Are we being fair to Kyle Shanahan?

[NLC1054]

By the way, when I saw "we", I'm generalizing, as some people like him more than others.

But I see a lot of criticism of Kyle, if not around here, at other forums, certainly in the media where he more or less get destroyed on a regular basis. But I'm trying to figure out if the criticism of him is fair or not.

When we talk about what Kyle Shanahan had to work with, he was just as hamstrung, if not more hamstrung, by the same issues that plagued McNabb.

People complained about him not running the ball enough, when neither of his two starting caliber running backs could stay healthy.

People complained about him not using enough 2 tight end sets, when they used 2 tight end sets a lot. Now, one tight end was usually kept in to block, but when I look back at the last game of the season, I do see players where Cooley would be split out white and Fred would be lined up at tight end and they were both running routes.

People complain that offense wasn't creative enough, but when the opportunity presented itself, I thought the play calls could be creative, like motion Banks into the backfield and the running a playaction bootleg off it, trying the Wildcat.

But he had to deal with the same problems McNabb did and then some. Problems with the offensive line. Having all of four viable pass catching weapons, and then because of the problems with the offensive line, he couldn't use one of them most of the time, so you had three. On a good week. His running backs couldn't stay healthy.

And then, he had a quarterback who either couldn't operate, didn't understand or didn't want to understand his offense, and didn't want to tweak---not drastically change, but just tweak---some of his fundamentals.

But it seems like Kyle gets a brunt of the flack for the anemic offense. After being a wunderkind in Houston, all the sudden he's this inept tool who disrespected Donovan McNabb and ruined the offense who's career in coaching is probably ruined and the only reason he's around is because he's Mike's son, when he'd been in Houston for...what, five years before Mike ever hired him?

It just seems like people have unfairly piled onto Kyle for things Kyle couldn't fix.

Am I wrong here? Did I miss something?

[GTripp0012]

NFL offensive coordinator is not a position where typically the criticisms of your work are fair.

With that qualification in place, I'd question whether or not he was a hot name based on his work with the Texans. One thing is for sure: he's young and has some upside as a pro coach. On our coaching staff, that's important. We need new ideas constantly. Mike Shanahan and Jim Haslett and Danny Smith and others have been around the block in the NFL with less-than-promising results. Kyle at least deserves the shot to fail, which is not something you can say about the lot of our coaches.

2010 was a pretty big failure though. The longer Sherm Lewis remains the gold standard of what the Redskins offense can accomplish, the longer we will go since being a model franchise. As a staple of who he is, Kyle Shanahan just isn't formation diverse. That's fine, because you can do a lot out of a couple of formations and personnel packages and using motion to work between those formations, but he's a pass heavy playcaller who isn't formation or package diverse, and that's what doesn't fly in the NFC East.

The gag of throwing the football with running personnel on the field creates opportunities for the big play, but he almost then needs a super efficient running game to be the heart beat of the offense because you don't have screens or quick passes in there to move the ball consistently down the field. But he's one to let his offensive personnel dictate if he's going to run the ball at all.

The problem, then, is that at worst, their is no consistent principle present in the offense. Sometimes you can play the super bowl champs and win 16-13 because you caught a second team safety deep in the fourth quarter for a fifty yard score...but that relies on your bottom quartile defense being able to hold the Packers offense to basically no positive movement after the first quarter, AND to force the GW T.O. in overtime. Point is, it can work, but when you try to repeat the model six weeks later against the Vikings, Brett Favre gets on the edge a couple of times and you lose to a bad team.

Kyle Shanahan needs to demonstrate the ability to create formation mismatches so that the Redskins can throw the ball for 6-12 yards at a time with consistency, so that they can choose when to employ the running game and when to force opponents to defend the pass. The current model is one that I just don't think works. You can have the personnel to throw downfield a lot, and it creates big yards in the aggregate, but it puts a lot of pressure on the defense to keep you in the game.

I think 2010 was the worst case scenario under Kyle Shanahan, but I don't think that excuses his approach entirely.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

NFL offensive coordinator is not a position where typically the criticisms of your work are fair.

With that qualification in place, I'd question whether or not he was a hot name based on his work with the Texans. One thing is for sure: he's young and has some upside as a pro coach. On our coaching staff, that's important. We need new ideas constantly. Mike Shanahan and Jim Haslett and Danny Smith and others have been around the block in the NFL with less-than-promising results. Kyle at least deserves the shot to fail, which is not something you can say about the lot of our coaches.

