Adam Carriker is a Redskin

[Henry]

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?

Are you kidding? I'm a MASTER of creating and destroying straw men.

However, the audience on this board is far too sophisticated for that, and there is no way I'd ever try something so base on you in particular. No, that's what it's reading like to me. I'm not trying to 'win' a debate here. I'm simply reacting to what I'm reading. Stuff like:

The "future" is a 3-5 year window-max. This is the truth of the NFL in 2010.

and

There is no such thing any more as building for 5 years down the road, or 7, or 10.

Now perhaps I overreacted, but I didn't think my paraphrasology (is that a word?) was that much of a stretch.

I dont' think anyone in this thread has said anything remotely like that.

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

Don't misunderestimate me. I'll do whatever I can to crush my enemies before me and hear the lamentations of the women.

Again, I'm reading

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.

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?

What would you have done different?

The top statement, to me, read exactly as 'it might not work.'

The two questions imply it.

Again I may be reading too much into stuff. But it all sounds so damn familiar to me.

And everyone, if I quoted you, I'm not attacking. I'm just explaining why I'm not purposefully building a strawmen.

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.

Well ok. That will take some time. Until then if you want to accuse me of hyperbole ... well guilty as charged. However, I will stand by my opinion that more teams, and certainly more successful teams, build and maintain through the draft than by trading all but three or four picks a year for vets.

But if you want proof, I'll dig it up ... because I am Henry.

 

[Henry]

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.

I don't have an issue with any of that. I too hope that Shanahan plans on picking a QB of the future soon to replace McNabb, and that he and Allen have plans for dealing with life beyond Shanahan's tenure. But the fact is that none of that has actually happened yet. I'm not saying it WON'T, but I'm done projecting my hopes onto the intentions of whoever is running the Redskins at any given time.

That's all I'm really trying to say.

 

[Om]

That's my Henry.

Tell you what, I'll shorten your task immensely. When researching the many teams who "build and maintain through the draft [rather] than by trading all but three or four picks a year for vets" ... feel free to limit the research to teams that have NOT had a franchise-type QB (you know them when you see them) aboard for at least 3-4 years.

And we should probably quantify what we consider "success" in this context, too. Winning records for 3 or more consecutive seasons? Playoff appearances in more than half of their past X seasons? Something else?

 

[Henry]

Well Om, you're narrowing the parameters considerably. If you are arguing that 3-4 years of franchise QB play makes a team so automatically successful that no model is needed, then why are we trading for a QB that will play for 3-4 years on the OUTSIDE? For the record, I happen to agree with you that an elite QB makes everything much easier, and as such I was tempted to include teams that found a QB through the draft since they shouldn't be excluded for doing what they should be doing: finding talent in the draft. But that would have taken FAR more time than looking at teams who managed to sustain success with more than one QB under center, and the lazy in me won out.

First, let's look at the Redskin drafts since Casserly left: From '01-'09 we had 5, 10, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 10 and 7 draft picks. That's two years of more picks than rounds. Six years of fewer picks than rounds. An average of 6.2 picks a year and an average of 6.8 wins a year. We had two winning seasons in nine years (thank you Joe) and five losing seasons.

Now let's look at the Steelers. And let's take out the Rothelisberger years (though it should be pointed out the Steelers did draft him.): From '94 (when the NFL went down to seven rounds) to '04 (The year Big Ben was drafted) they had 10, 10, 9, 8, 10, 11, 9, 7, 8, 5 an 8 picks. Nine years of more picks than rounds and one year of fewer picks than rounds. An average of 8.6 picks a year and an average of 10 wins a year. They had eight winning seasons, seven playoffs seasons and a superbowl appearance. All in an 11 year span with five different starting QBs. And that's NOT including the post-Ben years who, again, they found in the draft.

Now let's look at the Chargers: Since '02 they've had two different starting QBs (both acquired in the draft) and two different coaches (neither of which were particularly successful with the Redskins, coincidentally.) And from '02-'09 they had 8, 8, 11, 7, 8, 6, 5 and 8 picks. Five years of more picks than rounds and two years of fewer picks than rounds. 7.6 picks a year and 9.8 wins a year. They had five winning seasons, five playoff appearances and one losing season in eight years.

