Mike Shanahan

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yes, he did have a great year.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | An Early Look at 2011 CB Charting


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

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

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

DEFINITELY!
AND he seemed to improve as the season wore on....

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

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

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

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.

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.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

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.

Belichick won 13+ games with Cassell.

Does Cassell = Flyn?????

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

Well Schaub did miss 5 games in 2008

[hagams]

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.

[ethat001]

Couple of points:

1) We can't judge our team on wins - yet. -- Ppl have said there has been no improvement over the past 2-3 years. However, I think the two big reasons were:
-- Quarterback 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.
-- Injuries - 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) Our team is getting younger. 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) Good draft / FA moves. 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) We play the best players, not the highest paid players. 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.

[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.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

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.

[skinsfaninok]

whats with the Locklear / Shanny beef?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by celts32

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.

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.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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...

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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.

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.e. 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 at least 20-25 and maybe as many as 30-35 players that will
be here on opening day in 2013.