Turnaround Time
 

Rehash of an old thread I started ages ago, but it's a new era for the franchise with different issues and challenges. The question is how long does it take to build/rebuild a team? A few posts/comments recently have broached the subject and I think it's a really fascinating question. Another way to ask it, how long should any regime/HC/GM be given to build/rebuild a team?

Feel free to answer from a Redskin specific POV, or more in the abstract.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=The Goat;1028535]Rehash of an old thread I started ages ago, but it's a new era for the franchise with different issues and challenges. The question is how long does it take to build/rebuild a team? A few posts/comments recently have broached the subject and I think it's a really fascinating question. Another way to ask it, how long should any regime/HC/GM be given to build/rebuild a team?

Feel free to answer from a Redskin specific POV, or more in the [B]abstract[/B].[/quote]

Sure

[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFJX3eVPaHuWsR9iHfUZgRBcjCR6Ewh1ZYoVQ7XsdNlY9_Q5JcMQ[/IMG]

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Well I don't see us rebuliding the team , I see us adding to a franchise QB.

Now for a skins POV, I think if we do not finish at least .500 Mike should be gone, he got here 4 years ago and started with Mcnabb and then Grossman, finally to RG3 and this team may only have 1 good year out of the 4 he's been here. How many more chances should this staff get?

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Its totally dependent on the team.

A team, like say the Jaguars this year, I'd say realistically 3-5 years. They're so bad and so much needs to be done, that it can't possibly happen in just a season or two.

A team like the Bears, who Trestman took over, I'd give about two years. Right on the brink, a lot of talent already there; shouldn't take as long.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Umm..

Wouldn't really say we are rebuilding.. I hate that term, as everyone builds a team in their own image. It's just been more difficult for us because of the CAP situation. I don't see Mike going anywhere for a while. Unless we turn in an 0-16 season which is 100% unlikely.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

From a Redskins POV I would argue we are still 17 million under the cap. We have had coaches who have tried to make better from very little. I don't think it was in this FO gameplan to be playing under the cap for this and last year. I think we will see what Shannahan and Allen anticipated for this team next year.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1028541]From a Redskins POV I would argue we are still 17 million under the cap. We have had coaches who have tried to make better from very little. I don't think it was in this FO gameplan to be playing under the cap for this and last year. I think we will see what Shannahan and Allen anticipated for this team next year.[/quote]

I will agree with this, they really inherited a pretty horrible situation. With the lockout in 2011 and then the cap penalty in 2012/2013, they haven't really had a chance to bring in outside help.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1028541]From a Redskins POV I would argue we are still 17 million under the cap. We have had coaches who have tried to make better from very little. I don't think it was in this FO gameplan to be playing under the cap for this and last year. I think we will see what Shannahan and Allen anticipated for this team next year.[/quote]

I was going to bring up this same point. Please remember we've been at a massive disadvantage when it comes to obtaining players the past two years. We've had some good drafts, but have not been able to supplement with good free agent players. Missing out on Winston at RT is a big one to me.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Gmanc711;1028543]I will agree with this, they really inherited a pretty horrible situation. With the lockout in 2011 and then the cap penalty in 2012/2013, they haven't really had a chance to bring in outside help.[/quote]

We have had to gamble on some players both in the draft and FA that i am not sure would've been brought in otherwise. I don't think Merriweather is even a Redskin last year without that cap hit.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1028546][B]We have had to gamble on some players[/B] both in the draft and FA that i am not sure would've been brought in otherwise. I don't think Merriweather is even a Redskin last year without that cap hit.[/quote]
Exactly....What moron would believe without the cap hit we would choose to load our backfield with this band of rabble?
Haslett? sure..........

Re: Turnaround Time
 

I agree. You can't just look at 0-3 right now and say that this regime has reached its ceiling and been given a golden opportunity to have this team rebuilt. Nobody saw the big $36 million penalty coming, and the 'skins are reaping the benefit of that now. Mike Shanahan said it would take about five years to turn this team around, he's in year four. Give him one more year, and if successful - give him a one year extension. If the 'skins continue to improve and make the playoffs, then sign him to a bigger contract.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Good points all around.

