Redskins (and their fans) losers?

[kleese]

The reaction to this pre-season has absolutely amazed me. I really disagree with the legions of people (both media and fans) who are panicking right now. However, maybe they are right--- and if they are, then this organization has become one of the worst in football with some of the worst fans in football- I mean that.

Ourr fans have become whining, negative, gun-jumpers-- DC is NO LONGER an intimidating place to play-- not at all. I actually feel more comfortable on the road thesedays.

No doubt the Norv era has left everyone scrambling for the old days, and it has produced a defensiveness and expectation of losing that only teams like the Bengals can realte to.

The mighty Bucs lost to this Browns team 7-6 last week, but I didn't hear one word from the media about how the Bucs are "in big trouble," etc...

And the reaction to Banks is silly and shows the Redskin fans' ignorance. Two words for you..... Mike Oliphant, remember him? Those same people that booed George (after 7 passes) and cheered Banks and called for him start, are the same ones that wouldn't have made the Oliphant for Earnest Byner trade after Oliphant's great pre-season.

The struggles this pre-season are a concern, but not a calamity, and not necessarily a sign of things to come. Who knows what Marty's motivation is this pre-season?

The O line looks bad, but why? Everyone says we have the best young tackles in the league. Are you telling me that the combo of Raymer, Fischer, Coleman, Szott, Campbell, Fletcher, and Moore can't produce an adeguate interior line? Or are we overrating Samules and Jansen as well?

And Champ has been BURNED a few times this pre-season-- are we overrating him too? I'm surprised he didn't get booed off the field last night.

If this season does turn out ugly, then we must consider the possiblitly (more like a fact) that we have become a woeful organization with little hope.

Teams like the Saints can go from worst to very, very good in one season with a coaching change and few motivated players. The Giants can go from average to the Super Bowl with basically the same team. Why can't we go from 8-8 to the playoffs after a major upgrade at coach and an easier schedule?

And don't forget, lots of guys "take off" in the pre-season. Guys like Marco Coleman, etc.. may be only going half-speed right now. Where guys like Banks, who are fighting for their careers, go balls out-- you see the results.

We've become a real loser team. Guys like Michaels, Boswell, and the national media, as well as guys like Sonny and our fans, look for anything to ***** about and go crazy with it.

Cry, cry, cry, moan, moan, moan, moan. The city seems to breed losing now. I wonder if Marty (or anyone esle) even stands a chance here now? It's like everyone expects (and in a sick way, roots for) negative things to happen.

What Marty does, DOES work-- the proof is in the pudding-- and he's done it with less talent than he has now. We SHOULD at least be a solid playoff contendar this year-- right up until the last game of the season--if we're not, then something is wrong, and I think it goes deeper than this season, or Marty's system.

Those who left last night's game calling for Banks to start are fools-- Tony Banks sucked a week ago, is he better now? He's a solid back-up, nothing more. George is rusty, he should be. I expect an improvement from him and for him to be all set Sept. 9th.

My wife asked me the other day if I wanted to make a trip to DC for a game this season. I thought about it, and said, "no, I'd rather stay here with my Sunday ticket."

I concede playoff spots to the Eagles, Giants, Bucs, Rams, and Saints. That leaves us competing with the Packers, Vikings, Lions, and maybe 49ers for the last playoff spot-- there is NO reason we can't win that spot. You telling me those teams are more talented than we are? You telling me those teams don't have similar holes?

But no one seems to notice. No one seems to notice the Bucs' offense get 100% shut down by the Browns. Because, for them "it's just pre-season" for us it's the end of the world.

It all stinks of loserism to me.

What we missed under Norv was the ability to just go out there and kick someone in the mouth when we needed to. Sometimes, that's what football boils down to. That's what the Saints and Giants did last year. That's what we CAN do this year, but I wonder if the negativity surrounding the team won't take hold and make things even more difficult.

