GM- We don't need no stinkin' GM!

Beer is Food · July 8, 2007

Bashing the front office seems to be one main focal point on this board. And, it’s easy to pick out individual moves such as Archuletta, to support such an argument. The calls from fans to focus more on the draft, stop trading picks, stop focusing on free agency pick ups, and bring in a GM is so loud it’s mind numbing. The problem is that it’s easier to see problems with any one area, than it is to see the successes in establishing an over all strategy.

The bottom line is that the overall strategy is not only sound, but it’s refreshingly creative. The entire Redskins organization lacked strategy pre-Gibbs II. The difference between then and now is accountability. During Gibbs II tenure, the team has built itself quickly- primarily through acquiring free agents, trading for players, and moving up in the draft. What’s the common denominator in building a team via this method? … Accountability! If a player works out, you know you were responsible for aggressively pursuing that individual. And, if a player fails, then you know you made a mistake. Accountability is the upside, and the downside is you have to pay more of premium to get what you want in both salary and draft picks. I’m not saying that every move has worked out, but I am saying the strategy is sound.

How does bringing in a GM with total control solve any problems with player acquisition? Having a new talent evaluator making the decisions may result in better evaluating, but essentially all you are doing is swapping structure and presumably taking the final call away from Gibbs and putting it in the GM’s hand. The way it is supposed to work now is Gibbs makes the final call and his decisions are based on what the Skins talent evaluators’ grade. When mistakes are made now, mistakes are made because an evaluator didn’t do his job correctly. By being aggressive Gibb’s can see what mistakes were made and who is responsible for them. If the Skins were not aggressive, and just waited until a player dropped to them, then there is always the excuse of we didn’t get who we wanted. The primary reason the focus has been on FA and trades is because Gibbs knows who’s accountable for what. I’d rather a HOF, make these calls than a new GM.

Now maybe it is time to get new scouts or a personal chief as long as this person doesn’t usurp Gibbs authority. And, I should add that since Gibb’s arrival the FO has been criticized too heavily for their drafts. I frankly don’t want to do a time consuming statistical analysis of all teams draft history, but it seems to me every team fails more often than they succeed. I would argue if a team gets two starters and a back up in any draft, then it has been a very good draft. When you criticize the Skins draft since Gibbs, keep in mind the starters we acquire through trade. And, with installing a new offense and injuries last year, the verdict is still out on every new player besides Archuletta and Duckett. And if either Lloyd or El work out as a legitimate #2 WR, I would consider those moves a success.

Furthermore, I see the Skins taking a giant leap forward with personnel moves from Spurrior’s team. From a talent perspective, Spurrior’s team was a finesse team with little talent. In two years, Gibb’s and company overhauled the roster and assembled a playoff team. Yes- last year, the team was a bitter disappointment. Still I see the team making a giant leap forward and then taking a step back. Rather than to build on progress- bringing in a new GM to oversee Gibb’s would be nothing more than a vote of no confidence.

In summation, Gibb’s has created an overall strategy- installing a system in which there is maximum accountability. In order to maximize accountability, the team has over paid in draft picks, and salary, but for the most part the team gets the players they target. The team seemed to lack strategy prior to Gibb’s arrival. Gibb’s bases his personnel decisions based on talent evaluators. If mistakes are made, then talent evaluators are accountable for mistakes. Replacing Cerrato and individual scouts may prove necessary. Bringing in a new GM, is not necessary, unless you lack confidence in Gibbs. Gibb’s has succeeded in transforming a floundering franchise into a playoff team in two season. Many factors contributed to last years failure, but thanks to Gibb’s the team needs to be tweaked rather than overhauled in order to be competitive. More importantly, thanks to Gibb’s the organization can pin point who deserves the credit and the blame.

Ironically, I also see the issue of accountability as the main problem with the Redskins organization. Is Gibb’s really in charge? With the almost Briggs trade, we saw an inside glimpse into the Redskins process. And, that process should make all Redskins fans question whether Gibb’s is really in control. Regardless- Gibb's is the solution and bringing in a new GM will just cause more problems.

Do you still think we need a GM? And, if you do think we need a new GM, do you also lack faith in Gibbs?

Skins PR · July 8, 2007

Fix your text color please.

Then we can begin to tear your post apart.

Beer is Food · July 8, 2007

How do I do that?

G.A.C.O.L.B. · July 8, 2007

How do I do that?

Click edit on the original post and change the text color to white.

EDIT: Highlight the text first. Then in the upper part of box it will say color. Scroll down and the last color is white.

Skins PR · July 8, 2007

Here you go...