(March, 2011) Hey, Mike. You're Losing Me, Man.

[stevemcqueen1]

this isn't true at all....you don't think Parcels started a rebuild on the Dolphins or Belichek on the Patriots. How about Holmgrem?

Holmgren rebuilt the Seahawks as their HC/GM but he's a GM now, not a coach. Ditto for Parcells and the Dolphins, who BTW, aren't rebuilt and are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck pick anyway. Parcells actually did hire a first time HC and first time GM for the Dolphins, the problem is neither of them are very good. And Parcells ****ed up his rebuild by passing on a chance at a franchise QB when he had one.

Your GM doesn't have to be a new blood to rebuild because Scott Pioli is killing it in KC right now. But I think your HC typically does because they need to totally defer to the GM on personnel matters. Seasoned coaches command more say and having a headcoach in charge of personnel doesn't work.

As for Bill Belicheck, he's not really a retread in the same way MS is. He only coached the Browns for four seasons and didn't make his name with that organization before he became the coach of the Patriots. He's a Patriot. MS is a repurposed Denver Bronco, i.e. retread.

In my opinion Mike and Bruce are currently rebuilding the redskins. Turnover of our roster in the last year and several months has been significant. The Donovan McNabb move doesn't go inline with a full rebuild, but pretty much everything else they've done has.

Our roster got older last season under this new regime. That's not symptomatic of an actual rebuild. The young turnover we're generating is mostly end of the roster types rather than excellent young drafted starters, and we still don't have a sensible plan at QB. If this is us rebuilding then it's going to take a long time to complete because we're still relying on older players (FAs and UDFAS) to fill most of our new positions. The FA moves we make now won't make it through the development of a drafted QB in 2012 or later.

What TB, KC, Detroit, St. Louis, and SF are doing is a true rebuild and that's what I want us to do when I say we need to rebuild.

[Gator Bait]

Holmgren rebuilt the Seahawks as their HC/GM but he's a GM now, not a coach.

Holmgren was the GM and the coach of the Seahawks....as you pointed out. So him being the GM of Cleveland (and very soon HC ...many believe) would make him a re-tread

Ditto for Parcells and the Dolphins, who BTW, aren't rebuilt and are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck pick anyway.

Parcells was also a GM/Coach on his former teams and brought in a ton of new players to the Dolphins. They were totally in rebuilding mode....it just didn't work. And you saying they are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck is opinion...not fact. I for one don't think the Dolphins will be terrible....I see them more as a 7-9 team

Your GM doesn't have to be a new blood to rebuild because Scott Pioli is killing it in KC right now.

didn't you say you couldn't have a GM retread in the other post?

But I think your HC typically does because they need to totally defer to the GM on personnel matters. Seasoned coaches command more say and having a headcoach in charge of personnel doesn't work.

Bill Belicheck's 3 super bowl rings would beg to differ....and yes, I do realize Pioli was there as a "GM"....but he was more of an assistant personnel guy under Belicheck.....who has always had final say on all personnel decisions with that franchise.

As for Bill Belicheck, he's not really a retread in the same way MS is. He only coached the Browns for four seasons and didn't make his name with that organization before he became the coach of the Patriots. He's a Patriot. MS is a repurposed Denver Bronco, i.e. retread.

you seem to be changing/adding to your definition of retread as you go along.

Our roster got older last season under this new regime. That's not symptomatic of an actual rebuild. The young turnover we're generating is mostly end of the roster types rather than excellent young drafted starters, and we still don't have a sensible plan at QB. If this is us rebuilding then it's going to take a long time to complete because we're still relying on older players (FAs and UDFAS) to fill most of our new positions. The FA moves we make now won't make it through the development of a drafted QB in 2012 or later.

again...this is all your opinion..not fact. Shanahan already inherited the oldest team in the league. Besides the McNabb move, he was forced to bring in some older vet guys to implement his system. Rebuilds don't happen over night.....and I'm not arguing that he was in rebuild mode the first year....I think he thought he could win right away. But after watching the skins trade back a bunch of times and bring in 12 rookie draft picks to go along with Banks, Torain, Litch and all the others last year....we are in an obvious rebuilding mode. You don't have to bring a QB in year one of a rebuild for it to be a successful rebuild...actually probably better off not doing that.

