The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elkabong82

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

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/red...h-can-you.html

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8181

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elkabong82

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

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

---

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

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

:point2sky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8181

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

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

:point2sky

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mahons21

From what I understand that Cap penalty is essentially the same amt they front-loaded in the off year. That would have been fairly easy to predict, as he was probably told they would act as if it was a capped year and punish anyone the amt they went over it in subsequent years. I doubt they acted as if the penalties would be minor, and then docked them 36m. 75% of other teams seemed to get the memo.
No one used it nearly to the level that we did, everything was done to scale for the most part. It wasn't like the Saints used the un-capped year as much as we did, they got nothing, and we got docked 36 mil.
Now that we've got someone blaming a Mara conspiracy and another blaming Haslett, we've hit the cycle for ES in a night. A bid you gentlemen ado, maybe in the morning you'll be more sober, or I'm just giving you too much credit ;)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elkabong82

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

:)


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NLC1054

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

Makes sense.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elkabong82

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumbo

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldfan

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Collar Skins

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elkabong82

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

---

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

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to:

"The Jay Cutler Argument for sticking with MIke Shanahan ... but also the Albert Haynesworth Argument for why Mike willl never take the Skins to the Promised Land?"

Regardless, I've loved readling all the back and forth. However, I'm only going to add my 'two cents' on the first part of this argument.

1. Shanahan's developed good offenses in the past, and he seems to know now to maximize the value of the QBs under his charge.
2. Shanahan's developed good running offenses, which can help a QB last longer in the league; a good running game also takes a little of the pressure off of QBs just getting acclimated to the NFL level of play.
3. While not as quick as we'd like, Shanahan seems to be on his way to building a nice mixture of both new young players and veterans in their prime who'll provide depth and greater competition for the cast of players supporting Griffin's development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyvern

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to:

"The Jay Cutler Argument for sticking with MIke Shanahan ... but also the Albert Haynesworth Argument for why Mike willl never take the Skins to the Promised Land?"

---

The first argument is mine. The second is approximately 1/206th of my argument.

The disappointing progress is the result of too much of a win-now emphasis on a rebuilding plan. In the NFL, normal roster turnover [age and injuries] is very high, thus building a stronger roster requires a very high progress rate -- normal turnover replacement plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elkabong82

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

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

---

The funny thing is, I think that I've read that Oldfan really wants us to become a dynasty like the Patriots. Well, who was the team that went after Haynesworth and traded with us?

Sure, the cost was low, but still. The Patriots have taken a number of Raiders' like chances on malcontents and I think it has shown up in their defense over the last few years. Brady is holding that team aloft. The defense is almost Redskins' bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oldfan

The first argument is mine. The second is approximately 1/206th of my argument.

---

I disagree .. it's obviously 1/178th ;)

Burgold the Patriots were swtich to a 43, which means OF's main reason for trading Al (He didn't fit the scheme) wouldn't apply to them.