Facts on rebuilding; the Myth of the "One Year Turn Around"

[NLC1054]

I've seen people say this lately; that Mike's had enough time. Sure, Mike's only had two seasons. Sure he didn't have a lot to work with. So what? Just look at the 49ers and the Lions are doing!

Hmm...indeed. Let's look at what the 49ers and Lions are doing. Because comments like this, in general, show in the ignorance of football fans who only root for their team and don't pay attention to any others or the situation they're in. This leads to silly comments like "EVERYONE IN THE NFL IS GOING TO TAKE A QUARTERBACK BEFORE US, WE HAVE TO LOSE!" or, in this case, the fact that you can turn around a team that sucks and has a bad roster in two years.

This is painfully untrue in the case of the 49ers; the problem with the 49ers has never been talent, or player acquisition. Usually, when people say "this team is more talented than their record shows", it's an excuse. In this case? Not so much.

Since 2005, 49ers have drafted 21 players who are still in the league. 17 of those players are still on their football team. The 49ers have a first round quarterback (Alex Smith, 11,964 yards, 66 touchdowns, 58 interceptions), three first round offensive linemen (Mike Iupati, Anthony Davis and Joe Staley), a first round tight end (Vernon Davis, 3,559 yards and 34 touchdowns), a first round wide receiver (Michael Crabtree, 2,034 yards, 10 touchdowns), and a first round middle linebacker (Patrick Willis, 530 solo tackles, 5 ints and 17 sacks). They've did well with their picks after the first round too; Frank Gore (3rd round, 7,468 yards rushing, 41 touchdowns rushing), NaVarro Bowman, Dashon Goldston (213 solo tackles, 21 passes defensed, 10 interceptions), Josh Morgan, Delaney Walker, Parys Harrelson (5th round, 140 solo tackles, 21.5 sacks, 4 interceptions).

And that doesn't take into account guys like Manny Lawson, Taylor Mays, Bear Pascoe, and David Baas who have done relatively well elsewhere.

Want to know the key thing about all those players I just listed? Every single one of them was drafted BEFORE Jim Harbaugh was even dreaming about coaching in San Francisco.

The 49ers were never lacking in terms of talent. Where they were lacking was offensive consistency. KDawg posted a thread about how not having any sort of carry over offensively has doomed us; how we went from playing Marty Ball (run the ball, play good defense) to the Fun and Gun (big play offense) to Gibbs 2.0 (more balanced but still run base, with the head coach and offensive coordinator occasionally clashing over what the offense needed to be) to Jim Zorn's more classic West Coast Offense, to Kyle's Vertical West Coast Offense.

We talked about Campbell having a different coordinator every year, but Alex Smith LEGITIMATELY had a new offensive coordinator every year, because Mike Nolan was apparently insane and the 49ers kept trying to throw crap at the wall trying to see what stuck.

They went from Mike McCarthy's West Coast Offense (McCarthy, who wanted Rodgers in the first place), to Norv Turner Air Coryell, to Jim Hostler (who tried to mix McCarthy's offense and Turner's offense), to Mike Martz' "send everyone out and hope the QB doesn't die" Air Coryell, to Jimmy Raye's extremely conservative, Marty Ball style offense, to Mike Johnson's slightly more opened up version of the offense, before FINALLY coming back to the West Coast Offense of Jim Harbaugh.

Jim Harbaugh has finally settled down and built an offensive philosophy that the 49ers can grow from. But the 49ers drafted EXTREMELY well. Harbaugh has managed to cultivate and elevate a level of talent that most new head coaches could only DREAM of walking into. He's embraced Alex Smith instead of shunned him like Mike Nolan did (and you got the feeling Singletary only mildly tolerated him.)

The Lions have a less stellar draft history, worse than even ours is. They went 0-16, 2-14, then 6-10 before they got to this season. That's three seasons. The greatest thing that team ever did was getting rid of Matt Millen and hiring Martin Mayhew. How Millen lucked into Calvin Johnson, I'll never know, but I guess if you draft enough wide receivers in the first round, you're bound to hit on one of them. (Law of averages, I guess.)

From 2008 (when I get the sense someone finally screamed "WHY THE HELL ARE WE LETTING MATT MILLEN DRAFT ANYMORE!" and Martin Mayhew assumed more direct control of things), these have been the Lions draft picks who are still on their roster.

2008
Gosder Cherilus
Kevin Smith (just got resigned after getting cut)
Andre Fluellen
Cliff Avril

(Jerome Felton and Caleb Campbell are depth with the Colts and the Chiefs, respectfully)

2009
Matt Stafford (1st round)
Brandon Pettigrew (1st round)
Louis Delmas (2nd Round)
DeAndre Levy (3rd Round)
Sammie Hill (4th Round)
Aaron Brown (6th Round)

(Lyndon Murtha is depth for the Miami Dolphins.)

2010
Ndamakung Suh (1st round)
Jahvid Best (1st round)
Amari Spievey (3rd round)
Jason Fox (4th round)
Willie Young (7th round)

("Mr. Irrelevant 2010" Tim Toone is depth for the Bills)

2011
Nick Fairley (1st round)
Titus Young (2nd round)
Mikel Leshoure (2nd round)
Doug Hogue (5th round)
Johnny Culbreath (7th round)

So that's four years with the same regime in the front office (ish, depending on when you think Mayhew took over), and three years with the same coaching staff. Those four drafts have produced 20 players who are currently on their team 9 starters (factoring in injuries and what not, and I still think my count is off. Feel like I'm missing someone.)

In the 49ers case, it took YEARS of consistent drafting and finally landing the perfect head coach. The turnaround is impressive, but it's ignorant to suggest that Jim Harbaugh snapped his fingers and all the sudden the 49ers were good again; they had the talent for years. They just didn't seem to have a head coach that was capable of bringing that talent out and maximizing it.

In the Lions case, canning Matt Millen helped tremendously. But they've also had three years in the same defense, and three years in the same offense.

Both teams maximized their drafts picks, made smart, cost effective free agent signings (like signing two first round picks in Carlos Rogers and Braylon Edwards for the 49ers and signing veteran leadership like Kyle Van Der Bosch and Stephen Tulloch for the Lions), and are now seeing returns on those investments.

The Niners always teetered on the brink of being good, but bad head coaching and bad offenses screwed them. The Lions are now seeing a return, in their third year, on an investment they made three years ago.

I know someone is going to say Mike should've started the process in 2010. Well, he didn't. Others are banging their head on the wall because now, with nothing to play for, Mike's starting to see some return on those investments he made.

But let's stop this madness about how some of these teams "turned it around so fast" and how Mike's behind the 8-ball. The rebuild is on schedule. We're still missing a rather large, rather obvious piece, and I understand that makes people anxious because they think Danny's coming down the hall with an axe trying to kill it all and bring back Vinny and hire a new coach and ruing everything.

But if your beef is that Mike didn't take a 4-12 team that had an absolutely bare bones structure to it and turn them into playoff contenders in their second season, and you're going to use the Niners and the Lions to back up your argument, you're wrong.

Those teams are where they are now because they were patient, diligent, smart in free agency and they drafted their top end players AND their depth very well.

If you build it, rings will come.

Enough of the "things should be better already if they don't get better soon he might be/will be/should be fired" crap.

You wanted things done the right way? Well, welcome to doing things the right way.

[Stricknine]

Love this. In a much less informative and eloquent way, I tied to say this very thing in the Draft Database thread. Well put my man, well put.

[riggins4452]

Love this thread . Rome wasn't built...

[Mr. S]

We do have some people we need to get rid of, but overall, we have a front 7 on defense to build around (once we get more inside linebacker depth), our skill players are not that bad, and our rookie no-name o-line is actually playing decent somehow.

If you do want to talk turnarounds, look at the turnaround on defense by just replacing a few people and drafting Kerrigan. That only took one year and I believe they were saying that statistically it is the 10th ranked defense. Our secondary needs serious help, sure, but at times they are also playing very impressive.

I'm just tired of all the change. I get annoyed every time I hear someone say fire Shanahan or that he'll be gone. He may not win us a super bowl, but I feel he's put us in the right direction in a way Gibbs was not doing (heresy, I know).

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Yup, i couldn't agree more. I love the way things are going right now. We have a lot of upside at just about every position IMO except for QB. We will take care of that this year. But we are winning and playing very good football against very good teams with rookies. Whens the last time you could say that about this team. I for one am willing to give Mike as much time as he needs to turn this around 3 years, 4 years, 7 years. IDC. I just want a team that had a chance to win and make it to the playoffs every year. I dont want to start the season expecting to win 3-4 games. And by week 10 be paying attention to where we are in the draft. Im sick of doing that!!!!!

[HigSkin]

Good stuff NC.

I would add the garbage FA market in Mike's first year, incomplete host of draft picks (thanks Vinny) and first year evals to get rid of "dead weight" as a delay in rebuilding. This is the year we began to see the fruits of a functional organization. Solid picks, solid FA's - I'm pumped about the direction and competitiveness of this team.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Nice OP NLC ...well said. Nervous about this upcoming draft just because I think the QB position will be so critical, but I'm ecstatic about where we are today & where we're heading...

[Mursilis]

So, given all that, we should we expect to see some results? The "rebuilding" excuse can only last for so long.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think we are building just fine. I have loved 90 percent of the roster moves the last 2 offseasons, both of which were strange due to the CBA issues.

My worry is of course ending up like the pre-Favre Vikings, a pretty good team with all the pieces except a quality QB.

[DC9]

Well done NLC. Some of these guys don't understand football. The best way to say it is "it would be easier if we could just simulate the franchise a year or two, but this isn't Madden."

This is a "Now" society these days, and patience is truly a virtue. I think Mike will do what he needs to do. He has shown that he can clearly have these men on the team motivated and the players that have had time to develop have done well.


HAIL!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Another thing that kind of folds into this conversation (and isn't worthy of its own thread) is the end-of-the-season trend. I agree that a random win in December is often relatively meaningless. Last year's win over a similarly flawed Jacksonville team was pretty insignificant. However, I think there is something to be said about a team that surges and peaks in latter part of a season.

Everyone loves to use the Lions as an example since they spent a decade drafting some of the best players available in the draft. Well, weren't most people correct about them finally taking the next step this year? And wasn't a lot of that tied to the way they finished 2010 (winning their last 4 games)? Assuming we beat Minnesota and play a competitive game vs. the Eagles, we will have ended the season on a sustained streak of playing very good football:

Week 11: Redskins 24 Cowboys 27 (OT)
Week 12: Redskins 23 Seahawks 17
Week 13: Redskins 19 Jets 34 (this might be the outlier, but we were winning this game half way through the 4th quarter)
Week 14: Redskins 27 Patriots 34
Week 15: Redskins 23 Giants 10

That's 5 straight weeks of playing very good football against 5 straight opponents who were playing for their post-season lives. Assuming we end with 7 straight weeks of that type of play, why should we believe that we can't play like that for a lot of 2012? It happened for the Lions and we're relying on just as many young players as they were (albeit at other positions).

[Burgold]

The hard thing about being a fan is we want it all. We're irrational. We want to win the Superbowl and have the number 1 pick. We want to blow up the team, get rid of every vet, and be immediately competitive. We don't know the definitions of simple words like "mediocre"

[DC9]

Another thing that kind of folds into this conversation (and isn't worthy of its own thread) is the end-of-the-season trend. I agree that a random win in December is often relatively meaningless. Last year's win over a similarly flawed Jacksonville team was pretty insignificant. However, I think there is something to be said about a team that surges and peaks in latter part of a season.

Everyone loves to use the Lions as an example since they spent a decade drafting some of the best players available in the draft. Well, weren't most people correct about them finally taking the next step this year? And wasn't a lot of that tied to the way they finished 2010 (winning their last 4 games)? Assuming we beat Minnesota and play a competitive game vs. the Eagles, we will have ended the season on a sustained streak of playing very good football:

Week 11: Redskins 24 Cowboys 27 (OT)
Week 12: Redskins 23 Seahawks 17
Week 13: Redskins 19 Jets 34 (this might be the outlier, but we were winning this game half way through the 4th quarter)
Week 14: Redskins 27 Patriots 34
Week 15: Redskins 23 Giants 10

That's 5 straight weeks of playing very good football against 5 straight opponents who were playing for their post-season lives. Assuming we end with 7 straight weeks of that type of play, why should we believe that we can't play like that for a lot of 2012? It happened for the Lions and we're relying on just as many young players as they were (albeit at other positions).

You got it TD!

Even Aikman was talking about how bright our future was on Sunday against the Giants.

The players will come or we will go get them, this front office knows what they are doing. The fanbase must continue to support this team. Frankly I am embarrassed by how some of the fans on here are acting and I wouldn't hire them to work for me with the attitudes that they have.

You always leave it on the field.

[Oldfan]

NLC1054 ~ I know someone is going to say Mike should've started the process in 2010. Well, he didn't.

...The rebuild is on schedule...

How can both of these statements be true? If Mike had begun the rebuilding process in 2010, wouldn't the team be further along now?

Do we have to gild the lily? Can't we just be fair to Shanny when we assess his rebuild performance? From me, he got low marks in 2010 and high marks this season.

[Bang]

I blame the dumb-as-rocks sports media in this town for the fact that this stuff even needs to be written.
Nice job, NLC, but it pains me that so many of our fans are so dumb as to need to be told all of this.

Patience shall be rewarded, and we're seeing the starts of it.
This season is lost, gone. But no one has quit. The team is buying in, and results are showing.
Our young players have stepped up and shown they can play rather than step up and prove how idiotic it was to draft them.
Our defense has gone from a confused mismatched unit to one of the better defenses in the league.
It can't all be done as quickly as people would like, and then factoring in the overall pathetic nature of the inherited roster, plus this truncated offseason... I can't ever say I'm pleased with a record like this, but I can see definite reasons for optimism.
I am not worried about comparing him to Zorn's numbers like some in our media want to do... I am not throwing up roadblock questions regarding the QB.. (McNabb = mistake. We get it. It's not something you recover from immediately. Going into 2011 with him as their QB was certainly the plan, and when it fell apart there were decisions to be made. I like the decisions made so far, and those who scream about Rex and Beck must have been undcer the delusion that we actually could have or should have been a playoff competitor this year.

~Bang

[authentic]

This thread should be stickied. There is no way i can agree more with every point in the OP.... Again, "Patience guys", "Patience"!! :)

[Mursilis]

We don't know the definitions of simple words like "mediocre"

If you're a Redskins fan, you DEFINITELY know the meaning of that word. We've been watching it for years.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think we are building just fine. I have loved 90 percent of the roster moves the last 2 offseasons, both of which were strange due to the CBA issues.

My worry is of course ending up like the pre-Favre Vikings, a pretty good team with all the pieces except a quality QB.

I think we are looking like the current Browns. Good lines. Decent defense. Not one skill player who scares anyone.

[authentic]

I blame the dumb-as-rocks sports media in this town for the fact that this stuff even needs to be written.
Nice job, NLC, but it pains me that so many of our fans are so dumb as to need to be told all of this.

Patience shall be rewarded, and we're seeing the starts of it.
This season is lost, gone. But no one has quit. The team is buying in, and results are showing.
Our young players have stepped up and shown they can play rather than step up and prove how idiotic it was to draft them.
Our defense has gone from a confused mismatched unit to one of the better defenses in the league.
It can't all be done as quickly as people would like, and then factoring in the overall pathetic nature of the inherited roster, plus this truncated offseason... I can't ever say I'm pleased with a record like this, but I can see definite reasons for optimism.
I am not worried about comparing him to Zorn's numbers like some in our media want to do... I am not throwing up roadblock questions regarding the QB.. (McNabb = mistake. We get it. It's not something you recover from immediately. Going into 2011 with him as their QB was certainly the plan, and when it fell apart there were decisions to be made. I like the decisions made so far, and those who scream about Rex and Beck must have been undcer the delusion that we actually could have or should have been a playoff competitor this year.

~Bang

so much for the "have the players tuned Shanahan out" nonsense from the local media. Any logical fan of the team can see that things are improving and is much better than it used to be.

[Oldfan]

I think we are looking like the current Browns. Good lines. Decent defense. Not one skill player who scares anyone.Grossman doesn't scare you?

[martytheman]

good post, I agree completely. People here like to complain that the switch to 3-4 was "throwing away" a top 10 defense.. (that top 10 defense couldnt stop anyone when it mattered but thats beside the point) well guess what? We now again have a top 10 defense after only a year, that is able to make sacks, force turnovers and make stops when it matters
. And while the suck for luck crew likes to whine about how the skins are "ruining" their draft position, I think it bodes well that they're playing some of their best football in nov and dec. Look at the lions who have faded down the stretch.
Good teams are competitive and win in december. The skins aren't quite there yet, but they're finding a way and are slowly building the right foundatiion.

[authentic]

and then factoring in the overall pathetic nature of the inherited roster..

