I like the ShannaPLAN......

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:07 am

And so do many reporters and current Skins players included:

Clinton on the Aintsworth:

"To be able to shelf a guy and say, 'Okay, I'm in control, I'm going to get things right around here,' " said running back Clinton Portis, who played under Shanahan for two years in Denver. "I think it's more [a case] of him coming in, cleaning out and trying to filter and get his guys in, and showing that he's running the show and what he say goes. It's either get with the program, or get out."

Cooley:

"It's totally different this year," tight end Chris Cooley said following a Dec. 5 drubbing against the Giants. "We're absolutely in the right direction. I have no question in our coaching staff and their ability to lead this team."

D.Hall:

"It's a no-nonsense kind of ship," cornerback DeAngelo Hall said as the season ended. "I don't think a lot of us was out to dinner and hanging out with him, so we didn't really learn a lot about him personally. But just the way he is as a coach, man. It's a performance business. . . You got to warrant either that money you're getting or whatever, or you're gone. That's the bottom line. I think a lot of guys' eyes were opened."

Shanny to Aintsworth:

"I talked about every one of the lows," Shanahan said. "And I said, 'Hey, I got to get you in shape. There's no way you can be in shape if you're playing like this. There's no possible way.' "

During that initial meeting, Haynesworth told Shanahan that some of his lackluster play came because he was banged-up or sore.

"You can recover quicker," Shanahan said he told him. "You can play a complete game. If you're in shape, you'll be the best player at your position in the league. But you've gotten away with not being in great shape."

Shanny handed out fine after fine after fine to players who broke team rules and expectations:

Shanahan said he fined more players for minor infractions such as lateness for meetings than he ever had during his 14 years in Denver.

"Next year, it'll go down by 90 percent," he said. "The second year, they get used to, 'Okay, this is how we operate.' You have to be accountable or else you won't be here. People get used to that mentality, that mind-set."

Zorn was a "kiss-ass" coach to the owner and Shanny is NOT:

Each week, for most of his two seasons as the Redskins' head coach, Jim Zorn met for lunch on Fridays with Snyder in the owner's office. Vinny Cerrato, then the organization's top football executive, frequently joined them. The discussion was almost always simple: What was the game plan for that week? How could they attack a specific opponent? Who might be featured on offense?

"He told me when I got the job that, hey, he wanted to hire a guy that would go out there and make decisions that are in the best interests of the organization," Shanahan said, "and that we will make some mistakes, but don't be afraid. And if you do make a mistake, hey, don't be afraid to admit it and move on. Don't try to cover it. That's the way I told him I've been, and he said, 'Hey, that's the way I want it.' "

It's Shanny's team...and it's His way or the Highway....so you players not in line, kick rocks and start walking...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 1010700588

jr_uscg · Post by **jr_uscg** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:01 am

Shanny is the Man and we are heading in the right diection. He just needs to purge a few more players again this year. Have a great draft and pick up some more young free agents. I love how the Coach gave everyone a chance to compete at every position. The best man gets the Job!!! That's how it should be. The Veterans always had a free meal ticket at this organization. Just look at some of these no name numbers: Ryan "Who" Tarain 742 yds, Avg. 4.5, 4TD in only ten games. Anthony "Who" Armstrong 871 yds., Avg. 19.8, 3TD playing number two half the season. My favorite the little man with a big heart Brandon Banks. Teams are scared to kick to him. Good teams make their own players not pick up some elses trash. So let's clean up and take some more trash to the dump and get some true Redshkins players.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:18 am

I don't have any problem with Shanahan doing what he can to tighten up the ship, I'm sure it was too loosy-goosy and I wouldn't like that either, good move on his part. My problem is related to 1 issue one worry I have with Mike.

Issue -- Does the guy have one way to do things, regardless of the talent or result? We could have played a 4-3 defense this year with our current players, and not dropped from top 10 defense to 2nd to last. I am absolutely fine switching the defensive scheme -- but only when I have the horses to run it. I manage people, why would I put a very quiet, very good analyst in a position of PR'ing my office? I wouldn't!! I also heard Kyle say that our offense had problems this season playing versus 4-3 defenses because we didn't see it in training camp very much. We played a lot of 4-3 defenses after the first game of the year vs the Cowboys. SO...our switch resulted in our defense sucking and our offense not getting enough reps against it. Are you kidding me??

Worry -- Is he a good judge of talent? A couple examples, McNabb -- he had a lot of Eagles film. I remember his days in Denver where they signed the entire starting defensive line for the Browns -- even though their line was horrible. Is he like Gibbs, not a great judge of talent? I sure hope we have good scouts out there advising him (assuming he listens). Along the same line, why did he keep Andre Carter, everyone knew, even a blind man that he could NOT play the stand up linebacker -- he doesn't play well in space, he can't cover. Do you know how many times I saw Carter chasing after a player downfield? Nothing against Carter, he is a great weakside DE in a 4-3 and a super guy. Seattle would love to have him today!!! He probably could have traded Carter away before last year for a 3rd or 4th rounder in this year's draft. He was the most horrible fit for this defense.

This off-season will be a telling -- this is a great draft and there are a tone of free agents out there, if we don't get to 500 or better, I will open up these two issues once again.

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:09 am

fredp45 wrote:I don't have any problem with Shanahan doing what he can to tighten up the ship, I'm sure it was too loosy-goosy and I wouldn't like that either, good move on his part. My problem is related to 1 issue one worry I have with Mike.

Issue -- Does the guy have one way to do things, regardless of the talent or result? We could have played a 4-3 defense this year with our current players, and not dropped from top 10 defense to 2nd to last. I am absolutely fine switching the defensive scheme -- but only when I have the horses to run it. I manage people, why would I put a very quiet, very good analyst in a position of PR'ing my office? I wouldn't!! I also heard Kyle say that our offense had problems this season playing versus 4-3 defenses because we didn't see it in training camp very much. We played a lot of 4-3 defenses after the first game of the year vs the Cowboys. SO...our switch resulted in our defense sucking and our offense not getting enough reps against it. Are you kidding me??

Worry -- Is he a good judge of talent? A couple examples, McNabb -- he had a lot of Eagles film. I remember his days in Denver where they signed the entire starting defensive line for the Browns -- even though their line was horrible. Is he like Gibbs, not a great judge of talent? I sure hope we have good scouts out there advising him (assuming he listens). Along the same line, why did he keep Andre Carter, everyone knew, even a blind man that he could NOT play the stand up linebacker -- he doesn't play well in space, he can't cover. Do you know how many times I saw Carter chasing after a player downfield? Nothing against Carter, he is a great weakside DE in a 4-3 and a super guy. Seattle would love to have him today!!! He probably could have traded Carter away before last year for a 3rd or 4th rounder in this year's draft. He was the most horrible fit for this defense.

This off-season will be a telling -- this is a great draft and there are a tone of free agents out there, if we don't get to 500 or better, I will open up these two issues once again.

I think he knew that we were not a very good team, and so why not make the change and take the lumps now, rather than getting the personell and having ANOTHER year to learn the defense. Now at least, the player, whether they are suited for the position or not, can help incoming talent learn the defense.

As for talent evaluation, I'm not so sure he's the absolute best, and not the absolute worst. He has some stud's and dud's in his collection of aquisitions. But the thing that I think takes his average standing to an elite level, is that he is EXCELLENT at creating competition at each position. For instance, he'll bring in a bigger name veteran and a undrafted rookie free agent (for example), and whoever plays better starts. So his big name pickups (Johnson, Parker, Galloway) didn't pan out versus Torain, AA, Williams etc. There are examples all over the field, and I think this is why his teams are consistantly excellent. You can't get mad about a first round bust at QB if he also drafts the next hall of fame QB in the 7th round.

jr_uscg · Post by **jr_uscg** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:21 am

I think Shanny does a pretty good job at drafting. Mike Shanahan had been drafting for the last five NFL seasons, but had stayed in place and been able to use guys as he envisioned when he acquired them, here is what the bulk of your starting offense might look like:

QB Jay Cutler
RB Ryan Torain
FB Peyton Hillis
WR Brandon Marshall
WR Eddie Royal
WR Brandon Banks
TE Tony Scheffler
LT Ryan Clady
C Kory Lichtensteiger
RT Trent Williams

Also, all of them would be under 30. Fill in with a couple of guards via free agency and you've got an offense that can match up against just about anyone in the NFL.

