The Bitter Man: Was Shanahan's 2010 the worst first year coaching job in Redskins' history?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

As I am puzzled by the optimism here, I will make my points in the concise, brilliant fashion that you are accustomed to seeing from me.

In 2010, Mike Shanahan and some guy whose dad coached the team before I was born took over the Redskins - following the closest thing that could ever be called a fan revolt. Brought in with much fanfare, they "improved" the Skins to a 6-10 record and a last placed finish in the division all while watching the attendance figures fall to heretofore unseen levels.

But, the Redskins Team Stores did great, and Donovan McNabb's jersey was the #2 seller in the league behind Nazareth's own Tim Tebow. (As an aside, "Love Hurts" by Nazareth is the best power ballad ever).

Shanahan did great things in his first year - like bringing in a 120 pound kick returner and a receiver who will surely lead the Skins's to next year's Grey Cup. (I kid, I kid. In the words of Jon Gruden, "I like those guys.")

But one can make the argument that Shanahan committed the three of the biggest mistakes the Redskins have made during the Snyder Era. Those are:

1. The conversion of the defense into the 3-4. The 2009 Redskins were the 10th ranked defense in the league. While this is not going to cause the fans to throw spontaneous parades, it's a foundation to build from. Shanahan said, "To hell with that level of competence for I am intrigued by the 3-4 and the 3-4 it shall be." This single decision caused the Skins to have arguably the worst defense in team history. It was 17 yards away from being the worst defense in the league. It gave up more yards than any defense in team history. It rendered three of the defensive playmakers borderline worthless to the team. It led to a beating so severe on Monday Night Football that the linebacking core had to spend the night in a shelter.

Shanahan could have injected all the defensive starters with e coli and done less damage to the team. As it stands, short of a major overhaul via free agency, there does not seem much to build on either. The defense is bad and will likely remain bad.

But Shanahan remains really really intrigued by the possibility.

2. The second blunder of the season merely impacted the most important position on the field as well as the team's ability to improve in the off-season. I, of course, refer to the signing and eventual public castration of one Donovan F. McNabb. Remember that glorious time four long months ago where we could say, "Well, at least the QB position is stable for the next two or three years?" Think back. You can do it.

The team traded two draft picks to a division rival for the services of the venerable McNabb. That trade partner proceeded to humiliate the Skins on national tv en route to a division title. Then - for reasons that remain unclear - Shanahan decided that McNabb was too fat to run his offense. He then decided that McNabb was just aces and rewarded him with several million dollars. He then doubled back and decided that - no - McNabb really sucked and what this team needed was a blast from The Sex Cannon. McNabb was certainly mediocre, but Shanahan could only have handled the situation worse if he had decided to make McNabb play the Mike Linebacker position in the 3-4.

Shanahan somehow managed to look arrogant, arbitrary, capricious, indecisive, and power mad all within the course of dealing with one player. McNabb seems to be a beloved figure in the league so who knows what message this sent to potential free agents around the league? Granted, in the past, the Redskins have been able to overcome the fact that they often treat players like pricks by paying them like Saudi princes. So, Snyder's money will likely erase the long-term stain of this episode.

But it will not change the fact that we do not have a QB or two draft picks now.

3. The final blot on this season is the Albert Haynesworth saga - whatever the hell it was. Look, Haynesworth is an ******* and he would probably be willing to tell you that over Long Island Iced Teas at Coastal Flats. But everyone knew this going in.

Shanahan basically knew he had a supremely talented but borderline uncoachable superstar on his team and decided to spend the entire season poking him with a large stick. Shanahan's supporters will say this showed the team that he was in charge. But it seems strange that a future Hall of Famer with two Super Bowl rings and a reputation as a genius needs to prove anything. In the end, the Skins really only had two choices: trade Haynesworth or try to get some production out of him. In the end, they chose Door Number 3, which is letting the man sit on his fat ass.

Shanahan turned quite possibly the biggest asset the Skins' possessed into someone with the value of a street free agent.

On the plus side, his running game still seems to work and we may have a backup nose tackle. So, kudos there.

In short, its hard to think of a first-year coach who made one blunder of the magnitude of the three listed above. When you realize that all three occurred in the same year, it's disconcerting.

The Skins currently have a dramatic gap with its three division rivals and need to pull a major rabbit out of the hat during Free Agency in order to approach something resembling competitiveness. The team has won 12 of its last 40 games. More than anything, the team needs to begin building a winning culture, lest the players learn how to lose. While the team still needs to rebuild, it has to find a way to win games in the process of rebuilding. But Shanahan has clearly in my view made that much more difficult.

The secret possibility here is that Shanahan is actually counting on a lock-out. Which is almost too depressing for words.

Anyway, that was fun. I feel much better now.

[Burgold]

I think your vision isn't clear.

I think you forget how bad we were last year. Last year's top ten D could stop nobody (I'm willing to concede that this year's D was worse). Whenever a stop was needed or a big play was called for they folded. They gave up a game winning drive every other game. They were dreadful. This team had no offense. It had no line, no qb, no rb, one wr, no pr, no kr, and two tight ends. The team also absolutely quit. They were pushovers.

From that deep a hole, it's almost impossible to climb out in a day (or a season), but... we have the makings of a line. We have two wide receivers. We have a running back. The play picked up in a major way the last three games and remember they were against teams that HAD to win. One we beat and the other we were a Gano gimme away from being tied. More, we went from zero division wins to two. We went from 4 wins to 6. In all ways, we are a little better.

No one should be throwing a parade or popping champagne, but no one should be leaping off buildings either. We got better... we are more disciplined... young players made statements... we got a long way to go. At least we've taken our first steps.

[Crazy Levi]

It's too soon for this stuff in my opinion.

The move to the 3-4 could turn out to be genius. Shanahan could go on to win a Super Bowl. I don't really have a problem with how this first year went. You win some, you lose some.

And Shanahan's dad never coached the Skins.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Things you never thought you'd see quoted on the football section of these hear boards #904 A Scottish heavy metal band.

Hail.

---------- Post added January-4th-2011 at 03:13 PM ----------



And Shanahan's dad never coached the Skins.

Good to know. But he was talking about Bruce Allen's.

Hail.

[justice98]

I don't know about worst, but it certainly is up there. All the off the field shenanigans and missteps is what gives it that extra downgrade. Being bad is one thing, but being bad with all the extra nonsense is even worse.

[LD0506]

You ought to jiggle the handle and try flushing again to see if this thread will go down the second time

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

mcnabb was the only big mistake. aside from that everything else has been fine. setting an example with haynesworth is fine by me, shows free agents that they cant just come here and hang out and get paid a trillion dollars anymore. thats gonna go a long way with us.

[Burgold]

All the off the field shenanigans and missteps is what gives it that extra downgrade. Being bad is one thing, but being bad with all the extra nonsense is even worse.

Long term, that may make this a positive year. We had some outrageous divas who thought they were way above the team. I doubt there was anyway to handle them gracefully. (McNabb being the exception) I think it was important to exert authority and not back down this year. Rule of law had to be imposed because there were too many country club puffins. You concede to them and then the whole thing starts all over again.

So, Shanny may have had no choice but to be a relentless hard ass.

[MartinC]

As to the question posed in the thread title I refer you to Richie Pettibons first and only season as HC in 1993 replacing Joe Gibbs. Not good, which was a shame given the great work he did here as the DC under Joe.

[TheLongshot]

Well, to address this:

1) I think it was a mistake to go cold turkey with the 3-4 with the personnel we had. It was pretty obvious to most of us that Carter and Big Al were not going to fit very well into the roles assigned to them. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more of a 4-3 front with 3-4 fronts thrown in. Either that or get rid of the players who don't fit. Personally, I thought both should have been traded. If Gibbs was here, it is very likely that Big Al would have been shipped at the very least.

2) If you are making such a dramatic change with your defense, and you know that most of the OL likely needs to be replaced, getting McNabb was a luxury we couldn't afford. While people cried "stability", I didn't see it being worth two draft picks considering that McNabb was likely not going to be here to reap the benefits of a rebuilt team.

3) I'm not happy with the way he handled some situations. There probably wasn't much to be done with Big Al once Shanahan made the decision to go to a 3-4, but I didn't think his hard-ass routine once he got in here was going to do much to motivate him. That being said, Big Al pretty much ****ed his career. For all his talk about wanting to be the best, he proved that he really doesn't want to be the best, because the best are more than just pass rushers.

I'm more bothered by some of the other things he did. Surprise starts and benchings. Players seemingly in the doghouse for no reason. While Gibbs was also a master of saying nothing, you at least got the feeling that the players all knew where they stood with the coach. You don't get that feeling with Shanahan.

That being said, the discipline has mostly been a good thing for this team. The team was much more focused this year than they were last year. Less stupid mistakes. I also think we have players we can build on going forward. Hopefully, this year the team can pull off some trades and get a few more picks.

[authentic]

No disrespect to the OP, but i think you're kind of sensationalizing things a bit. You have to understand that this was/is an organization in transition. Many of the players who contributed in years past will be gone. Therefore, this was a season of evaluation. They had to dump alot of the old, unproductive, and costly players early on in the offseason and will have to do much of the same this offseason. Haynesworth should have been traded, but since he wasn't, i don't fault Shanny for how he handled that situation. Fat Al has to go! McNabb was the only major mistake that i can think of. He shouldn't have given up two picks for him and, the whole Detroit debacle and the recent back and forth with the agent didn't help either. But overall, he's trying to establish a foundation of winning football. What we now need is the talent that fit the respective schemes, and guys willing to buy into what ever is asked. Last offseason we prayed for a coach who would finally hold the players accountable. Well now we have him, so lets be patient.

[Skinsinparadise]

I can live with one bad trade for draft picks -- Gibbs IMO hurt our future by making a TON of trades like that one. If all Gibbs did was one bad deal lets say Duckett, we'd survive, but he and Cerrato traded picks like mad. We have 7 picks in the upcoming draft, 8 picks in 2012 -- not exactly motgage our future territory -- and no where in the Gibbs/Cerrato range of trading picks.

McNabb isn't a lifelong Redskin who is aprt of our legacy -- its not like what Marty did to Darrel Green. Look McNabb is a classy guy but I don't see how he's a player that we all are emotionally invested in. That goes double for Haynsworth. That's a big Vinny blunder. Can't see how we hang the AH bust factor on Shanahan -- or we should cry over a guy who didn't want to play in the team's scheme or even talk to the coach. And i am not sure if a player who thinks his needs come above the team breads team unity.

Vinny already left Shanny with an old 4-12 team, without 2 draft picks, and with a lot of veterans with inflated contracts. Shanny did decently in the draft and bringing in Torain and Banks are nice additions.

as for the 3-4 -- jury is out but for all of those that take shots at Shanny for not rebuilding, i don't see how they complain about this. I gather the idea of switching to this defense even though all the parts aren't there yet is a sign that Shanny DIDN'T think they were going to the Super bowl THIS year, so why not take our growing pains and start adapting players to the system now. In any system, you get better generally the longer you play in it, so why wait? Having said that this isn't my endorsement of Shanny with the defense, this is the area that he scares me with, but for now I'll let the movie play out, am not going to condemn the idea because heck I didn't expect that this will be our year so with that in mind am on board with starting the process now. It's not as if 3-4 defenses are failures, the problem isn't that its a bad system, is that we don't have all the parts for it yet. But why not got the Orkapos, and Landry's etc used to the system now?

[TheLongshot]

As to the question posed in the thread title I refer you to Richie Pettibons first and only season as HC in 1993 replacing Joe Gibbs. Not good, which was a shame given the great work he did here as the DC under Joe.

Yeah, that was far more of a disaster than this season, particularly since Casserly had no clue how to handle FA that year.

[aREDSKIN]

Given Shannys history & resume it's right up there.

[ouvan59]

I don't know about worst, but it certainly is up there. All the off the field shenanigans and missteps is what gives it that extra downgrade. Being bad is one thing, but being bad with all the extra nonsense is even worse.

Personally I thought the off the field stuff was great. After the inmates ran the asylum for the last umpteen years I thought it was great that they publically humiliated Haynesworth. I have no problem with the way they handled McNabb either. Shanahan is the boss and everybody has to know that. As far as going to the 3-4 a year earlier I'm fine with that too. If we had stayed with the 4-3 then we'd have to find out who could play it next year. Now we know who fits and who doesn't and can make changes accordingly.

We have preached patience for years and unfortunately many of those who preach it don't have it.

[Darkstarr]

Typical glass is half empty story. He forgets to mention a very nice draft pick in T. Williams by shanny, he forgets imo to mention the ok trade for Brown, he forgets to mention 2 more division wins then last year, he forgets to mention this team did not quit and lay down like others teams in the nfl after they were eliminated. Plz actually sit back and look at some of the good that came out of this year. That horrible def. did hold 9 yes 9 teams to under 20 pts. last time i checked i rate my def. by how many pts it gives up not how many yards. Improve the O and a def. that holds teams to under 20 will be just fine. So plz at least try and look at things half full for a change.

[hail2skins]

You know what's depressing? Four out of the past five seasons, the Redskins have gone 2-6 in the second half of the slate. I guess in 2006 Gibbs at least had the excuse of going to JC......we really need to acquire a QB sometime during this draft.

God, this team has sucked ass.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Don't be so dramatic, LKB. This season was no worse than year one of Gibbs II and was significantly better than the '93 and '94 seasons.

[Bang]

Not a chance.
Richie Petitbon was a much larger disappointment because it was humiliating to watch how we'd fallen from a champion to complete ineptitude in less than 20 months... including losing an OT game to the sorry ass Jets 3-0
His failure paved the way for Norv, and we see how that was.

~Bang

[TheLongshot]

Typical glass is half empty story. He forgets to mention a very nice draft pick in T. Williams by shanny, he forgets imo to mention the ok trade for Brown, he forgets to mention 2 more division wins then last year, he forgets to mention this team did not quit and lay down like others teams in the nfl after they were eliminated. Plz actually sit back and look at some of the good that came out of this year. That horrible def. did hold 9 yes 9 teams to under 20 pts. last time i checked i rate my def. by how many pts it gives up not how many yards. Improve the O and a def. that holds teams to under 20 will be just fine. So plz at least try and look at things half full for a change.

Well, the team didn't really quit last year under even more oppressive conditions, so I don't know if you can give Shanahan complete credit for that.

[scampbell1975]

Oh yes they did. The players have said after the first 6 or 7 games they were just waiting for the season to end.

[addicted]

As I am puzzled by the optimism here, I will make my points in the concise, brilliant fashion that you are accustomed to seeing from me.

Always a pleasure to read your thoughts LKB. Although I will disagree with most of your points keep them coming




But one can make the argument that Shanahan committed the three of the biggest mistakes the Redskins have made during the Snyder Era. Those are:

1. The conversion of the defense into the 3-4. The 2009 Redskins were the 10th ranked defense in the league. While this is not going to cause the fans to throw spontaneous parades, it's a foundation to build from. Shanahan said, "To hell with that level of competence for I am intrigued by the 3-4 and the 3-4 it shall be." This single decision caused the Skins to have arguably the worst defense in team history. It was 17 yards away from being the worst defense in the league. It gave up more yards than any defense in team history. It rendered three of the defensive playmakers borderline worthless to the team. It led to a beating so severe on Monday Night Football that the linebacking core had to spend the night in a shelter.

Shanahan could have injected all the defensive starters with e coli and done less damage to the team. As it stands, short of a major overhaul via free agency, there does not seem much to build on either. The defense is bad and will likely remain bad.

But Shanahan remains really really intrigued by the possibility.

In my opinion it's far too early to even think this was that big of a mistake as you suggest. Want proof?

Point 1 - We were in 4 overtime games this year. To me that says the team was in those games. Your not going to pull off shutouts in the first year of a change like this but your hope is that the defense keeps things close. They did. Although we lost 10 games this season the defense played better as the season went on and the guys got more familiar with the system. This should continue next year.

Point 2 - We lost 10 games in the year. If you take away the MNF game you mentioned, the Detriot game, the first Giants game, and the Rams game and leave the other 6 games out there you'll find that we lost those games by a combine score of 17 points. We easily could have had a better record then we did and when you consider that Gano missed 11 FG's on the season and those XP's it's reasonable to think we should have had a better record. And those games the Defense kept it close.

Point 3 - Defense can not do it all but they did stand up and beat 3 playoff teams this year. How often in these losing seasons can we say we beat half of the playoff teams in the NFC? I can't remember but it's not like we only beat creampuffs. The Defense more then held up against Chicago, the Eagles, and the Packers and without the effort we couldn't look at those wins


Looking solely at the record my mind goes back everytime to the poor job our kicker did this year. If we were lucky to have an automatic kicker from say an under 45 yard kick our season would have been totally different. He missed so many cruical kicks this year that killed us.

Week 2 we lost by 3 points. Gano missed two FG's,
Week 6 we lost by 3 points. Gano missed 1 FG
Week 14 we lost by 1 point. Gano missed 2 FG's
Week 17 we lost by 3 points. Gano missed 1 FG

I'd contend that much worse then sticking out the change to the 3-4 would be the decision for the team to stick with a kicker who performed as poorly as this.




2. The second blunder of the season merely impacted the most important position on the field as well as the team's ability to improve in the off-season. I, of course, refer to the signing and eventual public castration of one Donovan F. McNabb. Remember that glorious time four long months ago where we could say, "Well, at least the QB position is stable for the next two or three years?" Think back. You can do it.

The team traded two draft picks to a division rival for the services of the venerable McNabb. That trade partner proceeded to humiliate the Skins on national tv en route to a division title. Then - for reasons that remain unclear - Shanahan decided that McNabb was too fat to run his offense. He then decided that McNabb was just aces and rewarded him with several million dollars. He then doubled back and decided that - no - McNabb really sucked and what this team needed was a blast from The Sex Cannon. McNabb was certainly mediocre, but Shanahan could only have handled the situation worse if he had decided to make McNabb play the Mike Linebacker position in the 3-4.

Shanahan somehow managed to look arrogant, arbitrary, capricious, indecisive, and power mad all within the course of dealing with one player. McNabb seems to be a beloved figure in the league so who knows what message this sent to potential free agents around the league? Granted, in the past, the Redskins have been able to overcome the fact that they often treat players like pricks by paying them like Saudi princes. So, Snyder's money will likely erase the long-term stain of this episode.

But it will not change the fact that we do not have a QB or two draft picks now.

The story of McNabb this years been blown extremely out of porportion to me. The man's a professional and was benched against Detroit. I have no problem with this because the man was performing terribly before this point and even after it happened. McNabb by name only would be an automatic start but at what point does a name mean anything without results on the field? The fact this didn't work out for us sucks, can't deny that. But holding the cards and McNabb's fate in our hands to do with whatever we wish this offseason for a small ransom of 3.5 million will turn out to be a very smart move provided he is traded for a draft pick which everyone expects. The lesson to be learned here in my opinion is that while you win some and lose some the trades you make shouldn't be made in the division. We traded within the division and helped our opponants. Not a good thing to ever do. No one knew outside of speculation what was in store after that fateful Easter morning trade wether it was a good thing to do or a bad but when your dealing within the division you don't take risks like this. And lets be honest, McNabb led this team to a 5-8 record. Who's crying a river about sitting a QB with that record?




3. The final blot on this season is the Albert Haynesworth saga - whatever the hell it was. Look, Haynesworth is an ******* and he would probably be willing to tell you that over Long Island Iced Teas at Coastal Flats. But everyone knew this going in.

Shanahan basically knew he had a supremely talented but borderline uncoachable superstar on his team and decided to spend the entire season poking him with a large stick. Shanahan's supporters will say this showed the team that he was in charge. But it seems strange that a future Hall of Famer with two Super Bowl rings and a reputation as a genius needs to prove anything. In the end, the Skins really only had two choices: trade Haynesworth or try to get some production out of him. In the end, they chose Door Number 3, which is letting the man sit on his fat ass.

Shanahan turned quite possibly the biggest asset the Skins' possessed into someone with the value of a street free agent.

The biggest mistake made here with that fat piece of trash was also made with other players on Defense and that was not to expect specific players to have down seasons and make moves to move those guys while they had value. Had we been smart and traded AH and Andre Carter prior to the draft last year we would have cashed in on maximum return value. We screwed up there but its easy to understand why we didn't. Snyder because of the past GM's mistakes had to pay this man his money and if you were a business owner and just paid someone 20 million would you be that quick to fire him? The piss poor effort AH gave on the field this season is a reflection on the man himself not Shanny. No one made AH lie down on the field and not give an honest effort or be able to run a 40 yard dash after he lied over and over saying he was in shape. The mistake with Hanyesworth is ultimately on Ceratto's shoulders since he was the reason he was signed to the contract in the first place.




On the plus side, his running game still seems to work and we may have a backup nose tackle. So, kudos there.

In short, its hard to think of a first-year coach who made one blunder of the magnitude of the three listed above. When you realize that all three occurred in the same year, it's disconcerting.

The Skins currently have a dramatic gap with its three division rivals and need to pull a major rabbit out of the hat during Free Agency in order to approach something resembling competitiveness. The team has won 12 of its last 40 games. More than anything, the team needs to begin building a winning culture, lest the players learn how to lose. While the team still needs to rebuild, it has to find a way to win games in the process of rebuilding. But Shanahan has clearly in my view made that much more difficult.

The secret possibility here is that Shanahan is actually counting on a lock-out. Which is almost too depressing for words.

Anyway, that was fun. I feel much better now.

Cool. We have the next 8 months to hash out the blame game. No one's right when everyone's wrong.

[Skinsinparadise]

I'm more bothered by some of the other things he did. Surprise starts and benchings. Players seemingly in the doghouse for no reason. While Gibbs was also a master of saying nothing, you at least got the feeling that the players all knew where they stood with the coach.

I got to go back and google Lavarr Arrington to refresh my memory but If i recall correctly to this day he says Gibbs is the worst coach he ever had, thought he treated him disrespectfully, the communication wasn't there, etc. Whether that's true, is a different story but that was the players side of the story. It should be interesting if the WP does an expose on McNabb at some point in the off season because 980's Chris Russell (who seems to have good sources to the team) has been hinting for the last couple of weeks that his sources tell him that the idea that Shanny is running roughshod over poor nice guy McNabb isn't the whole story -- am getting the impression from Russell's show that McNabb isn't always telling the truth.

Just think about all the double talk coming from McNabb. He really wants to be back. IMO that doesn't seem sincere. He says that Shanny didn't tell him he'd be third string. Shanny flat out responded saying that he indeed told him -- Russell seems to back up Shanny on it. McNabb disavows his agent's comments. He looks foolish because that's not believable. So then he comes back and says he supports his agents comments but he doesn't take ownership of them. He seems to be playing this like a politician. I'll be the ncie guy, I'll have my agent do the dirty work and make Shanny look bad. And don't get me wrong, I think Shanny mishandled it but am starting to believe that McNabb is quite the PR manipulator in his own right.

[Crazy Levi]

Oh yes they did. The players have said after the first 6 or 7 games they were just waiting for the season to end.

Huh? Please provide evidence of this.

I'll say, they sure look liked they'd quit by the Giants game. But that turned around as younger guys came up at the end of the season. I was happy to see it. They certinaly didn't look like they'd quit over the last three games.

[Skinsinparadise]

Not a chance.
Richie Petitbon was a much larger disappointment because it was humiliating to watch how we'd fallen from a champion to complete ineptitude in less than 20 months... including losing an OT game to the sorry ass Jets 3-0
His failure paved the way for Norv, and we see how that was.

~Bang

I agree.

Norv's first year was real ugly, 3-13
Joe Gibbs in his first year back was likewise 6-10 and that offense was much more painful to watch than this one

14 of our 16 games were close, didn't we set an NFL record this year for games decided by a certain small amount of points, forgot what the number was? We beat a bunch of playoff teams and played almost every opponent down to the wire. Watching these games, we were in most of them, and that kept me watching, so no this didn't feel as bad as Petitbon's first season, or Norv's or Gibbs 2nd stint.

[hail2skins]

I'll say, they sure look liked they'd quit by the Giants game. But that turned around as younger guys came up at the end of the season. I was happy to see it. They certinaly didn't look like they'd quit over the last three games.

Levi, think the poster meant the 2009 team, which I don't think quit until after Vinny got the axe with three games left.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

For the record, I think fans and journalists love to say that "a team quit" because it's a very easy explanation and is impossible to prove. No on really knows for sure if a team quits on its coach or not and really can't explain what that means.

Generally speaking, I think teams only really "quit" when they want the coach to be fired (like with Wade this year in Dallas) or when it's obvious that the coach is going to be fired.

I find it hard to believe that anyone was going to "quit" during year one of the Shanahan Era. I would assume that most of the players would not want to intentionally poison the well with the coach who is likely to be here for several years.

I think we sometimes give way too much credit to coaches when teams act like professionals. I think 95 percent of the players play hard all the time - the main reason being that if you don't, someone like James Harrison will attempt to paralyze you.

And, yes, the first year with Petitbon was bad, but that was simply the case of a team getting old all at once. I don't really blame the coach for things like that.

I actually think that game in and game out, Shanahan did an excellent job coaching the team. He kept them in games, we didn't do insanely stupid things, the offensive scheme found ways to get players in position to do things and covered up a lot of talent deficincies.

I just think he made three major blunders that undercut the team's ability to win game in and game out. From a macro standpoint, the season was a debacle. From a micro standpoint, it was ok. That is the opposite of what Norv's teams usually did.

[hail2skins]

14 of our 16 games were close, didn't we set an NFL record this year for games decided by a certain small amount of points, forgot what the number was? We beat a bunch of playoff teams and played almost every opponent down to the wire. Watching these games, we were in most of them, and that kept me watching, so no this didn't feel as bad as Petitbon's first season, or Norv's or Gibbs 2nd stint.

The NFL is all about close games. People always clubbed Norv over the head for not winning the close games and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.......but yet now its a damn badge of honor.

By the way, not saying in any way, shape, or form that Norv is a good HC, but he won 45 percent of his games when he was in DC.

In the 10 seasons since he's been gone, the Redskins have won 42.5 percent of their games.

Time to get it on, Mr. Shanahan.

[Bang]

I think part of the optimism which puzzles you LKB is stemming from the fact that we know how much of a shambles the team was in as he took over.. and even though some of us drank the playoffs-is-now Kool Aid, a lot of us knew better.
Granted, the season was frustrating, but I really like the effort of the younger players coming down the stretch, and it shows me that we've begun to get players in here who want to play, rather than players who just want to cash their paycheck.
I don't really recall a time in the last twenty or so years when we've had such an influx of younger players,, be they high picks like Williams, or diamond-in-the-rough types like Banks or Anderson.
In reading the comments of players as they leave for the offseason, it seems as if they're eager for next year.. they know that they're moving in the right direction.
Comparing that with the numbers of times I've seen the players truly only care about getting out of town after a disappointing season, and it gives me hope that even thru all the drama, Shanahan has gotten hold of the locker room and has the majority of his players believing in the program.

~Bang

[TheLongshot]

I'd contend that much worse then sticking out the change to the 3-4 would be the decision for the team to stick with a kicker who performed as poorly as this.

I didn't have a problem sticking with Gano because I didn't think we were all that great in the first place, and who were we going to replace him with? I expect that he will get some competition next year, but I don't really want to give up on him. We gave up on Suisham and he seems to be kicking great for the Steelers.


The story of McNabb this years been blown extremely out of porportion to me. The man's a professional and was benched against Detroit. I have no problem with this because the man was performing terribly before this point and even after it happened. McNabb by name only would be an automatic start but at what point does a name mean anything without results on the field? The fact this didn't work out for us sucks, can't deny that. But holding the cards and McNabb's fate in our hands to do with whatever we wish this offseason for a small ransom of 3.5 million will turn out to be a very smart move provided he is traded for a draft pick which everyone expects. The lesson to be learned here in my opinion is that while you win some and lose some the trades you make shouldn't be made in the division. We traded within the division and helped our opponants. Not a good thing to ever do. No one knew outside of speculation what was in store after that fateful Easter morning trade wether it was a good thing to do or a bad but when your dealing within the division you don't take risks like this. And lets be honest, McNabb led this team to a 5-8 record. Who's crying a river about sitting a QB with that record?

There is no question that McNabb was a disappointment, tho I still question his benching at the end of the Detroit game. There was nothing I saw that Rex could do better at that point that McNabb wasn't capable of himself.

While I thought benching McNabb for the season was the right thing to do, I hate the way Shanahan did it. He should have made the announcement on Wed when he made the decision. Instead, it hung around for a couple days and the rumormill got a hold of it and made it a bigger deal than it should have been. I think Shanahan was trying to be way too cute about the whole thing.


I got to go back and google Lavarr Arrington to refresh my memory but If i recall correctly to this day he says Gibbs is the worst coach he ever had, thought he treated him disrespectfully, the communication wasn't there, etc. Whether that's true, is a different story but that was the players side of the story. It should be interesting if the WP does an expose on McNabb at some point in the off season because 980's Chris Russell (who seems to have good sources to the team) has been hinting for the last couple of weeks that his sources tell him that the idea that Shanny is running roughshod over poor nice guy McNabb isn't the whole story -- am getting the impression from Russell's show that McNabb isn't always telling the truth.

Gibbs stuck by the story that Lavar knew why he wasn't playing, and when he did start playing again, Lavar admitted at one point that before he wasn't quite right. Course, it ended up being obvious to everyone because he wasn't playing like he used to. Course, then at the end of the season he decides to lay a press bomb while the team was struggling to get into the playoffs. That rather permamently put me off him.


Just think about all the double talk coming from McNabb. He really wants to be back. IMO that doesn't seem sincere. He says that Shanny didn't tell him he'd be third string. Shanny flat out responded saying that he indeed told him -- Russell seems to back up Shanny on it. McNabb disavows his agent's comments. He looks foolish because that's not believable. So then he comes back and says he supports his agents comments but he doesn't take ownership of them. He seems to be playing this like a politician. I'll be the ncie guy, I'll have my agent do the dirty work and make Shanny look bad. And don't get me wrong, I think Shanny mishandled it but am starting to believe that McNabb is quite the PR manipulator in his own right.

I think a lot of this stuff is coming from his agent trying to set up a market for him based on the situation that happened this season. I do think that McNabb was honest in wanting to stay here. (Otherwise, why sign the contract? If he really didn't want to be here he wouldn't have signed.)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I agree that the "close game" argument is weak.

Here are the Ravens' margin of victories/defeats.

+1
-5
+7
+3
+14
-3
+3
+6
-5
+24
+7
-3
+6
+6
+10
+6

That means 13 of the 16 Ravens' games could have been swung by one play. Yet, they won 12 games.

Every NFL game is close. The Browns played 10 games decided by a TD or less.

[ouvan59]

The NFL is all about close games. People always clubbed Norv over the head for not winning the close games and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.......but yet now its a damn badge of honor.

By the way, not saying in any way, shape, or form that Norv is a good HC, but he won 45 percent of his games when he was in DC.

In the 10 seasons since he's been gone, the Redskins have won 42.5 percent of their games.

Time to get it on, Mr. Shanahan.

The problem is that Norv was still losing those close games in year 7. If Shanahan is losing close games regularly in year 3 I'll be calling for his head. Right now I'll settle for changing the culture and building a team that can win down the road. And when I say win I mean win big.

[Califan007]

1. The conversion of the defense into the 3-4. The 2009 Redskins were the 10th ranked defense in the league. While this is not going to cause the fans to throw spontaneous parades, it's a foundation to build from. Shanahan said, "To hell with that level of competence for I am intrigued by the 3-4 and the 3-4 it shall be."

The 2010 Skins defense caused 27 turnovers and scored 2 TDs off of them.
The 2009 Skins defense caused 17 turnovers and scored zero TDs off of them.

The 2010 Skins defense gave up 2 more points per game than the 2009 Skins defense.

However...

The 2010 Skins defense played 9 games against top-10 scoring offenses.
The 2009 Skins defense played 6 games against top-10 scoring offenses.

The 2010 Skins defense played 2 games against bottom-10 scoring offenses
The 2009 Skins defense played 5 games against bottom-10 scoring offenses.


The 2010 Skins defense had 29 sacks.
The 2009 Skins defense had 40 sacks.

However...

The 2010 Skins defense played 6 games against teams that allowed the fewest sacks (top 10).
The 2009 Skins defense played 2 games against teams that allowed the fewest sacks (top 10).


I, for one, am glad Shanahan said "To hell with that level of competence" when it came to what Blache's defenses was putting out each year. I suspect that in a year or two most on this site will be agreeing with me.

[ConnSKINS26]

LKB, I've liked you (or at least your online persona) since I first saw your posts years ago lurking ES.

