Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Why the Redskins don't need a G.M. - Essay


Recommended Posts

My bad. I thought those were henna tats and you were off to RenFest after court or something.

I do wonder, though, given your stance in this matter, why you'd want to keep the man from jumping bail. I'd have thought you'd offer him a freaking ride. :)

That's some fine thinking, there. We could use a man like you in the bail bond industry. Most of us aren't exactly the cerebral type, if you know what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Om you're starting to scare me. Either you're not entirely yourself these days or Art has added a B&G glasses filter to your account without your knowledge. The fact is, based on his drafting and running of the club prior to Gibbs, it's pretty hard to say that the guy even approached mediocre...looking up at it from below that is.

That you yourself seemed to at one time be awfully close to having a torch and pitchfork in your hands surprisingly escapes you. Try to bear in mind that when someone uses your own past objections to his performance as proof of Cerrato's shortcomings and you respond with the old "context" argument, you put yourself squarely in the company of people like Louis Farrakhan.:puke: At the very least I can admit that he's not the worst guy plying the trade and that he's had his few successes. However, were he to turn out to be the next coming of Pioli ten years from now, I'll simply say I was wrong and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Om you're starting to scare me. ...

That you yourself seemed to at one time be awfully close to having a torch and pitchfork in your hands surprisingly escapes you.

You can't trust a Matt Millen fan, Yusuf.

What I find interesting is that the pro-Vinny side, Om included, ignore every fact and keep telling themselves that Vinny is somehow critical to this Gibbs team. It's a purely emotional argument -- nothing rational about it. That's why you can't change their minds.

What boggles my mind is that anyone who suffered through the Danny-and-Vinny years would have developed an emotional attachment to Vinny. Especially someone like Om, who once wrote about what a buffoon Vinny is. It must be Stockholm Syndrome: Om used to despise Vinny for what he did to a once-proud team, but over time he has fallen in love with his tormenter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, based on his drafting and running of the club prior to Gibbs, it's pretty hard to say that the guy even approached mediocre...looking up at it from below that is.

Except that Vinny never ran this club. Until Gibbs got here, it was Snyder that drove everything.

What I find interesting is that the pro-Vinny side, Om included, ignore every fact and keep telling themselves that Vinny is somehow critical to this Gibbs team. It's a purely emotional argument -- nothing rational about it. That's why you can't change their minds.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

What boggles my mind is that anyone who suffered through the Danny-and-Vinny years would have developed an emotional attachment to Vinny.

Maybe because I haven't? I could care less if Vinny stays or goes, but considering that the coaching staff is working well with Vinny, why would I want a change?

It is funny how Vinny can go from being the tool of Snyder to being everything that's wrong about the Redskins, forgetting that it is Snyder that was the driving force in a lot of the Redskins early moves, including hiring and firing coaches and GMs.

Really, it is Snyder that you should be looking at, and he's apparently learned his lessons.

It reminds me when everyone wanted Casserly out of town, because everyone thought that he was the cause of all the problems. Then we found out he wasn't when Norv still couldn't get the job done. Doesn't mean that Casserly shouldn't have been fired, but that the situation is often more complex than just one guy.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is that the pro-Vinny side, Om included, ignore every fact and keep telling themselves that Vinny is somehow critical to this Gibbs team. It's a purely emotional argument -- nothing rational about it. That's why you can't change their minds.

Since you brought up fact, let's talk facts and fiction.

Fiction: I'm pro-Vinny.

Fact: I'm a pro-Redskins guy who thinks that Vinny, by all appearances, is acting as a perfectly functional part of a successful organization. Personally, I haven't seen a single poster yet indicate any particular pro-Vinny-ness.

Fiction: I believe that Vinny is somehow critical to this Gibbs team.

Fact: I believe that Vinny, by all appearances, is acting as a perfectly functional part of a successful organization.

Fiction: It's a purely emotional argument -- nothing rational about it.

Fact: While a pro-Vinny position might be purely emotional, there is in fact no one here but straw men holding it. Instead, excluding the aforementioned straw men, I see everyone not adopting the "fire Vinny now" position saying very rational things like, by all appearance, Vinny appears to be a perfectly functional part of a successful organization.

