New Coach by tonight possibly...and new staff

[RedskinsFreak]

People in the NFL are not supplying or speculating about this - this is a group of media that have an agenda

and an owner that is an easy target because of what happened years ago.

I truly have a hard time believing that this urban legend-type of hullabaloo is still being bought.

[PulpExposure]

Firing Marty and hiring Spurrier was a disaster.

True. But at the time, Spurrier was widely seen as the next great NFL coach. By literally everyone.

So you can't play hindsight with that one.

[welch]

But at the time, Spurrier was widely seen as the next great NFL coach. By literally everyone.

More than a few of us remembered that Petibon had strangled every variety of run&shoot, fun&gun, Spurrier-like offense ten years earlier. We thought that hiring Spurrier was a silly move.

[Skinsfan55]

New news according to Rotoworld:

Chargers denied the Redskins permission to interview QBs coach John Ramsdell and signed him to a three-year contract extension.
The Redskins intended to interview Ramsdell for their offensive coordinator or QBs coach job. Rex Ryan (Ravens) and Jim Zorn (Seahawks) also appear to be staying with their clubs, according to the Washington Post.

-----

A person familiar with the Redskins' coaching search tells the AP that "there likely are candidates yet to be interviewed" by owner Dan Snyder.
The AP reports Giants DC Steve Spagnuolo and Patriots OC Josh McDaniels could be those candidates. At this point, the Redskins don't appear likely to have a head coach in place before next month. Snyder may be coolling on the idea of hiring Jim Fassel after a negative public outcry from Washington

-----

I still don't see why not give GW the HC job, but it's nice to know that public outcry is actually worth anything to Dan Snyder (he'd still fill Fed Ex field even if he hired Bozo the Clown as head coach.)

[Redskin in Canada]

I still don't see why not give GW the HC job, but it's nice to know that public outcry is actually worth anything to Dan Snyder (he'd still fill Fed Ex field even if he hired Bozo the Clown as head coach.)

Dan Snyder better be VERY conscious of the fact that he may lose a good number of fans on this one. Redskins fans -ALWAYS- will be Redskins fans but some may just stop following the team and spending their hard earned cash on attending games and other activities.

You are right about the second thought though. The pathetic path followed by Snyder has been to prefer CORPORATE "fans" and endorsements rather than maintain and cultivate the loyal grass-roots following because he has TAKEN US FOR GRANTED and this is first and foremost a money maker BUSINESS to him.

Some people say he wants to win. No guys, he wants to make money in whatever way, shape or form he can. He has been a master at selling the snake oil of the EXPECTATION of winning year after year. He is a loser. He will always be one, probably a soon to be bankrupt one at that.

[DEHog]

At this point does it really matter who the next coach is? Unless his name is Gibbs we are back to the old FO running the show...we need to find the cure and stop feeding the symptoms.

[Redskin in Canada]

At this point does it really matter who the next coach is? Unless his name is Gibbs we are back to the old FO running the show...we need to find the cure and stop feeding the symptoms.

Where do I put my money next to yours in order to buy the team as a fan owned franchise?

We HAVE to take away and save this team off the hands of the inept, egocentric, capricious megalomaniac who kidnapped this team away from us.

I am with you brother.

[Skinsfan55]

snip

I think it's off base to say Snyder doesn't want to win. He is a die hard Redskins fan just like most of us who dreamed of owning the team his whole life.

He wants badly to win, but he knows business well, and his football knowledge is lacking.

His estate will probably never, ever be bankrupt because he's such an outstanding businessman, but unless he hands the football operation reigns over to someone outside of his inner circle we may not see another great Redskins team. The best teams who have sustaining success are the ones who make a serious commitment to their coaches and front office. The Packers look set for years, as do the Cowboys, and the Patriots, and the Colts, and maybe a couple of others and it's because they had a set direction for years and a commitment to their people.

If we gave the next coach some time to rebuild the Redskins and got a competent GM in charge (heck, it could even be Vinny, let's give him a chance) we might see a change in the makeup of the Redskins for the better.

[welch]

At this point does it really matter who the next coach is? Unless his name is Gibbs we are back to the old FO running the show...we need to find the cure and stop feeding the symptoms.

