Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

I thought the Skins drafting went downhill after Bethard. Yeah, the Skins won another SB with the talent Gibbs and Bethard brought in, but once those guys got old and Gibbs retired the Skins went downhill because those drafts without Bethard didn't produce.

I agree. Bethard was head and shoulders above Casserly, but we got some decent players from the 2 drafts he was here with Gibbs, then started bombing when Gibbs left. Although there were some good plan B pick-ups with Casserly that helped us in that Superbowl run.

Maybe Vinny is the same ol' Vinny, but Joe just makes him look good.

This is the point I'm trying to make. - Anybody who works with other people are more successful when they are working with other successful or driven people.

Bethard was with Joe Gibbs for 8 Seasons, 6 out of 8 were winning seasons.

Then Bethard was with the Chargers for 10 seasons. With Boby Ross as his coach, they had 3 out of 7 winning seasons, when Ross left - zero winning seasons.

Had to be Vinny's pick, right?

So when we make a good pick, it's Gibbs, Williams, etc. But a pick you don't agree with HAS to be the guy you don't like? - I have no doubt that pick was group effort consisting of Gibbs, Williams, Jerry Gray, Danny Smith and Vinny.

Right now, I'd take Bethard over Casserly, no doubt. But I'd also take Vinny over Casserly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't know that you can declare the drafts since Joe got back an unqualified success, either. Still some headscratchers in there. Reed Doughty is one that really could provide the proof: he's the one guy that we know the coaches didn't meet with before the draft. Had to be Vinny's pick, right?

The coaches met with Doughty at the combine, and Gibbs has been quoted as saying that "Reed Doughty is somebody that we talked extensively about when it came down to getting ready for the draft." These boys do their homework.

The thing that puzzles me most about your line of reasoning is that here we have Joe Gibbs, a man renowned for his tremendous work ethic and attention to detail, so much so that he makes a habit of sleeping at the office. And despite knowing this you make it sound as though several times during the draft he abruptly neglected his responsibilities and relinquished his duties to Vinny without a hint of direction or input. Forgive me, but that notion is far fetched to say the least. The draft, like free agency, is a collaborative effort. No one man makes the decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me solidly in Mr Madd's camp on this one. Furthermore, contrary to Inmate's contention that nobody had offered any proof of Cerrato's ineptness, I authored a whole thread on the subject in which I went through all his drafts going back to his time with the Forty Whiners. I also posited that I thought Gibbs found him a conveniently maleable boob.

However, though well written and thought out, I think Inmate and Om's positions suffer from some flaws in logic. Nobody argues that things haven't improved since Coach Gibbs returned. The team is clearly more on the right track now than at any time since Gibbs 1.0. However, that doesn't mean there couldn't be improvements or that things couldn't work any better. See, it's not a mutually exclusive deal. It only means that we've finally improved beyond mediocre.

Currently, provided that Inmate's analysis about how we select players is pretty much correct (and I think it is) Gibbs and the coaching staff are collectively functioning as a de-facto G.M. However if we had somebody competent to do that, the coaches would have more time to do what they do best. Furthermore, whomever said that we could use a better "filter" to give the coaches better input is right on the money. Again, just because the coaches are pretty much running the player aqusition show doesn't mean they couldn't benefit from better input.

Of course, that begs the question what then was/is Cerrato's role? I would again argue that he's simply there to keep Snyder comfortable and thinking he's still in the loop (the maleable boob theory). I would further argue that were he in fact worth a darn, as the resident "football guy" he'd have been able to talk Snyder out of hiring SOS, bringing in Peon, B. Smith and the rest of the "Over the Hill Gang" along with a host of other mistakes prior to Gibbs' return. Also, he would have made sure we drafted Rothlesburger over S. Taylor regardless of what Gibbs and the coaches wanted (I like Taylor but a franchise QB is always more valuable).

