Quote:
Originally Posted by The Goat
I'll be that guy and point it out: Haley was fired having a better record than Mike, who has more control as far as overall franchise decisions go. Another way to say it Mike is far more responsible for the Skins' badness than Haley was for the Chiefs'.
|
Nods silently.
I think the Redskins have played better -- particularly on offense -- since getting guys like Roy Helu, Leonard Hankerson, and Perry Riley to step up. And I think having a running game has made Kyle's playcalling look good at times. I don't think he's good at this job in a large sample, but you give him a running game to lean on when he's low on ideas, and a line that protects it's quarterback, and the Redskins will move the ball. There's something to be said for that. This team was a total train wreck under John Beck, and they've come a long way from the dark days of Halloween.
But if the solution to the offensive woes were really just as simple as putting the best players on the roster on the field, how can we possibly rectify statements like "Ryan Torain gives us the best chance to win games" with the team being 4-9 and the coaches having any idea of where to go from there? It doesn't make sense. All roads lead back to the fact that the Redskins offensive coaches didn't do a good job this year, and they didn't do a good job last year, and this has caused some people to conclude that they are bound to do a good job next year, which doesn't make any sense to me. If they were bad in 2010 and bad in 2011, won't they be bad in 2012?