Mike knows offense, but....

[Oldfan]

Wait; doesn't this mean that you're in no position to determine whether or not Mike Shanahan is a good coach or not?

If we can't call Danny Smith a bad coach because we simply don't understand anything about coaching, then surely we can't call Mike Shanahan a coach who's soft on defense because we don't understand, right?

We have already covered this ground.

1) It's not my position that we can't judge coaches at all. It's my position that we can't judge coaches simply from results such as the unit's ranking unless he has full personnel control of his unit (Danny Smith doesn't have that control).

2) I made no attempt to judge Shanahan's coaching in this thread. I made a comparison between the rankings of his offenses and his defenses over 16 years. Since he had full control of his teams, that makes sense.

Coaches who aren't also GMs ought to be judged on how well they played the personnel hand they were dealt. If you understand and agree with that position, we should have no problem. Do you understand and agree?

---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 04:52 AM ----------

and morneblade wins. kudos good man

His argumentative BS trumps my objection to it? Why?

---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 05:05 AM ----------

Its almost like he took over a real ****ty team, that had been ****ty for basically 20 years.

We are 7th against the run, or is now Shanny (who again doesn't run the defense) teams don't do well against the pass)

The team isn't perfect, that is what happens when you have morons running the team for so long, this is year 3 of shanny and look where were are... so much better off. Look he didn't sign hall, Rogers didn't want to play here anymore, he didn't injure our guys this year, he wasn't the reason laron wouldnt get surgery, or the reason we lost half our cap.

This is just a thread to complain about nothing.

This season our offense has been considerably better than our defense. My OP pointed out that, for the 16 coaching years prior to this season, Mike's offenses, on the average, have ranked much higher than his defenses.

The excuses you offered for this season don't explain that 16-year disparity.

[SirClintonPortis]

True, but sometimes you get lucky. Remember Chris Horton back in 2008? He was a 7th rounder who got named NFC Defensive Player of the Week in his first game, and had a tremendous rookie year. Unfortunately, he had some injury issues later, but he was a great draft steal for a while. This team had so many greater needs than back-up QB when Cousins was drafted.

Well, I never said the probability of something occuring was 0, aka impossible. But the chances of bottom rounders becoming substantially more than just "barely solid" like Reed Doughty or one-year wonders Horton are worse than rolling a die and guessing the right value rolled.

One year wonders like Horton are still not what is desired out of any draft pick. Where is Horton now? Exactly. He's not helping our team. His NFL lifespan was only slightly better than the typical mid- or bottom- rounder. In the fourth round, the barrel-scraping has already begun, and you're much better off realizing that you're playing a game like Russian Roulette than buying something certain at the grocery store when drafting in the fourth round. Steals and pan outs are pleasant surprises, NOT sureties.

[Bang]

(Danny Smith doesn't have that control).

.

You have proof of that?

show me any quote from Shanahan or Allen anywhere that says he doesn't have control over who his specialists are.

You know, play by your own rules.

Provide links and quotes.

Prove it, or toss it... or admit you don't know and you're making an assumption.

~Bang

[Mursilis]

Well, I never said the probability of something occuring was 0, aka impossible. But the chances of bottom rounders becoming substantially more than just "barely solid" like Reed Doughty or one-year wonders Horton are worse than rolling a die and guessing the right value rolled.

One year wonders like Horton are still not what is desired out of any draft pick. Where is Horton now? Exactly. He's not helping our team. His NFL lifespan was only slightly better than the typical mid- or bottom- rounder. In the fourth round, the barrel-scraping has already begun, and you're much better off realizing that you're playing a game like Russian Roulette than buying something certain at the grocery store when drafting in the fourth round. Steals and pan outs are pleasant surprises, NOT sureties.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but we know for sure that Cousins can't play DB, LB, or anywhere on either line, so what's better, a slim chance, or no chance?

[Oldfan]

You have proof of that?

show me any quote from Shanahan or Allen anywhere that says he doesn't have control over who his specialists are.

You know, play by your own rules.

Provide links and quotes.

Prove it, or toss it... or admit you don't know and you're making an assumption.

