Can we make up the difference?

[Red_One43]

statisticians will make up anything they want to prove their point - we just need to give ourselves a better chance at success than worrying about having better stats

#'s don 't lie. They didn't lie in the combines. They don't lie when a person gets inducted into the HOF. They don't lie when somebody breaks a world record or an NFL record. The #'s say that we need to score 5 more points/game to be with in the top 20 teams in the league. 7 more points/game & we're in the top 5 teams in the league in scoring. A person can skew anything to make it look different, but #'s will always say the same thing.

A better chance at success means better #'s. Better #'s means improvement. Improvement will hopefully mean one more TD/game.

I stand firm in my belief that if we can manage just one more TD/game we'll be in the play-offs sooner rather than later.

Which is why a 3-13 Rams team one year can win the Super Bowl the next. I get what you are saying. With a few key pick ups and a dedicated work ethic 52 man roster ( I say only 52 in case Albert is still on the roster). Intangibles play a big part in turning things around. How we play the FA game whenever it gets here, will determine our season.

[fanforlife]

Intangibles play a big part in turning things around. How we play the FA game whenever it gets here, will determine our season.

I'll agree that Intangibles play a role in things. But on the field the game is controlled by the players. Case-in-point the Bucs game & that mishandled snap that cost H.Smith his job & us the game. For years the "intangibles" have seemed to dictated the outcome of the game for us, but now it seems that we're a step away from finally being able to put some points on the board & not having to rely on our "D" to "hold onto the game for us". The intangibles has been the one thing that has hurt more than anything else. It's time for the players to control the outcome of game.

I'm all for signing SOME key FA's, but I don't want us to revert back to the old ways. We can no longer think that signing FA's will solve our problems. Build through the draft. Start your draft picks right away. HOLD PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. IMO, those are some of the things that will get us those 5-7 extra points/game.

[SkinsJock]

I'm still holding out hope that Mike & Bruce can learn from their mistakes from the past year and add some young players through the next 2 drafts and with some young free agents

I'm not as worried about the stats or adding points - actually I could not care less - I just want to see better management (this should be a given considering who was here before), better coaching from the OC and DC and a better attitude from the players and coaches

we're a work in progress but we'll get there - this should be an improvement on last year which despite some here I still think was an improvement on the season before - that was a disaster

PLAYOFFS IN 2012

[SkinsJock]

If the FO stops making stupid mistakes and starts finding a way to put a consistently competitive product on the field the offense will score enough points and the defense will prevent the other team from scoring enough points

statisticians will make up anything they want to prove their point - we just need to give ourselves a better chance at success than worrying about having better stats

statistics are for baseball and fantasy football

You really don't have a clue about what you're talkin about. Or if you do, you want to be so vague you won't say anything. Either way,it's pretty sad.

It's a mutual admiration society around here - I find myself feeling sorry for some of your ideas and posts too ... rarely, but occasionally I do


mostly I just wish that the NFL would get back to business so that a lot of this BS would just go away



I'm not as worried about the franchise finding a way to score more points - I'm just interested in having this franchise put a better product on the field than we've seen here for years

better teams are judged by their actions on the field each week not by their stats

Stats 'proved' we had a top 5 defense in 2009 - that rated right up there with winning the off-season trophy each year

[fanforlife]

I'm not as worried about the franchise finding a way to score more points - I'm just interested in having this franchise put a better product on the field than we've seen here for years

Good afternoon SkinsJock:

Wouldn't scoring more points mean "putting a better product on the field"?

I mean if we score more points & not lose games by 3 & actually win the close ones rather than losing them, that in it's self would be a better product, wouldn't you agree?

To me scoring more points & "putting a better product on the field" goes hand-in-hand.

[Red_One43]

Intangibles play a big part in turning things around. How we play the FA game whenever it gets here, will determine our season.

I'll agree that Intangibles play a role in things. But on the field the game is controlled by the players. Case-in-point the Bucs game & that mishandled snap that cost H.Smith his job & us the game. For years the "intangibles" have seemed to dictated the outcome of the game for us, but now it seems that we're a step away from finally being able to put some points on the board & not having to rely on our "D" to "hold onto the game for us". The intangibles has been the one thing that has hurt more than anything else. It's time for the players to control the outcome of game.

I'm all for signing SOME key FA's, but I don't want us to revert back to the old ways. We can no longer think that signing FA's will solve our problems. Build through the draft. Start your draft picks right away. HOLD PLAYERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. IMO, those are some of the things that will get us those 5-7 extra points/game.