If Marty can make us winners than I will give him credit for battling our opponents, the media, and our fans.

[Fitz]

kleese, you are reading my mind. I was listening to WTEM's tailgate show before the game, and they played a string of snippets from listener calls. Every single one was unrelentingly negative - "we have no offensive line", we have no quarterback", "the game has passed Marty by", "there are too many Chiefs on the team", "we shouldn't have cut Tre", "I miss Centers", etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Jeezus, one guy said that going to home burgundy was a "disgrace"! In general, Raider fans are delusional, Eagle fans are thugs, Broncos and Browns fans are intensely loyal, Cowboy fans are front-runners. Michael Wilbon was never more right than last year, when he generalized that Redskins fans have become "whining sissies". That may the worst hangover from the Seven Long Years of Norv.

You can only hear so much of the "loserism", as you aptly put it, before you begin to consider the self-fulfilling prophecy syndrome. I'm not worried about Marty; his skin is as thick and tough as rhino hide. But you have to wonder what the constant drumbeat of negativity can do to the psyches of the younger guys on the team. I think Marty has the leadership skills to keep a mindset of losing from being ingrained in the team, but it has to make his job harder.

I'm not saying that the team has no problems, or that everybody should adopt a pollyanna outlook. Just a little balance and realism would be nice. Recognize that the good outweighs the bad, and that things are generally moving in the right direction, despite the occasional setback.

[Om]

Thanks, kleese.

Fact is, there are quite a few of us around here that are of a like mind. They just don't often take the time to express it as well as you just did.

Speaking only for myself, it often feels like taking a positive long view is viewed by many as pie-in-the-sky, homeristic fluff. For whatever reason, it seems that the more negative reactions (I'm sorry, the more "realistic" reactions ) get more play. That's okay, though, because it does spark debate, and the truth is that the only on-field evidence we have to dissect is the sorry preseason.

I wonder if that will change after the 2nd half last night ... nah, probably not.

I'm interested in seeing how the prevailing angst changes once the real games start, and we get to see what kind of team we actually DO have. If we do poorly at first, the clamor will increase until we win. If we start fast ... the gloom & doom of the preseason will be forgotten. Like it never happened.

Meanwhile, I could care less what the "media" says. All I do care about is how the TEAM feels about itself, and, while I am moderately concerned that there may be some leftover Norv hangover that will affect them for a time, I also believe that it won't take long for the change in approach and attitude at the helm to filter down.

It's going to be fun to watch.

And it's also going to be fun to watch how the tenor of the debate, both in the media and on the board, is going to change with it. As tenacious as a "loser"culture is ... people love to rally around a winner.

I'm not all that suprised by the dark mood in the town. After all, it's always darkest before the dawn.

[ by Om on August 25, 2001.]

[wildbill]

As said above,Great post.I agree totally with what you are saying but at the same time I have been critical at times of what Marty seems to be trying to pull off.All I keep telling myself is that Marty has been around football alot longer than I have and as some of the other posters have mentioned I can't remember Marty ever having as much talent around him in the past as he does now.

My problem is that I have been a faithful Skins fan since the first game I ever watched them play, wich was the year they beat Miami for the SB,since then we have had some extremely good teams but lately it just seems to continue to get harder and harder to remember why I became a Skins fan in the first place.

I would quit watching football all together before I started to follow another football team,to put it short its just not going to happen, but I would like to see some inspiration out there on the field.If we win great but if we lose,as long as we don't beat ourselves than I can live with that.

[shamaran]

Simply put, there are a group of fans that profess to be the true-blue, never say die, never spout a discouraging word group. They wouldn't admit to a pimple on the nose of this team if it were about to pop!

And, there is a group that sees what is there, realistically. They state the good and the bad, objectively.