[stevemcqueen1]

I don't get the handwringing on here. Why does the team have to do a total rebuild? I'd much prefer rebuilding in stages. Are you guys advocating cutting all the veterans? And just because we didn't draft a QB doesn't mean we are in win now mode. It just means that we liked the options we have on the roster more than what was available in the draft.

Because it's the surest way to achieve sustained contention.

You can't enter into a true rebuild until you either draft a QB with the plan of him being your long term starter, or you trade for/sign a young QB (~26 or less) with the plan of him being your long term starter.

Your QB determines your window of contention. The highest percentage chance of winning Superbowls over time belongs to the organizations with the biggest windows of contention. The biggest windows of contention belong to the organizations who draft excellent young quarterbacks.

Ergo, teams that successfully rebuild have the best chances to win Superbowls over time. Obviously your attempt to rebuild will fail if you either:
1.) Fail to draft/acquire a quality long term starting QB
2.) Fail to support that QB to the point where he can't succeed on the field.

I think we're wasting time acquiring a bunch of 27+ year olds to form most of the supporting cast of the roster when we don't have a QB in place. Make no mistake, that's what we've done. Projected starting roster and their ages for the 2011 season:

QB: John Beck (30) or Rex Grossman (31)
HB: Ryan Torain (25)
FB: Mike Sellers (36)
WR: Anthony Armstrong (28), Santana Moss (32) or Leonard Hankerson (23)
TE: Chris Cooley (29)
LT: Trent Williams (23)
LG: Kory Lichtensteiger (26)
OC: Casey Rabach (34) or Will Montgomery (28)
RG: Davin Joseph (28) or Montgomery or BMW (31)
RT: Jammal Brown (30) or Ryan Harris (26)

DE: Adam Carriker (27) and Jarvis Jenkins (23) or Jeremy Jarmon (24)
NT: Anthony Bryant (30)
OLB: Brian Orakpo (25) and Ryan Kerrigan (23)
ILB: London Fletcher (36) and Robert Henson (25) or Perry Riley (23)
CB: Deangelo Hall (28) and Carlos Rogers (30) or Kevin Barnes (25) or Phil Buchanon (31)
FS: O.J. Atogwe (30)
SS: LaRon Landry (27)

So on the lowest and most optimistic end of the spectrum, the average age of our starters in 2011 will be 27.2 years old.
On the highest and least optimistic end, the average age will be 28.7 years old.

My guess is that the total will be somewhere in between those two numbers. That's a fairly old roster and not a young core to be building around a 22 year old drafted QB. This core will enter into its 30's by the time our QB is ready to compete. Key pieces like LaRon, Orakpo, Carriker, Hall, Armstrong, Cooley, Torain, (Joseph and Harris if we sign them to big deals like the rumors say we will) will all be nearing or past 30 by the time we've got a QB ready to compete assuming we draft one in 2012.

This is why you have to get your QB early in your rebuild rather than waiting on him. Otherwise you're just wasting years from the careers of the rest of the roster and making your job difficult three and four years down the line by creating a necessity of rebuilding your core on the fly while drafting late.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 03:37 PM ----------

Holmgren was the GM and the coach of the Seahawks....as you pointed out. So him being the GM of Cleveland (and very soon HC ...many believe) would make him a re-tread

Holmgren is a retread HC and he stayed true to the law that retread HCs that make their name with a different organization don't win Superbowls with their new teams. The rule doesn't stand for GMs though.

Parcells was also a GM/Coach on his former teams and brought in a ton of new players to the Dolphins. They were totally in rebuilding mode....it just didn't work. And you saying they are headed for a nightmare season and Andrew Luck is opinion...not fact. I for one don't think the Dolphins will be terrible....I see them more as a 7-9 team

We'll see what happens, but a lameduck HC and QB plus a bad GM usually spells disaster. Parcells wasn't the HC though, he had a first timer, which is why the Dolphins actually attempted to rebuild IMO. That was my original point--it's hard to rebuild with a retread HC who is used to competing every season. They're too impatient to stomach a rebuild.

didn't you say you couldn't have a GM retread in the other post?

