Mike Shanahan Tells All on ESPN 980 (RGIII, McNabb, Manning, Haynseworth) Link included w/ Audio

[Skinsinparadise]

I have become to believe this when it comes to Gibbs II.

 

It wasn't that Gibbs lost it.  Hell, Gibbs turned over his play calling duties to Al Saunders of the 800 page playbook and we saw the same offense.  I think that the reason that the Redskins looked like a Martyball team was not because he was a fossil. His '80's offenses were more aggressive and imaginative. The reason he did what he did was all about talent.

 

 

I am ok with that theory.  The Vinny-Danny GM tandem -- was comically bad for reasons many have pointed out here.  Gibbs was also supposedly part of making personnel decisions too but that has never been his gig.  Then we had Vinny unshackled with Zorn as head coach which was a disaster.  Then we get rid of Vinny but replace him with a head coach who was fired mainly because of his checkered record with personnel, not to mention that its almost a cliche that a head coaches struggle when they hold both that HC job and the GM job.  And we team him up with Allen who had medicore drafts in Tampa.  And Danny the common denominator through all the years is in the mix, too.  And no shocker, it doesn't work either.

 

The Scott McCloughan hire to me hopefully is the game changer.  It's a new direction.   For a guy who supposedly just wants to win, Danny has seemed uninterested in bringing on board top evaluators-GM. So up to now in my view it was more important for Dan to do things his way and in his comfort zone than winning.  That's finally changed or so it seems. Hopefully, it sticks.

 

As to Shanny, I don't doubt he had to deal with a lot of nonsense.  But he clearly didn't rise IMO above the nonsense and there is evidence to the idea he added to it.  It seems like the chic point of view to some in the media is our head coaches are absolved from what went wrong because its all or most on Danny.    And as for Dan, I am far from a fan, he's clearly been a big problem.  But there are multiple variables in my view that contribute to the failure of a franchise.  And yeah I don't give Shanny a pass. He ultimately got fired in Denver because while he was a highly regarded offensive mind, the rest of the team struggled in his later years, and his personnel moves there were medicore and questionable.  He was mocked for hiring medicore defensive coordinators.   Sound familiar?  Arguably the exact same thing happened here.

 

Part of the problem IMO with Dan is he becomes an easy scapegoat for other people who screw up, too.  It's kind of cool to have a fall back option if things go south and say look its not me, its him.    IMO it was Dan AND Shanny.     

[grego]

 

 

I don't for a second defend the scumbag that is Daniel Snyder. Interviews like this make it clear that his meddling ways continue more than we know. I've maintained for years that HE is the main cause of this franchise's continued woes, and that interview only strengthened those feelings for me. 

 

 

 

if mikes a weasel (which i dont disagree with), how can we know how much dan was actually meddling, if we are only going by the weasels word?

[gortiz]

if mikes a weasel (which i dont disagree with), how can we know how much dan was actually meddling, if we are only going by the weasels word?

man, I take Shanny's word over Dan's and even Robert's every day of the week. 

 

One guy has two super bowls, the other has led an embarrassment of an organization for the better part of 15 years. 

[gtn130]

i'm not sure if you are just arguing for arguments sake, or if youre arguing because you (like most fans, i suspect) have a deep dislike of dan snyder and are fed up with the mismanagement this organization has displayed since dan took over. 

 

i'm guessing its the latter, and thats mainly why i posted mikes record.

 

when we get into threads like these, it inevitably breaks down into picking sides, in this case, youre either on mikes side, or dans side. i dont think its that simple. as i mentioned a couple of pages ago (as did another poster), both can be at fault. it is actually possible that mike is not very good as a HC/GM, while at the same time, dan is a bad owner. 

 

mike going on the radio yesterday and deflecting (for the most part) blame to just about anyone else but him strikes some people as disingenuous, as mike apparently (certainly) took this job under the pretense that he be granted full control (theres that phrase again, submitted ).

 

while its easy to look at mikes tenure here and conclude that 'its the redskins, its dan snyder, its what they do' (because the teams recent track record is so obviously poor), i believe a closer look indicates that dan did exactly what all of us fans want him to do- he gave up control to someone else.

