A Confidence I Haven't Had in 25 Years

[Csup]

53 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

I'd give them one or two more. 5-4 or 6-3. 

The defense has been wrecked right where it was making it's best contributions. We've been looking for YEARS to find guys who were doing what Allen and Ionaiddis were doing in the first month.

 

If they were still providing the push, and these young DBs were growing into their roles as they are now, 6-3 is highly probable.

 

This weekend, of every other team in the league, the average number of DNP or Limited Participation listed on injury reports was less than 5. (4.72, and only 5 teams listed more than 6)
The majority of teams practiced this week with fewer than 5 players limited or out. 

The Redskins had 17.
Severely not "healthy".

 

~Bang

I respectfully disagree.  Like I pointed out in my earlier posts, this team has many other problems that have nothing to do with injuries.  Plus, Your assuming the injured players play well.  As Norman showed us, that’s not a given. This team is not disciplined enough to be consistent.   It’s possible - not necessarily probable- that they lose more games with healthy players.  

 

But whatever, 25 years of excuses and counting..,

[pjfootballer]

1 hour ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

I think you meant weeks 15 and 16. We are AT LA (chargers) in week 14. 

 

Week 15 is Home Vs Cardinals (with Drew Stanton as their QB) and week 16 is Home (Christmas Eve day) Vs the broncos

That’s true. 

 

Week 15 is game 14.  Week 16 is game 15.   Then week 17 will be game 16.  I thought I said "games" not weeks.

[pjfootballer]

51 minutes ago, Bang said:

lol Bridgewater. Dude hasn't touched a football in 2 years. Keenum's their starter, and yeah he's a backup. But the guys in front of him are not.
Griffen and their corner being out and hurt,, well, we DID just lay 30 points up there on a defense that had given up more than 20 only ONCE.

 

But really, you did NOT just float Bridgewater as part of this conversation.

 

Right? 
Because that would be silly.

 

~Bang

 

And Cook has been out all year and quite frankly, I thought Murray was the starter going in until he suffered injuries during TC.

[Cooleyfan1993]

42 minutes ago, pjfootballer said:

 

Week 15 is game 14.  Week 16 is game 15.   Then week 17 will be game 16.  I thought I said "games" not weeks.

Oh right cause of the bye week. Duh ? it’s monday!! haven’t fully woken up yet.

[Bang]

44 minutes ago, Csup said:

I respectfully disagree.  Like I pointed out in my earlier posts, this team has many other problems that have nothing to do with injuries.  Plus, Your assuming the injured players play well.  As Norman showed us, that’s not a given. This team is not disciplined enough to be consistent.   It’s possible - not necessarily probable- that they lose more games with healthy players.  

 

But whatever, 25 years of excuses and counting..,

 

So you respectfully disagree that being down to second, third and signed-on-Wednesday players on the DL contributed to the Vikings being in second and 2 or second and 3 and dictating the line of scrimmage for most of the game?

 

OK.

 

~Bang

[Fat Stupid Loser]

1 hour ago, MassSkinsFan said:

 

And let's not forget the walking wounded... I was watching our OL, and there were quite a few missed assignments by our  guys.

 

The Scherff looked like a Deputy out there, Long was sort of effective for a while, Lauvao was actually not too bad, Moses whiffed a bunch and even Silverback looked like a mere mortal.

 

You take away the injuries to our OL and we score at least 42 on Minny yesterday.

Exactly. Playing does not mean healthy or effective.  Getting our O Line "back" yesterday didn't mean near as much as it sounds like.

[dyst]

2 hours ago, Bang said:

lol Bridgewater. Dude hasn't touched a football in 2 years. Keenum's their starter, and yeah he's a backup. But the guys in front of him are not.
Griffen and their corner being out and hurt,, well, we DID just lay 30 points up there on a defense that had given up more than 20 only ONCE.

 

But really, you did NOT just float Bridgewater as part of this conversation.

 

Right? 
Because that would be silly.

 

~Bang

He was their starter before he got hurt. Then it was Bradford. They are on their third QB. Injuries are injuries. We can't make excuses for ours and then look at the other team and say "their injuries aren't that major"

[kleese]

Here is my outlook on injuries:

 

--Football is a brutal game. Every team must assume/prepare for a certain number of players to get hurt throughout the year. I would say most time also probably lose at least one key contributor (if not more) for the entire year.

 

--Part of being a good team is having quality depth. The current state of the parity-driven NFL makes it harder, but the best organizations are able to handle injuries better than the others.

