ESPN's breakdown of the Skins

[@DCGoldPants]

ESPN

Thoughts?

Hung Daddy

[@DCGoldPants]

oh yeah, it says we were 6-10 last year. what?!?!?!

[Dirk Diggler]

"...use the offense as a test group..." John Clayton

WTF? :gus:

[Henry]

Yeah, it sure would be nice if they knew what our freakin record was last year before formulating an informed opinion, but I did agree with this overall assessment:

A 10-win season is certainly not out of the question, but eight might be a little more reasonable.

[cowboykilla]

I think all this preseason stuff is bull ****t. I mean, how can anyone really predict what Spurrier will do in the NFL? They can't. So basically, its possible that we come out and go 18-0 and win the Super Bowl. No one knows what this guy is going to show up with.

[Art]

If Spurrier is correct and in his system the system is what makes the players rather than the players making the system, then, the Redskins will be awfully dangerous. The comments about Warner and Holt and Bruce are fine, but, the question was asked who Warner was before Martz? He was worse than Shane Matthews prior to Martz.

Holt was not too much more of a talent than Gardner was coming out and Green does seem to fit well in with with what Spurrier wants done. How the Redskins do this year depends on how right or wrong Spurrier is. Certainly with that defense, if he can put together a Top 10 offense with the current crop of talent, there's no telling how hard we will be to beat. If he's wrong and teams can exploit the limited physical nature of the players we have at key spots, then we'll be in trouble.

In all, the assessment of what we could expect is not too far from the mark.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

The overall analysis by Peter Lawrence-Riddell was sound, including its prediction range of 8-8 through 10-6. The team would be very surprising to fall above or below this range.

John Clayton's sidebar is more negative, especially his conclusion that the team can't make the playoffs with the current offensive players. Making the playoffs doesn't seem a longshot, but nor is it a lock.

On the downside, I wanted to mention one possible flaw in the thinking of this forum that the team can't be worse than last year's squad. (The argument is that with a same or better defense, how can this year's offense be worse than last year's?) I agree that the team is likely to be better, but there is one viable scenario in which we will be worse: if the offense gives up a lot of turnovers and goes 3-and-out too much (tiring and frustrating the defense).

One thing Martyball had going for it was eating the clock and not giving up turnovers. If we get bad QB reads, or routes run wrong by receivers who now have make more route-running decisions on the fly, the result could be a ton of turnovers. (Anyone remember the first few games under Gibbs, when Theismann and the O proved themselves incapable of running a pass-first offense?) QB fumbles could also increase. And when the offense isn't turning the ball over, a few three-and-outs in a row will start to cause some guys on the defense to quit early, out of physical fatigue and irritation over bailing out the offense.

I'm not saying this is a likely scenario, but it is plausible.

Personally, my optimistic prediction is 10-6, assuming we can get two out of the following three players: DT Sam Adams, LG Ray Brown, WR Willie Jackson.

[Funkyalligator]

This guy was hitting the crack pipe a little too much last night. Lets see.....the Redskins were 8-8 last year with a worse defense and a worse offense...hmmmm..... We got the best defensive coordinator, some great linebackers(all-pros) and a good DE. We actually have a quarterback who can read defenses(unlike Jeff George(who give f*&k how good his arm was) and a better selection of recievers. A head coach who all the players seem to love(except maybe Wilkinson). How in the hell can our team stay the same. Maybe he was basing it on our 6-10 record that he dreamed up out of thin air

[luckydevil]

I agreed with it 100 percent. On paper we are a better team than last year. But you have to remeber one thing Marty was conserative. Spurrier is the opposite, which could mean turnovers. The unknown of Spurrier system is the reason why i think this could be any where from 6-10 to 10-6. To say 8-8 is a fair assenment of the redskins.

[theposse]

The one other tough thing for the Redskins this year is the schedule, which looks tougher than last year's. @GB, @SF, Rams all look very tough, the 6 divisional games won't be easy, and @Tennessee, Indianapolis, @Seattle probably won't be easy either. The only gimme looks to be Houston.

[bulldog]

give me a break. Pasquarelli & Clayton have been down on the Skins for so long, it would be a complete surprise to see them say anything else but the dribble they usually do.

remember last year?

Titans in the Super Bowl to revenge their loss to the Rams :laugh:

Buccaneers near the top in the NFC, almost a lock to advance far with Brad Johnson and Sappmouth

[Awgustlab]

As far as the comment by Atlanta Skins fan regarding MartyBall. I seem to remember watching last year in agonizing pain the number of "three and outs" our dismal offense was putting out. The first five games were like sticking needlses in my eyes when the defense got a turnover or offense got the ball back.

Then, much to my disbelief, I saw some trick plays come out of the closet - and they worked!! And we won some games all of a sudden getting a little riskier on offense, which allowed Stephen to produce and some has-been called Kijana was coming in and having huge runs in times we needed them. (remember that TD run last year when he got stopped in the backfield??).

Then - The original Martyball Sauce came back and I once again had to come down from my high and realized that I had been teased - that we would be short of making the playoffs again.

Do I see this out of the new Spurrier offense? Hello No. I don't see a dream season, but I have something to get excited about again (not that I wouldn't anyways come football season) and I think that we will be a completely different tema with a completely different attitude. Predictions? Tough scedule says 9-7 or maybe 10-6. Hell, maybe even better!! One thing I do know is that I along with all other Redskins fans out there are severly pumped up like we haven't been in a long while!!

Let's Rock and Roll!! Get this party started!!

[REDSKINS STOMP]

Good post Awgustlab,

Although the Redskins last year did not turn the ball over a ton, they had to be near if not at the top of the league in three and outs. Hopefully this will change under Spurrier's system. I do believe the potential for turnovers will increase as well.

[bulldog]

football is a game that crys out for a system that allows the quarterback to be as effective as HE can be, given his strengths and weaknesses.

oh, you can shotgun a guy into a system that didn't fit his talent as Marty did with Tony Banks last year, but the results will be frustrating and disappointing.

go back and look. since the early 1980's when the Redskins have gotten quality performances from the quarterback (not recently I admit) the team has done well and in almost all cases made the playoffs.

even in '99, Brad's first 6 or 7 games set the tone for a playoff season, despite tailing off in the backstretch.

Spurrier won't allow the qb position to be a dark, empty hole as it so often was last year.

Remember not being able to complete a pass to save our lives, even in wins like the 13-3 game against Philly?

It was a painful brand of offense brought to us by a coach that doesn't do anything the smart way.

And that has always been Marty's trademark, to have his staff and roster work hard but not smart.

That's why there are no Lombardi Trophies in his closet.

And won't be anytime soon.

[NavyDave]

What tough schedule?

Yeah we play at Green Bay and at San Fran but I wont concede jack.

The Rams play here when the winds start picking up on grass with a back 7 that is better than the last time we beat them in St louise.

Who is to say our defense wont create three and out and turnovers to offset our turnovers?

Relatively injury free we are 10-6 bank on it.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Awgustlab

As far as the comment by Atlanta Skins fan regarding MartyBall. I seem to remember watching last year in agonizing pain the number of "three and outs" our dismal offense was putting out. The first five games were like sticking needlses in my eyes when the defense got a turnover or offense got the ball back.

Agreed. I wasn't precise enough in my reference to Martyball. To me, we saw Martyball working the way Marty liked it in the away Eagles game and the final Cardinals game. In both games, the offense just ground down the defense -- especially the first half of the Eagles game and the latter stages of the Cardinals game.

There were other flavors, too -- the putrid 0-5 start (with its weird brain-dead attempt at WCO), and the Denver game when Graham played pitch-and-catch with Westbrook.

I never liked Martyball, but I did understand what Marty was trying to do when it worked. When it works, you score maybe 17 points, own 35-40 minutes of the clock, never turn the ball over, and hope your defense holds 'em to 10.

