Shanahan Needs To Stand Now On Own Two Feet

[Oldfan]

You completely lost me with your last sentence. Could not disagree more, and as for your "psychological advantages" line, I think that says a lot more about you and your understanding of the way humans work than anything else.

All you need to know about human nature here is that many humans are full of bull when they make psychological arguments about football.

As for the rest of your post, are you suggesting we should have jettisoned anyone over the age of 25, and gone with UDFAs? Having anyone over the age of 25 (or 26, 27, whatever) means Shanahan is in a win-now mode?

In a rebuilding year... no player over 29. No exceptions.

A valuable player 29+ should be traded for the best offer in draft picks.



Campbell was traded in 2010, but Cooley, 27, should have been traded before the 2010 draft since there were no plans for a two TE base offense. Haynesworth, Dockery, Moss, Carter and Fletcher probably also had good trade value at that point.

Had the foregoing trades been made, and the McNabb trade not been made, Shanny could have gone into the 2010 draft with seven to nine more picks. So, can we drop the notion that slim pickings from the 2010 draft were Vinny's fault?

My Shanny grades on the roster rebuild:

2010 = Fail
2011 = B

Note: The jury is still out on the quality of his drafting. My grades do not include that factor. I'm grading Mike's rebuilding plan, not the execution of the plan.

 

[Ax]

When Belichik traded Richard Seymore for draft picks, it was certainly not a win-now move. Did you call him a loser when you heard about it?

Terrible example there, Oldfan.

The Bradiots were already winning-now. Their defense would have been much better off with Seymour on the team, too.

And, is the cheating genius supposed to trade Brady this off season?

I'm not against getting younger players, but to pick an arbitrary number as a cut-off standard doesn't allow seasoned veterans to continue playing and contributing to the goal of establishing sustained winning.

With your cut off age restrictions, we wouldn't have a single SB win.

BTW, I liked your list, with the exceptions of Fletcher, and Moss.

 

[Oldfan]

Terrible example there, Oldfan.

You missed my point. The Seymore example was used because it was decidedly not a win-now move by a coach who is certainly not a loser. This example counters the poster's assertion that coaches who don't make win-now decisions are losers.

I'm not against getting younger players, but to pick an arbitrary number as a cut-off standard doesn't allow seasoned veterans to continue playing and contributing to the goal of establishing sustained winning.

My goal would not be to establish sustained winning of four to six games a year.

With your cut off age restrictions, we wouldn't have a single SB win.

My age restriction is for a rebuilding team, one trying to build a solid core. It is not for one with a solid core ready to contend for SB wins.

"In a rebuilding year... no player over 29. No exceptions."

 

[Ax]

You missed my point. The Seymore example was used because it was decidedly not a win-now move by a coach who is certainly not a loser. This example counters the poster's assertion that coaches who don't make win-now decisions are losers.

No, I thought I got your point just fine. I just don't agree that what some consider to be a "win now" move is necessarily a bad thing. I agree with Neo that every coach/gm worth his salt believes, as they should, that the moves they are making gives them the best chance to win now, AND, in the future, all at the same time.

My goal would not be to establish sustained winning of four to six games a year.

That's wonderful. Everybody on the planet feels the same way.

I think you're wrong, but even if you are right, if you don't win a Super Bowl, the next best result would be to finish 0-16 with a lot of good young talent on your roster.

Now this is where I've missed your point. Are you saying your only two preferred seasons are SB Champion, or 0-16?

Mine point was, none of our previous Super Bowl appearances, or victories, would have occurred using the cut/trade everyone over 29 theory you subscribe.

And, before anybody says it, every year is a rebuilding year to some extent.

 

[Oldfan]

No, I thought I got your point just fine. I just don't agree that what some consider to be a "win now" move is necessarily a bad thing. I agree with Neo that every coach/gm worth his salt believes, as they should, that the moves they are making gives them the best chance to win now, AND, in the future, all at the same time.

The only move that typically is a win-now move and a good future move at the same time is the selection of a number one draft pick who figures to start in year one in a position of need. Every other move can be classified as one or the other.

Re-signing Santana Moss was a win-now move. He takes up a roster slot and snaps which would otherwise be used for auditioning younger talent. The wins he and other older vets help us achieve are less than useless to a team rebuilding. We'd be better off without them.

And, before anybody says it, every year is a rebuilding year to some extent.

