Casserly Keeping his options open

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying the coaching staff is fine but it doesn't really matter because they don't have the right players to coach?

Based on the past success of Gibbs, Williams, and Saunders, I don't think any deserve to be fired. That's not to say there weren't breakdowns in certain fundamentals of coaching, because obviously there were. For the sake of continuity with regard to offensive and defensive systems and philosophies, I think it's best that the coaching staff remain intact.

I just don't want them in charge of personnel anymore.

Prioleau is not a starter. We still had Springs for more than half the year, along with Portis.

Let's not blame this season on injuries. That would take us to a whole new level of ignorance.

GW said Prioleau was going to play ahead of AA after his injury.

Salave'a missed time as well.

Also, some players have been playing hurt like Griffin and Jansen.

So just because we had a banged up Portis for the first half of the season, and a still not quite 100% Springs for the second half, we should just overlook those key injuries in the grand scheme of the season?

I'd say it's very fair to factor injuries in to the final result of the season.

Based on the past success of Gibbs, Williams, and Saunders, I don't think any deserve to be fired. That's not to say there weren't breakdowns in certain fundamentals of coaching, because obviously there were. For the sake of continuity with regard to offensive and defensive systems and philosophies, I think it's best that the coaching staff remain intact.

I just don't want them in charge of personnel anymore.


I actually wouldn't mind the team letting go of Steve Jackson - Jerry Gray is a better secondary coach and do we really need a seperate safeties coach?

So LT gets hurt, I guess it's just too bad, so sad for the Chargers right?

How about the Bengals in the playoffs last year with Palmer?

I think some people want someone who is omniscient rather than a GM.

Those who defend this front office have to do it with "what ifs" and hypotheticals. The skeptics, those who criticize the current system only have to point to the scoreboard.

This is just a thought, but... the people who blindly and relentlessly defend the upper levels of the franchise who are in charge of personnel -- weren't they the same people who told us that everything would be fine once the exhibition games were over and the regular season started?

I'm not calling for major changes to the coaching staff. I believe the structure is fine just the way it is -- and Saunders WILL pay dividends, it's only a matter of time. And I don't buy into the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' arguement.

I am firmly on the side that says the personnel decision making process needs to be revised. What has to stop is the current system, which resembles a couple of teenagers with a blank check from Daddy Warbucks'.

I'm not blindly following anything, and I'm pretty much done with defending myself on that point. Last year wasn't a what if, remarkable as it may have seemed to some, the personnel that was selected by this front office led this team to 11 wins including the playoffs. It's not crazy to think that it can happen again.

Back to my hypothetical, because that is what we do here on occassion, what if this team goes to the Super Bowl? Will the front office get any credit, or will the team have somehow overcome the totally inept front office??

Of course Matty. It's one or the other. Someone has to focus on the negative. Someone will say, "Man, if we had a GM would have been undefeated this year!" This all begs the question of whether or not the team would perform as it has for another coach. THAT'S when I don't question Gibbs. Sure, I'm not a Gibbs apologist by any means, but talk about a guy who can motivate and run a team.

Yes, Pierson IS a starter. He was scheduled to start alongside Taylor in the opener.


NO Pierson's NOT the starter. He wasn't the starter last year. Ryan Clark was, then Arculeta was brought in to replace him. Prioleau was a back-up. Notice also he was injured on a special teams play.

Now, you could make the argument that since Archuleta is an incompetent, inept BUFFOON, Prioleau would have been called upon to start in place of him. But who's fault was that? Could it be the fault of the people who called for Randle El AND Brandon Lloyd when James Thrash and David Patten were riding the pine? Could minor adjustments here and there, say ... taking a corner instead of Rocky McIntosh (who only took 13 games or so before he was ready for significant playing time) have something to do with the fact that there's no one else to turn to in the secondary but Mike Rumph and Ade Frickin' Jimoh?

Or, that we have to depend on Warrick Holdman when Antonio Pierce might have offered a better alternative at linebacker? Noooo. Now Antonio sits in the middle of a pentagram, surrounded by burning candles in a hypnotic trance whenever he gets the chance to play his former team to inflict revenge like the kind the Redskins have never seen!

Oh that's right. I'm thinking of Mike Barrow, not Holdman. How could I have forgotten that brilliant addition?

What else needs to happen before you concede that the way things are set up now don't exactly work?

All I need to know is I look at the people we have now, that came from this current group of coaches. We have Portis, Moss, and a number of great defensive starters. You forgot to mention THEM didntcha'?

And yes, Pierson was slated to start because of the strike-out on AA. That happens. GM. No GM.

Prioleau was scheduled to start week one

In the NFL, everybody hurts - Sports - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper (http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20061205-114824-6486r.htm)

Either way, he was a big loss in terms of flexibility in the secondary.