What Happened???

[DaSkinz Baby]

I just saw this and it makes getting rid of Shanahan even stronger:

Only one Redskins coach ever — Bill McPeak — has reached a fifth season with as sorry a winning percentage as Shanahan’s .421. Norv Turner was .454 at 49-59-1 from 1994 to 2000 and was considered a big disappointment. Like Shanahan, Turner inherited an aging team with little remaining talent and a young quarterback, but at least the former Cowboys offensive coordinator reached sustained mediocrity after two seasons.

Can we get Lovie Smith in here STAT!!!!

[DaSkinz Baby]

1. Ray Flaherty 54-21-3, .720 (7)

2. George Allen 67-30-1, .691 (7)

3. Joe Gibbs 154-94, .621 (16)

4. Jack Pardee 24-24, .500 (3)

5. Turk Edwards 16-18-1, .471 (3)

6. Norv Turner 49-59-1, .454 (6)

7. Joe Kuharich 26-32-2, .448 (5)

8. Otto Graham 17-22-3, .436 (3)

9. Mike Shanahan 24-33, .421 (3+)

10. Bill McPeak 21-46-3, .313 (5)


I think this list speaks for itself as well......

[brad7686]

I disagree with the notion that we would have to change our personnel a whole lot to fit the 4-3 again. Cofield was a 4-3 DT. Jenkins was a 4-3 DT. Rak and Kerrigan were 4-3 DE's. Fletcher is much better as a 4-3 LB. Riley could play strong side OLB. Rob Jackson could probably play weak OLB, or we could pick one up in FA for pretty cheap, because it's not a highly sought after position anymore.

[Deadskins]

I disagree with the notion that we would have to change our personnel a whole lot to fit the 4-3 again. Cofield was a 4-3 DT. Jenkins was a 4-3 DT. Rak and Kerrigan were 4-3 DE's. Fletcher is much better as a 4-3 LB. Riley could play strong side OLB. Rob Jackson could probably play weak OLB, or we could pick one up in FA for pretty cheap, because it's not a highly sought after position anymore.

+1.
Riley would be a MLB. I don't think London has too much left in the tank.

[skinsfan#33]

I disagree with the notion that we would have to change our personnel a whole lot to fit the 4-3 again. Cofield was a 4-3 DT. Jenkins was a 4-3 DT. Rak and Kerrigan were 4-3 DE's. Fletcher is much better as a 4-3 LB. Riley could play strong side OLB. Rob Jackson could probably play weak OLB, or we could pick one up in FA for pretty cheap, because it's not a highly sought after position anymore.

Kerrigan might be big enough to play 4-3 DE in the NFL, but Orakpo isn't even close enough to be a 4-3 DE and would never have been drafted in the first round to be a 4-3 DE. Heck we were running a 4-3 at the time and called him a DE/LB. He isn't a 4-3 end and never will be one in the NFL.

I'm fine with the 3-4, we just need to get a better DC and someone on the DL that can put push the middle of the pocket so when Kerrigan and Orakpo are getting held the QB can't step up and run for the first down. It is clear the NFL is allowing OT to hold/tackle our OLBs, but if we got any push from our DL they would still end up getting to the QB.

Some competent pass coverage skills from our safeties wouldn't hurt either, but I still say the biggest problem with our D rhymes with Masslet!

[chiefhog44]

They tried to frontload the contracts of both Hanesworth (and I believe Hall) to accelerate their contracts in a year that was deemed to have an unspoken salary cap.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall were signed to the offending contracts in February 2009. Mike Shanahan was named head coach of the Skins in January 2010.

Vinny Cerrato and the Redskins FO at the time structured the Haynesworth/Hall deals to put the majority of the money in the uncapped year.

. . . But you want to pin the blame on Shanahan and Allen?

