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

Steve Wyche summarizes one of Cooley's talking points:

Grossman, who was with the Houston Texans with Kyle Shanahan in 2009 and came to Washington with him last year, was more familiar with the system and the way the coordinator wanted it executed. Grossman started the final three games of the season while McNabb was demoted to third team.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... ng-offense

On the video of Cooley speaking on the NFL NetWork when asked does he see any scenario that Donovan could return in a Redskin uniforrm. Cooley said after talking to both parties he would normally think that there's probably's not a chance Donovan will be back with the Washington Redskins. He throws in the word "normally" because a possible two week pre-season could make things interesting concerning what to do with McNabb.

Concerning Donovan's grasp of Kyle's offense, Cooley stated, "Both, he (Donovan) and Shanahan, expected a smaller learning curve...It was apparent right away that it was going to be a big job for him to take on in terms of being very successful throughout the year."

Cooley said that the offense clearly wasn't functioning the way it was being coached. He said that the players didn't pin that on Donovan, but on themselves collectively, because everyone was trying to learn the offense.

"Kyle Shanahan emerges as a full-blown control freak"

Grossman on Kyle Shannahn:

“During the course of a regular game, Kyle Shanahan wants you to run the offense exactly how he wants it, down to the amount of hitches you take to go through your progressions,” Grossman told Zig Fracassi and Solomon Wilcots, per Steinberg. “And if you really study that and rep that in practice, then it becomes a lot easier during the game. You’re not thinking as much as your body just goes through the progressions. That’s some of the things that’s really helped me start the second half of my career, and I feel like I’m a much better quarterback because of that.”

Mike Florio:

If nothing else, it’s now clear why the Donovan McNabb experiment didn’t work. And it’s amazing that the Shanahans ever thought that it would. An established, franchise quarterback will be the last player to ever allow himself to be grossly micromanaged by a silver-spoon assistant coach three years younger than the established, franchise quarterback.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... rol-freak/

As time passes, more details arise. These make sense. But if this is what actually happened, this just shows the poor choice of whoever brought in McNabb made.

VetSkinsFan wrote:As time passes, more details arise. These make sense. But if this is what actually happened, this just shows the poor choice of whoever brought in McNabb made.

Agreed. Mcnabb tried it his way, and it didn't work. Maybe if he tries it the COACHES way, it will. Doubt it though. McNabb is not good enough to put his ego aside and learn like every other QB in Shannahans system has been willing to do, vets or rookie's. I can see how frustrating it could be. The guy doesn't want to practice full out, and when you get into the game and are expected to play full out, and don't, then it gets frustrating for the coaches.

As more details emerge, it seems as though the match was doomed from the start. Perhaps, there is more truth to the "wristband" story except that the Shanahan that ordered Donovan to wear one wasn't Mike, but Kyle. Vet, hit is on head when he said all of this points to the poor choice made by whoever brought Donovan here.

1. If Danny was partly responsible for Donovan being here, can you blame him? Donovan was a great marketing to make money. Isn't that Danny's priority for his business?

2. If Mike, OK'd it. Can you blame him? He needed a mobile QB for his weak O line. He also needed a proven veteran. Mike's MO is ego. In his mind, he can coach up any talented QB.

3. Kyle alludes that he was never on board with McNabb. Can you blame him? He knows how the O works. Look what it did for Schaub's career. McNabb is a improvisional QB who has accracy issues.

4. Can you blame McNabb? He is what he is. A QB that works best when one works to his strengths. He needs to be free to improvise. He was an 11 year vet that wasn't ready for a young kid to tell him what to do.

Yes, I know that each of the above can be blamed and some of us will want to blame one or more, more that the other or others, but I the root cause of the problem to me is none of the above. Nepotism is the root problem. Nepotism would easily explain the ridiculous handing of the Detroit McNabb benching. I believe if Mike had picked an OC that ran an offense like the one he had in Denver, Mike would have saw to it that Donovan worked out here. He probably used the father knows best angle and convinced a reluctant Kyle to go along with the McNabb trade. When things quickly soured, Mike was caught in between the McNabb and Kyle and maybe Danny, if Danny did ask him to consider trading for McNabb.
In the end, a head coach has got to allow his OC to have the tools that will give him success and remove anything that doesn't fit. Clearly Mike screwed up, but if he is going to keep Kyle as his OC, which he is, MCNabb needed to go. McNabb, though a better QB than Beck and Grossman, is not a better QB for the Kyle Shanahan offense. We can say they should tailor the O to fit Donovan (my position), but that isn't going to happen ( I am OK with that because a coach needs to do what he thinks is right for his system).

Regardless of who we blame, the onus is on Mike, because he has control over all personnel decisions. I would love to know the truth about who's and the how's about Donovan coming here, but I would be more satisfied that we have moved on and that serious lessons were learned for all of those involved.

Red_One43 wrote:As more details emerge, it seems as though the match was doomed from the start. Perhaps, there is more truth to the "wristband" story except that the Shanahan that ordered Donovan to wear one wasn't Mike, but Kyle. Vet, hit is on head when he said all of this points to the poor choice made by whoever brought Donovan here.

1. If Danny was partly responsible for Donovan being here, can you blame him? Donovan was a great marketing to make money. Isn't that Danny's priority for his business?

2. If Mike, OK'd it. Can you blame him? He needed a mobile QB for his weak O line. He also needed a proven veteran. Mike's MO is ego. In his mind, he can coach up any talented QB.

3. Kyle alludes that he was never on board with McNabb. Can you blame him? He knows how the O works. Look what it did for Schaub's career. McNabb is a improvisional QB who has accracy issues.

