Agree with this statement? "The short sighted moves Gibbs made over and over again KILLED this team's future"

[KDawg]

What if Williams and Saunders were retained as HC and OC. Say we still get Blanche as DC. Do we still have something to build on?

I wish we could handwave a competent FO in there, in this scenario, but that's not Gibbs' fault. We still have issues, like an old OL, but I think Gibbs left a decent team to build on, with smarter people in charge.

I still don't think we had the roster in place. Some disagree... But keeping them on without making some rebuilding moves wouldn't have changed a thing. If our philosophy changed after year three with Gibbs and then we transitioned to a rebuild with Williams as HC/DC and Saunders as OC, I think we would have been in better shape. Our roster, in my opinion, was bad. Our starters were okay, but we had absolutely no depth and we were old as dirt.

He left a decent nucleus, but it was a small one. Not a ton to build on, but a few pieces that could be kept. But again, that wasn't his job. He wasn't tasked with building this roster for the future, so of course he lacked in that department.

If they (management) had told him he had three years to win now and then they'd transition to a rebuild, I think it would have even worked better. After year three, Gibbs may have said "Alright, I'm out!" and then we rebuild under Williams with patience.

But, unfortunately, I think it would have been better to skip the Gibbs/Zorn years completely and begin the rebuild six years ago.

And that saddens me to say

The FOs direction has been horrendous.

Getting to the playoffs is to be expected from a HOF coach. IMO Gibbs did what Deoin, Stubblefield, Arculeta and most recently Haynesworth... did. And how he left the team-without ever telling his players or staff beforehand-and then not advocating for Williams to replace him-are decisions that taint an otherwise stellar career.

Gibbs did nothing of the sort to compare him with those guys. Zero. Nada. He shouldn't even be used in the same sentence as any of them.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Getting to the playoffs is to be expected from a HOF coach. IMO Gibbs did what Deoin, Stubblefield, Arculeta and most recently Haynesworth... did. And how he left the team-without ever telling his players or staff beforehand-and then not advocating for Williams to replace him-are decisions that taint an otherwise stellar career.

SERIOUSLY?

Aside from the history rewrite, your comparing the tragic circumstances the greatest man this organizations ever hired left his second go-around to some of the biggest disgraces that this organizations ever had the misfortune to employ.

SERIOUSLY?

---------- Post added May-24th-2011 at 08:25 AM ----------

What if Williams and Saunders were retained as HC and OC. Say we still get Blanche as DC. Do we still have something to build on?

I wish we could handwave a competent FO in there, in this scenario, but that's not Gibbs' fault. We still have issues, like an old OL, but I think Gibbs left a decent team to build on, with smarter people in charge.

I, like you and many others, would of loved to of seen how it would of played out with Gregg as HC, and the O and D coordinators carried over. (Well, Blache bumped up. But it would still of been Greggs D given his background.). Even Al's scheme would of carried over as it was beginning to get established.

The fans wanted it. The players wanted it. Coach left everything in place for a seamless transition. But then the bungling two-some decided otherwise, sighs.

Hail.

[Skins199021]

fact is we went to the playoffs 2 times in 4 years. Something we didn't do other this first stint.

Cooley

Taylor

Landry

Rogers

Rocky

Campell

Doughty

Golston

Blades

The drafting was alright under him, just not too many picks to work with over his 4 year here

[Mursilis]

If they (management) had told him he had three years to win now and then they'd transition to a rebuild, I think it would have even worked better.

Heck, I think that in today's fluid NFL, 3 years is a rebuild! The Jets were 4-12 in 2007, and have made the playoff twice since then. I don't personally think there's a huge difference between "Win now!" and "Rebuild" if you're a smart personnel person.

[scruffylookin]

Since my quote is being used as a basis for this thread, I guess I should reply.

I don't agree with the statement that Gibbs 2.0's short sighted moves KILLED this teams future.

I just feel, and the facts back it up, Gibbs 2.0 did nothing to improve/give this franchise a future. Moves under his watch didn't KILL the future (I guess unless you blame him...and I do...for not pulling a Marty or Shanny and getting rid of Cerrato ASAP) because this would imply that there was future in place and he ruined it and I most certainly do not believe that. To see something like that, look no further than the roster and draft picks Snyderrato inherited in 1999 and then look at the roster Marty had to deal with when he took over in Jan of 01. That is an example of KILLING a future. Gibbs 2.0 certainly didn't do that. Not even close. He inherited not very much (though he did have most of the Oline in place...Samuels, Dockery, Thomas, and Jansen...that he rode to the end) and did improve the talent level. No question. But that isn't the problem.

