bulldog Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Joe Gibbs is Team President, Head Coach and principal decision-maker on personnel come free agency and the draft. So far he is 19-21 in his time back with the Redskins. Bill Parcells, a fellow NFC East regular, went from the Giants and Patriots where he had a GM to the Jets and now the Cowboys, where he shares GM duties with Jerry Jones. He has been successively LESS successful at each stop, winning 2 Super Bowls in NY, taking the Pats and losing one, not reaching the SB with the Jets and now having a record of 19-18 in Dallas. Jimmy Johnson left the Cowboys where he won 2 rings and went to the Dolphins as GM/Coach where he failed to build a title contender and where his team is most remembered for an ugly 62-7 playoff loss to Mark Brunell and the Jaguars. The other current flameout, Dennis Green, likewise has taken on the dual roles in Arizona and his team, despite a good draft pick of Leinart, has fallen apart on the field and is 1-6. All of this brings me to the conclusion that if Dan Snyder is interested in resurrecting the Redskins and having them contend for a decade as the Patriots are in the process of doing that he is going to have to hire a GM capable of bringing a strong second opinion to the debates over players, assistant coaches and strategies for the draft and free agency. It is that by-play and natural tension between the GM and HC that often makes for the best organizational performances. What the Redskins have now is a 65 year old coach in Gibbs that is learning how to be a GM on the job and not having enough energy or time to devote to ANY of myriad responsibilities he has been given. If Gibbs wants to remove himself from the field responsibilities then he should take the GM title and a head coach should be named for 2007. If Gibbs wants to continue to be the head coach he should allow the ownership to bring in an objective talent evaluator as GM, not someone like Vinny Cerrato that has no credibility with the football people in the building at Redskins Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeTheFG Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 didnt mike holmgren give up duties? or did both him and shanahan still have gm duties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 Holmgren came to Seattle as GM/Coach, failed to build a winner, and was told by management that he could stay if the team was able to name a GM. Two years later Holmgren had the Seahawks in the Super Bowl. Shanahan has had competitive teams but has not made a Super Bowl since Elway retired in 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grinder Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 didnt mike holmgren give up duties? or did both him and shanahan still have gm duties Holmgren gave them up prior to last years Super Bowl run and Ted Sunquist (sp) at least shares GM duties with Shanahan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I agree 100%. I think Gibbs is smart (and humble) enough to realize this over the coming offseason as well. He can become a great GM if he so chooses after his coaching career is done...as I know he'll work hard enough to be the best at whatever he tries. But trying to do both jobs is too much. Just look at how much Seattle improved when Holmgren was relieved of his GM duties and allowed just to do what he does and knows best: coach. Its going to be tough for this to happen though...will Gibbs press Snyder to have Cerrato removed as well as admit he needs the services of a bona fide GM? You're absolutely right about Cerrato...all he's seen as is Snyder's "yes man". Whether he is or not is irrelevant...what the fans and players believe is everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Taylor Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 You're absolutely right about Cerrato...all he's seen as is Snyder's "yes man". Whether he is or not is irrelevant...what the fans and players believe is everything. What the fans believe is nothing, as far as personnel decisions go - unless you have to factor in the effect of loss of home field advantage through booing the home team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 False. The correct answer is "there is not enough evidence to establish a trend". Because 'x' follows 'y' does not imply a causal relationship. BTW, Holmgren went to the superbowl last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 False.The correct answer is "there is not enough evidence to establish a trend". Because 'x' follows 'y' does not imply a causal relationship. BTW, Holmgren went to the superbowl last year. he went as the coach not the gm Bulldog is right on, being a president or GM is a full time job, as is coaching how on earth can someone do both jobs well, they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I agree with the premise, but at the risk of seriously riding the fence, I'd really like to know how things specifically work at the park before passing judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 and unfortunately we won't know the answer to that question until after Gibbs has departed at some point in the future. just like you won't know what the politics on this year's team is really like behind closed doors until the season is over and some players and coaches move on to other teams. remember Spurrier? we all questioned what the team was doing