My evaluation of Shanahan starts now

[GTripp0012]

Here's the big point:

Oakland Raiders, 2009-2011
5-11 (got blown out by Zorn's Redskins at home)
8-8
8-8

Washington Redskins 2009-2011
4-12
6-10
5-11

Were the Redskins ever in worse shape than the Raiders? Almost certainly not. But the Raiders stopped making toxic organizational decisions for a moment, and while they didn't become a good team, they started to win big against bad teams.

Achieving mediocrity isn't the hard part of rebuilding a team. If Zorn was doing things fundamentally wrong, Shanahan should have had that corrected by year one. The fact that he didn't get that corrected by year two is especially troubling.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Achieving mediocrity isn't the hard part of rebuilding a team. If Zorn was doing things fundamentally wrong, Shanahan should have had that corrected by year one. The fact that he didn't get that corrected by year two is especially troubling.

Can you be more specific? it's hard to argue with you because as best as I can determine you're saying "other teams go worst to first" and "why can't Shanahan".

IMO Zorn was in over his head, but he had a Veteran roster that was mostly coached by Joe Gibbs, which counter balanced his poor leadership with Veteran experience. Those guys retired, left, or just couldn't do it any more. Along with that a bunch of bad draft picks all proved out to be bad. All in the very short space of time after they hired Shanahan

I've pointed to specific reasons why the "momentum" of the teams skill level and leadership was PLUMMETING. And thus left the current regime in a bad spot. If your argument is "well other teams improve unexpectedly" I would ask you to detail WHY those teams improved? What did the new coach do that the previous one didn't?

IMO you'll find that most surprising teams are flashes in the pan, OR they were already stocked with talent, and the new coach didn't have to do much except LEAD THEM. I'll give two recent examples:

The 49'ers they were finally restocked with talent after years of low draft picks and rebuilding, all Harbaugh had to do was lead them and get them to pull in the same direction. The previous coach might have instilled some discipline, but he was also bad at managing the game in real time, in addition to his more "visible" faults of being a vindictive maniac who called his own players out on the air. Bring in "the good cop" to Singletary's "bad cop" and wallah.

On the other hand Rahim Morris got a flash in the pan, and then fired the following year... Do you honestly believe he was a good coach one year and sucked the next? His players got confident and pulled together and then the next they lost confidence after injuries and losses... Simple as that. The team dynamic at work and the HC got all the credit and then all the blame.

Sports, and especially Football just doesn't work that way. They are complex systems, the worst coach or the best coach only has so much effect... We fans give WAY more credit and way more blame than is actually due. And whats more most of us even recognize that we do this...Especially with QB's and coaches. Yet when we get emotional and our team is doing poorly we want heads to roll... Which is far more about our satisfaction (revenge for making our Sundays suck) than whats best for the long term direction of the team. Emotions do not make good long term decisions.

This emotional fan reaction is largely responsible for the state of the team under Snyder. Because Snyder IS A FAN, and he REACTS like a fan, so he gets that same satisfaction firing the coach that fans screaming for heads to roll, do. And predictably (or you can use 12 years of hindsight if you prefer) this results in a bad team with no long term direction or vision or plan, because every new regime is scrambling to make short term fixes before they get fired...

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Here's the big point:

Oakland Raiders, 2009-2011
5-11 (got blown out by Zorn's Redskins at home)
8-8
8-8

Washington Redskins 2009-2011
4-12
6-10
5-11

Were the Redskins ever in worse shape than the Raiders? Almost certainly not. But the Raiders stopped making toxic organizational decisions for a moment, and while they didn't become a good team, they started to win big against bad teams.

Achieving mediocrity isn't the hard part of rebuilding a team. If Zorn was doing things fundamentally wrong, Shanahan should have had that corrected by year one. The fact that he didn't get that corrected by year two is especially troubling.

Exactly what NFL coaching experience do you have that would make you qualified to speak about the fundamentals of coaching in the NFL and whether or not Mike Shanahan has been performing those fundamentals correctly?

[CrustyRedskin]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Exactly what NFL coaching experience do you have that would make you qualified to speak about the fundamentals of coaching in the NFL and whether or not Mike Shanahan has been performing those fundamentals correctly?

The purchase of NFL Sunday ticket should be taken in consideration.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Exactly what NFL coaching experience do you have that would make you qualified to speak about the fundamentals of coaching in the NFL and whether or not Mike Shanahan has been performing those fundamentals correctly?

What in the name of hades are you talking about? Am I really unqualified to compare and contrast two teams over the last three years?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What in the name of hades are you talking about? Am I really unqualified to compare and contrast two teams over the last three years?

In regards to assessing NFL coaching fundamentals, yes, you're unqualified.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Here's the big point:

Oakland Raiders, 2009-2011
5-11 (got blown out by Zorn's Redskins at home)
8-8
8-8

Washington Redskins 2009-2011
4-12
6-10
5-11

Were the Redskins ever in worse shape than the Raiders? Almost certainly not. But the Raiders stopped making toxic organizational decisions for a moment, and while they didn't become a good team, they started to win big against bad teams.

Achieving mediocrity isn't the hard part of rebuilding a team. If Zorn was doing things fundamentally wrong, Shanahan should have had that corrected by year one. The fact that he didn't get that corrected by year two is especially troubling.

The irony is the same people that praise Shanahan now decry how devoid of talent the team was before.
Yet the team before was as productive as the team now despite having far less talent OL, WR etc.
The irony of the Raiders franchise is that they used the QB that Shanahan cast off to gain stability.

