bulldog Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 Every team needs them. Whether they are players already there like a Brett Favre in Green Bay or they are players that are draft picks of the new regime as Ronnie Lott and Joe Montana were in SF, all winning coaches develop leaders that take on the persona of the organization on Sundays and keep the team from sliding and caving in when adversity sets in. The Redskins don't have any discernible leaders for the Schottenheimer era. Bruce Smith and Darrell Green are simply too old to be torch bearers for a new era they won't be around to see very much of. Jeff George, Dan Wilkinson and Michael Westbrook don't have the kind of personalities that lend themselves to being leaders that people will follow. In fact, Jeff George seems singularly unable to generate any confidence in his offense at all. Everyone is standing around and going through the motions. No one is making the big catches, big runs or knocking people down at the line. You never see him demonstrating any vocal leadership. And it is clearly vocal leadership this team is missing most of all. Champ Bailey is a fine player, but he seems cut in the mold of an Art Monk, a quiet hard working type with physical talent that leads by example. He is not going to go out and challenge guys to perform. I think Chris Samuels falls into this category as well. Other players such as LaVar Arrington and Stephen Alexander, despite their physical gifts, are far too inconsistent to be team leaders on the field. One great play followed by three or four average/poor ones. Has any Redskins tight end from Jerry Smith to Clint Didier ever dropped as many balls in a season as Alexander drops in a game? Of the players that are both physically capable and guys that are seemingly in sync with Marty's hard-nosed style, Jon Jansen, Fred Smoot and Shawn Barber may be the most promising candidates. Gardner may be also but it is rare when a rookie is demonstrative enough to fill that role. Obviously, Smoot has the confidence to do that already. In any case, my guess is that things will not get better until those leaders start emerging as guys we can count on week in and week out to bring their "A" game without excuses and start putting up numbers that will make opposing teams key on them. Biggest disappointment to date beyond Jeff George: Stephen Davis. Davis has been hugely quiet in the offseason, camp and now the beginning of the regular season. We haven't seen much from him either in terms of production or toughness. He has fumbled the ball and failed to convert from close in, things a team with this fragile of an ego can't overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 Its so true we need team leaders. Thats what players like Centers were so good at. So, I would like to see Barber also. I would LOVE for Arrington to step up so the LB Corp becomes this bunch of wild deadly biotches! On offense I would like to see Alexander and Davis but that's just unlikely. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.conservativesiteconstructionkit.com/images/flag/misc/states2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.conservativesiteconstructionkit.com/images/flag/flag009.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Horse Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 I know of two Redskins that are great leaders on either side of the ball. Jon Jansen and Marco Coleman. I can see Lavar taking over for Coleman in a few years. There is also something about Smoot that makes me wonder if he could be the guy. We had another good leader, but the organization, and then the fans turned on him and he is now playing football down in Florida. Personally, I think Davis needs to step up his command of the offense. Remember though, leaders aren't always firey. Montana is about the best example I can think of. Quiet, shy guy, ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash2-sm.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamaran Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 I concur, Bulldog, as usual; you hit it. Jansen can be a leader, although I know him to be a quiet, brown-bag, lead-by-action sort. I think this team does really need those types, certainly, and having said that, hope they don't lose him to FA. But, now, with the killer schedule we look at and no real hope at Wildcard, a vocal leader to drive the team wouldn't hurt. I don't really know of one at this time. I guess it's got to come from Huey and Manusky as coaches on either side of the ball? At some point, the payers must grab the season by the you-know-whats, and take it upon themselves as a matter of pride. That can certainly still happen. But, I really don't like what I see now from the schedule. It appears the first meeting w/Dallass is our best opp. at a win? But, that's why they say, the games are played? Let's hope that's really why this group is playing. We shall all see what they're made of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 i'm wondering if Dark Horse is talking about a certain QB we had who couldn't take the pressure of big games or another QB looking over his shoulder. When it was on the line, he threw INT's and didn't carry the team. This QB who even though he is clearly above average with his passing skills and reading D's still needed a workhorse RB to really carry the load the 99 year. That leader? I think Brad was vocal as a leader but when it came to trusting himself, he always went for the dump off to Centers instead of trying to make the play himself. You wouldn't be a Favre, Mcnabb or even Garcia move, they don't do that. let me add that Jeff George is no better- thank you ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.conservativesiteconstructionkit.com/images/flag/misc/states2.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.conservativesiteconstructionkit.com/images/flag/flag009.gif" border=0> [ by Bufford on September 17, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Horse Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 I was wrong about the fans turning on him, wasn't I? My point was that Johnson was a leader we lost, and a good one at that. All the other crap in your last post about 'he did this or that' does not apply to my arguement and I have no idea why you chose to sling mud. But whatever man.... My arguement stems from this. Our offensive line FOUGHT for Johnson when he was our QB. As witnessed in Dallas last year, George did not get nearly the same effort from the same group of guys. Now maybe it's just me but a leader inspires his teammates to raise their level and intensity of play. Johnson did that when he was here, George does not. Maybe you don't like Johnson but you're barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to tell me he wasn't a very good leader. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash2-sm.