JG or GM?

[skinsguy]

Gibbs. Period.

[Grayacre]

Gibbs, with one caveat: Another offseason like this one and I may be as committed to Gibbs as he is to Ramsey.

[skinsguy]

Who cares about the offseason? As long as we win during the season, that is all that counts.

[Gmanc711]

Gibbs. Period.

[Daseal]

Joe Gibbs is a great leader, as far as personel and playcalling. I say bring in a GM and an offensive coordinator.

[Grayacre]

Wait a sec ... Even in a miserable year, Coles caught more balls than Moss did in his best year. Patten would probably be a #3 receiver on another team and, as much as Gardner gets slammed on this site, is a negligible improvement. You're right about Raback. It's a little unfair to Smoot to say that Rogers, who has yet to play a down in the NFL, represents a clear upgrade. Rogers may be a better player eventually, but he's not right now. As for Pierce, what suggests that someone "as good or better" than Pierce is available? What suggests that we'll get that mystery 'backer?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Grayacre

Wait a sec ... Even in a miserable year, Coles caught more balls than Moss did in his best year. Patten would probably be a #3 receiver on another team and, as much as Gardner gets slammed on this site, is a negligible improvement. You're right about Raback. It's a little unfair to Smoot to say that Rogers, who has yet to play a down in the NFL, represents a clear upgrade. Rogers may be a better player eventually, but he's not right now. As for Pierce, what suggests that someone "as good or better" than Pierce is available? What suggests that we'll get that mystery 'backer?

You're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're saying that none of our acquistions are improvements over what we had this past season, yet you're saying that's true because they haven't stepped onto the field yet....so it's equally unfair to say they're not improvements by the simple fact that we haven't seen them play yet.

[Daseal]

Ninety catches for how many yards??? You do the math.

Let us remember where these catches were. How many WR screens did we run to Coles? How many little hitch patterns and curl routes did we run that didn't allow Coles to gain YAC? The system is more to blame with our WRs, and without a change in the system I expect similar results from out passing game. Moss and Patten are far cries from upgrades. We have speed, that's true, but even with that speed we need to complete passes which entails two things. 1) Actually throwing the ball that's something more than a 3 yard route or WR screen. 2) Having the WRs run routes that helps them get open and gives them a chance to USE their speed.

We need to establish an intermediate passing game 7-10 yards. This should be our bread and butter, as far as the passing game goes, this will allow us to use speed, and force the DBs and safeties to back up. We should take shots back field. In order to run effectively it takes more than our rejuvinated line. We need to keep them from constantly stacking the box, and we need to ADAPT THE SYSTEM FOR PORTIS. He's not John Riggins, he never will be, and I don't want him to be. Portis is a slasher that makes very good decesions as far as holes to take. He has good vision, great speed, and needs a hole about the size of a hamster to break one big. Rabach resigning and Jansen returning are great, but that won't do it alone. This system NEEDS to be revamped, and I hope Gibbs has been working harder on that than he did for draft preperation. A big part of that could be 3-4 WR sets. I know this isn't Gibbs MO, but welcome to the 2005 NFL, you have to spread defenses from time to time. It will help Portis, it will make teams respect the throw (if nothing else just get players away from the action), and it could really jumpstart a pathetic offense.

The biggest problem is redzone playcalling. Watching us run three times up the middle in the redzone last year made me sick, playaction from there works great, take it to the outside sometimes. Portis won't push the pile.

Basicly - mold this system around Clinton Portis, he's a great and versatile back that we spent a lot on. He wants the ball, he wants the yards, he wants the TDs. He has all the drive he needs to get it done, all he needs is a little help. That said - we need to throw the ball slightly more. We need to be seen as a two dimensional offense. We were predictable last year, that has got to go. If we had Alex Gibbs and Denver's line, sure, let's be predictable. We don't have either. Also, assuming our defense remains in the top 3rd of the league I think we can afford to take chances. Especially on their side of the field. Let's not handcuff the offense. I'm not asking for a Spurrieresque offense by any stretch, I want it to orbit around Portis - but throwing is essential in today's NFL.

[NY_Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Let us remember where these catches were. How many WR screens did we run to Coles? How many little hitch patterns and curl routes did we run that didn't allow Coles to gain YAC? The system is more to blame with our WRs, and without a change in the system I expect similar results from out passing game. Moss and Patten are far cries from upgrades. We have speed, that's true, but even with that speed we need to complete passes which entails two things. 1) Actually throwing the ball that's something more than a 3 yard route or WR screen. 2) Having the WRs run routes that helps them get open and gives them a chance to USE their speed.

Have you ever considered that these WR screens and little hitch patterns were a result of the fact that both Coles and Gardner couldn't stretch the field last year? Maybe if they had the speed that we have now with Moss and Patten things might have been different. I believe Moss is an upgrade to Coles just for the simple fact that he will be able to get down the field, which is what Gibbs wanted initially. If Patten can just hold onto the ball consistently he is an obvious upgrade right there.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by NY_Skinsfan

Have you ever considered that these WR screens and little hitch patterns were a result of the fact that both Coles and Gardner couldn't stretch the field last year? Maybe if they had the speed that we have now with Moss and Patten things might have been different. I believe Moss is an upgrade to Coles just for the simple fact that he will be able to get down the field, which is what Gibbs wanted initially. If Patten can just hold onto the ball consistently he is an obvious upgrade right there.