What boggles my mind is that anyone who suffered through the Danny-and-Vinny years would have developed an emotional attachment to Vinny.

What boggles my mind is that someone can get so mixed up about fact and fiction. :)

So far, I still have only seen assertions and speculation put forward as reasons to fire Vinny. (And I just know that someone is going to respond to this point with something really different, like, "Well, obviously Vinny is a poor judge of talent and is just Snyder's good-ole-boy.") That, and waffling between extremes and contradictions. One minute someone is saying that the real measure of Vinny's talent is wins and losses, and the next minute they are saying that Vinny get's no credit for the wins and losses last year because that was obviously Gibbs' doing. That hardly seems fair to me. As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, the typical and more accurate way to judge talent is to see how someone works with a good team, not how they work with a bad one. Gibbs has put together a good team, and by all appearances (including rather strong statements of support from Gibbs himself), Vinny is a perfectly fuctional part of this successful team, assertions and speculation to the contrary notwithstanding.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, I still have only seen assertions and speculation put forward as reasons to fire Vinny. .... Vinny is a perfectly fuctional part of this successful team, assertions and speculation to the contrary notwithstanding.

--Phin

Funny. I've seen lots of facts -- Vinny's entire history -- in posts in this thread. Facts. Not assertions or speculation. His sorry draft history. His sorry free agent acquisitions. But you managed to overlook all that. And you reject any attempt to measure Vinny's success or failure.

If I, for example, ask you to rank Vinny, 1 to 32, against the guys in the same role with other teams, your 'side' responds that he can't be measured because he's part of a team. It's all too nebulous. How can you blame him or credit him for a draft pick or trade or FA?

However -- and this is quite telling -- if I ask you to rank Joe Gibbs on that same scale, you have no trouble evaluating him. If I ask you to rank Gregg Williams, again, you have no problem. If I ask you to rank Dan Snyder, no problem. Hell, I could take it down to Ethan Albright -- no problem. We might all argue over the exact placement, but no one would have a problem venturing an opinion. But Vinny? Oh no! Wouldn't be fair to actually hold the guy accountable for doing his job! We can't evaluate him! You guys start crying like this the Oprah thread.

Sounds like you guys are emotionally attached to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Longshot, according to Art and others on the board Snyder was/is the best owner in football and could do no wrong. What gives?

I kind of baited you on that one....sorry. Seriously, my point is that if Vinny was adding any value he would have used his close relationship with Snyder to "man up" and say "look, what you're proposing here just isn't going to work". Snyder may not have been happy with it and would probably have done what he wanted to anyway. However, when it blew up in his face Vinny would have gained some respect in his eyes and might have been able to subsequently talk Snyder out of hiring SOS or at the very least talk him into stipulating that SOS had to have some adult NFL guidance along for the ride. That he didn't (as far as we know) provide that type of input (if he was even capable of it) is where he really falls/fell down IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny. I've seen lots of facts -- Vinny's entire history -- in posts in this thread. Facts. Not assertions or speculation. His sorry draft history. His sorry free agent acquisitions. But you managed to overlook all that. And you reject any attempt to measure Vinny's success or failure.

Certainly, draft picks and free agent signings are on the record. Problem is, you don't know who made the decisions or how the decisions were made. Sometimes, things do come out in the press. For example, a simple lookup will tell you how excited Marvin Lewis was in getting Trotter, and that he actively lobbied to get him. So, is that Vinny's fault? It isn't much of a reach to think that Spurrier has some influence in getting Taylor Jacobs, so is that Vinny's fault? A lot of the free agent binge of Norv's last year stinks of someone who wasn't a savvy NFL guy. Is that Vinny's fault? Thing is, I can't really answer that either way, since I don't know what goes on behind closed doors. But, it sure looks to me like many people are involved in the decisions.

If I, for example, ask you to rank Vinny, 1 to 32, against the guys in the same role with other teams, your 'side' responds that he can't be measured because he's part of a team. It's all too nebulous. How can you blame him or credit him for a draft pick or trade or FA?

Which is the point I'm trying to make. If you ask me to rate the other guys, I'd have the same answer. And, sometimes the result varies. For example, Bethard didn't have nearly the success in San Diego that he had here. Just because you were good one place, doesn't make you good elsewhere.

