Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

Nice try, Vince, but I still ain't bitin'. :)

You guys win. Screw the 2 year turnaround from laughingstock to contender. Screw the dazzling offseason acquisitions for the past 2 seasons now that have played such a central role in said turnaround and bode well for the next half dozen years. Screw consistency, chemistry and success. Let's play Fantasy Owner and fire one of the guys playing a key role in making it all work, go out and get some star GM type who made his bones working with some OTHER great coach/team builder and thus being dubbed a star GM in the first place ... and let's not worry whether it actually works better or not, or whether instead perhaps another ego is added to the mix that might tip the balance the wrong way, or anything else. Hey, it would be proactive. And that, after all, is what matters.

LET'S DO IT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, Vince, but I still ain't bitin'. :)

You guys win. Screw the 2 year turnaround from laughingstock to contender. Screw the dazzling offseason acquisitions for the past 2 seasons now that have played such a central role in said turnaround and bode well for the next half dozen years. Screw consistency, chemistry and success. Let's play Fantasy Owner and fire one of the guys playing a key role in making it all work, go out and get some star GM type who made his bones working with some OTHER great coach/team builder and thus being dubbed a star GM in the first place ... and let's not worry whether it actually works better or not, or whether instead perhaps another ego is added to the mix that might tip the balance the wrong way, or anything else. Hey, it would be proactive. And that, after all, is what matters.

LET'S DO IT!

I wanted to fire Vinny three years ago.

I don't see why firing Vinny would have to be a dramatic change. It is my contention that Vinny brings nothing to the table. He plays raquet ball with Snyder and does a poor job of ranking the players for the draft.

Anyone could look around the league and say, "Hey, that Brandon Lloyd has some talent; let's use Danny's money to sign him."

It takes a special talent to draft well, though. And Vinny.can.not.draft.

That's all my argument is. Personally, I would move away from the "Free agency or bust" approach to team-building. But if the team wants to do that, Gibbs and Snyder's pocket are more than enough.

The draft would seem to be Vinny's realm, and we stink at drafting.

If the team ever got good at it, the dynasty that could be built would be scary.

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' date=' Warner, the rapidly decomposing Bledsoe, the burned out Manning, McMahon, and Simms).

[/quote']

Wow...so then all the other teams which played the Rams, Cardinals, Cowboys, Giants and Eagles around the time the Redskins played them had just as easy a time beating these teams as the Skins did, right??...I mean, if we're gonna give the awful QBs on these teams that much credit for the Skins winning streak, then evidence of this would be reflected in their records against the team they played right before and right after playing the Skins...

Giants: won the games right before and right after being beat by the Skins

Cowboys: won the games right before and right after being beat by the Skins

Cardinals: Won the game right before and lost the game right after being beat by the Skins

Rams: Won the game right before and lost the game right after being beat by the Skins

Eagles: Won the game two weeks before and lost the game one week before playing the Skins

Record of these five teams and their awful QBs at the time they each played the Skins: 7-3

:cool:

Seriously, though...if you're gonna say that a "pretty good team" with "amazing coaching" was "hitting its stride", you don't need to add disqualifiers. Those three things right there are more than enough to explain how, and why, they won 5 games in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ?

So you're saying that Jacobs was a better fit for Spurrier than Boldin would have been? I'm saying Jacobs wasn't a better fit for any system. I fully understand and appreciate the differences in systems. Perhaps Spurrier needed a compliment to Stephen Davis in 2002, a slight, shifty back, with ability to catch out of the backfield. So we drafted ... Betts? A bruiser? Kind of like Davis? Hmm, interesting. Of course, Westbrook was available, and might have been absolutely perfect for Spurrier, and could have played behind Davis for a year, then started the year after (which could have saed the 4th rounder we traded for Trung, btw). And with the Rock Cartwright draft in the 7th (one of Vinny's really good picks), we still would have had the 3rd down back we needed. Interesting.

