The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

cleg wrote:

JonC56 wrote:I One thing that we can agree on is the fact the Daniel Snyder has the best interest for the Redskins in mind. He may make questionable desicions sometimes, but he truly is just trying to win. .

I cannot agree to that. He is a twit who has spent the last 9 years running thr franchise into the ground and charging fans $5 for a bottle of water. All he cares about is money and his own ego.

Why don't you pick another team instead of being critical of Dan Snyder. If you don't want to pay $5.00 for bottle water then don't buy it, but there are alot of places where you can go watch a game in the stands and they were charge you about the same.

frankcal20 wrote:Every media outlet is saying that the fans are 100% against this move. Who knows, Fassel could be a really good coach but for Dan to do whats right, its giving GW a shot. Not to mention all the players on the team want GW as their coach as well.

Its just best for all sides.

Again. Why should Dan Snyder just give GW the job? What has he done? Lets look at it this way. If you owned a company would you hire someone that you didn't feel good about?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:But why should GW get the job? What has he done as a head coach?

Look at what he's done since he's been here! Does he get 0 credit for getting HIS defense together after Taylor died?! Gibbs gets all of the credit? He deserves a lot but Gregg needs to be honored for that too.

I'm trying to care about this situation either way but lets act like Gregg is Don Breaux.

No. No. Not what he has done as a defensive coordinator, but as a head coach. And whats interesting it took a death for him to get his defense to play lights out defense. Whats wrong with this picture?

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:If you're gonna think positive, then think positive.

Since "Dan has the best interests of the Redskins in mind," then the trading of picks shouldn't change your positive perspective, should it?

Unless you not a positive thinker, but more of a fence sitter.

Well I think its proven that you can find the negative in a situation.

Anyway I have some faith in the redskins front office and I will back their desicion based off the top two candidates right now.

So yes, if they wanted to trade picks for ryan, I would support it, but I thhik it is a little over the top.

Preach on, brotha.



Now on to a different subject, how can people think that Dan Snyder dosent have the redskins success on the field in his best intereest. He doesnt have to put as much capital back into the team and coaches as he does. We have the highest payroll in the NFL. And as far as prices of food at the game, that's just simple economics. Someone who invests the amount of money as Snyder, is trying to do everything he can to create a winner on the field.

markshark62 wrote:GW tenure as HC of the bills was vastly different than that of Fassels. At the end of the 2000 season, the Bills were totally striped of their identity. Thomas, Reed, and Bruce Smith were cut. Their GM left for the Chargers and took Flutie and Wiley (who made the pro bowl in San Diego that year).

Ok, do your research before you start with this.

Williams was the reason they cut Flutie and Wiley. He preferred Rob Johnson.

From ESPN's 2001 Bills Training Camp Report:

Burdened by a calamitous salary cap situation, Donahoe and Williams made moves that were designed to get cash friendly again and to move younger players into more essential roles. Gone from the 2000 roster are starters like defensive end Marcellus Wiley, middle linebacker John Holecek, offensive tackle Robert Hicks, nose tackle Ted Washington and outside linebacker Sam Rogers.

And gone too is Flutie, who lost the power struggle with Johnson only after Donahoe and Williams conducted an exhaustive and months-long review of both players' dossiers, including videotape scrutiny of every pass the pair threw in 2000. "It's simple," said Williams of what was, nonetheless, a complex decision. "Rob was better."

Fassel, on the other hand, was with the Giants for 7 years. He inherited a very good team in 1997 and made the playoffs in his first season.

A very good team? In 1996, they went 6-10. In 1995, 5-11. He took that team from 6-10 to 10-5-1 the next year.

That proved to be one of his best. He was able to put together HIS team and play with them. After that first season, he only made the playoffs twice in 6 years.

Once making the Superbowl. Those other years, he went 8-8, 7-9, 12-4, 10-6 and 4-12 (when his entire team was injured).

So he only made the playoffs 3 of 7 years. Remind me how many times Williams made it in Buffalo? Hell, remind me how many times Williams was over .500 in Buffalo?

Since then, he compiled a .500 record

Hmm lemme check my math. Nope. 41-39, over .500.

and was most recently fired from his post as offensive coordinator for the Ravens -- an offense that was in the bottom five both seasons.

