I need to know something in a poll form.

[skinsn24]

If there's anything we've shown in recent years, is no team executes the plan it has in place as well as we do. No team identifies the players it wants and gets them like we do. We may not always hit on that acquisition, but, we always get the player we aim at. I think the, "we have no plan" complaint simply is invalid given we clearly have great, detailed, precise plans we never fail to execute on. You'd be better saying because we didn't do well at it last year -- and only last year -- that we don't do it well.

"no team executes the plan it has in place as well as we do"--Patriots, Colts, Bears, Chargers (that is if the plan is to win games, and possibly the superbowl....i hope that is our plan)

"No team identifies the players it wants and gets them like we do. We may not always hit on that acquisition, but, we always get the player we aim at."

"we clearly have great, detailed, precise plans we never fail to execute on. "

Ok so we have never failed to execute our plan. I got that part. Now how again is the plan, the right plan, if it has never failed to be executed and we have no superbowl and the target year for the plan (year 3), we went 5-11. Id say our plan failed horribly.

Now you will say "it wasnt the idea, it was players" Well wasnt part of the plan to get the right players? It looks like the some of the players we "planned" on being the "right" players, were not the right players.

This then means the plan was wrong or off, if even by a little.

Example Plan:

Step 1: Get a Good Saftey (at all costs)

Step 2: Evaulate Avaible Safties (Clark Low on the list)

Step 3: Pick Saftey (Archuleta)

Step 4: Sign Saftey --Archuleta (to a huge deal)

Step 5: Win (5 times)

Plan 2:

Step 1: Get a Good Wide Receiver (at all Costs)

Step 2: Evualte wide recievers (Lloyd and ARE top the list)

Step 3: Evaluate the worth of each wide reciever (3rd and 4th for Lloyd)

Step 4: Get the players--ARE and Lloyd (10 mill to Lloyd and ARE)

Step 5: Win (5 times)

Now there is either:

1. A problem with the plan

2. A problem with executing the plan

Since you have said we never fail to execute, the problem must be with the plan....no?

[JoeKnowsBest]

Ya lost me Art. You got my head spinning with your variation of points.

Sounds like your just in a fired up debating mood.

[TheLongshot]

Before these guys ever take the field, they reveal the unquestionable answer as to what last year's problems were. And, like you, we are left to hope these answers are the right ones from a play standpoint. That's always the iffy proposition.

Well, at least what the coaching staff views as the problem.

Whether or not it is the actual problem will be borne out by the performance next season.

Jason

[Art]

As far as this pole goes, last year we spent 2 first rounders on Rocky because "the coaches knew more, so Rocky was 1. obviously the best player and 2. A Special teamer was our biggest need" i think last year may have proved that decision wrong? No?

Why you've chosen to overwrite who we pick with what we pick is a question I can't answer. I can merely point you back to the repetitive statements here. Rocky may or may not be the right answer as a player for the Redskins. No one knows that when a player is taken. No one has ever said anyone does. A weakside backer was a clear, obvious, desperate need for that team, then.

What we needed is based on the evaluation of who you have and what types of things you're missing. The staff will never be wrong in this area. The staff knew it needed another runner when Portis got hurt because it didn't want to go into the season with the risk of just one having one or two guys who'd never carried the load be the only options. Betts, gloriously, played wonderfully for us and Duckett was never needed. The who was less impressive than the what. The what, another runner to protect us in case Portis can't make it, was exactly right. He didn't make it.

Every team misses on more players than they hit on when addressing the areas they feel need to be addressed. But, no team is ever going to miss out on knowing what it needs to be successful within their system. Do you grasp the distinction yet?

[skinsfanno9]

Well, I for one would be happy if we could find one of them....

:laugh:

Amen! Even if it involves us all dressing up as pigs once a month and oinking at the moon, if it works, I'm all for it!

[UK Skins]

As for your concern, I'm not sure I get it. If there's anything we've shown in recent years, is no team executes the plan it has in place as well as we do. No team identifies the players it wants and gets them like we do. We may not always hit on that acquisition, but, we always get the player we aim at. I think the, "we have no plan" complaint simply is invalid given we clearly have great, detailed, precise plans we never fail to execute on. You'd be better saying because we didn't do well at it last year -- and only last year -- that we don't do it well.

The problem with your argument is that is could also be indicative of the team not having a plan. Having "detailed, precise plans" that appear to revolve around signing the most highly rated player in that identified position of need, and paying him the most money for that position, and then going and doing the same thing a few months later, sometimes even for the same position, makes some people scratch their heads in wonder. And I am not talking about last year. Do the names Smith, Saunders, Carrier, Brunell not ring any bells either?

The reason why I haven't made up my mind about this is because recently we seem to have got away from this mentality. So either we now have a plan, or the person(s) making the plans have changed!!

[dfbovey]

No where have I said I agree with the way our defense is being built. I agree that Williams knows what he needs to build his defense and he's likely to push for those things. You deny Williams knows how to build his defense. That's goofy.

Never denied that Williams has an idea of what he needs to build his defense. His defense was ranked 31st in the league though, in large part due to the decisions he's made in personel. That you'd scoff at people in a condescending manor when they criticize or show a lack of faith that everything will be ok is what's goofy.

But, there are systems that de-emphasize the defensive line by design. Systems that don't require it to do a ton of one-on-one beating of the opponent. Unfortunately fans tend to be able to count sack numbers more easily than they can count line play based on stopping the run with seven players, which we could do for two years and some, here and there, last year.

Like I said, IMO... it's a flawed design. To me the defensive line is the most important cog when it comes to the defense just as it's my opinion that the the offensive line is the most important part of the offense. That a scheme would try to de-emphasize this is very backwards and wrong to me. We'll never have a consistant pass rush with this scheme, and we'll continue to struggle in forcing turnovers as a result. And stopping the run is no guarantee either. Sure our LB play was bad, but our line play helped contribute to it in a big way.

In the end, the premise remains there are a number of ways to build a winning team, though, in the cap era it starts with QB. In allowing that there are many ways, each organization is led by men attempting to do very specific things. It's a joke you think you know how to make Gregg Williams' defense go better than he does. And that you can't admit it borders on pathetic.

I've witnessed Williams bench Arrington for Holdman. I've witnessed Williams let Pierce, Clark and Smoot go and witnessed his defense slip in ranking each year he's been here. I rightfully question Williams because he deserves it. You would think by reading your comments that we didn't rank 31st in the league last year, at the bottom of the barrel stopping the run, getting pressure on the QB and causing turnovers. Forgive me if I don't just blindly show faith that Williams knows what he's doing.

[skinsfanno9]

The reason why I haven't made up my mind about this is because recently we seem to have got away from this mentality. So either we now have a plan, or the person(s) making the plans have changed!!

Personally, I think its just a lull in the action. I fully expect at least half our picks to be gone by draft time next year.

[skinsn24]

Because, Skinsn, it doesn't matter WHAT they do on the field to know what they represent. The players brought in represent the team's best effort to correct the flaws of last year's team. If they all bomb and we suck again because of it, then we'll do the whole thing again. If they work out, we'll likely repair another area we can improve on or that creeps up from injury.

"The players brought in represent the team's best effort to correct the flaws of last year's team"--this is true, it is the teams best effort, but the effort may be futile if they diagnosed the problem wrong.

For example, if i go to the doctor with a cold, he tells me it is just a cold and to drink liquids and ill be fine in a week, He is making his best effort to correct the problem, based on what he thinks it is. He could be right or wrong. If in another week i am back at the doctors and my cold is no better, he is not going to just say "ok well lets try to hydrate again and you will be better", the problem may be the fact that I have cancer or something way more serious than he ever thought.

Just because he thought he diagnosed the problem correctly doesnt make it correct.

"If they all bomb and we suck again because of it, then we'll do the whole thing again"--Interesting statement here. I see that we did that with the SS position this year, but we didnt do it at WR, they bombed but we didnt address it again, other needs may have popped up (LB). So your statment there does not hold true in ALL scenerios

[Art]

Well, at least what the coaching staff views as the problem.

Whether or not it is the actual problem will be borne out by the performance next season.

Jason

And, again, no.

The team can be worse next year, and it won't make the decisions as to what it needed to improve on invalid. It would simply make the choices taken to improve invalid. These are two different conversations people seem to have difficulty pulling apart.

The only manner by which performance comes in is if every one of the additions plays lights out, it is acknowledged we have great coverage, and tackling skills and no problems with people missing assignments or making the wrong reads, and, we still get blown away with a totally healthy team up front. In this case, it would clearly lead you to believe the decision as to what was needed was questionable. We have not seen something like that, of course, as it would be difficult to spot if it did happen.

