The only two Good Decisions Jim Zorn Made vs St. Louis

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This is the biggest problem I have in the article, "Several people have told me Snyder was prepared to fire Zorn if the Redskins had lost to the Philadelphia Eagles in Week 16 at FedEx last season. They won."

If this is true, then LDS shoulders a significant portion of blame here. This is absurd! If I'm Zorn, I'm saying F it. I'm opening up the offense and letting the players either sink-or-swim. If I'm potentially getting axed, I'm going down swinging, while also auditioning for an OC job somewhere else.

I hope this is BS, because if not, Snyder learned nothing from Gibbs and my many defenses of Snyder & the FO have been in vain.

What's the issue here? That Snyder would have fired Zorn at the end of the year had they lost to the Eagles?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What's the issue here? That Snyder would have fired Zorn at the end of the year had they lost to the Eagles?

Yes. I don't think you fire Zorn based on the outcome of one game, that's "rediculous". If you've seen enough and your football people, (hopefully not just Cerrato) are saying this guys not gonna cut it, a W or L in a meaningless game shouldn't make the difference.

That being said, what a horrible message this sends to coaches around the league. DS already bagged Shotty for Spurrier (and we saw how that worked out). Everyone knew he worshipped Gibbs and wouldn't fire him if he was 0-16 in consecutive years. But Gibbs aside, the buzz would be that he's back to the coaching carousel. Less than 12 months prior to the Eagles game Snyder & Cerrato were saying Zorn was going to be a "great coach in this league". Now after a great start and then some OL injuries tank the second half of the season, you're ready to can the guy. This either says the Skins FO has absolutely ZERO football knowledge and should've never hired Zorn or they're just as fickle as a majority of "die hard Skins fans". Either way, it's not a way to run a successful franchise.

For the record, my opinion is Zorn should have at least all of this year before a determination is made on his status in the off-season (or right after the last game if the team completely collapses and he's a primary culprit).

We are going into the third game of the season 1-1, which is exactly where most expected us to be.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Yes. I don't think you fire Zorn based on the outcome of one game, that's "rediculous". If you've seen enough and your football people, (hopefully not just Cerrato) are saying this guys not gonna cut it, a W or L in a meaningless game shouldn't make the difference.

That being said, what a horrible message this sends to coaches around the league. DS already bagged Shotty for Spurrier (and we saw how that worked out). Everyone knew he worshipped Gibbs and wouldn't fire him if he was 0-16 in consecutive years. But Gibbs aside, the buzz would be that he's back to the coaching carousel. Less than 12 months prior to the Eagles game Snyder & Cerrato were saying Zorn was going to be a "great coach in this league". Now after a great start and then some OL injuries tank the second half of the season, you're ready to can the guy. This either says the Skins FO has absolutely ZERO football knowledge and should've never hired Zorn or they're just as fickle as a majority of "die hard Skins fans". Either way, it's not a way to run a successful franchise.

For the record, my opinion is Zorn should have at least all of this year before a determination is made on his status in the off-season (or right after the last game if the team completely collapses and he's a primary culprit).

We are going into the third game of the season 1-1, which is exactly where most expected us to be.

Great post Sammy! Can anyone imagine Pittsburgh acting this way? Why can't we be like Pitt and some of the other successful franchises? Here's your answer. I agree, Zorn should be given the whole year and to not do so would just show that DS is just as much a knee-jerk owner as he was when he first bought this team. I can't believe we even talk about this after the 2nd game of the season and a 1-1 record. Would he be fired because we lost to the Giants or because the victory over the Rams wasn't pretty enough? There is a saying, don't quit before the miracle happens, it seems like we always do. I hope we have a big win in Detroit and can put it to rest for awhile at least.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Yes. I don't think you fire Zorn based on the outcome of one game, that's "rediculous". If you've seen enough and your football people, (hopefully not just Cerrato) are saying this guys not gonna cut it, a W or L in a meaningless game shouldn't make the difference.

