Hall In, Taylor Out??

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah dude you sound like you'd run the team like Tom Coughlin. First, sitting him for a couple of series hardly sends any message at all. I don't even know what the point would be. They'd basically be saying, "Sean, we don't like you missing OTAs, so we're going to sit you to start the game. But we're going to get you back in the lineup real quick because we think you're that good, despite the fact that you missed the OTAs."

I just don't see the point. Rule with an iron fist and players are going to start getting pissed at you. Being a hard-ass is one thing, but if your players resent you they won't play for you. You want tough discipline, but not at the expense of rationality. The punishment has to fit the crime. And since these are voluntary workouts there is no crime, and hence there should be no punishment.

No, Tom Coughlin is an ass. I don't agree with his coaching style at all, and I would not run my team like him. Not sure where you fail to see the middle ground here, but I'm not talking about a guy showing up 5 minutes late for a team meeting. I'm talking about a second-year guy completely ignoring his coach, showing complete disdain for his entire team, and missing workouts he really does need............not a pro-bowler who shows up late for one meeting (a.k.a Michael Strahan).

And the point of sitting him is to send a message to him, the rest of the team, and the public at large that disrespect has consequences. If he does it again after you sit him for a few series, you sit him for a game, and so on and so forth. I don't think it's all that strange of a concept that discipline for first-time offenders should be less than discipline for repeat offenders. He pulls the same crap next year, increase punishment even more, but don't get walked all over by some 22 year old who thinks he's above the rest of the team.

And players won't play for you if they don't respect you either, so I'm sorry but I've had enough years of players treating Skins' coaches like jokes because they were too afraid to say a word of disapproval to anyone. Did you really think the players played hard for Turner or Spurrier? Did you really think they respected them at all? Those guys let the players walk all over them, never dished out a bit of discipline, and what do we have to show for it? I fail to see how your coaching style has ever proven more effective? On the other hand, guys like Parcells, Ditka, Shannahan, Gruden, Billick and Belicheck have never had a problem getting tough on players, and they have how many rings?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

And the point of sitting him is to send a message to him, the rest of the team, and the public at large that disrespect has consequences. If he does it again after you sit him for a few series, you sit him for a game, and so on and so forth. I don't think it's all that strange of a concept that discipline for first-time offenders should be less than discipline for repeat offenders. He pulls the same crap next year, increase punishment even more, but don't get walked all over by some 22 year old who thinks he's above the rest of the team.

What you are suggesting is ridiculous.. You're assuming that sitting him will teach him a lesson.. Benching someone for the first couple series of a game for missing VOLUNTARY workouts just proves that you are petty to your team.. If he pulls it again next year bench him for longer? I thought the point of benching this year was to teach him a lesson.. What's next a 4 game suspension? Your other points (that I didn't quote) regarding Turner and Spurrier were somewhat valid but without organizational accountability, which we have lacked since Gibbs the 1st time (except Schottenheimer's one year) is what causes players to run amok, not the discipline style of the coach.. Billick is known as a players coach, he won, Vermiel is a players coach, he wins, Marv Levy was a players coach and he won, there are plenty of examples of you not having to be an ass to your players to be successful..

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

What you are suggesting is ridiculous.. You're assuming that sitting him will teach him a lesson.. Benching someone for the first couple series of a game for missing VOLUNTARY workouts just proves that you are petty to your team.. If he pulls it again next year bench him for longer? I thought the point of benching this year was to teach him a lesson.. What's next a 4 game suspension? Your other points (that I didn't quote) regarding Turner and Spurrier were somewhat valid but without organizational accountability, which we have lacked since Gibbs the 1st time (except Schottenheimer's one year) is what causes players to run amok, not the discipline style of the coach.. Billick is known as a players coach, he won, Vermiel is a players coach, he wins, Marv Levy was a players coach and he won, there are plenty of examples of you not having to be an ass to your players to be successful..