TCIYM · Post by **TCIYM** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:48 am

If you're going to rip almost verbatim from Matt Terl you should probably give him credit:

Redskins Blog

jr_uscg · Post by **jr_uscg** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:58 am

Your right, last part was from Matt. I just like what our coach is doing. Just need to give Shanny some time. Sorry but Dan and Vinny destroyed this organization. It's going to take more then a year to fix it. Done...

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:40 pm

The further we get from the Haynesworth situation, and the more the data comes in, the more I am convinced that it was a nearly one-sided issue with Haynesworth being the problem and Shanny being the solution.

I know others have held fast to the idea that there was fault on both sides. I was sympathetic to this view for a long time and have held back my judgment until I could see more of the situation. Since then, enough information has become available that I feel pretty comfortable saying that the mess was almost entirely Haynesworth's fault. (It is, of course, easy idea to "prove" that there was at least some fault on both sides, since that principle holds in 99.999999% of cases. I'm not saying that this is that .0000001%; I'm saying that if there was fault with Shanahan it was very, very minimal compared to that of Haynesworth's — to the point where it's unhelpful to blindly talk about it being a two-sided thing.)

The players are rallying behind the new coach and the new philosophy. Our organization hasn't seemed this, well, organized since the first year Gibbs (2.0) took over.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:44 pm

fredp45 wrote:
Issue -- Does the guy have one way to do things, regardless of the talent or result? We could have played a 4-3 defense this year with our current players, and not dropped from top 10 defense to 2nd to last. I am absolutely fine switching the defensive scheme -- but only when I have the horses to run it. I manage people, why would I put a very quiet, very good analyst in a position of PR'ing my office? I wouldn't!! I also heard Kyle say that our offense had problems this season playing versus 4-3 defenses because we didn't see it in training camp very much. We played a lot of 4-3 defenses after the first game of the year vs the Cowboys. SO...our switch resulted in our defense sucking and our offense not getting enough reps against it. Are you kidding me??
You and all the other folks who complain about shanahan's decision to move to the 3-4, have good a good case. Someone correct me if I am worng, I think it is the Cardinals that use a hybrid 3-4/4-3 (if not the Cards at least one team does). We could have done this and maybe won one more or two games. Why only one or two? Remember we had a 4-3 last year. It is not the scheme. Your ranked 4-3, last year, did not win games for us. Why did Shanny change, lock, stock and barrell? He said, awhile back, on his show, that he did so for the long run. He wants a 3-4, so doing it now, he finds out what personnel need to stay or go. He also finds out who to target in the draft and free agency. Those who stay will also have learned their responsibilities. I believe that withhis visit to the Pats, Shanny became sold on the 3-4. Bottom line, like it or not, he made a move for the long run. I know that in America, we think in the short run so long run thinking is foreign to us (those of us who have lived in the Republic of Korea learned first hand the power of long run thinking). If Shanahan move pays off, you will see a consistent winner starting with next year (Think about it, our "no name, out of place" 3-4 guys kept us in every game but two ( Nine games holding opponents to 17 points or less and that was with little offensive help). Imgaine what the right personnel will do. So yes, we most likely would had done better with the 4-3 this year, but you will have to compare that to the years to come. If it doesn't work out? Do you go back to the 4-3? Maybe, but first you fire the coach.

