George Michael's Interview of Gibbs

[SouperMeister]

Did anyone happen to see George interview Coach Gibbs this week in his usual Monday evening slot? I heard that George asked some tough questions that clearly ruffled Gibbs's feathers. I missed it - Please comment on what was said if you happened to see the exchange.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

He probably did it because he's still bitter at NBC for letting him go. I missed it though.

[FRPLG]

NBC didn't let him go. They asked him to get rid of another sportscaster and some production crew since the station is in serious budget cuts and he didn't want to so he decided to quit.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Did anyone happen to see George interview Coach Gibbs this week in his usual Monday evening slot? I heard that George asked some tough questions that clearly ruffled Gibbs's feathers. I missed it - Please comment on what was said if you happened to see the exchange.

I saw it. Gibbs basically said all the stuff in The Post article isn't true. He also talked about how much he wanted to keep Pierce and Clark. He talked about how the piece on Rock Cartwright isn't true. He says " I would trust Rock with my life." What a bunch of BS. If it wasn't true then why in the hell did he trade for Duckett? All Gibbs had to do was look at the film on Cratwright and realize there was no need for Duckett. If he wanted Pierce and Clark so bad then why the hell aren't they here? It's not like those two didn't deserve bigger contracts. Doesn't he realize that letting "core" guys go and then bringing in and over paying worthless FA's is going to screw up the locker room? He just can't admit that he f-cked up in letting some guys go. But then he says blame everything on me. We need a GM in the worst way.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I saw it. Gibbs basically said all the stuff in The Post article isn't true. He also talked about how much he wanted to keep Pierce and Clark. He talked about how the piece on Rock Cartwright isn't true. He says " I would trust Rock with my life." What a bunch of BS. If it wasn't true then why in the hell did he trade for Duckett? All Gibbs had to do was look at the film on Cratwright and realize there was no need for Duckett. If he wanted Pierce and Clark so bad then why the hell aren't they here? It's not like those two didn't deserve bigger contracts. Doesn't he realize that letting "core" guys go and then bringing in and over paying worthless FA's is going to screw up the locker room? He just can't admit that he f-cked up in letting some guys go. But then he says blame everything on me. We need a GM in the worst way.

some things I have noticed more over the last couple of years about this staff. They say one thing, and the players say something else. leads us choosing which one is actually telling the truth or an extension of the truth. After hearing what players are saying as they leave this organization its starting to be difficult putting any weight on what the staff says. it has happened for the last 5 or so years. bottom line, if Gibbs wants something or someone he gets it. no questions asked. The pierce / clark thing, if he wanted them they would be here. GW's ego got in the way and said they are replacable. Same thing w/ LaVar. Gibbs said he wanted LaVar to be a Redskin, LaVar said, if he wanted me here I would be here. Pierce, clark, Smoot they all say the same things. I dont think us fans are that stupid to keep believing some of the BS coming out of redskin park. Gibbs got a free pass the 1st year with everything coming out of his mouth being the absolute truth, but with players leaving saying the exact same things, and portis speaking up it makes you get (at least me) a little pissed that things are working they way there are. We will never have success with the organization in complete mess. I said from the beginning, there are too many cooks in the kitchen!!

[riggoraider]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

some things I have noticed more over the last couple of years about this staff. They say one thing, and the players say something else. leads us choosing which one is actually telling the truth or an extension of the truth. After hearing what players are saying as they leave this organization its starting to be difficult putting any weight on what the staff says. it has happened for the last 5 or so years. bottom line, if Gibbs wants something or someone he gets it. no questions asked. The pierce / clark thing, if he wanted them they would be here. GW's ego got in the way and said they are replacable. Same thing w/ LaVar. Gibbs said he wanted LaVar to be a Redskin, LaVar said, if he wanted me here I would be here. Pierce, clark, Smoot they all say the same things. I dont think us fans are that stupid to keep believing some of the BS coming out of redskin park. Gibbs got a free pass the 1st year with everything coming out of his mouth being the absolute truth, but with players leaving saying the exact same things, and portis speaking up it makes you get (at least me) a little pissed that things are working they way there are. We will never have success with the organization in complete mess. I said from the beginning, there are too many cooks in the kitchen!!

