Skins/Giants post game thread

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Keim hits the nail on the head. It was a clearly a blown coverage. That's on the players, not Haslett.

Well he also says he has poor schemes, adjustments, and pressure. Whats lumping one more play into that bucket full of crap gonna hurt? Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ruhskins]

A quick game note, what's up with Hank playing soft? He had some good catches, but he could have easily caught that deep ball from RG3 if he makes a dive for the ball. Also in another catch he could've easily gotten a 1st if he had been a bit tougher, use his size advantage and dive for the first. I'd like to see him play a bit tougher.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

A quick game note, what's up with Hank playing soft? He had some good catches, but he could have easily caught that deep ball from RG3 if he makes a dive for the ball. Also in another catch he could've easily gotten a 1st if he had been a bit tougher, use his size advantage and dive for the first. I'd like to see him play a bit tougher.

He definitely should have laid out for that deep ball. On that second play where he came up short i dont remember thinking he really had a chance to go any further. I dont remember exactly his motion during the catch but it seemed like he was kind of left flat footed or something or maybe turned funny and unable to get trucking again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[imaskin4life]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Keim hits the nail on the head. It was a clearly a blown coverage. That's on the players, not Haslett.

I agree its on the players execution more so than haslett but im not sure I like my safety in man coverage with ANY of their receivers (especially cruz) other than the TE or HB/FB - even if its a double team situation. I want my safety waaaay back playing the safety position not letting any one behind him. But thats just me.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Keim hits the nail on the head. It was a clearly a blown coverage. That's on the players, not Haslett.

Yep thats why I was blaming our sh!tty secondary and not our DC for this one. Now if he had called cover 0...

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by punch it in

There is a big difference between wanting to win more than five games and be somewhat relevant and wanting to win superbowls. I dont think i have ever seen or heard one post or person calling for heads because we arent winning superbowls. Alot of teams do go from doormats to relevant in less than five years. I think alot of people wonder about Shanny because of his last several yeara in Denver. Which i dont believe you can overlook. I mean the "apologists" always want to talk about the two superbowls. Than there is this empty space in their opinion of Shanny. Like he won two superbowls and than packed his bags and came to rescue the horrid redskins that were set back years due to Vinnie. Nobody -even the "haters" will deny that Shanny inherited a mess. However there were several years of Mike Shanahans coaching career in Denver that were -well - not good. He did not win two superbowls, hop on a plane, land in Washington, and start digging us out of a hole. Thats a nice fairytale way to look at it but it is not reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He had 2 losing seasons in 14 years there. One of those followed Elways retirement, which was his worst season there at 6-10. Are we going to say Belichick sucks because he didnt succeed in Cleveland? As you say, it must be accounted for.

Ive already said why im being patient, because I said from the day he was hired that it will take 3 years before the Skins show much, and 4 years before they are playoff contenders. That timetable is still there. I dont care what the record was the first two years because I never expected to win with what we had.

Everyone says that we had a terrible team. Admits it was always going to take time. Yet are complaining that we didnt make the playoffs twice in his first two years. That is irrational to me. This team is playing pretty good and is a secondary away from competing with the top teams for the playoffs. To think that we are still a 10 year rebuild away is ridiculous.

No one said that he he won two super bowls and then headed here. That is you coming up with that on your own.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

He had 2 losing seasons in 14 years there. One of those followed Elways retirement, which was his worst season there at 6-10. Are we going to say Belichick sucks because he didnt succeed in Cleveland? As you say, it must be accounted for.

Ive already said why im being patient, because I said from the day he was hired that it will take 3 years before the Skins show much, and 4 years before they are playoff contenders. That timetable is still there. I dont care what the record was the first two years because I never expected to win with what we had.

Everyone says that we had a terrible team. Admits it was always going to take time. Yet are complaining that we didnt make the playoffs twice in his first two years. That is irrational to me. This team is playing pretty good and is a secondary away from competing with the top teams for the playoffs. To think that we are still a 10 year rebuild away is ridiculous.

No one said that he he won two super bowls and then headed here. That is you coming up with that on your own.

