ESPN Football Power Index- Redskins ranked 22nd-Lower than expected Media Predictions

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

The beatings will continue until we don't suck ass for three decades straight.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

I hate power rankings.  I like standings. 

 

Talk to me in October.  We'll have a better idea then about who's good and who isn't.

[mrcaniac]

8 hours ago, Cliffmark1 said:

We need a nt and decent coaching to get past 10 wins.  if we dont let our corners travel with wr we are likely at 7-9. Without cousins i would guess 3-5 wins. 

 

Not a great team outside of cousins and maybe three other players. 

 

Gil Brandt has the Redskins with top 10 most talent on a team in the NFL.

 

After hating him in the 70's and 80's, I'll listen to his take on NFL caliber talent.

 

Gil Brandt on NFL Talent

[wit33]

The offense needs to make another step, while the defense accumulates talent. 

 

The offense got a huge pass last year, while being average to above in many situations and halves in games. If the offense was as dynamic as many here seem to think, projections wouldn't be where they are. 

[Stefanskins]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Don't know if anyone remembers this, but last year after the Skins beat the Ravens, ESPN's power rankings had the Ravens going up one spot from 15 to 14, and had the Redskins drop something like 3 spots, from 21 to 24 lol...

lol i do remember that...forgot all bout that chit,,,

 

[actorguy1]

My general thought I wanted to address with this thread was the overall negative attitude of the media compared with the general consensus of progression among the fans. 

[Boss_Hogg]

I think the firing of GM Scot is clouding their judgement. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, actorguy1 said:

My general thought I wanted to address with this thread was the overall negative attitude of the media compared with the general consensus of progression among the fans. 

 

I agree with this.  I don't think people here are dwelling on the negativity or its influencing their enjoyment of the upcoming season.  Speaking for myself, it adds to my enjoyment.  Yeah I've noticed Brandt, Good Morning Football and some exceptions to the rule but by and large most of the national pundits are counting the Redskins out.  I bet anything that the football magazines which do predictions will pile on to this.

 

 I think all this negativity is good.  And like I said I recall it was part of Jay and D. Hall's rallying cry for the 2015 season.   Among other things, I loved it in 2015 when the blowhards who ignored the Redskins all season had to eat crow when they won the division.  It was a fun watch for me.  

 

Conversely, I think this team has some weird bad karma when they are predicted to win or the players start getting chesty.  I recall Rex predicting they'd win the division.  That didn't end well.  Neither did it when Fred Smoot crowed about being the beasts of the east when they started hot under Zorn.  Or even last season when Baker and RJF crowed about being the east champions after they beat the Eagles.  I also didn't love Robert Kelley making fun of the Cowboys and then following that up with the Cowboys shutting him down. 

 

I like the underdog role for this team.  Stephen Smith loves to say that the Redskins can't handle prosperity and once you start looking at them after some success, they fail.  To some degree, that's been on the money.

 

Over the years that had a lot to do with talent.  But I think this team is talented.  And while I don't think the underdog or favorite status is the be all and end all -- I do agree with Belichick and Gibbs and other coaches who believe in playing with a chip on their shoulder and feeding off of outside negativity.   

 

 

 

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

Just re-watch the draft-ESPN cuts away to commercial during Skins draft picks and virtually no commentary after the pick was made. ESPN is a joke (A bad one at that)

[Voice_of_Reason]

If the Skins want respect, go beat the Eagles and Rams to open the season.  Then they'll get some respect. 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

If the Skins want respect, go beat the Eagles and Rams to open the season.  Then they'll get some respect. 

If that happens, I can almost bet you they won't.  The theme will be that the Rams and Eagles are young, up and coming teams, with maybe a sprinkling of "if they played them later in the year..."

 

I think we have to beat 2 or more good teams before we start to see any real respect.  

 

Relating to that, it actually kind of sucks that our team has a lot of gelling to do (the D and Kirk with his receivers) and yet the schedule starts out vs some not so good teams.  I'd rather start 0-2 vs tougher teams as we get our sea legs.  

[Conn]

3 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Relating to that, it actually kind of sucks that our team has a lot of gelling to do (the D and Kirk with his receivers) and yet the schedule starts out vs some not so good teams.  I'd rather start 0-2 vs tougher teams as we get our sea legs.  

 

Weird way of looking at it. Wouldn't you rather play some beatable teams early on while we're still figuring things out, and maybe win anyways, so that by the time we're (hopefully) a well-oiled machine we're ready to compete with the tougher teams? A win is a win at any point in the season, it's almost like you're conceding games to the tougher teams already.

[HTTRDynasty]

3 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Relating to that, it actually kind of sucks that our team has a lot of gelling to do (the D and Kirk with his receivers) and yet the schedule starts out vs some not so good teams.  I'd rather start 0-2 vs tougher teams as we get our sea legs.  

 

I actually like starting out against two of the easier teams on our schedule the first couple games.  On top of the gelling needed on both sides of the ball, Kirk has started off slow and looked rusty at the start of the year these past two seasons.  It might happen again this year.  I think if this team reaches its full potential, we have a realistic chance to beat any team in the league.  So I'd rather start off the season against teams we don't need to be at our full potential to beat.  Then, face the tougher teams once we're hitting our stride.