However -- and this is quite telling -- if I ask you to rank Joe Gibbs on that same scale, you have no trouble evaluating him. If I ask you to rank Gregg Williams, again, you have no problem. If I ask you to rank Dan Snyder, no problem. Hell, I could take it down to Ethan Albright -- no problem. We might all argue over the exact placement, but no one would have a problem venturing an opinion. But Vinny? Oh no! Wouldn't be fair to actually hold the guy accountable for doing his job! We can't evaluate him! You guys start crying like this the Oprah thread.

It isn't always cut and dried there either. There are mixed opinions on how we aquire players. Just because you have a good record doesn't mean that you are building up to something. (Just ask Bill Parcells about that.) Course, it is easier to rate these guys, because you have individual stats on these guys, whether it is wins and losses, money made, or snaps. Now, we could judge Vinny better...if he was the GM.

For example, we have a good view of Millen because we know he's responsible for hiring and firing coaches, personnel, etc. He's where the buck stops.

Here, it is pretty public that the responsibility goes to the collective. Gibbs, Snyder, and Ceratto are all involved in the decision process, with advice from assistants. When you have no central authority for these things, who do you blame?

People seem to want a fall guy. Vinny makes an easy target, but ultimatly, he's a small fish. I'm not saying that Vinny is the greatest, but I am saying that he probably doesn't deserve all the grief. Casserly was far worse.

Seriously, my point is that if Vinny was adding any value he would have used his close relationship with Snyder to "man up" and say "look, what you're proposing here just isn't going to work". Snyder may not have been happy with it and would probably have done what he wanted to anyway. However, when it blew up in his face Vinny would have gained some respect in his eyes and might have been able to subsequently talk Snyder out of hiring SOS or at the very least talk him into stipulating that SOS had to have some adult NFL guidance along for the ride. That he didn't (as far as we know) provide that type of input (if he was even capable of it) is where he really falls/fell down IMHO.

Well, a lot of people were facinated to see what Spurrier would do in the NFL, and I'm sure at first, a decent amount of teams would had done similar things. The response after the first season was to get him better players, and there is where we see the groundwork for how we now get players. Most of the players we got then were guys that we are getting right now. We probably paid too much for most of them, but it was an attempt to do something different, and it led to where we are now. So, there have been changes in how the skins do business while Vinny was here, and before Gibbs got here. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean that progress wasn't being made.

I'm pretty confident that if Spurrier had stayed another year, Snyder probably would have had a sitdown with Spurrier and told him that he needed to get new assistants. By then, the deficiencies in coaching were obvious.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you provide one shred of evidence that Vinny has improved from his pre-Gibbs failure? (And yes, he was a failure: there is only one measure of success in the NFL, and that's wins and losses. The teams Vinny put together -- no matter what excuse you use -- failed. The coaches failed. The players failed. And Vinny failed.) If he hasn't improved, but instead has been co-opted by Gibbs, then your defense of him is pretty feeble.

Not to rekindle a dying thread, but this is interesting. I went back a re-read some of this this morning, and this post struck me. A question for the Vinny defenders: I am assuming that we can mostly all agree that the Spurrier time here was a failure. If so, why are Vinny defenders so hesitant to place any blame at all on Vinny for that time? Seems to me you are placing all the blame on the coach, yet now that Gibbs is succeeding, the praise needs to be spilt between Vinny and Gibbs. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to rekindle a dying thread, but this is interesting. I went back a re-read some of this this morning, and this post struck me. A question for the Vinny defenders: I am assuming that we can mostly all agree that the Spurrier time here was a failure. If so, why are Vinny defenders so hesitant to place any blame at all on Vinny for that time? Seems to me you are placing all the blame on the coach, yet now that Gibbs is succeeding, the praise needs to be spilt between Vinny and Gibbs. Why is that?

