In Defense of Vinny Cerrato

[FRPLG]

Man you have simply ignored 75% of the personnel moves made in the Cerrato era. Since he has been here(minus one year when Marty got him pushed out) they have yet to have a good draft.
A look at our drafts since Snyder and Cerrato have been here
99
Bailey Jansen Stimson D Smith Jeff Hall T Alexander
00
Arrington Samuels L Harrison M Moore Q Sanders T Husak D Cowsette E Howell
01(Marty ball)
Gardner Smoot S Rosenfels McCants M Monds
02
Ramsey Betts Bauman Russell Lott Royal R Coleman J Grau G Scott Cartwright
03
Jacobs Dockery Hamdan
04
Taylor Cooley Wilson Molinaro

So can any of us say any of those are impressive? Don't think so. We can withhold judgment on 04 and probably 03 but 03 only had 3 picks so how good can it be. It is pretty easy to make the first and second round picks. It's the 3-4-5 picks that we either didn't have or did a poor job of using. SO our drafts have been average at best. Now lets examine some free agent moves we made under the good ole Cerrato reign.
I'll only list the free agents that are of note for this discussion. If they aren't listed assume they either didn't make the team or were totaly insiginificant
99
Traded for B Johnson S Shade
00
J George D Sanders B Smith A Murrell K Mitchell M Carrier
01 Marty ball
B Barker B Conway D Greer K Lockett W Rasby
02
Wuerfell Anthony Green Armstead Trotter
03
Coles Morton J Hall Noble Fiore Thomas Bowen
04
Barrow Washington Daniels Griffin Springs Raymer Right Tackles Galore Portis Brunell


Wow...I left off a ton of guys who I guess were marginally important..guys like backup OLMs who ended up playing some. The point was that base on the list aboev I can't say we have done well in Free Agency. We ahd some good years(2003) and some and(2002) but at the end of the day there are too many over the ehill of of the road type guys. I haven't even gone into the guys we lost. If you look at it objectively we just have not had a quality personnel guy since Casserly.

[MTK]

Vinny doesn't have very much power in the front office, at least not as much as some of you would like to think.

[MTK]

SC, why do you think Taylor can't improve upon his tackling in the NFL??

[sportscurmudgeon]

Matty:

The reason is that few if any players ever seem to do that. If anything, the majority of players erode tackling skills and sound fundamentals in favor of "big hits" and "SportsCenter shots" as their career's progress.

Maybe Sean Taylor will buck that trend? I doubt it, but he might.

[That Guy]

"Objectively" does not mean "see my opinion". "Objectively" means last year's record was 5-11 and this year's record is 3-6. That combines to 8-17 which is objectively - - not so damned good.

So if we have always had some of the "best talent in the NFC", it certainly has not shown up on the field on Sundays. That's where objectivity happens. That's where the scoreboard tells you who won and who did not win. And this fantastic assemblage of talent has lost more than twice as often as it has won in the last two seasons. That is objectivity!

and you don't think the massive coaching overhaul nearly every year had any part in stunting comfort in the system/stats/etc? cause i'd sure say that the massive personnel turn overs are a bigger problem than some of the individual players in our record... most first year coaches have losing records, and we've had a lot of first year HCs/DCs/OCs etc in recent history.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

SC,

As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, our talent has never been suspect. Sure we have holes on the D-line, but name me a couple teams that don't have big holes on their roster.

What I said is that our team's woes are not due to a lack of talent (which Vinny is supposed to bring us), rather it is due to other factors (i.e. coaching, instability). So, I don't think that its "objective" to look at the record and make a determination about how much talent we have on the team.

[That Guy]

if you think player talent = wins... i'd say you should look at the saints....

[sportscurmudgeon]

A really good coach will usually make a difference of a win or two a year. Last year Parcells managed to get the Cowboys to overachieve by a humongous amount but that is very rare.

The bulk of NFL games are not decided by coaching matchups. If that were so, they could get the coaches to play chess and decide the outcome. Players win games and players lose games. And so it rationally and obectively follows that if a team has lost more than twice as many games as it has won, it is not nearly as superior in talent as its fans would want to believe.

Someone suggested that the problem was so many "first year coaches" here and that "first year coaches" tend to struggle. Maybe the reason that first year coaches tend to struggle is that MOST first year coaches are hired by teams that aren't very good - not enough talent - and so they don't do well in the first year of the new coach's tenure. Most Super Bowl teams bring back their coach next year unless he retires or has a spat with the owner that makes him pick up his toys and go elsewhere.

Part of the problem here is that folks fall in love with Redskin players and can't bring theselves to believe that some of them are merely average players and some others are below average in skill. If they were all really "stars" and "great" players, they would not be 8-17 over the last year and a half.

In some other thread, someone said that Patrick Ramsey - given time - could have a career that was equal to or better than Peyton Manning. Yes he could. But the chances are that he won't. You can wish for it and pray for it to happen, but the chances are, it won't. And when you go and try to evaluate the talent level on the Redskins, you shouldn't allow yourself to be sucked into that kind of wishful thinking.

I am not trying to argue that the coaching turnover - and the player turnover - on the Skins in the last 5 years has nothing to do with their lack of on-field success. Stability is good for a football team' see the Philly Eagles and New England Pats and Green Bay Packers as evidence. But stability is only a part of the equation and it is the part that takes a team from ordinary to sonsistently above ordinary. What the basis of success is talented football players at every position and depth and luck with regard to injuries. Given the right skill level - what the FO is supposed to provide - and the injury luck - from the football gods - then a stable coaching staff can mold a team into a contender. But without the talent, I don't care who the coach is.

[That Guy]

In some other thread, someone said that Patrick Ramsey - given time - could have a career that was equal to or better than Peyton Manning.

could you point that out, cause I've read every post and didn't see it... some people compared peyton's first year to ramsey's, but that's about it...

and i think play calling killed us this week... playing the leagues last ranked run D, and only calling 17 run plays? (which btw, got 81 yards)... i can't see how you can call 45 pass plays when your team is running so well... talent could have overcome it, but play calling and coaching can have a huge effect on how efficiently you use your talent...

we're not arizona oakland detriot chicago or miami, yet you tend to make it sound like we're totally hopeless every post...

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

That Bill Parcells was able to take a team that was 5-11 the year before into the playoffs says something about the importance of coaching. And Parcells' impact on the Boys was not some anomaly.

The Patriots are also able to do what they do largely because of coaching. The Bengals turned their fanchise around from the joke of the league into playoff contenders largely because of coaching. Andy Reid took a dying franchise and turned them into consistent playoff contenders despite being a team that year in and year out has some of the most cap space in the league. The list goes on and on.

Do we have the talent of a 13-3 team? No. Do we have the talent of a 5-11 (like last year)? NO WAY.

We are a team that always wins the offseason but loses in the regular season. Why? Who knows, but if you think its because guys like Taylor, Springs, Smoot, Arrington, Washington, Griffin, Coles, Thomas, Portis, Samuels, etc. don't cut it, you're kidding yourself.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

That Bill Parcells was able to take a team that was 5-11 the year before into the playoffs says something about the importance of coaching. And Parcells' impact on the Boys was not some anomaly.

The Patriots are also able to do what they do largely because of coaching. The Bengals turned their fanchise around from the joke of the league into playoff contenders largely because of coaching. Andy Reid took a dying franchise and turned them into consistent playoff contenders despite being a team that year in and year out has some of the most cap space in the league. The list goes on and on.

Do we have the talent of a 13-3 team? No. Do we have the talent of a 5-11 (like last year)? NO WAY.

We are a team that always wins the offseason but loses in the regular season. Why? Who knows, but if you think its because guys like Taylor, Springs, Smoot, Arrington, Washington, Griffin, Coles, Thomas, Portis, Samuels, etc. don't cut it, you're kidding yourself.

So where is Parcell's and his Cowboy's now? In the crapper. I guess his great coaching is not enough this year.
Bill Belichek had a terrible and record with the Patriots before Tom Brady emerged out of thin air.
It takes a lucky combintion of good talent and great coaching. You need both.
In Dallas last year what made the diffrence compared to this year is the emergence of Quincy Carter and their great defense. Quincy played a great game this last Sunday for the Jets. I think they blew it by letting him go and going with Vinny Testaverde.

[That Guy]

parcells D has gone straight into the crapper too, its not JUST QC leaving that's turned that team into a stinker...

[VTSkins897]

it's so obvious... we have talent but no continuity with the coach. very few can come in and make a huge change. you got 16 games. this isn't nba or mlb. furthermore of those 16 games if u blow it from the get-go, you're done. end of story. now these days as players talent levels get to be closer, you have to have a little something extra. chemistry in some form is a big part of it. manning-harrison, culpepper-moss, green-holmes in KC, the way lewis holds that D together. what we've had is a mess of players thrown together and put in a different situation every yr. what do you expect to happen? our best chance was keeping schottenheimer around. now i know there was conflict in the office and that it wasn't totally an option. but finishing a season like we did means ur gettin on a roll. bring in a good QB that yr or even give banks another, and youre gold. but instead

ahhhh cant think

[sportscurmudgeon]

That Guy:

You asked where someone here had said that Ramsey could turn into someone of the caliber of Peyton Manning. It took a while for me to go and find it, but check this out.

In the thread titled "Let's Play Redskins Owner" and in the first post there, diehardskin2982 says:


"I would hire a coach to work on Ramsey's footwork and mobiltiy skills and make a sound investment in his intellegence and his arm. He can be a Peyton Manning calaber player with proper growth. "


I'm not saying that can't happen because if it did happen that would not violate any of the laws of the known universe. But I will recommend to you very strongly that you do not go out and bet the mortgage money on that proposition! Peyton Manning will be a first ballot Hall of Fame inductee one of these years. It would be wonderful if Ramsey's career also merited that same honor, but nothing to date says that is a likely outcome.

We all agree that Patrick Ramsey's career has only just begun and that he will get better with experience. Now, tell me your opinion on this simple question:

Will Patrick Ramsey's career stats and accomplishments equal those of Peyton Manning's when both of them are retired and living off their pensions?

[That Guy]

SC, no, i don't think so... that was a long post i didn't remember, sorry for bringing up any doubt... but i agree that the chances are super slim there...