Destino Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 i'm taking a different stance. Everybody likes to make everything that shanahan does "personal" like he has some personal beef with haynesworth or mcnabb or something. IMO it's the exact opposite. I think Shanahan deals with everything STRICTLY from a professional standpoint. He doesnt care who you are or where you were drafted (with a slight benefit of doubt going to more experienced players), it comes down to what he sees on the field. Quarterback A isnt getting the job done, lets shake things up and see what the other QB's can do. I sortof view this season as one big tryout to see who will fit on this team in the system that they want to implement, and nobody has immunity or is irreplaceable. The problem comes when some players expect special or preferential treatment and cant deal with this. Which Shanahan? I don't think this has as much to do with Mike as it does with Kyle. People want to believe Mike is in charge of the offense but I'm not seeing it. I see Houston's offense as opposed to Denver. Rex knew it better than Donovan did and I think that's ultimately what caused all this. Kyle tried to come out and clear the air but Donovan and his agent were having none of it. The friction is clearly between Kyle and Donovan, not Mike and Donovan. I think what you wrote just a bunch of romanticized tough guy football lore. The coach that is just going to call it like he sees it and the player egos and such. Great story that would sound good if the NFL films guy read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 i'm taking a different stance. Everybody likes to make everything that shanahan does "personal" like he has some personal beef with haynesworth or mcnabb or something. IMO it's the exact opposite. I think Shanahan deals with everything STRICTLY from a professional standpoint. He doesnt care who you are or where you were drafted (with a slight benefit of doubt going to more experienced players), it comes down to what he sees on the field. Quarterback A isnt getting the job done, lets shake things up and see what the other QB's can do. I sortof view this season as one big tryout to see who will fit on this team in the system that they want to implement, and nobody has immunity or is irreplaceable. The problem comes when some players expect special or preferential treatment and cant deal with this. The problem I have with this is the reasons he gave for benching McNabb. If Mike would have just came out and said Donovan isn't cutting it and we're going to see what Rex can do, the uproar wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad as the circus it turned into because he came out and gave multiple reasons as for why Donovan was benched, and it appeared as if Shanahan was just trying to cover his tracks. As for fat ass, I think it was professional from Mike's stand point, but fat ass turned it personal when he wouldn't talk to Shanahan, so Mike deactivated his ass, and rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Which Shanahan? I don't think this has as much to do with Mike as it does with Kyle. People want to believe Mike is in charge of the offense but I'm not seeing it. I see Houston's offense as opposed to Denver. Rex knew it better than Donovan did and I think that's ultimately what caused all this. Kyle tried to come out and clear the air but Donovan and his agent were having none of it. The friction is clearly between Kyle and Donovan, not Mike and Donovan.I think what you wrote just a bunch of romanticized tough guy football lore. The coach that is just going to call it like he sees it and the player egos and such. Great story that would sound good if the NFL films guy read it. There is no way that Kyle benches Dmac without Mike's buy in and support. That support is based on what I just stated. The problem I have with this is the reasons he gave for benching McNabb. If Mike would have just came out and said Donovan isn't cutting it and we're going to see what Rex can do, the uproar wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad as the circus it turned into because he came out and gave multiple reasons as for why Donovan was benched, and it appeared as if Shanahan was just trying to cover his tracks.As for fat ass, I think it was professional from Mike's stand point, but fat ass turned it personal when he wouldn't talk to Shanahan, so Mike deactivated his ass, and rightfully so. I think there was a key trigger in that game where dmac lost the confidence of kyle/mike and therefor the coaches decided to pull the trigger believing that Rex represented the greatest chance of us winning that game (or less riskier chance of not throwing another interception/ball in the dirt). My theory is that Dmac might have begun going around Kyle and started calling his own plays, thus losing the confidence and trust of the coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Fourth'ed.Fifth'ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Fifth'ed Sixthed. I really don't think that Shanahan gives two ****s about anything but football when it comes to this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeen80 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Sixthed.I really don't think that Shanahan gives two ****s about anything but football when it comes to this team. Seventh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 There is no way that Kyle benches Dmac without Mike's buy in and support. That support is based on what I just stated. You think he benches him if Kyle says not to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 You think he benches him if Kyle says not to? I don't know the answer to that, but I don't think Kyle would say that. I really don't think Kyle was 100% behind McNabb from the beginning. Not because Grossman is "his guy" and McNabb isn't...but just because watching ten years of film on McNabb couldn't have made him think that McNabb was the best fit for our scheme. I just can't believe that. I CAN believe that Shanahan traded for him before we had a completely created offensive identity, and he may have thought that our offensive playbook would more closely resemble his work in Denver, which could fit a McNabb-type QB better. Or at least, maybe he thought the playcalling would reflect that. But it turns out, seeing it run "correctly" by Grossman the last few weeks, that it more closely resembles Houston's offense. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 You think he benches him if Kyle says not to? I think Mike has the final say on any such decision regardless. I also think Mike would override Kyle if he felt the need to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Seventh Eighthed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texasthunder Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Eighthed :point2sky X 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsec2010 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I would have to disagree. What has he improved to lead you to the conclusion that he "know's" what he's doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMeast Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The sooner the better. This team needs to know what course it is set to sail. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.T.real,lights,out Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Sixthed.I really don't think that Shanahan gives two ****s about anything but football when it comes to this team. Yup and i love it. Dont get me wrong its hard at times and im like WTF is he doing but its the best thing for the team. Most of the guys have been treated like Gods around here. Given whatever they want, easy TC and everything else. I love to see Shanny making the changes we need. We still have a lot more that need to be done but we are on the right path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm starting to think that McNabb will have no choice but to be back next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 i'm taking a different stance. Everybody likes to make everything that shanahan does "personal" like he has some personal beef with haynesworth or mcnabb or something. IMO it's the exact opposite. I think Shanahan deals with everything STRICTLY from a professional standpoint. He doesnt care who you are or where you were drafted (with a slight benefit of doubt going to more experienced players), it comes down to what he sees on the field. Quarterback A isnt getting the job done, lets shake things up and see what the other QB's can do. I sortof view this season as one big tryout to see who will fit on this team in the system that they want to implement, and nobody has immunity or is irreplaceable. The problem comes when some players expect special or preferential treatment and cant deal with this.I agree with everything that you had to say, accept for the very last sentence.I love the experience, attitude and discipline that M. Shanahan brings to our team. Sometimes I just wish that he didn't have to deal with the media. You said that "The problem comes when players expect special or preferential treatment". I agree with that to a point. IMO problems also start when the coach starts giving fictitious reasons in why he's benching certain players. The other players on the team see that kind of stuff, and I'm sure that it has affects on them that can't be very positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm starting to think that McNabb will have no choice but to be back next year. Me too... I just cant see us making such a huge investment in today's NFL then just throwing it away. The shelf life in the NFL is real short, so if you make a decision you'd better stick with it and make it work or else you will find yourself out of a job. I think it is much more feasible to keep McNabb and Grossman, have them compete for the starting job, draft or sign a #1 WR, and build our O-line and defense through the draft. The other alternative by getting rid of McNabb, drafting a QB and still having holes to fill on offense and defense seems a little late at this point.We should've started that process last year without trading our picks for McNabb, and drafting Terrance Cody,Jermaine Cunningham,Jason Worilds any of whom could've bolstered our new 3-4 defense! But who knows with Shanahan maybe they will try to start over this year after wasting last year. Who knows.. ---------- Post added February-3rd-2011 at 10:10 AM ---------- My theory is that Dmac might have begun going around Kyle and started calling his own plays, thus losing the confidence and trust of the coaches. Now that's a reach.. Let's not start conjuring up theories to why Donovan lost the confidence of the coaches. When have you ever heard of McNabb calling his own plays instead of the ones called by the offensive coordinator? He's not that type of QB. I dont even think he's lost the confidence of all the coaches. He just lost the confidence of Kyle. If you listen to the players they say that they have all the confidence in the world of Donovan. Armstrong said he wants DMac to come back because he gives them a better chance to win next year. So you think he'd be saying that if Keenan McCardell was in the wide receivers meeting saying " dang Donovan is a mess we need Rex in there". The Redskins running backs have had break out games when McNabb is in there. They look pedestrian with Grossman at the helm. So you think Bobby Turner has lost confidence in McNabb? We all know what happened .. Kyle went to Dad and said hey I'd like to see what Rex could do in my system because he's been in it longer. Daddy hesitated for a few weeks because he knew it would be tough to sell to the team (assistant coaches included). But when we fell behind against Detroit Daddy let Kyle have his wish and when it backfired he had a mess on his hands. Why else would they put McNabb back in the very next week? So finally when Gano missed the extra point against Tampa and killed McNabb's game winning drive, Daddy said hey I'm going to give sonny boy what he wants since we are out of playoff contention. Rex is Kyle's guy just like Collins was Al Saunder's guy. We've seen this drama before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindred Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I agree with everything that you had to say, accept for the very last sentence.I love the experience, attitude and discipline that M. Shanahan brings to our team. Sometimes I just wish that he didn't have to deal with the media. You said that "The problem comes when players expect special or preferential treatment". I agree with that to a point. IMO problems also start when the coach starts giving fictitious reasons in why he's benching certain players. The other players on the team see that kind of stuff, and I'm sure that it has affects on them that can't be very positive. I dont believe they are fictitious reasons, however they might be oversimplified, worded, or phrased poorly. For example, dmac being rusty or whatever on the 2 minute offense might actually be that the coaches had more confidence in Rex Grossman with running the full offense but didnt necessarily want to say that. We've seen that Rex Grossman has shown a better mastery of the offense after he took over, whats so hard to believe that the coaches felt his understanding and ability to implement the 2 minute offense would better than Dmacs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I think if we don't find a QB in this draft, McNabb returns. I can't see us going into next season with Rex and Beck only. McNabb has to also