WP: (Jenkins): Shanahan Can Coach Football - Who Knew?

[SonnyandSam]

Sally Jenkins writing a positive article about the Redskins....Damn, maybe the Mayans are right about Friday.

As for some of you, amazing how there remain so many negative nannies out there when the Redskins are on the verge of being in the playoffs and it is Mike Shanahan and his draft picks and free agents that have gotten us this far.....just amazing. Try to enjoy the ride and have fun. You'll have a happier life.

[JimboDaMan]

Sally Jenkins writing a positive article about the Redskins....Damn, maybe the Mayans are right about Friday.

As for some of you, amazing how there remain so many negative nannies out there when the Redskins are on the verge of being in the playoffs and it is Mike Shanahan and his draft picks and free agents that have gotten us this far.....just amazing. Try to enjoy the ride and have fun. You'll have a happier life.

When her beloved Giants are doing well Sally's the smartest person in the room. She can be counted on for several condescending articles explaining the facts of football life to lesser beings such as Redskin fans.

This year, not so much.

[MassSkinsFan]

RG3 was more likely to become a better QB than Kirk Cousins but the price we paid makes it less likely that we can support him well.

The safer Cousins pick, leaves us with three ones and a two to spend on support -- making it much more likely that we can support him well.

So, how do you arrive at the conclusion that higher risk decisions are more likely to effect meaningful change more quickly than the more conservative? I don't follow that reasoning.

Besides, why is the pace of progress important? It seems to me that reaching the goal is more important. If the higher risk decision fails, the setback is greater than the safer decision.

That's planning for failure. Not a good idea if you want to change things drastically. Instead you should plan for success and additionally plan mitigation in event of failure.

I say this because in my personal experience with projects I've been on the succes rate is 5-10x better than industry average. Having worked in both risk-accepting and risk-averse environments, I can confidently say that the difference in success relates to the differences in risk tolerance. I'm not saying successful teams throw caution to the wind (far from it actually) but that higher stakes gambles have to be taken to gain a competitive edge. Good risk management changes situations where risks seem to outweigh benefits into situations where benefits outweigh risks.

Cousins is not necessarily a safer pick anyway, since his success likelihood is lower. Unless you tie up one of those picks with a mitigation backup QB (which you're doing anyway in the RG3 scenario) you actually increase the likelihood of failure at QB, which leads to Rex Grossman being your starter.

The pace of progress matters because you are trying to ensure improvement of a multi-variable system. You have to plan so the fixes you make that are linked to (either support or allow for) future fixes won't erode by the time you are ready for the next thing. The RG3 scenario illustrates this. As you say, the likelihood of success increases as you put the pieces in place to protect him. However, that is not the only factor. For example, his ability to quicken the pace of learning for a green OL or green receivers is a factor. Other factors likely exist that make up part of the mitigation stategy, thus lowering the likelihood of failure and/or its impact.

What Mike Shanahan's personal risk preference is is not something either of us knows. My guess is he's pretty risk-accepting as a person. But, I think he listens and learns, and actually considers factors that potentially affect strategic decisions he makes. So, my guess is that whatever risk management system(s) the Skins have in place actually make him a bit more conservative stategically.

[DogofWar1]

RG3 was more likely to become a better QB than Kirk Cousins but the price we paid makes it less likely that we can support him well.
The safer Cousins pick, leaves us with three ones and a two to spend on support -- making it much more likely that we can support him well.
So, how do you arrive at the conclusion that higher risk decisions are more likely to effect meaningful change more quickly than the more conservative? I don't follow that reasoning.
Besides, why is the pace of progress important? It seems to me that reaching the goal is more important. If the higher risk decision fails, the setback is greater than the safer decision.

This is where we get into the debates the board got into prior to drafting RGIII, about whether it's better to chase the high risk high reward blue chip QB, or to go after low risk QBs.

The problem with that is that QBs usually aren't like other positions, there's sort of this wall of difference between starters and non-starters, not a slow decline, and historically QBs drafted later end up on the wrong side of the wall. That would be why, at least from my perspective, I'd say a higher risk decision is more likely to effect meaningful change more quickly than a conservative one. While higher risk decisions failing creates greater setback, the reward is very high with success, and generally the low-risk moves have very low ceilings for progress.

