SI.com: How Washington has Become a Winner

[Riggo#44]

1 minute ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

You shout down anyone pointing out limitations, flaws of the Nationals. You're doing it here with the Redskins. Any single time, you're at the defense. If only we could have 11 of you playing for our D ... championship.

I don't mind the sunshine boys. I really don't. 

 

Who is shouting? I wasn't even replying to you. In fact, I did the complete opposite of shouting anyone down, I clearly stated to "let them rant."  So have at it, chief, blow as much steam as you like.

[goskins10]

 

18 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

You shout down anyone pointing out limitations, flaws of the Nationals. You're doing it here with the Redskins. Any single time, you're at the defense. If only we could have 11 of you playing for our D ... championship.

I don't mind the sunshine boys. I really don't. 

 

So reality is now misery? Right.

I enjoy a Redskins victory as much as anyone else. You and a few others trying to claim ownership of exclusivity of true fanhood is rather ... sickening. I spent a good chunk of energy, time and money to go to London to cheer on the Redskins, despite being hobbled and needing a cane to move around, still taking strong gabapentin to help with nerve pain. I'm here on ES for every game, and ...

You know what? I don't need to justify myself to you. I'll stop now. Enjoy being the only true fan. 

 

 

No one is questioning your "fan" status. It's assumed we are all fans. But sorry, it's really hard to take someone serious when they:

1. State that most of the wins are by luck or a fluke play but the losses are who we really are. The NFL is a game of a few defining plays a game. If you make them you win. If you don't you lose. For every "luck" play you pointed to us getting a win out of, I can point to a similar play that could of had us easily winning a game we lost. 

2. You actually made a statement that you see the roster differently than Scot, and hoped he would "realize it". C'mon, are you really expecting people to believe you are a better judge of the team than Scot?

You asked someone else a question but did in a vacuum. So I will provide the answer they would have had you asked it more specifically:

I would never tell the team they are done until it is painfully obvious. I would however tell them we will not get there if you stop working for it. Here are the things we need to get better at or we will not have a chance. You always have a chance until you actually don't. Why tell a team - look you are not good right now and even though technically you could win this thing, it is not happening. That is not very motivating. That's when they start deciding that you re the problem! Why didn't you teach them better?  

I get your point that we have some definite holes. I believe everyone knows that. But to try and make that point by saying our wins are luck and our losses are who we are, and that you can evaluate the team better than Scot just does not make sense.

[RemoveSnyder]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

1. State that most of the wins are by luck or a fluke play but the losses are who we really are. Sorry, but that makes no sense what so ever. The NFL is a fame of defining plays. If you make them you win. If you don't you lose.

Often enough we didn't make the plays, the other guy did something boneheaded. I gave specifics: Mosley, Eli's INT, Bradford's INT. 

Norman made a play by punching the football out. That was a made play. Kirk on the QB sneak that Gruden called on 4th down, that was a made play. That drive results in a TD. The sneak was a made play. 

For every "luck" play you pointed to us getting a win out of, I can point to a similar play that could of had us easily winning instead of losing.

Please list them. Be specific. Thank you. 

I guess you could start with Kirk's INT to Barry Church.

2. You actually made a statement that you see the roster differently than Scot, and hoped he would "realize it". C'mon, are you really expecting people to believe you are a better judge of the team than Scot?

Where? Could you quote me? 

And neither here nor there but there are players on this roster that I put considerable evals into, in the Comprehensive. Actually I've aligned with McC more than a few times. Scherff being one of them. I even called the Stephone Anthony thing before the fact. And that was because Anthony popped during my individual eval, I gravitated toward him, not because I was trying to get inside the mind of McC. So, in that vein, prepare for Jarrad Davis. 

But, actually, the players I like in collegiate scouting turns out to be players McC either targets and/or selects. Doesn't mean there aren't different players I'd rather have in certain spots from what he gets.

I really curious where you read my post of "I hope Scot realizes it." News to me. 

[goskins10]

19 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Often enough we didn't make the plays, the other guy did something boneheaded. I gave specifics: Mosley, Eli's INT, Bradford's INT. 

Norman made a play by punching the football out. That was a made play. Kirk on the QB sneak that Gruden called on 4th down, that was a made play. That drive results in a TD. The sneak was a made play. 

 

 

Please list them. Be specific. Thank you. 

I guess you could start with Kirk's INT to Barry Church.

 

 

Where? Could you quote me? 

And neither here nor there but there are players on this roster that I put considerable evals into, in the Comprehensive. Actually I've aligned with McC more than a few times. Scherff being one of them. I even called the Stephone Anthony thing before the fact. And that was because Anthony popped during my individual eval, I gravitated toward him, not because I was trying to get inside the mind of McC. So, in that vein, prepare for Jarrad Davis. 

But, actually, the players I like in collegiate scouting turns out to be players McC either targets and/or selects. Doesn't mean there aren't different players I'd rather have in certain spots from what he gets.

I really curious where you read my post of "I hope Scot realizes it." News to me. 