Point is, Snyder (with zero NFL experience) surrounded himself with little in the way of NFL experience and savvy. Until Gibbs came back and infused the team with that experience and savvy we predictably spun our wheels not only in player aquisition but coaching candidates and overall team direction as well. Under those circumstances Cerrato had a golden opportunity to really show what he could do. Given the results, he either chose to be a yes man or he just wasn't able to do any better. Either way, he's pretty worthless in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Yusuf, for the record ... despite the empirical evidence of a quick, decisive turnaround in the team's fortunes from also-ran to legitimate contender in 2 short years, and despite the breathtaking (that's for you, Art) performance so far throughout the past two offseasons in terms of player acquisition and team-building, you would STILL have the team fire one the key personnel figures on the off chance that, hey, you never know, maybe there's someone better out there?

Seriously?

First off ... who, exactly? Or just "anyone but Vinny?"

Second ... no thoughts on disrupting the continuity and chemistry in the front office? No thoughts on disrupting what is a clearly a personnel evaluation team humming along and by all acounts working together marvelously? One that, again, has turned this listing ship around in two years?

I'm thinking maybe it's not me whose logic is flawed here, brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I know what you're saying here. That somehow coming up big in December when good teams hit their stride, storming through their divional foes (that had owned them for several years), into the playoffs and within a whisker of the conference championship game is somehow diminished by some struggles midseason? :)

Actually, OM is right -- what the Skins did is CLASSIC Joe Gibbs. The media thought it was a desperation end-of-season run, but the truth is Gibbs has always been much better in December than he was in September. The man learns. Adapts. Changes. And he inspires a never-quit attitude in his team. Winning that many games straight to sneak into the playoffs might seem lucky to the casual fan, but everyone who knows Gibbs knows he finishes strong.

However, no one should confuse these Skins with a dominant team. They're not, so don't expect them to be. They will have to fight for every win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when we make a good pick, it's Gibbs, Williams, etc. But a pick you don't agree with HAS to be the guy you don't like? - I have no doubt that pick was group effort consisting of Gibbs, Williams, Jerry Gray, Danny Smith and Vinny. .

You missed the point. It was reported in the media that Reed Doughty was the one player they drafted that the Skins coaches hadn't met. It stands to reason, then, that he impressed someone else. Do you believe that if Joe or Gregg were seriously considering the guy that they wouldn't bring him in? They did with everyone else.

I'm not saying that because Doughty was a "bad" pick that he was Cerrato's pick. I'm saying that if the coaches didn't pick him, someone had to. It stands to reason that the scouting organization must have.

You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that puzzles me most about your line of reasoning is that here we have Joe Gibbs, a man renowned for his tremendous work ethic and attention to detail, so much so that he makes a habit of sleeping at the office. And despite knowing this you make it sound as though several times during the draft he abruptly neglected his responsibilities and relinquished his duties to Vinny without a hint of direction or input. Forgive me, but that notion is far fetched to say the least. The draft, like free agency, is a collaborative effort. No one man makes the decisions.

Come on. You're being ridiculous. How is it that every other player drafted met with Skins coaches and not Reed? How is it that the Skins didn't send anyone to attend his pro day? The only time they saw him was during a scheduled interview during the Combine, and those are very short meet-and-greets.

So while Gibbs certainly did have to approve the pick, the fact that he hadn't actually seen him first says he leaned on his scouting department. In fact, Gibbs said so:

The Redskins didn't have Doughty on their draft list last fall when an area scout came to watch him play. A second visit left a more lasting impression, and peaked Gibbs' interest.

"Reed Doughty is somebody that we talked extensively about when it came down to getting ready for the draft," Gibbs told Washington-area media. "He's somebody that when our scouts went through Northern Colorado in past years, didn't have him on the list.

"We went back through this year and our area scout came back and said we needed to have this guy cross-checked because he's a heckuva football player. We went back and cross-checked him, and our guy said he liked him better than the area scout did."

Doughty worked out in front of Redskins' personnel at the scouting combine in Indianapolis, but he wasn't sure if a Redskins scout was in attendance at his pro workout day in Fort Collins last month.

"I do remember having a scheduled interview with them at the scouting combine, and obviously that went well," Doughty said. "But I hadn't heard from them in the last week, asking me where I'd be on draft day or to keep my phone line open."

