A Confidence I Haven't Had in 25 Years

[TheItalianStallion]

It's clearly just a product of injuries and new WRs who are still learning the position. I think we'd be 6-2 or better with a healthy lineup, and maybe better still with more production out of our WRs, production which I hope will start to come before the end of the year. Not to mention that BS call in week 1.

[MassSkinsFan]

Just to elaborate on "knowing how to win" - Skins teams from the last several years would give up when the situation reached a certain bad point, for example when injuries decimated the starting lineup. This year is a bit different. I think they expect to compete even when the situation sucks. And they have gone out there and competed.

 

Not only that, but look at how much better our D is after half a season with two new coaches. It's night and day! Seriously. Think back to last year and how truly putrid our D was. Do you feel more confidence in our D now, even with key injuries? I do.

 

Any of the teams from the Zorn or Shanny eras would have rolled over in Seattle. Not these guys.

 

Say what you want about their record, or their stats relative to last year, but they have clearly improved in many areas, including confidence and determination. They expect to win and they expect to leave everything on the field, win or lose. That gives me confidence.

[Cooleyfan1993]

@MassSkinsFan agreed 100%. I can think of a few games over the last two seasons that past redskins teams would have definitely lost. Grudens teams just don’t give up, like you said. It’s nice to see 

[TheMalcolmConnection]

If we can piece together a string of a few wins, would we eventually get Allen back or is he gone for the season?

[MassSkinsFan]

Here's a post worth reading:

 

[Veryoldschool]

With Cousins there is always a chance, the Skins are in every game with Cousins.  Even without a running game, in 2015 & 2016 without a real defense and now without the OL and his best receivers.  With Cousins there is always a chance.

[Taylorcooley1]

I feel confident we get the win at home against the Vikings and than go on the road and beat the Saints..How?..we fare realy well with inner conference teams that have good records..always have, especially by the saints game we should be close to 100% and to perform like that in Seattle at only 55% is pretty good...I'm not letting go of this being a playoff team and possibly a team to reckon with in the playoffs....it's alllmost beginning to look like the cardinals 2007 season..remember they looked good than cooled off than won some than cooled off again than exploded just a few weeks before seasons end?...I'm that confident in this team this year!

[Enforcer_FFX]

Some good insight from Keim about the next 2 opponents. Feel a little better about the opportunities ahead the next couple of weeks. While they are going to be TOUGH games to win, and they each deserve the records they have, both of those teams have had the luxury of playing some bottom-feeder squads:
http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/34190/with-a-win-sunday-redskins-can-set-themselves-up-for-a-strong-finish

Another neat nugget from the article:
"Another stat that displays the difference in halves: The Redskins have played six games against quarterbacks ranked in the top 12 in total QBR and in the top 11 of passer rating. That's more than any team has faced, according to ESPN Stats & Information. In the second half of the season, they play only two."

[Gurgeh]

20 hours ago, TheMalcolmConnection said:

If we can piece together a string of a few wins, would we eventually get Allen back or is he gone for the season?

 

Sadly I think he's out until next season. We should start to get a few players back this week, perhaps even Ionnadis although he wouldn't be 100%.

[ILikeBilly]

6 of our 8 games have come against teams currently in rank in the top ten of the power poll.  We have 3 games against the top 2 teams.  vikings and saints are both currently in the top 10.  Assuming the saints stay in the top 10, we will have played 8 of 10 games against teams ranked in the top 10.  Winning one of the next 2 at minimum is key to this season.  6-4 would be a real nice record, especially if we can get healthy while winning.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

On 06/11/2017 at 8:53 PM, kleese said:

..... For those that see them as same ole same ole, I simply do not understand what you are seeing or what years/era/regime you are comparing them to. ...

 

 

Who knows Big Ed. Considering you recently 'informed' us a franchise that only four more teams in football history have been more successful than isn't storied, who knows what constitutes what and what part history plays in anything? 

 

Hail. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

In watching the game again last night I saw what I thought I saw on Sunday.  On a sideline pass completion Josh Docton ran a very sharp, crisp route.  Earlier in the year his cuts were rounded and easy to cover. This was huge IMO, 8 games in we can't bail on a player with so much to offer.  This was very encouraging.  So was the play of Galette.  I did not realize how well he played.    Put that with the return of many offensive lineman and I remain optimistic.  My bar is low but it sure is nice to be watching meaningful games in mid November, that has not always been the case around here.

 

Where would this team be without Vernon Davis?  He is rapidly joining London Fletcher as one of the best free agent signings the Redskins have ever had.  

 

 

[Diehard Otis]

You know, I'm gonna put myself out there and say it: I believe The Redskins make The Playoffs.

 

Jay & The Team will get it done.  That's how much I believe in these guys. 