I keep going back to the stat somewhere that an NFL players average career is about three years, it's kind of make it or break it in that three year window. And you see a ton of teams get turned around in about that time even if they started with crap e.g. the Lions who just beat us. Absolutely terrible team when Schwartz took over. So I think there's pretty good reasons to say three years is a good benchmark for a regime/HC/GM to show the world their definitely on the right track and improving year over year, though maybe not a contender. On the far end of the spectrum you have Pete Carroll and Seattle looking like contenders after just a couple years, but they started with some real solid talent like Gmanc said about the bears.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

I think the turnaround can happen but I think we need some fresh faces on the field to help: More Helu, Darryl Young, Fred Davis on offense. Tanard Jax, Chase, Jarvis and Jackson coming back from suspension. Maybe more Barnett.

We cant expect a turnaround with the same players on the field.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

It may have been nearly 5 years ago, but we are STILL feeling some effects from the decade of destruction which was Vinny Cerrato. The damage he did to every level of this organization has not been an easy thing to un-do, but we're getting close.

Without the bogus cap penalty, we'd be in much better shape but we do have a lot more positives than negatives going for us right now. Our season will turn around. Next year, we're going to load up this team when we can return to spending a full salary cap amount.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Every team is different. But perhaps more importantly, turnaround is easy. Sustaining it is what's hard

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1028556]turnaround is easy.[/quote]

I bet teams like Oakland, Cleveland and Detroit would disagree.

We had a lot of issues from top to bottom from the previous "leadership" that were not easy to fix overnight. We had horrible contracts on the books with overpaid vets, missing draft picks left for a few years going forward and a roster that was assembled without a clear plan.

Coach Shanahan was probably right about it taking at least 5 years to turn this team around. He and Allen have made incredible progress without having much to work with talent-wise, pick-wise and then the salary cap hit. His second draft where he took us from having 2 picks in the first 4 rounds to a dozen picks overall was amazing to watch.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=The Goat;1028550]Good points all around.

I keep going back to the stat somewhere that an NFL players average career is about three years, it's kind of make it or break it in that three year window. And you see a ton of teams get turned around in about that time even if they started with crap e.g. the Lions who just beat us. Absolutely terrible team when Schwartz took over. So I think there's pretty good reasons to say three years is a good benchmark for a regime/HC/GM to show the world their definitely on the right track and improving year over year, though maybe not a contender. On the far end of the spectrum you have Pete Carroll and Seattle looking like contenders after just a couple years, but they started with some real solid talent like Gmanc said about the bears.[/quote]

Detroit, really, has been rebuilding for years. Every year they would add more #1 draft picks. Almost like the situation with the 49ers. Seems like they had been adding different pieces to the puzzle for several seasons, it just took the right puzzle master (head coach) to know how the puzzle pieces fit together.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1028541]From a Redskins POV I would argue we are still 17 million under the cap. We have had coaches who have tried to make better from very little. I don't think it was in this FO gameplan to be playing under the cap for this and last year. I think we will see what Shannahan and Allen anticipated for this team next year.[/quote]

Exactly!

Add the injury to Robert as well. Without that, we were likely heading into the second round of the playoffs even with the cap situation.

I don't see Mike going anywhere anytime soon; but he has to keep this team fighting through this early season adversity, or all bets are off.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

If we are 0-4 come Monday morning I think the panic buttons are hit. Sunday is a must win at OAK.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Nobody can deny the cap penalty hurt us. But that doesn't explain: undisciplined players; unprepared players (RG aside cuz that's different); horrible play-calling through most of Mike's tenure; horrible clock management; unmotivated and uninspired performances, with the exception of an 8 game streak last season.

I also take issue with the notion this team had no talent when Mike took over. The team gave up Zorn's last year and stats looked worse than they would otherwise be, but the defense we had in place prior to Mike's era was vastly superior to what he's conjured up. I don't think anybody can make an honest argument the other way. Yes, that defense was aged and needed additional players, but isn't that what Mike's done anyway? We've added a lot of players to the defense, and it sucks. Again, that's a staple of Mike's coaching/teams over the last decade.

But, I tend to agree with those who say give him the rest of the season IF AND ONLY IF this team starts to show better preparedness, discipline, motivation. IMO those things say everything about where a team is headed.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

I've said this a bunch on here, I'm a MS guy but this is embarrassing. Again if we don't finish at least 8-8 he should be gone

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1028574]I've said this a bunch on here, I'm a MS guy but this is embarrassing. Again if we don't finish at least 8-8 he should be gone[/quote]

What if...we finish below .500 but Kyle and Haslett leave after the season. Would you feel more optimistic with Mike grooming RG (alone) and an upgrade at DC ?

