How Much Time do YOU Give Shanahan?

One of many experimental iterations ...

Goaldeje

The Legend
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,376
Reaction score
41
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison


...realizing of course, that none of what any of us thinks matters at all. :)

I have been a little surprised at the number of Redskins fans who seem willing to advocate the firing of Shanahan (haven't seen as much on Allen, not sure how people feel about him) after less than a year and a half. I am the first to acknowledge his difficulties, and have been fairly vocal about my disdain for Kyle's playcalling, but I also feel 1.5 years is not enough time.

So how much is?

For me, I think a lot will be determined this coming off season. At that point, he and Allen will have had three off seasons, and if we don't walk away having at the minimum a solid foundation on both lines, I will be sorely disappointed. The rule used to be five years, now most say three; I am willing to cut him some slack and split them both. Those who say we should fire him I think forget the absolute suckitude that Vinny's "leadership" of 10 years brought on us. There is no way they were gonna be able to turn it around over night. Aside from McNabb, is there one huge, glaring mistake either Allen or Shanahan has made that you would point to as being fire-able?

So, how much time do you give him?
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

If we are not at least competing for a wild card spot in 2012, I would fire him. The team needs to show some improvement from year to year starting next year (when the most important piece - QB - is in place).
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,376
Reaction score
41
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

If we are not at least competing for a wild card spot in 2012, I would fire him. The team needs to show some improvement from year to year starting next year (when the most important piece - QB - is in place).
So you want us to draft the QB of the future in the off season, and expect us to be contend for the wild card immediately? I am not so sure we shouldn't aim a little lower than that. I realize Flacco, Ryan, et all have changed the way we view rookie QBs, but I'm not sure I'm ready to give him a do or die season the same year we draft our guy.

Now, the second year? Well, yeah. Definitely then.

I think what is most disappointing for me is last year. I am willing to give Mike a pass for it, but it just feels like a wasted year to me.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

So you want us to draft the QB of the future in the off season, and expect us to be contend for the wild card immediately? I am not so sure we shouldn't aim a little lower than that. I realize Flacco, Ryan, et all have changed the way we view rookie QBs, but I'm not sure I'm ready to give him a do or die season the same year we draft our guy.

Now, the second year? Well, yeah. Definitely then.

I think what is most disappointing for me is last year. I am willing to give Mike a pass for it, but it just feels like a wasted year to me.
Yeah, their strategy seems to be build up the team around QB, then draft a QB to be competitive immediately a la Roethlisberger. I don't think that is so far fetched, considering we'd be 5-1 with halfway decent QB play this season.
 

Nobody

Super Bowl MVP
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
9,474
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Virginia Beach, VA

Army

This is my take on things, and I am a professional bull****ter, so you should all take my opinion on this matter as gold :D

Mike Shanahan isn't the problem, his idiot son is. How many times have we seen them completely abandon the run in the second half? Nearly every game, right? Who here doesn't believe we could have beaten the Eagles if he didn't keep calling for Grossman to throw those frail ass passes in the flat, and instead feed it to our backs?

Wrecks Grossman was not the answer, but because little Kyle liked his little toy so much, he insisted on shoving him up our asses until daddy's aneurysm busted and he couldn't take it anymore.

I think after the season is over, regardless of the outcome, Mike needs to have a little sit down with his son and politely tell him to **** off and hit the road. After that, regardless of who is brought in, we should make the playoffs in 2013, or Mike can carry his ass too.

I'm not anywhere even close to giving up on coach, because I think his hemorrhoid is the problem. Once he lances that sucker off, I think the problem goes away with it. As for now, it's becoming abscessed, and it's starting to fester.
 

LKB

Camp Fodder
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
0


Yeah, their strategy seems to be build up the team around QB, then draft a QB to be competitive immediately a la Roethlisberger. I don't think that is so far fetched, considering we'd be 5-1 with halfway decent QB play this season.
That's not what the Steelers did though.

They took Roethlisberger because they were 6-10 and thought they were on the way down. They wanted to have a QB when they finally got good. Tommy Maddox was supposed to start for two more years.

Maddox gets hurt in a loss, Roethlisberger steps in, and they don't lose a game until the AFC Championship.

2004 Steelers are proof that it doesn't take a long time to rebuild. It took - essentially - two players to turn the Steelers from a 6-10 team to a Super Bowl contender. Roethlisberger made the offense effective and Polamalu - who did not start a game as a rookie in 2003 and was considered in some circles to be a bust - became a superstar.

I would say the Skins are seeing a little bit of this "one player" impact on defense with Kerrigan. Suddenly, we create turnovers and negative plays which has happened consistently since early in the Gregg Williams Era.

The obvious example of what one player can do is Carolina. The team is downright scary on offense and it's all because of one dude. Steve Smith looks like Steve Smith again - and everyone in football thought he was done.
 

fansince62

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
16,349
Reaction score
156
Points
343


...realizing of course, that none of what any of us thinks matters at all. :)

I have been a little surprised at the number of Redskins fans who seem willing to advocate the firing of Shanahan (haven't seen as much on Allen, not sure how people feel about him) after less than a year and a half. I am the first to acknowledge his difficulties, and have been fairly vocal about my disdain for Kyle's playcalling, but I also feel 1.5 years is not enough time.