Notice I said "how we play the FA game," so yes you build through the draft, but you also strategically pick your FA's which is what Bruce and Mike did last year and will do this year. I am with you on your argument because I choose to look at the positive side. Just like some things didn't go for us in tight games - Bucs game, block in the back against Minnesota, Santana drops 4th quarter pass against Dallas - things went for us in other tight games, hold against Orakpo in Dallas game, no call on Jarmon on helmet to helmet on Aaron Rodgers on Landry's interception, no call for an instant replay by coach on Cutler's fumble in Bears game, penalty on us negating the play in Bears game when McNabb through a pick on our goal line, two personal foul calls on the Titans on our winning overtime drive, luck - when Avant can't hold on to a ball right in his hands on hail Mary in the end zone in first Philly game, Jax QB throws a silly pick in his end of the field during overtime. Four overtime games and one extra point shy of a 5th overtime says that we were not that far off from a wildcard berth this season, but it also says we weren't that far off from further disaster. I will be positive and look at it, like you, from the "we were actually close to having a good season" side.

I think that we are defining intangibles differently. My example is a player who comes to the game ready to play his heart out is an intangible. Something that cannot be measured. A losing team with nothing to play for can beat a team on its home turf that is still fighting for a play-off spot. Thus we beat Jax because we had hungry guys trying to prove that they belong on this team. That is what I mean by "intangibles." No stats can measure the hearts of 53 guys of a strong work ethic - these teams outplay teams that have more talent than them. Usually when one talks about "intangibles" for a team, it is talked about in a positive manner. Sure you could say a talented team not playing to its ability is a case of negative intangibles, but that surely wasn't us. We are not a talented team.

The Bucs game was not lost on one play. It just came down to one play. The silly play calling at the goal line before the half that lead to a FG instead of a TD. The missed FG's hurt big time. Dropped pick by Hall didnt help. The Bucs game was evidence of what was wrong with this team all year long. The long snapper was suspect this year (it was a long term decision to part ways with the red snapper - just one of many long term decsions by Mike). Kyle was thoroughly upset with Donovan for his play during that game (though Donovan nearly pulled it out, we never should have been in that situation given the running game). The silly play calling and confusion just before the half ended with 1st and goal gets us only a FG. The missed Gano FGs (Again in the Giants game - 11 misses for the season - Mike sticks with Gano again long term decsion). The no calls against Orapko who was held all game long ( I got to see these holds up close and personal since I was sitting at field level in the end zone). Orakpo was held all season long - but it is his job to break free of those holds - get some more moves.

The bottomline - by the Bucs game, this team was on it's last leg. Some fans on this site said we wouldn't win another game. One thing a lot of folks failed to see is that new life came to the team for the last three games - 3 point loss to Dallas in Dallas, win against Jax at Jax, best game against NYG since 2007. They were the same talentless, out of position players, but when a team plays with heart they can compete with more talented play-off fighting teams. That is what "intangibles" are about.

[SkinsJock]

Wouldn't scoring more points mean "putting a better product on the field"?

I mean if we score more points & not lose games by 3 & actually win the close ones rather than losing them, that in it's self would be a better product, wouldn't you agree?

To me scoring more points & "putting a better product on the field" goes hand-in-hand.

I'd agree - some here just seem to delight in using stats to twist things around and to suit their agenda

I am as frustrated as anyone by what has happened here - I just don't agree that the team's success is decided by stats - this is about finding a way to play better (playing better will hopefully mean that we score more points)

I do not care if the stats indicate we are the #1 rated defense, the #1 rated offense and have the #1 rated QB - I just want a team that is playing well together and beating the other teams we play against because we're a better team NOT because we have a better statistical rating

I do not agree that we are likely to lose a game because the stats indicate we should lose - I think the play on the field will have more to do with that than stats

stats are not as important in the NFL game as they are in baseball & some others where people seem to be driven crazy over "the stats"

[VetSkinsFan]

Wouldn't scoring more points mean "putting a better product on the field"?

I mean if we score more points & not lose games by 3 & actually win the close ones rather than losing them, that in it's self would be a better product, wouldn't you agree?

To me scoring more points & "putting a better product on the field" goes hand-in-hand.

I'd agree - some here just seem to delight in using stats to twist things around and to suit their agenda

I am as frustrated as anyone by what has happened here - I just don't agree that the team's success is decided by stats - this is about finding a way to play better (playing better will hopefully mean that we score more points)

I do not care if the stats indicate we are the #1 rated defense, the #1 rated offense and have the #1 rated QB - I just want a team that is playing well together and beating the other teams we play against because we're a better team NOT because we have a better statistical rating

I do not agree that we are likely to lose a game because the stats indicate we should lose - I think the play on the field will have more to do with that than stats

stats are not as important in the NFL game as they are in baseball & some others where people seem to be driven crazy over "the stats"

That's oddly amusing since the only stats I used were points for and against. And it RO43 got my point.

