Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Not fair to compare this team to the Norv teams of 97-00'


kleese

Recommended Posts

Bulldog briefly hit on this point in the other thread I started and I think it's worth a thread of it's own, and I'll take it a step further.

I understand the "Norvitis" many of us feel, and I freely admit that I have been one of the loudest mouths when it comes to talking about shaking our "losing culuture." And I do believe that certain sports franchises seem unable to shake certain trends (good or bad), even when the names change.

However, I don't think it's fair at all to compare this team to those Norv teams, and it's not fair to say "here we go again" after a loss like yesterday.

The first year the Norvskins had any real expectations was 1997. And from then, until the end of his tenure, is the time to judge those teams, IMO. In 97-2000, those teams were IN THEIR PRIME. Meaning, our best players were probably as good as they were going to get. The time was RIGHT THEN to start winning.

Norv took over a no-talent rebuild project in 1994, and went 3-13 to 6-10 to 9-7. Those were his "growing" years and I've never really ripped him for anything we did during that time. That's THREE FULL YEARS. Starting in 1997 is when he needed to start really capitalizing and we never did (with 1999 being the brief exception).

We built, got a little better, and then peaked. It just so happened that our peak wasn't nearly good enough.

Now, we're comparing the Spurrier regime, with a QB starting his 8th game, a second year RB, 24-25 year-olds all over the place, no offensive starters 30 or older, and a coaching staff with 19 total games under their belt, to a teams that had 4-5 FULL season of building and growing.

And I can ALREADY say that I have a better "feeling" about this regime than I ever had during the Norv years.

This loss was not a repeat of those close Norv losses to teams like the Ravens and Rams (1997), or the Eagles and Giants (2000). Sure, there is a shared element of mental errors and miscues, but those games had a catastrophic feel to them-- the energy was never there, we always looked so inferior, despite somehow managing to make it close.

We're 2-1, with the two wins coming against teams we SHOULD beat and the one loss coming against a team that has realistic Super Bowl hopes. Under Norv, we often lost to teams we should beat, and rarely showed up against the teams that were equal/better than we were.

And I don't think anyone can argue that through 3 games, this team has ALREADY shown more guts and moxy than those teams ever did.

The key to loss yesterday is HOW WE RESPOND TO IT. I actually have a feeling we will respond well.

I won't call the New England game a "must-win" because if we lose to them and beat the Eagles, then we're 3-2 and feeling pretty good. But I do think the Patriots game is a must win if we want to build on the comeback yesterday. I do think it's important to validate that. And that will be hard to do if we lose.

We went 7-9 last year through a combo of lacking talent in key spots, a coaching staff feeling it's way, and an inability to beat any veteran, tough team (especially in the NFC).

Now, for this year, the goal is to improve. Keep marching down the right path.

That's why this season will only be able to judged in it's entirety. I agree that if we wind up at 2-5 or 3-7 at some point or something like that, then we'll be able to say that the season isn't going well and progressing is not coming along as hoped. But I really don't see that happening.

This team has shown me enough differences already to totally disassociate them with our failures of the past. Sure, as a fan, those same feeling of disappointment arise after a tough loss-- believe me, I get it. But this team has earned a clean slate.

If we beat New England we're 3-1 and everything is looking REALLY good. And you know what? Unlike years past, I think we WILL beat New England next week. I think we will respond well to this. If we don't, that may be the first time a little bit of "Norvitis" really creeps in, but even then, you move right on to Philly. We've got a different team on our hands folks. It's quite obvious to me. Whether or not "different" winds up being good reamains to be seen, but it's "different" for sure, and that alone should keep people from evoking that old coach's name that I refuse to mention at this point :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dsicipline, this team lacks discipline, 18 penalties and other stupid mistakes reminds a lot of us of that a$$hole Turner. This week they were supposedly making an effort to eliminate these mistakes that were made the past 2 weeks instead we see a performance which sets a team record in penalties. We the fans are angry and frustrated, obviously this team can compete and win (if they don't beat themselves)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the penalties were killer, but we HAVE improved in other past-failure areas such as the kicking game, making clutch plays, etc....

And sometimes a game just takes on a "penalty culture." We were only called for 4 more flags than the Giants were-- the refs were tossing flags all over the place-- the only two penalties that really made me mad were the taunting calls on McCants and Trotter. That's PURELY mental and both of those calls cost us big. If Spurrier is unable to stop those from happening, then I'll start criticizing him heavily for it.

But overall, this was just one of those games where both teams were getting called for a bunch of penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kleese, I have to agree!! This somehow did not feel like a Norv loss. With Norv we would have blown an 18 pt lead and lost in OT. Now maybe this is just a new way to torture us, but I don't think so. This team seems to have heart and a QB with poise, guts and presence. I think we'll bounce back. It's a long season and I am encouraged despite all the mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As fans, sure, we remember those awful feelings, and when we see a tough loss, we will almost automatically go into "panic" mode thinking "here we go again"-- it's second nature at this point.

But if you analyze this season game by game and moment by moment, there is NO comparison to the Norv era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by kleese

Yep, the penalties were killer, but we HAVE improved in other past-failure areas such as the kicking game, making clutch plays, etc....

And sometimes a game just takes on a "penalty culture." We were only called for 4 more flags than the Giants were-- the refs were tossing flags all over the place-- the only two penalties that really made me mad were the taunting calls on McCants and Trotter. That's PURELY mental and both of those calls cost us big. If Spurrier is unable to stop those from happening, then I'll start criticizing him heavily for it.

But overall, this was just one of those games where both teams were getting called for a bunch of penalties.

Yep. Both teams were called, though I can't recall any "Significant" penalties called on the G-men. Meaning ones that result directly in points either way. So, basically, "I'll see your 2 described penalties, and i'll raise you one!" The C. Samuels holding, brought back a R. Gardner TD. The penalties cost the Skins 11 points, and gave NY 7. That is an 18 point swing in a 3 point over time game. Penalties killed us. I hope it was a "One time" occurance, as opposed to a season long thing. I couldn't stomach it! :puke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redsk58417,

A very significant penalty to the Giants that was avoidable was the roughing the passer call after a sack that would have made it 3rd and long from our 1 (a situation which would have created a good opportunity for points for them). Instead, we got a first down and then the opportunity, at least, to put points on the board (our failure to take full advantage of G-Men mistakes is one of the main reasons we lost) . We talk about the call on Trotter that got them a first down. On the play before they threw a screen which also got a first down but was called back because Shockey was called for interference because he blocked before the pass was caught. This pre-mature block not only negated the first down, the block was irrelevant to the outcome of the play. I'd call the Trotter situation a wash because of that (but another example of us not taking advantage of G-Men mistakes).

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...