Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Chico23231;871219]When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?[/quote]

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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Hog1;871176]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.[/quote]

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...

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=redsk1;871208]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.[/quote]

Agree there has been significant progress but maybe not in the same areas you do...

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

[B]Good offensive system:[/B] 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.

[B]Cap room:[/B] Much better managed now than before.

[B]GM/organizational improvement:[/B] 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!"

[B]More talent on defense:[/B] 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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Paintrain;871228]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.[/quote]

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?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;871235]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?[/quote]

Agreed about Beck, although he wasnt in house before the 2010 draft. They see what he is now and we move on.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;871232]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...[/quote]
I do not dispute that any thinking Skins fan would have...at least some reservations about Danny doing ....The Jerra' for the B&G. Be that as it may, He is the CIC at Skinsville and would have to be in that meeting (No doubt with with Bruce as well), and for now I will..trust the correct decisions are made.
In my opinion, Mike should be allowed to fulfill his contract AND THEN see if he has done enough for a...redo. I doubt anyone can say with any conviction that he has not made many positive changes.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;871131]Before Allen and Shanahan arrived, the Redskins were famous for one thing. That being spending way too much on high-priced free agents, mostly past their prime. And trading away draft picks for high-priced veteran players. Those type of deals and decisions will set a franchise back as much as ten years. And it is something a franchise simply cannot recover from in only 2 seasons.

I agree with Shanahan, patience is the key. But he is such a professional that he will not come out in public and say what we all know. That being the franchise is currently paying the price for years of mis-management by his predecessors.

Stay the course.[/quote]

For an opponent in our front yard, you quote "The Patriot" pretty doggone well!

I had been thinking about a thread just like this one for a couple of weeks, and the discussion here is pleasant and extremely knowledgeable. You guys are the best at seeing the picture clearly. Did I think MS should go? You bet, for about five minutes........ after every loss as a matter of fact. Do I think he has a plan; well yea, kind of, but he seemingly forgets so do all of the other 31 team coaches/GMs! I think the B&G plan is kind of like Rexy. Good Rex/........well you see the picture, you always do! Do I like the success with the FAs and Draft picks this year? You bet. Do I like the losses? Well, again, you can clearly see my picture. Does MS have an 8 to10+ win mandate for next year? Well, I think we have all put down the rose colored glasses and can see that picture!

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I've always been saying I am giving Shanny four complete years without a complaint.

One of the complaints I've seen said (not in this thread necessarily) is that we've been rebuilding for years and people are tired of it. They want to win. Hey, I'm right there with you, but what was the last coach that truly tried to "rebuild?"

I remember during Spurrier years he traded two draft picks for some D Lineman that played for one year. Or the Jason Taylor for a 2nd. The last time the redskins drafted a player in each round (1-7) with the exception of this year was 1997. (*there were some years they had a 1,2,3, and two 5ths, so there could have been some trades that happened). Most draft years was one pick within the first 3 rounds and a few 6ths and 7ths. Or how about the trade for Brandon Lloyd for 2 season (a 3rd and a 4th.)

And what about all the big free agents, who came and went because they no longer fit the system? These players no longer work under M.Lewis's system so they have to be cut, and then G. Williams needs different players, than Greg Blache, then Haslett.

It seems to me there has always been this immense pressure to win now in Washington, regardless of where the pressure is coming from. We see coaches go out and get big names, only to be canned when they don't perform well, leaving the predecessor with big names they don't need. But, the pressure is still there, so they trade picks and sign their big FAs and cut the guys they no longer need... It's a very very frustrating cycle.

So, for once, I want to give a guy a chance. Build some young players. Draft. Don't feel pressure to bring in every big free agent signing since you have to win now. Get players you think fit the system and have the right attitude.

Of course, you can point to Shan trading for McNabb and Brown. But, even with those trades, he didn't give away the house. They were able to orchestrate great trades for Hightower, Gaffney and Carriker while still having 12 picks for this years draft. The redskins have 8 draft picks coming up in April (with all three in the first three rounds no less).

And we wonder why the team lacked talent and was old before? I started watchign skins football in 8th grade, when Marty was in his first year, so all i've known is the constant turn over, bad trades, big free agent signings that every coach made (including Gibbs).

So with Shan, my assestment awaits until the end of his fourth year. By that time, there is no excuses for the cupboards being bare and everyone he brought in was his idea. By that time, our core players will have been in the system for 3-4 years, and there shouldn't be any excuses to why this team can't perform. Any talk before than is silly.

Like someone said in this post, we get mad when Synder fires and causes the turmoil and turnover and signs the big free agents that makes it all a spectacle. Then, fans want Snyder to do the same exact thing when the skins aren't wining.

We finally have a coach who is rebuilding, getting great talent via the draft and smart FA acquisitions. Not a we are ready to compete now. Not a one player away. A true, through and through rebuild. Let's not sabotage it.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=skinsguy;871134]I'm not sure some of you guys who have a short leash tied around Mike Shanahan's neck truly know the depth and the extent to what all is involved in rebuilding a franchise that has been a losing franchise for the past twenty years. I mean, we sit here and piss and moan about Daniel Snyder and how he changes coaches like Skinsguy changes his socks - just like the media that pisses and moans about Daniel Snyder - and then us fans turn around and expect instant results within a two season span. Yes, you can go back and say, well Jim Zorn was just given two seasons......completely different situation. Zorn had no business being a head coach at that point. He was not qualified to be a head coach. Anybody with eyes and the least amount of football knowledge could see this.

Mike Shanahan has been coaching for well over 30+ years. He's coached Super Bowl teams, he's been around the best of the best coaches in the NFL. Shanahan knows his stuff. If he says he's here for five years and it's going to take that amount of time to build the Redskins into a dominating football team, what does that tell you? This team was in THAT bad of shape. Yet, we sit here and grade Mike Shanahan after two seasons, and say, "You know, he's not any better than Jim Zorn." That's just ridiculous. Come back and do your "I told you so's" after season five. If the Redskins are not a dominating football team by then, then I'll concede that Mike Shanahan didn't have what it took to rebuild this team.

But, while I agree that he's going to have a lot of pressure on him to show progress in the win column (and I did state that in another thread) next season, I give him his five years to bring this team back to being a dominate team. If this team is the "same ol' Redskins" by then, then you're more than welcome to say "I told you so so shut the efff up!" Until then, you had might as well strap on your helmets, pick your favorite seat on the bus, and brace yourself for a bumpy ride until we get to our destination.

And one more thing, don't give examples about the 49ers or the Lions, or even the Bengals. Those teams have had the correct talent or system in place for several seasons, it just so happened that the combination of both those players and the correct coaching staff(s) happened to fall in place this season. None of those teams were overnight successes, and any and all of those teams can be right back into last place come next season. As Shanahan said, to do it the right way, it takes time. Can't we just give a proven coaching staff, that time and realize we have to endure through all the crap if we plan on keeping the rebuilding on a consistent pace - as slow as it seems to be?

Sorry if I sound grumpy, I stayed up way too late watching the Baylor/Washington game last night and have only had one cup of coffee! I don't mean this toward any one person, I just think it's ridiculous to be complaining about not having what we've needed all of these years (a better GM in Bruce, a Super Bowl proven head coach, consistency) and then to complain because we have those things now. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Hail.[/quote]You don't sound grumpy, you sound passionate. I like that.

The argument itself is dangerous, and I can try to explain why. Lets say Mike Shanahan posted 6-10 seasons every year throughout his contract, until December 2014. If you cut and pasted this argument into December 2014, it would be no more or less fallacious than it is at this very moment. Everything you wrote right here will still be true in three years. Granted: you might not be as inclined to write this after five bad years instead of two, but that's the big point here.

Two years is an eternity in the NFL. I don't know whether you just haven't been following all of Mike Shanahan's gaffes at Redskins Park, or whether you just don't think they're really a big deal. What's indisputable is that they have limited the ability of the team to get much better.

What we need to analyze as fans is whether these mistakes are likely to stop. If they don't stop, the team is unlikely to get any better in 2012, its unlikely to get better in 2013, and there's no amount of money you can put into a coaching contract to make the whole thing work.

Furthermore, better coaches are out there. Now, whether those highly desired coaches are interested in taking this job is another issue. You could argue back in 2008, the best candidates were not interested (though they did interview). And that in 2008, someone like Mike Shanahan (or Chan Gailey) was the best that the Redskins could have done.

That, to me, is a very logical argument for keeping Mike Shanahan: he's a proven head coach and its too likely that we'll downgrade our coaching staff if we make another switch. Why would anyone want to take this job if the only guy the owner gave more than two years happened to be named Joe Gibbs (who in defense of Snyder, also had the best season in the Snyder era in his second season).

But when you compare and contrast Gibbs (who also qualifies under all the criteria you defended Shanahan with) with Mike Shanahan just by what they accomplished in two years (and Zorn left more pro talent behind than Spurrier, but I'll ignore that for now), Gibbs already had the Redskins winning. Shanahan didn't change everything.

I mean, you just have to go back six years to see why the job Shanahan has been doing isn't acceptable. It's not like we weren't here before. It took one bad season to clean up the 2003 mess. The 2009 mess wasn't nearly that deep, and if anything, the Redskins have gone backwards since then.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=celts32;871217]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.[/quote]You are correct: wins and losses are a pretty shoddy marker of progress. Blind faith in the future is even worse.

I just don't understand how people can say the Redskins are greatly improved in just about every area. If THAT flies as truth, people can say just about anything these days. It just doesn't hold up against critical evaluation. It is a myth.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Paintrain;871206]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?[/quote]Rinehart and Tryon. Tryon is on IR with the Giants, but still was really good last year. The Tryon thing is super dumb because he was traded so that the Redskins could use Carlos Rogers as the sub package slot corner. Carlos didn't play particularly well at that position (he's playing isolated in SF), so then Shanahan claimed he was playing inconsistently. Well, no shit dude, you traded the slot corner and tried to fill the role with your nominal number one. Why are you surprised that didn't work (rhetorical)?

I'll throw Keiland Williams in there. Sure, Keiland Williams types are a dime a dozen, and we won't miss him. But he's under contract in Detroit for two more seasons, and keeping Torain over him just didn't make any sense.

But wait: is there any other coach/team in the NFL that released three maybe four players who went on to earn contract extensions elsewhere? That's pretty unprecedented in terms of misevaluating ones own roster, isn't it?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Paintrain;871224]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.[/quote]3 points per turnover is a pretty solid estimate of what one costs. I'm not going to go deep and actually look at the WPA/EPA effect of every single Grossman turnover, but if he's got 26 turnovers or whatever, than that's about 70-85 net point differential lost on those plays.

Of course, the quarterback who doesn't commit any turnovers doesn't exist of course, so if a Tom Brady would have only committed 12 turnovers in the same offense, the difference would be about 35-50 points of point differential.

That's more than one win, two wins at the high end of the estimate. But unless that quarterback is also better at throwing for yards and points than Rex Grossman is, you still don't have a playoff team. 4 wins is too high of an estimate. You're looking at a solid win that Grossman cost us with his turnover tendency, but there's only about a 2 win difference between Grossman, one of the most culpable turnover machines, and Alex Smith, the quarterback who has commited the fewest turnovers in 15 starts this year.

And Grossman threw for more first downs, points, and yards than Smith did this year. Bottom line, there's no realistic way to add more than a win at the QB position next year without also raising the performance of other players in the offense. The QB isolated stats won't allow that. And then when you allow for the fact that we played a really weak schedule this year, it's not even likely we can improve the QB position next year no matter who we get.

-EDIT- without improving offensive passing stats, that is. You can always find a guy who can light up the scoreboard. Or just buy Grossman a top receiver or something.