[DarthMonk]

I'm only pointing out that it's not as simple as just trying to score a few more points - this franchise needs to stop thinking we just need to add a few "stars" to help "score more points" and start adding a few players that suit what the OC and DC want to get done here

What evidence to you have that the franchise thought that they could sign a few "stars"

It's not just last year ...

(since 2000)

Mark Carrier
Jeff George
Deion Sanders
Bruce Smith
Brad Johnson
Jeremiah Trotter
Mark Brunell
Shawn Springs
Antwaan Randle El
Adam Archuleta
Jason Taylor
Albert Haynesworth
Donovan McNabb

... and until we stop we haven't stopped.

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

DarthMonk

[Red_One43]

I'm only pointing out that it's not as simple as just trying to score a few more points - this franchise needs to stop thinking we just need to add a few "stars" to help "score more points" and start adding a few players that suit what the OC and DC want to get done here

What evidence to you have that the franchise thought that they could sign a few "stars"

It's not just last year ...

(since 2000)

Mark Carrier
Jeff George
Deion Sanders
Bruce Smith
Brad Johnson
Jeremiah Trotter
Mark Brunell
Shawn Springs
Antwaan Randle El
Adam Archuleta
Jason Taylor
Albert Haynesworth
Donovan McNabb

... and until we stop we haven't stopped.

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

DarthMonk

I say the franchise turnaround started with ShanAllen.

In your list of "stars," only one - McNabb can be credited to ShanAllen. And that was not a bust the bank over pay signing. It was a trade. Most of us admit that the trade now goes down as a mistake, but for you to use it as evidence as franchise business as usual is a big stretch. The idea of the trade was good. Get a veteran QB to carry things over for a few years while you find your guy. This wasn't a throw money at a washed up "star." McNabb just didn't fit this O. That was the mistake. He was his same old throw in the dirt self. Shanny thought he could fix that. Reid's O with its short dump offs fit McNabb very well. Now, what it isn't business as usual that ShanAllen did with McNabb concerning the contract they got him to sign. They control his destiny and might even get a draft pick back. If McNabb hadn't have signed the contract, we wouldn't even be entertaining the possibility of getting anything. Now, also give ShanAllen some credit for clearing Haynesworth and Hall's fat signing bonus' off the books. We would have been hamstrung for years when the cap comes back if they hadn't thought of giving them their bonuses up front while there was not cap. That is not business as usual. BTW, the type of mistake with McNabb was more classic Shanahan personnel flub than a typical Redskin trade mistake. Shanahan has a history of personnel flubs and I am sure that he has a couple of more coming down the pipe during his Redskin tenure.

DarthMonk Wrote:

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

Now that McNabb, from your list, has been discussed separately, what "star signings," in the manner of the players that you list, did ShanAllen do? Is your list missing someone?

Allow me to quote myself:

Red_One43 wrote from earlier post on this thread:

Let's see - we passed on Dansby, Fanaca, Joey Porter. THESE are "stars."

We signed Grossman, Kemoatu, Anthony Young, Artis Hicks, Buchanan. Roydell Williams! THESE are NOT "stars?"

Traded for Carriker and Brown (4th rounder for a former pro bowler - why not?) THESE are NOT "stars."

We signed old guys to start the year - Galloway, Johnson, Draft, Holliday. Draft -cut in pre season. Only Holliday remained at the end of the season and he was productive. THESE were NOT stars - (usetabe, though)

Let's move to today - Signing Atogwe - Star? No. Does he fit the DC's system? Yes. Whaddayou talkin' about with this "need to start adding ..." stuff? While you were writng all of your posts, you missed that one.

The plan for FA this year was not to go out and get "stars' but get players with "Mike Shanahan work ethic." If the "star" has a work ethic then that kind of star will be signed.

BTW, the "old guy" signings were not for big money - not even close.
Another BTW - We didn't bid against ourselves - we told Grossman here is our offer, come back and see us if nobody beats us - NOT business as usual. My bet is Santana will be given an offer and maybe a counteroffer if another team tops it, but the point is, if the Skins re-sign Moss, it will be at market value and not over paid - NOT business as usual like the huge contract Portis got when he came here.

Further evidence - We let Shaun Rodgers walk just before the Lockout.
Whaddaya talkin' 'bout that we haven't stopped?

[DarthMonk]

Nothing new below in the quoted material.

I hope (and tend to think but still need convincing) you're right that the franchise turnaround started with ShanAllen. Time will tell.

We agree that my star list only has one guy from ShanAllen - McNabb. Never tried to claim otherwise. Also didn't use it as an example of franchise business as usual. As I said, not as bad as some prior years and I sense progress. Trade or FA it's a star acquisition either way. I'll say it again since it needs no fixing -

... and until we stop we haven't stopped ... and until we stop we haven't stopped ... and until we stop we haven't stopped ...

