What Allen and Shanahan Have Taught Us

[pvkeeper19]

And considering that he coached Steve Young and John Elway during his NFL career as a coordinator and head coach, one would think that he is well qualified to make that decision

Shanahan inherited both of those guys. Of the quarterbacks he's evaluated and acquired on his own, Jake Plummer is the best of that group, and is joined by Brian Griese, Gus Frerotte, Jarious Jackson, Jay Cutler (jury's still out on him, I'll grant you)... the guy is a running back guru, but the preceding list doesn't speak well of his ability as a QB evaluator.

[Oldfan]

His five-step drop was like a seven-step drop... not decisive when he had the ball... he was better when he was trying to save his ass and throw the ball at the same time... he is a good person, but as a QB he is not someone who should start.

I was talking about the times when he had no chance. That should not happen on a five-step drop. Moreover, I have no problem conceding that Donovan McNabb in his prime was probably the most physically talented QB in the league, but let's not confuse his ability for helping his line by making quick decisions, and a quick release, with Peyton's.

[Warpath11]

I also still find it hilarious that Oldfan thinks Zorn's strategies (and 12-20 record) were sound yet finds flaws in a Super Bowl-winning coach's plan.

Well not sure about all that but I do agree with Oldfan in that Zorn game-planned with what he had available in talent. I shudder at the thought of Campbell doing a seven-step drop on an obvious passing situation (3rd and long). Zorn resorted to the, get-the-ball-out quick offense, once the o-line was compeltely dismantled and to do anything else would have been foolish.

[Oldfan]

I also still find it hilarious that Oldfan thinks Zorn's strategies (and 12-20 record) were sound yet finds flaws in a Super Bowl-winning coach's plan.

You might find it hilarious, but what you can't do is debate it. Zorn's basic approach was Bill Walsh's approach.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You might find it hilarious, but what you can't do it debate it. Zorn's basic approach was Bill Walsh's approach.

Why don't you start by explaining what was fundamentally more sound about Zorn's approach? I'll be happy to debate this with you.

Just saw your edit...so the crux of your debate is that anyone running Walsh's scheme trumps anyone running a different variation? I would say that Bill Walsh's playcalling (not only his gameplanning) had just as much to do with this team's success. There isn't just one correct scheme that a team can run.

You still have to call the right plays in the correct succession. You can't just say "we're going to run the same offense as the 1985 Bears" and get a pass because you're implementing a "successful" scheme.

Shanahan's scheme was very successful in Denver while Zorn's was a failure. The fact that Walsh perfected that same scheme 20 years ago is rather insignificant.

[SkinFromNepal]

I was talking about the times when he had no chance. That should not happen on a five-step drop. Moreover, I have no problem conceding that Donovan McNabb in his prime was probably the most physically talented QB in the league, but let's not confuse his ability for helping his line by making quick decisions, and a quick release, with Peyton's.

I got you and I am not supporting this trade... at this juncture I feel that JC is better than McNabb if we cosisder the bigger picture... What if Shannon drafts a QB like Clausen and wants the rookie to learn from McNabb for couple years until he is ready to lead the franchise????

[Oldfan]

Why don't you start by explaining what was fundamentally more sound about Zorn's approach? I'll be happy to debate this with you.

Bill Walsh's WCO used the pass and run in a 60/40 ratio to achieve ball control. That was Zorn's plan. We know because he told us so. Most dynasties, from Lombardi to Belichick, have been built on a ball control plan.

I think it's this simple: if everything else is equal, the offense that emphasizes ball control will beat a big play offense by keeping it off the field. This kind of offense makes its defense better by keeping it off the field.

Shanahan departed from the Walsh philosophy in Denver. Even his running game was oriented for the big play. It produced gaudy numbers, but the lighter O lineman, and their zone-blocking and cut-blocking, couldn't power their way to gains in the red zone.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bill Walsh's WCO used the pass and run in a 60/40 ratio to achieve ball control. That was Zorn's plan. We know because he told us so. Most dynasties, from Lombardi to Belichick, have been built on a ball control plan.

