Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

but why does the long quote matter for that part? you could always just scroll past it.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

If you are referring to the statistics I listed it has no relation to this years Skins. Those stats were talking about the 2008 Redskins and how good their defense was if you factor in sacks and turnovers.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

So if not statistics then do you want people to give you opinions, hunches, and/or speculations?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=redskins1974;560318]To me, the fact the Defense didnt get alot of sacks and turnovers was annoying, but ultimately they didnt give up alot of yards or points - bottom line. Now turnovers would have been nice because Gods knows our struggling offense could have used some short drives, but the D still managed to be top 6 for both pts and yards allowed.[/quote]

I agree with everything you said. At the end of the day the defense did its job compared to most teams in the NFL. I do think that with the moves the Skins have made the team has the potenial to jump from a defense that "does its job" into a defense that can be a true force.

[quote=GMScud;560320]Nice insight, BO. I think last year overall we fell somewhere in between 4th and 15th, probably around the 8-10 range. Good post.[/quote]

Id agree. The 8-10 range is about right.

I cant wait til this season starts because I really believe the defense can be the best in the NFL with the moves we have made. Albert Haynesworth imo was the biggest reason for the Titans big play defense last year. With him in the middle letting guys like Andre Carter and Brian Orakpo get 1 on 1 looks is going to be huge. The pressure our front 7 can create will lead to more INTs from the DBs. I really believe this defense has the potenial to be as good as the Steelers defense was last year if certain things break the right way.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

JC right now is in the lower half of QBs, maybe lower 3rd or so; CP is great, but not homerun hitting; and other than almost 3 years ago we haven't seen anyone else do anything in the backfield, except for block. We need to start thinking about who's the next RB, I'm not trying to push Portis out but who knows how he'll be able to keep up.. one serious injury could make him never the same again

I don't see how that makes us 26th though, looks like they're basing the rate on the speculation that Campbell will be shaky from this and Portis will be beat up -- a lil too early to "guarantee" that

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

SI is garbage anyway...I value the Sporting News alot more anyway. Peter King...?...Please... who really cares about preseason rankings anyway..but there is no way in hell our backfield is 26th in the NFL. Portis alone should place it in the top 20... even if Pee Wee Herman was his QB.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=mrreddman;560377]SI is garbage anyway...I value the Sporting News alot more anyway. Peter King...?...Please... who really cares about preseason rankings anyway..but there is no way in hell our backfield is 26th in the NFL. Portis alone should place it in the top 20...[B] even if Pee Wee Herman was his QB[/B].[/quote]

:laughing2 Doesn't he play for the Cowboys?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Monksdown;560326]this thread is an example of why i hate mile long quotes. please stop quoting the statistics that probably have atleast a 30% margin of error in relation to next year's 'skins.[/quote]

Sorry, didn't mean to give your scrolling finger such a tough workout. Care to add anything to the thread? :oink:

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560378]:laughing2 Doesn't he play for the Cowboys?[/quote]


...........no,he's the owner.:food-smil

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Giantone;560383]...........no,he's the owner.:food-smil[/quote]

:laughing- The more plastic surgery he gets, the more he looks like him.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=mrreddman;560377]but there is no way in hell our backfield is 26th in the NFL. Portis alone should place it in the top 20... even if Pee Wee Herman was his QB.[/quote]

...maybe thats the case but with Campbell/Portis in the 2nd half of 2008 we averaged 12.5 ppg. Id go out on a limb and say Pee Wee Herman would of gotten us at least 14. :laughing2

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

yeah but was that totally Portis and Campbell's fault? The whole team was worse in the second half. The O-line was banged up and suffered, the receivers dropped balls and the rookies were injured, even Sellers regressed. Not to mention, the defense couldnt stop anyone when needed. If we are strictly talking about the RB and QB, the skins combo is about middle of the road IMO. Portis is a top 10 RB and JC maybe a bottom 10 QB, but not the worst.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=mrreddman;560397]yeah but was that totally Portis and Campbell's fault? The whole team was worse in the second half. The O-line was banged up and suffered, the receivers dropped balls and the rookies were injured, even Sellers regressed. Not to mention, the defense couldnt stop anyone when needed. If we are strictly talking about the RB and QB, the skins combo is about middle of the road IMO. [B]Portis is a top 10 RB and JC maybe a bottom 10 QB, but not the worst.[/quote][/B]

Portis is a top 5 back maybe even top 3. Campbell is no worse then a middle of the pack QB(Somewhere between 15-20).

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=mrreddman;560397]yeah but was that totally Portis and Campbell's fault? The whole team was worse in the second half. The O-line was banged up and suffered, the receivers dropped balls and the rookies were injured, even Sellers regressed. Not to mention, the defense couldnt stop anyone when needed. If we are strictly talking about the RB and QB, the skins combo is about middle of the road IMO. Portis is a top 10 RB and JC maybe a bottom 10 QB, but not the worst.[/quote]

When you score 12.5 ppg over a 8 game span id say its the whole offenses fault. Going off the last 8 games by the Redskins I can understand why we have been ranked so low in alot of different articles. Hopefully the Skins can step up their game so we dont have to go through these articles next May and debate if the Skins backfield should be ranked 26th or are they closer to 20th. :laughing-