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

[HEavyJumbo85]

I think this one has run it's course.

I think we're all (or most) in agreement that we were in worse shape after Gibbs' tenure than before it.

However, the sticking point seems to be who's fault that is. Some of us blame ownership for hiring a guy who was going to come in and try to assemble a win now roster with no forethought for the future. A short sighted vision with no long term plan.

Others blame the coach that was hired to win now for not setting us up for the future.

And that's where this one is going to stay, is my guess

wat? How do you figure? Marty=on right track, Spurrier="5-11, not very good", Gibbs=playoffs, Zorn=8-8, then things got bad. Agree that things have gotten worse since Gibbs, but they were in disarray before too. Just finally getting back on right track. Not trying to start on another tangent, but Spurrier and Zorn tenures were both awful.

[hail2skins]

He gave us 2 shots at a Super Bowl, and don't say a 6 seed isn't a shot, because 2 of the last 6 Champs have come from that spot. I can't possibly see how that's abysmal, compared to what we'd seen the previous decade. Was Norv's tenure far and away better than Gibbs, with his "I won by default" NFC East title?

During Gibbs' tenure, Philly went to a a Super Bowl, The Giants won a Super Bowl, Dallas had a 13-3 season. It's not like the division wasn't competitive.

The two #6 seeds who won it all proved some pedigree, though. The Steelers had been 15-1 and made an AFCCG appearance the year before they won it all. The Giants followed up their Super Bowl run with what looked like was going to be a monster year until their dumbass WR shot himself......and they still won the division and a bye. Our #6 seeds didn't come close to either, although, as you said, we don't know how Gregg would've done in '08 if he would've been selected to replace JG.

As you said, the other teams in the division were pretty decent during our tenure, and certainly two wild card appearances does count as a modicum of success. But if you're not here to build for the future and are in full-blown win-now mode, are those two WC seeds good enough? I think saying we needed to reach the SB in order for it to have been a success is a bit much, but I think either a division championship in those four years or maybe at least a NFCCG appearance may have sufficed to most.

A division championship might have been tough to attain in those years, though. Nobody was going to touch the Eagles in 2004 or the Cowboys in 2007. We came close in 2005 and did make it further in the playoffs than the Giants. I think the big disppointment was 2006, when we did nothing to build upon 2005 and, hate to say it, went back into laughing stock mode with the extravagant FA signings. Midway through that season when Campbell took the reigns, I think you had to lower expectations for this team for the remainer of Gibbs tenure.

As KDawg said in his subsequent post, its just a matter of who gets the blame. Certainly Gibbs could not affect the coaching decision after he left and the disastrous 2008 draft. But I do think he was part of the process in determining this team's direction when he was here, and thus needs to shoulder some of the blame.

[KDawg]

wat? How do you figure? Marty=on right track, Spurrier="5-11, not very good", Gibbs=playoffs, Zorn=8-8, then things got bad. Agree that things have gotten worse since Gibbs, but they were in disarray before too. Just finally getting back on right track. Not trying to start on another tangent, but Spurrier and Zorn tenures were both awful.

Rewording it:

We were in bad shape after Gibbs' tenure.

[HEavyJumbo85]

Rewording it:

We were in bad shape after Gibbs' tenure.

Haha, yes.

[The Tris]

We were in bad shape after Gibbs' tenure.

He's a better exercise: Were we in better shape in 2008 than in 2004 or in 2002 or in 2010 (or even 2001)?

How would you rank the rosters of each team that a new coach inherited under Snyder?

[KDawg]

He's a better exercise: Were we in better shape in 2008 than in 2004 or in 2002 or in 2010 (or even 2001)?

How would you rank the rosters of each team that a new coach inherited under Snyder?

Ohhh sounds fun. I'll look into it later

[hail2skins]

Ohhh sounds fun. I'll look into it later

Young man, before you do any research on that, I was thinking about those "Historical Rankings" that you had been posting last year. What happened to those?? I know we busted your chops about how much folks on here would be able to relate to the 1955 Skins, but I think it would be cool if you could post who your top 10 teams were. At least would generate some good discussion, especially when we having nothing going on except Cooley and Fred Davis wrestling on a football field.

