Does Shanahans refusal to play younger players equate to ineptitude

[elkabong82]

The lamest argument going is playing time has to be earned.

Not the argument per se. That's utterly pertinent and correct. But that should stand for EVERY player. And quite frankly we have a bunch of starters who aren't fit to wear our jersey but they get sent out there week after miserable week to make the same mistakes and have the same piss poor play week after miserable week.

If those spots were being earned, that would make the same for the young guys viable. But they aren't. And it doesn't. More to the point we have a HC fighting tooth and nail to get ANY win, not bottom out at 3-13; and add to his lame case to keep his job. So he goes with what he knows and experience, such as it is.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

I also find it highly amusing that the posters who preach this approach the loudest are also the ones that excuse and defend the HC the loudest.

Apparently Coaching our team doesn't fall under the 'has to be earned' banner.

 

 

So where's your actual proof that players who aren't starting should be? 

 

Weird that you slam those bringing up actual evidence as defending Shanny, yet you bring up no evidence yourself, just assumptions. You never consider that despite some of the starters being poor, the guys behind them might be worse. Just how good do you think the depth can be on a team that was hit with a $36 million cap penalty? Oh, that's right, that fact and its real consequences are inconvenient to you and others on here, so you irrationally dismiss it as inconsequential and say it is an "excuse" for Shanny. It's not an excuse, it's the reality of the situation.

 

That being said, these last 4 games will determine Shanny's fate, or at least should. Lose out, adios, almost nobody will support him. Win the last 3 (ATL, Dallas, NYG) which are all winnable, and you end on a strong note and have grounds to stay, and those reasons are known no matter how many times you dismiss them. 

 

But how is defending the approach, that the head coach does use,highly amusing to those still in support/on the fence with the HC? If anything, supporting the same philosophy he uses would be logical. In fact, you said you support the philosophy too, even though you refuse to admit, for other reasons, that Shanny is doing it.

 

Are Morris, Reed, Amerson, Young, Robinson, Riley, Crawford, and Rambo not evidence of young players beating out vets? They are. Fletcher, Wilson, Morgan, Davis, and other vets have all lost playing time and/or been benched due to poor play when a better option was available. That has been a constant with this team under Shanny and frankly ignoring that to push the anti-Shanny stance discredits your stance on the issue. Are you even aware that a coach who isn't good can still have some positives? It's true. And when those positives are apparent yet you ignore them despite the obvious evidence in your face, it discredits your stance on the issue greatly. There are good reasons to fire Shanny, you've presented some of them, but from you specifically when you show a lack of objectivity on an issue like this, it makes it hard to not view other posts on Shanny by you as jaded rather than valid even though some of them have been previosly.

 

He has not shown loyalty to vets in his tenure here. His MO, even back in Denver, was you work hard to earn your spot and if you grow complacent and slip, and there is a better player, you're out. He benched McNabb for laziness in favor of Grossman, he shipped Fat Al out of here after trying to get him to play. He really took it to Al. He's started the young guys mentioned above. He's even brought up Nick Williams, Lance Lewis, and Chase Minnifield from the practice squad recently. 

 

Tell me, who do you think he should bench, and who should replace? That would at least quantify your argument.

 

Have you seen those players in practice or heard a lot of good reports from media through the practices on those players? What is your proof that Shanny keeps vets in and doesn't let better players play ahead of poor performers? We have a bunch of evidence to the contrary. 

 

You can rightfully criticize Shanny over this season, even with the restrictions that the cap caused. But this criticism isn't one of them. There's just too much evidence to the contrary, as has been presented in here. And so far nobody has given evidence of players that should be starting over poor performers but aren't. Sticking with it just discredits your overall stance because it shows a lack of objectivity. You've actually made some good points in other threads, and some are reasons why people like me are on the fence right now and not entirely sold on Shanny having year 5 just yet, and also why with every new loss we get closer to agreeing with showing him the door. But you should stick to where it is warranted.

 

One thing I've been glad with Shanny over the years is that young players who are doing well get their time. It's been shown time and again that there is an allegiance to good, hard-working players, not vets. The evidence sides with him on this issue. If there were young players doing as well or better than other players right now, they'd be out there, his history here shows that.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

And there blunders in elk again refusing to admit what's before his very eyes each and every Sunday.