Yes. Yes yes. (just to be emphatic ).

Unfortunately, Snyder is doing a good imitation of the the temper-tantrum-thoughtless parts of George Preston Marshall. [and maybe a skilled mod with an unusual amount of free time could figure out a way to combine these dozen or so overlapping threads, but that's a huge job. I realize this overlaps with something both RiC and I said on a nearby thread.]

We survived GPM because he was older, and had a coronary thrombosis (I think...result equaled a severe stroke).

RiC makes an interesting point.PM made money, lots of money that he buried in odd corners of the Redskins books. For instance, he paid himself a salary, rather than declare profits. The team owned his Georgetown house, and, it was discovered, a string of houses all around NFL cities.

Still, GPM depended on fans and his TV contract. (Yes, wild-eyed racist moron that he was, GPM led the NFL into TV contracts, in addition to his radio network throughout the South.).

EB Williams, Cooke, and Snyder seem to have added many other sources of revenue. Corporate luxury boxes, team logo jerseys and things, a Redskins web-site (with advertising).

Maybe he is immune to the feelings of the fans. Maybe not. The Giants have an equally old and established franchise. Fans hated Fassel, as did pplayers (or maybe "had contempt for" is more accurate). The Giants GM (ooops...don't have one here) fired Fassel to bring in Mean Tom C.

If Snyder could just learn something from the Mara family, even though he might have misunderstood the example of Gibbs...

[PulpExposure]

But at the time, Spurrier was widely seen as the next great NFL coach. By literally everyone.

More than a few of us remembered that Petibon had strangled every variety of run&shoot, fun&gun, Spurrier-like offense ten years earlier. We thought that hiring Spurrier was a silly move.

I actually did as well, since I never thought a chuck and duck offense would work in cold-weather NFC East land.

But Spurrier was widely seen as the next Jimmy Johnson. Prior to Snyder hiring him, people had been trying to get him to go to the NFL for years. Snyder hiring him was a coup. I mean hell, the guy had a winning record as Duke's football coach, which is basically unimaginable.

But as a pro, he stunk. He just lacked work ethic...kind of an important thing...

I was disappointed when they chose him over Schottenheimer, but I can understand why at the time he went after Spurrier.

[SkinsFreak]

In my opinion, if Snyder blows up this coaching staff, doesn't give continuity and stability a chance, doesn't offer GW the head coaching job and makes this organization have to start from scratch again, I will be extremely disappointed, as will millions of fans, the players and the current coaching staff. That would suck and would be the most foolish and illogical approach imaginable.

That said, until Snyder holds his press conference and introduces the new coach and/or staff, I will reserve judgment.

Many here seemed resigned to the preconceived notion that Snyder will muck this up and hasn't learned anything from Gibbs, making prejudice statements without knowing the facts, giving credence to bogus, unreliable and nonfactual media reports, and passing judgment before knowing any of the facts or what Snyder's ultimate decision will be. Well, if that's your approach... take it. If your mind is already made up, then nothing will change that. If that's the way you live your life... good luck to ya.

Some say Snyder hasn't learned anything from Gibbs. How can you emphatically say that at this time? How can one be judged on what they've learned before their answer is given? I have two daughters in grade school and I would certainly hope their teacher doesn't grade them on some preconceived notion of failure long before they've completed and submitted their work and results. That would be pretty stupid.

Snyder has a big test in front of him and the majority of us know the proper, wise, rational and most logical course of action. I will reiterate my opinion that I firmly believe GW deserves this opportunity and that is the only outcome to stabilize what Gibbs has accomplished and is the best route for moving forward. If Snyder does in fact muck this up, I will be the first to jump on the "Snyder's an idiot" bandwagon and will admit some of you were right all along, that Danny didn't learn a damn thing. But before doing so, I will, at the very least, wait for the final decision. I put the horse in front of the carriage, not behind it.

[chiefhog44]

In my opinion, if Snyder blows up this coaching staff, doesn't give continuity and stability a chance, doesn't offer GW the head coaching job and makes this organization have to start from scratch again, I will be extremely disappointed, as will millions of fans, the players and the current coaching staff. That would suck and would be the most foolish and illogical approach imaginable.

