Shanahan Needs To Stand Now On Own Two Feet

[Oldfan]

Great to see you Oldfan. You are going to love this place.

Hey, Amigo! It's great to see you too.

We'll see how it goes here. I grew bored with ES, but maybe it's me.

 

[Oldfan]

So you agree, we could have "won now", thereby contradicting almost everything else you've been saying in this thread.

Shanahan, properly made win now decisions, that just didn't pan out.

Welcome to the party pal.

There's no contradiction, Pal.

Obviously, if the Skins had gotten better QB play, they might have won the weak NFC East. Does the chance of that happening justify adding 13 players 30 and over to the roster in a win-now effort? Not in my book. Maybe in yours.

I think Mike's win-now bent will likely give us the same high-end mediocrity that he gave the Broncos fans for the ten years he had full control. I want more than that.

 

[Ax]

Obviously, if the Skins had gotten better QB play, they might have won the weak NFC East. Does the chance of that happening justify adding 13 players 30 and over to the roster in a win-now effort? Not in my book. Maybe in yours.

I just think you're too fixated on a number. My criteria is pretty basic. Always try to win, with the best players you can get, regardless of their age, draft status, pay grade, etc. I want good players. I don't care if they're drafted, UDFA,s, veteran free agents, traded for, or beamed down from another planet. Age is an unreliable barometer. As long as he can perform at a high level (London Fletcher) I couldn't care less how old he is.

I think Mike's win-now bent will likely give us the same high-end mediocrity that he gave the Broncos fans for the ten years he had full control. I want more than that.

First off, I'm one who was against hiring Shanahan, feeling he is vastly overrated. But, now that he's here, he should get enough time to prove his worth. Not to mention that this organization needs to settle on a system, offensive and defensive, and build upon those systems for more than a couple/few years. As each system change usually requires significant roster change.

And, as I and others have stated, decisions of win now, AND down the road, can be made simultaneously.

Anybody that doesn't want to win, at everything, all the time, wouldn't be on my Pictionary team, much less my football team.

 

[Elephant]

Pictionary? I wanna play!

 

[McD5]

Hey, Amigo! It's great to see you too.

We'll see how it goes here. I grew bored with ES, but maybe it's me.

It's not just you. I believe you will find this site more mature, and intelligent. And a lot less fighting, etc between members.

Glad you finally found it.

 

[Goaldeje]

Yeah. We never fight.

 

[Oldfan]

Ax ~ And, as I and others have stated, decisions of win now, AND down the road, can be made simultaneously.

One step North, one step West, repeated over and over... doesn’t get you North or West. It’s a Northwest plan. It’s not a good win-now plan and it’s not a good roster building plan.

Anybody that doesn't want to win, at everything, all the time, wouldn't be on my Pictionary team, much less my football team.

Do you play every hand of Poker right to the end regardless of your chances of winning? I'll assume that the answer is "no." Do you consider yourself a quitter when you fold a poor hand at Poker? Again, I'll assume a no answer. So, then it's safe to say that you understand that the rules of games, like the rules of War, sometimes make a strategic withdrawal a sound move.

The game we’re playing is NFL Roster Building. The objective is to build a Grade A roster, one capable of competing annually for championships. One of the rules of the game is that the teams with the worst records get to pick earlier in the draft.

So, let me give you a strategy question.

Your young and future roster is a poor one. You have Grade D talent, a team likely to win three games.

You can augment your current grade by filling 25% of your roster with older vets. This move improves your talent to a D+ for the current season. Your D+ team will win five games.

What’s your call, Ax? Which is the smarter move if the object of the game is to build a Grade A roster?

Win three games now, use 25% more roster in the auditioning and development of young players, and pick higher in the draft or...

win five games now?

Bear in mind that you win this NFL game by building a Grade A roster. That’s the objective. Counting wins-per-season is not a meaningful statistic showing progress toward that goal.

 

[Hog Fever]

.....Bear in mind that you win this game by building a Grade A roster. That’s the objective. Counting wins-per-season is not a meaningful statistic showing progress toward that goal.

I don't disagree in theory but in practice there are a couple of other things that come into play and complicate matters.

First, unless management is 100% on board with putting a sub par product on the field for an undetermined number of years, the coach is going to get fired and maybe the GM too. Maybe the fans stop coming to the game or buying jerseys. A "rebuild" in the NFL has to start showing some progress in the second year.

