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

[Mursilis]

Murslis, without turning this into a thread on the new regime of Allen and Shanahan, if you honestly can't see the dramatic changes from the owner on down within a year in this organization I honestly don't know what you are seeing.

Hail.

I believe it was Bill Parcells who said, "You are what your record says you are." I'm not going to pretend I'm some expert on the building of football organizations, but I'm optimistic about the Shanahan/Allen duo, so I can't wait to see the product on the field. Of course, I was incredibly optimistic going into the 2006 season and was telling everyone who would listen that we were sure SB contenders, and look how that played out. So you just never know.

---------- Post added May-23rd-2011 at 02:36 PM ----------

Shanny made 2 moves, McNabb and Brown, in his first off season. Although I was not in favor of the McNabb deal I could understand it as they righfully (IMO) concluded that Jason Campbell will never be a top QB. So they needed a QB, decided to roll the dice and it came up craps. He was quoted as saying "you make a mistake, you don't compound the mistake you simply move on". And that's really all they could do.

But other than those 2 moves there is nothing in his history here that would resemble "business as usual". They did not overspend in FA last off season. Hell they lowballed Brian Westbrook when he wanted to come play with his brother. You know damn well Danny would have given that guy a $2 million singing bonus. Snyderato would also have tried to trade up to grab one of the big name QBs in this draft. Instead Shanny did exactly as we all had hoped he would do, trade back and acquire additional picks.

Not sure if it will work or not but this is NOT the same old Redskins management.

No, it's not the same old management, but that doesn't mean anything. Different isn't automatically better - it's just different. My personal view has always been to give a new coach at least 3 years (unless they've clearly quit on job, like Spurrier), and then look back and see how those 3 years went. So I'm not calling Shanny a failure at all - it's just too early for that, despite the 6-10 record, which is an improvement over the prior year - but I'm also not drinking the Shanny Kool-aid either.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Patience man.

What's being laid in place now will eventually transcend onto the actual field of play in terms of results. It might well take another couple of years before we see that come to fruition. But it will eventually pay off.

Keep the faith and suffer the poor results for now and look toward the bigger picture.

Hail.

[s0crates]

And Wayne Fontes was the last coach to get Detroit into the playoffs. You think he's polishing his HoF speech? Again, you're just setting a very low bar just comparing Gibbs to the past Redskins coaches. Compared to Spurrier and Zorn, lots of NFL coaches come out looking pretty darn good.

Gibbs is already in the Hall of Fame, where he belongs. No need for him to polish his Hall of Fame speech.

I suppose you are right to a point. Saying a coach is better than Spurrier and Zorn is not saying much. However, I am trying to say something more than that. I am pointing out that Gibbs II took a perennially awful team and made them respectable. That is a bigger accomplishment than you seem to think.

Do you think another coach could have come into the same situation and done as well as Gibbs did? Maybe not, maybe so. One thing is certain though, no coach has been able to do as much during the two decades Dan Snyder has owned the team.

[hail2skins]

I suppose you are right to a point. Saying a coach is better than Spurrier and Zorn is not saying much. However, I am saying something more than that. I am pointing out that Gibbs II took a perennially awful team and made them respectable. That is a bigger accomplishment than you seem to think.

Perennially awful?? Come on now. We did have a few rough rebuilding years when Gibbs left the first time but after Norv's first couple of years we got to where we were basically a .500 team that just barely were out of the playoffs several years. But the reason Norv was villified was because Gibbs 1.0 was a damn tough act to follow.

Marty? Started off badly and had a shaky ending after getting back to .500 but looked like he had us on the right track at 8-8 but our owner makes excuses that Marty wouldn't bring in a GM? Gee Dan, who was the first person you brought back once Marty was out the door.

Which brings us to Spurrier. Yes, he did come across as a slacker and his 2003 Skins did collapse at the very end of that season. But everyone likes to laud Gibbs 2.0 teams as being in every game......go back and look at the scores of that 2003 team. Again, aside from the end-of-season flameout (which can't be overlooked, mind you).......those games were damn close. Tell you what, it must've taken a lot for the guy to walk away from what Snyder was paying him. I'd love to hear more someday from him about what it was like to work with, as others in this thread have so aptly put it, "Dumb and Dumber."

So yes, Gibbs did have a modicum of success recordwise. But lets not make it into a story of him turning around a team that had been 2-14 for years on end.

