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

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm having trouble understanding how a SB run in 2005 contributed in any way to Carroll totally revamping that team 5 years later. Again, that team was in decline when he got there, he flipped the roster and built a winner from top to bottom in that organization.

I can see if he came in and made minimal changes, but he didn't. He gutted that team from day one. Past success or failures had nothing to do with him turning them around.

It's quite possible to turn a team around in 3-4 years. Carroll is proof of that.

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

[Chico23231]

My bottom line thought on the coaching is no way our team should be playing this bad and this inconsistent. There is no excuse for this bad

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'm hoping they do touch the offense actually. Seeing our smaller, lighter oline get trucked, especially on passing downs, and our franchise QB get trucked shortly thereafter, game after game, I'm not a believer in Mikes version of the zone blocking system. And I think Alfmo will be a great back behind any (good oline). And we all agree wr talent needs to be added. So there's plenty of touching required on offense and defense.

This notion recently sprung up that our offense good to go, this same offense that could only score 3 points in a half against the lowly Vikings, already has my ass twitching.

This is such a ridiculously retarded post that I can't comment on what you suggest with a straight face. Let's get rid of RGIII....LOL!!! Which brings me to my next point, kids, don't do drugs.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by irish

PC did turnover the roster but they had some decent talent when he came in since they won their division in 2003,4,5,6,7 and went to SB XL in 2006. Obviously the were a perennial playoff contender when he took over. Not quite the case when MS took over the Skins.

Like who?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

You don't seem to realize the team Carroll runs now is completely different from the one that went to the SB in 2005. The front office on down, it's a new organization. So again I'll ask, what does that 2005 SB team and a few playoff runs have to do with what Carroll has been able to accomplish there?

Past successes or failures don't have an impact on the future of a team once a new regime has been in place for a reasonable amount of time and had time to turn over the roster. It's just excuses.

[Bucket]

The system for the Offensive line works. We just need a set of guards that are better at doing it.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by irish

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

I do agree that the Redskins situation is more complex than Seattle's, however, we made the playoffs in 2007 as well, it is not like we weren't a decent football team 6 years ago. To suggest that Mike is cleaning up messes from 8 years ago much less 20 is incorrect.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

I do agree that the Redskins situation is more complex than Seattle's, however, we made the playoffs in 2007 as well, it is not like we weren't a decent football team 6 years ago. To suggest that Mike is cleaning up messes from 8 years ago much less 20 is incorrect.

Exactly what I'm saying.

Outside of Moss and I believe K. Golston this team has been completely revamped under Shanahan's watch.

And we're supposed to believe what's holding us back right now is something that happened 10-20 years ago? Heck even 6-7 years ago under Gibbs? Considering the average player lasts 3 seasons that's two generations ago in football terms.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Like who?

BTW, on the subject of the Seattle Seahawks, here is their 2005 Super Bowl Roster:

2005 Roster

2009 Roster

2010 roster when Pete Carroll Took over:

2010 Roster

And their 2013 Roster:

2013 Roster

So if we look at the first year that Pete Carroll took over in 2010, there is a HUGE difference between that roster and the Super Bowl roster. Even so, there is a big difference between the 2009 roster and the 2010 roster. Honestly, looking at the differences between the rosters from 2005 onto the present, it doesn't support the theory that Pete Carroll was left with a core group of guys left over from the Super Bowl and playoff teams that he built the team around. Carroll did completely gut the team. If there is anybody left over from those playoff teams, you're talking about one, maybe two players at most.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Exactly what I'm saying.

Outside of Moss and I believe K. Golston this team has been completely revamped under Shanahan's watch.

And we're supposed to believe what's holding us back right now is something that happened 10-20 years ago? Heck even 6-7 years ago under Gibbs? Considering the average player lasts 3 seasons that's two generations ago in football terms.

Agreed. There is absolutely nothing from even 6 years ago that has to do with the current Redskins roster. The issues that the team is having is the roster and/or coaches on the defensive side of the ball and special teams. Replace those coaches and revamp that squad and this team is easily a perennial playoff team.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Exactly what I'm saying.

Outside of Moss and I believe K. Golston this team has been completely revamped under Shanahan's watch.

And we're supposed to believe what's holding us back right now is something that happened 10-20 years ago? Heck even 6-7 years ago under Gibbs? Considering the average player lasts 3 seasons that's two generations ago in football terms.

Of course this is a completely different team from a few years ago. What I'm talking about is how losing and winning can create a culture. That's how things that happened 2, 4, 6, 10 years ago can impact today's team.

There's a reason that team's like Denver and NE consistently win over long periods of time and with lots of different players and it because of their culture of winning.Teams like Oak, Wash and Clev have developed cultures of losing and because of that they continue to lose no matter who is on the roster.

Shanny has seemed to start to turn the Skins now ingrained culture of losing into a culture of winning. This change wont happen overnight and it wont be a linear progression but IMO its starting to happen.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by irish

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

But like Matty sAid the superbowl run had nothing to do with what PC inherited. Who cares if it had been 2 years or 20? A team in decline is a team in decline. The situations as far as recent success arent comparable, but the situations as far as what was there when Shanny and PC took over are completely comparable.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by irish

Of course this is a completely different team from a few years ago. What I'm talking about is how losing and winning can create a culture. That's how things that happened 2, 4, 6, 10 years ago can impact today's team.

There's a reason that team's like Denver and NE consistently win over long periods of time and with lots of different players and it because of their culture of winning.Teams like Oak, Wash and Clev have developed cultures of losing and because of that they continue to lose no matter who is on the roster.

Shanny has seemed to start to turn the Skins now ingrained culture of losing into a culture of winning. This change wont happen overnight and it wont be a linear progression but IMO its starting to happen.

The reason New England has sustained success over a long period of time is Tom Brady, not a "culture" of winning. When did Denver sustained such a run? Since Peyton got there they have been good - last year and this year. I think you are greatly over estimating the "winning breeds winning" theory. That holds true maybe over the course of a season, but not over the course of years. Even the Steelers had lousy teams for a decade or so in their history.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

This is such a ridiculously retarded post that I can't comment on what you suggest with a straight face. Let's get rid of RGIII....LOL!!! Which brings me to my next point, kids, don't do drugs.

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Of course this is a completely different team from a few years ago. What I'm talking about is how losing and winning can create a culture. That's how things that happened 2, 4, 6, 10 years ago can impact today's team.

There's a reason that team's like Denver and NE consistently win over long periods of time and with lots of different players and it because of their culture of winning.Teams like Oak, Wash and Clev have developed cultures of losing and because of that they continue to lose no matter who is on the roster.

Shanny has seemed to start to turn the Skins now ingrained culture of losing into a culture of winning. This change wont happen overnight and it wont be a linear progression but IMO its starting to happen.

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

I wonder why.