My evaluation of Shanahan starts now

[JoeRedskin]

Campbell will never be more than a mediocre QB - whether as a starter or back-up. IMHO - Shanny saw that pretty quickly and hoped for better with McNabb. Unfortunately, McNabb turned out to be not even mediocre which set us back substantially. Shanallen should have recognized it but didn't. Regardless, we would still need a QB coming into this draft. Bottom line, whatever took us to getting a guy like RG3, I am incredibly happy where we have ended it up.

Past failed QB's are like former girlfriends you break it off with - you had some laughs, you learn some stuff, and maybe keep some pleasant memories, but, ultimately, when the right one comes along, you just don't care about them.

RGIII is here. I just don't care about those who went before.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Campbell will never be more than a mediocre QB - whether as a starter or back-up. IMHO - Shanny saw that pretty quickly and hoped for better with McNabb. Unfortunately, McNabb turned out to be not even mediocre which set us back substantially. Shanallen should have recognized it but didn't. Regardless, we would still need a QB coming into this draft. Bottom line, whatever took us to getting a guy like RG3, I am incredibly happy where we have ended it up.

Past failed QB's are like former girlfriends you break it off with - you had some laughs, you learn some stuff, and maybe keep some pleasant memories, but, ultimately, when the right one comes along, you just don't care about them.

RGIII is here. I just don't care about those who went before.

Well said.

[HailGreen28]

So are we going to the regular season with one fullback?

[los panda]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So are we going to the regular season with one fullback?

you bet your boots we are.

did we keep a backup for sellers?

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So are we going to the regular season with one fullback?

If I had to guess, I figure they will put Paul there occasionally.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

If I had to guess, I figure they will put Paul there occasionally.

Royster

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Royster

Thx ment Royster keys on keyboard keep sticking.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

Thx ment Royster keys on keyboard keep sticking.

Hahaha I've got to remember to use that line from now on.

[GTripp0012]

I'm rejecting the "worst roster ever" argument because Shanahan thought he was inheriting a winning, though underachieving team when he took the job. He could have taken a lot of different jobs that weren't the Redskins, but ultimately, his best chance for a quick turnaround was in the wake of Zorn's blunder. Obviously, if he we were as far away as people are claiming we were, he would have at least interviewed for the Buffalo or Seattle jobs. There was simply more immediate upside here. That's why he took the job in the first place.

I also don't see how it matters that pretty much no one from the 2009 team is in the league today, because contrary to popular belief, Mike Shanahan was not looking for the roster that would put him in the best position to win in 2012. That obviously wouldn't have been the Redskins, but the pieces for the quick turnaround (Fletcher, Haynesworth, Landry, Rogers, Cooley, Portis, Moss) were in place, otherwise, why the heck go after McNabb? The idea that the Redskins were expected to return to the playoffs in 2010 is the only reasonable way to view this.

We all picked the Redskins to go to the playoffs in the McNabb year. John Clayton picked the Redskins to go to the playoffs then. I did as well. It's 100% hindsight to claim Shanahan inherited the worst roster ever. Too many knowledgable people thought Zorn's roster + Shanahan's coaching and player acquisition = playoffs. It wasn't the former part of the equation we all had wrong. It was the latter.

If we keep proper context, you can't explain the last two years as being a result of Vinny's ineptitude, because he's been gone too long (although it's obvious he was never helping things).

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm rejecting the "worst roster ever" argument because Shanahan thought he was inheriting a winning, though underachieving team when he took the job. He could have taken a lot of different jobs that weren't the Redskins, but ultimately, his best chance for a quick turnaround was in the wake of Zorn's blunder. Obviously, if he we were as far away as people are claiming we were, he would have at least interviewed for the Buffalo or Seattle jobs. There was simply more immediate upside here. That's why he took the job in the first place.

