Who do you hold responsible?

[JMS]

( The Skins 4 game winning streak was a fluke ). A ridiculously stupid comment. The Vikings were "dialing it in" with their playoff destiny very much on the line? When we played the Bears, it was the same. The Giants had not clinched when we played them, and given how they played the Pats with NOTHING to play for, this makes your position even more ludicrous. The Cowboys are the only potential proof, and 1/4 isn't going to give you the evidence you need to prove the streak a fluke. Let's be intellectually honest here.

Fact is the Vikings evaporated at the end of the season. They had a five game winning streak and then stepped on their own cranks late in the season. They lost to us and they lost to 7-9 Denver to finish their season.

Chicogo likewise had a 7 and 9 season. The skins should beat those teams. It should be expected.

It's hard to say their a good team cause they defeated some poor and mediocre teams.

Clearly Dallas didn't show up. I hate Dallas and I really loved that game. But clearly if Seattle could smoke us like a cheap cigar, something else was going on during the Dallas game.

What is "bad" and what is "good?" People use words like this as if they are absolutes. I can tell you, the one team that is absolutely proven as good this year is the Patriots; their record says that they are undeniably good. Beyond that, it's all perspective and how you relate to others. So, how do the Redskins fare? Top 6 in the conference I guess? Not mediocre, sorry. Leading in the fourth quarter of this mistake, and lost a close one despite the final score (the final score of games can be misleading; this one falls in that category).

A good team is a team beats bad and medocre teams. The skins aren't good. The Pat's aren't good either. The Pat's are a great team. They dominated the skins more than any team in my lifetime. It was an embarresment.

We aren't a good team. We are mediocre. We were bad under the Ball Coach. So we have improved.

[GSF]

So who do we hold responsible.

The hard facts are the skins never scared anybody. We lost and were dominated by a mediocre Seattle team who defeated one winning franchise all season. We're closer to bad, than we are too good.

We don't hold anybody responsible, we're fans. There's no point in blaming certain players. They got outplayed by a Seattle team that is much better then "mediocre". They were extremely fired up and played very well, and we don't match up against them well with our injuries in the secondary.

The Skins were flat and the concentration level was visibly low, sepecially on offense, but I completely disagree with your point here that they are closer to bad then good. It's hard for me to be too critical of them for the Seattle game considering what they've been through this week, and then having to travel all the way out to Seattle on a short week. Think about it. Hell, I'm exhausted just from watching this team.

[SkinsNumberOne]

I am posting this separately, because while I think the first post's question is valid, the content wasn't. Responded to the content in my other post, and leaving this one to the question.

Who is responsible? Let's break it down a bit.

What unit is responsible? We actually outgained them (319-304). They scored 35 points. That sounds like our defense failed us. That's if you looked at numbers without context though. The reality is, that our offense not only put up just 14 points, but they also let their defense score 14 points. I wonder how many teams win when that happens, but I'd guess in the playoffs it's not too many teams. That also means that the defense let up 21 points (2 FGs and 2 TDs, not 3 TDs, which I consider significant). No significant ST blunders in this game, based on how it went. That missed FG left us in the lead still, and we did have some bad penalties on good returns, but generally insignifcant mistakes.

The defense let up one big drive at one point, after the missed FG, but at the end of the day there was ample opportunity for us to get back. Two pick-6s took any responsibility off of them.

The unit to blame is the Redskins O.

Who is to blame? Let's look at what happened. One pick would be Todd Collins. His accuracy was on, but he either got flustered or he thought he needed to move the ball fast (although it was only 1TD down with over 5 minutes left). That was costly. If you think that play was the decider, Santana would be another choice for obvious reasons. Maybe the O-Line, who didn't win the battle in the trenches and left Todd Collins in a bad position, and maybe just as critically, required a lot of help leaving us out of our spread out packaged (less 3+ WR sets).

For the first time we saw Todd try to bring us back. He wasn't terrible, but it needed work. He started forcing the ball, which is what you maybe need to do really late in the game, but not 5+ minutes left and down by 1 TD.

