Here's an Idea- TRUST JOE GIBBS...

[[[ghost]]]

What with this hoopla about " Oh Noez! the Front Office is a bunch of homo's! i want mike williams! I want Shawn Merriman! I want Antrelle Rolle!"


Well, shut up, and hop off.


No matter what you say, nothings gonna happen. How bout the old, "In Gibbs I Trust?" Huh? What is it with you Vets all of a sudden make it sound like you know better than Gibbs.

Do you have Three Super Bowl Rings?

no, you don't.

Do you have a history of success in the NFL?

No, you don't.

Of course, some of the things Gibbs didn't do, you can criticize away. I heard that Gibbs had no say in the Denver deal. Well, than thats your right.


But come on, show some respect and trust Gibbs. I trust him to maket he right decisions on Saturday., like a loyal fan.


Will You?

[JeSTeR]

The short answer...

Mark Brunell

Nobody doubts Gibbs coaching style, but this move alone has a lot of people questioning his personnel moves.

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Joe Gibbs' presence is the sole reason I haven't jumped off the nearest cliff. That and the fact DC has no cliffs. (But, Vegas does!!!!!)

I do agree with the original post. Everyone needs to calm down. It is expected though. There's always extremes in life and that includes being a fan of the Washington Redskins.

[Dead Money]

They don't call this EXTREMEskins for nothing!!!

[TheLongshot]

Originally posted by JeSTeR
The short answer...

Mark Brunell

Nobody doubts Gibbs coaching style, but this move alone has a lot of people questioning his personnel moves.

The man makes one bad call, and he's endlessly hounded for it, despite all the other good calls. :doh:

I have to have faith in Joe Gibbs, otherwise I'd be eating up all of these rumors and be horribly depressed.

Jason

[wickedwitch]

Originally posted by JeSTeR
The short answer...

Mark Brunell. Bingo. He made a huge personell mistake last season. I have no doubts of his coaching ability, but I do doubt his ability to pick answers.

[RabidFan]

Capitol Idea my good man. Deep Breaths and Trust

[skinzfan4life]

Originally posted by TheLongshot


The man makes one bad call, and he's endlessly hounded for it, despite all the other good calls. :doh:

I have to have faith in Joe Gibbs, otherwise I'd be eating up all of these rumors and be horribly depressed.

Jason

Point taken but that one mistake could have cost us 2-3 victories and a possible playoff spot.

But i have faith in JG....but first off this is a message board for skins fans and football fans to discuss this stuff. If we didnt discuss it it would defeat the purpose of this board....which is ironic considering thie is a DISCUSSION board.

[MRMADD]

No matter what you say, nothings gonna happen. How bout the old, "In Gibbs I Trust?" Huh? What is it with you Vets all of a sudden make it sound like you know better than Gibbs.

This is what's known in logic as an "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority". It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. Some examples of appeals to authority:

Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so".
Quotes from religious books such as the Bible. "The Bible says X, therefore X is the right thing".
Claiming that some crime is morally wrong because it is illegal. "It's against the law to smoke weed, therefore it's wrong to do so".
Referencing scientific research published in a peer reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so".
Believing what one is told by one's teacher. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be right."

Joe Gibbs is not perfect. He'll be the first to tell you so. Saying that Joe Gibbs knows all and that everyone else should just shut up is incredibly stupid. Joe's a great coach, but he has weaknesses. Joe has a rather poor record in picking talent -- questioning him in that area is fair.

Unfortunately, because the team has been so bad -- and because the front office has made so many indisputably bad decisions -- many people on this board are forced to resort to this kind of illogical, weak argument. It's all they've got left.

[MonkeySkin]

I have faith in Joe Gibbs, and none of this stuff worries me at all... I know we'll be alright.

Sheet, I actually believe that Boonell might eventually help us out sometime down the road, because it is nice to have a vet like him just in case. :paranoid:

But yeah, Boonells contract is rediculous, but I don't think that was Gibbs who made that contract. I don't think Gibbs makes contracts period...

But don't hate on Boonell, he might come in handy someday!

[airborneskins]

I am sure that Joe knows what he is doing! the man did turn 2 Nascar teams into winning teams didn't he? He will get the hang of things and we will be fine! Last year was just a learning process. Be patient my friends. Greatness is returning to DC!!

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Originally posted by MRMADD


This is what's known in logic as an "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority". It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy. Some examples of appeals to authority:

Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so".
Quotes from religious books such as the Bible. "The Bible says X, therefore X is the right thing".
Claiming that some crime is morally wrong because it is illegal. "It's against the law to smoke weed, therefore it's wrong to do so".
Referencing scientific research published in a peer reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so".
Believing what one is told by one's teacher. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be right."

Joe Gibbs is not perfect. He'll be the first to tell you so. Saying that Joe Gibbs knows all and that everyone else should just shut up is incredibly stupid. Joe's a great coach, but he has weaknesses. Joe has a rather poor record in picking talent -- questioning him in that area is fair.

Unfortunately, because the team has been so bad -- and because the front office has made so many indisputably bad decisions -- many people on this board are forced to resort to this kind of illogical, weak argument. It's all they've got left.

I believe you're thinking is off.

I don't agree with everything Joe Gibbs does. He is not perfect. He does NOT know all. He does have weaknesses.

But what I do believe is he'll get it done. There will be bumps along the way, maybe some poor decisions, but I do trust that the end will justify the means.

And that's what people should not question.

[Voice of Reason]

Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

[thito_da_skins_fan]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

So, Joe Gibbs Part 2 was a mistake?

A mistake is only a mistake after it happens. And mistakes don't happen unless decisions are made. It's easy to criticize failure after it has occured.

They'll get it right. Until then, call it a mistake before it happens.

[skin_finatic]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

:doh: :doh: to everything you said.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.


I'm tired of noobs posting this tripe.