Oh, how quickly we forget.. Here's a look at the 2009 roster:

OFFENSE
POS # PLAYER COLLEGE
QB 17 Jason Campbell Auburn
QB 15 Todd Collins Michigan

RB 26 Clinton Portis Miami
RB 46 Ladell Betts Iowa
RB 31 Rock Cartwright Kansas State
RB 24 Marcus Mason Youngstown State

FB 45 Mike Sellers Wala Wala

WR (Flank) 89 Santana Moss Miami
WR (Split) 82 Antwaan Radle-El Indiana
WR (Flank) 12 Malcolm Kelly Oklahoma
WR (Split) 11 Devin Thomas Michigan State
WR (Flank) 84 Marko Mitchell Nevada

TE 47 Chris Cooley Utah State
TE 87 Todd Yoder Vanderbilt
TE 86 Fred Davis USC

OL (RT) 60 Chris Samuels Alabama
OL (RG) 66 Derrick Dockery Texas
OL (C) 61 Casey Rabach Wisconsin
OL (LG) 77 Randy Thomas Mississippi State
OL (LT) 74 Stehon Heyer Maryland
OL (RT) 78 D'Anthony Batiste Louisianna-Lafayette
OL (RG) 50 Edwin Williams Maryland
OL (C) 63 Will Montgomery Virginia Tech
OL (LG) 75 Chad Rinehart Northern Iowa
OL (LT) 71 Mike Williams Texas

DEFENSE

POS # NAME COLLEGE
DL (LDE) 93 Phillip Daniels Georgia
DL (LDT) 96 Cornelius Griffin Alabama
DL (RDT) 92 Albert Haynesworth Tennessee
DL (RDE) 99 Andre Carter California
DL (LDE) 97 Renaldo Wynn Notre Dame
DL (LDT) 64 Kedric Golston Georgia
DL (RDT) 94 Anthony Montgomery Minnesota
DL (RDE) 79 Lorenzo Alexander California
DL (LDE) 76 Jeremy Jarmon Kentucky

LB (SLB) 98 Brian Orakpo Texas
LB (MLB) 59 London Fletcher John Carroll
LB (WLB) 52 Rocky McIntosh Miami (Fla.)
LB (SLB) 95 Chris Wilson Northwood
LB (MLB) 54 H.B. Blades PIttsburgh
LB (WLB) 58 Robert Henson TCU

CB (LCB) 22 Carlos Rogers Auburn
CB (RCB) 23 DeAngelo Hall Virgina Tech
CB (LCB) 27 Fred Smoot Mississippi State
CB (RCB) 20 Justin Tryon Arizona State
CB (LCB) 34 Byron Westbrook Salisbury University
CB (RCB) 25 Kevin Barnes Maryland

S (SS) 48 Chris Horton UCLA
S (FS) 30 LaRon Landry LSU
S (SS) 37 Reed Doughty Northern Colorado
S (FS) 41 Kareem More Nicholls State

Special Teams
POS # NAME COLLEGE
LS 71 Ethan Albright North Carolina
P 3 Hunter Smith Notre Dame
K 6 Shaun Suisham Bowling Green

[Mursilis]

Oh, how quickly we forget.. Here's a look at the 2009 roster:


Actually doesn't look so bad there. It wasn't so much the personnel that killed this team in 2009 - it was the injuries, and the coaching.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Grossman doesn't scare you?

:ols:

[KDawg]

I don't have anything to add to this thread, and I realize this is close to spam, but I feel the need to say this in every thread that I read that I really enjoyed: Great thread, NLC.

:cheers:

[Califan007]

Grossman doesn't scare you?

BWAHAHAHAHA :ols:....

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 07:32 AM ----------


Actually doesn't look so bad there. It wasn't so much the personnel that killed this team in 2009 - it was the injuries, and the coaching.

I think something like 80% of the Redskins' 2009 roster is out of the NFL now :ols:...Mike had NO groceries in the cabinet when he took over.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 07:38 AM ----------

And great job, NLC1054 :cheers:...Couldn't agree more. The Falcons might be the only 1-year turnaround team I can think of. There have been teams that played well for one year like the Dolphins and Bucs did, but a REAL, genuine turnaround through rebuilding takes several years before you start seeing consistent, positive results.

We might end up going the Rams route, when they went something like 4-12 and then 3-13 in Vermeil's first two seasons...then went on a 5-year run of double digit wins and Super Bowl appearances after finding their franchise QB.

[BnG4ever326]

Going into this season, I had NO illusions of playoffs or Super Bowls. I was telling people that if the Redskins were to finish 8-8 that would be a GREAT season. This was the start of a major rebuild of this team. I was pleased that Allen/Shanahan was able to parlay 7 draft picks into TWELVE draft picks AND as it turned out, over half of those picks were able to get on the field and gain valuable experience and play pretty well. If we have another draft similiar to this one in '12, (I'm praying that RG III falls to us in our draft slot. If he's gone then Matt Barkley) that would escalate the rebuild process. Patience people.....patience.

[Mursilis]

I think something like 80% of the Redskins' 2009 roster is out of the NFL now

You may think that, but you'd be wrong. I counted at least 20 guys who were still on this roster or a league roster at the beginning of this season.


And great job, NLC1054 :cheers:...Couldn't agree more. The Falcons might be the only 1-year turnaround team I can think of. There have been teams that played well for one year like the Dolphins and Bucs did, but a REAL, genuine turnaround through rebuilding takes several years before you start seeing consistent, positive results.

We might end up going the Rams route, when they went something like 4-12 and then 3-13 in Vermeil's first two seasons...then went on a 5-year run of double digit wins and Super Bowl appearances after finding their franchise QB.

Plenty of teams have done the 1-year turnaround. Heck, the Saints by themselves have gone from 3-13 to 10-6 twice.

[oldskoolskins]

Grossman doesn't scare you?

Everytime he cocks his arm to throw...:ols:

[Mad Mike]

Nice job NLC - I wanted to write something like this in response to the silly thread Lombardi's_kid_brother started but I don't have the patience.

I'll just add that not only did Shanahan inherit expansion team like talent, he inherited a train wreck in terms of character and attitude. Guys like Haynsworthless who were a complete distraction were untradeable in his first year. Shanahan had to see for himself how his former star Portis had fallen into disrepair and become poison to the team with his poor work ethic and me-first attitude. Shanahan didn't drive the bus through the wall. He's been too busy driving it back and forth to the repair shop just to try to get it running smooth. And anyone who has watched this team put together LONG sustained drives this year (something I haven't seen since Gibbs v1) and thinks he hasn't made great progress need to have their head examined.

[PeterMP]

I think something like 80% of the Redskins' 2009 roster is out of the NFL now :ols:...Mike had NO groceries in the cabinet when he took over.
27 out of 52 players on that roster are still in the league:
Jason Campbell
Rock Cartwright
Mike Sellers
Santana Moss
Devin Thomas
Derrick Dockery
Stehon Heyer
Will Montgomery
Chad Rinehart
Andre Carter
Kedric Golston
Brian Orakpo
London Fletcher
Rocky McIntosh
H.B. Blades
Carlos Rogers
DeAngelo Hall
Justin Tryon
Byron Westbrook
Kevin Barnes
LaRon Landry
Reed Doughty
Shaun Suisham
Fred Davis
Chris Cooley
D'Anthony Batiste
Lorenzo Alexander

Nominally, 13 are still starters (I've used nomially because I've included people like Cooley, Rinehart, Davis, and Campbell) who haven't started every game, but started quite a few so it wouldn't even be true to state that 80% aren't starters (that would work out to 75%).

More importantly, where that team is weak, is the OL, QB, and skill players. That's where we are still weak.

The secondary and LB are very similar (and in many cases the same). The names on the DL have changed, but there weren't really difference makers on that DL and there aren't today. Some of the names on the OL have changed, but I don't know if our OL is really better (it is younger, but I'm not sure it is better). The skill players and QB are still lacking.

As near as I can tell, Shanahan has only rearranged the deck chairs.

[pez]

I blame the dumb-as-rocks sports media in this town for the fact that this stuff even needs to be written.

Which are typically shows like Lavar and Chad or the Junkies, who feel the only way they can keep people listening is by inspiring them to pickup torches and pitchforks pretty much all the time.

Shows like tht take their queues from TV news programs that love to inspire hate in one way or another..



Going into this season, I had NO illusions of playoffs or Super Bowls. I was telling people that if the Redskins were to finish 8-8 that would be a GREAT season. This was the start of a major rebuild of this team. I was pleased that Allen/Shanahan was able to parlay 7 draft picks into TWELVE draft picks AND as it turned out, over half of those picks were able to get on the field and gain valuable experience and play pretty well. If we have another draft similiar to this one in '12, (I'm praying that RG III falls to us in our draft slot. If he's gone then Matt Barkley) that would escalate the rebuild process. Patience people.....patience.

Same here... I knew playoffs wasn't happening, but, all I wanted to see is some of the younger players starting to get better... and I have seen exactly that.

[justice98]

I love the touting of Alex Smith as a good draft pick now.

[Painkiller]

NLC, one of the best posts I've ever read on extremeskins.

You get it man. Nice work.

[Mad Mike]

Everytime he cocks his arm to throw...:ols:

ya know... I get where you are coming from but when you really look at it 75% of the time he looks like Montana out there. When he's on, he's got that w coast passing game down. A about 20% of the time his short stature gives him problems, and about 5% are WTF moments where he throws a boneheaded pass.

My theory is this... Grosman is very good at pre-snap reads and he trusts them. He isn't good at reading after the ball is snapped so on those occasions that he is fooled, he ends up throwing right into the teeth of the coverage.

Honestly. I hope he comes back next year. (yes I still want that first round QB in the draft). Another good infusion of talent like we had this past draft and we might have a team that can make up for Grosman's mistakes while capitalising on his talent. When the rookie can do better he can take the reins but we could do far worse than having Grossman as our worst QB.

[NoCalMike]

The OP is exactly on the spot here and is saying something I have been saying for awhile.

The 49ers and Redskins have both been pretty bad for a decade now, (with the exception of a couple of seasons). Those bad seasons usually will net a team a ton of draft picks, used to build towards the future.

The 49ers franchise took that opportunity and drafted. The 'Skins traded away draft picks year after year for free agents.

The 49ers went through growing pains, but were building a solid foundation so that once the corner was turned they were built for the long haul.

The Redskins relied on free agency star power to go into every new season "all or nothing" and hope for the best.

As the OP pointed out, it isn't just the 1st round stars that you draft. It is the later round picks that are compiled, the depth. You need the depth for when starters need to be rotated out for rest or go down for a couple of weeks with injuries.

Our franchise has been so lacking in depth that when a starter got injured, the drop in level of play was dramatic.

Finally in 2011, it looks like we have some type of depth evidenced by how the offense has looked a little improved towards the closing out of this season.

More times then not the 1 year turn around teams are ones that come out of the gate strong, take the league by surprise, but then fade at the end of the season, possibly crawling towards a playoff spot and then lose in the first round before returning to nowhere the following season. Sound familiar?

Shanahan was very clear with Dan Snyder about where this franchise was. The hole it had dug itself before he got here, and said not to even bother hiring him if there was an expectation to have a championship caliber team in 1-2 seasons. He said that in plain english. There were no minced words there. So it boggles my mind why fans want to dump Shanahan now, blow it all up again, just when it looks like this team is starting to get better, not only in the 3-4 scheme but on offense as well.

[Califan007]

You may think that, but you'd be wrong. I counted at least 20 guys who were still on this roster or a league roster at the beginning of this season.

2009 roster:

QB: Campbell, Collins, Brennan
RBs: Portis, Betts, Ganther, Mason, Cartwright
FB: Sellers
WRs: Moss, ARE, Thomas, Marko Mitchell, Kelly
TEs: Cooley, Davis, Yoder
OLine: Samuels, Dockery, Rabach, Thomas, Heyer, Batiste, Edwin Williams, Montgomery, Rinehart, Mike Williams

27 players on offense. 14 of them out of the NFL.


DLine: Daniels, Griffin, Haynesworth, Carter, Wynn, Golston, Montgomery, Alexander, Jarmon
LB: Orakpo, Fletcher, McIntosh, Wilson, Blades, Henson
DBs: Rogers, Hall, Smoot, Tryon, Westbrook, Barnes
Safeties: Horton, Landry, Moore, Doughty

ST: Albright, Hunter Smith, Suisham

27 players out of 54. 50% instead of 80%, which was a joking exaggeration to begin with to make a point...and the point still stands. Find another team where 50% of the players they had on their roster 2 seasons ago are now out of the league.


Plenty of teams have done the 1-year turnaround. Heck, the Saints by themselves have gone from 3-13 to 10-6 twice.
Name them.

And again as I said before, I'm not talking about teams having a brief uptick in win totals for one season...I'm talking about actual turnarounds for a franchise like what the Falcons have done. The Dolphins had one good year, but that's it. They have since fired their coach. The Bucs have had one good year, but so far that's it. Name the "plenty of teams" that have finished their rebuild and are winning consistently year after year after just one season.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

27 out of 52 players on that roster are still in the league.
As near as I can tell, Shanahan has only rearranged the deck chairs.

I pared down your post...

But, only half of the players from less than 2 seasons ago remain in the NFL and you're using that as a point against Shanahan? I think the fact that he essentially would have had to add 27 players even if he were to keep all the NFL-caliber guys from Zorn's team illustrates that we had a horrible roster when he took over.

[NoCalMike]

Oh and no, I still don't think Alex Smith himself is that much of a QB. The game last night alone showed his flaws. He had the one beautiful pass to Vernon Davis that was arguably a TD. However he missed a lot of open WRs and unlike Rothelisburger, an injured Big Ben mind you, who often could face down pressure in his face and stand in there and still deliver the ball accurately, Alex Smith still breaks down as soon as there is pressure and throws it array.

But that is really neither here or there. Alex Smith was likely retained because of the short offseason, and it would have been that much harder to get a brand new QB acclimated into the offense, get timing down with the playmakers etc etc etc.

Harbaugh has designed an offense around Smith having to do the minimum possible. Basically, don't screw up, and when we have a wide open WR/TE hit them, type offense that is anchored by a solid physical running game and outstanding defense.

[Califan007]

27 out of 52 players on that roster are still in the league:
H.B. Blades
Blades isn't on a roster.


Nominally, 13 are still starters (I've used nomially because I've included people like Cooley, Rinehart, Davis, and Campbell) who haven't started every game, but started quite a few so it wouldn't even be true to state that 80% aren't starters (that would work out to 75%).
Again, I assumed the laughing emoticon, along with saying "something like" would convey that I wasn't being literal with the 80%...50% is still ridiculously huge. And 75% of starters should be close enough for my point to have been made anyway lol...




As near as I can tell, Shanahan has only rearranged the deck chairs.

Then I question your perception abilities.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 08:56 AM ----------


I pared down your post...

But, only half of the players from less than 2 seasons ago remain in the NFL and you're using that as a point against Shanahan? I think the fact that he essentially would have had to add 27 players even if he were to keep all the NFL-caliber guys from Zorn's team illustrates that we had a horrible roster when he took over.

Exactly, thank you lol :applause:...it's one thing if 50% of the roster doesn't fit your new scheme. It's quite another if 50% of your roster doesn't fit ANYONE'S scheme in the entire NFL.

[NoCalMike]

Right, and counting guys like Devin Thomas. Haha.

[WALL-LE]

taylor mays has done relatively well?? lololololol

[Mursilis]

Shanahan was very clear with Dan Snyder about where this franchise was. The hole it had dug itself before he got here, and said not to even bother hiring him if there was an expectation to have a championship caliber team in 1-2 seasons. He said that in plain english. There were no minced words there.

If only that were true. Some other poster in some other thread put it best by saying you've almost got to judge Shanahan's run in two parts - 2010 and this year. Last year, he made moves like the McNabb deal, the Brown deal, keeping Galloway/cutting Thomas, all the old RBs, etc., which suggested a "win-now" mentality, and of course it blew up in his face. This year, he seems to have learned his lesson, and he's doing all the right things. I like the direction the team's going now, but it would be further along if Shanahan had gone "all in" on a rebuild last year.

[Mursilis]

I pared down your post...

But, only half of the players from less than 2 seasons ago remain in the NFL and you're using that as a point against Shanahan? I think the fact that he essentially would have had to add 27 players even if he were to keep all the NFL-caliber guys from Zorn's team illustrates that we had a horrible roster when he took over.

So what's the standard rate of turnover for an NFL roster over 2 seasons? (Serious question - I don't know the exact rate, but I'm fairly sure it's in the double digits).

[KDawg]

ya know... I get where you are coming from but when you really look at it 75% of the time he looks like Montana out there.

Where do people come up with these numbers? I love reading your posts, Mike, but the exaggeration is strong there.

He doesn't even complete 75% of his passes. He throws a higher percentage of picks than he does TDs. He takes sacks he doesn't need to take sometimes. He throws into double and triple coverage. He puts too much loft underneath the ball sometimes.

I've seen him throw more high passes and ground balls than I care to count...

I don't see Montana. At all.

[Botched]

And again as I said before, I'm not talking about teams having a brief uptick in win totals for one season...I'm talking about actual turnarounds for a franchise like what the Falcons have done. The Dolphins had one good year, but that's it. They have since fired their coach. The Bucs have had one good year, but so far that's it. Name the "plenty of teams" that have finished their rebuild and are winning consistently year after year after just one season.

You'll be able to add the 49ers to that list soon. They'll get an early exit from the playoffs this season and then go back to sucking next year.

[NLC1054]

I love the touting of Alex Smith as a good draft pick now.

Alex Smith is 11-3 as a starter this season. The 49ers win and lose as a team, and Alex Smith isnt elite or anything, but he's playing better and with far more confidence than he has before. You can build on that going forward.