Ideally there'd be a low drop off round to round in terms of skill for QBs, with a slightly more difficult learning curve that could be overcome with coaching/talent, etc., but in reality that's extremely rare. Historically, QBs taken in middle or later rounds haven't found much success.

This isn't to say that you can't find QBs like that, Schaub was a 3rd rounder, Brady is a famous 6th, and Romo was undrafted, but they are very much the exception.

Looking at drafts from [EDIT, was 04, not 05] 2004-2010 (I think 3 years is enough time to pass judgement on most QBs, most being a key phrase there), there were 93 QBs drafted. Of those, 11 have been able to stick with a team and be consistently successful (Bradford, Stafford, Freeman, Ryan, Flacco, Cutler, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, Big Ben, Schaub, and obviously, I'm giving guys like Bradford and Freeman the benefit of the doubt). 4 more have the jury sort of out on them (McCoy, Flynn, Smith, and Fitzpatrick, though needle is pointing down for all of them), and a whopping 78 other QBs have failed to succeed. Some (Campbell, Orton), have been starters for a while and are serviceable backups, but you could never build a consistent winning team around them.

From that perspective, picking only Cousins doesn't look like a recipe for success, there's only a few non-1st round QBs starting right now on successful teams. QBs, for whatever reason, don't really develop very well often, if they don't come in with a skillset to succeed, they usually won't. If I was a coach looking at Cousins, I couldn't legitimately expect him to succeed; I might hope for him to, but he wasn't a complete enough prospect to take earlier, so there's clear problems there.

The one trend that might support taking QBs later, is that the NFL is moving closer to the college game in terms of concepts in a lot of places. It's getting more and more like 7 on 7, so QBs coming out of college might be better prepared for the national game. Guys like Dalton, Kaepernick, and Wilson, being successful (so far) and not 1st rounders, is a huge surprise. If they continue to do well, and the trend of 2nd and 3rd round QBs succeeding in the NFL continues, it certainly strengthens the idea that QBs don't need to be taken very early.

The thing is that trend is brand new, and might not even be a real trend. The historical trend tends to show that the top prospects sometimes succeed, while the lesser prospects almost never succeed, which is why I can understand Shanahan taking the risk he did on RGIII, vs. only drafting someone like Wilson or Cousins.

[Oldfan]

That's planning for failure. Not a good idea if you want to change things drastically. Instead you should plan for success and additionally plan mitigation in event of failure.

Well, of course one doesn't want to plan for failure. But, specifically, what are you referring to? Conservatism is "planning for failure"... is that what you mean? If so, that's sounds like you are gilding the lily.

I say this because in my personal experience with projects I've been on the succes rate is 5-10x better than industry average. Having worked in both risk-accepting and risk-averse environments, I can confidently say that the difference in success relates to the differences in risk tolerance. I'm not saying successful teams throw caution to the wind (far from it actually) but that higher stakes gambles have to be taken to gain a competitive edge. Good risk management changes situations where risks seem to outweigh benefits into situations where benefits outweigh risks.

I suspect you are trying to compare apples with oranges. Can you honestly say that the same strategies that are effective in dealing with the dynamics of your market apply to the unique problem of building an NFL roster? They certainly don't apply to investments or winning football games.

Cousins is not necessarily a safer pick anyway, since his success likelihood is lower.

I don't think that's true. If we assume that the same person (Mike) is making the selection, his success rate applies to both. RG3 offers the higher reward, but the risk of failure is the same (either could fail the NFL real bullets test).

Unless you tie up one of those picks with a mitigation backup QB (which you're doing anyway in the RG3 scenario) you actually increase the likelihood of failure at QB, which leads to Rex Grossman being your starter.

Grossman is a decent backup. Cousins would be less like to be injured given his style of play. Moreover, the difference between he and Rex is not that wide. And let's remember that both Rex and Kirk would benefit from the greater support that the three ones and a two saved on the RG3 deal would bring. So, the new version of Rex should play better than the 2011 model.

