Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[NLC1054]

I don't think I've argued against Shanahan being hired...

I did, however, take issue with the knocks provided on Belichick. There was no deeper motive to my post. It was in defense of Belichick. Not in dismissal of Shanahan.

But to answer your question: Probably. There is always someone not considered that could be a FANTASTIC hire. But who knows? I like the guy we got. Which is good, because it was rocky for awhile.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were against Shanahan being hired.

More arguing Oldfan's "You don't hire someone with a record of mediocrity" comment. And it's even more frustrating because if you pay attention and aren't pre-disposed to disliking Mike Shanahan to start, you'd notice Mike adopting some of the same philosophy that the Patriots have adopted.

We moved to a 3-4 defense in part because of the success the Patriots and Steelers had running it. The last three years, the Redskins haven't drafted an underclassmen and only gone for four year starters who were team captains who won multiple awards, which is a page taken directly from the Patriots drafting strategy. (RG3 was technically a redshirt junior, but he would've been a four year starter and had already graduated). The same thing with moving up and down in the draft, particulatly moving down in the draft to acquire more value for picks. Trading veterans for picks. Signing older, veteran players and allowing them to come and compete with younger players, while signing young-ish talent that aren't household names to reasonable, fairly priced contracts.

Much of the negativity Oldfan holds for Mike Shanahan seems to fly directly in the face of evidence suggesting that the team is actually doing what he wants. Which is ultimately the point of contention I and many others have with him and his posting style. It's not a "frustrating debate style". It's completely ignoring anything that would otherwise interfere with whatever notion he has put forward. Is there room on this board for some objectivity? Yes, there is. Is getting bent out of shape over some ribbing of the more extreme negative posters in the game dead thread worth a whole thread white knighting for said negative posters? Probably not.

If his "debate style" is sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to listen to any opinion that doesn't completely jive with his, that's not a debate style. It's being incredibly stubborn and willingly ignorant.

[Oldfan]

...Problem is Oldfan, I don't think I've ever read a well thought out post of yours that was largely positive. Your a sharp guy, but your posts are well thought out negative posts on the whole...

This just isn't accurate. My posting history is available if you are curious.

[chipwhich]

This just isn't accurate. My posting history is available if you are curious.

I would never accuse you of being negative, just contrary to the musings of the board when a major event occurs, which I can appreciate

Your only flaw is your inability to say hey I was wrong, when you are blatantly proven so. Then it's word warfare fodder. Dignified humility, when to admit it.

As the team has been a mess, contrary musings tend to lend themselves to being right more often than not.

[Oldfan]

I wasn't trying to knock Belichick so much as draw parallels between Belichick prior to 2000 and Shanahan. They were both solid hiring decisions based on their previous activities, but neither were, or in Shanahan's case is, a guaranteed success.

You hire someone to achieve a goal. With full control of the Broncos from 1999 -2008, and given all the money he needed within the rules, Shanahan rewarded Pat Bowlen with one playoff win.

Either Dan Snyder's goal was to become the Number One NFL franchise and he made a very bad hire, or...
He was satisfied with a big name hire who could bring the team back up to a mediocre level.

The latter make the most sense.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:33 PM ----------

...Your only flaw is your inability to say hey I was wrong, when you are blatantly proven so. Then it's word warfare fodder. Dignified humility, when to admit it.

In other words you still stubbornly think you were right in that Belichik thread years ago.

[Bang]

You hire someone to achieve a goal. With full control of the Broncos from 1999 -2008, and given all the money he needed within the rules, Shanahan rewarded Pat Bowlen with one playoff win.

Either Dan Snyder's goal was to become the Number One NFL franchise and he made a very bad hire, or...
He was satisfied with a big name hire who could bring the team back up to a mediocre level.

The latter make the most sense.

And is still ultimately just a guess.
An opinion.
Which can be either right or wrong.
And as you like to say, can you show me exactly where Dan Snyder ever said he only wanted a big name to bring the Redskins up to mediocrity?

I can show you lots of quotes where he says he wants to win a Super Bowl, so we KNOW he wants to do that.
But is there any proof he only wanted a name so the Redskins could just break even?
Because it really doesn't make any sense to me. That's a lot of money to spend on such a lousy prospect and low expectation.
7 million a year to bring a name and mediocrity?
This makes sense?

~Bang

[chipwhich]

[/COLOR]In other words you still stubbornly think you were right in that Belichik thread years ago.

LOL no the Norv Turner thread comes to mind

[Oldfan]

And is still ultimately just a guess.
An opinion.
Which can be either right or wrong.
And as you like to say, can you show me exactly where Dan Snyder ever said he only wanted a big name to bring the Redskins up to mediocrity?

I can show you lots of quotes where he says he wants to win a Super Bowl, so we KNOW he wants to do that.
But is there any proof he only wanted a name so the Redskins could just break even?

~Bang

It's not a guess. It's an opinion based on some basic reasoning. You're free to shoot down the reasoning if you can.

