Hey Dan Snyder, thanks for setting the Redskins back in the right direction!!! HTTR!

[nonniey]

before somebody else can do it

"did this really need it's own thread"

Concur, the thing that really bothers me about these threads are that they come out after every coaching change. You'd think by now the OPs of these threads would learn to wait a a year or two.

[Hail26]

I have always been a Dan fan...he wants to win! Thats all that needs to be said...we could have much, much, much worse

[monkeezgob]

After almost ten years of screwing up, we're supposed to get down on our knees and worship Snyder, before a game is played, because this time he might have 'got it'??

We thought he's got it when he hired Marty, we thought he'd got it when Joe came back. We haven't played a game yet and people are ready to lavish praise on him??? There are some awfully short memories around here.

I'll lavish praise on Snyder once he really demonstrates he's learned and resists the temptation to meddle, particularly if we have a bad run, or worse still, a poor season.

[TheTotalPackage]

I think this topic is way premature. Danny and his shenanigans are the main reasons why last year was one of the worst years ever being a redskins fan. The product on the field sucked. Off the field, we became a national embarrassment and were humiliated as our cutthroat FO policies were exposed. I mean this was the WORST year. He makes a couple of moves and all of a sudden people are applauding him? smh

Some of the moves he's made in the past are either still haunting us and/or some of the moves he's made since will hurt us later. Fat Albert has been national negative news the entire offseason. In recent years, instead of improving the OL, Danny was content to let his QB take the heat and blame for the team's troubles. He signed off on the trading of numerous draft picks with which we could've used to draft and grow our own talent. So he's turned over a new leaf and got us in the right direction?? We hired two people who were fired from their last jobs, meaning their services were deemed inferior and were no longer wanted. We never gave our home grown a fair chance to succeed even though his best years are ahead of him got rid of him after we traded another precious draft pick for a quarterback whose best days are behind him and whose team no longer wanted him. Once we got the veteran quarterback, all of a sudden it is realized that no quarterback can succeed without a solid offensive line so we finally pick OL then trade a precious draft pick for another OL. Maybe if we had this philosophy from the outset, we would still have most of those draft picks and the OP would have a stronger case.

right now, we are going through what i call summer optimism. every year we go through this because we expect a good season. every year we are disappointed. i hope this year marks the turnaround but right now, i don't think dan snyder deserves any exoneration at this point. he has won nothing and even after he wins a few games it still won't be enough. he needs to have a few years of successful seasons under his belt before my opinion of him begins to thaw.

[ToaCommander]

I would also like to extend my appreciation to Snyder for

1. Firing Cerrato

2. Ending Zorn experiment

3. Employing Allen

4. Hiring Shanahan

5. Changing the rest of the FO

6. Leaving the running of the team to the experts.

[mikey32187]

I would also like to extend my appreciation to Snyder for

1. Firing Cerrato

2. Ending Zorn experiment

3. Employing Allen

4. Hiring Shanahan

5. Changing the rest of the FO

6. Leaving the running of the team to the experts.

I agree with all the above

[Atlass]

The past is the past and the future is now. Serious Dan, TY. This is the direction OUR team needs to be.

You cut ties with your pal and the face of the organization for over the last decade. You brought in true Redskin blood to run the team. And he got you your coach, and us a Pro Bowl quarterback with the leadership/intangibles we've been lacking. You take full credit for the dead-end we collectively hit ending the last decade. You've closed you're door and have stepped out of the limelight. Ex-players feel welcomed again and have been seen back at the Park. You're blowing up the tailgate; hooked up the high def. Are vying to bring a Super Bowl to Dc, and get Dc back. thx.

.

Actually, Shanahan chose Allen. Allen was hired first to make it look like the Skins had a real GM that made the decisions. Shanny wanted to work with Allen and they got together in the offseason. When Shanny was offered the job he made sure Allen was hired first.

Anyway, it's all great and the Skins are trending upward. Everyday I think more people are realizing that the Skins have a chance to win the division, and it starts the very first week of the season.