And if the players behind are worse than those that continue to disgrace you, I and every other Redskin fan game in, game out; then you're ironically making a STRONG case against him being fired if that's the sum total of 4 years worth of rebuilding.

Hail.

*Edit* Word to the (un) wise. Neither I, Rufus, nor anyone else have to 'disprove' anything you write if we chose not to have the inclination to do so. Nor do you anyone else. This is fans chewing the crud on our team. Not politics or some ****.

The OP is as valid and pertinent as ANY rebuttal you seem to think quashes it you've made to press.

[elkabong82]

And there blunders in elk again refusing to admit what's before his very eyes each and every Sunday.

And if the players behind are worse than those that continue to disgrace you, I an every other Redskin fan game in, game out; then you're ironically making a STRONG case against him being fired if that's the sum total of 4 years worth of rebuilding.

Hail.

 

Why even respond if you're not going to actually address, or likely even read, what I posted? Had you read what I posted, instead of just seeing that I posted and taking a cheap shot, you wouldn't have crafted the response you did because you got my stance completely wrong.

 

Maybe constructive dialogue could have happened had you bothered to read. But your post shows you aren't interested in that. It seems like you just want to go to an irrational extreme where literally everything Shanny does is stupid and a disaster and you won't even address anyone with any sort of differing opinion, even assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be a Shanny defender, despite that not being the case.

 

How do you expect anyone to have a good discussion with you with such a stance and such a response?

 

But again, I'll refer you to the players I've mentioned and simply wait for actual evidence on your part in regards to this issue.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

And, FWIW, if, 13 weeks into a season, the culture here is guys not working hard enough to gain time over guys under performing on the field; then that is another major black mark against the HC and the atmosphere he's fostering.

Hail.

[elkabong82]

And there blunders in elk again refusing to admit what's before his very eyes each and every Sunday.

*Edit* Word to the (un) wise. Neither I, Rufus, nor anyone else have to 'disprove' anything you write if we chose not to have the inclination to do so. Nor do you anyone else. This is fans chewing the crud on our team. Not politics or some ****.

The OP is as valid and pertinent as ANY rebuttal you seem to think quashes it you've made to press.

 

"As you debate your fellow members we request you maintain contact with the content of the discussion within each reply, especially as any exchange becomes more heated."  

 

So tell me, how is responding to me, yet refusing to actually engage my points made, maintaining contact with the content being discussed? It isn't. I've pointed to many young players that earned their shot, some quickly too, and you have brought no actual evidence to refute. In fact, your post talks about the team being bad, but doesn't actually address the OP at all.

 

I can't imagine many on here will appreciate reading your posts that simply take lazy shots and don't further the dialogue whatsoever. If you're not going to engage in an actual discussion, then why even reply? 

 

So again I ask, what players here have not gotten their shot over a poor performing starter? Why do Reed, Hankerson, Amerson, Morris, and the others mentioned not qualify as evidence of young guys pushing out poor performing starters?

 

And I already addressed the issue about depth not being good, that's it's hard to be good in all depth areas with the cap penalties we have had. I mean, do you honestly think our safety situation would be what it is if we had $36 million to work with the last 2 seasons? 

[Dirt]

GHH, we all see what's before our very eyes every Sunday.  Lately, most of us, like myself who has defended Shannahan (to be clear, only his offensive philosophy...I like it...if only he could just be OC...) have backed off and DO admit that this performance is unacceptable.  

 

But this isn't a debate on whether or not Mike Shannahan should be fired, using the topic of "not playing the other guys because the current guys suck."  I think the point is:  you're dreaming if you think the guys on our practice squad or otherwise not drawn up for plays...are going to make a big difference now, or going forward.

 

Let's not get too outside the box...let's simplify.  Like you said, we see it every week.  This team is schematically flawed in most areas.  Ridiculous special teams, a defense playing scared and not confident whatsoever, and therefore an offense that's being asked to do everything to win a game since the other aspects cannot.  We're talking about MINOR improvement IF some young guy can make a play or two.  