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 17, 2001 Author Share Posted September 17, 2001 in the discussion of Brad Johnson I think people are confusing being a good field leader, ie in getting players to play for them, and being a superior quarterback in terms of physical skills. Johnson IS a leader on the field. So is Trent Dilfer. So is Steve McNair. None of these quarterbacks however are in the top 5 in anyone's fantasy draft. Occasionally you get a player like an LT or even a Gary Clark on the Redskins that would just NOT abide losing. Emmitt Smith is cut from this mold. Remember the look on Clark's face after a loss? Sometimes he was so upset he refused to comment to the media until the team won again. Compare that to this group of Redskins where guys are leaving the field arm in arm with players that just kicked their a$$es 30-3 as happened in San Diego. It is one thing to have friendships, quite another to be quite so joyful and cracking jokes. To me that was the worst opening day effort and performance I have ever seen in the Redskins. True they lost 44-14 in 1985. But that Cowboys team went 10-6 and won the division and made the playoffs. This San Diego team isn't doing squat this season even with all the new players. This is a 6-10 or 7-9 team at best. And the Redskins couldn't even play them close on a day when Doug Flutie was having an off day throwing. That should put the fear of God in fans what with Brett Favre on the plate in a nationally televised game next week. this one could get ugly fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Horse Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 Bulldog, thank you. Couldn't have said it any better myself. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://old.theinsiders.com/redskins/images/wash2-sm.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 I really disagree with the "killer" schedule theory. We have four games left against the Cards and Cowboys-- SHOULD be AT LEAST 3 wins. We also have home games against Carolina and Chicago-- doesn't get much easier than that. Also, I don't consider home games against the Chiefs or Seahawks "killer" either. Those are games solid, even average football teams should win. That leaves the 4 games against the Eagles and Giants, plus 3 very tough games at GB, at Denver, and at NO. I don't expect us to win those. I want 3-1 against the Boys and Cards. I want 2-0 against the Bears and Panthers. I want 1-1 against the Chiefs and Seahawks. I want 2-2 against the Giants and Eagles. That's 8 wins. And I'm counting automatic losses to GB, Denver, and NO. This, to me, is a fairly easy schedule. Of course, of we play like we did in SD, then all of this is moot-- we'll probably go 2-14 and Marty should get the ax in that case. I'll keep saying it: We went 8-8 last year and should have been much better. AND WE DIDN'T LOSE ANYONE THAT SIGNIFICANT IN THE OFF-SEASON. I'll dispute every player we lost-- the only one you can argue with is Centers and his "leadership" didn't exactly keep this team from tanking it 100% down the stretch. Blah, blah, blah about implementing the system, etc... Haslett did it quickly, etc... Vermeil's Chiefs (with an entirely new staff) seem to have implemented their system just fine. IMO, there is no excuse for what happened last week unless we truly are the Bengals of the NFC and we simply breed losing regardless. In that case, we're in a lot more trouble than we think. Point blank, this team SHOULD be .500 or better this year and if they're not, then Marty needs to be seriously evaluated. I trust him and I fully expect him to get us going in the right direction very soon, but if he doesn't, I'll be ready to start over......again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 17, 2001 Author Share Posted September 17, 2001 I think Marty will be successful here over time if given a chance, but for the 2001 season his style is perhaps not the one that would have lead to the most victories right away. Dick Vermeil I believe would have been better able to come in and make some tough decisions but also make some compromises with the older veterans so that there was more harmony on the team and the breakup of camp would have resulted in a team with a little more left in the tank. Vermeil is a master of showing both the "tough" and the "love". I don't think the Redskins so far have seen much of the latter from Marty. In fact Marty might have overestimated what this team as constituted was made of. He obviously thought the missing element was discipline and to some extent it was. Maybe to a major extent. But the other part of it may be that the talent here may just not be that good, a collection of older vets on the downside and younger players who have yet to establish themselves and unify themselves as the acknowledged core of the team. Maybe this team just doesn't have the wherewithal to withstand a tough camp, massive turnover and then a 16 game schedule. Or at least enough of the veterans so that we are looking at basically a suped up expansion team in the making. In previous posts I have noted the disappointing returns of Westbrook and Alexander seemingly year after year. Westbrook has had one good season in six. Alexander made the Pro Bowl as a backup but with only 47 catches in a year where there was a dearth of quality players at his position in the NFC. You factor in their poor performances since early August with the injuries and slow start of Jeff George and it's not too hard to figure out why the team is scoring 3 points. It may have sounded outrageous two months ago, but perhaps this team would be better off starting Lockett and Gardner with Davis and Banks in the backfield. In some sets we could go with Rasby and Flemister lined up in the two tight end and use them to run the ball or as secondary receivers. I know that formation takes away the deep threat of Westbrook but to be honest the inability of the quarterback and receivers to mount a credible threat down the field has already stymied the team in each game, save the one where Banks came in as the relief pitcher against Cleveland. If it means lining Westbrook up in a three wide formation with Lockett and Gardner and using him as a glorified decoy then so be it. But right now, he is no #1 receiver. And having Alexander as the designated #2 down the field results in poor offensive execution because neither player has reliable hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 17, 2001 Share Posted September 17, 2001 Let's not forget that Vermeil before their miracle fluke season nearly had a revolt on his hands from a similar tough camp reminiscent of his Eagles days. He was fortunate in diamond in the rough backup QB warner the trade for Faulk and the drafting of their Wideout that put them over the top for that season. So if Marty gets the same amount of time from the want it now generation we should be solid for a long time ------------------ Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 17, 2001 Author Share Posted September 17, 2001 Dave, that's an awful lot of good fortune you are writing off for Dick Vermeil's success in St. Louis. Developing Warner, trading for Faulk and drafting Holt are the types of moves championship teams have made for years. You could go back and say the Cowboys were lucky to draft Aikman, Irvin and Smith and trade for Charles Haley. But the truth is that "luck" is created by great scouting and a good front office. Something the Redskins haven't had for a good long while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.