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

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't think you understand me. I'm not the least bit interested in what would be popular. The plan I advocate would, without a doubt, be the surest and quickest way to rebuild an NFL team.

A. Philosophy. B. The Execution. Our debate seems to be you think A is the problem. I think B is the problem and by a mile. I think they have A down cold sans year #1, maybe not in the scorched earth manner you advocate but by NFL standards they are on the high end aggressive rebuild mode. Shifting an aggressive rebuild into being even more aggressive, IMO isn't what's holding them back.

If being popular was my goal, I'd bring in big names. Fans have always loved them and I'm sure they always will.

I get the theory of being different versus popular. But if no owner in the NFL that am aware of allows a coach to completely strip a team of every veteran player -- why should I give Shanny a hard time for not being the first pioneer in the NFL in a long time to do so.

To me that's like saying an A isn't satisfactory, I am looking for an A plus. I don't need to hold Shanny to a higher standard versus every other coach in the NFL to critique him. IMO we don't have to reach to critique him its perfectly easy to critique him on apples to apples meat and potatoes type of NFL comparisons -- finding good players and winning games.

I think this belief that the Allen/Shanahan team has sold this fanbase, that we can win now and build long term at the same time is the promise of a free lunch and a guarantee for mediocrity.

IMO this debate was relevant 3 years ago, but outdated now. Shanny's rhetoric and actions IMO scream that he's rebuilding. Again IMO its about finding good players and winning games.

[pjfootballer]

I still believe it is easier to find starters when you have a dozen slots open than it is when you have a roster full of adequate starters.

I'm the opposite. When you have 16 of 22 starters entrenched, you it opens up the choices to make in the draft. If you only have 10 of 22 starters, then, you start second guessing yourself as to which position you want to fill first. Think about it. Drafting Griffin and Cousins last year, we have ZERO reason to even look at the QB position in 2013. We can bypass some guys and concentrate on other positions.

[Oldfan]

A. Philosophy. B. The Execution. Our debate seems to be you think A is the problem. I think B is the problem and by a mile. I think they have A down cold sans year #1, maybe not in the scorched earth manner you advocate but by NFL standards they are on the high end aggressive rebuild mode. Shifting an aggressive rebuild into being even more aggressive, IMO isn't what's holding them back.

No, you are mistaken about my position. I think both A and B are problems.

I get the theory of being different versus popular. But if no owner in the NFL that am aware of allows a coach to completely strip a team of every veteran player -- why should I give Shanny a hard time for not being the first pioneer in the NFL in a long time to do so.

Because my approach makes sense.

To me that's like saying an A isn't satisfactory, I am looking for an A plus. I don't need to hold Shanny to a higher standard versus every other coach in the NFL to critique him. IMO we don't have to reach to critique him its perfectly easy to critique him on apples to apples meat and potatoes type of NFL comparisons -- finding good players and winning games.

If you wanted a dynasty, as I do, you wouldn't have a problem holding your decision-makers to higher standards than other NFL coaches and GMs. We can't lead by doing as well as the others.

IMO this debate was relevant 3 years ago, but outdated now. Shanny's rhetoric and actions IMO scream that he's rebuilding. Again IMO its about finding good players and winning games.

It's not outdated for me since I don't define a 50/50 win-now/rebuild plan as a genuine rebuild plan.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm not sure what you mean by a comparable team.

I regard the Patriots as the #1 franchise. They are showing some signs of weakness, but I'd still take them over the Texans or Ravens. My goal would be to be better than they are. A lesser goal would be pointless.

Have I answered your question?

Sorry...you didn't but it was because of how I asked it. You gave a description of the Shanahan-led Redskins (topping out at 9-10 wins and needing luck to make a deep playoff run). Is there a current NFL team that fits that description right now that you could provide as a comparison to your vision? I would think that the Giants have to be in that ballpark (assuming we get to a point where we can win 9-10 games more often than not).

[Mahons21]

I agree with John Wooden who had only four rules for his teams. One of them was that he didn't want his players trying to motivate or coach their teammates. The head coach and his assistants do the teaching and motivating.

You don't necessarily need to teach them, you can just lead by example. But in my opinion, I don't think it would hurt to listen to a few pointers from seasoned vets who've proven they can play at the highest level.

