Just to get it out of the way......

[Art]

The topic of the Redskins GM is an amusing one I have come to believe. It has taken on a life. The media is fixated with it. Fans are addressing it in earnest. It's the talk of the town. The fact of the matter is, the conversation on the GM should be the an incidental conversation.

It is meaningless to helping this team solve what problems it has. It is meaningless to improving the team soon. That it has become THE story is a creation of people who don't seem to want to address what the issues are with this team, and, simply put, the issue with the Redskins is not at GM right now.

Fred Smoot said it best in his last diary, "This has been a fun season for me. We didn't make the playoffs, something we all wanted to do. In my first season, I wasn't surprised by too much. The athletes didn't surprise me. I knew playing against great athletes would be part of the jump from college. What did surprise me was the coordinators and how much of an effect they can have on the outcomes of games. All the schemes and preparation really astonished me. In college, coaches prepare you for the games, but it's mainly letting athletes be athletes. In the NFL, it's who prepares the best. That let me know any team can win any week in the NFL."

Speak it Fred.

This Redskin team has talent and the GM who purged the roster and filled the team with a ton of new bodies did a very solid job of it. But, what too few people want to acknowledge and what so few seem to realize is that coaching matters in football like NO other sport.

Coordinators have an effect on the outcome of a game. And, too frequently it wasn't the GM losing games for us this year. It was the coordinator who runs a school yard offense without the sophistication of Lucy's fake field goal try.

The Redskins don't need a GM. It's a fun chat about who the GM might be. But, it's not a necessity on this team. It's spin and it's easy to point to and it's less difficult than figuring out what would matter to this team. Here's what we know.

Pendry was the offensive coordinator for the No. 9 offense in football a year ago. Raye was the offensive coordinator for the No. 10 offense in football a year ago. Norv Turner was the head coach and offensive coordinator for the No. 11 offense in football a year ago.

Somehow this offense as led by those two coaches is presently the No. 29 in football in offense. It is No. 30 in football in scoring. With due respect to the junior Senator of New York, it doesn't take a village to raise a child, Mrs. Clinton. It takes a parent.

And, for all of us so dedicated to the talk of GMs, let's be clear, it doesn't take a GM to run an offense. It takes an offensive coordinator. Coaching matters. When Dan Snyder sits with Marty this offseason and they discuss the season, it is crucial he not go into the room saying, "Marty, way to keep them together. Here's Ron Wolf, our new GM. Go get'em."

I'm all for bringing in as many sharp football minds as possible. I have no problem considering a proven quantity at the General Manager position. But, more importantly, we need to address the basic philosophy this team plays under.

We need to address the, "We want to get to the fourth quarter with a chance to win" way of thinking Marty is so fond of. This is the single most flawed philosophy in creation. Getting to the fourth quarter with a chance to win means you pass up opportunities earlier in the game to put the game away.

We saw that this year. It means you run an offense that does just about what we saw this year. I think we need to tweak the philosophy to be, "We want to have the game won after three quarters, but, if we are behind, we'd like the fourth to catch up."

Guys, let's focus on the problem. We're big on mobilizing here. Put your efforts behind the thing that matters. Getting an offense that has some professional qualities. If Marty won't allow that here, then a GM, Bledsoe, Trotter, Parella and all the kings men, won't be able to win the Super Bowl here again.

This team CAN do that with a modest tweak in scheme on offense. It can keep the same players as this year and be an efficient offense. All it needs is one of those coordinators that can really make a difference.

[2cents]

Can I hear an AMEN, Testify brother!!!!

[fansince62]

right on art! which brings me to a theme voiced before.....does/will marty's ego get in the way of making the adjustments in philosophy needed to progress? 15 years and his actions this year tell me yes - his ego gets in the way. he's building a power running offense wedded to a dominant defense. will this work in an era in which speed compensates for power? is he willing to forsake any capability for playing catch-up as art states? is he willing to be outsmarted (i.e., how good is this staff at those critical half-time adjustments)? this off-season may more critical than most: 1) QB status; 2) dt/de replenishment; 3) more speed/deception as well as more up the middle power on offense. note: marty's power offense won't work if the probability of your star running backs being injured is high (which has been the history with both davis and carter) - that is, the strategy is not sustainable through 16 games. then what?

