Homer: The Redskins can learn a lot from the 49ers

[TheLongshot]

Again, Zorn took over a team good enough to make the playoffs in two of the last three years and ran it into the ground. Shanahan showed up and immediately realized that a complete overhaul of the NFL's oldest team was in order.

Quite a big difference between Zorn (very little power) and Shanahan (almost absolute power).

If you want to look at who is to blame for not reversing the rot that was starting to eat away at the roster, look at the guy who was in charge. Zorn was mostly along for the ride and got little support from the FO ultimately.

[Mursilis]

Again, Zorn took over a team good enough to make the playoffs in two of the last three years and ran it into the ground. Shanahan showed up and immediately realized that a complete overhaul of the NFL's oldest team was in order.

And in between those playoff seasons (which themselves only resulted in a 1-2 record), the team was 5-11. The Gibbs Redskins were pretty inconsistent those 4 years, and were as much lucky as good. Zorn was, to me, as much a victim of the circumstances as he was of his own inexperience. Even Gibbs couldn't get above .500 the second time around. Zorn didn't even want to be head coach - he was originally happy to be the offensive coordinator! I read it was Snyder and Ceratto who convinced him to be the HC, when he clearly wasn't ready, in hindsight.

As for Shanahan, he's done OK so far, but he didn't seem to "immediately" realize that a complete overhaul was needed - his trade for McNabb screamed "win now", at least to my eyes. I think he admitted as much at the end of this past season.

[themurf]

Quite a big difference between Zorn (very little power) and Shanahan (almost absolute power).

If you want to look at who is to blame for not reversing the rot that was starting to eat away at the roster, look at the guy who was in charge. Zorn was mostly along for the ride and got little support from the FO ultimately.

Again, name one player better off for having played under Jim Zorn. I have no problem admitting the old way of thinking by the previous front office was a debacle, but to pretend Zorn wasn't part of the problem is either naive or ignorant.

[Mursilis]

The 49ers will be irrelevant again soon enough. It's what happens to teams that don't have a stud under center. Sustained success will elude them.

That's what I'm wondering about the 49ers - are they a one-year wonder like the recent Dolphins, Chiefs, Bucs, etc., or will they join the ranks of the perenial contenders like the Pats, Packers, Saints, and Steelers? Next year should be interesting.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 01:19 PM ----------

Again, name one player better off for having played under Jim Zorn. I have no problem admitting the old way of thinking by the previous front office was a debacle, but to pretend Zorn wasn't part of the problem is either naive or ignorant.

I don't think he ever said Zorn wasn't at least part of the problem - he merely said Zorn wasn't the WHOLE problem. And I agree with that.

[themurf]

I don't think he ever said Zorn wasn't at least part of the problem - he merely said Zorn wasn't the WHOLE problem. And I agree with that.

Who said he was?

[pjfootballer]

I weep as a Redskins fan every year no matter the situation of other teams. We've sucked every year save a couple here and there.

[paloosa]

When Zorn was hired, he took over a team that had made the playoffs two of the last three seasons. Now keep that in mind when I say the following -- I can't think of a single player on the Redskins roster who is better because Jim Zorn was his head coach. If that's the case, then he was part of the problem.

I agree with you because Zorn should never have been the HC in the first place. But as I said before he was just putting fingers in holes and running out of fingers. But in your honest opinion, do you think that the team Gibbs left behind was close to winning consistently? I don't. His teams weren't playoff caliber and if it weren't for his coaching then they would have never made the playoffs. This team has never been on the verge of being like it was during Gibbs I because of Vinny Cerrato's inability to be good GM and it went on too long because of his friendship with Snyder. So although Zorn was part of the problem so was everyone of the coaches since Snyder and Cerrato were together.