 

it didnt work. in some peoples eyes, they believe this was because dan was still calling the shots (which i dont believe). some look at dans history with marty and zorn, in particular (i think dan let joe make whatever calls he wanted), then look at mike shanahan as a coach who had won 2 super bowls, and say 'case closed'.

 

then, there are some who believe mike walked into a perfect situation in denver, benefitted from this situation for a few years, but then hasnt had much success in the many years since then. in other words, its possible mike is overrated by some as a coach/GM.

 

there are cases one can make for both situations, but the truth may be somewhere in between, as it often is.  

 

lol I'm not here to defend the great Mike Shanahan -- I'm just pointing out that subtracting his best four years to make some weird argument is ridiculous. You think he's "only" a mediocre coach. Ok? He's still way better than Gruden and anyone the Redskins will hire in the near future. Shanahan made a bunch of mistakes with the Redskins, but he did some good things too, and the people villainizing him are complete lunatics. 

 

You want to believe that Shanahan is just a career average coach. Ok, let's play along. He's an average coach, so why didn't he come close to .500 with the Redskins? And why is a .500 record suddenly unacceptable as a Redskins fan? I really don't know what the end game is when stating that "Shanahan is only 123-121 when eliminating his best four years!!"

[grego]

lol I'm not here to defend the great Mike Shanahan -- I'm just pointing out that subtracting his best four years to make some weird argument is ridiculous. You think he's "only" a mediocre coach. Ok? He's still way better than Gruden and anyone the Redskins will hire in the near future. Shanahan made a bunch of mistakes with the Redskins, but he did some good things too, and the people villainizing him are complete lunatics. 

 

You want to believe that Shanahan is just a career average coach. Ok, let's play along. He's an average coach, so why didn't he come close to .500 with the Redskins? And why is a .500 record suddenly unacceptable as a Redskins fan? I really don't know what the end game is when stating that "Shanahan is only 123-121 when eliminating his best four years!!"

 

 

the only thing i could say that i havent said a bunch of times already is that i dont blame mike for the salary cap situation, which obviously affected his ability to build a competitive roster here. and i dont even blame him (totally) for not taking robert out in the seattle game, though i probably should.

 

and, i never had a problem with him bringing in kyle.

 

but i dont think its 'lunacy' to villiainize mike when hes spent the past couple of years blaming others for the team and the decisions he was in charge of. had he just walked away, i think he'd garner more sympathy.

[Dissident2]

if mikes a weasel (which i dont disagree with), how can we know how much dan was actually meddling, if we are only going by the weasels word?

 

I don't think weasel equates to "outright and bold-faced liar" in Mike's case. He twists the truth to suit him. For example, if Dan was in fact NOT pushing for McNabb, that would make Mike a total liar based on what he said yesterday, and I don't think he'd go that far. He's more subtle than that. I don't think the "how much was he meddling" is really answerable, but the "he was meddling" accusation definitely seems more than fair to accept at this point. The narrative from the park back then was that Danny had turned the reins over to Mike and was backing off. That doesn't seem to have really been the case, which explains a lot to me. 

 

To be clear, both guys make me feel like I need a shower after listening to them. Slimy. 

[gtn130]

 

but i dont think its 'lunacy' to villiainize mike when hes spent the past couple of years blaming others for the team and the decisions he was in charge of. had he just walked away, i think he'd garner more sympathy.

 

Why are you ruling out the possibility that he's mostly telling the truth? I can understand that he's probably framing things in a way that makes him look better, but I personally don't have much reason to believe he's straight up making up stories.

[@DCGoldPants]

Why are you ruling out the possibility that he's mostly telling the truth? I can understand that he's probably framing things in a way that makes him look better, but I personally don't have much reason to believe he's straight up making up stories.

 

Because when he was hired after the Zorn meltdown, the word was that Shanny had final say. He had front office authority, and that was the only way he would agree to work for Snyder.

 

Now he frames it like he had little control and was just watching at the owner, the team VP and the young QB walked all over him. That's bull****. If you're an NFL GM listening to that story. You aren't going to think well of Snyder or Allen. But you're also going to wonder if you can trust Shanny in your org.

