What Allen and Shanahan Have Taught Us

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

You said that Shanahan had trouble scoring rush TDs in the end zone.

I just categorically refuted that.

The only time when Shanahan has struggled to score rush TDs is when his running backs and overall talent have been utter total dreck as opposed to simply being mediocre to awful.

[Oldfan]

You said that Shanahan had trouble scoring rush TDs in the end zone.

No. I didn't. I said he had trouble with running in the red zone. Your stats include the TDs scored on big running plays which I said his scheme was good at.

[addicted]

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

No one said this, and frankly you can't say that McNabb doesn't bring better leadership and more expirence to the team then Campbell does. The coach believes that this team can win with McNabb more so then he believed he could win with another QB. If McNabb lasts 5 years as the starter that gives us more then enough time to find that young QB. No one here is thinking that we aren't building for the future, we did this knowing this has become a QB league where they don't get hit like they used to. The ages of QB's are going up because of this where as you see the ages of the RB's going down. If McNabb's a 5 year plan then this can't be a "this is for this year only"

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.

Wrong. Stop thinking that Vinny is still here and that Zorn, Gibbs, Spurrier are still here. This is a new day. These men have been here for a few months. To me you sound stuck of being negative towards these men because your pissed about things that happened years ago. Stop being bitter, Shanny didn't make those moves 10 years or even 1 year ago. Just because we failed with one player in FA doesn't mean we should bury our head in the sand and give up....come on man

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.

When I look at this team last year we needed to improve many places....

1. Head coach - We fixed that

2. Good Offensive coordinator - We fixed that

3. Good QB - We fixed that

4. Randle El - Gone, fixed

5. Better backup RB's - Fixed

6. Offensive Line - Not fixed enough yet

Were not fixing it all in one move, but we are fixing it.

[Mark The Homer]

I disagree with this part, Snyder is a buisiness man, he wont pay someone 21 mil, then trade him away, at least not this year. If AH has a bad year in the new system I could see a change next year.

This comment is not logical. The 21 million has nothing to do with anything. It's water under the bridge. All that matters is AH's perceived value NOW.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

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.

The Colts were a bottom 10 defensive team until 2006 or so, the Patriots have been a top 5 defensive team this entire decade until the past two years. Are you kidding me? Give those Colts even an average D and they win multiple titles.

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.

. Do you really think an offense that consistently placed top 10 in scoring with less than blue-chip talent at the QB, RB, WR and even OL was struggling in the red zone? Do you really think all those rushing TDs were off 20+ yard runs?

You're right you can't back it up with stats...because it's not true.

heeellllllp

[Oldfan]

The Colts were a bottom 10 defensive team until 2006 or so, the Patriots have been a top 5 defensive team this entire decade until the past two years. Are you kidding me? Give those Colts even an average D and they win multiple titles.

When an offense is good at ball control, it keeps its defense on the bench. Thus, they always look good in the rankings. Naturally, the reverse is true: if an offense depends on the big play to score, their defense will be made to look bad because they will be on the field longer. In other words, if you had a better understanding of the game, you would not bother using rankings in a debate.

Do you really think an offense that consistently placed top 10 in scoring with less than blue-chip talent at the QB, RB, WR and even OL was struggling in the red zone? ...You're right you can't back it up with stats...because it's not true.

If you understand why bigger lineman are more effective in the redzone and why jumbo formations are used in short yardage situations, you should not need stats to prove that Denver's smaller zone-blocking linemen were at a disadvantage in the redzone.

[Mahons21]

I watched games last season in which Campbell was run over as soon as his back foot hit on a five-step drop. I find it hard to believe that one good addition will do much to solve the O line problem.

-Experience with one another/scheme and the addition of a rookie LT plus Artis Hicks will help get this line on its feet again.

[Oldfan]

-Experience with one another/scheme and the addition of a rookie LT plus Artis Hicks will help get this line on its feet again.

I don't know if we will get Okung, or how good he will be; but IMO we don't have a lineman on the squad nearly as good as Samuels or Thomas when they were last seen fairly healthy in the first half of 2008.