Now let’s look at the Ravens: They’ve had a nice run from ’99 until now, despite starting six different QBs. From ’99 to ’09 they’ve had 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 7, 7, 10, 7, 10 and 6 picks. Four years of 10 or more picks and three years of fewer picks than rounds. 7.7 picks a year and 9.1 wins a year. Seven winning seasons in eleven years and 3 losing seasons.

I have to admit, it’s tougher to find an NFC team that wins consistently without a franchise QB. The closest I could find that met that standard was Tampa. They had a pretty good run during the Dungy/Gruden era from ’96 to ’08, even though they started seven different QBs over that time. During that era they had 9, 10, 7, 9, 5, 9, 8, 6, 8, 12, 10, 10 and 7 picks. Nine years of more picks than rounds and two years of fewer picks than rounds. 8.4 picks a year and 8.5 wins a year. They had eight winning seasons in 13 years, seven playoff appearances and a superbowl win and four losing seasons.

Now I understand this may look like cherry-picking, but remember you set the parameters. I’m not going into teams that have long-term franchise QBs which are far more common. But I will say that I was unable to find a team without a long-term franchise QB that drafted fewer picks than rounds that was able to sustain any kind of success. You either need that QB, or you need a draft. Preferably both.

What we’ve done so far is gotten ourselves a short-term QB, and we ended up with six draft picks, three of them in the seventh round. I see we picked up a 4th rounder for Campbell in 2012 so there’s that. But I’d like to see us starting to use the draft the way other teams do. Then I’ll be happy to admit we are looking to the future.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go take a nap.

 

[Om]

Lots to chew on there if I'm going to make a response worthy of your post, brother.

Gimme a couple days.

 

[Henry]

You know what Om, in all fairness I should include Shanahan's Broncos. Oddly, I didn't think to check them.

From '95 to '08 they started 4 different QBs. They had 7, 12, 3, 7, 12, 10, 6, 8, 10, 10, 6, 7, 4 and 9 picks during that span. Seven years of more picks than rounds and four years of fewer. 7.9 picks a season and 9.8 wins a year. Nine winning seasons, seven playoff appearances and two superbowls and only two losing seasons.

So ... the Bronco example supports me when I say we need more draft picks than we've kept in the past, but supports those of you who say Shanahan deserves some benefit of the doubt due to his track record.

 

[Neophyte]

This thread has turned into a thing of beauty. Thanks for all the info Henry. Great work.

 

[Bulldog]

So, who's to say the Redskins draft a quarterback to replace McNabb in 2011 or 2012?

The team could just as easily go into free agency like the Saints or Cardinals did to find quarterbacks that took them to the Super Bowl.

Besides, McNabb at 33 has 3-4 solid years left to play this game. Perhaps longer depending upon what kind of team is built around him.

Right now, of much greater concern than who is going to succeed McNabb is who the team is going to settle on as his skill players to complement him in the WCO.

First things first.

I still can't get that image out of my mind of fans dismissing Kurt Warner when he was released by the Giants as being done or close to done, and then seeing him throw for all that yardage and TDs in Arizona since 2007.

 

[Henry]

The team could do lots of things, BD. I agree.

But that doesn't make trading picks for for McNabb a long-term team-building move. It's a win-now move.

We'll have to hope team-building moves come later. Like you, I'm not ruling that out. I just haven't seen much of it yet.

Speaking of AZ, they just had a nice two years. A nine-win season (with a superbowl appearance) and a ten-win season. Now Warner is gone and their future is again uncertain. Is that what we are aspiring to do here? Is that the example we should be looking at with this McNabb signing?

 

[Aston Gambino]

Speaking of AZ, they just had a nice two years. A nine-win season (with a superbowl appearance) and a ten-win season. Now Warner is gone and their future is again uncertain. Is that what we are aspiring to do here? Is that the example we should be looking at with this McNabb signing?

I think you just made a strong point for the opposing side.

Arizona's recent success including that Super Bowl run was on the strength of an aging, veteran quarterback. Meanwhile, their future is uncertain because of the unproven QB they drafted in the first round a few years ago.

I'm all for investing in the future and I do acknowledge the importance of building through the draft, but there are cases like Arizona where free agency can trump the draft.

Makes you wonder if they would have kept Dansby and Rolle if they had been the ones who landed McNabb, because they proved that with a decent trigger man, they're capable of making a legitimate run. More importantly, who's to say what kind of run we can make now that we have our trigger man?