[mikey32187]

I like the fact, and this has probably been mentioned before, but its so true, that Snyder has kind of taken his hands of of things and let shanny and the rest of the staff aka the experts do what they feel is necessary. I used to be on the hate snyder bandwagon but as I have been listening to his interviews hearing him talk and seeing what he has done this offseason I have kind of changed my opinion. Cerrato needed to go and he has done that and he has hired imo the coach that is the best fit for the Redskins.

I feel bad for Zorn I really do I wish they had demoted him instead of firing him outright but at least he still has a job even if its with a team I despise second to the cowboys. There is no other team I hate more then the Ravens aside from the boys.:saber:

[Skinsinparadise]

If we run with Shanny's history, what you get is:

The good:

Consistent top 10 offenses regardless of who the QB or RB is.

Fairly consistently making the playoffs

A bad season is 8-8

A team that HORDES draft picks, averaging more than the allotted 7 picks

Fairly good drafts when it comes to offensive players

On offense a team that is regarded as well coached, competent with clock management and game day decisions

The bad:

thinks he knows defense too but tends to flub that side of the ball -- on defense: bad coordinators, bad FA signings, bad draft picks

Post Elway was somewhat like Marty getting knocked out of the playoffs

He loves the draft but also loves FA.

I've argued with Oldfan on this point some. Where I disagree with him is he tends to ignore Shanny hording draft pick history and gravitates to the FA streak then loops him in with Gibbs as cut from the same cloth. Ironically, it was Shanny fleecing Gibbs in three different deals where SHANNY was the one who got the draft picks.

Personally I never had an issue with FA with the Skins, its the trading draft picks that bugged me, and Shanny's history is of amassing picks not trading them. He actually said just that this off season implying that those trades will likely be aberrations.

The other one is the league catching up with Shanny and thus Denver got mediocre. Well, they didn't catch up with Shanny's offenses which continued to be good. If you read some about Shanny including his book, he's a big student of the game and like Belichick likes to continually evolve his playbook.

Gibbs 2 and Marty didn't strike me innovative types, they had their programs and stuck with it. Add to that Kyle isn't just going to be carrying out his dad's orders (unless he's bsing on that point which I doubt) but will be calling most of the plays. So yeah i don't see this as same old, same old, passe Shanny running the team like its 1995. If you read about him that doesn't seem his drill.

If you google Shanny, the drill doesn't seem to be he's slightly better than an average playcaller -- he's generally regarded good to great as a playcaller. I recall somewhere where a QB who traveled a lot team to team asked who the best QB coach in the league was, and they said Shanny even though he of course didn't have the QB coach title.

I don't think we are getting some retread coach on offense at least. Marty ball wasn't known for innovation, and Gibbs while was brilliant in his first stint seemed way behind the times when he returned.

the problem with Shanny has been defense, both procuring talent and running a strong unit. He seems obsessed with changing that. Does he pull it off? Who knows. But it doesn't strike me mission impossible, we got some talent on D already.

[madden lot]

Shanahan was the biggest name retread available. That's not a new direction for Dan (Marty, Gibbs).

Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs, trading draft picks for vets, signing hot-shot free agents... the majority of Redskins fans have been happy with all those moves. 89% of this board thought that Jason Taylor was an outstanding move. Some were saying he'd add three wins by himself.

I'm convince, this guy, ole faan is a TROLL.

[Thinking Skins]

Shanahan was the biggest name retread available. That's not a new direction for Dan (Marty, Gibbs).

Marty, Spurrier, Gibbs, trading draft picks for vets, signing hot-shot free agents... the majority of Redskins fans have been happy with all those moves. 89% of this board thought that Jason Taylor was an outstanding move. Some were saying he'd add three wins by himself.

Oldfan, I'm surprised I agree with you, but when you're right you're right. This board seems to take whatever Snyder gives them hook line and sinker. The only time I've ever seen the board protest in somewhat of a rage is when we were about to hire Fassel. And even then, things would have probably died down as they normally tend to do with comments like, "they know more about this than us" or "If you're so smart, why haven't you been hired yet".

Last year, as mad as I was with all of Snyder's moves, I was still trying to have faith. But I just can't do it anymore. How long will we do the same things over and over again and call it new because there are new names involved?

