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

Well, there had been a lot of talk in February how Snyder told Williams he would succeed Gibbs, and how Snyder reneged on his word.

From the mouth of the Genius himself:

The only thing Williams would say about the situation Tuesday was that he never had an agreement with Snyder to take over for Gibbs.

"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

I guess that settles it?

I have always thought GW is a great "coordinator", but not such a great "coach".

Smart guy, and great schemer. But there is more to football than Schemes.

BnGhog wrote:I have always thought GW is a great "coordinator", but not such a great "coach".

Smart guy, and great schemer. But there is more to football than Schemes.

I agree. A head coach is as much a figure head as a technical guy, probably more so. (Just look at how long Billick took to get fired and there is no question the technical side is not the top priority ) Anyhoo, I think what you're looking for in a head coach is the face of the organization, the attitude, the morale, the media relationships, the player management and overall people skills from how he interacts with the water boy and secretaries to the coaching staff and players.

Much like Presidents, head coaches are best when they excel at managing all the people around them. Gregg Williams was always more of a General than a President. Good to go to war with, not so good at shaking hands and kissing babies.

Greg Williams wrote:"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

Oh Gregory, you and I are so different

Whatever is said - I wish Gregg was still with us.

That doesn't surprise me.

I also remember Snyder saying Williams just wasn't a good fit in Washington as the head coach. I also believe Snyder turned to Gibbs for guidance and opinions during the process. I wonder if Gibbs, himself, suggested Snyder to look in another direction.

The day Williams and Saunders were fired, I admit I was pretty upset. I even made my feelings known in the Smack forum that day. But in hindsight, even without knowing if Zorn will be successful, I'm kinda glad Snyder passed on Williams and went with Zorn. I would also venture to think the players like the hiring of Zorn, even though some publicly lobbied for GW.... lobbying done while GW was still being interviewed, I might add. Zorn just seems like a better guy to work for.

Sometimes, however, I do wish the organization would be more forthcoming to set the record straight about bad or false information circulated by the press. Gibbs was very secretive and perhaps he had something to do with it. But for the most part, the Skins coverage in DC sucks. To this day, I don't even know why they let JLC on the grounds. I not suggesting JLC started this false rumor, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Fios wrote:

Greg Williams wrote:"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

Oh Gregory, you and I are so different

I'm more like the Cup than I am like the Genius.

(I will miss him as a defco, but such is life.)

Fios wrote:

Greg Williams wrote:"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

Oh Gregory, you and I are so different

That's what you do as a coach...........CORRECT PEOPLE....!!!

tribeofjudah wrote:

Fios wrote:

Greg Williams wrote:"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

Oh Gregory, you and I are so different

That's what you do as a coach...........CORRECT PEOPLE....!!!

I beg to differ. Correct PLAYERS, why would he care about the rest? The media? I doubt he's worried what the media thinks of him, he's a proven man.....no?

fleetus wrote:

BnGhog wrote:I have always thought GW is a great "coordinator", but not such a great "coach".

Smart guy, and great schemer. But there is more to football than Schemes.

I agree. A head coach is as much a figure head as a technical guy, probably more so. (Just look at how long Billick took to get fired and there is no question the technical side is not the top priority ) Anyhoo, I think what you're looking for in a head coach is the face of the organization, the attitude, the morale, the media relationships, the player management and overall people skills from how he interacts with the water boy and secretaries to the coaching staff and players.

Much like Presidents, head coaches are best when they excel at managing all the people around them. Gregg Williams was always more of a General than a President. Good to go to war with, not so good at shaking hands and kissing babies.

I got to disagree, Billick look at his record, he was a pretty good coach. Baltimore was a mess before he got there. Coaches get stale sometimes. By the way he has won a superbowl too. He is not a bad coach, he has had too much success to be a bad coach. Your wrong on this one and the stats don't support your statement on Billick being a bad coach. He didn't have an offense but he had good teams.

Do we have a closet Baltimore fan here.

fleetus wrote:

BnGhog wrote:I have always thought GW is a great "coordinator", but not such a great "coach".

Smart guy, and great schemer. But there is more to football than Schemes.