:troll:

[Om]

MADD,

This is not so much dirrected at you, but your post is a good jumping off point for my response to anyone who posts, with much solemnity, things like our new friend Voice of Reason just did about Gibbs being "out of his league":

It's not a matter of "appeals to authority" ... it's a matter of recognizing the unalterable reality that Gibbs is so much more qualified---in everything from his historically significant resume to his actual involvement in and access to soup to nuts "in the room" at Ashburn every single day---than anyone else out here in the public who DOESN'T have those quailities and access ... that it's utterly mindboggling that so many are STILL willing to publicly suggest they know beyond a shadow of a doubt where the specific "mistakes" are.

And then presume to tell Gibbs how to fix them.

Usually, their only retort is, "hey, I have the right to my opinion." Well, fine. They do. But those of us a little bit more humble about our qualifications to tell a Hall of Fame Coach how to do his job, also reserve the right to call those who do either grossly naive or arrogant to the point of absurdity.

I'm glad there are enough of those people to drive message boards---it's certainly served Extremeskins well---but I don't think I'll ever quite understand where the hubris comes from.

[tizzod]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

Yes, and I'm sure you were furious when he was hired.....

[fwo40]

I'll say this....if we trade both #1 picks a 3rd & a 4th to get one player....when we have multiple problems....

I am going to humbly suggest that maybe Joe is having a little bit of trouble in the salary cap era. I mean if this deal goes down it could pin us in a hole for years....#2 money? No draft picks? An aging DL & CB's?

In Joe's quest to win a superbowl he has never had to think long term to the degree you do in today's NFL....maybe he's going for a Baltimore one championship and blow up the team approach...

But the odds of that paying off.....man that's scarey....

I respect Joe Gibbs for all he has done, but tomorrow will be a very telling day for this franchise's future....and I could see it ending poorly...

[essex03]

Originally posted by JeSTeR
The short answer...

Mark Brunell

Nobody doubts Gibbs coaching style, but this move alone has a lot of people questioning his personnel moves.


Two more words:

DESMOND HOWARD

I trust Gibbs to COACH, but we will never be worth a damn until we get a competent GM and the "franchise" stops worrying about selling ad space at FedEx Field rather than putting a winning team on the field. Period.

That said, I would love to bypass need, trade both picks down one or two spots apiece, and pick up Shawn Merriman and Matt Jones...
Whatdaya think?

[mookie0720]

Look, I'm not questioning Gibbs' ability to coach.

But why should I blindly follow him in personel issues?

Where has he shown the ability to be a great GM/personel guy?

To be blunt about it, the moves he's been responsible for since he's been here for round 2 have been questionable at best.

Not only have the choices been bad, but everything has been sloppy in the front office. Leaks getting out, over paying for guys, over paying for draft picks.

Gibbs is not in the Hall of Fame for his abilities as a personel guy.

He'll never be in the Hall of Fame as a personel guy because that's not what he's good at.

[nneece]

Originally posted by [[ghost]]
What with this hoopla about " Oh Noez! the Front Office is a bunch of homo's! i want mike williams! I want Shawn Merriman! I want Antrelle Rolle!"


Well, shut up, and hop off.


No matter what you say, nothings gonna happen. How bout the old, "In Gibbs I Trust?" Huh? What is it with you Vets all of a sudden make it sound like you know better than Gibbs.

Do you have Three Super Bowl Rings?

no, you don't.

Do you have a history of success in the NFL?

No, you don't.

Of course, some of the things Gibbs didn't do, you can criticize away. I heard that Gibbs had no say in the Denver deal. Well, than thats your right.


But come on, show some respect and trust Gibbs. I trust him to maket he right decisions on Saturday., like a loyal fan.


Will You?


I don't think anyone questions Joe Gibb's the coach (if they do they are idiots). I do think however that Gibb's has had a questionable history of personel decisions. There is no Beathard or Casserly in the organization making decisions. I would think that having Gibb's back would right this situation, but I'm not so certain after the offseason moves that have been made.

[MRMADD]

It's not a matter of "appeals to authority" ... it's a matter of recognizing the unalterable reality that Gibbs is so much more qualified---in everything from his historically significant resume to his actual involvement in and access to soup to nuts "in the room" at Ashburn every single day---than anyone else out here in the public who DOESN'T have those quailities and access ... that it's utterly mindboggling that so many are STILL willing to publicly suggest they know beyond a shadow of a doubt where the specific "mistakes" are.

Yes.

It makes for funny arguments: one side says, "If Joe Gibbs had just kept Smoot, Pierce, and Coles, the Skins would make the playoffs!" The other side says, "Joe knows a hell of a lot more than you do. How dare you suggest he's wrong?"

Both sides are equally bad. Your friend Voice of Reason voices (pun intended) treasonous or sacreligous (depending on your point of view) arguments, and the response is not to logically examine his points and refute them (were there other RBs available cheaper who could do what Portis does? Was Brunell to old to help?) but to simply shout, "Cast out the infidel!"

Pathetic. That's why this place is getting lame -- the "defenders of the faith" spend all their time attacking anyone who ventures a contrary opinion because they've become so defensive over the past few years. Kick a dog long enough and he expect every hand extended his way to hit him -- so he bites. You guys bite every Voice of Reason you meet -- and miss opportunities to lay out arguments for the other side.

It forces you to take, by default, undefendable positions. No, Mark Brunell was not a good addition. He costs a fortune and can't contribute -- and can't be cut. But because you dogs have been kicked so often, even that truly indisputable argument sometimes merits a "how dare you question Joe?" response.

[Phat Hog]

My trust will only waver if we trade the #1s to move up and get Edwards. Brunell was a mistake, but there were clearly more positives than negatives last year.

[zoony]

New Rule...

The next un-original ####-off who refers to Desmond Howard or Mark Brunell will have his/her toenails removed one by one with a rusty pair of pliers.

