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

Reading the opinions of Skins fans has led me to the conclusion that most approve of Shanahan. Now, is this just optimism from fans or do most really believe he will turn the Skins around?

Personally, I don't like the guy. I think he fell into a couple of back to back SB wins when the league was pretty weak (the 90s). Teams were still adjusting to free agency. How else do you think Dallas won 3 super bowls in the 90s? Getting back to my point....the guy was freakin fired from Denver. His playoff record (to my recollection) during the past decade is just as good as the Skins has been (might be slightly better...).

His personnel decisions for the most part have pretty much stunk. Elvis Dummervil is probably the only feather in his cap for at least the past decade. Remember when the entire Brocos d-line was Cleveland castaways?

Now, I still think he is 5 times better than jim zorn. That guy was in way over his spacey little head; however, Shanahan I think is a step that is neither foward nor backwards, just another stopgap into mediocrity. When is the midget gonna learn that you can't keep bringing back retreads? (this has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Gibbs, that man actually took our sorry ass roster to the playoffs twice, his only three mistakes were trading for Brunell when we could have signed Brees, drafting Candle, and listening to all the haters and bringing in Saunders after we went on a 5 game tear to end the season...)

Any thoughts or feelings on the above?

FlyinO out!

Of all things to accuse the Redskins fan base of, optimism typically isn't one of them.

If Denver winning two Superbowls in the 90s requires an excuse that the league was "weak," how do we explain the fact that New England won three Superbowls this past decade?

The Redskins have gone to the playoffs twice in the last ten years. Shanahan took the Broncos there four times.

As for personnel . . . that's why we have a GM.

Oh, and welcome to the boards, FlyinO.

Irn-Bru wrote:Of all things to accuse the Redskins fan base of, optimism typically isn't one of them.

If Denver winning two Superbowls in the 90s requires an excuse that the league was "weak," how do we explain the fact that New England won three Superbowls this past decade?

The Redskins have gone to the playoffs twice in the last ten years. Shanahan took the Broncos there four times.

As for personnel . . . that's why we have a GM.

Oh, and welcome to the boards, FlyinO.

I see you are from Annapolis. I grew up on Kent Island. Used to be a great place, can't speak on that now...Now I'm stuck in Bama working in Fort Benning, GA.

Anyways, I was talking about his playoff record. I think that he has only won one playoff game the past decade. It's easy to make the playoffs when the Chiefs and the Raiders are in your division.

Blind faith FlyinO.. that's why I'm hyped up on the guy. Totally, blind flippin faith.. from what we've had to deal with for a while, this guy is a change and change is always good before the season starts.. Don't worry friend, I have a serious feeling you'll hit me up when we win the NFC Championship game against the Saints and tell me how happy you are now. Keep the faith bro, keep the faith!

welcome to the best site for Redskins fans

I'm not a fan of Shanahan but the big picture here is really simple - we've had 10 years with Snyder and that includes some years with one Joe Jackson Gibbs as the HC - IMO this franchise is in much better shape with Shanahan as the HC AND Allen & Shanahan as the FO (with possibly some support from Snyder) than we were for ANY of the previous Snyder era years - and that's a good thing

I think we could have got a lot of guys in here that might have been better head coaches (well maybe just a few) BUT Shanahan gives us a lot better chance at success IMO than we've had here for over 10 years


enjoy the stay and watch this franchise improve under Shanahan's guidance - I think things are looking up

FlyinO wrote:Personally, I don't like the guy. I think he fell into a couple of back to back SB wins when the league was pretty weak (the 90s). T

But Redskin fans through a fit when people bring up the fact that a superbowl was won during a strike year... Can't have it both ways.

That just sounds like utter bull to me... The league was weak.... Please... There's nothing weak going on, on a football field on gameday. That's just a BS fan perspective.

One thing I've been enjoying lately is hearing the players really lay into the fans and remind them that they have absolutely no idea what the league or pro football is like and I hope they keep drilling on that point.

But Redskin fans through a fit when people bring up the fact that a superbowl was won during a strike year... Can't have it both ways.

Actually, it was TWO. 1982, and 1987.

No team is better when there is a labor dispute... If there is a lock-out in '11, we are bound to win!

Countertrey wrote:

But Redskin fans through a fit when people bring up the fact that a superbowl was won during a strike year... Can't have it both ways.

Actually, it was TWO. 1982, and 1987.

No team is better when there is a labor dispute... If there is a lock-out in '11, we are bound to win!

So using this "logic" we have two BS Superbowls which makes Joe Gibbs a lucky coach, not a talented HOF coach. Right? Using this logic, that's true.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

But Redskin fans through a fit when people bring up the fact that a superbowl was won during a strike year... Can't have it both ways.

Actually, it was TWO. 1982, and 1987.

No team is better when there is a labor dispute... If there is a lock-out in '11, we are bound to win!

So using this "logic" we have two BS Superbowls which makes Joe Gibbs a lucky coach, not a talented HOF coach. Right? Using this logic, that's true.

Why are you insulted? The first Superbowl, in particular, was not the result of luck, so much as careful calculation and planning, to actually take advantage of the work stoppage. Gibbs and Beathard demanded that the strikers stay unified... "DO NOT cross the picket line. Stay together" They then carefully planned for and put together a replacement team that would be competitive.

This was not luck... it was careful, well considered management, that was expertly executed. It was not Gibbs fault that much of the rest of the league was too stupid to plan for the replacement season. Not only did the replacements play extrordinarily well, but THE REGULAR TEAM DID, AS WELL. The remainder of the season and the playoffs WERE NOT played by replacements against replacements.

