Who's your pick's for next HC, DC and OC?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm having trouble understanding how a SB run in 2005 contributed in any way to Carroll totally revamping that team 5 years later. Again, that team was in decline when he got there, he flipped the roster and built a winner from top to bottom in that organization.

I can see if he came in and made minimal changes, but he didn't. He gutted that team from day one. Past success or failures had nothing to do with him turning them around.

It's quite possible to turn a team around in 3-4 years. Carroll is proof of that.

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

You don't seem to realize the team Carroll runs now is completely different from the one that went to the SB in 2005. The front office on down, it's a new organization. So again I'll ask, what does that 2005 SB team and a few playoff runs have to do with what Carroll has been able to accomplish there?

Past successes or failures don't have an impact on the future of a team once a new regime has been in place for a reasonable amount of time and had time to turn over the roster. It's just excuses.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by irish

Seattle was in a 2 year decline when PC came in. Wash was in a 20 year decline when MS took over. The situations are not comparable in any way.

I do agree that the Redskins situation is more complex than Seattle's, however, we made the playoffs in 2007 as well, it is not like we weren't a decent football team 6 years ago. To suggest that Mike is cleaning up messes from 8 years ago much less 20 is incorrect.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

I do agree that the Redskins situation is more complex than Seattle's, however, we made the playoffs in 2007 as well, it is not like we weren't a decent football team 6 years ago. To suggest that Mike is cleaning up messes from 8 years ago much less 20 is incorrect.

Exactly what I'm saying.

Outside of Moss and I believe K. Golston this team has been completely revamped under Shanahan's watch.

And we're supposed to believe what's holding us back right now is something that happened 10-20 years ago? Heck even 6-7 years ago under Gibbs? Considering the average player lasts 3 seasons that's two generations ago in football terms.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Exactly what I'm saying.

Outside of Moss and I believe K. Golston this team has been completely revamped under Shanahan's watch.

And we're supposed to believe what's holding us back right now is something that happened 10-20 years ago? Heck even 6-7 years ago under Gibbs? Considering the average player lasts 3 seasons that's two generations ago in football terms.

Agreed. There is absolutely nothing from even 6 years ago that has to do with the current Redskins roster. The issues that the team is having is the roster and/or coaches on the defensive side of the ball and special teams. Replace those coaches and revamp that squad and this team is easily a perennial playoff team.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Exactly what I'm saying.

Outside of Moss and I believe K. Golston this team has been completely revamped under Shanahan's watch.

And we're supposed to believe what's holding us back right now is something that happened 10-20 years ago? Heck even 6-7 years ago under Gibbs? Considering the average player lasts 3 seasons that's two generations ago in football terms.

Of course this is a completely different team from a few years ago. What I'm talking about is how losing and winning can create a culture. That's how things that happened 2, 4, 6, 10 years ago can impact today's team.

There's a reason that team's like Denver and NE consistently win over long periods of time and with lots of different players and it because of their culture of winning.Teams like Oak, Wash and Clev have developed cultures of losing and because of that they continue to lose no matter who is on the roster.

Shanny has seemed to start to turn the Skins now ingrained culture of losing into a culture of winning. This change wont happen overnight and it wont be a linear progression but IMO its starting to happen.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Of course this is a completely different team from a few years ago. What I'm talking about is how losing and winning can create a culture. That's how things that happened 2, 4, 6, 10 years ago can impact today's team.

There's a reason that team's like Denver and NE consistently win over long periods of time and with lots of different players and it because of their culture of winning.Teams like Oak, Wash and Clev have developed cultures of losing and because of that they continue to lose no matter who is on the roster.

Shanny has seemed to start to turn the Skins now ingrained culture of losing into a culture of winning. This change wont happen overnight and it wont be a linear progression but IMO its starting to happen.

Funny how our culture of winning in the 80s didn't carry over once Gibbs left.

I wonder why.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Funny how our culture of winning in the 80s didn't carry over once Gibbs left.

I wonder why.

If what John Kent Cooke said was true, it sounds like the 'skins very nearly didn't have that winning culture in the 80's. Jack wanted Gibbs gone after the 0-5 start. I seem to wonder if Jack had actually acted upon his tendencies and fired Gibbs, would he have had the same tendencies that we felt Daniel Snyder has, which would be to switch coaches ever few years? After Gibbs retired, Pettibon had one chance and he was out. Provided, that was the worst year I had ever witnessed as a Redskins fan, but still, one shot and Richie was done. I think Norv got more of a chance because John was transitioning into being the owner and Jack was in failing health, but it sometimes makes me wonder what if Joe wasn't given that chance to turn things around in his first year.

That's why I keep going back to this thing with Mike Shanahan. Like Gibbs II before, Shanahan had more to do than simply coming in and coaching the team. It is/was a complete overhaul of the franchise. Why do people think switching a coach every three years helps with the overhaul process?