I'm convince, this guy, ole faan is a TROLL.

yeah, we were all so interested in your opinion. </sarcasm>

[Oldfan]

I don't think we are getting some retread coach on offense at least.

I agree. I think Mike would have done a good job as Chicago's offensive coordinator.

Although they did it differently, Gibbs, Marty and Shanahan were big name coaches with win-now goals when they came here. So, this isn't a new approach for Dan Snyder.

In Denver, Mike didn' t trade away draft picks like Gibbs, but from 1999 to 2005 his drafts were at the bottom of the NFL. He filled his roster with a bunch of FAs, and he traded vets for vets, moves which helped neither team. The only outstanding trade he made was with Gibbs (Everybody who traded with Joe got the better of the deal).

One reason that his defenses have failed is that he hasn't been able to stick to a plan, hiring a new DC with a new scheme every other year.

He was fired by his friend Pat Bowlen because he won just one playoff game in ten years. Bowlen apparently isn't satisfied with mediocrity.

Mike's Broncos faded in the stretch in recent years. Blowing a three-game division lead with three to play in 2008, the only time that has happened in NFL history, was probably the last straw for Bowlen.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

the usual junk

Ah, Oldfan, as usual, your hostility and bile towards a vision that deviates from YOUR vision of how a team should be run, that differs from YOUR view of how the Redskins should acquire players and structure their offense and defense never ceases to amuse me.

Of course, let's play revisionist history and say that Mike Shanahan is a mediocre head coach who won two Super Bowls with a "team built by someone else", despite that same team failed to do so before him and was trending downward before his arrival. Shanahan's arrival coincided with major leaps in overall offensive production, line play, running back production; I guess that was just coincidence. But you think he should be an offensive coordinator.

Did he get too involved in the defensive end? Yes. But defense was never a consistent problem for the Broncos until the last few years, it was QB play - the one thing that Shanahan consistently did wrong was that he thought he could win Super Bowls with also-ran quarterbacks. Griese at his best wouldn't start for 20 of 30 teams; Plummer was never a good quarterback and he was washed up prior to joining Denver. Yet Shanahan got more out of them than any coach before or since. Cutler was a step in the right direction, and had he been blessed with the traditional consistency in the run game (despite the traveling circus at RB his last year, Shanahan still had a top 15 rushing offense), and at least a decent defense (the lack of which, to be fair, was partially his fault), he would have definitely won much more than he did in his last 3 years.

I know you want to rebuild young and avoid old players in trades and free agency; I guess Shanahan should have traded Elway for picks and dumped Zimmerman. After all, he didn't win a thing with those old-timers, right? I know there are some who would want to blow it up like the Lions did, and yes, their approach will likely pay dividends in the future, but not every team that tries to lose and accumulate draft picks ends up succeeding. See the Browns.

And comparing Shanahan to Marty, Spurrier, and Gibbs? Never mind that Marty had the team going in the right direction with an 8-3 finish, and but for a tiny bit more talent, likely would have made the playoffs, but Shanahan is another tier as a coach, even than Gibbs (who was clearly not the same as he was in 1991), and unlike those coaches, Shanahan has a legitimate franchise quarterback, unlike what he had in Denver post-Elway, and unlike what any Redskins coach has had post-Theismann.

Whatever, "disparagers will disparage", or in a more popular parlance, "haters gonna hate." I think our schedule is too tough for us to win more than 10 games, but we are definitely on an upward track.

[MustangSteve]

:applause: Great thread! We are on the right track and Redskins football is going to be something great to watch these next many years.

[madden lot]

:applause: Great thread! We are on the right track and Redskins football is going to be something great to watch these next many years.

You better hope olefaan don't see this post

[pjfootballer]

Yup

One offseason does not change the past 11 years.

Hell, there were similar offseasons to this (prior to 2008, 2007, 2005 and 2001) yet the owner and his minion Cerrato had created such a poisoned culture the team had no chance

It does appear the culture is changing. However it also changed during Gibbs 2.0.