4. Can you blame McNabb? He is what he is. A QB that works best when one works to his strengths. He needs to be free to improvise. He was an 11 year vet that wasn't ready for a young kid to tell him what to do.

Yes, I know that each of the above can be blamed and some of us will want to blame one or more, more that the other or others, but I the root cause of the problem to me is none of the above. Nepotism is the root problem. Nepotism would easily explain the ridiculous handing of the Detroit McNabb benching. I believe if Mike had picked an OC that ran an offense like the one he had in Denver, Mike would have saw to it that Donovan worked out here. He probably used the father knows best angle and convinced a reluctant Kyle to go along with the McNabb trade. When things quickly soured, Mike was caught in between the McNabb and Kyle and maybe Danny, if Danny did ask him to consider trading for McNabb.
In the end, a head coach has got to allow his OC to have the tools that will give him success and remove anything that doesn't fit. Clearly Mike screwed up, but if he is going to keep Kyle as his OC, which he is, MCNabb needed to go. McNabb, though a better QB than Beck and Grossman, is not a better QB for the Kyle Shanahan offense. We can say they should tailor the O to fit Donovan (my position), but that isn't going to happen ( I am OK with that because a coach needs to do what he thinks is right for his system).

Regardless of who we blame, the onus is on Mike, because he has control over all personnel decisions. I would love to know the truth about who's and the how's about Donovan coming here, but I would be more satisfied that we have moved on and that serious lessons were learned for all of those involved.

What a load. The team decides to trade for a qb, despite the reservations of the offensive coordinator, and you blame nepotism for the problem. In this whole McNabb debacle nepotism is the least of the issues. The main problem, as in the past with the Skins, is a poor player acquisition choice. They traded for a player whose strengths don't fit the system and whose weaknesses made succeeding in the offense very difficult.

Also, your post is contradictory and pure speculation. On the one hand, you speculate that Snyder was involved in the decision to trade for McNabb, but then you say that the onus is on Shanahan because he has control over all personnel issues. Which is it?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:As more details emerge, it seems as though the match was doomed from the start. Perhaps, there is more truth to the "wristband" story except that the Shanahan that ordered Donovan to wear one wasn't Mike, but Kyle. Vet, hit is on head when he said all of this points to the poor choice made by whoever brought Donovan here.

1. If Danny was partly responsible for Donovan being here, can you blame him? Donovan was a great marketing to make money. Isn't that Danny's priority for his business?

2. If Mike, OK'd it. Can you blame him? He needed a mobile QB for his weak O line. He also needed a proven veteran. Mike's MO is ego. In his mind, he can coach up any talented QB.

3. Kyle alludes that he was never on board with McNabb. Can you blame him? He knows how the O works. Look what it did for Schaub's career. McNabb is a improvisional QB who has accracy issues.

4. Can you blame McNabb? He is what he is. A QB that works best when one works to his strengths. He needs to be free to improvise. He was an 11 year vet that wasn't ready for a young kid to tell him what to do.

Yes, I know that each of the above can be blamed and some of us will want to blame one or more, more that the other or others, but I the root cause of the problem to me is none of the above. Nepotism is the root problem. Nepotism would easily explain the ridiculous handing of the Detroit McNabb benching. I believe if Mike had picked an OC that ran an offense like the one he had in Denver, Mike would have saw to it that Donovan worked out here. He probably used the father knows best angle and convinced a reluctant Kyle to go along with the McNabb trade. When things quickly soured, Mike was caught in between the McNabb and Kyle and maybe Danny, if Danny did ask him to consider trading for McNabb.
In the end, a head coach has got to allow his OC to have the tools that will give him success and remove anything that doesn't fit. Clearly Mike screwed up, but if he is going to keep Kyle as his OC, which he is, MCNabb needed to go. McNabb, though a better QB than Beck and Grossman, is not a better QB for the Kyle Shanahan offense. We can say they should tailor the O to fit Donovan (my position), but that isn't going to happen ( I am OK with that because a coach needs to do what he thinks is right for his system).

Regardless of who we blame, the onus is on Mike, because he has control over all personnel decisions. I would love to know the truth about who's and the how's about Donovan coming here, but I would be more satisfied that we have moved on and that serious lessons were learned for all of those involved.

What a load. The team decides to trade for a qb, despite the reservations of the offensive coordinator, and you blame nepotism for the problem. In this whole McNabb debacle nepotism is the least of the issues. The main problem, as in the past with the Skins, is a poor player acquisition choice. They traded for a player whose strengths don't fit the system and whose weaknesses made succeeding in the offense very difficult.

Also, your post is contradictory and pure speculation. On the one hand, you speculate that Snyder was involved in the decision to trade for McNabb, but then you say that the onus is on Shanahan because he has control over all personnel issues. Which is it?

Can't deny that I am speculating here. Don't have all the facts. Does anybody have all the facts besides Snyder, Allen, both Shanahans and Donovan? Let's look at what you said - the team makes a bad player acquisition. We all know that. The million dollar question is "Why?" Head coach goes against his coordinator - was it nepotism? A case can be made that it wasn't. Gibbs went against his coordinator, Williams, concerning Pierce and Clark, but - no nepotism there. Why didn't Williams put his foot down and kick and scream? Because we know that Snyder WAS involved. I speculate that in this case that Kyle also had to go along because Snyder was involved. I can't leave the argument there. Gibbs could have put his foot down and kept Pierce and Clark, but he made a choice to support Snyder. Shanahan, I believe could have put his foot down and said no, but he chose to support Snyder (my speculation that Snyder is involved). Here is where the nepotism comes in - I say Mike would have made things workout with McNabb if he had hired his guy (a guy that runs Mike's style of offense) for OC and left his son in Houston. I think that Mike likes Donovan. We know Kyle Doesn't. Mike was caught in the middle. Note - Fletcher Smith said that it was mainly Kyle that has made Donovan's tenure with the Redskins difficult (Smith's December rant). Mike is a very good football coach he knows that ultimately he needed to support his OC, son or not, Donovan had to go. Most folks get that that Donovan is not a fit for Kyle's O. What we don't get is how a two time Super Bowl winning coach, a coach with a Super Bowl ring with SF, could trade two draft choices for a guy who is a leader, a proven winner, had needed mobility and had much marketing value and then not make adjustments to get the most out of such a high priced investment knowing that the QB of the future was miles down the road. I speculate that if Kyle wasn't the OC, the adjustment would have been made; therefore, I blame nepotism. I can't blame Mike because I understand the reason to go after McNabb. No way Grossman survives the pass rush onsalught that McNabb faced early in the season. I believe that McNabb could have worked out here if the adjustments were made. I believe that McNabb isn't washed up. I can't blame Snyder because he is about the money. I can't blame McNabb, because he is the same McNabb of the past 11 years only not as mobile and prone to nagging injuries. I can't blame Kyle because his offense is proven (I don't like it myself, I prefer the Denver style of offense under Mike). I can live it. You might be able to say - just another bad acquisition, but I think that there is more to this one that just that. this one wreaks, but in its own peculiar way and the peculiar aspect this time is nepotism in my specualtion.

Am I contradicting myself when I say Snyder might be involved and say the onus is on Mike? Not hardly. When Snyder was involved with Gibbs, I doubt very seriously that Snyder made Gibbs get rid of Pierce and Clark. Snyder worshipped Gibbs. Gibbs, for whatever reason, did not put his foot down with Snyder. Same goes in my speculation with Snyder being involved in the trade with McNabb. Shanahan could have said no, but, for whatever reason, he didn't. Just like Joe Gibbs, President of Football Operations, beared the responsibility for the personnel decisions, so does Mike, but more with Mike, because the public is told that Mike has final say over all personnel decisions. The public was told that Snyder and Cerrato would be involved with Gibbs.

Why did Mike pull McNabb in the Detroit game in the manner in which he did? - That is one of the strangest coaching decisions ever - Why all the waffling about the reasons for pulling him? The Waffling points to Mike going against his better judgement and covering for his son. The only answer I can come up is nepotism.

Yes, all of the above is pure specualtion and maybe a result of a fan who is dying for some real football news, but I feel that the Shanahans understand that from here on out, Kyle must have a QB he trusts to run his O. Thus we only have Beck and Grossman as possible Redskin QBs for next year that were on the roster last year.

I think that Mike likes Donovan.

And you're basing this on what?

Note - Fletcher Smith said that it was mainly Kyle that has made Donovan's tenure with the Redskins difficult (Smith's December rant).

It's much easier to go after a young assistant than a coach that has a super bowl ring.

What we don't get is how a two time Super Bowl winning coach, a coach with a Super Bowl ring with SF, could trade two draft choices for a guy who is a leader, a proven winner, had needed mobility and had much marketing value and then not make adjustments to get the most out of such a high priced investment knowing that the QB of the future was miles down the road.

Because Mike has an ego. He probably thought that he could get McNabb to play the position the way he wanted it to be played.

I speculate that if Kyle wasn't the OC, the adjustment would have been made

I disagree.

I can't blame Snyder because he is about the money.

If he was actively involved in this McNabb trade then he deserves a hell of a lot of blame for this.

(I don't like it myself, I prefer the Denver style of offense under Mike). I can live it.

You do realize that the offense we are running is very similar to what Mike ran in Denver, right? And that it is as much Mike's offense as Kyle's right?

Shanahan could have said no, but, for whatever reason, he didn't. Just like Joe Gibbs, President of Football Operations, beared the responsibility for the personnel decisions, so does Mike, but more with Mike, because the public is told that Mike has final say over all personnel decisions. The public was told that Snyder and Cerrato would be involved with Gibbs.

So, if Snyder really wants a player, you think that Shanahan is in a position to say "no", with that being the final say on the matter? Yea, ok.

but I feel that the Shanahans understand that from here on out, Kyle must have a QB he trusts to run his O. Thus we only have Beck and Grossman as possible Redskin QBs for next year that were on the roster last year.

Of course an OC needs to have a qb that he trusts. What head coach wouldn't understand that???

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Red_One

I think that Mike likes Donovan.

Canes

And you're basing this on what?

Pure speculation

Red_One

Note - Fletcher Smith said that it was mainly Kyle that has made Donovan's tenure with the Redskins difficult (Smith's December rant).

Canes

It's much easier to go after a young assistant than a coach that has a super bowl ring.

It's even easier to tell the truth

Red

What we don't get is how a two time Super Bowl winning coach, a coach with a Super Bowl ring with SF, could trade two draft choices for a guy who is a leader, a proven winner, had needed mobility and had much marketing value and then not make adjustments to get the most out of such a high priced investment knowing that the QB of the future was miles down the road.

Canes

Because Mike has an ego. He probably thought that he could get McNabb to play the position the way he wanted it to be played.

Definitely a part of it, but it doesn't explain why he would go against his OC.

Red

I speculate that if Kyle wasn't the OC, the adjustment would have been made

Canes

I disagree.

My thought was pure speculation so I expect some to disagree

Red

I can't blame Snyder because he is about the money.

Canes

If he was actively involved in this McNabb trade then he deserves a hell of a lot of blame for this.

Snyder is what he is. He places making money first. Look at Fed Ex from the outside, does it look like a footbal stadium or a FedEx warehouse? Let me add this - from his perspective, I can't blame him. McNabb jerseys went on sale the next day after the trade.


Red

(I don't like it myself, I prefer the Denver style of offense under Mike). I can live it.

Canes

You do realize that the offense we are running is very similar to what Mike ran in Denver, right? And that it is as much Mike's offense as Kyle's right?

I didn't realize that we ran the ball last season like they did in Shanny's Denver days. When Shanny took over he said that we would run the ball. Nine times in Shanahan's 14 seasons, the Broncos ranked in the top five in the NFL in rushing yards per game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02175.html

They might be similar offenses but the coaching philosophies when it comes to run/pass ratio are not the same. I never heard Kyle say we are going to run the ball. He says, we will take what the defense gives us and attack. Yes, Mike and Kyle were neck and neck in rushing, but look where Kyle went in 2009 with his run/pass ratio and look at Mike prior to 2008. Check out NFL.com Team Stats.

Red

Shanahan could have said no, but, for whatever reason, he didn't. Just like Joe Gibbs, President of Football Operations, beared the responsibility for the personnel decisions, so does Mike, but more with Mike, because the public is told that Mike has final say over all personnel decisions. The public was told that Snyder and Cerrato would be involved with Gibbs.

Canes

So, if Snyder really wants a player, you think that Shanahan is in a position to say "no", with that being the final say on the matter? Yea, ok.

Yes, but I could be wrong. Danny ain't firing Shanny when it is probably in his contract that Shanny has final say. Danny would join the Broncos club in paying Shanny for nothing for years. Final say was part of the condition on Shanny taking the job. Final say doesn't mean that Shanny wouldn't out of respect to Danny consider his request.

Red

but I feel that the Shanahans understand that from here on out, Kyle must have a QB he trusts to run his O. Thus we only have Beck and Grossman as possible Redskin QBs for next year that were on the roster last year.

Canes

Of course an OC needs to have a qb that he trusts. What head coach wouldn't understand that???

I am sure that Mike understands that but understanding and putting that into practice are two different things. Obviously, Mike did place McNabb with an OC who did not trust him. Why? Is what inquiring minds want to know.

A good coach modifies his system to make best use of his players. Kyle didn't

yupchagee wrote:A good coach modifies his system to make best use of his players. Kyle didn't

And neither did Haslett on defense. If he had, we would have been running a 4-3 last year. Obviously the entire staff was intent on spending their first season implementing their schemes.

Red_One43 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Also, your post is contradictory and pure speculation. On the one hand, you speculate that Snyder was involved in the decision to trade for McNabb, but then you say that the onus is on Shanahan because he has control over all personnel issues. Which is it?

Can't deny that I am speculating here. Don't have all the facts. Does anybody have all the facts besides Snyder, Allen, both Shanahans and Donovan? Let's look at what you said - the team makes a bad player acquisition. We all know that. The million dollar question is "Why?" Head coach goes against his coordinator - was it nepotism? A case can be made that it wasn't. Gibbs went against his coordinator, Williams, concerning Pierce and Clark, but - no nepotism there. Why didn't Williams put his foot down and kick and scream? Because we know that Snyder WAS involved. I speculate that in this case that Kyle also had to go along because Snyder was involved.

Not sure why you didn't quit while you were behind, but you didn't...

All the facts? As we know them:

Allen refused to talk about it, Donovan won't either, "the Danny" says they didn't talk football, and the other two QBs have only done what you are doing and that's speculate.

Remember this started with a reporter saying that Bruce, Mike, and "the Danny" were talking over dinner during Super Bowl weekend. This wasn't something that came up in-season, if so Rex and/or Beck would not have to speculate. No one has asked the Shanny or Shanny II, no one knows when McNabb refused to wear the wristband (if he was asked to wear one).

You speculate it wasn't nepotism based on your speculation that Gibbs didn't go to bat for GW and Mike didn't go to bat for his son. You say you know that "the Danny" was "hands on" with Gibbs but are speculating that it's the same now.

Any proof of that? Nope, None, Notta...

We know Bruce and Mike got rid of fan favorites right out the gate last year, they spent very little in free agency in 2010, and stunned everyone with what the did in the 2011 draft. Any of that have the finger prints of "the Danny"? Again you must answer Nope, None, Notta.

I'm speculating that if it was nepotism Mike would have went along with Kyle and not want to bring in McNabb.

Where was Bruce in all your speculations?

Red_One43 wrote: I can't leave the argument there. Gibbs could have put his foot down and kept Pierce and Clark, but he made a choice to support Snyder. Shanahan, I believe could have put his foot down and said no, but he chose to support Snyder (my speculation that Snyder is involved). Here is where the nepotism comes in - I say Mike would have made things workout with McNabb if he had hired his guy (a guy that runs Mike's style of offense) for OC and left his son in Houston. I think that Mike likes Donovan. We know Kyle Doesn't. Mike was caught in the middle.

Again not quitting while you're behind, it shows you are persistent.

Maybe Gregg wanted the bigger name free agents that "the Danny" wanted to bring in and Gibbs didn't want to "put his foot down" against William "the Danny" and Vinny (we do know he was all about signing big names). What does that do to your sequencing of speculation?

Shanny could have wanted DMac and everyone else could have been against it but he has "final say". You can call that speculation if you want but I see nothing that says Shanny isn't running the show.

Mike brought in his son the way he always planned to bring him in. He didn't want to give him his first OC job, he wanted Kyle to "earn his stripes" before adding him to a future staff. Maybe he had something to do with Kubiak hiring Kyle, but this isn't Kyle's first rodeo and he was already a up and coming young coordinator. Kubiak is from the Shanahan tree and brought in Mike's scheme.