What the team feels is missing is a different conversation from who they pick to fill those missing parts. Pull them apart as they are two distinctly different measures.

[CaliforniaSkin]

Art, the poll is, obviously, flawed. I am the first to admit that the coaches know more about football than I do. BUT, it does not logically follow from that statement that the coaches understand how to put a football team together. The coaches, or more the point, strongly believed that Arch Deluxe was what they needed last year. Obviously he wasn't.

This staff has tried going against conventional wisdom several times. We've tried building through free agency rather than the draft. We've tried going out and getting restricted free agents. What has it gotten us? Year after year, the 'skins spend more money and year after year the results on the field are lousy.

[skinsfanno9]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't Williams have a terrific Dline in Buffalo?

[McD5]

If only it were a strawman, DJ. People actually think they know what we were really bad at more than the people who coached the team. That's why this thread exists. It's a had thing to comprehend.

Art, it happens. Millen in Detroit, taking receivers every year, yet still sucking hard.

Now who knows better there? The guy that keeps taking receivers every year, while ignoring other needs?

Or the fans and sportswriters who think it is stupid?

The coaches are not always right. And not just in player selection either. They are often not right on many different counts. Spurrier thinking the fun and gun was going to cut it in the nfl was not right, and he later admitted so. That was a bad plan.....not bad execution.

[Art]

The problem with your argument is that is could also be indicative of the team not having a plan. Having "detailed, precise plans" that appear to revolve around signing the most highly rated player in that identified position of need, and paying him the most money for that position, and then going and doing the same thing a few months later, sometimes even for the same position, makes some people scratch their heads in wonder. And I am not talking about last year. Do the names Smith, Saunders, Carrier, Brunell not ring any bells either?

The reason why I haven't made up my mind about this is because recently we seem to have got away from this mentality. So either we now have a plan, or the person(s) making the plans have changed!!

Not totally sure what you're asking.

Are you suggesting that a plan is impossible to have if you implement something, recognize the failure in what you've tried, then adjust and try something else? I find this flawed. A strength is our ability to wipe mistakes clean and move on. Weakness would have been to take Archuleta and continue banging him in there because he was the initial plan. Plans differ. My company just released new code Friday night. The plan was 87 individual steps, each outlined with precise work flow. Of the 87, maybe 5 went EXACTLY as planned because of variables you could not pretest. Is this a sign of weakness becasue you couldn't predict the answers ahead of time, or strength because we knew so much about what we were doing we could adjust quickly and resolve things rapidly?

The Arculeta situation is a sad one because he was so awful. But, it is not a sign there isn't a plan that he was traded and another player was taken to replace him. Hell, if anything, it confirms the initial plan and validates that need. Don't you think?

[JoeKnowsBest]

All I'm gonna say is....

-I made the point and even created a thread that this is still the same defense that 2 and 3 years ago had the same pieces of the puzzle (thanks to PP, Stoutmire, and Smoot returning) that got it to be a top ranked defense.

-Even so, we still had glaring pressure problems against the QB, as well as a gaping running whole on the one side that lost us a few games.

-How can anyone justify taking Rocky with a high 2nd round pick (that cost us a future high pick as well) and giving a 3rd round pick, in which both cases both aquasitions never played? That should be an obvious waste of picks and reeks of panic and indecision amongst the people who are in charge. Which I don't see how that can be defended in any way shape or form. Leave the Archuletta and Clark situations alone, those 2 situations right there should be a red alert about the decision makers.

-This has to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. Nobody seems to be the man in charge with a consistant plan. There seems to be no absolute leader in personell decisions nor coherent evaluations. Everybody gets their say on a equal level, but that interferes with having a grand plan and accurate evaluations. Another reason why the Defensive line is so subpar, because they give Blache the sole discression of evaluating the defensive line so it sounds like. (I didnt like this guy since the day he got here and was so big [even half way violent] on Daniels even though Daniels hadn't played a single down.) Blache seem like a guy who hates all outsiders and has his own little clique from everything I've seen of him so that's why I absolutely do not trust him to be objective or proffesional. That there would lead to a poor evaluation and misleading of information to Greg Williams and Joe Gibbs if they are seriously trusting him to evaluate the players on the defensive line.

But again.... too many cooks in the kitchen is what this is. We need a GM, or Danny and Joe should just be the guy.

[dfbovey]

And, again, no.

The team can be worse next year, and it won't make the decisions as to what it needed to improve on invalid. It would simply make the choices taken to improve invalid. These are two different conversations people seem to have difficulty pulling apart.

