Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
On 8/24/2021 at 11:38 AM, NickyJ said:

I'm shocked that a therapist would consider anything about the team to be a relationship. We joke about it, but to actually see a corporate entity as something to have a relationship with couldn't sound any less emotionally healthy.

Oh, I dunno.  I started having an emotional connection to the team when I was 7. I’m 45 now.  There is no question there has been some type of a relationship.  
 

I tell people I’ve been a Washington Football fan longer than I’ve been anything in my life.  
 

Im not ashamed all to admit that after good games, I’ve felt a great sense of pride and happiness, and after tough losses, I’ve felt disappointed and angry. 
 

It’s been a part of my life for 38 years.  
 

Now, is it like a human relationship with another person or family member? No.  But does it have qualities of a relationship? I think so.  
 

Sports, movies, the arts, they’re all designed to form an emotional bond. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
Just now, Borgold said:

The part about Schaffer is interesting. I though he was one of the few strengths of the former Front Office.

 

Just listened to Standig talking about that article on 106.7.  The gist of it from talking to personnel/agent people around the league -- WFT now operates like a normal competent team which is a major sea change from before.   The coach centric model has helped for now put Dan in the background and enabled Ron to operate in that FO in a way that others couldn't have in the past. Though there is always the lingering concern that Dan could resurface.

 

As for Schaffer, yeah as that article points out he was the one respected in the previous FO.   I'd presume ditto Kyle Smith.    Apparently Rogers, Harvard grad, has a reputation similar to Schaffer so they apparently haven't missed a beat on that front.  

 

lol, I've taken my share of arrows over the years (granted not of late) from some stragglers who thought I was way too harsh on Bruce with them making the point at a minimum he wasn't that bad and brought some competence to the FO versus the past.  I strongly disagreed.  We've all been right and wrong about stuff, certainly me included.   So I don't fault anyone for being right or wrong.    Some may have forgotten but Vinny had his defenders at the time too.  Now in retrospect it seems ridiculous to defend him.  Heck as a Bruce critic even I am surprised that Bruce has easily gone down in time as worse than Vinny albeit its how I felt about it personally by the time we got to the end of that era.  Vinny was a clown but at least he was likable in his own weird way, they won more and the organization was still relevant and interesting and not as plagued with scandal.    Both though were bad.  But it all IMO reflected on Dan.  100% on him.  

 

Dan hires clowns to run the FO, because they are his buddies or become so and they toady up to him.  And actually in some ways i don't really blame Bruce and Vinny for acting the way they did.  It's Dan who elevated them to roles they weren't qualified for.   As Cooley liked to say, if someone gave you power would you turn it down or instead accept it and try to keep it?  And its Dan who fosters the clown show atmosphere.  If you got to survive in the jungle, you got to play the game to do it.  What I love about Ron though is he's a no nonsense guy who doesn't seem to roll by selling himself out to survive at his job.  I get the impression that if Dan gets involved behind the scenes and fosters again the clown show, he'd quit.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

lol, I've taken my share of arrows over the years (granted not of late) from some stragglers who thought I was way too harsh on Bruce with them making the point at a minimum he wasn't that bad and brought some competence to the FO versus the past. 

 

 

 

Never been a Bruce fan. The best I could say about him is he reversed course on the Redskins' constant state of cap hell under Vinny and also, for the most part, stopped the influx of overpaying guys way past their prime because of their marquis name. On the other hand, Allen was almost the anti-Cerrato in that his inerrent cheapness cost us players including homegrown players and made this a place that a number of agents wanted their clients to avoid.

 

He probably was an upgrade from Vinny in some categories, but overall Bruce was a disaster.

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Borgold said:

Never been a Bruce fan. The best I could say about him is he reversed course on the Redskins' constant state of cap hell under Vinny and also, for the most part, stopped the influx of overpaying guys way past their prime because of their marquis name. On the other hand, Allen was almost the anti-Cerrato in that his inerrent cheapness cost us players including homegrown players and made this a place that a number of agents wanted their clients to avoid.

 

He probably was an upgrade from Vinny in some categories, but overall Bruce was a disaster.

 

I think they were both incompetent.  Vinny better than Bruce in some categories.  Bruce better than Vinny in some categories.  But its somewhat a sad argument.  Both Bruce and Vinny were just about the opposite side of the spectrum bad.  Overall, I agree with the fan polls I've seen last year that ranked Vinny as better than Bruce.  And to me it reflects 100% on Dan who oozes incompetence himself.  What other team would hire either one to run a franchise?  As Lombardi would say, Bruce was purely the money/contract guy, not the personnel dude with the Raiders.  And Vinny wasn't some coveted personnel guy at the time.  I think anyone of us here would have a better chance getting a GM job going forward than either dude. 