If Shanny had hired another OC he would have made him run the same scheme that Kyle is running. If you think I'm speculating then ask former HC Haslett if the scheme was optional when he joined up as DC for Mike

Red_One43 wrote:Note - Fletcher Smith said that it was mainly Kyle that has made Donovan's tenure with the Redskins difficult (Smith's December rant).

Yeah and Kyle said:

“We’ve never had a confrontation all year. We’ve never had an argument. Everything has been good, so it is really a different situation to hear that stuff, but when I clear it up with him, I’ve got to go with the reality of what two guys between us talk about.”

And:

“When I talked to Donovan, he said he didn’t say any of that,” Shanahan said. “I’m like, ‘Well, your agent did, which to me is you.’ He said he didn’t agree with any of that, those words didn’t come out and that he didn’t tell his agent that stuff. So all I can go off of is what Donovan tells me.

There was no follow up from McNabb or Smith after Kyle's statement.

Red_One43 wrote:Mike is a very good football coach he knows that ultimately he needed to support his OC, son or not, Donovan had to go.

But according to your speculation Mike didn't learn this until after he had traded two draft picks for a guy the OC didn't want and couldn't work with, but waited until his first season was already down the drain.

Red_One43 wrote:Most folks get that that Donovan is not a fit for Kyle's O. What we don't get is how a two time Super Bowl winning coach, a coach with a Super Bowl ring with SF, could trade two draft choices for a guy who is a leader, a proven winner, had needed mobility and had much marketing value and then not make adjustments to get the most out of such a high priced investment knowing that the QB of the future was miles down the road.

Again I must point out that you are defeating your argument before you make it. That happens when it's all speculation.

Red_One43 wrote: I speculate that if Kyle wasn't the OC, the adjustment would have been made; therefore, I blame nepotism. I can't blame Mike because I understand the reason to go after McNabb. No way Grossman survives the pass rush onsalught that McNabb faced early in the season.

Why do you speculate the adjustments would have been made? From what we know it doesn't sound like McNabb was willing to adjust and I doubt Shanny could have hired Andy Reid even with "the Danny's" checkbook

Red_One43 wrote: I believe that McNabb could have worked out here if the adjustments were made. I believe that McNabb isn't washed up. I can't blame Snyder because he is about the money. I can't blame McNabb, because he is the same McNabb of the past 11 years only not as mobile and prone to nagging injuries. I can't blame Kyle because his offense is proven (I don't like it myself, I prefer the Denver style of offense under Mike). I can live it. You might be able to say - just another bad acquisition, but I think that there is more to this one that just that. this one wreaks, but in its own peculiar way and the peculiar aspect this time is nepotism in my specualtion.

You have many believes in this matter that matches mine, but you speculate that Mike was protecting his son and I speculate that McNabb refused to listen to the coaches son even though the coaches son was his jr. he was his boss. I believe Shanny had no idea that McNabb would be that unprofessional.

Red_One43 wrote:Am I contradicting myself when I say Snyder might be involved and say the onus is on Mike? Not hardly. When Snyder was involved with Gibbs, I doubt very seriously that Snyder made Gibbs get rid of Pierce and Clark. Snyder worshipped Gibbs. Gibbs, for whatever reason, did not put his foot down with Snyder. Same goes in my speculation with Snyder being involved in the trade with McNabb. Shanahan could have said no, but, for whatever reason, he didn't. Just like Joe Gibbs bears the responsibility for the personnel decisions, so does Mike, but more with Mike because, the public is told that Mike has final say over all personnel decisions. The publis was told that Snyder and Cerrato would be involved with Gibbs. Even if Snyder MADE Mike trade for McNabb (I speculate he didn't make him), see Rule #1 - Personnel decisions stop at Mike's desk; therefore, the onus falls on Mike - The buck stops on his desk.

If you speculate that "the Danny" is still calling the shots, and speculate that nepotism was involved in the handling of McNabb there is no way you can speculate that what Mike says is true (that he has final say in all football operations).

Trading for a QB that your son openly says he doesn't want kind of blows the nepotism speculation out of the water and speculating that the operation is run the same as it was run when JJG was here holds no water.

yupchagee wrote:A good coach modifies his system to make best use of his players. Kyle didn't

Agreed. And I don't think his playcalling was that good either.

1niksder wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Also, your post is contradictory and pure speculation. On the one hand, you speculate that Snyder was involved in the decision to trade for McNabb, but then you say that the onus is on Shanahan because he has control over all personnel issues. Which is it?

Can't deny that I am speculating here. Don't have all the facts. Does anybody have all the facts besides Snyder, Allen, both Shanahans and Donovan? Let's look at what you said - the team makes a bad player acquisition. We all know that. The million dollar question is "Why?" Head coach goes against his coordinator - was it nepotism? A case can be made that it wasn't. Gibbs went against his coordinator, Williams, concerning Pierce and Clark, but - no nepotism there. Why didn't Williams put his foot down and kick and scream? Because we know that Snyder WAS involved. I speculate that in this case that Kyle also had to go along because Snyder was involved.

Not sure why you didn't quit while you were behind, but you didn't...

All the facts? As we know them:

Allen refused to talk about it, Donovan won't either, "the Danny" says they didn't talk football, and the other two QBs have only done what you are doing and that's speculate.

Remember this started with a reporter saying that Bruce, Mike, and "the Danny" were talking over dinner during Super Bowl weekend. This wasn't something that came up in-season, if so Rex and/or Beck would not have to speculate. No one has asked the Shanny or Shanny II, no one knows when McNabb refused to wear the wristband (if he was asked to wear one).

