Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

That is the reason for the disconnect between the two sides, imo. One side would prefer to fix a problem before it develops. The other when it (if it?) develops. Difference of philosophies. I have every confidence in GW as a coach. I don't know much at all about his personnel decisions. Would it be such an awful thing to have a better talent evaluator than Vinny? My contention is that it would be a good thing, and might save us later, if it turns out that Vinny has NOT learned anything from his past mistakes or from Gibbs.

Well, you can't really speak of "what ifs" when things are going well. When it ain't broke, don't try to fix it, or else it might really be broke.

Are you comparing Madd and myself to AJ_Skins? :mad:

;)

Nah, just MR MADD. ;)

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something lost in this argument is how much Gibbs has always liked veterans, and how good he is at putting a team together. He won 3 super bowls with 3 different QB's that were really not that good (sorry Theisman). Cerrato is on a boat headed in the right direction, that doesn't mean he is driving or isn't slowing it down.

As a Cowboy fan, I am happy with your drafts lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current situation is WORKING. Well. The team would be monumentally stupid to change it at this point absent VERY compelling reasons. Those reasons simply don't exist.

There is also a comfort ("fit") factor in play. This group is 100% on the same page. From the owner on down. They get along. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's not something you throw away without VERY good reason. That reason does not exist.

GM's, even the "great" ones, do not work in a vacuum. No GM can turn a team around simply by making picks in a vacuum. Without viable coaching in place, and a viable, coherent scheme/philosophy in place, simply picking "talent" is not enough. All Star rosters don't win championships, TEAMS do. And teams are built by finding the "right" pieces to fit the scheme.

The Redskins won Super Bowls with guys named Rypien and Thielemann and Olkiewicz and Milot and Edwards and Mayhew and Ervins and Garrett and Warren and Hamel and Coleman and Bostic and Didier and ... these guys were not "great" football players in the measurable sense. And it mattered not one bit whether they were draftees, Plan B acquisitions or FA. What they each were were ideally suited individuals to the well-defined roles they were brought in for, both physically and mentally.

You assemble a roster full of those guys by having the coaches and FO on the same page and working well in concert. Washington has that right now, in spades. You don't mess with that kind of formula without damn good reason.

That reason does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ Who am I to disagree with Om? I guess the only obvious disagreement I have with your post, Om, is the coaching staff. We have collected a veritable all-star collection of coaches. Side note: I forgot Jerry Gray was our Secondary coach until I read the Rookie camp updates - that's INSANE! Jerry-effin-Gray. Crazy. Side note over. Our team philosophy seems to be if you coach them, wins will come. This is a philosophy I am fine with, because I think it reflects the accuracy of your post, Om. We don't have superstars at every position. A couple, sure, but not every. Not by a long shot. But we do have superstar coaches, or at least damn good ones. So why not go for the best scouting department, the best GM as well (btw, I loved someone's idea earlier in the thread to go buy the best scouts from the best teams - no cap, right?) ? I agree if it aint broke, don't fix it, but why wait until its broken if you can forsee a time when it very well might be. We are getting the optimum ability out of our coaching staff, why not our front office as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree if it aint broke, don't fix it, but why wait until its broken if you can forsee a time when it very well might be.

Goaldeje,

First off, this is contradictory. You agree that if it ain't broke we ought not fix it, then go on to say we should fix it anyway. :)

Focusing on the second part only, then ... this is the thing I can't quite understand, not in the context of a professional football team. By that logic we should also replace Gibbs, Williams, Portis, Moss, Cooley, Washington and Sean Taylor all now too, because sure as heck the day will come when all those guys are going to break down too.

Also, when you say:

"We are getting the optimum ability out of our coaching staff, why not our front office as well?"
... it assumes a fact not in evidence---that we aren't.

It is flatly impossible to predict that bringing Wolf or Modrak or McKay or Beathard in his prime, or anyone else we could name, would fit THIS team, and THIS staff, at THIS time, any better than Vinny. In fact, it's just as likely to totally muck things up if the personality/vision/fit combination isn't right.

With all due respect, it seems to me as if we're simply playing fantasy football here, only this time with the FO. Fun for the offseason and all, but not necessarily all that realistic. Finding a formula that works as well as the one the Redskins have right now is very, very difficult. I'm amazed that so many honestly believe we should chance messing with it on spec alone.

