How the NFL works...

They were 7-4 going into December with wins against San Francisco and Green Bay. They finished 9-7, with losses down the stretch to us, Baltimore (in Baltimore) and Atlanta (in Atlanta). They missed out on the playoffs BECAUSE WE BEAT THEM.

Such BS revisionist history.

kinda my point .

I can't understand this argument that Shanny is the worst coach when we lost 2 first rounders and a 2nd to get one guy. Then we are stripped of cap space for 2 years. There are two ways to obtain talent in the NFL, free agency and the draft. We have been hindered from being able to properly use either because of self inflicted wounds of management.

In the big picture, the Shanahan hire was a step in the right direction for the franchise, even though Mike might well have been the worst hire/candidate possible. Sounds weird, but it's true. Dan turned the team over to someone he thought knew how to rebuild the team. That took some hard decisions on Dan's part. The hope we all have is Dan continues toward the final goal of a traditional FO structure, with a legit GM (we have one) and next a coach who can field a competitive team.

I still give Dan credit, even though he made a terrible choice in Shanahan. It's a process, and again with luck the next HC choice will be the right guy and just two or three years from now we're rooting for a serious football team!

^^ Oh dear Lord ...
Goat: "Thanksgiving is a great time of year except that Shanahan kicked me in the nuts for a year."

I'm not a fan of baseball either, but he throws out several facts to support his claim. How is he wrong exactly?

Just got around to this, that SF game set me back a few days. :)

He focuses on "repeat playoff appearances" and "playoff turnover." Doesn't say much.

So one year you have the Yanks, Rangers, Angels, Cards, Braves.... the next you have the Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, Phillies, Tigers. All these teams are in top half of the league payrolls, how does this show parity?

Some other points:

Does money really buy World Series titles? | Washington Times Communities (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/wells-baseball/2013/feb/1/does-money-really-buy-world-series-titles/)

"Seventeen of the last 18 World Series winners have had a payroll in the top 15. In the last 18 years, only one team has been able to win the World Series without being ranked in the top 15 for payroll. That team was the 1997 Florida Marlins. They ranked 25th out of 28 teams.

Now, let’s see where the loser of the World Series ranked in payroll over the last 18 years. Fifteen of the losing teams were ranked in the top 15 in baseball. Only three teams ranked outside of the top 15 in player salary have managed to make it to the World Series and then lose."

Another point involves "player parity". In the NFL a star like Peyton or Favre can stay with the same team for their whole career, even in small markets like Indy and Green Bay. If Peyton played baseball, there is basically zero chance he would stay with a small market team his whole career. He would undoubtedly "graduate" to the Yanks or the Sox after a few years.

I know baseball is trying to improve its parity with revenue sharing etc. and I commend them for that. But to suggest the overall competitiveness of baseball and football are similar is quite a stretch IMO.

^^^ Excellent analysis, had to stop and remember you're the salary cap guru.

Still I didn't think anyone would seriously claim baseball or any American sport has near the parity pro football boasts. It's gdamn obvious from "ocular assessment" alone but then look at so many obvious things that fly over us.

This thread is a positive one among all the negative shit surrounding the redskins. With a good off-season, and coaching selections are the key there, we could see a serious football team in just a year or two.