Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Lets just remember how many times, as a franchise, the Redskins have burned reporters in the last 10 years. Until we prove otherwise they're going to say we're awful. Just read it, think about it, then see what happens. I'm sure he got blasted for his predictions last year that weren't that far off.[/QUOTE]

Could not agree more. How long have all us of been saying this is our year, the reporters are full of it or whatever else. Believe you me no one wants to see us win more than me but until we see other wise I am not for sure. I heard it on ESPN Radio today that we wont be very good, along with every where else. Well it appears that we are bad until we prove everyone wrong. I mean I think that we could do some great things but will not know what this team is capable of doing untill about week 7 or 9. One thing that I could almost bet on is I just cant see Gibbs going through 2 losing seasons in a row.
How bout them Cocks?

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

I agree...we haven't given the reporters anything to change their predictions on. I think 8-8 is a safe, fair assumption....but 10-6 isn't at all out of the question. I think the Dallas game in the second week is going to set the stage for the season...either way.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

I have no problem with predictions of a losing record, I just have a problem with these predictions being tossed out there without a solid rationale behind them.

The majority of the media doesn't cover the Skins as extensively as the local media, and hell I'd say we the fans are more in touch with the Redskins than guys like Dr. Zzzzz. So I guess that's what makes it all the more frustrating when you read lame excuses as to why someone thinks the Skins are only going to win 4 games. Are we biased? Of course. But I think in our heart of hearts nobody is expecting 4 wins this year. 10 wins is perhaps shooting on the high end, but 8 or 9 wins is fairly realistic. 4 wins? C'mon, that's just Dr. Z being a jerk.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I have no problem with predictions of a losing record, I just have a problem with these predictions being tossed out there without a solid rationale behind them.

The majority of the media doesn't cover the Skins as extensively as the local media, and hell I'd say we the fans are more in touch with the Redskins than guys like Dr. Zzzzz. So I guess that's what makes it all the more frustrating when you read lame excuses as to why someone thinks the Skins are only going to win 4 games. Are we biased? Of course. But I think in our heart of hearts nobody is expecting 4 wins this year. 10 wins is perhaps shooting on the high end, but 8 or 9 wins is fairly realistic. 4 wins? C'mon, that's just Dr. Z being a jerk.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I think 10 wins is doable. We were the best 6-10 team in football last year, which could have very, very easily been 9-7, IMO. And this year we have made, IMO, significant improvements on the offense.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]The only disagreements I have with you are the games against Oakland and San Diego. The Chargers were a mirage last year, and got knocked out of the playoffs in the first round. Granted, they MADE it to the playoffs, which is more than we've been able to sniff at recently, but they remind me of the 2001 Chicago Bears -- things just seemed to go their way, and reality caught up with them.

Oakland's offense doesn't scare me at all. We've handled Randy Moss in the past, Collins is a statue in the pocket and will get toppled quicker than Saddam Hussein's did against those Iraqi nationalists. Plus, they've got no running game and no defense. Trust me, this ain't 1983, and the Raiders haven't scared anyone since then.[/QUOTE]



i totaly agree with you about the chargers and the raiders but i'd like to take it a step further and add the seahawks and the cheifs to the list. the seahawks have alexander and jackson on offense, thats it, their defense is good but not that good. the cheifs do have a good offense but the skins defense will match up fine with them, the cheifs defense will still suck.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=wolfeskins]i totaly agree with you about the chargers and the raiders but i'd like to take it a step further and add the seahawks and the cheifs to the list. the seahawks have alexander and jackson on offense, thats it, their defense is good but not that good. the cheifs do have a good offense but the skins defense will match up fine with them, the cheifs defense will still suck.[/QUOTE]

Good points. I hadn't given the Seahawks or Chiefs much thought. So yes, those are games we SHOULD win. But then, I said the same thing about Cleveland last year.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

I seriously think we'll take it to the Seahawks. Their D isn't good at all and well, you know about OUR defense.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

As far as the media bashing us for the last 10 years, I can point out some serious humour in all of that. In 99' we went 10-6, beat Lions in Playoffs, lost to Bucs by a point or so(don't remember). Then, offseason, we go on the free agent signing binge(we all know which one I speak of). Now, people will blast the Danny for that now, but trust me, I read many, many articles of the Redskins finish that season. They were up there as SB contenders. Wow, they were so CLOSE, and now they only got better with BS, DS, GJ, blah blah. That wasn't that long ago. Now, the irony is this. The same media that bashes the Danny for trying to get that last peice(which, he fucked up), are the same ones that predicted 12-4 or better that year. It's history, and real. With enough energy, I can go through some old magazines, and dig up the articles. I'm sure a lot of people don't remember that, but I know a lot of members here do. In the NFL, 12-4 to 4-12(ala Bears couple years back as one mentioned), or 6-10 to 10-6, or 1-15 to 12-4(Chargers). It's all BS. These guys get paid for screwing with us. So basically, their whores.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

Man like I said before they are playing it safe, playing the numbers and odds. They're going with the crowd remember last year they said between a 10-6 to 12-4 season just because Gibbs was back and he would make an impact and turn around this franchise as Parcell did in his first year with D'Boyz, you can't expect them after 5 subpar season (2 .500 seasons and 3 of losing seasons) and no mayor moves to say hey this team is reaching the playoffs. They have been let down before and it's worse to predict some team to make it and at the end they don't, than predict a team than won't make it and at the end does (chargers) they call it the cinderella story for something.

