Mike Shanahan

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

His future relies on the his QB choice...if we see improvement, Shanny becomes a great survivor story.

Absolutely. It would be a heck of a save job by a great coach if he managed to win in Washington.

Shanny's comments recently about turnaround being slower than he thought, reaffirms the reality this organization was run so damn bad into the ground, NO ONE would have succeeded. Limited talent, lack of depth is a mutherf*cker, even the best coaching couldnt have waivered such a bottomless pit of what the Skins had become. talent talent talent

Talent wasn't great when he took over, but he also opted not to bring back multiple pro bowlers and young developmental players. No one is saying that Cerrato left him a team that anyone could have won with but

1) I think a lot of coaches could have won with the 2010 team. The 2010 team was littered with 28-31 year old veterans who either had been pro bowlers in the past or are pro bowlers now: Andre Carter, Carlos Rogers, Clinton Portis, Mike Sellers, London Fletcher, Brian Orakpo, Albert Haynesworth, DeAngelo Hall, Santana Moss, Chris Cooley. Shanahan INHERETED every one of those players, then added McNabb and Jammal Brown, more pro bowlers.

It's true that not all of those pieces helped positively last year, but it kind of destroys the argument that the team didn't have any talent. I don't think it had much YOUNG talent, but it was definitely a win-now roster. If that's is limited talent, then I hate to tell you, but some team is going to win the super bowl this year with limited talent.

I mean, it's not like Bill Belichick was available, but he probably wins 9 or 10 games with that team easily. And yeah, that doesn't make the future any more certain.

2) Thankfully, Shanahan was able to get five pro bowlers off the roster without replacing them for the 2011 season (well, I guess he replaced Carter with Kerrigan). So yeah, the 2011 team didn't have much talent, and all of it's young talent was pretty much rookies. We weren't going to win this year with Vince Lombardi coaching this team.

But the reason the roster is talentless is because Mike Shanahan makes the personnel decisions. Now I don't think the Redskins will ever be as talentless as they were this season at any point in the next ten years. This year was the aberration. But we saw in 2010 that simply having a talented roster that should be able to win 9 or 10 games doesn't mean that it won't underachieve.

[FRPLG]

I think the success rate of dual HC/GM is so low in this league I truly wonder why any owner even tries it. Shanny's issue isn't football. Its football players...as in he hasn't shown the ability to build a decent team of them.

[MTK]

I'm not seeing where the 2010 team was ready to win much of anything. A lot of those guys were either over the hill (Portis) or not a good scheme fit (Carter), or were just flat out bums (Haynesworth). That was a team that went 4-12 in 2009 too.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm not seeing where the 2010 team was ready to win much of anything. A lot of those guys were either over the hill (Portis) or not a good scheme fit (Carter), or were just flat out bums (Haynesworth). That was a team that went 4-12 in 2009 too.

None of those three entered the 2010 offseason as any of those things. Maybe Portis as over the hill, but in the five games he managed to be healthy enough to play that year, he did pretty good.

While creativity hasn't been Haslett's major weakness, the inability to make Andre Carter a useful player in his scheme given his exceptional 2009 and 2011 seasons is one of his biggest failures as Redskins DC. Even Gregg Williams made a number of errors over his four seasons here (Pierce, Clark, Archuleta), so it's not like Haslett is a total stiff, but that's still a pretty big failure. Oh well, we're better off with Kerrigan anyway.

There's no reason to rehash Shanahan's role in the Haynesworth saga. It was a dumb situation through and through, and when neither is associated with the Redskins any longer, I think the franchise will be better for it. The only thing we've learned recently is that he's not exactly Randy Moss.

The 2010 team was not much of a team when Shanahan got his hands on it. The Redskins needed to move Zorn out, and find a coach who wasn't a roster tinkerer, but someone who could come in and win right away with a veteran team. Mike Shanahan wasn't that guy. He's a tinkerer. Window dressing is important to him. And that's not what the Redskins really needed.

Originally Posted by Mattyk

In the end to even discuss firing the guy now is ridiculous. Going in a different direction at this point would only guarantee the franchise will stay stuck in the mid spinning it's wheels.

That said I think the pressure will be on in 2012 to show some serious improvement in the 'W' column. 9-10 wins at least.

Wait, I'm not sure I understand.

9-10 wins will be a pretty big improvement, and certainly is within the realm of possibility, but if that's the improvement we need to show, I don't understand why it's too soon to talk about where the franchise will be if we fail to meet that goal.

