Does Hiring of Younger HC Mean Greater Personnel Role for Snyder and Cerrato?

[bulldog]

As I read the article about Schwartz doing well in his interview, the more I began to think that bringing in a younger HC may not be the best thing for the Redskins, given their current front office configuration.

If the Redskins had an established GM like they did in 1981 when Beathard hired Gibbs you could trust that the young HC would have 'protection' within the organization and a sponsor to work to get him started on the right track.

Here, if Schwartz is hired for 2008, what guarantees if any do we have that Snyder and Cerrato won't be exercising a role in free agency and the draft as significant as that during the Spurrier era?

That certainly wouldn't be in the best interests of the Redskins in the coming years.

Ironically, the 'big splash' move for a Cowher or another name coach would seem as if it would have the opposite effect, namely to limit the role of Vinny and Dan in the process to no more influence than they had with Joe.

Something to think about.

[redman]

The answer, in a word, is "yes".

[RyansRangers]

thats a very good point. You would imagine that to be the case since they refuse a GM.

[voicekiller]

I don't think so...i think Dan and Vinny have learned from Gibbs that everyone has to have a say and come to an agreement when it comes to player personnel

[bulldog]

Yeah, but I find it hard to believe that when the 'buck has to stop' that Snyder is going to take the same tack with a 40 year old newbie coach as he did with the 65 year old Gibbs

[illone]

What's Beathard up to these days?

:laugh:

[Riggo-toni]

The Archuleta fiasco aside, Williams has been the force behind nearly all of our best player acquisitions -quite frankly, we did far better getting players on his side of the ball than those Gibbs dug up for the O. Only Cooley stands out as a great offensive draft pick, while all the other late round offense choices were busts. Compare losers like Wilson, Molinaro, Nemo, Palmer et al with Golston and Montgomery, not to mention hitting on high picks Taylor, Landry, and McIntosh. Look at what we gave up for Portis and Brunell versus the relatively modest signings of Griffin, Springs, Washington, etc. Losing GW will mean losing the only competent personnel guy we've got! :mad:

[SearchHorizon]

The Archuleta fiasco aside, Williams has been the force behind nearly all of our best player acquisitions -quite frankly, we did far better getting players on his side of the ball than those Gibbs dug up for the O.

The issue here is not just about talent evaluation (I think GW didn't do so hot in that department, but we will leave that for a different thread ...)

The real issue is whether GW can be a leader. e.g., Can GW shoulder all the blame for a team's failure? Can GW motivate a player who is not doing too well?

So, in Archuletta situation, how did GW behave? Did he encourage Archuletta? Coach him better? Or did Gregg Williams just abandon him, castigate him, and hang him to dry? And how did GW handle Lavar situation?

All indications are that GW is not a leader. He may have a great defensive mind ...

[Boy2Der]

Could we be looking at schwartz for a possible gm position since he previously was a scout i know it sounds far fetched, but a guy cn dream.

[authentic]

What's Beathard up to these days?

:laugh:

funny you mention him. Doc Walker said he last spoke to Bethard back in April of last year and as Doc put it, he asked him about whether he has been contacted by the Skins for a GM position. Bethard's response was something to the effect of "I was contacted at one point, but the compensation wasn't complimentary". Take it for what its worth.

[authentic]

The issue here is not just about talent evaluation (I think GW didn't do so hot in that department, but we will leave that for a different thread ...)

The real issue is whether GW can be a leader. e.g., Can GW shoulder all the blame for a team's failure? Can GW motivate a player who is not doing too well?

So, in Archuletta situation, how did GW behave? Did he encourage Archuletta? Coach him better? Or did Gregg Williams just abandon him, castigate him, and hang him to dry? And how did GW handle Lavar situation?

All indications are that GW is not a leader. He may have a great defensive mind ...

The thing about those situations is that we don't know how they went down. Was it even GW's decision for AA to come here, know AA's limitations as a cover safety? Did GW have a beef with Lavar, or was the whole ordeal between Lavar and the organization? I would love to be a fly on the wall.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That is a good point Bulldog

You have to hope that Schwartz work with Bellicheck in the Browns FO for a few years will come in handy in this regard

His approach may clash with Snyder and Cerrato's approach, which may not be a bad thing at all

[TotalRecall]

I kinda feel better that Schwartz has scouting experience to go with his coaching experience. It will give him more credibility to Dan when he says he wants a certain player and doesn't want a certain player. Lord knows that FO needs help.

[DWinzit]

His approach may clash with Snyder and Cerrato's approach, which may not be a bad thing at all

I do like this thought of shaking things up a little yet staying stable. On the flip side it leads me to think of the Snyder/Cerrato/Marty relationship. Too much of a clash with Snyder and Schwartz's time in DC will end as quickly as Marty's. This is the last thing the organization needs.:2cents:

[redman]

What's Beathard up to these days?

:laugh:

What's Pepper Rodgers doing these days?

:twitch:

[Blondie]

Yeah, but I find it hard to believe that when the 'buck has to stop' that Snyder is going to take the same tack with a 40 year old newbie coach as he did with the 65 year old Gibbs

This is a good point.

