Casserly Keeping his options open

paulskinsfan · 12-19-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I would totally keep Vinny out of this. Don't the coaches make all the personnel decisions? Everyone is always, "GM! WE NEED A GM!!!!!!!" So we almost struck out in our FA acquisitions this year, so what? Overall, Gibbs and staff have made overwhelmingly positive decisions with regard to the draft and free agency. Sure we let Pierce and Smoot go, but would a GM have prevented that from happening? I think our talent evaluation is fine save for the Archuleta signing.

I respectfully completely disagree. "So we almost struck out in our FA acquisitions this year, so what?" Well, we are now just an estimated 1 million under the cap for next year and we once again traded our picks out like they were candy! 3rd rounder for Brunnell, who was gonna be cut. 2 picks for Lloyd, throw in a 2nd rounder along with Champ for Portis, trade picks to move up to take Rocky McIntosh, let go of a pretty good safety to sign AA to the richest contract in NFL history for a safety.....C'MON!!! Enough is enough. No one even talks about Patten anymore, another bust for the money. Barrow. Anyone remember him? What a contributor. A good GM utilizes the draft, and fills holes here and there with FA. A good GM would not have given draft picks away like passifiers at a Phish show.

Hog1 · 12-19-2006, 02:46 PM

Did not Charlie spearhead the effort to draft Mario Williams, and pass up Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and Matt Leinart?

#56fanatic · 12-20-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

Did not Charlie spearhead the effort to draft Mario Williams, and pass up Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and Matt Leinart?

i was just getting ready to type that. Do you want the guy that passed on possibly the best talent coming out of college football in the past 10 years? for a DE?? pass on a guy that could touch the ball 25 to 30 times, for a guy that may get a sack a game and 5 tackles.

#56fanatic · 12-20-2006, 07:30 PM

A GM may or may not be the answer. I think the players we have on our team are better than 90% of the roster of most teams in the NFL. A GM would not have won us 5 more games. We got out coached in a few of the games. GW out coached himself this year with trying all kinds of cover 2 schemes that he has never used. We didn't stick with what won us all those games at the end of the year last year. That is why we are 5-9. Our D didn't play with the hear and emotion of last year. Springs being hurt may have hurt us a bit, but when you #1 corner is the getting beat (Carlos) like a mule it doesn't really matter who your #2 is does it? I think the front office, including Gibbs, jumped a little too quick. We had the #11 ranked offense in the NFL last year. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that. Teams that have the continuity, the familiarity of each other are the ones that start winning more games every year. I think the coaching staff got a little lazy in the offseason and just assumed we would come right back and be the same team. In stead of getting rid of people we think are the problem, why not keep them around(Saunders, williams, AA ect) Williams is a great D coach, Saunders systems have won a super bowl and is usually top 5 every year. I would agree to a GM in the regards to drafting college kids, but all in all its the players and coaches who win and lose games. we have the talent every year to win a ton of games.

Beemnseven · 12-20-2006, 09:25 PM

Well, we all know that Williams doesn't like the idea of 1st string, 2nd string, and so on. He makes it a point for every player, regardless of thier perceived position on the depth chart, to get significant playing time.

Nonetheless, to say that Archuleta was expected to be #3 behind Prioleau, or that somehow, Prioleau would have been the difference maker in the secondary this year is a bit of a stretch.

There's one thing that's not in dispute -- we all know where Archuleta is now.

Bill B · 12-21-2006, 09:35 AM

I think everyone agrees that injuries are part of the game and every team should expect some during the year. I would add that yes a GM is not responsible for players getting injured - I would never hold any GM accountable for that. What I would hold a GM accountable for though is not thinking beyond the starters and hoping on a wing and a prayer that none of his starters get injured and not bother to build quality depth behind the starters.

I know in Gibbs era I with plan B free agency the Redskins were great at stacking up guys and building depth when starters went down. As far as Gibbs era II, I don't think there is near the depth they had in his first era - this is in my opinion is due to the salary cap. But with the salary cap in mind I would think there are a lot of teams out there that see this and know that they can't put all their eggs in one basket and devote huge bonuses to their starters thus leaving crumbs for the backups.

Here is a thought - instead of going out and getting 2 wide recievers and giving both large signing bonuses, why not sign one and use the money that was orginally used to sign the other to build depth so when a safety of a defensive lineman goes down they don't have to scrqamble and see who's available on the market?

Beemnseven · 12-21-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill B

What I would hold a GM accountable for though is not thinking beyond the starters and hoping on a wing and a prayer that none of his starters get injured and not bother to build quality depth behind the starters.

Here is a thought - instead of going out and getting 2 wide recievers and giving both large signing bonuses, why not sign one and use the money that was orginally used to sign the other to build depth so when a safety of a defensive lineman goes down they don't have to scrqamble and see who's available on the market?

Bingo. Couldn't have said it better.

TheMalcolmConnection · 12-19-2006, 02:47 PM

To his credit, it could be said that they didn't need a QB or RB, but then the season starts, Carr tanks and Davis gets hurt. Who woulda' seen that coming?

Hog1 · 12-19-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

To his credit, it could be said that they didn't need a QB or RB, but then the season starts, Carr tanks and Davis gets hurt. Who woulda' seen that coming?

Can't deny that either.......hindsight

TheMalcolmConnection · 12-19-2006, 02:53 PM

Pretty good in my opinion. While I do think we tend to focus more than we should on players in FA, our drafting hasn't not been bad by any means.

Hog1 · 12-19-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Pretty good in my opinion. While I do think we tend to focus more than we should on players in FA, our drafting hasn't not been bad by any means.

Totally agree

TheMalcolmConnection · 12-19-2006, 02:56 PM

Can you really argue with that though? TAFKAS mentioned a while ago and I totally agree that if we signed a GM even as a figure-head, people would be totally satisfied.

SmootSmack · 12-19-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Can you really argue with that though? TAFKAS mentioned a while ago and I totally agree that if we signed a GM even as a figure-head, people would be totally satisfied.

This just in, Washington names computer guru Ben Hartless as General Manager. He'll have nothing to do with the team's personnel decisions, but Hartless gets to use the custom title General Manager. Redskins Nation rejoices. Chants of "About damn time...now we're legit," echoed throughout the land.

TheMalcolmConnection · 12-19-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

This just in, Washington names computer guru Ben Hartless as General Manager. He'll have nothing to do with the team's personnel decisions, but Hartless gets to use the custom title General Manager. Redskins Nation rejoices. Chants of "About damn time...now we're legit," echoed throughout the land.

AND I can now Google myself! Thanks TAF!

TheMalcolmConnection · 12-19-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

This just in, Washington names computer guru Ben Hartless as General Manager. He'll have nothing to do with the team's personnel decisions, but Hartless gets to use the custom title General Manager. Redskins Nation rejoices. Chants of "About damn time...now we're legit," echoed throughout the land.

And Vinny Cerrato, Dan Snyder and I will walk down the halls of Redskins Park, arm-in-arm singing 80s metal. Oh, the good ol' days have begun!

12-20-2006, 07:30 PM	#4
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Age: 51 Posts: 1,801	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open A GM may or may not be the answer. I think the players we have on our team are better than 90% of the roster of most teams in the NFL. A GM would not have won us 5 more games. We got out coached in a few of the games. GW out coached himself this year with trying all kinds of cover 2 schemes that he has never used. We didn't stick with what won us all those games at the end of the year last year. That is why we are 5-9. Our D didn't play with the hear and emotion of last year. Springs being hurt may have hurt us a bit, but when you #1 corner is the getting beat (Carlos) like a mule it doesn't really matter who your #2 is does it? I think the front office, including Gibbs, jumped a little too quick. We had the #11 ranked offense in the NFL last year. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that. Teams that have the continuity, the familiarity of each other are the ones that start winning more games every year. I think the coaching staff got a little lazy in the offseason and just assumed we would come right back and be the same team. In stead of getting rid of people we think are the problem, why not keep them around(Saunders, williams, AA ect) Williams is a great D coach, Saunders systems have won a super bowl and is usually top 5 every year. I would agree to a GM in the regards to drafting college kids, but all in all its the players and coaches who win and lose games. we have the talent every year to win a ton of games.

12-21-2006, 09:35 AM	#6
Bill B Impact Rookie Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 721	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open I think everyone agrees that injuries are part of the game and every team should expect some during the year. I would add that yes a GM is not responsible for players getting injured - I would never hold any GM accountable for that. What I would hold a GM accountable for though is not thinking beyond the starters and hoping on a wing and a prayer that none of his starters get injured and not bother to build quality depth behind the starters. I know in Gibbs era I with plan B free agency the Redskins were great at stacking up guys and building depth when starters went down. As far as Gibbs era II, I don't think there is near the depth they had in his first era - this is in my opinion is due to the salary cap. But with the salary cap in mind I would think there are a lot of teams out there that see this and know that they can't put all their eggs in one basket and devote huge bonuses to their starters thus leaving crumbs for the backups. Here is a thought - instead of going out and getting 2 wide recievers and giving both large signing bonuses, why not sign one and use the money that was orginally used to sign the other to build depth so when a safety of a defensive lineman goes down they don't have to scrqamble and see who's available on the market?

12-19-2006, 02:47 PM	#8
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open To his credit, it could be said that they didn't need a QB or RB, but then the season starts, Carr tanks and Davis gets hurt. Who woulda' seen that coming? __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

12-19-2006, 02:53 PM	#10
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open Pretty good in my opinion. While I do think we tend to focus more than we should on players in FA, our drafting hasn't not been bad by any means. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

12-19-2006, 02:56 PM	#12
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open Can you really argue with that though? TAFKAS mentioned a while ago and I totally agree that if we signed a GM even as a figure-head, people would be totally satisfied. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

12-19-2006, 02:46 PM	#2
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 10,675	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open Did not Charlie spearhead the effort to draft Mario Williams, and pass up Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and Matt Leinart? __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... *“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs*

12-20-2006, 09:25 PM	#5
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 52 Posts: 5,311	Re: Casserly Keeping his options open Well, we all know that Williams doesn't like the idea of 1st string, 2nd string, and so on. He makes it a point for every player, regardless of thier perceived position on the depth chart, to get significant playing time. Nonetheless, to say that Archuleta was expected to be #3 behind Prioleau, or that somehow, Prioleau would have been the difference maker in the secondary this year is a bit of a stretch. There's one thing that's not in dispute -- we all know where Archuleta is now.

Casserly Keeping his options open

Locker Room Main Forum