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

People, people, PLEASE. We are not getting ANY bargains. Not too many stupid Vinny Cerratos are employed by other teams!!

This is WHY IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO TRADE UP TO SECOND PICK

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

1. Playing defense very well and being adequate on offense does not equal balanced to me.
2. Yes, special teams blunders gave the G-strings the win, but had the 49ers been able to muster any offense at all (not one 3rd down conversion all day, and several missed opportunities on wide open receivers), those two (only one with no OT) miscues by Williams wouldn't have made any difference at all. The G-strings did not play very well at all yesterday, but the 49ers weren't good enough to capitalize on it.

The Giants were far more than "adequate" on offense this season. They were 9th in the NFL in scoring with 24.6 ppg and 8th in yards per game. They were also 7th in time of possession.

Individually, Eli was 7th in qb rating, 6th in td's, and 4th in yardage. He played an elite level qb this season. They also had two receivers with over 1,100 yards.

In the playoffs their offense has also been much more than "adequate". An "adequate" offense doesn't average 27 points per game in the playoffs.

I was just using the Hogster's own words. He was the one who use the term adequate when making his "balanced" argument.

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

1. Playing defense very well and being adequate on offense does not equal balanced to me.
2. Yes, special teams blunders gave the G-strings the win, but had the 49ers been able to muster any offense at all (not one 3rd down conversion all day, and several missed opportunities on wide open receivers), those two (only one with no OT) miscues by Williams wouldn't have made any difference at all. The G-strings did not play very well at all yesterday, but the 49ers weren't good enough to capitalize on it.

The Giants were far more than "adequate" on offense this season. They were 9th in the NFL in scoring with 24.6 ppg and 8th in yards per game. They were also 7th in time of possession.

Individually, Eli was 7th in qb rating, 6th in td's, and 4th in yardage. He played an elite level qb this season. They also had two receivers with over 1,100 yards.

In the playoffs their offense has also been much more than "adequate". An "adequate" offense doesn't average 27 points per game in the playoffs.

I was just using the Hogster's own words. He was the one who use the term adequate when making his "balanced" argument.

In other words, you're mincing words. The bottom line is clear, you still need defense in today's NFL. A "franchise QB" and a good offense ALONE will not win Rings. Balanced teams are usually more dominant over the long run which is why a team like Pittsburgh has been to the Superbowl and won more than the Colts have. While one team has a HOF QB and an explosive offense with him at the helm, you need MORE to consistently win.

Which is why I am not willing to trade my wife, kids, and lungs to get RG3 or Luck. Rocket science this is not.

Redskin in Canada wrote:People, people, PLEASE. We are not getting ANY bargains. Not too many stupid Vinny Cerratos are employed by other teams!!

This is WHY IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO TRADE UP TO SECOND PICK

It is expensive, but Vinny's incompetence transcended expensive and landed in the "fleeced" category. So while something my indeed be expensive (which to ur credit may ward us off), I believe that it'll be a fair asking price and not other GM's trying to get over on Bruce.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:People, people, PLEASE. We are not getting ANY bargains. Not too many stupid Vinny Cerratos are employed by other teams!!

This is WHY IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO TRADE UP TO SECOND PICK

It is expensive, but Vinny's incompetence transcended expensive and landed in the "fleeced" category. So while something my indeed be expensive (which to ur credit may ward us off), I believe that it'll be a fair asking price and not other GM's trying to get over on Bruce.

I agree. If RGIII makes it to the third pick, I think it's a no-brainer.

But even at 2, I really think he's probably worth it.

I don't think the offense/defense debate in this thread was beside the point, btw. A lot of this comes down to the question of where we see the team: are we a QB away from being reliably competitive, or is the foundation still not that far along? I think what we saw from this team by the end of the year — in combination with an understanding of where the game has gone in the last decade or two — makes for a powerful argument that the QB is the key piece for this team going into 2012.

The Hogster wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

1. Playing defense very well and being adequate on offense does not equal balanced to me.
2. Yes, special teams blunders gave the G-strings the win, but had the 49ers been able to muster any offense at all (not one 3rd down conversion all day, and several missed opportunities on wide open receivers), those two (only one with no OT) miscues by Williams wouldn't have made any difference at all. The G-strings did not play very well at all yesterday, but the 49ers weren't good enough to capitalize on it.

The Giants were far more than "adequate" on offense this season. They were 9th in the NFL in scoring with 24.6 ppg and 8th in yards per game. They were also 7th in time of possession.

