Should Mike Shanahan be fired?

...

10-6 record with a playoff appearance really isn't better than 5-11 record at the bottom of the division. ...


Just want to make sure we are on the same page. in the Lions 2nd year they were 6-10, we were 5-11. Do I see us going 10-6, no but I could see us sweeping dallas and splitting with philly, if we beat the panthers and browns that puts us at 8-8 and beating either the giants or ravens would be 9 wins. We of course could lose all the remaining games and then the progression thing wouldn't hold much water but for now you comparing 10-6 with 5-11isnt accurate either.

well, you two can keep this alive if you want i guess, but the vote is now 127-7 against, so despite the massive protests, that train just aint moving in your direction.

Just to be clear i am not in favor of firing ms midseason and also am willing to let next yr happen. The reason i point alot of these things out is because other than the obvious reason that i want the redskins to win and that is squarely riding on mikes shoulders, there is not a whole lot of positives happening in the win column. For three yrs. i dont want to hear excuses or youth movement crap or blah blah blah - when he wins more than 5/6 games a yr ill be happy. I am shocked at the enthusiasm that goes hand in hand with defeat around here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Home of the few....the proud.....the seven?

I dont care that they beat us. Its about detroit making a turnaround. To go from 0-16 to the playoffs a couple years later is a friggin turnaround no matter how you dance around it. Jeez.

Edit: there is a marked improvement for three years witj JS in Detroit. Also alot of it was without Stafford but Culpepoer etc at qb. How in the hell are you gonna sit there and say he did not turn the detroit lions franchise around How stubborn. My God. If i could facepalm on my iphone it would be inserted several times here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a lot of your facts are mixed up.

1) They made the playoffs in their 3rd year but had a lesser win % than Mike did his first two.

2) Culpepper wasn't there for much of that. He started 5 games in 2009. Stafford started 10 games in that same year. Also, Culpepper wasn't even on the team in 2010. Shaun Hill played most of 2010 when Stafford was injured. So your claim he did it much with Culpepper isn't correct whatsoever. Hell, even the claim he did it without MUCH of Stafford is false. Stafford played in 29 games out of 48 games during that span.


3) A turn around isn't having a good year and turning around and crapping the bed. They are currently 3-4. Does that sound like a team that has "turned it around"? They haven't even gotten to the core of their conference games yet, and and lost the 2 they have played. STill have GB to play twice, chicago once more and Vikings 1 more time. You think they come close to that 10-6 record of last year? Hell no.



If you think Jim Schartz has turned the Lions around, do you also think Tony Sparano turned Miami around?...lol After all they went 11-5 after the team won 1 game the year prior. Apparently this is your idea of turning it around.

When teams when consistently and are in the playoffs more often than not, then that would be what we call "turning it around". Other than that, it's fools gold.

I keep trying to just let this thread die..but it's like a phoenix


UPw-3e_pzqU

Yeah, but our opponents were really, really conservative in those games. They didn't want to score 30+ points, it just happened!! :doh:

Just as Mike isn't a serious HC coach (anymore, just to give him the benefit of the doubt), his defenders lose the ability to make serious points.

10-6 record with a playoff appearance really isn't better than 5-11 record at the bottom of the division.

Teams didn't play hard against the Redskins until Mike wanted them to.

Give me a f*cking break. Some of you are embarrassing yourselves.

Even when teams scored 21+ points against us last year they still ran more (I think around 55%) vs. when they score 21+ against us this year (41%). These are in losses. So teams ran against us more last year. I'm sure there were many reasons for their less aggressive approach. But I believe one of them was our own lack of offensive firepower.

4 of the last 7 games we played last year teams scored 30 or more points against us. Dallas put up 27. That was after our inept offense already played and showed we were incapable of putting up points. Hmmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, but our opponents were really, really conservative in those games. They didn't want to score 30+ points, it just happened!! :doh:

Just as Mike isn't a serious HC coach (anymore, just to give him the benefit of the doubt), his defenders lose the ability to make serious points.

10-6 record with a playoff appearance really isn't better than 5-11 record at the bottom of the division.

Teams didn't play hard against the Redskins until Mike wanted them to.

Give me a f*cking break. Some of you are embarrassing yourselves.

If the goal is to prove that our defense sucked last year as well, then congratulations... You have proven my point for me. Or did you two get confused as to what point I was making in the first place?

The defense sucked every bit as bad last year as it does this year. The secondary is every bit as bad if not worse. Exactly who on our secondary last year do you have faith in to do the job this year. Atogwe is still available, the other three are still on the team.

If you can come up with a better reason as to why teams chose to run against a defense that plays the run better than the pass, then by all means put it out there. But the whole D Hall, Wilson, Atogwe, and Doughty secondary being one of the greatest ever doesnt work.

You two are still stuck on conservative play calling means intentionally playing bad. Of course you are also stuck on our secondary (D Hall, Wilson, Atogwe, and Doughty) being great last year. And you talk of other people embarrassing themselves.

I think a lot of your facts are mixed up.

1) They made the playoffs in their 3rd year but had a lesser win % than Mike did his first two.

2) Culpepper wasn't there for much of that. He started 5 games in 2009. Stafford started 10 games in that same year. Also, Culpepper wasn't even on the team in 2010. Shaun Hill played most of 2010 when Stafford was injured. So your claim he did it much with Culpepper isn't correct whatsoever. Hell, even the claim he did it without MUCH of Stafford is false. Stafford played in 29 games out of 48 games during that span.


3) A turn around isn't having a good year and turning around and crapping the bed. They are currently 3-4. Does that sound like a team that has "turned it around"? They haven't even gotten to the core of their conference games yet, and and lost the 2 they have played. STill have GB to play twice, chicago once more and Vikings 1 more time. You think they come close to that 10-6 record of last year? Hell no.



If you think Jim Schartz has turned the Lions around, do you also think Tony Sparano turned Miami around?...lol After all they went 11-5 after the team won 1 game the year prior. Apparently this is your idea of turning it around.

When teams when consistently and are in the playoffs more often than not, then that would be what we call "turning it around". Other than that, it's fools gold.

All i had to read was the part about culpepper. Check my mixed up facts again and you will notice an etc after culpeppers name. Etc as in others.
Also JS had 16 wins during years two and three combined. More than MS has total so far. And JS inherited arguably thee worst team ever. They were 0-16 the year before. The year they beat us was JS first year. The year before we i believe we beat them. If not we would have.
If we win four more games this year their win totals will be equal for their first three years.
You think playing 29 out of 48 games without ur number one pick at QB isnt playing alot without him???? 40% missed games isnt alot to you? Wow. You are cloudy and confused bro. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even when teams scored 21+ points against us last year they still ran more (I think around 55%) vs. when they score 21+ against us this year (41%). These are in losses. So teams ran against us more last year. I'm sure there were many reasons for their less aggressive approach. But I believe one of them was our own lack of offensive firepower.

I believe it was clearly our less horrible secondary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk