I need to know something in a poll form.

[Art]

It could be that our coaches are idiots.

It could.

It could mean that they are geniuses.

It could.

It definitively proves neither.

It could mean our coaches are idiots if they have an idiotic system. Absolutely. If a system based on stopping the run with seven, and being able to come after people with varied looks is a bad one, indeed, determining how to fix it, while correct, might not be a great thing. That what you're saying? It's ok to say it.

Gregg Williams doesn't know how to run a defense. Say it. And you may not be correct, but you'll have a valid viewpoint you can at least reasonably state. In the end, I'm trying to uncover if it is the feeling individual fans think they know more about how to make Gregg Williams' system work, or whether it's simply that they don't like it.

We're only recently coming into this area I'd hoped to get to earlier.

[skinsfanno9]

Skinsfanno,

I've addressed your questions, rather repeatedly.

Understanding the system you run is something no staff can ever get incorrect.

Actually you've bypassed it repeatedly. The point I've made is that "Understanding the system you run is something no staff can ever get incorrect" is exactly the postulate I'm challenging. You talk of this in a singular voice - as if the staff thinks with a singular mind. Furthermore, you take this point and tie it to their overall strategy for winning and evaluation of why they have faltered. You again state that these tasks are clear and easy - not open to error. This is simply bunk. Truly.

What you describe are actually incredibly complicated tasks - tasks which involve not one, not two, not three people, but an entire organization. Strategies and assessments of progress toward those strategies always do. To say that errors are not possible in this process, or that disagreements, power struggles, communication errors and all the like cannot impact this is truly a strange statement - one that I'd bet nobody in management (including those at Redskins part) would agree with. If you ask one expert his assessment, sure, this is fine. This is different from asking the "organization" and is different from the decisions and actions that comes out of the organization's decision making process. To say otherwise would be folly.

EDIT: Art, you wouldn't happen to be a programmer in real life, would you? Just wonderin...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Skinsfanno,

Understanding the system you run is something no staff can ever get incorrect. If Saunders knows he needs a tight end who can get to the 12-yard mark in a the seam at a specific point in time to make a play go, and that's a regular thing, he knows exactly what he needs. It's almost mathmatical and pure. That's the easiest thing there is.

I completely disagree. Coaches know what works in a vacuum, but their ideas can become out-dated. Saunders may be married to the idea that a TE gets to get the 12-yard mark in x number of seconds. However, changes in the rules, talent, etc. may have made it 3x/4.

Chuck Noll was still running a trap blocking scheme in 1991, years after changes in the game made that style of running an artifact. Joe Paterno was trying to plays from the 1960s up in Happy Valley until he finally was told to wake up two years ago.

Football evolves; not all coaches can keep up.

(By the way, I am not sure this is the case with either Saunders or Williams. It is always possible though).

[TheLongshot]

and you wonder why people question the fo? you say that adding a #2 receiver was/ is a priority this offseason? do lloyd and randle-el ring a bell? blocking te? fauria, rasby?

You know, I was going to respond the same way, then I remembered that the Skins were seriously considering trading up for CJ and worked out a few WRs from the draft, going as far as flying Campbell in to throw to them. So, it isn't completely out there that they were looking to upgrade the position.

Same goes with TE. Considering they only had 3 TEs on the roster before camp, you'd have to think that they were going to add to that.

Jason

[Art]

Having watched the Steve Spurrier era in DC' date=' the Mouse Davis era in Detroit, and the Kevin Gilbride Era pretty much everywhere he has ever been, I respectfully disagree.

The Xs and Os can be wrong in and of themselves. Teams can scheme themselves out of games regardless of what the talent level is.

Even good coaches can do this. Gregg Williams' mentor is one of those people. Buddy Ryan set the world on fire with the 46 when it first came into the league. By the time he got to Philly, it was already showing some cracks, but he just happened to have arguably the greatest front four of all time running it. You could have run any system with those guys and made the playoffs. By the time he got to Arizona and Tennessee, he was making it impossible for his teams to win games.

I honestly think that our defense had two issues last year: schematic and talent. I think we have addressed the talent issue to some degree this year - though our D-line still terrifies me. The schematic I am concerned about still.[/quote']

Never claimed otherwise. There are bad and failed systems, both new, and successful systems implemented poorly, like failed WCOs you see sprinkled everywhere. But, Steve Spurrier probably knew more about what he felt he needed to make his system work than you did, right?

That's the premise I'm asking. His system may have been fatally flawed and impossible to win with, but, he knew what it would take to make it go. Meaning, if he directs a move for Trung Canidate, ignoring the player, but paying attention to the type, we probably know it's a good fit for his system from a system standpoint for what it needs. The who may never work out.

