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

Thomas Boswell: Mike Shanahan is a "weasel of a coach who defames his enemies, deflects blame and now may duck out of town"

Boss_Hogg

By Boss_Hogg
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

 

I am now just wildly entertained by this story.

 

This team knows how to end a losing season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dckey

dckey

Posted
Posted

If you fire Mike does Kyle have to go?  Would you trust Kyle after firing his dad to still call the plays for your QB,  who you think is the reason that Mike is getting fired?  If you let both go, who will the OC be and have any of them ever called plays before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mursilis

Mursilis

Posted
Posted

I don't think he did. That's what is bizarre to me in all this. Until yesterday, I thought this team was competing. They were bad, but they were professional.

 

Shanahan is the obvious plant of that story and the clear effect was to undermine the team.

 

And that is such an un-Shanahan thing to do. This is guy who kept his dignity in a public spat with Al Davis after all. When he was finally let go in Denver, the owner freaking cried.

 

The story to me is that Snyder is such an awful owner that he turned Mike Shanahan into an unprofessional, team-destroying, quitting basket case.

 

That's not a good thing.

 

Shanahan took the high road with owners prior to coaching here because he didn't want to get fired, but there were stories about him treating players and other underlings poorly, and his monster ego was no secret.  Working for the Redskins didn't fundamentally change his (lack of) character. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

Shanahan took the high road with owners prior to coaching here because he didn't want to get fired, but there were stories about him treating players and other underlings poorly, and his monster ego was no secret.  Working for the Redskins didn't fundamentally change his (lack of) character. 

 

Look, I would have fired Shanahan after his first year here so I am not comfortable being put into the position of defending him. I know he has an ego, but so does every NFL coach. But the one thing that has always been clear about him is that he runs teams the way they should be run.

 

Nate Jackson was hardly a star player and hardly someone who blindly worships the NFL. And this what he had to say about Shanahan.

 

But surely the stories were overblown. Their color was more vibrant because of the contrast. They were being told in the peaceful valley of Shanahan: the heaven to Mangini's hell. Mike Shanahan knew how to run a team. That meant he knew how to treat the men on it. Being a head football coach is not about being a strategic genius.

Every coach in the NFL knows football strategy. It's about leading a group of grown men toward a tangible goal and treating them with the respect their sacrifice deserves. That's how you get them to play well. Many players, upon arriving in Denver, were flabbergasted by how well Shanahan treated them.

—You don't know how good we got it here, man.

I always heard it, but I never understood it. Coach Shanahan was all I really knew. He was the model of an NFL coach in my mind. I went through one camp with Steve Mariucci and one with Dennis Erickson, but these were back when I was a boy in the NFL, too consumed with my own performance to pay any attention to the performance of my coaches.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/manginis-mess-sent-to-save-the-cleveland-browns-eric-mangini-instead-put-on-a-clinic-on-how-to-drive-a-teams-morale-into-the-ground/Content?oid=3625467&showFullText=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites
8181

8181

Posted
Posted

I can tell you a way that can possibly sway at least a FEW wins our way .. one thing that has been so embarrassingly bad this year but is pretty overlooked (at least at the severity of its impact) ... 

 

1) Bring in a good punter

2) Sign 2-3 special team specialists

3) Sign or draft a true return man

People forget how historically bad BOTH sides of special teams are. Opponent's starting field position and our OWN starting field position are last in the NFL ... that would be tough to overcome with a great offense and great defense ... let alone a struggling offense and a terrible defense.

 

Those 3 things are likely "cheap" fixes in the grand scheme of things. Those 3 things can at least make some of these blowouts respectable losses.

 

THEN you focus on rebuilding the defense ... and protecting your QB 

 

I do remember a few years ago, maybe the one that Norv got fired, the Chargers were ranked #1 in Offense AND Defense in yardage and they still didn't make the playoffs due to what was considered a historically bad special teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DM72

DM72

Posted
Posted

I just thought about something. If this story is true. It means Shanahan quit on the team prior to their playoff game with Seattle last year. That would put a new and potentially problematic spin on RG3 being left in the game last year.

ESPN teasing the hell out of me this morning. Keep seeing that red BREAKING NEWS come up hoping it's Shanahan being fired to only be about Gronk, Roy Halladay and MLB hall of fame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZRagone

ZRagone

Posted
Posted

Is it really a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

 

Kraft and Brady are practically joined at the hip.

 

You have at least one former player saying that there's a big difference between how he saw Kraft treat Brady and how he saw Snyder treat his "stars" previously.

 

Additionally, there's a wide gap of difference between an owner doing that with a three time super bowl winning QB whose been there for multiple years and is largley established....and one doing it with a rookie / 2nd year player. The context of those situations are a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of

Ghost of

Posted
Posted

You are out of your mind.  I want Shanahan gone, but he's gotten to this level by being a massive competitor and got us those seven straight wins to get into the playoffs.  Were those two effing months straight of biding his time just to get him injured?  Or in any way do anything but win?

 

You people should've stopped drinking and gone to bed a LONG time before posting **** like this.

How am I out of my mind when nearly this entire board was BEGGING for RG3 to be pulled after that second touchdown so that Kirk Cousins could work with a two score lead and we could have competent QB-ing?  It was obvious before RG3 went out permanently that the team was stagnant on offense, that RG was not where he was even earlier in the game and that we would eventually lose. 

All of us calling for him to be pulled were huge RG fans, it's that it was OBVIOUS that he was injured and was hurting the team by being out there.

 

So...this allegedly competitive man was OK with sinking the season when someone of his ability and experience should have seen how the story was going to end that night.  He must have been because that's exactly what happened and it wasn't like it was just a few of us begging for Griffin to be replaced.  Nor would it have been that much of an issue since Griffin was clearly not even moving like he had earlier in the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrJL

MrJL

Posted
Posted

Carlos needed glasses, and Laron was not used to his strengths.  They both went to pro bowls immediately after leaving here.