[KDawg]

Young man, before you do any research on that, I was thinking about those "Historical Rankings" that you had been posting last year. What happened to those?? I know we busted your chops about how much folks on here would be able to relate to the 1955 Skins, but I think it would be cool if you could post who your top 10 teams were. At least would generate some good discussion, especially when we having nothing going on except Cooley and Fred Davis wrestling on a football field.

Heh... Uhh... Uhm...

I... uhh... lost... the...

uhm...

sheets...

heh... heh... heh...

Or I would have kept doing them...

I need to... uhhh... locate those

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 10:43 AM ----------

So, I found them... Without them ranked >

I have to go back through and rank them. I may do a quick recap... I'm not sure when to expect it, but sometime soon, I guess

[HEavyJumbo85]

He's a better exercise: Were we in better shape in 2008 than in 2004 or in 2002 or in 2010 (or even 2001)?

This would get hairy I think, because they were on the right path in 2008, for that one month after Gibbs retired up until they hired Zorn. The complete turnover of the offensive staff was the biggest issue. That team couldn't score under Zorn...ever. The 2007 team went to the playoffs with Fabini and Heyer on the offensive line. Determines how you interpret things with your hindsight, really, because, as we know now Heyer is awful, but going into 2008, he had just been a starting tackle as an undrafted rookie on a playoff team.

[Woofer]

God, I hope for your sake that this was an intentionally ironic post

Irony is an interesting thing...

I guess we see things differently. That 2007 team had a lot of problems, starting with no QB, horrible lines on both sides of the ball, age and no depth. You will never convince me they were poised to make a deep run. Hell in both of their playoff runs under Gibbs it took a miraculous run in December to sneak in by grabbing the last spot. Not once did they scare anyone when they got there.

Look guys I love Joe Gibbs as much as anyone here. This was not meant as a Gibbs bashing. I just took exception to the posters who claim that Gibbs left the team in great shape. In the earlier thread I forgot to mention the Brunnel deal where he gave up a 3rd when everyone in the league knew the Jags were about to release him. So counting that and the 2nd in the Bailey trade that was totally unnecessary Joe Gibbs traded a first, a second, four 3rds and two 4ths and got basically nothing in return (assuming Portis and Bailey are a wash). If Vinny had traded this many high picks for virtually nothing he would have been bashed all over this board, and for good reason.

The way you win in this league is to develop young, cheap players through the draft. The team Joe Gibbs left had very few of those types of players. And trading those picks is a big reason why.

When you consider the mess that Gibbs 2 found when he arrived, and the respectable team we had when he left, you cannot say it was a failure. Were they 100% completely successful, as in a Super Bowl victory? No.

However, there are more measures of success than just that.

Gibbs brought the team respectability when it had none.

Gibbs taught winning. You cannot easily put together 5 game win streaks and 4 game win streaks to make the playoffs without teaching winning.

And for those of you who believe the skins "snuck" in...Punching your way in with long win streaks is not sneaking. It's making a statement. They didn't make it very far the first time and got eliminated in the first round the second time. I'll grant you that - but saying they didn't scare anyone is a gross understatement, unfair and untrue. Do you think the Bucs weren't worried? They got BEAT! Do you really think Holmgren didn't do some serious game planning? Do you think he said, "oh the heck with it, it just the Skins with Joe Gibbs as their head coach, so I'll take the week off and party like a rock star"? Maybe they weren't shaking in their shoes, but they had to take the Skins seriously.

The Skins were more poised for success when Gibbs left than they were when he got here. The 6-2 start to 2008 proves that. Any decent coach would have been able to ride Gibbs coattails to the playoffs, the way Barry Switzer rode Jimmy Johnson's. (I can't believe I just called Switzer a decent coach).

Most of Gibbs problems in 2.0 were Vinny, and I won't deny that Gibbs is not a good GM.

But to suggest that Gibbs 2 was a failure because he only made the playoffs twice in 4 years and didn't win a Super Bowl is short-sighted.

