The Jay Cutler argument for sticking with Mike Shanahan

[elkabong82]

I think some are forgetting what Shanahan was building in Denver on offense before he was fired and then the whole thing was dismantled by the idiocy of McDaniel.

Shanahan's fault was defense, as was covered heavily in a thread in ES not too long ago. He found a good DC in Denver but let him go for some reason, this time around he seems to have had more patience by letting Haslett stay. However, I think I saw the insiders say that Morris has had a bigger hand in things lately. If true, then Morris replacing Haslett next season could mean a good defense, in which case the team becomes one of the top ones.

My concerns are not with offense, but with defense. I am confident Shanny can maintain a great offense. All we need is a decent DC.

I also think the NE "dynasty" stuff is overblown. To have a team that annually is in the playoffs and a contender is ideal. To expect 3 superbowl wins over 4 years in this league is an unrealistic expectation IMO and an attitude that could lead one to repeating Snyder's old habit of firing coaches too soon. NE, afterall, was incredibly lucky to even get to the superbowl in 2001, with the tuck rule, the forward lateral vs. Pitt, and then Warner having a broken thumb. Then there is also the unknown of how much the illegal taping helped.

[Oldfan]

...The Patriots have also had the luxury of adding picks through tradedowns and the like for years...

You have it backwards. The Patriots were in a position to make win-now moves. Instead, they made long-term moves. Meanwhile, Shanahan who should have been rebuilding with long-term moves made win-now moves like the trade for McNabb.

Other win-now decisions were keeping or adding a dozen or more 30+ veterans to help him win a couple more games. Without Grossman, Fletcher, Moss and Gaffney, the Skins 2011 record would likely have been bad enough to draft Robert Griffin without trading up.

Why didn't Mike trade Carter and Haynesworth as the first order of business if he was switching to the 3 - 4? Why didn't he trade Cooley if he wasn't going to go to a base two TE set with Davis?

But as I think a lot of people said in the other thread, that doesn't necessarily mean Shanahan is doing badly either. 6 starters since 2010 with the potential for a few more to develop with a lot of cheap depth from '11 and '12 isn't terrible.

So, basically, you downgrade Belichik for not doing better with more picks rather than giving him credit for managing to get more picks.

Then you credit Shanahan for "not doing badly" as though not doing badly will beat Bill Belichik in roster building.

---------- Post added November-24th-2012 at 04:21 PM ----------

...I also think the NE "dynasty" stuff is overblown. To have a team that annually is in the playoffs and a contender is ideal. To expect 3 superbowl wins over 4 years in this league is an unrealistic expectation IMO and an attitude that could lead one to repeating Snyder's old habit of firing coaches too soon. NE, afterall, was incredibly lucky to even get to the superbowl in 2001, with the tuck rule, the forward lateral vs. Pitt, and then Warner having a broken thumb. Then there is also the unknown of how much the illegal taping helped.

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.

[NLC1054]

You have it backwards. The Patriots were in a position to make win-now moves. Instead, they made long-term moves. Meanwhile, Shanahan who should have been rebuilding with long-term moves made win-now moves like the trade for McNabb.

Other win-now decisions were keeping or adding a dozen or more 30+ veterans to help him win a couple more games. Without Grossman, Fletcher, Moss and Gaffney, the Skins 2011 record would likely have been bad enough to draft Robert Griffin without trading up.

Why didn't Mike trade Carter and Haynesworth as the first order of business if he was switching to the 3 - 4? Why didn't he trade Cooley if he wasn't going to go to a base two TE set with Davis?.

Why didn't Bill Belichick chuck McGuiness, Bruschi, Milloy, Bledsoe and the rest of his veterans after he went 5-11 his first year in New England?

Your goal as a coach is to win. That's the bottom line. You build your roster to in football games. If you don't win football games, you get fired for a guy who can win. That isn't some bull**** hindsight based ideology. That's fact. You don't unmake your entire roster and throw the season on the hope that it'll get you in position to draft one player. And you certainly don't do it when you have no idea who's coming out in the draft the next year, what teams are going to be better/worse than you.