So you're saying Reed IS Gibbs pick, someone Gibbs planned on taking, but Gibbs neglected to bother to meet with him? Sounds like you're the one bad-mouthing ol' Joe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, though well written and thought out, I think Inmate and Om's positions suffer from some flaws in logic. Nobody argues that things haven't improved since Coach Gibbs returned. The team is clearly more on the right track now than at any time since Gibbs 1.0. However, that doesn't mean there couldn't be improvements or that things couldn't work any better. See, it's not a mutually exclusive deal. It only means that we've finally improved beyond mediocre.

That's dead-on. It's like getting Randle El and Lloyd -- you're always looking to improve. Why is Vinny somehow beyond reproach? Why not improve the way this team drafts? The funny thing is that none of you guys are actually defending Vinny's performance other than to say that his poor drafts are balanced by FA acquisitions -- but it's clear that he bungled that, too, prior to Gibbs arrival. Think Sanders. Smith. George. Who brought those guys in? Oh yeah -- Vinny. And Danny. Gibbs arrives and starts taking young, hungry FAs instead, and ditching malcontents like Coles, and you want to suddenly give the credit to Vinny?

Illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on. You're being ridiculous. How is it that every other player drafted met with Skins coaches and not Reed? How is it that the Skins didn't send anyone to attend his pro day? The only time they saw him was during a scheduled interview during the Combine, and those are very short meet-and-greets.

Your initial statement was that the coaching staff didn't meet with Reed prior to the draft, almost to suggest that they had no idea who he was until draft day. My statement and the quote I provided served to indicate that the coaching staff did in fact meet with him at the combine and that Reed was very much on our scouting department's radar in the weeks heading up the draft.

So while Gibbs certainly did have to approve the pick, the fact that he hadn't actually seen him first says he leaned on his scouting department. In fact, Gibbs said so:

This has been my point from the onset. No one person makes decisions and a team approach is used in both free agency and the draft. Gibbs does not micro manage.

So you're saying Reed IS Gibbs pick, someone Gibbs planned on taking, but Gibbs neglected to bother to meet with him? Sounds like you're the one bad-mouthing ol' Joe!

Where exactly did I say that Gibbs flys solo when arriving at any decision? Further examination of my comments should reveal that I'm of the school of thought that Gibbs HEAVILY relies upon his coaching staff, scouting department and the front office when making personnel decisions. Gibbs does not micro manage.

Vinny doesn't make a pick by himself. Gibbs doesn't make a pick by himself. Blache doesn't make a pick by himself. Saunders doesn't make a pick by himself, etc. The entire staff collaborates to reach a consensus on a particular player. The same approach is used in free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Om I'm on record as hoping we'd dump Vinny in favor of this guy. Based on what he did in Tampa and later in Atlanta, we missed a golden opportunity.

Secondly, your contention that...

So Yusuf, for the record ... despite the empirical evidence of a quick, decisive turnaround in the team's fortunes from also-ran to legitimate contender in 2 short years, and despite the breathtaking (that's for you, Art) performance so far throughout the past two offseasons in terms of player acquisition and team-building, you would STILL have the team fire one the key personnel figures on the off chance that, hey, you never know, maybe there's someone better out there?

...merely proves my point. That is, what was he waiting for to start this quick decisive turnaround you speak of? Perhaps he was simply giving us a chance to see what life in Arizona and Cincinatti was like. Or, maybe it was simply that Coach Gibbs and Co. are primarily responsible for the improved player aquisitions and organizational focus seen in the past couple of years.

I mean we hired a college guy (SOS) that was a dud and brought in a guy as his D.C. that was ultimately a much better NFL coaching prospect. This is where a true (insert whatever you want to call your "G.M." here) would have been able to talk some sense into Snyder...if not getting him to reconsider hiring SOS, at least insisting upon surrounding him with a very experienced NFL level staff.

I'm sorry but if Vinny was willing and/or capable of adding value he would have done so prior to Coach Gibbs' return. That we've only achieved anything worth mentioning since that time speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's dead-on. It's like getting Randle El and Lloyd -- you're always looking to improve. Why is Vinny somehow beyond reproach? Why not improve the way this team drafts? The funny thing is that none of you guys are actually defending Vinny's performance other than to say that his poor drafts are balanced by FA acquisitions -- but it's clear that he bungled that, too, prior to Gibbs arrival. Think Sanders. Smith. George. Who brought those guys in? Oh yeah -- Vinny. And Danny. Gibbs arrives and starts taking young, hungry FAs instead, and ditching malcontents like Coles, and you want to suddenly give the credit to Vinny?