You think they got trash talk or bad reviews for saying that the charges would go 4-12 last season and at the end it was the other way around NO, because no one believed they would win even 4 is like this year if SF wins 12, does anyone on the right mind think that no.

So what I'm tryng to say is don't read to much of it because NO ONE really knows how it would turn out, you can make some judgements based on how they played las season, moves, draft.. etc.. but the beauty is you just can't know, who nows who'll be the cinderella story this season they say Arizona others Detroit ( I like detroit chances more), but every team is an injury away of losing the season as Carolina had last year.

Let's see do you think the Colts will make the playoff if Manning gets hurt in the first week how about the Vikings or Atlante we saw what happend when they lost Vick so just take it for what it is.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I have no problem with predictions of a losing record, I just have a problem with these predictions being tossed out there without a solid rationale behind them.

The majority of the media doesn't cover the Skins as extensively as the local media, and hell I'd say we the fans are more in touch with the Redskins than guys like Dr. Zzzzz. So I guess that's what makes it all the more frustrating when you read lame excuses as to why someone thinks the Skins are only going to win 4 games. Are we biased? Of course. But I think in our heart of hearts nobody is expecting 4 wins this year. 10 wins is perhaps shooting on the high end, but 8 or 9 wins is fairly realistic. 4 wins? C'mon, that's just Dr. Z being a jerk.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least his crediblity wouldn't had been in question if he hadn't said [B]bad defense.[/B] Having the number 3 defense in the entire league doesn't suggest to me that the defense is bad. Maybe he suggested such because we lost Pierce and Smoot...but then again, that would be a contradiction in not seeing evidence in a change and making a perdiction on something that hasn't transpired yet.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Well, at least his crediblity wouldn't had been in question if he hadn't said [b]bad defense.[/b] Having the number 3 defense in the entire league doesn't suggest to me that the defense is bad. Maybe he suggested such because we lost Pierce and Smoot...but then again, that would be a contradiction in not seeing evidence in a change and making a perdiction on something that hasn't transpired yet.[/QUOTE]

It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.[/QUOTE]




that was a very long pile of horseshit you just wrote. you don't think minn. wanted to beat the skins , your crazy.
are offense was horrible last year and we still managed to win 6 games in the nfl. you say not to focus on defensive stats but then all you did in that post was talk about stats. if a defense is ranked 3rd best in the nfl then that says alot, regardless of the schedule and don't give me that shit about teams thinking they only needed 15 points to beat the skins, teams wanted to score as many points as possible but were lucky to score 15.
for that writer or you or anyone to say that the skins defense was bad or will be bad this coming season. without having seen them play yet, is moronick and shows complete and total jackassery.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.[/QUOTE]

umm, dude, its a good defense period... i don't know why you're bring up all these win/lose and our offensive ranking, they have nothing to do with how good our D was/is. look at total turnovers, not turnover ratio, cause ratio includes the offense... look at yards/play and the total time our D was on the field... its 5minutes more than pittsburg last year.

There's no way you can say our D wasn't great last year... the front four presure wasn't amazing and the turnover forced wasn't that great, but the stats are way up there in every category.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.[/QUOTE]

D'BOYZ, I'm sorry but you just woefully hurt your credibility. Granted, our team was 6-10 (as were the Cowturds), but NO ONE can honestly say that the Redskins defense wasn't good.

First, our run defense allowed a paltry 3.1 yards per carry ([U]the fewest yards per carry in the history of the NFL[/U]).

Second, you are dead wrong insofar as you write off the game against the Vikings. The fact is that they didn't know whether they needed to win the game or not to make the playoffs.

Third, the Redskins were among the league's best in fewest points allowed (at just 16 per game).

Fourth, the Redskins defense held opponents to just 4.4 yards per play (2nd best in the league).

Fifth, the Redskins defense allowed just 67 first downs (that's 12 fewer than any other team).

Fifth, the Redskins defense had the fourth fewest penalties in the league.

Sixth, the Redskins defense forced more turnovers than 21 other teams (they forced more fumbles than 28 other teams).

Seventh, the Redskins defense tackled EXTREMELY well.

Eighth, to the extent that you don't like people to cite statistics in support of their arguments, what would you prefer? I guess I can cite just about anyone with eyes in support of our claims that we had a good defense.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Fifth, the Redskins defense allowed just 67 first downs (that's 12 fewer than any other team).
[/QUOTE]

imagine how many less it would be if they were on the field 5minutes less each game like the steelers... that'd 80minutes less chances for first downs...

