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

[Oldfan]

OK.

A couple thoughts.

First of all, you can both rebuild successfully and win a championship in the short-term without the goal of being the #1 franchise in the NFL. Additionally, you can become the #1 franchise in the NFL even if you don't get optimal results (since all you have to do is be better than other teams...not prove that you've become all that you can become). So, if you make 10% of your moves to win now and 90% of your moves to rebuild for the future, you might still become the #1 franchise in the NFL.

All of that aside, becoming that "#1 franchise in the NFL" is so vague and ambiguous, I don't believe it should be a goal. You can state that your goal is to be in contention for the next decade (rebuild) or be that #1 franchise this year (win-now), but how do you define being the #1 franchise in the NFL as you state? Is it currently the Steelers (5-year snapshot), Patriots (10-year snapshot), Packers (1-year snapshot + future potential)?

To me, a goal should be obvious when achieved. I do believe that NFL teams can put themselves in a position to compete every year and stay stocked for a long-term run. I certainly agree that any move to accomplish one may in fact prevent you from making a move to accomplish the other. But I don't agree that "mediocre" is your ceiling in fulfilling both. I think you can still out-do most of the other teams in the league if you execute your sound plans well. And, as we know, if you out-do most of the teams in the league and you're in the mix, you have a shot every season.

Think of the preseason Vegas line. My goal would be to have the Redskins be the preseason favorite to win the Super Bowl each year indefinitely because we have the best team. The best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl because luck is always a factor, but it's the most likely to win it all. It's about probability.

So, if you make 10% of your moves to win now and 90% of your moves to rebuild for the future, you might still become the #1 franchise in the NFL.

I guess so, but why not make it 100%?

[The Tris]

Don't fret to much. Remember, from all indications, we were going to trade up to draft a QB, go after a LB from UNC, or take a QB at 10.

Touche! We will see. But what would the offseason be without passionate debate of hypotheticals?

I will say I think sources differs on these rumors, and I fully believe we would have drafted quinn at 16 if available.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Think of the preseason Vegas line. My goal would be to have the Redskins be the preseason favorite to win the Super Bowl each year indefinitely because we have the best team. The best team doesn't always win the Super Bowl because luck is always a factor, but it's the most likely to win it all. It's about probability.

I understand what your goal would be. I guess I don't see any team adopting that strategy in the NFL. So, I don't know why we'd determine our team's success based on that.

I guess so, but why not make it 100%?

Simply because I think the more realistic goal that every NFL team has somewhere on its list is to win THIS Super Bowl, not the 2014 Super Bowl. So, there are always going to be moves that can be made that are more beneficial now than later if you want to accomplish that goal.

As always, I get your point. Maybe I'm too realistic to ever have that expectation of a sports team (to be the consensus pre-season favorite year in and year out). So, to me, a good mix of being a contender now while being in a good position to contend over the next several years is a good plan for me.

[Oldfan]

Ask the New York Jets if it's impossible to rebuild and win now at the same time. They seem to be doing ok.

They have been rebuilding for five years and they were 43-37 over that span.

[Bang]

I think three years has proven to be a good time table for turning a perenial losing team into a winning team. This is year 3.

If we were ever to actually commit to a rebuild, that's the time table I would give. I would certainly have far more patience for formal rebuild than what ever we are attempting to do in DC currently.


But if you are docking Schwartz for going 2-14 his first year with the kind of roster he inherited, then what the heck do you say about Mike Shanahan who did relatively better with a much less thread bare roster? What if this year is a non-winning season, and we aren't even formally rebuilding, will you be as critical of Shanahan as you are of Schwartz?

I'd say that is fair, although I am not sure I'd set the three years in stone. Obviously some teams (like Detroit) may take more time.
Frankly, the Lions have gotten better, not on track yet, but better. (Impossible to be worse, eh?) As far as I'd be concerned unless they totally tank this year, I'd consider an extension for Schwartz. I think he's a good addition to the head coaching ranks, and he might need a bit more than three years to turn that franchise around completely.

It is entirely fair, and also correct to always gage the situation a coach walks into. Sometimes a coach proves he's useless beyond a shadow of a doubt, and 3 years isn't needed to see that, ie: Spurrier. But other times the coach may be very good, but his situation is one that there's no way he's going to even show significant progress for a while.
I'd give him five, especially if Stafford gets hurt again.

