Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=SkinzWin;871780][B]Muddying the team's issues with his family issues? Care to explain? [/B]

[B]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?[/B] 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.

[B]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[/B].[/quote]

Bringing in his son to coach alongside him was stupid. Kyle was mostly unproven and two seasons of piss-poor offense here substantiate it. Also the fact Houstan improved after Kyle left. Now we're stuck w/ team Shanny.

Mike is hardly the first coach/GM here to trade down and acquire more picks.

If McNabb is the only personnel mistake you see...I don't know why I'm responding to you. Nevermind.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I don't think Shanahan has done a GREAT job. I think he has done a better job than anyone before him in the sense that he is trying to build a young core group of players who can be dominate for years to come. I think in all fairness he needs to be given one more year to see for sure. This team, as it stands right now, may best case scenario go 8 and 8 next year. We are lacking a franchise QB, and i think that right there makes any other personnell moves null and void until we find him.

One more year for Shanahan with a real QB before we can judge. If we get a QB we could be 10 and 6 or better....

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Statistically speaking, the '09 defense was top ten. But that was deceiving. And yardage doesn't tell the whole story. That team couldn't stop anyone when it absolutely had to. It couldn't get consistent pressure on the quarterback and it couldn't get turnovers.

For years this team hung on to players one year too long. In the end, Shanahan probably handled that precisely the right way.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871790]Bringing in his son to coach alongside him was stupid. Kyle was mostly unproven and two seasons of piss-poor offense here substantiate it. Also the fact Houstan improved after Kyle left. Now we're stuck w/ team Shanny.

Mike is hardly the first coach/GM here to trade down and acquire more picks.

If McNabb is the only personnel mistake you see...I don't know why I'm responding to you. Nevermind.[/quote]

Houston Texans Offensive Rankings
2006 - 28th
2007 - 14th
2008 - 3rd (Kyle Shanahan O coordinator)
2009 - 4th (Kyle Shanahan O coordinator)
2010 - 3rd
2011 - 12th

Kyle was so unproved he took an offense into the top 5 in offense after having been 28th and 14th the previous two seasons. And I don't see where they've gotten substantially better since he's left do you?

Name me the last coach/GM that traded down in the draft for the Redskins?
I can tell you it hasn't been this century.

I was pointing out the most obvious one instead of listing everything. I see you failed to respond to the positive player personnel moves he has made that I talked about.

I think it's great to have good debate and discussion on this board between two people with opposing view points, but there's no need to be an asshat. :)

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Ok, fellas. We can't go back in time. Forget the "magic" 09 defense already.

All this speculation about what a "better" coach could do with our powerhouse team of recent past is crap. I think all these guys are great coaches, but what is Belicheck without Brady? Peyton without Brees? Not as good, oddly enough.

Until we have a serious QB in this town we're not going anywhere. This offseason is make or break for MS because he has to solve this problem. He is going to have to hitch his fortune to an untested rookie and a decent free agent vet (not Rex, please!). If we still have the sort of hopeless QB situation we have now after NEXT season, I doubt the Danny will wait.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

To me, it's not nitpicking to say that the 09 and 2011 defenses are statistically similar. I didn't think the 2009 defense was very good. We played six awful offenses in a row to begin that season. And even during that stretch, the defense was hit and miss. The 2009 defense contributed to the amazing streak the Redskins are showing to not handle rookie passers. It couldn't cover receivers. It had the ability to rush the passer and play adequate run defense, which made it a very good defense in terms of getting three and outs, but it had no dimensions to it to stop passers if the opposing quarterback was worth his salt. To me the struggles of the 2009 offense overshadowed the weaknesses of the defense. If that 2009 defense was league average, I think they win 7 games that year.

But it's also not wrong to point out where the 2011 defense failed. It was our best unit for sure between the offense and special teams, but many of its best players were wildly inconsistent (Landry - health, Kerrigan - performance, Bowen and Cofield - lack of domination), and the biggest issue with the 2011 defense is: I'm not sure where you go from here.