during the week to perform so badly on Sundays and then after he left we got anecdotal evidence from a number of players on how clueless the amateur-collegiate staff here had been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail Gibbs Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I agree with the premise, but at the risk of seriously riding the fence, I'd really like to know how things specifically work at the park before passing judgement. I think we all would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REEGSKINS Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 i agree. they had a great system in gibbs 1. but we wont ever have that again. danny respects gibbs to much and the only one who could make the decision to bring in a gm is gibbs himself. i would love to have gibbs fire saunders, go back to his system that worked fine last year and bring back bobby beatherd. then i think we would be headed back in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 the problem there is I don't think Gibbs would have come back here if a strong GM was in place. it is a catch-22 for the ownership. one thing I do know. if the veteran-laden Redskins continue to go flat in 2006 I don't see Gibbs coming back as HC. at 65, I just don't see him having the stamina to envision completely rebuilding this ship with younger players, which is what would be required. a few key players are already in place such as Portis, Moss and Cooley. If Campbell is the real deal, the Redskins may not be that far away from being able to rise again, as the saying goes. what it appears to me from here is that the Redskins need to focus on improving the talent level on the DL and at CB for 2007. those are the biggest needs along with getting started on the future at qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Gibbs has always been a bad judge of talent. I don't know why but let's go back and look at Gibbs I. If you go back to the 1991 draft, which was Casserly and Gibbs, with 9 picks, the Redskins got three meaninful players (the draft was 12 rounds). Bobby Wilson an undersized DT, Rickey Ervins a small RB, and in the 12 th round Keenan McCardell. McCardell only spent one season with the Redskins and then moved on. Ervins and Wilson were out of the league by 1995. So essentially in this draft we got two players that really were back-up/special team players, and only lasted a little bit. In the 1992 draft, with 11 drafted players we got only two players of consequence, Desmond Howard and Matt Elliott. Everybody knows the Howard story, we traded up to get him to replace the aging members of the posse. Elliott was an OL taken with the last pick in the draft and bounced around the league as a backup Center/guard. So in two drafts we only really got 4 people that lasted anytime in the NFL and no starters. This is what brought on the demise of the Redskins more than any move any coach made after that. I don't know why, but Gibbs cannot judge talent, and that seems to extend to bringing in players from other teams/systems. Whoever thought Andre Carter would be a force at DE (and we are paying him like a top of the line DE) was wrong. Don't blame Cerrato, he is not team President. We need somebody in here to acquire players, and then let Gibbs coach them. Not Saunders. Is there any reason to believe we are faring better in Gibbs II with the picks they have made? I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeTheFG Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Gibbs has always been a bad judge of talent. I don't know why but let's go back and look at Gibbs I.If you go back to the 1991 draft, which was Casserly and Gibbs, with 9 picks, the Redskins got three meaninful players (the draft was 12 rounds). Bobby Wilson an undersized DT, Rickey Ervins a small RB, and in the 12 th round Keenan McCardell. McCardell only spent one season with the Redskins and then moved on. Ervins and Wilson were out of the league by 1995. So essentially in this draft we got two players that really were back-up/special team players, and only lasted a little bit. In the 1992 draft, with 11 drafted players we got only two players of consequence, Desmond Howard and Matt Elliott. Everybody knows the Howard story, we traded up to get him to replace the aging members of the posse. Elliott was an OL taken with the last pick in the draft and bounced around the league as a backup Center/guard. So in two drafts we only really got 4 people that lasted anytime in the NFL and no starters. This is what brought on the demise of the Redskins more than any move any coach made after that. I don't know why, but Gibbs cannot judge talent, and that seems to extend to bringing in players from other teams/systems. Whoever thought Andre Carter would be a force at DE (and we are paying him like a top of the line DE) was wrong. Don't blame Cerrato, he is not team President. We need somebody in here to acquire players, and then let Gibbs coach them. Not Saunders. Is there any reason to believe we are faring better in Gibbs II with the picks they have made? I don't see it. i have seen this exact thread quote in like 10 threads today.. is someone just copying and pasting this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I complete agree and I'm glad that someone came out with an intelligent, well thought out post about why a coach/GM will not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.