To be fair, I get a lot of Ravens coverage. While he was nominally the offensive coordinator, Billick still retained control. They picked up Fassel mainly to see if he could develop Kyle Boller.

I, however, see a tremendous amount of risk in selecting a HC that has a .500 coaching record over 6 years in the NFL and most recently failed miserably coaching an offense. On the other hand, we have a very successful defensive coordinator eager to make a statement who has learned quite a bit in the last 5 years since his last HC job.

Seriously? You see more risk in a guy who has a 58-53-1 record, 3 postseason berths, and a SuperBowl appearance, over a guy who was 17-31? There are plenty of coordinators who are great at what they do, but aren't good head coaches.

We know Fassel has won in New York (I'm sorry, but we'd be ecstatic here if we went to the playoffs 3 times in 7 years, including a Superbowl appearance).

Williams? He was an awful head coach. Doesn't mean he won't be a good one, but history says otherwise.

Also, if we change coaches and staff now, it will take yet another year for the players to adjust to a new playbook and offensive/defensive sets.

May be true, may not be true. Spagnuolo came in this year, and the Giants defense is pretty good, no? Wade Phillips et al. came in this year, and the Cowboys performed both offensively and defensively, right?

If you want the skins to be .500 at best, then Fassel is a good choice. But, for me, I want this team to WIN and win championships. Fassel is not the guy that is going to do this.

And what leads you to think Williams is?

He was in the league too long before to not win. Most NFL coaches win a championship within their first 5 years with a team.

Really? If you mean first 5 years with a team, than he still has that possibility. If you mean first 5 years as a head coach, you're flat out wrong.

Tony Dungy, Bill Belichek, Bill Cowher. All pretty good coaches, right? Took longer than 5 years to win their first Championship, and two of them were fired from their first job.

jeremyroyce wrote:

DEHog wrote:I could understand if there was a "better candidate" out there but there just isn't. Why didn't Snyder just make good on his words to give GW a shot after Gibbs left. He should have given him a 3 year deal if didn't work out by then hopefully there'd be some better choices out there??

But why should GW get the job? What has he done as a head coach?

He has remained loyal to the organization and done well with the D

What has the candidate you'd like to see done??

DEHog wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:

DEHog wrote:I could understand if there was a "better candidate" out there but there just isn't. Why didn't Snyder just make good on his words to give GW a shot after Gibbs left. He should have given him a 3 year deal if didn't work out by then hopefully there'd be some better choices out there??

But why should GW get the job? What has he done as a head coach?

He has remained loyal to the organization and done well with the D

What has the candidate you'd like to see done??

You're right about what you say in regard to GW, but that doesn't mean that he should just be given the job. Nobody has any idea what the interviews looked like or what GW's plan for the future was. For all we know, GW might not get along at all with Vinny and/or Snyder. Perhaps there are differences as to what type of offense should be run or how much control the HC should have over player personnel decisions.

Agreed, but how would it make you feel if he does get it??

PulpExposure wrote:

markshark62 wrote:GW tenure as HC of the bills was vastly different than that of Fassels. At the end of the 2000 season, the Bills were totally striped of their identity. Thomas, Reed, and Bruce Smith were cut. Their GM left for the Chargers and took Flutie and Wiley (who made the pro bowl in San Diego that year).

Ok, do your research before you start with this.

Williams was the reason they cut Flutie and Wiley. He preferred Rob Johnson.

From ESPN's 2001 Bills Training Camp Report:

Burdened by a calamitous salary cap situation, Donahoe and Williams made moves that were designed to get cash friendly again and to move younger players into more essential roles. Gone from the 2000 roster are starters like defensive end Marcellus Wiley, middle linebacker John Holecek, offensive tackle Robert Hicks, nose tackle Ted Washington and outside linebacker Sam Rogers.

And gone too is Flutie, who lost the power struggle with Johnson only after Donahoe and Williams conducted an exhaustive and months-long review of both players' dossiers, including videotape scrutiny of every pass the pair threw in 2000. "It's simple," said Williams of what was, nonetheless, a complex decision. "Rob was better."

Fassel, on the other hand, was with the Giants for 7 years. He inherited a very good team in 1997 and made the playoffs in his first season.

A very good team? In 1996, they went 6-10. In 1995, 5-11. He took that team from 6-10 to 10-5-1 the next year.

That proved to be one of his best. He was able to put together HIS team and play with them. After that first season, he only made the playoffs twice in 6 years.

