[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm rejecting the "worst roster ever" argument because Shanahan thought he was inheriting a winning, though underachieving team when he took the job. He could have taken a lot of different jobs that weren't the Redskins, but ultimately, his best chance for a quick turnaround was in the wake of Zorn's blunder. Obviously, if he we were as far away as people are claiming we were, he would have at least interviewed for the Buffalo or Seattle jobs. There was simply more immediate upside here. That's why he took the job in the first place.

I also don't see how it matters that pretty much no one from the 2009 team is in the league today, because contrary to popular belief, Mike Shanahan was not looking for the roster that would put him in the best position to win in 2012. That obviously wouldn't have been the Redskins, but the pieces for the quick turnaround (Fletcher, Haynesworth, Landry, Rogers, Cooley, Portis, Moss) were in place, otherwise, why the heck go after McNabb? The idea that the Redskins were expected to return to the playoffs in 2010 is the only reasonable way to view this.

We all picked the Redskins to go to the playoffs in the McNabb year. John Clayton picked the Redskins to go to the playoffs then. I did as well. It's 100% hindsight to claim Shanahan inherited the worst roster ever. Too many knowledgable people thought Zorn's roster + Shanahan's coaching and player acquisition = playoffs. It wasn't the former part of the equation we all had wrong. It was the latter.

If we keep proper context, you can't explain the last two years as being a result of Vinny's ineptitude, because he's been gone too long (although it's obvious he was never helping things).

That's the insightful, depressing GTripp I know!

In all seriousness though, fantastic post. Bravo.