Casserly Keeping his options open

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Would the person in charge have three Super Bowl Championship rings, and a long proven history of success at the highest levels in the sporting world?

No - I am just asking that the person be graded not on past performance as the coach of the team but of his current performance of being a first time GM on the current 3 year history of the team - so basically I am saying grade him on his GM performance - remember that Bethard was the GM for his first stint that contained all thos rings you are referring to. Bethard was the one who got the ingredients for the team - and Gibbs was the one who cooked. Gibbs history of shopping the past 3 years in my book have been quite questionable.

If you don't believe me check out the article in the Washington Times today:

Oh, the choices he's made - Sports - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Yes, but a season is made and broken on what-ifs. I'll ask again: Does a GM fix what was broken this offseason? Does a GM tell Gibbs to run his OWN plays and say screw getting Al Saunders? Does a GM have intimate knowledge of Springs groin? I'd like to hope not. If we don't make a SINGLE CHANGE this offseason and everyone comes back totally healthy, the team is the playoff contender that it was in 2005...GM or not.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Yes, but a season is made and broken on what-ifs. I'll ask again: Does a GM fix what was broken this offseason? Does a GM tell Gibbs to run his OWN plays and say screw getting Al Saunders? Does a GM have intimate knowledge of Springs groin? I'd like to hope not. If we don't make a SINGLE CHANGE this offseason and everyone comes back totally healthy, the team is the playoff contender that it was in 2005...GM or not.

Thank you.

I've heard Gibbs and Williams remark lately that this has just been "one of those years", and I tend to agree. Get these guys healthy, bring in some fresh blood on the defense, continue to groom Campbell in this offense, and we are a playoff team in 2007 without a doubt in my mind.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Thank you.

I've heard Gibbs and Williams remark lately that this has just been "one of those years", and I tend to agree. Get these guys healthy, bring in some fresh blood on the defense, continue to groom Campbell in this offense, and we are a playoff team in 2007 without a doubt in my mind.

I think the offense will get on track, maybe even be in the top five by the end of '07. But this defense has a long way to go. We need 2-3 players in the secondary, the defensive line, save for Griff, Carter, and MAYBE Salave'a needs an overhaul. And though everyone says Lemar Marshall was banged up all year, middle linebacker could still be a need.

I can see the Skins becoming the NFL's next version of the Chiefs or Colts in that their offense will put up the yards and the points, but the D will be their downfall.

[MTK]

I don't see the defense in need of a major overhaul. I'd call it a reloading if anything.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Since I had to leave the office for a while, I'll just respond in general to the others. Since hindsight is 20-20, can anyone say for sure that we'd be any worse for wear if we'd have RETAINED all those draft picks and/or money? It's not like there's been a year where we're like, "DAMMIT! If only we had the cap space to make that happen!!!" nor a year where we say, "Wow, if only we had that pick, we could have picked X player."

If we had a GM these previous years, we MIGHT not have Campbell, we'd either be dealing with Ramsey or some washed-up vet. There's a lot of choices and changes that would have been made. Would we even have selected Taylor in the draft?

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Since I had to leave the office for a while, I'll just respond in general to the others. Since hindsight is 20-20, can anyone say for sure that we'd be any worse for wear if we'd have RETAINED all those draft picks and/or money? It's not like there's been a year where we're like, "DAMMIT! If only we had the cap space to make that happen!!!" nor a year where we say, "Wow, if only we had that pick, we could have picked X player."

If we had a GM these previous years, we MIGHT not have Campbell, we'd either be dealing with Ramsey or some washed-up vet. There's a lot of choices and changes that would have been made. Would we even have selected Taylor in the draft?

True points - all I am saying is if we kept those draft picks maybe at least some of them work out and what is nice is they come at a relatively cheap price compared to the major free agent.

You nailed it with the Sean Taylor comparison to AA - Sean is worth way more than AA, but the Redskins have Taylor locked up for a long time at a reasonable contract compared to AA because they were able to draft him as opposed to having to lure him with big money. This really is the case with lower round picks as they don't command huge signing bonuses. Plus if the Redskins are going to shell out major bucks for free agents doesn't it make more sense to keep your home grown talent who already are familar with your system than to bring in an outsider who will have to get adjusted (like Andre Carter or Brandon Llyod) and have to give up draft picks in the process?

