QB Apocalypse: The Seventh Sign

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

This is another topic. Everyone is on the bandwagon that if he has another bad year he's gone. No matter what. Personally I think after 10 yrs of whatever D.Snyder was doing not working out I think he's trying something different. Consistancy. I think there was a huge improvement from year one with our WR's and OL this year. Other point to yards and points and say otherwise but the team looked more like a team. I think given his full 5 years I think we all will be impressed and he can sign his new contract then.

The problem is there was so much to fix/change. I think the defense did very well last year and with an offensive infusion this year and a better understanding of the blocking the OL will be much improved, the WR's will hopefully be much improved with atleast 1 FA WR, 1 drafted WR, and Hankerson. Our RB's played admirably but I might draft 1 big bull dozing RB for short yardage unless they are happy with the Fullback. I don't think we are 1 player away but I think we are closer then everyone thinks when it comes to making the playoffs and making a run for the SB.

The problem I have with acknowledging the improvement from year one to year two of the Shanahan clan is that you have to ignore how much the team (offense and defense) declined from year one B.S. (before Shanahan) to the first year of the Shanahan clan. If you understand statistical regression, it makes what was accomplished this year sort of expected.

And giving him credit for tearing apart any established talent on the team before heroically leading the offense back to where Jim Zorn and Steve Spurrier had gone before just seems like an aggressive ploy to give meaning to an era of Redskins football that has been pretty meaningless. But that's just me.

With that said, I don't have a huge problem with how Mike Shanahan has attempted to solve the problem he got handed in 2010. It's just that I think that both the execution and results have been clumsy. I believe that Shanahan's model could have been replicated by about 27 other coaches in this league with more success. Of course, those 27 are employed by other teams and it's not like we could have just hired them away, so this is probably just sour grapes on my part. Might as well live with what we have.

And if what we have next year is Rob Chudzynski, I think we'll all be better for it.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The problem I have with acknowledging the improvement from year one to year two of the Shanahan clan is that you have to ignore how much the team (offense and defense) declined from year one B.S. (before Shanahan) to the first year of the Shanahan clan. If you understand statistical regression, it makes what was accomplished this year sort of expected.

And giving him credit for tearing apart any established talent on the team before heroically leading the offense back to where Jim Zorn and Steve Spurrier had gone before just seems like an aggressive ploy to give meaning to an era of Redskins football that has been pretty meaningless. But that's just me.

With that said, I don't have a huge problem with how Mike Shanahan has attempted to solve the problem he got handed in 2010. It's just that I think that both the execution and results have been clumsy. I believe that Shanahan's model could have been replicated by about 27 other coaches in this league with more success. Of course, those 27 are employed by other teams and it's not like we could have just hired them away, so this is probably just sour grapes on my part. Might as well live with what we have.

And if what we have next year is Rob Chudzynski, I think we'll all be better for it.

I have to agree with you. But I think this team had soo much change going on year in and year out nothing could get done. and to top it off the changes were not condusive to what they wanted to do. Gibbs1 used big heavy OL who were slow. Turner got rid of that and tried to get smaller faster OL. By the end of his career I think he was reverting back to the heavy OL. Marty didn't have a chance. Spurrier was an idiot. Gibbs2 meant bringing in big OL again and by year 2 Saunders wanted smaller faster OL. Zorn wanted to start using the WCO which needs smaller OL and using the zone blocking would have been better but he had OL who were used to man blocking.

MS came in and basically thought he could get by with what we had and it didn't work. So year 2 he sheds some of the aged players and brings in young healthy players. Now they need to get expierence. I think yr3 will look a lot better since these guys will know the system better. WR is definitly a need. I'd keep Gaffney and AA, lose Moss(age), Austin, Banks, and bring in a couple FA WR's if possible and draft another to compliment Hankerson.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

...And if what we have next year is Rob Chudzynski, I think we'll all be better for it.

If everything hits the fan this year we would be lucky, very lucky to land to Rob Chudzinksi.