DCT: Shanahan Leading Redskins in Right Direction

Meh.....the blog has the same old same old stuff. I breezed thru it. Basically the same angst thats been re hashed here all year.

Mike Shanahan does not have my full support right now because he has screwed the pooch in the QB situation since he got here.
He needs to hit a home run this year or I'm calling for his head.
He needs to work with Kyle more also (or replace him).
I dont trust Kyles play calling for squat.

My response to this post is partly an answer and partly question. I beleive that the point on the QB position is somewhat valid and relates in part to the fact that Mike gave Kyle too much leash on recommending/selecting a QB.

On the other hand, I do not blame MS at all for the McNabb mess. As I have said before, I am not an insider like some of you guys obviously are, but my reading of the McNabb situation would tend to point blame directly at Snyder. I recall reading a story that indicated Snyder was parading McNabb around town and introducing him as Redskin QB even before he signed a contract. I think that whole deal was a Snyder ego trip; he lapsed into Jerry Jones mode on that signing.

And so, that's my question. Is my perception of the McNabb mess accurate?

Otherwise, I think the Shanaclan has done a good job with the Redskins rebuild. Certainly, I would not rate their work as great, and there is room for improvement, but on the whole, they seem to have the Redskins moving in a positive direction. While its time to show some improvement, I am generally satisfied with the team's draft and general direction.

So you basically said Kyle doesn't need experience because his dad has it.
Thats a setback for us.
We've been losing for long enough.
The future is now.......

I am saying that if Kyle's "inexperience" is a problem, I think MS can step in and help out. I don't think experience is a problem with Kyle, and I don't think it has been a setback.

What has been a setback is wasting picks on a washed up QB, not securing a QB of the future, pin your second season on the arm of two guys who are backups at best, going into a d*ck swinging contest with a guy that should've been cut (AH) in the first place, not adjusting your playcalling to the talent you have, building the offense from the get go instead of focusing on a defense, etc., etc., etc.

My mistake guys (and possible gals?), didn't know about the blog posting rule. Really wasn't trying to 'promote' my blog, just wanted some good feedback, which I have gotten for the most part. Figured it would have been safer to post a Redskins blog verses something with the Nationals.

I'll stick a link in the signature - and believe me, I'll be around ;)

When dealing with QBs, it's always better to draft your own. Sometimes giving up draft choices in order to attain the QB you need is always the best way to go. At the 2004 draft, the NYG gave the San Diego Chargers a boat load of draft choices in order to land Eli Manning. Two Super Bowl championships later, I'd say that deal worked out pretty well for the Giants.

If the Redskins want to be successful, then they have to do what's best for the organization. I doubt if RG3 will be a bust. He'll undergo hardship in the NFL as a rookie, but he'll be fine once the game slows down for him.

As far as Kyle Orton, he's certainly better than Grossman and Beck. But this organization needs a young QB, not another free agent signed.

On the other hand, The Saints won a Super Bowl with Drew Brees, The Redskins won a Super Bowl with Joe Theismann and Doug Williams, The Ravens won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer (although he's probably a bad example), and many have at least brought their new team deep in the playoffs. The point with drafting Manning isn't that he would be the only option. The team WOULD STILL draft a quarterback, they would just not have to throw him into the fire from the start...which more times than not, is the best way to go.

My mistake guys (and possible gals?), didn't know about the blog posting rule. Really wasn't trying to 'promote' my blog, just wanted some good feedback, which I have gotten for the most part. Figured it would have been safer to post a Redskins blog verses something with the Nationals.

I'll stick a link in the signature - and believe me, I'll be around ;)

No worries.

I liked the article. I will let the peanut gallery handle the fine details of how much I agree or disagree.

I think Kyle Shanahan has a long coaching career ahead of him. I think Mike has held Kyle back at least as much if not more than Kyle has held Mike back.

With that said, I don't think he's a good offensive coordinator. I don't think it's a qualification issue, and I think while he might get better as he gets more experience, Kyle runs a very limited offensive system. I've said many times there is good theory behind it, but there are no seeds of being an offensive genius or whatever label you'd put on the best playcallers in the game. Playcalling is generally overrated anyway, but when you see the week-to-week gameplans, it's hard to think that an influx of talent is going to open things up.

In terms of the passing game, what Kyle does call, he seems to understand quite well. A defense requires a certain level of talent to stop what the Redskins have in the passing game. If they have it, you see games like the San Francisco one or either Philadelphia one where clearly, the Redskins aren't going to move the ball at all. Once you have Kyle's number, he typically needs more than 3 hours to figure out how to work his way out of the clutches of the defense.

I'm not going to rank Kyle among other offensive coordinators, as there are some other poor ones out there, I just think that if you assume we're going to see something different in 2012 from the offense than we saw in 2011, I think we're just misunderstanding what Kyle wants to do with his offense. Kyle wants to create chances for clean throws down the field, and he generally takes the majority of the mental work out of the hands of the QB. Having a rookie under center next year isn't going to change that, it's going to make the Redskins even more of a system team.

I just dont buy the "Kyle is inexperienced" line. He has been in coaching since 2003 and has 3 seasons as an offensive coordinator. Kyle may be many things but inexperienced isnt one of them.

Defending Kyle, on any level at this juncture, is sure sign of kool-aid coming out the nose.

For much of the season "his" offense looked unprepared on game days. There was no tempo. Play-calling was often as bad as any in the league, whether it was abandoning the run with an extremely mistake prone QB or sticking with the run...the same run...over and over until the defense didn't even have to guess.

Kyle is (still) here for one reason...his last name.

Defending Kyle, on any level at this juncture, is sure sign of kool-aid coming out the nose.

For much of the season "his" offense looked unprepared on game days. There was no tempo. Play-calling was often as bad as any in the league, whether it was abandoning the run with an extremely mistake prone QB or sticking with the run...the same run...over and over until the defense didn't even have to guess.

Kyle is (still) here for one reason...his last name.

It wasnt that his offense was unprepared, it was that he had no talent on offense to work with.

It wasnt that his offense was unprepared, it was that he had no talent on offense to work with.

I wouldn't bother getting in front of the illogical hate train. You'll most assuredly be ran over. Hatters gonna hat.