Smoot Lays the Smack Down (Redskins vs. Dolphins)

What you're saying makes sense, if we're conceding that no one on the current staff (at least offensively) will be running this team in 2013, 14, or 15. What if they powers that be know Mike may not be here in a few years, but Kyle will be? Not saying you or I agree with that, but that could be the thinking.I think I considered that at the time of the hire, and, well, I didn't think that was realistic then and I don't think it's realistic now.

But I think even if that was the original plan, I don't see how that's different from any other type of 5 year contract for the head coach. Sure, the original expectation is that you have a long term solution, but if you don't, then you go in another direction when the current one isn't feasible anymore.

I think if it was going to happen here for Mike or Kyle, we'd have some sort of positive identity 25 games in. Because the only identity that Mike has left is baffling press conferences, I think the premise that the clock is ticking is inevitable.

It wouldn't be the worst thing to give a third year to this group, but I don't know why you would if the feeling is that we're just delaying the ultimate failure of this group. There has to be feelings of optimism to justify continuing on this path. Right now? The optimism is coming from the fact that the QB class is so strong in next years draft. That doesn't change if Mike Shanahan resigns. Nothing gets worse.

I have no problem with the drafting they've done. In spite of that, I don't think it makes sense to let them pick a quarterback if 90% of that QB's career will be determined by a different coaching staff. It is so very hard to envision a scenario where Mike Shanahan is both the head coach of the Redskins through 2015 and a successful one.

Under normal circumstances, I don't think it's a good idea to bail on a coach after two years, but why let a lame duck coach draft a quarterback? If it wasn't before, it's now clear that Mike Shanahan isn't going to build a great team here. I'm just trying to figure out what everyone elses expectations for 2012 are that makes doing this dance again worth doing. The idea that we'll have a second year quarterback heading into 2013 while trying to find a head coach is horrifying enough. Knowing that Mike Shanahan just may pick that QB doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
I sorta understand what you are trying to say, but the flaw in it is the fact that shanahan isn't a lame duck coach. Fact is these two drafts appear to have as many players of promise as all of VCs combined.

You have to give Shanahan the opportunity to bring a young QB in for the purpose of this effort. Short of picking a major bust, our draft position and the quality of qbs coming out ought to be enough to give the next coach (ugh) a start if the worst case happens and the shanahans are gone after year 3.

I doubt they will be though.

I don't want the if's, I just want an expectation. Like for example, if we're going to draft the right QB next year, are fans expecting us to be in the playoffs next year?

Maybe, maybe not? I just wanted that kind of opinion. 8 or 9 wins seems reasonable enough, but we're so very far from that level right now, I just don't know what kind of improvement we're expecting.Optimistic: RG3 or Luck is somehow drafted. Licht returns fully healthy, J. Brown, Hank, Moss, Cooley, Davis, Hightower, Torain, OJA, LL, J. Jenkins all healthy. KS adapts gameplans to a rookie (albeit a very talented and intelligent rookie). Weak schedule. Yes, I'd expect 9-10 wins and challenging for playoffs.

Take of the B & G colored glasses....and that scenario could go high-and-wide pretty quick.

EDIT: We also get a good CB in FA.

I don't think it's so cut and dry that it's "now clear Mike Shanahan won't build a great team here"

Do you think there is a trend towards moving in the direction away from big name free agents and towards draft selections? If you think there is progress in this direction, what do you make of the 2010 offseason w/McNabb, the coaching hires, the Haynesworth saga, the way Hall/Rogers/Landry were managed, the defensive moves?

I think I can tell which way you are leaning with your last paragraph, but do tell me, how much confidence do you have that come May 2012, this is actually the path we are on?Yes, I believe that starting in 2011, more emphasis is being placed on the draft. In 2010, we had fewer choices, which limited how much could be accomplished after trading the 2nd round pick for McNabb. As for the Haynesworth mess, Snyder and Cerrato tried to get cute with the cap by pushing Al's huge $20M bonus to the uncapped 2010 year. I sense that Shanny tried to make it work by communicating with Haynesworth before that bonus was paid. In hindsight, Shanny probably should have cut Al sooner when it was apparent that he wasn't getting with the program. Regarding the DBs, Snyder and Cerrato tied Shanny's hands by giving Hall a big contract after less than half a season here. Rogers is clearly the better cover corner, and is finally holding onto the ball in SF, the change of scenery has been good for him. Landry should be re-signed, but not for Ed Reed money. We have decent tools defensively, but the offense is bereft, starting with the O-line and QB. It's time to stop neglecting those positions, and I believe they will be addressed early in the draft.

