Shanahan Decision Not to Take Out RGIII

[KDawg]

Its cause its the off season and people need something to dwell on lol

Or simply because we disagree with his reasoning.

I don't think people are unintelligent for backing him with sound reasons. Quite the contrary. I don't agree in the least with that sentiment, but I don't cast people as morons, whiners, etc.

In my assessment, I leave the long term injury reason off the table for reason to pull him. I pull him due to football considerations. He was clearly not himself. He was clearly not first quarter vs. Seattle RG3. He was clearly not Baltimore RG3. He was clearly not Philly RG3 and he was clearly not Dallas RG3. He was a shell of himself and to me, it was obvious. He was affected by the injury to the point that he couldn't perform the duties that a quarterback is supposed to perform.

Now, pulling him for football reasons also helps his health. If he wasn't in, he isn't on the shelf. But that's more of a "bonus" consideration, truth be told.

I don't fault people for saying Shanahan would have gotten backlash either way. It's probably true. But that's normal for a NFL head coach. But I very much disagree with the thought process that anyone who thinks Shanny made a mistake would be claiming it was a mistake to put Cousins in if we lost.

Here's how I look at it, agree or disagree with me:

1) A quarterback has two physical responsibilities in a football game. Those are:

-Primary: Throwing

-Secondary: Running

2) Griffin couldn't perform his primary or secondary physical responsibility. In the 2nd/3rd/4th quarters combined he threw for 18 yards.

3) In my opinion, it doesn't matter how much your guy is a leader, and Griffin is just that. A pure leader... If he can't perform the basic physical duties of a quarterback he needs to be taken out to ensure the best interest of the team. Therefore, Cousins enters the game because he can throw and run NOT because he's a better football player. But rather because he's solid and capable of leading the offense.

4) If Cousins comes in and wins, this place is 100% excited.

5) If RG3 stays in and we win, he's still likely out for the rest of the playoffs.

6) If we put Cousins in and lose, we lose. There would be no complaint from me as I believe it was the correct move from a football perspective.

7) I don't believe Shanahan should be fired for that. But I do hope that he learned from it.

[ke27on]

Its cause its the off season and people need something to dwell on lol

It's because we disagree with the decision and think it was detrimental to the team. In the short term AND in the long term.

Like Kdawg and others said, he was INEFFECTIVE. Even if you don't consider his health, from simply a football perspective he should have been removed. It doesn't matter if he is a leader or not, its irrelevant when he cannot perform the duties of a qb which is throwing and running.

It only makes it worse that he was not only ineffective but also hurting himself more. If he was hurt and risking himself AND playing well, you could at least make an argument that in the football sense it made sense to have him in there. This was the worst of both worlds. All we got was an ineffective player who hurt himself more until he collapsed on the field.

It's not as if he was the only man left before darryl young would have to come in and qb or if the only options were him or a random guy from the crowd. He doesn't have a right to play any more than any other teammate when he no longer is able to play properly. It's that simple.

[TSO]

I agree with Shabby here. If Shanny takes him out, the very first question he's (RG3) gonna be asked after the game is: "Could you have stayed in the game?"...Then RG3 would confirm he could have...then...all (or a lot) of the same people bashing Shanny would be bashing him for taking him out and costing us a chance at our 8th win in a row.

I just don't understand why everyone has to find blame when something doesn't go as planned. To me, there's not always a right or wrong answer. At least that's how I feel about this particular matter.

They will swear up and down that wouldn't be the case. That they all "wanted Shanny to pull him so they would've understood". Never mind that they were all iffy about it as well. That we were all hoping Robert would get it together and with every pass he threw for a first down we got excited again. But we all know the majority of fans here are fickle and overly influenced by the hostile and sensational media that will make any situation they can bigger than it is which usually entails viewing it as a huge negative. This just confirms my more expanded views on the media and society in general.

