I need to know something in a poll form.

[Art]

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.

So, you're saying Gregg Williams has no idea what he needs to make his defense go? If he tells you, to your face, he couldn't use Dwight Freeney, you'd call him a liar, because everyone needs a guy like Freeney, right? Or, do you think he's right, that in his system, Freeney would be a failure.

I reject your position it is somehow incorrect to improve through free agency because it's not "conventional". Of course it's not conventional. Free agency has existed for about 18 years of the league's long history. Convention is a lot different. And, I'd ask you, if it seems more wise to pick from a pool of players who've shown some capacity to be NFL players, versus a pool of players who have a miss rate of incredible numbers.

But, this isn't really relevant to this conversation. How we go about fixing the areas we determine need to be fixed is an area you can easily, and openly question and never be totally incorrect on. The area of what is determined to be necessary to run the system, though, is one you can never be correct on, unless you are perfectly in line with the people actually running it.

[swisha]

A

My contention is it is impossible for anyone in their position to be incorrect about this evaluation.

That is a strong statement. Please call the coaches of the Detriot Lions and have them justify drafting another wide receiver in relations to weaknesses they need to address.

[UK Skins]

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?

I think we might actually agree for this off-season. The identification of Archuleta as a weakness and his immediate ditching would appear to suggest the existence of a plan. Choosing Landry with our only meaningful draft pick to replace him would appear to support that.

Whether that one individual step (to use your example) is evidence of a more complete strategy we will find out. While this thread is not about the draft, whether we should have used the number 6 pick on a replacement for Archuleta is part of a bigger picture which I remain unconvinced exists, but as every off-season will keep my fingers crossed that is does.

[Art]

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.

Correct. I think the staff implementing a system, calling the plays, knowing the calls, evaluating who did what, are, in every case, in every city, always going to be accurate in identifying the needs that make their system go. And, I think a fan who can not honestly say he's watched every play his team plays even a single time, and, during much of that, is doing so on a narrow view screen, somewhat intoxicated, with kids screaming around them, a wife angry they are watching television, a lawn to mow, a mortgage to pay, a garage to clean, etc., must, necessarily, know, intuitively and totally, that this is so.

You believe these people can be wrong in knowing what's missing from the system they are running, and that you are able to figure it out for them. Kind of you. But, wrong.

[UK Skins]

How we go about fixing the areas we determine need to be fixed is an area you can easily, and openly question and never be totally incorrect on. The area of what is determined to be necessary to run the system, though, is one you can never be correct on, unless you are perfectly in line with the people actually running it.

To be fair to Art this is a totally fair and valid point. Of course we will continue to question both areas but will never achieve satisfaction on the latter. Which I suppose was the point of the poll!!

[Art]

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.

Irrelevant whether a player works out or not. It's been repeatedly stated the evaluation of players is a guessing game and can be missed on a majority of the time by every team in the game. Detroit's failures with receivers doesn't show a lack of understanding what they need. It shows, with clear certainty, it's an area they desperately feel they need, and have not been able to find yet. When they do, they'll find something else.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think the Skins' FO did EXACTLY what a lot of fans had been complaining about over the past three years:

2004's defense was stellar...but we lost our MLB (Pierce) and our #2 CB (Smoot). Fans said we never should have let them go.

2005's defense was down slightly, but still top-notch (the playoff victory was due to defense and ONLY defense...they were stunning in that victory)....but then we lost our safety (Clark). Fans said we never should have let him go.

2006's defensive performance was atrocious...fans said "We never should have let Pierce go! We never should have let Smoot go! We never should have let Clark go!". In many fans' eyes the Skins weakened a stellar defense over a two year span by letting their MLB, CB and safety leave.

So what does the Skins' FO do this offseason?...They go out and get a MLB, a CB and a safety.

They sign Fletcher, a real, bonafide MLB.

They re-sign Smoot, the CB they let go.

They draft Landry, a true stud of a safety.

The three positions that many fans claimed the Skins' FO weakened over the last few years by thinking "We can plug anyone in there and win" were all addressed and strengthened considerably. You guys should be doing backflips.

[skinsn24]

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.

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.

First Art, let me say, i dont think i can do it better on a consistant basis, not even close. But i do believe that coaches CAN AND DO make mistakes in diagnosising a problem.

Note your Contradiction:

"It presumes they could possibly incorrectly diagnose the problem"

"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."

Now here is what i dont get. You say that to figure out what the problem is, all these grades are made from game tape ect ect. Which i beleive 100%, here how you describe it:

"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."

The you say no coach can do this wrong, because it is there sysem, so the grades are 100% correct.

