I have a concern about the Shanahan offensive scheme.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

..... I didn't hear him say that. You mean Danny has the final say?

He alluded to that without outright saying it. He was naturally asked about the new guy Forbath in yesterdays presser; and responded by saying the questions should be directed to the STC as he studies every kicker out there and chose to bring the tryouts in and who we went with off that.

You can take from that what you want, and I'm sure the final say comes down to the HC and GM. But that as much as anything seemed to vindicate what I've always thought that the STC is heavily involved more than anyone in who his specialists are.

Hail.

[DC9]

I didn't hear him say that. You mean Danny has the final say?

On what he knew Forbath before he decided to sign him:

“You would have to ask [special Teams Coordinator] Danny Smith. I know he studies all the kickers and I know he was one of the top kickers in the country and we looked at all the percentages, but I’m sure Danny knew him well.”

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?371817-Redskins-Park-Quotes-Mike-Shanahan-Robert-Griffin-III-Vikings-Coach-amp-RB

We call this, the "owned complex"

It happens when you are owned, and you know you're owned, but you're going to bs your way out of it somehow.

[DaSkinzBaby]

Forgive me for getting off topic Of, but shy of a PM or a bump I didn't know how to bring this up.

Did you read/ hear the HC yesterday more or less saying the ST Coach is the one that indentifies, scouts and picks his specialists? Just adds a different slant to your theory on where his personnel comes from the next time the topics at hand.

Hail.

So does it even seem logical that at this point in MS career a ST coach that can't even get consistent play from his players has final say so?? Well then if that is the case then that also makes my thoughts and comments about allowing his son more lead way to be more credible. Hell if you give a ST coach final say so over things than I know good and damn well a son would also get final say on things......WOW that is a damning statement if that is what in fact was said and not misunderstood..........................

[Boss_Hogg]

This is a good juicy topic for a crisp Thursday morning.

However I highly doubt Mike is more obsessed with stats than wins. Jake Plummer has personality issues, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. Besides, Mike actually turned Plummer into a decent QB in Denver.

I'm sure he's still butt-hurt over the trade to the Bucs in 2007.

[DC9]

So does it even seem logical that at this point in MS career a ST coach that can't even get consistent play from his players has final say so?? Well then if that is the case then that also makes my thoughts and comments about allowing his son more lead way to be more credible. Hell if you give a ST coach final say so over things than I know good and damn well a son would also get final say on things......WOW that is a damning statement if that is what in fact was said and not misunderstood..........................

his son is leading a bomb offense... Danny Smith is not.

His son has had two offseasons to get players and impliment a system...

Danny Smith has been here for what? 7 years?

[Oldfan]

Jake Plummer is what one would call an "unreliable source."

If he had made a general comment like "Mike is an overrated coach" I would have ignored it. But his criticism was very specific. Moreover, Plummer was only verifying a suspicion. It provides a partial explanation for the Broncos offensive and defensive rankings after Mike took over full control. When an offense can move the ball well but can't play ball control, it makes the defense look worse than it really is.

The 2008 Broncos made me suspicious. #2 on offense, #31 on defense with eight wins.

[DaSkinzBaby]

his son is leading a bomb offense... Danny Smith is not.

His son has had two offseasons to get players and impliment a system...

Danny Smith has been here for what? 7 years?

Not sure I get your post "his son is leading a bomb offense... Danny Smith is not." So by "bomb offense" does that mean good or bad? Whatever stats the Redskins lead in now means nothing when you have a losing record. The question that becomes obvious is this the 12 points that Billy Cundiff left out on the field, do those points if made produce wins? The penalty that Kyle was called for when we were driving against the Bengals, if that penalty doesn't happen do we go on to score and win that game??

I would prefer our stats to be low or even suck as long as we are winning, Stats mean nothing when you lose, the only stats that are important is the W-L stat...........

[DC9]

This is a good juicy topic for a crisp Thursday morning.

However I highly doubt Mike is more obsessed with stats than wins. Jake Plummer has personality issues, so I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. Besides, Mike actually turned Plummer into a decent QB in Denver.

I'm sure he's still butt-hurt over the trade to the Bucs in 2007.

He quit. He quit on football. Shanny tried to push him and he quit. Now he has sour grapes.

Guys like Mark Schlereth and John Elway love them some Shanny.... who the heck is Jake Plummer?

Let's ask Haynesworth how he feels about Blatche, Belichek, and Raheem Morris while we're at it.

