Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;982837]QB play is clearly an area we have lacked for a long time. The other part of the McNabb trade was the releasing of JC. I was one who rather would have kept JC, but clearly his play since being released, including his time in Oakland, showed keeping him would have done nothing more than McNabb/Grossman and the upside potential of McNabb and Grossman were better at the time. So, while I don't think Shanahan gets kudos for handling the JC/McNabb situation, ultimately we came out ahead, and I don't think it set the team back any in its development.[/quote]


I was against Campbell's release also, but in the end, it was the best thing for the Redskins and the best thing for Campbell. With learning so many offenses up to that point, Campbell certainly had too much baggage so I understand why Mike Shanahan didn't want him as his starting QB.

With bringing McNabb to Washington, it was like starting over like when Norv Turner became our HC and they drafted Heath Shuler. Ultimatey, the McNabb/Shanahan thing didn't work out. But those things contributed to the Redskins losing and significantly drafting the one quarterback that was desperately needed. (RG3)

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=CrazyCowboy80;977023]I think we've done better than you in the past five to seven years, [B]and we're on the verge of a playoff berth and NFC East championship[/B], so I'd say just fine.

Seriously, how can y'all hate on Jerry Jones when you're stuck with Dan "Official Mattress of Six Flags" Snyder? Jerry cares about the team and about winning, Chainsaw Dan is just in it for the cash.[/quote]

Everyone point and laugh.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Mattyk;982927]Knowing Eagles fans they are saying good riddance.

Depending on who their next coach is, I think in time they may look back and have a different view on Reid. Or at least they should... he had a lot of success there. Granted they didn't win it all, but still. Let's see them go through 20 years of mediocrity like we have post Gibbs 1.0 and see how they feel.[/quote]

As someone who has several friends who are eagles fans, you are correct. Theyre my friends, but from a football fan perspective, theyre like spoiled little children. Other than New England, i dont think any other organization has had as much success over the past 14 years as the Eagles. The Giants have been very good recently, but as soon as Coughlin retires, they'll be doo-doo.

Reid is THE reason the franchise has been as successful as it has the past few years. I dont care who they hire - the chances of him having even half the success as Reid is slim. I just dont get this move. Dont fire your GOOD head coach unless you have someone better lined up. The eagles dont have anyone better lined up. their rumored list of HC candiates is full of people who havent proven a thing and/or been less successful than Reid. Its like they made a change just to make a change. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Mattyk;983018]Everyone point and laugh.[/quote]

That POS pissed me off. What a douche.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;983025]As someone who has several friends who are eagles fans, you are correct. Theyre my friends, but from a football fan perspective, theyre like spoiled little children. Other than New England, i dont think any other organization has had as much success over the past 14 years as the Eagles. The Giants have been very good recently, but as soon as Coughlin retires, they'll be doo-doo.

Reid is THE reason the franchise has been as successful as it has the past few years. I dont care who they hire - the chances of him having even half the success as Reid is slim. I just dont get this move. Dont fire your GOOD head coach unless you have someone better lined up. The eagles dont have anyone better lined up. their rumored list of HC candiates is full of people who havent proven a thing and/or been less successful than Reid. Its like they made a change just to make a change. It just doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]

2010 and before they were a good organization, ever since then... not so much. Everyone could tell that team was going downhill fast. Reid needed Johnson and once he lost him as a DC that team completely changed. Reid banked on Vick and he lost. He lost his touch and needs a fresh start. The eagles started to build their team like the Skins of old (signing a bunch of big name free agents) and now they realized, just like we did the hard way, you do not build a team like you do in Madden. Sometimes it is just time, similar to Shanahan at Denver

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;983025]As someone who has several friends who are eagles fans, you are correct. Theyre my friends, but from a football fan perspective, theyre like spoiled little children. [B]Other than New England, i dont think any other organization has had as much success over the past 14 years as the Eagles.[/B] The Giants have been very good recently, but as soon as Coughlin retires, they'll be doo-doo.