Reggie Wayne always comes to mind when discussing this topic for me. Indianapolis has consistently developed good WRs, I believe that Reggie Wayne/Marvin Harrison have both had an impact on this.

Other teams that come to mind are the Giants/Patriots and how well they develop offensive linemen, as well as Pittsburgh and LBs (possibly Lou Spanos?). Which is leads me to my next point. Do you believe the issue with the Redskins lies within the personnel department? Or do you believe that it lies within the coaching staff and their inability to develop players.

Listening to Darrel Green on the radio, he seems to think a large part lies within the coaches and how they're developing players. In his opinion, the technique being used in the secondary specifically was just plain incorrect, and didn't make logical sense to him.

I personally think it's a little bit of column a and column b, but I don't think column b (how players are developed) has been given much value amongst Redskins fans, and I personally think we've done a fairly poor job at developing the talent we've had.

It often causes friction between players and it's often bad advice. For example, I saw a practice where Santana was mentoring another player. He was showing a defensive back how to catch a football. He was showing him how to basket catch on a crossing pattern. Santana has been dropping passes on crossing patterns for years because of poor technique. His pupil was Carlos Rogers.

If it causes friction it certainly shouldn't take place, but how often that happens is impossible to determine and very dependent on the veterans who are teaching. For example a free-lancer like Lavar I don't want teaching my LBs, but a sound technical player like Fletch I would love to give my LBs a few pointers.

Regarding incorrect advice, I'd argue one of the points you love to make, exceptions to general rules to disprove them. Certainly there can be exceptions, but in my opinion logic suggests that veterans who've achieved success throughout the course of there career will often have more useful advice than harmful advice. Furthermore, who's to say that all coaches are perfect and don't themselves sometimes offer improper advice.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm the opposite. When you have 16 of 22 starters entrenched, you it opens up the choices to make in the draft. If you only have 10 of 22 starters, then, you start second guessing yourself as to which position you want to fill first. Think about it. Drafting Griffin and Cousins last year, we have ZERO reason to even look at the QB position in 2013. We can bypass some guys and concentrate on other positions.

You're introducing factors (second-guessing, confusion) that I don't think are relevant. If you have 12 openings to fill, you have a much better chance of adding a starter with any given draft pick over a team with only 6 openings to fill. So, in order to add MORE starters than you, they would not only have to hit on all 6 of their openings, but then draft great players with the rest of their picks to supplant existing starters. In short, they quality of each individual draft pick would need to be much, much better to acccumulate more starters than your team.

[Oldfan]

You don't necessarily need to teach them, you can just lead by example. But in my opinion, I don't think it would hurt to listen to a few pointers from seasoned vets who've proven they can play at the highest level.

I assumed you asked your question looking for a reason to keep older vets on the roster. Players who lead by example can be any age. RG3 leads by example.

It wouldn't hurt to listen to seasoned vets? Is that asking the right question? The question should be, How much value does that have when deciding how to rebuild?

Do you believe the issue with the Redskins lies within the personnel department? Or do you believe that it lies within the coaching staff and their inability to develop players.

I think it's both. I think you have to have a very good eye for the kind of players you can develop and the coaches able to follow through.

Listening to Darrel Green on the radio, he seems to think a large part lies within the coaches and how they're developing players. In his opinion, the technique being used in the secondary specifically was just plain incorrect, and didn't make logical sense to him.

I agree with Darrel. He believes in keeping the receiver between him and the QB as much as possible, so he can see both, one peripherally, obviously. I agree.

I personally think it's a little bit of column a and column b, but I don't think column b (how players are developed) has been given much value amongst Redskins fans, and I personally think we've done a fairly poor job at developing the talent we've had.

Agreed.

... but a sound technical player like Fletch I would love to give my LBs a few pointers.

Keep him as a coach.

Regarding incorrect advice, I'd argue one of the points you love to make, exceptions to general rules to disprove them. Certainly there can be exceptions, but in my opinion logic suggests that veterans who've achieved success throughout the course of there career will often have more useful advice than harmful advice. Furthermore, who's to say that all coaches are perfect and don't themselves sometimes offer improper advice.

Yes, well, that was my point in reverse.