Re: Turnaround Time
 

honestly No, because I don't think MS is doing a great job of getting these guys prepared every week. I mean these penalties and miscues are ridiculous. Just MO though.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Can anyone make an argument that haslett should stay through the bye?

Re: Turnaround Time
 

^ if we shut out oakland sunday

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Sounds about right, total domination by the defense after three lousy showings. Otherwise, you almost have to say Haslett goes on general principle.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Chico23231;1028579]Can anyone make an argument that haslett should stay through the bye?[/quote]

No, he should be gone now. How many chances do you give this guy? On paper our defense should be better, we played without Orakpo, Meriweather. Neild last year, we had Gomes and M. Williams. This year we picked Tapp. Jenkins. Amerson. Rambo, Barnett. Orakpo and Meriweather are back and the team is worse off. No more excuse.

By the way this too:

@TarikCSN: The #Redskins add G Troy Kropog to prax squad, according to NFL records. He replaces X. Nixon, who was signed by Colts. #RedskinsTalk

Re: Turnaround Time
 

As to the original topic, I dont think there is a clear answer. Harbaugh in San Fran walked into a situation where he had a large talent pool. The players there refused to play for Singletary. There was no turnaround needed player wise. But I do believe that Shanny came into a terrible situation that was started prior to his arrival with Vinny. I never expected to win the first couple of years he was here. It wasnt until year 3 that I thought we at least had a chance, and that was mainly because we finally had a QB.

To many people who jump on Shanny were the same people who said he was stupid for passing on Gabbert and taking Kerrigan. I still think people are prematurely calling RG3 a bust because he is not playing to his potential now. I believe that he can ultimately be a damn good passer in this league.

To the whole DC situation. I would like to ask a few questions. With the whole tackling situation that we are having now. Does a new DC solve those? We are leading the league in yards after missed tackles, doesnt that mean that the players are being put into decent situations and arent getting the job done with tackling? How much can a DC really teach tackling, you either want to or you dont?

Im not sure whats going on with the defense. Maybe a change is in order to see if a new voice gets through to them. Orakpo missed how many tackles in the game last week? He was getting free shots on the RB of detroit and couldnt Bell to the ground. And when I say free shots, I mean from behind when he didnt even see him coming. If the answer is we need new players, how much does the cap penalty come into play on whether we could have accomplished that in the last couple of years?

I think so far that Shanny has done more good than bad. Far from perfect, but most are. He has missed on some draft picks (Leribius) but hit on others (Morris). I still wouldnt mind seeing Allen take over more of the player acquisition aspect and let Shanny do full time coaching. Although Shanny may balk at something like that. If he is left with that option and chooses to leave, so be it. I dont want him fired as of yet, but if he had to make that choice and chose to leave, I wouldnt shed a tear over it.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

No rebuilding here. Changing maybe the offense at the end of the season? Possibly. Completely changing the defense from a 3-4 to a 4-3? No. Replacing coaches and players come seasons end? Definitely.

As far as this season and turning it around, until we learn to wrap up and bring a player down, we are going to keep losing games. Until Robert stops throwing picks and making stupid plays, like the slide he still hasn't learned as one example. We aren't winning games. Fact of the matter is, our opportunities to win the game were in our offenses hands. But Robert screwed up twice and Aldrick can't hold onto the ball. So until both sides of the ball fixes basic pee wee football mistakes, we are not winning another game. That I am assured of.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=skinsguy;1028549]I agree. You can't just look at 0-3 right now and say that this regime has reached its ceiling and been given a golden opportunity to have this team rebuilt. Nobody saw the big $36 million penalty coming, and the 'skins are reaping the benefit of that now. Mike Shanahan said it would take about five years to turn this team around, he's in year four. Give him one more year, and if successful - give him a one year extension. If the 'skins continue to improve and make the playoffs, then sign him to a bigger contract.[/quote]

Coming from a doom and gloomer here, this is a great post.

Bravo.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

I think the cap penalty (which to this day I believe was ridiculously unfair and borderline illegal) and RG3's injury are two things that are hard to overcome. This team would be a lot different had we not gotten screwed by Mara and Goodell. And RG3's injury was a bit of a freak injury.

While I think we are fine on offense (just have to get it together), our defense is in bad shape and the lack of cap space (and now picks) is going to improving this unit a HUGE challenge. We have both green and aging DBs, a question mark at ILB, and a solid front seven that is not good enough to overcome the other deficiencies.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=The Goat;1028573][B]Nobody can deny the cap penalty hurt us. But that doesn't explain: undisciplined players; unprepared players[/B] (RG aside cuz that's different); horrible play-calling through most of Mike's tenure; horrible clock management; unmotivated and uninspired performances, with the exception of an 8 game streak last season.

I also take issue with the notion this team had no talent when Mike took over. The team gave up Zorn's last year and stats looked worse than they would otherwise be, but the defense we had in place prior to Mike's era was vastly superior to what he's conjured up. I don't think anybody can make an honest argument the other way. Yes, that defense was aged and needed additional players, but isn't that what Mike's done anyway? We've added a lot of players to the defense, and it sucks. Again, that's a staple of Mike's coaching/teams over the last decade.

But, I tend to agree with those who say give him the rest of the season IF AND ONLY IF this team starts to show better preparedness, discipline, motivation. IMO those things say everything about where a team is headed.[/quote]

Actually it kinda does.. You are who you are, and not many players turn a new leaf. Sometime you have to take chances for a lower buck and it shows.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Bucket;1028616]Actually it kinda does.. You are who you are, and not many players turn a new leaf. Sometime you have to take chances for a lower buck and it shows.[/quote]

Yep, Meriweather wasn't in demand by any other teams. Morgan's career wasn't going anywhere. Players like Nick Barnett would probably still be unemployed, but our dire financial situation from the cap penalty gave them a spot with us out of desperation to fill the 53-man roster with more than 7th-round draft picks.

To Morgan's credit, he's been a positive contributor with his blocking and some key catches when we've needed him, but if we had a full cap, we'd likely have Vincent Jackson as WR1 and Garcon or player of comparable ability at WR2.

Of course, it's also possible we'd have Peyton Manning. I prefer a future with Griffin over 2 years of fun with Peyton, but the talks about us going after Peyton only died when the cap hit made him unaffordable...same with V-Jax, Talib, Brandon Carr...and the list goes on.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Chico23231;1028579]Can anyone make an argument that haslett should stay through the bye?[/quote]

I think he should stay for the sole fact that I don't think anybody can fix the hot mess we have on defense. He doesn't have the ingredients to make this into a top 10 defense and changing DCs insn't going to fix that. If we had the pieces and they weren't buying into the coaching and a change would bring results I would go ahead with a firing, but I don't believe in firing and hiring for lateral chnages o9nly if it will raise the bar. From my perspective we have been on the coaching carousel enough the last decade.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=The Goat;1028573]Nobody can deny the cap penalty hurt us. But that doesn't explain: undisciplined players; unprepared players (RG aside cuz that's different); horrible play-calling through most of Mike's tenure; horrible clock management; unmotivated and uninspired performances, with the exception of an 8 game streak last season.

I also take issue with the notion this team had no talent when Mike took over. The team gave up Zorn's last year and stats looked worse than they would otherwise be, but the defense we had in place prior to Mike's era was vastly superior to what he's conjured up. I don't think anybody can make an honest argument the other way. Yes, that defense was aged and needed additional players, but isn't that what Mike's done anyway? [B] We've added a lot of players to the defense, and it sucks.[/B] Again, that's a staple of Mike's coaching/teams over the last decade.

But, I tend to agree with those who say give him the rest of the season IF AND ONLY IF this team starts to show better preparedness, discipline, motivation. IMO those things say everything about where a team is headed.[/quote]

But these added players are gambles if they were shore bets then they would go for a lot more than we could afford with the cap penalties and getting the Cerratto hits taken care of. I understand the frustration, but the front office has given Mike and his staff five years, I say give him the five years to do it his way and see if we see the improvements we expect.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

Couple of quick statements:
- Your point about the average NFL career being 3 yrs. is correct, it's actually a little over 3 1/2 yrs., but keep in mind that's an average. Lots of guys at the lower end cycling on-off rosters so it's a tad skewed. I believe the average career for 1st & 2nd rounders (typical NFL starters) is about 6 yrs.

- The MS regime took over in Jan. 2010. This is year 4 and to your point, outside of a great 7 game stretch at the end of last year, the last three years have left a lot to be desired. On D by Pts Allowed we've ranked 21, 21, and 22nd. This year we're currently 31st. Haslett would be fired immediately after the Raiders game, no matter the outcome, and Raheem Morris put in place as DC.

We've been OK with personnel decisions, some good, some bad.
Good:
- Most of the draft picks in Rds. 1-5 are contributing.
- $ 18M cap penalty sucks, working thru it is a challenge

Not so Good:
- TW isn't playing up to expectations of his draft position, I would've gone with Okung (yes, I know he's had some freak injuries, but he also didn't lose 4 games due to drug suspension)
- The McNabb pick-up was a risk that didn't pan out, we could've had Nate Allen with the #37 pick in 2010.
- Let Rogers get away, 2011 Pro Bowl, resigned 4yr./31M w/SF.
- Gave up on Landry due to injuries, 2012 Pro Bowl $3.5M contract with only $ 700K guaranteed.

- Offensively we have the franchise QB, however this Read Option has stunted his development as a passer. RG3 is plenty capable, he's got arm strength, accuracy, smarts, but the coaching staff his limited him with the RO based offense. The RO was a nice gimmick, but will not be successful long-term and we're already seeing the teams that used it primarily either use it much less or see much less success. (For those who want to argue with me, I'll take Mike Tomlin's opinion and the on-field performance of the 49ers, Skins, Eagles this year to back me up).

Bottom line, this regime has had plenty of time to show improvement and it's not. Time for a change in the off-season.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;1028664]Couple of quick statements:
- Your point about the average NFL career being 3 yrs. is correct, it's actually a little over 3 1/2 yrs., but keep in mind that's an average. Lots of guys at the lower end cycling on-off rosters so it's a tad skewed. I believe the average career for 1st & 2nd rounders (typical NFL starters) is about 6 yrs.

- The MS regime took over in Jan. 2010. This is year 4 and to your point, outside of a great 7 game stretch at the end of last year, the last three years have left a lot to be desired. On D by Pts Allowed we've ranked 21, 21, and 22nd. This year we're currently 31st. Haslett would be fired immediately after the Raiders game, no matter the outcome, and Raheem Morris put in place as DC.

We've been OK with personnel decisions, some good, some bad.
Good:
- Most of the draft picks in Rds. 1-5 are contributing.
- $ 18M cap penalty sucks, working thru it is a challenge

Not so Good:
- TW isn't playing up to expectations of his draft position, I would've gone with Okung (yes, I know he's had some freak injuries, but he also didn't lose 4 games due to drug suspension)
- The McNabb pick-up was a risk that didn't pan out, we could've had Nate Allen with the #37 pick in 2010.
[B][COLOR=red]- Let Rogers get away, 2011 Pro Bowl, resigned 4yr./31M w/SF.[/COLOR][/B]
[B][COLOR=red]- Gave up on Landry due to injuries, 2012 Pro Bowl $3.5M contract with only $ 700K guaranteed[/COLOR][/B].

- Offensively we have the franchise QB, however this Read Option has stunted his development as a passer. RG3 is plenty capable, he's got arm strength, accuracy, smarts, but the coaching staff his limited him with the RO based offense. The RO was a nice gimmick, but will not be successful long-term and we're already seeing the teams that used it primarily either use it much less or see much less success. (For those who want to argue with me, I'll take Mike Tomlin's opinion and the on-field performance of the 49ers, Skins, Eagles this year to back me up).

Bottom line, this regime has had plenty of time to show improvement and it's not. Time for a change in the off-season.[/quote]

You can argue TW and McNabb as bad FO decisions. But the Carlos Rogers and Landry moves IMO weren't bad moves, we werent going to pay Rogers what he wanted and he didnt want to be here anymore. He never proved himself here, and Landry was injured too often and when he didnt get offseason surgery they werent going to pay him either. So hindsight is 50/50 lol on those.

Re: Turnaround Time
 

How is Trent Williams a bad FO decision?

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1028679]How is Trent Williams a bad FO decision?[/quote]

Exactly...he's arguably the best (impact) player on the team right now; and has been one of the best LTs in the game (when he's not injured or serving time for smoking ganja)

Re: Turnaround Time
 

[quote=Ruhskins;1028679]How is Trent Williams a bad FO decision?[/quote]Didn't say "bad" just "Not so Good". I understand you can debate TW vs. Okung. But what you can't debate is TW had questionable work ethic, which was confirmed by OU staff and in his Bench numbers (23 reps for a top-rated LT ain't good).

[url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/the-main-knock-against-left.html]Redskins Insider - Trent Williams' potential: an assessment from Oklahoma[/url]

If you look at TW today, he still has a "soft" body and that drug suspension shows lack of discipline as well.