If we don't do it this year we've stopped.

And I'll say this again since it needs no fixing either -

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

BTW - A two-time pro bowler and one-time first team all pro named Jamal Brown probably qualifies as a star in the minds of many also but it really doesn't matter.

DarthMonk

What evidence to you have that the franchise thought that they could sign a few "stars"

It's not just last year ...

(since 2000)

Mark Carrier
Jeff George
Deion Sanders
Bruce Smith
Brad Johnson
Jeremiah Trotter
Mark Brunell
Shawn Springs
Antwaan Randle El
Adam Archuleta
Jason Taylor
Albert Haynesworth
Donovan McNabb

... and until we stop we haven't stopped.

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

DarthMonk

I say the franchise turnaround started with ShanAllen.

In your list of "stars," only one - McNabb can be credited to ShanAllen. And that was not a bust the bank over pay signing. It was a trade. Most of us admit that the trade now goes down as a mistake, but for you to use it as evidence as franchise business as usual is a big stretch. The idea of the trade was good. Get a veteran QB to carry things over for a few years while you find your guy. This wasn't a throw money at a washed up "star." McNabb just didn't fit this O. That was the mistake. He was his same old throw in the dirt self. Shanny thought he could fix that. Reid's O with its short dump offs fit McNabb very well. Now, what it isn't business as usual that ShanAllen did with McNabb concerning the contract they got him to sign. They control his destiny and might even get a draft pick back. If McNabb hadn't have signed the contract, we wouldn't even be entertaining the possibility of getting anything. Now, also give ShanAllen some credit for clearing Haynesworth and Hall's fat signing bonus' off the books. We would have been hamstrung for years when the cap comes back if they hadn't thought of giving them their bonuses up front while there was not cap. That is not business as usual. BTW, the type of mistake with McNabb was more classic Shanahan personnel flub than a typical Redskin trade mistake. Shanahan has a history of personnel flubs and I am sure that he has a couple of more coming down the pipe during his Redskin tenure.

DarthMonk Wrote:

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

Now that McNabb, from your list, has been discussed separately, what "star signings," in the manner of the players that you list, did ShanAllen do? Is your list missing someone?

Allow me to quote myself:

Red_One43 wrote from earlier post on this thread:

Let's see - we passed on Dansby, Fanaca, Joey Porter. THESE are "stars."

We signed Grossman, Kemoatu, Anthony Young, Artis Hicks, Buchanan. Roydell Williams! THESE are NOT "stars?"

Traded for Carriker and Brown (4th rounder for a former pro bowler - why not?) THESE are NOT "stars."

We signed old guys to start the year - Galloway, Johnson, Draft, Holliday. Draft -cut in pre season. Only Holliday remained at the end of the season and he was productive. THESE were NOT stars - (usetabe, though)

Let's move to today - Signing Atogwe - Star? No. Does he fit the DC's system? Yes. Whaddayou talkin' about with this "need to start adding ..." stuff? While you were writng all of your posts, you missed that one.

The plan for FA this year was not to go out and get "stars' but get players with "Mike Shanahan work ethic." If the "star" has a work ethic then that kind of star will be signed.

BTW, the "old guy" signings were not for big money - not even close.
Another BTW - We didn't bid against ourselves - we told Grossman here is our offer, come back and see us if nobody beats us - NOT business as usual. My bet is Santana will be given an offer and maybe a counteroffer if another team tops it, but the point is, if the Skins re-sign Moss, it will be at market value and not over paid - NOT business as usual like the huge contract Portis got when he came here.

Further evidence - We let Shaun Rodgers walk just before the Lockout.
Whaddaya talkin' 'bout that we haven't stopped?

[Red_One43]

I hope (and tend to think but still need convincing) you're right that the franchise turnaround started with ShanAllen. Time will tell.

Fair enough. One off-season may not be enough being what we Skins fans have been through. Time will tell.

We agree that my star list only has one guy from ShanAllen - McNabb. Never tried to claim otherwise. Also didn't use it as an example of franchise business as usual. As I said, not as bad as some prior years and I sense progress. Trade or FA it's a star acquisition either way. I'll say it again since it needs no fixing -

The context of my argument was and is the franchise today. By you bringing up names of that the old regime threw money at, you opened yourself up for my response. What the franchise did before ShanAllen has nothing to do with them, so why did you bring up all those old names of the past? So you can wallow in it? I know Redskin history and that history didn't include ShanAllen until last season.

... and until we stop we haven't stopped ... and until we stop we haven't stopped ... and until we stop we haven't stopped ...

If we don't do it this year we've stopped.

