Walt Harris to the Pro Bowl

You're right I didn't watch him last year. Maybe he was terrible I don't know, but you typed 2006 campaign (that would be THIS year) and this year he was fantastic.

Ooops, my bad man. I meant the 2005 campaign. He looked awful in 2005 and, I suppose, did a heck of a job this year. Hey, you guys I guess were smart enough to see talent where we didn't. Gotta give your office credit for being smart and/or lucky.

I don't think anyone saw Harris' 2006 campaign. I was watching him and thought he was a dime back at best. I can't blame the front office for that one.

The problem is that the Redskins FO does get the benefit of the doubt because they almost always make the wrong decision. The track record of the FO in the Snyder years is pretty dreadful. It has been like a perfect storm of bad decisions - get rid of solid players who know the system (they then go on to be pro bowlers elsewhere) and bring in overpriced players who underperform.

Harris was not solid...I remember cursing his name every single game in 05, and Wright looked like a steal. A former starter from a playoff team brought in to play the nickel...come on...you would have to be a fortune teller to see this one coming. Clark was the one the front office bungled. Now lets all just hope the FO has the common sense to go after him or Smoot should either hit the market

i would love clark to come back. but i think smoot is just about done in this league

YouTube - 2006 Walt Harris (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cliMN6Et1d4)

^Some nice Harris highlights. He owns Torry Holt.

Harris was not solid...I remember cursing his name every single game in 05, and Wright looked like a steal. A former starter from a playoff team brought in to play the nickel...come on...you would have to be a fortune teller to see this one coming. Clark was the one the front office bungled. Now lets all just hope the FO has the common sense to go after him or Smoot should either hit the market

Well, we can't say Harris wasn't really that solid can we? The reason I say that is because our secondary has played the same exact way without Harris, while Harris himself has gone on and redeemed himself with another team.

I maintain, we have coaching issues and until we realize that, Nate Clements or Ronnie Lott, for that matter, 'aint going to make that much of a difference.

Well, we can't say Harris wasn't really that solid can we? The reason I say that is because our secondary has played the same exact way without Harris, while Harris himself has gone on and redeemed himself with another team.

I maintain, we have coaching issues and until we realize that, Nate Clements or Ronnie Lott, for that matter, 'aint going to make that much of a difference.

I'm sure I cursed Harris' name a few times in '05, but he did have the 4th down stop in Dallas that preserved the "Ring of Shame" game.

But what Marius said earlier is exactly right: Call it bad luck, hindsight, crystal ball, whatever -- the bottom line is that this front office made the call and it was the wrong one. One of many, as we've seen.

But I disagree that the problem is coaching. Defensive coaching in '04 was fantastic with the #3 overall ranking. But players like Daniels, Griffin, Salave'a, get a year or two older, lose a step and no one is groomed to replace them. You lose Antonio Pierce and get guys like Mike Barrow and Warrick Holdman. Those aren't bad coaching moves - they're bad personnel decisions. Granted, the system apparently allows the coaches to make many if not most of those choices, but it's not a "coaching problem" in general.

Call it bad luck, hindsight, crystal ball, whatever -- the bottom line is that this front office made the call and it was the wrong one. One of many, as we've seen.

I don't see how it was 'wrong'. It turned out that Harris was better(that's even debateable) than we thought but those thoughts were based on emperical evidence.

Maybe it is the definition of 'wrong' that needs discussion.

Does 'wrong' mean they made a decision that in hindsight they clearly should not have made based on the then available information or does it simply mean that the results turn out against what you banked on.

To me if a decision was made based on good info that even now we can look at and think was correct then a decision is not 'wrong'. The the results were just bad.

I guess there are a number of different ways you could take it, but the way I would present the issue is, was our pass defense better or worse after Walt Harris left for the 49ers? Or, would Walt Harris have provided a better chance to intercept passes for us compared to the players we assembled?

And it's very likely Harris wouldn't have been THE difference maker for the secondary assuming he was still here. But one thing is certain, the team that this front office brought to the field in 2006 was sorely lacking. Why it was so markedly different from '05 can be attributed to any number of reasons. I maintain it was age that crept up on many players that the organization had not adequately planned for. We can either give them a pass for not "being able to look into a crystal ball" or we can call it for what it is. A disasterous outing from absolutely every angle. And not one person can escape blame.