2010 was a pretty big failure though. The longer Sherm Lewis remains the gold standard of what the Redskins offense can accomplish, the longer we will go since being a model franchise. As a staple of who he is, Kyle Shanahan just isn't formation diverse. That's fine, because you can do a lot out of a couple of formations and personnel packages and using motion to work between those formations, but he's a pass heavy playcaller who isn't formation or package diverse, and that's what doesn't fly in the NFC East.

The gag of throwing the football with running personnel on the field creates opportunities for the big play, but he almost then needs a super efficient running game to be the heart beat of the offense because you don't have screens or quick passes in there to move the ball consistently down the field. But he's one to let his offensive personnel dictate if he's going to run the ball at all.

The problem, then, is that at worst, their is no consistent principle present in the offense. Sometimes you can play the super bowl champs and win 16-13 because you caught a second team safety deep in the fourth quarter for a fifty yard score...but that relies on your bottom quartile defense being able to hold the Packers offense to basically no positive movement after the first quarter, AND to force the GW T.O. in overtime. Point is, it can work, but when you try to repeat the model six weeks later against the Vikings, Brett Favre gets on the edge a couple of times and you lose to a bad team.

Kyle Shanahan needs to demonstrate the ability to create formation mismatches so that the Redskins can throw the ball for 6-12 yards at a time with consistency, so that they can choose when to employ the running game and when to force opponents to defend the pass. The current model is one that I just don't think works. You can have the personnel to throw downfield a lot, and it creates big yards in the aggregate, but it puts a lot of pressure on the defense to keep you in the game.

I think 2010 was the worst case scenario under Kyle Shanahan, but I don't think that excuses his approach entirely.

Don't you think that it's more important to get players that can create their own mismatches? The Colts don't formation you to death or use a lot of motion. I think it's more important to get some better players in here and work on execution.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Don't you think that it's more important to get players that can create their own mismatches? The Colts don't formation you to death or use a lot of motion. I think it's more important to get some better players in here and work on execution.

In a word, yes, I think that is more important. But that was true even when Zorn was here.

It's also based on what you value in the players. The Patriots value players like Danny Woodhead and Aaron Hernandez who...half the reason why they are on an NFL roster at all is because they come into the huddle and dictate what personnel the defense puts on the field, but then they can go and line up anywhere in the formation to make Brady's job easy. Same deal with Saints TEs and WRs such as Jimmy Graham, David Thomas, Reggie Bush, Devery Henderson, and Marques Colston.

Even if you gave Kyle Shanahan any of those players, I don't think he would create any mismatches with them. I think if the Redskins offense is going to be successful, the Shanahan's are going to do it by being 1) more disciplined, and 2) more talented than the opponent. But there's no special skill set to being a Kyle Shanahan football player, and that's evidenced by his use of Keiland Williams, Chris Cooley, Anthony Armstrong, et al in 2011. He's young and has ideas and values, but he's not a great offensive mind.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Don't you think that it's more important to get players that can create their own mismatches? The Colts don't formation you to death or use a lot of motion. I think it's more important to get some better players in here and work on execution.

It depends on how you define important.

I think execution is essential regardless of the talent level.
And I think we all can agree that its easier to coach and with better talent.
But, banking on always having superior talent to win, in a league filled with the best players in the world, is a tall order.

Imo schematic or strategic superiority trumps all.

[Paintrain]

I think if his name was Kyle Anderson and not related to the head coach we wouldn't hear any of this criticism but he's an easy target because he's young, relatively inexperienced and the son of a big name-big ego head coach. He was already being criticized when he was hired because it was seen in some (ignorant) circles as nepotism.

To judge him on last years production with a constantly revolving line, a complete in season overhaul (starting with Portis & Larry Johnson-finishing with Torrain & Keiland Williams), one of the worst WR corps in recent NFL memory-also in constant flux and a QB who wouldn't/didn't grasp and implement the system is ridiculous.

In watching the games again this offseason, I see lots of potential for this offense to be explosive. More passes downfield than we'd seen in decades, more opportunities to move the chains (squandered by lack of execution on McNabb or the lines part in many cases) and more opportunities to score points in the red zone than we'd seen in the recent past. If Gano connects on 50% more of his FG we're talking about at least an 8 win team last year. We were in position to make plays and score points, we just didn't.

He's got work to do this year for sure. Establish (and commit to) the running game more. Get Davis more involved in the passing game. Continue to get Armstrong the ball and incorporate Hankerson in the passing game. Figure out a way to get the ball in Banks hands 3-5 times a game.

I have few concerns about Kyle as a coach and think we've got a future star on the sidelines.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I think if his name was Kyle Anderson and not related to the head coach we wouldn't hear any of this criticism but he's an easy target because he's young, relatively inexperienced and the son of a big name-big ego head coach. He was already being criticized when he was hired because it was seen in some (ignorant) circles as nepotism.