I laugh with you often, reading many of your more sardonic posts. I laugh at those who don't seem to get your humor, those times that I'm sure you actually are being humorous. Overall, I enjoy your contributions to the site, and the unique view you bring to all things, football-related and not.

But sometimes, you outdo yourself. I enjoy it, but all the same, I'm saying it. Sometimes, you're the "Lady GaGa" of ES, without the tits and the glitter (I assume...you never know). You try too hard to be quirky, witty, and unique.

I can see much of what you're arguing here, even if I don't agree, but the delivery will take away from it for many here.

All the same, I can't seem to get through one of your posts without at least chuckling. I like that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But sometimes, you outdo yourself. I enjoy it, but all the same, I'm saying it. Sometimes, you're the "Lady GaGa" of ES, without the tits and the glitter (I assume...you never know). You try too hard to be quirky, witty, and unique.

Thank you for the advice. I will occasionally feel a small bit of guilt in utterly ignoring your suggestions.

[Califan007]

I agree that the "close game" argument is weak.

Here are the Ravens' margin of victories/defeats.

+1
-5
+7
+3
+14
-3
+3
+6
-5
+24
+7
-3
+6
+6
+10
+6

That means 13 of the 16 Ravens' games could have been swung by one play. Yet, they won 12 games.

Every NFL game is close. The Browns played 10 games decided by a TD or less.

A couple of years ago I did an analysis of "close games", meaning those games won by 7 points or less. I took the results over a 3-year timespan.

45% of all NFL games were "close" games. Which meant 55% of NFL games were won by 2 or more scores.

[The Full Monty]

I agree with the idea that changing to the 3-4 set the defense back unnecessarily. The decision reeks of egoism, of Shanahan thinking he just knows better, by the strange observation he made associating the need for turnovers with the switch to the 3-4. As if some of the best turnover producing defenses are exclusively 3-4, which is utter crap. If he went to the 3-4 because it somehow made intuitive sense based on personnel, (an abundance of hybrid-type linebackers) and a so-so d-line that was only good at run stuffing anyways), I'd be ok with it. But he just forced it through with neither the personnel or a defensive coordinator who coached it in the past decade.

The back and forth on McNabb was also ridiculous, but at least that part is over with. However, the fact that we are sticking with a 3-4 means we need to continue to use scarce draft picks to acquire more 3-4 personnel that we would otherwise use on offensive lineman or wide receivers, or, silly me, a quarterback.

The 3-4 created needs that we didn't even have and it will be a drain on scarce draft picks. Free agency splurges won't solve this.

[Darth Tater]

I'm more puzzled by all the negativity.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm more puzzled by all the negativity.

We were 6-10 with the worst defense in Redskins' history. Also, we have no starting QB.

Aside from that, things are great.

[CoolUsernameHere]

This was a good read, OP.
But as for number 1, the 3-4 could end up being a great thing. It could also end up being a bad thing. But when employing new systems there are always growing pains.

As for number 2, I agree that it was a huge mistake.

And number 3, I think was handled poorly by both Al and Shanny. But I honestly wouldn't have Shanahan handle any other way. Haynesworth's attitude is unacceptable.

[Califan007]

Every NFL game is close. The Browns played 10 games decided by a TD or less.
For the record, 47% of the games played this season were won by 7 points or less...so it seems to stay constant that no more than around 45% of NFL games are "close" games.

[Enter Apotheosis]

We were 6-10 with the worst defense in Redskins' history. Also, we have no starting QB.

Aside from that, things are great.

A year ago we were 4-12 with the worst offensive line in Redskins' history. Also, we didn't have a starting QB.

[SAli457180]

This season was obviously not the worst in Skins' history. Shanahan probably should have handled a lot of situations differently. Mike and Kyle shouldn't shown their intentions with McNabb in the Detroit game. It created too many clouds and a lot of crap. The whole 3-4 defense was and is still the wrong way to go for this team. Hopefully, they'll be better next year, but they've got a real long way to go.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

A year ago we were 4-12 with the worst offensive line in Redskins' history. Also, we didn't have a starting QB.

I wasn't exactly doing cartwheels last season either. But Danny had apparently hired a head coach in an effort to fulfill the terms of his eccentric uncle's will. Shanahan was supposed to know what he was doing.

[Califan007]

A year ago we were 4-12 with the worst offensive line in Redskins' history. Also, we didn't have a starting QB.

In 2006 we were 5-11 with the "worst D-Line in NFL history" lol :ols:...

Ah, don't ya just love the smell of hyperbole in the morning?

[Enter Apotheosis]

I wasn't exactly doing cartwheels last season either. But Danny had apparently hired a head coach in an effort to fulfill the terms of his eccentric uncle's will. Shanahan was supposed to know what he was doing.

Considering the extent that this roster has been reshaped already and the extent to which it still is going to be reshaped, I would consider your apparent expectation of instant gratification to be utterly ridiculous. Shanahan knows what he is doing on the offensive side of the ball, at the very least, but he is not a miracle worker.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In 2006 we were 5-11 with the "worst D-Line in NFL history" lol :ols:...

Ah, don't ya just love the smell of hyperbole in the morning?

By yardage, this actually was the worst defense in Skins' history. My statement was true quantifiably.

[addicted]

I didn't have a problem sticking with Gano because I didn't think we were all that great in the first place, and who were we going to replace him with? I expect that he will get some competition next year, but I don't really want to give up on him. We gave up on Suisham and he seems to be kicking great for the Steelers.

Your take on Gano is depressing and makes no sense what so ever to me,

You don't expect more then 68.6% from your FG kicker? Look how his performance ranked in the league

2 missed between 20-29 yards (80% from this distance on the season)
3 missed between 30-39 yards (57% from this distance on the season)
3 missed between 50-59 (0% from this distance on the season. He missed every single damn attempt)

Overall he is ranked 39th league for percentage of Field Goals made on the year with his 68.6%. Please tell me why you think this is good enough for the NFL with more reasoning then "well we suck anyway so who cares". I've been hollering all season on this forum that Gano is the biggest reason why we lost so many games this year and have been taking it on the short end by the entire fanbase because I said this same stuff. I didn't just make this up or stand behind a wall of false ideas the information is here for you

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&statisticCategory=FIELD_GOALS&season=2010&seasonType=REG&experience=null&tabSeq=0&qualified=true&Submit=Go

The thing is going into next year with a kicker this piss poor will only lose us more games and proves my point that he is as much if not the sole reason we lost so many times this year. We need Gano like a hole in the head. The kid sucks and should most definitely be replaced




There is no question that McNabb was a disappointment, tho I still question his benching at the end of the Detroit game. There was nothing I saw that Rex could do better at that point that McNabb wasn't capable of himself.

While I thought benching McNabb for the season was the right thing to do, I hate the way Shanahan did it. He should have made the announcement on Wed when he made the decision. Instead, it hung around for a couple days and the rumormill got a hold of it and made it a bigger deal than it should have been. I think Shanahan was trying to be way too cute about the whole thing.

No one saw much of anything before McNabb was benched at that point because what the coaches were going off of was what they saw in closed door practices. They let us all see what they saw when he got the start in Dallas and we noticed the offense moving much better with him under center. As for why he was told when he was told and all that I have no idea why that happened but I suspect it was a decision he antagonized over for a while and when he made up his mind he let him know. The leaks were a problem, had word not leaked out we all would have found out at the same time. And for the record the idea that you can't have leaks in a dictatorship to me holds no water at all because time and again it's happened and not just with this team. The screwed up situation occured when we the fans knew more then we should have

[Califan007]

By yardage, this actually was the worst defense in Skins' history. My statement was true quantifiably.

Actually you should be saying this defense gave up the most yardage in franchise history...because yardage alone does not even slightly begin to measure a defense's value.

[TheLongshot]

I wasn't exactly doing cartwheels last season either. But Danny had apparently hired a head coach in an effort to fulfill the terms of his eccentric uncle's will. Shanahan was supposed to know what he was doing.

Well, this year kinda proves that coaching wasn't the biggest issue with last year's team.

[Enter Apotheosis]

By yardage, this actually was the worst defense in Skins' history. My statement was true quantifiably.

You didn't explicitly say "by yardage" in your post. That lone qualification makes all the difference in the world when it comes to just how much of your statement is, in fact, hyperbole.

[addicted]

I, for one, am glad Shanahan said "To hell with that level of competence" when it came to what Blache's defenses was putting out each year. I suspect that in a year or two most on this site will be agreeing with me.

Many of us already do :)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You didn't explicitly say "by yardage" in your post. That lone qualification makes all the difference in the world when it comes to just how much of your statement is, in fact, hyperbole.

Yardage is how the NFL ranks defenses.

[jflow78]

I'd say Josh McDaniels had a worse first year than Shanahan. He shipped of the teams two pro bowlers (one before the season, on after the season) and slowly turned them into mush, doing a reenactment of Jim Zorn's first year.

I still don't think McDaniels had the worst first year. That totally goes to Cam Cameron, who should have made them an 0-16 team and drafted Ted Ginn (not because he drafted Ginn, but because of his reason for it, "he's a great returner").

[Enter Apotheosis]

Yardage is how the NFL ranks defenses.

I don't see you making a relevant point here.

[Califan007]

Your take on Gano is depressing and makes no sense what so ever to me,

You don't expect more then 68.6% from your FG kicker? Look how his performance ranked in the league

2 missed between 20-29 yards (80% from this distance on the season)
3 missed between 30-39 yards (57% from this distance on the season)
3 missed between 50-59 (0% from this distance on the season. He missed every single damn attempt)

Overall he is ranked 39th league for percentage of Field Goals made on the year with his 68.6%. Please tell me why you think this is good enough for the NFL with more reasoning then "well we suck anyway so who cares".

Mosely:
1st year - 56%...13/21 on FGs 39 yards or less
2nd year - 62%...10/13 on FGs of 39 yards or less
3rd year - 50%
4th year - 60%...12/19 on FGs of 39 yards or less


:D

[SKINSFAN87]

I don't agree at all, I think that shanahan had the right to try an make the moves that he did, like the 3-4 switch and signing mcnabb. Granted these two things didn't work our like expected, he had to do it because what was happening from the zorn era was definitely not working. I support all of his moves because he has been there and knows what it takes to get better. If zorn and cerrato would have made the same moves, then there was no chance in hell that they would know how to get it fixed and going the right way. Shanahan and Allen have been there before and I trust we are going in the right direction.

[MassSkinsFan]

Just think about all the double talk coming from McNabb. He really wants to be back. IMO that doesn't seem sincere. He says that Shanny didn't tell him he'd be third string. Shanny flat out responded saying that he indeed told him -- Russell seems to back up Shanny on it. McNabb disavows his agent's comments. He looks foolish because that's not believable. So then he comes back and says he supports his agents comments but he doesn't take ownership of them. He seems to be playing this like a politician. I'll be the ncie guy, I'll have my agent do the dirty work and make Shanny look bad. And don't get me wrong, I think Shanny mishandled it but am starting to believe that McNabb is quite the PR manipulator in his own right.

Shanny is a hard ass. One thing about hard ass bosses is they get furious if they think you're talking out both sides of your mouth. I don't know if DM5 is doing that, but if he is, Shanny's probably read him the riot act. If that didn't work, he's gone.



For the record, I think fans and journalists love to say that "a team quit" because it's a very easy explanation and is impossible to prove. No on really knows for sure if a team quits on its coach or not and really can't explain what that means.

Generally speaking, I think teams only really "quit" when they want the coach to be fired (like with Wade this year in Dallas) or when it's obvious that the coach is going to be fired.

I find it hard to believe that anyone was going to "quit" during year one of the Shanahan Era.


I don't remember who said it, but a Skins player was quoted within the last week saying the 2009 team quit after game 6 or 7. That's what everyone's talking about, and although it can't be proven with data or stats, teams do quit on coaches. It's basically "putting in time" to get to the end of the season. As for only doing it when you know a coach is doomed, was there a coach more doomed last year than Jim Zorn?


I just think he made three major blunders that undercut the team's ability to win game in and game out. From a macro standpoint, the season was a debacle. From a micro standpoint, it was ok. That is the opposite of what Norv's teams usually did.

This is a good point.

I agree that #2 was a huge mistake. For #3 in hindsight a trade before the nonsense would have been best; what happened after OTAs I score Shanny 1, AH 0. (Let's not forget that AH was sent home from practice last December by Mr. Keep it Medium, which tells me even Mother Theresa would lose her patience with his fat ass.

As for #1, I find it interesting that so many people wanted the team rebuilt, but so many were against this switch. I don't know your view on it, but I have noticed some posters pushing both rebuilding and keeping the 4-3. That's counterintuitive.

Your point about macro suck and micro OK is interesting. It might also provide some clue as to the source of optimism.

2010: macro suck as evidenced by the three things you cited and 6-10
2009: macro suck as evidenced by Bingo Sherm, "Who's Calling the Plays on 3rd Down?", Zorn and Dan's lunchtime meeting club, sacks and stuff, etc. and 4-12

2010: micro OK, based on team accountability and being in games near the end
2009: mirco suck, based on "Coach - I won't do it because Dan says I don't have to," the cart coming for AH every 4th play, the Swinging Gate, etc.

My point is that at least SOMETHING improved this year.


Bruce Allen on the decision to fire Zorn: "We’re going to make sure that the status quo is gone."

At least he's been a man of his word so far.

[addicted]

Mosely:
1st year - 56%...13/21 on FGs 39 yards or less
2nd year - 62%...10/13 on FGs of 39 yards or less
3rd year - 50%
4th year - 60%...12/19 on FGs of 39 yards or less


:D

I know your not disgracing Mark Mosley, the only NFL Kicker ever to win the leagues MVP award, the best kicker the teams ever had no question simply by saying that since he struggled that it means that Gano is going to be great one day. I hate this sort of arguement because at any time anywhere someone can say "so and so did it" and actually think that means diddly.

I know your just pulling my leg but I know kickers and Gano is no Mosley. I'd give this years first to get an up and coming Mark Mosley and I mean that. He's one of our greatest players ever and we are lucky to have had him on this team. Thanks for making me laugh

Hail

[TheLongshot]

Your take on Gano is depressing and makes no sense what so ever to me,

You don't expect more then 68.6% from your FG kicker? Look how his performance ranked in the league

I most certanly expect better, which is why I said I expect there will be competition. Point out where I said that his performance is "good enough"?


Overall he is ranked 39th league for percentage of Field Goals made on the year with his 68.6%. Please tell me why you think this is good enough for the NFL with more reasoning then "well we suck anyway so who cares". I've been hollering all season on this forum that Gano is the biggest reason why we lost so many games this year and have been taking it on the short end by the entire fanbase because I said this same stuff. I didn't just make this up or stand behind a wall of false ideas the information is here for you

The biggest reason? I can think of many ways we lost games. Personally, I think the biggest reasons were 3rd down percentage, which was abysmal, and the inability to punch it into the end zone. Those things would certainly have made the kicker less of a factor.


The thing is going into next year with a kicker this piss poor will only lose us more games and proves my point that he is as much if not the sole reason we lost so many times this year. We need Gano like a hole in the head. The kid sucks and should most definitely be replaced

You go into the offseason with him because he's a young player who has definitely shown that he's capable of doing the job if he can lick the consistancy thing. Course, as you know, it is what you've done lately, which is why I doubt he will be the only kicker around this offseason. No guarantees that the next guy will do any better, tho. How long has this team been going through kickers?


No one saw much of anything before McNabb was benched at that point because what the coaches were going off of was what they saw in closed door practices. They let us all see what they saw when he got the start in Dallas and we noticed the offense moving much better with him under center. As for why he was told when he was told and all that I have no idea why that happened but I suspect it was a decision he antagonized over for a while and when he made up his mind he let him know. The leaks were a problem, had word not leaked out we all would have found out at the same time. And for the record the idea that you can't have leaks in a dictatorship to me holds no water at all because time and again it's happened and not just with this team. The screwed up situation occured when we the fans knew more then we should have

Given the pass rush Detriot was throwing at us, I gave Rex little to no chance in doing anything back there, and unfortunately I was right. McNabb's mobility did buy him some time, tho I don't know if the results would have been any different.

[Bang]

I didn't have a problem sticking with Gano because I didn't think we were all that great in the first place, and who were we going to replace him with? I expect that he will get some competition next year, but I don't really want to give up on him. We gave up on Suisham and he seems to be kicking great for the Steelers.
Hmm.. same kicker.. same leg,, new coach.
Imagine that.

Here's a list of the free agent kickers available last spring.
Rob Bironas, Titans. Age: 31.
Re-signed with Titans (4 years)
Arguably the top kicker in the NFL, Rob Bironas is 64-of-72 (88.9%) and 5-of-6 from beyond 50 the past two seasons.


Nick Folk, Cowboys. Age: 24.
I love how kickers aren't allowed to have a bad streak of games, yet players at other positions are. Folk was 26-of-31 in 2007 and 20-of-22 in 2008. In his career, he's 5-of-9 from 50-plus. He's a really good kicker who's just going through a mental slump.


Jason Hanson, Lions. Age: 39.
Re-signed with Lions (4 years)


Jay Feely, Jets. Age: 33.
Re-signed with Jets (1 year)

Jay Feely hit 24-of-28 kicks in 28, including both of his tries from 50-plus. "See Me, Touch Me" Feely has actually been really sharp since getting shipped out of Atlanta in 2004; the past four years, he's 103-of-120 (85.8%) and 6-of-9 from beyond 50.


Shayne Graham, Bengals. Age: 31.
Franchised by Bengals

Shayne Graham isn't great beyond 50 (2-of-6 the past four years), but he's nailed at least 83 percent of his attempts in each of the past six seasons.


Matt Stover, Ravens. Age: 41.
Signed with Colts

Matt Stover proved against the Titans that he can still be very accurate, clutch and reliable inside 45. His leg strength is gone, but Stover can still be counted on. Just ask the Saints if they want him; New Orleans lost at least two games because of its kickers, robbing the team of a potential playoff berth.


John Carney, Saints. Age: 45.
John Carney was great in the regular season, hitting 35-of-38 attempts, including 6-of-8 from 40-plus. However, he was awful in a playoff loss to the Eagles, missing on two crucial kicks.


Jason Elam, Falcons. Age: 39.
He's done. Jason Elam has missed four field goals within 40 yards this year.


Mike Nugent, Cardinals. Age: 27.
Mike Nugent was drafted in the second round of the 2005 NFL Draft because of his strong leg. Oops. In his career, Nugent is just 3-of-9 from 50-plus.


Steven Hauschka, Ravens. Age: 24. - Signed with Falcons
Matt Bryant, Buccaneers. Age: 34. - Signed with Falcons
Shaun Suisham, Redskins. Age: 27. - Signed with Cowboys
Connor Barth, Dolphins. Age: 23. - Signed with Buccaneers
Taylor Mehlhaff, Saints. Age: 24.
Mike Vanderjagt, None. Age: 39.
Martin Gramatica, Saints. Age: 33.



Suffice to say, almost any of them would have been an upgrade of Gano. However, with the gum chomping idiot teaching his snapper and holder, who knows.

~Bang

[Califan007]

I know your not disgracing Mark Mosley, the only NFL Kicker ever to win the leagues MVP award, the best kicker the teams ever had no question simply by saying that since he struggled that it means that Gano is going to be great one day. I hate this sort of arguement because at any time anywhere someone can say "so and so did it" and actually think that means diddly.
I hate bringing up this logic to people who seem to have next to zero ability to put the pieces together without their hands being held.

The point I was making is that if you applied the same logic to Mosely that you are applying to Gano, he would have been kicked out of the league after 4 seasons and never would have been given the chance TO become this franchise's "best kicker".

The point was that many, MANY times young place kickers struggle...giving up on them after one year of struggling often turns out to be a mistake.

Those are the points you really should have been able to reach on your own.



I know your just pulling my leg but I know kickers and Gano is no Mosley.
No, the thing is you do NOT know that...just as you would not have known Mosley was going to turn into Mosley that early into his career. Not if you based it off of the same criteria you're basing Gano on.



I'd give this years first to get an up and coming Mark Mosley and I mean that. He's one of our greatest players ever and we are lucky to have had him on this team. Thanks for making me laugh
You, and pretty much every Redskins fan, have ZERO knowledge or foresight to tell whether or not "this" struggling PK will turn out to be good and if "this" struggling PK will turn out to be lousy. But it's enjoyable watching some of you guys act as if you can tell just by how irritated a player makes you on Sundays lol...I appreciate the laugh, too. :thumbsup:

[MassSkinsFan]

You, and pretty much every Redskins fan, have ZERO knowledge or foresight to tell whether or not "this" struggling PK will turn out to be good and if "this" struggling PK will turn out to be lousy. But it's enjoyable watching some of you guys act as if you can tell just by how irritated a player makes you on Sundays lol...I appreciate the laugh, too. :thumbsup:

Were you a PK, or did you coach ST? Just curious because you've mentioned you DO have that ability (to judge) and that's why you're a fan of Gano.

Also, can you shed some light on what you see in him that makes you so confident (or point me to a past thread where you've done it)?

Thanks

[TheLongshot]

Hmm.. same kicker.. same leg,, new coach.
Imagine that.

And what reason would you give to replace a guy who went 13/16 in the UFL and 4/4 for us last year? BTW, Gano wasn't the only kicker here last offseason.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just as an aside, Mosley kicked in the Dark Ages. I'm not going to do the research, but it's entirely possible that his ****ty percentages were league average back then.

It's only since the Late 80s that kickers stopped missing.

[Califan007]

Were you a PK, or did you coach ST? Just curious because you've mentioned you DO have that ability (to judge) and that's why you're a fan of Gano.
Where the hell have I mentioned THAT?!?! lol :ols:...

Seriously, quote my post where I say I have the ability to judge any PK or that I'm a "fan" of Gano? Or that I feel Gano will turn out to be good?

I'll wait here while you do...


By the way, you quoted me wrong lol...you have Skinsinparadise's name there instead of mine. Weird.

---------- Post added January-4th-2011 at 02:17 PM ----------


Just as an aside, Mosley kicked in the Dark Ages. I'm not going to do the research, but it's entirely possible that his ****ty percentages were league average back then.

It's only since the Late 80s that kickers stopped missing.
Bwahahah lol...You don't really want me to post up all the crappy early years of recent PKs like I've done in the past, do ya? ;)

[MustangSteve]

Well said LKB and mind boggling at some of these decisions made. As far as this statement below, I busted out laughing.


Shanahan basically knew he had a supremely talented but borderline uncoachable superstar on his team and decided to spend the entire season poking him with a large stick.

[Bang]

And what reason would you give to replace a guy who went 13/16 in the UFL and 4/4 for us last year? BTW, Gano wasn't the only kicker here last offseason.

The reason I would give is that those are bush leagues, and I would never use them as any sort of NFL yardstick.
I know he wasn't the only kicker here.. he's the one Smith chose.
Which either means Smith chose a bum, or he brought in worse bums to compete with him.
regardless, it's not a good review for Smith either way.

Besides again, it's not Gano I'm bugged about. I think it's his coach that is the problem. Players are a product of their coaches, and it sure looks to me like anyone who can kick suddenly can't when he's here playing for Smith. I'm on record saying that I'd be glad to give Gano another chance... it's Smith that is on my S list. (and obviously, i don't mean "sugar").. Our kicking game stinks regardless of who's doing the kicking, and the common denominator is Cudchewer Smith.

And it's a moot point now since shanny has announced he'll be back.
But I can dream,,, maybe Shanny will go out on a bender and fire him while drunk.
At this point, i'll take it.

~Bang

[MassSkinsFan]

Where the hell have I mentioned THAT?!?! lol :ols:...

Seriously, quote my post where I say I have the ability to judge any PK or that I'm a "fan" of Gano? Or that I feel Gano will turn out to be good?

I'll wait here while you do...



Weird indeed. I'm sure I'm mis-using the multi-quote. I'll bet I'm confusing you with the other side of your argument. I'll figure it out and let you know.

I got you confused with TheLongshot. My bad.

But seriously, why are you such a big fan of Gano? :silly:

[The Full Monty]

The reason I would give is that those are bush leagues, and I would never use them as any sort of NFL yardstick.
I know he wasn't the only kicker here.. he's the one Smith chose.
Which either means Smith chose a bum, or he brought in worse bums to compete with him.
regardless, it's not a good review for Smith either way.

and besides again, it's not Gano I'm bugged about. I think it's his coach that is the problem. Players are a product of their coaches, and it sure looks to me like anyone who can kick suddenly can't when he's here playing for Smith. I'm on record saying that I'd be glad to give Gano another chance... it's Smith that is on my S list. (and obviously, i don't mean "sugar")

And it's a moot point now since shanny has announced he'll be back.
But I can dream,,, maybe Shanny will go out on a bender and fire him while drunk.
At this point, i'll take it.

~Bang
I agree with you. Kudos for the list of mostly older kickers that you posted earlier. I'd rather have a kicker who is automatic from 45 yards in than a young guy who seems to have a bigger leg but misses chip shots.

I'm sick of it. Really. I want a kicker who will nail chip shots and stuff in the 30s. With the Redskins, it's apparently too much to ask for. But looking at other teams, it's almost torture to watch them drill 35 yarders while I say to myself, "You know, Gano prolly would've missed that..."

[TheLongshot]

The reason I would give is that those are bush leagues, and I would never use them as any sort of NFL yardstick.

You didn't answer the question. What reason would you choose amonst the old farts that you listed over Gano? If you had the guy and he did well for you in the short time you had him, why wouldn't you give him an opportunity?


Besides again, it's not Gano I'm bugged about. I think it's his coach that is the problem.

I know, and I'm pretty tired of arguing something that neither of us can prove anything about. The only guy who can judge if he did a good job is the head coach.

[thesubmittedone]

As I am puzzled by the optimism here, I will make my points in the concise, brilliant fashion that you are accustomed to seeing from me.


Let me solve the puzzle for you a bit, then. :)



In 2010, Mike Shanahan and some guy whose dad coached the team before I was born took over the Redskins - following the closest thing that could ever be called a fan revolt. Brought in with much fanfare, they "improved" the Skins to a 6-10 record and a last placed finish in the division all while watching the attendance figures fall to heretofore unseen levels.

But, the Redskins Team Stores did great, and Donovan McNabb's jersey was the #2 seller in the league behind Nazareth's own Tim Tebow. (As an aside, "Love Hurts" by Nazareth is the best power ballad ever).

Shanahan did great things in his first year - like bringing in a 120 pound kick returner and a receiver who will surely lead the Skins's to next year's Grey Cup. (I kid, I kid. In the words of Jon Gruden, "I like those guys.")


Nice of you to mention Banks and Armstrong, but how about:

1- Trent Williams

2- Jammal Brown (He's been awesome the last few weeks and finally healthy, too bad it took a while for his hips but if his play as of late is what we get for a few more years that is just gold)

3- Rex Grossman (he still has his issues, but no one can deny that our offense has looked pretty good the last few weeks... he's a solid stopgap at the very least)

4- Terrence Austin, Perry Riley, Darryl Young and Anthony Bryant (all have flashed a bit when in, I wouldn't be surprised to see them do real well next year with their legs more under them)

5- Santana Moss' career year, his best since 2005. 2005! Finally utilized more in the slot.

6- Kyle Shanahan's offense is the best, most unpredictable offense we've had since Norv's in 99. How many times did we see the one-liner drive-by posts from the complainers about "stretch run left" with Zorn or "every WR go out on a 5 yard curl route"? How about "run, run, pass" with Gibbs? All those people complaining about how awfully predictable our offense was the last couple seasons and even under Gibbs aren't going out of their way to credit Kyle for some reason. Defense's have been on their heels all year long and almost every pass play we've got a man open. Now, our QBs have either missed (McNabb more than Grossman) or the receiver dropped the ball, but Kyle has done his job.

7- Trading for Carriker for what amounts to nothing. Awesome, awesome move. Carriker showed what he could do for us the last few weeks once he got extremely comfortable with his gap assignments. It took some time, but he's proven to be a play maker now.

8- Ryan Torain. Awesome back when healthy. His problem is staying healthy though, so if we get a speed back who can fully compliment him and split carries, look out.

9- Took our Oline from being extremely awful and one of the worst in the NFL to being average to above average at times (finishing the season well above average). That gave us our best running game in years and the first time we've seen a QB stand in the pocket without throwing the ball for a good 5 seconds without getting killed.

10- Brought the big play back to Washington! We haven't seen that in a couple decades, except once in 99 and once in 2005!

11- Brought turnovers back to Washington! We haven't seen that in a couple decades, either!

12- Giving guys like DeAngelo Hall the ability to make game-changing plays again.

13- Philip Buchanon. A solid DB who got owned a few times here and there but, for the most part, was a legitimate starter for us and generated a couple key turnovers.

14- Laron Landry becoming the elite Safety we knew he could become if played correctly.

15- Playing guys no matter how young once they've proven in practice that they can get it done consistently. Armstrong takes the no. 2 spot 5 games into the season. Riley gets more and more playing time as the season wore on. Banks takes both return spots and gets some time at WR here and there. Kareem Moore given the job at FS, though his knee held him back a bit and he took some awful angles in the running game, he did his job in not allowing the big play behind him which is the most important thing when it comes to that position. Ryan Torain getting more snaps at the expense of Portis by week 3 against the Rams. The team, without a doubt, got younger as the season wore on.

16- Playing the last three games, once we were mathematically eliminated, with the priority to being evaluation of talent on the roster over actually winning. We've seen the coaches we've had here this entire decade not do that, and instead go into every game with the same starters trying to win first and foremost. Shanahan did the right thing that would benefit us more in the long term, and found out a lot about some guys and what they could do.

17- Perhaps the most important thing, instill discipline and principle. Haynesworth couldn't do what he wanted to and still play like he wanted to. Devin Thomas got cut for being inconsistent and not learning fast enough. McNabb was benched for ineffectiveness. Doesn't matter who you are, or where you came from... if you're not giving it your all and being consistent with it you will suffer consequences and not just be allowed to continue.



But one can make the argument that Shanahan committed the three of the biggest mistakes the Redskins have made during the Snyder Era. Those are:

1. The conversion of the defense into the 3-4. The 2009 Redskins were the 10th ranked defense in the league. While this is not going to cause the fans to throw spontaneous parades, it's a foundation to build from. Shanahan said, "To hell with that level of competence for I am intrigued by the 3-4 and the 3-4 it shall be." This single decision caused the Skins to have arguably the worst defense in team history. It was 17 yards away from being the worst defense in the league. It gave up more yards than any defense in team history. It rendered three of the defensive playmakers borderline worthless to the team. It led to a beating so severe on Monday Night Football that the linebacking core had to spend the night in a shelter.

Shanahan could have injected all the defensive starters with e coli and done less damage to the team. As it stands, short of a major overhaul via free agency, there does not seem much to build on either. The defense is bad and will likely remain bad.

But Shanahan remains really really intrigued by the possibility.



All I keep seeing from everyone complaining so much about the defense is the yards argument. Yes, we absolutely stank for the most part and gave up way too many yards, but let's not forget we played some good QBs early in the year with potent offenses (Romo, Schaub, Rodgers and Peyton Manning). We had one massive embarrassment on Monday Night against Vick who put ridiculous numbers that also skewed the stats a bit. Still, we managed to keep most teams under 20 points and the games we won were directly influenced by our defensive performance.

Again, the games we won were directly based on our defensive performance. You simply can't take that away. You can't take away our improved number of turnovers and sacks either. For the most part, QBs were pressured and couldn't just enjoy themselves in the pocket like before. We actually sent blitzes that created a gap where one man ran untouched to the QB, something we've almost never seen in the last ten years with the exception of Gregg Williams defense in 2004.

So, all in all, there is plenty of positives to take away from our defense this year, whether or not the yardage stat is embarrassingly bad.



2. The second blunder of the season merely impacted the most important position on the field as well as the team's ability to improve in the off-season. I, of course, refer to the signing and eventual public castration of one Donovan F. McNabb. Remember that glorious time four long months ago where we could say, "Well, at least the QB position is stable for the next two or three years?" Think back. You can do it.

The team traded two draft picks to a division rival for the services of the venerable McNabb. That trade partner proceeded to humiliate the Skins on national tv en route to a division title. Then - for reasons that remain unclear - Shanahan decided that McNabb was too fat to run his offense. He then decided that McNabb was just aces and rewarded him with several million dollars. He then doubled back and decided that - no - McNabb really sucked and what this team needed was a blast from The Sex Cannon. McNabb was certainly mediocre, but Shanahan could only have handled the situation worse if he had decided to make McNabb play the Mike Linebacker position in the 3-4.

