WP article: Time for Gibbs to walk away?

[Green1]

They show get a GM, but Gibbs needs to take back over the playcalling. With his playbook. 50 Gut- counter trey = AL Saunders running plays up the middle

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Green1

They show get a GM, but Gibbs needs to take back over the playcalling. With his playbook. 50 Gut- counter trey = AL Saunders running plays up the middle

I know that Portis is having trouble right now, but asking Al Saunders to run the ball up the gut might be a little too much to ask.

[Dlyne8r]

Originally Posted by Green1

They show get a GM, but Gibbs needs to take back over the playcalling. With his playbook. 50 Gut- counter trey = AL Saunders running plays up the middle

Welcome to the site Green1. But, what you suggest is really what has made Gibbs so predictable. 50 Gut, Counter Trey, etc., etc. worked well back in the 80's, but I don't truly believe he's had near as much success running those type formations in his second round.

[Green1]

Originally Posted by Dlyne8r

Welcome to the site Green1. But, what you suggest is really what has made Gibbs so predictable. 50 Gut, Counter Trey, etc., etc. worked well back in the 80's, but I don't truly believe he's had near as much success running those type formations in his second round.

Those plays work to get the skins to the playoffs in 2004. Why not now? If Gibbs walks away why not let him do it his way with control of the offense, and if he can't get to the playoffs then he should walk away. Football is football from the 1980's until now the only difference is the speed and size of the players. Its still executing the plays correctly and being able to block and tackle. You guys are trying to make it so complex and its not. The plays then and and now are basicially the same the only thing different is the formations. Check out the west coast offense. An 1980's offense but almost all of the teams in the NFL run it. Joe Gibbs offense will work with people that can execute it.

[BDBohnzie]

For some reason, when people question how long it takes to build a Super Bowl winner, I think of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Bill Cowher. He was the Steelers coach for 15 years, and made it to the Super Bowl twice, winning once (14th season). While other teams went through coaches left and right, including the Redskins, Cowher was a mainstay in Pittsburgh.

I think whomever takes over for Gibbs (when he's ready to leave on his terms...he will not be fired), this is the style of approach necessary to build a winner. Cowher had 3 losing seasons in 15 years. The Rooneys gave him what he needed, and Cowher led them on the field.

Now, don't get me wrong...I know of the talk of Cowher being the next coach here. And I'm certainly not on the Cowher bandwagon to bring him here. We have 2 perfectly good candidates in Saunders and Williams to take over this team when Gibbs is ready. I see Gibbs keeping his Team President role and giving the next head coach what they need to be successful.

The New England game was an anomaly. New England played at the top of their game, while the Skins played at the bottom. This team is better than what we saw last Sunday, and I don't think we'll see that "team" again the rest of the season. The nice thing: at 4-3, we still have plenty of time to right the ship.

[irish]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

For some reason, when people question how long it takes to build a Super Bowl winner, I think of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Bill Cowher. He was the Steelers coach for 15 years, and made it to the Super Bowl twice, winning once (14th season). While other teams went through coaches left and right, including the Redskins, Cowher was a mainstay in Pittsburgh.

I think whomever takes over for Gibbs (when he's ready to leave on his terms...he will not be fired), this is the style of approach necessary to build a winner. Cowher had 3 losing seasons in 15 years. The Rooneys gave him what he needed, and Cowher led them on the field.

Now, don't get me wrong...I know of the talk of Cowher being the next coach here. And I'm certainly not on the Cowher bandwagon to bring him here. We have 2 perfectly good candidates in Saunders and Williams to take over this team when Gibbs is ready. I see Gibbs keeping his Team President role and giving the next head coach what they need to be successful.

The New England game was an anomaly. New England played at the top of their game, while the Skins played at the bottom. This team is better than what we saw last Sunday, and I don't think we'll see that "team" again the rest of the season. The nice thing: at 4-3, we still have plenty of time to right the ship.

Cowher may have only won the SB once but he was in the AFC chamionship game a bunch and a perennial playoff contender. I think a big part of the reason Cowher could coach for 15 years is that he was brought in young so even if it took a few years to get the ball rolling he was still young enough to let it roll for a few years. Like I said before, Gibbs is old and is now in his 4th season. Even if the ball got rolling fast (which it didnt) it wasnt like Gibbs was going to be around long anyway so it would be on to another coach and a new system. Thats just not the way to build a consistent winner. I hope the next redskin coach is closer to 30 yrs old than to 70.

[#56fanatic]

its hard to disagree with the guy. he makes some very good points. Fact is Gibbs really hasn't turned around this franchise like we all have expected, and I am sure as Snyder expected. 6-10 1st season, 10-6 second season (with a 5 game winning streak) 5-11 the third and 4-3 righ now. I still see the same stupid stuff we saw when he came back. Clock management, lack of adjustments, bad moves personel wise, no offensive creativity, playing not to lose instead of to win. He has given us some good talent as the writer points out, but as a whole I think the personel moves have been less than average. I just dont see this team in any better situation (win loss record) than before he got here. I know people are going to bring up the players we have, and that supports my statement. With these players we should be winning more, we should be scoring more points, instead of having the 25th to 31st ranked offense every year.

[bertoskins2]

ex falcons coach Jim Mora with the grooming of Gibbs is a good candidate

[Daseal]

Freddy, regardless of what you feel is a decent amount of time to turn it around, few head coaches in the NFL more than four years to make their team a contender. It's the way of the NFL now for better or worse.

[SouperMeister]

I would argue that the contract extensions at the end of the 2006 season (Sellers and Betts), plus Cooley's recent extension demonstrate that Gibbs and the FO are FINALLY starting to get it from a personnel perspective. Keeping a core group together is a huge key to success in the NFL. As for newer guys, who would argue against the 2007 free agent signings of London Fletcher and Fred Smoot? Even the Pete Kendall trade was a solid one for us. If the FO can address the O-line and perhaps add a pass rushing DE in the draft, we have the makings of a very solid contender for 2008.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Freddy, regardless of what you feel is a decent amount of time to turn it around, few head coaches in the NFL more than four years to make their team a contender. It's the way of the NFL now for better or worse.

point taken, however no team in the nfl has quite the mess that Synder created. When the CBA was about to expire in 06 we were in serious trouble given the dead cap space we had. That's why I think that Gibbs should be evaluated relative to the task he's faced.

That said, Gibbs has done a good job of building for the future IMO & I think this team could be a contender next year. I agree w/Shapiro's assessment of his clock mgmt. & overall game day performance. Gibbs doesn't have the edge he once had, but it might be a matter of him getting it back each year. His teams have developed a pattern the last 3 years of regressing towards the middle of the year, then needing a return to "redskins football" to finish the year strong. This is the 3rd year in a row we've heard the same thing (interesting to note that Gibbs did this in 05 w/out Saunders around) at about the same time.

It may be that Gibbs himself needs that much time into the season to put his foot down. I don't care so long as he can get the team to finish strong, but I'll also admit it's a pattern that can't go on every year.

[Daseal]

I think our problem is we're used to free agents being able to make an immediate impact.

If the FO can address the O-line and perhaps add a pass rushing DE in the draft, we have the makings of a very solid contender for 2008.

While I don't deny what you're saying here (although I think we need a WR too) I think the logic is flawed. We draft rookies, and expect them to come in and be solid starters. As we see, it often takes players a while to develop. Part of building through the draft is being patient with the players that come through. The hate I've seen for Carlos Rogers playing arguable one of the 3 hardest positions in football, has amazed me. It made me realize why we go after free agency, no one wants to let these players develop. If the biggest gripe someone as about a corner back is their hands, I feel they've done a pretty damn good job, especially since it was his 2nd season.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Daseal

...
While I don't deny what you're saying here (although I think we need a WR too) I think the logic is flawed. We draft rookies, and expect them to come in and be solid starters. As we see, it often takes players a while to develop. Part of building through the draft is being patient with the players that come through. The hate I've seen for Carlos Rogers playing arguable one of the 3 hardest positions in football, has amazed me. It made me realize why we go after free agency, no one wants to let these players develop. If the biggest gripe someone as about a corner back is their hands, I feel they've done a pretty damn good job, especially since it was his 2nd season.

I'd argue that we've done quite well with our first day draft picks, and they have all become solid starters. I have been a Carlos Rogers defender this season - he was playing well prior to his injury. Other day 1 selections are also starters and doing quite well (Campbell, Taylor, McIntosh, Cooley, and Landry). 2nd day picks Golston and Montgomery have also contributed, while Blades certainly looks like a keeper. I am fine with the FO's recent draft record. I would definitely like to see us do a better job of retaining our picks for future drafts, which seems to be the case after getting burned on Lloyd and Duckett. In a nutshell, I think that Gibbs and the FO finally understand that establishing a stable core is key, and being selective in FA (i.e. Fletcher, Smoot) and drafting well are equally important. A few more offseasons like 2007 will produce a consistent contender IMO.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Daseal

While I don't deny what you're saying here (although I think we need a WR too) I think the logic is flawed. We draft rookies, and expect them to come in and be solid starters. As we see, it often takes players a while to develop. Part of building through the draft is being patient with the players that come through. The hate I've seen for Carlos Rogers playing arguable one of the 3 hardest positions in football, has amazed me. It made me realize why we go after free agency, no one wants to let these players develop. If the biggest gripe someone as about a corner back is their hands, I feel they've done a pretty damn good job, especially since it was his 2nd season.

Good point.

Very few draft picks can do anything more than fill a gap in their first season, and those who do tend to be great, albeit few and far between.

We should now be starting to see the return on our 2004 and 2005 drafts. Our first pick in 2005 just went out for the year with a knee injury, so that leaves Taylor, Cooley, and Campbell.

Those three have progressed pretty well to date, but we simply didn't put enough youth in the system to run with it.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Good point.

Very few draft picks can do anything more than fill a gap in their first season, and those who do tend to be great, albeit few and far between.

We should now be starting to see the return on our 2004 and 2005 drafts. Our first pick in 2005 just went out for the year with a knee injury, so that leaves Taylor, Cooley, and Campbell.

Those three have progressed pretty well to date, but we simply didn't put enough youth in the system to run with it.

Don't forget McIntosh and Landry - both starting and contributing heavily to the success of the D. They surely beat having Holdman and Archuleta out there.