I agree that we got hosed, but this has been upheld by the league, the union, and the courts,

CT already knocked this out of the park, but I'll add one thing: the players' union didn't side with the Redskins because it was part of the new bargaining agreement that they wouldn't question the League on matters like these. (The NFLPA agreed to this in order to avoid a lower cap.)

So we've got Mara-Goodell ruling that the Skins broke an unwritten rule, the players' union having their hands tied by the NFL, and a court saying they couldn't make a ruling because it wasn't their jurisdiction. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the penalty.

so ultimately, I think the blame rests on the person or people in this case, that were trying to "work" the system. Correct me if I'm wrong on that though.

Do you realize yet that this means you can't blame Shanahan/Allen for it, by your own logic?

This would then be carried over to the lack of talent on the defense since I hear people say, well, we had a salary cap hit of 36 million so we suck on defense. Not having 1st round picks also can not be used as an excuse as they were the ones that gave them away.

They did not "give them away," they traded them for RGIII. You are trying to have this both ways, so I'd like you to choose one. Which is it: RGIII, or draft picks? You can't say it was a mistake to trade them away without also saying that drafting RGIII was a mistake. And if RGIII is not your QB, whom would you say we should have acquired?

Simply put, when are these coaches going to be judged on their work and have no more excuses???

I'm happy to judge Shanahan and Allen (and the rest) for their work. But the charges you brought against them largely fall flat. You've got some good things to say about the lack of talent on defense, bad coaching on defense, and the special teams mess, but everything else is contrary to the facts.

I understand what happened, and how we got screwed, but ULTIMATELY it was found to be a penalty and is being used as an excuse. And I understand they didn't GIVE away picks. Please stop reading literally into my posts. You understand what I was saying. But the fact remains that they traded away picks for a QB and it still remains to be seen if that was a good move or not, but it's now being used as an excuse. And this is all fine. I'm not arguing you on how or what happened and it seems as if you are saying these are VALID excuses. OK I'm in agreement with you. Great. But in the same breath, you say that I've got some good points on Haslett and Burns...but understand, that you can't use these excuses to give Shannahan and Allen a pass and not Haslett and Burns. So while you think that using my logic doesn't make sense to blame Shannahan and Allen, please understand that you can't use it to blame the defense and special teams. So which is it? WHEN are we supposed to judge these coaches on their ability to coach? Next year two more years...another 4? Set some expectations bud.

[riggofan]

But the fact remains that they traded away picks for a QB and it still remains to be seen if that was a good move or not, but it's now being used as an excuse. And this is all fine.

Interesting comments. I can't say that I've ever really heard the missing draft picks from the RGIII trade used as an excuse for Shanahan. I mean, at this point its only really the one 2013 pick we're missing. (And given our finish last year not an especially high one.) No doubt we could use another first round stud on defense. But would anybody rather have, say, Ndamakong Suh right now and be starting Rex Grossman at QB instead of RGIII?

You're probably right that it remains to be seen whether RGIII was worth those picks. Avoiding injury this year would be a big step! Personally I feel better about the trade now than I did during that draft though.

[chiefhog44]

And I was trying to go back and figure out who was saying that this offense or playcalling is to blame. This is just a pathetic. Aren't we ranked like 5 in the NFL? And look at last week. There were only 5 teams out of 28 that scored more than us. I mean, you're telling me that we have to score 35 per week to win under this logic? Come on...

Other than the series against the Vikings where we didn't run once with 40 seconds to go on 1st and goal, I think the playcalling and offense has been pretty solid. The defense and special teams are the main problem. Has been for years. Love the 3-4, just can't figure out whether it's coaching or players that's the problem. The Steelers D looks very similar to what we look like this year and it's because they have some older players, like we have, and some rookies playing key positions, like we have. The coach is solid, so for them it's a transitional year for their personnel. We really need to start drafting LB's like we draft RB's for development. The Steelers do this better than anyone.