The third group want the team to fail. Sure, there are plenty of folks in that third group in the media. Sonny isn't on of them. Jacoby isn't either. Bostic too is in the realist group. Wilbon could care less about the 'Skins. SI's folks too, want to see them fail. But that doesn't mean EFF ALL THE MEDIA, EFF ALL THE NAYSAYER FANS! Those that continue to do so are either too young or naive (or both) to know the difference between whom is who.

So, whatever group you please -- it is after all, still America, I think?

Frankly, if the realists didn't point out weak areas, ALL AREAS WOULD ALWAYS STAY WEAK.

Like sports, politics too needs to have commentary and constructive critisim. The alternative to having all say all is fine and dandy means, nothing ever needs to be done to improve because to blind mass says ALL IS WELL. And, it would be pretty bloody boring too!

[fansince62]

all....i have a positive long-run view also. the nucleus is taking shape - i think we are a year, maybe two from a return to glory now that a disciplined hand is that the controls. however, it aint going to happen this year. and fans have a right to be frustrated and angry: year after year of bonehead personnel moves have cost this team dearly. the fans are paying, after all, not for the privilege of watching incompetent linemen, but for winning football. pure and simple. so don't lecture us about postivism. there are good times and bad times and we are in a bad one, every one knows it - and it is the product of BAD BAD management. football is a consumer product and we're not getting fair value at present. the skins will play to .500 if they come together over the next few weeks. this is not fair value in my opinion. expecting better is paramount - these guys are paid a princely wad of cash to entertain us, and bottom line entertainment is driven by winning.

[TennesseeCarl]

I think there's just a lot of folks who are dying to see a team in Burgundy & Gold come out and play good fundamental football.

There's nothing wrong with Redskin fans as a group. We're become frustrated over the years of mediocrity foisted on us by weak management and inflexible leadership. Most of us remember what it was like to field a team that didn't shoot itself in the foot on a regular basis. It may not be fair to compare the Norv Era with the Gibbs' Years, but how can you not?

I support this team - I want to win very much. I get weary of reading all the negativism - but sometimes I join in with it. If I'm having a bad day and the team stinks up the joint on the field or if there's an obvious lack of effort on the part of the better paid players, it's going to effect the way I feel about the current Redskins.

I want to feel good about this current team. Heck, I want to love this team and look back nostalgically upon the 2001 season. But I think the team has to earn that on the field.

[AlohaGeorge]

I'm a long-time lurker and seldom poster. However, I felt obligated to provide my endorsement to the comments by Kleese. I returned last night from a marvelous week of fishing in Alaska. Today I have been reading posts from pre-Atlanta to post-Cleveland. When you take them all in a huge dose at one time, overall they're pretty negative.

I've been a 'Skins fan since the days of Sammy Baugh, a little longer than most of you. Over the years, there has seldom been any meaningful correlation between what occurred in the preseason games and what took place when the games were for real. More often than not, the preseason had us way, way too optimistic.

I find this preseason a refreshing change of pace. Obviously, it would be better to win every preseason game by a wide margin without making any mistakes. However, that's not reality.

We have some very good players that may not be performing to expectations . . . but these games don't count. Some coaches use the preseason differently than others. I've always admired the Steelers, Cowboys, 49'ers etc. that often do poorly in the preseason but win their fair share plus once the games become meaningful.

There are a couple of weeks before we have a true reality check. Until then . . . stay loose.

[kleese]

As I've mentioned before, I was labeled "darth" on the rivals board because of my gloomy outlook-- I'm no blind optimist. But I look at it like this:

On offense: We have the same tackles as last year, we have a slight improvement at center (certainly not a decline), and the only interior linemen we're missing is Sims (Tre' didn't play last year, or for most of his career for that matter). We've added a few guards who have started before and should be AT LEAST competent.

Bottom line: The O line should be no worse than last season.

Our WR's are MUCH improved. Westbrook's return and the addition of Gardner are big plusses. And we pretty much off-set the loss of Thrash with Lockett. Hopefully, Alexander will stay on the field more this season.

