jwebst1 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Does anyone else get the Sporting News? Over the past month, they have been ranking (well actually giving out letter grades to) every NFL team based on each position.... has anyone seen the Redskins grades... every week they have been getting anywhere for B- to D on every position. After seeing the WR grade, I just couldn't take it anymore... TSN gave the Skins a C+... are you serious? Coles, Gardner, McCants, Thrash, Jacobs = C+??? The Ravens, who in my mind are still lacking at WR got a C-. It just seems that most sports writers have something against the Redskins and/or Dan Snyder and I hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 One word- ESPN okay, more like 4 letters but what the hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Two numbers: 5-11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 That is why I dropped Sporting News after finding the extremeskin website!! The only thing that matters is when the season starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I've read 2 preseason publications already they both picked the Skins to finish 2nd in the NFC East behind the Eagles. As far as the grades go, I kinda do them myself especially for my own team. Street & Smith seem to be a bit more on par with reality. I disagree with a couple of there assesments to though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAsBeachBoy Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 These guys were on crack I'll dismiss it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 In fairness, it depends on what the criteria is for the ratings. If it's based on production and winning, I can understand how the Skins' units might come out ranking low. If it's based on pure talent, the Skins should rank higher. This Skins team has talent. But they simply haven't been able to play up to that talent level in the past. SkinsThug said it: the numbers that MOST people are looking at are 5-11. In the end, that's what really counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 definitely just riding off last year and pointing out our blatant hole at d-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Made Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Horrible rating, I could not believe they got a C+. Skins should at least gotten a 'B'. Lets look at some other teams with higher grades than the skins WR. Texans = B Andrew Johnson / Corey Bradford Browns =B- Andre Davis/Quincy Morgan/Dennis Northcutt Jets = B Santana Moss/Justin McCareins Raiders = B- Jerry Rice/Tim Brown/Jerry Porter Falcons = B- Peerless Price/Michael Jenkins Chicago Bears = B Marty Booker/David Terrell The Bears receivers over the skins, thats about as funny as it gets! Would anyone seriously take those receiver corps over the skins? Its not even close imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 That's ridonkeykong! I'm constantly amazed at how unprofessional the analyses and predictions are from these 'professional' sports magazines. David Terrell and Marty Booker a B? Are you kidding me? It's like their just going down the list of where these guys were drafted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Joe Hog Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 This might make you feel better. From Street & Smith's: QB B-, OL B-, RB A, WR A-, DL C-, LB B+, DB B+, ST B. Pretty good overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVskinsfan Posted June 26, 2004 Share Posted June 26, 2004 Originally posted by GURU In fairness, it depends on what the criteria is for the ratings. If it's based on production and winning, I can understand how the Skins' units might come out ranking low. If it's based on pure talent, the Skins should rank higher. This Skins team has talent. But they simply haven't been able to play up to that talent level in the past. SkinsThug said it: the numbers that MOST people are looking at are 5-11. In the end, that's what really counts. Coaching last year was an F anyway! This year at least an A-or B+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.