USA Today: Redskins among 4 teams that won't make the Playoffs in 2016

[goskins10]

This assumption by prognosticators that a Cowboys team with a healthy romoSUCKS and Dez is seemingly guaranteed for 10+ wins is absurd. Is Jason Garrett still coaching? Is Demarco Murray gonna come back and touch it 400 times? Over/under on how many games Sean Lee misses?

Forget them, they're still the Cowboys.

 

Then you add to that they are saying we are least likely because of potential injuries to Reed and Jackson - which is hilarious since both were injured some last year, not to mention many. many other guys yet we still won the div!

[TheItalianStallion]

It's true that we had lots of injuries, but the Cowboys had an injury at the most important spot. How many games do the skins win this year if a combination of Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassel, and Kellen Moore start for us rather than Kirk?

[goskins10]

It's true that we had lots of injuries, but the Cowboys had an injury at the most important spot. How many games do the skins win this year if a combination of Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassel, and Kellen Moore start for us rather than Kirk?

 

 

So, let's say romoSUCKS was not injured but instead Dez (D Jackson), Whitten (Reed), 2 starters on the Oline (KL and SL for us), half the secondary (Culliver and Ihenacho) - not to mention DHall missed time and D Johnson missed the last game. Both starting inside LBs - that would include Sean Lee for them (Riley and Keenan R.). They all missed significant time except Reed who did some time early. Not to mention many others who were the replacements for those guys. We started 3 players the last game that were not even on the team to start the season!  Yet we still managed to find a way to win!

 

It's their fault they did not have a better replacement for romoSUCKS - BTW Weedon helped the Texans make the POs, Is it his fault it didn't work in dallast? They just needed one guy, granted it's the most important position, but they should be able to overcome that.

 

They beat Miami who was 6-10 and fired their coach midseason but not because of him. He threw for 227 2 TDs but 2 picks, The D won that game keeping Miami to 10 pts. Then in Carolina he threw 3 picks to no TDs before getting inured again.

 

I get the romoSUCKS is a huge part of their team. One of the reasons they don't win big games is they have never really given him any help. That team had a lot more wrong with it than tony romoSUCKS going out. That's why it's crazy they considered the clear favorites over us.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It's true that we had lots of injuries, but the Cowboys had an injury at the most important spot. How many games do the skins win this year if a combination of Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassel, and Kellen Moore start for us rather than Kirk?

 

isn't that the point, though?...It's not as if the Cowboys were forced to put those QBs on their team. Their GM and coaches hand-picked those three players, and every other depth player on the team. If their backups aren't good enough to win more than one game then the Cowboys aren't a very good team. Because injuries to starters happen every single year to every single team...especially a team with a 35 year old QB who has had multiple serious injuries to his back and collar bone.

 

Nobody should assume that every team in Dallas' situation would have bottomed out as well. I'm 99% positive that the Redskins would have won more than 1 game if they had to start Griffin and McCoy for 12 combined games.

[Burgold]

It's true that we had lots of injuries, but the Cowboys had an injury at the most important spot. How many games do the skins win this year if a combination of Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassel, and Kellen Moore start for us rather than Kirk?

This year is a bad year to ask that question. How many games do the Broncos win if Peyton Manning goes down? How can they possibly compete with a Peyton Manning in the Superbowl who's got nothing in the tank left and plays like John Beck?

[Tsailand]

So, let's say romoSUCKS was not injured but instead Dez (D Jackson), Whitten (Reed), 2 starters on the Oline (KL and SL for us), half the secondary (Culliver and Ihenacho) - not to mention DHall missed time and D Johnson missed the last game. Both starting inside LBs - that would include Sean Lee for them (Riley and Keenan R.).

 

None of this means anything unless you take into account at the quality of the player lost and the quality of his replacement. 