Another goat: Mike Sellers. I think he wanted to prove something since his ProBowl snub, and he didn't do well yesterday. I love him just like we all do, for his physicality and toughness, but honestly, he made some critical mistakes. Taking a timeout at the point he forced us to, in a short-field situation with momentum crushing them, was horrible. It doesn't mean, "oh now we lost" - clearly we still could have won, but it was a really bad time for that. He also got a very bad block in the back penalty that negated a good amount of a great runback. Bad mental mistakes by Sellers and Santana... costly.

Portis? I don't think he merits consideration in this discussion. He didn't stand out, yes, but I don't think anything he had a significant impact one way or another in this game.

That's my breakdown of responsibility. Hard, tough game.

[4skins23]

I hold Gibbs responsible. He's the coach. POOOOR game planning! Along with No offensive line showing up a couple dropped passes and a QB that seemed like he was pouting on the field because he was getting sacked. Basically a complete melt-down.

[CandaceM23]

I hold JMS responsible.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Fact is the Vikings evaporated at the end of the season. They had a five game winning streak and then stepped on their own cranks late in the season. They lost to us and they lost to 7-9 Denver to finish their season.

Chicogo likewise had a 7 and 9 season. The skins should beat those teams. It should be expected.

I think they had a six game winning streak. Blowing up late in the season is not losing two. They got crushed by us, and then lost in OT to Denver I think. Also, I think it's hard to go from frontrunner and then win your last game depending on another team. Mentally, that's rough. No, the Vikings didn't implode. We took them out. I mean, to be honest, this is just kind of a stupid thing to say, that we didn't beat the Vikings and they beat themselves. You'll have to defend your harder-to-prove assertion a little better than saying "they lost after us, they imploded and beat themselves."

As for Chicago, they are 7-and-9, but were playing for the playoffs at that point, and we had a funeral 2 days previous and were working off a short week (it was a Thursday game). Winning four in a row is never easy in the NFL and is rarely a fluke in December (crunch time for a lot of teams). We played teams fighting for their playoff survival/position in 3 out of 4 of those games and beat them.

It's hard to say their a good team cause they defeated some poor and mediocre teams.

Clearly Dallas didn't show up. I hate Dallas and I really loved that game. But clearly if Seattle could smoke us like a cheap cigar, something else was going on during the Dallas game.

Dallas didn't show up in the second game. Like I said before, you have 1 game out of 4, but you asserted the four game streak was a fluke because other teams weren't givins us their best. As for Dallas, what about the first game with them, that we lost by less than a TD?

A good team is a team beats bad and medocre teams. The skins aren't good. The Pat's aren't good either. The Pat's are a great team. They dominated the skins more than any team in my lifetime. It was an embarresment.

We aren't a good team. We are mediocre. We were bad under the Ball Coach. So we have improved.

Mediocre, to you, is top 6 in the NFC, a playoff team? A playoff team in the toughest division in the NFC, sporting 3 postseason teams? A playoff team despite ridiculous tragedy and injury? I don't know why I should have to state this, but let me ask you - how many playoff teams had a backup QB slated to start in the playoffs, and had that backup close out the season for them? There are other ridiculous injuries/losses as well, but that one should be easy enough.

Just so you know, I'm not trying to say we're "good" (although again I think these words aren't very precise, because they don't show relativity or perspective). I think we are a team that from week to week can beat any team in the league, but we ran out of gas in the postseason. Many would have said the 2007 team was better than the 2005 team, because our D was playing well and our O looked more productive. I think there's plenty to be excited for next year, even as we didn't get as far as in 2005. I think we're above mediocre. I'd label us as "pretty good" with a lot of hope for the future. I think every playoff team is "prety good" - they have to be to make the playoffs (psst, that's kind of the whole point).

[JMS]

I think you're missing the bigger picture - the play of the O-line. Losing one of our best lineman to start the season, and the other injuries we've experienced there, plus putting a new starting QB in there. Moss has had a sub-par year, and thats probably putting it mildly, but I think a lot of that is tied to our O-line situation.

If you want to look for excuses then you will find them. Certainly loosing Janson, Thomas, and Derick Dockery was a blow to the entire offense. Especially Thomas and Dockery. But you pay your stars to play. The first year here we had a QB who couldn't throw the ball more than 10 yards downfield, and moss still had more yards per reception than he did this year.

Also it's not like Moss isn't getting open, and isn't getting the ball thrown at him. It's that even when the ball hits him in the hands he's more often likely to wiff it than catch it. Also he fumbles and now he's giving up on playes in the biggest game of the season.

Ditto Clinton Portis - the holes haven't been there this season like they have previous years. And truthfully, I think both Portis and Moss have played through injuries all year long. None of that is unique to our team, those are things all NFL clubs work through. But I think it gives some perspective to why both Moss and Portis could have turn around and have Pro Bowl seasons next year, if we return to the kind of O-line play we've had previously, and if JC continues to develop and learns to get rid of the ball earlier.

Yes Portis and Moss both had injuries this year. Moss had a hurt hand. I guess that could be an excuse too. He was suposedly healthy going into the Seattle game though so what excuse are we going to make up for them in that game.

You might think one game doesn't define a guy in this league, and you'd be wrong. Guys careers in this league end all the time based on their last game.

Ernest Byner career in Clevelend ended after one Denver playoff loss... ok ok bad example...

Still you make strong points.. I'm probable just being overly depressed. Maybe I'll start drinking scotch rather than posting..

[bulldog]

the Redskins simply expended too much energy winning 4 in a row to get to the playoffs. the first half was about the worst 30 minutes of dominance the Redskins suffered through this season save the game in NE.

Seattle was a step quicker and looked as if they were coming off a bye week.

So, no one was to blame unless you expect a team with this level of talent to win out and beat NE or Indy for the Super Bowl. Well, this isn't the movies but real life

I figured the Redskins to be a 10-6 caliber team at the start of the season but that was WITH Thomas, Jansen, Rogers, McIntosh and Sean Taylor playing for us.

WITHOUT those players I would have told you this team would have trouble winning 5 or 6 games.

[freetimmysmith]

Quit crying in your beer wondering who lost this game. Every team in the playoffs but one will end their season with a loss. 20 teams didn't get this far. No team made the post season after suffering the unimaginable losses that we had this year. Sometimes heart can't make up all the shortcomings all the time. Just like everyone else here, I thought after we recovered the kickoff deep in Seattle territory late in the game, that we were headed for Dallas. Not to be. Stop looking backwards and start looking forwards. The push for 2008 starts now.

[GSF]

Quit crying in your beer wondering who lost this game. Every team in the playoffs but one will end their season with a loss. 20 teams didn't get this far. No team made the post season after suffering the unimaginable losses that we had this year. Sometimes heart can't make up all the shortcomings all the time. Just like everyone else here, I thought after we recovered the kickoff deep in Seattle territory late in the game, that we were headed for Dallas. Not to be. Stop looking backwards and start looking forwards. The push for 2008 starts now.

Great post!! I agree!

[JMS]

I think they had a six game winning streak. Blowing up late in the season is not losing two. They got crushed by us, and then lost in OT to Denver I think. Also, I think it's hard to go from frontrunner and then win your last game depending on another team. Mentally, that's rough. No, the Vikings didn't implode. We took them out. I mean, to be honest, this is just kind of a stupid thing to say, that we didn't beat the Vikings and they beat themselves. You'll have to defend your harder-to-prove assertion a little better than saying "they lost after us, they imploded and beat themselves."

No the Vikes streak was only five wins in a row. They defeated a pretty lack luster crowd too. Oakland, Giants, Detroit, San Fran, and Chicogo. Giants have been up and down all year. Like the skins.

I'm not saying the Vikes beat themselves. I'm saying the Skins victory over the Vikes wasn't a victory over a good team. The Vikes were a lot like the Skins. A bad middle of the road team, only the Vikes defeated most of the poor teams they played against.

As for Chicago, they are 7-and-9, but were playing for the playoffs at that point, and we had a funeral 2 days previous and were working off a short week (it was a Thursday game). Winning four in a row is never easy in the NFL and is rarely a fluke in December (crunch time for a lot of teams). We played teams fighting for their playoff survival/position in 3 out of 4 of those games and beat them.

Beating a 7-9 team shouldn't be something you brag about. If you are a good team it should be a given.

Dallas didn't show up in the second game. Like I said before, you have 1 game out of 4, but you asserted the four game streak was a fluke because other teams weren't givins us their best. As for Dallas, what about the first game with them, that we lost by less than a TD?

We lost the first game against Dallas. Only loosers take solice and hidden messages out of loses. And that's what the Skins were this season.

[quiote]

Mediocre, to you, is top 6 in the NFC, a playoff team? A playoff team in the toughest division in the NFC, sporting 3 postseason teams? A playoff team despite ridiculous tragedy and injury? I don't know why I should have to state this, but let me ask you - how many playoff teams had a backup QB slated to start in the playoffs, and had that backup close out the season for them? There are other ridiculous injuries/losses as well, but that one should be easy enough.

You only get to take credit for adversity when you overcome it. We didn't overcome adversity this year. And as for the NFC east being the toughest division in football. That might have been true back in the 1980's. But we just got spanked by a team in the NFC west which only beat one team all season with a winning record. They aren't a great team. They're good. Their consistant. Their professional. Those adjetives don't discribe the skins this year.

Just so you know, I'm not trying to say we're "good" (although again I think these words aren't very precise, because they don't show relativity or perspective). I think we are a team that from week to week can beat any team in the league, but we ran out of gas in the postseason. Many would have said the 2007 team was better than the 2005 team, because our D was playing well and our O looked more productive. I think there's plenty to be excited for next year, even as we didn't get as far as in 2005. I think we're above mediocre. I'd label us as "pretty good" with a lot of hope for the future. I think every playoff team is "prety good" - they have to be to make the playoffs (psst, that's kind of the whole point).

We were better than the 2006 team certainly. Our offense was better than the 05 team. We still weren't very good.

[JMS]

They got outplayed by a Seattle team that is much better then "mediocre"..

? That Seattle team beat only one team with a winning record all season.. They aren't much better than mediocre, we just made them look much better than they were...

So basically Seattle beat one competent team all year. Mediocre is kind.

The Skins were flat and the concentration level was visibly low, sepecially on offense, but I completely disagree with your point here that they are closer to bad then good. It's hard for me to be too critical of them for the Seattle game considering what they've been through this week, and then having to travel all the way out to Seattle on a short week. Think about it. Hell, I'm exhausted just from watching this team.

The Skin's offense was "flat" for the majority of the season, hell for the majority of the last three seasons. When do you just say, the offense isn't playing poorly. They just are not very good. The stars aren't under performing, The stars are just over rated.

I frankly don't know how a team can show up to a playoff game "flat". It's the biggest game of the season... That's a game which defines them. It's not a game I can excuse.

We are not a good team. We're not aven a top flight mediocre team. We are relitively veteran team which is very average.

[JimmyConway]

The Seahawks. The better team won and that's the way it's supposed to be.

:helmet:

I wouldn't go that far. They were the better team yesterday because of the way WE were playing. As much the Packers have been overachieving I don't see the Seahawks going to Lambeau and winning.

[SkinsNumberOne]

JMS -

It looks like the big problem here is how you describe good. I just think that you are not understanding how bad the NFC is. Are we "good" compared to the rest of the NFC? We made the playoffs. That puts us at, by the accepted NFL definition, top 6 in the conference. Is that good to you? Apparently it's mediocre, tending towards bad.

Let's just end the debate there, because this debate is not really that sensible. There isn't a playoff team in the league that should be described as "mediocre, tending towards bad" - and that goes for when NYG got shutout by the Panthers in 2005. To make the playoffs, you went through a 16-game season and came out as top-6 in the conference.