[B]Reid is THE reason the franchise has been as successful as it has the past few years.[/B] I dont care who they hire - the chances of him having even half the success as Reid is slim. I just dont get this move. Dont fire your GOOD head coach unless you have someone better lined up. The eagles dont have anyone better lined up. their rumored list of HC candiates is full of people who havent proven a thing and/or been less successful than Reid. Its like they made a change just to make a change. It just doesnt make sense to me.[/quote]

There are quite a few years of SB winners that will disagree with that first bolded statement. They made the SB once but have still never won it as a franchise. I would take a SB victory with a few bad years mixed in than a visit but nothing else in their existence. They dont drop far on the list, but only one team with more success?

As to the second, the Eagles have been irrelevant since the loss of Jim Johnson. That defense allowed Reid to be successful with flawed QB's. Reid could never get away from the passing game enough to realize that he always had better RB's than he did QB's. Westbrook/McNabb... Im taking Westbrook. Im also Taking Shady over Vick/Kolb/Foles.

[QUOTE=Skinzman;983040]There are quite a few years of SB winners that will disagree with that first bolded statement. They made the SB once but have still never won it as a franchise. I would take a SB victory with a few bad years mixed in than a visit but nothing else in their existence. They dont drop far on the list, but only one team with more success?

As to the second, the Eagles have been irrelevant since the loss of Jim Johnson. That defense allowed Reid to be successful with flawed QB's. Reid could never get away from the passing game enough to realize that he always had better RB's than he did QB's. Westbrook/McNabb... Im taking Westbrook. Im also Taking Shady over Vick/Kolb/Foles.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with your first point. I would say the Colts are one team for sure that has been successful and they did win one. I would say the Giants and their two superbowl victories. The Saints have been good for several years and have a ring to show for it. Packers too. Favre to Rodgers and each has a SB victory over that span.
As for your second point - yes the death of Jim Johnson was a huge part of the Eagles decline. However I wouldnt call Mcnabb a flawed QB. I think he was a great qb for several years in Philly.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=punch it in;983078]I totally agree with your first point. I would say the Colts are one team for sure that has been successful and they did win one. I would say the Giants and their two superbowl victories. The Saints have been good for several years and have a ring to show for it. Packers too. Favre to Rodgers and each has a SB victory over that span.
As for your second point - yes the death of Jim Johnson was a huge part of the Eagles decline.[B] However I wouldnt call Mcnabb a flawed QB. I think he was a great qb for several years in Philly.[/B][/quote]

McNabb could throw three passes.

The screen...
The bomb...
And the into the ground 3 yards in front of a completely wide open WR 15 yards down field...

Im not saying McNabb was terrible at his height in Philly, but I do not consider him great by any means. He was saved by a better than most people ever recognize defense and an under rated RB in Westbrook who took screens to places where people shouldnt be taking screens.

Reid deserves a lot of credit for covering up McNabbs deficiencies, but he never figured out that the biggest thing covering those up was his RB. He never realized that the QB doesnt have to be the only thing to win big games.

[QUOTE=Skinzman;983088]McNabb could throw three passes.

The screen...
The bomb...
And the into the ground 3 yards in front of a completely wide open WR 15 yards down field...

Im not saying McNabb was terrible at his height in Philly, but I do not consider him great by any means. He was saved by a better than most people ever recognize defense and an under rated RB in Westbrook who took screens to places where people shouldnt be taking screens.

Reid deserves a lot of credit for covering up McNabbs deficiencies, but he never figured out that the biggest thing covering those up was his RB. He never realized that the QB doesnt have to be the only thing to win big games.[/QUOTE]

He also had lackluster talent at the wr position for years in Philly. Also Westbrook was a great pass catching rb, but there was no true run game and that makes it very hard to open up the passing game. Yet he did it in a big way. The one year he had TO they went to the superbowl. The guy has thrown for almost 40,000 yards. When he became less mobile he still won alot of games. His career ended ugly and he comes across as a borderline jerk, but at his peak in Philly he was one of the best.
Edit: i guess what im getting at is that I think Mcnabb covered up for alot of inefficiencies on that offense - run game, wr talent. As opposed to the other way around.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=punch it in;983092]He also had lackluster talent at the wr position for years in Philly. Also Westbrook was a great pass catching rb, but there was no true run game and that makes it very hard to open up the passing game. Yet he did it in a big way. The one year he had TO they went to the superbowl. The guy has thrown for almost 40,000 yards. When he became less mobile he still won alot of games. His career ended ugly and he comes across as a borderline jerk, but at his peak in Philly he was one of the best.
Edit: i guess what im getting at is that I think Mcnabb covered up for alot of inefficiencies on that offense - run game, wr talent. As opposed to the other way around.[/quote]

To be fair, I blame the run game on Reid. He seemed to refuse to commit to it. When he did, Westbrook had some really good rushing games.

