Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

We Have To Keep The Shanahans...

Renegade7

By Renegade7
in The Stadium

Keep the Shanahans for 2014??? (Public Poll)  

353 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Shanahan be allow to finish his 5 year contract even if we don't make the playoffs in 2013?


Recommended Posts

ZRagone

ZRagone

Posted
Posted

To me that showed Shanny doesn't have the balls to handle a player like RGIII.  I knowGibbs would have sat him.  At that point friction is the last thing on your mind.  It's about doing what's best for the franchise and the player.  RGIII maybe would have been upset for a day or two but would have thanked Shanny for looking out for his health eventually.

 

Gibbs would have? The coach that has publicly stated he'd have kept him in the game, and who allowed his starting QB to come back into the game with a knee injury because the player pressed him to do it? I don't necessarily buy that Gibbs would've sat him, not for any extended period of time, if Griffin was adamant that he could play and wanted to go in.

Running the ball 9x in the 2nd half and only putting up 3 points is "all we could do"?  On what planet?

 

We did not run the ball 9 times.

 

We ran the ball 17 times and passed (or were sacked) 20 times.

 

The same general ratio as the first half, where we ran the ball 19 times and passed 21 times.

Handling "Friction" is why he is paid the big bucks in the big leagues.

 

I don't disagree there. But I *really* wish posters on a message board would actually READ THE POSTS involved in the discussion.

 

A poster suggested that if we kept Shanahan we would lose RG3 because there is friction between them.

 

i suggested that it's a bad argument becuase you can't KNOW that if we keep Shanahan we'll lose RG3

 

Someone then suggested that we'd "lose RG3" if we kept shanahan, based on the Seattle game.

 

I referenced that the original poster was saying we'd lose RG3 because of his "friction" with Shanahan, and saying that if we had a coach that would've pulled RG3 in Seattle then THAT coach would probably have "Friction" with RG3 also.

 

Basically I was suggesting you can't say get rid of Shanahan because he has friction with RG3 AND get rid of him because of how he handled Seattle because we need a coach that would've sat him...since that would just result in a coach who would likely have friction with RG3 if we're too believe that RG3 had "friction" with Shanahan for things like the Cleveland game he was sat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

Posted
Posted

@louventuri Think we are headed for a coaching search


 


 


 


 



He's not getting an extension RT @King_Sharma @HTTR24_7 so if we extend Shanny you won't be happy? Still ... http://tmi.me/1bUGEb 


 


When asked if coaching change was coming:


 


HTTR24-7.com ‏@HTTR24_7



@UkRedskin1 With everything going on now..Yeah, think it's coming.


 


 


Now, our "insiders" don't bat 1.000 but they know their ****.


A coaching change isn't a pipe dream


Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZRagone

ZRagone

Posted
Posted

It's absolutely possible...

 

Then again, a Haslett change was possible too...

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say.....a coaching change is possible, but it's possible it won't happen!

 

Here's how this plays out:

 

1. We replace the coach "Ha! See, we told you!"

 

2. We bounce back and get to at least 8-8 and keep the coach "We weren't wrong, they were GOING to get rid of him, but they felt they saw enough at the end to give him one more year"

 

3. We don't bounce back but we keep the coach "We weren't wrong, they were GOING to get of him, but they felt they wanted to give him his full contract and a chance to work with a real salary cap"

 

I very much appreciate the informative, football related posts by the insiders and sometimes they are spot on. But I've RARELY seen them own up to predictions they got wrong, always coming up with an excuse why they were wrong and excusing it, which turns me off from giving them some kind of revered defference. Especially for "opinions" such as this which pretty much anyone could make and on a coin flip could get right or not.

 

I would not shock me one bit if we let Shanahan go and I wouldn't have any real issues with it happening...but I don't think that it's any more useful to hear as a prediction now than it was to hear about Haslett last year.


I dont care if we lose Mike, but I really dont want to lose Kyle.

 

I don't mind if we lose either...but if we do, I want an offensive coordinator that is inventive, imaginative, and willing to evolve the game to Robert's unique skill set as opposed to coming in and saying "We're doing it my way and the traditional way and that's it"

 

For all the guff Kyle got from McNabb and those who bought into him in the media about how they wouldn't adapt their play style to fit Robert's skills, Kyle's done a great job of being inovative with this offense. I'd hate to see that go away and us to just become a drop back team.

 

I want to keep seeing pistol. I want to keep seeing read option. I want to keep seeing different backfield looks. I think this takes advantage of a number of skills that Robert has that I think would be idiotic NOT to take advantage of.

 

If we can find an OC that can do that, then I have no issue seeing Kyle leave. Personally I'm a fan of giving Chris Ault a look, the guy who designed the Pistol. In large part becuase his use of the pistol was built off a power running game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SB17

SB17

Posted
Posted

Before Shanahan was hired, when was the last time you saw the Redskins putting up numbers like 45, or even 30, points in a game?  From Zorn to Gibbs II, to Spurrier, to Schottenheimer, to Turner, we just couldn't do it.  We are now.  The problem is the other team is scoring more points.  Kyle doesn't coach the defensive side and neither does his dad.  Haslett is the problem and he must go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
knowledge316

knowledge316

Posted
Posted

Before Shanahan was hired, when was the last time you saw the Redskins putting up numbers like 45, or even 30, points in a game? From Zorn to Gibbs II, to Spurrier, to Schottenheimer, to Turner, we just couldn't do it. We are now. The problem is the other team is scoring more points. Kyle doesn't coach the defensive side and neither does his dad. Haslett is the problem and he must go.

Before Shanny was hired, how many times did our defense rank in the 30's? He's on pace for the worst scoring defense in redskins history. He already owns 3 top 10 worst scoring defense in redskins history. He's the HC, he brought in Haslett and continues to stick with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SJValleySkinz

SJValleySkinz

Posted
Posted

Before Shanahan was hired, when was the last time you saw the Redskins putting up numbers like 45, or even 30, points in a game?  From Zorn to Gibbs II, to Spurrier, to Schottenheimer, to Turner, we just couldn't do it.  We are now.  The problem is the other team is scoring more points.  Kyle doesn't coach the defensive side and neither does his dad.  Haslett is the problem and he must go.

 

Did I miss something or is W/L still a creteria to judge head coaches on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SJValleySkinz

SJValleySkinz

Posted
Posted

We ran 6 times on our second to last drive alone, and still came away with a 37/36 pass/run split for the game.  27 points should be enough, but I'm more mad about the number of drives in the second half that got ended because of interior oline collapsing.  We didn't give up on the run, we again couldn't substain drives to keep running, one example being how we started the 4th quarter with two stright runs then two straight sacks.

 

Then you should be asking yourself why 5-7 step drops kept being called by the offensive coaching staff you're in here praising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SB17

SB17

Posted
Posted

Did I miss something or is W/L still a creteria to judge head coaches on?

I'm trying to make the point that the reason we are losing is not because we are not scoring enough, which is what the problem was in the past.  Surely, you remember not being able to score more than 17 - 20 points a game through the Norv Turner era (once the other team stacked the box with 8 players to stop Steven Davis, Norv couldn't figure out what to do), through the Marty Schottenheimer era (Tony Banks as QB and no offense to speak about), through the Steve Spurrier era (bingo player caller - what was his name?), through the Joe Gibbs era (Mark Brunell?  really?  remember that Tampa playoff game where we set some record with the least amount of yards ever in a playoff victory?), Jim Zorn (Jason Campbell - need I say any more?).  We couldn't score points.

 

The problem now is not scoring points.  Think how much more we could score if our defense could just get the other team off the field with a 3-and-out.  But they can't and that's why we lose.  W/L is still a criteria to judge head coaches on.  And in the past 20 or so years, it was because we didn't have a very good offense.  Now, we have a good offense, but our defense is terrible - beyond terrible, actually.  Words can't describe how bad they are.  Kyle has nothing to do with coaching our defense and Mike doesn't really either, having turned it all over to Jim Haslett.  What good is backing up our opponent to 3rd-and-10 when we know the other team will still get a first down?  It's deflating, actually.  Our defense refuses to get off the field until the other team scores a touchdown.  So, again, I say:  Haslett is the problem and he must go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redskins4ever28

redskins4ever28

Posted
Posted

 

Before Shanahan was hired, when was the last time you saw the Redskins putting up numbers like 45, or even 30, points in a game?  From Zorn to Gibbs II, to Spurrier, to Schottenheimer, to Turner, we just couldn't do it.  We are now.  The problem is the other team is scoring more points.  Kyle doesn't coach the defensive side and neither does his dad.  Haslett is the problem and he must go.

 

This is a great point. It was rare for us to put up 20 points before Rg3. Even during Shanahans era with Mcnabb and Grossman, we never put up 20+ a game. This year, and last year for that matter, heck, we put up 20 every game at the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

Posted
Posted

I'm trying to make the point that the reason we are losing is not because we are not scoring enough, which is what the problem was in the past.  Surely, you remember not being able to score more than 17 - 20 points a game through the Norv Turner era (once the other team stacked the box with 8 players to stop Steven Davis, Norv couldn't figure out what to do), through the Marty Schottenheimer era (Tony Banks as QB and no offense to speak about), through the Steve Spurrier era (bingo player caller - what was his name?), through the Joe Gibbs era (Mark Brunell?  really?  remember that Tampa playoff game where we set some record with the least amount of yards ever in a playoff victory?), Jim Zorn (Jason Campbell - need I say any more?).  We couldn't score points.

 

The problem now is not scoring points.  Think how much more we could score if our defense could just get the other team off the field with a 3-and-out.  But they can't and that's why we lose.  W/L is still a criteria to judge head coaches on.  And in the past 20 or so years, it was because we didn't have a very good offense.  Now, we have a good offense, but our defense is terrible - beyond terrible, actually.  Words can't describe how bad they are.  Kyle has nothing to do with coaching our defense and Mike doesn't really either, having turned it all over to Jim Haslett.  What good is backing up our opponent to 3rd-and-10 when we know the other team will still get a first down?  It's deflating, actually.  Our defense refuses to get off the field until the other team scores a touchdown.  So, again, I say:  Haslett is the problem and he must go.

Who put Haslett in the position to suck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Then you should be asking yourself why 5-7 step drops kept being called by the offensive coaching staff you're in here praising.

 

Just stop already.  The back to back sacks to start the fourth quarter were both from a shotgun formation.  Some of ya'll will say just about anything where you're pissed off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...