Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Some questiona about our team brought up in the News


HapHaszard

Recommended Posts

As some of you may know I read a few news articles. :) A couple of questions came up in the news lately as a result of the first preseason game that I thought might make for an interesting discussion.

1. The Redskins first team offense was playing against the Steelers 2nd team defense most of the first half.

I wonder who we were playing against on the first series when we took the ball on the one yard line and took it inside the 10 yard line before things blew up.

2. How will Rex do against a team that has a game plan for defending us?

How will our offense do when we have a game plan for defeating a defense? This is a two way street.

Any way you shake it we were playing against the AFC champions from last year.

3. Did the players having practices with out the coaches during the lock out have any effect on how the team did?

This one is hard to answer, I really don't know but it seemed that the team played much better than I expected for a first preseason game with limited time to prepare.

Just a couple of things I have wondered about and think might be worth discussion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know we will see more of this no matter which way the season goes. The media has already pigeonholed the Skins for the year, they are written off as the worst team in the league, they have no QB and Shanahan is showing his ego by even thinking that one of the guys he has is capable, yaddayaddayadda............

There is a large % of the media types that are just like anyone else, they take the easy way, the path of least resistance and least work and just crank out whatever by the deadline, and the quickest way to do that is make things fit into preconceived notions and biases. The script is written and now it is just a matter of cherrypicking whatever is needed to flesh that out and dismiss the rest.

We have several writers doing seriously good work, not just rah-rah fluff pieces but actual reporting on the state of the franchise, and you get another "Attaboy!" for gathering it all together so we can access it, but you can see a difference between those that honestly try and those that just mail it in.

This is just the first example. Do you see them noting that the Steelers have an established roster and scheme, and thereby should have been far more prepared on both sides of the ball? No, because that doesn't fit the script, so we ignore it. What about all the $$$ we threw at mediocre FAs because the good ones wouldn't play here? I was hearing that a couple weeks ago. The fact we have a slew of new players (FAs and rooks) w/ just a couple of weeks work still learning the plan? Again, not in the script, so not in the article.

This is why I come here first and more for info on the team, there is a much wider base of information and opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just the first example. Do you see them noting that the Steelers have an established roster and scheme, and thereby should have been far more prepared on both sides of the ball? No, because that doesn't fit the script, so we ignore it. What about all the $$$ we threw at mediocre FAs because the good ones wouldn't play here? I was hearing that a couple weeks ago. The fact we have a slew of new players (FAs and rooks) w/ just a couple of weeks work still learning the plan? Again, not in the script, so not in the article.

.

That's my take also, what the media types expect is what they are looking for. I watched the game on the internet and then again on the NFL channel yesterday, and to be honest I saw something different that what I was led to expect from what I have been reading in the news articles. Then the analysis began, thats when I started to wonder about the questions raised, it seemed quite one sided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see them noting that the Steelers have an established roster and scheme, and thereby should have been far more prepared on both sides of the ball? No, because that doesn't fit the script, so we ignore it. What about all the $$$ we threw at mediocre FAs because the good ones wouldn't play here? I was hearing that a couple weeks ago.

Good points. I watch Mike & Mike in the morning and they pretty much said on numerous occasions that the Redskins basically did nothing in the offseason when they were talking about the NFC east teams. I thought that was really odd when I heard that. Adam Schefter is the only analyst I'm aware of that appreciated what we did and who we brought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points. I watch Mike & Mike in the morning and they pretty much said on numerous occasions that the Redskins basically did nothing in the offseason when they were talking about the NFC east teams. I thought that was really odd when I heard that. Adam Schefter is the only analyst I'm aware of that appreciated what we did and who we brought in.

I like how they bash us for "doing nothing" because we didn't grab a name guy like Cullen Jenkins or Nnamdi. Plus I know in the past they still act like we'll miss McNabb, despite how they made fun of him and called him a bad trade. I'm personally fine with who we did get. There is a lot of media hypocrisy that goes on just to gather ratings. I feel like had we made all the moves the Eagles did, we'd get bashed again for trying to "buy a team."

Cullen Jenkins had a great situation in Green Bay, but left because he felt playing time would decrease, and he wanted money. We certainly have the money, and could offer the playing time. I feel that could be a reason why we didn't ultimately sign him, because what he wanted was still playing time. Whereas there was that article with the Barry Cofield quote about him wanting London to get 200 tackles.

My take on it all is, we don't have McNabb, we don't have Haynesworth, it's not Shanahan's first year...there really isn't much to talk about with us aside from having no-named QB's. They need to find something to bash us with. I do have a reservation about playing our starters an entire half, but considering the team didn't start practice until 3 weeks ago, I don't think it matters as they are learning still, like many of you have mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Skins lost the respect of the media and many, many fans in recent years and justifiably so. Jim Zorn and the bingo caller, Haynesworth and McNabb are just a few reasons why. It's a good thing for this new era to begin under the radar. While it it tedious, let 'em bash the Skins. We will rise again under Shanahan/Allen-and they will be silenced. Hail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point was raised about playing starters for the complete first half, in my opinion this is a good idea, the players need more game time in the pre season to get match fit and to run the systems designated for the players. Shanahan is a good coach, the players played well more than one person has said we looked crisp, this is excellent, and i would think that we will only get better. We are not the 32nd best team, we will do well this season, because we have players who WANT to play, at the end of the season a lot of mediots are going to be left with egg on their dials

go skins HTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Skins lost the respect of the media and many, many fans in recent years and justifiably so. Jim Zorn and the bingo caller, Haynesworth and McNabb are just a few reasons why. It's a good thing for this new era to begin under the radar. While it it tedious, let 'em bash the Skins. We will rise again under Shanahan/Allen-and they will be silenced. Hail

Oh I agree, I am not all angst-ridden about the national media ignoring us or taking shots. What some don't understand is that this is really nothing new. It is not about TheDan, although it ramped up since he bought the team. For instance I can distinctly recall before the 87 superbowl that the vast majority of media coverage focused on John Elway & Co and how humble would they be after destroying the Redskins, etc etc. The 91 Skins were a dominant team across the board but got little mention then and scarce credit since.

We are Skins fans, we don't need to media to cheerlead for us, we don't need they adulation, they are pretty much welcome to go **** themselves and the Dallas pony they rode in on, and it WILL be so much sweeter when we finally return to what we once were.

Hail!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. They can make any excuses they want, but when the first strings were playing against each other, the Redskins would have been up by at least 9 points if we didn't put Shayne Graham in there. Also, they can say that they didn't have some starters out there, but we didn't have both our starting safeties, our starting tight end, etc.

2. Rex did fine last year in the games he played taking over for McNabb, and those teams had game-planned for him.

3. Yes and no. Do I think it helped? Yes, a little but more for a sense of team than anything else. I think the coaches had a great game plan in getting players acclimated to the system. That even came from London Fletcher at the start of camp.

People can get all upset over the media, but face it, we have been bad for a long time. We promoted a culture of losing, as well as over-paying for free agents rather than giving players money who have earned it internally, the money. Yet after only one full season, some people expect the media to embrace the change that is happening here with the Redskins. It will change, but it is going to take some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Redskins teams, even the great Redskins teams of my lifetime were that they were great "teams" We didn't have an Elway or Montana or Barry Sanders for the public or writers to glom onto. The Redskins under Joe Gibbs lacked sex appeal. Really, who would make Mark Rypien a coverboy? Or Joe Jacoby?

The 'skins were better because they were complete and executed. Now, Clark and Sanders produced a lot of big plays. We certainly got our share of "wows," but we never had that superstar player. Monk refused to be, Theismann left a little too early, Green got close, but he was also too quiet. I think that's why we never were the "it" team.

Now, we also were chosen to be the surprise team year after year when Snyder first bought the team. Media types and fans bought into the big signings and we kept getting offseason love and trophies, but you keep being burned or made to look like a fool often enough and... well, there ya go.

Right now, the Redskins will have to earn their love. I kind of like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Redskins teams, even the great Redskins teams of my lifetime were that they were great "teams" We didn't have an Elway or Montana or Barry Sanders for the public or writers to glom onto. The Redskins under Joe Gibbs lacked sex appeal. Really, who would make Mark Rypien a coverboy? Or Joe Jacoby?

The 'skins were better because they were complete and executed. Now, Clark and Sanders produced a lot of big plays. We certainly got our share of "wows," but we never had that superstar player. Monk refused to be, Theismann left a little too early, Green got close, but he was also too quiet. I think that's why we never were the "it" team.

.

Excellent point, Look back at George Allen, and Joe Gibbs, those were "teams" guys working together and really getting things done. They may not have been the most talented but they did what was necessary to win. Gibbs won 3 superbowls with 3 different QB's. Quarterback is an important position, but as Gibbs showed they can't do it by themselves it took a good OL, receivers etc to make it work. I am encouraged by the moves that Shannahan and

Allen have made, young hungry guys as free agents, while keeping guys like Fletcher to leaven the loaf. I see good things coming in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the media falls into four categories, and they are starting to completely diverge fro each other:

1. The blind homers. I put only two people in this category, Larry Michael and Joey T. If Larry wasn't trying to sell me something every three minutes, he might be tolerable. Kelly Johnson sort of falls in this category as well sometimes, but that might also be because of the job she has for comscast.

2. The honest opinion guys. The beat reports who really watch practice and analyze what's going on and report, player by player, what they see. Not what they think they saw. Without a lot of the editorial comments. My favorite is John Keim at the examiner, but Chris Russell on 980 and rich tandler are also very good. There are others that do great work also, but those are the ones that I look to for the most unbiased opinions. There are also some bloggers and opinion people ain this category, mostly the "I'll reserve judgement until i see more" crowd.

3. The lazy guys. These are the guys who mostly just report what everybody wants to hear. There are some beat reporters that fall into this category, and most of the national media. They are living based on what has happened over the years, not what is currently happening. Some of the local sports anchors are in this category.

4. The ax to grind folks. Lavar, dukes, Brian Mitchell, and a lot of the other guys on 106.7. I'm not sure how much of this is schtick, since the entire station is predicated around being the anti-skins owned station, and how much they believe. Certainly Lavar has his own agenda, and BMitch does also. The rest, I'm not truly sure.

Personally, I don't put much into anything that I hear that's not in number 2. Unfortunately, it seems as though groups 3 and 4 are larger, and have rabid followiongs of fans.

But I am glad that none of it really matters. What matters is the final score. There are no polls, and everything is pretty mathematical. You win, good. You lose, bad. As Bill Parcels said, "You are what your record says you are."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the media falls into four categories, and they are starting to completely diverge fro each other:

2. The honest opinion guys. The beat reports who really watch practice and analyze what's going on and report, player by player, what they see. Not what they think they saw. Without a lot of the editorial comments. My favorite is John Keim at the examiner, but Chris Russell on 980 and rich tandler are also very good. There are others that do great work also, but those are the ones that I look to for the most unbiased opinions. There are also some bloggers and opinion people ain this category, mostly the "I'll reserve judgement until i see more" crowd.

Keim, Tandler, Russell and I'd add Rich Campbell. Rich isn't as well known as the other three but now that he has a lager audience by moving to the WT you will see more of his articles.

Of the bloggers I'd say the Best is Jack Anderson, but there are some others that are very good. Pappas (Jimmijo on here) just recently did some work for CBS Sports, one of our own doing good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see the Washington Examiner reporters get some recognition here. (I don't always agree with them, but they've done the work and tell it like it is.)

I don't want to hijack this thread -- but I am keeping my mind open to the media folks who are being hard on the Skins. We did keep our starters in a long time. In general, the Skins looked further along in their level of play than the Steelers did. So maybe the Skins are coming out of the gate a little quicker than other teams, and could be looking better than they really are. And consequently, when the other teams start rounding out into mid-season form, maybe the Skins won't be looking as good as they did Friday night.

But that's a lot of 'maybes', and 'ifs' -- and let's not forget that the talent on this team will be getting a lot better as the rookies get more experience, themselves. How high their talent cieling is, and how quickly they get there .... that's all speculation. So let's appreciated that it is a lot to expect that the Shanahans are going to be able to turn this franchise completely around in 2 seasons, considering how far down in the whole the Skins had sunk.

But one thing for sure -- there have been teams with 'no-names' and journeymen who have gone on to surprise a lot of media 'experts' -- and the Skins have already shown that they are capable of pulling off surprises. Frankly, the more the national media discounts the Redskins, the greater the possibility that some NFL opponents might underestimate the Skins. And that boosts Washington's chances to make even further surprises.

