Which move would most help the Redskins?

MTK · 12-02-2004, 12:45 PM

Gibbs seems very open to making changes, whatever they may be, which one would you like to see the most and why?

Quote:

"If I ever reached a feeling that I was holding things back, then I would fix it. My commitment is I think we're just getting started and we've got to find a way. I'm not afraid to change anything, that's the other thing. I'm not afraid of anything, I don't care," Gibbs said. "All I want to do is win. I'll change anything about me, what I'm doing, the coaching staff . . . I don't care. If I think as we go through it, if there's a way to help, I'll do it."

sportscurmudgeon · 12-02-2004, 03:23 PM

Maybe hiring both people would help, but the first thing I'd hire would be a GM with an eye for young talent that will play for small salaries.

Pioli in New England or Banner in Philly or Wolf in retirement are the names that come most immediately to mind.

Casserley would be OK too.

Just don't let anyone associated with that trainwreck in SF be on the Skins' "short list". :frusty:

Riggo44 · 12-02-2004, 03:24 PM

I say Gibbs needs a GM so that he can concentrate on getting the REDSKINS offense back to what we all rember a Gibbs offense being.
An fresh offensive mind might not hurt either!

BrudLee · 12-02-2004, 03:26 PM

We have virtually no depth on offense - the Brunell signing was a glaring example, but starting a fifth rounder on the O-line is just as bad. We need a GM.

memphisskin · 12-02-2004, 03:37 PM

I don't think Gibbs needs to take a refresher course, I think he just needs time to steal some ideas from other teams. I think hiring a GM would free Gibbs up, and instead of looking for a "proven" guy (which unless that guy is Ron Wolf sounds like "retread" to me) I'd look for an ex-Redskin who knows talent, like Mark May. But whoever he is he needs to take over the GM role and let Gibbs get back in the lab and work on his offense.

I routinely criticize the front office, Vinny Cerrato especially, but this past draft actually turned out to be pretty good. We got a stud safety who will be a star soon, and our fifth round offensive lineman started a game and played well. Our 2nd round pick is Portis, meaning the only pick we really wasted was the 3rd rounder we used on Brunell. So the status quo in the front office is ok, but we still need to get a GM to allow Gibbs to concentrate on coaching the team. It's got to be killing Gibbs that the offense is doing so poorly, I know he's "fighting his guts out" to get things going.

Redskins_P · 12-02-2004, 03:38 PM

Definitely a GM. Fire my cousin Vinny..

skinsguy · 12-02-2004, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riggo44

I say Gibbs needs a GM so that he can concentrate on getting the REDSKINS offense back to what we all rember a Gibbs offense being.
An fresh offensive mind might not hurt either!

I think you'll find that the core of all offenses in the league are based on the basic principles that make offenses successful regardless of what type:

excellent Pass protection
excellent run blocking
accurate passing
high precentage of catches (and receivers getting open on a regular basis.)

If you have all of these components, then your offense is going to work. Spurrier's offense failed because he didn't have pass protection and a strong enough running attack to counter what he lacked on pass protection. Yeah we scored more points (5 games over 20 points and us getting shut out against Dallas) but our QBs were getting killed. Certainly we measure offensive success in the number of points scored, but its much more than that to make it a solid offense.

Daseal · 12-02-2004, 05:32 PM

I feel we have lots of talent on offense. Get an O coordinator in here to play today's offense.

JWsleep · 12-02-2004, 05:47 PM

I think Gibbs and co. can adapt on offense. What we're seeing is the effect of a steep learning curve and a long hiatus. But Gibbs will figure out becuase he outworks people.

I said GM, mainly because of the Brunell thing and becuase it seems like things are muddled in terms of authority. This would put less on Gibbs mind, and provide a buffer between him and Danny-boy's inevitable meddling.

