Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Franchises like the Lions and Bengals have been turned around completely in three years and (especially w/ Detroit) starting way further down in terms of talent than Mike inherited in Washington. He chose to make the transition even harder by blowing up the defense.

Point is good coaches have shown three years is sufficient to turn a franchise around. If Mike can't get to .500 this year it high time to move on. If he can't compete for a division title next year it will be time to move on. The notion we won't find a better coach is absurd. Mike has made myriad mistakes here already that are on him and him alone...starting this year the results fall on his shoulders and it's time to put the legacy argument to bed.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

stability is important to me. did he sign a 4 year contract? 5 year contract? give him the length of the contract

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

I think the problem is Snyder. Get rid of him and everything will change but we cannot

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=donofriose;917017]I think the problem is Snyder. Get rid of him and everything will change but we cannot[/quote]

Like coaches, owners evolve and learn the right way of doing things. I think Snyder has come a far way from the impetuous fan that walked in and fired half the staff. Sure we haven't won anything, but if he is finally getting it (which I think is the case) it would be ridiculous to want to go right back into the arms of another billionaire owner who has no clue how to run an NFL franchise. Case in point - Miami. This is not a McDonalds franchise that has a standard boiler plate operation, it takes patience, perserverance, and dedication, with a strong willingness to win. I think DS has most, if not all, of those things, and that we are on the verge of seeing a new era in Skins football.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=skinsguy;917003]If you want to base things on facts, maybe we should start with the fact that the franchise has gone the route of switching coaching regimes every two or three years, and it has gotten them nowhere. If we continue to base things on fact, we see that there are no other coaches available, who want to come to Washington, that possesses the resume that Mike Shanahan possesses. If we want to, yet, continue to base things on facts, the fact is, Mike Shanahan stated from the very beginning that it would take him the length of his contract to rebuild this team the right way, and if Snyder was not interested in being patient, then don't hire him, (or something to that affect.) The fact is, Redskins fans are very impatient. Couple that with today's instant gratification that people have become accustomed to, and it makes for a lot of fans who would be dangerous if they were the owner of the Washington Redskins. I trust the current regime, as painful as it's been on Sundays, the Shannies will get this team back to where it needs to be. And if by the end of year five and that isn't true, then move on to the next regime.[/quote]

Yes. I agree the franchise has changed coaching staffs far to frequently for my liking too, but the fact that Shanahan's overall record of wins, and losses is worse than those of his most recent predecessors must also be factored into the equation. I understand he said it will take a while to turn this franchise around, that is a fact, but whether he will turn this franchise around in that time period remains to be seen. If he does, and I hope he can, I'm all for it. However if he can't those words are hollow, the effort was fruitless, time was potentially waisted, and the point is moot. I'm not too high on resumes to begin with, but some of the winningest, and most innovative coaches in the league could be considered plucked from the ether, or given a head coaching shot when juxtaposed with a resume as extensive as Shanahans at this point in his career, and have remained with, and built their legacy through a single team. I'm glad that you trust the current regime and respect that you have an opinion on this topic, but based on what they've shown us up to this moment it seems slightly paradoxical, and I refuse to hold anyone to a lower standard if they are skeptical that this regime can deliver us from mediocrity based their production to date.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

So how many years do people think it will take Indy to turn it around. You have to factor in there starting out with a QB an unproven QB. But most people think a sure thing. Indy are also Blowing up the Defense from a 4-3 to a 3-4. So how long do you give them.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;917018]Like coaches, owners evolve and learn the right way of doing things. I think Snyder has come a far way from the impetuous fan that walked in and fired half the staff. Sure we haven't won anything, but if he is finally getting it (which I think is the case) it would be ridiculous to want to go right back into the arms of another billionaire owner who has no clue how to run an NFL franchise. Case in point - Miami. This is not a McDonalds franchise that has a standard boiler plate operation, it takes patience, perserverance, and dedication, with a strong willingness to win. I think DS has most, if not all, of those things, and that we are on the verge of seeing a new era in Skins football.[/quote]Well said, and I agree.