Yeah, you think that the team can do no wrong in disecting what the flaws are in the team. And you think fans don't have the right to criticize or question them in that regard. The team could easily flounder because they were inaccurate in assessing the true problems. So your line of thinking is very flawed.

[CaliforniaSkin]

And, again, no.

The team can be worse next year, and it won't make the decisions as to what it needed to improve on invalid. It would simply make the choices taken to improve invalid. These are two different conversations people seem to have difficulty pulling apart.

The only manner by which performance comes in is if every one of the additions plays lights out, it is acknowledged we have great coverage, and tackling skills and no problems with people missing assignments or making the wrong reads, and, we still get blown away with a totally healthy team up front. In this case, it would clearly lead you to believe the decision as to what was needed was questionable. We have not seen something like that, of course, as it would be difficult to spot if it did happen.

What the team feels is missing is a different conversation from who they pick to fill those missing parts. Pull them apart as they are two distinctly different measures.

So is there any way that you think the decision could be shown to be questionable? Other than the impossible scenario of a rookie playing without any mistakes and no injuries all year. The point is that you can (and should) plan for injuries and rookie mistakes.

Who the team needs and who they pick are not, and cannot be totally distinct. The team drafts PLAYERS not positions. If they cannot evaluate players then it is a mistake.

You could, I suppose, be making the tautalological argument that "the team drafts who it feels it is missing so whoever they draft they feel is missing" but that is pointless. The only relevent question is whether this team can draft someone who will improve the team.

[swisha]

Because, Skinsn, it doesn't matter WHAT they do on the field to know what they represent. The players brought in represent the team's best effort to correct the flaws of last year's team. If they all bomb and we suck again because of it, then we'll do the whole thing again. If they work out, we'll likely repair another area we can improve on or that creeps up from injury.

Now, I'm a little worried if this is the apparatus the coaches employ. You can't keep plugging different variables into the cycle to produce different results. At some point, you have to change the system.

As far as if the coaches know more about this defense or I do, obviously the coaches know more, but that doesn't stop me from questioning their moves. Because in the end, nothing is for sure. Thus, I have the right to question any thing team does.

[Art]

Funny thing is, it was reported that many people inside the organization felt that the D-line was by far the weakest link.

A couple of things pop to mind here. Since when did decisions have to be agreed upon by every person in an organization? If the judgement is that unless there's 100 percent agreement on everything, it can't be correct, then the whole world's in trouble. The other thing that's interesting is, again, I talk to people in the organization. Often pretty candidly. Scouts, coaches, players, .comTV crew, etc. I've never heard, on or off the record, the consideration that DL was the biggest need. Well, Larry thinks that, but he's goofy :0.

Trust me, the "reports" you've seen, by the person you've seen them from, lack the access to anyone in position to make such a statement. But, he might talk to Larry .

[skinsn24]

And, again, no.

The team can be worse next year, and it won't make the decisions as to what it needed to improve on invalid. It would simply make the choices taken to improve invalid.

The only manner by which performance comes in is if every one of the additions plays lights out, it is acknowledged we have great coverage, and tackling skills and no problems with people missing assignments or making the wrong reads, and, we still get blown away with a totally healthy team up front. In this case, it would clearly lead you to believe the decision as to what was needed was questionable. We have not seen something like that, of course, as it would be difficult to spot if it did happen.

Those two statement directly contradict each other, you can deny it, but noone will beleive it.

You said: we can be worse but it would mean that the choices taken to improve the team were NOT wrong

then

You Said: If we play well in the areas where we addressed the "problem" but we are worse, than the problem may have been addressed wrong.

Again, i bring you to my doctor example.

I go to the doctor.

He says my problem is i have a cold.

He trys to fix my cold by giving me advil and water.

I drink water for a week, dont get any better.

He looks at me and says you just have a cold, lets try warm water.

I dont get any better.

I go to a different doctor

He Tells me i have strep throat.

He gives me anti-boditics

I get better.

Point is, we know what the coaching staff thinks our problem is, we dont know if that was actually our problem untill we hit the field. Then we will know.

Here is an NFL example:

The Cardinals thought there running game problem was running back.

They tried lots of different backs.

They finally got a proven star RB

Still no improvment, but stats show almost all of the RBS yards are YAC

Now the Cardinals decide the problem wasnt RB, it was OL....