Individually, Eli was 7th in qb rating, 6th in td's, and 4th in yardage. He played an elite level qb this season. They also had two receivers with over 1,100 yards.

In the playoffs their offense has also been much more than "adequate". An "adequate" offense doesn't average 27 points per game in the playoffs.

I was just using the Hogster's own words. He was the one who use the term adequate when making his "balanced" argument.

In other words, you're mincing words. The bottom line is clear, you still need defense in today's NFL. A "franchise QB" and a good offense ALONE will not win Rings. Balanced teams are usually more dominant over the long run which is why a team like Pittsburgh has been to the Superbowl and won more than the Colts have. While one team has a HOF QB and an explosive offense with him at the helm, you need MORE to consistently win.

Which is why I am not willing to trade my wife, kids, and lungs to get RG3 or Luck. Rocket science this is not.

Who said you didn't need defense now? We have the defense part, what we need now to make our team work is a QB that will bring balance to our team and let us get to the next level. Like you said, it's not rocket science.

Deadskins wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

1. Playing defense very well and being adequate on offense does not equal balanced to me.
2. Yes, special teams blunders gave the G-strings the win, but had the 49ers been able to muster any offense at all (not one 3rd down conversion all day, and several missed opportunities on wide open receivers), those two (only one with no OT) miscues by Williams wouldn't have made any difference at all. The G-strings did not play very well at all yesterday, but the 49ers weren't good enough to capitalize on it.

The Giants were far more than "adequate" on offense this season. They were 9th in the NFL in scoring with 24.6 ppg and 8th in yards per game. They were also 7th in time of possession.

Individually, Eli was 7th in qb rating, 6th in td's, and 4th in yardage. He played an elite level qb this season. They also had two receivers with over 1,100 yards.

In the playoffs their offense has also been much more than "adequate". An "adequate" offense doesn't average 27 points per game in the playoffs.

I was just using the Hogster's own words. He was the one who use the term adequate when making his "balanced" argument.

In other words, you're mincing words. The bottom line is clear, you still need defense in today's NFL. A "franchise QB" and a good offense ALONE will not win Rings. Balanced teams are usually more dominant over the long run which is why a team like Pittsburgh has been to the Superbowl and won more than the Colts have. While one team has a HOF QB and an explosive offense with him at the helm, you need MORE to consistently win.

Which is why I am not willing to trade my wife, kids, and lungs to get RG3 or Luck. Rocket science this is not.

Who said you didn't need defense now? We have the defense part, what we need now to make our team work is a QB that will bring balance to our team and let us get to the next level. Like you said, it's not rocket science.

Duh. That's exactly what I'm saying. But, apparently you all have tunnel vision on the 2 QBs who we'd need to trade up in the draft to acquire. I don't. I'd love to have RG3 or Luck, but I also don't think we absolutely must have one of them to get where we are headed.

We're bringing in a vet and drafting a QB later. That's why we're coaching the Sr. bowl.

To FFA's point - I'd agree we're close and finding a good QB is incredibly important
we still need to keep adding quality depth and better starters on offense

I am as frustrated as anyone about the play we have had from our QBs FOR MANY SEASONS

we will resolve this - we will get better play from the QB

We MUST add depth and better quality starters on offense


WE NEED AS MANY DRAFT PICKS AS WE CAN GET plus we need to add free agents

WE MUST NOT TRADE UP

WE CANNOT AFFORD GIVING UP 3 or 4 PLAYERS IN THE TOP 100 OF THESE NEXT 2 DRAFTS

frankcal20 wrote:We're bringing in a vet and drafting a QB later. That's why we're coaching the Sr. bowl.

BINGO

we're going to get better play this season from the QB

we're going to draft a QB that we can get ready to be great here

we're going to continue with the Shanaplan

Irn-Bru wrote:I agree. If RGIII makes it to the third pick, I think it's a no-brainer.

See? We all can get along.

But even at 2, I really think he's probably worth it.

We disagree to the extent that the word "probably" intends to become an euphemism.

I don't think the offense/defense debate in this thread was beside the point, btw. A lot of this comes down to the question of where we see the team: are we a QB away from being reliably competitive, or is the foundation still not that far along? I think what we saw from this team by the end of the year — in combination with an understanding of where the game has gone in the last decade or two — makes for a powerful argument that the QB is the key piece for this team going into 2012.

Everybody seems to be SURE that RB III is a bullet-proof bet for a second pick trade-up. Really? How come? How do you know?

