Should Mike Shanahan be fired?

I've said it before but i really strongly feel that Shanahan could get fired if the skins lose out. 3-13 even with a franchise QB won't save him.

Every game cannot come down to being a shootout. Our defense just can't stop anybody. Opponents can run, pass, it doesn't matter. Our offense is finally respectable but I don't think anyone can respect the skins as long as ou defense is this bad.

Unless somehow the defense is changed and starts playing well, I don't see us winning very many games, and I still believe we finish between 3 and 6 wins solely because of the horrible defense.

So your vote is a wait to see what happens this year? Seems to be alot of that. All the people that vote no are looking at the question as should he be fired rite now. After this season the landslide results will be more of a level playing field. Because as Solid Snake points out the team will win between 3-6 games tops.
Edit: the question should have been "should MS get fired if the Redskins win 6 games again this year"? The current question is misleading. G-Tripp points out in the initial post that he isnt in favor of mid season firings. He is wait and see. Also after the season being an option. Alot of people just read it and go "fire him now are you crazy? Your stupid!" At least Solid Snake is giving a little thought behind his opinion.

Edit: before the usual suspects jump all over me i mean alittle thought behind the question at hand not your answers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your vote is a wait to see what happens this year? Seems to be alot of that. All the people that vote no are looking at the question as should he be fired rite now. After this season the landslide results will be more of a level playing field. Because as Solid Snake points out the team will win between 3-6 games tops.
Edit: the question should have been "should MS get fired if the Redskins win 6 games again this year"? The current question is misleading. G-Tripp points out in the initial post that he isnt in favor of mid season firings. He is wait and see. Also after the season being an option. Alot of people just read it and go "fire him now are you crazy? Your stupid!" At least Solid Snake is giving a little thought behind his opinion.

Edit: before the usual suspects jump all over me i mean alittle thought behind the question at hand not your answers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First bold: Im pretty sure we can read the options, but thanks for calling us all stupid for not agreeing with you. Thats always the way to win a debate.

Second bold: "Usual suspects jump all over me"... Really? Thats where you are going with this. That you are somehow a victim and we are somehow suspects in a trial here. We know the question being asked, and you are not a victim for taking part in this debate just like im not.

We have a difference of opinion. You are not Rodney King and I am not the LA police department (although I did live in So Cal when I was a teenager if that helps your case against me). That insanity isnt going to fly with me. I am completely surprised you are even pulling this card.

Ditto.

This thread has gone on longer than a game day thread. So like the game day threads, we should close it immediately and make the Ho Ho Haslett has to go thread be our main fire coaches thread. Just the want to fire Shanahan shows how impatient as a fanbase we are. Can you imagine if our team was the Raiders or Lions or Chiefs how pissed off we'd be...

That is the quote of the week. Usually gameday threads are limited to the day of the game, but hey, who cares, right? As long as its got some good old lets fire Mike Shanahan in it, me punch Gtripp and goat will post in there day or night. AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.

So your vote is a wait to see what happens this year? Seems to be alot of that. All the people that vote no are looking at the question as should he be fired rite now. After this season the landslide results will be more of a level playing field. Because as Solid Snake points out the team will win between 3-6 games tops.
Edit: the question should have been "should MS get fired if the Redskins win 6 games again this year"? The current question is misleading. G-Tripp points out in the initial post that he isnt in favor of mid season firings. He is wait and see. Also after the season being an option. Alot of people just read it and go "fire him now are you crazy? Your stupid!" At least Solid Snake is giving a little thought behind his opinion.

Edit: before the usual suspects jump all over me i mean alittle thought behind the question at hand not your answers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd say with how well RG3 is playing, and he sure isn't playing like a rookie, if 6 wins is ALL mike shanahan can get with this all star, then he needs to be politely shown the door. There are far more coaches that have done far more with far less. Mike Shanahan is not a winning coach in this league anymore, and if it takes more than just this season to figure that out, RG3 will just have one less season to seriously contend.

As long as Mike Shanahan is the coach, again, mho, RG3 is playing Paul Sheldon to Mikes' Annie Wilkes, and is lying in the bed hiding pills under his pillow right after being hobbled by the regime led by the overrated Mike Shanahan.

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'm confused about the idea of a team A being "less aggressive" than they could be on offense, when team B's offense is weak.

I think Team A's goal should be to try and score a TD every series like Patriots '07 or us in '91. (Until the game is out of reach, like say 21 pts in the 4th quarter.) And easing off your normal offense when you have a small lead is just as bad as "prevent defense", in letting an opponent back in the game, IMO. Sure maybe mix your strategy a little, but keep doing what got you the lead in the first place! On offense and D!

