John Cocktosten Posted September 7, 2010 Posted September 7, 2010 . . . and T. Davis. Belichick didn't win one without Brady....Knoll without Bradshaw...Levy never did anything without Kelly... If you want to go by that logic, Brian Billick and John Gruden should be in the HOF.
seadog Posted September 7, 2010 Posted September 7, 2010 I think a lot of NFL people were laughing at the Gailey hire when it took place, and picked Buffalo to be a bottom feeder again after the first preseason game. I have a feeling some of them will have egg on their face by seasons end when Buffalo is no longer in the AFC basement. I think the players are buying into Gailey and some confidence maybe begining to build. In D.C. i'm not sure if the Haynsworth saga has helped the coach gain the players confidence. I don't think Mike would work in Buffalo and I don't think Gailey would work in D.C., so in the end the right coaches ended up in the right cities.
ChasBB Posted September 7, 2010 Posted September 7, 2010 Belichick didn't win one without Brady....Knoll without Bradshaw...Levy never did anything without Kelly... If you want to go by that logic, Brian Billick and John Gruden should be in the HOF. Hey, I have no problem with Shanahan. I'm sure he would have been a fine coach in Buffalo. But, I also have no issue with Gailey. He has a very strong, if not stellar, background. This is the first time in the NFL where he's been able to assemble an entire staff of his choosing. He understands the importance of divisional games and was 13-3 against division opponents during the regular season while HC of Dallas (5-team division at that time). I don't know what is not to like about Gailey.
John Cocktosten Posted September 7, 2010 Posted September 7, 2010 Hey, I have no problem with Shanahan. I'm sure he would have been a fine coach in Buffalo. But, I also have no issue with Gailey. He has a very strong, if not stellar, background. This is the first time in the NFL where he's been able to assemble an entire staff of his choosing. He understands the importance of divisional games and was 13-3 against division opponents during the regular season while HC of Dallas (5-team division at that time). I don't know what is not to like about Gailey. When it comes to offense Gailey is very forward thinking. We as fans are looking at true NFL offense. Multi formations, movement to create mismatches, running plays out of shotgun (a zone read!), specialists. The offense doesn't have a base set and that is what you want. The other thing I like about Gailey is his attitude. He's tough and straight forward which I love. It remains to be seen how he handles gameday decisions, replays, to punt or not to punt. I expect the D to struggle badly and I want to see how he handles his new DC when this happens.
Cynical Posted September 7, 2010 Posted September 7, 2010 Mike Shanahan simply brought in over-priced veterans into Washington, made his son the OC, and has been involved in a much too publicized exchange with Albert Haynesworth. All that to say, I'm glad we didn't bring him to the B-LO. His veterans won't last the year healthy- see Larry Johnson, nepotism will kill him if the offense doesn't click- never hire someone you can't fire, and the Haynesworth drama has already made Shanahan look like a poor leader. All that being said, I'm glad we hired Gailey. This sounds like a Jauron apologist all over again. They were quite happy having the cool/collected Jauron and were glad the Bills did not have that spitter/drooler Cowher. Until proven otherwise, Gailey is not quite the HC Shanahan was/is. Gailey has the opportunity to change that assessment starting in a few days. I'm looking forward to the season. We may not make the playoffs, but I believe the Bills will shock 1-2 teams, and scare the sh*t out of a few others.
UpperDeck Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 I'm not sure this year, or those to come, will prove who is a better coach. The only thing that could be shown is that Chan is a better coach. Shanny has Snyder (and his money) for an owner and Chan has Ralph. So if Washington does better than the Bills then people will question whether it was just because they were able to buy better players. If Buffalo fares better then Chan will be given the credit. Regardless, it looks to me like Chan is the first good coach we've had here in a long time.