Bottom line: I'd rather have the media apologizing about having seriously under-estimated the Redskins, rather than have to listen to their post-season comments about how the team 'had originally looked better on paper than they showed on the field." I'm confident the Skins are going to show up and play hard this year, and will keep getting better. And I suspect the players will be forged into a team that plays better than the sum of its parts. That'd be a nice transition to watch play out over this season, whether we make the playoffs or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know we will see more of this no matter which way the season goes. The media has already pigeonholed the Skins for the year, they are written off as the worst team in the league, they have no QB and Shanahan is showing his ego by even thinking that one of the guys he has is capable, yaddayaddayadda............

There is a large % of the media types that are just like anyone else, they take the easy way, the path of least resistance and least work and just crank out whatever by the deadline, and the quickest way to do that is make things fit into preconceived notions and biases. The script is written and now it is just a matter of cherrypicking whatever is needed to flesh that out and dismiss the rest.

We have several writers doing seriously good work, not just rah-rah fluff pieces but actual reporting on the state of the franchise, and you get another "Attaboy!" for gathering it all together so we can access it, but you can see a difference between those that honestly try and those that just mail it in.

This is just the first example. Do you see them noting that the Steelers have an established roster and scheme, and thereby should have been far more prepared on both sides of the ball? No, because that doesn't fit the script, so we ignore it. What about all the $$$ we threw at mediocre FAs because the good ones wouldn't play here? I was hearing that a couple weeks ago. The fact we have a slew of new players (FAs and rooks) w/ just a couple of weeks work still learning the plan? Again, not in the script, so not in the article.

This is why I come here first and more for info on the team, there is a much wider base of information and opinion.

I agree 100% with this. There are storylines that the media takes and runs with every offseason. The three I remember from last offseason were that the Cowboys would be the first team to play in the Superbowl in their home city, the Texans were finally ready to make the playoffs, the Chargers finally having all the pieces in place to make a run, and if the Vikings could just get Favre to show up then they would be a dominant force in the NFC. What we got instead was Tampa Bay almost making a playoff run after many people picked them to be last, Oakland making a run at .500 with a "washed up" QB, and the Packers going from being the 3rd strongest team in the NFC North to winning the Superbowl. The predictors and talking heads were wrong about almost everything last year, and yet they are doing the same things this year.

The Lions are supposed to be a team contending for a playoff berth, The Chargers finally having all the pieces in place to make a run (lol), The Eagles being unstoppable with all their newly aquired talent (They definitly won the offseason), and people hyping teams like the Rams, Texans, Cowboys, Vikings, or Chiefs as being legitimate contenders while they are ignoring the teams with the proven record of success like the Giants, Packers, or Saints. It has become a sort of perpetual motion machine where the bloggers take ideas from the talking heads, and the talking heads take ideas from the bloggers. It has gotten to the point that you see the same exact thought spewed by a different person a day for 3 weeks.

The craziest thing about it though is how contagious those ideas can be. Last week was beach week for me. I got to hang out with my extended family for a while and have some fun. The one thing that amazed me was how down all of my cousins (who are all skins fans) were about our chances this year. These were people who were predicting 10-6 to 11-5 last year and openly mocking me for saying 7-9. This year the consensus was 2-14 to 5-11. When I asked them why they thought our team would struggle when we had upgraded every position except for QB and maybe CB, they didnt really have an answer. They just let out a stream of BS that I could tell that they got from watching ESPN. I said 8-8 and again they laughed at me, but in the end I think I will be closer than they will to the mark.

It probably started with one harmless blogger saying the Redskins would finish 32nd in his power rankings, at which point someone read his article and wrote another article and so on. At this point the thought process has become so ingrained that nobody in the media will even claim that the redskins will finish 6-10 for fear of being labeled a homer. But that is all OK, because by the midpoint of the season there will be a few blog posts out there about how our team is turning things around. By the end of the year the rest of the media will have caught on, and then we will get to be hyped up all next offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now the media power rankings have us sitting at around 29 out of 32. The Cowboys (who have talent) are between 12-16. Both teams finished 6-10. The cowboys were in cap hell and in order to sign their essential free agents had to let some of their players go. Now this will probably effect their depth. They now have a new defensive coordinator which is supposed to be an improvement over last year. From the little bit I got to see of their preseason game I didn't see an improvement in their D.