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

You're right. A player should be able to say FU*K You to the coach and still play if he's good enough. And because any small amount of discipline might not be successful, you just shouldn't bother. Absolutely. Players should definitely be allowed to show complete disrespect for their team and coaches and the precedent we should set for that behavior is to name that player your starter, because after all, nothing is more important that how fast a player can run and how high he can jump and how many plays he can make. Attitude means nothing and respect for the team should be completely discounted.

Look, all I'm getting at is I think it's a little hasty to say that what I'm proposing is so "rediculous". Players have been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for less. Why we're so afraid to do it is beyond me.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

Sorry for coming in on the end of the conversation, but if you are talking about Dick Vermeil, he has a Super Bowl ring with the Rams.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Sorry for coming in on the end of the conversation, but if you are talking about Dick Vermeil, he has a Super Bowl ring with the Rams.

...Rams..........D'Oh........how the heck did I forget about the Rams?.......sorry, my mistake (I was thinking Eagles and Cheifs).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

You're right. A player should be able to say FU*K You to the coach and still play if he's good enough. And because any small amount of discipline might not be successful, you just shouldn't bother. Absolutely. Players should definitely be allowed to show complete disrespect for their team and coaches and the precedent we should set for that behavior is to name that player your starter, because after all, nothing is more important that how fast a player can run and how high he can jump and how many plays he can make. Attitude means nothing and respect for the team should be completely discounted.

Look, all I'm getting at is I think it's a little hasty to say that what I'm proposing is so "rediculous". Players have been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for less. Why we're so afraid to do it is beyond me.

Dude, Vermeil won with the Rams. 1999 wasn't that long ago. He also took the Eagles there in 1980. Marv Levy, while he didn't win, went to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. You don't have to be a stark disciplinarian to be successful.

On Tom Coughlin, I'd contend that being 5 minutes late to a mandatory meeting is a worse offense than staying home from a voluntary workout.

I think you're letting your frustration over Taylor cloud your judgment. Not everything is going to be perfect. What would you have done about John Riggins when he held out in 1981? Players need good coaches, and coaches need good players. You have to strike a balance between maintaining order and control over your team, and keeping your players happy and interested in being Redskins for the long term. Gibbs is excellent at this, Tom Coughlin is not.

If you've got a player who just doesn't want to be here at all, like Laveraneus Coles, then you should get rid of him. But Sean Taylor has just been avoiding Gibbs and the team activities at this point, he hasn't made it clear that he doesn't want to be here. So if he shows up to mandatory practices, works hard, and plays well during the year, there's no harm done. All I'm saying is don't hang the guy just yet. He hasn't had a negative effect on the team attitude yet, he hasn't become a cancer yet, he hasn't caused us to lose a game yet, and he hasn't undermined the respect players have for the coaching staff yet. Benching him to "send a message" (ooh, I'm shaking in my boots) will do nothing and is premature.

I'd rather see Gibbs worry about coaching the guys who are attending OTAs than worry about the guys who aren't there.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Dude, Vermeil won with the Rams. 1999 wasn't that long ago. He also took the Eagles there in 1980. Marv Levy, while he didn't win, went to the Super Bowl 4 years in a row. You don't have to be a stark disciplinarian to be successful.

Yes, I forgot about the Vermeil 99 Rams..........my bad. And I'm not saying you have to be a stark disciplinarian.........but comparing tough coaches to coaches like Turner and Spurrier and even Vermeil and Levy? I think you'll find that letting players walk all over you hasn't yielded as many championships.

On Tom Coughlin, I'd contend that being 5 minutes late to a mandatory meeting is a worse offense than staying home from a voluntary workout.

Again you and I disagree on this, because I really don't think Strahan being 5 minutes late is worse than Taylor not showing up at all to OTAs and completely failing to return Gibbs's calls, but that's just me.

I think you're letting your frustration over Taylor cloud your judgment. Not everything is going to be perfect. What would you have done about John Riggins when he held out in 1981? Players need good coaches, and coaches need good players. You have to strike a balance between maintaining order and control over your team, and keeping your players happy and interested in being Redskins for the long term. Gibbs is excellent at this, Tom Coughlin is not.