Like even the best of the Gregg Williams years, there were some really questionable personnel decisions in building this defense. Why did Rocky McIntosh play more snaps than Keyaron Fox? Because they technically play different positions in the defense? That's a design flaw. Why use Reed Doughty at all if he's going to be so limited as to be an obvious target for an opposing offensive coordinator. Design flaw. A whole season with DeAngelo Hall covering the other team's top target? Design flaw. Misunderstanding the career value of O.J. Atogwe as a free safety? Inexcusable design flaw.

The Redskins defense was at least average this season because it had so many good players to overcome all those flaws. Josh Wilson had a great year. LaRon Landry was very good when healthy. Fletcher is a stud. Perry Riley was a revelation that strengthened the run defense from a weak unit into a strength, giving us depth at ILB going forward. Cofield was quite good most of the year on the nose and is still learning the nuances of his position. Bowen showed a lot of potential (maybe empty potential, but you can see the ability to live up to that huge contract). Chris Neild came on at just the right time early in the season to avoid a year on the PS. Kerrigan was a rookie, and was at least in the running for DROY in most seasons (not this one). Rob Jackson proved himself a better pass rushing option than Lorenzo Alexander.

The 2011 Redskins defense overcame a lot of ills to improve on last year's defense. But you could argue that you take two of those many performances out of this defense and it would have failed to improve on last year, because they didn't really correct the issues that were wrong with the 2010 defense. They just increased the quantity of high-caliber performers.

And the biggest difference from the Blache days is that they improved on gameday in their entire operation. We're not in the 18th century anymore.

With consistently better talent evaluation, this can be an elite unit. But unless they make the right decision on Landry, Hall, Atogwe, McIntosh, Carriker, and most importantly Fletcher, I can't expect the unit to get a lot better. They gave it their all this year, used tons of creative coverages and a couple of nice blitzes, and the elite offenses in this league still pretty much had their way with it.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

josh wilson had a great year? um... he gave up an awful lot of big plays just like hall, and he covered a lot of not #1s.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=That Guy;871861]josh wilson had a great year? um... he gave up an awful lot of big plays just like hall, and he covered a lot of not #1s.[/quote]

Yes, he did have a great year.

[url=http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/early-look-2011-cb-charting]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | An Early Look at 2011 CB Charting[/url]


Wilson was in the top 10. Guess who was in the bottom 3 once again?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=That Guy;871861]josh wilson had a great year? um... he gave up an awful lot of big plays just like hall, and he covered a lot of not #1s.[/quote]

Josh Wilson did have some negative moments but overall was solid IMO. I'm happy that we have him.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=That Guy;871861]josh wilson had a great year? um... he gave up an awful lot of big plays just like hall, and he covered a lot of not #1s.[/quote]

Wilson was ok, D Hall was ok. You have to compare like this, it was a solid step down from Carlos. i think both start corners this year were pretty average, the positions in the secondary which were deplorable was our 3rd corner position and our safety coverage play. Lots of decisions to be made in the secondary. You can make a case for cutting Hall, but then you have another hole because no way in hell Barnes or Westbrook have the talent to step into a starters role.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=NC_Skins;871870]Yes, he did have a great year.

[URL="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/early-look-2011-cb-charting"]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | An Early Look at 2011 CB Charting[/URL]


Wilson was in the top 10. Guess who was in the bottom 3 once again?[/quote]

then why wasn't wilson on the top WRs? would they have just flipped stats at that point?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Lotus;871890]Josh Wilson did have some negative moments but overall was solid IMO. I'm happy that we have him.[/quote]
DEFINITELY!
AND he seemed to improve as the season wore on....

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Chico23231;871960]Wilson was ok, D Hall was ok. You have to compare like this, it was a solid step down from Carlos. i think both start corners this year were pretty average, the positions in the secondary which were deplorable was our 3rd corner position and our safety coverage play. Lots of decisions to be made in the secondary. You can make a case for cutting Hall, but then you have another hole because no way in hell Barnes or Westbrook have the talent to step into a starters role.[/quote]

unless you replace him with grimes, who's a FA ;)

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=SkinzWin;871824]Houston Texans Offensive Rankings
2006 - 28th
2007 - 14th
2008 - 3rd (Kyle Shanahan O coordinator)
2009 - 4th (Kyle Shanahan O coordinator)
2010 - 3rd
2011 - 12th

Kyle was so unproved he took an offense into the top 5 in offense after having been 28th and 14th the previous two seasons. And I don't see where they've gotten substantially better since he's left do you?

