dlc wrote:Although I don't agree with all Ray is saying, I think his points are right.
If you've been happy with this team, this franchise for the past 10+ years, I can see why you would be upset with his criticism. The rest of us realize that the Snyder era has been a disgrace to JKC era. Our front-office has been a circus to the point that we're the most popular team in the national media because of all the drama.
Second, the argument in here about whether or not the Shanahan has handled McNabb correctly really isn't an argument outside of this board. The best you can find are excuses on best intentions not of how it turned out. No one thinks that this negative press is good for the club or the Shanahans.
That's a fact ... you cannot find many around the league that view this as anything less than inexplicable ... with most calling it an outright blunder.
dlc wrote:It seems only Skins fans who CHOOSE to still believe in the Shanahans, seem to offload the blame solely on McNabb (perhaps like what this thread suggests Mike does) so that you don't have to face up to what might be the real issue.
You may have faith that things will turn around, but face it, both father and son have made some major mistakes. The idea that you're going to install a pass first, pass deep offense with a line that can't hold is crazy, and they haven't adjusted after 8 games? The Lions made that adjustment against us after one half. Whether McNabb deserves a little or a lot of blame, the coaching staff definitely deserves a lot. Coaching is putting the players YOU HAVE, in the best position to succeed. When you sometimes don't play your best players, you better make sure that your system works with the players you CHOOSE to put on the field. By that measure, Kyle and Mike's offense have been terrible.
Exactly. When analyzed in proper perspective, taking into account all of the variables, McNabb has done more to contribute to the wins than he has to the losses. Though it would less than honest to give him a high grade, I'd say it's just as dishonest to grade him poorly. He's shined in some areas ... such as leading the league in big plays, 11th in yards ... but has failed he's to put up the most important numbers ... TDs. And no doubt he's missed some opportunities in that regard, but he hasn't had the protection or the running game to support him, so this is a combination of failures. He's had some TDs dropped ... and he's been harassed ... and the offensive system and play calling hasn't managed to establish a ball control type passing game ... it seems to be big play or bust, and we haven't seen much in the way of adjusting ... especially in game adjustments. First halfs seem to go much better than second halfs ... and that is a sign that defenses are making better adjustments than our offense does ... that's the Coach being out-coached.
dlc wrote:How about the 4 wins you say? Well I think that has been mainly due to the D. I'm pleasantly surprised with Haslett. After the Houston game, he has changed, he has played AH, he has put in some 4-3 packages, he has become less aggressive and predictable with his blitzes. You can argue that Mike S had something to do with, but my guess is not since similar things haven't happened on the other side of the ball.
For the most part, that is correct. I'd say it's been a mix, though heavily tilted toward the defense winning ballgames. All four wins, the defense held opponents to 14 points or less, and that is outstanding. However, we lost a 17 point lead against Houston, and that should never happen. And though the defense played well at times, we couldn't stop the Colts (though few manage to stop Peyton Manning).
Although, three of the four losses, the offense scored 24 or more points, and if you score 24, 25 and 27 points, you should win those games.
One thing is certain, we haven't managed to put complete games together, where the offense and defense are both executing. It seems that when one is playing well the other doesn't.