So how much is?

For me, I think a lot will be determined this coming off season. At that point, he and Allen will have had three off seasons, and if we don't walk away having at the minimum a solid foundation on both lines, I will be sorely disappointed. The rule used to be five years, now most say three; I am willing to cut him some slack and split them both. Those who say we should fire him I think forget the absolute suckitude that Vinny's "leadership" of 10 years brought on us. There is no way they were gonna be able to turn it around over night. Aside from McNabb, is there one huge, glaring mistake either Allen or Shanahan has made that you would point to as being fire-able?

So, how much time do you give him?

five years no ifs, ands or buts. Snyder has had real problems in the past getting quality coaches to come to DC. painful as this may seem....he needs to sit on his hands and give Shanahan every opportunity to succeed. should Shanahan fail....a quiet period of demonstrated support may encourage the better coaches to come to DC.
 

redskins26

The Team Captain
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
14
Points
68

Navy

We need stability from the coaches so i believe shanahan will have all 5 years. They have shownthe commitment to build this team and just like every job they have made mistakes and moved on from them hopefully next year this team is a solid team all around
 

Fear The Spear

The Legend
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
19,626
Reaction score
126
Points
343
Location
BGO's Official Resident "Tech Dummy"


I was kidding when I said fire Mike now.
Just the opposite. The coaching carousel HAS to stop. Shanahan is one of the most talented coaches we've had in years. Give the guy a chance. He hasn't even gotten through a season and a half and people are already asking for his head.
Plus, he's proving that he's building the team the RIGHT way for a change, with draft picks and NOT over-rated FA's, and it seems to be working, slowly but surely. And building the RIGHT way TAKES TIME, NOT the 22 games you've given him thus far.

We've already gutted our team to make room for the 3-4 defense and paid our dues last year to allow that to settle in. Let's not bring in yet another new coach who will surely gut the team again, and end up right back where we started, OR WORSE.
 

LKB

Camp Fodder
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
0


Here is a question:

If Miami goes 0-16, drafts Luck, and hires Bill Cowher....would anyone be shocked if they went 7-9 or 8-8 next year?
 

McD5

The Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,948
Reaction score
10
Points
318
Location
Orlando

Florida State

Not a fan of Kyle right now. Not a huge fan of the talent they have brought in either.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,399
Reaction score
352
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


It's a 5 year contract, right? Then you give him 5 years...........

This isn't a team that had an established quarterback or any depth of talent on either side of the ball.

This was a complete rebuild.

That takes longer than other situations where you start out with 7 or 8 very good players who are productive and you add perhaps 5-6 others and then install your systems.

Again, if the 2010 season had allowed for a regular free agent period and the team had a full set of draft picks this would have gone faster.
 

LKB

Camp Fodder
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Points
0


yes because they are legitimately awful. even worse than us.
But are they?

They are horrible on offense because Matt Moore is awful and they stupidly thought that Reggie Bush was an every down back.

But ponder this: Luck at QB, Brandon Marshall at WR, a Mike Tolbert/Reggie Bush combo at running back, and some third round speedster from - I don't know - Missippi State at the other WR. That's an offense that could create problems assuming that Luck is advanced as I think he is.

The defense needs some work, but Cowher never had trouble getting a top 15 performance out of a defense regardlesss of the talent. And the main problem Miami seems to have this year is utter exhaustion from having the worst offense in football.
 

Miles Monroe

Coaching Staff
Staff member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
5,677
Reaction score
80
Points
128
Location
Cape Coral Fl


With more then a decade of mismanagement, and an organization more like a country club then a pro football team, I give him the full length of his contract to turn it around.

It doesn't happen over night no matter how bad we want it to. A franchise QB is needed, but not the only problem we need to address.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,399
Reaction score
352
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


Well, considering that the 49ers already had Frank Gore, Vernon Davis, Michael Crabtree, Patrick Willis, etc......I would say yes. Also, Harbaugh somehow has managed to turn Alex Smith into a decent quarterback - but even Smith has greater talent than Beck or Grossman so is it that surprising that he is now performing better?

After the 2009 season I thought the Redskins had the worst talent in the NFC along with the Seattle Seahawks.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

That's not what the Steelers did though.
My point wasn't that was the strategy the Steelers used - they've been competitive for a long time now. My point was that Roethlisberger was able to come in and be successful immediately b/c there was a solid foundation around him.

They took Roethlisberger because they were 6-10 and thought they were on the way down. They wanted to have a QB when they finally got good. Tommy Maddox was supposed to start for two more years.
Don't be fooled by the Steelers one 6-10 season in the middle of 4 10+ win seasons; they had a down year. The OL and skill positions stayed largely the same.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

Yeah, changing my answer to the full five years of his contract. 3 years is probably a little too hasty. Although if he hits on a QB in 2012, we will see the turnaround begin.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,399
Reaction score
352
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


Does anyone really think this team is in worse shape right now personnel-wise than when Zorn departed in December 2009?

If so, please come forward and state your case. The Redskins were the oldest team in the NFL in 2009 and lacked depth across the board. They had a bloated over the cap roster of underperforming prima donnas who were living off reputation.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Chat 0
    Top