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

[Beer is Food]

The success of the Gibbs experiment is hard to gauge. The one positive that I can discern is that he's kept Snyder at bay, and out of the mix in terms of personnel matters. The downside to having Gibbs, though, is that he has never been a personnel guy. Things worked perfectly under the previous formula - the GM (Beathard) decided who came, and Gibbs decided who stayed.

We need something like that again.

Good point. I'm not so sure Gibbs has kept Snyder at bay. And, to what degree Snyder is involved in personell decisions is really hard to gauge.

Beatherd and Gibbs had a great relationship. Gibbs could tell Beatherd he needed to improve at DT and RB, and Beatherd would find a way to get the players. The last Skins superbowl was a great example. Beatherd traded for 2 DT's and 2 RB's and the team flourished. I don't see Gibbs having that type of relationship with Cerrato. And, to give a new GM total control over personnel decisions now, will just undermine Gibbs authority. Increasing the number of decision makers, also increases Snyder's control over decisions. Does that make sense?

[Beer is Food]

Coach Gibbs is obviously gone (as coach) in two years and will not be extended in that capacity. A GM absolutely MUST be hired before he steps down. My guess is that he stays at team president, but hires someone to serve as GM. That GM should be the one who hires the next coach, not Snyder.

If he lasts 2 years, he will retire. Hopefully- with one more SB under his belt.

[Westward78]

I think we give Gibbs his time. I really agree with Beer is Food on this topic. A GM is a great resource. If the owner can stay out of it completely and let the coach and GM work together then it is a beautiful thing. Right now I can tell you that living in KC the Chiefs GM Carl Peterson is an example of someone that didn't use to work with the coaches. He would sign FA's for well over there market value and they were either past their prime or never really had one (Kendrell Bell, Mike Maslowski, Priest Holmes extension).

I started to see the same trend on our Skins last offseason. I actually loved Archuleta with the Rams, but not for the price we paid for him. He did fit Gibbs style of Safety. A hard hitter and workhorse. I like the Lloyd trade too. Hopefully something will happen this year to make it look good hehe.

I believe if we had a GM then we wouldn't have given up so much for so little. Let the coach tell the GM what he needs and then let the GM do his job and go out and get it for our organizations benefit.

I wonder what Billy Beane would have given up for Mark Brunell? Let alone what he would have paid him.

[Skins PR]

I really agree with beer is food...

not the person who started this thread but the concept of beer as a food.

[Beer is Food]

I really agree with beer is food...

not the person who started this thread but the concept of beer as a food.

That's all that really matters... I think we can agree, to agree... Beer is Food.

[Westward78]

That's all that really matters... I think we can agree, to agree... Beer is Food.

On that note. I am off to take my lunch break from work now!

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

We need a competent GM with some authority over the team. Period. A guy with balls enough to negotiate the Portis deal without throwing in a 2nd. A guy who could have vetoed the Duckett waste. A guy to manage the draft. A guy who could have paid Lloyd based on his talent and accomplishments, not some fantastical idea. A guy who would not totally ignore the DL and pretend they are not important anyway. A guy to look at recognize our own talent and our situation, and get guys like Dockery, Cooley, ST signed BEFORE they test the market and their value skyrockets. A guy who wouldn't hallucinate and envision Archuletta as something he is not, never was and never will be, and make him the highest paid at his postion in the history of the NFL......A guy who can put full time into his job that does not have other duties like COACHING AN NFL TEAM.

Of course the Coaches should have great input into the personnel selection. It's their playbook, their philosophy. They know what they need, but need controls on who they get for how much.

PWNED!

[master4caster]

Beer, they say you are what you eat, so I wonder about you. :laugh:

I agree with you that Gibbs is much better in the front office than those who came before him in the Snyder era. HOWEVER, success in coaching does not prepare one to be a successful GM. The skills to be a successful general manager/football operations executive are fundamentally different. That's why you never, ever pick a general manager to coach. You just know that intuitively. Yet, people think you can do the reverse and make a successful coach into a GM. It doesn't work because the coach has a steep learning curve for GM skills. For more on this see Life after Gibbs.