 

If you buy what insiders say, Vinny was almost 100% Dan.  He did what Dan wanted almost always.  Those were the days where Dan would actually go to a ton of pro days among other things and he fancied himself as a football savant.   Like Standig said, Bruce was the defacto GM but others have said Dan still interferred from time to time.  It's trickled out for example that Dan overruled the FO on Haskins and Guice.   Both Vinny and Bruce would supposedly listen to their football people but ultimately they made the call and they were the drivers (along with Dan) of all the boneheaded trades that were made.

 

I think Bruce though (but again Dan deserves 100% of the blame) was the perfect storm working with Dan to put the franchise in a major ditch where it became irrelevant.   Under Vinny, the team was talked about at least, it was still a flagship franchise.  Granted some of that was built in good will from years past that has lessened as the years go by.  

 

By the end of the Bruce era, we couldn't get a SNF game at the end, heck not even a MNF game.  We become like Jacksonville in terms of struggiling to get fans to come.  TV ratings down the tubes etc.  Two national shows cited this organization as one of the teams that national fans don't care about anymore so isn't worth talking about much.   What the Bruce era contributed IMO is make the team boring, cheap, sleazy, arrogant all at the same time.   Under Vinny, they were also oddly arrogant but at least they'd spend and be interesting -- granted in a dysfunctional way but they weren't boring.

 

I think if under the Bruce era they were boring but classy and won to some extent, they'd have been fine.  But that combination of boring matched with sleaze and arrogance was lethal for the organization.   As crazy as it sounds they did win more in the Vinny era.  But both eras were depressing in retrospect for different reasons.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As crazy as it sounds they did win more in the Vinny era.

That’s only if you give credit to Vinny for the Gibbs years.  And I don’t.  


To me, Vimy was really Spurrier and Zorn.  Though it was less Vinny and more Dan. 
 

Both were absolutely catastrophic fails.  
 

Bruce was more of a disaster because of his low road, backstabbing politics.  
 

But all that is, for now, in the past.  Ron is 100% I’m charge of the football operations, and Jason Wright has the non-football ops, and both men seem to have an enormous amount of integrity.

 

Its possible, if there is success, Dan can just ride the bus and be ok with it.  
 

As long as Dan stays in the background, I’m fine with that. Would I prefer if he wasn’t the owner? Yes.  But that’s not going to happen soon, so it is what it is.   That said, he is the owner of the team (Or he and Her Empress Tonya the Great) so he needs to be informed and will have input.  And ultimately, it’s his job (Along with her royal highness Tonya) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That’s only if you give credit to Vinny for the Gibbs years.  And I don’t.  


To me, Vimy was really Spurrier and Zorn.  Though it was less Vinny and more Dan. 
 

Both were absolutely catastrophic fails.  
 

 

 

I do count it.  As I mentioned to you before, the biggest fan of Vinny and sadly Dan too was Joe Gibbs.  And I don't see Gibbs as a BSer.  I can even recall one of his interviews talking about it.  Gibbs went on and on about how organized Vinny was and had information ready on every player in the league, etc and really liked working with him.  

 

 

14 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 


To me, Vimy was really Spurrier and Zorn.  Though it was less Vinny and more Dan. 

 

Personality wise, agree.  Competence wise, I don't.  Bruce was a politican running a football operation.  Vinny was at least a football guy, low level granted, but he knew more about football than Bruce according to most.  Heck Vinny himself made fun of Bruce in that regard in interviews towards the end of the Bruce era. Both were clowns though for different reasons. 

 

But as I used to tell you, some of your posts back then came off unintentionally pro Bruce (even though I know it wasn't your intention and unlike some you didn't actually try to sell Bruce) because your thesis often seemed to be, Jay had a decent roster yet failed.  In other words, Bruce did his job but Jay failed hm.  A big part of my responses to you on the subject was to shoot that down because I disagreed with the premise.  Jay wasn't a hot coach, I said that early in that process about him.  But IMO he was not the weakest link in that operation.  Bruce was by a mile IMO.  Or to say it more on point, Dan was as usual.  

