Hall In, Taylor Out??

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

First, if I were to sit him, it'd be more for not calling Gibbs back than anything.

Second, you have to understand that the NFLPA is nothing more, and nothing less than a labor union. Anything that is not in the collective bargaining agreement is simply untouchable by the union. They can piss and moan about how their player is being treated, but they have no legal power to do anything that is not forbidden by the collective bargaining agreeement. Without a doubt, I am sure that certain forms of "discipline" are covered, including fines, suspensions, extra calisthenics at practices, and probably even certain forms of verbal or physical reprimand. But there is no way the union can have any say over whether a team labels a guy as "starter" or "second string" because the implimentation of those restrictions would be completely unworkable. There are simply too many outs for a team to justify their lineup for the NFLPA to have any say over how a team sets its lineup, and, therefore, any clause related to grievances for playing time or string designation would be too vague and ambiguous to be enforceable. As such, it is inconceivable that such a clause would even be included in the collective bargaining agreement. There is simply no "right to be first string" for the NFLPA to enforce.

That said, I see that I am in the serious minority of people who would sit ST for a couple series to teach him a lesson about respect, so I will just accept that and move on. Here's to hoping that ST learned everything he needs to know about being an NFL safety in his rookie year so that learning defensive sets and techniques at the OTAs proves to be a more pointless exercise to him than hacking away on the playstation in Miami.

Yeah dude you sound like you'd run the team like Tom Coughlin. First, sitting him for a couple of series hardly sends any message at all. I don't even know what the point would be. They'd basically be saying, "Sean, we don't like you missing OTAs, so we're going to sit you to start the game. But we're going to get you back in the lineup real quick because we think you're that good, despite the fact that you missed the OTAs."

I just don't see the point. Rule with an iron fist and players are going to start getting pissed at you. Being a hard-ass is one thing, but if your players resent you they won't play for you. You want tough discipline, but not at the expense of rationality. The punishment has to fit the crime. And since these are voluntary workouts there is no crime, and hence there should be no punishment.

[Schneed10]

That said, I'm not making excuses for him. If he starts missing mandatory camps and practices, then I'll have a serious problem.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

1. I doubt that the Skins will trade Sean Taylor because I don't think they could get sufficient value in return to take the chance that this guy actually realizes his physical potential as a football player. Imagine if they cut him loose and in anotehr year or so Taylor grows up and becomes a latter-day Ronnie Lott. Once again the Skins' organization will look like bumbling fools. They won't take that risk...

2. I know we haven't heard Taylor say he wants a new contract - because we haven't heard him say anything at all including that he does NOT want a new contract - but here's the fly in the ointment. Why did he hire Drew Rosenhaus - currently the King of Contract Renegotiation in the NFL? Maybe Taylor just hired him because he thinks Rosenhaus is a nice guy - - or maybe ...

3. I have no idea if "all Taylor wants to do is play football" because I can't read his mind. If he wants to play football so much, I'd expect him to be at the "voluntary" team events - - but that's just me. I'll defer to the mind-reading experts here as to what he REALLY wants to do.

4. I don't know if he is a bad guy or a good guy either. I do know that he is not a very reliable guy; I know he does not plan ahead in his life very well; I know that he doesn't always think that rules apply to him. I know those things because of his behaviors and not because I can read his mind.

5. I think the KEY question for the coaching staff to evaluate here is whether ot not Taylor's behavior in not returning phone calls and missing voluntary workouts will spill over to other players on the team. IF they conclude that it will - or it has - then they need to do something to punish Taylor - and others - for such behaviors. IF they conclude it will not, then they need to decide whether or not a punishment for Sean Taylor will get him to behave the way they would want him to behave or if it will make him a bigger MEATHEAD. That is the current Joe Gibbs Challenge!