[Going Commando]

Wait. We're blaming the new regime for not being more successful in year one now? After the complete **** storm of a situation they walked into, and all the changes made. Changes WE, the FANS have been crying out for years, have been implemented?

Geez, it's SB or nothing every season huh? Or your a failure. Nothing like living out Madden-esq expectations in the real World. Who said Reskins fans weren't arrogant?

Hail.

Shanahan and Allen are mediocre and enacting a plan whose result pretty much guarantees mediocrity. Year two or year five, it makes no difference when the plan and the people in charge of implementing it are flawed.

My basic position can probably be boiled down to this: for a rebuilding team (or a team that needs to do so but is in denial about it), the Head Coach As GM (HCAGM) model simply. does. not. work. It might have worked once upon a time, but it doesn't any more. The retread Superbowl coach plan doesn't work either. Not even once upon a time. As far as I can tell it's never worked in the history of the NFL.

But let's not derail this thread by talking about Shanahan and Allen because I think there is a decent discussion on the legacy of Gibbs 2.0 here. We can talk about how mediocre Shanahan and Allen are in plenty of other ones.

---------- Post added May-23rd-2011 at 03:06 PM ----------

Like I hinted earlier, some 'skins fans are like little Veruca Salts.

Personally, I think spoiled brats are bad eggs.

And personally I think those who'd rather dismiss any (accurate) claim that Gibbs failed at something (his second tenure) with the nonsense you're posting rather than actually joining the debate are morons who've settled upon this approach:

Gibbs 2.0 was a failure. We hired him to win a Superbowl and he didn't even come close. I'd have settled for mere contention we never even came close to that either. We were basically mediocre in the four years he had. It doesn't take away from the legacy of his first tenure. But you're blind or have ridiculously low expectations if you think that what he achieved in 2.0 is something to be really proud about.

Why don't we go and ask Colts or Steelers fans what they'd think about a 9-7 one and done season? Or Ravens fans. Or Jets fans. Or Patriots fans. Or Packers fans. Or even Dallas, Giants, or Eagles fans. To accept Gibbs' second tenure was a success is to admit that the Redskins are losers and have-nots.

[s0crates]

Perennially awful?? Come on now. We did have a few rough rebuilding years when Gibbs left the first time but after Norv's first couple of years we got to where we were basically a .500 team that just barely were out of the playoffs several years. But the reason Norv was villified was because Gibbs 1.0 was a damn tough act to follow.

. . .

So yes, Gibbs did have a modicum of success recordwise. But lets not make it into a story of him turning around a team that had been 2-14 for years on end.

Look at it this way: In the years between Gibbs I and II we were terrible against division foes. I mean we were an outright embarrassment. This is what I mean by "perennially awful."

Consider: From 1993-2003 we beat Dallas only 3 times. That's right, we posted a 3-19 mark against Dallas in those 11 years. What's worse, we had lost 9 in a row to Dallas when Gibbs took over. We did not fair much better against Philly or NY either. Our combined division mark (not counting Phoenix) during those 11 years was 17-48-1.

Gibbs halted this long trend of divisional suckitude. His first year back he only managed to win one divisional contest, and it looked like the trend would continue. However, in the next three seasons, Gibbs would go 4-2 against Dallas and 9-9 against division opponents. That was a HUGE turnaround. I do not see how you could really think otherwise, unless you have a short memory.

And personally I think those who'd rather dismiss any (accurate) claim that Gibbs failed at something (his second tenure) with the nonsense you're posting rather than actually joining the debate are morons who've settled upon this approach:

I guess I cannot blame you for your tone, considering my insinuation that you were acting like Veruca Salt. Still, I think I have been debating. Check my posts in this thread. I have made several arguments.

[Hitman21ST]

Why don't we go and ask Colts or Steelers fans what they'd think about a 9-7 one and done season? Or Ravens fans. Or Jets fans. Or Patriots fans. Or Packers fans. Or even Dallas, Giants, or Eagles fans. To accept Gibbs' second tenure was a success is to admit that the Redskins are losers and have-nots.

However, if you ask a Philly fan... :eaglesuck

I remember many a talk with westy about how just the fact that they make the playoffs makes it a success...