Worry -- Is he a good judge of talent? A couple examples, McNabb -- he had a lot of Eagles film.
Here is an excerpt from a post article explaining how Shanahan evaluates talent. I don't like this manner, but it can explain the McNabb decision and others that you mentioned. Remember, Shanahan tried to change McNabb's footwork without success.

Shanahan often evaluated players by watching tapes of their highlights, a system employed by some in the league who believe that if you see a player at his best then he can be coached up to that ability.

"It has worked for him. I think he has confidence in it," said Lombardi, the NFL Network analyst.

But many league executives say the approach can become intoxicating to a coach who is confident in his ability to coach the player to that level and has the ultimate authority to choose that player.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0010700047

Also, in this article, it says when Shanahan thinks that he made a mistake, he moves on. Some might think that he should have let McNabb finish out the year because he might be better with two years in the offense. I say I like this about Shanahan, if it ain't working because the guy isn't coachable, move on.

"The organizations that I've been in that have been in trouble over the years is when they don't admit their mistakes. They make a mistake, and they keep on trying to cover for it for three or four years, telling people how smart they were for doing it. Well, if it's not working out, it's not working out.".

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sports/nfl/20 ... as-changed

This off-season will be a telling -- this is a great draft and there are a tone of free agents out there, if we don't get to 500 or better, I will open up these two issues once again.

I think that you will be justified to open it up again if we don't reach 500 next year, but if there is a lock out that isn't resolved until just before the season, we will be in big trouble. It is important for the Skins to have the free agency on time so Shanahan can get these guys into OTA's to learn the Shanaplan.

Here's an article that evaluates the personnel at each position and what we need going into the off=season.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011 ... tml?page=1

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:51 pm

Excellent post, fred45. Some great analysis. I have some comments to add to the pile:

fredp45 wrote:Issue -- Does the guy have one way to do things, regardless of the talent or result? We could have played a 4-3 defense this year with our current players, and not dropped from top 10 defense to 2nd to last.

This is a legitimate concern and something about which I'm still not sure what to think. It certainly hurt our chances this year. But in the past, I've also seen plenty of complaints on THN that we should have installed something sooner rather than later, during a rebuilding phase, so that we would get the pain out of the way.

The one thing that's crystal clear to me is that Shanahan went with the 3-4, not because he thought it gave us the best chance to win this year, but because he thought it would be passable this year and give us the best chance to win next year, the year after that, etc.

I'm not sure whether he made the right call.

I am absolutely fine switching the defensive scheme -- but only when I have the horses to run it. I manage people, why would I put a very quiet, very good analyst in a position of PR'ing my office? I wouldn't!!

I think Shanahan's idea is that those people won't have a long-term spot on the roster; e.g., Andre Carter. So if Shanahan is the manager, let's say he's switching the focus of the business from analysis to public relations. He puts the analyst into PR, and if the guy can't make the switch, he's gone before next year.

At the risk of overextending an analogy, I think that's what's going on there.

Worry -- Is he a good judge of talent? A couple examples, McNabb -- he had a lot of Eagles film.

I don't think they misjudged McNabb's talent. I think they misjudged his work ethic. It is true that he had somewhat of a reputation for being too unresponsive in practice, but my best guess is that the Shanahans had no way of knowing just how bad it would be, and neither could they have known that McNabb not only wouldn't practice hard but would prove incapable of working on that aspect of his game.

For all the talk of McNabb being slow in practice, there was 10x the amount of talk praising him for his professionalism and leadership. I think Shanahan made a gamble that McNabb's leadership and professionalism would outweigh some of his worse qualities.

Say what you want about the way the Shanahans handled it (another one of their mistakes, IMHO), but McNabb proved relatively useless for our offense. You know it's bad when Grossman steps in and plays at least as well, despite not having had the benefit of training camp and a season's worth of practices with the first team.

This off-season will be a telling -- this is a great draft and there are a tone of free agents out there, if we don't get to 500 or better, I will open up these two issues once again.