I guess this is going to get me labelled as a Vinny-defender (the labelling tactic that those with tenuous arguments use), but someone expressed it well earlier. Seems to me Vinny operates at a lower level than the "off with Vinny's head" crowd believes. I've never seen his role as having a hand in HOW the roster is constituted. He gets told HOW, and then he goes and compiles the list of suitable players to fill those requirements. I'm not debating whether he SHOULD have been more pro-active in the personnel acquisition process, and, really, we don't know that he didn't voice his opinion. Remember, the team cut Wuerrfel over Spurrier's objections because Vinny wanted him gone. Make of that what you will.

Of course, the converse is true - you want to blame Vinny for the problems in the past, but refuse to give him a shred of credit now. Instead, he is viewed as a detriment, in spite of all public commentary to the contrary by the parties intimately involved. The thing is, I doubt Gibbs/Williams would publicly praise him if they didn't feel it was deserved. I wouldn't expect them to publicly castigate him, but silence usually speaks volumes. And the notion that Gibbs wants a puppet around him is absurd. Gibbs is the most secure person in his beliefs - I seriously doubt he would have a problem with a "strong" voice in personnel. His coaching staff proves that. But he does want someone in there that he can work with, not an Al Haig "I'm in charge here" type.

I honestly have no opinion on whether Vinny stays or goes. Doesn't matter to me. I just laugh at those who claim knowledge of the inner workings of the organization and how it functions, and how well. Proof is in the pudding - 10-6 with a solid-looking roster. How it was crafted is immaterial to me. There are no style points.

As an aside, the idea that Marty "had the ship in the right direction" is HILARIOUS. That was a team that started off, not only bad, but HISTORICALLY BAD. If not for a great play by Lavar on a ball that the FB should have caught, the ultimately 1-15 Panthers would have BLOWN OUT the Redskins at FedEx to push it to 0-6 with no end in sight. The 5-game winning streak was encouraging, but the three home losses in a row in the playoff stretch was pathetic. The two victories to close the season against other also-rans was hardly an indicator of great things to come (especially a frantic come-from-behind win against the Cardinals). Nor was it encouraging that he planned no changes in his offensive approach, including bringing Raye and Banks back. People forget that Marty's reign in SD was an abject failure, with Eli refusing to play for them. If Brees doesn't turn into a legit QB (which is never known if Rivers reports to camp on time), he'd be back at ESPN.

Sorry, Marty revisionism is a pet peeve of mine. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. Been busy. Trying to catch up here.

Om you're starting to scare me. Either you're not entirely yourself these days or Art has added a B&G glasses filter to your account without your knowledge. The fact is, based on his drafting and running of the club prior to Gibbs, it's pretty hard to say that the guy even approached mediocre...looking up at it from below that is.

No, the fact is, you have no actual basis of knowledge upon which to make these flat statements. You simply don’t know enough about his precise actual role in either the drafting or “running the club” for me or anyone else here to take that assessment as anything more than run-of-the-mill internet armchair GMing.

Or do you? Can you point to any actual one pick and say, with any degree of certainty, precisely what Vinny’s role in it was beyond the scouting report? Whether it’s a guy he fought for and recommended? Even whether or not the final call was his? Because if you don’t, you’re starting to scare me. I never figured you for a guy who’d overlook something so basic.

That you yourself seemed to at one time be awfully close to having a torch and pitchfork in your hands surprisingly escapes you. Try to bear in mind that when someone uses your own past objections to his performance as proof of Cerrato's shortcomings and you respond with the old "context" argument, you put yourself squarely in the company of people like Louis Farrakhan.:puke: At the very least I can admit that he's not the worst guy plying the trade and that he's had his few successes. However, were he to turn out to be the next coming of Pioli ten years from now, I'll simply say I was wrong and move on.

Farrakhan? Why, I’d be insulted if that wasn't so laughable.

The three posts of mine linked earlier were about a VERY different time and circumstance. You know it and I know it. If you really want to know where I stood back then on Vinny, do a little more research of your own. Find the numerous threads I was involved in where I argued that I thought the problem with the organization was that I didn’t think Vinny (with Snyder's assist) was necessarily the best guy for the job given there was no other strong football mind currently in the organization.

I hope I don’t need to remind you that that is no longer the case. Vinny is now working in concert with one of the great football minds of all time, and the result has been nothing short of spectacular. Can you really continue to downplay that reality in context of a discussion about whether he should be fired/demoted today?