Second, you can't be certain that young talent isn't going to buck up and win 3-5 games a season and knock you out of the top spot, even if they are over-matched. It happens all the time in the NFL. I guess you could make the argument that a young bad team would be better than an old bad team, but crap is crap. The Pittsburgh Pirates have a young team year after year and they've have finished under .500 for what, 20 years?

Last, you can't say with any certainty that high draft picks lead to superior players. I don't need to expand on this.

What the bottom line here is that if there was one way to do things that worked every time in all situations everyone would do it. I don't think there is. I'll echo what I've been saying for years; if we had a legit franchise QB our outlook would be completely different.

 

[Oldfan]

I don't disagree in theory but in practice there are a couple of other things that come into play and complicate matters.

First, unless management is 100% on board with putting a sub par product on the field for an undetermined number of years, the coach is going to get fired and maybe the GM too. Maybe the fans stop coming to the game or buying jerseys. A "rebuild" in the NFL has to start showing some progress in the second year.

Second, you can't be certain that young talent isn't going to buck up and win 3-5 games a season and knock you out of the top spot, even if they are over-matched. It happens all the time in the NFL. I guess you could make the argument that a young bad team would be better than an old bad team, but crap is crap. The Pittsburgh Pirates have a young team year after year and they've have finished under .500 for what, 20 years?

Last, you can't say with any certainty that high draft picks lead to superior players. I don't need to expand on this.

What the bottom line here is that if there was one way to do things that worked every time in all situations everyone would do it. I don't think there is. I'll echo what I've been saying for years; if we had a legit franchise QB our outlook would be completely different.

We agree that the owner has to be on board for a first-rate rebuilding effort to succeed. In fact, he not only has to be on board, he has to see to it that his coach and GM don’t lapse into a win-now mode while worrying about their job security.

Fans are mostly win-now oriented. That’s why those big name free agent acquisitions put fannies in the seats. So, if you want to build a Grade A roster, you have to ignore the fans.

You have a plan; then you have the execution of the plan. If you don’t have a front office that is good at finding talent, it won’t matter how good your plan is. However, if you have a good rebuilding plan, well-executed, it should not take long to build a winner in the NFL since normal rosters turn over at a high rate. My guess is that if Mike had made nothing but rebuild moves from day one in 2010 (assuming good work by our scouts), the Skins would have been ready to play on an elite level in 2012. That would entail three offseasons of rebuilding effort: 2010, 11, 12

You're right. In any given year it is not a certainty that higher draft picks lead to superior players. However, over an extended period of time, it is a certainty that the same personnel department will do better drafting higher.

I’m not a believer in the idea that the franchise QB is almost all you need to know about winning NFL football games. While I agree that the QB position is the most important, its value is way overrated. QBs on winning teams get more credit than they deserve.

 

[Neophyte]

I’m not a believer in the idea that the franchise QB is almost all you need to know about winning NFL football games. While I agree that the QB position is the most important, its value is way overrated. QBs on winning teams get more credit than they deserve.

5 to 10 years ago I would have agreed with you on this statement but no longer. The NFL is a QB driven league and as a rule, only teams with a franchise QB really have a shot at the whole enchilada. Sure, you can be competitive in this league with less than a franchise QB but you aren't likely to win a Super Bowl without one (unless you a defense for the ages like the 2000 Ravens).

The last team to win a Super Bowl without a legit franchise QB (hell, maybe the last to do it without a HoF QB!) was Tampa Bay in 2003 with Brad Johnson under center. It can be argued that situation was an anomaly due to Gruden's knowledge of the Oakland team. It didn't hurt that Johnson was underrated QB either. Other than that, the only other example of a team winning a Super Bowl without a franchise QB in the last two decades is the Ravens in 2001, a team I have already mentioned.

Other than those two, you have to go back to Gibbs last SB win in 92 to find a team without a franchise QB (Mark Rypien) and most of the the guys between then and now aren't just franchise QBs, they are HoF QBs.

Aikman, Cowboys - 93, 94, 96
Young, 49ers - 95
Favre, Packers - 97
Elway, Broncos - 98, 99
Warner, Rams - 00
Brady, Patriots - 02, 04, 05
Rothlesburger, Steelers - 06, 09
Manning, Colts - 07
Manning, Giants - 08
Brees, Saints - 10
Rogers, Packers - 11

You can argue that Eli Manning and Ben Rothlesburger are the only guys on that list that aren't sure fire HoFers but both will get at least some consideration.