If you seek to invalidate Al Saunders and Gregg Williams as having poor systems, I will be very happy to have a merit discussion on that topic. But, before you get there, you'll likely agree, even Mouse Davis knew what made his system work the way he wanted it to better than anyone who wasn't him. Right?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It could mean our coaches are idiots if they have an idiotic system. Absolutely. If a system based on stopping the run with seven, and being able to come after people with varied looks is a bad one, indeed, determining how to fix it, while correct, might not be a great thing. That what you're saying? It's ok to say it.

Gregg Williams doesn't know how to run a defense. Say it. And you may not be correct, but you'll have a valid viewpoint you can at least reasonably state. In the end, I'm trying to uncover if it is the feeling individual fans think they know more about how to make Gregg Williams' system work, or whether it's simply that they don't like it.

We're only recently coming into this area I'd hoped to get to earlier.

Gregg Williams at one time did know how to run a defense. I assume he still does. It is entirely possible that offenses have figured him out and he can't adapt thought. It happened to Buddy Ryan.

Frankly, where I disagree with Williams and - I suppose - with you, is this notion is that a good scheme is always a good scheme. I think that is pretty definitively not the case. If it was, offenses would still be running the Single-Wing.

I guess I don't question Williams' knowledge; I do - at this point - question his adaptibility. I am concerned that he is so married to his ideas of what works and what doesn't, that he may be behind the curve instead of in front of it.

It happens constantly in football. In ten years, we may very well look at the West Coast offense as a relic akin to a T-formation.

[no1fanofno21]

everyone who answered the latter of the two is in love with Joe Gibbs.

Joe Gibbs = GW Bush

both Incompetent, yet somehow people love them.

[TotalRecall]

I just like to add that I knew they shoulda gotten rid of Brunell last offseason and well....they not only kept him but continued to start him. Sometimes the coaches don't see the forest from the trees.

[skinsfanno9]

everyone who answered the latter of the two is in love with Joe Gibbs.

Joe Gibbs = GW Bush

both Incompetent, yet somehow people love them.

Well there's a difference here. Joe Gibbs has done TONS for every longtime Redskins fan. He will always be loved, regardless of how the team does these next few years. They could go 1-15 for the next three years and I'd still love him. George Bush on the other hand...

[PeterMP]

If you seek to invalidate Al Saunders and Gregg Williams as having poor systems, I will be very happy to have a merit discussion on that topic. But, before you get there, you'll likely agree, even Mouse Davis knew what made his system work the way he wanted it to better than anyone who wasn't him. Right?

Yes, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. Somebody that believes they can reach alternate universes by smelling candles knows more about what their "system" then me. It doesn't mean I can't say that their over all concept is wrong; even though I know nothing about their "system".

[KDawg]

I find it extremely laughable that people here think they'd be a better head coach than Joe Gibbs. Give me a break. Most of you probably never even played football, half of you probably don't understand it, the majority of you probably have no coaching experience, either.

I've been involved with the game since I was little. I played HS ball and college ball and I'm going into my third year coaching it.

I know I wouldn't do a better job than Joe Gibbs.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Never claimed otherwise. There are bad and failed systems, both new, and successful systems implemented poorly, like failed WCOs you see sprinkled everywhere. But, Steve Spurrier probably knew more about what he felt he needed to make his system work than you did, right?

That's the premise I'm asking. His system may have been fatally flawed and impossible to win with, but, he knew what it would take to make it go. Meaning, if he directs a move for Trung Canidate, ignoring the player, but paying attention to the type, we probably know it's a good fit for his system from a system standpoint for what it needs. The who may never work out.

If you seek to invalidate Al Saunders and Gregg Williams as having poor systems, I will be very happy to have a merit discussion on that topic. But, before you get there, you'll likely agree, even Mouse Davis knew what made his system work the way he wanted it to better than anyone who wasn't him. Right?

I suppose in a broad sense that is true.

At the same time, a nuclear scientist may know more about me on how to theoretically create fusion out of two chocolate chip cookies. But if the underlying assumption is flawed, what does that ultimately mean?

Five years ago, I worked for a company with a "Visionary" as the CEO. He orchestrated all kinds of brilliant moves in order to acquire talent, open new offices, and identify new streams of revenue. On paper, it was one of the more brilliant business models I ever saw. It was perfect in that moment. What it utterly failed to address was the fundamental shift taking place in our industry. Within a year, events outside of his control had rendered all his ideas into disasters. I'm long gone from there and the company is a shell of its former self. He was unceremoniously fired earlier this year.

