Nepotism: Is it Killing the Skins?

fansince62 said:

You can't judge KS until there is something to work with. He can't call an intelligent game with so many weak spots on offense.

Click to expand...

This thread may now be closed.

Lanky Livingston said:

I hope we see a switch this week - you can SEE the receivers getting frustrated after every play. They may be interceptions, but at least Grossman THROWS the ball to wide-open WRs on deep routes.

Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath, Lanky.

Executive Vice President/Head Coach Mike Shanahan

On quarterback John Beck’s play today:

“I thought he did some good things. I think he had some opportunities that he’d like to have over, just like most quarterbacks. It’s a learning experience for him. He’s going to get better as time goes on. I thought he had some opportunities to make some good plays in there. I thought he got rid of the ball quick. Like I said, collectively, you’ve got to do it as a team. You’ve got to do it as an offensive unit and we made too many mistakes collectively to move the ball consistently.”

On if Beck will start next week:

“Yeah, we’re going to stick with John”

If you guys truly believe that John Beck is the only problem with this offense you are sorely mistaken. Like I have said before, this offense was nearly anemic with Rex. Poor play calling is a mjaor contributing factor. We stood no chance in the Eagles game because of the lack of a run game against one of the league's worst. We lost to Carolina for the same reason. Kyle reverts to the pass without giving the run game a chance. Against Dallas he called only 2 run plays late in the game after our TD drive that saw the run game get going. If I weren't so lazy, I would go back play by play and do more analysis. It just wouldn't help, there are those of you who are sold on Kyle. If he were making some of the bonehead calls for any other team with no success, there would be repercussions. There have been too many head scratching moments that had me wondering, why would they call that play. His job is safe, so he gets away with some of them. You guys remember the shuttle pass in the Redzone? Can't remember the game, but it could have cost us big.

No question that Kyle, and every other coach for that matter, is part of the problem. But even with the very limited film angles available to us fans, there are many plays that are "there", both running and passing, that we are missing. Beck is not seeing open receivers, a lot. If the players hit just 25% of the plays they've had available to them, we wouldn't be in shape we are.

The Shanahan's theory of total immersion into their system might pay off big. Might not. But regardless of the coach, this franchise, and it's fans, has to learn that the formula needs to be, Hire a competent coach...give coach 3-5 years to get his players, and his system, up and running as designed, and THEN decide if it's working or not.

The biggest problem we've had here is coaching/system turnover.

More than free agent mistakes, trading draft picks, or drafting poorly combined.

I'm as impatient a SOB as anyone alive. But if we're ever gonna fix this ****, we need some organizational stability. Warts and all.

Kyle Shanahan is not the problem - should he have stayed with the run longer in some games? Sure. Should he tailor the playcalling to the talent he has a little better? Maybe. Does he throw or catch the football? Absolutely not. You can't tell me the OC is to blame when Hankerson & Gaffney are streaking down field, WIDE FRIGGIN OPEN, and Beck throws to a double or triple-covered TE 5 yards short of the first down.

Kyle Shanahan is a major part of the problem! Having been hired by his father, he seems to have more free reign over the decisions on the field and many of them, many of them, have been complete head scratchers. Many on this board was saying the same thing just a few games ago, but now want to say it's all John Beck's fault?

Is Beck terrible? Yes! Does he lack field vision? Yes! I said it all day in chat yesterday. But you are missing the big picture here. You are basing your assertions on just 2 games with Beck at the helm. Kyle has been calling plays that are suspect all season long and because he is the coaches son, he gets a pass.

Do we have other problems? ABSOLUTELY! Is the nepotism issue a problem? I think so!

I just feel that until the plays are executed as designed, and prove themselves to be bad, it's hard to accept the notion that other plays, poorly executed, would garner any more success.

Lanky Livingston said:

Houston has a dominant, ball-control offense. They had two backs go for over 100 yards yesterday, meaning their D barely saw the field. Also, they've been close to being great for several years now, so there was no "turn-around." If we had any kind of offense, our defense would be a top 10 unit, there is no doubt in my mind.

Click to expand...

Sorry Lanky that dog wont hunt.
1- Houston had the same offence last season and where did they finish defencively again? You cant make one argument for the redskins and another for the texans.
2- Houston was running a 4-3 and wasnt very good, they are now in the first year of running a 3-4 and they have completely turned their defence around.

One could easily argue that they were not ideally suited to run a 3-4 and that their talent at most spots was on par with ours defencively, yet with a minimum of resources allocated to the switch (like us) they have somehow fielded a much better defence than we did. This is due to 3 things,
1- far superior scheming
2- far superior scouting of their own players
3- Players understanding the scheme immediately.

they had no mass exodus, no mass influx of other teams Old players either, ergo no wasted year of crapulence.

yes I blame shanny for this and it directly relates to us wasting resources that were NEEDED on offence.

Rymanofthenorth said:

Sorry Lanky that dog wont hunt.
1- Houston had the same offence last season and where did they finish defencively again? You cant make one argument for the redskins and another for the texans.

2- Houston was running a 4-3 and wasnt very good, they are now in the first year of running a 3-4 and they have completely turned their defence around.

Click to expand...

Per usual, you miss the point. A good offense helps the transition to a better defense.

One could easily argue that they were not ideally suited to run a 3-4 and that their talent at most spots was on par with ours defencively, yet with a minimum of resources allocated to the switch (like us) they have somehow fielded a much better defence than we did. This is due to 3 things,
1- far superior scheming
2- far superior scouting of their own players
3- Players understanding the scheme immediately.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you cannot discount the presence of a dominant, ball-controlling offense to help with the switch. If you swapped the Redskins defensive players with the Texans defensive players, you would get similar results for both teams. You magically want to sever the offense and the defense, but you can't.

