themurf Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 (photo by Brian Murphy) Steve Young. John Elway. Brian Griese. Jake Plummer. Jay Cutler. Donovan McNabb. Rex Grossman. John Beck. As you’ve hopefully put together by now, each of these gentlemen had the pleasure of playing under coach Mike Shanahan at some point during their respective careers. I bring them up so they can serve as the starting point for an intriguing question — what exactly does Shanahan look for in a quarterback? What traits, tendencies and skill set does the two-time Super Bowl winning coach prefer when it comes to his offense’s most important position? If nothing else, answering that question could go a long way towards figuring out who might be taking the snaps for the Washington Redskins during the 2012 season. Regardless of whether they choose to acquire a player via the draft, free agency or trade, the front office is going to have to take a detailed look at the players who are available and determine which guy best fits Shanahan’s version of the West Coast offense. After watching Shanahan’s offense over the last two years, it’s not difficult to see how he prefers to attack defenses — by spreading the field and controlling the ball with short to intermediate passes and then mixing in explosive plays occasionally to try and catch opponents off guard. And while Mike Shanahan developed a reputation in Denver for taking seemingly any running back and turning him into a thousand-yard rusher over night, things haven’t gone quite the same here in our nation’s capital. Maybe it’s because the Redskins have lacked a dominant ground game during Shanahan’s two years in D.C., or maybe it’s because the team is often playing from behind, but Washington finished each of the last two seasons in the top five in pass attempts. Detroit, New Orleans, New England and Atlanta were the only teams to throw the ball more often than the Redskins in 2011. In a perfect world, the Redskins would be able to strike a better balance between the passing game and the ground attack. Short of that, getting a quarterback who simply brings more to the table than they take from it would be huge for this franchise’s stability. So when you hear talk about the team rolling the dice on Peyton Manning, Kyle Orton or Matt Flynn or walking away from the draft with Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill or a lesser-known rookie, feel free to to keep this checklist in mind. Chances are, whichever one of those guys earns the highest marks in the following categories will be the face of the franchise when the Redskins take the field Week 1. Without further delay, I humbly present to you the skills that Mike Shanahan’s dream quarterback would possess: A strong arm and an accurate deep ball. While Grossman and Beck have done little to suggest either should ever take another snap in the burgundy and gold, the Redskins did manage to finish the 2011 season with 57 completions of 20 or more yards (12th most in the NFL). Say what you will about them, but that’s pretty impressive considering the lack of playmakers at both quarterback and receiver and the team’s patchwork offensive line for most of the year. A willingness to make plays downfield. For better or worse, this was one of the deciding factors why Shanahan ultimately turned to Grossman over Beck. The Rex Cannon had no problem taking shots downfield, while Beck was more inclined to dink and dunk his way into three-and-outs. Of course, Grossman was just as capable of making plays for opposing teams as he was his own in those situations, but that’s beside the point. Which leads me to … A good decision maker. Offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan’s comment after the season ended made it clear that whoever lines up at quarterback next season needs to do a better job of protecting the football. That’s because the dynamic duo of Grossman (20 interceptions and eight fumbles) and Beck (four picks and three fumbles) combined for a total of 24 interceptions and 11 fumbles in 2011. It goes without saying that it’s practically impossible to put together a sustained attack when you’re that careless with the football. Click here to read the full article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadwiko Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good write up, and I agree with all of those points. RGIII and Shanahan would be a potent combination, you have to think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good article, Murf. (I feel I should make that an auto response as soon as you make a new thread). I don't know if this would fall under any of your categories, but I would add "Be willing to sacrifice (be it putting the body on the line or statistically) for the team." Other than that, I can't really point out anything negative about the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Good write up, and I agree with all of those points. RGIII and Shanahan would be a potent combination, you have to think On the surface it certainly appears so. Maybe now some fans will see why I believe Robert Griffin III is worth trading up to acquire. Good article, Murf.