shamaran Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 This morning's practice saw both of our DEs helped off the field. Hopefully, the injuries won't be too serious, but Coleman had to be carted off (reinjured back) and Bruce had to be helped off (shoulder injury). That leaves the end spots pretty darned thin. I guess it's time for Ham to show what he's got. Bankston is hurt too and the rookie freeagent Bryant has a bad back and has missed all of camp. Lang was shifted back to his favorite spot by default for the rest of the practice. It will be tough to field a team at KC Sun. at this rate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 injuries are happening all over the NFL at this time. See all the injured players the Rams had last week? the important thing is that the players are suffering short term injuries that won't keep them out for the regular season. the team actually suffered fewer camp injuries last year than this year so far, unfortunately every one of those players was lost for the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Our injury woes in the past have made us all a bit nervous, I think. It's hard to relax when every report seems to list another casualty, however minor. As long as the injuries are not serious, I guess we're fortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Injuries are going to happen in camp, especially prior to the first preseason game and cut down. Players aren't in football shape, and Marty's camp especially, will get them there. They'll take bruises and cramps and sprains and twists all camp. It's normal and good. Gets them used to the season . ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Marco isn't playing this weekend and my guess is that Bruce won't either. Who are all the other DE's? ------------------ Bufford T Justice- Inventor of the Todd Husak "Future Starter" logo.... with the help of Blade <IMG SRC="http://www.extremeskins.com/ubb/ranks/husak2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash1-sm.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://207.230.156.92/images/thn22.jpg" border=0> "Hi, I'm the best CB in the NFL, who are you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braves On Warpath Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 The injury situation is more critical than usual for this team. Our front line players have the collective tallent to be a playoff team. Our depth is non existant however. If we have a few significant injuries we are going to be in trouble quick!!! ------------------ Fight for Old D.C.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 This is going to be a problem we see more of in this league. It relates to the topic of trusting younger, inexperienced players to play that was touched on in another thread yesterday. Teams cannot afford depth any more. With the salary cap and rising salaries of star players come a decreasing amount of the pie to spread around to everyone else. With the injuries that will inevitably come, many of these rookies and other low-paid, inexperienced players are going to see playing time. They will either step in and show they have what it takes or they will be history in favor of another. Either way, the days of having someone like Steve Young sitting on the bench waiting to play (and making that kind of money) are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 BoW, slowly, I'm wondering if our depth situation is actually worse off than last year? Certainly along the offensive line, we are deeper now. At receiver, I believe it's fair to say we have some quality and depth there, though, fairly, we don't know what Gardner can do. I believe Rasby is an equal replacement for Sellers, meaning our tight ends are approximately the same as a year ago. I believe Ki-Jana Carter is better than Hicks as a backup and Bates brings more to the team than did Murrell, though certainly Murrell was a better runner, he just wasn't used as such. At linebacker, I think it's fair to say that Jones is at least an comparable player to Smith, if not better. In the secondary, we did lose Sanders and Drakeford, but, we have Greer and Smoot. Not a terrible trade off likely. Safety we do have some thin qualities, but, we'll see on that. It could be very deep if these young kids are players. At defensive end, we lost Kalu, who did nothing for us, and gained Bankston, who has actually played in the league. Whether Kalu will be better than Bankston is irrelevant. We didn't lose production out of our depth from a year ago and, substantially increased it. Harrison was little used, and Boose is at least a young body. With admitted weakness at this point at defensive tackle, I'm not sure you can make an argument that we lack depth to succeed even with a mild number of injuries. (And no, I'm not mentioning quarterback because I prefer blocking out things I don't like looking at ) ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Art, Our depth situation is about the same as last year, its just switched from defense to offense This is interesting because last year, we had little depth on offense