Riggins: Redskins Future Limited With Marty on Board.....

[bulldog]

Riggins has been hard on the Redskins at times this season and I have had my disagreements with him on the performances of individual players and their potential with the team.

However, after seeing this coaching staff in action, I am coming closer to endorsing John's position that while the Redskins may post 9-7, 10-6 or other such winning records under Marty, utimately this team is not going to become an elite/championship team because of the flaws evident in Marty's approach that limit the talent of the players on hand.

I must not be the only one who watched this year's team with a slight feeling that it was a reprise of George Allen's teams of say 1975 or 1977.

Play the field position game with defense and special teams. Run a no risk/no reward offense that limits mistakes. Wait for the opponent to give the game away on interceptions and fumbles.

It's an old strategy. Chuck Knox, John Robinson, Bum Phillips and Mike Dita have followed the same one in various forms down through the years, often producing playoff teams but rarely finishing first. Marty has of course down likewise.

While it is a truism that you can win a good share of games merely by not making mistakes and standing by watching other teams fail in their attempts to execute plays effectively (says something for the level of coaching overall, eh? ), you rarely defeat true contenders using that approach because they ARE capable of executing plays without making the killer mistakes.

And then you are left looking at a 24-10 deficit in the third quarter with an offense that is not able to respond with any quick points or clutch time execution.

And that is what has happened to Allen's teams and Marty's teams in the post-season.

You won't ever really develop a quarterback in a system that is based on not making mistakes. You can teach a player to be more efficient in his mental preparation and game day decision-making but you choke off the creativity and growth ingredient when it becomes obsessive.

With all the changes in the game since the 1970's favoring the offense and the passing game in particular, it seems to me it is self-defeating to not use that to your advantage.

The teams that do win. The teams that do it well, win BIG.

[VoR]

Ah yes, the old "Play Not to Lose" strategy--the essence of Marty Ball.

Isn't it any wonder that Marty, while in KC, had great success against teams that continually shot themselves in the foot (Raiders), yet he could never overcome the well-coached, disciplined team that had a playmaking QB (Broncos)?

[Om]

This is nuts.

Please don't tell me anyone is listening seriously to John Riggins today any more than we bought Marty in the summer, when he told us his goal was nothing short of the Super Bowl. Surely none of us actually BUY this media-release stuff in this day and age, do we?

That anyone around here would come out and suggest that they know what the future holds for Marty and this team right now, in view of the unbelievable, roller-coaster year we just all witnessed, and the way the league reshuffles itself from year to year any more, is simply amazing to me.

We have a qualified head coach. Do we really have to revisit Marty's past record again? Do we really have to revisit 13-3 just 3 years ago? Or back-to-back conference title games earlier in his career? Fact is, there is not an "expert" in the land, nor any seers on this board, who know what next year will hold.

The past is NOT necessarily prologue in the NFL, anymore.

We have talent here. And we know what's missing. If this team lands a legit QB this offseason, and even ONE legit pass rusher on the DL, there is no telling what momentum and the vagaries of NFL fortune might bring to this team. We may not be the Rams, but we're sure as hell not the Bengals, either.

Christ, I'm as disappointed with this season as anybody, but wallowing in misery now, and trying to find new ways every day to document this season's failures is a colossal and depressing waste of time and energy.

We all know what went wrong. We watched it unfold.

Now, however, now is when the organization sets about the process of making it right. And that being the way this league works, we understand that for every team that disappoints every year, there is another that inspires. We all know who they were this year, and the year before. We are as likely as any to be the one that inspires next year. I find that far more likely than the alternative.

It could well be us next year. We do have the foundation. We know what we need to add ... and we'll set about finding those pieces in 2 weeks. That's what the 2002 offseason will be all about.

I'm begging you, don't let John Riggins' speculations, or anyone else's, convince you that ours is a foundering ship. All is not lost, here, folks. It really isn't.

It's almost the the New Year, you know? Dare to walk towards the light.

[Montilar]

Actually Riggons is fun to listen to. He's not necessarily right, but he's fun to listen to.