(I feel I should make that an auto response as soon as you make a new thread). I don't know if this would fall under any of your categories, but I would add "Be willing to sacrifice (be it putting the body on the line or statistically) for the team." Other than that, I can't really point out anything negative about the article. Thanks for the auto response. hehehe. As for willingness to sacrifice, I'd lump that in with mental toughness. Kind of goes hand in hand in my book (unless you're just a horribly selfish teammate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 As for willingness to sacrifice, I'd lump that in with mental toughness. Kind of goes hand in hand in my book (unless you're just a horribly selfish teammate). Fair enough. I just got home from training for a Tough Mudder, so I'm a little tired and not necessarily thinking straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero21 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 As I said on twitter, Mike Shanahan seems to be very "un-west coast." Which of course makes for an interesting dynamic, considering there's a thread on this very board talking about how Kyle Shanahan's offense is a very west coast one. I wonder who has more control of the offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 As I said on twitter, Mike Shanahan seems to be very "un-west coast."Which of course makes for an interesting dynamic, considering there's a thread on this very board talking about how Kyle Shanahan's offense is a very west coast one. I wonder who has more control of the offense? Kyle's offense IS Mike's offense. There's literally no difference outside of Kyle maybe liking to throw the ball more. And the entire offense is based of the West Coast Offense. That's what I made that thread about; people saying Kyle was a control freak because he wanted his quarterbacks to do things a certain way, even though that's the entire foundation of the offense. But it's the same offense, and it requires the quarterbacks to do the same thing. Basically, there are two kinds of West Coast Offenses; there's the very Bill Walsh, "traditional" West Coast Offense, like what the 49ers, Browns, Seahawks, and what Andy Reid used to run. Then there's the Vertical West Coast Offense, so to speak. The main difference is that the read progression is different. In your "typical" West Coast Offense, you read short and work deep, taking what the defense gives you and making the defense cheat up to stop the short and intermediate stuff to maximize your ability to stretch the field vertically. Like...Sam Bradford took a lot of heat his rookie season from people because he really played small ball and was checking the ball down and throwing short "too much", but on top of his receivers sucking, the Rams were playing a straight up, no muss, no fuss, typical West Coast Offense. What we like to do, and what teams like Green Bay and Houston do, is basically the opposite. The quarterback starts deep and works his way short. It's more of a "big play" kind of deal than your typical WCO. In a Walsh West Coast Offense, you can nickle and dime and play small ball all day and hit the big play when it's there. What we want to do is have the ability to hit the big play at any moment, really trying to work the ball into the intermediate level, getting yardage in chunks, which makes the defense play back, which opens holes for the run game. When the offense works well, it's pretty frakking hard to stop it. Basically, the concept should be "run the ball, get the safeties to creep in, play action deep, get them to play back, run the ball, hit the intermediate/deep pass". Keep them guessing. Thing of beauty when it actually works. That's really the only thing I disagreed with in the article, Murf; I don't really think the short passing game is how Mike wants the offense to run, but rather how it had to run because of our receivers and our quarterbacks. I mean he still wants his guys to be accurate, but Mike's really, at heart, a big play guy. It's funny that he hated Al Davis, because his mentality for offense really is to get vertical (which I reckon is the reason he got hired by Davis in the first place.) It's funny how people (not you Murf, just saying in general) say that the reason Mike wants a mobile, big armed quarterback is because he's looking for Elway. And it's like, no, he wants that because his whole damn offensive philosophy is running the ball, getting you terrified of the run game, and then killing you deep when you start run blitzing and creating one on one match-ups, and then getting you to over pursue on the bootlegs. It's why Rex and John both will never really be fits. Rex has the willpower and the balls to go deep, but he doesn't have the arm, and he doesn't have the mobility. Beck has the arm but no confidence that he can ever complete a deep pass. Despite that one little thing, I think you're dead on, Murf. Sorry to hijack things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Kyle's offense IS Mike's offense. There's literally no difference outside of Kyle maybe liking to throw the ball more. And the entire offense is based of the West Coast Offense. That's what I made that thread about; people saying Kyle was a control freak because he wanted his quarterbacks to do things a certain way, even though that's the entire foundation of the offense.But it's the same offense, and it requires the quarterbacks to do the same thing. Basically, there are two kinds of West Coast Offenses; there's the very Bill Walsh, "traditional" West Coast Offense, like what the 49ers, Browns, Seahawks, and what Andy Reid used to run. Then there's the Vertical West Coast Offense, so to speak. The main difference is that the read progression is different. In your "typical" West Coast Offense, you read short and work deep, taking what the