Lombardi: Schoen is an insult to my profession

In comment 16603683 prdave73 said:

Quote:

This.. "He said the way Schoen acted during Hard Knocks was an insult to his profession. He felt the way Schoen handled the decisions and discussions around those decisions was like any group of fans hanging out and talking in a bar. No plan" That is exactly what crossed my mind when I saw that. I have to agree with everything Lombardi mentioned. Sorry, but I also just don't see it. Look how they have handled the Oline situation?? They need to go out and hire an experienced GM & HC, period. Stop the experiments already.

I don’t like Lombardi but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I have never came away less impressed with a person that I did with Schoen during hard knocks. He seemed clueless in terms of strategy. He got to where he is because he can do tasks for other people which is great, but that isn’t his job description now. And he is woefully unqualified and incompetent for that job.

He stinks and is on par with Gettleman

In comment 16604040 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 16604006 Lines of Scrimmage said: Quote: Cleveland: 15.3, 16.9 KC: 13.2 Miami: 20.6 Buffalo: 16.8, 19.6, 31.3, 28.4 HC Giants: 21.5, 15.6, ? That insider who said BD wanted the WR may be correct. Those two outlier seasons were when the Bills added Diggs. Expect some force feeding MN's moving forward. Overall, doesn't scream offensive guru. JS doesn't seems to have not learned well from Parcells. Everywhere Parcells went first order of business was getting the OL/front 7 in order to play at a high level. Despite his differences with Young, they had a lot in common team building wise. You really need to stop with that last narrative. Say what you want about Schoen and he deserves plenty of criticism but you cannot continue to run with the bullshit that he’s ignored the OL and front 7. That’s just making things up. You can criticize the results so far but he’s used an enormous amount of resources trying to build the the OL and front 7. Just stop with that nonsense

The guy who talks about not respecting other peoples football opinion ignoring that the oline had one of the best pass blocking grades of the week? Shocking

Are you related to him?

by having people who are poor at it. Being an NFL GM is a difficult job. Lombardi was poor at it, that's why he was fired and failed to get another position. What is insulting is when professionals become petty and vindictive and use their position to settle personal vendettas, to which Lombardi has become the epitome.

but people are reading wayyyyyyyyy to much into what they saw on HK. Hard Knocks was six 45-minute episodes covering, about five months? That 45-minute episode was also filled with family outings, stock draft and game footage.

but he was in the game for a long time and was successful with the Raiders. He may have a clue. He's certainly not wrong with the Giants.

But I'm increasingly convinced it's for the wrong reasons, and I find myself more annoyed by him and his podcast with each passing week. He's a self-important ass kisser of executives who suffers from Jerry Krause syndrome - giving credit to managers over coaches and players - and i'm tired of his endless parade of yes-men/women co-hosts who never push back on any of his points.

Lombardi believes that NFL success starts with ownership/GMs "defining their identify" or issuing strategic plans or mission statements or whatever coporate boilerplate you want to call it. Fact is a lot of NFL teams fall ass-backwards into championships purely by hiring coaches who know what the fuck they are doing and are given free reign to identify and develop talent - particularly QB - with either minimal interference or with a GM who is aligned. Both Shannahans, Reid, Parcells, Harbaugh, McVay - these guys win wherever they go.

Is Lombardi biased against the Giants? Who cares honestly, but his biases show everywhere. He talks about Al Davis like he was a god but takes every opportunity to dump on Jon Gruden. Guess what Al Davis's record was the last 20 years of his life if you take out the Gruden years? not good.

In terms of biases, his love of both Josh McDaniels and Matt Rhule - bolstered by his sons being on their respective staffs- was embarrassing and minimized, and in the most recent example, he was taking victory laps for the success of the Sean Peyton/Box Nix combo before they had even taken a regular season snap.

So in essence, Lombardi is generally correct about the Giants, but overall he needs to be told to shut the f%ck up sometimes.

It's so stupid but I love this. Lombardi is such a clown, but going super bombastic like this is pretty entertaining

bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day.

Lombardi was on and when the Giants were brought up - he chuckled. Stunad

I think if you put a large majority of the teams on the off-season show you will come away with the same opinion.

My belief is that when people are in power, there is an expectation that they have some sort of omnipotence (government, CEOs, etc).

The reality is, when it comes to making decsions where there are thousands of variables and the data isn't clean, most people don't know shit. They are trying to make their best educated guesses based on experience and other people's input. I think that is shocking to see for some people.

