It's not Joe's team yet

gortiz · 11-19-2004, 04:46 PM

I am firm believer that this team will have Coach Gibb's mark, personality, stamp, what have you, till next year. I also believe that Gibb's can be considered a first year coach, because of his long absence, regardless of his past experience. 12 years is along time.

I am the first to admit, I was thinking playoffs this year, but its obvious Coach Gibbs needs time to mold this team.

These elite coaches all did bad their first year with their new team

D. Vermeil - 5-11 (Rams)
Billick - 8-8
Belichick - 5-11 (Pats)
Gruden - 8-8 (Oakland)
Reid - 5-11

4 out of those 5 coaches have won a super bowl within the last 5 years, and I hate to say it, but Filthadelphia is well on there way...

Daseal · 11-19-2004, 05:00 PM

One thing is, the Redskins have a lot of talent that those teams did not have when the new coach took over.

That being said, I agree with you that he'll turn things around. I expect another fairly busy offseason.

skinsguy · 11-19-2004, 05:02 PM

Yeah you're right and what gets me is how the media has said that the game has passed Gibbs by and this is a "young mans" sport. Of course Bradshaw said this so naturally you have to take it with a grain of salt..but still if this is true then why would the media disregard the success that Vermeil had after his first year back....knowning that he had been away from the NFL just as long if not longer than Gibbs and he's OLDER than Joe Gibbs. To build a true playoff Super Bowl contender team that is consistantly at that level each year..it takes awhile and I suppose thinking this team would be an instant success is probably a bit unfair to Gibbs. This team has had at least 11 years of misery (one good playoff year), and it takes time to undo over a decade's worth of losing.

SkinsRock · 11-19-2004, 05:19 PM

This year is proving that, yeah, maybe the game has past Gibbs by. But that does not mean he cannot catch up and I truly believe that he will!
Even though they are losing, the attitude of this team is different this year. The players actually respect and want to play for the coaches. That has not really happened with this team for any coach since, well, Joe Gibbs. That is the first step.

Daseal, I disagree about another busy offseason. I think the main thing we need is stability. Get the majority of the players used to playing together, in the same system. Yeah, of course there will be some changes, as with every team, but I don't expect us to "win" in the offseason again, and I will be very happy if we don't.

Daseal · 11-19-2004, 05:33 PM

SkinsRock, I hope you're right. I just think Gibbs is going to clean house and get rid of the guys he's not high on, just hope he doesn't deystroy our cap in the process.

oldswill · 11-19-2004, 06:05 PM

there is one thing that puzzels me about the thought that the "game has past gibbs by". that is, that if you agree the game has past him by, than does that also mean the '92 and '87 teams wouldn't win if we had those identical teams right now. I think they would win, it's the make-up of the team and the knowlege the coach has of those players that makes it possible for a team to win. you can't grow a team over night and you can't learn the strengths and weekness in one game. gibbs will win he just has to go through some growing pains first.

oldswill · 11-19-2004, 06:07 PM

that was a reply to brashaw, i guess. what does every one think about that thought?

Daseal · 11-19-2004, 06:10 PM

I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have. I'd love to see it happen though!

djnemo65 · 11-19-2004, 07:14 PM

Does anyone here think we wouldn't have between 2 and 4 more wins, this year, if ramsey had started training camp as the first stringer? I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that we would easily be 6-3 at this point. and that, my friends, is why I am optimistic for next year.

Because otherwise, if its the team that's bad, there isn't reason for optimism, imo.

SmootSmack · 11-19-2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have.

What do you mean?

GoSkins! · 11-19-2004, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have.

Yeah the old teams didn't have the discontinuity that we have today!

aehs77 · 11-19-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

What do you mean?

Players have just evolved espically on the defensive side. bigger faster stronger

Daseal · 11-19-2004, 10:11 PM

Exactly. They weren't the atheletes then that we have now. Like I think many of those famous famous players would be mediocre by today's standards.

skinsguy · 11-20-2004, 12:16 AM

I think you've just insulted L.T., Ronnie Lott, Mike Singletary(mispelled??), Charles Mann, Darrell Green, Charles Haley, Wilbur Marshall....just to name a few. I disagree that these players would be considered mediocre by today's standards. This game is 90% mental and being big and strong carries you rather far, but being smart and knowing how the game is played successfully will make you a hall of famer.

BrudLee · 11-20-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I think you've just insulted L.T., Ronnie Lott, Mike Singletary(mispelled??), Charles Mann, Darrell Green, Charles Haley, Wilbur Marshall....just to name a few. I disagree that these players would be considered mediocre by today's standards. This game is 90% mental and being big and strong carries you rather far, but being smart and knowing how the game is played successfully will make you a hall of famer.

I don't think they've been insulted, there is a lot of truth to the statement.

Here's an interesting example. Mediocre analyst and bad author Tim Green was a first round draft pick in 1986. He had an eight year career with Atlanta and had 24 career sacks as a DT. He never weighed more than 260 lbs. - or Daunte Culpepper.

The talent and drive of the players you mentioned is unquestioned. Players of their skill level today would be similarly dominant. They would also weigh 40 lbs more, and generally be faster (maybe not Darrell Green, but you get the picture).

11-19-2004, 04:46 PM	#1
gortiz Special Teams Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 498	It's not Joe's team yet I am firm believer that this team will have Coach Gibb's mark, personality, stamp, what have you, till next year. I also believe that Gibb's can be considered a first year coach, because of his long absence, regardless of his past experience. 12 years is along time. I am the first to admit, I was thinking playoffs this year, but its obvious Coach Gibbs needs time to mold this team. These elite coaches all did bad their first year with their new team D. Vermeil - 5-11 (Rams) Billick - 8-8 Belichick - 5-11 (Pats) Gruden - 8-8 (Oakland) Reid - 5-11 4 out of those 5 coaches have won a super bowl within the last 5 years, and I hate to say it, but Filthadelphia is well on there way...

11-19-2004, 06:05 PM	#6
oldswill Camp Scrub Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: rochester, ny Posts: 45	there is one thing that puzzels me about the thought that the "game has past gibbs by". that is, that if you agree the game has past him by, than does that also mean the '92 and '87 teams wouldn't win if we had those identical teams right now. I think they would win, it's the make-up of the team and the knowlege the coach has of those players that makes it possible for a team to win. you can't grow a team over night and you can't learn the strengths and weekness in one game. gibbs will win he just has to go through some growing pains first. __________________ "Gibbs thinks I'm a machine." Portis joked

11-19-2004, 06:07 PM	#7
oldswill Camp Scrub Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: rochester, ny Posts: 45	that was a reply to brashaw, i guess. what does every one think about that thought? __________________ "Gibbs thinks I'm a machine." Portis joked

11-19-2004, 05:00 PM	#2
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	One thing is, the Redskins have a lot of talent that those teams did not have when the new coach took over. That being said, I agree with you that he'll turn things around. I expect another fairly busy offseason.

11-19-2004, 05:02 PM	#3
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	Yeah you're right and what gets me is how the media has said that the game has passed Gibbs by and this is a "young mans" sport. Of course Bradshaw said this so naturally you have to take it with a grain of salt..but still if this is true then why would the media disregard the success that Vermeil had after his first year back....knowning that he had been away from the NFL just as long if not longer than Gibbs and he's OLDER than Joe Gibbs. To build a true playoff Super Bowl contender team that is consistantly at that level each year..it takes awhile and I suppose thinking this team would be an instant success is probably a bit unfair to Gibbs. This team has had at least 11 years of misery (one good playoff year), and it takes time to undo over a decade's worth of losing.

11-19-2004, 05:19 PM	#4
SkinsRock Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Crofton, MD Age: 55 Posts: 907	This year is proving that, yeah, maybe the game has past Gibbs by. But that does not mean he cannot catch up and I truly believe that he will! Even though they are losing, the attitude of this team is different this year. The players actually respect and want to play for the coaches. That has not really happened with this team for any coach since, well, Joe Gibbs. That is the first step. Daseal, I disagree about another busy offseason. I think the main thing we need is stability. Get the majority of the players used to playing together, in the same system. Yeah, of course there will be some changes, as with every team, but I don't expect us to "win" in the offseason again, and I will be very happy if we don't.

11-19-2004, 05:33 PM	#5
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	SkinsRock, I hope you're right. I just think Gibbs is going to clean house and get rid of the guys he's not high on, just hope he doesn't deystroy our cap in the process.

11-19-2004, 06:10 PM	#8
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	I really think that older teams simply didn't have what new teams have. I'd love to see it happen though!

11-19-2004, 07:14 PM	#9
djnemo65 Playmaker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,836	Does anyone here think we wouldn't have between 2 and 4 more wins, this year, if ramsey had started training camp as the first stringer? I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that we would easily be 6-3 at this point. and that, my friends, is why I am optimistic for next year. Because otherwise, if its the team that's bad, there isn't reason for optimism, imo.

11-19-2004, 10:11 PM	#13
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 8,341	Exactly. They weren't the atheletes then that we have now. Like I think many of those famous famous players would be mediocre by today's standards.

11-20-2004, 12:16 AM	#14
skinsguy Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina Posts: 6,766	I think you've just insulted L.T., Ronnie Lott, Mike Singletary(mispelled??), Charles Mann, Darrell Green, Charles Haley, Wilbur Marshall....just to name a few. I disagree that these players would be considered mediocre by today's standards. This game is 90% mental and being big and strong carries you rather far, but being smart and knowing how the game is played successfully will make you a hall of famer.

It's not Joe's team yet

Locker Room Main Forum