The pace of progress matters because you are trying to ensure improvement of a multi-variable system. You have to plan so the fixes you make that are linked to (either support or allow for) future fixes won't erode by the time you are ready for the next thing.

You're right about that. I had forgotten about the normal turnover. But, I still haven't heard a convincing argument that high-risk decisions accelerate progress in roster building.

The RG3 scenario illustrates this. As you say, the likelihood of success increases as you put the pieces in place to protect him. However, that is not the only factor. For example, his ability to quicken the pace of learning for a green OL or green receivers is a factor.

How would RG3 do that? Give me an example.

Other factors likely exist that make up part of the mitigation stategy, thus lowering the likelihood of failure and/or its impact

.

i don't give credit for open items in debate.

What Mike Shanahan's personal risk preference is is not something either of us knows. My guess is he's pretty risk-accepting as a person. But, I think he listens and learns, and actually considers factors that potentially affect strategic decisions he makes. So, my guess is that whatever risk management system(s) the Skins have in place actually make him a bit more conservative stategically.

He is learning. It has been said that, in the early days of his Bronco reign (1999 - 2000), he wouldn't listen to his scouts or anybody else. He made the same kind of know-it-all mistakes that Snyder made. We haven't seen much of that here.

The McNabb trade was probably due to the Shanny ego run amok. But, that's the only one I can think of.

[Oldfan]

This is where we get into the debates the board got into prior to drafting RGIII, about whether it's better to chase the high risk high reward blue chip QB, or to go after low risk QBs...

You've taken on a tough job. I don't see how you can make a persuasive argument for your position.

Your claims that begin with "historically..." are supported with stats based on your subjective judgments or with nothing at all.

QBs that are drafted #1 are likely to start simply because the team has a bigger investment in them.

QBs fail for lots of reasons. Lack of talent is just one of them. The most reliable predictor of success is the team that drafts them. Ryan Mallet has a good chance to succeed when Brady is done; but better QBs who went to losing teams with incompetent coaches will fail.

QBs coming out of high school are being coached much better than ever. There should be an ample supply of QBs coming out of college who are ready to go to the next level.

You echo MSF's claim that " a higher risk decision is more likely to effect meaningful change more quickly than a conservative one" while not offering a reason.

Finally, the only strong argument against drafting RG3 is the price paid. The question wasn't "Is he worth a number One" it's is he worth three ones and a two. You can't make a valid historical argument to support that price because it has never been done before.

[BleedBNG]

The question wasn't "Is he worth a number One" it's is he worth three ones and a two.

Please explain how it was 3 ones.

[Oldfan]

Please explain how it was 3 ones.

The discussion is about his cost -- not just the cost to move up.

[DogofWar1]

Your claims that begin with "historically..." are supported with stats based on your subjective judgments or with nothing at all.

A little bit subjective, but not much, I literally just went through wikipedia looking at the drafts from 2004-2010 and made a quick spreadsheet of QBs sort by successes, failures, and guys who the jury was still out on. I judged success as being a QB who has stuck with a team and not been replaced for a non-injury reason.

By looking at 7 years we can obtain a large enough sample size that a lot of the exceptions will average out. It's not perfect, but it's close.

The findings were simple, 11 of the 93 succeeded, of those 10 were 1st rounders, 1 was a 3rd rounder.
I said the jury was out on the 4 of them, and they were a 1st, two 7ths, and a 3rd.
As for the remaining 78 failed QBs: 8 were 1st rounders, 9 were 2nds, 7 were 3rds, 7 were 4ths, 15 were 5ths, 18 were 6ths, and 14 were 7ths.

The correlations we can see there are that successful QBs are almost always from the 1st round, while failed QBs can occur pretty much in any round, but the only round where the vast majority of (if not all) QBs didn't fail is the 1st round, where slightly over 50% were successful.

Now, you can point out that correlation doesn't imply causation all you want, but the stronger the trend the more likely there is to be a causal link, and more importantly, you combine the trends with the combined wisdom of the 32 front offices, and you can paint a pretty solid picture of how QB talent fell from 2004-2010.

As for the idea that QBs drafted earlier have a higher chance of starting, that's true within the immediate year or so of a player's career, but over 4 or 5 years if a QB is talented enough they will find a starter spot somewhere. Schaub as a 3rd rounder backup in Atlanta, generally wouldn't have gotten many options, but his talent showed enough that he was given the chance to start in Houston, and succeeded. The flip side is someone like Flynn, who was given a chance to start in Seattle, fell short, and has since been replaced.

QBs fail for lots of reasons. Lack of talent is just one of them. The most reliable predictor of success is the team that drafts them. Ryan Mallet has a good chance to succeed when Brady is done; but better QBs who went to losing teams with incompetent coaches will fail.

This argument is nice on paper but the data doesn't really hold. If it was true, one would expect that of the 54 QBs taken in the 4th or later since 2004, someone would have found consistent success, or at least success with different teams that fit them better after finishing their rookie contract.

The problem is no QB has managed that. In the absence of a QB actually doing that, all we have is speculation. Speculation is fine, but correlations from actual data are better to use than pure speculation.

A QB's true talent level is almost always brought to light at some point in their career. Truly capable QBs eventually get their chance (Schaub), while poor ones will eventually be exposed (Sanchez). So while it's certainly possible a QB or two slipped through the cracks, the more likely answer is that they simply were not good enough to be starters in the NFL.

QBs coming out of high school are being coached much better than ever. There should be an ample supply of QBs coming out of college who are ready to go to the next level.

That certainly possible, and it would make for an exciting time in the league. How the game would change if capable QBs weren't suddenly scarce is interesting to speculate about. Would cornerbacks and pass rushers become the new QBs, in that they are consistently overdrafted? Would WRs, in order to take advantage of QBs? Would RB value further depress?

In the context of this argument though, while we can speculate about the future the data is still not in on that trend, and until we're a few years down the road we can't be certain.

You echo MSF's claim that " a higher risk decision is more likely to effect meaningful change more quickly than a conservative one" while not offering a reason.

Well, frankly this goes back to how important we rate the QB position, and I know there's an unbridgeable gap there in our views.

However, in the context of choosing a QB, conservative decisions almost never pan out, unless you're lucky enough to have an elite prospect fall (Rodgers 2005) or get EXTREMELY lucky on a late pick (Brady, Romo). If you looked at the linebackers chosen from 2004-2010, you'd probably see a pretty stable downward trendline of % of drafted players successful going from the 1st through 7th. With QBs, there's a cliff after the first, with tiny blips periodically.

With most positions, it's a numbers game, which is why conservative decisions make sense. If you draft 10 linebackers in the middle rounds, or offensive linemen, or runningbacks, sooner or later one of them will succeed. It still makes sense to take guys available earlier because of caps on rosters and time needed for development, but things can still work if you just throw players at a wall until one sticks.

QB however isn't a numbers game. It's a talent game, and that talent is clustered in the 1st round, and even then you have to have good evaluations in order to get the right one. Generally, you have to draft early and correctly. If a FO has identified the correct prospect, then one would be well advised to follow the adage that "fortune favors the bold."

Finally, the only strong argument against drafting RG3 is the price paid. The question wasn't "Is he worth a number One" it's is he worth three ones and a two. You can't make a valid historical argument to support that price because it has never been done before.

The historical arguments were mainly to try and dispute the idea that "4th round QB+ RGIII picks back" is > or = "RGIII+4th." If that were true one would expect more later round picks to succeed and conservative drafting to work more often. While we can't be 100% certain it wouldn't have worked in this scenario, the odds are it wouldn't have worked.

But as for if he's worth it, RGIII probably has a skillset and mind that makes him as if not more likely to succeed than any prospect in the past couple decades, while the alternatives (viewed from an ex ante perspective) fall well below him. Considering his shelf life will probably be over ten years, it makes sense that, if you need to spend what we did to get him that you do. Even if we buy the argument that we slow the teams growth for 3 years, that means in 3 years we get the picks to build again, AND the elite QB, whereas if we don't spend those picks we might have a robust non-QB team, but without a QB we probably fall flat most years. We can build the team around RGIII, it will be slower, yes, but we have a large window with which to work now, whereas without RGIII, looking from an ex ante perspective, even with those picks we would have had no real window at all.

