FO Moves To Date: Is It Really Just Either/Or "Win Now" vs "Rebuild"?

[Jumbo]

I see some pretty savvy ES'ers who aren't pleased with getting NcNabb being among those who look at his acquisition as a big proof that, along with other moves, indicate we are "abandoning" a rebuild plan and are going for a "win now" plan.

I understand and respect the intelligent versions of the critical reactions to trading for our new #5. But I just don’t think this is necessarily an "either/or" deal with McNabb proving it's "win now", and that the FO has quickly abandoned an honest rebuild plan. I am also keeping in mind Shanny never said anything in detail about how he intended to develop the team personnel/strategy-wise via draft/FAs/trades or how many "years in the plan" there would be--i.e. 3,4,5.

So I didn't jump to the "we're going win now and forgetting about rebuild" conclusion or "it's the same ole same ole." Yet. :D

I think there's a lot still ahead before we know the complexity/form any plan Shanny has in real detail. We already have been surprised more than once by who has been ignored and who has been sought.

To backtrack, I looked at the RB shift as two semi-talented aging vets (one with injury concerns) being replaced by two other aging vets on the downturn but still of better talent at no cost impact that really affects the team negatively. So if you still want to "raise" a young back (also allowing one of the "big 3" may get cut) you still could just as we did the last few years while keeping the old 3 and still trying out others each year.

Then, with McNabb, while it may make the QB competition more an attitude than a reality (which simply says we have a guy with the clearly superior talent on the roster obviously worthy as #1 starter in the league), I also saw him as the steward at the helm capable of top ten performances even while still seeking that young franchise QB. Such a future QB would likely take 2-3 yrs to mature in most cases anyway.

This also fits with any scenario of the FO figuring their "best choice" was Bradford this year but that it may not work out in a manner acceptable to them, and instead we'd be better to draft best OL @4 or trading down. Or if there is thinking (as has been mentioned) that there might not even be a great choice on the horizon for next year.

But if there still is a chance to get Bradford and he's who Shanny wants, or it's picking Clausen after a trade down, or if it's one of several other scenarios that may unfold, we still have a team leader at the position who also just happens to make us more competitive even as we rebuild. Having McNabb doesn't automatically preclude any of those moves IMO. You could easily figure that if Bradford drops to 4 and we take him, he now has 3 years to learn the game while we have a true #1 (though at the cost of the 37th pick). That's not some disaster, IMO.

I know we're "extreme" here and there is a tendency for views to take polarized positions (and not just in the stadium) as in homer/hater or JC lover/JC basher. So too, IMO, is the "no rebuild here, we're going for win now" reaction at this point both extreme and premature. Some teams went "extreme" and pretty much blew up the whole shebang and went all new blood. Some did well with that approach, some didn't. Some (us) have slid too far the other direction in signing too many declining stars or headcases at outrageous costs and giving away too many picks in the process, hoping a new version of the Over the Hill Gang would result. And it hasn't (although many vets signed under Gibbs II played well for us). This time, we have cut a list of vets early that had some surprises for some folks. We've been reported as offering trades on others. The verdict isn't in yet at all on this FO as to if they're going to any extremes in such a manner IMO.

This is the time of FA's. The draft is still to come. I will be looking to see if we trade for picks as more of a clue, or if a pattern seems to emerge of ignoring the importance of drafting young talent. I don't think McNabb was any kind of "tipping point" to claim that pattern is now self-evident and we're all ****ed already.

All moves to date still allow finding a young QB to groom (including if it turns out to be Colt). Of course, nothing so far stops us from seeking youth at other positions where logical and when the desirable candidates appear.

It's way too early to start putting the stamp of "fail" on the direction to date, especially basing it mainly on the merits of the RB/McNabb discussion, pros and cons notwithstanding. If ignoring youth, trading away picks, signing loser old vets at huge contracts, becomes a notable ongoing trend with these new guys, I'll join that chorus.

