If Not Joe, Then Who?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

In my opinion, the defense is doing a pretty decent job. Are they doing enough to compensate for the offense's shortcomings? No. Are they stopping opponents from making plays in some key situations? No. But, they're doing a decent job, particularly when you consider that Sean passed away, Rogers in on IR, and Springs and Smoot have been playing with injuries or missing games.

I thought they played pretty well today. But his philosophy with his safety play just won't work. It's too easy for a team to hang around when a first down can be had at will. Use the safeties, get them up in the box at times and play football. Playing the way GW wants to play only works when you can eliminate big plays entirely. We only gave up one today, but that was one too many. Play more aggressively and you force more punts and turnovers. Then you can give up a big play every once in awhile and it won't totally cripple your team.

Two big plays, I'm sorry. I forgot how when given every possible defensive advantage, our guys still couldn't defend a deep in route from Josh Reed. It's only, you know, the only place the Bills can go with the football at that point. We can't excuse that. He made bad calls against the Cards and got lucky there, bad calls against Philly the first time, and a great individual play saved us there, gave up huge plays vs. Dallas and Philly (2nd time), and doesn't ever account for the QB in pass coverage.

Gregg Williams may not have a lot of help, but he's doing a bad job, and it's becoming a trend. Either he swallows his pride and makes adjustments or we get someone who can.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I thought they played pretty well today. But his philosophy with his safety play just won't work. It's too easy for a team to hang around when a first down can be had at will. Use the safeties, get them up in the box at times and play football. Playing the way GW wants to play only works when you can eliminate big plays entirely. We only gave up one today, but that was one too many. Play more aggressively and you force more punts and turnovers. Then you can give up a big play every once in awhile and it won't totally cripple your team.

I agree. And what was with Buffalo's slot receivers today? They absolutely had their way with us. I don't know if our corner depth is suffering b/c of injuries, but despite holding them to only 17 points, short passes out of the slot, pass rush, and run stop all left a lot to be desired today. But it's hard not give the D a pass today.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I agree. And what was with Buffalo's slot receivers today? They absolutely had their way with us. I don't know if our corner depth is suffering b/c of injuries, but despite holding them to only 17 points, short passes out of the slot, pass rush, and run stop all left a lot to be desired today. But it's hard not give the D a pass today.

When Sean Taylor was back there, we didn't give up more than maybe a single big play all year.

Okay, so now...you make an adjustment. Bring the safeties up, lets go! You aren't going to stop bad things from happening to your defense. At least try to shut down the opposing offense.

[BrunellMVP?]

I'd be up for g williams so long as saunders agreed to stay on (continuity) will full control of all things offense...(I do not believe that gibbs isn't responsible for a lot of the "sitting on the lead" style of play)...just my opinion.

But I wouldn't cry over cower at all...

[GTripp0012]

Cowher's not a good coaching option...he's too tough on his players. The performance of his teams tends to decline as the season progresses. His own QB from his lone super bowl victory really doesn't like the way he coaches. Doubt Campbell would either.

No way in hell that anyone can argue that Cowher is better than Gibbs. That would just be an insane thing to say.

[Daseal]

Greg WIlliams is my first choice, he's fiery and I think we need that. I wouldn't be against bringing Grimm back either.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Greg WIlliams is my first choice, he's fiery and I think we need that. I wouldn't be against bringing Grimm back either.

I'm torn on guys like Williams. Disciplinarians can do wonders for teams with talented, but careless players. But, they can also be run out of town on a rail if they start losing. Guys will put up with an a** if the team is winning, but when they fall upon hard times they seem to implode. Williams' last head coaching stint in Buffalo was not very good and, according to some, Williams was hated by many of his players and thought of as an arrogant $@#%. I like the idea of a fiery guy, but I'm not sure that Williams is our man.

[skinsfan69]

GW should be the HC. Why would we want BC and why would he want to come here? BC is going to bring in his own people so that means a total turnover in staff. We are not that far off. The BC talk is just silly.

[SFREDSKIN]

Gibbs or Grimm, there's no other choice. You'll be sorry!! What makes people think Cowher II or Williams II would be more successful than Gibbs II? And yes, a GM would help tremendously, get the guy from Chicago (Bobby DePaul) who was with the Redskins before he bolted for the Bears. That's my opinion.