 

--There IS a breaking point. If injuries come at volume or in one specific area there are often things you just can't prep for and it will ultimately cost you. In those cases, I believe injuries DO become a legitimate excuse.

 

--For the 2017 Redskins, I think we hit a point where the injuries exceeded a "normal" level and became very damaging. Not only does it affect the team on gamed day, but it affects preparation for the coaches and players. It becomes hard to practice. Then you also have guys trying to tough it out, play through pain. They might be less effective and/or the constant shuffling makes things less fluid.

 

--No way to say what our record would be if we were reasonably healthy-- but my guess is we'd be at least one win better. I think with the level of injuries we've sustained since early in the Chiefs game, predicting that ONE of those 4 losses would have gone our way is a reasonable assumption. And one win could be huge-- the whole tone of things would be very different now at 5-4 as opposed to 4-5.

 

We have played a brutally hard schedule and we've sustained a brutal number of injuries. I am not thrilled with 4-5 by any means, but considering these factors, it is "acceptable" to me and I'm still very interested in the season and what can still become of it. And I am not worried about or judging on a 25 year scale right now-- I am more or less looking at what we've done in the post-Shanny/RG3 era starting with the 2014 season. That to me is where the judgment for what we are now begins.

[Paul Cumberland]

 

[kleese]

2 minutes ago, dyst said:

He was their starter before he got hurt. Then it was Bradford. They are on their third QB. Injuries are injuries. We can't make excuses for ours and then look at the other team and say "their injuries aren't that major"

 

I believe the point he is making is that there is a difference between season-ending injuries that happen in advance and injuries that occur throughout the season that affect game to game prep. The Redskins lost two front seven pieces before the year started-- Murphy and Phil Taylor. I don't think anyone has used their names as part of the injury "excuses." Losing them probably hurt the team, but they happened in August and we had time to set the roster and prepare around it. They were gone well before week 1 so the staff had time to move on. It is much different when you lose multiple players at multiple positons for various amounts of time week to week.

[dyst]

14 minutes ago, kleese said:

 

I believe the point he is making is that there is a difference between season-ending injuries that happen in advance and injuries that occur throughout the season that affect game to game prep. The Redskins lost two front seven pieces before the year started-- Murphy and Phil Taylor. I don't think anyone has used their names as part of the injury "excuses." Losing them probably hurt the team, but they happened in August and we had time to set the roster and prepare around it. They were gone well before week 1 so the staff had time to move on. It is much different when you lose multiple players at multiple positons for various amounts of time week to week.

Still Bradford, Cook, Griffin etc. Vikings could have folded and tanked but they didnt, they kept winning with a guy named Keenam. We hover around 8-8 healthy or not. Just means we’re a mediocre team.

[Bang]

42 minutes ago, dyst said:

He was their starter before he got hurt. Then it was Bradford. They are on their third QB. Injuries are injuries. We can't make excuses for ours and then look at the other team and say "their injuries aren't that major"

If you hear me make any excuses based on injuries that happened before the 2016 season started, you can smack me with a dead fish.

the vikings did not enter this season with Bridgewater on their roster, and no plans to use him.

You want to make a case (get it?) that they are on their backup QB in Keenum, OK. i can't dispute that except to say that he's been in there for almost their entire season, and backup or not, he's playing well within what they do.

And i am not making 'excuses' for injuries,, no offense but 'excuses' is a silly word in these discussions.. there's reasons for why things happen, and the extent of injuries suffered by this team so far is tremendous, and indeed a major factor as to why they are inconsistent.

This beat up DL vs Dallas got shredded, and yesterday they got beat off the ball. Last week they harassed Russell Wilson and shut down the Seahawks weak run game

The lesson to take away from all this? Seattle's offensive line is terrible.

there is a lot of blame to go around, but to shrug off this many injuries as 'excuses' is to say 'Well, gosh Bang, I am sure i do not know what it is I am talkin' about."

 

Pick the one that is not an excuse:

A/ the sun got in my eye!

B/ my cleats are too short and i'm slipping!
C/ we have four times as many injuries than the majority of the teams in the NFL!

 

~Bang

[kleese]

17 minutes ago, Bang said:

If you hear me make any excuses based on injuries that happened before the 2016 season started, you can smack me with a dead fish.

the vikings did not enter this season with Bridgewater on their roster, and no plans to use him.

