THEHEREAFTER Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by twist Well, that must make you feel awfully special and fuzzy inside. The team you rooted for had 6 wins last year (none of them against the Eagles) and it probably cost you more angst than I had to worry about during the same period. I suppose I'll respect the Redskins as a team a little more when they keep themselves from being systematically swept every year by the team I cheer for. The team you root for really has nothing to do with the Patriots, so I would have to wonder what you gloat about. I said that I really didn't know what the fall off was. You can't seem to grasp the idea that something might seem to be a bigger loss than it actually ended up being. Now I could go on and say that what things seem like to me are in actuality, absolute truths, but then I would be a lot more like a sports writer. My point was that it was uncertian, both if Barrow will play, how well he will play, and wether or not you can just plug anyone in there and have it not be a major issue. Pierce may simply be a very talented player that needed to be given a chance. So, I try to be fair in my analysis. You try to insult me and then complain about what I said instead of reading it apparently. I said many positive things about the Redskins; you seem to only be focusing on one side of the analysis. This to me, epitomizes this board. Twist made a sound objective post only to be attacked with with emotional, irrational "fan talk." I understand the rules here but I don't get some of the stuff here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by Art The interesting thing about the Redskins is that six or seven games into the season, people could be saying Washington is the best team from top to bottom in the league, and why not? We see the depth and talent on a healthy defense coached by Gregg Williams allowing us the possibility of four Pro Bowl players in the back seven without stretching too hard. The defensive line will not produce anything more than one top Pro Bowl player, but a defense that has five guys you can reasonably say are Pro Bowl level players is as good as there is in football with no dramatic weakness. Offensively the line is as good as there is in talent from top to bottom. Should it come together and allow Ramsey the ability to emerge, suddenly, Washington has everything where entering the year you can wonder if it has enough. If Ramsey develops, you have an elite level running back, a top offensive line, a solid, young tight end type in Cooley and a receiving core anchored by a guy who's shown he can perform at a high level in the league catching balls from an emerging player in Ramsey. Ramsey's improvement answers so much for the team that if he does well, everything, suddenly, looks very strong. If he does poorly, you will again have worries about consistency at receiver and a hit and miss quality in the running game, and therefore, the team will either be merely average or somewhat below in performance, like last year. But, if every player on offense simply approaches what they've already done in the NFL AND Ramsey does substantially more, the backtracking will be that the Redskins have no obvious weaknesses. And, they won't, if 10 players play as they already have proven capable of playing and one plays better. This is all great and honestly these type of beautiful scenarious are painted by Skins fans EVERY year. I think the point is that Non-skins fans probably won't give you the benefit of the doubt or the "if" based on past performance. Enjoy and embrace the underdogg role.. I guess is what I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by THEHEREAFTER This to me, epitomizes this board. Twist made a sound objective post only to be attacked with with emotional, irrational "fan talk." I understand the rules here but I don't get some of the stuff here? What don't you get? Theres nothing wrong with the exchanges here. Twist makes quite a few sweeping generalizations about the Redskin's on a site devoted to the team. A fan counters him. If anything, Twist's response was far more condescending than anything he got. One thing that DOES epitomize this board is that we allow opposing fans just enough rope to hang themselves. We don't pretend they start with the same balance in their account that a solid Redskins fan does. No ones being attacked in this thread. You just need thicker skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by Tarhog What don't you get? Theres nothing wrong with the exchanges here. Twist makes quite a few sweeping generalizations about the Redskin's on a site devoted to the team. A fan counters him. If anything, Twist's response was far more condescending than anything he got. One thing that DOES epitomize this board is that we allow opposing fans just enough rope to hang themselves. We don't pretend they start with the same balance in their account that a solid Redskins fan does. No ones being attacked in this thread. You just need thicker skin. Twist: "there are some ligitimate questions with the team this year" Wicked: Well ohhhh yeah... Gibbs will fix everything and it'll all work because Gibbs said so... and the Eagles suck! Just bustin your chops a little tarhog.. I know where I am! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Midseason isn't generally a time when Redskins fans tend to gloat lately... Mainly what happens is that you get all sorts of undeserved hype... Most of the Analysts that have hyped the Redskins over the years have been sorely disappointed. I'd point out, if you go back beyond Twist's age bracket's experience, you'd find most Gibb's teams FAR FAR exceeded any hype applied to them. Over, and over, and over again. He just didn't want to look back that far. I can see why they are unlikely to jump on your bandwagon after what they see as a lackluster off-season, when they were disappointed with what they saw to be stellar off-seasons. This is a remarkably flawed argument, because they have never shown in the past, to have good judgment of what makes a good off-season. Apples to oranges. Gibbs has been here 1 year. Thats all that matters. The rest of what Twist says is inconsequential. Basically mealy-mouthing about how 'no one can predict these things, and 'depending on this, that, and the other thing'. Feel free to make me eat any of my words come midseason, I really don’t care. And don't worry, if you're around, we will friend Again, theres nothing wrong with this thread. Twist knows the line and he's treading it nicely. So are the Skins fans here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by THEHEREAFTER This is all great and honestly these type of beautiful scenarious are painted by Skins fans EVERY year. I think the point is that Non-skins fans probably won't give you the benefit of the doubt or the "if" based on past performance. Enjoy and embrace the underdogg role.. I guess is what I'm saying. This to me, epitomizes this board. I make a sound objective post only to be attacked with with emotional, irrational "fan talk". I understand the rules here but I don't get some of the stuff here? You see, no one asked you, or anyone else, for any sort of benefit of the doubt. The statement was a fairly clear one. The Redskins are in an interesting situation where if 10 guys on offense simply play as they have within the last two years of their careers and ONE guy plays better than he's ever played, then suddenly, the Redskins have as complete an offense in football with weapons all over the place coached. And, if the one guy, being as key as he is, can not step up the consistency, then the team will have areas that don't appear nearly so sound due to his lack. And, we know what the defense has as it enters training camp not only far more talented than any defense we put on the field last year, but, far more deep and far more comfortable within the system we run. If the one guy lifts his play, the midseason talk will be by people making the suggestion that the Redskins are as complete a team as there is in football because it will become just that. A team with a championship level defense only has a little bit to go on the other side of the ball to really experience some success. Now, I know you, as a Cowboy fan, are prone to making comments about such statements that Dallas was the No. 1 defense in the NFL two years ago and was woefully unable to maintain that level the following year. You do this, as most Cowboy fans do, because they don't appreciate football in the way most other people do. You say such things as if they have meaning, without examining how performances were achieved. Dallas was the No. 1 defense two years ago by employing a scheme no one had seen on a consistent basis out of Mike Zimmer. The initial shock and awe to the league put the Cowboys very far up the standings. Then, teams started figuring you out and laying the wood to you in games against any quality opponent (save Carolina) down the stretch. The Redskins were coached by a coach the whole league knew everything about. Had seen how he coached a defense year in and year out. So, there were no surprises. The Redskins started the season well and ended it well on defense, despite taking the brunt of injury on that side of the ball. Yet another difference between Washington and Dallas on defense. In 2003 Dallas was a healthy defense and performed well overall, if declining toward the end. Washington took hit after hit starting in training camp and going throughout the year, losing key starters and in many cases the backups to those starters. Where the Redskins were starting fourth and fifth string guys in camp during the season along the defensive line, and third and fourth stringers in camp at backer, and third, fourth and even fifth stringers in camp in the secondary, and continued to perform, Dallas stayed largely in tact in 2003 and took double-digit losses against just about any team with a pulse. So, while it is possible our defense could fall off, unlike the situation in Dallas, you couldn't SEE it had already begun falling off the year before, AND UNLIKE the situation in Dallas, we're not coached by Mike Zimmer . All of this leads us to an area few speak of and one that has had the greatest focus for Washington. The point of having six guys with starting experience at linebacker in the NFL and four guys (supported by the top draft pick) who have been starters at corner and six guys who've been starters at safety in the league, with receivers picked up ALL KNOWN for special teams ability, is to improve SPECIAL teams, which was dreadfully weak a year ago and has the potential to be among the best in football this year. In fact, the success or failure of THIS Redskin team, unlike many in the past, does boil down to one player more than any time in the recent past given how complete the team is everywhere else and given how much depth there is at almost every unit. That doesn't mean this team will win. It just means if the team doesn't, unlike you, I won't be confused as to why it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 No doubt the 2003 Cowboys suffered some bad losses and I will not try to pretend that our #1 D was as deep and as well coached as your #3 D last year. Still, the fact remains that we finished #1 and I believe #3 in points that year and played extremely well on average. #1 in pass D, Opponent QB rating was also a big strengh. We also held many teams to one or no touchdowns and even shut out a team without a pulse of course :cool: . The key is I'm not saying the Skins D may fall off for the same reasons the Cowboys D has. The point is GW will be fielding a DIFFERENT unit this year so sustaining the same level will be interesting. We lose Darren Woodson-- the QB and glue to our secondary vs. Sean Taylors legal trouble? I've heard all the answers to Pierce and Smoot but their replacements performance remains to be seen. Lavar will be back . You certainly have depth in many areas but D-Line is not one of them. While I don't see GW's D falling off as hard as the 04' Boys, I don't think it's a reach to simply pose questions regarding last years chemistry and personnel playing out the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by THEHEREAFTER You certainly have depth in many areas but D-Line is not one of them. Hmmm. The team certainly has no worse depth along the DL than last season. And, IF Daniels can stay healthy, could be said to be considerably stronger given his lack of availability last season and Williams' statements regarding his presence WHEN healthy. And, yet, this DL was part of a defense ranked #1 against the run. Not too shabby for a unit that missed a lot of man-games and had no depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autographcollector Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 I love my Redskins but they don't deserve any respect under the Danny regime until they earn the respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 I don't think you're wrong to say we lack some depth on the defensive line. But, we had strong play from the reserves we were forced to play there a year ago and that was with one injury that was serious with Daniels. We have a very nice three tackle rotation for Williams' system. But, for whatever reason, Williams CLEARLY felt GREAT about his line. He went out this offseason and seriously increased the depth at backer and safety and corner, but did absolutely NOTHING on the defensive line. And, indicated he had no inclination to do anything because he thought the line was the one area he DIDN'T have to improve. Why, I wonder? Might it be that Williams views the line he has for his system as a very good, very deep line? He saw Boschetti play briefly and make some plays with three plays made for negative yards in just six he was credited with in very limited time. He's young and pretty big. He saw Evans forced to start eight games and play somewhat well. Evans is roughly the same size as Spears and plays the run stopping end position like Daniels and Wynn. And, he's not old at 25. He saw Ron Warner make some big plays in limited time, credited with 3.5 sacks and five stuffs in just two starts and some limited time in 12 other games, though he is a little older at 29. Personally, I tend to think we lack depth as well on the line, though, Williams doesn't. At least for us, the advantage is Williams has coached the guys we are relying on as depth. He's seen them. He knows how they can be used to be successful and where they will fail. To at least some degree you're counting on Spears, Canty and Ware as starters or depth. Guys your coaching staff has never coached. Guys who've never played in your scheme. Guys who have never played a down in the NFL. You count as "depth" for Dallas guys who've never played, yet, dismiss guys on Washington who have. In fact, a fair assessment might suggest Washington is better prepared for the season at defensive line because at least we're doing a little less speculating as to the players we have there than you are, as you are likely to carry several young guys who will need to develop some. If all of that works out, by the end of the year we might marvel at how good your depth is. Or, as we saw after you took Goodrich, Larrimore and Edwards in the 2000 draft and crowed about the great depth at corner, that, in fact, you had no depth at all. It can go either way. Where you are very wrong in your post is to suggest Williams will be fielding a different unit this year. The Redskins return nine starters from last year and all reserves except Haley at this point. The difference will be instead of using unproven third, fourth and fifth string guys, we'll now be using guys who should have been starters, and when we go to depth, we've got guys who've BEEN starters and played in key depth roles for injured starters. If anything, the facts, coupled with greater knowledge of scheme and better familiarity with the players by the coaches, will lead to a vastly improved defense no matter what ranking it winds up with. An injured defense that entered last year with no one who'd ever played in a Gregg Williams defense did ok. You're going for a hard sell to say a healthy defense -- now at least -- all very familiar with the system with just two losses (one being a guy who wasn't even a lock to make the roster this time a year ago and the other replaced by a better prospect at his position) is due for a huge let down because the defense is different due to having more healthy players returning. That's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 If you firmly believe that your D is poised to not miss a beat then so be it. I'm sure most will agree however, there are