A real general manager spends 15 years or so up from the ranks of scout and player personnel exec, maybe they spend a little time in contract administration. They spend 7 to 10 years in the team organization before becoming GM. Study the background of Jerry Reese, the new GM for the NY Giants to see what I mean.

It's not that an owner picks a GM to make the decisions instead of him (which I'm sure is what Daniel Snyder thinks). The owner picks the GM to be his partner in executing goals within the budget that the owner sets.

Coach and GM: if one of them is average, the team will be average, even if the other one is great. If one of them is poor, the team is going to be poor, no matter how good the other one is. You want championships? You better have a great GM to go with a great coach.

To use an example from another sport, the Washington Wizards were going nowhere with Wes Unseld as GM and it was because Unseld was the GM (you could throw MJ in that story, too). As soon as they got a legit GM in Ernie Grundfeld, the 'Zards started making the NBA playoffs.

Oh, the owner better pick the GM first. The GM is the owner's partner. Unless they are very, very good, the head coach is a 5 year employee.

[Bigredskin77]

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?

A good GM doesnt make stupid decisions. Cerrato is basically our GM now and he has done terrible to this team. Its not just archuleta. Its benching Pierce and kieth Mitchel and bringing in Armstead and Trotter :doh: to do nothing when you could have kept them starting and addressed other needs. Just because pierce wasnt a big name they felt the need to bring in trotter when the year before he came we had a top 10 defense. Thats why you need a GM man. Gibbs has made alot of bad decisions also in his first tenure and in this one when it comes to personel. Thats why he needs to stick to coaching. No matter what you think a new GM is what we need and we also need gibbs to listen to him. Not tell him what he thinks should be done. Gibbs gets so stubborn at times.

[Bigredskin77]

And if you think greg williams is any better at personel decision making you are sadly mistaken. Stupid signings like Archuleta should not be made. This is what happens when you dont have a GM. You keep thinkin that we dont need one. And you will see the same things happening over and over again. Even Clinton portis makes better personel decisions then the redskins.

[Beer is Food]

Beer, they say you are what you eat, so I wonder about you.

I agree with you that Gibbs is much better in the front office than those who came before him in the Snyder era. HOWEVER, success in coaching does not prepare one to be a successful GM. The skills to be a successful general manager/football operations executive are fundamentally different. That's why you never, ever pick a general manager to coach. You just know that intuitively. Yet, people think you can do the reverse and make a successful coach into a GM. It doesn't work because the coach has a steep learning curve for GM skills. For more on this see Life after Gibbs.

A real general manager spends 15 years or so up from the ranks of scout and player personnel exec, maybe they spend a little time in contract administration. They spend 7 to 10 years in the team organization before becoming GM. Study the background of Jerry Reese, the new GM for the NY Giants to see what I mean.

It's not that an owner picks a GM to make the decisions instead of him (which I'm sure is what Daniel Snyder thinks). The owner picks the GM to be his partner in executing goals within the budget that the owner sets.

Coach and GM: if one of them is average, the team will be average, even if the other one is great. If one of them is poor, the team is going to be poor, no matter how good the other one is. You want championships? You better have a great GM to go with a great coach.

To use an example from another sport, the Washington Wizards were going nowhere with Wes Unseld as GM and it was because Unseld was the GM (you could throw MJ in that story, too). As soon as they got a legit GM in Ernie Grundfeld, the 'Zards started making the NBA playoffs.

Oh, the owner better pick the GM first. The GM is the owner's partner. Unless they are very, very good, the head coach is a 5 year employee.

I agree Joe Gibbs is not a GM. I don't think Gibbs background qualifies him to be a GM. The distinction I'm trying to make is that the skills necessary for a GM- player evaluation, salary cap manipulation, contract neg, etc, are not the skills necessary for Gibbs to lead the organization in strategy and personell decisions. Those skills are very necessary for the personell department. The ability to know what ingredients it takes to build a winner, is in Gibbs hands. His decisions are based on input from the personnel department. I can't see Gibbs clocking some kid in the 40 and making a judgement whether to draft some kid. I can't see him negoitiate a contract. On the other hand, I think he would add termendious value in creating a blue print of needs, an outline of the type of players to go after, and decide what $'s go to what positions. Basically, I see his value as a decision maker. A leader who makes decisions based on information provided from personell professionals. And, by agressive moves such as trading up or making a trade in order to land targets takes all excuses away when the move fails. Questionable input- yields questionable results.