I am not expecting the Redskins to win 10 games next year. And I think our best chance at winning 10 games would be getting lucky and finding the right coach for the job. Be that Bill Musgrave, Marc Trestman, Rob Chudzynski, Josh McDaniels, Chuck Pagano, Brian VanGorder, Jeremy Bates, Dave Toub, Clyde Christensen, Bill O'Brien, Matt Patricia, Pete Carmichael, Matt Cavanaugh, Jay Gruden, Bruce Ariens, Mike McCoy, Dennis Allen, Rob Ryan, Perry Fewell, Shane Day, or Mike Trgovac. Obviously, I couldn't tell you which of those coaches is the next great NFL head coach, but that's what the interview process is for.

You know, that thing we skipped last time.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Wait, I'm not sure I understand.

9-10 wins will be a pretty big improvement, and certainly is within the realm of possibility, but if that's the improvement we need to show, I don't understand why it's too soon to talk about where the franchise will be if we fail to meet that goal.

I meant talking about firing him at the end of this season is ridiculous. I wasn't directing that at anyone specifically, just tossing it out there. Speculating about what could happen at the end of year 3 is certainly fair game.

[MTK]

In the end to even discuss firing the guy now is ridiculous. Going in a different direction at this point would only guarantee the franchise will stay stuck in the mid spinning it's wheels.

That said I think the pressure will be on in 2012 to show some serious improvement in the 'W' column. 9-10 wins at least.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

In the end to even discuss firing the guy now is ridiculous. Going in a different direction at this point would only guarantee the franchise will stay stuck in the mid spinning it's wheels.

That said I think the pressure will be on in 2012 to show some serious improvement in the 'W' column. 9-10 wins at least.

I think 8 because our QB may be a rookie but still anything less and he's done

[skins89moss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

In the end to even discuss firing the guy now is ridiculous. Going in a different direction at this point would only guarantee the franchise will stay stuck in the mid spinning it's wheels.

That said I think the pressure will be on in 2012 to show some serious improvement in the 'W' column. 9-10 wins at least.

Depends on if we get a QB and have Rex as our back up.

[sandtrapjack]

Before Allen and Shanahan arrived, the Redskins were famous for one thing. That being spending way too much on high-priced free agents, mostly past their prime. And trading away draft picks for high-priced veteran players. Those type of deals and decisions will set a franchise back as much as ten years. And it is something a franchise simply cannot recover from in only 2 seasons.

I agree with Shanahan, patience is the key. But he is such a professional that he will not come out in public and say what we all know. That being the franchise is currently paying the price for years of mis-management by his predecessors.

Stay the course.

[skinsguy]

I'm not sure some of you guys who have a short leash tied around Mike Shanahan's neck truly know the depth and the extent to what all is involved in rebuilding a franchise that has been a losing franchise for the past twenty years. I mean, we sit here and piss and moan about Daniel Snyder and how he changes coaches like Skinsguy changes his socks - just like the media that pisses and moans about Daniel Snyder - and then us fans turn around and expect instant results within a two season span. Yes, you can go back and say, well Jim Zorn was just given two seasons......completely different situation. Zorn had no business being a head coach at that point. He was not qualified to be a head coach. Anybody with eyes and the least amount of football knowledge could see this.

Mike Shanahan has been coaching for well over 30+ years. He's coached Super Bowl teams, he's been around the best of the best coaches in the NFL. Shanahan knows his stuff. If he says he's here for five years and it's going to take that amount of time to build the Redskins into a dominating football team, what does that tell you? This team was in THAT bad of shape. Yet, we sit here and grade Mike Shanahan after two seasons, and say, "You know, he's not any better than Jim Zorn." That's just ridiculous. Come back and do your "I told you so's" after season five. If the Redskins are not a dominating football team by then, then I'll concede that Mike Shanahan didn't have what it took to rebuild this team.

But, while I agree that he's going to have a lot of pressure on him to show progress in the win column (and I did state that in another thread) next season, I give him his five years to bring this team back to being a dominate team. If this team is the "same ol' Redskins" by then, then you're more than welcome to say "I told you so so shut the efff up!" Until then, you had might as well strap on your helmets, pick your favorite seat on the bus, and brace yourself for a bumpy ride until we get to our destination.

And one more thing, don't give examples about the 49ers or the Lions, or even the Bengals. Those teams have had the correct talent or system in place for several seasons, it just so happened that the combination of both those players and the correct coaching staff(s) happened to fall in place this season. None of those teams were overnight successes, and any and all of those teams can be right back into last place come next season. As Shanahan said, to do it the right way, it takes time. Can't we just give a proven coaching staff, that time and realize we have to endure through all the crap if we plan on keeping the rebuilding on a consistent pace - as slow as it seems to be?

