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

The Hogster wrote:Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

Ouch, sorry Ray, but you're having a bad hair day. Elway carried Shannahan, too funny. I do believe you're a Redskin fan, but it's odd how you need to have a Redskin you hate the living daylights out of at any given moment. Apparently JC did have broad shoulders, your hatred for him had to be carried by ... two ... guys named "Shannahan"

Irn-Bru wrote:Or are we supposed to believe he "didn't win anything" just because he didn't win a Super Bowl? I guess getting to the playoffs or conference championship isn't good enough? You probably think the Ravens have been a mediocre team these past 10 years, too, I suppose.

In the 12 seasons that Shanahan has coached since his last Super Bowl win, his team won his division ONCE. That's one time in 12 seasons. In that span he's made it to one conference championship and his playoff record is 1-4. So one division win and one playoff win in 12 seasons.

As for the quarterbacks that you mentioned in another post and not being good enough...Plummer, Griese, Cutler. Who was responsible for drafting or trading for them?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Don't people remember the many Superbowls Elway lost before Shanahan? Including one to the Skins??!

Ouch, sorry Ray, but you're having a bad hair day. Elway carried Shannahan, too funny. I do believe you're a Redskin fan, but it's odd how you need to have a Redskin you hate the living daylights out of at any given moment. Apparently JC did have broad shoulders, your hatred for him had to be carried by ... two ... guys named "Shannahan"

If you think it was the other way around, that Shanahan carried Elway to the super bowl, and to the party afterward, that doesn't surprise me a bit. I expect that from you. In fact, when we agree on something ... I immediately do a discount double check

And I suppose Dan Reeves carried Elway to the other three Super Bowls too.

So yeah, I get it ... Shanahan 2 SBs Elway 5 SBs .... must have been Shanahan's brilliance. If nothing else, you are consistent.

RayNAustin wrote:If you think it was the other way around, that Shanahan carried Elway to the super bowl, and to the party afterward, that doesn't surprise me a bit

You think one had to carry the other, I have to pick, that doesn't surprise me a bit. Actually the NFL is a team game, Ray, in an ultra competitive environment. It takes a whole team to win, players and coaches. You know that and you write some good points until we get to the people you hate, and then it's tinfoil time.

Irn-Bru wrote:
You have become a parody of yourself. Shanahan's Broncos after Elway:

Code: Select all

2008   NFL   Denver Broncos   8   8
2007   NFL   Denver Broncos   7   9
2006   NFL   Denver Broncos   9   7
2005   NFL   Denver Broncos   13   3
2004   NFL   Denver Broncos   10   6
2003   NFL   Denver Broncos   10   6
2002   NFL   Denver Broncos   9   7
2001   NFL   Denver Broncos   8   8
2000   NFL   Denver Broncos   11   5
1999   NFL   Denver Broncos   6   10

Don't believe what your eyes tell you, Redskins fans. It might look like a 76% winning record, but in fact that's actually a "horrible" record as coach. Putrid. Unacceptable. And clear evidence that Shanahan without Elway couldn't win "anything."

I'd really like to say that I find no pleasure in this, but that would be less than honest, since you have really gone out of your way to earn this symbolic foot that is about to be metaphorically lodged in your whimsical rear end.

So without further ado, the bad news is, Irn-Bru, my dog counts her greenies better than you count football games. So you prolly should stop laughing now, and find some one to help you with this 4th grade math assignment I'm fixing to give you .... and maybe a good chef skilled in the preparation of crow, because you have Irned a substantial portion.

I'll walk you through this, and I'll try to type slowly ... and I hope your fan club follows along, (Kazoo & Friends) because apparently this problem affects them as much as it does you ... so we can make this a class ...

You just listed 10 seasons above. At 16 games per season, that is how many games? The correct answer is 160. Very good.

Now, let's check your 76% winning figure ... yes ... by multiplying .76 X 160 Kay? What did you come up with? I came up with 121.6 wins. Now go to your nice little list, and count how many games Mikey ACTUALLY won without Elway? By my count, he won 91 games. See a slight problem here? Like 30 missing wins? Think that might slightly alter the results a bit?

Frankly, this is math you should be able to do in your head, without having to remove shoes and stuff ... in rough estimate fashion ... half of 160 = 80 (50%) ... and half of 80 would be 40 (25%). Add 80+40=120 ... that would be 75% .... 1% of 160 would be 1.6. Add all of that up and you get 121.6. This was the big clue that your 76% winning percentage was bogus at face value .... but if you're ever in Austin, ring me up and we'll keep a seat at the poker table warm for you, but we'll count the cash, if you don't mind.