~Bang

[Mahons21]

I'm fine with a sig bet.

Then ball's live, sig bet between me and you. Whoever wins a playoff game first; I have the Redskins and you have the Lions.

[skinsnshanny]

From FA:
Starters: Grady Jackson, Phillip Buchanon, Bryant Johnson, Jason Hanson, Stephen Peterman (5/7 FA additions started for them)
Back Ups: Maurice Morris (played in 14 games, started 3), Eric King played in 4, started 1.

From Draft:
Starters: Matthew Stafford, Brandon Pettigrew, Sammy lee Hill, Louis Delmas, DeAndre Levy (5/10 Draft Picks)
Backups: Derrick Williams (played in 11 games), Aaron Brown (played in 15, started 2), Zack Follett (played in 12), Dan Gronkowski (played in 2)

16/17 players added made the 2009 Lions.

In 2010: Maurice Morris, Bryant Johnson, Brandon Pettigrew, Matthew Stafford (prior to injury), Stephen Peterman, DeAndre Levy, Louis Delmas were all starting. Thats 7/17 added in 09 as starters.

Eric King, Derrick Williams, Sammie Lee Hill, Zack Follett, Aaron Brown all were on the roster and saw action. (5/17)

Let's look at the Pats.

12/23 players were added via the draft.

From FA:
Starters: Tully Banta-Cain, Leigh Bodden, Shawn Springs
Back Ups: Chris Baker, Fred Taylor, Joey Galloway

Didn't Make Roster: Paris Lenon, Damane Duckett, Nathan Hodel, Al Johnson, Brad Listorti

6/11 FA Acquisitions made the roster in 2009.

Draft:
Starters: None
Backups: Chung, Brace, Butler, Vollmer, Tate, Ohrnberger, Ingram, Pryor, Edelman

Didn't Make team:
McKenzie, Bussey, Richard

9/12 Draft picks.

15/23 players made the team.

In 2010:
Starters: Vollmer, Tully Banta-Cain, Patrick Chung were starters (3/23)
Back Ups: Brace, Butler, Tate, Ohrnberger, Ingram, Pryor, Edelman, Fred Taylor (8/23)

So they were 11/21.

For the Lions:
10 started for them in '09.
7 started for them in '10.

For the Patriots:
3 started for them in '09
3 started for the in '10.

Thus, the argument. The Patriots retooled and the Lions rebuilt. So yes, the Lions 2009 offseason was more indicative of a rebuild.

This post is selective and some of it is not even true. I assume u meant 2009 and 1999. But lets go deeper into what u posted

Lions:

Jason Hanson a new addition for the lions? (he has played for them since 1992)
Grady Jackson was 36 and no longer on the team---total stop gap not evidence of rebuilding
Phillip B. We all know he dont play for them.--total stop gap
Mourice Morris--31 year old RB---Javon Best...no way Morris is starting when this team contends. (no way he starts if Best and Smith are healthy)
Eric King--11 tackles in 2 years. Essentially a 0 impact player.---counting him as a long term success a reach.
Dan Gronkowski--Practice Squad player, active for less than 2 months, no longer on the team.
Zack Follett---played in only 5 games in 2010, 18 tackles in 2 years.
Derrick williams--played in only 7 games, prob not going to be on roster again.

So really at most the Lions will have 8/17 guys who may be there for any extended period and might produce.

Question: why did you not count the guys who are gone as 'not supposed to be there long term' If you are rebuilding and as bad as the lions, isnt signing those guys a total waste under a rebuild theory? Essentially then pointing out they were starters.

Patriots: but first: how can you consider Morris the starter in Det? But not count any of the Pats players who also started due to injury to other players? That just isnt fair.

Brandon Tate: Started 10 games at WR and 16 games at KR..yet you didnt say he started
Edelman Started 7 games in 2009 but no mention.
Leigh Bodden: Every game starter, suffered a season ending knee injury (unforeseeable)
Butler: Started 3 games, not a big deal, but you gave no mention.
Brace: 7 starts then broken elbow I think
Voller
Banta Cain
Chung--Last 3 guys are every down players hands down.
Full Disclosure I think Jake Pryor got cut.