But for all that, let's not forget that many of the signings of this group have gone well: Washington, Springs, Griffen, Cooley, and Taylor all look good to me; Coles, Thrash, Hall, and Bowen were decent. I'm witholding judgment on Portis, but I remain optimistic. So if you take out Brunell, how bad is it? Let's see how they handle this offseason with Gibbs at the helm. If they can re-sign Smoot, renegotiate Samuels, and holdoff from any nutty FA stuff, it would show that the culture is changing. Lots of coaches do GM stuff nowadays; it's really a question of keeping Danny under control and scouting well.

jrocx69 · 12-02-2004, 06:14 PM

i would like a downhill HB to counter with portis. i like betts, but we could use him for a added draft pick. portis isnt a goaline rusher or a short yardage first down runner. Gibbs still has a eye for talent and i wouldnt take that away from him. but it does seem that his offensive play calls have been very basic and to basic for me. so i say we do need a offensive coordinator to stretch Gibbs playcalling since i think that seems to more of the problem than the talent GIBBS has brought in. Gibbs did pick brunell out, but he did bring in Portis. He also picked Wilson and Molarino and i think he could work wonders with those guys. He has the eye for talent guarenteed, he just made one mistake. Let Gibbs pick the talent and work together with a coordinator that wants to stretch the field with Gibbs power game.

skinsguy · 12-02-2004, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I feel we have lots of talent on offense. Get an O coordinator in here to play today's offense.

What is your definition of "today's" offense?

bedlamVR · 12-02-2004, 07:15 PM

I voted for neither because I am not convinced either move would help... not quickly anyway... and it is the quick fix every seems to be looking for .

Time will see if what we have will work. If we keep chopping and changing we will never know what we have and we will remain in a constant state of flux and every other team in the NFL rise above us... is that what we really want ?

BIGREDSKINFAN63 · 12-02-2004, 07:44 PM

people forget that gibbs does'nt have charley casserley,bobby beathard,and bobby mitchell like he did his first tour as coach.they were just as important to the skins as he was.they have to get a gm who knows what the hell he's doing if they want to win.cerrato just ai'nt the answer unless the question's stupid!!!

Daseal · 12-02-2004, 08:13 PM

An offense that can score more than 18 points? One that has more than a two receiver set? An offense with some balance?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 12-02-2004, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Maybe hiring both people would help, but the first thing I'd hire would be a GM with an eye for young talent that will play for small salaries.

Pioli in New England or Banner in Philly or Wolf in retirement are the names that come most immediately to mind.

Casserley would be OK too.

Just don't let anyone associated with that trainwreck in SF be on the Skins' "short list". :frusty:

The Pats aren't that far under the salary cap but they have made excellent player acquisitions in free agency and the draft. Philly has done a pretty good job in free agency but their drafting is mixed (Pinkston and Mitchell are 1st round disappointments whereas they've drafted good DBs). But, Philly has been a consistent playoff contender and is well under the cap.

I also agree that Casserly was quite good too.

As for Cerrato, I don't think you can cite S.F.'s cap woes and rebuilding as evidence of his failure. Most teams have 4-5 year plans that envision a "rebuilding phase" in the 4th or 5th year. San Francisco was in the playoffs several times before the cap went came back to bite them.

View Poll Results: Which move would most help the Redskins?
Hiring a proven GM	34	62.96%
Hiring a proven offensive coordinator to help Gibbs bring his offense up to speed	20	37.04%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

12-02-2004, 03:23 PM	#2
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Maybe hiring both people would help, but the first thing I'd hire would be a GM with an eye for young talent that will play for small salaries. Pioli in New England or Banner in Philly or Wolf in retirement are the names that come most immediately to mind. Casserley would be OK too. Just don't let anyone associated with that trainwreck in SF be on the Skins' "short list". :frusty: __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

12-02-2004, 03:24 PM	#3
Riggo44 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: San Clemente CA Age: 51 Posts: 2,390	I say Gibbs needs a GM so that he can concentrate on getting the REDSKINS offense back to what we all rember a Gibbs offense being. An fresh offensive mind might not hurt either! __________________ Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Benjamin Franklin

12-02-2004, 03:26 PM	#4
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	We have virtually no depth on offense - the Brunell signing was a glaring example, but starting a fifth rounder on the O-line is just as bad. We need a GM. __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

