Irn-Bru wrote:Hmm. It looked to me like you were applying that to his coaching record after John Elway. But I guess the paragraph you applied "horrible" to did contain a lot of ellipses, so I can believe that you intended to apply that label to only part of it. But I certainly didn't "twist" your words any; I just failed to see the arbitrary break in one ". . ." over another.
This is exactly what I said:
Mike Shanahan's last Super Bowl was in 1998 ... that's a long time ago. And since then, his record is 105 and 98, just 7 games above 500 over 14 years. That is not "greatness" ... that is post Elway perpetual mediocrity, which includes a couple of pretty decent QBs in Jake the Snake and Cutler. What's even more disturbing is Shanahan has had 1 winning season in the last 6 years since 2005,
and is 14-24 to date with the Skins. That is dismally horrific. I think the two time periods were clearly delineated. And, my numbers are slightly off .... Shanahan is 105 and 94 (not 98 ) over the past 13 (not 14) seasons including this year, which is 11 games (not 7) over 500, or 52% over 199 game span. This is an adequate sample size to draw conclusions from, and it is pretty much a flat 8-8 average, and pretty mediocre ...
I know you don't like that word ... but 8-8 is not what I would call bad, but it's not good either, so something less than good, which to me suggests mediocre, which is defined as "moderate quality".
Do you consider 8-8 good? If so, I think you'd be in the extreme minority.
Irn-Bru wrote:I would not say Shanahan's Skins tenure has been "horrible" or that he has "sucked," no.
So you don't think 14-25 sucks? 36% win rate is what then? Average? Good? This lands you in last place ... last place to me is not average, nor is it good, so I guess we'll just disagree because last place sucks. 3rd place sucks, just not quite as much as 4th place, but close.
Irn-Bru wrote:"Mediocre" is easier to believe, though I disagree with it. That's not what has often been implied by those criticizing his post-Elway record.
Well, I can't help what other people might imply or what your perceptions are. I can only speak for myself. But it's not a belief per se, but a personal standard.
Most people define the Jim Zorn era as horrible. His percentage was 37.5%, while Shanahan is 35.8% currently, which is apparently worse numbers wise, but better because Shanahan's name is Shanahan and not Zorn. And Zorn didn't even get to pick his coaches or players ... he had to make work what Vinny thought he should have, including Jason Campbell.
Irn-Bru wrote:Disagree. Shanahan is positively buildling something here, and was out of football for a year between coaching stints. A "what have you done for me lately" approach taken in an overzealous fashion is how you end up with Spurrier and Zorn. I applaud Snyder's wait and see, hands off approach with Shanahan/Allen.
Like I said, the jury is out ... the Redskin offense with Griffin and Morris has been really impressive ... better than many Redskin offenses over a long stretch of time. So there is certainly reason to be excited about we see on that front, and to be optimistic about the future. And I think that gives them the opportunity to compete, but that has more to do with RG3 than anything else going on. Yet, we have taken a significant step backwards on defense and that is concerning.
And I'm not blind to the fact that some key players are out of the line up and that has impacted the defense. So, it's a wait and see what happens over the next 9 games. Maybe 8-8 will look good instead of mediocre.