 

(If I'm wrong, feel free to let me have it.  I won't run!)

[Darrell Green Fan]

Just now, Diehard Otis said:

You know, I'm gonna put myself out there and say it: I believe The Redskins make The Playoffs.

 

Jay & The Team will get it done.  That's how much I believe in these guys. 

 

(If I'm wrong, feel free to let me have it.  I won't run!)

 

I just wonder how many of us would have reason to feel this way if they had Joe Flacco behind center.  Or Jameis Winston or any other of the QBs in that 20-30 territory.   With Kirk this team always has a chance.  He may never carry the team like Wentz but he sure gives them a shot.  Not sure why so many still can't understand this.  

 

 

[MassSkinsFan]

27 minutes ago, Diehard Otis said:

Jay & The Team will get it done.  That's how much I believe in these guys. 

 

Agreed! And it's a confidence I haven't had... in 25 years. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, Diehard Otis said:

You know, I'm gonna put myself out there and say it: I believe The Redskins make The Playoffs.

 

Jay & The Team will get it done.  That's how much I believe in these guys. 

 

(If I'm wrong, feel free to let me have it.  I won't run!)

 

Here's what's funny...if we somehow got healthy in the second half and got in, who wouldn't be licking their chops for a third shot at Philly if we could win on the road in the wild card round? I feel like we had a very good chance to take control in both games and would love to see a relatively healthy Redskins team take another crack at the Eagles. 

[kleese]

6 hours ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

Who knows Big Ed. Considering you recently 'informed' us a franchise that only four more teams in football history have been more successful than isn't storied, who knows what constitutes what and what part history plays in anything? 

 

Hail. 

 

My point on that GHH was not that the Redskins haven't accumulated a high volume of wins in their history-- they've been around since the 30's for crying out loud so of course there is a very strong history there. But in terms of on field success, we've really only had one era in 80 years where we were consistently very good. Prior to the Allen years we went 25ish years without even making the playoffs once. Doesn't mean we didn't have some good players and moments but strictly by definition they were not successful. The 70's were somewhere between solid and good depending on your perspective. Then if course the Gibbs era was sensational. 1981-1992 were amazing years. But they are still just 11 years out of 80. We were lousy before and have been lousy after. 

 

And in terms of ownership embarrassment-- while many loathe Snyder is he even our most detestable owner in franchise history? George Preston Marshall might have something to say about that. 

 

We all have our own experiences and what matters to us as fans. And there isn't a right or wrong there; my only point in this entire "debate" is to point out that in my opinion our history stretching back to the formation of the franchise is filled with mostly failure or average seasons-- strictly on paper. 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I know what your point was and I think it's as disparagingly/ insultingly wrong now to this organisation as it was the first time you made it when you claimed we aren't a 'once great franchise.'

 

But we completely disagree there so it's best left. 

 

Hail. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Diehard Otis said:

You know, I'm gonna put myself out there and say it: I believe The Redskins make The Playoffs.

 

Jay & The Team will get it done.  That's how much I believe in these guys. 

 

(If I'm wrong, feel free to let me have it.  I won't run!)

 

I think we have a shot, too.  I am sort of in between two points being debated here.  I do believe in this team's ability to have short term success both this year and next.  I think we are on the verge.  As for medium-long term prospects, the team's FO is now set up to the old model of dysfunction.  So I think it will ultimately do the franchise in like it always ultimately does.   But I like how the current team is constructed.   

 

Feels a little to me like the Yankees when George Steinbrenner was banned from baseball for some years and in that period their team was built in the right way -- without his intemperance, impatience and interference.  They went on to their best run in decades.  Likewise here, we had it set up the right way for 2.5 or so off seasons.  And this point is not specific to Scot, its specific to the structure set up.    Maybe that momentum carries us.   If Kirk leaves though, I think it all goes off the rails starting in 2018. 

[kleese]

33 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

I know what your point was and I think it's as disparagingly/ insultingly wrong now to this organisation as it was the first time you made it when you claimed we aren't a 'once great franchise.'

 

But we completely disagree there so it's best left. 

 

Hail. 

 

Fair enough, agree to disagree. Want to make clear that I certainly believe the Gibbs I era was an absolutely great period and a time of great pride for Redskins fans. Judged on the whole of our 80 years as a franchise-- or at least from 1932-1999 when Snyder took over-- no, I wouldn't consider that to be a "great" period or an elite franchise other than the longevity. My take is that we've been mostly an average to disappointing franchise that had one massive high point behind the leadership of one key figure. Sounds as if this is where we disagree and it's all a matter of perception and interpretation anyway so that's fine.