Peter Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 Thanks for helping me make my point. You can be the best coach in the world, but you still need talent on the field. Billy B is a great example. Notwithstanding videogate, I think that he is a great coach. Yet, I doubt that he would have had nearly the success he has had without Tom Brady. Belichick didn't win one without Brady....Knoll without Bradshaw...Levy never did anything without Kelly... If you want to go by that logic, Brian Billick and John Gruden should be in the HOF. I agree. Gailey is the best coach that we have had in a long time. I have confidence that he and Buddy are going to lead us where we want to be. I think a lot of NFL people were laughing at the Gailey hire when it took place, and picked Buffalo to be a bottom feeder again after the first preseason game. I have a feeling some of them will have egg on their face by seasons end when Buffalo is no longer in the AFC basement. I think the players are buying into Gailey and some confidence maybe begining to build. In D.C. i'm not sure if the Haynsworth saga has helped the coach gain the players confidence. I don't think Mike would work in Buffalo and I don't think Gailey would work in D.C., so in the end the right coaches ended up in the right cities.
folz Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 Shanahan is obviously a good coach, no question, and when we were interviewing him I would have been really happy had he been hired...but now, I don't know, I really feel like being spurned by the bigger names (although I really think Cowher was interested but couldn't accept due to his wife's illness) and then hiring Chan may turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I'm just going on my gut here, we'll see how it plays out...but it just feels like Chan was the right guy at the right time for this team. Not to say the others couldn't have turned things around, but Chan wants to be here, has just as much to prove as the players...there's no savior coming in to bail the players out, just a hard work, expect to win, us against the world, they don't believe in me either let's prove them wrong guy.
Merle Haggard Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 This sounds like a Jauron apologist all over again. They were quite happy having the cool/collected Jauron and were glad the Bills did not have that spitter/drooler Cowher. Until proven otherwise, Gailey is not quite the HC Shanahan was/is. Gailey has the opportunity to change that assessment starting in a few days. I'm looking forward to the season. We may not make the playoffs, but I believe the Bills will shock 1-2 teams, and scare the sh*t out of a few others. On this, you and I are on the same page.
Bob in STL Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 There is no comparison between Shanahan and Gailey. Shanahan is better in all counts and has the record to prove it. Shanahan inheritated a mess in DC, as did Gailey here. My guess is Shanahan will turn his mess around before Gailey is able to do so. I could be wrong on this, but I'm not. (This one time, I wish I was wrong. LOL.) Oh, and for the record, I would take Shanahan over Gailey in a NY minute. Okay by me. When making your comparision please keep in mind that Shanny will have almost unlimited resources to work with (example: they brought in McNabb, we brought in Levi Brown). Gailey will not.
eball Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 There is no comparison between Shanahan and Gailey. Shanahan is better in all counts and has the record to prove it. Shanahan inheritated a mess in DC, as did Gailey here. My guess is Shanahan will turn his mess around before Gailey is able to do so. I could be wrong on this, but I'm not. (This one time, I wish I was wrong. LOL.) I hope he's able to rehabilituate the situation. Oh, and for the record, I would take Shanahan over Gailey in a NY minute. Way to go out on a limb there, sport.
Koufax Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 Shanahan is one of the best coaches ever! He knows how to win. He's one 2 Super Bowls. Leave Shanahan alone. I def wish he was our coach. Don't you mean "He's won too soup or bowls"? And isn't it supposed to be "Leave Brittany Alone"? I don't think there is going to be too much that can be said between now and Sunday that isn't repetitive, so I am going to dedicate myself to forum literacy in the meantime.
Ramius Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 For argument's sake, after John Elway left, the shanahan-led broncos made the playoffs 4 times in 10 years. He loses a bit of luster with that little fact.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 The elephant in the room in DC, that many are ignoring, is the Redskins FO. Which is really only another way to say Dan Snyder. Of course Shanahan didn't make the moves that brought in all these old vets that have seen better days. That was Snyder. Do I have to list the "aggressive"(read: stupid) moves that this fool has made, from 3-4 coaches ago? Archuleta ring any bells? Shanhan is probably going to fall victim to the same buffoonery everybody else has. The funny part is: I don't know how they fit Snyder and Shanahan's egos into the same restaurant, never mind conference room. Unless Synder has completely capitulated, and I don't see how that's even possible, Shanahan(or, according to him, "The Ultimate Leader") better get used to FAs that don't fit his scheme being signed and overpaid because Dan "has heard of them", and, he better learn to enjoy drafting 1 player a year. The reason you never hear about Redskins draft busts is because they never draft anybody. I see chaos and meltdown...which would be consistent what the Redskins have been doing since Snyder bought the team. IMHO, Shanahan made a big mistake in going there, and he may find himself out of football permanently because of it.
