Pats FO vs Skins FO

[Om]

For every website I found that said Snyder had the final say, I found one that said Gibbs had final say on who made the roster. There are people, though, that still think that Snyder still has final say, and even Spurrier said that was the case when he was here. It may or may not be true, now.

Perhaps you need to spread the word about Gibbs having final say if this is true. Some people are still misinformed.

The problem may be relying on "websites" my friend.

Gibbs, Snyder and Cerrato have all said themselves, repeatedly and unequivocally, that Gibbs has final decisions on personnel matters. It only continues to be a question for those who either think they're lying through their teeth or simply don't bother to go to the source in the first place.

Spread the word.

[Aston]

I think maybe you should post NE's projected starting offense and defense for '07 alongside ours, making the QB switch you allude to part of it. My guess is we'll both be solidly in favor of our starting O, and their starting D.

I agree here. On paper, our offense with Brady looks much more intimidating than the Pats offense with Campbell.

And if I can convince you to consider our D not just in terms of last year's stunning collapse, but in context of GW's defense over the entirety of his 3 years here, I'm betting I can convince you we are at least their equal talent-wise on that side as well.

Here's where I get off.

First and most importantly - talent, to the Patriots anyway, doesn't matter as much as depth. This can be supported by the fact their 2003 Super Bowl team featured a record 42 different starters, and their 2004 Super Bowl team featured 40 different starters. Credit must be given first to Pioli for keeping the roster loaded with players who can play, and then to Belichick for using schemes that can incorporate less-than-talented players and still be successful. If I remember correctly, the majority of the injuries they faced in 03 and 04 were on defense (Troy Brown at corner, Ty Law, etc), and their ability to still become the leagues best and second best defense in the NFL during those two years should tell you that Pioli, or Belichick, or both, know what the heck they're doing. So talent-wise? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? Talent isn't as significant to me as results.

Note that I haven't mentioned a defensive coordinator yet. You suggested I consider the defenses in the context of GW's 3 year tenure. I'll use scoring defense, which I feel is more important than yardage defense for many reasons that I won't delve into here.

Comparable, yes, but clearly the Patriots have the edge, and that's also with 3 different coordinators. Going back another 3 years would also serve us well in factoring in the long-term consistency of the New England defense, especially 2003 when they had the #1 defense in the league.

But these years precede the Gibbs II era and would likely but considered irrelevant in my proposed comparison of Gibbs' Redskins w/Brady vs. Belichick's Patriots w/Campbell. And besides, I'm not going to post OUR defensive numbers for those years for ANY reason.:doh:

My primary argument, or rather my opinion since I'll concede that we'll both truly never know until Brady leaves, is that New England's consistently successful defensive scheme, fueled by cheap, servicable, deep rosters thanks to the plug-n-play schemes of Belichick and the personnel skills of Pioli, gives Brady (or any quarterback) a tremendous advantage that can't be denied.

Therefore, it's not ALL Brady. It's also the deep roster (mainly the defense) around Brady which doesn't rely exclusively on star players or even star coordinators to thrive.

So I think that if we traded today, Brady's Redskins, at the end of 2008, would likely be one of the NFC's best teams (I think we will be without Brady, but that's different thread altogether), but more importantly, so would Campbell's Patriots. The point to see here is that I feel because of that consistently dominant defense that can succeed despite injuries as well as defensive coordinator changes doesn't necessarily require a HOF quarterback to run. Campbell could lead them to the Super Bowl just as easily. Brady would have a harder time here I think because he wouldn't have the luxury of this guy.

Your move.

65% Brady - 35% FO. Final offer.

[Om]

Productive work my friend.

Before I either accept or counteroffer though, I do want to mull the rest of your info when I have a minute later tonight. Least I owe you after that effort is a legit evidenciary hearing.