A coach who just won us the division for the first time in forever with a roster filled with young up and comers is getting bashed to the point where some are calling for him to be fired because he really wanted to see this rookie QB he cares about so much come up big in the end and be a hero. To even insinuate anything other than that is disgusting speculation and a smack in the face of a coach who has proven he's trying everything he can try to bring this organization success. Robert told him he could do it and that he deserved to be the guy that wins this football game for the team. He wanted to be the hero. Mike, like the father figure so many are claiming they want him to be yet ignore one of the most important aspects of said fatherhood, allowed him that and trusted he could do it. That was his mistake but, my God, was it really that bad of a mistake? Showing that utter loyalty to Robert like that even when it was difficult to?

Why isn't the fact that Robert now knows without a shadow of doubt that Mike is behind him 100% and will trust him through any adversity ever mentioned? Why is it that we'd like to read some selfishness into Mike for not protecting his player when, in reality and with looking at the facts, it would've been the easier decision for Mike to bench him and play Kirk?

I know why. Fickle. Fickle, fickle, fickle. ESPN, WP, NFLN, etc... can influence the minds of so many so easily. If the media was talking the way I'm talking about it we all know exactly how everyone would be responding.

[E-Dog Night]

I wrote this in another thread, but just to state my opinion here (since more people seem to be looking at this thread):

If you've ever been in a leadership position, especially as a leader of a complex operation, you're being paid to do many different things. But at the top of the list is to make good decisions when there's very little time to do so, in the midst of chaos. Make the wrong decision, and the after-action review will rightly cast you in an unfavorable light.

Mike Shanahan is the leader of the Washington Redskins - not Robert Griffin III. Griffin is a soldier, Shanahan is his commanding officer. If Shanahan let RGIII dictate whether or not he went back in the game, that's a serious problem. IMO, Shanahan should have seen what the rest of humanity saw, very clearly: Griffin was hurting and ineffective.

If Shanahan takes Griffin out after that first series in the 2nd quarter, or at least by halftime, we're still probably looking at surgery, but not to the potentially catastrophic extent that we're seeing now. Players worth their salt will ALWAYS want to go back in the game. It's the coach's job to save him from himself in that situation and to understand that the less-talented but healthy player gives his team the better chance of winning. Make the damn hard decision which also happens to be the right one.

This isn't about blaming - it's about organizational leadership. The buck HAS to stop with somebody. That's Shanahan's role; he failed, and he should be taken to task for it. Doesn't mean he shouldn't get another chance or should quit, it just means he made a mistake and should be held accountable. If I were the owner, I'd tell him as much, and if he made the same mistake again, then he would not continue to be the head coach of the Washington Redskins.

[SuperBash]

If RG3's career is never the same, this will go down as one of the biggest coaching blunders of all time, whether it was Shanny's fault or not.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Leaving him in was the dumbest thing I've ever seen in many years of watching football.

Really? You don't believe that a few weeks from now, when we're all more detached from what happened, we might be able to find some dumber football decisions spanning the last half-century?

[wrecker]

Really? You don't believe that a few weeks from now, when we're all more detached from what happened, we might be able to find some dumber football decisions spanning the last half-century?

Yeah, like the conditioning test, endurance in the 2 minute drill and staking reputation on John Beck comes to mind.

[TSO]

Yeah, like the conditioning test, endurance in the 2 minute drill and staking reputation on John Beck comes to mind.

How about the 2012 NFC East champions while going 5-1 in the division? Yeah, that's normal for us, something small to overlook and instead focus on the aforementioned in your post instead. Yup sir doo dee.

[mojo]

Shanny said himself he will probably 2nd guess his decision and I have no doubt the team was behind his decision %100 BUT it was obvious that RG3 could no longer plant his leg and throw. Especially obvious on his deep pass that was interecepted. I don't think I had see him short arm a ball the entire year.

And to rub salt in the wound, I heard Greg Cossell on espn radio today. He rewatches the coaches tape of all of the games and has great analysis. Anyway he confirmed that receivers were running open throughout the game and RG3 was incapable of delivering an accurate pass.