So when it really boils down, the Pat also added 8 players, 3 of which are every down near all pro players. Brandon Tate looks to be a starting WR. Edelman is the perfect guy behind Welker.

So 4, maybe 5 young worthwhile players. Plus another boarderline starter in Ron Brace if healthy, and then bodden would make 7.
The Lions look to have 6 worthwhile, but none at the level of the pats top guys and Bryant is 31 i think.

So at best it is a WASH to say the lions rebuilt more.

Further: isnt it more likely that a team who is 'reloading' would get more immediate starters? As in if your 1 or 2 pieces away isnt it more likely that the guys you do add will play right away at those spots. While the team who is constantly rebuilding is bring the young guys in and will play them when ready?

[KDawg]

I took allmthe info off pro football reference. Take it up with them.

[pimpumd]

I took allmthe info off pro football reference. Take it up with them.

Well, in fairness, it kind of has a big impact on the point you were making regarding your position that the Lions drafting/free agency strategy was more of a "rebuilding" philosophy than that of the Patriots. Just sayin'.

[maddogtre]

They have been rebuilding for five years and they were 43-37 over that span.

In the four years prior to Rex Ryan's regime, the Jets were 27-37.

Then they sign Rex Ryan (new regime).

Next, they draft their franchise QB, which according to some on here is Step #1 in a rebuild.

What else do they do in the SAME offseason? Add a bunch of veterans via free agency and trades. Over the past two years (during the new regime) they've added the following vets (off the top of my head)......Holmes, Edwards, Tomlinson, Cromartie, Leonard, Scott, & Pryce.

Now according to the same people that say Step #1 of a rebuild is getting your QB, all of these veteran additions would be "win now" moves.

The Jets have been to two straight AFC championship games.

According to you, their method's ceiling is mediocrity.

[Bang]

In the four years prior to Rex Ryan's regime, the Jets were 27-37.

Then they sign Rex Ryan (new regime).

Next, they draft their franchise QB, which according to some on here is Step #1 in a rebuild.

What else do they do in the SAME offseason? Add a bunch of veterans via free agency and trades. Over the past two years (during the new regime) they've added the following vets (off the top of my head)......Holmes, Edwards, Tomlinson, Cromartie, Leonard, Scott, & Pryce.

Now according to the same people that say Step #1 of a rebuild is getting your QB, all of these veteran additions would be "win now" moves.

The Jets have been to two straight AFC championship games.

According to you, their method's ceiling is mediocrity.

All this may be true, but IMO the thing that first changed the Jets fortunes was when they drafted Nick Mangold and DeBrickashaw Fergusen in the same draft.
They've got a great line, Mangold is one of the best centers in the league.
When Ryan got there nd picked Sanchez, that was a luxury that most coaches who take over a team don't have, not to mention a luxury most rookie savior QBs have either.


Well, if I may, I've pointed out how the Lions have ignored their OL, and a possible result of this is that Stafford is made of glass and missing a hell of a lot of time to bad injuries for a QB. (as I recall, all of his injuries have happened in the pocket.)

The Rams drafted their starting RT in 09, and took Bradford in round 1 last year, and the starting LT in round 2. (And he's good enough to have been effective as a first year rookie starter. Credit the scouting dept. who identified him. if he couldn't, it could have been disastrous for Bradford.

The Jets draft two all pro level stud OL two years before they put in the Sanchize, and while he has made his mis-steps they've had a solid running game to keep them competitive and in the ball game.

The Redskins draft LT with the first pick of the new regime ..and given the level of talent Williams faced last year he performed quit well. He faced a hell of a murderers row last year and only got taken to rookie school a few times. More often than not he did his job well, and with relatively little to no help from TE or chipping RBs.
Given the precedent...

~Bang

[maddogtre]

All this may be true, but IMO the thing that first changed the Jets fortunes was when they drafted Nick Mangold and DeBrickashaw Fergusen in the same draft.
They've got a great line, Mangold is one of the best centers in the league.
When Ryan got there nd picked Sanchez, that was a luxury that most coaches who take over a team don't have, not to mention a luxury most rookie savior QBs have either.