My guess is a lot of orgs look just like the Giants, and even the ones which are run well share a lot of similar traits. The difference is coming up with an identity and trying to implement that rather than having no direction.

What separates guys like BB is running through probably hundreds of scenarios so you are able to pivot based on what is actually happening.

Don't tell people what they should do (habit of yours). You told me you are a "leader in my field" in your very first post to me (strange). That didn't do yourself any favors with me and my suggestion would be start acting like one.

As to your point, the result matters. Trying is not a standard that should be accepted. Since you said you are a top leader, I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Lombardi is probably so upset because being an NFL GM probably is not functionally that different from guys hanging on the couch. Forget Hard Knocks; I'm not exactly convinced about the brilliance of NFL executives when they talk, and not just the Giants. Coaches, however, are a different story.

Funniest example of this is that Lombardi has been constatly praising the George Young evaluation system during the 1980s? What was that evaluation system? Size and Speed. Whoa, slow down Oppenheimer.

He’ll be just like Lombardi, without a second shot at a GM job

In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said:

Quote:

bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day.

I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers.

What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results.

I think that was his point.

but it doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

In comment 16604096 HomerJones45 said:

Quote:

In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said: Quote: bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day. I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers. What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results. I think that was his point.

But barkley was the center of the offense for 5 years with bottom of the league results. Why would you double down on it? There was never a point where the Giants werent flowing the offense through saquon. The best it ever became was 15th in yards and 18th in points.

Its fine that he was the best player. It didnt work.

In comment 16604096 HomerJones45 said:

Quote:

In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said: Quote: bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day. I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers. What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results. I think that was his point.

The Giants “identity” with Barkley sucked. Center your entire offense around a running back who is hurt more than half the time? I mean, the criticism about Jones is fair, though I think a lot of it is second guessing as most fans agreed with the resigning in 2022 coming off a playoff win. But I have zero patience for the crying over Barkley. Letting him walk was absolutely the correct move.

But that doesn’t make him wrong about the giants.

but I do agree with one thing he said, Tim McDonnell’s question about identity is a good one, although it’s tough to show an identity when your QB is throwing TD’s to the wrong color jersey.

Other than that, his comments about Jones’s eye level is correct, but the Daboll thing is weird. I mean, lots of HC’s start as OC. And he’s wrong about Daboll being OC elsewhere, other than Bama at least, BUFF was his first NFL OC gig. I’m sorry, getting Josh Allen from not being able to hit a simple screen pass to being one of the best QB’s in the league is going to move you up on teams’ HC boards.

In comment 16603746 Go Terps said:

Quote:

.

Pretty much the same way we looked last Sunday.

In comment 16604040 BigBlueShock said:

Quote:

In comment 16604006 Lines of Scrimmage said: Quote: Cleveland: 15.3, 16.9 KC: 13.2 Miami: 20.6 Buffalo: 16.8, 19.6, 31.3, 28.4 HC Giants: 21.5, 15.6, ? That insider who said BD wanted the WR may be correct. Those two outlier seasons were when the Bills added Diggs. Expect some force feeding MN's moving forward. Overall, doesn't scream offensive guru. JS doesn't seems to have not learned well from Parcells. Everywhere Parcells went first order of business was getting the OL/front 7 in order to play at a high level. Despite his differences with Young, they had a lot in common team building wise. You really need to stop with that last narrative. Say what you want about Schoen and he deserves plenty of criticism but you cannot continue to run with the bullshit that he’s ignored the OL and front 7. That’s just making things up. You can criticize the results so far but he’s used an enormous amount of resources trying to build the the OL and front 7. Just stop with that nonsense

I agree he has used a lot of draft capital, but he did not use that many resources this off season. He signed Runyon and a starting tackle at 6-7 million a year. That is trying paper over the Neal mistake with a cheap fix when maybe Alt was the resource that was needed. Anyway, the OL was the least of my concerns but I don't think we went all out this off season to fix it.

In comment 16604080 Lines of Scrimmage said:

Quote:

Don't tell people what they should do (habit of yours). You told me you are a "leader in my field" in your very first post to me (strange). That didn't do yourself any favors with me and my suggestion would be start acting like one. As to your point, the result matters. Trying is not a standard that should be accepted. Since you said you are a top leader, I shouldn't have to tell you this.

This is precious coming from a clown that is arguing with MULTIPLE posters on a daily basis. Of course you’re not bright enough to realize that maybe, just maybe YOU are the issue. Your self awareness absolutely sucks.