One of these days maybe we’ll get the debate framed. The question I’ve been addressing is NOT whether or not Vinny Cerrato was, or even is, the greatest General Manager candidate in the league. The question I’m addressing is why those of you still judging him solely on what they PERCEIVE to have been his actual role under Norv and Spurrier---ignoring both the possibility that he’s grown into the job (you know, like real people sometimes do in the real world over time), and blissfully ignoring the fact that what he’s involved with now is WORKING---insist he should still be fired NOW. Sorry about the shouting. Seems the only way to maybe have the actual words heard and understood around here. You persist in thinking the organization would be better served by replacing the man and brining in someone else on spec. It's birarre.

In 2003, coming off a decade of futility and dealing with coaching turnover and a new owner, yeah, I wrote that I hoped Snyder would bring in an "established GM" to pick a philosophy, pick a coach, and be the top guy. At the time, I didn’t see Vinny C. as that man. Frankly, I still don’t. Not for THAT job.

But In 2005, the terrain has changed so dramatically that anyone who cannot or will not see it is simply being obtuse. THAT man is not needed today. The Redskins are built on a different model than the traditional “strong GM” pulling the strings. They are working instead on a model that has been described over and over and over on this board, and that is working in many other NFL cities even as we debate. Way back near the start of this thread I even posted some relevant direct comments from VC himself describing how it works. If you've been paying attention at all over the past 2 years, you've also heard from others in the organization how well it's working. But you choose to ignore them.

Embrace the concepts of context, brother Yusuf. And more to the point, the concept of change. You’ll might fine they’re sometimes useful in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't trust a Matt Millen fan, Yusuf.

What I find interesting is that the pro-Vinny side, Om included, ignore every fact and keep telling themselves that Vinny is somehow critical to this Gibbs team. It's a purely emotional argument -- nothing rational about it. That's why you can't change their minds.

What boggles my mind is that anyone who suffered through the Danny-and-Vinny years would have developed an emotional attachment to Vinny. Especially someone like Om, who once wrote about what a buffoon Vinny is. It must be Stockholm Syndrome: Om used to despise Vinny for what he did to a once-proud team, but over time he has fallen in love with his tormenter.

Wow, more straw men per paragraph with each passing post. You struggling for an actual thought, brother? Not going to waste any more time on those. Thread's long enough as is. I am thinking maybe it's time for eyepatch to go, however. Might be cool among the tattoed bailbondman crowd, but it's seriously got you seeing only half the picture.

Just for grins on the only actual meat in that last post ... same general question for you as Yusuf: can you walk us through ONE pick you think you know what Vinny's exact role in bringing in was? For extra credit, put it in context (there's that word again) of the ownership and coaching situations the team was in at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, seriously, go back to the begining of the thread and click the link to the Vinny Cerrato interview. I think it's plain to see that Joe Gibbs values his input and he has a role in the whole process. Considering the results, and how the players we've acquired since Gibbs came back have worked out, I don't see why there's even a debate. :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, more straw men per paragraph with each passing post. You struggling for an actual thought, brother? Not going to waste any more time on those. Thread's long enough as is. I am thinking maybe it's time for eyepatch to go, however. Might be cool among the tattoed bailbondman crowd, but it's seriously got you seeing only half the picture.

Just for grins on the only actual meat in that last post ... same general question for you as Yusuf: can you walk us through ONE pick you think you know what Vinny's exact role in bringing in was? For extra credit, put it in context (there's that word again) of the ownership and coaching situations the team was in at the time.

I'm gonna take a stab at this one. Fact is, none, and I mean NONE, of us really know what role Vinny has played. We don't know how responsible he was or is. But there seem to be two constants: Snyder and Vinny. I think we and others have lambasted Snyder for his fantasy football outings. So why is there no blame for Vinny?