[McD5]

Before these guys ever take the field, they reveal the unquestionable answer as to what last year's problems were. And, like you, we are left to hope these answers are the right ones from a play standpoint. That's always the iffy proposition.

Unquestionable answer? Do you really believe another wide receiver is the unquestionable answer in Detroit?

[swisha]

The team can be worse next year, and it won't make the decisions as to what it needed to improve on invalid. It would simply make the choices taken to improve invalid. These are two different conversations people seem to have difficulty pulling apart.

Why are you sure there is absolutely no way the team can't misidentify a weakness that needs improvement?

[JoeKnowsBest]

What we needed is based on the evaluation of who you have and what types of things you're missing.

We can criticize the way they evaluate talent if it is not producing can we not? I mean if the only thing they are failing at is picking the wrong players that don't work out in their system, it is still a mistake subseptible to criticism is it not? Remember, failure is still failure, and results are stil results. Newtons law: For every action there is a reaction.

Thus if you fail at picking players for YOUR system, and it becomes a redux over several season of the same old thing happening, doesn't that warrent fans to scratch their head and say, "huh?" or "not again"?

They pick a player. That player doesn't play well in their system. Fans react.

That's the circle of a fans life.

Here's another fact... Patience has it's limits... in this case over the coarse of informative observations.

[Art]

"The players brought in represent the team's best effort to correct the flaws of last year's team"--this is true, it is the teams best effort, but the effort may be futile if they diagnosed the problem wrong.

For example, if i go to the doctor with a cold, he tells me it is just a cold and to drink liquids and ill be fine in a week, He is making his best effort to correct the problem, based on what he thinks it is. He could be right or wrong. If in another week i am back at the doctors and my cold is no better, he is not going to just say "ok well lets try to hydrate again and you will be better", the problem may be the fact that I have cancer or something way more serious than he ever thought.

Just because he thought he diagnosed the problem correctly doesnt make it correct.

"If they all bomb and we suck again because of it, then we'll do the whole thing again"--Interesting statement here. I see that we did that with the SS position this year, but we didnt do it at WR, they bombed but we didnt address it again, other needs may have popped up (LB). So your statment there does not hold true in ALL scenerios

And here, you touch on the point of this thread.

It presumes they could possibly incorrectly diagnose the problem and that you, smart guy you are, can do it better. Again, let me repeat the process the staff takes, then you tell me yours.

Every play of every player on the team is watched, dozens of times and evaluated against the set measure of the play that was called, the duties assigned to that play, the execution of those duties and the reliable nature of the variable reads assigned to each variation presented on every play based on formation, motion, personnel grouping and the like. All the time you hear players talk about being graded in the film room. The grades are based on what was done, and whether it was done according to the requirements of the design.

The grades are accumulated and weighed against known factors. Factors like, "He was supposed to do X and he did X," or, "He was supposed to do X and he did Y." Good coaching leads to players tasked with doing X and actually doing it. Then, once the staff has determined that, they evaluate everything again. X was done as expected, but, the failure was, what.

Did the defensive lineman do what he was asked, but, show he couldn't get off the block to help make the play? Was the corner in perfect position, but when he came up, missed the tackle. That kind of thing. When it's all done, the data comes together and the people who know how it's supposed to work and what is necessary to make it work determine the weaknesses are whatever they are.

My contention is it is impossible for anyone in their position to be incorrect about this evaluation. The worst coach in the league will get this right. It's his system. He's making the calls. He's doing the coaching. He'll get this basic element right.

Then players are signed. Here, we may get wrong.

Now, tell me how you have gone about concluding they can possibly be incorrect in the evaluation leading to what is needed to improve. I look forward to it.

[skinsn24]

The pole is hilarious to.

Its like asking this.

"Now that we have gone to war in iraq, Who knows more about our country, me or our administration"

A. "I know more. I understand whats going on in the world and war is not the answer."

B. "The administration knows more, war is obviously the right choice."

Or it is like asking this

"Now that President Bush says the war is a sucess and is asking for more troops, who knows more about the world, Me or Bush"

A. I know more, get our troops the hell out, we didnt win the war, that is bogus propaganda

B. The President always knows more, i was wrong, send more guys in.

Or even better yet

"Now that we went to vietnam, fought the war, and it is over, who made the right decision."

A. I did, i protested the war, said it was bogus, and it appears to be bogus.

B. The government did, they obviously felt Vietnam was a good war to fight in and i concede it rocked!