Would Shanahan's (potential) success affect Gibbs' legacy?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Coach Mike could win 10 SB's running, and it wouldn't diminish the standing Coach holds in Redskins lore.

Joe Gibbs IS Mr Redskin. Even though his second go-around didn't ultimately bring the 4th Lombardi his legendary hard work deserved, that was a man who came back, at a stage of life where he should of had his feet up playing with his grand kids; out of sheer love for the most important thing in his life outside his faith and family, the Washington Redskins; and a need to try right a seriously wronged ship.

When a man breaks the mould and leads your team to their first Lombardi, and follows it up with two more over an unreal 9 year span, his legacy is set in stone.

Joseph Jackson Gibbs will ALWAYS be simply "Coach" when it comes to the B&G, no matter what success comes after him. The single most important man in Redskins history, and the best hire we ever made.

Hail.

[Commander PK]

Joe Gibbs and his legacy are untouchable as far as I am concerned. What he accomplished during his first tenure is nothing short of extraordinary. Winning 3 Super Bowls with 3 different quarterbacks will probably never be matched. What he accomplished during his 2nd tenure with what he had to work with on several levels is also very impressive. His leadership during the playoff run after Sean's death was the crowning achievement of Gibbs 2.0. People need to remember, the Washington Redskins when he returned were a very different team and organization then the one he left in '92. He does not get enough respect for making the playoffs in 2005 and 2007. Had a couple of things gone different in the 1st playoff game in Seattle, the '05 Redskins had a legitimate shot at a championship. For the last month of the regular season that year, they were the hottest team in Football.

With that said, I hope Mike Shanahan and the new Redskins organization achieve even MORE success.

and I bet if you asked Joe Gibbs his opinion, he would with 100% honesty say the same.

[HailGreen28]

...and Gibbs 2 still left us as a laughingstock once Zorn came in. The Zorn era factors in heavily, but overall, I for one do not see Gibbs 2.0 as anything special apart from the 2005 season. The moves we made were pretty horrendous overall. Mainly, all those trades we did. Sure, Vinny and Dan had their hand to play. In fact, I feel Gibbs legacy would be higher if his 2nd tenure could be removed.

Gibbs 1.0 is untouchable though, and even if Shanahan were to win 3 superbowls in 10 years like Gibbs 1 did, they'd both stand together at best. Other factors would have to be considered, like if strikes occur, who our QB's and RB's are, etc.... Gibbs did what he did with different QB's, RB's, strike players, etc.... That is pretty impressive and hopefully Shanahan will not have to deal with any of that.

We made the playoffs in the last year of Gibbs 2.0. We started 6-2 the year after. How can you say Gibbs 2.0 left us as the laughingstock?

Let's review some of the changes Vinny our favorite GM oversaw right after Joe Gibbs left: We fired the heir apparent, Gregg Williams, defensive coor. The guy who just got a SB ring with the Saints. We fired Al Saunders, the offensive guru we always said would need time for the team to learn how to work his system. We benched the QB that sparked a remarkable turnaround that got us into the playoffs. Brought in a life-long QB coach as OC, then had to appoint him HC, because after we stiffed Fassel nobody else wanted to come here, made the Jason Taylor deal.......

I could go on, but what the hell did Gibbs 2.0 have to do with any of that. With the stuff that put us back in the NFCE cellar after Joe Gibbs left?

[The Tris]

I could go on, but what the hell did Gibbs 2.0 have to do with any of that. With the stuff that put us back in the NFCE cellar after Joe Gibbs left?

It was more the malignant tumors that he left in the form of a roster heavy on aging veterans and light on future draft picks. It took some time to metastasize, but when it did, we ended up with an roster shockingly lacking depth, no more clearly shown than in an putrid offensive line. Gibbs mortgaged the future, and the bill came due last season. He is not alone in this, but he is partly liable.

[Forever21]

I think the OP misunderstands how a legacy works.

Legacies are set regardless of what happened before and what happens after.

Gibbs' work in his tenure as Redskins coach has nothing to do with George Allen's legacy so why would Shanahan's work have anything to do with Gibbs'?

If Shanahan wins some SB's as our coach and does it in grand fashion then perhaps he could enter the conversation about greatest 'Skins coaches of all time but that is a different conversation.

Perhaps that is what the OP meant.

[hail2skins]

If MS over the next 4-5 years brings us back to being a legitimate Super Bowl contender, while at the same time building us up for the future and handpicking our next franchise QB, and possibly(hopefully) handing the team to Kyle....what would that do to Gibbs' legacy?