Name me the last coach/GM that traded down in the draft for the Redskins?
I can tell you it hasn't been this century.

I was pointing out the most obvious one instead of listing everything. I see you failed to respond to the positive player personnel moves he has made that I talked about.

I think it's great to have good debate and discussion on this board between two people with opposing view points, but there's no need to be an asshat. :)[/quote]

Houston didn't miss Kyle one iota until Schaub and Andre Johnson went down...kinda obvious on that one bud.

Cerrato traded back when we took Kelly, Davis and whatshisname. So what? Trading back isn't exactly the mark of genius.

2011 was a good draft year. So what? We went 5-11 and still have the worst QB stable in football.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=JWsleep;871827]Ok, fellas. We can't go back in time. Forget the "magic" 09 defense already.

All this speculation about what a "better" coach could do with our powerhouse team of recent past is crap. I think all these guys are great coaches, but what is Belicheck without Brady? Peyton without Brees? Not as good, oddly enough.[/quote]

Belichick won 13+ games with Cassell.

Does Cassell = Flyn?????

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;872029]Houston didn't miss Kyle one iota until Schaub and Andre Johnson went down...kinda obvious on that one bud.

Cerrato traded back when we took Kelly, Davis and whatshisname. So what? Trading back isn't exactly the mark of genius.

2011 was a good draft year. So what? We went 5-11 and still have the worst QB stable in football.[/quote]

Well Schaub did miss 5 games in 2008

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[IMG]http://www.jihadwatch.org/Achmed.jpg[/IMG]

This is MS if we don't have a good 2012 season. The eyes are almost identical to Mikes. I swear this is how he looks on the sideline, whether it's a good or bad play.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Couple of points:

1) [B]We can't judge our team on wins - yet.[/B] -- Ppl have said there has been no improvement over the past 2-3 years. However, I think the two big reasons were:
-- [U]Quarterback[/U] MS made the choice to go with Rex & Beck & McNabb, so he deserves all the blame for this. But Rex had 20 interceptions and 5 fumbles playing only 13 games. No other QB in the LEAGUE turned the ball over more -- 1.9 turnovers per game! (Josh Freeman had 22 / 5 but in 15 games). Note that A.Rodgers had 40% more sacks, but NO fumbles and only 6 interceptions all year. Just saying.
-- [U]Injuries[/U] - We were again devastated with injuries/suspensions to T.Williams,FDavis,C.Cooley,Moss,THightower,Landry,Jenkins,Hankerson.. Injuries are part of the game, and the Giants still made the playoffs with tons of injuries, I'm just saying our rebuilding/shallow roster cannot yet handle injuries to all of our top talent. My point here is --> our team is better than our record with a QB that doesn't turn the ball over almost 2 times a game & with above guys returning next year.

2) [B]Our team is getting younger.[/B] MS has consistently gone after young talent, builiding for the future. Now we have younger players & better depth at most positions for the upcoming years. In the future, younger players should have less injuries, and the developing depth will help us better handle injuries when they inevitably come.

3) [B]Good draft / FA moves.[/B] Kerrigan alone justifies the last draft, but all the rest were solid pickups. Couple of years of drafts like this and we'll be restocked. Cap space.

4) [B]We play the best players, not the highest paid players.[/B] MS plays guys that play well regardless of their age/tenure/salary. P.Riley,Gomes, Helu/Royster, Hurt/W.Smith, Neild -- by playing these guys at times over the veterans, it motivates the ppl to play harder, knowing that if they play well or badly, they could get promoted or benched. Different philosophy than allowing Portis to not practice, etc.


