Veryoldschool

Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith! Or Not!! (M.E.T.) NO kirk talk---that goes in ATN forum

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Unless we absolutely tank, I want to ride this out with this core and this coach at least until Smith has played three years. By then, Williams and Kerrigan will be getting to the end of their careers and our QB will be in his late-30s. If it hasn't worked by then, we can blow it up. 

I'm with you on this.  I'd just prefer a guy like Kyle Smith be given the keys to the kingdom and the power to call all the shots in regards to personnel.  I think a move like that would best setup this current core and staff could ask for.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. If Alex Smith can just do what he’s done for the past 10 years for this season and next, I’m hopeful for 10-11 wins each year. This will build the confidence of the coaches and players that should result in consecutive playoff appearances; hopefully deeper. Two consecutive 10+ win seasons is a significant departure from the past 20 years and a great opportunity to expand on the core of youth we have now.

 

That’s the transformation I’m looking forward to. Barring catastrophic injuries like last year, I’m looking forward to a 10 win wild card season and competing for home field advantage next season. I dont think my expectation is unreasonable with Alex Smith at the helm. And it should be even more likely if our run game and run D has improved - and I don’t think it has to improve that much. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, JaxJoe said:

Look. If Alex Smith can just do what he’s done for the past 10 years for this season and next, I’m hopeful for 10-11 wins each year. This will build the confidence of the coaches and players that should result in consecutive playoff appearances; hopefully deeper. 

 

There are many different circumstances and nuances to Alex Smith doing what he's done the past 10 years vs. what the Redskins have been doing the last 10 years though.  Different schedules, division, teams, coaching staffs, etc.  There's a lot more that goes into it other than the Quarterback.  I think it's unfair to Alex Smith to believe that he's going to make that much of a difference.

 

Quote

And it should be even more likely if our run game and run D has improved - and I don’t think it has to improve that much. 

 

Have to disagree here as I believe our run game has to improve a lot to get to 10 wins.  I do believe the addition of Guice should make that easier to accomplish.  There also has to be a dedication by Jay and the OC to running the football.  I've understood in years past that it sounds easier than it is to actually do, given either the O-line or RB issues, or a combination of both.  I still have concerns about the LG position.  I think we also have to hope that a guy like CT bounces back unscathed by last years injury.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Have to disagree here as I believe our run game has to improve a lot to get to 10 wins.  

 

I'm not sure how a team that has averaged 8 wins over the past three seasons would need to improve "a lot" in any one place to get to 10. I think incremental improvements in our run D and run O gets us there. And both those things are feasible simply based on new personnel and health. 

 

Run O

Smith adds a dimension himself (assuming we use some read-option)

Guice should be better than anyone we've had

OL is healthy (at least to start the season)

 

Run D

Addition of DL starters and depth

Continuity at ILB with Brown and Foster

 

Nothing is guaranteed of course, but we finished 29th in yards per rush on both sides of the ball. Even if that improves into the low-20s, that's a big deal with how close some of these games are.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm not sure how a team that has averaged 8 wins over the past three seasons would need to improve "a lot" in any one place to get to 10. I think incremental improvements in our run D and run O gets us there. And both those things are feasible simply based on new personnel and health. 

 

Run O

Smith adds a dimension himself (assuming we use some read-option)

Guice should be better than anyone we've had

OL is healthy (at least to start the season)

 

Run D

Addition of DL starters and depth

Continuity at ILB with Brown and Foster

 

Nothing is guaranteed of course, but we finished 29th in yards per rush on both sides of the ball. Even if that improves into the low-20s, that's a big deal with how close some of these games are.  

Agree with everything but the ILB comment, and I hope you're right and I'm wrong.  Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I'm not sure teams were throwing money to pry him away from us. Not sure of the length of Foster's contract or when he signed it but I'm not he's considered a high-end ILB.  But again, I hope you are laughing at me at the end of the season.  HTTR

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, perez24 said:

Agree with everything but the ILB comment, and I hope you're right and I'm wrong.  Maybe I wasn't paying attention but I'm not sure teams were throwing money to pry him away from us. Not sure of the length of Foster's contract or when he signed it but I'm not he's considered a high-end ILB.  But again, I hope you are laughing at me at the end of the season.  HTTR

 

I doubt I'll laugh at anyone...