[Henry]

No one said this, and frankly you can't say that McNabb doesn't bring better leadership and more expirence to the team then Campbell does. The coach believes that this team can win with McNabb more so then he believed he could win with another QB. If McNabb lasts 5 years as the starter that gives us more then enough time to find that young QB.

I know he's better than Campbell. I know the coach thinks he can win with him. What I don't see is a long-term strategy. McNabb lasting five years is a stretch. I think a more realistic expectation is 2 or 3 on the outside before his play trails off and he signs as a backup somewhere. QBs that are effective starters at 39 are the exception, not the rule. McNabb is good, but he's not that good.

No one here is thinking that we aren't building for the future, we did this knowing this has become a QB league where they don't get hit like they used to. The ages of QB's are going up because of this where as you see the ages of the RB's going down. If McNabb's a 5 year plan then this can't be a "this is for this year only"

We are building for the future? Upon what is this statement based? The additions of Parker, Johnson and McNabb or the loss of two more draft picks?

Wrong. Stop thinking that Vinny is still here and that Zorn, Gibbs, Spurrier are still here. This is a new day. These men have been here for a few months. To me you sound stuck of being negative towards these men because your pissed about things that happened years ago. Stop being bitter, Shanny didn't make those moves 10 years or even 1 year ago. Just because we failed with one player in FA doesn't mean we should bury our head in the sand and give up....come on man

Fine. I also don't think the moves made these past few months indicate some new change either. How can you look at the moves made and think that? The only way you can is because Shanahan's the coach and you think he's good. That's it. There's no actions taken by the team that's suggests a different approach than in the past. Just hope that the guy making the moves is different this time around.

Maybe we'll make some concrete moves on draft day or beyond that WILL show things have changed around here. That would be cool, and I'll be happy to acknowledge them. Trading a away a high pick in a deep draft for a 34 year-old who hasn't seen a pro-bowl since 2004 isn't one of them.

When I look at this team last year we needed to improve many places....

1. Head coach - We fixed that

2. Good Offensive coordinator - We fixed that

3. Good QB - We fixed that

4. Randle El - Gone, fixed

5. Better backup RB's - Fixed

6. Offensive Line - Not fixed enough yet

Were not fixing it all in one move, but we are fixing it.

Again, we now have four draft picks. The lack of picks has been a chronic problem with this team. Let's see them address that. Or at least not make the problem worse. Then we'll talk.

[hailskins11]

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.

nicely done!

[illone]

The first thing that ran through my mind when this trade was announced:

"So much for rebuilding."

These guys are trying to build a winner in 2010 and beyond and arent wasting much time in doing so. Will be interesting to see how these guys navigate the draft board later this month and what amount of compensation they are able to get from Campbell.

[Long-Time-Fan]

Great post OP,

The only thing I don't like is once again we have very little in terms of Draft picks.

After getting McNabb we only have a 1st,4th,5th and 7th round picks.

The Patriots have 12 picks this year with 3 being in the 2nd round.

Eagles have 11 picks

I do like having McNabb over Campbell but How are we ever going to build a team with no Draft Picks?

[SkinsFanJPD]

Yup -- It's obvious Shanny's not here for the long haul,....maybe 4 years at best and he wants to win now.

SOS with Snyder and company. Will they ever learn?

[Sellersfan]

SOS with Snyder and company. Will they ever learn?

In a VERY perfect world, I see Kyle picking the next qb for Shanny to draft. 4to 5 years from now, Shanny steps aside, Kyle takes over as HC, with a qb in place for 10 years. It all cant happen in year one.

[Rudechain]

nicely done!

Still waiting on the retort from him on this.

First it was ball control, now it's red zone scoring. However, looking at Shanahan's teams, they have been able to score. The defense gave up yards and points though.

1995 24.2 ppg. good enough for 9th in the NFL

they gave up 21.6 ppg. 17th in the NFL

1996 24.4 ppg 4th in the league

they gave up 17.2 for 7th in the league. (lost to Jacksonville in Divisional round)

1997 (29.5/g), 1st of 30 in the NFL

defense was good this year giving up 17.9 ppg (7th in the NFL) and they won the Superbowl

1998 31.3 ppg 2nd in the league while the defense gave up 19.3 ppg (8th in the NFL) as they won the Superbowl

1999 with a new QB they averaged 19.6 ppg (18th in NFL) while defense allowed 19.9 ppg (11th in the league)

In 2000, under Shanahan, the Broncos averaged 30.3 points per game. Good enough for 2nd in the league. the defense gave up 23.1 ppg (23rd in NFL)

2001 they averaged 21.2 ppg. 10th in the league. 2002 24.5 ppg. 7th in the league. 2003 23.8 ppg. 10th in league The defense gave up 21.2 ppg (21st in the league)

It's just my opinion, but I think the Bronco defense was the weak link on those teams.