How about in order to head off a pointless semantic argument I clarify my point: It's hard to rebuild with an older head coach coming from a successful career with another organization and heavy say in personnel matters because such a coach typically lacks the patience to execute a true rebuild.

Bill Belicheck's 3 super bowl rings would beg to differ....and yes, I do realize Pioli was there as a "GM"....but he was more of an assistant personnel guy under Belicheck.....who has always had final say on all personnel decisions with that franchise.

Pioli's personnel credentials are as rock solid as they come. I think you're diminishing his importance in NE's organization. I think a clue as to Pioli's importance for that organization was how much worse their drafts became once he left and how well Kansas City is currently drafting.

you seem to be changing/adding to your definition of retread as you go along.

Here lets define it: A retread is a coach or GM who makes their mark on the league with one team, gets fired/leaves and gets hired by another team. MS is a retread for us. John Fox is a retread for Denver. Bill Parcells was a retread for Dallas. Bill Belichek was not a retread for New England. He was an unproven HC before he got to NE.

again...this is all your opinion..not fact. Shanahan already inherited the oldest team in the league. Besides the McNabb move, he was forced to bring in some older vet guys to implement his system. Rebuilds don't happen over night.....and I'm not arguing that he was in rebuild mode the first year....I think he thought he could win right away. But after watching the skins trade back a bunch of times and bring in 12 rookie draft picks to go along with Banks, Torain, Litch and all the others last year....we are in an obvious rebuilding mode. You don't have to bring a QB in year one of a rebuild for it to be a successful rebuild...actually probably better off not doing that.

Shanahan inherited one of the oldest teams in the league and proceeded to make it older. That's not what a coach executing a plan to rebuild does.

We're not rebuilding, I think we're still attempting to win now because, once again, we're going to have to rely heavily on FA and trades for veterans to find starters and the average age of our starters is high.

The young talent we're adding are end of the roster types who, if they make the team, will end up replacing the other young talent we've got on the team (also end of the roster types).

The only significant every down starters we've got who'll be under 27 this season are Brian Orakpo, Trent Williams, Ryan Harris (if we sign him), Ryan Kerrigan, and whichever of Robert Henson or Perry Riley ends up winning the starting job. Maybe Hankerson joins that group, maybe he doesn't, but he's the only other one you can realistically count on to become an every down starter from the young talent we've got on the team.

That's not much of a core. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it very slowly because we've only added 4 or 5 significant long term pieces in two offseasons and we haven't begun to seriously address the QB position yet.

[GetWrecked]

Holmgren rebuilt the Seahawks as their HC/GM but he's a GM now, not a coach

He's actually the President of the Cleveland Browns. Tom Heckert's the GM and from all accounts Holmgren just oversee's everything, he's a big voice who brings stability and credibility to that team since it's been years since they've had any. But he doesn't have the final say in the draft room, but rather gives his highly valued opinion. Heckert runs the show there player personnel wise.

[The Tris]

So on the lowest and most optimistic end of the spectrum, the average age of our starters in 2011 will be 27.2 years old.
On the highest and least optimistic end, the average age will be 28.7 years old.

My guess is that the total will be somewhere in between those two numbers. That's a fairly old roster and not a young core to be building around a 22 year old drafted QB.

The average NFL roster is 27.2 years old. We have gone from the oldest roster in the NFL to an average aged roster in just over one full year (two drafts).

A few good links:

2009 Function Ages: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eans-for-2010/

2010 Age changes: http://www.csnwashington.com/12/15/1...36&feedID=6355

[Skinsinparadise]

As for the posts about us not rebuilding, based on the dates of the posts am assuming they are new ones. But yeah to take out of this draft that they are going for the quick short term fix to me -- wow!

IMO it would imply when he kept on trading down and adding all those late round picks in particular -- is because we all know 5th and 7th rounders aren't development projects that you develop for the future but are instead akin to quick fix veterans. And yeah he is going the McNabb route again essentially by spending big money for another big time QB who is past his prime in Beck is further proof he is in a win now mode.

