Mike Shanahan

[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.

[NYCskinfan82]

We all know MS is rebuilding, he might not want to say it but he is, we need to give him time.

[celts32]

I expect him to get the full 5 years. It took Vinny 10 years to make this mess...it takes a hell of a lot more then 2 years to clean it up.

[redsk1]

So you are saying that it should take 3 years to rebuild a team from utter crap?

He should get his full 5 years. No offense but this fire MS crap is the same impatience that the organization has shown over the last 15 years.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by redsk1

So you are saying that it should take 3 years to rebuild a team from utter crap?

He should get his full 5 years. No offense but this fire MS crap is the same impatience that the organization has shown over the last 15 years.

3 years to show progress.

Another double digit loss season in 2012 and I think MS is on the hot seat and rightfully so.

[30gut]

The Mike Shanahan regimes deserves another year.

But, a few point of facts:

o The offense has only recently begun to improve (3rd down conversion/RZ scoring/passing game efficiency) over Zorn's offense and Zorn had less talent

o Bruce Allen is not a true GM he's more of a cap expert/PR guy

o There have been personnel mistakes.
The biggest and scariest is the entering into year 3 of a rebuild without a QB of the future.
For 2 seasons they've missed on the most important position on any team especially a team as determined to win with the passing game.

Imo being the HC and the defacto GM is a schizophrenic existence at the heart of some of the mistakes made thus far.
Not being able to set a firm path on either rebuilding or winning now has lead us to 2 season somewhere in the middle.

Shanahan deserves another year, and for his sake and ours I hope he solves the QB problem.

[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.

[Hog1]

AS MK72 pointed out
I think it is a fair expectation to see measurable.....positive change by third year done on a five year deal. I would not advocate immediate dismissal if year three is disappointing as well. I would, however think it is also fair....AND EXPECTED to have a "Come to Jesus" meeting with ownership to see if it appears the current course is still the correct and worthy of pursuit. If it is found the B&G's return to glory does not lie on this path, another direction needs to be .....at least considered.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

3 years to show progress.

Another double digit loss season in 2012 and I think MS is on the hot seat and rightfully so.

I think Snyder cant take another 10 loss season. I dont know if I can either.

I really think the Shanny article of which said "this is gonna be harder than I thought " was a HUGGGGGGE admission by a guy who ego rivals the largest in the game. First sign of pressure from Shanny. I think Shanny is very aggressive in FA especially on the offense side of the ball, Shanny is embarrassed by the play on the field, especially at QB. Grossman/Beck made him look really bad.

[NC_Skins]

I hate the general fan. I think the ironic part is most are exactly like Dan Snyder yet they bash him for doing the same things they would do.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I hate the general fan. I think the ironic part is most are exactly like Dan Snyder yet they bash him for doing the same things they would do.

True words, I at times am guilty of this and then I catch myself. The quick fix is never the answer, we are building a TEAM/FRANCHISE.

[skinsguy]

Look guys. I think before a team discusses firing or hiring a head coach, the franchise needs to sit down and establish what it's identity is going to be moving forward. The Washington Redskins of the 1980's and early 90's was built around the identity of being a smash mouth team that runs to set up the play action pass down field. It's defenses were based around a 4-3 which had top pass rushers as book ends, and athletic linebackers who could cover receivers. You know what it meant when the commentators talked about Redskins football.

Nowadays, what is considered Redskins football? I can't tell you, because I honestly don't know. Since 2000, Redskins football has consistently meant more in terms of inconsistency and a complete philosophical change from year to year. Simply just changing the coaching staff, because the present regime isn't working does not fix the problem. What Bruce Allen and Daniel Snyder need to do is to sit down and try to answer this simple question first: What is our identity?

Once that has been established, then you stick with it, and you hire your coaching staff accordingly. If coaching staff one just can't get things turned around after a few seasons, you go with coaching staff two – so forth and so on. But, you only hire coaches who have similar philosophies, who are coming in with virtually the same style offense/defense, with whatever wrinkles they may have. As the front office continues playing trial and error with getting the right coaching staff in to be successful, at least the team itself knows continuity in regards to players, X's and O's. Sure, terminology might change (tomAto, tomAHto) but it's still the same system.

Which brings me to this point about Mike Shanahan. Eventually, Daniel Snyder is going to have to realize that whoever the coaching staff is, fail or succeed, he needs to realize that THIS style that THIS coaching staff has put into place is one we want to continue on with even if we feel the present coaching staff is not the right fit in Washington. So, I honestly think that Bruce Allen and Daniel Snyder should have a say so in determining that. OK, so the Redskins are going to be a team built around a West Coast offense (or a variation at least) with a 3-4 defense. So, if Allen and Snyder feel that Shanahan just is not working in Washington, they need to go out and find another head coach/staff who's going to make the present system work.

In my humble opinion, THAT is the only way we will ever see the Redskins truly be a consistently successful franchise from year in/year out again. If Shanahan is fired after season three, then Snyder will, of course, want to go out and hire the “best” candidate available. But, if that guy has a completely different philosophy that he's bringing to the team, guess what? You're starting all over once again. It's time to get out of that mentality and off the Merry-Go-Round. Either live with and buy into what Mike Shanahan is trying to establish, or bring in someone new who is going to pick up and go with what Mike has already laid out.

[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.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I've moved off my opinion that the Redskins should fire Mike Shanahan immediately because I'm not seeing one guy in the 2012 draft at the QB position that we need to get and start over offensively in order to justify our existence. At least not where we will pick.

One more year for Shanahan isn't entirely more thrilling than the idea of bringing back Jim Zorn for another year in 2010. And to me, I'm just not sure what the Redskins expectations will be in 2012 with Mike Shanahan.

I mean to put it into context, anything less than a NFC East title will be a disappointing result after the events of the last two years. Even a 9-7 second place finish would be a "we waited three years for THAT?!" kind of deal. But predicting something beyond that would be totally unrealistic.

Mike Shanahan hasn't built the Redskins into anything except the same old Redskins. We would all be totally thrilled with a second place finish in a weak division next year, but then what? Would we admit that the standards that got Norv Turner, Marty Schottenhemier, and Jim Zorn fired have lowered to the point where keeping Shanahan is acceptable.

Dan Snyder has to decide where the Redskins are as an organization. If we're just striving to be accepted as a pro organization, I think Mike Shanahan can get us there. If we're trying to be a great organization that can compete to win the super bowl, I think we would have seen something better in the last two years to suggest that was obtainable.

This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This.

In plain speak, one could just say we're not any better than the team Mike took over and leave it there. A counter argument just doesn't hold water, period. Mike isn't winning. We had a better QB then. We had a more consistent, if not better overall, defense then. Etc etc. Depth on the offensive line is...immaterial when you don't have a QB to lead the offense to higher production. Depth at running back...not really difficult to find in this league. Mike's little pats on the back to himself amount to, well, just pats on the back. They don't mean squat on any given Sunday.

One could say that but it would be reactionary and short sighted. No argument on the QB, disagree on the defense because we had too many pieces that weren't sustainable (Daniels, Holliday, McIntosh, Griffin, Horton/Doughty) and we had zero depth at RB prior to this year.

For all of the 'we are no better off than we were' crowd, of the players who were not retained from the inherited roster, who is making a significant impact on new teams? I can point to three, Carter, Rogers and Edwin Williams who is a backup pressed into duty due to injuries and got a contract extension from the Bears at a backup salary level. Anyone else contributing (not just holding a roster spot or playing but making a positive impact) that I missed?