Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Mike Shanahan

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-30-2011, 01:55 PM   #31
The Starter
 
redsk1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,351
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
3 years to show progress.

Another double digit loss season in 2012 and I think MS is on the hot seat and rightfully so.
I can argue that we have shown progress. We're in a much better position than we were 2 years ago.
-younger team
-good offensive system
-cap room
-GM/organizational improvement
-more talent on Defense

Wins and Losses aren't there yet. I do expect to get more wins next year, but I don't expect necessarily to be a playoff team.
redsk1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 12-30-2011, 02:18 PM   #32
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat View Post
This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.
And we fire Shanahan and bring in someone else, and then that won't be working like it should by the end of that second season, then we'll fire him and bring in someone else, and by the end of that second season, we'll fire him because that regime isn't working, and so we'll bring in yet another coach, give him two years, and then we'll fire him because HE isn't working, and....... well, I guess you get my drift....
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 02:24 PM   #33
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,579
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsk1 View Post
I can argue that we have shown progress. We're in a much better position than we were 2 years ago.
-younger team
-good offensive system
-cap room
-GM/organizational improvement
-more talent on Defense

Wins and Losses aren't there yet. I do expect to get more wins next year, but I don't expect necessarily to be a playoff team.

I agree! The points you made point to progress and points to the Redskins being on the right track.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 02:30 PM   #34
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,985
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsk1 View Post
I can argue that we have shown progress. We're in a much better position than we were 2 years ago.
-younger team
-good offensive system
-cap room
-GM/organizational improvement
-more talent on Defense

Wins and Losses aren't there yet. I do expect to get more wins next year, but I don't expect necessarily to be a playoff team.
Agree with everything, but good offensive system is very debateble. Im not for firing Shanny, but I think by next year 10 losses again would mitigate everything you just listed.
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 02:35 PM   #35
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsk1 View Post
I can argue that we have shown progress. We're in a much better position than we were 2 years ago.
-younger team
-good offensive system
-cap room
-GM/organizational improvement
-more talent on Defense

Wins and Losses aren't there yet. I do expect to get more wins next year, but I don't expect necessarily to be a playoff team.
Exactly. It sounds stupid but wins and losses are not always the best judge of progress. A couple plays decide who wins and loses most NFL games. The media talking heads will point to Shannys record as compared to Zorn and conclude that no progress has been made but those of us who watch the team every week can see the difference between now and Zorns last year. The Redskins are greatly improved in just about every area but it will not show up in the win/loss column until they get better more consistent play from the QB position.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 02:47 PM   #36
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,985
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
Exactly. It sounds stupid but wins and losses are not always the best judge of progress. A couple plays decide who wins and loses most NFL games. The media talking heads will point to Shannys record as compared to Zorn and conclude that no progress has been made but those of us who watch the team every week can see the difference between now and Zorns last year. The Redskins are greatly improved in just about every area but it will not show up in the win/loss column until they get better more consistent play from the QB position.
When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:19 PM   #37
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,929
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?
I don't have time to do it but I'd love to see someone do a points deficit analysis on Grossman's turnovers. The parameters are how many of his turnovers this season were inside scoring range (within the opponents 35 yard line) and how many of his turnovers directly led to points on the ensuing possession or as a TD return. I'm not a math guy at all but I was thinking minus 3 (minimum for an assumed score on a FG) for any scoring range turnovers and add the points up that resulted from his turnovers to determine the figure.

I think even with our limited talent surrounding him, a quality QB would have been worth at least 4 more wins.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:19 PM   #38
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
One could say that but it would be reactionary and short sighted. No argument on the QB, disagree on the defense because we had too many pieces that weren't sustainable (Daniels, Holliday, McIntosh, Griffin, Horton/Doughty) and we had zero depth at RB prior to this year.

For all of the 'we are no better off than we were' crowd, of the players who were not retained from the inherited roster, who is making a significant impact on new teams? I can point to three, Carter, Rogers and Edwin Williams who is a backup pressed into duty due to injuries and got a contract extension from the Bears at a backup salary level. Anyone else contributing (not just holding a roster spot or playing but making a positive impact) that I missed?
You missed Chad Rhindardttt. McIntosh is still on the team not sure how he figures in?

Like I said the oline is marginally better, but what does that do for the offense as a whole given Mike's decisions at QB?
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:25 PM   #39
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
And we fire Shanahan and bring in someone else, and then that won't be working like it should by the end of that second season, then we'll fire him and bring in someone else, and by the end of that second season, we'll fire him because that regime isn't working, and so we'll bring in yet another coach, give him two years, and then we'll fire him because HE isn't working, and....... well, I guess you get my drift....
I know...the revolving syndrome is a bad one and I don't want to see it either.
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:26 PM   #40
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,929
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat View Post
You missed Chad Rhindardttt. McIntosh is still on the team not sure how he figures in?

Like I said the oline is marginally better, but what does that do for the offense as a whole given Mike's decisions at QB?
Rinehart is like Carter, a poor fit for the scheme. He's a power guy, not a zone-quickness guy.. McIntosh is a poor fit as a 3-4 ILB. He was completely lost last year and despite some early success this season regressed to show his poor fit so he wasn't sustainable as a player to be counted on.

No excuses for the QB situation. Picks should have been made late in both drafts to get at least a project to develop and their notion that they could make Rex or Beck into something they hadn't already shown was clearly wrong.