[Warhead36]

Good thing this ain't college football and the polls don't mean jack

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, skinny21 said:

If that happens, I can almost bet you they won't.  The theme will be that the Rams and Eagles are young, up and coming teams, with maybe a sprinkling of "if they played them later in the year..."

 

I think we have to beat 2 or more good teams before we start to see any real respect.  

 

Relating to that, it actually kind of sucks that our team has a lot of gelling to do (the D and Kirk with his receivers) and yet the schedule starts out vs some not so good teams.  I'd rather start 0-2 vs tougher teams as we get our sea legs.  

I kindof disagree IF they are impressive victories.  A division win against a team that a lot of folks are picking as a "big jumper" and then a trip out west to LA to beat a fairly talented Rams team would at least have them in the conversation of "middle of the pack" rather than "bottom third."  

 

Again, not that it matters a damn.  The only thing that matters in the end is what the record is at the end of the season and if they go into the playoffs. 

 

I will say that if they can beat Dallas and the NYG once each, they'll get some respect.  

 

The most obvious loss of the season is at NYG.  We won there last year.  That means we won't win up there again until 2025 at the earliest.  That place (new or old) is just a house of horrors for the 'Skins.  

 

2 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Weird way of looking at it. Wouldn't you rather play some beatable teams early on while we're still figuring things out, and maybe win anyways, so that by the time we're (hopefully) a well-oiled machine we're ready to compete with the tougher teams? A win is a win at any point in the season, it's almost like you're conceding games to the tougher teams already.

I think the Rams are going to be much more challenging to beat than others.  They had a good defense previously, even under that complete dope Jeff Fisher.  Now they have a proven DC who knows what he's doing, and has had some success stopping Jay's offenses.  Also, McVay knows Cousins as well as anybody, and that's probably not the most ideal situation.

 

The counter is that Gruden probably knows McVay as well as anybody, and the defense will be VERY familiar with the Rams offense. 

 

All around, I don't love the matchup, but it's one the 'Skins SHOULD in theory win.  But quite frankly I like the odds against the Eagles more than the Rams.  And yes, that's a little backwards and odd.  

[skinny21]

Yeah @Voice_of_Reason, I thought that as I typed the post (regarding impressive wins bs Rams/Eagles).  

 

Agreed about wins bs NYG/DAL.  

 

Doesn't bother me to see the 'Skins ranking, but the incredibly shallow reasoning is a bit annoying.  If my job was covering the League, I'd put a lot more than a modicum of research into it.   

 

As for the roster as a whole, I think it's fair to say the defense will definitely be better and the offense should at least be good. We may still have major weaknesses on D (depending on how certain players pan out and growing pains) and the offense could take a step backwards (particularly as Cousins adjusts to his receivers).  

 

Thing is, there is a lot of talent on this squad.  Sure, a decent portion of it is unproven, but the talent is better and the potential from this group is the best it's been in a long time.  

[Jericho]

It's a projection system. It has it flaws, but we're also talking about a system that has all 4 NFC East teams within 2 games of each other. So it's not like the computers see a huge difference here. Take that for what you will

[skinny21]

9 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

I actually like starting out against two of the easier teams on our schedule the first couple games.  On top of the gelling needed on both sides of the ball, Kirk has started off slow and looked rusty at the start of the year these past two seasons.  It might happen again this year.  I think if this team reaches its full potential, we have a realistic chance to beat any team in the league.  So I'd rather start off the season against teams we don't need to be at our full potential to beat.  Then, face the tougher teams once we're hitting our stride.

Yeah, it's a personal preference thing.  For me, it comes down to a few things -

1) I'd rather lose early in the season than late - and not just because this team seems to do better under pressure

2) if we lose to weaker teams early... well, the schedule doesn't get any easier

3) if Kirk starts slow and has some comfort issues with his receivers, and/or the D starts slow, we could well lose to both the Rams and Eagles

4) the demoralizing factor of losing to teams that you know you should have beaten 

 

I can see the other side of the argument.  In fact, I'm close to sitting on the fence about this.  

[moondog]

I wouldn't say it's much of a slight. We finished with about the 18th or 19th best record last year. So it's not like they dropped us twenty spots and winning one more than half your games in two years doesn't earn you much respect. The eagles jumping that high is pretty crazy but I'd say nothing else as far as east teams is too nuts. 

 

I feel very positive about the off-season but until we pump out a double digits win season or take a game or two in the playoffs no one is going to believe and that's truly how it should be. 

[sportjunkie07]

I'm not too concerned with media analysts and their prediction for the skins. 

 

Frankly the skins deserve disrespect for consistently coming up short over the years and otherwise having terrible seasons. Additionally, the constant chaos surrounding our team gives a perception that we are in a state of perpetual disfunction. It's to be expected.

 

I do think the skins are sleeping this year though. This is the best nfl prepared roster that the skins have had in long time.