 

You are pretending that our loss of freaking Perry Riley is equivalent to the Cowboys losing an elite LB like Sean Lee.  That's simply nonsense.  Most of our players you mention were mediocre to flat-out bad, and were replaced by other mediocre-to-bad players.  In some cases (Perry Riley again) the backup was better than the starter, so the Redskins were actually improved by the injury.

 

You also have to look at the amount of time lost.  Reed is elite, and we definitely miss him when he's out, but he only missed 2-3 games this year.  The Jackson loss was a huge deal, but we still had him for half a season.

 

All of our 2015 injuries put together do not add up to missing over 12 games of Tοny Rοmο, who played at an elite level in 2014, as he has for most of his career.

[goskins10]

None of this means anything unless you take into account at the quality of the player lost and the quality of his replacement. 

 

You are pretending that our loss of freaking Perry Riley is equivalent to the Cowboys losing an elite LB like Sean Lee.  That's simply nonsense.  Most of our players you mention were mediocre to flat-out bad, and were replaced by other mediocre-to-bad players.  In some cases (Perry Riley again) the backup was better than the starter, so the Redskins were actually improved by the injury.

 

You also have to look at the amount of time lost.  Reed is elite, and we definitely miss him when he's out, but he only missed 2-3 games this year.  The Jackson loss was a huge deal, but we still had him for half a season.

 

All of our 2015 injuries put together do not add up to missing over 12 games of Tοny Rοmο, who played at an elite level in 2014, as he has for most of his career.

 

 

I am not equating Riley with Lee only making the point that if they lose their ILB (MLB for them), it's Sean Lee which I agree is a much bigger loss. I was pointing out the sheer number of injuries for comparison and aligning the positions and the players.  

 

But what really makes no sense is: 

"All of our 2015 injuries put together do not add up to missing over 12 games of Tοny Rοmο, who played at an elite level in 2014, as he has for most of his career."

 

For starters, that's assuming he would have another career year, but without a Murray who also had a career yr in 2014.  But as I pointed out and you ignored, he was not playing at that elite level this year, which is the one that counts. I am not saying romo is a bad QB. Actually I think he is much better than most even in dallast give him credit for. He is one of the best I have every seen at extending plays and turning broken plays into big plays. He does it to us all the time. I'll even agree he is an elite QB, in that group right behind Brady, Rogers, Brees, Manning (in their prime).

 

But the point here is that if you can lose one guy, any guy, I don't care how good he is, and go from 12-4 to 4-12 you were not that good a football team to begin with. Where as we suffered all those injuries and went from 4-12 to 9-7 and the division.

[scruffylookin]

Well considering that the Redskins made the playoffs at least 2 seasons before anyone expected them to, this is not really going out on much of a limb now is it?

 

For me personally, as long as they do not regress badly and have an implosion season like 2013 I'm okay with the Skins missing the playoffs next year. People in this thread have made good points, chief among them being that nobody seems to take into account the injuries that the Redskins overcame this past season.

 

The funny thing is that most of these "experts" have the Cowboys as most likely to win yet I must ask why? 2014 was an outlier of a season for them. The Tony Romo led Cowboys have been 8-8 under Garrett with the exception of 2014. A "good" team that lost their quarterback does not crater to 4-12. That is a team with a lot more holes than the "experts" want to admit.

 

I fully expect the NFC East winner to be 9-7 or 10-6 again. Whether that team is the Redskins, who knows but they have every bit the chance as the other 3.

[SkinsFTW]

A "good" team that lost their quarterback does not crater to 4-12. That is a team with a lot more holes than the "experts" want to admit.

 

Without that 2014 running game they are again an 8-8 team. Without Romo they are 4-12. Next year if Romo doesn't break his colorbone for the 30th time they might be 8-8 again, at best. Hopefully they grab a couple more guys like Gregory in the draft lol.