The reason why a 3rd pick is doable and a 2nd pick is too expensive is that you are putting your eggs in a SINGLE basket for TWO DRAFTS at least under the ASSUMPTION that this guy indeed may become a franchise QB. Can he? Maybe. As opposed to others, I am not willing to bet the house on it.

I believe that MS/BA will go for it on the third pick if he is available. If he is not, they might try to trade-down again. This would be my strategy: A jump to a 3rd pick with a safety net.

As opposed to a strategy which could send us back several years if Mr. Wonder does not deliver RIGHT AWAY.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

They scored 34 points per game and allowed 21 points per game. They won nine of their games by 14 or more points. Sorry, their balance was just fine.

That passing yards stat is just COMPLETELY misleading. The Pats were hanging 34 points on teams and playing with huge leads all season long. So of course their opponents were passing like crazy to try to catch up. You know who had the #30 ranking in pass defense for much the same reason? THE SAINTS.

My view: Shanny will continue to make questionable personnel decisions for the rest of his career, just as he always has. We'lll fail to bring in a franchise quarterback, thus we will lose big, and Danny will be looking for a new coach and GM.

CH,
Every GM makes questionable personnel decisions! MS’ draft and FA results in Denver were MUCH better than most give him credit for. He built a two time winning SB team. He has four starters and eleven players left over from the team he inherited from Bum’s son. Now those four starters were all HoF caliber players, but Wade Phillips didn’t do anything with them! MS built those two SB teams and that isn’t debatable.

Now let’s look at the Skins history with finding franchise QBs. In almost 80 years we have drafted two franchise QBs. They were Sammy Baugh and Norm Sneed, who we traded for Sonny. We have never been able to find a franchise QB, other than those three players and they were 75 and 50 years ago. Sure you could point to Joey T or Mark Rypien as possible franchise guys, but I wouldn’t!
Either way, we have had several owners and many GMs and we have only managed to draft two franchise QBs in 80 years. And one of those we traded for our only other franchise QB we have ever had. We have had guys you could win with; Joey T, Ryp, Brad Johnson, and probably some in the time between Sammy and Sonny that escape my memory right now, but for the most part this team has hasn’t acquired an elite QB by any avenue in the past 50 years.

So how about we give MS a few years to find one? They aren’t like RBs. You can’t go down to the local Quickie Mart and find one like you can a RB.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

They scored 34 points per game and allowed 21 points per game. They won nine of their games by 14 or more points. Sorry, their balance was just fine.

That passing yards stat is just COMPLETELY misleading. The Pats were hanging 34 points on teams and playing with huge leads all season long. So of course their opponents were passing like crazy to try to catch up. You know who had the #30 ranking in pass defense for much the same reason? THE SAINTS.

My view: Shanny will continue to make questionable personnel decisions for the rest of his career, just as he always has. We'lll fail to bring in a franchise quarterback, thus we will lose big, and Danny will be looking for a new coach and GM.

CH,
Every GM makes questionable personnel decisions! MS’ draft and FA results in Denver were MUCH better than most give him credit for. He built a two time winning SB team. He has four starters and eleven players left over from the team he inherited from Bum’s son. Now those four starters were all HoF caliber players, but Wade Phillips didn’t do anything with them! MS built those two SB teams and that isn’t debatable.

Now let’s look at the Skins history with finding franchise QBs. In almost 80 years we have drafted two franchise QBs. They were Sammy Baugh and Norm Sneed, who we traded for Sonny. We have never been able to find a franchise QB, other than those three players and they were 75 and 50 years ago. Sure you could point to Joey T or Mark Rypien as possible franchise guys, but I wouldn’t!
Either way, we have had several owners and many GMs and we have only managed to draft two franchise QBs in 80 years. And one of those we traded for our only other franchise QB we have ever had. We have had guys you could win with; Joey T, Ryp, Brad Johnson, and probably some in the time between Sammy and Sonny that escape my memory right now, but for the most part this team has hasn’t acquired an elite QB by any avenue in the past 50 years.

So how about we give MS a few years to find one? They aren’t like RBs. You can’t go down to the local Quickie Mart and find one like you can a RB.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Everybody seems to be SURE that RB III is a bullet-proof bet for a second pick trade-up. Really? How come? How do you know?

Nobody truly knows... For all we know RGIII could be a bust. OR... Luck could be a bust and RGIII the best QB ever to play the game. OR....they both could suck.

Peyton Manning could come here and win 3 rings. Or he could come here and go the Donovan route....

Flynn could come here and be our Aaron Rodgers. Or he can turn to Cassel or the dude that the eagles shipped to Arizona...

