Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=The Goat;976603]Wrong. Rookie QB we bet the farm on because he's arguably the most dynamic athlete in pro football and actually been better than anyone expected. We're actually one of the healthier teams right now, and have been remarkably healthy across the oline this season. And finally, the last two years have been atrocious (Zorn-line in wins) because we were rebuilding, right? We're a win now team. Next year we're likely to see defenses catch up to us a bit, most QBs experience some kind of sophomore slump, and again we're not in any position to add significant talent in the next two years UNLESS we bet the farm in the next decade lol.

Unless you think Mike has suddenly become a defensive expert, as in he took the scheming away from Haslett, I don't know how you even put Mike as the most improved coach on the team, let alone the league. Haslett, who seemed overwhelmed the first half of the season, has schemed his way back into respectability. Kyle, who flashed genius early, is putting whole games together now instead of just series and quarters.

Where Mike gets credit is not buckling under the intense pressure of being 3-6 when he's coaching a win now team. It's not a small thing IMO, takes some real brass.[/quote]

What's this "win now team" thing? Tough to call a team with a rookie QB, a rookie RB, and a rookie backup QB a "win now team."

Unless, of course Shanahan created the "win now team" sometime during this season. Which surely would be more credit than you've been willing to give the coaches todate. Can't have it both ways...

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;976667]I am not going to cry if Haslett is gone, but when you think about how this D has taken control in the 2nd half since the Dallas game, and we should get more talent on that side of the ball in the off season, plus our guys back I could be ok if he stays as well.[/quote]

Oh no doubt, he could stay, but when you look back to how we were with both Orakpo and Carriker, and other games this season where we haven't been good at all on defense (Pittsburgh and St. Louis comes to mind) makes you remember how bad we were and other possibilities. What if Haslett had adjusted to Amendola earlier? Possibilities like that come to mind. Would we be a game better in the playoff race?

For 3 years all I've been hearing consistently about Haslett is that he is horrible at adjusting...has he been adjusting better recently or is it just that the defense knows that if they make a stop, they can put their explosive offense on the field..

This question won't be answered until the seasons over.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976673]When you wrote that I was thinking "there is no way that's true."

And yet it is.[/quote]

I know, I was surprised when I looked at it, because for a while he seemed like the poster boy for sophomore slumps, but I think it was mainly his attitude during his losses.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=SCRedskinsFan;976675]What's this "win now team" thing? Tough to call a team with a rookie QB, a rookie RB, and a rookie backup QB a "win now team."

Unless, of course Shanahan created the "win now team" sometime during this season. Which surely would be more credit than you've been willing to give the coaches todate. Can't have it both ways...[/quote]Kinda agree with you. Giving all those draft picks was kinda "win now", but Shanny's presided over a youth movement. He's had his moments (McNabb) but "Win Now" hasn't been Shanny's way with the Skins overall.

If we had signed Peyton Manning instead of drafting RG3, that would have been a "win now" move IMO. Even with all those draft picks we would have kept. Someone might correct me on this, but our cap situation would have been even worse with Manning, right?

edit: Wow CRedskinsRule, great observation. Looked at his stats and compared to Aaron Rodgers. If Cam improves over the course of his career as Aaron did, the sky's the limit! Same for Griffin.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

The average age of the Redskins roster is still on the older side. The idea of the youth movement is real, but a lot of those players are at the end of their rookie contracts now and will be expensive to retain (or already are expensive, such as Garcon or Morgan).

Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth. Five years from now, Aaron Rodgers will be 34, Peyton Manning will be 41, and Drew Brees will be 38. Griffin will be 27.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

Griffin and Rodgers are shockingly similar from a numbers (and a skill set) perspective.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976705]The average age of the Redskins roster is still on the older side. The idea of the youth movement is real, but a lot of those players are at the end of their rookie contracts now and will be expensive to retain (or already are expensive, such as Garcon or Morgan).

Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth. Five years from now, Aaron Rodgers will be 34, Peyton Manning will be 41, and Drew Brees will be 38. Griffin will be 27.[/quote]

Is this real?...you think too hard sometimes Tripp

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

Those numbers are accurate, yes.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976705]The average age of the Redskins roster is still on the older side. The idea of the youth movement is real, but a lot of those players are at the end of their rookie contracts now and will be expensive to retain (or already are expensive, such as Garcon or Morgan).

Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth. Five years from now, Aaron Rodgers will be 34, Peyton Manning will be 41, and Drew Brees will be 38. Griffin will be 27.[/quote]

There is more than just Griffin to the youth movement...
Morris is 24
Orakpo 26
Kerrigan 24
T. Williams 24
Garçon 26

There are other plays like fred davis, riley and jenkins but to say that Griffin is the youth movement in my opinion is not accurate.