There was an article in the [I]Washington Examiner[/I] about this conundrum and learning process with Mr. Snyder, and I agree that he has come a long way from the guy who used to shell out $20 million dollars a pop for old and soon-to-be-has-been players, who treated the team like he was playing fantasy football.

If we're contenders in the next two or three years, he will be forgiven a LOT.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=skinsguy;917003]If you want to base things on facts, maybe we should start with the fact that the franchise has gone the route of switching coaching regimes every two or three years, and it has gotten them nowhere. If we continue to base things on fact, we see that there are no other coaches available, who want to come to Washington, that possesses the resume that Mike Shanahan possesses. If we want to, yet, continue to base things on facts, the fact is, Mike Shanahan stated from the very beginning that it would take him the length of his contract to rebuild this team the right way, and if Snyder was not interested in being patient, then don't hire him, (or something to that affect.) The fact is, Redskins fans are very impatient. Couple that with today's instant gratification that people have become accustomed to, and it makes for a lot of fans who would be dangerous if they were the owner of the Washington Redskins. I trust the current regime, as painful as it's been on Sundays, the Shannies will get this team back to where it needs to be. And if by the end of year five and that isn't true, then move on to the next regime.[/quote]:goodjob:

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=The Goat;917012]Franchises like the Lions and Bengals have been turned around completely in three years and (especially w/ Detroit) starting way further down in terms of talent than Mike inherited in Washington. He chose to make the transition even harder by blowing up the defense.

Point is good coaches have shown three years is sufficient to turn a franchise around. [B]If Mike can't get to .500 this year it high time to move on. If he can't compete for a division title next year it will be time to move on. [/B] The notion we won't find a better coach is absurd. Mike has made myriad mistakes here already that are on him and him alone...starting this year the results fall on his shoulders and it's time to put the legacy argument to bed.[/quote]
I've seen this comment more than a few times this offseason from a variety of sources and I just really don't get it. Other than appeasing an impatient fan base, what exactly would this accomplish?

The analysis came out last week that Shanahan has replaced all but 15 players from the roster he inherited (and that assumes that Moss & Cooley return in 2012). Also, we have drafted more players (21) than any other team in the league the past 2 years. AND, by the way, we just drafted our franchise QB for the next decade who just happens to fit, according to ALL NFL experts, perfectly in the offensive system he and his son run.

So according to you, if we improve to 7 wins he should be fired and we start over AGAIN? Help me understand what the logic is other than bloodlust? What results would you expect in 2013 from the team he specifically built to suit his vision from another coach/regime?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Paintrain;917030]I've seen this comment more than a few times this offseason from a variety of sources and I just really don't get it. Other than appeasing an impatient fan base, what exactly would this accomplish?

The analysis came out last week that Shanahan has replaced all but 15 players from the roster he inherited (and that assumes that Moss & Cooley return in 2012). Also, we have drafted more players (21) than any other team in the league the past 2 years. AND, by the way, we just drafted our franchise QB for the next decade who just happens to fit, according to ALL NFL experts, perfectly in the offensive system he and his son run.

So according to you, if we improve to 7 wins he should be fired and we start over AGAIN? Help me understand what the logic is other than bloodlust? What results would you expect in 2013 from the team he specifically built to suit his vision from another coach/regime?[/quote]

Yes it's amazing how fans get mad at Snyder for changeing coaches every 2 to 3 years, yet this is what most people think we should continue todo.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Paintrain;917030]I've seen this comment more than a few times this offseason from a variety of sources and I just really don't get it. Other than appeasing an impatient fan base, what exactly would this accomplish?

The analysis came out last week that Shanahan has replaced all but 15 players from the roster he inherited (and that assumes that Moss & Cooley return in 2012). Also, we have drafted more players (21) than any other team in the league the past 2 years. AND, by the way, we just drafted our franchise QB for the next decade who just happens to fit, according to ALL NFL experts, perfectly in the offensive system he and his son run.