I'll give it a few years before thanking this owner

Not sure if I agree with you on the Gibbs 2.0 thing. He tried his hardest to bring the franchise back, but with Vin-meister around, it was hard. Plus, he just wasn't into it like he was the first time around. He coached 4 season with 2 winning and 2 losing. We had only 1 losing season his first time around with him. I'm not downgrading Gibbs here, I just don't see where the culture of losing was not gone. He tried, but we were so far in the hole and Joe is such a nice guy, he remained loyal to alot of players and coaches.

I feel like this is a total fresh start from the GM, to the Head Coach, to the assistant coaches, to the players and to the building itself (new paint and weight room).

[Skinsinparadise]

Although they did it differently, Gibbs, Marty and Shanahan were big name coaches with win-now goals when they came here. So, this isn't a new approach for Dan Snyder.

Agree from the Dan standpoint. though I do think Shanny likely brings more to the table than Marty and Gibbs 2.

In Denver, Mike didn' t trade away draft picks like Gibbs, but from 1999 to 2005 his drafts were at the bottom of the NFL. He filled his roster with a bunch of FAs, and he traded vets for vets, moves which helped neither team. The only outstanding trade he made was with Gibbs (Everybody who traded with Joe got the better of the deal).

He made three trades with Gibbs, he got picks for Campbell, he got a piece of the action on the Duckett deal, and a 2nd rounder thrown in for the Bailey trade.

If you go further into his record on the draft he averaged 8 and change picks per draft, that means an extra plus pick per draft. So yeah i gather he must believe somewhat in the draft and thinking long term.

The O line and QB Shanny felt were immediate problems. And I am gathering they liked their chances with a talented defense and a top 5 pick playing LT. Doesn't seem crazy to me, guess will see.

One reason that his defenses have failed is that he hasn't been able to stick to a plan, hiring a new DC with a new scheme every other year.

Agree, but who says he can't learn from that? He spent the off year studying coaches, going to training camps including Belichick's. Hey in my job I think am better from one year to the next. Shanny said he learned in his off year. Why should we presume he doesn't?

He was fired by his friend Pat Bowlen because he won just one playoff game in ten years. Bowlen apparently isn't satisfied with mediocrity.

Sure, what makes you think Shanny though is? he said he thouight the 8-8 year was horrible. With this team 8-8 is a good year, i suspect shanny has higher standards for himself than 8-8.

Mike's Broncos faded in the stretch in recent years. Blowing a three-game division lead with three to play in 2008, the only time that has happened in NFL history, was probably the last straw for Bowlen.

lots of injuries then, and a terrible defense. He had a long career I wouldn't want to be judged by my worst season alone.

[Oldfan]

SIP,

Kyle Shanahan*said last week that John Beck hasn’t proved he can’t do it in the NFL.*That makes sense to me. If Beck had been given the opportunity elsewhere and failed, the evidence of that failure would argue against giving him another chance.

Pat Bowlen gave Mike Shanahan full control, 1999 through 2008, and he produced one playoff win. For me, the evidence of that failure argues against giving Mike another chance.

Decisions are about probability. Someone who has already failed when given a fair chance is less likely to succeed than someone who appears to be capable and hasn't had a fair chance yet.

[Skinsinparadise]

SIP,

Kyle Shanahan*said last week that John Beck hasn’t proved he can’t do it in the NFL.*That makes sense to me. If Beck had been given the opportunity elsewhere and failed, the evidence of that failure would argue against giving him another chance.

Pat Bowlen gave Mike Shanahan full control, 1999 through 2008, and he produced one playoff win. For me, the evidence of that failure argues against giving Mike another chance.

Decisions are about probability. Someone who has already failed when given a fair chance is less likely to succeed than someone who appears to be capable and hasn't had a fair chance yet.

Where we differ is pretty simple. Shanny side of the ball has been good pretty much the WHOLE time. Sort of my issue with Zorn what he controlled arguably was the weakness of the team. Defense for Shanny was the issue. And if we can figure that out from our couch, I figured Shanny has put some thought into this and his plan might be different than Denvers.

If Haslett does a good job with this unit, and considering we have talent, why couldn't Shanny succeed?