[url]http://m.nbcsports.com/s/3030/proFootballTalkDetails?itemUriVal=6f27ef3e689dad1a933da986385bda7c%2F704601114584650108514951&view=hdl&itemTitle=Mike%20Shanahan%20has%20started%20looking%20at%20college%20quarterbacks[/url]

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I hope Shanahan is retained. I see improvement in the team. We need a good QB and a few more talented offensive players.

I've mentioned this before on here, but i once watched a special on NFL network, it was looking at the NFL's most dominate teams throughout history, and somewhere in there the general consensus was that it took on average between 5 and 7 years for a team to be consistantly dominant. What i'm saying is look at teams like Steelers, Patriots, Eagles, etc... It took those teams many bad years before a consistant winning product was built.

Our biggest problem has been no continuity at the Head Coach position, and the fact that up until last season, we never had someone other than Snyder making all the decisions for the team. Gibbs has been the only credible coach we ever had since Snyder has owned us.

Shanahan needs easily 5 years to turn things around. I think after his fourth year, he should be re-signed. This team for years upon years ignored the draft, bought only big name, old veterans. Some of our trades set the franchise back several years with each mistake. Give Mike S. the team he needs to build this team his way. He's not old for a coach, he could easily be with us 10 more seasons and just imagine if we can be winning throughout those 10 years.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

^^^^^^^^^httr....

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I have read alot of the posts in this thread. I want to give you my opion and it will be quick and fairly short.

This franchise needs to keep Mike S. and Bruse Allen for this coming year and for the forseeable future. I would be in no hurry to get rid of either piece of this current regime, and to be honest the best move in my opinion is keep these gentlemen in place till they have the team they want.

I do not believe that 2012 is any kind of make or break season and what we need here in DC is consistency in the coaching staff and management. There may not be a QB that can be aquired this offseason to be the face of the franchise and I hope that they do not reach for a piece ala DMac. Patience is the name of the game, this team was in dissaray and I am sorry but we did not have the right team of players in place. Yes we may have had a star here or there but not a team. Building a team takes time and is not done in one off season. Especially when one does not have a QB. That is the key to any perennial winner in the NFL. There is also no way that I would support this team sending away multiple 1st round picks for A Luck. Yeah he MAY be a great prospect, but that is what he is a prospect. Ryan Leaf was a prospect, Heath Schuler was a prospect just to name a few of the highly touted QB NFL prospects that have been utter failures.

This talk about getting rid of MS or comparing his win loss record with JZ is ridiculous and just bothers the hell out of me. It is easy to compare W-L records but this does not speak to the whole story of coaching in the NFL.

I honestly want MS to finish his full contract in DC.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Even if he was doing a lousy job and we cut his ass loose next season, with our track record for coaches....who the hell would take the job? He Must finish his contract and (be given full opportunity for success) by that time, I believe this team will be nicely competitive.....or better.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Hog1;871279]Even if he was doing a lousy job and we cut his ass loose next season, with our track record for coaches....who the hell would take the job? He Must finish his contract and (be given full opportunity for success) by that time, I believe this team will be nicely competitive.....or better.[/quote]I can understand this.

It was dumb to hire Mike Shanahan without interviewing other coaches who might have had a clearer vision for this franchise that wouldn't have been made some dumb statement about needing five years or something. Snyder is a sucker. That's pretty proven at this point. But he may need to give Shanny 3 out of the 5 years he promised him just to show other candidates that he'll be more patient with you than you really deserve him to be.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;871280]I can understand this.

It was dumb to hire Mike Shanahan without interviewing other coaches who might have had a clearer vision for this franchise that wouldn't have been made some dumb statement about needing five years or something. Snyder is a sucker. That's pretty proven at this point. But he may need to give Shanny 3 out of the 5 years he promised him just to show other candidates that he'll be more patient with you than you really deserve him to be.[/QUOTE]

Snyder comes off as someone who will believe anything and know little about football obviously. I'm not a fan of his but I do admire his will to win,he's a fan that got the chance of a lifetime but sometimes I feel like we can't win with Dan as owner

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Chico23231;871219]When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?[/quote]

I feel your pain! Not sure I can take an 11 loss season this year. I really want to beat the Eagles on Sunday! Seriously, as for wins and losses in the evaluation equation, I think they are always there. The variables in the algorithm are weighted, and the weight {assigned to wins as a means of evaluating the coach} should increase with each year he moves forward in his contract. In other words, the longer he coaches, the more pressure there is to produce wins.