 

Landry was hurt often enough that not taking the risk was a perfectly sensible thing to do

 

Rogers was frustrating. He was good at coverage, bad at catching

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darrelgreenie

darrelgreenie

Posted
Posted

The facts of the story don't really matter. Did you know that Art Briles and a former Baylor QB completely denied the story about not showing Griffin's bad plays? No one cared, it was a non-story.

That's why leaks are so damaging and damning. The 'source' can tell lies to the reporter in order to get their word out.

And the source isn't worried about truth they just want to create perception.

And the reporter just wants to get credit for having the scoop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boss_Hogg

Boss_Hogg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The facts of the story don't really matter. Did you know that Art Briles and a former Baylor QB completely denied the story about not showing Griffin's bad plays? No one cared, it was a non-story.

That's why leaks are so damaging and damning. The 'source' can tell lies to the reporter in order to get their word out.

And the source isn't worried about truth they just want to create perception.

 

The source also had this to say:

 

"After Kirk Cousins relieved an injured Griffin last December in Cleveland and led Washington to a 38-21 victory over the Browns, players and coaches spotted Snyder standing at the quarterbacks' lockers, talking only to Griffin while, one source said, Snyder "didn't acknowledge" Cousins."

 

This whole thing stinks and it reeks of an exit strategy from the red lobster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93

Posted
Posted

I think it's pretty clear the report came from Shanahan's camp or he had knowledge of it and its also obvious he wants it to be discussed because he hasn't denied it. He could have denied it at the beginning of his PC yesterday, shot the whole thing down and the said he wanted to discuss football/the game but he didn't. He wants this story out there since it distracts from how sorry and unprepared the team on the field is and shapes him as a sympathetic figure.

 

Also, many of said the report of his office being cleared out prior to the Seattle game is untrue so that nugget seems to have been added to the story for dramatic effect for some reason. Quite possibly because it paints Shanahan in a better light?

 

It has never once been mentioned that RG3 went around Shanahan and to Snyder with issues he had either. I don't know where you got that from. The only issues listed were use of personal security when he went out and having Snyder's limo pick up Grffin's fiance once. Insiders have stated the two rarely talk during the season and have only done a handful of offseason events together like the White House Correspondence dinner. It's also been pointed out that this happens with a lot of other owners and star players. 

 

The starting QB point matters because not it is open for discussion this week and invites more circus to the team that he could have avoided. For some unknown reason, he doesn't want to avoid a circus. There is no reason to not announce Griffin as the starter unless it is to drum up controversy and distraction.

 

Watch, eventually the report will come out that Shanahan was a Cousins guy but had to stick with RG3 because of Snyder and it ruined our season, woe is Shanahan its not his fault. I am literally expecting that domino to fall any day.

Exactly the problem here. Ppl are going to see headline and start drawing bogus conclusions without reading.

 

Exactly what whoever leaked this wanted

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Sinister

Mr. Sinister

Posted
Posted

The more I marinate on this, the more I am willing to back off of the Dan/RG angle, and focus more on the actual football angle. 

 

However (and I have been saying this for a couple weeks now), where Snyder ****ed up, was when he gave Mike the key to the city. That's it. Now you can argue whether or not he had a choice, seeing as this place was a smoldering pile of ****, but he did it. He gave Mike full power, and Mike ****ed this team, and after Mike high tails it out of here laughing his ass off, Snyder is going to be the one left to answer to all of it, because its still his team, and he has to run it.

 

Mike robbed him. Maybe instead of "Stay away from the team and hire a coach and GM, Dan," like it was in 2009, the lesson in 2013 is now "You shouldve hired a real GM like every other team, Dan". His hands aren't clean, no matter how unfair that may seem to people. He was desperate, and it backfired on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
justice98

justice98

Posted
Posted

That's the thing ... who says RGIII and Snyder are buddy-buddy? other sources say they haven't "hung out"  this season

 

Yeah, well, this alleged incident where he was gonna quit was last season.  Maybe they're just less buddy buddy than before and Shanahan's gripes on the relationship are less this year, but now that the story's out, the damage is done and it doesn't matter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PlayAction

PlayAction

Posted
Posted

You turn over a rock and the haters come crawling out all over the place.  I don't care for all the second guessing on the coaches and the "he said, she said" or rumours and whisperings from unnamed parties (some of whom may be made up).  We are in deep into speculation and conspiracies.

 

Shanahan may certainly be part of the problem.  But, he can be replaced.  We are stuck with the owner.  If the owner wants his own QB (for example, forcing McNabb on K. Shanahan) then the fans have to suffer the consequences.  If the owner pushes all in for the trade for a hoped for franchise QB then the fans suffer through the consequences of lacking a strong supporting cast.  If the owner has the rookie QB over for Thanksgiving and hangs out with him during the summer then the fans are stuck with the inevitable diva personality developing.  if the organization isn't sound then it doesn't matter who the coach is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Probos

Probos

Posted
Posted

What a brutally fantastic piece -- bravo Mr Boswell,.............bravo sir.


Is it really a bad thing?

 

9194014-large.jpg

 

BOBTOM.jpg

 

BRady-300x231.jpg

 

Kraft and Brady are practically joined at the hip.

 

No, as long as you consistently bring a top-notch product to the field and win more than you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brokenstriker

Brokenstriker

Posted
Posted

I'm not even going to try to guess at what you're saying with that last sentence.

What do you take issue with in the article?

That he doesn't have any facts ... he wrote his opinion and he supported his opinion in part by citing unconfirmed third-hand rumors that he asserts links Shanahan to things.  That's my issue.

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...