Poll: What would you rather do, lead, or follow?

[Art]

Originally posted by TunaIsGod

LMAO

The cap has been around since 93. The original leader in cap gone haywire spending was Carmen Policy with the 9ers. Other teams that skirted the edge over the past few years are the Chiefs, Jaguars, Bills, Cowboys, Vikings, Titans, Jets, and Panthers. All ended up with untenable amounts of dead money or fell victim to overextended contacts and took a year or more to right the ship. There probably hasn't been one team that hasn't had to let a star player go to cap mismanagement.

The utilization of prorated signing bonuses has been part of the game since the get go.

BUT, there are three areas you could be said to be a "leader" in.

The first is the targeting of RFAs, as done last year. THat WAS an innovation. But guess what? We don't see anyone following suit.

"Leadership" implies FOLLOWERS, and you have zilch of them.

The second area is in the amount of overpayment of signing bonuses.

Most teams aren't rushing to follow Snyder's negotiation tactics. "They offered you eight million, I'll give you thirteen", a la Lav Coles.

Even if it has the disposable cash, no franchise wants to look so foolish

The only other area you could be said to be a leader in is failure to learn from your mistakes.

For most teams, the year 2000 would have taught the lesson of a decade.

Most ludicrous poll I've ever seen.

Leadership that leads to victory breeds followers, as you know, Tuna. And that's the point of this poll and question. Obviously it's not that ludicrous since most people would prefer a team's front office to do its own thing instead of copying what other teams have done.

Obviously this is a breakout poll from the conversation we had below. The ridiculous aspect of it is that you felt you were right to laud your team's front office copy cat style when the majority of football fans would prefer another style.

The Pats are leaders of a style others are trying to copy. Until they won, no one would have tried to copy that style. Teams were copying other styles. Unsuccessfully. What history reveals to us is that teams that do win it all don't generally copy another team's methods. They do it their way.

And when their way becomes successful, a number of teams follow that way while a number of other teams keep doing it their way.

The Redskins are, undoubtedly, doing it their way. Both from borrowing "cash solves cap" management methods demonstrated to be successful by the Cowboys and the Niners of the 90s, as well as altering the fundamental method of building a team.

Instead of spending a sixth-round pick on a rookie you can't project as a starter right away, or perhaps ever, you spend it on a guy who is a proven NFL player, young, who can start right away. Not a great player. Merely a competent one who immediately helps you more than any sixth rounder could.

Obviously in two years if the shift we've taken to use draft picks to acquire young pros who have ALREADY proven they have the ability to help an NFL team works, others will follow. If not, we'll be adjusting the way we do things in the hope of finding another method that's more successful.

Dead money is a very bad thing and the Redskins will carry more dead money than most teams on a yearly basis. While the league average is $7 million or so according to one recent article, the Redskins are carrying around $14 million or so each year according to that article.

Obviously that doesn't slow the ability to spend. By keeping values down early in deals you allow moderate dead money hits to be overcome with cash deals. Eventually, like the Niners this year, we'll take a $28 million dead money hit. We'll purge and start anew.

When? If we are losing, it could be as early as 2006. If we're winning it could be as late as 2010. As long as Snyder is willing to use cash to solve the cap, the delay can come until the team starts to fall apart from old age if he wishes it.

I'm sorry so few think your way is smarter than our way. That's not really ridiculous though. Just smart. Next time maybe you'll be the one with the smart belief. There's hope.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

JB,

Are you seriously asking me to break down the last three years of Redskins history for you?

I got that down, we didn't draft well, we signed other teams players and guess what we stunk !!!!

However the key to the equation is coaching. We proved last year that we can have all the talent we want but it doesn't do any good unless you have coaching.

So in that regards we are not different from everyone. What we have learned is players don't matter, coaching does so we do copy and not lead like you suggest.

The bottom line in the NFL is winning now how many guys you can sign with 10 million under the cap.