[Bang]

Shanahan basically says the same thing we hear constantly and consistently.

I see no reason to doubt him.

I'm sure he's going to say what he will to shine up his own end, but overall he has echoed the same problems we've heard time and again.

~Bang

[gtn130]

Because when he was hired after the Zorn meltdown, the word was that Shanny had final say. He had front office authority, and that was the only way he would agree to work for Snyder.

 

Now he frames it like he had little control and was just watching at the owner, the team VP and the young QB walked all over him. That's bull****. If you're an NFL GM listening to that story. You aren't going to think well of Snyder or Allen. But you're also going to wonder if you can trust Shanny in your org.

 

Yeah, it's so crazy and improbable that an owner who has consistently struggled to give up power and stop getting involved for the past 16 years was actually not giving Shanahan as much control as he claimed. That's such a wild and unlikely scenario, I must say.

[grego]

Why are you ruling out the possibility that he's mostly telling the truth? I can understand that he's probably framing things in a way that makes him look better, but I personally don't have much reason to believe he's straight up making up stories.

 

short answer (im at work, so i i'll try to be brief) is that i believe dan has gotten out of the way of coaches who he has alot of respect for. (gibbs, mike and marty- until dan got bored and fired him). its known he was friendly with mike for years before hiring him and liked him very much.

 

its also well known that mike is a control freak and ego maniac (not that theres anything wrong with that, if thats what works). i believe there is no way- given dans reputation and mikes personality- that mike signed on to coach here without having all his I's dotted and all of his T's crossed when it came to who was running the show. 

 

i dont know how much i'd say mike was totally making up- i tend to think its more just spin than outright making up stories. 

 

i do wonder how much other GMs and owners believe in mike, as he interviewed for several HC positions a couple of months ago and didnt get any, but who knows how that went down.

[Burgold]

I don't think weasel equates to "outright and bold-faced liar" in Mike's case. He twists the truth to suit him. For example, if Dan was in fact NOT pushing for McNabb, that would make Mike a total liar based on what he said yesterday, and I don't think he'd go that far. He's more subtle than that. I don't think the "how much was he meddling" is really answerable, but the "he was meddling" accusation definitely seems more than fair to accept at this point. The narrative from the park back then was that Danny had turned the reins over to Mike and was backing off. That doesn't seem to have really been the case, which explains a lot to me. 

 

To be clear, both guys make me feel like I need a shower after listening to them. Slimy. 

I buy this, but let's take the McNabb story because it's less emotionally volatile.

 

1. Mike says that he wanted Bulger more than McNabb. 

I can buy that.  McNabb was arguably more successful and more of a Elway/Plummer kind of QB, but at that stage of his career, maybe Bulger was a safer, better placeholder kind of pick.

 

2. Mike says Bulger wasn't available so he couldn't get him.

I believe that.  Bulger wasn't available or the price tag was too high.

 

3. McNabb was still out there and Shanny says I can live with that choice.  Just don't trade anything to get him.

I don't believe him here. He's lying. He was in on the process and in on the room and signed off on everything.  Mike was too new in the job and there's no way in hell that Bruce Allen was going to trump Mike Shanahan at that stage. Shanny thought he was a good choice B and a second for a QB with McNabb's pedigree for a year of two wasn't an acceptable deal. Remember, many analysts and fans were elated and thought that the Redskins were the big winners.  Mike et al. made a mistake. They didn't realize that Reid was dumping a guy that was nowhere close to what he was once.  There were many fooled. When McNabb came here he said all the right things, invited his receivers to his house for an unofficial receivers' camp.  It seemed good.  Mike goofed.  I don't hate him for it, but I don't believe him when he says he was overruled and didn't signoff on the trade only the idea of McNabb.

[@DCGoldPants]

Yeah, it's so crazy and improbable that an owner who has consistently struggled to give up power and stop getting involved for the past 16 years was actually not giving Shanahan as much control as he claimed. That's such a wild and unlikely scenario, I must say.

 

So, a coach with a rep for having a huge ego just allowed this stuff to happen? Just went with the flow? Didn't put his fist down and say "NO"? He didn't come here with a contract that gave him near full control? He didn't know the status of the QB during the game? The Doc just gave him a thumbs up? 

