Time for my thoughts (bumped post from Jan. 2008) MET.

[tr1]

It really seems like no one in this organization was prepared.

The FO certainly misread the fans reaction to skipping over Williams and planning to pick...eh, Fassel.

I'm not averse to Fassel...but, I just don't see anyone hot for him...even when he left the Giants, it was his good buddy who hired...and yes, later fired him.

But stay tuned, Redskins nation...the drama isn't over...

[HapHaszard]

I'm still in shock, and every day the shock gets deeper. Joe is gone, Gregg is gone, Al is gone. Who is this Zorn guy? Fassel? isn't that a punch line for a joke? The best I and anyone else can do is sit back and watch, and wonder. Perhaps things will work out for the best, but past history doesn't bode well for the team or us as fans.

[rythymtaylor]

right on my brother all i can say is lets ride this one out, whats done is done. I was mad at first but now im thinkin this whole thing is for the better. No real accomplishments in close to 20 years and every year i think were goin undefeated so im stickin with snyderman . As I am hes a fan of the skins and just wants to win . I see steinbrenner written all over this organization and when snyder finally gets it right we will have a dynasty. Amen

[LuvtheSkins428]

I think Williams burned his bridge with the mutiny of 06 and a 31st ranking, does anyone remember just how pathetic our D was. He learned a great deal from it and definitely responded and was better off for it, but it killed his chances, imo. My #1 reason as to GW's departure. #2 17-31.

Snyder sat back and said, that guys not my long term solution.

I agree with your first assumption of the 06 year and our Defense. However, when Gregg came to Washington and was told that he would likely replace Gibbs as HC when he left, Dan already knew about his 17-31 record in Buffalo. I don't think that plays into it or it would have from the beginning.

[suze109]

But, here's what I think.

1. Gibbs left the team quickly, giving it little time to initiate any real planning. Rather than making the decision but staying on for a couple weeks so everyone could get in gear, he left, forcing the team to reorganize on the fly and seek out possible coaches in a less than impressive coaching lot.

First, outstanding post, Art.

But the part above is what I have a problem with.

I work for a multi billion dollar corporation and we have succession plans in place for exactly this type of scenario. This allows us to be ready with possible successors in the event someone should leave quickly for any number of reasons.

Now with regard to the Redskins, think about it ... we had a 67 year old legend as HC, not exactly an age where he would be around for the long haul. He came back out of love for the Redskins even though he already had another post coaching business venture in place which, he clearly loves. He also has a very, very ill grandson.

How could Snyderatto not have had at least a short list of potential candidates in the event JG did not stay for the length of his contract??? This sure seems like less than optimum business practices to me ....

And if there was in fact a short list, but with only Snyder's man crush Cowher's name on it, and JG leaving a year before Cowher said he wanted to return to coaching messed up "the plan", why not put GW in for that year? If GW succeeds, then yay ... if not DS could have blown him up and opened up the checkbook next year for Cowher.

This whole thing just makes no sense to me.

[Sarge]

I'm sorry, but after four years of Williams thinking and possibly being told outright he was going to inherit the team, I fail to see how he didn't have the chance to plan for it with a list of coaches he would want to bring in.

Now, if that were the case, if he went ot those interviews and told the danny "I really haven't put much thought into my staff" then he deserved to be let go.

But I seriously doubt that was the case.

I think this is the first team in the history of the NFL that the owner has hired the O and D corrdinators before the head coach.

This tells me that;

1) The danny is going to hire a coach from one of the two teams in the Super Bowl

This infers that

a) He has already, through one form or another, communicated with this coach and hired the people he wanted. Of course this would be in violation of the league tampering policy or

The danny and vinny have a hard on for a coach that is left on one of those two teams because he is the really super neat cool fantasy pick everyone on the danny's myspace is talking about.

Of course this would mean that they have yet to appraoch this coach and are just really, really hoping that he he would be insane enough to come into a situation where he would have to sit on the danny's lap and do what he says.