To judge him on last years production with a constantly revolving line, a complete in season overhaul (starting with Portis & Larry Johnson-finishing with Torrain & Keiland Williams), one of the worst WR corps in recent NFL memory-also in constant flux and a QB who wouldn't/didn't grasp and implement the system is ridiculous.

In watching the games again this offseason, I see lots of potential for this offense to be explosive. More passes downfield than we'd seen in decades, more opportunities to move the chains (squandered by lack of execution on McNabb or the lines part in many cases) and more opportunities to score points in the red zone than we'd seen in the recent past. If Gano connects on 50% more of his FG we're talking about at least an 8 win team last year. We were in position to make plays and score points, we just didn't.

He's got work to do this year for sure. Establish (and commit to) the running game more. Get Davis more involved in the passing game. Continue to get Armstrong the ball and incorporate Hankerson in the passing game. Figure out a way to get the ball in Banks hands 3-5 times a game.

I have few concerns about Kyle as a coach and think we've got a future star on the sidelines.

Are you at all concerned that the pretty good Texans offense truly exploded when Kyle left? I mean sure, it doesn't take a genius to draw up plays that will allow Matt Schaub, Owen Daniels, and Andre Johnson to put up their numbers, but Kyle left and the Texans found that they had great pieces in Arian Foster, Vonta Leach, and Joel Dressen as well, not to mention they finally found five offensive lineman who could be their starting OL 4 years from now.

I don't know how much that really says about Kyle, probably nothing, but if he's going to be given a pass based on his success with the Texans, it's worth pointing out that the Texans offense w/o Kyle was better than it was with him.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Are you at all concerned that the pretty good Texans offense truly exploded when Kyle left? I mean sure, it doesn't take a genius to draw up plays that will allow Matt Schaub, Owen Daniels, and Andre Johnson to put up their numbers, but Kyle left and the Texans found that they had great pieces in Arian Foster, Vonta Leach, and Joel Dressen as well, not to mention they finally found five offensive lineman who could be their starting OL 4 years from now.

I don't know how much that really says about Kyle, probably nothing, but if he's going to be given a pass based on his success with the Texans, it's worth pointing out that the Texans offense w/o Kyle was better than it was with him.

Come now, sir. The Houston Texans offense did not "explode" when Kyle left.

In 2009 they were number 4 in total offense. In 2010, they were number three.

In 2010, the Texans were number 4 in passing offense. In 2009 they were number one.

In 2010, they were 9th in scoring offense. In 2009 they were tenth.

In 2010, Matt Schaub passed for 4,370 yards, 24 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. In 2009, he passed for 4,770 yards (most in the league), 29 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

The only statistical category the Texans truly improved in was rushing offense, where they ranked 30th. But even then, when Arian Foster finally worked his way into the starting line up for the last two games in 2009, he rushed for 97 yards and 119 yards.

And even a more balanced offensive attack and the league's leading rusher only bumped them from four to three in total offense.

So no, sir, I wouldn't call that an "explosion", nor is it proof that the team did better when Kyle left.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

Come now, sir. The Houston Texans offense did not "explode" when Kyle left.

In 2009 they were number 4 in total offense. In 2010, they were number three.

In 2010, the Texans were number 4 in passing offense. In 2009 they were number one.

In 2010, they were 9th in scoring offense. In 2009 they were tenth.

In 2010, Matt Schaub passed for 4,370 yards, 24 touchdowns and 11 interceptions. In 2009, he passed for 4,770 yards (most in the league), 29 touchdowns and 15 interceptions.

The only statistical category the Texans truly improved in was rushing offense, where they ranked 30th. But even then, when Arian Foster finally worked his way into the starting line up for the last two games in 2009, he rushed for 97 yards and 119 yards.

And even a more balanced offensive attack and the league's leading rusher only bumped them from four to three in total offense.

So no, sir, I wouldn't call that an "explosion", nor is it proof that the team did better when Kyle left.

Why are you using total offense ranking to examine a claim that a very good offense got much better? A ranking can't show you that.

What I said was based on the DVOA totals of the Texans offense, which more than doubled in 2010. They weren't the best offense in the league in 2010 because they weren't the Patriots.

You probably already know that passing offense, scoring offense, and total offense are highly correlated. But rushing offense isn't strongly correlated to those three. Teams that run better than other teams don't generally score more points, and it has hardly any bearing on how many yards they throw for. But they get more first downs, control time of possession, and dominate critical end of game scenarios.

