Why Are the Skins So Inconsistent?

[Oldfan]

In 2004, the defense was solid throughout the year even though it didn't create turnovers. The offense stunk in the first half, but started to come together in the second half. The special teams were inconsistent all year.

In 2005, the passing game was good in the first half, but stunk in the second half but the running game picked up some of the slack. The defense was fair in the first half, but closed strongly with lots of turnovers in the second half. The special teams were still a problem in the first half, but was a stronger unit in the second half.

In 2006, the offense was impotent in the first half, but improved in the second half mostly due to the running game. The defense had only a few decent outings all year long. The special teams were better than expected overall, especially in the second half.

I saw more positives in Saturday's loss to Pittsburgh than in any preseason game in recent memory, but it's hard to work up much enthusiasm given the up and down results of the three squads over the last three years. It seems a lot like the Redskins' coaching staff is trying to sink a pool float, they push down on one end and the other end pops up as a problem. In Saturday's game, the talent and depth of the back seven on defense had to put a smile on your face that the O line erased when they took the field.

In searching for an explanation that covers the entire three-year up and down experience, the best I can come up with is that the Skins have not had a solid core of strong, young players to anchor our offensive, defensive, and special teams units. With four or five exceptions, our better players have been aged vets on the downhill side of their careers. Even when they aren't sitting out, they're playing at less than 100% because of injuries.

[Hogisme]

Usually inconsistency is systemic changes occuring on a regular basis...we have seen that as Redskin fans over the years...Consistency is created when veterans can teach rooks, and everyone knows what to expect in any given situation due to the system being structured,consistent and enforced !

[TheLongshot]

In searching for an explanation that covers the entire three-year up and down experience, the best I can come up with is that the Skins have not had a solid core of strong, young players to anchor our offensive, defensive, and special teams units. With four or five exceptions, our better players have been aged vets on the downhill side of their careers. Even when they aren't sitting out, they're playing at less than 100% because of injuries.

Well, there is some truth to that, tho I'd also add in some additional factors:

* Bringing in Saunders: For whatever reason, Gibbs felt that the offense needed to take a couple steps back to move three forward. I think he was hoping to have a good defense hold down the fort while that happened.

* Lots of players who were expected to contribute, ended up not being the answer or leaving: There were plenty of players Gibbs was expecting to be part of the solution that didn't work out. Coles, Arrington, Pierce, Smoot, Barrow and probably more players were all thought to have big roles to play on this team, and either left or became part of the problem. Hell, if Matt Bowen doesn't get hurt in 2004, maybe we don't have the heavy rotation at Strong Safety that Williams has dealt with since he got here.

There were a lot of cases where Williams hasn't gotten the type of guy he wanted at certain positions and has had to deal with less. This year, the report is that this might be the first year that Williams will be able to do everything he wants to do with this defense. Pretty amazing since he managed to have very good defenses in his first two years.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Usually inconsistency is systemic changes occuring on a regular basis...we have seen that as Redskin fans over the years...Consistency is created when veterans can teach rooks, and everyone knows what to expect in any given situation due to the system being structured,consistent and enforced !

True, but staying with a poor system would result in a consistently poor system. Wouldn't it?

Should Gibbs have stayed with the offensive scheme he started with in 2004 in order to achieve consistency, for example?

[TheLongshot]

Should Gibbs have stayed with the offensive scheme he started with in 2004 in order to achieve consistency, for example?

For the long-term? Probably not. But, if you are looking at doing a playoff run, changing your offensive system isn't exactly something that's going to help in that pursuit.

Jason

[Oldfan]

* Bringing in Saunders: For whatever reason, Gibbs felt that the offense needed to take a couple steps back to move three forward. I think he was hoping to have a good defense hold down the fort while that happened.

I think the Saunders move explains the first half of 2006, but I was looking for an explanation for the three-year inconsistency.

* Lots of players who were expected to contribute, ended up not being the answer or leaving: There were plenty of players Gibbs was expecting to be part of the solution that didn't work out. Coles, Arrington, Pierce, Smoot, Barrow and probably more players were all thought to have big roles to play on this team, and either left or became part of the problem. Hell, if Matt Bowen doesn't get hurt in 2004, maybe we don't have the heavy rotation at Strong Safety that Williams has dealt with since he got here.

There were a lot of cases where Williams hasn't gotten the type of guy he wanted at certain positions and has had to deal with less. This year, the report is that this might be the first year that Williams will be able to do everything he wants to do with this defense. Pretty amazing since he managed to have very good defenses in his first two years.