As for the whole TO thing. McNabb completed plenty of deep passes without him. As well as they won every playoff game that year that TO did not play in and lost the only one that TO did play in. Having bad WR's wasnt one of McNabbs problems. McNabbs problem was that if you took away the deep game and had LB's that could stop the screen game, The Eagles offense stalled due to the fact that it could only do three things, and Andy Reid was allergic to running the ball, so the Eagles offense only did two things. Reid schemed both into his plays. If McNabb found one or the other, good things happened. Otherwise, not so much. Pick your poison and McNabb posted great stats, able to stop both and McNabb became average at best.

[QUOTE=Skinzman;983094]To be fair, I blame the run game on Reid. He seemed to refuse to commit to it. When he did, Westbrook had some really good rushing games.

As for the whole TO thing. McNabb completed plenty of deep passes without him. As well as they won every playoff game that year that TO did not play in and lost the only one that TO did play in. Having bad WR's wasnt one of McNabbs problems. McNabbs problem was that if you took away the deep game and had LB's that could stop the screen game, The Eagles offense stalled due to the fact that it could only do three things, and Andy Reid was allergic to running the ball, so the Eagles offense only did two things. Reid schemed both into his plays. If McNabb found one or the other, good things happened. Otherwise, not so much. Pick your poison and McNabb posted great stats, able to stop both and McNabb became average at best.[/QUOTE]

At the risk of hi-jacking this thread (as if we hadnt already-lol), TO is also the only one that showed up in that superbowl. I agree with everything you are saying, i think were just looking at it through opposite sides of the glass. Its not really Mcnabbs fault that Reid was allergic to the running game or acquiring talent and or any sort of depth at the wr position for many of Mcnabbs years there. He leaned heavily on McNabbs mobility and arm strength for many years and it took him to the cusp of a few championships. Like any qb he was only as strong as the weapons around him. I personally think he put that teams offense on his back for several years and had a very impressive go at it.
Anyway - Go Skins. :)

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Skinzman;983094]To be fair, I blame the run game on Reid. He seemed to refuse to commit to it. When he did, Westbrook had some really good rushing games.

As for the whole TO thing. McNabb completed plenty of deep passes without him. As well as they won every playoff game that year that TO did not play in and lost the only one that TO did play in. Having bad WR's wasnt one of McNabbs problems. McNabbs problem was that if you took away the deep game and had LB's that could stop the screen game, The Eagles offense stalled due to the fact that it could only do three things, and Andy Reid was allergic to running the ball, so the Eagles offense only did two things. Reid schemed both into his plays. If McNabb found one or the other, good things happened. Otherwise, not so much. Pick your poison and McNabb posted great stats, able to stop both and McNabb became average at best.[/quote]

Reid was also the Jedi Master of clock mismanagement.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Mechanix544;982836]I just wanted to mark it for the record, I am not one of the three that voted NO.

HAIL!!!!!![/quote]

I voted no, but it was for the lulz. (which were achieved)


I normally wait for the mods to post their opinions so I can thereby form my own. Got to tow the company line of the Shanahan apologists.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;983106]Reid was also the Jedi Master of clock mismanagement.[/quote]


Reid was the worst coach for clock management and was absolutely abysmal at play calling on the goal line. Isn't he the moron that would throw a challenge flag on practically anything?

WHAT? Two inches in the difference in that spot Mr. Ref!!! I"M CHALLENGING THIS!!

I'd fire the whole staff even after our Superbowl win in 4 weeks.....

suspiciously absent from the votes are names like Goat and GTripp. interesting, given the strong feelings they seemed to have for their position.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;983120]suspiciously absent from the votes are names like Goat and GTripp. interesting, given the strong feelings they seemed to have for their position.[/quote]

They're just waiting for it to get really lopsided before they vote. Still too close right now...

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;983120]suspiciously absent from the votes are names like Goat and GTripp. interesting, given the strong feelings they seemed to have for their position.[/quote]

Can't speak for GTripp per se but somewhere he said extensions now are a good idea, which kinda sounds like buying in.