 

My point is less that those guys are a top-5 tandem and more that another year of playing together plus playing behind a better DL can only help improve what we saw last year. Last year was solid from those two guys and I'd expect them to be kept even a little cleaner now that we have a deeper and stronger DL rotation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I'm not sure how a team that has averaged 8 wins over the past three seasons would need to improve "a lot" in any one place to get to 10. I think incremental improvements in our run D and run O gets us there. And both those things are feasible simply based on new personnel and health. 

Yup, my thoughts exactly. Our run game needs to improve just enough where defenses need to take it more seriously because it will pose a real threat as opposed to something we do in between pass plays. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I'm not sure how a team that has averaged 8 wins over the past three seasons would need to improve "a lot" in any one place to get to 10. I think incremental improvements in our run D and run O gets us there. And both those things are feasible simply based on new personnel and health. 

 

Nothing is guaranteed of course, but we finished 29th in yards per rush on both sides of the ball. Even if that improves into the low-20s, that's a big deal with how close some of these games are.  

 

I was speaking specifically about the run offense.  I think there is more to it than simply the numbers.  Too often this offense cannot run the ball when it must run the ball.  I absolutely believe that Guice should help the run offense overall and is the piece this offense has desperately been missing the past few seasons. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I was speaking specifically about the run offense.  I think there is more to it than simply the numbers.  Too often this offense cannot run the ball when it must run the ball.  I absolutely believe that Guice should help the run offense overall and is the piece this offense has desperately been missing the past few seasons. 

 

Makes sense - I also think Smith as a legit threat will help. Remember how Griffin made a pedestrian Morris a top-5 running back (statistically) in 2012. 

 

Will we ever just be able to line up on 3rd-and-2 and physically push the Eagles backwards? I doubt it with these players, but we don't necessarily have to either if they have to respect the read option, pop-pass, or something like that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bedlamVR said:

 

I give the rest of the roster a whole lot more credit than some  - and i have grown to really like Jay  

 

 

I am going to use this point to take a detour so its not directed at you.  The issue of roster combined with the season they had last year plays out a little weird for me.  I've lost track of who said what and during what time.  But I recall on the Kirk thread during the recent season there was a theme cooking about how the team is better than their record and these loses aren't the end of the world if you consider context.  Couched in part to say Kirk is doing well considering context.  And there was some loud negativity in response to that point and much of that was from people who were relatively pro FO/pro Bruce.  

 

Now that Kirk is gone.  We got a narrative framed to back up that the FO is doing a good job that's predicated on the 7-9 record is much better than it looked.    So from the FO stand point -- 7-9 is better than it looked, it was really nice job considering the barriers.  From the Kirk side of the equation this point somehow doesn't apply -- and knifes were out during the season during the losses.  If you go back and read that thread it was pretty amusing in retrospect. 

 

Now circling to your point here.  I am typically optimistic before each season.  And I do think they were better than they looked last year.  I guess where I've become up in the air about this team is injuries/schedule.  We've had a bad run of both gigs.  And this year isn't set up yet that much better.  I saw somewhere we have the 5th hardest strength of schedule by ESPN's metrics.   And you add to that all these injured players coming back -- typically injured players can be wildcards health wise on their return.  I liked Richardson but he's already had 2 ACL tears.  Jordan Reed is injured just about every year.  Trent's been banged up in recent years.  Nicholson has an injury history going back to college.  On and on.

 

So some say, no way we can have the run of bad luck we did in 2017.  Maybe so.  But wasn't this one of the more injured teams in 2016, too?  I just think we have too many key players coming off of major injuries converged with a potential tough schedule -- for me to expect 10-6.   I do think if they are healthy though they can go 10-6.  I just don't know.  It has to play out for me.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

So some say, no way we can have the run of bad luck we did in 2017.  Maybe so.  But wasn't this one of the more injured teams in 2016, too?  I just think we have too many key players coming off of major injuries converged with a potential tough schedule -- for me to expect 10-6.   I do think if they are healthy though they can go 10-6.  I just don't know.  It has to play out for me.

 

Yeah, I agree with this.  The only thing keeping me from being over-the-moon hyped about this upcoming season is the fact that I expect to be at, or near, the top of adjusted games lost due to injury again this season.  One season is an outlier, but Jay's Redskins teams have by far been the most injured on a cumulative basis, since he took over.  I have little faith that it will change much this season, especially with so many guys coming off major injuries.