Plenty of teams have done the 1-year turnaround. Heck, the Saints by themselves have gone from 3-13 to 10-6 twice.

The Saints also went 7-9 immediately following both of their 10-6 "turnaround seasons". The Bucs went 10-6 last season after going 3-13, and aren't going to finish over .500 this year and might be canning their head coach. The Chiefs won the AFC West last year, and thanks to the screwiness of their division they're still sort of in the hunt, but still, they're having a down season.

[Califan007]

So what's the standard rate of turnover for an NFL roster over 2 seasons? (Serious question - I don't know the exact rate, but I'm fairly sure it's in the double digits).

It's more than just turnover...it's players not even being in the league anymore. Our rate of turnover since 2009 is even higher than 50%.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 09:08 AM ----------


You'll be able to add the 49ers to that list soon. They'll get an early exit from the playoffs this season and then go back to sucking next year.

whoops, misread your post lol :doh:...

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 09:10 AM ----------


The Chiefs won the AFC West last year, and thanks to the screwiness of their division they're still sort of in the hunt, but still, they're having a down season.

And they, too, just fired their head coach :ols:...doesn't sound like a one-year rebuild to me.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

So what's the standard rate of turnover for an NFL roster over 2 seasons? (Serious question - I don't know the exact rate, but I'm fairly sure it's in the double digits).

Double digits seems more than reasonable for sure (I don't know either). But I would guess 50% is very, very high.

[Califan007]

Double digits seems more than reasonable for sure (I don't know either). But I would guess 50% is very, very high.

Just doing a quick check of the 49ers offensive roster in 2009, only six of the players on their offense back then are out of the league now. Six out of 24 players, or 25%.

A whopping 14 of the offensive players on the Skins' roster from 2009 are out of the league. 14 out of 27 players, or 52%.

[NLC1054]

If only that were true. Some other poster in some other thread put it best by saying you've almost got to judge Shanahan's run in two parts - 2010 and this year. Last year, he made moves like the McNabb deal, the Brown deal, keeping Galloway/cutting Thomas, all the old RBs, etc., which suggested a "win-now" mentality, and of course it blew up in his face. This year, he seems to have learned his lesson, and he's doing all the right things. I like the direction the team's going now, but it would be further along if Shanahan had gone "all in" on a rebuild last year.

See, the thing about it is, Mike really didn't anything different than what he did this season.

First, free agency was nil because of CBA. Everything was slim pickings.

Signing the veteran players like Galloway and Roydell mirrors signing Stallworth, Gaffney and almost signing Stokley. You bring in the veterans to compete and push the young guys and build a competitive environment. What guys like Niles Paul and Leonard Hankerson did was exactly what Malcolm Kelly couldn't and Devin Thomas wouldn't do; you fight for you opportunity. You earn everything you're given. Hank wasn't quite ready to start at the beginning of the season, but when Armstrong proved ineffective, he got his shot, and came out like gang busters in the Miami game. Meanwhile, Niles Paul has carved a great niche for himself as a gunner on special teams and as run support on certain formations.

Malcolm got hurt, and Devin's attitude and work ethic sucked, so that meant guys like Galloway and Roydell Williams made the team. It wasn't so much "win now" as "frak, this is all I've got", and even so, Armstrong still overtook Galloway on the depth chart by the Colts game, and he more or less split snaps with him before that to begin with. The old running backs were all gone by week 4; we ran with Ryan Torain and Keiland Williams most of the season.

The Brown trade had to happen because we needed a right tackle. Like it's been pointed out, the free agent market was dead. Going into that season with Stephon Heyer playing right tackle wasn't an options, because...well, he's Stephon Heyer. We needed an upgrade at that position, and JB had been a Pro Bowl player in years past.

And of course, the McNabb deal. Jake Locker going back to college is probably the single move that may have made the biggest difference for the Redskins. A lot would've changed if their had been two first round quarterbacks in that draft instead of just one. But there was only one, and there was no way in hell the Rams were going to cough up the first overall pick. We needed an upgrade at the position, and Jason Campbell had worn out his welcome. The organization and Campbell both needed to move on from that relationship.

When you trade for a quarterback coming off a Pro Bowl appearance and one of his best seasons ever, one expects a certain level of play. The trade looked smart and looked like an upgrade. I don't think any of us, including Mike, expected McNabb to be half the headache he ended up being. No one could predict that. I can't blame Mike for the McNabb trade. It was a mistake, but at the time, with no first round quarterbacks outside of Bradford, no free agency, and no real options on the team, the move made sense.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just doing a quick check of the 49ers offensive roster in 2009, only six of the players on their offense back then are out of the league now. Six out of 24 players, or 25%.

A whopping 14 of the offensive players on the Skins' roster from 2009 are out of the league. 14 out of 27 players, or 52%.

Yeah..I guess I was responding to a slightly different metric. Turning over 10+ guys per off-season probably isn't ridiculous. But as a couple of us have stated, that's assuming some of those guys were at least NFL-caliber and maybe just jettisoned for contract, scheme, etc. purposes. Having half your team not good enough to play in the league less than 2 years later either means that roster was horrible or ancient. Either way, it's no different to the new coach.

[Oldfan]

NLC1054 ~ See, the thing about it is, Mike really didn't anything different [last season] than what he did this season.

LKB's "bus" thread makes cherry-picked arguments that Shanahan has blown his two years. Your thread makes cherry-picked arguments that he has done no wrong in two years.

Neither thread contains arguments persuasive to impartial minds.

What's the point of "preaching to the choir" -- making arguments only persuasive to people who already agree with you?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

What's the point of "preaching to the choir" -- making arguments to people who already agree with you?

So I should hold off on my "Cowboys Fans are Full of ****" thread?

[NLC1054]

LKB's "bus" thread makes cherry-picked arguments that Shanahan has blown his two years. Your thread makes cherry-picked arguments that he has done no wrong in two years.

Neither thread contains arguments persuasive to impartial minds.

What's the point of "preaching to the choir" -- making arguments to people who already agree with you?

Jesus Christ, man...

I never said the McNabb trade, in hindsight, wasn't a mistake. I'm saying there was a justification for WHY we made that trade, and there's a justification for why some of the players who played last season played. I am not saying Mike is some infallible guy who's only done right since he got here. Far from it.

I'm not looking to "persuade" anyone, because people on this board have very firmly held beliefs, and I learned a long time trying to convince some moron on a forum that they're wrong, even when they are clearly wrong and the facts do no bear out their opinions, is a waste of my time, and I'd rather spend that time with my girlfriend or writing or doing anything else.

What I'm doing is presenting the facts. I have my opinion, everyone else has theirs. Persuading guys I'm right would be a waste of my time. People will believe what they want, even if the answers are staring them in the face.

[Oldfan]

So I should hold off on my "Cowboys Fans are Full of ****" thread?No... A statement of fact is a statement of fact.

[pez]

Alex Smith still breaks down as soon as there is pressure and throws it array.

$pressure = ["throws it", "throws it", "throws it", "throws it", "throws it"];

:) ... sorry ... geek humor LOL

[oldskoolskins]

[QUOTE=Mad Mike;8759621]ya know... I get where you are coming from but when you really look at it 75% of the time he looks like Montana out there. When he's on, he's got that w coast passing game down. A about 20% of the time his short stature gives him problems, and about 5% are WTF moments where he throws a boneheaded pass.


Actually I like Grossman, but at times he scares the hell outta me. I wish he looked like Montana 75% of the time, I think it's more like 40-50% of the time...;)

[PeterMP]

See, the thing about it is, Mike really didn't anything different than what he did this season.

First, free agency was nil because of CBA. Everything was slim pickings.

Signing the veteran players like Galloway and Roydell mirrors signing Stallworth, Gaffney and almost signing Stokley. You bring in the veterans to compete and push the young guys and build a competitive environment. What guys like Niles Paul and Leonard Hankerson did was exactly what Malcolm Kelly couldn't and Devin Thomas wouldn't do; you fight for you opportunity. You earn everything you're given. Hank wasn't quite ready to start at the beginning of the season, but when Armstrong proved ineffective, he got his shot, and came out like gang busters in the Miami game. Meanwhile, Niles Paul has carved a great niche for himself as a gunner on special teams and as run support on certain formations.

Malcolm got hurt, and Devin's attitude and work ethic sucked, so that meant guys like Galloway and Roydell Williams made the team. It wasn't so much "win now" as "frak, this is all I've got", and even so, Armstrong still overtook Galloway on the depth chart by the Colts game, and he more or less split snaps with him before that to begin with. The old running backs were all gone by week 4; we ran with Ryan Torain and Keiland Williams most of the season.

The Brown trade had to happen because we needed a right tackle. Like it's been pointed out, the free agent market was dead. Going into that season with Stephon Heyer playing right tackle wasn't an options, because...well, he's Stephon Heyer. We needed an upgrade at that position, and JB had been a Pro Bowl player in years past.

And of course, the McNabb deal. Jake Locker going back to college is probably the single move that may have made the biggest difference for the Redskins. A lot would've changed if their had been two first round quarterbacks in that draft instead of just one. But there was only one, and there was no way in hell the Rams were going to cough up the first overall pick. We needed an upgrade at the position, and Jason Campbell had worn out his welcome. The organization and Campbell both needed to move on from that relationship.

When you trade for a quarterback coming off a Pro Bowl appearance and one of his best seasons ever, one expects a certain level of play. The trade looked smart and looked like an upgrade. I don't think any of us, including Mike, expected McNabb to be half the headache he ended up being. No one could predict that. I can't blame Mike for the McNabb trade. It was a mistake, but at the time, with no first round quarterbacks outside of Bradford, no free agency, and no real options on the team, the move made sense.
And in a few years when your starting RT, WRs, and QB are no longer in the league people can talk about how bad that/this team was.

Why do you need veterans to drive young players? Victor Cruz was a UDFA last year.

[DavidGQ]

I think we are looking like the current Browns. Good lines. Decent defense. Not one skill player who scares anyone.


If only that were true. Some other poster in some other thread put it best by saying you've almost got to judge Shanahan's run in two parts - 2010 and this year. Last year, he made moves like the McNabb deal, the Brown deal, keeping Galloway/cutting Thomas, all the old RBs, etc., which suggested a "win-now" mentality, and of course it blew up in his face. This year, he seems to have learned his lesson, and he's doing all the right things. I like the direction the team's going now, but it would be further along if Shanahan had gone "all in" on a rebuild last year.

It's hard to blow up the roster when you are a new coach. Mike has to see for himself how bad the team was. What they did that some people missed is they were able to shed a lot of heavy contracts to clear up the cap space for the future.

Great post NLC. I have always enjoyed your posts. I don't blame the fans though since we have been through years of mediocre that it's hard to see the positives. Thus you have Chad and LaVar. We finally draft a OL in first round since Chris Samuel to protect our QB. We didn't go out and sign big names at all. We got rid of the Club Med attitude and Me First players. We can't rebuild every 2 years with new coaches. Mike said he needs 5 yrs to fix this team. He deserves that 5 years. Only then can we judge him. When was the last time we have all our picks and more? I can't wait for 2012 draft.

Before this season, I said this is a good team and will be very competitive if they can stay healthy. I truly believe if we have stayed healthy, we would have been in the running for our Division right now. But we still lack the talents and depths. Next year can only improve that as we trim more fat.

[Oldfan]

...What I'm doing is presenting the facts. I have my opinion, everyone else has theirs. Persuading guys I'm right would be a waste of my time. People will believe what they want, even if the answers are staring them in the face.Although they might be in a minority in this forum, there are posters who are sincerely interested in being fair. They will listen to convincing arguments on both sides of any question. I suggest... and it's merely a suggestion... that you make your arguments for them.

LKB's thread needed to be countered, but you went too far in the other direction -- from biased against Mike Shanahan to biased in favor of Mike Shanahan.

[authentic]

Actually doesn't look so bad there. It wasn't so much the personnel that killed this team in 2009 - it was the injuries, and the coaching.

That personel was old, injured and washed up. That went for both the Oline and Dline (the foundation of a team). Cornelius Griffin, PD93, Fat Al, Dockery, Rabach, career ending injury to C. Samuels, Renaldo Wynn...etc. wasn't getting us any where. Sit down and meditate on position by position, and tell me we weren't bad. For instance, look at the WR position behind Santana, to me its depressing:

WR (Split) 82 Antwaan Radle-El Indiana
WR (Flank) 12 Malcolm Kelly Oklahoma
WR (Split) 11 Devin Thomas Michigan State
WR (Flank) 84 Marko Mitchell Nevada

[NLC1054]

Why do you need veterans to drive young players? Victor Cruz was a UDFA last year.

Lots of different coaches do it a lot of different ways. You look back in Mike's history, and that's always been his mindset.

You also see what's happening with the "Youngry" Bucs. The Bucs decided not to pursue any veterans, even got rid of a couple. Now all those young receivers are having trouble getting open. Those linebackers are okay, but they don't have that veteran voice there, or on the d-line. Word coming out now is that the Bucs training camp was too relaxed and didn't feature enough competition.

And Cruz was undrafted last season, but do you think Cruz would've seen more playing time than Steve Smith or Mario Manningham without their being an injury to either one of them? Cruz getting IR'ed last season and then Steve Smith chasing the money to Philly this season was the best thing that ever happened to Cruz.

[Fred Jones]

I for one agree with the OP. He presented some nice arguments and pointed out the clear mistakes by our FO. This coming off-season is very important, IMHO, because the team needs to acquire their future QB. I guess they can wait one more season, but the sooner the better.

Comparing what the current coaching staff and FO has done compared to the last almost 20 years, I am encouraged. They have hit more than they have missed and are building a team that is fun to watch. What I see is a team trying to bring in the best players available at good cap prices. I see a team making the right moves for the future. I just hope they can continue to draft well and hope beyond hope they finally find a franchise QB. By the time he is done, Shanny will have revamped pretty much the entire roster.

[Mursilis]

Yeah..I guess I was responding to a slightly different metric. Turning over 10+ guys per off-season probably isn't ridiculous. But as a couple of us have stated, that's assuming some of those guys were at least NFL-caliber and maybe just jettisoned for contract, scheme, etc. purposes. Having half your team not good enough to play in the league less than 2 years later either means that roster was horrible or ancient. Either way, it's no different to the new coach.

But the whole argument itself is specious, at best. Look at some of those "they're out of the league, so they must've been awful!" guys. Chris Samuels? Phllip Daniels? Randy Thomas? Ethan Albright? Those guys aren't out of the league because they were trash - they aged out, which is far different from saying they lacked NFL-level talent. Other guys like Chris Horton and Mike Williams had some talent, but had some health issues which derailed their careers. Too bad about Horton especially - he looked great as a rookie.

And of course, the whole argument is based on a dubious premise - the idea that the NFL talent evaluation process is impartial and objective, with a high degree of accuracy. None of that is true though - JaMarcus Russell was a first rounder, and Kurt Warner was never even drafted. And of course we all know the "Tom Brady was a 6th rounder" story. Talent evaluators whiff all the time, and just because a player is out of NFL football doesn't mean they lack talent. WR Mike Williams missed two years until he finally got his head on straight and had a good season for Seattle last year. It's a flawed and imperfect process.

[NLC1054]

Although they might be in a minority in this forum, there are posters who are sincerely interested in being fair. They will listen to convincing arguments on both sides of any question. I suggest... and it's merely a suggestion... that you make your arguments for them.

LKB's thread needed to be countered, but you went too far in the other direction -- from biased against Mike Shanahan to biased in favor of Mike Shanahan.

How is my OP biased in favor of Mike?

And I did not make my thread to "counter" anyone's thread. This is something I've been seeing said all over the board for some time now.

[deejaydana]

What have been 2 of the top things that have set this organization back greatly the past 10 years? It's been the non-stop coaching carousel and disregarding the value of having all of your draft picks. I see that finally ending with Shanny now here. People that think Shannahan needs to go already just don't get it.

[PeterMP]

Lots of different coaches do it a lot of different ways. You look back in Mike's history, and that's always been his mindset.

You also see what's happening with the "Youngry" Bucs. The Bucs decided not to pursue any veterans, even got rid of a couple. Now all those young receivers are having trouble getting open. Those linebackers are okay, but they don't have that veteran voice there, or on the d-line. Word coming out now is that the Bucs training camp was too relaxed and didn't feature enough competition.

And Cruz was undrafted last season, but do you think Cruz would've seen more playing time than Steve Smith or Mario Manningham without their being an injury to either one of them? Cruz getting IR'ed last season and then Steve Smith chasing the money to Philly this season was the best thing that ever happened to Cruz.
I'm not talking about getting rid of the Fletcher or Moss. You'd still have that kind of player. I'm talking about having NO veterns. There is in between though, were you force young guys to play and force yourself to play them.

It doesn't matter. A roster spot was taken up by the likes of Galloway, Roydell, and LJ. In two more years, we'll be talking about the roster spots that were wasted with the likes of Stallworth and Gaffney. If Cruz would have been here (you'd used one of those roster spots on him instead of a vet WR), you'd be better off today, and the fact that Cruz got playing time because other people got hurt wouldn't have mattered.

[Califan007]

And in a few years when your starting RT, WRs, and QB are no longer in the league people can talk about how bad that/this team was.