You can't just assume that mentoring is a good thing. And you can't just assume that players are motivated by the rah rah guys. A lot of them are thinking, "Why do you think I need you to get me to try harder, Peabrain?"

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 11:18 AM ----------

Sorry...you didn't but it was because of how I asked it. You gave a description of the Shanahan-led Redskins (topping out at 9-10 wins and needing luck to make a deep playoff run). Is there a current NFL team that fits that description right now that you could provide as a comparison to your vision? I would think that the Giants have to be in that ballpark (assuming we get to a point where we can win 9-10 games more often than not).

The Giants would be the best comparable. The Coughlin teams have been above average and twice had a good string of luck at the right time.

The odds of an average team winning a super bowl are about 30-1. The odds of a team like the Giants winning it are about 15-1 (once in 15 years). The Giants have been lucky to beat those odds twice in Coughln's regime.

[Skinsinparadise]

No, you are mistaken about my position. I think both A and B are problems.

OK I think A was a problem year 1 but good since. I think B is a problem -- they aren't awful at it but IMO medicore.

Because my approach makes sense.

If you wanted a dynasty, as I do, you wouldn't have a problem holding your decision-makers to higher standards than other NFL coaches and GMs. We can't lead by doing as well as the others.

I am personally ok with your approach, I just haven't see it at all with big roster sports teams -- baseball and football. So its tough for me to hold my breath expecting something that I don't see. Clearly teams can build long term winners without this approach so hence am not sweating it.

It's not outdated for me since I don't define a 50/50 win-now/rebuild plan as a genuine rebuild plan.

If it were indeed true, I'd agree with you but I don't see the FA transaction by transaction going 50/50 from rebuild to win now. Off the top of my head if i had to quantify I'd say 85% to 15% rebuild driven moves over the last 2 off seasons -- and i'd put them in the category of being one of the more aggressive teams in terms of getting younger and overhauling the roster.

To me their issue is can they find very good players. They don't strike out as much as Vinny on players but like Vinny they struggle to find marquee players in the draft and ditto FA IMO.

I am not even sold on Shanny the coach this year, he actually has been bad like Zorn with clock management. And also the penalties, and i wonder about his motivational skills...

[Oldfan]

...If it were indeed true, I'd agree with you but I don't see the FA transaction by transaction going 50/50 from rebuild to win now...

I wasn't limiting the 50/50 to just to the transactions themselves. Starting Grossman at all in 2011 was a very big win-now decision. The playing time for other vets with no long-term future counts more heavily than just their numbers on the roster.

To me their issue is can they find very good players. They don't strike out as much as Vinny on players but like Vinny they struggle to find marquee players in the draft and ditto FA IMO.

I think they're doing okay with free agency when you bear in mind you're picking from a group of rejects.

With the draft, my sense for it is that they are lagging behind a good rebuild level.

I am not even sold on Shanny the coach this year, he actually has been bad like Zorn with clock management. And also the penalties, and i wonder about his motivational skills..

I don't concern myself with motivation. I have always had doubts about the Shanahan offense. In past years, I think it did better at piling up stats than it did at winning games. But, we're looking at a very different scheme with RG3 running it. I'm in a wait-and-see mode.

We do need to get the penalties down. I made that the topic of a recent thread.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't concern myself with motivation. I have always had doubts about the Shanahan offense. In past years, I think it did better at piling up stats than it did at winning games. But, we're looking at a very different scheme with RG3 running it. I'm in a wait-and-see mode.

I recall your position on motivation -- agree that its not the be all and end all, you have cited Belichick as an example of a guy not known for it -- but Belichick in a book I read about him and also a TV special I watched seemed to emphasize it as part of his preperation. I actually like Shanny as an X and O's guy on offense, I don't like what he's done on defense, think he's been ok with personnel but nothing special. His game time managment this year IMO is very sloppy -- hate it when he takes time outs late in the game on offense as oppose to holding them for defense.

[SJValleySkinz]

Some of the posts in this thread are baffling, I'm almost waiting for someone to say Shanahan isn't winning because George Preston Marshal was the last owner to integrate.

[Bishop Hammer]

^^Ok, this board is driving me crazy now... I already replied to this post, lol.

