How far can Beck take us?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

He also said on JIM ROME that "Mcnabb may not have been smart enough"

More specifically, he said it like this:

“The reason why Donovan McNabb is not in Washington right now is because he was lazy,” Romanowski said. “He didn’t spend the time. Mike Shanahan likes guys who will work really hard. I narrow it down to two things. He’s either lazy, or he’s not very bright to pick up the offense. One or the other. I think he’s bright enough, I just think he was lazy.”

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Isn't McNabb famous for those hell weeks in Arizona? I'm sorry, I mean I'm looking for reasons why McNabb failed in DC, but I'm not about to pin laziness on him just so we can look righteous.

If I had to guess I'd stay stubbornness was most most likely the biggest culprit. This is McNabb we're talking about here. Not Dan late night at the cabana club Marino.

When we talk about McNabb being lazy, it's not necessarily that he didn't work out, or that he didn't spend time in the film room, or do the things the quarterback is "supposed" to do.

It's that he was the last guy on the field in practice, and he lacked urgency and tempo in practice. His chill attitude didn't gel well with Mike's no non-sense approach. His lack of urgency on the field and in the huddle led to a lot of unnecessary delay of game penalties, and it didn't allow time to make adjustments at the line. Part of what helped the o-line with Rex in there was the fact they got in and out of the huddle quicker, which allowed the line time to adjust.

A faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust and the defense less time to do the things they need to do.

On top of being either unwilling or unable to adjust to the way Kyle does things, and struggling to learn the playbook, he didn't even have the best sense or urgency to operate the offense with the plays he did know.

I think that's the definition of "lazy" here, and while Mike likes Rex and Beck a little more. They've got a little more hustle on the field.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

When we talk about McNabb being lazy, it's not necessarily that he didn't work out, or that he didn't spend time in the film room, or do the things the quarterback is "supposed" to do.

It's that he was the last guy on the field in practice, and he lacked urgency and tempo in practice. His chill attitude didn't gel well with Mike's no non-sense approach. His lack of urgency on the field and in the huddle led to a lot of unnecessary delay of game penalties, and it didn't allow time to make adjustments at the line. Part of what helped the o-line with Rex in there was the fact they got in and out of the huddle quicker, which allowed the line time to adjust.

A faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust and the defense less time to do the things they need to do.

On top of being either unwilling or unable to adjust to the way Kyle does things, and struggling to learn the playbook, he didn't even have the best sense or urgency to operate the offense with the plays he did know.

I think that's the definition of "lazy" here, and while Mike likes Rex and Beck a little more. They've got a little more hustle on the field.

Agreed.

Lazy probably isn't the best word, I agree it had more to do with his lack of tempo and urgency, which could be perceived as laziness, but more than anything I think that's just DM's personality.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

When we talk about McNabb being lazy, it's not necessarily that he didn't work out, or that he didn't spend time in the film room, or do the things the quarterback is "supposed" to do.

It's that he was the last guy on the field in practice, and he lacked urgency and tempo in practice. His chill attitude didn't gel well with Mike's no non-sense approach. His lack of urgency on the field and in the huddle led to a lot of unnecessary delay of game penalties, and it didn't allow time to make adjustments at the line. Part of what helped the o-line with Rex in there was the fact they got in and out of the huddle quicker, which allowed the line time to adjust.

A faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust and the defense less time to do the things they need to do.

On top of being either unwilling or unable to adjust to the way Kyle does things, and struggling to learn the playbook, he didn't even have the best sense or urgency to operate the offense with the plays he did know.

I think that's the definition of "lazy" here, and while Mike likes Rex and Beck a little more. They've got a little more hustle on the field.

Please explain how "a faster tempo gives the offense more time to adjust". Seems to me that a faster tempo give neither side as much time to adjust.

Also, can someone demonstrate to me that the teams who made the Super Bowl in the last 3 or 4 years all played "uptempo on offense"? Frankly, I don't care nearly as much about offensive tempo as I do about offensive success. Are there really stats out there that demonstrate that "faster offense" is equal to "more succssful offense"?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Isn't McNabb famous for those hell weeks in Arizona? I'm sorry, I mean I'm looking for reasons why McNabb failed in DC, but I'm not about to pin laziness on him just so we can look righteous.

If I had to guess I'd stay stubbornness was most most likely the biggest culprit. This is McNabb we're talking about here. Not Dan late night at the cabana club Marino.

Why do you find it so hard to believe? Just because McNabb has a "hell week" in Arizona once a year doesn't mean he isn't lazy. I think Romanowski was most likely referencing his laziness when it came to viewing/studying game film.

It's been hinted quite a bit that McNabbs work ethic was indeed in question and major issue with Shanny. (note his dealings with Plummer as well) Shanny wants a guy who's going to put that extra time in, McDummy apparently wasn't that sort of guy.

[skinsfaninok]

lol no shit

[That Guy]

mike will stay past this year, i'd bet on it gtripp he's been around long enough and he's a lifer, and i mean... who else is danny going to get? fisher (sp?) is the only good candidate out there.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

mike will stay past this year, i'd bet on it gtripp he's been around long enough and he's a lifer, and i mean... who else is danny going to get? fisher (sp?) is the only good candidate out there.