Look at the posters. If you are half as smart as you think you are and the great leader you told me you are it should be crystal clear the common traits of those posters. Sorry, you just happen to be on of those very few.

In comment 16603719 Go Terps said:

Quote:

.

Exactly. He might be an asshole. He might hate the Giants. Doesn't mean he's wrong.

I don't care what anybody says, Schoen needed to find a way to get a deal done with a player like Barkley he was a leader of this team that was in his prime and only a couple of million dollars, and to allow him to just go to a rival in Philly makes them look like he doesn't know what he's doing.
From a PR standpoint it's a bad look and Mara knew this but was going to support the GM he empowered.

In comment 16604117 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 16604096 HomerJones45 said: Quote: In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said: Quote: bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day. I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers. What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results. I think that was his point. But barkley was the center of the offense for 5 years with bottom of the league results. Why would you double down on it? There was never a point where the Giants werent flowing the offense through saquon. The best it ever became was 15th in yards and 18th in points. Its fine that he was the best player. It didnt work.

I wasn't advocating for it; I was simply saying that was Lombardi's point: create an identity around your best player and your player moves revolve around that identity - you are going to be a team that runs the ball with a play action passing game. So, you are getting running backs, runblocking linemen (maybe Evan Neal now comes into play), tight ends. That's your identity.

I get it; a lot of you don't like Barkley especially after Sunday when it looks like we got our noses rubbed in it, but it is not an outlandish suggestion.

What you don't do is try and formulate your identity around a mediocre player ("we are not paying the qb $40 million to hand off"). That is what Schoen did and Lombardi's critique is on the mark.

Giants looked bad with Andrew Thomas too, you wanna let him walk too?
Maybe we needed more talent at the other positions?
smh
This is a team sport and you don't get better letting talented players walk out the door.

force the identity to be Jones and the passing game.
It would've been smarter to resign Barkley to continue to take pressure off of Jones and draft Nabers.
That would've been the smart thing to do.
Defenses would not have been able to stack the box and that would've opened up the pass and run ge....smh

In comment 16604649 HomerJones45 said:

Quote:

In comment 16604117 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 16604096 HomerJones45 said: Quote: In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said: Quote: bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day. I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers. What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results. I think that was his point. But barkley was the center of the offense for 5 years with bottom of the league results. Why would you double down on it? There was never a point where the Giants werent flowing the offense through saquon. The best it ever became was 15th in yards and 18th in points. Its fine that he was the best player. It didnt work. I wasn't advocating for it; I was simply saying that was Lombardi's point: create an identity around your best player and your player moves revolve around that identity - you are going to be a team that runs the ball with a play action passing game. So, you are getting running backs, runblocking linemen (maybe Evan Neal now comes into play), tight ends. That's your identity. I get it; a lot of you don't like Barkley especially after Sunday when it looks like we got our noses rubbed in it, but it is not an outlandish suggestion. What you don't do is try and formulate your identity around a mediocre player ("we are not paying the qb $40 million to hand off"). That is what Schoen did and Lombardi's critique is on the mark.

Nothing to do with liking or not liking barkley. Even if you are 100% on board with being a run-first team, theres no vision in paying an injured RB with a lot of carries big guaranteed money when you have not built the framework around him to enable being a run-first team. 5 yeara is enough to know you dont have the OL to support it. Time ran out on trying to make it work.

give me Lombardi as the GM. At least he gets it.

In comment 16604038 TyreeHelmet said:

Quote:

In comment 16603746 Go Terps said: Quote: . “We got a weapon for Daniel”. That comment infuriated me as a fan of the team.

I didn't watch HK -- was that actually spoken by a team executive?

In comment 16604696 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

In comment 16604649 HomerJones45 said: Quote: In comment 16604117 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 16604096 HomerJones45 said: Quote: In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said: Quote: bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day. I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers. What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results. I think that was his point. But barkley was the center of the offense for 5 years with bottom of the league results. Why would you double down on it? There was never a point where the Giants werent flowing the offense through saquon. The best it ever became was 15th in yards and 18th in points. Its fine that he was the best player. It didnt work. I wasn't advocating for it; I was simply saying that was Lombardi's point: create an identity around your best player and your player moves revolve around that identity - you are going to be a team that runs the ball with a play action passing game. So, you are getting running backs, runblocking linemen (maybe Evan Neal now comes into play), tight ends. That's your identity. I get it; a lot of you don't like Barkley especially after Sunday when it looks like we got our noses rubbed in it, but it is not an outlandish suggestion. What you don't do is try and formulate your identity around a mediocre player ("we are not paying the qb $40 million to hand off"). That is what Schoen did and Lombardi's critique is on the mark. Nothing to do with liking or not liking barkley. Even if you are 100% on board with being a run-first team, theres no vision in paying an injured RB with a lot of carries big guaranteed money when you have not built the framework around him to enable being a run-first team. 5 yeara is enough to know you dont have the OL to support it. Time ran out on trying to make it work.