I agree. This offseason will be FAR MORE important and telling about the chances of success under Shanahan. Last year he came into a clean-slate situation. This year he now has a full strategic vision, attitude/tone, and pace that any potential Redskins will need to fit in with/live up to. So it comes down to Shanahan/Allen plus their scouts to get out there and (a) find the players who will fit and (b) sign them.

For that reason, plus the uncertainties that 2011 brings and the huge FA market, I think this is the most exciting offseasons we've ever seen as Redskins fans. Provided we don't do the old chase-the-old-expensive-player routine (:puke:), it should be a good one, too.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:54 pm

Red_One43 wrote:Also, in this article, it says when Shanahan thinks that he made a mistake, he moves on. Some might think that he should have let McNabb finish out the year because he might be better with two years in the offense. I say I like this about Shanahan, if you it ain't working because the guy isn't coachable, move on.

I totally agree. The Redskins had two high-profile mistakes this year in McNabb and Haynesworth. Haynesworth wasn't Shanahan's fault and (IMO, as I explain above) he did the best he possibly could have with it.

McNabb was just a mistake, pure and simple. However, the silver lining is that Shanahan did what few coaches in the league (and no Redskin coach aside from Gibbs) would do: he admitted his mistake and moved on. What a breath of fresh air that is.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 2:12 pm

I don't know if the Shanaplan will work or not. I just like that 1) he looks like he actually has a plan and 2) if something isn't working i.e. McNabb he's not afraid to do what he thinks is right and make a correction. I read his saying something to that effect that a good organization should be able to correct its mistakes quickly, not try to cover up mistakes so you look smart. Good stuff.

When was the last time the Redskins looked like they actually had a plan in place? Maybe Gibbs II to a point, but he always looked more like he was just trying to keep that boat from sinking. Not the same as having a plan for long term success.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:19 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:Excellent post, fred45. Some great analysis. I have some comments to add to the pile:
I don't think they misjudged McNabb's talent. I think they misjudged his work ethic. It is true that he had somewhat of a reputation for being too unresponsive in practice, but my best guess is that the Shanahans had no way of knowing just how bad it would be, and neither could they have known that McNabb not only wouldn't practice hard but would prove incapable of working on that aspect of his game.

For all the talk of McNabb being slow in practice, there was 10x the amount of talk praising him for his professionalism and leadership. I think Shanahan made a gamble that McNabb's leadership and professionalism would outweigh some of his worse qualities.

Say what you want about the way the Shanahans handled it (another one of their mistakes, IMHO), but McNabb proved relatively useless for our offense. You know it's bad when Grossman steps in and plays at least as well, despite not having had the benefit of training camp and a season's worth of practices with the first team.

I can understand this argument, but I still disagree. I think Shanahan bears the responsibility for the failure of the offense and the set-beck we've suffered by wasting a year with McNabb (not to mention two draft picks, one which was used for Nate Allen who looks like a solid NFL FS and could have been very useful to the Redskins.)

Basically Shanahan put the future in McNabb's hands. It didn't work out at all, McNabb shares blame because he is the one putting his legacy at risk by not working hard and making adjustments but I think Shanahan should have been able to see this coming. That either he wasn't a good enough fit, or he wasn't prepared enough or he didn't practice hard and it would have made things a lot easier for us in our first season.

Still, I respect that Shanahan quickly admitted his mistake by benching McNabb. Donnie Mac played like crap this season and his agent's silly bickering about McNabb being disrespected was absurd. McNabb disrespected himself by not giving the Skins 100%... Either Shanny didn't get him prepared for the new offense, didn't get max effort out of his QB or just plain picked the wrong guy to help lead a rebuilding project.

Either way, it was a colossal mistake by Shanahan and Allen to bring him in for such a high price and it set us back a year in the rebuilding process.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:33 pm

I didn't say it wasn't a mistake on Shanahan's part . . .

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:55 pm

I think Shanny admits that he made the McNugget mistake and .....finally went another direction in the last 3 games.