[hail2skins]

Look at it this way: In the years between Gibbs I and II we were terrible against division foes. I mean we were an outright embarrassment. This is what I mean by "perennially awful."

Consider: From 1993-2003 we beat Dallas only 3 times. That's right, we posted a 3-19 mark against Dallas in those 11 years. What's worse, we had lost 9 in a row to Dallas when Gibbs took over. We did not fair much better against Philly or NY either. Our combined division mark (not counting Phoenix) during those 11 years was 17-48-1.

Gibbs halted this long trend of divisional suckitude. His first year back he only managed to win one divisional contest, and it looked like the trend would continue. However, in the next three seasons, Gibbs would go 4-2 against Dallas and 9-9 against division opponents. That was a HUGE turnaround. I do not see how you could really think otherwise, unless you have a short memory.

So attaining a .500 record in games that comprise 37.5 percent of our schedule is indicative of some sort of huge turnaround? Hoo boy. By the way, in the 95-01 timeframe, Turner and Schotty were a combined 26-29-1 against divisional opponents, including Arizona. The bottom fell out with Spurrier......2-10 against the East......but overall, our divisional record was not as bleak as you make it seem (aside from the Dallas black eye, I'll give you that).

Here's a stat......how many offensive touchdowns did the 2006 Redskins score in three divisional away games (Hint: Its the number furthest to the right on the top row of your keyboard)? And yet people love to blame that whole season on Gregg Williams.

[Mursilis]

Look at it this way: In the years between Gibbs I and II we were terrible against division foes.

All I care about are wins. It's nice to beat Dallas, Philly, and NY, but if you only win division games, you're still just 6-10. I'd happily take getting swept by Dallas every season in return for winning every other game, because 14-2 isn't bad at all.

[The Tris]

It seems some people's eyes, going from awful to mediocre at the cost of our future was a successful trade off that they would gladly do again.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

It seems some people's eyes, going from awful to mediocre at the cost of our future was a successful trade off that they would gladly do again.

Please enlighten us how this owner was going to do ANY different, regardless of who the HC was?

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.

But if you want to continue to blast arguably the most important person in this franchises history at the expense of the owner, continue on.

Nobody is so blind as he who refuses to see.

Hail.

[JPCreativelab]

so let me get this straight...

we have some people saying that Gibbs II did a decent job with what he had and what he was able to do under Snyder, but others are saying its wrong to see any form of success in that, cause if our success rate isn't 100% then we are losers and should look at other franchises like the Colts or Steelers to see how real fans expectations work...

is that correct?

[hail2skins]

It seems some people's eyes, going from awful to mediocre at the cost of our future was a successful trade off that they would gladly do again.

Tris, people are blind to the fact that coaches are compared to whoever they succeeded. I'm no advocate of the "Norv Turner is a fantastic coach" club, but the guy probably could've taken us to multiple playoff appearances and still would've been shat upon because of the three Lombardis that Joe brought to us.

As for the "Gibbs did better than any coach since he left" argument, which coach (aside from Turner) has even had a chance? Marty was fired after a year. Spurrier couldn't take working with these two doofuses and left after two. Zorn was fired after two. The fact that Gibbs' four-year tenure was twice as long as anybody else's speaks volumes to how much of a friggin boondoggle Skins fans have had to endure under this clown we have as owner.

Shanahan's 6-10 mark would elicit laughter from a lot of folks, but when his predecessor went 4-12, it doesn't look so bad. I like the plan it appears that we're on with Mike. I do think a lot of folks are getting anxious because of the lockout and the uncertainty we still have under center. I also think that for the quantity of the haul we received in the draft last month, that we might have to give up a good number of picks next draft in order to land our permanent solution at QB.

[Darrell Green Fan]

It seems some people's eyes, going from awful to mediocre at the cost of our future was a successful trade off that they would gladly do again.

As the guy who seemed to have started all of this I have to address this post. While I can see your point I also am in agreement that Coach Gibbs, for really the only time in Little Danny's tenure, made the Redskins relevent again. It had been a long time before and after Gibbs 2 that the Skins were playing big games in December. For 2 of those years it was a great ride and we have Joe Gibbs to thank for that.

With that said I am also not onboard with the camp that believes Gibbs 2 was a success. And obviously I still maintain that we paid a huge price down the road for his shortsighted moves, But I just can't go along with the contention that it was a total failiure either.

PS Sorry for all the editing of my posts. I just got a new laptop and evidently I suck right now at simple typing skills.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

so let me get this straight...

we have some people saying that Gibbs II did a decent job with what he had and what he was able to do under Snyder, but others are saying its wrong to see any form of success in that, cause if our success rate isn't 100% then we are losers and should look at other franchises like the Colts or Steelers to see how real fans expectations work...

is that correct?

In the main.

Welcome to the thread that will have you banging your head on the desk.

Hail.

[JPCreativelab]

In the main.

Welcome to the thread that will have you banging your head on the desk.

Hail.

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.

[No_Pressure]

.

Also remember we won the superbowls in 1983 and 1987 in shortened seasons where replacements (in 87) played a role in our sucsess . Hell anyone who can get 200+ yards from Timmy Smith in the superbowl is an exceptional coach .

Gibbs did what Gibbs did best - in his second time around - took players no one thought could win and took us back to the post season twice in 4 years - if you thought he was going to leave a legacy that would be a core of a team that could win for the next 10 years then obviously you were not paying attention in the 90s .

You'll have to excuse me for quoting something which was posted in reply to what I wrote over 6 pages ago. I'm not sure that you understand what I'm saying, we're basically arguing the same exact point. Joe Gibbs is one of the greatest head coaches ever to grace this sport. He got a lot out of a little and had so many rare and incredible characteristics it saddens me that he's gone for good.

At the same time Bobby Beathard is one of the greatest if not the greatest general manager in the history of the NFL. I'm sure that point could be argued but I don't personally know of another GM who is responsible for assembling championship caliber teams (seven of them) with 4 different franchises spanning 4 different decades. (His 66 Chiefs, 72 and 73 Dolphins, 82, 83, 87 skins, and 94 Chargers all made it to the championship).

I never said I expected Joe Gibbs to leave us some sort of legacy or be a good GM. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Joe Gibbs is not a GM. He shouldn't have ever really been in that position. Joe Gibbs could only work with what he was given, and there is an incomprehensibly massive difference between coaching a team assembled by Bobby Beathard vs. Vinny Cerrato. Bobby was the reason we won 3 superbowls...or should I say part of the reason? Without Don Shula or Joe Gibbs in charge, Bobby never won a superbowl. Without Bobby Beathard involved or without a Beathard assembled roster Shula and Gibbs never won a superbowl. It takes an entire organization to win a championship. You can't do it without a great organization from top to bottom.

All I was saying was nobody should blame Gibbs for where this franchise is today. They should blame Dan Snyder ultimately for keeping around the other man they should blame, Vinny Cerrato. If anything fans should be even angrier for those two because at different times they completely sabotaged coach Gibbs and set him up to fail. The man took us to the playoffs twice in spite of them which is a true testament to his abilities as a head coach.

Going forward I expect Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan will prove themselves to be a great combination. Bruce is the kind of tone setting, big picture guy we've been lacking around here while Mike Shanahan is a hell of a football coach. I know a lot of fans are skeptical which is the nature of being a fan, especially of the Redskins, but it looks like we finally have a solid foundation laid upon which we can attempt to build an empire.

[s0crates]

This debate is tiresome.

I would hope we could all at least admit we had some good times with Gibbs 2, although apparently some people might not even except that.

Allow me to jog your memories:

F1sok1tb8Z8

IKCvtoFqWOQ

[Darrell Green Fan]

This debate is tiresome.

I would hope we could all at least admit we had some good times with Gibbs 2, although apparently some people might not even except that.

Allow me to jog your memories:

F1sok1tb8Z8

IKCvtoFqWOQ

I guess I could counter with links to the drafts we failed to participate in because of all of the trades. But the truth is I agree with you, Coach Gibbs gave us a lot of good times. But the question is at what price?

[s0crates]

I guess I could counter with links to the drafts we failed to participate in because of all of the trades. But the truth is I agree with you, Coach Gibbs gave us a lot of good times. But the question is at what price?

I guess I am getting a bit off topic. I just feel like the Gibbs bashing is way out of line, and I am trying to set the record straight.

To answer your question: I do not think that it was Gibbs 2 that cost us so much as it was the decisions that were made after he left. I put the blame for our post-Gibbs failures squarely on Danny, Vinny, and Zorn, not Gibbs.