[Epochalypse]

This is the type of post that divides the board.  In addition, sometimes there is a common denominator in what everyone is looking for and things can look congruent. We need to factor in everything when posting in here. It's just a function of life.

*clap* well played.

 

As for this whole debacle, I'm still kind of where I was at during and after Shanahan's time here.

 

Is Shanahan a weasel?  I think so

 

Is a guy looking for another job and possible HOF induction going to handselect and present the facts in a way that makes him look better?  Of course, happens on here all the time and this is an internet forum.  If people do that all the time in instances that do not have any effect on their lives other than pride on an anonymous internet forum, of course they are going to do it when it effects their ability to get a job and establish a legacy

 

Does that make any of what he said false?  No, that in and of itself does not make what he said lies.  It just means he's giving his version of the truth.

 

I'd be fine with this going two ways from here.  First, it goes nowhere and we move on.  I care about turning this team around going forward, I lived the past and it wasn't pretty; why would I want to live through that again?

 

Or the second, follow up and talk with Bruce, RG3, and Dan or other folks who can collaborate what Shanahan said.  The only benefit this offers is to see if their version is the same or not.  It may make some feel better and there's a slim possibility the organization is better able to identify what went wrong for so long.  Or they could all provide their own versions that make them look like they had no responsibility in the mess either and the fans and media can continue championing their theories to their hearts' content.  It amazes me how much money all these people make and yet have so little control over things.  If they have so little control, why are they making so much money?

 

Everyone bears some level of blame.  Just fix the damn thing.

[Riggo#44]

Czabe pretty much sums it all up:

 

http://www.theczabe.com/the-post/plenty-blame-go-around-shanny-taking-almost-none/

 

 

I hold these opinions to be true, and not in contradiction with each other.

Mike Shanahan failed utterly as the “total control” $7 million a year head coach who arrived with the gravitas of two Super Bowl rings. He earned, every bit of his miserable 24-40 record (.375, exact same losing rate as Zorn and Spurrier).

Robert Griffin III is a delusionally non-self-aware diva, whose two-faced personality has hopelessly poisoned the current lockeroom and will soon lead to a second coach getting fired for his own failures as a player. He will never be a reliable, healthy, starting quarterback in the NFL.

Daniel M. Snyder remains a hopelessly meddling owner, who hires men who serve him, before they give him the unvarnished truth about the mistakes he is making in running this football team. He is infatuated with new players and coaches, as if they were new toys to play with, and then inevitably gets bored with, or turns on them.

In other words, the Redskins Wheel of Blame has three pie slices, and you can spin it all day and come up with a different “winner” of who is blame “the most” for the current predicament.

Some have confused my unflinching criticism of Shananan to be a defacto support of Griffin, or a willing blindness to the follies of the owner.

Not at all.

[@DCGoldPants]

Look, I'm not going to defend the owner or the QB here. I won't do that. They deserve their own share of the blame. Allen too.

 

My point is that a guy who is famous for half-speak and misleading the media/fans just gave a long ass interview on the radio where he could tell his own story over a year later. 

[Jumbo]

As predicted, reading much of this thread is like observing a long-term inpatient group therapy session with no clinician present.   

[Burgold]

As predicted, reading much of this thread is like observing a long-term inpatient group therapy session with no clinician present.   

Nah, the clinician is there... he's just got his pencil on the pad while mindlessly mumbling go on every few minutes.  See he's paid by the hour and doesn't really care what's said just as long as its non violent and keeps going forever.

[RandyHolt]

So does this mean Dan hired Jay... and Scott.

 

I am so confused.

 

I do think Mike should thank Dan for getting us to the playoffs in 2012, if this is all true.

[Burgold]

So does this mean Dan hired Jay... and Scott.

 

I am so confused.

 

I do think Mike should thank Dan for getting us to the playoffs in 2012, if this is all true.

Seriously, if not for that amazing rookie year... Mike would have been record-wise worse than Zorn, Spurrier, and maybe even Ray Handley.