[Dirk Diggler]

Art

Before we hang Raye, I think we need to look at the QB as public enemy #1. Anywhere this knucklehead has been starting, his offenses have been average to below average. The Rams took off as soon as the door hit him in the azz and even a so called offensive guru like Brian Billick couldn't get the guy to produce. Last year with Banks at QB, the Ravens went a month without scoring a touchdown --- sound familiar? Hell the Cowboys saw in a few months what other teams took a few years to find out -- the man brings an offense to a halt. He is utterly incapable of carrying a team on his back and a QB needs to do this at least once during the course of a season.

Banks has said himself that he has big receivers that only get mild separation. That he needs to "trust" his receivers more. I can't wait to get a QB in here that will have the confidence Tony lacks.

Scheme will only take you so far. Look at the Ravens last year. They had one of the simplest defensive schemes ever, but were impossible to score on. Why? Outstanding personnel.

Basically, I'd like to see another QB under the healm before we dismantle the coaching staff. This will never be a top 5 offense but with the right leader, we should be in the top half. And with even a mild threat at QB, we should be top 5 in rushing. With the way we will play D and special teams next year, an average offense (20-22 point per game) should net us 11 wins.

[SonnyJ]

I agree that there is no reason to be running out and getting a GM. I think Marty has, at least in the short term, done a credible job of that.

The way I see it, a move by Snyder to bring in a GM is a move to oust Marty, one way or another. Unless he has plans to bring in a Wolf/Parcells combo, this could potentially drag the franchise into laughingstock land. You can't keep churning through coaches like this and expect to be taken seriously.

Like you said, what is needed here is a change in coaching philosophy. I remember Ken "my scouts tell me" Beatrice constantly saying about Marty that he will never win a championship because he won't open up his offense. That's what worried me when he was hired and what still worries me. Offense seems like a black art to him.

[bulldog]

and this was exactly my point in saying that Marty himself sets limits on how good his teams will be and that fans here that are used to coaches, GM's and owners talk about the Super Bowl better start lowering their expectations.

Marty is all about getting a team back on track from mediocrity to competitiveness.

He doesn't yet have the makeup to take a competitive team, challenge them and himself to rise to the next level and win a championship.

It is a fatal flaw if you will in many good coaches in the major sports.

Chuck Knox's record is very similar to Marty's. So was George Allen's, although George did get the Skins to a Super Bowl in 1972. Other coaches that come to mind include Ted Marchibroda with the Colts and Don Coryell with the Cardinals and Chargers.

All these men were successful in terms of wins and losses, some were offensive coaches, some defensive. But all had artificial limits on what they would and would not to do succeed.

Coryell would not draft defensive players. His baby was the offense and believed you could outscore even the best teams to win games. He failed to get beyond the conference championship game.

Knox believed in running the ball and playing defense like Marty. Make no mistakes. Keep the games close. Restrict what your quarterback is expected to do. He likewise was a perennial playoff coach, but fared poorly in the postseason recordwise.

Etc, Etc........

What makes the great coaches great is flexibility of approach. Gibbs didn't have the personnel here to run his favored offensive philosophy, so he changed it.

Bill Walsh, another offensive guru, realized the necessity of getting quality coaching on the other side of the ball where he himself had limited experience.

Marty does not have that kind of reflective side. He may never have been as honest about himself as Gibbs and Walsh were. He believes he can run both sides of the ball and make the personnel decisions as GM without the assistance of any other senior people.

He has hired kids to work in the front office and his hiring of his son as quarterbacks coach indicates he either thinks quarterback is a position that doesn't demand a full-time coach of standing to be successful or thinks that he has a smart enough quarterback that will improve himself without much assistance from the staff.

These are all symptoms of a head coach whose need to control overcomes his need to be successful in the end.

