Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12
All good points - can't argue w/the jury still being out on AS but I still think it was a shrewd move that will hopefully be looked back it favorably.
My point about the GM is that Gibbs essentially is the GM, and as someone said earlier, if he hires a GM what would he do? The challenge of coming back was to run the team as prez/coach, IMO.
The blueprint theory is this:
1) GW becomes head coach (I have my doubts after the Friend article, but that's the way his contract was structured)
2) As has near autonomy on O
3) Someone is hired to replace Gibbs when he retires as team prez.
In this scenario, Gibbs II legacy is as much about getting a coaching staff & front office structure in place as winning games. Not that I think we won't win w/Gibbs. We already have & will again!
|
I'm not sold on one GW or AS becomming the next head coach but it could happen.
So the whole Gibbs 2 experiment was to put pieces in place for some point in the future and if the teams wins thats fine but getting structure is place over 5 years is the main goal? I just dont think another 5 year rebuild is what the fans expected Gibbs to do. I think the scenario was the opposite, Gibbs was supposed to win first and lay the foundation for winning in the future.
I think that a lot of Redskin fans have gotten used to losing and as long as they get a bone (like a 5 game win streak) every now and they they think the end is in sight while in reality the organization just keeps doing what its been doing to create this culture of losing. Sure they shuffle different coaches & players in and out but the fundamental way of doing business does not change so the losing continues. As the saying goes, if you keep doing what youve always done you will keep getting what youve always got.