Yea, marty's a legit coach. But bulldog is also right. marty's philosophy hasn't changed one bit. He is in the mold of a George Allen, Ditka, etc. Play a limited offense, good D, and hope to not make a mistake. That will give you a good winning percentage.

But it only takes one loss to end a playoff run. And the playoffs are where you will meet the good teams who have good offenses, good defenses, good special teams, and good coaching.

Marty does have a good winning percentage. He will get the skins to the playoffs if given time. Even with Banks, he could of this year with a few different breaks. But do you really think this offense would of made it past game one of the playoffs? This offense which has scored above 20 only twice?

To be a legit threat, the offense has to be able to score more than one TD a game. But this offense can only score if there are absolutely no mistakes. Not one dropped ball. Not one penalty. It cannot overcome adversity very well.

I was initially against signing Marty. Not because I thought he'd lose. But because I figured he'd do good enough to get to the playoffs and then lose. Like he always did. Like Buddy Ryan always did. Like Denny Green always does. Like Tampa always does. I believe I said he'd get us to the next level (playoffs) but to the level beyond (super bowl) it was doubtful.

I wanted someone who had a shot at becoming the next Gibbs. But if we did a retread I wanted Art Shell. He won in Oakland despite Al Davis. And has never been given another shot since.

Marty will get us to "good". I want "great". this offseason will tell us more about what to expect from Marty than anything else will. If he stands pat on the staff, who he drafts or signs will tell us all we need to know.

[bulldog]

Don't get me wrong. If Marty stays, am I hoping he overcomes his past demons and coaches this team to a Super Bowl victory as Dick Vermeil did?

OF COURSE.

At the same time I am not going to look back on a year where Marty had to cut the starting quarterback in Week 2 and where the team got off to its worst start in 40 years and maintain a sense of nostalgia either.

I am from the 'show me' state

Show me as a HC you know your personnel and how to use them to the maximum possible effect (ie getting them to play 100% for you) and I will call you an excellent coach.

Show me as a GM that you can assemble an offense that is better than next to last in the NFL and with a quarterback who is efficient enough to rank in the top 5-7 passers in the conference and I will say 'good job on the personnel side'.

What I am sick and tired of doing and seeing others do is go into each season showing 'faith' and 'belief' in coaches like Norv and now Marty that have not exactly gotten off the ground running. Going 6-8 with a roster he said was contender material is not the way to build my faith

To me a 15 year veteran coach goes into a new situation and knows instinctively he either has to get buyin from his high profile veteran players or he has to get rid of them and start over again.

Marty showed hesitation in this regard and this half measure cost the team a chance to be a much better team in 2001.

He ran a difficult camp and seemingly ignored the reaction of a number of the players he ended up having to count on during the seaason.

I can't see that as anything but a distinct failure no matter how you spin it.

You know how I know that Marty will turn out to be more like Dick Vermeil in his return to the Rams than Mike Ditka in his return to the Saints?

If he goes out and acquires an established quarterback, in the process admitting he can't contend for a title running a stone-age offense that consistently fails to produce given a short field via gift turnovers by the Redskins defense.

Oh, and if he gives Jimmy Raye enough freedom to call the kind of gme he did in KC in 2000 when Elvis Grbac threw for 4,000 yards and the team had 3 players in the pro bowl from that offensive unit.

[MikeB]

I tend to agree that Marty is a bit limiting. Two things that you need to remember:

1. We where all dying for a coach that could come in here, shake the Norvitious out of this team, and get us back to the playoffs. Most on this board where in agreement that simply returning to the playoffs would be huge. I think Marty can and will be that man.

2. If you look at the coaches who have made the SB there are more that went just once as opposed to multiple visits. Cowher comes to mind, made it just once, but seems to always field tough teams. Coaches that made repeat trips to the SB, a la JJ, Gibbs, and Levy are few and far between. There are more, but just out of those three Gibbs is the only one who put together multiple teams, JJ and Levy had one great build that took them there many times. My point is that getting a coach who may get your team to the SB a few times is like finding a needle in a haystack. If I told you you could have a 1 in 2 chance of making the playoffs routinely, or a 1 in 20 chance of making the SB a few times, which would you choose? Probably the same thing Danny chose...

