WP article: Time for Gibbs to walk away?

This is true, but who else would replace Gibbs in this franchise. we are afraid to return back to the norv/marty/spurrier days, though marty is worth looking for again, despite his reputation for playoff meltdown.

though coaching has past Gibbs, what we need here is continuity. and changing for this organization equals bad things, and up to know there is still traces of the result of these changes.

A little perspective on another beatdown. On 9/29/85 the eventual champ Bears stomped Gibbs' Skins, 45-10 (Keep in mind. Back then coaches didn't run up the score unless they had a personal beef w/each other. Ditka & Gibbs always respected 1 another.)

A year later, see the entry from wikipedia below (notice the injury list). In addition to that, we beat them in the 1987-8 playoffs & went on to win the super bowl.

My point?
Gibbs has been through this before & while I agree w/much of what Shapiro said, this team may not be as far away as we think.

"The Bears were heavy favorites in the post season. They earned a first round bye. But in the first game at Soldier Field, they were upset by the Washington Redskins. A holding penalty and a missed field goal by Kevin Butler frustrated the Bears in the first quarter. However, they still managed to take a 13-7 lead into halftime. But their usual stellar defense fell apart in the second half, allowing the Redskins to score 20 unanswered points.

"Maybe my dreams didn't come true," said Chicago Coach Mike Ditka. "The defense has to play outstanding and today they were just not up to the way the Redskins were playing."

Despite injuries to offensive linemen Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm, they and the rest of the blockers were able to pick up the Bears patented blitzes. Quarterback Jay Schroeder was sacked only twice. He was also able to use the blitzes to his advantage, completing passes while being chased out of the pocket.

Trailing 14-13 in the 4th quarter, the Bears good fortune ran out, when the usually dependable Payton lost a fumble, which led to an 83-yard touchdown drive by the Redskins. The long drive perpetrated against the NFL's best defense seemed to take the wind out of the Bears' sails. A few minutes later, the Bears muffed a punt return which set up an easy field goal for the Redskins.

When it was all said and done, the Bears lost 27-13. Still, they had a fantastic season overall, despite their weaknesses on offense and the poor play of their quarterbacks."

For the record i'd like to see Gibbs stay at least til the end of next year. The article doesn't really say anything new. There is alot of truth to it, but nothing new.

There are really 2 sides to Gibbs 2.0.

Gibbs and co. have really done some great things in FA and in the draft. W/out doing my homework you've got Cooley, ST, Rocky, Landry, Golston, Montgomery, JC, & Rogers that have been drafted. You've got MW, Fletcher, Moss, ARE, Randy Thomas, Rabach, as some noteable FA's.

On the other hand some of the FO blunders leave a black eye on all of the good things they've done. #1 imo is the Brunell deal. Most didn't understand it at the time and still don't. Then you have in no particular order the Portis deal-throwing in a pick, LLoyd, Duckett, and AA. Just horrible deals that we all questioned at the time.

No new news here and sorry to bring it up again but the point is we do need a GM. This season still can be a success though, so the doom and gloom of the article for this year i don't really agree w/. I'm not ready to give up on it yet as we are 4-3.

Unless we hire The All Mighty himself as General Manager, anyone we bring in will make plenty of mistakes as well. This notion that a GM is just going to magically fix everything (and never mind that they would still probably answer to at least Gibbs and Snyder) is beyond me.

A little perspective on another beatdown. On 9/29/85 the eventual champ Bears stomped Gibbs' Skins, 45-10 (Keep in mind. Back then coaches didn't run up the score unless they had a personal beef w/each other. Ditka & Gibbs always respected 1 another.)

A year later, see the entry from wikipedia below (notice the injury list). In addition to that, we beat them in the 1987-8 playoffs & went on to win the super bowl.

My point?
Gibbs has been through this before & while I agree w/much of what Shapiro said, this team may not be as far away as we think.

"The Bears were heavy favorites in the post season. They earned a first round bye. But in the first game at Soldier Field, they were upset by the Washington Redskins. A holding penalty and a missed field goal by Kevin Butler frustrated the Bears in the first quarter. However, they still managed to take a 13-7 lead into halftime. But their usual stellar defense fell apart in the second half, allowing the Redskins to score 20 unanswered points.

"Maybe my dreams didn't come true," said Chicago Coach Mike Ditka. "The defense has to play outstanding and today they were just not up to the way the Redskins were playing."