BTW ... I have zero problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm married. I'm used to it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, just MR MADD. ;)

Jason

I don't want to sound mean, but, frankly, I think you're enjoying the discussion more than I am. I feel like I'm explaining internal combustion engines to a five-year-old.

Me: "...the basic principle behind any reciprocating internal combustion engine: If you put a tiny amount of high-energy fuel (like gasoline) in a small, enclosed space and ignite it, an incredible amount of energy is released in the form of expanding gas..."

Five-year-old: "And that makes the wheels turn? I like shiny wheels!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is flatly impossible to predict that bringing Wolf or Modrak or McKay or Beathard in his prime, or anyone else we could name, would fit THIS team, and THIS staff, at THIS time, any better than Vinny. In fact, it's just as likely to totally muck things up if the personality/vision/fit combination isn't right.

This thread has become less a debate then an endurance contest. Whoever's will to keep repeating their opinion the longest wins. No one seems to be changing anyone's mind. I haven't seen a new thought in the last 3 pages...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goaldeje,

First off, this is contradictory. You agree that if it ain't broke we ought not fix it, then go on to say we should fix it anyway. :)

That's not quite true, my friend. I said, if you could foresee a time when it might be broke, you should fix it. Read on...

Focusing on the second part only, then ... this is the thing I can't quite understand, not in the context of a professional football team. By that logic we should also replace Gibbs, Williams, Portis, Moss, Cooley, Washington and Sean Taylor all now too, because sure as heck the day will come when all those guys are going to break down too. :)

To deny that those players and coaches will eventually break down is silly. Of course they will, and hopefully, with a continuing of forward thinking people, those eventualities will be prepared for. Take Portis. Hopefully by the time he shows signs of slowing down, we will have drafted/traded/signed his replacement, ala Stephen Jackson/Marshall Faulk, UNLIKE Emmitt Smith/Troy Hambrick ;) . Gibbs will eventually wear down as well, but we seem to have a pretty damned good plan in place: Williams. I'm very comfortable with that. And hopefully Gibbs will stick around in some capacity to make sure that Williams does what he should. So why not have a plan for when GW takes over? I'm not questioning how things are running now, but how they might be running then.

Also, when you say:

... it assumes a fact not in evidence---that we aren't.

It is flatly impossible to predict that bringing Wolf or Modrak or McKay or Beathard in his prime, or anyone else we could name, would fit THIS team, and THIS staff, at THIS time, any better than Vinny. In fact, it's just as likely to totally muck things up if the personality/vision/fit combination isn't right.

With all due respect, it seems to me as if we're simply playing fantasy football here, only this time with the FO. Fun for the offseason and all, but not necessarily all that realistic. Finding a formula that works as well as the one the Redskins have right now is very, very difficult. I'm amazed that so many honestly believe we should chance messing with it on spec alone.

BTW ... I have zero problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm married. I'm used to it. :)

I'm amazed you're willing to give Vinny the benefit of SO much doubt. We can all keep our fingers crossed and hope that Vinny learns everything from Gibbs and is the next Pioli when gibbs steps back. That would be great. But if he isn't? Why not hedge your bets? Why not bring in a younger guy who can "help" Vinny and make his job easier? Is not that kind of what we have done with Gibbs and Saunders? That way in five years (or whenever it will be), when Gibbs is maybe still around, but in a reduced role, when GW is running things, and we find out that Vinny is not the talent-picker some say he is, we have a safety valve. If he Vinny does a great job, keep him around, let the other guy go, or make that choice when you have to. But why not hedge your bet? Don't put all your eggs in vinny's basket, so to speak. Shoot, we haven't even put all our eggs in Gibbs' basket, and he is much more worthy than Vinny, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has become less a debate then an endurance contest. Whoever's will to keep repeating their opinion the longest wins. No one seems to be changing anyone's mind. I haven't seen a new thought in the last 3 pages...

