Unofficial "We're Doomed" - Venting Thread

[Burgold]

Could imagine what the penalties for Bountygate would have been had Williams still been on the Redskins? I'm thinking 50 million cap penalty minimum.

[TSO]

Except, we've never had a coach here for an extended period of time under a normal FO structure with a legit GM. 

 

Gibbs was here for 4 years, was in charge of personnel as well as HC, and openly admits that Snyder was heavily involved. (Spare me the quotes of him saying Snyder was the best owner and just supported us after he'd left, I've seen the quotes while he was here saying how integral Snyder was in everything as well and can't ignore that) 

 

Shanahan was here for 4 years, was in charge of personnel as well as HC, and we saw how that **** ended between the two. (And spare me the quotes about Shanahan saying Snyder didn't meddle in personnel decisions, because he also said he only cared about the QB and meddled there. Again, can't ignore whichever one I'd like to.)

 

Zorn and Spurrier may have been the only two where a normal FO structure was set up... but then it was friggin Vinny and Dan making personnel decisions. 

 

With the exception of Gibbs, coaches don't even get fired here normally. They go through a complete circus before being ran out of town. It's embarrassing, and it was Sherman Smith (Zorn's OC) who said something about how everyone told him not to come to the Redskins because those things would happen, and he said (after they were all fired), that's exactly what happened. 

 

Would be nice if we could just get some stability there, with a HC who isn't in charge of personnel like most successful franchises, and is allowed to grow. Sink or swim.

 

It's common knowledge around the NFL that a coach shouldn't be judged on his w/l record until his third season. Andy Reid actually just mentioned that. But because a few teams that had good personnel acquisition for 4-5 years hire a coach who, on the surface, suddenly "turns them around"... everyone wants the quick fix. None of those teams were without a GM, had an unheard of salary cap penalty to deal with, and were missing numerous years of first round draft picks. Everyone of those coaches came into a sound FO and were not in charge of personnel. 

 

Let Gruden be our transition coach, at least, if you just can't stand him. At least it'll give our organization some semblance of stability and the next coach can come in knowing exactly what he's got instead of starting from scratch with a smorgasbord of personnel that's built using a hundred different philosophies.

 

I can't stand the thought of another coach who has nothing but success on his resume coming here to get humiliated again. Enough is enough. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Could imagine what the penalties for Bountygate would have been had Williams still been on the Redskins? I'm thinking 50 million cap penalty minimum.

"Hey, Roger, is it possible to take away all of a team's draft picks forever?"

[Koolblue13]

Agree with both. I was going to ask the same thing- which coach do people think would have been great that you are upset got fired?

he fired Zorn. What a monster.

Subs. Danny was here in the Caribbean during FA. Those days are over. It sucked for a long time, but he's back seat. Bruce runs events.

[TSO]

he fired Zorn. What a monster.

Subs. Danny was here in the Caribbean during FA. Those days are over. It sucked for a long time, but he's back seat. Bruce runs events.

 

I know, I'm fine with the structure now (though I'm concerned about Scot's personal issues affecting his role here)... but now we've got so many crying for yet another coaching change.    

[Rufus T Firefly]

I know, I'm fine with the structure now (though I'm concerned about Scot's personal issues affecting his role here)... but now we've got so many crying for yet another coaching change.    

And, if he isn't a good coach (and I've literally seen zero evidence that he is), then he should be let go. Not kept around for the sake of "continuity".

[Koolblue13]

I know, I'm fine with the structure now (though I'm concerned about Scot's personal issues affecting his role here)... but now we've got so many crying for yet another coaching change.

most of our fans are idiots, who cares what they think. Yesterday sucked, but you saw a good team with baby gloves. It was a great GP early and we finally have talent. Gruden will be here a while.

[gaskinsfan]

Some good things yesterday... some bad things...

 

Good:

Ran the ball well, both lines played well, Kirk was good most of the time, Alfred Morris is a beast.

 

Bad:

Couldn't cover a TE with a DB to save our life, Amerson is lost too often.

No second half adjustments... NONE. Coaches need to be able to help the team get in the best position.

Special teams disaster again.

 

GM draft selections showed up, were not doomed it's just going to take time.

[TSO]

And, if he isn't a good coach (and I've literally seen zero evidence that he is), then he should be let go. Not kept around for the sake of "continuity".

 

Welp, if you've seen zero evidence that must mean there isn't any.

 

But, yeah, obviously. However, I think your if-then statement here lacks the qualifying variables so that you can judge whether or not he is a good coach. If you're sure he's not and never will be, then you move on... but there are other environmental factors that need to be considered while assessing if "he isn't a good coach" that you excluded here, and was my main point.   

 

As for the factors, it's not just about "continuity", though that's pretty damn important. Do you think that has no value? How much value do you think that has?   

 

Stability is important. Having a sound FO is important. Having defined roles allowing the people you hire to fulfill those roles within a fair time frame (based on knowing where you're at as an organization) is important.  