You want to make a case (get it?) that they are on their backup QB in Keenum, OK. i can't dispute that except to say that he's been in there for almost their entire season, and backup or not, he's playing well within what they do.

And i am not making 'excuses' for injuries,, no offense but 'excuses' is a silly word in these discussions.. there's reasons for why things happen, and the extent of injuries suffered by this team so far is tremendous, and indeed a major factor as to why they are inconsistent.

This beat up DL vs Dallas got shredded, and yesterday they got beat off the ball. Last week they harassed Russell Wilson and shut down the Seahawks weak run game

The lesson to take away from all this? Seattle's offensive line is terrible.

there is a lot of blame to go around, but to shrug off this many injuries as 'excuses' is to say 'Well, gosh Bang, I am sure i do not know what it is I am talkin' about."

 

Pick the one that is not an excuse:

A/ the sun got in my eye!

B/ my cleats are too short and i'm slipping!
C/ we have four times as many injuries than the majority of the teams in the NFL!

 

~Bang

 

Love the "injuries aren't an excuse" bit. Um, yes they are... or can be depending on the extent. Again, there is a tipping point. It is not reasonable to say "well, our LG and back up safety are out so that's why we lost." That is a very, very lame excuse that can't fly in professional football. But if you say, "every single one of our offensive linemen are hobbled and many aren't playing at all, and our starting TE, blocking TE, slot WR, both starting DT's, one staring ILB, one corner, two safeties and a kicker...." well, you hit a point where you can reasonably assume, OK, that is likely going to affect the outcome of the games.

 

I also argue with people a lot about luck and the role it plays in sports. Over the long haul, the good players and good teams find ways to win, no doubt. But in a vacuum- whether that vacuum is a season or a game or a play-- luck can play a major role. For example, that play where Doctson slipped yesterday is terrible luck. Great design, great fake by Doc, good execution by Kirk. Did everything right. And he slips. Just bad luck. Now, that was first down and they failed after that, but just using it as an example... the 2011 Giants were a so-so football team. They got very, very lucky. They were lucky to win a division at 9-7 and then crazy lucky that the 49ers punt returner muffed not one, but two punts late in the game of the NFCC game. Also lucky that Wes Welker dropped an easy catch which likely would have won the SB. Now, don't get me wrong-- I don't begrudge luck. The 2011 Giants SB ring shines just as brightly as any of the other teams that won it all-- and the 1987 Redskins got lucky too-- I don't think we beat the Niners that year, but Minnesota knocked them off the week before--and we got to play at RFK. Very fortunate-- also fortunate that year that our scabs went 3-0 during the strike. I don't begrudge luck, but I do acknowledge it.

 

So far the 2017 Redskins have been unlucky... unlucky on injuries, unlucky on the schedule, and I'd say slightly unlucky on in-game breaks and bounces (I did think we benefited from those in Seattle though).

[Csup]

2 hours ago, Bang said:

 

So you respectfully disagree that being down to second, third and signed-on-Wednesday players on the DL contributed to the Vikings being in second and 2 or second and 3 and dictating the line of scrimmage for most of the game?

 

OK.

 

~Bang

Injury bug was worse for the Seattle game and the Redskins  won.  So yes, i disagree.  

[Bang]

Well, you'd be wrong.

 

~Bang

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bang]

1 hour ago, dyst said:

Still Bradford, Cook, Griffin etc. Vikings could have folded and tanked but they didnt, they kept winning with a guy named Keenam. We hover around 8-8 healthy or not. Just means we’re a mediocre team.

they have the second ranked OL in the league, are top ten in rushing,  and are a top five defense.

It's easy to dismiss Keenum, but hey, the guy is not half bad. He made some nice throws yesterday and he has all season.

He's good enough to be winning behind the rest of that team. 

 

As far as Griffin being out,, the Redskins laid up 30 points yesterday. That's what you should do if presented with weakness, right?

Know who else has dropped 30 points on them this year?
Nobody.

Know who laid more than 20 on them this year? The Steelers, and that is IT. Everyone else scored in the teens.

An objective look should temper criticism.

 

~Bang

 

 

[dyst]

18 minutes ago, Bang said:

they have the second ranked OL in the league, are top ten in rushing,  and are a top five defense.

It's easy to dismiss Keenum, but hey, the guy is not half bad. He made some nice throws yesterday and he has all season.

He's good enough to be winning behind the rest of that team. 

 

As far as Griffin being out,, the Redskins laid up 30 points yesterday. That's what you should do if presented with weakness, right?

