We need a GM

[TheDane]

Well ... except for the 4,312 dedicated or hijacked threads over the past few weeks/months/years where posters who come down on every conceivable side of the issue--from your "THE FO SUCKS" to others "THE FO ROCKS"--in which we've gone around and around and around and around on the issue, breaking it down to quark levels, putting it back together again, and rinsing and repeating ad nauseam ... I suppose you're right.

Polarizing issues are more fun to talk about.

I suppose we could talk about how cute bunny rabbits are.

[Skins n' Bones]

So apparently, if "some guy" is hired and given the GM title, a lot of people here will be happy.

The point is that the Skins need to upgrade their #1 personnel man, regardless of what his job title is. Cerrato isn't a bad scout, but he is bad at his GM-type role. They need to find somebody that actually has a vision for the future and can say "no" to Gibbs when necessary.

Will it happen anytime soon? Doubtful, but maybe eventually...

[Om]

Polarizing issues are more fun to talk about.

Yes, they are. Right up until someone decides to turn the talk into snide, sweeping accusations that only one side of the issue gets represented, and that anyone who might see the issue differently than one does must be too stupid to see how stupid they are, and takes it upon themselves to say so .... over and over and over again.

I suppose we could talk about how cute bunny rabbits are.

We could. Except bunnies aren't cute. Tasty, yes. Cute no.

[elkabong82]

Yes, they are. Right up until someone decides to turn the talk into snide, sweeping accusations that anyone who might see the issue differently must be too stupid to see how stupid they are, and takes it upon themselves to say so.

Over and over and over again.

We could. Except bunnies aren't cute. Tasty, yes. Cute no.

burned

[Hooper]

Vinny here. I'll trade next year's first for that bunny!

[D'Pablo]

What we really need is a change in the mindset in the front office when it comes to draft picks and young players v aging veterans, "Core Redskins" and other teams players.

Core Redskins is becoming code for if we don't have a hometown discount from you we'll overpay for OTRs Other Teams Rubbish

That's the truth. It's like our players should be dying to come back to a 5-11 team.

[TheDane]

Yes, they are. Right up until someone decides to turn the talk into snide, sweeping accusations that only one side of the issue gets represented, and that anyone who might see the issue differently than one does must be too stupid to see how stupid they are, and takes it upon themselves to say so .... over and over and over again.

That never happens. Obviously you're missing the big picture.

We could. Except bunnies aren't cute. Tasty, yes. Cute no.

You're very, very stupid to not see how stupid that is.

[DButz65]

Gibbs already stated he has no interest in hiring a "GM" in a interview during the 06 season, so can we just drop the GM issue already

[Fifty Gut]

My point was that - contrary to received opinion - the whole matter of GM and personnel strategy has not been well/coherently covered at ES.

:rotflmao:are you kidding me?

[fansince62]

:rotflmao:are you kidding me?

why would I take time out of my busy day to kid you?

no one has structured an end to end argument that covers all the variables. what we get in each post are either pieces of the puzzle or raw emotional statements......

[fansince62]

Well ... except for the 8,312 dedicated or hijacked threads over the past few weeks/months/years, where posters who come down on every conceivable side of the issue--from your "THE FO SUCKS" routine to others "THE FO ROCKS"--in which we've gone around and around and around and around on the issue, breaking it down to quark levels, putting it back together again, and rinsing and repeating ad nauseam ... I suppose you're right.

1) For the sake of correctness...I would never be associated with "The FO Sucks". I have always kept to "FO = DUMB ARSES". I have no idea what personal habits the FO practices!

And I limit that accusation to personnel moves...not other activities (like making money - which is not a bad thing and for which they/DS should be recognized)

2) Yes.....8,313 threads. One wonders why so many. Perhaps not a settled issue? Maybe not addressed well? Perhaps because the FO constantly opens the door for second guessing? Possibly because they themselves invite speculation with their personnel moves? Fans a bit pertubed year in and year out with FA/draft giveaways? Maybe...just maybe...because that's what at least 8,313 thread posters were interested in? Think of it as a straw poll on the state of the Skins. Ignore the content.

we can agree on one thing...this particular thread has exhausted its entertainment value.