How did the injured running back look the other night? In fact, it looks like the Eagles are going to run the ball with Barkley and Hurts and let Hurts be a play action qb. Seemed to work ok. Now you can argue that they shouldn't have paid Hurts all that dough to be a play action qb, and you would probably be correct. But they are making a virtue of necessity by having him use his legs and play action passes to his receivers. We did the opposite; we put our eggs in the Jones basket.

Roseman will continue to be GM of the Eagles with or without Sirianni. I think Schoen has one foot in the grave and the other on the banana peel; you be the judge.

player imv. I wish the Giant went back to a heavy run team with the RB's like SF and Det. Never should have went away from it. Put your QB under center more and you enhance your PA game.

SF doesn't have its star RB last night. The back up goes for 28c/147/5.3. Identity with a real offensive guru HC.

In comment 16604731 santacruzom said:

Quote:

In comment 16604038 TyreeHelmet said: Quote: In comment 16603746 Go Terps said: Quote: . “We got a weapon for Daniel”. That comment infuriated me as a fan of the team. I didn't watch HK -- was that actually spoken by a team executive?

Schoen said those exact words if I remember right.

I have nothing against Malik Nabers; but that draft pick was a bad moment for me as a fan in the same way the Barley pick was. The amount of stupid that went into that pick...

In comment 16604773 Go Terps said:

Quote:

In comment 16604731 santacruzom said: Quote: In comment 16604038 TyreeHelmet said: Quote: In comment 16603746 Go Terps said: Quote: . “We got a weapon for Daniel”. That comment infuriated me as a fan of the team. I didn't watch HK -- was that actually spoken by a team executive? Schoen said those exact words if I remember right. I have nothing against Malik Nabers; but that draft pick was a bad moment for me as a fan in the same way the Barley pick was. The amount of stupid that went into that pick...

My recollection is Schoen said "we'll get a weapon for Daniel" if the trade for Maye didn't work out. I had the same reaction as you did.

I also recall he said Daniel liked Nabers a lot, but I don't remember that as clearly.

that made me LOL is the “insult to my profession”. What profession, podcasting? I mean, he hasn’t had a front office role in a decade, who’s he kidding?

In comment 16604868 Section331 said:

Quote:

that made me LOL is the “insult to my profession”. What profession, podcasting? I mean, he hasn’t had a front office role in a decade, who’s he kidding?

I already made this comment yesterday, get in line.

In comment 16604878 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

In comment 16604868 Section331 said: Quote: that made me LOL is the “insult to my profession”. What profession, podcasting? I mean, he hasn’t had a front office role in a decade, who’s he kidding? I already made this comment yesterday, get in line.

Sorry about that, didn’t get the chance to read through the thread!

In comment 16604746 HomerJones45 said:

Quote:

