Some optimism on the 'Shanaplan'

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I also don't know that Rex was a terrible move.They didn't break the bank to get him

It was only terrible in that they thought of him as a starter.

Too bad Rexy doesn't have the skills to match his moxy. He'd be a heck of a QB.

[KI Skins Fan]

I'd like to see Rex back with us next season in a backup role.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I'd like to see Rex back with us next season in a backup role.

I could see that happening. It's not like he's going to be in high demand elsewhere.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I'd like to see Rex back with us next season in a backup role.

i dont care if Rex comes back, but I want 2 young QBs on the roster period. Not 1, 2

[Beemnseven]

We all know what's going to happen though... A rookie QB will be drafted, in all likelihood he'll struggle and have all the typical growing pains in his first year, and our record might still be on the wrong side of 8-8. Add to that a rebuild of the offensive line which also isn't going to be completely in sync.

Then we'll hear from The Crazies that Shanahan's 3-year new coach/rebuilding window has closed, and that he should be fired.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

We all know what's going to happen though... A rookie QB will be drafted, in all likelihood he'll struggle and have all the typical growing pains in his first year, and our record might still be on the wrong side of 8-8. Add to that a rebuild of the offensive line which also isn't going to be completely in sync.

Then we'll hear from The Crazies that Shanahan's 3-year new coach/rebuilding window has closed, and that he should be fired.

So why is it a good idea to have him involved with the selecting of the right quarterback?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

I don't like stats too much, but our performance on D is actually not that bad this season, at least in the stats.

We are giving up the 11th fewest points points per game at 20.5pts/G, which is actually slightly under the 21 points per game in 2009.

We are also giving up 17.6 1st downs a game this season. In 2009, we gave up 17.5 1st downs a game.

Our 3rd down percentage this season is 37%, which is lower than the defense's 40% 3rd down percentage in 2009.

So, some of our stats are back to levels similar to the 2009 levels.

It's close, but I'd take the current defense over the 2009 defense. The fundamental problems are similar (can't get off the field), but the pass defense is unquestionably better now, and that makes the ability to limit points much more sustainable. It's a positive change that we don't totally crap the bed anymore when facing an NFC East opponent because you haven't made an adjustment since 1977.

Neither would qualify as a great defense, and neither was capable of carrying even an average offense to the playoffs. The offense still has to get better. I think The Goat's point about the opportunity cost of switching things up on defense is fair though I don't know if anything except a huge decline would have been achieved if we simply focused on nothing but offense.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I also don't know that Rex was a terrible move.They didn't break the bank to get him

Rex is a nothing move...he's solves nothing short term or long term. But when he's the only legitimate guy there's reason to ask "wtf was going through your head Mike?"

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's close, but I'd take the current defense over the 2009 defense. The fundamental problems are similar (can't get off the field), but the pass defense is unquestionably better now, and that makes the ability to limit points much more sustainable. It's a positive change that we don't totally crap the bed anymore when facing an NFC East opponent because you haven't made an adjustment since 1977.

Neither would qualify as a great defense, and neither was capable of carrying even an average offense to the playoffs. The offense still has to get better. I think The Goat's point about the opportunity cost of switching things up on defense is fair though I don't know if anything except a huge decline would have been achieved if we simply focused on nothing but offense.

I didn't mean to imply we would have completely neglected defense GTripp but I see how it read that way...I tend to skip over points when I try writing down my thoughts.

I think Rak would have been our LDE, Carter RDE and added a DT. Of course I've assuming AH is still contributing something because the offense is built around him (re-closing can of worms now). We could have spent, say, half the total number of picks/FAs on defense had we stayed in the 4-3 and likely be better than we are today because this defense isn't going to dominate w/o a real NT.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Rex is a nothing move...he's solves nothing short term or long term. But when he's the only legitimate guy there's reason to ask "wtf was going through your head Mike?"

Well it depends on how you look at it. QB is certainly our biggest need. And it's the most important position on any roster, in my opinion. But it's not the only position that we needed to improve upon.