[Shabby]

Like Kdawg and others said, he was INEFFECTIVE. Even if you don't consider his health, from simply a football perspective he should have been removed. It doesn't matter if he is a leader or not, its irrelevant when he cannot perform the duties of a qb which is throwing and running.

It only makes it worse that he was not only ineffective but also hurting himself more. If he was hurt and risking himself AND playing well, you could at least make an argument that in the football sense it made sense to have him in there. This was the worst of both worlds. All we got was an ineffective player who hurt himself more until he collapsed on the field.

Fair enough, but I guess we should have taken him out against the cowgirls too then right? 9/18, only 100 yards, and he was definitely hurting that game as well. What? Because alfred morris was a beast that game we get to leave RG3 in just to hand it off? If thats the case, get on shanny for not calling more running plays into the offense against the seaguls. Now you might say, the recievers dropped a lot of balls that game against the cowgirls. but they did against the seaguls too.

RG3 was, 4-0, after the injury? He got hurt. Injuries happen all the time. If he stayed in the game and won the game for us, there would be nothing to talk about.

Or simply because we disagree with his reasoning.

I don't think people are unintelligent for backing him with sound reasons. Quite the contrary. I don't agree in the least with that sentiment, but I don't cast people as morons, whiners, etc.

Oh trust me, I'm not calling anyone who thinks that shanny should have benched RG3 is a moron or a whiner. I only said that its something to do in the off season because every offseason there is something we look back and say we should have done this, we should have done that etc etc. You are entitled to your own opinion, i am not tryin to insult you, and i apologize if i did.

[wrecker]

How about the 2012 NFC East champions while going 5-1 in the division? Yeah, that's normal for us, something small to overlook and instead focus on the aforementioned in your post instead. Yup sir doo dee.

The question isn't about coaching. It is about decision making and personnel handling. Doo da, Doo da.

[Oldfan]

Really? You don't believe that a few weeks from now, when we're all more detached from what happened, we might be able to find some dumber football decisions spanning the last half-century?

I don't know about "we." All I can say is that I can't think of one and my comment was not exaggerated for effect nor was it brought on by emotion.

If the NFL Network does a top ten biggest coaching blunders show, I would expect this one to be the unchallenged number one.

[KDawg]

Never mind that they were all iffy about it as well.

You shouldn't deal in absolutes. They "all" were not iffy.

He wanted to be the hero.

Too bad. He shouldn't have been allowed to try to be.

That was his mistake but, my God, was it really that bad of a mistake? Showing that utter loyalty to Robert like that even when it was difficult to?

Bad enough to cost us a playoff game. But no, it wasn't damning, if that's what you mean. He still coached this team to a division title for the first time since '99.

it would've been the easier decision for Mike to bench him and play Kirk?

I'd argue that if it were easier, it would have been done.

Fickle. Fickle, fickle, fickle.

I'll counter your fickle with "angry, angry, angry that not everyone agrees with him."

[TSO]

The question isn't about coaching. It is about decision making and personnel handling. Doo da, Doo da.

Yes, of which said decision making and personnel handling led us to said NFC East championship and dominance within our division. Deedly doo!

[KokoMike]

E

Fair enough, but I guess we should have taken him out against the cowgirls too then right? 9/18, only 100 yards, and he was definitely hurting that game as well. What? Because alfred morris was a beast that game we get to leave RG3 in just to hand it off? If thats the case, get on shanny for not calling more running plays into the offense against the seaguls. Now you might say, the recievers dropped a lot of balls that game against the cowgirls. but they did against the seaguls too.

RG3 was, 4-0, after the injury? He got hurt. Injuries happen all the time. If he stayed in the game and won the game for us, there would be nothing to talk about.

Actually, a great number of fans would probably say we would have had a good chance to win if Cousins had been put in after the Skins went up 14-0. If RG3 had stayed in the game, and we won, and he was seriously injured, many rational people would say the same.