In comment 16604696 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 16604649 HomerJones45 said: Quote: In comment 16604117 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: In comment 16604096 HomerJones45 said: Quote: In comment 16604064 shockeyisthebest8056 said: Quote: bad WITH Saquon Barkley as they do without him and still wanted to re-sign him, then it’s time to stop giving their opinions the light of day. I think you miss the point that this Barkley point was tied in with identity. Barkley was the best player on offense, not Jones. So, you pay your best player and structure the identity around that player. That dictates that you get o-linemen who can run block because you are going to be feeding the ball to the best player, and you let Jones walk because you need an qb who can hand off and run play action. The draft pick in that case is probably Alt if he was there or Bowers. What you don't do is decide a flawed qb is going to be the centerpiece and try and run an aerial circus with a qb who can't throw and let the best player walk, You saw the results. I think that was his point. But barkley was the center of the offense for 5 years with bottom of the league results. Why would you double down on it? There was never a point where the Giants werent flowing the offense through saquon. The best it ever became was 15th in yards and 18th in points. Its fine that he was the best player. It didnt work. I wasn't advocating for it; I was simply saying that was Lombardi's point: create an identity around your best player and your player moves revolve around that identity - you are going to be a team that runs the ball with a play action passing game. So, you are getting running backs, runblocking linemen (maybe Evan Neal now comes into play), tight ends. That's your identity. I get it; a lot of you don't like Barkley especially after Sunday when it looks like we got our noses rubbed in it, but it is not an outlandish suggestion. What you don't do is try and formulate your identity around a mediocre player ("we are not paying the qb $40 million to hand off"). That is what Schoen did and Lombardi's critique is on the mark. Nothing to do with liking or not liking barkley. Even if you are 100% on board with being a run-first team, theres no vision in paying an injured RB with a lot of carries big guaranteed money when you have not built the framework around him to enable being a run-first team. 5 yeara is enough to know you dont have the OL to support it. Time ran out on trying to make it work. How did the injured running back look the other night? In fact, it looks like the Eagles are going to run the ball with Barkley and Hurts and let Hurts be a play action qb. Seemed to work ok. Now you can argue that they shouldn't have paid Hurts all that dough to be a play action qb, and you would probably be correct. But they are making a virtue of necessity by having him use his legs and play action passes to his receivers. We did the opposite; we put our eggs in the Jones basket. Roseman will continue to be GM of the Eagles with or without Sirianni. I think Schoen has one foot in the grave and the other on the banana peel; you be the judge.

It worked well, because the Eagles are a win-now team.

You're going to pay Barkley like a star despite knowing after 5 years he needs help. He isn't the type of player that can be great on a rebuilding team. It's clear that that Barkley is gone. It existed in 2018.

So pay him now to keep doing what he's been doing for 5 years, and hope in 1-2 years they actually do get the OL to a point where he can play like what he did for the Eagles?

That's a plan to you?

In comment 16604772 Lines of Scrimmage said:

Quote:

player imv. I wish the Giant went back to a heavy run team with the RB's like SF and Det. Never should have went away from it. Put your QB under center more and you enhance your PA game. SF doesn't have its star RB last night. The back up goes for 28c/147/5.3. Identity with a real offensive guru HC.

The Giants ran the ball just as much as Detroit did last year.

In comment 16604772 Lines of Scrimmage said:

Quote:

player imv. I wish the Giant went back to a heavy run team with the RB's like SF and Det. Never should have went away from it. Put your QB under center more and you enhance your PA game. SF doesn't have its star RB last night. The back up goes for 28c/147/5.3. Identity with a real offensive guru HC.

The Shanahan offense has been doing that since 1995. His dad invented it, his son invented upon it.

WCO and Bill Walsh invented that. MS with Alex Gibbs implemented a vicious zone blocking scheme.

KS has taken the offense in many new directions. Extremely innovative mind pulling from different systems. Lots of blending going on today imv.

try to import that zone blocking.

In comment 16605020 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

try to import that zone blocking.

Excuse me why I don the Captain Obvious hat, but you first need to be able to identify and develop offensive linemen. And that's been a major blind spot.

That's where the Shanahans have been great.

But they do it all - they identify talent, develop it, and are able to implement their system to work.

It's high-level stuff...

If you watched SF last year, Shanahan has evolved pretty far from the offense he ran in Washington.

The staple, the play action from under center has been in decline. And by extension the single back wide zone runs have declined as well.

SF runs much more two back sets, and more shotgun. One thing he says quite regularly is he doesn't care how he makes your linebackers guess run, he just wants them to guess.

The other element that's changed is how well Purdy breaks the pocket and can create throws down the field.


Great Interview - ( New Window )

In comment 16605038 christian said:

Quote:

If you watched SF last year, Shanahan has evolved pretty far from the offense he ran in Washington.

That supporting staff in Washington was unbelievable under Mike Shanahan: Kyle, Sean McVay, Matt LaFleur and Mike McDaniel.

Just think about that...

And Bobby Slowik who is next in line for a HC gig.

In comment 16605073 christian said:

Quote:

And Bobby Slowik who is next in line for a HC gig.

I did not know that. Mother of God what a staff...

In comment 16605034 bw in dc said:

Quote:

In comment 16605020 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: try to import that zone blocking. Excuse me why I don the Captain Obvious hat, but you first need to be able to identify and develop offensive linemen. And that's been a major blind spot. That's where the Shanahans have been great. But they do it all - they identify talent, develop it, and are able to implement their system to work. It's high-level stuff...

I dont just mean recently though. Im talking about even going back to pre-coughlin times. I cant ever recall them even showing interest in anyone who could bring that system with them.