Shanahan somehow managed to look arrogant, arbitrary, capricious, indecisive, and power mad all within the course of dealing with one player. McNabb seems to be a beloved figure in the league so who knows what message this sent to potential free agents around the league? Granted, in the past, the Redskins have been able to overcome the fact that they often treat players like pricks by paying them like Saudi princes. So, Snyder's money will likely erase the long-term stain of this episode.

But it will not change the fact that we do not have a QB or two draft picks now.


Sure, it was a big mistake. One that could have potentially cost us two young stars with the picks we gave up, especially with regards to the 2nd rounder this year. But you know what? That's the only negative. I can't agree with anyone claiming how McNabb was dealt with matters in anyway. Whatever. He performed poorly and who gives a damn how Shanahan tried to justify it in his press conferences, I mean, honestly are we little babies or grown adults here? He didn't want to come out and say McNabb is stinking it up, so he ended up looking bad because he had to lie and ended up backing himself in a corner because of it. Big deal. Get over it.

Now, on the other hand, two positives came out of this:

1) A reinforcement of the "doesn't matter who you are; practice, study and perform hard or your out" principle Shanahan has instilled here. One that hasn't been around since Shotty coached us for a year. This was as clear proof as any that Shanahan will apply this principle, and that it will hold true no matter what, for whoever had any doubt within the locker room.

2) Shanahan is willing to take risks on franchise QBs. To me, if you're going to give up picks let's do it on what is the most important position in football. I'm down with him doing that every year until we land ourselves the guy. "The guy" will be the biggest difference-maker for us on offense, and thus defense (due to more time on the bench and an ability to be even more aggressive while playing ahead on the scoreboard), so the reward outweighs the risk every time. It didn't work out with McNabb, and that's too bad, but if Shanny does it again this year for a guy of his caliber I won't be angry. Let's find ourselves that guy, damnit, and be contenders every year.



3. The final blot on this season is the Albert Haynesworth saga - whatever the hell it was. Look, Haynesworth is an ******* and he would probably be willing to tell you that over Long Island Iced Teas at Coastal Flats. But everyone knew this going in.

Shanahan basically knew he had a supremely talented but borderline uncoachable superstar on his team and decided to spend the entire season poking him with a large stick. Shanahan's supporters will say this showed the team that he was in charge. But it seems strange that a future Hall of Famer with two Super Bowl rings and a reputation as a genius needs to prove anything. In the end, the Skins really only had two choices: trade Haynesworth or try to get some production out of him. In the end, they chose Door Number 3, which is letting the man sit on his fat ass.

Shanahan turned quite possibly the biggest asset the Skins' possessed into someone with the value of a street free agent.


Like I said above, the Haynesworth episode was a positive, not a negative. Only negatives about the situation were generated by the media, not Shanahan. Who gives a crap about those roaches we call journalists these days. He was lazy and undisciplined last year, and Shanahan wanted that fixed or else he wasn't going to play. Yes, he's awesome at DT and can make a ton of plays even while having that attitude, but is that more important than the principle noted above that Shanahan is instilling or not? Which one is more conducive to building a championship team? Hmmm... Haynesworth doing what he wants and making plays here and there or turning the entire locker room of players into believers that if they don't put in maximum effort they won't play like they want and won't be here?

I know which one weighs heavier on my scale.

[Boss_Hogg]

I disagree 100%.

This team was horrid last year, and the stench of Snyderrato still lingers on this team.

It's going to take time to clean up the giant turd at redskins park.

[TheLongshot]

I agree with you. Kudos for the list of mostly older kickers that you posted earlier. I'd rather have a kicker who is automatic from 45 yards in than a young guy who seems to have a bigger leg but misses chip shots.

Um, no one is automatic from 45 yards. You'd like your kicker to be automatic from inside the 40.


I'm sick of it. Really. I want a kicker who will nail chip shots and stuff in the 30s. With the Redskins, it's apparently too much to ask for. But looking at other teams, it's almost torture to watch them drill 35 yarders while I say to myself, "You know, Gano prolly would've missed that..."

Looking at recent kickers here, Suisham was the best of the bunch at around 80%. Course, over time, that probably would drop. (Lohmiller was 71%, Mosely was 66%)

[The Full Monty]

Um, no one is automatic from 45 yards. You'd like your kicker to be automatic from inside the 40.
Automatic is a strong word, how about consistent? We don't have that right now.

Looking at recent kickers here, Suisham was the best of the bunch at around 80%. Course, over time, that probably would drop. (Lohmiller was 71%, Mosely was 66%)
Suisham, wow, I actually miss that level of accuracy compared to Gano. Suisham was reliable until the second Dallas game (last year?) , then he never recovered and we cut him.

Since we can't use a 1st rounder on a Janikowski, or a 3rd rounder on a Kaeding, if push came to shove, I would gladly take an old fart kicker of the Matt Stover Jay Feely variety who can't kick the long ones or deep kickoffs but at least makes it within 40 over a young guy who will miss all over the place but once in a while makes it from 50.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Looking at recent kickers here, Suisham was the best of the bunch at around 80%. Course, over time, that probably would drop. (Lohmiller was 71%, Mosely was 66%)

Why would it drop over time? Moseley and Lohmiller kicked in eras where kickers in general were less accurate. Making 80% of your field goals over the course of a season these days is an indicator of a mediocre year, thirty years ago it would have indicated a phenomenal year.

[paloosa]

I don't think that it was the worst in history because we had the parade of FA's with Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier and all the other ones that didn't work out during Marty's time here.

[addicted]

Edited not worth fighting about with you Califan007 and getting in trouble, But if your going to talk to me as poorly as you did next time show some class if you have any and list some facts to backup your points. Just because one guy did one thing doesn't mean even for a second another guy will emulate it. Every situation is different

[Oldfan]

The 2010 Skins defense caused 27 turnovers and scored 2 TDs off of them.
The 2009 Skins defense caused 17 turnovers and scored zero TDs off of them.

The 2010 Skins defense gave up 2 more points per game than the 2009 Skins defense.

However...

The 2010 Skins defense played 9 games against top-10 scoring offenses.
The 2009 Skins defense played 6 games against top-10 scoring offenses.

The 2010 Skins defense played 2 games against bottom-10 scoring offenses
The 2009 Skins defense played 5 games against bottom-10 scoring offenses.


The 2010 Skins defense had 29 sacks.
The 2009 Skins defense had 40 sacks.

However...

The 2010 Skins defense played 6 games against teams that allowed the fewest sacks (top 10).
The 2009 Skins defense played 2 games against teams that allowed the fewest sacks (top 10).


I, for one, am glad Shanahan said "To hell with that level of competence" when it came to what Blache's defenses was putting out each year. I suspect that in a year or two most on this site will be agreeing with me.My hat's off to you, Cali. That was as fine a job of cherry-picking as I've seen on ES.:) However, the best objective stats available tell a different story -- and they are adjusted for strength of schedule.

While the rankings at footballoutsiders.com are still a work-in-progress, they are more comprehensive and make more sense statistically than those at NFL.com based on yardage rankings. As of Jan 3, here are their rankings compared to the Zorn-Campbell 2009 team:

Offense:

2009 = #21
2010 = #25

Defense

2009 = #10
2010 = #26

Quarterback

2009 Campbell #20
2010 McNabb #25 (through 13 games)

Team

2009 #20
2010 #27

Net Points(Not a FO stat; I added net points myself)

2009 -70
2010 -75

[KokoMike]

Well done, Oldfan. That was a pretty simple and clear comparison.

We need to keep it simple. Here is one experts view...

Pete Prisco says on January 4: "If you had to grade Mike Shanahan's first season, it would have to be an F."

[addicted]

Um, no one is automatic from 45 yards. You'd like your kicker to be automatic from inside the 40.

Totally agree with you and its one of the strongest reasons that Gano's got to go. His only numbers are within the 40-49 yard line which directly goes against what you need and expect from your kicker. Your team gets the ball down to the opponants 10 yard line and the kicker misses an easy one. How demoralizing is that for the team? Gano can't hit from 50+ and struggles from under 40, His leg and accuracy are terrible by today's standards. Why would we want this guy back?

Don't feed me some line of bullspit about other kickers struggling in the past...every position has players struggling doesn't mean for a second they will get better. And what one guy did means nothing about another other then "it's possible", No the reason they want to keep him is because he's young but hell even Dallas's kicker who was garbage this year showed signs of improving. Where was the improvement? Gano missed in the first game, missed in the last game, misses cost us victories, misses were the reason we lost. I mean what more do you need to see here?

This is a train wreck and I want to see this ended. Give me a 40 year old kicker, the age of the player means NOTHING when it comes to kickers. All you need is a guy who can make those under 40 yard kicks and sometimes hit some over 50. Gano doesn't deserve another chance. And ya I know he earned that NFC Special Teams player of the week honor but it doesn't make up for all of the issues he caused us this year. More then Hanyesworth, more then McNabb no single player was responsible for as many losses this season then Gano.

[GoDeep81]

That horrible def. did hold 9 yes 9 teams to under 20 pts. last time i checked i rate my def. by how many pts it gives up not how many yards. Improve the O and a def. that holds teams to under 20 will be just fine.

Sorry, but I see it as the D just giving up as many points as was needed by the opposition, to loose the game.. Had our O scored 21, the D would of given up 24, ect. etc...

[tiger187126]

this whole site is degenerating into kneejerk posts that a normal person on the outside would laugh at, but because so many are consumed so wholly by this team some lemmings will jump off the cliff with you.

i mean seriously. didn't someone just drag up a thread from the 6-2 start of Zorn? how did those opinions sound?

pretty bright and cheery for our future coach who spent 10 years as a Qb coach, took a 2 year vacation as a puppet of a head coach, and now is back to being a Qb coach.

this is all a matter of not seeing the forest through the trees. i mean you turn on espn and listen to these worthless guys who get paid for ratings. same with the writers. you think they care about integrity or truth? this isn't good night, good luck people. it's all about getting those viewers. why do you think jemelle hill still has a job. she's one of the worst writers i've ever seen, but people read it, even if just to blast it and join in the majority of people's disgust in her off base accusations.

and i'm sorry OP, but since when has this team had a good year? when have we had back to back good years?

could have been before you were born, but i'm sure with an attitude like yours anything short of taking an expansion team to the super bowl year one is a severe dissapointment.

i mean what team do you think we're watching. i swear i log on here and see things like shannahan is ruining our team, he's wasting a pro bowl talent, he's turning his back on a surefire hall of famer.

first off, what team is he ruining? the one that went 4-12 and was a complete circus last year, filled with overpaid underacheivers? yeah man did he ruin that dreamboat we were all on. how dare he cut all the deadweight and make everybody accountable and expendable for their play on the field and not their sway in the owner's box.

speaking of which, i'm sure you're super pissed he got danny to back off. because jim zorn had the clout to keep him miles away from any football operation. are you missing our RB mockingly calling the HC a genious? or running to the owner with ideas for the team?

as for the pro bowl piece of lard that is haynesworth. he's not a pro bowler. you are a pro bowler when you make the pro bowl on this team. fletcher is our pro bowler, orakpo is our pro bowler, cooley is our pro bowler. these are guys who wore the uniform here and even through the terrible, terrible years of ineptitude they were still recognized as pro bowlers. making the pro bowl on a good team doesn't mean ****. ask the cowboys, i think they had 13 a couple years ago. same guys are on the team now and oh look, they're awful. i'm tired of hired guns who don't even get close to what got them hired here in the first place. they take the check and lay down, but i guess cutting those guys makes you the worst coach in redskins history.

were you ready to burn marty at the stake too? oh wait, you get to use hindsight on that one. funny how that works, the stuff that seems so important at this exact moment may look differently in the future. which might i add is inevitable, so maybe you should look a little bit further than today.

but we changed our defense! so what? it wasn't good to begin with. all you stat junkies didn't use your eyes last years, you were just clinging to something that we looked good at on paper. a top 10 defense on a 4-12 team. if our defense was so good i think we would have some more wins, right? if our defense was so dominant, why didn't it carry our offense, i.e. the 2001 ravens? the truth is our defense gave up 4th quarter comebacks like it was going out of style, we just had a different scapegoat for that. his name was campbell, the fans wanted him out, now he's out. just like cerrato.

but if you read it on here allen isn't any better than cerrato. no winning gm of the year and having two of your teams go to the super bowl is nothing. just like shanny's rings. not without elway!

so we go from having zorn/cerrato to shanny/allen and somehow this is a step down?

we cut randle el, betts, and probably soon to be haynesworth and portis and somehow we're not getting better?

we bring in young hungry guys and let them play when we're eliminated from the playoffs, but somehow we're mistreating the veterans?

stuff has become so backwards here it makes me sick. everything people were begging for for the past few years has come true and now that's no good either. we're ready to burn ashburn down so that we can get an owner who won't meddle and show patience. we demand stability in an organization that has become a running joke in the NFL.

and yet we can't take a year of 6-10 and last place in the division without calling for heads to roll and changes to be made?

newsflash, we've been a last place team for a long time now and it's because we have an owner who is as kneejerk and shortsighted as the people on this board.

the fanbase is as ugly and dysfunctional as the team has been for the last decade.

[NattyBo]

this whole site is degenerating into kneejerk posts that a normal person on the outside would laugh at, but because so many are consumed so wholly by this team some lemmings will jump off the cliff with you.

etc, etc

Shut the forums down for a day and redirect the URL to this post. Great stuff, well said.

[Bang]

You didn't answer the question. What reason would you choose amonst the old farts that you listed over Gano? If you had the guy and he did well for you in the short time you had him, why wouldn't you give him an opportunity?
The point wasn't necessarily that last year we could have grabbed those guys, it's that a list like that is available every year. kickers move around, they can kick well into their 30s and even early 40s. A lot of times kickers bear the brunt of blame, and they end up on the market pretty easily most of the time getting only a one year deal.



I know, and I'm pretty tired of arguing something that neither of us can prove anything about. The only guy who can judge if he did a good job is the head coach.

Agreed. We'll pick it up next year then.
:cheers:

~Bang

[SkinsFTW]

The back and forth on McNabb was also ridiculous, but at least that part is over with. However, the fact that we are sticking with a 3-4 means we need to continue to use scarce draft picks to acquire more 3-4 personnel that we would otherwise use on offensive lineman or wide receivers, or, silly me, a quarterback.

The 3-4 created needs that we didn't even have and it will be a drain on scarce draft picks. Free agency splurges won't solve this.

The McNabb signing just reminds me of Gibbs and signing Brunell because they both believed that they would win right away, but IMO Gibbs was on the right track with everything else, he just fell in love with a QB who couldn't get it done. Shanahan knee jerks and then says **** it. I guess it's good to realize the mistake and then go a different direction but this is exactly what Shanahan did annually in Denver with the defense and never did get it right. He inherited a pretty decent 4-3 here and would have needed what this year on defense? Maybe another LB and Safety. Instead now we need just about everything on defense, and offense as well since McNugget isn't the answer and even if he was the answer he'd only be good for 2 maybe 3 years, and that's if he didn't have one of his injury years, which were starting to be every year in Philly anyway.

It just seems to me that Shanahan in complete control of personnel is going to turn out just like it did in Denver, and won't be far off what Snyderatto were doing here before, except Shanahan will actually win some, just not enough. He just doesn't seem to match his philosophy with his signings very well, or he is just drawing straws in the hope that it works out, just like in Denver. Nothing different really and we all know his defenses were pathetic in Denver even when he changed DC's every other year, same result.

[Beans]

It was bad, and Shanahan was hired solely on what he did in the ****ing 90s. To address the OP's question, the Redskins have had some real ****ty coaches, so...

[SWFLSkins]

Well done, Oldfan. That was a pretty simple and clear comparison.

We need to keep it simple. Here is one experts view...

Pete Prisco says on January 4: "If you had to grade Mike Shanahan's first season, it would have to be an F."

What would Pete have given Zorn?

you know apples to apples, Zorn was 4-12, Shanny was 6-10, but what were the division records? Get me. I want to see what happens in year two and three of this overhaul, not a rebuild, but a tune up. My grade for Shanny's first year would be an F, and I would think he would grade himself the same, F=Failed. Failed to win and that is the goal. I like that he tried to gamble and hedged bets at the same time. He brought along some young guys that are going to pay dividends next year and beyond.

And this question must be asked, What record do you suppose Zorn would have had this year with the same team?

[veteranskinsfan]

Did anyone see the Bleacher report article a few days ago saying that our owner was not happy with the benching of McNabb? The article left open the possibility that Danny might let Shanny go and try to hire another big name coach like Gruden and keep McNabb? Once the Shanny hire was announced during the off season, I was not convinced he was the answer at all. Then once the season got going, I started to support the Head Coach because he was not letting the players run the asylum. But now looking back on the entire season, it has been real hard for me to see significant improvement from this team. Unlike last year though, we do have some new pieces like our kick returner, Orakpo, etc. But our offensive and defensive lines still need a lot of work. I would expect that our owner is anticipating a bigger improvement next year or else the Shanahan experiment might not progress to year three. Also we need to find out if Kyle is really an offensive genius or whether he was successful in Houston because he had a talented quarterback and more talented receivers. Time will tell with both Shanny's.

[SWFLSkins]

Shut the forums down for a day and redirect the URL to this post. Great stuff, well said.

At first I read that and I thought what is this guy talking about, and then I went and read the whole post by tiger and bam it hit me, you have a great point.

I really liked the last part.....stuff has become so backwards here it makes me sick. everything people were begging for for the past few years has come true and now that's no good either. we're ready to burn ashburn down so that we can get an owner who won't meddle and show patience. we demand stability in an organization that has become a running joke in the NFL.

and yet we can't take a year of 6-10 and last place in the division without calling for heads to roll and changes to be made?

newsflash, we've been a last place team for a long time now and it's because we have an owner who is as kneejerk and shortsighted as the people on this board.

the fanbase is as ugly and dysfunctional as the team has been for the last decade.

[Enter Apotheosis]

It was bad, and Shanahan was hired solely on what he did in the ****ing 90s. To address the OP's question, the Redskins have had some real ****ty coaches, so...

Shanahan is probably the most decorated coach of the 90's and it is absolutely true that he has not been able to duplicate that same level of wild success over the last ten years. However, you'd have to be some combination of crazy and ignorant to fail to recognize that his body of work since the retirement of John Elway is still much better than that of most NFL coaches not named Bill Belichick.


Did anyone see the Bleacher report article a few days ago saying that our owner was not happy with the benching of McNabb?

Bleacher Report is not a legitimate news source. Anyone can sign up there, write whatever they want to, and pretend to be a sports journalist.

[zoony]

now do cooley :munchout:

[Rodriggo]

I agree with all your points. I just don't think it's fair to say WORST coaching job in Redskins history. Hello Richie "The Bone" Petitbon anyone?

Other than the switch to the 3-4, I can give the benefit of the doubt to the argument for benching McNabb and trying to break Haynesworth even though I personally don't agree with the decisions and how they were handled.

Personally I will admit that as a fan I am shellshocked and broken down at this point. It is beyond bizarre to me that alot of the positivity about Crazy Eyes came down to three mediocre games by REX ******* GROSSMAN. It's like watching a crazy homeless guy staring at a **** encrusted penny and being moved to tears.

I have NO expectations for anything positive anymore, I barely care now on gamedays, all I'm figuring out is "does the team care enough to come back from 10 or more down? Usually it's "no" and against NFC East teams it's "wait, what the **** just happened, I just went to grab some chips.....why are we getting *** ****** again?"

In a weird way though this man's ability to completely sap my enthusiasm for this team is SOMETHING. Their has been this boyish schizophrenic energy surrounding this team since Snyder took over and the ONLY two times that has EVER dissipated was year one of Marty Ball and now Crazy Eyes and that can't be a coincidence.

Same embarrassing primetime *** ********, remember Dennis Miller's "prevent offense" comment? I do. Crazy QB controversy culminating with with me and my brother sitting at a sports bar LOSING OUR **** realizing that KENT ******* GRAHAM just went into MILE HIGH STADIUM in a ice rain drizzle and did the Broncos. Good times.

Getting rid of Schottenheimer after only one year was THE biggest mistake this organization has made in the last 25 years, it's safe to say they should never ever do that again and if Zorn got two and Spurrier got two then you really can't expect any less for Ol' Shanny though I will admit, I have NO IDEA what Crazy Eyes is doing but then again I'm just an idiot on ES so maybe that isn't so bad.

Watching him work is like coming up to a guy gyrating violently on a street corner.....is he performing? is he out of his mind? This season has given us clues. The 3-4 is like a torn out shoe, McNabb is matted hair, and Haynesworth is the overpowering stench of urine....not good signs but let's see where this is going b/c theres a chance it's a performance piece.

BTW, how awesome is Caps Penguins 24/7? I can't stop watching it. They should just keep doing those shows, best thing on television.

[GSF]

Good, funny post LKB. I agree with your main points that Shanahan has coached the team well, but completely botched how he handled Haynesworth and McNabb. Like you, I had a feeling the 3-4 switch would be a dissaster fom the get-go, though I am encouraged that the defense looked better down the stretch once Bryant settled in at NT.

The big question to me is is Coach Shanahan a great enough coach to overcome the apparent shortcomings of GM Shanahan?

[Destino]

People can sugarcoat the move to 3-4 and the choice to bring in Haslett but the reality is that this move was a unmitigated disaster. Seriously people what could be worse. Please SOMEONE paint me a realistic scenario that is worse then taking a consistently top 10 unit and placing them DEAD LAST. This has consequences because the strength of the team is now the largest weakness. Instead of going into a draft focused on Oline, WR, and RB the team is forced to upgrade it's weakest unit, the defense. The offense is BETTER than the defense. That's how unbelievably horrible the defense was.

Gano? Better than the defense.

McNabb/Grossman? Better than the defense.

The defense is the worst damn unit in the NFL. We went from having a front four that rocked to having lineman that are terrible. Having decent linebackers to needs at least two immediately. The move to 3-4 set the franchise back in terms of YEARS. As bad as Zorn was he was closer to building a decent team then Shanahan is today this very minute because he had one of the three sides of the ball performing decently. Shanahan has all three units in absolute disarray.

Offense is garbage. Oline is crap. WR are crap. We have one RB that can play and he has injury problems. No one has a clue who will be the QB despite a high profile expensive trade. Everything but TE is in a state of disaster. Defense is a catastrophe that I already went over and we may end up losing Carlos and Rocky meaning making it worse. Special teams have a plus with TD Banks returning but Gano can't hit a field goal to save his life.

Is this Shanahan's first year the worst Redskins head coach? No. Zorn was worse but at least he was hands off on the defense. Spurrier wasn't much better and that's just naming recent mistakes. What he did here though was a lot of bad and a small amount of good, despite what the homers might say. Releasing a few old guys and restructuring a few deals doesn't make up for the disaster created here. His second attempt at leading the front office better be LIGHT YEARS ahead of his screw ups year one. His defense better not be a redux of the **** he unleashed on the field after hiring Clevelands garbage Dline in Denver, and certainly better than the nonsense skins fans were forced to root for this season.

Year one, bad. Really friggin bad for Shanahan.

[Darkstarr]

People can sugarcoat the move to 3-4 and the choice to bring in Haslett but the reality is that this move was a unmitigated disaster. Seriously people what could be worse. Please SOMEONE paint me a realistic scenario that is worse then taking a consistently top 10 unit and placing them DEAD LAST. This has consequences because the strength of the team is now the largest weakness. Instead of going into a draft focused on Oline, WR, and RB the team is forced to upgrade it's weakest unit, the defense. The offense is BETTER than the defense. That's how unbelievably horrible the defense was.

Gano? Better than the defense.

McNabb/Grossman? Better than the defense.

The defense is the worst damn unit in the NFL. We went from having a front four that rocked to having lineman that are terrible. Having decent linebackers to needs at least two immediately. The move to 3-4 set the franchise back in terms of YEARS. As bad as Zorn was he was closer to building a decent team then Shanahan is today this very minute because he had one of the three sides of the ball performing decently. Shanahan has all three units in absolute disarray.

Offense is garbage. Oline is crap. WR are crap. We have one RB that can play and he has injury problems. No one has a clue who will be the QB despite a high profile expensive trade. Everything but TE is in a state of disaster. Defense is a catastrophe that I already went over and we may end up losing Carlos and Rocky meaning making it worse. Special teams have a plus with TD Banks returning but Gano can't hit a field goal to save his life.

Is this Shanahan's first year the worst Redskins head coach? No. Zorn was worse but at least he was hands off on the defense. Spurrier wasn't much better and that's just naming recent mistakes. What he did here though was a lot of bad and a small amount of good, despite what the homers might say. Releasing a few old guys and restructuring a few deals doesn't make up for the disaster created here. His second attempt at leading the front office better be LIGHT YEARS ahead of his screw ups year one. His defense better not be a redux of the **** he unleashed on the field after hiring Clevelands garbage Dline in Denver, and certainly better than the nonsense skins fans were forced to root for this season.

Year one, bad. Really friggin bad for Shanahan.
cry, cry, cry we stil won 50% more games and 2 more division games with a much harder schedule. Relax take a breath and give it a year or 2. IF the progress is not there then actually cry.

[LD0506]

Man I love this place, it is my absolute favorite long-running comedy show. There is nothing on Fox or ComedyCentral that even comes close to the daily hilarity offered up here, and when I think that a great deal of it is meant in earnest, that some people genuinely believe some of the crap posted, I crack up all over again.

[Painkiller]

People can sugarcoat the move to 3-4 and the choice to bring in Haslett but the reality is that this move was a unmitigated disaster. Seriously people what could be worse. Please SOMEONE paint me a realistic scenario that is worse then taking a consistently top 10 unit and placing them DEAD LAST. This has consequences because the strength of the team is now the largest weakness. Instead of going into a draft focused on Oline, WR, and RB the team is forced to upgrade it's weakest unit, the defense. The offense is BETTER than the defense. That's how unbelievably horrible the defense was.

An unmitigated disaster if you consider only the 2010 season, and not the potential this defense has for the future here. All those years we had a top 10 defense, how many Lombardi's did we win? Look beyond the lack of success short term.

[Botched]

Our 4-3 defense was awful in 2006, despite being very good the year before, and the year after. For all we know, our defense would have been terrible in a 4-3 this year. Just a thought.

Hilarious OP BTW.

[addicted]

cry, cry, cry we stil won 50% more games and 2 more division games with a much harder schedule. Relax take a breath and give it a year or 2. IF the progress is not there then actually cry.

That post was just a perfect example of a poster on the forum with very little patience or understanding of this game. Talk about a total over reaction! This was a 4-12 team last year who never beat a single winning record ball club. The problem is that some of the loudest mouths around here thought that this was a playoff team which is a joke. All of these doom sayers need to relax and remember Rome wasn't built in a day and that supposed top 10 defense we had was only top 10 based on yardage given up. In other words that top 10 means nothing.

An example of this is the Chargers. How many of you thinking that a top 10 ranking means anything? This season the Chargers were ranked number one over all in both Offense and Defense. Guess what? They didn't make the playoffs either. Booo freaking Hooo

Give it time then ***** moan cry and whine and do the other things you seem to be best at if that's all you want to do.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 07:36 AM ----------


An unmitigated disaster if you consider only the 2010 season, and not the potential this defense has for the future here. All those years we had a top 10 defense, how many Lombardi's did we win? Look beyond the lack of success short term.

For that matter how many freaking games did we win in those top 10 years?

I'd rather we have the worst ranked Defense then the top ranked Defense if it means we win more games personally. Stats like this do not mean a damn thing and to hang your hat on them believing they say your teams good just shows me that you don't understand football

[Skinsinparadise]

Gibbs stuck by the story that Lavar knew why he wasn't playing, and when he did start playing again, Lavar admitted at one point that before he wasn't quite right. Course, it ended up being obvious to everyone because he wasn't playing like he used to. Course, then at the end of the season he decides to lay a press bomb while the team was struggling to get into the playoffs. That rather permamently put me off him.

I brought that up because I recall the circus atmosphere around Lavar, and yeah it was quite the circus from the media, etc. I've not noticed Lavar coming around on Gibbs. But yeah like you, his behavior turned me off. I bought Gibbs' side of the story.



I think a lot of this stuff is coming from his agent trying to set up a market for him based on the situation that happened this season. I do think that McNabb was honest in wanting to stay here. (Otherwise, why sign the contract? If he really didn't want to be here he wouldn't have signed.)

My point wasn't about the agent but McNabb's reaction to it, I'll never know of course, but McNabb seemed dishonest or at the very least a clever manipulator as opposed to the innocent image he was cultivating -- first basically saying he had no idea that his agent was doing this, when he was put on the spot he disavowed it, then the media basically didn't seem to buy McNabb's story that the agent did it without approval, so then he switches it up and says that he supports his agents statements but when cornered on the radio for some of the more preposterous stuff like them running a different offense for Grossman, he hedges and says something to the effect that the media is misreading the content. And for him wanting to stay, I am talking about him saying it AFTER he was relegated to being the third QB.

And in an interview I was listening to on 980 he seemed to be playing the golly gee, am a great guy bit and I don't know why Shanny is doing these crazy mean things (implying bad stuff about Shanny while saying it with smile and saying he would never attack someone else its not his style) and said yeah Shanny didn't tell him when they talked he'd be third string. Shanny subsequently was called out about that in a later interview, and said McNabb is wrong and he flat out told him he'd be third string the last 2 games. Chris Russell via his sources with the team, backed up Shanny's side of the story. The other thing that struck me is Brain Mitchell in a Comcast appearance before the Shanny press conference right after the benching said he talked to McNabb and McNabb told him that Shanny didn't even call a meeting with him he just ran into Shanny in the hall way and Shanny told McNabb in passing, hey by the way you are not starting, and a meeting never took place. Later we found out there was definitely a meeting.

My point is they say the best PR is when you don't know its PR. Don't get me wrong I think Shanny mishandled it and McNabb seems like a classy nice guy but I've become convinced he's the master PR manipulator and it was orchestrated on his end to look like the nice guy and Shanny the bad guy. I mean the guy is playing politics 101 for dummies. I'll throw the opponent under the bus without looking like am doing it, spruce up my nice guy image, use surrogates to do the attacking. And yeah Shanny clearly played games too but i don't see that as one sided as i used to. Shanny started the whole thing so of course its on him -- but I do believe that once the die was cast, McNabb went into big time PR and manipulation mode.

[Oldfan]

...The big question to me is is Coach Shanahan a great enough coach to overcome the apparent shortcomings of GM Shanahan?That was the same question we faced when Joe Gibbs returned to the fray. If this, Mike's first year, is used as evidence, the answer is likely the same also.

[addicted]

That was the same question we faced when Joe Gibbs returned to the fray. The answer is likely the same also.

I'd lay my own money on this line as well and believe your right however Shanny did pretty good in the draft considering our picks and found some undrafted players who could help turn this around so he can evaluate talent. The concern I have is him being able to spot Defensive players. Offensively his resume is pretty strong with player selection, but thinking about the defense its very weak. The teams inability to predict the decrease of value in store with Andre and Albert and not cashing in on them last offseason says to me he needs a lot of work on this side of the ball still and that doesn't change in one offseason. The sooner the man learns not to stick squares in round holes the better he and our team will be

[Painkiller]

While a disagree with the overall tone of the OP...I do appreciate the humor contained therein. :) Nice work from that respect.

:cheers:

[Skinsinparadise]

People can sugarcoat the move to 3-4 and the choice to bring in Haslett but the reality is that this move was a unmitigated disaster. Seriously people what could be worse. Please SOMEONE paint me a realistic scenario that is worse then taking a consistently top 10 unit and placing them DEAD LAST. This has consequences because the strength of the team is now the largest weakness. Instead of going into a draft focused on Oline, WR, and RB the team is forced to upgrade it's weakest unit, the defense. The offense is BETTER than the defense. That's how unbelievably horrible the defense was.

Shanny isn't a dummy. I gather he noticed that the top defenses in the league are disproportionately 3-4's. We saw what teams like Pittsburgh could do to us with that alignment. He studied the team and probably saw what most of us saw and is practically a media cliche, this defense wasn't anything special the last couple of years, a paper tiger. The Ravens, Steelers, Jets -- those are teams that have defenses that MAKE PLAYS that change the dynamic of the game. The previous season, didn't we set some sort of team record for the least number of turnovers, if we weren't dead last on that, we were close. And our bend but don't break defense would break a heck of a lot with the game on the line.

I really doubt as much as Shanny knows about offense that he looked at tape and said wow that is some seriously scary defense -- but so what, lets shake it up. I gather he looked at it and said heck these guys can't create a play to change a game and tend to give up a big drive almost every time they need a big stop when the game is on the line.