Thank goodness its not just me. This is the seventh time I've went a new page and saw repeating posts. Glad I'm not the only one suffering from thread deja vu.

[SJValleySkinz]

A. Philosophy. B. The Execution. Our debate seems to be you think A is the problem. I think B is the problem and by a mile. I think they have A down cold sans year #1, maybe not in the scorched earth manner you advocate but by NFL standards they are on the high end aggressive rebuild mode. Shifting an aggressive rebuild into being even more aggressive, IMO isn't what's holding them back.



I get the theory of being different versus popular. But if no owner in the NFL that am aware of allows a coach to completely strip a team of every veteran player -- why should I give Shanny a hard time for not being the first pioneer in the NFL in a long time to do so.

To me that's like saying an A isn't satisfactory, I am looking for an A plus. I don't need to hold Shanny to a higher standard versus every other coach in the NFL to critique him. IMO we don't have to reach to critique him its perfectly easy to critique him on apples to apples meat and potatoes type of NFL comparisons -- finding good players and winning games.



IMO this debate was relevant 3 years ago, but outdated now. Shanny's rhetoric and actions IMO scream that he's rebuilding. Again IMO its about finding good players and winning games.

This isn't NAIA football. When you "inherit a mess", you go to the rebuilding right away and you do it in a scorching manner. That's how bad teams turn things around.

[Mahons21]

I assumed you asked your question looking for a reason to keep older vets on the roster. Players who lead by example can be any age. RG3 leads by example.

RG3 is an exception, saying he is rare doesn't even do him justice. Though I agree with your point (regarding RG3), but I wouldn't rely on the chance that I acquire multiple players with both the talent and leadership skills of Robert.

It wouldn't hurt to listen to seasoned vets? Is that asking the right question? The question should be, How much value does that have when deciding how to rebuild?

I'll take it a step further. It should be a comparison, does an aging vet who's local in the locker room, and earned the respect of the coaches/peers etc. have more value to a team then a late round prospect at that same position. Furthermore you would have to include the playing time said vet would take from a player and take this into account as well, as it is a valid point I know you've made before.

In my opinion there are some instances where the answer is yes. Give me Ray Lewis on my rebuilding team any day of the week, but I should add a condition to that, said vet cannot be a recent free agent, they should have had minimum three consecutive successful seasons.

I think it's both. I think you have to have a very good eye for the kind of players you can develop and the coaches able to follow through.

But with the current staff, do you believe the issues have stemmed from the players we've chosen or the inability to develop the players we have acquired.

In my opinion there's been a fair amount of missed opportunities and poor handling of personnel, which puts me in a precarious position to judge the coaches.

I agree with Darrel. He believes in keeping the receiver between him and the QB as much as possible, so he can see both, one peripherally, obviously. I agree.

I agree, if the coaches are teaching them techniques otherwise (outside of the obvious man 2 under) then the coaches should be to blame. I just don't know if that's the case, and find it hard to believe it is.

Keep him as a coach.

Plenty of times we do, but what if you have a 32 year old vet 2 years into his new deal. Then it becomes a different story than a guy like Fletch in his late thirties.

Yes, well, that was my point in reverse.

You can't just assume that mentoring is a good thing. And you can't just assume that players are motivated by the rah rah guys. A lot of them are thinking, "Why do you think I need you to get me to try harder, Peabrain?"

You're describing the type of player I don't want on my team. I want the guys who listen to the vets who already buy into the scheme. Attitudes like the ones you describe above will not last. There will be somewhat of a hierarchy, as there should be.

[armada58]

Reading this I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that Mike Lombardi hasn't done his homework. He generated an opinion years ago and hasn't even looked to see if that opinion is still valid.

His criticism of Shanahan not addressing the offensive line is completely false. Sure, we do have a problem at Right Tackle. But that's it really! He completely fails to recognize Trent Williams (again, not doing his homework). Or the fact that we signed Chris Cester last year. Or the fact that we lost Lichtensteiger early on last year. I guess he's not seeing that 4/5ths of our o-line has been good this year and one of them is playing at a pro-bowl level.

All criticism of the defense is valid. No one would dispute that.

Mike Lombardi nees to re-think his 4 year old positions of The Redskins. And shame on the interviewer for not asking ANY follow-up questions to challege Lombardi.