[REDSKINS STOMP]

That is one thing about Spurrier that I like. He has already stated we will try to win games 49-10 not 17-10. I hate that. That is probably my biggest beef with the NFL. Too many teams try to get a 7 to 10 point lead and then sit on the ball. It is boring to watch and further more, it shows no confidence in your offense. To me, it basically leaves the door open for the other team to come back.

[Larry]

Maybe I was just wearing Kool-Aid colored glasses last year, but I, too, wondered how much our defense improved last year because of a clock-eating offense.

I think we had three games last year where we had a 2-1 edge in time of posession. (I also remember thinking that our defense was doing a good job of stopping Favre, until they wore out because the offense couldn't get a first down).

Davis for three, Davis for one, KiJanna for eight, and repeat, may have been boring, but it really makes your defense look good. I also remember this happening at least twice under Norv: We're trailing, but the game's not over yet. We'd take the ball around the 20, move it to first down on their 30 or so. The announcer would announce (with a note of suprise) that the Skins had just run seven (or so) straight running plays. We'd then call three pass plays (all incomplete). (And then, usually, miss the field goal).

Steve's offenses do tend to score a lot of points. But they don't give the defense a lot of time for Gatorade.

(I suspect I have a different philosophy from many fans. Often, watching a Skins game at the local sports bar, when we get the ball, another fan will say "OK, guys, we need a touchdown, here". And I'll say "No, we need five or six first downs, here". )

[luckydevil]

Good points. Very good points

[REDSKINS STOMP]

This is a good point, but I will wait until we start scoring a lot first to worry about it.

I am sure that comes fourth quarter if we have a decent sized lead, Spurrier is smart enough to give teams a steady dose of Stephen Davis.

[Art]

The Redskins led the league last year in three and outs. I'd bet we'll improve in that category. There's some truth, though, to the talk about the defense being better because the offense started to hold onto the ball occasionally as the season wore on. But, simply put, if the defense doesn't stop a team, Marty's boring offense can't hold onto the ball.

In all, I don't think you can attribute our defensive improvement to an offensive style that we ultimately adopted and witnessed. Essentially we improved when we simplified things and started letting Champ and Smoot play in more man coverage than zone coverage and we took Shade out of pass coverage responsibilities and used Terrell to do what Shade used to. When we made these simple adjustments, teams found passing on us was not easy.

Most teams didn't and don't have the capacity and patience to establish the run in this league so where we were weaker, teams really didn't test us, unless we're talking about Dallas. It is not a coincidence that the fourth quarter of the Carolina game when we finally adjusted and let Bailey follow around the top receiver did we finally start to make stops and from that, our offense was able to become steady.

I don't suscribe, though, to the theory that we are better on defense and will be better on offense therefore we will be better overall. It is true we are better on defense and we will improve substantially on offense whether we're a top flight group or not. But, for as dismal as last year was to start, there was an ingredient that allowed for 8-8 that probably boosted the record.

When Marty tapped into the team's pride and desire to win, mostly at his expense, he played that card. He tapped into their egos and dislike of him to get the team to play better. It was a good coaching stroke for a coach who didn't have many. But, the common thread among the team allowed it to come together in dislike of Marty to win despite the coaches.

Spurrier can improve us on offense and we can be better on defense and without a similar manner to bring together a largely turned over team, we may find it difficult to ever really gell and without that, it may prove difficult to win as much as we did last year. I'm more optimistic than that, but, certainly it's possible.

[Darth Tater]

Originally posted by REDSKINS STOMP

I am sure that comes fourth quarter if we have a decent sized lead, Spurrier is smart enough to give teams a steady dose of Stephen Davis.

He will. This is the situation that Mr. Spurrier offense is designed to be in by late third/fourth quarter (his backs get a lot of their yards at this time). However, if the defense 'forces' him (4-4 defenses, run blitz etc.), he will 'sadly' have to burn them and, if he feels that someone deserves an opportunity for a big play, he will try to set it up.

[The Evil Genius]

Well it looks like someone at ESPN caught their error - perhaps they were wishing that the Skins were 6-10 last year - I dunno.

It says 8-8 now.

Still, it reads like a fluff piece to me.