Agreed, you need a balance. But where is the balance in not doing anything? Really, I'd love to hear some suggestions on what else Gibbs can do regarding Taylor's actions here? So far, there has been my idea, and there has been do nothing. I simply can't bring myself to believing that doing nothing is the way to go or that it will creat a balance of anything. Again it's just my opinion.

If you've got a player who just doesn't want to be here at all, like Laveraneus Coles, then you should get rid of him. But Sean Taylor has just been avoiding Gibbs and the team activities at this point, he hasn't made it clear that he doesn't want to be here. So if he shows up to mandatory practices, works hard, and plays well during the year, there's no harm done. All I'm saying is don't hang the guy just yet. He hasn't had a negative effect on the team attitude yet, he hasn't become a cancer yet, he hasn't caused us to lose a game yet, and he hasn't undermined the respect players have for the coaching staff yet. Benching him to "send a message" (ooh, I'm shaking in my boots) will do nothing and is premature.

I'd rather see Gibbs worry about coaching the guys who are attending OTAs than worry about the guys who aren't there.

Agreed, Gibbs should, and is, concentrating on coaching the players he does have. What I'm proposing takes none of his effort or concentration away from that. And I guess we will see if his actions so far have caused any controversies in the lockeroom if he ever shows up. As for his desire to be a Redskin? He hasn't shown me that in the least bit.

But I hear you..........I'm looking forward to his showing up for the mandatory stuff and I'm interested to see what kind of dynamic he has with the other players when/if he does show up. I hope that everyone will get along just fine and he picks up where he left off and he has a good excuse for Joe as to why he kept blowing him off. Hey, I'd love to be completely wrong here and have him show up without any ill-effects on his development or how the team/coaches view him. We'll see.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Vermeil has won what? Levy has won what? Last I checked both have combined for Zero rings.

You're right. A player should be able to say FU*K You to the coach and still play if he's good enough. And because any small amount of discipline might not be successful, you just shouldn't bother. Absolutely. Players should definitely be allowed to show complete disrespect for their team and coaches and the precedent we should set for that behavior is to name that player your starter, because after all, nothing is more important that how fast a player can run and how high he can jump and how many plays he can make. Attitude means nothing and respect for the team should be completely discounted.

Look, all I'm getting at is I think it's a little hasty to say that what I'm proposing is so "rediculous". Players have been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for less. Why we're so afraid to do it is beyond me.

I'm not going to beat you over the head anymore about Vermiel and Levy's accomplishments, just make sure you see their busts in the Hall of Fame (in the same wing as Gibbs' who has never been a strict disciplinarian) in a few years to get my point.. I don't get how not coming to VOLUNTARY workouts and team activities is disrespectful for the team and coaches.. Should he return phone calls, yes, should he be benched for it, hell no. Players have never been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for that or less..

Matty, can I request a moratorium on all Taylor relating whining until he misses a mandatory practice or declares himself a holdout from camp?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I'm not going to beat you over the head anymore about Vermiel and Levy's accomplishments, just make sure you see their busts in the Hall of Fame (in the same wing as Gibbs' who has never been a strict disciplinarian) in a few years to get my point.. I don't get how not coming to VOLUNTARY workouts and team activities is disrespectful for the team and coaches.. Should he return phone calls, yes, should he be benched for it, hell no. Players have never been benched and kept out of the starting lineup for that or less..

Actually I'd be pretty surprised if Vermeil makes the hall.

And players get into coaches' "doghouses" all the time, and they get put on the bench for it or sit out a few series for it. Not only does it not "never" happen, it happens multiple times each season. I'm not going to come up with all the examples now, but I'll be sure to point it out to you every time it happens this year if you like.

