• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Adam Carriker is a Redskin

Well, I'm not sure hiring a 58 year-old coach and a 33 year-old QB are exactly evidence to support the notion that the team is looking at a long term plan. Cutting dead weight is something every new coach does, and has done even here (except maybe Zorn.) Cutting dead weight every five years is actually evidence that this team does NOT plan for the long term very well. I'm not saying that won't change now, but I'm not sure any of the above counts. :)

I am as anxious as anyone to see the seeds planted for a dynasty here. And hopefully between now and September we'll see some. I'm just not sure we've seen much of it yet.

That said, I think you COULD count this move (Carriker) as a move made with an eye on the future. He's young and full of potential, and we got him for almost nothing. But given his history of injuries I think the chances of him not working out are at least as high as the chances of him being part of a long-term foundation. We'll just have to hope for the former.
 
Last edited:
MikeSr619 said:
seriously, if you cant see what we are doing right now to try and right the ship I am shocked. Even Danny stepping back and not going after the big name in free agency is a new event.
Click to expand...

Snyder firing himself and Vinnie are definitely moves geared towards fixing the present. (And very good moves at that.) I'm talking about what we're doing now that they're influence is gone.
 
Last edited:
A lot depends on how you're choosing to represent that 2nd and (possibly) 3rd round pick. If we're talking Rocky McIntosh and Chris Cooley, then yeah, the trade might not be the best long term answer. But you also have to consider the possibility that those two picks end up being Taylor Jacobs and Chad Rinehart.

We know what we're getting with McNabb. The burden is now on the Eagles to find the right players, draft them, sign them, hope they work out, develop them over the years, and if they're lucky, they blossom into becoming good enough to warrant letting go a perennial Pro Bowler, potentially Hall Of Fame caliber player who still has plenty left.

You say we gave away two draft picks. I say we stole a franchise quarterback. :)
 
Aston Gambino said:
A lot depends on how you're choosing to represent that 2nd and (possibly) 3rd round pick. If we're talking Rocky McIntosh and Chris Cooley, then yeah, the trade might not be the best long term answer. But you also have to consider the possibility that those two picks end up being Taylor Jacobs and Chad Rinehart.

We know what we're getting with McNabb. The burden is now on the Eagles to find the right players, draft them, sign them, hope they work out, develop them over the years, and if they're lucky, they blossom into becoming good enough to warrant letting go a perennial Pro Bowler, potentially Hall Of Fame caliber player who still has plenty left.

You say we gave away two draft picks. I say we stole a franchise quarterback. :)
Click to expand...

The reason you want a lot of picks is to maximize the chance of landing a Chris Cooley for a relatively cheap price, while minimizing the negative impact of a busted pick.

One reason Jacobs hurt so bad was because he represented a third of the Redskins draft that year. This year we'd better HOPE Williams works spectacularly, because all our draft eggs are in that basket. If we had a full compliment of picks we could afford to miss on some and it would be no big deal. Heck, most teams don't expect every pick to work out. They have room for draft error. We, once again, do not.

The Eagles with the trade increased their chances of finding a gem in the draft. We reduced ours, for 2-3 years of stability at QB. That's not long-term thinking to me.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Have you guys noticed the average tenure of an NFL coach these days? It ain't 1972 guys. We can all bleat all we want about wanting the team to 'build for the future', but in today's NFL, you'd better realize to some extent that the 'future is now' or former SB-winning coach or not, you won't have a lengthy future to build for. There are some exceptions, and I'm really not suggesting that Shanahan doesn't have plenty of time, but part of any perceived 'urgency' may also be exactly the fact that he's 58 years old. Not every coach wants to be Joe Paterno or Lou Holtz. He may have already decided 'I'm coaching another 4-5 years - period'. He could even have a dual agenda - win now, but pave the way for a bright future for son Kyle.

No matter what your viewpoint, I think it's overly harsh to state the approach so far has been typical Redskins 'mortgaging the future for the present' type decision-making. Shanahan isn't accountable for a decade of *mostly* mismanagement. That's our own fan-baggage talking.
 
