We Have To Keep The Shanahans...

[Rufus T Firefly]

That is an oddly specific question, which of course has no answer. However, I can give you multiple examples of coaches who did poorly before winning a Super Bowl.

Dick Vermiel was 9-23 in the two seasons before winning the Super Bowl with the Rams in 1999.

Sean Payton was 15-17 in his two seasons before winning the Super Bowl with the Saints in 2009.

Bill Belichik was 10-22 in his two seasons before winning the Super Bowl with the Patriots in 2001.

Not exactly what you asked for, but what you asked for was too specific. It can be shown that coaches can turn the corner after poor starts to their tenures.

I'm not sure if this really furthers the Shanahan debate, but I just wanted to point out that the assumption underlying your question is mistaken.

For the record, some of your numbers are wrong.

 

Payton was 17-15 and Belichick was only in New England one year before 2001- you're probably counting his last year in Cleveland.

 

It's not really my place to say, but the poster probably meant that it is almost unheard of for a coach to be in a place as long as Shanahan with as little success and then turn into a Super Bowl winner. I'm just guessing that's what he meant, and I would debate the merits of that question, but in that respect, the three examples you provide wouldn't have much relevance.

[markmills67]

What would be the chances of the Skins going after Mike Zimmer as DC, i think Shanahan went for him before Haslett, not sure if he runs the 3-4 but he would be someone i would be looking at for 2014. Also zimmer might want a change after a few years with the bengals.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I don't know how else to explain this. We had to pay the 21 mil. It was paid, done. The question is how it would count against the cap. If you trade or release a player, the bonus money accelerates into that season. If that season is uncapped, then there is nothing for it to count against. Trade Haynesworth then and the 21 mil (plus a little left over from the previous year's bonus) "counts" against the cap in 2010, except there was no cap for it to count against. It's gone after that year. 

 

Per your link, all the players we did release totaled 30.5 mil in dead cap (that's the same thing, those are the prorations from bonuses). That 30.5 mil "counted" against us in the uncapped year and then were gone.

 

Again, no one was punished for trading or releasing players in the uncapped year.

BTW, here are a couple of links:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/20-questions-about-the-uncapped-year/

 

 

Q.  Can contracts be dumped in 2010 with no salary cap consequences?

Yes.  In past years, teams had to weigh the decision to cut a player against the acceleration of bonus money applicable to future years.  In some cases, it cost more under the cap to get rid of a player than it did to keep him.

In 2010, bad contracts can be wiped off the books with no ramifications, since there will be no salary cap and thus no acceleration of bonus money.

Q.  Will more trades occur?

Probably.  In a capped year, trading a contract triggers cap consequences.  In an uncapped year, the cap no longer will be an issue.

Thus, player trades could happen with greater frequency than in past years.  Player-for-player trades specifically could increase.

Also this:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=5150926

[s0crates]

For the record, some of your numbers are wrong.

Payton was 17-15 and Belichick was only in New England one year before 2001- you're probably counting his last year in Cleveland.

It's not really my place to say, but the poster probably meant that it is almost unheard of for a coach to be in a place as long as Shanahan with as little success and then turn into a Super Bowl winner. I'm just guessing that's what he meant, and I would debate the merits of that question, but in that respect, the three examples you provide wouldn't have much relevance.

The numbers are right.

Payton was 15-17 in his two seasons before winning it all in 2009. Saints were 7-9 in 2007 and 8-8 in 2008.

Yes I am counting Belichick's last year in Cleveland. He began his Super Bowl winning season 10-22 in his two previous seasons as head coach.

Why no mention of Vermiel, which is probably the best example I gave? 9-23 in his two seasons before winning the big one. You cannot just brush that aside if you are attempting to say a coach's future will necessarily resemble his past, as it seems to me is the issue.

We could even add to this list of examples. Jeff Fisher, for example, had a 32-38 record as head coach of the Oilers/Titans before putting up back-to-back 13-3 seasons in 1999 and 2000.

I understand I did not give an example of a coach in exactly Shanny's specific circumstance, as was the original demand in question, but how absurd to ask for so specific a refutation. Any example of a coach who had multiple poor seasons before winning big should suffice, and I have given plenty of those.

The general assumption in question is that coaches cannot turn things around, and that assumption is patently false. My examples of Vermeil, Belichick, Fisher, and Payton should suffice to make this point (and I'll even bet you could find more, I didn't have to dig that deep for those).