~Bang

I'll admit that's an assumption based on common NFL football knowledge: coaches rarely have full control of their personnel.

I don't ask people to prove statements that are based on common knowledge.

BTW: My statement wasn't limited to Danny's specialists.

---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 11:07 AM ----------

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but we know for sure that Cousins can't play DB, LB, or anywhere on either line, so what's better, a slim chance, or no chance?

I'm not a Shanahan apologist, but after seeing Cousins perform, I think the fourth pick was well-spent. I think he could run the offense very well if Robert goes down.

[Mursilis]

I'm not a Shanahan apologist, but after seeing Cousins perform, I think the fourth pick was well-spent. I think he could run the offense very well if Robert goes down.

My gripe has nothing to do with Cousins himself - he's shown some competence, and I only wish him the best - and more to do with the lack of depth at multiple positions which could have been addressed with that pick, and weren't. Cousins was a luxury pick by a team which could not afford the luxury.

[Brotherz]

I want to apologize from the get go here but I am lost to be honest with you all. The bickering and fighting etc has blurred the point of this thread for me.

Is the argument OF that Mike routinely puts up good offenses and lousy defenses and therefore will continue to do so and we are seeing it right now in front of us with the current team?

If so, are you suggesting something should be done? (Ie. firing Mike?) I'm not necessarily blaming you OF, the thread has just gotten a bit cluttered - what is your point here?

[Oldfan]

My gripe has nothing to do with Cousins himself - he's shown some competence, and I only wish him the best - and more to do with the lack of depth at multiple positions which could have been addressed with that pick, and weren't. Cousins was a luxury pick by a team which could not afford the luxury.

Our difference really resolves to NEED v. BPA. I'm solidly in the BPA camp.

[darrelgreenie]

I'm not a Shanahan apologist, but after seeing Cousins perform, I think the fourth pick was well-spent. I think he could run the offense very well if Robert goes down.

I think this offense falls off a cliff in terms of production if Cousin's is the QB because this offense is predicated on Griffin's threat in the running game.

I'm all for BPA as long as your are building a team with those picks as opposed to merely collecting talent. I don't think the Cousin's helped build this team.

[clskinsfan]

His biggest fault was ditching a top 10 4-3 defense for this garbage we are watching right now. Had he stuck with the 4-3 we would be a very good team right now. JMO.

[Oldfan]

I want to apologize from the get go here but I am lost to be honest with you all. The bickering and fighting etc has blurred the point of this thread for me.

Is the argument OF that Mike routinely puts up good offenses and lousy defenses and therefore will continue to do so and we are seeing it right now in front of us with the current team?

If so, are you suggesting something should be done? (Ie. firing Mike?) I'm not necessarily blaming you OF, the thread has just gotten a bit cluttered - what is your point here?

I'm a target for the argumentative types because I represent a challenge for them. I've tried ignoring them in other threads but that doesn't help. They end up cluttering my threads no matter what I do.

My argument here is simply that what we are seeing now, an offense outperforming the defense, is nothing new for Mike Shanahan. We can speculate on the causes, but it's only speculation. You are free to draw your own conclusions. Mine is that Mike will have to change something in his management approach if he is to stop his defenses from dragging down the overall quality of his teams.

[Brotherz]

His biggest fault was ditching a top 10 4-3 defense for this garbage we are watching right now. Had he stuck with the 4-3 we would be a very good team right now. JMO.

I get your dissatisfaction but I don't think anyone can rationally argue that the 3-4 as a defensive system is ineffective. The reality is it is growing in popularity with NFL coaches and GM's not getting less popular. I have no problem with Mike deciding to run a 3-4 and I was fully prepared for it to take some time. YES, I agree with you that with the personnel we had at the time Mike came in, a 4-3 was certainly more suitable but we were clearly not going to be contending for a while and IF you really believed the 3-4 offered more flexibility, pressure and the ability to turn the opponent over (a widely held belief) I am fine with doing it right out of the box.

I think this defensive failure is the residual of poor cap management BEFORE Mike showed up. The cap penalty is absolutely devastating. Its not an excuse, its a REASON for the subpar personnel we have. This team may very well have had better safeties and corners if we had that $18 mil. BUT, that being said, I am not just going to stomp around and be mad at Mara. Sure it was a railroad job by Mara but the only reason Mara could even be in a position to railroad us is because we tried to dump a financial mess WE as an organization created (again before Mike got here).

Years and years of financial mismanagement put us in a position where we tried (within the rules!) to dump cap crippling contracts in an uncapped year. We got screwed ONLY because an uncapped year happened when we tried to take advantage of it and we got called on it even though we were technically within the rules in that one year. But to just be pissed at Mara misses a bigger issue - we were poorly managed financially and in a capped free agency league you win as much with your GM as you do with your QB.

We lack personnel. That's the reality. We have no depth for these injuries. We took high risk positions with Tanard Jackson and Meriweather BECAUSE WE HAD TO. We didn't have the money to get a guy like Carr or Finnegan and then try and slide Dhall to FS or any other more feasible approach to this issue.

Its not the 3-4 IMO and its not that Mike is destined to have bad defenses. I can fix this defense so I certainly think Mike Shannahan can. We need new personnel in the back end and even more depth in the front 7. It costs money. We have to continue to make fiscally responsible decisions (and we are now) and serve our sentence for the financial mismanagement of this team for over a decade under Snyderatto. We are moving the right direction. The personnel will be replaced and this team will be ultra competitive well before shanny's five year plan is over. Anyone who looks at the product on the field and honestly says they believe this team will not be a playoff team in 2014 (Shanny's 5th year) is really fooling themselves or simply hating on us.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

No, this is a huge myth. That 2009 4-3 defense was not top 10, except it didn't give up yards because teams didn't need to play that aggressive to win. That defense was tremendously old, had a lot of malcontents on it, and would have needed to be torn down regardless. The mistake was that Shanny hired Jim Haslett, not Romeo Crennel to run the 3-4. Also, trading picks for McNabb that could have gotten us players to fill the defense (though it was an understandable mistake at the time, Mike thought he could turn McNabb into Elway).

But I think more fundamentally, the reason why this defense sucks, aside from Haslett's incompetence, is because this is the inevitable result of having your superstar top 5 pick FS shot to death, and your near superstar SS blow his Achilles and not get surgery on it like a moron, your 100 million dollar stud DT lard up once he got paid, and your solid top 10 corner want out of here SO BAD that he refused to get an eye exam. We invested a lot in the back end and it pretty much went down the drain.

[Mursilis]

Our difference really resolves to NEED v. BPA. I'm solidly in the BPA camp.

So if Shanny picked another QB or two in next year's draft, you'd be OK with it as long as you believed that QB was the BPA? Collecting talent is nice and all, but if it means not having depth elsewhere, or having talent that will never get on the field and therefore never help you.

[Oldfan]

I think this offense falls off a cliff in terms of production if Cousin's is the QB because this offense is predicated on Griffin's threat in the running game.

The playcalling would change, of course. I think Cousins has the tools to run standard Shanahan very well.

I'm all for BPA as long as your are building a team with those picks as opposed to merely collecting talent. I don't think the Cousin's helped build this team.

We disagree again, DG. Good coaching will find ways to use good talent just as Mike is trying to find sound ways to use Griffin's skillset.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Our difference really resolves to NEED v. BPA. I'm solidly in the BPA camp.

I am too. I think the Cousins pick proves that the front office is trying to build for the long-term. The easy choice to make there is a DB because that player could potentially help you this year. By picking another rookie QB, Shanahan showed that he's addressing the entire roster and looking years into the future.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

So if Shanny picked another QB or two in next year's draft, you'd be OK with it as long as you believed that QB was the BPA? Collecting talent is nice and all, but if it means not having depth elsewhere, or having talent that will never get on the field and therefore never help you.

My answer (since you didn't ask) is that you'd need to have a place on the depth chart for the player. Picking a QB next year is probably not a good idea since we have our QB1 and QB2 in house. If there was another RG3 out there (in other words, if the player picked could force an existing player off the team) then maybe you do it. Otherwise, you go BPA within the positions where there are legitimate openings.