I'm on the fence. We have accomplished exactly what we should have this season i.e. division champs in a surprisingly weak division (year). The Cowboys defense was a fraction of its original strength because of injuries. The Eagles lost their best player and other starting olineman, and then the whole team fell to pieces. The Giants had SB hangover. Prior to the season started, 8-8 was my minimum expectation, and that was before we knew 1) how insanely good RG is 2) that our division rivals were gonna have relatively bad years.

How we got to 10-6 is super exciting because of the win steak, but given the big picture this is where we should have been all along. All the staff have earned their current contract. A playoff win gets my buy-in. Losing wildcard weekend tells me we won't know what we have till next season.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=The Goat;983131]Can't speak for GTripp per se but somewhere he said extensions now are a good idea, which kinda sounds like buying in.

I'm on the fence. We have accomplished exactly what we should have this season i.e. division champs in a surprisingly weak division (year). The Cowboys defense was a fraction of its original strength because of injuries. The Eagles lost their best player and other starting olineman, and then the whole team fell to pieces. The Giants had SB hangover. Prior to the season started, 8-8 was my minimum expectation, and that was before we knew 1) how insanely good RG is 2) that our division rivals were gonna have relatively bad years.

How we got to 10-6 is super exciting because of the win steak, but given the big picture this is where we should have been all along. All the staff have earned their current contract. A playoff win gets my buy-in. Losing wildcard weekend tells me we won't know what we have till next season.[/quote]

I don't know about you, but I knew that these Washington Redskins were going to turn the corner at some point. You could see the signs back in preseason when they were putting up points on offense. Then the first game against New Orleans confirmed that what we saw in the preseason wasn't a fluke. We lost some close games earlier in the season to some pretty good teams. I knew this team could compete. At 3-6, the Redskins should have been 8-1 or maybe 7-2.

I was counting the Eagles, Cowboys, and especially the Giants out before the season started. The NFC Eastern division was ours to take at whatever point in the season. Kudos to Mike Shanahan, Kyle Shanahan, Coach Haz, and the Redskins players for showing us what they're truly capable of.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;983120]suspiciously absent from the votes are names like Goat and GTripp. interesting, given the strong feelings they seemed to have for their position.[/quote]In my case, the absence is intentional because 'yes' and 'no' wouldn't adequately explain my position on this issue.

I mean, a lot of it depends on the upcoming offseason. Personally, I don't think people adequately adjusted their expectations when the Redskins went all in for RG3, so a lot of people perceive a team ahead of the curve, whereas I see a team not completely dissimilar to the 2005 and 2007 outfits that made aggressive offseason moves, got hot, and paid off an aggressive offseason with a playoff berth.

That's not really a long-term "plan" necessarily, but the Redskins are now in a totally different position than they were a year ago, meaning I'm looking to see how they build themselves in the offseason before I vote yes.

On the other hand, voting no would suggest I think the recent win streak is a complete fluke, and I don't think that is the case at all. I think it's the results of an aggressive process: i.e. trading for RG3 and finding Morris in the 6th round, as well as developing a strong offensive line.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

It's funny because I've been told countless times around these parts that it takes multiple years to reshape a roster, and then when the Redskins go and totally take their team in a different direction during their bye week, everybody (including those preaching patience above all) immediately buy in hook, line, and sinker.

Multiple years or two weeks. All the same I guess.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

^well you know they are gonna have another hard time again with the cap penalty and will have their hands tied in Free agency with alot of decisions to make on the team in regards to who to extend vs who not to extend. Whats is encouraging is the fact of there is only [B]ONE[/B] bloated contract at this point. Thats an amazing fact vs the 2005-2007 teams you mentioned. This team is much more structurely sound than those teams as well in terms of talent, but especially depth.

Its gonna be an interesting offseason when it comes down to players such as Logan Pauleson, Rob Jackson, Fred Davis, D Hall

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Chico23231;983166]^well you know they are gonna have another hard time again with the cap penalty and will have their hands tied in Free agency with alot of decisions to make on the team in regards to who to extend vs who not to extend. Whats is encouraging is the fact of there is only [B]ONE[/B] bloated contract at this point. Thats an amazing fact vs the 2005-2007 teams you mentioned. This team is much more structurely sound than those teams as well in terms of talent, but especially depth.