I agree. A head coach is as much a figure head as a technical guy, probably more so. (Just look at how long Billick took to get fired and there is no question the technical side is not the top priority ) Anyhoo, I think what you're looking for in a head coach is the face of the organization, the attitude, the morale, the media relationships, the player management and overall people skills from how he interacts with the water boy and secretaries to the coaching staff and players.

Much like Presidents, head coaches are best when they excel at managing all the people around them. Gregg Williams was always more of a General than a President. Good to go to war with, not so good at shaking hands and kissing babies.

From what I read, Bill Belichek is a real jerk. He openly berates and belittles his players, was caught cheating, and reportedly even had an affair with a married woman. Absolutely aweful figurehead, but he seems to win lots of games. If he were fired tomorrow, he'd get another job in about 2 seconds. I think you're overestimating the 'figurehead' role.

John Manfreda wrote:I got to disagree, Billick look at his record, he was a pretty good coach. Baltimore was a mess before he got there. Coaches get stale sometimes. By the way he has won a superbowl too. He is not a bad coach, he has had too much success to be a bad coach. Your wrong on this one and the stats don't support your statement on Billick being a bad coach. He didn't have an offense but he had good teams.

Mike Shanahan has SuperBowl rings, too.
So does Mike Ditka.
So does Bill Parcells.

Would anyone want any of these people coaching the Redskins?
Having SuperBowl rings as a coach means Zero. Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

The job of a head coach is to be a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
X's and O's guys are almost never good head coaches. Look at recent history. Do you think Joe Gibbs is a people person or an X's and O's person?

Players don't care how good your playbooks and schemes are if you're a jerk and there's no one to complain to about your being a jerk.
If the position coach or coordinator is a jerk, players go to the head coach. If the head coach is a jerk, players don't complain to the front office. They stop listening to the jerk, opt out, hold out, plead their cases in the media.

If you don't have the ability to get along with everyone, and to make certain that everyone gets along you have no business being a head coach, particularly in the salary cap era.

Would you care to waste your time trying to convince anyone that Billick had control over the team? Or the respect of the team? Or the backing of core members of the team? Or consistent results that justified his keeping the position? Billick had nothing more than one fluke SuperBowl. The NFL remains a "What have you done for me lately?" league.

PulpExposure wrote:Well, there had been a lot of talk in February how Snyder told Williams he would succeed Gibbs, and how Snyder reneged on his word.

From the mouth of the Genius himself:

The only thing Williams would say about the situation Tuesday was that he never had an agreement with Snyder to take over for Gibbs.

"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

I guess that settles it?

I don't think it settles it. GW choose his words very carefully by saying he didn't have a agreement to take over for Gibbs...that is correct. What he had was a agreement if he didn't take over for Gibbs.

DEHog wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Well, there had been a lot of talk in February how Snyder told Williams he would succeed Gibbs, and how Snyder reneged on his word.

From the mouth of the Genius himself:

The only thing Williams would say about the situation Tuesday was that he never had an agreement with Snyder to take over for Gibbs.

"There's a lot things written many, many, many times that's incorrect," Williams said. "I just choose not to correct people."

I guess that settles it?

I don't think it settles it. GW choose his words very carefully by saying he didn't have a agreement to take over for Gibbs...that is correct. What he had was a agreement if he didn't take over for Gibbs.

Heh. Well, perhaps that million dollars was a hush-fund? I.e., you don't complain, and we give you the million bucks under a confidentiality contract....

John Manfreda wrote:

fleetus wrote:

BnGhog wrote:I have always thought GW is a great "coordinator", but not such a great "coach".

Smart guy, and great schemer. But there is more to football than Schemes.

I agree. A head coach is as much a figure head as a technical guy, probably more so. (Just look at how long Billick took to get fired and there is no question the technical side is not the top priority ) Anyhoo, I think what you're looking for in a head coach is the face of the organization, the attitude, the morale, the media relationships, the player management and overall people skills from how he interacts with the water boy and secretaries to the coaching staff and players.

Much like Presidents, head coaches are best when they excel at managing all the people around them. Gregg Williams was always more of a General than a President. Good to go to war with, not so good at shaking hands and kissing babies.