I think it's this simple: if everything else is equal, the offense that emphasizes ball control will beat a big play offense by keeping it off the field. This kind of offense makes its defense better by keeping it off the field.

Shanahan departed from the Walsh philosophy in Denver. Even his running game was oriented for the big play. It produced gaudy numbers, but the lighter O lineman and the zone-blocking and cut-blocking couldn't power their way to gains in the red zone.

How would you explain the success of the Colts over the past decade or so. They are a big-play offense, are they not? They've been "kept off the field" a bunch of times only to make their 20 minutes of TOP count.

I'm also not completely sold that any offense that revolves around the running game can be considered a "big play" offense. I think Shanahan's offenses in Denver were explosive and capable of a big play (which is good), but they didn't depend on it. I don't recall Terrell Davis having any issues scoring inside the 20.

[Henry]

I'm sorry your sad but in my opinion you lost your mind with this one. You honestly think that Colt McCoy or Tim Tebow is better to have then McNabb? I don't. You think that Campbell 's better to have then McNabb? I don't.

No. What I'd like is some indication that the front office has a plan beyond "That guy's good. Let's get him."

The reason I want this is because that aforementioned plan has been tried here for 10 years, and it doesn't work. All it does is get people to think that Player X will solve all our problems ... until the season starts. Then we do it again the next year with a new coach and a new scheme and say THIS time it'll be different.

Why this insistance on "rebuilding"? Why rebuild when your coach has a life span of 5 years tops? Why put such importance on players who've never taken a snap in this league? Have you forgotten about draft busts? Youth doesn't win out over expirence to me. We just see it differently I guess. This offense needs some linemen and it's set. Pull up the depth chart with our new pieces like I did and take a look. With solid defense and line protection we should be ok

Because that's what crappy teams do. And make no mistake, we have a crappy team. We were 4-12 last year. We've had one 10-win season since 1999, two since 1991. This team has supposedly been 'a few players away' for almost TWENTY YEARS.

You'll have to forgive me when I see a thread suggesting that this new coach has 'taught us' that we're suddenly now REALLY a few players away.

Of course there are draft busts. That's why you need more than four picks in a draft. Otherwise you have to draft perfectly or your future is crippled. That's EXACTLY what's happened to us for years. And that's why teams that suck hold firesales and get a dozen picks and grab a bunch of players that all fit the same philosophy. That's the way every team does it, except for us and the Raiders. You roll the dice with every player you pick up, veteran or rookie. Rookies might wash out. Vets might be too old or not a fit for what you are trying to do. There's always a risk. But draft picks are FAR cheaper and more plentiful.

Again, in a vacuum I agree McNabb is a nice upgrade. But if we're talking about what this move has 'taught us.' The lesson I get is the more things change the more they stay the same.

[Henry]

And considering that he coached Steve Young and John Elway during his NFL career as a coordinator and head coach, one would think that he is well qualified to make that decision

That's what it boils down to, BD. Shanahan's a good coach so like this move.

I hope you're right.

[Oldfan]

How would you explain the success of the Colts over the past decade or so. They are a big-play offense, are they not? They've been "kept off the field" a bunch of times only to make their 20 minutes of TOP count.

The Colts prove my point. They have won as many regular season games as any team in the NFL since 2000. They have had as much or more talent than the Patriots, but the Patriots have been the dynasty.

I'm also not completely sold that any offense that revolves around the running game can be considered a "big play" offense. I think Shanahan's offenses in Denver were explosive and capable of a big play (which is good), but they didn't depend on it. I don't recall Terrell Davis having any issues scoring inside the 20.

I can't back this up with stats, but red zone efficiency was Denver's problem for years. You need big boys with power to run the ball in the red zone. Shanny didn't have them. Most teams today are running a hybrid, power and zone blocking, for that reason.

[GaryGreenMonk]

o.k....

but I want to see SOME youth signed to this team...

we dumped some overpaid vets... but we've replaced them with several aging vets..

so far it's Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Donovon McNabb and Phillip Buchanan.. they are all at least 30 years old.

We have YET to sign or get 1 young development guy.

And now we only have 1 pick in the top 100 picks of the draft.

I mean...

If Shanny wants to do so well this year... what about next year, when half our team is another year closer to 40... cause we already traded one of next years draft picks away too.

Besides our obvious OL immediate needs...

over the next few years.. RB, QB (again), MLB, and RDE are all going to be issues.. and those are all positions that require a high pick if you want a good one out of the draft.

[Rudechain]

Obviously, I based it on watching some of his games. If you can't tell when a QB like a Mark Brunell or a Donavan McNabb's legs have gone, and he is no longer the threat that he once was, after watching him play a couple of games, then all I can say is: I can.

Have you noticed that all QBs don't have the same abilities? Some make their livings as pocket passers, others are a threat to use their legs, sometimes to run, sometimes to extend plays.

Well you did say you judge it on what you saw. How can you judge someone without looking at his whole body of work?

And as for his legs, it seems to me that McNabb learned how to stay in the pocket as time went on and rely less on his legs.

As I have stated before the most important traits for a QB are his arm and his head. McNabb has learned the game and been able to find recievers.

Marino did not have "legs" but he managed to lead a formidable passing attack. How did he do that? Well he read the defense, knew the blocking assignments and was able to step aside or slip to the side to avoid the rush.

Face it, McNabb is here for a few seasons to lead the team while a young quarterback is groomed for the future.

Allen and Shanahan are not idiots. I think it's fair to say they examined all the possiblities of trading up in the draft, trading down, or sticking with Jason. They decided this is the best option.

Suffice it to say, I will trust their judgement over diatribes on a message board.

[NewCliche21]

o.k....

but I want to see SOME youth signed to this team...

we dumped some overpaid vets... but we've replaced them with several aging vets..

so far it's Larry Johnson, Willie Parker, Donovon McNabb and Phillip Buchanan.. they are all at least 30 years old.

We have YET to sign or get 1 young development guy.

And now we only have 1 pick in the top 100 picks of the draft.

I mean...

If Shanny wants to do so well this year... what about next year, when half our team is another year closer to 40... cause we already traded one of next years draft picks away too.

Besides our obvious OL immediate needs...

over the next few years.. RB, QB (again), MLB, and RDE are all going to be issues.. and those are all positions that require a high pick if you want a good one out of the draft.

Why are people not understanding how many years a player must be with his team to be an UFA? Good luck getting anyone under 27/28. Six years, people. Six years or we have to pay a pick or two. There is no good youth to be had.

[Oldfan]

Allen and Shanahan are not idiots... Suffice it to say, I will trust their judgement over diatribes on a message board.

I don't think that Allen and Shanahan are idiots either, but my bet is that Andy Reid knows more about Donovan McNabb than they do and I doubt that he's offering charity to a division rival.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Why are people not understanding how many years a player must be with his team to be an UFA? Good luck getting anyone under 27/28. Six years, people. Six years or we have to pay a pick or two. There is no good youth to be had.

then pay a pick... but add some youth somewhere it's badly needed.

[pvkeeper19]

How would you explain the success of the Colts over the past decade or so. They are a big-play offense, are they not? They've been "kept off the field" a bunch of times only to make their 20 minutes of TOP count.

The Colts are the exception, not the rule. That offense is run by the best quarterback ever to put on a jersey. They win because Peyton Manning makes them win.

[bird_1972]

Why are people not understanding how many years a player must be with his team to be an UFA? Good luck getting anyone under 27/28. Six years, people. Six years or we have to pay a pick or two. There is no good youth to be had.

Which is why keeping our draft picks should be a top priority for us ... not only this year, but in every year from now onwards.