Is he still a genius? I don't know. Adaptibility plays a big factor in that definition in my view.

[Art]

Gregg Williams at one time did know how to run a defense. I assume he still does. It is entirely possible that offenses have figured him out and he can't adapt thought. It happened to Buddy Ryan.

Frankly' date=' where I disagree with Williams and - I suppose - with you, is this notion is that a good scheme is always a good scheme. I think that is pretty definitively not the case. If it was, offenses would still be running the Single-Wing.

I guess I don't question Williams' knowledge; I do - at this point - question his adaptibility. I am concerned that he is so married to his ideas of what works and what doesn't, that he may be behind the curve instead of in front of it.

It happens constantly in football. In ten years, we may very well look at the West Coast offense as a relic akin to a T-formation.[/quote']

Not sure Williams believes that and I know I don't believe that, so, you aren't in disagreement with anyone but the fictional position you put forward to disagree with. Good scheme evolves to changing rules and changing events. It adapts. Say it doesn't put a premium on rushing the passer as an individual, but, Reggie White, the greatest graded player anyone has ever seen is there. You probably take him, and adjust the scheme around such a player. It is, doubtless, correct, that systems get outdated and surpassed by better systems or attacks against them.

It is perfectly reasonable to question whether the core systems we run are good or bad. Now, answer my question. In spite of whatever conclusion you come to in that area, is it true the people who run the system know what it takes to make it go better than you do. Yes or no will suffice. We need not explore the already agreed upon question of a bad system being run as it is not relevant to the question. Good, or bad, those who run it, know what it takes to run it and know what they didn't have that made it not work. Right?

[Taylor 36]

everyone who answered the latter of the two is in love with Joe Gibbs.

Joe Gibbs = GW Bush

both Incompetent, yet somehow people love them.

If ignorance is bliss, you are surely one of the most blissfull people on this board.

[skinsfanno9]

is it true the people who run the system know what it takes to make it go better than you do. Yes or no will suffice. We need not explore the already agreed upon question of a bad system being run as it is not relevant to the question. Good, or bad, those who run it, know what it takes to run it and know what they didn't have that made it not work. Right?

"Is it true that the people (plural) who run the system and who know what it takes will always agree on the assessment of the problem and the overall strategy required to correct it?" is the real question. My answer is most definitely "No."

[Hog Fever]

No doubt that Greg Williams and in fact the entire coaching staff know more about their play books and football in general than I do. It still doesn’t invalidate my opinion nor does it make them infallible. Clearly the front office has demonstrated that they can and will make mistakes just like any other.

Norv Turner knows more about football than you or I too, yet he is universally recognized as a terrible head coach. You don’t need to be Vince Lombardi to realize that or to have an opinion that differs from the staff here.

It’s my belief that by not getting a young DT to add to our current group we have made a mistake. It is also my belief that adding Landry to our secondary regardless of how good he is will make less of a difference to the defense overall than what a young DT talent might offer.

When healthy our defensive line is very solid. Problem is our top DTs cannot stay healthy. History has proven it and age will only compound this. We would be foolish to ignore that and it seems as if we have.

I also have a concern about placing too much of the team’s cap into our starting safeties when it seemed we had options that would be nearly as good and more cap friendly. A premiere safety (or two) isn’t going to free up London Fletcher to make tackles. You don’t need to look too far up the road to see how that played out in Baltimore over the past few seasons.

There is reasoning as to why the staff did what they did. As a fan I have no choice but to accept that reasoning. I don’t have to be a lemming though and when I feel they have made a mistake I’ll say so. I’ve been wrong before. Give me a couple of days and I’ll be drinking the Kool-Aid again and looking at the bright side. Right now I’m not angry, just confused. I hope they prove me wrong and I wish Landry all the success in the world as long as he wears the Skins uniform.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In spite of whatever conclusion you come to in that area, is it true the people who run the system know what it takes to make it go better than you do. Yes or no will suffice.

Of course they do.

And Ken Lay knew more about how to run a corporation than I do.

I don't see what this proves. Knowing a lot does not make one infallible. This is such a classic example of an "appeal to authority" argument that it is amusing.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Art,

I answered your question. So, here is one.

If we rank 25th or lower in defense next year, will you still believe that Gregg Williams and the FO correctly evaluated their d-line?

[skinsfanno9]

Of course they do.

And Ken Lay knew more about how to run a corporation than I do.

I don't see what this proves. Knowing a lot does not make one infallible. This is such a classic example of an "appeal to authority" argument that it is amusing.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005) Directed by Alex Gibney.

Yup - to a person they knew more than us...They also had some incredibly bizarre decision making processes...

[TheLongshot]

That's the premise I'm asking. His system may have been fatally flawed and impossible to win with, but, he knew what it would take to make it go. Meaning, if he directs a move for Trung Canidate, ignoring the player, but paying attention to the type, we probably know it's a good fit for his system from a system standpoint for what it needs. The who may never work out.

Which is why I scratch my head when people suggest that the drafts pre-Gibbs were poor. Certainly, that could be part of the answer. But, those drafts were also a part of someone else's coaching philosophy, and maybe made more sense for that coach than it did for any other coach.

Personally, I think the change at the top has been more runinous for this franchise than anything else that has been done.

I guess I don't question Williams' knowledge; I do - at this point - question his adaptibility. I am concerned that he is so married to his ideas of what works and what doesn't' date=' that he may be behind the curve instead of in front of it.[/quote']

I can understand that concern. At the same time, tho, he still seems to be a guy willing to change. At the end of the season, he had a suspiction that some teams may have figured out cover-2, and that he'd be looking into that in the offseason. That doesn't seem to be the thought of someone who is married to his ideas. Also, he does have a history of modifying his scheme. You don't have success on three different teams without being able to adjust.

Jason

[Jaded-Dragon]

I stake no claim that I know more than the coaches about their own playbook, scheme, system, or what they view as the problem. However, our coaches are not all knowing, and that is perfectly clear when you look at the Duckett fiasco. They spent a 3rd round pick and a chunk of change to bring in TJ because Portis was hurt, and they didn't know what Betts was capable of.

I don't know which is the more frightening thought, the fact that they didn't even think twice about throwing picks away last year, or the fact that they did not KNOW their own player well enough to know that he could carry the ball if Portis went down.

Not saying I know more, but I don't work with Betts everyday either. As the HC, you should know what all of your players are capable of. The fact that they didn't know what he was capable of lets me know of their ignorance when it comes to personel.

I have to agree with most though. It sounds to me like you just don't take kindly to people who disagree with something the FO does. Just because the FO does something that the majority of the people on here don't like, doesn't make the FO right and the fans wrong, or vice versa. If someone honestly feels that our D-line is aging and can't stop the run, what does it matter if they want to talk about it on a Redskins message board? State your points about how you think the D-line is not the problem, like you've done in other posts in this very thread. But, what you are doing with this poll is basically calling out all the people that feel our D-line is a major issue and calling them idiots in a nice way. "Oh, you're not a coach in the NFL? Then sit down and stfu." is basically the feeling I get from your poll.

For the record, our entire defense needed an overhaul IMHO, so I don't disagree with our draft picks, our FA acquisitions, or even your take on the situation. But I do feel that the D-line needs to be addressed as well and I would of prefered it to happen this offseason.

[Mark The Homer]

When we, as fans, watch the coaches do something which many of us may find surprising, it's natural and logical to assume the reason they did it is this: they MUST know better than us.

The frustrating thing is to watch the results of such surprising moves turn into medocrity or disaster. The frustrating thing is to see it over and over and over again, year after year after year.

[skinsfanno9]

For the record, our entire defense needed an overhaul IMHO, so I don't disagree with our draft picks, our FA acquisitions, or even your take on the situation. But I do feel that the D-line needs to be addressed as well and I would of prefered it to happen this offseason.

Who knows, it may still happen. We have quite a bit of offseason to go. Perhaps we use some of these 08 draft picks to make a deal. I'd be OK with that.

[Art]

Art' date='

I answered your question. So, here is one.

If we rank 25th or lower in defense next year, will you still believe that Gregg Williams and the FO correctly evaluated their d-line?[/quote']

I think it depends on how we get to that ranking. If the line is shredded with four or five injuries, or if the players brought in to fix the actual, not perceived, problems fail and the same problems exist, it's likely to require a specific evaluation as to cause again. Hell, we could fail for a continued rejection of Williams by the players as started last year to at least some degree. That, to me, is our far biggest concern heading into this year. From a personnel perspective I should be rather chipper about things. I'm not, because I don't really think it's about that right now for us. The team and coaches lost each other. It's hard to get the lovin' feeling back.

[jbooma]

If the line is shredded with four or five injuries, or if the players brought in to fix the actual, not perceived, problems fail and the same problems exist, it's likely to require a specific evaluation as to cause again.

Sorry Art that is the problem. Unlike other teams we can't survive from injuries because we lack quality depth at most positions. The reason why is we don't have picks 2-4 in the draft which is where you get your backups, not FA.

This D is a couple of injuries away from the worst in the league.