dfos81 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Arguing the relative and comparative youths of offenses and defenses is useless unless any of the units average age is over 30. With Free Agency working the way it does today, keeping an entire unit together for 10 years, much less 4-5 is damn near impossible. In my opinion, its going to be the Coaches that prove who's more set now and right now the Skins have 1 of the best staffs in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Okay. But I think the overall theme on this board from the Skins fans is that Washington is prepared for the future whereas Dallas is not.I'm just saying that I don't see Washington as being more set for the future than Dallas and looked at the age of both rosters to back up my point. So whether it was Rome saying this, I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of Skins fans agree with him. Rich......... you are assuming that your young players can get it done. they haven't. at least not yet. so having a bunch of young guys is kind of irrelevant until they actually do something like make it to the playoffs. how many of those players were around for 2003 when you embarassed yourselves against Carolina? there's also the question of who is going to take over for parcells and stand up to Jerry. the skins at least appear to have a guy in place who has head coaching experience, first hand familiarity with the roster (both offense and defense), and is very much in demand around the league. Dallas has...um...gimmee a sec....Mike Zimmer? :doh: IF we're just going to go by ages then I guess Arizona and San Fran are as well set as anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I'm not sure but doesn't a team consist of a defense & offense.... and a coach but hey just ignore it.....your set :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Now everyone notice how the replies are "but hey just ignore it.....your set" and "He thinks b/c of a young D, that Dallas is more " Set ", then us, as Skins." Yet nobody said the Cowboys are set or even more set than the Skins. These replies were made up from something that wasnt said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNoles21 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 I dont see how you can look at our d and think of it as old. Carter, Marshall, McIntosh, Rogers, Taylor, Archuleta, Griffin and Kenny Wright all have plenty of years left in them and will be around for a while. Just because your defense is younger doesnt mean they are more set for the future. Our whole team is under contract and the majority of the players are in their mid 20's. THe backbone of our team is young talent, whereas the backbone of the Cowboys is The 1996 Super Bowl tandem of Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn...and a 32 year old ticking time bomb at wide receiver who has never done much against the skins anways. Gibbs is setting this team up for the future, he said he is slowly trying to work his way out of a job...meaning he gets the organization running exactly how he wants it and so that it will continue to be run a certain way even after he is gone. Parcells does not care about the Cowboys and will retire whenever he wants out. Leaving the team with a future is not something he is interested in, he only wants to win now. So like the topic of this thread....the Cowboys better win the Super Bowl this year or they are in a world of hurt. The Cowboys won't be winning the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEHEREAFTER Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 how many of those players were around for 2003 when you embarassed yourselves against Carolina? No embarassment there DD.... their place and they went on to represent the NFC in the SB giving N.E. a dogfight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I dont see how you can look at our d and think of it as old. Carter, Marshall, McIntosh, Rogers, Taylor, Archuleta, Griffin and Kenny Wright all have plenty of years left in them and will be around for a while. Just because your defense is younger doesnt mean they are more set for the future. Our whole team is under contract and the majority of the players are in their mid 20's. THe backbone of our team is young talent, whereas the backbone of the Cowboys is The 1996 Super Bowl tandem of Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn...and a 32 year old ticking time bomb at wide receiver who has never done much against the skins anways. Gibbs is setting this team up for the future, he said he is slowly trying to work his way out of a job...meaning he gets the organization running exactly how he wants it and so that it will continue to be run a certain way even after he is gone. Parcells does not care about the Cowboys and will retire whenever he wants out. Leaving the team with a future is not something he is interested in, he only wants to win now. So like the topic of this thread....the Cowboys better win the Super Bowl this year or they are in a world of hurt. The Cowboys won't be winning the Super Bowl. :applause: Age ain't nothing but a number and don't count on the young talented Dallas D to show anything more then there age. :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I dont see how you can look at our d and think of it as old. Carter, Marshall, McIntosh, Rogers, Taylor, Archuleta, Griffin and Kenny Wright all have plenty of years left in them and will be around for a while. Just because your defense is younger doesnt mean they are more set for the future. Our whole team is under contract and the majority of the players are in their mid 20's. THe backbone of our team is young talent, whereas the backbone of the Cowboys is The 1996 Super Bowl tandem of Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn...and a 32 year old ticking time bomb at wide receiver who has never done much against the skins anways. Gibbs is setting this team up for the future, he said he is slowly trying to work his way out of a job...meaning he gets the organization running exactly how he wants it and so that it will continue to be run a certain way even after he is gone. Parcells does not care about the Cowboys and will retire whenever he wants out. Leaving the team with a future is not something he is interested in, he only wants to win now. So like the topic of this thread....the Cowboys better win the Super Bowl this year or they are in a world of hurt. The Cowboys won't be winning the Super Bowl. Sorry for quoting the whole thing mods, but this is just an excellent post. Superb. :applause: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :applause: The masses are cheering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal_Cowboy Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Jim Rome Rome is a b*tch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdlives Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Jim Rome Rome is a b*tch How incredibly articulate you've become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 take a look at the redskins contract page we have like everyone good locked up until atleast 2008 and many much longer. We are solid in amost every area with youth and ability, even at qb we have a young first rounder with a year of backup experience under his belt. We ARE built for the future and so might be dallas but not like us:silly: :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKeyBlue Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Who saw Rome a minute or two ago (4:35pm eastern) discuss TO and his new team the Boys. While it has been discussed over and over in the media, Rome always has an interesting take. He said..."never has a team needed to win a Super Bowl in a one year window, quite like the Cowboys" He said this because he feels that TO will be a model citizen for one year in Dallas like he was in Philly. Eventually, though, he will lose his cool for something and all bets are off. Not only do the Cowboys only have a short amount of time with TO, but Bledsoe is old old old and they have no one special waiting in the wings to take over. The Cowboys won't win the Super Bowl, and the Redskins franchise will start to pull away. Parcells, TO, Bledsoe...all gone within the next 2-3years...probably less. Skins are built for now and for the future. Gibbs, Brunell, Bugle, and half your o line are gone in 2-3 years also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Gibbs, Brunell, Bugle, and half your o line are gone in 2-3 years also. Hey, if we get a few rings in the meantime, I'm ok with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Gibbs, Brunell, Bugle, and half your o line are gone in 2-3 years also. I don't know if we have a 30 year old player on the line? Jansen maybe? It wouldn't surprise me if we had the exact same starters 2-3 years from now. So I'm not sure where ya get off. Also, what is half of 5 anyway? I know you guys play your 2 centers half the time since neither is good enough to play all the time. Is that what you mean? Cuz we got a full time center here in Redskinland. Or maybe you mean Rob Petitti who plays like half a player while Jon Jansen plays with 2 broken thumbs and makes 2nd team All-Pro? Question is, what's your starting 5 gonna look like this season? Let alone 2-3 years from now after Mike Zimmer is shown the door for being a failure as head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgamesh Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Question is, what's your starting 5 gonna look like this season? Let alone 2-3 years from now after Mike Zimmer is shown the door for being a failure as head coach. Zimmer won't get the chance unless Butch Davis turns down the job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerANDgut Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I think the Redskins coaching stability has them in better shape for the future. Williams and Saunders are here for 3 years, maybe more. We keeping hearing rumors about the tuna packing it in and retiring almost every year. What happens when a new coach comes in and wants to dismantle your D into what he wants, with his players? Many coaches bring in older vets in new situations b/c they are comfortable with them. Always a possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Ok so let's take in effect the ages of the skins and boys O and D. Skins have a younger offense, cowboys have a younger defense. One thing the Cowboys don't have and haven't addressed like they should have for several years now is the QB of the future. Let's face it, Bledsoe isn't getting any younger, and neither is Brunell for that matter. Difference is we have Campbell where as the Cowboys have...Tony Romo sits to pee?? The Boys better plan on drafting a QB soon, Bledsoe doesn't have much left in the tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Ok so let's take in effect the ages of the skins and boys O and D. Skins have a younger offense, cowboys have a younger defense. One thing the Cowboys don't have and haven't addressed like they should have for several years now is the QB of the future. Let's face it, Bledsoe isn't getting any younger, and neither is Brunell for that matter. Difference is we have Campbell where as the Cowboys have...Tony Romo sits to pee?? The Boys better plan on drafting a QB soon, Bledsoe doesn't have much left in the tank though Bledsoe is 1 and a half younger than Brunell, they both come out the same year, Brunell sat on the bench for two years in Green Bay before becoming a starter is JAX. Bledsoe has been a starter since he was a rookie, so he has two