[dfbovey]

This management is in a win now, fix the problems today mentality.

A lot of people seem surprised by this. But Allen said that they expect to win now from day one.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Ditto..........................

[Rudechain]

Bill Walsh's WCO used the pass and run in a 60/40 ratio to achieve ball control. That was Zorn's plan. We know because he told us so. Most dynasties, from Lombardi to Belichick, have been built on a ball control plan.

I think it's this simple: if everything else is equal, the offense that emphasizes ball control will beat a big play offense by keeping it off the field. This kind of offense makes its defense better by keeping it off the field.

Shanahan departed from the Walsh philosophy in Denver. Even his running game was oriented for the big play. It produced gaudy numbers, but the lighter O lineman, and their zone-blocking and cut-blocking, couldn't power their way to gains in the red zone.

Well this is not Bill Walsh's variation of the WCO, it's Shanahans. And believe it or not, Shanahan believes in ball control through the use of a running game.

As the offensive coordinator of the niners in 1992 he had a running back by the name of Ricky Waters who ran for just over a thousand yards with an average of 4.9 ypc.

In 1993, as the offensive coordinator Ricky Waters ran for 950 yards with an average of 4.6 ypc.

In 1994, as the offensive coordinator for the Super Bowl champions Waters ran for 877 yards and a 3.7 ypc. ( he was released from the team and went to the eagles)

In 1995, his first year as head coach of the Bronco's, he picked up a back by the name of Terrell Davis. Davis ran for 1117 yards for a 4.7 ypc.

1996 Davis ran for 1538 yards and a 4.5 ypc

1997 Davis ran for 1750 yards and 4.7 ypc. and won a Super Bowl.

1998 Davis ran for 2008 yards and 5.1 ypc enroute to a Super Bowl victory

1999 Davis was wearing down, but Olandis Gary took over and ran for 1159 yards and 4.2 ypc.

2000 Gary was done but Mike Anderson took over and ran for 1487 yards and 5.0 ypc.

I could go on through his entire tenure but I think this makes the point that Shanahan believes in ball control and also in a strong run game.

What this also shows, is that some of the pressure will be taken off of McNabb and he won't have to rely on a passing game all the time.

[Rudechain]

I don't think that Allen and Shanahan are idiots either, but my bet is that Andy Reid knows more about Donovan McNabb than they do and I doubt that he's offering charity to a division rival.

Surely he is not. But at the same time, Allen and Shanahan must have performed due diligence and decided this was the best way to keep the team competitive while building for the future as they stated they were going to do.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Shanahan departed from the Walsh philosophy in Denver. Even his running game was oriented for the big play. It produced gaudy numbers, but the lighter O lineman, and their zone-blocking and cut-blocking, couldn't power their way to gains in the red zone.

ahahahahahahaha

2008 rush TD rank: T14

2007: 20

2006: 18

2005: 3

2004: 15

2003: 3

2002: 5

2001: 30

2000: 3

A few down years, but top 15 6 out of 9 seasons, top 5 4 out of 9 seasons in rushing TDs. 2 of those years was with dreck like a broke-down and strung out Travis Henry, and a soon-to-be out of the leage Droughns. Meanwhile he was above-average with Peyton Hillis.

These are the post Davis years btw.

Laughable. Just laughable.

yeah, "oldfan" indeed - you're pretty just another nostalgia homer who thinks that the only successful team is the one built like Gibbs 1.0, and the only successful lines average 320 pounds and block straight up. This isn't 1989 people.

[Commander PK]

Great post Bulldog. I pretty much agree with everything you said.

So, #2 and potentially a #3/#4 in 2011 for a pro bowl quarterback who is coming in healthy and knowledgeable about the system being installed by the new coaching staff is a far different kind of trade than you would have seen Cerrato make.

Especially this^^^^

[Oldfan]

ahahahahahahaha...

You are obviously proud of yourself, but I see no relevance between your stats and anything I said.