When a whooping is good.

[Tarhog]

Not to pile on jbooma, but I suspect you are wrong and that we've had 400 yds laid on us a number of times....its tough to find preseason stats, but as I've already laid out in another thread, we were routinely spanked in preseason under Gibbs, even went 0-4 in one of our Super Bowl win seasons.

You can't say it enough. Its a pre-season game. Would I rather look great than terrible? Sure. But it still wouldn't mean a damn thing.

I don't understand how guys keep arguing it DOES mean something?

[Pocono]

This is a great post and as usual Art does a wonderful job but i just wonder how he can make these arguments minimizing the importance of this game after writing countless posts on another thread speaking to the Skins dominating Miami last week. He spoke about Gibbs identifying a problem and rectifying a problem with a dominating effort on the ground when the Skins averaged 3.35 per carry and here he speaks of doing a good job V the run when the Rams averaged 4.2 per carry behind their makeshift line. To me it smacks of inconsistency. I mean either these games don't mean spit or they do.....you can't pick and choose about their importance just based on how well your team does IMO.

[Lurman]

Originally posted by Pocono

This is a great post and as usual Art does a wonderful job but i just wonder how he can make these arguments minimizing the importance of this game after writing countless posts on another thread speaking to the Skins dominating Miami last week. He spoke about Gibbs identifying a problem and rectifying a problem with a dominating effort on the ground when the Skins averaged 3.35 per carry and here he speaks of doing a good job V the run when the Rams averaged 4.2 per carry behind their makeshift line. To me it smacks of inconsistency. I mean either these games don't mean spit or they do.....you can't pick and choose about their importance just based on how well your team does IMO.

Its quite simple, Pocono. Football is a complicated game. More complicated than most fans, including me, wish it to be. It is very easy for Redskin, Eagles, Giants, and Cowboy fans to spin a particular game's outcome in their favor (or rival's disfavor) because they are just so many variables that go into an outcome that you'll find at least one that looks positive (or negative) when presented under the correct lighting :-)

[spanishomelette]

And I think anyone will be confounded when trying to find consistency in our preseason. This game's strategy was much different than the last's. Much of that has to do with the fact that the 'skins are still trying to get comfortable with a new system, and in this game depth players were being evaluated against stronger competition. Results are hard to predict when that happens. Also this team still gets a little rattled when something unexpected happens (like Jansen or Samuels injury). That's an issue that the coaches seem to be trying to challenge.

[TexasEagle]

Originally posted by Tarhog

You can't say it enough. Its a pre-season game. Would I rather look great than terrible? Sure. But it still wouldn't mean a damn thing.

I don't understand how guys keep arguing it DOES mean something?

Thank you! It's funny how some folks can't seem to grasp the idea that these games don't matter (other than evaluations and injuries).

[Dallsux]

Originally posted by Pocono

This is a great post and as usual Art does a wonderful job but i just wonder how he can make these arguments minimizing the importance of this game after writing countless posts on another thread speaking to the Skins dominating Miami last week. He spoke about Gibbs identifying a problem and rectifying a problem with a dominating effort on the ground when the Skins averaged 3.35 per carry and here he speaks of doing a good job V the run when the Rams averaged 4.2 per carry behind their makeshift line. To me it smacks of inconsistency. I mean either these games don't mean spit or they do.....you can't pick and choose about their importance just based on how well your team does IMO.

Well, as an Iggles fan, I wouldn't expect you to be able to identify the difference, but just because someone sees the good of things & then turns around & says "however" doesn't make them inconsistent. Maybe it does at the Linc, but no here (look around...no Eagles fanfare here....get a clue)

[Art]

Originally posted by Pocono

This is a great post and as usual Art does a wonderful job but i just wonder how he can make these arguments minimizing the importance of this game after writing countless posts on another thread speaking to the Skins dominating Miami last week. He spoke about Gibbs identifying a problem and rectifying a problem with a dominating effort on the ground when the Skins averaged 3.35 per carry and here he speaks of doing a good job V the run when the Rams averaged 4.2 per carry behind their makeshift line. To me it smacks of inconsistency. I mean either these games don't mean spit or they do.....you can't pick and choose about their importance just based on how well your team does IMO.

Pocono,

I suspect you're not half as dense as you like to make out. That you aren't as often confused with the simple things as you seem, repeatedly. Or, perhaps I just think you like to play dumb and give you more credit than you deserve. In any case, you write here that I spoke of the Skins doing a good job against the Rams ground game. Now, I'd like you to identify the actual words I spoke. Did I make a statement that contained qualifying information that specifically spoke to what I was talking about?

I ask because, no one reading this thread, or any other I've been in since the Rams game can state that I stated the Skins did a good job versus the runs against the Rams. I did, however, say, the Skins did a good job versus the run against the rams during a period of time I find meaningful. You saw that didn't you? You saw the statement that our run defense was pretty good until the third stringers came in, right?

You appreciate how that matters in the conversation, right? That you can't just close your eyes and wish I didn't qualify the statement, but that you actually have to address the words spoken, instead of leaving them out to alter the context.

In the end though, the main problem I see here is you simply don't get what I'm saying.

Before the Dolphins game, Gibbs and staff identified areas that concerned them. They wanted to bring those areas to the fore of the Dolphins game and address them. In the case of the Dolphins game, that was specifically related to a struggling ground game and the Redskins practiced hard, then, dominated in that area to the tune of 54 carries for 181 yards.

This week, as I wrote prior to the game, I suspected the coaching staff of the Redskins saw another area of concern they wanted to address. That area? Team confidence. They saw a team feeling good about itself. Thinking it was making great strides. And, as I said even PRIOR to the game, I had a suspicion that if Williams, especially, and Gibbs could have anything they wanted, it would be a real step back as a team.

It would be a whipping so they could put the film up, shake their heads, and say, "You're no where close to ready." Again, this is what I thought would happen prior to the game even starting. I even wrote it on this very board. How the game played out and subsequent comments and actions by the coaching staff solidify my thoughts and lend greater weight to them.

The point you're missing though, is the importance of the Dolphins game was to have the team look better. Play without mistakes. Run the ball. Play sound defense. Look like a team that is coming together. The importance of the Rams game was, perhaps, different. It was to show these guys they aren't that good. It's to make them feel miserable, and want, as Gibbs said, to get the taste of that kind of loss out of their mouths.

Gibbs was known for these types of things when he was first here. He liked to downplay his team and he liked to have reasons to do so. This gives him what he typically has had. The fact that we did play pretty well as a starting unit defensively before calling off the dogs is nice. That we were actually ahead in the game before putting the toys away was encouraging, but, meaningless.

The coaching staff wanted a great big teaching tool and that's what they got.

Problem identified. Problem rectified.

In any case, whether you believe what I've presented is an actual factor in the discussion or not makes no difference. What DOES make a difference is when you address words I speak you will start using all of them and quit pretending the ones I use that you don't like don't matter.