Again, If Spurrier was wholly responsible for the team's failure in 03 and 04, why is that now Vinny and Gibbs can share (somewhat) in the success? I understand that it's easy to make Steve-o a goat, but is it correct? If you're willing to give him part of the credit for turning things around now, shouldn't you be willing to give him part of the blame for failings in the Spurrier admin? If, as some have argued, Vinny is as low-level on the totem pole as some think, why not bring in someone to learn under Gibbs to be the stronger GM-type when Gibbs steps back next time? Maybe you don't replace Vinny, you keep around as a scout, or head of scouts or whatever. But give some decision-making power to someone else. Would that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, seriously, go back to the begining of the thread and click the link to the Vinny Cerrato interview. I think it's plain to see that Joe Gibbs values his input and he has a role in the whole process. Considering the results, and how the players we've acquired since Gibbs came back have worked out, I don't see why there's even a debate. :whoknows:

There isn't. There's just some of us who can actually follow a bouncing ball indulging the off-season flights of Armchair GM-fantasy of some who simply cannot or will not let go of long-dismissed urban myth. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You simply don’t know enough about his precise actual role in either the drafting or “running the club” for me or anyone else here to take that assessment as anything more than run-of-the-mill internet armchair GMing. ...

One of these days maybe we’ll get the debate framed. The question I’ve been addressing is NOT whether or not Vinny Cerrato was, or even is, the greatest General Manager candidate in the league.

Om, your argument is getting cartoonish. You duck the real issue: shouldn't the Skins have the strongest person possible in that role? You think it's great that the Skins have very strong, well-respected coaches across the board -- even bringing in Saunders gets kudos from you. But why not in the front office?

Even you don't think Vinny is of the same caliber as Joe, Al, Gregg, et al. You don't even think he's average relative to his peers in the league. So why accept below average? The Skins can afford the best. Why not get it?

You keep touting this 'team concept' approach as if it covers for Vinny's past errors. It doesn't. It's not as easy to figure out who screwed up the many, many bungled draft picks and dumb free agent acquisitions -- it's not like you watch film and see who missed the block. But what you refuse to accept is that you've got a perfect controlled experiment here: you've got Vinny and Norv (failure), Vinny and Steve (failure), and Vinny and Joe (success!). What changed? Not Vinny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep touting this 'team concept' approach as if it covers for Vinny's past errors. It doesn't. It's not as easy to figure out who screwed up the many, many bungled draft picks and dumb free agent acquisitions -- it's not like you watch film and see who missed the block. But what you refuse to accept is that you've got a perfect controlled experiment here: you've got Vinny and Norv (failure), Vinny and Steve (failure), and Vinny and Joe (success!). What changed? Not Vinny.

Have you considered the fact that Joe Gibbs is comfortable and happy with the organization structure as it is now? You completely ducked the issue earlier that Snyder has already shown his willingness to fire Vinny if the head coach wanted him gone but Gibbs has not only not fired him but spoken highly of him and his ability to get the information that he wants.

Yes, it would be great to have the best possible scout in here but you haven't come up with any solid candidates who would be willing to work in the current structure and who are better than Vinny in what Vinny is being asked to do now.

And the "perfect controlled experiment" is an asinine assertion. These are not perfectly controlled experiments because neither Norv or Spurrier have had any success at the NFL level as head coaches. If either had succeeded with a different GM or FO then you might be working your way towards a conclusion but since Norv has now failed in two places as a head coach and has only put together one top 10 offense in the last 13 years as an OC it shoots down your argument.

The "perfect controlled experiment" is that the Skins moves in the last two seasons have been nearly flawless in the current FO structure. Joe Gibbs clearly learned from his mistakes of two seasons ago as a coach. Why is it so hard to believe that Vinny hasn't grown as a talent evaluator over the years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the Redskins don't WANT a "strong" GM in that position. Those guys want the control over personnel acquisition. Gibbs wants personnel acquisition to be a collaborative effort, with Gibbs retaining final say. A "strong" GM would not fit within that framework. Is the point that you don't like the framework - you want more of an autocrat to fill the position, with broad personnel powers, and likely driving Gibbs away? Is this your preferred structure? And, again, why? If the roster is stocked with an excellent blend of youth and veterans, what is the problem with the personnel acquisition? Why do you feel it can't continue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take a stab at this one. Fact is, none, and I mean NONE, of us really know what role Vinny has played. We don't know how responsible he was or is. But there seem to be two constants: Snyder and Vinny. I think we and others have lambasted Snyder for his fantasy football outings. So why is there no blame for Vinny?

