Mike Shanahan

When do wins/losses come into the equation? Until we get a better QB?

I would say by year 4 they should have the QB and be a winning team. Year 5 and so on they should be a regular Super bowl contender.

I am not saying they don't eventually need to win. It's just not the end all stat in the 1st couple years when you are completely flipping the roster.

AS MK72 pointed out
I think it is a fair expectation to see measurable.....positive change by third year done on a five year deal. I would not advocate immediate dismissal if year three is disappointing as well. I would, however think it is also fair....AND EXPECTED to have a "Come to Jesus" meeting with ownership to see if it appears the current course is still the correct and worthy of pursuit. If it is found the B&G's return to glory does not lie on this path, another direction needs to be .....at least considered.

Here is my problem with this scenario:

That "Come to Jesus meeting" with ownership would mean that Mike Shanahan and Danny Boy would be sitting down to talk football and the current direction that the Redskins are taking. No offense here, but Danny Boy has shown pretty conclusively that he had no flipping clue as to the right direction to take a football program.

Even the most strident of Mike Shanahan's critics would have to concede that he would be more likely of "good football thinking" than Danny Boy if you woke Shanahan up at 4:00 AM after he had been out pounding tequila shots for 8 hours the night before.

I would not be confident that Danny Boy could make a decision as to the "best direction" for the team based simply on the way he has made football related decisions for the last decade or so.

I have been saying here for months that Mike Shanahan will be and should be the head coach of the Washington Redskins next year - - unless of course Mike Shanahan decides he would rather pack it in and buy a ranch and raise armadillos...

I can argue that we have shown progress. We're in a much better position than we were 2 years ago.
-younger team
-good offensive system
-cap room
-GM/organizational improvement
-more talent on Defense

Wins and Losses aren't there yet. I do expect to get more wins next year, but I don't expect necessarily to be a playoff team.

Agree there has been significant progress but maybe not in the same areas you do...

Younger team: Definitely - - and more importantly this team is FASTER than the Redskins' teams of 3-5 years ago.

Good offensive system: Maybe - - jury is still out on this because the Skins' offense does not produce. Sure, they need an upgrade on the offensive side of the ball in terms of talent but still - - after two years in the same system you would think there would be more "improvement" on the scoreboard if the system itself was all that great.

Cap room: Much better managed now than before.

GM/organizational improvement: The fact that there is a real GM who knows a football from a canary is a huge improvement. As to the rest of the organization, the jury is still out... Scouts produced a good draft board in 2011 and the team reaped benefits; these are the same scouts for the most part that produced the draft boards back in '10 and '09... So, have the scouts been really good all along and the suits who make the picks were at fault for bad drafts - - or - - did the scouts just get lucky in 2011? In Jerry McGuire the rant was "Show me the money!" Here I want the scouts to "Show me the talent - - again!"

More talent on defense: Certainly true of the front 7 but you have a lot of talking to do to convince me that the secondary in 2011 is much more than a bunch of pretty ordinary guys hanging out back there.

Rinehart is like Carter, a poor fit for the scheme. He's a power guy, not a zone-quickness guy.. McIntosh is a poor fit as a 3-4 ILB. He was completely lost last year and despite some early success this season regressed to show his poor fit so he wasn't sustainable as a player to be counted on.

No excuses for the QB situation. Picks should have been made late in both drafts to get at least a project to develop and their notion that they could make Rex or Beck into something they hadn't already shown was clearly wrong.

The only positive to come out of the QB position is that the OL is probably a RT away from being solid enough to be effective every week, even good some weeks so that's not an urgent focus along with fixing the QB position. Now if they have to include picks to get their QB it's not devastating because we don't have to count on every single pick to fill a need.

Paintrain:

I think the reason the Redskins did not use a late pick in the draft to get a QB to try to develop is because both Mike and Kyle thought that John Beck was "the guy". Both raved about his college career; so if that was not pure and unadulterated bulls[p]it, why draft another guy when you have "the guy" under contract already?

Bottom line here is both of them were dead wrong about John Beck and his viability as an acceptable NFL QB - - let alone a good NFL QB. And if they were dead wrong about the QB that both of them had at or near the top of his draft class, why would you think they would be "closer to correct" in evaluating some guy that everyone else has passed on for 6 rounds?

Paintrain:

I think the reason the Redskins did not use a late pick in the draft to get a QB to try to develop is because both Mike and Kyle thought that John Beck was "the guy". Both raved about his college career; so if that was not pure and unadulterated bulls[p]it, why draft another guy when you have "the guy" under contract already?

Bottom line here is both of them were dead wrong about John Beck and his viability as an acceptable NFL QB - - let alone a good NFL QB. And if they were dead wrong about the QB that both of them had at or near the top of his draft class, why would you think they would be "closer to correct" in evaluating some guy that everyone else has passed on for 6 rounds?

Agreed about Beck, although he wasnt in house before the 2010 draft. They see what he is now and we move on.