[Oldfan]

He alluded to that without outright saying it. He was naturally asked about the new guy Forbath in yesterdays presser; and responded by saying the questions should be directed to the STC as he studies every kicker out there and chose to bring the tryouts in and who we went with off that.

You can take from that what you want, and I'm sure the final say comes down to the HC and GM. But that as much as anything seemed to vindicate what I've always thought that the STC is heavily involved more than anyone in who his specialists are.

Hail.

Well, that's interesting. I recall Gibbs discussing our kicking situation and sounding like he made the call.

[Darth Tater]

To some extent, all coaches have a strong affinity for stats. While winning is what a coach wants, certain stats tell them if they are on the right track towards reaching that goal as usually winning is the final part of overall team improvement so the coach need to be able to keep players, staff, fans and sometimes himself encouraged until those wins start coming, wining despite bad numbers is strong sign that you are just getting lucky, certain stats help you identify your most pressing needs and, while many stats are the product of a winning team, many are products of the drivers to winning. Even Vince Lombardi focuses on certain stats in his game plans.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Forgive me for getting off topic Of, but shy of a PM or a bump I didn't know how to bring this up.

Did you read/ hear the HC yesterday more or less saying the ST Coach is the one that indentifies, scouts and picks his specialists? Just adds a different slant to your theory on where his personnel comes from the next time the topics at hand.

Hail.

What does this matter though?

It makes for a great scapegoat recipe at the end of the season. We now know who wanted Gano gone and Cunwhiff signed... if this guy Kai proves to be half-way decent then we will not be discussing how horrible of STC Danny Smith is. Sometimes, players have to be held accountable at some point.

[Bang]

Well, that's interesting. I recall Gibbs discussing our kicking situation and sounding like he made the call.

sidebar: You ever EVER hear Gibbs blame anyone but himself no matter how clear it is someone else made a mistake?

I never have.

Coaches circle the wagons, especially the good ones.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

You ever EVER hear Gibbs blame anyone but himself no matter how clear it is someone else made a mistake?

I never have.

Coaches circle the wagons, especially the good ones.

~Bang

There wasn't any blame involved. Gibbs was explaining why he passed on a good free agent kicker (can't remember his name) when we needed one.

EDIT: Ryan Longwell was the kicker's name.

[Hitman21ST]

It should unless there are other circumstances like the main reason for you coming back to coach is so your son gets more experience, or making sure it takes 5 full years to turn a team and organization around when it takes other franchises 2 at most.

Yes, I'm sure that's why he became our coach.

It sure didn't take the Browns, Lions, 49ers, Cardinals, Rams, Dolphins, Jets, Bills, Titans, or Bucs "2 years at most" to turn around. Might want to veil your Shanahatred a little more next time.

[DC9]

Interesting thread OF. Your argument is lost to me because how padding one's stats going to get one to win a SB? Which looks better - Look everyone I had awesome offensive stats when I was a coach or look everyone I have 4 SB rings!!! Do you think Andy Reid is going to be remembered as to how good his offense stats were with the Eagles or the fact that he never won a SB with them?

Gosh... what was Air Coryell famous for? He sucked, I think. Barely remember him...

---------- Post added October-11th-2012 at 10:35 AM ----------

Not sure I get your post "his son is leading a bomb offense... Danny Smith is not." So by "bomb offense" does that mean good or bad? Whatever stats the Redskins lead in now means nothing when you have a losing record. The question that becomes obvious is this the 12 points that Billy Cundiff left out on the field, do those points if made produce wins? The penalty that Kyle was called for when we were driving against the Bengals, if that penalty doesn't happen do we go on to score and win that game??

I would prefer our stats to be low or even suck as long as we are winning, Stats mean nothing when you lose, the only stats that are important is the W-L stat...........

It means the offense is good, yes. Danny Smith is not leading a good special teams. He's leading an average at the very best special teams.

We all would like more wins...

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

What does this matter though?

It makes for a great scapegoat recipe at the end of the season. We now know who wanted Gano gone and Cunwhiff signed... if this guy Kai proves to be half-way decent then we will not be discussing how horrible of STC Danny Smith is. Sometimes, players have to be held accountable at some point.

Oh, if kick returns continue to be so poor. Penalties so high. And the coverage drops off, we sure as heck will be. And with 100% justification too. Smith's remit isn't just on the kicking game.

Players do have to be held accountable, no question. Whether their a HoF all-pro, or a fresh faced rookie; NOBODY'S above the team and above criticism where it's warranted. But when a positional coaches unit consistently fails in most facets over a number of years, well ..... like it or hate it, the buck stops with him.