Please... :stfu: already about it. We get it. Gibbs' isn't perfect. :rolleyes:

If you're going to whine and moan at least be original. :)

Gibbs perfect?...no... but awfully close ;)

[Cannon2]

Originally posted by Kevin B.
They don't call this EXTREMEskins for nothing!!!

Amen. We are all our own judge, jury and executioner and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Voice of Reason]

To skin_finatic and skins-in-vegas, an intelligent response would be more than welcome.

[Om]

Question for those who so blithely throw aroung the contention that Gibbs has a questionable history as a personnel guy.

Can anyone here make a strong, fact-supported case for that? Including things like noting exactly what his role/involvement was in making each move you cite? And taking into account the totality of circumstances at the time the move was made?

It's become almost part of Redskin fan lexicon at this point to repeat the mantra that Gibbs doesn't have a clue as a personnel evaluator. Yet I've never seen ONE credible case made in in support of that beyond the usual, "well, look at Desmond Howard and Mark Brunell."

That superficial, disingenuous level of analysis may play at the corner bar, and even on most message board threads these days, but among fans who try to look just a litlte bit deeper than that and take in the big picture, it rings every bit as hollow as the ubiquitous "Snyder's still playing GM!" and "Cap hell in '00 (and '02, and '03, and '04, and '05, and '06 ...)!" threads that tend to dominate the landscape these days.

This isn't just pissing in the wind here. I'd seriously like to see someone take a stab at the definitive "Joe Gibbs is not a good personnel evaluator" piece.

No rush. I'll be here.

[Califan007]

Originally posted by essex03



Two more words:

DESMOND HOWARD

I trust Gibbs to COACH, but we will never be worth a damn until we get a competent GM and the "franchise" stops worrying about selling ad space at FedEx Field rather than putting a winning team on the field. Period.

Didn't the Skins have a GM when they picked Howard??...

And Westbrook??...

And Lang??...

And Shuler??...

And Carter??...

And Andre Johnson??...

And....and....and.....lol

[zoony]

Originally posted by Om
Question for those who so blithely throw aroung the contention that Gibbs has a questionable history as a personnel guy.

Can anyone here make a strong, fact-supported case for that? Including things like noting exactly what his role/involvement was in making each move you cite? And taking into account the totality of circumstances at the time the move was made?

It's become almost part of Redskin fan lexicon at this point to repeat the mantra that Gibbs doesn't have a clue as a personnel evaluator. Yet I've never seen ONE credible case made in in support of that beyond the usual, "well, look at Desmond Howard and Mark Brunell."

That superficial, disingenuous level of analysis may play at the corner bar, and even on most message board threads these days, but among fans who try to look just a litlte bit deeper than that and take in the big picture, it rings every bit as hollow as the ubiquitous "Snyder's still playing GM!" and "Cap hell in '00 (and '02, and '03, and '04, and '05, and '06 ...)!" threads that tend to dominate the landscape these days.

This isn't just pissing in the wind here. I'd seriously like to see someone take a stab at the definitive "Joe Gibbs is not a good personnel evaluator" piece.

No rush. I'll be here.


Harr-umph! Harr-umph! Harr-umph!!!!!

[DB44]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

Dude, I don't know where to begin.

First off, Welcome aboard! This is the best fan site around (and I hope you are a fan).

Try to remember Coach Gibbs had a formula for success. That success starts with a veteran QB. One that can handle pressure, and pick a team up when they are down. Typically, rookie/2nd/3rd year QB's can't handle this pressure. So Coach decided to bring a veteran QB. There was an open competition for the starting QB position. Brunell won it(barely).

Also The Clinton Portis/Chump Bailey situation was the best solution, given the circumstances. Will Coach Gibbs be able to get the Offensive Playbook to evolve into some new offensive scheme? My money says yes.

I would agree that Portis is not a "typical" Joe Gibbs back, and I am hopeful they will still pick up a short yardage back. There's that kid from Louisville that looks impressive.

I believe Gibbs has more control over team than you think, and they will be better next year.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
To skin_finatic and skins-in-vegas, an intelligent response would be more than welcome.



why sure noob!


The general testing procedure is to choose a specific hypothesis to be tested, called the null hypothesis, pick an appropriate sample, and use measurements from that sample to determine the likelyhood of the null hypothesis. Conclusions are never stated with absolute certainty, but rather with associated significance levels. There are two types of possible errors that we consider: the error of mistakenly rejecting the true null hypothesis and the error of mistakenly failing to reject a false null hypothesis.


That being said, your noobish first post still sucked.....Troll.:D

[Om]

Originally posted by MRMADD


Yes.

It makes for funny arguments: one side says, "If Joe Gibbs had just kept Smoot, Pierce, and Coles, the Skins would make the playoffs!" The other side says, "Joe knows a hell of a lot more than you do. How dare you suggest he's wrong?"

Both sides are equally bad. Your friend Voice of Reason voices (pun intended) treasonous or sacreligous (depending on your point of view) arguments, and the response is not to logically examine his points and refute them (were there other RBs available cheaper who could do what Portis does? Was Brunell to old to help?) but to simply shout, "Cast out the infidel!"

Pathetic. That's why this place is getting lame -- the "defenders of the faith" spend all their time attacking anyone who ventures a contrary opinion because they've become so defensive over the past few years. Kick a dog long enough and he expect every hand extended his way to hit him -- so he bites. You guys bite every Voice of Reason you meet -- and miss opportunities to lay out arguments for the other side.

It forces you to take, by default, undefendable positions. No, Mark Brunell was not a good addition. He costs a fortune and can't contribute -- and can't be cut. But because you dogs have been kicked so often, even that truly indisputable argument sometimes merits a "how dare you question Joe?" response.

Non-responsive. And wrong. Both sides are NOT "equally bad."

Joe Gibbs is a Hall of Fame Coach who has spent the last 15 months reimmersing himself in both the NFL and the Washington Redskins. He spends his days and nights applying his vast body of knowledge and the genius that MADE him a Hall of Fame NFL coach to rebuilding a floundering organization. He'd be the first to tell us he's made mistakes. And he'd be qualified to tell us what they were.

Voice of Reason is an anonymous poster on a message board. Should he turn out be one of the handful of human beings on the planet with a football resume even ON the same planet with someone like Gibbs----Parcells, perhaps; maybe Belichick; hell, even Marv Levy---I'll take his contention that "Gibbs is out of his league" as something more than message board testosterone-drive chest thumping.

Until then ... not.

Lame, you say? Agreed. Just not in the direction you're thinking.

[The Dark Horse]

I'm so embarrased by the way a large part of our fanbase is treating Gibbs - it's why I barely post there days.

[Om]

My response? Don't let the bastards get you down.

Join the Forces of Light. :)

[triple6mafia]

My friends who aren't skins fans asked me what we were doing. I was like, there are so many options, I don't know what to do. I said I'm just gonna trust gibbs. So, needless to say, Im with you on this one. He has a plan and an idea obviously. I trust him.

[zoony]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas




why sure noob!


The general testing procedure is to choose a specific hypothesis to be tested, called the null hypothesis, pick an appropriate sample, and use measurements from that sample to determine the likelyhood of the null hypothesis. Conclusions are never stated with absolute certainty, but rather with associated significance levels. There are two types of possible errors that we consider: the error of mistakenly rejecting the true null hypothesis and the error of mistakenly failing to reject a false null hypothesis.


That being said, your noobish first post still sucked.....Troll.:D

my null hypothesis is that Voice of Reason has his head up his own *****

My sample would be his posts on ES

I have measured the sample, and the likelyhood of the null hypothesis is about 99.99%. (note the lack of an absolute certainty ;) )


As for the potential errors... the null hypothesis stands on its own.

:)

[mookie0720]

Om,

I raise the same question, only in reverse...

What has Gibbs done that shows we should blindly follow his personel decisions?

I don't consider the pickups we made on defense to be his doing, considering he has said many times that he allowed Greg Williams to make those choices.

I'm not ready to write him off just yet, but if we really do make one of these foolish deals like trading up for Edwards, taking Campbell at 25, then it won't be long before I am.

What bothers me most about this front office group is how sloppy things are. Leaks getting out about who we are going to draft, Cerrato and Gibbs saying contrasting things to the press, overpaying for draft picks.

Regardless of who we pick in a trade up situation, or even at #25, we gave up way too much to get them.

If we trade up for Edwards, we've given up 4 draft picks, which there isn't a player in the league that would fetch that many picks if traded.

If we stay at 25 and take Campbell, we've given up 3 picks for a guy that doesn't fill a position of need, and was projected in the 2nd round.

Add the amount of picks we gave up to the fact that Gibbs doesn't play rookie QB's and he's only going to be here for 3 more years max, it makes no sense to draft a rookie QB.

It is my feeling that this draft is going to be the deciding factor on how many people, including myself, view Gibbs in the front office.

[tkatz]

Ghost,
You have made some very good posts over the last few months but this isnt one of them. First and foremost Joe Gibbs never had full say over who was drafted and such. There was a general manager and several others who had input. So Joe is new at this and may not get it right away. Secondly, I dont care who the coach or GM is, some of the moves the Redskins have made this offseason (especially the trade as of late) is deserving of questions and concern. I do not claim or pretend to know anywhere near how much Joe Gibbs or the FO knows, I dont even pretend to know as much as half the extreme skins members but when controversial decisons are made its almost a smart thing to question and think through to see where the logic of the move comes from. Yes, I trust Joe Gibbs but some of the moves the team has made I question. I think to blindly trust ANYONE in the NFL is a mistake that somewhere down the line you will pay for.

[Califan007]

Originally posted by mookie0720
Om,
It is my feeling that this draft is going to be the deciding factor on how many people, including myself, view Gibbs in the front office.
Sounds like you already HAVE made your mind up about Gibbs...you're just waiting for the verification that you're pretty positive will come before saying "See, I told you".

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by zoony


my null hypothesis is that Voice of Reason has his head up his own *****

My sample would be his posts on ES

I have measured the sample, and the likelyhood of the null hypothesis is about 99.99%. (note the lack of an absolute certainty ;) )


As for the potential errors... the null hypothesis stands on its own.

:)




I hate to be a stickler, but his null hypothesis is actually "he doesnt have his head up his *****"

That way when you reject the null.....


well, you get it!

Plus, since he is a cheerleader, there is very little sampling to disprove my null.


:)

[mookie0720]

Originally posted by Califan007

Sounds like you already HAVE made your mind up about Gibbs...you're just waiting for the verification that you're pretty positive will come before saying "See, I told you".

Well let me ask you then, what is your opinion of Gibbs as a personel guy going to be if we actually do one of the 2 things I said?

You have to admit, it's going to be hard not to question.

[TK]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.
Really? How so?

Brunell was a mistake.
Maybe. Maybe not. There was ALOT wrong wrong the O besides Brunell. WR's running the wrong routes. Gardner couldn't catch. Coles had a bum toe. McCants didn't care for practice. No Jansen. We had a poatched together O-Line that leaked like a sieve. Ramsey was coming off foot surgury. Get the idea yet?


Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.
And Roland wasn't going to be a part the team no matter what. His time had come. Joe got value for him. Portis still had over 1500 all purpose yards even when other teams defenses would stack the line on him. Also see the above mentioned O-line problems. ;)


Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office.
Gibbs is the FO. Go read the chat with Vinny Cerato on the front page if you can't understand that. The education might do you bit of good & make you breathe a little bit easier.
[quote][b]The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions.
What leaks? Or are you referring to the media creating their own story because the team isn't saying much this close to the draft?

[MRMADD]

This isn't just pissing in the wind here. I'd seriously like to see someone take a stab at the definitive "Joe Gibbs is not a good personnel evaluator" piece. OM

This is an EXCELLENT example of my point. Why so defensive? Secondly, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. No one can definitively prove that Gibbs is NOT a good evaluator. It's logically impossible. It is possible, however, to argue that some of the personnel moves that are attributed to Gibbs (Howard, Brunell) were bad -- it is not possible to prove that he's a bad evaluator.

I can, for example, prove that it rained yesterday. I can't prove that it didn't.

Why don't you put the onus on yourself? Prove that he IS a good evaluator -- or at least demonstrate that he's had some success there.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by MRMADD
OM

This is an EXCELLENT example of my point. Why so defensive? Secondly, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. No one can definitively prove that Gibbs is NOT a good evaluator. It's logically impossible. It is possible, however, to argue that some of the personnel moves that are attributed to Gibbs (Howard, Brunell) were bad -- it is not possible to prove that he's a bad evaluator.

I can, for example, prove that it rained yesterday. I can't prove that it didn't.

Why don't you put the onus on yourself? Prove that he IS a good evaluator -- or at least demonstrate that he's had some success there.


easy one.


how did Joes first pic as a personel decision maker work out for us last year?

[mookie0720]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas



easy one.


how did Joes first pic as a personel decision maker work out for us last year?

That was really hard....

We had to choose between 2 guys who were widely known as the best prospects to ever come out at their position.

Who knows what KWII would've done with us?

He may not have gotten hurt.

It's not really a good example of his abilities to evaluate talent when he's picking between the 2 best players to ever come out at their position.

[Voice of Reason]

A comprehensive list of Joe Gibbs' talent evaluating blunders (as requested by Om):

1) Mark Brunell (let's not forget this one was a $49 million mistake)
2) Michael Barrow (everyone else knew he was injured)
3) Clinton Portis (don't tell me we couldn't have found someone better and for a much better price/salary)
4) this year's clan of tight ends (Rasby, Kozlowski, Sellars all disappointed)
5) Darnerian McCants/Patrick Ramsey (both shined when they played)

Now I realize the Chris Cooleys, the Marcus Washingtons, the Shawn Springs, and the rest of the positive acquisitions outnumber the mistakes. That said, Brunell and Portis are too expensive and too important to have made mistakes on.

Om's claims that Snyder is running the show are flat out wrong, and he knows it full well. Daniel Snyder accomodated any move that Joe Gibbs wanted to make, but made no moves on his own. What greater evidence do you have that Snyder is running the show than I have that Gibbs is running the show? Gibbs is the general manager and was given full control over player acquisitons within his contract. Snyder would not have hired Gibbs if he intended to sustain a similar role in player evaluation. In addtion, Gibbs has stood behind all moves with full responsibility. Had Snyder worked the deal with Brunell, I find it hard to believe Gibbs would have given Brunell so much support through the media and on the field, unless of course you believe Daniel Snyder is the coach as well (which wouldn't surprise me).

The blind trust you guys submit to Joe Gibbs is just that - blind. Gibbs was given $100 million last year to find himself a starting quarterback and a starting running back - he failed miserably. Why do I, or anyone else, owe it to Joe Gibbs and his acheivements of the 1980s to give him a free pass in 2005.

And by the way, I did not think too highly of the Brunell or the Portis acquisitions. I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.

[mookie0720]

While I'm obviously more inclined to be on Voice of Reason's side of this argument, I do have to point out that Barrow is a Greg Williams pick, and nobody expected those TE's to be productive, they were basement bargain players.

[Mister Happy]

Keep in mind that most of the so-called bad things this offseason have also been on the defensive side - not resigning Smoot and Pierce, LaVar complaining, Sean Taylor not coming to camp. How do you even know the draft trade wasn't made with the defense in mind? 2 of our 3 main draft needs are on defense.

If you want to say how great the front office did on defense last year, you can't turn around and say they have no record of success to base any faith on. Their track record on defense is excellent.

Have some faith in our defensive staff. There's nothing to show they don't deserve it.

[MRMADD]

I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.

Sheesh. The guy gets one year? Even Spurrier got two.

[Voice of Reason]

Good points mookie. Putting Barrow down as a blown acquisition is probably a bit too harsh on my part.

But, if we put the blame on the Barrow acquisition on Gregg Williams, we must also give the credit for Washington, Griffin, Springs, and Taylor to Williams.

And Mister Happy, I have no quarrels whatsoever about our defensive staff. However, I think it can be said that had Gibbs not blown the acquisitions of Portis and Brunell, we may have had cap room to resign Pierce and Smoot.

[Califan007]

Originally posted by mookie0720


Well let me ask you then, what is your opinion of Gibbs as a personel guy going to be if we actually do one of the 2 things I said?

You have to admit, it's going to be hard not to question.
My own choice is to not react--or have my emotions effected--by things that haven't even occurred yet. It's a very human trait to imagine worst-case scenarios, no matter what they revolve around...but it takes it to another level to not just imagine them, but to assume they're gonna happen and let it effect how we view reality until it does.

I'm not saying you're necessarily doing that...only that many here ARE doing just that, taking whatever ridiculous rumor that comes down the pike as "evidence" of their opinions about Gibbs being right. Other than the trade for Brunell--and let's be realistic here, nobody on the planet expected Brunell to play as putridly as he did, so it's not like Gibbs should have seen it coming--I really have no qualms with the offseason moves the Skins have made so far.

[SnyderShrugged]

Portis a mistake with over 1300 yards behind a severly reduced OL without Jansen?

TROLL ELSEWHERE PLEASE.

[Art]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
A comprehensive list of Joe Gibbs' talent evaluating blunders (as requested by Om):

1) Mark Brunell (let's not forget this one was a $49 million mistake)
2) Michael Barrow (everyone else knew he was injured)
3) Clinton Portis (don't tell me we couldn't have found someone better and for a much better price/salary)
4) this year's clan of tight ends (Rasby, Kozlowski, Sellars all disappointed)
5) Darnerian McCants/Patrick Ramsey (both shined when they played)

Now I realize the Chris Cooleys, the Marcus Washingtons, the Shawn Springs, and the rest of the positive acquisitions outnumber the mistakes. That said, Brunell and Portis are too expensive and too important to have made mistakes on.