I agree. But unless I've I've missed it, which is possible in a thread this long, I believe this is the first time anyone on your side of the rope has even acknowledged the point I've tried to make several times about "fit," and the very real possibility of making things worse, not better, by trying to "fix" what ain't broke. So perhaps it was worth that one last try. :)

It has gotten kinda silly at this point, though. I recommend you let it stand at this point and avoid responding again. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to sound mean, but, frankly, I think you're enjoying the discussion more than I am. I feel like I'm explaining internal combustion engines to a five-year-old.

Sometimes, I feel the same way.

This thread has become less a debate then an endurance contest. Whoever's will to keep repeating their opinion the longest wins. No one seems to be changing anyone's mind. I haven't seen a new thought in the last 3 pages...

Which is where my allusions to AJ_Skins comes from.

Ok, let's recap:

Some fans here have a problem with Vinny, because they view him as being deficient at his job, that his draft picks haven't panned out, or his FA signings haven't panned out, or that he's good buddies with the owner. There isn't a question that we haven't gotten the production from draft picks that we would like, but the problem is, Vinny doesn't work in a vaccum. He has an owner who likes to be involved with his team. He's worked with 3 different head coaches, each with very different ideas of what they wanted in players.

From the outside, it is difficult to judge Vinny's performence, due to these factors. It was the same with Casserly and Turner. For years, fans were nailing Casserly, but not Turner. In the end, it ended up being both people being the problem, but probably Turner more than Casserly. Who's responsible for the failure of a player: The personnel people who suggested the player, or the coach who failed to get the player ready?

Now, we get to Gibbs. Since he's been here, our personnel decisions have been pretty sound, tho some question our draft strategy. Now, Gibbs seems to get all the credit by the fans, and there isn't much love for Vinny.

Problem is, you look back on the Spurrier years, and the choices that were made back then was for the way Spurrier wanted to build a team, and the choices seemed appropriate at the time. Now, is it Vinnie's fault that it didn't work out? Some say yes, that Vinnie should have put his foot down. Problem is, that wasn't his job, that was Snyder's job. Snyder didn't put his foot down about Spurrier's choices of assistants, which looking back on it was questionable. There was a situation that Snyder did have to mediate a personnel decision, and he decided for Vinnie both times.

So, coming back to Gibbs, while he deserves a lot of the credit for our success lately, you also have to give Vinny credit as well for finding the players. Being a Head Coach, Gibbs doesn't have the time to put ratings on all of the NFL players, potential FA and draft picks. That's what you have a personnel department for. Considering that Gibbs and Williams seem to both be happy with Vinny, I don't see what the problem is?

Which goes back to the subject of this thread, and other people's concerns. They are still nervous about Vinny, for some reason, and don't view him as a top personnel man. I can understand that, since we have had a lot of hard years. At the same time, I just don't see the evidence that he's incompetent. There is the argument that you can improve, but when everyone seems to be on the same page, I don't see how subtraction can help this team. Sure, you could hire more scouts, but I don't see a change at Vinny's position making things better.

Then there are those who have the knee-jerk response, "We need a GM". Well, a GM is basically going to do the job of Vinny, Gibbs, and Snyder. I don't see Snyder giving up his right to hire and fire head coaches, or negotiate contracts. So, I suspect that the structure as it stands right now is probably not going to change. That is actually fine, since there are other teams that have similar structures which are quite successful. I think with a hands-on owner, a GM really doesn't fit.

I know I was longwinded here, but I wanted to cover most of the bases. Anything I'm missing here?

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one of the many questions that all the Vinny supporters are ducking.

It would interesting to have them answer the following questions honestly:

(1) Do you believe the Vinny-led front office has been successful in the draft since he arrived? Do you think finding 5 starters out of 31 picks, including 6 first rounders and 4 top 10 picks, can ever be defined as success?

I'm assuming the "5 starters out of 31 picks" statement is pre-Gibbs...

Who would the starters drafted between 2000-2003 be? Four years of drafting and the starters out of that group were:

Lavar Arrington

Chris Samuels

Fred Smoot

Rod Gardner

Patrick Ramsey

Derrick Dockery

Robert Royal

Any others??...(btw, that would be 7 starters out of 26 picks, not 5 out of 31...lol...and it would be four 1st round picks, not six...just so you know. ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibbs will eventually wear down as well, but we seem to have a pretty damned good plan in place: Williams. I'm very comfortable with that. And hopefully Gibbs will stick around in some capacity to make sure that Williams does what he should. So why not have a plan for when GW takes over? I'm not questioning how things are running now, but how they might be running then.