I'm sure he feels that burden and the pain of "wasting" time/decision/future/hopes/dreams on the McNugget experiment.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:33 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:
I think Shanahan bears the responsibility for the failure of the offense
This goes without saying. Shanahan bears the responsibility for the performance of the offense. He chose the OC. He traded for McNabb. He chose the personnel to play. The defense is his responsiblity as well. He chose to go to the 3-4. He chose the DC. Shanahan is responsible for the 6-10 record. The question is does he have a plan to move us form a losing team to a consistent winning team? I believe he does.

and the set-beck we've suffered by wasting a year with McNabb (not to mention two draft picks, one which was used for Nate Allen who looks like a solid NFL FS and could have been very useful to the Redskins.)Basically Shanahan put the future in McNabb's hands.

Set-back? Wasted? Put the future in McNabb's hands? McNabb was not brought in to be the future of this franchise. He was brought in to hold down the fort untill the "future" comes.

Was it a "set-back" that McNabb failed to be that guy to hold down the fort? I don't think it was a set back; however, it does alter the time table. I think a successful McNabb would have bought Shanahan more time to find his QB. Had McNabb been a success this year, Mike wouldn't HAVE to get him this year. He could still hold out to get the guy he covets an have more ammo to get him. Now, he might HAVE to and he has little to give to get the guy he may covet. Having no viable starting QB on the roster for next year, Shanahan must now, speed up the process to find his coveted franchise QB. A much improved O line next year can allow for Grossman to take over "holding down the fort" status.
Wasted? 1. Trading for McNabb meant we didn't have to take a chance on last year's QB market. 2. There is no guarantee that Grossman knew the O well at the beginning of the season - he didn't exactly light it up in pre-season. 3. McNabb gave us some good football early on - his stats weren't good, but he produced wins (4-4 at the break). 4. McNabb also showed escapability early in the season which made him a better option than Rex who fumbles when he gets hit.
Was he worth the two picks? Knowing what I know now, I would say no, but hindsight is 20/20 vision; however, back then the two picks were worth a QB of McNabb's caliber.

One cannot make an argument that we would have had Nate Allen a FS. Had we had that 2nd round pick and only Grossman and Brennan on the roster and with Clausen on the board, we just might have picked Clausen and that would mean Grossman would have started the seaosn. Jason still gets traded because Shanahan clearly did not want him. I would also be willing to bet that FS was low on our list, because Kareem Moore was supposedly a player with a good upside.

Still, I respect that Shanahan quickly admitted his mistake by benching McNabb.

Yes, it is noble for him to admit a his mistake, but he most show us that he can overcome his mistakes. I am betting that he will. That is why he has a salary of $7 million a year.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:43 pm

Irn-Bru wrote: I don't think they misjudged McNabb's talent. I think they misjudged his work ethic. It is true that he had somewhat of a reputation for being too unresponsive in practice, but my best guess is that the Shanahans had no way of knowing just how bad it would be, and neither could they have known that McNabb not only wouldn't practice hard but would prove incapable of working on that aspect of his game.

For all the talk of McNabb being slow in practice, there was 10x the amount of talk praising him for his professionalism and leadership. I think Shanahan made a gamble that McNabb's leadership and professionalism would outweigh some of his worse qualities.

McNabb had been crucified multiple times in the local Philly press for his lazy work ethic and his slow tempo in practice. Multiple times, as they were connecting McNabb's poor 2 minute offense performance (with all sorts of clock management issues) with his practice habits. What this does is points to Shanahan's ego (or perhaps his unrealistic expectations) if he really believed that he could really reform the work habits of a successful 12 year NFL vet. McNabb was successful WITH those lazy habits, so I'm not sure that he really would be interested in suddenly working hard at the end of his career.

As per prior teammate, Tim Hasselbeck:

"I was a teammate of Donovan McNabb’s in Philadelphia,” Hasselbeck said on Mike and Mike in the Morning. “One of the things that drove them crazy in Philadelphia was the lack of tempo at which he practiced. . . . It was always something where you’re leaving the quarterback meeting and it would be, ‘Hey, listen, the head man wants a little more tempo today.’ Nearly every single day. That’s been the deal with Donovan McNabb. I know exactly what Mike Shanahan is talking about.”

