Mike Shanahan
 

2 years ago the Redskins were coming off of a 4-12 record and yet another firing of a HC, Jim Zorn of course. The skins hired a new GM in Bruce Allen and at that point most of us finally thought Dan had seen the light and decided to let true football minds take over. Bruce wasted little time and hired former 2 time super bowl winning head coach Mike Shanahan to take over this disaster of an organization. Mike preached patience and promised to work his hardest to get this team relevant again, well it's been 2 seasons and with a horrific QB situation and his son Kyle running the offense the redskins win total doesn't show any progress.. (11 wins in 2 seasons) The team is younger and more hungry but we still don't have a "Face of the franchise" In Washington, will we in April? Perhaps but at this point its mainly an unknown team for most folks around the country. 2012 is a make or break year for Mike IMO, another 5 win season should result in a new head coach again is DC, I'm a fan of his and I really believe we are getting closer and closer but the time to win is closing in on him. Agree? Again I know some here have wanted Kyle to go but he isn't leaving unless Mike goes, I think this team will draft it's QB and start getting that win column up next year. Here's a good read on Mike from NFL.Com

HTTR!


"We needed to get depth at all positions," Shanahan emphasized, over the phone from his office recently. "We had no depth at all. And now, with a good draft and run in free agency, we'll be right in the thick of things next year. I really believe that. I told the owner when he hired me, 'This is not gonna happen overnight. You hire me for five years, you're gonna have to give us that time.' We're getting there."


"I feel very good, especially going into next year with what we'll have back, especially having gone through some adversity," Shanahan said. "We're gonna keep building on it the right way. We're not gonna take guys just to get guys. Only one team is happy at the end of the year, and to be that team you have to build the organization the right way. To do that, you make sure you limit mistakes, especially with the cap, and bring in the right guys."


"We want to try to be able to dominate teams," Shanahan said. "I thought with the Giants game, we played very well, did what we had to do in the second half, and took it to them physically. What we have to do now is do it week-in and week-out. Sometimes, when you have a young team, you have to grow. We have to learn how to win, and we've been close playing against some very talented football teams."


[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82586704/article/shanahan-practices-patience-as-redskins-rebuilding-continues?module=HP11_cp]NFL.com news: Shanahan practices patience as Redskins rebuilding continues[/url]

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Not to be rude, but what exactly is the point of this thread? Are you asking if we agree that next season is win or go home for Shanny and son?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Having Shanahan sure as hell beats bug-eyes neglecting depth and signing every big FA that becomes available. At least Shanahan recognizes some of the mistakes he made.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;871065]Having Shanahan sure as hell beats bug-eyes neglecting depth and signing every big FA that becomes available. [B]At least Shanahan recognizes some of the mistakes he made.[/B][/quote]That's a pretty big difference.

Both Cerrato and Shanahan have plenty of hubris, though I suppose that goes with the territory of being a high ranking sports executive. And neither is exceptionally good at their job. But Shanahan's ability to admit he might sometimes screw up makes him a more viable option to run an organization than Cerrato ever was.

I would say if Mike really truly fancies himself as the president of an organization like Holmgren, he shouldn't also be on the sideline. I think Mike Shanahan knows a lot more about football than I or anyone else here does. But that doesn't always show up in the product. I think he's in over his head.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

10+ losses next year....booom, outta here.

His future relies on the his QB choice...if we see improvement, Shanny becomes a great survivor story.

Shanny's comments recently about turnaround being slower than he thought, reaffirms the reality this organization was run so damn bad into the ground, NO ONE would have succeeded. Limited talent, lack of depth is a mutherf*cker, even the best coaching couldnt have waivered such a bottomless pit of what the Skins had become. talent talent talent

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I think the success rate of dual HC/GM is so low in this league I truly wonder why any owner even tries it. Shanny's issue isn't football. Its football players...as in he hasn't shown the ability to build a decent team of them.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Chico23231;871070]His future relies on the his QB choice...if we see improvement, Shanny becomes a great survivor story.[/quote]Absolutely. It would be a heck of a save job by a great coach if he managed to win in Washington.

[quote]Shanny's comments recently about turnaround being slower than he thought, reaffirms the reality this organization was run so damn bad into the ground, NO ONE would have succeeded. Limited talent, lack of depth is a mutherf*cker, even the best coaching couldnt have waivered such a bottomless pit of what the Skins had become. talent talent talent[/quote]Talent wasn't great when he took over, but he also opted not to bring back multiple pro bowlers and young developmental players. No one is saying that Cerrato left him a team that anyone could have won with but

1) I think a lot of coaches could have won with the 2010 team. The 2010 team was littered with 28-31 year old veterans who either had been pro bowlers in the past or are pro bowlers now: Andre Carter, Carlos Rogers, Clinton Portis, Mike Sellers, London Fletcher, Brian Orakpo, Albert Haynesworth, DeAngelo Hall, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley. Shanahan INHERETED every one of those players, then added McNabb and Jammal Brown, more pro bowlers.