You must have missed my post where Williams is quoted as being quite happy with the job Vinny was doing. It seems the plan is to keep Vinny around.

I'm amazed you're willing to give Vinny the benefit of SO much doubt. We can all keep our fingers crossed and hope that Vinny learns everything from Gibbs and is the next Pioli when gibbs steps back. That would be great. But if he isn't? Why not hedge your bets? Why not bring in a younger guy who can "help" Vinny and make his job easier? Is not that kind of what we have done with Gibbs and Saunders? That way in five years (or whenever it will be), when Gibbs is maybe still around, but in a reduced role, when GW is running things, and we find out that Vinny is not the talent-picker some say he is, we have a safety valve. If he Vinny does a great job, keep him around, let the other guy go, or make that choice when you have to. But why not hedge your bet? Don't put all your eggs in vinny's basket, so to speak. Shoot, we haven't even put all our eggs in Gibbs' basket, and he is much more worthy than Vinny, imo.

Again, you didn't read the article I posted. Also, what makes you think we don't have younger guys? I mean, you've seen the interviews with Louis Riddick, right? Isn't he that "younger guy" that you are suggesting?

And just because you have someone in the wings, doesn't mean he's going to be a strong replacement. Look at the transition from Bethard to Casserly for a good example.

There is a lot of fear about Vinny, and a lot of it doesn't seem very rational.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have missed my post where Williams is quoted as being quite happy with the job Vinny was doing. It seems the plan is to keep Vinny around.

If that is plan, so be it. As stated above, just hoping we can take precautions. If Riddick is that guy, great.

Again, you didn't read the article I posted. Also, what makes you think we don't have younger guys? I mean, you've seen the interviews with Louis Riddick, right? Isn't he that "younger guy" that you are suggesting?

And just because you have someone in the wings, doesn't mean he's going to be a strong replacement. Look at the transition from Bethard to Casserly for a good example.

There is a lot of fear about Vinny, and a lot of it doesn't seem very rational.

Jason

There's also a lot of love for Vinny, which I'm not sure is rational either. And I understand they may not be successful, but why not give it a shot? GW may not be successful post-Gibbs. Should we not try that route?

Goaldeje,

I ...

Never mind. MADD's right.

Om, just admit I'm right, then you can close the thread. See, easy solutions abound!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need a GM because Joe Gibbs is the GOAT...

He's brought in the core Redskins team that is of today; Cornelius Griffin, Joe Salave'a, Shawn Springs, Carlos Rogers, Sean Taylor, Phillip Daniels, Marcus Washington, Andre Carter, Rocky McIntosh, Mark Brunell, Santana Moss, Mike Sellers, Clinton Portis, Chris Cooley, Brandon Lloyd(Tremendous upside), Jason Campbell(Groomed him for a year, wisely), Antwaan Randle El, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to crucify a dead horse, but I did a little research on Vinny's drafts. Not looking too good, honestly.

In 2003, in the 2nd round, we selected Jacobs, instead of Anquan Boldin (10 picks later), Kelly Washington (3rd Round), Nate Burleson (3rd), Kevin Curtis (3rd), Shaun McDonald (4th), Brandon lloyd (4th). Oops.

In the third round, we picked Dock, which is turning out to be a decent pick, in all honesty.

I will not comment on the 6th and 7th round one way or another, given the unpredictability of late round picks.

In 2002, in the first, we selected Ramsey. Had we waited until our 3rd round pick to select our QB, Josh McCown would still have been there, for all intents and purposes, an interchangeable player w/ Ramsey, imo. With that 1st rounder still intact, we could have taken LeCharles Bentley, Larry Triplett, Portis, or Anothony Weaver, all of which were selected in the 2nd.

With our 2nd rounder, we selected Ladell Betts, a nice backup RB. I liked the pick then, and I love it now. Having said that, Chester Taylor (6th), Najeh Davenport (4th), Jonathon Wells (4th) and Brian Westbrook (3rd) were all still available. I would take Betts over any of them except WB, and possibly Taylor. We also theoretically could have had Michael Lewis, Sheldon Brown, ARE, Deion Branch, and/or Will Witherspoon, all of which were taken in the 2nd behind Betts.

