Here's an Idea- TRUST JOE GIBBS...

[Cannon2]

Originally posted by Kevin B.

They don't call this EXTREMEskins for nothing!!!

Amen. We are all our own judge, jury and executioner and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Voice of Reason]

To skin_finatic and skins-in-vegas, an intelligent response would be more than welcome.

[Om]

Question for those who so blithely throw aroung the contention that Gibbs has a questionable history as a personnel guy.

Can anyone here make a strong, fact-supported case for that? Including things like noting exactly what his role/involvement was in making each move you cite? And taking into account the totality of circumstances at the time the move was made?

It's become almost part of Redskin fan lexicon at this point to repeat the mantra that Gibbs doesn't have a clue as a personnel evaluator. Yet I've never seen ONE credible case made in in support of that beyond the usual, "well, look at Desmond Howard and Mark Brunell."

That superficial, disingenuous level of analysis may play at the corner bar, and even on most message board threads these days, but among fans who try to look just a litlte bit deeper than that and take in the big picture, it rings every bit as hollow as the ubiquitous "Snyder's still playing GM!" and "Cap hell in '00 (and '02, and '03, and '04, and '05, and '06 ...)!" threads that tend to dominate the landscape these days.

This isn't just pissing in the wind here. I'd seriously like to see someone take a stab at the definitive "Joe Gibbs is not a good personnel evaluator" piece.

No rush. I'll be here.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Originally posted by essex03

Two more words:

DESMOND HOWARD

I trust Gibbs to COACH, but we will never be worth a damn until we get a competent GM and the "franchise" stops worrying about selling ad space at FedEx Field rather than putting a winning team on the field. Period.

Didn't the Skins have a GM when they picked Howard??...

And Westbrook??...

And Lang??...

And Shuler??...

And Carter??...

And Andre Johnson??...

And....and....and.....lol

[zoony]

Originally posted by Om

Question for those who so blithely throw aroung the contention that Gibbs has a questionable history as a personnel guy.

Can anyone here make a strong, fact-supported case for that? Including things like noting exactly what his role/involvement was in making each move you cite? And taking into account the totality of circumstances at the time the move was made?

It's become almost part of Redskin fan lexicon at this point to repeat the mantra that Gibbs doesn't have a clue as a personnel evaluator. Yet I've never seen ONE credible case made in in support of that beyond the usual, "well, look at Desmond Howard and Mark Brunell."

That superficial, disingenuous level of analysis may play at the corner bar, and even on most message board threads these days, but among fans who try to look just a litlte bit deeper than that and take in the big picture, it rings every bit as hollow as the ubiquitous "Snyder's still playing GM!" and "Cap hell in '00 (and '02, and '03, and '04, and '05, and '06 ...)!" threads that tend to dominate the landscape these days.

This isn't just pissing in the wind here. I'd seriously like to see someone take a stab at the definitive "Joe Gibbs is not a good personnel evaluator" piece.

No rush. I'll be here.

Harr-umph! Harr-umph! Harr-umph!!!!!

[DB44]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason

Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

Dude, I don't know where to begin.

First off, Welcome aboard! This is the best fan site around (and I hope you are a fan).

Try to remember Coach Gibbs had a formula for success. That success starts with a veteran QB. One that can handle pressure, and pick a team up when they are down. Typically, rookie/2nd/3rd year QB's can't handle this pressure. So Coach decided to bring a veteran QB. There was an open competition for the starting QB position. Brunell won it(barely).

Also The Clinton Portis/Chump Bailey situation was the best solution, given the circumstances. Will Coach Gibbs be able to get the Offensive Playbook to evolve into some new offensive scheme? My money says yes.

I would agree that Portis is not a "typical" Joe Gibbs back, and I am hopeful they will still pick up a short yardage back. There's that kid from Louisville that looks impressive.

I believe Gibbs has more control over team than you think, and they will be better next year.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason

To skin_finatic and skins-in-vegas, an intelligent response would be more than welcome.

why sure noob!