I hope our O can at least get to average this year.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

That's some good info Ramseyfan, I didn't even realize the depths of the defense's dominance

And here's another interesting stat I saw (courtesy of boston.com)

" According to Stats Inc., Redskins defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin led the league last year with 14 1/2 of what it calls ''stuffs," meaning tackles on running plays behind the line of scrimmage. He had three more than New Orleans's Charles Grant and had at least half a stuff in 13 of the 15 games he played. Are stuffs important? Consider this. After being ''stuffed" during a drive, offensive teams had only a 27 percent success rate producing a first down."

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]It depends #3 best defense is based on yards only it doesn't count a lot of factors like point average allowed, turnover ratio, strenght of schedulle, strenght of offense you played.

In your case last year you faced 3 top ten scoring offenses from last year Philly, Minesota and GB you lost twice to Philly and 1 to Gb you won the Minesota game but that was the last game of the season and it didn't count to them they had reached the playoff coudn't win the division and couldnt get home filed.

From the 10- 15 best scoring offense you faced Cin and Pit you lost to both of them. Your other wins came against NYG (22), TB (23), DET(24), SF(30) and CHI(32) not even a top 20 in that list.

Your turnover ratio was -1 (26 takeaways vs 27 givaways)that was a tie for 20th spot you had the second best third down converstion with 31% wich was 1 of the only good things your team had.

The other point is that you had the 31st scoring offense so each team new they didn't had to score 30 points (15 points average) to beat you, just get ahead take time from the clock and let your offense play catch up. They didnt need to risk it wich explains the low amount of turnovers you made.

So don't read to much to the 3rd best D because it ain't real like Dallas wasn't the best D of 2003 it was only the D that allowed the lest amount of yards but it sure didn't represent the most feared and most dificult to score defense.

Your team its what it is a 6-10 team untill it proves otherwise like Dallas is and don't hang and put the 3rd Def in a pedestal like is the greatest thing. Hey you won only 6 games snap out of it. Who cares how good was your defense if it only helped you win 6 games.

Look to the future and try to demand more of your team than STATS because who cares if you have the best STATS QB or D or OFF if you won't be playing in January at the endof the line the only thing that matters is the W.[/QUOTE]

Number one, I think this crap you just posted was quite idiotic, but hey, you're a Dallas fan, why should I expect anything different? Number two, your pathetic team was also 6-10, so I expect you really have no room to talk. Oh, I'm sure you'll cling onto beating us twice last year, but that certainly doesn't make Dallas a better team - just makes them lucky they were able to hang on at the end of a very close game against a losing team...and lucky enough to score at the end of the last game to beat a losing team. Thinking back on it, that's quite pathetic to hold on to such stats...maybe you should take your own advice.

I'm also sure you'll bring up beating us for the past several seasons...but then again..that would go against you saying to look into the future. I guess that's because, Dallas really doesn't look to have much of a future...maybe a future of rebuilding once Parcells hangs up coaching for the last time.

Secondly, I said nothing about the offense...so you bringing up the offense was pointless. Most all of us 'Skins fans realized that; I commented on the Dr. Z's "bad defense" comment...which is obviously a dumb statement to make all around. I don't really care how you try to explain how a defensive ranking of #3 overall in the entire league does not suggest that a defense is good. Also, I am not "hanging on" to last year....I'm simply stating that until proven different this year, there is no rational thought or analysis that could actually be taken seriously, that would suggest the Redskins has a bad defense. Certainly, we could conclude something different with the offense....but then again...I never commented on that.

I suggest not drinking the Silver and Blue kool-aid and posting on here.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]D'BOYZ, I'm sorry but you just woefully hurt your credibility. Granted, our team was 6-10 (as were the Cowturds), but NO ONE can honestly say that the Redskins defense wasn't good.[/QUOTE]

Look I didn't say it wasn't a good D it was, like our was 2 years ago but it sure wasn't the third best like ours wasn't THE BEST of 2003 even thougth we surrender the least amount of points that year 14 point average.

The thing that I pointed out is that the NFL counts their top ranked defenses based on yards allowed and we know even though that's an important stat it doesn't tell the hole story.

The reality its that even thought your D was good last year it didn't face up with good offenses they only faced 5 teams on the top 15 in scoring offenses and they lost 5 out of the 6 games and surrender a 20.6 points average in those games to the 16.6 average you had the hole season.

The rest 10 teams didnt rack up over the top 20 scoring offese so you didnt face top socoring competition to test your Def. And to say that teams didn't knew they dind't had to score a lot of point to win the games that's just wack what do you think they don't do a GAMEPLAN before they face you.

They just woke up Sunday morning and say "hey lets pass all day long and see what happens". Come on each week they face you they new your offense couldn't score so after they score they just had to control the game clock and don't do stupid mistakes like TURNOVERS so they don't lose the game why risk it if you only need 16 points to beet your team.

Dont you think there's ANY relation to the 15 point average your offense had to the 16.6 point average your D allowed come on 8 teams under the to 20 scoring offenses and you could only win 4 out 10 of those games.

Your D was Good but it wasn't Great not when you can't beet or HOLD the best offenses out there. If your D dominates Chicago and SF this year you're going to say "WOW did you see that D ". Now if you hold KC, OAK and PHI to less than 16 points THEN you can say you have a great D.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]Look I didn't say it wasn't a good D it was, like our was 2 years ago but it sure wasn't the third best like ours wasn't THE BEST of 2003 even thougth we surrender the least amount of points that year 14 point average.

The thing that I pointed out is that the NFL counts their top ranked defenses based on yards allowed and we know even though that's an important stat it doesn't tell the hole story.

The reality its that even thought your D was good last year it didn't face up with good offenses they only faced 5 teams on the top 15 in scoring offenses and they lost 5 out of the 6 games and surrender a 20.6 points average in those games to the 16.6 average you had the hole season.

The rest 10 teams didnt rack up over the top 20 scoring offese so you didnt face top socoring competition to test your Def. And to say that teams didn't knew they dind't had to score a lot of point to win the games that's just wack what do you think they don't do a GAMEPLAN before they face you.

They just woke up Sunday morning and say "hey lets pass all day long and see what happens". Come on each week they face you they new your offense couldn't score so after they score they just had to control the game clock and don't do stupid mistakes like TURNOVERS so they don't lose the game why risk it if you only need 16 points to beet your team.

Dont you think there's ANY relation to the 15 point average your offense had to the 16.6 point average your D allowed come on 8 teams under the to 20 scoring offenses and you could only win 4 out 10 of those games.

Your D was Good but it wasn't Great not when you can't beet or HOLD the best offenses out there. If your D dominates Chicago and SF this year you're going to say "WOW did you see that D ". Now if you hold KC, OAK and PHI to less than 16 points THEN you can say you have a great D.[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree that teams game plan around opposing teams offenses. However, your argument that because our offense wasn't good and therefore our defense looked better than it really was doesn't hold water with respect to the Redskins 2004 defense.

If opponents were just trying to control the ball to kill the clock, they did a really crappy job because, as I said, the Redskins allowed the fewest first downs in the league. The Redskins also stuffed the run consistently.

I'm just curious, who would you say had the best defenses in the league last year. Under no circumstances could any rational person say that our defense was not in the top 5 last year.

Also, I would like to know in what areas you think the Redskins defense of 2004 needed to improve.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

D'BOYZ,

Also, your contention that the 6-10 record is indicative of the fact that the Redskins 2004 defense was worse than people think is flat out dumb. We had a spectacular defense, but our offense was so bad that our great defensive play didn't matter that much. Had our defense played to the level of our offense, we would have been 1-15. So, in my mind, the defense alone won our team 5 games.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS] After being ''stuffed" during a drive, offensive teams had only a 27 percent success rate producing a first down."[/QUOTE]

well, its kind of hard to consider when the percentage rate of first downs without stuffs isn't listed :/

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]Look I didn't say it wasn't a good D it was, like our was 2 years ago but it sure wasn't the third best like ours wasn't THE BEST of 2003 even thougth we surrender the least amount of points that year 14 point average.

The thing that I pointed out is that the NFL counts their top ranked defenses based on yards allowed and we know even though that's an important stat it doesn't tell the hole story.

The reality its that even thought your D was good last year it didn't face up with good offenses they only faced 5 teams on the top 15 in scoring offenses and they lost 5 out of the 6 games and surrender a 20.6 points average in those games to the 16.6 average you had the hole season.

The rest 10 teams didnt rack up over the top 20 scoring offese so you didnt face top socoring competition to test your Def. And to say that teams didn't knew they dind't had to score a lot of point to win the games that's just wack what do you think they don't do a GAMEPLAN before they face you.

They just woke up Sunday morning and say "hey lets pass all day long and see what happens". Come on each week they face you they new your offense couldn't score so after they score they just had to control the game clock and don't do stupid mistakes like TURNOVERS so they don't lose the game why risk it if you only need 16 points to beet your team.

Dont you think there's ANY relation to the 15 point average your offense had to the 16.6 point average your D allowed come on 8 teams under the to 20 scoring offenses and you could only win 4 out 10 of those games.

Your D was Good but it wasn't Great not when you can't beet or HOLD the best offenses out there. If your D dominates Chicago and SF this year you're going to say "WOW did you see that D ". Now if you hold KC, OAK and PHI to less than 16 points THEN you can say you have a great D.[/QUOTE]

why the hell do you keep dragging up the offense, the OFFENSE MADE THE DEFENSE WORSE, not better, they left them out there way longer than they should have had to be, and they gave the other team great field position. We're saying its good because it was good, consistantly... TO, who had OVER 130 yards in the SUPERBOWL, caught 2 for 22 yards against us. Moss had a crap performance too, the only WR to have any sort of success was chad johnson I believe.

And if you seriously believe Pro NFL teams didn't gameplan for us, you're either extremely delusional or just plain fuckign nuts. What do you think NFL teams do all week? play hopscotch?

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

D'Boyz is bringing up the offense, because he realizes his case concerning our defense is weak at best. Actually, I would say it's pretty idiotic, but I'll give him some credit for trying to be creative. Of course, his credibility is completely lost when he says, "I didn't say the defense was bad."

D'Boyz, I think you need to quit before you make a bigger fool out of yourself. I can understand if you're unable to give any credit to your biggest rivals - I'm sure it's tough, but if you're not disagreeing with us that the Redskins' defense isn't bad as what Dr. Z suggested, then what is your point? I suggest you're struggling to come up with an answer that is slightly intelligent without mentioning our offense.

More than likely, if Dallas had the #3 or even the #1 defense last year, rank would mean everything to you then.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Here's his half-assed explanation:

[url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/09/01/predictions.explanation/"]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/09/01/predictions.explanation/[/url]

[b]4. REDSKINS (4-12)[/b]

I know this is a vicious prediction, and since Washington has some of the most dedicated e-mailers in the land, I expect to hear from an army of them next week, just as I did last year when I picked the Skins ... what ... 5-11 or something like that? [b]Gregg[/b] [b]Williams[/b]' defense shouldn't let this happen, but it was good last year, too, and so what? I think the [b]Patrick Ramsey[/b]-[b]Mark Brunell[/b]-[b]Jason Campbell[/b] merry-go-round is a bad situation and the sign of a deeper problem -- namely that this team doesn't quite know what it's doing.[/QUOTE]

If turns out to be true, the trade for Capmbell turns out as bad as the Falcons (on draft day of '99) trading their '00 1st round pick to the Ravens for Reggie Kelly

The season before, the Falcons went to the SuperBowl and figured their '00 first round pick would be a low 1st rounder

The Falcons fell apart and the Ravens wound up with the 5th overall pick in the draft

That player was Jamal Lewis

Not saying its going to happen, but, is Jason Campbell woth a top 5 pick?

Time would tell...

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

Exactly, time will tell. And as far as Dr. Zs quote, it's really not worth posting here. That is if you're trying to draw some type of analysis from him.

He said we have a merry-go-round situation at QB. Which says to me he has no idea what's going on here in D.C, and IMO I can discredit a lot more of what he has said about the Skins for '05.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]Exactly, time will tell. And as far as Dr. Zs quote, it's really not worth posting here. That is if you're trying to draw some type of analysis from him.

He said we have a merry-go-round situation at QB. Which says to me he has no idea what's going on here in D.C, and IMO I can discredit a lot more of what he has said about the Skins for '05.[/QUOTE]

For all the grief Bledsoe catches around here--which is understandable and to be expected...

Ramsey looks a lot like him

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=la73hof]For all the grief Bledsoe catches around here--which is understandable and to be expected...

Ramsey looks a lot like him[/QUOTE]

Bledsoe and Ramsey are similar enough to warrant such a comparison. Both Bledsoe and (to a lesser extent) Ramsey are dangerous if given good protection. However, I think our offensive line is far superior to the line that Dallas has put together; hence our Bledsoe-bashing.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Bledsoe and Ramsey are similar enough to warrant such a comparison. Both Bledsoe and (to a lesser extent) Ramsey are dangerous if given good protection. However, I think our offensive line is far superior to the line that Dallas has put together; hence our Bledsoe-bashing.[/QUOTE]

I think you will be proven wrong...but we shall indeed see

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]why the hell do you keep dragging up the offense, the OFFENSE MADE THE DEFENSE WORSE, not better, they left them out there way longer than they should have had to be, and they gave the other team great field position. We're saying its good because it was good, consistantly... TO, who had OVER 130 yards in the SUPERBOWL, caught 2 for 22 yards against us. Moss had a crap performance too, the only WR to have any sort of success was chad johnson I believe.

And if you seriously believe Pro NFL teams didn't gameplan for us, you're either extremely delusional or just plain fuckign nuts. What do you think NFL teams do all week? play hopscotch?[/QUOTE]

Man I said totally the opositte I said THAT TEAMS DID GAMEPLAN for you dad was refeard to some 1 tha tsaid tha the offense had nothing to do wit hand that teams didn't tried to control the game. I said taht becasue they new you didnt had a offense treath they didn't had to play cach up or try to rack up a lot o points they new that getting more than 2 TD was enough thats it and tryed not to risk giving away the ball.

Again I said your D was good very good and still is but it wasn't great and it wasn't the 3rd overall D because it didn't face a lot of top scoring offenses and the 1's they faced scored more then your average points so they could hold them back they could shot down some players but yo say owens and moss they both scored int their respective games and 66 yard ain't a crappy performance is average but not crap.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I
I'm just curious, who would you say had the best defenses in the league last year. Under no circumstances could any rational person say that our defense was not in the top 5 last year.

Also, I would like to know in what areas you think the Redskins defense of 2004 needed to improve.[/QUOTE]

Ok ramsey here it go the D that I believe rank better than Was.

#1 Bal even though they had a baaaad offense (they rank up as the 20) they played 9 games vs 7 top 15 offense scoring teams end held the moyoirty of them including IND (38point average) held to 20 and KC 32 point avr to 24 had 34 take aways alot of them resulting in TD and excelent field posision they held their opponets to a 16.8 point average and help their team to a 9-7 record thats wha ta great d does to a bad offense gives the m mroe wepons to win.

#2 Pitt they only faced 5 games vs top 15 offenses they held them to a small margin had 32 takeaways and you can't arguew that a lot of the 15 -1 season was because of the domination of their D they also had the lowest point per game allowed 15.7

#3 NE we knoe what this D does to opposing offense they fear playing vs this d just ask peyton lol and mcnabb to that matter they allowed only 16.2 per game had an amazing 36 takeaways and faced 7 top 15 offenses.

#4 Jacksonville also helped a subpar offense to a 9-7 season and most of the time kept them in the game or won the game for them the had a 17.5 average a 27 takeaways but played 11 games vs top 15 offenses and in 6 cases didnt allowed them more than 18 points. played with the 29th scoring offense.

#5 NYJ they are manly (and curtis) the reason the yreach the playoffs last year had 33 yake aways held hel teams to a 15.7 point average played 8 games vs top 15 offenses and i n4 cases held them for less that 17 points.

The other ones you can put also in the mix are PHI 16.2 average 28 takeawys played vs 5 top 15 offenses but we all know how that D stacks up during playoffs the y had prove it 4 years in a row, And Buffalo 17.8 point average but 36 take aways 1 of the reason that buff almost made a comeback late las t year (magahee included) faced 14 top 15 scoring offesense.

All of this D generated the tools to make their teams succesfull and even thought they didnt reach the playoff in some cases the had more then a .500 average and alot of them played in the AFC wich we know was 10 times better than the NFC last season and still held their grown.

Hope this help and what your team needs to be better is just generate more turnovers put your offense in more of an advantage position and held your grown vs TOP scoring offenses don't lose key players to injury. thats it.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]Ok ramsey here it go the D that I believe rank better than Was.

#1 Bal even though they had a baaaad offense (they rank up as the 20) they played 9 games vs 7 top 15 offense scoring teams end held the moyoirty of them including IND (38point average) held to 20 and KC 32 point avr to 24 had 34 take aways alot of them resulting in TD and excelent field posision they held their opponets to a 16.8 point average and help their team to a 9-7 record thats wha ta great d does to a bad offense gives the m mroe wepons to win.

#2 Pitt they only faced 5 games vs top 15 offenses they held them to a small margin had 32 takeaways and you can't arguew that a lot of the 15 -1 season was because of the domination of their D they also had the lowest point per game allowed 15.7

#3 NE we knoe what this D does to opposing offense they fear playing vs this d just ask peyton lol and mcnabb to that matter they allowed only 16.2 per game had an amazing 36 takeaways and faced 7 top 15 offenses.

#4 Jacksonville also helped a subpar offense to a 9-7 season and most of the time kept them in the game or won the game for them the had a 17.5 average a 27 takeaways but played 11 games vs top 15 offenses and in 6 cases didnt allowed them more than 18 points. played with the 29th scoring offense.

#5 NYJ they are manly (and curtis) the reason the yreach the playoffs last year had 33 yake aways held hel teams to a 15.7 point average played 8 games vs top 15 offenses and i n4 cases held them for less that 17 points.

The other ones you can put also in the mix are PHI 16.2 average 28 takeawys played vs 5 top 15 offenses but we all know how that D stacks up during playoffs the y had prove it 4 years in a row, And Buffalo 17.8 point average but 36 take aways 1 of the reason that buff almost made a comeback late las t year (magahee included) faced 14 top 15 scoring offesense.

All of this D generated the tools to make their teams succesfull and even thought they didnt reach the playoff in some cases the had more then a .500 average and alot of them played in the AFC wich we know was 10 times better than the NFC last season and still held their grown.

Hope this help and what your team needs to be better is just generate more turnovers put your offense in more of an advantage position and held your grown vs TOP scoring offenses don't lose key players to injury. thats it.[/QUOTE]


once again you have proven your a jackass.
it's funny how each team you mentioned, with the exeption of the eagles, are from the afc.
lets start with the eagles, they averaged 26 points a game so i'd imagine a lot of their aponents fell behind and had to play catch up, therfore turning the ball over , making the eagles d look better than what they relly were, it's amazing how a high scoring offense helps a defense, isn't it?
the rest of the teams you mentioned are all from the afc, were as we all now, offenses from afc teams usually take more risks than nfc teams, plus new england had a pretty good offense,pittsburge had a pretty good offense and i'd think it would be safe to say that baltimore,buffalo,jacksonville and the jets all had a better offense than the skins.
every justification you spit out of your mouth for the skins d not being a true #3 defense is completely idiotic and no skins fan will give you any respectibility until you can write something that is credible.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=la73hof]For all the grief Bledsoe catches around here--which is understandable and to be expected...