Let's not do semantics. It's the extent that matters.

 

[Neophyte]

My unsolicited advice: Learn to love mediocrity. That's what you will get from a coach whose roster decisions rest on winning games the next season.

When Belichik traded Richard Seymore for draft picks, it was certainly not a win-now move. Did you call him a loser when you heard about it?

No, I called it a smart move but Belichik didn't move Seymore because he didn't think he could help the Pats or because he was getting a first round pick in return. He moved him because Seymore was in the last year of his deal and Bill knew the Pats would not pay him what he was going to want so he moved him for the best return possible rather than lose him for nothing in Free Agency.

I call that smart and I would support it here under similar circumstances.

I think that's just an excuse to keep another player who can help us win now. We need that roster slot and the snaps he gets. There are leaders on the team who are 25 and 26 years old. Art Monk didn't suddenly become a team leader at 35.

No, Art didn't suddenly become a leader at 35 but he had a Super Bowl ring by 26 too which gave him more credibility with any player coming to the team. It was also a different era where there wasn't nearly the player movement that there is now.

 

[burgold]

No, Art didn't suddenly become a leader at 35 but he had a Super Bowl ring by 26 too which gave him more credibility with any player coming to the team. It was also a different era where there wasn't nearly the player movement that there is now.

On the other hand or maybe it's the same hand, I remember an interview with Brian Mitchell and other former 'skins saying that he was awed by how hard Art trained and how it really drilled into him a work ethic because if a guy who made it was working this hard all the time then he had to as well.

The problem isn't really the over thirties... it's that too many of the over thirties we had set really bad examples. For all the effort that Portis gave on the field, he was the exact opposite during practices and in the offseason. Same with so many others of the Checkbook Snyder 'Skins. Thus, Rogers, Landry, and others learned to emulate that example and that's why so often we didn't see 'skins players improving. We became a team of talented loafers. So good on paper. So bad on the field.

Every team needs a mix. You need the blue collar guys and the big play guys. You need the high motor guys and the sudden adrenaline guys. You need the wiley vets who understand the game and the exuberant rookie.

Thinking you can only build a team using one tool is like trying to build a house using only copper wiring and a wrench.

 

[Oldfan]

No, I called it a smart move but Belichik didn't move Seymore because he didn't think he could help the Pats or because he was getting a first round pick in return. He moved him because Seymore was in the last year of his deal and Bill knew the Pats would not pay him what he was going to want so he moved him for the best return possible rather than lose him for nothing in Free Agency.

I call that smart and I would support it here under similar circumstances.

If Belichik had made a win-now decision with Seymour, he would have had him play that next year under his contract terms and then franchised him for a year or two. I don't see how the trade doesn't make him a loser in your eyes if you mean this...

Show me an NFL coach that doesn't want to "win now" and I will show you a loser

No, Art didn't suddenly become a leader at 35 but he had a Super Bowl ring by 26 too which gave him more credibility with any player coming to the team. It was also a different era where there wasn't nearly the player movement that there is now.

Art had 50 teammates with Super Bowl rings and you think it was the ring that gave him credibility as a leader?

And what does the era have to do with leadership? The point you can't escape is that leadership qualities are not something one gains only over the age of 30. If Fletcher isn't re-signed, one of the younger players will step up and lead.

 

[Bulldog]

you must admit that the contracts Al Davis was giving out the last 4-5 years he was managing the Raiders were deals that made no sense.

Tommy Kelly for $60M?

DeAngelo Hall for $55M?

Richard Seymour is a good player. He was the best DL on championship teams for the Patriots. He has continued to play at a higher level as he has aged, never something you can count on though when trying to balance out the salary cap.

For every player like Seymour or London Fletcher, there are a LOT of players that hit the wall when they turn 31 or 32 and suffer a swift decline.

As a GM you don't want to be on the downside of a large contract for such a player.

You really can't blame NE for trading him for what turned out to be a top 12 pick.

That was fair value given the age of Seymour at the time.

What has hurt NE is not trading Seymour or seeing older vets leave from their championship teams, but rather the less than stellar draft record they have had since 2007.

When Scott Pioli left and went to KC it seemed to take some of the punch out of the Patriots on the personnel side.

 

[Neophyte]

If Belichik had made a win-now decision with Seymour, he would have had him play that next year under his contract terms and then franchised him for a year or two. I don't see how the trade doesn't make him a loser in your eyes if you mean this...