I guess now it is a moot point, but with the way that Hank was going up in the air and attacking the ball, I don't know why they didn't throw a fade into the endzone and let Hank outjump the CBs. We could technically do the same with Davis, but he just doesn't attack the ball enough to beat the DBs.

I was listening to the radio today and a comment was made that Hankerson although big and plays big never seems to get yards after the carry. He jumps for the ball fights for it whatever then falls to the ground. I agree with you on the fades. Maybe he turns out to be our possession WR. Which basically means we need a WR who is going to catch the ball in stride and get yards after the catch..... but thats assuming we have a QB who can deliver the ball to the WR in stride. lol.

Given the improvement of the defense this year when compared to last year, you'd think they'll get even better next season. Given that, if we draft the right QB next year, I think playoffs are a reasonable expectation. We've seen it enough times now in the NFL- rookie QBs can succeed (even with a lockout for pete's sake).

Injuries are a big IF though. If that rookie QB is playing well and then loses his best RB, starting TE (who is a great run blocker), best WR, and 3/5 of his offensive line, are the playoffs a reasonable expectation? Not as much...Fair points, all of them.

So lets say that this last scenario happens and the Redskins go 6-10. Now what? Shanahan probably resigns after a 17-31 record, but what if he doesn't?

My thing is this: the answer should be simple. If he's the right guy for the job, nothing in terms of injuries and losing should change that between now and the end of 2012. But the Shanahan era has exceeded simple losing. It's just really ugly. The players don't even believe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/barry-cofield-it-could-get-historically-ugly/2011/11/14/gIQAYcfULN_blog.html?wprss=football-insider) anymore. The Redskins are no less dysfunctional now than they were under Cerrato. In light of this evidence, I'm not seeing a Shanahan super bowl in 2014...so long as we don't fire him first.

I don't think anyone else is seeing that either. But some talk as if it's a reasonable certainty we'll give away if we get impatient and fire him now.

Fair points, all of them.

So lets say that this last scenario happens and the Redskins go 6-10. Now what? Shanahan probably resigns after a 17-31 record, but what if he doesn't?

My thing is this: the answer should be simple. If he's the right guy for the job, nothing in terms of injuries and losing should change that between now and the end of 2012. But the Shanahan era has exceeded simple losing. It's just really ugly. The players don't even believe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider/post/barry-cofield-it-could-get-historically-ugly/2011/11/14/gIQAYcfULN_blog.html?wprss=football-insider) anymore. The Redskins are no less dysfunctional now than they were under Cerrato. In light of this evidence, I'm not seeing a Shanahan super bowl in 2014...so long as we don't fire him first.

I don't think anyone else is seeing that either. But some talk as if it's a reasonable certainty we'll give away if we get impatient and fire him now.

I think our history with coaches under Snyder is the biggest factor in what has people apprehensive about cutting bait with Shanahan after just two seasons. It's the fear of "more of the same," even if letting Shanny walk is in fact the best call (I don't know if it is, but I'm starting to lean that way).

Any other team with a reasonable history as far as head coaches go... Shanny is on the hot seat big time. But we've done it the same way for 10+ years. Maybe we'll be patient to a fault this time around. Either way, we can't get out of our own way.

I don't think it's so cut and dry that it's "now clear Mike Shanahan won't build a great team here"I think it is cut and dry. Which is not to say that other opinions don't have merit. I could be totally jumping the gun here.

But, in my opinion, the future for Shanahan isn't a wait-and-see mystery any more. It's been 25 weeks of the same thing. I think we can go back to being the 2010 offense when we get a quarterback, but I think a successful offense is going to take fresh ideas, among an influx of talent.

The offense also needs a new vision. Since we have nothing built, I'd just pull the trigger now and start from scratch. That's just me though.

I agree with Tripp about 2010, I mean might as well kept McNabb He's better than these bums