Then you say "Then players are signed. Here, we may get wrong"

I assume the players that are signed are watched on game tape, over and over, X and O's, ect ect. And given a grade based on the coaches system. I dont understand how they can be wrong in this department of grading but not wrong in the other. It would seem that if the coaches are never wrong in reconizing which players are the problem, they could never be wrong in selecting the solution.

A doctor might tell me i have ED, give me viagra, No sucess, then Cilais, no sucess. I begin to think i have a much bigger problem than my doctor says, but i have no medical experience, but i do know what he has said so far is isnt working. However i trust him, but at my next appointment say "hey doc, is there any chance i have a larger problem. he says "no silly, i am the doctor, i cant be wrong." He gives me Lavietra. Still nothing doin for me. I am fed up and fire the doc.

I go to another doctor, he says my problem is cancer, and i need chemo, after months of treatment (which could have been reduced if the first doc got the problem right), i return to normal and everything works fine.

[TheLongshot]

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

A lot of people here seemed to think it was for our team.

Jason

[dfbovey]

You believe these people can be wrong in knowing what's missing from the system they are running, and that you are able to figure it out for them. Kind of you. But, wrong.

Not at all what I said. To sum it up for you:

1- I don't like Gregg Williams system. As I stated in this thread I believe it's a flawed system and I've explained why.

2- These people are capable of making mistakes and have proven that repeatedly over the past 3 seasons.

31st ranked defense... but as fans we have no right to question judgement. We need a lemming smilie option.

[Art]

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.

No, there's no way it can be shown as questionable what the people running the system believe is necessary to improve it. Questionable comes in after the identification of need is made in the selection of people to fill it. Here is where you consistently have problems. Go back to Gibbs with Moss and Coles. Gibbs decided with the rules of the game as they were, he needed a quick release receiver, capable of creating space quickly. The rule changes slowly alter the previous conventional thinking that you needed a big receiver who could use his body to make plays in tight coverage to smaller, quicker receivers starting to really emerge. Gibbs orchestrated a trade to accomplish this. His evaluation was Coles did not suit that role. It didn't matter who did. He knew he had to have it filled.

He picked Moss. He made a bad value trade as Moss was a lesser performer than Coles, but, he could be said to fit the identified need if he worked out. The trade has worked out to a degree. This is a positive example, but, it could have failed. It wouldn't have made the underlying decision that we needed that type of receiver to make the system go invalid. It would have made the decision as to the player invalid.

Here, fans have taken their personal views as to what we need and replaced that of the people running things. I don't understand the thought process that would allow someone to say, "You need a pass rushing end," on a defense that is telling you, it can't use that player, because it prioritizes something else above it. It's not wrong to want that player. It's just wrong to think you might know how to make the system in place function better than the people who actually do know the system.

[redskinsfever]

There is no exact science to assembling an NFL team. When 1 team does 1 thing and another team does something different, it doesn't make one right and the other wrong. There are so many intangibles to try to predict.

You do the best you can with the experience and research and observation from each player, every practice, each game, each season, etc. Snyder is a young owner, who I believe, has grown and learned a lot since coming into the NFL. I love his passion for winning(trying to), and his eagerness to get better.

This past season, I also believe, was a HUGE wake up call to Gibbs, and the whole Redskin organization. They admitted thier mistakes. They did not do their proper research in bringing in players. They assumed too much having all the top coaches in the league that whomever they brought in would be coached to have their best seasons ever. Giving up draft picks just was far to easy because in their minds, they weren't going to let anything stop them from winning the Super Bowl last year. Remember the hype of us being the 13-3 team. On paper, everything seemed just right.

Then there was the season. Springs was injured, Portis was injured, Arch couldn't do as planned, Lloyd proved uncoachable and didn't perform, Brunell was replaced, our LB crew was not even close to previous years or expectations. CB and safety couldn't cover. Carter took half a year to start producing. 5-11! Glad it was finally over.

I tell you this, that 5-11 was now the best thing that ever happened to this team. We began with fixing the VERY obvious. Our corners were not covering, our safety(s) were getting burnt, and our LB's were not tackling. We did not have the playmakers on D like we have had in years past. We know ST is a playmaker, and Springs.(injuries) In comes LFB. Beautiful! Back comes Smoot. I love it, a man to man cover corner. Bring in Macklin, a Redskin fan at heart. This defense is already better, if we did nothing more.