As I have listened to GW interview the last couple of years, I have noticed a "maturity" in his responses......a less "arrogrant" attitude.......a more "whole team" approach in the game.

I also think the death of ST effected him IN A WAY that gives him a new perspective.

I think he will be a good choice.....and with the players behind him already, DS may not be to fast to step in.

[Rav]

The answer, in a word, is "yes".

Agreed ... this is what I fear most about the changing of the guard at coach .. Snyder's unwillingness to bring in a GM to oversee personnel decisions will ultimately thrust us back into where we were before Gibbs came in. I think Snyder respected and admirered Gibbs too much to really get involved (though we will never know exactly how much influence or involvement he had during the 4 years), but bringing in a younger coach or even a coach that doesn't want the burden of personnel will throw The Danny/Vinny show right back into the spotlight .... it makes me cringe to be honest.

[MDRedskinsFan]

This is a good point.

As I have listened to GW interview the last couple of years, I have noticed a "maturity" in his responses......a less "arrogrant" attitude.......a more "whole team" approach in the game.

I also think the death of ST effected him IN A WAY that gives him a new perspective.

I think he will be a good choice.....and with the players behind him already, DS may not be to fast to step in.

I know our players have a unique position, but do you risk letting the players run the team? While it appears they are on the same page, winning cures all ills. Last year, our guy Tom Friend wrote that article saying some bad stuff about the defensive side of the ball. Whether it is true or not, something to consider. It would be one thing if Dan wanted him, but I wouldn't want Dan to hire him just because the players want him. There's a fine line, because if GW say fails to make the playoffs this year, Danny may pull the plug quicker on him than Schwartz (concluding that we need to move on). Do we want to risk doing this same process a year from now? If continuity is so key, then maybe they're talking about continuity in the future, not necessarily this year. We don't want our team taking their positions for granted, and maybe Dan sees this and knows what he's up against if he hires GW. Hiring somebody else will show that they will still have to earn their stripes on the team, not take it for granted.

[GoCommiesGo]

You have to think that Snyder and Cerrato would have more control and say over player acquisition.

I can't see Snyder willing to give the same creedence and attention to a young coach as he did with Gibbs. Don't forget that Gibbs was Dans' idol, he was like a god to him.

No one else that is brought in is going to have anywhere near that same kind of respect from him.

[redman]

Agreed ... this is what I fear most about the changing of the guard at coach .. Snyder's unwillingness to bring in a GM to oversee personnel decisions will ultimately thrust us back into where we were before Gibbs came in. I think Snyder respected and admirered Gibbs too much to really get involved (though we will never know exactly how much influence or involvement he had during the 4 years), but bringing in a younger coach or even a coach that doesn't want the burden of personnel will throw The Danny/Vinny show right back into the spotlight .... it makes me cringe to be honest.

I think Snyder and Cerrato have been plenty involved, I think Gibbs just was their to direct their energies or, if necessary, rein them in. The Lance Briggs situation last year convinced me of that.

[Warpath11]

very good point bulldog, and I think that is exactly what is going on here with the interview of Schwartz. A young up and coming coach wll/can not make demand on front office structure. Whereas an established guy like Cowher will want all control and will want to have his personel people running that department. In that case Vinny and Danny are left out of the football operations (which is something they do not want to do).

[ttr77]

Yes. And it's a scary thought.

[Oldskool]

What's Pepper Rodgers doing these days?

:twitch:

Eating stewed prunes probably.

The thought of Dannyboy and Vincenzo running the FO again are bring back bad memories of 2002.

:twitch:

[Blondie]

I know our players have a unique position, but do you risk letting the players run the team? While it appears they are on the same page, winning cures all ills. Last year, our guy Tom Friend wrote that article saying some bad stuff about the defensive side of the ball. Whether it is true or not, something to consider. It would be one thing if Dan wanted him, but I wouldn't want Dan to hire him just because the players want him. There's a fine line, because if GW say fails to make the playoffs this year, Danny may pull the plug quicker on him than Schwartz (concluding that we need to move on). Do we want to risk doing this same process a year from now? If continuity is so key, then maybe they're talking about continuity in the future, not necessarily this year. We don't want our team taking their positions for granted, and maybe Dan sees this and knows what he's up against if he hires GW. Hiring somebody else will show that they will still have to earn their stripes on the team, not take it for granted.

I dont think listening to the players equates to them running the team.

No matter who is the coach.....there is going to be change. No one will coach or lead like Joe Gibbs.

I think even some of the stars dont take their positions for granted.......and I am saying this from the things I have been TOLD ........not read in some media blurp.

Dan wants to win.

Period.

[fansince62]

This is a good point.

As I have listened to GW interview the last couple of years, I have noticed a "maturity" in his responses......a less "arrogrant" attitude.......a more "whole team" approach in the game.

I also think the death of ST effected him IN A WAY that gives him a new perspective.

I think he will be a good choice.....and with the players behind him already, DS may not be to fast to step in.

wouldn't have agreed a year ago...agree now.