Besides, I'm not sure it's as black-and-white as choosing one side or the other. It's possible to simultaneously build for the future and to try to win now.

 

[Henry]

Not sure I did, AG. Arizona's recent success consists of two seasons. Three if you count the 8-8 season in '08, which for them is a big deal. Warner had been with the team for five. So, three years into the program Warner hits his stride and they get two seasons of good football and ... time to start over?

We've recently had two quality seasons in four years ourselves, thanks to Gibbs. No offense to Joe but I was hoping for a little more than that starting now. I'm a little weary of a couple ok seasons followed by a hit from the reset button.

If we are merely looking to match Arizona's success with Warner, well, I find that a little depressing. I HOPE there's more to Shanahan's plan than that.

 

[Bulldog]

I guess we have different time frames.

To me in the 'new' NFL a 3-4 year window IS long-term thinking. And if at 33 McNabb plays at a high level for 3 or at the outside 4 years than the Redskins will have good opportunity to build a capable team around him.

If McNabb was 41 like Brett Favre and the Redskins had signed him for one year I would agree that puts us 'all in' for 2010.

But let's remember that Peyton Manning is also 34 this year and the Colts are still drafting defensive ends and offensive guards to complement him.

I don't remember Polian drafting a qb high to stand in line behind #18.

 

[Goaldeje]

Not sure I did, AG. Arizona's recent success consists of two seasons. Three if you count the 8-8 season in '08, which for them is a big deal. Warner had been with the team for five. So, three years into the program Warner hits his stride and they get two seasons of good football and ... time to start over?

We've recently had two quality seasons in four years ourselves, thanks to Gibbs. No offense to Joe but I was hoping for a little more than that starting now. I'm a little weary of a couple ok seasons followed by a hit from the reset button.

If we are merely looking to match Arizona's success with Warner, well, I find that a little depressing. I HOPE there's more to Shanahan's plan than that.

Ok, but they almost won the super bowl. Would that have made it worth it?

Henry, with all due respect, it seems to me like you are trying to have it both ways here. The Cards had a plan in Leinert and also had a prudent backup plan in Warner. They made the switch when they had to, and I think it worked out well for them. Now they get to see if Leinert learned anything on the bench the last two years. If not, I suspect they acquire another QB next off season. What would you have had them do differently?

As to our team, I would like to see a youngster for developmental purposes. But who knows, Shanahan might see more in football Jesus/Colt than I do. Aside from that, I think we are getting a nice mixture of youth and experience that will serve us well for the next couple of years.

Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Neophyte]

But let's remember that Peyton Manning is also 34 this year and the Colts are still drafting defensive ends and offensive guards to complement him.

I don't remember Polian drafting a qb high to stand in line behind #18.

Refresh my memory there BD . . . when was the last time Manning failed to suite up due to injury?

 

[Henry]

I guess we have different time frames.

To me in the 'new' NFL a 3-4 year window IS long-term thinking. And if at 33 McNabb plays at a high level for 3 or at the outside 4 years than the Redskins will have good opportunity to build a capable team around him.

You know what's funny, this thread is so long that maybe you don't remember but I've already taken issue with the notion that teams shouldn't think past 3-4 years into the future. I believe that was post #57 and it resulted in a doctoral dissertation about successful teams and draft picks. As I am a particularly lazy person I do not wish to go through that discussion again. Not in the same thread anyway.

So let me just reiterate that if our front office thinks that we only need to look 3-4 years down the line, nothing has changed and this team will spin it's wheels for years to come. I had assumed that the whole reason everyone was clamoring for the Redskins to sign a GM was so that the team would stop making Short-Attention-Span moves and actually build a team the way other successful teams in the league do. But more and more in this thread it sounds like we all still belong to the Dan Snyder school of Live In The Now.

I just hope there's more to what Allen and Shanahan have planned than that.

If McNabb was 41 like Brett Favre and the Redskins had signed him for one year I would agree that puts us 'all in' for 2010.

If we had gone 10-6 and won our division with the best RB in the league and were merely a QB away from taking it to the next level I would agree that trading picks for an old QB made all kinds of sense. As it is, we'd better hope McNabb can hang on for a few more years like Favre has until the rest of the team gets up to speed.