Gibbs just failed at what his stated goal was when he came back, to set this franchise up ("the right way") and to be able to continue to win after he was gone. He did not set up a first class Front Office, far from it and he did not set up a young roster, far from it.

I see people citing the 6-2 start by Zorn in 08 as an example of the "good team" Gibbs left. Well lets examine that team. What was the big reason for 6-2? The offensive line, which was playing better than I had seen it play in a long time (especially at end of games). Well what happened to the Oline? AGE caused it to slowly erode during the course of the season. This sent the O down the drain and 6-2 became 8-8. So by all means point to 2008 because it very much is an excellent example of how Gibbs left a largely older roster that was built for a season to season run and with no eye towards sustained winning.

But anyway it's in the past now. We are far enough removed that it doesn't really matter and Shanahan is redoing the roster anyway. It's just funny how some cannot bring themselves to say a cross word about Gibbs. As if the man never made mistakes. I mean jeez, even at his height, he made mistakes. He was thoroughly outcoached by the Raiders defensive staff in Super Bowl 18 and that was at something he did best. Coach. He never had a strength in acquiring talent. Again I point to the work he and his lackey Casserly did between 1990-1992 and the state of the roster in 1993 which was a mess. Gibbs 2.0 didn't leave a mess (except in the Front Office) as big as 93, but like 93 there was little to no young talent to lean on going forward. We needed to do a complete overhaul in 1994, just like what is going on now.

[The Tris]

Danny made a big mistake in picking Gibbs' successor. Surely you will agree with that, won't you?

Of course. He also made a mistake picking Gibbs.

If fact, Snyder has made a mistake with virtually every FO move since he acquired the team.

Gibbs did rebuild.

You don't trade three 2nd round picks, three 3rd round picks, and three 4th round picks for veterans if you are rebuilding.

He retooled/reloaded for immediate success. Which was what he was hired and asked to do.

I happen to think there were some really good moves too, but I do not think we will ever agree about that.

I never said Gibbs was a total failure. He did make several positive personnel moves.

But he made equally as many negative ones.

Vinny messing up the 2008 draft (and Danny hiring Jim Zorn) set us back more than anything Gibbs did.

One draft was not going to fix this team (a team with 5 starting OL over 31, zero defensive DL depth, and no QB).

One draft did not create the roster voids of 2008-2009.

Gibbs made some mistakes, but he deserves credit for cleaning up Spurrier's mess, and he does not deserve blame for problems that were primarily caused by Vinny, Danny, and Zorn.

Unfortunately, in the process of cleaning up Spurriers' mess, he created his own mess, at the same time as he was having some success relative to our recent history.

I say that modest success in the grand scheme wasn't worth the mess. Others say it was. This is the primary point which we disagree. Was the juice worth the squeeze.

What if Williams and Saunders were retained as HC and OC. Say we still get Blanche as DC. Do we still have something to build on?

I wish we could handwave a competent FO in there, in this scenario, but that's not Gibbs' fault. We still have issues, like an old OL, but I think Gibbs left a decent team to build on, with smarter people in charge.

I would hope that in year 5 of a win now philosophy, we would be far more competitive that we were at the end of 2007, and the roster would be much stronger going into 2008.

[KDawg]

Heck, I think that in today's fluid NFL, 3 years is a rebuild! The Jets were 4-12 in 2007, and have made the playoff twice since then. I don't personally think there's a huge difference between "Win now!" and "Rebuild" if you're a smart personnel person.

Just to note, so others who read this and nothing else understand... I'm of the opinion we should have skipped the Gibbs/Zorn years completely and went directly to the rebuild.

However, Mursilis, Gibbs was never tasked with a rebuild. He was tasked to win now. I think there's a huge difference and it has to do with age.

Also, to the last point... Gibbs isn't a personnel guy. He's a leader of men.

[icbmayday]

I blame Cerrato 4 everything lol No love loss coach Gibbs

[Darrell Green Fan]

fact is we went to the playoffs 2 times in 4 years. Something we didn't do other this first stint.

Cooley

Taylor

Landry

Rogers

Rocky

Campell

Doughty

Golston

Blades

The drafting was alright under him, just not too many picks to work with over his 4 year here

I was going to quote HailGreen or KDawg in my post but this one hits my point dead on. Look at that list closely. Are you guys really contending that Reid Doughty, Golston, Blades, Macintosh and Campbell qualify as good young talent that will be the foundation for years to come? Does that really look like the core of a team left in "great shape"? I see exactly 4 players, the first 4 you listed, who would qualify as good young talent. Pretty sure you can find comparable young talent on today's Buffalo Bills. You say they didn't have many picks. Again you are making my point for me. They didn't have many picks because Gibbs traded them away on shorTsighted, failed attempts.

