Who's your pick's for next HC, DC and OC?

^was wondering myself where he came up with "get rid of rg-3"?

Agree Punch it in. If you want to talk about continuity and success, the Pats have had the leadership constant for over a decade.The Ravens could switch coaches and still succeed because the leadership and FO game plan never changed they are actually an anomaly in the NFL. Every team will go through rough patches. Like you said the Steelers didn't win didly squat their first 35 years of existence then they had the 70s and were quiet again till the mid 90s.

Funny how our culture of winning in the 80s didn't carry over once Gibbs left.

I wonder why.

This is an exception to the rule. We all know players and coaches dont breed winning, its who the Universe deems worthy!
Duh.

The Patriots won 11 games (I think?) with Matt Cassell. There's more to that org than Brady.

Usually just add schmuck like you to my ignore list and move on, but in this case I'm responding because there's absolutely nothing about what I said to indicate getting rid of RG.

Changing the offense to protect him for the long term, absolutely.

So long.

I went back and re-read your post. I apologize. Your use of "trucked" to me meant getting rid of. As in "trucking something out of town". That's where I assumed you meant getting rid of RGIII. But I'll say, it's not logical to complain about Mike's Zone Blocking scheme when it actually has been working. Alfred Morris rushing for over 1600 yards last year, and having another impressive year this year - the scheme is working fine. It's pass protection that's the issue, and that's coming from a lack in talent all across the line, not the scheme. These guys excel in run blocking, but not in pass blocking.

The Patriots won 11 games (I think?) with Matt Cassell. There's more to that org than Brady.

They did win 11 that year and ironically missed the playoffs. That was on the back of their undefeated season so there was definitely more than just Tom Brady at work on that team.

Funny how our culture of winning in the 80s didn't carry over once Gibbs left.

I wonder why.

If what John Kent Cooke said was true, it sounds like the 'skins very nearly didn't have that winning culture in the 80's. Jack wanted Gibbs gone after the 0-5 start. I seem to wonder if Jack had actually acted upon his tendencies and fired Gibbs, would he have had the same tendencies that we felt Daniel Snyder has, which would be to switch coaches ever few years? After Gibbs retired, Pettibon had one chance and he was out. Provided, that was the worst year I had ever witnessed as a Redskins fan, but still, one shot and Richie was done. I think Norv got more of a chance because John was transitioning into being the owner and Jack was in failing health, but it sometimes makes me wonder what if Joe wasn't given that chance to turn things around in his first year.

That's why I keep going back to this thing with Mike Shanahan. Like Gibbs II before, Shanahan had more to do than simply coming in and coaching the team. It is/was a complete overhaul of the franchise. Why do people think switching a coach every three years helps with the overhaul process?

This is an exception to the rule. We all know players and coaches dont breed winning, its who the Universe deems worthy!
Duh.

Ah yes that football god juju

Baylor could be bracing for a Redskins rush on Art Briles | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/11/14/baylor-could-be-bracing-for-a-redskins-rush-on-art-briles/)

The Patriots won 11 games (I think?) with Matt Cassell. There's more to that org than Brady.

Of course it is not "only" tom brady. Dan Marino never won a superbowl- cant do it on your own. However 11-5 and winning the superbowl are two totally different worlds.
My point is that without Tom Brady New England does not turn their franchise around and it had nothing to do with being a "winning" franchise. He made them a winning franchise.