The Washington Redskins Are A "Good Team". Time To Accept This Fact

[ddub52]

18 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

From the 6 game sample size I have seen so far this season I would classify the 'Skins as "above average" I still can't say "good" yet because I have seen too many game scenarios where they should be putting games away yet they are coming down to a defensive stand on a final drive of the game. 

A GOOD team beats the Eagles by a couple TD's (at least) considering the opportunities to do so today. There was ample opportunity to have this game a borderline laugher but the 'Skins manage to do what they seem to always do and make a non-competitive game, a very close one. 

Right now that asinine loss to the Cowboys is what hurts the most. Another game where the 'Skins had ample chances to put it away, but seemed to play so conservatively.  Total reminder of the MNF loss at home last year.

Good teams give bad teams a BEATDOWN, they don't let games like today come down to a 4th quarter stand.

While I agree with some of what you've said, the Eagles were 3-1 coming into this game. They're not exactly a "bad team". It's the NFL, guys are going to make plays. Our defense held them to 6 points on offense and the Eagles never had the lead the entire game. Everyone has their own perception of what a "bad", "good" or "great" team looks like. But imo, I agree with the OP. We're a good team, with plenty of room for improvement. 

[Warhead36]

Unless you're one of the elite juggernaut teams, blowouts just don't happen that often. Games in the NFL are generally very close.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

I think we can be a good team, but Cousins has to be more consistent and the coaching staff has to do a better job.

The past 2 weeks should have been easy wins the way we dominated, but it was life and death because of poor play calling and not always playing the right players.

[Sticksboi05]

23 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

I hate when people use nowadays for something that has always been true, well at least since I started seriously watching the NFL back in 1972.  Use the Redskins as an example, in 1982, we did not really beat down teams until the last two games of the regular season. 

 

It's even more apparent in a league with free agency and where points are scored so quickly because of the rules for passing offenses.

[Suffolk_Skins]

6 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Unless you're one of the elite juggernaut teams, blowouts just don't happen that often. Games in the NFL are generally very close.

 

True but we completely dominated the Eagles ion all areas apart from the scoreboard. We can't afford to lose a game that we dominate, luckily that hasn't happened the last 2 weeks.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

14 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

It's even more apparent in a league with free agency and where points are scored so quickly because of the rules for passing offenses.

Yes - "nowadays" is most certainly accurate here. Before FA hit in the early-1990s there were typically about 6-8 legitimate contenders each season. 75% of the league entered training camp hoping to get a few breaks and get into the playoffs. Of those elite teams, there were plenty of lopsided scores throughout the season.

Take the 1990 Redskins as an example. They were one of the top 25% teams that season, but didn't even make the conference championship game. They won 5 of their games by 15+ points (back then, that was a 3-score game) and won a 6th game by 14. So, 6 of their 10 wins were pretty easy sledding. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I need to see more.  I'm not quite ready to say they're good yet, but they're close.  Need to see more games like yesterday where we dominated in all three facets of the game (I guess yesterday giving up a kick return doesn't count for special teams, but that penalty hurt them).

But the good news is they're definitely trending in that direction.  The Ravens win was ugly, but IMO, the one of the hallmarks of a good team is a team that doesn't beat itself.  We could have done that against the Ravens and we didn't.  Same for yesterday, although there were two big mistakes that lead to the Eagles scoring touchdowns and tying the game, we soundly beat them in passing and rushing yards, time of possession, first downs...pretty much every stat.  Outside of the kick return for the TD and the Cousins terrible pick 6, we didn't beat ourselves at all.  We did nothing to shoot ourselves in the foot.  

They're getting better.  I believe we can beat Detroit and the Bengals and those are teams a "good team" should be able to beat.  Detroit will be a challenge as they're solid at home, the Bengals will be tricky only because we'll be in England.  But win those two, we'll be at 6-2 and headed into a tough 2nd half but on a really good run.

 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I'm not gonna annoint us at any point, however I will certainly allow myself to enjoy our little streak here.  Especially considering that we got wins at NYG and Baltimore, and a win against Philthy at home.  Certainly all in my top five most hated teams.  