In Gibbs' heyday he had nothing to do with the defense he was the offensive guy. Shanny never found his Pettibon. Maybe he has now, will see.

And his draft history definitely isn't one of dump picks but hording them -- big departure from Gibbs. When he made these deals he didn't say more of these to come but said in a Q & A session that trading picks isn't what he historically does and hinted that won't be the case here either.

Got to admit some of what gives me some faith in Shanny and if you recall its the same reason why I wasn't much of a Zorn guy is he seems like a flexible type. When I listened to Zorn he never struck me as an evolve a plan type of guy. He seemed to be "a got this scheme try to stop me" coach.

I recall Belichick saying before playing the skins last year in preseason that the Skins are one of those teams that doesn't try to fool you. Shanny seems to be more of a game planner tailoring his stuff to his opponent and like Belichick likes to learn new tricks each season, and doesn't rest on their laurels.

Can Shanny flop here, sure. But yeah he doesn't give me the vibe that he will struggle but will see, talent or lack of it makes a difference.

[Oldfan]

Of course, let's play revisionist history and say that Mike Shanahan is a mediocre head coach who won two Super Bowls with a "team built by someone else", despite that same team failed to do so before him and was trending downward before his arrival. Shanahan's arrival coincided with major leaps in overall offensive production, line play, running back production; I guess that was just coincidence. But you think he should be an offensive coordinator.

The Broncos needed an offensive shot in the arm when Mike arrived on the scene. He gave it to them. And, the result was two Super Bowls. I think that's wonderful. I think he's a fine offensive coach. However, when given full control of the team, as he has with the Skins, he won one playoff game in ten years. That's why he was fired.

Did he get too involved in the defensive end? Yes. But defense was never a consistent problem for the Broncos until the last few years --

The talent level on the defensive side degraded steadily over the years. But, Mike's firing of DCs so often didn't help.

--it was QB play - the one thing that Shanahan consistently did wrong was that he thought he could win Super Bowls with also-ran quarterbacks.

I don't think he had a choice. Mike's scheme needs a very athletic, strong-armed QB to function at its best. There was a long drought between Elway and Cutler. Those QBs aren't that easy to find.

I

know you want to rebuild young and avoid old players in trades and free agency; I guess Shanahan should have traded Elway for picks and dumped Zimmerman. After all, he didn't win a thing with those old-timers, right? I know there are some who would want to blow it up like the Lions did, and yes, their approach will likely pay dividends in the future, but not every team that tries to lose and accumulate draft picks ends up succeeding. See the Browns.

There are two things necessary to build a dynasty. A good plan and good implementation of that plan. My complaint at the moment is that the Skins aren't trying to become the #1 football team in the NFL. Shanahan's record when he was fully in change in Denver is evidence of a win-now approach; and his early moves, taken as a whole, indicate more of the same.

And comparing Shanahan to Marty, Spurrier, and Gibbs? Never mind that Marty had the team going in the right direction with an 8-3 finish, and but for a tiny bit more talent, likely would have made the playoffs, but Shanahan is another tier as a coach, even than Gibbs (who was clearly not the same as he was in 1991), and unlike those coaches, Shanahan has a legitimate franchise quarterback, unlike what he had in Denver post-Elway, and unlike what any Redskins coach has had post-Theismann.

Marty's plan was a smart win-now plan, one which got predictable results: a winning record in the regular season, a losing record in the playoffs, and no Super Bowl wins. Shanahan's is similar in being a win-now approach, but Mike's brand of football isn't as dull as Marty's.

Whatever, "disparagers will disparage", or in a more popular parlance, "haters gonna hate." I think our schedule is too tough for us to win more than 10 games, but we are definitely on an upward track.

Single seasons are hard to predict because luck, particularly luck with injuries, are a big factor. I'd guess six or seven wins. It depends on how many old vets Mike depends on as his starters. As a group, we can't expect them to be durable through a 16-game season.

[Oldfan]

Where we differ is pretty simple. Shanny side of the ball has been good pretty much the WHOLE time. Sort of my issue with Zorn what he controlled arguably was the weakness of the team.