Nobody needs to make a scapegoat out of Smith. He does a darn fin job of trashing his own reputation to anyone with better eyesight than Stevie Wonder.

But this is derailing a thread on a different topic, which I apologize for starting; so let's get back on point in this one.

Hail.

[DaSkinzBaby]

Yes, I'm sure that's why he became our coach.

It sure didn't take the Browns, Lions, 49ers, Cardinals, Rams, Dolphins, Jets, Bills, Titans, or Bucs "2 years at most" to turn around. Might want to veil your Shanahatred a little more next time.

I don't have any hatred at all, I am simply questioning some of his choices and decisions as I have a right too. I also think with one or two years of Rex Ryan going to the Jets and Harbaugh going to the 49ers they did have a turn around, what it took the Cardinals what 3 years with Whisenhunt? The Lions too took what 2 years after Martin Mayhew took over? It doesn't take 5 full years for a future HOF coach to turn a program around unless he doesn't know what to he is doing. I like Shanny as our HC but just like he messed up in Denver, I fear he is doing the same thing here, and I have every right to voice that. The fact is he was asked after a year off why did he come back, he said he came back to work with his son and get his son experience, hell he said that right after being interviewed, sorry if that isn't what you want to hear. I bet you now that the Rams have Fisher by next year they will have it turned around, Cleveland won't have it changed until Holmgren leaves, he is HEAD COACH material only, when you give him too much power he screws up, check his resume in Seattle before he got all the power to what he did when he was just the coach. The Bucs too will be in the playoffs as well within 2 years. The Dolphins, Bills and Titans won't because they have bad head coaches period.......

[Boss_Hogg]

It should unless there are other circumstances like the main reason for you coming back to coach is so your son gets more experience, or making sure it takes 5 full years to turn a team and organization around when it takes other franchises 2 at most.

Mike and Bruce had to build this whole damn team from the ground up. The only good players remaining from the 2009 roster were Fletch, Orakpo, Moss, and Zo. (Cooley and Portis were coming off IR). The team had no left tackle, no quarterback, no running backs, and one WR. The 4-3 defense was old and needed a complete overhaul.

Now, 2 years later the Redskins have a LT, QB, RB, a "posse" of young WRs, and a new defense. Are we there yet? Hell no, but Mike has this team heading in the right direction.

It's almost like the 2010 Redskins were an expansion team, that's how bad Vinny, Zorn, and Dan left it.

[Warhead36]

I don't get the issue here. If your offense is putting up #s, you're more likely to win. I'll take the #1 offense over the #15 offense anytime and take my chances.

The object of offense is to score touchdowns. I'll take a 1 play 10 second drive that scores a TD over a 10 play 10 minute drive that scores a FG every time.

[ncr2h]

The "Mike Shanahan" scheme is alive and well in Houston. They have won 15 of their last 21 games. Was that factored into your analysis of the inability of the "Mike Shanahan" scheme to win games? Seems like it wins games just fine and puts up gaudy stats at the same time.

[KCClybun]

If he had made a general comment like "Mike is an overrated coach" I would have ignored it. But his criticism was very specific. Moreover, Plummer was only verifying a suspicion. It provides a partial explanation for the Broncos offensive and defensive rankings after Mike took over full control. When an offense can move the ball well but can't play ball control, it makes the defense look worse than it really is.

The 2008 Broncos made me suspicious. #2 on offense, #31 on defense with eight wins.

Isn't that sort of confirmation bias, then?

I mean, if you already have a hunch, and then you're taking the word of one guy---a guy who's not terribly fond of Mike to begin with---to back-up your statement...

I think bad defense is just bad defense. It doesn't matter if your offense goes on lengthy, 8-10 play, 5-10 minute drives if the opposing offense can score 6 points on a 4-play drive and only take 3 minutes off the game clock.

What Plummer is saying doesn't even bare your statement out, because the offense Plummer ran was very much a "ball control" offense; they ranked 19th in passing offense and second in rush offense. The Plummer-led Broncos heavily utilized the run and minimized the streaky, inconsistent play of Plummer in a ball control, run-oriented, "just play the offense and don't **** it up" system. And yet despite playing that more ball control oriented offense, the Broncos only ranked 15th in total defense in 2005, their AFC Championship year.