Granted the defense looked bad this year, and like you I don't trust Shanny fully on this part of the ball, but i am not slamming this experiment in year 1. If you are indeed trying to set yourself up LONG TERM imo you start implementing this defense now, as opposed to when all the parts are in -- get Landry, Orkapo, etc used to the defense where it becomes 2nd nature. if this defense is still a failure in year 3, then am with you, but yeah the Greg Blache defenses I don't think scared anybody and didn't win us many games IMO.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 09:25 AM ----------


That was the same question we faced when Joe Gibbs returned to the fray. If this, Mike's first year, is used as evidence, the answer is likely the same also.

if this is a repeat of Gibbs, guess we are headed to the playoffs this coming year, then we will trade a ton of our draft picks in that off season & throw a lot of FA money around, and then bottom out the following year.

[Oldfan]

...Granted the defense looked bad this year, and like you I don't trust Shanny fully on this part of the ball, but i am not slamming this experiment in year 1. If you are indeed trying to set yourself up LONG TERM imo you start implementing this defense now.Now, prove to us that all the other moves Mike made, and those he didn't make, support your premise that he was thinking LONG TERM on the defense.

You see, you can't do that. So, his judgment in going all in on the 34 doesn't make sense.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 09:32 AM ----------


...if this is a repeat of Gibbs, guess we are headed to the playoffs this coming year, then we will trade a ton of our draft picks in that off season & throw a lot of FA money around, and then bottom out the following year.I said it was the same question and the same likely answer. I didn't claim it would be an exact replica.

[Destino]

cry, cry, cry we stil won 50% more games and 2 more division games with a much harder schedule. Relax take a breath and give it a year or 2. IF the progress is not there then actually cry.

Progress? More wins than last years disaster is supposed to make me happy? Zorn went 8-8 his first season with a less talented team and coaching staff. Gibbs took two such teams to the playoffs. I'm supposed to be happy with this season because we still finished last in the NFC East, but the record looks a little prettier?

No. Last is last.

[tiger187126]

Now, prove to us that all the other moves Mike made, and those he didn't make, support your premise that he was thinking LONG TERM on the defense.

drafted a fast inside linebacker, signed multiple FA NTs, let rob jackson play at the end of the year to try out another outside rush backer instead of handing it to orakpo, for that matter has been trying out multiple people for the front seven for the majority of the year, brought in two former 3-4 pittsburgh coaches, had guys lose/gain weight to play new positions, and didn't flip back to the 4-3 or fire his coach when things weren't going well.

i don't know what more you want, but you're wrong. and if you want to scrutinize every move a coach made i suggest you look at your post count and realize all the complete bull**** that's been typed in those 11,000+ posts.

our last ranked defense has a better record than your posting for sure.

[Destino]

An unmitigated disaster if you consider only the 2010 season, and not the potential this defense has for the future here. All those years we had a top 10 defense, how many Lombardi's did we win? Look beyond the lack of success short term.

So basically a complete failure is not a failure because it might eventually work? Great logic. Let me ask you a question what exactly was gained by running it this season? What's the net positive? Damn near the entire front seven has to be replaced so please don't tell me "experience" for the FEW players that will remain was worth this disaster. Had we got the player and THEN input the system things would be different. But jamming a cart in front of a horse is not excused by saying "we'd eventually need a cart".

It was a mistake, a big one, and it sure as hell set the team back.

[Fred Jones]

So basically a complete failure is not a failure because it might eventually work? Great logic. Let me ask you a question what exactly was gained by running it this season? What's the net positive? Damn near the entire front seven has to be replaced so please don't tell me "experience" for the FEW players that will remain was worth this disaster. Had we got the player and THEN input the system things would be different. But jamming a cart in front of a horse is not excused by saying "we'd eventually need a cart".

It was a mistake, a big one, and it sure as hell set the team back.

Hope, that is what we have Des. Just plain hope. You can either think negative or think positive. Your choice of course, and I am not putting this on you, but on the many other posters that think the same way.

Am I happy with this season, no. Same old thing year after year, yes.

But, I can either yell and scream, raise my blood pressure, or think positive and assume things will work itself out.

[tiger187126]

Progress? More wins than last years disaster is supposed to make me happy? Zorn went 8-8 his first season with a less talented team and coaching staff. Gibbs took two such teams to the playoffs. I'm supposed to be happy with this season because we still finished last in the NFC East, but the record looks a little prettier?

No. Last is last.

if you think year 1 with zorn was better than this then there's just something wrong with you. zorn was a 1 year fluke, i don't think you can even argue that. he came out and shocked everybody in the first 8 games to go 6-2 and then for the rest of his head coaching career went 6-18. then he went back to his real job as a QB coach.

that's your problem destino, you're looking at one 8-8 year surrounded by failure and saying that was a great year. it wasn't. it was a flash in the pan and because we've been so miserable you love it.

zorn was trending down with this team. shannahan is building this team up. letting young guys play. bringing in unknowns and having them produce. drafting offensive linemen. cutting overpaid players. cutting the owner out.

all of this is stuff everyone wanted, but since we didn't make the playoffs or get to your magical 8-8 it was a failure? and worse than zorn?

please, put down whatever kind of happy juice you're drinking that thinks this team was going to do anything this year.

and let me ask you, what did gibbs do in his first year back?

now think about it before you get on here and pretend zorn/cerrato is better than shanny/allen.

[Destino]

If you are indeed trying to set yourself up LONG TERM imo you start implementing this defense now, as opposed to when all the parts are in -- get Landry, Orkapo, etc used to the defense where it becomes 2nd nature. if this defense is still a failure in year 3, then am with you,
On what planet does that make any sense? Torpedo the entire unit to get a tiny minority of players a little more experience... and gamble on a three year experiment.... when the team has so many holes on the roster that there is no guarantee we can bring in the right defensive personnel in time to fully utilize the system. That's frankly ridiculous. If the offense didn't need an interior line, QB, WR, and RB this would make sense. Being however that this team has more needs than can be counted on one hand inputting a system that depends on replacing damn near the entire front seven is a mistake.

[Skinsinparadise]

I'd lay my own money on this line as well and believe your right however Shanny did pretty good in the draft considering our picks and found some undrafted players who could help turn this around so he can evaluate talent. The concern I have is him being able to spot Defensive players. Offensively his resume is pretty strong with player selection, but thinking about the defense its very weak. The teams inability to predict the decrease of value in store with Andre and Albert and not cashing in on them last offseason says to me he needs a lot of work on this side of the ball still and that doesn't change in one offseason. The sooner the man learns not to stick squares in round holes the better he and our team will be

I agree with this point. IMO these debates often hit one extreme or another Shanny is the worst coach or the best. I get the hits on Shanny on personnel but I think they are ridiculously off if its a global hit, ditto on coaching. with Shanny its defense, defense, defense IMO is the worry. On offense I think its nuts to critique him as below par, to me he's been a stud on that side of the ball -- Shanny with Elway, Plummer, Greise didn't matter who he had top 5, top 10 offenses consistently. The whole Shanny doesn't rebuild to me is nonsense, its just words, just look at the roster he left on offense, all YOUNG players -- young stud QB, stud RB, 2 stud WRs, good TE, stud WR, stud LT, very good RT, and good WR.

And the rap he gets by some that his whole tenure and approach should be defined here about the McNabb trade -- I think isn't fair. Everyone makes mistakes, I'll let one mistake go. He is talking about grooming a YOUNG QB. Yeah coaches who talk about getting rid of their veteran QB and supplanting them with a rookie -- are really just about quick fixes and a veteran laden roster? Yeah he doesn't believe in the draft, even though the dude averaged 8.2 draft picks for 10 years.

Even though I just defended Shanny on defense by saying give him patience on it, I don't think he's earned the benefit of the doubt on it, so I get the critiques here. He's found some talent on that side of the ball like Elvis Dumervile but its not been his gig.

I am not as harsh on Vinny as others on the board at least when it comes to draft picks, I don't think he stunk but thought he was mediocre. From 1999 on, the team had 8 top ten picks, or at least they said that on the radio the other day. Casserly and Vinny didn't really blow any of them, at least that I can think of, granted Carlos Rogers didn't warrant a top 10 pick but he hasn't been a bust either. Vinny (with some rare exceptions like Cooley) couldn't seem to find offensive talent to save his life in the draft, he was arguably a train wreck in that department. But defense he didn't really screw that up with his high first rounders at least, later rounds he didn't really find much talent but i think he was at least average on that side of the ball -- I would gather that Scott Campbell had something to do with that, and it looks like Shanny is keeping him -- so I hope Shanny finds the offensive talent and Scott the defense.

[tiger187126]

So basically a complete failure is not a failure because it might eventually work? Great logic. Let me ask you a question what exactly was gained by running it this season? What's the net positive? Damn near the entire front seven has to be replaced so please don't tell me "experience" for the FEW players that will remain was worth this disaster. Had we got the player and THEN input the system things would be different. But jamming a cart in front of a horse is not excused by saying "we'd eventually need a cart".

It was a mistake, a big one, and it sure as hell set the team back.

orakpo, fletcher, bryant, kemo, carriker, holiday, jarmon, jackson.

off the top of my head those are all 3-4 guys that are going to be in training camp next year.

you're right we should somehow drop everybody and pick up an entire new team during the course of the worse offseason in FA history.

here's a newsflash:

your boytoy zorn ran a west coast offense with campbell, moss, portis, randle el, etc.

so again, quit pretending like shanny is the only head coach on earth that has ever tried to change something here. or that we should keep any of the things that got us in the basement to begin with.

[Oldfan]

drafted a fast inside linebacker, signed multiple FA NTs, let rob jackson play at the end of the year to try out another outside rush backer instead of handing it to orakpo, for that matter has been trying out multiple people for the front seven for the majority of the year, brought in two former 3-4 pittsburgh coaches, had guys lose/gain weight to play new positions, and didn't flip back to the 4-3 or fire his coach when things weren't going well.Pretty weak stuff, my friend.


i don't know what more you want, but you're wrong. and if you want to scrutinize every move a coach made i suggest you look at your post count and realize all the complete bull**** that's been typed in those 11,000+ posts...our last ranked defense has a better record than your posting for sure.You demonstrate that you know you made a weak case when you turn away from attacking my argument to attack me.

[tiger187126]

I agree with this point. IMO these debates often hit one extreme or another Shanny is the worst coach or the best. I get the hits on Shanny on personnel but I think they are ridiculously off if its a global hit, ditto on coaching. with Shanny its defense, defense, defense IMO is the worry. On offense I think its nuts to critique him as below par, to me he's been a stud on that side of the ball -- Shanny with Elway, Plummer, Greise didn't matter who he had top 5, top 10 offenses consistently. The whole Shanny doesn't rebuild to me is nonsense, its just words, just look at the roster he left on offense, all YOUNG players -- young stud QB, stud RB, 2 stud WRs, good TE, stud WR, stud LT, very good RT, and good WR.

And the rap he gets by some that his whole tenure and approach should be defined here about the McNabb trade -- I think isn't fair. Everyone makes mistakes, I'll let one mistake go. He is talking about grooming a YOUNG QB. Yeah coaches who talk about getting rid of their veteran QB and supplanting them with a rookie -- are really just about quick fixes and a veteran laden roster? Yeah he doesn't believe in the draft, even though the dude averaged 8.2 draft picks for 10 years.

Even though I just defended Shanny on defense by saying give him patience on it, I don't think he's earned the benefit of the doubt on it, so I get the critiques here. He's found some talent on that side of the ball like Elvis Dumervile but its not been his gig.

I am not as harsh on Vinny as others on the board at least when it comes to draft picks, I don't think he stunk but thought he was mediocre. From 1999 on, the team had 8 top ten picks, or at least they said that on the radio the other day. Casserly and Vinny didn't really blow any of them, at least that I can think of, granted Carlos Rogers didn't warrant a top 10 pick but he hasn't been a bust either. Vinny (with some rare exceptions like Cooley) couldn't seem to find offensive talent to save his life in the draft, he was arguably a train wreck in that department. But defense he didn't really screw that up with his high first rounders at least, later rounds he didn't really find much talent but i think he was at least average on that side of the ball -- I would gather that Scott Campbell had something to do with that, and it looks like Shanny is keeping him -- so I hope Shanny finds the offensive talent and Scott the defense.

here's a point to chew on. shanny isn't going to sit in the draft room by himself and throw darts at a board for defensive players. the steelers linebackers coach (you know pick someone on the front seven, they're all pro bowlers steelers) is here. he is going to have input. he's been around a dominant 3-4 team and he knows what to look for.

again, read lavarro's article on the shanny drafts. he does it better than bill bellicheck, even though bellicheck has 1000 picks a draft. i swear perception > fact around here.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 09:59 AM ----------


Pretty weak stuff, my friend.

no oldfan, a weak case is saying prove to me something and then once it's written saying weak.

that's weak. you didn't say anything, you just wrote "pretty weak stuff, my friend"

that **** doesn't fly if you really want to talk about something. give me facts, show me proof.

you tell me what he did/didn't do to prove he's not committed to the 3-4 long term.

quit thinking you're right because you're different and prove something.

[Oldfan]

Hope, that is what we have Des. Just plain hope. You can either think negative or think positive. Your choice of course, and I am not putting this on you, but on the many other posters that think the same way.

Am I happy with this season, no. Same old thing year after year, yes.

But, I can either yell and scream, raise my blood pressure, or think positive and assume things will work itself out.Many of us have to have reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic. To be optimistic without reason seems a little silly.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

And this question must be asked, What record do you suppose Zorn would have had this year with the same team?

I think that's not a fair question given that Zorn would not have had this roster.

I think year 3 of Zorn would have been a 5 or 6 win team if he kept the same roster. Year 3 of Zorn with McNabb as his QB is an interesting thing to consider. I think the defense would have been a hell of a lot better in Year 3 of Zorn versus Year 1 of Shanny. It would be impossible for the defense to be worse.

But the Zorn-Shanny comparison is silly. Zorn should never have been head coach. Like I said, it was as if Snyder lost a bet or something when he hired him. Shanny is more than qualified to be a head coach in the NFL. I comparing his work versus someone who knows what they are doing, not an overwhelmed man with a crew cut.

[Skinsinparadise]

On what planet does that make any sense? Torpedo the entire unit to get a tiny minority of players a little more experience... and gamble on a three year experiment.... when the team has so many holes on the roster that there is no guarantee we can bring in the right defensive personnel in time to fully utilize the system. That's frankly ridiculous. If the offense didn't need an interior line, QB, WR, and RB this would make sense. Being however that this team has more needs than can be counted on one hand inputting a system that depends on replacing damn near the entire front seven is a mistake.

if you are going to this extreme, talking about what planet, etc -- the way i approach this and am including myself on this point -- on what planet does a board member on Extremeskins know more about football that a 14 year coach, been to the playoffs 7 times and won 2 Superbowls? We all got our opinions but it would strike me odd that we would be so much more attuned to the game that we can call out a coaches general approach to make no sense. i wasn't a big Zorn guy, but I couldn't say that the stuff I disagreed with that he did made no sense. He's been around football enough to have logic behind his moves. So I extend that courtesy to a coach in year one in particular.

I get you disagreeing but you are acting like these guys have to be really out of it -- there are plenty of others like Trevor Matich who played the game and covers the team who seems to buy the 3-4 logic and implementing it now as opposed to waiting until everything is there. If you don't agree, cool. But yeah there are plenty of things that I see that I disagree with but I could follow the logic of what they are doing and I'd let the movie play out as opposed to walk out of the theater in the first 15 minutes.

To play to your point directly, I think where we won't find common ground and its moot to debate is you seem to imply that we were messing up something really good. And if I agreed with that premise, I'd be with you. I don't think we were messing with anything special. If we translated this to baseball, to me the defense was a 280 hitter. And I don't mind messing with the mechanics even if it sets the player back as he adjusts to make the hitter a 320 hitter long term. If the guy was a 320 hitter I'd agree it would be nuts to mess with success.

And yeah i don't trust Shanny fully with the defense far from it, but I'll give a head coach who doesn't seem like a dummy, a chance to do it his way. And I am no football expert but I've read a zillion times that year ONE isn't usually the best year when a team masters a new defense, so i am not going to panic in year 1.

[Oldfan]

...no oldfan, a weak case is saying prove to me something and then once it's written saying weak.

that's weak. you didn't say anything, you just wrote "pretty weak stuff, my friend"

that **** doesn't fly if you really want to talk about something. give me facts, show me proof.

you tell me what he did/didn't do to prove he's not committed to the 3-4 long term.

quit thinking you're right because you're different and prove something.You misunderstand. Skinsinparadise made a claim. The burden of proof is on him to prove it. There's no burden on me to prove anything. Since you jumped into his position the burden is on you. And you made a case so obviously weak that it wasn't worth my time to bother to counter it. I'm willing to let it stand for impartial minds to consider.

[tiger187126]

You misunderstand. Skinsinparadise made a claim. The burden of proof is on him to prove it. There's no burden on me to prove anything. Since you jumped into his position the burden is on you. And you made a case so obviously weak that it wasn't worth my time to bother to counter it. I'm willing to let it stand for impartial minds to consider.

don't worry oldfan, the box you're outside of is the realm of logical thought. your head now is squarely up your ass.

you can't even give me one move to prove that his moves weren't long term on defense.

you see, you write a response underneath saying "you see, you can't do it" before anyone even has a chance to respond. and then once someone does you say, that's not good enough.

it's the equivilant to a face to face conversation where you say the "sky is green, and you can't prove otherwise" and when someone tries to say different you cut them off with "upbupbup, i already said you can't prove otherwise"

it is eternally childish and infinitely simple minded.

but what am i saying that everyone doesn't already know.

i should give myself a newsflash:

oldfan posts stuff against the grain, and ignores facts thrown in his face to desperately cling to his mostly contrarian beliefs.

[Oldfan]

don't worry oldfan, the box you're outside of is the realm of logical thought. your head now is squarely up your ass.

you can't even give me one move to prove that his moves weren't long term on defense.

you see, you write a response underneath saying "you see, you can't do it" before anyone even has a chance to respond. and then once someone does you say, that's not good enough.

it's the equivilant to a face to face conversation where you say the "sky is green, and you can't prove otherwise" and when someone tries to say different you cut them off with "upbupbup, i already said you can't prove otherwise"

it is eternally childish and infinitely simple minded.

but what am i saying that everyone doesn't already know.

i should give myself a newsflash:

oldfan posts stuff against the grain, and ignores facts thrown in his face to desperately cling to his mostly contrarian beliefs.The line I put in bold above shows that you didn't understand the issue in the first place. SIP's claim is that Shanahan's move to go all in on the 34 showed he was thinking long term this season. That claim can't be supported since Mike made so many moves in trying to be competitive now. No one is arguing that going to the 34 wasn't ultimately a long-term move. So, your posts have been both rude and irrelevant.

[justice98]

Long term, that may make this a positive year. We had some outrageous divas who thought they were way above the team. I doubt there was anyway to handle them gracefully. (McNabb being the exception) I think it was important to exert authority and not back down this year. Rule of law had to be imposed because there were too many country club puffins. You concede to them and then the whole thing starts all over again.

So, Shanny may have had no choice but to be a relentless hard ass.

There were a lot of ways to handle it more gracefully, they just didn't do it. You could've asserted your authority and cut Haynesworth a long time ago. If you don't get with the program, you're out, no playing around. Zero tolerance and problem solved. They chose to have a lot of tolerance. He gave Haynesworth a thousand and one chances before he threw in the towel. The mishandling of McNabb is well documented and Shanny admitted to his mistakes there. Basically, he's put out there that if you come to DC, your coach is gonna lie and throw you under the bus, embarrass you, etc.

Bottom line, he could've accomplished all the same things with half the headaches, as there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Losing 6 out of 8 down the stretch is usually a sign things are getting worse, not better. It's not often a team fades badly and it's seen as a good thing.

[TheLongshot]

The line I put in bold above shows that you didn't understand the issue in the first place. SIP's claim is that Shanahan's move to go all in on the 34 showed he was thinking long term this season. That claim can't be supported since Mike made so many moves in trying to be competitive now. No one is arguing that going to the 34 wasn't ultimately a long-term move. So, your posts have been both rude and irrelevant.

I think the only moves that you really can point to as "win now" moves were the trades for McNabb and Brown, and Brown was an obvious move once you traded for McNabb. That is why the McNabb trade threw me for a loop, because up to that point, he seemed to be following a path of building this team for the future. The trade seemed to be incongruant to that goal.


There were a lot of ways to handle it more gracefully, they just didn't do it. You could've asserted your authority and cut Haynesworth a long time ago. If you don't get with the program, you're out, no playing around. Zero tolerance and problem solved. They chose to have a lot of tolerance. He gave Haynesworth a thousand and one chances before he threw in the towel.

I think the biggest issue with all that had to do with the money he was being owed and coaching arrogance that you can get some use out of the player. You can critisize Gibbs for a lot of things, but he was usually pretty good at getting rid of players who didn't want to be here.

[addicted]

The line I put in bold above shows that you didn't understand the issue in the first place. SIP's claim is that Shanahan's move to go all in on the 34 showed he was thinking long term this season. That claim can't be supported since Mike made so many moves in trying to be competitive now. No one is arguing that going to the 34 wasn't ultimately a long-term move. So, your posts have been both rude and irrelevant.

Playing the Devils Advocate here to gain a better understanding of your meaning the bolded part im confused with so I'll ask the question and take any wrath for it that might come but I am hoping we can rise above the name calling and discuss this like gentlemen.

Are you suggesting that with long term moves that you don't continue to throw things at the wall hoping to see something stick eventually or you think that they should have just made a single change and stuck with it win or lose? To me what I saw was exactly that. The coaches throwing things around hoping to find something that worked. Once they found something that worked like with Banks they stuck with it and let the team go through its learning process and gain expirence. I'm not understanding what you mean by doing that can't be for a long term goal in mind

And lastly is your contention that when you make a long term move that trying to win now shouldn't be your goal? Is it impossible in your opinion to win now and work towards the future simulataniously?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Oldfan consistently murders my threads. Just ****ing kills them.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan consistently murders my threads. Just ****ing kills them.Can you elaborate? How have I murdered this thread?

[TheLongshot]

Oldfan consistently murders my threads. Just ****ing kills them.

Actually, if anything, he keeps threads going long beyond the useful period. His opinions always are good grist for the mill.

[Oldfan]

Playing the Devils Advocate here to gain a better understanding of your meaning the bolded part im confused with so I'll ask the question and take any wrath for it that might come but I am hoping we can rise above the name calling and discuss this like gentlemen.I've never drawn first blood and I won't start with you.


Are you suggesting that with long term moves that you don't continue to throw things at the wall hoping to see something stick eventually or you think that they should have just made a single change and stuck with it win or lose? To me what I saw was exactly that. The coaches throwing things around hoping to find something that worked. Once they found something that worked like with Banks they stuck with it and let the team go through its learning process and gain expirence. I'm not understanding what you mean by doing that can't be for a long term goal in mind.

And lastly is your contention that when you make a long term move that trying to win now shouldn't be your goal? Is it impossible in your opinion to win now and work towards the future simulataniously?Once the Skins were eliminated from playoff contention, Shanahan's roster moves looked to the future. If he had not overestimated himself, or the talent he inherited, he would have have been looking to the future, and making roster moves aligned with that goal from day one.

A few roster moves qualified as both short and long-term: T. Williams, Banks. But, a sound long-term rebuilding plan would have involved:

1. NOT trading picks for vets (exception Carricker who is young and healthy)

2. Trading vets for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

3. Not filling up roster with deadwood from other teams: McNabb, Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

[Mahons21]

Actually, if anything, he keeps threads going long beyond the useful period. His opinions always are good grist for the mill.

+1.

OF has a way of making people question their own beliefs, I believe this frustrates some, while others enjoy viewing any given subject matter from a different POV.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

+1.

OF has a way of making people question their own beliefs, I believe this frustrates some, while others enjoy viewing any given subject matter from a different POV.

I like OF. He just always come in on page 7 of threads I started and creates a two or three man debate that lasts 15 more pages. So, I'm always checking on the thread and realizing that it has nothing to do with anything I said.

[Oldfan]

Actually, if anything, he keeps threads going long beyond the useful period. His opinions always are good grist for the mill.


+1.

OF has a way of making people question their own beliefs, I believe this frustrates some, while others enjoy viewing any given subject matter from a different POV.I appreciate the support.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 12:01 PM ----------


I think the only moves that you really can point to as "win now" moves were the trades for McNabb and Brown, and Brown was an obvious move once you traded for McNabb. That is why the McNabb trade threw me for a loop, because up to that point, he seemed to be following a path of building this team for the future. The trade seemed to be incongruant to that goal.This is what I saw and didn't see as moves aligned with a rebuild:

1. NOT trading picks for vets (exception Carricker who is young and healthy)

2. Trading vets for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

3. Not filling up roster with deadwood from other teams: McNabb, Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

[addicted]

This is what I saw and didn't see as moves aligned with a rebuild:

1. NOT trading picks for vets (exception Carricker who is young and healthy)

He traded picks for three players right? Jamal Brown to shore up the right side of the offensive line, Cariker to shore up the defensive line, and McNabb to shore up the QB position. I fully understand the problem with trading for McNabb and you don't have to mention this but I'm curious about the problem you had with us trading for Brown. Why is that a move you don't make? The man is 29 years old and was a year removed from a probowl bid. Were we supposed to ignore the offensive line and keep that 3rd round pick? If so who would have played RT? If and this is in doubt in my opinion we can sign Brown for a 3-4 years we've addressed the second most important position on the offensive line and we needed help there. I've always considered this a risky trade with the potential to pay dividends for years. I agree McNabb was win now move with a tease of having a veteran teach a new rookie QB here to apease the rebuild project but don't understand the heartburn for Brown




2. Trading vets for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

Just to be clear we did trade two players for picks, Campbell and Tryon. It's not as if we didn't do this at all. Problem is we didn't move enough players. We should have traded at a minimum Hanyesworth and Andre Carter. Not trading Hanyesworth after we gave him that bonus makes sense to me on a business level. Why pay the man 20+ million one week and then dump him the following week? That's a bad investment. Andre Carter was the obvious choice to trade. He didn't fit this scheme, we knew he didn't fit the scheme, but we held onto him thinking we would play some bulllspit hybrid 3-4/4-3 scheme to use his talents according to the news last preseason if I recall correctly. Moss and Dockery wouldn't have gotten us anything and I'd argue that without Moss the numbers for McNabb would have been much much worse then they were. We leaned on Moss heavily this season more so then in recent memory. I wouldn't want to think about this season without Moss. I know you don't know this but I started a topic in March of 2010 with the idea of trading Hanyesworth and not entering the season with him on the team which was trashed by most here. I still wish we had done that and understand where you are coming from completely.




3. Not filling up roster with deadwood from other teams: McNabb, Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

The reason they did this was because the FA class in 2010 sucked badly because of the 6 years in the league rule. I agree that we shouldn't have signed a bunch of old vets from other teams like this but do contend the trade for McNabb and Brown made sense to me when they were done. This team was not a believer in Campbell. Our QB situation was in ruins. Bringing in McNabb lit a fire under the team that was missing and lifted that black cloud that had been covered over the team since he took over. If anything this move was done so we could finally get past the Jason Campbell failure once and for all. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do but it was a move I understand making when it was made. Unfortuantly all we have is speculation to guess how things will turn out and can't know for certain when moves are made. I supported trading for Brown then and still do. Why is he a bad move for us?

[TheLongshot]

He traded picks for three players right? Jamal Brown to shore up the right side of the offensive line, Cariker to shore up the defensive line, and McNabb to shore up the QB position. I fully understand the problem with trading for McNabb and you don't have to mention this but I'm curious about the problem you had with us trading for Brown. Why is that a move you don't make? The man is 29 years old and was a year removed from a probowl bid. Were we supposed to ignore the offensive line and keep that 3rd round pick? If so who would have played RT? If and this is in doubt in my opinion we can sign Brown for a 3-4 years we've addressed the second most important position on the offensive line and we needed help there. I've always considered this a risky trade with the potential to pay dividends for years. I agree McNabb was win now move with a tease of having a veteran teach a new rookie QB here to apease the rebuild project but don't understand the heartburn for Brown

As I said before, given that we had McNabb and BMW's condition, the trade had to happen. That being said, whether or not it was a good trade is still up in the air. Considering that Heyer had to play RT a lot this season, I don't know if the value is there. I said at the time, the trade is good if Brown is fully recovered. That hasn't been proven out yet.

But, the larger point is that we are in the situation we are in now because we haven't had those middle round picks to bring in those lunchpail starters that every team has.


Just to be clear we did trade two players for picks, Campbell and Tryon. It's not as if we didn't do this at all. Problem is we didn't move enough players. We should have traded at a minimum Hanyesworth and Andre Carter. Not trading Hanyesworth after we gave him that bonus makes sense to me on a business level. Why pay the man 20+ million one week and then dump him the following week? That's a bad investment. Andre Carter was the obvious choice to trade. He didn't fit this scheme, we knew he didn't fit the scheme, but we held onto him thinking we would play some bulllspit hybrid 3-4/4-3 scheme to use his talents according to the news last preseason if I recall correctly. Moss and Dockery wouldn't have gotten us anything and I'd argue that without Moss the numbers for McNabb would have been much much worse then they were. We leaned on Moss heavily this season more so then in recent memory. I wouldn't want to think about this season without Moss. I know you don't know this but I started a topic in March of 2010 with the idea of trading Hanyesworth and not entering the season with him on the team which was trashed by most here. I still wish we had done that and understand where you are coming from completely.

I'm one who believes that you only trade players who you think don't fit in with what you are doing as a team, because you generally don't get as much value in return as the value of that player on your team. In that regard, I would have traded Carter and Haynesworth because they just didn't fit in with what the team wanted to do defensively. It is also why Tryon was traded and Thomas was released.


The reason they did this was because the FA class in 2010 sucked badly because of the 6 years in the league rule. I agree that we shouldn't have signed a bunch of old vets from other teams like this but do contend the trade for McNabb and Brown made sense to me when they were done. This team was not a believer in Campbell. Our QB situation was in ruins. Bringing in McNabb lit a fire under the team that was missing and lifted that black cloud that had been covered over the team since he took over. If anything this move was done so we could finally get past the Jason Campbell failure once and for all. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do but it was a move I understand making when it was made. Unfortuantly all we have is speculation to guess how things will turn out and can't know for certain when moves are made. I supported trading for Brown then and still do. Why is he a bad move for us?

I don't buy most of this. Both players were liked and supported by their teammates. If Grossman was named the starter from the beginning, you would have seen a similar reaction. I don't see the 'fire' there, unless you are talking the initial reaction of having a guy who has been there before. But, what did that end up being worth? A similar offensive performance as last year and our QB situation being even more muddled.

[addicted]

As I said before, given that we had McNabb and BMW's condition, the trade had to happen. That being said, whether or not it was a good trade is still up in the air. Considering that Heyer had to play RT a lot this season, I don't know if the value is there. I said at the time, the trade is good if Brown is fully recovered. That hasn't been proven out yet.

But, the larger point is that we are in the situation we are in now because we haven't had those middle round picks to bring in those lunchpail starters that every team has.

I can't argue this and basically said the same thing. The one thing I can say is that the guys who traded all of those mid picks away before this season aren't here anymore or responsible for anything that happened this past season and the current group of front office folks we have now isn't guilty of things gone wrong in the past either. They all have faults but they should only be held responsible for what they did. If Brown is re-signed and plays healthy he's a great addition to the offensive line but that first requires a contract which we don't have yet. If he isn't signed then this was another failure. If he is signed and plays well for 3-4 more seasons it's a fine trade in my eyes. First things first is getting him signed




I don't buy most of this. Both players were liked and supported by their teammates. If Grossman was named the starter from the beginning, you would have seen a similar reaction.

Really?

Really?

Come on man!! Why do you think the outcry was so loud when McNabb was sat in Detroit for Grossman? The team wouldn't have rallied around Grossman like they did McNabb last offseason because no one believed in him. Hardly anyone today believes in Grossman after seeing him close out the year but more people have come around to the idea of him playing since he played ok. The fanbase freaked out about McNabb benching because it was for Rex Grossman. Make no mistake Grossman is not well liked or appreciated by anyone in the NFL. He joined the team with very little fanfare or appluase and still struggles for respect.

Now as far as what I said about McNabb here are comments from the team last offseason that goes against what your saying about no spark.

