HTTR24-7:Interview Transcript W/ Michael Lombardi 11/14/12..

[DC9]

I don't care to speculate about the terms of Mike Shanahan's contract. These are the facts: Dan Synder owns the football team. Mike Shanahan is under the employ of Dan Snyder. If Dan wants to bring in a GM that is Dan's prerogative whether Mike Shanahan is here or not. Its between Dan and Mike how this hypothetical situation would transpire. It could happen amicably with the shared intention of building a champship team at heart or it could be adversarial. But rest assured if Dan wants a GM he can hire a GM. Mike Shanahan can take elevator or the window.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that then. Legally, Mike Shanahan has the royal straight flush in this situation. That's all that would matter at the end of the day. If Mike didn't want one, he'd be well within his rights to say "I don't want one," and Dan can fire him. But Dan cannot force Mike Shanahan to have a GM.

[Hooper]

I stand corrected on the Locklear front.

Though I do think a savy QB like Eli makes a competent linemen look good.

The Jamaal Brown thing is just a joke at this time.

[Lavarleap56]

I gotta disagree with you there.

Locklear has been decent at best and helped by a vet QB who knows how to get rid of the ball.

Polumbus has graded out pretty good at times. It's a wash, at worst.

As much as I love RG3, he is still a rookie and he took some bad sacks against CAR that weren't on the o-line.

Hmm disagree with just about everything.. Locklear was getting applauded by the Giants and the media entering the Redskins game for his play. Polumbus has had some good stretches but overall had been terrible this season. Locklear is rated #49 and Polumbus #65 by profootballfocus.com.

Polumbus is 1/2 reasons we can not run our base offense with any consistency. I think Williams,Steiger, Monty, Chester have allowed 25 QB pressures combined while Polumbus has allowed 23 by himself.

Im not saying Locklear is great but you can argue he is better than Polumbus.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that then. Legally, Mike Shanahan has the royal straight flush in this situation. That's all that would matter at the end of the day. If Mike didn't want one, he'd be well within his rights to say "I don't want one," and Dan can fire him. But Dan cannot force Mike Shanahan to have a GM.

I don't think I agree with this. Dan Snyder can hire whomever he wants. Now, he might not be able to make Shanahan listen to the GM, but that's true of several NFL teams. If Dan Snyder hired a GM tomorrow and then signed a FA based on the GM's recommendation, there's nothing Shanahan could do about it is there? He could choose to sit that player on the bench, etc. but he can't block Snyder's hiring of an employee nor his transactions.

[Oldfan]

...My problems with Shanahan are:

1. Defense -- can he hire a good coordinator, and can he acquire difference makers. I got my doubts. and IMO you can't be a winner in this league if one sidfe of the ball is a disaster.

2. Coaching -- I didn't really expect this as an issue when he was hired, but i got concerns about him in terms of clock management, motivational skills -- and the penalty issues indicates that he might not be as detail driven as I thought.

3. Building a roster -- I don't think he's been a disaster, and i like how they have handled the cap and contracts. i don't think he's terrible at it but a mixed bag, more good than bad. But are you going to be a winner in this league with C plus, B minus type of work which is how i'd rate him.

As you know, I want a dynasty and I don't think it can be achieved by a plan that tries to build and win now at the same time. So, I don't agree with the plan goals. As a consequence, I have never held out much hope that Mike Shanahan would fulfull my wishes.

He has done better than I expected in some ways. I marvel at his ability to mask the problems with his O-line and he's doing very well with his plan for free agents. I like his approach. But, he has never convinced me that he has a unified strategic plan, offense and defense. I don't see much potential in his drafting strategy either.

Right now, I'm expecting a team that will be fun to watch --because of RG3 -- but with a mediocre record, a team needing a perfect storm of luck to go anywhere in the postseason.

[pjfootballer]

Re: the number of starters we added vs. the Pats in the past 3 years (5 to 8), it seems that your point makes it even MORE of an indictment of our front office. By your above post, I'm led to believe the Pats didn't have much upgrading to do, yet they added 8 starters via the draft. By contrast, we had gaping holes on our team and only added 5 starters via the draft over the same period of time. Good or bad, that supports Of's point that Belichick has done more with less (if you consider the draft position) than Shanahan has.

With less holes, Belichick has been able to play the BPA game, gambling on a player and winning. He can take more chances, knowing he has a deeper team. Hence, he'll hit on more starters because they were the "best" players available. The Redskins have only been able to have limited BPA approach the last couple of drafts because of need. No matter that people say you shouldn't draft for need, teams draft for need for a reason. They literally "need" that player for that position. The Pats have had a veteran tried and tested team. Like Lombardi said, once you get the coach (Belichick) and the QB (Brady) and they come together, the rest is easy. We're 9 games into our "coach and QB" tandem. It is NOT a fair comparison no matter how you slice it.

[Hooper]

My favorite part of the interview was when personnel guru Lombardi admits he misjudged the talent level on the Redskins roster two years in a row.