 

While Mike Shannahan HAS failed in making sure all aspects of his team are solid, I think he has succeeded on this topic of player evaluation and who gets to play Sunday.  It's the Shannahan motto:  "whatever gives us the best chance to win".  I'm not going to go the cap penalty route, or lack of draft picks VIA RG3 route, but we simply do not have some miracle difference maker in the bullpen that's going to improve this team.  It's schematically flawed. 

 

I've seen you preach number 10, and you do it because he is a big time difference maker and a franchise quarterback.  That was due to a blockbuster trade.  Do you really think we'll find the same kind of difference maker on defense or O line or WR or whatever by simply playing the youngest guy?  That would be too easy, we couldn't possibly be that fortunate.  You have to earn your spot on a team, and along with Mike Shannahan's offensive philosophy, that's the other thing I like about him.  There will be no skipping along, there will be no free 'whatever go ahead and play since you're young" on this team.  Simple discipline and having to earn your keep BEFORE Sunday.  It's what the dallas cowboys DON'T have.  It's what makes champions.  It's unfortunate that all aspects of the team can't come together, but it's still important that a player must earn their spot on a team no matter their age, no matter the team's record.  

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I'm busy and will look later, but elk, YOU responded to me in the first instance. I put up a generic post aimed at nobody in particular and don't feel the need to dissect every last point you've made.

Hail.

[Wyvern]

Here's a quote from Shanahan's recent press conference, where he was asked a few questions that somewhat related to this topic:

On if he feels he has a good idea of what younger players are capable of if called upon:

“Yeah, you get a feel through preseason and sometimes they’ve got to earn the right during the season to get out there. So you’re evaluating these guys all the time on the practice squad. That’s part of the evaluation process.”

On if their usage in practice will change:

“No. They’re being evaluated every day like we talked about two weeks ago. Just because a guy is on the practice squad or because you’re out of the playoff race doesn’t mean somebody is going to be elevated just to see what he can do in a game. The best players are going to play and they’ve got to earn the right regardless if they’re draft choices or veteran players.”

+++

I suspect he also relies on his coaches about which group of individuals makes up the best unit to put on the field, team-wise.

[Skinsfan_13]

I'd like to see more of Williams. As for the o-linemen, I just don't think any of them are any damn good. If they were I think we would have already seen them.

[MrJL]

If Shanny wasn't playing them because they were no good there'd be tryouts and cuts, because as active players they could easily be forced into game time action with injuries

[garyclarkforhall]

The quickest way to lose a team's competitive drive at practice is to play players who didn't earn the right to be on the field.  If through the course of practice, Player B did not outperform Player A, then Player B shouldn't play.  That's the whole point of competition.

 

While we all would like to see Player B for the three hours a week that we see the team, the reality is the coaching staff sees them every day.  If Ribs or Gettis were better than what was out there through the course of a whole week's practice, it's hard to imagine a scenario where those guys wouldn't play (because Shanahan is most interested in winning a game at this point).  Unfortunately for us, this suggests that those players are NOT better than the guys struggling on the field now and speaks to our talent deficiencies.

[MrJL]

The quickest way to lose a team's competitive drive at practice is to play players who didn't earn the right to be on the field.  If through the course of practice, Player B did not outperform Player A, then Player B shouldn't play.  That's the whole point of competition.

 

While we all would like to see Player B for the three hours a week that we see the team, the reality is the coaching staff sees them every day.  If Ribs or Gettis were better than what was out there through the course of a whole week's practice, it's hard to imagine a scenario where those guys wouldn't play (because Shanahan is most interested in winning a game at this point).  Unfortunately for us, this suggests that those players are NOT better than the guys struggling on the field now and speaks to our talent deficiencies.

 

 

I tend to feel that unless Player A and Player B get the exact same chance you aren't getting a proper judgement on which is better.  Unless they're both getting 50% of the snaps in practice then how do you really tell?

[NewCliche21]

I tend to feel that unless Player A and Player B get the exact same chance you aren't getting a proper judgement on which is better.  Unless they're both getting 50% of the snaps in practice then how do you really tell?

 

Because that's not how it works.

 

How does my CEO know that I can't do my boss's job if he doesn't give me my boss's job?