So if the Redskins employ a zone blocking scheme and get the ground game going, it will lessen any wear and tear on McNabb. Also as we all know, a strong running game will open up the play action pass, and the deep game.

Plus there are still the staples of the WCO, short slants and passes to the flats.

Mike Shanahan employs a slightly different WCO than Walsh and has always enjoyed a good running attack. Why would we think he would settle for anything else now?

[Oldfan]

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.

Unless he has changed his stripes from his Denver days, I don't believe it. His days with the niners are not relevant because they were running Walsh's scheme. In Denver, he ran a big play offense.

Your stats on the running game success indicate that you do not understand that good stats in the running game don't prove a commitment to ball control. For example, you are running a ball control offense when Riggins pounds out a 4.0 average. You are not running a ball control offense when Joe Washington has more total yards and a 4.6 avg because CONSISTENCY is primary in ball control.

Denver's defense was made to look worse than they really were, for example, in 2008 when Jay Cutler hooked up with Marshall and Royal on so many long TDs. They didn't play ball control, so the defense never got a rest. In 2009, Denver played ball control and the defense looked really good, especially early in the year.

[TomE]

Great post OP,

The only thing I don't like is once again we have very little in terms of Draft picks.

After getting McNabb we only have a 1st,4th,5th and 7th round picks.

Our pick 3 is already on the roster and if we can get anything of value for Campbell then we're out pick 2 for McNabb on this FO's first draft. The pick 4 next year is on the line but if performance gets it to pick 3 then maybe this year will be more entertaining in terms of a completive season, which is what it's all about after all.

I'm not particularly thrilled with the McNabb deal but I do feel that it gives what youth there is on the offense a better chance to develop with the more accomplished QB. Shanny will also be able to get a better feel for the young skill guys to see what needs to be done next year. All presuming, of course, that the O line is serviceable enough to let the skill guys do their thing

[cphil006]

Elway won his two SBs in the twilight of his career... let's also keep in mind that McNabb has a stronger arm than Brunell and can throw to either side of the field... doesn't need to roll to one side or the other...

[Rudechain]

Unless he has changed his stripes from his Denver days, I don't believe it. His days with the niners are not relevant because they were running Walsh's scheme. In Denver, he ran a big play offense.

Your stats on the running game success indicate that you do not understand that good stats in the running game don't prove a commitment to ball control. For example, you are running a ball control offense when Riggins pounds out a 4.0 average. You are not running a ball control offense when Joe Washington has more total yards and a 4.6 avg because CONSISTENCY is primary in ball control.

Denver's defense was made to look worse than they really were, for example, in 2008 when Jay Cutler hooked up with Marshall and Royal on so many long TDs. They didn't play ball control, so the defense never got a rest. In 2009, Denver played ball control and the defense looked really good, especially early in the year.

A commitment to the running game does not indicate ball control? Are you serious?

Step away and take a look at the stats I posted. Denver averaged 4 ypc during Shanahans days.

But we can play your game.

in 2008 the Denver Broncos averaged 4.8 ypc. ( 387 rushing attempts for 1862 yards)

in 2007 they averaged 4.6 ypc ( 429 attempts for 1957 yards)

in 2006 448 attempts for 2152 yards ( 4.4 ypc)

2005 542 attempts for 2539 yards (4.7 ypc)

I can go on, but this clearly proves the point that they ran the ball reguarly, and successfully. THAT IS BALL CONTROL OFFENSE.

Now I await your next strawman argument.

[Oldfan]

A commitment to the running game does not indicate ball control? ..?

That's correct. If you have a back and a blocking scheme which hits lots of home runs, but also gets stuffed quite a bit, you are not playing ball control no matter how often you run the ball.

Now I await your next strawman argument.

You don't seem to know what a strawman argument is either, so here's a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Enter Apotheosis]

I know he's better than Campbell. I know the coach thinks he can win with him. What I don't see is a long-term strategy. McNabb lasting five years is a stretch. I think a more realistic expectation is 2 or 3 on the outside before his play trails off and he signs as a backup somewhere. QBs that are effective starters at 39 are the exception, not the rule. McNabb is good, but he's not that good.

Are we supposed to be seeing a long-term strategy so soon? Shanahan and Allen have only been around for three months, that's really not enough time to say definitively that our FO is shortsighted. At least wait until the beginning of the regular season to make that declaration.

[Rudechain]

That's correct. If you have a back and a blocking scheme which hits lots of home runs, but also gets stuffed quite a bit, you are not playing ball control no matter how often you run the ball.

You don't seem to know what a strawman argument is either, so here's a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Oh please. I just posted the stats for those Bronco teams averaging 4 yards per carry. You are choosing to ignore it.

But to appease you once again I will refute your assertion.

In 2008, Peyton Hills had 68 attempts for 343 yards ( 5 ypc average) longest rush for 19 yards

Michael Pittman 76 attempts for 320 yards ( 4.2 ypc) longest rush of 20 yards

Selvin Young 61 attempts for 303 yards ( 5.0 ypc) longest rush of 49 yards

Eddie Royal had the longest run that season for 71 yards, but he attempted 11 rushes for 109 yards. Yet the team managed 387 attempts that season for 1862 yards.

In 2007 Travis Henry 167 attempts for 691 yards ( 4.1 ypc) longest rush of 33 yards

Selvin young had 140 attempts for 729 yards (5.2 ypc) longest rush of 50 yards.

I could go on, but you are producing strawman arguments.

First you said Shanahan did not employ a ball control offense, then you said they had trouble scoring in the red zone when the rushing stats were produced. You also decided his time as offensive coordinator does not apply because it's Bill Walsh's system. Even though Shanahan was the coordinator and responsible for the implementation of the offense.

And now you say because the back and blocking schemes. ( part of the ball control offense as I contend)

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

The above sounds pretty much like your modus operandi to me.

[Oldfan]

Oh please. I just posted the stats for those Bronco teams averaging 4 yards per carry. You are choosing to ignore it...But to appease you once again I will refute your assertion.

You are just repeating the same worthless stats. I don't see the point in explaining once again why they're worthless. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

[Henry]

Are we supposed to be seeing a long-term strategy so soon? Shanahan and Allen have only been around for three months, that's really not enough time to say definitively that our FO is shortsighted. At least wait until the beginning of the regular season to make that declaration.

If I was prepared to make a declaration I'd have started a thread.

Instead I'm responding to the declaration that things are different now, that the Redskins are getting 'value' for their deals. I disagree. I see little value in accumulating the best skill position players of 2006. I see little value in continuing to go into draft day with very few picks year in and year out.

Of course in few more months that may change. Then I'll be happy to stay out of threads like this one.

[zoony]

If I was prepared to make a declaration I'd have started a thread.

Instead I'm responding to the declaration that things are different now, that the Redskins are getting 'value' for their deals. I disagree. I see little value in accumulating the best skill position players of 2006. I see little value in continuing to go into draft day with very few picks year in and year out.

Of course in few more months that may change. Then I'll be happy to stay out of threads like this one.

Value is always a hindsight judgement- so, pointless to call it either way right now.

What I do see is a plan and a vision for this team. The Redskins completely staying out of the market for Julius Peppers, for instance, is very encouraging. And I'm downright giddy that our new football coach has identified the biggest problem with our offense: our miserable QB.

As for the RB position, I give Clinton about a 1 in 3 shot of actually turning it around. I think there is still some gas left, but up to him if he wants to tap it. Larry Johnson? I give him about a 1 in 3 chance. He seemed to hit a wall in 2008 but if nothing else he should be well rested after last season. Willie Parker? I give him about a 1 in 3 chance of reverting to prior form as well.

Wait a minute- 3 separate 1 in 3 chances at RB with the draft still looming...

And the coolest part, I don't think they're done yet. Wouldn't surprise me to see Landry get dealt.