Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

With the offseason mags coming out, the consensus seems to be the Redskins will be in last place in the NFC East with anywhere from 4-6 wins. For a playoff team that was one of the hottest teams entering the post season & returning 22 starters, what factors do you think national writers are using?

(Mods-Poll please)
New Coach/System Uncertainty
Everyone else in the division is simply better
We got lucky last year and weren't that good anyways
General disregard for all positive things Redskins
Other

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain;453964]With the offseason mags coming out, the consensus seems to be the Redskins will be in last place in the NFC East with anywhere from 4-6 wins. For a playoff team that was one of the hottest teams entering the post season & returning 22 starters, what factors do you think national writers are using?

(Mods-Poll please)
[B]New Coach/System Uncertainty[/B]
Everyone else in the division is simply better
[B]We got lucky last year and weren't that good anyways[/B]
General disregard for all positive things Redskins
Other[/QUOTE]


I think those are the two big ones. However, don't know that "we weren't that good." IMO, these team played a bit over their heads down the stretch and that was a direct result of Joe Gibbs being the team's head coach. Because of that, I don't really know what to expect from this next year, they could be anywhere from 6-10 to 12-4 and I wouldn't be totally shocked.

Also, when you look around, this is the toughest division in the league and the Skins (rightly or wrongly) are seen as the biggest question mark. Because of this they face predictions of a mediocre to bad season.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

When I do vote in this poll, it's going to be flat-out for "Everyone else in the division is simply better".

We really shouldn't be that much better or worse than last year. I don't think 4 wins is very likely at all, because at least four wins is a virtual guarantee. 7 or 8 seems like a better prediction.

And as we all know from experience, it only takes a lucky break or three to turn a 7 win team into a 10-6 division winner.

I know some publications are going to write us off, which gives the potential to give their editors hell in January, but it is what it is. Whatever we can accomplish this season is simply a building block for the future.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Preseason predictions are pretty worthless. They usually take last year's finish and recycle that for the predictions. Rarely does anyone go out on a limb. Throw in a new coach and the doubters are out in full force.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Because they're talking about the Redskins.

Seriously, the media has always loved to hate our team for some reason.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

NFC East is the toughest division in the NFC. We'd be a lock to win the South (who wouldn't have a team with more than 7 wins if they played only teams from outside of their division) and would have a good shot to win the West. In the North, who knows what the Packers will be w/o Favre, the Bears have no offense and the Vikings have no passing game at all.
Taking off my homer glasses I still say we are in the top half of teams in the NFC (probably 6 or 7) but three better teams are also in our division.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

I don't mind the doubt because it is well deserved. The Skins have been pretty inconsistent in the last 10+ years so we deserve it. Even the last 3 years, we barely made the cut two of them, and did pretty terrible 1 season.

We need consistency, then the haters will automatically disappear.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Paintrain;453964]With the offseason mags coming out, the consensus seems to be the Redskins will be in last place in the NFC East with anywhere from 4-6 wins. For a playoff team that was one of the hottest teams entering the post season & returning 22 starters, what factors do you think national writers are using?

(Mods-Poll please)
New Coach/System Uncertainty
Everyone else in the division is simply better
We got lucky last year and weren't that good anyways
General disregard for all positive things Redskins
Other[/quote]

Add to that a recent history of instability from the top down. They did a lot to keep some continuity, but the media is by & large still miffed that GW didn't get hired.

I thought the g-men would suck last year & through their first 2.5 games, they proved me right. Then they go on a run & win it all. I'm just not convinced they have the team to get back in the playoffs even. plus the super bowl hangover will have a greater impact on Eli, because no one gives him credit for their win, you hear about their d line the most.

Eli is in a make or break year; he might respond confidently or he might still feel a lot of pressure, like he still has something to prove. I think it'll be a tough year for him, and I don't think you can expect Plaxico to be that good again. Shockey could be an issue too.

So I see the g-men in last place in the nfc east w/us in third behind Philly & DAllas.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

New, untested coach, tough division, questions about JC (it was TC who led the playoff run), etc. Given that Dallas had its best regular season record last year and the gints won it all, you can't place us above them. And we all know that the media is more into the iggles than us. So were last in the toughest division.

But no one knows much right now, especially about the skins. Wake me up when we're actually playing for real.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

I actually think it's justified. We were good last year, but not great. It took an incredible motivational job by Joe Gibbs to get the team through December after losing Taylor. Collins came in and did a great job, too.