And when you go from a team that absolutely can't run the ball and you produce the NFL's leading rusher the following year with no meaningful passing dropoff, how is that not a huge gain? They went from the worst rushing team in football under Shanahan to perhaps the best under Dennison. Only the Pats and Eagles would join the Texans in the discussion for the most improved offenses in 2010.

I don't think you can shrug off going from worst to best at rushing the ball as insignificant. I'll give you that it doesn't affect point scoring all that much, but teams need to both score AND prevent points. Teams that run efficiently prevent points.

More shocking is that the Redskins offense somehow declined from 2009 to 2010. In a year, we'll know if it was just a one year fluke.

[Longtimefan]

quote: But before we behead Shanahan and his offensive gameplans, like many appear to be doing, shouldn’t we at least give this guy some time?

Washington Redskins: Kyle Shanahan's Stock Up or Down After Recent Revelations | Bleacher Report

[MTK]

I guess some people expected him to be a miracle worker. He just didn't have the horses, especially compared to what he was working with in Houston.

[30gut]

November-2nd
(I even agree about the need to use pure roll outs which they haven't been using but they have been using bootlegs which is a roll-out after a playaction)
Kyle and the offensive staff need to realize that our OL is limited and adjust their playcalling and gameplan accordingly.
Imo it seems as if Kyle thinks there's adequate pass protection to run the 5-7 drop passing game they ran in Houston and that simply isn't the case here.
Imo we need to see more of the short rhythm passing game we saw in McNabb best game as Redskin.
Against the Texans McNabb/Kyle started the game off the game with passes: quick pass in the flat to FB, quick slant, FB in the flat, WR screen.
The passes were simple reads, plant and throw get the ball out quick it helps get the QB in rhythm and it gives the OL and the QB confidence that they can drop back and not get blown-up.
But, we haven't seen a lot of the short passing game since then.
We gone back to play-action bootlegs which can be very effective but are protection intensive.
Imo we can't start games expecting great pass pro, we got to start off with the quick rhythm stuff to build rhythm and confidence and go from there.

I still have faith in Kyle and staff but they gotta put a better product out on the field from a playcalling aspect and take the pressure off and sub-par OL.


Dec 8, 2010
I'm certain he'll pull it together but i just hoped he would start off better.
But, this is the 1st time Kyle has designed an offensive gameplan from scratch, in Houston he was handed the keys to a pre-built offense and just tweaked it.

Here he has to learn the personnel and design an offense that maximizes its limited talent.

And compared to last seasons (2009) less talented unit this (2010) unit is more talented yet has performed worse in every possible way in the passing game.
Its not the individual playcalls that bother me.
I'm probably one of the few this forum that sees nothing wrong with a toss play on 3rd and short.
Its the overall game design that bothers me.
With Fred Davis and Chris Cooley as argueably our 2 best targets you would think they would be a mjaor focal point of the passing game.
I cringe whenever i watch the Packers, Patriots, Saints and Texans use their TEs as a major part of their offenses and here we sit with as good if not better tandem of TEs.
But Davis is barely on the field: Giants game he played 24 of 66 snaps against the Vikings i believe it was 19 of 55.
And despite having the highest catch rate on the team and being rated by football outsiders as the 4th TE in the league he's 7th on the team in targets, Mike Sellers even has more targets.
I'm not sure who's call it was having old man Joey out there but OMJ poached targets from both Armstrong and Davis who have actually been productive with their targets.
Not getting the ball to AA more imo is a mistake.
He doesn't appear to be commited to the running game unless its part of the opening script.
Look at the opening script of the Vikings game imo it was far better then the play calling the rest of the game.
He's been slow to find a solution when the bootleg game gets blitzed, and its been getting blitzed since the Rams game.
We're still a 5-7 step drop passing offense despite the lack of pass protection.
He in the route assignments he doesn't send Tana deep often and has him running slants and in between the hash routes when everyone knows that Tana is an outside the numbers WR that cannot execute the slant.
Our short game (quick game and 3 step drop game) just started to get going and part of that is McNabb's fault for not making the correct read or holding the ball looking downfield in the face of pressure.
But the OC has to have the QB prepared to recognize when and where to make the quick checkdown based on pass rush and down and distance.
Part of the problem is McNabb no doubt but the OC has to create an offense that makes the QB comfortable and the QB can execute at a high level.
Getting the QB hit a ton b/c he's taking 5-7 step drops doesn't seem like the way to make a QB comfortable.
Another solutoin to the quick/short passing game would be to use the screen game more.
We used it very well against the Titans (i think) and its seems like we put it back on the shelf.