In both of the foregoing points, you are describing problems that would not be problems if we had had a nucleus of good, young talent to build around.

[Oldfan]

For the long-term? Probably not. But, if you are looking at doing a playoff run, changing your offensive system isn't exactly something that's going to help in that pursuit.

Jason

You don't stick with something that isn't working. On the list of positives that Joe Gibbs brings to the job, that's probably his strongest trait.

[LoyalSkinsFan]

All good factors...new system/s, new players, bad players......one other item that I don't think has been mentioned yet is injuries. I'd say - at least in relation to 2006 - that injuries played as large a role in our demise as I've ever seen. That doesn't necessarily explain away the other things...nor does it explain what may have occured in previous years....but I think injuries stand mentioning nonetheless.

HTTR

[TheLongshot]

I think the Saunders move explains the first half of 2006, but I was looking for an explanation for the three-year inconsistency.

Well, the first year was a combination of Gibbs knocking off the rust and the struggles of Brunell. As for the drop in the passing game in the second year. I don't think it is a coincidence that it was timed with Patton's injury. While he wasn't very productive that year, it seems he was productive enough to be used as a decoy to get guys off of Moss. Once he went down, so did most of the passing game.

In both of the foregoing points, you are describing problems that would not be problems if we had had a nucleus of good, young talent to build around.

Well, as I've said before, Gibbs started with the cupboard half bare and didn't have a lot to build a good young nucleus. When he got here, he was already down a couple of picks, had few trading options, and the young players who were here either didn't work out (Ramsey, Jacobs) or left (Smoot, Pierce).

I think Gibbs has worked hard to build a strong, young nucleus and we are finally starting to see the fruits of that.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

You don't stick with something that isn't working. On the list of positives that Joe Gibbs brings to the job, that's probably his strongest trait.

Well, to us laymen, it sure seemed to be working, at least well enough to make a run. Obviously, tho, Gibbs felt that his system had reached a ceiling and needed someone else to push it farther.

Jason

[Oldfan]

All good factors...new system/s, new players, bad players......one other item that I don't think has been mentioned yet is injuries. I'd say - at least in relation to 2006 - that injuries played as large a role in our demise as I've ever seen. That doesn't necessarily explain away the other things...nor does it explain what may have occured in previous years....but I think injuries stand mentioning nonetheless.

HTTR

In a 16 game season, luck is a huge factor, and certainly injuries are part of that. However, we need to remember that the injury factor can be controlled to a degree by building a deep roster of young players without an injury history coming in.

[Oldfan]

Well, to us laymen, it sure seemed to be working, at least well enough to make a run. Obviously, tho, Gibbs felt that his system had reached a ceiling and needed someone else to push it farther.

Jason

My example used the year 2004. You were thinking 2005.

Lots of us laymen didn't see the 2005 system as a successful one. I thought the change was necessary.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I was watching Hard Knocks on HBO last night, and - while I don't think Herm Edwards should be a role model for any coach - the theme of the episode jumped out at me.

Basically, the episode was about the Depth Chart being the most important part of a coach's life and how the Depth Chart is always in a state of flux.

You got the sense from Edwards that every position is up for grabs in their camp. And he loves the "Old School/General/Tough Guy" stuff so much, he may actually believe it.

I certainly don't think every position should be up for grabs. But I think the Skins main problem over the last three years is that NO position seems ever up for grabs. The two obvious examples recently have been Brunell and Holdman. Because they were playing poorly yet one never had the sense that their job was at risk.

On some teams, a whispering campaign would currently be building against a player like Jansen who has looked old and slow for two games. But that simply is never going to happen here.

I think this speaks to three issues:

1. There has been so little depth on this team that lousy starters were the best option we had.

2. Since we had so little depth, any injury to any starter was ruinous to the team.

3. Since there was no competition for starting jobs, starters could be complacent.

I think the best example of #3 is the offensive line. It was easily the best unit on the team last year. However, I got the sense that they were in a minor rebellion against Saunders for half of last year. And if you ever read between the lines in a Jansen interview, you get the implication that he is morally offended by passing plays. I think what has happened over the last two years is that the line half-asses to a degree until the coaches adopt a philosophy they like. (See the last five games of each of the last two seasons). Since it is impossible to ever bench a starter on the Skins, this stuff works.

I just think that good teams have players who don't have sense of job security. Granted, no one is about to bench Brian Urlacher. But should Philip Daniel really feel as comfortable as Brian Urlacher?

[No_Pressure]

With four or five exceptions, our better players have been aged vets on the downhill side of their careers.