Him releasing veterans like Portis, Carter, and Dockery are further proof to wanting a veteran win now team -- if he releases Daniels next now that they have J. Jenkins -- it would be the kicker it would smack just like Jason Taylor trade. To further complicate things ignore Chris Russell's twitter comments after talking to someone in the Redskins FO post draft who said that they still have ways to go and their goal is to be like the Eagles and Patriots, getting younger and playing with more picks -- the proof is in the pudding, and yeah 12 picks is nothing and shows no inclination at all that its truly their intention.

Actually in all seriousness, I've said in some of these debates my theory is:

1. Oldfan is right that they were going for the kill short term last year
2. Oldfan is right that the way to rebuild a team long-term is to use a long term perspective and mainly don't trade picks away and use the draft
3. Oldfan is right that Qb's thrive when they have a good supporting cast -- not so much when they don't.

I thought Oldfan was wrong here (and I said this before the draft):

1. While Shanny went for the quick fix, I did feel that he got it after this season (some of his rhetoric alluded right to it) that this team has a long way to go and he would shift his approach. It's practically conventional wisdom that if you don't have the talent and are getting old, you need to do an overhaul, I don't think Shanny is a dummy where conventional wisdom that's obvious to lay people like us, escapes him. Nor do i think his ego is so large that he's delusional about what he has and what he can do with this team. Been there done that last season. Yes, smart people learn from their mistakes. If your ego leads you down the wrong road where you make the same mistake twice, IMO you aren't that smart.

2. He is clearly trying get younger and rebuild, he started towards the end of last season. And he is building a supporting cast -- that maybe perfect for John Beck if he plays well this year -- or if not for the Qb of the future. I've complemented Oldfan on this thread and am sticking to it but I do predict that Oldfan will go in spin mode against Shanny because he doesn't like him as coach, and that's fair. But I do think this draft puts a monkey wrench in his theory.

3. I pointed out previously, taking a veteran or two and saying this disproves that rebuilding is going on -- pretty much shoots down ALL teams as having true rebuilds. Yeah the Rams sign guys like Fred Robbins, Lions sign veteran guys. I've not seen an absolute pristine, no veteran acquisition rebuild or if it happens its pretty rare. If you hold the Redskins to those standards they don't rebuild or for that matter does any team in the NFL.

[Gator Bait]

stevemcqueen....I'm not going to go through and quote all the things I disagree with in your response to my post....because I disagree with all of it besides the fact that Pioli is a legit GM (who learned the game from Belichek) and is doing well w/ the cheifs.

As someone else pointed out, we've gotten rid of lots of old, overpayed/over the hill players like Portis and Carter and we already brought in 12 new young guys to compete for roster spots. I don't think it is too far fetched to think that at least 7 of these guys make the 53 man roster.

DBs: anything under 30 is young for a DB, 3/4 of our DBs are under 30

Both OLB are young (Orakpo and Kerrigan)

Lots of people expect that NT from FSU to have an impact in his first season as well as Jenkins.

Receivers: 3 receivers from the draft, Armstrong, Kelly, Banks, Austin: all under 30 (which I believe to be young for receivers)

Torain, Royster, Helu, Williams: all very young

many young Olineman including Williams, Litch, Montgomery, Hurt, two guys that were on practice squad from last years draft, which will likely be competing for roster spots next year.

I'm just doing this from the top of my head..I didn't even look at our roster and ages....but I think Shanny has done an outstanding job with the turnover of our roster the past year.....we haven't even hit free agency yet, which will provide us for more opportunity to bring in some young impact players.

[Skinsinparadise]

The young talent we're adding are end of the roster types who, if they make the team, will end up replacing the other young talent we've got on the team (also end of the roster types).

The only significant every down starters we've got who'll be under 27 this season are Brian Orakpo, Trent Williams, Ryan Harris (if we sign him), Ryan Kerrigan, and whichever of Robert Henson or Perry Riley ends up winning the starting job. Maybe Hankerson joins that group, maybe he doesn't, but he's the only other one you can realistically count on to become an every down starter from the young talent we've got on the team.

That's not much of a core. If we're rebuilding, we're doing it very slowly because we've only added 4 or 5 significant long term pieces in two offseasons and we haven't begun to seriously address the QB position yet.

You are making presumptions that guys like Philip Daniels will stay and guys like Jarmon will be out the door. Maybe. But that's a big presumption and seems counter intuitive based on some of the recent moves. It's possible but its IMO at least 50/50 possible to be wrong, too. Seems like your other presumption is that it was a bad draft, and I've seen you make that point on other threads, you seem flat out angry about the picks. That's fair. But again that doesn't connote a philosophy of win now. Its just you think these guys will fail or many of them will. For me I got no clue, will see. We know that Shanny didn't make these picks because he thought they were stinkers and wouldn't make the roster or have a shot to be starting players -- especially coming from a guy that found good starters in the 4th thru 7th round especially in his last three years in Denver. To me going for the short term fix would be holding on to your 2nd rounder and picking a more marquee player than reaching down to the lower rounds.

To me this smelled like what 3 different draft geek web sites alluded to (heck even Mcshay said the same) which is we might have the worst roster in the NFL, and it badly needed an overhaul. This for me, and countless others, didn't smack of a short term fix, go for the kill this year. Chris Russell from 980 who i like and seems to be plugged in at times, flat out said on the radio and twitter that someone from their FO knows they aren't close to being a great team. Maybe he's full of crap who knows.

[stevemcqueen1]

The average NFL roster is 27.2 years old. We have gone from the oldest roster in the NFL to an average aged roster in just over one full year (two drafts).

A few good links:

2009 Function Ages: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eans-for-2010/

2010 Age changes: http://www.csnwashington.com/12/15/1...36&feedID=6355

The 5th down article is fascinating and is an interesting point I hadn't thought of.

When (if?) we finally draft and start a QB, our functional age will go down on offense.

Unfortunately, I think the evidence presented in those articles makes it clear our roster is not the product of an FO conducting a rebuild. Our tier is filled with good teams in annual contention and crappy teams going nowhere.

Most of the bad teams on the rise are all near the youngest end of the spectrum: Tampa Bay, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit.

[GetWrecked]

Most of the bad teams on the rise are all near the youngest end of the spectrum: Tampa Bay, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit.

Yep, and those teams have had years of picking at the top of rounds, not trading away countless picks for vets and signing high contract free agents to take spots of those late round draft picks. It's a proven philosophy that works. The time it takes just depends on who is running the personnel and scouting departments. Hopefully this passed draft was a changing of the guard for our organization.

[skinsfan_1215]

The 5th down article is fascinating and is an interesting point I hadn't thought of.

When (if?) we finally draft and start a QB, our functional age will go down on offense.

Unfortunately, I think the evidence presented in those articles makes it clear our roster is not the product of an FO conducting a rebuild. Our tier is filled with good teams in annual contention and crappy teams going nowhere.

Most of the bad teams on the rise are all near the youngest end of the spectrum: Tampa Bay, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit.

Well as much as we like to think we can just snap our fingers and make the roster ridiculous young for the full rebuild, realistically you can't replace everyone at once. We're trending young big time right now, and replacing guys at key positions. Next year should be the year for the QB. We'll continue to get good, young players and build the team with the QB of the future.

We are in a rebuild, just the early stages of it. Should have started last year, but Shanahan wanted to try to win. That was a mistake that he's starting to fix now.

[The Tris]

Well as much as we like to think we can just snap our fingers and make the roster ridiculous young for the full rebuild, realistically you can't replace everyone at once. We're trending young big time right now, and replacing guys at key positions. Next year should be the year for the QB. We'll continue to get good, young players and build the team with the QB of the future.

We are in a rebuild, just the early stages of it. Should have started last year, but Shanahan wanted to try to win. That was a mistake that he's starting to fix now.

Atlanta, Detroit, Tampa, KC, and St Louis all massively overhauled their roster year one. It wasn't magic, it was commitment.

Unfortunately, we have refused to commit fully to a rebuild, and wasted our first year on the McNabb fiasco, and will counter this years positive draft with a heavy dose of free agency.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 08:00 PM ----------

Though if we consider this Year One of a rebuild process, one could argue that we are following the 2009 Rams path (of those teams, the only one to not acquire a young QB to build around Year One).

So it is not a forgone conclusion that we cant have success rebuilding without a franchise passer to build around from the get go.

[stevemcqueen1]

Though if we consider this Year One of a rebuild process, one could argue that we are following the 2009 Rams path (of those teams, the only one to not acquire a young QB to build around Year One).

So it is not a forgone conclusion that we cant have success rebuilding without a franchise passer to build around from the get go.

The Rams are an interesting case. They passed on drafting a potential franchise QB in the first year of their new regime in order to take a LT but seemed to get "lucky" by being horrible and getting Bradford the next year. Passing on a franchise QB in 2009 clearly didn't entirely cripple their plans long term.

But do you think they'd have been better off taking Mark Sanchez in year one instead of Jason Smith? Let's call this the Parcells Dilemma because of the Jake Long or Matt Ryan choice he had to make in 2008.

Would the Rams be better today if they'd have gone QB at 2 in 2009 instead of LT? Just going over this real quick in my mind: if the Rams take Mark Sanchez over Smith in year one they would obviously pass over Bradford for Suh in year two.

Their top picks during this time span would ostensibly be: Mark Sanchez, James Laurinaitis, Ndamukong Suh, Rodger Saffold, Robert Quinn, and Lance Kendricks.
Their actual haul: Jason Smith, Laurinaitis, Bradford, Saffold, Quinn, Kendricks.

It's hard to say if they'd be better off while we're still so early into the Sanchez and Bradford careers. If Bradford ends up being the GOAT and Sanchez is just an ordinary QB then the answer to the dilemma is obvious. Even still, the likelihood of getting Bradford could play no part in their decision to pass on Sanchez at the time.

Both QBs were highly successful immediately in their careers. Both were day one starters, Sam Bradford won OROTY and Sanchez has taken his team to consecutive AFC championships. If nothing else, Sanchez has proven that he's a winner and QB you can contend to win your conference with. Bradford was good enough individually in year one to suggest a confident projection that he'll be a successful starting QB for the long term.

So let's call the Sanchez-Bradford question a push.

The other change is Ndamukong Suh versus Jason Smith. This one is easy. Even if Jason Smith becomes the best RT in the league, Suh could realistically go down as the best defensive tackle in league history. He was one of the greatest college defenders in the history of the game. RT is not nearly as valuable a position as 3 technique to salvage Smith's value. He hasn't been an immediate impact player like Suh and could still potentially bust. The drafting of Rodger Saffold in year two also negates the value of Smith since he's their quality LT.

On the surface, St. Louis is a far better team if they draft Mark Sanchez in year one instead of Jason Smith. It's hard not to like a defensive front with Suh, Long, Quinn, and Laurinaitis. That group is just ****ing nasty. Their loss was Detroit's gain though, and Detroit was smart enough to take their QB in year one.

I think this particular case of the Parcells Dilemma is interesting because it highlights very tangibly the massive opportunity cost you incur by passing on a potential franchise QB in the first round in favor of a higher graded player at another position. You're not just passing on the QB, you're passing on the potential to draft even better position players down the road because not having a franchise QB in development is an albatross around your organization's neck.

1.) As was the case for the Rams, they ended up getting a much lesser talent and much less valuable player in Jason Smith than Ndamukong Suh because they passed on a QB.

2.) Generally speaking, drafting a QB in the top ten is always going to be an unpalatable proposition because all highly drafted QBs carry a great deal of risk. The QB position is difficult to draft and project and every QB carries lots of flaws to create compelling reasons to doubt their chances for success. I.E., you can think of strong reasons to get gunshy on any QB prospect.

Matt Ryan was a risky and flawed prospect. Matt Stafford and Mark Sanchez were risky and flawed prospects. Sam Bradford was a risky and flawed prospect. Cam Newton, Jake Locker, and Blaine Gabbert were risky and flawed prospects.