In Shanahan's situation, I think he is still in that phase where the number of wins carries a relatively low weight. In my view, that wiegt increases some beginning next season. I don't think he can survive 4-12 or 5-11 next season. I say that because attendance was down this year and the team had to remove seats from the stadium to avoid a local TV blackout for the Vikings game. If that problem persists/increases next year, Snyder will likely make a move.

I have said in a couple of posts that it is important to improve the play at the QB position next season. I feel that way because QB play is the area of greatest impact on the outcome of close games like the Redskins played this year (Dallas, Dallas, Philly, Patriots, etc.). Not to mention the impact really poor QB play had on the outcome of the Dolphins game. The Redskins and Shanahan need measuarble improvement in the win column for 2012. Most likely 7-9 would be golden for Shanny, 6-10 marginal but probably OK. I just don't think Mike can survivie a 4-12 or 5-11 disaster in year three! It's time to move up a bit in the power poll in 2012.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Mattyk;871087]In the end to even discuss firing the guy now is ridiculous. Going in a different direction at this point would only guarantee the franchise will stay stuck in the mid spinning it's wheels.

That said I think the pressure will be on in 2012 to show some serious improvement in the 'W' column. 9-10 wins at least.[/quote]

Depends on if we get a QB and have Rex as our back up.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Typical Redskin fans fire the coach after 2 or 3 years and change it all over again. Hello thats why we suck so much because of the this disfunctional thinking. Most of you have not been a Redskins fan when we were a Super Bowl franchise so you dont know what its like to even be a fan of a Champion. So all you arm chair GM's and Coaches just sit back and drink your cheap beer and leave the coaching to the real coaches. Shanny will get us back to the winning ways and you can not expect him to be a miracle worker in just 2 years with this shit show we had here for 10 years. HTTR

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=redskin29633;871285]I feel your pain! Not sure I can take an 11 loss season this year. I really want to beat the Eagles on Sunday! Seriously, as for wins and losses in the evaluation equation, I think they are always there. The variables in the algorithm are weighted, and the weight {assigned to wins as a means of evaluating the coach} should increase with each year he moves forward in his contract. In other words, the longer he coaches, the more pressure there is to produce wins.

In Shanahan's situation, I think he is still in that phase where the number of wins carries a relatively low weight. In my view, that wiegt increases some beginning next season. I don't think he can survive 4-12 or 5-11 next season. I say that because attendance was down this year and the team had to remove seats from the stadium to avoid a local TV blackout for the Vikings game. If that problem persists/increases next year, Snyder will likely make a move.

I have said in a couple of posts that it is important to improve the play at the QB position next season. I feel that way because QB play is the area of greatest impact on the outcome of close games like the Redskins played this year (Dallas, Dallas, Philly, Patriots, etc.). Not to mention the impact really poor QB play had on the outcome of the Dolphins game. The Redskins and Shanahan need measuarble improvement in the win column for 2012. Most likely 7-9 would be golden for Shanny, [B]6-10 marginal but probably OK. I just don't think Mike can survivie a 4-12 or 5-11 disaster in year three[/B]! It's time to move up a bit in the power poll in 2012.[/quote]


exactly, there is no argument of "progress made" if you continue show up on the field with these "improved variables" and it come out and lose 10+ games 3 years in a row.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;871253]You don't sound grumpy, you sound passionate. I like that.

The argument itself is dangerous, and I can try to explain why. Lets say Mike Shanahan posted 6-10 seasons every year throughout his contract, until December 2014. If you cut and pasted this argument into December 2014, it would be no more or less fallacious than it is at this very moment. Everything you wrote right here will still be true in three years. Granted: you might not be as inclined to write this after five bad years instead of two, but that's the big point here.