You are saying we haven't stopped because of one trade blunder that you fail to recognize the craftiness of the contract they got the McNabb to sign and because of that contract, there is a possibility to recoup some of the loss. No way the previous regimes come up with that contract.

C'mon cite something else besides McNabb which you still have not even attempted to counter my argument that the trade made football sense.

And I'll say this again since it needs no fixing either -

Last years' "star signings" weren't as bad as some years but we still did it and surrendered draft picks to boot. This franchise does, in fact, need to stop thinking the way it has been for many years. The proof will be in the pudding. I sense progress but I need more evidence ...

Right here, you linked the current FO as thinking like the past. Once you said "needs to stop," you are saying the current FO is doing the same. AND in no way does ShanAllen think like the FO in the past. How about some facts to support the above quote. It still harps on McNabb. We didn't surrender a draft choice with Brown, we swapped. Also during the draft, Shanny was able to add at least one draft choice in the late rounds.

This franchise as of ShanAllen has not continued in the ways of old. The proof is in the pudding - I cited contracts, discipline and will cite more ingredients for the pudding.

Once again, if you study this move versus the moves in the Snyder era this one has NFL rationale behind it - a 2nd and a 3rd for a former browl bowler coming off a play-off year is not a bad deal. They didn't break the bank to sing him either. McNabb failed here because Mike was too egotisical to understand with some old folks you can't teach new tricks. As I said before - this was a classic Shanahan blunder Don't get me wrong Shanahan has had a lot of success with personnel, but he has laid a few eggs and he WILL continue to do so. This was not a franchise move in thinking with the past regime. Name one that you think fits this situation and do include the break the bank contracts when you do. C'mon name one bank breaking contract this FO has done in keeping with the old regime.

BTW - A two-time pro bowler and one-time first team all pro named Jamal Brown probably qualifies as a star in the minds of many also but it really doesn't matter.

When the Redkins signed Jamaal Brown - a lot of folks said, "who?" Though he made the Pro Bowl and one an all-pro, he is not considered one of the elite LTs (where he played in NO). He sat out for a whole season before he got hurt. Now, he is relagated to RT - not a star position. Whether or not he is a "star" is a perception as well. Won't argue that, but I will argue giving a 4th round pick for a former pro bowler AND a FIFTH round choice is not in accordance with the way this franchise has worked in the past. That is a fact. Also, let's not forget we got Carriker, a young former #1 draft choice for simply swapping picks in two different rounds one in the Rams favor and one in ours. We got Carriker for next to nothing. THIS is not inaccordance to the way the franchise did business in the past. This is an example of having stopped.

I have cited you expample after example stating my case - not just in signings but in contracts and trades. Not just from last off-season, but the beginning of this offseason to incude letting Shaun Rodgers walk instead of throwing money at him and signing Atogwe - a need and a guy our DC is familiar and not breaking the bank.

I gave, in my previous post, a list of players we let walk that we surely would have signed at least a couple of them in the past. I gave you a list of the FA guys we did sign - NO STARS. Brown was a wise trade for swapping a 4th for a 5th. FA Veterans were signed at minimum or near minimum contracts. Brain Westbrooked walked away with no contract.

You keep pointing out one blunder, but fail to mention the contract and how different that was from previous contracts and that potentially we might recover something of value from this blunder because of the contract. This FO clearly has done things differently than in years past. Some might say the screwed up the Albert situation. Again, I say this FO has done things differently.

Ny conclusion: As a Redskins fan, you have seen too many years of frustration, so I understand your perception. Fair enough! If you say time will tell for you then there is no argument against that, but how about some ingredients in your "proof pudding" to support your perception?

[DarthMonk]

It's really quite simple - we haven't stopped. We are the Redskins and a long standing pattern hasn't stopped yet. Hence the list. There is a link - continuity if you will. Same franchise, same pattern. It hasn't stopped yet.

As you point out, correctly in my view, many things have gotten better. Good job pointing out many of them. Agreement here.

The current regime acted, at least a bit, like a regime that thought we weren't that far away from contending. Otherwise, we'd have kept all the picks and maybe even acquired extras. I feel like we tried to straddle the fence last year. We tried to get younger AND contend and kinda did neither very well. It's too bad. I'd love to see a full fledged commitment to youthfull hunger.

We will have stopped when we stop. Perhaps we have begun to. Time will tell.

I'm actually with you for the most part but there is plenty of evidence. You could probably play devil's advocate and point it out better than most.

I think we have our best FO/Coaching situation since Marty. Now that guy was awesome. I think he turned over half the roster, brought in 13 rookies, brought our cap # from 100 million to nearly 50 million, and after 0-5 went 8-3 with Tony Banks ... but that's another story.

The trade did not make football sense to someone who thought we were far away and needed to get younger. I recognize the craftiness of the contract. Too bad we had to be so crafty with McNabb instead of having the picks and the season we gave up.