more years of pounding on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrowhead Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 I dont see how you can look at our d and think of it as old. Carter, Marshall, McIntosh, Rogers, Taylor, Archuleta, Griffin and Kenny Wright all have plenty of years left in them and will be around for a while. Just because your defense is younger doesnt mean they are more set for the future. Our whole team is under contract and the majority of the players are in their mid 20's. THe backbone of our team is young talent, whereas the backbone of the Cowboys is The 1996 Super Bowl tandem of Drew Bledsoe and Terry Glenn...and a 32 year old ticking time bomb at wide receiver who has never done much against the skins anways. Gibbs is setting this team up for the future, he said he is slowly trying to work his way out of a job...meaning he gets the organization running exactly how he wants it and so that it will continue to be run a certain way even after he is gone. Parcells does not care about the Cowboys and will retire whenever he wants out. Leaving the team with a future is not something he is interested in, he only wants to win now. So like the topic of this thread....the Cowboys better win the Super Bowl this year or they are in a world of hurt. The Cowboys won't be winning the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 The begining of the end. TO is a timebomb. Glenn is super old. Bledsoe is super old. Parcells has been largely unsuccesful, how much longer will he stick around? And at all these positions, there is no young talent to take their spots(not just a young body, a young budding star. Creighton is NOT that). The skins on the other hand have an aging Brunell, with Campbell ready to replace him. Weve got young stars in Moss, Lloyd, Portis, and Cooley. Thats all your skill positions right there. Campbell, Moss, lloyd, Portis, Cooley, 3-4 years from now. On defense, yeah we have some older players, but once again, we have people to replace any stars that are old. Rogers and Taylor in the secondary. None of our LBers are all that old, so years from now we will still see Washington, Marshall, and probobly McIntosh. On the DLine, we have many young guys who have had to step up after injuries, and played very well, while adding young talent like Carter. Yes, we have old stars as well as the cowboys. But 3 years from now, when those players are retired(players KEY to their success), the Cowboys, outside of FA, will have nobody to replace them, while we already have that young talent to replace them. Im not just talking young bodies, because the Cowboys have a lot of young bodies, but actual legitimate, playmaking talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Jim Rome is a complete idiot. He knows absolutely nothing about fotball. Nothing. NFL + Jim Rome = Jim Everett giving him what he deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeownU Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 NFL + Jim Rome = Jim Everett giving him what he deserved. That was the greatest interview I've ever seen. I"ve been an Everett fan ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 you are assuming that your young players can get it done. they haven't. at least not yet. so having a bunch of young guys is kind of irrelevant until they actually do something like make it to the playoffs. how many of those players were around for 2003 when you embarassed yourselves against Carolina?there's also the question of who is going to take over for parcells and stand up to Jerry. the skins at least appear to have a guy in place who has head coaching experience, first hand familiarity with the roster (both offense and defense), and is very much in demand around the league. Dallas has...um...gimmee a sec....Mike Zimmer? :doh: IF we're just going to go by ages then I guess Arizona and San Fran are as well set as anyone. The young players on Dallas have been getting it done. They ranked one spot behind your defense despite the "great coaching". I expect them to surpass the skins squad this year. Also you can fault zimmer all you want but he did have the #1 rated defense in 03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfos81 Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 The young players on Dallas have been getting it done. They ranked one spot behind your defense despite the "great coaching". I expect them to surpass the skins squad this year. Also you can fault zimmer all you want but he did have the #1 rated defense in 03. I've heard this song, just last year, and what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 The young players on Dallas have been getting it done. They ranked one spot behind your defense despite the "great coaching". I expect them to surpass the skins squad this year. Also you can fault zimmer all you want but he did have the #1 rated defense in 03. Ah, the things that help Dallas fans sleep at night - the yardage rankings. Know who was the only team to rank in the top 10 in both offense and defense according to the rankings??? Not Dallas or Washington. Not Pittsburgh or Denver or Carolina. The 6-10 Arizona Cardinals. Perhaps some day the NFL will find a more relevant way to "rank" offense and defense. Points seems to be a good place to start since that's how games are won. :doh: Plus you might want to consider how the two defenses played down the stretch when the money was on the line. One showed up each and every week- the other was inconsistent. Zimmer's "#1 rated" defense took advantage of a joke of schedule that year. Even still their success was a fluke as evidenced by what happened in 2004. Had 2004 been considered the fluke, then you wouldn't have changed philosophies now would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.