[Renegade7]

 

Not sure if you are incapable or just choose not to.  But in the bottom line business of message board posting....you don't see it.  But you have plenty of company.

 

An interesting characteristic of the Can Shanahan Clan is that they frequently have to discount some portion of reality to advance their argument.  "If not for the 7 game win streak" or "The salary cap situation means nothing".  I wonder why that is? 

 

Inidividuals on both sides of this arguement are making **** up to make their points. Which is truely unneccesary since there's more then enough FACTS to make a case for either side. The only thing I dislike more then that is your comment and others making this an "us vs them" debate. This thread could die or get closed becuase of people losing track of their emotions and going after each other instead debating like adults about the original topic.

Some of ya'll need to tighen up...

[Rufus T Firefly]

The numbers are right.

Payton was 15-17 in his two seasons before winning it all in 2009. Saints were 7-9 in 2007 and 8-8 in 2008.

Yes I am counting Belichick's last year in Cleveland. He began his Super Bowl winning season 10-22 in his two previous seasons as head coach.

We could even add to this list of examples. Jeff Fisher, for example, had a 32-38 record as head coach of the Oilers/Titans before putting up back-to-back 13-3 seasons in 1999 and 2000.

I understand I did not give an example of a coach in exactly Shanny's specific circumstance, as was the original demand in question, but how absurd to ask for so specific a refutation. Any example of a coach who had multiple poor seasons before winning big should suffice, and I have given plenty of those.

The general assumption in question is that coaches cannot turn things around, and that assumption is patently false. My examples of Vermeil, Belichick, Fisher, and Payton should suffice to make this point (and I'll even bet you could find more, I didn't have to dig that deep for those).

Again, I am not defending the general premise of the question and don't want to waste more time on it. But what you're posting seems to have no relation to what he asked. He's asking about coaches who STARTED their tenures with teams that poorly and then turned into champs. You're skipping Payton's first year in New Orleans and using Belichick's record from Cleveland. That doesn't really apply.

[s0crates]

Again, I am not defending the general premise of the question and don't want to waste more time on it. But what you're posting seems to have no relation to what he asked. He's asking about coaches who STARTED their tenures with teams that poorly and then turned into champs. You're skipping Payton's first year in New Orleans and using Belichick's record from Cleveland. That doesn't really apply.

Got to me before my edit. I'll reiterate.

What about Vermiel, who went 9-23 in his first two years with the Rams? What about Fisher, who never broke .500 once in his first five years with the Titans before consecutive 13-3 seasons in year 6 and 7?

I feel like you are nitpicking the weaker counter examples and ignoring the stronger ones.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Got to me before my edit. What about Vermiel, who went 9-23 in his first two years with the Rams? What about Fisher, who never broke .500 once in his first five years with the Titans before consecutive 13-3 seasons in year 6 and 7?

I feel like you are nitpicking the weaker counter examples and ignoring the stronger ones.

It's not my argument, and not one I believe in , so there's no reason for me to debate any of it. 

 

I was just pointing out what he seemed to be asking, and why I thought those examples weren't relevant.

 

My guess is he would tell you that Fisher never won a title and that he's asked about Shanahan's 3.5 years and you are using two for Vermeil.

 

But at this point, I am spending too much time in someone else's head.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

That is an oddly specific question, which of course has no answer. However, I can give you multiple examples of coaches who did poorly before winning a Super Bowl.

Dick Vermiel was 9-23 in the two seasons before winning the Super Bowl with the Rams in 1999.

Sean Payton was 15-17 in his two seasons before winning the Super Bowl with the Saints in 2009.

Bill Belichik was 10-22 in his two seasons before winning the Super Bowl with the Patriots in 2001.

Not exactly what you asked for, but what you asked for was too specific. It can be shown that coaches can turn the corner after poor starts to their tenures.

I'm not sure if this really furthers the Shanahan debate, but I just wanted to point out that the assumption underlying your question is mistaken.

There's a huge difference between a 2 year tenure and a 4 year tenure.

With that said, all of those guys had their franchise QB on the roster year 1 of their regimes. We got ours year 3.

[s0crates]

Ha! Fair enough, not your argument to defend. I just hate to let an assumption like that go unchecked.

Of course there have been coaches who began their tenure poorly and turned it around. I'm sure the examples I have given aren't the only ones. In fact, I'm off in search of more.