Bottom line: The WR's are significantly better than last season.

Our starting running back is the same. We seem to have a more quality back-up now though. Despite Centers' toughness, I thought his impact was overrated--Bennett should be an adequate replacement.

Bottom line: The RB's are equal or slightly better than they were last year.

The QB is more sunjective, but I couldn't stand Brad Johnson--George was clearly a better player than he was last year and I wouldn't trade him back for the world. Banks is a solid back-up.

Bottom line: The QB situation is NO WORSE than last season, and should be at least slightly better.

Defense:

The loss of Stubby may cost us slightly against the run. I'd say Kalu's loss hurts, but he never played last year and when he did, he didn't make much of an impact. The D line is a concern.

Bottom line: The D line is not quite as good as last season, but not significantly worse.

LB's should be better. Arrignton should improve and Barber is in a contract year. Derek Smith was one of the worst starters I've ever seen-- Mitchell or Jones can't be worse.

Bottom line: LB's should be better than last year.

Losing Deion may hurt a little in coverage, but the combo of Smoot and Green may make up for his loss. Champ is a year older and Greer/Harrison should be solid 4th and 5th coverage guys. Shade is average at best, but no worse than last season. I would imagine Lyle can replace Carrier and maybe one of the young guys can make a positive impact.

Bottom line: The secondary may be slightly worse or may be slighty better.

Special Teams:

So far they haven't looked good, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Conway is automatically better than anyone we had last season and Bates is a better returner.

Bottom line: It can't get worse than the Norv-LeCharles special olympic teams.

Chemistry:

Again, it can't get worse than the 2000 season.

So, if you look at it, talent-wise we're shouldn't be much worse from last years team that went 8-8, beat the Ravens, Giants, Eagles, and Rams, and lost countless games due to simple special teams miscues and coaching debacles.

So people are telling me that add this all together and we can't have a one or two win improvement on last season?

It may take awhile for Marty's team to gel, but we should be able to start 3-3 this year. After that, the team should have come together and we can make a push.

People act like we lost so much talent this off-season and that we're just in shambles. But I guarantee to you if you took this team and Marty and put them in Tampa Bay uniforms, no one would be saying a word--they'd probably be making excuses for them.

I'm all for realism-- I don't sugarcoat anything. But the days of slowly rebuilding in the NFL are over. The Saints went from terrible, to second round of the playoffs, to Super Bowl hopefuls. I see no reason we can't go to the playoffs this season.

If we go 8-8 or worse, this season is a disappointment and we need to re-evaluate where we're headed as an organization.

What I see from the fans right now is pure fear. Their scared to death that we're going to have another miserable season and they don't want to get their hopes up. Screw that! Marty isn't Norv-- let's see what he does when the real games start. Then, we can make our comments.

I'm giving Marty the first 6 games of this year to "get it together." After that, we should have won enough to stay in it and gel as a team. After that, I'll start nit-pciking.

But that doesn't mean 0-6 is acceptable. We SHOULD beat the Cowboys and Cards, that's just a given. That means we just need to win ONE agains thr Chargers, Packers, Chiefs, or Giants. That should get the media off our backs and give us a chance to move ahead.

That's all I ask for this season-- 9 wins. Hopefully, a playoff spot.

All in all, I just don't see a big differnce from the team who won in Meadowlands and at the Vet last year and this year's team. Factor in Norv being gone, and I actually see an IMPROVEMENT.

We need to channell all this negativism into an "us against the world" mentality--something Norv couldn't do. I suspect Marty knows how.

Losing is not acceptable-- none of this "well, it may take a year or two" mumbo jumbo. We have enough parts that a decent coach should be able to pile up some wins.

I am concerned about some of the things I've seen in pre-season, no doubt. But I keep reminding myslef that I don't know what the plan/motivation is right now. I don't know how full tilt we're going, or what hands we're playing.

Persoanlly, I can't wait for San Diego-- because that's when we FINALLY get to see our "new look" Washington Redskins.

[AlohaGeorge]

I'm a long-time lurker and seldom poster. However, I felt obligated to provide my endorsement to the comments by Kleese. I returned last night from a marvelous week of fishing in Alaska. Today I have been reading posts from pre-Atlanta to post-Cleveland. When you take them all in a huge dose at one time, overall they're pretty negative.

I've been a 'Skins fan since the days of Sammy Baugh, a little longer than most of you. Over the years, there has seldom been any meaningful correlation between what occurred in the preseason games and what took place when the games were for real. More often than not, the preseason had us way, way too optimistic.

I find this preseason a refreshing change of pace. Obviously, it would be better to win every preseason game by a wide margin without making any mistakes. However, that's not reality.

We have some very good players that may not be performing to expectations . . . but these games don't count. Some coaches use the preseason differently than others. I've always admired the Steelers, Cowboys, 49'ers etc. that often do poorly in the preseason but win their fair share plus once the games become meaningful.

There are a couple of weeks before we have a true reality check. Until then . . . stay loose.

[Guest F.Jackie]

Ed I like your way of thinking. It's MUCH better than the "Darth" I used to know on the old boards. I also think that the fans who are bad-mouthing the Skins after games during interviews aren't the same type of fans that corrispond on redskin boards 364 days a year. (I think I kept my computer off last Christmas). We are die-hards to say the least and won't accept that this team can't compete with any team in the league.

I agree that this team has improved in many areas but it doesn't stop me from scratching my head and wondering why we're playing so shabby against these less-than-stellar exhibition teams.. Maybe it IS just preseason and it doesn't matter. I hope it IS the lack of Bruce Smith, the OL needs to gel, Jeff George's arm will be fine etc, but it's tough to see the STARTERS get beat on by mediocre to crappy teams. We're all a bit suprised by that whether we admit it or not.

That being said I am still a die-hard fan and I am going into this season with great expectations. I'm going to the Seattle game and cheering as loud as I can for the Skins whether we're undefeated or winless. I think Marty knows what he's doing and I'm sipping his kool-aid.

I'll admit that I've been a little worried and a little bummed with the exhibition results so far this preseason but then I think to myself.. What kind of fan gives up on their team in preseason?

CTScott

[NavyDave]

Fair weather fans wih out football knowledge have a way of always getting their voice heard.

------------------

Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe

[fansince62]

come on NavyDave......in the Navy you know that the only thing that counts are results!!!!

[RF4L]

If you noticed Ed, everyone seemed to perk up last night as we climbed back into the game and were downright giddy after we took control.

I see where you are coming from though, but you gotta know that there are all types of fans out there. Some say "we suck" at the slightest provocation. Doesn't mean they don't love the Skins.

Relax man, and if you don't want to travel to DC to take in a game, that's your business.

Peace and enjoy the season.

RF4L.

[bulldog]

let's also not forget that if the Chiefs and Falcons don't turn out to be as bad as some expect this season then perhaps so many people wouldn't be obsessing over those games.

It could very well be that the Raiders fall flat on their old faces with injuries and non-career years from Gannon, Tim Brown and Charlie Garner.

What if the Chiefs go 9-7 or 10-6? What if Atlanta rebounds with Chandler and Anderson and gets back to 8-8 in the competitive NFC West?

Then all of a sudden those two losses don't look that horrifying do they?

We just don't know how good these teams are. Neither will be 14-2 but who knows where they will fall in between?

[Hersh]

Thanks for the amusing analysis of this "slightly" better team.

"If we go 8-8 or worse, this season is a disappointment and we need to re-evaluate where we're headed as an organization."

For all your realism, how can you give a new head coach only one year to make this team competitive? All the core players on this team are still young, let Marty have them a couple years before we re-evaluate the organization.