The only positive to come out of the QB position is that the OL is probably a RT away from being solid enough to be effective every week, even good some weeks so that's not an urgent focus along with fixing the QB position. Now if they have to include picks to get their QB it's not devastating because we don't have to count on every single pick to fill a need.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:27 PM   #41
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?
I would say by year 4 they should have the QB and be a winning team. Year 5 and so on they should be a regular Super bowl contender.

I am not saying they don't eventually need to win. It's just not the end all stat in the 1st couple years when you are completely flipping the roster.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:45 PM   #42
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog1 View Post
AS MK72 pointed out
I think it is a fair expectation to see measurable.....positive change by third year done on a five year deal. I would not advocate immediate dismissal if year three is disappointing as well. I would, however think it is also fair....AND EXPECTED to have a "Come to Jesus" meeting with ownership to see if it appears the current course is still the correct and worthy of pursuit. If it is found the B&G's return to glory does not lie on this path, another direction needs to be .....at least considered.
Here is my problem with this scenario:

That "Come to Jesus meeting" with ownership would mean that Mike Shanahan and Danny Boy would be sitting down to talk football and the current direction that the Redskins are taking. No offense here, but Danny Boy has shown pretty conclusively that he had no flipping clue as to the right direction to take a football program.

Even the most strident of Mike Shanahan's critics would have to concede that he would be more likely of "good football thinking" than Danny Boy if you woke Shanahan up at 4:00 AM after he had been out pounding tequila shots for 8 hours the night before.

I would not be confident that Danny Boy could make a decision as to the "best direction" for the team based simply on the way he has made football related decisions for the last decade or so.

I have been saying here for months that Mike Shanahan will be and should be the head coach of the Washington Redskins next year - - unless of course Mike Shanahan decides he would rather pack it in and buy a ranch and raise armadillos...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 03:59 PM   #43
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsk1 View Post
I can argue that we have shown progress. We're in a much better position than we were 2 years ago.
-younger team
-good offensive system
-cap room
-GM/organizational improvement
-more talent on Defense

Wins and Losses aren't there yet. I do expect to get more wins next year, but I don't expect necessarily to be a playoff team.
Agree there has been significant progress but maybe not in the same areas you do...

Younger team: Definitely - - and more importantly this team is FASTER than the Redskins' teams of 3-5 years ago.

Good offensive system: Maybe - - jury is still out on this because the Skins' offense does not produce. Sure, they need an upgrade on the offensive side of the ball in terms of talent but still - - after two years in the same system you would think there would be more "improvement" on the scoreboard if the system itself was all that great.

Cap room: Much better managed now than before.

GM/organizational improvement: The fact that there is a real GM who knows a football from a canary is a huge improvement. As to the rest of the organization, the jury is still out... Scouts produced a good draft board in 2011 and the team reaped benefits; these are the same scouts for the most part that produced the draft boards back in '10 and '09... So, have the scouts been really good all along and the suits who make the picks were at fault for bad drafts - - or - - did the scouts just get lucky in 2011? In Jerry McGuire the rant was "Show me the money!" Here I want the scouts to "Show me the talent - - again!"

More talent on defense: Certainly true of the front 7 but you have a lot of talking to do to convince me that the secondary in 2011 is much more than a bunch of pretty ordinary guys hanging out back there.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

Last edited by sportscurmudgeon; 12-30-2011 at 04:03 PM. Reason: grammar
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 04:07 PM   #44
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
Rinehart is like Carter, a poor fit for the scheme. He's a power guy, not a zone-quickness guy.. McIntosh is a poor fit as a 3-4 ILB. He was completely lost last year and despite some early success this season regressed to show his poor fit so he wasn't sustainable as a player to be counted on.

No excuses for the QB situation. Picks should have been made late in both drafts to get at least a project to develop and their notion that they could make Rex or Beck into something they hadn't already shown was clearly wrong.

The only positive to come out of the QB position is that the OL is probably a RT away from being solid enough to be effective every week, even good some weeks so that's not an urgent focus along with fixing the QB position. Now if they have to include picks to get their QB it's not devastating because we don't have to count on every single pick to fill a need.
Paintrain:

I think the reason the Redskins did not use a late pick in the draft to get a QB to try to develop is because both Mike and Kyle thought that John Beck was "the guy". Both raved about his college career; so if that was not pure and unadulterated bulls[p]it, why draft another guy when you have "the guy" under contract already?

Bottom line here is both of them were dead wrong about John Beck and his viability as an acceptable NFL QB - - let alone a good NFL QB. And if they were dead wrong about the QB that both of them had at or near the top of his draft class, why would you think they would be "closer to correct" in evaluating some guy that everyone else has passed on for 6 rounds?
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2011, 05:05 PM   #45
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,929
Re: Mike Shanahan

Quote:
Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon View Post
Paintrain:

I think the reason the Redskins did not use a late pick in the draft to get a QB to try to develop is because both Mike and Kyle thought that John Beck was "the guy". Both raved about his college career; so if that was not pure and unadulterated bulls[p]it, why draft another guy when you have "the guy" under contract already?

Bottom line here is both of them were dead wrong about John Beck and his viability as an acceptable NFL QB - - let alone a good NFL QB. And if they were dead wrong about the QB that both of them had at or near the top of his draft class, why would you think they would be "closer to correct" in evaluating some guy that everyone else has passed on for 6 rounds?
Agreed about Beck, although he wasnt in house before the 2010 draft. They see what he is now and we move on.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.96988 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25