[themurf]

I agree with you because Zorn should never have been the HC in the first place. But as I said before he was just putting fingers in holes and running out of fingers. But in your honest opinion, do you think that the team Gibbs left behind was close to winning consistently? I don't. His teams weren't playoff caliber and if it weren't for his coaching then they would have never made the playoffs. This team has never been on the verge of being like it was during Gibbs I because of Vinny Cerrato's inability to be good GM and it went on too long because of his friendship with Snyder. So although Zorn was part of the problem so was everyone of the coaches since Snyder and Cerrato were together.

No one will argue that the Redskins were the second coming of the Patriots or Packers but the truth is that when Joe Gibbs 2.0 called it quits, the Redskins were a solid and competitive team. Sure, the team was built around an aging roster in full-on "win now" mode, but pieces were there. Bringing in a guy with zero experience to take over such a veteran roster was terrible at the time and by the end of Zorn's press conference it was clear the guy sporting the "maroon and black" was in over his head.

I'd argue hiring Zorn to be the team's offensive coordinator was a mistake ... since no one else seems to be in any rush to give him the job. So yeah, he was an extremely nice dude, but that doesn't make up for the fact that he was a terrible hire who ensured things were going to get much, much before they had any chance of getting better. But I would like to thank him for being inept enough to force sweeping changes throughout the organization. I like the Shanahan and Allen combo a helluva lot more than what was previously forced upon us.

[TheLongshot]

Who said he was?

Uh, Murf...

Again, Zorn took over a team good enough to make the playoffs in two of the last three years and ran it into the ground.

It certainly sounds like you are saying that.

[themurf]

Uh, Murf... It certainly sounds like you are saying that.

Hmmm. I guess some people only see what they want to see. Pretty sure in my very next post I said the following about the front office's part in all of this mess:

Again, name one player better off for having played under Jim Zorn. I have no problem admitting the old way of thinking by the previous front office was a debacle, but to pretend Zorn wasn't part of the problem is either naive or ignorant.

But whatever.

[Pedro]

Zorn was more a symptom than he was a cause. Didn't he have a spat with Portis where Portis went to The Danny (remember him?) about it? He did have to go through the game plan with The Danny which is indicative, we had old players getting older and less draft picks than we should have had. No later draft picks were being developed to replace old players in a top heavy (cap wise) team with no depth at all. About the only way Zorn could have improved the situation would have been to not take the job. However whoever did take the job would have ended up the same way, and let's not forget there weren't many people interested in coming to Washington at that time.

We had an old declining roster with limited draft picks, no depth and VD in the front office. Note our scout dept is the same now as it was then and it turns out they are pretty good, just needed their work to be taken into account.

Re: the 49ers, they are having a very good season, they get a very good QB and they'll be contenders for years. Good drafting and use of FA to go with a good coach, same as most play off teams.

We need to continue to do that as part of our roster building. Luckily our head honcho knows the value of a top QB having traded up for Cutler, traded for McNabb (oops) and tried to trade up for Bradford. He also believes line play is crucial hence on O Trent Williams 4th overall after not getting Bradford, plus Chester in FA, Brown via trade (oops), plus a bunch of pretty good low round pick ups and FAs. I'm sure this will be added to this off season to bring it closer to the D transformation we have had. Ryan Kerrigan in the 1st followed up with Jenkins in the 2nd to add to Cofield and Bowen in FA, plus a late round NT who contributed year one and a very low cost trade who had a good year in his year 2 in our system. (ETA) That's a lot of resources given we had/have holes nearly everywhere else too.

2 oops is not bad considering all the moves that are working well. We just had rookie RBs getting multiple 100 yard games behind a very make shift OL. That's not how it used to work (OL injuries, season gone) and come next season it will be interesting to see if people think their roster is better than ours

[TheLongshot]

Hmmm. I guess some people only see what they want to see. Pretty sure in my very next post I said the following about the front office's part in all of this mess:

Same goes for you, since I never said that Zorn had no part in the problems of the team. Certainly deciding on a mostly rookie offensive coaching core and wanting to be OC and HC at the same time was a poor decision on Zorn's part. But, considering that after trying to address the problems of the team, the team's performance didn't change much in Shanahan's hands. The problems were less about coaching and more about talent, IMO. That's all I'm saying.