As far as your "proof is in the pudding" theory: I think we have a great head coach who has had past success, but we have a starting QB that has only won in a place where all QBs appear to have success. The proof is in the pudding.

[bulldog]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating

If Norv got 7 years and 3 roster overhauls to try and make his system work, then Marty gets more than one year when he comes in hamstrung by the salary cap situation left over from the victory celebration gone wrong last year.

The fortunes of NFL franchises rise and fall more quickly with free agency but I still don't see many first year head coaches get to the top or near it in one year.

Think of last year's final four. Fassel has been with the Giants since 1996. Green has been in Minnesota since 1992.

Billick was in his second year with Baltimore. Gruden likewise had a 8-8 tuneup season in 1999 to work in his system.

Vermeil in 1999 was in his third or fourth year with the Rams. How long has Fisher been with the Titans? Longer than 3 years.

So, I agree that expecting Marty to "stand and deliver" in just one season is BS.

If the Redskins had the balls to fire Turner in 1999 as they should have and hired a legitimate front office group at that time, perhaps 2001 could have been our season in the sun without having the cap limits we facing now and in 2002.

[kleese]

I think Marty is starting with more to work with than some of the other coaches mentioned above.

We have some young "core" players, but we also have Smith, Coleman, Big Daddy, Lang, Barber, Shade, Lyle, Mitchell, Jones, Green, Greer, Szott, Raymer, George, Banks, Westbrook, Lockett, Davis, Bennett, etc...-- players that are either on the decline or in their primes.

All in all we have a decent mix of young, old, and somewhere in between.

Yes, it is his first year, and I won't be calling for his head if we go 8-8. But if we do much worse than that, I won't accept many excuses.

I'll keep saying it-- we're competing with the Packers, Vikings, Lions, and maybe the 49ers and Bears for the last playoff spot. All of those teams have MAJOR holes--there is NO REASON we shouldn't be right there with them. And if we're not, then something is amiss.

And George has "won" in Atlanta and Minnesota. His success was moderate in Atlanta, but he did lead them to the playoffs, and he did very well in Minnesota. And I thought he played well last year too. And I'm convinced he was one of the only players that didn't quit last year.

If this is a "rebuilding" project right now, then we've got a looooooong time to wait. Because we really don't have that many young cornerstones.

I see our roster as an interesting mix of players that with proper coaching could make a major run this season. Jim Haslett did just fine in his first season after taking over what seemed like a lost cause.

I think some of you are missing my point. I completey acknowledge the fact that we could be a below average to bad team this year. What I disagree with is the theory that that would be acceptable for Marty's first year-- it's not.

[markrc99]

there's been opinions stated here that the redskins could see very favorable yields from the FA losses in the form of compensation..i have no idea how that works,but if that's the case,we could become a very young,very good & very deep team pretty quickly..

the only position i see that could keep marty from being very successful is the QB position..i definitely believe a brad johnson type would more likely excel in a marty shottenheimer approach moreso than a jeff george or tony banks..

there's been opinions expressed concerning QB & the fact that we're looking for starters(or players that will be expected to contribute) off the top of the rubbish heap at such a late date..i'm not really up on salary-cap&FA compensation related issues,but i have no delusions with respect to market value..

banks,carter & lyle are not players we've "found"..each player's personal situation is widely known,league-wide..the reality with these guys is that no one else wanted them and we had no one better..there's been good pts regarding depth,age and turnover..new philosophies & terminology..

i have little to no counter argument to the team's weaknesses..i wouldn't be surprised to see the team exposed more often than not..i just think that there's an upside of intangibles that marty brings that will outweigh the negatives and the team will do pretty well..but,i certainly can identify w/anyone that sees it differently..hail the skins

[kleese]

I can COMPLETELY understand someone being nervous about this season and the weaknesses of this team. However, what I don't understand is the panic reaction to the pre-season. Sounds to me like many were pretty optomistic three weeks ago and are now hitting the eject button on the season. Some fans even REALLY want Banks to start-- that amazes me.