So according to you, if we improve to 7 wins he should be fired and we start over AGAIN? Help me understand what the logic is other than bloodlust? What results would you expect in 2013 from the team he specifically built to suit his vision from another coach/regime?[/quote]

Franchises like the Lions and Bengals have been turned around completely in three years and (especially w/ Detroit) starting way further down in terms of talent than Mike inherited in Washington. He chose to make the transition even harder by blowing up the defense.

Point is good coaches have shown three years is sufficient to turn a franchise around. The notion we won't find a better coach is absurd. Mike has made myriad mistakes here already that are on him and him alone...starting this year the results fall on his shoulders and it's time to put the legacy argument to bed.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[INDENT]"Yes it's amazing how fans get mad at Snyder for changeing coaches every 2 to 3 years, yet this is what most people think we should continue todo."
[/INDENT]
[LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana][B][URL="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html"]Albert Einstein[/URL][/B][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Dang, just when I thought we were actually gonna talk about Griffin and the possibility of the no-huddle.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;917031]Yes it's amazing how fans get mad at Snyder for changeing coaches every 2 to 3 years, yet this is what most people think we should continue todo.[/quote]


Momma always said...stupid is as stupid does.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;917031]Yes it's amazing how fans get mad at Snyder for changeing coaches every 2 to 3 years, yet this is what most people think we should continue todo.[/quote]It's insane.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=30gut;917036]Dang, just when I thought we were actually gonna talk about Griffin and the possibility of the no-huddle.[/quote]

You made a great point earlier in the thread, and I think people resigned themselves to the idea that the chances are minimal of anything as progressive as the no-huddle being used spontaneously in situational mismatches was going to come out of this regime.

But I think anything that can accentuate the ability of our QB, who is obviously comfortable in the no-huddle, or that makes our system more dynamic, and unpredictable should be the goal. There are so many situations during a game that having the no-huddle in your arsenal can really shift the momentum, and change the overall pace. If it were me I'd consider this period an all out experimentation phase with RG3, but do I think that will happen here. Not likely.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NYCskinfan82;917031]Yes it's amazing how fans get mad at Snyder for changeing coaches every 2 to 3 years, yet this is what most people think we should continue todo.[/quote]

This.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NC_Skins;917040]Momma always said...stupid is as stupid does.[/quote]


Just as asinine not to consider the possibility that this 2 season sub 500 coaching staff with cart blanche might not come away with a winning season. You guys are arguing that we shouldn't repeat past mistakes, but keeping a coaching staff regardless of record, gameplanning, playcalling, production, half time adjustments, adaptation, exploitation of opponants weaknesses, personnel decisions, just because you believe we should keep a regime in place for 5 years, sounds like one big perpetual mistake. The Shanaman, just like any other man, should be held accountable for his mistakes. He deserves this year though, to see if he can turn things around, but the man vouched for Grossman, the same with Beck, same with McNabb, and he said after all that failed that he just needed a QB that fits his system. He's got one, let's see what he can do with him.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917046]Just as asinine not to consider the possibility that this 2 season sub 500 coaching staff with cart blanche might not come away with a winning season. You guys are arguing that we shouldn't repeat past mistakes, but keeping a coaching staff regardless of record, gameplanning, playcalling, production, half time adjustments, adaptation, exploitation of opponants weaknesses, personnel decisions, just because you believe we should keep a regime in place for 5 years, sounds like one big perpetual mistake. The Shanaman, just like any other man, should be held accountable for his mistakes. He deserves this year though, to see if he can turn things around, but the man vouched for Grossman, the same with Beck, same with McNabb, and he said after all that failed that he just needed a QB that fits his system. He's got one, let's see what he can do with him.[/quote]where and how did he vouch for those 3 qbs?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=los panda;917050]where and how did he vouch for those 3 qbs?[/quote]

Really dude?