With more draft picks you have a higher chance of getting some of them right because of you have more chips to play with.

Also signing cheaper rookie contracts compred to bring in expensive outside free agents allows your team to have the cap space to resign upcoming free agent players on your own team who are considered really good (i.e. Chris Cooley) plus you have space to sign valuable backups like a Todd Wade in case you get an injuries which almost every team in the NFL sustains.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

If you're saying players are laughing all the way to the bank, the only one is AA. When Lloyd gets the ball thrown to him, he catches it 99% of the time.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

If you're saying players are laughing all the way to the bank, the only one is AA. When Lloyd gets the ball thrown to him, he catches it 99% of the time.

I agree, i think LLoyd could be a monster in this offense (when given the chance).

[TheMalcolmConnection]

In short, I'll just say this about the GM issues. If we have the successes we've had over the past three years with player acquisition and talent evaluation, GM or no, I'll be happy. The majority of our picks have panned out. There aren't many teams that can say that.

[Hog1]

There are 32 teams in the league. How many have a GM, or reasonable facimile..........31? How many are truly successful with their GM, talent evaluation, player aquisition? 20%, 15%??????

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Hog1

There are 32 teams in the league. How many have a GM, or reasonable facimile..........31? How many are truly successful with their GM, talent evaluation, player aquisition? 20%, 15%??????

No one denies this. No one ever said it was easy to succeed in this league. Player acquisition is a tricky business, and plain 'ol luck is a large part of it.

The problem we have is, the same strategy is being used over and over again with the same pathetic results. Even since Gibbs' return, the "hits" that front office defenders are so quick to point out have amounted to a 21-25 record!

I don't think anyone assumes that once we have someone in Redskin Park with "General Manager" on his office door the fortunes of this team will magically lead us straight to a Lombardi Trophy. But it's all about what direction you're headed in, and whether you've experienced enough to learn from your past mistakes. I've said this over and over, and I'm growing tired of saying it -- but we know which strategy with regard to player-personnel doesn't work. Getting away from that philosophy -- regardless of the title of the person that changes it -- will signal that this organization is at least on the right track.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No one denies this. No one ever said it was easy to succeed in this league. Player acquisition is a tricky business, and plain 'ol luck is a large part of it.

The problem we have is, the same strategy is being used over and over again with the same pathetic results. Even since Gibbs' return, the "hits" that front office defenders are so quick to point out have amounted to a 21-25 record!

I don't think anyone assumes that once we have someone in Redskin Park with "General Manager" on his office door the fortunes of this team will magically lead us straight to a Lombardi Trophy. But it's all about what direction you're headed in, and whether you've experienced enough to learn from your past mistakes. I've said this over and over, and I'm growing tired of saying it -- but we know which strategy with regard to player-personnel doesn't work. Getting away from that philosophy -- regardless of the title of the person that changes it -- will signal that this organization is at least on the right track.

I agree with your post for the most part. All of our aquisitions have not worked out, but many have! I also firmly believe there is more than one way to achieve success. We have taken a tremendous amount of heat for not building throught the draft, conventionally as if that were the only path to the light. Again, look at the number of teams that used this method with NO success. I have no problem with combination of draft and FA. Look at the success rate of, and the difficulty of paying the high first round picks. Maybe it's better to trade down for more picks. The only point I want to make is, pioneering new and inventive ways to succeed is a risk/reward business, regardless of the business your in. I would prefer to lead the pack than to follow. I am totally confident that Joe2 can and will deliver the LONG TERM success we all would like to see.
I would not mind a GM (with winning track record) in the Skins equation. I would want Joe2 to bless the process or scrap it.

[skinsfan69]

I would not have a problem is CC coming back to our front office. Since he has left things have been pretty bad. When he left (if anyone can remember) he set the team up really good. He left it in real good shape. And the Texans problems are not all his fault.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I would not have a problem is CC coming back to our front office. Since he has left things have been pretty bad. When he left (if anyone can remember) he set the team up really good. He left it in real good shape. And the Texans problems are not all his fault.

So he gets credit for the good things, but no blame for when things haven't worked out??