That being said, what a horrible message this sends to coaches around the league. DS already bagged Shotty for Spurrier (and we saw how that worked out). Everyone knew he worshipped Gibbs and wouldn't fire him if he was 0-16 in consecutive years. But Gibbs aside, the buzz would be that he's back to the coaching carousel. Less than 12 months prior to the Eagles game Snyder & Cerrato were saying Zorn was going to be a "great coach in this league". Now after a great start and then some OL injuries tank the second half of the season, you're ready to can the guy. This either says the Skins FO has absolutely ZERO football knowledge and should've never hired Zorn or they're just as fickle as a majority of "die hard Skins fans". Either way, it's not a way to run a successful franchise.

For the record, my opinion is Zorn should have at least all of this year before a determination is made on his status in the off-season (or right after the last game if the team completely collapses and he's a primary culprit).

We are going into the third game of the season 1-1, which is exactly where most expected us to be.

Got it. Don't think it was necessarily based on one game, that just would have been the turning point. I'll just repost what I posted last year prior to the Eagles game (save myself the time of typing it over)

http://www.thewarpath.net/512906-post303.html

http://www.thewarpath.net/509904-post25.html (seeing Cowher happening a bit more now though)

http://www.thewarpath.net/509951-post49.html (I believe this remains an issue)

http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post509960

What does that all mean? He shouldn't have been hired as the head coach in the first place, in my opinion, but he was and I'd like to see him be successful as our head coach. But there were serious locker room problems last year. I've been a bit out of the loop so far this season so I don't know if much has improved. But, as I mentioned in my smack down, as much as I would hate another change if a change is what is needed (hopefully not until the end of the year) then I say we just make it. Why prolong the inevitable?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What does that all mean? He shouldn't have been hired as the head coach in the first place, in my opinion, but he was and I'd like to see him be successful as our head coach. But there were serious locker room problems last year. I've been a bit out of the loop so far this season so I don't know if much has improved. But, as I mentioned in my smack down, as much as I would hate another change if a change is what is needed (hopefully not until the end of the year) then I say we just make it. Why prolong the inevitable?

Because we don't know if the change is inevitable. It's Game 2, a lot can happen from Game 2 to Game 3, let alone Game 2 to Game 12. I don't want to see the trigger pulled too quick. If you're right and Zorn can't get it done, we implode and he completely losses the locker room by Game 7 or 8 it means we're at .500 or sub- .500 and not making the playoffs anyway. There's not a tremendous benefit of a mid-season change to Holmgren (who may want to keep Zorn around anyway), Shan, Cowher, or Chucky. I hate to say it but it may be better at that point to let the season tank, we have our 1st & 2nd this year.

The issue for Snyder is also that if things are going completely south, showing some patience (and giving Zorn more than enough rope to hang himself) is the more prudent thing for him to do in light of his reputation for being a "knee-jerk" type owner.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Because we don't know if the change is inevitable. It's Game 2, a lot can happen from Game 2 to Game 3, let alone Game 2 to Game 12. I don't want to see the trigger pulled too quick. If you're right and Zorn can't get it done, we implode and he completely losses the locker room by Game 7 or 8 it means we're at .500 or sub- .500 and not making the playoffs anyway. There's not a tremendous benefit of a mid-season change to Holmgren (who may want to keep Zorn around anyway), Shan, Cowher, or Chucky. I hate to say it but it may be better at that point to let the season tank, we have our 1st & 2nd this year.

The issue for Snyder is also that if things are going completely south, showing some patience (and giving Zorn more than enough rope to hang himself) is the more prudent thing for him to do in light of his reputation for being a "knee-jerk" type owner.

I'm definitely not advocating an in-season change, I was speaking more about an off-season change. And, again, the whole thing about Zorn being close to being fired had they lost to the Eagles last year was about letting him go in the off-season. Not immediately after the game.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm definitely not advocating an in-season change, I was speaking more about an off-season change. And, again, the whole thing about Zorn being close to being fired had they lost to the Eagles last year was about letting him go in the off-season. Not immediately after the game.

Gotcha. The thing that got me was that Snyder would be ready to can Zorn after 1 season (in which we showed some real promise early on). That's not good. I don't see how Snyder could rationally attribute the second half collapse to Zorn. That's some wishy-washy doo-doo IMO.