Lost Some Faith In Shanahan

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

You're combining two arguments that, in my mind, are competely seperate.

From a health perspective, I dont think RGIII should have played to begin with. He should have been inactive. However, since Shanahan decided to start him, at that point, you stick with him just like you would if he were 100% healthy. You only remove him if an injury that prevents him from playing.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

You're combining two arguments that, in my mind, are competely seperate.

From a health perspective, I dont think RGIII should have played to begin with. He should have been inactive. However, since Shanahan decided to start him, at that point, you stick with him just like you would if he were 100% healthy. You only remove him if an injury that prevents him from playing.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

One partial reason, and I could be speaking only from my bias, is that rather than joining in discussions (ie replying to ongoing threads) you start a new thread that is a rehash of what others are already talking about. So then you simply spawn a thread which is a re-tread, and ultimately inane. But hey, don't worry about the other posts already discussing a topic, knock yourself out, and let us know the wisdom that comes from the fount of milellie11

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You want to get into he said, she said? I don't talk specifically to the guys in Denver (maybe Schlereth is the exception) and I've never spoken to anyone in Denver.

I thought Mike Shanahan was an ass (my distant impression of him, not based on any personal interaction) and figured we'd have the anti-Gibbs in terms of personality, caring for his staff, etc.

From what I've heard it's quite the opposite actually. He's no Gibbs (who is) but let's not kid ourselves, you have your idea of who he is and unless I personally introduce you to him and have you sit down and spend time with him, you're not going to change your mind

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

By the same token, how many people would be slamming Shanahan if he had benched Griffin, and Cousins had lost us the game. RGIII would be whining about being benched, saying he wanted to stay in the game to win it for the team, but he had to do what coach said. Then Shanahan's getting slammed for creating a quarterback controversy.

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

By the same token, how many people would be slamming Shanahan if he had benched Griffin, and Cousins had lost us the game. RGIII would be whining about being benched, saying he wanted to stay in the game to win it for the team, but he had to do what coach said. Then Shanahan's getting slammed for creating a quarterback controversy.

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Yes!

Mil- You rarely participate in any active discussions, but rather starts your own "look at me" threads that are often not necessary

You deserve grief for your "realistic" post because it was filled with so much flawed analysis.

You need to participate more in the active forums. Because right now most people see that you've started a new thread and-even if it's a legit discussion like this one-think "crap, here we go again. Another milellie thread"

Originally Posted by The Goat

To be fair I've heard Elway is an arrogant SOB too, though it sounds like EVERYBODY there is bought in to his leadership lock stock and barrel. Looking at the current landscape, he's very likely to get another SB ring too.

Originally Posted by The Goat

To be fair I've heard Elway is an arrogant SOB too, though it sounds like EVERYBODY there is bought in to his leadership lock stock and barrel. Looking at the current landscape, he's very likely to get another SB ring too.

Originally Posted by The Goat

That's what you do as a leader, take the heat for making the right call.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Sometimes leaders make wrong decisions, and they take heat for that too.