Two years is an eternity in the NFL. I don't know whether you just haven't been following all of Mike Shanahan's gaffes at Redskins Park, or whether you just don't think they're really a big deal. What's indisputable is that they have limited the ability of the team to get much better.

What we need to analyze as fans is whether these mistakes are likely to stop. If they don't stop, the team is unlikely to get any better in 2012, its unlikely to get better in 2013, and there's no amount of money you can put into a coaching contract to make the whole thing work.

Furthermore, better coaches are out there. Now, whether those highly desired coaches are interested in taking this job is another issue. You could argue back in 2008, the best candidates were not interested (though they did interview). And that in 2008, someone like Mike Shanahan (or Chan Gailey) was the best that the Redskins could have done.

That, to me, is a very logical argument for keeping Mike Shanahan: he's a proven head coach and its too likely that we'll downgrade our coaching staff if we make another switch. Why would anyone want to take this job if the only guy the owner gave more than two years happened to be named Joe Gibbs (who in defense of Snyder, also had the best season in the Snyder era in his second season).

But when you compare and contrast Gibbs (who also qualifies under all the criteria you defended Shanahan with) with Mike Shanahan just by what they accomplished in two years (and Zorn left more pro talent behind than Spurrier, but I'll ignore that for now), Gibbs already had the Redskins winning. Shanahan didn't change everything.

I mean, you just have to go back six years to see why the job Shanahan has been doing isn't acceptable. It's not like we weren't here before. It took one bad season to clean up the 2003 mess. The 2009 mess wasn't nearly that deep, and if anything, the Redskins have gone backwards since then.[/quote]

Hmm mmm. In two full seasons Mike has failed (epically) to secure a QB who can lead a team to the playoffs. His best chance, ironically, was probably with the QB he inherited from Zorn.

We all want to see a competitive Skins team next year. Some realize it will require an outlier type year from Mike in his talent evaluation and coaching.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871375]Hmm mmm. In two full seasons Mike has failed (epically) to secure a QB who can lead a team to the playoffs. His best chance, ironically, was probably with the QB he inherited from Zorn.

We all want to see a competitive Skins team next year. Some realize it will require an outlier type year from Mike in his talent evaluation and coaching.[/quote]

with all due respect, JC wasnt leading anybody to shit. JC was adequate to run an offense on life support, thats it. in 5 years of JC it took 5 amazing weeks of todd collins to lead this team to the playoffs . . . once. whooppity doo.

we are lucky to have mike shanahan.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Paintrain;871244]Agreed about Beck, although he wasnt in house before the 2010 draft. They see what he is now and we move on.[/quote]

Beck wasn't the answer by a long shot and neither was Grossman. It would have been better had Shanahan not traded McNabb away. But how could you keep a QB that didn't want to work hard? Shanahan could have promoted Jonathan Crompton before the season to enter him in the QB mix at some point, but that would have caused more instability at the QB position. So after Mike Shanahan staked his reputation on John Beck, there was no direction to go with other than what he had.

In year 3, Mike Shanahan has to get it right for the quarterback position since he's made 3 huge mistakes that has contributed to his 11-20 record going into the final game of the season.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I think Shanahan is building the team the right which is going to take sometime. He missed on both McNabb and Brown. Other than that the guy has been pretty good for the most part acquiring talent. Our team is a lot younger and have more depth than we had prior to his arrival. We don't have the wins to show for it but this team is definitely improved.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=skins89moss;871292]Typical Redskin fans fire the coach after 2 or 3 years and change it all over again. Hello thats why we suck so much because of the this disfunctional thinking. Most of you have not been a Redskins fan when we were a Super Bowl franchise so you dont know what its like to even be a fan of a Champion. So all you arm chair GM's and Coaches just sit back and drink your cheap beer and leave the coaching to the real coaches. Shanny will get us back to the winning ways and you can not expect him to be a miracle worker in just 2 years with this shit show we had here for 10 years. HTTR[/quote]