but had an offense-minded coach while now it seems we lack depth on defense while we have a defensive-minded coach. ------------------ There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braves On Warpath Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Lets look at a few things mentioned. Last year we had two returning 1000+ yard WR's, an older but HOF quality WR as the No. 3 guy and some promising youth in Thrash. This year we have one guy who has a much higher statistical chance of being injured than not and comming off of a major knee operation. Our no. 2 is a guy that has proven to be an acceptable, but not special, no 3 guy. Then we have some promising young youth, allbeit in greater quantities and potential than last year. Last year we started with an 0-line that had stayed together the past year and excelled far beyond expectations (see last years NY Giants o-line). Add to that a very promising high draft round stud in Samuels plus the promising and now (but not for long) healthy D. (Va. Tech) Smith. Also add in a quality vet. reserve in lewy and some other promising young guys like Fischer and Mookie. This year we have an elite pair of tackles, a center who makes you cringe with each snap and compleate question marks at the two guard positions although there does seem to be 4 servicable guys to nail down that position. The rest are undrafted free agents. Last year the back field featured 3 different guys that had posted 1000 yard years in Davis, Centers and Murell. Sellers was considered to be on of the best pure blockers in the league in the H-Back position. Plus Hicks was just 1 year removed from a 8 TD season. This year we have the oft injured Davis who has proven that he will miss at least one or more games in any given season, Bennett who has done nothing to distinguish himself and the rest all have at least one serious question mark regarding their ability to perform. That said, I am absolutly certain that this years team is much better than last years team! :smile: ------------------ Fight for Old D.C.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Braves, that's what we thought we had. For example, we thought Murrell was a thousand yard back that we had as a backup. What we got was a guy who gave us little in the way of backup performances. He was ineffective spelling Davis. In reality, we had little depth despite the big name. We had AC as a second WR, and we thought we had two legit 1,000 yard WRs. Instead we had a headcase WR who refused to play with any kind of football common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 BoW, can you tell me who is playing the H-Back position in Marty's offense this year? Or have we gone to an offense without such a position, and Sellers capability to be among the best blocking H-Backs in football would have meant absolutely squat to us this year? Rasby is a better receiver and equally as fine a blocker. Sellers is not a loss, even had we stayed with the same offense where Sellers could actually play. I find your conclusion interesting though, given your argument. Noting the sarcastic twist when writing, "That said, I am absolutly certain that this years team is much better than last years team! :smile:", what you are saying is that last year's team was much better, and you use as evidence the team we were thought to have entering the season. These are two mutually opposing statements that conflict when put together. From your post, your closing should have read, "That said, I'm am absolutely certain that this year's team is much better than the team we were supposed to have last year." The team you outlined was not the team we had. What we had last year was a 1000-yard receiver with nine catches. Another 1000-yard receiver with 39 catches in full playing time. An aging, though solid, vet, in Fryar, and a mildly exciting, though rough, Thrash. And, essentially, we've replaced that with a receiver who had nine-catches, but has done something more. A second receiver who had six fewer catches than our top receiver a year ago in just two starts, a rookie who is highly touted and several long bodies of some camp excitement. Yes, we are better this year at receiver than what we had last year. Not better than what we thought, but better than what we had certainly. Our offensive line had rookie left tackle. It doesn't this year. That should be a solidified spot. Our offensive line had a young player at center. This year it does not. Coleman and Campbell can play multiple positions and have been excellent professionals (though I'm no huge Campbell fan), increasing the depth, less you tend to think Big Leeuwenberg is not being upgraded, since what we had last year was him starting. Our tackles are the same as last year, though they may be better than last year due to increased experience and stamina of playing in the league. Our center is superior to the one we had last year, whether you worry about him or not. As long as he's there, he's better. Last year we had an injured starting guard all year until he fell apart, and a diabetic second guard who was less athletic and stable than either of the players who may well start on the bench behind those two question marks. You wrote that last year we had three running backs who had posted 1,000-yard seasons. This is patently false. Centers best year was 425 yards as a runner. Until last year, when he ran the ball a sum of 20 times, he'd never produced a yards per carry above 3.9. Bennett, who isn't half the receiver Centers is, is a better runner, better blocker and better fit in the offense Marty typically fields. I think the loss of Centers is a bad one. He's a great pro, but, Bennett is a fill in who actually fits the role of fullback in this offense better than Centers would have. Murrell was a former 1,000-yard rusher. Three times he did it. But, if I rolled Fred Lane out of the ground and pushed him around in his coffin, his past as a 1,000-yard rusher would have a similar impact on the team. Murrell wasn't ever utilized and, in the role he was utilized in, we have replaced with Bates, who is a clear upgrade in that role. And, Murrell is so good, he's caught on with no NFL team at the moment. You are suffering from the Minnesota local news affliction. In Minnesota, if a person had even driven through the state and pissed in a rest stop, the news reports anything that person has ever done if he's involved in an accident, or dies, or whatever. You seem to think if a person once shat in Redskin Park, he must be golden. Murrell's past as a 100-yard rusher has nothing to do with the depth he provide last year, as he provided none, since he was never used, so good he was, he couldn't beat out a guy we cut and replaced, initially, with Robert Arnaud. Do not confuse what we appeared to have on paper with what we actually played with a year ago. What we were supposed to have a year ago was the best corner to ever play the game. What we had, was a satisfactory corner who clearly was diminished, and though fine, never made an impact on an consistent basis. We were supposed to have a Pro Bowl free safety who would disrupt the middle of the field and shore up our pass defense, while making plays. What we had was a player who got a tipped ball interception for is only play on the field, and a guy who couldn't get out of his own way in getting suspended, unjustly as it was. What we were supposed to have, no team in football would have been better. What we actually had, we've not gotten worse. In fact, we've gotten better. And, next year at this time, when we talk about what we actually had this year, as opposed to what we actually had last year, we can talk again. But, what we are supposed to field this year is better than what we HAD last year. It's pretty hard to find flaw with that. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Hey... if we had what we thought we had, when we actually had it, it would be better then what we have, and certainly than what we have had. Now that we know what we have, and that what we had wasn't what we thought we had, we'll settle for what we have! Or something like that... ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://midatlantic.comcastsportsnet.com/images/bottom/redskins-off.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.dearbornclassics.com/images/torin.jpg" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 C'mon Art. There's no need to jump on Braves. He makes some good points. And you can't really compare where we were in September last year to where we are in August this year. BEFORE Johnson and Raymer went down, our depth was at least as good, if not better along the OL. I do think Norv going with only 4 WRs on the roster was craziness, but before Westbrook went down our top four WRs were better last year. (So Connell is a horrible #1 WR. Big shock there. I'm guessing Lockett is too.) I still dont think we a particularly deep team this year. My optimism is based on the biggest upgrade we've had in years: Coaching. I can accept that, but this year I think Marty will do more with less, not more with more. ------------------ "Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Henry, I'm not comparing where we were in August last year to where we are now. We'd already lost Raymer by now. We didn't lose Westbrook and Johnson until early. But, we know Sims was hurt from early in camp. With Samuels, Sims, Fischer, Johnson and Jansen, with the people we had backing them up, I'd argue we are substantially better off this year in depth than we were, if for no other reason that we have two guys, in Campbell and Coleman, who are better at guard than Sims and big Leeuwenberg, but, also, they can play either tackle spot in a pinch. Depth though, at this point, is hard to quantify. If both Coleman and Campbell are starting, it's fair to say our depth isn't as good, because Moore and Fletcher are unknown quanties. If Moore and/or Fletcher are starting, it's fair to question the starters, but not the depth, as the depth is proven, and the starters wouldn't be, though, beating out the proven player proves something. I'm not jumping on BoW. I'm indicating that his entire argument was based upon the glorious Redskin team we were supposed