Heitz Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 fwiw, in the ESPN The Magazine NFL preview issue they did a survey section (of 65 top players) and one of the questions was "Last coach you'd want to play for?". The top vote getters were: - Eric Mangini 34.8% - Tom Coughlin 10.9% - Mike Shanahan 10.9% Of the last two "Neither seems like a fun guy to be around" says one veteran. Not fully sure what that means, but who knows if the players would be buying into the system and showing the attitude that they are with a different coach...
Peter Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 I think that we know how one defensive lineman feels about Shanny -- not that it makes much difference. fwiw, in the ESPN The Magazine NFL preview issue they did a survey section (of 65 top players) and one of the questions was "Last coach you'd want to play for?". The top vote getters were: - Eric Mangini 34.8% - Tom Coughlin 10.9% - Mike Shanahan 10.9% Of the last two "Neither seems like a fun guy to be around" says one veteran. Not fully sure what that means, but who knows if the players would be buying into the system and showing the attitude that they are with a different coach...
sweatpantsjoe Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 Isn't Shanahan like 4-2 against Belicheat? Yeah, we shouldn't have brought him in.........
Heitz Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 My guess is Shanahan will turn his mess around before Gailey is able to do so. I could be wrong on this, but I'm not. (This one time, I wish I was wrong. LOL.) You're not? Can I borrow your DeLorean - I swear I won't come back and bet on professional sports... Don't we have to wait a couple years (or at least for the season to start) to see who turns what mess into what?
notwoz Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 fwiw, in the ESPN The Magazine NFL preview issue they did a survey section (of 65 top players) and one of the questions was "Last coach you'd want to play for?". The top vote getters were: - Eric Mangini 34.8% - Tom Coughlin 10.9% - Mike Shanahan 10.9% Of the last two "Neither seems like a fun guy to be around" says one veteran. Not fully sure what that means, but who knows if the players would be buying into the system and showing the attitude that they are with a different coach... Wonder if Albert Haynesworth is one of the players surveyed.
eball Posted September 8, 2010 Posted September 8, 2010 Isn't Shanahan like 4-2 against Belicheat? Yeah, we shouldn't have brought him in......... Hey, knucklehead, we did "bring him in" -- like for an entire day. Who gives a crap. He made his decision, and we moved on. The elephant in the room in DC, that many are ignoring, is the Redskins FO. Which is really only another way to say Dan Snyder. Of course Shanahan didn't make the moves that brought in all these old vets that have seen better days. That was Snyder. Do I have to list the "aggressive"(read: stupid) moves that this fool has made, from 3-4 coaches ago? Archuleta ring any bells? Shanhan is probably going to fall victim to the same buffoonery everybody else has. The funny part is: I don't know how they fit Snyder and Shanahan's egos into the same restaurant, never mind conference room. Unless Synder has completely capitulated, and I don't see how that's even possible, Shanahan(or, according to him, "The Ultimate Leader") better get used to FAs that don't fit his scheme being signed and overpaid because Dan "has heard of them", and, he better learn to enjoy drafting 1 player a year. The reason you never hear about Redskins draft busts is because they never draft anybody. I see chaos and meltdown...which would be consistent what the Redskins have been doing since Snyder bought the team. IMHO, Shanahan made a big mistake in going there, and he may find himself out of football permanently because of it. Supposedly, Snyder has "seen the light" and will cease player personnel meddling since he brought in George Allen's son. We'll see.
Recommended Posts