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?

But if Vinny had done a good job of scouting, might he not have known that there were numerous WR (not just Boldin, see above post) who could have fit Spurrier's system (hell, any system) better than Jacobs? At that point, Spurrier had been in the league a year, which should have been enough time to see that his old Florida players weren't going to cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all my argument is. Personally' date=' I would move away from the "Free agency or bust" approach to team-building. But if the team wants to do that, Gibbs and Snyder's pocket are more than enough.

The draft would seem to be Vinny's realm, and we stink at drafting.

If the team ever got good at it, the dynasty that could be built would be scary.[/quote']

That may be the crux of this arguement. I'm all for the free agent acquisitions, even if it means giving up some draft picks. But if we had some guys in the FO who could draft really well, combined with Snyder's ability and desire to spread his cash around, man, oh man, what a possibility...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that Jacobs was a better fit for Spurrier than Boldin would have been? I'm saying Jacobs wasn't a better fit for any system.

Considering that Spurrier coached him, you'd think he'd know. Course, Jacobs didn't get much of a chance under Spurrier because of all the freak injuries, so we'll never really know. Also, there were some who thought that Jacobs did have a 1st round grade.

I fully understand and appreciate the differences in systems. Perhaps Spurrier needed a compliment to Stephen Davis in 2002, a slight, shifty back, with ability to catch out of the backfield. So we drafted ... Betts? A bruiser? Kind of like Davis? Hmm, interesting.

Remember, tho, that we had traded a 4th to the Rams for Trung Canidate, who was supposed to be that guy.

Davis was just too expensive to keep around and not be the starter.

As for Westbrook, considering he seems to get hurt every year, I'm not heartbroken we didn't get him.

Also, one thing I do want to say to Lombardi. Sorry, you lost me when you said that Kurt Warner sucked when we played him. Once he came off the bench last year, he was pretty darn hot, throwing for over 60%. If it weren't for the fact that they had no running game, they might have done something late.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may be the crux of this arguement. I'm all for the free agent acquisitions, even if it means giving up some draft picks. But if we had some guys in the FO who could draft really well, combined with Snyder's ability and desire to spread his cash around, man, oh man, what a possibility...

Well, let's see in a couple of years how the Gibbs/Ceratto combination does. So far, I like what we have gotten so far in the draft.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that Joe Gibbs gets so well is that winning is about a team, not about stars. The media is constantly making it about stars because, well, they are all about entertainment and stars are entertaining. But to win, you need good, solid role players as well.

I think this team mentality carries over to the organization as well. I get the impression that some people are looking for a star-quality GM, but if a good solid role-player is getting the job done, I don't think Gibbs is the kinda guy to go hunting for stars. I'd say that someone like Antonio Pierce is a good case-in-point here. Gibbs has a habit of avoiding the Trotters in favor of the Pierces and surrounding himself with the Greg Williams in such a way that everything works really, really well.

Our front office is working really, really well. As a team.

Furthermore, when it comes to evaluating specific talent, I think it is perfectly valid to judge someone like Santana Moss based on the opportunities he's been given here to get downfield and catch well-thrown passes. When the guy beats the organization's receiving record, it seems kind of silly to say, well, he's not really that great of a receiver because his numbers weren't so good with the Jets. No one makes that sort of claim because they understand that football is a team effort where one guy's performance can be limited by the other people surrounding him. Yet that's exactly the sort of thing I see being said about Vinny Cerrato.

To me, the relationship between Coaches and Personnel Guys is analogous to the relationship between quarterbacks and receivers. It is very difficult (and unfair) to evaluate one's performance without giving regard for the other's. This is especially true if you are basing your evaluation on stats alone. That's why most good coaches want to go to the film and take a more in-depth look at what is occuring on the field. I get the feeling that Vinny is getting the short end of the stick when people insist on evaluating him based on stats alone and without regard for all of the other circumstances that contribute to success or failure. And it isn't just that such evaluations are unfair, but I also believe they are innacurate.