I have not moved the goalposts. I have stated from the beginning in this thread as well as the other that Gibbs made bad trades that stripped the team of draft picks, and draft picks are how every successful team acquires and develops young talent. He left an aging team with no depth and very few good young players as ther lists above shows. And yes this had an effect, I believe, on the Redskins after he left. And once again I want to see the salary cap numbers. That 2007 tream had a lot of high prices players: Springs; Samuels; Fletcher, ARE to name a few. I am having a hard time believing they were in good shape cap wise either.

Kdawg: I understand perfectly what you have been saying. And I agree with you, Gibbs was brought in to win immediately. But again please refer to the title of the thread because that's what I've been trying to discuss all along. I don't care about the 2 playoff runs, I have been trying to stick to the subject: did Joe Gibbs' shortsighted moves hamstring the team after he left?

[KDawg]

I was going to quote HailGreen or KDawg in my post but this one hits my point dead on. Look at that list closely. Are you guys really contending that Reid Doughty, Golston, Blades, Macintosh and Campbell qualify as good young talent that will be the foundation for years to come?

When did I say it was a foundation? I said there was a SMALL nucleus.

Nucleus meaning we came out of Gibbs with: Moss, Portis, Cooley, Taylor (RIP), Landry, and Rogers. I never said it was anything spectacular.

In fact, I said exactly this:

He left a decent nucleus, but it was a small one. Not a ton to build on, but a few pieces that could be kept. But again, that wasn't his job. He wasn't tasked with building this roster for the future, so of course he lacked in that department.

I think in saying a small, decent nucleus, with the caveat of it not being a ton to build on qualifies that statement enough for you to understand I never believed the team was in good shape in the post Gibbs era.

I have not moved the goalposts. I have stated from the beginning in this thread as well as other that Gibbs made bad trades that stripped the team of young talent. He left an aging team with no depth, this can not be in dispute.

But it can in the fact that Gibbs alone wasn't responsible. It was a three headed monster and you seem to be pinning the majority of Gibbs. It can also be in dispute, again, because his job wasn't to leave a young roster with depth.

Kdawg: I understand perfectly what you have been saying. And I agree with you, Gibbs was brought in to win immediately. But again please refer to the title of the thread because that's what I've been trying to discuss all along.

You don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the title of your thread is not an accurate assessment. It was never what Gibbs came to do. The team's future WAS killed... But it was by a lack of vision. Not by Gibbs himself.

EDIT: I took a stupid pill and put some random words in there

[bwdjr]

Gibbs was the only coach to get those ragamuffins into the playoffs "twice". What a miracle that was. He had them playing like men every week. There was no petiness or drama going on all the time in the media. It was a family and it started with him. I'm totally offended that any of you would attempt to blast him this way when all he did was bring respectability back to the organization for 4 yrs. If he had continued to call the plays on offense I believe we would have made the playoffs at least 1 more time because the defense was always good. What shape was the organization in when he took over for that joke Spurrier who Patrick Ramsey should be suing for "attempting to coach".

I hope the creator of this thread wakes up recognizes that Gibbs is and always will be the greatest coach in Skins history. Bar None. Take away Gibbs 4 yrs and what do you have. 1 playoff birth since Snyder took over and that was in the 1st year.

This is crazy talk.

[Mursilis]

The tipping point in this debate is probably the fact that the trading/drafting of Campbell didn't work out. If JC had turned out to be our Aaron Rodgers, people would be singing Gibbs' praises for leaving us with a franchise QB of the future. As it is, we still don't have that one critical piece. We didn't really have a franchise QB when Gibbs arrived, and we didn't have one when he left.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Once again I have stated that Gibbs deserves credit for making the Redskins relevent again, even for a little while. The question is at what price?

Kdawg: Yes I am "pinning" the responsibility of the bad trades on Coach because he told us that he was in charge and had the final say on all personnel matters. So why wouldn't I hold him accountable when the trades didn't pan out? I was focusing in on the list of players to again dispute HailGreen's contention that the team was in "great shape" when Coach Gibbs left. I think you and I are in agreement that this was simply not the case.