The 1987 season was played with regular players throughout. It was shortened by only one game. This was a season of total offensive domination against the best the league had to offer. There was no luck here.

Lighten up. Winning in a strike year requires just as much effort, planning, execution, and (yes) luck as winning in a non-strike year. And, whether you like it or not, history tells us that there have been TWO strike seasons in the NFL... and the Redskins won the World Championship at the end of BOTH.

I don't see an asterisk on either trophy.

I'm not insulted. I'm just irritated that the poster says that Mikes rings were due to a weak decade.

My example of the Skins two SB wins occurring during a "weak" time in the league was just an example of how our wins could be perceived in the same light. Does he consider those two trophies as being "weak"? If not, how can he feel that way about Mike? A trophy is a trophy and you don't luck into them, not twice.

Ahhh...

Let him say what he wants. We know the truth.

FlyinO wrote:Reading the opinions of Skins fans has led me to the conclusion that most approve of Shanahan. Now, is this just optimism from fans or do most really believe he will turn the Skins around?

Personally, I don't like the guy. I think he fell into a couple of back to back SB wins when the league was pretty weak (the 90s). Teams were still adjusting to free agency. How else do you think Dallas won 3 super bowls in the 90s? Getting back to my point....the guy was freakin fired from Denver. His playoff record (to my recollection) during the past decade is just as good as the Skins has been (might be slightly better...).

His personnel decisions for the most part have pretty much stunk. Elvis Dummervil is probably the only feather in his cap for at least the past decade. Remember when the entire Brocos d-line was Cleveland castaways?

Now, I still think he is 5 times better than jim zorn. That guy was in way over his spacey little head; however, Shanahan I think is a step that is neither foward nor backwards, just another stopgap into mediocrity. When is the midget gonna learn that you can't keep bringing back retreads? (this has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Gibbs, that man actually took our sorry ass roster to the playoffs twice, his only three mistakes were trading for Brunell when we could have signed Brees, drafting Candle, and listening to all the haters and bringing in Saunders after we went on a 5 game tear to end the season...)

Any thoughts or feelings on the above?

FlyinO out!

First, I believe Shanahan is a good coach and his record proves that.
Second, neither B. Allen or Shanahan are great GMs -their records prove that.

Third, The NFL is now so watered down the teams like the Patriots win 3 SB in a decade when they would have never made it past the early 90s Bills. Those Bills teams were FAR better than any team we have seen in the past 10-12 years and that isn't even talking about the Steve Young 49ers, or the Favre Packers, or the Elway/T Davis Bronco, or the best of the group (puke) the 92-96 Cowboys. Heck the 91 Skins were better twice as good as ANY team in the last 12 years!

Calling the NFL weak in the 90's is so dumb that it is insulting to mentally challenged people to call that post retarded!

I agree, I don't think it was weak at all (from a football fan view). You all remember when football didn't have all the rules to protect players like now? Well, those were Shanahan days. Remember when uniforms/pads/helmets weren't made to today's standards for safety? Well, those were Shanahan days. Plus I think it takes a real good coach to be known for having pretty tough arse RBs like he did. I know he had Elway and Sharp but you really gotta give Shan some credit.

Man oh man, if we did strike again.. bro your not lyin, we may just yet win another SB----> that'll make it 5 because we're winning in '10

@ Skinsfan#33... funny post

Shanahan represents what fans have been screaming for since Shottenhiemer was fired. A respectable head coach and a vetted/respected GM making the decisions.

Two things most pessimists said the Redskins would never have under Dan Snyder.

Bob 0119 wrote:Two things most pessimists said the Redskins would never have under Dan Snyder.

To be fair... Look at what it took for it to happen...

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Two things most pessimists said the Redskins would never have under Dan Snyder.

To be fair... Look at what it took for it to happen...

My point was more about the fact that many felt it was impossible citing that "no respectable head coach would ever work for Dan Snyder" but yeah, I feel ya, it's been a long road with some of these coaches...

Personally, I see this as a coach who won the SB during the free-agency era. I'm not expecting him to win much for a couple of years, so I just hope he gets that long.

Bob 0119 wrote:My point was more about the fact that many felt it was impossible citing that "no respectable head coach would ever work for Dan Snyder" but yeah, I feel ya, it's been a long road with some of these coaches...

I said that and I stand by it. Look at the amount of control Mike demanded to come here. He's the head honcho. He would not have come here with Danny and Vinny giving him a prebaked assistant coach staff.

Danny has the heart and desire to be an awesome owner, he was just doing too much b4. imho

Well, I don't think the Bills or the AFC was that weak friend. You do know who the Bills lost to those 4 years right? It was the NFC East (Gnats, Skins, Cows twice).. which by everyone's account was the toughest, ESPECIALLY back than.

Just a friendly reminder to play nice.

http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11

Countertrey wrote:

But Redskin fans through a fit when people bring up the fact that a superbowl was won during a strike year... Can't have it both ways.

Actually, it was TWO. 1982, and 1987.

No team is better when there is a labor dispute... If there is a lock-out in '11, we are bound to win!

I think that had as much or more to do with leadership from players than anything else.

I have no idea what your point is here.

Shanny is popular because we had Jim Zorn before him. =)

SKINFAN wrote:Shanny is popular because we had Jim Zorn before him. =)

Good point.

SKINFAN wrote:Shanny is popular because we had Jim Zorn before him. =)

Shanahan and Allen are professionals. We had clowns in charge before them.

I seriously can't believe you also forgot Cerrato being part of the problem there