Casserly Keeping his options open

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

Every GM makes bad picks. Look at Bobby B. He made some HORRIBLE PICKS. Remember Tory Nixon? I just think CC is a smart sharp person when it comes to the NFL. I'm not saying bring him back as the GM but perhaps a consultant or something like that. He's certainly better than anyone we have now.

[MTK]

Just curious, what will it say for this current front office if the team makes the playoffs again next year?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just curious, what will it say for this current front office if the team makes the playoffs again next year?

2 playoff seasons and 2 losing seasons? I'd call that a mixed bag, inconsistency.

What do you call a 21-25 overall record?

More importantly, what would you call it if Joe Gibbs weren't the head coach and team president?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

2 playoff seasons and 2 losing seasons? I'd call that a mixed bag, inconsistency.

What do you call a 21-25 overall record?

More importantly, what would you call it if Joe Gibbs weren't the head coach and team president?

ok, how about a Super Bowl?

My point is, if the front office is doing such a horrible job now and is the focal point for a lot of the blame, would they receive an equal amount of praise if things turned around? Somehow I doubt it.

I've already said it before, regardless of his name, I am not satisfied with our current situation. Losing is never acceptable however, again regardless of his name, I wouldn't be calling for major changes.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

ok, how about a Super Bowl?

My point is, if the front office is doing such a horrible job now and is the focal point for a lot of the blame, would they receive an equal amount of praise if things turned around? Somehow I doubt it.

I've already said it before, regardless of his name, I am not satisfied with our current situation. Losing is never acceptable however, again regardless of his name, I wouldn't be calling for major changes.

Those who defend this front office have to do it with "what ifs" and hypotheticals. The skeptics, those who criticize the current system only have to point to the scoreboard.

This is just a thought, but... the people who blindly and relentlessly defend the upper levels of the franchise who are in charge of personnel -- weren't they the same people who told us that everything would be fine once the exhibition games were over and the regular season started?

I'm not calling for major changes to the coaching staff. I believe the structure is fine just the way it is -- and Saunders WILL pay dividends, it's only a matter of time. And I don't buy into the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' arguement.

I am firmly on the side that says the personnel decision making process needs to be revised. What has to stop is the current system, which resembles a couple of teenagers with a blank check from Daddy Warbucks'.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Those who defend this front office have to do it with "what ifs" and hypotheticals. The skeptics, those who criticize the current system only have to point to the scoreboard.

This is just a thought, but... the people who blindly and relentlessly defend the upper levels of the franchise who are in charge of personnel -- weren't they the same people who told us that everything would be fine once the exhibition games were over and the regular season started?

I'm not calling for major changes to the coaching staff. I believe the structure is fine just the way it is -- and Saunders WILL pay dividends, it's only a matter of time. And I don't buy into the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' arguement.

I am firmly on the side that says the personnel decision making process needs to be revised. What has to stop is the current system, which resembles a couple of teenagers with a blank check from Daddy Warbucks'.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying the coaching staff is fine but it doesn't really matter because they don't have the right players to coach?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Those who defend this front office have to do it with "what ifs" and hypotheticals. The skeptics, those who criticize the current system only have to point to the scoreboard.

This is just a thought, but... the people who blindly and relentlessly defend the upper levels of the franchise who are in charge of personnel -- weren't they the same people who told us that everything would be fine once the exhibition games were over and the regular season started?

I'm not calling for major changes to the coaching staff. I believe the structure is fine just the way it is -- and Saunders WILL pay dividends, it's only a matter of time. And I don't buy into the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' arguement.

I am firmly on the side that says the personnel decision making process needs to be revised. What has to stop is the current system, which resembles a couple of teenagers with a blank check from Daddy Warbucks'.

I disagree. Gibbs come in, has a rusty period with clock management issues and offensive issues. He still produces a 1300 yard rusher in that system, all the while GW leads the defense to third overall. The next year, with virtually the same team, Gibbs leads the team to a playoff win, two record setting team performances by both Portis and Moss. Both acquisitions of the current administration.

This year is most certainly an "off" year. While football is a team game, it's a lot of great individual efforts that make average teams great. You lose Pierson, Springs and Portis on day one. Springs and Portis are arguably MVPs on their respective sides of the ball. What is it that needs to be changed? Why does everyone have such a problem with how things are run?

