Are you buying into the Shanaplan?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If I told you guys that talks are in advanced stages to keep Mike and Kyle around through 2015 (which is also the length of RG3's rookie deal)...would that affect your answer

If we truly have turned the corner and this year is the first of many 10+ game winning seasons, then they both have my vote!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I lived through those two years on a week to week basis: if anything is going to convince me that I was wrong about those years, it sure isn't a narrative based on hindsight.

Nothing is ever going to convince you that you were wrong about anything. An overstatement, perhaps, but I too have lived through the last two years and have read your posts during that course of time.

In the vast majority of your analysis, you set the parameters for the assumptions and discount that which falls outside those assumptions regardless of the value given by others. [For example: your foray into the value of Chad Reinhardt, and other such noteworthies, as proof of the talented roster inherited by Shanny; more recently the debate as to the team's "youth movement"]. Your unshakeable belief in the correctness of your underlying assumptions is admirable albeit obtuse at times.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'm somewhere in the middle of the majority of those who have bought in and wait in see in mode. Obviously, everyone is very pleased with the current results and winning streak, but let's not get too carried away. Shanahan hasn't put together Tom Coughlin type seasons here. Let's finish the season on a high note and see what we're made of over the stretch of a full 16 game season next year.

If you consider most of the past Super Bowl winners: The Giants, Patriots, Packers, and Steelers. The common thread is a franchise quarterback. Sure they have great supporting casts, great coaches, but this is by and large a quarterback driven league. To the extent that Robert continues to develop his game and steers clear of major injuries, I fully expect the Redskins to be in the playoff discussion going forward.

The more appropriate question right now, in my mind, has the franchise turned the corner? And the answer to that is emphatically, yes. I don't believe not drinking the Kool Aid makes you a skeptic or a crank or less passionate about the future of the team, it is what it is. There's an ebb and flow to winning. Teams get hot. Things come together at the right time and you're prepared to seize that moment. The truly great teams manage to overcome injuries, adversity, and setbacks and win games when they matter.

Have I bought into Shanaplan? For the here and now, yep.

Have we turned the corner? Not sure - I think we will. Again, I want to see how ShanAllen handles the coming need for talent replacement/retention. If we succeed, if the talent level is improving, players will be lost. How they are replaced is key.

Look at Houston, their D lost DeMarco Ryans & Mario Williams this past year and is still playing at a high level. Sure, their was a scheme switch. Regardless, most teams losing two pro-bowlers from the first & second level of their defense would be in serious trouble. In Houston, however, they maintained there performance. I don't recall Houston signing guys to huge UFA contracts to replace them. Instead, they retained and replaced from inside - w/ guys on the roster that nobody may have known before plus good drafting (J.J. Watt makes up for a lot of other talent defeciencies).

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Have we turned the corner? Not sure - I think we will. Again, I want to see how ShanAllen handles the coming need for talent replacement/retention. If we succeed, if the talent level is improving, players will be lost. How they are replaced is key.

Look at Houston, their D lost DeMarco Ryans & Mario Williams this past year and is still playing at a high level. Sure, their was a scheme switch. Regardless, most teams losing two pro-bowlers from the first & second level of their defense would be in serious trouble. In Houston, however, they maintained there performance. I don't recall Houston signing guys to huge UFA contracts to replace them. Instead, they retained and replaced from inside - w/ guys on the roster that nobody may have known before plus good drafting (J.J. Watt makes up for a lot of other talent defeciencies).

Couple of things: We, too, have had our share of losses on defense: Rak and Carriker. One could also argue our defense is much better with Meriweather in the line-up. So the talent rule applies to the Redskins as well. It's quite possible that Mario Williams was a bit overrated to begin with. What has he done in Buffalo this season? Haven't heard much from him.

In short, Robert was the missing piece. The QB raises the level of play of those around him and we've witnessed that this season. We won a total of 11? games the previous two seasons. I feel we're on the right track; Turned the corner.