The most debatable part to me is the draft picks we gave in the McNabb deal. If we get a 4th for JC that balances one given pick of the trade out. That leaves us debating whether giving up a 2nd to get McNabb was worth it during a time when we need as many picks as possible while gaining an easily-arguable and notable step-up at a very key position.

There is also the point that some of these moves are also sending a message to veteran stars who might need to know that things will be different with the new sheriff. That's arguably an important part of "rebuilding"--setting a new tone. We will see.

Side note, I am also intrigued to see how our young receivers perform with this change at QB with it not relating to a rookie in his first year of the NFL.

[Califan007]

I'm not really thinking in terms of "win now" vs. "rebuild"...I'm just trying to get a handle on what Shanahan and Allen's plan is lol. I'm not sure I quite get it yet. I guess I was assuming that their plan was to 1) find the franchise QB in the draft and mold him to be ready by 2012, if not sooner, 2) upgrade the OLine as best as possible both this season and next, 3) use Campbell as either trade bait or a stop-gap, 4) take the talent we have on defense and get it prepared as best as possible for the transition to a 3-4 scheme.

McNabb more or less shuttles #1 and #3, I haven't seen too much evidence of #2 yet (still holding out hope, though), and trying to trade Haynesworth is...not exactly in line with #4 lol :)...So are they trying to get draft picks or are they content on giving them away for the right player/FA? Are they wanting to find the franchise's next QB in the draft or are they putting it off whille McNabb is still here? Are they focused on Okung in the draft or will they look to replace Haynesworth with the #4 pick? Etc, etc...

[HailfrmDEN]

You still have to win games. You cant rebuild and win over your players by losing. losing is like a virus if you dont protect yourself and or family it can spread

[styx491]

The most debatable part to me is the draft picks we gave in the McNabb deal. If we get a 4th for JC that balances one given pick of the trade out. That leaves us debating whether giving up a 2nd to get McNabb was worth it during a time when we need as many picks as possible while gaining an easily-arguable and notable step-up at a very key position.

There is also the point that some of these moves are also sending a message to veteran stars who might need to know that things will be different with the new sheriff. That's arguably an important part of "rebuilding"--setting a new tone. We will see.

Side note, I am also intrigued to see how our young receivers perform with this change at QB with it not relating to a rookie in his first year of the NFL.

I was so happy when we got McNabb. The first thing that came into my mind was YES now we can win finally. The 2nd we gave up for him is worth it for that mentality I feel. The "rebuilding" tone also seems important to Shanahan seeing the new news about AH's trade and how Shanahan wants him out because he doesn't mesh with other players well and Shanny doesn't want that attitude. I think getting a 4th for JC will make this worth it, and whatever else we get in return for AH will also bring it back towards us having some picks again and it will add to the new winning and coheisive aura that begets Redskins Park nowadays. All we hear from players is how happy they are to finally play for a respected coach who is a winner.

For me, they have set a new positive tone because of McNabb, and grooming that positive tone while we groom our next talent is also very important and underestimated. The point is, I believe we can keep winning and also drafting well, including this year. And I am also so freaking pumped to see Cooley, Davis, DT, Kelly, and Moss being thrown to by a legitimate and established quarterback.

[MissU28]

I think they're trying to do both....try and win some games with McNabb, while trying to close some holes at other positions. Someone in another thread said it best- we have a seasoned player at the helm. We don't have to worry so much about qb coaching as we do about OL hiring and coaching, and Shanny can focus on those RBs like he's known for. McNabb will be a great source of training for any young qb prospect that we will eventually pick up.

I think they want to win now, but also start to build....veterans are the best ones to teach young players. Now it's just about getting the young players in the building.