You speculate it wasn't nepotism based on your speculation that Gibbs didn't go to bat for GW and Mike didn't go to bat for his son. You say you know that "the Danny" was "hands on" with Gibbs but are speculating that it's the same now.

Any proof of that? Nope, None, Notta...

We know Bruce and Mike got rid of fan favorites right out the gate last year, they spent very little in free agency in 2010, and stunned everyone with what the did in the 2011 draft. Any of that have the finger prints of "the Danny"? Again you must answer Nope, None, Notta.

I'm speculating that if it was nepotism Mike would have went along with Kyle and not want to bring in McNabb.

Where was Bruce in all your speculations?

Red_One43 wrote: I can't leave the argument there. Gibbs could have put his foot down and kept Pierce and Clark, but he made a choice to support Snyder. Shanahan, I believe could have put his foot down and said no, but he chose to support Snyder (my speculation that Snyder is involved). Here is where the nepotism comes in - I say Mike would have made things workout with McNabb if he had hired his guy (a guy that runs Mike's style of offense) for OC and left his son in Houston. I think that Mike likes Donovan. We know Kyle Doesn't. Mike was caught in the middle.

Again not quitting while you're behind, it shows you are persistent.

Maybe Gregg wanted the bigger name free agents that "the Danny" wanted to bring in and Gibbs didn't want to "put his foot down" against William "the Danny" and Vinny (we do know he was all about signing big names). What does that do to your sequencing of speculation?

Shanny could have wanted DMac and everyone else could have been against it but he has "final say". You can call that speculation if you want but I see nothing that says Shanny isn't running the show.

Mike brought in his son the way he always planned to bring him in. He didn't want to give him his first OC job, he wanted Kyle to "earn his stripes" before adding him to a future staff. Maybe he had something to do with Kubiak hiring Kyle, but this isn't Kyle's first rodeo and he was already a up and coming young coordinator. Kubiak is from the Shanahan tree and brought in Mike's scheme.

If Shanny had hired another OC he would have made him run the same scheme that Kyle is running. If you think I'm speculating then ask former HC Haslett if the scheme was optional when he joined up as DC for Mike

Red_One43 wrote:Note - Fletcher Smith said that it was mainly Kyle that has made Donovan's tenure with the Redskins difficult (Smith's December rant).

Yeah and Kyle said:

“We’ve never had a confrontation all year. We’ve never had an argument. Everything has been good, so it is really a different situation to hear that stuff, but when I clear it up with him, I’ve got to go with the reality of what two guys between us talk about.”

And:

“When I talked to Donovan, he said he didn’t say any of that,” Shanahan said. “I’m like, ‘Well, your agent did, which to me is you.’ He said he didn’t agree with any of that, those words didn’t come out and that he didn’t tell his agent that stuff. So all I can go off of is what Donovan tells me.

There was no follow up from McNabb or Smith after Kyle's statement.

Red_One43 wrote:Mike is a very good football coach he knows that ultimately he needed to support his OC, son or not, Donovan had to go.

But according to your speculation Mike didn't learn this until after he had traded two draft picks for a guy the OC didn't want and couldn't work with, but waited until his first season was already down the drain.

Red_One43 wrote:Most folks get that that Donovan is not a fit for Kyle's O. What we don't get is how a two time Super Bowl winning coach, a coach with a Super Bowl ring with SF, could trade two draft choices for a guy who is a leader, a proven winner, had needed mobility and had much marketing value and then not make adjustments to get the most out of such a high priced investment knowing that the QB of the future was miles down the road.

Again I must point out that you are defeating your argument before you make it. That happens when it's all speculation.

Red_One43 wrote: I speculate that if Kyle wasn't the OC, the adjustment would have been made; therefore, I blame nepotism. I can't blame Mike because I understand the reason to go after McNabb. No way Grossman survives the pass rush onsalught that McNabb faced early in the season.

Why do you speculate the adjustments would have been made? From what we know it doesn't sound like McNabb was willing to adjust and I doubt Shanny could have hired Andy Reid even with "the Danny's" checkbook

Red_One43 wrote: I believe that McNabb could have worked out here if the adjustments were made. I believe that McNabb isn't washed up. I can't blame Snyder because he is about the money. I can't blame McNabb, because he is the same McNabb of the past 11 years only not as mobile and prone to nagging injuries. I can't blame Kyle because his offense is proven (I don't like it myself, I prefer the Denver style of offense under Mike). I can live it. You might be able to say - just another bad acquisition, but I think that there is more to this one that just that. this one wreaks, but in its own peculiar way and the peculiar aspect this time is nepotism in my specualtion.

You have many believes in this matter that matches mine, but you speculate that Mike was protecting his son and I speculate that McNabb refused to listen to the coaches son even though the coaches son was his jr. he was his boss. I believe Shanny had no idea that McNabb would be that unprofessional.

Red_One43 wrote:Am I contradicting myself when I say Snyder might be involved and say the onus is on Mike? Not hardly. When Snyder was involved with Gibbs, I doubt very seriously that Snyder made Gibbs get rid of Pierce and Clark. Snyder worshipped Gibbs. Gibbs, for whatever reason, did not put his foot down with Snyder. Same goes in my speculation with Snyder being involved in the trade with McNabb. Shanahan could have said no, but, for whatever reason, he didn't. Just like Joe Gibbs bears the responsibility for the personnel decisions, so does Mike, but more with Mike because, the public is told that Mike has final say over all personnel decisions. The publis was told that Snyder and Cerrato would be involved with Gibbs. Even if Snyder MADE Mike trade for McNabb (I speculate he didn't make him), see Rule #1 - Personnel decisions stop at Mike's desk; therefore, the onus falls on Mike - The buck stops on his desk.

