What about a TRUE GM

#56fanatic · 11-29-2005, 10:17 AM

Do you believe the Redskins would be in better shape if we had a true GM running the shoe, and Joe simply coaching? As proven in his 1st tenure, Bethard and Casserly were the brains behind the opporation, and Joe simply worked his magic on the sidelines.

irish · 11-29-2005, 10:22 AM

I cant think of a team yet that has had success with the coach acting as both coach and GM. Its too big of a job for 1 man to handle. The skins need a GM in the worst way. They will continue to flounder until they get a knowledgeable person in this job.

Mattyk · 11-29-2005, 10:24 AM

Despite what people may think, Gibbs had a say in personnel during his first tenure. He wasn't simply the head coach.

I'm not sure if a GM is really needed simply because I don't think talent is the main problem right now.

I think we have a relatively young team with guys who are still learning how to play together and learning how to win.

I definitely agree our later round drafting hasn't been anything special and that's an area of concern. Whether a GM can swoop in and magically cure that problem is a question mark.

Hog1 · 11-29-2005, 10:33 AM

Totally Agree.
Question??? For the last few years, before Gibbs, did the Skins pretty much have an ineffectual scouting program or abandon the use of scouts?
Did Joe and company expand and increase the scouting department/program?

#56fanatic · 11-29-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Despite what people may think, Gibbs had a say in personnel during his first tenure. He wasn't simply the head coach.

I'm not sure if a GM is really needed simply because I don't think talent is the main problem right now.

I think we have a relatively young team with guys who are still learning how to play together and learning how to win.

I definitely agree our later round drafting hasn't been anything special and that's an area of concern. Whether a GM can swoop in and magically cure that problem is a question mark.

In his previous tenure, Casserly or Bethard had the majority say in all personel decisions and drafts. However, if they disagreed they would come to an agreement or Mr Cook would make the final decision. Casserly and Bethard built those championship teams from the ground up through the draft. Selecting all the HOGS, Monk, Clark and so on. Gibbs may have had a few decisions, but for the most part the GMs made the decisions.

#56fanatic · 11-29-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

Totally Agree.
Question??? For the last few years, before Gibbs, did the Skins pretty much have an ineffectual scouting program or abandon the use of scouts?
Did Joe and company expand and increase the scouting department/program?

The scouting was and is primarily done by Vinney and Pepper. They prepare a sheet of potential free agents or draft picks and have a grading system. These are then given to DANNY for approval or disapproval in going after certain players. To my knowledge they have developed a scouting program better than what was in place before Joe got there.

Hog1 · 11-29-2005, 10:52 AM

I thought, I read last year that it was a high priority with the new regime to expand that facet of the staff

#56fanatic · 11-29-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

I thought, I read last year that it was a high priority with the new regime to expand that facet of the staff

I think I remember where they hired a previous player to head up the scouting department, but I can't remember who that was. Maybe it was Warren? bottom line is , they need someone who can come in and make the personel decisions and take Vinny, Pepper, and more importantly Joe and Dan out of mix. I just dont like when a coach tried to play GM also. It takes away from their coaching time and preperation.

Twilbert07 · 11-29-2005, 11:10 AM

This stat shows that maybe we do need a general manager:

Through 27 games this time, Gibbs is 11-16 -- that's the exact record Steve Spurrier had.

celts32 · 11-29-2005, 11:11 AM

I am waiting for the day when Snyder looks around and starts analyzing what the constants have been during his losing tenure. the answer he will come to is himslef & Vinny. And he can't fire himself...

If Vinny were scouting a race between a horse a cow and a pig...he would go with the cow...

TheMalcolmConnection · 11-29-2005, 11:45 AM

Geez, things really do come full circle. I remember prior to the draft we were saying this same thing. I really just wish we would hire a figurehead "GM" so that we could all stop asking for one. Just recently Rogers is panning out, the Campbell pick is a question mark, but we don't know much other than that right now. Gibbs's picks have been more hits than misses, so I don't know what the outcry for a GM is for?

irish · 11-29-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Geez, things really do come full circle. I remember prior to the draft we were saying this same thing. I really just wish we would hire a figurehead "GM" so that we could all stop asking for one. Just recently Rogers is panning out, the Campbell pick is a question mark, but we don't know much other than that right now. Gibbs's picks have been more hits than misses, so I don't know what the outcry for a GM is for?