It's absolutely clear they're going after a QB next year, they've said it. Many other teams are as well, so they'll have to be aggressive / lucky to get one. A good QB pickup will make this team a playoff contender for years to come, a great QB pickup will make us Super Bowl contenders in 2-3 years. We haven't seen many results, but I think we're headed in a good direction & we should be patient with the rebuilding process for another 1-2 years.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;871255]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.[/quote]

I do not have blind faith. My point is that there is a fine line between winning and losing in the NFL. Had a couple plays gone thier way they could have 7 or 8 wins but that would not mean they are any better or further along then they are now. They are better becasue I see a bunch of young players holding thier own and looking like they might be part of the future. This is the 1st time in at least 15 years that the Redskins actually tried to rebuild the right way...this is what I wanted so i am going to remain patient with the process. Once the QB is in place the results will start to show in the win collumn. Many of those few plays each week that decide winning and losing are made by the QB so until we get one it's going to look like we are not improving to the casual observer.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;872029]Houston didn't miss Kyle one iota until Schaub and Andre Johnson went down...kinda obvious on that one bud.

Cerrato traded back when we took Kelly, Davis and whatshisname. So what? Trading back isn't exactly the mark of genius.

2011 was a good draft year. So what? We went 5-11 and still have the worst QB stable in football.[/quote]

You said Houston got better after Kyle left. And I don't see where you have substantiated that claim anywhere. Now you are saying they didn't miss him until key players went down. Doesn't make much sense.

I never said trading back made you a good team and giving picks up was always bad. What I was trying to show was that during Cerrato's reign of terror we were near the bottom of the league in number of picks because of his propensity to trade away picks for old vets who were hyped but didn't deliver. What did that give us? An old, old team with not much of a future and no picks left to reload with.

2011 was a good draft year. One of the only ones in quiet some time. When you have as many problems as Cerrato left you aren't going to fix everything in one season and turn it around to a playoff team. I believe we do have one of the worst QB situations right now but that is most likely because the staff did not like the people they evaluated last year enough to go get them and saw other positions where they could get the best value to fill much needed holes. Rome wasn't built in a day. You are too near-sighted. Look at the big picture.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

whats with the Locklear / Shanny beef?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=celts32;872107]I do not have blind faith. My point is that there is a fine line between winning and losing in the NFL. [U]Had a couple plays gone thier way they could have 7 or 8 wins but that would not mean they are any better or further along then they are now[/U]. They are better becasue I see a bunch of young players holding thier own and looking like they might be part of the future. [B]This is the 1st time in at least 15 years that the Redskins actually tried to rebuild the right way...this is what I wanted so i am going to remain patient with the process.[/B] Once the QB is in place the results will start to show in the win collumn. Many of those few plays each week that decide winning and losing are made by the QB so until we get one it's going to look like we are not improving to the casual observer.[/quote]Bolded point: You need to define these parameters, or we're discussing a point based on blind faith.

Underlined point: That happens to be true of the 2009 team that Shanahan inherited as well. Luck didn't just become a significant part of football when Mike Shanahan started stringing together 10 loss seasons.

Here's the thing: we're right back to where we were at the start of the Mike Shanahan era. We don't have a lot of 25 and under talent compared to other teams, but we more or less replaced what we lost over the last two years, having done so through the draft. We're still a losing team with limited proven talent to build a foundation on. Stability is nice, but it doesn't do anything to ensure that 2012 won't be a repeat of 2010. Better talent evaluation and game preparedness does.

Shanahan is getting a second chance to get it right and turn the roster into a winner, but the fundamentals are identical to the roster he took over. The biggest difference is that he has to deal with critical expiring contracts that he didn't have in 2010.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872549]Bolded point: You need to define these parameters, or we're discussing a point based on blind faith.

Underlined point: That happens to be true of the 2009 team that Shanahan inherited as well. Luck didn't just become a significant part of football when Mike Shanahan started stringing together 10 loss seasons.

Here's the thing: we're right back to where we were at the start of the Mike Shanahan era. We don't have a lot of 25 and under talent compared to other teams, but we more or less replaced what we lost over the last two years, having done so through the draft. We're still a losing team with limited proven talent to build a foundation on. Stability is nice, but it doesn't do anything to ensure that 2012 won't be a repeat of 2010. Better talent evaluation and game preparedness does.