------------------

"I'm MikeB and I get respect, your cash and your jewelry are what I expect..."

[bulldog]

what I want to see is better planning from Marty in this offseason.

Establish your quarterback first. Make sure he is suited to the style of play the team is talented enough to run. Make sure he is a guy the other players can look to as a field leader and not merely a guy with a strong arm.

Then go about using your 15 years worth of player psychology to keep the many disparate personality types on the team in lock step, marching toward the same goal.

And don't put unnecessary pressure on the organization by popping off about going far in the playoffs.

Let the strength of your team be a nice guilty little secret you keep to yourself until the regular season starts and you can go out and kick some a$$

[Braves On Warpath]

The conservitive play calling has a lot to do with talent limitations at the QB position. Banks is not a "Money" QB. He does not even know the whole system!

I think we would see a far different offensive system if we had a "money" guy at the trigger. Keep in mind that Marty got to the playoffs year after year with a shell at the QB position. This fact is especially significant as most of his big game losses were to teams with big time QB's. John Elway anyone? Can you imagine if he had a solid QB?

------------------

Fight for Old D.C.!

[bulldog]

Braves, that's really not true. Marty went to the AFC Championship Game three times in his career and his quarterbacks those season were Bernie Kosar, who made the pro bowl several times in the 1980's and Joe Montana, one of the pioneers of the WCO.

What I am afraid of is in those situations he had GM's in Ernie Accorsi and Carl Peterson that looked after the responsibility of providing offensive skill players for the team. Bernie was inherited from the previous staff and Peterson was the one that pulled the trigger on the Montana deal from SF for a #1 draft choice.

Remember that there was some question about how much Montana had left after his shoulder injury and subsequent surgeries in 1991-2.

When Marty became more influential in player personnel decisions in KC after 1994, the productivity of the subsequent quarterbacks was far less.

Now, Marty is truly on his own. He hired John Schneider to assist with personnel but is just 30 years old and doesn't have experience heading up a scouting and personnel operation.

Your point about the offense being limited this season because of Banks is right on the mark.

But, that decision traces right back to Marty's prior stance that he was going to stand pat with Jeff George and Todd Husak as his first two quarterbacks.

Then he ended up having to get rid of both within several weeks of each other and had no other choice but to go with Banks, who had dropped into their laps after being released in a surprise move by the Cowboys.

Without the Banks ending in Dallas, you can question where this franchise would have been in terms of quarterbacking for the 2001 season when the George/Schottenheimer parting occurred.

And that is the scary part. It showed the team was unprepared for what should at least have registered as a risk on the radar screen, namely that Jeff George would follow his own well-established history of being a coach-killer.

To me, if you keep Jeff George, you let him run the offense he is best suited to run and the one he is most comfortable in. That seemed to be the best compromise if we had to go with Jeff for 2001 until the position could be addressed in the offseason in 2002.

[Brave]

I am still of the belief that this team needed a coach like Marty after the Turner era. The team was bloated and lazy and had no discipline. If Marty could take THAT team and mold it into a team with a good defense and good special teams that plays a conservative offense I'm OK with that, at least for his first season.

Braves On Warpath has a point. What kind of offense would you expect with Stephen Davis at RB and Tony Banks at QB. Well, you expect a run-based (read conservative) offense. Throw in the fact that our WRs and TEs have either been rookies, injured or ineffective and you can hardly expect the Skins to come out trying to throw the ball all over the field. When they did that they lost bad.

Rebuilding this team must come in steps. If the first step was improving the defense and special teams, which I would expect from Marty, than I don't see anything wrong with that. I think he did that. This team showed drastic improvement from opening day to this stretch run. That can only help the teams' psyche.

Now what I believe we must look for is the same improvement, or at least attempted improvement since you can never be sure that change will work, offensively. If the offense is not addressed over the next season and we are still losing a lot of 20-15, 13-7 games than Marty's detractors might have a bit more cause to make noise. To this point, though, I don't think he's done such a bad job.

Jimmy Raye, however, is another story.