 

First, an apology for the team evaluation statement - I was reading too many threads at one time and I got another posters comment confused with you. So you are correct, you never made that statement. My apologies.

As for the other -

1st dallast game - if Kirk does not throw a pick or miss one of the 3 wide open TDs the game is different....

Detroit - If Jones doesn't fumble going inot te EZ we win.

Cinn - If our kicker does not miss an esay kick - one he usually makes in his sleep we win'

dallast Thursday - our kicker again misses 2 kicks - even just making one changes the complexion of the game and especially the last drive.

You can point to a few plays in each game that if you reverse the outcome it changes the outcome of the game. But to say when we win it's fluky and when we lose it's who we are is an over-simplification if not total exaggeration.

I believe all the others are doing is suggesting instead of focusing on the negative to the point of over emphasizing and even exaggerating - give the team the credit that it's due. We are 6-4-1 11 gms into the season with a chance to go to the POs fro a second season in a row - and that's with dallast having a crazy season.

There are certainly holes but we are headed in the right direction. We have a lot further to go but let's enjoy this ride - as opposed to the horrible rides we have been on the last 25 yrs.

[skinny21]

As I often find myself, I'm in the middle on this one.  I actually agree that we've gotten some serious luck - both in individual plays and in terms of injuries to the other teams.  David Johnson's mysterious fumble (along with Mosely's crazy fumble) stands out as a lucky play for us.  We've gone against injured olines and looked good pass rushing, injured dlines and run the ball well.  

 

On the other hand, we've made some of our own luck, as well as making our own mistakes (i.e. lucky plays for the other team).  Overall, this isn't a D that I expect to perform against better offenses, and they're often an anchor holding the team back, but they've also come through at times.  Coupled with the offense (with all its' productivity and it's red zone issues), I expect them to contend with everyone, but to be underdogs vs some of the better teams - Seattle, New England and Dallas (and maaaybe a couple others).

 

One thing we really have going for us (IMO) is our depth in many areas... our injuries haven't seemed to affect us as much as our opponents.  Interesting convo (invective aside, lol).

 

[Wildbunny]

@Monk4thaHALL I understand your point, but I'd like to remind you, that we've been for a long time on the other side of luck. So, I would rather see it as us finally turning tides here.

As someone said, luck doesn't exist, it's when pratice meets opportunity (don't remember who, thinks I read it somewhere around here as one poster younger coach). Which is quite an interesting PoV.

As a matter of a fact (albeit a weird one), balls tends to always bounce toward the best team...

[TheItalianStallion]

On 11/27/2016 at 9:09 PM, Monk4thaHALL said:

The truth is we're no better than the teams we narrowly beat. Deal with it. 

There really is no difference between the 6-3-1 team that was called winners for this article and 3-6-1 team that was their direct shadow. The defense sucks for both iterations. That's the joy of constantly playing 50-50 games. 

The normal is what you saw against Detroit and Dallas, my theory. Without lucky 2nd half turnovers for our suspect D, sometimes producing as much as a 14 point swing after we score (see Cinny game), we don't jump the track in the course of said games, nor have a winning record. 

Water will find its level. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see these winners lose close games down the stretch, or be it in the playoffs.  

Barring the circumstances of Eli throwing INTs directly to our otherwise liable defense, you'll see the same ending that Stafford gave us. No difference between Eli's last minute drive and Stafford's game winning drive. We were primed for a defensive let down but Eli bailed us out.

Same with Bradford throwing the ball directly to Preston Smith, or Dalton's deflected pass which found Compton's hands, or CJ Mosley's rare blue moon fumble touchback on a surefire Pick-6 where we had a 10 point swing in our favor ... pick any one of those very fortuitous moments and nudge it an inch the other way and the razorthin victory likely turns to a loss. Fact. 

 

Redskins offense: 426.4 ypg, 25.5 ppg

Redskins defense: 369.6 yapg, 24.0 papg

We're decisively outgaining our opponents, we're clearly outscoring our opponents, and we would be outscoring our opponents by a lot more if it weren't for our RZ woes. On both sides of the ball. It's not just our offense that has issues: our RZ defense is also near the bottom. KC'd defense actually gives up more ypg than we do (they're in the bottom 5, actually); they just have a MUCH better RZ defense than we do.

[bird_1972]

19 minutes ago, TheItalianStallion said:

 

Redskins offense: 426.4 ypg, 25.5 ppg

Redskins defense: 369.6 yapg, 24.0 papg

We're decisively outgaining our opponents, we're clearly outscoring our opponents, and we would be outscoring our opponents by a lot more if it weren't for our RZ woes. On both sides of the ball. It's not just our offense that has issues: our RZ defense is also near the bottom. KC'd defense actually gives up more ypg than we do (they're in the bottom 5, actually); they just have a MUCH better RZ defense than we do.

We need a better defense overall.

Won't have that until the offseason.

For now, we just need to improve RZ offense in hopes we are able to out-gun all future opponents.