 

I was a strong believer in the Shanaplan, but now the whole team can go eff itself.  However, you don't just put younger players in because they're younger; that's a very quick way to show veterans that their hard work doesn't matter just because your coaching sucks.

[MusicCitySkin]

It's more like he doesn't draft very good players. Putting a lineman out there that's potentially worse than Chris Chester points more to his inability to find quality non-RB players outside of the first round.

[MrJL]

Because that's not how it works.

 

How does my CEO know that I can't do my boss's job if he doesn't give me my boss's job?

 

I was a strong believer in the Shanaplan, but now the whole team can go eff itself.  However, you don't just put younger players in because they're younger; that's a very quick way to show veterans that their hard work doesn't matter just because your coaching sucks.

 

a business is not a football game.  In the current situation their hard work isn't working.  

[garyclarkforhall]

It's obviously a different level, but as a high school coach, I tell my kids that game day is the exam... the reward for what you do during the week... the coaches know because they are there on a daily basis with the players through drills, practice, etc... because we don't get to see that, we want some confirmation that these guys not the bench aren't as good.  The coaches are getting that each day.

 

The only thing that matters to athletes is keeping their playing time... you work all week to earn it.  The second you give someone else playing time they didn't earn through practice, you will never have a competitive practice again.

[Thinking Skins]

If a player can't beat out starters who aren't doing well on this team, then he doesn't deserve to get a nod. Chester and Licht. are playing poorly. Given the other young guys who have earned starting spots on this team, and did so fairly quickly, it stands to reason that if Gettis and Hurt can't easily outshine those guys in practice then putting them out there anyway is a bad idea. 

 

Thats one scenario. What I fear though is that you've got some guys on the bench who are good energy guys and / or good at one particular thing but not at other. So say Gettis is good at run blocking but not pass protection. Then there may not be much of a change in our performance by subbing one for the other. But at the same time, Gettis may actually be a better player than whoever he's replacing in pass pro, but not as good in run pro.

 

I know people hate madden analogies, but think about how they rate players. Sure there's an "overall" rating, but when we're comparing players we look at how well they run block/pass block/face speed rushers/power rushers/etc. And Madden has ratings for all these things. My fear is that Shanny's looking at his own individual ratings and saying "well Lich still rates higher than _____", but ignoring how badly abused Lich is getting in games.

 

Cause countering your example, what happens if and when (cause its already happening) the next guy like Tuck was doing sunday and Aldon Smith the week before and Trent Cole the week before that. Those can also lead to RG3 injuries including our star QB getting hit below the belt causing his dad to come in and see if he's still "functional".

[NewCliche21]

a business is not a football game.  In the current situation their hard work isn't working.  

 

I don't think that you're thinking this through.

 

In what way is football not a business?

[RandyHolt]

 

Alfred Morris earns starting spot after last week of preseason, RG3 declared starter right after draft, Jordan Reed pushes out Fred Davis, Rambo starts day 1, then benched for poor play, then earns his way back into starting roster, Hankerson pushes out Morgan, Amerson starts eating into Wilson's time. Barnett even pushed out Fletcher a bit. There are other examples as well.

 

Royster and Helu got injured. Alfred was the last man standing and seized the job. 

 

RG3 named the starter after the draft. Really?

 

Davis got injured around the time Reed got his chance.

 

Rambo started game 1 only because Brandon and Thomas were out. He could only get better.  Who is his competition again... Biggers?

 

Morgan looked slower to me this year. Anyways, he has been largely a blocking WR here. Hank did eventually eek past him, yes. But Hank had gotten a ton of snaps and was close to Morgan in snap count before beating him out. 

 

Barnett pushed London no where. Father time has pushed London farther than Barnett ever could.

 

Amerson has been in the lineup a ton but we often have 3 corners on the field. Long gone are the days that you only need 2 corners.

 

Regardless if the above is true or not, no OL have get benched for horrendous play.  Sugar coat it any way you want, Mike sucks at building his lines. He targets no namers in the late rounds, cast offs, and they fail to provide basic protections for RG3 as Kyle grooms him into an NFL pocket passer.