[Om]

Yes.....8,313 threads. One wonders why so many. Perhaps not a settled issue? Maybe not addressed well? Perhaps because the FO constantly opens the door for second guessing? Possibly because they themselves invite speculation with their personnel moves? Fans a bit pertubed year in and year out with FA/draft giveaways? Maybe...just maybe...because that's what at least 8,313 thread posters were interested in?

You were doing fine in the bolded parts. Yes, it is both of those things. Although the "not addressed well" thing, I suspect, is your way of once again tyring to suggest that since not everyone agrees with YOUR take, clearly something is wrong in the presentation, not the content.

After that, you slid in the three "THE FO ARE DUMBARSES!" retakes in green, hoping no one would notice they were openly leading questions as opposed to objective ones.

Then you finished okay in the red part. Not quite sure how that last was supposed to 'counter' anything I've said, given the obvious intent of my first post in this thread, but, that's okay. I'm cool with you borrowing my stuff when you're struggling.

Overall grade ... C+.

[fansince62]

You were doing fine in the bolded parts. Yes, it is both of those things. Although the "not addressed well" thing, I suspect, is your way of once again tyring to suggest that since not everyone agrees with YOUR take, clearly something is wrong in the presentation, not the content.

After that, you slid in the three "THE FO ARE DUMBARSES!" retakes in green, hoping no one would notice they were openly leading questions as opposed to objective ones.

Then you finished okay in the red part. Not quite sure how that last was supposed to 'counter' anything I've said, given the obvious intent of my first post in this thread, but, that's okay. I'm cool with you borrowing my stuff when you're struggling.

Overall grade ... C+.

1) Objective? Are you kidding? Ok...please produce the Gold Standard.

2) That I use emotive language is...well...my burden to bear I guess.

3) You may be the only person under the Sun attempting to move toward a more "understanding" or "balanced" view on Redskins personnel moves over the last 15 years. I think the jury has already deliberated on that one. More power to you.......Sisyphus!

[thelarkascend1ng]

what is a gm omg

[Om]

1) Objective? Are you kidding? Ok...please produce the Gold Standard.

Shouldn’t be that hard to understand, Al. There’s no “gold standard.”

What there is is the real-world middle ground between guys like you, who have no problem calling the professionals running a professional football team “dumbarses,” with the apparently totally unselfconscious implication that you as a fan know their business better than they do … and the kind of guys who pop up here but never last long who have no problem calling the professionals running a professional football team geniuses who can do no wrong and the “Skinz Rule!” and choose not to look any deeper than that.

There are guys like me, for instance, who have no problem saying something along the lines of, “yeah, there were a couple decisions made last offseason that I’m scratching my head over, and I sure would love to get some inside info on the actual thought-process that went into each specific one. Hope I get that one day. Still, based on what I’ve seen since Gibbs returned, even though 2006 was a dash of cold water and leaves some big questions heading into 2007, I still think the overall trend is up and we’ll see a bounce back year. Gonna be interesting to watch.”

Even you can see the difference, can’t you?

2) That I use emotive language is...well...my burden to bear I guess.

Yours, and ours.

3) You may be the only person under the Sun attempting to move toward a more "understanding" or "balanced" view on Redskins personnel moves over the last 15 years. I think the jury has already deliberated on that one. More power to you.......Sisyphus!

Still haven’t moved beyond “the last 15 years,” I see. Hate to be the one to break it to ya, but those of us who look a little deeper than that have, brother. Long since. But hey, the day you’re ready to move past the Norv/Marty/Stevie years and realized this is Gibbs team now, just let me know. Maybe we can have an actual meaningful discussion.

More power to you....Cliff Clavin!

[tizzod]

2) Yes.....8,313 threads. One wonders why so many. Perhaps not a settled issue? Maybe not addressed well?

What the heck EVER gets settled out here?

[cmorina69]

I think we need to get rid of vinny more than we need a GM.

[fansince62]

What the heck EVER gets settled out here?

good point!!!!

[fansince62]

Shouldn’t be that hard to understand, Al. There’s no “gold standard.”

What there is is the real-world middle ground between guys like you, who have no problem calling the professionals running a professional football team “dumbarses,” with the apparently totally unselfconscious implication that you as a fan know their business better than they do … and the kind of guys who pop up here but never last long who have no problem calling the professionals running a professional football team geniuses who can do no wrong and the “Skinz Rule!” and choose not to look any deeper than that.

There are guys like me, for instance, who have no problem saying something along the lines of, “yeah, there were a couple decisions made last offseason that I’m scratching my head over, and I sure would love to get some inside info on the actual thought-process that went into each specific one. Hope I get that one day. Still, based on what I’ve seen since Gibbs returned, even though 2006 was a dash of cold water and leaves some big questions heading into 2007, I still think the overall trend is up and we’ll see a bounce back year. Gonna be interesting to watch.”

Even you can see the difference, can’t you?

Yours, and ours.

Still haven’t moved beyond “the last 15 years,” I see. Hate to be the one to break it to ya, but those of us who look a little deeper than that have, brother. Long since. But hey, the day you’re ready to move past the Norv/Marty/Stevie years and realized this is Gibbs team now, just let me know. Maybe we can have an actual meaningful discussion.

More power to you....Cliff Clavin!

well...let us all hope you earn some dividends for your staunch defense of friends in the FO!!!!!

and yes.....you do look deeper...into what...of course....is open to debate! and yes...after 4 Gibbs years...there's bound to be an upside (we all hope so)...so you can ultimately claim "clairvoyance" or whatever emotional return you appear to be chasing on this one. and all the bad moves can be swept under the rug.

quite frankly...I'm less and less interested in the duty "you don't know what the braintrust is thinking" mantra - it's too easy a road to walk. results, as in all walks of life, are what count (stocks, war...and yes...even football). the logic from here should be fairly obvious.

[Om]

26 hours to work on it and this is the best you could come up with?

well...let us all hope you earn some dividends for your staunch defense of friends in the FO!!!!!

I have no "friends in the FO." As you would know if you cared enough to pay attention. You've gotten so transparently disingenuous it's discouraging.

and yes.....you do look deeper...into what...of course....is open to debate! and yes...after 4 Gibbs years...there's bound to be an upside (we all hope so)

Even I've not said there's "bound to be an upside." I thought you told us that the FO were "dumbarses," Al? How exactly are you reconciling these two positions?

...so you can ultimately claim "clairvoyance" or whatever emotional return you appear to be chasing on this one. and all the bad moves can be swept under the rug.

Claiming to more than than one knows is YOUR bag, brother, not mine. I ain't "claiming" anything, and I'm not "chasing" anything more at this moment than keeping a bright light trained on your continued insistence that you are more knowledgeable about what the Redskins FO is doing than they are. Trust me, you keep making that claim, I'm probably going to pop in and ridicule you for it from time to time.

quite frankly...I'm less and less interested in the duty "you don't know what the braintrust is thinking" mantra - it's too easy a road to walk. results, as in all walks of life, are what count (stocks, war...and yes...even football). the logic from here should be fairly obvious.

And as long as you continue to analyze "results" the way you do--not differentiating between the pre-Gibbs and Gibbs years; looking at the Gibbs years solely in terms of the W-L and without an objective assessment of the ALL of the factors involved, etc.--I'm less and less interested in the pompous "too easy to walk" mantra you always fall back on when I invoke it.

Know what's "too easy," brother? Pretending to know more than you do on a message board.

[TheLongshot]

I've been mostly ignoring this thread, since it is old hat, but since Om and fansince62 are getting into it, I'll put in my $.02.

It doesn't come to many people's surprise that I mostly agree with Om. Until last season, the FO under Gibbs as mostly made the right moves. Now, you can argue about the prices we paid for those players, in picks and dollars, but I don't think there was much of an argument on the players themselves.

Even the draft picks, a few of which are no longer on the team, made sense for the most part. It was amazing how many of Casserly's lower round picks made me scratch my head and wonder who the hell these guys were. Considering they never stuck around all that long, I never found out. I don't get those feelings with Gibbs' drafts, even when they don't all work out, like the '05 draft is looking.

Last year was a kick in the pants for a lot of us. For the doubters, it has given a lot of fuel for the fire. For those of us who believed, it makes us question our faith.

This is a key year in Gibbs' front office. Can they go out and figure out what happened last year and turn things around, or is this the first sign of things falling apart? With the team I saw last year, I do believe that they can turn things around. Offensively, this team is pretty much set for the next few years. Certainly, there are some guys who do need to prove themselves, but the upside is all there. The defense does need work, and probably needs a couple years to completely fix, but I do think that with the right personnel moves, they can at least be competent.

There is a lot to look forward to here, and I think the FO will go a long ways toward getting things back on track.

Jason

[fansince62]

26 hours to work on it and this is the best you could come up with?

I have no "friends in the FO." As you would know if you cared enough to pay attention. You've gotten so transparently disingenuous it's discouraging.

Even I've not said there's "bound to be an upside." I thought you told us that the FO were "dumbarses," Al? How exactly are you reconciling these two positions?

Claiming to more than than one knows is YOUR bag, brother, not mine. I ain't "claiming" anything, and I'm not "chasing" anything more at this moment than keeping a bright light trained on your continued insistence that you are more knowledgeable about what the Redskins FO is doing than they are. Trust me, you keep making that claim, I'm probably going to pop in and ridicule you for it from time to time.

And as long as you continue to analyze "results" the way you do--not differentiating between the pre-Gibbs and Gibbs years; looking at the Gibbs years solely in terms of the W-L and without an objective assessment of the ALL of the factors involved, etc.--I'm less and less interested in the pompous "too easy to walk" mantra you always fall back on when I invoke it.

Know what's "too easy," brother? Pretending to know more than you do on a message board.

Pretension....oops....pretending aint my bag....brother. weeding through the litany of thinly veiled personal attacks has been amusing, however. holier than thou seems to be a cloak worn by more than just a few...but I digress.

1) Do you think this merits an investment of 26 hours? I don't. Think of it as the ES Principle of Proportionality. Like yourself, one hopes, there are mulitple, competing demands for your time - some of which carry more weight than some exchanges on ES.

2) That's it? That's the energy behind your constant rejoinders? That I am claiming to know more than the Skins FO? Have at it then! That doesn't disturb me one iota......as it does not any other person on this board who cares to comment on the FO.

I have never claimed to know more than I in reality know ABOUT THE SKINS - anymore, say, than you as a voting citizen claim to know about actual tactical/operational/strategic planning/events in Iraq. Find one instance where I have stated this? Or are you simply fantasizing this to be the case cuz you dislike a phrase used to punctuate some thoughts?

if it makes you feel better: I am climbing to the mountain top to scream for all the world to hear "I know less about football and current Redskin plans than the Skins FO." I sheepishly acknowledge the humbleness that statement implies and which you apparently are demanding. What I wont do is use that as an excuse for not thinking about what I see/hear/read happening in front of me. Will I get it wrong? Maybe. Probably. I don't much care....comes with the territory. as though anyone around here is "right."

3) Pre/Post Gibbs - your point winnows down to "things have changed for the better". Yea....so?

- nice try transitioning "The FO" into Joe Gibbs alone

- could this have been done faster?

- are you certain that this has been done in a purposeful way? or do you think the evidence - as we know it - suggests this has been a series of jump starts as the team actually tries to figure out, season after season, what it is trying to accomplish and the best/practical path for executing its vision? or are you saying things were so hopelessly fouled up by DS, his sidekicks and the people he hired in respect to football operations that Joe needs years to right this ship? that he miht even be exceeding expectations given where things stood when he returned?

btw...I steadfastly hope Joe succeeds in winning (a SB) this time around. mostly because of the man he is and what he has done in the past for this city. and to end all conversations about who numbers among the greatest coaches of all time. but that is not going to prevent me from commenting - ill informed as it might appear to you - about what is going on....including the ocassional evocative phrase for the shere fun of it.