So what was Mikey's actual winning percentage? Well, I'm going to let you figure that out on your own, cuz you'll never learn if I just give you the answer ....

Hint: It starts with a frigging FIVE ... and is less than 60%

Now, the bonus question is to take Mikey's Broncos post Elway winning percentage and add to that the 2 1/2 seasons in Washington ... and the total for the last 12 years is BELOW 50%

And the actual correct answer equates to an average 7-9 record for the past 12 seasons (Broncos & Redskins) and that is absolutely MEDIOCRE by NFL standards and gets coaches fired all of the time ... just like it did with Mikey in Denver. That was your 2nd clue .... that no coaches get fired for going 13-3 and 12-4 (75%) every year. The 3rd clue .... that Mikey only achieved that 76% ONCE in those 10 years, and those 7-9, 6-10 and 8-8 records were not going to help that number much.

Mikey's .358 winning record in the Burgundy & Gold is, on the other hand, HORRIBLE, which was what I actually said... but you should have already realized this by the 14-25 record, without me having to tell you. Perhaps you've been too busy standing on your own member, which may explain all the confusion with percentages. It's hard to think clearly like that.

Class dismissed.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:If you think it was the other way around, that Shanahan carried Elway to the super bowl, and to the party afterward, that doesn't surprise me a bit

You think one had to carry the other, I have to pick, that doesn't surprise me a bit. Actually the NFL is a team game, Ray, in an ultra competitive environment. It takes a whole team to win, players and coaches. You know that and you write some good points until we get to the people you hate, and then it's tinfoil time.

I suppose math is also a conspiracy theory? Perhaps you should get you some aluminum foil ... tin is much too expensive.

Here's the thing ... "hate" is a very strong word, which is a felling I reserve for evil people. Incompetence does not qualify for the hate. And I really don't ever recall actually saying that I hate Shanahan ... I don't actually like him too much ... but I don't hate him. He may be a fine fellow.

And there is no big mystery as to what drives my line of reasoning really .. it's not hate, and it has nothing to do with tinfoil. It's a perception and it's cause and effect and it's prediction based on the past consistent results, like Jason Campbell ... I never hated Jason ... I just wanted him to be the QB of the Cowboys or Eagles or Giants .... does that make me less of a Redskin fan Kazoo? I think it makes me a smart Redskin fan, but I'm of course biased.

But let me let you in on a little secret insight into my way of thinking ... I look at patterns ..... like drinking too much and waking up with a headache. After a few times, these two seemingly unrelated things reveal there connection ... so when I get a headache I know that one of two things have occurred ... I either drank too much last night, or I was trying to reason with you!

But seriously ... Shanahan's record in Denver was not exactly as stellar as it was presented as being .. and if you look at that string of numbers you'll see a pattern .... bad, good, average, average good .... it's very inconsistent. And in 2008, Cutler payed well enough to make it to the Pro Bowl, even though Denver finished 8-8. That's a bad sign, and not too many teams fail to break 500 when their QB plays that well.

There was a reason why Shanahan was fired you know .... you just don't fire a guy that was such a long tenured coach without due cause, and failing to break 500 with a pro bowl QB was what did Shanny in, after two previous mediocre years in 2006 and 2007.

So he finished out his last three years in denver at 500. And I'm sure there were issues that contributed to the decision ... now in his 3rd year here, we're 3-4 with a rookie QB playing LIGHTS OUT, and don't you even dare tell me that you think the Redskins would be much better than 1-6 or 2-5 right now without RG3 and what he's done.

So at the end of the day ... he's got a lousy record here, and if not for the big trade for RG3 we would most likely be looking at another year like the first 2 years only maybe even a couple of games worse due to the defense playing more poorly than they have in the last several years. And that would be moving in the wrong direction. We might still be looking at a 6-10, record this year, even with a sensational performance from the QB.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it, until I see some reason to believe differently. Right now, this team could be 0-7 without RG3 because last year's offense would have won with this years defense.

So it looks like one step forward and two steps back, aside from trading the farm for RG3, which anyone could do?

RayNAustin wrote:Perhaps you've been too busy standing on your own member, which may explain all the confusion with percentages

I don't know about confusion with percentages, but if you could stand on your own member, you don't have to worry about numbers.

Deadskins wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Perhaps you've been too busy standing on your own member, which may explain all the confusion with percentages

I don't know about confusion with percentages, but if you could stand on your own member, you don't have to worry about numbers.