So I mean yes I wish we had, for example, gotten Locker at #10 but he wasn't there so we could have traded up to ensure we get him. Or we could have said well let's go with the next best QB on our list. Or we could have done what we did and said "OK, we didn't get the QB we wanted. But we have a chance to get the LB, DT, and WR we need."

So maybe that's what they did. Maybe they said you know we like our best LB better than our second best QB so let's do that. Because next year and in future years we don't see LB (or DT or WR, etc) that we really would want. But we do see a QB. So we'll build other areas of our team in 2011 and then we'll get that QB in 2012.

[SBXVII]

Draft a 1st round QB to start.
Get rid of Beck and Grossman.
Either draft a late round young QB to have 2 or
Look for another more accurate Vet QB.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Draft a 1st round QB to start.
Get rid of Beck and Grossman.
Either draft a late round young QB to have 2 or
Look for another more accurate Vet QB.

I think there's several vet QBs who are/will be upgrades over what we have...good idea.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well it depends on how you look at it. QB is certainly our biggest need. And it's the most important position on any roster, in my opinion. But it's not the only position that we needed to improve upon.

So I mean yes I wish we had, for example, gotten Locker at #10 but he wasn't there so we could have traded up to ensure we get him. Or we could have said well let's go with the next best QB on our list. Or we could have done what we did and said "OK, we didn't get the QB we wanted. But we have a chance to get the LB, DT, and WR we need."

So maybe that's what they did. Maybe they said you know we like our best LB better than our second best QB so let's do that. Because next year and in future years we don't see LB (or DT or WR, etc) that we really would want. But we do see a QB. So we'll build other areas of our team in 2011 and then we'll get that QB in 2012.

Well said. And it should be noted, though it's way early -- the QB that Shanahan passed on, Blaine Gabbert, is looking awfully lost out there.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I didn't mean to imply we would have completely neglected defense GTripp but I see how it read that way...I tend to skip over points when I try writing down my thoughts.

I think Rak would have been our LDE, Carter RDE and added a DT. Of course I've assuming AH is still contributing something because the offense is built around him (re-closing can of worms now). We could have spent, say, half the total number of picks/FAs on defense had we stayed in the 4-3 and likely be better than we are today because this defense isn't going to dominate w/o a real NT.

No, this is my bad. I implied, but did not write, that the reason I thought the Redskins defensed declined and then came back to 2009 ish talent levels is because the Redskins didn't add anything to it last year. Which is to say that 3-4/4-3 is a lot of window dressing, but the defense was going to get changed one way or another, and there wasn't exactly a coordinator out there similar to Greg Blache nor should we have hired him if there was.

But if you change your defensive identity and then don't add any talent to it and then you have a public spat with your highest profile player, you're destined to have a pretty disappointing year on defense. And I don't entirely believe Mike Shanahan or Jim Haslett should take the blame for the decline from 2009. We didn't have anything to build off of on that side of the ball beyond the years that Fletcher, Carter, and Orakpo had and the huge contracts to Hall and Haynesworth.

Anyway, it's moot now because Brian Orakpo is never going to be a three down defensive end in this league. He's a linebacker in any scheme on a rushing down, and then he puts his hand in the dirt on third down. Or we could keep playing what we are now, and keep getting the quarterback on the ground on early downs. I like that a lot better.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I think there's several vet QBs who are/will be upgrades over what we have...good idea.

Just curious, which veteran QB that were available this offseason or rookies (again that were available in 2010 or 2011) would have made a better long term decision than what we currently have. Please don't mistake this for me embracing Rex/Beck as anything more than a one season stopgap as both of their contracts are done at the end of the season so we have $0 invested at that position for 2012.

In answering that question, remember that if we drafted a QB at 10 we wouldn't have Kerrigan, Hankerson or Helu and would have had to give up 2012 picks to move up in the 2nd round for Dalton. One big failing IMO was not drafting a depth QB in the later rounds of either 2010 or 2011.

Not picking on you but the revisionist history of 'we should have done better' without citing specifics always strikes a nerve.