Om's claims that Snyder is running the show are flat out wrong, and he knows it full well. Daniel Snyder accomodated any move that Joe Gibbs wanted to make, but made no moves on his own. What greater evidence do you have that Snyder is running the show than I have that Gibbs is running the show? Gibbs is the general manager and was given full control over player acquisitons within his contract. Snyder would not have hired Gibbs if he intended to sustain a similar role in player evaluation. In addtion, Gibbs has stood behind all moves with full responsibility. Had Snyder worked the deal with Brunell, I find it hard to believe Gibbs would have given Brunell so much support through the media and on the field, unless of course you believe Daniel Snyder is the coach as well (which wouldn't surprise me).

The blind trust you guys submit to Joe Gibbs is just that - blind. Gibbs was given $100 million last year to find himself a starting quarterback and a starting running back - he failed miserably. Why do I, or anyone else, owe it to Joe Gibbs and his acheivements of the 1980s to give him a free pass in 2005.

And by the way, I did not think too highly of the Brunell or the Portis acquisitions. I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.

VoR,

You're going to have an awfully short stay here if asked for information and the best you can come up with is a list that is highly dubious and contains at least one factually inaccurate statement. On Barrow, no, no one else knew he was injured, because he wasn't injured. He got hurt while practicing early on with us. He'd never been injured or missed time.

This was a great pick up, and it didn't work out. It happens. But, don't be a complete tool when forwarding an already dubious position and with data like this, that's what you're being.

To suggest any rookie is the equal of Portis, itself, is fascinating for the daft nature of the statement, but, to say someone better was out there just doesn't show any comprehension at all. And, ignoring the HIGHLY productive season in terms of historic performances by running backs with the Redskins seems to be odd too, don't you think. If last year was a BAD year for a running back, may we always have bad years.

If the premise of your position is a running back who had a Top 5 season in franchise history is not a starting running back, you're going to need to find a new home. So, you need to start acknowledging a wee bit of reality. Quick. Because, I'm just not going to read you tell lies and stupidity much longer. Fair enough?

[jimster]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason

2) Michael Barrow (everyone else knew he was injured)



:laugh: Everyone else knew he was hurt:laugh:


Yeah, you're one of these people that want so badly to hate on the Redskins, you'll make the ***** up if you have to, huh?

Are you employed by th press?

[Califan007]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

And Roland wasn't going to be a part the team no matter what. His time had come. Joe got value for him. Portis still had over 1500 all purpose yards even when other teams defenses would stack the line on him. Also see the above mentioned O-line problems. ;)

Not to mention he got over 1,300 rushing yards within that lousy offense run by a putrid QB behind a porous o-line...and while basically missing two games. The idea that a dozen or so other free agent running backs last offseason under the same circumstances could have so obviously done better is so ridiculous, it's hard to imagine the logic people use when justifying using it as evidence of Portis being a "mistake".

[SnyderShrugged]

It's Voice-Of-Pasta!

[Symbol]

Originally posted by skinzfan4life


Point taken but that one mistake could have cost us 2-3 victories and a possible playoff spot.

But i have faith in JG....but first off this is a message board for skins fans and football fans to discuss this stuff. If we didnt discuss it it would defeat the purpose of this board....which is ironic considering thie is a DISCUSSION board.



In 1981, a rookie head coach was hired by Mr. Jack Kent Cooke. The Redskins lost their first 4 games but ended the season 8-8. The next 2 years the Redskins were the NFC Champions and won one Super Bowl. In the 1980's there was only one team that had more wins than the Washington Redskins and that was San Francisco.

In 1987, the Redskins started a QB that was suppose to be finished, he became the first black QB to start in the Super Bowl winning Super Bowl MVP honors, his name is Doug Williams.

In 2004 a QB was hired named Mark Brunell, his future with the team is a question mark, but maybe his big problem was he didn't understand the system. The Redskins future and present, Patrick Ramsey didn't do too well in the preseason, because he didn't know the system. We will have 3 QB's that know the system, Ramsey as the starter and Brunell as the back up. I feel confident and do not concider the Brunell move as a mistake.

What if he teaches Patrick and Patrick has a HOF career because of it.

The moral, don't think of one season as what will be in the future.

[zoony]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas





I hate to be a stickler, but his null hypothesis is actually "he doesnt have his head up his *****"

That way when you reject the null.....


well, you get it!

Plus, since he is a cheerleader, there is very little sampling to disprove my null.


:)

There are no bad students... only bad teachers ;)

:)

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by zoony


There are no bad students... only bad teachers ;)

:)



I bow to you in your infinite wisdom.:)

[JeSTeR]

Wow, to call Portis a bad aquisition is ridiculous at best.

My answer of Mark Brunell was only to point out why people would question and analyze Gibbs personnel moves.

I consider Cooley, Portis and Thrash all aquistions that we should give Gibbs credit for. Take away those 3 players, we don't win 6 games last year, and might be picking 1st or 2nd in tomorrows draft.

[TheGreek1973]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
A comprehensive list of Joe Gibbs' talent evaluating blunders (as requested by Om):

1) Mark Brunell (let's not forget this one was a $49 million mistake)
2) Michael Barrow (everyone else knew he was injured)
3) Clinton Portis (don't tell me we couldn't have found someone better and for a much better price/salary)
4) this year's clan of tight ends (Rasby, Kozlowski, Sellars all disappointed)
5) Darnerian McCants/Patrick Ramsey (both shined when they played)

Now I realize the Chris Cooleys, the Marcus Washingtons, the Shawn Springs, and the rest of the positive acquisitions outnumber the mistakes. That said, Brunell and Portis are too expensive and too important to have made mistakes on.

Om's claims that Snyder is running the show are flat out wrong, and he knows it full well. Daniel Snyder accomodated any move that Joe Gibbs wanted to make, but made no moves on his own. What greater evidence do you have that Snyder is running the show than I have that Gibbs is running the show? Gibbs is the general manager and was given full control over player acquisitons within his contract. Snyder would not have hired Gibbs if he intended to sustain a similar role in player evaluation. In addtion, Gibbs has stood behind all moves with full responsibility. Had Snyder worked the deal with Brunell, I find it hard to believe Gibbs would have given Brunell so much support through the media and on the field, unless of course you believe Daniel Snyder is the coach as well (which wouldn't surprise me).

The blind trust you guys submit to Joe Gibbs is just that - blind. Gibbs was given $100 million last year to find himself a starting quarterback and a starting running back - he failed miserably. Why do I, or anyone else, owe it to Joe Gibbs and his acheivements of the 1980s to give him a free pass in 2005.

And by the way, I did not think too highly of the Brunell or the Portis acquisitions. I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.


Come on lets not go overboard here ok. Portis a bust? This guy run for over 1300 yards by playing in barely 14 games with a non-existant passing game man. Did you see any skins games last year? 80% of the time the opposing Ds had 9 and 8 guys in the box. We had a 42 year old RT blocking. We had a center that half the time played in OUR backfield. Lets not go crazy here calling Portis an average player.

[Mister Happy]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
And Mister Happy, I have no quarrels whatsoever about our defensive staff. However, I think it can be said that had Gibbs not blown the acquisitions of Portis and Brunell, we may have had cap room to resign Pierce and Smoot.

If the defensive staff had wanted to keep Smoot and Pierce at all costs, we would have. We placed a value on them and someone else decided to overpay for them. It's not our policy to make our #2 CB the 3rd highest paid guy on the team. How do you think that makes the other players feel?

It's not just about cap room. It's about salary structure. Giving mammoth contracts to guys who aren't even in the top 5 of defensive players throws it out of whack.

If Williams says we are fine at CB and LB, you have to believe him. It's not like we didn't know Smoot and Pierce were going to be free agents. Ultimately it was a move by the defensive staff.

By the way, the front office makes their moves by committee. It's not just Gibbs. Vinny, the coaches, the scouts, etc. all get together and make the decision on what we should do. The defensive guys have a say. We aren't going to make moves that cripple our defense.

[TheLongshot]

One other thing to point out, while Gibbs signed off on picking up Brunell and Portis, the trade and the contracts all had the earmarks of Snyder and Cerato. That is, they overpaid in trades to get guys they really wanted, and gave them rich contracts. I would expect, since Gibbs has been away for so long, that he let the guys who have been running the show, to continue on while he learned.

It is also why I credit the defensive players to Williams. He knew what he wanted, and the FO got it for him. It was a shame about Barrow (which no one saw comming, believe me.), but they did a good job with that.

They also did a good job not getting the "sexy pick" (KWII), but the one that they thought was the best, which was Sean Taylor. I still have no regrets about that.

I also trust the front office, because when they have made deals in the first round, they have always been good. The only trade up was to get Samuels (where we had 3 first rounders). Trading back for Champ, and trading back to get Ramsay were also great deals.

Jason

[Voice of Reason]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barrow's injury, knee tendinitis, a gradually developing ailment?

If so, one can make the case that Barrow's knee could have been an issue before he was signed. Certainly a team must be cautious in signing players in their later years as they do face increased risk to injury. The Redskins apparently did not consider this risk.

[Califan007]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barrow's injury, knee tendinitis, a gradually developing ailment?

If so, one can make the case that Barrow's knee could have been an issue before he was signed. Certainly a team must be cautious in signing players in their later years as they do face increased risk to injury. The Redskins apparently did not consider this risk.
Hmm, you went from "Everyone else knew Barrow was injured", to "His knee could have been an issue before he was signed"....

Is there a backpeddling emoticon on this site??... ;)

[FARAPS]

"That said, I would love to bypass need, trade both picks down one or two spots apiece, and pick up Shawn Merriman and Matt Jones...
Whatdaya think"

THANK YOU THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE MENTIONED TWO PICKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY REALISTIC AND THAT I WOULD LIKE!!!

[jimster]

Originally posted by FARAPS
"That said, I would love to bypass need, trade both picks down one or two spots apiece, and pick up Shawn Merriman and Matt Jones...
Whatdaya think"

THANK YOU THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SOMEONE MENTIONED TWO PICKS THAT ARE ACTUALLY REALISTIC AND THAT I WOULD LIKE!!!

That would be my dream picks if we don't trade up or down.

then find a way to get another pick for Gardner and take a CB in a lower round.

[Art]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barrow's injury, knee tendinitis, a gradually developing ailment?

If so, one can make the case that Barrow's knee could have been an issue before he was signed. Certainly a team must be cautious in signing players in their later years as they do face increased risk to injury. The Redskins apparently did not consider this risk.

Barrow developed tendinitis during practice with us. It wasn't an ailment he had had any issues from. No one knew he had it. And that makes your statement incorrect. And, the Redskins were rather cautious in signing Barrow by giving him a reasonably small contract and bringing him in late. Teams suffer injuries.

It is extremely foolish to attempt to blame a team for taking a player who'd NEVER been injured for somehow predicting it. If this is the best you have, you need to learn how silence works for you.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Gibbs and company have done more than enough these past two years to ruin my trust in the Redskins.

Brunell was a mistake.

Trading for Portis when Stephen Jackson, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones, each of which are superior running backs (at least in Gibbs' system) to Portis, were all available deep into the first round, was a mistake. The fact that we could have acquired Shaun Alexander or Edgerin James for a mere second round pick this year, shows just how much we overspent.