Know who else has dropped 30 points on them this year?
Nobody.

Know who laid more than 20 on them this year? The Steelers, and that is IT. Everyone else scored in the teens.

An objective look should temper criticism.

 

~Bang

 

 

I can’t help it Bang, Im tired of being objective (clearly ha), I want results. I don’t care if we’re injured, scored on them or almost had a chance to win. I just want to win and everything else is just an excuse/reason us Redskins fans tell ourselves game after game, year after year to explain out 2+ decade mediocrity.

 

But since this is sort of a posticie thread, I’ll add that I do feel the team is better the last couple of years despite the record not showing it.

[Bacon]

The better team won yesterday. I don't think OP should be embarrassed of this thread, we're still competitive against high level opposition with half the team missing and I think we could certainly push for a playoff spot at full strength. I have rarely been that confident in this team in 20 years of watching them. 

 

None of this is to say that a dynasty is coming, but the enormous improvement that the defense has shown over 9 games is comforting and the offense is still strong despite a WR overhaul and OL injuries.

[Bang]

25 minutes ago, dyst said:

I can’t help it Bang, Im tired of being objective (clearly ha), I want results. I don’t care if we’re injured, scored on them or almost had a chance to win. I just want to win and everything else is just an excuse/reason us Redskins fans tell ourselves game after game, year after year to explain out 2+ decade mediocrity.

 

But since this is sort of a posticie thread, I’ll add that I do feel the team is better the last couple of years despite the record not showing it.

Me too, my man, i am sick of being sick of losing.

But yelling at my TV and how i see it in reality the next day aren't often the same thing.

Even with all the injuries with the failings of the offense (RBs and WRs).. a couple of plays here and there and we snatch a win.
Imagine how good this team could be if the injuries were not as piled up as they were.

~Bang

[skinny21]

I've said it before, but we all know games are won and lost in the trenches.  It's a cliche, but it is for a reason.  Sure, sometimes this can be overcome, but it's not the norm.  There's no way to tell if our record would be better had fewer olinemen been injured, or if Allen/Ioaniddas stayed healthy to this point, but if I were a betting man...

 

The game against Minnesota was a weakened oline and dline vs their stout dline and oline.  It's (a big part of) why Dallas' not-so-good dline looked good against us, and why our dline looked good against Seattle.  

 

Thinking back to various points in the offseason and into the season, I really liked (or just liked) the depth at certain spots - TE, Oline (mainly because of Nsheke, but also Roullier), OLB, running back, ILB, corner and safety.  Even qb to an extent.  Lose Williams, Scherff, Long and Nsheke for multiple games though?  Losing our two best dlinemen, where we don't have quality depth?  Those two areas have hurt us.  

 

Losing Norman, Breeland, Nicholson, Crowder, Reed, Foster, etc... those we've been able to overcome with a bit more success due to viable (and mostly healthy) depth.  

[NoCalMike]

I'd pump the brakes on the Keenum fan club. He was good, but he was also barely ever pressured and as soon as the 'Skins managed to push the pocket into him, he threw interceptions on back to back drives which in all reality is what kept the 'Skins in the game late. The Redskins simply got themselves into much too big a hole to overcome against a solid team.

 

 

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

16 hours ago, dyst said:

I can’t help it Bang, Im tired of being objective (clearly ha), I want results. I don’t care if we’re injured, scored on them or almost had a chance to win. I just want to win and everything else is just an excuse/reason us Redskins fans tell ourselves game after game, year after year to explain out 2+ decade mediocrity.

 

 

Yeah, but it's that type of overreaction that leads to bad decisions. I understand that none of us impact the team direction, but I feel the "we need results on OUR timeline" mindset is why our owner has fired coaches, cut players, etc. far too quickly. 

 

The good franchises win. That's true. They also don't overreact to down seasons when things work against an otherwise solid team. Anyone objectively and logically looking at this year's Redskins would consider them a strong team. Playing a very imposing schedule and fielding second-stringers in many key positions, they've won nearly half their games and could probably make the case that they had two other wins pretty firmly in-hand until some bad breaks hurt them. To be results-based right now would be short-sighted. 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, this is also a unique season for the team. Arguably our two most important pieces (Cousins and Brown) may not be here next year. So, it's tough to really "stand pat" until we know how those two players are going to fit into the long-term plans. 

[kleese]

49 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Yeah, but it's that type of overreaction that leads to bad decisions. I understand that none of us impact the team direction, but I feel the "we need results on OUR timeline" mindset is why our owner has fired coaches, cut players, etc. far too quickly. 