Every indication is that Santana Moss, when paired with the right team and the right quarterback, is a pro-calibre receiver. Similarly, every indication is that Vinny Cerrato, when surrounded with the right team and an HOF Coach is an excellent Vice-President of Personnel. Their prior performances with other teams, while not altogether extraneous, will never be as important, as fair, or as accurate as an honest evaluation of how they are doing now.

Having said that, I have every confidence that Gibbs will look to replace Vinny Cerrato just as soon as he thinks someone else is more qualified for the position and will fit in better to get the job done. So far, I just don't think that has happened.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's see in a couple of years how the Gibbs/Ceratto combination does. So far, I like what we have gotten so far in the draft.

Jason

Really? Even last year's? I realize it's very early to evaluate, but unless McCune turns out to be even average, I'm not sure last year's was that succesful (Rogers aside - no clue about Campbell yet). This year's does look good, but again, way too early - haven't even stepped on the field.

Considering that Spurrier coached him, you'd think he'd know. Course, Jacobs didn't get much of a chance under Spurrier because of all the freak injuries, so we'll never really know. Also, there were some who thought that Jacobs did have a 1st round grade.

Spurrier also coached Wuerfel and Matthews and J Green and thought they would do well. How'd that turn out? Once you see a pattern, someone should have decided no on Jacobs. Take your chances with someone else.

Remember, tho, that we had traded a 4th to the Rams for Trung Canidate, who was supposed to be that guy.

Davis was just too expensive to keep around and not be the starter.

As for Westbrook, considering he seems to get hurt every year, I'm not heartbroken we didn't get him.

Trung was suposed to be our starter in 2003. We drafted Betts in 02. I'm saying we should have kept the pick for Trung, and drafted WB as a backup to Davis, then let WB start and have Rock as his backup. Or Chester Taylor. Either way, really. Again, I like Betts a lot, but given the arguement that Vinny was drafting to fit Spurrier's needs is incorrect here, imo. If that were the case, I don't see why we would have drafed another big back like Davis in Betts. Why not get the speedy, elusive back Spurrier favored?

And I'm not heartbroken either. But when healthy, WB is better than Betts. But given our players and system now, Betts fits better than WB would. So it turned out just fine, but by accident, not by design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phin, you make some excellent points. I guess I might argue that our coaching staff is all-star caliber. But I've argued that before.

I personally do not want to bring in Scott Pioli or some other big name GM. I would rather groom someone, bring them up through the system, then give them more power when Gibbs steps back. ANd I completely agree with your last statement. When Gibbs finds someone available and better, he will get that person. If it makes the organization and team better, Gibbs will do it. Which is kind of what I've been saying all along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trung was absolutely awful. it was very clear that we needed a RB when gibbs tookover. however, had we kept stephen davis, we would have also kept champ bailey. davis only had a few years left in him, so we could have drafted a RB this year or last when there were so many good ones. davis fits more into gibbs system of pounding the ball like riggins used to do. all we can say about that now is oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys win. Screw the 2 year turnaround from laughingstock to contender. Screw the dazzling offseason acquisitions for the past 2 seasons now that have played such a central role in said turnaround and bode well for the next half dozen years. Screw consistency, chemistry and success. Let's play Fantasy Owner and fire one of the guys playing a key role in making it all work, go out and get some star GM type who made his bones working with some OTHER great coach/team builder and thus being dubbed a star GM in the first place ... and let's not worry whether it actually works better or not, or whether instead perhaps another ego is added to the mix that might tip the balance the wrong way, or anything else. Hey, it would be proactive. And that, after all, is what matters.

LET'S DO IT!