One playoff win in the last thirteen years. One.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[punch it in]

My point about him winning two superbowls and than heading to Washington is that the apologists always point to the two superbowls when someone questions his time here in Washington. However it is not acceptable to point out the mediocrity that followed for the next 10 years there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jdc65]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Keim hits the nail on the head. It was a clearly a blown coverage. That's on the players, not Haslett.

The next logical question to follow that up is why are said players, who have consistantly blown coverages, in the game at a critical juncture in those assignments? Why also was there no bump on the line in tight man coverage? Why give the speedster a free start when he is the fastest guy on the field and the primary threat?

Especially when everyone knew the secondary was a glaring weakness from day #1. Really year #1. Two 7th round draft picks made the final roster in the backfield that was supposedly so deep. Why was Josh Morgan signed at such a high price after they already signed Garcon, and obvious critical weaknesses still remained?

Circle the wagon time. Worst loss of the increasingly inadequate Shanahan tenure and possibly untenably divisive. It will be very interesting to see how they respond next week in what is now an absolute must win game. Football is a production game. Moral victories mean squat.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by punch it in

My point about him winning two superbowls and than heading to Washington is that the apologists always point to the two superbowls when someone questions his time here in Washington. However it is not acceptable to point out the mediocrity that followed for the next 10 years there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit: im not sure how i always get baited into the shanny argument? Im not a hater or an apologist to tell you the truth. Both extremes bother me. I lean a little more twards hating the apologists because they come across ( not you necessarily) as if you are absolutely insane for questioning the man. However wins / losses and one playoff victory in thirteen years lead me to believe the haters have more of a grip on the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Edit: im not sure how i always get baited into the shanny argument? Im not a hater or an apologist to tell you the truth. Both extremes bother me. I lean a little more twards hating the apologists because they come across ( not you necessarily) as if you are absolutely insane for questioning the man. However wins / losses and one playoff victory in thirteen years lead me to believe the haters have more of a grip on the situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Question whoever you want to, but the same attitude is usually shown back to us for saying the guy has done some good things as a coach. Deep playoff runs are usually the product of a great QB.

The most recent winning QBs in the SB.

Eli Manning
Aaron Rodgers
Drew Brees
Ben Rothlisberger
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Ben Rothlisberger
Tom Brady
Tom Brady

You talk about his coaching record as if its the worst in the NFL. Usually its always a couple of teams that are lucky enough to find that guy at QB then build a team around him. I personally believe that we have, in fact, found that guy. A lot of people railed against Shanny for making that trade. Plus he made the right move to pass on Gabbert and traded down for Kerrigan. Now that I see 7 games of RG3, I am glad we passed on Dalton as well. He deserves his due for passing on them and waiting til he saw that guy to go after.

He hasnt hit on everything. Never said he did, but to dismiss him because of Jake Plummer and Brian Greise as his QB's for those late years when he was getting them to the playoffs is not a sound decision IMO. Lets face it, those guys arent much better than Grossman and he was getting them to pro bowls. Thats not what I call bad coaching.

Outside of RG3, who else was leading us to the playoffs this year? The great ones were certainly not available for trade and most newer QB's dont seem to be all that. We were never going to be there until the QB position was solved. Whether he realized that this years QB class was the right one to go all in on or if he got lucky just picking this one, he made the right decision to do it this year.

Ive said plenty of times that he has made mistakes, always bringing up McNabb. But everyone makes mistakes. We are clearly a better team by the fact we dont have to eek out lucky victories and are in every game.

Now, im also not saying that he needs to be signed to a lifetime contract. But for the injuries we have now, the team is playing pretty good and the future looks better than it has in a long time. I dont want to rip up that future now and start over except at the QB position. We are then back to a transition of the roster and a few years before we do much.

[Ruhskins]

Interesting take on the Giants game-winning TD by Chris Russell:

***On the game-winning TD pass from Eli Manning to Victor Cruz - the Redskins had double coverage and Cruz with his blazing speed just split Josh Wilson and Madieu Williams. It happens. It's not Jim Haslett's fault, and I will say this - it's not even Josh Wilson or Madieu Williams fault. It's just a great talent in Cruz who was stifled all day, making a great play in rhythm with his QB, Eli Manning. Oh and there is this - these guys won a Super Bowl last year, and Eli has won two -- tip your cap to them -- champions make big plays when they need them the most.

[jdc65]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But the Redskins just won a game like this last week. And the Giants likely would have lost if not for Cruz' TD today. So what's your point?

The Skins won that game last week with Griffin's ability, much more so than anything the coaching staff did, and the defense did try their best to give it away in the 4th. The Giants have a recent history under Coughlin of winning games where they play subpar, and find a way to win in the end. Shanahan is 14-25 here with bad loss after bad loss. I see no improvement in 3 years other than quarterback where Robert Griffin is a very special player.

I fully credit Mike Shanahan for trading for and drafting Griffin and Kerrigan. But he's taken a decent defense, and decimated it, decent special teams and turned it into a weekly white knuckled roller coaster ride. The offense relies on Griffin's deception and his ability to consistantly make something out of nothing.

I like Shanahan, he genuinely seems like a good guy, and easy to root for. But we have to be honest, he's living off his past glory. If his name wasn't Mike Shanahan, this would be a very different conversation. His time here has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is zero reason to realistically expect future success based on recent past performance. No reasonable fan expected a Super Bowl in 3 years, but my God man, how about some improvement and a better winning percentage than Jim Zorn and Steve Spurrier?

Anyone expecting the Mike Shanahan of the late 90's and early 2000's is unrealistically optimistic. There was a multitude of reasons he was let go in Denver, and he has done nothing here to impugn that termination. He's wearing too many hats, overbearing in decision making, and is letting personal feelings or relationships influence team construction.

[Deivybaby]

Originally Posted by jdc65

The Skins won that game last week with Griffin's ability, much more so than anything the coaching staff did, and the defense did try their best to give it away in the 4th. The Giants have a recent history under Coughlin of winning games where they play subpar, and find a way to win in the end. Shanahan is 14-25 here with bad loss after bad loss. I see no improvement in 3 years other than quarterback where Robert Griffin is a very special player.

I fully credit Mike Shanahan for trading for and drafting Griffin and Kerrigan. But he's taken a decent defense, and decimated it, decent special teams and turned it into a weekly white knuckled roller coaster ride. The offense relies on Griffin's deception and his ability to consistantly make something out of nothing.

I like Shanahan, he genuinely seems like a good guy, and easy to root for. But we have to be honest, he's living off his past glory. If his name wasn't Mike Shanahan, this would be a very different conversation. His time here has been an unmitigated disaster, and there is zero reason to realistically expect future success based on recent past performance. No reasonable fan expected a Super Bowl in 3 years, but my God man, how about some improvement and a better winning percentage than Jim Zorn and Steve Spurrier?

Anyone expecting the Mike Shanahan of the late 90's and early 2000's is unrealistically optimistic. There was a multitude of reasons he was let go in Denver, and he has done nothing here to impugn that termination. He's wearing too many hats, overbearing in decision making, and is letting personal feelings or relationships influence team construction.

Our O been good but its true People bring up 98-99 shanny era when this is a new whole era of football . Hes done good and bad here so its balance in my view .

People just dont wanna hear the truth thankfully RG3 doing good as for the defense not even jesus can help it.

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by Deivybaby

Our O been good but its true People bring up 98-99 shanny era when this is a new whole era of football . Hes done good and bad here so its balance in my view .

People just dont wanna hear the truth thankfully RG3 doing good as for the defense not even jesus can help it.

Shanahan has a tremendous pedigree -- two superbowls, countless AFC championship appearances etc. None of that matters. His record with the Redskins: 14-25, two 4th place finishes. I don't want to go back to the days of firing head coaches every 8 games and turning an NFL franchise around in 2 seasons is exceedingly difficult but Shanahan has been worse: he whiffed on McNabb and went into last season with Rex Grossman/John Beck as the starter.

Let's talk about this season -- the defense has been an unmitigated disaster. Yeah, they have a lot of picks and 3 defensive TDs but if they were even average, the team would be 5-2 if not better. It's year 3!!! At this point, the team should have been a quarterback away -- RG3 should have been the final piece of the puzzle. Shanahan/Allen deserve kudos for bringing him and Alfred Morris into the fold. H/e, he has put together a defense that made Sam Bradford and Danny Amendola look like Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison. That is just inexcusable and he has to make some adjustments fast.