Who's your pick's for next HC, DC and OC?

The first four games, we scored 27(7 off a pick 6), 20, 20, and 24 points respectively.

The defense gave up 33, 38, 27, 14 respectively.

We need the offense to step up because the defense and special teams BOTH SUCK, and the offense stepped up to carry us last season. But Kyle and the offense aren't the problem.

How much more can the offense step up? The defense is actually the unit that stepped up last year when the 'skins went on their 7-0 run. The offense had been playing on all cylinders all season last year.

Cunningham was listed at 215 when he retired, so early on he was probably closer to 200. He had skinny legs and arms much like Griffin, but both are incredible athletes. I guess you would have been in the make Cunningham a pocket passer camp back then?

As far as Griffin going 'rigid'... no idea where you're coming from. Most of the hits he takes on 2nd look aren't nearly as bad as they look at full speed, mostly because he knows how to take a hit and loosen or twist his body as needed to not take the full shot.

Any more BS you want to try to throw at the wall? :blah:

The only nonsense around here are all the excuses and apologies made for the sad state of the team under the current regime. It's a constant bait and switch game. I've said in the past guys like Pete Carroll built great teams in a short time, only to hear Seattle's situation wasn't nearly as bad as what Mike took over. So I say, ok, Carroll had some talent and added to it smartly, only to hear people NOW say Carroll started with nothing. LOL.

It's become an ongoing joke for me to see how the stories will change next, all to somehow exonerate Mike's trash winning record this season, overall with the Redskins, and long before that.

So Cunningham was skinny like RG and that proves that Mike should stay and he's the best and anybody who says otherwise is just wrong. LMAO.

But it's really sad on the other hand. We've missed so many great coaching opportunities over the last four years (Carroll and Reid being my fav but there's several others who've shown superior coaching ability and team building than what we have) and will undoubtedly see more opportunities pass as long as we stick with the guy who hasn't put a complete team together in nearly decade, who's message clearly doesn't generate discipline, preparedness, or a competitive team.

On a deeper level, I keep wondering about the psyche behind supporting a losing situation. Behind supporting a loser. Underdog is one thing, but this is totally different. For instance, if someone is a hardcore Denver fan who fell in love with Mike Shanahan 15 years ago and can't let go of the past, well I've known a few of those (dad was). But for people who otherwise would have no allegiance to Shanahan to just doggedly bait and switch and build up straw men and make all kinds of idiotic excuses for him, I'll just never understand it. Will you guys follow Mike to his next team?

Just saying those flavor of the month college offense genius coaches, its a risky option. How's that pistol offense doing this year? Yeah not so great.

The Shanny hire wasnt bad, about getting the house in order more than anything. Organization is in a much better place than it was before. Shanny has alot to do with that. Has it transfered to wins on the field, not exactly which is disappointing. Like I said before, i dont really care if he stays or goes. I just dont want a knee jerk hire which sets us back...and like you said before, this team is not that far off which I believe is true.Well, it also wasn't that far off in 2009 either...we just haven't gotten any closer. It's the same situation: the team is old, not winning, and changes of some degree have to be made. There's no Cerrato to kick around this time, but his absence hasn't changed much.

The first four games, we scored 27(7 off a pick 6), 20, 20, and 24 points respectively.

The defense gave up 33, 38, 27, 14 respectively.

We need the offense to step up because the defense and special teams BOTH SUCK, and the offense stepped up to carry us last season. But Kyle and the offense aren't the problem.

The last paragraph is exactly my point. I think some of the frustration with the o in this thread is being misread as critiscism when it is just a desperate cry to help our lousy d and st even more! Lol.

The problem with the argument that the offense is doing well overall is two things:

The Redskins have played the 32nd ranked schedule of defenses according to Football Outsiders.

A lot of the points-yards discrepancy is because the defense is scoring at a considerable rate.