Really, it comes down to the level of power. Really, with all the problems we had, Vinny was pretty low on the totem pole of people responsible. Why? Because it is pretty obvious that he isn't one of the major decisionmakers on this team. I think back to the days of Casserly, when he was on TV all the time talking about draft picks and players. You almost never see Vinny. I think that says a lot right there.

Again, If Spurrier was wholly responsible for the team's failure in 03 and 04, why is that now Vinny and Gibbs can share (somewhat) in the success? I understand that it's easy to make Steve-o a goat, but is it correct? If you're willing to give him part of the credit for turning things around now, shouldn't you be willing to give him part of the blame for failings in the Spurrier admin?

Some of us have, but to a much lesser degree than Spurrier and Snyder, because Vinny basically went out and got the type of players he was asked to get. Very similar with Gibbs, except Gibbs has a better plan.

If, as some have argued, Vinny is as low-level on the totem pole as some think, why not bring in someone to learn under Gibbs to be the stronger GM-type when Gibbs steps back next time?

You are assuming that the team wants or needs such a guy. Really, when Gibbs steps away completely from the team, they probably will need someone knowledgable to take over the Team President spot, at least to act as a reality check between Snyder and Ceratto. The guy won't be a GM, because the powers of a GM have already been distributed to Snyder and Ceratto, and I don't see Snyder changing that. He wants to be involved with his team. Nothing wrong with that.

But, we are talking way in the future now, if what I believe comes true. (That Gibbs will keep the title of Team President when he retires as Head Coach.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would be great to have the best possible scout in here but you haven't come up with any solid candidates who would be willing to work in the current structure and who are better than Vinny in what Vinny is being asked to do now.

No offense, but I hate this arguement. I tell you what, the magazine I run is going to be in desperate need of a circulation manager, and we will also need an editor in the next 2-5 years. Can you give me suggestions for who to hire? I don't know who is up and coming, who is established in NFL circles. Don't have a clue, just like when the Pats hired Pioli, I'm sure most of their fans said "What? Who?". I'm not an NFL guy, I don't know, that's their job, not mine. My recommendation, from a fan's perspective is that we should think about replacing someone in that organization at some point, or at least hiring someone over him with some more responsibilities. Who that is, I dno't know.

You are assuming that the team wants or needs such a guy. Really, when Gibbs steps away completely from the team, they probably will need someone knowledgable to take over the Team President spot, at least to act as a reality check between Snyder and Ceratto. The guy won't be a GM, because the powers of a GM have already been distributed to Snyder and Ceratto, and I don't see Snyder changing that. He wants to be involved with his team. Nothing wrong with that.

But, we are talking way in the future now, if what I believe comes true. (That Gibbs will keep the title of Team President when he retires as Head Coach.)

I agree this will probably happen as well, and certainly hope it does. I would be ecstatic w/ Gibbs as President. But why not have someone with a good track record of selecting talent as a player personnel director kind of guy? Someone that Vinny reports to. Doesn't have to be a GM, I get that. Titles are meaningless where the NFL is probably headed, I think. We've got the coaching side of things taken care of for a while. Do we have the talent guy(s) taken care of as well? If Vinny is in charge of that, I've not seen enough to be comfortable with that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Om, your argument is getting cartoonish. You duck the real issue: shouldn't the Skins have the strongest person possible in that role? You think it's great that the Skins have very strong, well-respected coaches across the board -- even bringing in Saunders gets kudos from you. But why not in the front office?

Even you don't think Vinny is of the same caliber as Joe, Al, Gregg, et al. You don't even think he's average relative to his peers in the league. So why accept below average? The Skins can afford the best. Why not get it?

You keep touting this 'team concept' approach as if it covers for Vinny's past errors. It doesn't. It's not as easy to figure out who screwed up the many, many bungled draft picks and dumb free agent acquisitions -- it's not like you watch film and see who missed the block. But what you refuse to accept is that you've got a perfect controlled experiment here: you've got Vinny and Norv (failure), Vinny and Steve (failure), and Vinny and Joe (success!). What changed? Not Vinny.