He would rather win 9 or 10 games and maintain a tight rein than win 13 or 14 games and have to give up some modicum of control and delegate some areas of responsibility to others, even though these people would still report to him.

Very sad. For us.

[Om]

Art, bulldog, please talk to me about how you see the QB position on this team, and how it plays into the failings of our offense this year. As much as Jimmy / Marty's offensive philosophy frustrated me most of the year, I still can't help but figure that even their outmoded approach probably did include the occasional 2nd and even 3rd options for the QB on obvious passing downs.

Without getting into Tony Bank's failings too much again, I'm one who is on record as suggesting that the man is in over his head running even a relatively uncomplicated NFL offense. Even without the benefit of game films, my untrained eye could see missed options when he zeroed in on one guy time and time again. I've heard it too many times, and from too many credible sources, to simply dismiss it. And I don't think one can underestimate the impact on the offense in particular and the team in general.

How many drives, over the course of the year, became three-and-outs that put the defense right back on the field, when even a couple of first downs (not to metion a point or two here and there) might have changed the flow of the game?

I suppose a full offseason of work in the system will help some, but I've pretty much decided that Tony Banks is a fully-formed QB at this point, and that any improvement is likely to minimal, or at least not enough to turn him into a championship-level player.

My wish would be to see Marty flush the system, and bring in an innovative young mind to run the offense. My head, however, tells me that's probably not going to happen. So, assuming Marty and Raye are both back next year, do you think the system as constructed can be markedly better simply for having a more adept QB reading the options that are already available?

I won't sandbag you ... I believe it can be.

Now, whether a Dilfer or Brunnell could make it work well enough to win it all, I really don't know. My prognosticative powers are less than legendary. I admit that I do have some doubts, even though watching the Raven's success last year, and the Steeler's success so far this year, have given me hope that in today's NFL a team without a genius offense can still be a champion.

Could a Dilfer or Brunnell make Marty Ball work well enough to legitimately contend for it all? I think they could.

And that's all I ask.

For now.

[ by Om on January 03, 2002.]

[Art]

Al, to answer your question first, the answer is clearly yes. A power running game will work today and it will work for all time. Pittsburgh is a power running offense as we speak. Basing your offense on a power running game is a smart thing. The problem we have is that given how incompetent the passing game is, and I'm not talking just about Banks, I'm talking about how it's designed and how routes don't take advantage of the defense becasue it's not based on adjusting based on the defense, the running game can't dominate the way it should.

We are presently the No. 8 or so running team in football. If we had a mildly competent passing offense, we'd be ranked even higher in the run because teams wouldn't be able to do to us what they are able to do to us. They can sell out to stop our running game far too frequently without pain of getting hurt in the passing game. But, yes, a power running team can be highly successful. You just need to have some imagination in the passing game to make it even better because the two compliment themselves.

Dirk, I'm not necessarily saying we have to dismantle the coaching staff. Though, to be honest, I'd probably be fully behind a move at offensive coordinator. But, we can even keep Raye and to some extent be successful. It isn't just that Raye called a bland offense this year. It's that Marty wants that to be the case. Marty's whole philosphy is to keep things close and get to the fourth quarter. Marty wants to shorten the first three quarters. He wants the clock to run, to play field position and get into that fourth quarter with the game in question, so his team has a chance to win.

I don't know if that was the same philosophy he espoused in Kansas City. I know seeing it here is mind boggling. Marty will surrender opportunities to score to fit within his scheme of belief in how to win. He'll sacrifice points and movement on offense for time coming off the clock to shorten the game and limit possessions. I've NEVER seen a team run this frequently on third down and long. It's astounding to witness it happening.

Banks is, by no stretch, the QB we want back there. And yes, he could use a bit more time in the offense and potentially that could open some things up a bit more. But, simply put, this offense is overmatched in the passing game in that we far too frequently put two and three bodies into a route against six and seven defenders. We haven't spread the field ONCE all year. We haven't kept Davis in the backfield and gone four wide one time, to compel a defensive coordinator to put extra backs in the game to compensate for the threat of the pass once all year.