I understand your position, but to say there would be nothing to talk about? There would be much debate, on many fronts, many of the same debates as today.

[TSO]

You shouldn't deal in absolutes. They "all" were not iffy.

Too bad. He shouldn't have been allowed to try to be.

Bad enough to cost us a playoff game. But no, it wasn't damning, if that's what you mean. He still coached this team to a division title for the first time since '99.

I'd argue that if it were easier, it would have been done.

I'll counter your fickle with "angry, angry, angry that not everyone agrees with him."

I knew you'd get mad, lol... I really wasn't directing my post at you and I'd hope you'd see that considering I was focused on the posters who wanted Mike fired for this or "run out of town", but, oh well. I disagree it was as big a mistake as even you think, but your position is not what bothered me and it's certainly not what I call fickle.

And, meh, it's so easy for you to say "too bad. He shouldn't have been allowed to be..." when Robert didn't stare you in the face and insist he deserved it. Whatever your argument is against that, it simply can't stand strong because you weren't the one experiencing that. Too bad.

[KDawg]

Fair enough, but I guess we should have taken him out against the cowgirls too then right? 9/18, only 100 yards

I counter this with a simple statistic. RG3 vs. Dallas was getting 5.5 yards an attempt. Low for him for sure. Versus Seattle, from the 2nd quarter on? 1.6 yards per attempt.

i am not tryin to insult you, and i apologize if i did.

You didn't offend me. I just wish more people debated the point rather than point fingers at people who disagree and paint them as "whiners". *shrug* (as an aside, I understand you didn't do that, now. Just in general.*

---------- Post added January-10th-2013 at 01:46 PM ----------

I knew you'd get mad, lol...

Not mad, trust me brother. Not worth getting mad over. I wish people debated rather than dealing in absolutes that don't exist, that's all.

I disagree it was as big a mistake as even you think, but your position is not what bothered me and it's certainly not what I call fickle.

Fair enough, but I'd still debate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, as fickle as it may be. I also think some of those people will slightly change their tune as the playoffs wind down.

And, meh, it's so easy for you to say "too bad. He shouldn't have been allowed to be..." when Robert didn't stare you in the face and insist he deserved it. Whatever your argument is against that, it simply can't stand strong because you weren't the one experiencing that. Too bad.

I've done it before, brother

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't know about "we." All I can say is that I can't think of one and my comment was not exaggerated for effect nor was it brought on by emotion.

If the NFL Network does a top ten biggest coaching blunders show, I would expect this one to be the unchallenged number one.

Interesting. So, coaching decisions now.

[TSO]

Not mad, trust me brother. Not worth getting mad over. I wish people debated rather than dealing in absolutes that don't exist, that's all.

Fair enough, though it's hard not to with just how over the top some of the comments have been.

Fair enough, but I'd still debate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, as fickle as it may be. I also think some of those people will slightly change their tune as the playoffs wind down.

Yeah, but it's ridiculously annoying nonetheless and I'm tired of it getting like this after every loss on this board. As far as I'm concerned, this whole "Mike big mistake not benching RG3" saga is just another justification for whining that occurs after every loss and, though you hate that I put it like that, the amount of comments from the same type of posters (who are otherwise quiet) point to the truth of this fickleness I keep harping on.

I've done it before, brother

I know you have, coach, but not with a guy like Robert.

[Oldfan]

Interesting. So, coaching decisions now.

I don't know what you mean by that.

[KDawg]

I know you have, coach, but not with a guy like Robert.

No. Certainly not.

I would have had no qualms with going to Cousins, however. Especially once we got into the second/third and he was still showing signs of being unable to throw the ball. The switch would have been made, and it would have been in the best interest of the team.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't know what you mean by that.

Just clarifying what we're trying to rank. In your initial post on the topic you stated that leaving Griffin in was "the dumbest thing" you had ever seen watching football. In the follow up post you called it the worst coaching decision. That's all. I would ask how you'd rate them simply because, at this point, it's possible that this won't impact the length or effectiveness of Griffin's career or even result in any missed games.