To lose in the playoffs, you lost one game to another playoff team.

The NFC East will have two teams playing each other in the divisional round of the playoffs, guaranteeing an NFC East representative in the Championship. If the seedings were slightly different, there might have been a chance for 2 NFC East teams to be playing each other in the Championship. To say the NFC East wasn't the toughest division in the league with 3/4 in the playoffs and 2 playing each other in the divisional round... and with the worst record in the division being 8-8 (you might want to take a look at the conference's final records)... sorry, but again, it's just a position which you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Chump Bailey]

Nice to see you in the stadium JMS...

I wrote the team and staff off after the Bills game, so I never would have imagined we'd even sniff the post season. Overall I'm okay with the situation because of that reason alone. We'll see what happens in March and April with FA and the draft.

I'm fairly optimistic we'll be contenders again next season if JC can make some decent strides and we address both lines in a serious manner. We must have a very good draft also with very little margin for error. I also want Todd to prod JC along with some healthy competition.

[SkinsNumberOne]

? That Seattle team beat only one team with a winning record all season.. They aren't much better than mediocre, we just made them look much better than they were...

So basically Seattle beat one competent team all year. Mediocre is kind.

So, look at the NFC and rate the teams on your scale. I think you'll change your ratings accordingly and admit you were wrong, or if you're stubborn you'll disagree with the playoff seedings and who got into the playoffs. I think you're losing perspective.

If you're dealing with a "mediocre conference" and you're a playoff team, it at least makes you "mediocre tending towards good." Your position seems indefensible, because the Skins made the playoffs. It would have been ok for the Vikings.

[JMS]

Portis? I don't think he merits consideration in this discussion. He didn't stand out, yes, but I don't think anything he had a significant impact one way or another in this game.

That's my breakdown of responsibility. Hard, tough game.

Portis ran for 52 yards on 20 caries with a long of 13 yards. Those are very pedestrian numbers for a guy who's spoken of as one of the premiers backs in the league. He basically ran up to the line of scrimage and fell down 15 times and was average 5 other times.

[laurent]

I hold the offense responsible for the most part since they're the ones that came up short in crucial situations during the playoff game and weren't able to produce in the middle stretch of the season.

To me the Eagles and Bills game were key.

Rebuilding the line is crucial. We need an upgrade at RT, a LG to groom for Kendall's spot and see if we can find an eventual successor to our ironman Chris Samuels.

Our struggles on offense started and ended with our offensive lines struggle. That's the first priority, everything else is secondary.

[JMS]

So, look at the NFC and rate the teams on your scale. I think you'll change your ratings accordingly and admit you were wrong, or if you're stubborn you'll disagree with the playoff seedings and who got into the playoffs. I think you're losing perspective.

If you're dealing with a "mediocre conference" and you're a playoff team, it at least makes you "mediocre tending towards good." Your position seems indefensible, because the Skins made the playoffs. It would have been ok for the Vikings.

? your all over the map here. The Seattle Seahawks aren't a good team. Good teams beat more than one winning team all season. The one winning team Seattle defeated this year was in week 1 against the Bucs.

I don't know how anybody could consider them a good team. One thing they did significantly better than the Skins over the entire season was to win against bad teams. Seattle consistantly defeated poor teams. The Redskins didn't.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Portis ran for 52 yards on 20 caries with a long of 13 yards. Those are very pedestrian numbers for a guy who's spoken of as one of the premiers backs in the league. He basically ran up to the line of scrimage and fell down 15 times and was average 5 other times.

Well, what are we asking here? If we're asking, who do we hold responsible for this loss, the only way to come up with any meaningful answer is to break it down. Otherwise, you've got to just say team, because there are always going to be things certain players may or may not have been able to do (although with Portis, I'd say again, he was unremarkable in both ways; no fumbles, but not a lot of production, but also poor blocking).