Once making the Superbowl. Those other years, he went 8-8, 7-9, 12-4, 10-6 and 4-12 (when his entire team was injured).

So he only made the playoffs 3 of 7 years. Remind me how many times Williams made it in Buffalo? Hell, remind me how many times Williams was over .500 in Buffalo?

Since then, he compiled a .500 record

Hmm lemme check my math. Nope. 41-39, over .500.

and was most recently fired from his post as offensive coordinator for the Ravens -- an offense that was in the bottom five both seasons.

To be fair, I get a lot of Ravens coverage. While he was nominally the offensive coordinator, Billick still retained control. They picked up Fassel mainly to see if he could develop Kyle Boller.

I, however, see a tremendous amount of risk in selecting a HC that has a .500 coaching record over 6 years in the NFL and most recently failed miserably coaching an offense. On the other hand, we have a very successful defensive coordinator eager to make a statement who has learned quite a bit in the last 5 years since his last HC job.

Seriously? You see more risk in a guy who has a 58-53-1 record, 3 postseason berths, and a SuperBowl appearance, over a guy who was 17-31? There are plenty of coordinators who are great at what they do, but aren't good head coaches.

We know Fassel has won in New York (I'm sorry, but we'd be ecstatic here if we went to the playoffs 3 times in 7 years, including a Superbowl appearance).

Williams? He was an awful head coach. Doesn't mean he won't be a good one, but history says otherwise.

Also, if we change coaches and staff now, it will take yet another year for the players to adjust to a new playbook and offensive/defensive sets.

May be true, may not be true. Spagnuolo came in this year, and the Giants defense is pretty good, no? Wade Phillips et al. came in this year, and the Cowboys performed both offensively and defensively, right?

If you want the skins to be .500 at best, then Fassel is a good choice. But, for me, I want this team to WIN and win championships. Fassel is not the guy that is going to do this.

And what leads you to think Williams is?

He was in the league too long before to not win. Most NFL coaches win a championship within their first 5 years with a team.

Really? If you mean first 5 years with a team, than he still has that possibility. If you mean first 5 years as a head coach, you're flat out wrong.

Tony Dungy, Bill Belichek, Bill Cowher. All pretty good coaches, right? Took longer than 5 years to win their first Championship, and two of them were fired from their first job.

In response:

HC winning a SB - yes, first 5 years with a team. Fassel didn't do it. I don't see him doing it here either.

Team Fassel Inherited - that team wasn't that bad. In '96 the Giants played only 2 (it may have been 3, but I am pretty sure it was 2) teams with losing records. The next year, with a last place schedule, they played 12 teams with losing records. Like I said mainly looking at records doesn't cut it. Their 1997 schedule was one of the easiest in the history of football. Tiki Barber also came into the league in '97.

Estatic about getting to 'offs 3 out of 7 years - maybe for you, but not for me. We have gone 2 of the 3 past seasons. I don't think everyone on here is esctatic. I have read this board for a while now. I think I can speak for everyone when I say we want championships.

Check your math again??? - actually you forgot a year in there. He went 7-9 in 2001. My math was correct. He was 48-48 equaling .500 - not including playoffs, which would drop his % to under .500.

Flutie/Wiley - Flutie left because he didn't want a QB competition. He wanted to start outright. He could do that in San Diego. GW did support Johnson, but it was open up to the point when Flutie left. That is why I said that we would have to have Saunders stay. I don't believe GW to be an offensive guy and wouldn't want him making those decisions anyway. There would need to be an agreement which I believe could be arranged. Wiley was a dumb decision, but I am sure every coach has a decision they regret. Tom Brady wasn't taken until the 6th round. Besides that was not my point. My point was targeted at where the team was at the point he took over. Not at personnell decisions.

Fassel getting fired - no matter what he got fired. He didn't develop the QB. He failed at his assignment nominally or not.

Subjective - the remainder of what you said was mostly subjective. IMHO, I believe that GW has more passion and desire to win. The players like GW. He has learned very much in the past 5 years. His 3 years in Buffalo were not enough to provide an accurate prediction of whether they can get to the SB -- which you yourself stated. You need 5 years (more or less). If GW and Saunders can stay, that is our best option. Fassel is horrible. I think that the majority of people out there agree on that position. We know what we are getting with Fassel. It just isn't that good.

markshark62 wrote:[HC winning a SB - yes, first 5 years with a team. Fassel didn't do it. I don't see him doing it here either.