 

As I said the reason why Bruce IMO did more damage to the organization than Vinny is he made the organziation look even more sleazy, unlikable and introduced boredom to it, too.  Sleazy and boring is a tough combination IMO to overcome.  I think that more than anything made fans check out.  And the 2015-2017 run of mediocre play which is the high point of Dan's era sadly as far as consistency also seem to give a weird aura of arrogance and smugness from Bruce when he spoke publicly.  When he said that the culture was dam good, that was on brand for him at the time.    

 

I think Jonathan Allen surprisingly dropping to them in the draft and then them getting another Alabama DT the next draft seemed to make them think they were draft geniuses among other things.

 

As our guy Sheehan liked to say they were arrogant and delusional.  He said that's what he sources would tell him about the dudes that run that team.  That's how it came off to me publicly too.

 

But yeah agree thankfully we got Rivera and if he could tame Dan maybe we are out of the woods.  Thankfully we didn't hire McCarthy (who i wasn't a fan of) or M. Lewis (who I also wasn't a fan of but I'd have taken over McCarthy).  As far as culture building Rivera is a stud.  And as much as I admire Gibbs, I didn't think much of him as far as personnel and also didn't love how he'd prop Vinny and Dan in that regard, too. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BatteredFanSyndrome

BatteredFanSyndrome

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

We become like Jacksonville in terms of struggiling to get fans to come.

I don't know the official numbers, but it sure seemed worse than that.  2019 was the culmination of all the years of mismanagement and the end of the façade that there was any level of competence to the organization.  It showed, not just locally but on a national stage more than ever before.  If we didn't set the record for most empty seats, that's only because DC is a destination city of which out of town fans come to visit and watch a game, for dirt cheap I might add.  When you didn't see the orange seats on the screen, you saw the other teams colors, with a sparse mix of burgundy and gold sadness.

 

That Bruce Allen press conference after Jay was fired was the cherry on top.  From the culture is damn good to Doug's timesheet, that thing was epic.  That took the embarrassment to a national level, and I believe was the catalyst for Dan handing over the reigns to a guy like Ron Rivera.

 

While there wasn't a lot of Bruce Allen fanfare over the years, there was a ton of - he's better than Vinny, he's not that bad, good at the cap, etc.  I know, because I danced the dance on the subject like you SIP, for years and years.  I've noticed some revisionist history here by some in regards to this very issue, but I've chosen to simply be happy with the change in lieu of taking  a victory lap on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't know the official numbers, but it sure seemed worse than that.  2019 was the culmination of all the years of mismanagement and the end of the façade that there was any level of competence to the organization.  It showed, not just locally but on a national stage more than ever before.  If we didn't set the record for most empty seats, that's only because DC is a destination city of which out of town fans come to visit and watch a game, for dirt cheap I might add.  When you didn't see the orange seats on the screen, you saw the other teams colors, with a sparse mix of burgundy and gold sadness.

 

 

It might be worse.  The reason why I cite Jacksonville is that's the organization often cited as the one with the least fans.  I think now perhaps the Chargers have given them a run for their money.  But if you told me even ten years ago that we'd be in the running with those organizations on that front including reading columns from national sports writers specfically citing this team as the one bleeding fans -- I'd say you are crazy.  But sadly it really happened.

 

18 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

That Bruce Allen press conference after Jay was fired was the cherry on top.  From the culture is damn good to Doug's timesheet, that thing was epic.  That took the embarrassment to a national level, and I believe was the catalyst for Dan handing over the reigns to a guy like Ron Rivera.

 

Yeah Bruce actually at least tied Vinny at the end with dumb statements, they have lived on, especially the winning off the field and the culture is damned good.  With Vinny it was trust us we know what we are doing, we got a plan, its for the fans. 

 

18 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

While there wasn't a lot of Bruce Allen fanfare over the years, there was a ton of - he's better than Vinny, he's not that bad, good at the cap, etc.  I know, because I danced the dance on the subject like you SIP, for years and years.  

 

I recall it well.  A lot of emotion with some in the defense of Bruce, too.  Over time, people forget.  I said the same thing in real time ironically on the Bruce thread which is Vinny had some intense defenders, too back in the day but over time people forgot that ever happened.     It's cool.  I don't fault for people getting things wrong.  I said so on that thread too back then.  We all get things wrong, no harm in that.  But I'll always remember the emotions were high in it.  And yeah the emotions were high in defending Vinny, too.  

 

My version of this was I was hardcore on the RG3 train versus Shanny back in the day.  And its not that over time, I absolve Shanny.  But I was wrong on a lot of what I thought about RG3's side of thing.  I was emotional, intense but also wrong.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I do count it.  As I mentioned to you before, the biggest fan of Vinny and sadly Dan too was Joe Gibbs.  And I don't see Gibbs as a BSer.  I can even recall one of his interviews talking about it.  Gibbs went on and on about how organized Vinny was and had information ready on every player in the league, etc and really liked working with him.  

Fine.  But I still think Gibbs was the driving force in almost all of the big decisions.  I guess I don't see Vinny as a decision maker under Gibbs.  Gibbs was Team President and Head Coach, and he made the decisions.  Good and (very often) bad.  Vinny had input, and probably made some calls, but I view 2004 - 2007 as the "Gibbs" era.  And when I think of when Vinny really had a voice and decision making capabilities, it was Spurrier and Zorn.  

 

Though I fully acknowledge you could look at it both ways.  It really doesn't matter that much.  He was a debacle any which way you look at it, even if you include the Gibbs years.  

8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But as I used to tell you, some of your posts back then came off unintentionally pro Bruce (even though I know it wasn't your intention and unlike some you didn't actually try to sell Bruce) because your thesis often seemed to be, Jay had a decent roster yet failed.  In other words, Bruce did his job but Jay failed hm.  A big part of my responses to you on the subject was to shoot that down because I disagreed with the premise.  Jay wasn't a hot coach, I said that early in that process about him.  But IMO he was not the weakest link in that operation.  Bruce was by a mile IMO.  Or to say it more on point, Dan was as usual.  

I think the point I was always trying to make, and i think history (and the rest of the NFL) has really proven, is that Bruce was probably the worst Team President/GM in the league (if not, he was on the short list with one or two other people), and he hired a bottom 3 coach. Which is not surprising if you consider that bad GMs typically hire bad coaches.    

 

As I kept saying, 2 things can be true at the same time: Bruce can be the worst GM in the league AND Jay can be one of the worst coaches in the league.  And to criticize Jay as a coach does NOT elevate Bruce as a GM.  Jay didn't fail Bruce.  Jay failed because Jay is a bad NFL head football coach.  

 

For reasons which I never fully understood, it seemed like there were a bunch of people who thought if you criticized Jay, you were defending Bruce. And since Bruce was clearly the guy who had to go first, if you didn't ONLY criticize Bruce, you were splitting the attention and all of the hate and discontent had to be focused ONLY at Bruce.  

 

Never, not once, in any post, did I ever compliment Bruce.  But I held Jay accountable for being piss poor at just about every function of his job as an NFL head coach. And instead of going the "well, a bad GM hires a bad coach, it's still Bruce's fault" (which it was, since he hired Jay), there was the cry of "if you're not actively criticizing Bruce, you're defending him."  Which was completely bananas.  

 

Was Jay the weakest link?  No.  He was the third weakest link behind Dan and Bruce.  But Jay was also not a victim.  He was part of the problem, not part of the solution.  

 

And the league has basically spoken.  Jay was offered one OC job for a coach who everybody knew was going to get fired, and that team went 2-14.  And now he's out of the league going on podcasts to try and get a broadcasting job.  If he was viewed as even average by the rest of the league, he'd be in it somewhere doing something.  But he isn't.  And that says a lot. 

 

He might get another shot.  My guess is he won't.  Keep in mind that Joe Barry is the defensive coordinator of the GB Packers.  The league has not held being a 'Skins coach against anybody.  The good coaches who left here have all found good jobs elsewhere.  The ones who the league knows were out of their depth and bad hires to begin with are out of the league.  (The exception being Mike Shanahan, who probably would have gotten another shot if he was a few years younger.) 

 

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Yeah Bruce actually at least tied Vinny at the end with dumb statements, they have lived on, especially the winning off the field and the culture is damned good.  With Vinny it was trust us we know what we are doing, we got a plan, its for the fans. 

Bruce win's the stupid comments competition hands down.  When a radio show dedicates a segment to a stupid thing you said and it lasts for YEARS, you've hit gold.  (The fact they weren't winning off the field is also remarkable).  

 

And the damn good culture quote, and then citing Doug Williams' timecard is absolute pure gold.  