Illogical.

So does Vinny get no credit for signing Randy Thomas? You cannot pick and choose who he gets credit or blame for.

The irony of this all is that I happen to have very mixed feelings about Cerrato, and if he were the sole person responsible for making the team's draft selections I'd be extremely concerned. I just happen to believe that he cannot be judged solely by his draft performance. In order to make an objective assessment one must take into consideration his free agency track record, which of late has been remarkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest santana4prez
That's an interesting comment. I can, however, evaluate his draft prowess without considering free agents, right? And, based on the evidence, he's been mediocre in the draft. So what you're saying is that given Gibbs' preference for veterans and Snyder's willingness to spend for FAs, we should just punt the draft altogether?

Well lets look at Inmates first post and read this quote.....

Gibbs believes in acquiring the best players by any means possible: the draft (Taylor' date=' Cooley, Rogers, and McIntosh), trades (Brunell, Portis, Moss and Lloyd) and by free agency.[/quote']

Since Joe Gibbs has been back the new system between Gibbs, Cerrato, Snyder, the Coaching Staff, and the many Scouts has worked very well. If you look at these last 3 drafts a number of these late round picks have helped or can still be good players. I look at the overall job and see a hell of a turnaround since Gibbs has become Head Coach in two key ways. The winning and the offseason process. I look at Free Agency, Trades, and the Draft and see talent and very little busts coming out of the players we pick up. I dont think you can knock anyone including Cerrato for not hitting on late round picks over the years because even the greatest GMs can struggle on finding late round gems. I do see in the last 3 offseasons a turnaround and a winning performance that has grown in each of the last 2 seasons. If the only reason for knocking Vinny Cerrato is missing on some late round picks then most GMs should be canned because it is rare to hit on so many gems like some teams have done over the years. I think the Skins have done a great job finding talent as said in the quote above thru every way possible and it has worked out on the field so I see no need to bring in a GM. If the Skins were 6-10 instead of 10-6 your post Mr Madd would of made more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Skins were 6-10 instead of 10-6 your post Mr Madd would of made more sense.

That's consistent with what a bunch of others are saying. It's also kind of a strange approach. The Skins were 6-10 for years, and Vinny was pulling the trigger on bad draft picks and bad FA acquisitions -- yes, with some hits sprinkled in there, but let's be honest: it was generally bad. So now that Joe Gibbs swoops in and rights the ship, you're willing to forgive everyone who got the ship sinking in the first place?

The other argument, of course, is to pretend that Vinny was just along for the ride. It was Norval and Steve's fault. Or Danny's fault. But isn't that worse? If Vinny was smart enough to know the Skins were on a disastrous course, but powerless to help, why in the world do you want him now?

Again, this seems to come down to two arguments: "don't fix it if it ain't broken" on one side, and "fix the roof when the sun is shining" on the other. The hilarious, illogical, and sad part is that even the "if it ain't broken" crowd readily acknowledges that it is broken (at least where the draft is concerned -- although I have to argue that Vinny made so many poor FA chocies that he's suspect in that area too)!

I think you have to look to the future. Joe Gibbs won't be here forever. When Williams (or anyone else) takes over, he'll be weaker than Joe. That's simply unavoidable. Do you want an entrenched Vinny, with his buddy the owner, in place when that happens? Or would you rather find someone strong and independent now who can help build this team for the future? Again, I think this is all such fantasy that it's not even worth speculating over who could take the job... it's just such a waste that we're stuck with Vinny.

So, to me, it doesn't matter if you win the Superbowl this year or not -- you should still look to shore up weaknesses in your organization. Despite the many defenses of Vinny, I haven't seen one person argue that he's a strong executive capable of leading the Skins forward. He's Danny's buddy. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's consistent with what a bunch of others are saying. It's also kind of a strange approach. The Skins were 6-10 for years, and Vinny was pulling the trigger on bad draft picks and bad FA acquisitions -- yes, with some hits sprinkled in there, but let's be honest: it was generally bad. So now that Joe Gibbs swoops in and rights the ship, you're willing to forgive everyone who got the ship sinking in the first place?