Plummer has always insisted that Mike was unwilling to budge and refused to mold the system around him, which, first and foremost, is a bold-face lie, as Mike Shanahan ran boot with Plummer more than he did any other quarterback he had since Plummer was better throwing on the run than he was with defined progression reads. But he also resented that Mike held him to a high standard; guys like Steve Young and John Elway and Jay Cutler and Robert Griffin III responded well to that. Guys like Jay Shroeder and Jake Plummer and Donovan McNabb----guys who were always trying to coast on their physical ability and not dedicate themselves to their craft.

If you're referencing the article I think you're referencing, where Plummer was complaining about how they had a good record in 2006 but Mike was chewing them out during the week, the 2006 Broncos were probably the lamest 7-4 football team in the league, and Plummer's play at that point had been mediocre to say the very least---he was completing 55.6% of his passes, and had thrown 11 touchdowns and 12 picks. Plummer's argument was essentially "we were winning so what did it matter that we weren't executing"; I don't think Mike gives a crap about the offensive rankings. But his offense was barely mediocre.

This is what the Broncos scoring looked like when Plummer got benched for Cutler.

L 10-18 @STL

W 9-6 KC

W 17-7 @NWE

W 13-3 BAL

W 17-7 OAK

W 17-7 @CLE

L 31-34 IND

W 31-20 @PIT

W 17-13 @OAK

L 27-35 SD

L 10-19 @KC

The Broncos were barely pulling it out, and Plummer only played 4 games with a completion percentage at 60% (he had two games where he completed less than 50% of his passes). So yeah, if I had been the head coach, I probably would've been pretty pissed about the offensive production too.

I don't think the offensive rankings matter to Mike; if he was harping on them, it was only to showcase how bad they were playing, regardless of the win and loss column. I think Mike's Achillies heel is defense. I think he wants to control the defense the way he does the offense, and what he really needs is a guy who is going to tell him when he's wrong and who will bring in their own coaches to run the system. Haslett's the DC, but Mike hired all the assistants.

As for Danny Smith, yeah, he makes the calls, basically, on who comes and goes on special teams. The reason Banks is still here is Danny Smith. The reason Brandyn Thompson isn't here is Danny Smith. Mike give Smith full control over teams in addition to the three year deal he got.

[Boss_Hogg]

The "Mike Shanahan" scheme is alive and well in Houston. They have won 15 of their last 21 games. Was that factored into your analysis of the inability of the "Mike Shanahan" scheme to win games? Seems like it wins games just fine and puts up gaudy stats at the same time.

This.

The 2012 Texans remind me of the 1998 Bronocos.

[darrelgreenie]

I think there are too many moving parts to this discussion.

But as a fan of Mike's Denver offenses (Elway/TD) they seemed to be very much ball control offenses that featured more then just ZBS in the run game. They mixed stretch zone with power w/ pulls and traps etc.

[Oldfan]

I don't have any hatred at all, I am simply questioning some of his choices and decisions as I have a right too. I also think with one or two years of Rex Ryan going to the Jets and Harbaugh going to the 49ers they did have a turn around, what it took the Cardinals what 3 years with Whisenhunt? The Lions too took what 2 years after Martin Mayhew took over? It doesn't take 5 full years for a future HOF coach to turn a program around unless he doesn't know what to he is doing. I like Shanny as our HC but just like he messed up in Denver, I fear he is doing the same thing here, and I have every right to voice that. The fact is he was asked after a year off why did he come back, he said he came back to work with his son and get his son experience, hell he said that right after being interviewed, sorry if that isn't what you want to hear. I bet you now that the Rams have Fisher by next year they will have it turned around, Cleveland won't have it changed until Holmgren leaves, he is HEAD COACH material only, when you give him too much power he screws up, check his resume in Seattle before he got all the power to what he did when he was just the coach. The Bucs too will be in the playoffs as well within 2 years. The Dolphins, Bills and Titans won't because they have bad head coaches period.......

Harbaugh turned the Niners around quickly because the main problem there had been the coaching. It takes longer when the roster has to be rebuilt. Here, Vinny had drafted for a conservative WCO and a 43 defense. When Mike changed schemes, we pretty much had to start over. Mike got off to a slow start in 2010, but he's done better lately.

[Oldfan]

I don't get the issue here. If your offense is putting up #s, you're more likely to win. I'll take the #1 offense over the #15 offense anytime and take my chances.

The object of offense is to score touchdowns. I'll take a 1 play 10 second drive that scores a TD over a 10 play 10 minute drive that scores a FG every time.

I agree that you didn't get the issue here. I did the best I could to explain the reasoning in my OP.