended up with Maroon and Black.  Mike and Kyle had to go to because of the decisions Snyder made with Griffin.  If the stories are true that Griffin met with Snyder and came up with "acceptable plays", that eliminated Kyle from having a future here.  The owner, or whoever is in charge of football decisions, has to be  smart enough to make a decision as to when enough is enough and its time to fire everyone and start over or smart enough to say we need to be patient and stick with who we have.  I don't think Snyder is capable of making that type of decision correctly. 

 

To make things worse Kyle will be yet another in a long, long line of pissed off ex coaches that Snyder has embarrassed looking to stick it to our Redskins when they visit the Falcons who are destroying the competition right now.  That one could get very ugly and I don't see Kyle taking the pedal off the medal. 

[Rskins06]

Gruden as an assitant was never as good as Marvin Lewis who, correct me if I'm wrong here, coached the next best defense to the 85 Bears.

He was also a DC for our beloved Redskins

[Slateman]

Brady and Rodgers both came in to established systems and both behind very good quarterbacks.

 

I think instead of system, we need to have patience in player development. This is a franchise that has not developed a player base through the draft and good free agency in a decade. That is going to take time.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Disagree. They were top 2 in scoring defense in the 03-04 title years and scored I believe 10 defensive TDs those year. They only allowed opponents to top 21 points twice in those postseasons, one being on meaningless scores late against Pittsburgh. The other being the crazy Super Bowl vs Carolina. Brady didn't get above 9th in passer rating any of those years.

 

He did what he needed to do, but what he needed to do was mainly manage games. You could see him starting to turn into a QB who could carry a team by the end of that 2004 season, but for the most part it was a title team because of Belichick and the D first and foremost. 

 

Wow - nice stats. I always assumed he used 01 and 02 to develop into the team leader for the back-to-back titles in 03 and 04. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Wow - nice stats. I always assumed he used 01 and 02 to develop into the team leader for the back-to-back titles in 03 and 04. 

Team leader- possibly. 

Star QB- not really.

[mAshparie36]

Problem is you need to have the right pick in place before you start the whole "continuity, stick with it" thing.

 

Gruden not being picked by Scot doesn't exactly scream patience.

 

It's super obvious he's not HCing quality so lets move on, let Scot pick his guy, THEN do the whole patience thing.

[Bishop Hammer]

God that was a long post, why can't we just get to the point. Let's get some damn free agents and win this thing in 2016. Heard Manning is available for three 1st rounders this offseason, can't pass on that.

If you're being ironic then this post gets a gold star?!

[VRIEL1]

System/No System, West Coast/East Coast.......

 

Does it really matter? Gruden was hired for 5 years at $5 mill each year. After this year he will be owed $15 mill. I could see Snyder firing Gruden if he had 1 year left as with what happened to Shanahan. I honestly don't think Snyder would shell out $10 mill for anyone to walk away and sit on their butt at home let alone 3  years. 

 

None of the QB's on this roster right now are probably the answer but if I'm keeping it real Gruden is here to stay for most likely 2 more years. If RG3 is not the answer and they are supposed to shell out $16 mill for 1 year I doubt Snyder is going to want to also shell out another $15 mill to have both walk away. 

 

Wonder if we could ask for the other Gruden to take over for the last 3 years and fix/tweek the system? One good thing about that is John would be up the QB's ass until he learned the system and performed well. 

[RedBeast]

We need to tank out in 3 to 4 years for Rosen. Let him lead us out of the desert to the promised land...along with the team Scot builds. By then? We will also have the right coaching staff also

Mark my words.

[KDawg]

Problem is you need to have the right pick in place before you start the whole "continuity, stick with it" thing.

Gruden not being picked by Scot doesn't exactly scream patience.

It's super obvious he's not HCing quality so lets move on, let Scot pick his guy, THEN do the whole patience thing.

I think I said that "once McCloughan has his chess pieces in place" in the OP. Read, people. Read.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I think I said that "once McCloughan has his chess pieces in place" in the OP. Read, people. Read.

Yeah, but the pieces have to be in place first, KDawg.

[grhqofb5]

If you're being ironic then this post gets a gold star?!

Well of course m not serious. Its just that I don't think this franchise has any better chance of winni,g if they do it the "right" way, I.e. build through the draft, stick with a coaching staff, develop young talent. Everything has been tried the past 20 years and nothing has worked. So I'm tired of being patient because I've heard that before.

[chipwhich]

As I have said a number of times here, this team will take three years to rebuild if they draft well.  We are in year 1.  Bringing in a coach now, is just bringing in another coach.  If you need a new coach, you bring them in when the team has talent and depth.

[DM72]

Let's just tell it like it is. A great QB can make any system good to great. Bring Rodgers or Brady to Washington, no one is complaining about Gruden.

[FuriousD]

I think people get caught up in this.

 

You know who the highest praised OC in the league is right now?

 

Kyle Shanahan.

 

Imagine if we had a "system" like that.

Classic irony, yeah? Many here on ES swore he was clueless and couldn't coach his way out of a paper bag. Some would have tarred and feathered him given the chance.

No offence to the OP but this is a perfect example of why you don't come to places like this looking for pearls of wisdom. Fans are by nature completely irrational. May as well hit the nearest local river and pan for gold

[DM72]

Atlanta has a good QB and stud WR's and it's only been 3 games.

[Ghost of]

Well, they were 0-1 when he took over.

 

And they won mainly thru defense, running and special teams for several years.

 

No, they were not a good running team in 2001 when they won it.  When they came back against the Raiders in the snow, it was due to BRady's passing.   And wow, what a shock that when they had to have a drive to kick the game-winning FG, that it was Brady orchestrating the drive. It's true in the AFC Title game that year Bledsoe was in and that defense was not insignificant but if you watched those postseason games, late-game drives to win games, secure them, whatever, you'd see at its heart was the ability for the defense to rely on someone like Brady to make the plays that win games.    They became a good running team with Corey Dillon but that was in 2004.   They also had only adequate receiving targets in the first run of SBs, which makes it more impressive since everyone's excuse for QBs here is that they don't have AJ Green, D Jax, Tony Gonzo in his prime and Thurman Thomas catching passes.

 

Obviously, as a SB winning team, they had other facets (Vinatieri was great) working but when it mattered most, he was the guy who lifted the play of the team.  Also, no one is perfect, Joe MOntana got beat 49-3 in the NFC Title game, so it happens, everyone loses. 

[TSO]

Massive headache of a post incoming, beware.

Here's where I'm at on this whole issue. An issue that's incredibly intriguing and I bet it's often discussed at the highest levels among Front Offices.

Like KDawg, I believe stability/continuity are paramount to the success of any organization. Do I think constant turnover automatically means failure? No. But it adds what is, perhaps, the most significant obstacle to sustained success there is. So stay away from it as much as you can.

Going deeper, though... I think the higher up you go in any given FO, the more does this concept of "stability" become a correlated variable to the chances of success that multiplies it exponentially.

What I mean is, the more stable the situation the further you go up top in any FO, the more likely an organization is to remain successful even if there is turnover underneath. And the further you go down the hierarchy, the more convoluted and less significant does the correlation between stability and success become.

Dividing it into categories, it goes like this:

1) Ownership level (and I consider Team President/CEO on this same level, like what we have with Allen/Snyder and what the Packers have with the fans owning the team and Mark Murphy).
.
.
2) GM/Scouting level. Includes QB/Player Personnel.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3) Head Coaching level.
.
4) Assistant coaching level.


So, the stability at number one (ownership level) is the most heavily influential to a team's chance of success. What I mean by stability here, since obviously most owners are fixtures of the organization, is the stability/continuity of their philosophies and understanding of proper organizational structure. Most significantly; how they hire and, therefore, who they hire.

If the organization is stabilized at the ownership level in terms of this understanding of "stability/continuity", they can manage turnover (though the stability there will likely lead to less turnover) at GM, at HC, at whatever... because they will always have the proper set up and structure to facilitate the correct hires. The new GM, and therefore HC, and therefore QB/Personnel will have a natural flow conducive to success. There won't be any sharp turns. You won't go from a physical, power-run team 4-3 defense to a ZBS, finesse team with a 3-4 defense and back to a physical smash-mouth offense and a hybrid Defense within a 5 year span, unless it's clear the NFL is moving towards (based on rule changes, athleticism of the players, salary cap, etc...) something else that requires a change to continue to succeed.

 

You won't go from a HC/Team President handling personnel to an Exec. VP/GM handling personnel back to a HC/Team President handling personnel. You listening MR. SNYDER!!?! Ahem... I digress.

This is why teams like the Steelers, Giants (yuck), Packers and (to a lesser degree) Broncos, almost always seem to be in contention or, at the very least, competitive. They might have down years here and there, but they consistently improve on them. They can have turnover virtually anywhere underneath the ownership level and still succeed, because they understand how to hire and maintain the proper structure.

 

Titles/roles matter. Responsibilities are divvied up in a manner that doesn't over-burden anyone and is relative to the expertise of the individual. Finally, they're allowed to do their jobs without unwarranted interference. 

So that's the most important area to have "stabilized", imho.

 

Unfortunately for us as Redskin fans, we've seen just how devastating things can be to an organization without that. Snyder has been the complete antithesis to this method. He's pretty much never had a structure more conducive to success (when he did, it was Vinny in the role of GM and Zorn at HC, with him being heavily involved). Most of the time, he's had the HC also be head of personnel and even Team President in the cases of Joe Gibbs and Mike Shanahan. That's tough on any one man, and most of them are simply not good enough to do it all.

 

(On a side note, I'm pleased with the current structure and hopefully Allen/Snyder can be a solid team moving forward on this, continuing to maintain the structure of the organization and hire GMs with the expertise relative to their duties.)

Which leads us into the GM/Scouting level of my cute little list. The significance of stability here only comes in second to that of the ownership level. If you have stability here, you're going to also get significant stability with the overall direction of the franchise, even if the owner/president/CEO is unstable to a degree.

A lot of damage from the top can be mitigated by a solid GM who continues to prove his worth in the vast majority of his hires and personnel acquisitions, making it increasingly difficult for the highest level to undermine him or fire him. However, as mentioned above, turnover here doesn't necessarily have to be so damaging if the ownership level itself is "stable" in terms of its philosophy.

It is difficult, but you can find other GMs capable of doing the job if your hiring process is good.

The stability here is vital to the QB/Player personnel. And I say QB/Player Personnel because I think, to a large degree, it's either/or. Either you find yourself an absolute stud at QB, and set the tone for the entire franchise through him... or you go about finding all the other pieces and making certain positional groups elite that mitigate the lack of an elite QB. The GM/Scouting level sees that through, and then can make hires at the Head Coaching spot based on this.

 

This, in turn, creates a level of stability at the personnel level that would allow you to be patient in developing players. For instance, if you take a QB in the first round, you can sit him and it wouldn't have to be at the expense of the HC, so long as he's playing his role in that development of the player.   

Which leads us to number three in terms of the significance of stability, the Head Coaching level. Here you find a guy who you know can develop the players and adjust schematically to fit the direction you're going in at the above two levels. As with the above level, stability at the level directly above it (and, here, it's two levels) can mitigate turnover here. And, again, that stability at the levels above it normally equates to stability here, since the player acquisition and expected development is related to their philosophical/schematic fit.

And, finally, number four... Assistant coaching level. Don't need to say much, here. But you see how the more stable the above three levels are in any given organization, the likelier any turnover within these ranks have little to no effect on the success of the team.

 

That's really how I look at things nowadays. If you've read this far, congratulations, you're lame.

...................................................................

Regarding the conversation occurring here (as well as elsewhere on the board) about coaching versus talent... It's interesting to me. Obviously, you can pretty much link it to the above and figure out where I stand on that. But to go deeper and talk about it with current examples, trying to piece it all together...

You've got a guy like John Fox who was consistently deep in the playoffs with the Broncos and Manning, now he's struggling to win a single game with the Bears. That screams, to me, that talent is significantly > coaching.

But then you've got a Falcons team that seems rejuvenated by their coaches, but it could simply be the health of their Oline and Julio Jones, something that destroyed their season last year. That tells me talent >= coaching. Definitely closer there, arguably the other way as well.

You've got Andy Reid going to the Chiefs who were slowly building a solid team and finding success after a few miserable years with the Eagles, while giving up control of personnel acquisition. That might say coaching > talent.

You've seen the Ravens, Bengals, 49ers and Seahawks in recent years lose star assistant coach after star assistant coach with next to no drop off. That, to me, again says talent > coaching.

It's certainly intriguing. And while I definitely lean towards the idea that talent far outweighs coaching, and that coaches jobs in general are just significantly easier when they've got guys making plays for them just by sheer ability... I do think it's not as clear cut all the time. There is certainly something to "philosophical/schematic fits". But that's why I said, earlier in this post, that "the further you go down the hierarchy, the more convoluted and less significant does the correlation between stability and success become".

[chipwhich]

 

It's certainly intriguing. And while I definitely lean towards the idea that talent far outweighs coaching, and that coaches jobs in general are just significantly easier when they've got guys making plays for them just by sheer ability... I do think it's not as clear cut all the time. There is certainly something to "philosophical/schematic fits". But that's why I said, earlier in this post, that "the further you go down the hierarchy, the more convoluted and less significant does the correlation between stability and success become".   

 

Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl as a head coach of the Cowboys.

 

Talent trumps coaching always.  That said, when Harbaugh took over San Fran, coaching was to blame for lack of performance.  They had talent.  But coaching pedigree won't win with a lack of talent.  The Redskins are a great case study for that.

