redman Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 http://espn.go.com/chrismortensen/s/2001/0627/1219434.html Mortenson seems to pay more attention to chemistry issues than most writers do. Then again, he ranks the same teams everyone else did when discussing their quality offseasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 funny how Seattle's draft can be considered dynamite by Mortenson while he says #1 pick Koren Robinson remains a question mark..........by that standard the Skins had a SUPER draft because Gardner and Smoot stand an excellent chance of being first year starters and together won't make what Koren Robinson will. funny also how last year the Skins loaded up on veteran free agents and were the "trying to buy a title" while this year the Broncos load up on not only veterans but a clubhouse full of malcontents like McGlockton and Lett and they get kudos from Mortenson? truthfully I thought Lett was done TWO years ago and McGlockton last season. I don't think Tyronne Poole at CB is much to work with either, considering the Colts identified cornerback as their major need on defense in the offseason and Poole was burned to death in man coverage in Indy. As far as the Rams go, Mortenson gives a lot more credit to largely unproven Mike Martz who has had ONE year of head coaching under his belt on a defending championship team. Solved his defensive liabilities? I don't see where Damione Lewis and Adam Archuleta and Pickett are sure fire pro bowl players as top picks. I see Aeneas Williams being an upgrade on Todd Lyght but Williams is 33 years old. Does this look like a short term fix to anyone else? That defensive line still looks to be undersized and with the lack of game experience, still vulnerable to the run up the middle. As far as depth goes, Mortenson drops that one liner about Germaine looking 'very good' in the minicamps. So what? Husak looks good too and yet nobody is giving the Skins credit for having ANY backup plan at qb at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF4L Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 This may sound childish, but Chris Mortenson is a douche (as are many of the er, ah, media). Maybe it's better that the Skins are either: a) being overlooked or being dissed. Maybe that way, they'll be that upstart, "surprize" team that nobody expected to kick such serious a$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 At this point EVERYONE is guessing. Rosters aren't set. Injuries haven't happened. Players haven't stepped up or busted yet. It's just opinions. My opinion of the Rams' moves defensively is positive, but I could be wrong. I liked Damione Lewis and Adam Archuleta. Aeneas Williams hasn't slowed down much from what I saw of him last year. He is a winner and it was good to see him escape from Arizona while he still has legs. Won't be pulling for him ... but he deserves to play for an owner other than Bidwell, that's for sure. He should be a positive influence on the Rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Brave, here in a nutshell is my problem with your logic. Lewis and Archuleta were first round picks just like Gardner. Yet I see articles where Lewis and Archuleta and Ryan Pickett are penciled in as starters or major contributors right off the bat, while most publications list Gardner as a POTENTIAL contributor in Washington. Now considering where these players were taken in the draft and their relative position beforehand in terms of scouting reports, how come the Rams' picks get all the "glass half full" arguments while the Redskins pick has to "prove himself" on the field first? Seems to me there is a cogent argument to be made that based on the surrounding cast of Davis, Alexander and Westbrook that Gardner might have a better chance to come in and make a splash because of the attention paid to the Redskins other skill players on offense. Of course that is my own biased opinion. But if I were writing an NFL piece based on my observations of the league over time, I would have to admit in both cases that the Rams AND Redskins are depending on a lot of new players this season to turn around their fortunes, the Rams on defense and the Redskins on offense. Rarely does that kind of turnover result in the kind of consistent performance necessary to win a Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Actually, bulldog, I'd say that my opinion of the Rams defensive moves was based more on hunch than logic. Archuleta strikes me as a mature rookie and I think he'll be OK fairly early. Not another Urlacher, but solid. Nothing concrete for me to cite to back that up ... just a feeling. I've always admired Williams. As I stated before I would look for him to be a positve influence, perhaps stepping right into a leadership role. So, while they may still struggle, especially early, I think they've added good talent with a nice mix of youngsters and veterens. You are correct about the not-so-subtle bias which seems to flow from all directions against the Redskins, from the national media all the way down to the fans. Seems our glass is always seen as half empty, while teams making similar (or worse) moves are praised. While it appears to have intensified with the emergence of Snyder as owner, it's always been there. The Redskins are just one of those teams that you don't feel indifferent about. You're either a fan or you hate'em. Many players have not gotten the respect they deserve because of this IMHO. Darryl Green, Art Monk, and Monte Coleman come to mind. Art doesn't make the HOF, but Swann does? Now you have a national mag snubbing Champ Bailey from a top-10 CB list. You rarely see Stephen Davis mentioned with the likes of Faulk, James or Eddie George. Fantasy players sure do like him though, don't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 2, 2001 Author Share Posted July 2, 2001 I knew this was the way that the debate over this article would go when I posted it. I could practically see bulldog's Denver-based gripe before it happened. Mortenson happens to like the Redskins in my experience (I have heard him utter negative comments about Snyder, but not the on-field team), and overall I felt that at least he pointed out chemistry issues, even if they didn't enter into his bottom-line ranking of offseason moves. It's funny, the more I think about Gardner, the more I have to think that we may have come away with the best WR in the draft. ------------------ "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 What I find in these articles is an out for the writer. For example, a recent article talked about how Staley would help the Eagles out because he's healthy. Out? If the Eagles go off track, the writer can now say the Staley was not as healthy as he was told. That if he had known... Conversely, some of the articles I've seen on George put in the out that if he plays to his talent, who knows how the Skins will do. With the teams they expect to do well, they are in a position to say I told you so if they do well or have CYA if not. With the teams they expect to do bad, they are in a solid position if right and have the basis for articles if those teams perform well. ------------------ There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucs92 Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 Boys, The Skins won't get national media attention until they have a winning record. Last year, nobody was talking about the Ravens at this time, but the national media circus surrounding the Skins, who were projected by many to be SB champs, was huge coming off their 10-6 1999 season. The Skins have not improved themselves much in this offseason. WR should be improved, but Westbrook's health and Garnder's rookie status make it tough to forecast how well they'll do.....O-line is certainly downgraded from last year's starters but upgraded over who played during most of the season.....QB is downgraded.........FB is downgraded.....DL is downgraded.....LB is about the same....and secondary is a wash replacing Sanders with a rookie..........so, there's talent, but it's hard to build a case that the team should be much better..... The one silver lining for Skins fans is the schedule. It is the second easiest in the league, and could potentially produce a playoff teams if things fall right...... ------------------ Champion of free sex changes and Displayer of delusions of grandeur (shaddup!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 Actually, Bucs92, the Redskins schedule is a tie for the easiest schedule in the league and is not the second easiest schedule in the league. Facts are crucial to your existence. But, your point, otherwise, is fairly stated. It seems to benefit you when you read what I've written in another thread and parrot it. Well done. You're correct that the Redskins have to establish themselves as a competitive team again before the media can fairly quit asking about the potential negatives of the team. Your positional analysis is incorrect, though, as the Redskins are better off at starting quarterback, though weaker at depth, if that's what you had meant. The Redskins starting offensive line is yet unsettled, but, should Coleman make the unit, the line is better than last year's starting line as Raymer returns and was never a starter last year. Coleman is a fall off for Tre, but Sims and Campbell/Moore is an upgrade due to Sims limited ability to play. Samuels will improve as his strength and experience have improved. Jansen has gotten better each year, though he may be at the point where he is about to plateau into the player he'll be for the remainder of his career. It's hard to finally judge the offseason as moves are yet to come, but, the Redskins team is probably not, on paper, much better or much worse than last years team. Better in some areas and not as good in some. And I'll take the team that was moderately healthy that started last year and take my chances. Relative good health and increased depth along the offensive line are the keys to this season for Washington. Fortunately we kept a more talented player to lead us at quarterback. With Schottenheimer running a tight ship, George will be counted on to play to his physical skills and the Redskins won't have the limitations we encountered with Johnson as our quarterback. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 for all this grist from Tampa fans about us losing Brad Johnson to them. Consider this. How many playoff games has Brad Johnson won in his career? ONE. That's it. In 1999 against the 8-8 Lions, a team that shouldn't even have made the playoffs. And what made that victory memorable for Skins fans? The 119-yard ONE HALF performance of Stephen Davis before he got hurt on his long touchdown run. There is nothing special about Johnson other than the fact he started out the 1999 season with 6 or 7 career games. A lot of quarterbacks go through stretches like that where they post big numbers only to come to earth later on. And that's what Johnson did at the end of that season and in 2000. Now, Jeff George has also won ONE playoff game in his career, also in 1999 with Minnesota. Likewise his team beat an awful 8-8 Dallas team in the wildcard round. He also passed for 300+ yards and 4 touchdowns against the Rams in the semifinal game, a year in which the Rams won the Super Bowl. So, based on career performance in clutch games, I can't see where Brad Johnson has shown himself to be a money player. In fact he has precious little big game experience to draw off of despite the fact he has been in the NFL for 10 years. Injuries and sitting on the bench for the first 5 years of his career make him somewhat less than a 33 year old savvy veteran at the qb slot. Sorry, Bucs92 and others who have never seen their teams field a competent offense in their 25 year history. We have had pro bowl qb's here in Washington before, and judged by the standard of a Sonny Jurgensen or Joe Theismann, Brad Johnson is nothing special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