I have supported my view of at least part of the current FO thinking with facts. The two most obvious are McNabb and Brown.

I never said we made a bank-breaking blunder. I am saying an old pattern (star signing mentality) has clearly continued to persist for a year - at least a little.

I'm really not that frustrated. I've been around a while and pretty much saw 6-10 coming. I think I predicted 7-9 with an opening win over Dallas last year and got labeled as an optimist at work.

Oh, and we need to score more points!

I stand by my posts.

Pick away.

DarthMonk

[Red_One43]

It's really quite simple - we haven't stopped. We are the Redskins and a long standing pattern hasn't stopped yet. Hence the list. There is a link - continuity if you will. Same franchise, same pattern. It hasn't stopped yet.

Saying it hasn't stopped over and over doesn't mean it hasn't stopped.
I see no link when the motives and rationale are different.

As you point out, correctly in my view, many things have gotten better. Good job pointing out many of them. Agreement here.

+1 for both of us

The current regime acted, at least a bit, like a regime that thought we weren't that far away from contending. Otherwise, we'd have kept all the picks and maybe even acquired extras. I feel like we tried to straddle the fence last year. We tried to get younger AND contend and kinda did neither very well. It's too bad. I'd love to see a full fledged commitment to youthfull hunger.

I will admit that trading away draft choices right from the get go is in line with the old regime, but one has to look at the motive. Shanny traded for McNabb because he wanted to have a vet QB in place for at least 3 years to buy time for someone to groom. He didn't bring McNabb in soley to win now. IF Shanny truly was in a win now mode, he wouldn't have changed defensive schemes. When it comes to the press, Shanny rarely ever tells the truth. Sure he said we were going to compete, but again, he wouldn't have changed to a 3-4. There are several other moves he made that say he was in a long term thinking mode. Throughout this thread and other threads, I have been mentioning them. You say Shanny traded away draft choices, but he also aquired draft choices (late rounders). You choose to look at swapping draft choices for Brown and trading draft choices for McNabb as evidence of wanting to win now, but I say getting a former pro bowler (even coming off an injury) is low risk when you swap a 4th for a 5th, so it was a steal. You have already heard my spill about McNabb. Had McNabb worked out, Mike would not be pressed to get a QB with a 1st day pick in this draft, so it made good football sense to get a player of McNabb's caliber for so cheap. Mike's MO is aquiring draft choices. His track record in Denver proves it, but he was never afraid to trade a draft choice to get his guy. In this case, it was McNabb and now that trade will go down as one of his flubs. Would you have rathered us be like the Bucs and go 3-13 and then go 10-6 this year? It looks good, but the question is are the Bucs just another team that goes up then down. Shanny is trying to build a foundation and upon that foundation build a winning franchise for years to come. Tearing down the house is not the way to do that. Shanny has studied the Steelers and Pats, he is trying to follow their model. He darn near pulled it off last year as far as being competive. A few more bounces and penalties our way and we have a 500 or above team. I really think Shanny came into this year wanting to be competitive - 500 season was not a long term goal - thus the switch to a 3-4 now rather than ease it in or switch later.

We will have stopped when we stop. Perhaps we have begun to. Time will tell.

I am still not following as to what stops - trading draft choices? Like I said, Mike's MO is aquiring not trading, but he does and will always trade a pick if he sees fit. This isn't the Redskins of old trading all our picks.
But, yes, since he did it right away, I do have to admit it can be reasonably looked at it like you do.

I'm actually with you for the most part but there is plenty of evidence. You could probably play devil's advocate and point it out better than most.

I would say that the only thing different between our views is I am being optimistic, but optimistic with evidence to back up my optimism. You are leaning toward optimisim, but you are choosing to look back at the past. I think the only thing that will free you from the past is Shanny producing a winner which is a big thing. The little things that I point out to you don't suffice for you as they do for me. You see what I see, but until it produces a winner - a blunderous trade looks like the regime of old. Am I getting this right?

I think we have our best FO/Coaching situation since Marty. Now that guy was awesome. I think he turned over half the roster, brought in 13 rookies, brought our cap # from 100 million to nearly 50 million, and after 0-5 went 8-3 with Tony Banks ... but that's another story.

Well, it is another story, but at least your memories of the past aren't all bad. This is also a story we can both agree on. I like our current FO/Coaching but Shanny has some strange ways about doing business - this might be another reason you are skeptical - What in the .... is Mike doing? With Mike, you have to judge him by the small things because he keeps the big picture hidden. I don't like this style. His priorities do not fit the average fan. I really believe that Mike has no problem losing a game if he gets the thing he wants out of the game i.e. starting Grossman against Dallas and playing all the other back ups in those last three games. Mike wasn't playing to lose, but it was more important to evaluate than put his starters out there - lo and behold, the back ups showed what our team was missing - hunger - they even beat a play-off hungry team in their home. Played the g-men to the best game since 2007. Darn near came back and beat the Cowboys instead of rolling over and dying.