I've found that either a person is a hard worker or is not; and that comes from the person themselves. It's not really reasonable to think you can turn a lazy worker into a hard worker, especially one with set habits, imho.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:54 pm

I'm on board, patience is the key

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:51 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:For all the talk of McNabb being slow in practice, there was 10x the amount of talk praising him for his professionalism and leadership. I think Shanahan made a gamble that McNabb's leadership and professionalism would outweigh some of his worse qualities.
McNabb had been crucified multiple times in the local Philly press for his lazy work ethic and his slow tempo in practice. Multiple times, as they were connecting McNabb's poor 2 minute offense performance (with all sorts of clock management issues) with his practice habits.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But the reports look a lot more prescient in retrospect. When we acquired McNabb, I didn't read a single report on the acquisition that said "The Redskins need to worry about his practice habits."

In fact, most of those reports and anecdotes (like the one you cited) seem to have surfaced after McNabb's benching and the reasons for it occurred. Funny how that happens . . .

Anyway, my point is not that his practice habits weren't public knowledge. My point is that

For all the talk of McNabb being slow in practice, there was 10x the amount of talk praising him for his professionalism and leadership.

So I don't think it comes down to Shanahan's ego thinking he could take McNabb and transform him. I think Shanahan gambled that McNabb's good qualities would overwhelm whatever negatives his practice habits would create.

In the end, his positive qualities didn't amount to a quality product on the field, at which point his practice habits became a crucial problem. At that point maybe there's some mixture of Shanahan's ego and McNabb's inability to be a pro, whatever. Definitely mistakes were made by the coaches.

However, somehow McNabb made things work in Philly, and I still think that at the time there wasn't any forceful reason to think he couldn't come here and play well enough. It wasn't pure ego that brought McNabb to DC . . . it was a much more reasoned (and therefore unfortunate) mistake.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:15 pm

jr_uscg wrote:I think Shanny does a pretty good job at drafting. Mike Shanahan had been drafting for the last five NFL seasons, but had stayed in place and been able to use guys as he envisioned when he acquired them, here is what the bulk of your starting offense might look like:

QB Jay Cutler
RB Ryan Torain
FB Peyton Hillis
WR Brandon Marshall
WR Eddie Royal
WR Brandon Banks
TE Tony Scheffler
LT Ryan Clady
C Kory Lichtensteiger
RT Trent Williams

Also, all of them would be under 30. Fill in with a couple of guards via free agency and you've got an offense that can match up against just about anyone in the NFL.

Yeah, I get real up set with people in the media that incorrectly form an opinion on this topic and they lead idiot fans to regurgitate the same junk!

The thing that is said the most that just irks me and shows hows stupid or just plain uninformed some people are is when the media or fans say that MS won two SB with Reeves' players.
That is the dumbest statement to make because of how inaccurate it is. People forget Wade Phillips was the coach between MS and Reeves for 2 years (93 and 94) and there were EXACTLY four, yes four players left over from the last Reeves team that were on the Broncos first SB team. Yes, one of those was John Elway, but he was a shadow of his former self (that had LOST three SBs).

MS had very few players left from Wade's Broncos when Shanny hoisted the Lombardi trophy, but they were far more significant than what was left over from Reeves!

Another thing that MS gets killed for is the fact that "he didn't win anything" after Elway. Well that is only true depending on what you call "anything". He had a winning record. He only had two losing seasons in the ten years PE (post Elway)! (gods! what Skins' fans wouldn't give to be able to say that!). And he had four seasons with doubble diggit wins. How many double digit wins did we have during that time? Just two, for those of you that don't know the PE/Shanny era in Denver ran from 99 through 08. During that time the Skins had went 10-6 under Norv (after six seasons) and 10-6 under Gibbs!

