Why I feel the Redskins will be successful in 2005

[Chrisbob74]

Just some thoughts I felt I should share, trying not to look into individual moves or players so much, more at the team in general:

1, Running the ball and stopping the run

Our defense did a fine job last year stopping the run. On offense, we were ok running the ball but not great. The one thing that was clear is that the team/Gibbs is commited to running the ball.

We will run the ball better next year and that will make our whole offense more effective.

2, Protecting the QB and getting to the QB

Again, on defense, Williams showed he will be aggressive and attack a teams QB from all angles. I don't care how good the guy is you have pulling the trigger if he never has time, he will make mistakes and can't be as effective.

Gibbs has always been committed to protecting the QB. You know he and Buges must feel our OL unit can do better but there must also be better blitz pick-up from backs/TE's and H-Backs.

I'm sure Gibbs will have a better handle on todays more aggressive defenses and if you give a QB time, he will find the open guys

3, Same schemes

As far as I am aware, this is the first year since 1999 (correct me if I'm wrong and I'm not counting George Edwards apparently keeping the same scheme in Spurriers 2nd year, that wasn't even a scheme) that both units are going to run the same scheme from the previous year.

4, Special teams

These will improve next year. We should have our main kicker back who just wasn't really here at all last year. Guys have been added both via the draft and free agency who will make the entire unit better. The field position battle will be something the Redskins will be a lot better at in 2005.

5, The division

This is where I expect all the Cowboys (and maybe Eagle) fans to jump in.

Yes, we have been owned in this division and for too long. 1-5 last year just won't get it done but I also think it's a record that is so bad, it's almost impossible to not improve it. Last year, especially in the 2nd game vs each oppenent, the Skins were a lot better, Gibbs had a better idea of how to play them and to a point, it worked. I think we can get a couple more wins in the division (I'm not saying vs who, every divisional game is so hard to predict) and 3-3 in the division would at least be competitive. Anything more would be fantastic.

6, This is a coaches league.......

....and Gibbs is still a great coach. Sure, it didn't go perfect for him last year and he'll be the first to admit he had some problems with clock management etc but knowing what a humble guy Gibbs is he'll have taken those problems seriously and will have warked as hard as anyone to address them. Although the Skins only improved by one game in record last year, the fact they were competitive in every game bar the last quarter vs Philly at Philly shows me that he has the right attitude installed in the team.

The talent level in this league is a lot more even betwen teams now with the salary cap, I believe Gibbs will show in 2005 that he can get more out of less than a lot of coaches out there.

Bring on the Bears and then the other 15, I can't wait.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It's not that I don't want to agree with you, but all of your points except #3 just assume that something will magically be fixed.

I tend to think (hope) that they will all be fixed thanks to #3...

[dfitzo53]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

It's not that I don't want to agree with you, but all of your points except #3 just assume that something will magically be fixed.

I tend to think (hope) that they will all be fixed thanks to #3...

You're probably right about #5, but with the first two I think some things have been fixed. Having Jansen back healthy and the addition of Rabach will help with both, as will having Bowen and Arrington healthy.

[Art]

I think this is a reasonably sound post. I don't know that I believe we will do well or poorly yet, but something keeps sticking in my mind when considering the possibilities. In 1998 we were a 6-10 team, though we picked it up toward the end of the year.

In 1999 we entered the year with major questions at QB -- whether Johnson could stay healthy -- while having no running back to speak of as Davis was JUST starting out, and having no receivers who'd displayed any capability to be a consistent threat. Defensively we were a poorly designed unit and had questions throughout, save at corner.

In order to be any good in 1999, nearly every one of the substantial questions we had, HAD to be answered with a positive answer on the field. Most were. Our defense was horrid, but, generally, every question we had on offense turned out to be GREAT.

Davis, Johnson, Westbrook, Connell all had what turned out to be career-best seasons that year. And we were competitive and even dangerous.

This year we have far fewer questions in total. We have a very strong running back. A good line. A stout defense. Pretty good depth in most units -- in that we have starting players or HIGH draft picks in reserve at EVERY position on the team EXCEPT running back (unless you include Betts) and defensive end.