When your scouts grade quarterbacks, you should have a threshold of comfortability you establish according to how high the QB in question's numeric overall grade is. If that prospect reaches that threshold, then you should feel fine drafting them. Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Bradford, and Gabbert would have all been within my threshold of comfort. Locker probably would have been. Ponder probably would have been. Cam Newton would definitely not have been but that's neither here nor there.

Conclusion: passing on a quality QB prospect you give a top ten--fifteen grade because he's too risky is absurd because the difference in riskiness from year to year is usually negligible.

3.) If you pass on a potential franchise QB in the first round assuming you'll get one down the road, you run the risk of never being in position to draft one again while your current regime is in place (Miami Dolphins).

Conclusion: Passing on a potential franchise QB within your accepted threshold of comfortability is always a mistake because the upside for the move is low, the opportunity cost massive, and the potential for a regime killing lack of opportunity to draft a QB is high.

If you're picking top ten in the first year of a new regime, the only good reason to not draft a highly graded QB in the first (assuming you don't already have one) is if there isn't one available.

This is why passing on Blaine Gabbert to draft Ryan Kerrigan and a bunch of backups/potential end of roster types was an enormous mistake. If Shanahan and Allen get fired, we'll probably trace their downfall back to this decision.

[Drew_Fl]

Atlanta, Detroit, Tampa, KC, and St Louis all massively overhauled their roster year one. It wasn't magic, it was commitment.

Unfortunately, we have refused to commit fully to a rebuild, and wasted our first year on the McNabb fiasco, and will counter this years positive draft with a heavy dose of free agency.

---------- Post added May-3rd-2011 at 08:00 PM ----------

Though if we consider this Year One of a rebuild process, one could argue that we are following the 2009 Rams path (of those teams, the only one to not acquire a young QB to build around Year One).

So it is not a forgone conclusion that we cant have success rebuilding without a franchise passer to build around from the get go.

None of those teams you listed were as old as we have been the last 5 years. Plus some of those teams have had multiple top 5 picks which makes it much easier to "commit" to rebuilding the roster. i think our definition of rebuild is much different than Shanahan's and frankly i'm ok with it. Everyone on this board wants to just get younger and not better just b/c it's the sexy thing to do. The key is getting younger AND better, and like skinsfan_1215 said you can't do it all in one lockout shortened offseason.

[hitmandm]

. . .

I've been a Redskins fan for 65 of my 75 years, but you're THIS close to losing me. I don't mean you personally. I mean the organization which is now in your control.

Please stop your prattle about "building the right way." You didn't do it in Denver; you didn't do it last year; and you're not likely to do it this year. Please stop treating me like I'm a dunce. If things shake out as we expect them to, there will be a double-dose of free agents on the market. There's no way in hell you're going to resist filling our roster with castoffs.

I had hoped to see the Redskins rise to the top before I die: Number One in the NFL. That's never going to happen as long as Dan Snyder owns the team. So, I'm willing to settle: If winning next season will be the team's goal every year, then let's, at the very least, have a sound plan to achieve that goal. Here are my thoughts on that:

The Fletcher Prototype: Trade draft picks for, or search free agency, for players who remind you of London Fletcher: They are smart, technically sound, productive and healthy -- and they are underrated because they played on losing teams. Pass on the Big Name free agents to stay within the salary cap.

Quarterback: Get a 27 - 30 year old, veteran QB who fits the Fletcher Prototype. Don't worry about his fit to your scheme. Get the best QB available and adapt your scheme to his skillset.

Strong Core: Eleven positions form the core: A number one WR, two OTs, a QB and a RB on offense. On a 34 defense: A number one corner, two edge rushers, a nose and a FS. Special teams: a dangerous return man. Focus hard on filling these positions.

Screw the draft: If the "future is now," then George Allen's plan is the way to go. Trade those picks for vets who fit the Fletcher Prototype. Exceptions: Find your RB and your return man in the draft.

I do like Oldfan...you have to respect a person who will post this after all of Redskin Nation has a johnson for 10 5-7 rd draft picks who will likely be cut or be gone by the time the Redskins draft and develop a young QB