At least Gibbs knows who to credit and who to blame. The real question is does he really have the power to make changes in order to avoid future blunders.

[Beer is Food]

A good GM doesnt make stupid decisions. Cerrato is basically our GM now and he has done terrible to this team. Its not just archuleta. Its benching Pierce and kieth Mitchel and bringing in Armstead and Trotter to do nothing when you could have kept them starting and addressed other needs. Just because pierce wasnt a big name they felt the need to bring in trotter when the year before he came we had a top 10 defense. Thats why you need a GM man. Gibbs has made alot of bad decisions also in his first tenure and in this one when it comes to personel. Thats why he needs to stick to coaching. No matter what you think a new GM is what we need and we also need gibbs to listen to him. Not tell him what he thinks should be done. Gibbs gets so stubborn at times.

I'm not a Cerrato fan, but he's not a GM. He is in charge of personell. And, although I think he gets a lot of undue criticism- he also makes more than enough mistakes- I'd be happy to see him go.

[turbodiesel#44]

Beer, they say you are what you eat, so I wonder about you. :laugh:

I agree with you that Gibbs is much better in the front office than those who came before him in the Snyder era. HOWEVER, success in coaching does not prepare one to be a successful GM. The skills to be a successful general manager/football operations executive are fundamentally different. That's why you never, ever pick a general manager to coach. You just know that intuitively. Yet, people think you can do the reverse and make a successful coach into a GM. It doesn't work because the coach has a steep learning curve for GM skills. For more on this see Life after Gibbs.

A real general manager spends 15 years or so up from the ranks of scout and player personnel exec, maybe they spend a little time in contract administration. They spend 7 to 10 years in the team organization before becoming GM. Study the background of Jerry Reese, the new GM for the NY Giants to see what I mean.

It's not that an owner picks a GM to make the decisions instead of him (which I'm sure is what Daniel Snyder thinks). The owner picks the GM to be his partner in executing goals within the budget that the owner sets.

Coach and GM: if one of them is average, the team will be average, even if the other one is great. If one of them is poor, the team is going to be poor, no matter how good the other one is. You want championships? You better have a great GM to go with a great coach.

To use an example from another sport, the Washington Wizards were going nowhere with Wes Unseld as GM and it was because Unseld was the GM (you could throw MJ in that story, too). As soon as they got a legit GM in Ernie Grundfeld, the 'Zards started making the NBA playoffs.

Oh, the owner better pick the GM first. The GM is the owner's partner. Unless they are very, very good, the head coach is a 5 year employee.

good post

[Riggins77]

The point is trading for players, picking up FA's, and moving up in the draft is a good strategy to build a team quickly and it's worked. As far as I know there hasn't been any moves in the FO as of yet. I expect there may be soon and time may tell. And, frankly I'm not so sure Gibb's makes the final call. Especially- when it comes to FO personell.

And, as far as your last question, I frankly don't follow you. I guess I'm not as familiar with male felattio as you. Please try not bringing me up to speed

What has worked about it? Our HOF coach should be coaching, not having the final say so in place of a GM.

[Shotgunner]

Can't agree with your post. In Gibbs' successful years he had key personnel guys Beathard and Casserly. Gibbs now is doing this with Vinny Cerrato and the Boy-wonder, that's why we piss away the draft every year. Take a look at the Pats and you'll see a mastery over the draft and a winning team on the field year after year.

[Beer is Food]

What has worked about it? Our HOF coach should be coaching, not having the final say so in place of a GM.

Good point. The skins have drastically improved since Gibbs has taken over. I know it sounds crazy, considering Gibbs has a losing record- with only one playoff appearence- yet as sad as that is- it's still a drastic improvement. And, the HOF coach should be coaching.