We have two tight end sets at the end of games in which we are down. And, this is not too much different than the offense we saw with George in there. Or in the preseason. It's just about the same. And it doesn't take much to tell the difference. Against Carolina, a game in which our QB needed to step up and lead us, Banks was successful, but not solely because he was just on fire that game. He succeeded because the offense, for one shining moment in the universe, opened up a tad.

He completed, in a row, passes of 85 yards, 19 yards, 22 yards, 35 yards and 47 yards. Arrington turned that game around for us and saved it, but Banks won it, plain and simple, and he won it with the strength of a very potent intermediate passing game. This was early in the year when he'd have had less confidence in his receivers. But, teams see what we do and we haven't built off that game. We STILL run Gardner exclusively on the post-corner route when he goes long, like on the 85 yard pass. If we would throw one post out, just one, we'd hit for a 30 yard gain just about any time we want to. At least until teams recognized that was a spot they had to watch.

Banks is what Banks is, and he's not a guy you really have much confidence in. But, this offense doesn't require a coaching shakeup to succeed. It requires a philosophy change. We can hire the All-Pro team from the NFC to be our offense next year, and if we still believe that the way you win is to get to the fourth quarter with a chance, that will necessitate we play very tight football. The philosphy it's based on is flawed.

Now, Marty can continue saying the same philosphy all he wants. But, if he tells Snyder, "Hey, we struggled on offense and this is not where we need to be, so we are going to try some things next year," I'll be fine with that. But, if he says, "This is what we do and how we do it," I'm going to hire a hitman. You look at the KC stats over his years, and you see a guy who did produce a pretty strong running game and a very weak passing game.

He won games, and he would win games here as well. He will win games here even doing the same things he's doing. But, simply put, if you want to fix this team, you don't hire a GM. You fix the philosphy that endorses a Pop Warner passing attack. You don't have to do it in public and admit to doing it. You just have to show it on the field.

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

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Om, there is no combination of talent on this earth that could turn THIS offensive philosophy into a respectful unit. Brunell wouldn't matter. Dilfer CERTAINLY wouldn't matter and is nothing but Tony Banks who simply understands his limitations while Banks likes to think he's capable of being Brett Favre .

Understand, there's NO QB in football that can complete a pass on third and eight when he's handing the ball off. And this is not a chicken or the egg question in which everyone can come back and say, "Well, if Banks weren't there, we'd not be running." That may be true, and if so, it would be a chance in offensive scheme. If we took the ball out of the running backs hands on regular third and long situations and gave it to the QB to throw, it would be a distinct difference in play calling and another QB -- and dare I say, Banks too -- might complete a pass in those situations increasing our performance.

But, really, go back and look at what Marty has done and he's been pretty remarably consistent in the teams he puts forth. He doesn't like to take unnecessary chances and if he maintains fixed on the concepts he believes in, NO combination of offensive players would make us all that much better. We'd have spikes some years and down years others, but, it would essentially be the same with the difference being occasionally some plays would be made in one year more than another.

Marty, though, CAN win a Super Bowl with this offensive style and limited scheme. But, in order to do it, like Dirk said, you need overwhelming personnel. You can't play base schemes and simplistic play calls without overwhelming personnel. Arrington is correct that this team isn't that far from being a very tough team, personnel wise.

Marty can win with that and he can win with what he has here. I don't believe, as some, that a Super Bowl is a foregone conclusion and that Marty can't do it. I do believe he doesn't have to win a Super Bowl to be a success here. But, he can be 13-3 the next four years, and if he's still running the same poorly designed a dismally executed offensive system, he'll be a failure. It's a fine line for him.

If you were to ask many, an 8-8 season for the Redskins -- not that we have won the last game yet, but go with me -- would have been fine. A ton of roster turnover and a new staff and all that comes with it. But, the taste of the way we win leaves a lot to be desired. And when you can come from wins with serious questions, there is always going to be a serious question about how far you can be taken. We are, fundamentally, a flawed offensive football team. And when you have fundamental flaws, you can still win despite them, but, simply put, the chances of those flaws killing you are greater than a team that has a more sophisticated attack that just isn't playing well one day.

