Smurf85 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I really don't know what to think about this article or this team anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 tell me what's wrong with that quoteand you can understand why you can take these articles with a grain of salt wow that is a strict contradiction.. how can a player be expendable bur irreplacable at the same time?? huh? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Grundle Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 You like him again i am seeing a lot of bad things in here.Did you read the whole 5 pages. The article doesn't make him out to be the arrogant ass that previous articles have. The fact that former players like Pierce, Adams, and Milloy defended him says alot. This article makes it seem like he is not actually a bad person, just bad at personnel deciscions. I guess I could hate him for that...but I won't, yet. As of right now, this article just bought Greg Williams one more season from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMetal Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 My opinion of GW is bolstered by this article. What is key is that he learn from his mistakes regarding personnel so he is better prepared when he becomes our HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Wu Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I really don't know what to think about this article or this team anymore. You can't argue with his basic premise - Many objective people outside of the organization used GENIUS to describe Williams prior to this season... you don't go from being that good at what you do, to all of a sudden a guy who can't coach or evaluate talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hervoicehoneyed Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 wow that is a strict contradiction.. how can a player be expendable bur irreplacable at the same time?? huh? :doh: But Pierce became a free agent two years ago and left for the New York Giants in part, some around the team believe, because Williams thought he was expendable. One coach with knowledge of the situation who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution said he doesn't believe Williams told Redskins owner Daniel Snyder that Pierce was irreplaceable. Had he done so, the coach said, Snyder probably would have matched the Giants' offer. You have to read the whole sentence for it to make sense. :laugh: 1. "Some around the team" believed Williams thought Pierce was expendable. 2. "One coach" does not believe Williams told Snyder that Pierce was irreplaceable. They are basically the same sentence. But either way, who cares about Pierce, let it go, it's been 2 years. :helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 You have to read the whole sentence for it to make sense. :laugh: "Some around the team" believed Williams thought Pierce was expendable. "One coach" does not believe Williams told Snyder that Pierce was irreplaceable. They are basically the same sentence. But either way, who cares about Pierce, let it go, it's been 2 years. :helmet: Yeah its been 2 years and we still don't have a MLB.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 "How about this?" he asked. "What was perceived as discipline, intensity, pettiness, structure, attitude." He spit these words out. "All of a sudden, now that's the reason why our rankings are bad. You can't go from being right to wrong. You can't. You don't go from being a good coach to not knowing anything. So that's just part of the business. I understand that. I totally understand that." Hard to argue with Gregg on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 You have to read the whole sentence for it to make sense. :laugh: 1. "Some around the team" believed Williams thought Pierce was expendable. 2. "One coach" does not believe Williams told Snyder that Pierce was irreplaceable. They are basically the same sentence. But either way, who cares about Pierce, let it go, it's been 2 years. :helmet: this is the type of thing that happens when you have 3 young children and you've been up for 16 hours. And on that note i'm done for the night. PEACE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I think this article was much different than the others. It read more like a human interest story in a local coach than an actual analysis of what went wrong. It was mostly him giving his side to things and them not really giving many contrary possibilities. The article was a bit disappointing; not because I want to hate GW, but because it really didn't clear anything up at all other than repeating things we heard about long ago such as ST being so impacted by Clark's leaving. It is a bit damning on his personnel descisions though. "As the team has added players he's chosen, its performance has deteriorated." That is pretty telling but I think most of us know that. What is the deal with him thinking he can get any guy to do something they haven't done or aren't good at? Sure it might work with a guy every once in a while, but I would think it would be a bit smarter to play a guy according to what he is great at as opposed to forcing him to do something totally different for some unknown reason...especially when it is a FA you are bringing in for an enormous salary (he might say he doesn't want to know how much they are making but there really is no way he can completely avoid ever seeing it or finding out). It also didn't discuss his refusal to start rookies like Rocky many times or his insistence on staying with certain people (Holdman, for example) who are performing terribly. Oh well. By the way, that whole thing about the offense causing the defense problems is silly on it's face. There have been plenty of games where we have had long sustained drives on offense and the D still stunk it up. Nice try though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 You can't argue with his basic premise - Many objective people outside of the organization used GENIUS to describe Williams prior to this season... you don't go from being that good at what you do, to all of a sudden a guy who can't coach or evaluate talent. He did in Buffalo.