WaPo's Jason Reid rips Mike Shanahan

I heard about this article on the radio on Tuesday morning on the way to work, but I didn't get around to reading it until today. Pretty scathing...

Mike Shanahan must turn things around for Redskins after troubling 2010 season - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/mike-shanahan-must-turn-things-around-for-redskins-after-troubling-2010-season/2011/07/01/gHQA5V0FyH_story.html)

Yeah we talked about this a little in another thread.

My response to Reid is YAWN.

I was in the Fairfax/DC area from the mid 90s to early 2000s when there was excellent newspaper coverage and decent radio. In the last 5 years ive noticed just flat out garbage

I just read it myself. Pretty weak I thought. Poorly written and a number of his points just didn't make sense. It seemed almost half hearted to me- like he wanted to write a scathing article about shanahan, but halfway through, realized he had no point to make and gave up. I dont always agree with what reid says, but hes usually a better writer than this- A sign of a boring offseason I guess.

Yeah we talked about this a little in another thread.

My response to Reid is YAWN.

Missed that. Scathing article to be sure, but I agree with BHA that it was pretty poorly written. It's not too far off the mark, though. Shanahan's first season didn't show much if anything to be enthused about moving forward. This year's draft however is a different story.

I'd say it was an attempt at being scathing, but there's just not much substance behind it.

2011 would have to be an absolute train wreck for Snyder to even consider moving on from Shanahan. I'm talking 2-3 wins kind of bad.

I think Shanahan gets a full 3 years at the very least.

I didn't really understand the point of it. Tough first year, lot of work to do to improve this team in year two. Shanahan himself could have told you that

I didn't really understand the point of it. Tough first year, lot of work to do to improve this team in year two. Shanahan himself could have told you that

Add in "and it made Jason Reid mad!" and you don't have to read the article.

J. Reid never got much "insider" info when he was in that role, now as a columnist I find him to be pretty pedestrian. On wash post live he's alright, seems to have a good grasp & presents his points well, but in print he doesn't offer much insight. Like a couple of you said, this is just the result of a boring offseason.

Missed that. Scathing article to be sure, but I agree with BHA that it was pretty poorly written. It's not too far off the mark, though. Shanahan's first season didn't show much if anything to be enthused about moving forward. This year's draft however is a different story.

I guess you're right but the article was completely pointless at this juncture. Any 'journalist' who is talking about the 2011 Redskins and continues to include references to McNabb and Haynesworth is either lazy or terrible (or both). Clearly as soon as the lockout is lifted those situations will be dealt with. Continuing to refer to them, as Reid did consistently, like they have an impact going forward is just dumb.

If this article was written in January maybe it would have more credence but this is just a JLC-esque rip job for the sake of doing it. Of course the bottom feeders like Florio pick up on it and all of the sudden it's a story.

Wouldn't it be refreshing for once to read an article about how over the course of the season our roster got much younger, in the brief offseason we shed some older, no longer productive players, that we have very few guaranteed contracts and will have as much money as anyone to spend in free agency and oh yeah, we drafted 11 players! It's really easy and sadly popular to focus on the big negatives but would require actual work to write something somewhat positive.