To me, what’s gotten cartoonish is your total unwillingness to even consider what’s been repeated over and over, by me and others ...

1) that you don’t mess with success in the NFL. More specifically, when something is working as well and as quickly as the Skins FO right now, you'd better be DAMN sure you're not going to muck it up in your zeal to try to "fix" what ain't broken.

2) that “the strongest person” (assuming there was some meaningful, objective way way of determining that out here in web world) is necessarily the right person, for this team, at this time.

As to Saunders, Gibbs brought Al Sauders in because he perceived a need to improve the offense. At the risk of his own legacy. Yet you apparently don’t think he’d do the same if he perceived a need to improve player acquisition.

You also continue to throw into every post some flat assertion as “fact” that Vinny is “below average” or worse, yet you have no hard evidence. None. I asked you to track even ONE pick that you think you can lay at his feet as HIS pick that turned out be the abject failure you assume his whole career has been. You haven’t. Because you can’t. Yet you keep making the same empty claims.

You did it again here with the offhand reference to “bungled draft picks and dumb free agent acquisitions.” But you don’t know to what extent they were “his” in the first place. Nor do you apparently think it matters one bit what his role might have been at the time or what the context of the pick was. Why do you keep, what’s the expression you used ... ducking the issue?

I just want to hear you say it again ... yes or no, do you honestly think the Redskins would be better served, today, to dismiss Vinny Cerrato, and if so, who specifically do you have in mind? What do you think he would bring to the table that Vinny doesn’t?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) that “the strongest person” (assuming there was some meaningful, objective way way of determining that out here in web world) is necessarily the right person, for this team, at this time.

As to Saunders, Gibbs brought Al Sauders in because he perceived a need to improve the offense. At the risk of his own legacy. Yet you apparently don’t think he’d do the same if he perceived a need to improve player acquisition.

This is at the core of the arguement. I think that Gibbs has more than proved that he will get someone else if he thinks it's needed. Obviously, he thinks Vinny has an important role in the process or he'd already be gone.

As to this crap about needing a strong GM, have you ever considered the fact that maybe Vinny's role is to head up and organize the scouting department? He could be top notch in that role, even if he lacked the ability to make good jugements on players, and I'm convinced that whatever role Gibbs has him in is one he's very good at. Otherwise, he wouldn't be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Om, we could go around and around on this one literally forever. I see your points, some of which have merit. However in the end I think we'll just have to wait and see. The true test of who's right on this one will ultimately be determined by what happens to the club when Gibbs is no longer working there. Only at that point will we be able to observe whether or not Vinny has grown as you (and others) assert or whether he's still just Snyder's lapdog.

If we see pretty much what we did before, i.e. a few .500 seasons with a precipitous drop off to mediocrity as Gibbs' players are replaced we'll all know what happened. Until then you'll always have the out of saying "Don't rock the boat" and "Prove Vinny's involvement in prior player moves", neither of which is really a concrete answer to the objections raised by some of us in this thread.

Regards brother. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Om, we could go around and around on this one literally forever. I see your points, some of which have merit. However in the end I think we'll just have to wait and see. The true test of who's right on this one will ultimately be determined by what happens to the club when Gibbs is no longer working there. Only at that point will we be able to observe whether or not Vinny has grown as you (and others) assert or whether he's still just Snyder's lapdog.

If we see pretty much what we did before, i.e. a few .500 seasons with a precipitous drop off to mediocrity as Gibbs' players are replaced we'll all know what happened. Until then you'll always have the out of saying "Don't rock the boat" and "Prove Vinny's involvement in prior player moves", neither of which is really a concrete answer to the objections raised by some of us in this thread.

Regards brother. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

No argument in that when Gibbs retires again, it will remain to be seen how well Cerrato "fits" with the next regime. Heck, I'd argue that that is true for ANY personnel guy. I hope I've never given any other impression. What I simply could not, and cannot understand is why, given how things are going right now with THIS group, right now, there is still such strong sentiment to dismiss the man for mistakes, seen with the benefit of hindsight, that he may or may not have been directly responsible for in the first place, under vastly different regimes and circumstances in the past.

Regards back, hermano. As always, it's all about lovin' the Skins. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...