Before I bail though, I do want to make mention of one factor I'm not sure has been covered yet ... and that's the notion of an offense humming along under a guy like Senor Brady being a rising tide that lifts all NE ships, including yon defense. A lot easier to post good numbers, I'm sure you would agree, when the O is scoring points, controlling the clock and not regularly punting from deep in its own end, putting the D to work with its backs to the end zone.

Just a thought.

*

By the way. I stipulate to Pioli being a good personnel guy. Never really suggested otherwise.

[Dirk Diggler]

Campbell could lead them to the Super Bowl just as easily.

IMO, that is an absurd statement. We all love the upside of Campbell, but he hasn't proven capable of even being solid let alone super.

BTW - Appreciate the work you put in. And it wouldn't change your conclusions, but the Skins actually allowed the least points in the league in 2004 if you subtract TDs on returns which, surely they can't be blamed for... being that they weren't even on the field to stop those 3 or 4 guys.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

First and most importantly - talent, to the Patriots anyway, doesn't matter as much as depth. This can be supported by the fact their 2003 Super Bowl team featured a record 42 different starters, and their 2004 Super Bowl team featured 40 different starters. Credit must be given first to Pioli for keeping the roster loaded with players who can play, and then to Belichick for using schemes that can incorporate less-than-talented players and still be successful. If I remember correctly, the majority of the injuries they faced in 03 and 04 were on defense (Troy Brown at corner, Ty Law, etc), and their ability to still become the leagues best and second best defense in the NFL during those two years should tell you that Pioli, or Belichick, or both, know what the heck they're doing. So talent-wise? Maybe, maybe not. Who cares? Talent isn't as significant to me as results.

I don't care that the team is struggling. I just want to kiss you.

[Aston]

IMO, that is an absurd statement. We all love the upside of Campbell, but he hasn't proven capable of even being solid let alone super.

Shhh, I know. Trying to get a rise out of him with small doses of nonsense so in a blind rage, he overlooks the entire "offense helps the defense too" argument. So far it ain't working so well.

Decent point about the return scores, but do you happen to know if the Pats gave up any return points as well? If so, let me know than immediately delete that last post if you wouldn't mind.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Before I bail though, I do want to make mention of one factor I'm not sure has been covered yet ... and that's the notion of an offense humming along under a guy like Senor Brady being a rising tide that lifts all NE ships, including yon defense. A lot easier to post good numbers, I'm sure you would agree, when the O is scoring points, controlling the clock and not regularly punting from deep in its own end, putting the D to work with its backs to the end zone.

Just a thought.

Probably some truth. But I think Time of Possession is probably the most important stat when it comes to helping a Defense. So where does NE rank?:

2006: 6th (Washington: 16th)

2005: 18th (Washington: 5th)

2004:7th (Washington: 8th)

2003: 12th (Washington: 23rd)

2002: 20th (Washington 18th)

They are a decent ball-control team, but I don't think you can make a strong correlation that they keep the defense fresh. Obviously, having a good offense helps, but I'm not sure that the offense exactly benefits this defense in this regard. There is probably a ying/yang type of thing.

I also think it's interesting that Washington's time of possession seems to have no correlation with anything.

Maybe this is just a bad stat for proving anything, regardless of what John Madden says.

I think what actually dictates time of possession is scoring offense, as my soon to be released best-seller "Everything You Think You Know About Sports is Wrong" will explore in the chapter "Best Defense of All Time: The 49ers of the 80s."

So, where does NE rank?:

2006: 7th (Washington: 20th...God, we sucked last year)

2005:10th (Washington: 13th)

2004: 4th...hey, now (Washington: 31st...are you kidding me?)

2003: 12th (Washington: 22nd...why do I follow this team again?)

2002: 10th (Washington: 25th)

So, New England has a pretty good offense It is consistently in the top third in the league. In 2004, it was arguably a great offense. I think since Brady's time as a starter, the defense has been better though.

And I see no real correlation that can be drawn by offenses "helping" defenses. At least not one where the reciprocal is true.