[Redskins Diehard]

 

BTW, here are a couple of links:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/03/20-questions-about-the-uncapped-year/

 

 

Q.  Can contracts be dumped in 2010 with no salary cap consequences?

Yes.  In past years, teams had to weigh the decision to cut a player against the acceleration of bonus money applicable to future years.  In some cases, it cost more under the cap to get rid of a player than it did to keep him.

In 2010, bad contracts can be wiped off the books with no ramifications, since there will be no salary cap and thus no acceleration of bonus money.

Q.  Will more trades occur?

Probably.  In a capped year, trading a contract triggers cap consequences.  In an uncapped year, the cap no longer will be an issue.

Thus, player trades could happen with greater frequency than in past years.  Player-for-player trades specifically could increase.

Also this:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=5150926

 

There’s one caveat.  A new agreement could, in theory, reallocate to 2011 and beyond bonus money that was avoided by contracts terminated or traded in 2010.  Whether and to what extent this occurs depends on the terms of the new CBA.  Still, it seems unlikely that the new deal would reach back to 2010 and impose cap charges against teams that took advantage of the absence of a cap to clean the slate.

 

Seems like that caveat came to pass.  While it wasn't a part of the "agreement" it seems as though the league reached back into 2010 and imposed cap charges against teams that took advantage of the absence of a cap to clean the slate.

[s0crates]

Building on a previous post . . .

Tom Landry was 17-46-4 in his first five seasons as Dallas head coach.

Bill Walsh was 8-24 in his first two years in SF.

Jimmy Johnson was 8-24 in his first two years in Dallas.

Chuck Noll was 12-30 in his first three seasons with the Steelers.

I could keep going with this, but I think the point has been made.

[Rufus T Firefly]

There’s one caveat.  A new agreement could, in theory, reallocate to 2011 and beyond bonus money that was avoided by contracts terminated or traded in 2010.  Whether and to what extent this occurs depends on the terms of the new CBA.  Still, it seems unlikely that the new deal would reach back to 2010 and impose cap charges against teams that took advantage of the absence of a cap to clean the slate.

 

Seems like that caveat came to pass.  While it wasn't a part of the "agreement" it seems as though the league reached back into 2010 and imposed cap charges against teams that took advantage of the absence of a cap to clean the slate.

(sigh) No, it didn't. We were punished for dumping bonus money into that year. One more time- no one was punished for trading or releasing players that year, including us.

[Redskins Diehard]

(sigh) No, it didn't. We were punished for dumping bonus money into that year. One more time- no one was punished for trading or releasing players that year, including us.

cutting is dumping bonus money into that year.

it was an interesting edit of the quote. and if we want to proceed as if all we had to do to rid ourselves of 41 million of bonus money was cut the guy then fine. I am surprised to learn Shanahan wanted haynesworth on the team that much.

[Rufus T Firefly]

cutting is dumping bonus money into that year.

it was an interesting edit of the quote. and if we want to proceed as if all we had to do to rid ourselves of 41 million of bonus money was cut the guy then fine. I am surprised to learn Shanahan wanted haynesworth on the team that much.

Look, this is starting to feel like you're intentionally being obtuse. What was punished was teams structuring contracts so the bonuses would all count in the uncapped year. That's what Shanahan did and that's what we were punished for. No one was punished for trading or cutting players that year. NO ONE. That link you posted earlier said the players we cut had 30+ mil in dead cap money. How much were we punished for cutting them? Zero.

 

Last time: No NFL team was punished for cutting or trading players in the uncapped year. Say it with me: NO ONE.

 

And I left that part off the quote because it was 100% irrelevant. He mentioned the slim possibility that they could agree to a provision to punish teams for cutting players. Then, predictably, it didn't happen.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Building on a previous post . . .

Tom Landry was 17-46-4 in his first five seasons as Dallas head coach.  

 

And those first 5 losing seasons where the first five in the history of the expansion Dallas Cowboys. Hardly comparable. 

Bill Walsh was 8-24 in his first two years in SF.

 

And then won the SB in season three. His franchise first ever SB. 

Jimmy Johnson was 8-24 in his first two years in Dallas.

 

And then had 3 straight 11 or more win seasons, winning two SB's with a completely overhauled roster. 

 

Chuck Noll was 12-30 in his first three seasons with the Steelers.

 

Noll is finally more helpful to your point but then he did follow up his first double digit win season with four straight, including two SB wins. Unlike ourselves who have regressed MASSIVELY from our first under Shanahan. 