I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I make unreasonable demands for proof. But, if and when you see it happen, that would be the time to point it out. Just hitting me with an accusation as you did is worthless.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:45 PM ----------

LOL no the Norv Turner thread comes to mind

I was dead right in the Norv thread. That's what frosted people.

I'll bet you don't know what the argument was about. Give it a try.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:56 PM ----------

That in no way answers what I asked.

It didn't answer this?

You do not think that Snyder has a goal of being the number one franchise in football?

I thought it did.

[Bang]

It's not a guess. It's an opinion based on some basic reasoning. You're free to shoot down the reasoning if you can.

You said that it makes the most sense that dan Snyder will give a coach 35 million dollars to bring nothing but a name and mediocrity to his team, a team he loves, and a team that has been a source of humiliation due to his own bad decisions.. and you think it makes the MOST sense that Snyder will just toss away a LOT of bad money just to make the same mistakes again. I think if we were to make some guesses about Dan's personality, we'd probably be correct in assuming he does NOT like to lose. it probably has burned his ass to have failed so badly. the money;'s a nice comfort, but I bet he wants a Lombardi trophy more than anything in the world.

that doesn't seem like basic reasoning given current situations.
You can say that Shanny's coaching record post-Elway is mediocre at best, and you'd be correct.
But to think that Snyder figured that would be good enough to toss 7 mil a year.. i think you're not giving Dan much credit for optimism
the guy has made a ton of mistakes, and he's often been starstruck and gushing over bad signings.
but really, considering the change that has taken place (and not just the record, which is only what it is for now.).. but the character of the team, the higher degree of common sense that has been used in acquiring players, the players they are acquiring are of better quality to fit what they want to do, not to mention the majority of the post-Zorn players are very high character, humble and display leadership as opposed to vice-versa for so many years.. (Griffin is like a dream. no.. on second thought i don't think i could have dreamed this guy. he's close to perfect in so many ways it's almost hard to believe. there HAS to be some tarnish somewhere, but i'll be damned if i can see it.)

Considering all of this, we have just as much reason to believe Snyder has pulled his thumb off of the team and allowed Shanny and crew to operate, and i think at some point you have to revise what seems to make most sense to take into account the reality of what is happening.

if you'd have told me that same thing 5 years ago, i'd never have argued. Snyderatto was as bad a pair of glitter whores as there ever were, and they went about everything totally backwards.
But we're seeing evidence to the contrary.
Shanny may ultimately only be CAPABLE of bringing us up to mediocrity, but I don't think that is what Dan has had in mind.

~Bang

[chipwhich]

I was dead right in the Norv thread. That's what frosted people.

I can't find it now, but did find some comical Zorn threads But if you were dead on, please repost the link

[Oldfan]

Unless you have proof, it's a guess, no matter how you want to dress it up.

Ten years of mediocrity with full control of the Broncos is solid past performance evidence the Mike Shanahan wouldn't be the guy you would expect to take you to the top in the NFL. That hiring alone should be enough to tell you that Snyder's sights were not aimed that high.

[Bang]

Ten years of mediocrity with full control of the Broncos is solid past performance evidence the Mike Shanahan wouldn't be the guy you would expect to take you to the top in the NFL. That hiring alone should be enough to tell you that Snyder's sights were not aimed that high.

OK, so one sentence of my post is all you brought back. ( a sentence i deleted, since it seeed to be counterproductive to the discourse.)
i'd address your comment, but i already did, after that first sentence. You may have read before i finished editing. (I'm a serial editor.)

~Bang

[Oldfan]

I can't find it now, but did find some comical Zorn threads But if you were dead on, please repost the link

It was Om's thread. But you said I was wrong. You shouldn't need the thread to tell me what I was wrong about.

Take a stab. I promise not to laugh... much.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 11:32 PM ----------

OK, so one sentence of my post is all you brought back.
i'd address your comment, but i already did, after that first sentence.

~Bang

That one sentence should be enough.

[Bang]

That one sentence should be enough.

Yeah, thanks anyway.

I mean really, if you're just going to ignore what people say, it's no wonder people get sick of your threads.

~Bang

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ten years of mediocrity with full control of the Broncos is solid past performance evidence the Mike Shanahan wouldn't be the guy you would expect to take you to the top in the NFL. That hiring alone should be enough to tell you that Snyder's sights were not aimed that high.

Oldfan, after 2009 who would have been a hire that demonstrated that Snyder's goal was to be the best team in the league? Whether you agree with the hire, isn't it feasible that Snyder believed he was getting a guy who might do that? After all, he hired the only available coach with 2+ rings. You can believe he did a poor job identifying the right man, but you can't really discern intent.

[Bang]

Oldfan, after 2009 who would have been a hire that demonstrated that Snyder's goal was to be the best team in the league? Whether you agree with the hire, isn't it feasible that Snyder believed he was getting a guy who might do that? After all, he hired the only available coach with 2+ rings. You can believe he did a poor job identifying the right man, but you can't really discern intent.

Oh yes he can. He can logically deduce what is in someone's head.
Based on careful consideration, Snyder decided to spend 35 million bucks on a name, and mediocrity.

It makes perfect sense, especially when viewed through a navel.

~Bang