The general testing procedure is to choose a specific hypothesis to be tested, called the null hypothesis, pick an appropriate sample, and use measurements from that sample to determine the likelyhood of the null hypothesis. Conclusions are never stated with absolute certainty, but rather with associated significance levels. There are two types of possible errors that we consider: the error of mistakenly rejecting the true null hypothesis and the error of mistakenly failing to reject a false null hypothesis.

That being said, your noobish first post still sucked.....Troll.

[Om]

Originally posted by MRMADD

Yes.

It makes for funny arguments: one side says, "If Joe Gibbs had just kept Smoot, Pierce, and Coles, the Skins would make the playoffs!" The other side says, "Joe knows a hell of a lot more than you do. How dare you suggest he's wrong?"

Both sides are equally bad. Your friend Voice of Reason voices (pun intended) treasonous or sacreligous (depending on your point of view) arguments, and the response is not to logically examine his points and refute them (were there other RBs available cheaper who could do what Portis does? Was Brunell to old to help?) but to simply shout, "Cast out the infidel!"

Pathetic. That's why this place is getting lame -- the "defenders of the faith" spend all their time attacking anyone who ventures a contrary opinion because they've become so defensive over the past few years. Kick a dog long enough and he expect every hand extended his way to hit him -- so he bites. You guys bite every Voice of Reason you meet -- and miss opportunities to lay out arguments for the other side.

It forces you to take, by default, undefendable positions. No, Mark Brunell was not a good addition. He costs a fortune and can't contribute -- and can't be cut. But because you dogs have been kicked so often, even that truly indisputable argument sometimes merits a "how dare you question Joe?" response.

Non-responsive. And wrong. Both sides are NOT "equally bad."

Joe Gibbs is a Hall of Fame Coach who has spent the last 15 months reimmersing himself in both the NFL and the Washington Redskins. He spends his days and nights applying his vast body of knowledge and the genius that MADE him a Hall of Fame NFL coach to rebuilding a floundering organization. He'd be the first to tell us he's made mistakes. And he'd be qualified to tell us what they were.

Voice of Reason is an anonymous poster on a message board. Should he turn out be one of the handful of human beings on the planet with a football resume even ON the same planet with someone like Gibbs----Parcells, perhaps; maybe Belichick; hell, even Marv Levy---I'll take his contention that "Gibbs is out of his league" as something more than message board testosterone-drive chest thumping.

Until then ... not.

Lame, you say? Agreed. Just not in the direction you're thinking.

[The Dark Horse]

I'm so embarrased by the way a large part of our fanbase is treating Gibbs - it's why I barely post there days.

[Om]

My response? Don't let the ****s get you down.

Join the Forces of Light.

[triple6mafia]

My friends who aren't skins fans asked me what we were doing. I was like, there are so many options, I don't know what to do. I said I'm just gonna trust gibbs. So, needless to say, Im with you on this one. He has a plan and an idea obviously. I trust him.

[zoony]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

why sure noob!

The general testing procedure is to choose a specific hypothesis to be tested, called the null hypothesis, pick an appropriate sample, and use measurements from that sample to determine the likelyhood of the null hypothesis. Conclusions are never stated with absolute certainty, but rather with associated significance levels. There are two types of possible errors that we consider: the error of mistakenly rejecting the true null hypothesis and the error of mistakenly failing to reject a false null hypothesis.

That being said, your noobish first post still sucked.....Troll.

my null hypothesis is that Voice of Reason has his head up his own A$$

My sample would be his posts on ES

I have measured the sample, and the likelyhood of the null hypothesis is about 99.99%. (note the lack of an absolute certainty )

As for the potential errors... the null hypothesis stands on its own.

[mookie0720]

Om,

I raise the same question, only in reverse...

What has Gibbs done that shows we should blindly follow his personel decisions?

I don't consider the pickups we made on defense to be his doing, considering he has said many times that he allowed Greg Williams to make those choices.