So, if it's simply a matter of the worst decision based on it exposing your QB to risk, I don't know how to quantify that or compare it to other decisions over a fifty year period.

Long story short, I believe it was hyperbole despite you insisting that it was not.

[Oldfan]

Just clarifying what we're trying to rank. In your initial post on the topic you stated that leaving Griffin in was "the dumbest thing" you had ever seen watching football. In the follow up post you called it the worst coaching decision. That's all. I would ask how you'd rate them simply because, at this point, it's possible that this won't impact the length or effectiveness of Griffin's career or even result in any missed games.

So, if it's simply a matter of the worst decision based on it exposing your QB to risk, I don't know how to quantify that or compare it to other decisions over a fifty year period.

Long story short, I believe it was hyperbole despite you insisting that it was not.

It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen AND, at the same time, the worst coaching decision.

The possibility that it won't affect Robert's career does not matter because, since decision-makers don't have crystal balls, they can't be judged on outcomes. Good decisions sometimes have bad outcomes and bad decisions sometimes turn out well.

I did a quick Google search and found a West Point study which concluded that knee braces were ineffective in preventing further injuries to offensive players. Now, if I tell you that I had serious doubts that RG3 should have been playing at all with that brace, you might counter that it was hindsight on my part. But Dr. Anderson was being paid for his foresight. Surely he expressed some doubt about playing him at all. If not, his failure was medical malpractice.

Then, in the first period, just before throwing the second TD pass, Robert re-injured the knee. But, Shanahan allowed him to continue.

At this point, we have gross stupidity on Shanahan's part -- and that's even before we get into the football matters which KDawg has covered.

[TSO]

No. Certainly not.

I would have had no qualms with going to Cousins, however. Especially once we got into the second/third and he was still showing signs of being unable to throw the ball. The switch would have been made, and it would have been in the best interest of the team.

I get that, but if Robert was insisting he could do it we can't forget that, for Mike, it wasn't going to be easy to just pull him because he was showing "signs". The problem is, he was also showing signs here and there that he could actually throw the ball as well. We're forgetting that he did complete a few passes to Moss for first downs on third down. He also hit Hankerson on a big third down as well in the 4th quarter (which Hankerson dropped, though it was slightly off target). I think a lot of us are just looking at the game as a whole and how it generally went after the 1st quarter after the fact and applying it to Mike. We forget Mike was within a situation where there was still hope (as little as it seemed at times) his QB could manage it and pull through. With every completion Robert made (though they were few and far in between) Robert had more ammo to justify his position as well.

But, I agree, it was a mistake. I just feel bad for Mike. I view it as a lose-lose situation for him. Robert would not have known that he was going to hurt himself again had Mike benched him (none of us would have, of course), so Robert may have held it against Mike for a long time. Robert is ridiculously intense and I honestly believe him when he says he would've been livid had Mike benched him. I think Mike knew Robert would be mad at him forever about it, lol. Seriously. I know people will just overlook that, but I think that was the biggest determining factor and I feel bad Mike was put in that situation. I also believe, and I know I'm in the minority here, that Mike WANTED to put Kirk in and that putting Kirk in would've been the easier decision but, again, Robert is incredibly intense and overbearing when it comes to playing and he made it a point to tell Mike he'd be furious if he got benched. I don't think Mike was being a coward by listening, either, I just think he wanted to show Robert loyalty and that he trusted him. That was the mistake, which isn't really a big one to me. It's actually endearing.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm not really defending his decision as much as I think people the criticism is going overboard. It's becoming akin to a crime that Shanahan committed around here rather than a coaching decision that many disagreed with. For DECADES coaches didn't let players drink water during summer practices (not only at the professional level) and the entire sporting world joked about people getting knocked silly and playing anyway. Those things can lead to death or brain injuries yet our QB's knee happens to be the worst coaching decision ever made in the NFL. It's just a ridiculous overstatement.