I also don't see how it matters that pretty much no one from the 2009 team is in the league today, because contrary to popular belief, Mike Shanahan was not looking for the roster that would put him in the best position to win in 2012. That obviously wouldn't have been the Redskins, but the pieces for the quick turnaround (Fletcher, Haynesworth, Landry, Rogers, Cooley, Portis, Moss) were in place, otherwise, why the heck go after McNabb? The idea that the Redskins were expected to return to the playoffs in 2010 is the only reasonable way to view this.

We all picked the Redskins to go to the playoffs in the McNabb year. John Clayton picked the Redskins to go to the playoffs then. I did as well. It's 100% hindsight to claim Shanahan inherited the worst roster ever. Too many knowledgable people thought Zorn's roster + Shanahan's coaching and player acquisition = playoffs. It wasn't the former part of the equation we all had wrong. It was the latter.

If we keep proper context, you can't explain the last two years as being a result of Vinny's ineptitude, because he's been gone too long (although it's obvious he was never helping things).

That's the insightful, depressing GTripp I know!

In all seriousness though, fantastic post. Bravo.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm rejecting the "worst roster ever" argument~(good post follows)

Yeah.
Its wierd.
It seems that the fan optimism for Mike Shanahan is cloaked in a bit of misremembering or revisionism.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm rejecting the "worst roster ever" argument because Shanahan thought he was inheriting a winning, though underachieving team when he took the job.

If we keep proper context, you can't explain the last two years as being a result of Vinny's ineptitude, because he's been gone too long (although it's obvious he was never helping things).

1) Shanahan realized his mistake and changed direction in year 2 (to his credit) A LOT OF YOU thought they could win now with McNabb... There were people here talking super bowl... Many of you were shouting down anyone who (correctly) surmised that win now was a bad idea, and giving away more draft picks for big name cast offs was a Dan Snyder like Move (see 1b). Mistakes happen, we are all human, I was not a supporter of Shanahans first year, and I didn't want them to hire him... None the less I am impressed with the rebuild in progress and support the idea that he should get about two more seasons, as long as he gets SOME progress.

1b) the scenario where Snyder pushed for McNabb has been floated by credible Journalists and personally I suspect that they had a hand shake deal with Shanahan to try and "win now" with the understanding that if it didn't work they would rebuild the following year.. McNabb WIlly Parker and Larry Johnson all had that patented Snyder big name/washed up feel.

2) regardless of how poorly he evaluated in the first year (or optimistically; after all high performers tend to think they can make things happen) Shanahan changed his mind, admitted his mistakes, moved on, and made the correct determination the next year. But we don't need that to understand what happened with the teams talent level. The most basic evaluation of his roster after year one should conclude that he had no depth at any position except TE, that he had problematic/old/washed up/overpaid by the previous regime starters in almost every key position. They literally had to tear down and were losing more players.

The assessment that he should have restocked the roster in 2 years is just wishful thinking at best. It is incredibly obvious that they want to upgrade positions (like Safety and CB) but simply haven't had the free agents or draft picks. Meanwhile none of the late round flyers have turned out to be diamonds in the rough.

I can't stand this ignorant fan sentiment that just because they brought in some temporary patch or warm body that the guy is actually regarded as an upgrade by Shanahan. A lot of moves are simply lateral sidegrades or even DOWNGRADES due to losing players. This isn't Madden franchise mode or fantasy football where every move is an upgrade. And the prevailing fan sentiment about this is face palm worthy.

In the real world they are trying to upgrade WHILE ALSO trying to compensate for the natural losses of talent, and moves not panning out. In the real world everyone else is trying to win as well. It's like saying next year I'm going to make my car faster to win races... but it's not that easy everyone else is making their car faster too

[SmootSmack]

He did interview with the Bills

[GTripp0012]

Interview or "interview" in the Bill Cowher sense?

I seem to remember that insiders knew Shanahan would be the coach here before Zorn was fired.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Interview or "interview" in the Bill Cowher sense?

I seem to remember that insiders knew Shanahan would be the coach here before Zorn was fired.

He legit interviewed. People can say they knew only because they knew Snyder would not be "outbid" but Shanahan didn't know. He had some reservations.