#shrug Just gotta make the best decision you can. At this point in the teams development, I'm comfortable with them getting who they believe should be the future of the franchise. I like RGIII, but whoever they pick is fine.

a little while ago the Eagles had McNabb and Kolb - there were certainly MANY fans and NFL people that thought these 2 QBs were VERY GOOD

In a very short space of time - BOTH of those VERY GOOD QBs are not considered even viable back-ups


can anyone really point to a free agent that's going to be the next Rich Gannon or a college QB that cannot miss


let's keep building this franchise

we just need a free agent to come in and do a better job than Grossman or Beck - how hard can that be

we just need this FO to bring in some other free agents and draft a kid they think will become a good NFL QB

the QB play here has not been very good at all - it will not be hard to improve on that this coming season

SkinsJock wrote:the QB play here has not been very good at all - it will not be hard to improve on that this coming season

I think we need more than just improvement. A one armed cyclops would be an improvement.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:Everybody seems to be SURE that RB III is a bullet-proof bet for a second pick trade-up. Really? How come? How do you know?

Nobody truly knows... For all we know RGIII could be a bust. OR... Luck could be a bust and RGIII the best QB ever to play the game. OR....they both could suck.

Peyton Manning could come here and win 3 rings. Or he could come here and go the Donovan route....

Flynn could come here and be our Aaron Rodgers. Or he can turn to Cassel or the dude that the eagles shipped to Arizona...

#shrug Just gotta make the best decision you can. At this point in the teams development, I'm comfortable with them getting who they believe should be the future of the franchise. I like RGIII, but whoever they pick is fine.

+1

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:the QB play here has not been very good at all - it will not be hard to improve on that this coming season

I think we need more than just improvement. A one armed cyclops would be an improvement.

The one eye makes depth perception a (female K9)

- it really is not a laughing matter

The QB issue here is difficult - We are caught in between the rock and the hard place
we were not able to identify a future great last year and this year there appears to be only 2

I understand the need and the importance - I just hope this FO finds the players to help the offense and thereby the whole team


we may have to wait to draft a truly great prospect and may just take a QB in the draft we think might be able to help

we just need to stick to the long term plan and not try and get there a little sooner

THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS OR SURE FIRE, CAN'T MISS SOLUTIONS, TO THIS MESS CREATED BY YKW (you know who)

SkinsJock wrote:we may have to wait to draft a truly great prospect and may just take a QB in the draft we think might be able to help

If we draft someone for the sake of doing this year, knowing he's not "the future" and then draft "the future" next year, aren't we wasting that initial pick?

There is NO WAY that this FO will use a draft pick on a QB that they don't think has a good chance to be a good QB

This FO will continue to do the best they can with what they have and whomever they bring in here - no doubt about that


the lack of future great QBs in the free agent market and the recent drafts will not deter this FO

I agree VERY strongly that this franchise's most important issue is at QB

I do not see this FO trying to resolve that VERY important issue at the expense of continuing to build on what they've started

Getting Andrew Luck or a RGIII is not worth what it is shaping up to be

This FO understands the importance of continuing to build this franchise

WE WILL GET A GREAT QB - BUT NOT AT THE COST OF CONTINUING TO ADD THE OTHER PLAYERS WE NEED

SkinsJock wrote:There is NO WAY that this FO will use a draft pick on a QB that they don't think has a good chance to be a good QB

Even though he didn't draft them he did stake his rep on a couple of QBs we both have seen. Anything is possible.

skinsfan#33 wrote:
CH,
Every GM makes questionable personnel decisions! MS’ draft and FA results in Denver were MUCH better than most give him credit for. He built a two time winning SB team. He has four starters and eleven players left over from the team he inherited from Bum’s son. Now those four starters were all HoF caliber players, but Wade Phillips didn’t do anything with them! MS built those two SB teams and that isn’t debatable.

This is a convenient example of revisionist history if ever I saw such a thing.

Denver missed the playoffs in 1985 in spite of going 11-5 ... but made it to the Super Bowl after the 1986 and 1987 Seasons when Mike Shanahan was the Offensive Coordinator. They went back to the Super Bowl after the 1989 season (while Shanahan was HC of the Raiders). The common denominator throughout this impressive run was John Elway's heroics which didn't appear in the big game, losing to the NYG, Redskins, and 49ers, three out of 4 years. And it's safe to say that all three loses came against superior, dominating teams.

In 1991 the Broncos lost to the Bills in the AFC Championship, after Elway was injured and forced to leave the game.