[Art]

Ken,

You don't really measure whether a receiver is overpaid or not based on market standards of 2002. You do it based on market standards of 2004. Robaire Smith isn't the player Glover is. He's not the player Griffin is. Yet he got $8 million where Griffin got $8.3.

What a player is worth is what the market will bear. And the market rises -- largely because of Snyder himself. Last year it was said the Redskins paid tackle money for guard Randy Thomas. He got a $7 million bonus and actually was like the eighth highest paid guard in terms of yearly salary, but somehow the Redskins paid above market rate.

Damien Woody, coming off injury and concern he's only capable of being a guard again, got $9 million and suddenly that's great. The market changes. Now, mostly it changes if the Redskins are involved. Give $20 million to a 33-year-old Todd Steussie if you're the Bucs, and great move. Do it if you're the Redskins and we're nuts.

Once one allows himself to move beyond the hype, you'll appreciate what the market rate is and why applying what it was two years ago no longer applies.

As for corner, no, it's not my opinion that Springs is the best. I thought Plummer would have been, followed by Winfield. My opinion has NOTHING to do with it. The FACT is Williams decided he didn't want Winfield and he did want Springs. Why? Because he felt Springs was far and away a better player than the player he'd coached and he'd only seen Springs on tape.

So, what YOU think is irrelevant. What I think is irrelevant. The Redskins HAD to have a corner. Williams was our coach. We all assumed Winfield would be the first guy we called. We didn't even give him a thought. That tells you how solid a player his head coach thought he was. And that's what matters.

No personal opinion involved at all. Just the assessment of a guy who coached every play Winfield played in who picked a guy he'd only seen on film because he was so much better than the guy he'd just coached. That matters. What I think doesn't. Certainly what you think doesn't.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

I got that down, we didn't draft well, we signed other teams players and guess what we stunk !!!!

However the key to the equation is coaching. We proved last year that we can have all the talent we want but it doesn't do any good unless you have coaching.

So in that regards we are not different from everyone. What we have learned is players don't matter, coaching does so we do copy and not lead like you suggest.

The bottom line in the NFL is winning now how many guys you can sign with 10 million under the cap.

JB,

If you got it down why did you pretend we hired Joe Gibbs and therefore we were copying other teams? We you just trying to be a jerk, or is it more natural than you can prevent? Let me know.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

JB,

If you got it down why did you pretend we hired Joe Gibbs and therefore we were copying other teams? We you just trying to be a jerk, or is it more natural than you can prevent? Let me know.

Art what are you talking about?

I said we are copying other teams by hiring Gibbs. The way we have made our team over the years has proven nothing, we still have been losing.

The only way to win was for us to copy other teams. You think we are leading the way, yes we were but in the wrong direction. That is my point.

Then again we haven't won anything yet so we don't even know if this will work also.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Even Portis got just an $11.5 million bonus, though you've only heard it called a $17 million bonus. That slant by the media ignores just how smart and under market the Redskins contracts have been. The only difference is while other teams sign one of these guys, we sign all of them.

I think what we should call it is 14 or 15 million SB I believe there is a 3.5 roster bonus in 2006 and do you honestly think we are going to cut him after 2 years with a 11.5 million dollar SB?? No way it would kill us.

[Art]

Originally posted by jbooma

I think what we should call it is 14 or 15 million SB I believe there is a 3.5 roster bonus in 2006 and do you honestly think we are going to cut him after 2 years with a 11.5 million dollar SB?? No way it would kill us.

JB,

What we should call his signing bonus is what he got in signing bonus. That's what we should call it. That's the only part that counts over the length of the deal. He also is getting a roster bonus this year of $1.5 million. He'll certainly collect the roster bonus he's due and we may convert it to another "signing bonus" as we certainly have written in to the contract.

But, what he received as a signing bonus is $11.5 million. We shouldn't just say it's something else because you don't understand the difference between how a roster bonus counts on the cap and how a signing bonus does. All I ask is you attempt to join with me in actually discussing things in terms that they actually are, rather than just assuming a "we should call it a (larger) signing bonus." No. We shouldn't. We should call it what it is. And call the rest what it is.

