Extremeskins vs Lenny Pasta

hey guys, look. any success the Skins may have is solely because of Williams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2284184

Wow. That makes the extremeskins-skins merger worth it!!! Getting a real fan next to Lenny in the press box was a stroke of genius--another excellent move by the FO this year!

Ok, maybe this could've been a separate thread, but how about Pasta's latest ESPN article? He has something personal against Gibbs. How many times can you count the word "Gibbs" in this article? Not once! How do you write about a team that just won a playoff game without mentioning the head coach even once?

It is evident in his conversation with the extremeskins fan when Pasta proclaimed "you won't win the super bowl - not with this coach!" Wonder what the guy has against Gibbs. As fas as I'm concerned, Gibbs' biggest contribution to the redskins has been on the hiring (both coaches and players) and team-building front, not in offensive strategy.

That this team is a playoff team (and a very dangerous one) is as much attributable to Gibbs team-building expertise as it is to Greg Williams' stellar defensive schemes. To fail to acknowledge that speaks to Pasta's weakness as a sports writer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2284184

hey guys, look. any success the Skins may have is solely because of Williams.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2284184

miss my post 'Kaine?

yeah, he couldn't ignore the skins and be considered an 'NFL expert' anymore. so yeah its the skins but "cuz of Williams". total bitch move.

oh and both a record setting WR and a RB in the top four of the NFL, thank god for only Williams!! :rolleyes:

As fas as I'm concerned, Gibbs' biggest contribution to the redskins has been on the hiring (both coaches and players) and team-building front, not in offensive strategy.


You certainly have your opinion, but I believe you need to take another look at what you said and look at this team as a whole. Gibbs' offensive strategy is a major reason why we're in the playoffs, coupled with a great defense.

Well if you guys read the article apparently he is not a historian.

"Fortunately for the Redskins, who won their first playoff game since 1992, their defense was far nastier."

Well the idiot forgot we won in 1999 against Detroit at FEDEX. The last time Gibbs won was in 1992.

This guy should be told to get out of the press box cause he is doing a injustice to all journalist .

You certainly have your opinion, but I believe you need to take another look at what you said and look at this team as a whole. Gibbs' offensive strategy is a major reason why we're in the playoffs, coupled with a great defense.

It is one of the reasons, but I don't see it as a major reason. Putting the offense in Clinton's hands is nothing new - it is what Gibbs has always wanted to do - its no brilliant innovation to implement a run first strategy.

In the Gibbs II era, just my humble opinion, Gibbs greatest contribution has been team building (assembling character guys and getting rid of weeds) and great coaching hires (Bugel, Williams, Blache, Lindsey Musgrave etc.). If the head coach has to face the music everytime the team fails, then when the team wins - you have to give the head coach props, even if he had nothing to do with defensive strategy - that's my point and motivation for criticizing Pasta's imbalanced article.

miss my post 'Kaine?

yeah, he couldn't ignore the skins and be considered an 'NFL expert' anymore. so yeah its the skins but "cuz of Williams". total bitch move.

Oops...sorry, just noticed that you did paste the link to the story. Yea, Pasta's clearly biased. He was one of the few that went out on a limb and proclaimed that Gibbs II would be a failure, and now he is not pleased about having to eat Crow.

Pasta should stick to timely reporting - he does have good sources about coaching and player moves/hires, but he's certainly no football analyst.

It is one of the reasons, but I don't see it as a major reason. Putting the offense in Clinton's hands is nothing new - it is what Gibbs has always wanted to do - its no brilliant innovation to implement a run first strategy.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see how one can discredit an offensive strategy because it's a run first strategy. It's alot tougher to be successful running the ball to move the offense downfield. If it wasn't so tough, there would be no need for a quarterback - we'd just direct snap to the running back on every play.