Is calling the FO a bunch of dumb arses offensive to Joe Gibbs (what is likely really the irritant here) and your memories of him? probably. Apologies to Joe and you if any offense was taken. I'll still be spending $1000s on the team and pulling for you all when I go to the games just the same.

3) As for reconciling povs.....there is what happens and there is what might happen. we may fight like cats and dogs......but hope springs eternal! phrases like "FO = XXXX XXXX" spring precisely from unmet expectations - many of which the team sets. please don't allow this to descend into another of those obnoxious "you aren't a fan" spitballing drills.

4) Pompous path walking? More than enough to go around apparently! You well know, particularly for a message board, that there is no set of "objective criteria" when it comes to evaluating the performance of a football team (perhaps, as you believe, not even Ws and Ls)...moreover, when there is analysis but it is critical...the sense around these parts is to ridicule it out of hand as anti-Redskin prejuidice or phantasms of the mediots.

if there are objective criteria...please direct me to the metrics.....an issue I have raised many times so we can get to definitive answers/conclusions. the lack of such criteria is precisely, when all else fails, why so many default to "You don't know what the FO is thinking."....you know...the argument so many of us received when we questioned the wisdom of the Vanilla strategy employed last preseasom...during preseason.

Approached from a different angle, there is never going to be perfect knowledge...how wonderful then that some get to decide where the actual line in the sand should be drawn when it comes to "objective"!

man..that took longer than it deserved (but less than 26 hrs...so I am inproving...just like the Skins)...to give you an opening!

and...finally....I still think the Skins should keep the #6 pick and draft BPA. but trading down is something the "sometimes tactically challenged FO" (better?) can certainly take a stab at.....

[Om]

Al,

Good lord but you're hard to parse sometimes. I'll wade through that this afternoon and pick out the parts I think are supposed to be responsive and get back to you.

[fansince62]

Al,

Good lord but you're hard to parse sometimes. I'll wade through that this afternoon and pick out the parts I think are supposed to be responsive and get back to you.

OM...remember one thing...all the vinegar aside......you're still a stud!

[TheLongshot]

- are you certain that this has been done in a purposeful way? or do you think the evidence - as we know it - suggests this has been a series of jump starts as the team actually tries to figure out, season after season, what it is trying to accomplish and the best/practical path for executing its vision? or are you saying things were so hopelessly fouled up by DS, his sidekicks and the people he hired in respect to football operations that Joe needs years to right this ship? that he miht even be exceeding expectations given where things stood when he returned?

I think the last thing is very true but I wouldn't say that it was all them. Steve Spurrier gets some responsibility. I mean, he's probably the main reason Stephen Davis was ran out of town, because he wasn't his type of back.

But, a lot of the mess that we were in goes back to Snyder, with all the changes in the coaching staff, with the gutbuster contracts given to players without any thought to worst case scenarios involving those players.

When going back through some of the problems we have had since Gibbs arrived here, a lot of it goes back to those decisions. The fact that Champ didn't want to stay. The fact that Coles was homesick for the Meadowlands. The whole thing with Lavar. Most of those things are because of sins from the past.

Now, tho, with a lot of those players gone, those excuses are gone as well. Right now, everything is on the Gibbs regime. Course, Gibbs has never used those things as excuses. Even with those handicaps, he still needed to figure out a way to win.

and...finally....I still think the Skins should keep the #6 pick and draft BPA. but trading down is something the "sometimes tactically challenged FO" (better?) can certainly take a stab at.....

Actually, Vinny has some experience trading down in the first round, since he did it twice in 2002 to pick up Ramsey. Unfortunately, nothing came of that draft. But, I do think we draft better now than we did back then, probably because the scouting department was overhauled when Gibbs came on board, and the coaching staff has a better idea of what they want.

Looking at the DL depth in the first round this year, the Skins probably could trade down a few spots and still get about the same value at that spot as far as ability goes. Considering the needs that we have, it may be the smart move.

Jason