Are we in dreamland with this "continuity" thing? La la land?

[kleese]

OM,

Clearly, we have some serious talent issues to address. There are obvious ones such as the DL, and less obvious ones like overrating our "star" players.

But there are LOTS of teams around the league that have holes.

5-9 in today's NFL is REALLY bad.

The Panthers were 1-15 two years ago with NO talent on that roster. Less than 2 years later they are winning the division. Is that all because they went out and got great players to fill ALL of their needs? No way. Sure, they upgraded, but their biggest upgrade was at head coach, where Fox came in and IMMEDIATLEY turned it around. Maybe some of those player at Carolina that we view as so solid are solid BECAUSE OF John Fox and his staff?

The Redskins as a team are making the same errors week after week after week. Blown assigments, constant confusion, etc...

It's not that Spurrier hasn't quite found his groove yet. It's that he's 100% groove-less. It's like a child is coaching the team. He's lost. He doesn't get it.

Here's my problem. Assuming we DO fix the DL and address some other talent issues, I STILL think we'll fall short next year because I don't think SOS can do the job even with a better team.

[GSF]

I agree w/ every word Kleese, but just to add...isn't it the coaching staff's job to recognize the holes, address them in the offseason, and adapt you game plan to protect your weak areas during the season? There were few on this board that didn't think our defense was going to be terrible when the Skins ignored the dline and didn't adequately replace Gardener and Wilky. Why didn't Spurrier or Edwards say hey Mr. Snyder, we're going to be in trouble if we don't get a tackle in here. Nothing against Jacobs, but what a wasted pick when there were still a few decent lineman on the board and we were loaded with recievers. Why chuck the ball downfield all season long when you have a young qb and a struggling oline? Why not give them some time to settle into the offense, and then start pitchin it around? Billick likes to throw it a lot, but he's been running the ball since he got to Baltimore, because he doesn't have the personel to run his pass heavy system. The difference is that Billick cares more about winning than proving to the world that his system is valid.

[REDALERT]

GSF, and that's the main reason Spurrier's not gonna make it. For 1, regardless of the state of the offense and the conditions that plnated in front of you. Your constant and determined that no matter what, your gonna throw the ball. is it to prove something? I don't quite know. But Steve's taking baby steps in learning the process of being a smart coach opposed to a Dumb one. But you have coaches now on the NFL level that are very smart when it comes to X's and O's. Steve, well! here's not there yet. he's still stuck in the mind frame of doing things the old gator way and that included bringing some coaches with him.

Next year, I'm not gonna get my hopes up high here. The only chance I see the Redskins maikng any kind of push is if several things happen.

1. lose the DC.

2.lose the OC

3.Lose the OL coach.

4.Hire experienced Coordinators for #1,2 and 3.

5.Fill the holes on defense.

6.Someone tell Steve Spurrier to stop calling the plays if things look the same on offense like it does this year.

Hopefully, Spurrier can sit bacl and learn and get a free ride from the experienced Coordinators, if he brings them in.

Marvin Lewis helped him his first year, but he had no one this year, Results

5-11

[Bang]

Originally posted by GSF

I disagree with the premise that if SOS gets fired at the end of the season, no other coach will come here. The rest of the league has seen how woeful Spurrier has been. Everyone has watched the Skins go in reverse under Spurrier. The rest of the league also watched Snyder go to great lengths to get his guy, and to give his guy whatever tools he said he needed to win. I think there are a lot of nfl coaches and assistants that view Snyder more favorably that some of us on this board. I think most coaches want an owner that are willing to go to great lengths to win, and Snyder has shown he is willing. The one hitch is how involved Snyder is going to be in personel decisions, and the good coaches are going to insist on having control of that anyway.

