Big C's "Is It the Talent" Poll

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

WHuuuuwuwuwuut!!!?

Coaching cannot be blaimed for the sustained failure of a team!? Coaching always evens out over the course of a season?

Um, yeah it can and no it doesn't. That's like one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

"Early season, the losing was almost exclusively a defensive issue. Through the first half of our season, the only thing this team had going for it was the passing game."

So which one was it, a defensive problem or an everthing but the passing game problem? So, while you where watching games you were honestly thinking, "If only the rest of our team could catch up to our passing game?"

"Our passing game completely fell off the map once Brunell was replaced by Campbell. This wasn't because Campbell was playing exceptionally poorly, but because our offense missed our "puss-armed" QB coming out and completing 63% week in and week out. Campbell was throwing at a Vick-like 51% through his first five starts and our offense was suffering. We lost a very significant yard and a half per attempt with #17 in. Luckily, Cooley made a gamebreaking play vs. Carolina and the defense held New Orleans quiet, or JC would have been without a win this year."

Our passing was not dangerous enough to keep defenses honest with Mark Brunell at QB. It became more and more and more obvious as his tenure wore on here. He was saved by the running game two years ago, and he hurt the running game last year. He hurt the offensive line. The gamebreaking play by Cooley is a perfect example. Cooley made that play because JC hit him down the field in stride. And because Jason could go deep and avoid the rush, oposing defenses couldn't stack the box or blitz at will without the fear of getting burned. And by the way, MB's stats from last year lie. He made a lot of those completions when games were out of hand, and yes our defense was terrible.

This kind of leads me to my answer to the original poster. I agree with the guy who said that these problems are not black and white, but are very complex, as are most problems in life.

I would also say that we have a talent issue on this team. And, in fact, the coaching staff, and above all Joe Gibbs, has a HUGE impact on deciding which players we actually keep or go after. So this coaching staff is not ONLY responsible for getting the players we do have to play, and putting them in a position to do so succesfully, but in deciding who those players are. If they know enough about these players to help pick them, then they should also be responsible to know how to USE them. Our players weren't particularly well picked or well used last year, but more than anything, the one position that you have to pick a good player is at quarterback. Joe Gibbs is responsible for picking Mark Brunell. And it became clear that Mark Brunell was never going to take us very far, so Joe Gibbs is responsible for keeping him in there too long as well. But Gibbs is also responsible for giving up a lot to draft JC. You see, although most problems in life are complex, the simplest part of the problem with the Washington Redskins is at quarterback. We haven't had one who's worth a damn in a long time. Fixing the franchise begins at QB, JC or otherwise.


Sorry my posts are always so damn long.

Nah, I enjoy responding to well elaborated posts. Both you and Skinsfan69 have reasonable arguments. I just disagree. I'll do my best to explain while keeping it concise.

Sustained failure is something I would define as a string of losing seasons, or in our case a string of losing with a winning season thrown in there. I find it an unreasonable position to say that we have only had one winning season since 1999 solely due to poor coaching. Rather we've had a very varible coaching staff ranging from the good (Gibbs) to the bad (Spurrier) to the incomplete (Schottenheimer). We have not had the talent to compete consistenly with the rest of the league. Doesn't matter who the coach is. A bad coach will not sustain losing if he has a good roster. He may cost his team a game here and there, but over the course of a season, or many seasons, coaching is ultimately a smaller factor than most give it credit for being. Bad coaches don't always lose and good coaches don't always win. Good coaches do a better job of playing their best players for the situation and bad coaches do not. But if the bad coach has a better team than the good coach, he's going to win more times than not.

So which one was it, a defensive problem or an everthing but the passing game problem? So, while you where watching games you were honestly thinking, "If only the rest of our team could catch up to our passing game?"