 

 

When we looked at AGL for head coaches last year, Jay Gruden was only surpassed by Mike McCoy's San Diego teams. After Washington finished last in AGL in 2017, we can say that Gruden has had the most injured teams of any coach since 2002. This 2017 total does not even include anything for safety Su'a Cravens, who shocked everyone when he decided to retire a week before the regular season. He was placed on an exempt list and missed the entire season after getting treated for post-concussion syndrome. Middle linebacker Mason Foster (11.3 AGL) and first-round rookie Jonathan Allen (11.0 AGL) were Washington's two biggest losses by AGL. The skill positions also lost tight end Jordan Reed (8.3 AGL), running backs Rob Kelley (8.6 AGL) and Chris Thompson (6.1 AGL), and wide receiver Terrelle Pryor (7.1 AGL) for extended periods of time. As we'll see next week in the unit breakdowns, the depth of injuries along the offensive line really pushed Washington over the top here. Washington had a league-high 10 players incur at least 6.0 AGL.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/2017-adjusted-games-lost

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Yeah, I agree with this.  The only thing keeping me from being over-the-moon hyped about this upcoming season is the fact that I expect to be at, or near, the top of adjusted games lost due to injury again this season.  One season is an outlier, but Jay's Redskins teams have by far been the most injured on a cumulative basis, since he took over.  

 

Yeah I suspect Jay has nothing to do with it.  It's simply that players who tend to get injured often get injured again.  Some seem to think the law of averages should mitigate a bad injury year.  And I agree the law of averages often mitigates bad luck over time.  And there is an element of luck to injuries.   However, guys that have a history of injuries are often susceptible to more.

 

Unfortunately, the best player on offense, Jordan Reed, is typically out a lot.  Montae Nicholson who Jay ironically compared to Reed as for his value -- banged up in college, banged up here.  Trent in recent years has been banged up and is coming off a major surgery.  Chris Thompson has a history of injuries.  Shaun Lauvao typically struggles to stay healthy.  Paul Richardson has been banged up for much of his career.  Looks like McGee had surgery recently on his groin.   McPhee.  Scandrick, etc.

 

There is a lot out there to make me question the notion that Bruce had months back about having all these guys back from injury is like having a new fortified roster or something to that effect.  Not saying he's wrong.  But I wonder. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Considering the list historically doesn't contain many Redskins, I'm not shocked that you find it to be trash.  Personally, I don't watch it and find it to merely be something for the NFLN to pass time through the offseason.  It can certainly be a popularity contest but at the same time - these votes are made by guys who actually play the game of football, unlike me or you. 

Miss the part where I said it could be littered with Redskins and I don’t care? It’s not trash because it doesn’t prop up my favorite players. It’s trash because of the process. Look at the ballot on the previous page, it’s a total joke. And it’s pretty unanimously viewed that way. Love how you say you don’t watch it or pay attention but then are arguing it’s not trash because it’s the players that vote. Sure, some of the guys they list are some of the top players in the league and they have good insight into them being fellow players. But they also include friends, guys on their team, etc that makes the list crap on the whole.

6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The Redskins stock peaked in 1992.  It's been steadily plummeting for 25 years.  Poor analogy, not shocked.  It also doesn't fit the context of anything that I was talking about, again - not shocked.

Your overarching point is that history tends to repeat itself. That’s true, but unfortunately you’ve taken such a hard and rigid stance that Dan and Bruce are evil villains that it colors your view on pretty much everything surrounding the team. If history always repeated itself, the league would never change. Bad teams remain bad, good teams remain good. Not how it works. The stock analogy was used to illustrate that sometimes you need to pay attention to factors other than past performance if you want to predict future success. 

6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

You constantly do this thing where you say 'You're not doing X' when you're doing just that.  Just like you'd like the Kirk discussion to cease, yet still find reasons to post your Kirk analysis for the umpteenth time that nobody reads or cares about.  Just like you're not a Bruce and Dan fan but the overwhelming majority of your posting history is saying 'Look, I'm not a Bruce fan, but look at X, Y and Z reasons why he's awesome.'.  For you of all people to have the audacity to question my contributions to this site is sad.  What's sadder is you trying to play keyboard psychologist about why I am the way I am.  Please leave talking investments and psychology to the folks that actually study those things.

Well at least you admit you don’t read what I post.  Perhaps that’s why you never understand anything. It doesn’t take a pschycologist to recognize you come off as a bitter and beaten down fan who 90% of the time posts about Dan/Bruce or responding to anybody who suggests anything remotely positive about the team. Exhibit A in this thread. I did study investments by the way. 