[TheItalianStallion]

Those 8-8 Cowboys teams had poor defenses and lackluster to bad rushing offfenses. They have a good pass D now, and even though the rushing attack regressed from 2014, McFadden was still among the NFL's leading rushers. He likely would've been more successful had opposing Ds had more to fear from Dallas' passing O. They won all but 1 of the games Romo started, and that lone loss was to the Panthers, a game which he didn't even finish. Every one of their losses was close except for that one against CAR, also GB, and NE. All 3 of those teams beat us by similar margins.

 

Given all of the close losses, and the fact that Romo is 15-5 over the past 2 seasons, it would stand to reason that replacing backup-caliber QB play with top-10 caliber QB play could make the difference between having a bunch of wins in those close games rather than losses.

 

I'm not crowning them 2016 NFCE champs or anything, but just pointing out that Dallas being a tough opponent next year is a very real possibility.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

isn't that the point, though?...It's not as if the Cowboys were forced to put those QBs on their team. Their GM and coaches hand-picked those three players, and every other depth player on the team. If their backups aren't good enough to win more than one game then the Cowboys aren't a very good team. Because injuries to starters happen every single year to every single team...especially a team with a 35 year old QB who has had multiple serious injuries to his back and collar bone.

 

Nobody should assume that every team in Dallas' situation would have bottomed out as well. I'm 99% positive that the Redskins would have won more than 1 game if they had to start Griffin and McCoy for 12 combined games.

 

But all that really proves is that our team was marginally better at backup QB than the Cowboys. And, let's say that Dallas somehow had McCoy and Griffin last year - do you think they win one additional game? Two? Six? I still would contend that they go from 12-4 in 2014 to 7-9 AT BEST in 2015. 

 

The point? The one injury Dallas had was EXTREMELY detrimental to its 2015 success. I don't think it really matters what that says about their roster make up. I believe Dallas, with a healthy Romo, is probably a 9- or 10-win team. 

 

Here's the kicker though...who cares? At worst, that makes us 8-8 (assuming they beat us in the season finale). The Redskins would still be a team considered to be trending in the right direction even if they were swept by Dallas last year. 

[Tsailand]

But the point here is that if you can lose one guy, any guy, I don't care how good he is, and go from 12-4 to 4-12 you were not that good a football team to begin with.

 

No, that's just the nature of the QB position in the NFL.  If you have an elite QB on your payroll and he goes down, you are probably going to lose a ton of games.  There are exceptions but they are rare (Patriots going 11-5 without Brady -- and missing the playoffs).

 

 

Where as we suffered all those injuries and went from 4-12 to 9-7 and the division.

 

Yeah, because we dumped our old QB and got a good one.  Further evidence for how important the QB position.

 

And stop saying "all those injuries".  The one that truly mattered was Jackson.  Oh, it would have been nice to see Niles Paul and Jordan Reed on the field at the same time.  Other than that, it's a bunch of mediocre guys whom I wish weren't starting here.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

But all that really proves is that our team was marginally better at backup QB than the Cowboys.

Actually it could prove a hellluva lot more than that.

It could point to the reality that we have a better head coach and a better offensive scheme.

It could point to the reality that we have a better GM and better depth across the board.

 

And, let's say that Dallas somehow had McCoy and Griffin last year - do you think they win one additional game? Two? Six? I still would contend that they go from 12-4 in 2014 to 7-9 AT BEST in 2015.

That's not the point, though. The point is not that Romo isn't better than Cousins or that Griffin and McCoy would do just as poorly on the Cowboys as their trifecta of mediocrity.

The point is that the Dallas Cowboys are not a good TEAM. Romo is a really good QB who can lift a really mediocre team and it's truly mediocre head coach to 8-8...if he stays healthy. With his health, relatively good health across the roster AND a dominating run game, Romo can lead the team to double digit wins if things lean their way.

But the Cowboys don't have a dominant run game, and counting/hoping on relative good health across the roster is not a very convincing argument for a team to win the division.

 

 

The point? The one injury Dallas had was EXTREMELY detrimental to its 2015 success. I don't think it really matters what that says about their roster make up. I believe Dallas, with a healthy romoSUCKS, is probably a 9- or 10-win team.

they've only passed 8 wins once over the last 6 seasons whether Romo was healthy or not. And in that 1 season their defense was no better than it was in 2011 when they went 8-8 or last year when they went 4-12. So unless they are able to produce a dominant run game again this upcoming season, I'm hardpressed to believe the Cowboys are some 10-win shoe-in with a healthy Romo.

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Cali - maybe I jumped in too late. I don't really think it matters how balanced or great the TEAM is in reference to the points in this thread. If someone is arguing that the Skins likely wouldn't have won the East if Romo stayed healthy (something he had done the previous 4 seasons - missing only 2 games over that time), it's a valid point. It's a similarly valid point looking ahead to next year. 

 

It doesn't really matter if the Cowboys are too Romo-dependent to be considered a strong team or not. If he stays healthy, it's not ridiculous to think that they can win 10 games next year. That's knocking 2 off the total they won the last time he had a mostly healthy season too. 

 

Their OL is good. We know Romo is good. We know Dez is good. 

 

Put it this way, when both teams are completely healthy, the Cowboys are a better bet to win 10 games than we are. That doesn't mean they are a "shoe-in" but it's a reasonable prediction...especially since you seem to rely on past performances. What from our past screams that we follow up feel-good seasons with more success?

[perez24]

What annoys me about these reviews is that while people whine about how other teams suffered through injuries no one talks about what the Redskins overcame and what it could mean.

 

We lost our starting safety.

Both starting cornerbacks.

Our left guard.

Our center.

Our middle linebacker.

Our third down running back (or co-starting running back)

Perhaps our best pass rushing linebacker.

Our starting wr and best deep threat (for half the season)

 

and I'm probably forgetting a few. The Redskins may never have played a game with the starting secondary they envisioned coming into training camp (if you consider Ihenacho's injury they definitely didn't) There wasn't a game last year they didn't play short handed. Three times, they relied on free agents signed off the street to come in and play significant, even starting roles. These were guys no one in the NFL wanted or thought was good enough to be on their roster even as a third string back up (Foster, Blackmon, Thomas)

 

The 'skins ought to get more benefit of the doubt. They fought through the 2015 season playing on one leg with their arm tied behind their back.

Lost the starting QB too, but the guy who replaced him was pretty good!

 

And lost BOTH MLBs, but again the replacements did pretty well.

 

I don't know that we'll go to the playoffs next year but the team overcame more adversity than most of the NFC East.

[goskins10]

Cali - maybe I jumped in too late. I don't really think it matters how balanced or great the TEAM is in reference to the points in this thread. If someone is arguing that the Skins likely wouldn't have won the East if romoSUCKS stayed healthy (something he had done the previous 4 seasons - missing only 2 games over that time), it's a valid point. It's a similarly valid point looking ahead to next year. 

 

It doesn't really matter if the Cowboys are too romoSUCKS-dependent to be considered a strong team or not. If he stays healthy, it's not ridiculous to think that they can win 10 games next year. That's knocking 2 off the total they won the last time he had a mostly healthy season too. 

 

Their OL is good. We know romoSUCKS is good. We know Dez is good. 

 

Put it this way, when both teams are completely healthy, the Cowboys are a better bet to win 10 games than we are. That doesn't mean they are a "shoe-in" but it's a reasonable prediction...especially since you seem to rely on past performances. What from our past screams that we follow up feel-good seasons with more success?

 

 

But it's also 2 more wins than he had in any of the previous seasons when he had little to no run game. Their run game did not totally disappear last year, but it was definitely down. Maybe that was a function of bad QB play, maybe not. But to assume after 5 yrs of mediocrity and then 1 nice year to assume they are the new powerhouse and odds on favorites does not make any sense.