Its gonna be an interesting offseason when it comes down to players such as Logan Pauleson, Rob Jackson, Fred Davis, D Hall[/quote]Yeah, the contracts thing is something that improved right away.

This is the offseason that will determine the success or failure of the Shanaplan (of course, if not for last offseason, he wouldn't have made it to this point). Lots of talent on this roster is available for free agency, and that doesn't even include Orakpo, who is heading into the last year of his contract.

I'm aware the Redskins have the cap penalty, but when you see them go and spend $3 million on Cedric Griffin et al, you kind of understand that the penalty isn't preventing them from getting the players they wanted. No one was going to spend more than $1 million on CedGriff. They still got Garcon, Morgan, and matched the Chargers offer on Royal.

There will be plenty of money to spend this offseason, and they can always backload guaranteed money into 2014 to ensure someone they covet signs here. They won't be limited at all by the cap penalty.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;983161]In my case, the absence is intentional because 'yes' and 'no' wouldn't adequately explain my position on this issue.

I mean, a lot of it depends on the upcoming offseason. Personally, I don't think people adequately adjusted their expectations when the Redskins went all in for RG3, so a lot of people perceive a team ahead of the curve, whereas I see a team not completely dissimilar to the 2005 and 2007 outfits that made aggressive offseason moves, got hot, and paid off an aggressive offseason with a playoff berth.

That's not really a long-term "plan" necessarily, but the Redskins are now in a totally different position than they were a year ago, meaning I'm looking to see how they build themselves in the offseason before I vote yes.

On the other hand, voting no would suggest I think the recent win streak is a complete fluke, and I don't think that is the case at all.[B] I think it's the results of an aggressive process: i.e. trading for RG3 and finding Morris in the 6th round, as well as developing a strong offensive line[/B].[/quote]

What do you mean here? I get that the trade for RG3 is aggressive, but how is finding a franchise RB in the 6th round and developing a strong offensive line aggressive? I would think that developing the strong line would be consistent with a good plan, as would bringing in a good fit at RB and good blocking WRs for the running game. I still consider finding Morris pure luck more than anything else. I guess one could argue that a management plan that calls for drafting a diamond in the rough RB in late rounds year after year until you find thet right guy is a "plan" but I'm not sure. At any rate, excepting RG3, to me the moves seem very different than those of Gibbs 2.0.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;983167]Yeah, the contracts thing is something that improved right away.

This is the offseason that will determine the success or failure of the Shanaplan (of course, if not for last offseason, he wouldn't have made it to this point). Lots of talent on this roster is available for free agency, and that doesn't even include Orakpo, who is heading into the last year of his contract.

I'm aware the Redskins have the cap penalty, but when you see them go and spend $3 million on Cedric Griffin et al, you kind of understand that the penalty isn't preventing them from getting the players they wanted. No one was going to spend more than $1 million on CedGriff. They still got Garcon, Morgan, and matched the Chargers offer on Royal.

[B]There will be plenty of money to spend this offseason, and they can always backload guaranteed money into 2014 to ensure someone they covet signs here. They won't be limited at all by the cap penalty[/B].[/quote]

Im not so sure, you think serious FA like Andre Smith, Jarius Byrd would be ok with waiting an additional year to get their money? I think that might work for guys already on the team who look to resign, but guys coming into the team...not sure.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=GoSkins!;983168]What do you mean here? I get that the trade for RG3 is aggressive, but how is finding a franchise RB in the 6th round and developing a strong offensive line aggressive? I would think that developing the strong line would be consistent with a good plan, as would bringing in a good fit at RB and good blocking WRs for the running game. I still consider finding Morris pure luck more than anything else. I guess one could argue that a management plan that calls for drafting a diamond in the rough RB in late rounds year after year until you find thet right guy is a "plan" but I'm not sure. At any rate, excepting RG3, to me the moves seem very different than those of Gibbs 2.0.[/quote]In Morris' case, it was more that he started day 1 than was selected. And I'm aware that Shanahan had a long history of doing such a thing, but still, we've come a long way from the Larry Johnson/Willie Parker days. I agree with you that it's luck to an extent.

The OL was pieced together through a lot of different methods, including street free agents, pricey free agents, and a high draft pick. Key there is the durability of the players they've assembled.