The questions we do have, though, are probably MORE serious than the questions we had in 1999.

Where we wondered if Johnson could stay healthy then, we had NO doubt he was a capable player if he was healthy. With Ramsey, we have doubt as to whether he's the answer, obviously, though he's shown flashes. Norv's system was a proven, successful system. Gibbs still has to show he can develop a capable offense in his return.

At receiver we are really pretty much where we were in 1999 waiting on a good, talented young player (Moss and/or Jacobs versus Westbrook and/or Connell) to emerge as a dangerous threat. Though, Moss has done more on the upside already than Westbrook had.

My problem with projecting this year is I have such concern for Ramsey's ability to raise his level of play and prove he's the guy for the job. And that spot is so key, everything else will flow from it. If Ramsey can be a QB with a solid 85 QB rating, we'll be a pretty good team. If he's still around 75, we will struggle.

[Chrisbob74]

Thanks for your thoughts Art.

I just looked at things I mentioned above as things that Gibbs believes in and knows that if they work, it will bring it's own success.

I could go more in-depth with all the points and even make comparisions to past Gibbs teams, but I honestly think those points do that for themselves.

The difference this time is I think he discovered last year he can't do it exactly the same way in some parts of the game. Offenses and defenses have changed the way they play the game. More aggressive D's, more conservative O's........that kind of thing.

Gibbs ability to adjust is his biggest strength, I think you'll see that next year and it will be Gibbs finding different ways to get the things he believes help you win, done.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by Art

I think this is a reasonably sound post. I don't know that I believe we will do well or poorly yet, but something keeps sticking in my mind when considering the possibilities. In 1998 we were a 6-10 team, though we picked it up toward the end of the year.

In 1999 we entered the year with major questions at QB -- whether Johnson could stay healthy -- while having no running back to speak of as Davis was JUST starting out, and having no receivers who'd displayed any capability to be a consistent threat. Defensively we were a poorly designed unit and had questions throughout, save at corner.

In order to be any good in 1999, nearly every one of the substantial questions we had, HAD to be answered with a positive answer on the field. Most were. Our defense was horrid, but, generally, every question we had on offense turned out to be GREAT.

Davis, Johnson, Westbrook, Connell all had what turned out to be career-best seasons that year. And we were competitive and even dangerous.

This year we have far fewer questions in total. We have a very strong running back. A good line. A stout defense. Pretty good depth in most units -- in that we have starting players or HIGH draft picks in reserve at EVERY position on the team EXCEPT running back (unless you include Betts) and defensive end.

The questions we do have, though, are probably MORE serious than the questions we had in 1999.

Where we wondered if Johnson could stay healthy then, we had NO doubt he was a capable player if he was healthy. With Ramsey, we have doubt as to whether he's the answer, obviously, though he's shown flashes. Norv's system was a proven, successful system. Gibbs still has to show he can develop a capable offense in his return.

At receiver we are really pretty much where we were in 1999 waiting on a good, talented young player (Moss and/or Jacobs versus Westbrook and/or Connell) to emerge as a dangerous threat. Though, Moss has done more on the upside already than Westbrook had.

My problem with projecting this year is I have such concern for Ramsey's ability to raise his level of play and prove he's the guy for the job. And that spot is so key, everything else will flow from it. If Ramsey can be a QB with a solid 85 QB rating, we'll be a pretty good team. If he's still around 75, we will struggle.

I really like the parallel to the 1999 season. We flew under the radar that offseason and it turned out well. I'm pulling for a repeat of that!

[bulldog]

the Redskins have continuity going in their favor.

for the first time since 1999 the Redskins have largely the same roster returning in 2005. same staff save Bill Musgrave, who should add something to the offense.

while the departures of Smoot and Pierce got all the headlines, the return of Jon Jansen, LaVar Arrington and Phillip Daniels from season-ending injuries will make the Redskins a better team, irregardless of the free agent moves and draft selections

how about that, a Redskins team improving from within? It's been a while, eh?

Don't think for a moment, though, that Williams won't be able to integrate Carlos Rogers, Warrick Holdman, and some of the draft picks into the defense where they will make a noticeable contribution.