If you speculate that "the Danny" is still calling the shots, and speculate that nepotism was involved in the handling of McNabb there is no way you can speculate that what Mike says is true (that he has final say in all football operations).

Trading for a QB that your son openly says he doesn't want kind of blows the nepotism speculation out of the water and speculating that the operation is run the same as it was run when JJG was here holds no water.

C'mon, you don't really think that if all the facts come out these happenings will fit like a neatly cut jigsaw puzzle?

Allow me to explain myself what I am saying rather than you do it -

I am not saying that the Danny is running the show. I am saying that McNabb is his and that he convinced Mike to go along with it in the manner that he convinced Joe Gibbs - NO I am not implying strong armed tactics - I say no way Danny gives Gibbs any kind of ultimatim to do what Danny wants and NO way he gives Mike an ultimatum to take McNabb. I am saying Shanny went alond with it because he knows that there is a business side of things and the Danny deserves a guy like McNabb to make him more money. No problem for Mike because he just happens to to be the QB guru who can mold any QB to any system. Don't fret Kyle, Daddy will make McNabb into the QB that you need for you O besides we need a mobile QB to compensate for our weak O line. Don't worry, McNabb is a temporary fix while we shore up the O line and find your guy.

Where do I say nepotism comes in - I say without Kyle, Shanny makes McNabb fit. Remember Mike wants to run the ball. Kyle wants to throw. Without Kyle we run the ball more and pass blocking and Donovan's balls in the dirt are not much of an issue. When Mike couldn't fit McNabb into Kyle's system, Mike kicked McNabb to the curb but he couldn't do it gracefully because he knew that this wasn't right - thus the Detroit QB debacle.

You see 1nik, I am trying to explain the un expalinable - How does a two time winning Super Bowl coach and one time Super Bowl offensive assistant make one of the stupidest game time decisions regarding a QB? Nepotism.

How does this same coach earlier trade two draft picks for a QB that he knows his som doesn't want? Here is where it gets tricky - Doesn't look like nepostism because it looks like Mike is supporting the owner over his son, but is he? He is playing both sides. Support the owner and support the son by trying to turn McNabb into something that he isn't - here is the nepotism.

I am saying that without his son, Mike still supoorts Danny and trades for McNabb, but Mike and McNabb make it worki. It didn't work because Mike was too busy placating to his son.

Now there is nothing wrong with a head coach wanting his OC to have the QB his OC wants, but wants Mike traded for McNabb, he doomed everybody involved except the Danny because Danny still got his jersey sells.

Fortunately, for Mike and Kyle, they can recover from this. I think that Kyles's system is proven and with the right QB for him, the Skins will have a good O. The key variable is O line. Behaind a good O line and Grossman and/or Beck running the O with Kyle's precision, we will be OK and the Soap Opera will be behind us because as I said, I am not saying Danny is running the show. McNabb was his and he will be gone.

Does anybody else have a scenario that explains why Mike trades for McNabb? He had to know the skinny on McNabb and he had to have known that Kyle did not want McNabb.

Does anybody have an expalnation for the Detroit debacle?

C'mon, there's a lockout. What else are we going to talk about?

I am saying that without his son, Mike still supoorts Danny and trades for McNabb, but Mike and McNabb make it worki. It didn't work because Mike was too busy placating to his son.

I hear what you are saying, but I think Mike wanted McNabb because he the QB guru and McNabb was the best in the conference, Kyle didn't want him and "the Danny" had no input. Mike made a bad trade and it came to a head mid-way though the Lions game. Mike caved and went with Rex, Grossman's 2 and a half minute debut took all the teeth out of Kyle's argument and McNabb was back the next week. By the end of the year and the season was lost Mike saw what Klye saw in McNabb and didn't know what/couldn't believe that Kyle saw anything in Rex. "the Danny" had nothing to do with it and has no blame, Kyle can sit back and say "I told you, I told you, I told you" but should get no blame, McNabb didn't ask to be traded to Washington but he get a little bit of the blame here. The bulk of the blame goes to Pappa Shanny for going out and getting D-Mac, and Bruce gave up too much for the wrong guy.

Now there is nothing wrong with a head coach wanting his OC to have the QB his OC wants, but wants Mike traded for McNabb, he doomed

everybody involved except the Danny because Danny still got his jersey sells.
"the Danny" owns the Washington Redskins, he'll ALWAYS get his jersey sales

I am saying that without his son, Mike still supoorts Danny and trades for McNabb, but Mike and McNabb make it worki. It didn't work because Mike was too busy placating to his son.

I hear what you are saying, but I think Mike wanted McNabb because he the QB guru and McNabb was the best in the conference, Kyle didn't want him and "the Danny" had no input. Mike made a bad trade and it came to a head mid-way though the Lions game. Mike caved and went with Rex, Grossman's 2 and a half minute debut took all the teeth out of Kyle's argument and McNabb was back the next week. By the end of the year and the season was lost Mike saw what Klye saw in McNabb and didn't know what/couldn't believe that Kyle saw anything in Rex. "the Danny" had nothing to do with it and has no blame, Kyle can sit back and say "I told you, I told you, I told you" but should get no blame, McNabb didn't ask to be traded to Washington but he get a little bit of the blame here. The bulk of the blame goes to Pappa Shanny for going out and getting D-Mac, and Bruce gave up too much for the wrong guy.