As I recall even the money that came with the franchise tag was more than those in the know thought Belichik was willing to pay Seymour. Of course, as with all things Patriot, no one really knows. There might have been other reasons that Bill let him go.

Age did not have much to do with it though. I think that is pretty obvious looking at Bill's track record. The last ten years worth of New England team photos are littered with guys over 30 that Bill has pulled off the street to play for him and play well. As long as they don't want ridiculous money and he thinks they can help him win now, they are in.

Art had 50 teammates with Super Bowl rings and you think it was the ring that gave him credibility as a leader?

And what does the era have to do with leadership? The point you can't escape is that leadership qualities are not something one gains only over the age of 30.

Granted, maybe the ring line was out of place, although I have lost track of the number of times I have heard young players talk about what it meant to them see a guy's ring and listen to him talk about what it took to get it.

So throw that line away.

No, leadership qualities are not something one only gains over 30. I would say it is rarer than that. They are something you either have or you don't have and there are a lot more guys without them than with them so when you find a guy who has them I think you should think about keeping him.

 

[Bulldog]

Yeah, but no 23 year old player is going to come into a veteran locker room with no bona fides and get any respect.

You have to prove you belong first.

That's why the leaders on your team ARE usually guys that are at least 27 or 28 years old and have a championship or several all-pro tags on their bio line.

And let's face it. It's also practice habits and helping other players.

Randy Moss was a great player at times but he never had the personality of a leader. He was an outsider and liked to keep himself apart from the team in the larger sense of things.

The Redskins had too many players like this in the past. Donovan McNabb was the latest example. He was a poor leader.

He didn't learn the playbook, refused to follow his own position coach's instructions and didn't work hard enough in practice to then go out and be consistent in games.

But he was 33 and had been to the pro bowl with the Eagles, so folks including Shanahan thought he could be a leader.

 

[Oldfan]

...What has hurt NE is not trading Seymour or seeing older vets leave from their championship teams, but rather the less than stellar draft record they have had since 2007.

When Scott Pioli left and went to KC it seemed to take some of the punch out of the Patriots on the personnel side.

I only recently came to the conclusion that, in using the Patriots-Belichik organization as a model for roster building, I had gone wrong. I think Green Bay is a better model.

In his first SB win, Belichik used 16 cheap free agents as gap fillers. He has done pretty much the same thing every season since. I don't think his roster has ever been the NFL's best. I think it's the best coached. In particular, Belichik has given a very good QB a good supporting cast and a very sound offensive scheme.

In the draft, Belichik has wisely accumulated more draft picks to give himself more shots to hit something good. His hit percentage is only average.

Since they are a small market team, Green Bay has been unable to make the same mistakes that other teams make. Their roster is comprised primarily of draft picks and UDFAs who they try to keep.

The 2010 Super Bowl Packers had eight players 30 or older on their roster. Shanny's six-win Redskins had 17.

 

[Oldfan]

...But he was 33 and had been to the pro bowl with the Eagles, so folks including Shanahan thought he could be a leader.

With Mike Shanahan, and most coaches, I disregard what they say and watch what they do.

Rock Cartwright, the Skins most vocal leader, was one of Mike's first cuts.

And, I doubt that Mike paused to consider how the move would affect McNabb's leadership role in the locker room when he pulled Donovan for Grossman in the fourth quarter of the Chicago game.

Coaches value performance. They give lip service to "leadership" but that's about it.

In reality, there is one leader on a football team. That's the head coach.

 

[Oldfan]

...Age did not have much to do with it though. I think that is pretty obvious looking at Bill's track record. The last ten years worth of New England team photos are littered with guys over 30 that Bill has pulled off the street to play for him and play well. As long as they don't want ridiculous money and he thinks they can help him win now, they are in

Belichik has never had to rebuild a Patriots' roster. He inherited a team that had about .500 talent.

You can make an argument for adding over 30 win-now talent to a team that has a core solid enough to win now.

Our team isn't in that position.

 

[Ax]

Belicheat has Tom...****ing...Brady.

If he's half as smart as people want to believe he is, he will retire 2 seconds after Brady does.

 

[GSF]

If Belichik had made a win-now decision with Seymour, he would have had him play that next year under his contract terms and then franchised him for a year or two. I don't see how the trade doesn't make him a loser in your eyes if you mean this...