Sorry if I sound grumpy, I stayed up way too late watching the Baylor/Washington game last night and have only had one cup of coffee! I don't mean this toward any one person, I just think it's ridiculous to be complaining about not having what we've needed all of these years (a better GM in Bruce, a Super Bowl proven head coach, consistency) and then to complain because we have those things now. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Hail.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I'm not sure some of you guys who have a short leash tied around Mike Shanahan's neck truly know the depth and the extent to what all is involved in rebuilding a franchise that has been a losing franchise for the past twenty years. I mean, we sit here and piss and moan about Daniel Snyder and how he changes coaches like Skinsguy changes his socks - just like the media that pisses and moans about Daniel Snyder - and then us fans turn around and expect instant results within a two season span. Yes, you can go back and say, well Jim Zorn was just given two seasons......completely different situation. Zorn had no business being a head coach at that point. He was not qualified to be a head coach. Anybody with eyes and the least amount of football knowledge could see this.

Mike Shanahan has been coaching for well over 30+ years. He's coached Super Bowl teams, he's been around the best of the best coaches in the NFL. Shanahan knows his stuff. If he says he's here for five years and it's going to take that amount of time to build the Redskins into a dominating football team, what does that tell you? This team was in THAT bad of shape. Yet, we sit here and grade Mike Shanahan after two seasons, and say, "You know, he's not any better than Jim Zorn." That's just ridiculous. Come back and do your "I told you so's" after season five. If the Redskins are not a dominating football team by then, then I'll concede that Mike Shanahan didn't have what it took to rebuild this team.

But, while I agree that he's going to have a lot of pressure on him to show progress in the win column (and I did state that in another thread) next season, I give him his five years to bring this team back to being a dominate team. If this team is the "same ol' Redskins" by then, then you're more than welcome to say "I told you so so shut the efff up!" Until then, you had might as well strap on your helmets, pick your favorite seat on the bus, and brace yourself for a bumpy ride until we get to our destination.

And one more thing, don't give examples about the 49ers or the Lions, or even the Bengals. Those teams have had the correct talent or system in place for several seasons, it just so happened that the combination of both those players and the correct coaching staff(s) happened to fall in place this season. None of those teams were overnight successes, and any and all of those teams can be right back into last place come next season. As Shanahan said, to do it the right way, it takes time. Can't we just give a proven coaching staff, that time and realize we have to endure through all the crap if we plan on keeping the rebuilding on a consistent pace - as slow as it seems to be?

Sorry if I sound grumpy, I stayed up way too late watching the Baylor/Washington game last night and have only had one cup of coffee! I don't mean this toward any one person, I just think it's ridiculous to be complaining about not having what we've needed all of these years (a better GM in Bruce, a Super Bowl proven head coach, consistency) and then to complain because we have those things now. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Hail.

*1980's teen movie slow clap building to raucous applause*
Couldn't have said it better myself. The comparisons to records between Zorn and Shanahan are simply silly. The roster that Shanahan inherited was old (oldest in the league), poorly constructed (no depth at key positions, very limited playmakers at skill positions) and bloated with poor contracts for unproductive players-including some of the 'pro bowlers' GTripp mentioned (which is a bit of a joke by itself) that weren't playing to a high level.

I've got no problems at all with the decisions to move on from Andre Carter and Carlos Rogers. Carter has shown, twice, in two different cities that he's not a 3-4 end or LB. He is classically suited for a 4-3 so rather than continue to try a square peg-round hole scenario they moved on and found a better fit in Kerrigan. Now it remains to be seen if Kerrigan is a better PLAYER overall than Carter but it's clear he's a better fit for our scheme.

Rogers was productive once in his Redskin career, in a contract year. It was roundly acknowledged that he improved his practice habits, his attentiveness in meetings, his mental game, etc. in that year. Then when he got a one year tender, he sulked and reverted to his same poor habits. Other than that his reputation was nonchalant preparation, getting repeatedly beaten on double moves, getting benched, sulking, dogging it on injuries and of course, the drops. This year, he's again in a contract year and playing balls out. Good for him, but with his rep there's no way I'd commit long money to him.

Even bringing up Portis in the discussion of 'pro bowlers' jettisoned almost completely negates any credibility in posting questions about whether Shanny should return. Same can be said about Haynesworth, Sellers, McNabb or Jammal Brown. If anything, questions can be raised about the McNabb and Brown acquisitions but nothing coaching-wise. Moss put up career numbers last year and Cooley has been dinged up this season so how that supports anything negative re: Shanahan is puzzling.