Maybe I've just exposed a secret. Fellas hide your wives and girlfriends.

But don't hide em' in the same place!

I did get that math totally wrong. It was a bad copy/paste job in Excel. Point conceded, and gladly conceded.

But, I'm still not convinced. As I said in my first post, I find this whole debate to be ridiculous. I don't think that seven-year stretch can be waved away, much less twisted into an assessment of it being "horrible."

I keep reading all this about having a great coach and then a great qb. RGIII is an exciting young player that i think honestly can be our franchise QB for the next 10 years but the Shannys have got to get out of town. Mike is just like Gibbs was when he came back in the league, living in the past and the game passed him by. Not to mention if we do not get a new Defensive Coordinator then we are never gonna have a winning season. We can't go into every game with just hoping to out score the other team cause our D plays like it is flag football

Irn-Bru wrote::lol: I did get that math totally wrong. It was a bad copy/paste job in Excel. Point conceded, and gladly conceded.

But, I'm still not convinced. As I said in my first post, I find this whole debate to be ridiculous. I don't think that seven-year stretch can be waved away, much less twisted into an assessment of it being "horrible."

You keep saying that, but that was not what I said. I said Shanahan's record HERE is horrible, and you are the one twisting. But if you have another adjective to describe 14 wins in 39 tries, and an 8 game losing streak at home, suit yourself ... but to me, horrible seems well suited. Sucks would work too.

I applied the mediocre label to Shanahan's record in Denver ... and that is of course a subjective opinion, but apparently one that was shared by the owner of that team who fired him, because I find it hard to believe he could have the same high opinion of him as you do, and fire him anyway.

The facts are ... aside from your failed effort to humiliate me with figures from a polish calculator ... Shanahan had two very good years, a couple of 10-6 seasons which is the minimum level for good, and the other 6 seasons were dancing on either side of 500. Any way you slice it, dice it, or spin it ... it's just so so, overall.

But everyone knows this is a "what have you done for me lately" world, and lately .. as in the last 6 years, Shanahan has been coasting on reputation rather than results, and these coaches need to be held accountable just as they will cut a player for dropping a few passes and fumbling. One expects steady progress, particularly now that virtually every player he has was hand picked by him. So there is no way of escaping culpability by blaming lack of talent.

Obviously the changes on defense have backfired, as they have regressed. His Son has had consistent difficulty locating the end zone for two years, until that one man search and rescue rookie from Baylor came in and showed him where it was located, Therefore I do not buy this business about the masterful tailoring of the offense to suit RG3, but is in fact RG3 who is covering up the flaws in Kyle's offensive approach that were plainly evident prior to this kid's arrival.

Now Shanahan has done some good things here ... I'm not denying that ... he's added some good players .. made some decent picks, and he's also screwed the pooch on several ... such as "I will stake my reputation on John Beck" which was about as bad as your math. He mishandled NcNabb big time, and Rex is Rex .... and there are several other questionable decisions on personnel like Cundiff which was another disaster everyone seemed to see coming from a mile away except this coaching staff.

As impact-full as a couple of players can be, like RG3 and Morris, you cannot discount the negative impact errors in personnel can cause, which was one of the issues with Shanahan in Denver. And I don't trust demonstrated poor judgment. Of course everyone is going to have a miss here and there, but you can't have as many as we've seen here, and I gotta wonder if that isn't partially the reason why this defense couldn't be trusted to stop the passing attack of the Tampa Breeze right now.

Moving forward, we'll just have to wait and see how things pan out for the rest of the season. But because we don't have #1 picks for the next two years, and good cover DBs don't grow on trees, and fletcher is getting old, and holes need to be filled ... personnel decisions are going to be extremely critical over the next couple of years .... glad you have unwavering trust in Shanahan's decisions ... as for me, I'm dubious.

butterd97 wrote:I keep reading all this about having a great coach and then a great qb. RGIII is an exciting young player that i think honestly can be our franchise QB for the next 10 years but the Shannys have got to get out of town. Mike is just like Gibbs was when he came back in the league, living in the past and the game passed him by. Not to mention if we do not get a new Defensive Coordinator then we are never gonna have a winning season. We can't go into every game with just hoping to out score the other team cause our D plays like it is flag football

Just threw up in my mouth. Thanks.

RayNAustin wrote:I applied the mediocre label to Shanahan's record in Denver ...

I hope he's mediocre here too. It would be nice to win another Super Bowl ... or two ...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:I applied the mediocre label to Shanahan's record in Denver ...

