Who Stays-Who Goes? (Offense)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

See I doubt any consideration was given to making a change at this point by either Snyder or Allen. You've been detailed and consistent in your criticism of Shanahan and some of his moves but I guess I see it a little differently. I see a 2009 team that was a mishmash of Gibbs style, Zorn non-style and Snyderatto spending. Everyone Shanahan has brought in has come in for a specific purpose in the system.

This roster while incomplete, has a plan now attached to it. If he was able to win 10 games with this roster, he should have been up for coach of the decade. Now I know what you will say, he compiled this roster, which is true. To that I also add you can't reset a roster and stockpile it with exactly who and what you want. That's a Madden mentality. There was nothing on either side of the ball to build around when he got it so we are seeing about 30% of the work done but he still had to have 53 men on the roster.

Agree that 10 wins would have been an unrealistic goal for this roster, but maybe not for a roster with better design. I think Shanahan and his staff are really struggling with game management. But I don't think he (or many others) could have coached this team to 10 wins. Last year's team definitely had more potential, and had to be considered a much bigger disappointment overall.

I do wish people would stop saying this roster now has a plan attached to it without ever going into even the first detail of what the plan is. It's not just you, but that seems like a fundamental (and completely) unjustified belief of the last two years: we've been following a plan. Well, actually, we've just been making moves that don't point in any specific direction in terms of the present or future. Sometimes Shanahan values discipline over talent, other times talent and character over discipline. And it just seems to matter how he feels when he gets up that morning.

I agree that the 2009 team didn't have much of a focus either. We were heavily invested in defensive talent, but couldn't been less invested in the coaching or performance of the defense. The offense was under a microscope because there was no return on investment on the picks at WR, making the entire passing game dependent on Randle El (who had some very good years). Zorn stopped calling west coast plays after two weeks, stripped the offense back to it's Gibbs-era routes, then lost his playcalling duties so we went back to being a west coast team. It really was a mish-mash of successful and failed strategies.

And yet, the similarities between then and now are staggering. I think they've gotten consistently better at making fewer unforced mental errors, but then you see the Eagles game and you just have to wonder if it was all a mirage. It was a bad note to end on for sure. That game was as poor an effort in preparedness as any in the Zorn era.

You or I have a better chance at being the QB next year than a Tannehill or some other second tier QB prospect.

As much as I wish this was true...its not. I think the probability of one of Foles/Tannehill/Jones/Cousins being targeted as the next Redskins QB is pretty darn high.

And I don't think Foles is second tier at all, but that's my evaluation and no one should hold the Shanahans to that.