Morris
Forbath
Kerrigan
Riley
Jenkins
Robinson
Davis
Garcon

You're working too hard Gtripp and moving into the realm of the obtuse.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

So, wait, I'm confused: are all 32 teams in a youth movement because they employ players who are young? Or should we do this by something more objective?

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976719]So, wait, I'm confused: are all 32 teams in a youth movement because they employ players who are young? Or should we do this by something more objective?[/quote]

By stating that Griffin was the youth movement you implied that Griffin was the only young player on the skins, but the numbers would prove that to be false.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976705]The average age of the Redskins roster is still on the older side. The idea of the youth movement is real, but a lot of those players are at the end of their rookie contracts now and will be expensive to retain (or already are expensive, such as Garcon or Morgan).

Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth. Five years from now, Aaron Rodgers will be 34, Peyton Manning will be 41, and Drew Brees will be 38. Griffin will be 27.[/quote]Well, we have other young players drafted and signed that are pretty young too. Just compared the 2012 roster to the 2009 roster. [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2012_roster.htm"]LINK[/URL] [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2009_roster.htm"]LINK[/URL]

At the bottom of the page links, Avg age in 2009: 27.6, Avg age in 2012: 26.5.

Looking at the starters though, upper part of pages, there's a lot more starters over 27 in 2009, than in 2012. Even with fewer starting players being listed for 2012 (I guess because it's a work in progress?), the 2009 starting roster looks a lot older than 2012, to me.

I think Shanny's doing a great job rebuilding with youth, after the Cerrato disaster.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=donofriose;976724]By stating that Griffin was the youth movement you implied that Griffin was the only young player on the skins, but the numbers would prove that to be false.[/quote]No. I never implied anything like that.

Griffin is the youngest starting quarterback in the league. But that's also the only position on the Skins where we are measurably younger than everyone else in the league. But when you considered that we traded future draft picks for that one player...then it's not a stretch to point out the absurdity of calling one player a youth movement.

It's fair to say that the Shanahan-Redskins have been youth-conscious. But to suggest they are actually young goes against the numbers.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=HailGreen28;976728]Well, we have other young players drafted and signed that are pretty young too. Just compared the 2012 roster to the 2009 roster. [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2012_roster.htm"]LINK[/URL] [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2009_roster.htm"]LINK[/URL]

At the bottom of the page links, Avg age in 2009: 27.6, Avg age in 2012: 27.

Looking at the starters though, upper part of pages, there's a lot more starters over 27 in 2009, than in 2012. Even with fewer starting players being listed for 2012 (I guess because it's a work in progress?), the 2009 starting roster looks a lot older than 2012, to me.[/quote]I think we were 31st in the league in av. age in 2009. We're like 23rd or something now.

But it's not like they could have reasonably trended anywhere but where they did go, just simple regression towards the mean. If the Redskins suddenly get really young in the next two years, then, yeah, we can call it a youth movement. But that's not where I suspect this roster is headed.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

My mind hurts.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976729]No. I never implied anything like that.

Griffin is the youngest starting quarterback in the league. But that's also the only position on the Skins where we are measurably younger than everyone else in the league. But when you considered that we traded future draft picks for that one player...then it's not a stretch to point out the absurdity of calling one player a youth movement.

It's fair to say that the Shanahan-Redskins have been youth-conscious. But to suggest they are actually young goes against the numbers.[/quote]

"Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth."

- That is what you stated in your previous post. We are also young at RB, TE (we signed cooley because Davis got injured more of a desperation move) and OLB. Yes we do still have a lot of older players but to say Griffin/quarterbacks is the only young depth chart we have I believe is inaccurate.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976731]I think we were 31st in the league in av. age in 2009. We're like 23rd or something now.

But it's not like they could have reasonably trended anywhere but where they did go, just simple regression towards the mean. If the Redskins suddenly get really young in the next two years, then, yeah, we can call it a youth movement. But that's not where I suspect this roster is headed.[/quote]Can't deny the direction Shanny has taken the team though. Towards youth, especially our starters. And that's with 39 year old Sav Rocca on the team. (Lol had no idea he was older than Fletch)

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976705]The average age of the Redskins roster is still on the older side. The idea of the youth movement is real, but a lot of those players are at the end of their rookie contracts now and will be expensive to retain (or already are expensive, such as Garcon or Morgan).

Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth. Five years from now, Aaron Rodgers will be 34, Peyton Manning will be 41, and Drew Brees will be 38. Griffin will be 27.[/quote]

7 players are over 30:
Rocca 39
Fletcher 37
Moss 33
Jordan Black 32
Grossman 32
J Brown 31
Madieu Williams 31

Everyone else is 30 or under.