You can't touch Gibbs 1.0... for obvious reasons, but wouldn't the above scenario turn Gibbs 2.0 from a promising but disappointing run, to an absolute disaster, and possibly even an era of Skins football that we would like to sweep under the rug along with Spurrier/Zorn/etc...? I think some of us already feel that way about 2.0, but don't want to admit it, because we (understandably) don't like the idea of trashing Gibbs. Wouldn't success with MS make 2.0 look much more like a failure than a...whatever it was?

I think the important part of your post has to deal with "timeframe." While I think that our goals should be a bit more than making the playoffs "every other year" (and if you only attain that, you better have at least a Super Bowl appearance to show for it), because we did make the playoffs twice under Gibbs 2.0, I wouldn't call that four years an "absolute disaster," no matter what Shanahan does.

I think the advantage that Mike is potentially going to have over Gibbs II, aside from only being out of the game for a year, is time. Mike will be turning 58 as the season starts. Gibbs was almost 64 when the 2004 campaign got underway. The six-year difference might not seem like much, and we all were euphoric when Gibbs' return was announced, but when you stepped back, you had to wonder how much time Gibbs was going to be able to give this team as HC, especially given his legendary work habits. Joe was in his 40s for a large stretch of his initial 12-year run. Did anyone think he was going to be able to last a decade or more when he was starting again in his 60s?

Bottom line is Mike should have a longer amount of time to accomplish good things with the Skins. If the success happens right away...and "Super Bowl contender" means you actually get to the game, in my mind......then it may raise the questions of "why wasn't Gibbs able to do this in his second go-around?" But I want Shanahan here longer, and to be given a chance to actually build something....something no coach in Snyder's era has done.

[Kindred]

Even as conjecture, each legacy stands or falls on its own. If Shanahan gets 4 SuperBowl appearances over 10 years and wins 3, then he is Gibbs equal. Anything less ...is less. Anything more., etc.

Gibbs 1.0 = Gibbs + Beathard + Jack Kent Cooke

Gibbs 2.0 = Gibbs - Cerrato - Dan Snyder

Haynesworth is the last in a long series of stupid moves by the Redskins Front Office.

You've got the essential factors. Plus building a team from scratch with a unified vision and purpose with all of your own people reporting to you vs inheriting a mismatched cast of people each of whom is trying to do their own thing each of whom report to somebody other than you. Plus being out of the game for several years vs being out of the game for 1 year (of which was spent studying other teams and systems)

Gibbs 2.0 did the best with the situation he inherited, that's all I can say.

[Ryman of the North]

You need several more head coaches to make the Redskins' Hallow Halls sacred.

Id stack Vince Lombardi, George Allen and Joe gibbs against anyone

[scruffylookin]

The Gibbs 1 era will have it's place and no success will overshadow it. I don't think Cowboy fans debate "which was better...the Landry era or the Johnson mini era?". You enjoy both.

If, still a very big if, Shanahan wins here then all it will show is that after a decade of failing Danny got it right. The Shanahan Allen setup seems to be the next (and hopefully finally successful long term) step towards winning that Snyder teased us with when he brought Marty in and then Gibbs 2.

[chipwhich]

The only one affecting gibbs legacy was gibbs II. Nothing else compares.

[iXiBrianiXi]

I think something people fail to realize is that during Gibbs 2.0...we weren't THAT talented. He did a whole lot with not much, imo. The team started getting some talent as he was leaving and as Zorn came in. The team we have now, I'd say, is extremely more talented then what Gibbs had.

My opinion Gibbs' second run is going to be looked down upon but in reality, for being over a decade out of the game, he did very good. He was still able to hold the team together, he was still able to do good things for the franchise. The game had just evolved to much for him to really grasp for a "win now" mode.

[KDawg]

Here's the thing... Gibbs spent his entire NFL Head Coaching career as a Washington Redskin. Shanahan wouldn't have.

[MumboSauce]

??? Gibbs Legacy / Shanahan Legacy are mutually exclusive. Neither has a thing to do with the other. Hell, Gibbs I vs Gibbs II is discussed in different perspective, why would a while other coach be compared to Gibbs' legacy?

^^ That's how I feel.

[Mania]

If Shanny wins 4 super bowls, it still would not effect Joe Gibbs legacy, what so ever..Gibbs is who put the Skins on the map, his legacy will last forever in the hearts and minds of TRUE Redskins fans

Agreed 100%

[sens11]

How many years has it been since we won a Superbowl? Going on 18 years, right?