I here ya but I think that our problems starts with Snyder NOT because he does not want us to win BUT because he does not know how to put a staff together. The Spurier experiment proved that he knew nothing about bringing winning football to Washington but was only looking for a big named coach. I hope that Snyder will wake up and see that when we were winning football games that we had GM's such as Charley Casserly and Bobby Beathard and it was NOT just because of the ONLY 2 successful coaches that we had in George Allen and Joe Gibbs.

[squrrelco3]

Originally Posted by riggoraider

I hope that Snyder will wake up and see that when we were winning football games that we had GM's such as Charley Casserly and Bobby Beathard and it was NOT just because of the ONLY 2 successful coaches that we had in George Allen and Joe Gibbs.

I seem to recall Snyder come real close to bringing back Beathard at one point but the deal was broken at the last second when Snyder refused to give up final say on all personnel matters. If that's true that says it all right there.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by squrrelco3

I seem to recall Snyder come real close to bringing back Beathard at one point but the deal was broken at the last second when Snyder refused to give up final say on all personnel matters. If that's true that says it all right there.

I may be wrong on this but I think that, in the Gibbs/Beathard era, JKC had final say over all personnel matters - not Beathard. I seem to recall both Gibbs and Beathard saying that they discussed what were the needs and then discussed who to get to fill those needs. If they couldn't agree, they would go to Cooke and HE would have final say.

[paulskinsfan]

WHAT? You don't have faith that the current team structure can turn this all around? Blasphemy!

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by paulskinsfan

WHAT? You don't have faith that the current team structure can turn this all around? Blasphemy!

Pauly, where you been bro?

[paulskinsfan]

getting my shotgun fitted with a toe trigger for next season

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by paulskinsfan

getting my shotgun fitted with a toe trigger for next season

LOL!!! Hahahaha

[Dogtag]

George asked the tough question ... great job George.

Coach Gibbs gave his responses as he saw the situation in today's light. One may not agree with his assessments, but I would stop way short of calling him a liar.

Not to get off on a tangent, but I keep hearing fans say that we have personnel issues (scouting/recruitment, evaluation, best value analysis, trade-off analysis, character, business case analysis/cost, intangibles) and the conclusion is generally that the Redskins need a General Manager (GM). It sounds to me like the Redskins need help with Human Resources (that handle those personnel issues) and not a General Manager that handles all Administrative Efforts (of which Personnel is usually only a lesser part of the duties). In the NFL, is a GM considered a Human Resources job?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Dogtag

George asked the tough question ... great job George.

Coach Gibbs gave his responses as he saw the situation in today's light. One may not agree with his assessments, but I would stop way short of calling him a liar.

Not to get off on a tangent, but I keep hearing fans say that we have personnel issues (scouting/recruitment, evaluation, best value analysis, trade-off analysis, character, business case analysis/cost, intangibles) and the conclusion is generally that the Redskins need a General Manager (GM). It sounds to me like the Redskins need help with Human Resources (that handle those personnel issues) and not a General Manager that handles all Administrative Efforts (of which Personnel is usually only a lesser part of the duties). In the NFL, is a GM considered a Human Resources job?

Well I'm sure they have an HR department. You know to handle the adminstrative things such as benefits, healthcare, so forth and so on.

That's a separate issue I think. The coaches are the hands on HR, if you will. HR can't help us with any locker room or on the field issues that may come up with a team. That's entirely up to the coaches to feel the pulse of the team.

[Master4Caster]

Originally Posted by Dogtag

George asked the tough question ... great job George.

. . . .
Not to get off on a tangent, but I keep hearing fans say that we have personnel issues (scouting/recruitment, evaluation, best value analysis, trade-off analysis, character, business case analysis/cost, intangibles) and the conclusion is generally that the Redskins need a General Manager (GM). It sounds to me like the Redskins need help with Human Resources (that handle those personnel issues) and not a General Manager that handles all Administrative Efforts (of which Personnel is usually only a lesser part of the duties). In the NFL, is a GM considered a Human Resources job?

Well put!

In most teams the GM also negotiates the player contracts, so he evaluates a potential player's worth to the team. Supposedly, an independent GM would have balanced Gregg W's desire for Arch against Arch's comparison to other safeties. For a $10 bonus, maybe there were better safeties out there, or better ways to build the roster.

Another example, maybe the Skins give up two draft picks in trade for BLloyd, but a GM might not have signed him to a new contract until his old one expired at the end of this year. Skins would have a lot more flexibility if Lloyd were a free agent playing out his contract this season. As things stand now, Washington has a big cap hit if they dump Lloyd.