Going into the draft at #6, I wanted the surest defensive player available. I wanted Laron Landry. I believe we will have the best year yet out of ST, our best playmaker. We have another great playmaker in LL. With draft picks, the goal is to get players that will make the team. What good are they if they don't? Their best chance to make it will be as special teams player. D-Line are not special teams players. I love the 2 LB's we picked up, even the TE has a good shot on special teams. I was hoping we went after a QB, by the way. I personally am against drafting a 1st round QB. He is going to sit at least a year anyways, so why spend the cap money on the player that sits? A lot of great QB's are found in round 2 - at least 6. Much less money and can sit longer than a year, giving more time to produce. (Carson's brother...could you imagine...in round 6?)

Lastly, this offseason goes from March - AUGUST. Last I checked, it was only April. I see lots of people drawing all kinds of conclusions on our team. I see lots of people who put every hope into 1 thing...the #6 pick of the draft. 1 player and 1 option out of many. I still believe we will be making changes. I think something is going to happen with Springs. I DO trust our FO with Gibbs in the mix. Yes, they have made their mistakes, but I believe they have learned as well. They know what is wrong, as much as they know what is right. We could improve our team at every position. We may make a trade to improve our D-Line, we may pick up some FA...we may even find a diamond in the rough...Are they aware Dan Mozes wasn't drafted? (I am a WVU grad)

Just getting a lot of things off my chest as a result of these past couple weeks.

[dfbovey]

Here, fans have taken their personal views as to what we need and replaced that of the people running things. I don't understand the thought process that would allow someone to say, "You need a pass rushing end," on a defense that is telling you, it can't use that player, because it prioritizes something else above it. It's not wrong to want that player. It's just wrong to think you might know how to make the system in place function better than the people who actually do know the system.

Since when has it ever been true that Gregg Williams' defense can't use a pass rusher? Was it in Tennessee? Buffalo? Where did this fictional bit of truth become reality on this message board?

[skinsn24]

No, there's no way it can be shown as questionable what the people running the system believe is necessary to improve it. Questionable comes in after the identification of need is made in the selection of people to fill it.

Art you realize that this statement and everything you have said in this thread means 1 thing. That the only difference in NFL teams and what determines winning and losing comes down to 1 thing.

Evaluation of the players to be brought in via FA and Draft.

You have said that every NFL teams makes the right decisions in the positions of need and how to build. BUt have said mistakes can ONLY happen when deciding the actual player to fill that role.

This means the difference between a 1-16 coach and a Hall of fame coach is based strictly on their ability to evaluate the individual players brought in?

You really cant beleive that these coaches are not human and are incappable of making a mistake

[Art]

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

I've explained this throughout the thread.

The people coaching the team run the system. They know the play calls. They know the execution. They know who did their job and who didn't. They know why they adjusted a certain way. They know how to scheme weakness. They live it. Watch it. Know it. They see the plays in their heads. It's what they are. Every play, broken down, 10 ways to Sunday. Every arm placement understood. Footwork exactly marked. Move your head across the body. Who got low. Who stayed high. What each play requires to be successful within the system being run.

Now, I'd like you to explain, at the core level, BEFORE the team acquires a player, how can it ever be wrong in deciding what it needs to make the system go. I heard one interesting theory on this very early in the thread and one that was actually touched on by Gibbs at today's conference when he said we could find a flaw in Superman.

These guys are so close to it, it might create a situation where they can turn a blind eye to something, or see something that doesn't exist, because they are looking too closely. That seems to be a valid, reasonable thought as to how these people could tell you they need something and not be entirely perfect in that decision.

I'd like to hear your view as to how they could fail to identify the types of players and roles they require to make their systems go though, while explaining how any fan could know that part better. And, if you actually do this, do me one more favor. Tell me one complete play call, and what it means for all 11 guys. Just one.

Appropriate language for the call, and a breakdown of just ONE defensive call that precisely maps out the job of all 11 guys. Do that, and I'll believe you might know what the system requires.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Since when has it ever been true that Gregg Williams' defense can't use a pass rusher? Was it in Tennessee? Buffalo? Where did this fictional bit of truth become reality on this message board?

Can't remember when, but sometime a few months ago someone started a thread breaking down GW's defenses and how they ranked each season, sack-wise. They seemed to stay in the lower third a lot. Not sure if that was sack totals for just their D-line or for the entire defense, but it wasn't pretty lol.

[skinsn24]

What ART is saying is redicoulus. Here is a real world example:

I dont know as much as the current administration about world politcs or their policies, but i believe, and many others do that the war is not going well in iraq.

Bush says the war is going well and what we need is more time, more money and more troops.

I disagree, i think time is up, and we need to safely get out boys out of there before our army is unable to do anything in the future. (depletion of forces)

However, because Bush knows his policies and the world politics better than me he cant be wrong?