Now there is nothing wrong with a head coach wanting his OC to have the QB his OC wants, but wants Mike traded for McNabb, he doomed

everybody involved except the Danny because Danny still got his jersey sells.
"the Danny" owns the Washington Redskins, he'll ALWAYS get his jersey sales

1niksder wrote:

I am saying that without his son, Mike still supoorts Danny and trades for McNabb, but Mike and McNabb make it worki. It didn't work because Mike was too busy placating to his son.

I hear what you are saying, but I think Mike wanted McNabb because he the QB guru and McNabb was the best in the conference, Kyle didn't want him and "the Danny" had no input. Mike made a bad trade and it came to a head mid-way though the Lions game. Mike caved and went with Rex, Grossman's 2 and a half minute debut took all the teeth out of Kyle's argument and McNabb was back the next week. By the end of the year and the season was lost Mike saw what Klye saw in McNabb and didn't know what/couldn't believe that Kyle saw anything in Rex. "the Danny" had nothing to do with it and has no blame, Kyle can sit back and say "I told you, I told you, I told you" but should get no blame, McNabb didn't ask to be traded to Washington but he get a little bit of the blame here. The bulk of the blame goes to Pappa Shanny for going out and getting D-Mac, and Bruce gave up too much for the wrong guy.

Now there is nothing wrong with a head coach wanting his OC to have the QB his OC wants, but wants Mike traded for McNabb, he doomed

everybody involved except the Danny because Danny still got his jersey sells.
"the Danny" owns the Washington Redskins, he'll ALWAYS get his jersey sales

Your's is the simplistic explanation and I don't dispute that. Mine is pure speculation based on my belief that Mike could not have been that stupid in trading that much for a guy who had known issues that seemingly came to light under Shanahan and that he would knowing trade for a guy his son, the OC, didn't want. Again, mine is specualtion and just food for thought to explain the bazaar happenings of this trade as more details come out. The trade was doomed from the start.

Concerning the Danny winning: I don't know the dollar sales on McNabb, but I bet you a botton dollar that McNabb bumped up jersey sales. Campbell jerseys, I am sure were no longer selling like hot cakes and no way Grossman's jerseys, if he were opening day starter, come close the the sell of McNabb' jerseys. Also, there is the marketing of the team with McNabb's face. You couldn't do that with Grossman. The Skins will always make money, but the Danny wants to maximize profits and is always looking at ways to do that. So for you to say he will always get his jersey sells, is missing what the Danny is all about when it come to making money.

Just my 2 cents.

I look back and think that the FO looked at the QB situation and wanted anyone but Jason Campbell and they thought that Grossman was a good back up but not the QB starter and leader that they needed

There were a lot of things wrong with this deal and maybe we'd have been better off by staying with Campbell but we all knew that was going to be a disaster as well - one thing, IF we had stayed with Campbell there is not a doubt in my mind that Grossman would have been the starting QB a lot sooner and I don't think that Mike wanted that either

In hindsight I probably wish we did not make the trade but I also am very glad we didn't have to watch Campbell screwing up the QB job for another season


Mike has a lot to make up for here with the QB position because of this, no doubt


HOPEFULLY our OC and DC can do much better jobs this year and find better ways to utilize the players that they have in the schemes that they think give us the best chance at success

Mike needs to just pull everybody together and not micro manage these guys

SkinsJock wrote:Just my 2 cents.

I look back and think that the FO looked at the QB situation and wanted anyone but Jason Campbell and they thought that Grossman was a good back up but not the QB starter and leader that they needed

There were a lot of things wrong with this deal and maybe we'd have been better off by staying with Campbell but we all knew that was going to be a disaster as well - one thing, IF we had stayed with Campbell there is not a doubt in my mind that Grossman would have been the starting QB a lot sooner and I don't think that Mike wanted that either

In hindsight I probably wish we did not make the trade but I also am very glad we didn't have to watch Campbell screwing up the QB job for another season


Mike has a lot to make up for here with the QB position because of this, no doubt


HOPEFULLY our OC and DC can do much better jobs this year and find better ways to utilize the players that they have in the schemes that they think give us the best chance at success

Mike needs to just pull everybody together and not micro manage these guys

+1

More Speculating:

For Mike, Kyle runs the dffense.
For Joe, Gregg ran the defense.

For Gregg, Joe gets Gregg, Archuleta for his defense.
For Kyle Mike gets Kyle, McNabb for his offense.

Archuleta is a poor fit for Gregg's defense. Plays poorly and is gone after one year.
McNabb is a poor fit for Kyle's offense. Plays poorly and appears gone after one year.

Why would a coach of Joe Gibb's stature acquire a player that his coordinator didn't want?
Why would a coach of Mike's stature aquire a player that his coordinator didn't want?

Joe was President of Football Operations and paid huge bucks for his service by Danny. Joe had final say on personnel matters.
Mike is Vice President for Football Operations and paid huge bucks for his services by Danny. Nike has final say on personnel matters.

Danny claims that he didn't talk football with Joe
Danny says that he doesn't talk football with Mike.

Two multi Super Bowl winning coaches force a player that doesn't fit a coordinator's system onto their coordinators. To me, that doesn't make sense.

Joe was always telling us what a great owner Danny is. Did we ever stop and think, from Joe's perspective, Danny was a great owner and treated Joe with the utmost respect and got Joe whatever he wanted? Danny, you want Archuleta? No problem, for all you have done for me - no problem - we can make a good player like him be successful here..

From Mike's perspective, Danny is a great owner as well, I presume. First, he hired George Allen as GM, a GM that Mike wanted to work with. Gave him a fat contract. Let him bring his son on board and gave him complete control. Danny, you want McNabb. No problem, for all you have done for me - no problem - we can make a good player like him be successful here.

Uh Kyle, you run the offense, but here is your QB.