We can play good, solid, tough football, and lose. Most teams have to play bad football to lose. I don't doubt Marty can win. I just know Marty's teams will lose games because we are close in the fourth quarter after dominating a game and the opposition comes back and wins because, hey, they got to the fourth quarter with a chance to win.

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

Doom is in the box.

[joe]

With a quarterback that was more experienced in this system, Raye would have been good enough as our offensive coordinator. How many of us have complained of receivers running open, only to be missed by the trigger man? While everyone was calling for more running by Davis, I believe he us second in number of carries among the top running backs in the league. (Tomlinson in S.D. has more)Bank's inability to find his secondary receivers, whether through incompetence or inexperience with the system, was the bottom line on the latter half of this season.

While I agree that we really don't need a GM, I think we should stay the course across the Board. Keep Marty and the rest of the coaching staff intact and let them do their job without interference.

Successful football programs are NOT thrown together in one year, despite Michael Wilbon's assertion to the contrary.

[Om]

I'd be curious to see where the "keep it close and try to win in the 4th quarter" label ascribed to Marty's philosophy actually came from. Maybe I've burned more brain cells than I thought, but I can't say that I ever remember hearing anything like that come from the man himself. At any rate, his teams certainly seem to play that way, whether it's his stated intent or not, so I won't argue the point.

The fact is that until Marty wins a title with his philosophy, nobody can really argue with the accusations about its limitations. I sure won't. I posted back in the summer my concerns over this very issue, and retain them to this day. It was couched then in a discussion about the "fatigue factor" that some have ascribed as a possible reason for why Marty's teams could never quite get over the hump, but the concern was the same: that his overall approach may be more suited to get a team TO the big game than actually winning it.

As I said, I would very much like to see an about-face in our offensive philosophy, and a move to one with a more sophisticated, dare we way even 21st century approach. But, since I don't believe that's going to happen, at least not this coming year, I'm looking for the silver lining, or at least a possible solution to what we agree is a problem.

What I believe is possible is for this regime to find a QB who 1) is capable of executing the scheme that is in place already to a far more productive extent, and 2) in whom the existing offensive brain trust is confident enough to install and utilize more sophisticated schemes, perhaps even ones advanced enough to put us in position to contend.

I can't quantify what some are suggesting about "overwhelming personnel" being needed to win championships with this offense, and don't really care to try to break it down beyond this: I see a team with a stud RB, stud OT's, and at least one WR who should be able to function on an NFL level. I'd like to think that by next September, we'll have added at least one more WR who fits that description, and maybe even see some other help in the form of interior OL depth and capable help at TE and FB.

With those things in place, I find it hard to believe that even with our present offensive philosophy, a legitimate NFL quarterback, one who is suited to the short-passing and ball-control approach we seem to be wedded to, can't turn this into an offense capable of taking an otherwise solid team (read defense & special teams) to title contention.

Is it sexy? Absolutely not. Will they sing songs about in the hills about us 50 years from now? No again. Truth is, though, I don't care. If we're playing in late January with a chance to win it all, I could care less if it looks like Pop Warner or Kurt Warner.

I guess I'll just have to carry the flag for the (apparently quite small and) naive school of thought that maybe, just maybe, Marty Schottenheimer isn't quite as monolithic, unbending and blind to the world around him as many seem to believe.

Heck, from the way it sounds around here lately, you'd think the man was a liberal or something.

[Utah]

Looking at this from a outside coaches view, I will say this.

I see more problems at the QB position than I do at the coordinator position. In the end, with as effective as the offense was during its push after 0-5 and the losses in the close games, IMHO, not completely by bad play calling but by bad play by the QB. I would be willing to see what Raye could pull off with a QB who could at least throw on a blitz. I would bet we see a little bit more out of this offense.

Bring me a QB who can actually "see" a defense while in the pocket and I bet we see stellar improvement.

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

"He has a confidence born of demonstrated ability."

