building for a superbowl?

[#56fanatic]

i for one am excited regarding this move. We bring in a QB that wins games, that brings that winning feeling into the locker room. Guy that has played in meaningful games year in and year out. Building for superbowl? who cares! We haven't won shit in 10 years. wouldn't it be great to go to the playoffs every year...compete for 10 - 11 wins every year?? Not that this is a guarentee but the guy wins games. As far as building, i think we still have the opportunity to get younger and stronger. Adding a 33 year old QB doesn't change that. We have young WR, young TE, Oline is getting younger with the drafting of Olineman(hopefully) Our D is getting younger with Haynesworth, Orakpo, McIntosh. the corners are young the safeties are young. I think we have made some good moves this offseason. and usually I am the biggest hater on here. I think McNabb has 3 to 4 very good years left. This offense is capable of putting up 35 points a game next year. My worry is the D switching to a new scheme may hurt us a little, but we still have ballers on that side of the ball. I honestly think this is going to be a great year for us Skins fans!!!

[CapitalPunishment]

I just heard a rumor on the radio that part (not sure how much of a part) of their reasoning for trading McNabb to the skins was to discourage them from drafting Bradford if he were to be available at 4. They said that the Eagles don't want to face him for the next 10 yrs. Another typical stretch rumor leading up to the draft. On a side note, I read that they are going to implode the old Cowboys stadium soon. I'd love for them to sell of the opportunity to press the switch the bring that place to the ground!

[CRedskinsRule]

They actually auctioned off the button pushing responsibility
Kraft Foods to sponsor demolition of Texas Stadium - ESPN Dallas

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

They actually auctioned off the button pushing responsibility
Kraft Foods to sponsor demolition of Texas Stadium - ESPN Dallas

Watch the implosion live on ESPN3.com Sunday morning from 7-9am

[RememberRFK]

I believe that what you are seeing from the front office and coaching staff is a direction the team wants to go in. Sure, they might not have the youth or talent that we want them to have but success is not usually immediate. We do have the next two or three years to see how the team pans out. We got to see two years of Cerrato & Zorn and we all can see the hugh strategy differences immediately from them to the current admin. It's too early to be talking superbowl but I like the drive, determination and focus this entire team has in the making.

[internetcareer]

The OP seems to neglects some facts while stating that Shanahan is a terrible talent evaluator AND INHERITED great teams.

Elway never won a Superbowl until Shanny came there, and Shanny did not win a Superbowl his first year. It was TWO years later, so he had to build the pieces like offensive line and running back.

He also was the one who drafted Cutler. So he knows talent when he sees it.

He also jumped at the chance to grab McNabb, a Pro Bowl QB. Not a bad move for someone who cannot evaluate talent.

I totally disagree with you on your thoughts about Shanahan.

[Paintrain]

I think that the moves that Shanahan and Allen are making this year are to win now and in the future. What's the one position that teams struggle the most to get 'right'? The QB position. With the McNabb trade we have immediately (and dramatically IMO) improved that position for hopefully the next 3-4 years. Perhaps that could have been done with a draft pick as well but at least some people thought that was done twice already in the past 10 years with the Ramsey and Campbell picks. The risk/reward on McNabb is far less than on a drafted QB.

The other moves they've made, adding depth to the backfield, signing Hicks to a 3 year deal, extending M. Williams to a 3 year deal, bringing in Buchanon, signing Ke'Moataue (or whatever), etc. are all moves to win and build depth at positions. They are not going to be able to change a stale, poorly constructed 4-12 roster overnight-especially with the restrictions on free agents this year.

I get the whole notion of 'stockpiling draft picks' but it takes a couple of things in order to do that. We need to have players that are desirable in a trade that we can move without suffering an impact on the roster. For all of the geniuses who want to trade Cooley, what happens if Davis pops a hamstring week 2? Then what? For everyone who is saying trade Landry and Moss, are you that comfortable with Chris Horton and Marko Mitchell? Those same fans will be bitching up a storm come October when we're sitting at 2-5 and those players are thriving elsewhere.

The same goes for trading down in the draft. There's a simple reason why that seldom, if ever happens anymore. No team wants to be on the hook for top 5 guaranteed money unless they are targeting a very specific player like the Jets with Sanchez last year and they didn't get a ransom of picks.

Teams like the Eagles and Pats didn't stock up by depleting their roster of impact players, they used players that fit a role well for them but they had depth enough to absorb the loss. Those teams also were not stuck in a position of drafting for need with every pick, they had a talented enough roster that they could afford to not take a player at a position because they had a gaping hole, which is a position that we've found ourselves in for more than a decade and quite frankly most teams are in as well.