6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

This is another staple of your posting - THE BIG 'IF'.  IF. IF. IF. IF.  You like doing this thing where IF the Redskins win 11 games, or win a Super Bowl or whatever.  How about we just let them go ahead and do that and then we find out how I'll react to it?  I'll wait.

Lol it was just poking fun at the fact that the Redskins could win the Super Bowl and you would find the negative angle to chime in on. 

6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

In conclusion and let me be clear here, IF the Redskins win the Super Bowl - I'd be ecstatic for the actual coaches and players of this team that I do like, which are plentiful.  I'd also be indebted to them forever for making it happen given the environment they've been provided.  If Jay Gruden can win a Super Bowl here with this organizational structure - he deserves a freaking monument.

 

 

IF the Redskins win the Super Bowl, Dan and Bruce must have done something right. This is just comical at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Miss the part where I said it could be littered with Redskins and I don’t care?

No, I just believe you would care more if it represented views similar to your own.

 

3 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Your overarching point is that history tends to repeat itself. That’s true, but unfortunately you’ve taken such a hard and rigid stance that Dan and Bruce are evil villains that it colors your view on pretty much everything surrounding the team. If history always repeated itself, the league would never change. Bad teams remain bad, good teams remain good. Not how it works. The stock analogy was used to illustrate that sometimes you need to pay attention to factors other than past performance if you want to predict future success. 

Evil villains? No, more like guys who just aren't very good at their jobs.  One of them being 20 years into ownership without an 11 win season and a long, long list of infractions and screw-ups at every level and the other being a former agent turned NFL Exec on the strength of his father's good name that's never been successful in a role similar to the one he's had here for 9 years.  If there is any reason to buy stock in the Redskins its due to Jay Gruden, the staff he's put together and the mere fact that it looks like Bruce Allen may soon be on his way out the door.

 

9 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Well at least you admit you don’t read what I post.  Perhaps that’s why you never understand anything. It doesn’t take a pschycologist to recognize you come off as a bitter and beaten down fan who 90% of the time posts about Dan/Bruce or responding to anybody who suggests anything remotely positive about the team. Exhibit A in this thread. I did study investments by the way. 

Interesting, I'm the one that never understands anything.  Yet you're the one who rarely stays on topic when relentlessly responding to me and is constantly projecting what you think people are saying or thinking.  You are the one who has less than 200 posts and the overwhelming majority are based around defending Dan and Bruce from meanie, bitter fans like me who won't give Dan the fair shake you believe he deserves.  Take a look around, my posting history is a bit more diverse than that of your own.  But whatever you do, if you feel the need to constantly follow me around, send me a PM with your rebuttal and save the board from more crap.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Yeah, I agree with this.  The only thing keeping me from being over-the-moon hyped about this upcoming season is the fact that I expect to be at, or near, the top of adjusted games lost due to injury again this season.  One season is an outlier, but Jay's Redskins teams have by far been the most injured on a cumulative basis, since he took over.  I have little faith that it will change much this season, especially with so many guys coming off major injuries.

 

Edit

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/2017-adjusted-games-lost

 

The site I use is Man Games Lost - I got grandfathered in on their prices so it's only $5/yr. Following is where the Redskins were in both raw team games lost due to injury, the lost impact, and then the weighted lost impact. The definition of how they calculate the lost impact is below.

 

                Total Injured           Lost Approximate Value      Lost Weighted Approximate Value

2017 -     309 - 6th most            50.166 - 4th worst                    56.189 - 2nd worst

2016 -     179 - 20th most          38.508 - 4th worst                    27.385 - 21st worst

2015 -     217 - 4th most            31.416 - 9th worst                    39.883 - 4th worst

2014 -     190 - 10th most          27.537 - 11th worst                  47.800 - 2nd worst

2013 -     128 - 24th most           9.327 -   32nd worst                15.098 - 29th worst

2012 -     206 - 9th most            24.778 - 14th worst                 29.522 - 12th worst

 

 

Kind of interesting. 4 out of 6 yrs the team was in the top 10 in man games lost due to injury. 3 out of the last 4 yrs, the team was in the top 4 in weighted lost approximate value! And the last 4 yrs the team has been no better than 11th in lost approximate value. 