I couldnt agree more. Redskins fans have become conditioned to a revolving door at head coach because instant success isnt achieved. This organization has been in the process of decay and decline for over a decade so the fix is going to take some time. I actually think the process is going to take longer than MS's current contract. Hopefully he stays or someone who does it his way (KS maybe) takes his place so that there can be some kind of continuity that this organization so desperately needs.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=skins89moss;871292]Typical Redskin fans fire the coach after 2 or 3 years and change it all over again. Hello thats why we suck so much because of the this disfunctional thinking. Most of you have not been a Redskins fan when we were a Super Bowl franchise so you dont know what its like to even be a fan of a Champion. So all you arm chair GM's and Coaches just sit back and drink your cheap beer and leave the coaching to the real coaches. Shanny will get us back to the winning ways and you can not expect him to be a miracle worker in just 2 years with this shit show we had here for 10 years. HTTR[/quote]

SIR, I take issue with your.......Balderdashery.
Oh Wait...No I don't. I totally agree!
NICE post

I've made it no secret of my dislike disappointment in shanny
A lot of people make a lot of good points on both sides of the argument.I do not want to see him fired now,but if we suck again next yr then it's time to reevaluate.If he makes another terrible qb choice then I think he absolutely needs to go or take his power away from him where he makes no personel descisions
If we go into next season and grossman is the starter I think my head will explode.Neither grossman or beck should be on this roster next yr.If we draft a rookie I don't want grossman keeping the seat warm,his turnover ratio is ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

LMAO Instant = 2 years

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871737]LMAO Instant = 2 years[/quote] You have to consider that Shanahan flipped over the roster and installed a new systems on both sides of the ball. Last year we didn't any free agency. This year we didn't have an off-season. You got to give the guy sometime to get things together.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Landry44;871739]You have to consider that Shanahan flipped over the roster and installed a new systems on both sides of the ball. Last year we didn't any free agency. This year we didn't have an off-season. You got to give the guy sometime to get things together.[/quote]

Yeah but...he's just not a good coach at this stage. There are several coaches in the league that would have taken both the '10 and '11 Skins to 9 or 10 wins and probably the playoffs. Belichick. Peyton. McCarthy. Both Harbaughs IMO. That's just guys with jobs today.

I think if we had a real FO structure w/ a head coach that answered to the GM etc there would be a conversation at this point. Personally, I would ask Mike why he's still coaching. He didn't come out of retirement with a plan to win. He had/has no idea which QB could be successful in his system. He also chose a team that was built (well) for the 4-3 defense and blew it up. Why not go to a team with the 3-4 already installed?

I think the answer is because he gets total control of the Skins, which is really just about his ego. His supreme control of this franchise is more important than wins and it's all tied up with his firing in Denver and again a lot of ego. I hate to think how much time we'll waste with Shanahan. There are a lot of solid coaches out there, especially over the next few months, who could take this team places.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Landry44;871739]You have to consider that Shanahan flipped over the roster and installed a new systems on both sides of the ball. Last year we didn't any free agency. This year we didn't have an off-season. You got to give the guy sometime to get things together.[/quote]

If we had no free agency last year, that's on Shanahan because he was in charge.

If we had no off-season for acquisition this year, then where did Gaffney, Bowen, Cofield, and Wilson come from? It may have been compressed by the lockout but there still was a window for player acquisition.

I think that Shanahan deserves more time and patience but your excuses for him don't fly.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Of course he came with a plan to win. He just didn't come with the intention of a short term fix. If we all wanted another Spags, Morriss, Haley fine. But I'm pretty sure we all wanted/want success over time. Not just one year and done.

And clinging to the 2009 defense is absurd in my opinion. Changes had to be made. Unless we wanted to hold on to the likes of Griffin, Montgomery, Wynn, Daniels (and more) just a little too long.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=SmootSmack;871755]Of course he came with a plan to win. He just didn't come with the intention of a short term fix. If we all wanted another Spags, Morriss, Haley fine. But I'm pretty sure we all wanted/want success over time. Not just one year and done.