[Dirk Diggler]

On a Pop Warner offense:

What Marty has said is, "This style of play is giving us a chance to win each week."

Read into that comment. He's basically saying that our D is good enough to keep us in the game. Even give us a turnover or two. We have an utterly incompetent QB so let's not give him a chance to complete fu** things up. That's why you're seeing runs on 3rd and 8.

[Hersh]

The biggest reason we need a GM is to keep The Danny out of the spotlight. We need a GM so Daniel Snyder doesn't have to put pressure on Marty to do one thing or another. Having a GM of stature that puts Marty's butt on the hot seat for not adjusting the offense would be less of a distraction than if the media caught wind of The Danny being the one applying the pressure. It would also lend more credibility if a GM with a Super Bowl ring came in here and said we need a new direction on offense. If Marty remained stubborn, the Skins wouldn't lose any respect if a Ron Wolf type showed Marty the door as opposed to if the Danny had to do it. I believe it is important to have a GM to provide checks and balance to MArty's ego.

[Brave]

"The biggest reason we need a GM is to keep The Danny out of the spotlight." - Hersh

"I believe it is important to have a GM to provide checks and balance to MArty's ego." - Hersh

Don't think I agree with your first statement (which one is it, anyway? ) Snyder was quiet as a mouse all season long, even when half the population was sure he was about to can Marty. Snyder SHOULD put a certain amount of pressure on Marty. Hell, he's paying him big bucks to turn this team into a successful one again, not just to don the cap and stroll the sidelines.

I'll go along with the second one there, Hersh, except that I think THE RIGHT GM would be an appropriate balance to Marty's philosophy more so than his ego. All these guys in this league, from players to coaches to owners, have big egos. And understandably so. Still, I don't think we should hire a GM just to hire a GM. It needs to be the right fit ... or not happen at all.

[ by Brave on January 03, 2002.]

[VoR]

Hmmm.. getting a new coordinator, signing a FA Quarterback. Why does this all sound familiar?

Of course! It's the Tampa Bay plan. They've gone through 3 coordinators in five years, signed Brad Johnson to take 'em to the Promised land, and they're still getting the same results. Unless they can somehow win in the freezing cold, that whole staff is getting the axe after this season...

Devil's Advocate questions (purely rhetorical)...

Did Marty intentionally allow Jeff George to fail so he could prove to Snyder that he was never worth all of that money?

Is Marty doing the same thing to Westbrook? (remember, it takes two to run an impromptu deep route, one to throw and one to catch.)

Did Marty sabotage Jimmy Raye's WCO system so he could install his tried-and-true "Ground Marty" system? (he sure as hell didn't help it with his off-season moves, that's for sure.)

The answers to these questions should determine whether or not you believe Marty would change his "philosophy"...

[Art]

VoR,

Tampa has changed coordinators but they never really changed belief and therefore they continually look very similar. Replacing Raye won't help us if we maintain the same belief structure because the new coordinator would look a lot like the old one.

We can keep Raye, and change the central focus of the offense from one that is working toward getting to the fourth quarter, keeping the ball, giving the field position advantage to the defense and being in there at the end, to one that tries to get points out of every posession and puts pressure on the opposition to account for what it is doing.

Om, Marty has said, during one of the interviews during the Eagles game -- I believe, though it could have been another - "We want to be there in the fourth quarter and give ourselves a chance to win it then." That's a paraphrase.

But, Marty's essential belief is that if you can get a couple of first downs on offense, running the ball, and your kicking game is there, and your offense doesn't turn it over while you play tough defense, you will be there with a chance to win every game. He's right. But, again, this is why Marty's system requires near perfect performance levels every week to succeed. His system doesn't allow for turnovers, or the kicking game being off, or the defense having a bad day.

This Redskin team can dominate a team and beat them, like with Philly in the second game and even the Bears for much of the game, and still lose. It's a very unique system in that we can play really sound, tough football, and still get beat.

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

Doom is in the box.