Its funny because other people who do know world politics very well, may share my same view but might not be in position to change the decisions being made....yet

[skinsn24]

Can't remember when, but sometime a few months ago someone started a thread breaking down GW's defenses and how they ranked each season, sack-wise. They seemed to stay in the lower third a lot. Not sure if that was sack totals for just their D-line or for the entire defense, but it wasn't pretty lol.

Jvon Kearse did pretty Good for GW. He was drafted pretty high and used pretty well.:2cents:

[TheLongshot]

The three positions that many fans claimed the Skins' FO weakened over the last few years by thinking "We can plug anyone in there and win" were all addressed and strengthened considerably. You guys should be doing backflips.

Not quite. More like, "We need to move on without these guys we really wanted to keep, but couldn't". That is, as far as Smoot and Pierce goes.

With Clark, it is obvious that Williams felt that he needed a talent upgrade, and in the end, Arch wasn't the answer. So, now Landry is the new answer. Otherwise, he would have worked with the guys we already have, since talentwise they aren't much different than Clark.

Jason

[skinsn24]

ART, Are you really saying the only difference between coaches is their evaluation of players to bring in?

Your arguement is funny because it would imply that ANY TEAM WITH A GM, where the GM DECIDES what positions are NEEDED WOULD FAIL.

Something tells me that teams that let GM decide What positions are needed, have done well in the past...NO?

[DjTj]

Irrelevant whether a player works out or not. It's been repeatedly stated the evaluation of players is a guessing game and can be missed on a majority of the time by every team in the game. Detroit's failures with receivers doesn't show a lack of understanding what they need. It shows, with clear certainty, it's an area they desperately feel they need, and have not been able to find yet. When they do, they'll find something else.

I think there is a fallacy here. The fact that Detroit took Calvin Johnson does not imply that wide receiver was their biggest single need. It merely implies that Calvin Johnson was the best player available that corresponded to one of Detroit's many needs. The Lions also need a QB, an OT, and any number of other positions. However, Calvin Johnson was a once-in-a-decade talent that the Lions could not pass up.

Similarly, I do not believe that our drafting of LaRon Landry necessarily means that we needed a safety more than a defensive lineman. If simply means that we needed LaRon Landry at safety more than we needed Jamaal Anderson at DE or Amobi Okoye at DT. If a safety of Landry's caliber were not available at #6, I seriously doubt we would have picked a safety in the first round.

[Art]

Skinsn,

There's no contradiction in anything I've said. The evaluation of players is the hardest thing in the world of sports to get right because there is the element of humanity at play. Evaluating a system is easy, almost mathematical work. It's obvious, if tedious. But, it is plain and unable to miss. You determine to make it work you need a middle linebacker who makes quick, sure reads, and finishes plays he's designed to finish. You sign Fletcher. Whether Fletcher is the answer is irrelevant to the process. He could have taken one too many hits and have his body break in camp with something totally unexpected. HE could be great.

The human element of how people react to certain situations makes personnel evaluation uncertain. And here it is perfectly reasonable to question why one guy was taken over another to fix the problem, but, that presumes you're actually willing to acknowledge it boils down you knowing they know what they are trying to accomplish better than you.

People here are actually pretty sure they aren't.

[TotalRecall]

Do you think the people who coach our team have a better grasp of what was weak last year than you do? That's it.

We'll see next season. If they can't stop the run, then they flubbed-up bad. It's the NFC East... unlike the AFC, if you can't stop the run, you're team is gonna stink.

[dfbovey]

Can't remember when, but sometime a few months ago someone started a thread breaking down GW's defenses and how they ranked each season, sack-wise. They seemed to stay in the lower third a lot. Not sure if that was sack totals for just their D-line or for the entire defense, but it wasn't pretty lol.

I believe that Buffalo either led the league or was in the top 5 in sacks at least one seasons while Williams was there, and alot of the pressure came from the defensive end position with guys like Schobel. And he had Kearse in Tennessee.

[skinsn24]

I think there is a fallacy here. The fact that Detroit took Calvin Johnson does not imply that wide receiver was their biggest single need. It merely implies that Calvin Johnson was the best player available that corresponded to one of Detroit's many needs. The Lions also need a QB, an OT, and any number of other positions. However, Calvin Johnson was a once-in-a-decade talent that the Lions could not pass up.

Similarly, I do not believe that our drafting of LaRon Landry necessarily means that we needed a safety more than a defensive lineman. If simply means that we needed LaRon Landry at safety more than we needed Jamaal Anderson at DE or Amobi Okoye at DT. If a safety of Landry's caliber were not available at #6, I seriously doubt we would have picked a safety in the first round.

Such a good post. If J. Peppers was sitting there a 6, i bet DE would have been the bigger need.