 

The good franchises win. That's true. They also don't overreact to down seasons when things work against an otherwise solid team. Anyone objectively and logically looking at this year's Redskins would consider them a strong team. Playing a very imposing schedule and fielding second-stringers in many key positions, they've won nearly half their games and could probably make the case that they had two other wins pretty firmly in-hand until some bad breaks hurt them. To be results-based right now would be short-sighted. 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, this is also a unique season for the team. Arguably our two most important pieces (Cousins and Brown) may not be here next year. So, it's tough to really "stand pat" until we know how those two players are going to fit into the long-term plans. 

 

I like this and agree 100%. You are taking the Kirk approach of "process over results." Now, at SOME point the results have to meet up with the process. If we are here three from years from now with six straight 8-9 win seasons then sure, looks like you might need to make some drastic changes in order to try and make a move. But right now, 2014 wasn't that long ago. And we were one of the worst teams in the NFL in 2013-2014. A three year run of leveling off around .500, especially when the "eye test" this year is yielding some very clear improvements is OK with me. Of course, the uncertainty with Kirk sort of hangs over everything, but it doesn't stress me out as much as it does others. I want to keep him because I don't want to risk the alternative. But I also see his flaws and understand he will never be elite on a level where he is just doing crazy things like Wentz has done this year to win games. I think our program here might be trendy to a level of stability where we don't have to worry about falling off the cliff every off-season. That said, I don't think we are out of the woods there yet. This will be an important/interesting off-season.

[dyst]

2 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Yeah, but it's that type of overreaction that leads to bad decisions. I understand that none of us impact the team direction, but I feel the "we need results on OUR timeline" mindset is why our owner has fired coaches, cut players, etc. far too quickly. 

 

The good franchises win. That's true. They also don't overreact to down seasons when things work against an otherwise solid team. Anyone objectively and logically looking at this year's Redskins would consider them a strong team. Playing a very imposing schedule and fielding second-stringers in many key positions, they've won nearly half their games and could probably make the case that they had two other wins pretty firmly in-hand until some bad breaks hurt them. To be results-based right now would be short-sighted. 

 

Now, don't get me wrong, this is also a unique season for the team. Arguably our two most important pieces (Cousins and Brown) may not be here next year. So, it's tough to really "stand pat" until we know how those two players are going to fit into the long-term plans. 

Our management I'll agree on. The fans though, we've been nothing but patient. Really not much we can do as fans to make the team better. It's just sad when other teams seem to have legit winning seasons sporadically and yet we're constantly between 7 or 9 wins. At least we're not the Browns.

[pjfootballer]

I mean, I kind of see where @dyst is coming from with his frustrations.  I have the same. For the last 25 years, we've been told that there is a 3 year, 5 year or whatever year plan.  The 3, 5 or whatever years go by and nothing.  It's frustrating to watch other teams go from 4-12 to 12-4 in one year or a few years and we never seem to complete the plan.  We sort of plateau at 8, 9 or 10 wins and a few appearances in the playoffs. I've put this stat out here several times over the years.  We are the only team in the NFL since 1992, that has not won at least 11 games in the regular season.  The Browns, Lions and the last 3 expansion teams (Panthers, Jags and Texans) have all had an 11 win season.

 

It would be nice for once to see a plan actually come to fruition, even for just a few years.  Take the 49ers. Once the Steve Young era was over, they sucked.  But they had a plan, rebuilt and they at least had a few years with great seasons, including a SB appearance.

 

The Eagles were 4-12 last year.  8-1 this year.  It just seems like no matter what we try (new coach, new GM, draft, free agents, whatever else...) the plan stalls. I for one am not satisfied with winning 8-10 games and being semi-relevant.  Yes, it's better than the alternative, which is sucking, but at some point, I'd like for us to at least contend for about 5-7 years.  I'm not asking for an impossible thing like the Patriots dynasty.  That is a once in a lifetime kind of run.

 

I feel like we are a one step forward, 2 steps back kind of franchise.  We're not terrible, but we can't seem to get over the hump.  Now, of course, Bills, Browns and Lions fans would probably look at us and say, "it could be worse. You could root for our teams."  And that's understandable. Just show some consistency and growth.  I'd love to go into each year knowing we have a chance to compete for a title and possibly win one.  So I do see Dyst's point of view, maybe not as jaded.  I understand.