I'm not ready to write him off just yet, but if we really do make one of these foolish deals like trading up for Edwards, taking Campbell at 25, then it won't be long before I am.

What bothers me most about this front office group is how sloppy things are. Leaks getting out about who we are going to draft, Cerrato and Gibbs saying contrasting things to the press, overpaying for draft picks.

Regardless of who we pick in a trade up situation, or even at #25, we gave up way too much to get them.

If we trade up for Edwards, we've given up 4 draft picks, which there isn't a player in the league that would fetch that many picks if traded.

If we stay at 25 and take Campbell, we've given up 3 picks for a guy that doesn't fill a position of need, and was projected in the 2nd round.

Add the amount of picks we gave up to the fact that Gibbs doesn't play rookie QB's and he's only going to be here for 3 more years max, it makes no sense to draft a rookie QB.

It is my feeling that this draft is going to be the deciding factor on how many people, including myself, view Gibbs in the front office.

[tkatz]

Ghost,

You have made some very good posts over the last few months but this isnt one of them. First and foremost Joe Gibbs never had full say over who was drafted and such. There was a general manager and several others who had input. So Joe is new at this and may not get it right away. Secondly, I dont care who the coach or GM is, some of the moves the Redskins have made this offseason (especially the trade as of late) is deserving of questions and concern. I do not claim or pretend to know anywhere near how much Joe Gibbs or the FO knows, I dont even pretend to know as much as half the extreme skins members but when controversial decisons are made its almost a smart thing to question and think through to see where the logic of the move comes from. Yes, I trust Joe Gibbs but some of the moves the team has made I question. I think to blindly trust ANYONE in the NFL is a mistake that somewhere down the line you will pay for.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Originally posted by mookie0720

Om,

It is my feeling that this draft is going to be the deciding factor on how many people, including myself, view Gibbs in the front office.

Sounds like you already HAVE made your mind up about Gibbs...you're just waiting for the verification that you're pretty positive will come before saying "See, I told you".

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by zoony

my null hypothesis is that Voice of Reason has his head up his own A$$

My sample would be his posts on ES

I have measured the sample, and the likelyhood of the null hypothesis is about 99.99%. (note the lack of an absolute certainty )

As for the potential errors... the null hypothesis stands on its own.

I hate to be a stickler, but his null hypothesis is actually "he doesnt have his head up his a$$"

That way when you reject the null.....

well, you get it!

Plus, since he is a cheerleader, there is very little sampling to disprove my null.

[mookie0720]

Originally posted by Califan007

Sounds like you already HAVE made your mind up about Gibbs...you're just waiting for the verification that you're pretty positive will come before saying "See, I told you".

Well let me ask you then, what is your opinion of Gibbs as a personel guy going to be if we actually do one of the 2 things I said?

You have to admit, it's going to be hard not to question.

[TK]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason

Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Really? How so?

Brunell was a mistake.

Maybe. Maybe not. There was ALOT wrong wrong the O besides Brunell. WR's running the wrong routes. Gardner couldn't catch. Coles had a bum toe. McCants didn't care for practice. No Jansen. We had a poatched together O-Line that leaked like a sieve. Ramsey was coming off foot surgury. Get the idea yet?

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

And Roland wasn't going to be a part the team no matter what. His time had come. Joe got value for him. Portis still had over 1500 all purpose yards even when other teams defenses would stack the line on him. Also see the above mentioned O-line problems.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office.

Gibbs is the FO. Go read the chat with Vinny Cerato on the front page if you can't understand that. The education might do you bit of good & make you breathe a little bit easier.

The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions.

What leaks? Or are you referring to the media creating their own story because the team isn't saying much this close to the draft?

[MRMADD]

This isn't just pissing in the wind here. I'd seriously like to see someone take a stab at the definitive "Joe Gibbs is not a good personnel evaluator" piece.