1992 Shanahan was fired as the OC. In spite of the change, and Elway having a non-Elway season, the Broncos started 7-3 ... Elway was injured, and the Broncos #1 draft pick and future successor Tommy Maddox came in and the Broncos went down in flames.

1993 - Broncos returned to the playoffs under Phillips, with Elway having one of his best seasons.

1994 - The Broncos had trouble, finished 7-9, and Phillips was fired and Shanahan hired as the HC

1995 - under Shanahan, the Broncos finished 8-8 despite setting 7 franchise records on offense ... the defense allowed too many points.

1996 - Broncos start 12-1 and finish 13-3, losing in the first round of the playoffs.

1997 - Finish 12-4, and Win the Super Bowl beating the Packers.

1998 - Finish 14-2 and win the second Super Bowl beating the Falcons.

Elway Retires, and 1999 the Broncos finished 6-10.

For the next 6 seasons, the Broncos under Shanahan (without Elway), would not win a single playoff game, getting hammered by the Colts in a wild card game 49-24 in 2004.

2005 - the Broncos finish 13-3 and win their 1st playoff game, but get hammered by the Steelers 34-17 in the AFC Championship.

From that point forward, Shanahan was 500 as a coach and was fired after the 2008 season.

We know his record here.

What's the point? The point is, the Broncos were a solid winning franchise when Shanahan took over as HC ... Shanahan neither built the team, nor was the reason for the 2 Super Bowl victories ... that was Elway ... who carried the team to 5 Super Bowl appearances. In his first year as HC, the Broncos broke 7 franchise offensive records under Elway ... and the second year they they were 13-3. That's hardly what I call inheriting a mess.

Just to correct the history record.

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Now let’s look at the Skins history with finding franchise QBs. In almost 80 years we have drafted two franchise QBs. They were Sammy Baugh and Norm Sneed, who we traded for Sonny. We have never been able to find a franchise QB, other than those three players and they were 75 and 50 years ago. Sure you could point to Joey T or Mark Rypien as possible franchise guys, but I wouldn’t!
Either way, we have had several owners and many GMs and we have only managed to draft two franchise QBs in 80 years. And one of those we traded for our only other franchise QB we have ever had. We have had guys you could win with; Joey T, Ryp, Brad Johnson, and probably some in the time between Sammy and Sonny that escape my memory right now, but for the most part this team has hasn’t acquired an elite QB by any avenue in the past 50 years.

So how about we give MS a few years to find one? They aren’t like RBs. You can’t go down to the local Quickie Mart and find one like you can a RB.

How many years is a "few"? 5? 10? In Shanahan's last 5 years as a HC ... 3 with Denver, and 2 here ... he's 10 games UNDER 500. ALL of those 10 games under occurring here. Anybody else not named "Shanahan" woulld at best, get one more year ... some unfortunate coaches would have been fired last month. (Jim Zorn).

One thing is clear .... Shanahan HAS TO HAVE a top QB. He's got a miserable record without one. And the one he had that won those Super Bowls for him, he didn't pick.

What did the Broncos give up for Elway? Two first round picks, and o-lineman and a QB. Think the Broncos made a mistake trading away picks and players for Elway?

Those two 1st rounders and two players traded for Elway bought them 5 trips to the Super Bowl, with two victories, and 16 years of excitement and almost a couple more Super Bowls.

RayNAustin wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:
CH,
Every GM makes questionable personnel decisions! MS’ draft and FA results in Denver were MUCH better than most give him credit for. He built a two time winning SB team. He has four starters and eleven players left over from the team he inherited from Bum’s son. Now those four starters were all HoF caliber players, but Wade Phillips didn’t do anything with them! MS built those two SB teams and that isn’t debatable.

This is a convenient example of revisionist history if ever I saw such a thing.

Denver missed the playoffs in 1985 in spite of going 11-5 ... but made it to the Super Bowl after the 1986 and 1987 Seasons when Mike Shanahan was the Offensive Coordinator. They went back to the Super Bowl after the 1989 season (while Shanahan was HC of the Raiders). The common denominator throughout this impressive run was John Elway's heroics which didn't appear in the big game, losing to the NYG, Redskins, and 49ers, three out of 4 years. And it's safe to say that all three loses came against superior, dominating teams.

In 1991 the Broncos lost to the Bills in the AFC Championship, after Elway was injured and forced to leave the game.