1st age is current, 2nd is age when they started out with the skins.

Clinton Portis- 25 (22)

Sean Taylor- 24 (21)

Marcus Washington- 29 (26)

Santana Moss- 28 (26)

Chris Cooley- 25 (22)

Casey Rabach- 29 (26)

Cornelius Griffin- 30 (27)

Antonio Pierce- 28 (22)

Derrick Dockery- 26 (21)

Fred Smoot- 28 (22)

Ladell Betts- 27 (22)

have all been better players on this team during the past 3 years.

This season we may be able to add:

Carlos Rogers- 26 (24)

LaRon Landry- 22

Rocky McIntosh- 24 (23)

Shaun Suisham- 25 (24)

Jason Campbell- 26 (23)

I would say we have had and still have a decent amount of talented younger players who are not on the downside of their career.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

1st age is current, 2nd is age when they started out with the skins.

Clinton Portis- 25 (22)

Sean Taylor- 24 (21)

Marcus Washington- 29 (26)

Santana Moss- 28 (26)

Chris Cooley- 25 (22)

Casey Rabach- 29 (26)

Cornelius Griffin- 30 (27)

Antonio Pierce- 28 (22)

Derrick Dockery- 26 (21)

Fred Smoot- 28 (22)

Ladell Betts- 27 (22)

have all been better players on this team during the past 3 years.

This season we may be able to add:

Carlos Rogers- 26 (24)

LaRon Landry- 22

Rocky McIntosh- 24 (23)

Shaun Suisham- 25 (24)

Jason Campbell- 26 (23)

I would say we have had and still have a decent amount of talented younger players who are not on the downside of their career.

Why are you listing players who aren't actually on the team? Or who are kickers.

[Chachie]

The front office situation got real shaky after the death of Jack Kent Cooke. Snyder came in but he was a rookie so the organization went awry.

Many coaching changes killed us after Joe Gibbs left.

Joe Gibbs came back in 2004 and put us on the right track in 2005. We didn't stay on it because he brought Saunders in in 2006. This killed any momentum we had on offense because everyone had to learn a new playbook. Sprinkle in injuries to Portis and all over our defense and you get disaster.

Hopefully Saunders' offense has taken shape in DC and our defense will stay healthy. I don't know if we'll ever be "consistent" again under Snyder. I think things will head south again when Gibbs retires so we better do something big now.

[Oldfan]

I think Gibbs has worked hard to build a strong, young nucleus and we are finally starting to see the fruits of that.

For his first three years here, Joe gave away draft choices in trades like they were chopped liver snacks. I think he's on the right path now.

[Oldfan]

I think the best example of #3 is the offensive line. It was easily the best unit on the team last year. However' date=' I got the sense that they were in a minor rebellion against Saunders for half of last year. And if you ever read between the lines in a Jansen interview, you get the implication that he is morally offended by passing plays. I think what has happened over the last two years is that the line half-asses to a degree until the coaches adopt a philosophy they like. (See the last five games of each of the last two seasons). Since it is impossible to ever bench a starter on the Skins, this stuff works.[/quote']

They had no choice but to run the rock in 2005 because the passing game went south after the San Francisco blowout. When teams began doubling Santana, we had no other available adjustment. With Brunell, it either was Moss or checkdown.

As for 2006, I had the same impression you did. I think Bugel and his charges weren't on board with Al's system.

[SkinsFanAnt]

We have been inconsistent because of really, one reason...his name starts with an S.

Snyder. The guy has played too much of a part in bringing in 'big names' (or trying like with Briggs) that team chemistry has been messed with to the point of us having a small draft class and a 5-11 record the year after making and winning a playoff game.

Bringing in big names is not a bad thing when its to make the push to a superbowl, but when you loose a lot of your best players (Ryan Clark and yes, Lavar) that helped you contend, you practically start all over.

In my experience, there has only been 1 team that was actually a contender after its reset button was hit, and that was last years Saints. The elite teams in the league have been building for at least 3 years while we have decided to scrap our teams after 2 years. Yeah, free agency plays a part in it but if you have good drafting and development programs, it doesn't matter. The Eagles and the Pats and Colts have proven this as they have been contenders the last 4-6 years.

[TheLongshot]

For his first three years here, Joe gave away draft choices in trades like they were chopped liver snacks. I think he's on the right path now.

Gibbs gave away nothing. Gibbs got players for those picks, and with the exception of Duckett, they are all contributors on this team.

Now, you may not like the price, but until you KNOW what the prices others were willing to pay for these players, I don't think you can claim that Gibbs gave away anything.