[Beer is Food]

When I started this thread, I knew I was going out on a limb. Truth be told, I'm not convinced the Skins don't need a new GM, but I figured by making an unpopular stance- I would get some participation. After Gibbs retires, a GM would be a necessity.

With that said, I gotta go try to live up to my screen name and pick up a 12 pack. So please reffer to these arguments while I'm away...

1. Gibbs can't be at fault. If there's been a mistake- the blame lies with the personell Department for not giving him correct input.

2. You could then blame Gibbs as the the ultimate DM for not making the necessary changes in the FO. My answer to that is -- Gibbs can't be at fault because he is not really in control- blame Snyder.

3. You could also argue that the bottom line is wins. So look at Gibbs II has a losing record. In which case, I would point out that the organization is in better shape than previous.

4. If you must- you could blame Snyder and Cerrato. However- I don't really see any sense in that either- because as we know Gibbs has total control. So please scroll up and start at 1.

[ECU-ALUM]

It's a late to hire a GM now...I think it's safe to say though that Vinny is on thin-ice right now though (and if not Snyder must really like the way he plays racquet-ball) and if things don't turn around this year some hads will rolll...and if it comes to that do you think Snyder is going to go after the 3 Time SB Coach who is in the H-O-F...or a guy who wrecked the 49ers and hasn't done much better here?

Smart money says, "Vinny get your resume updated and enjoy working for ESPN radio again."

[RabidFan]

Guys, this is Washington DC where we all know there is no accountability.

[Shadowplay]

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?

I love it. Just ramble for five or six paragraphs so that people will fall asleep before they can figure out your point.

The front office is abysmal. Since Snyder took over the team, he's changed everything: head coaches, trainers, coordinators, quarterbacks, radio guys, pop corn vendors, etc. The only thing that hasn't changed is the front office and the team has been become a laughingstock.

[Skins PR]

Good point. The skins have drastically improved since Gibbs has taken over. I know it sounds crazy, considering Gibbs has a losing record- with only one playoff appearence- yet as sad as that is- it's still a drastic improvement. And, the HOF coach should be coaching.

Did you watch the 2006 season? We were absolutely disgraceful. No better than when he got here.

Yes we stepped it up in 2005 and made it to the playoffs but we regressed [understatement] last year and a lot of it had to do with ****ty personnel moves. In fact, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that the 2006 Redskins had THE WORST offseason / in-season (the Duckett debacle) moves in the HISTORY of the NFL.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

Can someone tell me if any other teams employ this model for selecting players in the draft and in free agency:

We start with our roster and then we look at the guys available and we say, hmmm I think maybe Arch would be a good replacement at Safety, go get em!

Gibbs revealed how the Redskins evaluate potential draft picks, giving each one a "Redskins grade." What makes the Redskins' evaluation system any different than that of every other team in the NFL? Not a damn thing, from the sound of things. Except that I guess the other teams don't give their prospects a Redskins grade. Or if they do, it isn't meant as a compliment. As in, "Well, he's not good enough to play for us. But he'd probably have a Redskins grade of B+."

Source: http://thedcuniverse.blogspot.com/search/label/Sports

Forgive my ignorance, maybe this is the way it works but I recall an article awhile back that said this is how the selection process works in Washington. I'd like to see how a team like the Steelers draft players because I'm willing to bet its quite a bit different than this model.

Furthermore, Vinny sucks. He was run out of town in SF because he built a team with no depth and a bunch of high priced free agents. Sound familiar?

In today's salary-cap-driven NFL, the 49ers can't solve a problem simply by throwing money at it, which is how they used to operate. "Our approach--our theory in managing this club--will not be one of mortgaging the club for the future," says Walsh. "We are going to be a solvent organization, where the team represents the true nature of the salary cap and our crop of players."

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCL/is_2_30/ai_65091432

In HIS own words how players are selected:

Cerrato said the Redskins' chain of command is a top-down affair, beginning with Joe Gibbs ("I can't imagine working for a better guy," he said). "We all have a say, but he has the final say. We usually come to a decision and he and I take the decision to Dan and talk to him about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081002181_2.html

Someone please tell me why the **** dan synder is involved. If he is, the only questions should be, how much money will this cost?