It's true that not all of those pieces helped positively last year, but it kind of destroys the argument that the team didn't have any talent. I don't think it had much YOUNG talent, but it was definitely a win-now roster. If that's is limited talent, then I hate to tell you, but some team is going to win the super bowl this year with limited talent.

I mean, it's not like Bill Belichick was available, but he probably wins 9 or 10 games with that team easily. And yeah, that doesn't make the future any more certain.

2) Thankfully, Shanahan was able to get five pro bowlers off the roster without replacing them for the 2011 season (well, I guess he replaced Carter with Kerrigan). So yeah, the 2011 team didn't have much talent, and all of it's young talent was pretty much rookies. We weren't going to win this year with Vince Lombardi coaching this team.

But the reason the roster is talentless is because Mike Shanahan makes the personnel decisions. Now I don't think the Redskins will ever be as talentless as they were this season at any point in the next ten years. This year was the aberration. But we saw in 2010 that simply having a talented roster that should be able to win 9 or 10 games doesn't mean that it won't underachieve.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I'm not seeing where the 2010 team was ready to win much of anything. A lot of those guys were either over the hill (Portis) or not a good scheme fit (Carter), or were just flat out bums (Haynesworth). That was a team that went 4-12 in 2009 too.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=SmootSmack;871064]Not to be rude, but what exactly is the point of this thread? Are you asking if we agree that next season is win or go home for Shanny and son?[/quote]

LOL Sorry just wanted a Shanny thread tired of him being discussed in all the other ones, might as well have just one

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;871066]I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.[/quote]


I think it's unfair to say he hasn't built much, our team is younger and more competitive but I will say Mike has ****ed up with our QB situation, he looks like a complete clown after the Mcnabb-Rex-Beck experience.. My big problem with Mike has been his overall record, in 2 full seasons Jim Zorn of all people will have had a better record than shanny, thats bad and those teams weren't any good either so there is no real excuse for mike on that one. I say give him one more full season rememeber he was the one that "sold" us alll on John Beck and that dude blows, anything less than 8 wins and he should be fired IMO.

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]

I think 8 because our QB may be a rookie but still anything less and he's done

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Mattyk;871085]I'm not seeing where the 2010 team was ready to win much of anything. A lot of those guys were either over the hill (Portis) or not a good scheme fit (Carter), or were just flat out bums (Haynesworth). That was a team that went 4-12 in 2009 too.[/quote]None of those three entered the 2010 offseason as any of those things. Maybe Portis as over the hill, but in the five games he managed to be healthy enough to play that year, he did pretty good.

While creativity hasn't been Haslett's major weakness, the inability to make Andre Carter a useful player in his scheme given his exceptional 2009 and 2011 seasons is one of his biggest failures as Redskins DC. Even Gregg Williams made a number of errors over his four seasons here (Pierce, Clark, Archuleta), so it's not like Haslett is a total stiff, but that's still a pretty big failure. Oh well, we're better off with Kerrigan anyway.

There's no reason to rehash Shanahan's role in the Haynesworth saga. It was a dumb situation through and through, and when neither is associated with the Redskins any longer, I think the franchise will be better for it. The only thing we've learned recently is that he's not exactly Randy Moss.

The 2010 team was not much of a team when Shanahan got his hands on it. The Redskins needed to move Zorn out, and find a coach who wasn't a roster tinkerer, but someone who could come in and win right away with a veteran team. Mike Shanahan wasn't that guy. He's a tinkerer. Window dressing is important to him. And that's not what the Redskins really needed.


[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]Wait, I'm not sure I understand.

9-10 wins will be a pretty big improvement, and certainly is within the realm of possibility, but if that's the improvement we need to show, I don't understand why it's too soon to talk about where the franchise will be if we fail to meet that goal.

I am not expecting the Redskins to win 10 games next year. And I think our best chance at winning 10 games would be getting lucky and finding the right coach for the job. Be that Bill Musgrave, Marc Trestman, Rob Chudzynski, Josh McDaniels, Chuck Pagano, Brian VanGorder, Jeremy Bates, Dave Toub, Clyde Christensen, Bill O'Brien, Matt Patricia, Pete Carmichael, Matt Cavanaugh, Jay Gruden, Bruce Ariens, Mike McCoy, Dennis Allen, Rob Ryan, Perry Fewell, Shane Day, or Mike Trgovac. Obviously, I couldn't tell you which of those coaches is the next great NFL head coach, but that's what the interview process is for.