While the record doesn't yet reflect it, I find it amazing that many fans and pundits can't see how progress is being made from the 2011 draft (2 starters), 2012 free agency (5 starters) and 2012 draft (4-5 starters) and with some competent play from the QB the future looks brighter than the present or the past.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I'm not sure some of you guys who have a short leash tied around Mike Shanahan's neck truly know the depth and the extent to what all is involved in rebuilding a franchise that has been a losing franchise for the past twenty years. I mean, we sit here and piss and moan about Daniel Snyder and how he changes coaches like Skinsguy changes his socks - just like the media that pisses and moans about Daniel Snyder - and then us fans turn around and expect instant results within a two season span. Yes, you can go back and say, well Jim Zorn was just given two seasons......completely different situation. Zorn had no business being a head coach at that point. He was not qualified to be a head coach. Anybody with eyes and the least amount of football knowledge could see this.

Mike Shanahan has been coaching for well over 30+ years. He's coached Super Bowl teams, he's been around the best of the best coaches in the NFL. Shanahan knows his stuff. If he says he's here for five years and it's going to take that amount of time to build the Redskins into a dominating football team, what does that tell you? This team was in THAT bad of shape. Yet, we sit here and grade Mike Shanahan after two seasons, and say, "You know, he's not any better than Jim Zorn." That's just ridiculous. Come back and do your "I told you so's" after season five. If the Redskins are not a dominating football team by then, then I'll concede that Mike Shanahan didn't have what it took to rebuild this team.

But, while I agree that he's going to have a lot of pressure on him to show progress in the win column (and I did state that in another thread) next season, I give him his five years to bring this team back to being a dominate team. If this team is the "same ol' Redskins" by then, then you're more than welcome to say "I told you so so shut the efff up!" Until then, you had might as well strap on your helmets, pick your favorite seat on the bus, and brace yourself for a bumpy ride until we get to our destination.

And one more thing, don't give examples about the 49ers or the Lions, or even the Bengals. Those teams have had the correct talent or system in place for several seasons, it just so happened that the combination of both those players and the correct coaching staff(s) happened to fall in place this season. None of those teams were overnight successes, and any and all of those teams can be right back into last place come next season. As Shanahan said, to do it the right way, it takes time. Can't we just give a proven coaching staff, that time and realize we have to endure through all the crap if we plan on keeping the rebuilding on a consistent pace - as slow as it seems to be?

Sorry if I sound grumpy, I stayed up way too late watching the Baylor/Washington game last night and have only had one cup of coffee! I don't mean this toward any one person, I just think it's ridiculous to be complaining about not having what we've needed all of these years (a better GM in Bruce, a Super Bowl proven head coach, consistency) and then to complain because we have those things now. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Hail.

You don't sound grumpy, you sound passionate. I like that.

The argument itself is dangerous, and I can try to explain why. Lets say Mike Shanahan posted 6-10 seasons every year throughout his contract, until December 2014. If you cut and pasted this argument into December 2014, it would be no more or less fallacious than it is at this very moment. Everything you wrote right here will still be true in three years. Granted: you might not be as inclined to write this after five bad years instead of two, but that's the big point here.

Two years is an eternity in the NFL. I don't know whether you just haven't been following all of Mike Shanahan's gaffes at Redskins Park, or whether you just don't think they're really a big deal. What's indisputable is that they have limited the ability of the team to get much better.

What we need to analyze as fans is whether these mistakes are likely to stop. If they don't stop, the team is unlikely to get any better in 2012, its unlikely to get better in 2013, and there's no amount of money you can put into a coaching contract to make the whole thing work.

Furthermore, better coaches are out there. Now, whether those highly desired coaches are interested in taking this job is another issue. You could argue back in 2008, the best candidates were not interested (though they did interview). And that in 2008, someone like Mike Shanahan (or Chan Gailey) was the best that the Redskins could have done.

That, to me, is a very logical argument for keeping Mike Shanahan: he's a proven head coach and its too likely that we'll downgrade our coaching staff if we make another switch. Why would anyone want to take this job if the only guy the owner gave more than two years happened to be named Joe Gibbs (who in defense of Snyder, also had the best season in the Snyder era in his second season).