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/29/shanahan-stakes-his-reputation-on-grossman-beck/]Shanahan says he’ll stake his reputation on Grossman, Beck | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917046]Just as asinine not to consider the possibility that this 2 season sub 500 coaching staff with cart blanche might not come away with a winning season. You guys are arguing that we shouldn't repeat past mistakes, but keeping a coaching staff regardless of record, gameplanning, playcalling, production, half time adjustments, adaptation, exploitation of opponants weaknesses, personnel decisions, just because you believe we should keep a regime in place for 5 years, sounds like one big perpetual mistake. The Shanaman, just like any other man, should be held accountable for his mistakes. He deserves this year though, to see if he can turn things around, but the man vouched for Grossman, the same with Beck, same with McNabb, and he said after all that failed that he just needed a QB that fits his system. He's got one, let's see what he can do with him.[/quote]

I'm so tired of mike getting blamed for vouching for these journeymen quarterbacks. Of course he's going to vouch for them to build their confidence. The man didn't have any options to upgrade the position. Everyone would be singing a different tune if McNabb came to play. You can bitch about Mike's mistakes after you win two super bowls.
Get over it.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917053]really dude?

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/29/shanahan-stakes-his-reputation-on-grossman-beck/]shanahan says he’ll stake his reputation on grossman, beck | profootballtalk[/url][/quote]2/3

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=30gut;917036]Dang, just when I thought we were actually gonna talk about Griffin and the possibility of the no-huddle.[/quote]

So the Redskins are going to run a no huddle with Griffin.....satisfied?

Okay guys lets get down to the real issues. Rising season ticket prices that have come in light of declining win totals. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah black quarterback blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah racism blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Baine Capital blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Gay Marriage blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Pokemonblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917046]Just as asinine not to consider the possibility that this 2 season sub 500 coaching staff with cart blanche might not come away with a winning season. The Shanaman, just like any other man, should be held accountable for his mistakes. He deserves this year though, to see if he can turn things around, but the man vouched for Grossman, the same with Beck, same with McNabb, and he said after all that failed that he just needed a QB that fits his system. He's got one, let's see what he can do with him.[/quote]


What good is a cart blanche when you have nobody worth spending it on? Do tell, what moves could he have made his first year seeing the league was bogged down with restricted free agents? Oh, my guess is you conveniently left that fact out of your observation. Also forgot about the whole lockout thing as well I'm sure.

His second year, what QB would you have brought into the fold? The Vince Young that so many people clamored for? Kyle Orton? The guy who was benched for a shitty Tim Tebow? What FA QB would have been better than Rex. Mind you, this would have been a new offense for whatever QB he brought in.

So because he publicly vouched for Grossman and Beck, you hold him to that?... What the **** did you expect him to say man? Uhh, yeah, guys, Rex and Beck are totally garbage, but I have to ride them out until I find something better in the draft this upcoming year. /faceplam

I suggest you study up on coach speak my friend. It'll save you a lot of trouble in the future. Here are the cliff-notes on coach speak. If he says it, and does it. It's true. If he says it, and goes in the opposite direction, he was lying his ass off.

What he said: I personally vouch for Rex and Beck as our starting QB.
What he does: Following year trades historic amount of picks to move up in draft. (he was lying)

What he says: I can't wait to wait to get to work with Jason Campbell.
What he does: Trades Jason Campbell for a future 4th rounder. (he was lying)

I'm not sure what the hell fans were expecting the man to do the previous two years when the options were all but limited to him. The moves he could make, he did.

His one glaring mistake was the McNabb trade. Trying to think you can teach a old dog a new trick, and thinking he could motivate a lazy person was stupid. Instead of keeping with him though as Vinny would have, he traded him and at least got something back for him.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917053]Really dude?

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/29/shanahan-stakes-his-reputation-on-grossman-beck/]Shanahan says he’ll stake his reputation on Grossman, Beck | ProFootballTalk[/url][/quote]really dude. i don't remember him vouching for mcnabb, help me out dude. is 2 the new 3?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NC_Skins;917057]What good is a cart blanche when you have nobody worth spending it on? Do tell, what moves could he have made his first year seeing the league was bogged down with restricted free agents? Oh, my guess is you conveniently left that fact out of your observation. Also forgot about the whole lockout thing as well I'm sure.