1992 Shanahan was fired as the OC. In spite of the change, and Elway having a non-Elway season, the Broncos started 7-3 ... Elway was injured, and the Broncos #1 draft pick and future successor Tommy Maddox came in and the Broncos went down in flames.

1993 - Broncos returned to the playoffs under Phillips, with Elway having one of his best seasons.

1994 - The Broncos had trouble, finished 7-9, and Phillips was fired and Shanahan hired as the HC

1995 - under Shanahan, the Broncos finished 8-8 despite setting 7 franchise records on offense ... the defense allowed too many points.

1996 - Broncos start 12-1 and finish 13-3, losing in the first round of the playoffs.

1997 - Finish 12-4, and Win the Super Bowl beating the Packers.

1998 - Finish 14-2 and win the second Super Bowl beating the Falcons.

Elway Retires, and 1999 the Broncos finished 6-10.

For the next 6 seasons, the Broncos under Shanahan (without Elway), would not win a single playoff game, getting hammered by the Colts in a wildc ard game 49-24 in 2004.

2005 - the Broncos finish 13-3 and win their 1st playoff game, but get hammered by the Steelers 34-17 in the AFC Championship.

From that point forward, Shanahan was 500 as a coach and was fired after the 2008 season.

We know his record here.

What's the point? The point is, the Broncos were a solid winning franchise for a long time ... Shanahan neither built the team, nor was the reason for the 2 Super Bowl victories ... that was Elway ... who carried the team to 5 Super Bowl appearances ... in his first year as HC, the Broncos broke 7 franchise offensive records under Elway ... and the second year they they were 13-3. That's hardly inheriting a mess.

Just to correct the history.

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Now let’s look at the Skins history with finding franchise QBs. In almost 80 years we have drafted two franchise QBs. They were Sammy Baugh and Norm Sneed, who we traded for Sonny. We have never been able to find a franchise QB, other than those three players and they were 75 and 50 years ago. Sure you could point to Joey T or Mark Rypien as possible franchise guys, but I wouldn’t!
Either way, we have had several owners and many GMs and we have only managed to draft two franchise QBs in 80 years. And one of those we traded for our only other franchise QB we have ever had. We have had guys you could win with; Joey T, Ryp, Brad Johnson, and probably some in the time between Sammy and Sonny that escape my memory right now, but for the most part this team has hasn’t acquired an elite QB by any avenue in the past 50 years.

So how about we give MS a few years to find one? They aren’t like RBs. You can’t go down to the local Quickie Mart and find one like you can a RB.

How many years does he get 5? 10? How many? In Shanahan's last 5 years as a HC ... 3 with Denver, and 2 here ... he's 10 games UNDER 500. ALL of those 10 games lost here.

One thing is clear .... Shanahan HAS TO HAVE a top QB. He's got a miserable record without one. And the one he had that won those Super Bowls, he didn't pick.

What did the Broncos give up for Elway? Two first round picks, and o-lineman and a QB. Think the Broncos made a mistake trading away picks and players for Elway?

Thanks Ray for the stats, this just points out what we really know. I think Shan is a decent coach but not all that. Take away Elway and well...

It is what it is, and I think this guy is good enough to build a half decent team but not a SB team unless, everyone else is just that bad. That doesn't mean that I am saying fire him just saying that he is sort of like Marty. I am happy that he is organized. I am happy that he can find some talent. I just feel that it is going to take a long time before we see Redskins in a Super Bowl. If we get lucky and draft a really good QB or find one in FA then things might be different. I got my fingers crossed.

SkinsJock wrote:There is NO WAY that this FO will use a draft pick on a QB that they don't think has a good chance to be a good QB

This FO will continue to do the best they can with what they have and whomever they bring in here - no doubt about that


the lack of future great QBs in the free agent market and the recent drafts will not deter this FO

I agree VERY strongly that this franchise's most important issue is at QB

I do not see this FO trying to resolve that VERY important issue at the expense of continuing to build on what they've started

Getting Andrew Luck or a RGIII is not worth what it is shaping up to be

This FO understands the importance of continuing to build this franchise

WE WILL GET A GREAT QB - BUT NOT AT THE COST OF CONTINUING TO ADD THE OTHER PLAYERS WE NEED

Waiting to the next draft to get a franchise quarterback is a terrible idea, especially if we continue to build. It's not likely we'll get a top ten choice next year, unless we do a lot worse than I think we will. If we achieve mediocrity, we'll have a mediocre choice--and because of the lack of a franchise quarterback are likely to remain a mediocre team for years to come. We were terrible last year and have got to take advantage of it.