But that's different than what you said, isn't it And you still didn't acknowledge that there have been plenty of coaches who didn't win their SB within 5 years.

Team Fassel Inherited - that team wasn't that bad. The next year, with a last place schedule, they played 12 teams with losing records. Like I said mainly looking at records doesn't cut it. Their 1997 schedule was one of the easiest in the history of football.

You had said he had inherited a very good team. I was simply making the point that the 1996 Giants weren't a very good team. And their record bears that out. 11-21 over the 1995 and 1996 seasons isn't good. And going 6-10 to 10-5-1 is pretty impressive, no matter how you cut it. Schedule helps, but you STILL have to win those games, right?

In '96 the Giants played only 2 (it may have been 3, but I am pretty sure it was 2) teams with losing records.

In 1996, the Giants played 5 games against teams with losing records (Arizona twice, Jets, Lions, Saints). You're right, that was a tough season, since the NFC East was so tough (and was not in 1997). But the year before, they went 5-11, on a pretty easy schedule. You're going to have to work harder than the "schedule was hard!" argument to say that 6-10 qualifies the team as "very good."

Tiki Barber also came into the league in '97.

Tiki was a fumbling machine and didn't play much until much later in his career (3rd down back and all). He had a real impactful 511 yards rushing and 3 TDs in 1997.

Estatic about getting to 'offs 3 out of 7 years - maybe for you, but not for me. We have gone 2 of the 3 past seasons. I don't think everyone on here is esctatic. I have read this board for a while now. I think I can speak for everyone when I say we want championships.

Lol. Seriously, I'd love championships, but let's be realistic. This isn't 1991.

We're happy when we back into the playoffs as a 6th seed now. Sad, but true.

Check your math again??? - actually you forgot a year in there. He went 7-9 in 2001. My math was correct. He was 48-48 equaling .500 - not including playoffs, which would drop his % to under .500.

You're right, I did somehow skip that season. Apologies. However, 2-3 in the playoffs looks to be what Gibbs just did. Except Gibbs was under .500 as a head coach in his second time around. Would you not hire him, then?

Seriously, I have no idea how you compare 58-53-1, and 2-3 in the playoffs to 17-31 as a head coach, and continually attack the first record as not being good enough.

Flutie/Wiley - Flutie left because he didn't want a QB competition. He wanted to start outright. He could do that in San Diego. GW did support Johnson, but it was open up to the point when Flutie left. That is why I said that we would have to have Saunders stay.

That's great and all, but it was Williams who wanted Johnson, and it was Williams who was the reason Flutie left.

I don't believe GW to be an offensive guy and wouldn't want him making those decisions anyway. There would need to be an agreement which I believe could be arranged.

The head coach of a team has to have input on both sides of the ball. Period. The head coach of the Redskins, even if he's defensive, will determine what offense to run. Why hire a HC if you don't adopt his philosophy on both sides of the ball, then? Why not just have 2 coordinators and let them each run the side of their team independently?

Tom Brady wasn't taken until the 6th round.

Where the hell did this come from??

Besides that was not my point. My point was targeted at where the team was at the point he took over. Not at personnell decisions.

Except when your HC is making those decisions that impact the team itself. And GW was responsible for those decisions.

Fassel getting fired - no matter what he got fired. He didn't develop the QB. He failed at his assignment nominally or not.

It's fairly clear by now that Kyle Boller cannot be developed by anyone. Baby Jesus could touch him on the shoulder, and he still would be a horrible quarterback.

And yes, Fassel got fired. So do a lot of people. Hey...I think Bill Belichek got fired once, too? What a bum!

Subjective - the remainder of what you said was mostly subjective.

Really? What parts?

IMHO, I believe that GW has more passion and desire to win. The players like GW. He has learned very much in the past 5 years.

Past five years? Including his 3-13 year in Buffalo?

We know what we are getting with Fassel. It just isn't that good.

Oh I don't think he's great, either, I just don't think he's "horrible." However, I just don't see why people think Gregg Williams is such a fantastic option, and a sure-fire winner. Out of everyone talked about in the press, I support Williams, but that's simply going back to why I voted for John Kerry in the last election. The other candidates were worse.