The other argument, of course, is to pretend that Vinny was just along for the ride. It was Norval and Steve's fault. Or Danny's fault. But isn't that worse? If Vinny was smart enough to know the Skins were on a disastrous course, but powerless to help, why in the world do you want him now?

Vinnie's role here isn't of GM, really. He's not hired to be a team architect. He's hired to get the players the head coach and owner want. (Since they all work as a team.)

Really, the weak spot in the arrangement is when the head coach's approach doesn't work, which is what happened with Spurrier. Vinnie was very good at getting the type of players Spurrier wanted. Unfortunatly, it didn't make for a very good team.

It works well for Gibbs, and since Williams is used to it, it probably will work for him as well.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest santana4prez
That's consistent with what a bunch of others are saying. It's also kind of a strange approach. The Skins were 6-10 for years, and Vinny was pulling the trigger on bad draft picks and bad FA acquisitions -- yes, with some hits sprinkled in there, but let's be honest: it was generally bad. So now that Joe Gibbs swoops in and rights the ship, you're willing to forgive everyone who got the ship sinking in the first place?

The other argument, of course, is to pretend that Vinny was just along for the ride. It was Norval and Steve's fault. Or Danny's fault. But isn't that worse? If Vinny was smart enough to know the Skins were on a disastrous course, but powerless to help, why in the world do you want him now?

Again, this seems to come down to two arguments: "don't fix it if it ain't broken" on one side, and "fix the roof when the sun is shining" on the other. The hilarious, illogical, and sad part is that even the "if it ain't broken" crowd readily acknowledges that it is broken (at least where the draft is concerned -- although I have to argue that Vinny made so many poor FA chocies that he's suspect in that area too)!

I think you have to look to the future. Joe Gibbs won't be here forever. When Williams (or anyone else) takes over, he'll be weaker than Joe. That's simply unavoidable. Do you want an entrenched Vinny, with his buddy the owner, in place when that happens? Or would you rather find someone strong and independent now who can help build this team for the future? Again, I think this is all such fantasy that it's not even worth speculating over who could take the job... it's just such a waste that we're stuck with Vinny.

So, to me, it doesn't matter if you win the Superbowl this year or not -- you should still look to shore up weaknesses in your organization. Despite the many defenses of Vinny, I haven't seen one person argue that he's a strong executive capable of leading the Skins forward. He's Danny's buddy. That's all.

I think in the last 3 years the whole staff , Vinny Cerrato included , have been damn good. I dont see getting rid of Cerrato because of things before 2004 when he has improved in the last 3 offseasons. I agree Cerrato wasnt as good in 2003 as he is now in 2006. That still is no reason to can a guy because he was bad in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vinnie's role here isn't of GM, really. He's not hired to be a team architect. He's hired to get the players the head coach and owner want. (Since they all work as a team.)

Really, the weak spot in the arrangement is when the head coach's approach doesn't work, which is what happened with Spurrier. Vinnie was very good at getting the type of players Spurrier wanted. Unfortunatly, it didn't make for a very good team.

It works well for Gibbs, and since Williams is used to it, it probably will work for him as well.

Jason

well said. I guess this was part of the point I was trying to get across that was missed.

I think that the moves made in 2000 were more the over-zealousness of Snyder wanting to dive in and kick as$ after buying the team, but learned the hard way that that was the wrong approach.

Does anyone remember Spurrier's response when asked about the QB's and WR's he brought in in his first year here? - "Cheap and available"

How is a personnel guy going to be successfull when the coach he is getting the players for has such a non-chalant attitiude?

I'm not saying Vinny is the next Ron Wolf, but I think that he should be given a fair chance now that he has a decent and stable coaching staff to work with.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vinnie's role here isn't of GM, really. He's not hired to be a team architect. He's hired to get the players the head coach and owner want. (Since they all work as a team.)

Really, the weak spot in the arrangement is when the head coach's approach doesn't work, which is what happened with Spurrier. Vinnie was very good at getting the type of players Spurrier wanted. Unfortunatly, it didn't make for a very good team.

It works well for Gibbs, and since Williams is used to it, it probably will work for him as well.