[Rock31]

Let's grant Joe the option of finishing his contract, if he so chooses. He's the one who truly believes in Jason, commands the respect of every player and has brought respectability back to the franchise in terms of attracting free agents and not sacrificing draft picks. Granted, some of his FAs have been busts and most picks have yet to make an impact. This doesn't mean you jump ship and overhaul, when there is a committed, determined HC with a plan in place. Many fans will argue Gibbs' coaching hasn't solved very much the last few seasons, but that's evidenced only in the fine print of the W/L record. What Joe has done is brought in the pieces necessary to play his style of ball: power running. Whether or not Portis epitomizes the hard-nosed grunt of a back Gibbs prefers is up for debate, but the other cogs of the offense, such as the big offensive line (when healthy), Cooley, the short-to-medium yardage possession tight end, and Sellers, the bowling ball fullback, certainly were meant to support a running philosophy. It was thought that Brunell would have enough of an arm to toss it deep to what are, let's face it, little more than downfield-only threat Moss, and that Campbell now would continue to fill that role, but in a much more lively and effective way than Brunell.

I think the "boogeyman" on the coaching squad is Saunders. If you take into account the makeup of this team, which lacks explosive playmakers and improvisational open-field players, Saunders is not a good fit. I think when Gibbs addresses the matter of whether or not the Skins are capable of making a big play, he has to insist "yes, they are" in a nod to Saunders (Joe wouldn't really want to publicly ruffle the feathers of a millionaire assistant, now would he?). Yes, Joe makes the crucial decisions during games, but is it him who calls the offensive plays anymore? No. Everyone has been remarking it is Gibbs' conservative play-calling that has been the albatross of the offense, but when you are equipped with players that are manufactured to run hard and run often, how does a team put up big stats and blow away opponents?

In summary, it's one or the other that needs to go: Gibbs and his preferred offensive players, or Saunders and his preferred, but as yet unrealized, explosive, speedy playmakers. It would be a lot easier for the Skins to stick with Gibbs and the current cast of characters (with some rushing attack-oriented picks in the '08 draft and free agent signings of a similar nature) for next season than to let Saunders or a new coach take over, which would require an offensive overhaul consistent with the philosophy of that new leader. This is not excusing the lapses in discipline among the players and frequent poor judgment by Gibbs in his second stint; rather, it is talking straight about what this team was designed to do, and why it is failing at the present (thanks Saunders).

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Rock31

Let's grant Joe the option of finishing his contract, if he so chooses. He's the one who truly believes in Jason, commands the respect of every player and has brought respectability back to the franchise in terms of attracting free agents and not sacrificing draft picks. Granted, some of his FAs have been busts and most picks have yet to make an impact. This doesn't mean you jump ship and overhaul, when there is a committed, determined HC with a plan in place. Many fans will argue Gibbs' coaching hasn't solved very much the last few seasons, but that's evidenced only in the fine print of the W/L record. What Joe has done is brought in the pieces necessary to play his style of ball: power running. Whether or not Portis epitomizes the hard-nosed grunt of a back Gibbs prefers is up for debate, but the other cogs of the offense, such as the big offensive line (when healthy), Cooley, the short-to-medium yardage possession tight end, and Sellers, the bowling ball fullback, certainly were meant to support a running philosophy. It was thought that Brunell would have enough of an arm to toss it deep to what are, let's face it, little more than downfield-only threat Moss, and that Campbell now would continue to fill that role, but in a much more lively and effective way than Brunell.

I think the "boogeyman" on the coaching squad is Saunders. If you take into account the makeup of this team, which lacks explosive playmakers and improvisational open-field players, Saunders is not a good fit. I think when Gibbs addresses the matter of whether or not the Skins are capable of making a big play, he has to insist "yes, they are" in a nod to Saunders (Joe wouldn't really want to publicly ruffle the feathers of a millionaire assistant, now would he?). Yes, Joe makes the crucial decisions during games, but is it him who calls the offensive plays anymore? No. Everyone has been remarking it is Gibbs' conservative play-calling that has been the albatross of the offense, but when you are equipped with players that are manufactured to run hard and run often, how does a team put up big stats and blow away opponents?