Hey, at least we converted somebody. Welcome aboard!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, Vince, but I still ain't bitin'. :)

You guys win. Screw the 2 year turnaround from laughingstock to contender. Screw the dazzling offseason acquisitions for the past 2 seasons now that have played such a central role in said turnaround and bode well for the next half dozen years. Screw consistency, chemistry and success. Let's play Fantasy Owner and fire one of the guys playing a key role in making it all work, go out and get some star GM type who made his bones working with some OTHER great coach/team builder and thus being dubbed a star GM in the first place ... and let's not worry whether it actually works better or not, or whether instead perhaps another ego is added to the mix that might tip the balance the wrong way, or anything else. Hey, it would be proactive. And that, after all, is what matters.

LET'S DO IT!

Om - that was about a 7 on the ol' tension scale. Where is the sea of calm wh've come to expect?

:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying that Jacobs was a better fit for Spurrier than Boldin would have been? I'm saying Jacobs wasn't a better fit for any system.

What, in 2003, let you to believe that Jacobs would not be a good fit in anyone's system...??...Sorry, but you're making it seem like it was obvious to EVERYONE...including you, even (lol)...that Boldin, Betts, Westbrooke, etc, etc would turn out to be the quality players they have become...but poor Vinny just didn't see any of it cuz he's not capable of seeing what everyone else saw. Jacobs also already knew Spurrier's system, so the thought that he could be effective more quickly than a Boldin wasn't out of the question (why do you think we have Collins on the team now as a backup QB?).

I fully understand and appreciate the differences in systems. Perhaps Spurrier needed a compliment to Stephen Davis in 2002, a slight, shifty back, with ability to catch out of the backfield. So we drafted ... Betts? A bruiser? Kind of like Davis? Hmm, interesting.

Yep...they were drafting Davis' replacement, someone who could be a backup without problem and who's salary would be 1/10th of Davis'...Spurrier already knew he needed a back more in the mold of Trung to make his (flawed) scheme work...Davis was not it.

Of course, Westbrook was available, and might have been absolutely perfect for Spurrier, and could have played behind Davis for a year, then started the year after (which could have saed the 4th rounder we traded for Trung, btw). And with the Rock Cartwright draft in the 7th (one of Vinny's really good picks), we still would have had the 3rd down back we needed. Interesting.

Come on now...lol...you're piecing together players in hindsight to try and create different draft scenarios, in order to make the argument that the same things could have been done by Vinny at the time...nonsense.

But if Vinny had done a good job of scouting, might he not have known that there were numerous WR (not just Boldin, see above post) who could have fit Spurrier's system (hell, any system) better than Jacobs? At that point, Spurrier had been in the league a year, which should have been enough time to see that his old Florida players weren't going to cut it.

One thing Snyder was bashed constantly for, was not being patient with his coaches and letting the "football people deal with football"...there was no way to determine if Spurrier would or could succeed at the pro level with his coaching schemes and direction unless you actually gave him a chance TO succees (or fail, as it were)...you do that by providing your "football people" with the types of players THEY feel they need, occasionally overruling as owner, but not constantlly (i.e. Jerry Jones, Al Davis). Jacobs had been seen at the time by many others as having 1st round talent...again, it was NOT just the Skins who were high on him...many at the time said we may have gotten an absolute steal by getting Jacobs in the 2nd round. This pick, while it didn't pan out, can hardly be used as evidence of Vinny not seeing the flaws that the rest of the league obviously saw, the record of Florida receivers notwithstanding. It made sense at the time, regardless of how it turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phin, you make some excellent points. I guess I might argue that our coaching staff is all-star caliber. But I've argued that before.

Might argue that they are, or that they are not? If you are saying they are all-star calibre, then you'll get no argument here. Still, I think how people perform on a good team is a much better benchmark for their talent than how they perform on a bad team. I think that Antonio Pierce is a very good football player, and that this was discovered by good coaching more than created by good coaching. But if someone wants to insist that great coaches have the ability to actually create talented players, then I'm going to claim that Gibbs has the ability to actually create talented Vice Presidents of Personnel.