Given the way these two sorry morons have operated prior to Gibbs arrival, this is the more plausible scenerio.

or 2)

The danny has had no luck hiring a coach that is going to be his lap boy and let the danny play assisitant offensive coordinator from the owners box. Nor has he had any luck finding a coach that wants to head a staff that is already picked for him

Both are bad situations for the Skins

Hate the danny

[Philip Pease]

Your statement about looking at the choices made (or in this case not made yet) and seeing the rationale made me think ...

Perhaps Dan is looking for a head coach in the mold of Joe Gibbs and has not found anyone that measures up.

What I am suggesting is Joe Gibbs focused on people first. Joe Gibbs listened to his assistants and even his players; and that gives them a real stake in achieving results. Joe Gibbs looked at the strengths and weakness of each player at each position and designs strategies based on that evaluation to get the maximum performance out of the team he has.

Look at Gregg Williams and Al Saunders and compare their approach with Joe Gibbs. I suggest that both have their system defined and expect their players to execute their system. In short their system is primary and the players are secondary.

Summary -

Joe Gibbs - get talented players who are team oriented and design a system that matches the players you have. I believe in my players.

Greg Williams - get talented players that should fit my system. I believe in my system.

Just a thought as to why Dan has not chosen a head coach yet. He is looking for a Joe Gibbs type person.

[stwasm]

Nicely written, Art. If I may piggy-back on what you've said, the "psychological" impact on what this week has done to the team makes me think about our being $20 million over the cap. Many here have said, "We've been over the cap before, we'll get it done again." In light of all that's taken place this week, what player is going to want to renegotiate his contract, knowing that your good works, most likely, will result in your being kicked out the door, a la Williams?

[Art]

Your statement about looking at the choices made (or in this case not made yet) and seeing the rationale made me think ...

Perhaps Dan is looking for a head coach in the mold of Joe Gibbs and has not found anyone that measures up.

What I am suggesting is Joe Gibbs focused on people first. Joe Gibbs listened to his assistants and even his players; and that gives them a real stake in achieving results. Joe Gibbs looked at the strengths and weakness of each player at each position and designs strategies based on that evaluation to get the maximum performance out of the team he has.

Look at Gregg Williams and Al Saunders and compare their approach with Joe Gibbs. I suggest that both have their system defined and expect their players to execute their system. In short their system is primary and the players are secondary.

Summary -

Joe Gibbs - get talented players who are team oriented and design a system that matches the players you have. I believe in my players.

Greg Williams - get talented players that should fit my system. I believe in my system.

Just a thought as to why Dan has not chosen a head coach yet. He is looking for a Joe Gibbs type person.

Williams was certainly popular with enough of the players to be a people person. But, there is something to your statement about what Snyder may be looking for. What does continuity mean? It doesn't mean keeping every player and every coach and every play and all that. That's consistency. Continuity is a way of being.

It's an organizational direction.

It's laying out fundamental principles that govern all choice you make and the people you hire to make them. In theory and body it seems to me MOST of the coaching staff will return, carrying forward the established way of being. In organizational structure, it seems we'll see something similar. And, I do wonder if Dan's looking for a people handler like Gibbs.

[Larry Brown #43]

Art, a post for the ages. I agree with almost everything you said in its entirety.

The psychology of the team at this point is what concerns me most.

The only thing I somewhat disagree with is about the possibility that GW was under-prepared for his interview. I firmly believe now that Snyder only interviewed GW because he felt he HAD to interview him, and that he never had any notion of hiring him in the first place.

As others have noted in this thread, your point about us rewarding others, but not respecting and rewarding our own, is spot-on. To me, this problem has been the biggest crippling factor of the entire Snyder era.

When you're around someone day-in and day-out, for several years, it's common to notice their flaws and begin to feel that you can get by without them. And when you look at someone else's "treasure," you fail to see those flaws...until they're working in your building.

[whatmeworry]

I still cant figure out why everyone here hates Fassel. Dude is a proven good coach. The "he was fired by his best friend" thing is ridiculous. Billick is convinced he is the smartest Offensive mind ever. And even this genius could not make Baltimore's offense work. Sure they improved their offensive rankings after Fassel was fired, but only for a few games...and then they went right back to being crap. That offense's failings do not fall at Fassel's feet. I like Fassel and before Gibbs appeared out of nowhere, he was who I wanted to replace Spurrier. I think he is a good hire. We will have two guys known for bringing up young QBs working with our young QB. This is a smart move guys...you will see.