While I agree that people can see for themselves what the team has done under Spurrier, it really doesn't matter, because perceptions are that one BIG reason Spurrier is failing is Snyder standing behind him. (see the Danny Wuerffel fiasco... those types of decisions are made by personel people around the NFL every year, but when Danny did it, it was perceived as laughable, and signs of the apocalypse. As i wrote numerous times back then, I have never seen so much press to the cutting of a third string QB in my LIFE. Hell, everyone LOVED Babe Laufenberg, and when he got cut, it was barely a ripple in the newspaper.)

The public perception of Snyder is enough to scare away plenty of prospects.

I understand what you mean about coaches wanting to work with an owner willing to do what it takes to win... but again, the perception is that Snyder doesn't know what it takes to win, and he's just throwing money around, and then blaming the coach and firing him when it doesn't work immediately.

We've all heard it... Danny thinks he can buy a Super Bowl, and you just can't do that.

(No,, that only applies to Snyder, because you damn sure CAN buy a Super Bowl, as the Bucs so aptly proved.)

I think canning the whole crew now plants the seed in every person that talks to us afterward that it will happen to them too, if they don't get immediate results.

~Bang

[GSF]

Originally posted by Bang

While I agree that people can see for themselves what the team has done under Spurrier, it really doesn't matter, because perceptions are that one BIG reason Spurrier is failing is Snyder standing behind him. (see the Danny Wuerffel fiasco... those types of decisions are made by personel people around the NFL every year, but when Danny did it, it was perceived as laughable, and signs of the apocalypse. As i wrote numerous times back then, I have never seen so much press to the cutting of a third string QB in my LIFE. Hell, everyone LOVED Babe Laufenberg, and when he got cut, it was barely a ripple in the newspaper.)

The public perception of Snyder is enough to scare away plenty of prospects.

I understand what you mean about coaches wanting to work with an owner willing to do what it takes to win... but again, the perception is that Snyder doesn't know what it takes to win, and he's just throwing money around, and then blaming the coach and firing him when it doesn't work immediately.

We've all heard it... Danny thinks he can buy a Super Bowl, and you just can't do that.

(No,, that only applies to Snyder, because you damn sure CAN buy a Super Bowl, as the Bucs so aptly proved.)

I think canning the whole crew now plants the seed in every person that talks to us afterward that it will happen to them too, if they don't get immediate results.

~Bang

Good points Bang, but just to continue the debate for fun...why would most coaches percieve Snyder standing behind as the cause of the Skins problems? I wouldn't call cutting Wuerfull a fiasco. Even with the egg he laid against Dallas, Hasselbeck appears to be a better qb than Wuerfull. I would bet that most coaches would think Snyder made the right decision concerning DW. Nobody else picked him up. Aside fron cutting Wuerfull, what else has Snyder done to impede progress? Nothing. Steve wanted Speed last year. Snyder went and got it.

Like we both said, coaches see that Snyder wants to win. As for knowing what it takes, well that's where a good coach comes in. I think Snyder would have completely stayed out of Spurriers way had Steve not been making such questionable decisions. One other point, whoever Snyder hires next, he's likely to be the highest paid coach in the league.

Just to clarify, even though I think Spurrier has failed miserably to this point, I'm not sure that dumping everybody and starting over is the right thing to do. I think like Redalert says, with the right assts. and player additions, maybe, and that's a big maybe, SOS could turn this thing around next year. That would require a great amount of offseason studying and learning though, b/c what he's doing now isn't working. Is Steve willing to put in the effort in time? So far it hasn't appeared that way.

[joe]

It has been quite a while since I posted here, with the season slipping away I found fewer and fewer constructive things to say. But I am now moved to respond.

This season can be summed up as follows: Patrick Ramsey needed to gain experience. That's it, that's what went wrong. To change things now and place him in a different system would be tragic and doom the franchise to more years of futility. The only answer is to have a little faith and stay the course.

Although, I do admit that, when I was sitting in the cold and rain at FedEx Field last sunday, with Cowboy fans cheering all around me (I almost lost my season tickets by getting thrown out of the stadium, but that is another story) I was ready to blow the whole thing up too. But several days of reflection sobered me up. The only answer is to see this thing through to its conclusion and that means no wholesale changes through next year.