Jason

[Oldfan]

1st age is current, 2nd is age when they started out with the skins.

Clinton Portis- 25 (22)

Sean Taylor- 24 (21)

Marcus Washington- 29 (26)

Santana Moss- 28 (26)

Chris Cooley- 25 (22)

Casey Rabach- 29 (26)

Cornelius Griffin- 30 (27)

Antonio Pierce- 28 (22)

Derrick Dockery- 26 (21)

Fred Smoot- 28 (22)

Ladell Betts- 27 (22)

have all been better players on this team during the past 3 years.

This season we may be able to add:

Carlos Rogers- 26 (24)

LaRon Landry- 22

Rocky McIntosh- 24 (23)

Shaun Suisham- 25 (24)

Jason Campbell- 26 (23)

I would say we have had and still have a decent amount of talented younger players who are not on the downside of their career.

In order to challenge my statement, you need to take any given year and find more than four or five core players who are proven players who we can build around in the future. Chris Cooley and Sean Taylor are examples on this year's squad.

Landry, McIntosh and Campbell are players who show the potential to be core players, but haven't proven much of anything yet. You can find promising players like that every year.

We have no one on the offensive or defensive lines in that category.

Pierce, Rogers, Smoot, Betts and Dockery are useful players, but not the kind of players you build around.

[Guest sith lord]

I just laugh at the people who overrate our offense in 06. That offense was never all that good. We got hot at the right time and made the playoffs. Gibbs is an all-time great coach, but since his return, we've got a losing record. If it was anybody else, everyone on this site would be calling for his job. I have to admit, I have lost faith that he can get the job done. But I hope I'm 100% wrong.

[Oldfan]

We have been inconsistent because of really, one reason...his name starts with an S.

Snyder. The guy has played too much of a part in bringing in 'big names' (or trying like with Briggs) that team chemistry has been messed with to the point of us having a small draft class and a 5-11 record the year after making and winning a playoff game.

I think Dan Snyder can be faulted for the pre-Gibbs years, but I believe Joe when he says that he has control of the whole thing.

[Leonard Washington]

i don't think the coaches have been consistent and it has trickled down.

Offensively: 1/2 Gibbs thought he could motion and TE his way back into the playoffs with a smallish big play RB and playaction passing. Unfortunately the passer either didn't take enough risks (Brunell) or too risky (Ramsey). Despite having talent, guys like McCants, Coles, or even Portis got a chance to do what they do best. Textbook trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Along the way, the skins became one of the most predictable offenses in NFL history. The horrible use of timeouts, instant replay, and shots of Gibbs/Breaux/Bugel looking confused/terrified on the sidelines was a little embarrassing.

Gibbs was smart enough to realize he needed help. Bringing in Saunders probably the best thing Gibbs done, next to recruiting GW. Last year Gibbs really didn't buy into Saunders' system and it showed. There were brilliant calls followed by predictable ones, redzone over-rulings, short yardage miscues. We can only imagine the "discussions" among the staff and players. No scheme is going to work unless the players believe it would. Gibbs realized that he can't filter the calls if he wants the team to win. This year Saunders is given control to transform this team into the Rams and Chiefs offensively. We have the talent, we just need the execution and commitment.

Defensively: GW came into town with a lot to prove. He maximized personnel, he took shots and adapted to the consequences. The NFC had no idea what hit them! Unfortunately I think he and his staff started feeling themselves too much. They handled the Pierce, Arrington, Archuleta, and almost Springs situations terribly. Who knows why Holdman played so long.

It seems this year, after a little housecleaning, that the staff is back on track. GW is definitely back to old tactics. They are letting people get to the qb using talent, instead of just sending random bodies.

Conclusion: Gibbs figured out he has lost his knack for offense and needed a fresher and more relevant perspective. Then he figured out he needed to let that man work, like he did with GW.

GW figured out he needed to stop thinking his scheme made players and realize that players make the scheme.

[Oldfan]

Gibbs gave away nothing. Gibbs got players for those picks, and with the exception of Duckett, they are all contributors on this team.

Now, you may not like the price, but until you KNOW what the prices others were willing to pay for these players, I don't think you can claim that Gibbs gave away anything.

Jason

What difference does it make what others were willing to pay? It's obvious that we were willing to outbid anyone for the guy we wanted. In the process we gave up the potential to draft young players for the services of vets who could help us in the short term.

It was a strategy that didn't work. That's why we're not doing it anymore.

You can't reasonably argue that it was a good policy that needed to be changed. So, pick your poison.