I'll give two examples. First, the decision not to hire Gregg Williams as Gibbs' successor was pretty stupid, especially when it meant hiring Zorn instead. Second, the 2008 draft was absolutely horrendous. We had a pile of picks that year and should have used them to rebuild our aging offensive line.

[The Tris]

Please enlighten us how this owner was going to do ANY different, regardless of who the HC was?

It all started with the owner. But if the plan was to win now (which the majority of the time is not a good plan), if that's what Joe Gibbs was hired to do, he didn't.

The plan wasn't "Go .500 and sneak into the playoffs", it was win now. I take that to mean compete for a Super Bowl.

c9TY9mLLvV4#t=08m37s

8:37: "The goal is to do something great."

The only way I can justify the open mortgaging of the future is if that is the goal. Now you are telling me that wasn't the goal - the goal was just to restore pride and respectability to the franchise? Gimme a break.

You know the best way to get back respect? Success on the field.

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.

As the guy who seemed to have started all of this I have to address this post. While I can see your point I also am in agreement that Coach Gibbs, for really the only time in Little Danny's tenure, made the Redskins relevent again. It had been a long time before and after Gibbs 2 that the Skins were playing big games in December. For 2 of those years it was a great ride and we have Joe Gibbs to thank for that.

I guess if that is all you want, to simply be competitive and relevent, Gibbs was a rousing success.

I don't think its outrageous to want the Redskins not simply to be competitive, but to strive to be the best team in the league. That needs to be our goal. Otherwise we are going to continue to settle for mediocrity.

but others are saying its wrong to see any form of success in that, cause if our success rate isn't 100% then we are losers and should look at other franchises like the Colts or Steelers to see how real fans expectations work.

Wrong. If the goal is to win now - you better do just that.

I'd love to see us completely bottom out and finally force ourselves to develop a young, deep team from the ground up, with the goal of being a perennial Super Bowl contender. In that situation, I will accept early struggles and growing pains.

But not when we are trying to win now. If you struggle and falter when taking on a win now philosophy, maybe you need to reconsider what philosophy you should have.

but 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.

The problem is the cost of that modest win - yes, going 8-8 is better than 4-12. But if the cost of going from awful to mediocre is future assets that our team can use, whats the freaking point?

It all comes down to this, was the 1-2 playoff record worth the past three years and counting of struggles? For me, no way in hell.

[KDawg]

Tris,

I respect you a lot, but it's clear we aren't going to agree here. Gibbs only failure was that we didn't go deeper into the playoffs. Snyder's failure has been his entire tenure as Redskins owner. I see the problem as his.

Gibbs job was never to bail water. It was to restore faith in the fanbase and win now. He accomplished the first part and did decently in the second part, while falling short of the ultimate goals.

All in all, he did okay in his second tenure. Okay is better than anyone else under Snyder.

[hail2skins]

This debate is tiresome.

I would hope we could all at least admit we had some good times with Gibbs 2, although apparently some people might not even except that.

Good videos Socrates. I remember being at the Linc in 2004 watching the Skins in Gibbs' first year back trying to hang with an Eagles team that was at its peak. We hung tough for the first half but Philly took control in the second and won going away 28-6. As I was leaving the stadium I overheard some Philly dude chortling on his cellphone "Why did the guy come back?" Fast forward a little over a year later when Sean Taylor dove into the end zone at the same stadium to seal a playoff berth. I was at that game too and wished I could've run into the same guy and said "That's why he came back, you bleeping bleep!"

I think we all were elated when Joe decided to come back, but when you stepped back after the initial euphoria. the question that was fair to ask was "Is Gibbs going to be here much longer than his five-year deal, and how much long-term impact is he really going to be able to make here?" But we got caught up in it all and the result was that it was just more of the same short-term fix that has been the Snyder mantra up until last season. And maybe Gibbs felt like he could work with Cerrato, and we did have some decent acquisitions during the time Joe was here. The problem was that many thought that Gibbs was going to show Snyder the right mindset on how to operate, and it didn't immediately happen......it took two more years, an effed up coaching search, and a fan mutiny for Dan to finally see that his way of doing business wasn't working.

Anyway, upward and onward to hopefully better times ahead.

[bedlamVR]

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 .

[KDawg]

So going back to the OP and the supporters there of - Tris, KDawg, hail2skins,

Uhm... Did you read my posts?