You can build a solid team that competes year after year in this league but if you want that "Grade A" roster you are talking about, Oldfan, you absolutely, positively have to have a top QB.

 

[Skinsfan76]

Dilfer won with the Ravens. Just an oversite your reasoning is solid and I agree.

 

[Oldfan]

Neo ~ You can build a solid team that competes year after year in this league but if you want that "Grade A" roster you are talking about, Oldfan, you absolutely, positively have to have a top QB.

We disagree on this very complex topic, Neo.

My most basic argument is that you are deceiving yourself. You aren’t grading quarterbacks at all. You just think you are.

What you are doing is grading the 49ers offense with Steve Young at quarterback. You aren’t grading Steve Young. The Tampa Bay Bucs offense with Steve Young at quarterback graded much lower.

You are grading the Saints offense with Drew Brees at quarterback. You aren’t grading Drew Brees. The Chargers offense with Drew Brees at quarterback playing Martyball graded much lower.

In order to grade quarterbacks, you must first isolate them from their support system. You can grade them on the tangible evidence, their ability to throw a football and their mobility. While the intangibles are important, they are also very difficult for anyone but the OC to grade fairly -- and you are not likely to get an impartial assessment from them.

As a consequence of separating the QB from his team, my opinions on QBs vary wildly from the bandwagon opinions.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Dilfer won with the Ravens. Just an oversite your reasoning is solid and I agree.

He mentioned that Ravens team twice (but mixed the date up on the second time).

 

[Neophyte]

We disagree on this very complex topic, Neo.

My most basic argument is that you are deceiving yourself. You aren’t grading quarterbacks at all. You just think you are.

What you are doing is grading the 49ers offense with Steve Young at quarterback. You aren’t grading Steve Young. The Tampa Bay Bucs offense with Steve Young at quarterback graded much lower.

You are grading the Saints offense with Drew Brees at quarterback. You aren’t grading Drew Brees. The Chargers offense with Drew Brees at quarterback playing Martyball graded much lower.

In order to grade quarterbacks, you must first isolate them from their support system. You can grade them on the tangible evidence, their ability to throw a football and their mobility. While the intangibles are important, they are also very difficult for anyone but the OC to grade fairly -- and you are not likely to get an impartial assessment from them.

As a consequence of separating the QB from his team, my opinions on QBs vary wildly from the bandwagon opinions.

Trust me, I am the first person to take into consideration that the supporting cast plays a role. Usually a big one.

However, I think your examples are bogus. First off, the Steve Young that played for the Bucs was very different from the Steve Young that played for the 49ers. As were the two systems. I'm not saying Young would have won a SB with the Bucs if he had stayed there for his whole career and someone had decided run Walsh's offense there but I would say that Young would have done better under those conditions than he did at the beginning of his career.

And while Brees career in SD is only average, his last year in SD was amazing. Nearly MVP worthy. Had he not been injured in that last game casting doubt over his ability going forward, I doubt the Saints would have had a shot at him.

You might also try looking at the Saints offense before and after Brees arrived. Big difference there too.

Granted, you left out the biggest example on the list of the QB not necessarily being the straw that stirs the drink when you didn't mention Elway not winning an SB until he had Davis carrying the ball either.

But look at this year's Colts vs last year's Colts. Nearly the same cast with and without Manning.

I'm not saying the franchise QB can do it all by himself without a supporting cast but I am saying that a real franchise QB makes his supporting cast so much better, often elevating a mediocre offense to elite levels.

He mentioned that Ravens team twice (but mixed the date up on the second time).

Actually, both dates are correct. It was the 2000 season but the 2001 Super Bowl. And I left the dates that way intentionally. I gotta be honest and tell you that having the Super Bowl in a different calendar year from the season played to get there just drives me batty.

 

[Oldfan]

Neo ~ The last team to win a Super Bowl without a legit franchise QB (hell, maybe the last to do it without a HoF QB!) was Tampa Bay in 2003 with Brad Johnson under center.

How did you determine that the QBs on your list were "legit franchise QBs?" Would you describe your grading process?

BTW... the Saints signed Sean Payton and had the best draft in their history the same year Brees arrived... and Bill Polian says that the Colts lost six or their seven top linemen to injury in addition to losing Peyton.

 

[Bulldog]

Look folks, I watched Gibbs win the Super Bowl with 3 different quarterbacks, none of whom received many votes for the Hall of Fame when they became eligible.

But the NFL has changed. Free agency has changed it, and the continuity on the roster and experience within a system that you saw with the Redskins on offense surrounding the quarterback is no longer possible to maintain.

In today's game, the money is usually distributed so that the qb is the one who becomes invested in the system and is compensated for the long-term, while the RBs, WRs and OL that surround him change over time.

That puts a premium on the passer having above average to elite skills.

Each season he is having to adjust to new wideouts, offensive linemen and runners in the backfield.

And going beyond the cap there is the injury factor which just seems to be getting worse each year with the number of players going down.

No, to be successful over the long-term in the NFL now, you have to have a quarterback with the skills to lead.

'Game managers' may take a team to 9-7 or 10-6, see Matt Cassel in KC or Jason Campbell (pre-injury) in Oakland, but the teams always seem ready to try and upgrade from them when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Neophyte]

How did you determine that the QBs on your list were "legit franchise QBs?" Would you describe your grading process?

I'm not sure there is a "grading process", per se. Like someone once said about porn, he couldn't define it but he knew it when he saw it.

I don't think it is all about statistics although those things certainly factor in. Leadership comes into play as well as situational awareness. Having that "it" factor, as Boone has talked about many times.

Rex Grossman posts some great stats at times but won't ever be a franchise QB. He often throws INTs at the worst possible time. Misses the must have play a bit too much. In short, he is not a guy I trust with the ball when I absolutely have to have points. And after his years in this league I think it is safe to say he won't ever be that guy.

Tim Tebow, on the other hand, might be called a franchise QB one day. No, he doesn't play the position in the conventional way but somehow, someway he gets the job done when it has to be done more often than not. Already I think I trust him more than all but a handful of guys in this league at the QB position. It is way too early to say anything about him conclusively but already in his young career you can see how it might be possible.

I'm sure that doesn't answer your question. It probably wouldn't for me either if I had asked it but it is what I have for an answer right now.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

My most basic argument is that you are deceiving yourself. You aren’t grading quarterbacks at all. You just think you are.

This is aimed at no one in particular - just saying something here.

This is why I have stayed away from this thread. Don't ever tell me that I am "deceiving myself" or that I am thinking in a way that is not true to myself. Don't tell me how to think, what to think, where to think, and when to think. Disagree with me all you want and we can debate the topic at hand. But never, ever tell me what to say, think, or do when it doesn't suit your line of thinking. I'll respect what you think and feel and the vice should be the versa.

If it simmers down a notch or two, I will have some thoughts (read, mine) on the subect(s). If not, feel free to beat the snot out of each other and I will get some good entertainment.

 

[burgold]

This is aimed at no one in particular - just saying something here.

This is why I have stayed away from this thread. Don't ever tell me that I am "deceiving myself" or that I am thinking in a way that is not true to myself. Don't tell me how to think, what to think, where to think, and when to think. Disagree with me all you want and we can debate the topic at hand. But never, ever tell me what to say, think, or do when it doesn't suit your line of thinking. I'll respect what you think and feel and the vice should be the versa.

If it simmers down a notch or two, I will have some thoughts (read, mine) on the subect(s). If not, feel free to beat the snot out of each other and I will get some good entertainment.

Amen.

I like the porn analogy to the qb. We know a great qb when we see one performing. It's the guy who can lead that comeback, who makes the necessary throw, and doesn't make the timely mistake. It's the guy you can trust almost all the time. Sure, that guy needs a line to protect him, receivers who can get open and catch; plus a runner to deflect attention, but nontheless, that great qb shines.

To say, you can't determine if he was a great qb is to say we can't tell if any player was great and I don't know if one can say that. Was Barry Sanders great? Was Jim Brown a function of his O-line? Would Joe Jacoby be remembered as a great tackle if there wasn't a Russ Grimm?

Nothing is in a vaccuum, but everything can be assessed.

 

[fansince62]

Yeah. We never fight.

my first real laugh of the day!

...thanks Goal!!!!