You know, that thing we skipped last time.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

We all know MS is rebuilding, he might not want to say it but he is, we need to give him time.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I expect him to get the full 5 years. It took Vinny 10 years to make this mess...it takes a hell of a lot more then 2 years to clean it up.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

So you are saying that it should take 3 years to rebuild a team from utter crap?

He should get his full 5 years. No offense but this fire MS crap is the same impatience that the organization has shown over the last 15 years.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=redsk1;871159]So you are saying that it should take 3 years to rebuild a team from utter crap?

He should get his full 5 years. No offense but this fire MS crap is the same impatience that the organization has shown over the last 15 years.[/quote]

3 years to show progress.

Another double digit loss season in 2012 and I think MS is on the hot seat and rightfully so.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

The Mike Shanahan regimes deserves another year.

But, a few point of facts:

o The offense has only recently begun to improve (3rd down conversion/RZ scoring/passing game efficiency) over Zorn's offense and Zorn had [B][I][U]less talent[/U][/I][/B]

o Bruce Allen is not a true GM he's more of a cap expert/PR guy

o There have been personnel mistakes.
The biggest and scariest is the entering into year 3 of a rebuild without a QB of the future.
For 2 seasons they've missed on the most important position on any team especially a team as determined to win with the passing game.

Imo being the HC and the defacto GM is a schizophrenic existence at the heart of some of the mistakes made thus far.
Not being able to set a firm path on either rebuilding or winning now has lead us to 2 season somewhere in the middle.

Shanahan deserves another year, and for his sake and ours I hope he solves the QB problem.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;871101]Wait, I'm not sure I understand.

9-10 wins will be a pretty big improvement, and certainly is within the realm of possibility, but if that's the improvement we need to show, I don't understand why it's too soon to talk about where the franchise will be if we fail to meet that goal.[/quote]

I meant talking about firing him at the end of this season is ridiculous. I wasn't directing that at anyone specifically, just tossing it out there. Speculating about what could happen at the end of year 3 is certainly fair game.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Mattyk;871165]3 years to show progress.

Another double digit loss season in 2012 and I think MS is on the hot seat and rightfully so.[/quote]

I think Snyder cant take another 10 loss season. I dont know if I can either.

I really think the Shanny article of which said "this is gonna be harder than I thought " was a HUGGGGGGE admission by a guy who ego rivals the largest in the game. First sign of pressure from Shanny. I think Shanny is very aggressive in FA especially on the offense side of the ball, Shanny is embarrassed by the play on the field, especially at QB. Grossman/Beck made him look really bad.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

I hate the general fan. I think the ironic part is most are exactly like Dan Snyder yet they bash him for doing the same things they would do.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=NC_Skins;871188]I hate the general fan. I think the ironic part is most are exactly like Dan Snyder yet they bash him for doing the same things they would do.[/quote]

True words, I at times am guilty of this and then I catch myself. The quick fix is never the answer, we are building a TEAM/FRANCHISE.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

Look guys. I think before a team discusses firing or hiring a head coach, the franchise needs to sit down and establish what it's identity is going to be moving forward. The Washington Redskins of the 1980's and early 90's was built around the identity of being a smash mouth team that runs to set up the play action pass down field. It's defenses were based around a 4-3 which had top pass rushers as book ends, and athletic linebackers who could cover receivers. You know what it meant when the commentators talked about Redskins football.

Nowadays, what is considered Redskins football? I can't tell you, because I honestly don't know. Since 2000, Redskins football has consistently meant more in terms of inconsistency and a complete philosophical change from year to year. Simply just changing the coaching staff, because the present regime isn't working does not fix the problem. What Bruce Allen and Daniel Snyder need to do is to sit down and try to answer this simple question first: What is our identity?

Once that has been established, then you stick with it, and you hire your coaching staff accordingly. If coaching staff one just can't get things turned around after a few seasons, you go with coaching staff two – so forth and so on. But, you only hire coaches who have similar philosophies, who are coming in with virtually the same style offense/defense, with whatever wrinkles they may have. As the front office continues playing trial and error with getting the right coaching staff in to be successful, at least the team itself knows continuity in regards to players, X's and O's. Sure, terminology might change (tomAto, tomAHto) but it's still the same system.