[wolfeskins]

i'm with you PSU21, taylor is the only player with an unexcused absence. i'm quite sure gibbs is more pissed off than he is showing. taylor not returning gibbs' calls is just total disrespect. i agree with you when you suggest some sort of punishment. whether the punishment works or not on "getting through" to taylor it needs to be done in order to set an example and to let the rest of the players know that a single player is not bigger than the team.
i'm really dissapointed in the amount of people on this sight that try to defend taylor. his actions are defenseless. there is no rational reason for him not being at the work outs or for not returning phone calls. i do think the signing of hall is in direct influence of the taylor situation. i think the skins are just preparing for the possibility of taylor not showing up for minicamp.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by wolfeskins

i'm with you PSU21, taylor is the only player with an unexcused absence. i'm quite sure gibbs is more pissed off than he is showing. taylor not returning gibbs' calls is just total disrespect. i agree with you when you suggest some sort of punishment. whether the punishment works or not on "getting through" to taylor it needs to be done in order to set an example and to let the rest of the players know that a single player is not bigger than the team.
i'm really dissapointed in the amount of people on this sight that try to defend taylor. his actions are defenseless. there is no rational reason for him not being at the work outs or for not returning phone calls. i do think the signing of hall is in direct influence of the taylor situation. i think the skins are just preparing for the possibility of taylor not showing up for minicamp.

Thanks Wolf
I was feeling like a castaway on an island somewhere in the south pacific for most of yesterday.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Actually I'd be pretty surprised if Vermeil makes the hall.

And players get into coaches' "doghouses" all the time, and they get put on the bench for it or sit out a few series for it. Not only does it not "never" happen, it happens multiple times each season. I'm not going to come up with all the examples now, but I'll be sure to point it out to you every time it happens this year if you like.

I'd be suprised if he didn't make the hall.. Super Bowls with 2 teams in 2 completely different eras, winning one.. A winner for most of his coaching career (Lost is about to come on so I am not going to take the time to research) not to mention his broadcasting prowess. If he somehow gets to the Super Bowl with the Chiefs (which I completely doubt by the way) he's a lead pipe lock.. Don't forget he's a media darling and they are the ones who vote..

Getting into a coaches doghouse in May and doing something midseason to get benched are completely different entities.. Once the season starts you are on their time, in May, you are on your own time.

[wolfeskins]

[QUOTE=Paintrain]I'd be suprised if he didn't make the hall.. Don't forget he's a media darling and they are the ones who vote..[QUOTE]





plus he cries more than any other coach in the history of professional sports.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I'd be suprised if he didn't make the hall.. Super Bowls with 2 teams in 2 completely different eras, winning one.. A winner for most of his coaching career (Lost is about to come on so I am not going to take the time to research) not to mention his broadcasting prowess. If he somehow gets to the Super Bowl with the Chiefs (which I completely doubt by the way) he's a lead pipe lock.. Don't forget he's a media darling and they are the ones who vote..

Getting into a coaches doghouse in May and doing something midseason to get benched are completely different entities.. Once the season starts you are on their time, in May, you are on your own time.

First, you make a good point about May v. Mid-season.

Vermeil: Even I was a little surprised to find that his career win/loss record is only 110 wins / 103 losses (52% winning percentage) with a post-season record of 6-5. I know he's a media sweetheart, but there's no way that record gets you into the hall.

There are currently only 20 coaches in the HOF right now. I'll list the only ones to have coached arguably in the modern area (since 1980):
(all regular season records)
Joe Gibbs: 130-70
Bud Grant: 158-96-5
Tom Landry: 250-162-6
Marv Levy: 143-112
Chuck Noll: 193-148-1
Don Shula: 328-156-6
Bill Walsh: 92-59-1

Aside from their records, you can tie each of the above names to specific teams that were dominant for at least a decade. I don't even know what team Vermeil would be inducted under? Eagles? because he was there the longest? Rams? because he won with them? Cheifs? Ok, obviously not, but the point is there is no way you can put Dick Vermeil's name up there with that list. Just no way IMO.

Add to that all the coaches that are in line ahead of Vermeil (record and/or accomplishment wise):
Bill Cowher
Mike Ditka
Mike Holmgren
John Madden
Bill Parcells
Dan Reeves
Marty Shottenheimer
Mike Shanahan