12-02-2004, 05:47 PM	#9
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,719	I think Gibbs and co. can adapt on offense. What we're seeing is the effect of a steep learning curve and a long hiatus. But Gibbs will figure out becuase he outworks people. I said GM, mainly because of the Brunell thing and becuase it seems like things are muddled in terms of authority. This would put less on Gibbs mind, and provide a buffer between him and Danny-boy's inevitable meddling. But for all that, let's not forget that many of the signings of this group have gone well: Washington, Springs, Griffen, Cooley, and Taylor all look good to me; Coles, Thrash, Hall, and Bowen were decent. I'm witholding judgment on Portis, but I remain optimistic. So if you take out Brunell, how bad is it? Let's see how they handle this offseason with Gibbs at the helm. If they can re-sign Smoot, renegotiate Samuels, and holdoff from any nutty FA stuff, it would show that the culture is changing. Lots of coaches do GM stuff nowadays; it's really a question of keeping Danny under control and scouting well. __________________ Hail from Houston!

12-02-2004, 03:37 PM	#5
memphisskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Age: 53 Posts: 960	I don't think Gibbs needs to take a refresher course, I think he just needs time to steal some ideas from other teams. I think hiring a GM would free Gibbs up, and instead of looking for a "proven" guy (which unless that guy is Ron Wolf sounds like "retread" to me) I'd look for an ex-Redskin who knows talent, like Mark May. But whoever he is he needs to take over the GM role and let Gibbs get back in the lab and work on his offense. I routinely criticize the front office, Vinny Cerrato especially, but this past draft actually turned out to be pretty good. We got a stud safety who will be a star soon, and our fifth round offensive lineman started a game and played well. Our 2nd round pick is Portis, meaning the only pick we really wasted was the 3rd rounder we used on Brunell. So the status quo in the front office is ok, but we still need to get a GM to allow Gibbs to concentrate on coaching the team. It's got to be killing Gibbs that the offense is doing so poorly, I know he's "fighting his guts out" to get things going.

12-02-2004, 03:38 PM	#6
Redskins_P Fight for old DC! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Aldie, VA Age: 46 Posts: 4,101	Definitely a GM. Fire my cousin Vinny..

12-02-2004, 05:32 PM	#8
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	I feel we have lots of talent on offense. Get an O coordinator in here to play today's offense.

12-02-2004, 06:14 PM	#10
jrocx69 Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas Age: 43 Posts: 461	i would like a downhill HB to counter with portis. i like betts, but we could use him for a added draft pick. portis isnt a goaline rusher or a short yardage first down runner. Gibbs still has a eye for talent and i wouldnt take that away from him. but it does seem that his offensive play calls have been very basic and to basic for me. so i say we do need a offensive coordinator to stretch Gibbs playcalling since i think that seems to more of the problem than the talent GIBBS has brought in. Gibbs did pick brunell out, but he did bring in Portis. He also picked Wilson and Molarino and i think he could work wonders with those guys. He has the eye for talent guarenteed, he just made one mistake. Let Gibbs pick the talent and work together with a coordinator that wants to stretch the field with Gibbs power game.

12-02-2004, 07:15 PM	#12
bedlamVR Special Teams Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 389	I voted for neither because I am not convinced either move would help... not quickly anyway... and it is the quick fix every seems to be looking for . Time will see if what we have will work. If we keep chopping and changing we will never know what we have and we will remain in a constant state of flux and every other team in the NFL rise above us... is that what we really want ?

12-02-2004, 07:44 PM	#13
BIGREDSKINFAN63 Special Teams Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: bassett-va Age: 61 Posts: 289	people forget that gibbs does'nt have charley casserley,bobby beathard,and bobby mitchell like he did his first tour as coach.they were just as important to the skins as he was.they have to get a gm who knows what the hell he's doing if they want to win.cerrato just ai'nt the answer unless the question's stupid!!! __________________ "7 days without the redskins, makes one weak!!!"

12-02-2004, 08:13 PM	#14
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	An offense that can score more than 18 points? One that has more than a two receiver set? An offense with some balance?

Which move would most help the Redskins?

Locker Room Main Forum