But let's remember that Peyton Manning is also 34 this year and the Colts are still drafting defensive ends and offensive guards to complement him.

I don't remember Polian drafting a qb high to stand in line behind #18.

The Colts were a half a game away from winning the Superbowl. The Colts have gone 12-4 or better for seven straight years. There is no way on God's green earth our situation compares in any way to theirs.

 

[Henry]

Ok, but they almost won the super bowl. Would that have made it worth it?

Yes.

However, let's not forget that that year the Cards were a 9-7 team that happened to peak at exactly the right time. Unless I'm mistaken I don't think any other 9-7 team has ever made it to the superbowl like that. And I'm not really a fan of using exceptions to prove a rule.

The Cardinal example is an outlier, and even with that they STILL didn't win the superbowl.

However, as I've said in this thread before if the Redskins win the SB in the next year or so I'll be the first to shut the hell up.

Henry, with all due respect, it seems to me like you are trying to have it both ways here. The Cards had a plan in Leinert and also had a prudent backup plan in Warner. They made the switch when they had to, and I think it worked out well for them. Now they get to see if Leinert learned anything on the bench the last two years. If not, I suspect they acquire another QB next off season. What would you have had them do differently?

I wouldn't have them do anything differently. I'd love to see us acquire a good young prospect ourselves to go along with our veteran and be in a similar situation. I didn't say the Redskins won't do that. I just said they haven't yet. And I also said trading away picks makes doing that more difficult, and that's too bad. The Cardinals gave up nothing for Warner, so they were able to spend a high pick on Leinart. We spent our high pick on McNabb, and we don't have the young prospect. Hopefully we'll pick one up in the near future.

As to our team, I would like to see a youngster for developmental purposes. But who knows, Shanahan might see more in football Jesus/Colt than I do. Aside from that, I think we are getting a nice mixture of youth and experience that will serve us well for the next couple of years.

I don't see the getting of the youth. Maybe you are talking youth on the team from last year or the year before that?

Let me state again, I'm not saying I think this team is doomed or we're fated to crash and burn. I only wondered out loud what moves we had made to date that indicated an eye to the future.

 

[Bulldog]

The situations do match up. Manning is 34 and by the alarm bells some posters here are ringing about McNabb's age and the fact the Redskins didn't draft an heir apparent, the same logic should be applied to the Colts' situation.

Manning just as easily as McNabb could be done due to injury in the next 1-2 years.

But as I am trying to show, teams expect quarterbacks in their early to mid-thirties to continue to play at a high level.

And THAT is perhaps the greatest difference from 15-20 years ago, when a guy reached 31 or 32 teams started to draft future replacements.

And that goes for teams that had franchise quarterbacks too.

Remember that San Francisco went out and acquired Steve Young at a time when Joe Montana was only 28 years old.

When Phil Simms hit 30 the Giants spent a #2 pick on Jeff Hostetler to groom as a replacement.

Nowadays?

Who is the backup to Tom Brady? Who is the backup to Peyton Manning? Who is the backup to Phillip Rivers?

The Steelers were so sure of their own depth behind Roethlisberger with Dixon that they went out and traded for Leftwich the same week it became apparent the NFL was going to suspend Ben for part of the 2010 season.

So, there is little reason to criticize Washington for not trading back into the second or third rounds to take a quarterback to sit behind McNabb for 2010.

There were simply too many other needs to fill for this team to be competitive.

We are still in the process of finding adequate STARTERS at several key positions.

Worrying about who the #2 quarterback is or who the #3 outside linebacker is a luxury of teams that finished 14-2 or 13-3 the previous year.

Not for teams that finished 4-12.

 

[Henry]

I'm not worried about our #2 QB. For most teams in the league, injury to the #1 QB is, for all intents and purposes, the end of the season. I wouldn't expect that to be different here no matter who lines up under center. That's not my point.

The reason Indy is different (and NE and Pitt and SD for that matter) is because Indy already knows that they have the team around their QB that will win them 12+ games every year. They have established a wildly successful program around their QB for years, so now that Manning is older they know they can count on him and the team around him to perform as expected. At 34 he is not charged with carrying a brand new team full of question marks on his shoulders. We are not in any sense of the imagination in that situation. We have a 4-12 team with a new coach and a new GM and a purged roster. Our 33 year-old QB, as good as he is, does not afford us an expectation of a level of success anywhere close to that of the Colts or Pats.