His second year, what QB would you have brought into the fold? The Vince Young that so many people clamored for? Kyle Orton? The guy who was benched for a shitty Tim Tebow? What FA QB would have been better than Rex. Mind you, this would have been a new offense for whatever QB he brought in.

[B]So because he publicly vouched for Grossman and Beck, you hold him to that?... What the **** did you expect him to say man? Uhh, yeah, guys, Rex and Beck are totally garbage[/B], but I have to ride them out until I find something better in the draft this upcoming year. /faceplam

I suggest you study up on coach speak my friend. It'll save you a lot of trouble in the future. Here are the cliff-notes on coach speak. If he says it, and does it. It's true. If he says it, and goes in the opposite direction, he was lying his ass off.

What he said: I personally vouch for Rex and Beck as our starting QB.
What he does: Following year trades historic amount of picks to move up in draft. (he was lying)

What he says: I can't wait to wait to get to work with Jason Campbell.
What he does: Trades Jason Campbell for a future 4th rounder. (he was lying)

I'm not sure what the hell fans were expecting the man to do the previous two years when the options were all but limited to him. The moves he could make, he did.

His one glaring mistake was the McNabb trade. Trying to think you can teach a old dog a new trick, and thinking he could motivate a lazy person was stupid. Instead of keeping with him though as Vinny would have, he traded him and at least got something back for him.[/quote]
Nice post!
It is....shocking ti me...anybody would need to be reminded of these points...ever.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=The Goat;917034]Franchises like the Lions and Bengals have been turned around completely in three years and (especially w/ Detroit) starting way further down in terms of talent than Mike inherited in Washington. He chose to make the transition even harder by blowing up the defense.

Point is good coaches have shown three years is sufficient to turn a franchise around. The notion we won't find a better coach is absurd. Mike has made myriad mistakes here already that are on him and him alone...starting this year the results fall on his shoulders and it's time to put the legacy argument to bed.[/quote]

So apparently copying and pasting ones own previous post now qualifies for discussion. Must be the offseason.. Prediction, Shanny gets a contract extension after next season.

Anyways, to unhijack the thread, I'd expect to see some tenets of a no huddle/spread as a part of the offense this year. We may see some more of the smoke screens for 4-6 yards, line up quickly, shotgun draw, then a couple of quick passes before a deep shot. I think Mike and Kyle are drooling at the possibilities.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Paintrain;917074]So apparently copying and pasting ones own previous post now qualifies for discussion. Must be the offseason.. Prediction, Shanny gets a contract extension after [B]next[/B] season.

Anyways, to unhijack the thread, I'd expect to see some tenets of a no huddle/spread as a part of the offense this year. We may see some more of the smoke screens for 4-6 yards, line up quickly, shotgun draw, then a couple of quick passes before a deep shot. I think Mike and Kyle are drooling at the possibilities.[/quote]this season or next season?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917053]Really dude?

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/29/shanahan-stakes-his-reputation-on-grossman-beck/]Shanahan says he’ll stake his reputation on Grossman, Beck | ProFootballTalk[/url][/quote]

Until this day, I'm solidly convinced that Mike Shanahan used Grossman and Beck as the quarterbacks in 2011 knowing fully well that the Redskins offense would struggle with both so that a 4-12/5-11/6-10 record could be attained in order to draft an elite college prospect in 2012.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

Please make it stop.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

i think fanarchist's elitist stance rubs more than one the wrong way

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Mattyk;917080]Please make it stop.[/quote]

You have the power, He-Man

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

The argument of 'who else was the option' is a silly argument.
Of course there were other options besides Beck and Rex via draft/trade/FA but the staff [I][B]chose[/B][/I] to go with them.

There is no way to say for sure if there were "better" options because there is no way to judge.
However what we do [B]know[/B] is that our record and the production from Beck/Rex was near league worst.
So the benchmark for a better solution isn't very high.

I don't see what is so wrong with admitting that the staff made a mistake going with Beck/Rex as opposed to drafting a QB somewhere anywhere in the draft or signing/trading for a FA QB.