 

Don't you think?

most of our fans are idiots, who cares what they think. Yesterday sucked, but you saw a good team with baby gloves. It was a great GP early and we finally have talent. Gruden will be here a while.

 

I certainly hope so, it'd mean good things.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

As for the factors, it's not just about "continuity", though that's pretty damn important. Do you think that has no value? How much value do you think that has?   

 

About 1% as much as competence.

[TSO]

About 1% as much as competence.

 

Agree to disagree. But not because I don't think competence is obviously more important than anything else, but because I don't think the vast majority of coaches in the NFL are incompetent. 

[Bang]

lol Gregg Williams.

 

the guy had one head coaching gig, got fired, and cant find another one for 12 years now. He isn't even offered interviews.
(I think tampa offered him one after he left here, and they let him walk on to new orleans, where he got himself and his coach suspended.)

No one will give him the time of day for a head coaching job, and even though WE are a bad organization, Snyder gave Williams four interviews to convince him to hire him.

 

Sometimes the writing on the wall is pretty easy to read.

 

 

As far as doom and gloom,,  yesterday was a tough defense, and I felt like we had opportunities to win.

At this juncture, you can't ask for much else, except to take advantage of those opportunities. a couple dropped INTs stay in our hands and it's maybe another story.

 

~Bang

[Rufus T Firefly]

Agree to disagree. But not because I don't think competence is obviously more important than anything else, but because I don't think the vast majority of coaches in the NFL are incompetent. 

Competence, like basically everything, is relative. The vast majority of coaches can't really be considered competent.

 

Setting aside semantics- I'd rather have a great coach than a good coach, and I'd rather have a good coach than a mediocre coach. And each step up is worth far more than "continuity" for it's own sake.

[fearlessNelms]

It really is unbelievable. We finally get structure with a promising GM who's talents are highly thought of around the league, but he has some personal issues. Is he the only GM in sports that has personal issues? I seriously doubt it, but his are public and well known. If there's two people in your organization that you don't need having public personal issues it's your head coach and/or GM. I loved the hire of McGloughan and truly believed he'll get us turned around. But will he? I fully understand that he's going to need a lot longer than eight months to clean up this mess, but the reality is is that in the eight months that he's been here, I don't see any encouraging signs that the circus atmosphere has changed around Redskins Park.

 

He might be a good talent evaluator, but part of a GM's job is to keep his coaches and players on a professional level and not have them continuously embarrass the organization in some form or fashion. Is he that take charge kind of GM or is he just a talent evaluator? We need him to be both and more. Otherwise he too will be gone in the short term and Snyder will again say "See, I hired a real GM and it did me no good and now it's back to my way". 

[TSO]

Competence, like basically everything, is relative. The vast majority of coaches can't really be considered competent.

 

Setting aside semantics- I'd rather have a great coach than a good coach, and I'd rather have a good coach than a mediocre coach. And each step up is worth far more than "continuity" for it's own sake.

 

The vast majority? Wow. We're definitely complete opposites on this.

 

But playing along, just like you can say that, I can easily say the vast majority of coaches aren't given the tools to be competent.

 

Furthermore, a good coach can become a great coach. A mediocre coach can become a good one. And a significant part of that is continuity. No?  

[Pedro]

Psst it's called "halftime adjustments." If you haven't noticed Gruden sucks at it.

 

 

I don't expect Gruden to make positive adjustments, history tells me it would be an unreasonable expectation as like you say he sucks at it. 

 

He has shown one improvement this season over last, he is now good with the media.  Maybe Bruce needs an assistant?

[fearlessNelms]

I know fans of other teams will say the same thing, but honestly, over the past 23 years there can't be another team in the NFL that has blown more winnable games than the Skins...there just can't be. In fact, if there was some official research done on it, I'd bet that there isn't another team that is a close 2nd. This title thread is for venting, right?

[Momma There Goes That Man]

My brother said the same thing. But to be fair, if they didn't get a TD on that drive game was over anyway.

Disagree here. Look what Dallas did yesterday without Dez.

We hold onto that TO, call TOs before the 2min warning and actually stop them, we get the ball back with 1:50 or so to go. at least it gives us a chance. Extend the game. Don't throw all your eggs in that one 4th and 7 play.

[Rodriggo]

Disagree here. Look what Dallas did yesterday without Dez.

 

Momma, they don't got Tony romoSUCKS.

[Rufus T Firefly]

The vast majority? Wow. We're definitely complete opposites on this.

 

But playing along, just like you can say that, I can easily say the vast majority of coaches aren't given the tools to be competent.

 

Furthermore, a good coach can become a great coach. A mediocre coach can become a good one. And a significant part of that is continuity. No?  

1 You misunderstood (and it must be you misunderstanding, because it certainly couldn't be that I wrote it confusingly). I mean that you can't say "the vast majority of coaches are competent" because by definition, a good number of them will be below average, and therefore, not competent.

 

2. There are some areas where a Head Coach could improve and some where they are highly unlikely to. 

 

And again, I don't know of a single coach Snyder fired who went out and proved that he was a really good coach and just needed time. The problem with all them is that they were bad hires, not they weren't given time. If that was it, they would have shown it by now.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Momma, they don't got Tony romoSUCKS.

No, but we have the last Boy Scout, Mr Apple Pie America himself, Kirk.

But for real, I'm just saying, blowing that TO hurt as did waiting until after the 2min warning to start using the ones we had left. I'd rather see them be prepared with a 4th down play call and save the TO but I understand that's asking too much from a professional coaching staff in DC.

[Rodriggo]

that's asking too much from a professional coaching staff in DC.

 

Not at all but you'll go crazy waiting for Gruden to look "professional."

 

Trust me, everybody noticed it, it's just what can you say at this point?

 

Rather just focus apathy towards a 10 point offense (zero in the second half) that capped off a one score game with an INT on the two and a turnover on downs. Would have been better off kicking FGs both times. What could Gruden & Co. possibly have had in store for strike three? Not that big a deal, everything considered.

[TSO]

1 You misunderstood (and it must be you misunderstanding, because it certainly couldn't be that I wrote it confusingly). I mean that you can't say "the vast majority of coaches are competent" because by definition, a good number of them will be below average, and therefore, not competent.

 

2. There are some areas where a Head Coach could improve and some where they are highly unlikely to. 

 

And again, I don't know of a single coach Snyder fired who went out and proved that he was a really good coach and just needed time. The problem with all them is that they were bad hires, not they weren't given time. If that was it, they would have shown it by now.

 

1. Don't think it's a misunderstanding as much as it's your vagueness... maybe you should've explained your criteria better? It's tough for me to gauge it here, but I'm assuming you mean by "below average" their w/l record in comparison to other coaches? Am I correct?

 

If so, I was never using that as my criteria in judging "competence" for the majority of coaches. Competence isn't necessarily tied to their record at all times, though it ties into that and more so over time. So, you can't say "by definition, therefore, they're not competent". By your definition, sure. And we can argue the merits of that, which is pretty much what I've been trying to do from the start by mentioning environmental factors.

   

2. I disagree, not sure about them being "bad hires". Zorn is the closest to a sure bad hire as we have. Outside of that, they each came with solid resumes and experience. You're assuming their failure here had little to do with the environmental factors and just speak to who they are. "Otherwise, they would've shown it by now" assumes, among other things, they were given another chance and that it wasn't ruined here. There's only 32 Head Coaching positions... not a big window of opportunity there and anyone who knows anything about business knows that one's reputation can overly precede them when they failed elsewhere. It also assumes they wanted another HC position.  

[The Sean and Laron show]

Trent Murphy and David Amerson are both absolute garbage. Murphy plays like he's stuck in mud and Amerson plays like one of the coaches is bangin his mom.

Out of all the positions on the team (Roberts and Murphy, I'm lookin at you), why the hell are we trying to throw Alfred Morris out the back door for a rookie? Alfred is one of the few who brings it every play every game!

[Rufus T Firefly]

1. Don't think it's a misunderstanding as much as it's your vagueness... maybe you should've explained your criteria better? It's tough for me to gauge it here, but I'm assuming you mean by "below average" their w/l record in comparison to other coaches? Am I correct?

 

If so, I was never using that as my criteria in judging "competence" for the majority of coaches. Competence isn't necessarily tied to their record at all times, though it ties into that and more so over time. So, you can't say "by definition, therefore, they're not competent". By your definition, sure. And we can argue the merits of that, which is pretty much what I've been trying to do from the start by mentioning environmental factors.

   

2. I disagree, not sure about them being "bad hires". Zorn is the closest to a sure bad hire as we have. Outside of that, they each came with solid resumes and experience. You're assuming their failure here had little to do with the environmental factors and just speak to who they are. "Otherwise, they would've shown it by now" assumes, among other things, they were given another chance and that it wasn't ruined here. There's only 32 Head Coaching positions... not a big window of opportunity there and anyone who knows anything about business knows that one's reputation can overly precede them when they failed elsewhere. It also assumes they wanted another HC position.  

1. No, I'm talking about their general skill as coaches. If you are below the average coach, then by definition you are not competent. I'm not measuring that by any metric, I;m just saying that is how it is. Deciding who is in that group is a matter of opinion.

 

2. I didn't assume anything. I said that none of the coaches we have fired have done anything to prove their worth since leaving here. Turner , Robiskie and Schotenheimer had other head coaching opportunities. Robiskie and Zorn had trouble even holding asst. jobs. Shanahan is well known and established, but his thorough mismanagement here has disqualified him from other considerations. Spurrier was such a disaster that no one (seemingly himself included) thinks he should have a job on any level in the NFL. 

 

Again, these guys have pretty well proven they aren't very good coaches. There isn't a single solitary reason to think any of them would have done well if stye had been kept here.

 

 

Personally, I don't judge coaches by W-L. I judge them by their decision making, how they develop players and how they manage staffs. And none of these guys (except maybe Schottenheime) did well in those regards here. And I don't judge Gruden well so far either.