And I think it's easy to dismiss a dominate performance yesterday, when we struggled to put a team away.  However, I think that's more of a by product of league parity.  Blowouts, especially against formidable division opponents, seem like a rarity.  But make no mistake...we kicked Philthy's ass yesterday.  In a game where we were a 2 point dog, I consider a 9 point swing to be an ass whipping.  

For me, it's the coaching from yesterday that makes me as happy as anything.  In my opinion, Pederson is an outstanding play caller.  I think Schwartz is a top flight DC.  And for the first time in a long time, I felt like we thoroughly out prepared, out schemed, and out coached a worthy opponent.  Jay/McVay found ways to get our run game going.  They schemed guys open with Reed out.  Barry frustrated Wentz all day long.  Just a total beat down.

Our players executed well.  What I saw yesterday was a confident football team totally dismantle a good Iggles squad.  This team is starting to believe in itself.  

Kudos to Jay and the staff.  Let's hope we can keep it going.

[DM72]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

Unless you're one of the elite juggernaut teams, blowouts just don't happen that often. Games in the NFL are generally very close.

 

Even the Bills got a blowout yesterday. The Cowboys have won comfortably the last 2 weeks. 

I want to see us win like that. 

[NoCalMike]

7 hours ago, wilco_holland said:

I think the Herm Edwards statement is fine. Outside of yesterday we are not dominating teams. We play good special teams, make some plays on O & D and at the end we find a way to win it. 

I don't care about that. I just want to win doesn't matter if it's ugly.

 

The issue with Herm Edwards statement is that he is presenting a scenario about the 'Skins/Eagles game that is pretty much the exact opposite of what happened on the field.  The 'Skins led the game the entire way, by two possessions for the majority of the game.  If anything it was the 'Skins allowing the Eagles to hang around despite being statistically dominated all over the field on both sides of the ball.  The 'Skins didn't "hang around and steal one" from the Eagles......the 'Skins let the Eagles hang around instead of doing what they should have done which was blow them off the field.

[DM72]

Exactly why I didn't care for Herm's statement. As far as I'm concerned, it was a backhanded compliment.

[bobandweave]

So going into the season the one big gripe I had with the off season and draft and I was very vocal about this was my mistrust in our running game especially not happy with Matt Jones being the anointed starter. Yesterday was the second time this year I honestly thought, damn where would we be without our RBs? I am very happy to eat a big ole pile of crow pie about that and I bring it up because looking back at our beliefs before the season to where we are now and reflecting on that is a good exercise.

Now this season even after the recent success we have had my belief has held firm about this team. I believe we are a team with an arrow pointing way up but needing another years offseason to become a "good" team. Would I say we are a "good" team? Not yet. I still believe we run the risk of finishing with a losing record, or a .500 record this season and the truth is that we are a much better team then we fielded last year that won the NFC East. I wonder how many of you would think we had a "good" team if we finished 8-8 like I would? We are building a winning team, not a flash in the pan one good season and then done team now.

Now that doesn't mean I am holding fast to an incorrect belief we aren't a "good" team yet and won't reconsider, in fact my first issue with us being called a "good" team is how I see our schedule laid out. We are in the easy part of our schedule and riding high on winning four in a row thinking we are a "good" team now. However to call ourselves a "good" team it starts with beating "good" teams in bad situations. I present you our remaining schedule so when you consider your answer to this to keep it in mind:

Detroit
Cincinnati
BYE WEEK
Minnesota
Green Bay
Dallas
Arizona
Philadelphia
Carolina
Chicago
New York Giants

The next two games are on the road - in Detroit and a game in London. I think we split these games and go into the bye week with a 5-3 record feeling very good about ourselves. Winning back to back road games is something "good" teams do, so honestly if we can manage to win both of those games my belief will rise to we are a "good" team now. That's the first chance we have to show we are a "good" team and get me to change this opinion. 1-1 won't influence my feelings about this team any, 0-2 will have me re-examine the rest of the season.

The second chance will happen after the Bye week. We have two weeks to prepare how to attack the best Defense in the league today at home, then we follow that up with the Packers in a prime time game at home and then follow that up with a short week nationally televised game I will be attending in Dallas on Thanksgiving.

To me "good" teams have "good" coaches that come off the Bye week like Andy Reid and win those games with the added rest. "Good" teams also don't wilt in prime time games either. How we deal with these first three games after the bye will dictate our chances on making the playoffs this year and "Good" teams rarely miss the playoffs.

So not ready to call us more then a rebuilding heading in the right direction just like I thought before the beginning of the year because we are 4-2 today and I expected that but there are some real chances to get me to re-evaluate this. I am very happy with the direction we are going, I just think Rome took time to build which is the same as our team.

[NoCalMike]

I will say out of every game this season, this is the one I felt the best about at halftime, despite feeling like they should have been up 21-0.  I think what really turned my mind on this game was after the Eagles tied the game at 14-14, the offense marched right back down the field and scored another TD.  In the past it feels like that pick 6 is where the game would have turned and they would have never recovered.

[MisterPinstripe]

3 hours ago, gortiz said:

I'm not there yet. 

Good teams don't give up pick 6's and a kickoff return - IN THE SAME GAME. Seems like this team needs adversity to get its ass in gear (starting off 0-2, letting Philly come back to tie up game at 14-14) 

Once they get that killer instinct and don't need that motivation, I'll call them good. 

This team is simply better then what they were 4 weeks ago. If I had to qualify, they are in between average and good ... decent, respectable? 

Except, you know, like the Patriots vs Eagles game last December. You know, the one where there was a 99 yard pick 6, a punt return for a TD, and AND a blocked punt for a TD? But the Patriots arent a good team.

[DM72]

4 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Except, you know, like the Patriots vs Eagles game last December. You know, the one where there was a 99 yard pick 6, a punt return for a TD, and AND a blocked punt for a TD? But the Patriots arent a good team.

 

I think a better way of putting is, good teams rarely blow big leads. Good teams usually put you away when you're down. 

We should have had two blowouts. Cleveland and Philly.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

50 minutes ago, DM72 said:

 

I think a better way of putting is, good teams rarely blow big leads. Good teams usually put you away when you're down. 

We should have had two blowouts. Cleveland and Philly.

But there's also another way of putting it.  That fans expect certain results that, in my opinion, are not in line with certain realities.  If we're up by twenty at half, we should win by forty.  No mistakes should occur.  No fumbles.  No dropped passes.  Everything is supposed to always go as planned.  To me, that isn't realistic.  

Of course, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  Should we have won by a few more points yesterday?  Sure.  But what about Cox's penalty?  Or maybe Wentz missed a few throws he normally hits?  There's always two sides to every coin.

In my opinion, yesterday was much more on the 'we kicked Philly's ass' side of the scale than on the 'we should be disappointed that we didn't blow them out' side.  I think people are selling short how dominant we were yesterday and how encouraging that should be moving forward.  Jay led a team of crazed dogs out there yesterday.  It started the second half against Baltimore.  I don't know what he and Barry found, but it's working.  

I am ****ing thrilled with this team right now.  

[London Kev]

I think that we are just becoming to be a good team. I loved the way we smacked the eagles around yesterday, but a good team would have put them away,

There's been a lot of deserved praise for the defense for virtually shutting out philly, but we only scored two second half FGs ourselves. Penalties continue to be a bit of a problem too (9-75 yards).

I'm not saying this in a negative way, because I'm glad that we're becoming a good team (we've been a **** team for far too long). You have to learn to walk before you can run. You have to learn to be good before you can be great. We're getting there. HTTR

[skinfan2k]

the imprint of Jay Gruden is finally on this team.  He is becoming a very good coach and you can tell from the play. 

[Koala]

4 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Yes - "nowadays" is most certainly accurate here. Before FA hit in the early-1990s there were typically about 6-8 legitimate contenders each season. 75% of the league entered training camp hoping to get a few breaks and get into the playoffs. Of those elite teams, there were plenty of lopsided scores throughout the season.

Its tempting to make the argument that free agency has really dramatically increased parody in the NFL, as this would be the logical expectation, but I think people overestimate how truly different the structure of the NFL is. I think FA is more likely to cause a little more turnover from year to year in who is a legitimate contender, middle of the pack, or bad team.  But the general structure remains the same, and parody is far overrated.  I still think there are no more than 6 legitimate contenders any given year, and if anything the gap between legitimate contenders and the rest of the league seems to be increasing.  3 of them, the Patriots, the Steelers, and maybe the Seahawaks -- have consistently been legitimate contenders  over the past 5 years or so .  The Vikings are a new addition to the list, and id like to see more from Dallas before adding them to that list, and more from Green Bay before I take them off of that list.  But otherwise, you have a pretty small list that is pretty consistent from year.

And correct if Im wrong, but it seems we've have had just as many teams threaten to have an undefeated season in the free-agency era (Colts, Patriots, Panthers) as any other era, despite the 16 game schedule.  I think if we were werent on the increased 16 game schedule, all three of those teams would have matched the Dolphins accomplishment -- which doesnt exactly bode well for the parody argument.  

Also, correct if Im wrong, but was that 90's Cowboys dynasty built in the era of free-agency.  And cheating aside, the Patriots belong right up there with the list of greatest dynasties of all time -- and they did all of that in the free-agent era.

And btw, if by "good team", you mean a legitimate contender, then the Redskins are absolutely not a good team.  If you mean upper half of the middle-of-the-pack, then probably yes.  

 

[Rogue Jedi]

To be considered a good team we have to:

1. Beat other good teams.

2. Win when it matters most, and everything is on the line.

So far, we haven't done either point 1 or 2. I'd argue that we haven't beaten a good team yet, as we can see where teams like NY and BAL are now, and I was never a believer in the Eagles in the first place.

Having said that, we beat a team like Minnesota, and not get bounced in the first round of the playoffs like the last several times, then I will concede that we are a good team.

[Wildbunny]

5 hours ago, Suffolk_Skins said:

 

True but we completely dominated the Eagles ion all areas apart from the scoreboard. We can't afford to lose a game that we dominate, luckily that hasn't happened the last 2 weeks.

You sure what happened the last two weeks was luck?

Not really, I wasn't much concerned by Baltimore on his last drive, knowing they wouldn't make it.

I wasn't scared at all when Philly took the field one last time because we were on Wentz all day and I knew they wouldn't make it.

Back to a few years ago, I wouldn't have been so confident in those situations.

 

Finally, good teams find ways to win, even when they make some freaking mistakes. Good teams win when they've got a big time TE out with injury. Good teams make plays when they matter the most. Good teams win when they aren't playing well.

[Suffolk_Skins]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

You sure what happened the last two weeks was luck?

Not really, I wasn't much concerned by Baltimore on his last drive, knowing they wouldn't make it.

I wasn't scared at all when Philly took the field one last time because we were on Wentz all day and I knew they wouldn't make it.

Back to a few years ago, I wouldn't have been so confident in those situations.

 

Finally, good teams find ways to win, even when they make some freaking mistakes. Good teams win when they've got a big time TE out with injury. Good teams make plays when they matter the most. Good teams win when they aren't playing well.

I mean Ravens was very close wasn't it? I was never particularly worried yesterday to be honest.

[ILikeBilly]

We won our last 4 regular season games last year.  We are 4-2 this year.  That makes us 8-2 over our last 10 games.  That is not a good record.   That is a very good record.  We are not a very good team (yet), but we are winning like one!!!!!  We are winning on the road, we are beating division rivals.  We are recovering from mistakes.  We are winning with backups playing key rolls.  We are beating other teams that have not yet proven they are good teams.  If Kirk throws the ball .5 seconds earlier on the end zone INT in the dallas game, we win that game too.  Can't change that, but it shows we were very close in that game.  The steelers whipped us, but we scored in the 4th qtr to cut the lead to 6.  We tried, but just were not as good on that day.

We are a good team. 

[DC9]

7 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

I think we can be a good team, but Cousins has to be more consistent and the coaching staff has to do a better job.

The past 2 weeks should have been easy wins the way we dominated, but it was life and death because of poor play calling and not always playing the right players.

 

At least that GM finally got his **** together and got a whole new 53 from the first two games, am I right?

[Stefanskins]

21 hours ago, Diehard Otis said:

YES, EXACTLY!!!  

 

The question is, if our next Opponent had our current resume, would you be worried about next Sunday?  (because that's how Lions fans feel right now.)

would be cool to look at their fan board...might do that....report back...the last time i did that prior to a game was last years rams game...pissed me off the lack of respect they were givin' us...and their best "defensive line ever"...always wanted to go back and go