Mike Shanahan

[GTripp0012]

I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.

I think it's unfair to say he hasn't built much, our team is younger and more competitive but I will say Mike has ****ed up with our QB situation, he looks like a complete clown after the Mcnabb-Rex-Beck experience.. My big problem with Mike has been his overall record, in 2 full seasons Jim Zorn of all people will have had a better record than shanny, thats bad and those teams weren't any good either so there is no real excuse for mike on that one. I say give him one more full season rememeber he was the one that "sold" us alll on John Beck and that dude blows, anything less than 8 wins and he should be fired IMO.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.

This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.

One could say that but it would be reactionary and short sighted. No argument on the QB, disagree on the defense because we had too many pieces that weren't sustainable (Daniels, Holliday, McIntosh, Griffin, Horton/Doughty) and we had zero depth at RB prior to this year.

For all of the 'we are no better off than we were' crowd, of the players who were not retained from the inherited roster, who is making a significant impact on new teams? I can point to three, Carter, Rogers and Edwin Williams who is a backup pressed into duty due to injuries and got a contract extension from the Bears at a backup salary level. Anyone else contributing (not just holding a roster spot or playing but making a positive impact) that I missed?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

One could say that but it would be reactionary and short sighted. No argument on the QB, disagree on the defense because we had too many pieces that weren't sustainable (Daniels, Holliday, McIntosh, Griffin, Horton/Doughty) and we had zero depth at RB prior to this year.

For all of the 'we are no better off than we were' crowd, of the players who were not retained from the inherited roster, who is making a significant impact on new teams? I can point to three, Carter, Rogers and Edwin Williams who is a backup pressed into duty due to injuries and got a contract extension from the Bears at a backup salary level. Anyone else contributing (not just holding a roster spot or playing but making a positive impact) that I missed?

You missed Chad Rhindardttt. McIntosh is still on the team not sure how he figures in?

Like I said the oline is marginally better, but what does that do for the offense as a whole given Mike's decisions at QB?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

You missed Chad Rhindardttt. McIntosh is still on the team not sure how he figures in?

Like I said the oline is marginally better, but what does that do for the offense as a whole given Mike's decisions at QB?

Rinehart is like Carter, a poor fit for the scheme. He's a power guy, not a zone-quickness guy.. McIntosh is a poor fit as a 3-4 ILB. He was completely lost last year and despite some early success this season regressed to show his poor fit so he wasn't sustainable as a player to be counted on.

No excuses for the QB situation. Picks should have been made late in both drafts to get at least a project to develop and their notion that they could make Rex or Beck into something they hadn't already shown was clearly wrong.

The only positive to come out of the QB position is that the OL is probably a RT away from being solid enough to be effective every week, even good some weeks so that's not an urgent focus along with fixing the QB position. Now if they have to include picks to get their QB it's not devastating because we don't have to count on every single pick to fill a need.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

Rinehart is like Carter, a poor fit for the scheme. He's a power guy, not a zone-quickness guy.. McIntosh is a poor fit as a 3-4 ILB. He was completely lost last year and despite some early success this season regressed to show his poor fit so he wasn't sustainable as a player to be counted on.

No excuses for the QB situation. Picks should have been made late in both drafts to get at least a project to develop and their notion that they could make Rex or Beck into something they hadn't already shown was clearly wrong.

The only positive to come out of the QB position is that the OL is probably a RT away from being solid enough to be effective every week, even good some weeks so that's not an urgent focus along with fixing the QB position. Now if they have to include picks to get their QB it's not devastating because we don't have to count on every single pick to fill a need.

Paintrain:

I think the reason the Redskins did not use a late pick in the draft to get a QB to try to develop is because both Mike and Kyle thought that John Beck was "the guy". Both raved about his college career; so if that was not pure and unadulterated bulls[p]it, why draft another guy when you have "the guy" under contract already?

Bottom line here is both of them were dead wrong about John Beck and his viability as an acceptable NFL QB - - let alone a good NFL QB. And if they were dead wrong about the QB that both of them had at or near the top of his draft class, why would you think they would be "closer to correct" in evaluating some guy that everyone else has passed on for 6 rounds?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Paintrain:

I think the reason the Redskins did not use a late pick in the draft to get a QB to try to develop is because both Mike and Kyle thought that John Beck was "the guy". Both raved about his college career; so if that was not pure and unadulterated bulls[p]it, why draft another guy when you have "the guy" under contract already?

Bottom line here is both of them were dead wrong about John Beck and his viability as an acceptable NFL QB - - let alone a good NFL QB. And if they were dead wrong about the QB that both of them had at or near the top of his draft class, why would you think they would be "closer to correct" in evaluating some guy that everyone else has passed on for 6 rounds?

Agreed about Beck, although he wasnt in house before the 2010 draft. They see what he is now and we move on.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

One could say that but it would be reactionary and short sighted. No argument on the QB, disagree on the defense because we had too many pieces that weren't sustainable (Daniels, Holliday, McIntosh, Griffin, Horton/Doughty) and we had zero depth at RB prior to this year.

For all of the 'we are no better off than we were' crowd, of the players who were not retained from the inherited roster, who is making a significant impact on new teams? I can point to three, Carter, Rogers and Edwin Williams who is a backup pressed into duty due to injuries and got a contract extension from the Bears at a backup salary level. Anyone else contributing (not just holding a roster spot or playing but making a positive impact) that I missed?

Rinehart and Tryon. Tryon is on IR with the Giants, but still was really good last year. The Tryon thing is super dumb because he was traded so that the Redskins could use Carlos Rogers as the sub package slot corner. Carlos didn't play particularly well at that position (he's playing isolated in SF), so then Shanahan claimed he was playing inconsistently. Well, no shit dude, you traded the slot corner and tried to fill the role with your nominal number one. Why are you surprised that didn't work (rhetorical)?

I'll throw Keiland Williams in there. Sure, Keiland Williams types are a dime a dozen, and we won't miss him. But he's under contract in Detroit for two more seasons, and keeping Torain over him just didn't make any sense.

But wait: is there any other coach/team in the NFL that released three maybe four players who went on to earn contract extensions elsewhere? That's pretty unprecedented in terms of misevaluating ones own roster, isn't it?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.

And we fire Shanahan and bring in someone else, and then that won't be working like it should by the end of that second season, then we'll fire him and bring in someone else, and by the end of that second season, we'll fire him because that regime isn't working, and so we'll bring in yet another coach, give him two years, and then we'll fire him because HE isn't working, and....... well, I guess you get my drift....

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

And we fire Shanahan and bring in someone else, and then that won't be working like it should by the end of that second season, then we'll fire him and bring in someone else, and by the end of that second season, we'll fire him because that regime isn't working, and so we'll bring in yet another coach, give him two years, and then we'll fire him because HE isn't working, and....... well, I guess you get my drift....

I know...the revolving syndrome is a bad one and I don't want to see it either.