Solving the QB problem is good for the franchise regardless if it happens in year 1 or in year 3.
Mike Shanahan and Kyle Shanahan have made mistakes but all coaches and GMs make mistakes.
But, grooming a young franchise QB buys him at [I]least[/I] 2 year imo.
And in those 2 years I have full faith that Mike Shanahan's outstanding coaching ability will mask if not erase the mistakes of Mike Shanahan the GM.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=Paintrain;917074]Anyways, to unhijack the thread, I'd expect to see some tenets of a no huddle/spread as a part of the offense this year. We may see some more of the smoke screens for 4-6 yards, line up quickly, shotgun draw, then a couple of quick passes before a deep shot. I think Mike and Kyle are drooling at the possibilities.[/quote](Posted earlier)
I got no questions about whether [B]Griffin[/B] can handle the no huddle.
I love talking about the no-huddle in abstract but I don't see how or why people think we would use it more often.
In the past this offense (Mike/Kyle) hasn't been a no huddle offense.
And if we're speaking honestly the performance in 2 minute and hurry has been lacking regardless of the QB (McNabb/Rex).
With McNabb the excuse was he didn't know the offense with Rex there was no excuse. (equipment malfunction?)
I'm sure Kyle will improve with his hurry-up/2 minute offense/playcalling as he gains experience but I think its a hellavu strecth to think we're suddenly going to become a no huddle offense from what we've seen and where we are thus far.
I think its far more likely that they'll work to increase the tempo i.e. get in and out of the huddle quickly, get to the line quickly with time on the playclock etc.

If I were gambling on a team likely to run the type of offense some fans think we'll run (up tempo, no-huddle, with some zone-read, WCO) I would look at the Dolphins.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=NC_Skins;917057]What good is a cart blanche when you have nobody worth spending it on? Do tell, what moves could he have made his first year seeing the league was bogged down with restricted free agents? Oh, my guess is you conveniently left that fact out of your observation. Also forgot about the whole lockout thing as well I'm sure.

His second year, what QB would you have brought into the fold? The Vince Young that so many people clamored for? Kyle Orton? The guy who was benched for a shitty Tim Tebow? What FA QB would have been better than Rex. Mind you, this would have been a new offense for whatever QB he brought in.

So because he publicly vouched for Grossman and Beck, you hold him to that?... What the **** did you expect him to say man? Uhh, yeah, guys, Rex and Beck are totally garbage, but I have to ride them out until I find something better in the draft this upcoming year. /faceplam

I suggest you study up on coach speak my friend. It'll save you a lot of trouble in the future. Here are the cliff-notes on coach speak. If he says it, and does it. It's true. If he says it, and goes in the opposite direction, he was lying his ass off.

What he said: I personally vouch for Rex and Beck as our starting QB.
What he does: Following year trades historic amount of picks to move up in draft. (he was lying)

What he says: I can't wait to wait to get to work with Jason Campbell.
What he does: Trades Jason Campbell for a future 4th rounder. (he was lying)

I'm not sure what the hell fans were expecting the man to do the previous two years when the options were all but limited to him. The moves he could make, he did.

His one glaring mistake was the McNabb trade. Trying to think you can teach a old dog a new trick, and thinking he could motivate a lazy person was stupid. Instead of keeping with him though as Vinny would have, he traded him and at least got something back for him.[/quote]

So are you saying if Rex, or Beck, respectively, had surpassed everyones wildest expectations, and streaked us into the playoffs last season we would be in the exact same position we are now? We still would have given up the draft picks. We still would have drafted RG3/Tannehill, and that guy would still be the starting QB. Or are you saying Mike knew in the beginning of the season that these guys were doomed to fail, did nothing to correct the problem purposefully, so we would find ourselves in a position where we could potentially move up to choose either Luck, or a Qb who was barely on the radar at the time. You're right about the Jason Campbell thing, obvious lie, but as for the rest I have to believe that situation dictates outcome. And it's very easy to say everything that has happened is according to plan, when your aim is to justify everything retrospectively. So either Mike is clairvoyant in knowing we would find a trade partner that would put him in the perfect position to draft a system oriented guy, or he manipulated the season negatively through his personnel decisions in order to put himself in a position where he could choose a early first round QB.