The trade did not make football sense to someone who thought we were far away and needed to get younger. I recognize the craftiness of the contract. Too bad we had to be so crafty with McNabb instead of having the picks and the season we gave up.

Good point here. Personally, I think that McNabb was an upgrade for Jason especially for leadership, but I am with you - Shanny could have accomplished what he wanted with Jason and still kept his draft choices. True, Jason didn't have "IT," but he was an average QB who proved that he could learn Offenses on the fly. Even though I feel this way, when I saw how the players responded to McNabb, I was happy for the trade. I saw McNabb hang in the pocket and make throws that Campbell never did.
Yes, too bad, it has come down to having to craft out a contract like that, but every team will make mistakes, it is good to know that Mike can clean it up a little - BUT since he is known for these types of mistakes, he has had plenty of practice.

I have supported my view of at least part of the current FO thinking with facts. The two most obvious are McNabb and Brown.

We may not see it the same way, but you did support your view. +1

I never said we made a bank-breaking blunder. I am saying an old pattern (star signing mentality) has clearly continued to persist for a year - at least a little.

Fair enough! BUT I did. It was a blunder. The only reason why I am not upset, is that stuff comes with Mike. One thing, I love about the guy, when he makes a mistake, he moves on instead of beating the dead horse. True, Mike must produce a winner, at least by the third season and that can't be just a winning record, it must be a solid team with a foundation OR people will get tired of his stuff just like the onwer in Denver did. I personally think tha Mike will produce that type of winner by year three because he has did a lot of homework, but Mike will never change his stripes.

I'm really not that frustrated. I've been around a while and pretty much saw 6-10 coming. I think I predicted 7-9 with an opening win over Dallas last year and got labeled as an optimist at work.

What got me, a lot of fans say that they saw 6-10, 7-9 or 8-8 but seemed to be frustrated that it turned out that way. I am sure that any frustration you may have had was not the record but the manner in which it happened. Had Shanny left the 4-3 alone. Adjusted his O to fit McNabb, a la Joe Gibbs adjusting to fit his personnel during his first season, we could have been a contenda' ( a little movie humor). I don't get frustrated that he didn't do that - he is no Joe Gibbs - I just sit back and say he's the coach - he better know what he is doing and I look at the small things to assure myself that he knows what he is doing, most of the time. I trust his resume. For those who say, he had John Elway, I say, John never won SB without Mike.

Oh, and we need to score more points!

100 % with you.

I stand by my posts.

Great! I think you defended your view well.

[SkinsJock]

I agree with both of you - I think these guys can get this franchise back on track by making a plan and sticking to it

I have faith in the FO the OC and the DC, depite their mistakes, big & small - we just need to start replacing as many of the older players as soon as we can and getting the guys to execute with the attitude that we started to see last season

We can and will make up the 'difference' - it will not be because we score more points per se but because we play better together as a team on both sides of the ball each and every week

We should continue to improve and grow this season and I see this franchise as really starting to be a force in 2012


HTTR

[1niksder]

It's really quite simple - we haven't stopped. We are the Redskins and a long standing pattern hasn't stopped yet. Hence the list. There is a link - continuity if you will. Same franchise, same pattern. It hasn't stopped yet.

It may look the same depending on how you look at it....

The current regime acted, at least a bit, like a regime that thought we weren't that far away from contending. Otherwise, we'd have kept all the picks and maybe even acquired extras. I feel like we tried to straddle the fence last year. We tried to get younger AND contend and kinda did neither very well. It's too bad. I'd love to see a full fledged commitment to youthfull hunger.

OR

The current regime figured out he had a team that had zero leadership at the most important position on the team. He couldn't draft anyone that could have came in and undo the years that the Redskins locker room had run "amok", and McNabb did it PDQ. The conditional pick might have been a step in the direction of previous regime's MO, but they may recoup something in the end. They swapped picks to get Brown, in the past we wouldn't asked for anything but Brown. The current regime went into the draft with only four picks yet they drafted three offensive linemen, a TE, a linebacker and a wide receiver. They also acquired Adam Carriker during the draft without giving up future picks. This was the oldest team in the league that they took over. There were at least five teams with higher average age of their roster than the Redskins by the end of last season.

I think we have our best FO/Coaching situation since Marty. Now that guy was awesome. I think he turned over half the roster, brought in 13 rookies, brought our cap # from 100 million to nearly 50 million, and after 0-5 went 8-3 with Tony Banks ... but that's another story.