Jason

Excellently stated, Jason. Couldn't agree more. I will take a slightly different approach to Jimster, however. I think Madd's contention is that a "GM" (or whatever you want to call them) should be strong enough to say, "You know, Steve, these players you want, well, they stink. Danny Wuerful, really?" Instead, Vinny just did what he was told. Perhaps he did a good job, perhaps not. But Madd is saying (I think) that the team needs someone who can stand up to Gibbs if (sacrilege here, sorry) he is ever wrong. Perhaps if he tries to bring in another Michael Barrow type situation. Instead of just doing it, having someone who is able to say, no, that's a bad idea, we shouldn't do it, might be a good thing.

Again, look down the road to when GW takes over. I love GW, but I'm not sure he will have the presence or personel insight that Gibbs has. At that point, would it not make sense to have someone other than Vinny who can provide a counter-balance to drafting, free agency, etc. Yusuf's point about drafting Roethisberger instead of ST is easy to make in retrospect, but a good one nonetheless.

I think Madds contention is that absolute power in an organization is not always a good thing. Yes, Gibbs takes consultations with his coaches seriously, but control ultimately rests with him. While I am comfortable with this scenario with Gibbs, I am not so sure with GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have to look to the future. Joe Gibbs won't be here forever. When Williams (or anyone else) takes over, he'll be weaker than Joe. That's simply unavoidable. Do you want an entrenched Vinny, with his buddy the owner, in place when that happens? Or would you rather find someone strong and independent now who can help build this team for the future? Again, I think this is all such fantasy that it's not even worth speculating over who could take the job... it's just such a waste that we're stuck with Vinny.

So, to me, it doesn't matter if you win the Superbowl this year or not -- you should still look to shore up weaknesses in your organization. Despite the many defenses of Vinny, I haven't seen one person argue that he's a strong executive capable of leading the Skins forward. He's Danny's buddy. That's all.

An excellent point Mr. M. I'd be curious to know whether all the Cerrato apologists would be willing to bet the team's future on him not returning to his prior performance baseline once Coach Gibbs steps down again. Of course, in a way it will be something of a moot point since it seems Coach Gibbs plans to stick around and play a role not unlike that of Bill Walsh during his post coaching career with the Forty Whiners. Therefore, Vinny may be able to continue to be "useful" for a while longer. However, I sincerely hope we're grooming someone to replace him down the road when Gibbs completely retires for good. I'd really rather not go through the '90s again...this time with Art telling us all the while how the next itteration of Norv Turner or SOS is going to lead us to the S.B. in the upcoming season:(

BTW, this thread reminds me of the good ole days, what with ideas being exchanged a complete lack of flaming, "Hey dude, the search menu is your friend" and "Merge in 3...2..1..." type posts. Great job all. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well run organization.

The biggest change was brining in Al Saunders, next biggest LaVar and then finally trading Ramsey. These are big changes that show a plan. I am sure that they will prove to better the organization in the long run.

With all the changes made this last year it would be hard to say that if Gibbs thought the scouting department was not world class that changes would have been made there, even if it meant firing Vinny!

I personally can't wait for the season to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would not consider myself a "Vinny apologist" (Yusuf :silly: ) but more trying to relate that I don't think Vinny is as bad some believe him to be.

It's also not at all far fetched to believe that maybe Vinny's experience working with this veteran coaching staff may benefit him down the road in his evaluation skills.

While I am comfortable with this scenario with Gibbs, I am not so sure with GW.

I agree. - Like I said, hopefully he will be one of the one's who benefit from the Gibbs experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest santana4prez
An excellent point Mr. M. I'd be curious to know whether all the Cerrato apologists would be willing to bet the team's future on him not returning to his prior performance baseline once Coach Gibbs steps down again.