Gibbs no longer seems to have control over his players, or even the front office. The leaks coming from within the organization certainly raise questions. And further, while we see Gibbs issue statements vehemently reprimending Moss and Taylor for their absence, we see Portis, the self-proclaimed leader, encouraging that Taylor and Moss stay out of camp.

It's time we all wake up and realize it's not 1985; Gibbs is out of his league.

So much for the voice of reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You people all me.
Some of you are hanging Gibbs out to dry because of Brunell.

So he made a mistake. :bfd:

Like none of you ever made a mistake. And I'll bet you all had the same reaction when you were hounded about it. "So I made a mistake, I'm only human, haven't you ever made a mistake?!"

So get off of your high horses. Either that, or move to the town called "Perfect".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Om]

Originally posted by MRMADD
OM

This is an EXCELLENT example of my point. Why so defensive? Secondly, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. No one can definitively prove that Gibbs is NOT a good evaluator. It's logically impossible. It is possible, however, to argue that some of the personnel moves that are attributed to Gibbs (Howard, Brunell) were bad -- it is not possible to prove that he's a bad evaluator.

I can, for example, prove that it rained yesterday. I can't prove that it didn't.

Why don't you put the onus on yourself? Prove that he IS a good evaluator -- or at least demonstrate that he's had some success there.

Do you ever actually respond to a direct question, sir? At this point, the "I know you are but what am I?" approach is just boring.

Since you apparently cannot or will not understand the underlying point I'm making, I'll state it yet again:

To make ANY educated assessment of Gibbs'---be it in general terms like VoR's ridiculous "he's in over his head," or the ubiquitous "he's not a good talent evaluator"---one has to have a base of knowledge as to what his actual role in any evaluation was, and have SOME grasp of the totality of circumstances in play at the time any move he played a part in was made.

Please tell me I haven't grossly overerestimated your intelligence and/or willingness to actually DISCUSS something like an adult, and understand that one very, VERY basic premise before we waste any more time on this.

[Om]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason
A comprehensive list of Joe Gibbs' talent evaluating blunders (as requested by Om):

1) Mark Brunell (let's not forget this one was a $49 million mistake)
2) Michael Barrow (everyone else knew he was injured)
3) Clinton Portis (don't tell me we couldn't have found someone better and for a much better price/salary)
4) this year's clan of tight ends (Rasby, Kozlowski, Sellars all disappointed)
5) Darnerian McCants/Patrick Ramsey (both shined when they played)

Now I realize the Chris Cooleys, the Marcus Washingtons, the Shawn Springs, and the rest of the positive acquisitions outnumber the mistakes. That said, Brunell and Portis are too expensive and too important to have made mistakes on.

Om's claims that Snyder is running the show are flat out wrong, and he knows it full well. Daniel Snyder accomodated any move that Joe Gibbs wanted to make, but made no moves on his own. What greater evidence do you have that Snyder is running the show than I have that Gibbs is running the show? Gibbs is the general manager and was given full control over player acquisitons within his contract. Snyder would not have hired Gibbs if he intended to sustain a similar role in player evaluation. In addtion, Gibbs has stood behind all moves with full responsibility. Had Snyder worked the deal with Brunell, I find it hard to believe Gibbs would have given Brunell so much support through the media and on the field, unless of course you believe Daniel Snyder is the coach as well (which wouldn't surprise me).

The blind trust you guys submit to Joe Gibbs is just that - blind. Gibbs was given $100 million last year to find himself a starting quarterback and a starting running back - he failed miserably. Why do I, or anyone else, owe it to Joe Gibbs and his acheivements of the 1980s to give him a free pass in 2005.

And by the way, I did not think too highly of the Brunell or the Portis acquisitions. I couldn't argue with Gibbs' hiring at the time, no one could; but a year later, it's clear that it was a mistake.

You're kidding, right? I challenge someone to come up with a reasoned, factually-supported case with specifics, as to why he's not a good personnel evaluator, and THIS is what you offer in response?

Not worth a point by point dissection here. Instead I'll just take the first "example" you offer, in brief, and see if you can understand what I'm trying to say here:


1) Mark Brunell (let's not forget this one was a $49 million mistake)

I asked for a contextual analysis of any such move. In offering this particular one, did you consider, for instance, in no particular order and by no means a complete list:

- Ramsey's still not fully-recovered foot injury last January?

- Gibbs' unfamiliarity WITH the 3rd year QB last January?

- Ramsey's very incomplete and still-questionable NFL resume to be the presumptive starter heading into the season as of last January?

- Gibbs' well known philosophy of having an established, veteran QB on his roster--something he did NOT have as of last January?

- Brunell's reputation as a smart, proven veteran QB as of last January?

- Gibbs' knowledge that, in having only a matter of weeks to introduce a whole new offense to his squad, there was a NEED for a smart, proven veteran QB on his team as of last January?

- the possibility that Gibbs actually DID speak with people in the know around the NFL--you remember he used to be in the league, right? and can understand where his might still actually TALK to them from time to time, right?--and that he was comfortable enough in their input, coupled with his own analysis based on stuff he actually KNEW, rather than guessed at like you do, that, under the short time constraints he was under, Brunnel was the best option for HIM, at THAT TIME, for THIS TEAM, under IT'S SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, based on his and his staff's exhaustive research, total access to and understanding of the all of those circumstances and probably about 250 more than guys like you and me out here in Fan Land will likely NEVER have a clue about ... and that the move was actually a pretty calculated one?

No, I didn't expect you did. Or will. My guess is, when you hear Jim Mora's "you think you know, but you don't know," you think he's talking about everybody else.

[Cool Hand Loki]

VoR

HAHAHA

Spanked ***** is more like it. Lord.

Om, Art, your words and time are better spent elsewhere, though I always enjoy the good ol' dialectical beatdown.

Only a few more hours of idiotic speculation; then we'll get the idiotic reflexive opinions about the pick(s).