[HermsHerald]

Originally posted by Art

Leadership that leads to victory breeds followers, as you know, Tuna. And that's the point of this poll and question. Obviously it's not that ludicrous since most people would prefer a team's front office to do its own thing instead of copying what other teams have done.

Obviously this is a breakout poll from the conversation we had below. The ridiculous aspect of it is that you felt you were right to laud your team's front office copy cat style when the majority of football fans would prefer another style.

The Pats are leaders of a style others are trying to copy. Until they won, no one would have tried to copy that style. Teams were copying other styles. Unsuccessfully. What history reveals to us is that teams that do win it all don't generally copy another team's methods. They do it their way.

Despite the over used "copy cat league" label, most teams sit a while and watch before implementing important changes. For example, after the Pats 2001 SB win, the prediction was that many teams, tired of spending big bucks in free agency only to see a fair share of the signings go bust, would jump immediately on the Pats bandwagon.

That did not happen. Organizations took a wait and see attitude, and the Pats not even making the playoffs in 2002 likely sacred off a few potentail "followers".

Then the Pats did in the 2003 offseason what all competent organizations do. They admitted there is no pure blueprint for success. Adaptability is survival. They went, in the second week of free agency, after Colvin and Harrison, which raised eyebrows. They adapted their MO to sign two higher rated free agents in an area of need, stopping the run. (Colvin, who never played, is a complete LB and can also drop back into coverage well.) They had an eye to stopping the run in their draft, and later in the offseason, signed the biggest run defense of all, Ted Washington.

Their other major area of concern was their run game. The way they handled that problem tho, was to go to a "running back by committee" approach. They had Antoine Smith, a bigger, not especially consistent tail whose production had fallen off about 200 yards in 02, and Kevin Faulk, a very small quick scat back type. They brought in Mike Cloud to challenge Faulk as a third down back, and that added pressure might have helped fuel the more lively performances of both Smith and Faulk. (Of course with the Pats, the scheming is always their chief asset).

Smith's' rushing yards went down from close to 1000 in 02 to about 640 in 03. But Faulks' went from about 280 to over 600. In addition he had over 400 in receiving, making him a 1000 yard all-purpose back for the first time in his career.

You don''t need Clinton Portis to win in this league. You don't need a superstar runner. You need a good RUN GAME. But how many teams have the schematic creativity to excel with a running back by committee? Few.

When folks talk about "copying" the Pats, they're usually talking about their FO policy of not over paying free agents. But the Pats have not become the closest thing to a "dynasty" just from that approach. They have proven themelves extremely adept at draft time. They traded one of their first rounders last year to sit even prettier this. I think they have TEN picks this year. And if those picks turn out even half the class last year's did, Pats fans are going to be talking dynasty in the "age of parity". Legitimately.

Now the question is if "copy cat" front offices are going to rush to follow the Pats' recipe. To be successful using their offseason strategy necessitates not just good, but innovative and thorough coaching. Creation of niche roles and high personnel versatility. Quality depth. Very few teams are interested in drafting undersized defensiveline men like a Dan Klecko. Because their coaching staffs wouldn't know what to do with him. Belichick and Crennel carved out effective roles for him at linebacker and dline. I think they even had him in on offense few times last year.

Everything the Pats are doing is based on developing talent. YOUNG, CHEAPER talent that leads to quality depth which constantly replenishes the stock. And which allows you to thumb your nose at the high priced talent of a Terry Glenn, Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, or Ty Law (next). Because their CS is so darn good, their FO, notably Scott Pioli, can pluck the gems at draft time others must pass on.

Yes, winners do it their way. Few teams will be able to "copy" the New England model because few can pull it off: it requires a superlative coaching staff. To win with less talent, the coaching has to be there. The kind of quality coaching that took the Cowboys not overly impressive roster to a five game upgrade in 03.