to have. It was not judged based on what we actually had. And, that's how you judge one season to the next. You know we were 8-8. You know we were 6-2 before the injuries became too much, but, we were 8-8. And we were 8-8 with a nine-catch receiver, not a 1,000-yard receiver. We were 8-8 with a 39-catch No. 1, not a 1,000-yard No. 2. We were 8-8 with Fischer, not Raymer. We were 8-8 with one guard not practicing all season, not an experienced guard of ability. In August of last year I feel we were better by far than in August of this year. Of course, had we had Marty as the coach, knowing he'll actually use all the players on his roster, this may have been even more true. But, I'll take Marty with less supposed depth, knowing depth will actually see the field and get experience and keep starters fresh, than to having great theoritical depth, knowing it will never see the field and the starters will wear down. You can't put forth the argument BoW did and fairly judge with consistency. We didn't have the team BoW put forth. We probably won't have the team we appear to have now this year. But, as of this moment in time, we are a better team, better prepared for the season, than the team we wound up with last year. And, again, an easier schedule and better coach compensate a great deal for a tougher schedule and questionable coach any day. Even if the talent may or may not be less than we'd want. There are fewer glaring questions going into this year than we had going into 1999 when we won the division. Starting with coaching. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 MikeB that post gives brain cramps Any one remeber the Arcade Boxing Game called Punch Out? The player was Glass Joe who inevitably faced the biggest bruiser who would deliver body blows and of course the knockout. I just keep seeing those going up against Art as Glass Joe. ------------------ Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted August 9, 2001 Share Posted August 9, 2001 Thanks NavyDave, just a little good natured fun! As for punch out, wasn't Glass Joe the first sissy you got to beat up each time? I always had a hard time with the Bruce Lee type guy... I whooped him a few times though. As for Art, he is truly a verbal assassin! Ok, I think I've found the closest pic resembling my rod... here goes... ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.dearbornclassics.com/images/rl70torino.jpg" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 10, 2001 Share Posted August 10, 2001 Glass Joe was the first guy you faced. Then Piston Hurricane. Then Bald Bull. Don't remember after that, but I didn't usually get past the fourth guy ... Anyway, what's with the smack amongst fellow fans? If you all choose to take Art's word as fact just because, well, he's Art, that's fine with me. But if I think any poster is out of line or mistaken I'll say so. Of course in Art's case I do so knowing full well he'll never back off, but that doesn't give him special status in my book. Besides, Art doesn't strike me as the type who wants people to tip-toe around him all the time. Actually, in this case I think we agree. Our depth doesn't seem so bad simply because we have a coach who will make the most out of every player on the roster. Our coach makes our teem deeper, or at least that's how it seems to me and, I think, Art. ------------------ "Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded." [ by Henry on August 10, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 10, 2001 Share Posted August 10, 2001 Henry, I'm not smack talking among fans. I wrote in response to BoW that I was slowly coming around to think the Redskins depth wasn't that poor afterall, as we've certainly done some upgrades. BoW wrote back a sarcastic post, that attempted to prove his point. I responded with a blunt post that questioned the argument he was attempting to make. I didn't smack BoW. If speaking bluntly is now considered "smack" I'm going to have a hard time living. I love a good conversation. BoW brought in the sarcasm to prove a point, and I attempted to illustrate that his point was intermixed and therefore not valid. Whatever. In terms of what facts people should or shouldn't believe, I could care less. When someone brings out a "fact" that we had three rushers with 1000 yards previously in their career, when that's flatly wrong, there is only one fact to believe. In this case mine. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 10, 2001 Share Posted August 10, 2001 Actually Art, I wasn't really refering to you. I was a bit taken aback at being refered to as Glass Joe simply because I disagreed with you. After your last post I saw where you were coming from and was pretty much over it. ------------------ "Men, there's nothing to get excited about. The situation is normal; we are surrounded." [ by Henry on August 10, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 10, 2001 Share Posted August 10, 2001 Ahh, good. I didn't think I was smacking. And, I don't think they were referring to you as Glass Joe palooka. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.