That said, until Snyder holds his press conference and introduces the new coach and/or staff, I will reserve judgment.

Many here seemed resigned to the preconceived notion that Snyder will muck this up and hasn't learned anything from Gibbs, making prejudice statements without knowing the facts, giving credence to bogus, unreliable and nonfactual media reports, and passing judgment before knowing any of the facts or what Snyder's ultimate decision will be. Well, if that's your approach... take it. If your mind is already made up, then nothing will change that. If that's the way you live your life... good luck to ya.

Some say Snyder hasn't learned anything from Gibbs. How can you emphatically say that at this time? How can one be judged on what they've learned before their answer is given? I have two daughters in grade school and I would certainly hope their teacher doesn't grade them on some preconceived notion of failure long before they've completed and submitted their work and results. That would be pretty stupid.

Snyder has a big test in front of him and the majority of us know the proper, wise, rational and most logical course of action. I will reiterate my opinion that I firmly believe GW deserves this opportunity and that is the only outcome to stabilize what Gibbs has accomplished and is the best route for moving forward. If Snyder does in fact muck this up, I will be the first to jump on the "Snyder's an idiot" bandwagon and will admit some of you were right all along, that Danny didn't learn a damn thing. But before doing so, I will, at the very least, wait for the final decision. I put the horse in front of the carriage, not behind it.

So true. Many of you act like you know what's going on in these meetings, because you're taking the media's word for truth. Maybe, just maybe, Williams told Snyder that he will not work with Saunders. Well, IMO, why would we hire him then? It's not for continuity, because I think GW's hiring is predicated on Saunders staying, as does Soloman Wilcox, Adam Shine, and a few other Sirius NFL Radio hosts. That's the idea of continuity...right??? Things are happening that we can not see. Stop taking the media reports for face value.

Snyder has a major test right here. After the facts come out, then you can get pissed off.

[RayNAustin]

I've often defended Snyder when many have bashed him for this decision or that. Of course he's made mistakes, but his intentions always seemed to revolve around making the Redskins a better team, and I believe this process of selecting the new coach is being undertaken with total emphasis on that very same goal. And who can really argue that a quick, automatic, promotion from within is the best way to approach this goal, as opposed to careful attention and comprehensive evaluation of all available talent ?

t's unfortunate that GW and the rest of the staff, as well as the players are left languishing in a state of limbo througout this process, though I don't know how such a thing could be avoided. It just is what it is, and it was Joe Gibbs decision to step down which necessitated the process to begin with. So far, the only fault I see from Snyder is in the announcement of Cerrato's new title which included poorly worded statements about roster control and so forth. This was poorly timed, poorly conceived, and caused unnecessary complications and confusion at the worst possible time, and totally avoidable.

Now I've read most of the posts on this topic, and the majority feel GW should be hired, and there are strong arguments for that being the right move. However, none of the good arguments include GW deserving the opportunity. Of course he deserves the opportunity. But if your intention is to select the best candidate available, then the matter of who "deserves" the job has to be way down the list for justifying the choice. Similarly, the idea that it's unfair to bring someone in from the outside has nothing to do with who is most qualified to lead the team.

The one question that seems to have escaped scrutiny here is the questoion "Are the Redskins better without Joe Gibbs as the head coach"? And this is an important question to ask of those who are convinced that GW should get the job. Because making GW the HC, and keeping Al Saunders as the OC, and possibly promoting Blache to DC suggests that the best way to improve the Redskins coaching staff was simply to remove Gibbs. It suggests that GW will be as good or a better HC than Gibbs; that Saunders offense will perform better without Gibbs interference, and that Blache will be just as good or a better DC than GW. That's really what you are saying when you say GW is the best choice.... and that continuity should be maintained. This is what you must believe in order to reasonably justify chosing to maintain and promote the current staff, while keeping to the gola of making the Redskins a better team. There is no way around the fundemental contradictions associated with any other answer, most especially for those concerned with maintaining the long term stability and success of the organization as opposed to a quick fix mentality and lack of patience that Snyder is always acused of being guilty of.