Last year's QBs were Beck and Grossman, we could afford to strengthen that position during the draft. We now should be solid there for 15 years.

[Oldfan]

So if Shanny picked another QB or two in next year's draft, you'd be OK with it as long as you believed that QB was the BPA? Collecting talent is nice and all, but if it means not having depth elsewhere, or having talent that will never get on the field and therefore never help you.

You can raise objections to even the soundest approach by injecting extreme hypotheticals.

[darrelgreenie]

I am too. I think the Cousins pick proves that the front office is trying to build for the long-term. The easy choice to make there is a DB because that player could potentially help you this year. By picking another rookie QB, Shanahan showed that he's addressing the entire roster and looking years into the future.

Just because a non-QB can help you this year doesn't preclude them from helping the team in the future. Its not a situation where one draft pick can helps the team for the future and the other can't.

[skins4eva]

My answer (since you didn't ask) is that you'd need to have a place on the depth chart for the player. Picking a QB next year is probably not a good idea since we have our QB1 and QB2 in house. If there was another RG3 out there (in other words, if the player picked could force an existing player off the team) then maybe you do it. Otherwise, you go BPA within the positions where there are legitimate openings.

Last year's QBs were Beck and Grossman, we could afford to strengthen that position during the draft. We now should be solid there for 15 years.

Good point. I don't think anyone anticipated that RGIII would be this good and this soon. The irony is we could have been a super bowl contending team with a half decent defense this year. Very frustrating.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just because a non-QB can help you this year doesn't preclude them from helping the team in the future. Its not a situation where one draft pick can helps the team for the future and the other can't.

Sure. I agree that a DB could help the team for as many as 20 years (#28). My point was that the Cousins pick wouldn't help us in 2012 (hopefully). The fact that Shanahan still selected him over a DB or OL shows that he was forward thinking since those two positions very well could start helping us sooner than Cousins might. The only point I was (poorly) attempting to make is that it proves that the culture has changed around here when our decision-makers are focused on bringing in the best talent with each pick to make our entire roster as strong as possible. If KC was the best value on the board, he was taken even though we hoped that he wouldn't take a snap in 2012.

[darrelgreenie]

The playcalling would change, of course. I think Cousins has the tools to run standard Shanahan very well.

I agree that Cousin's could probably run the traditional Shanahan offense as could Griffin. But, I think this team has a lack of surrounding talent that Griffin and the current scheme elevate and without Griffin and the scheme the production in every facet starting with the running game would plummet.

We disagree again, DG. Good coaching will find ways to use good talent just as Mike is trying to find sound ways to use Griffin's skillset.

I don't disagree that good coaching will find the way to use talent. I disagree that drafting a 2nd prospect at a 1 starter position was the best choice to build a team.

[Oldfan]

Just because a non-QB can help you this year doesn't preclude them from helping the team in the future. Its not a situation where one draft pick can helps the team for the future and the other can't.

BPA theory doesn't preclude allowing need to trump the BPA on close calls. Its major premise is that the team should not stretch very far to fill a need. If the Skins were to stretch to fill a need at DB that means they are selecting against their own best judgment. That isn't smart.

[Bang]

Good point. I don't think anyone anticipated that RGIII would be this good and this soon. The irony is we could have been a super bowl contending team with a half decent defense this year. Very frustrating.

Oh, i don't know.. i mean obviously no one has a crystal ball, but the Redskins gave up one hell of a lot for the opportunity to draft him. (I know they say that him or Luck was OK by them, but in seeing how thy've transformed, i think they had RG3 in mind the whole time.).

it's either one huge gamble, or they were very sure.

I've never been as impressed with the entire package of a young player than i have been with RG3.. i can only imagine how much he floored those guys in the know.

We absolutely mortgaged our ability to pick high for several years (barr ng other trades).. It's almost George Allen-esque in the willingness to trade the picks.

~Bang

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It's almost George Allen-esque in the willingness to trade the picks.

~Bang

Except Griffin isn't 34!