Art had 50 teammates with Super Bowl rings and you think it was the ring that gave him credibility as a leader?

And what does the era have to do with leadership? The point you can't escape is that leadership qualities are not something one gains only over the age of 30. If Fletcher isn't re-signed, one of the younger players will step up and lead.

Of course not everything is absolute black and white in the real world as it is in Oldfan's world.

Sometimes a team has to part ways with a Seymour to be able to manage their salary cap, or to be able to add new young players. Sometimes teams want to get value for a player while he still has value. Perrenial contenders like the Steelers, Pats, and Eagles do this all the time. That doesn't mean they have to dump all of the players once the reach 28. Sometimes players are far more valuable to a team than what they could bring in a trade, like a Fletcher.

The key is balance. The best coaches and teams are always balancing win now with win later. When you are rebuilding a team with youth, it's always critical to have a couple of vets that can lead by example with their professionalism and their play. The older guys you want to get rid of are the Hayneworths or the Portises who think they don't have to work any more. To drop Fletch just to free up a roster spot and assume 1 of the young guys will fill in and lead would be foolish and hurt the team's ability to win now and rebuild.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Belichik has never had to rebuild a Patriots' roster. He inherited a team that had about .500 talent.

You can make an argument for adding over 30 win-now talent to a team that has a core solid enough to win now.

Our team isn't in that position.

Actually, Belicheat inherited a roster with a rapidly aging Drew Bledsoe, no running back and only two pro-bowlers on the roster. If not for hitting on Tom Brady in the 6th round, Belicheat would have been a footnote in history, likely being fired in the early 2000s.

 

[Oldfan]

Of course not everything is absolute black and white in the real world as it is in Oldfan's world.

Sometimes a team has to part ways with a Seymour to be able to manage their salary cap, or to be able to add new young players. Sometimes teams want to get value for a player while he still has value. Perrenial contenders like the Steelers, Pats, and Eagles do this all the time. That doesn't mean they have to dump all of the players once the reach 28. Sometimes players are far more valuable to a team than what they could bring in a trade, like a Fletcher.

The key is balance. The best coaches and teams are always balancing win now with win later. When you are rebuilding a team with youth, it's always critical to have a couple of vets that can lead by example with their professionalism and their play. The older guys you want to get rid of are the Hayneworths or the Portises who think they don't have to work any more. To drop Fletch just to free up a roster spot and assume 1 of the young guys will fill in and lead would be foolish and hurt the team's ability to win now and rebuild.

What you're calling my black and white world is nothing more than a simple application of logic. It goes like this:

Teams that are perennial contenders such as those you mention are always in a position to win now. Therefore, the addition of, or the retention of older vets who can help them win now makes sense.

On the other hand, teams lacking a solid roster core, those that aren't ready to win now, cannot afford those win now moves with older vets because they hinder the process of finding fresh talent to build the core.

The more roster slots the team has open to audition young players and the more snaps available, the greater the odds of finding good young talent. This is a fact. It's not speculation.

The arguments that the older vets add psychological advantages to a young rebuilding team are pure speculation.

I opt for the factual advantage.

 

[Oldfan]

... If not for hitting on Tom Brady in the 6th round, Belicheat would have been a footnote in history, likely being fired in the early 2000s.

Marc Bulger was taken in the same sixth round in 2000 by the Saints. If the Saints had taken Brady, and Brady had taken Bulger's path, his skinny body would have been punished and he would be physically unable to perform now.

Had the Patriots drafted Bulger, you'd be saying that Bellichik would be a footnote if he hadn't hit on Bulger in the 2000 sixth round.

 

[Goaldeje]

On the other hand, teams lacking a solid roster core, those that aren't ready to win now, cannot afford those win now moves with older vets because they hinder the process of finding fresh talent to build the core.

...and until this thread, I thought most Skins fans could have agreed that the main reason we don't have this core is Vinny. We you expecting a magic wand scenario, where Shanahan was able to undue a decade of poor personnel decisions in two years? Acknowledging his first year was a mistake, Shanahan seems to have righted the course. But going from the Three Stooges FO model Vinny ran to a professional football front office takes some time.

And you have never answerred me this: if we ditch Moss, Fletcher, Atogwe and anyone else over the age of 29, are we filling their slots with... what, exactly? UDFAs?