But this idea many teams are "copying the Pats" is ridiculous. They're not able to rely on second tier cheaper free agents because their coaching staffs aren't good enough to pull it off. Not CREATIVE enough. And don't shine at player development.

Many teams have recently come to the "eureka!" that gee, it's COACHING that really counts, not these big name free agents. YOURS for instance, has "copied the Pats" in that regard, AND the COWBOYS, who brought back Parcells in 03, by bringing in Gibbs.

Every team "copies" what works, at least the part of it that fits into their overall capabilities. You copied Dallas in bringing in Gibbs. Very few tho, I suspect, will be "copying" that "cash trumps cap" angle. If you're smart enough, creative enough, adaptable enough, to win with Smith/Faulk, you don't have to pay for a Portis.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

JB,

What we should call his signing bonus is what he got in signing bonus. That's what we should call it. That's the only part that counts over the length of the deal. He also is getting a roster bonus this year of $1.5 million. He'll certainly collect the roster bonus he's due and we may convert it to another "signing bonus" as we certainly have written in to the contract.

I agree with you on that.

All I was referring to we should call it for the amount he will see of it thats all. We will not cut him before 2006. So he will see all of that money. You are correct where only the SB is divided by 6 years.

I do think that 3.5 million bonus is going to be turned into a a signing bonus in 2006.

Art I do have a question for you. If and when we turn his roster bonus to a signing bonus. Is that then spread out starting that year over the length of his contract meaning:

11.5 / 6 = 1.9 a year

so 2004 we pay 1.9, 2005 we pay 1.9 2006 we add the 3.5 to ther remainder which is then will go to 12 so then we divide that by 4 years so then it is 3 million a year after that?

Is that correct?

[Art]

Tuna,

I don't know that I disagree with much of what you say.

I very much agree with your statement that this is more and more clearly a coaching league. Coaching is more important every year than players. At one point last year I saw a stat that said 22 NFL head coaches had career winning records. And you brought in Green and Gibbs to that equation. My numbers may be slightly off, but the point is, the NFL, due to the amount of change requires good coaching more than at any time in the modern era.

This, though, while a good point is a distinctly different point than we're discussion. We're discussing front office operations.

Would you rather your front office attempt to model itself after a team that has had success, or would you rather your front office attempt to set it's own path toward success. Knowing neither way is guaranteed to achieve success.

I suspect you are right that many teams won't copy the Redskins "cash solves cap" portion of front office management. Most teams can't afford to do that. So most teams won't do that. Most teams, likewise, didn't copy the old Redskins under Gibbs when we routinely traded away first round draft picks.

Most teams will follow the Redskins method of acquiring young pros who are at the end of their first NFL contracts for draft picks of various levels assuming victory however. The Redskins have already altered how teams approach those free agents of their own. If Washington wins anything in the next few years, the method they took to get there, being unique, will be emulated.

And if victory doesn't happen, it will be discarded. I think that's something we all know.

[HermsHerald]

Originally posted by Park City Skins

Read: I just feel like arguing with Art or maybe just arguing in general. And clearly somebody needs a nap.

Clearly someone needs a Logic 101 course. Badly.

The word "lead" has a semantic relationship with the word "follow". That relationship is one of converseness, or reciprocity ( different from an antonymous relationship.) Examples of converse pairings: buy/sell, landlord/tenant, wife/husband, employer/employee. The meaning of one is dependent on the existance of the other. We understand the meaning of the word based on it reciprocal.

The very meaning of leader (as oposed to "leading") means someone, something, ANYTHING is following. No one is following a 5-11 team. Believe it. Until you've actually DONE something, the very proposition is bizaare.

The other notable piece of illogic here is is the fallacy that everyone is copying the Pats. Not everyone CAN copy the Pats.

Yet one more shining example of critical thinking and deep analysis is the reductionist, simplistic idea you either lead OR you follow. All teams do both. Yours, for instance, followed Jerry Jones in taking a great coach out of mothballs. Yours is leading too. In spending. Again.