[pjfootballer]

I would say we can divide the 85 years into these parts:

 

1932-1952- Elite franchise.  2 NFL titles, many title game appearances (6- I think?) and Sammy Baugh

1953-1968- Suckage

1969-1992- Vince, Allen and Gibbs bring winning records, playoffs and SB's/trips to SB's

1993-2017- Mediocre to suckage

[TD_washingtonredskins]

56 minutes ago, kleese said:

 

My point on that GHH was not that the Redskins haven't accumulated a high volume of wins in their history-- they've been around since the 30's for crying out loud so of course there is a very strong history there. But in terms of on field success, we've really only had one era in 80 years where we were consistently very good. Prior to the Allen years we went 25ish years without even making the playoffs once. Doesn't mean we didn't have some good players and moments but strictly by definition they were not successful. The 70's were somewhere between solid and good depending on your perspective. Then if course the Gibbs era was sensational. 1981-1992 were amazing years. But they are still just 11 years out of 80. We were lousy before and have been lousy after. 

 

 

I'm going to nitpick a bit and say that we had two equally long eras where we were pretty amazing. Granted none of us witnessed it, but from 1936-1945 we went 74-29-5, won two championships, and went to the title game four other times. I get that there were probably only like 4 other teams in the NFL, but some teams were losing all those other games and it wasn't us. 

 

I'd classify our franchise as having two great runs that lasted a decade (mid-30s through mid-40s and early-80s through early 90s) and a very respectable decade (basically the 70s). That definitely leaves a lot of bad years, but I'd assume you would find something similar with many of the traditional teams (Cardinals, Giants, etc.) that have been around for so long. 

[kleese]

2 minutes ago, pjfootballer said:

I would say we can divide the 85 years into these parts:

 

1932-1952- Elite franchise.  2 NFL titles, many title game appearances (6- I think?) and Sammy Baugh

1953-1968- Suckage

1969-1992- Vince, Allen and Gibbs bring winning records, playoffs and SB's/trips to SB's

1993-2017- Mediocre to suckage

 

I think you are close here pj, but that first era ended a bit earlier. The Redskins did not make the post-season for over 25 years. We made it in 1945 and then did not return until 1971. From the mid 40's to early 50's we were no longer elite-- middling at best and headed downward. So I'd amend that first period to 1932-1945 and extend the suckage from 1946-1968. I also think Gibbs I stands alone.... The Lombardi/Allen era from the late 60's to late 70's is what got us back on track.. then Gibbs took it to the moon.

1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm going to nitpick a bit and say that we had two equally long eras where we were pretty amazing. Granted none of us witnessed it, but from 1936-1945 we went 74-29-5, won two championships, and went to the title game four other times. I get that there were probably only like 4 other teams in the NFL, but some teams were losing all those other games and it wasn't us. 

 

I'd classify our franchise as having two great runs that lasted a decade (mid-30s through mid-40s and early-80s through early 90s) and a very respectable decade (basically the 70s). That definitely leaves a lot of bad years, but I'd assume you would find something similar with many of the traditional teams (Cardinals, Giants, etc.) that have been around for so long. 

 

I think this is a fair assessment, but that first era of suckage (as pj so eloquently put it) lasted a LONG time. I mean, not making the playoffs for over 25 years is really, really bad. So again, sort of depends on what matters to you and how you perceive things. For me, I'd actually trade high points or a trophy or two for more consistent competiveness.

[pjfootballer]

1 minute ago, kleese said:

 

I think you are close here pj, but that first era ended a bit earlier. The Redskins did not make the post-season for over 25 years. We made it in 1945 and then did not return until 1971. From the mid 40's to early 50's we were no longer elite-- middling at best and headed downward. So I'd amend that first period to 1932-1945 and extend the suckage from 1946-1968. I also think Gibbs I stands alone.... The Lombardi/Allen era from the late 60's to late 70's is what got us back on track.. then Gibbs took it to the moon.

 

Yeah, I realized that, so that's why I included Sammy Baugh in there, since he didn't retire until 1952 (I think without looking it up).  He was still the franchise back then, so I wanted to include the rest of his career even though we were on the way down.. 

 

I included Lombardi, Allen and Gibbs together, because Vince got us back on track, Allen elevated that to a SB appearance with many playoff appearances and Gibbs brought it home with the 3 of 4 titles and 8 of 12 years in the playoffs.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, kleese said:

 

For me, I'd actually trade high points or a trophy or two for more consistent competiveness.

I think that's an interesting debate/topic...I don't know where I stand on that. 

 

On one hand, I love the journey of any game/season no matter what so being competitive year in and year out has it's perks. On the other hand, at the end of the day as fans, it's fun to brag about the hardware. In some ways, I'd take what the Bucs did in the 2000s over what the Eagles did. They got their ring and then became mediocre at best. The Eagles were the class of the NFC for almost a decade and basically have nothing to show for it.