I got to disagree, Billick look at his record, he was a pretty good coach. Baltimore was a mess before he got there. Coaches get stale sometimes. By the way he has won a superbowl too. He is not a bad coach, he has had too much success to be a bad coach. Your wrong on this one and the stats don't support your statement on Billick being a bad coach. He didn't have an offense but he had good teams.

Well, I don't want to hijack the thread by starting a Billick argument, BUT my take on Billick is this:

1. Rode the Randy Moss/ Chris Carter train to a head coaching job in Baltimore as a supposed "offensive passing guru". We all know that to be false since his passing offenses sucked every year in Balt.
2. the best QB he ever had was the one who helped get him to the only SuperBowl win he ever got, Trent Dilfer. (which tells you JUST how bad the passing game was in Baltimore) But he released Dilfer shortly after the SuperBowl. All of his other QB experiments failed miserably. (Redman, Grbac, Boller) Even when he finally realized he sucked at developing QB's and tried a proven veteran, McNair was not a great success.
3. and oh by the way, his offense wasn't very good when they won the Super Bowl either. Remember, he got his HC job because he was viewed as a Passing game guru. They only won a SB because of Marvin Lewis' work as DC, Ray Lewis work as a star LB and Jamal Lewis at RB. His passing game sucked and was drug along to the SB kicking and screaming Today, Billick's offense is THE example always used when talking about how BAD an offense can be and still win an SB.


No, Billick lucked into successful opportunies and was good at surrounding himself with talented people. I give much of that credit to Ozzie Newsome who is one of the best personnel people in the NFL. Too bad Billick could never manage a decent QB or passing offense because if he had, he'd have 3 or 4 SB's by now. Instead, he is doing what he does best, talking on TV for a living.

GSPODS wrote:Mike Shanahan has SuperBowl rings, too.
So does Mike Ditka.
So does Bill Parcells.

Would anyone want any of these people coaching the Redskins?

Are you seriously arguing that none of these guys are good coaches?

I'm not sure any of them would be my first choice to coach the Redskins but I don't think I'd be wildly upset about any of them either. (Parcells would be tough to swallow because of the history.)

Just my opinion, but I think the blind squirrel analogy is pretty tough to apply to NFL coaches winning the super bowl. It seems like winning the super bowl takes something extra.

riggofan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Mike Shanahan has SuperBowl rings, too.
So does Mike Ditka.
So does Bill Parcells.

Would anyone want any of these people coaching the Redskins?

Are you seriously arguing that none of these guys are good coaches?

I'm not sure any of them would be my first choice to coach the Redskins but I don't think I'd be wildly upset about any of them either. (Parcells would be tough to swallow because of the history.)

Just my opinion, but I think the blind squirrel analogy is pretty tough to apply to NFL coaches winning the super bowl. It seems like winning the super bowl takes something extra.

In Billick's case, that "something extra" was a really good defensive coordinator and an incredible defense to carry his useless "offensive genius" butt.

GSPODS wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:I got to disagree, Billick look at his record, he was a pretty good coach. Baltimore was a mess before he got there. Coaches get stale sometimes. By the way he has won a superbowl too. He is not a bad coach, he has had too much success to be a bad coach. Your wrong on this one and the stats don't support your statement on Billick being a bad coach. He didn't have an offense but he had good teams.

Mike Shanahan has SuperBowl rings, too.
So does Mike Ditka.
So does Bill Parcells.

Would anyone want any of these people coaching the Redskins?
Having SuperBowl rings as a coach means Zero. Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

The job of a head coach is to be a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
X's and O's guys are almost never good head coaches. Look at recent history. Do you think Joe Gibbs is a people person or an X's and O's person?

Players don't care how good your playbooks and schemes are if you're a jerk and there's no one to complain to about your being a jerk.
If the position coach or coordinator is a jerk, players go to the head coach. If the head coach is a jerk, players don't complain to the front office. They stop listening to the jerk, opt out, hold out, plead their cases in the media.

If you don't have the ability to get along with everyone, and to make certain that everyone gets along you have no business being a head coach, particularly in the salary cap era.