No, we'll talk about how bad those individual units were...because if you think 50% of our defense is gonna be out of the NFL after next season you're delusional.

And everybody is already talking about how bad Grossman and Beck are :ols:...so that won't be a surprise, will it? But you really think that Moss and Gaffney will be out of the league in 2 years? Or that nobody will see value in guys like Armstrong or Hankerson if Shanny lets them go?

Remember Keiland Williams? A Shanahan UDFA that played pretty decently for us last season but who was let go this season?...He got picked up by the Lions, and is scoring TDs for them. The guys Shanahan put on the roster will go on to play elsewhere unless they were simply too old. The guys Vinny put on the roster...not so much.

[authentic]

27 out of 52 players on that roster are still in the league:
.

most of the guys you have listed are mediocre/below average (at best) for their respective teams.

[PeterMP]

most of the guys you have listed are mediocre/below average (at best) for their respective teams.
It was a bad/old team. It wasn't 80% of the players are now out of the league bad.

[authentic]

but they don't have that veteran voice there, or on the d-line. .

See, thats where you're wrong. They have Albert! :)

[olejoe]

So, given all that, we should we expect to see some results? The "rebuilding" excuse can only last for so long.

2015 ... right on schedule

[Califan007]

But the whole argument itself is specious, at best. Look at some of those "they're out of the league, so they must've been awful!" guys. Chris Samuels? Phllip Daniels? Randy Thomas? Ethan Albright? Those guys aren't out of the league because they were trash - they aged out, which is far different from saying they lacked NFL-level talent. Other guys like Chris Horton and Mike Williams had some talent, but had some health issues which derailed their careers. Too bad about Horton especially - he looked great as a rookie.
You got it wrong...it's not that the guys were all awful, it's that the ROSTER was awful...and sorry, but a roster full of aging, injury prone vets is indeed an awful roster. When you're rebuiding, it helps to at least have a young core in place, even if it's not very experienced. We were nowhere near having that when Shanahan took over.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 10:47 AM ----------


It was a bad/old team. It wasn't 80% of the players are now out of the league bad.

It was "50% of the players are now out of the league" bad...which is definitely bad.

Again, find another team that you can say that about from their 2009 roster until now. That's nowhere near the norm.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But the whole argument itself is specious, at best. Look at some of those "they're out of the league, so they must've been awful!" guys. Chris Samuels? Phllip Daniels? Randy Thomas? Ethan Albright? Those guys aren't out of the league because they were trash - they aged out, which is far different from saying they lacked NFL-level talent. Other guys like Chris Horton and Mike Williams had some talent, but had some health issues which derailed their careers. Too bad about Horton especially - he looked great as a rookie.

And of course, the whole argument is based on a dubious premise - the idea that the NFL talent evaluation process is impartial and objective, with a high degree of accuracy. None of that is true though - JaMarcus Russell was a first rounder, and Kurt Warner was never even drafted. And of course we all know the "Tom Brady was a 6th rounder" story. Talent evaluators whiff all the time, and just because a player is out of NFL football doesn't mean they lack talent. WR Mike Williams missed two years until he finally got his head on straight and had a good season for Seattle last year. It's a flawed and imperfect process.

But aging veterans who are ending their careers are really not much different than younger guys who can't play...at least not to a new coach who is tasked with rebuilding a franchise. If they aren't viable options for a new coach moving forward, regardless of the reason, his job is more difficult. It's irrelevant if Chris Samuels or Randy Thomas was good enough to play in the league in the beginning of 2009. What matters is that they were either too beaten up or too old to continue with this franchise after that time. They were both great-to-solid players, but if they were unable to even catch on with a team that was ready to win immediately, then it means that Shanahan would have had to replace them by this point in time anyway.

[Mursilis]

Signing the veteran players like Galloway and Roydell mirrors signing Stallworth, Gaffney and almost signing Stokley. You bring in the veterans to compete and push the young guys and build a competitive environment. What guys like Niles Paul and Leonard Hankerson did was exactly what Malcolm Kelly couldn't and Devin Thomas wouldn't do; you fight for you opportunity. You earn everything you're given. Hank wasn't quite ready to start at the beginning of the season, but when Armstrong proved ineffective, he got his shot, and came out like gang busters in the Miami game. Meanwhile, Niles Paul has carved a great niche for himself as a gunner on special teams and as run support on certain formations.


I don't get the whole "bring in veterans" mentality. Guys like Galloway and Roydell, and the used-up running backs, aren't going to be on the team when it gets good in a few years, so why bother? I get the importance of competition, but why not bring in young, undrafted players for that competition? Undrafted players tend to be very hungry, because they know the team has no investment in them and they could be on the street at any moment, they're cheap, and they're YOUNG, so if they turn out to be studs, you've got them for a few years. Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Priest Holmes, Rod Smith, Adam Vinitari, Jeff Garcia, Jeff Saturday, LONDON FLETCHER, ADEWALE OGUNLEYE, Wes Welker - you could almost form an All-Pro team from overlooked and undrafted talent. Of course we have Fletcher and Ogunleye now, but we didn't discover them. I would have preferred Shanahan to ignore the retreads last year and try to find a few diamonds in the rough.

[Oldfan]

How is my OP biased in favor of Mike?In order to answer this question properly I would have to rehash those old arguments that you raised about the 2010 season and rehash others that you didn't raise. I'm not going to do that.

And I did not make my thread to "counter" anyone's thread. This is something I've been seeing said all over the board for some time now.If it wasn't your motive, it nevertheless served that purpose.

[Mursilis]

But aging veterans who are ending their careers are really not much different than younger guys who can't play...at least not to a new coach who is tasked with rebuilding a franchise. If they aren't viable options for a new coach moving forward, regardless of the reason, his job is more difficult. It's irrelevant if Chris Samuels or Randy Thomas was good enough to play in the league in the beginning of 2009. What matters is that they were either too beaten up or too old to continue with this franchise after that time. They were both great-to-solid players, but if they were unable to even catch on with a team that was ready to win immediately, then it means that Shanahan would have had to replace them by this point in time anyway.

Well, obviously - every team has to deal with the age issue. Just look at how Farve aged overnight in Minny last year.

And the 2009 was an OLD roster, no doubt, which is why it was all the more strange that Shanny brought in MORE old players in his first year, getting older at QB, WR, and RT. That didn't help at all.

[PeterMP]

No, we'll talk about how bad those individual units were...because if you think 50% of our defense is gonna be out of the NFL after next season you're delusional.

And everybody is already talking about how bad Grossman and Beck are :ols:...so that won't be a surprise, will it? But you really think that Moss and Gaffney will be out of the league in 2 years? Or that nobody will see value in guys like Armstrong or Hankerson if Shanny lets them go?

Remember Keiland Williams? A Shanahan UDFA that played pretty decently for us last season but who was let go this season?...He got picked up by the Lions, and is scoring TDs for them. The guys Shanahan put on the roster will go on to play elsewhere unless they were simply too old. The guys Vinny put on the roster...not so much.
He's got 2 TDs.

People have picked up people like Cartwright, Thomas, and Heyer (I can't believe Cartwright still has a job in this league).

Most of the guys on that team have aged out. People like Thomas, Samuals, and Griffin were good NFL players that just got to old/injured.

I'd not be at all surpised if out of Stallworth, Gaffney, Moss, and Armstrong, if half of them were out of the NFL after the 2012 season. I'd not at all be surprised if another WR on our current roster was out of the NFL due to just not it cutting/injuries.

[NLC1054]

I don't get the whole "bring in veterans" mentality. Guys like Galloway and Roydell, and the used-up running backs, aren't going to be on the team when it gets good in a few years, so why bother? I get the importance of competition, but why not bring in young, undrafted players for that competition? Undrafted players tend to be very hungry, because they know the team has no investment in them and they could be on the street at any moment, they're cheap, and they're YOUNG, so if they turn out to be studs, you've got them for a few years. Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Priest Holmes, Rod Smith, Adam Vinitari, Jeff Garcia, Jeff Saturday, LONDON FLETCHER, ADEWALE OGUNLEYE, Wes Welker - you could almost form an All-Pro team from overlooked and undrafted talent. Of course we have Fletcher and Ogunleye now, but we didn't discover them. I would have preferred Shanahan to ignore the retreads last year and try to find a few diamonds in the rough.

Finding those gems is HARD. When you bunch them altogether like that, it seems like a lot. But those guys are hard to find.

We did find a few of the diamonds in the rough; Brandon Banks, Anthony Armstrong, Keiland Williams. They all played big roles that season.

But when you find the RIGHT kind of veterans, they do more than just compete. They teach younger players had to prepare, how to practice, how to work out, how to study in the film room. They teach things that sometimes coaches don't coach. And like I said, there's more than one way to do it, but when you look at Mike's history, his way seems like it tends to work. I am not saying he's infallible, but it seems like it works.

[Mad Mike]

Where do people come up with these numbers? I love reading your posts, Mike, but the exaggeration is strong there.

He doesn't even complete 75% of his passes. He throws a higher percentage of picks than he does TDs. He takes sacks he doesn't need to take sometimes. He throws into double and triple coverage. He puts too much loft underneath the ball sometimes.

I've seen him throw more high passes and ground balls than I care to count...

I don't see Montana. At all.

I never said he completed 75% of his passes. I stand by my comment in that he often reminds me of Montana working steadily down the field with those short passes. Wen Rex is on, he *is* hard to stop. He looks almost machine like.

Like I said, it seems his strength is pre-snap reads and delivering those short to med passes with accuracy. But when he mis-reads the D, he doesn't adjust well and the results are well documented.

[Oldfan]

...But when you find the RIGHT kind of veterans, they do more than just compete. They teach younger players had to prepare, how to practice, how to work out, how to study in the film room. They teach things that sometimes coaches don't coach. And like I said, there's more than one way to do it, but when you look at Mike's history, his way seems like it tends to work. I am not saying he's infallible, but it seems like it works.Mike's history doesn't include a rebuilding effort. He had never done it until this season.

Rebuilding teams should not be signing FAs over 30 as gap fillers. You are straining to find excuses for it.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

ya know... I get where you are coming from but when you really look at it 75% of the time he looks like Montana out there. When he's on, he's got that w coast passing game down. A about 20% of the time his short stature gives him problems, and about 5% are WTF moments where he throws a boneheaded pass.

My theory is this... Grosman is very good at pre-snap reads and he trusts them. He isn't good at reading after the ball is snapped so on those occasions that he is fooled, he ends up throwing right into the teeth of the coverage.

Honestly. I hope he comes back next year. (yes I still want that first round QB in the draft). Another good infusion of talent like we had this past draft and we might have a team that can make up for Grosman's mistakes while capitalising on his talent. When the rookie can do better he can take the reins but we could do far worse than having Grossman as our worst QB.

Loved the thread...

But I loved every single ****ing word of your post Mad Mike.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The league is designed for every team to go 8-8. You do things correct in one off-season, you can get back to the mean. You get lucky in two games and you go 10-6 and win the division.

No one seems to understand this. The objective in the NFL is not to be "dominant" because that is impossible - despite what Green Bay is doing, which by the way is a complete fluke. Your goal is to be above average and then hope that you stay healthy enough to win 11 games.

That's it. That's all there is to it. The Patriots suck on defense. The Packers are probably just as bad on defense as the Patriots. The Steelers' O-line stinks. The Saints can't win outside. Joe Flacco is awful outside of Baltimore. San Fran has Alex Smith and his tiny hands at QB. One of those teams is probably going to win the Super Bowl. Because they are really good in one or two areas and didn't have a season-shattering injury yet.

That's the NFL. However bad you are, it can be mostly fixed in one year and completely fixed in two. Then you just need to avoid having your quarterback acquire Super AIDS.

[Skin'Em84]

I don't get the whole "bring in veterans" mentality. Guys like Galloway and Roydell, and the used-up running backs, aren't going to be on the team when it gets good in a few years, so why bother? I get the importance of competition, but why not bring in young, undrafted players for that competition? Undrafted players tend to be very hungry, because they know the team has no investment in them and they could be on the street at any moment, they're cheap, and they're YOUNG, so if they turn out to be studs, you've got them for a few years. Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Priest Holmes, Rod Smith, Adam Vinitari, Jeff Garcia, Jeff Saturday, LONDON FLETCHER, ADEWALE OGUNLEYE, Wes Welker - you could almost form an All-Pro team from overlooked and undrafted talent. Of course we have Fletcher and Ogunleye now, but we didn't discover them. I would have preferred Shanahan to ignore the retreads last year and try to find a few diamonds in the rough.


Love your logic, and agree with you, but we don't have Ogunleye. Sorry.

[Califan007]

He's got 2 TDs.
Yeah...and? lol...

Not sure what your point was, but my point was that unlike most of Vinny's castoffs, Williams is actually producing TDs and yards. If you took all the Vinny castoffs on offense, they may not have 2 TDs this year, combined. For the record, I'm not including Campbell as a "Vinny castoff" mainly because he was kept on the roster and traded, so we at least now Shanahan felt he had some value...the other guys he simply cut outright.



People have picked up people like Cartwright, Thomas, and Heyer (I can't believe Cartwright still has a job in this league).
Nor can I lol (about Cartwright)...but as for Thomas and Heyer, Thomas has accumulated ONE catch since he left here lol...Heyer has had one start. Rinehart may have done the best of the bunch. But that's not really saying too much. Again, an UDFA that Shanahan picked up is outperforming most of Vinny's 2nd and 3rd round picks.



Most of the guys on that team have aged out. People like Thomas, Samuals, and Griffin were good NFL players that just got to old/injured.
Yeah, I addressed this earlier...being handed an aging, injury-prone roster definitely qualified as an "awful" roster. No amount of good coaching or excellent schemes is going to make players reverse their aging process or stop being injured.




I'd not be at all surpised if out of Stallworth, Gaffney, Moss, and Armstrong, if half of them were out of the NFL after the 2012 season. I'd not at all be surprised if another WR on our current roster was out of the NFL due to just not it cutting/injuries.
Sure...every roster has those players that just won't cut it in the NFL beyond a few years. But again, the thing is that the roster Shanahan inherited had way, WAY too many of those types of players on it.

[Oldfan]

The league is designed for every team to go 8-8. You do things correct in one off-season, you can get back to the mean.Your premise is correct. That's how the NFL is set up. But, your deduction doesn't follow logically from that premise.

The hidden premise in your argument is that teams do not rise or fall far from the 8-8 capability -- a premise which is obviously false.

[SJValleySkinz]

Good stuff NC.

I would add the garbage FA market in Mike's first year, incomplete host of draft picks (thanks Vinny) and first year evals to get rid of "dead weight" as a delay in rebuilding. This is the year we began to see the fruits of a functional organization. Solid picks, solid FA's - I'm pumped about the direction and competitiveness of this team.

Shanahan's lack of draft picks were his own doing. I like the direction too but there's nobody else to blame for the 2010 offseason, which judging by how well they drafted in 2011 could have really helped.

[PeterMP]

Sure...every roster has those players that just won't cut it in the NFL beyond a few years. But again, the thing is that the roster Shanahan inherited had way, WAY too many of those types of players on it.
Yet he keeps acquiring people that obviously won't be in the league for to long.

LJ, Galloway, Stallworth (and in some cases even keeps them (e.g. Sellers)).

[GothSkinsFan]

I've noticed over the years that you'll often see a team come out of nowhere -- the 1 year wonder -- and then fade away after that season. Such turn-arounds overlook the traditionally soft schedule last-place teams have, as well as that other teams catch on the following season. If you want to build long-haul, don't expect a sudden turn-around.

[Califan007]

Yet he keeps acquiring people that obviously won't be in the league for to long.

LJ, Galloway, Stallworth (and in some cases even keeps them (e.g. Sellers)).

You mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).

Yet he inherited 27 players like that...twenty-stinkin-seven.

Again, as I (and even you) said earlier, every single team has some players on it that won't be in the league but a few years, for differing reasons. But if half of your roster is made up OF those types of players, something is horrendously wrong.

Something was horrendously wrong with the Skins' roster when Shanahan took over. I don't think anyone, anywhere, can intelligently deny that. Bringing in LJ and Galloway does not EVEN begin to negate that.

---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 12:31 PM ----------


I've noticed over the years that you'll often see a team come out of nowhere -- the 1 year wonder -- and then fade away after that season. Such turn-arounds overlook the traditionally soft schedule last-place teams have, as well as that other teams catch on the following season. If you want to build long-haul, don't expect a sudden turn-around.

There ya go :yes:...if you want sustainable success, allow the rebuild to take 2-3 years. Now, if you're still going 6-10 in year 4, then something's up lol :paranoid:

[FSUSkins24]

Great post NLC. You're one of the posters on here I usually see eye to eye with. You get it. Keep it up.

[Oldfan]

You [PeterMP] mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).He mentioned three, but you know there were many more. We don't need a list.

Not surprisingly, posters biased in favor of Mike exaggerate the problems he faced and how well he has done to surmount them. My own estimate is that 50% of his 2010 moves could be classified as "rebuilding moves." The other 50% were win now moves which gained nothing or lost ground. This year, 85% were rebuilding moves, but we still had six or seven FA signings of 30+ players, plus keeping Sellers and Fletcher, as strictly win now moves which gained nothing.

My rebuilding grades:

2010 = Fail
2011 = B

[hands11]

So is it safe to come back.

