The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

StorminMormon86 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:In today's NFL, you need a talented QB to win. The modern NFL requires it. It is a passing league now more than ever, and it takes talent on offense to get that done.

I tend to disagree with this. The Broncos and especially the 49ers are winning games playing old school smash mouth football. People tend to generalize the "modern" NFL as a pass heavy one because of what the Packers and Saints are doing.

The Packers & Saints have won Superbowls recenly. The Broncos and 49ers havent. I prefer the old version of football myself, which is what the 49ers and Broncos are doing. In other words, they realize they don't have the personell to try and be the Saints or Packers. Mike Shanahan obviously thinks he can run an offense that passes 60% of the time when it is pretty clear to everyone else that we don't have any Rodgers, Brees, Jennings, Colston's, or Driver's on our team.

We should be playing the kind of football that the 49ers are playing until we have the necessary talent. Like it or not, rule changes in the NFL have made it much easier to pass the football. I prefer a balanced approach, much like the Ravens use.

spudstr04 wrote:

Russ Penman wrote:So as of today the Redskins have 1 pick in rounds 1, 2 and 3. 2 picks in round 4 the additional 1 from tading Campbell one in round 5, 6 and 7 totalling 8 I wonder what they do. Any thoughts?

What kind of compensation might we get from Carlos Rogers, Andre Carter, and our others that walked in free agency?

They "walked?" Sure they did.

The Hogster wrote:Mike Shanahan obviously thinks he can run an offense that passes 60% of the time when it is pretty clear to everyone else that we don't have any Rodgers, Brees, Jennings, Colston's, or Driver's on our team.

We should be playing the kind of football that the 49ers are playing until we have the necessary talent. Like it or not, rule changes in the NFL have made it much easier to pass the football. I prefer a balanced approach, much like the Ravens use.

You're preaching to the choir my friend. Shanahan has obviously NOT taken a balanced approach since week 3, but I don't think the massive amount of injuries that have plagued this team this year have helped matters either.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:In today's NFL, you need a talented QB to win. The modern NFL requires it. It is a passing league now more than ever, and it takes talent on offense to get that done.

I tend to disagree with this. The Broncos and especially the 49ers are winning games playing old school smash mouth football. People tend to generalize the "modern" NFL as a pass heavy one because of what the Packers and Saints are doing.

Bet you a pass happy team ends up in the super bowl this year.

It's not really a "pass happy" that gets you there it's a team that has the talent and executes there system. Just now in todays NFL how can you win with old school football when teams like Green Bay score every time they touch the ball. The rules that the NFL have today make it better for the passing game. IF you don't have a QB or the talent that can match them in a shoot out then you're in trouble. Even Gibbs says the NFL is always changing think he said it changes like 20% every year... something like that. Of course I still think you need both offense and a great defense to win in todays NFL.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:What Shanahan did was take over a team with a decent/good defense and an awful offense and decided to overhaul the defense. That decision set us back at least 2 years

Nonsense. That's the superficial analysis. You win Superbowls with defense and ours had major weaknesses. By focusing on the D then the O, he's doing it in the right order and as our D gets better our O can develop without the pressure to score on every possession to stay in the game.

Hello, it's been one and a half freaking years. Not 20, no matter how much the gimme now crowd want to say that. What a draft class we had and it included a WR and a RB who look to be keepers as well, not just D.

The idea that you win Super Bowls with defense is a strange one in that some teams win with defense, some with offense, and most with a combination of the two.

Also, it is just as easy to start with a great offense as it is with a great defense or a combination of the two.

To say that there is any particular way to win is more or less magical thinking, something like the trickle-down theory or that the power of corporations supports democracy, or that the King of England was a big help to the allies in World War 11, or that Columbus discovered America, or that Congress isn't of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich .

skinpride1 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:In today's NFL, you need a talented QB to win. The modern NFL requires it. It is a passing league now more than ever, and it takes talent on offense to get that done.

I tend to disagree with this. The Broncos and especially the 49ers are winning games playing old school smash mouth football. People tend to generalize the "modern" NFL as a pass heavy one because of what the Packers and Saints are doing.

Bet you a pass happy team ends up in the super bowl this year.

It's not really a "pass happy" that gets you there it's a team that has the talent and executes there system. Just now in todays NFL how can you win with old school football when teams like Green Bay score every time they touch the ball. The rules that the NFL have today make it better for the passing game. IF you don't have a QB or the talent that can match them in a shoot out then you're in trouble. Even Gibbs says the NFL is always changing think he said it changes like 20% every year... something like that. Of course I still think you need both offense and a great defense to win in todays NFL.

Agreed. Today, you need an Offense that can get ahead, and a Defense that can play with a lead. That's why you see a team like the Colts going from a perennial division winner--with dangerous WRS, TE, & QB and pass rushers on defense who get sacks (Freeney & Mathis) because teams who are losing pass more often to catch up--to a team that can't even win a single game.