[da#1skinsfan]

We knew it. Everyone did but the extreeeeeeemeskins couch coaches and you, Sally, you negative old crow!

[Oldfan]

DW1:

You said your method was a little subjective. Then, you described a method that was entirely subjective and, since the last three are inconclusive, seven years is a small sample size.

I have'nt tried to find it for you, but I recall one study online that used the number of starts as an objective metric over a 20-year span and it didn't just do QBs, it did all the positions. All I recall from it is that defensive tackles were the most reliable number one picks.

You reject my logic regarding the team as a major factor in success or failure of QBs in favor of your study. You know I'm not going to concede that. I'm not questioning your intent or even your ability to make fair judgments, but your study doesn't pass the first hurdle as a worthwhile stat. It isn't objective.

I doubt that even an objective study would hold up for the same reason that QB ratings fail: You can't separate the performances of the QB and team. Right now it appears that Mark Sanchez has failed. I liked his skill set as a rookie, but he has had the absolute worst coaching in the NFL. Did he fail or did his coaches fail him?

You are projecting RG3 as a ten-year starter. I hope you are right. But, here's the rub: The more you rely on his legs, the more he's worth. But, the more you rely on his legs, the less likely he will last ten years.

I wouldn't have made the trade, and even though I now know he's the best QB I've even seen, I'm not sure that he was worth it. Mike gave up one helluva lot.

And, yes, it does come down to the fact that I don't value the position as highly as most fans. It surprised me that Shanahan did the deal because I've been on the same page with him on everything he's said about QBs. He has said many times that the QB needs a good supporting cast in order to succeed.

[brandymac27]

This question is slightly OT, but I wonder how many people would be willing to allow Mike's time here to start over? In other words, now that we have our franchise QB and other pieces are starting to finally come together (not to mention, as a team, we're definitely improving), how many people think this should count as Mike's year 1 as opposed to year 3?

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

OldFan, I understand your argument. But it appears that you are sticking to your guns just for the sake of sticking to your guns. I don't think Shanny is perfect, but the idea of the price being too steep to move up for RG3 I think is moot at this point. Your disdain for "subjective" debate doesn't make sense when you subjectively assume that we would have gotten high production from the picks that we traded away. That is certainly speculation in its truest form.

We needed a QB. We have for two decades. We were in a unique position to move up to grab a prospect that we felt could stabilize our QB position for the next ten years. It was a move I felt like we needed to make, and so did our organization. There was a nice article where Dan Reeves spoke about trading the farm twice, for Elway and for Vick. He said that those were the two easiest decisions he's ever made. I trust that Shanny probably felt the same way.

At some point, an organization has to have the guts to draft a guy that they think will be The Man. We had our opportunity and we seized it. What you consider to be a high risk move, I actually tend to look at with a different perspective. I think our FO excercised a great deal of patience by not reaching on a QB in the 2011 draft when they certainly had an opportunity to do so. In short, I think drafting RG3 was a gutsy call, and I'm damn happy we pushed our chips on the table and brought the young man to DC.

[BWillisinGB]

Goonies never say die!

[Oldfan]

OldFan, I understand your argument. But it appears that you are sticking to your guns just for the sake of sticking to your guns.

And you are saying that because you disagree and you are insisting you are right.

I don't think Shanny is perfect, but the idea of the price being too steep to move up for RG3 I think is moot at this point.

It isn't moot when used as an example in a debate about Risk Management. That's what is going on here.

Your disdain for "subjective" debate doesn't make sense when you subjectively assume that we would have gotten high production from the picks that we traded away. That is certainly speculation in its truest form.

I don't know what subjective debate is. We were discussing subjectivity in statistics.

There was a nice article where Dan Reeves spoke about trading the farm twice, for Elway and for Vick. He said that those were the two easiest decisions he's ever made. I trust that Shanny probably felt the same way.

Reeves coached 27 years and, despite having Elway and Vick, never won a Super Bowl. Maybe trading the farm twice was the reason.

But I don't want to rehash that debate. That's not what we are doing here.