defense gives you and making the defense cheat up to stop the short and intermediate stuff to maximize your ability to stretch the field vertically. Like...Sam Bradford took a lot of heat his rookie season from people because he really played small ball and was checking the ball down and throwing short "too much", but on top of his receivers sucking, the Rams were playing a straight up, no muss, no fuss, typical West Coast Offense. What we like to do, and what teams like Green Bay and Houston do, is basically the opposite. The quarterback starts deep and works his way short. It's more of a "big play" kind of deal than your typical WCO. In a Walsh West Coast Offense, you can nickle and dime and play small ball all day and hit the big play when it's there. What we want to do is have the ability to hit the big play at any moment, really trying to work the ball into the intermediate level, getting yardage in chunks, which makes the defense play back, which opens holes for the run game. When the offense works well, it's pretty frakking hard to stop it. Basically, the concept should be "run the ball, get the safeties to creep in, play action deep, get them to play back, run the ball, hit the intermediate/deep pass". Keep them guessing. Thing of beauty when it actually works. That's really the only thing I disagreed with in the article, Murf; I don't really think the short passing game is how Mike wants the offense to run, but rather how it had to run because of our receivers and our quarterbacks. I mean he still wants his guys to be accurate, but Mike's really, at heart, a big play guy. It's funny that he hated Al Davis, because his mentality for offense really is to get vertical (which I reckon is the reason he got hired by Davis in the first place.) It's funny how people (not you Murf, just saying in general) say that the reason Mike wants a mobile, big armed quarterback is because he's looking for Elway. And it's like, no, he wants that because his whole damn offensive philosophy is running the ball, getting you terrified of the run game, and then killing you deep when you start run blitzing and creating one on one match-ups, and then getting you to over pursue on the bootlegs. It's why Rex and John both will never really be fits. Rex has the willpower and the balls to go deep, but he doesn't have the arm, and he doesn't have the mobility. Beck has the arm but no confidence that he can ever complete a deep pass. Despite that one little thing, I think you're dead on, Murf. Sorry to hijack things. I actually think you and I aren't that far off on this subject. When I'm talking about the short to intermediate passes, I'm simply referring to one of the staples of a West Coast offense. Don't forget I wrote that the Redskins ranked in the top half of the league in passing plays of 20 or more yards and that Shanahan strongly desires explosive plays in his offense. And then I also pointed out that the reason Grossman was preferred over Beck is because he was the guy who was more willing to take shots downfield, while Beck was the king of dinking and dunking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetThePointsSoar Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Nice analysis NLC... Great write-up as always, murf! Especially loved the "parting shot" at the end, VERY well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 If I were Shanahan, running the high to low read WCO, the answer for my ideal quarterback would be fairly simple. I'd want someone that can throw the ball with precision and accuracy, especially on the deep ball. Shanahan runs a high to low read pass system for the most part, as evidenced by his Denver Bronco playbook. You want someone that can complete those passes. I'd want someone who will stand tall in the pocket, or evade pressure and look to throw the ball via progressions. I don't want a quarterback like Vick, who takes off at the first sign of trouble. Once he starts running, defenders start to close in on him and leave their coverage responsibility. Once you evade, still look to toss one to an open receiver. I'd want a quarterback that gives me a threat to take off, even if that's not the first thing I want him to do. And if he decides to do it, I want him to be effective. I don't simply want someone with excellent footwork, but rather someone who can evade and gain distance between themselves and pursuing tacklers for major positive rush yards. This combination of things makes the defenses play honest. With a true pocket passer, defenses don't have to worry much about the quarterback run, and only have to stop the normal ground game and the pass game. With a scrambler, the quarterback running the ball is a concern, but you know he doesn't throw it up that often once he starts to take off, so you don't have to kill yourself worrying about that. With a true balanced quarterback who has speed and throwing ability, you now have to defend the basic ground game, the pass and the quarterback ground game. It's a triple threat offense. On top of that, any tricky stuff has to be accounted for. To me, the best option for the offense is to get a triple threat if available. Right now, there's a triple threat available. It's just going to take quite a bit to get him. Other triple threats that have played for Shanahan include: Steve Young. John Elway. Those guys worked out pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urblessed00 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Keeping all of this in