[kleese]

I won't bash the continuity crowd here. I understand that theory. Heck, we've tried everything else, so why not try a little patience? I get it, and see some of those points as being valid.

But I truly believe that staying the course at this point is just as big of a crapshoot as making a change. We've seen zilch from this staff, so hoping it changes next year is simply wishing on a shot in the dark-- the equivalent of bringing in a new coach IMO.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Those who say that we are digressing under Spurrier are looking strictly at results.

Last year we were 7-9. Of our 9 losses, I would venture to say that 6 or 7 of them were blowouts (similar to the Cowboy and Bill games this year).

This year we are 5-9 with a chance to go anywhere from 5-11 to 7-9. We have been in (and arguably should have won) several games that we lost that we had no hope of being in last year. Not to mention we matched up with much tougher opponents than we did last season.

Let's assume we go 1-1 to end the season and finish 6-10 compared to last year's 7-9. Is one game of difference in the standings really that big a deal when we played a young QB the entire year and were in all but 2 or 3 of our games?

To me that shows drastic improvement....

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by speedwagon20

Those who say that we are digressing under Spurrier are looking strictly at results.

Last year we were 7-9. Of our 9 losses, I would venture to say that 6 or 7 of them were blowouts (similar to the Cowboy and Bill games this year).

This year we are 5-9 with a chance to go anywhere from 5-11 to 7-9. We have been in (and arguably should have won) several games that we lost that we had no hope of being in last year. Not to mention we matched up with much tougher opponents than we did last season.

Let's assume we go 1-1 to end the season and finish 6-10 compared to last year's 7-9. Is one game of difference in the standings really that big a deal when we played a young QB the entire year and were in all but 2 or 3 of our games?

To me that shows drastic improvement....

exactly

[Bang]

Originally posted by speedwagon20

Those who say that we are digressing under Spurrier are looking strictly at results.

:laugh:

Sorry,, but that struck me as funny,, I do agree with your overall post, however.

~Bang

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bang, I noticed that when I wrote that. I wondered when someone would call me out on it. At least it was someone who agrees with me! That could easily be thrown back in my face and used against me.

[GSF]

Originally posted by speedwagon20

Those who say that we are digressing under Spurrier are looking strictly at results.

Last year we were 7-9. Of our 9 losses, I would venture to say that 6 or 7 of them were blowouts (similar to the Cowboy and Bill games this year).

This year we are 5-9 with a chance to go anywhere from 5-11 to 7-9. We have been in (and arguably should have won) several games that we lost that we had no hope of being in last year. Not to mention we matched up with much tougher opponents than we did last season.

Let's assume we go 1-1 to end the season and finish 6-10 compared to last year's 7-9. Is one game of difference in the standings really that big a deal when we played a young QB the entire year and were in all but 2 or 3 of our games?

To me that shows drastic improvement....

Speedy,

Last year we lost 4 games by more than 14 points, and a game to the Iggles by 13. This year we've lost 3 games by more than 14 so far with 2 games to go. It's really not that much of a difference. If we get blown out by the Iggles, it will be about the same. If you want to say we looked worse in our worst games last year than we did in our worst games this year, I would agree with that, but I wouldn't really consider that a significant improvement. Drastic improvement, as you see it, is a stretch.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

GSF, you make good points. I didn't go back and look at the scores, I just tried remembering off the top of my head. So you are right that if the Eagles or Bears spank us by 14 then that stat would be the same.

I guess one thing that I still do believe though is that we've played better teams and looked more competitive overall. We were able to do this with a defense far less talented than the one we had last year.

When your D drops from #5 to #20 (even though I'll admit SOME of that is the coaching but some of it is DEFINITELY personnel) and you still play more competitively vs. better teams, that's a good sign.

Again, this is just my view. I am not saying that anyone who doesn't agree is "wrong."