RG3 was the big one. It had to work and it had to work fast to get us where we are right now. We traded for a potential difference maker in the playoffs, someone who we could not have gotten later in the draft. Russell Wilson notwithstanding.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=Chico23231;983170]Im not so sure, you think serious FA like Andre Smith, Jarius Byrd would be ok with waiting an additional year to get their money? I think that might work for guys already on the team who look to resign, but guys coming into the team...not sure.[/quote]Well, I mean, they would still be getting a bulk of their money in year one, just that the total amount of guaranteed money would include 2014 base salary. It's still about who offers the most guaranteed money.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;983163]It's funny because I've been told countless times around these parts that it takes multiple years to reshape a roster, and then when the Redskins go and totally take their team in a different direction during their bye week, everybody (including those preaching patience above all) immediately buy in hook, line, and sinker.

Multiple years or two weeks. All the same I guess.[/quote]

I guess that you can see it that way, but in my mind the question was about the plan and strategy that is being used. If you wait to see the results on the field, then, my expectation is that your answer is no.

If your boss says, we are going to do x, y, z so that we can produce 200% more widgets and you think "yeah right, we will see if 200% more widgets are made" he didn't get your buy in. If he says it, and you think "hot da** 200% more widgets means I can get that new car" and then run out and buy it tomorrow, you bought into his plan fully.

No one who said yes is saying that every year in the future is going to be perfection, only that they believe the plan will take us to the better place. Once the results are known, then you aren't buying into the plan, you are just rejoicing (or moping) about the outcome.

As for not enough poll options, well, isn't that what the following dialogue is for. ie I voted no, because I don't think we have seen a solid building of the defensive backfield. Or I voted yes, because Matty and Smoot did, and I want to be a mod some day.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;983180]I guess that you can see it that way, but in my mind the question was about the plan and strategy that is being used. If you wait to see the results on the field, then, my expectation is that your answer is no.

If your boss says, we are going to do x, y, z so that we can produce 200% more widgets and you think "yeah right, we will see if 200% more widgets are made" he didn't get your buy in. If he says it, and you think "hot da** 200% more widgets means I can get that new car" and then run out and buy it tomorrow, you bought into his plan fully.

No one who said yes is saying that every year in the future is going to be perfection, only that they believe the plan will take us to the better place. Once the results are known, then you aren't buying into the plan, you are just rejoicing (or moping) about the outcome.

As for not enough poll options, well, isn't that what the following dialogue is for. ie I voted no, because I don't think we have seen a solid building of the defensive backfield. Or I voted yes, because Matty and Smoot did, and I want to be a mod some day.[/quote]I think you make a good point re: complicating my own position, but I'm not necessarily waiting for next years results to buy in only next years process (offseason).

A year ago, I would have been a clear no. A lot has changed since then, mainly that I overreacted to the cost associated with the RG3 trade, as well as the fact that I thought the Shanahans would be a limiting factor on his development. So far, they've been the opposite, and that is to their credit.

There are still some really sloppy things about the process but if they continue to get the big things right, they are going to be successful. Fixing the defense (and special teams) becomes the next big thing, as well as developing the passing game on a year to year basis.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

One thing that is important to remember is that no team has one giant master "plan". There's too much that organizations cannot control. What we're really talking about is the philosophy and approach. Each off-season you devise a plan for player acquisition (among other things like how you conduct scouting and so forth) that fits your philosophy and approach...then once the season rolls around you have a different plan for how you're going to get the product onto the field in a way that reflects your philosophy. Anyone can quibble with the various parts of those plans and how they fit, or don't fit, a sound philosophy. To me it really comes down to: are we aimed at doing things that will give us the best shot to build a solid organization that can win year after year? If so, are the steps we're taking aligned with that strategy. I would say unequivocally we're aimed at that and our basic approach seems sound. Certainly many decisions made have worked while some have not. But to me there are not a lot of decisions that have been made that weren't made in good faith towards building a good organization.

Again, there is doing things the right way and doing the right things, They're not the same.

In the past our strategy was for crap...we're close so make a few big moves to win now. On top of that the decisions made to match that strategy we're bad.