---------- Post added May-24th-2011 at 10:43 AM ----------

The tipping point in this debate is probably the fact that the trading/drafting of Campbell didn't work out. If JC had turned out to be our Aaron Rodgers, people would be singing Gibbs' praises for leaving us with a franchise QB of the future. As it is, we still don't have that one critical piece. We didn't really have a franchise QB when Gibbs arrived, and we didn't have one when he left.

Yeah I agree. He tried to hit a HR and missed. It happens. To be honest the Campbell trade wasn't really one I had an issue with, it's damn hard to land a franchise QB. But put it with all the other bad moves and that is a ton of picks thrown out the window. And nobody has convinced me that those lost picks have not come back to hurt this team down the road.

[Going Commando]

At least we got to be competitive again for the first time in a long time and had some excitement put into our empty football life's watching what had become the big B&G comedy show for pretty much all the previous decade.

I get the sense that a lot of fans are happy enough with the team as long as we're not a laughing stock.

This is what I was talking about. Set the bar for success higher.

Gibbs gave us two rag tag 6 seed playoff runs ending in early exits as a result of making a long series of win now moves. That's not grounds for a successful tenure relative to the rest of the NFL.

[KDawg]

This is what I was talking about. Set the bar for success higher.

Gibbs gave us two rag tag 6 seed playoff runs ending in early exits as a result of making a long series of win now moves. That's not grounds for a successful tenure relative to the rest of the NFL.

Agreed. But it is grounds for success when you haven't had a good team since '99 and have only reached the playoffs three times in nearly 20 years.

He improved the team (albeit very shortlived) during his tenure and got us back to the playoffs. Success there.

When comparing it to the rest of the league, no, it's not a success. But for a team that's been a laughing stock? It was a major step forward.

[JPCreativelab]

watched Americas's Game last night, the '81 49ers...reminded me of this thread when Randy Cross said:

(paraphrased)

"we were the laughing stock of the league, it was hard to win games, hard...we were so happy to get to .500 ... .500 man, we were that bad, that getting to .500 was a great accomplishment for us"

of course, they went on to win the Super Bowl that year, but they were very happy to get to .500 cause they were a very poor team for a long time. if they hadnt went to the Super Bowl that year, they still would of been happy that they improved.

everyones bar is always set high...but there is room for improvement and discounting that improvement as "not setting the bar high enough" is just wrong.

[Going Commando]

i can see both sides, but the Tris/SteveMcQueen1 side seems to be a little unreasonable to me. of course every team wants to make the super bowl every year, its kind of the whole point of being in the NFL...but being realistic, when you have a poor team, sometimes just getting over certain humps or milestones, is a success, and is definitely worthy of fans feeling better about the team. im sure that 100% of the posters in this thread would say they want to win the super bowl every year. But...some will settle sometimes for a "win" that just gives you something to be happy about. does that mean they dont want 100% success rates? of course they do...but expecting it every year is not realistic and only promotes anger and fustration.

My position is that Gibbs's second tenure was ultimately a failure because the goal for hiring him was to get a Superbowl (or at the very least a legit SB contender) and he failed to do that. He failed to achieve his goals therefore his tenure was a failure.

Gibbs had four years, you can build a legit contender in four years if you have a good plan and execute it well. What we ended up with at the end of Gibbs' tenure was an aging roster on the decline whose peak was a pair of rag tag 6th seed seasons, hardly any developmental young talent, no QB, little cap space and tons of dead money, and no succession plan whatsoever. The closest we came to honest to goodness contention with the team Joe Gibbs built was 6-2 with Jim Zorn in 2008.

The Redskins should not be a have-not organization when teams like the Bucs can get it right, make the playoffs, and even win a Superbowl. We are losers if we're willing to settle for moral victories like "at least we weren't a laughing stock." Moral victories are unsatisfying to me. It's just putting lipstick on a pig.

Believe it or not, this organization can be a contender if we actually had a good plan to get there and hired the right people to make it happen. Upon reflection, Joe Gibbs 2.0 wasn't the right man for the job and it was a flawed plan from the get go.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

This is what I was talking about. Set the bar for success higher.

Gibbs gave us two rag tag 6 seed playoff runs ending in early exits as a result of making a long series of win now moves. That's not grounds for a successful tenure relative to the rest of the NFL.

Under normal circumstances, I'd fully agree with you. We should be aiming to be #1.

Put in perspective of the previous 11 years since the last Lombardi, it's utopia.

You need to put just what he achieved his second go-around in context to fully appreciate just what he did achieve.

Hail.