Both of these are major factors which when considered re-categorizes the offense as average-ish. The running game is good. Really good. It's carrying the offense. Since the bye, it's been the top running game in the NFL. The passing game is still wildly inconsistent at best and not very good at worst. In sum, the offense has not been a great asset this year, at least according to the numbers.

The defense has also been wildly inconsistent, but their ranking is probably more harsh than their performance. They rank in the bottom quarter of the league by most measures, but they're not that far off from average. They've just faced a really tough schedule.

The PROBLEM of course is neither the offense or the defense: it's the special teams. But I don't think it's accurate to hype the offense this year as a great success when we haven't been able to throw or convert third downs on any defense worth it's salt this season.

Well, it also wasn't that far off in 2009 either...we just haven't gotten any closer. It's the same situation: the team is old, not winning, and changes of some degree have to be made. There's no Cerrato to kick around this time, but his absence hasn't changed much.

in 2009 we werent far off talent wise? hmmm i dont know about that.

The holes we have to plug this time dont involve bad contracts to get out of, thats huge. We will certainly shed some old guys this season.

The thing after this season, the decisions to be made are the biggest of the big in 20 years about the direction of franchise, talent and coaching. And I think its actually a really big plus

The only nonsense around here are all the excuses and apologies made for the sad state of the team under the current regime. It's a constant bait and switch game. I've said in the past guys like Pete Carroll built great teams in a short time, only to hear Seattle's situation wasn't nearly as bad as what Mike took over. So I say, ok, Carroll had some talent and added to it smartly, only to hear people NOW say Carroll started with nothing. LOL.

It's become an ongoing joke for me to see how the stories will change next, all to somehow exonerate Mike's trash winning record this season, overall with the Redskins, and long before that.

So Cunningham was skinny like RG and that proves that Mike should stay and he's the best and anybody who says otherwise is just wrong. LMAO.

But it's really sad on the other hand. We've missed so many great coaching opportunities over the last four years (Carroll and Reid being my fav but there's several others who've shown superior coaching ability and team building than what we have) and will undoubtedly see more opportunities pass as long as we stick with the guy who hasn't put a complete team together in nearly decade, who's message clearly doesn't generate discipline, preparedness, or a competitive team.

On a deeper level, I keep wondering about the psyche behind supporting a losing situation. Behind supporting a loser. Underdog is one thing, but this is totally different. For instance, if someone is a hardcore Denver fan who fell in love with Mike Shanahan 15 years ago and can't let go of the past, well I've known a few of those (dad was). But for people who otherwise would have no allegiance to Shanahan to just doggedly bait and switch and build up straw men and make all kinds of idiotic excuses for him, I'll just never understand it. Will you guys follow Mike to his next team?

So you're basically saying you didn't know what type of situation Carroll took over at all. Who's the one changing their story?

I'm still cracking up over you saying Cunningham was burly. That's a keeper. What's next, Riggins was a scatback? lol

If you're so interested in the psyche of following a loser, ask yourself why you continue to be a fan of the Redskins.

The problem with the argument that the offense is doing well overall is two things:

The Redskins have played the 32nd ranked schedule of defenses according to Football Outsiders.

A lot of the points-yards discrepancy is because the defense is scoring at a considerable rate.

Both of these are major factors which when considered re-categorizes the offense as average-ish. The running game is good. Really good. It's carrying the offense. Since the bye, it's been the top running game in the NFL. The passing game is still wildly inconsistent at best and not very good at worst. In sum, the offense has not been a great asset this year, at least according to the numbers.

The defense has also been wildly inconsistent, but their ranking is probably more harsh than their performance. They rank in the bottom quarter of the league by most measures, but they're not that far off from average. They've just faced a really tough schedule.

Quoted for I hate that this makes sense. Lol
The Eagles D has quietly made some huge strides. Cut their ppg allowed in half over the last few weeks. So Sunday should be a good measuring stick.

in 2009 we werent far off talent wise? hmmm i dont know about that.