 

Vinny was more funny than offensive in this regard.  There was a drop where he was describing where they had RedskinsOne going, etc.  "it went here, then it dropped this person off and flew there to pick up this person and ...." it was comedy.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Fine.  But I still think Gibbs was the driving force in almost all of the big decisions.  I guess I don't see Vinny as a decision maker under Gibbs.  Gibbs was Team President and Head Coach, and he made the decisions.  Good and (very often) bad.  Vinny had input, and probably made some calls, but I view 2004 - 2007 as the "Gibbs" era.  And when I think of when Vinny really had a voice and decision making capabilities, it was Spurrier and Zorn.  

 

Gibbs talked about it plenty.  Him, Vinny, Dan were the trifeca making decisions.  Yeah Gibbs had the final say but Gibbs talked about leaning on Vinny's reports on the players.  

 

As for personnel, if you buy what's been said, Greg Williams was the hero.  He supposedly made the shopping list for defensive upgrades when he arrived.  After that, it was somewhat of a disaster as to personnel or at best "meh".  

 

The Randle El, Archuleta, a 3rd-4th for Lloyd, 3rd and 4th for Duckett. Letting Clark and Pierce go.  As for Gibbs himself, I recall reading it was him who was anxious to get Brunell and wanted to give up a third rounder for him versus get into a bidding war if he were released.  He supposedly was smitten by Jason Campbell after visiting his school to scout Rodgers and pushed to trade up for him.  It was he supposedly smitten by Duckett.

 

I love Gibbs the coach, he's my favorite WFT personality ever.  But as a personnel guy, at best "meh".   I recall back in the day his comment when they took Desmond Howard that there are rarely can't miss players but Desmond is one of those special can't miss players.

 

The genius of the glory years IMO was Beathard being GM and Gibbs being the coach.   Gibbs seemed to double down with the Dan approach versus argue against the take that veterans > draft picks.  He spoke about how he liked the bird in hand of landing experienced players. He fit the Dan and Cerrato FO well on that front.   

 

Gibbs was a smart coach and classy as heck and a special leader.  But the FO wasn't his best domain IMO.

 

 

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

For reasons which I never fully understood, it seemed like there were a bunch of people who thought if you criticized Jay, you were defending Bruce. And since Bruce was clearly the guy who had to go first, if you didn't ONLY criticize Bruce, you were splitting the attention and all of the hate and discontent had to be focused ONLY at Bruce.  

 

Never, not once, in any post, did I ever compliment Bruce.  But I held Jay accountable for being piss poor at just about every function of his job as an NFL head coach. And instead of going the "well, a bad GM hires a bad coach, it's still Bruce's fault" (which it was, since he hired Jay), there was the cry of "if you're not actively criticizing Bruce, you're defending him."  Which was completely bananas.  

 

Was Jay the weakest link?  No.  He was the third weakest link behind Dan and Bruce.  But Jay was also not a victim.  He was part of the problem, not part of the solution.  

 

I'll say this.  Some of the ones who complemented Bruce saw you as an ally and would piggyback on your posts every now and then because some of your posts would come off pro Bruce by implication.  I know it was unintentional on your end but it happened.  I recall it well because some of the ones who disagreed with me were really intense and would use on occasion one of your posts to validate their takes.  You did make multiple posts that Jay underacheived with this roster and by extension some of those people saw that as props to Bruce and the point was Bruce can deliver the groceries but Jay didn't cook them well.   And your posts hit Jay a lot not so much Bruce. 

 

As for being a victim, it depends on the definition of it.  If its from the context of heck these guys made millions off of the dysfunction.  And I recall you critiquing Jay for not quitting at one point.   Then yeah these coaches got rich and none of them (not just Jay) quit.  They'd be fools to forgo 5-10 million dollars out of spite -- let the owner fire them.   So yeah I'd be feeling good being 20 million dollars richer regardless of how much dysfunction I swallowed. 

 

But all the coaches were victims IMO, Jay too, in this regard.  They weren't given a functional environment to bring out their best.  I was as loud of a critic of Zorn as you were of Jay.  Yet, I slammed the FO/Dan for how they treated him in the home stretch -- lacked class, it was ugly.   If you have to manage nonsense along with everything else on your plate, it makes your job much harder.  If you don't want McNabb yet he's foisted on you anyway -- your job is harder.  Ditto Haskins or name that Dan move.    I don't think its an accident that really all the coaches with previous head coaching experience underperformed here.  Heck even Gibbs underperformed compared to what he did under Cooke.  It's a pattern. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dyst

dyst

Posted
Posted
On 9/6/2021 at 9:22 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

I've taken my share of arrows over the years (granted not of late) from some stragglers who thought I was way too harsh on Bruce

Ah, those were the times. Blind homerism is what that was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dyst said:

Ah, those were the times. Blind homerism is what that was.