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Byner will not be back. His contract is up. And Gibbs does not talk to him. Very mature. Coaches don't talk to players or each other. What a gawddamn circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skns4life Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 My opinion changes with each new article that comes out. I am a lemming. A slave to the media. Damn it all. Anyway...I like Greg Williams again. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: same here bro...same here! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Wu Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 He did in Buffalo.:2cents: The part in the article that addresses Buffalo is the only part where guys went on the record with their names. It was somewhat convincingly conveyed that Williams was following orders there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurf85 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: same here bro...same here! :doh: My opinion didn't change i saw what our defense was ranked this year.If he wants to win me over and win his career back in Washington.He better be in the top 15 next year.Not the 30 ranked defense.:doh: I don't think asking for the top 15 is to much to ask.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CounterTrey Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 wait what do you mean Byner is a leak?? Did I miss something today?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalRecall Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The first two articles were good. Something smells bad about the 3rd article though. It just isn't believeable. Blaming Sanders' offense for the piss poor defense is a joke right??? Rarely did the offense score quickly. However, there were a lot of missed 3rd-down conversions. But, there were a lot of 3 and outs in the 2005 redskin offense when the defense was ranked #9. This argument doesn't hold water. Why would Buffalo's GM hire Williams to be a SOB??? Really???? Wouldn't he only care to hire him to win football games? This 3rd article sounded pretty stupid to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The first two articles were good. Something smells bad about the 3rd article though. It just isn't believeable. Blaming Sanders' offense for the piss poor defense is a joke right??? Rarely did the offense score quickly. However, there were a lot of missed 3rd-down conversions. But, there were a lot of 3 and outs in the 2005 redskin offense when the defense was ranked #9. This argument doesn't hold water.Why would Buffalo's GM hire Williams to be a SOB??? Really???? Wouldn't he only care to hire him to win football games? This 3rd article sounded pretty stupid to me. This one was drastically different then the others, but remember the story on the defense was already written mid-season in the Tom Friend article.The Saunders argument was just a follow-up from an article earlier in the year that quoted Parcells talking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I'm curious if the hordes screaming for Willaims arrogant head and ass on a platter felt this article stoked the flames or weakened them? I thought it was well-written and fairly even-handed. Williams can do really great work and then he can make some bad calls. My take is over-confidence on his part along with mis-estimating the value of Harris, Clark, Arch, Carter did cost us dearlly this year (Pierce was from the year before but counts). Will he recover one way or another and get back up there in the top ten next year? He did it once, he needs to do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Shot Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 man, some of these articles are so depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The first two articles were good. Something smells bad about the 3rd article though. It just isn't believeable. Blaming Sanders' offense for the piss poor defense is a joke right??? Rarely did the offense score quickly. However, there were a lot of missed 3rd-down conversions. But, there were a lot of 3 and outs in the 2005 redskin offense when the defense was ranked #9. This argument doesn't hold water. Actually, I think it does. The big problem is that the offense didn't run the ball all that well in the first half of the season, which means the Redskins defense was spending even more time on the field, since passes don't use much game time. Course, it isn't the whole story. The lack of depth in the defensive backfield and the subpar linebacker play caused problems as well. But, the defense did play better when the offense was able to run the ball (at least until injuries drained the remaining talent from the defense) Why would Buffalo's GM hire Williams to be a SOB??? Really???? Wouldn't he only care to hire him to win football games? When you are hired, there are certain expectations that your employer has. Silly, yes, but bosses can be unreasonable. This isn't one of my favorite articles. More speculation than facts again, but at least Williams comes off well. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I think all these articles just confirm what we already know. We have great coaches who are not the best personnel guys. They all believe that they can take average players (Lloyd, Duckett, Rumph, Archuleta) and turn them into stars. Sometimes they're right (Dockery, Betts, Pierce, Daniels, Griffin, Washington) but it has been very hit-or-miss. I don't know if that makes me hopeful for the future or now, but on the optimistic side I think that if we don't keep picking up busts and our starters can remain healthy, the coaches should be able to put a winning team on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uno Boss Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Am I the only one who thinks this reads like a BS bedtime story about the misunderstood grizzly bear who terrorized the town and wrecked everything and told everyone he did it all out of fear for his fur and his safety....:doh: This entire series was a blame the new guy Hack Job.... If you people feed into this then i need to hurry and finsih up with my real estate certification because i have some hell front property i want to sell you....:laugh::laugh: He spoke about the Tom Friend article having an agenda.... this article was a complete love fest.... Can someone please tell me how an offensive Coordinator would be doing a bad job if he gets his team to score too quickly?... That has to be the most idiotic piece of **** i have ever heard in my entire life....:laugh::laugh::laugh: We were horrible in 2004 on offense and our D was still top ten.... There is no big drop off in the number of plays we ran.... If anything it shows that the offense held ther own since the average time of possesion is only 1 minute less than the previous two years.... in 2004 985 total plays with 26 takeaways and 27 giveaways in 2005 1006 plays with 22 Takeaways and 26 Giveaways In 2006 960.total plays with only 12 Takeaways and 15 giveaways Can anyone look at those numbers and tell me how in the **** hasthe offense left the defense in such a bad position if the amount of plays are still relatively close..... but the turnovers on both sides are waaaay down?.... Wouldnt that mean the offense kept the ball themselves because the defense that was last in the league in yards allowed and takeaways damn sure didnt help them get it back...? According to this article an offense should not play to score... they should play to get enough first downs to give the defense a rest?.... That sounds like a Gibbs and williamns match made in heaven.... WOW.... The blame the new guy spin machine is in full effect .... So it took 3 days , 3 articles, and 15 pages to tell us all that this season sucked because... 1.We went and got AA 2. Al saunders offense doesnt work in the NFC even though it is 13th overall #1 inthe NFC in rushing and 9th in total yards... 3. Gregg Williams got rid of our best players but yhe D only sucks because we score too quickly or every other drive is 3 and out Thats amazing info right there..... I guess its true when they say... " The most important things in life... are the things you learn after you thought you knew everything " I feel so much smarter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Pablo Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I really don't understand how Pierce and Williams could be such good friends to this day, and Williams did not ask for his return. Doesn't make sense. Based on this, I would not blame Williams for Pierce's departure. Moreover, the article clearly states that Williams does not worry about the money aspect of things. If I recall correctly, the reason Pierce left was because the Giants offered him a slight pay raise. As per usual, all signs point to Vinny, our cap man. On a side note, anyone sick of reading articles that contain chunks of text like this (hypothetical): "He can be brutal sometimes, man. Practices sometimes would stretch for 15 to 30 minutes past what was scheduled. On top of that, if a player yells at a coach or talks poorly of the team to the press, he'll find himself on the bench on Sundays. Look at Arch, he has done absolutely nothing wrong and his play has been fantastic. It's not his fault the coaches want to rape his soul..." said one source, who asked not to be named due to the sensitive friendship he has with one member of the offensive coaching staff's nephew. or "I don't know what it means to be a 'true' Redskin. To hear Coach say it, we're all 'true' Redskins. Then, when we don't play well for 10 or 12 games in a season, they go out and bring in a free agent. What's that supposed to say to me? That if I don't play well, they'll replace me with someone who's gonna get paid more?" said one player, who spoke in anonymity out of fear that a member of the defensive coaching staff may lock him in the chamber of interminable damnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncr2h Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Actually, I think it does. The big problem is that the offense didn't run the ball all that well in the first half of the season, which means the Redskins defense was spending even more time on the field, since passes don't use much game time.Jason We've been top 10 in rushing the whole season. Even if you want to argue with that, the fact remains that we have been one of the better teams in the league running the football, even before the re-dedication to the run that took place in November. We've had tons of long, sustained drives this year. This "offense made the defense bad" excuse is pitiful. I have an honest question for anyone who believes that: Which offense do you think put up more sustained drives? (A) 2004 Redskins or ( 2006 Redskins The offense this year was lightyears better than 2004's offense in every facet, including sustaining drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.