Sorry for the long post, but to answer the OP question, yes, I believe we are building for a Super Bowl but not THIS Super Bowl.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I think that the moves that Shanahan and Allen are making this year are to win now and in the future. What's the one position that teams struggle the most to get 'right'? The QB position. With the McNabb trade we have immediately (and dramatically IMO) improved that position for hopefully the next 3-4 years. Perhaps that could have been done with a draft pick as well but at least some people thought that was done twice already in the past 10 years with the Ramsey and Campbell picks. The risk/reward on McNabb is far less than on a drafted QB.

The other moves they've made, adding depth to the backfield, signing Hicks to a 3 year deal, extending M. Williams to a 3 year deal, bringing in Buchanon, signing Ke'Moataue (or whatever), etc. are all moves to win and build depth at positions. They are not going to be able to change a stale, poorly constructed 4-12 roster overnight-especially with the restrictions on free agents this year.

I get the whole notion of 'stockpiling draft picks' but it takes a couple of things in order to do that. We need to have players that are desirable in a trade that we can move without suffering an impact on the roster. For all of the geniuses who want to trade Cooley, what happens if Davis pops a hamstring week 2? Then what? For everyone who is saying trade Landry and Moss, are you that comfortable with Chris Horton and Marko Mitchell? Those same fans will be bitching up a storm come October when we're sitting at 2-5 and those players are thriving elsewhere.

The same goes for trading down in the draft. There's a simple reason why that seldom, if ever happens anymore. No team wants to be on the hook for top 5 guaranteed money unless they are targeting a very specific player like the Jets with Sanchez last year and they didn't get a ransom of picks.

Teams like the Eagles and Pats didn't stock up by depleting their roster of impact players, they used players that fit a role well for them but they had depth enough to absorb the loss. Those teams also were not stuck in a position of drafting for need with every pick, they had a talented enough roster that they could afford to not take a player at a position because they had a gaping hole, which is a position that we've found ourselves in for more than a decade and quite frankly most teams are in as well.

Sorry for the long post, but to answer the OP question, yes, I believe we are building for a Super Bowl but not THIS Super Bowl.

+
DAMN.........I was JUST preparing to post the same thing! good post

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I think that the moves that Shanahan and Allen are making this year are to win now and in the future. What's the one position that teams struggle the most to get 'right'? The QB position. With the McNabb trade we have immediately (and dramatically IMO) improved that position for hopefully the next 3-4 years. Perhaps that could have been done with a draft pick as well but at least some people thought that was done twice already in the past 10 years with the Ramsey and Campbell picks. The risk/reward on McNabb is far less than on a drafted QB.

The other moves they've made, adding depth to the backfield, signing Hicks to a 3 year deal, extending M. Williams to a 3 year deal, bringing in Buchanon, signing Ke'Moataue (or whatever), etc. are all moves to win and build depth at positions. They are not going to be able to change a stale, poorly constructed 4-12 roster overnight-especially with the restrictions on free agents this year.

I get the whole notion of 'stockpiling draft picks' but it takes a couple of things in order to do that. We need to have players that are desirable in a trade that we can move without suffering an impact on the roster. For all of the geniuses who want to trade Cooley, what happens if Davis pops a hamstring week 2? Then what? For everyone who is saying trade Landry and Moss, are you that comfortable with Chris Horton and Marko Mitchell? Those same fans will be bitching up a storm come October when we're sitting at 2-5 and those players are thriving elsewhere.

The same goes for trading down in the draft. There's a simple reason why that seldom, if ever happens anymore. No team wants to be on the hook for top 5 guaranteed money unless they are targeting a very specific player like the Jets with Sanchez last year and they didn't get a ransom of picks.

Teams like the Eagles and Pats didn't stock up by depleting their roster of impact players, they used players that fit a role well for them but they had depth enough to absorb the loss. Those teams also were not stuck in a position of drafting for need with every pick, they had a talented enough roster that they could afford to not take a player at a position because they had a gaping hole, which is a position that we've found ourselves in for more than a decade and quite frankly most teams are in as well.

Sorry for the long post, but to answer the OP question, yes, I believe we are building for a Super Bowl but not THIS Super Bowl.

Guess that means me ...

If anyone pops a hamstring, snaps their Achilles, tears an ACL, it harms the team, there's nothing you can do about it. You could say the same for the Eagles if Kolb tears his rotator cuff in Week 3 of preseason.