Signed, Mrs Fassell

[Art]

Art, a post for the ages. I agree with almost everything you said in its entirety.

The only thing I somewhat disagree with is about the possibility that GW was under-prepared for his interview. I firmly believe now that Snyder only interviewed GW because he felt he HAD to interview him, and that he never had any notion of hiring him in the first place.

As others have noted in this thread, your point about us rewarding others, but not respecting and rewarding our own, is spot-on. To me, this problem has been the biggest crippling factor of the entire Snyder era.

When you're around someone day-in and day-out, for several years, it's common to notice their flaws and begin to feel that you can get by without them. And when you look at someone else's "treasure," you fail to see those flaws...until they're working in your building.

As to Williams being "unprepared" it's less that he didn't know his stuff and more, in my view, a mindset. In Buffalo, he entered a room with no shot at a job, and wowed them with detailed plans, design, future operations and the like. Marvin Lewis walked in off the Super Bowl and said, "Hi, I'm Marvin Lewis."

It's not that simple, but, what I'm thinking is Schwartz and Meeks and Fassel all have prepared packages for their future as a head coach. How they will model their team. Their dream for how an organization will function. All that. Maybe Gregg Williams interviewed with, "Hi, I'm Gregg Williams, you know what I've done."

It's NOT that simple, and it's not a slight. It's mindset. Williams likely felt comfortable here and comfortable with what he could bring, but, was probably in the mindset of, "I've done some good things here. That's my selling point."

Others had done nothing here and sold themselves on what they want to be. If you interview for a job, do you talk about only the things you've done, or the places you see yourself going? I have zero information about the process, but, I can see Williams talking about what was accomplished and not where he would go and I can see that being less impactful to the prospective employer than someone who lays out a plan for the future. That's all.

[Smoot Point Really]

My hope is that we'll start seeing "more healthy" threads like this and the VGJ thread, and fewer that are calling for Snyder's head or saying things people don't mean like "cashing in their season tickets" (we know you aren't going to, so stop with the over-reacting... you'll wait and see like everyone else).

[kwitt]

Something's not right with Grimm, though. His stock has really fallen in the last year. Word is that he's a bad interview.

There must be something to this. If Grimm couldn't land this head coaching spot I don't think he ever will.

[Blondie]

Williams was certainly popular with enough of the players to be a people person. But, there is something to your statement about what Snyder may be looking for. What does continuity mean? It doesn't mean keeping every player and every coach and every play and all that. That's consistency. Continuity is a way of being.

It's an organizational direction.

It's laying out fundamental principles that govern all choice you make and the people you hire to make them. In theory and body it seems to me MOST of the coaching staff will return, carrying forward the established way of being. In organizational structure, it seems we'll see something similar. And, I do wonder if Dan's looking for a people handler like Gibbs.

THIS post I really like.

:applause:

This makes so much sense to me. And THIS gives THE DAN actually DID learn something from Gibbs 2.

[Birdlives]

Point of that paragraph was that Williams was able to use very little of what he inherited in what was to become 3 top 10 defenses in the next 4 years. The 2003 defense had to be gutted and Williams was responsible for bringing in the new faces. And the most talented player (arrington) was barely contributing in 2004 and 2005 - either due to injury or his own inability to do what the coaches asked of him..

He inhertied Smoot, Marshall, Pierce, three very important pieces to those defenses success, no? Gutted seems like a bit of a stretch.

None of these guys were high profile players. 3 of them were supposed to be backups. And Barrow: a player who was injured and never saw the field - that's called bad luck which is a little different than whiffing on someone like Archuleta. Wright: was never supposed to start but did b/c Springs was injured. Butler was a #4/5 CB who was supposed to compete with Macklin. He was a fringe player who was a long shot to make the roster. Sheesh.

Sheesh right back atcha. Barrow was brought in to START at MLB. When he couldn't go Pierce filled in and flourished. That's two, not one bad move there.

Wright was brought in as third CB. A player who while not a starter, was going to see a ton of time in Williams' scheme. In the end he wasn't good from the bench or as a starter.