:logo:

[HailGreen28]

Rewording it:

We were in bad shape after Gibbs' tenure.

I still disagree with you on that. Yeah we had little depth. But making the playoffs and then going 6-2 starting the following year, with practically all our draft picks, and plenty of cap space after some restructuring, proves we were in pretty good shape. IMO.

"All" we needed was good coaching and FO work for the future, at that point.

Certainly our future was not "killed" by any stretch of the imagination. (You didn't say it, just pointing to my OP.)

[Spartacus87]

I still disagree with you on that. Yeah we had little depth. But making the playoffs and then going 6-2 starting the following year, with practically all our draft picks, and plenty of cap space after some restructuring, proves we were in pretty good shape. IMO.

"All" we needed was good coaching and FO work for the future, at that point.

Certainly our future was not "killed" by any stretch of the imagination. (You didn't say it, just pointing to my OP.)

Gibbs' "handpicked" future Redskins franchise QB didn't pan out (partly though coaching changes, the switch to Saunders being under Gibbs' watch, and partly through his own general flaws as an NFL QB), and his and Bugel's loyalty to the veteran OL left us with a paper-thin OL group. It's not like the cupboard was fully stocked when Zorn took over as the HC.

And that still doesn't excuse all of the early round draft picks Gibbs saw traded away in deals for guys like TJ Duckett and Brandon Lloyd (not to mention the draft day trades).

I think it's fair to just call it what it is: Gibbs was never a GM type, his strength was always the X's and O's and getting guys committed to him as their coach. I don't believe for a second that Vinny and Snyder were making personnel decisions without consulting Gibbs, or without Gibbs' honest approval (Wasn't Archuleta a guy Gregg Williams really wanted? And Lloyd an Al Saunders' prized target? And Gibbs basically gave the green light for acquiring them?), so those sorts of things still fall on Gibbs' as the Team President, there's no getting around that.

This idea that Gibbs somehow restored a whole bunch of credibility and respect to the franchise doesn't really sit right with me either. That respect and credibility didn't really hold up during the disastrous 2006 season, particularly when that damning article came out about the defensive coaching. And after one year of Gibbs being gone, we were back to "the usual Redskins" with Zorn and Cerrato at the helm. If Gibbs had really "restored" that much credibility in the Redskins franchise, I don't think it would have evaporated so quickly. Quite the opposite: I think Gibbs' coming back and being in a full "win now" mode, and not truly valuing draft picks and building the team through rookies for the long term, gave a sort of validation to Snyder and Vinny to continue that process with Zorn.

To say that Gibbs "KILLED," in all caps, the future of the Redskins franchise, is probably too strong. But he made a couple key errors as the Team President that came back to haunt him while he was still the HC, and he didn't leave very much for the Redskins in the long term after he was gone.

Building a team in the 2000's simply isn't the same as building a team in the 80's, and that was never Gibbs' real area of expertise in the first place, so why is it such a controversial idea to suggest that Gibbs 2.0 didn't do the Redskins franchise that many favors?

[paloosa]

Why is it that Gibbs gets the blame for what happened during his second tenure? What shortsighted moves did he make? How did those moves kill the team's future? Name a coach that has made good decisions as a GM or president of football operations? Has Mike Holgrem or Bill Parcells? Vinny Cerrato was the GM and it was his influence and friendship with Snyder that were the decisions that killed the team's future. When Gibbs left is when the team declined because of Cerrato.

[hail2skins]

Why is it that Gibbs gets the blame for what happened during his second tenure? What shortsighted moves did he make? How did those moves kill the team's future? Name a coach that has made good decisions as a GM or president of football operations? Has Mike Holgrem or Bill Parcells? Vinny Cerrato was the GM and it was his influence and friendship with Snyder that were the decisions that killed the team's future. When Gibbs left is when the team declined because of Cerrato.

You'll probably get the argument that Parcells and Gibbs had roughly the same amount of success in their respective four-year coaching stints with the Cowboys and Skins; however, when Parcells left, the Cowboys strung together three-straight winning seasons (with two divisional crowns) while the Skins, well.......................

[HailGreen28]

Gibbs' "handpicked" future Redskins franchise QB didn't pan out (partly though coaching changes, the switch to Saunders being under Gibbs' watch, and partly through his own general flaws as an NFL QB), and his and Bugel's loyalty to the veteran OL left us with a paper-thin OL group. It's not like the cupboard was fully stocked when Zorn took over as the HC.

And yet we made the playoffs with other QBs. Gibbs gave us a decent cupboard, with the coaches we had. Which Danny promptly sacked when Gibbs left.

And that still doesn't excuse all of the early round draft picks Gibbs saw traded away in deals for guys like TJ Duckett and Brandon Lloyd (not to mention the draft day trades).

Yet, except for a mid-round 2009 pick, Gibbs took the loss of picks himself, and still built a decent team.

I think it's fair to just call it what it is: Gibbs was never a GM type, his strength was always the X's and O's and getting guys committed to him as their coach. I don't believe for a second that Vinny and Snyder were making personnel decisions without consulting Gibbs, or without Gibbs' honest approval (Wasn't Archuleta a guy Gregg Williams really wanted? And Lloyd an Al Saunders' prized target? And Gibbs basically gave the green light for acquiring them?), so those sorts of things still fall on Gibbs' as the Team President, there's no getting around that.

Agreed about Gibbs' strengths, but you're overlooking the roster Gibbs built. Including good choices like Washington, Daniels, and Landry, that Gibbs used to overcome mistakes. And Gibbs was still the best GM we've had in the Snyderatto era so far. (With the possible exceptions of Schotty who never got a fair chance making chicken salad out of chicken *****, and Shanahallen still too early to tell)

This idea that Gibbs somehow restored a whole bunch of credibility and respect to the franchise doesn't really sit right with me either. That respect and credibility didn't really hold up during the disastrous 2006 season, particularly when that damning article came out about the defensive coaching. And after one year of Gibbs being gone, we were back to "the usual Redskins" with Zorn and Cerrato at the helm. If Gibbs had really "restored" that much credibility in the Redskins franchise, I don't think it would have evaporated so quickly. Quite the opposite: I think Gibbs' coming back and being in a full "win now" mode, and not truly valuing draft picks and building the team through rookies for the long term, gave a sort of validation to Snyder and Vinny to continue that process with Zorn.

But Gibbs brought credibility and respect back to Washington. Can't find the quote but AFAICR Andy Reid is quoted as saying when Gibbs returned, Reid had to start seriously watching tape preparing for the Skins instead of relaxing like he could before. Portis: “I never seen nobody give up or with their head down with Coach Gibbs,” Portis said. “As many close games as we played and came up short during his era, you can’t say one time that we gave up. There was a passion and toughness amongst everybody on that field to fight until [time expired].”

And, again, we made the playoffs two out of four years. Coming out of the rubble of about 5 years of Snyderatto, I call that restoring the franchise.

Of course it was "business as usual" when Gibbs left. Danny fired two respected coaches for a Seattle legacy QB coach, and a Chicago/Wash DC wanting to retire, and later a bingo caller was asked to help. And Vinny drafted one good player in 2008 for a position we already had a probowler, and signed Jason Taylor. In 2009 Vinny drafted one good player and signed Haynesworth. Maybe somebody can help me, but was Hall our only "hit" in free agency 2008-2009? Whose fault is that?

Snyderatto was "win now" before and after Gibbs, Don't think you can blame Joe Gibbs for that, either.

To say that Gibbs "KILLED," in all caps, the future of the Redskins franchise, is probably too strong. But he made a couple key errors as the Team President that came back to haunt him while he was still the HC, and he didn't leave very much for the Redskins in the long term after he was gone.

Building a team in the 2000's simply isn't the same as building a team in the 80's, and that was never Gibbs' real area of expertise in the first place, so why is it such a controversial idea to suggest that Gibbs 2.0 didn't do the Redskins franchise that many favors?

I disagree strongly. Gibbs restored respectability to the franchise, which Snyder and Cerrato promptly threw away. Gibbs left a playoff team, with practically all our future picks and cap wiggle room. Again, after Gibbs left (copy and paste from above):

Danny fired two respected coaches for a Seattle legacy QB coach, and a Chicago/Wash DC wanting to retire, and later a bingo caller was asked to help. And Vinny drafted one good player in 2008 for a position we already had a probowler, and signed Jason Taylor. In 2009 Vinny drafted one good player and signed Haynesworth. Maybe somebody can help me, but was Hall our only "hit" in free agency 2008-2009? Whose fault is that?

Three and a half years after Gibbs left, the only people responsible for killing our future are Danny and Vinny. And unfortunately nobody can fire Danny.

[Going Commando]

I think I misrepresented my point. I do think Gibbs' second tenure was a failure that had a stunting effect on this team's future because of how poorly Gibbs drafted.

But I don't think it's the biggest reason we are bad today.

I think any franchise in the league can go from awful under some of the worst mismanagement in the league to a successful franchise in just three or four years.

It's been three years since Gibbs left power, most of the reason we suck now is on the people who've been in charge since then. Gibbs didn't leave a full cupboard I guess. But a new regime doesn't need a full cupboard to turn things around if they are really good. Look at how the Jets have turned things around after being historically poor drafters for most of the past three decades. It took them, what, three offseasons or so to get to the AFC championship game?

This is the NFL not the NBA. Our cap situation is completely recovered from the reckless spending that Gibbs did, our QB situation is completely fluid and we're not tied to a lemon, there've been 34 draft picks since he left. That's 8.5 picks a draft. That should be more than enough to complete remake this team.

If the 2011 Redskins suck, you can't blame Gibbs.

[Nicealot]

I better start seeing some more respect for Gibbs in here

Ditto:logo:

[SKINSFAN87]

You gotta remember that even though gibbs had the title of team president, he was really only the coach and ALL of the player and business decisions were being made by vinny and danny. Only reason joe couldn't succeed is because of vinny (mostly) and dan.

[88Comrade2000]

Gibbs took a disaster of a team and took it to mediocre. Once he left, it fell part. Shanny is rebuilding the team his way. Time will tell whether he is successful and will get time to be successful; especially after he made some mistakes in year one.

---------- Post added May-29th-2011 at 05:47 PM ----------

Oh, if you want to blame Gibbs; then why don't blame Gibbs of 1992. We had San Diego's high pick and then our own and we traded up to get Desmond Howard. Just think, if we didn't trade up; maybe we could've found a cornerstone of the franchise. Yeah, Casserly was GM then but Cass always deferred to the head coach with the first round pick.

[planter]

Ha ha. That's funny.

Gibbs is the best Skins' coach in history.

[hail2skins]

Bumped due to Steinberg's blog entry today on Gibbs' recent appearance on Vinny's radio show. Granted, all of this was probably just pleasantries, but does anyone get the sense that Joe thought Vinny was a good personnel guy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/joe-gibbs-has-a-solution-for-ending-the-lockout/2011/06/14/AGPdXzUH_blog.html

[The Tris]

Bumped due to Steinberg's blog entry today on Gibbs' recent appearance on Vinny's radio show. Granted, all of this was probably just pleasantries, but does anyone get the sense that Joe thought Vinny was a good personnel guy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/joe-gibbs-has-a-solution-for-ending-the-lockout/2011/06/14/AGPdXzUH_blog.html

Gibbs is too nice to speak ill of Cerrato (especially to his face) and was too loyal to fire him (or request he be removed) when he was coaching.

[Bluecollar62]

No respect, very short term memory, passes judgement on a "what have you done for me lately?" basis (a real character and heart analysis)....(sigh)....

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

No do not agree at all. Gibbs brought us back to respectability, was he perfect? no. Did he establish a good base to add on to? Yes.

[Spartacus87]

No do not agree at all. Gibbs brought us back to respectability, was he perfect? no. Did he establish a good base to add on to? Yes.

Tremendous base to add on to.

That must be why Shanahan overhauled roughly a third of the team last year, and if the lockout weren't occurring, would probably be trying to overhaul another third this year.