The current regime had a unit with 25 players that were not on the 2009 53-man roster, but didn't have a cap. They did do a pretty good job cleaning future cap space.

The trade did not make football sense to someone who thought we were far away and needed to get younger. I recognize the craftiness of the contract. Too bad we had to be so crafty with McNabb instead of having the picks and the season we gave up.


DarthMonk

It made sense to someone who thought we were in desperate need of a leader out in front as he trimmed the age of the roster and poke at the egos of a roster that was about 35% "in it for the money players. They were 5-5 going into December less than a year after being 4-10. Who knew the QB and the Coach's Kid would destroy a season.

It may look the same but I see it different. I don't want to see another 6-10 season

[VetSkinsFan]

Granted this is in hindsight, but I was never a fan of the McNabb trade.

McNabb had the leadership temperment, but he never showed up playing. I never got the feeling he was getting better as time goes on. I got the feeling that McNabb thought that he's done it lke this for so long, he's gonna continue in stride.

He handled the disrespect better than anyone else could have. I give him props and understand the leadership quality in a vacuum. But this ain't a vacuum and to lead, you gotta lead by example. And I don't think he did that.

[Red_One43]

Granted this is in hindsight, but I was never a fan of the McNabb trade.

McNabb had the leadership temperment, but he never showed up playing. I never got the feeling he was getting better as time goes on. I got the feeling that McNabb thought that he's done it lke this for so long, he's gonna continue in stride.

He handled the disrespect better than anyone else could have. I give him props and understand the leadership quality in a vacuum. But this ain't a vacuum and to lead, you gotta lead by example. And I don't think he did that.

You raise a good point about thinking that he could continue in stride. Shanny clearly misjudged McNabb, but I think McNabb misjudged Shanny. McNabb probably thought hecould come here and be treated like a former pro bowler. Shanny expected him to work the same as any other player on the roster. I would be willing to be that McNabb only put in the required time and Shanny expected overtime consistently. I think by the Detroit game, the Shanahan's felt that McNabb was way behind their expectations on where the offense would be at that time. I am not excusing Mike yanking Mcabb in that instance, but I do understand the frustration. I have no ill toward McNabb. Mike and him are just don't go together.

[SkinsJock]

.... Shanny clearly misjudged McNabb, but I think McNabb misjudged Shanny.

McNabb probably thought he could come here and be treated like a former pro bowler. Shanny expected him to work the same as any other player on the roster. I would be willing to be that McNabb only put in the required time and Shanny expected overtime consistently.
I think by the Detroit game, the Shanahan's felt that McNabb was way behind their expectations on where the offense would be at that time. I am not excusing Mike yanking Mcabb in that instance, but I do understand the frustration.

I have no ill toward McNabb. Mike and him are just don't go together.

agree - I think that Mike saw an opportunity to add both the QB and leader that he and Kyle needed and the cost at the time seemed to be worth it
I think that Mike & Bruce did not have much, if any, good feelings about Grossman - they really felt they had to do something

BAD CALL - and not only in how it worked out at both the QB and leadership deal but also in how he and Kyle handled the players and the offense

THAT IS OVER and we move on - NOTHING is gained by looking back, except to learn from the mistakes

hopefully we get something for McNabb and we continue down the road to having a playoff contender here in Washington again AND in the not too distant future

[1niksder]

It may look the same but I see it different. I don't want to see another 6-10 season

Lorenzo Alexander said:

..... The front office is doing a better job of not just offering the biggest name out there the best contract that's ever been done. And we're doing a better job of screening players, and if not, it's a minimal deal and favorable to the team. They're getting better at taking care of their own. Guys that are grinding and producing and have become the face of the Redskins. I can only credit that to Mr. Allen and Coach Shanahan of really wanting guys here who want to work and they're going to reward you for that.

Especially in my case. Last year they didn't have to offer me a contract when they did. I was very gracious and humbled by that where everybody on our team didn't get that and probably should have gotten it over me. Taking care of guys that have been here working hard and moving in that direction. That's what I like. You have to build within your team. You can't just bring in a Pro-Bowler at every position and put him on the field and think you're going to do something. Dallas had 11 Pro-Bowlers one year and didn't win the Super Bowl, so having Pro Bowlers doesn't make you a great team. I think they understand that and their starting to move that way. They're doing their homework and building a team. A whole team. A couple superstars and some role players. Not everyone can be a super star...you know your role to go to the Big Game.

That sure doesn't sound like the same ole way of during things.

[SkinsJock]

thanks for adding that - I would agree, things are getting better around here and hopefully will continue to do so

we could get very lucky with this draft and I'm hoping that we can add some free agents that will help also

I do not think that this franchise is being run too badly at all and certainly a lot better than this franchise has been managed for many years