Looks like they have finally committed to a plan that involves the draft and sold FAs over the quick fix.

Shanny seems to be doing a good job as the final word on talent. The biggest difference I see is in the personality of the talent. They remind me of old school Redskins. No more Portis types. Hulu is a real throw back. Gaffney is the right fit. Cofield is awesome. Kerrigan is a beast.

As long as they keep adding these types a personalities, they will get there eventually.

I say the let Landry walk. To show boaty for me. And he sees to be more worried about muscles and looking good then getting healthy and making the solid play. They have a great front 7, now they need to focus on the back 4.

That said, I still don't like the father son combo that involves Kyle. Kyle just looks like the kind of guy you would like to slap. They still don't have the front office the way I would like it but as long as Shanny is going to pull a Marty and control everything, it could work.

And I love how they retooled the O line on the fly. Now they just need depth there.

They transformed to team from older to younger during the season. Now if they could just hit the reset button and start from here, I think they would be over .500.

Another solid draft and things should look even better.

Oh, and how about the Riley kid. He is a beast.

[Jumbo]

NLC; well done. Oldfan is giving you feedback form a very solid but quite narrow perspective when taken in the much broader terms of what a message board like our is all about. There is far more to having this venue be what we want and what provides what we wish to provide than for every topical-position-based thread to reflect Oldfan's view of what classical/logical debate style arguments look like (and he's pretty good at that style; one of the better practioners of it we've had, flaws included).

Both you and he are very solid and very welcome additions to this board when you're at your best, and using your own style.



When I have more time, I'll respond more to the points of the topic/OP. :)

[Manny555]

plus keeping Sellers and Fletcher, as strictly win now moves which gained nothing.

The thing about cutting guys to cut guys is it says alot about a coach's character.

How can guys go to battle (sorry, may be too cliche') for a guy who doesn't care about you. I think part of keeping some of the older productive players (Fletcher) and locker room guys (Sellers) shows that he cares about his players.

Think about your work environment. I have had bosses who made me work hard for a short period of time (I transferred out) but then I left unhappy. Or bosses that you loved and busted your butt for. One's when upper management would come in and they wouldn't throw you under the bus. Those are the same bosses that are very effective and very successful. Those are the people that I would work for at a discount cuz I wouldn't be happier any where else.

That's the environment I get from Shanny.

[HigSkin]

Here's a pleasant thought. Another successful offseason and one that includes a QB means people aren't going to be fretting over draft pick position. No way we'll be below .500 again with Shanny.

[Oldfan]

NLC; well done. Oldfan is giving you feedback form a very solid but quite narrow perspective when taken in the much broader terms of what a message board like our is all about. There is far more to having this venue be what we want and what provides what we wish to provide than for every topical-position-based thread to reflect Oldfan's view of what classical/logical debate style arguments look like (and he's pretty good at that style; one of the better practioners of it we've had, flaws included).You mistake my intentions, Old Friend.

I recognize NLC as a bright poster, too bright to be wasting his time preaching to the Homer Choir. Anybody can do that and get applause.

My suggestion to him -- that he make his arguments to persuade impartial minds -- is sound advice. If we could get the majority of ES posters doing it, you wouldn't need your forum rules because everything aimed at persuading impartial minds, in addition to stronger arguments, would be positive, civil and on-topic. It's the only rule the poster would have to remember.

[GhostofSparta]

You mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).



Don't be like that Cali. Mike signed plenty of older vets last year, year 1 of a rebuild, that aren't in the NFL anymore:

-Josh Bidwell
-Sam Paulescu
-Anthony Bryant
-Ma'ake Kemoeatu
-Dononvan McNabb (may be picked up in the offseason, currently out of the NFL)
-Roydell Williams
-Joey Galloway
-Larry Johnson
-Willie Parker
-Mike Furrey (spent the year on IR, but still signed and out of the NFL)

and that's not even counting the guys that aren't on our roster, but still barely holding on as NFL depth elsewhere, like Hicks in Cle and Holliday in Ari.

That's 10 guys right there (~20% of the roster) who were older vets signed to help rebuild an abysmal team that are no longer in the NFL. That includes 2 punters, 3 WRs, 2 RBs, and 2 NTs. Now it's hard to fault Mike for the Punters, because I blame Danny Smith for the failures of all punters and kickers to come through here in the last decade, but those are still some pretty critical positions that we've either upgraded or tried to this past year. You're telling me that there were no young/UDFA NTs that we could have tried last year, that we had to rely on Anthony Bryant and Kemoeatu, who was coming back from a horrible ACL injury? An injured Ma'ake was the best Mike could do? Chris Neild was 2 or 3 picks from being a UDFA, and he's already outperformed both of those guys. Galloway and Roydell were better options than trying to find another (but hopefully younger) Armstrong?

I was not expecting a playoff team in 2010. I was ready for a major overhaul. But trading for McNabb and signing vets over 30 at key positions like WR, OL, DL, and RB did not signal rebuild. It signaled the same "we're only a few players away" mentality that has killed this franchise for a freaking decade. Mike let go of a lot of dead weight, and that was immensely helpful. But he also had the advantage of an uncapped year to clear the dead wood without murdering our cap space, and he did not take full advantage of getting a chance to start over with a young team. I understand that you can't have a roster full of rookies, but you also can't have 90% of your starters be older and especially injury prone vets on the downside of their career. Trading for McNabb and Brown means you think you have a shot this year. And you'd better be right, because they're costing you 4 mid-round picks when you're trying to rebuild (2nd, 2 3rds, and a 4th total). Those picks are key young depth guys to develop into starters starting about next year.

I recognize that Allen and Shanahan were walking into a disaster. I'm not shocked we're still not competitive. But you can't glaze over the mistakes he made ("He's only missed on like, 3 guys, and they were all just depth anyway LOL!") or you look just as bad as those who blame him for the fact that Vinny sucks at drafting and Zorn was a terrible talent evaluator so our 2010 team sucked. I think he underestimated the job his first year, and realized what he was in for before this year started. He's made a lot of progress, but his initial moves cost us some prime opportunities to be ahead of where we are.


But this team was never in a position for a 1 year turnaround. And anybody who expected as much was fooling himself. We'd traded away too many valuable picks and missed on too many others to have the kind of talent that Detroit or San Fran did when their new coaches started winning.

[Oldfan]

The thing about cutting guys to cut guys is it says alot about a coach's character.

How can guys go to battle (sorry, may be too cliche') for a guy who doesn't care about you. I think part of keeping some of the older productive players (Fletcher) and locker room guys (Sellers) shows that he cares about his players.

Think about your work environment. I have had bosses who made me work hard for a short period of time (I transferred out) but then I left unhappy. Or bosses that you loved and busted your butt for. One's when upper management would come in and they wouldn't throw you under the bus. Those are the same bosses that are very effective and very successful. Those are the people that I would work for at a discount cuz I wouldn't be happier any where else.

That's the environment I get from Shanny.We have different ideas of what "character" is all about. Belichik cuts some of his favorite players when it's in his team's best interests. Yet, I've never heard a player condemn him for it.

[Darth Tater]

Last year, lots of people were saying "look at Tampa Bay", well, they did go 10-6 last season but they're at best going to be 6-10 this year. So I'd say the people saying "look at San Francisco" or "look at Detroit" as examples of how to rebuild are pursuing questionable logic. Do teams appear to turn it around quick? Yes, but its most likely that the results in the W-L column are just the last place that building a winner show itself.

Also, this makes me ask: should a Steelers fan in 1971 said "look at the Redskins"? I mean, we went from a 6 win team with just 5 non-losing seasons over 20+ years to the playoffs while the Steelers experienced the 3rd straight losing year under Chuck Noll.

[elkabong82]

Don't be like that Cali. Mike signed plenty of older vets last year, year 1 of a rebuild, that aren't in the NFL anymore:


But this team was never in a position for a 1 year turnaround. And anybody who expected as much was fooling himself. We'd traded away too many valuable picks and missed on too many others to have the kind of talent that Detroit or San Fran did when their new coaches started winning.

McNabb makes sense when you realize the Skins used him to try and trade up from the Rams and get Bradford. That aside, it was mentioned on here queit frequently that a bunch of the 2010 moves, year 1 of Shanny, resulted from him trying to build a competitive team (bringing young guys into a culture of winning), but he was handcuffed both by a VERY limited FA class due to the CBA ending and taking away lots of talented young guys by extending requirements to 6 years to be a FA, and then we were VERY limited in the draft due to the previous regime. But we focused mostly on the OL, which is a great way to start off, especially when limited in a draft.

[Oldfan]

McNabb makes sense when you realize the Skins used him to try and trade up from the Rams and get Bradford...Makes more sense? The idea that the Skins would sign off on a trade for McNabb with no guarantee they could complete the trade to the Rams makes them sound dumber than dirt.

[Darth Tater]

First thing you MUST do to rebuild is clear out as much loseritas as possible. Given limited resources to bring in young guys, the external environment in the NFL and the need to create a positive platform for rookie development, the BEST course of action was to sign those guys.

[PeterMP]

You mentioned three players...three players out of 35 players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here that made the 53 man roster (it might actually be more).

Yet he inherited 27 players like that...twenty-stinkin-seven.

Again, as I (and even you) said earlier, every single team has some players on it that won't be in the league but a few years, for differing reasons. But if half of your roster is made up OF those types of players, something is horrendously wrong.

Something was horrendously wrong with the Skins' roster when Shanahan took over. I don't think anyone, anywhere, can intelligently deny that. Bringing in LJ and Galloway does not EVEN begin to negate that.
Your missing the point. I said they were a bad/old team already.

AND I have been pointing out this would be an issue for YEARS:

http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-308516.html
"Betts and Rock are good players, but on this team they aren't a dynamic enough player for the team to go all the way (or even very far).

In that sense, it makes sense to see if you can AT LEAST find a younger version of them long term (giving the possiblity that they player might not be as good this year) and MAYBE you'll get lucky and find a player that really is a difference maker.

Having Portis, Betts, and Rock makes sense on a team that really thinks they can challenge for a SuperBowl makes some sense. It gives you some real flexibility in case of injury. On this team, not so much, and Portis wasn't going anywhere due to his contract."

(From 2009)

http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-220147.html

"Cut them both (Thrash and Caldwell and Lloyd to if you can make the cap room fit), and go get some young guys off of some other teams practice squad. See if you can't find a young guy who will be able to contribute to a championship in 3-5 years because they ain't go this year or next and that will certainly be the end for them."

(From 2007)


http://www.extremeskins.com/archive/index.php/t-282835.html
"How do I feel?

About the same as I do about the prospect of Phillip Daniels, Renaldo Wynn or Marcus Washington coming back.

Disgusted.

We should be trying to get younger and not continue to try and build this team from season to season.

We're not winning the Super Bowl next year. Hell even if we were a contender, Daniels, Wynn, Washington or Alexander are not going to be be a big part of putting us "over the top". They're just filler/a stopgap.

Washington I can at least buy is young/good enough and has enough left in the tank that if you play him a moderate amount of time can still have an impact.

The rest of them are the kind of move that makes sense if you are a SB caliber team, which this team isn't.

This team would be much better to take a flier on a young guy and see if he works out."

(From 2009)

What some of us in this thread are saying is the old organization derseved an F for bringing in and developing young players. Based on BOTH of Shanhans years here combined, he's at maybe a C.

We'd like to see somebody we could give a higher grade to.

**EDIT**
I don't even mind Fletcher. Highly contributing/high character vets like Fletcher are fine with me. It is when the guy is 2nd and 3rd string that it doesn't make sense to me (e.g. Sellers, Stallworth, etc.) in terms of the roster spot.

(Though, I don't know if I'd resign Fletcher. It would have to be a very reasonable contract.)


---------- Post added December-20th-2011 at 06:08 PM ----------


Makes more sense? The idea that the Skins would sign off on a trade for McNabb with no guarantee they could complete the trade to the Rams makes them sound dumber than dirt.

Seriously, if that is your objective, then you carry out a 3 way trade.

[NLC1054]

Okay, I'm in a bad mood, so if I fly off the handle at any point during this post, I apologize. Bad day.

In regard to 2010, no one can honestly say that Mike did not make mistakes. The McNabb trade, in hindsight, was a mistake. (I maintain that given the other options available, at the time, the McNabb trade was justified.) I will also admit that one of Mike's mistakes in his first season may have been thinking that he had a better football team than he actually did. While that 4-12 roster was bunk and most of us knew it was bunk, perhaps Mike thought he'd be able to get more out of the team than he was actually able to.

Free agency limited his ability to replenish his football team in any meaningful way. With a switch to a new offense and a new defense, I think Mike went about signing as many bodies as possible to fill the holes we had.

The following is my position on the free agents signings we made and why they were on the field. I have tried my hardest to base these things in fact and not in opinion, trying to mold an answer around information available. This is not meant as a way to "stretch" and defend Mike's every move, because Mike is not perfect, and his every move has no been perfect.

Mistake number one was trusting Albert Haynesworth to come in and be a pro after they gave him that bonus. If you want to know why Ma'ake and Anthony Bryant were on the field, that can be attributed to the fact that Fat Al didn't want to play nose...or defensive end...or on running downs...or in the base defense...or in nickle run downs...basically he just wanted to rush the passer, and Mike thought he'd be able to play nose and Fat Albert didn't and that's that. Ma'ake and Bryant were depth signings, based on Mike and Haz thinking Albert would come in and play ball. Albert didn't want to play ball. That left us in a situation where we had to play Ma'ake and Anthony Bryant.

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson. I think he thought LJ fit our scheme and maybe had something left in the tank, but of all the moves from that first offseason, I think LJ making the opening day roster is the most questionable. (At least Parker didn't make it that far.) Maybe it was born of not trusting Ryan Torain to stay healthy for an entire season and not trusting K-Wil to be the number two back.

At wide receiver, Mike cut Antwaan Randle El and Marko Mitchell. Here, I think the signings of Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams were meant to fill those holes, because Mike looked at Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly and expected them to be able to stand up next to Santana Moss and become the next guys. Once again, Mike overestimated 1.) Malcolm's ability to stay healthy and 2.) Devin's inability to not be a prick. Two more guys that, for all intents and purposes, should've been quality depth at best, thrust up the depth chart. Kelly got hurt, like, the first week of camp. Devin Thomas' bad attitude, crappy route running and even worse work ethic screwed him over.

That pushes Galloway and Roydell up on the depth chart. Now, Armstrong was running with the number ones all training camp long, and I will admit that I do question Mike making Galloway the starter opposite Moss, especially considering Galloway had zero playing time in preseason. But I'm pretty sure that Armstrong and Galloway split snap at the "number 2" position in those first few weeks, before Armstrong became the starter versus the Colts. Terrence Austin was rawer than cookie dough ice cream, and shoving him up the depth chart for the sake of having him play would've been a mistake as well.

Mike's philosophy when it comes to young players isn't difficult to understand. He values competition tremendously, which is why he does go out and sign those vets. Competition for spots make a football team better in the long run.

Young players have to EARN everything they get. Anyone else remember Devin Thomas whining about how he wasn't getting more playing time, right before the trade deadline? He couldn't get the playbook down, ran bad routes, didn't go full speed in practice or put in the time in the film room. Devin Thomas never earned playing time. He was a second round pick who thought where he was drafted dictated how much he should play.

The perfect example of what happened this year is Leonard Hankerson. Hankerson was inconsistent in preseason and in training camp. They obviously liked him and they couldn't let him go or send him to the practice squad, so they put him on the active roster be deactivated him. And we all howled.

But Hank did everything the right way. He put in the extra time after practice to get the playbook down. He hung out in the film room. He played on the scout team and he didn't kvetch about it, just understood he had to keep working. And lo and behold, the coaches started to like what they saw from Hank. Wherein it got to the point that in practice, it was hard for our defense to cover here one on one. So he gets activated and begins to practice with the number ones, and he's even harder to cover. To the point where once Armstrong and Austin proved ineffective, Hank started...and Hank was good. And we cut Stallworth to boot, and only bought him back when Hank got hurt.

Stallworth, who was inactive for four games in the first half off the season, to give Niles Paul and Terrence Austin and Armstrong the opportunity to prove themselves.

And I understand that doesn't jive well with some people. Some people would rather shove all the young guys out there and get them experience and let them have growing pains out there on the field. But...I hate to keep bringing up the Bucs, but I think it's important to show it here.

The Bucs are doing what some advocated we should do. In the offseason, they chose not to resign guys like Barrett Ruud and Cadillac Williams. They didn't sign any veteran wide receivers, running backs, lineman, no veteran back up QB, no veteran linebackers, only claimed our sloppy thirds on their d-line after the Pats cut them (and isn't he just a great lockerroom person for the young guys). They decided not to cut any checks to any veterans.

The "Youngry" Bucs are currently the most penalized team in the league. None of the Bucaneers young, inexperienced wide receivers are getting open, and the only one who proved he could get open consistently last year (Mike Williams) is getting double covered because the Bucs have no other receiving threats, besides maybe Kellen Winslow. LeGarrette Blount has fumbled 5 times and apparently can't pass protect, and the guys they have behind him aren't nearly as talented. Their young secondary is getting torched, and their young d-line (that featured 1st and 2nd round picks at the start of the season, before Gerald McCoy got hurt) can't stop the run. The o-line is struggling, and Josh Freeman appears to be regressing.