Even more obvious, among the straw man arguments rampant on this board and the teleological (circular) ones, the ad hominem sidetracking, the degree of irrationality even startling for homers, and the cheap debate tricks no high schooler would rely on, is the amazing lack of ability to state a simple, logical premise.

It's, I must say, "sad.":)

later

[Art]

Tuna,

The Redskins are hardly copying the Cowboys by bring in Gibbs. Had the Redskins brought in Walsh, sure. Green even would be somewhat similar. But, Gibbs is a all-time Redskins great. Bringing him back is substantially different than bringing in Larry Brow....er Bill Parcells.

Bringing in any moderately established NFL coach would have been something of "following" the Cowboys. Hiring Gibbs is, again, unique. It's not been done in years that a team, struggling to achieve greater success, digs into it's own past to achieve it. Gibbs, being a Redskin, is different than Parcells, being a Giant, Patriot, Jet and now Cowboy.

Aside from that, no one claimed that everyone was following the Pats or that everyone could follow the Pats. You specifically use the example of the Patriots and how they do business to claim the Cowboys are following their lead.

Thus the question. Would you rather, as fans, realize your team is modeling itself after a successful team, or would you rather your team do its own thing, both done in an attempt to achieve success.

The Redskins are leading in their attempt to achieve success. If they do, followers will come. Not perfect models, but people who attempt to borrow substantial parts of what the Redskins are doing. Dallas may be one of those teams as Dallas has the financial ability to be.

And Dallas may be one of those teams because, as you've stated, Dallas has already shown it can't figure out its own way since Johnson did, so, in figuring out the next way, it'll simply adopt stategies others figure out first.

Nothing at all wrong with that. When your owner is your general manager you probably shouldn't expect a great deal of innovation. Again. Nothing wrong with that. Modeling after success is probably a lot smarter and safer than ignoring those models and doing your own thing. Doing your own thing only becomes smart if it works.

And if it works, others will join.

[NavyDave]

Have to be a leader.

Let the Euros do the following.

They are great at that.

[HermsHerald]

Originally posted by Art

Tuna,

The Redskins are hardly copying the Cowboys by bring in Gibbs. Had the Redskins brought in Walsh, sure. Green even would be somewhat similar. But, Gibbs is a all-time Redskins great. Bringing him back is substantially different than bringing in Larry Brow....er Bill Parcells.

Bringing in any moderately established NFL coach would have been something of "following" the Cowboys. Hiring Gibbs is, again, unique. It's not been done in years that a team, struggling to achieve greater success, digs into it's own past to achieve it. Gibbs, being a Redskin, is different than Parcells, being a Giant, Patriot, Jet and now Cowboy.

Art. I don't enjoy coming across as an internet bully. It really ISN'T my style to kick sand in the faces of fans of 5-11 teams. I'm a life long Jets fan, so I relate. But I haven't let the sand in my own eyes blind me to reality. In fact, it's cleared the vision more than obscured it.

Just because Gibbs very successfully coached your team in the past does not mean Snyder was not copying Jones in reaching out to Joe. Both Bill and Joe were pulled back out of retirement albeit JG was retired for a longer time. One is in the HOF, the other will be. It is pure intellectual dishonesty to pretend the Cowboy success under Tuna last year was not a major motivating factor in Snyder's decision to hire himself a proven old school winner. That he went to a past Redskins success, an icon at that, is far secondary to the fact he was looking for a Parcells style renaissance, one based on discipline, sound knowledge with every aspect of the game, and proven leadership.

Of course, if you see Parcells as "any moderately established NFL coach", then your assessment is correct. But I don't even think the cranberry colored Kool Aid YOU drink has intoxicated you to that length.

It's not 'insult' to copy what is successful. You seem to think it is, but those of us in the real world who realize the wheel need not be reinvented every day are capable of APPLAUDING those who learn from both their mistakes and their colleagues.

Now, I'm not expecting to see any quotes from Danny saying "I wanted to get me a Tuna". Snyder doesn't seem to discuss his failings publically. I do expect to see writers claiming (with no proof other than common sense) that Snyder watched enviously last year as Dallas began turning things around. Of course Snyder watched with envy. He's not a complete idiot.

http://www.allsports.com/cgi-bin/showstory.cgi?story_id=45567

I also expect to find quotes from Gibbs himself and his ex players maintaining a big reason Joe wanted to get back in the game was watching Bill back at work.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6990187

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61386-2004Jan7&notFound=true

THINK, Art. If you were Dan Snyder last season watching the turn around of a division rivial, seeing it was based on the sound coaching of an NFL master, wouldn't you copy that part of the recipe if you could? The fact Gibbs once coached the Skins is not the point. It does add that element of "uniqueness" to the move, yes. But it not the core of the matter. The fact that Bill is with his fourth team is not the point either.

The point is the Dallas style comeback is something Snyder is going to try to emulate with Gibbs, an old smash mouth, old school, grind it out, lines building, run oriented, time of possession warhorse. Different from Marty ball in that now, like Jones, he has one of the best at it. (Marty was your "moderately established NFL coach", and that wasn't good enough either.)

To deny that Snyder was looking southwest for a coaching model is pure intellectual dishonesty, even for a confirmed homer.

Geez.

Gotta go!

[fansince62]

ART...in the military the saying goes: "Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way".......

ps...thank God we aren't following the cowpie model for QBs!!!!

[Art]

Tuna,

Perhaps I take it as too great a leap of faith that you can read the words I posted and appreciate what they mean. Obviously the Redskins were DETERMINED to hire a coach with previous NFL head coaching experience. That desire stemmed in part from Spurrier's failure and in part, perhaps GREATER part, due to the success Parcells was enjoying in Dallas.

That's why we were looking to bring Fassel, Rhodes or Green in. We wanted an "established" NFL coach. Very likely to copy you. But, that's not what we did. Through luck and a very fortunate resignation, Gibbs came available. The move to bring Gibbs back had no real relation to the desire to hire an experienced NFL coach in an effort to match what the Cowboys had done.

Gibbs, in Washington, transcends trivial plans. Gibbs, in Washington, is a God. A Saint. Beloved. He's also an experienced coach. But, bringing him back given his relationship to the Washington organization is different than what the Cowboys did bringing in Parcells.

In effect it gives the Redskins an all time great coach which is something that matches the Cowboys. If that's your rationale for why it is a bit of a copy, great.

You just need to better appreciate the history of Gibbs in D.C. to realize how the move is substantially different. Now, that brief history lesson given, please read what I wrote and understand how the situation differs.

To put it succinctly, it differs because Gibbs IS the Washington Redskins. Parcells is a hired gun. Understand the difference and why it's not the same.

As for your quoted packages, I would like to ask you to do something for me.

NEVER embarrass yourself again by presenting articles that contain no attribution or quotes yet make an assessment you believe exists. Whether it exists or not, the first article you provided has no actual information to support it. An article from All Sports with no quotes or attribution isn't really going to be all that persuasive, no matter how intuitive you feel the data is.

Obviously the success of Parcells and Vermeil had a great big part of the decision Gibbs made to return to football. That doesn't make it the same as Parcells going to Dallas. Gibbs also returned to football because of his family. Same reason he left. Family is not something Parcells has ever prioritized.

The challenge Gibbs feels to return doesn't make the hiring in Washington all that similar to the hiring of Parcells in Dallas. It's really completely unrelated. I think Gibbs is curious what he can do. He knows Parcells has coached much of the last 12 years since Gibbs retired. And Gibbs wonders if he still has the touch to win Super Bowls he used to have and he sees Parcells seems to have lost.

It's not all that similar at all when you think about it.

[SonnyJ]

So, Tuna is a Jet fan (secondary to worshipping at the altar of Parcells). That explains her vilification of Snyder. His fleecing of the Jets must have really gotten her panties in a wad.