The arguments that we are so close...and that we should not disrupt the staff and avoid a new offensive system that Campbell will have to learn are short term concerns, and not necessarily valid ones. Phillips came in as a new HC, and Jason Garret became the new OC in Dallas this past year and the Cowboys performed better than any Cowboys team has in a decade or more. So continuity is no guarantee of success anymore than the lack of it guarantess failure.

Sure, we made it to the playoffs twice in Gibbs four years, which is a whole lot better than what happened in the previous 10 years. But the team was still under 500 for the entire 4 years which is not at all what we expected or hoped for. And I for one believe that this team had the talent this year to finish better, and to challenge the Cowboys for the division. So, my thoughts are that questionable coaching this year contributed to the Redskins underachievement.

Was that solely Gibbs fault, or was it a group failure? Keeping the current staff in place suggests it was Gibbs fault.

[CanesSkins26]

If we gave the next coach some time to rebuild the Redskins and got a competent GM in charge (heck, it could even be Vinny, let's give him a chance) we might see a change in the makeup of the Redskins for the better.

Dan Snyder will never rebuild. That is why the team has been consistently inconsistent and mediocre since he took over. Just take a look at our current roster. It is a muddled mix of very young players and aging veterans. To expect this current group to sustain a winning team year in and year out is unrealistic. Yes we may make a run again like we did this year, but we aren't going to go 12-4 or 13-3 until we start building an actual team, not just solid starters with no depth behind them. It's inexcusable that we were in a position to have to trade for Kendall (I like the trade but it should've been taken care of earlier) and sign guys like McCardell and Godfrey. But when you undervalue and botch the draft the way that we have you aren't going to have much depth and you're going to have an older roster.

Since Snyder took over, we've seen the "quick" fix time and time again. Until Snyder gets over that mentality and actually tries to build a team, we are going to be a mediocre franchise. It wont matter who the coach is until there is a change in mentality at the top.

[RayNAustin]

As I said in the previous post, the exhaustive process of selecting a new coach versus automatically naming GW as the HC shows to me that Snyder is not employing a quick fix mentality. Yes, early on, as a new owner he did, but I think that has been a learning process and is changing.

But what you are saying is the only way to "build a team" is through the draft? Frankly, NE showed this year that utilizing free agency was the way to go. They were one of the most active teams in free agency throughout the league, and look what has happened.

You can be more successful in the short term building a core group if you are great (or very lucky) at selecting players in the later rounds of the draft, but in the long term, eventually, those players must be paid highly or you'll lose them to free agency anyway. And there aren't many teams out there today with talent evaluators who can consistently find those draft day bargains.

In the old days before free agency, you could build a team like Beathard did, and lock a guy up for the long term. But free agency changed all that, and now with salary caps and backloaded contracts, you can't lock up guys for 5,6, 7 years. After the first 2 or 3 years, you're back to the balancing act of weighing cap heavy contracts and making tough decisions on who to keep and who to release. So suggesting that you can beat the free agency game by avoiding free agency participation is nonsensical.

Early draft picks cost as much as proven players these days up front with no garantee of producing such that you have with the proven players.

That's a fact of life in the NFL today. In the days of Jack Kent Cooke, the only limitation was self imposed. If you were willing to pay, you could do so, and build a dynasty depending only on the depth of your pocket book and your ability to identify talent in the the draft or through trades.

[CanesSkins26]

But what you are saying is the only way to "build a team" is through the draft? Frankly, NE showed this year that utilizing free agency was the way to go. They were one of the most active teams in free agency throughout the league, and look what has happened.

Yes they were active in free agency. But they also drafted 9 players in last year's draft. I'm not saying you can't use free agency. But you have to build a base first. The Pats didn't build there team through free agency. They built it through the draft, developed/retained their own players, and then used free agency to supplement what they had built. It's one thing to supplement your team with free agents, and a totally different matter altogether to try and build your team with free agents. For example, on offense this season (before injuries) we had 4 offensive starters that we drafted (Samuels, Jansen, Campbell, ey). On defense we started with 5 drafted starters (Taylor, Landry, Rocky, Rogers, Montgomery). That's 9 starters on our starting offense and defense that are home grown. The Patriots, on the other hand, had 7 offensive starters that they drafted (including 4 out of their 5 offensive linemen) and 7 defensive starters. Add in two starters that they signed as undrafted free agents and their kicker, and you are looking at 17 players that start that were either drafted or signed as rookie free agents.