The Bucs training camp, from all reports, was incredible lax. Their wasn't a lot of active competition, and thing were very laid back. Probably too lazy. The worse thing that can happen to young players is that "We got this" sense, but that's pretty much all Raheem Moore and the coaching staff (and the front office) preached. We got this. We don't need more than this. Well, they did need more.

(That "We got this" mentality is half the reason Robert Henson and Anthony Bryant aren't here anymore).

That's not to say that if the Bucs had a bunch of veterans they'd be better off. But it's one case of "get rid of all the vets and go super young" not being the great thing. Raheem Moore is probably going to get canned after this. That lack of competition hurt them, and the lack of solid, reliable players you can always count on to be in the right place hurt them. Add in a few key injuries, and you've got the Bucs having a crummy season after being on the cusp of a playoff berth.

Their is a way to have a young team with key veterans in some spots to help you on the way. The Steelers and Ravens are in that in between place now.

[Oldfan]

First thing you MUST do to rebuild is clear out as much loseritas as possible. Given limited resources to bring in young guys, the external environment in the NFL and the need to create a positive platform for rookie development, the BEST course of action was to sign those guys."Positive platform for rookie development?" When I read vague phrases like that, I assume the writer is shoveling ****.

[chipwhich]

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson. I think he thought LJ fit our scheme and maybe had something left in the tank, but of all the moves from that first offseason, I think LJ making the opening day roster is the most questionable. (At least Parker didn't make it that far.) Maybe it was born of not trusting Ryan Torain to stay healthy for an entire season and not trusting K-Wil to be the number two back.


I'll tell you what he saw. He saw fast willie parker and larry johnson eating our defenses lunch in practice. He thought they could still play. After all, they ran through our swiss cheese defensive line at practice at will.

It took a few games for Shanny to realize the RB's sucked, and it was our defensive that made them look good.

[MrJL]

I don't think Parker made the team. Williams beat him out for the third spot.

None of the vets we signed cost a young player a job unless you think there's a slew of undrafteds that would have filled their roles.

[MrJL]

I don't think Parker made the team. Williams beat him out for the third spot.

None of the vets we signed cost a young player a job unless you think there's a slew of undrafteds that would have filled their roles.

[Oldfan]

NLC ~ In regard to 2010, no one can honestly say that Mike did not make mistakes. The McNabb trade, in hindsight, was a mistake. (I maintain that given the other options available, at the time, the McNabb trade was justified.)

We disagree on this. The trade never made sense. In two threads authored when the trade went down, I explained why McNabb was misfit for any offense other than the big play offense Andy Reid created for him. OCs don't create schemes for QBs who are inconsistent on short and medium range throws.

My guess is that Mike hoped to remodel the mechanics of a 34 year old QB. One report described Kyle trying to teach Donovan to throw on rhythm. That's like the first week of school for a WCO QB.


I will also admit that one of Mike's mistakes in his first season may have been thinking that he had a better football team than he actually did. While that 4-12 roster was bunk and most of us knew it was bunk, perhaps Mike thought he'd be able to get more out of the team than he was actually able to.

Mike probably over-estimated himself. The ego will do that to you.


Free agency limited his ability to replenish his football team in any meaningful way. With a switch to a new offense and a new defense, I think Mike went about signing as many bodies as possible to fill the holes we had.

He could have traded the players rendered useless for the best draft pick available. Playing them out of position made no sense.


The following is my position on the free agents signings we made and why they were on the field. I have tried my hardest to base these things in fact and not in opinion, trying to mold an answer around information available. This is not meant as a way to "stretch" and defend Mike's every move, because Mike is not perfect, and his every move has no been perfect.

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson.

There were about a dozen vets on the roster with no future value. They were strictly "maybe they have something left" moves.


Mike's philosophy when it comes to young players isn't difficult to understand. He values competition tremendously, which is why he does go out and sign those vets. Competition for spots make a football team better in the long run.

That's as good an excuse for signing over-the-hill vets as any. But, no... the number one job for a rebuilding team is to find new talent. You need the open roster slots and you need the snaps available to bring them in and try them out.


Stallworth, who was inactive for four games in the first half off the season, to give Niles Paul and Terrence Austin and Armstrong the opportunity to prove themselves.

Stallworth has little value for a contending team and no value for a rebuilding team.


And I understand that doesn't jive well with some people. Some people would rather shove all the young guys out there and get them experience and let them have growing pains out there on the field. But...I hate to keep bringing up the Bucs, but I think it's important to show it here.

Last year, the Bucs had five players over 30. This year, they have two. Is it your position that the absence of those three over-the-hill players, and the lack of their "veteran presence" or "mentorship," caused the Bucs season to go south?

[DieselPwr44]

Curious...

Oldfan, is it your assertion that the idea of veteran presence on a young team, to mentor, is bunk ?

[NLC1054]

Last year, the Bucs had five players over 30. This year, they have two. Is it your position that the absence of those three over-the-hill players, and the lack of their "veteran presence" or "mentorship," caused the Bucs season to go south?

I'm saying the Bucs overachieved with an easier schedule last season. This season they had money in the bank and could've afforded to bring in some smart free agent choices that would not have hurt their youth movement and instead decided not to, and now their super young team is struggling. The vets they do have, have only been the league for three years, and when one of those guys goes down, they don't have significant and developed depth behind him, with no veterans to even back-up the young guys.

I guess my overall point is that I reject the idea that there is only one way to rebuild a football team, and that's to ****can every veteran you have and put all the young guys on the field. Having someone like London Fletcher has not hurt the team, having Mike Sellers has not hurt the team, having the veterans we do has not adversely affected the team.

If you count the guys on injured reserve, we have 47 players under the age of thirty out of 63. So there's 16 guys here 30 or over. 37 of those young players have been added in the past two seasons Mike's been here. So I see no use kvetching everytime he signs a vet. The rebuild is real and tangible, and there's more than one way to do it.

I understand you feel the best way to become a Super Bowl team would be to acquire as many young bodies as possible and play them as soon as possible for as many snaps as possible...but it's fairly obvious that you and Mike have radically different philosophies.

[PeterMP]

I'm saying the Bucs overachieved with an easier schedule last season. This season they had money in the bank and could've afforded to bring in some smart free agent choices that would not have hurt their youth movement and instead decided not to, and now their super young team is struggling. The vets they do have, have only been the league for three years, and when one of those guys goes down, they don't have significant and developed depth behind him, with no veterans to even back-up the young guys.

I guess my overall point is that I reject the idea that there is only one way to rebuild a football team, and that's to ****can every veteran you have and put all the young guys on the field. Having someone like London Fletcher has not hurt the team, having Mike Sellers has not hurt the team, having the veterans we do has not adversely affected the team.

If you count the guys on injured reserve, we have 47 players under the age of thirty out of 63. So there's 16 guys here 30 or over. 37 of those young players have been added in the past two seasons Mike's been here. So I see no use kvetching everytime he signs a vet. The rebuild is real and tangible, and there's more than one way to do it.

I understand you feel the best way to become a Super Bowl team would be to acquire as many young bodies as possible and play them as soon as possible for as many snaps as possible...but it's fairly obvious that you and Mike have radically different philosophies.
I don't see anybody arguing we should cut Moss. I don't actually see anybody arguing we should but Stallworth AND Gaffney (though I guess that might be an argument that OldFan might make, I've never seen him make it).

The argument in 2007 wasn't that they should cut Moss, ARE, Thrash, and Caldwell. It was that the bottom 2, Thrash and Caldwell should be cut.

You're arguing against a position that you rarely see expressed and haven't seen in this thread.

Nobody is kvetching about every vet he signs. People are kvetching about the vets that he signs that are clearly at or near the end of the line, and don't contribute much and that he then keeps despite the fact that it is clear to most that they are not contributing much and close to the end of their rope.

Or those that he gives up pretty valuable draft picks to get.

Nobody has mentioned Cofield and the like.

[skinny21]

I don't see anybody arguing we should cut Moss. I don't actually see anybody arguing we should but Stallworth AND Gaffney (though I guess that might be an argument that OldFan might make, I've never seen him make it).

The argument in 2007 wasn't that they should cut Moss, ARE, Thrash, and Caldwell. It was that the bottom 2, Thrash and Caldwell should be cut.

You're arguing against a position that you rarely see expressed and haven't seen in this thread.

Nobody is kvetching about every vet he signs. People are kvetching about the vets that he signs that are clearly at or near the end of the line, and don't contribute much and that he then keeps despite the fact that it is clear to most that they are not contributing much and close to the end of their rope.

Or those that he gives up pretty valuable draft picks to get.

I've been pretty happy with all the roster moves. Brown was moderate risk with potential for high reward, and McNabb I'd say was high risk with the possibility of high reward (many disagree here and I understand the reservations). Then the Hightower/Carriker/Gaffney trades were all pretty low risk affairs.

Bringing in vets in the offseason is fine by me as they push the youth and don't cost us anything.

The headscratchers as I see it are things like playing Stallworth now that we're out of contention and not having a developmental QB on the roster.

Overall, I think we see a very legitimate roster being assembled and the forecast is pretty sunny for the forseeable future.


PeterMP - good call on Cofield. Read an article about him being a large part of why Fletcher's tackle total is much higher this year over last. Probably part of why the safeties had so many tackles last year - the line struggled keeping the backers clean.

Another player is Wilson. Many thought he was pretty bad after the first few games (so was our run D). I think more experience playing in the new system (and with new teammates) has made a huge difference. We're playing good ball against good teams, definitely encouraging.

[Bang]

I'll tell you what he saw. He saw fast willie parker and larry johnson eating our defenses lunch in practice. He thought they could still play. After all, they ran through our swiss cheese defensive line at practice at will.

It took a few games for Shanny to realize the RB's sucked, and it was our defensive that made them look good.

He also saw an oft-injured Rb in our backfield, and threw **** at the wall. Warm bodies.

Plus, as has been stated, he's pushing players for their playing time. He's bringing in competition, especially last year when practically everyone on the roster was on probation. Note how many of Zorn's roster is gone.
Last year was an audition.

~Bang

[PeterMP]

I've been pretty happy with all the roster moves. Brown was moderate risk with potential for high reward, and McNabb I'd say was high risk with the possibility of high reward (many disagree here and I understand the reservations). Then the Hightower/Carriker/Gaffney trades were all pretty low risk affairs.

Bringing in vets in the offseason is fine by me as they push the youth and don't cost us anything.

The headscratchers as I see it are things like playing Stallworth now that we're out of contention and not having a developmental QB on the roster.

Overall, I think we see a very legitimate roster being assembled and the forecast is pretty sunny for the forseeable future.


PeterMP - good call on Cofield. Read an article about him being a large part of why Fletcher's tackle total is much higher this year over last. Probably part of why the safeties had so many tackles last year - the line struggled keeping the backers clean.

Another player is Wilson. Many thought he was pretty bad after the first few games (so was our run D). I think more experience playing in the new system (and with new teammates) has made a huge difference. We're playing good ball against good teams, definitely encouraging.
I don't understand this argument about the vets pushing the young players. Can anybody explain to me how Galloway pushed the likes of Thomas, Armstrong, and Austin more than a young talented player like Victor Cruz would have?

Does anybody really believe that Young is worried that if he messes up they are going to replace him w/ a FB in his mid-30s whose best days are clearly behind him?

I'm dubious that Cofield can ever play as a proto-typical NT at a high level. On the other hand, I know that proto-typical 3-4 NTs don't grow on trees, and he might be the best way can find any time soon.

He's a reasonable age and was signed to a reasonable contract. I'm not willing to say he's the real answer at NT, but I'm not going to overly complain about his signing.

[Burgold]

I don't understand this argument about the vets pushing the young players. Can anybody explain to me how Galloway pushed the likes of Thomas, Armstrong, and Austin more than a young talented player like Victor Cruz would have?

Galloway was seen as a safe bet, a steady hand. Coaches and players could trust him to do what was expected of him in a given play. That has value. Sometimes, much more value than raw potential (see Devin Thomas), but that steady guy can and should be beaten out... it gave undrafted guys with potential an opportunity to rise up and show that they can demonstrate the same discipline, but also contribute more. That can be motivating because the younger player knows there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

When it's all young guys competing, than it's just a scrap to become the alpha dog. Of course, the mentorship, and the seeing how a ten year vet practices, studies, and acts also has a lot of value to the smart player. When the Redskins were great many reportedly tried to match the work ethic and standard of Art Monk and D Green.


Does anybody really believe that Young is worried that if he messes up they are going to replace him w/ a FB in his mid-30s whose best days are clearly behind him?



I actually thought Sellers should be cut after the preseason. I didn't think he had a place on the team, but I've read a number of articles about how Sellers has been invaluable to Young as a side line mentor and how they chat all the time about how to grow and become a better player at the position. So, Young may not be worried that Sellers would replace him, but may still benefit from his presence. Also, the team may benefit in that when Young went down, Sellers could step in and you knew you had someone that could do it and you could rely that the plays would be run correctly.

[2cents]

He also saw an oft-injured Rb in our backfield, and threw **** at the wall. Warm bodies.

Plus, as has been stated, he's pushing players for their playing time. He's bringing in competition, especially last year when practically everyone on the roster was on probation. Note how many of Zorn's roster is gone.
Last year was an audition.

~Bang

I keep trying to tell people that this year is actually year one of the rebuild, but they don't want to hear it. Last year was def an audition.

[NLC1054]

I don't understand this argument about the vets pushing the young players. Can anybody explain to me how Galloway pushed the likes of Thomas, Armstrong, and Austin more than a young talented player like Victor Cruz would have?

Does anybody really believe that Young is worried that if he messes up they are going to replace him w/ a FB in his mid-30s whose best days are clearly behind him?

The idea is that you bring a lot of bodies into camp and force them to compete for a limited number of spots. This should naturally make everyone be on their A-game, especially if the younger players see familiar faces and names. It's supposed to make you play better and push and force you to play, practice and study as a high level, because typically veterans are placed on the depth chart higher than the young guys. It's about proving and pushing a young player to become the best they can be.

The Victor Cruz argument is friggin' dumb though. For one, you never know if we offered to let Cruz come in and he chose to go to the Giants. Two, again, finding undrafted free agents who go on to start is rarer than you think. Third, Armstrong was undrafted AND practice squad fodder and STILL worked his way up to be a starter doing things the exact same way that people are saying. Banks was undrafted. Logan Paulsen was undrafted. Keiland Williams was undrafted. Hell, Paulsen made the team OVER Dennis Morris, who we actually drafted.

[chipwhich]

I am not sure why anyone would think anything other than this. Shannahan tried to win in year one with veterans. He thought he had the pieces to compete. He brought in vets to make a run for a title. He saw what a mess the team was, and blew it up and began the rebuild in year 2. All the other noise is nonsense.

He didn't bring these old guys to push the young guys, or to be a "safe bet". He built the team year one to win now. The team was a pile of dog ****. So unlike what all our other dopey "GM's" did, he blew up the pile of ****, and brought in young blood and free agents he felt could be part of his plan.

[Skinzfever2010]

I am not sure why anyone would think anything other than this. Shannahan tried to win in year one with veterans. He thought he had the pieces to compete. He brought in vets to make a run for a title. He saw what a mess the team was, and blew it up and began the rebuild in year 2. All the other noise is nonsense.

He didn't bring these old guys to push the young guys, or to be a "safe bet". He built the team year one to win now. The team was a pile of dog ****. So unlike what all our other dopey "GM's" did, he blew up the pile of ****, and brought in young blood and free agents he felt could be part of his plan.

For all we know Dan may have been convinced enough to let Shan do whatever he wanted before the lockout season and begin the actual rebuild in year two.

[HailGreen28]

Great thread, NLC. The two main posts you've made this thread have been stellar!

I think Shanny is always in "win now" mode. He's never going to tank a season. One more reason for the team to buy into his program. Not to say he doesn't value youth. But he also values consistency, professionalism, experience. SMH at some posters oblivious to what vets bring to a team.

Difference between Shanny and Vinny, is that Shanny is smart about it. Aside from a PB caliber QB coming off a great season, Shanny hasn't overpaid for anybody. He drafts well.

Most importantly, unlike Vinny and Snyder's "win now" tactics, Shanny hasn't short-changed the team, by sacrificing way too much value in our draft to bring in "over the hill" talent. Shanny does value drafting way more than previous regimes did.

The reason Shanny has "gone young" isn't because he wants a youth movement on principle. He's trying to bring in the best guys he can period. The guys Shanny inherited are getting pushed out by the guys he drafted, because the old players weren't good anymore (or didn't fit the schemes Shanny believes are the best today). I think the Shanaplan is just that simple in concept. Executing it is the hard part requiring a genius against the NFL competition (Steelers, Pats, Packers, etc.).

[PeterMP]

Bang, nobody is talking about cutting Moss or the other vetern (in the case of last year that would have been Roydell Williams (I have no problem with keeping Williams or Galloway, but not both. I have not problem with having Moss and Stallworth or Gaffney, but not all 3)). There would still be experienced vets to act as leaders.

I think w/ respect to Sellers the loss of having a good backup and the mentorship role out weighs the roster spot.