Now, it is true that Favre jumped into the Vikings and saw immediate success, but the Vikings were already division champs when he signed on. That same Brett Farve who took the Vikings to the NFC Championship game took the 4-12 Jets to a mediocre 9-7 outing the year before. Kurt Warner, everyone's other favorite example, was with the Cardinals for four years before they had a winning season. Great QBs can get you to 8-9 wins. But you need a team around them to expect more. We are MUCH closer to the '08 Jets and '04 Cardinals than the '09 Vikings. I don't see us in a position to provide McNabb the team around him to contend. Maybe in a few years we'll be there, but how old will McNabb be then? Will he be ready to retire? Who's learning the system behind him or will that be the end of the Shanahan era? These are valid concerns.

I have conceded several times that I don't know what Shanahan has up his sleeve and he may very well have accounted for all of this. All I'm saying in this thread is thus far, I haven't seen what it is that is up that sleeve. And pointing out old QBs on other teams doesn't change that.

 

[Bulldog]

You have to start somewhere.

Seems that Shanahan has focused first on the most important things, ie quarterback and left tackle, and then bringing in players that are hungry and want to work at positions where capable talent is more plentiful.

There wasn't a whole lot of that in 2008 and 2009 under Zorn. No urgency, no standards, just a rudderless ship and the players were the first ones to see that obviously and take advantage. That's how Haynesworth got to camp at 360 instead of 330 and its also why all the 2008 draft picks came in here and weren't ready to compete.

My father who came to DC in the late 1950's sees Shanahan doing the same thing that Lombardi started to do in 1969. Taking a team with a losing record and vibe - cleaning house by bringing in veterans with something to prove and younger players that were coachable and were looking to establish NFL careers.

He didn't get to finish the job RIP due to tragic circumstances, but the uptick of the Redskins began in 1969 and not 1971 as is commonly believed.

 

[Henry]

You have to start somewhere.

Of course. The question is do you start by trading a couple picks for a QB that turns 34 in November. Is that the start of a long term formula for sustained success. It could be, depending on what else the team does. So what else has the team done?

Seems that Shanahan has focused first on the most important things, ie quarterback and left tackle,

He didn't focus on LT. Our LT retired and he had to fill the hole. I'm glad he did, mind you, but that was a reactive move more than a pro-active one.

and then bringing in players that are hungry and want to work at positions where capable talent is more plentiful.

My father who came to DC in the late 1950's sees Shanahan doing the same thing that Lombardi started to do in 1969. Taking a team with a losing record and vibe - cleaning house by bringing in veterans with something to prove and younger players that were coachable and were looking to establish NFL careers.

I hate to sound so jaded, but this the speech Redskin fans trot out every year we get a new coach. THIS time the old guys have something to prove. THIS time the young guys are hungry.

EVERY new coach is supposedly going to work out and bring in the right people. Every old coach couldn't control the players and left the team in a mess. Schottenheimer was going to whip the organization into shape, from Snyder on down. Then he was a control freak and a drill seargant that no one listened to. Spurrier was going to turn the league on it's ear with his offense and the charming way he thumbed his nose at convention. Then he was a flake who didn't know the names of his defensive players. Gibbs was, well Joe Gibbs. Then he was tired, out of touch with the modern game, and spent too much time delegating. Zorn was going to take the team Gibbs built and bring it into the 21st century. Then he had no discipline and no confidence.

Now, it's Shanahan is going to restore discipline and confidence, and McNabb will be his new Elway.

The new coach who hasn't coached a game yet is always the most popular man in Washington.

I am done projecting my personal hopes and dreams onto the new coach, or the team. I hope our young guys are hungry and our old guys want to prove something. I hope our new coach instills confidence and swagger, and, you know, wins some games. I don't KNOW that's going to happen.

All I know is that the team has not yet appeared to make a concerted effort to plan for more than a few years down the line. Something that's been a chronic problem for this team for a decade now. Our biggest move to date by FAR, trading picks for a 33 year-old QB, can not be considered part of this effort. That's a short term fix. I agree with those that are hoping that will buy us some time to develop a longer term plan. But there's that word again. Hope. And that's not what I was trying to talk about.