 

I would not expect us to be the odds on favorite either. If anything the division is very much up for grabs with us and probably dallast having a small edge over the other two, if for no other reason than they have ne HCs. In philly's case they have a lot rebuilding to do. chip sent many of their playmakers off to other teams.

 

 

Tsailand stated:

 

And stop saying "all those injuries".  The one that truly mattered was Jackson.  Oh, it would have been nice to see Niles Paul and Jordan Reed on the field at the same time.  Other than that, it's a bunch of mediocre guys whom I wish weren't starting here.

 

 

People can talk all they want about injuries not being a big deal but that's total BS. I agree there is no single injury we had that equates to Romo on it's own. But the sheer magnitude of people we had inured, projected starters is totally the point! The fact you don't like them or think they are poor players is totally immaterial here. It's the sum of the parts. I will keep saying it over and over again because it's true, we started 3 guys on D that were not on the team to start the season! You are saying that all 21 other guys could all be inured and it still does not equate to one QB. Tha'ts just not even close to realistic.

 

 

Tsailand said:

 

No, that's just the nature of the QB position in the NFL.  If you have an elite QB on your payroll and he goes down, you are probably going to lose a ton of games.  There are exceptions but they are rare (Patriots going 11-5 without Brady -- and missing the playoffs).

 

And the part about it proving it's a QB centric league - no one is disputing that. But QB or not, you should not lose any one player and go from 12-4 to 4-12. They should have been able to at least go 8-8 again. It proves they are not a very good team. Yes romo bails them out and gets them wins they should not get. But until 2014 those extra wins were the difference between 5 or 6 wins, and 8. They had 12 wins one year, that's it. And that's when they had the #2 rush offense. Then they immediately dropped to 4 with Romo out.

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Put it this way, when both teams are completely healthy, the Cowboys are a better bet to win 10 games than we are.

I don't buy that...They are far more likely to botch their draft than we are, far more likely to sign disruptive, mediocre free agents than we are, far more likely to have a team culture that invites the wrong type of attitudes and mindsets that tend to lead to losing than we are, and are more likely to have coaching brainfarts that directly lead to losses than we are (but not "far more" likely lol)...

 

That doesn't mean they are a "shoe-in" but it's a reasonable prediction...especially since you seem to rely on past performances. What from our past screams that we follow up feel-good seasons with more success?

We now have a GM who knows how to build upon success and has actual experience doing just that. When in our past have we had that?

 

You win in September with your starters. You win in December with your depth.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But it's also 2 more wins than he had in any of the previous seasons when he had little to no run game. Their run game did not totally disappear last year, but it was definitely down. Maybe that was a function of bad QB play, maybe not. But to assume after 5 yrs of mediocrity and then 1 nice year to assume they are the new powerhouse and odds on favorites does not make any sense.

 

I would not expect us to be the odds on favorite either. If anything the division is very much up for grabs with us and probably dallast having a small edge over the other two, if for no other reason than they have ne HCs. In philly's case they have a lot rebuilding to do. chip sent many of their playmakers off to other teams.

 

 

Their rushing offense was still pretty good. They averaged 4.6 yards per carry and finished the season with 12 100-yard rushing games (and another 97-yard game). In fact, that's the same average YPG as their previous season. The issue was not getting nearly enough carries (probably somewhat related to awful QB play being unable to convert third downs and sustain drives). 

 

And you're right, to expect them to be a "powerhouse" is a lot. But to expect them to be the front-runner in a flawed division is pretty rational considering who they lost to injury last year and how close they still came to winning many of those 12 losses. 

I don't buy that...They are far more likely to botch their draft than we are, far more likely to sign disruptive, mediocre free agents than we are, far more likely to have a team culture that invites the wrong type of attitudes and mindsets that tend to lead to losing than we are, and are more likely to have coaching brainfarts that directly lead to losses than we are (but not "far more" likely lol)...

 

We now have a GM who knows how to build upon success and has actual experience doing just that. When in our past have we had that?

 

You win in September with your starters. You win in December with your depth.

 

I want all of that to be right. I just don't consider it a slap in the face that most national pundits are going to have to see the Redskins have two straight good seasons before they expect it. It hasn't happened since 1996-1997 (and both of those seasons were probably much closer to mediocre considering they were 9-7/8-7-1 and neither resulted in a playoff berth). 

 

I still think it's a rational and safe bet to expect a little more out of Dallas (until we prove that we can take over a weak division). 

[Tsailand]

People can talk all they want about injuries not being a big deal but that's total BS. I agree there is no single injury we had that equates to romoSUCKS on it's own. But the sheer magnitude of people we had inured, projected starters is totally the point!

 

Again, it's all about the quality of player lost and the quality of his replacement. You don't get to complain about injuries to your MLBs when they are among the worst in the league.

 

 

And the part about it proving it's a QB centric league - no one is disputing that. But QB or not, you should not lose any one player and go from 12-4 to 4-12.

 

The reality is that teams with elite QBs, especially QBs that are getting elite money, are built so that if they lose that QB for an entire year, they will tank and get a high draft pick.  You might not like it, but it's how the NFL is.

[goskins10]

 

Again, it's all about the quality of player lost and the quality of his replacement. You don't get to complain about injuries to your MLBs when they are among the worst in the league.

 

 

 

The reality is that teams with elite QBs, especially QBs that are getting elite money, are built so that if they lose that QB for an entire year, they will tank and get a high draft pick.  You might not like it, but it's how the NFL is.

 

We are done here. On the first point you continue to ignore it's not one position or one person, it's that we lost 12 to 15 starters across the board for more than a game here and a game there. I will ay it one last time and I am done. No, you cannot just compare losing your starting ILB (we play a 3-4) and compare that to losing your QB, but when you lose so many starters, the impact mounts. And them being "among the worst in the league" is an exaggeration. And, if you can lose one person and be that bad you just were not a good football team to begin with, period!!

 

The second point is complete fiction. It happened exactly one time, the Colts and that has yet to prove out. While Luck had some nice seasons, he was playing horrible even before his injuries last year. He was leading the league in interceptions. So, again I say it's just not true.

 

Not going to keep running in circles. I am done.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It's a pretty tough debate on either side...

 

How can anyone really measure the impact of injuries on a team when you have to consider the quality of the specific player, the importance of the position, the strength of the depth at the relevant position, etc. 

 

Take for example our inside linebackers. It's not a stretch to argue that our team performed BETTER at that position after Robinson got injured. So, as far as metrics are concerned we could claim that we lost x number of games from starters, but it wasn't even necessarily a bad thing for us. Obviously we did a great job weathering the storm of injuries this year, but I don't see how you can compare losing a Pro Bowl QB for 12 games vs. losing some of the people we did. 

 

Now, you want to talk about the games Jackson or Reed missed...that's fair, but I'd be careful about looking at total games missed. 

[The Consigliere]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/02/4-nfl-teams-that-wont-make-the-playoffs-again-next-season#

 

"Washington rolled into the playoffs after its offense finally got healthy in the second half. The returns of DeSean Jackson and Jordan Reed took pressure off Kirk Cousins, and the 27-year-old settled into his role as a distributor nicely. Everything went right for Washington in the second half, but Jackson and Reed are injury prone players so it’s not like the team can expect them to play a full 16-game schedule next season."

 

 

Well it took all of a few days before we started getting trolled about next year. USA Today has announced us a 1 of the 4 teams that won't make the playoffs next year.......

 

What are your thoughts - understanding this is well before any moves have been made or the new season has even started. It might be interesting to see how the predictions work out when the season happens. Besides, it's the offseason. What else do we have to do?

 

In '99 we went from 6-10 the previous season to 10-6, before falling back to 8-8 in '00. 

 

In '05 we went from 6-10 the previous season to 10-6 before falling back to 5-11 in '06. 

 

In '07 went went from 5-11 the previous season to 9-7 before falling back to 8-8 in '08. 

 

In '12 we went from 5-11 the previous season to 10-6 before falling to 3-13 in '13.. 

 

In all four of our playoff runs over the past 23 years, we've gone from garbage to playoffs to garbage and the core reasons have typically been rather similar: no franchise QB, lack of quality depth, and legit starters at multiple key positions usually involving the secondary, and/or one or both lines, plus bounce back seasons from the powers in the division.

 

Seems to me that our core issues are along the OL (improved but still need work), DL (a lot of departures potentially happening and not a lot of talent anyway), secondary (nothing much at safety, or at corner beyond Breeland (maybe Culliver bounces back?), we may let one or both starting WR's leave, and our new franchise QB who actually for now, is simply an improved QB, maybe, but not a franchise guy yet.

 

I think we should save our anger at the media for unjustified takes, rather than justified ones. We have a persistent track record of one off playoff births much like the Lions over the past three decades, we trumped our O/U by a full 3 wins while taking advantage of an imploding division, god awful schedule, and circumstances so bad that 2 of our 3 divisional foes canned their coaches, and a third would have been canned by quite a few owners. 

 

Do I think we're improving? Absolutely. Do I think that kind of write up is unfair? Absolutely not. 

 

The team made a huge leap last year, some of that leap was due to the quality of play, but much of it was due to circumstances entirely out of our control as well. 

 

I suspect that Dallas will improve substantially next year, but that Philly is an open question, and NYG's improvement will be almost entirely contingent on their ability to rebuild their OL and run game, and continue to address and improve their defense-that's a lot of fixing. I do believe we could finish second, or even first if many things were to break our way, but I do think it's more likely that we find our own level battling to finish .500 or above and try to steal the 6 seed. 

 

I honestly think we shouldn't worry too much about any of that and should focus on the slow build of a long term competitive side. I don't really care one way or the other if we make the playoffs. I'm much more interested in McCloughan doing whatever he can to build a club that is competitive over the long haul, I'm beyond sick of having a team make periodic runs before falling apart much like the Bolez and the Nats lately. I want the Redskins to end this tradition of producing one quality season every fourth year or so as it has been doing since 1993. We won't be able to accomplish anything unless McCloughan and crew can avoid short cuts and simply build a sound, deep, and talented team, and that will take time. You don't dig a hole as deep as we did between 2008-2015 w/o requiring plenty of time to fix it and if that means suffering for a year or two or even three so that we can build something that lasts, I'm all for it. I've been following this team since 1980, and like many around here, I can be patient if I believe the team is actually following a sound plan put together by a sound leader. Impatience is our enemy. 

[Tsailand]

One more thing:  Predictions that the Cowboys will be good are all contingent on Rοmο recovering and being great again.  But he's going to be 36. Old even for a QB.  In one of the next few years, he is going to hit the wall just as hard as Manning did, and that season is going to be another disaster for the Cowboys.  Might not be until 2018, but it might just be be 2016.

[hail2skins]

One of the operators of a few of the Vegas sportsbooks are releasing their projected win numbers for teams in 2016. They have the Cowboys at 9, and the rest of the division at 7.5.  Still not a lot of love yet......sigh.

 

http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=451363

[TheGreek1973]

I still don't understand how they can have the confidence with romoSUCKS's injuries that he will go the entire season.  We saw what happened when he was out which means to me that team is badly coached and has not answers at QB.  In addition I still don't understand why they think the boys will be that good with romoSUCKS since he has made the playoffs 1 time in 6 years.  There 12-4 came when you had a total implosion of us, the Giants and Eagles (towards the end) plus a running game that was the best in the league.  Are they projecting they would also have that type of running game next year?  Good luck.