If you compare our drafting to the Patriots' draft history, the numbers are staggering. Since 2000, we have drafted 47 players. The Patriots have drafted 70 in that same time span. In those 8 years, we drafted 8 or more players in a year twice and less than 6 players 4 times. The Patriots, on the other hand, drafted 8 or more players 6 time (10 players four times!!!) and never once drafted less than 6 players. Likewise during that period, the Colts drafted 67 players and the Steelers 62. Those three teams have won 5 out of the last 6 Super Bowls and the Patriots are likely to make it 6 out of 7 after next weekend.

[SkinsJock]

yawn - I don't care! - we just need to get this coaching thing straightened out so we can get Redskins 1 fueled up again after all these coaches free round trips to DC and get some free agents in here instead

[SkinsFreak]

Yes they were active in free agency. But they also drafted 9 players in last year's draft.

Weak argument. Do you know how many of those 9 draft choices actually made the team or the practice squad last year???

One

(Lua got thrown on the IR witch saved him from being cut.)

It doesn't matter if they had 100 picks in the draft, only a few ever actually make the team.

The Patriots have drafted 70 in that same time span.

And to date, how many of those 70 players, most of which should still be under the age of 30, currently exist on their 53-man roster? As Ray was pointing out, in todays NFL, it's a combination of both. I agree the Skins have given away too many picks over the past few years, but to say that all successful teams like the Pat's only build through the draft in todays game is not accurate. I know you wish it could be, just for the sake of ripping the team some more, but it isn't. Sorry to ruin your fun.

[CanesSkins26]

Yes they were active in free agency. But they also drafted 9 players in last year's draft.

Weak argument. Do you know how many of those 9 draft choices actually made the team or the practice squad last year???

One

(Lua got thrown on the IR witch saved him from being cut.)

It doesn't matter if they had 100 picks in the draft, only a few ever actually make the team.

The Patriots have drafted 70 in that same time span.

And to date, how many of those 70 players, most of which should still be under the age of 30, currently exist on their 53-man roster? As Ray was pointing out, in todays NFL, it's a combination of both. I agree the Skins have given away too many picks over the past few years, but to say that all successful teams like the Pat's only build through the draft in todays game is not accurate. I know you wish it could be, just for the sake of ripping the team some more, but it isn't. Sorry to ruin your fun.

Huh? Who cares how many rookies made the team for them this season. The point is that even when being active in free agency they didn't neglect the draft and still picked 9 players.

I have no idea how many of the 70 are on their roster, but I know that 17 of their drafted players start for them. And I know that 5 of the past 6 Super Bowl winner put a major emphasis on the draft. The Steelers, Colts, and Patriots all have very good depth on their team and are able to withstand injuries better than teams like the Skins. Just look at how many major contributors to teams like the Patriots and Colts come from the draft and how many come from free agency. Manning, Wayne, Addai, Sanders, Clark, Harrison, Freeney, etc. all started their careers with the Colts.

You can dismiss the argument all you want, but I'd like to see you provide an actual argument that shows a team in today's NFL that is consistently successful and doesn't rely heavily on players that they drafted.

[CanesSkins26]

It doesn't matter if they had 100 picks in the draft, only a few ever actually make the team.

Ofcourse only a few actually make the team. I'm sure the Patriots miss out on a ton of their picks. But that's why they stockpile them. When you only draft 4-6 players like the Skins do, and miss out on say 60% of them, it's a much bigger deal than when you draft 10 and miss out on many of them.

[CanesSkins26]

(Lua got thrown on the IR witch saved him from being cut.)

Same goes for Mike Richardson. In no way is that surprising though. It's going to be pretty hard for any rookie to make the roster of arguably the best team in NFL history.

[SkinsFreak]

It doesn't matter if they had 100 picks in the draft, only a few ever actually make the team.

Ofcourse only a few actually make the team. I'm sure the Patriots miss out on a ton of their picks. But that's why they stockpile them. When you only draft 4-6 players like the Skins do, and miss out on say 60% of them, it's a much bigger deal than when you draft 10 and miss out on many of them.