mind, I'm starting to believe it's either going to be RGIII or Tannehill here for 2012. I've calmed down and come off the Peyton Manning ledge because I just don't want to see him here. It sends the wrong message for a team supposedly invested in this 5 year plan. Even if he diddd come here, he's been off a year, new system, he's going to want all the snaps. He dominated all the snaps in Indy. He's not going somewhere to be a mentor. So, again, I'm hoping my initial hopes...of RGIII, or at least Tannehill come to fruition. This whole foot injury may be the ultimate smoke screen for Shanahan. Not the fact that he got injured. I just mean, there isn't any thing linking them currently to Tannehill. Everyone assumes they are going up for Griffin. I hope it is Griffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 My answer is probably a crazy one. Or I'm sure someone will point out inaccurate. I think Mike looks for the kind of QB that he was. Someone that everyone else mainly overlooked. Someone who is less physically gifted but is gritty and is a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I only disagree about the ability to find and develop RB's. The backs he has brought in have played better than expected while there is still line work and the obvious benefit of a capable QB helping the run game develop. I feel 100% confident that Shanahan can still find the diamonds in the rough and the combination of Royster/Helu does not undermine that confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Nice write up murf. I agree that RG3 fits that mold and maybe even Tannehill. Not sure about Flynn. I'm like Mayock when it comes to Flynn, there just isn't enough tape of him to form a well informed opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 I only disagree about the ability to find and develop RB's. The backs he has brought in have played better than expected while there is still line work and the obvious benefit of a capable QB helping the run game develop. I feel 100% confident that Shanahan can still find the diamonds in the rough and the combination of Royster/Helu does not undermine that confidence. The Redskins ranked 30th in rushing in 2010 and 25th in 2011. From a production standpoint, those are easily two of the worst seasons a Shanahan-coached team has ever had when it comes to running the football. You can argue that pieces are in place to potentially improve the ground game moving forward thanks to Roy Helu and Evan Royster, but you can't really argue that Washington's rushing attack has looked anything like the success he had in Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Redskins ranked 30th in rushing in 2010 and 25th in 2011. From a production standpoint, those are easily two of the worst seasons a Shanahan-coached team has ever had when it comes to running the football. You can argue that pieces are in place to potentially improve the ground game moving forward thanks to Roy Helu and Evan Royster, but you can't really argue that Washington's rushing attack has looked anything like the success he had in Denver. I think it started to come together in Seattle, with a 110 yrd effort on the road against a pretty good defense, followed by 100 yrds against the Jets (with NO passing game to speak of...), 170 against the Pats (their defense blew), 110 against the Giants (albeit 3.1 per carry), 141 against the Vikes, and 130 vs the Iggles. The emergence of Helu and Royster over a shockingly ineffective Torain seemed to be the catalyst. Add Hightower back into that rotation and it looks pretty good going forward. A good QB will most certainly open up the running game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Well, it appears Mike Shanahan is looking for the same thing the other 31 Teams are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Nice writeup by Murf, NLC and KDawg (as usual). Enjoyed all three explainations and after reading all three, there is only one direction to go. And his name ends in III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockerroom cancer Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Well, it appears Mike Shanahan is looking for the same thing the other 31 Teams are. Which serves to illustrate how lackluster the OP write-up really is, and how little light the OP’s arguments shine on the central question. That is, who will be number one QB of the 2012 Washington Redskins? Much the same could be said for the OP’s previous piece on Peyton. Watching coach Shanahan build this team and shed away his and others’ missteps, I suspect the coach is a pragmatic operator. I will cite Steve Young, whose words on coach Shanahan I take as the perspective of an insider: “Let me just tell you this: Mike is a phenomenal playcaller, but he wants a quarterback that will protect his incredible ability to call plays,” Young said. “In other words, I’m gonna call a series of plays, I’m gonna put combinations together that are a little bit outlandish, but you need to protect me. Most playcallers have to go the other way — I’ve got to call plays because my quarterback’s not gonna protect me and I’m gonna protect him. That relationship is vital. “And Mike has been searching since John Elway for a quarterback that will protect him, to allow him to call games the way he wants to, and he has struggled to find that. I can see it. I saw him in Dallas this year on the Monday Night game. He’s so frustrated, because he doesn’t have somebody that he can do what he wants to do....I think that he would crave the chance to be with somebody who would protect him as a playcaller.