You just don't care about anything fact based and rooted in reality. Why didn't Mike Shanahan trade Haynesworth? Because Haynesworth was nigh-untradeable because of his contract. The whole reason Mike and Bruce had to restructure Haynesworth's contract the way they did in the first place was to lessen the damage of his the bad contract Vinny had written. In order to restructure that contract, Mike and Bruce had to give Haynesworth a huge chunk of his money up front in the uncapped year.

Mike told Haynesworth that they could try to find him a suitable trade partner before they restructured his deal, because if they had traded Haynesworth after that, they'd be responsible for the huge bulk of his contract. Or they could keep him and give him the re-structured deal where he got a big fat chunk of his money in 2010 and he could play nose. Haynesworth took the money. And THEN Haynesworth made a huge stink about having to play nose and how it didn't use him to his strength, only a year after he bitched about the same thing playing Greg Blanche's 4-3.

So Haynesworth had a contract that made it very, very difficult for him to be traded, especially given his attitude problems and his less-than-stellar first season in Washington. Restructuring said contract left the Redskins in a situation where they'd have to pay him the bulk of his money if he did get traded in 2010. Haynesworth took the money, then acted like a petulent child. Rather than letting Haynesworth have his cake and eat it too (read: get the Redskins to cut him a fat check, then get traded somewhere else and leave the Redskins on the hook for his paycheck), Mike stood his ground and said if he was going to get paid, he was going to play.

And then somehow, even after Haynesworth acted like an ******* that entire season, Mike and Bruce still managed to get a fifth round pick for him, in a situation where Haynesworth was basically forced to take a substantial pay cut or he'd get released and have to sign for close to vet minimum elsewhere.

Someone tell me how in the hell not letting Haynesworth steal money from us to go play somewhere else to get a pick that might've been one round better---MAYBE---was such a terrible thing?

As for Cooley, Cooley was pushing 30, coming off major knee surgery, and HE had a pretty big, expensive contract too (thank you, Vinny) with little desire to play anywhere but Washington. What trade value did he have?



Why didn't Mike do what you suggested? Because he likes having a job, probably.

[thesubmittedone]

Just like to say that elk, NLC and Dog of War's recent posts have been refreshing.

[Oldfan]

Why didn't Bill Belichick chuck McGuiness, Bruschi, Milloy, Bledsoe and the rest of his veterans after he went 5-11 his first year in New England?

Because none were over 30 and he didn't need to rebuild. He inherited a pretty good roster. I don't know why they went 5-11. New schemes possibly.

Your goal as a coach is to win. That's the bottom line. You build your roster to in football games. If you don't win football games, you get fired for a guy who can win.

Well, obviously, if it's going to be done right, the rebuilding goal has to be set by the owner who will grade on progress, not on wins.

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

Let's not trade opinions of each other, shall we?

Why didn't Mike Shanahan trade Haynesworth? Because Haynesworth was nigh-untradeable because of his contract.

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.

As for Cooley, Cooley was pushing 30, coming off major knee surgery, and HE had a pretty big, expensive contract too (thank you, Vinny) with little desire to play anywhere but Washington. What trade value did he have?

Cooley was 28, coming off a broken ankle in 2009 which didn't stop him from having one of his best years in 2010. The knee injury which you speak of happened during the 2010 season. A third-round pick, conditioned on a physical including an exam of the ankle seemed reasonable before the 2010 season.

[Bishop Hammer]

Kyle is closer to Robert but Mike has the experience. It's hard to say without being on the inside.

Its both Mike and Kyle. And Griffin is a special player.

[Oldfan]

duplicate post

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I think some are forgetting what Shanahan was building in Denver on offense before he was fired and then the whole thing was dismantled by the idiocy of McDaniel.

Shanahan's fault was defense, as was covered heavily in a thread in ES not too long ago. He found a good DC in Denver but let him go for some reason, this time around he seems to have had more patience by letting Haslett stay. However, I think I saw the insiders say that Morris has had a bigger hand in things lately. If true, then Morris replacing Haslett next season could mean a good defense, in which case the team becomes one of the top ones.

My concerns are not with offense, but with defense. I am confident Shanny can maintain a great offense. All we need is a decent DC.