The holes we have to plug this time dont involve bad contracts to get out of, thats huge. We will certainly shed some old guys this season.

The thing after this season, the decisions to be made are the biggest of the big in 20 years about the direction of franchise, talent and coaching. And I think its actually a really big plusContracts matter, you're right. We had two albatross contracts that Cerrato signed in 2009 (plus any number of shortsighted restructures), and only one under Shanahan (Garcon). Although: the deadcap accumulation next year from the 2012 shopping spree is going to be significant.

But alright, compare that team to the current team.

QB - Campbell was a lot further along in his development under Zorn than RG3 is under Shanahan, which matters in performance evaluation, but Griffin is the better prospect (and four years younger than 2009 Campbell). I still think RG3 is a future all-pro in this league, and would take him over any other player in the 2012 QB class.

RB - Much better in 2013. Ladell Betts was a nice player at the end of his career. Portis had a lot left, and was just turning 30 (or so it seemed). But Morris is as good a pure runner as anyone in the league including Peterson and McCoy. Helu is a pretty damn good player to. And Darrel Young all day over a declining Mike Sellers.

WR - Wash. Santana Moss didn't appear to have a ton left in 2009, Randle El was a complementary player, and beyond the top two, the Redskins were abysmal. Anthony Armstrong though was on the roster, and although he didn't play on the 2009 Redskins, he might tip the scales slightly in favor of the 09 team? Maybe?

TE - More depth in 2009. Cooley was coming off back to back decline years, and Fred Davis looked promising. Wait, Todd Yoder was a Redskin? I'd take the 2013 roster (and I mean, Fred Davis in his pime is there if you need him -- but nah, we're good) because Jordan Reed is that good, but I'm not sure Reed would have even played TE just five years ago.

OL - 2013, but this is pretty close. Chris Samuels was basically retired. Stephon Heyer stayed healthy the full season, which was nice. But Casey Rabach, Derrick Dockery, and Mike Williams? For real? Interior line still needs improvement, but these guys were a disaster. The 2009 had some guys on the roster who went on to play for other organizations (Edwin Williams, Chad Rinehart...you can count Will Montgomery too). As an aside: Polumbus' 2013 reminds me a lot of Heyer's 2009.

DL - 2009. Andre Carter is one of the best players in the NFL at his position. Corneilius Griffin has recent productivity in his past, but he's about done. Kedric Golston is an effective player, still. Albert Haynesworth is an effective player, still. Brian Orakpo played some DL in passing downs only. Phillip Daniels somehow still going strong. Good depth. Now? Adam Carriker and Jarvis Jenkins remain major question marks. Stephen Bowen gives you a body who will answer the call every Sunday and little else, and Cofield is playing well despite being something of a liability against the run. Absolutely no depth.

LB - 2009, though this is closer than DL. Orakpo and Kerrigan are two of the best players on the current defense. Better than 2009 Orakpo and Rocky McIntosh. But 2009 London Fletcher was as good as anyone in the league. HB Blades was nice depth. 2013 London Fletcher, Perry Riley, and Nick Barnett are just totally overmatched. Also: Josh Hull is a Redskin?

DB - 2009, not close. Rogers in his prime, Landry heading into his, Hall (theoretically) with his best years ahead, Justin Tryon heading into year three, Kevin Barnes into year two (Kevin Barnes had a pretty nice year for us in 2011...and is out of the league two years later). Hall and Wilson are currently in their primes, Amerson is an inconsistent rookie, and there is nothing about the safety situation that lighting it on fire could not fix.

ST - Any year in history > 2013

I'd favor the 2009 team anywhere on defense and special teams, and at one or two spots on offense (out of 11). Similarities: a lot of players contributing now who are just about done (Chris Chester, Santana Moss, Fletcher, obviously).

You'd take the 2013 roster because Griffin. So this analysis was a lot longer than it needed to be (duh). Fundamentally, however, the problems are the same: old roster lacks talent at key positions.