 

Save the, what if a backup is in there and blows an assignment and RG3 get injured speech. RG3 has taken countless blows this year, Instead of worrying about backup OL injuring RG3, what about asking the same thing and Kyle limiting RG3 to the "pocket".   Making him run the college option, and countless read options. 

 

What about asking the same about the starting OL?

[Thinking Skins]

Morgan looked slower to me this year. Anyways, he has been largely a blocking WR here. Hank did eventually eek past him, yes. But Hank had gotten a ton of snaps and was close to Morgan in snap count before beating him out. 

 

I think Morgan was our leading WR last year and now he's been reduced to returning kicks if he's even active this year. He may not be a gamechanger but he has been pretty reliable (other than a game costly drop early last year) and I'd much rather have him on the field than the necessary go ruote that we see from Robinson every game.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

>the guys we have out there suck

>they get the benefit of the doubt when we say "play the best players"

 

How do you know Gettis, Compton and even LeRibeyesteak suck in practice? At least, considering who we have as coach? 90% of the stuff he says is damage control for his ****ty decisions.

 

Sure you play the best players - but outside of QB, RB, and TE, why do you trust Mike Shanahan with determining who those are?

[RandyHolt]

The lamest argument going is playing time has to be earned.

Not the argument per se. That's utterly pertinent and correct. But that should stand for EVERY player. And quite frankly we have a bunch of starters who aren't fit to wear our jersey...

Good post.

 

Not see the forest for the trees

 

Mike is missing the big picture. The starters that are too good to sit, have produced our woeful record.  Unless Mike is going to accept blame or point it at his son ha, it's on the players. 

 

Well, they are Mike's woeful starters regardless where the blame game points.  And the woeful backups are not even good enough to compete with the woeful starters. This is Mike's body of work in year 4 of the rebuild.

 

So he is screwing up the development of the young OL, or has no eye for what the current NFL mandates in an OL (basic pass pro anyone?), or both.  Why do they suck, and is Mike not responsible for that in ANY way?

 

The guy that dresses these same 5 OL is the same guy that we trust to say the backup cannot help our team in any way. Not even by getting a series in our next blowout on Sunday, to grade their development for next year, see how they do against someone they can punch in the mouth.

 

Not all players are created equally, some actually perform better when they are allowed to hit. We can hit what, maybe once a week? I doubt there is any significant hitting in practice, yet this is where jobs are decided.

[RandyHolt]

 

 

I think Morgan was our leading WR last year and now he's been reduced to returning kicks if he's even active this year. He may not be a gamechanger but he has been pretty reliable (other than a game costly drop early last year) and I'd much rather have him on the field than the necessary go ruote that we see from Robinson every game.

 

 

Wow I had no idea he did better than Garcon last year. I stand corrected. This year perhaps, would you say he has been more of a blocking WR than a targeted WR? In between return duties.

 

I thought he looked great against SF and deserved more targets. I wonder if he was in the doghouse at all. If he looked that good against SF, why wasn't he targeted more early in the year.

 

I am not down on Morgan at all.

[Thinking Skins]

nm

[Thinking Skins]

Wow I had no idea he did better than Garcon last year. I stand corrected. This year perhaps, would you say he has been more of a blocking WR than a targeted WR? In between return duties.

 

I thought he looked great against SF and deserved more targets. I wonder if he was in the doghouse at all. If he looked that good against SF, why wasn't he targeted more early in the year.

 

I am not down on Morgan at all.

 

I just think our coaching staff have a problem with rotating players. It seems like players get locked into starting spots and can't even get time off even for like a few snaps. Thats why I get mad about not seeing Jackson more, not seeing Jenkins (the DE we drafted) more, not seeing Rambo more, Morgan, Robinson, even Moss. My guess is that they had decisions made about playing time (ala Helu and hankerson seeing an increased role) and they didn't really adjust that based on performance or matchups. Hankerson's been good but had some bad drops that Morgan wouldn't have. Morgan doesn't have Hankerson's size, but I'm not even in love with the big WR any more. Many teams don't have them and are still successful (look at Philly). I think we had a nice rotation at WR last year that wasn't pro-bowl worthy but it was good. Maybe with Garcon staying healthy it cut into Morgan's time though.