I hate it because I actually like the way the game looks and feels when you just demoralize your opponent by running all over them, pushing to the ground, and turning 4 yd runs into 40 yrd TD's, or 50 yard Play Action Passes. You don't see much of that anymore, and that sucks.

Irn-Bru wrote::roll:

I bet if we cut Shanahan and moved on to the next coach, we'd see a ton of threads next year talking about how no one could win here because Snyder doesn't let any continuity develop.

We've been here before, people.

I honestly cannot believe people want to move on to the next coach already. I've seen it in a couple of random comment threads on news articles. I'm not a ticket-holder, so I can't gauge the atmosphere at games. But is our fan base really that stupid?

I've wanted to move on from Shanahan the day he was hired. Am I stupid, or was I right.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote::roll:

I bet if we cut Shanahan and moved on to the next coach, we'd see a ton of threads next year talking about how no one could win here because Snyder doesn't let any continuity develop.

We've been here before, people.

I honestly cannot believe people want to move on to the next coach already. I've seen it in a couple of random comment threads on news articles. I'm not a ticket-holder, so I can't gauge the atmosphere at games. But is our fan base really that stupid?

I've wanted to move on from Shanahan the day he was hired. Am I stupid, or was I right.

Too early to tell on both. I can't say that Shanahan's hiring was a mistake. I do think that he made some serious blunders with his Coordinators. I never thought much of Haslett, and I'm not a fan of nepotism. If he can overcome those missteps and start winning double digit games within the next 2-3 years, then it will be salvagable. The problem we are most likely to face is having him lose again this year, be mediocre in Years 3 & 4, then have a winning year in Year 5. Then we will have to decide whether he stays or goes.

If he lasts that long Hogster I would be surprised. If next year we can't win more than 6 games I think he gets fired and Dan keeps Bruce and asks him to find a coach.

Kilmer72 wrote:If he lasts that long Hogster I would be surprised. If next year we can't win more than 6 games I think he gets fired and Dan keeps Bruce and asks him to find a coach.

I disagree with this. Logically, if we select a QB, he's not going to be ready to play right away. Maybe by mid year, if we're struggling, but no sooner. So, Shannahan will be given a 4th year to see the whole thing put together.

Interesting to read about the draft when Cutler was chosen. Shannahan moved up in the draft to pick Cutler at 11, which is encouraging. He's not afraid to move up to get someone he wants. Cutler only played 5 games his rookie season.

Logically you are correct and I agree. We are talking about Dan Snyder though.

I really hope that if anyone picks a QB in next years draft it is someone other than Mike. So far his QB picks really haven't been too good. Cutler may have been his best, but the jury is still out on that.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

The Hogster wrote:In today's NFL, you need a talented QB to win. The modern NFL requires it. It is a passing league now more than ever, and it takes talent on offense to get that done.

I tend to disagree with this. The Broncos and especially the 49ers are winning games playing old school smash mouth football. People tend to generalize the "modern" NFL as a pass heavy one because of what the Packers and Saints are doing.

You can disagree but you'd be wrong. As for the Broncos, they are 5-5 and the 49ers have played an easy schedule. Sure there are some exceptions but the NFL is now a pass oriented league. The rules are set up to make it easier to pass the ball and quarterback is more important that ever.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote::roll:

I bet if we cut Shanahan and moved on to the next coach, we'd see a ton of threads next year talking about how no one could win here because Snyder doesn't let any continuity develop.

We've been here before, people.

I honestly cannot believe people want to move on to the next coach already. I've seen it in a couple of random comment threads on news articles. I'm not a ticket-holder, so I can't gauge the atmosphere at games. But is our fan base really that stupid?

I've wanted to move on from Shanahan the day he was hired. Am I stupid, or was I right.

Don't know yet.

Are those my only options to choose from?

Barring another epic collapse next season, the Skins should give Shanahan four seasons.

The franchise is an epic disaster. Quick changes aren't helping the situation.

chiefhog44 wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote:If he lasts that long Hogster I would be surprised. If next year we can't win more than 6 games I think he gets fired and Dan keeps Bruce and asks him to find a coach.

I disagree with this. Logically, if we select a QB, he's not going to be ready to play right away. Maybe by mid year, if we're struggling, but no sooner. So, Shannahan will be given a 4th year to see the whole thing put together.

Interesting to read about the draft when Cutler was chosen. Shannahan moved up in the draft to pick Cutler at 11, which is encouraging. He's not afraid to move up to get someone he wants. Cutler only played 5 games his rookie season.

I find elements of disconnect here .....

The idea that next year won't be a good year either, since we'll be selecting a QB in the draft who won't be ready to play is certainly a strong possibility, yet it also serves as a built in excuse for a 3rd year of failure from the ShanaKlan ... ignoring the blunder of McNabb .. Grossman ... Beck in his first and second years.

That he "staked his reputation" on Beck's ability this year seems all but forgotten as we move forward as if God ordained our QB problem rather than Shanahan's miscalculations. And, given his track record to date on Washington Redskin QBs, why would anyone expect him to get it right on the 4th try? Particularly given the revelation that Kyle Shanahan has been reported to had pleaded for the Houston Texans to use their #1 pick on John Beck in the draft ... so neither Shanahan seems to be a crack analyst of talent.

The fact is, drafting a QB is a hit or miss situation to begin with .... as we already know .... Alex Smith selected #1 overall, and Aaron Rogers slipping down to the Packers, just one place ahead of our pick, Jason Campbell. We have the Ryan Leaf's, and the Demarcus Russels, and the Matt Leinarts, and the Joey Harringtons .... and many more who were sure things that simply never pan out.

I am less than optimistic in Shanahan's ability to pick the right guy .... and one more QB blunder will set back this franchise another 3-4 years.

I haven't seen enough "upside" in either Shanahan to make that gamble appear to be a decent wager.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote::roll:

I bet if we cut Shanahan and moved on to the next coach, we'd see a ton of threads next year talking about how no one could win here because Snyder doesn't let any continuity develop.

We've been here before, people.

I honestly cannot believe people want to move on to the next coach already. I've seen it in a couple of random comment threads on news articles. I'm not a ticket-holder, so I can't gauge the atmosphere at games. But is our fan base really that stupid?

I've wanted to move on from Shanahan the day he was hired. Am I stupid, or was I right.

I didn't see a ? so I guess I'll just agree wiyh your thought

I'm not actually allowed to write the words but you already know the answer .... or maybe not

Thankfully, as stupid as Dan is he will give Mike & Bruce at least 4 years and possibly 5

I'm looking forward to seeing it continue to get better here

crazyhorse1 wrote:The idea that you win Super Bowls with defense is a strange one in that some teams win with defense, some with offense, and most with a combination of the two

Most with a combo of the two is true. There are teams with poor offenses who won the Super Bowl. Da Bears. Da Ravens. Name a team with a bad D that did.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Most with a combo of the two is true. There are teams with poor offenses who won the Super Bowl. Da Bears. Da Ravens. Name a team with a bad D that did.

2006, the Colts won the Superbowl; 23rd in points against, 21st in yards.

2009, the Saints won the Superbowl; 20th in points allowed, 25th in yards.

Two examples within the past 5 years where teams won with two pretty awful defenses.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Most with a combo of the two is true. There are teams with poor offenses who won the Super Bowl. Da Bears. Da Ravens. Name a team with a bad D that did.

2006, the Colts won the Superbowl; 23rd in points against, 21st in yards.

2009, the Saints won the Superbowl; 20th in points allowed, 25th in yards.

Two examples within the past 5 years where teams won with two pretty awful defenses.

I think that Colts' offense that year had the worst rushing game in the NFL - ranked # 32

Too bad for those fans that cannot accept that we could have won this game

we missed 2 FGs AND still took the game to OT - we've played a lot worse lately

I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

SkinsJock wrote:Too bad for those fans that cannot accept that we could have won this game

we missed 2 FGs AND still took the game to OT - we've played a lot worse lately

I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

I was hoping that when Gano hit that 59 yarder he would get some confidence going or get on a roll but I guess not.

Gano= League high misses is that acceptable..Think not.

Add kicker to QB,Ol,Cb we need list.

skinpride1 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Too bad for those fans that cannot accept that we could have won this game

we missed 2 FGs AND still took the game to OT - we've played a lot worse lately

I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

I was hoping that when Gano hit that 59 yarder he would get some confidence going or get on a roll but I guess not.

Gano= League high misses is that acceptable..Think not.

Add kicker to QB,Ol,Cb we need list.

Gano is a joke. 19 missed field goals in 26 games is flat out embarrassing.

SkinsJock wrote:I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

I agree. Finally some signs of life. Definitely some good things to build on going forward.

(Would've been even more had Gano's kick gone a few feet in the other direction . . . but that much is obvious.)

CanesSkins26 wrote:

skinpride1 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:Too bad for those fans that cannot accept that we could have won this game

we missed 2 FGs AND still took the game to OT - we've played a lot worse lately

I'm really sorry we did not win but am still pleased with a lot of what we saw

I was hoping that when Gano hit that 59 yarder he would get some confidence going or get on a roll but I guess not.

Gano= League high misses is that acceptable..Think not.

Add kicker to QB,Ol,Cb we need list.

Gano is a joke. 19 missed field goals in 26 games is flat out embarrassing.

yep. really embarrassing.