A different slant on FA

[drumlinboy]

one of the things I try to do is put a different slant on how things are shapping up and I want to try and do that now.

In Brittain there is a guy called Dave Braillsford, most of you might never have heard of him, but he taken British cycling from absolutely nowhere to a position now where they are top of the pile.

When asked what his secret was after the last olympics, he simply smiled and walked away. One of his chief aides saides there is no big secret, just one simple question. Each time they do somthing they ask the same question, does this make us better and help us win an olympic gold medal? If the answer is not a concrete yes then they simply do not waste money/time on it, concentrating instead on things they are conviced give a yes answer.

I like to apply a modified question to things the Redskins do, the question i ask is this

Do these moves make us more or less likely to win a superbowl next February?

It is a simple question but the answer might be more complex.

i most recently thought about it after I was listening to Al Galdi's weekend podcast from Saturday he was speaking about the off season and how our FO have managed to resign all bar one of our desirable FA whilst only restructuring three existing contracts

Now the one that got away was Alexander, good player but is he worth 3 million a year?

Any way lets apply my "British cycling" theology to our off season.

I have given it lots of thought, I want to say it has made us better, I still think it has, but for now my true answer would have to be, it has not harmed us. Yes Alexander was a standout special teamer, but his absence will give another player a chance to step up. We now have depth at RT and a core of players who appear to be buying into the new philosophy.

I want to say it makes a superbowl more likely, but I simply cannot honestly do that because we are so suspect at safety.

The draft must focus on safeties and do it early, then I just might change my answer

 

[Henry]

Interesting take.

To be consistent, however, you have to ask

Do these moves make us better and help us win a Super Bowl?

A slightly different question than the one you posted, but significant. Our moves have to make us better now, and into the future. Re-signing Alexander to the money he wanted would have hindered us in accomplishing the first part of the question. We would have kept him, but then would not have had the ability to improve (or not get worse) in other areas.

I agree that we need to address the safety position, so I can't say if this offseason is a success or not just yet. But I think keeping almost all of our starters and adding depth without breaking the bank definitely lays a solid foundation for improvement this offseason. The draft will largely now be for depth, or upgrades at already solid positions. And that's a very good thing, especially the way we've been drafting over the past few seasons.

 

[Om]

Do these moves make us more or less likely to win a superbowl next February?

Love the general philosophy, but I'd add a layer...

Do these moves make us a contender for Super Bowls for the next 5-10 years?

It's an old debate I haven't had in a while, but I once asked the question...given the choice, would you rather have your team go all in to win one title (Lamborghini), or take a measured approach directed more at building a team capable of contending for multiple titles (Mercedes)?

There's no "right" answer, but it makes for good conversation.

 

[drumlinboy]

Henry very good point especialy as you only get Olympics every 4 years your variation might be more accurate.

I agree the fact we lost no significant starters (assuming RGIII returns fully restored) is somthing that should not be overlooked

 

[drumlinboy]

Love the general philosophy, but I'd add a layer...

Do these moves make us a contender for Super Bowls for the next 5-10 years?

It's an old debate I haven't had in a while, but I once asked the question...given the choice, would you rather have your team go all in to win one title (Lamborghini), or take a measured approach directed more at building a team capable of contending for multiple titles (Mercedes)?

There's no "right" answer, but it makes for good conversation.

The only reason I use next February is to give the question a definitive time frame, I am open to modifications, as long as the general ethos remains.

 

[Om]

All good, brother. No intention on my part to change the subject.

 

[drumlinboy]

No fretting I like both variations suggested, I just want to win one sooner rather than later, but even later is better than never again.

 

[tshile]

I say yes to all of them, but I may be a homer.

 

[Win4us]

If anything being frugal is definitely going to help us in the future for superbowls, especially in the next 5-10 years. I mean we haven't had true continuity in forever. From coaching staffs, players, systems, you name it we changed early and often.

I would personally rather have the chance over several years to contend rather than one super team.

 

[Jimbo]

If you make the assumption that the young guys we re-signed will only get better and the seasoned guys will play the same then, in theory, it could put us in a better position to reach the Super Bowl. In addition, getting guys back from injury or suspension (T. Jackson) could help strengthen that assumption.

It's hard to determine yet if we've done enough to improve the weak areas. We've only added Biggers to the secondary and I'm not sure Pashos and Trueblood are any better than Polumbus. It's also hard to consider a few draft picks as improvements as well.

Then again, these moves are about as well as we could have done given the circumstances. I would say they make us more likely to get to the Super Bowl but only barely.

 

[tshile]

It's hard to determine yet if we've done enough to improve the weak areas.

It's also hard to predict what the next weakness will be. That's the thing about football that I believe makes it so appealing - stuff changes quickly and, in a way, randomly.

If you had said, in 2010, that 3 years from now Shanahan (new coach at the time) would be going into the upcoming season with the defense being the weakest part of the team, and seriously weak at that, people would laugh.

A key injury, a player having some sort of setback, or other teams figuring something out about us could drastically change what our weaknesses are.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

It's also hard to predict what the next weakness will be. That's the thing about football that I believe makes it so appealing - stuff changes quickly and, in a way, randomly.

If you had said, in 2010, that 3 years from now Shanahan (new coach at the time) would be going into the upcoming season with the defense being the weakest part of the team, and seriously weak at that, people would laugh.

A key injury, a player having some sort of setback, or other teams figuring something out about us could drastically change what our weaknesses are.

I like and agree with the gist of this post, however if you had said " haslett will still be here and the defence will still be weak" there are several of us who wouldnt laugh at all, because we would feel the way we do right now. pissed off

 

[tshile]

Oh, yeah, I suppose the Hasslett people have some gloating to do right now

drumlinboy: it appears you and I have a similar look on the moves so far. has it changed your opinion of shanahan in any way? Note: I ask having no idea what your opinions of shanahan were before. I'm just curious.

 

[drumlinboy]

My opinion of Shanhan before he got here was fairly low. He had the reputation of being an "offensive Genius" but to honest I always thought he got lucky by having Steve Young and then Elway execute his plays. He did though know how to run the ball and could find a ball carrier as easy as some people can find their nose.

Since he got here he has changed my view, maybe not much on the field initialy but it is obvious he knows how a team should be run and how a team should deal with players. Cudos to him and Allen for changing us in that respect almost from the get go.

In his second year even with rexy under centre you could see what he was trying to do offensively and we saw some decent efforts without often the results going our way. This past season you saw what he can do when he has talent under centre.

So yes he continues to impress me, hopefuly we will improve and make it once more to where i feel we should be, that is continual and consistent challangers who teams do not want to face. Right now I would say other teams rate us as dangerous but flukey. Almost a puncher in a boxing match, we always have a chance.

One thing we do not yet posses that I want to see next season is that killer instinct. By that I mean when we have a team down we do not just gently hold them down only to get distracted and see them wriggle free and come back at us. When we have our boot on their throat we push hard to quench all life within them.

to me one of the primmary differences between good and great teams is great teams do not let oppents back up they squash them utterly and completely. Too often last sean we got out to leads only to let teams come back at us.

Ok just realised i have started to ramble and probibly gone on too much.

 

[riggins44]

As you and I have discussed, the biggest move that improved our chances was letting Vinny go and setting up a real FO.

Regardless who is making personnel decisions, the FO and coaches seem to be working together to get the right players. We're not in the aging star mode.

To me this is what leads to signing someone that gives us a better chance for glory in Feb.

 

[servumtuum]

...

One thing we do not yet posses that I want to see next season is that killer instinct. By that I mean when we have a team down we do not just gently hold them down only to get distracted and see them wriggle free and come back at us. When we have our boot on their throat we push hard to quench all life within them.

to me one of the primmary differences between good and great teams is great teams do not let oppents back up they squash them utterly and completely. Too often last sean we got out to leads only to let teams come back at us.

This.

We finally have the foundation upon which to build and this element drumlinboy mentioned I see as a definite piece of the puzzle needed to assure another Lombardi trophy in Ashburn.

The next series of moves, both this season and upcoming seasons, as far as the draft and FA should (will?) be to shore up areas that make us unable to have this killer instinct and apply it consistently. The cap situation will impede the speed with which we're able to accomplish this, obviously. We are simply not yet at the point of being able to put teams away and keep them that way throughout a whole game. Teams are scared of playing us because it has become hard to keep from scoring but truly great teams dominate weak teams such that the outcome is almost inevitable by the second half.

We're not at that point yet. We're looking way better than we have for quite a while but there are pieces of the puzzle needed to be filled in order for the "killer instinct" to be realized on the field.

 

[Fear The Spear]

The lack of killer instinct most assuredly is nothing new, and goes back over 2 decades, since Gibbs 1.0