Its interesting that you say Gibbs' picks have been more hits than misses but cite 2 picks that are niether hits nor misses.

The reason this team needs a GM is that both Gibbs and Snyder are too much in love with free agency, thats why all the draft picks have been given away. A GM would provide a good balance between the need to get free agents and the need to hold onto franchise changing draft picks. Its obvious the current way of doing things is not working so why not try something new.

Mattyk · 11-29-2005, 11:58 AM

My question is this, are we losing right now because we don't have the talent to win?

I'd say that's not our main problem right now.

Seems like execution and schemes are more of a problem... along with some key injuries.

#56fanatic · 11-29-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Geez, things really do come full circle. I remember prior to the draft we were saying this same thing. I really just wish we would hire a figurehead "GM" so that we could all stop asking for one. Just recently Rogers is panning out, the Campbell pick is a question mark, but we don't know much other than that right now. Gibbs's picks have been more hits than misses, so I don't know what the outcry for a GM is for?

Lets go back and see, Taylor was an obvious pick, you and I could have made. Cooley has turned out to be good. This past draft was a questionable one. Rogers may be a good corner, however we were at need for a #2 receiver given our lack of size and presence of a physical receiver, which is now causing problems because we still dont have a #2 guy. Mike Williams was available and would have been and immediate player,probably. We could have taken a DB in the 2nd round or Campbell if they HAD to have him, he would have still been there. Nobody was taking him. Other than that, thats 3 out of 14 picks, plus any free agent pick ups from the draft that have not seen the field. I am not sure that qualifies as succesful or not. Drafting a QB in the 1st round is a sizeable gamble, not many 1st round QBs have panned out, with exception to Manning brothers, palmer, vick, although I still think is overrated to some extent. We trade away picks like they are poison! Bailey and a 2nd, a 3rd for brunell, a 1st for campbell, who is 3rd on the depth chart. If you take a 1st round QB, wouldn't you think he would be atleast 2nd on the depth chart. Especially since you spend all offseason working on a previous #1 QB pick in Ramsey, assurring him he is your guy, you are the starter. We needed obvious help on the d-line, but passes over two studs, which went to Dallas and will now kill us for the 5 to 10 years. Would you like any other moves of question. I know people are going to bring the free agent pickups into this. Griffin, Washington great pick ups. But 43 mil to 35 year QB, 10 mil up front for a 30 yr old corner. and not signing a true MLB, although that big signing from a year ago turned out to be a BIG waste of money in Mike Barrow. You let the leader of the LB core go to a division Rival, not very smart. I am sure there may be more moves, but I'll stop here.

FirstandTen · 11-29-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Lets go back and see, Taylor was an obvious pick, you and I could have made. Cooley has turned out to be good. This past draft was a questionable one. Rogers may be a good corner, however we were at need for a #2 receiver given our lack of size and presence of a physical receiver, which is now causing problems because we still dont have a #2 guy. Mike Williams was available and would have been and immediate player,probably. We could have taken a DB in the 2nd round or Campbell if they HAD to have him, he would have still been there. Nobody was taking him. Other than that, thats 3 out of 14 picks, plus any free agent pick ups from the draft that have not seen the field. I am not sure that qualifies as succesful or not. Drafting a QB in the 1st round is a sizeable gamble, not many 1st round QBs have panned out, with exception to Manning brothers, palmer, vick, although I still think is overrated to some extent. We trade away picks like they are poison! Bailey and a 2nd, a 3rd for brunell, a 1st for campbell, who is 3rd on the depth chart. If you take a 1st round QB, wouldn't you think he would be atleast 2nd on the depth chart. Especially since you spend all offseason working on a previous #1 QB pick in Ramsey, assurring him he is your guy, you are the starter. We needed obvious help on the d-line, but passes over two studs, which went to Dallas and will now kill us for the 5 to 10 years. Would you like any other moves of question. I know people are going to bring the free agent pickups into this. Griffin, Washington great pick ups. But 43 mil to 35 year QB, 10 mil up front for a 30 yr old corner. and not signing a true MLB, although that big signing from a year ago turned out to be a BIG waste of money in Mike Barrow. You let the leader of the LB core go to a division Rival, not very smart. I am sure there may be more moves, but I'll stop here.