You don't have to be a blazer to stretch the field, I prefer to listen to what the opposing defenses said about our offense, the pass routes were very simple, and easy to read, that is route running not lack of speed.

There is a reason Portis said the opposing teams know our plays, because there was nothing deceptive about them.

[joecrisp]

I'm one of the folks who believes this team needs a GM-- and yes, I do know what a GM does. But I think the question posed by this thread is unfair, because it doesn't allow for the possibility of having both the GM and Joe Gibbs, which was a synergistic combo that propelled the Redskins to four Super Bowl appearances and three Lombardi trophies in the 80s and 90s.

Someone made the argument that maybe the reason the Redskins don't have a GM is that good ones don't grow on trees. Well, the problem I have with that argument is that this team did have a good GM by the name of Charley Casserly, and Dan Snyder decided to boot him out the door because-- ostensibly-- Casserly couldn't coexist with Norv Turner. Now it's become clear that it was Snyder who couldn't coexist with a GM who wields anything resembling autonomous authority. Hell, even with Joe Gibbs, whom Snyder supposedly worships, Snyder has to be an equal voice in a triumvirate that includes his lackey, Vinny Cerrato. Joe Gibbs supposedly makes the final decisions, but those decisions are based in large part on the information and approval that Snyder and Cerrato give him.

However, given the limited options posed by this thread, I would certainly opt for Joe Gibbs without a GM, over a GM with "anybody" as coach. You need both a good coach and a good GM (or an equivalent entity) to consistently succeed in this league, and right now, the Skins only have one part of that equation.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by joecrisp

I'm one of the folks who believes this team needs a GM-- and yes, I do know what a GM does. But I think the question posed by this thread is unfair, because it doesn't allow for the possibility of having both the GM and Joe Gibbs, which was a synergistic combo that propelled the Redskins to four Super Bowl appearances and three Lombardi trophies in the 80s and 90s.

Someone made the argument that maybe the reason the Redskins don't have a GM is that good ones don't grow on trees. Well, the problem I have with that argument is that this team did have a good GM by the name of Charley Casserly, and Dan Snyder decided to boot him out the door because-- ostensibly-- Casserly couldn't coexist with Norv Turner. Now it's become clear that it was Snyder who couldn't coexist with a GM who wields anything resembling autonomous authority. Hell, even with Joe Gibbs, whom Snyder supposedly worships, Snyder has to be an equal voice in a triumvirate that includes his lackey, Vinny Cerrato. Joe Gibbs supposedly makes the final decisions, but those decisions are based in large part on the information and approval that Snyder and Cerrato give him.

However, given the limited options posed by this thread, I would certainly opt for Joe Gibbs without a GM, over a GM with "anybody" as coach. You need both a good coach and a good GM (or an equivalent entity) to consistently succeed in this league, and right now, the Skins only have one part of that equation.

What does a GM do then? Because maybe I'm confused about it then

[EternalEnigma21]

You're right deseal, I was considerably disappointed in last year's playcalling. Not just in the redzone, but in critical situations. Like in that dallas game, we were killing dallas with the short passing game, and in the fourth quarter, we're forcing timeouts by running, which is great, but then on third and eight, we dont go for the kill with a short completion. We run the ball against a stacked D thats been stuffing us all game. They get the ball back, gamble and win. We lose again. That sucked. But there were several situations that could've change outcomes of games in which we played wwwaaayyyy to conservative, but part of that was Ramsey's itchy trigger finger, coupled with all the dropped balls... I think we were just too concerned with turning the ball over. Not that it wasn't a legitimate concern, but it shouldn't dictate how you play the game.

[skinsguy]

44 - 9. Where are the Gibbs haters?

I don't really like the idea of building an offense around Portis exclusively. There is nothing wrong with installing a few run plays designed for him, but keeping the basic Gibbs philosophy will prove more successful in time.

You just have to face the facts; Gibbs has been successful with power running games coupled with quality receivers who could get open deep - he has no reason to change that now and one season back from a 11 year absence isn't enough to prove his philosophy doesn't work. This draft has hopefully addressed some issues that probably were ignored by alot of us fans. We acquired big guys to run the football and possibly be moved to tight end. Regardless of what some say, these two areas are huge for Gibbs' offense to work. Sure, we need receivers who can get open down field, but if there anything to be understood from Gibbs' offense it is PROTECTION. That is the key to his offense.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

44 - 9. Where are the Gibbs haters?

I don't really like the idea of building an offense around Portis exclusively. There is nothing wrong with installing a few run plays designed for him, but keeping the basic Gibbs philosophy will prove more successful in time.

You just have to face the facts; Gibbs has been successful with power running games coupled with quality receivers who could get open deep - he has no reason to change that now and one season back from a 11 year absence isn't enough to prove his philosophy doesn't work. This draft has hopefully addressed some issues that probably were ignored by alot of us fans. We acquired big guys to run the football and possibly be moved to tight end. Regardless of what some say, these two areas are huge for Gibbs' offense to work. Sure, we need receivers who can get open down field, but if there anything to be understood from Gibbs' offense it is PROTECTION. That is the key to his offense.

IF Gibbs doesn't want to change his style then why on earth would he trade for Portis and give him 50mil? Portis coming out of the denver system which is a zone blocking system which allows the RB's to cut back when the hole emerges, that's who Portis is, he's a system back, not a Gibbs power back who can run between the tackles he's not built for that.