Mike Shanahan - Bruce Allen Bandwagon

[brad7686]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

[welch]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If Shanahan and his choice for defensive coordinator want the 3-4, then they should -- and did -- install it from the first. They have to train players to the 3-4, and find players to fit. That's happening, and it won't be smooth.

Remember the reverse: in the first year of free-agency / salary cap, the Redskins lost an all-pro linebacker. A big star and a great player in the 4-3. They signed Carl Banks, an all-pro in the 3-4, from the Giants. Banks didn't fit.

Players don't necessarily fit in both defenses, but if the coaches want a 3-4 defense, then the defense will slip for a time.

There is no reason to believe that the defense won't improve next year.

[KazooSkinsFan]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If you recall while our D was "top 10," we've been getting zero turnovers and we have consistently not been able to make key stops. To say it's just "ego" is not addressing legit concerns.

[Kilmer72]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If you recall while our D was "top 10," we've been getting zero turnovers and we have consistently not been able to make key stops. To say it's just "ego" is not addressing legit concerns.

I would guess we had more 3 and outs with the 43 than 34 though....Wouldn't you? I think that is almost as important as TOs. Also, they could have stressed getting TOs running a 43 couldn't they?

[1niksder]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

He wanted to play a 3-4 scheme and switch to a ZBS on offense, as head coachnhe can do that but both will take time. I understand what you are saying but only because I'm a "if it ain't broke don't try to fix it" type of guy, look at the guys he brought in on the OL for his zone blocking scheme and how they have worked out. Did we really want him to try and fix it in one year. This whole season has look like they have been in evaluation mode to see who stays and who goes for next year. Even the AH thing was evaluation Shanahan had Haynesworth with Fisher and Haynesworth with Zorn. He had to figure it out for himself.

Coming in MS said he would be relying on the D to keep the team competitive until the ZBS developed, how he figured converting a top five 4-3 into a bottom five 3-4 would get tha done has confused me all season. It has been proven to work though, look at the defensive stats on any stat site and you'll find the Skins D running neck and neck with NE, the Patsy are putting up 35-45 points a game though.

[chiefhog44]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If you recall while our D was "top 10," we've been getting zero turnovers and we have consistently not been able to make key stops. To say it's just "ego" is not addressing legit concerns.

I would guess we had more 3 and outs with the 43 than 34 though....Wouldn't you? I think that is almost as important as TOs. Also, they could have stressed getting TOs running a 43 couldn't they?

Yea, but why don't you judge the final product against the final product? We've had like forever to build the 4-3 and we have had 12 games to build the 3-4? How about judging it after three years? THAT is the point dude.

[Kilmer72]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If you recall while our D was "top 10," we've been getting zero turnovers and we have consistently not been able to make key stops. To say it's just "ego" is not addressing legit concerns.

I would guess we had more 3 and outs with the 43 than 34 though....Wouldn't you? I think that is almost as important as TOs. Also, they could have stressed getting TOs running a 43 couldn't they?

Yea, but why don't you judge the final product against the final product? We've had like forever to build the 4-3 and we have had 12 games to build the 3-4? How about judging it after three years? THAT is the point dude.

The wait is just painful. I understand that in 3 or 4 years or maybe longer we can have a great 34 defense. Just wish we could have spent draft picks on offense instead instead of on both sides of the line seeing as we have to plug spots and mortgage our future doing what we are doing. I have no choice. I have to wait. I love my Skins no matter what but hell, I get frustrated. By the time we get all the pieces, Shanny wont even be here is my guess, but who knows?

[Irn-Bru]

RI is reporting that Shanahan said that cutting Haynesworth was 100% his call, with no Snyder invovlement. Good news if true . . .

[Red_One43]

Well now people, gather round and hear me out:

THIS THREAD IS DEDICATED TO CONFIRM THE MEMBERS OF THE BA/MS BANDWAGON.

If you want to have your gloom and doom, doubtful, sorry, pessimistic, give up, surrender, never-win, we are done, hopeless excuses thread, PLEASE join gampi in his thread: 3 in a row, the tailspin has begun...

This thread is not about to make any promises for SHORT TERM SUCCESS. This thread is about setting the foundation to build upon a TEAM, a band of brothers, under the right leadership in the next couple of years. It is a commitment if you are not affraid of it.

There will be more losses, There are many holes. Mike is FAR FROM PERFECT and he has made mistakes but OVERALL ...

You are in or you are not.

You know where I stand and I will support them because ... I believe in them and ...

Daniel Snyder is the last person on earth I want to have to make any other decision about football operations EVER.

(Right thread now.)

I am on it!

[skinpride1]

RI is reporting that Shanahan said that cutting Haynesworth was 100% his call, with no Snyder invovlement. Good news if true . . .

Looks to be true

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... .html#more

I'm glad to see Shanny and Bruce really are running the show now.

Now get some youth and talent on that roster and stop bringing in old over the hill FA!!

[Chris Luva Luva]

I'm still on but they aren't perfect, nobody is for that matter.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

ALLLLLLLLLLLL AAAAAABOOOOOOOOARD!

Been on the wagon since it came to town.. A few bumps = more cocktails not jumping off.

Chhhuuuuuuuuu Chuuuuuuuu!

[VetSkinsFan]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If Shanahan and his choice for defensive coordinator want the 3-4, then they should -- and did -- install it from the first. They have to train players to the 3-4, and find players to fit. That's happening, and it won't be smooth.

Remember the reverse: in the first year of free-agency / salary cap, the Redskins lost an all-pro linebacker. A big star and a great player in the 4-3. They signed Carl Banks, an all-pro in the 3-4, from the Giants. Banks didn't fit.

Players don't necessarily fit in both defenses, but if the coaches want a 3-4 defense, then the defense will slip for a time.

There is no reason to believe that the defense won't improve next year.

My issue from that is with all the holes on offense, the defense shoulda stayed 4-3, and then coulda transitioned easier if he went a hybrid, then 3-4. This cold thurkey 3-4 and trying to fix an anemic offense at the same time is horrible.

I honestly believe taht as the season went on, the defense got worse. We've NOT been getting to the QB as much, NOT been getting the TOs as we did in the 1st 1/2 of the season. Our newness wore off (hello Zorn 6-2 start) and teams found out we're not that good at the 3-4. I honestly believe that we could have been better at the 4-3. Didn't the reigning Super Bowl Champs win with a 4-3? 3-4 may be dominating now, but 4-3 is not inept as some college football offenses are in NFL. It can be viable. This defensive transition added AT LEAST one year to our rebuild.

[Deadskins]

RI is reporting that Shanahan said that cutting Haynesworth was 100% his call, with no Snyder invovlement. Good news if true . . .

I have no doubt that's true.

[KazooSkinsFan]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If you recall while our D was "top 10," we've been getting zero turnovers and we have consistently not been able to make key stops. To say it's just "ego" is not addressing legit concerns.

I would guess we had more 3 and outs with the 43 than 34 though....Wouldn't you?

Absolutely, but the 3-4 is a work in progress. On the flip side, I'd say we've had way more turnovers with the 3-4 then the 4-3 though...wouldn't you?

[KazooSkinsFan]

My issue from that is with all the holes on offense, the defense shoulda stayed 4-3, and then coulda transitioned easier if he went a hybrid, then 3-4. This cold thurkey 3-4 and trying to fix an anemic offense at the same time is horrible.

A slower transition certainly would have made the pain lower now, but it would have extended it. I'd rather do both at once if that's where we're headed and get it over with. We're used to sucking at this point anyway.

[CanesSkins26]

my main thing is that anybody could have seen we had a decent defense in place and a horrible offense. Instead of devoting everything to the offense, they focused on D and made it MUCH worse. Imagine how much more the offense could have progressed without the 3-4 debacle. Moreover, I think it was an ego thing, I'm Mike Shanahan, I run 3-4's, that's what we're gonna do, and it didn't work.

If you recall while our D was "top 10," we've been getting zero turnovers and we have consistently not been able to make key stops. To say it's just "ego" is not addressing legit concerns.

I would guess we had more 3 and outs with the 43 than 34 though....Wouldn't you?

Absolutely, but the 3-4 is a work in progress. On the flip side, I'd say we've had way more turnovers with the 3-4 then the 4-3 though...wouldn't you?

Turnovers aren't everything, though. Especially when your defense literally can't stop anyone. And it's not like we are lighting it up with turnovers either. We have 11 int's right now and the leading team in the NFL has 20. 15 NFL teams have more picks than us. We've done pretty well in forcing fumbles, but we actually did pretty well in that regard last year as well.

In addition, we are on pace to fall far short of out sack total from last year. Also, most of our turnovers came in the early part of the season. Over the last five games we have five turnovers.

[Deadskins]

All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I would guess we had more 3 and outs with the 43 than 34 though....Wouldn't you?

Absolutely, but the 3-4 is a work in progress. On the flip side, I'd say we've had way more turnovers with the 3-4 then the 4-3 though...wouldn't you?

Turnovers aren't everything, though

I agree Canes. My point was that he picked one stat and I was showing that can work both ways

[CanesSkins26]

All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

I agree. The Packers are a perfect example of a team that made the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in one offseason. Unlike us, though, they had the players to make it work.

[KazooSkinsFan]

All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

I agree. The Packers are a perfect example of a team that made the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in one offseason. Unlike us, though, they had the players to make it work.

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

I'm not sold completely on the 3-4, but given that we're going to go to it, it's better to just do it given that our D has struggled with turnovers and key stops and sacks and our O has so much work to do. I prefer to get all the pain over at once rather then spread it out.

[Deadskins]

All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

I agree. The Packers are a perfect example of a team that made the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in one offseason. Unlike us, though, they had the players to make it work.

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

No, but you don't make the switch until after you have signed the players.

[VetSkinsFan]

All this talk about it taking so long to transition to the 3-4 is not accurate IMO, either. If you have the players, I think the change can be made in one season. I see no reason to make the switch now if we don't have the personnel to run the scheme. If the players we do have don't fit in the 3-4, and will be gone when we do finish the implementation, then what value is there in teaching it to them now? Why go through these growing pains if these aren't even the players we will have running the scheme in two years?

I agree. The Packers are a perfect example of a team that made the transition from a 4-3 to a 3-4 in one offseason. Unlike us, though, they had the players to make it work.

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

No, but you don't make the switch until after you have signed the players.

I see I'm not the only one that understands it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

No, but you don't make the switch until after you have signed the players.

I see I'm not the only one that understands it.

I understand your objective just fine. I just don't understand your plan to get there and while you agreed with each other, neither of you answered my question.

[VetSkinsFan]

It becomes a catch 22 though. We can't switch because we don't have the right players, but then what do we do? Sign 3-4 players and stick them in the 4-3?

No, but you don't make the switch until after you have signed the players.

I see I'm not the only one that understands it.

I understand your objective just fine. I just don't understand your plan to get there and while you agreed with each other, neither of you answered my question.

Do you read anything except your own ramblings? I already explained the basics on how I would do it.