I like the guy a lot, but there's a reason he's working in the media instead of for a team.

[darrelgreenie]

Well, we'll just have to disagree on that then. Legally, Mike Shanahan has the royal straight flush in this situation. That's all that would matter at the end of the day. If Mike didn't want one, he'd be well within his rights to say "I don't want one," and Dan can fire him. But Dan cannot force Mike Shanahan to have a GM.

I guess so; but are you really disagreeing? The situation you describe above isn't different from what I've said. If Dan wants a GM there will be a GM whether Mike is here or not. And your 'legal straight flush' is based on nothing more then your speculation about the language in Shanahan's contract.

[thesubmittedone]

Re: the number of starters we added vs. the Pats in the past 3 years (5 to 8), it seems that your point makes it even MORE of an indictment of our front office. By your above post, I'm led to believe the Pats didn't have much upgrading to do, yet they added 8 starters via the draft. By contrast, we had gaping holes on our team and only added 5 starters via the draft over the same period of time. Good or bad, that supports Of's point that Belichick has done more with less (if you consider the draft position) than Shanahan has.

To be fair, didn't the Pats have like 20 more draft picks than us, lol? And I'm not sure why you're just limiting it to the draft alone... I understand if I had argued that point but I didn't and, in fact, my focus was more about Free Agency and adding players that way. We were discussing the restricted FA class of 2010 in particular.

Still, my point is that the Pats are an established organization with known schemes. They know exactly what they're looking for and had most of those guys already in place. We were starting from scratch and had limited resources at that. It's very different. Overall, you simply can't compare how many starters we've acquired compared to them in the same three years.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 03:47 PM ----------

Hmm disagree with just about everything.. Locklear was getting applauded by the Giants and the media entering the Redskins game for his play. Polumbus has had some good stretches but overall had been terrible this season. Locklear is rated #49 and Polumbus #65 by profootballfocus.com.

Polumbus is 1/2 reasons we can not run our base offense with any consistency. I think Williams,Steiger, Monty, Chester have allowed 25 QB pressures combined while Polumbus has allowed 23 by himself.

Im not saying Locklear is great but you can argue he is better than Polumbus.

A big problem with using Locklear as an example of a mistake, though, is that while he was here he didn't play well. I don't remember any of us crying when he left, lol. You could argue that they should've known he'd improve, but that's tough.

[D'Pablo]

Aside from Trent Williams, none of the offensive linemen we've drafted have started a game for us this season. Even worse, only Hurt and Leribeus have been active on game day (Hurt for 8 games, and Leribeus for 1). Neither Capers nor Cook (2010 picks, albeit 7th rounders) are with our team anymore. So, we've had a weak offensive line since before Shanahan got here (with every pundit and fan knowing this), yet we've drafted one starter in three drafts. None of our interior linemen have been lights out, yet our third round pick from this past year can't even sniff our starting lineup. Worse yet, we've drafted two defensive lineman total (and Neild was nearly Mr. Irrelevant). Where is the investment in our lines? Even high powered offensive teams like the Packers (3/5 of OL were drafted [4/5 with Bulaga being included]; 2/3 of DL were drafted [5/6 out of total 3-4 DL rotation were drafted]); and Falcons (4/5 of OL were drafted; 3/4 of DL were drafted... this doesn't even include all of their key depth, most of whom were also drafted) have spent multiple picks along the trenches (both sides). Although he hasn't been terrible, Shanahan needs to do a better job with the draft.

[Skinsinparadise]

As you know, I want a dynasty and I don't think it can be achieved by a plan that tries to build and win now at the same time. So, I don't agree with the plan goals. As a consequence, I have never held out much hope that Mike Shanahan would fulfull my wishes.

He has done better than I expected in some ways. I marvel at his ability to mask the problems with his O-line and he's doing very well with his plan for free agents. I like his approach. But, he has never convinced me that he has a unified strategic plan, offense and defense. I don't see much potential in his drafting strategy either.

Aside from year #1, I don't think his problem is a hybrid win now/rebuild approach all at once, I do think he's rebuilding -- IMO his #1 issue is can he build a good defense with the right coach -- I don't put all of the defenses issues on Haslett to me Shanny is as much if not more at fault for their problems. And even if we want to put it squarely on Haslett, well who hired him? And yeah you did point that out in advance. Where he lost me completely on this point is his comment about this being a top 5 defense without the injuries.

#2 is i think he actually has been solid in terms of finding good young players in the draft and free agency but solid doesn't cut it -- he's hitting singles and doubles, not triples and home runs. I don't expect him to get every personnel decision right, no one does. But he needs to find more game changers. Guys like Jenkins, Helu, Perry R. are decent but they aren't great IMO or even very good players, even Kerrigan at this point I wouldn't say is very good but good.

