Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
As someone who was around from about the beginning of the Spurrier era to present, I don't think we'll see a lot of optimist vs pessimist arguments continue. While there will be some people who hold out faith regardless, there won't be such a strong feeling for the coach. This Gibbs cycle went hardcore to both sides of the spectrum. The Gibbs can do no wrong faction and the Gibbs can do no right faction. This just isn't good for discussion -- and I think the board will improve.
Cpayne: Say what you will, I admitted that I was wrong about the skins missing the playoffs, and I gave the team and Joe Gibbs lots of credit for the end of year run, but when you're needing other teams to lose, it's far from an ideal situation. If you win the Super Bowl, you've done everything you need to. However, that doesn't mean you did everything right, regardless of who you are you can always improve.
I don't agree with this at all. It's often said the NFL is a what have you done for me lately league. That's how it works. I can't think of a single person who's basing the Gibbs of the 80s/90s. Everyone gives him the credit he's due. When he came back to the NFL I was very excited. I love Spurrier, I still think he could have won -- but it would require big changes, mainly to bringing some NFL experience into DC with his staff and to work on getting better players, something Gibbs did very well. However, when Gibbs did come in, I thought he would be an excellent coach. I knew he was a great leader, and had heard stories about his coaching prowess. I guess I slowly and slowly got upset with the sidelines thing. It's not because I want to "be cool". I do think that everything has changed so much from the 80s/90s to present. For instance, I think Gibbs' superbowl teams would struggle with a mediocre team today -- not because of Gibbs, players or coaching, just the advancements in technology, the bigger/stronger/faster athletes of today, etc. To me it wasn't a cool or uncool thing. It was a mix of seeing consistent progression and improvement that was lacking.
What I do when I look for the Redskins, is in good or bad see where we can improve. I often have less to say after a well played loss than a poorly played win. While the win is the most important thing, I don't understand why we can't look at a team and say this is where and why we have to improve. Win or loss.
This has gotten a bit more long winded than I meant, sorry. I'm just trying to explain myself a bit clearer. I feel often times I don't convey the message I mean to through my posts. Things I say are misconstrued or taken out of context. This is no ones fault but my own for not making things more concise. I don't 'hate' the team, I don't 'hate' Joe Gibbs. I just try to look at things from a balanced perspective -- or at least what I think is a balanced perspective.
|
I don't think anyone said it was ideal, but we were a legit 9 win team this year. Legit as in not particularly lucky. Legit as we played the 3rd toughest schedule after Philly and Buffalo. That's not ideal, but it is "good."
Ideally, we would be able to win the division...something we haven't done in the last 15 years. Winning the division is paramount to having a shot to win the super bowl.
However, we aren't quite at Dallas' level just yet, and that's not Gibbs' fault. At least not the job he's done on the sidelines. Dallas just has better overall talent than we do on both sides of the ball.