[Going Commando]

Agreed. But it is grounds for success when you haven't had a good team since '99 and have only reached the playoffs three times in nearly 20 years.

He improved the team (albeit very shortlived) during his tenure and got us back to the playoffs. Success there.

When comparing it to the rest of the league, no, it's not a success. But for a team that's been a laughing stock? It was a major step forward.

Comparing it to the rest of the NFL is what matters though since those are the organizations we are competing with. I believe bad teams, even historically bad teams, can become truly competitive in 3 or 4 years of excellent rebuilding. The Jets were terrible for most of the middle of the decade, made comically bad draft picks for most of two decades before, and have now been to back to back AFC championship games with a core mostly built since 2006. Is their organizational situation so different from ours? What about Tampa Bay's or Kansas City's? Tampa Bay has worse ownership than we do with the added disadvantage they're a small market.

Joe Gibbs did have time to build us a true contender team and I don't think he came close. We could have been the absolute worst organization in the league (which we weren't) and still gotten to the point of sustainable contention by 2007 or 2008 if he had built properly. When you make a big splash 7 million a year coaching hire like Joe Gibbs and give him the keys to the franchise, the minimum of what you should expect is that he gets you to the point of sustained contention right? That's fair since he was very old and probably wasn't going to stick around to see the fruits of the rebuild no matter what. I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation for any NFL franchise in those circumstances no matter how crappy they'd been before.

[JPCreativelab]

My position is that Gibbs's second tenure was ultimately a failure because the goal for hiring him was to get a Superbowl (or at the very least a legit SB contender) and he failed to do that. He failed to achieve his goals therefore his tenure was a failure.

Gibbs had four years, you can build a legit contender in four years if you have a good plan and execute it well. What we ended up with at the end of Gibbs' tenure was an aging roster on the decline whose peak was a pair of rag tag 6th seed seasons, hardly any developmental young talent, no QB, little cap space and tons of dead money, and no succession plan whatsoever. The closest we came to honest to goodness contention with the team Joe Gibbs built was 6-2 with Jim Zorn in 2008.

The Redskins should not be a have-not organization when teams like the Bucs can get it right, make the playoffs, and even win a Superbowl. We are losers if we're willing to settle for moral victories like "at least we weren't a laughing stock." Moral victories are unsatisfying to me. It's just putting lipstick on a pig.

Believe it or not, this organization can be a contender if we actually had a good plan to get there and hired the right people to make it happen. Upon reflection, Joe Gibbs 2.0 wasn't the right man for the job and it was a flawed plan from the get go.

i can respect that opinion, im just a little more open to smaller successes i guess. and i have kind of skipped over the whole Gibbs part of the thread and just focused on the 'fan expectations' aspect...that just struck something with me for some reason.

if Gibbs job was to win a Super Bowl, then he didnt do his job, technically. He did a lot of other things, some good some bad, but overall...i was glad he came back and wish he had the success that everyone wanted him to have.

i dont consider it a total failure though.

[Going Commando]

Under normal circumstances, I'd fully agree with you. We should be aiming to be #1.

Put in perspective of the previous 11 years since the last Lombardi, it's utopia.

You need to put just what he achieved his second go-around in context to fully appreciate just what he did achieve.

Hail.

I'm putting his achievements in the widest context--the context of the NFL. Was what Gibbs 2.0 accomplished much more impressive than what Eric Mangini or Wade Phillips accomplished as HCs this decade? It wasn't even close to as impressive as what Parcells built in Dallas in a similar time frame under very similar circumstances. Was what Gibbs 2.0 accomplished as impressive as the Tony Sparano/Parcells tenure in Miami?

These are all guys whose tenures with these organizations are considered general failures. They aren't spectacular failures like Spurrier or McDaniels or any other disaster of a hire you can think of. But they're still a long way off from the success of a hire like Mike Tomlin or Mike McCarthy.

[hail2skins]

I also think we have to ask the timeframe of when this team was considered a laughing stock on the field. After Gibbs left the team did have a few bad years under Petitbon and Turner, but by Turner's third-year we were 9-7. After that we went 8-7-1, 6-10 (after an 0-7 start in which Norv probably could've deservedly been fired), 10-6, and were 7-6 when Snyder fired Norv.

Was the team considered a league-wide laughing stock that whole time? I don't think so. Rather, I think Skins fans were upset because you had a coach who followed a wildly successful era that was getting us to the cusp of the playoffs but couldn't win those December games. To me, that's a far cry from "laughing stock."

We were a laughing stock under Marty? At the beginning of the '01 season probably, but by the end we looked like a team heading in the right direction.