I could keep going with this, but I think the point has been made.

 

Not sure what your earlier examples were man but those are poor when you add more detail. And let's not forget all the above were first time NFL HC's. Shanahan is a 20 year pro HC vet. 

 

Hail. 

[Skins3000]

So I have a question for all of you 35 million dollar cap hit guys? The SKINS went 10-6 last year with that cap hit so what is the difference from last year to this year? Two, who was out there in free agency that could have solved all these problems on all sides of the ball? To be honest the team needed a 60 million dollar cap hit because even under Shanahan, he has only hit on two free agents out of damn near 15 guys he has brought in. Garcon and Cofield are the only two free agents that Shanahan has brought in that was worth a damn.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

So, To be honest the team needed a 60 million dollar cap hit because even under Shanahan, he has only hit on two free agents out of damn near 15 guys he has brought in. Garcon and Cofield are the only two free agents that Shanahan has brought in that was worth a damn.

Kinda makes you nervous about letting him bring in his guys this offseason with all that cap doesn't it?

[s0crates]

Not sure what your earlier examples were man but those are poor when you add more detail. And let's not forget all the above were first time NFL HC's. Shanahan is a 20 year pro HC vet.

Hail.

Other examples are detailed on the previous page: Jeff Fisher, Dick Vermiel, Bill Belichick, and Sean Payton.

This whole thing is in response to a challenge to produce coaches who were able to change their fortunes, my point being there have been many such coaches.

Interesting this idea of adding "more detail" you suggest. Might we not also look at Shanny's case in such context too? Might we not mention salary cap penalties and knee injuries? Or does such context only work for one side of the argument but not the other?

[Renegade7]

 

So I have a question for all of you 35 million dollar cap hit guys? The SKINS went 10-6 last year with that cap hit so what is the difference from last year to this year? .

 

The major difference between this year and last year is in 2012 we weren't dealing with Griffin taking nearly half a season to fully recover from his knee surgery. If he was playing like he is now at the beginning of the year, we maybe have at least one more win, and only one game out the lead for the division right now. Griffin saved our struggling defense(or didn't negate a dominant Morris) so many times last year, it wasn't even funny. With 21 of 22 starters returning this year, that is the biggest difference. Losing Lorenzo hurt more then we thought it would, just another example of the cap hit bitting us in the butt.

I can understand that fear of letting Shanny get all this money to sign free agents this coming offseason. But he's done such a good job drafting for this team and not signing stupid deals that I trust him with a change to sign above-average to elite football players instead of shoe-string fill-ins that we can get out the gumball machine to save a buck.

[Mania]

I don't know how else to explain this. We had to pay the 21 mil. It was paid, done. The question is how it would count against the cap. If you trade or release a player, the bonus money accelerates into that season. If that season is uncapped, then there is nothing for it to count against. Trade Haynesworth then and the 21 mil (plus a little left over from the previous year's bonus) "counts" against the cap in 2010, except there was no cap for it to count against. It's gone after that year. 

 

Per your link, all the players we did release totaled 30.5 mil in dead cap (that's the same thing, those are the prorations from bonuses). That 30.5 mil "counted" against us in the uncapped year and then were gone.

 

Again, no one was punished for trading or releasing players in the uncapped year.

This is not completely true. The raiders didn't get the 1.5 million that all the other teams received except Tampa bay. The reason was that they released Jamarcus Russel dumping his salary into the uncapped year.

[Rufus T Firefly]

This is not completely true. The raiders didn't get the 1.5 million that all the other teams received except Tampa bay. The reason was that they released Jamarcus Russel dumping his salary into the uncapped year.

Actually, that is nothing but a rumor. The league never said why it "punished" the Saints and Raiders. 

 

But it always seemed like it probably had more to do with Nnamdi Asomugha, who had a contract that voided after 2010 Or maybe Kamerion Wimbly, who had an option year fro 2010 that was out of conjunction with the uncapped year rules, so they declined it and franchised him. 

 

Even if Russell were the reason and even if that applied to us (and the chances of that are pretty much nil, and even slimmer for traded players), that would mean our punishment would have been not getting a cut of the Cowboys cap penalty, which would have been about $300,000.

[Skins3000]

   

The major difference between this year and last year is in 2012 we weren't dealing with Griffin taking nearly half a season to fully recover from his knee surgery. If he was playing like he is now at the beginning of the year, we maybe have at least one more win, and only one game out the lead for the division right now. Griffin saved our struggling defense(or didn't negate a dominant Morris) so many times last year, it wasn't even funny. With 21 of 22 starters returning this year, that is the biggest difference. Losing Lorenzo hurt more then we thought it would, just another example of the cap hit bitting us in the butt.

I can understand that fear of letting Shanny get all this money to sign free agents this coming offseason. But he's done such a good job drafting for this team and not signing stupid deals that I trust him with a change to sign above-average to elite football players instead of shoe-string fill-ins that we can get out the gumball machine to save a buck.

 

The team is in the same predicament as to records 3 and 6 losses as to last year but the team has way more penalties, way more lack of execution, and of course turn overs and I would give that credit to a rusty RG3 but to say Shanahan has a good draft record, that is not the case at all over 4 years now. Shanahan has drafted RG3, Morris, Williams, Reed, Riley, Kerrigan, and that about sums it up for quality players for a team that at least needs 15 out of 22 players to be quality. As to free agency, that is even more a joke when you look at Brown, Galloway, trading picks for McNabb, and Morgan. Stop it people, Shanahan would have been fired if this was the N.Y. Giants, N.E. Patriots, or any other good team with a proven track record over the past five years. The only reason Shanahan is still around is because this team has had such a lousy track record with coaches and has been embarrassed by past hires at coach. Now Snyder must ask himself maybe it is time to bring in a G.M. with a proven track record for once and start from there.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Other examples are detailed on the previous page: Jeff Fisher, Dick Vermiel, Bill Belichick, and Sean Payton.

This whole thing is in response to a challenge to produce coaches who were able to change their fortunes, my point being there have been many such coaches.

Interesting this idea of adding "more detail" you suggest. Might we not also look at Shanny's case in such context too? Might we not mention salary cap penalties and knee injuries? Or does such context only work for one side of the argument but not the other?

 

Between first time pro-HC's, one off an expansion team, and 20 year 2 time SB ones?

 

That's stretching 'context' to the limit and THEN some. 

 

The cap issue I'm leaving as it gets more and more 'interesting' shall we say the more I continue to read into things. If you can find the injuries those guys had to deal with, as EVERY NFL team has had to deal with since Leagues inception, I guess you can make a comparison. But it's a flimsy road to travel down in defence at best. 

 

Hail. 

[Renegade7]

 

The team is in the same predicament as to records 3 and 6 losses as to last year but the team has way more penalties, way more lack of execution, and of course turn overs and I would give that credit to a rusty RG3 but to say Shanahan has a good draft record, that is not the case at all over 4 years now. Shanahan has drafted RG3, Morris, Williams, Reed, Riley, Kerrigan, and that about sums it up for quality players for a team that at least needs 15 out of 22 players to be quality. As to free agency, that is even more a joke when you look at Brown, Galloway, trading picks for McNabb, and Morgan. Stop it people, Shanahan would have been fired if this was the N.Y. Giants, N.E. Patriots, or any other good team with a proven track record over the past five years. The only reason Shanahan is still around is because this team has had such a lousy track record with coaches and has been embarrassed by past hires at coach. Now Snyder must ask himself maybe it is time to bring in a G.M. with a proven track record for once and start from there.

 

It's hard to draft quality players when you don't have first round draft picks, but Shanahan has done a much better drafting in the later rounds for contributors then any coach in recent memory for the redskins. Guys like Roy Helu (4th), Richard Crawford (7th), Chris Nield (7th), Niles Paul (5th), shoot Kirk Cousins in the 4th are just a couple examples. We had 12 picks in the 2011 draft and 8 of the are still on the active roster, whens the last time we EVER had a draft like that?

3rd down conversion % in 2012 was 35.8% for 24th in NFL, we're 4th in the NFL right now 46%. We were 4th in total penalties last year, we're currently 15th. Hindsight is a ***** about the McNabb trade because he was douche that didn't want to learn the system and really was more done then we realized he was, but there's only so much I can say about or free agent acqusitions when we had to deal with the cap hit for two years in a row. I can say I love how we've gone from overpaying guys to bringing them in the reasonable contracts that we can get out of if it doesn't work, like larry johnson and willie parker. Just look what he did with our best corner, cut him because he wanted too much money then brought him back on a cap friendly contract.

We're a better franchise then before shanahan got here, the wins will come. Hell, we won the division last year, it's not like he can't do it, he's already done it at least once...