I personally do not want to bring in Scott Pioli or some other big name GM. I would rather groom someone, bring them up through the system, then give them more power when Gibbs steps back.

As someone else pointed out, I think that Gibbs is the perfect candidate to be that person when he steps away from his job on the field. To me, that's a no-brainer. The tougher question, and the one to possibly inspire more controversy, is whether Greg Williams or Al Saunders takes the head coach position, working under Gibbs' leadership as the President of Football Operations. Again, I don't see the need for a GM in this picture. If anything, I see adding a GM to the mix as a risky endeavor that might just as easily tip the scale of egos instead of miraculously solving all of the imagined problems in the draft that people have been going on about.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, Vince, but I still ain't bitin'. :)

You guys win. Screw the 2 year turnaround from laughingstock to contender. Screw the dazzling offseason acquisitions for the past 2 seasons now that have played such a central role in said turnaround and bode well for the next half dozen years. Screw consistency, chemistry and success. Let's play Fantasy Owner and fire one of the guys playing a key role in making it all work, go out and get some star GM type who made his bones working with some OTHER great coach/team builder and thus being dubbed a star GM in the first place ... and let's not worry whether it actually works better or not, or whether instead perhaps another ego is added to the mix that might tip the balance the wrong way, or anything else. Hey, it would be proactive. And that, after all, is what matters.

LET'S DO IT!

No offense intended here, but by the same logic. The Steelers should not try and upgrade any of their positions because they have been doing great and just won the super bowl. I think that is just crazy.

Gibbs is the glue behind this. Vinny was failing before Gibbs got here, and is failing as a college draft scout at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense intended here, but by the same logic. The Steelers should not try and upgrade any of their positions because they have been doing great and just won the super bowl. I think that is just crazy.

What would be crazy would be the Steelers writing off Willie Parker because of his performances prior to joining a winning football team. Could the Steelers go out and find somebody better than Parker? Maybe. But talk about upgrading at that position only makes sense when you have someone else in mind that you can evaluate against Parker.

So far, I haven't seen anyone talk about upgrading Vinny Cerrato, I've only seen people writing him off based on their sense of some sort of draft day stats on which they believe he comes up short. Once a guy like Parker shows what he can do on a good team, then what he did previously on other teams becomes practically irrelevant. I think the same goes for Vinny. On a good team, it appears to me that Cerrato is playing his role and fitting into the system very well. He's not a star, he's a role player, but any talk about "upgrading" the Vice President of Personnel doesn't make much sense until you've got some viable candidates against which to compare Vinny. So far, no one has proffered any. Until then, I'm perfectly happy with the job Vinny is doing and I think he is doing it well.

Furthermore, Gibbs has gone out of his way to specifically praise the job the scouts did this year. While Gibbs is smart enough not to air any dirty laundry, the most logical and the simplest (remember Occam's razor) explanation for Gibbs' praise is that he truly believes the scouts are doing a good job. Any speculation to the contrary is just that...speculation. So, in saying that Vinny is doing a good job, I believe I am echoing Gibbs' own thoughts and words on the matter, and I don't believe anyone has yet offered any sort of evidence to the contrary.

Vinny was failing before Gibbs got here, and is failing as a college draft scout at this time.

Certainly the organization was failing as a team before Gibbs came and the organization is succeeding as a team now. As to Vinny failing as a college draft scout at this time, that looks an awful lot like the sort of pure speculation I mentioned above. Every indication is that Gibbs thinks Vinny is doing a bang-up job, and I have a hard time disagreeing with his assessment, especially based on something as flimsy as pure speculation.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might argue that they are, or that they are not? If you are saying they are all-star calibre, then you'll get no argument here. Still, I think how people perform on a good team is a much better benchmark for their talent than how they perform on a bad team. I think that Antonio Pierce is a very good football player, and that this was discovered by good coaching more than created by good coaching. But if someone wants to insist that great coaches have the ability to actually create talented players, then I'm going to claim that Gibbs has the ability to actually create talented Vice Presidents of Personnel.

--Phin

Well Phin, it might make your argument work a bit better if Pierce had actually been a Vinny signing. Instead, Marty gets the credit for bringing him in as a F.A. signing during Vinny's involuntary year-long sabbatical. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Phin, it might make your argument work a bit better if Pierce had actually been a Vinny signing. Instead, Marty gets the credit for bringing him in as a F.A. signing during Vinny's involuntary year-long sabbatical. ;)

Hehe...I think you missed my point. Willie Parker wasn't a Vinny signing either, but the real point is that neither Parker nor Pierce are judged as football players based on how they performed prior to playing for a good team. Whether because of good coaching, being surrounded by the right people, really figuring out their role, or whatever, players that no one would have paid a second notice to somehow stepped up their game. Once they did, they are no longer judged on their past because their true quality has been revealed.

I'm saying that the situation with Vinny Cerrato has a lot of parellels. Since becoming a part of the right team, whether because of good coaching, being surrounded by the right people, really figuring out his role, or whatever, Vinny has stepped it up and is doing well. People seem to want to give all of the credit for this to Gibbs, and I certainly think he deserves pretty much any credit he's given. However, like Parker and Pierce, once the real quality of a team player is revealed in the context of a good team, it is inaccurate and unfair to talk about what sort of performance they had previously. They could only ever be as good as the situation allowed them to be, but the true judge of their talent is how they perform on a good team. And every indication from Gibbs, et al is that Vinny is performing well.

Might we be able to upgrade at his position? Maybe. But when you are talking about upgrading Parker or Pierce, you really have to put up names of viable replacements before discussion on whether to upgrade makes any sort of sense. I think the same goes for Vinny. I personally see no indication from Gibbs that he thinks he needs an upgrade at Vinny's position, but if he ever feels that he does, I've no doubt that he'll go out and get someone qualified just like he went out and got Al Saunders.

--Phin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phin, you make some excellent points. I guess I might argue that our coaching staff is all-star caliber. But I've argued that before.

I personally do not want to bring in Scott Pioli or some other big name GM. I would rather groom someone, bring them up through the system, then give them more power when Gibbs steps back. ANd I completely agree with your last statement. When Gibbs finds someone available and better, he will get that person. If it makes the organization and team better, Gibbs will do it. Which is kind of what I've been saying all along...

It is? I thought you'd been saying all along, in so many words, that Vinny was a disaster and had to go NOW? Or was that just the sense I get from all you "off with his head types" in this thread? You mean all this time we've been arguing it now comes down to "trust in Gibbs?"

Whoulda thunk? :)

Hey, at least we converted somebody. Welcome aboard!! :)

Yup. I'm now a card-carrying member of the Web Fantasy Football Club.

The hell with reason. Off with his head! :)

Om - that was about a 7 on the ol' tension scale. Where is the sea of calm wh've come to expect?

:silly:

.... ommmmm mani padme ..... ommmmmm .....

Deep down, in places he doesn't talk about, he knows we're right. ;)

Just below the surface, in places you may not even admit to yourselves, you "off with his head" types don't actually think you know better than Gibbs. You're just playing that role on the internet. :)

No offense intended here, but by the same logic. The Steelers should not try and upgrade any of their positions because they have been doing great and just won the super bowl. I think that is just crazy.

Gibbs is the glue behind this. Vinny was failing before Gibbs got here, and is failing as a college draft scout at this time.

No offense taken as I don't think you're really addressing what I said. :)

*

One last time, for effect ...

1) The roof ain't broken. The team has made a remarkable turnaround in two short years. The LAST thing we should be wanting right now is to mess with the formula that is bringing that success.

2) If he thought the roof WAS broken, as thinking Redskins fans we can be damn sure Gibbs would be taking steps to fix it, as he's done proactively and aggressively in every other fact of the organization. Hell, if he DOES think he needs to "fix" the FO situation, you can be sure he's taking steps in address of that right this minute behind the scenes ... but there's no evidence at present that he feels the need to move one guy out and bring another in. None. The man says he's quite happy with the way the FO is working. And it IS, inarguably, working. But that shouldn't stop us from fantasizing, right? Off with his head! :)

3) All the breath being wasted on dissecting draft picks this team made in the years prior to Gibbs that Cerrato may or may not have had a strong hand in is meaningless at this point. For a whole lot of reasons that I simply will not go into again as they've been proferred over and over already. If you don't buy them by now, ya ain't gonna buy them based on any new combinaton of words I or anyone else might try next.

What IS fair to do is judge how the entire roster looks TODAY, based on the work Gibbs and the entire FO have done since his return. The picks made in that short period of time will be fairly judged down the road, and made in context of free agency and performance on the field. As of right now, this is a team on the rise with a bullet. Like him or not, Vinny Cerrato is a key component in that success. Claims that the team is succeeding despite his contributions are spurious and unprovable.

Not that that will stop anyone from continuing to make it. :)

Sorry, MADD. I didn't take my own advice. Feel free to jump back in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Actually, Om, as stated in one of my earlier posts, I agree with someone (can't remember who now, sorry) who posited to keep Vinny on as sort of 2nd in command in the player personnel dept. I'm not advocating "off with his head", no matter what you want to believe.

Furthermore, I am not advocating change now. The system is working very well right now. I am frankly concerned with the quality of last year's draft (taking Rogers and Campbell out of it - though if Campbell is not any good, we will have some serious problems); this year's draft seems to have been better, though obviously way too early to tell. You say "why mess with success", I say, "why wait until disaster?" There are certainly meritous points to both sides. We may just have to agree to disagree. :cheers:

But we all know I'm right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Actually, Om, as stated in one of my earlier posts, I agree with someone (can't remember who now, sorry) who posited to keep Vinny on as sort of 2nd in command in the player personnel dept. I'm not advocating "off with his head", no matter what you want to believe.

Furthermore, I am not advocating change now. The system is working very well right now. I am frankly concerned with the quality of last year's draft (taking Rogers and Campbell out of it - though if Campbell is not any good, we will have some serious problems); this year's draft seems to have been better, though obviously way too early to tell. You say "why mess with success", I say, "why wait until disaster?" There are certainly meritous points to both sides. We may just have to agree to disagree. :cheers:

But we all know I'm right.

The bolded parts, brother ... you start by saying "the system is working very well right now" ... but then close with "You say "why mess with success", I say, why wait until disaster?" ... which clearly implies favoring a change now. Why do you do that? :)

If the point is simply that you hope someone is being groomed behind Vinny to perhaps take over someday, then I'm fine with that. It's be a positive thing to hope for. I'd just be wondering if we really needed all these pages to get to that point.

Btw ... how can we even begin to judge last year's draft (which you for some reason want to consider sans Campbell & Rogers) at this point. Don't guys like White and Broughton get longer than one injury rookie season to prove whether they can contribute or not?

As to the tiny print "we all know I'm right" gambit. I've seen a lot of folks do that around here. Not sure why. If one REALLY believes what he's saying is truth, he simply says it and moves on, knowing people will see it for themselves. Just as they'll see false bravado for what it really is. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the "system" is working well right now. The head coaching part is working well, the free agency part is working well, the money making aspect is working well, but the drafting has sucked for over a decade. Vinny - as far as I can tell - is the main draft guy. I would hope that Gibbs is NOT watching a Cal-Washington game in November; I would hope that Vinny is.

If you every room in your house is immaculate, but the upstairs bathroom has a leaky pipe, do you say...well, overall, the house is great. I will just ignore that leaky pipe.

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...