[The Wicked Wop]

Yeah and we couldn't wait to run him out of town.  I told my son this year to pick Matt Ryan as his QB.  Everyone laughed at him.  They ain't laughing now.  Kyle can flat out scheme it up as good as anyone.  Hell, he had Matt Schaub throwing for over 4,000 yards back to back!  Set Redskins passing records with Mcflabb and they hated each other.  Now it's looking like Kyle was the reason for RGIII's 2012 season.  I remember how the Seahawks and 49ers began copying his stuff mid season. 

 

The fans need to trust Scot McCloughan.  Just be patient and let this build.  If Jay is not the guy then let Scot make that call. For now, Jay is the guy so let's just see what happens. 

 

 

The Mike Shanahan system put us back another few years, at least. Remember, he was President, worst President in Redskins history. It has been 24 years since we had a system that worked. This is the McCloughan system now. Patient? No. Do I think he can break through? Will major changes be necessary sooner than later? Yes. Yes.

 

Both these posts are correct and is ultimately the conundrum of the Skins and the NFL for that matter.  Its one in which everyone wants control and when it doesn't work they walk away and still get paid.  Patience is needed for sure, however you always have to wonder what's the effective measure of patience and in the same breath if the person is actually the right person to have patience with.  

 

Shanahan for instance got what I think is actually the fairest measure of patience by the team .  However, he also single handily ran this team into the ground by some of the worst talent evaluation and draft picking.  As much as is made about the first rounders we gave up in the RG3 deal, to have so few the other drafted players  still with the team is a staggering reminder of when things go bad.  Whats is also evident is how he only cared about what he and his very inner circle thought about players.   This was never more clear then the rumblings of how little he cared what the internal personnel department thought about things to the point where Morocco Brown just left for who the Browns and how everyone wanted Scott Campbell's head only to see SM come in and compliment the personnel department pretty highly after originally suggesting how he didn't even know who the team personnel department was within league circles.

 

Now may will say great we finally have a true GM and we can rock and roll, but SM went through his fair share of struggles at San Fran until the right coach came along, but he didn't hire Harbaugh.  So he basically got the lemons but never saw it turned into very good lemonade while he was there.  This was obviously his fault as he was the one drinking, but alcoholism is a real disease so he gets high marks on player acquisition but its tough for me to grade him overall given the other head coaches during his time there.

 

Now we have Jay who is possibly a bad game away by Cousins from being neutered if Cousins plays poorly again and Jay doesn't make a move quickly thereafter.

Will SM have the patience to see through Jay's lackluster handling of the QB's in general and QB development that's just not evident at all with any of the QB's, and say Jay I still believe in your coaching ability but I have to make the QB decisions from now on and possibly some other players on Offense and ST.  Let me take that burden from you, give you another year to play the team I design for you. That's obviously not the circumstances Jay was hired under, but its hard to see it any other way.  If it were to happen it would not be the first time such a thing were done in the league.  On very real question would the be is Jay going to put his pride to the side and do the best for the team even if it comes as a personal slap in the face. Or would we get Mike Shannahan 2013 bitter and we say the response there it was a cancer to the team all year.

[Rufus T Firefly]

No, they were not a good running team in 2001 when they won it.  When they came back against the Raiders in the snow, it was due to BRady's passing.   And wow, what a shock that when they had to have a drive to kick the game-winning FG, that it was Brady orchestrating the drive. It's true in the AFC Title game that year Bledsoe was in and that defense was not insignificant but if you watched those postseason games, late-game drives to win games, secure them, whatever, you'd see at its heart was the ability for the defense to rely on someone like Brady to make the plays that win games.    They became a good running team with Corey Dillon but that was in 2004.   They also had only adequate receiving targets in the first run of SBs, which makes it more impressive since everyone's excuse for QBs here is that they don't have AJ Green, D Jax, Tony Gonzo in his prime and Thurman Thomas catching passes.

 

Obviously, as a SB winning team, they had other facets (Vinatieri was great) working but when it mattered most, he was the guy who lifted the play of the team.  Also, no one is perfect, Joe MOntana got beat 49-3 in the NFC Title game, so it happens, everyone loses. 

No. I watched all those games, believe me. Brady was a good QB for those runs, but not great. Kind of the equivalent of Russell Wilson now. 

 

They were certainly not a "great" running team in 01, they were only 13th in the league. But they were 22nd in passing. 

 

The Raiders game you're talking about they scored 13 points in regulation. Everyone in New England considered him getting hurt in the Championship game a major stroke of luck, because no one thought he could beat Pittsburgh the way Bledsoe did. And they then held one of the most high powered offenses in league history to 17 points in the Super Bowl. That's winning a title with defense.

 

Brady was a game manager. In the best sense of the term, but it's what he was.