Planning for a Redskins Dynasty

[Oldfan]

I'm sorry. What does this have to do with Jay Cutler being a better quarterback than Peyton Manning?

Nobody likes a smartass.

[ConnSKINS26]

I'm sorry. What does this have to do with Jay Cutler being a better quarterback than Peyton Manning?

Oldfan posts something non-controversial and thought-provoking, a great thread in my opinion, worthy of everyone's time...and you try to derail it

[gutlead74]

My biggest problem with any coordinator. They always want to be like someone else. Even if it is just as a building block that they are going to put a twist on. What happened to the creative coordinators that created their own unique schemes?

True enough, coaches are thieves no doubt. Rex Ryan is a very unique coordinator and even he is just meshing a bunch of ideas and schemes together. What makes the jets blitz package tuff on third and long type situations is Rex isn't affriad to not be gap sound. So you get three guys free to the QB and 3 blockers looking at air.
Fear I would say is the biggest factor in lack of original thinking in the NFL.

[scott.sharrer]

Sonny Jurgensen has said that Vince Lombardi was the only coach he ever had who tried to simplify the game. All the others of his era tried to complicate it. I don't think that's changed. From what I've read, Tom Moore's passing game has a smaller playbook than most NFL teams. That allows Peyton to concentrate his practice time on fewer plays and allows he and his receivers the chance to get on the same page even though most plays are called at the LOS.

that actually is true. tape an Indy game and watch the film. 95% of their pass plays have the exact same routes to them. All that changes is who runs which route.. Very basic very simple and easy to perfect

[ConnSKINS26]

Oldfan, I'll respond in greater detail once I've gotten some sleep after a late night and early morning

But I think this is a great thread, and that not only are your ideas sound at first glance, but also worth lots of discussion.

I hope the thread does not only become a rankings-fest, although that is an important part...because your philosophies, and ideas on implementing them, are very interesting, and worth careful consideration.

You seem to be getting the kind of feedback you desired so far, and I hope it continues, for the sake of all the rational-minded on ES...a thread like this is needed during a long bye week filled with...well, crap, all over the board.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

First off, thank you Oldfan for your detailed response to my request, and I don't really have much to nitpick at, but there's one thing that's interesting to me - the Jim Zorn WCO (which is really the Holmgren WCO), the Pittsburgh 3-4, and the Saunders Coryell derivative are some of the best and most consistent schemes in the NFL. Not only that, Pittsburgh never has a problem plugging in young talent, those WCO teams never skip a beat when they lose a key piece, and the ZBS has been generally effective whenever it's been implemented (even here), and those ZBS teams have usually been able to plug and play on the line. Would it lead you to believe that these coaches are exaggerating the complexity of their schemes, or are they simply finding players that can learn them quickly?

As for Haslett saying he wants to duplicate the Pittsburgh 3-4, I think such a statement is a tad misleading, in that, he may want to implement ideas based on what Pittsburgh did while he was a coach - but keep in mind he hasn't coached Pittsburgh since the late 90s, and he hasn't coached the 3-4 since the late 90s. So how can he possibly copy a scheme that must be markedly different than how it was when he coached, assuming that he is directly copying his scheme from the 90s? I think the statement "I want to copy the Pittsburgh 3-4" is (intentionally) vague, because:

1: There's no way he can know what the "Pittsburgh 3-4" is circa 2010.
2: There's little chance he would intentionally tip his hand schematically.
3: He doesn't want to explain his scheme in detail, so he tells reporters he's implementing the Pittsburgh 3-4 because he coached it a decade ago/

The panel idea is very interesting, though it seems like a radical departure from traditional NFL front office structures. At most, I think it could be implemented in a limited form that nominally retains standard NFL management structures. From there, it could be changed to something more akin to what you have in mind.