The Redskins upgraded their lines and the defense looks like they are finally starting to understand the 3-4 concept, along with the additions to the line and secondary I expect more out of them this year. We still need better players at certain positions but we are way ahead of where we were last year. It looks like the offense is way improved especially on the OL. In the first preseason it looked like Grossman had time to actually let the play unfold. One other thing I noticed was that it seemed that the ball was being thrown much faster than when McNabb was running the offense. I noticed a much faster tempo to the offense over last year. Granted its was only the first preseason game but it appeared to be executed at a faster pace and with more zip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed a much faster tempo to the offense over last year. Granted its was only the first preseason game but it appeared to be executed at a faster pace and with more zip.

I think we also saw a faster tempo in the three games Rex started last season. Hopefully he will continue to improve as he gets more snaps in the system. Rex certainly looks like a better fit than McNabb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than getting into the convoluted, double edged preseason explanations (about gameplanning and first and second string), I think it's pretty easy to explain why we beat the Steelers. We were clearly the more energetic and physical team and the Steeler's couldn't match our pitch or intensity early on. Our guys were hungry and ready to play and you have to be pleased with the coaching staff in that regard. Bannish any talk of tanking because I just don't see it happening.

The crowd was also into it for once. The stadium sounded very loud over the broadcast I watched.

The Steelers could be in for a Superbowl hangover if that lack of energy persists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that some media shows are being deliberately provocative. If there's no story then they will try to make one (e.g. the Kerrigan stuff), they feed off fans phoning in whether the callers agree or not. There are people who make their living from the circus that the Redskins have been and if the circus has left town then they're in danger of losing their jobs. The best thing is to not rise to the bait; if the number of listeners / callers drop then the shows get cancelled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I asked them why they thought our team would struggle when we had upgraded every position except for QB and maybe CB, they didnt really have an answer.
I think we did upgrade CB. Hall, Wilson, Barnes (year 3), Buchanon, Gomes is a better group top to bottom than Hall, Rogers, Buchanon (rough in his first season here), Barnes (year 2), and Westbrook (or whoever that fifth guy was, I can't even remember). Barnes will have naturally grown, Buchanon will hopefully start like he finished last season and have a higher comfort level, Wilson is flat out better than Rogers, and Gomes is pretty damn good for a rookie. I like this group of corners.

I've never thought corner should be a big money position given its volatility from year to year. How many corners in the league play at a top level each season? One? Not even one?

I think smarter and more sustainable defenses are built with the premium placed on pass rushing linemen and pass rushing linebackers. That's why I like the way our defense is constructed, with most of our money and recent early draft picks being spent on the front seven. The Ravens and Steelers have excelled using a similar model for years.

They just let out a stream of BS that I could tell that they got from watching ESPN. I said 8-8 and again they laughed at me, but in the end I think I will be closer than they will to the mark.

It's because people actually want to finish that badly. It's wishful thinking. They think it'll mean we get to draft Andrew Luck or Matt Barkley or Landry Jones because they've been brainwashed by the same media into thinking that'll save the franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the '91/92 Skins blew through the NFL that season, it was total domination. They are easily a Top 5 team of all time, but because they weren't a team that won back to back superbowls, and that team happened to win it all at the end of an era rather then the beginning or end, they often get overlooked. That team was so complete from top to bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:secret:

Preseason is meaningless.

Which renders the analysis of the media meaningless.

Which render those questions meaningless.

The one thing we can look at to gain from the game is Grossman's apparent comfort in whatever scheme they had Friday evening.

He knows where he wants to throw the ball, that much is obvious from what we saw. He read his progressions well and got the ball out on time. To me that was the single most positive thing we can glean from Friday.

How other teams play him and us all changes on Sep 11 anyway.

We all know this. Analyzing preseason games is an exercise in futility. everything you think you saw must be couched by the fact that what you saw is nothing like what you'll see in the regular season. NOTHING. It never is. (And in many instances, what you think you saw in preseason likely was NOT what you think you saw. They simply treat these games differently. Teams use them to practice situations that arise in games. Coaches try things they won't try in regular season. Like long field goals to test out their kicker.. which if he misses gives the other team awesome field position.. this doesn't happen in the reg. season because coaches are more concerned with what happens AFTER that FG try if they miss.

Guys running out kickoffs 5 and 6 yards deep.. won't happen in regular season. different player combinations on the field that won't be together in the regular season barring injuries. Players that simply won't be on the team in a month..

"It's only preseason" is one of the truest axioms of this game. It is only preseason, and that means there is nothing to analyze beyond individual performances, and even they must be couched like above.

These games are a glorified practices. That's all.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...