February-4th-
I was one of Kyle biggest proponents when he was announced as the OC.
I still believe the scheme is sound and that Kyle is gonna be a very good play caller and OC.
But I consider this season a disappointment on offense for these reasons:

Personnel:
o not settling on an OL prior to the start of the season if Artis Hicks and Dockery didn't fit the system they should have figured that out during the offseason/preseason
o WR development: starting and playing Joey Galloway stunted the development of the WRs behind him and it hurt the production of the passing game (Old man Joey had the worst catch rate and got more targets and playing time then Fred Davis)
*o* Underuse of Fred Davis. Despite having the highest catch rate on the team and a high YPC Davis received fewer targets and less playing time then the 3rd WR which had the lowest catch rate on the team

Formations/General:
o not very multiple from a formations standpoint; We often showed the look of different formations but seldom made use of them but teams like the Steelers vary from power run sets to bunch to 5 wide and use each set often
o Underuse of double TE passing sets
o lack of creativity in designing plays specifically to get the ball in space to players like Moss or even Banks
o limited use of the screen game

o Lack of Balance/Commitment to the run

o Handling of McNabb

2010 Numbers:
31st/29.3% in 3rd down conversion (2009 16th/39.8%)
22nd/51% in RZ conversion (2009 8th/56%)

I'm hard on Kyle because I had much higher expectations my grade: D


March-7th
Last year was Kyle's 1st time putting an offense together from scratch (in Houston he inherited an already assembled offense) and I look to see improvement next season.

I expect to see better run/pass balance and better use of our personnel.

I think the offense as a unit will improve (including efficiency) simply because of Kyle's growth as an OC which will have a trickle down effect to improved play from the QB position

now sprinkle in some upgrades along the OL (RT-RG/C) and imo you have a decent offense.

May-10th
I think Kyle knows what he doing when it comes to the passing game.
I think Kyle is a forward thinker in regards to the passing game ala that prick Josh McDaniels.
I think Kyle deserves a QB that fits exactly what he wants and I believe that if Kyle gets that QB he can produce a very good passing offense this season.(provided we re-sign Moss)

[sportscurmudgeon]

Someone saids that if his name was Kyle Anderson he would not be taking all this criticism. Maybe so... If his name was Kyle Anderson and had the same track record, he might not be an OC in the NFL yet. Double-edged sword there...


Consider the possibility that Kyle Shanahan got his job in Houston in the first place because the head coach in Houston had been Mike Shanahan's OC for years in Denver. Sometimes it is as much who you know as what you know...


BTW, Gary Kubiak was a pretty good OC in Denver and was even better when John Elway was under center.


Offensive coordinators do not make great QBs or great offenses. Really good offensive players can make any offensive coordinator look a lot smarter than he really is.


A major part of coaching - - or being a coordinator - - is the ability to handle the differing peronalities and egos on the football team that the coach is handed. The Shanahans (Kyle AND Mike) handled the Donovan McNabb fiasco about as ham-handedly as you could imagine. Mike Shanahan - - based on his experience - - should have known better. Obviously, Kyle Shanahan still has a lot to learn about that part of coaching/coordinating.


Are we ready for the dawn of the "John Beck Era"?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Offensive coordinators do not make great QBs or great offenses.

I agree with your overall point but I disagree with the above.
Good OCs make players better.

That's the whole point of coaching to take the talent you have and make them better.

For example:
Chan Gailey: Ryan Fitzpatrick,Tyler Thigpen
Josh McDaniels: Kyle Orton, Matt Cassell
Mike Shanahan+Bobby Turner: Almost every RB they've ever had
etc....

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Someone saids that if his name was Kyle Anderson he would not be taking all this criticism. Maybe so... If his name was Kyle Anderson and had the same track record, he might not be an OC in the NFL yet. Double-edged sword there...


Consider the possibility that Kyle Shanahan got his job in Houston in the first place because the head coach in Houston had been Mike Shanahan's OC for years in Denver. Sometimes it is as much who you know as what you know...


BTW, Gary Kubiak was a pretty good OC in Denver and was even better when John Elway was under center.


Offensive coordinators do not make great QBs or great offenses. Really good offensive players can make any offensive coordinator look a lot smarter than he really is.


A major part of coaching - - or being a coordinator - - is the ability to handle the differing peronalities and egos on the football team that the coach is handed. The Shanahans (Kyle AND Mike) handled the Donovan McNabb fiasco about as ham-handedly as you could imagine. Mike Shanahan - - based on his experience - - should have known better. Obviously, Kyle Shanahan still has a lot to learn about that part of coaching/coordinating.


Are we ready for the dawn of the "John Beck Era"?

Exactly. I don't like it that Mike hired his son. Bad idea imo, but I think Kyle can do the job if he has the players and the QB around him. He's already proven that in Houston.