[SkinsJock]

Let's not get carried away with thinking that going with a 4-3 defense makes this defense suddenly work - it will not

for those of you that want a 4-3 defense - do you really think the 4-3 'works' when the guys playing defense keep missing tackles and the secondary cannot cover anyone - do not tell me that - that's HOGWASH

OK

the only way you get REAL change here is to get rid of the HC - I'm not sure that's happening even if we end up at 7-9 or 8-8

[SkinsJock]

There is NO DOUBT in my mind that we have a future great QB in RG3 - NONE

there is no value you can put on having a great QB - you DO NOT have a consistently competitive team without a really good QB

RG3 will be the best Redskins QB ever - if you don't really see the potential, I'm sorry for you

Robert Griffin III is the best player we have added to this franchise in over 25 years

[Deadskins]

Let's not get carried away with thinking that going with a 4-3 defense makes this defense suddenly work - it will not

for those of you that want a 4-3 defense - do you really think the 4-3 'works' when the guys playing defense keep missing tackles and the secondary cannot cover anyone - do not tell me that - that's HOGWASH

OK

the only way you get REAL change here is to get rid of the HC - I'm not sure that's happening even if we end up at 7-9 or 8-8

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't advocating a switch back to the 4-3, I was just agreeing that the personnel we now have could adjust to a 4-3 pretty easily.

[Deadskins]

Kerrigan might be big enough to play 4-3 DE in the NFL, but Orakpo isn't even close enough to be a 4-3 DE

That's nonsense. How would he not be able to rush the passer or provide contain on running plays any differently than he does now if the scheme was changed to a 4-3? The difference is that he wouldn't be required to drop into pass coverage (something the big guys can't do).

[SkinsJock]

Let's not get carried away with thinking that going with a 4-3 defense makes this defense suddenly work - it will not

for those of you that want a 4-3 defense - do you really think the 4-3 'works' when the guys playing defense keep missing tackles and the secondary cannot cover anyone - do not tell me that - that's HOGWASH

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't advocating a switch back to the 4-3, I was just agreeing that the personnel we now have could adjust to a 4-3 pretty easily.

OK - I'll buy that and while I think we're going to still have Mike here next season with the 3-4 defense that he and his buddy Bill Belicheat like ….

IF we did make a change at HC it might be a plus for the DC to switch back

[Irn-Bru]

I understand what happened, and how we got screwed, but ULTIMATELY it was found to be a penalty and is being used as an excuse.

You don't think the Ravens, Giants, Patriots, etc. could struggle after losting $36 million? That is not an insignificant sum AT ALL. That Shanahan-Allen have managed it as well as they have, especially not mortgaging our future to compensate, is a huge point in their favor. It's not even an excuse, really.

But let's say it's a problem that someone deserves the blame for. Are you still saying that falls to Shanahan and Allen? Or do you agree that Vinny is responsible? You can't pin the $36 million on Shanahan if you recognize that he wasn't even here when the actions that resulted in the penalty took place.

And I understand they didn't GIVE away picks. Please stop reading literally into my posts. You understand what I was saying.

Actually, I wasn't sure, and I asked you to elaborate because you weren't being clear. On the one hand, you cited the traded draft picks as a negative against Shanahan and Allen. On the other, you never implied that drafting RGIII was a mistake, and I assume you think it's good we have him. That's a problem for the argument you were trying to make.

But the fact remains that they traded away picks for a QB and it still remains to be seen if that was a good move or not, but it's now being used as an excuse. And this is all fine. I'm not arguing you on how or what happened and it seems as if you are saying these are VALID excuses. OK I'm in agreement with you. Great.

As with the cap penalty, I don't think the traded draft picks are an excuse for Shanny. They were used to acquire RGIII; it's not like they disappeared.

But in the same breath, you say that I've got some good points on Haslett and Burns...but understand, that you can't use these excuses to give Shannahan and Allen a pass and not Haslett and Burns. So while you think that using my logic doesn't make sense to blame Shannahan and Allen, please understand that you can't use it to blame the defense and special teams. So which is it? WHEN are we supposed to judge these coaches on their ability to coach? Next year two more years...another 4? Set some expectations bud.

Shanahan has a contract year next year. For the first two years he did a solid job building a team and getting rid of the cruft from Vinny and Zorn. The improvement was evident. Then with our 2012 offseason we got some of the real starpower we need to compete.

This year there has clearly been regression. Shanahan told Snyder when he was hired to judge him on how the team looks at the end of his 5th year. I agree with that. If we don't improve next year, if we don't return to the form that got us to the playoffs, then definitely look at finding a new head coach.

[Irn-Bru]

Interesting comments. I can't say that I've ever really heard the missing draft picks from the RGIII trade used as an excuse for Shanahan. I mean, at this point its only really the one 2013 pick we're missing. (And given our finish last year not an especially high one.)

Exactly. I'm certainly not saying this, and I really haven't found anyone who's made it into an excuse. chiefhog is swinging at shadows with this one.

(Btw, we also traded a 2nd in that same draft, so we have felt the "loss" of two picks so far.)

No doubt we could use another first round stud on defense. But would anybody rather have, say, Ndamakong Suh right now and be starting Rex Grossman at QB instead of RGIII?

You're probably right that it remains to be seen whether RGIII was worth those picks. Avoiding injury this year would be a big step! Personally I feel better about the trade now than I did during that draft though.

Same here.

I also feel a little better that the Colts got so damn lucky, because they went and traded a 1st rounder to Cleveland for Trent 3.0 (or whatever he is now). Talk about a wasted pick.

[Kilmer72]

Kerrigan might be big enough to play 4-3 DE in the NFL, but Orakpo isn't even close enough to be a 4-3 DE

That's nonsense. How would he not be able to rush the passer or provide contain on running plays any differently than he does now if the scheme was changed to a 4-3? The difference is that he wouldn't be required to drop into pass coverage (something the big guys can't do).

Yeah, I made the mistake in an old thread of saying Rak was drafted as a DE. skinsfan33 was correct in saying he was drafted as DE/LB but what I remember is Rak having his hand in the dirt and being successful. I don't remember him have many LB duties. I am sure I will get corrected on this as well. I think it is safe to say the skinsfan33 doesn't think Rak can do the job as a DE in the NFL. That's fine.

[PulpExposure]

I actually think we could transition back to a 4-3 if we wanted. And Orakpo certainly could play DE; Robert Mathis does, and he's a good 10 pounds lighter than Orakpo. That all being said, until we get some legitimate NFL safety play, we could play a nickle defense and still be unable to stop the pass....

[Kilmer72]

I actually think we could transition back to a 4-3 if we wanted. And Orakpo certainly could play DE; Robert Mathis does, and he's a good 10 pounds lighter than Orakpo. That all being said, until we get some legitimate NFL safety play, we could play a nickle defense and still be unable to stop the pass....

This is true although, we might be able to generate a pass rush from the front 4. Line backers in a 43 might be able to help stop the run and defend the middle. We would still be suspect in the secondary for sure.

[SkinsJock]

talk about 'grasping at straws' - are you guys for real?

the defense sucks but it's not because of the scheme or the game planning …

we have been hurt very badly by a combination of things …

we do have our QB and we are hopefully going to have Bruce and Mike add a bunch more players to the mix soon

[Kilmer72]

Lol... Of course we are "grasping at straws" At this point in the season what else should we do? Might as well entertain some thoughts.

[SkinsJock]

I'm up for anything - it's been very disappointing to see the defense be as ineffective as it has been

we were hoping for more but … London's age has caught up with him, the secondary is an issue and we have not seen much from the front 7 ...

hopefully the FO stays the course on adding younger players through free agency and the draft

I really don't think that Haslett will be back - it's not just due to him or his play calling but someone has to 'pay the price'

[skinsfan#33]

Kerrigan might be big enough to play 4-3 DE in the NFL, but Orakpo isn't even close enough to be a 4-3 DE

That's nonsense. How would he not be able to rush the passer or provide contain on running plays any differently than he does now if the scheme was changed to a 4-3? The difference is that he wouldn't be required to drop into pass coverage (something the big guys can't do).