Here is my problem with this scenario:

That "Come to Jesus meeting" with ownership would mean that Mike Shanahan and Danny Boy would be sitting down to talk football and the current direction that the Redskins are taking. No offense here, but Danny Boy has shown pretty conclusively that he had no flipping clue as to the right direction to take a football program.

Even the most strident of Mike Shanahan's critics would have to concede that he would be more likely of "good football thinking" than Danny Boy if you woke Shanahan up at 4:00 AM after he had been out pounding tequila shots for 8 hours the night before.

I would not be confident that Danny Boy could make a decision as to the "best direction" for the team based simply on the way he has made football related decisions for the last decade or so.

I have been saying here for months that Mike Shanahan will be and should be the head coach of the Washington Redskins next year - - unless of course Mike Shanahan decides he would rather pack it in and buy a ranch and raise armadillos...
I do not dispute that any thinking Skins fan would have...at least some reservations about Danny doing ....The Jerra' for the B&G. Be that as it may, He is the CIC at Skinsville and would have to be in that meeting (No doubt with with Bruce as well), and for now I will..trust the correct decisions are made.
In my opinion, Mike should be allowed to fulfill his contract AND THEN see if he has done enough for a...redo. I doubt anyone can say with any conviction that he has not made many positive changes.

Before Allen and Shanahan arrived, the Redskins were famous for one thing. That being spending way too much on high-priced free agents, mostly past their prime. And trading away draft picks for high-priced veteran players. Those type of deals and decisions will set a franchise back as much as ten years. And it is something a franchise simply cannot recover from in only 2 seasons.

I agree with Shanahan, patience is the key. But he is such a professional that he will not come out in public and say what we all know. That being the franchise is currently paying the price for years of mis-management by his predecessors.

Stay the course.

For an opponent in our front yard, you quote "The Patriot" pretty doggone well!

I had been thinking about a thread just like this one for a couple of weeks, and the discussion here is pleasant and extremely knowledgeable. You guys are the best at seeing the picture clearly. Did I think MS should go? You bet, for about five minutes........ after every loss as a matter of fact. Do I think he has a plan; well yea, kind of, but he seemingly forgets so do all of the other 31 team coaches/GMs! I think the B&G plan is kind of like Rexy. Good Rex/........well you see the picture, you always do! Do I like the success with the FAs and Draft picks this year? You bet. Do I like the losses? Well, again, you can clearly see my picture. Does MS have an 8 to10+ win mandate for next year? Well, I think we have all put down the rose colored glasses and can see that picture!

I've always been saying I am giving Shanny four complete years without a complaint.

One of the complaints I've seen said (not in this thread necessarily) is that we've been rebuilding for years and people are tired of it. They want to win. Hey, I'm right there with you, but what was the last coach that truly tried to "rebuild?"

I remember during Spurrier years he traded two draft picks for some D Lineman that played for one year. Or the Jason Taylor for a 2nd. The last time the redskins drafted a player in each round (1-7) with the exception of this year was 1997. (*there were some years they had a 1,2,3, and two 5ths, so there could have been some trades that happened). Most draft years was one pick within the first 3 rounds and a few 6ths and 7ths. Or how about the trade for Brandon Lloyd for 2 season (a 3rd and a 4th.)

And what about all the big free agents, who came and went because they no longer fit the system? These players no longer work under M.Lewis's system so they have to be cut, and then G. Williams needs different players, than Greg Blache, then Haslett.

It seems to me there has always been this immense pressure to win now in Washington, regardless of where the pressure is coming from. We see coaches go out and get big names, only to be canned when they don't perform well, leaving the predecessor with big names they don't need. But, the pressure is still there, so they trade picks and sign their big FAs and cut the guys they no longer need... It's a very very frustrating cycle.

So, for once, I want to give a guy a chance. Build some young players. Draft. Don't feel pressure to bring in every big free agent signing since you have to win now. Get players you think fit the system and have the right attitude.

Of course, you can point to Shan trading for McNabb and Brown. But, even with those trades, he didn't give away the house. They were able to orchestrate great trades for Hightower, Gaffney and Carriker while still having 12 picks for this years draft. The redskins have 8 draft picks coming up in April (with all three in the first three rounds no less).

And we wonder why the team lacked talent and was old before? I started watchign skins football in 8th grade, when Marty was in his first year, so all i've known is the constant turn over, bad trades, big free agent signings that every coach made (including Gibbs).

So with Shan, my assestment awaits until the end of his fourth year. By that time, there is no excuses for the cupboards being bare and everyone he brought in was his idea. By that time, our core players will have been in the system for 3-4 years, and there shouldn't be any excuses to why this team can't perform. Any talk before than is silly.

Like someone said in this post, we get mad when Synder fires and causes the turmoil and turnover and signs the big free agents that makes it all a spectacle. Then, fans want Snyder to do the same exact thing when the skins aren't wining.

We finally have a coach who is rebuilding, getting great talent via the draft and smart FA acquisitions. Not a we are ready to compete now. Not a one player away. A true, through and through rebuild. Let's not sabotage it.

