JG or GM?

[offiss]

Originally Posted by NY_Skinsfan

Have you ever considered that these WR screens and little hitch patterns were a result of the fact that both Coles and Gardner couldn't stretch the field last year? Maybe if they had the speed that we have now with Moss and Patten things might have been different. I believe Moss is an upgrade to Coles just for the simple fact that he will be able to get down the field, which is what Gibbs wanted initially. If Patten can just hold onto the ball consistently he is an obvious upgrade right there.

You don't have to be a blazer to stretch the field, I prefer to listen to what the opposing defenses said about our offense, the pass routes were very simple, and easy to read, that is route running not lack of speed.

There is a reason Portis said the opposing teams know our plays, because there was nothing deceptive about them.

[joecrisp]

I'm one of the folks who believes this team needs a GM-- and yes, I do know what a GM does. But I think the question posed by this thread is unfair, because it doesn't allow for the possibility of having both the GM and Joe Gibbs, which was a synergistic combo that propelled the Redskins to four Super Bowl appearances and three Lombardi trophies in the 80s and 90s.

Someone made the argument that maybe the reason the Redskins don't have a GM is that good ones don't grow on trees. Well, the problem I have with that argument is that this team did have a good GM by the name of Charley Casserly, and Dan Snyder decided to boot him out the door because-- ostensibly-- Casserly couldn't coexist with Norv Turner. Now it's become clear that it was Snyder who couldn't coexist with a GM who wields anything resembling autonomous authority. Hell, even with Joe Gibbs, whom Snyder supposedly worships, Snyder has to be an equal voice in a triumvirate that includes his lackey, Vinny Cerrato. Joe Gibbs supposedly makes the final decisions, but those decisions are based in large part on the information and approval that Snyder and Cerrato give him.

However, given the limited options posed by this thread, I would certainly opt for Joe Gibbs without a GM, over a GM with "anybody" as coach. You need both a good coach and a good GM (or an equivalent entity) to consistently succeed in this league, and right now, the Skins only have one part of that equation.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

I'm one of the folks who believes this team needs a GM-- and yes, I do know what a GM does. But I think the question posed by this thread is unfair, because it doesn't allow for the possibility of having both the GM and Joe Gibbs, which was a synergistic combo that propelled the Redskins to four Super Bowl appearances and three Lombardi trophies in the 80s and 90s.

Someone made the argument that maybe the reason the Redskins don't have a GM is that good ones don't grow on trees. Well, the problem I have with that argument is that this team did have a good GM by the name of Charley Casserly, and Dan Snyder decided to boot him out the door because-- ostensibly-- Casserly couldn't coexist with Norv Turner. Now it's become clear that it was Snyder who couldn't coexist with a GM who wields anything resembling autonomous authority. Hell, even with Joe Gibbs, whom Snyder supposedly worships, Snyder has to be an equal voice in a triumvirate that includes his lackey, Vinny Cerrato. Joe Gibbs supposedly makes the final decisions, but those decisions are based in large part on the information and approval that Snyder and Cerrato give him.

However, given the limited options posed by this thread, I would certainly opt for Joe Gibbs without a GM, over a GM with "anybody" as coach. You need both a good coach and a good GM (or an equivalent entity) to consistently succeed in this league, and right now, the Skins only have one part of that equation.

What does a GM do then? Because maybe I'm confused about it then

[Redskins8588]

I may be wrong but I thought that I remember Gibbs saying that he and Bobby used to but heads sometimes on players. Anyhow Gibbs then went on to say that Bobby would draft or bring in players and Gibbs & Co. would weed them out. If this is true then Gibbs kinda had final say, but Bobby did give him some pretty good prospects.

I think in the same discussion, when Bobby brought in D. Green Gibbs thought that Bobby was trying to save money.

I think that I heard him say this stuff on the NFL network but I am not sure so take it or leave it...

[MTK]

Does anyone doubt that if Gibbs wanted a GM, and felt it was necessary, he wouldn't hesitate to bring someone in??

I remember him saying that he's willing to try anything, but he liked the current setup in the front office.

Last year worked out pretty well personnel wise, let's wait to see how year 2 plays out.

Just give it a chance guys. The kneejerk reactions here lately have been comical. We haven't even seen these guys play, and some of us are already convinced it was a bad draft.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Seriously. People are calling for blood already. If anything, Rodgers should almost immediately impact the D.

[JoeRedskin]

Last year was frustrating (as were the many years before it). Mainly (well other than the Brunnell factor) because most of us on this site believe this team has real talent. Also, most of us believe Gibbs is an excellent coach who can learn and adjust but he didn't seem to demonstrate that ability last year since everyone and their brother was calling our offense vanilla. Even when he made adjustments that seem to be working, he didn't stick with them.

I personally LIKE the offseason moves we have made this year (yes - even Campbell). They seem to be an adjustment from past years - win now, trade/sign players now and hope the chemistry will develop. Gibbs, as GM, seems to be saying - build for next year and the following year, not this year. I think (and this is purely my opinion) that Gibbs believes that the talent on this team can get him to the playoffs this year (maybe further) and that it is important to lay the groundwork for the future. As a GM, Gibbs' seems to have learned from the "Brunnell Factor" - don't overpay for vets. From the departures of Smoot & Pierce, Gibbs got the message that, generally in today's game, money talks and "core Redskins" walk. Today's GM game is about getting the next gen players ready before the current starters sniff the big payday.

So it seems to me, Gibbs the GM is learning from his mistakes and getting replacement players ready while making sure potential players are ready to step in. (BTW - here is a nice article on why the Campbell pick makes sense: http://www.washtimes.com/sports/2005...1046-3165r.htm).

If Gibbs the coach has learned about the current game during the 2004 season and adjust his system to adapt to and exploit the new defenses - all will be well in Redskin land.

If not, pass the hemlock please - Cause if Gibbs, the only coach who can overrule Snyder/Cerrato and keep Danny Boy in line, can't win - No one can.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by offiss

IF Gibbs doesn't want to change his style then why on earth would he trade for Portis and give him 50mil? Portis coming out of the denver system which is a zone blocking system which allows the RB's to cut back when the hole emerges, that's who Portis is, he's a system back, not a Gibbs power back who can run between the tackles he's not built for that.

I suppose you only read what you want to read, but I did say there is nothing wrong with installing a few plays designed FOR Portis, but there is no sense in overhauling the ENTIRE offense and building it around one player. Joe Washington wasn't a power back...from what I remember, Washington was something around the size of Portis..maybe even smaller. If Gibbs' intention was to change his offense completely, then we would have been running nothing but zone blocking running plays from day one. This, obviously, was not the case.

[CrazyCanuck]

This is the first rhetorical poll I've seen on the Warpath.

[Schneed10]

Last year if you looked at the Redskins MLB position after Barrow went down, you would have said we're in trouble. But what happened, Pierce stepped up. For that reason, you can't say now whether any positions were truly upgraded or downgraded. The fact is we don't know yet. For all you know, McCune is the next Pierce, Garnell Wilds will become a Pro-Bowler when Springs and Rogers tear their ACLs, and for all you know Mark Brunell will replace Patrick Ramsey as the starter and play at a pro-bowl level.

Some of those things don't seem so likely, but exactly how likely did you think it was that Antonio Pierce would become the player he was last year? So give it time before you start passing judgment.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I suppose you only read what you want to read, but I did say there is nothing wrong with installing a few plays designed FOR Portis, but there is no sense in overhauling the ENTIRE offense and building it around one player. Joe Washington wasn't a power back...from what I remember, Washington was something around the size of Portis..maybe even smaller. If Gibbs' intention was to change his offense completely, then we would have been running nothing but zone blocking running plays from day one. This, obviously, was not the case.

Your way off base here, a few play's? Did we give up everything for a few plays for Portis? If your going to make comparisons then get them right, Joe Washington was a third down back, we had a player taking the bulk of the handoff's his name was John Riggins, perhaps you heard of him? In Gibbs system as it stands Portis is a 3rd down back he will never last if we contiue to use him as he was last year, that's why JW wasen't a featured back.

If your not going to build your offense around a particular player and take advantage of his abilities, then you don't give up Champ, a second rd. pick, and 50 mil for him, it's that simple!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

So what you're really trying to say is, you DON'T think Portis is our biggest offensive weapon?

[SmootSmack]

Isn't Portis' size comparable to Earnest Byner? We did fine with him

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I definitely think Portis will be a great back for us. Granted, his YPC weren't his GREATEST, but the blocking schemes were not suited for him. As the season went on, the blocking schemes changed. I'd love to see his YPC in the first 8 games and the last 8.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Due to some boredom, I kind of disproved my own theory. Here is Portis' stats in the first half and second half of the season:

5.1 TB
3.5 NYG
4.1 DAL
2.9 CLE
2.1 BAL
4.8 CHI
4.1 GB

3.8 YPC First Half

4.3
4.8 CIN
2.2 PHI
2.8 PIT
4.8 NYG
3.5 PHI
3.1 SF
3.2 DAL

3.6 YPC Second Half

Also, take into account that we played Philly twice and the Steelers.