Zorn wasn't as bad as people thought, (and if Zorn was that makes Campbell play here even more impressive) but then again Campbell wasn't as bad as people thought.
Shanahan hasn't been as good as people thought.
Myself included I was Mike Shanahan biggest proponent but that was back when I thought that Bruce Allen was an actual GM and that Kyle Shanahan would be bring Mike Shanahan Denver/WCO offense and not some pass centric varaint.

But, that is all water under the bridge for me.
The Mike Shanahan regime has bought themselves more time by drafting Robert Griffin.
And although they over paid, Griffin is a stud.
I'm one of the few that think Griffin is a better prospect the Andrew Luck.
And for the sake on Griffin's development Mike has bought himself 2 years.
Would I rather Rob Chudzinski be the HC for Griffin? Yes.

But right now we're married to Mike Shanahan and he to Griffin.
Hopefully Griffin's dynamic ability coupled with some good coaching/gameplanning will be enough to overcome some of Mike Shanahan's personnel misques. (like at RT)

-HTTR

Lets go Griff!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 30gut

The irony is the same people that praise Shanahan now decry how devoid of talent the team was before.
Yet the team before was as productive as the team now despite having far less talent OL, WR etc.
The irony of the Raiders franchise is that they used the QB that Shanahan cast off to gain stability.

Zorn wasn't as bad as people thought, (and if Zorn was that makes Campbell play here even more impressive) but then again Campbell wasn't as bad as people thought.
Shanahan hasn't been as good as people thought.
Myself included I was Mike Shanahan biggest proponent but that was back when I thought that Bruce Allen was an actual GM and that Kyle Shanahan would be bring Mike Shanahan Denver/WCO offense and not some pass centric varaint.

But, that is all water under the bridge for me.
The Mike Shanahan regime has bought themselves more time by drafting Robert Griffin.
And although they over paid, Griffin is a stud.
I'm one of the few that think Griffin is a better prospect the Andrew Luck.
And for the sake on Griffin's development Mike has bought himself 2 years.
Would I rather Rob Chudzinski be the HC for Griffin? Yes.

But right now we're married to Mike Shanahan and he to Griffin.
Hopefully Griffin's dynamic ability coupled with some good coaching/gameplanning will be enough to overcome some of Mike Shanahan's personnel misques. (like at RT)

-HTTR

Lets go Griff!

Who are you talking about?
Why would you have though that?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Who are you talking about?
Why would you have though that?

Jason Campbell,but I should correct.
Mike Shanahan didn't cast off Campbell, I fell into the media perception for a second.
Campbell asked to be traded because he didn't want to be the back-up to McNabb and felt he could still start in the NFL.
And Shanahan actually did him a solid and allowed him to seek a trade.

Kyle comes from the Houston Texans who under Gary Kubiac run the Mike Shanahan Denver WCO and keep with Mike's balanced pass-run ratio of near 50-50.
Kyle is the only playcaller from that system that leans heavily towards the pass with a 60-40 ratio.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Who are you talking about?

No kidding, the first year Campbell was benched repeatedly for Gradkowski and only started due to injury, the second year he lucked into a couple wins while throwing for 150 yards and the usual one TD, while his running game did all the heavy lifting until he got injured NOT SLIDING (as usual) and was replaced by a mediocre Carson Palmer.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

No kidding, the first year Campbell was benched repeatedly for Gradkowski and only started due to injury, the second year he lucked into a couple wins while throwing for 150 yards and the usual one TD, while his running game did all the heavy lifting until he got injured NOT SLIDING (as usual) and was replaced by a mediocre Carson Palmer.

Lol, right that's exactly how it happened.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

No kidding, the first year Campbell was benched repeatedly for Gradkowski and only started due to injury, the second year he lucked into a couple wins while throwing for 150 yards and the usual one TD, while his running game did all the heavy lifting until he got injured NOT SLIDING (as usual) and was replaced by a mediocre Carson Palmer.

Very convincing post, I can tell you aren't bitter at all about Campbell and have no prejudices against him whatsoever that could potentially make me dismiss your opinion on the subject.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by mooby

Very convincing post, I can tell you aren't bitter at all about Campbell and have no prejudices against him whatsoever that could potentially make me dismiss your opinion on the subject.

Wow defensive much? I'm not bitter at all it doesn't bother me that Campbell is clearly a backup and not a starter in the NFL. It apparently bothers you enough to get all huffy over an unkind description of a backup QB who is two years removed from the Skins... So who's the bitter one?

Dissmiss me all you want ultimately he didn't impress anyone (who matters) enough to get EVEN A SHOT at a starting job, in a league where Kevin Kolb versus John Skelton is a thing. If that's not telling enough; he went to Chicago where he's the backup to the QB who some fans thought wasn't worth trading Campbell for. Hows that for irony... Bitter irony for some I suspect?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

Wow defensive much? I'm not bitter at all it doesn't bother me that Campbell is clearly a backup and not a starter in the NFL. It apparently bothers you enough to get all huffy over an unkind description of a backup QB who is two years removed from the Skins... So who's the bitter one?

Dissmiss me all you want ultimately he didn't impress anyone (who matters) enough to get EVEN A SHOT at a starting job, in a league where Kevin Kolb versus John Skelton is a thing. If that's not telling enough; he went to Chicago where he's the backup to the QB who some fans thought wasn't worth trading Campbell for. Hows that for irony... Bitter irony for some I suspect?

Lol, you mad huh?
Your perception of the events around Jason Campbell are skewed beyond belief.

-HTTR