As for Butler, when he finally arrived he was set as the #4/5, but that's only because the Rams matched our offer the year before. Who knows what his role would have been had we got him instead of Golston. Personally, I'm glad we got Golston.

Again though you're missing the point, really. Arguing the trees instead of the forest. My main point is and has always been that perhaps, just perhaps, part of being the HC was to evaluate talent and Williams hasn't exactly proven his worth in that area, hence the head guys not promoting him. You prefer to argue the minutae instead of the overall picture.

Are we really at the point where Williams is supposed to hit on every starter and every backup?

Not bashing Williams to that extent, but I'm not going to apologize for him either. My preference would have been to keep the entire staff intact with Williams at the head for three years and see if he could do the job. That didn't happen. Now I'm left with trying to see the reasoning behind that. Sorry if that offends you to the point you wish to engage in bickering.

No, I'm saying that the buck stops with someone. Someone is ultimately responsible at the end of the day for what players are drafted and signed via free agency. Do you really think Williams would have stayed here for 4 years had he not had autonomy over personnel?

At his salary and with the potential HC job in line? It's certainly possible. As for autonomy over personnel, that is still very much a grey area. I'm speculating and I know it. You don't seem to take the same tack.

Depth good in 04, 05, 07. Depth not good in 06. Overall, it's safe to say that depth has been solid. Unless we're expecting perfection.

Depth very solid in 04' and UNPROVEN in 05'. We were virtually injury free. Depth downright terrible in 06'. And you forgot depth very good in 07'. No one is expecting perfection, however, one can rightly expect the defense to stay at least average if the injury bug hits. 06' it completely collapsed. That's an issue.

[fansince62]

Art....to be frank...what they do with the coaching staff isn't of primary significance to me. to use a cliche..."it is what it is" and folks will adjust. no...for me...independent of wins and losses...the issue is the character, the talent, the abilities of the people in charge. After 10 years I'm coming to some preliminary conclusions:

- DS simply is not a leader you want to rally around

- DS does not have a controlling vision when wearing his Redskin hat; wanting to win badly isn't enough...you have to have a vision and you have to be able to get people to buy into and support that vision. since DS has been here.....there has been no real Redskin "identity". JG moved things in the direction of some basics such as character and team unity.....but DS is in the process of swiftly undercutting all of that. When I think of DS and his tenure...I can't think of a SINGLE positive, unique stamp he has placed on this team. Ultimately, there is nothing in his character, his makeup, his approach to life...that transcends the tawdry business aspects of professional football and imprints itself on the team and the organization. there is nothing in Dan Snyder as a man that imbues the Redskin organization with pride, identity...sense of self. His stewardship has every appearance of a drunken man's walk.

My observations...if true.....are independent of any temporary win/loss record. I just find nothing really noble or inspiring about the guy. I can understand why he is reticent about speaking to the media...I don't want to hear from him if you want to know the truth...I don't think he has much that is reflective or interesting to say.

and don't get me started on Vinny!

[andyman]

THIS post I really like.

:applause:

This makes so much sense to me. And THIS gives THE DAN actually DID learn something from Gibbs 2.

Me too!

[HailSkinz1]

I think it's rather obvious that Williams would not accept the current FO situation. Snyder and Williams met and met and met trying to come to some agreement, in other words, Snyder kept telling Williams that the FO wouldn't change. Williams wouldn't agree to be subject to the Snyder/Cerrato player evaluation team so he kept to his principles and lost out.

I think Snyder really wanted to hire Williams, but they got into an ego struggle and Snyder won of course. All those "interviews" were just a way of trying to get Williams to agree to Snyder/Cerrato's terms. Since Williams wouldn't budge, Snyder felt he had no choice when other teams indicated a desire to hire Williams.

If that's the case, I admire Williams for sticking to his beliefs.

Can't wait for the Gregg Williams book to come out in about 10 years!

Hail,

H

[jkam]

Art, good and interesting thoughts, but in the end I think that the Snyder-Williams marriage was a bad one. Not blaming Williams for that, I actually wanted him. But it became apparent that Danny just didn't feel comfortable with him and that would've spelled doom in the end.