[Jumbo]

Part of what I mentioned was how I note Shanny really hasn't made and detailed review of what his "plan" is--so to feel like there's already some definitive (and deficient) agenda reversal underway, or that it's going to be "just like always" is premature at best IMO. I can't imagine he actually has a plan that minimizes acquiring new talent. Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong, but the events that are giving some folks proof, or at least or strongly supporting the notion in their view, look different to me.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Always be closing building.

[ST is my boy]

Im in the camp that im excited we have a real leader at quarterback.....and I think it should change the whole teams mentality.

It was either Clauson and a 2nd round tackle, or Mcnabb and most likely the best tackle in the draft.

So really I dont think this trade changed all that much......except were a little bit older. Which seems to be a theme.......clealy Shanahan likes veterens.....thats about the only plan I know that he is putting together.

The things I dont get are the trading of Haynesworth and Landry......just dont get it....we need those guys.....clearly Allen and Shanahan dont like him as much as Vinny.

I think We should definitly trade Campbell, Carter, and one of our TE's........and come out of there with maybe a 2nd, 3rd, and a 4th.........then take a few more lineman, and a linebacker and suddenly I will think alot different about this team.

I think we are rebuilding just maybe not in the traditional way.......

[Jumbo]

I think they're trying to do both....try and win some games with McNabb, while trying to close some holes at other positions. Someone in another thread said it best- we have a seasoned player at the helm. We don't have to worry so much about qb coaching as we do about OL hiring and coaching, and Shanny can focus on those RBs like he's known for. McNabb will be a great source of training for any young qb prospect that we will eventually pick up.

I think they want to win now, but also start to build....veterans are the best ones to teach young players. Now it's just about getting the young players in the building.

Yup. This aligns with my suppositions based on moves to date and the FO's history in the league. They will make moves without serious prejudice between new blood and vets, and without excessive leaning towards any extreme. My big concern re: "same ole same ole" will be whether we shake having an insufficient number of draft picks year after year as it's so often seemed in the past.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

all of our current moves look like: "we'd like to rebuild but we dont wanna go 3-13 for 4 years to do it".

weve got mcnabb now for a good 3 year window. we have young receivers who should excel under his wings, we'll have a new young RB at some point in the next two years, and the oline will probably be built up over the next few years. we will still need to draft a replacement for mcnabbs successor, but i guess the FO figured if were gonna rebuild the line and transist the defense, we might as well have a good QB to keep us competitive.

[Mooka]

I think the rebuild the "right way" through the draft and with patience went out the door when we hired Shanahan.

The second we brought him on board we should've all accepted that Mike Shanahan will build a Mike Shanahan team.

That's what we're seeing now.

[Jumbo]

And a "yes" to those suggesting that building a successful franchise again does not preclude adding vets shrewdly, nor does the pursuit of being competitive and winning as you build need to be contradictory or counter-productive. It can be, but it isn't automatic. :)

[Darth Tater]

The thrust of this thread put me in mind of George Allen's "Future is now" philosophy. While he did bring in a lot of old vets, he took a team that had only 1 winning season in 15 years and helped build a top competitor that had only three losing seasons over the next 20+ years! In his seven years as HC/GM, only once did we field a team that was not in the playoff race. Much of the core of the early Joe Gibbs teams were build around guys he brought in (Riggo, JoeyT, Starke, and Butz to name his best finds). For all of the Gibbs 1.0 era the defense was run by one of his protegees and laid much of the groundwork that turned pro-football from a part-time endeavor to a full-time job.

[33]

I'm not sure any team rebuilds the classical way anymore. It's been proven that you can go from a one win season to the playoffs without it being a fluke, so I think most coaches/FO's take that as a challenge.

McNabb to me is as much a culture change for the locker room as it is a talent change on the field.

[Grinder]

It doesn't have to be either or but when you tap into the draft pool to pay for the vet players then it becomes that way.

I have that sinking feeling that we've once again overestimated our existing talent and believe we are far closer to a championship than we actually are.