[B]And clinging to the 2009 defense is absurd in my opinion. [/B]Changes had to be made. Unless we wanted to hold on to the likes of Griffin, Montgomery, Wynn, Daniels (and more) just a little too long.[/quote]

Agreed. With the age of that defense the only way we were going was down anyway. I guarantee you if we had left that group in tact, 2010 would have put us over the cap because we would had to have signed medical equipment supply companies to huge companies with big cash guarantees to make sure we had enough walkers, canes, and Hoverrounds....

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=SmootSmack;871755]Of course he came with a plan to win. He just didn't come with the intention of a short term fix. If we all wanted another Spags, Morriss, Haley fine. But I'm pretty sure we all wanted/want success over time. Not just one year and done.

[B]And clinging to the 2009 defense is absurd in my opinion. Changes had to be made. Unless we wanted to hold on to the likes of Griffin, Montgomery, Wynn, Daniels (and more) just a little too long.[/B][/quote]

Certainly we needed to replace these guys, but that's a far cry from blowing up the defense and it utterly ignores the several other players of talent we had in that system. Carter, Zoe, AH and others would have continued to fortify the D line and then we added Rak, who would probably be well suited as a LDE in the 4-3.

...and yes I would take that defense over the one we have today. What we have today is woefully inconsistent and seemingly unable to be effective against several of the offenses we face every year, especially Dallas and Philly.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I'm honestly shocked at the excuses made for Shanahan and his myriad mistakes over the last two seasons. Even if the roster today is somehow better than what he inherited, which I think is debatable but I'll accept it just for the sake of pragmatism, HE makes this a worse team than the one he inherited. By way of poor talent evaluation, especially at QB, poor time management, poor organizaing, poor decision-making with respect to muddying the team's issues with his family issues, and generally poor coaching overall. I just don't see whatever you all are seeing that evidently points to better times under Mike Shanahan.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871778]I'm honestly shocked at the excuses made for Shanahan and his myriad mistakes over the last two seasons. Even if the roster today is somehow better than what he inherited, which I think is debatable but I'll accept it just for the sake of pragmatism, HE makes this a worse team than the one he inherited. By way of poor talent evaluation, especially at QB, poor time management, poor organizaing, poor decision-making with respect to muddying the team's issues with his family issues, and generally poor coaching overall. I just don't see whatever you all are seeing that evidently points to better times under Mike Shanahan.[/quote]

Muddying the team's issues with his family issues? Care to explain?

How about trading down in the draft for once and gaining draft picks and youth, instead of giving them away for overpriced FA's who are at the end of their careers? We have substantially cut the age of the roster. With as many problems as Cerrato left in his wake do you really expect us to turn everything around on a dime?

Was Kerrigan a mistake? No. Would Jarvis Jenkins have been a mistake if he hadn't been lost for the season? NO. Were Helu and Roster mistakes? Doesn't look like it. Your sake of pragmatism seems flawed to me.

I'm not saying he is the best coach ever, and yes he has made some bad personnel moves, ala McNabb, but for you do say "HE makes this a worse team than the one he inherited" is asinine.

[QUOTE=The Goat;871778]I'm honestly shocked at the excuses made for Shanahan and his myriad mistakes over the last two seasons. Even if the roster today is somehow better than what he inherited, which I think is debatable but I'll accept it just for the sake of pragmatism, HE makes this a worse team than the one he inherited. By way of poor talent evaluation, especially at QB, poor time management, poor organizaing, poor decision-making with respect to muddying the team's issues with his family issues, and generally poor coaching overall. I just don't see whatever you all are seeing that evidently points to better times under Mike Shanahan.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you,I don't see it either.And the argument the defense needed to be blown up anyway I don't agree with either
I haven't got to see the last 2 games because they weren't on here.But I here for the 2nd week in a row shanny challenged a play that was clearly not going to be overturned
Because we suck so bad it's not a big deal now but little screwups like that coupled with other bad coaching add up to cost u games and playoffs when it counts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk