The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[8181]

Deleted double post

[Oldfan]

...I really don't envy Shanahan. If he doesn't manufacture an 8-8 or better season within 3 years of having to completely tear down and rebuild the entire Redskins roster, everyone says he's working too slowly and should be released. Heck, there were people who were questioning whether he should have been here after just last year, year 2. On the other hand, if he tries to fills major gaps he can't address in the draft with smart free agent moves, getting underrated players in the 26-28 age range, and very cheap ~30 age guys on one year deals, he gets blasted for making win-now moves. Some of his moves were bone-headed, but on the whole he's been trying to make something useful out of garbage. I think by the end of year 5 Shanahan will have been vindicated in his strategies, and we'll be contending year-in year-out from then on out, provided Griffin stays healthy.

Poor Mike, nobody's being fair to him. Everybody expects too much.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that Mike should have cut ties with our top ILB and WR? ...I mean, without them, yes, we'd probably have gotten Griffin without trading up, but that's not really a good thing.

I gave you names i would not have had on the roster in a rebuild mode.

Why wouldn't getting Griffin without trading up have been a good thing?

---------- Post added November-24th-2012 at 06:28 PM ----------

There is not one, single, reputable, reliable source that had Albert being worth a third round pick.

Do you realize how often you make ridiculous unsupported claims like that? Would anyone but a rube believe that you are in the loop with every single reliable source?

[Jumbo]

NLC---this is what you need to leave out to avoid issues.

You just don't care about anything fact based and rooted in reality.

[NLC1054]

[/COLOR] Do you realize how often you make ridiculous unsupported claims like that? Would anyone but a rube believe that you are in the loop with every single reliable source?

1.) I do hope you appreciate the irony of you complaining about me making ridiculous unsupported claims. I sure do.


2.) I do not believe I am in the loop for every reliable source. I do believe there are some sources that are far more reliable than others. A guy like Adam Scheffler hits on a lot of his rumors. Albert Breer has also been pretty reliable in terms of truth. Gregg Rosenthal (who first floated the third round pick thing) is decidedly less so, and Jason LaCanfora...well, Jason La Canfora once reported that the Redskins were trading Haynesworth on a specific day, April 23rd, 2010. The day came and went, then he acted pissed when people called him on it.

I am not claiming I am some all seeing, all knowing person. What I'm saying is that there is far more evidence that a trade wasn't imminent, and a third round pick wasn't on the table, than evidence that there was going to be a trade and that a third round pick was on the line.

Also there's the minor fact that Mike Shanahan went on NFL Network and said in no uncertain terms that Haynesworth would NOT be traded, and that Jeff Fisher said the door was completely closed on Haynesworth.

Unless this was all an elaborate ruse by Shanahan and Fisher and Jason La Canfora foiled their plans.

[Oldfan]

1.) I do hope you appreciate the irony of you complaining about me making ridiculous unsupported claims. I sure do.

We all make unsupported claims, but when they are believable we accept them. If and when I make a ridiculous unsupported claim, that would be the time to call me on it.

2.) I do not believe I am in the loop for every reliable source. I do believe there are some sources that are far more reliable than others. A guy like Adam Scheffler hits on a lot of his rumors. Albert Breer has also been pretty reliable in terms of truth. Gregg Rosenthal (who first floated the third round pick thing) is decidedly less so, and Jason LaCanfora...well, Jason La Canfora once reported that the Redskins were trading Haynesworth on a specific day, April 23rd, 2010. The day came and went, then he acted pissed when people called him on it.

I am not claiming I am some all seeing, all knowing person. What I'm saying is that there is far more evidence that a trade wasn't imminent, and a third round pick wasn't on the table, than evidence that there was going to be a trade and that a third round pick was on the line.

Also there's the minor fact that Mike Shanahan went on NFL Network and said in no uncertain terms that Haynesworth would NOT be traded, and that Jeff Fisher said the door was completely closed on Haynesworth.

Unless this was all an elaborate ruse by Shanahan and Fisher and Jason La Canfora foiled their plans.

Does it really matter for our discussion whether the trade offer of a third round pick was bogus or not? The point is that a third-rounder was believable at the time.

[DogofWar1]

Does it really matter for our discussion whether the trade offer of a third round pick was bogus or not? The point is that a third-rounder was believable at the time.

Believeable =/= Realistic expectation.

It's a little bit of a low blow to criticize Shanahan for not trading Haynesworth for a pick in the neighborhood of a 3rd...

They knew, or should have known, that Haynesworth didn't fit the 3 - 4. Thus, they knew, or should have known, that playing him in the 3 - 4 would only decrease his market value. Thus, there is no excuse for not doing sooner what was done later at a loss. The offer of a third-round pick was rumored. That seemed reasonable before the fiasco.

...and then turn around and say it doesn't matter if a 3rd rounder was on the table or not. Either a 3rd was on the table in an actual negotiating scenario and Shanahan missed an opportunity, or there wasn't and his moves were the best available to him and he doesn't deserve blame for the outcome of the Haynesworth situation. I'm inclined to believe that Haynesworth wasn't seeing much interest, as the guy was a cancer, and his contract was far too large for anyone to eat.

[Oldfan]

Believeable =/= Realistic expectation.

It's a little bit of a low blow to criticize Shanahan for not trading Haynesworth for a pick in the neighborhood of a 3rd...

...and then turn around and say it doesn't matter if a 3rd rounder was on the table or not. Either a 3rd was on the table in an actual negotiating scenario and Shanahan missed an opportunity, or there wasn't and his moves were the best available to him and he doesn't deserve blame for the outcome of the Haynesworth situation. I'm inclined to believe that Haynesworth wasn't seeing much interest, as the guy was a cancer, and his contract was far too large for anyone to eat.

It sounds like you are missing the point. I'm criticizing Shanahan for not trading Haynesworth as his first order of business before the 2010 preseason before the fiasco. If he got a fifth after the fiasco, a third before the fiasco sounds reasonable. Did you follow that?

If he was tradeable after the fiasco, he was tradeable before for more.

[Hitman21ST]

If he was tradeable after the fiasco, he was tradeable before for more.

That's not necessarily true. Before the fiasco, Haynesworth had that huge guaranteed amount on his contract. We were only able to trade him after we paid him the money which (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong) we paid during the season. Teams that wouldn't be willing to take on a malcontent with $41 million guaranteed for a relatively high pick were willing to take one on at a much lower salary for a lower pick.

[NLC1054]

Does it really matter for our discussion whether the trade offer of a third round pick was bogus or not? The point is that a third-rounder was believable.

Yes, it does.

One can not ignore the things that hurt their argument. I explained the things that made a trade unlikely and why Haynesworth's trade value probably wouldn't have been that high.

1.) A 2009 season where he played average and was a lockerroom malcontent and openly complained about playing under Greg Blanche, in which he stated that he "couldn't survive in that system" the way it was. He also left games if he so much as stubbed a toe. His presense helped Carter regain form and Rak have a great rookie reason, but the positives from a lockerroom standpoint and a consistent level of play standpoint makes it unlikely that he would've been seen as worthy of a third round pick. You also have to combine that with the fact he only played in 16 games twice in his whole career and dealt with a lot of phantom "injuries" in his time in Washington.

2.) As I said, his original contract, before he got it restructured, basically made him untradeable. I can't imagine anyone being willing to give up a third round pick for that kind of money.

3.) After he got restructured, his contract was more trade friendly (I think they bought it down to something like $16 million over three years), but that was on top of paying him $20 million up front, of their own money. And yes, money matters. Albert took that money after saying he'd have no problem with playing nose tackle. Then he got his money and started complaining about playing nose when a condition of him getting the money upfront was him paying up front.

That compounds with the fact that he was a malcontent in the first place and had dea

The only way I see Mike Shanahan denying a third round pick is if he also wanted the other team to pick up the check. And who could blame him? Who wants to pay a guy $20 million dollars in that case? Mike Shanahan didn't sign Albert Haynesworth. Bruce Allen didn't write his contract. They had a huge, $100 million anchor around their neck. Then you give the guy his money up front under the condition that he play a certain position, and he takes it. And then once he takes your money, he starts talking about holding out and making demands.

Would Bill Belichick ever trade someone under those conditions?

---------- Post added November-24th-2012 at 07:57 PM ----------

It sounds like you are missing the point. I'm criticizing Shanahan for not trading Haynesworth as his first order of business before the 2010 preseason before the fiasco. If he got a fifth after the fiasco, a third before the fiasco sounds reasonable. Did you follow that?

This is ignoring all the information we have available to us.

[DogofWar1]

It sounds like you are missing the point. I'm criticizing Shanahan for not trading Haynesworth as his first order of business before the 2010 preseason before the fiasco. If he got a fifth after the fiasco, a third before the fiasco sounds reasonable. Did you follow that?

If he was tradeable after the fiasco, he was tradeable before for more.

And you're missing the point that what you stated was almost certainly not factually possible.

Remember, you need two to tango, so we needed a team offering a 3rd. There doesn't appear to have been a partner on the other end, so while from a talent perspective he might have been worth a 3rd (something I'm unsure of, mind you), the market of 31 other teams declared he was not worth a 3rd. And the market is what matters at the end of the day. Saying he was worth a 3rd prior to the fiasco is worthless conjecture unless something happens in the real world to validate that conjecture.

So like I said, either a 3rd was on the table in a REAL negotiating situation and Shanahan missed an opportunity, OR there was no other team, everything was rumors, and Shanahan made the best of a bad situation. The only evidence of the former are a couple unreliable beat guys who are often wrong, and there's more evidence of the latter from actual coaches statements in public.

[elkabong82]

[/COLOR]Jus to clarify. I didn't use the word dynasty. My goal, as stated in the OP: My goal would be to build the number one team in the NFL and to hold that position indefinitely.

And, as I said, I doubt that Dan Snyder is willing or able to get us there.

How is being the #1 team indefinitely NOT a dynasty?

It's an unrealistic expectation. It is the ultimate goal of every team, but it is unrealistic to actually expect to hold that spot every season. The Patriots don't even hold it every season.

You build for consistent success, and hope to be #1 every season. Being #5 or #3 is fine though, because those teams win in a given season as well. The #1 team doesn't always win the title, especially not in the NFL.

To have consistent success you need one part of the team to be one of the best units, and the other parts to do well enough that they don't drag down the best unit. The Saints do it with offense, the 49ers with defense. The stronger the best unit, the weaker they can get away with the other units being. In order to be consistently great one unit has to be top 5 and the other has to be at least middle of the pack in most cases (though the Saints with the #1 offense have gotten away with a poor defense but the season it was decent they won it all).

I trust Shanny to have the offense as that great unit, and we are seeing it. All we need is for the defense to elevate to middle of the pack, and I think a better DC can do that, it depends on if Shanny can find that guy, or if maybe he already has.

[TheItalianStallion]

Offense wins in the regular season and then when you get to the playoffs regularly, anything can happen. Manning and Rodgers got rings with shaky surrounding talent. Brees did too. Those defenses were not that good but they could catch lightning in a bottle and come up with big plays enough and their brilliant offenses gave them a huge margin for error. We're building a similar dynamic. Won't be a dynasty but it'll be good enough for me.

Rodgers in 2010 had the help of the #2 scoring D (he led the #10 scoring O) and had a great group of pass catchers. What's this shaky supporting talent you speak of?

This isn't really directed specifically at you, but I think NFL fans in general are undervaluing the importance of a good defense, especially in postseason. It's true that the NFL has changed since the 2000 Ravens won the SB without much help from their O, and that the formula for making the playoffs has been to have a franchise QB get you there, but once there, it's hard to succeed without good D. You brought up Manning. His 2006 SB run had more to do with their D than him. In 4 postseason games, the Colts gave up 8, 6, 34, & 17 points, with the 34 being the AFCCG vs NE. During the NYG 2011 run they gave up 2 (0, really), 20, 17, 17, and against very good offenses. In 2007 they gave up 14, 17, 20, 14 points to good offenses. Even the 2007 Pats had to rely on their D, allowing 20, 12, & 17 points (they had a 1st round bye).

Even if RG3 sneaks us into the playoffs this year, I don't see our D stepping up to the level needed to go anywhere. I do understand, however, that you weren't predicting playoffs. In today's NFL, we don't need a shutdown D. We do, however, need a D which is capable of stepping up during the postseason.

[PeterMP]

My fear the lesson to be learned from the Bears is the difficulty from going from not very good (but not worse in the league so 1st pick in the draft bad) to great (championship calibeer) when the QB is ONE problem with the team.

And said QB is gotten via trade where there isn't really much luck involved (i.e. everybody knows a top line QB is what is being traded for so you have to give up a bunch to get the QB).

The Bears NEEDED a QB, but they needed other parts too. They got the QB, but at a cost that has limited their ability to add the other components.

Now, they're a good team, and if the get lucky, I guess they could win a SuperBowl. But nobody really looks at them and says there is a real SuperBowl contender. They are team with holes that are still clear.

I hope we don't end up in the same boat.

[Mahons21]

The point OF is making is not based on the value of what we got for Al in a trade.

If Al was tradeable at all with his contract (debatable), then one of MS' first order of business should have been trading him because, a.) he didn't fit the scheme, b.) he made it evident he didn't want to play a mis-cast roll in the scheme, and c.) his prior history of poor behavior.

It's a very valid point, and Al should have been traded ASAP looking back on it. Who know's why Mike didn't do it, could have been the whole "Mike thinks he can get a players highlight reel out of them on a consistent basis" argument.

Anyway you cut, any trade that could have rid of us most if not at least some of his contract, for even a 7th rd draft pick would have been worth it.

[Hitman21ST]

The point OF is making is not based on the value of what we got for Al in a trade.

If Al was tradeable at all with his contract (debatable), then one of MS' first order of business should have been trading him because, a.) he didn't fit the scheme, b.) he made it evident he didn't want to play a mis-cast roll in the scheme, and c.) his prior history of poor behavior.

It's a very valid point, and Al should have been traded ASAP looking back on it. Who know's why Mike didn't do it, could have been the whole "Mike thinks he can get a players highlight reel out of them on a consistent basis" argument.

Anyway you cut, any trade that could have rid of us most if not at least some of his contract, for even a 7th rd draft pick would have been worth it.

The thing is, no team was willing to take on that contract. We had to pay that fat piece of crap his guaranteed money before any teams were willing to trade for him.