[33]

No one got their season ticket renewals?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/futureisnow.jpg

[Oldfan]

Jumbo, based on Shanahan's Denver years, I didn't expect him to come in and build us a dynasty. He had full power for years in Denver and didn't come close. That's why I wasn't pleased when he was hired.


For me, the McNabb move signals two things that, taken together, are damned depressing: The first is that we are willing to give up draft picks for over-the-hill vets. For a team off a 4-12 season, it isn't possible to make a move that guarantees future mediocrity more than that one. The second is that we now know that Mike will continue with the offensive philosophy he had in Denver.


I don't like big play offenses. They are inconsistent and they make their defenses look bad because they can't play the ball control, field position game well. Emphasis on the big play: that's Donovan's game; and that's Shanahan's game.

[stevenaa]

I'm going to take a wait and see approach. I've avoided commenting as yet because my first reaction was rather visceral. Still haven't quite gotten past the emotion of the trade. His signing doesn't preclude building for the future. The biggest deficiancy was the Oline and that still has to be addressed. Hopefully with some youth.

[Jumbo]

It doesn't have to be either or but when you tap into the draft pool to pay for the vet players then it becomes that way.

I have that sinking feeling that we've once again overestimated our existing talent and believe we are far closer to a championship than we actually are.

I understand, Grinder, but I'd repeat that if it shakes out that we gave up a 37th at a time when we had few picks anyway to get McNabb, it remains a quite defensible move even if not some slam-dunk argument for the pro-McNabb group. I don't think it (as a single incident) qualifies for supporting your "becomes that way" contention.

Per your second paragraph, that's one type of a "broad leap" I'm arguing against. I see no reaosn, including getting McNabb, to figure the FO thinks "we are far closer to a championshop than we actually are." I laid out what I believe are much more viable rationales for the moves to date than taking them to mean what you suggest (but I really do understand the mindset).
:)

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

McNabb to me is as much a culture change for the locker room as it is a talent change on the field.

I concur. I've seen a handful of excellent posts on the net about this very likelihood. It's not that we expect to win a SB with McNabb, but it is a much more likely possibility with McNabb than with the people we've had of late. The idea is to see a guy who has performed, isn't dead to rights in terms of his ability take control of that huddle, for guys to see someone that whooped up on them and was only just recently a bad Eagles defense away from being in the SB AGAIN (against AZ).

You never build a bridge to the future by losing even more. You can end up doing this but it's mostly good fortune, plenty of teams have done this and continued to blow hardcore after that.

The offensive unit is starved for QB leadership and confidence. We all saw the difference in those few games in 2007 with a guy who knew what he was doing, whose teammates believed in him and whose respect was commanded by him.

Doing that, even if it's just a transition period might make the big difference between a truly successful change of course in Ashburn.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo, based on Shanahan's Denver years, I didn't expect him to come in and build us a dynasty. He had full power for years in Denver and didn't come close. That's why I wasn't pleased when he was hired.


For me, the McNabb move signals two things that, taken together, are damned depressing: The first is that we are willing to give up draft picks for over-the-hill vets. For a team off a 4-12 season, it isn't possible to make a move that guarantees future mediocrity more than that one. The second is that we now know that Mike will continue with the offensive philosophy he had in Denver.


I don't like big play offenses. They are inconsistent and they make their defenses look bad because they can't play the ball control, field position game well. Emphasis on the big play: that's Donovan's game; and that's Shanahan's game.

I know you think those things, (1st two paragraphs). And I consider most of what you stated to be the type of intelligent criticism/concern I mentioned. My take is as I explained. Of course, I hope I turn out to be more "right" as I know you hope I am too. :ols:

As for Shanny's "style", it's what we're going to have, so if you weren't happy about the hiring I wouldn't expect you to be happy about his being consistent in his approach. I expressed negative sentiments about him as an HC candidate for us many months ago when TK and I were talking about him. But, he's here, he's had serious success, and that's where we're at now. He's not my ideal or favorite, but I sure respect him nonetheless. I like what I see to date compared to the last 6 years, given all the caveats for it being so early in the game.