OM

This is an EXCELLENT example of my point. Why so defensive? Secondly, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. No one can definitively prove that Gibbs is NOT a good evaluator. It's logically impossible. It is possible, however, to argue that some of the personnel moves that are attributed to Gibbs (Howard, Brunell) were bad -- it is not possible to prove that he's a bad evaluator.

I can, for example, prove that it rained yesterday. I can't prove that it didn't.

Why don't you put the onus on yourself? Prove that he IS a good evaluator -- or at least demonstrate that he's had some success there.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by MRMADD

OM

This is an EXCELLENT example of my point. Why so defensive? Secondly, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. No one can definitively prove that Gibbs is NOT a good evaluator. It's logically impossible. It is possible, however, to argue that some of the personnel moves that are attributed to Gibbs (Howard, Brunell) were bad -- it is not possible to prove that he's a bad evaluator.

I can, for example, prove that it rained yesterday. I can't prove that it didn't.

Why don't you put the onus on yourself? Prove that he IS a good evaluator -- or at least demonstrate that he's had some success there.

easy one.

how did Joes first pic as a personel decision maker work out for us last year?

[mookie0720]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

easy one.

how did Joes first pic as a personel decision maker work out for us last year?

That was really hard....

We had to choose between 2 guys who were widely known as the best prospects to ever come out at their position.

Who knows what KWII would've done with us?

He may not have gotten hurt.

It's not really a good example of his abilities to evaluate talent when he's picking between the 2 best players to ever come out at their position.

[Voice of Reason]

A comprehensive list of Joe Gibbs' talent evaluating blunders (as requested by Om):

1) Mark Brunell (let's not forget this one was a $49 million mistake)

2) Michael Barrow (everyone else knew he was injured)

3) Clinton Portis (don't tell me we couldn't have found someone better and for a much better price/salary)

4) this year's clan of tight ends (Rasby, Kozlowski, Sellars all disappointed)

5) Darnerian McCants/Patrick Ramsey (both shined when they played)

Now I realize the Chris Cooleys, the Marcus Washingtons, the Shawn Springs, and the rest of the positive acquisitions outnumber the mistakes. That said, Brunell and Portis are too expensive and too important to have made mistakes on.

Om's claims that Snyder is running the show are flat out wrong, and he knows it full well. Daniel Snyder accomodated any move that Joe Gibbs wanted to make, but made no moves on his own. What greater evidence do you have that Snyder is running the show than I have that Gibbs is running the show? Gibbs is the general manager and was given full control over player acquisitons within his contract. Snyder would not have hired Gibbs if he intended to sustain a similar role in player evaluation. In addtion, Gibbs has stood behind all moves with full responsibility. Had Snyder worked the deal with Brunell, I find it hard to believe Gibbs would have given Brunell so much support through the media and on the field, unless of course you believe Daniel Snyder is the coach as well (which wouldn't surprise me).

The blind trust you guys submit to Joe Gibbs is just that - blind. Gibbs was given $100 million last year to find himself a starting quarterback and a starting running back - he failed miserably. Why do I, or anyone else, owe it to Joe Gibbs and his acheivements of the 1980s to give him a free pass in 2005.

And by the way, I did not think too highly of the Brunell or the Portis acquisitions. I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.

[mookie0720]

While I'm obviously more inclined to be on Voice of Reason's side of this argument, I do have to point out that Barrow is a Greg Williams pick, and nobody expected those TE's to be productive, they were basement bargain players.

[Mister Happy]

Keep in mind that most of the so-called bad things this offseason have also been on the defensive side - not resigning Smoot and Pierce, LaVar complaining, Sean Taylor not coming to camp. How do you even know the draft trade wasn't made with the defense in mind? 2 of our 3 main draft needs are on defense.

If you want to say how great the front office did on defense last year, you can't turn around and say they have no record of success to base any faith on. Their track record on defense is excellent.

Have some faith in our defensive staff. There's nothing to show they don't deserve it.

[MRMADD]

I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.

Sheesh. The guy gets one year? Even Spurrier got two.