 

lol. Yep.  If I could have a dollar for every post back then about how Bruce might not be a rock star but heck he's a least OK at his job and is supposedly a major improvement over Vinny, I'd be a rich man.   😀 

 

I'd get it from the vantage of point from when he took over the job.  I had some optimism then, too.   But as his tenure progressed, I don't think it was that hard to see that the dude wasn't competent and that he didn't bring class to the organization.  

 

But like you said, if you want to point to homerism as the reason, it makes sense.   I had my spell where I saw the glass half full long ago but I became cynical over time. 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

The genius of the glory years IMO was Beathard being GM and Gibbs being the coach.   Gibbs seemed to double down with the Dan approach versus argue against the take that veterans > draft picks.  He spoke about how he liked the bird in hand of landing experienced players. He fit the Dan and Cerrato FO well on that front.   

 

I think that is underselling Gibbs. Gibbs at his best could coax the best out of every player and make the pieces far better than the whole. I think that's one of the reason why Gibbs' scrubs in '87 kept beating pros. Gibbs was that good at understanding what a player could do well and building a game plan to maximize it. That's why he could win with three different QBs and three different RBs. Gibbs wasn't a system guy. He built his system around the talent available.

 

When I look back at Gibbs II, I think you still see signs of that. Gibbs was never Marty and yet Gibbs became extremely conservative. Understanding the lack of talent he got, he decided that ground and pound was his only chance on a Vinny-built team, but the excellence of 80's Gibbs was that you could give him any roster and he would make it playoff caliber and a Superbowl contender.

 

Beathard was a huge part, but three years after his departure Gibbs with a Casserly assembled team put together the '91 season which was arguably a top three NFL team.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dyst

dyst

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

lol. Yep.  If I could have a dollar for every post back then about how Bruce might not be a rock star but heck he's a least OK at his job and is supposedly a major improvement over Vinny, I'd be a rich man.   😀 

 

I'd get it from the vantage of point from when he took over the job.  I had some optimism then, too.   But as his tenure progressed, I don't think it was that hard to see that the dude wasn't competent and that he didn't bring class to the organization.  

 

But like you said, if you want to point to homerism as the reason, it makes sense.   I had my spell where I saw the glass half full long ago but I became cynical over time. 

 

 

It was just odd, you’d make a post criticizing Bruce or Snyder and folks would come in not only defending them but labeling you as a fake fan. Like damn, that was a rough civil war era of our fandom. We are mostly in unison nowadays. ✌️ 

Edited by dyst
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Borgold said:

I think that is underselling Gibbs. Gibbs at his best could coax the best out of every player and make the pieces far better than the whole. I think that's one of the reason why Gibbs' scrubs in '87 kept beating pros. Gibbs was that good at understanding what a player could do well and building a game plan to maximize it. That's why he could win with three different QBs and three different RBs. Gibbs wasn't a system guy. He built his system around the talent available.

 

  

It wasn't a discussion of Gibbs 1 tenure and what kind of coach he was.  It was a discussion about personnel-FO.  My point was Beathard was the king of personnel, then.  Gibbs was the king of coaches, then.  I didn't lay out superlatives about either one.   Not because I didn't think they deserved some but because it wasn't the point of discussion. 

 

  You added a few things that everyone here knows just about as far as Gibbs in his first stint as coach.    Yep Iived through it.  I know it well and much more than that.  As I said in my post, he's my favorite WFT figure in my lifetime and by mile. If the point is to turn the discussion into a tribute of Gibbs as a coach, I could write volumes.   I used to call in to a show called Redskins lunch where Gibbs took questions, and I'd ask him some.  It was beyond cool. 

 

Heck through this day if I have to pull an all nighter, I think of Gibbs who did it routinely, sleeping on the couch, eating candy from the vending machine they had there and having the most prepared team in the NFL. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Borgold said:

 

Beathard was a huge part, but three years after his departure Gibbs with a Casserly assembled team put together the '91 season which was arguably a top three NFL team.

 

Casserly inherited many of those players.  By and large he didn't do a hot job in the 90s.  Some would even say Casserly is partly responsible for the demise of the team.  Personally, I think he was hit and miss as a GM, overall not great, not awful -- "meh".  But yeah if you think Casserly deserves mention up there with Beathard, cool.  I disagree.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...