[Oldfan]

The thrust of this thread put me in mind of George Allen's "Future is now" philosophy.

If your objective is to keep a coaching job, George Allen's approach can't be beat.

Trade draft picks for vets;
Play a conservative offense, an aggressive defense;
Whip up on the weak teams in the league
Get beat in the playoffs, but keep a winning record
Run out your string
Get out of town before the bill comes due

[Forever21]

Well said Coach! Seriously Jumbo some calm thought out logic was needed here.

I for one think this trade is fantastic and is absolutely a step in the right direction. I think all at once our team was given a chance to win soon (note I do not say "now") and also to rebuild strongly.

I think Allen/Shanahan looked at Campbell/Colt/Rex and then looked at the incoming QB class and figured that their best bet for winning sooner or later was a veteran.

McNabb is only 33. He has 4-5 years of good-to-great football left in him. In the mean time our OL is rebuilt and a QB of the future is drafted (in a year or two or three). McNabb will be a great leader for the new QB to learn under (anyone think Campbell would be?) and also will give us a chance to win soon.

I have no reason to think that with McNabb under center, a new up and coming OL, and our consistently strong defense, that our Skins can't make some noise in the next 4-5 years. I believe we will be competing for the NFC East immediately.

This isn't the "same old Skins". If it was then we would have given up much more for McNabb and we'd be overpaying him huge on the extension. This is a smart FO and HC working together and putting together pieces that can lead to both winning soon and winning in the future.

I'm not guaranteeing a SB with Shanahan/McNabb but I am saying that this move will lead to some prosperity and will NOT lead to us falling even further behind. The future is now and the future is bright in Washington friends.

[maddogtre]

Great post. I worry that it is "same ole same ole" but I do agree it is way to early to tell. There is still a lot of offseason left and lot's of changes that could occur. I think Shanny's goal is to compete while rebuilding the team. The changes we needed weren't just vets for youth. It is the atmosphere that needed changing, and I think Shanny is doing a good job at changing the mindset of the players.

I also don't understand how the people against the trade think (for the most part) that we are so far away from being contenders, and that McNabb won't put us over the edge. That's just not true in the NFL today. Sean Payton and Dree Brees changed the saints quickly. Miami went from 1-15 to 10-6 (maybe 11-5) in one season. I think Shanny, McNabb, some OL improvement, and a more aggressive D could make a huge difference in one season.

And back to the rebuilding side. Shanny even said today that the perfect scenario would be to get a young QB to sit and learn for a few years. I personally would love to trade down from #4, and get the 2nd or 3rd best tackle. (there's no guarantee that Okung will be better than Buluga or Williams - see Robert Gallary or Jason Smith) Then in the second we could get Tebow or McCoy. We also have no idea what other picks we will pick up from trades.

I think a mix of the "win now" and "rebuild" is possible, and hope that is the plan. If anyone can do it, I'd think Shanny and Allen would be towards the top of the list.

We'll see. It should be interesting.

[Grinder]

I understand, Grinder, but I'd repeat that if it shakes out that we gave up a 37th at a time when we had few picks anyway to get McNabb, it remains a quite defensible move even if not some slam-dunk argument for the pro-McNabb group. I don't think it (as a single incident) qualifies for supporting your "becomes that way" contention.

Ok, the scales can still be balanced...let's see them put an effort into regaining meaningful picks by trading a few vets whose names keep getting tossed around. Or are we fine with taking the best OL at 4 and calling it a day?

Then I'd be curious to see what kind of effort is made to secure our QB of the future. Can we still get into position for a shot at an elite one in next year's draft? Do we still even care to?