Maybe it was the arrogance thing, maybe the idea that Williams would be reluctant to stand behind his mistakes (if the Rogers story is true) maybe the idea that Williams wouldn't hesitate to go behind management's back if things went wrong (the 11th man ST tribute - not telling anyone--- or the way Lavar was handled etc... that type of thing). Sure we all would have been happier now with Williams, and I'm sure that Snyder and Williams would have been all huggy, kissy this offseason --- BUT the first difficult patch next fall, a losing streak, a coaching blunder, Williams snapping at the media, whatever, things could have deteriorated quickly with a lot of shouting behind closed doors ala Norv. Again, not blaming Williams, just saying that while a Williams' hiring would've been great in the short run, it might have been explosive and disastrous in the long run. I hope Fassel (or whoever is chosen) is the kind of guy who has the bal** to stand up to Danny in private (which I think Snyder likes, by the way) but in public is a great team player, and can hold it all together -- kinda like Gibbs.

[fansince62]

THIS post I really like.

:applause:

This makes so much sense to me. And THIS gives THE DAN actually DID learn something from Gibbs 2.

precisely...and DS has manifestly failed at that. Name for me one "PRINCIPLE" DS has imprinted upon this organization.....JUST ONE!

Clarify for us all what that "organizational direction"...that..."way of being" that is uniquely and identifiably Dan Snyder might be. You can't.....he's still "learning something from Gibbs" 10 years into his tenure. I could even buy into that were there something bedrock and immutable about that man himself that just needed some kneading...a little scalpel action to shave off the rough edges. but it's more profound than that...the man himself lacks the attributes of great leadership. look at him. listen to him...he can't even get through a simple press conference without deadpanning uninformative, uninspiring, unreflective platitudes. and when we does...as we just saw...there is no real content behind it......no commitment...NOTHING YOU CAN TRUST OR BELIEVE IN.

The Skins may very well win...let us hope they do. None of us should be confused about one thing....no one will ever refer to DS as "The Bard" or identitfy him as a man who stands above the fray....someone whose character itself inspires respect and a desire to emulate. he's just another rich businessman.......

[Art]

First, outstanding post, Art.

But the part above is what I have a problem with.

I work for a multi billion dollar corporation and we have succession plans in place for exactly this type of scenario. This allows us to be ready with possible successors in the event someone should leave quickly for any number of reasons.

Now with regard to the Redskins, think about it ... we had a 67 year old legend as HC, not exactly an age where he would be around for the long haul. He came back out of love for the Redskins even though he already had another post coaching business venture in place which, he clearly loves. He also has a very, very ill grandson.

How could Snyderatto not have had at least a short list of potential candidates in the event JG did not stay for the length of his contract??? This sure seems like less than optimum business practices to me ....

And if there was in fact a short list, but with only Snyder's man crush Cowher's name on it, and JG leaving a year before Cowher said he wanted to return to coaching messed up "the plan", why not put GW in for that year? If GW succeeds, then yay ... if not DS could have blown him up and opened up the checkbook next year for Cowher.

This whole thing just makes no sense to me.

I understand succession planning very well but believe the point is somewhat off comparing the business world where there are, literally, tens of thousands of head coaches to chose from, and the NFL where there are very, very few.

In the NFL, especially with Snyder, if it were discovered he was planning the succession of Gibbs prior to Gibbs wanting to leave, he might literally have been shot in his next public appearance. In the NFL, you give coaches votes of confidence. Or you leave them dangling if they are in trouble. Baltimore and Atlanta had decisions made and weeks to order up candidates and process all the world.

Gibbs coached the playoffs, came home, and quit.

Gibbs told all of us he'd coach the full five years. We have no reason to believe he told Snyder and company otherwise. If so, I'd imagine succession planning would have started sometime THIS year. As it was, it seems Gibbs hurt is at least a little by dropping out with no real advance notice. Now, obviously, if he'd been telling people he was thinking about leaving we'd have been doing more to prepare for it.

He wasn't.

But, what I know for sure is you do not have owners actively planning on the next coach until they've made the decision there will be a next coach.

