Should Mike Shanahan be fired?

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Really? I think it seems pretty rational to me that a team's aggressiveness is tied to how many points their opponents have scored or are capable of scoring.

4 of the last 7 games we played last year teams scored 30 or more points against us. Dallas put up 27. That was after our inept offense already played and showed we were incapable of putting up points. Hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by punch it in

4 of the last 7 games we played last year teams scored 30 or more points against us. Dallas put up 27. That was after our inept offense already played and showed we were incapable of putting up points. Hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How would you define aggressive/attacking playcalling? And do you think this year's defense is worse than last year's?

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by punch it in

4 of the last 7 games we played last year teams scored 30 or more points against us. Dallas put up 27. That was after our inept offense already played and showed we were incapable of putting up points. Hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but our opponents were really, really conservative in those games. They didn't want to score 30+ points, it just happened!!

Just as Mike isn't a serious HC coach (anymore, just to give him the benefit of the doubt), his defenders lose the ability to make serious points.

10-6 record with a playoff appearance really isn't better than 5-11 record at the bottom of the division.

Teams didn't play hard against the Redskins until Mike wanted them to.

Give me a f*cking break. Some of you are embarrassing yourselves.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Yeah, but our opponents were really, really conservative in those games. They didn't want to score 30+ points, it just happened!!

Just as Mike isn't a serious HC coach (anymore, just to give him the benefit of the doubt), his defenders lose the ability to make serious points.

10-6 record with a playoff appearance really isn't better than 5-11 record at the bottom of the division.

Teams didn't play hard against the Redskins until Mike wanted them to.

Give me a f*cking break. Some of you are embarrassing yourselves.

Even when teams scored 21+ points against us last year they still ran more (I think around 55%) vs. when they score 21+ against us this year (41%). These are in losses. So teams ran against us more last year. I'm sure there were many reasons for their less aggressive approach. But I believe one of them was our own lack of offensive firepower.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Even when teams scored 21+ points against us last year they still ran more (I think around 55%) vs. when they score 21+ against us this year (41%). These are in losses. So teams ran against us more last year. I'm sure there were many reasons for their less aggressive approach. But I believe one of them was our own lack of offensive firepower.

I'm confused about the idea of a team A being "less aggressive" than they could be on offense, when team B's offense is weak.

I think Team A's goal should be to try and score a TD every series like Patriots '07 or us in '91. (Until the game is out of reach, like say 21 pts in the 4th quarter.) And easing off your normal offense when you have a small lead is just as bad as "prevent defense", in letting an opponent back in the game, IMO. Sure maybe mix your strategy a little, but keep doing what got you the lead in the first place! On offense and D!

I can see the following reasons to be "less aggressive". But none of this has to do with an opponent's anemic offense, IMO :

1. It's the end of the game. You have the lead, and your odds are better to run out the clock than score again.

2. Your defense plays lights out but tires quickly, so you want more time of possession (while still trying to score) to give them a rest.

3. Maybe you planned to be "ball control", or maybe your OL and an RB like Morris unexpectedly stepped up. But your offense is simply built to play "less aggressive" rather than a two minute drill offense so you're always grinding it out.

I can see two reasons to be "less aggressive" than you could be, if the opponent's offense sucks. But I don't agree with them.:

1. Field position. But I think that pales in comparison to giving your offense the best chance to score. And aren't you shorting yourself in the long haul, by not being aggressive as you could be and getting the most yards?

2. You're up 21+ points in the 4th, and just being classy not running up the score. But I don't think that's not really about just the other team's O. Peyton may be more worrisome than Sanchez when they're behind, but I don't think you can rest on any offense in the NFL differently enough to matter. Anything can happen the last couple drives.

So what am I missing, when I don't understand about being "less aggressive" when the other team's O sucks? In this case, SS, are you just saying other teams were being merciful to us, or playing TOP to rest their D to keep us down? Or something else?

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by punch it in

4 of the last 7 games we played last year teams scored 30 or more points against us. Dallas put up 27. That was after our inept offense already played and showed we were incapable of putting up points. Hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by The Goat

Yeah, but our opponents were really, really conservative in those games. They didn't want to score 30+ points, it just happened!!

Just as Mike isn't a serious HC coach (anymore, just to give him the benefit of the doubt), his defenders lose the ability to make serious points.

10-6 record with a playoff appearance really isn't better than 5-11 record at the bottom of the division.

Teams didn't play hard against the Redskins until Mike wanted them to.

Give me a f*cking break. Some of you are embarrassing yourselves.

If the goal is to prove that our defense sucked last year as well, then congratulations... You have proven my point for me. Or did you two get confused as to what point I was making in the first place?

The defense sucked every bit as bad last year as it does this year. The secondary is every bit as bad if not worse. Exactly who on our secondary last year do you have faith in to do the job this year. Atogwe is still available, the other three are still on the team.

If you can come up with a better reason as to why teams chose to run against a defense that plays the run better than the pass, then by all means put it out there. But the whole D Hall, Wilson, Atogwe, and Doughty secondary being one of the greatest ever doesnt work.

You two are still stuck on conservative play calling means intentionally playing bad. Of course you are also stuck on our secondary (D Hall, Wilson, Atogwe, and Doughty) being great last year. And you talk of other people embarrassing themselves.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

You two are still stuck on conservative play calling means intentionally playing bad. Of course you are also stuck on our secondary (D Hall, Wilson, Atogwe, and Doughty) being great last year. And you talk of other people embarrassing themselves.

It is clear from past arguments that the mere fact that two points are logically mutually exclusive will not prevent Goat from being convinced of the truth of both of them. Further, it is moronic of you to fail to see the correctness of his approach.