Which brings me to this point about Mike Shanahan. Eventually, Daniel Snyder is going to have to realize that whoever the coaching staff is, fail or succeed, he needs to realize that THIS style that THIS coaching staff has put into place is one we want to continue on with even if we feel the present coaching staff is not the right fit in Washington. So, I honestly think that Bruce Allen and Daniel Snyder should have a say so in determining that. OK, so the Redskins are going to be a team built around a West Coast offense (or a variation at least) with a 3-4 defense. So, if Allen and Snyder feel that Shanahan just is not working in Washington, they need to go out and find another head coach/staff who's going to make the present system work.

In my humble opinion, THAT is the only way we will ever see the Redskins truly be a consistently successful franchise from year in/year out again. If Shanahan is fired after season three, then Snyder will, of course, want to go out and hire the “best” candidate available. But, if that guy has a completely different philosophy that he's bringing to the team, guess what? You're starting all over once again. It's time to get out of that mentality and off the Merry-Go-Round. Either live with and buy into what Mike Shanahan is trying to establish, or bring in someone new who is going to pick up and go with what Mike has already laid out.

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]
*1980's teen movie slow clap building to raucous applause*
Couldn't have said it better myself. The comparisons to records between Zorn and Shanahan are simply silly. The roster that Shanahan inherited was old (oldest in the league), poorly constructed (no depth at key positions, very limited playmakers at skill positions) and bloated with poor contracts for unproductive players-including some of the 'pro bowlers' GTripp mentioned (which is a bit of a joke by itself) that weren't playing to a high level.

I've got no problems at all with the decisions to move on from Andre Carter and Carlos Rogers. Carter has shown, twice, in two different cities that he's not a 3-4 end or LB. He is classically suited for a 4-3 so rather than continue to try a square peg-round hole scenario they moved on and found a better fit in Kerrigan. Now it remains to be seen if Kerrigan is a better PLAYER overall than Carter but it's clear he's a better fit for our scheme.

Rogers was productive once in his Redskin career, in a contract year. It was roundly acknowledged that he improved his practice habits, his attentiveness in meetings, his mental game, etc. in that year. Then when he got a one year tender, he sulked and reverted to his same poor habits. Other than that his reputation was nonchalant preparation, getting repeatedly beaten on double moves, getting benched, sulking, dogging it on injuries and of course, the drops. This year, he's again in a contract year and playing balls out. Good for him, but with his rep there's no way I'd commit long money to him.

Even bringing up Portis in the discussion of 'pro bowlers' jettisoned almost completely negates any credibility in posting questions about whether Shanny should return. Same can be said about Haynesworth, Sellers, McNabb or Jammal Brown. If anything, questions can be raised about the McNabb and Brown acquisitions but nothing coaching-wise. Moss put up career numbers last year and Cooley has been dinged up this season so how that supports anything negative re: Shanahan is puzzling.

While the record doesn't yet reflect it, I find it amazing that many fans and pundits can't see how progress is being made from the 2011 draft (2 starters), 2012 free agency (5 starters) and 2012 draft (4-5 starters) and with some competent play from the QB the future looks brighter than the present or the past.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=GTripp0012;871066]I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.[/quote]

This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871204]This.

[B]In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there.[/B] A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.[/quote]
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?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=Mattyk;871165]3 years to show progress.

Another double digit loss season in 2012 and I think MS is on the hot seat and rightfully so.[/quote]

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.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871204]This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.[/quote]

And we fire Shanahan and bring in someone else, and then that won't be working like it should by the end of that second season, then we'll fire him and bring in someone else, and by the end of that second season, we'll fire him because that regime isn't working, and so we'll bring in yet another coach, give him two years, and then we'll fire him because HE isn't working, and....... well, I guess you get my drift....

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]


I agree! The points you made point to progress and points to the Redskins being on the right track.

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 with everything, but good offensive system is very debateble. Im not for firing Shanny, but I think by next year 10 losses again would mitigate everything you just listed.

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]

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.

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]

When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

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

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.

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]

You missed Chad Rhindardttt. McIntosh is still on the team not sure how he figures in?

Like I said the oline is marginally better, but what does that do for the offense as a whole given Mike's decisions at QB?

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=skinsguy;871212]And we fire Shanahan and bring in someone else, and then that won't be working like it should by the end of that second season, then we'll fire him and bring in someone else, and by the end of that second season, we'll fire him because that regime isn't working, and so we'll bring in yet another coach, give him two years, and then we'll fire him because HE isn't working, and....... well, I guess you get my drift....[/quote]

I know...the revolving syndrome is a bad one and I don't want to see it either.

Re: Mike Shanahan
 

[quote=The Goat;871225]You missed Chad Rhindardttt. McIntosh is still on the team not sure how he figures in?

Like I said the oline is marginally better, but what does that do for the offense as a whole given Mike's decisions at QB?[/quote]

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.