Boone said:
Have you guys noticed the average tenure of an NFL coach these days? It ain't 1972 guys. We can all bleat all we want about wanting the team to 'build for the future', but in today's NFL, you'd better realize to some extent that the 'future is now' or former SB-winning coach or not, you won't have a lengthy future to build for. There are some exceptions, and I'm really not suggesting that Shanahan doesn't have plenty of time, but part of any perceived 'urgency' may also be exactly the fact that he's 58 years old. Not every coach wants to be Joe Paterno or Lou Holtz. He may have already decided 'I'm coaching another 4-5 years - period'. He could even have a dual agenda - win now, but pave the way for a bright future for son Kyle.

No matter what your viewpoint, I think it's overly harsh to state the approach so far has been typical Redskins 'mortgaging the future for the present' type decision-making. Shanahan isn't accountable for a decade of *mostly* mismanagement. That's our own fan-baggage talking.
Click to expand...

That's fine, B, but my question was what has this new front office done that makes one think we have any sort of long term plan. I'm not suggesting Bruce and Mike DON'T have a plan. But I haven't seen any of it yet. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm hoping for more than "nobody has one these days" or "we must have one because Vinnie is gone." If Shanahan and Allen have made moves that indicate we have a plan beyond being competitive for a few years, what are they? Surely not picking up McNabb. Most of our free agent pickups are 29+. We have four picks for this draft and have already given away one of next year's. Given that 28 teams have more picks than we do this year I'm not sure 'everyone does it this way' washes.

So again, what moves have we made that indicate any sort of long term thinking?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Last edited:
It's a legitimate question. I was totally thrown for a loop with the McNabb move. I've probably hoped for a QB pick just to validate that we're not totally in the 'win now' mode. On the other hand, there's a little irony in the fact that we're judging a commitment to building a long-term winner, by a handful of initial moves in Shanahan's inaugural season. If it took 10 years to get *here*, it would seem logical to expect that it'll take more than 1 initial offseason and an inaugural draft to determine what the new course of the current regime is...

Other than steadfastly holding on to every pick he inherited, what could Shanahan and Allen have done to meet the threshold for 'future-building'? Are we really crippled because we brought in some solid vets in exchange for some picks that may or may not have panned out? I think it's fine to question the method - I just don't think we've seen anything like some of the outlandish moves of the past - not yet anyway.
 
Last edited:
Boone, your own statement above gave the answer. The "future" is a 3-5 year window-max. This is the truth of the NFL in 2010. Fewer players have long term careers with one team, coaches seldom last more than 5 years until going elsewhere. It's just how things operate in the league now.
 
servumtuum said:
Boone, your own statement above gave the answer. The "future" is a 3-5 year window-max. This is the truth of the NFL in 2010. Fewer players have long term careers with one team, coaches seldom last more than 5 years until going elsewhere. It's just how things operate in the league now.
Click to expand...

If that's the thinking of our new front office then I submit it's business as usual at Redskin park.
 
What would some of you all want the Skins to do this offseason to prove that they are building for the future? The FA class this year was very poor and old. All the solid young guys were RFA with the exception of Dansby. There were not many options to help build toward the future.

McNabb was a win now move, but most Skins fans would agree that a solid QB was needed. IMO he was worth the couple of picks. With the exception of McNabb this team has not given away draft picks. The picks that we are missing are from the Cerrato era.

Shannahan and Allen inherited this team. They have not been building it for the past several years. They are not going to rebuild it in one offseason.

Seriously, what would you have done different?
 
Henry, That's just my observation of a gradual cultural shift league-wide, not specifically the Skins. Coaching tenures are shorter, more players are released or FA'd when they still have gas in the tank. Fans, not just Redskin fans, but fans across the NFL landscape are less willing to be patient through a long-term building process and once success is achieved you either stay there, or if you drop off, you are only allowed a limited time to recover, this applies mostly to GMs and HCs. In Shanahan's case he came into a situation where the majority of the fan base was fed-up to the point of revolt. You and I could probably be patient enough to have let a new FO spend 3-5 years building a high-calibre roster and consistent playoff contending team but I don't think the majority of Skins fans would have. This is a relatively new constraint that I perceive team owners, GMs and HCs have to work within throughout the NFL.
 
the Omniscient said:
Seriously, what would you have done different?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I would have done anything different. I'm just saying that none of these moves so far show me a long term plan. Picking up McNabb is not a long term move. It's not a move made with an eye toward the future. Maybe we win a superbowl this year and then it's a brilliant move. But it can not in any way be seen as a sign that the Redskins have mapped out a plan that encompasses more than a few years.

servumtuum said:
Henry, That's just my observation of a gradual cultural shift league-wide, not specifically the Skins. Coaching tenures are shorter, more players are released or FA'd when they still have gas in the tank. Fans, not just Redskin fans, but fans across the NFL landscape are less willing to be patient through a long-term building process and once success is achieved you either stay there, or if you drop off, you are only allowed a limited time to recover, this applies mostly to GMs and HCs. In Shanahan's case he came into a situation where the majority of the fan base was fed-up to the point of revolt. You and I could probably be patient enough to have let a new FO spend 3-5 years building a high-calibre roster and consistent playoff contending team but I don't think the majority of Skins fans would have. This is a relatively new constraint that I perceive team owners, GMs and HCs have to work within throughout the NFL.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing teams flashing greatness for a few years and then starting over. There are plenty of franchises that still enjoy long-term success in this day and age that do not blow up their teams and radically change front office philosophy every 3-5 years. They maintain an identity, whether it be from a coach (Pats, Giants, Titans, Eagles) or a GM (Colts, Steelers, Packers, Ravens, Chargers) or both. The Vikings and Saints, each now four years into their respective coaching tenures, are also following this model. I don't see either one of those teams perennially dropping down into the cellar within the next year or so because of the current impossibility of maintaining consistency. If the Redskins over the past ten years have proven ANYTHING, it's that it's the high front office turnover that makes maintaining any level of success impossible, and not the other way around.

We now have a GM, so there is hope that he will be the stabilizing factor for years to come. It clearly won't be our current QB. And it likely won't be our current coach. It's gotta be the GM. The GM who was hired primarily at the behest of the coach, who's likely not staying long. I am hoping to see some moves soon that show me that this GM is planning for a decade, and not just until Shanahan calls it quits. Because if this entire front office turns over again in 3-5 years, it really really ... really will be the same old Redskins.

And the closest I've seen to a move like that is this one, Carriker. And it's a pretty minor one.

I'll be watching and hoping.
 
Last edited:
Henry said:
If that's the thinking of our new front office then I submit it's business as usual at Redskin park.
Click to expand...
That's the thinking throughout the NFL, Henry. Gibbs Himself talked about teams working within a 3-year plan window. There is no such thing any more as building for 5 years down the road, or 7, or 10. The league changes dramatically every year, and the game evolves quickly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking if Allen/Shanahan had gutted the team and started aggressively trading away players with value for draft picks wherever possible, without any real thought to trying to field a competitive team over the next 2-3 years (the Leonsis Capitals model), that would qualify in your eyes as a long-term approach?

You said yourself earlier that you didn't know for a fact that they DON'T have a plan, just that you haven't seen evidence for it yet. Should they publish their Mission Plan in the Post? :)
 
Henry said:
There are plenty of franchises that still enjoy long-term success in this day and age that do not blow up their teams and radically change front office philosophy every 3-5 years. They maintain an identity, whether it be from a coach (Pats, Giants, Titans, Eagles) or a GM (Colts, Steelers, Packers, Ravens, Chargers) or both. The Vikings and Saints, each now four years into their respective coaching tenures, are also following this model.....We now have a GM, so there is hope that he will be the stabilizing factor for years to come. It clearly won't be our current QB. And it likely won't be our current coach.
Click to expand...
Going to have to respectfully disagree here. I think a team's identity is typically tied to the QB, and if the QB position is stable, usually the front office is as well. Likewise, a team with rapid changeover in the QB department usually sees similar trends in front offices. Having solidified a guy like Manning, Brees or Brady, you're a playoff contender every year, and they can afford to be more patient. Coaches won't be scared to lose their jobs because even with gaping holes in the rest of the roster, a franchise QB can get you to the postseason, and more importantly, further.

For newly created front offices, coaches and QB fate's are usually joined. Spagnuolo will live and die by Bradford. McDaniels by Tebow. Shanahan by McNabb. Hopefully, we get another QB to start grooming, but you couldn't have expected Shanahan to still be around if we have 3 straight sub-500 seasons with a rookie QB. Coaches have to earn their right to stay, so to build the team for tomorrow, you need a franchise QB today, otherwise, you won't be here tomorrow.
 
Om said:
That's the thinking throughout the NFL, Henry. Gibbs Himself talked about teams working within a 3-year plan window. There is no such thing any more as building for 5 years down the road, or 7, or 10. The league changes dramatically every year, and the game evolves quickly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking if Allen/Shanahan had gutted the team and started aggressively trading away players with value for draft picks wherever possible, without any real thought to trying to field a competitive team over the next 2-3 years (the Leonsis Capitals model), that would qualify in your eyes as a long-term approach?

You said yourself earlier that you didn't know for a fact that they DON'T have a plan, just that you haven't seen evidence for it yet. Should they publish their Mission Plan in the Post? :)
Click to expand...

Well now this discussion has taken a disturbing turn. Originally I just wanted to know what we had done so far to legitimize claims that this front office was thinking long term. Now that's morphing into 'we don't need to think long term.' I can't disagree more.

For the record, yes, gutting the team for draft picks is standard practice for a rebuilding team. And for years the standard rebuttal around here has been, and still seems to be, 'but that might not work!' And my answer to that is, so what? There are no guarantees in this world. You do what gives you the best chance to succeed and hope it works out. And putting together a young, cohesive nucleus in order to maintain a long term foundation represents that best chance. It's way 30 other teams do it (excepting us and the Raiders.) It would be nice if for once we Redskin fans could stop having to rationalize why the rest of the world is wrong and we are right despite the fact that we're never any good.

Maybe a superbowl win will accomplish that for us.
 
Last edited:
Aston Gambino said:
Going to have to respectfully disagree here. I think a team's identity is typically tied to the QB, and if the QB position is stable, usually the front office is as well. Likewise, a team with rapid changeover in the QB department usually sees similar trends in front offices. Having solidified a guy like Manning, Brees or Brady, you're a playoff contender every year, and they can afford to be more patient. Coaches won't be scared to lose their jobs because even with gaping holes in the rest of the roster, a franchise QB can get you to the postseason, and more importantly, further.
Click to expand...

To an extent you're correct, but not 100% correct. 90% of the teams out there won't have a Manning, Brees or Brady. Teams like the Steelers, Ravens, Chargers, Titans and now the Vikings and Packers have all had successful seasons (playoff runs) with multiple QBs. Those teams develop a philosophy for success and stick to it. And yes, when the QB turns over they may stumble for a season or two but inevitably bounce back. I'd like to see that here.

For newly created front offices, coaches and QB fate's are usually joined. Spagnuolo will live and die by Bradford. McDaniels by Tebow. Shanahan by McNabb. Hopefully, we get another QB to start grooming, but you couldn't have expected Shanahan to still be around if we have 3 straight sub-500 seasons with a rookie QB. Coaches have to earn their right to stay, so to build the team for tomorrow, you need a franchise QB today, otherwise, you won't be here tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Shanahan by McNabb?

This doesn't cause you just a little bit of concern? According to you a team's identity is defined solely by it's QB and we just picked up a guy who turns 34 in November? What kind of plan is that?

And no, I wouldn't expect any new coach with a new QB to survive three straight losing seasons. I would expect to see a 4-win team like us to be able to go to 6 wins to 8 wins to a playoff team though. Our fans may grumble but I'm more concerned with whether or not our owner is capable of showing a little patience. If he can't weather two losing seasons while the team rebuilds we're doomed for a long, long time.
 
With showing patience, do you add the past couple of seasons with Zorn, or do you add the past 10 years?
 
Henry said:
Well now this discussion has taken a disturbing turn. Originally I just wanted to know what we had done so far to legitimize claims that this front office was thinking long term. Now that's morphing into 'we don't need to think long term.' I can't disagree more.
Click to expand...
Before we go any further, I need to be sure I'm talking to Henry here. The Henry I know doesn't twist the other side of a debate into an unrecognizable straw man in order to take a Gatling gun to it. That really you brother?

For the record, yes, gutting the team for draft picks is standard practice for a rebuilding team. And for years the standard rebuttal around here has been, and still seems to be, 'but that might not work!'
Click to expand...
I dont' think anyone in this thread has said anything remotely like that.

Tell the truth, you're not really Henry are you? ;)

And my answer to that is, so what? There are no guarantees in this world. You do what gives you the best chance to succeed and hope it works out. And putting together a young, cohesive nucleus in order to maintain a long term foundation represents that best chance. It's way 30 other teams do it (excepting us and the Raiders.) It would be nice if for once we Redskin fans could stop having to rationalize why the rest of the world is wrong and we are right despite the fact that we're never any good.

Maybe a superbowl win will accomplish that for us.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Guess this is where I should challenge you to support the blanket assertion that "30 other teams" are right now out there busily "putting together a young, cohesive nucleus in order to maintain a long term foundation" ... with the intent of formulating a "long term plan" of as-yet-undertermined lenght.

Pretty sure that's what Henry would do if he were debating this from the other side. :)
 
Henry said:
Shanahan by McNabb?

This doesn't cause you just a little bit of concern? According to you a team's identity is defined solely by it's QB and we just picked up a guy who turns 34 in November? What kind of plan is that?
Click to expand...
I totally agree we need a QB of the future, and honestly, I think we'll have one by Monday. And I too long for the stability and long-term planning you mention. I would like to think Shanahan does too. All I'm saying is that without having a QB of today, a coach won't have the luxury of seeing the QB of the tomorrow. Conversely, having a QB of today, even if it's temporary, can get a coach more time.

Without Favre, the Vikings don't get past the first round last year and Childress is probably facing a make-or-break year this season. With Favre, he gets extended. I give Andy Reid less than 2 years if Kolb fails to meet expectations and they have two lousy seasons in a row. Meanwhile, if McNabb gets us to the playoffs these next two years, maybe one of which is played at home, then maybe, just maybe, the coaching carousel we've endured over these last 11 seasons might finally end. Only then, once Danny is confident the men below him can do the job, will he find the patience to allow them to actually execute a multi-year plan, something very few coaches have had the luxury of doing here.
 
well, that plan worked out pretty well for Shanahan in Denver didn't it? :)

McNabb could conceivably play another solid 3-4 years for the Redskins so I don't see all the immediate outcry that we have to have a successor in line RIGHT NOW. Heck, all we had on deck behind Campbell was Todd Collins the past 2 years and he was 80 years old :laugh:

I would add a developmental quarterback but I could see that move coming NEXT year in the draft when the Redskins have a bit more flexibility.

In 2010 more needs to be done on the OL and in finding some raw pieces for the new 3-4 on defense.

Those depth additions are a lot more important to make right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
We are all excited to experience the announcement of draft selections IN REAL TIME TOGETHER. If you feel the need to be the first to 'blurt out' the team's picks you are better off staying out of chat and sticking to Twitter. Please refrain from announcing/discussing our picks until the official announcement has been made at the podium. Thanks!

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top