[GSF]

SW20,Well I agree that the team has definitely looked a lot better for parts of games. I was at the Atlanta game, and they looked like worldbeaters at the end of that game. I was making my superbowl plans on the way home!:laugh: They also looked very sharp for the last 2.5 quarters looked good in the Seattle game.

[kleese]

To me that shows drastic improvement....

Are you insane?

You must have on the biggest burgandy and gold colored glasses in the universe to see a "drastic improvement."

Losing close games doesn't do much for me. It really only shows me that we STILL can't close the deal when it counts. I would agree that game for game we were a little more competitive this year than we were last year, but not anywhere nearly as improved as we should have been.

What bothers me the most is that we put ourselves in a good position to start the season (3-1) and then folded in dramatic fashion. All we had to do at 3-1 was go 6-6 the rest of the way to finish at 9-7; not asking for much.

It would acceptbale to lose to the Eagles and/or the Bucs and even the Cowboys, but we lost them ALL. Our only "real" win since the New England game was Seattle, and that feels much more like a fluke right now than anything meaningful.

Starting at the game at Philly and going to the game at Miami (our last game with legit playoff implications) we went 1-6. That was the heart of schedule this year, and we weren't anywhere close to being competitive in terms of wins and losses.

1-6 when the meat of the season arrived. Awful.

ZERO improvement in my book for 2003. A totally wasted year.

[Om]

So we gather, kleese.

We've established that, in your eyes, despite the lack of an NFL-worthy DL; the fact we started a rookie QB (and then a guy off the street who had never actually played before); the fact that we had a rookie DC; the fact that our RB corps -- questionable to begin with -- was reduced by injury to the point we've been starting a guy who began the season as the #2 fullback at HB (not to mention signing a guy off the street to back him up); the fact that despite all that, this goofy team still managed to hold leads late in several of the key games of the season against playoff-bound teams, only to lose them under almost unbelievable circumstances (which had, I think even you would admit, VERY little to do with the head coach); that despite ALL of that ... you still are totally and completely convinced not only that the team totally and completely wasted THIS year, but that nothing it went through in the process has any possibility of paying any tangible dividends next year.

That about cover it?

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by Om

So we gather, kleese.

We've established that, in your eyes, despite the lack of an NFL-worthy DL; the fact we started a rookie QB (and then a guy off the street who had never actually played before); the fact that we had a rookie DC; the fact that our RB corps -- questionable to begin with -- was reduced by injury to the point we've been starting a guy who began the season as the #2 fullback at HB (not to mention signing a guy off the street to back him up); the fact that despite all that, this goofy team still managed to hold leads late in several of the key games of the season against playoff-bound teams, only to lose them under almost unbelievable circumstances (which had, I think even you would admit, VERY little to do with the head coach); that despite ALL of that ... you still are totally and completely convinced not only that the team totally and completely wasted THIS year, but that nothing it went through in the process has any possibility of paying any tangible dividends next year.

That about cover it?

no no no Om, no facts.... lost 27-0 to the Boyz... we suck, Kill Spurrier, we're doomed.... forget 0.0 QB Rating.... damn Spurrier

:tantrum: :tombstone :nopity:

[bubba9497]

Originally posted by speedwagon20

Those who say that we are digressing under Spurrier are looking strictly at results.

Last year we were 7-9. Of our 9 losses, I would venture to say that 6 or 7 of them were blowouts (similar to the Cowboy and Bill games this year).

This year we are 5-9 with a chance to go anywhere from 5-11 to 7-9. We have been in (and arguably should have won) several games that we lost that we had no hope of being in last year. Not to mention we matched up with much tougher opponents than we did last season.

Let's assume we go 1-1 to end the season and finish 6-10 compared to last year's 7-9. Is one game of difference in the standings really that big a deal when we played a young QB the entire year and were in all but 2 or 3 of our games?

To me that shows drastic improvement....