[fansince62]

lc....errrrr....om. of course, by definition, we don't know what the future holds. but we do have a history - a schottenheimer history that says no conference championships, no Super Bowl appearances, no Super Bowl victories. we have a history that tells us that self-same 13-3 team exitted the playoffs rather quickly. we have a history that says nepotism and a martinet-like control are more important to Schottenheimer than flexibility, adjustment, innovation. we have a history that suggests depressingly poor conception and execution on offense. we have a history that says marty ball was built on 250+ lb running backs who ran north/south with an occasional pass to ensure the QB didn't pass out from boredom. we have, finally, a man so locked in the history of his "system" that he is unable to tolerate much less absorb new offensive concepts. other posters are spot on: marty will eventually post winning records based on strong defense and adequate offense. we will get into the play-offs and then lose with amazing regularity until the clamor for his departure reaches a crescendo. i find nothing inspiring or reassuring in the character or leadership of one marty schottenheimer. the prevailing sentiment seems to be that he was the "best available" and that he will return us to the playoffs. SO WHAT!!!!!! hardly compelling.......

[ by al on December 30, 2001.]

[fansince62]

didn't see Montilar's post........he's got it right! I want great also. losing the first play-off game is no different from losing the first game.....you're still a loser and watching someone else play for all the marbles..

[Terry]

Bullldog: "Play the field position game with defense and special teams. Run a no risk/no reward offense that limits mistakes. Wait for the opponent to give the game away on interceptions and fumbles.

It's an old strategy. Chuck Knox, John Robinson, Bum Phillips and Mike Dita have followed the same one in various forms down through the years, often producing playoff teams but rarely finishing first."

I seem to remember a team that won the Superbowl last season using that exact same strategy. I don't see it as dated or ineffective at all.

Balls to the wall offense has rarely won it all, the Rams come to mind in the modern era, but that's about it. Otherwise in today's diluted NFL, grinders can do as well as anyone.

OM has it about right (although I would add another interior blocker to help the rushing attack to his list). Marty ball isn't inherently different from Billick ball, and that has brought home a championship.

We all recognize that factors outside a coach's control can have as much or more of an impact once a team gets to the playoffs - injuries, particlular matchups, lucky breaks, a hot QB, you name it. But if you put your team in the playoffs enough times those breaks can go your way.

The Marty chapter with the Skins hasn't been written yet, despite Riggins professed clairvoyance. It remains to be seen whether Marty ball is incapable of putting another Lombardi on the shelf.

[Art]

Bulldog, Marty didn't bring Jeff George in here. When Marty got here, he didn't make any promises about who the starter would be. He let the players earn their spots through a rigorous offseason program. I recall you very complimentary of Marty, coming in, and not rewarding players for the past, but expecting them to earn it in the present.

As you wrote of George back in May or something, his greatest negative is his attitude, but, there is a chance he takes essentially his last chance as a starter and becomes something more. I think you are being FAR to critical of Marty on the George situation, when, in fact, the ability to pull the plug after two games showed great and decisive thought and action.

I felt George would be good here. He'd been good previously in offenses run by strict coaches. Of course, I didn't believe for a minute we were running a strict WCO. I thought we'd be doing a Vikings WCO with a lot of deep balls mixed in. As soon as it was clear George was cast in an offense early where we wouldn't challenge the secondary, it was clear he wasn't going to be successful here.

I'd still have liked to have seen him in the offense where we were stretching the field a bit more. Marty has flaws. Some of them very ugly and frustrating to behold. But, pounding on him about George, a player he didn't bring in, and didn't hand the job, is not something you are going to do and be persuasive that it is a fatal flaw.

Marty's teams on offense have NEVER been very good. I do not believe we knew just exactly why that was the case. But, it turns out Marty can take an offense that was No. 11 in the league, and in a year, make it No. 28 without trying to hard. I don't mind bad offense. I just like moderately consistent offense and we didn't have that. I think we've heard a bit about Marty from fans of the Chiefs who were happy he left, because of how unimaginative he was, especially on the offensive side.

For Marty to succeed here, it doesn't require a Super Bowl though. Not at all. He simply has to get this team playing well, every week, disciplined and tough football that allows the future to look bright, where with Norv, it was pretty much as bright as it could get, but still failed to look any good once things played out.

Marty doesn't have to win everything to succeed here. He has to change how this team looks and, honestly, he really hasn't eliminated the stupid things that killed Norv. They are still there. The undisciplined penalties and false starts and surprisingly consistent negative play whenever anything positive starts. We are the same team we were with Norv, just with different strengths on defense and special teams instead of offense.

And Marty can't succeed here like that.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[88Comrade2000]

Success depends on how you define it.

If we are looking to erase the 9 years which saw 1 playoff birth:1999; then Marty will be a success. He got the team to the next level:making the playoffs.

IF we going to judge success by making it to the superbowl and winning it at least once; then Marty won't be considered a success. He will be seen as a coach who can get the team to the playoffs but couldn't do anything once there.

I think that's how Marty's tenure will be ultimately judged. Did he win a superbowl? That's all Marty needs to add to his resume. He does that and then he probably gets into the HOF. Without the ring, Marty won't get in.

Considering we've missed the playoffs 8 out 9 times; playoffs should be enough. Thing is, given the current NFL of the last 2 years; going and winning a superbowl isn't that high of expectation in my mind. We aren't the Bunguls; who have no hope.

I was opposed to Marty's hiring because while I did see him improving on Norv and actually taking the team to the playoffs; I didn't see him doing anything in the playoffs.

Maybe we all need to lower our sites. Let MArty do what he can and if he can't take us the bowl; we bring someone in to take to that next level. Let's see MArty leaves after 2004 and we hire Parcells in his 5th coaching sting, LOL.

[NavyDave]

I'm putting the Koolaid in the Freezer until the Spring

------------------

Take A Sip of the Marty KoolAid and Believe.

[bulldog]

I just love it when people bring up the '85 Bears or '00 Ravens and say you don't need an established offense to win the Super Bowl. You can depend on defense and special teams to carry you.

In my mind, if you have 36 examples to use as a historical context for achieving some aim (ie winning the Super Bowl) you look at what has worked in the great majority of cases, not what one or two teams managed to do against the odds or in a down year when the big game opponent was perhaps lucky to have made it through to the final.

The Redskins don't have a defense like the '85 Bears or '00 Ravens. And they won't next season even with a pickup on the DL in the first round.

It is obvious to all but the ghost of George Allen that the Redskins need to improve an offense that is next to last in the NFL.

My initial concern that Marty, without the support of a good GM, may not be able to put together a productive enough offense is a valid one until we see him do it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the improvement in the defense during the 2001 season is attributable largely to Marty's influence on that side of the ball.

Why he can't see the need to bring in similar experience on the offensive side of the ball is beyond me.

What it comes down to is ego. Marty is going to be the 3 hat 'caesar' of the Redskins: he is really going to try to be operations chief, GM and HC all rolled into one.

Recent history shows us that outside of Bill Parcells, most veteran coaches who have received that type of wide-ranging power to run an organization have failed to live up to expectations.

Jimmy Johnson failed to improve on the record of the Dolphins in the latter Shula years. George Seifert has been a total disaster in Carolina. Mike Ditka was a similar failure in New Orleans.

You would think that since Jimmy and Mike were also broadcasters that "heard the call" to go back to the bench as well, that Marty would learn some from their experience.

But, as Kafka said, human beings learn most from an acute sense of their own pain.

[Terry]

Bulldog: "I just love it when people bring up the '85 Bears or '00 Ravens and say you don't need an established offense to win the Super Bowl. You can depend on defense and special teams to carry you."

I didn't say that you can get by with no offense. But how 'established' is your offense if you are willing to let your QB go after the season in order to procure the inestimable talents of one Elvis Grbac?

"In my mind, if you have 36 examples to use as a historical context for achieving some aim (ie winning the Super Bowl) you look at what has worked in the great majority of cases, not what one or two teams managed to do against the odds or in a down year when the big game opponent was perhaps lucky to have made it through to the final."

Wgy look at the vast majority? Most Superbowls were eitherplayed in the era of the great dynastic teams - Dolphins, Vikings, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers. Other teams didn't achieve dynastic proportions, but for a briefer run provided such a dominant unit that unless there was a truly dynastic team to stop them, then they were bound to prevail. The Bears, Giants, and recent Rams fall into that category.

But there are no dynastic teams today, and you are as likely to find yourself facing a feckless Giants team in the big game as any other. You'll find a team getting by on a dominant unit though, as the Ravens last year and the recent Rams teams attest.

The standards are lower, there are no dynasts, and luck and lack of injuries will get you further than they ever have.

There's not much around to prevent a team with solid to great defense and special teams, and with a grinder offense from getting through the playoffs and to the show.

[Cskin]

I happen to think our offensive scheme and performance is predicated around the talent on hand. Let's face it, when you have a pro bowl running back....you give him the damn ball. That's what we've been screaming for this year.. right? Play action off of the running game is the other facet of our offense.

What we've seem this year, and the record is a perfect indicator, is the "gelling" of the units. Special Teams has been exceptional, and no one argues that our defense is beginning to resemble one of the best of the league. Our offensive line is both young with stud tackles, yet experienced in the middle. Our problem lies with an ineffective "scrap heap" QB throwing to a rookie, an under performer, and only marginally adequate Tight Ends. Could we have possibly expected to challenge for the NFC crown with that lineup on offense? Realistically, we're getting about as best as we could ask for......8-8....with an improving defense.....discipline special teams......and a solid QB away from being an efficient and opportunistic offense.

Where the problem lies, the point of this discussion, is the miscalculated mistakes Marty made at the beginning of the year that ultimately was our undoing. Every "expert" in the league said George was a bad fit, yet Marty insisted he was the right man for the job. He placed all of his faith, as well as his ego, in the same basket with Jeff George and a stick of dynamite. When it blew up, so did our playoff hopes.

I'll fault Marty for the errors, but I'll support him and his system while he assembles "his" talent. Once he's done so, and we begin making consistent playoff appearances and subsequent early departures, that's when I'll begin to look for something more. Until then, it's "stay the course" and hope that we make the right decisions.

[redman]

bulldog, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, not because I necessarily disagree that changes should be made for next year on offense, but because I believe that you and Riggins are promoting an overly negative outlook on this team.

It may well be that some of the more memorable teams that have won championships have been high-flying offensive teams. But I'd contend that the most consistent asset to those championship teams - even if it wasn't the most prominent - is defense. It wasn't just the one-hit wonders '85 Bears and the '00 Ravens. The '86 and '90 Giants weren't exactly known for offensive firepower. I'd even contend that the 90's Cowboys offense was relatively conservative, though very talented. And those Cowboys teams were always known for their tough defenses.

In short, we're on the right track, starting with the basics and building from there. We're already a far more gritty and competitive team than we every were under Norv. Our defense dumped four veteran starters - Deion, Carrier, Smith, and Stubblefield - and is if anything better than last year. Our special teams are virtually unrecognizeable when compared to recent years.

As for the offense, I agree that it's too conservative. And we'll never get to the bottom (to everyone's satisfaction) as to whether the primary cause of our offense's ineffectiveness has more to do with coaching style and philosophy, or with lack of talent at critical places like QB. I happen to believe that the right veteran signing at QB (e.g. like Brunnell) could provide us with the necessary lift on offense.

In short, we're on the verge of going 8-8 after starting 0-5 in a year when only the most optimistic of us had the team picked for 10+ wins and many figured we were just "rebuilding". Need I remind you what the record was last year when we were picked by many for the Super Bowl? I've said all along that we can't fully grade out Marty until the middle of next season. I'm liking what he's done so far, even if in hindsight I might have done some things differently.

------------------

<IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[Darth Tater]

Put our offensive performance in context. We made a lot of errors like dropped passes, illegal motions and other stupid penalties that killed drives so we lost out on 3-7 points at least once a game (and a couple of times more than that). Look at how we finished (our last 10 games) then increase our points by the amount missed, we should in those 10, have been one of the top 10 scoring teams in the NFL (around 23 game, makes us #6). That's with a mediocre qb and questionable play calling (some of which came from lack of confidence in the qb and a running back who, at least early this season, was fumbling in critical situations).