I also think the NE "dynasty" stuff is overblown. To have a team that annually is in the playoffs and a contender is ideal. To expect 3 superbowl wins over 4 years in this league is an unrealistic expectation IMO and an attitude that could lead one to repeating Snyder's old habit of firing coaches too soon. NE, afterall, was incredibly lucky to even get to the superbowl in 2001, with the tuck rule, the forward lateral vs. Pitt, and then Warner having a broken thumb. Then there is also the unknown of how much the illegal taping helped.

I agree with everything you said here except I am not sure Raheem being more involved lately or taking over next season. Either way, it couldn't be worse.

Also, I don't think anybody can realistically expect to be the #1 team in the NFL or expect a dynasty. What you hope for is a team that consistently wins the division and can sneak into the 12-13 win range some years and snag a bye. If you can do that consistently over a 10 year stretch you have a great chance to make a few SB runs based on how the matchups, health etc figure over the different years. That is how the NFL works in today's game. Just get in and hope to make a run. Having an elite QB only increases your chances of making a SB.

I think that is what we can realistically strive to be in addition to consistently having a top 5 offense. If we can get to that level we are in business with RG3 running the show.

[Oldfan]

...Also, I don't think anybody can realistically expect to be the #1 team in the NFL...

Some team is going to be #1. Why not us?

I think that is what we can realistically strive to be in addition to consistently having a top 5 offense.

I don't see the point of setting a goal to achieve a high ranking on a deceptive and meaningless ranking.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Some team is going to be #1. Why not us?

I don't see the point of setting a goal to achieve a high ranking on a deceptive and meaningless ranking.

I mean that is always what you try to be, #1 but its not realistic. Look at GB the last 3 years. The ups and downs etc. I would take GB's success but I wouldn't say they are the #1 team in the NFL or a dynasty. Its just not a realistic goal as much as the NFL changes. But I do agree it is always the goal, perhaps I wasn't clear in that.

Also, I don't think having an offense that is consistently top 5 is meaningless. Its not like Top 6 would be a failure I just meant being up there in that range means you have a great chance to win every game just by outscoring the opponent regardless of what the defense does. The teams that have run the NFL the last several years outside of a couple examples have all had top offenses. That is where our once in a lifetime player takes his snaps. Thats what we can be.

[DogofWar1]

You have it backwards. The Patriots were in a position to make win-now moves. Instead, they made long-term moves. Meanwhile, Shanahan who should have been rebuilding with long-term moves made win-now moves like the trade for McNabb. Other win-now decisions were keeping or adding a dozen or more 30+ veterans to help him win a couple more games.

The Patriots didn't need to make win-now moves because they were already a winning team with most of the important pieces. They could afford to sit back and collect picks to unload when they really wanted to. Last year they had one of the worst defenses in the league, so this draft they used their picks to grab two first round defensive players. They made long term moves until this year, and then made some win-now moves.

Shanahan has made two moves I'd characterize as "win-now," the first being trading for McNabb, the second being trading for Brown. Beyond that though, he made long term moves in 2011 by trading back and grabbing a bunch of players, and made similar moves this year. The thing is that I think a lot of people overestimate the talent we had prior to Shanahan culling the herd over the past couple years. Simply put, our team was on pace to be one of the sorriest excuses for a football team in history. Bringing in lots of veterans isn't usually good, but in context, Shanahan basically has had three years to replace about 45 players. Even with full drafts, 7 picks a draft, we'd have been 24 players short. Veterans were going to have to be brought in. Most of them have been reasonable in terms of age actually, Lich, Chester, Monty, Carriker, Bowen, Cofield, Wilson, and Hightower were all well under 30. Garcon, Morgan, Meriweather too. And he's been careful to not give the real oldies big contracts, Madieu is on a cheap one year deal, as are a lot of guys. It actually makes a lot of sense in the long run. He had to turn over an entire roster quickly with scraps on hand. He's been slowly replacing the worst parts with better ones each year, and the proof is in how our team has gone from one of the oldest teams to middle of the pack.

Without Grossman, Fletcher, Moss and Gaffney, the Skins 2011 record would likely have been bad enough to draft Robert Griffin without trading up.

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? That he shouldn't have gotten cheap veterans to fill gaps, which allowed him to sign guys in the 26-28 YO range to decent contracts? I mean, without them, yes, we'd probably have gotten Griffin without trading up, but that's not really a good thing.

Why didn't Mike trade Carter and Haynesworth as the first order of business if he was switching to the 3 - 4? Why didn't he trade Cooley if he wasn't going to go to a base two TE set with Davis?

Because a good coach doesn't get rid of a team's talent (or in our case, lack thereof) without first evaluating it. Shanahan arrived in the middle of the offseason leading up to the 2010 season, he didn't have the time or resources to do an overhaul by cutting and replacing guys. He redid the Dline completely in 2011, after having something of an offseason. He did eventually trade Haynesworth too, though I agree I'd have liked a pick for Carter. As for the TEs, it turned out to be the right choice. Davis wasn't quite ready for primetime until 2011, and Cooley gave out after 2010. If you toss either one either we have a struggling growing Davis in 2010, or a washed-up Cooley in 2011. Pick your poison.

So, basically, you downgrade Belichik for not doing better with more picks rather than giving him credit for managing to get more picks.
Then you credit Shanahan for "not doing badly" as though not doing badly will beat Bill Belichik in roster building.

I give Belichick plenty of credit for stockpiling picks, my point was in response to your argument that he was building this amazing support system. Obviously when you have 10 picks in the first two rounds in three years, as well as successful drafting many years prior to that (something Shanahan had no chance to do), you're going to have a high success rate if you have even the slightest idea what you're doing. You then said Belichick drafted great in later rounds, to which I said that he and Shanahan have similar success for the 2010-12 classes thus far.

I'm giving credit where credit is due. Shanahan has done decently, as has Belichick. Comparing them on raw number of starting players is flawed though, because Belichick has had so many more picks. Give Shanahan ten 1st and 2nd round picks in three years and we could discuss this on even footing.


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.

[Chump Bailey]

1.) There's a great deal of hindsight here. In 2010, no one knew for sure if there would be a rookie salary cap. Hell, in 2010, no one knew for sure there would be a draft period. Anyone we drafted could've had a large contract; there's no guarantee there wouldn't have been.

Maybe so. I agree it certainly reads that way. I was actually mulling this over during the 2010 draft. I'm just speculating of course, but I think most were aware that a rookie cap was a lock and both sides were fully aware and willing to go that route. Trading down might have helped us in a major way right now given our current cap situation and depleted secondary. I'm not knocking the organization for the moves they made. Forward thinking is never a bad thing.

The tackle class in 2011 was far, far worse than the class was in 2010. Tyron Smith has been okay-ish playing left tackle. Solder wasn't really a fit. Carimi is an embarassment on the Bears right now, Carpenter moved to guard, and Derek Sherrod can't stay healthy, and even when he could he couldn't start over Marshall Newhouse.

Hindsight

[NLC1054]

They knew, or should have known, that he 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.

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

All of the trade rumors popped up around the draft; long after Albert Haynesworth had already signed his restructured contract. The rumors were that the Titans (a year after deciding Haynesworth wasn't worth keeping after he had a career year) were willing to trade a third round pick happened around draft time, but it was mostly bull**** speculation because the Redskins didn't have a third round pick that year. No one could back that claim up, and if Mike got that kind of compensation for him, even given the contract situation, I can't in a million years imagine he'd pass it up.

[8181]

They should've traded Albert Haynesworth (and Andre Carter) before it became obvious that Haynesworth wasn't gonna do **** in DC

Trying to trade hayneworth after all the stupid crap that happened was pointless.

[NLC1054]

Hindsight

Yeah yeah, I know, lol.

Seriously, though, I didn't think the class was that good in 2011. Certainly there was no one who looked as good as Trent or even Okung or Anthony Davis. I think Mike Mayock said the same thing about a weaker class at offensive line in 2011, but I could be wrong. I think Casserly at one point said Tyron Smith had the potential to be better than Trent, but I'd wonder if he'd change his mind nowadays. Which of course is hindsight as well, lol.

But really; I wasn't overly impressed with the class in 2011.