In summary, it's one or the other that needs to go: Gibbs and his preferred offensive players, or Saunders and his preferred, but as yet unrealized, explosive, speedy playmakers. It would be a lot easier for the Skins to stick with Gibbs and the current cast of characters (with some rushing attack-oriented picks in the '08 draft and free agent signings of a similar nature) for next season than to let Saunders or a new coach take over, which would require an offensive overhaul consistent with the philosophy of that new leader. This is not excusing the lapses in discipline among the players and frequent poor judgment by Gibbs in his second stint; rather, it is talking straight about what this team was designed to do, and why it is failing at the present (thanks Saunders).

Good post, but the question in this thread is asking you to just assume that Gibbs won't return. Not whether or not he should

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by Rock31

Let's grant Joe the option of finishing his contract, if he so chooses. He's the one who truly believes in Jason, commands the respect of every player and has brought respectability back to the franchise in terms of attracting free agents and not sacrificing draft picks. Granted, some of his FAs have been busts and most picks have yet to make an impact. This doesn't mean you jump ship and overhaul, when there is a committed, determined HC with a plan in place. Many fans will argue Gibbs' coaching hasn't solved very much the last few seasons, but that's evidenced only in the fine print of the W/L record. What Joe has done is brought in the pieces necessary to play his style of ball: power running. Whether or not Portis epitomizes the hard-nosed grunt of a back Gibbs prefers is up for debate, but the other cogs of the offense, such as the big offensive line (when healthy), Cooley, the short-to-medium yardage possession tight end, and Sellers, the bowling ball fullback, certainly were meant to support a running philosophy. It was thought that Brunell would have enough of an arm to toss it deep to what are, let's face it, little more than downfield-only threat Moss, and that Campbell now would continue to fill that role, but in a much more lively and effective way than Brunell.

I think the "boogeyman" on the coaching squad is Saunders. If you take into account the makeup of this team, which lacks explosive playmakers and improvisational open-field players, Saunders is not a good fit. I think when Gibbs addresses the matter of whether or not the Skins are capable of making a big play, he has to insist "yes, they are" in a nod to Saunders (Joe wouldn't really want to publicly ruffle the feathers of a millionaire assistant, now would he?). Yes, Joe makes the crucial decisions during games, but is it him who calls the offensive plays anymore? No. Everyone has been remarking it is Gibbs' conservative play-calling that has been the albatross of the offense, but when you are equipped with players that are manufactured to run hard and run often, how does a team put up big stats and blow away opponents?

In summary, it's one or the other that needs to go: Gibbs and his preferred offensive players, or Saunders and his preferred, but as yet unrealized, explosive, speedy playmakers. It would be a lot easier for the Skins to stick with Gibbs and the current cast of characters (with some rushing attack-oriented picks in the '08 draft and free agent signings of a similar nature) for next season than to let Saunders or a new coach take over, which would require an offensive overhaul consistent with the philosophy of that new leader. This is not excusing the lapses in discipline among the players and frequent poor judgment by Gibbs in his second stint; rather, it is talking straight about what this team was designed to do, and why it is failing at the present (thanks Saunders).

Good post!! I think bringing in Grimm to replace Bugel would help also.

[Rock31]

Absolutely. Bring in Grimm to help or run the O.

Sorry for misplacing my previous post.

[MTRedskinsFan]

Honestly, I think any of the potential coaches listed would be an improvement. I could list about a half dozen reasons why but it would only instigate a pissing match and I don't want that. Here are just a few ideas along other lines:

- Williams is my least favorite potential coach. I don't know exactly what it is but this guy is so strange. Listening to him talk on RedskinsTV I just can't see Williams establishing a strong rapport w/ any player. Maybe he is too much into himself, I'm not sure.

- I think Marty, if he wants to still coach, should be considered a contender. I know his playoff record sucks but when the playoffs seem like a miracle for us I'll take Marty any day of the week. He didn't enough time with us first time around IMO.

- Cowher will take the long term approach and build a team from the ground up, which is what it takes to really be a contender anyway, so he is probably the very best option all things consider. If he is coach next year I'll be excited again about football.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by MTRedskinsFan

Cowher will take the long term approach and build a team from the ground up, which is what it takes to really be a contender anyway, so he is probably the very best option all things consider. If he is coach next year I'll be excited again about football.

Problem is "long term approach" isn't really understood by most Redskins fans. I mean we've already got people saying we'll never win with Campbell and should unload him