[bulldog]

one of the biggest myths in the NFL is that the Giants won the Super Bowl in '86 and '90 without a capable and efficient offense.

the truth is Phil Simms was probably the most underrated quarterback in the NFL during the 1980's. His record as a starter was near the top and he had several pro bowl seasons which seemed to be quickly forgotten by all but Giants fans.

In 1986, Simms was the SB MVP completing 22 or 25 (??) passes for over 200 yards and leading his team to 39 points against Denver.

In 1990, Simms again had the Giants out to a 10-2 start before he was injured and Jeff Hostetler took over.

The conventional wisdom that the '90 Giants won without an established quarterback was thus only partially correct. And Hostetler proved in subsequent seasons that he was himslef a legitimate NFL starter, even if he was not a superior player like Simms.

Other examples of teams winning without franchise quarterbacks include our own Redskins. The trouble is that for the 1982 and 1983 seasons Joe Theismann WAS one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL. In 1991 Mark Rypien was one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.

Maybe Joe Gibbs was just a Houdini for getting capable players to somehow play out of their minds for him in certain years, but if you go back and look at Joe's numbers from 1983 and Mark's numbers from 1991 when the team was 14-2 both times, you will see Joe Montana like numbers.

Perhaps Marty can get Tony Banks to have a year like that in 2002. And perhaps Jerry Jones will finally draft a second round talent with his #2 draft choices

The debate over how to build a winner is an interesting one. To me, each sport has certain 'definables', things you usually have to have to be a champion.

In the NFL it is a varied offense with a solid quarterback and a defense that is usually in the top 10-12 in the league.

I say 'usually' because there are the exceptions.

Just as I would say that in the NBA you have to have superior play at the point guard and center positions to be a championship team. The Lakers with Magic and Kareem were. The Sixers were with Mo Cheeks and Moses Malone. The Celtics were with Dennis Johnson and Robert Parish/Bill Walton....etc........

But the Bulls were not. They were a team that won with a different formula featuring a out of the box superhero as the catalyst.

The question is, if I were starting an NBA franchise, would I gamble by going in the Bulls direction and making every move possible to wait on and then acquire the next Jordan if he exists and/or build a team around a dominant small forward or shooting guard?

Or would I follow the more tried and true path of getting a point guard that can distribute the basketball and a superior center that can work the inside-outside game, and then build from there?

Well, the Bucks and Raptors have built their teams around players at the #2 and #3 spots. The Lakers have built themselves around getting the dominant center and then having a guard rotation that gets the ball in the hands of Kobe Bryant and now Lindsey Hunter.

Which one has been more successful?

[Om]

This is way late, but I'm here to apologize for the raving lunatic who posted under my name earlier in this thread. No way that meandering diatribe should have been posted. If fact, it wasn't meant to be at all.

It started out as a two-liner intended simply to good-naturedly needle bulldog a bit for posting another "feel-good" piece about our 2001 Redskins on the eve of the New Year. Then, apparently suffering from a case of runaway wild-hair, I found myself furiously typing away as my muse ran amok ... and was just winding down as my lovely wife got home with 983 bags of groceries and a nasty case of delayed road rage at the subhuman @^$#%-er that cut her off and then had the nerve to flip HER off ... so naturally, rather than hit the "clear fields" button as I wisely abandoned the computer in my hast to go and assuage her, I apparently hit the "submit" button instead and posted something I hadn't even read back over yet.

Didn't even realize I had posted it until last night, when I was looking back over some of the threads I missed over the last few days.

Anyway ... I guess I stand by the general thought behind the post, that in my opinion things aren't all THAT dire insofar as the immediate future of the Redskins, but I hate to leave that last mess as my final word in 2001. Apologies to bulldog, VoR, and anyone else whose toes might have gotten underfoot in the stampede.

Of course, I do notice that my good brother al took some small exception, surely due to the literary excess and/or cuteness involved, so maybe I did something right after all ... love ya bro.

[fansince62]

om.....you da man!!!!......my guess is that we are world's apart on just about everything under the sun, but i'ld still love downing brewskies and trading stories! i had to respond to your imagined pain over my pinprick (literay cuteness) comment!

anywho.......have a happy new year and i look forward to next season's scripts!!

[Om]

I'll buy the first round, bro.

Unless of course, you disagree.