Jimmy didn't have control of his roster. He played with a weak O-line and two of the receivers he counted on are now playing third-string on Mike's depth chart. He also started Portis who was out-of-shape. He played vanilla WCO and his troops couldn't execute that consistently.

Let's see how Mike does with this bunch. I'm curious to see if they can execute their assignments on 150 pass plays.

Got to admit some of what gives me some faith in Shanny and if you recall its the same reason why I wasn't much of a Zorn guy is he seems like a flexible type. When I listened to Zorn he never struck me as an evolve a plan type of guy. He seemed to be "a got this scheme try to stop me" coach.

I don't think the personnel ever allowed him to get past vanilla. He had plans last season for more downfield passing. He had to shelve those when he lost Thomas and Samuels.

I recall Belichick saying before playing the skins last year in preseason that the Skins are one of those teams that doesn't try to fool you. Shanny seems to be more of a game planner tailoring his stuff to his opponent and like Belichick likes to learn new tricks each season, and doesn't rest on their laurels.

Mike is a good Xs and Os guy in attacking defenses, but he's not so good that he can do it without some good talent to work with.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I don't think he had a choice. Mike's scheme needs a very athletic, strong-armed QB to function at its best. There was a long drought between Elway and Cutler. Those QBs aren't that easy to find.

There are many ways to get a QB if you really want one and are willing to pay the price to get one. And with that team's ability to hoard picks, they definitely could have paid the price needed.

If anything, Shanahan wasn't aggressive enough in trying to find a legitimate franchise QB, believing Griese and Plummer could get the job done, and when he got one, it was too late.

Shanahan's record when he was fully in change in Denver is evidence of a win-now approach; and his early moves, taken as a whole, indicate more of the same.

The problem is that you assume "win now" and "build a dynasty" are mutually exclusive a priori, though there is one element to the former approach that impedes the most important step in building a dynasty.

The problem with the win-now approach is that:

1: The most reliable way of getting a franchise quarterback is to suck and get a high pick. As I observed a while back, a large portion of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks were top 15 and top 10 picks.

2: The next most reliable way is to suck and hope you find lightning in a bottle - Tom Brady, Kurt Warner, Rich Gannon are the prime examples of this. The problem is that winning undercuts the desire to change quarterbacks, while losing spurs the desire to change quarterbacks. Thus, you go 13-3 with Jake Plummer, and think "No reason to find a new guy." Again, Shanahan broke the mold by moving up for Cutler, but by then, it was too late.

Shanahan lucked out by landing a franchise QB for a comparatively low price, which he failed to do in Denver post-Elway. That will make all the difference.

There is nothing inherent to "win later, build now" that lends itself to winning, other than the fact that it makes it somewhat easier to land a franchise quarterback.

Marty's plan was a smart win-now plan, one which got predictable results: a winning record in the regular season, a losing record in the playoffs, and no Super Bowl wins.

Schottenheimer consistently failed to land an elite quarterback until he got to San Diego (Steve DeBerg? A washed up Montana?) and while he wasn't a good playoff gameplanner, the teams he built in San Diego were definitely championship caliber, and it was Xs and Os, not management, that held them back, both with Marty and Norv.

I don't understand why you say Marty was trying to win now in Washington anyway. He cut Johnson, Centers, Stubblefield and Sanders, and while they all had underproduced, they had Pro Bowl pedigrees.

[chipwhich]

Centers, ....., and while they all had underproduced, they had Pro Bowl pedigrees.

Centers underproduced?

:no:

Centers was a stud. Schottys biggest mistake of any of the cuts.

Carry on.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Centers underproduced?

:no:

Centers was a stud. Schottys biggest mistake of any of the cuts.

Carry on.

I thought he had a significant drop-off like the other players I mentioned; I guess then it was that he wanted a more traditional fullback.

[Rocky21]

This fan base has to have the shortest memory in all of sport.

Are we now thanking Snyder for getting us out of the mess he put us in?

Boy the bar has been set pretty low around here after oh the past decade or so.

I like the new front office structure but maybe we should play a NFL game that counts before we start throwing the praise all over the place.

Hail!