Trading away marquee players in exchange for gobbling up multiple draft picks obviously has its drawbacks. That's the biggest risk you're taking if you go that route, but injuries can still happen regardless.

The crux of the issue here is whether you rely on young, unproven, but inexpensive players with anticipated potential or do you cast those aside for proven veterans. Looks like we're opting for the latter, and I'm willing to put more trust in Shanahan and Allen to do that rather than Vinny Cerrato.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Guess that means me ...

If anyone pops a hamstring, snaps their Achilles, tears an ACL, it harms the team, there's nothing you can do about it. You could say the same for the Eagles if Kolb tears his rotator cuff in Week 3 of preseason.

Trading away marquee players in exchange for gobbling up multiple draft picks obviously has its drawbacks. That's the biggest risk you're taking if you go that route, but injuries can still happen regardless.

The crux of the issue here is whether you rely on young, unproven, but inexpensive players with anticipated potential or do you cast those aside for proven veterans. Looks like we're opting for the latter, and I'm willing to put more trust in Shanahan and Allen to do that rather than Vinny Cerrato.

Of course, injuries can happen at any turn but TE is the one position we have legitimate depth, by which I mean if one player goes out there is NO dropoff in production from that position and you want to eliminate that depth? Hell, if we were 3 deep and saw great potential out of our 3rd TE then sure, let's look at it but do you remember what happened last season when we were starting our 4th RG of the season, our 3rd LT of the season and our 4th RB? We don't have the luxury of trading one of the best young players on our team for a hope of a couple of college kids. That's just foolish if you ask me.

Honestly, on the open market, what would Cooley get us? Maybe a mid 2nd round pick? He's not elite enough to garner a bounty of picks, certainly not the value to build a team around.

Which 'young inexpensive players with anticipated potential' have we 'cast aside' for proven veterans? Quinton Ganther?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Of course, injuries can happen at any turn but TE is the one position we have legitimate depth, by which I mean if one player goes out there is NO dropoff in production from that position and you want to eliminate that depth? Hell, if we were 3 deep and saw great potential out of our 3rd TE then sure, let's look at it but do you remember what happened last season when we were starting our 4th RG of the season, our 3rd LT of the season and our 4th RB? We don't have the luxury of trading one of the best young players on our team for a hope of a couple of college kids. That's just foolish if you ask me.

Honestly, on the open market, what would Cooley get us? Maybe a mid 2nd round pick? He's not elite enough to garner a bounty of picks, certainly not the value to build a team around.

Which 'young inexpensive players with anticipated potential' have we 'cast aside' for proven veterans? Quinton Ganther?

No, no I'm not saying we have cast aside young players with lots of potential; I'm saying that is often the choice which has to be made -- letting go of draft picks, (which would be the young, inexpensive players) in favor of free agent veterans. George Allen Sr. was famous for this.

In a way, tight end is one of those positions that you can get later in the draft, perhaps through undrafted free agency and incorporate in your offense without seeing much of a dropoff. Especially if the offense you run isn't so heavily reliant on TEs. Ideally, you want your wide receivers getting most of the catches and the yardage. I can't really say for sure how heavily involved the TE is in Shanahan's offense. But if Cooley makes up a significant facet of his scheme, then Cooley's not going anywhere and this conversation is moot.

Maybe someone with more time than I have can go back and look at Shanny's offense and see about what percentage his tight ends actually caught the ball. For instance, if wideouts made up anywhere from 60 to 70% of the passes caught, leaving 30 to 40% split between tight ends and running backs, then you might say that TEs aren't as vital to his offensive attack.

The other big thing you have to consider is whether incredible depth at tight end is more important that quality offensive linemen. If you had to choose between two really good TEs or some starting O-linemen, I'd choose the O-linemen.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No, no I'm not saying we have cast aside young players with lots of potential; I'm saying that is often the choice which has to be made -- letting go of draft picks, (which would be the young, inexpensive players) in favor of free agent veterans. George Allen Sr. was famous for this.

In a way, tight end is one of those positions that you can get later in the draft, perhaps through undrafted free agency and incorporate in your offense without seeing much of a dropoff. Especially if the offense you run isn't so heavily reliant on TEs. Ideally, you want your wide receivers getting most of the catches and the yardage. I can't really say for sure how heavily involved the TE is in Shanahan's offense. But if Cooley makes up a significant facet of his scheme, then Cooley's not going anywhere and this conversation is moot.