While Cerrato and his staff picked players mainly by reviewing tape, Donahue uses a more complex and somewhat controversial system

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/24/SPG0AAGTP61.DTL

"Every move we make is done looking three years down the road," said Vinny Cerrato, Washington's vice president of football operations. "When we sign a free agent we know exactly how it's going to affect us and how it will count against the salary cap, and we're not going to do something that will put us in salary-cap jail or salary-cap hell."

[BAFGA]

And if you think greg williams is any better at personel decision making you are sadly mistaken. Stupid signings like Archuleta should not be made. This is what happens when you dont have a GM. You keep thinkin that we dont need one. And you will see the same things happening over and over again. Even Clinton portis makes better personel decisions then the redskins.

Don't forget the TJ Duckett fiasco last year as well. A panic move by whoever is in charge. A real GM wouldn't have panicked.

[master4caster]

When I started this thread, I knew I was going out on a limb. Truth be told, I'm not convinced the Skins don't need a new GM, but I figured by making an unpopular stance- I would get some participation. After Gibbs retires, a GM would be a necessity.

With that said, I gotta go try to live up to my screen name and pick up a 12 pack. So please reffer to these arguments while I'm away...

1. Gibbs can't be at fault. If there's been a mistake- the blame lies with the personell Department for not giving him correct input.

2. You could then blame Gibbs as the the ultimate DM for not making the necessary changes in the FO. My answer to that is -- Gibbs can't be at fault because he is not really in control- blame Snyder.

3. You could also argue that the bottom line is wins. So look at Gibbs II has a losing record. In which case, I would point out that the organization is in better shape than previous.

4. If you must- you could blame Snyder and Cerrato. However- I don't really see any sense in that either- because as we know Gibbs has total control. So please scroll up and start at 1.

OK, Beer, I'll bite.

1. Joe Gibbs is the team president. His stated mission was to re-build the Washington Redskins as a winning organization. The owner's public statement is that all football decisions are made by Joe Gibbs. If the team has an incompetent player personnel group, it's Gibbs job to fix it, or convince the owner that it needs to be fixed. That's why he gets paid $5 million per year. You say "personnel department" like you are talking about Wal-Mart. This is a sports team. Players are the assets, the crown jewels, the most valuable part of the team. The skill at picking those players is more critical than coaching. Picking a GM is the first thing the owner & president must do. You are making Gibbs out to be a punk figurehead. You can't mean that.

2. See the part in #1 about it's Gibbs job to convince the owner . . . .

3. Yes, the organization is better, but as you said, the bottom line is wins. If you are not winning, your organization is not good enough no matter what improvements they've made.

4. Uuugh, WHAT? Your first three points were that Gibbs is not responsible because he's not in control. Then you say in #4 ". . . because as we know Gibbs has total control." Let me quote Joe Gibbs from numerous occasions in 2006 -- "It all falls on me."

In 2006, Gibbs and the Redskins pulled out all the stops to get over the top. They went to excess, from dumb trades (B. Lloyd), to over-the-top free agent signings (Archuleta, Randle El), to new coaches (Saunders, Grey), to undervaluing key role players (Clark). The whole history of the Snyder era, and of Gibbs' decisions of 2006, is wretched excess. Combined with key injuries early, and there was no way the Redskins could live up to the hype. We were all too blind to see it then.

For the record, I am a Gibbs fan. I expect the team to be better. I think our younger players (Campbell, McIntosh, Golston, Rogers) will come through. However, I don't believe the Redskins will contend annually until the owner picks a legit GM to build the team with / for Gibbs.

[Forever21]

I agree the theory behind our strategy is ok.

However I think Snyder and Vinny have been proven to be unable to make it work. Meaning that the two of them need to step back and hire a true GM. Someone who knows how to seriously evaluate talent and someone who knows how to properly negotiate contracts and trades.

We could keep our current kind of system going with a FA focus but with a quality GM doing the work over Danny and Vinny.