2002 Strength of Schedule = #27 Washington

09/08 31-23 W ARI

09/16 7-37 L PHI :doh:

09/22 10-20 L at SF :doh:

10/06 31-14 W at TEN

10/13 27-43 L NO :doh:

10/20 9-30 L at GB :doh:

10/27 26-21 W IND

11/03 14-3 W at SEA

11/10 7-26 L at JAC :doh:

11/17 17-19 L at NYG <

11/24 20-17 W STL

11/28 20-27 L at DAL

12/08 21-27 L NYG <

12/15 21-34 L at PHI :doh:

12/22 26-10 W HOU

12/29 20-14 W DAL

2003 Strength of Schedule= 6 Washington (begin of season), current = 10. Washington (5-9) 0.0443

09/04 16-13 W NYJ

09/14 33-31 W at ATL

09/21 21-24 L NYG <

09/28 20-17 W NE

10/05 25-27 L at PHI <

10/12 13-35 L TB :doh:

10/19 7-24 L at BUF :doh:

11/02 14-21 L at DAL

11/09 27-20 W SEA

11/16 17-20 L at CAR <

11/23 23-24 L at MIA <

11/30 20-24 L NO <

12/07 20-7 W at NYG

12/14 0-27 L Dal:doh:

*:doh:= blow outs, "<" could have / should have won games

[Montilar]

Just a quick point.

You all mention the could have/should have won close loss games.

Lets not forget the could have/should haves that were won and easily could of been lost.

Such as falling down 17-0 to the Vick-less Falcons.

Or the close Pennington-less Jets.

A lot of the close losses (such as Philly) were due to making late scores/rallies to make it LOOK close. Likely when the opponent plays "prevent"; trading yardage for time....

As for ragging on the D so much, and the stats. Last years D was only a #5 D on paper. Other than the DT's and coordinator, nothing is much different. And the coordinator was here last year as LB coach. Quite often last year the opponent had a short field due to inept offense and special teams. So the opponent only had to go a few yards just to get to field goal range. And the D didn't have to give up a ton of yardage.....

This year the D has been getting wore out late due to inept offensive play calling and a ton of three and outs. Or by the D extending a drive due to personal fouls.... When the D is on the field 40 minutes, they are going to be wore out and look horrible.... not that the DL isn't close to horrible.

[bubba9497]

There were no close games this year that we won, that we almost lost on the last play or series, New england was the closest win we had, and they are currently the best team in the NFL, Atlanta got a garbage TD late not down to the wire win.

[kleese]

That about cover it?

Pretty much.

Again, close losses do nothing for me-- especially when you lose them again and again and again and show no signs of being able to make a clutch play week after week. And as many have pointed out, our close wins could have just as easily gone the other way as well.

I'm just not seeing what you're seeing OM-- I hope I'm wrong.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Again, close losses do nothing for me-- especially when you lose them again and again and again and show no signs of being able to make a clutch play week after week.

Kleese, that is fine and I'm more than happy to let you assume the worst while I am more optimistic. But there is some flawed logic in your assessment...we haven't had close losses again and again and again if you're looking at the big picture.

We had very few last year. We lost more blowouts last year. The fact that those become close losses this year, to me, is a sign of progress.

Let's take the same teams we played from last year to this year:

Philly seems to be just as good or better. They hammered us twice last year. Actually that 34-21 score took two late TDs by Ramsey to look even remotely respectable. This year, we come within a two-point conversion of going to OT. Now granted we were losing by more than that for a lot of the 4th quarter. But remember too, we were tied in the 3rd quarter before that. We were never nearly that close to Philly last year.

Another team was New Orleans. They kicked the crap out of us last year and this year we had the lead late in the game. To me that's progress.

The other one doesn't really count since the Giants are significantly weaker than last year. But we lost two one-score games to them last year (which are just about the only two close losses we had) and split with them this year... I could argue that that shows progress.

Anyway, I just feel that we are progressing as a team with the same characters. We have gained on some teams that have been together for while as we are staying together for a while.

[NavyDave]

A healthy Ramsey in the retooled offense hasslebeck is in right now would be scary with an offseason to even sharpen the connection between he and the WRs hopefully we resign D Mac