 

Also, the number i found most intriguing is that 309 lost man games got up 6 on the list for 2017! From 2012 to 2015 there were zero teams with more than 300 man games lost due to injury. In 2016 that number was 4. Last year there were 9 teams with more than 300 including Indy with 394 and the NYG with 388 (  @Skinsinparadise - This may be the link why so much love for the Giants? They think all those guys are coming back and be awesome?). 

 

To me this is at least partially a result of the CBA. They can't practice nearly as much so they are not as prepared physically to play. Just a theory of mine. Not sure the data above is enough on it's own but it sure seems to be pointing in that direction. 

 

 

What is Lost-av? Lost-wav? How is it calculated for the NFL?

My NFL player-quality metrics now base the quality of a player on their AV (Approximate Value) and WAV (Weighted Career Approximate Value) scores as calculated at Pro-Football-Reference.com. AV scores are only available for previous season performances and don’t reflect current season performance. As such, during the regular season, injuries to rookies are adversely affected since they do not have a previous season AV score, and thus any rookie’s AV scores is effectively zero. They will have zero Lost-av or Lost-wav. The absence of an unknown cannot be measured effectively.

Only at season end do the AV vlues for all players in the season get calculated. Once they are available to Lost-av values for all players are recalculated, using the season’s new AV numbers available, substituting out the previous season AV values that had been used.

A higher Lost-av or Lost-wav number equals a greater impact of missing players to the team. A high Lost-av or Lost-wav value for a player reflects a high number of games missed due to injury, a high WAV or previous season AV value, or a combination of both. The exact number is not as important as the basic range, versus other players. This is the case with most statistics in the analytics of sport performance.

Lost AV is calculated as the AV(historic per game from the previous season) x PlayerGamesInjured for each player. At the team level, it is summed from the individual values for each player on each team.

NFL Lost-av = AV(historic per game from previous season) x PlayerGamesInjured

likewise for Lost-wav

NFL Lost-wav = WAV(historic per game from entire career) x PlayerGamesInjured

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

No, I just believe you would care more if it represented views similar to your own.

 

Yet you're the one who rarely stays on topic when relentlessly responding to me and is constantly projecting what you think people are saying or thinking.

 

Just want to point out the irony between these two sentences.

 

I will save the board from any more back and forth and apologize to everyone for straying off topic. I do recall saying before why don’t we shut up about Cousins, and will acknowledge that I did that very thing in this thread. That’s on me.

 

Back to Smith, I do think it will be a lateral move in terms of talent. Different strengths, different weaknesses. I’m excited for his leadership and his pedigree for winning football games. I think my favorite Smith games that I have personally watched in full were the week 1 vs the patriots this past year and then when he went head to head vs Drew Brees in the playoffs in 2011 and won. Those were brilliantly quarterbacked games and hopefully a glimpse of things to come in a QB friendly system with Jay. And I do very much believe that stability at that position, and incremental improvements running the football and stopping the run can be the difference between winning 7,8 games and winning 10. That’s not even considering (even slightly) better luck in the injury department and my personal belief Guice will more than marginally improve the run game. Very excited to see how it comes together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think it depends on circumstances. Would you "fire someone" if we go 10-6 but miss out? 

 

I also don't quite understand the part I underlined above...most teams spend just about the same amount of money each season, so by your definition there should be 20 firings every January by all the teams who missed the playoffs. 

 

Edit: My point is this...for the first time since the mid-1990s it feels like we're building a young nucleus and making incremental progress. I realize that Turner never got us over the hump despite 7 years on the job, but I also feel like that was our best chance to turn into the type of contending team that could stick around (a coach in his prime with a youngish team). I would hate to pull the plug on something a year or two too early especially when it feels like we're doing it right. 

 

I wasn't talking about firing Gruden, The firing was pointed more towards the FO that has built the roster..I wasn't suggesting every player with a high salary was bad,but a few of them make way more than they should for the results of a team that hovers around 8-8..Lets get real,Do you think Norman is worth 16m a year? or Reed at 10m a year..they're paying other guys as if they are starters,but play like depth players..I think that's why when you look at this team and you wonder who is the star player on this team and can't pick one..

Edited by bh32
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Also, the number i found most intriguing is that 309 lost man games got up 6 on the list for 2017! From 2012 to 2015 there were zero teams with more than 300 man games lost due to injury. In 2016 that number was 4. Last year there were 9 teams with more than 300 including Indy with 394 and the NYG with 388 (  @Skinsinparadise - This may be the link why so much love for the Giants? They think all those guys are coming back and be awesome?). 

 

 

 

Could be.  And I know its a rallying cry for some to negate media-pundit opinions as either Redskins-hate or as to why we should care, etc.   I get the feeling but I don't think either point though is relevant at least for me.  Agree that national opinion means nothing to the bottom line.  To me the one interest is the gossip/sports shows are fun entertainment -- love watching the game but also love the hype leading up to each game. 

 

The national buzz seem to effect some ordinary fans of other teams that watch ESPN/NFL Network.  I might feel it more being in South Florida where you got such a cross section of fans here so I get into lots of football conversations whenever I wear Redskins shirts.  And when the national media lampoons the Redskins, I often have to explain that angle from our point of view.  It pops up for me a lot too -- the power of the NFL is so many people love the game.  I've gotten into football conversations abroad, too.   

 

So yeah the fact that the national media, Vegas, draft geeks, magazines almost all seem to think the Redskins will stink this year and the Giants on the other hand will come back with a big season is interesting within my circle.  Sadly I am surrounding by many Giant fans -- almost all of my in laws.

 

There are some exceptions among the football talking heads where some like the Redskins chances.  But by and large people don't think the Redskins will be just mediocre but actually will be bad.   And somehow the Giants will set the world on fire?  Just seems a bit wild to me.  Yeah the Giants did have a ton of injuries.  I liked our draft.  I liked their draft even more but they had it easier because they had the higher picks.  I liked their FA over ours -- and I typically do -- the Giants aren't afraid to dip their toes in the high end shop of FA and lately it works out well for them.    Yeah so for me my only jealously of the Giants is I agree with their FA approach over ours -- but otherwise I am not really blown away by their roster.  And I think Eli stinks.

 

As for the Redskins, for me I think if Jordan Reed is healthy or relatively healthy.  The O line is relatively healthy and Guice is the stud I think he is -- then I think 10-6 is doable.  If that doesn't happen, I think its an 8-8 team but not the 6-10 vibe that the national media seems to peg this team as.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for the Redskins, for me I think if Jordan Reed is healthy or relatively healthy.  The O line is relatively healthy and Guice is the stud I think he is -- then I think 10-6 is doable.  If that doesn't happen, I think its an 8-8 team but not the 6-10 vibe that the national media seems to peg this team as.  

 

It's funny about national predictions - with the Redskins I really think it's laziness, but I don't blame them. I'll explain...

 

There's really no way a team that has averaged 8 wins over the past three seasons and improved where we have should be considered an automatic last place team. It makes very little sense when you consider the injuries we've encountered and the schedules we've faced. 

 

But...

 

The Redskins have "rewarded" the laziness of the national media so often that I understand why they don't bother to dig deeper. Basically we finish last 3 out of every 5 years, so I get that it's just easier to put us there and not really worry about the "how" of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

It's funny about national predictions - with the Redskins I really think it's laziness, but I don't blame them. I'll explain...

 

There's really no way a team that has averaged 8 wins over the past three seasons and improved where we have should be considered an automatic last place team. It makes very little sense when you consider the injuries we've encountered and the schedules we've faced. 

 

But...

 

The Redskins have "rewarded" the laziness of the national media so often that I understand why they don't bother to dig deeper. Basically we finish last 3 out of every 5 years, so I get that it's just easier to put us there and not really worry about the "how" of it. 

IMO, it doesn't matter "how" they ended up there.  They did end up there and you are what your record says you are.  

 

Every year for the past decade all I remember people talking about is how we "should have" won more games than we did, myself included and probably leading that charge.  But we didn't, and we never do.  I'd be willing to bet that there are many Eagles fans who last year talked about they "should have" won more than 13 games for various reasons, and they are probably right just like we think we are right that we "should have" won more games than we did.

 

But we didn't and that's just how football plays out.  Every year there are different excuses as to why we missed the playoffs or this or that.  The fact is this team just is not and hasn't been good in a long time other than pretty lucky runs at the right times, and that too is part of football, when things just "click".  But I don't want a run.  I want a sustained team where making the playoffs every year is the norm, like with the Caps, and missing is the outlier.  Maybe one day we will get there and I hope that this QB drama free year will be the start of it.

 

That said, opening day I will be shouting that we will be going 16-0, and then after we lose, I'll shout that hey it's okay we can still go 15-1, and then as we hit the bye week in week 5 I'll be saying it's okay we can still go 13-3 like the Eagles did last year, all we have to do is win out!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, purbeast said:

IMO, it doesn't matter "how" they ended up there.  They did end up there and you are what your record says you are.  

 

Every year for the past decade all I remember people talking about is how we "should have" won more games than we did, myself included and probably leading that charge.  But we didn't, and we never do.  I'd be willing to bet that there are many Eagles fans who last year talked about they "should have" won more than 13 games for various reasons, and they are probably right just like we think we are right that we "should have" won more games than we did.

 

But we didn't and that's just how football plays out.  Every year there are different excuses as to why we missed the playoffs or this or that.  The fact is this team just is not and hasn't been good in a long time other than pretty lucky runs at the right times, and that too is part of football, when things just "click".  But I don't want a run.  I want a sustained team where making the playoffs every year is the norm, like with the Caps, and missing is the outlier.  Maybe one day we will get there and I hope that this QB drama free year will be the start of it.

 

That said, opening day I will be shouting that we will be going 16-0, and then after we lose, I'll shout that hey it's okay we can still go 15-1, and then as we hit the bye week in week 5 I'll be saying it's okay we can still go 13-3 like the Eagles did last year, all we have to do is win out!

 

That was the gist of my point...these national guys who have to predict 32 teams have the luxury of simply penciling us in for 4th in the East and knowing that they have a 75-80% chance of getting that one right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

The Redskins have "rewarded" the laziness of the national media so often that I understand why they don't bother to dig deeper. Basically we finish last 3 out of every 5 years, so I get that it's just easier to put us there and not really worry about the "how" of it. 

 

I agree that's probably a lot to do with it.

 

I also think FA is still reacted in a positive way for most of the national media types.  So when a big player is signed by a team the reaction isn't yawn there is another Haynesworth type of bust in the offing but instead typically that player is hyped.  IMO its often justified, too.   So when teams like Jacksonville, Giants or whomever make major moves in FA its seen as them aggressively getting better.  And they get coverage for it. 

 

The Giants in particular in recent years when they have a hole to fix, they think big.  Worst run defense in the league to one of the best in one fell swoop in 2016 after signing the best run stuffing NT on the market and best DE.  They arguably did the same at corner.  This year they took the best LT on the market.  

 

I think as a fan base we can be so hard wired to the idea that swinging for the fences at FA = pain.  But it really was about incompetence not so much signing big rep FAs always backfire IMO.  To the national media types, its typically hey the Giants LT was terrible last year, they fixed it by signing Solder the best guy on the market.  Sort of like the George Costanza approach -- you want to get nuts, lets get nuts.  Their MLB corp was ho hum and they fixed that by trading one of the bigger rep MLBs in the league, etc.

 

So I do think we used to get unwarranted hype during the Vinny days for a spell because of FA. Because likewise we shopped in the Tiffany's aisle.  My issue with Vinny wasn't signing big names but signing the wrong guys coupled with trading draft picks.  And now we get the modest but IMO mostly uninspired looking shopping sprees that have yielded mediocre results in recent years -- we've had another rodeo of it this season -- so why will things change?  I think that's part of the mindset. 

 

Personally, I do think the Redskins are somewhere between stinking to mediocre at playing the pro player personnel card in particular in FA.  But  I do like their recent drafts.  Everything being equal, I am more a draft than a pro personnel guy so I lean towards optimism.

 

Back on topic and this isn't directed to you, I think Alex will do his part.  But the over the top comments I see on twitter and call in shows (much of those comments include a dig at Kirk) about how Alex has guts and will throw in tight windows and won't hesitate to throw deep, etc, etc.  A lot of it contradicts some of what Alex's critics say about him.  He's rep isn't of this devil may care Brett Favre type who will just chuck it around the field and will do everything the opposite way of Kirk and naturally all in a good way. 

 

The problem with that is I think people are expecting too much out of the dude and will eventually feel let down after the requisite preseason/early season honeymoon phase.  Alex I think is a playoff caliber QB.  But if it goes similar to last year where at some point Vernon Davis is his top passing target, Perine the top RB, and Clemmings his LT -- facing one of the toughest schedules in the league -- then our season is likely to be mediocre.  We need a healthy O line, Reed and for Guice to be a stud -- and if that happens these pundit types I think will be wrong.   

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.