I can't see how ANYTHING about our basic current philosophy that is all that debatable. Particular moves though are another thing.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

I think it will be very interesting to see what we do this off-season...we have some decisions to make regarding current players, as noted, and we'll be coming off a very solid rebuilding year but with some obvious work to be done. The inclination to push all the chips in will be strong but I don't think it'd be the right move. Big off-season coming up in my opinion. It's one reason I'd mainly wait to do an extension with Shanny.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=FRPLG;983219]I think it will be very interesting to see what we do this off-season...we have some decisions to make regarding current players, as noted, and we'll be coming off a very solid rebuilding year but with some obvious work to be done. The inclination to push all the chips in will be strong but I don't think it'd be the right move. Big off-season coming up in my opinion. It's one reason I'd mainly wait to do an extension with Shanny.[/quote]it will be.

very, very exciting times.
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
5th
6th
7th

not counting on getting any cap penalty money back. our last 2 drafts have been rock solid, i expect that to continue. tons of talent on the fa market, too, sizzling

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

From the Should Shanahan Be Fired thread, 10/28/12 @ 6:09 (Sorry can’t reference quote b/c thread has been closed):

[quote=GTripp0012] Okay, I'll say it without pulling punches. You'd have to be some kind of moron to give Shanahan five full years.[/quote]

Rather than rehash much of what others have already pointed out, specifically CRed and his analogy as to what constitutes “buying in, I am simply seeing if you still stand by this unequivocal condemnation of those believing that, even prior to the win streak, MS’s actions warranted a full five years.

Further, I would suggest that some of your statements in the recent discussion belie your previous unequivocal condemnation of myself (and others) who, prior to the recent winning streak, believed that a systemic turnaround had already begun entitling MS to his full five years.

Preliminarily, accepting that you:

[quote=GTripp0012;983161]see a team not completely dissimilar to the 2005 and 2007 outfits that made aggressive offseason moves, got hot, and paid off an aggressive offseason with a playoff berth. … [Thus, you believe that's] not really a long-term "plan"[.][/quote]

You point to several events/transactions that have been evident to me (and, again, others) since MS's first year.

[quote=GTripp0012;983161] I think it's the results of an aggressive process: i.e. trading for RG3 and finding Morris in the 6th round, [B]as well as developing a strong offensive line.[/B] [/quote]

The current line - which I agree has been critical to the Streak - has been developed since 2010, as you point out, through free agency and the draft. The line as currently assembled shows a clear bias for a particular type of lineman and MS has – except for the RT position – developed and signed lineman who fit that description (Williams, Montgomery, Lichtensteiger, Chester) while discarding those who did not. (Rinehart, Dockery). Have we fully developed the line in year three? No. However, have the “high priced free agents” used to supplement the street free agents and the draft picks prevented us from addressing other areas of need? If you believe so, please cite me some specifics b/c I don't see it. In addition, we have now have a relatively youthful starting five that create the luxury of developing internal replacements ([I]e.g.[/I]LeRibeus who received solid reviews for his play along with Mo Hurt who was an adequate replacement when called upon). This simply did not happen in one year and was seen by myself and others as a conscience and necessary step to long term winning.

Similarly, the development of depth, for me (and I believe others), has always been tied to the types of free agents acquired and the contracts given to them. Something you admit
[quote=GTripp0012;983167]Yeah, the contracts thing is something that improved right away. [/quote]

For me, the improvement in the "the contracts thing" allows for prolonged success b/c it provides flexibility in both the aquisition and retention of talent. Something not a strength of the Cerrato years (to say the least).

The development of depth and acquiring specific types of supporting talent has been essential to the reformation of the roster in a manner that creates a team in which a talent like RGIII can succeed. It didn’t happen over night, it began in 2010 and has been visible to any who have looked at the depth being developed and the manner in which the roster was constructed. The ability of both rookies (Crawford, LeRibeus) and long term subs (Jackson) to step up, along with the obvious development of talent – both starting and depth - over the last two years (Darrell Young (who BTW, in 2010, MS converted to a FB from a LB), Mo Hurt, A.Robinson, P. Riley, T. Williams, Royster, Kerrigan, Hankerson, Jenkins) to me is a validation of the “Shanaplan”.

[quote=GTripp0012;983163]It's funny because I've been told countless times around these parts that it takes multiple years to reshape a roster, and then when the Redskins go and totally take their team in a different direction during their bye week, everybody (including those preaching patience above all) immediately buy in hook, line, and sinker.