[ddub52]

The 49ers will be irrelevant again soon enough. It's what happens to teams that don't have a stud under center. Sustained success will elude them.

Which is why they drafted Kaepernick (sp?). Im not saying he is the next Peyton Manning, but they already drafted someone they believe they can groom to be Smith's eventual replacement.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 03:42 PM ----------

Again, Zorn took over a team good enough to make the playoffs in two of the last three years and ran it into the ground. Shanahan showed up and immediately realized that a complete overhaul of the NFL's oldest team was in order.

But Zorn started the first half of his first season 6-2 with that same roster. Once some injuries piled up on the O line and a few other places, things fell apart. But I guess maybe if they had drafted some O linemen instead of Thomas, Kelly and Davis maybe there would have been a chance for them to pick up another win or two.

[Newera]

I don't buy into the "_____ should have won, just take away x,y,z" arguments. Yes New Orleans turned the ball over more than we're use to seeing but you have to give the defense credit where credit is due. These weren't botched snaps turning into fumbles they were forced turnovers. If you take away some of those turnovers you better take away a few scores as well because that's the risk you run with a big play offense.

I agree. Actually San Fran lead the league in turnover differential. It's what they do.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 03:48 PM ----------

I agree with TimmySmith that Harbaugh walked into the perfect storm. SF had a lot of down years but it seems they drafted well. It's just culminating now. It's no coincidence that Smith is revitalized having a former QB as his head coach, a head coach who also happens to use more positive reinforcement then Singletary's break-them-down act. Give Harbaugh credit for sure, but he walked into an exponentially better situation then Shanahan did.

Consider they are in a weak division, add in a weak NFC East this year, and it all adds up to good times in SF right now.

Yeah, don't discount the weak division as well. I will not be surprised if the Gints win the game. Hard to beat a decent team twice.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

I stopped reading when you said you were enjoying the weather!!

But nice write up as always. IMO the 49ers were picking at the top of the draft for what the last 4-5 years? We have never been IMO as bad as they were. We seem to always find a way to win games we really shouldn't (meaning beating much better teams). But i do think the 49ers benefit very well from playing in a very weak division. I think they are a good team but i dont think they are a great team and to be honest i wouldn't be surprised if the Giants beat them as bad as they beat the Packers last week.

But i def agree with you when you talk about Mike is taking over a team much worse than the 49ers were last year. I feel like we are really close tho already after that great draft. Hopefully this year we bring in a few key FA's and have another good draft.

[MissU28]

I was at the 49ers game, too (boyfriend is a huge niners fan). They were AWESOME to watch, and I sat there and stood there and screamed right along with their fans, almost as excited as they were at their win. But, of course, I wished it were the Redskins doing what the 9ers were doing... I've been following the 49ers since I've been with my boyfriend, which has been 5 years. I've seen how crappy they were. They have finally clicked and it's awesome to see. The Redskins can certainly learn from them.

I have high, high hopes that they destroy the Giants this weekend. I know one thing, the fans will be amazing and crazy loud like they were last weekend. I saw maybe a handful of Saints fans on Saturday. It was silent when the Saints scored. I'm sure you noticed the same thing. The fans rocked that game, and I think they will be a force for the Giants. I still don't buy into the Giants' hype.

[Manny555]

I know others have alluded to this but the 49ers stunk for umteen years. Tons of top 10 picks. Stupid Redskins kept getting high priced free agents and traded away picks (lol).

This made us an average team wih zero depth. And that's how u stay average, winning 5 to 7 games consistently. Never completely terrible or good. So when we got a competent Gm and coach, we should be turning things around.

I hope Danny gives this team time to turn it around. All signs look like he will. I think.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 11:32 PM ----------

Oh and btw Murf, I usually like ur stuff. Just didn't agree with this.

We can't say "This is how u do this" if we are talking to someone who is not responsible for the problem.

[Wyvern]

Murf -- I don't mind your praise of the San Francisco 49ers. They've been drafting well over a long time, and made some good pickups. Their new coach is clicking on all cylinders for now. They've got a good RBs, good TEs, and WRs that are learning to play within the system. Their QB is coming into his peak years, and has the right kind of coaching. Their Linebcking tandem has invigorated their defense, and Carlos Rogers is finally playing up to his potential.

The lessons are there -- a patient rebuild, based on good scouting, good drafting, good trades that didn't foolishly burn draft picks, and some astute free agent signings.. I wouldn't say the offense is particularly innovative -- but it gets the job done, especially since the defense is getting them the ball all the time. These are all things that you raise in your excellent blog.

But what surprised me are some of the things that you said in this thread. I strongly disagree with your following comments

1. "Zorn took over a team good enough to make the playoffs in two of the last three years and ran it into the ground."

By that logic Gibbs took a 10-6 team in 2005 and ran it into the ground with a 5-11 the following year. At least Zorn got an 8-8 with the holdovers of the Collins-led 9-7 team of 2007, supported with the typical 'Vinny-draft.' and Blache trying to fill Gregg Williams role.

(In fairness to Zorn, that 9-7 playoff 'miracle' was fueled by Gibbs having to switch over to Collins -- but remember that when Campbell checked out, the team was 5-7 and really looking bad.)

Also remember that as an quasi-OC/QB coach Zorn was originally brought in --simply to elevate Campbell's game -- because Campbell was the owner's unconditional choice for QB of the team. Allegedly, no other NFL-caliber coaches were willing to sign on under such terms, so Zorn got a quick last-minute promotion. elevated. Essentially, Zorn's fate was tied to Campbell's potential -- and barring a complete turnaround in Campbell's ability to run a WCO ...failure loomed. (Frankly, I thought some of the offensive schemes drawn up did as well as possible to compensate for what Jason could and could not do. And it even worked for a while. But Campbell really wasn't the right QB for the system that Snyder and Cerrato wanted installed.)

In hindsight that aging team was ripe for collapse -- and Vinny's drafts and trades didn't help. Nor did the stripping of what little power Zorn had. Nor did the owner's public support of a player bad-mouthing his headcoach, and later requiring the coach to reconcile -- effectively devaluing Zorn's authority to lead his team during the adverse times.. Frankly, what was done to Zorn until his release will go down as a case study on Front Office mismanagement. It became obvious why no one but Zorn was willing to stake their career as coach under Snyderatto.

To answer your question on the players Zorn helped -- I'd say Campbell was about the only one. Most of the offensive line were on their last legs and that was Bugels job anyway. Sellers and Portis weren't going to learn much new from Zorn The defense was Blache's. Thomas and Kelly were under the tender charges of Stan Hixon. (Come to think of it, who has Mike Shanahan improved? Isn't that usually the assistants who do that? Oh and perhaps we should be mindful that Zorn really wasn't able to bring in the coaching crew he wanted -- he had to rely on the Gibbs era holdovers who decided to remain.

Bottom Line: Zorn will probably continue to be made a scapegoat for the Redskins collapse - but after so many years of bad trades and bad drafts the Redskins collapse was inevitable as a sunset. And the sun was definitely setting when Gibbs, Williams, and Saunders left..

2. The notion that the Skins should have kept Jason Campbell and built around him, because the McNabb experiment turned out badly. -

I fundamentally disagree with this. Painful as it was, I watched all of Campbells games -- not what the boxscore represented as his performance. I strongly feel Campbell did not have the accuracy, the field vision, the timing, the quick release, nor the touch to run either the WCO or the Shanahan offense. He also didn't have the consistency that would allow the Shanahans to assess the caliber of the WRs to play in this system. And even if fCampbell was improving a little, retaining him was not really ever an option. He was already viewed as a a question-mark by the time of the 2009 draft, and should they have really wanted him for 2010 but he would have wanted a long-term guaranteed, contract and a "payday" type contract. Frankly he wouldn't have been worth it. (And considering how the offensive line deteriorated in 2010, I truly wonder if he would have turned into a checkdown specialist like Beck.)

Murf, sorry for the long post -- FYI, I don't plan to get into any back-and-forth; this is likely my only post about this thread's topic. So rebut what you feel you need to, and then let's agree to disagree.

[GSF]

Thanks for the great article Murf. I really enjoy your stuff.

I watched the 49ers/saints game, and it was the most i ever enjoyed a game that didn't involve the Redskins. I didn't really plan on rooting for the 49ers, but when Smith ran that TD in i was junping up and down like the Redskins just won the superbowl. smith's 4th quarter was nothing short of awesome.

1 thing that jumped out at me in that game, and in the other couple 49er games i saw this year was how good both of their lines are. They really physically dominate in the trenches.

I think the 49ers will beat the Giants, and have a good chance of beating the Pats in the Superbowl.

---------- Post added January-19th-2012 at 05:04 AM ----------

Oh yeah just want to add that Los had a great game as well.

[themurf]

I strongly disagree with your following comments

1. "Zorn took over a team good enough to make the playoffs in two of the last three years and ran it into the ground."

By that logic Gibbs took a 10-6 team in 2005 and ran it into the ground with a 5-11 the following year. At least Zorn got an 8-8 with the holdovers of the Collins-led 9-7 team of 2007, supported with the typical 'Vinny-draft.' and Blache trying to fill Gregg Williams role.

2. The notion that the Skins should have kept Jason Campbell and built around him, because the McNabb experiment turned out badly. -

I fundamentally disagree with this. Painful as it was, I watched all of Campbells games -- not what the boxscore represented as his performance. I strongly feel Campbell did not have the accuracy, the field vision, the timing, the quick release, nor the touch to run either the WCO or the Shanahan offense. He also didn't have the consistency that would allow the Shanahans to assess the caliber of the WRs to play in this system. And even if fCampbell was improving a little, retaining him was not really ever an option. He was already viewed as a a question-mark by the time of the 2009 draft, and should they have really wanted him for 2010 but he would have wanted a long-term guaranteed, contract and a "payday" type contract. Frankly he wouldn't have been worth it. (And considering how the offensive line deteriorated in 2010, I truly wonder if he would have turned into a checkdown specialist like Beck.)

Murf, sorry for the long post -- FYI, I don't plan to get into any back-and-forth; this is likely my only post about this thread's topic. So rebut what you feel you need to, and then let's agree to disagree.

Joe Gibbs 2.0 wasn't going to be here for another decade. The front officer knew that he was there to "win now" and worked with him to assemble a veteran squad that was designed to compete immediately. Now, is that the best way to do things for long-term success -- sacrificing tomorrow to try and win now with a paper-thin roster? Of course not. But that's what they did and that's what Jim Zorn inherited. What happened next is well documented. After a brief moment of success to start his tenure, the Redskins crashed and burned under Zorn. They were awful. There was a stretch there when Hunter "the punter" Smith was this team's best offensive weapon and, sadly, the Redskins were no longer competitive. Had the front office made a smarter choice and hired someone other than Zorn, maybe things would have played out differently and the team wouldn't be where it is now. But because Zorn and Cerrato ran the franchise into the ground, it's taking the Shanaclan much longer than anticipated to make this franchise respectable. Not sure how much of that is really up for debate.

As for Jason Campbell, I'm on record as being a fan of his. He wasn't ever going to be a top 10 quarterback in the NFL, but he was serviceable enough to keep the team in games. Looking back, I don't think anyone can claim Donovan McNabb did anything better than Campbell was able to achieve during their respective careers in Washington. Add in the wasted draft picks blown when the team acquired McNabb and I'm saying it probably would have been better for everyone involved had the team kept Campbell and the draft picks. Again, not really sure that's anything controversial.

All that said, I'm just thankful that the current regime understands the importance of utilizing the draft as the primary way to construct your roster. If they put together a few more drafts like last year's and we won't have to drown our sorrows over such miserable topics. Either way, thanks for being a part of the discussion.

I will not be surprised if the Gints win the game. Hard to beat a decent team twice.

You realize a very mediocre Redskins team beat the Giants twice this season, right?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Just saying, the best possible option would have been signing Rex Grossman or Sage Rosenfels instead of making the McNabb trade. I really feel Shanahan felt he could turn McNabb into John Elway, but he wasn't cooperating.

I feel that Campbell not only had no chance at being able to run the Shanahan offense (and I feel he would have been worse than McNabb because while Shanahan will tweak his offense for a talented QB, he won't completely revamp it for Captain Checkdown), and Rosenfels or Grossman would have at least given the team a chance to run the offense they were running in Houston and Denver for the benefit of the rest of the players.

[TimmySmith]

Just saying, the best possible option would have been signing Rex Grossman or Sage Rosenfels instead of making the McNabb trade. I really feel Shanahan felt he could turn McNabb into John Elway, but he wasn't cooperating.

I am not sure Shanahan ever wanted McNabb. That said, AFTER the trade was made, the Skins should have stuck with McNabb until a "realistic" option came along. Grossman is not and never was a "realistic" option so his signing was worse than the McNabb trade IMO.

[pjfootballer]

As for Jason Campbell, I'm on record as being a fan of his. He wasn't ever going to be a top 10 quarterback in the NFL, but he was serviceable enough to keep the team in games.

I don't want a damn "serviceable" quarterback. We've had a "conga" line of serviceable QBs since Rypien left. I want a bonafide, 10+ year, balls to the wall fanchise QB along the likes of Rodgers, P. Manning, Brady or Brees. As a Redskin fan, I want an elite QB and so should the rest of us. To hell with serviceable.

[TheLongshot]

Just saying, the best possible option would have been signing Rex Grossman or Sage Rosenfels instead of making the McNabb trade. I really feel Shanahan felt he could turn McNabb into John Elway, but he wasn't cooperating.

I feel that Campbell not only had no chance at being able to run the Shanahan offense (and I feel he would have been worse than McNabb because while Shanahan will tweak his offense for a talented QB, he won't completely revamp it for Captain Checkdown), and Rosenfels or Grossman would have at least given the team a chance to run the offense they were running in Houston and Denver for the benefit of the rest of the players.

Personally, I think Campbell would have been better than Rex. Why did Campbell check down so much? Few WR targets and a deteriorating OL. To be honest, Rex probably had better targets than Campbell ever had here.

I don't want a damn "serviceable" quarterback. We've had a "conga" line of serviceable QBs since Rypien left. I want a bonafide, 10+ year, balls to the wall fanchise QB along the likes of Rodgers, P. Manning, Brady or Brees. As a Redskin fan, I want an elite QB and so should the rest of us. To hell with serviceable.

A servicable performance at the QB position might have been good enough to get us into the playoffs.

And everyone wants a franchise QB. Well guess what: not much of what Shanahan has done the past two years has done much to work toward those goals, other than maybe losing.

[pjfootballer]

A servicable performance at the QB position might have been good enough to get us into the playoffs.

And everyone wants a franchise QB. Well guess what: not much of what Shanahan has done the past two years has done much to work toward those goals, other than maybe losing.

And how far would that serviceable guy taken us. I still want a franchise QB. No matter what anyone says in here, until we get that #1 guy, we won't go far in the regular season or playoffs. It's a QB driven league and we haven't had one in 20 years. It's our turn.