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 “Let me just tell you this: Mike is a phenomenal playcaller, but he wants a quarterback that will protect his incredible ability to call plays,” Young said. “In other words, I’m gonna call a series of plays, I’m gonna put combinations together that are a little bit outlandish, but you need to protect me. Most playcallers have to go the other way — I’ve got to call plays because my quarterback’s not gonna protect me and I’m gonna protect him. That relationship is vital. “And Mike has been searching since John Elway for a quarterback that will protect him, to allow him to call games the way he wants to, and he has struggled to find that. I can see it. I saw him in Dallas this year on the Monday Night game. He’s so frustrated, because he doesn’t have somebody that he can do what he wants to do....I think that he would crave the chance to be with somebody who would protect him as a playcaller.” To me, Robert Griffin III is that guy. He is a true triple threat. He can stay in the pocket and sling. He can run. He can deliver a pass with accuracy. He would protect any amount of outlandish series of calls the Shanahan's can piece together. But here's the piece of the puzzle that could change everything or nothing: Who is calling more of the plays? Mike? Or Kyle? It appears, and there's no evidence to the contrary, that Kyle is our play caller. Therefore, any insider perspective on Mike's play calling style isn't quite up to par on what's actually going on. Good additional though, bringing in the Steve Young bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Redskins ranked 30th in rushing in 2010 and 25th in 2011. From a production standpoint, those are easily two of the worst seasons a Shanahan-coached team has ever had when it comes to running the football. You can argue that pieces are in place to potentially improve the ground game moving forward thanks to Roy Helu and Evan Royster, but you can't really argue that Washington's rushing attack has looked anything like the success he had in Denver. Brian I was really looking at the ability to find backs and that though production is down there is evidence Shanahan is capable to find backs in later rounds. I understand this was his worst season not just in terms of running the ball but overall in the win/loss column as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Well, it appears Mike Shanahan is looking for the same thing the other 31 Teams are. Don't you usually bring something to the table when you post in a discussion thread? Nice writeup by Murf, NLC and KDawg (as usual). Enjoyed all three explainations and after reading all three, there is only one direction to go. And his name ends in III. Thanks man. I've made it clear for a long, long time now I think RG3 would be a really good fit in this offense. But rather than say "this is why I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong," I thought it would be more interesting to actually turn the topic around and identify some of the specific reasons why he'd be such a good fit. So I talked to a bunch of people who cover the team with me and tried to build a checklist of the perfect quarterback in Shanahan's mind. I could be wrong, but once you see the list, the two guys left in the discussion are RG3 and Ryan Tannehill. Gotta believe one of those guys could be the face of the franchise in the not-too-distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Well, it looks as though Mike is 1-6 in QB scouting; thus far. Height should be the big issue; grabbing QB's who cannot see over the blocks does impair their abilities. Arm strength; yes, it will come into play, but not quite AS important as the next. Accuracy; this one is the make-or-break. Watching Rex over the last few years proves accuracy is one of the biggest issues for any QB. Brains; once again, the last few years shows how a lack of common sense and poor judgement will ruin any drive. Being able to ' feel ' the situation before and after the snap and making decisions which will not end up in turnovers can take alot of pressure off other teammates. Winning; yea, this is a multi-headed friend or foe. Not only being able to put the game on their shoulder from time to time, but winning the confidence in the rest of the team; players who really believe in their QB always have a good chance of winning the game; it rides alongside of ego, but without all the hoopla that comes with it. Players who can communicate with their QB in certain situations have a much better chance of winning the down, and we've seen plenty of highlites from Peyton and how his receivers were almost always on the same page. So, lets see the choice Mike makes; I am sure whichever way he goes, it will be for reasons we may not be aware of, so I am going to keep my trap shut, unless he continues his streak of QB's which raise eyebrows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan1993 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Doesn't every coach want these skillsets in a QB though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajlaird82 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 One of the main reasons that we were only 25 in rushing was the fact that we are always playing from behind and Shanahans' continue to try and push the ball downfield with sexy rexy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.