questions that's all. Just questions. You know far more than I about your personnel. It's just my observation that GW relies very heavily on blitzing from all angles and I think this has a little to do with the D-line. Your role players played admirably within the scheme but I think any coach will tell you that they would love the luxery of causing mayhem with a four man rush only. GW blitzes often, very well, and very creatively but I think your setting yourself up for failure if this is your primary MO much like Zimmers 03 squad. As far as Dallas, what I'm excited about is generating pressure from our front four and not relying on this zero coverage blitz that Zimmer relied so heavily on. The game is won in the trenches and on the lines and maybe and improved D-Line will allow our back seven to excel. GW never coached any of your players last year and did just fine. He learned his personnel and everyone adjusted to his system. Am I looking @ "talent" and "depth" along our D-line a little prematurely? Perhaps, like you said the rookies haven't played yet. I just don't think it's a stretch to say that Dallas has "potentially" turned a once weakness into a strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsk58417 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan If we are 12-4 and in the playoffs, every single member of extreme should be calling Czabe's show as well as writing Peter Queen, Dr Zit and Lenny P. Don't forget about Paul Woody and Pompeii We'll make sure they eat their crow. We just have to flood the phone lines and write every single fool 100 times Nice list, but don't forget some others. They'll be plenty of crow sandwiches for Sal. Pal., Don Banks, Carl Banks, Pat Kirwan, Chris Mortenson, Joe White, Riggins, Moose Johnson, and Nunyo. There may be others as well that i'm forgetting. They'll be saying to their waiters...."I'm having what HE is having!":laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Originally posted by THEHEREAFTER If you firmly believe that your D is poised to not miss a beat then so be it. I'm sure most will agree however, there are questions that's all. Just questions. You know far more than I about your personnel. It's just my observation that GW relies very heavily on blitzing from all angles and I think this has a little to do with the D-line. Your role players played admirably within the scheme but I think any coach will tell you that they would love the luxery of causing mayhem with a four man rush only. GW blitzes often, very well, and very creatively but I think your setting yourself up for failure if this is your primary MO much like Zimmers 03 squad. As far as Dallas, what I'm excited about is generating pressure from our front four and not relying on this zero coverage blitz that Zimmer relied so heavily on. The game is won in the trenches and on the lines and maybe and improved D-Line will allow our back seven to excel. GW never coached any of your players last year and did just fine. He learned his personnel and everyone adjusted to his system. Am I looking @ "talent" and "depth" along our D-line a little prematurely? Perhaps, like you said the rookies haven't played yet. I just don't think it's a stretch to say that Dallas has "potentially" turned a once weakness into a strength. Regardless of my personal belief the defense is poised not to miss a beat, I think this conversation would be better phrased that there is absolutely no factual rationale for thinking the defense IS NOT poised not to miss a beat. While the defense might falter, to be sure, there is absolutely no rationale, thoughtful point containing any knowledge whatsoever that would state such a thing is conceivable. It's possible while lacking plausibility given unforseen, unpredictable factors. The facts, though, are the defense is better from a personnel standpoint at this moment in time. It's deeper than last year. And, where you are right the Cowboys saw the failure of a blitzing scheme, the failure you saw was caused by an inability to cover. Here, the Redskins have great advantages and likely show you exactly why Williams focused so on corners and safeties and linebackers. He wants to be able to create havoc AND sustain coverage, which is why we have four starting corners on the roster, supported by a first-round rookie corner, supported by at least one young player the coach has openly suggested is very good, supported by six safeties who have not only been starters, BUT, many have been corner/safety type players. Had you seen a Redskin game throughout the year, you'd have seen a blitz called fail. You'd have seen a QB with tons of time. And, you'd have seen seconds elapse and yet no where for the QB to throw the ball. That's what Williams wants. Hell, the biggest coverage lapses we had were while we were in coverage defenses -- see second Dallas game, last couple of minutes. The fact that Williams had a whole year with his defense and addressed the offseason by FURTHER improving the back seven tells you EXACTLY what he thinks he needs to make a defense go. And, Williams is not Mike Zimmer. Williams, remember, has done PRECISELY what he's doing in Washington in two other cities. So, please don't insult the man by lumping him in with a guy like Zimmer. So, this conversation really needs to be you have absolutely, utterly, no reasonable suggestion, and yet you keep making it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 I might add at both Tennessee and Buffalo GW's defense improved each year above the previous year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.