But when you compare and contrast Gibbs (who also qualifies under all the criteria you defended Shanahan with) with Mike Shanahan just by what they accomplished in two years (and Zorn left more pro talent behind than Spurrier, but I'll ignore that for now), Gibbs already had the Redskins winning. Shanahan didn't change everything.

I mean, you just have to go back six years to see why the job Shanahan has been doing isn't acceptable. It's not like we weren't here before. It took one bad season to clean up the 2003 mess. The 2009 mess wasn't nearly that deep, and if anything, the Redskins have gone backwards since then.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You don't sound grumpy, you sound passionate. I like that.

The argument itself is dangerous, and I can try to explain why. Lets say Mike Shanahan posted 6-10 seasons every year throughout his contract, until December 2014. If you cut and pasted this argument into December 2014, it would be no more or less fallacious than it is at this very moment. Everything you wrote right here will still be true in three years. Granted: you might not be as inclined to write this after five bad years instead of two, but that's the big point here.

Two years is an eternity in the NFL. I don't know whether you just haven't been following all of Mike Shanahan's gaffes at Redskins Park, or whether you just don't think they're really a big deal. What's indisputable is that they have limited the ability of the team to get much better.

What we need to analyze as fans is whether these mistakes are likely to stop. If they don't stop, the team is unlikely to get any better in 2012, its unlikely to get better in 2013, and there's no amount of money you can put into a coaching contract to make the whole thing work.

Furthermore, better coaches are out there. Now, whether those highly desired coaches are interested in taking this job is another issue. You could argue back in 2008, the best candidates were not interested (though they did interview). And that in 2008, someone like Mike Shanahan (or Chan Gailey) was the best that the Redskins could have done.

That, to me, is a very logical argument for keeping Mike Shanahan: he's a proven head coach and its too likely that we'll downgrade our coaching staff if we make another switch. Why would anyone want to take this job if the only guy the owner gave more than two years happened to be named Joe Gibbs (who in defense of Snyder, also had the best season in the Snyder era in his second season).

But when you compare and contrast Gibbs (who also qualifies under all the criteria you defended Shanahan with) with Mike Shanahan just by what they accomplished in two years (and Zorn left more pro talent behind than Spurrier, but I'll ignore that for now), Gibbs already had the Redskins winning. Shanahan didn't change everything.

I mean, you just have to go back six years to see why the job Shanahan has been doing isn't acceptable. It's not like we weren't here before. It took one bad season to clean up the 2003 mess. The 2009 mess wasn't nearly that deep, and if anything, the Redskins have gone backwards since then.

Hmm mmm. In two full seasons Mike has failed (epically) to secure a QB who can lead a team to the playoffs. His best chance, ironically, was probably with the QB he inherited from Zorn.

We all want to see a competitive Skins team next year. Some realize it will require an outlier type year from Mike in his talent evaluation and coaching.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Hmm mmm. In two full seasons Mike has failed (epically) to secure a QB who can lead a team to the playoffs. His best chance, ironically, was probably with the QB he inherited from Zorn.

We all want to see a competitive Skins team next year. Some realize it will require an outlier type year from Mike in his talent evaluation and coaching.

with all due respect, JC wasnt leading anybody to shit. JC was adequate to run an offense on life support, thats it. in 5 years of JC it took 5 amazing weeks of todd collins to lead this team to the playoffs . . . once. whooppity doo.

we are lucky to have mike shanahan.

[backrow]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Before Allen and Shanahan arrived, the Redskins were famous for one thing. That being spending way too much on high-priced free agents, mostly past their prime. And trading away draft picks for high-priced veteran players. Those type of deals and decisions will set a franchise back as much as ten years. And it is something a franchise simply cannot recover from in only 2 seasons.

I agree with Shanahan, patience is the key. But he is such a professional that he will not come out in public and say what we all know. That being the franchise is currently paying the price for years of mis-management by his predecessors.

Stay the course.

For an opponent in our front yard, you quote "The Patriot" pretty doggone well!

I had been thinking about a thread just like this one for a couple of weeks, and the discussion here is pleasant and extremely knowledgeable. You guys are the best at seeing the picture clearly. Did I think MS should go? You bet, for about five minutes........ after every loss as a matter of fact. Do I think he has a plan; well yea, kind of, but he seemingly forgets so do all of the other 31 team coaches/GMs! I think the B&G plan is kind of like Rexy. Good Rex/........well you see the picture, you always do! Do I like the success with the FAs and Draft picks this year? You bet. Do I like the losses? Well, again, you can clearly see my picture. Does MS have an 8 to10+ win mandate for next year? Well, I think we have all put down the rose colored glasses and can see that picture!