[Oldfan]

I'm saying the Bucs overachieved with an easier schedule last season. This season they had money in the bank and could've afforded to bring in some smart free agent choices that would not have hurt their youth movement and instead decided not to, and now their super young team is struggling. Here, you are trying to make an argument by analogy. You are claiming the ability to accurately assess both the complex Bucs roster situation and the complex Redskins roster situation to make your point. Those claims aren't going to float.

Let's stick to the Redskins roster.

I have been a proponent of the 100% rebuild which would have no player over 29 (QB exception) until the roster had a solid core of starters. After that, cheap FA gap fillers at any age can be added.

Good decisions increase the likelihood of a good outcome. Basic math supports my position: If, in a rebuilding mode, you fill the roster with 10 over-the-hill vets and 10 UDFAs, you have half the chance of finding a good, young player, maybe even a James Harrison, as you would if your roster had 20 UDFAs and no over-the-hill vets.

Mike Shanahan's 2011 offseason moves surprised and delighted me. I'd call it an 85% rebuilding effort. He did everything I have been calling for several years. I would have been happier without the resigning of Moss and the signings of Stallworth and Atogwe. I would have cut Sellers and my favorite player Fletcher.

Color me satisfied with the 2011 progress. I can't expect Mike to completely rid himself of his win-now bent. To do so might get him tossed out of the NFL coaches union.

So, I'm satisfied that 2011 was a decent rebuilding effort, but it's annoying to read attempts to revise history and claim that Shanny's 2010 campaign was anything but a waste of time.

In 2010, I rejected as baloney the argument that the McNabb acquisition was not a win now move because he was a winner who, single handedly, would provide the veteran leadership to "change the culture" at Redskins Park. I will reject as baloney all similar speculation about the need to keep vets. Coaches acquire and keep older vets to help them win now -- and that's the only reason to have them.

[PeterMP]

The idea is that you bring a lot of bodies into camp and force them to compete for a limited number of spots. This should naturally make everyone be on their A-game, especially if the younger players see familiar faces and names. It's supposed to make you play better and push and force you to play, practice and study as a high level, because typically veterans are placed on the depth chart higher than the young guys. It's about proving and pushing a young player to become the best they can be.

The Victor Cruz argument is friggin' dumb though. For one, you never know if we offered to let Cruz come in and he chose to go to the Giants. Two, again, finding undrafted free agents who go on to start is rarer than you think. Third, Armstrong was undrafted AND practice squad fodder and STILL worked his way up to be a starter doing things the exact same way that people are saying. Banks was undrafted. Logan Paulsen was undrafted. Keiland Williams was undrafted. Hell, Paulsen made the team OVER Dennis Morris, who we actually drafted.
Maybe we did and maybe he did, but I'll guarantee you somewhere else in the league a UDFA WR made a roster last year and is contributing this year.

So it is rare, but we had 4 guys do it last year. Maybe we could have had one more, and we'd be that much further along in a long term solution at WR.

[mr_neon]

Excellent thread and I echo every word and stated something similar in another thread. I can't stand those fans who constantly look at other teams who on the outside appeared to go from worst to first all within a year. I pointed out SF as well, because those players were already there, they just needed the right coach to make it all work. And the other team you mentioned, Detroit. My goodness, they have been rebuilding for several, several years now. It finally all came together for them and they are starting to reap the benefits, but it definitely didn't happen overnight. I personally think a team can go down the drain within a year or two, especially if that team is a team full of older players, but I think it takes twice as long to rebuild that team to elite status again. And certainly, what also makes sense is that it can take a team even longer to rebuild when the offensive philosophy changes nearly on a annual basis. I personally think if the Redskins franchise said to any new coaching staff: "The Redskins have historically won Super Bowls based on a strong running game, and a balanced passing game. We consider ourselves, our identity a run first to set up the pass offense. We are also complimented by a defense that is bend but don't break, very stingy, 4-3 defense, and that is what we are looking for within our next coaching staff", I believe our rebuild would not have lasted 20 years. Because you keep consistency with players and coaches, even if the faces change, you can plug and play with an established system.

Unfortunately for the Redskins, the franchise has decided it wants to go in a new direction, any direction really, that is "modern" and relevant that will get us back to the Super Bowl. The problem has been that the front office doesn't know what to embrace as the Redskins identity. And, neither do the fans for that matter. I'm hoping all of that ends with Mike Shanahan, and he at least establishes the identity the Redskins should embrace and keep for years to come. That is what true consistency really is. That is why it's worked in Pittsburgh all of these years - they have never really changed their philosophies drastically. And even though the Cowboys have not had great seasons since their glory years of the '90's, they have pretty much remained consistent with their offensive and defensive strategies, which has helped them to have a few more playoff appearances and teams battling for the division championship. Whatever Mike Shanahan is building here in Washington, if it is going to be successful, it is something the 'skins need to think about adopting and keeping for the long haul, even long after Mike Shanahan has left.

[Califan007]

Don't be like that Cali. Mike signed plenty of older vets last year, year 1 of a rebuild, that aren't in the NFL anymore:
You misunderstood what I was saying...and reading my post I can see how you might have lol...

I said the 2009 roster that Shanahan inherited was awful...I was told in response that it wasn't nearly as bad as I portrayed it, and even if half the roster is now out of the league that's more or less standard for most teams. I was also told that Shanahan isn't doing anything to correct that ("all he's doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" or something like that), and that in 2 years we'll be saying the same thing about this current roster.

My comment about the 35 (or more) players Shanahan has either drafted or signed since being here was ONLY about this year's roster, and while every roster has players on it who will end up out of the league soon, thinking that literally half the players we have on the roster NOW will be out of the league after next season was ridiculous. As for saying the other poster only mentioned 3 players, even counting the players you added it would only amount to 12 players. Again, Shanahan inherited 27 players like that...



But this team was never in a position for a 1 year turnaround. And anybody who expected as much was fooling himself. We'd traded away too many valuable picks and missed on too many others to have the kind of talent that Detroit or San Fran did when their new coaches started winning.
This is what I was saying lol :yes:...

[NLC1054]

Maybe we did and maybe he did, but I'll guarantee you somewhere else in the league a UDFA WR made a roster last year and is contributing this year.

So it is rare, but we had 4 guys do it last year. Maybe we could have had one more, and we'd be that much further along in a long term solution at WR.

I said it was rare, not impossible. And Armstrong lost his starting job because he can't beat press coverage or bump and run, and Logan's only starting because both our tight ends are injured.

If your point is "why didn't we bring in a bunch of undrafted free agents and have them compete", my point is we DID do that.

Again, the Cruz argument is stupid, because we don't know if he was invited here and decided to sign elsewhere. I said we added four undrafted free agent last year. Two of them (Armstrong and Bank) got more playing time and took time away from drafted players, one made the roster over a drafted player, and one got playing time due to injury.

Congrats though, guys. You've turned my thread that was about one thing (that turning around a franchise in a season or two isn't realistic or true) and turned it into another bull**** circular argument about whether or not Mike was rebuilding last season or not. Awesome.

Think what you want, I'm done arguing about the same ol' **** as always. Anyone that wants to continue the topic at hand, feel free. Anyone who doesn't, kindly kick rocks and go rain on someone else's thread.

[HailGreen28]

(snip post of greatness)

This is painfully untrue in the case of the 49ers; the problem with the 49ers has never been talent, or player acquisition. Usually, when people say "this team is more talented than their record shows", it's an excuse. In this case? Not so much.

Since 2005, 49ers have drafted 21 players who are still in the league. 17 of those players are still on their football team. The 49ers have a first round quarterback (Alex Smith, 11,964 yards, 66 touchdowns, 58 interceptions), three first round offensive linemen (Mike Iupati, Anthony Davis and Joe Staley), a first round tight end (Vernon Davis, 3,559 yards and 34 touchdowns), a first round wide receiver (Michael Crabtree, 2,034 yards, 10 touchdowns), and a first round middle linebacker (Patrick Willis, 530 solo tackles, 5 ints and 17 sacks). They've did well with their picks after the first round too; Frank Gore (3rd round, 7,468 yards rushing, 41 touchdowns rushing), NaVarro Bowman, Dashon Goldston (213 solo tackles, 21 passes defensed, 10 interceptions), Josh Morgan, Delaney Walker, Parys Harrelson (5th round, 140 solo tackles, 21.5 sacks, 4 interceptions).

And that doesn't take into account guys like Manny Lawson, Taylor Mays, Bear Pascoe, and David Baas who have done relatively well elsewhere.

Want to know the key thing about all those players I just listed? Every single one of them was drafted BEFORE Jim Harbaugh was even dreaming about coaching in San Francisco.

(snip post of greatness)

In the 49ers case, it took YEARS of consistent drafting and finally landing the perfect head coach. The turnaround is impressive, but it's ignorant to suggest that Jim Harbaugh snapped his fingers and all the sudden the 49ers were good again; they had the talent for years. They just didn't seem to have a head coach that was capable of bringing that talent out and maximizing it.

(snip post of greatness)

Enough of the "things should be better already if they don't get better soon he might be/will be/should be fired" crap.

You wanted things done the right way? Well, welcome to doing things the right way.NLC, sorry for my miniscule part in the derail earlier.

Looking back at your OP, it's kinda daunting to see the talent Harbaugh inherited at San Fran, as opposed to what little Shanahan had with coming in. Brian Orakpo, the remnants of Gibbs 2.0, and that's about it. Is five years going to be enough for Shanny to put things back together, in Washington? Whether we get a QB this draft or not?

[Oldfan]

NLC ~ Congrats though, guys. You've turned my thread that was about one thing (that turning around a franchise in a season or two isn't realistic or true) and turned it into another bull**** circular argument about whether or not Mike was rebuilding last season or not. Awesome.


You derailed your own thread, Amigo. Read your post #51 which sent us off in a different direction.


See, the thing about it is, Mike really didn't anything different than what he did this season.

First, free agency was nil because of CBA. Everything was slim pickings.

Signing the veteran players like Galloway and Roydell mirrors signing Stallworth, Gaffney and almost signing Stokley. You bring in the veterans to compete and push the young guys and build a competitive environment. What guys like Niles Paul and Leonard Hankerson did was exactly what Malcolm Kelly couldn't and Devin Thomas wouldn't do; you fight for you opportunity. You earn everything you're given. Hank wasn't quite ready to start at the beginning of the season, but when Armstrong proved ineffective, he got his shot, and came out like gang busters in the Miami game. Meanwhile, Niles Paul has carved a great niche for himself as a gunner on special teams and as run support on certain formations.

Malcolm got hurt, and Devin's attitude and work ethic sucked, so that meant guys like Galloway and Roydell Williams made the team. It wasn't so much "win now" as "frak, this is all I've got", and even so, Armstrong still overtook Galloway on the depth chart by the Colts game, and he more or less split snaps with him before that to begin with. The old running backs were all gone by week 4; we ran with Ryan Torain and Keiland Williams most of the season.

The Brown trade had to happen because we needed a right tackle. Like it's been pointed out, the free agent market was dead. Going into that season with Stephon Heyer playing right tackle wasn't an options, because...well, he's Stephon Heyer. We needed an upgrade at that position, and JB had been a Pro Bowl player in years past.

And of course, the McNabb deal. Jake Locker going back to college is probably the single move that may have made the biggest difference for the Redskins. A lot would've changed if their had been two first round quarterbacks in that draft instead of just one. But there was only one, and there was no way in hell the Rams were going to cough up the first overall pick. We needed an upgrade at the position, and Jason Campbell had worn out his welcome. The organization and Campbell both needed to move on from that relationship.

When you trade for a quarterback coming off a Pro Bowl appearance and one of his best seasons ever, one expects a certain level of play. The trade looked smart and looked like an upgrade. I don't think any of us, including Mike, expected McNabb to be half the headache he ended up being. No one could predict that. I can't blame Mike for the McNabb trade. It was a mistake, but at the time, with no first round quarterbacks outside of Bradford, no free agency, and no real options on the team, the move made sense.

And you kept the derailment going in your Post 106:



In regard to 2010, no one can honestly say that Mike did not make mistakes. The McNabb trade, in hindsight, was a mistake. (I maintain that given the other options available, at the time, the McNabb trade was justified.) I will also admit that one of Mike's mistakes in his first season may have been thinking that he had a better football team than he actually did. While that 4-12 roster was bunk and most of us knew it was bunk, perhaps Mike thought he'd be able to get more out of the team than he was actually able to.

Free agency limited his ability to replenish his football team in any meaningful way. With a switch to a new offense and a new defense, I think Mike went about signing as many bodies as possible to fill the holes we had.

The following is my position on the free agents signings we made and why they were on the field. I have tried my hardest to base these things in fact and not in opinion, trying to mold an answer around information available. This is not meant as a way to "stretch" and defend Mike's every move, because Mike is not perfect, and his every move has no been perfect.

Mistake number one was trusting Albert Haynesworth to come in and be a pro after they gave him that bonus. If you want to know why Ma'ake and Anthony Bryant were on the field, that can be attributed to the fact that Fat Al didn't want to play nose...or defensive end...or on running downs...or in the base defense...or in nickle run downs...basically he just wanted to rush the passer, and Mike thought he'd be able to play nose and Fat Albert didn't and that's that. Ma'ake and Bryant were depth signings, based on Mike and Haz thinking Albert would come in and play ball. Albert didn't want to play ball. That left us in a situation where we had to play Ma'ake and Anthony Bryant.

Your thoughts at running back are as good as mine. I don't know what Mike really saw in "Fast" Willie Parker or Larry Johnson. I think he thought LJ fit our scheme and maybe had something left in the tank, but of all the moves from that first offseason, I think LJ making the opening day roster is the most questionable. (At least Parker didn't make it that far.) Maybe it was born of not trusting Ryan Torain to stay healthy for an entire season and not trusting K-Wil to be the number two back.

At wide receiver, Mike cut Antwaan Randle El and Marko Mitchell. Here, I think the signings of Joey Galloway and Roydell Williams were meant to fill those holes, because Mike looked at Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly and expected them to be able to stand up next to Santana Moss and become the next guys. Once again, Mike overestimated 1.) Malcolm's ability to stay healthy and 2.) Devin's inability to not be a prick. Two more guys that, for all intents and purposes, should've been quality depth at best, thrust up the depth chart. Kelly got hurt, like, the first week of camp. Devin Thomas' bad attitude, crappy route running and even worse work ethic screwed him over.

That pushes Galloway and Roydell up on the depth chart. Now, Armstrong was running with the number ones all training camp long, and I will admit that I do question Mike making Galloway the starter opposite Moss, especially considering Galloway had zero playing time in preseason. But I'm pretty sure that Armstrong and Galloway split snap at the "number 2" position in those first few weeks, before Armstrong became the starter versus the Colts. Terrence Austin was rawer than cookie dough ice cream, and shoving him up the depth chart for the sake of having him play would've been a mistake as well.

[NLC1054]

You derailed your own thread, Amigo. Read your post #51 which sent us off in a different direction.

I offered my thoughts on what I thought happened in response to someone else.

Then you and PeterMP jumped down my throat about it. You accused me of cherry picking my argument in my "response thread" to LKB and said I skewed too far in the other direction when this was the FIRST TIME I MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

But allow me to pull an Oldfan and say I've grown tired of this stupid debate and would rather move on with the thread and the original topic that I posted on. If you want to start a "Mike didn't start the rebuild soon enough" thread, feel free. I'm tired of arguing about it. I've got my thoughts and you've got yours and I'm tired of wasting my time and energy arguing. I'm doing exactly what I said I shouldn't do; arguing with jerks on the internet instead of doing something better with my time.

I'm moving on. I suggest you do the same.

[Oldfan]

NLC ~ I offered my thoughts on what I thought happened in response to someone else.

Yes, of course, you are blameless in the derailment. Mursillis wrote one paragraph which began, "...Some other poster in some other thread put it best by saying you've almost got to judge Shanahan's run in two parts - 2010 and this year." So, you couldn't just let a provocative statement like that drop. It was essential that you write a five paragraph defense of Shanny's 2010 record in response. You had no choice.

And then you were attacked by forum bullies...


Then you and PeterMP jumped down my throat about it. You accused me of cherry picking my argument in my "response thread" to LKB and said I skewed too far in the other direction when this was the FIRST TIME I MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

So, we gave you no choice but to write at length about Shanny's 2010 season which served to derail your thread.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Grossman doesn't scare you?


Ha ha ha. Nicely done. L_k_b didn't actually specify either the opposing team or our own fanbase, did he?

[NLC1054]

So, I've been lucking at same other teams remarkably quick turnarounds, and there's something of an interesting trend.

The 2008 Miami Dolphins had one of the all-time great turns arouns after going 1-15 in 2007. They went 11-5, won the AFC East, then got bounced from the playoffs by the Ravens. The following season (2009), they went 7-9. Then in 2010 they went 7-9 again. And then this season happened.

The 2001 New England Patriots of course went 11-5 and won the Super Bowl. The 2002 Pats went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. (Didn't hurt them in the long run, but it's still interesting.)

The Bengals had back to back losing season in 2007 and 2008, then went 10-6 and won the division in 2009, and then the 2010 Bengals went 4-11...

[Jumbo]

Oldfan, stop breaking rule 11. Go read it. :)

[PeterMP]

NLC, sorry for my miniscule part in the derail earlier.

