Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560144]I'm still trying to figure out why we signed AH to such a big contract and spent our first draft pick on a defensive player. Maybe because the FO thought the offense was pretty much set and just needed another year in the system, and if the defense could get some turnovers and/or get the opposing offense off the field we may have a better chance of scoring?[/quote]On AH, pressure on the QB from the front 4 has been a problem for the past few years, IMO the Skins saw an impact player there that only took $$$ and not draft picks to get and went out to get him. If pressure can come from the front four that makes for more plays to be made in the secondary by the back 7. Orakpo was not only the best player available, but fills a need not often found at # 13, a pass rushing DE that is also solid against the run. Also IMO, Orakpo will be moved over to full-time RDE within two years.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was a little sarcasm in my last post.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560151]It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was alittle sarcasm in my last post.[/quote]Sorry about that, I need to re-calibrate the sarcasm meter. :)

I agree with you 100% about the D.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

The thing that kills me is that some people here don't understand that it is a pretty normal reaction for the [B][U]fans[/U][/B] of a team to be a bit upset if their QB and RB are ranked at the bottom of the league, especially with some questionable backfield ranked ahead of them. :doh:

To every person in here who spends 90% of their threads bashing a particular player (i.e. our QB) or are quickly to dismiss those of us who drink the kool aid a little bit and ask for a higher ranking I have a question? What are you hoping out of this team and what do you root for? I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=DBUCHANON101;560153]we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. a passrush helps the entire defense.[/quote]

Good point. I think our top ranking on defense has hidden this particular deficiency (and the lack of turnover as well).

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[QUOTE=DBUCHANON101;560153]we have lacked a good front 4 for yrs.now we have a strong dline. [B]a passrush helps the entire defense.[/[/B]QUOTE]

I think what some people aren't understanding is, it also helps the offense. It helps create turnovers and getting the opposing offense off the field so we can get our offense on the field and score more points.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;560151]It was definitely a need. This defense wasn't as good as everyone's making it out to be. There was a little sarcasm in my last post.[/quote]Yeah, my usually spot-on sarcasm meter totally whiffed there. Now there's egg on my face.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I thought you guys knew me by now. :)

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I'm just a little perplexed that some people who do watch all the games truly feel like they were witnessing a great defense last year. I mean, this is a franchise that has produced three legit top five/six defenses in the last five seasons, and some people look at last year's sad impersonation of a strong defense and are okay saying that they were witnessing a great unit.

I mean, the perspective is there. We've had [B]great[/B] defenses here under Grilliams. Not just good, but great. Three out of four years. Then Blache has a mediocre unit with a small bend-but-don't-break effect, and people are convinced that they are witnessing greatness. I'm just confused.

Defense did a lot of things well last year. Being great was not one of those things. We had two and a half players play at a pro bowl level all year (Rogers, Fletcher, and arguably Griffin). In the past, we had 5 or 6 guys playing at a pro bowl level (Griffin, Washington, Arrington, Springs, Taylor, Pierce, Carter, etc).

End rant.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Ruhskins;560154]I'm not saying that you'd be a delusional fan and think that we have a top 5 backfield, but don't f'ing shoot us down fiercely if we think the players of our team are a bit better than what the sports media says. Shoot, I think the Giants and Eagles fans on this board have a better opinion of our team than some of us fans.[/quote]

Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560140]No, I get the fact that it's a key indicator, which is why I wondered if you were going to take it further, or just leave it as is and allow people to draw conclusions from it. That's why I asked if you had anything else that supported the position that you implied, but never stated.

I think it's implied that you feel Campbell is responsible for most of the 8 losses last year, and if not him, someone else on the offense. But I don't think that the reality of the situation suggests that. I'm not disputing that we didn't score enough points to win more than 8 games. But I think our offense was plenty good enough to support a 10 or 11 win team, and also that our PPG would have improved with a different coaching philosophy and a better year from Suisham.

At the end of the day, the team went out to fix the defense in free agency and in the draft, so either 1) we're stupid beyond all hell, 2) Springs and Taylor were irreplaceable parts in the defense last year, or 3) the team concluded that the defense, as was, wasn't good enough.[/quote]

Our offense was good enough to support 11 wins? in what, soccer?

The team tried hardest to find a new QB, in both free agency and the draft.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GTripp0012;560143]We had the third least 3 and outs of any team in the NFL. Does this change your opinion of the offense at all?[/quote]

Actually no. We were 26th in 3rd down converisons in 2008 with 35% so I just assumed we had alot of 3 and outs. At least it felt that way to me watching the offense last year.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560160]Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th. Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.[/quote]I generally agree with this perspective. But I also realize that it's normal for fans of teams to see "bottom 7" instead of "in the 3rd quartile". Truth is, we can't tell what the author was saying. So fans just get offended preemptively.

The comments posted on that article over at SI were hilarious. There were Vikings fans who were convinced that they were jipped of a top ten ranking. You know, that one team, that has one of the five best Ds in football every year, and wins 7-10 games a year. Yeah, jipped of a top ten offensive backfield.

Irrationality is the standard.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560160][B]Whats the point of a Redskin fan like myself debating instead of being ranked 26th we should be ranked around 20th.[/B] Either way the answer to why we are ranked low remains the same. It would be one thing if we had a top 10 QB/RB combo and they ranked us 26th. They ranked us 26th because as far as QB/RB combos go ours isnt that good as of today. [B]Maybe there are 5 or 6 teams ahead of us that shouldnt be. [/B]The difference between 20th and 26th isnt a big enough difference for me to post that SI screwed us over in their rankings.[/quote]

I think you make a fair point and some people would say that it is not worth making an argument. My comment was geared more towards people that spend a lot of time and energy arguing down others who think we are better. In the end this ranking is as pointless as arguing whether our backfield is 26th or 20th. But at the same time, people shouldn't be surprised when a fan doesn't like to see their team rank so low.