[B]Multiple years or two weeks. All the same I guess.[/B] [/quote]

Here, to me, is your supreme arrogance obvious. The “two week” turnaround – excuse me “different direction” - could not have happened but for the two years of ground work done by Shanahan/Allen in assembling a roster capable of ripping off seven wins in a row and, during which, several players obtained and/or retained by MS, not named RGIII or AlMo, contributed and, in fact, were crucial to the sustaining the streak. (Of course, none of this references the ability of MS/KS to modify their existing scheme to maximize the talents of RGIII).

You can choose to believe the Streak is simply a redux of 2005, 2007, I would suggest, based on the way the roster has been constructed, it is something more. I believed this before the Streak occurred and, regardless of the outcome of Sunday’s game, I will continue to believe that this team will reap the benefits of the Shanaplan into next year and beyond.

Finally, you assert

[quote=GTripp0012;983167][b] This is the offseason that will determine the success or failure of the Shanaplan [/b](of course, if not for last offseason, he wouldn't have made it to this point). Lots of talent on this roster is available for free agency, and that doesn't even include Orakpo, who is heading into the last year of his contract.[/quote]

I agree that the handling of the contracts coming due will be of utmost importance in continuing the work of the past three off-seasons. Unlike you, apparently, I am confident that they will be handled appropriately. We may lose some players, but I don’t expect us to see the “Archuletta rather than Ryan Clark” type of missteps characteristic of the Cerrato era. ShanAllen have shown a consistent ability to identify and obtain talent in a manner that does not bust the budget. The fact that we could take a last minute $18M cap hit and still sign the talent we did this past off-season, in my opinion, provides more than reasonable support for that belief. Given their success at identifying and developing the current talent on the roster, I would suggest that they will bring the same budget managing process to the retention of talent.

Simply put, your original statement was incredibly arrogant, short sighted and self-serving. Further, your own subsequent statements demonstrate its falsity.

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=FRPLG;983215]One thing that is important to remember is that no team has one giant master "plan". There's too much that organizations cannot control. What we're really talking about is the philosophy and approach. Each off-season you devise a plan for player acquisition (among other things like how you conduct scouting and so forth) that fits your philosophy and approach...then once the season rolls around you have a different plan for how you're going to get the product onto the field in a way that reflects your philosophy. Anyone can quibble with the various parts of those plans and how they fit, or don't fit, a sound philosophy. To me it really comes down to: are we aimed at doing things that will give us the best shot to build a solid organization that can win year after year? If so, are the steps we're taking aligned with that strategy. I would say unequivocally we're aimed at that and our basic approach seems sound. Certainly many decisions made have worked while some have not. But to me there are not a lot of decisions that have been made that weren't made in good faith towards building a good organization.

Again, there is doing things the right way and doing the right things, They're not the same.

In the past our strategy was for crap...we're close so make a few big moves to win now. On top of that the decisions made to match that strategy we're bad.

I can't see how ANYTHING about our basic current philosophy that is all that debatable. Particular moves though are another thing.[/quote]

Well said.

The heart of the matter is that since MS/BA arrived, we have been doing things, as you say, "the right way". Further, to me, of the things that have been done "the right way", significantly more have also been the right decisions as opposed to the wrong decisions. For me, therein lies the faith in the the "Shanaplan".

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

Joe Redskins, your post addressing GTRIPP seems too long to quote now, but I want to commend your articulation of your position.


I agree with your assertions. We are on the right track. I think we rolled the dice on RGIII this year and hit! Winning and an elite QB have all kinds of intangible benefits too... like receivers wanting to sign to catch from him, other backs that might want to take advantage of the read option run system, and defenders that think they can help get us over the hump.

Happy days!

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

When have I [I]ever[/I] submitted a post that was too long to quote? It is to laugh.

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;983549]When have I [I]never[/I] submitted a post that was too long to quote? [/QUOTE]

There, all fixed.

You're welcome!

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

when he is up on ze tail
eeeeeeeee eeeeee eeeeeeeeeee
you can quote him!

Re: Are you buying into the Shanaplan?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;983550]There, all fixed.

You're welcome![/quote]

Thank you - The irony of your fix is strangely satisfying.