Despite injuries to offensive linemen Joe Jacoby and Russ Grimm, they and the rest of the blockers were able to pick up the Bears patented blitzes. Quarterback Jay Schroeder was sacked only twice. He was also able to use the blitzes to his advantage, completing passes while being chased out of the pocket.

Trailing 14-13 in the 4th quarter, the Bears good fortune ran out, when the usually dependable Payton lost a fumble, which led to an 83-yard touchdown drive by the Redskins. The long drive perpetrated against the NFL's best defense seemed to take the wind out of the Bears' sails. A few minutes later, the Bears muffed a punt return which set up an easy field goal for the Redskins.

When it was all said and done, the Bears lost 27-13. Still, they had a fantastic season overall, despite their weaknesses on offense and the poor play of their quarterbacks."

Fair enough, but do you really think we could ever beat the Patriots with this team? Honestly? If we played 100 times could we win one?

Fair enough, but do you really think we could ever beat the Patriots with this team? Honestly? If we played 100 times could we win one?

Actually, yes. They are by far the better team, but I thought going in we had a chance. I thought we still had a chance when we got Brady's fumble. Once they got a fumble in return, the wheels came off. The D was clearly worn out, more mentally than physically.

JC missed a couple throws he shouldn't have in the 1st half & the fumbles were due mainly to poor blocks, although Vrabel made a hell of a play on the one when he snuck up under CP. Even a 52-7 game still hinges on a couple plays. Not saying we'd won, but if we score to make it 17-7 at half, you have a different game.

In addition, GW didn't want to blitz w/Rogers & Smoot healthy, but if we were to play them again I think he'd definitely have a different game plan that included at least a few blitzes.

We got whooped but I don't think we're as bad as we played. Much of it is psychological and Gibbs biggest task is to get this team to step up & take control like they did in 05 after losing to the g-men & oakland. That aspect of Gibbs is what I have confidence in.

They show get a GM, but Gibbs needs to take back over the playcalling. With his playbook. 50 Gut- counter trey = AL Saunders running plays up the middle

You guys, I read an article a few years back that said there is not a lot of difference between teams that finish 10-6 or 6-10. A few plays here and there every week decides these team's fates. Teams that finish 11-5 or higher or 5-11 or lower are clearly better or worst than most teams they face. Last year the Skins were 5-11 with injuries and a QB change. The Skins were not that good at all. This year they are one of these teams that will finish somewhere between 10-6 and 6-10. I am personally hoping for the 10-6, or 9-7 side of this scale, but again a few plays here or there in each game will determine the Redskin's fates. A lot of those plays are luck and don't have anything to do with coaching, (missed FG, dropped pass, a fumble you don't recover) they are all "breaks" that either go your way or don't. We all know that the Skins have had a conservative game plan, the only fault with that to me is that Gibbs is trying too hard to control these "breaks", when you really can't. The best you can do with the talent of a 10-6 to 6-10 scaled team, (which IMO is the skill level of the team we have currently) is to play all out every play every week and hope more "breaks" come your way than the other team. Teams like the Pats, and the Colts don't play that way, because they are 11-5 or higher teams. The Skins are not.

They show get a GM, but Gibbs needs to take back over the playcalling. With his playbook. 50 Gut- counter trey = AL Saunders running plays up the middle

I know that Portis is having trouble right now, but asking Al Saunders to run the ball up the gut might be a little too much to ask.

For some reason, when people question how long it takes to build a Super Bowl winner, I think of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Bill Cowher. He was the Steelers coach for 15 years, and made it to the Super Bowl twice, winning once (14th season). While other teams went through coaches left and right, including the Redskins, Cowher was a mainstay in Pittsburgh.

I think whomever takes over for Gibbs (when he's ready to leave on his terms...he will not be fired), this is the style of approach necessary to build a winner. Cowher had 3 losing seasons in 15 years. The Rooneys gave him what he needed, and Cowher led them on the field.

Now, don't get me wrong...I know of the talk of Cowher being the next coach here. And I'm certainly not on the Cowher bandwagon to bring him here. We have 2 perfectly good candidates in Saunders and Williams to take over this team when Gibbs is ready. I see Gibbs keeping his Team President role and giving the next head coach what they need to be successful.

The New England game was an anomaly. New England played at the top of their game, while the Skins played at the bottom. This team is better than what we saw last Sunday, and I don't think we'll see that "team" again the rest of the season. The nice thing: at 4-3, we still have plenty of time to right the ship.