It's not Joe's team yet
 

I am firm believer that this team will have Coach Gibb's mark, personality, stamp, what have you, till next year. I also believe that Gibb's can be considered a first year coach, because of his long absence, regardless of his past experience. 12 years is along time.

I am the first to admit, I was thinking playoffs this year, but its obvious Coach Gibbs needs time to mold this team.

These elite coaches all did bad their first year with their new team

D. Vermeil - 5-11 (Rams)
Billick - 8-8
Belichick - 5-11 (Pats)
Gruden - 8-8 (Oakland)
Reid - 5-11

4 out of those 5 coaches have won a super bowl within the last 5 years, and I hate to say it, but Filthadelphia is well on there way...

One thing is, the Redskins have a lot of talent that those teams did not have when the new coach took over.

That being said, I agree with you that he'll turn things around. I expect another fairly busy offseason.

Yeah you're right and what gets me is how the media has said that the game has passed Gibbs by and this is a "young mans" sport. Of course Bradshaw said this so naturally you have to take it with a grain of salt..but still if this is true then why would the media disregard the success that Vermeil had after his first year back....knowning that he had been away from the NFL just as long if not longer than Gibbs and he's OLDER than Joe Gibbs. To build a true playoff Super Bowl contender team that is consistantly at that level each year..it takes awhile and I suppose thinking this team would be an instant success is probably a bit unfair to Gibbs. This team has had at least 11 years of misery (one good playoff year), and it takes time to undo over a decade's worth of losing.

This year is proving that, yeah, maybe the game [I]has [/I] past Gibbs by. But that does not mean he cannot catch up and I truly believe that he will!
Even though they are losing, the attitude of this team is different this year. The players actually respect and want to play for the coaches. That has not really happened with this team for any coach since, well, Joe Gibbs. That is the first step.

Daseal, I disagree about another busy offseason. I think the main thing we need is stability. Get the majority of the players used to playing together, in the same system. Yeah, of course there will be some changes, as with every team, but I don't expect us to "win" in the offseason again, and I will be very happy if we don't.

SkinsRock, I hope you're right. I just think Gibbs is going to clean house and get rid of the guys he's not high on, just hope he doesn't deystroy our cap in the process.

there is one thing that puzzels me about the thought that the "game has past gibbs by". that is, that if you agree the game has past him by, than does that also mean the '92 and '87 teams wouldn't win if we had those identical teams right now. I think they would win, it's the make-up of the team and the knowlege the coach has of those players that makes it possible for a team to win. you can't grow a team over night and you can't learn the strengths and weekness in one game. gibbs will win he just has to go through some growing pains first.

that was a reply to brashaw, i guess. what does every one think about that thought?

I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have. I'd love to see it happen though!

Does anyone here think we wouldn't have between 2 and 4 more wins, this year, if ramsey had started training camp as the first stringer? I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that we would easily be 6-3 at this point. and that, my friends, is why I am optimistic for next year.

Because otherwise, if its the team that's bad, there isn't reason for optimism, imo.

[QUOTE=Daseal]I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean?

[QUOTE=Daseal]I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have. [/QUOTE]

Yeah the old teams didn't have the discontinuity that we have today!
:)

[QUOTE=smootsmack]What do you mean?[/QUOTE]Players have just evolved espically on the defensive side. bigger faster stronger

Exactly. They weren't the atheletes then that we have now. Like I think many of those famous famous players would be mediocre by today's standards.

I think you've just insulted L.T., Ronnie Lott, Mike Singletary(mispelled??), Charles Mann, Darrell Green, Charles Haley, Wilbur Marshall....just to name a few. I disagree that these players would be considered mediocre by today's standards. This game is 90% mental and being big and strong carries you rather far, but being smart and knowing how the game is played successfully will make you a hall of famer.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I think you've just insulted L.T., Ronnie Lott, Mike Singletary(mispelled??), Charles Mann, Darrell Green, Charles Haley, Wilbur Marshall....just to name a few. I disagree that these players would be considered mediocre by today's standards. This game is 90% mental and being big and strong carries you rather far, but being smart and knowing how the game is played successfully will make you a hall of famer.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they've been insulted, there is a lot of truth to the statement.

Here's an interesting example. Mediocre analyst and bad author Tim Green was a first round draft pick in 1986. He had an eight year career with Atlanta and had 24 career sacks as a DT. He never weighed more than 260 lbs. - or Daunte Culpepper.

The talent and drive of the players you mentioned is unquestioned. Players of their skill level today would be similarly dominant. They would also weigh 40 lbs more, and generally be faster (maybe not Darrell Green, but you get the picture).

I don't deny the fact that it seems like players are stronger and faster today than what they used to be. We can look at old film from the 50's and 60's and see that the players didn't look as atheletic as players do today, however, the game is 90% mental and 10% physical. I know that might not make sense to alot of people, but there certainly is truth to that. Smart players who know how to play the game or know how to play their positions effectively are usually the ones who become the elite in the league. Yeah, we can look at Dante' and he is one of the top QBs in the league, but he isn't the best I have ever seen. Joe Montana was rather average size..heck he wasn't big at all, but I had the pleasure (or displeasure when they played the Skins) to watch him play at the top of his game and there was no QB that I have ever witnessed being as perfect of a QB as he.

But, here's my theory as to why the elite teams from the 80's (49ers, Redskins, Giants, etc) would not only be competitive with todays teams, but be Super Bowl contenders just like they were in that era:

The teams stayed together. The players became like a family and knew each other. It wasn't like a revolving door like it is today. Since the teams stayed together, the systems that the coaches had in place worked better. If a player retired or left the team, it was alot easier to plug someone else in than to revamp the entire offense or defense. Since it appeared that teams were together longer than today, players were able to stay in one system longer and learn that position and it's function rather than to be bumped off to this team and that team. With the revolving door or today, it's almost necessary for players to be bigger and stronger to make up for not being able to stay in one system for nearly their whole career. Another premise I have is that the elite teams kept their coaches for years. Parcells stayed in NY for several years...Gibbs in Washington, Walsh in San Fran then gave away to another elite coach (awwhh shoot forgot his name..hahaha!!)

But, my point is and forgive me for being long winded, but there are alot of fast big guys in the league today of whom are mediocre. They might be that way because of coaching or coaching changes that are frequent. They might be that way because they get shipped off to this place and that and by the time they have finished off their career, they've played for at least 5 different teams. I would suspect that the 91' Washington Redskins would more than hold their own to today's New England Patriots. I would say the same for the 80's 49er's club or the Giants when LT, Bavro, Sims, and Morris was playing. I believe the only thing that has changed in today's games are a few rules that can be easily adjusted to, and the "me" persona that today's player has adapted to(i.e. T.O.!) A team with a hall of fame coach and players that are smart and stick together with that one team will always get the last laugh.

[QUOTE=aehs77]Players have just evolved espically on the defensive side. bigger faster stronger[/QUOTE]

How big is Smoot again?

I bet if you asked Parcells, he'd rather have his old Giants from the 80's today than the team he has to field every Sunday now.