I'm not sure some of you guys who have a short leash tied around Mike Shanahan's neck truly know the depth and the extent to what all is involved in rebuilding a franchise that has been a losing franchise for the past twenty years. I mean, we sit here and piss and moan about Daniel Snyder and how he changes coaches like Skinsguy changes his socks - just like the media that pisses and moans about Daniel Snyder - and then us fans turn around and expect instant results within a two season span. Yes, you can go back and say, well Jim Zorn was just given two seasons......completely different situation. Zorn had no business being a head coach at that point. He was not qualified to be a head coach. Anybody with eyes and the least amount of football knowledge could see this.

Mike Shanahan has been coaching for well over 30+ years. He's coached Super Bowl teams, he's been around the best of the best coaches in the NFL. Shanahan knows his stuff. If he says he's here for five years and it's going to take that amount of time to build the Redskins into a dominating football team, what does that tell you? This team was in THAT bad of shape. Yet, we sit here and grade Mike Shanahan after two seasons, and say, "You know, he's not any better than Jim Zorn." That's just ridiculous. Come back and do your "I told you so's" after season five. If the Redskins are not a dominating football team by then, then I'll concede that Mike Shanahan didn't have what it took to rebuild this team.

But, while I agree that he's going to have a lot of pressure on him to show progress in the win column (and I did state that in another thread) next season, I give him his five years to bring this team back to being a dominate team. If this team is the "same ol' Redskins" by then, then you're more than welcome to say "I told you so so shut the efff up!" Until then, you had might as well strap on your helmets, pick your favorite seat on the bus, and brace yourself for a bumpy ride until we get to our destination.

And one more thing, don't give examples about the 49ers or the Lions, or even the Bengals. Those teams have had the correct talent or system in place for several seasons, it just so happened that the combination of both those players and the correct coaching staff(s) happened to fall in place this season. None of those teams were overnight successes, and any and all of those teams can be right back into last place come next season. As Shanahan said, to do it the right way, it takes time. Can't we just give a proven coaching staff, that time and realize we have to endure through all the crap if we plan on keeping the rebuilding on a consistent pace - as slow as it seems to be?

Sorry if I sound grumpy, I stayed up way too late watching the Baylor/Washington game last night and have only had one cup of coffee! I don't mean this toward any one person, I just think it's ridiculous to be complaining about not having what we've needed all of these years (a better GM in Bruce, a Super Bowl proven head coach, consistency) and then to complain because we have those things now. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Hail.You don't sound grumpy, you sound passionate. I like that.

The argument itself is dangerous, and I can try to explain why. Lets say Mike Shanahan posted 6-10 seasons every year throughout his contract, until December 2014. If you cut and pasted this argument into December 2014, it would be no more or less fallacious than it is at this very moment. Everything you wrote right here will still be true in three years. Granted: you might not be as inclined to write this after five bad years instead of two, but that's the big point here.

Two years is an eternity in the NFL. I don't know whether you just haven't been following all of Mike Shanahan's gaffes at Redskins Park, or whether you just don't think they're really a big deal. What's indisputable is that they have limited the ability of the team to get much better.

What we need to analyze as fans is whether these mistakes are likely to stop. If they don't stop, the team is unlikely to get any better in 2012, its unlikely to get better in 2013, and there's no amount of money you can put into a coaching contract to make the whole thing work.

Furthermore, better coaches are out there. Now, whether those highly desired coaches are interested in taking this job is another issue. You could argue back in 2008, the best candidates were not interested (though they did interview). And that in 2008, someone like Mike Shanahan (or Chan Gailey) was the best that the Redskins could have done.

That, to me, is a very logical argument for keeping Mike Shanahan: he's a proven head coach and its too likely that we'll downgrade our coaching staff if we make another switch. Why would anyone want to take this job if the only guy the owner gave more than two years happened to be named Joe Gibbs (who in defense of Snyder, also had the best season in the Snyder era in his second season).

But when you compare and contrast Gibbs (who also qualifies under all the criteria you defended Shanahan with) with Mike Shanahan just by what they accomplished in two years (and Zorn left more pro talent behind than Spurrier, but I'll ignore that for now), Gibbs already had the Redskins winning. Shanahan didn't change everything.

I mean, you just have to go back six years to see why the job Shanahan has been doing isn't acceptable. It's not like we weren't here before. It took one bad season to clean up the 2003 mess. The 2009 mess wasn't nearly that deep, and if anything, the Redskins have gone backwards since then.

Exactly. It sounds stupid but wins and losses are not always the best judge of progress. A couple plays decide who wins and loses most NFL games. The media talking heads will point to Shannys record as compared to Zorn and conclude that no progress has been made but those of us who watch the team every week can see the difference between now and Zorns last year. The Redskins are greatly improved in just about every area but it will not show up in the win/loss column until they get better more consistent play from the QB position.You are correct: wins and losses are a pretty shoddy marker of progress. Blind faith in the future is even worse.

I just don't understand how people can say the Redskins are greatly improved in just about every area. If THAT flies as truth, people can say just about anything these days. It just doesn't hold up against critical evaluation. It is a myth.