Let me refresh your memory

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/04/AR2010040403537.html

"It puts a face and a leader, an identity, to this offense. That's what this trade does," center Casey Rabach said in a phone interview. "Donovan is a guy who has done a lot of great things in the NFL for a long time, and he's done it in this style of offense also. And for him to be our teammate now, it's definitely a big move for us."

"He's a proven winner in this league and I'm excited to have him as a part of our football team," top cornerback DeAngelo Hall wrote in a text message to a reporter. "This instantly makes us a contender for a Super Bowl championship."

"Although many of Campbell's teammates expressed admiration for his professional conduct during many trying situations in his three-plus seasons as a starter, they praised Shanahan and General Manager Bruce Allen for their aggressiveness in making a deal that, several said, clearly makes the team better"

"Obviously, it's very surprising," outside linebacker Lorenzo Alexander said. "You're talking about a guy who has been to the big game [Super Bowl XXXIX] and played in a lot of NFC championship games. He's done it for a long period of time, so he can't do anything but make your team better. "I love Jason Campbell as a person and a player, but the front office wanted to go in a different direction. Who knows what other moves they'll make and where Jason will wind up, hopefully he'll be here, but he'll be successful wherever he is. But we all know what we signed up for being in the NFL"


The players liked Campbell as a person but did not believe in him the way that they believed in McNabb. They certainily didn't believe in Grossman if they even do now. They didn't end last season with Campbell thinking they were Superbowl contenders or said anything like that this year but when we got McNabb they did. That is the fire I am talking about.




I don't see the 'fire' there, unless you are talking the initial reaction of having a guy who has been there before. But, what did that end up being worth? A similar offensive performance as last year and our QB situation being even more muddled.

Even more? How so? The front office and coaches didn't want Campbell and traded him for peanuts and never would have stayed with him McNabb or not. We are still at the crossroads of needing a QB like we were before McNabb arrived. We still have Rex Grossman but added John Beck. How is the QB situation worse today then it was before McNabb arrived?

[Pwyl]

Not trading Hanyesworth after we gave him that bonus makes sense to me on a business level. Why pay the man 20+ million one week and then dump him the following week? That's a bad investment.

When we got word that the team was switching to a 3-4, and started hearing rumors about Haynesworth being unhappy and other rumors about trading him... the question occured to me: How much cash is a high draft pick worth? If the team could pay cash straight up for a second-round pick, how much would it be worth? Because paying Haynesworth his bonus and then trading him would have been the equivalent of buying a draft pick with cash. I don't really have an answer, but it's an interesting thought to ponder.

[Oldfan]

... I fully understand the problem with trading for McNabb and you don't have to mention this but I'm curious about the problem you had with us trading for Brown... Brown had played himself out of a starting job with the Saints even before he was injured. All we got in trade was the services of a wounded player for the 2010 season. He's now a FA. He'll be 30 next season. Signing him as a FA will likely be a mistake because he isn't likely to be here when we become a legit contender.


Moss and Dockery wouldn't have gotten us anything...Why not? Both could have helped teams with playoff aspirations.


...and I'd argue that without Moss the numbers for McNabb would have been much much worse then they were. Who cares?


The reason they did this was because the FA class in 2010 sucked badly because of the 6 years in the league rule.After we were eliminated from the playoffs, Mike eliminated the deadwood. He could have done the same from day one and we'd be further along.


This team was not a believer in Campbell. Our QB situation was in ruins. I doubt that, but it really doesn't matter. Trade Campbell and start Grossman or some other placeholer QB.

[TheLongshot]

Really?

Really?

Come on man!! Why do you think the outcry was so loud when McNabb was sat in Detroit for Grossman? The team wouldn't have rallied around Grossman like they did McNabb last offseason because no one believed in him. Hardly anyone today believes in Grossman after seeing him close out the year but more people have come around to the idea of him playing since he played ok. The fanbase freaked out about McNabb benching because it was for Rex Grossman. Make no mistake Grossman is not well liked or appreciated by anyone in the NFL. He joined the team with very little fanfare or appluase and still struggles for respect.

It was probably more surprise given how much was invested in McNabb more than anything, so you are right that in that respect Grossman wouldn't have gotten the same reaction. There probably also was the feeling that McNabb was being scapegoated for the offensive problems, when it was obvious that the problems were bigger than just one man.


Now as far as what I said about McNabb here are comments from the team last offseason that goes against what your saying about no spark.

Let me refresh your memory

None of those statements contradict what I said. Most of the reaction was for what McNabb did in his career, which is understandable. But, what were the real results of that? Not much different from last year.


The players liked Campbell as a person but did not believe in him the way that they believed in McNabb. They certainily didn't believe in Grossman if they even do now. They didn't end last season with Campbell thinking they were Superbowl contenders or said anything like that this year but when we got McNabb they did. That is the fire I am talking about.

I think that has more to do with the feelings about the coaching staff more than anything. It is looking very doubtful that McNabb returns at this point, yet the players feel better because they believe in the head coach and the direction they are going in. McNabb has little to do with that feeling right now.


Even more? How so? The front office and coaches didn't want Campbell and traded him for peanuts and never would have stayed with him McNabb or not. We are still at the crossroads of needing a QB like we were before McNabb arrived. We still have Rex Grossman but added John Beck. How is the QB situation worse today then it was before McNabb arrived?

You are rewriting history. Campbell was traded because he wanted to be traded and Shanahan obliged. Shanahan said a few times that he would have been fine having Campbell stay here, but that Campbell wanted to go someplace where he'd have the opportunity to start. I don't blame the guy.

How are we worse off? We didn't have that 2nd round pick player who is developing on this roster and we are short a pick in next year's draft. Maybe we can get the latter back in a trade, but I'm not counting on it.

[Fred Jones]

Many of us have to have reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic. To be optimistic without reason seems a little silly.

That is unfortunate Oldfan and an unhealthy way of looking at life. Thoughts are energy. Positive thought creates positive energy. Since this is the stadium I will go no further except to say my specific point in my post was to comment about the fans that continuously complain.

If it is that bad, perhaps a break from football or a break from this site would do some good.

Agree/disagree with the direction of team, agree/disagree with which player(s) need to be drafted and acquired in the off season, and agree/disagree with what player (s) needs to be cut or traded. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day no one on this board will have any say in the matter. We can only talk and predict what will happen and present our view after the fact.

We can only "hope" for a better future. Whining, crying, complaining, yelling, ect. really accomplishes nothing. And, presenting an alternative well thought out view is different.

[GSF]

don't worry oldfan, the box you're outside of is the realm of logical thought. your head now is squarely up your ass.

you can't even give me one move to prove that his moves weren't long term on defense.


I can give you a few:

Trading multiple picks for older players, McNabb and Brown.

Not trading away Carter and Haynesworth when they obviously didn't fit the system and still had some value.

not giving more younger players opportunities on both sides of the ball earlier in the season before they were eliminated.

Make no mistake, Shanny obviously thought he had a chance to make a playoff run or he would have handled the roster much differently. When you trade picks for 30 year olds and bring in vet FAs like Willie Parker, Larry Johnson, Joey Galloway, ect, ect, you're not thinking about the future, you're thinking about right now. You can argue that he gave many young players like Armstrong, Jackson, and Riley opportunities later in the season, but that did not happen until the old guys either got hurt or couldn't perform and the Skins obviously weren't going to the playoffs.

I'm glad Mike changed gears late in the season, and I like some of what I saw, but i would have been much, much happier had he just gone that route in the first place. We'd have more draft picks and young players on the roster now, and we probably would have wound up winning more games anyways.

[seriously]

Okay, anyone- ANYONE, with any sort of common sense in the football realm can clearly see where we were (bad) and given the draft picks in place for the new "staff" to work with I don't think anyone is "disappointed".

The whole 3-4 talk is tiresome, get over it. Our nickel and dime packages were ABUSED which was often the defense used- note that in rants about how bad the 3-4 is.

We go 6-10 next year, then we have a problem. I honestly am expecting a solid 8-8 and by solid I mean 7 out of 8 victories aren't nail-biters that end in "luck". There are probably many personnel changes coming (younger talent) that will take some time to adjust and won't probably find their "groove" till the end of next season.

[cphil006]

We were completely out-matched early on with Marty. Our offense set a new low. Terrible.

We were right there in most of our games this season.

Norv Turner's first 2-3 seasons were worse than this. Jim Zorn's second season was worse.Richie Petibon's season was worse.

[Oldfan]

That is unfortunate Oldfan and an unhealthy way of looking at life. Thoughts are energy. Positive thought creates positive energy. You are confusing the external life with the internal. Studies on the placebo effect and other similar phenomena demonstrate the importance of managing our expectations. But that doesn't apply to the world outside our minds.

To use an extreme example, a Jew living in Germany in 1939 would be a fool to be optimistic about his future with the rise of the Nazi Party. Staying put and thinking positive thoughts would only get him killed.

Your optimism about the team isn't going to change the team. My pessimism isn't going to change it either. However, discussing whether we have reason to be optimistic or pessimistic makes for an interesting discussion.

[cphil006]

To use an extreme example, a Jew living in Germany in 1939 would be a fool to be optimistic about his future with the rise of the Nazi Party. Staying put and thinking positive thoughts would only get him killed.

.

Says who? Unless the Germans could read minds, I don't think having positive "thoughts" would get someone killed.

This example is probably the worst piece of writing I have ever seen on here. You've said some outlandish things (Norv Turner measures the same as Mike Shanahan, remember that one) and this ranks up there.

[Skinsinparadise]

Now, prove to us that all the other moves Mike made, and those he didn't make, support your premise that he was thinking LONG TERM on the defense.

Yes I am stating my opinion based on what others have said that cover the team and what I observed, yep that's true, you nailed me. But pretty much everyone is nailed with the same line of logic, show me the proof that backs up some of the stuff that you've said routinely about Shanny -- you do it the same way. You extrapolate things and put together a case but this isn't a science experiment most of the things you put out their are likewise all opinion with occasional media backing like Shanny never rebuilt the Broncos, the Alex Gibbs credit stuff from the Broncos years, The Skins would have a big year in Zorn's year 2, Vinny is a good evaluator of talent. Its not empirical, you don't have empirical data to neatly prove most of your opinions. Neither do i.

For the idea that Shanny wasn't thinking long term, I am gathering focuses on the McNabb trade. The McNabb trade IMO is the only legit criticism some of the other stuff that people put on this issue IMO is nonsense especially the signing some veterans for minimum contracts when just about every team does it -- including who we now think are the magic rebuilding teams like the Rams. And yeah Tampa made a trade where they gave up almost the identical amount of picks, and no one says they didn't rebuild. So yes if we are in a science class I'll take a crazy leap and say that someone can't be defined based on one transaction. You define them on a series of them.

I'll also take the another leap and that is things don't have to crazy to one extreme or another -- the answer could be gray. Rebuilding doesn't take 10 years. Tampa did it within 3. Chiefs even quicker. And yeah the Chiefs traded a high pick for a QB. When Shanny got McNabb he talked about QB's playing well late in their careers. I got the impression that they were thinking McNabb would stick around for 4 years or so -- so why not get it started. Shanny said in another interview that he likes to to groom a young QB under a veteran one. Why not draft a veteran and get your young one next draft when you have more picks to play with and a better crop of Qbs? by the way, as we've noticed Shanny is talking about drafting a young QB this year -- not exactly the talk of a guy with a quick fix, we are going to the Super Bowl now mentality.

As for the defense, I am not an expert on defense and with all respect to everyone on this board, yeah there are differences in degrees of what coaches excel about, but I don't think there is one of us that knows more about offense, special teams, and defense than the professional NFL coaches. So yeah it strikes me that Haslett and Shanny aren't on this board taking notes. And if I as a layperson know that 3-4 defenses thrive when:

You got big LB's -- both our guys are small
A dominant NT -- we picked up ours off the street
TWO pass rushing LBs -- we got one.

We don't have the fundamentals in place and while I question Shanny compared to other NFL coaches on defense, i don't think he is oblivious to the basics and needs a tutorial from us. And no i can't prove it, neither can you for most of your criticisms directed at him. Shanny went 8-8 his first year before winning the Super Bowl. I doubt he looked at this roster and said yeah i'll take this 4-12 team, who achieved it with a joke of a schedule -- for a major playoff run or Super Bowl. And its not a foreign concept that you take a step back not forward when you introduce a new system. so yeah I doubt Shanny had no idea that London Fletcher and Rocky weren't the prototype LB's for a 3-4, etc, etc -- and expected big success in year #1. Maybe. But i don't see how you can prove anything on this one way or another. We are guessing the thought process of Shanny and for me my opinion has at least as much logic behind it than the ones that imply Shanny was expecting instant success with it.


I said it was the same question and the same likely answer. I didn't claim it would be an exact replica.

Ha, well, I was joking, clearly the joke didn't work since am explaining it, but yeah I don't think you believe that Shanny will have the exact same record year after year that Gibbs did.

[Oldfan]

Says who? Unless the Germans could read minds, I don't think having positive "thoughts" would get someone killed. Good Lord. I said, "Staying put and thinking positive thoughts would only get him killed." That means he should get his ass out of Germany. Was that logical connection really that difficult? I notice you had to clip the "Staying put and..." part off my sentence to come up with your stupid interpretation.

[Fred Jones]

You are confusing the external life with the internal. Studies on the placebo effect and other similar phenomena demonstrate the importance of managing our expectations. But that doesn't apply to the world outside our minds.

To use an extreme example, a Jew living in Germany in 1939 would be a fool to be optimistic about his future with the rise of the Nazi Party. Staying put and thinking positive thoughts would only get him killed.

Your optimism about the team isn't going to change the team. My pessimism isn't going to change it either. However, discussing whether we have reason to be optimistic or pessimistic makes for an interesting discussion.

Again this is the Stadium so I do not want to discuss this here but you apparently do not believe the below statement:

"You are a result of thought, that thought is, and that this is the essence of understanding, manipulating, and working within the world. Your thoughts form your world all of the time.
Until we take responsibility for our thoughts, we will be stuck in this blame-game mentality. Life can become downright unpleasant, sometimes you have to choose between something bad and something even worse, but these teach you and you grow. Whatever the outcome, you have created it. Therefore you and only you become the author of your destiny."

Again, because you do not believe that thought is energy any further discussion is mute and presenting more would not be proper in the Stadium. Will my individual thought change anything, no. But.........

[TheLongshot]

Many of us have to have reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic. To be optimistic without reason seems a little silly.

The thing is, there are always reasons to be optimistic about the next season, because that's where the opportunity for change comes. That is why I always tend toward the optimistic. If you don't have a reason to be optimistic, then you likely aren't going to be a fan for much longer.


I'll also take the another leap and that is things don't have to crazy to one extreme or another -- the answer could be gray. Rebuilding doesn't take 10 years. Tampa did it within 3. Chiefs even quicker. And yeah the Chiefs traded a high pick for a QB. When Shanny got McNabb he talked about QB's playing well late in their careers. I got the impression that they were thinking McNabb would stick around for 4 years or so -- so why not get it started. Shanny said in another interview that he likes to to groom a young QB under a veteran one. Why not draft a veteran and get your young one next draft when you have more picks to play with and a better crop of Qbs? by the way, as we've noticed Shanny is talking about drafting a young QB this year -- not exactly the talk of a guy with a quick fix, we are going to the Super Bowl now mentality.

Course, Tampa did it by tossing most of their veterans and going very young. The Chiefs actually had some good parts and got a good deal on a young QB who was a known quantity to the FO.

I had no problem with Shanahan punting on the QB question to next year. I do have a problem spending two relatively high picks on a QB who was likely not going to be here when the rest of the team was ready.

[tiger187126]

I can give you a few:

Trading multiple picks for older players, McNabb and Brown.

Not trading away Carter and Haynesworth when they obviously didn't fit the system and still had some value.

not giving more younger players opportunities on both sides of the ball earlier in the season before they were eliminated.

Make no mistake, Shanny obviously thought he had a chance to make a playoff run or he would have handled the roster much differently. When you trade picks for 30 year olds and bring in vet FAs like Willie Parker, Larry Johnson, Joey Galloway, ect, ect, you're not thinking about the future, you're thinking about right now. You can argue that he gave many young players like Armstrong, Jackson, and Riley opportunities later in the season, but that did not happen until the old guys either got hurt or couldn't perform and the Skins obviously weren't going to the playoffs.

I'm glad Mike changed gears late in the season, and I like some of what I saw, but i would have been much, much happier had he just gone that route in the first place. We'd have more draft picks and young players on the roster now, and we probably would have wound up winning more games anyways.

throw the mcnabb out the window, it obviously says defense right in the post you quoted.

haynesworth obviously didn't fit the system? he wants to be reggie white, he has all the talent in the world to be whatever he wants to be. as for this value that you speak of. please, you and all the other "trade cooley, trade moss" people need to take a look around the NFL. carter wouldn't have gotten us a thing and at the time trying to get haynesworth to work was probably better than taking a late round pick for him. remember we couldn't have traded him before we restructured his deal right before camp. again it's just a simple overestimation of a guy's worth on this team. there are very few guys on this team that would warrant a draft pick.

and i will defer to the information that came out around galloway's cutting. it was said that he didn't trust some of the younger guys i.e. austin, r. williams (who i can't believe is still on the team), and banks to get the offense right away so he wanted savvy vets in who could run it.

i mean until you're eliminated from the playoffs you still have a lot to play for. this whole play young guys for the sake of playing young guys is nonsense. once there's nothing to play for, sure, give them a go. but as you saw with grossman playing qb this offense has a lot to do with timing and precise routs and i can understand why you wouldn't want to throw guys who have never played at this level out there and have them run wrong routes and cause turnovers.

there is no such thing as a throw away season in the nfl. you can't just tank or else no one will show up for the games and then you'll get blacked out on tv.

seattle is going to the playoffs this year. you think pete carroll let hassleback play most of the season even though he traded for a younger guy because they were going to suck?

[Mooka]

You forget we let Steve Spurrier build a brand new team from the ground up when we brought him here. That pretty much trumps everything even though we went 7-9. Set our franchise way back for the future.


You can only fault Pettibon and Norv for their coaching performances because personnel wise they had Casserly.

[addicted]

Brown had played himself out of a starting job with the Saints even before he was injured. All we got in trade was the services of a wounded player for the 2010 season. He's now a FA. He'll be 30 next season. Signing him as a FA will likely be a mistake because he isn't likely to be here when we become a legit contender.

So your saying that whomever was playing QB should have dealt with Stephon Heyer as RT and that was the teams best "long term" answer? How can you be certain now that Browns got nothing in the tank left? Regardless of his situation with the Saints Brown was not on this team and we would have had to go get someone to play this position at some point...If not Brown then who? Even in a rebuilding season you still need a RT.

Bottom line here OF is that if I argue this point with you or agree with the future of Brown on this team that neither of us knows anymore then speculation what to make of this trade yet. Brown helped us this year, he could be re-signed and help us in the future. "When" we are championship material is completely unknown to either of us so we are just arguing our predictions about things uncertain and not a worth while effort. Thank you for sharing your opinion on this man with me.




Why not? Both could have helped teams with playoff aspirations.

I said that because Moss had an awful season in 2009 and wasn't expected to do much this year and he outperformed expectations. Dockery the same. But it's certainily possible some team would have given up a 5th or 6th rounder for either man. Not sure arguing over a 5th or 6th is a good thing to do




Who cares?

Unless you want a higher draft pick when what we have you should care. Moss was instrumental in getting us 6 wins this season.




After we were eliminated from the playoffs, Mike eliminated the deadwood. He could have done the same from day one and we'd be further along.

This is the only thing that I think you said here that is way off base. Unless you mean we were eliminated from the playoffs before game one of the season the dead wood you mention was already being shed. We didnt start the season with Parker, Randle El, Betts, etc. We cut Larry Johnson in the 3rd week of the year. We stopped playing Dockery by mid season. The only change we made after the playoffs were out for us with regard to dead wood was sit McNabb. We have been doing this all year

[tiger187126]

Oldfan consistently murders my threads. Just ****ing kills them.

here's my problem with oldfan. he says something that's usually kind of left field-ish, against the grain. that's fine. no problem with that. but when you start throwing facts at him he'll do what he did to me.

i don't like what you have to say so i'll shrug it off and ignore you. i won't address it with opposing facts.

at the end of the day he's no better than the cult of colt. just saying things doesn't make it true. he also relies far too heavily on revisionist history. i haven't seen him out ahead of any issue really. i mean i sure he has posted about something at the moment, but it seems like everytime i see him jack a thread to his own personal black hole of "logic" it's always about something the team should have done 8 months ago now that it's played out. everyone is good at hindsight.

[Oldfan]

SIP: For the idea that Shanny wasn't thinking long term, I am gathering focuses on the McNabb trade. The McNabb trade IMO is the only legit criticism...

If MIke had:

1. NOT traded picks for vets (Carricker, both young and healthy, excepted)

2. Traded vets who didn't fit for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

3. Not filled up our roster with deadwood: Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

...then I would not be griping.

Most of his moves show that Mike thought he had a shot at making the playoffs this season with McNabb. That's why the move to the 34 with misfit personnel seemed really dumb to so many of us. A more aggressive 43, with some 34 phased in, would have at least been a cohesive plan even if it failed.

[bikie]

To use an extreme example, a Jew living in Germany in 1939 would be a fool to be optimistic about his future with the rise of the Nazi Party. Staying put and thinking positive thoughts would only get him killed.


using this analogy, OF, for your own safety you should switch to a different team and quick!

For gezinteh hait!

:D

of course this place would not be the same without you

[Oldfan]

here's my problem with oldfan. he says something that's usually kind of left field-ish, against the grain. that's fine. no problem with that. but when you start throwing facts at him he'll do what he did to me.

i don't like what you have to say so i'll shrug it off and ignore you. i won't address it with opposing facts.

at the end of the day he's no better than the cult of colt. just saying things doesn't make it true. he also relies far too heavily on revisionist history. i haven't seen him out ahead of any issue really. i mean i sure he has posted about something at the moment, but it seems like everytime i see him jack a thread to his own personal black hole of "logic" it's always about something the team should have done 8 months ago now that it's played out. everyone is good at hindsight.Most of the regulars on this board know that your claims are false. The only people who would agree are those whose egos I've bruised with the only debating trick I use -- relentless logic.

[tiger187126]

If MIke had:

1. NOT traded picks for vets (Carricker, both young and healthy, excepted)

2. Traded vets who didn't fit for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

3. Not filled up our roster with deadwood: Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

...then I would not be griping.

Most of his moves show that Mike thought he had a shot at making the playoffs this season with McNabb. That's why the move to the 34 with misfit personnel seemed really dumb to so many of us. A more aggressive 43, with some 34 phased in, would have at least been a cohesive plan even if it failed.

first off, you're always going to gripe. let's not pretend that you're ever roses and unicorns.

second. we turned over 22 players from last year in one of the worst FA markets in nfl history.

third. Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

what picks are we getting for those guys. i know there's not some magical chart somewhere, but realistically we're not getting above a 5th or 6th round pick for anyone of those guys. period.

also since you didn't watch the games you obviously didn't see carter with his hand down on third downs when we had at least 4 down linemen for most of the second half of the season. as another poster put it, our 3-4 wasn't nearly as bad as our nickle and dime.

you don't come in to change a franchise by making things "cohesive." cohesive is zorn. letting the owner and his buddy run all over him and bringing in a bingo caller to call plays.

let's make the defense feel like they were worthy of toting a top 10 defense like so many on this board do. let them play there little 4-3 until they feel "comfortable." just stay medium, man.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 04:41 PM ----------


Most of the regulars on this board know that your claims are false. The only people who would agree are those whose egos I've bruised with the only debating trick I use -- relentless logic.

saying something a lot makes it relentless, but not logic.

and don't play the clout game with me, i've been on here as long as you have.

again you don't want to dispute what i've said, you just throw up "most regulars knows what you're saying is false."

that statement has no validity to it and is a gross generalization. you're speaking for a strong majority of the board who sees you as merely a devil's advocate who mixes it up for his own personal enjoyment.

see what i did there?

blanket statements are fun.

[TheLongshot]

2. Traded vets who didn't fit for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

Ok, you explain to me how Cooley and Moss didn't fit, particularly since Moss has had his best season in a long time?

While I can see your way with Dock, I saw that was more out of necessity: there weren't better options out there. His eventual replacement was the very inexperienced Lichtensteiger.


3. Not filled up our roster with deadwood: Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

I saw that as a function of this unusual offseason when most of the younger FAs were off the board: He got what he could. Most of those guys went by the wayside as the season went on.

[Oldfan]

using this analogy, OF, for your own safety you should switch to a different team and quick!

For gezinteh hait!

:D

of course this place would not be the same without youIn 1939, a Jew could leave Nazi Germany but he couldn't stop being a Jew. I'm a Redskins fan. I can't stop being a Redskins fan.

[bikie]

In 1939, a Jew could leave Nazi Germany but he couldn't stop being a Jew. I'm a Redskins fan. I can't stop being a Redskins fan.

I am prepared to debate on Jews in Germany versus Redskin fans in Washington for the next 10 pages then accuse you of hijacking this thread.

[Oldfan]

Ok, you explain to me how Cooley and Moss didn't fit, particularly since Moss has had his best season in a long time?You're correct. I forgot to edit out the "didn't fit" part. I'm really going for anyone with trade value who could not be classified a core player, an expected starter three year down the road.


While I can see your way with Dock, I saw that was more out of necessity: there weren't better options out there. His eventual replacement was the very inexperienced Lichtensteiger.If he didn't fit, they knew it in OTAs. Keeping him temporarily must have been with win-now thoughts in mind.


I saw that as a function of this unusual offseason when most of the younger FAs were off the board: He got what he could. Most of those guys went by the wayside as the season went on.We played without those guys after being eliminated from the playoffs. It could have been the plan from day one if Mike was committed to rebuilding.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 05:00 PM ----------


I am prepared to debate on Jews in Germany versus Redskin fans in Washington for the next 10 pages then accuse you of hijacking this thread.:ols:

Alright, I'll concede the point.

[Skinsinparadise]

If MIke had:

1. NOT traded picks for vets (Carricker, both young and healthy, excepted)

2. Traded vets who didn't fit for picks: Cooley (play Davis), Carter, Moss, Haynesworth, Dockery

3. Not filled up our roster with deadwood: Parker, Galloway, Holloway, R.Williams, Johnson, Hicks, Brown

...then I would not be griping.

Most of his moves show that Mike thought he had a shot at making the playoffs this season with McNabb. That's why the move to the 34 with misfit personnel seemed really dumb to so many of us. A more aggressive 43, with some 34 phased in, would have at least been a cohesive plan even if it failed.

If only Shanny got rid of a lot of veterans and solved our salary cap issues.

If only he didn't go the Vinny route and again sign expensive FAs like Dansby, Rolle, etc to big time free agent contracts that will handcuff us for years.

If only he started rebuilding our mess of an O line with youth

If only if he worked to make our defense more opportunistic and create turnovers

If only he fixed our punt return game with a young dynamic play maker

if only he found some good young RB's

If only the oldest team in the league and he INHERITED that title -- would start getting younger and we'd lose that infamous title

If only he did decent with unrestricted rookie FA and the picks he had -- considering he started without 2 picks in the draft via Vinny.

The only trade where we lost picks was McNabb -- we still have 7 picks coming into the next draft and likely end up at 8 or 9 picks

If only we kept all our picks for the draft after this coming one and actually started adding some.

If only the coach said look trading picks hasn't been my history. This off season was an exception don't expect more

Well, all of this did happen. We all know that every team that wants to rebuild doesn't do it all in one off season, and doesn't solve every issue in one fell swoop, and doesn't have a completely pristine/mistake free reign. You've said you overall like Vinny's work -- but I bet you can own up to some of his mishaps. And no we all know that you can't primarily rebuild your roster with unrestricted rookie FA's --players that most teams didn't seem where worthy enough to be drafted. And going with your deadwood theory it would mean that no team I can think of in the NFL is truly rebuilding then.

I don't get why a third theory doesn't get put into this mix which to me seems as likely as anything else we've debated. Shanny wasn't sure if this roster could do it, he thought he'd have a shot with it but could see it going south too. let the season play out and then this off season play off of the lessons he learned. I know when I start a new job I learn a lot in year 1. Doesn't seem nuts to me that Shanny learned a lot about what he has in real games, tough to see it in practice completely (I recall reading how we'd have guys like Taylor Jacobs who was magical in camp but stunk on the field) -- and now what he does this off season will be the telling one. I put this to John Keim from the Washington Examiner in a Q & A and he agreed with that thought.

And he did overhaul about third of the roster. That's a heck of a lot. And I guess we will just agree to disagree that stuff like Torain playing in game #5 as opposed to game #1 will hurt us next season and retard the rebuilding process. I can care less that Willie Parker was signed and then released. after camp. How many good young running backs are we going to find off of the scrap heap? -- and yes finding 2 young Rb's is a good start IMO. Teams are stingy with draft picks, I'd be stunned if we get anything for Dockery. I recall us debating where you were saying that Malcom Kelly could fetch a 3rd or a 4th. Well, we tried to shop Devin Thomas in the off season, he had no takers. Not trading AH though I agree was a mistake. But again Shanny's history is to add picks -- he hasn't just subtracted picks, he's added picks too and I bet will add some more.

[Mooka]

Brown had played himself out of a starting job with the Saints even before he was injured. That never happened. He had surgery in the off-season and never played.


Its hard to fault Shanahan or Allen with this move. Our line last season was in complete shambles. We replaced 4 out of 5 starters in one off-season. (we were forced to do so) The crappy, patchwork 2010 line was a significant improvement.

[Oldfan]

Again this is the Stadium so I do not want to discuss this here but you apparently do not believe the below statement:

"You are a result of thought, that thought is, and that this is the essence of understanding, manipulating, and working within the world. Your thoughts form your world all of the time.
Until we take responsibility for our thoughts, we will be stuck in this blame-game mentality. Life can become downright unpleasant, sometimes you have to choose between something bad and something even worse, but these teach you and you grow. Whatever the outcome, you have created it. Therefore you and only you become the author of your destiny."

Again, because you do not believe that thought is energy any further discussion is mute and presenting more would not be proper in the Stadium. Will my individual thought change anything, no. But.........I'm not certain what the author of that paragraph means exactly. Nor, do I know what you think he means exactly. Who is the author and what did he write?

[TheLongshot]

You're correct. I forgot to edit out the "didn't fit" part. I'm really going for anyone with trade value who could not be classified a core player, an expected starter three year down the road.

Good thing we clarified this. Now let me get to another point: How many of those players had trade value? What do you define as "trade value"? For me, trade value isn't just being able to get something, but at least something as valuable as what you are giving up. For example, Moss was a 1000+ yard receiver. There is no guarantee that even a 1st round pick will replace that value. This is why I'm only in favor of trading away players which you are not planning on using. Just trading players because you can "get something" in return is a bad way of running a team.


If he didn't fit, they knew it in OTAs. Keeping him temporarily must have been with win-now thoughts in mind.

Or keeping the QB upright. OL is certainly not one place where I'd do a youth movement unless I absolutely had to.


We played without those guys after being eliminated from the playoffs. It could have been the plan from day one if Mike was committed to rebuilding.

Not sure what difference it made. It isn't like we lacked in young players we could bring in. At least for most of them, you know that they earned their way onto the field, rather than playing because they had to.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Its hard to fault Shanahan or Allen with this move. Our line last season was in complete shambles. We replaced 4 out of 5 starters in one off-season. (we were forced to do so) The crappy, patchwork 2010 line was a significant improvement.

It's hard to fault them if you think getting to 6 wins was worth giving up draft picks.

They could have kept the draft pick and signed him for nothing this offseason. Better yet, they could have kept the pick and signed one of the many better and/or younger FA Ts available this offseason.

They traded a draft pick to rent him for his recovery year. At best, that was a win-now move. At worst, it was just dumb.

[Oldfan]

first off, you're always going to gripe. let's not pretend that you're ever roses and unicorns.You are proving you don't know my history.


second. we turned over 22 players from last year in one of the worst FA markets in nfl history. In a "rebuild" we could have done much more.



what picks are we getting for those guys. i know there's not some magical chart somewhere, but realistically we're not getting above a 5th or 6th round pick for anyone of those guys. period.Cooley's not worth better than a 5th? Fact is we could have 8-9 more picks if we had traded theses players and not traded picks for vets.


also since you didn't watch the games you obviously didn't see carter with his hand down on third downs when we had at least 4 down linemen for most of the second half of the season. as another poster put it, our 3-4 wasn't nearly as bad as our nickle and dime.The bottom line is that Carter was coming off a 10.5 sack season and keeping him lowered his value.


you don't come in to change a franchise by making things "cohesive." cohesive is zorn. letting the owner and his buddy run all over him and bringing in a bingo caller to call plays.I wasn't just hoping for someone who could surpass Vinny and Zorn.


and don't play the clout game with me, i've been on here as long as you have.

again you don't want to dispute what i've said, you just throw up "most regulars knows what you're saying is false."

that statement has no validity to it and is a gross generalization. you're speaking for a strong majority of the board who sees you as merely a devil's advocate who mixes it up for his own personal enjoyment.

see what i did there?

blanket statements are fun.I know you love those "blanket statements." That's what you did in your #152 which is why I retaliated in kind.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 05:47 PM ----------


Good thing we clarified this. Now let me get to another point: How many of those players had trade value? What do you define as "trade value"? For me, trade value isn't just being able to get something, but at least something as valuable as what you are giving up. For example, Moss was a 1000+ yard receiver. There is no guarantee that even a 1st round pick will replace that value. This is why I'm only in favor of trading away players which you are not planning on using. Just trading players because you can "get something" in return is a bad way of running a team.We disagree on this, I'm willing to take "market value" on any of those players. Market value is the highest price the market (31 teams) is willing to pay. What good did Moss's production do us this season? We would have had only five wins without him?



Or keeping the QB upright. OL is certainly not one place where I'd do a youth movement unless I absolutely had to.Okay, I'll concede that point. Then you trade Dock just as soon as Lichtensteiger is ready.


Not sure what difference it made. It isn't like we lacked in young players we could bring in. At least for most of them, you know that they earned their way onto the field, rather than playing because they had to.You'd know one helluva lot more about those young players if they'd been thrown into the fray from day one.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 05:52 PM ----------


That never happened. He had surgery in the off-season and never played.I read that Brown had regressed from his pro-bowl year and the Saints liked his replacement better. That's why we were the high bidder for his services with a diluted third pick.

[tiger187126]

oldfan:

you are aware that we don't have vinny cerrato as a trading partner, correct?

show me some trades for tight ends that garnered higher than a 5th round pick. compare said traded TE to cooley.

rinse and repeat for carter, who is already old and is not a reliable run stopper.

and i would like to see what more we could have done. what players did we miss out on in the free agency period last year? or are you still ignoring how awful it was because of the labor agreement.

again, there are no examples of what you must assume happens in the NFL everyday.

tampa didn't go from worst to contender in a year. it took years of bombing to accumulate high picks to build that team. it's not just the first round you pick high in during the draft.

we started by turning over as many players as we probably competitively could have.

as i've said 1000 times before:

no one on this team has trade value that is beneficial to us (i.e. a pick that would make it worth it to even get rid of them)

and

show some damn patience and realize what we had to begin with

[Oldfan]

...show me some trades for tight ends that garnered higher than a 5th round pick. compare said traded TE to cooley.32 year-old Tony Gonzales yielded a second round pick (He's now 34). Cooley, 28, has 7 more catches than Gonzo over his last two full seasons.


rinse and repeat for carter, who is already old and is not a reliable run stopper.Carter is 31 and 2009 had 10.5 sacks. A year ago, Detroit give up a fifth for Julian Peterson at the same age. He was coming off a poor season.


no one on this team has trade value that is beneficial to us (i.e. a pick that would make it worth it to even get rid of them) What do you mean by "a pick that would make it worth it?" If we're rebuilding, we take whatever the market (31 teams) is willing to pay. If it's a seventh, we take a seventh.

[Skinsinparadise]

Good thing we clarified this. Now let me get to another point: How many of those players had trade value? What do you define as "trade value"? For me, trade value isn't just being able to get something, but at least something as valuable as what you are giving up. For example, Moss was a 1000+ yard receiver. There is no guarantee that even a 1st round pick will replace that value. This is why I'm only in favor of trading away players which you are not planning on using. Just trading players because you can "get something" in return is a bad way of running a team.

Its a good point, based on some threads am not sure everyone pays attention to what teams are giving up for draft pick these days and we actually get a window into the value of some of our players via J Reid and others who cover the team. AH for example, I've read to death that the most we got offered for him is a 4th rounder but I still read people saying maybe we can get a 2nd for him. Oldfan was arguing with me about getting a third rounder for Malcom Kelly awhile back -- when Baltimore is trading third rounders for marquee WRs like Boldin, and J Reid said we tried to trade Devin Thomas in the spring and got no takers. Guys like Hines Ward brought a 5th rounder. Buffalo released Dockery and now a year older somehow we get a draft pick for him -- and yeah his salary is still big relative to his production.

The last two years in particular seems like teams are really mostly just giving up 5th, 6th, and 7th rounders with rare exceptions for marquee players.
B level players who are past 30 and are about to become FA's -- maybe a 6th rounder?
C level players who were once A level players with big salaries -- get released
C level players (like Dockery) with a decent size salary and are 30 plus -- usually get released.
Young players that teams want to discard and thus far have seen no production out of and are in year three -- usually get released or maybe a 7th rounder.

I wish it were different. Yeah it would be cool if Cooley brought us a first rounder, ditto with Santana, we get a third for M Kelly, a 2nd for AH, etc, etc. Life is grande. But I just don't see the world of the NFL working that way at least of late. If lets say it takes 3 years to get this ship right, Santana is 33-34, he still could be productive, I don't think getting a 5th rounder for him changes the team as much as having some production out of that position and having a tutor for the younger players. But yeah if these guys brought in some of the fantasy type picks that some of us purport, I'd be all for trading a lot of guys but it just seems that teams are really tight with the draft picks. I know if i was a fan of another team, I'd scream if they gave up anything for Dockery.

But yeah am all for trading players for picks but not if we are getting a 5th for example for Santana. I want top 3 rounds, that's where you are much more likely to find a marquee player. It would be amusing to list the players we drafted in the 5th round over the years, its rarely been pretty -- guys like Cody Glenn, Dallas Sartz, Robert McCune, Mark Wilson.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 07:48 PM ----------


32 year-old Tony Gonzales yielded a second round pick (He's now 34). Cooley, 28, has 7 more catches than Gonzo over his last two full seasons.

Cooley is likely our best trade bait, I can see us getting a 2nd rounder. I am not sure I'd do it because he is still young and is probably our best player on offense. Aside from him unless we dangle Orkapo or Landry i don't see a lot of good trade bait.

[tiger187126]

32 year-old Tony Gonzales yielded a second round pick (He's now 34). Cooley, 28, has 7 more catches than Gonzo over his last two full seasons.

Carter is 31 and 2009 had 10.5 sacks. A year ago, Detroit give up a fifth for Julian Peterson at the same age. He was coming off a poor season.

What do you mean by "a pick that would make it worth it?" If we're rebuilding, we take whatever the market (31 teams) is willing to pay. If it's a seventh, we take a seventh.

if you think cooley is in the same neighborhood as gonzales then i can't help you. he's a leader and a surefire HoFer. cooley is neither of those. nice guy? sure they both seem wonderful, but orakpo isn't demarcus ware if he beats him in sacks in a two year sample.

carter is a 4-3 DE only. from what i can remember peterson is a OL in a 3-4. but you are wise to point out the seahawks when talking about trade scenarios. that deal for whitehurst was sniffing on the lines of being vinny-esque. i'll have to look up what vanden bosch went for i think he's probably a better comparison to carter. i think they're even close in age.

my point about a pick that's worth it is not giving up a player for a pick that we can't use to fill a position at the level of that player.

here's an example:

if we're going to trade moss. we better be able to get a reliable slot reciever who can go for 80+ catches and 900+ yards using the compensation and/or players already on the roster.

if you can't do that then you're just taking the team down a notch.

saying trade just to trade, even if it's a seven rounder is nonsense. there's a level in the draft where you're not realistically getting anyone who is ever going to be on your team.

tom brady me all you want, but there's always exceptions.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 08:12 PM ----------

i don't know why i even posted, longshot and paradise seem to have my thoughts wrapped up already in a nice little package.

[Oldfan]

...if we're going to trade moss. we better be able to get a reliable slot reciever who can go for 80+ catches and 900+ yards using the compensation and/or players already on the roster. if you can't do that then you're just taking the team down a notch.That's the price you have to be willing to pay to rebuild. Santana has a couple of good years left. Those years are worth more to a playoff contender than they are to us.

The Eagles are doing it right. They dumped McNabb for picks while he still had some tread left on the tires. They used our number two for a rookie who is starting as free safety.

[tiger187126]

That's the price you have to be willing to pay to rebuild. Santana has a couple of good years left. Those years are worth more to a playoff contender than they are to us.

The Eagles are doing it right. They dumped McNabb for picks while he still had some tread left on the tires. They used our number two for a rookie who is starting as free safety.

as the other two have pointed out, trading just for trading is no way to do business. it just creates more holes to be filled which creates a higher need for picks.

trading santana for a 7th round pick isn't the price you have to pay. it's a waste of a position that would be solid to you while you're filling in larger holes.

the eagles have talent and players that other teams covet. they also compete for the nfc east title every year. we have and do no such things.

they've paid prices for cutting veterans before, but the team as a whole is good enough to overcome some of this. we don't have that luxury.

again it's like we have the patriots roster or something. why can't you understand we have enough problems without creating more by cutting guys who are here and not killing our cap.

[SkinsFTW]

Basically Oldfan is saying that there is no point in keeping players when we are a 6-10 team. Get whatever you can for everybody who isn't going to be here when we are good and go 2-14 next year to build the team.

That is the best way to go about it really but it just seems that no coach, and 99% of the fans too, want to go through it that way. They'd rather be respectable and win 1/3 of the games and say that they are close when in fact they could be closer.

[Chachie]

1. The conversion to the 3-4 has been painful but we are creating turnovers now. Step 2- stop the run? :)

2. I'd rather see a McNabb not keep the starting job if he's no longer qualified to keep it. The trade was a mistake but I don't want it compounded by stubbornness. If Mike says he's not the answer, he's not the answer. He had to find out just like we all did.

3. Shanahan inherited Haynesworth. Dealing with him while exercising discipline is a messy job. I appreciate Mike's patience in the first 8 games and I applaud his lack of it late.


The Skins have had a dramatic gap between themselves and the rest of the division for 15 years. That's not going to change in one season... unless Tom Cable is coaching.

[Oldfan]

as the other two have pointed out, trading just for trading is no way to do business. it just creates more holes to be filled which creates a higher need for picks."Trading just for the sake of trading" is just a way of saying that you don't recognize the need to stockpile draft picks to build a better, younger team in the future.


trading santana for a 7th round pick isn't the price you have to pay. it's a waste of a position that would be solid to you while you're filling in larger holes.If the Vikes were willing to part with a third for Randy Moss, Santana should net at least a fourth.

t
he eagles have talent and players that other teams covet. they also compete for the nfc east title every year. we have and do no such things... they've paid prices for cutting veterans before, but the team as a whole is good enough to overcome some of this. we don't have that luxury.And, we never will be in their position if we don't bite the bullet and start stockpiling draft picks.


again it's like we have the patriots roster or something. why can't you understand we have enough problems without creating more by cutting guys who are here and not killing our cap.I can't make sense of that line. We create more problems by trading players for draft picks? What's this about our cap?

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 11:49 PM ----------


Basically Oldfan is saying that there is no point in keeping players when we are a 6-10 team. Get whatever you can for everybody who isn't going to be here when we are good and go 2-14 next year to build the team.If we had gone 2-14 making all the right moves this season, we'd have a big jump on next year.


That is the best way to go about it really but it just seems that no coach, and 99% of the fans too, want to go through it that way. They'd rather be respectable and win 1/3 of the games and say that they are close when in fact they could be closer.You're right. Most fans would be happy with a wildcard slot every other year.

[thesubmittedone]

Basically Oldfan is saying that there is no point in keeping players when we are a 6-10 team. Get whatever you can for everybody who isn't going to be here when we are good and go 2-14 next year to build the team.

That is the best way to go about it really but it just seems that no coach, and 99% of the fans too, want to go through it that way. They'd rather be respectable and win 1/3 of the games and say that they are close when in fact they could be closer.

The problem with that, however, along with the problem of Oldfan's "relentless logic" (lol, come on Oldfan, that was a bit much on the ego scale) is that it assumes that losing over and over doesn't have any lingering effects nor accepts the possibility of a psychological (or dare I say spiritual) consequence. That's the issue presented by the study, or reflection, on logic itself... humans are the ones interpreting it and humans are prone to error. No man is perfect, and thus, no man can be totally and utterly logical. Furthermore, logic can't explain the random nor answer whether the random is actually random or controlled (controlled in that what we consider random is only a perception of it being random, yet an underlying purpose exists).

But, yeah, aside from the philosophical I have to say I like what Shanahan has done. He's not going to be foolish and go younger for the sake of getting younger, he's shown that he wants youth but that youth better prove to be worthy before they unseat a veteran, especially if their talent isn't anything exceptional. This instills a value into the actual position on the team. No young guy can simply come in and just take a spot like it was some cheap job to be had by anyone around. No, that position is something that needs to be earned. What some of you are missing is that plugging in a bunch of young guys for the sake of their potential without having those guys really earn it actually cheapens the position they're in. If Armstrong was handed the no. 2 WR spot, for instance, do you think he would have appreciated it as much and worked at it as hard?

So we had an ineffective (but knowledgeable) Galloway at no.2 WR but only until one of the young guys took his spot. Shanahan did not hesitate to give that guy the spot over Galloway once the young receiver showed he knows what Galloway does as far as the system is concerned and could run the routes consistently and now faster. Furthermore, now that young guy feels like he accomplished something and appreciates it that much more. He will understand it's value and do everything to hold on to it, since it was something he worked for. Other young guys will be witnesses to what it takes to earn that, and then work hard as well to do the same. In the end, the outcome is a bunch of guys working hard. That's pretty nuts, aint it? :pfft:

How can anyone claim this way of going about things held back the rebuilding process?

The quotes in my sig go along way in clearing up some of the arguments being made here, in my mind.

Yes, he made a mistake on McNabb and thought he had managed to trade for an elite, franchise QB who can make the team a contender for the next 3-4 years. "Full speed ahead" means he'll make the mistake but fix it fast. It really isn't that big of a negative in the grand scheme of things simply because two positives come from it that outweigh the negative of giving up a couple picks:

1) The biggest proof and reinforcement of the principle that the best players (best as in those who practice the hardest, buy into the system and show it during film study and game preparation, and go all out during game day in an attempt to help the team win) will play. By sitting McNabb, Shanahan showed that it truly does not matter who you are. He'd sit Fletcher if he had to. That's huge, and the mentality that generates in the locker room is far more positive than the 2nd rounder last year and the 4th rounder this year would've netted us.

2) It's proof that a franchise QB is a huge priority to Shanahan and he's willing to go all out to find one. The QB is the most important position on a football team (though it is debatable how much more important as Oldfan has shown) so it's a huge positive to know that we've got a coach who won't accept anything short of elite there for a long period of time.

[TheLongshot]

We disagree on this, I'm willing to take "market value" on any of those players. Market value is the highest price the market (31 teams) is willing to pay. What good did Moss's production do us this season? We would have had only five wins without him?

And what is the value of a guy who before this season had 3 1000 yard seasons in 9 years? I doubt it would be so much to make it worth the loss in talent. Let's take that other Moss, who has a much greater reputation for success. It took a desperate Minnesota team to shell out a 3rd round pick on him. I doubt our Moss is worth that much on the open market, which means more than likely you are going to get a roleplayer for him. Not worth it in my eyes.


Okay, I'll concede that point. Then you trade Dock just as soon as Lichtensteiger is ready.

And I expect that Dock will be moved this offseason, either in a trade or released.


You'd know one helluva lot more about those young players if they'd been thrown into the fray from day one.

Or you find out nothing because they aren't ready. It isn't like the players progress is a secret to the coach. They see them in practice all the time.

BTW, it is the coach's job to win games. To win games, you put your best players on the field. Until a player proves to the coaching staff that he's one of those players (or injuries force him into the lineup), he shouldn't be playing.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 01:33 AM ----------


Basically Oldfan is saying that there is no point in keeping players when we are a 6-10 team. Get whatever you can for everybody who isn't going to be here when we are good and go 2-14 next year to build the team.

That is the best way to go about it really but it just seems that no coach, and 99% of the fans too, want to go through it that way. They'd rather be respectable and win 1/3 of the games and say that they are close when in fact they could be closer.

That is because the NFL is a business and fans expect to have a competitive team every year. Coaches depend on winning games to keep their jobs. Fans in general don't want to watch a subpar product.

Also, who wants to play on a team that is obviously tanking it?

[Skinsinparadise]

That's the price you have to be willing to pay to rebuild. Santana has a couple of good years left. Those years are worth more to a playoff contender than they are to us.

The Eagles are doing it right. They dumped McNabb for picks while he still had some tread left on the tires. They used our number two for a rookie who is starting as free safety.

Wouldn't stun me that at 31, he might have more than just 2 seasons of productivity left. Moss is our best WR but I never see him in conversations with the elite players at that position. I think if you traded him two years ago, you could get decent value albeit not great. I would guess Santana brings us at best a 4th rounder. And why bother trading for Moss when you tend to have FA's this year like Sidney Rice. Some players at positions like LT, QB, DE are much tougher to find, especially when they are in their prime.

I agree that the Eagles do it right but QB's seem to have a lot more trade value. We are pretending though Shanny hasn't been like the Eagles in Denver, he's been like that, he's averaged more than the allotted 7 picks for a 10 year duration. He has routinely added picks. He has added 2 picks here, I would bet he adds at least 2 more in this off season -- when he does you are going to have a tough time continuing to ignore his history of hording picks.

[Son of Gadsden]

As I am puzzled by the optimism here, I will make my points in the concise, brilliant fashion that you are accustomed to seeing from me.

In 2010, Mike Shanahan and some guy whose dad coached the team before I was born took over the Redskins - following the closest thing that could ever be called a fan revolt. Brought in with much fanfare, they "improved" the Skins to a 6-10 record and a last placed finish in the division all while watching the attendance figures fall to heretofore unseen levels.

But, the Redskins Team Stores did great, and Donovan McNabb's jersey was the #2 seller in the league behind Nazareth's own Tim Tebow. (As an aside, "Love Hurts" by Nazareth is the best power ballad ever).

Shanahan did great things in his first year - like bringing in a 120 pound kick returner and a receiver who will surely lead the Skins's to next year's Grey Cup. (I kid, I kid. In the words of Jon Gruden, "I like those guys.")

But one can make the argument that Shanahan committed the three of the biggest mistakes the Redskins have made during the Snyder Era. Those are:

1. The conversion of the defense into the 3-4. The 2009 Redskins were the 10th ranked defense in the league. While this is not going to cause the fans to throw spontaneous parades, it's a foundation to build from. Shanahan said, "To hell with that level of competence for I am intrigued by the 3-4 and the 3-4 it shall be." This single decision caused the Skins to have arguably the worst defense in team history. It was 17 yards away from being the worst defense in the league. It gave up more yards than any defense in team history. It rendered three of the defensive playmakers borderline worthless to the team. It led to a beating so severe on Monday Night Football that the linebacking core had to spend the night in a shelter.

Shanahan could have injected all the defensive starters with e coli and done less damage to the team. As it stands, short of a major overhaul via free agency, there does not seem much to build on either. The defense is bad and will likely remain bad.

But Shanahan remains really really intrigued by the possibility.

2. The second blunder of the season merely impacted the most important position on the field as well as the team's ability to improve in the off-season. I, of course, refer to the signing and eventual public castration of one Donovan F. McNabb. Remember that glorious time four long months ago where we could say, "Well, at least the QB position is stable for the next two or three years?" Think back. You can do it.

The team traded two draft picks to a division rival for the services of the venerable McNabb. That trade partner proceeded to humiliate the Skins on national tv en route to a division title. Then - for reasons that remain unclear - Shanahan decided that McNabb was too fat to run his offense. He then decided that McNabb was just aces and rewarded him with several million dollars. He then doubled back and decided that - no - McNabb really sucked and what this team needed was a blast from The Sex Cannon. McNabb was certainly mediocre, but Shanahan could only have handled the situation worse if he had decided to make McNabb play the Mike Linebacker position in the 3-4.

Shanahan somehow managed to look arrogant, arbitrary, capricious, indecisive, and power mad all within the course of dealing with one player. McNabb seems to be a beloved figure in the league so who knows what message this sent to potential free agents around the league? Granted, in the past, the Redskins have been able to overcome the fact that they often treat players like pricks by paying them like Saudi princes. So, Snyder's money will likely erase the long-term stain of this episode.

But it will not change the fact that we do not have a QB or two draft picks now.

3. The final blot on this season is the Albert Haynesworth saga - whatever the hell it was. Look, Haynesworth is an ******* and he would probably be willing to tell you that over Long Island Iced Teas at Coastal Flats. But everyone knew this going in.

Shanahan basically knew he had a supremely talented but borderline uncoachable superstar on his team and decided to spend the entire season poking him with a large stick. Shanahan's supporters will say this showed the team that he was in charge. But it seems strange that a future Hall of Famer with two Super Bowl rings and a reputation as a genius needs to prove anything. In the end, the Skins really only had two choices: trade Haynesworth or try to get some production out of him. In the end, they chose Door Number 3, which is letting the man sit on his fat ass.

Shanahan turned quite possibly the biggest asset the Skins' possessed into someone with the value of a street free agent.

On the plus side, his running game still seems to work and we may have a backup nose tackle. So, kudos there.

In short, its hard to think of a first-year coach who made one blunder of the magnitude of the three listed above. When you realize that all three occurred in the same year, it's disconcerting.

The Skins currently have a dramatic gap with its three division rivals and need to pull a major rabbit out of the hat during Free Agency in order to approach something resembling competitiveness. The team has won 12 of its last 40 games. More than anything, the team needs to begin building a winning culture, lest the players learn how to lose. While the team still needs to rebuild, it has to find a way to win games in the process of rebuilding. But Shanahan has clearly in my view made that much more difficult.

The secret possibility here is that Shanahan is actually counting on a lock-out. Which is almost too depressing for words.

Anyway, that was fun. I feel much better now.

You know what, im done arguing and getting upset over posts like this one. So all im going to say is, **** fans like this. Find another team, because your ruining mine with your pessimism. Peace.

[justice98]

32 year-old Tony Gonzales yielded a second round pick (He's now 34). Cooley, 28, has 7 more catches than Gonzo over his last two full seasons.

Carter is 31 and 2009 had 10.5 sacks. A year ago, Detroit give up a fifth for Julian Peterson at the same age. He was coming off a poor season.

What do you mean by "a pick that would make it worth it?" If we're rebuilding, we take whatever the market (31 teams) is willing to pay. If it's a seventh, we take a seventh.

I think most good GMs aren't fantasy football stat junkies though. While Chris Cooley's a good TE, Tony Gonzalez is going to the HOF. Which would lead you to believe stats don't tell the whole story. Most people would say Tony Gonzalez STILL is a better TE than Chris Cooley, stats notwithstanding.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 09:19 AM ----------



if we're going to trade moss. we better be able to get a reliable slot reciever who can go for 80+ catches and 900+ yards using the compensation and/or players already on the roster.


I agree, you can't just get rid of Moss without some plan to upgrade at the position. Not get a different player for different player's sake, but actually get better. He's too good a player to roll the dice on a middle to late round pick hoping you can find a WR as good.

[Oldfan]

TheLongshot and thesubmittedone counter my arguments that Shanahan either overrated himself as a coach or overrated the talent he inherited. As a consequence, he wasted draft picks and half a season playing older players while making a foolish effort to make the playoffs his first year in command of the Redskins.

TSO worries about the potential psychological or spiritual effects: "..it assumes that losing over and over doesn't have any lingering effects nor accepts the possibility of a psychological (or dare I say spiritual) consequence.

TSO worries too about the tender psyches of the young players forced into action too soon: "...If Armstrong was handed the no. 2 WR spot, for instance, do you think he would have appreciated it as much and worked at it as hard?" [think about Armstrong's path to the NFL]

TSO thinks giving up two picks for McNabb was worth it: "... because two positives come from it that outweigh the negative of giving up a couple picks:"

He reasons that 1) "By sitting McNabb, Shanahan showed that it truly does not matter who you are. He'd sit Fletcher if he had to. That's huge, and the mentality that generates in the locker room is far more positive than the 2nd rounder last year and the 4th rounder this year would've netted us.*[It's worth two high picks to send the message that he would even bench the guy that fans called the leader in the locker room?]

...and 2) "It's proof that a franchise QB is a huge priority to Shanahan and he's willing to go all out to find one." [raise your hand if you didn't already know that]

TheLongshot thinks that coaches can accurately evaluate talent from practices alone: "Or you find out nothing because they aren't ready. It isn't like the players progress is a secret to the coach. They see them in practice all the time." ...He thinks young players can win a job solely by shining in practices. "Until a player proves to the coaching staff that he's one of those players (or injuries force him into the lineup), he shouldn't be playing."

Mike Shanahan miscalculated. He probably overrated his own ability to win with the talent he inherited. His blunder cost us draft picks and half a season of futility using players who had no futures here. In the second half of the season, he did what he should have been doing all year. Young players were auditioned and performed as well as or better than some of the vets.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 09:53 AM ----------


...I agree, you can't just get rid of Moss without some plan to upgrade at the position. Not get a different player for different player's sake, but actually get better. He's too good a player to roll the dice on a middle to late round pick hoping you can find a WR as good.So, you keep a player who now has some trade value, but won't have for long, because you worry that your lousy team would be even lousier without him? Without Moss, maybe we only win five this season?

[Fred Jones]

Perhaps Oldfan you should step back and re-evaluate. It is almost like you are taking things personal on an Internet message board.

The posters you highlighted were just offerring their point of view which happened to be counter to yours.

Like the skins or not, the coaches, owner and FO are trying to win games now. They are not tanking the season so they can trade away all their possible "tradeable" older players so they can get a great draft pick so they can possibly be competitive in 2/3 years.

I am sure they are trying their best to put together the best team possible. I bet the HC knows he does not have his future QB on the roster and needs to upgrade the Online, ect.

I bet the FO knows what the value of a player is on the open market to trade and to acquire. This is unlike Vinny and his office.

If you want to counter my points that is fine, but please provide proof that the coaches, owner and FO are not trying their best to field the best team possible to win the most amount of games. I don't have to prove my point because it is pretty obvious and presented every time the FO, GM and Owner open their mouth and utter words about the skins.

I am also sorry that your lack of faith affects your opinions.

[Skinsinparadise]

TheLongshot and Skinsinparadise counter my arguments that Shanahan either overrated himself as a coach or overrated the talent he inherited. As a consequence, he wasted draft picks and half a season playing older players while making a foolish effort to make the playoffs his first year in command of the Redskins.

SIP worries about the potential psychological or spiritual effects: "..it assumes that losing over and over doesn't have any lingering effects nor accepts the possibility of a psychological (or dare I say spiritual) consequence.

SIP worries too about the tender psyches of the young players forced into action too soon: "...If Armstrong was handed the no. 2 WR spot, for instance, do you think he would have appreciated it as much and worked at it as hard?" [think about Armstrong's path to the NFL]

SIP thinks giving up two picks for McNabb was worth it: "... because two positives come from it that outweigh the negative of giving up a couple picks:"

He reasons that 1) "By sitting McNabb, Shanahan showed that it truly does not matter who you are. He'd sit Fletcher if he had to. That's huge, and the mentality that generates in the locker room is far more positive than the 2nd rounder last year and the 4th rounder this year would've netted us.*[It's worth two high picks to send the message that he would even bench the guy that fans called the leader in the locker room?]

...and 2) "It's proof that a franchise QB is a huge priority to Shanahan and he's willing to go all out to find one." [raise your hand if you didn't already know that]

TheLongshot thinks that coaches can accurately evaluate talent from practices alone: "Or you find out nothing because they aren't ready. It isn't like the players progress is a secret to the coach. They see them in practice all the time." ...He thinks young players can win a job solely by shining in practices. "Until a player proves to the coaching staff that he's one of those players (or injuries force him into the lineup), he shouldn't be playing."

Mike Shanahan miscalculated. He probably overrated his own ability to win with the talent he inherited. His blunder cost us draft picks and half a season of futility using players who had no futures here. In the second half of the season, he did what he should have been doing all year. Young players were auditioned and performed as well as or better than some of the vets.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 09:53 AM ----------

So, you keep a player who now has some trade value, but won't have for long, because you worry that your lousy team would be even lousier without him? Without Moss, maybe we only win five this season?

You are confusing me for someone else where did i say that stuff or even anything close to it? I have said so many times that McNabb was a bad trade in the last couple of months that I've lost count nevermind me saying it was worth it, including on this thread. Only thing that you are characterizing about my thoughts that is even in the ball park is the younger player part, not the psychological part that part you just completely made up -- but I countered your notion that its too little too late to make the needed strides when Shanny doesn't play young players in the beginning of the season, I said I don't think rebuilding will be halted or lessened because Ryan Torain didn't start playing until game 5, etc.

I am giving the good as i see it and bad. It doesn't have to be one extreme or another, things can be balanced. I can like some moves he made and dislike the McNabb trade. Someone can make some good moves and bad moves -- it doesn't all have to be wild and crazy where everything is characterized and slanted as a misstep or for that matter slated as genius moves. if we switched this to politics, yeah there are moderates on the board, not just the far left and far right.

[justice98]

[/COLOR]So, you keep a player who now has some trade value, but won't have for long, because you worry that your lousy team would be even lousier without him? Without Moss, maybe we only win five this season?

You keep him because a bird in the hand beats two in the bush. You trade him for a pick that may or may not wind up being an NFL player. Unless you just want to be rid of him for being rid of him's sake, you're going to need good players around. If you get rid of him, that's one more position you created a hole at that didn't exist before.

[TheLongshot]

Well, I see a lot of quoting, but not a lot of making your point. Personally, I think your premise is flawed.


TheLongshot and Skinsinparadise counter my arguments that Shanahan either overrated himself as a coach or overrated the talent he inherited. As a consequence, he wasted draft picks and half a season playing older players while making a foolish effort to make the playoffs his first year in command of the Redskins.

Well, first off it didn't look all that foolish when we were 4-3 with two division wins. Up until the Detroit game, we were looking solid enough, if not great. But, in those 7 games, we had young players entering the starting lineup:

Anthony Armstrong: Starter by game 5.
Kory Lichtensteiger: Platooning at LG from game 1, Starter by game 3
Ryan Torain: Signifigant playing time from game 3, Starter by game 5.
Brandon Banks: Was returning punts by game 3.
Kelliand Williams: Was seeing playing time by game 2, rolled into the #2 back role after Portis got hurt.

This isn't counting players like Gano, Sundberg and Williams who were playing from game one

So, who else could we have seen sooner? Kevin Barnes? Tough, since the guys ahead of him were playing well enough. Jarmon? He's been spending most of this year recovering from last year's injury. Darrel Young? Maybe, tho Sellers wasn't exactly playing himself off the field. Fred Davis? He actually did get a lot of playing time and is credited with 9 starts, most of them in the 2nd half of the season. Anthony Bryant? Probably, tho I know that he was out for a time with a concussion which probably set him back. Perry Reilly? Again, tough with Fletcher and Macintosh ahead of him and Blades a solid reserve. Terrance Austin? Probably, once I had the roster space for him.

So, of those players above, who could I have seen getting more playing time? Bryant and Austin probably would have been better than Kemo and Galloway, but that's really all I'm seeing right now. That isn't much more than what he already did.

[Skinsinparadise]

Anthony Armstrong: Starter by game 5.
Kory Lichtensteiger: Platooning at LG from game 1, Starter by game 3
Ryan Torain: Signifigant playing time from game 3, Starter by game 5.
Brandon Banks: Was returning punts by game 3.
Kelliand Williams: Was seeing playing time by game 2, rolled into the #2 back role after Portis got hurt.

This isn't counting players like Gano, Sundberg and Williams who were playing from game one

So, who else could we have seen sooner? Kevin Barnes? Tough, since the guys ahead of him were playing well enough. Jarmon? He's been spending most of this year recovering from last year's injury. Darrel Young? Maybe, tho Sellers wasn't exactly playing himself off the field. Fred Davis? He actually did get a lot of playing time and is credited with 9 starts, most of them in the 2nd half of the season. Anthony Bryant? Probably, tho I know that he was out for a time with a concussion which probably set him back. Perry Reilly? Again, tough with Fletcher and Macintosh ahead of him and Blades a solid reserve. Terrance Austin? Probably, once I had the roster space for him.