realize that while he is waiting to hear what Mike is going to say, I'm sure Mike is waiting to see what Donovan has to say. This isn't all Mike's fault. McNabb didn't play well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I think if we don't find a QB in this draft, McNabb returns. I can't see us going into next season with Rex and Beck only. McNabb has to also realize that while he is waiting to hear how Mike is going to say, I'm sure Mike is waiting to see what Donovan has to say. This isn't all Mike's fault. McNabb didn't play well. agree with this ... while Mcnabb may not have been setup for instant success (with a porous OL, little to no running game and a thin WR cop) ... we needed him to play just a little bit better. he definitely was out there making mistakes as well, which is expected ... but throwing a pick into triple coverage when you're down by 5 points, in your own territory with 3 minutes left to go in a game is not something a pro-bowl caliber QB should do. had we beaten the Lions I doubt Gross man would have seen action till weeks 16/17. McNabb was making mistakes that he hadn't made since he was a young guy (whether he was compensating for injured hamstrings is debatable) personally, I feel like having Bruce Allen and Mike in charge has put us in a good position (financially and roster wise). If we do not have the option of drafting a QB at #10 (who is deemed worthy of that pick), then i think DMac comes back to compete with Rex if there are no other trade partners. I think this all comes down to draft day, and if anyone offers anything for DMac. Should get interesting, I'd be fine with DMac back in DC, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I dont believe they are fictitious reasons, however they might be oversimplified, worded, or phrased poorly. For example, dmac being rusty or whatever on the 2 minute offense might actually be that the coaches had more confidence in Rex Grossman with running the full offense but didnt necessarily want to say that. We've seen that Rex Grossman has shown a better mastery of the offense after he took over, whats so hard to believe that the coaches felt his understanding and ability to implement the 2 minute offense would better than Dmacs?Ok, I'll give you "oversimplified", worded or phrased poorly", that's sums it up just as good as anything else.But, here's the problem, Shanahan goes in front of the media once again and this time says that McNabb was benched because of cardiovascular concerns. Yikes. I don't really want to rehash a arguement that has been talked about to death, but I just think that there needs to be some adjustments on the way things are being handled by both players and coaches. BTW, I agree with the others who wouldn't mind seeing D Mac back. He did make a lot of mistakes, there's no question, but I would still like to see him back in the burgundy and gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I agree with everything that you had to say, accept for the very last sentence.I love the experience, attitude and discipline that M. Shanahan brings to our team. Sometimes I just wish that he didn't have to deal with the media. You said that "The problem comes when players expect special or preferential treatment". I agree with that to a point. IMO problems also start when the coach starts giving fictitious reasons in why he's benching certain players. The other players on the team see that kind of stuff, and I'm sure that it has affects on them that can't be very positive. I agree that Mike handled the communication to the media about the benching at the end of that game badly, he has said so himself in retrospect. The thing is it does not matter that much as long as the communication internally, in private, between coaches and the player was clear. This is why we took you out, this is what we are looking for and this is what you need to do better going forwards. Coaches will say things to players and tell a different story to the media and fans all the time. On the more general point re McNabb I was not in favour of the trade at the time but thought he would be a significant upgrade on Campbell and would give us a bridge to our next QB. The reality is he played poorly and looked a bad fit for what Kyle wants to do on offense. Kyle could have done more perhaps to adjust to fit the abilities McNabb has but the bottom line is McNabb is not the right QB for our offense and it really does not make that much sense to design a scheme around a 34 year old who might have two years left in him at this point. Time to move on IMO. As to McNabb he is very good with the media. He says the right things and acts professionally but I get a sense that bubbling under the surface is a sense of entitlement and a passive/aggressive streak. He does not like being held accountable and resents that he is being asked to adjust to a system rather than visa versa. Again for both sides I think it's time to move on one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 People forget that coaches are judged by their ability to get production from the players they coach. That is why Mike Martz, Chan Gailey, Charlie Weis, Pat Shurmur, Josh McDaniels etc receive credit for their performance as coaches because of the production of their offense and its players.(sometimes despite their lack talent) We have the opposite situation here. A clearly talented QB coming off a pro-bowl season has the worst season of his career under his new coach. Yet it seems like everyone here is pointing the finger of blame at McNabb. At the very least both Kyle and McNabb are at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I think we'll know more after the draft. If the Skins go after a QB it would certainly be nice to have someone with McNabbs experience to help out. Conversely, that might piss him off even more and make him really want out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iXiBrianiXi Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 People forget that coaches are judged by their ability to get production from the players they coach.That is why Mike Martz, Chan Gailey, Charlie Weis, Pat Shurmur, Josh McDaniels etc receive credit for their performance as coaches because of the production of their offense and its players.(sometimes despite their lack talent) We have the opposite situation here. A clearly talented QB coming off a pro-bowl season has the worst season of his career under his new coach. Yet it seems like everyone here is pointing the finger of blame at McNabb. At the very least both Kyle and McNabb are at fault. Except I saw PLENTY of plays where McNabb just made a bone-headed read or decided to lock in on a receiver. He was also very nonchalant with the tempo which is a MUST with this offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.