Generally I think we agree more than not on this point.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Couple of things: We, too, have had our share of losses on defense: Rak and Carriker. One could also argue our defense is much better with Meriweather in the line-up. So the talent rule applies to the Redskins as well. It's quite possible that Mario Williams was a bit overrated to begin with. What has he done in Buffalo this season? Haven't heard much from him.

In short, Robert was the missing piece. The QB raises the level of play of those around him and we've witnessed that this season. We won a total of 11? games the previous two seasons. I feel we're on the right track; Turned the corner.

My point about Houston was just an example of how good teams replace lost talent. Think of Gibbs I, the current Patriots or the 2000-2009 Eagles. Good teams can lose talent b/c it can be adquately replaced (or appropriately retained).

I fully agree that Robert was the missing piece although I would suggest it is more accurate to say "a quality QB was the missing piece" - the fact that we were able to insert an amazing talent like RGIII into that piece is just absolute gravy.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Generally I think we agree more than not on this point.

I agree that we generally agree.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

My point about Houston was just an example of how good teams replace lost talent. Think of Gibbs I, the current Patriots or the 2000-2009 Eagles. Good teams can lose talent b/c it can be adquately replaced (or appropriately retained).

I fully agree that Robert was the missing piece although I would suggest it is more accurate to say "a quality QB was the missing piece" - the fact that we were able to insert an amazing talent like RGIII into that piece is just absolute gravy.

I definitely think that's why the Redskins were so good in the 80's, they had good backups who could come in and make plays, good quarterbacks who could win ya some games, and certainly a good eye for talent. But, I think drafting a guy like Kirk Cousins just showed everybody that if you do plan on being a winner, you're going to need a good backup QB.

[12thMan]

I'd be careful drawing comparisons from the 80s, but the broader point is still legit.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'd be careful drawing comparisons from the 80s, but the broader point is still legit.

Not sure why I'd have to be careful about drawing comparisons between decades, the simple fact remains true whether if it's the 50's or present day - depth is what helps to make a team good and to keep the team consistently good. That's often what separates good teams from bad teams.

[SmootSmack]

Yeah but depth is easier to create pre Plan B free-agency and salary caps

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I definitely think that's why the Redskins were so good in the 80's, they had good backups who could come in and make plays, good quarterbacks who could win ya some games, and certainly a good eye for talent. But, I think drafting a guy like Kirk Cousins just showed everybody that if you do plan on being a winner, you're going to need a good backup QB.

In the 80s, Beathard and Casserly did the best job in the NFL at finding quality players to play on both sides of the ball. The Redskins had players like Alvoid Mays, A.J. Johnson, Jumpy Gathers, and were rock solid at every position.

This season through building the team, this was the first time that quality depth was added to the roster since Shanahan had been the HC. You could even see it in preseason games before the regular season.

The Redskins were fortunate Kirk Cousins was still there in the 4th round because he was projected to go in the 2nd round. Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan were wise to want to go into a more youthful direction instead of depending on turnover bound Rex Grossman to be RG3's back up.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah but depth is easier to create pre Plan B free-agency and salary caps

Yes. Pre-1993 you could use your bench as a minor league development arrangement. Once free agency came along, that disappeared, because after four years a player just signs with another team rather than being promoted from the bench.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yeah but depth is easier to create pre Plan B free-agency and salary caps

Not denying that. I'm simply saying that depth, itself, is the key.

[SmootSmack]

Alvoid Mays. LOL

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Alvoid Mays. LOL

I was watching the 1991 NFC Championship game on DVD last night and Mays was all over the field after Darrell Green injured his ribs. Alvoid Mays was a pretty quality depth player....

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

I was watching the 1991 NFC Championship game on DVD last night and Mays was all over the field after Darrell Green injured his ribs. Alvoid Mays was a pretty quality depth player....

He was fine, but-if we're being honest-he wasn't tremendously better than say Reed Doughty or even a guy like Jordan Pugh.

I love the 80s Redskins, but there's always a lot of revisionist history about them

But anyhow, that's in the past