I hope he's mediocre here too. It would be nice to win another Super Bowl ... or two ...

That's what Shanny has been saying for 12 years. And who knows, if Elway can carry his but there, RG3 might be able to, too, after all, he does have those superman socks.

RayNAustin wrote:You keep saying that, but that was not what I said. I said Shanahan's record HERE is horrible, and you are the one twisting.

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.

But if you have another adjective to describe 14 wins in 39 tries, and an 8 game losing streak at home, suit yourself ... but to me, horrible seems well suited. Sucks would work too.

I would not say Shanahan's Skins tenure has been "horrible" or that he has "sucked," no.

I applied the mediocre label to Shanahan's record in Denver ... and that is of course a subjective opinion, but apparently one that was shared by the owner of that team who fired him, because I find it hard to believe he could have the same high opinion of him as you do, and fire him anyway.

"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.

But everyone knows this is a "what have you done for me lately" world, and lately .. as in the last 6 years, Shanahan has been coasting on reputation rather than results,

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.

Ok while I agree that the Shanny's need to go what keeps me thinking more about it is ... WHO ARE WO GONNA GET? I know I am bout to hear Cower blah blah blah. He is not coming here to coach. What say ye Hog Nation???

I'd get Chucky, if Shanahan were fired, but I also wouldn't Fire Shanny just yet.

Yeah, what we really need to do is bring in yet another coach and start rebuilding yet again. Brilliant.

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.

Well, the last time Shannahan did anything significant as a coach he had Elway as a QB. (we hear that alot)

Guess what, this QB MAY be just as good or better than Elway. What does that mean? 2 Lombardi trophies .... minimum. That'll do pig, That'll do.

tribeofjudah wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:I'd give the lion's share of the credit to "Bob" and the rest to Alfred .... Kyle would be 0-6 right now, without Bob & Alfred

It's a SYSTEM dawg........ everyone: do your job

Its takes both. The right players to execute said system. When McNabb then Grossman/Beck was running the O I thought Kyle was a bad OC. Then I remembered his O was number one in several categories while he was in Hou. He has a good qb and rb to work with.

not to mention one of the most dominant recievers in the game. (Houston)

This thing isnt firing on all cylinders YET and its already a top 5 offense. The next 10 years are gonna be amazing. Ill wait , hell, been waiting 20 years, whats a few more.

RayNAustin wrote:This is exactly what I said:

That wasn't the passage I was referring to. This one was:

Aside from the fact that after Elway retired, the following year, Shanahan's Broncos went 6-10 ... and aside from the fact that it would take 7 years before he won another division title or a playoff game .... none of which I find overly remarkable, the NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda place ... and lately ... as in the last 5 seasons .... 3 with Denver and the past 2 with Washington .... Shanny is 10 games below 500, which unfortunately all occurred here (he was 500 during his final 3 seasons in Denver). So he's been riding a reputation that is very old now.

That's not great ... it's not good ... and it isn't even mediocre ... it's actually horrible.

Having looked at it more closely I see the relation between the "Aside from the fact" and your final judgment.

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?

No, not necessarily, for a buildling team.

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.

Spurrier had an even better winning percentage, but after he was gone Jon Jansen (I believe it was) said that it had gotten so bad the team would take the field and he was totally unsure whether they had a chance to win on a given day. Do you think that's true of Shanahan's current squad?

My point is only that there are more ways of measuring the state of a team and its progress than a raw w/l percentage. One can analyze Jim Zorn's last year in Washington on many levels to find the instability that was rampant in our organization. That's not a simple matter of having the "right" name on the head coach's parking spot.

RayNAustin wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

rskin72 wrote:

tribeofjudah wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:I'd give the lion's share of the credit to "Bob" and the rest to Alfred .... Kyle would be 0-6 right now, without Bob & Alfred

It's a SYSTEM dawg........ everyone: do your job

Yea, well where did that system get us last season with the other rgiii? We are now arguing which comes first, the smart coach or the gifted qb......same questions as asked about walsh and montana, belichik and brady, shanny and elway....on and on. Think the correct answer is u need both smart coaches, and talented/motivated players, to consistently win in the nfl.

Please, the system won super bowls with the broncos, the system now has the Texans sitting atop the NFL. The system was run here with an immobile turnover machine last year. Now the East Coast Offense has evolved from this. The Shannahan created a whole new offense based on this kids skills. As I've said in the past...you need a top level QB and a top level coach to win in this league. Now we have both

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.

