ESPN: Rating Which Team is Closest to Being Super Bowl Contenders

[LD0506]

7 may be optimistic but it's legitimate optimism, so I'll go along with it.

 

We need to add some pieces but not really that many, and one standout player on D can make a helluva difference, in that he takes the focus and leads the charge, the others around him just have to do their jobs. LB and S, and all of a sudden you've got something going. The D front w/ Preston maturing and Junior back could be solid or better, we have some good young talent at CB, we just need the staff to mold these guys into a better unit.

 

The interior of the O line was in flux most of the year and Callahan still fielded a legit unit all season, add some better talent there @ C and RG, either already on the roster, FA or draft, and let Bill coach 'em up and you'll see the run game reemerge, the run game allows more PA/ deep shots, etc., I am still going to believe we produce next year until convinced otherwise.

 

Scot calls the shot, that's our hope and our basis for more than just hope, it feels like we are watching something good being built. A SB run next year would be getting greedy, but sometime, sometime soon we are going to be talking about it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm high on this team, but 7 seems high after one 9-win season. I would have to drop that down a couple notches and go with a neutral 5. I think we are in a good spot with skill position players. I also think we have SOME pieces of a D that could be good. Until we sustain something though, it's just as likely that we drop back to 5-6 wins as it is that we win 9-10 again. 

 

We got taken apart by Green Bay over the final 3 quarters. They looked awful against the Cardinals (who also played poorly). That team just nearly gave up 50 to the Panthers who are representing our conference in the Super Bowl. We aren't a bad team right now, but we aren't all that close either. A couple of good off-seasons adding players and a couple more seasons of the core playing together under this staff might change that. 

[Warhead36]

Contender doesn't necessarily mean as good as the Panthers. Nobody is as good as the Panthers. You can be a contender and still be like a 2nd tier contender(i.e. GB, Pittsburgh, KC etc.)and I think we're kinda close to that. Still need a lot of work on D but our passing game makes up for a lot and a good QB always gives you a shot.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Contender doesn't necessarily mean as good as the Panthers. Nobody is as good as the Panthers. You can be a contender and still be like a 2nd tier contender(i.e. GB, Pittsburgh, KC etc.)and I think we're kinda close to that. Still need a lot of work on D but our passing game makes up for a lot and a good QB always gives you a shot.

 

No, I realize that. But I meant to illustrate just how far away from the Panthers we are. We got essentially handled by a team that got handled by the team that got handled by the Panthers. If Carolina is a 10 on this scale, I don't think that three-degrees of separation makes us a 7. I think we are more in the 5-5.5 range. 

 

If we have another similar season next year, then it starts to add some validity to it. I'm high on the Skins, but right now we have no idea if this is the beginning of something or just another lightning-in-a-bottle year like we've had in 1999, 2005, 2007, 2012...

[zoony]

Well Thank God for this article

If you haven't noticed the trend in media, offseason commentary tends to be glossed over puff pieces aimed at the hopeless homers and nerds who, well, read articles in the offseason.

But that is beside the point. The OP is incorrect. The correct answer is "6"

[NoCalMike]

IMO, the loss to the Packers was a little bit of a wake up call for us in terms of what it looks like to be a perennial playoff contender opposed to a team who seized a good situation.  Overall I definitely think the franchise is headed in the right direction, but at the same time I don't think an isolated 9-7 season is justification enough to suggest this team isn't going to still have a stumble or two on their way to ultimately becoming a contender.  

[DC9]

Well Thank God for this article

If you haven't noticed the trend in media, offseason commentary tends to be glossed over puff pieces aimed at the hopeless homers and nerds who, well, read articles in the offseason.

But that is beside the point. The OP is incorrect. The correct answer is "6"

 

I agree.  And that could jump a number or two depending on the draft, even though it may not jump in the standings for next season.

[Bandit Rover Blitzer Spy]

IMO, the loss to the Packers was a little bit of a wake up call for us in terms of what it looks like to be a perennial playoff contender opposed to a team who seized a good situation.  Overall I definitely think the franchise is headed in the right direction, but at the same time I don't think an isolated 9-7 season is justification enough to suggest this team isn't going to still have a stumble or two on their way to ultimately becoming a contender.

True that. In all honesty dallas has a better roster, but neither team is even close to be talking super bowl. It's that kind of hype that will lead to disappointment next year when we face a much tougher schedule.

[MartinC]

Three pieces away. Stud on the Dline, stud at mlb, stud in the secondary.

 

Finding three defensive 'studs' in one offseason will be no mean feat! I'd add we also need to get bigger and better at C and upgrade LG. We will need to add a quality running back as well.

 

I'd have us at a 6 but with the arrow pointing up.

[TSO]

Not even close to being in the same league as the majority of the playoff field this year. Never mind these final four teams, all four of whom should have made us all feel extremely uneasy about this roster.

 

Defensively, I'm in total agreement. Offensively? I think we're pretty much there.

 

I'd split this rating into two and say:

 

Offense = 9/10

Defense = 5/10

 

I'd give more weight to the defense in the playoffs, so it wouldn't be a simple averaging of the two to come to my overall rating for how close we are to becoming a Super Bowl contender. If Scot somehow manages to bring in enough guys on defense, the coaches continue to develop some of the younger guys like Dunbar, Everett, Phillips, Foster, Compton, Preston, etc... and suddenly our D becomes dominant, look out.

 

But that's a long shot, in my mind. I think we might need one more offseason after this one to get the defensive personnel at the level of teams like the Broncos and Panthers. I mean, we basically need to see an upgrade at starting Corner, two upgrades at both starting Safety spots, an upgrade at starting DE, and an upgrade at starting ILB to get near there, and that's assuming everything else is maintained at status quo in the process!

 

Now, some of those upgrades might actually come from guys already on the team improving... but it's tough to assume it'll all occur during one offseason.

 

As far as offense, I think our personnel stacks up with anyone else's just fine. Of course, that's all contingent upon Kirk maintaining his trajectory as a QB. Every Super Bowl contender seems to have weaknesses on that side, even worse than any of ours... but the same can't be said for their defense's. 

[Conn]

I can't get on board with a 9/10 offensive rating, although I respect your argument there. But we are lacking a run game completely. So you're talking about some combination of problems between our RB talent and our interior OL. The OL did very well in pass pro (and Cousins quick trigger helped) but struggled mightily in the run game. Our best WR's are aging and arguably overpaid. We're thin at, and most likely lacking a great talent at RB right now.

 

I just can't agree that we're a 9/10 on offense, although I'll agree we're much closer on offense than defense. But we were a very one-dimensional team (though it was a very exciting dimension, I'll admit) and you can't beat the best teams consistently playing like that. Cousins has the ability to lift everyone around him the way the great QB's do if he keeps on developing, but his near-perfect play in many games is the only thing that kept us going the second half of this season and it showed when we hit the playoffs. 

 

We need to fix this running game ASAP and I don't think we're one player away from doing that, which is basically what a 9/10 rating would say to me.

[illone]

Carolina, AZ, and Seattle are the class of the NFC.  I suppose you could throw Green Bay in there also, with Jordy back they will be great again.

 

AZ might be the worst team on the list, as they have some holes on defense.

 

Car, and Seattle are built in the trenches.  If the Skins want to compete with these teams they need to continue to fortify both sides of the line.

[Burgold]

I can't get on board with a 9/10 offensive rating, although I respect your argument there. But we are lacking a run game completely. So you're talking about some combination of problems between our RB talent and our interior OL. T

Not saying you're wrong, because I agree with you, but I was shocked how bad the running game looked for most of the playoff teams last weekend. Denver couldn't run at all and I thought that was one of their big time strengths. New England doesn't run, but they couldn't the few times they tried and the Cardinals failed too. I think Carolina could do pretty much anything they wanted to.

 

Running games have really taken a hit. I wonder if part of it is in this pass happy league they just don't get the attention they used to?

[Conn]

Not saying you're wrong, because I agree with you, but I was shocked how bad the running game looked for most of the playoff teams last weekend. Denver couldn't run at all and I thought that was one of their big time strengths. New England doesn't run, but they couldn't the few times they tried and the Cardinals failed too. I think Carolina could do pretty much anything they wanted to.

Running games have really taken a hit. I wonder if part of it is in this pass happy league they just don't get the attention they used to?

I think part of it was that all the final four teams had good to really good run defenses for the most part. So none of them could run at will, but all of them also have tons of front 7 talent, potentially explaining it

[Rufus T Firefly]

I think part of it was that all the final four teams had good to really good run defenses for the most part. So none of them could run at will, but all of them also have tons of front 7 talent, potentially explaining it

 

I was going to say basically this. All of them were in Football Outsiders top 10 rush defenses, with the Pats at 10 being easily the lowest, but I think they were committed to stopping the run and making Manning beat them.

[Birdlives]

I see us as a solid 5 which is 2-3 more than we were, so that indicates big strides. IF Kirk continues to grow, and IF we upgrade the defense to the 10-15 range, and IF our ST can go from just ok to an asset, ALL while maintaining the rest of the team and upgrading older talent, I would then put us in the 7-8 range.

To me, #'s 5-6 is an average team, 7-9 to 9-7

#'s 7-8 is a 10-6 to 11-5 team and

#'s 9-10 is a perennial 11+ win team with #10 being dominant year to year challenger for the title, i.e. New England etc.

[Burgold]

Using birdlives' scale I see the Redskins as a 6.5

 

We have progressed from a putrid 2014 team to a average/borderline good team. We're right at the teeter point between good and bad. Currently, we're tilted just a little bit up.

[mike42]

Probably 2, maybe 3 more solid drafts. 

 

Team, more than likely will slip next year.

 

Gruden still has to improve as a coach.  Kirk has to show he wasn't a one season wonder.

 

I think Kirk is for real. Prior to 2015, he had games where he was throwing around 400 yards in some close games, he just turned the ball over often due to his inexperience. Gruden who was also inexperienced, pulled him too early. Kirk was showing signs of potential back then. I think 2015 will be the year where it all came together for Kirk.

 

Jay Gruden did a good job his first year in 2014, it was much improved from 2013, 2015 was much improved from 2014. He continues to improve as a coach. We do know that there is some fire in his belly. He spent all offseason gearing the offense around RG3 and had to work Kirk at the last second. The main reason why our offense wasn't consistent early in the year.

 

I agree with us slipping next year. It happens. It wouldn't surprise me if Kirk and Gruden back slide next season, but further down the road, their future looks promising.

[Morneblade]

Got this from Hap's Breaking News forum and brought it to the Stadium because I thought it might make an interesting discussion topic.

 

ESPN basically had the beat reporters for 30 of the NFL's 32 teams rate the team they cover on a scale from 1 to 10 on how close that team is to being a Super Bowl contender (a "1" meaning no where near close and a "10" meaning a Super Bowl contender in 2016).

 

They purposely left the Denver Broncos and the Carolina Panthers off the list for obvious reasons.

 

John Keim gave the Redskins a "7" as you can see here (the link to the article is below):

 

 

 

 

What do you think? Too high? Too low? Just right?

Or too early?

I think it's about right. We do have holes, OL and DL need to be improved, we need secondary help and LB's don't look amazing either. The big difference is I think John is hedging that Scot is going to address those areas and improve the team every year, something that we have not realistically had in a very long time. Last year I would have given us a 2, spinning our wheels with no real hope anything was ever going to change.

[skinny21]

I see us as a solid 5 which is 2-3 more than we were, so that indicates big strides. IF Kirk continues to grow, and IF we upgrade the defense to the 10-15 range, and IF our ST can go from just ok to an asset, ALL while maintaining the rest of the team and upgrading older talent, I would then put us in the 7-8 range.

To me, #'s 5-6 is an average team, 7-9 to 9-7

#'s 7-8 is a 10-6 to 11-5 team and

#'s 9-10 is a perennial 11+ win team with #10 being dominant year to year challenger for the title, i.e. New England etc.

Speaking of ST... seems like they're right around that 'asset level' in terms of our kickers, just need better returns (mostly on punts, obviously).

[TSO]

I can't get on board with a 9/10 offensive rating, although I respect your argument there. But we are lacking a run game completely. So you're talking about some combination of problems between our RB talent and our interior OL. The OL did very well in pass pro (and Cousins quick trigger helped) but struggled mightily in the run game. Our best WR's are aging and arguably overpaid. We're thin at, and most likely lacking a great talent at RB right now.

I just can't agree that we're a 9/10 on offense, although I'll agree we're much closer on offense than defense. But we were a very one-dimensional team (though it was a very exciting dimension, I'll admit) and you can't beat the best teams consistently playing like that. Cousins has the ability to lift everyone around him the way the great QB's do if he keeps on developing, but his near-perfect play in many games is the only thing that kept us going the second half of this season and it showed when we hit the playoffs.