23 are 22 -24 yo, and that includes:
2 qbs and our starting:
RB, LT, MLB(Riley), OLB
and key but not necessarily starting:
WR(2), CB, TE, DE, RB

The roster currently shows solid youth, and some solid "aged" veterans.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=donofriose;976735]"Here's the youth movement: Griffin is 22. That's it. That's the youth."

- That is what you stated in your previous post. We are also young at RB, TE ([B]we signed cooley because Davis got injured more of a desperation move[/B]) and OLB. Yes we do still have a lot of older players but to say Griffin/quarterbacks is the only young depth chart we have I believe is inaccurate.[/quote]Youth movement!

Quarterback is the spot on the field where we are measurably younger than the rest of the NFL. We're "not old" at a whole bunch of other places, but so is every team.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;976729]No. I never implied anything like that.[/QUOTE]

BS... that is exactly what you said.!

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

Also, If a team is making a youth movement, I think the positions you would like to fill are exactly what we have. QB, RB (since they age "faster" obviously), LT, and MLB. We have, Griffin(22), Morris(24), Williams(24) and Riley(24), all under contract and reasonably certain we will be able to resign them when they come up.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;976748]BS... that is exactly what you said.![/quote]Completely false.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;976750]Also, If a team is making a youth movement, I think the positions you would like to fill are exactly what we have. QB, RB (since they age "faster" obviously), LT, and MLB. We have, Griffin(22), Morris(24), Williams(24) and Riley(24), all under contract and reasonably certain we will be able to resign them when they come up.[/quote]Well sure, adding key players at key positions through the draft is a major reason why we're enjoying this recent run of success.

I just don't understand why people think that the Redskins getting returns on their draft suddenly makes them unique or young when the numbers say otherwise.

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;976760]Well sure, adding key players at key positions through the draft is a major reason why we're enjoying this recent run of success.

I just don't understand why people think that the Redskins getting returns on their draft suddenly makes them unique or young when the numbers say otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Who's saying we are "unique". We are, at least I am simply crediting MS and BA for adding youth and depth in a manner we haven't seen in the last 15 years at least.

You have consistently criticized both the talent acquisition of MS and the usage of that talent. I simply posit, regardless of how other teams build their roster, I am pleased with MS's roster and his usage of the same.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

First of all, youth movement is an often overrated and misused term. By the standard of the some, how many "young" teams have won Super Bowls or conference championships in the past 10 years? If you're young and competent at key positions, that's the point. Hell, Jacksonville is a young team, but they play like crap. So who gives a shit at the end of the day.

Secondly, the Redskins have been very fortunate with injuries this year. Yes, we've suffered some injuries, but the offensive side of the ball has remained largely -- 98% in tack. On defense, except for Rak and Carriker, we've pretty much fielded all of our starters.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;976760]Well sure, adding key players at key positions through the draft is a major reason why we're enjoying this recent run of success.

I just don't understand why people think that the Redskins getting returns on their draft suddenly makes them unique or young when the numbers say otherwise.[/quote]

It makes people think that we are using youth instead of relying on aged veterans (ie the over the hill gang, or the 2009 Skins) Hence the term youth movement. This isn't a complicated concept, and you sound more like a bitter old man who grudgingly gives ground rather than the guy who would at some points in the past write fairly interesting breakdowns of the games. You are arguing over where the Skins fall in this list:
[quote]1 Rams 25.32
2 Eagles 25.55
3 Browns 25.62
4 Vikings 25.64
5 Packers 25.65
6 Buccaneers 25.69
7 Seahawks 25.77
8 Chiefs 25.8
9 Patriots 25.81
10 Titans 25.85
11 Bengals 25.87
12 Panthers 25.91
13 Dolphins 25.91
14 Cowboys 26
15 Colts 26.02
16 Jaguars 26.06
17 Saints 26.34
18 Raiders 26.38
19 Giants 26.4
20 Ravens 26.4
21 Texans 26.42
22 Broncos 26.47
23 Redskins 26.53
24 Steelers 26.56
25 Bills 26.57
26 49ers 26.64
27 Bears 26.66
28 Cardinals 26.91
29 Lions 26.93
30 Falcons 26.98
31 Chargers 27.15 [/quote]
saying the move up was to be expected. Duh. But a youth movement isn't discussing team age, it's discussing the age of your starters, and how long you can reasonably expect the core to be around. We have a good youthful core, and can reasonably expect to add several in each of the next two drafts (not a first round pick, but 2-7th both years).

Bottomline: To argue or imply no youth movement is a far more shallow analysis than you are capable of.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;976778]Who's saying we are "unique". We are, at least I am simply crediting MS and BA for adding youth and depth in a manner we haven't seen in the last 15 years at least.