I think Gibbs has showed Cerrato and Snyder different things since he has been here that has made Cerrato and Snyder better. When GIbbs steps down look for a Gregg Williams/Cerrato/Snyder Partnership to work about the same way. Joe Gibbs has shown this front office that teamwork in the front office with a sense of who is best at what positions for the team in FA/Draft/Trades makes a winning combination. I dont think you will see the Skins when Gibbs is gone bring in the type of players they have brought in in the past. Before Gibbs the front office had either brought in overaged vets(George,Sanders,B.Smith) , and terrible character guys (Chamberlain,Russell). I think the front offices sees getting whoever is best for the team in FA,Trade,and the draft without bringing in certain type of players will make this team better. When Gibbs steps down Cerrato and Snyder will show they have become better because of Joe. Cerrato gets my vote of confidence when Gibbs steps down.:2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original topic of this essay was “why the Redskins don’t need a G.M.” And I gave you the reasons why I felt this way, showing you that from all indications the POSITION coaches weigh heavily into Joe Gibbs final decision of who to draft and which free agents to sign. And that this method or system is working fine now. Gibbs is not a dictator. He allows everyone to have at least some input. In fact he even demoted HIMSELF in favor of Al Saunders for O.C.! But someone has to make the final decision and that is not Vinny, its Joe.

If a defensive player is drafted or signed, Greg Williams contract allows him to have a considerable amount of say in which players the Skins bring aboard. Whether he can even override Joe Gibbs on that side of the ball, I’m not sure. But I do remember reading that when the Skins were undecided between Sean Taylor and Kellen Winslow, Gibbs said that Greg Williams finally convinced him on the day of the draft that they should pick Taylor!

But even in the case of offensive players, the position coaches still weigh heavily into Joe Gibbs final decisions on who to draft or sign. I showed you how even Ernest Byner who has no HC or coordinator experience -- in fact little coaching experience at all -- was probably more responsible for Nehemiah Broughton getting drafted then Vinny Cerrato!

So naturally I thought any opposing views would be the opposite like “why the Redskins need a G.M.” But those few people arguing why we need a G.M., haven’t really suggested ANYONE that we should hire and why? Instead its lets fire Vinny Cerrato. :laugh: Scott Pioli recently signed an extension, so he’s out. In fact everyone thats under contract is OUT. I hope no one wants to bring back Casserly (when he’s fired shortly) or Beathard who lost his magic. And who would want the Redskins to go through a throw-the-dart, hit-and-miss selection approach? I wouldn’t

And another thing. Those with opposing viewpoints here, instead have veered off center and want to turn this into a Vinny Cerrato bashing thread. Trying to show that if Vinny screwed up some drafting, that this means the present method without a G.M., is not working. Well in my mind, you have been unconvincing because you have offered no convincing facts!

So why do I have to do all the work and dig up the draft facts? :doh: :paranoid:

1. There is no evidence that Vinny has made any draft selections since Gibbs returned. So he gets no blame for any players who fail.

2. The only drafts Vinny has played a major part in was in 2000 and 2003. Just 2 of the last 7.

So lets look at those two seasons. Just the drafts, as I don't have time at the moment to research the free agent signings then. Players drafted below the 4th round are very iffy as far as contributing to a team anyway, so that is why I drew a line after the 4th round. Even the Pittsburgh Steelers aren't setting the world on fire drafting after the 4th round either, and they have used far more picks.

2003 was Spurrier’s second year aboard and he needed speedy WR’s, so Cerrato and Snyder developed a plan to sign away RFA’s. Unfortunately the Redskins didn’t have a QB to make it work. But the players the Skins acquired really weren’t bad choices considering what they gave up.

Coles was an outstanding WR until he got hurt. And at least we could trade him off for all-pro Santana Moss. True, Jacobs is probably a bust. But Cerrato didn’t choose Jacobs! Spurrier and Dan Snyder did. I remember reading that Spurrier wanted Jacobs but was reluctant to make the choice because he felt a Florida bias, and then Snyder walked across the room and selected Jacobs off the draft board. Dockery is a decent starter, he might even get better. A 4th round pick for Trung Candidate wasn’t a bad trade. It might have even turned out better if Trung hadn’t got hurt. Draft picks from the 4th round on down are very iffy picks anyways. Morton for a 5th, Bowen for a 6th and Haley for a 7th weren’t real bad choices, considering that most rookies drafted in those rounds usually don’t contribute much and many don’t even make a roster. The 7th round pick for Hamdan, was again a Spurrier selection, because he was considered the expert on QB’s.

So what picks here can you blame on Vinny and say he screwed up?

2003 - HC - Steve Spurrier (W5 - L11)

1 - traded pick to NY Jets for RFA WR Coles, Laveranues (later traded for S. Moss)

2 - Jacobs, Taylor WR Florida - Snyder picked Taylor

3 - Dockery, Derrick G Texas

4 - traded pick to St. Louis Rams for RB Trung Canidate

========================================

5 - traded pick to NY Jets for RFA PR Chad Morton

6 - traded pick to Green Bay for RFA FS Matt Bowen

7 - traded pick to Miami for RFA DT Jermaine Haley

7 - Hamdan, Gibran QB Indiana - Spurrier liked this player

Now lets look at the 2000 draft. O.k., so none of the picks from the 3rd through 7th round panned out. Well I got news for you folks. Most of the time they don’t all pan out for other teams either. Sure, once in awhile someone will hit on a diamond like Tom Brady. But for all the picks, it doesn't happen that often. But Vinny unlike Casserly, at least didn’t blow the #1 picks and chose two all-pros there.

2000 - Norv Turner - Snyder fires Turner when team is 7-6 Terry Robiskie is the interim HC.

1 - Arrington, LaVar OLB Penn State - All Pro - FA exit 2006

1 - Samuels, Chris T Alabama - All Pro

2 - X

3 - Harrison, Lloyd CB North Carolina State - made roster 1 yr

4 - Moore, Michael G Troy State - made roster 1 yr

==================================

5 - Sanders, Quincy DB Nevada-Las Vegas - cut

6 - Husak, Todd QB Stanford - made roster 1 yr.

7 - Cowsette, Delbert DT Maryland - made roster 1 yr

7 - Howell, Ethan WR Oklahoma State - cut

So firing Vinny for the 2000 and 2003 draft in the past -- which wasn’t a total loss -- makes no sense. The biggest problem the Redskins have had since Joe Gibbs left the first time, has been lack of continuity (Vinny has seen 4 head coaching changes, each with different personnel requirements), and finding a good QB.

So those arguing that the Skins need a G.M., still haven't said WHO they should hire and why. There have been some admirers of Charley Casserly on this board, but where has it gotten Houston since he went there? Houston has yet to have a winning season. And I know if I was a Houston fan I would be very upset about now, for not drafting Reggie Bush or Young. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone acts like the way we aquired players started when Gibbs came aboard, but really, it started the year before when we signed the Jets roster and restricted FA. Really, most of what we accquired at the time was actually pretty good decisions at the time. Not all of it worked out as expected, but they weren't bad decisions.

Also, the draft wasn't too bad either. Yes, Taylor Jacobs didn't work out, but he was thought of highly by the current staff. He just couldn't do it on the field. Dockery has turned out to be a very good pick, and Hamden has done well in NFL Europe and may be a solid backup for some other team.

Also, I don't think the head coaches would find the guys they have without the scouting department. They've done a good job finding guys that others seem to have ignored.

So, I'm not too worried about Vinnie being our personnel guy. Since he's come back, he's actually done a good job.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inmate, good points all. My thought process is simply that a "stronger" GM-type person might be better suited after Gibbs retires. The general consensus seems to be that Gibbs is setting such a good example for GW that all he has to do is stay the course. I hope that's true, but honestly, the last time GW had a head coaching job, it did not work out so well. With time and experience under Gibbs, I am SURE that will improve. Having said that, the basic traditional arguement for a GM is that the coach is always going to be too focused on winning now b/c of pressures; the GM has to be responsible for the future. Clearly, Gibbs is concerned with both, and keeps both in mind. Gibbs also has very little pressure on him, as Snyder would be shot if he fired him. WIll GW have that luxury? If not, having a smart personnel man to keep him in line would be a necessity. I can envision a scenario where GW starts with little or no pressure on him, because Gibbs goes out on top and we are stocked well. But things happen, injuries, trades, etc., and suddenly there are a couple of losing seasons, and there is immense pressure on GW to do better. That is time when a stronger personnel man would be needed to try to win now, but also keep an eye out for the future. But at that point, it would be too late, imo.

As for who it would be, inmate, I have no idea. I don't know the personnel men around the league all that well. I do NOT want Casserly back, that's for sure. It might not be a bad idea to groom a younger person now under Gibbs, and set him up as equal with GW, if they could find the right guy. :2cents:

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...