NFL.com: Report: Mike Shanahan's comments bother Redskins

[DM72]

The Colts have had a cupcake schedule for the most part, even if you ignore how weak that division is aside from Houston.

What, Green Bay isn't any good now? And who cares about the schedule. They're beating who they have to play. With a rookie QB.

Any coach, player or fan will tell you that if you can win games, ANY games with a rookie QB, that's one hell of a feeling because the rule of thumb is that you're supposed to endure growing pains with a rookie QB.

Face it, you guys saying the Colts are winning only because of a weak schedule IS weak.

[J-bomb]

if rg3 had 10tds an 8ints with 7 fumbles our dc media would b calling him a bust an how shanny wasted pics to get him....but no lucks a season vet an rg3 is....

[Hitman21ST]

Any coach, player or fan will tell you that if you can win games, ANY games with a rookie QB, that's one hell of a feeling because the rule of thumb is that you're supposed to endure growing pains with a rookie QB.

We've won games with a rookie QB. We're also going through growing pains. So we've done everything you're saying, yet you have a problem with Shanahan?

We also have yet to play our division. If we end the season with a 4-2 division record (which isn't exactly a long shot), we'll be in the race late in the season.

[Destino]

Skins lost to the rams and panthers. The Colts haven't played the greatest teams but its not like the redskins have been losing to super franchises exclusively.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

What, Green Bay isn't any good now? And who cares about the schedule. They're beating who they have to play. With a rookie QB.

Any coach, player or fan will tell you that if you can win games, ANY games with a rookie QB, that's one hell of a feeling because the rule of thumb is that you're supposed to endure growing pains with a rookie QB.

Face it, you guys saying the Colts are winning only because of a weak schedule IS weak.

I'm not saying that the Colts are winning because of their weak schedule, but to say it has nothing to do with it is weak. Just like saying our injuries have had nothing to do with our record is weak.

[Hitman21ST]

Skins lost to the rams and panthers. The Colts haven't played the greatest teams but its not like the redskins have been losing to super franchises exclusively.

And beat the Saints, and came close to beating the Giants (defending SB champs) and undefeated Falcons.

I'm not excusing the Rams and Panthers losses, but we haven't been playing horrible.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

And beat the Saints, and came close to beating the Giants (defending SB champs) and undefeated Falcons.

I'm not excusing the Rams and Panthers losses, but we haven't been playing horrible.

Give it up, Hitman. Our argument is doomed. Let's go to the bar, first round is on me.

[Enter Apotheosis]

What, Green Bay isn't any good now?

Did you watch that game? The Colts offense wasn't terribly impressive, they just got lucky that the Packers dropped about half a dozen potential interceptions while also failing to capitalize on a few plays on the other side of the ball where they had the Colts beat badly.

Any coach, player or fan will tell you that if you can win games, ANY games with a rookie QB, that's one hell of a feeling because the rule of thumb is that you're supposed to endure growing pains with a rookie QB.

Face it, you guys saying the Colts are winning only because of a weak schedule IS weak.

So why does it sound like you're not giving Shanahan that benefit when it comes to trying to win with Griffin? You're lowering the bar for one guy and raising it for the other.

[DM72]

And beat the Saints, and came close to beating the Giants (defending SB champs) and undefeated Falcons.

I'm not excusing the Rams and Panthers losses, but we haven't been playing horrible.

Who cares about being close to winning? You guys need to lose that mentality. And you say we haven't been playing horribly? Have you seen the last two games?

[Destino]

And beat the Saints, and came close to beating the Giants (defending SB champs) and undefeated Falcons.

I'm not excusing the Rams and Panthers losses, but we haven't been playing horrible.

Close doesn't matter and never has. The skins have played well enough to be 3-6 and the colts well enough to be 6-3.

[GothSkinsFan]

Honestly, I think the guy is going to resign at the end of the year his heart is going.... and then the cycle begins again with some other has been clown.

I'm on the Grimm bandwagon.

Is there a Grimm bandwagon? Maybe Joey T. deserves a shot. Pretty fiery motivator. Certainly won't stay medium.