In the 3rd we selcted Rashad Bauman. Brian Williams was available a round later. But it was a pretty tough draft for CBs. As stated above, I feel we should have picked a QB here, instead of drafting Ramsey so early.

Going all the way back to 2000, we picked Samuels in the first. Excellent pick, no other tackle of real note in the draft.

Also picked Lavar in the first. Could have had J. Peterson (1st), Keith Bullock (1st), Ian Gold (2nd), or Marcus Washington (2nd), which were 4 of the next 5 OLB taken. If memory serves, we traded up with SF to get the number 3. Perhaps we'd have been better served staying, grabbing Samuels, and picking Peterson, like the Niners did.

In the 3rd, we picked Lloyd Harrison. OK. Didn't pan out, but if that was a position of need, tough, tough draft for CBs.

In the 4th, we picked Micahel Moore, G instead of KGB and Dante Hall, two players available in that 4th round.

I understand changing coaches and systems and all that contributed to some of this. However, the Jacobs pick will haunt me for a while now that I remember that Boldin was there. Jacobs didn't work in Spurriers system, Gibbs' system, hell, his own system. The Lavar pick is bothersome as well. I know the draft is a crapshoot, hell I say it to WB all the time, but Vinny's drafting record doesn't look so hot. He may have been picking players for his coach's systems, but the players he picked just didn't have what it took at all apparently. I mean, if they fit a system other than ours, why not trade them instead of just cutting them? It seems that Vinny picked a decent number of players who, well, couldn't play.

To answer the rush of statements that will be made: I know it's easy to look back now and see what we should have done. But think about it, if Vinny had hit on one or two of those suggestions/corrections, how much better shape might we have been in? I'm not at all saying Vinny should have got all those correct, but a few would have been nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to crucify a dead horse, but I did a little research on Vinny's drafts. Not looking too good, honestly.

You can't access a FO's draft performance by looking back at who panned out and who didn't, and only THEN saying "If they were any good, they would have picked..."...it doesn't, and shouldn't, work that way. You have to go on who they DID pick and how well those players turned out within the organization and coaches and schemes at the time. That's where consistency in coaching becomes a huge factor, tho...I would imagine that Stephen Davis may never have become the player he turned into while with the Skins if he had three different coaches during his first three years in the NFL..which each coach wanting "their" guys getting playing time...

I understand changing coaches and systems and all that contributed to some of this. However, the Jacobs pick will haunt me for a while now that I remember that Boldin was there. Jacobs didn't work in Spurriers system, Gibbs' system, hell, his own system.

I keep thinking that it was Spurrier who insisted on Jacobs, not Vinny...it would be interesting if we found out that Vinny was higher on Boldin than on Jacobs but was overruled by Spurrier because he felt Jacobs was a better fit for his offensive scheme (kind of like Vinny and Snyder wanted Santana Moss but for all intents and purposes were overruled by Marty, who wanted Rod Gardner).

The Lavar pick is bothersome as well.

Why??...He was a helluva LB while he was here for us, I don't think anyone could say otherwise, regardless of how his time here ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Califan, The players mentioned did not work that well in our system. Some did better than others (Dockery), and for those, I commend Vinny. Having said that, many did not; my point simply was that for many of the picks there was superior talent available. Again, no blaming Vinny for not hitting on every one of them, or even most of them. But to miss on more than he hit? Let's just say I would be fired from my job if I did that.

As for Lavar, my point was that there was an abundance of talent available at his position in that draft. Why trade up when we could have a similar talent with a later pick, as well as that traded extra pick?

EDIT: I forgot what else you mentioned. I thought Vinny over-ruled Spurrier on Jacobs, that Spurrier wanted him, but didn't want to seem biased. So Vinny gave the green light. Given that Boldin was available 10 picks later, maybe Vinny should have known his stuff, or stood his ground. :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also entirely possible that we are giving far far far too much weight to a five game winning streak and a playoff victory. Om especially seems to look to that run as justification to the hope that he's been clinging to since Gibbs left the first time. I think it was more of a pretty good team with an amazing coach hitting its stridge against some teams led by awful quarterbacks (Fitzpatrick, Warner, the rapidly decomposing Bledsoe, the burned out Manning, McMahon, and Simms).