"You can't blame Kyle when there isn't a qb that can make the throws to Armstrong, Gaffney, etc."

WRONG.

Kyle was instrumental in helping to bring Beck and Grossman to the Redskins.

He is now drowning in his own stew so to speak.

Lanky Livingston said:

Per usual, you miss the point. A good offense helps the transition to a better defense.



I'm sorry, but you cannot discount the presence of a dominant, ball-controlling offense to help with the switch. If you swapped the Redskins defensive players with the Texans defensive players, you would get similar results for both teams. You magically want to sever the offense and the defense, but you can't.

Click to expand...

No you are missing the point, whenever we argued about defence you would point at Balches defence as though defence was played in a vacuum, insinuating that our record was the defences fault. Now when I point out that our transition was horrific when compared to a team that had much more success, suddenly you acknowledge that a bad offence will contribute to a defence's troubles.

the most important thing you are discounting is the DC, one of them is a superior DC, one is not. it really is that simple, while you were busy being an apologist for this switch, I was pointing out why it wouldnt work and gave examples and stats not opinions.

Coaching has been this units issue for a few seasons now.,

Rymanofthenorth said:

No you are missing the point, whenever we argued about defence you would point at Balches defence as though defence was played in a vacuum, insinuating that our record was the defences fault. Now when I point out that our transition was horrific when compared to a team that had much more success, suddenly you acknowledge that a bad offence will contribute to a defence's troubles.

Click to expand...

Wow, this has been my point all along. Go back and read through some of our arguments - I even showed that the teams you said were successful in their switches had good offenses that helped the transition. It inherently helps the defense when they don't have to pitch a shutout every week to have a chance at winning the ballgame. This statement proves you are just set in your argument, and don't even read what people post in response to you.

the most important thing you are discounting is the DC, one of them is a superior DC, one is not. it really is that simple, while you were busy being an apologist for this switch, I was pointing out why it wouldnt work and gave examples and stats not opinions.

Click to expand...

I am not discounting the DC one bit. I just don't think Haslett has done anything terribly wrong outside of the cover-0 blitz on 3rd and a zillion against the Cowboys, but even then he held them to 18 points - should have been good enough for the W.

No lanky, you only think that the offence makes a difference when it comes to YOUR arguments, I said very clearly from the get go that a large reason that Blahs scheme was a vanilla as it was, was because he was handcuffed by a BAD OFFENCE, something that you ignored when it was convenient. suddenly last year when we had the massive meltdown, you decided that offence makes a difference. my point (because you tend to miss things when they are subtle) is that if one says that having a bad offence contributes to a bad defence is that why didnt you cut Blah any slack? lol one could argue that the offence back then contributed to the defence being as bad as it was (and it was nowhere near as bad lol)

if you havent seen some of the massive missteps haslett has made than there is no point in even discussing this. if you honestly think that the DC makes less difference than having a good offence then you know nothing about defence. the texans offence was pretty good last year, where did they finish defencively? your whole argument is flawed, I am done trying to help you see what should be blatantly obvious to anyone who looks.

Stop the personal posts. You can make your point without a personal dig, or dragging some discussion you had a year ago into it.

The Redskins defense has given up the 7th fewest points and the 13th fewest yards, and that's with the 21st in yards/27th in points offense in football. That's damn good if you ask me.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs[/media]

This won't be popular, but...

Mike Shanahan is a proven winner. The record is there. No need for me to go any further about him.

Obviously, Kyle Shanahan has far less time in the game than his father. When trying to evaluate his effectiveness, you only have so much to go on based on his time in the league. This is just my opinion of him and his talent. You can disagree with it, but I wanted to give it some time before rendering these thoughts.

After eight games, I am impressed with some of the players on offense. Many of the receivers have been wide open since opening day, but the throws haven't made it to their hands. Take the 49ers game as an example. How many times did we see receivers raising their arms during a crisp route, but never got a whiff of the ball? I lost count. This has been going on since the Giants game.

We won the Giants game due to multiple injuries that the boys in blue were enduring. We barely beat the Cardinals - has anyone checked their record? We barely beat the Rams - care to check their record as well?

Now we are dealing with a multiplicity of injuries. It's good to see the younger players stepping up and gaining valuable experience. It's more than we can hope for at this point. So, who do we blame? Old GM Vinny? The owner? Previous regimes? Players who are still on the roster from earlier seasons? The current coach? The coordinators? I think you see where I'm going with this line of thought.

This is just an observation about Kyle Shanahan. The offensive system is a good one if you base it on how the receivers are doing. Ditto for the running backs. The OL looked good yesterday. When you dig deeper and do an honest assessment, Kyle is a good coach with a solid game plan. The problem? You guessed it - quarterback.

A decent quarterback doesn't let the Cardinals game be so close. A decent QB puts the Rams away. A decent QB gets a valuable road win at Dallas. A decent QB wins the Philly game by a comfortable margin. A decent QB takes the road win at Carolina. I'll grant you that the Buffalo game is an unknown, but ten sacks doesn't happen with a decent QB.

So let's say that with a decent QB, the Redskins are 7-1 at the midpoint. Things are going well and Kyle is amongst those who are receiving our praise and admiration. Oh to dream and think of things that could be in our world of "what could be". Kyle is a good coordinator and when he has a dependable QB in place (and a reliable backup), he will shine. After watching the games this season, no one can convince me otherwise.