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

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

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?

chiefhog44 wrote: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.

I'll try not to over tax your attention span, but with all of the distortions, it's not easy to keep the response short of a Novella ...

This offense bears no resemblance to the Broncos offense or the Houston offense ... nor even the Redskin offense of the past two years. This might better be labeled as the Baylor RG3 Wildcat West Coast and without RG3, it wouldn't exist., and Kyle would be relegated to the 2010/2011 Kyle Shanahan offense that couldn't find the end zone with Google Earth GPS assistance. So attempting to draw a meaningful comparison between this and Gary Kubiac's offense which HE took to Houston from Denver, and taught to Mike's son Kyle in Houston, is an irrelevant and meaningless exercise.

chiefhog44 wrote:Listen, his record here has been awful, no one can deny that. It's pretty obvious ....

Listen ... THAT WAS MY MAIN POINT that was indeed being argued. JESUS. Unless of course you believe there is a substantial difference between your word "awful" and my word "horrible" ?

chiefhog44 wrote: 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.

Very convenient Chief ... acknowledge I'm "right" on the primary point (the results being Awful ) and then prove how "wrong" I am by providing a shopping cart full of excuses for why it was destined to be Awful, to include YOUR SPECULATIONS that you "don't want to debate"? Kind of a lopsided and rather self serving set of debating rules you got there, Chief.

In any case, Plummer was substantially the same QB in Denver that he was in Arizona ... the big difference was that the Cardinals storied history was that of a DOORMAT ... while Denver was a perennial contender that Shanahan inherited. Dan Reeves, who's coaching record was better than Mike's overall in Denver, (Reeves 110-73-1 ... .601) That Reeves lost his THREE Super Bowls while Mike won his TWO, was slightly due to Reeve's Broncos having lost to the Giants, Redskins and Joe Montana's 49er's ... each of those teams in those respective years were THE POWERHOUSE favorites going in, and blew them out in each of those games. They never had a chance ... or, more appropriately, Elway failed to be GOD, and win those games single handedly.

But it's more than a convenient coincidence that Elway had already taken the Broncos to THREE Super Bowls before Shanahan arrived, and no coincidence that this two time Super Bowl winning coach never got near the Super Bowl again, after Elway retired.

chiefhog44 wrote: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.

That's not a strong tactic ... two can play this game ... I can list such ICONS of the NFL as:

Gary Moeller - .571

Brick Muller - .667

Greasy Neal - .594

Buddy Parker - .581

John Rauch - .588

Who are these household names? Who the (blank) knows .. but apparently they must be better NFL Head Coaches than Shanahan, according to your criteria.

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

I didn't .. that is another item on the building list of deliberate distortions being engaged here. And I thought I already corrected that point with Irn-Bru, so try to keep up!! I said he was "mediocre" after Elway ... not "he did nothing". So don't come in here creating straw man arguments that are totally untrue, and think that's gonna win you a point.

chiefhog44 wrote: 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.

Mike Shanahan has nothing to do with Houston. Kyle does. And in the 2 years Kyle was the OC (calling plays in Kubiac's offense) the Texans were .531 .... after Kyle left, and to date they have a .619 winning percentage. Offensively, they improved AFTER KYLE LEFT ... both in balance between run and pass, and winning football games. Kyle's "success" in Houston can be attributed to Kubiac's offense that Kyle learned while there, as well as one of the better QB-Receiver tandems in the NFL that he heavily relied on to manufacture plays. Consequently, due to the improvement in results after Kyle departed, that evidence suggests that Kyle was not able to take full advantage of what he had in Houston ..... either.

What is actually happening here is that Mike Shanahan has hitched his struggling Son's wagon to a sensational thoroughbred horse named Robert Griffin III, and now everyone wants to praise Kyle's brilliance in "developing" RG3 so quickly. It's brain dead nonsense. RG3 is single handedly pulling Mike and Kyle's arses out of that bottomless pit they have dug themselves in these past two years ... and he's running for TDs and he's making miraculous plays .. scrambling all over the field, making 4th and 10 first downs ... drawing penalties and basically blowing everyone's minds with his exceptional ability.

The real question is ... just how heavy is this wagon, and can this horse continue to pull it without coming up lame under the strain.

chiefhog44 wrote: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.

Chief .... the same could be said when Gibbs came back in 2004. And we made the playoffs in 2005 & 2007 with Mark Brunell, Jason Campbell, and Todd Collins.

Jim Zorn came in in 2008 with a huge question mark on personnel and tasked with winning with the inconsistent Jason Campbell as the QB. The Redskins started out 6-2 that year, until the offensive line disintegrated, and they couldn't score more than an average of 13 points per game the remainder of the year. finishing 8-8

In 2009, we faced the same problems at QB and our inability to put points on the board as exemplified by:

Giants 23 - Redskins 17
Lions 19 - Redskins 14
Chiefs 14 - Redskins 6
Cowboys 7 - Redskins 6
Cowboys 17 - Redskins 0
Panthers 20 - Redskins 17

These past two seasons under Shanahan pretty much mirrored the previous two years under Zorn ... good defense and poor offense leading to a lot of close losses .... except Shanahan's record is slightly worse than Zorn's, with better talent that Shanahan selected.

And need I remind you that Zorn needed body guards to protect him not just from the Fans, but from Bingo parlors and the Owner and GM, who publicly castrated him half way through just his second season?

Give Zorn RG3 instead of Jason Campbell, and the Redskins would almost certainly have won 10 or more games in BOTH OF HIS YEARS here. But with the team Zorn was given (and he had little if any input in personnel) .... a team that was constantly condemned as lacking talent (the oft used excuse for the pathetic play of poor Jason, who never had a chance with that crappy o-line and worthless receivers) ... Jim Zorn was a dog, but Shanahan is solid as a rock? Hardly. That makes about as much sense and some of the math skills, and other illogical deductions demonstrated on this thread.

In conclusion ... and the topic of this thread .... this is not Denver's offense .... not Houston's offense, nor even Kyle Shanahan's offense of 2010 and 2011 .... it is the RG3 offense that only RG3 has the ability to make work, and the only reason the Redskins aren't 0-7 right now, and Shanahan's record even more "awful" than it already is.

We've witnessed a substantial decline in defense from the one Shanahan inherited and insisted on revamping (when it was the offense that actually needed the revamping)..... and a new offense that was almost as allergic to touchdowns as the old offense.

This year's offensive success is not the culmination of Kyle getting all his ducks in a row ... it is a product of "Divine Intervention" otherwise referred to by some as the "Black Jesus".

Irn-Bru wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

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?

Since you're the resident expert in this area .... what do you reckon the percentages are that I'm wrong and he's right ? 76% ? Maybe? Or would it be 100% ?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

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?

I don't know what happened over the years ... or maybe it was always just a myth that Redskin fans were some of the more knowledgeable fans in football ... it certainly is not the case here.

Super Bowl appearances and victories or lack thereof, neither make a coach good or bad or mediocre. It's the full body of work that tells the story .... and coaches, no matter their past records, generally have a 3 to 5 year window in which their viability relies on for remaining head coaches of any team. And this really applies to Shanahan as much as anyone else .... and though you might believe it wrong to do so ..... his last three years in Denver that got him fired, must be taken into account when analyzing his performance here. That's not unfair at all ... it's actually quite appropriate.

But if there is any logical association to be made regarding who is more likely to facilitate winning championships, the greater weight is on the side of a great QB taking an marginal coach all the way, versus a great coach making it happen with a marginal QB.

This can be easily determined as true most of the time, by a simple review of history. But nothing is easy, particularly logical conclusions, for people who insist on allowing their minds to run counter clockwise, like you have done. By insisting that Shanahan was the common denominator in Denver's two Super Bowl Championships .... you are either ignoring the fact that the team appeared in three others before he took over, and that the only common denominator was the same QB ... or you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the significance of that evidence.

My experience of you so far, leaves the door wide open to either possibility, so I have no strong feeling of which is the likely situation.

RayNAustin wrote:By insisting that Shanahan was the common denominator in Denver's two Super Bowl Championships .... you are either ignoring the fact that the team appeared in three others before he took over, and that the only common denominator was the same QB ... or you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the significance of that evidence.

My experience of you so far, leaves the door wide open to either possibility, so I have no strong feeling of which is the likely situation.

That's so funny. Hilariously funny. You repeatedly state that which was not which I was stated and then attack your fantasy of what I said rather then what I actually said. Some call it a strawman, I just say it's trippin.

I know it goes in vain, you will ignore my point once again, but I said football is a team game and if you don't have quality coaches as well as quality players you don't win. I did not and never said it was "Shannahan's" Super Bowl and not Elway, I said it was both, and a bunch of other people.

Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

Boy, that sounds familiar!

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

Boy, that sounds familiar!

There's a difference between ignoring points and ignoring spin

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

+1 - although I'd (for sure) have worded it a little better ...

I think that the Bruce & Mike show will continue for a little longer EVEN considering what is evident to all of us

ACTUALLY - how Bruce and Mike deal with all that is happening to our team (offensively, defensively and with Special Teams) will most likely play the biggest part in helping our stupid owner decide what to do next

I also agree with JSPB in that I would not mind seeing Gruden on our sidelines but I do not think that is happening soon unless we see a meltdown here in the rest of this season

These guys get another year IMO

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:By insisting that Shanahan was the common denominator in Denver's two Super Bowl Championships .... you are either ignoring the fact that the team appeared in three others before he took over, and that the only common denominator was the same QB ... or you simply lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the significance of that evidence.

My experience of you so far, leaves the door wide open to either possibility, so I have no strong feeling of which is the likely situation.

That's so funny. Hilariously funny. You repeatedly state that which was not which I was stated and then attack your fantasy of what I said rather then what I actually said. Some call it a strawman, I just say it's trippin.

I know it goes in vain, you will ignore my point once again, but I said football is a team game and if you don't have quality coaches as well as quality players you don't win. I did not and never said it was "Shannahan's" Super Bowl and not Elway, I said it was both, and a bunch of other people.

Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

It's pretty easy to do given how frequently you have no real point, and just engage in the same type hyperbolical claptrap as you've just done again.

Nevertheless, to your claims which are as equally false as they are ridiculous ... you specifically said:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: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"

Aside from the absence of any meaningful content, your direct and unmistakable statement regarding how funny it is that anyone might think Elway was the more instrumental character in the Denver Super Bowl successes, as opposed to Shanahan's coaching, it's quite reasonable for one to assume that you believe the opposite, without further qualification of the statement. This perception is bolstered by the fact that you were quick to point out previously, how Elway failed to win three previous Super Bowls before Shanahan took over, insinuating the same sentiment. Of course, you totally fail to see how Elway's previous 3 trips to the Super Bowl without Shanahan's assistance might actually argue against you more than for you. Obviously, you're blinded by your own brilliance.

You go on to insinuate the preposterous notion that I might think that football is not a "team effort", as if I believed that John Elway alone was the only reason Denver made it to 5 Super Bowls, winning 2.

Then, if that wasn't enough, you again go into your diatribe about "hate" as if I haven't already corrected you countless times in the past about how silly and absurd that is. I think Matt Cassel is a total failure of a QB, and I have no interest whatsoever in what he does or doesn't do in KC, nor do I hate him. Although I am indeed interested in what Redskin QBs do for the Redskins, the same was always true of Jason Campbell, who I never "hated" but simply felt was a failure of a QB, particularly since he cost the team a 1st and 2nd round pick, as well as set the team back 5 years attempting to fix the unfixable .... while people like you were staunchly in Jason's corner, making one excuse after another the whole time, telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about.

Oh yes you did, and that's a fact, and it was the consensus opinion with only a couple of others besides myself who took no part in that kool-aide guzzling.

Of course, true to your form, the moment the inevitable time arrived, and the writing was indelibly on the wall, you change the entire narrative and claim you did no such thing ... that you never claimed Jason was a good QB, and that there just were no alternatives available at the time .... ignoring the fact that a very average (at best) backup came in for Jason and played circles around him, taking us to the playoffs and destroying the contention that no viable alternative existed.

At the end of the day, you're loath to ever admit you were wrong on any matter, and proceed to engage in hyperbole, distortions, revisionist history making, and straw man arguments, and insults to tell others how wrong they are, when it is actually you who is dead to rights wrong.

It's sad that you are so insecure that to concede a point would be like emotional suicide to you.

This is why you engage in your witty little quips about "bad hair days" when the only bad hair is the hair growing on your arguments, and the hair on the evidence presented that claimed 2 + 2 = 76 that you cheered instead of recognized as a very evident, and elementary miscalculation.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Now you can go back to ignoring my actual argument and arguing the fantasies in your head and telling me how stupid I am for believing what I didn't say and don't think.

Boy, that sounds familiar!

There's a difference between ignoring points and ignoring spin

How the hell would know about that? That's all you do, and certainly all you have done on this topic ..... ignore points and spin tales.

RayNAustin wrote:Aside from the absence of any meaningful content, your direct and unmistakable statement regarding how funny it is that anyone might think Elway was the more instrumental character in the Denver Super Bowl successes, as opposed to Shanahan's coaching, it's quite reasonable for one to assume that you believe the opposite, without further qualification of the statement

On the second part, since I keep saying it's a team game and they are BOTH responsible, it is in fact a ridiculous and not a reasonable assumption. That you can't simply address what I said and insist on changing it to what you want me to have said does in fact show your lack of qualification to hold the view stated in the first part.