Lifers who stick around (such as Dick Vermell in KC, Marty Schottenheimer in SD, Norv Turner in SD, Herm in KC, Wade in DAL, Coughlin in NY) typically didn't have to deal with multiple losing seasons in a row before retirement. In fact, none of those guys had consecutive losing seasons after their first job and returned for a third. Herm got the closest, I suppose. The most "recent" example I found of a older, re-tread coach who took a job then had back to back losing seasons and didn't call it a career was Vermeil in St. Louis. But he won the super bowl in his third year.

Mariucci went three losing seasons in Detroit, but he was ten years younger than Shanahan when Detroit hired him.

Parcells, Gibbs, Holmgren, Dungy all had winning seasons in one of their first two years back. If we're going to make the argument that Shanny can go 5-11 this year and won't step down at the end of the season, only Dennis Green was hired in his mid-late fifties by an organization that was struggling, then took three years to try and turn it around. Needless to say, I think either Shanahan's work pays off and he stays, or it doesn't and he leaves. I don't see a middle ground here. Winning is fun. Losing means retirement.

This applies to Chan Gailey as well, by the way. Though I have a good feeling that the Bills might avoid a losing season this year and keep Gailey employed.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by That Guy

mike will stay past this year, i'd bet on it gtripp he's been around long enough and he's a lifer, and i mean... who else is danny going to get? fisher (sp?) is the only good candidate out there.

Agreed. I'd bet on it too.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Agreed. I'd bet on it too.

Also agreed. It would take an Urban Meyer type freak accident to get Shanahan to leave next year.

[GTripp0012]

I apologize for anyone who perceives my above post as overly negative, as I'm just trying to read between the lines. Coaches who are Mike Shanahan's age don't come in to rebuild franchises or happily sustain long periods of losing. I don't know if any coach has taken a job (recently) at Shanahan's age or older, had back to back losing seasons, and then managed to return for a third year. That's way less fun than retirement.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I apologize for anyone who perceives my above post as overly negative, as I'm just trying to read between the lines. Coaches who are Mike Shanahan's age don't come in to rebuild franchises or happily sustain long periods of losing. I don't know if any coach has taken a job (recently) at Shanahan's age or older, had back to back losing seasons, and then managed to return for a third year. That's way less fun than retirement.

but he's a coaching lifer, he literally doesn't have anything else to do... he rather still be playing, if he could.

I don't know... there's stubborn and then there's this guy, so i don't see it so soon, especially since he has the keys to the kingdom and the fans aren't revolting... and i don't think (besides rex getting hurt and the qb play sinking past terrible) it'll go sour unless we go 4-12 this year.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

but he's a coaching lifer, he literally doesn't have anything else to do... he rather still be playing, if he could.

I don't know... there's stubborn and then there's this guy, so i don't see it so soon, especially since he has the keys to the kingdom and the fans aren't revolting... and i don't think (besides rex getting hurt and the qb play sinking past terrible) it'll go sour unless we go 4-12 this year.

I don't know. I feel like the exception you're making in terms of expecting Shanahan back in 2012 would be the status quo here. I think he's fully expecting to win with this team, and I don't think he's looking ahead.

So...yeah, two losing seasons in a row, and I think he'll let someone else have a try. It's not like he's set up his successor for a championship run or anything that he's simply too tired to take himself. Either he's built something here or he hasn't done squat. We'll know in four months.

[GTripp0012]

The other thing to consider is that Mike hasn't ever had consecutive 9+ loss seasons in his career. Ever.

They are definitely in uncharted territory here.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The other thing to consider is that Mike hasn't ever had consecutive 9+ loss seasons in his career. Ever.

They are definitely in uncharted territory here.

that said, he doesn't have a QB, so what can you expect? mike's definitely been able to do more with less, but i'm just not seeing him ready to go... if things really fall apart and it looks like last season where we're playing the wrong defense, don't have the right personnel and can't stop anyone, then yeah, i can see it.

I don't really see that happening though. they put 4 new bodies in the front 7, and at least 3 are going to help a lot (kerrigan still needs to get up to speed a bit), and the teams hasn't really gotten worse anywhere. OL is improved - rabach is gone, we've got a 6th starter for depth, and its a very fast line overall. helu torrain and hightower are better than our RBs last year, and jabar/donte beats the crap out of galloway/that other crappy guy from last year, even if hankerson doesn't blow it up.

anyways, i'm saying, with drew brees, this is a playoff team if only... but i don't see us being much worse, the team is younger, we've got next year's picks, and andrew luck may be a possibility. so we're not set up to be awful going into next year.

QB is awful, and if this year was super important, they would had overpaid for orton and gauranteed average, but acceptable QB play for the next 3-4 years... obviously that's not the way to a superbowl though, so i'm assuming they're waiting to get their guy next year, and that mike's on board with that.

gibbs wasn't an nfl lifer, he was out for a decade, and the 2nd time around he had casserly replaced with a moron committee that didn't really do him a lot of favors. after his 2nd year, the team wasn't any better, younger, or draft pick rich then when he came.

if we go 8-8, 7-9, whatever and qb play is killing us, that's a one stop problem. I just don't see it being that dismal in 4 months, but i guess we'll see soon enough.