Why 7-9 to 9-7 is ridiculous. Official prediction.

[TexasEagle]

10 pages... wow.

[Henry]

Originally posted by flashback

I'll just get my $0.02 in before the eye-poking and hair-pulling starts.

Art, you and the homers here in Extremeskins have dramatically over-rated the talent on the Redskins every off-season that I've been in here. I think it can best be summed up by the statement: "If the Brunell goes down we have Ramsey." So you have a backup QB that can lose 6 games in a row? Allllll-riiiiiighty then...

You're OL was a shambles last year, and it looks like its gotten worse. Your DL sucked last year, and your answer this year was what, Phillip Daniels? Good luck with that. For the 2nd year in a row, you sent your best defensive player packing. Not because of the cap, of course. You guys just don't like dominant defensive players, right?

Gibbs is a good coach. He'll have these guys ready every week. And they should get better as the season progresses. But I think 7 wins will be a good season for these guys.

Not that it matters, but I believe Art had the 2003 Redskins going 9-7.

Flash, that was about the eye-poking-est, hair-pulling-est post yet in this thread.

You are smart enough to know our OL was not 'a shambles' last year. You're not so ill informed as to actually be ignorant of the Griffin aquisition and Noble's return on the DL. And I credit you with being smart enough to properly assess Ramsey's ability (or should we pull out Vinnie T.'s starting record over the past two seasons? I mean that's your starter.)

If you really think seven wins would be a 'good' season for us then it follows that you are EXPECTING worse. So, what is your prediction then? five wins? six? I'd like to write it down.

You filled that post with cheap shot after cheap shot and you know it. Either that or I've been giving you too much credit.

One way or the other, that post was a big dissappointment.

[yank]

Originally posted by joeymag

Sorry, can't sip the Kool Aid on this one.

The Russian novel kicking off this thread was simply unreadable.

Gibbs excitement is real but is more deeply rooted in the fan base than the players.

The players will benefit this year from:

(1) great coaching - that will keep them in games and give them the opportunity to win games, and

(2) the 12th man providing a larger home field advantage.

The constant shuffling in the coaching staff and locker room over the past 5 years coupled with the weak schedule requires 7-9 to 9-7 expectations.

That is a 2 to 4 game improvement expectation which is high but fair.

Russian novel fan, eh? Spoken like a true sophomore English class auditor. Not smart enough to know what he doesnt know.

Art was on point. At the same time that you state that (1) great coaching will lead us to the promised land you then go on to decry the "constant shuffling in the coaching staff." Which is it?

Art made the larger point that the excitement will carry the team early in the season. Did you parse that out? Wasn't hard. You refer to the 12th man like it like it was original thinking.

Shuffling doesnt matter as much as bringing in the right players. Gibbs knows who is the right player and who is the wrong player and you can never go wrong in upgrading the locker room. Are you coaching Gibbs on how he should view of the locker room? That would be sophmoric.

[Art]

Originally posted by flashback

Hmm. Dockery may be the best guard he's ever seen. So he also may not be.

Your defensive line this year is VASTLY inferior to the Cowboys DL of 2002, much less the line the Cowboys fielded last year. Griffin is the only guy on your team Parcells would even activate on gameday.

Sorry, normally I try to mind my manners in here, but like I said, this is the 3rd pre-season I've been here, and the 3rd time you guys have gone completely off the deep end evaluating the "talent" on this football team. I'll stick with my prediction of 7 wins, and thats only because I have so much respect for Gibbs as a coach.

Flashback,

You are living in a fantasy world if you think the line we have, right now, is weaker than your line was two years ago. It's almost a dead ringer for your line last year, but, even if we assume it's a mild step below, we have better players in the back seven that deployed in a similar fashion to you guys will make an incredible difference.

Your comments about Dockery in this thread are simply embarrassing given how well he played to close last year, how well he's performed in the preseason, and the high praise heaped on him by Bugel. How good is Dockery at guard? So good when we lose Jansen, Dockery, who's our best right tackle prospect, is kept right where he is because Bugel doesn't want to take him out of that spot where he seems to believe he's got a dominating player.