Only under Spurrier could you make the case that the team fell into laughing stock territory.

Again, lets use the PROPER context. Don't rewrite history and make it seem like Gibbs rescued a team that had been 3-13 for a decade.

[USS Redskins]

Gibbs II was a failure.. unless you consider the two final wild card playoff spots in 4 years with a record of 30-34 a success.

Blaming Snyder is a joke - sure he had a hand in it but Gibbs took on full control and blew it on the likes of Brunell and Archelleta....

I have nothing but respect for Joe but he proved that the game had passed him by and he was a better coach than team president.

I have a bad feeling I will be writing the same thing about Mike Shannahan in about 2 years.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I also think we have to ask the timeframe of when this team was considered a laughing stock on the field. After Gibbs left the team did have a few bad years under Petitbon and Turner, but by Turner's third-year we were 9-7. After that we went 8-7-1, 6-10 (after an 0-7 start in which Norv probably could've deservedly been fired), 10-6, and were 7-6 when Snyder fired Norv.

Was the team considered a league-wide laughing stock that whole time? I don't think so. Rather, I think Skins fans were upset because you had a coach who followed a wildly successful era that was getting us to the cusp of the playoffs but couldn't win those December games. To me, that's a far cry from "laughing stock."

We were a laughing stock under Marty? At the beginning of the '01 season probably, but by the end we looked like a team heading in the right direction.

Only under Spurrier could you make the case that the team fell into laughing stock territory.

Again, lets use the PROPER context. Don't rewrite history and make it seem like Gibbs rescued a team that had been 3-13 for a decade.

When you splash the kind of money splashed through that time on high profile FA's, and still muddle around the cellar of your division with no sniff of the post season in reality, your a laughing stock. We were, and that's how fans Nation wide viewed us.

That's not just context, that's reality.

Hail.

[Goskinz0721]

We didn't go from awful to mediocre we went from clueless to respectable - In 2005 in 1 year and after 12 years away from the sport he rose the skins from a worthless joke the coaches, the team, the fans and the press had given up on (2003 - seriously look up just how bad we were) ... he drove that team of rag tags (someone said in previous post these were the kinds of guys you can find on any scrap heap at the end of the season) to finish the season with a 6 game winning streak ( including the playoffs) we didn't back into the playoffs - when we went into week 17 we controlled our own destiny we were the hot team in the NFC . ... we didn't scrape wins we destroyed teams (30 + points in the final 3 games of the season) - ask the Giants and the Cowboys fans what happened in the second games in 2005 (10-2 in the NFC, 5-1 in the NFCE)

Thats what Joe Gibbs did for the team . Joe stood by Sean Taylor when 99.99999999999% of the fans on here wanted him hung drawn and quartered for the trouble he got into prior to the 2005 season . Joe motivated the team - Joe could have won another superbowl - and people forget he left here with the job undone and I can think there is one and only one reason he left - I think he expected the game to have moved on (but 2005 showed he could win in this league) he knew the players had changed - many more prima donas and spoilt bratts but he got the team out of them , i doubt he cared what the press thought - and sure the press had changed it was never the 24/7 glare we get today but I think he managed that - BUT I think and I still believe the thing that made him walk away was that was shown in all its ugly glory in 2007 was the fan base had changed .

It was no longer the proud Redskin nation that chanted along to hail to the Redskins - they were and remain a bunch a spoiled cheese and wine brats who have no respect for anything . Hearing the "Joe Must Go" chant from the fans must of hurt - must have hurt a lot - and remains the darkest part of the 2007 season for me - and considering what happened - that is saying a lot .

So going back to the OP - can you say the Skins were on the "right path" or would have been better off without Gibbs II then explain that to me, draft pick mean nothing to me - can you point to a team that hits with every FA every draft pick -

Joe made us better than we were - Thats all you can do - make yourself better every day strive to be better than the second best guy in your profession ..

Fans always want to point to other teams to say how we should be - but really WTF have the Eagles done? what have the Jets the Cowboys ****ing done in the last decade ? Jets and Ravens fans a few years ago would have given their right arms for a 9-7 season and a playoff game ....

... my point is the fans saying Gibbs ****ed the skins by not having a plan ... can I ask were we better in 2007 or in 2003 did we have a future in 2003 ? - Gibbs did what he could - built a strong core who identified as Redskins - a good selection of draft picks a good base to walk on - what happened after that was out of Joes hands .

Very well said, Bedlam. Damn, that brought tears to my eyes.