Should Mike Shanahan be fired?

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

What am I missing on Roman? For all of the love he's getting on here, SF is ranked lower than us in all statistical categories offensively. Their defense is top 3 but I never watch Niner games and think, 'wow I wish our offense was like that!'

Did you see what he did with Luck at Stanford? He can do the same with RGIII, currently with Smith his offense is dink and dunk which makes Smith Successful. He's the only out of 6 or 7 coordinators who has had success with Smith. Roman's style is like Gibbs, big physical OL, a tough pounding type RB and wide open offense with the right QB, in our case RGIII. He did it with Luck, don't go by his #'s look at his success with QB's. He knows to adapt to the type of QB he has.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Did you see what he did with Luck at Stanford? He can do the same with RGIII, currently with Smith his offense is dink and dunk which makes Smith Successful. He's the only out of 6 or 7 coordinators who has had success with Smith. Roman's style is like Gibbs, big physical OL, a tough pounding type RB and wide open offense with the right QB, in our case RGIII. He did it with Luck, don't go by his #'s look at his success with QB's. He knows to adapt to the type of QB he has.

So again this goes to my previous post, our roster isn't suited to that style of play. You're good with starting over again with the OL because we aren't big & physical, RB because Morris is perfect for our scheme but probably wouldn't fit as well in others and WR because we don't have weapons for a 'wide open' scheme.

Offense isn't close to an issue for us, we need to fix the D.

[VTSkins1961]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

So again this goes to my previous post, our roster isn't suited to that style of play. You're good with starting over again with the OL because we aren't big & physical, RB because Morris is perfect for our scheme but probably wouldn't fit as well in others and WR because we don't have weapons for a 'wide open' scheme.

Offense isn't close to an issue for us, we need to fix the D.

True, fix the defense first but there is nothing to say you couldn't gradually change the players to fit the scheme that he likes

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

So again this goes to my previous post, our roster isn't suited to that style of play. You're good with starting over again with the OL because we aren't big & physical, RB because Morris is perfect for our scheme but probably wouldn't fit as well in others and WR because we don't have weapons for a 'wide open' scheme.

Offense isn't close to an issue for us, we need to fix the D.

Offense is fine, we have the working pieces, a RT is needed. D is the main problem.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

If there is a move made against MS (which I still doubt until his contract is up for renewal barring a disaster in 2013) you have to consider the personnel implications of changing coaches, especially on offense. Let's just look at some players who probably won't fit into other schemes (power running game, vertical passing game, etc.) as much as they do our current scheme:
Alfred Morris-One cut, downhill, zone runner. He probably wouldn't be as effective in getting chunk yardage in a power game and wouldn't fit much at all in a spread passing game relying on speed and quickness.
Stieger, Chester, Monty-Playing pretty well as a unit but probably won't fit into a scheme requiring power blocking or pass blocking for a 5-7 step dropback passing game or spread passing game. Even T. Williams to a lesser extent whose strengths are his mobility and athleticism may not be as effective in a power scheme.
Morgan, Hankerson, Garcon- Arguments exist about how productive they are now but they are best suited for a WCO type, YAC passing game, not a spread (none are particularly quick) or vertical (none have blazing speed) passing attack.

Those are just off the top of my head but it's just to make a point that just changing the leadership isn't a magical cure to what ails this team.

While I get the frustration and angst with the results of the current regime, one of the reasons the Giants, Steelers and Packers remain competitive and at or near the top of the league every year is because they have philosophies that the organization is committed to and they draft and coach to those philosophies, not changing them every 2-3 years to suit a new master.

Yes but the other thing those teams have in common is great qb play which the offenses were built around. We have one now too. It starts there. The D is going to be the big question mark going forward. 4-3 or 3-4?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Yes but the other thing those teams have in common is great qb play which the offenses were built around. We have one now too. It starts there. The D is going to be the big question mark going forward. 4-3 or 3-4?

I don't care 4-3 or 3-4, both work if schemed properly. We've got major backend personnel issues but if those get shored up and we're healthy on the front 7 I think our defense would be decent under a better coordinator. I doubt changing back to a 4-3 would magically transform us back to a top 10 unit.

[VTSkins1961]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I don't care 4-3 or 3-4, both work if schemed properly. We've got major backend personnel issues but if those get shored up and we're healthy on the front 7 I think our defense would be decent under a better coordinator. I doubt changing back to a 4-3 would magically transform us back to a top 10 unit.

I agree with this. I like the 4-3 better and I think it is easier to get players that fit the 4-3 scheme than the 3-4

[los panda]

shanny stated that he plans on subcontracting the head coaching position. he's currently accepting proposals/bids

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

What am I missing on Roman? For all of the love he's getting on here, SF is ranked lower than us in all statistical categories offensively. Their defense is top 3 but I never watch Niner games and think, 'wow I wish our offense was like that!'

I think the fact that he has no qb speaks volumes about him and their ability to win so many games. Their d has been sort of off lately dont you think?

[redskins5044]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

RG3 and a ton of money could make Gruden and a lot of coaches change their minds about coming here.

That's what's wrong with redskins, quit throwing money at coaches with big egos. Go get a young up an coming GM and coach, who want to prove themselves.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by los panda

shanny stated that he plans on subcontracting the head coaching position. he's currently accepting proposals/bids

I bid one dollar. Works on the price is rite?

[Meks]

i keep saying this but i at least expect and want him to stay thru next year... year one with rg3 looks ok... so year 2? i wanna see it.

[REDSKINS4ever]

No more Super Bowl winning head coaches! It's near impossible to duplicate the same success that a HC had with one team with another. Only 2 HC have won the SB with a one team and returned to the big game with another team. That should be reason enough to not want Gruden. Parcells and Holmgren have come the closest. It's time to get a young coach starting fresh.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Offense is fine, we have the working pieces, a RT is needed. D is the main problem.

Knowing is half the battle. At this point we have to battle with what we have. Hell seems like we have solved the kicker problem that has plagued us for years. Come the offseason i think the issues are pretty much as obvious as can be. Garcon's injury is the one x-factor for me. If it is a career derailing injury than wide reciever becomes an issue(moss is probably due to age in his final year). Not sure we have enough cap space/ draft picks to fix wr , rt, maybe mlb, and our secondary.

[los panda]