You have consistently criticized both the talent acquisition of MS and the usage of that talent. I simply posit, regardless of how other teams build their roster, I am pleased with MS's roster and his usage of the same.[/quote]I'm very impressed with the last five games and still fairly unimpressed with the big picture, but you knew both of those things already. Either way, they've done a good job with this team, emphasis on the word team.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;976782]It makes people think that we are using youth instead of relying on aged veterans (ie the over the hill gang, or the 2009 Skins) Hence the term youth movement. This isn't a complicated concept, and you sound more like a bitter old man who grudgingly gives ground rather than the guy who would at some points in the past write fairly interesting breakdowns of the games. You are arguing over where the Skins fall in this list:

saying the move up was to be expected. Duh. But a youth movement isn't discussing team age, [B]it's discussing the age of your starters, and how long you can reasonably expect the core to be around. [/B] We have a good youthful core, and can reasonably expect to add several in each of the next two drafts (not a first round pick, but 2-7th both years).

Bottomline: To argue or imply no youth movement is a far more shallow analysis than you are capable of.[/quote]

I think that is a fair assessment.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;976782]It makes people think that we are using youth instead of relying on aged veterans (ie the over the hill gang, or the 2009 Skins) Hence the term youth movement. This isn't a complicated concept, and you sound more like a bitter old man who grudgingly gives ground rather than the guy who would at some points in the past write fairly interesting breakdowns of the games. You are arguing over where the Skins fall in this list:

saying the move up was to be expected. Duh. But a youth movement isn't discussing team age, it's discussing the age of your starters, and how long you can reasonably expect the core to be around. We have a good youthful core, and can reasonably expect to add several in each of the next two drafts (not a first round pick, but 2-7th both years).

Bottomline: To argue or imply no youth movement is a far more shallow analysis than you are capable of.[/quote]I always deal in the reality of the situation and if that's going to turn me into a bitter old man, then I can live with that. I know little of this "giving ground" you speak of though. I've been pretty consistent throughout this.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=SCRedskinsFan;976675]What's this "win now team" thing? Tough to call a team with a rookie QB, a rookie RB, and a rookie backup QB a "win now team."

Unless, of course Shanahan created the "win now team" sometime during this season. Which surely would be more credit than you've been willing to give the coaches todate. Can't have it both ways...[/quote]

^^I have no idea what any of that meant. Thought it was pretty obvious the Redskins were a "win now" team when we made the trade with St. Louis, no? When you give up three of six picks over a 30 month period for one player and don't have a lot of ammo to use in FA doesn't it say you think you can win with that one player? Year one is a long shot to win it all, but yeah, you're looking to be competitive right away. That's win now to me as opposed to still rebuilding. Clear?

I said 8-8 minimum before the season started, and that was before we saw how unbelievable RG is.

Things are going to get complicated when Fletcher goes though. While Riley has improved markedly those who poo-poo London's impact are mistaken, he's still the QB of the defense and our most important defensive player.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

I guess you can say it means win now, or you can take it as we had a chance to land a once in a lifetime type of player, a real change the landscape of the franchise type of QB and no price was too steep.

At 22 he's probably going to be here a long time. There's a long term aspect of the move at play too.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=donofriose;976716]There is more than just Griffin to the youth movement...
Morris is 24
Orakpo 26
Kerrigan 24
T. Williams 24
Garçon 26

There are other plays like fred davis, riley and jenkins but to say that Griffin is the youth movement in my opinion is not accurate.[/quote]

To me the value of youth is health and maybe endurance (whereas older rosters should have the edge in experience and football IQ), but you don't have that with Orakpo or Garcon. Both already are evidently battling long-term, nagging injuries.

But yeah the rest of those cats and Hankerson and hopefully Jenkins are a solid group of young players.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=The Goat;976831]When you give up three of six picks over a 30 month period for one player and don't have a lot of ammo to use in FA doesn't it say you think you can win with that one player?[/quote]

Perhaps. I think an alternate interpretation is that they thought we can't win ever without a good QB and they did what they thought had to be one to get one. Regardless of its short-term impact. I don't believe they've acted in a way that was very clearly a win now or never type proposition.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

Well...whatever. I want them to win now.

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

[quote=The Goat;976841]Well...whatever. I want them to win now.[/quote]

Yeah me too

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

I'm starting to think haslett deserves to be part of the coach of the year conversation. When has a defensive coordinator done so much with so little?

Re: Should Mike Shanahan Be Canonized?
 

Who wants to canonize Mike now? :yeahright::hitfan:

Time for a new poll

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/50026-should-mike-shanahan-be-fired.html[/url]