All I've said from the start is don't let the pre-season dictate your feelings about Marty and the upcoming season. I think that's what bothered me the most. IMO, your feelings on this team should basically be the same way you felt two months ago. If that's the case, then I have no argument.

One more thing that really gets to me is this "a Brad Johnson type would be better for this system" stuff. What is a Brad Johnson type? A guy with a noodle arm, who makes MAJOR mental errors, and has never proven any more on the field than Jeff George has? That's what a Brad Johnson type is to me.

[Hersh]

A Brad Johnson type= someone that has a strong winning record as a QB

A Jeff George type= someone with a great arm, terrible w-l record and terrible reputation

but thats just my opinion kleese

[Monkey]

Some people just like to be as negative as possible that way they won't be too disapointed and may be pleasently suprised. Think, if you convince yourself that the team is going 6-10 (very pessemistic) and then they go 10-6, great season! If you were expecting a 13-3 season (very optimistic) and they go 10-6, awful season.

------------------

Comming October 16, a new name!

[Art]

The one thing few people seem to be mentioning about this preseason is how Marty is reacting. After the first two losses, you didn't see him holding longer practices and forcing the team to run gassers. He didn't seem frustrated or flustered, save with the technical equipment, after either loss.

After this Cleveland win, he hasn't seemed upset or happy with anything in particular. He seems VERY even keel. Marty, as we all know, is a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve. If things weren't going to plan, or to the plan he had in his mind, I'd expect him to be a little more concerned.

Guys, if you watch the tapes of the games again, you'll notice what some people have mentioned. We aren't SHOWING anything. KC adjusted to what we were doing. We didn't. Atlanta simply took advantage of repeated quarterbacking errors. In all three games, the opposition has blitzed, utilized creative formations and motion, targeted specific areas in order to get movement.

We've just lined up, blitzed one in 20 plays, and done NOTHING. I don't think Marty is going to show his hand. And, as Kleese has mentioned here, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, this team is stronger than the 1999 team, in terms of where we are in August, and this team is stronger than the 2000 team in terms of what we had to play with.

There are weak points on this team. There are weak points on EVERY team. I'd start to worry when Marty starts to worry. At this point, I'm not seeing him flustered. And, with Marty, it doesn't take much to fluster him.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[NavyDave]

Enough already.

In the Navy we are trained for upwards of a year to make sure we realise the results put in front of us. And we succeed and fail with the best of them.

You guys are blinded by the one fluke season out of 7 we had in 99 when other teams had injuries that coincided with us playing them.

This is not the Cowboys fresh off a Superbowl that Jerrah handed over to the okie to win another superbowl.

BJohnson is overrated. He threw several Ints vs the patriots and held on to the ball long enough to suffer more sacks as usual this past weekend. Smart and likeable doesn't equate to success. Right T Husak?

------------------

Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe

[redman]

Marty's first seasons with his former teams:

1984 Cleveland 5-11 (partial season, I believe he replaced the former coach in week 5 or 6, so his personal record that year was either 4-7 or 5-7)

1985 Cleveland 8-8 (first full season)

1989 Kansas City 8-7-1

Marty's second seasons with his former teams:

1986 Cleveland 12-4 (division champion)

1990 Kansas City 11-5 (second place in AFC West, wild card)

We cannot grade Marty as a coach until at least the end of this season, and likely until the end of next season. He's clearly a guy who uses his first year in as a head coach to put his system and players in place.

I've talked in positive terms about the record this year and about possibly making the playoffs. That's my honest assessment, but that's also me talking as a Redskins fan. This year, as far as my assessment of Marty is concerned, means relatively little. I'm rooting for us to do well as it's the only season we're playing right now. I don't want to watch a Redskins disaster this year either, but if Marty uses this season to build a consistently powerful football team for years to come, then who really cares what our record is this year?

------------------

"Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor