Mike Shanahan: Should He Have Picked Ryan Tannehill over Robert Griffin III?

Things just got crazier for the Washington Redskins.

A wacky week of press coverage has been capped by a rumor, started by ESPN's Stephen A. Smith, that head coach Mike Shanahan wanted to select Ryan Tannehill, instead of trading for Robert Griffin III in the 2012 NFL draft:

The "blockbuster" trade for Griffin ahead of the 2012 NFL draft briefly revitalized Washington's NFL franchise. It made all concerned, specifically head coach Mike Shanahan, look like geniuses.

But since then trouble has entered paradise. A serious knee injury, disputes over play-calling and a 3-7 record this season have created the narrative that all is not well between Shanahan and Griffin.

The rumor reported by Smith is this narrative reaching its high point. For the first time the idea has been made explicit that Griffin is not Shanahan's choice.

But putting aside Smith's sources, unnamed as they are, and the veracity of the rumor, should Shanahan really have chosen Tannehill instead?

It is an intriguing question given the implications the trade for Griffin has had and continues to have on the team's fortunes. In particular, dealing away three prime picks took away Shanahan's best means of strengthening his whole team.

Instead, he took a major gamble by delaying fixing problem areas for a short-term fix at one position. This was a concern heading into 2012's draft, one I alluded to in an article arguing against the trade:

"

Shanahan and Bruce Allen have good reason to be cautious about paying out such a hefty price. The Redskins have been bitterly criticized in the past for overpaying for quick fixes via free agency.

This may be the draft, but the principle stays the same. Giving away multiple picks this year and next April prevents the Redskins from strengthening the overall quality and depth of their whole team. It goes against the long-term view Shanahan is supposed to have for the Redskins.

"

That has come to fruition as Griffin has been given too many big deficits to make up thanks to a porous secondary. The patchwork defensive backfield Shanahan and Allen have stitched together undermines a defense that needs Griffin's offense to score 30 points every game.

That already daunting task has not been helped by an O-line that has been consistently weak, exposing him to too many hits.

Shanahan has used low-round picks on linemen like Adam Gettis and defensive backs like Bacarri Rambo. The results have been poor.

What might he have done with that second-round choice in 2012, or the first-rounder this year? High picks don't always guarantee quality players, but it's not unreasonable to suggest Washington would boast a stronger supporting cast had its prime picks been available.

But that cast would be complementing a different and less dynamic quarterback. Tannehill has struggled to make his mark with the Dolphins so far. But he could have fit the Shanahan scheme well, maybe even better than Griffin.

This is where the question of Tannehill instead of Griffin becomes particularly intriguing. Scheme suitability has become a hot-button topic in D.C.

The fires have been stoked by complaints about the play-calling of offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan. The issue was especially prevalent this week, following Washington's 24-16 loss to the Philadelphia Eagles.

Griffin pointed to the Eagles knowing what to expect from the Washington offense as the reason for a career-worst performance, according to The Washington Post's Mike Jones:

"

They did a good job of scheming us up. They kind of knew what was coming before it was coming and that was disheartening. But like I told the guys, regardless of what’s going on out there, we’re the players and we have to make the plays work, and we just weren’t doing that in the first half.

"

That prompted assurances from the younger Shanahan about both his offense and relationship with Griffin, according to The Post's Jones:

"

Washington Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan said he didn’t necessarily agree with quarterback Robert Griffin III’s assessment that the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday “knew what was coming” in the passing attack. But Shanahan said he didn’t take the comments as a shot directed at him.

Griffin and Shanahan’s relationship has come under scrutiny at times because of hints of disagreement over play-calling.

"

That fits with views expressed by The Post's Sally Jenkins that Griffin may be out of step with the demands of a pro offense:

"

Think about it: How many times have you seen Griffin change the shape of the formation at the line, get out of one play and into another one with the clock ticking? How many times have you seen him recognize something and make a shift? Not often. It’s hard to say how much of that is by design — if the team simply hasn’t installed many packages, or Kyle Shanahan is inflexible — or how much is a result of Griffin’s tendency, as Chris Cooley noted earlier this week, to predetermine and to lock in.

"

But this should have been a problem anticipated when the team gave away the farm for a player who apparently didn't use a playbook in college.

The struggle to first fit and then expand an offense around Griffin is perhaps the most compelling case for Shanahan preferring someone else.

As stated in the article looking at the dangers of the trade, Griffin's spread-style and Shanahan's rigid system were always at risk of being an uncomfortable fit:

"

Griffin's time at the collegiate level was spent running the spread offense. His success and skills in this wide-open scheme may not translate well to the rigid nature of the Shanahan offensive system.

Griffin's mobility and accuracy on the move certainly suit the rollout plays favoured by Shanahan. Yet he would likely need time to acclimate himself to the constraints of such an ordered and disciplined scheme. Having a freelancing playmaker like Griffin temper his natural inclinations as part of a more regimented system could lead to some awkward growing pains.

"

Even a cursory look at the team's offense this season would reveal such growing pains. But do these second-year struggles suggest Tannehill was the right option?

After all, a rocky season was inevitable for Griffin once he had major offseason knee surgery. That put the player and his coaches back to square one.

Rather than maintaining the successful structure of 2012 and adding tweaks that fit what Griffin does best, the Shanahans almost had to rewrite the formula and work in reverse.

That has been obvious in recent games as elements that worked so well last season, like the option, have been steadily reintroduced into the offense.

Yet injury aside, Griffin has struggled in the Shanahan system and his unfamiliarity with pro concepts is a major reason why. This is where the idea of picking Tannehill and saving picks made the most sense for Washington.

He played in a pro-style scheme at Texas A&M, where he was coached by Mike Sherman, his current offensive coordinator with the Dolphins.

Sherman instructed Tannehill in a version of the West Coast offense, the mode of attack Shanahan is most closely aligned to.

Not only that, but while Tannehill is not the athletic marvel Griffin is, he does boast the physical attributes for the Shanahan system, as I wrote in a mock draft suggesting the Redskins pick him at No. 6:

"

It's worth noting that there is plenty to recommend Ryan Tannehill. At 6'4" and 222 pounds, he has the size that Shanahan likes in a quarterback. The former wide receiver also possesses the athleticism that will enable him to flourish in Washington's offense.

"

It was surprising to see just how much the Shanahans were willing to alter their offense for Griffin in Year 1. While that brought some brief success in 2012, the absence of a quarterback more suited to his system has constrained Shanahan in 2013.

That is a view likely to be endorsed by those who have felt Kirk Cousins should have been allowed to replace Griffin this season.

But it doesn't necessarily mean the offense and the team would be better with Tannehill under center. The Miami offense he leads is 20th in passing, 31st in total yards and 21st in points.

He has thrown 24 interceptions already as a pro. That is even with his college coach calling the plays.

There have also been suggestions that Tannehill is struggling with the deep ball, as The Palm Beach Post's Andrew Abramson detailed.

No matter who is under center, vertical strikes off play action are a staple of Shanahan's system. Abramson's findings don't help endorse Tannehill as an ideal fit with the Shanahans.

Granted, he has not had the running game Griffin has been complemented by in Washington, although his O-line has perhaps been worse.

Maybe it is not even a question to ask if Tannehill would have been the better choice. Maybe, as Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio argues, this rumor is part of a deeper game concerning Shanahan's future:

"

It means that Shanahan could be trying either to save his job in D.C., or to lay the foundation for his next job elsewhere.

Though many believe that Shanahan hand-picked G.M. Bruce Allen and that Shanahan both cooks the meal and buys the groceries, Allen was actually hired first.  It’s possible (but highly unlikely) that Allen made the call to trade up for Griffin over the objection of Shanahan, who wanted to take Tannehill and keep the extra picks.

It’s also possible (and less highly unlikely) that owner Daniel Snyder forced Griffin onto both Shanahan and Allen.

The more likely explanation is that Shanahan now knows the bell will soon be tolling for him, and that he needs to craft a narrative that will help get him the Andy Reid treatment in January, with an owner of a downtrodden franchise concluding that a consistently successful coach like Shanahan is the guy to come in and instantly turn things around.

"

Florio's cynicism has merit, because no matter what is said now about Griffin, the team at the top made the choice to part with so much to get him.

Shanahan would hardly have relented willingly to an owner telling him which quarterback will run his offense. That has never been Shanahan's past and is certainly not what he came to Washington for.

Even by only accepting the judgement of Snyder and Allen, Shanahan was part of a decision that has made the franchise too dependant on one player.

That is the real issue here, not whether Tannehill might have meshed better with the head coach than Griffin apparently has.

Washington's NFL franchise hamstrung itself when it dealt away so many resources for rebuilding its team for the long-term. That it is not working is merely another sad chapter in the team's recent history of chasing the quick fix.

A gamble on Shanahan may have carried less risk than one on Griffin, but it still would have been a gamble all the same.

Washington would have been better served keeping all its picks and building a team to last, especially in light of the two-year salary cap penalty that is supposed to excuse today's losing.

But any blame for the problems borne out the choice to select Griffin belongs with the owner, general manager and the coach who ultimately made that call.