Taylor wasn't an obvious pick... Remeber K Winlsow. Mike Williams hasen't done shit and word is his speed is not there to be a good WR.

11-29-2005, 10:24 AM	#3
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,751	Re: What about a TRUE GM Despite what people may think, Gibbs had a say in personnel during his first tenure. He wasn't simply the head coach. I'm not sure if a GM is really needed simply because I don't think talent is the main problem right now. I think we have a relatively young team with guys who are still learning how to play together and learning how to win. I definitely agree our later round drafting hasn't been anything special and that's an area of concern. Whether a GM can swoop in and magically cure that problem is a question mark.

11-29-2005, 10:33 AM	#4
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 8,378	Re: What about a TRUE GM Totally Agree. Question??? For the last few years, before Gibbs, did the Skins pretty much have an ineffectual scouting program or abandon the use of scouts? Did Joe and company expand and increase the scouting department/program? __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... Win! Always win! By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds... by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice... but always win--Edward Teach

11-29-2005, 10:52 AM	#7
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 8,378	Re: What about a TRUE GM I thought, I read last year that it was a high priority with the new regime to expand that facet of the staff __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... Win! Always win! By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds... by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice... but always win--Edward Teach

11-29-2005, 11:10 AM	#9
Twilbert07 Impact Rookie Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Age: 48 Posts: 594	Re: What about a TRUE GM This stat shows that maybe we do need a general manager: Through 27 games this time, Gibbs is 11-16 -- that's the exact record Steve Spurrier had. __________________ a Skins fan every day, every way.

11-29-2005, 11:11 AM	#10
celts32 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hackettstown NJ Age: 41 Posts: 2,643	Re: What about a TRUE GM I am waiting for the day when Snyder looks around and starts analyzing what the constants have been during his losing tenure. the answer he will come to is himslef & Vinny. And he can't fire himself... If Vinny were scouting a race between a horse a cow and a pig...he would go with the cow... __________________ Section 115 Row 23 “Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.” http://victorybeer.com/

11-29-2005, 10:17 AM	#1
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Age: 38 Posts: 1,788	What about a TRUE GM Do you believe the Redskins would be in better shape if we had a true GM running the shoe, and Joe simply coaching? As proven in his 1st tenure, Bethard and Casserly were the brains behind the opporation, and Joe simply worked his magic on the sidelines.

11-29-2005, 10:22 AM	#2
irish Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,328	Re: What about a TRUE GM I cant think of a team yet that has had success with the coach acting as both coach and GM. Its too big of a job for 1 man to handle. The skins need a GM in the worst way. They will continue to flounder until they get a knowledgeable person in this job.

11-29-2005, 11:45 AM	#11
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 31 Posts: 17,120	Re: What about a TRUE GM Geez, things really do come full circle. I remember prior to the draft we were saying this same thing. I really just wish we would hire a figurehead "GM" so that we could all stop asking for one. Just recently Rogers is panning out, the Campbell pick is a question mark, but we don't know much other than that right now. Gibbs's picks have been more hits than misses, so I don't know what the outcry for a GM is for? __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

11-29-2005, 11:58 AM	#13
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,751	Re: What about a TRUE GM My question is this, are we losing right now because we don't have the talent to win? I'd say that's not our main problem right now. Seems like execution and schemes are more of a problem... along with some key injuries.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

What about a TRUE GM

Redskins Locker Room