[MattFancy]

I don't think Shanny was lying about everything, but I certainly don't believe everything he was saying yesterday.

 

You're telling me that 3 months after he was given full control of the team, that he let Snyder/Allen go against him? I don't buy. Maybe he wasn't thrilled with what they gave up to get him, but I don't think he was against trading for McNabb.

 

The Haynesworth stuff, I have no issue with. Thought Mike handled that pretty well and don't fault him for anything there.

 

As for the RG3 stuff, well of course he would have preferred the team add Peyton in FA. What team wouldn't want Peyton Manning over a rookie QB? So that wasn't really earth shattering. Same with they wouldn't have done the deal with the Rams if they knew about the cap penalty. Again, nothing surprising there. It does sound like Shanny had no problem with trading for Griffin, maybe again, he didn't agree with what they gave up to get him, but he seemed fine with Griffin coming here.

 

The whole play calling thing sounds more like a he said/he said. Do I think RG3 wanted to run less RO after the injury? Probably. Do I have a problem with RG3 telling him that? Not really. I'm sure most QBs in the league have some sort of input into play calling and game planning. Do I think RG3 came in and told Shanny these plays were "unacceptable"? No.

 

It just seems too convenient that all the failures here weren't because of Shanny, but because of Bruce/Dan meddling, Dr Andrews saying RG3 was fine and RG3 telling him what plays to run/not run. Where were the questions about Slowik and Haslett? What about the other poor personnel decisions the team made? Oh and of course after the fact, he would have loved to draft Russell Wilson in the 3rd (yeah, so would have 31 other teams). It's just the norm with this team. It's never that person's fault, but always someone else's.

[JoeSkins]

Shanahan basically says the same thing we hear constantly and consistently.

I see no reason to doubt him.

I'm sure he's going to say what he will to shine up his own end, but overall he has echoed the same problems we've heard time and again.

~Bang

I'm pretty much on board with you here.  The fact that the bits of history we can piece together match up perfectly with his public recollection of events, I think we can trust Shanahan as being honest.

 

One can only hope that the rumored reason for Scot's hiring, as well as his strong positioning as an actual GM, is true.

You're telling me that 3 months after he was given full control of the team, that he let Snyder/Allen go against him? I don't buy. Maybe he wasn't thrilled with what they gave up to get him, but I don't think he was against trading for McNabb.

You've never half-heartedly gone along with something your boss wanted?

[grego]

 

3. McNabb was still out there and Shanny says I can live with that choice.  Just don't trade anything to get him.

I don't believe him here. He's lying. He was in on the process and in on the room and signed off on everything.  Mike was too new in the job and there's no way in hell that Bruce Allen was going to trump Mike Shanahan at that stage. Shanny thought he was a good choice B and a second for a QB with McNabb's pedigree for a year of two wasn't an acceptable deal. Remember, many analysts and fans were elated and thought that the Redskins were the big winners.  Mike et al. made a mistake. They didn't realize that Reid was dumping a guy that was nowhere close to what he was once.  There were many fooled. When McNabb came here he said all the right things, invited his receivers to his house for an unofficial receivers' camp.  It seemed good.  Mike goofed.  I don't hate him for it, but I don't believe him when he says he was overruled and didn't signoff on the trade only the idea of McNabb.

 

agreed, and, to add to that, i dont believe shanny- who made his name working with and elevating the play of QB's- allowed dan to pick his QB.

 

mike knows you cant win without a good one. if theres one decision mike is making, its who the QB of his team is going to be.  

[Burgold]

Agree with that and adding... Shanny may have felt some qualms about the price of the trades, but he signed off on them and agreed to the price before the deal was made.  He probably asked Allen if this was the best deal we can make and then gave the go-ahead. At no point can I imagine that Mike said...

 

"Gosh guys, I'd really like to go with Tannehill. That price seems awfully high for a guy who's never been a drop back passer. I don't think I could even make him competitive for four years. It's a horrible trade and I'm really, really against it, but I won't stand in your way Mr. Allen.  By the way, do you enjoy yesterday's foot rub? I can get a different liniment!

[grego]

 I think we can trust Shanahan as being honest.

 

 

 

 

never thought i'd see that sentence.