[bulldog]

Marty's system in essence is akin to that played by the Capitals in the NHL for much of the last 15 or 20 years. Play defense, hit people, take no chances on offense unless they are right there in front of you and wait for the other team to make the critical error.

The knowledge of why that system has been consistently good enough to get the Capitals into the playoffs but not to beat really well-balanced, offensive squads when it counts lends you a glance into the world of Marty.

He has also struggled in the playoffs, struggled when his teams have fallen behind.

The best teams in sports can beat you with offense or defense. Look at the Lakers. They play top 5 defense but on an off night they can also score 125 to get the victory.

In the NFL, the Rams have done the same thing this year. They have gritted out the 20-17 wins over teams like the Eagles and won some shootouts 38-32 as they did last week.

The best minds know the most effective weapon is variety. Variety of ways to beat other teams and not depending on the same circumstances to propel you to victory in each encounter.

What we have is a 'one shot Charlie' in Marty. If EVERYTHING flows as it is imagined then we have a chance to win. But if anything not in the plan occurs or the other team does something unexpected than the chances of being able to counter and go on to victory are slim to none.

Just look at the second Dallas game, second Eagles game and the Bears game. Big plays by Ismail, McNabb on the fake reverse pass to Pinkston and the Urlacher touchdown off the fake were all just enough to sink this team.

Just a little razzle-dazzle of something out of the ordinary and we showed how unprepared we were.

Funny how when we run some gadget plays the opposition often stuffs it for no gain or is there in coverage to bat the ball down. Funny, eh?

[DUPLESSIS]

This is Marty's 1st year and look at all he has accomplished to make this a respectable franchise again. As was stated in another post you always want more.

We are in a good cap position, need a limited amount of new personnel to better this years record and are becoming an attraction to quality players(CHARACTER and skill!!!)again. Marty's wants the ring, he has shown us that he is capable of adjusting. He was given this team and cap issues, and didn't do half bad while not giving up the future.

If we continue to change the head man we might as well call us the Jordan-less Bullets.

Vermeil found the insight to change and he has Schotts ear, stranger things have happened.

[DUPLESSIS]

This is Marty's 1st year and look at all he has accomplished to make this a respectable franchise again. As

was stated in another post you always want more.

We are in a good cap position, need a limited amount of new personnel to better this years record and are

becoming an attraction to quality players(CHARACTER and skill!!!)again. Marty's wants the ring, he has shown

us that he is capable of adjusting. He was given this team and cap issues, and didn't do half bad while not

giving up the future.

If we continue to change the head man we might as well call us the Jordan-less Bullets.

Vermeil found the insight to change and he has Schotts ear, stranger things have happened.

[Art]

Last year we were 7-8 after 15 games. This year we are 7-8 after 15 games. Marty has us where we were, so he hasn't really advanced us to "respectibility" if we weren't already there.

I said during the offseason and I'll say again that Marty the GM did a GREAT job of sticking to a plan to get this team out of future cap difficulty and he did a splendid job of filling holes with good quality people and most of the chances he took paid off well. To be given an $80 million budget and to only spend $53 million shows great restraint, as you could have done a whole lot with this roster in the offseason. Don't mistake that with a team with cap problems. We didn't have cap problems this year, or even next. In 2003 we would have had problems, but, cash solves cap and as long as players are playing well, you can avoid that. I prefer what Marty has done and he's opened the future to more responsible management.

Marty had a plan and stuck to it and deserves credit for so doing. He also deserves blame for putting an offense that is ranked 17 spots lower than last year's unit, and a defense, that many of us feel is superior doesn't compensate for it.

Now, is this team again becomming an attraction to quality players? I don't know. We certainly got a lot of fairly priced quality vets this offseason, but, I know all of us heard the grumbles from the lockerroom with unnamed players quoted as saying they would tell any free agent to not come here. Some of that negativity has clearly started to change. Players who wanted away from Marty are coming back into the fold.

Still, Marty has been a bigger failure as the coach than as the GM. Our GM did a good job this last offseason. Our coach didn't always do the same and certainly made more mistakes. This is what we need to correct.

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

Doom is in the box.