We need to fix this running game ASAP and I don't think we're one player away from doing that, which is basically what a 9/10 rating would say to me.

I know I might be crazy for this thought process, but I actually think we're a running back (could be Matt Jones, easily) and an Oline/TE group continuing to gel under Callahan away from being solid in the running game.

I think our issues were a combination of a new Oline coach with a bunch of young guys playing together for the first time, a RB corps that consisted of a shell of Alfred Morris and a rookie who has some growing to do, and a ridiculous amount of injuries to TE.

Two of those things are more about time than anything else.

And, remember, this is about being a contender. Not having perfection on both sides of the ball.

I probably should've made that clearer, but that's what I was intending to get across when I mentioned that I'd weigh defense more than offense in terms of this ranking and that the teams that are contending for a Super Bowl have clear weaknesses on offense while they don't on defense.

Basically, you don't need to be totally stacked on offense, therefore we're very close there.

Does that make any sense or am I full of it? I'm not sure myself.

[Conn]

I definitely get what you're saying, and I see the merit in it. I agree that we are close to having a legitimately playoff-ready offense with some tweaks...I think it was just putting a numerical value on it that threw me off, looking around the league I don't see us as being 90% of what the top dominant offenses are...but that's not really what you were trying to say and I see that now.

 

Its going to be a balancing act, because we all want defensive building blocks, but at the same time we all need to hope that we don't ignore our new bread and butter in Kirk and keep supplying him with weapons (Garcon and Desean--assuming they return--are aging, Reed has injury questions, and we don't have a running game yet). So while our 2015 offense was on the verge of legitimacy, its going to require some upkeep and some resources be put into it.

 

I want to sink most of our premium resources into the defense, because a dominant defense is very important to make and compete in the playoffs. But we are much much closer to having a legitimately scary offense if we make the right moves, I agree. 

[TSO]

Yeah, we've got to somehow manage to maintain the efficiency we saw the offense operate with while maybe losing some pieces that helped it (like Garçon) all while improving in the run game... Not necessarily an easy task so I'm totally with you and pretty much on the same wavelength there, brother.

I just think the offense is good enough as is right now were you to pair it with say the Broncos or Panthers D. Hence, the 9/10 in terms of this particular ranking system.

But were I ranking the offense in terms of how far off it is from being an "elite" offense, or a top three dominant one, I'd say it's at a 6 or 7.

[Audible_Red40]

Agree or not, it's an opinion to go with 7, and I will agree.  I truly would base this off Cousins and last years draft and moving forward.

 

Saying 5-6 is the chicken poop way out of it, just like predicting 8-8 as a record every year.

 

Although we may not "look" like we can contend now, we're certainly closer to contending then we are being cellar dwellers.

[Taco Bell]

I think its more the numerical scale as opposed to our actual pecking order in the list that feels "bold" or "optimistic" etc...

 

Also, I do think that this question is interesting but it is semantics heavy and in my belief works in our favor this particular time.

 

I don't think that if you asked for power rankings we would be in the same slot, it's more about having the right "pieces" and long term prospects at all spots - key or not so key - that could facilitate our peak performance being SB worthy given another year of how our team projects to develop.  Yes, that's a lot of semantics that I didn't describe properly.

 

Meaning - I don't necessarily think this question means our regular season record "should" be better than the Bengals, or the Cowboys etc, it's more that, if things went right along the way - our team looks more SB worthy given the way key spots on our team are young and on the rise - whether it's GM, HC, or QB - therefore saying if our GM "keeps" making good moves, our HC continues to develop, our QB makes further gains, our team seems more capable of winning a SB than a high floor low ceiling Bengals team, or whoever else. 

 

 It's not about the likelihood of making the playoffs, it's about having the ability to win a SB.  And I agree with those semantics and where we are in it.  It's the same reason why the Texans are no where near the top, and the Colts are ahead of us and many others. 

 

We are certainly not in the "more questions than answers" section even if numerically 6 feels more correct when we have a young QB, HC, and GM in place going into next year (which one or all of them could stumble).  Another oddity of this ranking - but I figure the title of the grouping matters more than the number for their pointless article.