Look at the Giants -- Pierre-Paul is great. Victor Cruz is very good. Nicks when healthy -- very good. When the game is on the line big time players can make big time plays. We just don't have outside of the QB IMO big time players, maybe Morris.

[daveakl]

#2 is i think he actually has been solid in terms of finding good young players in the draft and free agency -- but he's hitting singles and doubles, not triples and home runs. I don't expect him to get every personnel decision right, no one does. But he needs to find more game changers. Guys like Jenkins, Helu, Perry R. are decent but they aren't great IMO or even very good players, even Kerrigan at this point I wouldn't say is very good but good.

Question:

Which do you want first? Solid base and then add the game changers or game changers and then add the base around them.

We need a STUD at DL, DB, Right side OL. I think if those three things were addressed you would see this team in the playoffs.

The foundation is there.

[NewCliche21]

To be fair, didn't the Pats have like 20 more draft picks than us, lol? And I'm not sure why you're just limiting it to the draft alone... I understand if I had argued that point but I didn't and, in fact, my focus was more about Free Agency and adding players that way. We were discussing the restricted FA class of 2010 in particular.

Still, my point is that the Pats are an established organization with known schemes. They know exactly what they're looking for and had most of those guys already in place. We were starting from scratch and had limited resources at that. It's very different. Overall, you simply can't compare how many starters we've acquired compared to them in the same three years.[COLOR="Gold"]

Belichick traded a fourth to pick up Randy Moss.

Had a record-breaking season with him and another very good one.

Traded him for a THIRD.

He gets a record-breaking season *AND* profits in terms of draft picks.

Yeah, they know what they're doing up there in free agency/outside of the draft, no question.


Excellent interview. We need a GM. If I had just come into football in 2010, then I would say that Shanahan has done a terrible job in that respect. The rings got him to year three with me, and I still believe in him, but Lombardi nailed everything in that interview. Breaks my heart.

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 06:13 PM ----------

Question:

Which do you want first? Solid base and then add the game changers or game changers and then add the base around them.

We need a STUD at DL, DB, Right side OL. I think if those three things were addressed you would see this team in the playoffs.

The foundation is there.

We get the base first, definitely. If RGIII weren't in the draft, then we take Tannehill with the pick that we had and everything else goes to the foundation.

We don't have the foundation, by the way. We need a nose tackle, defensive end, inside linebacker, two corners, and two safeties. And that's just our starters. On the defense.

We're nowhere near where some of us thought that we were, myself included.[COLOR="Gold"]

---------- Post added November-15th-2012 at 06:15 PM ----------

Lombardi nailed the personnel spending, too. Spend a **** ton to get the best personnel guys in the league, and you won't have to worry about spending $7 million on a coach, ever.

[Skinsinparadise]

Question:

Which do you want first? Solid base and then add the game changers or game changers and then add the base around them.

We need a STUD at DL, DB, Right side OL. I think if those three things were addressed you would see this team in the playoffs.

The foundation is there.

Finding a D. Ware, Trent Cole, Ratliff, Pierre Paul, Victor Cruz, Nicks, McCoy, Tuck granted isn't easy but over the years our division foes have proven to be better at it than us. I've not seen Shanny really change this trend. He can find the C plus, B level players but wonder about his ability to pluck the great players. I've actually defended Shanny a lot on personnel. I don't think he's done a poor job. Heck I'd go as far as saying he's been slightly above average. I am just very concerned about his ability to build a defense. I've given him the benefit of the doubt on the issue but no longer -- the secondary personnel is a train wreck and its hard for me to imagine that they were depending on Merriweather to be the panacea -- same guy who was released by two teams last year or T. Jackson who has multiple suspensions for drug use and was let go by a team that had a bad defense.

To your point about game changers versus solid base. I am talking about drafting game changers and am sure they tried to do it. I am sure they wanted Hankerson to be their Victor Cruz, Neild to be their Ratliff, etc. IMO they haven't shown yet that they can find game changers in the draft aside from RG 3 -- and maybe Morris. Again, though I don't think Shanny is a disaster with personnel, IMO he's decent but can he build a defense and find game changing players to turn this team into one of the best teams in the league , so far IMO the answer is no.

[Mahons21]

A big problem with using Locklear as an example of a mistake, though, is that while he was here he didn't play well. I don't remember any of us crying when he left, lol. You could argue that they should've known he'd improve, but that's tough.

Not to mention he went to a power based rushing attack from a ZBS, and he remained bad in pass pro.


To the question why is Tampa Bay having success earlier?

They believe in the "football misnomer" it all starts up front.

Da'Quan Bowers
Adrian Clayborn
Gerald McCoy
Jeremy Trueblood
Carl Nicks
Donald Penn

These players may not all be standouts yet, but the represent what TB values, and that's winning in the trenches.

Until the Redskins start actually valuing linemen they will remain where they've been for the past 20 years. It should be no surprise that the few descent seasons they did have were on the backs of guys like Chris Samuels, Randy Thomas, and Jon Jansen.