Would you care to waste your time trying to convince anyone that Billick had control over the team? Or the respect of the team? Or the backing of core members of the team? Or consistent results that justified his keeping the position? Billick had nothing more than one fluke SuperBowl. The NFL remains a "What have you done for me lately?" league.

Parcells is one of the greats, Mike was a preety good coach, Dikita he wasn'tbad. I don't mind them. X' and O's don't make great coaches, Bill Walsh, Gruden, Bellichick, Dungy (defensively he is awsome). Coaches get stale Larry Bird even said that. Larry Bird knows more than you.

Countertrey wrote:

riggofan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Mike Shanahan has SuperBowl rings, too.
So does Mike Ditka.
So does Bill Parcells.

Would anyone want any of these people coaching the Redskins?

Are you seriously arguing that none of these guys are good coaches?

I'm not sure any of them would be my first choice to coach the Redskins but I don't think I'd be wildly upset about any of them either. (Parcells would be tough to swallow because of the history.)

Just my opinion, but I think the blind squirrel analogy is pretty tough to apply to NFL coaches winning the super bowl. It seems like winning the super bowl takes something extra.

In Billick's case, that "something extra" was a really good defensive coordinator and an incredible defense to carry his useless "offensive genius" butt.

Marvin wasn't there the whole time, he HIRED the coordinator, so he does deserve credit. He still had a good running game. Being a jerk does not mean your a bad coach. They say you are what your record is, his record is pretty good. You can't argue with success.

John Manfreda wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:I got to disagree, Billick look at his record, he was a pretty good coach. Baltimore was a mess before he got there. Coaches get stale sometimes. By the way he has won a superbowl too. He is not a bad coach, he has had too much success to be a bad coach. Your wrong on this one and the stats don't support your statement on Billick being a bad coach. He didn't have an offense but he had good teams.

Mike Shanahan has SuperBowl rings, too.
So does Mike Ditka.
So does Bill Parcells.

Would anyone want any of these people coaching the Redskins?
Having SuperBowl rings as a coach means Zero. Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

The job of a head coach is to be a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
X's and O's guys are almost never good head coaches. Look at recent history. Do you think Joe Gibbs is a people person or an X's and O's person?

Players don't care how good your playbooks and schemes are if you're a jerk and there's no one to complain to about your being a jerk.
If the position coach or coordinator is a jerk, players go to the head coach. If the head coach is a jerk, players don't complain to the front office. They stop listening to the jerk, opt out, hold out, plead their cases in the media.

If you don't have the ability to get along with everyone, and to make certain that everyone gets along you have no business being a head coach, particularly in the salary cap era.

Would you care to waste your time trying to convince anyone that Billick had control over the team? Or the respect of the team? Or the backing of core members of the team? Or consistent results that justified his keeping the position? Billick had nothing more than one fluke SuperBowl. The NFL remains a "What have you done for me lately?" league.

Parcells is one of the greats, Mike was a preety good coach, Dikita he wasn'tbad. I don't mind them. X' and O's don't make great coaches, Bill Walsh, Gruden, Bellichick, Dungy (defensively he is awsome). Coaches get stale Larry Bird even said that. Larry Bird knows more than you.

I'm going to start a different thread for this discussion.

Parcells is 42nd with a .570 winning percentage.
Parcells is 24th with a .579 playoff winning percentage.

Parcells doesn't begin to touch the "greats."
Joe Gibbs .621 winning percentage and .708 playoff winning percentage blow Parcells out of the water. And Gibbs is 22nd in career winning percentage and 11th in career playoff winning percentage.

Parcells doesn't even enter the discussion. Where does that leave Ditka?

Respond in the thread created for this topic, si vous plais.

John Manfreda wrote:They say you are what your record is, his record is pretty good. You can't argue with success.

That's overly simplistic.

40-24 record (.624 winning %, better than Gibbs or Bill Walsh), 5-2 in the playoffs (.714%, same playoff winning percentage as Bill Walsh, and better than Gibbs).

By his record, according to your "logic" he'd be a better coach than Bill Walsh or Joe Gibbs.

Who is this mystery candidate?

Barry Switzer.

Sometimes, your record isn't reflective of your coaching ability, but is reflective of the talent on your team.