So, of those players above, who could I have seen getting more playing time? Bryant and Austin probably would have been better than Kemo and Galloway, but that's really all I'm seeing right now. That isn't much more than what he already did.

Good research. That's why to me this attack on Shanny is comical. It's like wanting your friend to lose 20 pounds. He does it. But instead of applauding it you attack him for going off the diet it during the first week and making up ground thereafter to reach the goal. I don't see how it matters how you got to the destination as long as you get there. That's why the "he did it too late" hit strikes me as a gratuitous shot at Shanny, attacking just to attack.

[Oldfan]

Perhaps Oldfan you should step back and re-evaluate. It is almost like you are taking things personal on an Internet message board... The posters you highlighted were just offerring their point of view which happened to be counter to yours. Please quote me. What did I say to make you think I was taking things personally?


Like the skins or not, the coaches, owner and FO are trying to win games now. They are not tanking the season so they can trade away all their possible "tradeable" older players so they can get a great draft pick so they can possibly be competitive in 2/3 years.The win-now moves of the past explain our current roster deficiencies. I think it's dumb to continue doing the same.


I am sure they are trying their best to put together the best team possible. I bet the HC knows he does not have his future QB on the roster and needs to upgrade the Online, ect.. I bet the FO knows what the value of a player is on the open market to trade and to acquire. This is unlike Vinny and his office.My hope was to find people who could surpass Belichik, not someone who could surpass Vinny.


If you want to counter my points that is fine, but please provide proof that the coaches, owner and FO are not trying their best to field the best team possible to win the most amount of games. I don't have to prove my point because it is pretty obvious and presented every time the FO, GM and Owner open their mouth and utter words about the skins.I don't listen to their words, I judge by their actions.


I am also sorry that your lack of faith affects your opinions.My opinions are formed from the evidence, the moves made by Mike Shanahan.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 01:43 PM ----------


You are confusing me for someone else where did i say that stuff or even anything close to it? Sorry, my error. Submittedone wrote those things.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 01:48 PM ----------


You keep him because a bird in the hand beats two in the bush. You trade him for a pick that may or may not wind up being an NFL player. Unless you just want to be rid of him for being rid of him's sake, you're going to need good players around. If you get rid of him, that's one more position you created a hole at that didn't exist before.We don't have a solid core of young players on this team. We need to rebuild. To do that, we need draft picks. And to get draft picks, we need to trade any player with trade value who will not be around to help us ascend in a few years.

[addicted]

That's the price you have to be willing to pay to rebuild. Santana has a couple of good years left. Those years are worth more to a playoff contender than they are to us.

The Eagles are doing it right. They dumped McNabb for picks while he still had some tread left on the tires. They used our number two for a rookie who is starting as free safety.

I agree with most everything your saying about rebuilding here but this example of the Eagles trading McNabb made sense to them in short and long term goals. They had two capable QB's behind McNabb and can only start one guy at the position. What did they have to lose by giving him up for draft picks? If we had capable backup players then trading away a player like Santana Moss makes sense to do. However before this year started who would you have promoted into his position? Armstrong who had not done anything yet? Banks? Galloway? Roydell Williams? Austin? No one would have believed outside of Moss that this team had a recieving threat able to take on the role of WR1 on the team prior to the season starting. My point is that while your correct that we need to stockpile draft picks to truely turn this around we also have to have capable players to take on a larger role to do that. We can't just gut the team simply because we want some draft picks. When did having high picks ever mean success? Having high draft picks would help turn this around but look at the bottom dwellers in the league. Do these teams really change that often? If high draft picks meant one year your terrible and the next your in the playoffs why do teams like Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Bengals, Washington and others always see themselves drafting at high positions and still suck year after year if simply drafting high means continued success? Draft picks don't equal success, having a plan equals success. And removing Moss this year for a 3rd ,4th, or 5th would not have been equal value for what he provided this team since we didn't have a capable player to replace him. The best teams have the backup players able to step in when needed allowing a luxury like trading older players for picks which we all know we don't have.

My contention is that we should have traded Hanyesworth, Carter, Dockery, and possibly others for draft picks last off-season because we had players able to step in behind them. We don't have that with Moss so I leave him off this list. Otherwise your right. To rebuild or build anything you need the materials to do that and in the NFL that's draft picks. We fudged this up last offseason and hopefully fix that this year. But I'm not on the gutting for gutting sake without a plan in place to do that.

[TheLongshot]

I agree with most everything your saying about rebuilding here but this example of the Eagles trading McNabb made sense to them in short and long term goals. They had two capable QB's behind McNabb and can only start one guy at the position. What did they have to lose by giving him up for draft picks? If we had capable backup players then trading away a player like Santana Moss makes sense to do. However before this year started who would you have promoted into his position? Armstrong who had not done anything yet? Banks? Galloway? Roydell Williams? Austin? No one would have believed outside of Moss that this team had a recieving threat able to take on the role of WR1 on the team prior to the season starting. My point is that while your correct that we need to stockpile draft picks to truely turn this around we also have to have capable players to take on a larger role to do that. We can't just gut the team simply because we want some draft picks. When did having high picks ever mean success? Having high draft picks would help turn this around but look at the bottom dwellers in the league. Do these teams really change that often? If high draft picks meant one year your terrible and the next your in the playoffs why do teams like Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Bengals, Washington and others always see themselves drafting at high positions and still suck year after year if simply drafting high means continued success? Draft picks don't equal success, having a plan equals success. And removing Moss this year for a 3rd ,4th, or 5th would not have been equal value for what he provided this team since we didn't have a capable player to replace him. The best teams have the backup players able to step in when needed allowing a luxury like trading older players for picks which we all know we don't have.

My contention is that we should have traded Hanyesworth, Carter, Dockery, and possibly others for draft picks last off-season because we had players able to step in behind them. We don't have that with Moss so I leave him off this list. Otherwise your right. To rebuild or build anything you need the materials to do that and in the NFL that's draft picks. We fudged this up last offseason and hopefully fix that this year. But I'm not on the gutting for gutting sake without a plan in place to do that.

I'd add Thomas and Kelly, who were both in the mix in the offseason. One thing that you see in that is that until Galloway, Williams, Wade and Furrey were picked up, Moss was the only veteran on the roster. Not only was he the best player at the position, he was really the only veteran once ARE was cut. You usually see at least one or two veteran players at each position because coaches want that experienced safety net if a young player fails for whatever reason.

BTW, I disagree with your assessment of the guard position. The guys behind Dock were either journeymen or young, unproven talent. BMW going down made the situation worse.

[Fred Jones]

Please quote me. What did I say to make you think I was taking things personally?

The win-now moves of the past explain our current roster deficiencies. I think it's dumb to continue doing the same.

My hope was to find people who could surpass Belichik, not someone who could surpass Vinny.

I don't listen to their words, I judge by their actions.



[/COLOR]We need to rebuild. To do that, we need draft picks. And to get draft picks, we need to trade any player with trade value who will not be around to help us ascend in a few years.

First, draft a HOF QB. That is the short and simple way to pass NE.

Second, you explain your entire unbending philosophy in this post. I am not saying it is wrong or right, but you are simply inflexible.

"The win-now moves of the past explain our current roster deficiencies. I think it's dumb to continue doing the same."

"We need to rebuild. To do that, we need draft picks. And to get draft picks, we need to trade any player with trade value who will not be around to help us ascend in a few years."

Dump as many players as necessary to obtain as many draft picks as you can to draft as many starter quality players to rebuild the team for the future irregardless of what the record will be the next couple of years.

This theory will work, but you assume that the FO can draft. I don't have time to do lots of research like some really good posters on this board, but looking at the bottom teams one could assume they do that by error year in and year out. If they drafted well they wouldn't be at the bottom.

Not everyone gets Brady or Manning in draft. Name a QB that is successful the year Rodgers was drafted. Some years no franchise QB is drafted.

Just some thoughts. Again, not saying your philosophy is wrong, but maybe an NFL team hire you as a GM so you can determine if would work.

[Oldfan]

...

Anthony Armstrong: Starter by game 5.
Kory Lichtensteiger: Platooning at LG from game 1, Starter by game 3
Ryan Torain: Signifigant playing time from game 3, Starter by game 5.
Brandon Banks: Was returning punts by game 3.
Kelliand Williams: Was seeing playing time by game 2, rolled into the #2 back role after Portis got hurt.

This isn't counting players like Gano, Sundberg and Williams who were playing from game one

So, who else could we have seen sooner? Kevin Barnes? Tough, since the guys ahead of him were playing well enough. Jarmon? He's been spending most of this year recovering from last year's injury. Darrel Young? Maybe, tho Sellers wasn't exactly playing himself off the field. Fred Davis? He actually did get a lot of playing time and is credited with 9 starts, most of them in the 2nd half of the season. Anthony Bryant? Probably, tho I know that he was out for a time with a concussion which probably set him back. Perry Reilly? Again, tough with Fletcher and Macintosh ahead of him and Blades a solid reserve. Terrance Austin? Probably, once I had the roster space for him.

So, of those players above, who could I have seen getting more playing time? Bryant and Austin probably would have been better than Kemo and Galloway, but that's really all I'm seeing right now. That isn't much more than what he already did.Had Mike Shanahan looked at the roster he inherited and realized that he needed to rebuild, players who could not be expected to be here three years hence would not have stayed or gotten playing time -- from day one. Reilly can't ge playing time because of Fletcher and McIntosh? Barnes is shut out because of Buchanon? Jarmon sits because of Daniels? Darrell Young sits because of Sellers?

[Rufus T Firefly]

People keep saying it wouldn't be wise to trade Moss unless you had a valid replacement for him ready. But what value does Moss carry for us right now? He's a small, speed receiver who's about to turn 32 and has a history of leg problems.He's a FA now, and is it even wise to re-sign him? He's going to command at least a decent price and he'll likely be 34 by the time this team is ready to really contend. I can't believe there won't be better ways to spend that money that would actually help this team when they have a chance to be good. So, we sacrificed the chance to trade him for draft picks to either a) keep him for 1 rebuilding season and then let him leave for nothing; or b) so we could spend money to keep him around for his decline years rather than spend that money on younger, better players.

A team that realizes they need to rebuild should havean easy decision to make there.

[addicted]

I'd add Thomas and Kelly, who were both in the mix in the offseason. One thing that you see in that is that until Galloway, Williams, Wade and Furrey were picked up, Moss was the only veteran on the roster. Not only was he the best player at the position, he was really the only veteran once ARE was cut. You usually see at least one or two veteran players at each position because coaches want that experienced safety net if a young player fails for whatever reason.

None of those men you mentioned were even remotely thought to be able to replace Moss and were looked at as possible #2 receivers. WR was a question mark going into the season as it was. Then DT showed his uglyness and Kelly showed he couldn't stay healthy and removed them from the equation. Again the point here I'm trying to make is an add on slash disagreement with Old Fan that Moss was expendable this past season. If we were more loaded with WR talent at the time moving him makes perfect sense to get draft picks we needed but we can't simply dump our only viable receiving playmaker without a plan to replace him even if we needed draft picks in the mid rounds. I'd likely change my mind about Moss if it were realistic to think he would get a first rounder in return but we all don't believe he was worth that so a mid pick for him last offseason is terrible value for the team rebuilding or not. We have 52 other players to consider doing that with that make more sense to me.



BTW, I disagree with your assessment of the guard position. The guys behind Dock were either journeymen or young, unproven talent. BMW going down made the situation worse.

Fair enough but I mentioned his name for two reasons. The first because of how he was utilized in the season. Having him on another team if any would give up a draft pick for him would have meant much more to the success of the team long term then simply having him deactivated on game days or never used like he was. The second admittedly was because OF mentioned him first when we discussed this previously and considering everything it just makes sense to consider moving him last offseason if we knew how he would be used this season. Not knowing his role at the time of the start of the season wouldn't allow him to be shipped out. By the 4th week of the season he was expendable. And we could have made trades like this up until sometime in October so it was an option we simply didn't take I believe because the coached wanted depth on the line at his disposal. I agree with your assessment here. I just think he should have been shopped around by the trade deadline

[thesubmittedone]

TSO worries about the potential psychological or spiritual effects: "..it assumes that losing over and over doesn't have any lingering effects nor accepts the possibility of a psychological (or dare I say spiritual) consequence.


Yes, yes indeed I do. :)



TSO worries too about the tender psyches of the young players forced into action too soon: "...If Armstrong was handed the no. 2 WR spot, for instance, do you think he would have appreciated it as much and worked at it as hard?" [think about Armstrong's path to the NFL]


Hmmm... I don't think I said anything about tender psyches, nor them being forced into action. You need to re-read what I said. I think plugging young guys in fast devalues the position itself, and used Armstrong's appreciation of what it took for him to take the no.2 WR spot as an example. Other young guys are now witnesses to what it takes and also testify to just how awesome that spot is, encouraging them to work harder.



TSO thinks giving up two picks for McNabb was worth it: "... because two positives come from it that outweigh the negative of giving up a couple picks:"


Whoa, whoa, whoa... that is not anywhere near what I said, and I can't believe you misunderstood me that badly. I won't speculate further and say you purposely twisted my words, I'll just assume it was a misunderstanding. That assumption, however, means you're not some contrarian trouble maker but it does mean you had very poor reading comprehension that moment you glanced over my words there.

Again, go back and re-read what I said. I said that it stinks we lost two picks, but the negative aspect of that is not so bad considering the two positives you quoted me on below. That is a massive difference of a viewpoint than claiming that I thought trading those picks were worth it to achieve those two positives, lol. I mean, not even close. I would never say such a thing, and no, it's never worth it. However, the negative affect is greatly reduced in my mind by the two positives I mentioned. If you can't understand that than it's best we move on and forego this discussion.



He reasons that 1) "By sitting McNabb, Shanahan showed that it truly does not matter who you are. He'd sit Fletcher if he had to. That's huge, and the mentality that generates in the locker room is far more positive than the 2nd rounder last year and the 4th rounder this year would've netted us.*[It's worth two high picks to send the message that he would even bench the guy that fans called the leader in the locker room?]


Your point is based on a misunderstanding as stated above. I never said it was worth it, just that negative aspect of trading those picks aren't so bad considering these two positives that came out of the situation.



...and 2) "It's proof that a franchise QB is a huge priority to Shanahan and he's willing to go all out to find one." [raise your hand if you didn't already know that]


Who cares what everyone knew, or whether that was obvious. Not sure why anyone raising their hand if they already knew has anything to do with anything. The fact is, Shanahan won't accept anything but a franchise QB at that position and will do what it takes to get one. That is a positive no matter how you slice it.



TheLongshot thinks that coaches can accurately evaluate talent from practices alone: "Or you find out nothing because they aren't ready. It isn't like the players progress is a secret to the coach. They see them in practice all the time." ...He thinks young players can win a job solely by shining in practices. "Until a player proves to the coaching staff that he's one of those players (or injuries force him into the lineup), he shouldn't be playing."


I can't speak for Longshot, but I'll say this. No, coaches can't find everything out about a player in practice alone, but they can find out a lot. In the end, you have to play them to see if what they're seeing in practice holds true on the field. What coaches can see, however, is if said player has the passion and want as well as if said player understands his position as well as the guy in front of him. So, yeah, let the player prove those things before sticking him in, making him earn it.




Mike Shanahan miscalculated. He probably overrated his own ability to win with the talent he inherited. His blunder cost us draft picks and half a season of futility using players who had no futures here. In the second half of the season, he did what he should have been doing all year. Young players were auditioned and performed as well as or better than some of the vets.


Mike Shanahan said:

We won't start anybody with saying "hey we're just starting these guys to see what they can do", we're only starting people that have earned the right to play on gameday that we look throughout the whole year that we say "hey, we need to give this guy an opportunity to perform because he's worked so hard and practiced so well that we believe he's a starter in the NFL, and regardless of the situation, this guy deserves his chance". That's the guys we give opportunities to. We just don't say "hey, this guy's a young guy let's see him play". No, that's not in the best interest of your football team trying to win.

That's the rebuttal to your position right there. You think at the end of the season, when we were mathematically eliminated, that "young players were auditioned", when in reality it's much deeper than that. It wasn't so much as young players getting auditioned, because in many instances young players weren't plugged in (e.g. Capers, Cook, Terrence Austin, Darryl Young, Riley, etc..). Why? If the intention was just to play young guys, a lot more would've changed in our starting lineup. Riley and Austin would've got even more playing time than they did. Some of the young guys were forced in due to necessity, like Barnes and Bryant. Heck, Rob Jackson had to play because of the injury to Orakpo, though the coaches still gave him a lot of playing time after Orakpo returned. Again, why?

Because it all was based on how those guys looked in practice, and whether or not they had earned some playing time. Shanahan is doing the right thing here by giving those positions on the team a prime value. Perceived value generates a real appreciation once you earn what you perceive as valuable, and a real appreciation will enable you to treat it right and do the right things to keep it.

As kids, it was harder to understand the real value of money since we didn't earn it for the most part, right? Our parents had to impart that understanding to us by showing us what it takes to earn it, which forced us to perceive its value and generated a real appreciation for it.

So forgive anyone for not minding how Shanahan is going about giving young guys any playing time.



---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 09:53 AM ----------

So, you keep a player who now has some trade value, but won't have for long, because you worry that your lousy team would be even lousier without him? Without Moss, maybe we only win five this season?

Does Moss have any value in your eyes for the help he's given the young WRs on the team? Every one of them has said they look to Moss as inspiration and pay attention to everything he does, especially since they're smaller like him, too. Is that worthless to you or does that really not hold enough value? I understand why you ignore the value of trying to be competitive and win games no matter what, but I can't understand how you seem to completely ignore the value in the knowledge a solid vet like Moss can give those young guys.

[addicted]

People keep saying it wouldn't be wise to trade Moss unless you had a valid replacement for him ready. But what value does Moss carry for us right now? He's a small, speed receiver who's about to turn 32 and has a history of leg problems.He's a FA now, and is it even wise to re-sign him? He's going to command at least a decent price and he'll likely be 34 by the time this team is ready to really contend. I can't believe there won't be better ways to spend that money that would actually help this team when they have a chance to be good. So, we sacrificed the chance to trade him for draft picks to either a) keep him for 1 rebuilding season and then let him leave for nothing; or b) so we could spend money to keep him around for his decline years rather than spend that money on younger, better players.

A team that realizes they need to rebuild should havean easy decision to make there.

Ah but you've not answered the question I'm asking. If we didn't have Moss who would step in to replace him? We used the crap out of him this year. It was his best in a long time. If you simply dump him for a 5th round pick you need someone to step up and play WR, but we didn't have anyone able to do that. If so who would you suggest?

Now the argument that without him we would have the same record or worse and in the big picture its meaningless to keep him around this past season doesn't even consider what that would have done to the offense as a whole. Without Moss Armstrong doesn't get as open this year and gain the needed experience he was afforded as the WR2. As well the rushing game would be stymied considerably because the passing game opens the rushing game in today's NFL. And the youth movement requires veteran leadership to work. Your now taking that away for a mid round pick?

What I'm having a hard time with here is understanding the offense suffers greatly this past season without Moss why would we want to cripple ourselves for a mid round pick? Sure it was a one year stop gap but those one year gap players are necessary for rebuilding because without them the system breaks down in its tracks and never gets going. With these one year stop gap players the system gets going and becomes familiar with everyone involved in it. In other words you must consider the damage overall of removing the hardest position to fill on the receiver side of the ball when discussing dumping a player who fills the role like he did regardless of records or rebuilding or not.

[TheLongshot]

Had Mike Shanahan looked at the roster he inherited and realized that he needed to rebuild, players who could not be expected to be here three years hence would not have stayed or gotten playing time -- from day one. Reilly can't ge playing time because of Fletcher and McIntosh? Barnes is shut out because of Buchanon? Jarmon sits because of Daniels? Darrell Young sits because of Sellers?

Well, you are not going to sit Fletcher, who is the gel of this defense, and Macintosh is in the prime of his career and needed to be evaluated in the new defense to see if they wanted to do a new deal. As I said, Jarmon was still recovering from injury and struggled through training camp, so he wasn't going to play much early. Young is adjusting to his new position.

As for Barnes, he wasn't just behind Buchanon, but Westbrook as well.

[Oldfan]

thesubmittedone ~ Whoa, whoa, whoa... that is*not*anywhere near what I said, and I can't believe you misunderstood me that badly. I won't speculate further and say you purposely twisted my words, I'll just keep it at a misunderstanding.

Well, I certainly hope you don't think I purposely twisted your words. In fact, reading them again, I still read a conflict between what you said and what you say you meant.

This is what you said:


[Yes, he made a mistake on McNabb and thought he had managed to trade for an elite, franchise QB who can make the team a contender for the next 3-4 years. "Full speed ahead" means he'll make the mistake but fix it fast. It really isn't that big of a negative in the grand scheme of things simply because two positives come from it that outweigh the negative of giving up a couple picks.[/B]

If the positives outweigh the negative of giving up the picks, isn't that the same as saying the trade was worth it?

In any case, it was a misunderstanding.
*

[Skinsinparadise]

PSorry, my error. Submittedone wrote those things.

No problem, funny I was reading that stuff and thinking to each their own but i never thought or said anything like it. Oddly even though I got a degree in psychology, still I am not that into the psychological aspects of football which to me is all guess work from our vantage point-- get me some talented players, play a good scheme and rock and roll with it.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Ah but you've not answered the question I'm asking. If we didn't have Moss who would step in to replace him? We used the crap out of him this year. It was his best in a long time. If you simply dump him for a 5th round pick you need someone to step up and play WR, but we didn't have anyone able to do that. If so who would you suggest?

Now the argument that without him we would have the same record or worse and in the big picture its meaningless to keep him around this past season doesn't even consider what that would have done to the offense as a whole. Without Moss Armstrong doesn't get as open this year and gain the needed experience he was afforded as the WR2. As well the rushing game would be stymied considerably because the passing game opens the rushing game in today's NFL. And the youth movement requires veteran leadership to work. Your now taking that away for a mid round pick?

What I'm having a hard time with here is understanding the offense suffers greatly this past season without Moss why would we want to cripple ourselves for a mid round pick? Sure it was a one year stop gap but those one year gap players are necessary for rebuilding because without them the system breaks down in its tracks and never gets going. With these one year stop gap players the system gets going and becomes familiar with everyone involved in it. In other words you must consider the damage overall of removing the hardest position to fill on the receiver side of the ball when discussing dumping a player who fills the role like he did regardless of records or rebuilding or not.

There's no reason you can't teach an offensive system to players regardless of how much talent there is around them. Of course, it's basically a waste of time to do that with players who aren't going to be here when it bears fruit anyway. And this team has reason to think it has found better than mediocre starters for the future at exactly 2 positions (TE and LT), neither of which will have their careers adversely effected by one less year in the presence of Santana Moss.

We need to acquire players before we can worry about how they develop. And since this team is about 70% of a roster away from contending, I can't believe anyone thinks we should spend less resources on acquiring young talent.

[Oldfan]

...Who cares what everyone knew, or whether that was obvious. Not sure why anyone raising their hand if they already knew has anything to do with anything. The fact is, Shanahan won't accept anything but a franchise QB at that position and will do what it takes to get one. That is a positive no matter how you slice it.It is not a positive that added value to the trade.


I can't speak for Longshot, but I'll say this. No, coaches can't find everything out about a player in practice alone, but they can find out a lot. In the end, you have to play them to see if what they're seeing in practice holds true on the field. What coaches can see, however, is if said player has the passion and want as well as if said player understands his position as well as the guy in front of him. So, yeah, let the player prove those things before sticking him in, making him earn it.And yet... you still don't know if the guy can play until you put him into the lineup. Is that not a fact?





Mike Shanahan's quote: That's the rebuttal to your position right there.

Because it all was based on how those guys looked in practice, and whether or not they had earned some playing time. Shanahan is doing the right thing here by giving those positions on the team a prime value. Perceived value generates a real appreciation once you earn what you perceive as valuable, and a real appreciation will enable you to treat it right and do the right things to keep it.

As kids, it was harder to understand the real value of money since we didn't earn it for the most part, right? Our parents had to impart that understanding to us by showing us what it takes to earn it, which forced us to perceive its value and generated a real appreciation for it.It's easy to find psychological angles to justify just about anything.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 03:43 PM ----------


...Does Moss have any value in your eyes for the help he's given the young WRs on the team? Every one of them has said they look to Moss as inspiration and pay attention to everything he does, especially since they're smaller like him, too. Is that worthless to you or does that really not hold enough value? I understand why you ignore the value of trying to be competitive and win games no matter what, but I can't understand how you seem to completely ignore the value in the knowledge a solid vet like Moss can give those young guys.Sure, he's a veteran therefore he's a mentor. Let's keep him.

Sorry, Amigo. Let the position coaches do the mentoring. Santana was probably worth a fourth round pick prior to this season.

[TheLongshot]

We need to acquire players before we can worry about how they develop. And since this team is about 70% of a roster away from contending, I can't believe anyone thinks we should spend less resources on acquiring young talent.

It is easy enough to collect young talent, it is a different matter for collecting good young talent. Just collecting a bunch of 5th-6th round picks isn't going to get you that, more than likely.


And yet... you still don't know if the guy can play until you put him into the lineup. Is that not a fact?

You get an idea if he deserves a shot. Your method of throwing :pooh: against a wall and seeing what sticks is no way to go about it.


It's easy to find psychological angles to justify just about anything.

Pot. Kettle. Black.


Sorry, Amigo. Let the position coaches do the mentoring. Santana was probably worth a fourth round pick prior to this season.

Even coaches need good examples from players. Not to mention that if you have a young QB you want some veteran receivers for him to throw to.

BTW, I think you overvalue what Santana would get on the open market.

[Oldfan]

...You get an idea if he deserves a shot. Your method of throwing :pooh: against a wall and seeing what sticks is no way to go about it. One must assume that the player wouldn't be here is they knew he was pooh.


Pot. Kettle. Black.You haven't been paying attention. My war against Football psychobabble in this forum is second only to my war against overrating the QB position.


Even coaches need good examples from players.Does it have to be one who has trade value?


Not to mention that if you have a young QB you want some veteran receivers for him to throw to.Why?


BTW, I think you overvalue what Santana would get on the open market.I thought he was worth a fourth before this season. I'll take the best offer.

[Rufus T Firefly]

It is easy enough to collect young talent, it is a different matter for collecting good young talent. Just collecting a bunch of 5th-6th round picks isn't going to get you that, more than likely.


Is it likely to get you less young talent than NOT having those picks? How about the cap space Moss takes? Are you considering it impossible that we could acquire good young talent with that money?

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 04:11 PM ----------


Not to mention that if you have a young QB you want some veteran receivers for him to throw to.

What young QB?

[TheLongshot]

You haven't been paying attention. My war against Football psychobabble in this forum is second only to my war against overrating the QB position.

What psychobabble? That Shanahan wants people on the field that have earned the right to be on the field? That's psychobabble?


Does it have to be one who has trade value?

If they didn't have "trade value" (whatever that means, considering that you are pulling value out of your ass.), would they be a good example?


Why?

Because it makes it easier on the QB if the receiver knows what they are doing.


I thought he was worth a fourth before this season. I'll take the best offer.

Yes, because you don't seem to think veteran players have any value otherwise, which I think is full of :pooh: .

BTW, your "trade value" probably can buy you swampland in Florida. You don't know jack about what teams would pay for Santana.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 04:22 PM ----------


Is it likely to get you less young talent than NOT having those picks? How about the cap space Moss takes? Are you considering it impossible that we could acquire good young talent with that money?

Considering there was no cap this season and he's a FA this offseason, what cap space?


What young QB?

The one we are likely to get this offseason.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Considering there was no cap this season and he's a FA this offseason, what cap space?

So, you are saying we let him leave for nothing? So, you're talking about the value of Santana Moss in a 6-10 year, and you're dismissing the idea of acquiring picks for him, because that won't bring good young talent, "most likely"?

I'm pretty sure trading him for even a 6th round pick is more likely to bring in good young talent than letting him go for nothing.



The one we are likely to get this offseason.

So, we needed to keep him for last year so he can help develop a QB next year? Umm...OK?

[addicted]

There's no reason you can't teach an offensive system to players regardless of how much talent there is around them.

You could teach anyone the ability to play any position but that doesn't mean they would be good at it. Your underestimating the ability of Santana Moss.

"He's tough, he's physical, he doesn't shy away from contact," Kyle Shanahan said. "I think he's done a hell of a job for us."

You can't teach that.

"I had a lot of respect before I came here for Santana," said quarterback Rex Grossman, "but now getting the chance to play with him, he's an amazing player, the way he can separate from defenders. He's got great hands. He runs great routes. He's everything I thought he was and more. He's a really, really good receiver."

You either have this or you don't. Can't teach that either. Santana Moss is a great receiver. He isn't average by any means and he keeps on putting in the work to continue to be able to do this for many more years. How many years is debateable but either side wether a quick drop off or prolonged career is pure speculation by both sides



Of course, it's basically a waste of time to do that with players who aren't going to be here when it bears fruit anyway.

Who are you suggesting steps in and does this for us next year and who said he won't be here? He says he wants to be here

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-skins/2010/12/although-frustrated-santana-moss-still-wants-to-re-sign-with-redskins-6290.html



And this team has reason to think it has found better than mediocre starters for the future at exactly 2 positions (TE and LT), neither of which will have their careers adversely effected by one less year in the presence of Santana Moss.

What? why couldn't Fred Davis learn from playing with Moss? I doubt this is true

Grossman - "He just runs such good routes. And with coach Shanahan putting him position to get open, it's a good combination."




We need to acquire players before we can worry about how they develop. And since this team is about 70% of a roster away from contending, I can't believe anyone thinks we should spend less resources on acquiring young talent.

Definition: "throw the baby out with the bath water"
to get rid of the good parts as well as the bad parts of something when you are trying to improve it


93 catches is not something you replace easily or take lightly

[TheLongshot]

So, you are saying we let him leave for nothing? So, you're talking about the value of Santana Moss in a 6-10 year, and you're dismissing the idea of acquiring picks for him, because that won't bring good young talent, "most likely"?

I'm pretty sure trading him for even a 6th round pick is more likely to bring in good young talent than letting him go for nothing.

You were talking about trading him and about how much players we'd get from "cap savings". BTW, Moss' contract is immaterial because of the Rule of 51.


So, we needed to keep him for last year so he can help develop a QB next year? Umm...OK?

Well, once you get rid of him, you aren't going to get him back. Considering the best WR we have drafted in the past 20 years is Rod Gardner, that isn't a trivial matter.

[Oldfan]

What psychobabble? That Shanahan wants people on the field that have earned the right to be on the field? That's psychobabble?No, the comment you quoted was a response to this:


. Shanahan is doing the right thing here by giving those positions on the team a prime value. Perceived value generates a real appreciation once you earn what you perceive as valuable, and a real appreciation will enable you to treat it right and do the right things to keep it.

As kids, it was harder to understand the real value of money since we didn't earn it for the most part, right? Our parents had to impart that understanding to us by showing us what it takes to earn it, which forced us to perceive its value and generated a real appreciation for it.



If they didn't have "trade value" (whatever that means, considering that you are pulling value out of your ass.), would they be a good example?If you expect a response to your posts, stop with your argumentative BS. You know what I meant.


Because it makes it easier on the QB if the receiver knows what they are doing.If you are right in thinking that's a significant factor, we made a mistake by cutting Galloway. He knew more than Santana.


Yes, because you don't seem to think veteran players have any value otherwise, which I think is full of :pooh: .Strawman.


BTW, your "trade value" probably can buy you swampland in Florida. You don't know jack about what teams would pay for Santana.I used the same approach to evaluate Santana that people use to evaluate anything. Find a recent comparable transaction (Randy Moss to the Vikes) and adjust to get a ballpark idea.

[Rufus T Firefly]

You could teach anyone the ability to play any position but that doesn't mean they would be good at it. Your underestimating the ability of Santana Moss.

"He's tough, he's physical, he doesn't shy away from contact," Kyle Shanahan said. "I think he's done a hell of a job for us."

You can't teach that.

"I had a lot of respect before I came here for Santana," said quarterback Rex Grossman, "but now getting the chance to play with him, he's an amazing player, the way he can separate from defenders. He's got great hands. He runs great routes. He's everything I thought he was and more. He's a really, really good receiver."

You either have this or you don't. Can't teach that either. Santana Moss is a great receiver. He isn't average by any means and he keeps on putting in the work to continue to be able to do this for many more years. How many years is debateable but either side wether a quick drop off or prolonged career is pure speculation by both sides




Who are you suggesting steps in and does this for us next year and who said he won't be here? He says he wants to be here

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-skins/2010/12/although-frustrated-santana-moss-still-wants-to-re-sign-with-redskins-6290.html




What? why couldn't Fred Davis learn from playing with Moss? I doubt this is true

Grossman - "He just runs such good routes. And with coach Shanahan putting him position to get open, it's a good combination."