There is no way that 18 years between potential legacies would affect one another.

Shouldn't we welcome a new legacy?

[Riggins77]

No disrespect, but honestly, who gives a ****? I want a Super Bowl, I don't care if its Gibbs as coach, Shanny as coach, or the ****ing towel boy as coach!!!

With that said, let me quote you:

OP

We've all pretty much concluded he was in a win-now attitude, but even that doesn't justify a lot of moves that were made. His results were 2 wild-card berths, and no playoff wins in 4 years. Not terrible, but not really great either, certainly nothing at all to be proud of.

In Gibbs 2.0 we won a playoff game against Tampa Bay. Then we lost to the Seahawks in the second round. If you watched football at all you would know that. Thus making your thread lose all meaning/respect.

Hell, you don't even know we won a playoff game under Gibbs 2.0, but you want to criticize it.........pathetic.

[Veretax]

no, Shanahan's legacy would be viewed in a different light.

[Late Night Roach]

Gibbs will never be forgotten, and Shanahan has the opportunity to add another chapter to the Redskins legacy. We have to remember, it's not just the coach that leads a team to success, the players also lead a team to glory as well.

[Jeff in D.C.]

I agree with an earlier post that said the two really don't have anything to do with one another. If the main question of the OP is whether Shanny winning SB's here would make 2.0 look bad, not really because this is a completely different team.

Joe was his own worst enemy in the sense of he made some terrible personnel decisions that doomed him as a coach. ARE getting too much $$$, Archuleta, wasted draft picks, JC at QB, etc. He also had to completely rebuild the team from the Spurrier years. I would have loved to see what he could have done if he had truly had a really good roster of talent to work with while he was here. As it was, the 2005 team wasn't far off from being a SB team imo but didn't have enough to get to the SB that year. He proved he could still coach after being out of it for so long, so I don't see how his legacy is affected at all no matter what Shanny does.

[stoney26]

I honestly think Gibbs didn't have much to do with personel while he was here. He's the type of coach that willingly took the blame when something went wrong. I could be wrong but all those stupid trades it jst reeks of vinny and Dan. I think Gibbs told them what he wanted and they went out and got it. I doubt Gibbs had much to do with the actual negotiations.

But to answer the ops question, shanahan could win 3 super bowls but it won't take away from anything Gibbs accomplished. People like to hate on Gibbs 2.0 but those are the only four years in my time as a fan that I was actualy proud of my team. Those teams had heart and opposing teams knew they had to bring their a game when they played us.

[respectgibbs]

No.

Respect Gibbs!

[thebluefood]

The legacies of Shanahan and Gibbs certainly aren't intertwined. Nothing can negate what Joe Gibbs did for the Redskins.

[Special K]

No.

I don't care what Shanny does, there is nothing that can surpase Gibbs's legacy in this organization.

No disrepect to Shanny at all, but I think his career (even if he should win 3 Superbowls with different QB's in 10 years...) and Gibbs's career with the Skins will always be separated in people's minds.

[Mr. S]

I could go on, but what the hell did Gibbs 2.0 have to do with any of that. With the stuff that put us back in the NFCE cellar after Joe Gibbs left?

It was more the malignant tumors that he left in the form of a roster heavy on aging veterans and light on future draft picks. It took some time to metastasize, but when it did, we ended up with an roster shockingly lacking depth, no more clearly shown than in an putrid offensive line. Gibbs mortgaged the future, and the bill came due last season. He is not alone in this, but he is partly liable.

Basically explained it. Look at all those draft picks and knee jerk reactions as well. Al Saunders was not needed, we seemed to be doing well after the 2005 season. I'm not fully sure who was behind that, but Gibbs was the official president as well as coach, where he was only the coach during his first tenure. Lloyd, Duckett, Brunell, Rocky Mac, Cooley, Campbell, all lead to trading future picks. Sure Cooley and Rocky are good, but the rest are not on the roster anymore. Compare that to the trades we have made under Shanahan.

I could write more, but while I appreciate Gibbs trying to take something most coaches didn't wnat to touch, lots of people don't seem to realize that he did not really right the ship overall, just helped it stay afloat and somewhat competitive with what he had. No one could doubt he could get the most out of his players, but he wa snot a good personnel guy and was not the personnel guy during his first tenure.

[joeknows]

His results were 2 wild-card berths, and no playoff wins in 4 years.

why does everyone seem to forget that he did actually win one playoff game??