Here is the sequence of plays that lost the game - a ~7 minute sequence in the 4th quarter where we lose our short-held lead, following a failure to convert a great opportunity to expand on it. I don't see Portis as a standout either way here. I think, we failed to punch it in with the great opportunity, and we threw a bad INT on first down when we were down by a TD with more than 5 minutes on the clock. That's where the game was lost to me. And Portis doesn't figure significantly on those plays, in my opinion.

- just noticed poor formatting of pasted content... here's the link and the time sequence I refer to.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29516&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=POST18&override=true

12:38 (Skins recover kick) - 5:56 (INT touchdown on Collins-Moss).

[zCommander]

I take the full blame on this one. If I had beaten my son (I was playing the Hawks and he was the Skins) in Madden NFL 2007 the night before then we would have won. For the past 4 games it had worked. Damn me for not trying harder to win and letting my kid win!:doh:

[SkinsNumberOne]

? your all over the map here. The Seattle Seahawks aren't a good team. Good teams beat more than one winning team all season. The one winning team Seattle defeated this year was in week 1 against the Bucs.

I don't know how anybody could consider them a good team. One thing they did significantly better than the Skins over the entire season was to win against bad teams. Seattle consistantly defeated poor teams. The Redskins didn't.

Dude, in the quoted post, I'm not all over the map at all. Your definition of good is vague at best, it's a ridiculous moving target. I'm asking you to define what you mean by "good" and "mediocre" and again.... pointing out that you are saying "less than mediocre teams make the playoffs" (making a pretty easy connection with your "mediocre tending towards bad" to mean "less than mediocre" however slight). Again, I have to contend your assertion is ridiculous. If you could assert that, it would have come out with the Seahawks losing, *because* they played an easier schedule. Not playing good teams doesn't make you bad, it means you had an easy schedule. Do you understand the difference? It means you're unproven. Everyone pointed it out to them this past week, so they came out and intended to PROVE that they belonged, which they did.

Same thing happened to Virginia Tech against Kansas. Everyone said Kansas didn't belong, and VT got dominated. There's nothing like good motivation in a big game (VT/Kansas was a BCS game, our game was an NFL playoff game; both games are for teams that have already proven themselves to be "better than mediocre" - because mediocre is a concept that is defined by how teams perform in the NFL, not how teams perform in relation to JMS's arbitrary rules).

[Redskins4ever]

Sushium could be responsible. I mean, I know the wind is in your face, but how can you miss a 30 yard field goal? We had just come back and took the lead after being scoreless for three quarters. LaRon gets an INT and BOOM, Suishim misses an easy field goal and gives Seattle the momentum back.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Sushium could be responsible. I mean, I know the wind is in your face, but how can you miss a 30 yard field goal? We had just come back and took the lead after being scoreless for three quarters. LaRon gets an INT and BOOM, Suishim misses an easy field goal and gives Seattle the momentum back.

Suisham's miss came after seattle whiffed on the KR. LaRon's INT was on the ensuing drive, and ended up with us punting.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29516&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=POST18&override=true

[JMS]

JMS -

It looks like the big problem here is how you describe good. I just think that you are not understanding how bad the NFC is. Are we "good" compared to the rest of the NFC? We made the playoffs. That puts us at, by the accepted NFL definition, top 6 in the conference. Is that good to you? Apparently it's mediocre, tending towards bad.

Let's look at your logic. We were the worst playoff team in the worst conference in the league. We were a team which had to go on a four game winning streak over their last four games in order to qualify for that last place seat.

We are a team which couldn't consistantly defeat any team in our division. A team wich couldn't even beat teams with loosing records on a consistant manor.

Top six team in the conference? That makes the 12th best team in the league. Kind of like Iraq was the fourth largest standing Army in the world on the eve of the first gulf war. We were the third largest standing army in the world at the time... Big drop off between 3 and 4. Big drop off between 11 and 12 I guess.

To lose in the playoffs, you lost one game to another playoff team.

We were behind 13 nothing in the first half. We could have been behind 30 to nothing the way we were bing dominated. We made them look like the Pats. That's how far away from competent we are.