[Destino]

You're basically criticizing the front office for not being clairvoyant. At the end of 2010 could the front office had known that they would be hit with a major cap penalty right before free agency 2012? Could they have anticipated that they'd have no 2nd rounder in 2012 due to a trade up for a QB? Could they have anticipated that Rogers, who was playing like a $4M a year CB, would suddenly start playing like an 8M a year CB? Could they have anticipated that their safeties would fail, specifically that Landry would only play a half a season in 2011 (Landry has his own laundry list of what ifs), or that Meriweather would get injured for half a season, or Otogwe would smack a wall at age 31, or that Jackson would get suspended?

You make the best decision at the time. If it ends up failing, it ends up failing. Hindsight is 20/20, if the best decision at the time becomes simply reasonably defensible, you deal with it.

Again, Shanahan takes some of the blame, but, there were, and are, many factors beyond his control in the secondary.

I'm faulting him for being wrong. It's not my place, or Dan Snyders, to go back at review every decision in search of reasonable-ness. It frankly doesn't matter. When you are tasked with running anything results are everything.

Hindsight is 20/20 which is why no one is paid for it. Money goes to front office executives that know who to pay BEFORE everyone else. Is that fair? Yes. Is it easy? No. It wouldn't pay so well if it were easy. He chose personnel and coaches and the defense absolutely sucks, the secondary in particular. It wasn't one bad decision it was many.

Also I should point out that Jackson getting suspended is predictable. He was busted twice before so pretending that a third problem was unexpected makes no sense. They gambled bringing him here and they plainly lost.

---------- Post added November-9th-2012 at 02:38 AM ----------

No, he did not prove himself. Performing for one season and then falling back in to his old ways is not proving one's self. If he could have shown that it wasn't just a fluke season, then you could say that. Sure he got the multi-year contract, but I'm very happy it wasn't the Redskins who got duped into that mistake. Rogers will be cut after next season if he continues to play the way he has played all but one season of his career. And, no one will be offering anything close to what he got from San Fran and wanted from us.

2nd ranked pass defenses don't start terrible corners. Interceptions aren't everything. The redskins have far more interceptions than the 49ers and only one sack less. The differences however are night and day.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I'm faulting him for being wrong. It's not my place, or Dan Snyders, to go back at review every decision in search of reasonable-ness. It frankly doesn't matter. When you are tasked with running anything results are everything.

So in short, you ARE faulting him for not being clairvoyant.

In any performance-driven environment, the fundamental adage is "The best predictor of future performance is past perfornance". Shanahan's job is to allocate limited resources to players that are likely to perfom. For various reasons, Rogers and Landry did NOT perform, certainly not enough to justify the allocation of resources they demanded. You are faulting Shanahan for assuming that an oft-injured, inconsistent player with questionable football IQ in Landry who refused to make good health decisions for his own career, and a non-playmaking corner who, outside of the first half of 2008, was an average corner at best (and is playing like an average corner right now) are suddenly going to perform like Pro Bowlers? (and for the record, Laron Landry has been terrible this year).

Right now, I'd take our secondary situation over one where we have 80 million dollars tied up in Landry and Rogers. At least we're not wedded to any of the current guys and can improve with smart FA/draft signings.

Hindsight is 20/20 which is why no one is paid for it. Money goes to front office executives that know who to pay BEFORE everyone else. Is that fair? Yes. Is it easy? No. It wouldn't pay so well if it were easy. He chose personnel and coaches and the defense absolutely sucks, the secondary in particular. It wasn't one bad decision it was many.

That's simplistic. You have to point to what personnel choices and what coaching choices made the defense suck. In this case, the primary driver is the selection of Haslett (which was masked for a year by the presence of Spanos in year 2 and the lack of talent in the transition year 1).

Also I should point out that Jackson getting suspended is predictable. He was busted twice before so pretending that a third problem was unexpected makes no sense. They gambled bringing him here and they plainly lost.

So we're faulting Shanahan for making a very low-risk gamble with a talented but troubled player, and with the same breath demanding that he dish out high-risk Vinny Cerrato-esque contracts to Laron Landry and Carlos Rogers when they were MUCH bigger risks than Jackson or Meriweather?

2nd ranked pass defenses don't start terrible corners. Interceptions aren't everything. The redskins have far more interceptions than the 49ers and only one sack less. The differences however are night and day

Pass defenses are more than the corners. I'd honestly say Rogers is the worst player on that defense, and was overrated last year in a contract year.

This is purely an exercise in "looking for reasons to dump on Shanahan". And I'm not wild about his GM moves (mostly because of opportunity costs - J.J Watt and Carlos Dunlap should be in Burgundy and Gold, among other things - the McNabb trade was a total disaster) or his seeming loyalty to Haslett (but then he seemed loyal to McNabb too). But since last Sunday, the revisionist history and fingerpointing have run wild.

[Destino]

So in short, you ARE faulting him for not being clairvoyant.

If you think that results and clairvoyance are the same thing, I certainly have no interest in changing your mind. What I am faulting him for is bad decisions.

In any performance-driven environment, the fundamental adage is "The best predictor of future performance is past perfornance".

Remember you said that.

Right now, I'd take our secondary situation over one where we have 80 million dollars tied up in Landry and Rogers. At least we're not wedded to any of the current guys and can improve with smart FA/draft signings.

Our secondary is the record setting horrible. I'm not sure I'd take it willingly over many things and surely not over Landry and Rogers neither of which are making big money and certainly no where near 80 million.

That's simplistic. You have to point to what personnel choices and what coaching choices made the defense suck. In this case, the primary driver is the selection of Haslett (which was masked for a year by the presence of Spanos in year 2 and the lack of talent in the transition year 1).

I would say most of the thinking around the defense lead to it's current sorry state. Starting with the decision to reshape the defense into a 3-4 when the team already had too many holes to fill. We're past the half way mark of Shanahan's contract and the defense is one of the worst in recent Redskins memory. Perhaps not so recent as well.

So we're faulting Shanahan for making a very low-risk gamble with a talented but troubled player, and with the same breath demanding that he dish out high-risk Vinny Cerrato-esque contracts to Laron Landry and Carlos Rogers when they were MUCH bigger risks than Jackson or Meriweather?

What was that you said earlier? "The best predictor of future performance is past perfornance"? Also doesn't seem like it was terribly low risk to me. Secondary is bad enough to ruin the season.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Our secondary is the record setting horrible. I'm not sure I'd take it willingly over many things and surely not over Landry and Rogers neither of which are making big money and certainly no where near 80 million.

They wanted 80 million combined from US. Once it became apparent they would not get 80 million, they hit the market, which then refused to pay them the money they wanted.

If there was an option to pay them on one year "show me" deals, they would be here. They wanted long term big money deals. Only AFTER the rest of the league decided they weren't worth that money, did they settle for small short term deals.

I would say most of the thinking around the defense lead to it's current sorry state. Starting with the decision to reshape the defense into a 3-4 when the team already had too many holes to fill. We're past the half way mark of Shanahan's contract and the defense is one of the worst in recent Redskins memory. Perhaps not so recent as well.

How many players from that 4-3 defense we had in 2009 would still be here today? Unless you're arguing that Orakpo and Kerrigan would be Jason Babin and Jared Allen in a 4-3 or something, there was nobody on that roster that said we HAD to keep a 4-3. Maybe Andre Carter but he was on the wrong side of 30.

I firmly believe that our defense would be no better today with the same personnel running a 4-3 than a 3-4. Our personnel is not, and never has been, perfectly designed for the 4-3 or something, this is just after the fact ideological bull****tery from people who were against the move in the first place and want desperately to be right.

Shanahan made a mistake in hiring Jim Haslett. He also made a mistake in not taking J.J Watt, which was a product of the mistake in trading for McNabb. Beyond that, a lot of these issues have been out of his control. Or I guess he should have forced teams to cut their good safeties so we could sign them?

What was that you said earlier? "The best predictor of future performance is past perfornance"? Also doesn't seem like it was terribly low risk to me. Secondary is bad enough to ruin the season.

A short-term small money deal is not a risky deal. And there were few safety options out there. But you're the one who's saying that we should have overpaid Rogers and Landry despite them being highly inconsistent and full of warts as players. Or wait, do you think Shanahan let them walk because he didn't like them? Or because he thought he was so smart he could find better guys easily? Maybe if you already don't like the guy.

You see, you're only thinking in the context of this season. If we had overpaid Rogers a year ago, sure we might be better, but we'd also be paying a slightly above-average corner FAR above his market value. Who says that he doesn't get burned without that 49ers front 7 making his life easier?