Staking your reputation on someone versus a coaches vote of confindence are two extremely different dictums in my opinion. He might have endorsed those guys hoping for the best, and planning for the worst, but if we're using hindsight to define our positions I'll say what QB, even being in a new system, wouldn't have been better than Grossman. The only one I'm seeing on the list is Sam Bradford, and he was injured most of the year. So Orton, sure. Young, ok. Ryan Mallett in the mid rounds, let's give him a go. Tavaris Jackson, suit him up. Matt Moore. Tyrod Taylor, throw them in the mix. And for as bad as Tebow was(72.9), he still wasn't as bad as Rex(72.4).

This prevailing theme that all Mike's moves, execpt one, are justified, and were absolutely necessary, leaving us no other alternative, is absurd. And we're just talking QBs.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

i'm saying where is the other 1/3?

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

have the nerve to "dude" me and don't come correct

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=los panda;917087]have the nerve to "dude" me and don't come correct[/quote]

They traded for the guy. And gave up a 2nd round pick. For me that's endorsement enough. If you want to take the time to search for Mike's first press conference with McNabb I'm sure you could find something, but I doubt he brought McNabb in to fail.

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917088]They traded for the guy. And gave up a 2nd round pick. For me that's endorsement enough. If you want to take the time to search for Mike's first press conference with McNabb I'm sure you could find something, but I doubt he brought McNabb in to fail.[/quote]because mike makes all the moves. you got 67% on this test, homie

Re: RGIII Named Starter
 

[quote=fanarchist;917019]Yes. I agree the franchise has changed coaching staffs far to frequently for my liking too, but the fact that Shanahan's overall record of wins, and losses is worse than those of his most recent predecessors must also be factored into the equation. I understand he said it will take a while to turn this franchise around, that is a fact, but whether he will turn this franchise around in that time period remains to be seen. If he does, and I hope he can, I'm all for it. However if he can't those words are hollow, the effort was fruitless, time was potentially waisted, and the point is moot. I'm not too high on resumes to begin with, but some of the winningest, and most innovative coaches in the league could be considered plucked from the ether, or given a head coaching shot when juxtaposed with a resume as extensive as Shanahans at this point in his career, and have remained with, and built their legacy through a single team. I'm glad that you trust the current regime and respect that you have an opinion on this topic, but based on what they've shown us up to this moment it seems slightly paradoxical, and I refuse to hold anyone to a lower standard if they are skeptical that this regime can deliver us from mediocrity based their production to date.[/quote]

Provided, yes, the Shanahans haven't produced in the win column just yet. No doubt that's where we ultimately need to see improvement. I can go on into detail to justify being patient, but ultimately, when the 'skins don't even win half their games during the season, that patience runs thin. With that said, I do think MS has improved the talent of this team. The team has gotten younger, and keeps getting younger. He has three quality backs (assuming TH makes the team) in the back field, quality receivers, quality tight ends, what hopes to be a franchise elite QB, a pretty darn improved defense....etc...there are a lot of areas in which this team has improved. But anyways, like I said, I'm not going to go into details of justification, but other than to say I'd have to respectfully disagree that if Shanahan can't turn this club around in the five years, that it will all be wasted time. Consider this, the coaches that the 49ers had prior to Harbaugh could not produce wins on the field, but they were pretty good with bringing in and building talent on that team. Harbaugh comes in and nearly took them to the Super Bowl. But, a lot of his talent was already in place, the team just needed the right guy to manage that talent. If Shanahan turns out to not be the guy to turn this club around, it won't be because of his skills in finding the talent, it will be because he couldn't manage the players and use them to their strengths. But, being that he's being very successful at a few places prior to coming to Washington, I don't believe he would have a deficiency in that regard, yet might just simply run out of time when his contract ends.