I can see the following reasons to be "less aggressive". But none of this has to do with an opponent's anemic offense, IMO :

1. It's the end of the game. You have the lead, and your odds are better to run out the clock than score again.

2. Your defense plays lights out but tires quickly, so you want more time of possession (while still trying to score) to give them a rest.

3. Maybe you planned to be "ball control", or maybe your OL and an RB like Morris unexpectedly stepped up. But your offense is simply built to play "less aggressive" rather than a two minute drill offense so you're always grinding it out.

I can see two reasons to be "less aggressive" than you could be, if the opponent's offense sucks. But I don't agree with them.:

1. Field position. But I think that pales in comparison to giving your offense the best chance to score. And aren't you shorting yourself in the long haul, by not being aggressive as you could be and getting the most yards?

2. You're up 21+ points in the 4th, and just being classy not running up the score. But I don't think that's not really about just the other team's O. Peyton may be more worrisome than Sanchez when they're behind, but I don't think you can rest on any offense in the NFL differently enough to matter. Anything can happen the last couple drives.

So what am I missing, when I don't understand about being "less aggressive" when the other team's O sucks? In this case, SS, are you just saying other teams were being merciful to us, or playing TOP to rest their D to keep us down? Or something else?

First bold: Im pretty sure we can read the options, but thanks for calling us all stupid for not agreeing with you. Thats always the way to win a debate.

Second bold: "Usual suspects jump all over me"... Really? Thats where you are going with this. That you are somehow a victim and we are somehow suspects in a trial here. We know the question being asked, and you are not a victim for taking part in this debate just like im not.

We have a difference of opinion. You are not Rodney King and I am not the LA police department (although I did live in So Cal when I was a teenager if that helps your case against me). That insanity isnt going to fly with me. I am completely surprised you are even pulling this card.

Did I use the word stupid? I have never called anybody stupid on this board nor have i insinuated it and i take offense to the fact that you twisted what im saying into such nonsense. I was saying that yes or no arent good answers. I want to know at what point you might start to doubt him. I. E. 2013 and were 3-5 again?
Wtf are you talking about Rodney King for? Lmao.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd say with how well RG3 is playing, and he sure isn't playing like a rookie, if 6 wins is ALL mike shanahan can get with this all star, then he needs to be politely shown the door. There are far more coaches that have done far more with far less. Mike Shanahan is not a winning coach in this league anymore, and if it takes more than just this season to figure that out, RG3 will just have one less season to seriously contend.

As long as Mike Shanahan is the coach, again, mho, RG3 is playing Paul Sheldon to Mikes' Annie Wilkes, and is lying in the bed hiding pills under his pillow right after being hobbled by the regime led by the overrated Mike Shanahan.

Thanks for understanding my point Apparently i was really saying everybody is stupid and they treat me like Rodney King. Haha. That is awesome. Wow. Were talking about a game rite?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm confused about the idea of a team A being "less aggressive" than they could be on offense, when team B's offense is weak.

I think Team A's goal should be to try and score a TD every series like Patriots '07 or us in '91. (Until the game is out of reach, like say 21 pts in the 4th quarter.) And easing off your normal offense when you have a small lead is just as bad as "prevent defense", in letting an opponent back in the game, IMO. Sure maybe mix your strategy a little, but keep doing what got you the lead in the first place! On offense and D!

I can see the following reasons to be "less aggressive". But none of this has to do with an opponent's anemic offense, IMO :

1. It's the end of the game. You have the lead, and your odds are better to run out the clock than score again.

2. Your defense plays lights out but tires quickly, so you want more time of possession (while still trying to score) to give them a rest.

3. Maybe you planned to be "ball control", or maybe your OL and an RB like Morris unexpectedly stepped up. But your offense is simply built to play "less aggressive" rather than a two minute drill offense so you're always grinding it out.

I can see two reasons to be "less aggressive" than you could be, if the opponent's offense sucks. But I don't agree with them.:

1. Field position. But I think that pales in comparison to giving your offense the best chance to score. And aren't you shorting yourself in the long haul, by not being aggressive as you could be and getting the most yards?

2. You're up 21+ points in the 4th, and just being classy not running up the score. But I don't think that's not really about just the other team's O. Peyton may be more worrisome than Sanchez when they're behind, but I don't think you can rest on any offense in the NFL differently enough to matter. Anything can happen the last couple drives.

So what am I missing, when I don't understand about being "less aggressive" when the other team's O sucks? In this case, SS, are you just saying other teams were being merciful to us, or playing TOP to rest their D to keep us down? Or something else?

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.
Great post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit

That is the quote of the week. Usually gameday threads are limited to the day of the game, but hey, who cares, right? As long as its got some good old lets fire Mike Shanahan in it, me punch Gtripp and goat will post in there day or night. AND YOU WILL LIKE IT.

Your my boy Blue!
L to the O to the L.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk