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

[Long n Left]

6 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

And that is one of the most frustrating things; our CBs never look back for a ball, they are only there to interrupt a catch once the WR goes to catch it. Doesn't work at all in timing routes.

Yeah, but being in position is paramount, that was just BUTT lucky, just like Murphys strop sack where the ball bounced right back into Stafford's chest, like he had it on a string.

Lions got EVERY break, and Kirk put us ahead with a minute to play.

[NoCalMike]

That play where it bounces off Breeland's back, if you watch the replay, if his eyes are looking in the right place it is going into his chest/hands instead of his back.

[Diehard Otis]

13 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Only elite teams have all three phases play well consistently.

Some of you guys are confusing good with elite. Look around the league. These type of games happen regularly.

 

12 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

My goodness people. The overreaction on this board are priceless. Cousins missed too much? 30 of 39 for 301 a TD passing and rushing, and that was with a couple of drops...he was fantastic.

Wish they'd move and take their owner? Look, I'm no fan of Snyder, but...please.

Three turnovers to none. Lions get a gift 1st down when a pass bounces off of Breeland, some of the Skins best players went down, and they still should have won.

Bad loss, yeah. But cool your jets, please...giving me a headache. 

 

16 minutes ago, skins island connection said:

No turnovers in forever, and even though we lost our top 2 CBs, you just can't bank on putting another player in the game and expecting the same results.

 

5 minutes ago, Long n Left said:

Yeah, but being in position is paramount, that was just BUTT lucky, just like Murphys strop sack where the ball bounced right back into Stafford's chest, like he had it on a string.

Lions got EVERY break, and Kirk put us ahead with a minute to play.

And a hot Detroit team playing at Home needed a last-second, come-from-behind scoring drive to beat us.  

AND, based on this result from THESE circumstances, Joe Barry should be fired. 

[NoCalMike]

I really don't see how it is an overraction to say this team isn't "good" yet after taking a loss today. Maybe some of us are overreacting and/or arguing on the specifics as to why or why not the team is good, but this team is proving they aren't good.  

They look about middle of the pack, and with the injuries they took today which have the potential to last a few games if not more?  Things could change drastically over the next month or so.

They are simply too inconsistent.  

 

[LightningBuggs]

Just now, NoCalMike said:

I really don't see how it is an overraction to say this team isn't "good" yet after taking a loss today. Maybe some of us are overreacting and/or arguing on the specifics as to why or why not the team is good, but this team is proving they aren't good.  

They look about middle of the pack, and with the injuries they took today which have the potential to last a few games if not more?  Things could change drastically over the next month or so.

They are simply too inconsistent.  

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

When this thread was started before this game, I myself didn't consider this team "good" yet.  They hadn't proven anything yet.

After today, to quote the late Denny Green, the Redskins are who we thought they were....a middle of the pack team that hasn't distinguished itself from those other mediocre teams.

And potentially being without their 3 arguably best players going forward, well this season could go south very quickly.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I'm not sure if we're good or decent or mediocre or fair.

But I still feel, as I have all year, like we're a team who most likely will miss out on the playoffs. Not by a lot, probably, but also not necessarily the last team out either.

[desertbeagle85]

I was at that game today and this team proven to me that it's not a good team.

I mean what a poor offensive performance today.

Kirk Cousins proved he's average and that's it.

This team disappointed me today and they proved that they're not good enough to win the division.

[NoCalMike]

Yeah I think when the season starts and these kinds of threads get going, some of us confuse criticism of the here and now with criticism of the long term big picture.

I am still 100% full on board with where the franchise is headed with our current GM assembling the team.  I know "we will be good in the next couple of seasons after another couple of offseasons to build" is not a popular thing to say or acknowledge in the middle of the current season (it plays so much better in the offseason LOL) but that is the truth.  The team under Scott Mccluen as the guy calling personnel shots is still in it's infancy.  Consider the consistency and tenure of the GM's for the teams that are annual contenders and/or championship teams, then look at our team who is just barely into Mccluen's regime yet the noticeable different is clear.  The team is changing, the culture is changing, but it will take time.  Remember that stat that was mentioned either last week against the Eagles or the week before against the Ravens that this franchise has the highest % of players from previous year's rosters who are no longer in the NFL.  That alone shows the lack of talent and depth on this team before the current GM got here.  In 2016, we have started changing that but you can't fill out an entire roster in two offseasons. You also don't hit the jackpot on every single pick or free agency signing.  It just doesn't happen.

I said before the season there is a decent to good chance that the team misses the playoffs despite improving overall. Seven games into the season we can already see the NFC East itself is tougher, and the team is currently 2-1 against the division (should be 3-0, ugh.......ugh).  

Let's not confuse big picture discussion with discussion of 2016 specifically.

[redskinss]

The high of a 4 game win streak just turned into the low of being tied for last place again.

Uhg, being a redskins fan is so draining 

[Gregpeck99]

A good team would have won this game going away.

Top 5 serious issues.

RB

Defense

Clock management

Coaching

Intensity, Character, Leadership, Will-to-Win (Identity) lacking

 

[TSO]

6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Let's not confuse big picture discussion with discussion of 2016 specifically.

 

Not directed at you, necessarily, but a large part of that is on the poster causing that confusion by not qualifying their statements or talking with an aura of generality. Can't really blame people for misinterpreting that a lot of the times. 

Overall, I agree with your post... but there is an issue here with the lack of qualifications and attempts at balance. A lot of the confusion can be avoided if more would avoid talking in extremes.    

[TradeTheBeal!]

If you fumble all over the yard and miss FGs on the road, you lose.  Even if you're a good team.

 

We can beat the Bengals and hit the bye at 5-3.  That's what a good team would do.

[ncr2h]

30 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Yeah I think when the season starts and these kinds of threads get going, some of us confuse criticism of the here and now with criticism of the long term big picture.

I am still 100% full on board with where the franchise is headed with our current GM assembling the team.  I know "we will be good in the next couple of seasons after another couple of offseasons to build" is not a popular thing to say or acknowledge in the middle of the current season (it plays so much better in the offseason LOL) but that is the truth.  The team under Scott Mccluen as the guy calling personnel shots is still in it's infancy.  Consider the consistency and tenure of the GM's for the teams that are annual contenders and/or championship teams, then look at our team who is just barely into Mccluen's regime yet the noticeable different is clear.  The team is changing, the culture is changing, but it will take time.  Remember that stat that was mentioned either last week against the Eagles or the week before against the Ravens that this franchise has the highest % of players from previous year's rosters who are no longer in the NFL.  That alone shows the lack of talent and depth on this team before the current GM got here.  In 2016, we have started changing that but you can't fill out an entire roster in two offseasons. You also don't hit the jackpot on every single pick or free agency signing.  It just doesn't happen.

I said before the season there is a decent to good chance that the team misses the playoffs despite improving overall. Seven games into the season we can already see the NFC East itself is tougher, and the team is currently 2-1 against the division (should be 3-0, ugh.......ugh).  

Let's not confuse big picture discussion with discussion of 2016 specifically.

The problem for me is it's hard for me to definitively say that the improvement under McLoughan is due to McLoughan, as it also coincided with upgrading the most important position on the field from a guy who will be out of the league shortly to a guy who will be making $18M/year shortly.  I know it's still early in McLoughan's tenure, but all of our key contributors outside of Scherff and Crowder are Shanahan/Allen pickups.  Jones, Cravens, Fuller, and Smith have made plays here and there but none of them really jump off the page at you as starting caliber guys, and none of the other draft picks even seem to be close to their level.  Scot made up for it a bit on the back end with street free agents who were able to come in and outperform, but we desperately need McLoughan to get a few home run talents in the next two drafts.

I don't lay the blame entirely at Scot's feet as a personnel guy.  I think a big part of drafting players is having top-level coordinators who (1) have clearly defined roles for their players which can be clearly communicated to the front office, and (2) can coach guys up.  I hope they cut ties with Berry after this year if there is a reasonable upgrade on the market like Todd Bowles or Vic Fangio.

[NickyJ]

8 minutes ago, ncr2h said:

The problem for me is it's hard for me to definitively say that the improvement under McLoughan is due to McLoughan, as it also coincided with upgrading the most important position on the field from a guy who will be out of the league shortly to a guy who will be making $18M/year shortly.  I know it's still early in McLoughan's tenure, but all of our key contributors outside of Scherff and Crowder are Shanahan/Allen pickups.  Jones, Cravens, Fuller, and Smith have made plays here and there but none of them really jump off the page at you as starting caliber guys, and none of the other draft picks even seem to be close to their level.  Scot made up for it a bit on the back end with street free agents who were able to come in and outperform, but we desperately need McLoughan to get a few home run talents in the next two drafts.

Eh.... I wouldn't really say home run talent is entirely necessary. We just need improved players, one that can step in and do their job consistently. We don't need home run talent to replace Compton and Foster... Just competent talent. Same for safeties, and the like. It isn't so much that Blackmon is an awesome player himself, it's that his improvement over the previous players is awesome. People like Blackmon and the LBers were improvements over their previous players (Allen/Shanahan picks), but they're still easily improved on. And that's where Mac comes in. He sifted through the trash that Allen/Shanny left behind, so the next step is to sift through his own players. We'll get there eventually. Just not today, or this year.

[redskins59]

25 minutes ago, ncr2h said:

The problem for me is it's hard for me to definitively say that the improvement under McLoughan is due to McLoughan, as it also coincided with upgrading the most important position on the field from a guy who will be out of the league shortly to a guy who will be making $18M/year shortly.  I know it's still early in McLoughan's tenure, but all of our key contributors outside of Scherff and Crowder are Shanahan/Allen pickups.  Jones, Cravens, Fuller, and Smith have made plays here and there but none of them really jump off the page at you as starting caliber guys, and none of the other draft picks even seem to be close to their level.  Scot made up for it a bit on the back end with street free agents who were able to come in and outperform, but we desperately need McLoughan to get a few home run talents in the next two drafts.

I don't lay the blame entirely at Scot's feet as a personnel guy.  I think a big part of drafting players is having top-level coordinators who (1) have clearly defined roles for their players which can be clearly communicated to the front office, and (2) can coach guys up.  I hope they cut ties with Berry after this year if there is a reasonable upgrade on the market like Todd Bowles or Vic Fangio.

 

Cravens, Fuller and Smith to me are all starting caliber players.  Smith hasn't done as well this year in terms of sacks in comparison to last year, but he plays fine.  I see his name on the PFF top players for the redskins from time to time.  I have seen both Fuller and Cravens' name there as well.  So these guys are all starting caliber.  I see Scherff and Crowder on their list all the time though. 

If all our players are as good as Smith or Fuller, we would be an elite team. These boys don't make many mistakes.

[carex]

1 hour ago, LightningBuggs said:

 

I couldn't agree more.

When this thread was started before this game, I myself didn't consider this team "good" yet.  They hadn't proven anything yet.

After today, to quote the late Denny Green, the Redskins are who we thought they were....a middle of the pack team that hasn't distinguished itself from those other mediocre teams.

And potentially being without their 3 arguably best players going forward, well this season could go south very quickly.

 

you don't need to prove anything to be good.  Being good is about the amount of talent on a team.  And yes, with the injuries things might go bad. But when we're arguing about the talent on the team we are talking about ALL the players

[redskins59]

I cannot speak for 2016,but clearly the roster improved from 2014 to 2015.  Take a look at pro football reference's Approximate Value, which assigns each player a rating based on the contribution for the season.  In 2014, we had only 3 players who had AV of >8.  However, in 2015, we had 5 players with AV greater than or equal to 8. The 5 players in 2015 were Trent Williams on the top, followed by Kirk Cousins, Morgan Moses, Ryan Kerrigan and Jordan Reed.  

One would think that for the 2016 season both Brandon Scherff and Jamison Crowder will have AV >=8.  I would think that Trent Murphy will also have AV >=8.  And Don't forget about Josh Norman.  So there is a possibility that we will have 8 or 9 players with AV high than or equal to 8.  Go here and check out the Approximate Value for our players:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/2015_roster.htm

The Seahawks had 15 players with AV>=8.  

The Seahawks also had  8 players with AV>=10! We only had two(Cousins and Trent Williams).  There is a chance that we may have 3 or 4 such players this year (Trent, Cousins, Josh Norman and Brandon Scherff).

So clearly the roster is improving.  But it may take two or three more years.

[Bigmuss1]

50 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

If you fumble all over the yard and miss FGs on the road, you lose.  Even if you're a good team.

 

We can beat the Bengals and hit the bye at 5-3.  That's what a good team would do.

Why is this so hard to see for some people.  Is it because it's too simple?  

[Taylor703]

2 hours ago, Diehard Otis said:

 

 

 

And a hot Detroit team playing at Home needed a last-second, come-from-behind scoring drive to beat us.  

AND, based on this result from THESE circumstances, Joe Barry should be fired. 

Joe Barry should be fired because he just isn't a good coach. 

[carex]

2 minutes ago, Bigmuss1 said:

Why is this so hard to see for some people.  Is it because it's too simple?  

 

because the definitions of things like good and great have been warped so that everyone views them differently

For some people it'll take a Super Bowl win to get called good, because if you're not the best, you're the worst

[Koolblue13]

Wtf is everyone blaming Barry on this one? Defense is the only reason we were remotely in this game 

One drive missing both your starting corners? That's hard for anyone.

We lack talent at both safety spots and ILB. 

[VeroViper]

I will go so far as to say we are a "decent" football trending towards becoming a "good" football team. I think this is the most talent we've had on the roster from top to bottom in a long time. This was a tough, frustrating loss for sure. A lot of it was things just didn't go our way. And we still almost won. We may not repeat as division champs, we may not even return to the playoffs this year. But we're not falling back into being a 4-12 mess of a team like we have after other recent "fluke" playoff appearnces. If you as a fan can't see that this team is at least trending in the right direction than you are a true pessimist.

[NoCalMike]

I think also there is a misconception that every player who ends up being good/great, starts out that way from Day 1.  When the 49ers were building for a decade (yes a decade) while Alex Smith was floundering around there for so long, guys like Patrick Willis, Ahman Brooks, Justin Smith, Aldon Smith, etc etc etc were not all household names from day 1.   It often takes good players lined up next to good players for one of those good players to emerge as a great player.   It doesn't all happen from the first snap of their career, which is a big part of the reason you need a consistency and a long term plan and not turnover of the coaches/front office/schemes every couple of years.  It makes it impossible to build anything.  Most teams that turn things around quickly don't sustain that success.  

Look at our D-line, and think about a player like Kerrigan. He is good, but not great, but how different would he look week in and out if we had a legitimate nose tackle absorbing a double team on most snaps.  

Look at what a huge difference Sherff made on the O-line because he was drafted onto an O-line that already had some talent there.  I bet he would look a lot different if he was drafted as the first piece of an O-line puzzle. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I have been critical of Barry but the defense has been decent now for 3 weeks.  In terms of this team being a winner, we seem to have a lot of good locker room guys.   I don't love though the combination of smack talk before this week from Baker and RJF in combination of them  openly multiple times questioning their coaches publicly.    Not saying Baker and RJF are bad locker room guys, I hear its the opposite and by all indications they are good guys -- but they both seem to be the guys willing to give opponent's bulletin material along with on occasional being willing to give off the vibe that there is internal strife with the coaches. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/the-redskins-mistakes-finally-catch-up-to-them-and-cost-them-a-game/2016/10/23/f78c4fee-9961-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

Redskins players faulted themselves for yielding the play. But some of the defensive players felt like a shift in philosophy cost them the chance to deny the Lions.

Defensive linemen Chris Baker and Ricky Jean Francois questioned defensive coordinator Joe Barry’s decision not to send more pressure on a high-caliber passer like Stafford. The Redskins started dropping additional players into coverage — Baker being one of those players at times — and players felt like that gave Stafford more time to operate with efficiency.

“I felt like I dropped every time in the red zone,” Baker said. “Three-man rush, it worked some times, but you’ve got to put more pressure on a guy like Stafford. But, you’ve got to play the call that’s called and hope for the best.”

Said Jean Francois, “I just wish we had’ve stuck to running four-man rushes. We were getting back there with them and making them move. But, we seen something different and we changed the calls. I think the call we changed to is not the strength of us. Four-man rushes are, three-man rushes are not. But, it’s not my decision. 

[NoCalMike]

Something the front office will likely have to weigh at the end of the season:

1) Joe Barry is quite frankly working with a deficiency of talent. Until more resources are put into building the defense there is no reason to fire the Defensive coordinator who at times is able to get the unit to perform well

or

2) Despite the lack of talent up and down the roster on defense, Joe Barry is not doing a good enough job of putting them into a position to make big plays.  We feel like a change at the coordinator position plus the offseason to put resources into the defense will show a drastic improvement in defense quickly.

I think it is a fine line between those two things. Probably a combination of both things to be honest.