After we made these offseason moves, we were all excited to be Super Bowl bound. Is it overspending then?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Those who defend this front office have to do it with "what ifs" and hypotheticals. The skeptics, those who criticize the current system only have to point to the scoreboard.

This is just a thought, but... the people who blindly and relentlessly defend the upper levels of the franchise who are in charge of personnel -- weren't they the same people who told us that everything would be fine once the exhibition games were over and the regular season started?

I'm not calling for major changes to the coaching staff. I believe the structure is fine just the way it is -- and Saunders WILL pay dividends, it's only a matter of time. And I don't buy into the 'too many cooks in the kitchen' arguement.

I am firmly on the side that says the personnel decision making process needs to be revised. What has to stop is the current system, which resembles a couple of teenagers with a blank check from Daddy Warbucks'.

I'm not blindly following anything, and I'm pretty much done with defending myself on that point. Last year wasn't a what if, remarkable as it may have seemed to some, the personnel that was selected by this front office led this team to 11 wins including the playoffs. It's not crazy to think that it can happen again.

Back to my hypothetical, because that is what we do here on occassion, what if this team goes to the Super Bowl? Will the front office get any credit, or will the team have somehow overcome the totally inept front office??

[The Zimmermans]

I think we just need gibbs to evaluate talent on his own or not at all. He picked campbell, which seems to be working out, he picked brunell....who DID take us to the playoffs....he didn't pick ARCH. The key is for there to be one final decision maker, not three. With three, you get three different gameplans, three different approaches, three different needs. So Gibbs needs to step up and take full responsibility or lay off completely with personnel.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Just for the record (again) so that we all have it down. Who was going to predict the injuries that we've had this year? A totally healthy team has the same talent it had last year. The same team that took us to the playoffs. They'll be back next year, I mean look at the Eagles.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Just for the record (again) so that we all have it down. Who was going to predict the injuries that we've had this year? A totally healthy team has the same talent it had last year. The same team that took us to the playoffs. They'll be back next year, I mean look at the Eagles.

We had one starter go down for the year. One. And we still had him for eight games.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Pierson. Portis. Springs.

One?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Pierson. Portis. Springs.

One?

Prioleau is not a starter. We still had Springs for more than half the year, along with Portis.

Let's not blame this season on injuries. That would take us to a whole new level of ignorance.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Prioleau is not a starter. We still had Springs for more than half the year, along with Portis.

Let's not blame this season on injuries. That would take us to a whole new level of ignorance.

Yes, Pierson IS a starter. He was scheduled to start alongside Taylor in the opener.

And as for injuries, tell that to Philly last year and this year. How many times did we see Kenny Wright and Adam Archuleta getting burned for touchdowns while covering the teams number one or number two receivers? I'm sure if a GM, Gibbs, Saunders, the turf guy or anyone knew both Springs and Pierson wouldn't be starting, they PROBABLY would have tried to sign a starting corner. Things like that are unforseen, you hope the team can handle it, but most can't.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Yes, Pierson IS a starter. He was scheduled to start alongside Taylor in the opener.

NO Pierson's NOT the starter. He wasn't the starter last year. Ryan Clark was, then Arculeta was brought in to replace him. Prioleau was a back-up. Notice also he was injured on a special teams play.

Now, you could make the argument that since Archuleta is an incompetent, inept BUFFOON, Prioleau would have been called upon to start in place of him. But who's fault was that? Could it be the fault of the people who called for Randle El AND Brandon Lloyd when James Thrash and David Patten were riding the pine? Could minor adjustments here and there, say ... taking a corner instead of Rocky McIntosh (who only took 13 games or so before he was ready for significant playing time) have something to do with the fact that there's no one else to turn to in the secondary but Mike Rumph and Ade Frickin' Jimoh?

Or, that we have to depend on Warrick Holdman when Antonio Pierce might have offered a better alternative at linebacker? Noooo. Now Antonio sits in the middle of a pentagram, surrounded by burning candles in a hypnotic trance whenever he gets the chance to play his former team to inflict revenge like the kind the Redskins have never seen!

Oh that's right. I'm thinking of Mike Barrow, not Holdman. How could I have forgotten that brilliant addition?

What else needs to happen before you concede that the way things are set up now don't exactly work?