Maybe someone with more time than I have can go back and look at Shanny's offense and see about what percentage his tight ends actually caught the ball. For instance, if wideouts made up anywhere from 60 to 70% of the passes caught, leaving 30 to 40% split between tight ends and running backs, then you might say that TEs aren't as vital to his offensive attack.

The other big thing you have to consider is whether incredible depth at tight end is more important that quality offensive linemen. If you had to choose between two really good TEs or some starting O-linemen, I'd choose the O-linemen.

Shannon Sharpe is going to the Pro Bowl one day as a result of Shanny's offense so yeah, I'd say it's TE friendly..

Why does everything that has to do with OL have to be an either or scenario? Is there a rule we can't have 2 really good TE AND quality starting and backup offensive linemen?

[skinster]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I think that the moves that Shanahan and Allen are making this year are to win now and in the future. What's the one position that teams struggle the most to get 'right'? The QB position. With the McNabb trade we have immediately (and dramatically IMO) improved that position for hopefully the next 3-4 years. Perhaps that could have been done with a draft pick as well but at least some people thought that was done twice already in the past 10 years with the Ramsey and Campbell picks. The risk/reward on McNabb is far less than on a drafted QB.

The other moves they've made, adding depth to the backfield, signing Hicks to a 3 year deal, extending M. Williams to a 3 year deal, bringing in Buchanon, signing Ke'Moataue (or whatever), etc. are all moves to win and build depth at positions. They are not going to be able to change a stale, poorly constructed 4-12 roster overnight-especially with the restrictions on free agents this year.

I get the whole notion of 'stockpiling draft picks' but it takes a couple of things in order to do that. We need to have players that are desirable in a trade that we can move without suffering an impact on the roster. For all of the geniuses who want to trade Cooley, what happens if Davis pops a hamstring week 2? Then what? For everyone who is saying trade Landry and Moss, are you that comfortable with Chris Horton and Marko Mitchell? Those same fans will be bitching up a storm come October when we're sitting at 2-5 and those players are thriving elsewhere.

The same goes for trading down in the draft. There's a simple reason why that seldom, if ever happens anymore. No team wants to be on the hook for top 5 guaranteed money unless they are targeting a very specific player like the Jets with Sanchez last year and they didn't get a ransom of picks.

Teams like the Eagles and Pats didn't stock up by depleting their roster of impact players, they used players that fit a role well for them but they had depth enough to absorb the loss. Those teams also were not stuck in a position of drafting for need with every pick, they had a talented enough roster that they could afford to not take a player at a position because they had a gaping hole, which is a position that we've found ourselves in for more than a decade and quite frankly most teams are in as well.

Sorry for the long post, but to answer the OP question, yes, I believe we are building for a Super Bowl but not THIS Super Bowl.

I get what you are saying about having talent now while building towards the future, and as a matter of principal I agree with you, but I feel that this situation does not apply to our team right now due to what I feel to be too many holes on our roster. My deal isn't that we have alot of holes now (which I do feel that we do), but is that in a couple years we will have significantly more holes due to the age of our team. A few players that we expect to currently have an impact (fletcher, rabach, carter, moss, daniels, all our RBs, etc) in reality probably will be somewhat irrelevant a couple yers down the road, and I do not see that we have the means to replace these players within the next few years. On top of that we are not accounting for the players we might lose (i.e.Rogers), and the players that play might just slip (i.e Hall...at 30 some quick CBs just lose their speed and cant make up for it). I do not want to bank on free agency to replace these guys, we do not know who will be available or what the cap situation will be. I also do not think that McNabb will be able to carry us in a couple of years; but I do think he will be good enough (like Elway was in his SB years) to win it for us IF we have the necessary talent around him, which I feel like we will not have.
And for the record, I still think that Shannahan is a great coach, just not great with personnel decisions.

[RememberRFK]

Here is another view. Look at the cowboys the last few years. Would you say that they had the same issues with holes on their team. Infact, they were stacked with great players (better than ours?) and can't make it to or through the playoffs. Winning comes down to talent, brains, ability but goes nowhere without heart. I hope our team is loaded with heart and passion. That's just me.

[duetsch215]

If a team makes it to the playoffs, they have a good shot at the SB. Just look at the Cardinals a few years back for an example. Everyone thought they were just a playoff team but not a super bowl caliber team and they were a game winning drive away from the ring.

Also, McNabb is still a very capable QB. I believe the Eagles made a terrible mistake by not only pissing him off but trading him to a team that plays them twice. He might say it's just another game but that's press conference speak. He wants to prove to them that he's still got it