[#98QBKiller]

I won't feel good about the choice when it comes out. I did feel good about Marty and Spurrier and Gibbs though. None worked out totally great. Maybe the coaching change I have the most trouble with will be the one that does. At least that is the hope we all have to have .

Maybe so. I had the same feelings about Gibbs and Marty but not about Spurrier. Gibbs and Marty were decent and Spurrier turned out to be a bad move all around.

As of right now I can honestly say that I am feeling optimistic about the current state of the Redskins.

I am a huge Gregg Williams fan and that is the move that's bothered me the most but I like the fact that they've kept the rest of the defensive coaching staff in tact and promoted Blache to defensive coordinator. I understand the Williams depature though, because if he doesn't have a shot at the HC position he wants to expand his options and go to a franchise that gives him opportunity to move up. No one wants to be stuck in a dead-end job and staying here would pretty much guarantee that he is stuck with a DC job with no room to move up.

On the offensive side of the ball, I wanted to keep Al Saunders and keep Jason in the same system for another season, but it doesn't hurt as bad to see him go because the only time we saw his system work here is when a QB that's been in that system for 5+ years took the reigns and got us to the playoffs.

I don't want an offensive system that takes that many years to master.

I'm optimisitic about Zorn because he played the QB position and because he was a QB specific coach and his hiring as offensive coordinator tells me that

A) Dan Snyder is serious about developing Jason Campbell (which to me is the msot important thing we can do right now)

His offense is going to be QB-friendly and play to Jason Campbell's strengths, allowing him to be the true leader of the offense and master it quickly with some hard work.

[fansince62]

I understand succession planning very well but believe the point is somewhat off comparing the business world where there are, literally, tens of thousands of head coaches to chose from, and the NFL where there are very, very few.

In the NFL, especially with Snyder, if it were discovered he was planning the succession of Gibbs prior to Gibbs wanting to leave, he might literally have been shot in his next public appearance. In the NFL, you give coaches votes of confidence. Or you leave them dangling if they are in trouble. Baltimore and Atlanta had decisions made and weeks to order up candidates and process all the world.

Gibbs coached the playoffs, came home, and quit.

Gibbs told all of us he'd coach the full five years. We have no reason to believe he told Snyder and company otherwise. If so, I'd imagine succession planning would have started sometime THIS year. As it was, it seems Gibbs hurt is at least a little by dropping out with no real advance notice. Now, obviously, if he'd been telling people he was thinking about leaving we'd have been doing more to prepare for it.

He wasn't.

But, what I know for sure is you do not have owners actively planning on the next coach until they've made the decision there will be a next coach.

so you're saying flexibility and adaptably under duress isn't a hallmark of this FO?

I agree with the thrust of your thinking (though I do not think Gibbs ever stated he would be back - as I recall..he became very non-committal once the whole ST debacle iht the fan)...just want to draw out some of its implications.

[Art]

Art, good and interesting thoughts, but in the end I think that the Snyder-Williams marriage was a bad one. Not blaming Williams for that, I actually wanted him. But it became apparent that Danny just didn't feel comfortable with him and that would've spelled doom in the end.

Maybe it was the arrogance thing, maybe the idea that Williams would be reluctant to stand behind his mistakes (if the Rogers story is true) maybe the idea that Williams wouldn't hesitate to go behind management's back if things went wrong (the 11th man ST tribute - not telling anyone--- or the way Lavar was handled etc... that type of thing). Sure we all would have been happier now with Williams, and I'm sure that Snyder and Williams would have been all huggy, kissy this offseason --- BUT the first difficult patch next fall, a losing streak, a coaching blunder, Williams snapping at the media, whatever, things could have deteriorated quickly with a lot of shouting behind closed doors ala Norv. Again, not blaming Williams, just saying that while a Williams' hiring would've been great in the short run, it might have been explosive and disastrous in the long run. I hope Fassel (or whoever is chosen) is the kind of guy who has the bal** to stand up to Danny in private (which I think Snyder likes, by the way) but in public is a great team player, and can hold it all together -- kinda like Gibbs.

Standing up to Danny in private can be a daunting thing for most of his employees, but, from what we hear, Vinny is pretty good about steering Danny away from Danny ideas. AT least if the data we saw from that Vince guy is as accurate as his other stuff.