Per your second paragraph, that's one type of a "broad leap" I'm arguing against. I see no reaosn, including getting McNabb, to figure the FO thinks "we are far closer to a championshop than we actually are." I laid out what I believe are much more viable rationales for the moves to date than taking them to mean what you suggest (but I really do understand the mindset).
:)

I say this because I'm still waiting for any long-term moves by this regime. Granted the draft is for the future and 30 year old free agent role players aren't supposed to be long term solutions, but with this trade we are tapping into our already limited pool of picks to acquire a player who has already spent the most productive years of his career elsewhere.

If we were serious about rebuilding, a lesser QB to hold the fort (and didn't require the loss of draft picks) until we could find 'our guy' makes more sense for a team with this many holes.

So now McNabb will no doubt win us a few more games in 2010 but at the cost of being out of position for a franchise QB in 2011 when several should be available early on.

I've seen enough of the quick fix mentality to know its not the answer.

[Veretax]

I absolutely love the move. Unlike with Brunnel McNabb still has some of that IT factor that JC just never had. Its about the only way we could add a QB and perhaps be better at the position this year than last.

[ConnSKINS26]

Always be closing building.

I see what you did there.

[Darth Tater]

I'm not sure any team rebuilds the classical way anymore. It's been proven that you can go from a one win season to the playoffs without it being a fluke, so I think most coaches/FO's take that as a challenge.

McNabb to me is as much a culture change for the locker room as it is a talent change on the field.
Not sure what you mean. Rebuild programs are historically one or two year plans, sometimes three. If after the year or two the program still isn't on its feet, time to start over. So, do teams now make longer plans to rebuild?

[Mr. Grundle]

all of our current moves look like: "we'd like to rebuild but we dont wanna go 3-13 for 4 years to do it".

weve got mcnabb now for a good 3 year window. we have young receivers who should excel under his wings, we'll have a new young RB at some point in the next two years, and the oline will probably be built up over the next few years. we will still need to draft a replacement for mcnabbs successor, but i guess the FO figured if were gonna rebuild the line and transist the defense, we might as well have a good QB to keep us competitive.

Exactly. Shanahan didn't come here on a 3-year rebuilding plan. He came here to win games. He knows that he and Allen are smart enough to do both....rebuild and win games at the same time.

People saying this is the same ol same ol, overpaying for other teams aging stars, are wrong. The difference now is we aren't overpaying. A 2nd for Mcnabb is the highest price we paid and that ain't much considering what the going rate for QB's in trades has been the past few years. Willie Parker, Larry Johnson, and all the other FA's have been signed for peanuts. New England implores the same strategy year in and year out. Bring in established but aging veterans for cheap and see who still has something left in the tank. Then again, they also horde draft picks. Where are ours? I dunno yet, but we have players on the trade block and I bet we end up with more than 4 picks come draft day.

[Darth Tater]

If your objective is to keep a coaching job, George Allen's approach can't be beat.

Trade draft picks for vets;
Play a conservative offense, an aggressive defense;
Whip up on the weak teams in the league
Get beat in the playoffs, but keep a winning record
Run out your string
Get out of town before the bill comes due

When did any bills ever really come due? As I pointed out, George Allen was a major reason why Gibbs had such success early. If it weren't for him, we probably would NOT have had Riggo, JoeyT, Starke or Butz to name a few and these were the core of the Redskin teams from 1981 to 1984. Gibbs actually took over a pretty good team that had just a few missing pieces and needed an innovator at coach. He also was the guy who introduced us to modern coaching staff structure, developed Pettibon into a defensive genius, got us Redskins Park and set us on the way to many other modern training methods. He is at the core of many defensive innovations seen even today. He was the catalyst taking a program that had been in the crapper having only two winning seasons over the previous 20 years, turning it into a program that only had two losing seasons in the next 20 years. He introduced to the Redskins much of what took football from a game won by the team with the best individual talent to a game won by the better team. Even the downturn in 1980 was more the result of a rift between the GM (Beathard) and the coach (Pardee) along with the Riggo "retirement" (remember, the 1979 team was just one play away from winning the division).