For example, you would have 5 "panel members" - the head coach, a general manager, a director of player personnel, the offensive and defensive coordinators, and 1 "facilitator", who would be "president of football operations". You could probably pull this off without firing anyone from our current staff; you would likely strip Shanahan of formal personnel selection duties, make Bruce Allen the facilitator, and add in a highly regarded "general manager" and "director of player personnel", with the mandate you proposed coming from Snyder. Even though our current management have some weaknesses, the Shanahans, as well as Allen and Haslett are quality football minds in their particular specialty, so they do not need to be replaced. You could also add more specialization by adding a "director of scouting" with a well-funded scouting department utilizing the latest, most detailed, and most accurate scouting techniques. As you said before, each member would have equal say in the process, though it may not be a "vote" per se, simply a consensus.

[scott.sharrer]

True enough, coaches are thieves no doubt. Rex Ryan is a very unique coordinator and even he is just meshing a bunch of ideas and schemes together. What makes the jets blitz package tuff on third and long type situations is Rex isn't affriad to not be gap sound. So you get three guys free to the QB and 3 blockers looking at air.
Fear I would say is the biggest factor in lack of original thinking in the NFL.

Fear is the root of failure......

Can't remember who said that but it was a quote we memorized in boot camp

[KDawg]

I agree with the draft strategy. It can't be pure need and it can't be pure BPA, that's how you wind up with a runningback every year, or a wide receiver. I think your grade on a player needs to be based on a number of factors...

1) Your Needs
2) Best Players Available
3) Work Ethic
4) Fit
5) Attitude

And those are in no particular order. The grade needs to reflect all of those things.

I also like the panel idea. But my panel would consist of four football people (who have a knowledge of math and can coach), and three non football people, including: Salary Cap Experts, Collegiate Scout, NFL Scout. The scouts would help devise a plan for the future, what's coming, possible free agents, scheme fit, etc. The owner would always be in attendance, but his input should be set aside until the actual football conversation subsides, and his role really should be signing the checks. But as someone that owns the team, they have ultimate authority, but I wouldn't want them on my panel.

Schemes? I don't think you can every have a truly unique scheme. Everything is copying something, but your scheme needs to fit your personnel. Whether you inherited the personnel and couldn't do a complete roster overhaul or you pieced the entire roster together. Schemes can change slightly on a year to year basis and the hardest part of scheme is learning the language. Keep language consistent. Change aspects of your scheme as your personnel changes. The only thing that should really define a coach is tendencies, and those tendencies should be monitored in order to avoid having too many of them.

I also like the idea you gave me a few weeks back about playcalling with the red, green, yellow system. This needs to be incorporated. Almost all scenarios should be scripted out and put onto a call sheet. What plays you're comfortable with in each situation, and someone needs to monitor your calls, as I mentioned above.

As far as your request, here's how I would rate the guys, according to the roster alphabetically as far as how important they are to the team (I've included zeroes):

Anthony Armstrong: 2.5
Brandon Banks: 4
John Beck: 0
Jamaal Brown: 2.5
Chris Cooley: 4
Fred Davis: 2
Derrick Dockery: 2
Joey Galloway: 0
Rex Grossman: 2
Stephon Heyer: 1.5
Artis Hicks: 2
Kory Lich: 2
Donovan McNabb: 3 (because of draft picks involved)
Will Montgomery: 1
Santana Moss: 2.5
Logan Paulsen: 1
Clinton Portis: 2.5
Casey Rabach: 1
Mike Sellers: 2
Chad Simpson: 0
Ryan Torain: 3
Keiland Williams: 1.5
Roydell Williams: 0
Trent Williams: 5
Darrel Young: 1

Lorenzo Alexander: 4 (multi faceted player)
Kevin Barnes: 2
HB Blades: 2
Anthony Bryant: 1.5
Philip Buchanon: 2
Adam Carricker: 2.5
Andre Carter: 1.5
Phillip Daniels: 1.5
Reed Doughty: 1.5
London Fletcher: 3 (I'd have him higher, but his age is catching up, unfortunately.)
Kedric Golston: 2.25
DeAngelo Hall: 4
92: 2.5 (halfway, because if motivated he's a 5. If he's not he's a 0.)
Vonnie Holliday: 1
Chris Horton: 1.5
Jeremey Jarmon: 1.5
Ma'ake Kemoeatu: 2
LaRon Landry: 5
Rocky McIntosh: 2.5
Kareem Moore: 1.5
Brian Orakpo: 5
Perry Riley: 2.5
Carlos Rogers: 2.5
Byron Westbrook: 1
Chris Wilson: 1

Graham Gano: 1.5
Hunter Smith: 2
Nick Sundberg: 0

[scott.sharrer]

First off, thank you Oldfan for your detailed response to my request, and I don't really have much to nitpick at, but there's one thing that's interesting to me - the Jim Zorn WCO (which is really the Holmgren WCO), the Pittsburgh 3-4, and the Saunders Coryell derivative are some of the best and most consistent schemes in the NFL. Not only that, Pittsburgh never has a problem plugging in young talent, those WCO teams never skip a beat when they lose a key piece, and the ZBS has been generally effective whenever it's been implemented (even here), and those ZBS teams have usually been able to plug and play on the line. Would it lead you to believe that these coaches are exaggerating the complexity of their schemes, or are they simply finding players that can learn them quickly?

The panel idea is very interesting, though it seems like a radical departure from traditional NFL front office structures. At most, I think it could be implemented in a limited form that nominally retains standard NFL management structures. From there, it could be changed to something more akin to what you have in mind.

For example, you would have 5 "panel members" - the head coach, a general manager, a director of player personnel, the offensive and defensive coordinators, and 1 "facilitator", who would be "president of football operations". You could probably pull this off without firing anyone from our current staff; you would likely strip Shanahan of formal personnel selection duties, make Bruce Allen the facilitator, and add in a highly regarded "general manager" and "director of player personnel", with the mandate you proposed coming from Snyder. Even though our current management have some weaknesses, the Shanahans, as well as Allen and Haslett are quality football minds in their particular specialty, so they do not need to be replaced. You could also add more specialization by adding a "director of scouting" with a well-funded scouting department utilizing the latest, most detailed, and most accurate scouting techniques. As you said before, each member would have equal say in the process, though it may not be a "vote" per se, simply a consensus.

I agree oldfan did hit it right on the head. I actually like the idea of the panel. I know from experience it is easy for one person who makes final decisions to get "tunnel vision" and either on purpose or mistakenly blow off other ideas without thought because they get fixated on their own plans/ideas. I do not necessarily think that is happening with the skins right now, but it is a normal human trait. The panel idea would prevent that and it would allow for all views on any player or decision be heard equally. I think it would really work, and would also agree with adding the director of scouting to the panel because scouting is a major part in finding the proper talent. I just don't see this every becoming a reality because another normal human trait is control

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, I'll respond in greater detail once I've gotten some sleep after a late night and early morning

But I think this is a great thread, and that not only are your ideas sound at first glance, but also worth lots of discussion.

I hope the thread does not only become a rankings-fest, although that is an important part...because your philosophies, and ideas on implementing them, are very interesting, and worth careful consideration.

You seem to be getting the kind of feedback you desired so far, and I hope it continues, for the sake of all the rational-minded on ES...a thread like this is needed during a long bye week filled with...well, crap, all over the board.

Thanks for the positive input. I'd be interested in your more specific comments when you have the time.

[scott.sharrer]

Casey Rabach: 1
Andre Carter: 1.5
Phillip Daniels: 1.5
Reed Doughty: 1.5
Vonnie Holliday: 1

I agree with most of your rankings, but I am quoting the ones above out of curiosity. Why do you rank Doughty equal or higher then the others I am quoting? At a minimum they offer mentorship to younger players. I see nothing the Doughty offers on or off the field other then a body to put on the field after the waterboy gets taken out by injury

[KDawg]

I agree with most of your rankings, but I am quoting the ones above out of curiosity. Why do you rank Doughty equal or higher then the others I am quoting? At a minimum they offer mentorship to younger players. I see nothing the Doughty offers on or off the field other then a body to put on the field after the waterboy gets taken out by injury

I'm not interested in mentorship when it comes to a team that should be in a rebuild. Andre Carter doesn't fit, at all. His leadership ability for a guy like Rak, as they play the same positions in the 3-4 here and the 4-3 here, really, is what got him a 1.5. Casey Rabach is useless. His mentorship means zilch to me. That's something the OL coach can do. Phillip Daniels is the epitome of a hard worker, but this team can go on without him on the roster, same can be said for Vonnie Holliday.

Reed Doughty only got the extra .5 added because of special teams contributions, or he'd be sitting at a 1 as well.

[scott.sharrer]

I'm not interested in mentorship when it comes to a team that should be in a rebuild. Andre Carter doesn't fit, at all. His leadership ability for a guy like Rak, as they play the same positions in the 3-4 here and the 4-3 here, really, is what got him a 1.5. Casey Rabach is useless. His mentorship means zilch to me. That's something the OL coach can do. Phillip Daniels is the epitome of a hard worker, but this team can go on without him on the roster, same can be said for Vonnie Holliday.

Reed Doughty only got the extra .5 added because of special teams contributions, or he'd be sitting at a 1 as well.

Valid points. Thanks for honest reply

[Oldfan]

First off, thank you Oldfan for your detailed response to my request...

You're Welcome. I didn't identify you in the OP because I didn't want you to share the blame if this thread bombed.

... the Jim Zorn WCO (which is really the Holmgren WCO), the Pittsburgh 3-4, and the Saunders Coryell derivative are some of the best and most consistent schemes in the NFL. Not only that, Pittsburgh never has a problem plugging in young talent, those WCO teams never skip a beat when they lose a key piece, and the ZBS has been generally effective whenever it's been implemented (even here), and those ZBS teams have usually been able to plug and play on the line. Would it lead you to believe that these coaches are exaggerating the complexity of their schemes, or are they simply finding players that can learn them quickly?

Once a complex scheme has been established, it's not going to obviously go downhill when replacing one or two players a year. However, Holmgen did have down seasons when he lost starters. As for the ZBS, it took Houston three years to get it in gear. Alex Gibbs has not been nearly as successful in stops since Denver. Zorn was here two years and never got his WCO out of first gear.

As for Haslett saying he wants to duplicate the Pittsburgh 3-4, I think such a statement is a tad misleading, in that, he may want to implement ideas based on what Pittsburgh did while he was a coach - but keep in mind he hasn't coached Pittsburgh since the late 90s, and he hasn't coached the 3-4 since the late 90s. So how can he possibly copy a scheme that must be markedly different than how it was when he coached, assuming that he is directly copying his scheme from the 90s? I think the statement "I want to copy the Pittsburgh 3-4" is (intentionally) vague, because:

1: There's no way he can know what the "Pittsburgh 3-4" is circa 2010.
2: There's little chance he would intentionally tip his hand schematically.
3: He doesn't want to explain his scheme in detail, so he tells reporters he's implementing the Pittsburgh 3-4 because he coached it a decade ago/

Haslett can look at game film of Pittsburgh's 34. He's not tipping his hand because OCs in the NFL know what the Steelers' scheme looks like.

The panel idea is very interesting, though it seems like a radical departure from traditional NFL front office structures. At most, I think it could be implemented in a limited form that nominally retains standard NFL management structures. From there, it could be changed to something more akin to what you have in mind.

It is possible to use the panel idea experimentally, in an advisory capacity, to work out the kinks before the owner is fully committed to it.

Even though our current management have some weaknesses, the Shanahans, as well as Allen and Haslett are quality football minds in their particular specialty, so they do not need to be replaced.

Allen would not qualify. I want coaching experience. I don't know if Shanahan or Haslett have the math aptitude I'd be looking for. I doubt it, frankly.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

(POST #2 of 5) THE DECISION MAKERS

...All football decisions will be made by the majority vote of a seven member expert panel of coaches on long term contracts. All members will be equal in authority. There will be no leader --no GM --no head coach. Panel members will do double-duty coaching their specialties during practices and on game day.

This idea in particular (I've shortened the quoted text) has me very intrigued. I truly believe that this would revolutionize the way teams are run. It's a board of directors. One comment though, in addition to this panel of "coaches" shouldn't there be someone who oversees the financial aspect of things (salary cap) or do you believe that issue resolves itself due to the background of the coaches in your proposal?