The difference is in a 3-4 Rak (normally) has three big bodies to his left (would only have two in a 4-3) and almost never has to line up head on with the OT protecting two gaps as he would be reequired to do as a 4-3 DE. He gets to set out wider and use his speed more as a 3-4 OLB and that is exactly what most scouts thought he would have to transition to coming out of college. The fact that he is used in pass covereage is the fault of the Haselet not the fact that he is a 3-4 OLB. I can't remember Gregg LLyode or Kevin Greene dropping into coverage very often for the Steelers. Heck Greene never even played the run, he exclusively rushed the passer.

If we switched to a 4-3, Rak would become a passing down only edge rusher and you would have to sub a run defender on first down and running downs.

The problem with Rak isn't that he is an OLB, it is two fold problem. First and formost he has only one (maybe two) moves when he does rush the passer. Second, Haslelet doesn't scheme him to never drop into coverage. Rak and the rest of the D would be much different players with a different DC.

On that subject The Texans will probably blow out their coaching staff at the end of the year. If Shanny survives he needs to go out and get Wade Phillips as the new DC. Wade is a bad HC but he is a top notch DC.

[skinsfan#33]

1. Ray Flaherty 54-21-3, .720 (7)

2. George Allen 67-30-1, .691 (7)

3. Joe Gibbs 154-94, .621 (16)

4. Jack Pardee 24-24, .500 (3)

5. Turk Edwards 16-18-1, .471 (3)

6. Norv Turner 49-59-1, .454 (6)

7. Joe Kuharich 26-32-2, .448 (5)

8. Otto Graham 17-22-3, .436 (3)

9. Mike Shanahan 24-33, .421 (3+)

10. Bill McPeak 21-46-3, .313 (5)


I think this list speaks for itself as well......

Here is an apples to apples comparison:

Coaches after three years with at least three years coaching:

1. Gibbs I - .732
2. Allen - .715
3. Flaherty - .618
4. Pardee - .500
5. Kuharich - .472
6. Edwards - .444
7/8. Gibbs II/Shanny - .438
9. Graham - .405
10. Norv - .375
11. McPeak - .214

Coaches after four years with at least four years coaching:

1. Gibbs I - .719
2. Allen - .715
3. Flaherty - .644
4. Gibbs II - .469
5. Kuharich - .458
6. Shanny - .429 ***
7. Norv - .406
8. McPeak - .357

*** not a complete four seasons; could range from .375 (if we finish 3-13) or .484 (if we finish 10-6) that puts shanny any where from 7th to 4th.

Norv had a worse winning % than Shanny after three years and his winning % at the end of 4 years is worse than Shanny's is right now. Now Norv sucked but he got almost 7 full seasons before he was fired. Shanny deserves a fifth (as long as he comes back with a new DC and ST coach).

[SkinsJock]

I'm hoping that Mike comes back for another season but more because of what he and Bruce have done and will continue to do if he's given another year ..

I'm not sure that all the issues on defense are due to Haslett but he may be gone anyway … same for Burns … Kyle is most likely here because he's the HC's son, NOT because he's a really good OC - he's just a good OC … again, the offense might be better with better guys up front

unless things go really badly here … Mike will get another year

we have our franchise QB and a really good RB … PLUS a lot of good young players to build around

[riggofan]

I'm hoping that Mike comes back for another season but more because of what he and Bruce have done and will continue to do if he's given another year ..

Me too. I agree with your comment about Haslett as well. I don't think he is completely to blame for our defense, the players we've been able to afford have clearly been a factor. But if we can upgrade the DC, why not? I'm sure Snyder would pony up the money for someone like Lovie Smith if he was willing to take the job.