Again, your thoughts rate low on the scale here. Worse, it's clear you had NO idea how Dockery played last year, this year, or how Bugel felt about him. You simply were talking out of your rump -- not an unfamiliar position among Cowboy fans -- and got busted. Instead of coming clean, you have responded in the pathetic fashion you have here.

Again though, if Parcells can manage a winning record with Carter, Hambrick and Galloway anchoring an offense, I'll take my chances with Gibbs with Brunell, Portis and Coles. The difference in personnel couldn't be any more obvious. It's just too bad you don't know that.

[Art]

Originally posted by HeHateMe

Art,

Great analysis and breakdown.

11-5?

Plausible.

I think 10-6 at best. 9-7 likely.

How 'bout a little avatar wager on 11-5 just to make it interesting.

Your choice.

LMK.

HHM

I wouldn't call my thoughts on 10-6 or 11-5 the sort of statement that would be of a bettable quality. The belief in either of those records presumes an inspired crowd and that the crowd alone can lift the team early while it will be at its most weak. It's certainly not anything more than a feeling that I have that it will and it's a feeling that may prove incorrect, which seems about as plausible as being correct.

If you're interested in a wager of some sort, I'm sure we can gamble on our relative finishes this year as teams, or even in head to head matchups, or, heck, even perhaps defensive rankings. I'm sure something will come up over the course of the year that will be of betting quality. Just have cash ready.

[Harooni]

u guys look good to me

[spanishomelette]

Art that was one great post...I don't know if you listened to 980 today, but apparently you've undershot with your prediction. It seems everybody on Riggin's show has predicted 11-5, 12-4 and even 13-3. Maybe instead of evaluating to a lesser record as some in here want you to do perhaps your prediction needs to be revised to the 'Skins having a better record :laugh:

[CLiNT0N P0RTiS]

Great post Art!

[MumboSauce]

wow! that was a well versed/thought out great read..really enjoy that...I was one of the 8-8, 9-7 people...but after reading that and making very good points...you have me believing in more than reason/rationale first provided...10-6 is not unreachable/unfathomable at all...I can only hope so...Hail Skins!! It's on...cant wait for sunday win or lose...but I see a win. (just the fan in me)

[carlsbadd]

Originally posted by f_dallas

I didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch (and I didn't mean to get you upset with that statement- just a figure of speech), but I'm unsure what you mean.

The Skins have no proven depth at any position.

That isn't proven depth.

The Eagles aren't deep at every position, and I am fully aware of that.

They do, howver, have proven depth at a lot of positions and have other players they have deveopled in their system for years that know the gameplan and schemes as well as the starters. That combines for good depth.

So which is it? The Redskins have no proven depth or the eagles have pratice squad players that know the system?

McMullen as a third string vs Thrash(which was your "proven" leading reciever last year? or maybe we could discuss your back ups at CB like Roderick Hood VS Walt Harris , which one of those back ups have more real game experience?

So whats "proven back ups" to the Eagles squad? someone who has made the team ?or someone who has played or started. in a regular season game.

Knowing the system is a great advantage (like Hart I mentioned before) but real game time experience makes a difference.

Here is another difference, We had a fan favorite that made the final cut , His name was Clifton Smith, nobody but us skins fans really noticed , he had never started a game but "believed in the system" and had a great motor. The reason we cut him was to make room for another player named Stevenson.

From NFL.COM

Stevenson led the Bills special teams coverage units in tackles with 40 in 2003, including 24 solo stops. He appeared in all 16 games, posting two tackles on defense. He appeared in four games as a rookie in 2002 after the Bills selected him in the seventh round (260th overall) in the 2002 NFL Draft.

Now ,this is another rather no name back up player but he has real game time experience. This speaks more to the new coaching staff that is willing to try to always improve, than what we have had in the past. I still don't know what your standard is for a "proven" player. Is that someone that knows the system? or someone that has played/started during the regular season.

Heck Spurrier had "proven" players , Danny Wuerful beat the crap out of the Rams in 2001 with his noodle arm. Just cause he knew the system didn't make him a proven player. Perhaps there is a difference between 'Proven" and "game experience" of which I mean the latter