Looking back at your OP, it's kinda daunting to see the talent Harbaugh inherited at San Fran, as opposed to what little Shanahan had with coming in. Brian Orakpo, the remnants of Gibbs 2.0, and that's about it. Is five years going to be enough for Shanny to put things back together, in Washington? Whether we get a QB this draft or not?
The problem is that the OP is a classical post-analysis.

Of course, the 49ers have a lot of talent. They're winning. If they were on their way to 4-12, Alex Smith would still be a first round bust, Crabtree would be to slow to be an NFL WR, and Vernon Davis would be selfish and immature player that is likely to never see the light and people would be talking about Harbaugh didn't get a chance to clean the roster out with the lock out.

And if we were on our way to a division title, it would be that Shanahan was a QB genius (either having recognized Beck is an NFL starter or ressurrecting Grossman's career), that Davis is an elite TE, that Moss could still be a big play maker, etc.

That's the way it goes.

[NLC1054]

It's not post analysis. The most confusing thing about the 49ers over the last two or three seasons has been that they seemed to have so much talent but could never make it amount not much. I thought last year that they showed flashes of that, but they never put it together. Now they have.

My post isn't post-analysis. It's calling people out on this bull**** idea that you can turn things around in a year, because I've seen several people on this board argue over the course of the season that the 49ers and Lions have turned things around quickly. Fact is they've been building talented rosters longer than we have, and they have coaches who have finally found a way to best utilize that talent.

That is my point. Nothing else.

[HailGreen28]

The problem is that the OP is a classical post-analysis.

Of course, the 49ers have a lot of talent. They're winning. If they were on their way to 4-12, Alex Smith would still be a first round bust, Crabtree would be to slow to be an NFL WR, and Vernon Davis would be selfish and immature player that is likely to never see the light and people would be talking about Harbaugh didn't get a chance to clean the roster out with the lock out.

And if we were on our way to a division title, it would be that Shanahan was a QB genius (either having recognized Beck is an NFL starter or ressurrecting Grossman's career), that Davis is an elite TE, that Moss could still be a big play maker, etc.

That's the way it goes.Just so there's no misunderstanding between us, what do you mean by "classical post-analysis"?

And if I were as good as shutdown corner as Darrell Green, our secondary would be set and I'd be rich. :)
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/50332_243497914439_6142326_n.jpg
But what's the point?

NLC did say WHY he thought the Niners and Lions were good: They drafted and signed so well that their current regime inherited good players. The number of inherited players they kept, and their good record, is evidence those inherited players are good. What I'm struck by is how much roster turnover we've had in comparison, on a not so good team the past 4 years. I think Shanny has had to start from near ground zero, building the team up from scratch after the Vinny/Zorn debacle. As NLC said it takes time and patience to build a team up. Doing it the right way isn't a one-year turnaround.

[PeterMP]

It's not post analysis. The most confusing thing about the 49ers over the last two or three seasons has been that they seemed to have so much talent but could never make it amount not much. I thought last year that they showed flashes of that, but they never put it together. Now they have.

My post isn't post-analysis. It's calling people out on this bull**** idea that you can turn things around in a year, because I've seen several people on this board argue over the course of the season that the 49ers and Lions have turned things around quickly. Fact is they've been building talented rosters longer than we have, and they have coaches who have finally found a way to best utilize that talent.

That is my point. Nothing else.
Realistically, I think the turn around of both teams is directly related to the QB. Last year Stafford only played 3 games. Instead the Lions ran Shaun HIll and Drew Stanton out there. Hill had the higher passer rating at 81.2. In the 3 games he played last year, Stafford had a 91.3. This year he has a 93.8 (and it is easy to argue with the injury to Best their running game should have gone backwards).

The samething w/ the 49ers. Their offensive line isn't playing a whole bunch better (e.g. last year they gave up 36 sacks. This year they already gave up 35 (in many fewer attempts)). Their average yard/rush has gone from 4.1 to 4.2 so it doesn't look like they are running the ball any better, but their QBs 82.1 last year to 91.1.

I'll throw another team at you. From the 2002 Bengals, 25 of their players were no longer on an NFL roster in 2004.

They went from 2-14 in 2002, changed their coach, and went 8-8 in 2003. They went from one defensive master mind (LeBeau) to another (Lewis).

The 2002 the QBs were sacked 5.9% of the time (Kitna, how stated 12 of the games was at 4.8% and had a passing rating of 79.1 w/ 10.8 yards/catch), Dillon, who easily lead the team in carries rushed for over 1300 yards (4.2 yards/carry).

The next year, they didn't protect any better (the sack rate was 6.6% (so there were actually even more sacks), they didn't really do much more with the ball when caugh( 11.1 yards/catch), and they didn't really run the ball better (Rudi Johnson and Dillon split time for a total of 4.24 yards/carry (Dillon was worse and had 3.9 vs. 4.5).

Despite, this Kitna's passing rating went from 79.1 to 87.4. Kitna went from the 13th rated passer to the 7th rated passer (and Kitna was the highest rated passer on the 2002 team).

(Their defense actually didn't play a whole lot better either. In 2002 they were 32nd in points and 17th in yards, in the 2003 they were 28th in points and 28th in yards.)

The 2003 team was better partly because Kitna played more, but also because Kitna played better.

You want to quickly improve your team, find a way to quickly improve your QB. For the Lions, that was easy, they had Stafford. For the 49ers, it has been the "emergence" of Alex Smith.

For the Redskins, Shanahan has tried twice, and failed both times (really 3 times with Beck, Grossman, and McNabb).

[NLC1054]

So you're saying the talent level and the talent acquisition on that football team has little to nothing to do with it? That improved coaching can't have a positive impact on the game? The 49ers have a level of talent most teams in the NFL would kill to have. I agree, improved quarterback play is an important piece, but's it's not ALL quarterbacks all the time.

And the 9 sack game versus the Ravens skews the 49ers sack totals a bit.

[PeterMP]

So you're saying the talent level and the talent acquisition on that football team has little to nothing to do with it? That improved coaching can't have a positive impact on the game? The 49ers have a level of talent most teams in the NFL would kill to have. I agree, improved quarterback play is an important piece, but's it's not ALL quarterbacks all the time.

And the 9 sack game versus the Ravens skews the 49ers sack totals a bit.
Well QB is is part of the talent level and talent acquistion. I don't think it is very often that the talent on a team changes very much in one year in any sort of wide spread manner. I don't think you see small up grades across a team that make a big difference in one year very much. I think the position where you can have the most dramatic affect is QB.

You can improve a position or two dramatically in a year and see a large change in your record, and you see that with injuries and so you get returning/lost players (e.g. the Lions and Stafford and the Colts and Manning) that you can equate large fluctuations from one season to the next. I think there QB is the most likely to be the most significant, but certainly randomly bad/good luck in combinations of other positions can have a similar affect (e.g. losing both starting tackles for extended overlapping periods of time probably is a huge issue in most of the cases if you looked at historical data I'd guess).

I'd equate Alex Smith's improvment MOSTLY to coaching. I doubt that coaching had much to do with Stafford's injury. I'm not sure of what happened with Kitna in 2002.

[BigRedskinDaddy]

You mistake my intentions, Old Friend.

I recognize NLC as a bright poster, too bright to be wasting his time preaching to the Homer Choir. Anybody can do that and get applause.

My suggestion to him -- that he make his arguments to persuade impartial minds -- is sound advice. If we could get the majority of ES posters doing it, you wouldn't need your forum rules because everything aimed at persuading impartial minds, in addition to stronger arguments, would be positive, civil and on-topic. It's the only rule the poster would have to remember.

Whew. I'll say this for you, my friend - when you aim high, you really aim high.

As for this thread, kudos to the author for a well-written OP. I am far from the regular contributor I once was, so I am unfamiliar with you NLC -- but you appear to be well-informed, passionate, and nearly always worth reading. You've gotten out of the gate pretty fast, and made yourself a presence here in a short time. One of the rising stars of ES.

I for one look forward to reading some of your thoughts on something other than the continuing defense of the current Redskins rebuild, or the direction the team is heading. Not that I disagree with you entirely, but your tone borders on the over-zealous whenever you defend those very things. Many here who fail to share your optimstic viewpoint are not ignorant, as you seem to suggest...they just don't see what you do.

Those of us who have been around from before the glory days through the post Gibbs 1.0 catastrophes to the present day have seen what we thought was progress before, only to watch it fall apart for one reason or another. I am not one of those people. No matter what the outlook for a given season I think somehow the B & G will miraculously put it all together...but for some reason this season, this team, has me going through one of the most depressing seasons I can remember in a long time.

So if I don't share your enthusiasm, and stubbornly hold onto my hesitation about where this team is headed under the Shanahans, resist the impulse, should you have one, to dismiss me as naive, short-sighted or both -- because I am neither. I believe I am one of those Oldfan mentioned as the minority here. I have my strong beliefs, but I can be persuaded by arguments that are sound. Heck, it's the only way I ever end up right.

Occasionally.

Keep up the good work, young man. HTTR

[bedlamVR]

Those of us who have been around from before the glory days through the post Gibbs 1.0 catastrophes to the present day have seen what we thought was progress before, only to watch it fall apart for one reason or another. I am not one of those people. No matter what the outlook for a given season I think somehow the B & G will miraculously put it all together...but for some reason this season, this team, has me going through one of the most depressing seasons I can remember in a long time.

So if I don't share your enthusiasm, and stubbornly hold onto my hesitation about where this team is headed under the Shanahans, resist the impulse, should you have one, to dismiss me as naive, short-sighted or both -- because I am neither. I believe I am one of those Oldfan mentioned as the minority here. I have my strong beliefs, but I can be persuaded by arguments that are sound. Heck, it's the only way I ever end up right.

HTTR[/QUOTE]

There are some people who you just cannot change their opinion . (You can please some of the people most of the time, most of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time) they get hold of a perception and cling on to that with a death grip .

The hardest perception to get around is this one . "The we have seen this, it didn't lead to anything in the past, it never will" - the other shoe syndrome waiting for it all to go wrong.

It is a common with people with depression, i live with it every day (my wife and a very good friend) , no matter how bright things may seem because things have been so bad for so long people think it is never going to be not bad . No matter what words you use there is no changing their perception . People with depression are not stupid or ignorant they just cannot see a positive outcome for any action . I am not saying BigRedskinDaddy is suffering from depresion but I do see similarities .

Me I am an optimist and this season has been an odd one even for me . I never thought we would do much . When we dashed out to 3-1 even though we were playing well (we dominated the Giants) i thought this could not last . Grossman was playing worse and worse as the first quarter of the season went on and then Beck happened and we could not do anything in the running game the injuries rained down every time there a glimmer it got snuffed out - but that is not the worst times I can remember as a skins fan . You could see the team was still holding together they were not smiling and laughing on the sidelines as they did with Spurrier and Zorn, the coaches looked frustrated but not lost .

But in the last 4 - 5 games I can see the pieces coming together I could be clutching at straws but to me it is better to see the positive than dwell on the negative . I can see there are massive holes in the roster but I can also see the slightly bigger picture - just how bad that 2009 roster was - how it was a mixture of the great but old players and then essentially depth . The only position you could say we were set was TE . I can see how much of a cluster**** the NFL has been with the lack of a CBA over the last two seasons that has limited what could be achieved in free agency and I struggle to see what could have been done to be better . If someone wants to point that out then fantastic .

This thread though was started to debunk a commonly held belief we should be further along because teams get turned around all the time in 12 months with no trouble at all . And it does . I have not seen anyone put up a convincing argument against the op . Rebuilding takes time no matter where you are .

[Lavarleap56]

Love the thread and the thoughts behind it. Rebuilding a organization takes time and is much more difficult than rebuilding a football team.

[Oldfan]

It's useful to look at how other teams became successful, but I really don't see the point in comparing one team to another on how long it takes to rebuild.

How long it takes to rebuild a team's roster obviously depends partly on where one has to begin. A team that has the talent and only needs a coach, like the 49ers seem to be, doesn't need to be rebuilt. Millen tried to rebuild the Lions, but only made matters worse. The Lions rebuild only began with Mayhew and Schwartz. They inherited a roster worse than the one Mike inherited in 2010.

If I thought it would serve a good purpose, I could list teams that made powerful upward roster moves in a year. All I would have to do is look for the teams that had all-time great drafts. So, luck and skill in drafting play significant roles in turnaround speed.

---------- Post added December-22nd-2011 at 07:27 AM ----------


bedlam ~ It is a common with people with depression, i live with it every day (my wife and a very good friend)...Maybe you're a carrier.:)

[NLC1054]

You compare this team to others that were in the same situation because there are follow-able templates to success in the league. Even Mike visited teams like the Patriots and the Steelers in his year off to see how he can replicate some of their successes. And since these are the teams most often bought up as reasons why we should be farther along than we are in OUR rebuilding process, I wanted to prove that, no, it's not true that these teams turned around in a year, but had several years of consistent drafting and a solid front office before they turned around and became what they currently are.

[Oldfan]

You compare this team to others that were in the same situation because there are follow-able templates to success in the league. Even Mike visited teams like the Patriots and the Steelers in his year off to see how he can replicate some of their successes. And since these are the teams most often bought up as reasons why we should be farther along than we are in OUR rebuilding process, I wanted to prove that, no, it's not true that these teams turned around in a year, but had several years of consistent drafting and a solid front office before they turned around and became what they currently are.I don't know who made it, you didn't quote anyone, but the argument that the Lions and 49ers turned it around in a year, therefore the Skins should be able to turn it around in a year, is a stupid one on its face. We have no disagreement on that point, but, in the quoted paragraph, I think you are confusing what ought to be kept distinct factors:

1. How long should a rebuild take?

I think this is a dumb question to ask because we would have to have the evidence of several successful rebuilds of teams starting in identical situations to find an average time. That evidence doesn't exist.

2. What methods should a team that needs to rebuild its roster use?

This is a valid question and one which has been the topic of other discussions and debate in this forum.

3. What methods do successful franchises use to stay on top?

The Patriots and the Steelers, which you mentioned in the quoted paragraph, could provide evidence to answer this question.

You said these teams are in the same situation as the Skins, but they aren't. Neither team has been involved in a rebuild for many years. Belichik inherited a .500 team in 2000. He didn't have to rebuild a roster. And, after the first 33 dismal years of their existence, the Steelers and the Rooneys got the NFL thing pretty well figured out.

[NLC1054]

Nowhere did I say "the Patriots and Steelers are rebuilding like us and Mike is trying to do things like they did" or that they're in the same situation.

You know what? I give up.

You're right Oldfan. You're right. Whatever. I fall to your great debating skills, sir. I'm done.

[Oldfan]

NLC ~ Nowhere did I say "the Patriots and Steelers are rebuilding like us and Mike is trying to do things like they did" or that they're in the same situation.

Quote me please. Where did I claim that you said that the Patriots and Steelers are rebuilding like us?"

You didn't say that. However you did say that they WERE in the same situation. Did you not mean that the Patriots and Steelers were at one time in a rebuild situation?

Here are your exact words:


You compare this team to others that were in the same situation because there are follow-able templates to success in the league. Even Mike visited teams like the Patriots and the Steelers in his year off to see how he can replicate some of their successes. And since these are the teams most often bought up as reasons why we should be farther along than we are in OUR rebuilding process...

Are you not accustomed to taking responsibility for your actions? If we have a misunderstanding here, must it be my fault because you were perfectly clear? And, if your thread was derailed, it must be the fault of others even though you were the originator and moving force for the derailment?

[NLC1054]

You're right, Oldfan. Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about, sir. You win.

I wasn't talking about the Pats and the Steelers in that particular quote. I meant the Lions and 49ers.

But like I said, you win. Clearly I can't doubt you, and my attempts to persuade I'm right have failed miserably, so...yeah.

[Jumbo]

This is a great thread. Period. That's fair statement in a fair, realistic, context short of the most anal parsing or ego posturing.

I have been receiving a number of PM from different respected posters on it. For now, I suggest anyone having issues with any particular poster in this thread, remember you can choose to simply ignore them. Skip reading their posts. When I have more time I will address certain matters more thoroughly, and with some folks in PM.

For those asking in reference to a couple of participants (arguing different views), this is not a situation where I want to forbid someone from continuing to post in here who is talking football, or that I feel it's right to ban anyone for derailing (yet) or any rule violations (yet).

[Oldfan]

NLC ~ I wasn't talking about the Pats and the Steelers in that particular quote. I meant the Lions and 49ers.

Ah, okay. Now I see what happened. That makes more sense now. You see, I didn't realize that this line about the Patriots and Steelers...


Even Mike visited teams like the Patriots and the Steelers in his year off to see how he can replicate some of their successes.

...was just an unrelated thought that occured to you while in the middle of writing a paragraph about the Lions and 49ers who were not mentioned by name. In fact the line about the Patriots and Steelers has nothing to do with the Skins rebuilding process at all, does it?

[BigRedskinDaddy]

This is a great thread.

It is.


For those asking in reference to a couple of participants (arguing different views), this is not a situation where I want to forbid someone from continuing to post in here who is talking football, or that I feel it's right to ban anyone for derailing (yet) or any rule violations (yet).

Hmm. You know what this calls for?
<holds arms wide>
Everybody bring it in, group hug all around.
Feel it. Feel the love.
Don't fight it, just go with it.

[SF49erFaithful]

Do you have a link about McCarthy wanting Rodgers over Smith? Pretty sure that is an unfounded statement, and probably untrue.