On point number 5, it seems that every other player is at the OTAs, so I don't think Taylor is spreading any cancer throughout the team. As Gibbs continues to fill the locker room with good-character guys, attitudes like Taylor's become an increasing minority, thereby minimizing the chances that a few bad apples will spoil the bunch.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah dude you sound like you'd run the team like Tom Coughlin. First, sitting him for a couple of series hardly sends any message at all. I don't even know what the point would be. They'd basically be saying, "Sean, we don't like you missing OTAs, so we're going to sit you to start the game. But we're going to get you back in the lineup real quick because we think you're that good, despite the fact that you missed the OTAs."

I just don't see the point. Rule with an iron fist and players are going to start getting pissed at you. Being a hard-ass is one thing, but if your players resent you they won't play for you. You want tough discipline, but not at the expense of rationality. The punishment has to fit the crime. And since these are voluntary workouts there is no crime, and hence there should be no punishment.

No, Tom Coughlin is an ass. I don't agree with his coaching style at all, and I would not run my team like him. Not sure where you fail to see the middle ground here, but I'm not talking about a guy showing up 5 minutes late for a team meeting. I'm talking about a second-year guy completely ignoring his coach, showing complete disdain for his entire team, and missing workouts he really does need............not a pro-bowler who shows up late for one meeting (a.k.a Michael Strahan).

And the point of sitting him is to send a message to him, the rest of the team, and the public at large that disrespect has consequences. If he does it again after you sit him for a few series, you sit him for a game, and so on and so forth. I don't think it's all that strange of a concept that discipline for first-time offenders should be less than discipline for repeat offenders. He pulls the same crap next year, increase punishment even more, but don't get walked all over by some 22 year old who thinks he's above the rest of the team.

And players won't play for you if they don't respect you either, so I'm sorry but I've had enough years of players treating Skins' coaches like jokes because they were too afraid to say a word of disapproval to anyone. Did you really think the players played hard for Turner or Spurrier? Did you really think they respected them at all? Those guys let the players walk all over them, never dished out a bit of discipline, and what do we have to show for it? I fail to see how your coaching style has ever proven more effective? On the other hand, guys like Parcells, Ditka, Shannahan, Gruden, Billick and Belicheck have never had a problem getting tough on players, and they have how many rings?

[MTK]

I think much is being made over nothing.

The media and we the fans are probably more bothered by his absence than the team is. Do you think the players and coaches are beating themselves over the head right now wondering why Taylor isn't there? I really doubt it, it's probably business as usual at Redskins Park.

As for benching him to teach him a lesson, we benched him last year for a game after his DWI incident for missing practice, that sure seemed to do the trick, huh?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

As for benching him to teach him a lesson, we benched him last year for a game after his DWI incident for missing practice, that sure seemed to do the trick, huh?

That's a fair point. I guess a lot of my frustration comes from the fact that I don't know if there is any way of getting through to this kid.

But assuming someone like me wants to punish him for not calling Gibbs back: what else could they do? It's just entirely too helpless of a feeling for me to think that there is nothing that would work, so just let him go and show complete disdain for the coaching staff and team and then jump right into the starting lineup like nothing ever happened. The message that sends is "if you're good enough, you can tell me to go F%#K myself, and I'll still play you and let you start, then flip me off whenever you want."

Again, I know I'm in the minority here for wanting to even bother trying to get through to this kid, but don't they have to do SOMETHING to try to make sure this isn't a yearly occurence? Maybe the answer to that is "No"?.......I don't know............I'm just really frustrated by this.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

And the point of sitting him is to send a message to him, the rest of the team, and the public at large that disrespect has consequences. If he does it again after you sit him for a few series, you sit him for a game, and so on and so forth. I don't think it's all that strange of a concept that discipline for first-time offenders should be less than discipline for repeat offenders. He pulls the same crap next year, increase punishment even more, but don't get walked all over by some 22 year old who thinks he's above the rest of the team.

What you are suggesting is ridiculous.. You're assuming that sitting him will teach him a lesson.. Benching someone for the first couple series of a game for missing VOLUNTARY workouts just proves that you are petty to your team.. If he pulls it again next year bench him for longer? I thought the point of benching this year was to teach him a lesson.. What's next a 4 game suspension? Your other points (that I didn't quote) regarding Turner and Spurrier were somewhat valid but without organizational accountability, which we have lacked since Gibbs the 1st time (except Schottenheimer's one year) is what causes players to run amok, not the discipline style of the coach.. Billick is known as a players coach, he won, Vermiel is a players coach, he wins, Marv Levy was a players coach and he won, there are plenty of examples of you not having to be an ass to your players to be successful..

[TheMalcolmConnection]

And I think we can feel comfortable that Gibbs is a player's coach.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Matty:

If Gibbs keeps calling Taylor - and never gets a return call as has been reported - then at least one coach must be concerned that everyone else is here and Taylor is not. If this were no big deal, why would Gibbs be on the phone more than once?

In addition to Taylor missing a game last year after his DWI incident, Taylor did not start in the first game of the year. Remember the other players "consoling him" on the bench? So, he did not get the message then and therefore, I doubt that it will be significantly more effective this year.

BTW, there was an article in the NYT about Drew Rosenhaus. It said that he represented 91 different NFL players. That's a lot of balls to keep up in the air at the same time when it gets to be crunch time for contract negotiations, no?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

What you are suggesting is ridiculous.. You're assuming that sitting him will teach him a lesson.. Benching someone for the first couple series of a game for missing VOLUNTARY workouts just proves that you are petty to your team.. If he pulls it again next year bench him for longer? I thought the point of benching this year was to teach him a lesson.. What's next a 4 game suspension? Your other points (that I didn't quote) regarding Turner and Spurrier were somewhat valid but without organizational accountability, which we have lacked since Gibbs the 1st time (except Schottenheimer's one year) is what causes players to run amok, not the discipline style of the coach.. Billick is known as a players coach, he won, Vermiel is a players coach, he wins, Marv Levy was a players coach and he won, there are plenty of examples of you not having to be an ass to your players to be successful..

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

You're right. A player should be able to say FU*K You to the coach and still play if he's good enough. And because any small amount of discipline might not be successful, you just shouldn't bother. Absolutely. Players should definitely be allowed to show complete disrespect for their team and coaches and the precedent we should set for that behavior is to name that player your starter, because after all, nothing is more important that how fast a player can run and how high he can jump and how many plays he can make. Attitude means nothing and respect for the team should be completely discounted.

Look, all I'm getting at is I think it's a little hasty to say that what I'm proposing is so "rediculous". Players have been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for less. Why we're so afraid to do it is beyond me.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

Sorry for coming in on the end of the conversation, but if you are talking about Dick Vermeil, he has a Super Bowl ring with the Rams.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

You're right. A player should be able to say FU*K You to the coach and still play if he's good enough. And because any small amount of discipline might not be successful, you just shouldn't bother. Absolutely. Players should definitely be allowed to show complete disrespect for their team and coaches and the precedent we should set for that behavior is to name that player your starter, because after all, nothing is more important that how fast a player can run and how high he can jump and how many plays he can make. Attitude means nothing and respect for the team should be completely discounted.

Look, all I'm getting at is I think it's a little hasty to say that what I'm proposing is so "rediculous". Players have been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for less. Why we're so afraid to do it is beyond me.

Dude, Vermeil won with the Rams. 1999 wasn't that long ago. He also took the Eagles there in 1980. Marv Levy, while he didn't win, went to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. You don't have to be a stark disciplinarian to be successful.

On Tom Coughlin, I'd contend that being 5 minutes late to a mandatory meeting is a worse offense than staying home from a voluntary workout.

I think you're letting your frustration over Taylor cloud your judgment. Not everything is going to be perfect. What would you have done about John Riggins when he held out in 1981? Players need good coaches, and coaches need good players. You have to strike a balance between maintaining order and control over your team, and keeping your players happy and interested in being Redskins for the long term. Gibbs is excellent at this, Tom Coughlin is not.

If you've got a player who just doesn't want to be here at all, like Laveraneus Coles, then you should get rid of him. But Sean Taylor has just been avoiding Gibbs and the team activities at this point, he hasn't made it clear that he doesn't want to be here. So if he shows up to mandatory practices, works hard, and plays well during the year, there's no harm done. All I'm saying is don't hang the guy just yet. He hasn't had a negative effect on the team attitude yet, he hasn't become a cancer yet, he hasn't caused us to lose a game yet, and he hasn't undermined the respect players have for the coaching staff yet. Benching him to "send a message" (ooh, I'm shaking in my boots) will do nothing and is premature.

I'd rather see Gibbs worry about coaching the guys who are attending OTAs than worry about the guys who aren't there.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Sorry for coming in on the end of the conversation, but if you are talking about Dick Vermeil, he has a Super Bowl ring with the Rams.

...Rams..........D'Oh........how the heck did I forget about the Rams?.......sorry, my mistake (I was thinking Eagles and Cheifs).

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Dude, Vermeil won with the Rams. 1999 wasn't that long ago. He also took the Eagles there in 1980. Marv Levy, while he didn't win, went to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. You don't have to be a stark disciplinarian to be successful.

Yes, I forgot about the Vermeil 99 Rams..........my bad. And I'm not saying you have to be a stark disciplinarian.........but comparing tough coaches to coaches like Turner and Spurrier and even Vermeil and Levy? I think you'll find that letting players walk all over you hasn't yielded as many championships.

On Tom Coughlin, I'd contend that being 5 minutes late to a mandatory meeting is a worse offense than staying home from a voluntary workout.

Again you and I disagree on this, because I really don't think Strahan being 5 minutes late is worse than Taylor not showing up at all to OTAs and completely failing to return Gibbs's calls, but that's just me.

I think you're letting your frustration over Taylor cloud your judgment. Not everything is going to be perfect. What would you have done about John Riggins when he held out in 1981? Players need good coaches, and coaches need good players. You have to strike a balance between maintaining order and control over your team, and keeping your players happy and interested in being Redskins for the long term. Gibbs is excellent at this, Tom Coughlin is not.

Agreed, you need a balance. But where is the balance in not doing anything? Really, I'd love to hear some suggestions on what else Gibbs can do regarding Taylor's actions here? So far, there has been my idea, and there has been do nothing. I simply can't bring myself to believing that doing nothing is the way to go or that it will creat a balance of anything. Again it's just my opinion.

If you've got a player who just doesn't want to be here at all, like Laveraneus Coles, then you should get rid of him. But Sean Taylor has just been avoiding Gibbs and the team activities at this point, he hasn't made it clear that he doesn't want to be here. So if he shows up to mandatory practices, works hard, and plays well during the year, there's no harm done. All I'm saying is don't hang the guy just yet. He hasn't had a negative effect on the team attitude yet, he hasn't become a cancer yet, he hasn't caused us to lose a game yet, and he hasn't undermined the respect players have for the coaching staff yet. Benching him to "send a message" (ooh, I'm shaking in my boots) will do nothing and is premature.

I'd rather see Gibbs worry about coaching the guys who are attending OTAs than worry about the guys who aren't there.

Agreed, Gibbs should, and is, concentrating on coaching the players he does have. What I'm proposing takes none of his effort or concentration away from that. And I guess we will see if his actions so far have caused any controversies in the lockeroom if he ever shows up. As for his desire to be a Redskin? He hasn't shown me that in the least bit.

But I hear you..........I'm looking forward to his showing up for the mandatory stuff and I'm interested to see what kind of dynamic he has with the other players when/if he does show up. I hope that everyone will get along just fine and he picks up where he left off and he has a good excuse for Joe as to why he kept blowing him off. Hey, I'd love to be completely wrong here and have him show up without any ill-effects on his development or how the team/coaches view him. We'll see.

[redskinsskickazz]

i would like to know how many people on this sight would go to work if it was voluntary and you still got paid