You keep saying Shannahan sucks. I'm saying he doesn't and part of my evidence on that are the Super Bowl wins. You are the one saying Elway, Elway. I haven't dissed Elway, I haven't said Shannahan deserves credit not him, I haven't said anything other then they BOTH were required to win the Super Bowls.

It's not that hard. If you're right, why can't you just address that instead of putting words in my mouth that I'm saying it's Shannahan over Elway, a statement I never made and don't think?

Elway was a great quarterback. Lots of HC's with great QB's didn't win any Super Bowls much less two. Elway didn't hand off to himself, didn't block for himself and didn't catch his passes and didn't play defense at all. And no one did that for him well unless they were put in a position to do so. By coaches. As I said from the beginning, it's a ... team ... game. There is no team without a HC to pull it all together.

Here is a concern:

How long will Kyle be in charge? If/when he leaves while Griff is still here, a new system will be implemented.

If you could pick a new guy to implement a new offense, who would it be?

DarthMonk

Griff will be just fine in any offense. I will agree they made it easier for him this year with the options and such but he isn't just running that. He is getting experience and already has shown he can read a defense rather well for a rookie. I am not worried about him. I really do not think any of the Shans are going anywhere anytime soon. I would have rather have had Jon Gruden but it wasn't meant to be.

To top that off the Cowboys could end up with on Gruden. That would suck

I remember reading how Kyle bases what he does (allegedly) on the weakness of the defense. That's why Red's post about running wide to Harrison's side was so troubling to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_3.html

Maybe he was setting something up and all our drops hurt the plan a whole bunch.

My biggest problem with Kyle remains taking shots when we need 3 or 4 yards on 3rd down. Take the shot on 1st or 2nd down.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:I remember reading how Kyle bases what he does (allegedly) on the weakness of the defense. That's why Red's post about running wide to Harrison's side was so troubling to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... ory_3.html

Maybe he was setting something up and all our drops hurt the plan a whole bunch.

My biggest problem with Kyle remains taking shots when we need 3 or 4 yards on 3rd down. Take the shot on 1st or 2nd down.

DarthMonk

Agree, we seem to wait until third down to take the long shot. with our WR corp right now it is not like we have a ton of options though. I like what he does, some interesting formations and playing to RG3 strengths.

The one big mistake that I see is the option pass to RG3. Putting your franchise out there to take a big hit (which he did, he got crushed). I am all about mixing it up, but not like that.

First I've heard Kyles name come up as a head coaching candidate. Pat Kirwin threw it out today on NFL Sirius when asked about a few coaches that he would consider. Interesting to see if we have to make the decision to promote him to replace his dad before his dad is ready to leave, or lose him and then lose his dad soon after.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wa ... story.html

As the Redskins return to playoff relevance, riding an unpredictable and thrilling offense to a three-game winning streak, Shanahan’s creativity has attracted some of the spotlight. There are believers in his influence, and there are doubters. Some suggest he represents the next generation of coaching genius.

Good article. Especially like the part about how, unlike w/ McNabb,

But a new challenge emerged: The offense Kyle had honed required a pocket passer, and it was Griffin’s mobility that made him special. This time, however, he wouldn’t force a quarterback to accommodate his scheme; he would design plays to fit Griffin, taking advantage of his speed and easing him toward becoming an elite passer.

The process was taxing, but his father’s words again echoed in Kyle’s mind: work and time. He spent hours last spring studying video of zone-read offenses: Cam Newton in Carolina, Tim Tebow in Denver, Vince Young in Tennessee. He also did what he’d done in Tampa Bay, scanning defenses for weaknesses. Kyle didn’t interview other coaches or watch college film; he only wanted to see how it worked in the NFL.

Call of the game:

DarthMonk wrote:Call of the game:

I also called this in my head.....right after the pass to Garcon.

Nice play

The real question is whether or not that was a called run.

FLWSkin wrote:The real question is whether or not that was a called run.

Then came some Bird-level audaciousness - the quarterback draw on the 2-point try, a call that Griffin heard through his headphones while getting treatment on the sideline.

''It was awesome,'' Griffin said.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/wash ... urt-120912

FLWSkin wrote:The real question is whether or not that was a called run.

Did that look like a freaking busted play? Shanny said after that game they called that play cos "we didn't think they'd be expecting it".

Definitely caught me by surprise!

tribeofjudah wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Call of the game:

I also called this in my head.....right after the pass to Garcon.

Nice play

I called it out loud to those around me at the bar.