On offense the Redskins have some talented offensive linemen and a franchise back. That's a good place to start

Funny that on other teams, going four deep at wide receiver with guys around 5'11 is considered DEPTH while in Washington it is considered a weakness.

Evidently a team without Terrell Owens or Randy Moss can't win anymore.

Somebody forgot to tell the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs or 2003/2004 Patriots :laugh: :laugh:

In fact of the top receivers in the game the only one I see with a ring is Torry Holt.

[SkinsNatsFan]

Originally posted by Chrisbob74

Gibbs ability to adjust is his biggest strength

Absolutely! That hasn't been mentioned nearly enough! He's had an entire season to observe the NFL against his system and his players, and by the beginning of this season he will have had an entire off season to make adjustments.

[Canadian Hog]

It's no coincidence that the Steelers, Patriots, Panthers, Chargers, Rams, Giants, etc., all had breakout seasons in years past when their quarterbacks stepped up to the plate and elevated their games (e.g. Rothlisberger, Brady, Delhomme, Brees, Warner, Collins). The list goes on and on.

Make no mistake about it. This season rests on the shoulders of Patrick Ramsey. The defense will be solid again, Portis and the o-line will elevate their games. In my opinion, the support is there. Patrick has to grab the bull by the horns and I believe he understands that more than anybody else.

[rdskns n 05]

First let me say it is nice to see a thread where we do not blast oursleves apart... I think there is alot of truth here, I think our biggest contributor here will be Ramsey and if he is able to LEAD!!

:thumbsup:

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

I really like the parallel to the 1999 season. We flew under the radar that offseason and it turned out well. I'm pulling for a repeat of that!

I am not sure if it is quite a big parallel. For the most part the rest of the division was pretty weak in 1999

We romperstompered the Giants 2 times, the Eagles went 5-11 and the Cards were well the Cards

And it turned out the Dallas games didn't mean much at all (except those fools couldn't beat the 2-14 Saints at the end of the season which would have given us the number 1 pick, but I digress)

No more Chan Gailey or Jim Fassel or the Cards, its Parcells, an experienced Reid, and the general who despite his ways has found ways to win ball games.

I see the Redskins improving a lot, but so has the rest of the division (and the Eagles are so far ahead it doesn't really matter)

But as has been stated in this thread having the same staff coming back along with the addition of Musgrave and bringing back Lavar, Bowen and Jansen are huge huge moves

How Patrick performs determines this season. And I personally think he will step it up and excel

[Chrisbob74]

I think it's a given that Pat has to take a step forward for the Redskins to win a lot of games this year, but my feeling is that the OL will determine how far he goes.

Gibbs will work on ways to get him protect, some new protection schemes and the addition of some more mobile blockers.

If Patrick gets protected, he'll have no excuses. Gibbs knows that while he had some good QB's in his time, none of them were exactly bona fida Hall of Famers, they just were capable of putting the ball on the money when they got time.

Gibbs will give Patrick time...........the rest is up to him.

My feeling is that will happen, but regardless of who plays QB, if you give a guy enough time (even a Brunell or a Campbell) you should expect your passing game to work.

[Redsk58417]

Originally posted by Art

My problem with projecting this year is I have such concern for Ramsey's ability to raise his level of play and prove he's the guy for the job. And that spot is so key, everything else will flow from it. If Ramsey can be a QB with a solid 85 QB rating, we'll be a pretty good team. If he's still around 75, we will struggle.

Good assessment Art. I think the reason Ramsey gets the starting nod is just what you suggest. Ramsey's QB ratings over the final 7 games:

GM 1 61.2

GM 2 63.3

GM 3 139.2

GM 4 69.8

GM 5 103.0

GM 6 62.1

GM 7 100.8

Overall average? 85.6 That is the reason for "Gaurded" optimism. Ramsey was named "Starter," but Campbell was brought in "Just in case!"

[Doctorfro]

Oh, the potential is there. Unfortunately the moons have to align to assure success. I see other things having to happen. I see Lavar having to put up or shut up (and stay healthy). I see Sean having to get humble. I also see the receivers having to put in some overtime with Patrick to build some continuity. I'd love to see this team become the Seattle Supersonics of the NFL. No one expected them to be anything this year and they're now in the final 8.

[budski]

Wait a minute. Last year Ramsey was the answer for all the QB problems when Brunell was struggling this year the posts are leaning towards Ramsey with a question mark. Kinda a wishy washy to me. I have never said either way if I remember correctly whether Ramsey is the answer is not, but what is with the change in peoples opinion? For the record I think Ramsey is perfectly capable of doing it all. Brunell is also, if Ramsey goes down. Overall the problem with offense was the coaching. Yes Gibbs and Company were having trouble from A-Z getting back in the grove.

[Redsk58417]

Originally posted by budski

Wait a minute. Last year Ramsey was the answer for all the QB problems when Brunell was struggling this year the posts are leaning towards Ramsey with a question mark. Kinda a wishy washy to me. I have never said either way if I remember correctly whether Ramsey is the answer is not, but what is with the change in peoples opinion? For the record I think Ramsey is perfectly capable of doing it all. Brunell is also, if Ramsey goes down. Overall the problem with offense was the coaching. Yes Gibbs and Company were having trouble from A-Z getting back in the grove.

I understand your questioning. However, usually with a coaching change comes a QB change. No matter how good the starter that year was. Look at Cincy with Kitna and drafting of Palmer. Honestly? Ramsey is Spurriers guy. Never Gibbs.' We as fans get hooked to people, but as a coach? They get hooked on production from "Their guys!" The trust with Ramsey is not there. Why? His costly INT's in the 1st Giants game or the 2nd Philly game for starters. So that? In a nut-shell is why Ramsey is a question mark. Gibbs never went out and hand picked Ramsey. He inherited him. The trust must be built, and INT's won't do it. Production, good decision making, and winning will. None has Ramsey shown consistantly. That is the reason its a "question mark."

[Art]

Originally posted by budski

Wait a minute. Last year Ramsey was the answer for all the QB problems when Brunell was struggling this year the posts are leaning towards Ramsey with a question mark. Kinda a wishy washy to me. I have never said either way if I remember correctly whether Ramsey is the answer is not, but what is with the change in peoples opinion? For the record I think Ramsey is perfectly capable of doing it all. Brunell is also, if Ramsey goes down. Overall the problem with offense was the coaching. Yes Gibbs and Company were having trouble from A-Z getting back in the grove.

A great deal of the movement to Ramsey last year wasn't so much that he was the answer so much as he couldn't be as bad as Brunell was at the time. I don't see a great deal of wishy washy to most people's feelings on Ramsey here. He's not elevated his game to the level required to win on a consistent basis yet.

He has flashes and you think he has a quality that could make him very good if he can put it together, but, lacking the consistency, he's the single biggest question remaining for this team heading into this year. Like you, I think Ramsey is capable of being better than he's been to date. I hope that happens.

[Art]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

I really like the parallel to the 1999 season. We flew under the radar that offseason and it turned out well. I'm pulling for a repeat of that!

There are similarities to that season, to be sure.

For the first time SINCE 1999, the Redskins enter a year with very little going for them in the expectation category from the outside looking in. Like in 1999, when the team didn't do a whole lot in free agency -- Johnson was a trade -- due to the ownership transition taking forever, this year's team has done LESS in free agency than previous editions of the Redskins in recent years.

While I think the acquisitions specifically designed to improve special teams have flown too far under the radar in the national press, local media and even here among the majority of fans, in total, you don't have the same energy created by this offseason you've had in years past.

That doesn't make it worse, or better. It is just different.

The Redskins started to show the physical nature of a typical Gibbs team as the year wore on. There are far fewer questions about this team than most teams we've had entering a season since Gibbs left. Gibbs has to improve his coaching and Ramsey has to be consistent. If both things happen and everything else largely stays the same, we'll be very good this year.

If they don't, we probably won't.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

I am not sure if it is quite a big parallel. For the most part the rest of the division was pretty weak in 1999

We romperstompered the Giants 2 times, the Eagles went 5-11 and the Cards were well the Cards

And it turned out the Dallas games didn't mean much at all (except those fools couldn't beat the 2-14 Saints at the end of the season which would have given us the number 1 pick, but I digress)

Well, I see your point but it's more or less just a redistribution of strength in the division. Remember that the Giants were coming off of several playoff appearances over the previous couple of years (and were only one season away from going to the Super Bowl). I think people were a little surprised that we were able to "romperstomper" (I love that word BTW) twice that year.

Then you had the Cowboys who still contained the remnants of their Super Bowl teams and were pretty talented.

The Eagles were rebuilding and the Cards stunk, I'll grant you that.

I guess all I'm saying is that no one would have guessed that we'd beat out Dallas and New York in 1999 just like not too many people will think that we can beat out Philly this year.

Other than the Eagles, the rest of us were 6-10 last year, so it's tough to say that the division is "better" than it was going into the 1998 season.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by Art

The Redskins started to show the physical nature of a typical Gibbs team as the year wore on.

This reminds me of where we might have been in year 2 of Marty as well. We came on pretty well toward the end of that year and really adopted his boring, hard-nosed approach.

Unfortunately, by writing this I'm second-guessing myself too because I was all about some Spurrier back then!

:doh:

[budski]

Art I didnt miss the pickups for special teams nor the pickup on Musgrave to help with the development of Ramsey either. Surely he was brought in to do just that fine tune Ramsey into what is expected. If campbell is slow to learn over three differant O cordinators certainly ramsey is due some slack over his past three seasons. Besides none of Gibbs qbs have been barnburners you know.

[D Al]

I could only find two games where we were blown out last year. We lost most games by one score.

I think that we are two first downs and one or two fewer penalties from winning six extra games.

[Art]

Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins

This reminds me of where we might have been in year 2 of Marty as well. We came on pretty well toward the end of that year and really adopted his boring, hard-nosed approach.

Unfortunately, by writing this I'm second-guessing myself too because I was all about some Spurrier back then!

:doh:

The difference being the team was fractured under Marty. The team seemed to take on an US against the coach mentality. Marty seemed to feed into that and it worked to a degree that year. But, that's not something that could have carried over.

Where with Gibbs, the team stayed together. Where players had individual disagreements, they didn't go out with them large, though they may have leaked some things. What Gibbs started to build was an atmosphere of a team and that can be maintained.

[Art]

Originally posted by budski

Art I didnt miss the pickups for special teams nor the pickup on Musgrave to help with the development of Ramsey either. Surely he was brought in to do just that fine tune Ramsey into what is expected. If campbell is slow to learn over three differant O cordinators certainly ramsey is due some slack over his past three seasons. Besides none of Gibbs qbs have been barnburners you know.

That's not true about none of Gibbs' QBs being barnburners. He had very high levels of QB play here when the team was winning. Theismann had QB ratings of 92.3, 96.9 and 86.6 in 1982, 1983 and 1984.

Williams got hot in limited time in 1987 with a 94 QB rating. Rypien was 85.2, 88.1 and 97.9 in 1988, 1989 and 1991. When Gibbs got really good or quality QB play the team generally responded with pretty good years and when he got GREAT QB play, it responded with great years.

Gibbs needs an efficient QB who can make big plays and limit mistakes. Ramsey can be that, no doubt. He just hasn't consistently been that yet.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Originally posted by Art

That's not true about none of Gibbs' QBs being barnburners. He had very high levels of QB play here when the team was winning. Theismann had QB ratings of 92.3, 96.9 and 86.6 in 1982, 1983 and 1984.

Williams got hot in limited time in 1987 with a 94 QB rating. Rypien was 85.2, 88.1 and 97.9 in 1988, 1989 and 1991. When Gibbs got really good or quality QB play the team generally responded with pretty good years and when he got GREAT QB play, it responded with great years.

Gibbs needs an efficient QB who can make big plays and limit mistakes. Ramsey can be that, no doubt. He just hasn't consistently been that yet.

I think the point was that Gibbs has never had any highly-touted QBs. I think it's a given that he's gotten some very solid (and sometimes spectacular) performances out of the QB position.

Our teams back then never had a Montana, Marino, Cunningham, etc. at QB.