If one should be totally honest in the assessment of the last 6 games, and the sensational production that RG3 has contributed from his own skill and play making ability, which includes monster runs, red zone proficiency, throwing accuracy and a remarkable level of football intelligence, plus leadership skills that no one could actually expect from a rookie QB, that is by any reasonable calculation the ONLY reason we're sitting at 3-3 right now .... instead of 1-5 or 0-6 had Sexy Rexy been handling the rock.

Honestly, I can find not a trace of greatness from these results we've seen from this coaching staff in it's third season. Our defense is worse than it's been for several years ... and until this sensational kid arrived, Kyle's offense needed a seeing eye dog to find the endzone, using three different QBs in the span of 2 seasons.

Hey, it's all good to be a homer .. and optimism is a good thing when you have solid reasons for it ... but think about it ... without RG3, this team would likely be 0-6 right now, and people would be debating which tree at Redskin Park should be used to hang Kyle, Mike and Has., and wondering, as we enter the tough stretch of the schedule, where we're going to find 2 or 3 wins and escape being the 0-16 detroit lions.

Look, it doesn't require genius to teach a kid how to swim when he comes in almost walking on water, but it does require an extreme level of delusion to attribute greatness to a guy who calls a pitchout on a critical third and 1 with the game in the balance ... particularly given the well demonstrated ability of the RB to grind out hard yards inside.

Of course that's just one example, but the point I'm making here, or at least it is my contention that RG3 would make any offense function, because some of his best production has come when his helmet speaker has gone on the blink, or he's manufacturing TD's with his legs.

Personally, I don't think the offense is actually utilizing the proper balance RG3's skills brings to the table ... with just 5 TD passes over 6 games from a kid with a great arm and accuracy, tells me that the offense is relying far too much on his legs, and too little on his arm.

This right here Ray. This is the conversation that started this bro, and now it's been turned into how many wins and loses Shannahan has had to determine how "horrific" he is as a coach. I hesitate to reply to this argument in fear of getting one of your 1000 word essay answers but I can't let you continue your rant about this coach without admitting his system is a proven success...with the Broncos with Elway and the Broncos without Elway. It is a success in Houston right now, and after built, it will be a success here.

Listen, his record here has been awful, no one can deny that. It's pretty obvious, but he took over mush. You have to at least admit that, and I think you do. In addition, you have to admit the years after Elway in Denver were pretty damn good as well. And that was with no legitimate franchise QB. Maybe you want to call Cutler a franchise QB, but having lived with Bears fans here in Chicago, I can tell you he's not. He will not win the big one. Griese and Plummer played well because he put them in those positions to take advantage of their talents. Remember Griese was a 4 rounder (I believe) and Plummer was almost declared a bust with the Cardinals. I am not going to debate the talent levels of his QB's Ray, so don't change the subject on me and take this in another direction, suffice it to say, he was not playing with a franchise QB, which is your claim...what has he done outside of Elway.

If you really want to use records to prove it though, his record was precisely 56.875% going 91-69 over that 10 year period. If that was his career, his percentage would be right there with Marv Levy, Mike Ditka, Tom Coughlin, Bill Cower, Chuck Noll and well above Chucky. So don't come in here telling me that he hasn't done anything since Elway. It was VERY successful in Denver with and without Elway. It is VERY successful in Houston (after it took years to build, but the owner was patient). He's only had two and almost 1/2 years to rebuild this franchise from scratch. Ray this team had crap players, a crap attitude, and a fan base that had almost given up. He is fighting an uphill battle to remake it and in my opinion, I can see the positives, even if you can't. I think you need another offseason to put a bow on it and see what it looks like. This is not even close to a finished product and certainly too early to make a judgement, and if by the end of next year, we are not back in major contention, I will be behind you 100%. Until that time, you are flat wrong.

chiefhog44 wrote:don't come in here telling me that he hasn't done anything since Elway

Actually, Ray has some good points.

How many coaches with HOF QB's don't have more then 2 NFL titles? I mean two? What the heck is that? Two?

And if you throw out his best years, the rest of his career wasn't as good. I think that's a record for a coach, and not the kind of record they want...

And finally, we are running around thinking the team was better then it was under Zorn, I mean dude, take off the Rose colored glasses. They are Redskin_Fanatic bad, Ray is right. Shannahan couldn't coach high school football.

The one thing Ray said I wondered about was that 1998 was a long time ago. It was? Thanks for telling me I'm old, Ray. What are you, 12?