Definition: "throw the baby out with the bath water"
to get rid of the good parts as well as the bad parts of something when you are trying to improve it


93 catches is not something you replace easily or take lightly

Not going to continue with this, because you're just making me go back and repeat my earlier comments. I've had enough of getting myself into those kinds of discussions.

Moss is 32, small, relies on quickness and has a history of leg injuries. Is it POSSIBLE he could be highly productive in 3-4 year? I suppose. Is it likely? No. And if he is, for how long? Let's say this team is 3 years from title contending, and Moss miraculously stays as productive for 4 years. Great, so that's two years of him contibuting when it matters, against the odds. And for that we don't acquire draft pciks of use his cap space on better, younger players. That is exactly the type of thinking that dooms franchises to mediocrity for decades. Maybe you'll be able to think of one if you try hard enough.

And all the talk about leadership and teaching younger players. That's great, but it's also the type of thing the Joey Galloways of the world can do for the league minumum. There's no reason to turn down the chance to acquire young talent because Moss is needed as a tutor.

Start a year ago. Take the players who almost certainly won't be part of the next Redskin title contending team, or at the very least won't be worth their cap figures at that point (Moss, Dockery, Haynesworth, Carter, Fletcher, McIntosh) and deal them for picks. We don't have to assume they fetch a fortune individually. Add in the picks that were squandered on McNabb and Brown. That's a treasure trove of draft picks. It's the kind of thing franchises can be built on. But you guys don't want that, because you're worried about carrying high-priced tutors for non-existant young talent. Actually, I don't buy that. I think it's about either blind faith in Shanahan or the fear of a 2 win season.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 04:58 PM ----------


You were talking about trading him and about how much players we'd get from "cap savings". BTW, Moss' contract is immaterial because of the Rule of 51.

Well, once you get rid of him, you aren't going to get him back. Considering the best WR we have drafted in the past 20 years is Rod Gardner, that isn't a trivial matter.

Either we re-sign him or we don't. If we do, then we're not nly not acquiring a draft pcik for hire sppending a lot of cap space on him for the decline phase of his career. If not, then you're advocating keeping him solely for last year.

Either way, I think it's a bad idea. But you have to pick one or the other. You can't act like his cap hit doesn't exist and also pretend he's going to be here to develop this "young QB" in the future.

[TheLongshot]

If you are right in thinking that's a significant factor, we made a mistake by cutting Galloway. He knew more than Santana.

Huh? How does Galloway know any more about the offense than Santana?


Strawman.

Not at all. You are arguing that we should trade any veteran that has "trade value". (A veteran, by your definition, is anyone with more than 3 years of NFL experience.) Which means that you seem to want a roster of young players and scrubs that no team would spend a draft pick on. Is there anything in this statement that is inaccurate?


I used the same approach to evaluate Santana that people use to evaluate anything. Find a recent comparable transaction (Randy Moss to the Vikes) and adjust to get a ballpark idea.

A unique situation in that the Vikings were desperate to salvage a season. No one else was likely to spend a 3rd round pick on Moss.

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 05:16 PM ----------


Moss is 32, small, relies on quickness and has a history of leg injuries. Is it POSSIBLE he could be highly productive in 3-4 year? I suppose. Is it likely? No. And if he is, for how long? Let's say this team is 3 years from title contending, and Moss miraculously stays as productive for 4 years. Great, so that's two years of him contibuting when it matters, against the odds. And for that we don't acquire draft pciks of use his cap space on better, younger players. That is exactly the type of thinking that dooms franchises to mediocrity for decades. Maybe you'll be able to think of one if you try hard enough.

Moss hasn't had injury issues in a long time and has only missed 4 games in his career as a Redskin. I don't see him slowing down as of yet. I also don't get why trading for a lottery ticket for a player who may or may not even have an impact on the football team is a better option. This is why I'm only in favor of trading players when we as a team have no further use for them.


And all the talk about leadership and teaching younger players. That's great, but it's also the type of thing the Joey Galloways of the world can do for the league minumum. There's no reason to turn down the chance to acquire young talent because Moss is needed as a tutor.

I can't believe you are arguing in favor of giving Galloway a roster spot.


Start a year ago. Take the players who almost certainly won't be part of the next Redskin title contending team, or at the very least won't be worth their cap figures at that point (Moss, Dockery, Haynesworth, Carter, Fletcher, McIntosh) and deal them for picks. We don't have to assume they fetch a fortune individually. Add in the picks that were squandered on McNabb and Brown. That's a treasure trove of draft picks. It's the kind of thing franchises can be built on. But you guys don't want that, because you're worried about carrying high-priced tutors for non-existant young talent. Actually, I don't buy that. I think it's about either blind faith in Shanahan or the fear of a 2 win season.

In today's NFL, there is no "certainty" that the next year won't be a contending team. Goodness knows it is Shanahan's job to make every team a contending team.


Either we re-sign him or we don't. If we do, then we're not nly not acquiring a draft pcik for hire sppending a lot of cap space on him for the decline phase of his career. If not, then you're advocating keeping him solely for last year.

Either way, I think it's a bad idea. But you have to pick one or the other. You can't act like his cap hit doesn't exist and also pretend he's going to be here to develop this "young QB" in the future.

Course, you have no idea if any new deal would take a lot of cap space or not. Pure speculation on your part.

[Mooka]

It's hard to fault them if you think getting to 6 wins was worth giving up draft picks.

They could have kept the draft pick and signed him for nothing this offseason. Better yet, they could have kept the pick and signed one of the many better and/or younger FA Ts available this offseason.

They traded a draft pick to rent him for his recovery year. At best, that was a win-now move. At worst, it was just dumb. Can't really use hindsight here. You're not going into the season with 2 rookie Tackles, or sign 3 Cory Lichensteigers to come start for you. That's not realistic.

You cannot find 4 starting offensive linemen in one off-season without trading for or signing a vet. A stopgap here was necessary. The only move we could've made that would've worked out for us was to sign Flozell who probably didn't want to come here. Alex Barron obviously wouldn't have worked out and Shawn Andrews never got picked up so I assume he's done. We could've also made a big move for Jared Gaither but it would've taken a 1st and 3rd.




I read that Brown had regressed from his pro-bowl year and the Saints liked his replacement better. That's why we were the high bidder for his services with a diluted third pick. After his pro-bowl year he had early surgery in the off-season then elected to end his season with hip surgery at the start of the year. He didn't play.

Bushrod was not Brown's replacement, he was actually 3rd string. He got a chance because both Brown and the backup were injured during camp and pre-season. He also had a pretty crappy year. (2010)

[Oldfan]

Huh? How does Galloway know any more about the offense than Santana?He knows just a much about the offense and has more experience. The perfect mentor.



Not at all. You are arguing that we should trade any veteran that has "trade value". (A veteran, by your definition, is anyone with more than 3 years of NFL experience.) Which means that you seem to want a roster of young players and scrubs that no team would spend a draft pick on. Is there anything in this statement that is inaccurate?As I said it's a strawman. You have distorted my position. Here it is once again:

I'm really going for anyone [vet] with trade value who could not be classified a core player, an expected starter three year down the road.


A unique situation in that the Vikings were desperate to salvage a season. No one else was likely to spend a 3rd round pick on Moss.I see. You question my opinion on Moss's value because YOU are the resident expert.:ols:

[TheLongshot]

and Shawn Andrews never got picked up so I assume he's done.

He's playing for the Giants.

[addicted]

Not going to continue with this, because you're just making me go back and repeat my earlier comments. I've had enough of getting myself into those kinds of discussions.

Makes sense to me, I wouldn't want to try and defend that line of thinking either




Moss is 32, small, relies on quickness and has a history of leg injuries. Is it POSSIBLE he could be highly productive in 3-4 year? I suppose. Is it likely? No. And if he is, for how long? Let's say this team is 3 years from title contending, and Moss miraculously stays as productive for 4 years. Great, so that's two years of him contibuting when it matters, against the odds. And for that we don't acquire draft pciks of use his cap space on better, younger players. That is exactly the type of thinking that dooms franchises to mediocrity for decades. Maybe you'll be able to think of one if you try hard enough.

All of this right here is nothing but speculation. All we know for certain is that he proved he is productive in this offense and we saw a young receiver step into the WR2 position we've been lacking and wanting for years with Moss leading the charge. As for your age arguement it's also known that around the league many "old" WR's like Derrick Mason and Donald Driver and Terrell Owens played to that old age of 36 and still were productive. Like you I draw limits on conversations at times and one such argument is when people want to pretend as if they know the future. you can have that possibility if you want. My hypothesis is that it will cost 6 million a year on a three year contract to get it done with Moss and he's our best receiver on the team and he will perform.




And all the talk about leadership and teaching younger players. That's great, but it's also the type of thing the Joey Galloways of the world can do for the league minumum. There's no reason to turn down the chance to acquire young talent because Moss is needed as a tutor.

Joey Galloway had 37 targets, 12 receptions for 173 yards before he was cut and was a disappointment to the team and a detriment to the playing time given to Anthony Armstrong. This offense relying on someone like that next year will never work. Thinking you can get by with a Joey Galloway and give up a Santana Moss is what this team did many times in the past and it screwed us every time. You trade out talent for BETTER talent. You don't trade talent for a piece of crap and think you'll be able to shine that up so bright to make that piece of crap not look like a piece of crap while you home grow some mid level grade talent. Santana Moss has more ability in him then you give him credit for and is much more then just a veteran teacher. He is our best receiver on the team. You doubt that?

[RWJ]

I think our worst HC was Ritchie Petibon. He had the talent and should have done better.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Can't really use hindsight here. You're not going into the season with 2 rookie Tackles, or sign 3 Cory Lichensteigers to come start for you. That's not realistic.

You cannot find 4 starting offensive linemen in one off-season without trading for or signing a vet. A stopgap here was necessary. The only move we could've made that would've worked out for us was to sign Flozell who probably didn't want to come here. Alex Barron obviously wouldn't have worked out and Shawn Andrews never got picked up so I assume he's done. We could've also made a big move for Jared Gaither but it would've taken a 1st and 3rd.


Again, you're talking purely of the "value" of Brown for 2010, which was always going to be a rebuilding year and a recovery year for Brown. A team in as much need of rebuilding as the Redskins sacrificing draft picks to rent mediocre players like Brown is just a bad, and short-sighted, idea.

[Mooka]

He's playing for the Giants. My bad. Haven't seen him play in years.

I think he started against us last week.

[Rufus T Firefly]

All of this right here is nothing but speculation.

. My hypothesis is that it will cost 6 million a year on a three year contract to get it done with Moss and he's our best receiver on the team and he will perform.


Well, I'm glad you're above "speculation"

Further, I am glad you fel comfortable using hypocritical arguments and ignoring large parts of others' posts as a basis to be insulting.

I think we can agree to end this now.

[thesubmittedone]

Well, I certainly hope you don't think I purposely twisted your words. In fact, reading them again, I still read a conflict between what you said and what you say you meant.

This is what you said:



If the positives outweigh the negative of giving up the picks, isn't that the same as saying the trade was worth it?

In any case, it was a misunderstanding.
*

Yeah, I could see how that could be misconstrued. The key part, and the part that I should of emphasized a bit more, was where I said "it really isn't that big of a negative in the grand scheme of things". I probably shouldn't of said the positives outweighed the negative as that can easily be taken to imply that the negative was worth it in the first place. I should've just stuck with that first bit, and elaborated by saying "the negative effect has been diminished because of these positives...:

Meaning; a negative that wasn't so bad since some positives that are even more effective came out of it. :)

[TheLongshot]

He knows just a much about the offense and has more experience. The perfect mentor.

:laugh: Thank you, I needed a good laugh today...


As I said it's a strawman. You have distorted my position. Here it is once again:

I'm really going for anyone [vet] with trade value who could not be classified a core player, an expected starter three year down the road.

How is Cooley and Moss not considered core players? In three years, Cooley will be 31. Tony Gonzalez is still doing it at 34. Moss will be 35 and plenty of WRs continued to contribute at that age (Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, etc.)


I see. You question my opinion on Moss's value because YOU are the resident expert.:ols:

I question it because none of us are experts I don't know and you don't know either.

[addicted]

Again, you're talking purely of the "value" of Brown for 2010, which was always going to be a rebuilding year and a recovery year for Brown. A team in as much need of rebuilding as the Redskins sacrificing draft picks to rent mediocre players like Brown is just a bad, and short-sighted, idea.

Brown was a risk from the start. We didn't know if he could or would recover from his injuries. We did know that we needed to find a replacement RT for this year, next year, and onward. The team took a gamble on Brown thinking that they could have found this answer for a draft pick or they would find out he wasn't going to make it back to playing at a high level for a draft pick. If it worked out they had a RT bookend that will be here for years. If it didn't he was a bust and they had a need still. What exactly is the difference between drafting a rookie player to play RT in the third round then the gamble they took? The RT could bust they drafted. And what if there wasn't a RT in the draft they liked more then the Brown they saw pre injury? To me it's the same thing. You take a lottery ticket on Brown or you take a lottery ticket on a rookie. Most of the time you pick youth over experience however like we did many times in the glory days it can sometimes be better to trade for experience and let the other guy take a shot in the lottery and end up getting more out of it. Unless of course you have another idea for the RT position because last time I checked that's one of the most important positions on the football field if you want to have some success.

[Oldfan]

How is Cooley and Moss not considered core players? In three years, Cooley will be 31. Tony Gonzalez is still doing it at 34.You don't need two core players at one position. I consider Fred Davis a core player and Cooley has more trade value.


Moss will be 35 and plenty of WRs continued to contribute at that age (Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, etc.) You build around a core. You don't build around 31 year-old receivers. You dump him for a draft pick before he becomes worthless.

[Mooka]

Again, you're talking purely of the "value" of Brown for 2010, which was always going to be a rebuilding year and a recovery year for Brown. A team in as much need of rebuilding as the Redskins sacrificing draft picks to rent mediocre players like Brown is just a bad, and short-sighted, idea. It wasn't an idea. Our hand was forced.

[No_Pressure]

I hate giving short responses to long posts, and I hate coming to a thread and reading the OP when there are already over 10 pages of posts and discussions but I'll have to say this and make it brief:

I think that everything that happened, the McNabb incidents, the Haynesworth thing, etc. was part of the culture change at Redskins park. Yes, it makes little sense to give up draft picks for McNabb and bench him. Yes, it makes little sense to de-value Haynesworth and not simply put up with him or trade him. I believe that Shanahan values what the entire team is seeing and what type of messages they will receive from certain actions. Haynesworth said he would play here and buy into the system so we didn't trade him and we cut him that huge check. Then a couple of months later he randomly refuses to show up for workouts and doesn't report to training camp on time, requesting that the team trade him.

So basically Haynesworth kept the attitude that "hey this is the Redskins, I'm just gonna get paid and go on my merry way cause I'm Albert ****ing Haynesworth and I can do whatever I want." The team didn't want players seeing Haynesworth's behavior and thinking that it was acceptable so in spite of the fact that they were losing out on potential trades they decided to "poke him with a large stick". I think it was more to show the other players: hey, see this? If you lie to us and don't act like a team player we're going to ostracize you, so you better shut your ****ing mouths and fall in line here because we're going to be a team from here on in. I believe that the players understood this message clearly.

With McNabb, I don't think it was as big of a message thing. For starters, McNabb was given a contract which was structured in such a way that it would be cheap and easy to release or trade him at any time without having to pay him millions extra. We did this for a reason in case it became clear that we didn't want him going forward which may or may not be the case. I think it is perfectly likely that next year McNabb will be back starting and leading this team, and also that he will have learned the offense better and will have good command over it. But assuming he is not expected to be back by the coaching staff, they sent a message to the lazy ****ing players we have here: You are playing for your jobs, and nobody is safe.

Reading Clinton Portis' reaction to the McNabb benching, he said just that. He complained a bit that it felt like nobody was safe! That was exactly the reaction the players should have had, and it is a feeling the players should play with every single week. If you are constantly playing to keep your job, you're going to constantly be playing as hard as you can or as well as you can. You're going to show up for meetings, practice hard, pay attention, and you're going to want to win and do well because your livelihood depends on it. Clinton's position that you can only really play free and let yourself go out there when you're sure of your job security is exactly what has made us suck for years. Guys don't say "Hey, I have this job no matter how poorly I do, but I'm going to work my ass off anyway." Sure, some people have those ethics but most people don't, and given Portis' lack of commitment in practice I would say it is a fair bet that he behaves in a manner which is in accordance with the latter.

The whole 3-4 thing though, I can't argue with that. I didn't hate the idea at the start when it was mentioned. I figured oh, okay thats good I guess we'll see a lot of roster turnover on defense this offseason. Then we decided that the 2009 defense which looked like this:

DE: Andre Carter
DT: Kedric Golston
DT: Alley Haynesworth
DE: Phillip Daniels

OLB: Rocky McIntosh
MLB: London Fletcher
OLB: Brian Orakpo

CB: DeAngelo Hall
CB: Carlos Rogers
FS: LaRon Landry
SS: Reed Doughty

A unit which was 10th overall at the 4-3 would be perfect for the 3-4 with about 2 changes:

DE: Adam Carriker
NT: Ma'ake Kemoeatu
DE: Phillip Daniels

OLB: Andre Carter
MLB: London Fletcher
MLB: Rocky McIntosh
OLB: Brian Orakpo

CB: DeAngelo Hall
CB: Carlos Rogers
FS: Kareem Moore
SS: LaRon Landry

We added 1 player at DE, which was Carriker. We added 1 NT in Kemoeatu who was completely terrible. Other than those additions, the starters on this defense were all old faces from the 4-3. How the hell did we expect to compete as a 3-4 defense with 9 players being 4-3 players. Sure it isn't that HUGE of a difference, but our NT addition was a flop, our other DE whether it was Daniels or Golston wasn't up to the task all the time, and other than London Fletcher and at times Brian Orakpo our linebackers were totally unsuited for this style of defense. Hell Andre Carter came here to escape being stuck as an ineffective 3-4 OLB and what did we do? We said "hey! That Andre Carter sure is athletic! Lets put him at OLB, maybe he'll do well there! I'm sure this hasn't been done before!!! We're so smart!"

This was not the worst 1st year coaching job ever. That distinction probably rests with Spurrier. I don't care if we went 7-9, we dropped to that from an 8-8 team which was looking up under Marty Schottenheimer, and in year two we dropped even further to what? 5-11? Remember the offense full of former Gator washups? Freaking Danny Waffles was our QB for a while there, as well as Tim Hasselbeck (or was he year two?). SHANE MATTHEWS, PEOPLE. SHANE ****ING MATTHEWS. The man wasted Stephen Davis, replaced him a year later with Trung ****ing Candidate, had guys like Jacquez Green and **** playing WR. Walter ****ing Rasby!!!! Should I go on? Zeron Flemister, Chris Doering, Rashad Bauman, Carl Powell, Justin Skaggs, Kenny Watson, David Loverne!!!! The list goes on!

[ddub52]

I dont see anything here that hasnt been stated repeatedly on ES

[thesubmittedone]

It is not a positive that added value to the trade.

Never said it added value to the trade, only that it's a positive way to go about things. It also diminishes the negative aspect of giving two picks away. Would you say giving up two picks for a WR would be equal to doing such for a QB? If so, then you're claiming that the positions are both of equal importance, and we both know that's not the case.

The fact is, it's a positive that Shanahan is going all out to get a franchise QB, and the McNabb trade is indicative of it. It didn't work out, that stinks, but that doesn't change that positive way of going about things.



And yet... you still don't know if the guy can play until you put him into the lineup. Is that not a fact?


No, you do know and you have a pretty good idea... you're only looking for the final confirmation, really. You're devaluing practice, film study and game preparation in general if you think players don't have to earn their stripes on those aspects of their game before sniffing the field. Good thing Shanahan isn't doing that.



It's easy to find psychological angles to justify just about anything.


Not sure why you brought that up, lol. If it's about Shanahan's quote, then I'd say it's a wonderful justification and I'd like to hear why you don't think it is.

Humans can justify anything and reject any truth they want to. There, I have some nice one-liner quips as well. :)



---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 03:43 PM ----------

Sure, he's a veteran therefore he's a mentor. Let's keep him.

Sorry, Amigo. Let the position coaches do the mentoring. Santana was probably worth a fourth round pick prior to this season.

lol, I didn't say that's the only reason you keep him. There's a whole list of other ones as others have already went through. What I was saying was that you're trying to criticize Shanahan for not playing young guys more. Basically, what you want is more experience for young guys, correct? If we can agree to that, then wouldn't there be quite the significant value in having a solid veteran ahead of these young guys so they can learn from him? Sure, position coaches are the ones supposed to be doing the mentoring, but I don't think you'd be so foolish to think that guys can't gain invaluable experience watching a guy actually do what the position coaches are saying on the field when the bullets are live, would you?

Furthermore, you're speculating we could've got a 4th for Moss. Moss' value was probably at an all time low following Zorn's two-year stint, due to both his age and our offensive issues. Heck, none of us were sure about how much Moss could do this year. The point of time where Moss' value was highest was probably at the trade deadline this season, but what would teams be willing to give up for a guy who would become a free agent after playing only a half season with them?

[Fred Jones]

You don't need two core players at one position. I consider Fred Davis a core player and Cooley has more trade value.

You build around a core. You don't build around 31 year-old receivers. You dump him for a draft pick before he becomes worthless.

Ok, based on what you have said in this thread.

Let's assume Luck is the best QB in college right now. Since he has decided to play one more year and the skins need a QB I think they should take your philosophy and trade or cut all their veteran players and bring on only young players. Because all our veteran players have value we should be able to get a few nice draft choices.

With those draft choices we should be able to get a number of future good players.

Hopefully, that will result in a one or two win season and set us up for Luck next draft.

Sounds like a good plan to me. I just hope the other fans don't mind 14/15 losses.

[GSF]

Jimmy Johnson went something like 1-15 his first year with the Cowboys. Some say he did it on purpose.

[SkinsFTW]

That is because the NFL is a business and fans expect to have a competitive team every year. Coaches depend on winning games to keep their jobs. Fans in general don't want to watch a subpar product.

Also, who wants to play on a team that is obviously tanking it?

That's why a puppet GM and Shanahan will likely turn out to be more of the same thing we've already seen around here. A COACH not building a winner but needing to win 8-10 games to keep his head above water.

I don't know how many fans would prefer another 20 years of "we're this close to winning all we need now is (Blank)" to "Hey, lets blow this up and start over with a bunch of hungry players competing for roster spots like the Pukes did with Jimmy Johnson and were in the SB 3 years later, repeatedly in fact". I think most fans would like to finally try the complete rebuild instead of trying to go 8-8 while putting a competitive team together at the same time causing it to take several times as long because you are still wasting draft picks on old timers and refusing to acquire more draft picks by trading your own old timers. I don't agree with trading all the players but hey, Cooley has value and has a good backup too, right? If not then trade Davis. I know we don't need both.

I'm not saying that Shanahan isn't going to be ever be successful, what I am saying is that he's going to make it much more difficult to be a winner, just like with Gibbs 2.0, because he's going to do the same thing that failed him in Denver for the entire past decade. He was rebuilding that team year after year and got where? The same amount of playoff wins as Gibbs had in his 4 years here. 1. Just watch, if somehow the defense isn't top 15 next year and is still costing us games, just wait for Shanahan to do what Gibbs did in 2006 with his own offense and bringing in a new guy to run it.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Q3lcxdGeYtU/RrfSordivaI/AAAAAAAAADs/MbIww4D66bY/s400/Washington+Merry-Go-Round+%281%29.jpg
goes round and round.

[Rdskns2000]

No. Ritchie Petibone's one and done 4-12 was bad. Also, Norv went 3-13 his first year the following year. That was probably the worst back to back season in the modern era.

[SkinsFTW]

How can anyone claim this way of going about things held back the rebuilding process?

The quotes in my sig go along way in clearing up some of the arguments being made here, in my mind.

Yes, he made a mistake on McNabb and thought he had managed to trade for an elite, franchise QB who can make the team a contender for the next 3-4 years. "Full speed ahead" means he'll make the mistake but fix it fast. It really isn't that big of a negative in the grand scheme of things simply because two positives come from it that outweigh the negative of giving up a couple picks:

1) The biggest proof and reinforcement of the principle that the best players (best as in those who practice the hardest, buy into the system and show it during film study and game preparation, and go all out during game day in an attempt to help the team win) will play. By sitting McNabb, Shanahan showed that it truly does not matter who you are. He'd sit Fletcher if he had to. That's huge, and the mentality that generates in the locker room is far more positive than the 2nd rounder last year and the 4th rounder this year would've netted us.

2) It's proof that a franchise QB is a huge priority to Shanahan and he's willing to go all out to find one. The QB is the most important position on a football team (though it is debatable how much more important as Oldfan has shown) so it's a huge positive to know that we've got a coach who won't accept anything short of elite there for a long period of time.

I really fail to see how that makes up for giving up the picks. How did it help us in the past with Brunell, Duckett, Lloyd, etc?

I think by sitting Haynesworth he'd already proven what you said it proved when he sat McNabb. Is that worth 2 draft picks? He could have just sat any random malcontent with a big paycheck and used the picks on something real, like 2 players.

[thesubmittedone]

I really fail to see how that makes up for giving up the picks. How did it help us in the past with Brunell, Duckett, Lloyd, etc?


Throw Duckett and Lloyd out of the equation, as that is exactly my point. We didn't trade those picks for a RB or a WR, we did for a QB. The massive difference between Brunell and McNabb is the first positive point I made that came out of the trade, namely, that every player on the team knows with absolute certainty that it doesn't matter who you are or where you came from, you're liable to be gone if you don't produce and the decision won't take long to be made. This also affects any other Free Agents or guys we trade for in the future, who now know that they won't be allowed to continue to start simply because of the cost of bringing them in.



I think by sitting Haynesworth he'd already proven what you said it proved when he sat McNabb. Is that worth 2 draft picks? He could have just sat any random malcontent with a big paycheck and used the picks on something real, like 2 players.


Again, I never said it was worth 2 draft picks, just that the negative aspect of giving up 2 picks is lessened by the positives afterward. Haynesworth wasn't traded for, and wasn't assigned a starting role to begin with, so it is a different situation. The 2 players we gave up with those picks could've been huge for us, definitely, but that doesn't change the fact that making a trade for a chance at a franchise QB is always worth it and the positive reinforcement that when anyone (no matter who) doesn't produce like they should there will be consequences. Those things are good things no matter what, and definitely lessen the negative impact of the 2 draft picks we lost.

That doesn't even take into account the risk of the draft picks themselves... there is a risk factor involved in a 2nd and conditional 3rd/4th the next year, correct? We don't know how those guys picked there will pan out, even if you've considered everything about them. Is that risk so much lesser than a chance at a franchise QB for 3-4 years? Which risk would you rather take, and if you chose one or the other and it didn't work out, are you really that wrong in the first place? Aren't both options nice?

---------- Post added January-6th-2011 at 07:51 PM ----------


Again, you're talking purely of the "value" of Brown for 2010, which was always going to be a rebuilding year and a recovery year for Brown. A team in as much need of rebuilding as the Redskins sacrificing draft picks to rent mediocre players like Brown is just a bad, and short-sighted, idea.

Brown hasn't looked mediocre the last few weeks he's been healthy. He's looked really, really good. If we re-sign Brown and he plays like that for us for another two years, a very realistic scenario, what would you say then?

[TheLongshot]

You don't need two core players at one position. I consider Fred Davis a core player and Cooley has more trade value.

Why is it whenever we actually have depth at a position, people want to trade it away? Now, if a decision is made that Cooley isn't in the team's plans, then it would make sense to trade him. If someone made an offer that we couldn't refuse (like Atlanta did with Tony Gonzalez) then it would make sense. But, you don't trade players just to try to get more picks because typically the rate of return isn't worth what you are giving up.


You build around a core. You don't build around 31 year-old receivers. You dump him for a draft pick before he becomes worthless.

A core is a group of players. You certainly can have a 31 year old receiver as a part of it, at least until you can find a replacement. But, simply trading away such a receiver without having a replacement is stupid.

[Oldfan]

Why is it whenever we actually have depth at a position, people want to trade it away? Now, if a decision is made that Cooley isn't in the team's plans, then it would make sense to trade him.It would only make sense to keep Cooley if we went to a two-TE base offense. Otherwise, you have one of your best players on the bench most of the time. That's a waste of talent.


If someone made an offer that we couldn't refuse (like Atlanta did with Tony Gonzalez) then it would make sense. But, you don't trade players just to try to get more picks because typically the rate of return isn't worth what you are giving up.Economists disagree. Offering a player to 31 other teams is a virtual auction. The "winner's curse" applies (the winning bidder at an auction always pays too much). Think back to our trade of picks for vets. How'd we do?


A core is a group of players. You certainly can have a 31 year old receiver as a part of it, at least until you can find a replacement. But, simply trading away such a receiver without having a replacement is stupid.We've batted this back and forth enough. We disagree.

[MartinC]

It would only make sense to keep Cooley if we went to a two-TE base offense. Otherwise, you have one of your best players on the bench most of the time. That's a waste of talent.

Another poster in the Draft thread broke down our offense and calculated we were in 2 or 3 TE sets 40% of our offensive snaps. Multiple TE sets are a big part of our base offense. I do think Kyle has to do a better job getting Davis touches especially around the red zone.

[Oldfan]

Another poster in the Draft thread broke down our offense and calculated we were in 2 or 3 TE sets 40% of our offensive snaps. Multiple TE sets are a big part of our base offense. I do think Kyle has to do a better job getting Davis touches especially around the red zone.That 40% is a little higher than I would have guessed. But, if we're not going to a two-TE base, then putting Cooley on the trade block and playing Davis and Paulsen still works for me. I'm thinking that Cooley is worth a #2 or #3 pick. I agree that Kyle needs to get Davis more involved in the RZ.

[TheLongshot]

Economists disagree. Offering a player to 31 other teams is a virtual auction. The "winner's curse" applies (the winning bidder at an auction always pays too much). Think back to our trade of picks for vets. How'd we do?

I don't think using the Redskins as an example is a good one for your argument. The Redskins have always been aggressive in persuing trades, moreso than most teams. It still backs up my statement that the best value comes when another team really wants your player, not the other way around.


That 40% is a little higher than I would have guessed. But, if we're not going to a two-TE base, then putting Cooley on the trade block and playing Davis and Paulsen still works for me. I'm thinking that Cooley is worth a #2 or #3 pick. I agree that Kyle needs to get Davis more involved in the RZ.

It seems to catch a lot of people off guard. Davis also played a lot in 2009 even before Cooley got injured. The problem is, typically one is blocking while the other is out in a pattern. The nice thing about having two pass catching TEs is that you can mix it up.

As for Cooley's value, Tony Gonzalez was traded for a 2nd round pick, and he was more respected. Even so, that took a while. While Gonzalez wanted out of KC, KC wasn't happy with the offers they were getting for him. When a team is trying to unload players, most teams are going to try to lowball the other team as much as possible.

[MartinC]

I agree that Kyle needs to get Davis more involved in the RZ.

Thinking about this a little it might be more a QB issue than an OC/scheme issue. It struck me that we saw Davis catch a couple of TDs in the red zone in the last couple of games with Grossman at QB while he and Cooley for that matter had been largely ignored with McNabb at QB.

It's probably a bit of both but it could just be that McNabb stunk in the red zone (as you had predicted to give credit it's due). In any case if we are keeping both Davis and Cooley, which I believe we should personally, then we have to do a better job getting Davis touches.

[gkekoa]

1) The conversion to the 3-4 has little to do with one year success. If you look back at those "top ten" defenses, they were horrible at forcing turnovers. The 3-4 will allow us to consistently get more pressure on the QB and force mistakes once we have the right personnel. Those "top ten" defenses all were anchored by the ancient. A conversion to the 3-4 will make us younger and give us a defense we can build on.

2) The McNabb trade was a mistake. No way around it but I don't care how he hanlded him. McNabb wasn't performing and part of it had to do with his refusal to learn and run the playbook properly.

3) His handling of AL was near perfect. He established himself as the boss and won't let players run the asylum. The players now know they need to earn their paychecks and do what the coach asks.

4) He obviously made some mistakes this year but we all know who is running the team now and so do the players. No more running to Danny and crying...the sign says "Talk to Coach Shanahan."