MS went 10-6 twice (03 and 04), 11-5 (00), and 13-3 (05). Also, look at the history Of "great coaches" during the time after a HoF QB. The Cowboys didn't immediately go to hell after Staubach because they had a very good Danny White, but after him they did go in the toilet. The same after Aikman. How about the Dophins post Marino, or Baltimore (Colts not buzzards) after Johny U or the Jets after Namath or the 49ers after Young or the Steelers after Bradshaw or the Skins after Baugh.

MS should get applauded for how successful the Broncos were after Elway. The fact that he was as good as he was proves that the success wasn't just Elway.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:01 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
However, somehow McNabb made things work in Philly, and I still think that at the time there wasn't any forceful reason to think he couldn't come here and play well enough. It wasn't pure ego that brought McNabb to DC . . . it was a much more reasoned (and therefore unfortunate) mistake.

IMO, it worked in Philly because Andy allowed McNabb to improvise. He probably designed some plays to take advantage of Donovan's skill set. IMO, I think two immovable objects clashed. Donovan probably assumed that Mike would be somewhat like Andy and allow him some room to improvise, but found that Mike was an immovable object. On the other hand, Mike loved what he saw of Donovan on the highlight tapes* and thought that if he could teach Donovan proper footwork and work habits, Donovan could be his short term QB solution, but he found that Donovan was an immovable object. IMO, I am sure both coach and player found a lot to respect about each other, but unless one or both are willing to give a little, they cannot coexist together, thus Mike pulled the plug this season.

IMO, Donovan has some football life in him, but he needs a coach like Andy, to coddle him and allow him room to inject into the game plan and ad lib if he wants. Shanahan with his ego feels that there ain't a player he can't coach up if he shows him the tape of his errors.
Like Donovan said if he were to stay, somethings would need to change. Shanahan does seem remorseful about how he handled the Lions game benching of McNabb. Stayed tuned to this Drama - same channel.

* Shanahan often evaluated players by watching tapes of their highlights, a system employed by some in the league who believe that if you see a player at his best then he can be coached up to that ability.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:36 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:For all the talk of McNabb being slow in practice, there was 10x the amount of talk praising him for his professionalism and leadership. I think Shanahan made a gamble that McNabb's leadership and professionalism would outweigh some of his worse qualities.
McNabb had been crucified multiple times in the local Philly press for his lazy work ethic and his slow tempo in practice. Multiple times, as they were connecting McNabb's poor 2 minute offense performance (with all sorts of clock management issues) with his practice habits.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the reports look a lot more prescient in retrospect. When we acquired McNabb, I didn't read a single report on the acquisition that said "The Redskins need to worry about his practice habits."

In fact, most of those reports and anecdotes (like the one you cited) seem to have surfaced after McNabb's benching and the reasons for it occurred. Funny how that happens . . .

That's because you're in DC. I moved up here to Philly last year (McNabb's last season in Philadelphia), and I was shocked to hear the vitriol aimed at McNabb...and part of it centered on his lazy habits in practice.

And while McNabb is well-known as a professional, he was always known to be professional. It just seems that his professionalism was separate from his work ethic

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:09 pm

Skinsfan33.. right, exactly right

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:45 am

I think Mike and Bruce are regarded as having the ability to get this franchise back to respectability by most of their peers and that is much more important to me than what the stupid (mostly) media think - that they have made mistakes is not a big issue - they have done some good things and they will get another chance here with a pretty good market for Free Agents and what looks like a decent draft

I don't think that the past history is all that relevant - we are a franchise that was really badly mis-managed - the only thing that counts is what they do now, not what either of them did in Denver or Tampa

the recent history is not great but it's not like they've put us in a huge hole either - we are getting better and we'll shortly see if they've learned from their recent mistakes and can take us to the next level

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:01 am

It will be a roller-coaster ride but I am in the bandwagon.

The fact is, NOBODY gets out of a roller-coaster in the middle of a fast and furious ride or else ...

We have no option now. Either you were in it at the beginning and hold on or not got in to start with.