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.

^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 ONE 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

^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 ONE 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 HallYeah, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.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.

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.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.

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.

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.

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.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.

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.