Mike Shanahan

[MTK]

Originally Posted by redsk1

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.

3 years to show progress.

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

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

3 years to show progress.

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

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.

[skinsguy]

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.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

3 years to show progress.

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

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.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by redsk1

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.

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

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by redsk1

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.

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by redsk1

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.

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by celts32

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.

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

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

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.

[redskin29633]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by redskin29633

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by celts32

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.

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.