Shanahan is getting a second chance to get it right and turn the roster into a winner, but the fundamentals are identical to the roster he took over. The biggest difference is that he has to deal with critical expiring contracts that he didn't have in 2010.[/quote]

It is evident that they are trying to build through the draft as opposed to big name free agents as they have done in the past. They now have 30 mil in cap space instead of the old meathod of gaurenteeing the contracts of old players just to get under the cap. This football team is run 1000 times better then it was 2 years ago. As far as the talent...I don't know what you see but i see a bunch of young players that have been added through the draft and free agency the past couple years. I don't have age stats in front of me but there is no significant money tied up in any players over 30 years old which used to be the norm. There has been a total and complete change in the way this football team operates. But as i have said it is not going to show up in the win/loss collumn until they get a quality NFL QB. But if you just want to hang your hat on the record and tell me there's no progress, then be my guest. One question though...How many games would the Pats or Giants have won this year without Brady & Manning? In my opinion they both probably would have looked a lot like the Redskins...

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;872549]Bolded point: You need to define these parameters, or we're discussing a point based on blind faith.

Underlined point: That happens to be true of the 2009 team that Shanahan inherited as well. Luck didn't just become a significant part of football when Mike Shanahan started stringing together 10 loss seasons.

Here's the thing: [B]we're right back to where we were at the start of the Mike Shanahan era. [/B] We don't have a lot of 25 and under talent compared to other teams, but we more or less replaced what we lost over the last two years, having done so through the draft. We're still a losing team with limited proven talent to build a foundation on. Stability is nice, but it doesn't do anything to ensure that 2012 won't be a repeat of 2010. Better talent evaluation and game preparedness does.

Shanahan is getting a second chance to get it right and turn the roster into a winner, but the fundamentals are identical to the roster he took over. The biggest difference is that he has to deal with critical expiring contracts that he didn't have in 2010.[/quote]
Man, I know you study and offer educated quality opinions often on this site but I think you are way off base with this evaluation. This is talk radio fodder/reactionary sports columnist level stuff. You honestly think the roster is in the same place as it was 2 years ago?

I'd task you with looking at the Roster transition thread and still coming to the same conclusion. 52 players between 2009 and 2010 final rosters are no longer in the league. 35 of them from the final Zorn roster. So you are saying that 35 of our players have no other place in the NFL? As I said in another thread, the roster remake is about 30% done but you still have to field a 53 man roster. We are much better off, long term, than we were 24 months ago.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Paintrain;872644]Man, I know you study and offer educated quality opinions often on this site but I think you are way off base with this evaluation. This is talk radio fodder/reactionary sports columnist level stuff. You honestly think the roster is in the same place as it was 2 years ago?

I'd task you with looking at the Roster transition thread and still coming to the same conclusion. 52 players between 2009 and 2010 final rosters are no longer in the league. 35 of them from the final Zorn roster. [B] So you are saying that 35 of our players have no other place in the NFL? [/B]As I said in another thread, the roster remake is about 30% done but you still have to field a 53 man roster. We are much better off, long term, than we were 24 months ago.[/quote]

In fairness to Gtripp, the question is not whether "35 of our [current] players have no other place in the NFL". Rather, it is, "In two years, will 35 players on our current roster, be out of the league entirely?" - [I]i.e.[/I] Has MS/BA created a roster that will have the future depth that Zorn's final roster lacked?

As do you, I think they have and believe that the current all-inclusive roster contains [I]at least[/I] 20-25 and maybe as many as 30-35 players that will
be here on opening day in 2013.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Mike Shanahan deserves alot of credit for one thing I haven't heard mentioned. Not drafting Blaine Gabbert. The jury is still out on BG but early results haven't been good. There were alot of people who thought we should...i think i did.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Mike Shanahan will turn the Redskins into a constant winner again. Of course it will take time. As a fan that witness this organization win three Super Bowl as a kid, I'm willing to give Shanahan the time he needs to recreate the Redskins. In 2010 and in 2011, there was progress being made. The Redskins have younger talent now via the draft on both sides of the ball. Now of course all Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan needs in a franchise quarterback.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=redskins4ever;873454]mike shanahan will turn the redskins into a constant winner again. Of course it will take time. As a fan that witness this organization win three super bowl as a kid, i'm willing to give shanahan the time he needs to recreate the redskins. In 2010 and in 2011, there was progress being made. The redskins have younger talent now via the draft on both sides of the ball. Now of course all bruce allen and mike shanahan needs in a franchise quarterback.[/quote]

Httr.......