I would actually argue that defenses "help" some offensive snaps more. The only way that we possibly could have been 8th in TOP in 2004 with our pop-gun offense is based on the number of three-and-outs our defense created.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Shhh, I know. Trying to get a rise out of him with small doses of nonsense so in a blind rage, he overlooks the entire "offense helps the defense too" argument. So far it ain't working so well.

Decent point about the return scores, but do you happen to know if the Pats gave up any return points as well? If so, let me know than immediately delete that last post if you wouldn't mind.

I don't know, but ProFootballOutsiders have a stat on the effectiveness of special teams:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php

2006: NE 8th vs WAS 11th

2005: NE 12th vs WAS 10th

2004: NE 16th vs WAS 31st (2004 may have been the worst year ever to be a Skins fan)

2003: NE 9th vs WAS 11th

2002: NE 3rd vs WAS 31st

2001: NE 6th vs. WAS 8th

I think what we are learning is that the Patriots are kind of good at everything and occasionally great at a few things.

[Rolling Thunder]

Care to share any of that documentation?

As to "zero football knowledge," that may be have been true back in '99 when he bought the team. Up to that point he was probably no different that you, me and the 99% of the other people on this board. A fan with opinions.

Since then, though, he's spent 7 years immersed 7 days a week in pro football, from a seat that grants him total access and inside knowledge to every single aspect of the game and his team. Are you saying that over those 7 years he hasn't picked up even a little of what you deem "football knowledge?" You sure you could sit down across a beer with the man and run intellectual football circles around him? I think I'd like to be there to see that.

I don't know OM. Sometimes it seems as if Snyder has 1 years experience eight times.

[Dirk Diggler]

Decent point about the return scores, but do you happen to know if the Pats gave up any return points as well? If so, let me know than immediately delete that last post if you wouldn't mind.

Why would I? The Skins allowed 2 more TDs on returns than the Pats (6-4) giving them a total of 223 real points allowed on defense. That was tied with Pitt for the league low. New England allowed 232 after returns are deducted.

[darrell1106]

While I am having a hard time imagining what a conversation between Tom Brady and Randy Moss would sound like' date=' I can't help but be in awe of this move.

Here is the fundamental difference between the Skins and Pats. The Pats used a pick acquired by the 49ers for Moss - not one of their own. Then they basically restructured him into a one-year contract. If it works out, they win the Super Bowl. If it is a disaster by Week 5, they will cut him and never look back.

Compare that to the Skins who took a flyer on a less-talented head case in Lloyd. Used two of their own picks to get him. And then gave him a huge contract making him practically unmovable.

[b']The Skins are the divorced dad who takes you for ice cream every Sunday in his new sports car[/b].

LMAO

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[RedskinzOwnU]

They have competent coaches, competent talent evaluators and a good QB. Unlike the redskins, they can identify players that will work in the system and scheme their gameplans around their talents. They are very flexible. They are going to be ridiculously good next year. They are not in danger of pulling a "redskins."

[dent19]

They have a great owner, great head coach, great quarterback. We have a great coach.

NUF SAID!!!!!

[phatSkins27]

i think the better comparison of our FO's is to look at the rings on their owner's fingers vs. the one's on snyders.

there is just as many lombardi trophies in the redskins case as the Pats and jack kent cooke was just as hands on

[dent19]

there is just as many lombardi trophies in the redskins case as the Pats and jack kent cooke was just as hands on

Sorry, JKC really let Joe Gibbs do his thing. More like let Charley do his work, and thats why we won the way we did. Gibbs was an inovator, and changed they way offenses were run. Charley gave him great pieces to work with, most wern't stand outs in College, but they had talent. The two worked together to but the some of the best teams in history on the field. We havent had that since Charley left.

I think Gibbs has what it takes to get it done, and the fact that he brought AL in to run the O isnt a sign of weakness. He knows when he needs something different to get things moving again. It's just the talent they've put on the field and drafted traded for or aquired, hasn't made since.