The Pat's had 9 picks last year, one made the team. The Skins had 5 picks last year, two made the team and even started. The Pat's are not draft experts. They took a page out of the Skins playbook last year and went crazy in free agency and even traded picks for players. Again, I agree the Skins have recklessly spent draft picks, but that is changing and I've always stated it should be a balance of both.

[RayNAustin]

SkinsFreak, you beat me to the punch.

But in one respect...CanesSkins26 is right you know. The Pats got Brady with a 6th round pick, and we spent two 1st rounders for Campbell......is that what you mean by wasting picks CanesSkins26? Hahaha.

Look, Rodgers hasn't lived up to a 1st rounder either, so if we can't even hit on our 1st rounders with any reasonable consistency, then what could we possibly expect from late rounders?

But I'm glad to see that someone understands that you can't rely on just the draft or just free agency, that you must use both and be successful with both. Unfortunately, the Redskins have been more successful with free agency in recent years.

Now let's get to the heart of CanesSkins argument, shall we? Snyder is to blame for all of this wasting of picks? Was it Snyder or was it Gibbs who traded the 4th rounder for TJ Duckett and then didn't use him? Who was it that agreed with Denver that Bailey wasn't worth Portis straight up by himself and included a pick in the deal? Who was it that traded a 1st rounder just to trade up to get Campbell? That year we had 2 first round picks and we got Campbell and Rodgers, so in effect we could look at it like we used 2 1st rounders for Neon Deon Rodgers? I could go on and on, but you should get the picture CanesSkins. Last time I checked, Gibbs was the final word on player personnel issues these past 4 years, so the Snyder bashing is a bogus claim.

I agree with the fact that we have been poor when it comes to the draft. I just don't believe that you can insinuate that Snyder is sitting in his office dreaming up ill conceived free agent schemes and dealing picks away like a kid with a stack of cards.

Frankly, Gibbs hasn't faired much better with using picks than anyone else, IMHO. He had hits and misses and also some throw aways like the Duckett deal.

[CanesSkins26]

Now let's get to the heart of CanesSkins argument, shall we? Snyder is to blame for all of this wasting of picks? Was it Snyder or was it Gibbs who traded the 4th rounder for TJ Duckett and then didn't use him? Who was it that agreed with Denver that Bailey wasn't worth Portis straight up by himself and included a pick in the deal? Who was it that traded a 1st rounder just to trade up to get Campbell? That year we had 2 first round picks and we got Campbell and Rodgers, so in effect we could look at it like we used 2 1st rounders for Neon Deon Rodgers? I could go on and on, but you should get the picture CanesSkins. Last time I checked, Gibbs was the final word on player personnel issues these past 4 years, so the Snyder bashing is a bogus claim.

That would be a decent argument if we hadn't been wasting picks prior to Gibbs coming here. And I never said you didn't need free agency. You need both. What I am saying is that it is best to built your team through the draft and then supplement what you have built with free agents. That is what the Patriots did this past offense. They had a good foundation of home grown talent, but needed some additional pieces on offense so they signed Welker and Stallworth, and traded for Moss. What we have tried to do is build most of our team through free agency and trades, and I think that that is a mistake. Add in the fact that we aren't exactly adept at making trades (i.e. we trade a 3rd and a 4th for Lloyd, the Pats get Moss for a 4th). But the biggest problem with building through free agency if a lack of depth. Just look at all of the aging veterans that we had to add to fill out our roster and to take over for injured players. When you draft well you don't have to do that because you will have young players that you have developed ready to take over. This is especially true when it comes to the offensive and defensive lines, positions where we have a lot of older players and very little depth.

[RayNAustin]

True. But lets not confuse what happened 8 years ago with what is happening over the past 4 and now. That is the relevant time period, because what happened 8 years ago doesn't have much to do with today. You're not likely to hear anyone trading their picks in the year 2016 for a free agent today, are you?

Overall, as I've said before, Gibbs strength has never been in talent evaluation and acqusition....he's good at talent coaching and team building. So if Gibbs controlled these questionable moves (Lloyde being another and thank you for reminding me), how can you blame Snyder unless you fault him for hiring Gibbs?