Lost Some Faith In Shanahan

Why the blame game? A football player was hurt playing football. This has happened before. Players have played with worse injury than the one RGIII had after Ravens game.
Shanahan had RGIII take an MRI test, had him cheeked by doctors and rested him for a game after that injury. As a matter fact I remember RGIII saying he was ready to go for the Cleveland game and it was SHANAHAN that made the choice to rest him. This subject has gone beyond over analyzed.


Not sure, but most people don't have issues with Mike starting RGIII this game or the previous ones as well. I think the issue is when he didn't take him out after he reinjured the knee in the first quarter.

You mean the same type of ex-player who sues the NFL because they didn't protect them from themselves? Those ex-players? Listen, I understand the player mentality. You have to be drug off the field kicking and screaming. It's in their nature, and it's the competitive drive within them. However, I do find it very ironic that they have no issues with allowing a player to play injured, yet want to sue the same people (most likely knew lasting results of concussions) that allowed them to play injured.

A players stance in this really doesn't hold much weight when you look at it objectively.

I'm not keeping track but I don't think you can say all ex-players are suing the league. So you can't just discount all of their opinions. The point I'm getting at is this... it points to the fact there are clearly two sides to this debate and both sides have merit in their opinions.

People blasted the Nats for holding Strasburg out, now we're killing the Redskins for leaving RG3 in. Again, I think both sides have a point and there's no easy answer.

wow, milellie, will you ever post a positive thread?

What in the world are you talking about?

http://www.thewarpath.net/playbook/48614-wow-this-place-is-active.html


http://www.thewarpath.net/playbook/48133-this-place-is-refreshing.html

can't we close (or merge) this one? how many threads does this part of the conversation need?

You post this, yet you post nothing constructive to the conversation?

I don't post a lot here (or anywhere, really) but lurk frequently. I've been reading a lot of criticism of Shanahan and RGIII in the media (I made the mistake of looking at the comments on an ESPN article - uggh) and it reminded me of something Teddy Roosevelt said.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt

Been too bummed and pissed about football since the game to post here. Can't escape it though as my office is full of football fans, and all I've heard since yesterday morning is how asinine and irresponsible Shanahan and the Redskins are. Lots of folks in my neck of the woods are all too familiar with Mike's (similar) history in Denver with Plummer and Davis, among other things. As I've probably said before, nearly all the Broncos fans I know despise Shanahan now, and I think his overall handling of RG (not just the injury, but the entire scheme as Herm Edwards mentioned) is another example of why this guy can't be trusted. You have a player who already suffered a terrible knee injury in college and is clearly not built to withstand contact against pro defenses, yet build the entire offense around him keeping/running the ball more than any rookie QB in history?

Earlier in the season I said if we want RG for a longterm franchise QB, Snyder will have to "save" him from the Shanahans. My hope is RG doesn't take another snap under this regime.

So take away what he does best to keep him from getting injured makes no sense.

To me, the discussion surrounding what Shanahan should and should not have done with RGIII during the game is really divided into two seperate categories:

1) Should RGIII have been removed from the game at some point to protect his health?
2) Should he have been removed from the game at some point due to his poor performance?

Regarding #1) The more information that comes out about the injury RGIII suffered vs. Baltimore, and how he's performed since, I think the Redskins completely mismanaged the situation. He shouldnt have been cleared to play until his knee was strong enough to play without the brace. You can argue that if he can play with the brace, you play him with the brace, but Sunday proved the error of that logic. By all appearances, RGIII suffered the knee injury because the brace slipped out of place. If its possible a brace can slip out of place during normal gameplay, then it doesnt offer sufficent protection. If he can't play without the brace, he shouldnt play at all.

Regarding #2), I have changed my opinion on this. During the game, i was screaming for Robert to be benched for ineffectivenes. And i felt rightly so. He couldnt run, he couldnt plant his foot, so he couldnt throw accurately... he was essentially useless. Kirk Cousins showed how effective he could be - starting Cousins seemed to give us the best chance to win.

After a few days of thinking about it, i've completely changed my mind on this argument. RGIII is not just a starting quarterback. He's our FRANCHISE quarterback. Just like Tom Brady, Just like Aaron Rodgers, Just like Peyton Manning. You dont bench a franchise quarterback because he's ineffective. It doesnt matter if its a regular season game, a playoff game, or the superbowl. You just dont do it. If you do, you undermine the leader of your team and the face of your franchise... not just to the fans, but more importantly, to his teammates. RGIII got this team to the playoffs - you dont bench him for performance. He's not Alex Smith. He's not Mark Sanchez. Bench those guys - they are "just guys." RGIII is our Tom Brady. All of you who think he should have been benched for performance, including BHA of 2 days ago, are dead wrong.

What in the world are you talking about?

http://www.thewarpath.net/playbook/48614-wow-this-place-is-active.html


http://www.thewarpath.net/playbook/48133-this-place-is-refreshing.html

Bring some of that actively refreshing to the football side of things!


SJUhlRoBL8M

So take away what he does best to keep him from getting injured makes no sense.



It's easier to blame the Shanahans for RGIII's failure to slide or run out of bounds. After all, they were responsible for his fumbles and INTs. Somebody take that madden controller from Kyle!!!

To me, the discussion surrounding what Shanahan should and should not have done with RGIII during the game is really divided into two seperate categories:

1) Should RGIII have been removed from the game at some point to protect his health?
2) Should he have been removed from the game at some point due to his poor performance?

Regarding #1) The more information that comes out about the injury RGIII suffered vs. Baltimore, and how he's performed since, I think the Redskins completely mismanaged the situation. He shouldnt have been cleared to play until his knee was strong enough to play without the brace. You can argue that if he can play with the brace, you play him with the brace, but Sunday proved the error of that logic. By all appearances, RGIII suffered the knee injury because the brace slipped out of place. If its possible a brace can slip out of place during normal gameplay, then it doesnt offer sufficent protection. If he can't play without the brace, he shouldnt play at all.

Regarding #2), I have changed my opinion on this. During the game, i was screaming for Robert to be benched for ineffectivenes. And i felt rightly so. He couldnt run, he couldnt plant his foot, so he couldnt throw accurately... he was essentially useless. Kirk Cousins showed how effective he could be - starting Cousins seemed to give us the best chance to win.

After a few days of thinking about it, i've completely changed my mind on this argument. RGIII is not just a starting quarterback. He's our FRANCHISE quarterback. Just like Tom Brady, Just like Aaron Rodgers, Just like Peyton Manning. You dont bench a franchise quarterback because he's ineffective. It doesnt matter if its a regular season game, a playoff game, or the superbowl. You just dont do it. If you do, you undermine the leader of your team and the face of your franchise... not just to the fans, but more importantly, to his teammates. RGIII got this team to the playoffs - you dont bench him for performance. He's not Alex Smith. He's not Mark Sanchez. Bench those guys - they are "just guys." RGIII is our Tom Brady. All of you who think he should have been benched for performance, including BHA of 2 days ago, are dead wrong.

Yes, but he was ineffective because he knee was hanging by a thread. Everyone saw it. Benching him keeps him out of harms way AND gives us the best chance to win. It's not like he was 100% healthy and just having an off day. If that was the case, of course you don't take him out.