Last season was a success, but I'm not convinced it was the harbinger of great things to come seems to be the overwhelming consensus. I think last year proved:

1. Gibbs is still an excellent coach, and

2. The NFC is - from top to bottom - as bad as any conference has ever been in the history of the league. Seattle was the top seed and went to the Super Bowl. If they were still in the AFC West, I don't think they even make the playoffs.

So, yes, I think the team is in much better shape than it was two years ago. I think the attitude that plagued the team from Norv's tenure is gone. And I think Snyder has started figuring out this ownership thing. And I think that a team with as much talent as the Skins should certainly make the playoffs in the awful NFC...unless Philadelphia suddenly gets good again, which would throw the entire division into chaos.

But I don't think it's all Daisies and Chocolate Bars. I still think the team puts entirely too much emphasis on free agency and has no idea how to draft. I think this leads to poor depth across the board. And I hate the fact that pretty much everything depends on Mark Brunell being 100 percent healthy at all times next year. If Mark stubs his toe getting out of bed in August, the team could easily be 8-8.

So, yes, I think there is room for improvement. If anything, the fact that the NFC is so atrocious should raise the level of urgency. If you ever wanted to take an average team to the Super Bowl, now is the time and the NFC is the place.

You have to admit; the argument is at least different than "Vinny sucks/Vinny is good."

(For the record, I think Vinny would be a great #2 guy to a real personnel man. I think he is organized and smart but has a poor eye for talent. I also think that he is weak. The very fact that you can look at past drafts and call players a "Vinny pick," a "Snyder pick," a "Spurrier pick," a "Gibbs pick," etc. bodes poorly for the direction of the front office, considering that 2 of the 3 wheels on the tricycle were always the same. Vinny - at some point - should have been strong enough to state that there had to be a leader. He was incapable of doing that until Gibbs came in and made that decision for him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Lavar, my point was that there was an abundance of talent available at his position in that draft. Why trade up when we could have a similar talent with a later pick, as well as that traded extra pick?

Wasn't that Casserly that did that, not Cerrato?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Califan, The players mentioned did not work that well in our system. Some did better than others (Dockery), and for those, I commend Vinny. Having said that, many did not; my point simply was that for many of the picks there was superior talent available. Again, no blaming Vinny for not hitting on every one of them, or even most of them. But to miss on more than he hit? Let's just say I would be fired from my job if I did that.

I think you take the coaches and schemes out of the equation, though, and treat is as if the draft is simply nothing more than picking the players with the highest Madden ratings...Stephen Davis was a great rb for the Skins, but when he (and his salary) were not deemed a good fit for a coach and offensive scheme like Spurrier's, he was let go. Not because Vinny didn't see the talent in Stephen Davis...but because Spurrier needed a different type of player at that position in order for his scheme to work. Imagine if you were to go to each team and be their GM during the draft...would you have the exact same players pegged in the exact same order for all 32 teams, coaching staffs and offensive & defensive schemes?...I don't think so.

As for Lavar, my point was that there was an abundance of talent available at his position in that draft. Why trade up when we could have a similar talent with a later pick, as well as that traded extra pick?

But there was not an abundance of talent at the level that everyone felt Lavar had...that's why GMs consider moving up to get someone like lavar coming out of college. He was widely seen as a legitimate heir to LT's throne, and by a LOT of people, not just Vinny and Snyder. The move wasn't about trying to get one of the few good, talented LBs in the draft...the move was about trying to get what almost everyone considered to be a huge difference maker at the position.

EDIT: I forgot what else you mentioned. I thought Vinny over-ruled Spurrier on Jacobs, that Spurrier wanted him, but didn't want to seem biased. So Vinny gave the green light. Given that Boldin was available 10 picks later, maybe Vinny should have known his stuff, or stood his ground. :whoknows:

It doesn't really qualify as "over-ruling" if Spurrier wanted him but just didn't want to see biased...lol...overruling tends to indicate that Spurrier wanted someone else, but Vinny forced him to work with Jacobs. And considering that Boldin was still on the board 10 spots later, can you blame Vinny for not taking him with all 32 FO's passed him up as well...some of them twice?

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...