Ramsey looks a lot like him[/QUOTE]

yeah, i said that early last year... if there's a well known QB that ramsey resembles thusfar, its bledsoe :( The hope is that we just haven't seen enough of him to make a final judgement yet... Bledsoe is getting more grief here because of the dallas O-line i think, but we'll have a good idea of how things are going to be by the end of the 2nd game.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]Ok ramsey here it go the D that I believe rank better than Was.

#1 Bal even though they had a baaaad offense (they rank up as the 20) they played 9 games vs 7 top 15 offense scoring teams end held the moyoirty of them including IND (38point average) held to 20 and KC 32 point avr to 24 had 34 take aways alot of them resulting in TD and excelent field posision they held their opponets to a 16.8 point average and help their team to a 9-7 record thats wha ta great d does to a bad offense gives the m mroe wepons to win.

#2 Pitt they only faced 5 games vs top 15 offenses they held them to a small margin had 32 takeaways and you can't arguew that a lot of the 15 -1 season was because of the domination of their D they also had the lowest point per game allowed 15.7

#3 NE we knoe what this D does to opposing offense they fear playing vs this d just ask peyton lol and mcnabb to that matter they allowed only 16.2 per game had an amazing 36 takeaways and faced 7 top 15 offenses.

#4 Jacksonville also helped a subpar offense to a 9-7 season and most of the time kept them in the game or won the game for them the had a 17.5 average a 27 takeaways but played 11 games vs top 15 offenses and in 6 cases didnt allowed them more than 18 points. played with the 29th scoring offense.

#5 NYJ they are manly (and curtis) the reason the yreach the playoffs last year had 33 yake aways held hel teams to a 15.7 point average played 8 games vs top 15 offenses and i n4 cases held them for less that 17 points.

The other ones you can put also in the mix are PHI 16.2 average 28 takeawys played vs 5 top 15 offenses but we all know how that D stacks up during playoffs the y had prove it 4 years in a row, And Buffalo 17.8 point average but 36 take aways 1 of the reason that buff almost made a comeback late las t year (magahee included) faced 14 top 15 scoring offesense.

All of this D generated the tools to make their teams succesfull and even thought they didnt reach the playoff in some cases the had more then a .500 average and alot of them played in the AFC wich we know was 10 times better than the NFC last season and still held their grown.

Hope this help and what your team needs to be better is just generate more turnovers put your offense in more of an advantage position and held your grown vs TOP scoring offenses don't lose key players to injury. thats it.[/QUOTE]

all those teams had offenses that helped their D's off by keeping them off the field. 5minutes more a game and we still had less yardage and points then most of them. No NFL team goes into any game thinking they don't have to score. And most of our games were 3-7 points difference, meaning that other teams didn't exactly get the type of lead where they could be comfortable.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=wolfeskins]once again you have proven your a jackass.
it's funny how each team you mentioned, with the exeption of the eagles, are from the afc.
lets start with the eagles, they averaged 26 points a game so i'd imagine a lot of their aponents fell behind and had to play catch up, therfore turning the ball over , making the eagles d look better than what they relly were, it's amazing how a high scoring offense helps a defense, isn't it?
the rest of the teams you mentioned are all from the afc, were as we all now, offenses from afc teams usually take more risks than nfc teams, plus new england had a pretty good offense,pittsburge had a pretty good offense and i'd think it would be safe to say that baltimore,buffalo,jacksonville and the jets all had a better offense than the skins.
every justification you spit out of your mouth for the skins d not being a true #3 defense is completely idiotic and no skins fan will give you any respectibility until you can write something that is credible.[/QUOTE]

So what you say is every other team in the league has an excuse to WHY they aren't better then Washinghton, it doesnt matter who you faced, it doesn't matter how good the other team was or bad, it doesn matter how predictible your offense was, so teams didn't played different when they faced you that they did vs the colts they did the same gameplan ok I get it now.
But hey if saying you had the 3rd best defenses just because, gets you trough the night and helps you justify a 6 -10 season man go for it.

As I said all along it was a very good D but not the third best.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]all those teams had offenses that helped their D's off by keeping them off the field. 5minutes more a game and we still had less yardage and points then most of them. No NFL team goes into any game thinking they don't have to score. And most of our games were 3-7 points difference, meaning that other teams didn't exactly get the type of lead where they could be comfortable.[/QUOTE]

ok man basing on your points Jacksonville was the 29th best scoring offense or 2 spots above yours baltimore was 20th those ain't good offenses. Now you say you lost the moyority of your games for less then 7 point.

Lets see of 10 games you lost 7 where for 7 points or less, those games where NYG,DAL,CLE,BAL, CIN,PHI and DAL. if we compare the other teams Bal was 4 out 7 Buff 4 out 7 NYJ 4 out 6. the other lost so few game they aren't worth putting here. And based on your analysis hey Detroit lost 6 out the 10 for 7 or less points so that makes them based on that analysis a top 10 or top 5 Def I mean the lost 6 close games.

And of those 7 loses your team had for less than 7 points only 2 PHI and CIN where top 15 offense and only 2 BAL and PHI had winning record and 1 had .500 CIN the rest where bad offenses and buttom feeders in the league AND YES I'M SAYING DALLAS WAS A BOTTOM FEEDER.

So in conclusion in YOUR point of view Washington was the Third Best defense because it lost 7 games to close margins 4 of those games that they lost with this close margin where vs teams with the same or WORST record I Don't get it if your D was so good and it played vs this crapy team why could't you beat them.

They all had bad offense they had a WORST DEF according to your knowledge why couldn't you beet them but hey a least the game was close.

Man again total yard avergae doesn't say how good your D really was the weren't really challenged and they lost games to teams with same or worst records bad offenses and worst defenses.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]So for you wath you say every other team in the league has an excuse to WHY they aren't better then Washinghton it doesn matter who you faced it doesn't matter how good the other team was or bad it doesn matter how predictible your offense was so teams played different with you that they do the colts but . Hey if saying you had the 3rd best defenses just because gets you trough the night and helps you justify a 6 -10 season man go for it.

As I said all along it was a very good D but not the third best.[/QUOTE]




and once again your grammer was terrible and hard to read but i persavailed.

what i and every one else are trying to tell you is no matter how much crap you or anyone else let spill from your lips , the bottom line is the redskins defense was the 3rd best in the nfl and 1st in the nfc.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=D'BOYZ]ok man basing on your points Jacksonville was the 29th best scoring offense or 2 spots above yours baltimore was 20th those ain't good offenses. Now you say you lost the moyority of your games for less then 7 point.

Lets see of 10 games you lost 7 where for 7 points or less, those games where NYG,DAL,CLE,BAL, CIN,PHI and DAL. if we compare the other teams Bal was 4 out 7 Buff 4 out 7 NYJ 4 out 6. the other lost so few game they aren't worth putting here. And based on your analysis hey Detroit lost 6 out the 10 for 7 or less points so that makes them based on that analysis a top 10 or top 5 Def I mean the lost 6 close games.

And of those 7 loses your team had for less than 7 points only 2 PHI and CIN where top 15 offense and only 2 BAL and PHI had winning record and 1 had .500 CIN the rest where bad offenses and buttom feeders in the league AND YES I'M SAYING DALLAS WAS A BOTTOM FEEDER.

So in conclusion in YOUR point of view Washington was the Third Best defense because it lost 7 games to close margins 4 of those games that they lost with this close margin where vs teams with the same or WORST record I Don't get it if your D was so good and it played vs this crapy team why could't you beat them.

They all had bad offense they had a WORST DEF according to your knowledge why couldn't you beet them but hey a least the game was close.

Man again total yard avergae doesn't say how good your D really was the weren't really challenged and they lost games to teams with same or worst records bad offenses and worst defenses.[/QUOTE]

wow, you totally missed my point... entirely.. I was saying that no NFL team decides that "this week we're only going to score 7 points, cause thats all we need"... which was in response to your jackassery about how teams somehow decided that they didn't want to score on us and how that was the reason we had a good defense.

Please, if you can't understand what I'm saying, don't post an essay in response to some random arguement you made up... I was also saying that our offense kept our D on the field longer than some of the other teams you mentioned.. notice i said SOME, and I wasn't talking about total yards, i was talking about [b]time of possession. [/b]New england, the jets, and pittsburg all have their defenses on the field less than we did... thats all i was saying, i don't know what that rant about offensive rankings and baltimore was in response to, but it doesn't apply to anything I said.

Please stop trolling.

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]wow, you totally missed my point... entirely.. I was saying that no NFL team decides that "this week we're only going to score 7 points, cause thats all we need"... which was in response to your jackassery about how teams somehow decided that they didn't want to score on us and how that was the reason we had a good defense.

Please, if you can't understand what I'm saying, don't post an essay in response to some random arguement you made up... I was also saying that our offense kept our D on the field longer than some of the other teams you mentioned.. notice i said SOME, and I wasn't talking about total yards, i was talking about [b]time of possession. [/b]New england, the jets, and pittsburg all have their defenses on the field less than we did... thats all i was saying, i don't know what that rant about offensive rankings and baltimore was in response to, but it doesn't apply to anything I said.

Please stop trolling.[/QUOTE]

Ok man the point about offense came about you argument that those team had Offense that helped their D I pointed that 2 also had a bad Offense and the second point came of your argument that "And most of our games were 3-7 points difference, meaning that other teams didn't exactly get the type of lead where they could be comfortable"

So I pointed with whom you lost in a close margin saying those teams weren't that good.

About time of posesion I'm tired will analize it another day if you need that stat also lol

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

Just thought it would be fun to re-visit this thread, 4-12!! LOL

Re: Dr. Z explains why Skins will go 4-12 (sort of)
 

Damn. They were close.