National Defense Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 easy art--no reason to jump down his throat (ha ha ha) i don't think that its clear that we are better off with George. This may just boil down to opinion, but our poor showing last year was not primarily attributable to Brad's lack of strength throwing the ball downfield. I think we have a clear board consesus on our "norvessnous" and why we stunk it up agains the easiest teams on our schedule. it the that coaching change (along with our games against the chargers, panthers & bears), not the quarterback switch, that will get us to the playoffs. I think George has much lower downside than brad but i share your hope that Marty can keep him reigned in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 ND beat me to it. I think our biggest upgrade by far is head coach. At QB I personally would have taken Johnson over George. I'm not a big fan of head cases. ------------------ Hail to the Redskins! [ by Henry on July 03, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 If Norv were still our coach, I too would prefer Johnson to George. In general, I think Norv's offense requires a better thinking man's quarterback, and Johnson is a better thinking man's quarterback than George. That's clear. Just as clear, though, is the fact that George has better physical skills than Johnson. With a coach likely to keep a tight reign on the position, we are better suited with the more physical quarterback, whether he's a head case or not. Schottenheimer has a chance to control George's play, and George has had good years under coaches that teach discipline in the scheme. ND, you are right that the entire team ultimately had a break down a year ago. Once our injuries caught up to us and teams started exposing some of the backups, we were in trouble. What George brought, though, was the opportunity for a team with limited weapons to move the ball. Games against New York and St. Louis are perfect examples of where George's ability to throw the ball made the Redskins competitive. Once the weapons went away from Johnson, Johnson no longer had the ability to move the team. He lacked the arm strength to create opportunities for big plays. Teams started locking us down with Johnson there. With George there, we were still being locked, but, George had the ability to create plays. Hopefully he won't have to this year. Keeping George gives us an opportunity to win football games this year that we wouldn't have with Johnson. Likewise, if I was a Tampa fan, I'd prefer Johnson. He fits that team better than George because he is ideal on a team that doesn't require a quarterback to have the physical skills to personally make things happen. Johnson is very good at taking what's given him. George, less so. Either way, both teams made the right move. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamaran Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 Bucs makes a good point. And Henry too. Headcases don't change, ever. I'd prefer Johnson, weaker arm and all anytime to George. But he's gone so. . . George was the trading card, like DEON, that our own Dano just couldn't live without last year about this time. It was stupid. We must live with the stupidity. Hopefully, this will be the last year we have to endure George, and hopefully we will find a method to purge the other huge mistake before camp. No matter what Marty says, he's not happy to have his fate controlled by big-head-George. He knows they are the cards he has to play, this year. If I were Husak, I'd be at the Park everyday before Marty arrives and after he leaves. If he can make it easy for Marty to look his way when George reverts to his true self, Todd will be in the catbird seat, sooner than later. I predict a lot of #8 jerseys in the K-Marts next (2002) season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 Boy, if headcases can't change, we're wasting a lot of time with mentors and sports psychologists and such... I believe Chris Carter was once a 'head case' - I know Irving Fryar was by his own admission. When the problem is drugs/alcohol, sobriety can work wonders. When it's immaturity, a few years can produce results. But there are just some natural born a##holes... I have never liked Jeff George. I sure hope he doesn't implode, but I do have a feeling we're going to see Todd Husak this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 3, 2001 Author Share Posted July 3, 2001 What TC said. ------------------ "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Guys, head cases may or may not change, and I'm not sure where that matters. George can be a head case and if he performs as he has in the league, we won't care one bit. If he tries to control the game with his mental skills, then we are in trouble, as we were a year ago when he tried doing that. Whether a head case changes or not is not as important to me as whether a weak arm can ever become strong. Johnson was figured out while with us. When teams figured out what he could and couldn't do, they took away a great deal of his game and he lacked the arm strength to create plays despite the defensive adjustments. I'm a Johnson fan and hated seeing him leave for nothing, but, you guys worrying about George's head may want to ask about Johnson's arm. And, heck, what about Johnson's head? He's NEVER been very confident when there's a player looking over his shoulder that is capable of starting. He never plays to the same level when there's true competition for a job. As I mentioned last year before the start, the benefit of bringing George in was that if George's presense caused Johnson to panic and struggle, I'd rather find out before signing him than signing him long term and then discovering Johnson panics when things are rough. If you can't handle the pressure of a capable backup playing behind you, I don't know that you can handle the pressure of a Super Bowl. Of course, Dilfer can win a Super Bowl, so that lowers the bar on what you need to win. Johnson is a fine quarterback and fits well in Tampa. George fits here better because the head of this team isn't George. It's Marty. ------------------ 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.