Tuna, it astounds me that you believe that the primary reason Snyder hired Gibbs was to copy Jones move of hiring Parcells. You obviously have no CLUE as to what you are talking about, and, as Art said, no appreciation of what Gibbs means to the Redskins and the fans. It doesn't matter that Parcells was in Dallas. Hell, Spurrier didn't even need to resign, in theory (though, in practice, Gibbs would never do that to an existing coach, unlike Parcells). All that needed to be done was for Gibbs to say he was interested. Game over. Snyder was going to do whatever was in his power to get him.

Not because Jones had Parcells. It's because Gibbs is THE MAN in DC. Like Lombardi in Green Bay. Like Walsh in SF.

Jones HIRED Parcells because he needed a guy to right the ship. Snyder ACCEDED to Gibbs because he is Joe Gibbs.

[sonsofwashington]

I think you have to find a good mix of both. Blaze your own trail but don't try and re-invent the wheel or go against the grain. ehhem. Steve Spurrier. No need being stubborn.

[Renegade7]

I'd rather lead then follow. That way when or if i screw up, i can learn from my mistakes an make try again. Plus, it helps to learn from others mistakes as well. There's no perfect way to do anything, so its best to just do it your own way. My ego wouldn't let me follow anyone anyway. That is unless i can learn from them. People are more likely to follow you if you know what you're doing.

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

0-16, 19-0, skins fan till i die!!!

[PCS]

Originally posted by TunaIsGod

Clearly someone needs a Logic 101 course. Badly.

The word "lead" has a semantic relationship with the word "follow". That relationship is one of converseness, or reciprocity ( different from an antonymous relationship.) Examples of converse pairings: buy/sell, landlord/tenant, wife/husband, employer/employee. The meaning of one is dependent on the existance of the other. We understand the meaning of the word based on it reciprocal.

The very meaning of leader (as oposed to "leading") means someone, something, ANYTHING is following. No one is following a 5-11 team. Believe it. Until you've actually DONE something, the very proposition is bizaare.

The other notable piece of illogic here is is the fallacy that everyone is copying the Pats. Not everyone CAN copy the Pats.

Yet one more shining example of critical thinking and deep analysis is the reductionist, simplistic idea you either lead OR you follow. All teams do both. Yours, for instance, followed Jerry Jones in taking a great coach out of mothballs. Yours is leading too. In spending. Again.

Even more obvious, among the straw man arguments rampant on board and the teleological (circular) ones, the ad hominem sidetracking, the degree of irrationality even startling for homers, and the cheap debate tricks no high schooler would rely on, is the amazing lack of ability to state a simple, logical premise.

It's, I must say, "sad.":)

later

Goodness Tuna. All that based on a little gibe on your final statement in a post.

"Most ludicrous poll I've ever seen"

I'd say someone needs a humor course 101 and then the requisite follow up courses.......badly. Clearly a remark meant for reaction. Knowing all the "straw man arguments" that you've seen on this board, you were picking a fight and judging by this thread since that post you got it. And then some.

I could go on in a wonderfully long debate about the term "lead" which will in turn "lead" to discussions on leadership, but that's not what this is really about. That would be "sidetracking". Suffice to say that though the term "lead" can be semantic with the word follow, and yes we understand it to a certain degree based on the reciprocal, the words are not always mutually inclusive. One can in fact lead without followers. At least for a time. And that is what this is all about.

Should the Redskins strategy of building a team through free agency by signing "proven" young talent, ( at least for now. See future draft picks in a possible longterm strategy), as opposed to relying predominantly on the draft for "cheaper" yet unproven talent that must take time to develop be successful, then rest assured there will be followers. I say lead. Lead by example. Blaze a path and all that other stuff. ( or at least modify the the path).

Oh. And should I take a logic 101 course in the future, perhaps the same one you took, then I would deduct, logically, that Dan Snyder "followed" Jerry Jones, who had in turn "followed" Ms. Frontiere's "lead", in her hiring of Dick Vermiel. That whole mothballs to coaches theory. Like several others, I don't subscribe to that theory, though I'm sure it makes some Cowboys fans happy to think so.