Well, the running game was weak early on. It did correct itself in the late season with Ladell Betts of all people running the ball. I wasn't thinking anything of the sort. Defense and offense are two seperate entities. The passing game certainly had it's flaws. But when it came to the end of the day, the offense was usually holding up its end of the bargain, it was keeping us in the game. This continued throughout the season with more of an emphasis on the running game with Campbell at QB.

Our passing was not dangerous enough to keep defenses honest with Mark Brunell at QB. It became more and more and more obvious as his tenure wore on here. He was saved by the running game two years ago, and he hurt the running game last year. He hurt the offensive line. The gamebreaking play by Cooley is a perfect example. Cooley made that play because JC hit him down the field in stride. And because Jason could go deep and avoid the rush, oposing defenses couldn't stack the box or blitz at will without the fear of getting burned. And by the way, MB's stats from last year lie. He made a lot of those completions when games were out of hand, and yes our defense was terrible.

I don't know why so many people think that Brunell and Co. weren't keeping defenses honest. Seems like its an undefendable notion designed to discredit otherwise sound production. Brunell threw damn near 7 yards an attempt last year. Either he was downfield passing more than we thought, or defenses were staying very honest and allowing 7 yard completions off delay check downs. It can't be both ways. If 11 guys are really at the LOS, check downs don't become 7 yard successful plays. This is an inconsistency in the "Brunell can't get it done" logic.

There is zero evidence to make me think we were defended differently than every other team in the league last year with Brunell. Brunell attacked an inconsistency in the soft zone that defenses in the NFL play. Peyton Manning attacked the Bears defense in the exact same way Brunell had been beating defenses this year on the games biggest stage. It's okay to move the ball with short controlled throws. Really it is.

Additionally, Brunell also had considerable success hitting Lloyd on that fade route in single coverage. That's a "deep" throw, is it not?

Teams could have defended the Redskins more aggressively if they wanted to last year, but theres no reason to think Brunell wouldn't have beaten them deep if they did. Brunell didn't take a lot of deep shots because he didnt need to. Pure and simple.

I would also say that we have a talent issue on this team. And, in fact, the coaching staff, and above all Joe Gibbs, has a HUGE impact on deciding which players we actually keep or go after. So this coaching staff is not ONLY responsible for getting the players we do have to play, and putting them in a position to do so succesfully, but in deciding who those players are. If they know enough about these players to help pick them, then they should also be responsible to know how to USE them. Our players weren't particularly well picked or well used last year, but more than anything, the one position that you have to pick a good player is at quarterback. Joe Gibbs is responsible for picking Mark Brunell. And it became clear that Mark Brunell was never going to take us very far, so Joe Gibbs is responsible for keeping him in there too long as well. But Gibbs is also responsible for giving up a lot to draft JC. You see, although most problems in life are complex, the simplest part of the problem with the Washington Redskins is at quarterback. We haven't had one who's worth a damn in a long time. Fixing the franchise begins at QB, JC or otherwise.

Yeah, but the duties of a coach and the duties of a GM aren't similar. If we don't have the talent to compete, that's not a coaching issue. It's a managerial error made by people who also happen to coach. There's a big difference.

I don't think Brunell was kept in too long. Gibbs was trying to win games. With our defense, we couldn't have expected it to happen. But as a coach, his duty is to play to win the game. It's very clear to see that Campbell in 2006 didn't give us our best chance to win games. I mean, we got to see him play. He was learning on the job. He did not do better than Brunell did. That's quite clear. It's good that JC got out there to get some experience. It should speed his development up a little bit. But it may have cost us some games, Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, and Atlanta were games were poor QB play contributed a major part to the loss.

But even if we had won all 3, we still would have lost the tiebreaker to New York, so its certainly a plus that JC got to play.

You can't EVER fault a coach for playing his best players. I think it would have been a questionable decision had we played Brunell all 16 games, even after we were out of the playoff race, but certainly defenseable. You play to win the game.

Good post, BTW. I bet most of america would agree with you. I'm just addressing what I believe to be inconsistencies with reality.