Well, if I may, I've pointed out how the Lions have ignored their OL, and a possible result of this is that Stafford is made of glass and missing a hell of a lot of time to bad injuries for a QB. (as I recall, all of his injuries have happened in the pocket.)
The Rams drafted their starting RT in 09, and took Bradford in round 1 last year, and the starting LT in round 2. (And he's good enough to have been effective as a first year rookie starter. Credit the scouting dept. who identified him. if he couldn't, it could have been disastrous for Bradford.
The Jets draft two stud OL to years before they put in the Sanchize, and while he has made his mis-steps they've had a solid running game to keep them competitive and in the ball game.
The Redskins draft LT with the first pick of the new regime ..and given the level of talent Williams faced last year he performed quit well. He faced a hell of a murderers row last year and only got taken to rookie school a few times. More often than not he did his job well, and with relatively little to no help from TE or chipping RBs.
Given the precedent...

~Bang

I agree with all of that.

However, my point was that for the most part they were a mediocre to bad team. Then they made some "rebuilding" moves and also made some "win now" moves. According to Oldfan, that can't possibly lead to success, even though it has.

[skinsnshanny]

I took allmthe info off pro football reference. Take it up with them.

No why would i take it up with them? Blindly citing or providing information that doesnt tell the whole story, should not be on the other side to have to rebut and then take it up.

Stats and facts are essential to arguments and everyone here loves debating. But if we just throw around things that are not true and move forward on false material...

I mean you guys were having a sound debate and that post was crucial in proving a point. When I decided to check it, ehh rather go deeper into the material (Hanson as an addition was a dead giveaway something was wrong), you only respond with take it up with them?

Its like someone saying player X is better than player Y because X had 1500 and 15tds while Y only had 1000 and 10. But then it turns out x only had 999 and 9 while Y had 1200 and 12.

and the response is: Well take it up with them?

So do you then concede based on the new light that the Lions were not rebuilding any more than the Patriots in the year in question?

[Oldfan]

In the four years prior to Rex Ryan's regime, the Jets were 27-37.

Then they sign Rex Ryan (new regime).

Next, they draft their franchise QB, which according to some on here is Step #1 in a rebuild.

What else do they do in the SAME offseason? Add a bunch of veterans via free agency and trades. Over the past two years (during the new regime) they've added the following vets (off the top of my head)......Holmes, Edwards, Tomlinson, Cromartie, Leonard, Scott, & Pryce.

Now according to the same people that say Step #1 of a rebuild is getting your QB, all of these veteran additions would be "win now" moves.

The Jets have been to two straight AFC championship games.

According to you, their method's ceiling is mediocrity.

It sounds like you don't understand my position. I'm saying you can't build for the future and make win now moves at the same time to build a perennial winner. The Jets didn't do that. When Mangini arrived, they were in a rebuilding mode. They were not making a bunch of win-now moves by picking up a bunch of high profile free agents.

I'm not among those who say that the QB is the first step. I'm among those who say that the draft isn't like Home Depot. You can't just make out a shopping list and expect to fill it. So, you take the QB when the opportunity presents itself. The Jets tried early, in Mangini's first year, but misfired with Kellen Clemens.

I have said that once a solid core is built then there's nothing wrong with signing cheap FAs as gap fillers. I think the Jets got a little antsy, maybe starting a year too early getting into free agency. But, despite his lucky 10-6 first season, they were not making win-now roster moves in Mangini's first two years. They were rebuilding the right way.

[bedlamVR]

I think you are stuck in the 1980s OF . You cannot take 5-7 to build a dynasty anymore . You simply cannot , FA, and injury eats away at the core and the slow and steady way doesn't win the race . I cannot think of a team that is built that way in terms of their personel . Sucessful teams tend to have consistent philosophies (e.g. GMs etc) who have a long view of things but replacable parts .

Smart teams find ways to get their players in FA, the draft, through trades, or plucking people from obscurity . It is all about making the right team of 53 that breathes as one and knows what it is to win .

Bang - You also didn't mention in the Jets rise to prominance the role of their D - D still wins championships and a strong forceful (not necessarily statistically great) D trumps most things . The next most important thing is the trenches specifically the OL - I think we took some steps that way last year but I do question what the plan is this season .