 

The offense is stable and the qb is good. This is a big deal and should keep us competitive.

 

The wide reciever change is pretty big, and honestly, I believe we are better off now, but we took some risks. 

 

The defense has no where to go but up. The talent infusion was massive. Very few pundits have vocalized just how much change was made to the skins defense. It will be a completely different defense, and with talent infusion and the dropping of a coach who has a poor track record, it is a safe bet that the defense will be at least marginally better with the chance to improve greatly. 

 

If our defense comes together quickly, then the nfl needs to watch out because we are contenders.

 

I like our odds in vegas. 

[PortisBetts]

On 6/1/2017 at 6:43 PM, Cliffmark1 said:

 

How many wins are we without cousins?  

 

if you are one of the "not much of a drop off to our backups" guy i guess we both see something totally different. 

 

I like all the players you mentioned but great players (standouts amongst their non redskins nfl peers): Kirk, trent, norman, and reed (who is often injured and 1 dimensional but it is a good dimension.)

I love these kinds of what if scenarios.

 

What if we didn't have a top 5 offensive line? What if we didnt have the worst defense on 3rd down all time last year?

 

0 relevance. This team has talent. 4 of them are in the top 100, which is over the average number per team (3.125). Now we have continuity with our coach, who has grown every year, and our qb, who we will hopefully sign long term July 15. We have red zone targets now, with the majority of our receivers being over 6'2, which was our biggest issue aside from stopping 3rd downs on defense. The defense is without a doubt better than last year just based on the players that we have signed.

 

I see this team starting off slow and building towards an awesome end of the season as they begin to gel on defense and Cousins begins to understand how to throw deep to Pryor, who is a frigin stud.

[RawRebel]

If we beat the Raiders in the opening month all the pundits tune will change. 

[Wyvern]

I don't see why anyone is surprised at the media "experts" low assessment of the Skins prospects this year.

 

Although Gruden and some of his staff are still here -- It can be easily argued that the Skins are a team in transition.  Some of the 2016  Skins' featured players' on offense are gone,  as well as a few on defense. There are a lot of new defensive coordinators and the departure of offensive coordinator McVay means things will be a little different on offense.  

 

I think the Skins have more talent than before -- but see how much of the talent comes with asterisks.  

•     * Is Doctson going to step up in what is effectively his first year?  

    * Last year Jackson helped forced DBs to guard against the deep threat, which opened things up in the short and medium  passing opportunities.  Is Pryor going to be able to do that -- he seems like a different type of receiver.  

    * Which Zach Brown do the Skins get?  

    * Do McGee/McClain/Hood pan out for the persistent issues the Skins faced in trying to handle the NT types of defensive responsibilities?  

    * Which Breeland do the Skins get?  

    * Cravens is talented, but his role is changing a bit -- how well does he adjust.  

    * Lauvao/Long should be good in 2017 -- can it measure up to the rest of the Skins O-line?  It had some problems last year, and the depth at those two positions is untested.  

    * The rookie class seems talented, but it's reasonable to consider that some of the rooks may take longer to up their game to the NFL level.  Some may not start right away, either.

 

Still, I'm fairly positive (except at C/LG and NT ) the Skins will be showing a lot of improvement from 2016.  But I can't help but note how the other NFC East teams did a lot to improve themselves,; some were loaded on the offensive and defensive lines already and have spent a lot of money to become powerful in the short run.  So, I f the Skins hope to climb to the top of the heap in the NFC East, a lot of the asterisks associated with the Skins newer talent will have to be revealed as exclamation points.

 

Now I'm fairly positive the Skins talent will shine, but I can see why many in the media (some who have low opinions of the Skins ownership and front office) might have opted for the pessimistic view.

[Cliffmark1]

2 hours ago, PortisBetts said:

I love these kinds of what if scenarios.

 

What if we didn't have a top 5 offensive line? What if we didnt have the worst defense on 3rd down all time last year?

 

0 relevance. This team has talent. 4 of them are in the top 100, which is over the average number per team (3.125). Now we have continuity with our coach, who has grown every year, and our qb, who we will hopefully sign long term July 15. We have red zone targets now, with the majority of our receivers being over 6'2, which was our biggest issue aside from stopping 3rd downs on defense. The defense is without a doubt better than last year just based on the players that we have signed.

 

I see this team starting off slow and building towards an awesome end of the season as they begin to gel on defense and Cousins begins to understand how to throw deep to Pryor, who is a frigin stud.

They have relevance. A nt helps on third down. A d coach can help not play stupid. 

 

Right now i think we have a borderline playoff team. With a few holes filled we could have a legit contender. So you can hate the fact or messenger but this team can't win the big game without a stud nt. 

[KillBill26]

I am usually less optimistic than most on this board, but I think the skins finishing last is a joke.  I think the skins win at least 9 games, maybe 10 or 11, and will likely make the playoffs.    

 

But I also love the tempered expectations and flying under the radar.  Should be a fun season.  Hope the skins put that article on the bulletin board when they host philly week 1.  Skins should win by double digits.