Given that there's big change on offense (totally new passing system), and a change on defense, and given that we don't have that motivating force in Gibbs for the stretch run, I'd say we're more likely to finish below .500 than above it.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

In other words, I think we have 9-7 or 10-6 personnel, but 7-9 or 6-10 is more realistic because coaching changes simply take time to hash out.

You've got exceptions, of course. Eric Mangini and Sean Payton did darn well in year 1 of their gigs. Hopefully we end up with a first year result like that.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Paintrain;453964]With the offseason mags coming out, the consensus seems to be the Redskins will be in last place in the NFC East with anywhere from 4-6 wins. For a playoff team that was one of the hottest teams entering the post season & returning 22 starters, what factors do you think national writers are using?

(Mods-Poll please)[/quote]Using your list:

[B]New Coach/System Uncertainty[/B]
[B]Everyone else in the division is simply better[/B] (NFC East is strong throughout)
We got lucky last year and weren't that good anyways
General disregard for all positive things Redskins
Other

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Does it really shock anyone that we are placed last in our division? The Cowboys are going to be good, the Eagles have improved tenfold, and the Giants aren't a bad team either. We are the biggest question mark because we have a brand new coaching staff and we are going to run a completely revamped offense.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Ok, I understand Dallas and NY...

But what have the Eagles done to improve "tenfold"?

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;454002]Ok, I understand Dallas and NY...

But what have the Eagles done to improve "tenfold"?[/quote]Certainly they haven't improved tenfold, but Philly will has helped their pass D by adding Samuel at CB (especially if they keep Lito Sheppard around as a nickel). I've always admired their building O-line and D-line depth through the draft, a trend that continued this offseason. Most of all, McNabb will be two years removed from his torn ACL. His mobility was suspect as the beginning of last season, but it was a factor when we met Philly the second time around. As for negatives, they didn't add quality veteran depth at WR, gambling that DeSean Jackson is ready for prime time. Overall, I see Philly in the 9-10 win range, something that will be tough for us to match in year one of a new coach/system.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

I think Philly is pretty much on par with us as far as talent goes. I don't see where they have improved themselves that drastically by adding Samuel who is overrated IMO anyway.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;454005]I think Philly is pretty much on par with us as far as talent goes. I don't see where they have improved themselves that drastically by adding Samuel who is overrated IMO anyway.[/QUOTE]

100% agreed

am i the only one that actually draws optimism from the fact the redskins are being written off?

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Just to echo what some others have said I really don't care about any preseason predictions or rankings. Wake me up when we get to September and have some real results to talk about.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;454009]Just to echo what some others have said I really don't care about any preseason predictions or rankings. Wake me up when we get to September and have some real results to talk about.[/QUOTE]
For the record neither do I but I needed something Redskins to talk about to get me thru the day!

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Paintrain;454010]For the record neither do I but I needed something Redskins to talk about to get me thru the day![/quote]

I hear ya it's something to talk about

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

pre-season predictions don't win games. don't worry too much about them.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

The big reasons are a new coach and scheme, a QB that has a lot of improving to do, an old o-line, and many others. Its not one big reason its a summation of many little ones. I think 4 losses is way too low but I can see this team havving anywhere form 6 to 9 wins. If JC plays well they will win more, if he plays poorly then its less.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Pre-season predictions are worthless. Key players get hurt, marginal players improve drastically, rookies emerge as major contributors, teams that were predicted to be powerhouses end up being weak (Eagles last year), and teams that were predicted to be pushovers end up being playoff contenders (Browns last year). No one really knows until the season unfolds. Once preseason games are played, you can get a better feel about the impact of the new free agents and rookies.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Cowell;454000]Does it really shock anyone that we are placed last in our division? The Cowboys are going to be good, the Eagles have improved tenfold, and the Giants aren't a bad team either. We are the biggest question mark because we have a brand new coaching staff and we are going to run a completely revamped offense.[/quote]
What have the Eagles done to improve tenfold?

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=firstdown;454109]What have the Eagles done to improve tenfold?[/quote]

I'm still waiting to hear more on that too. Other than Samuel what else did they do that's so impressive?

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

Same with Dallas. Everyone is acting like Pacman Jones is the missing piece of the puzzle. He doesn't make up for those safeties. Him and Newman can only cover two receivers at once. Their LBs are also a liability in pass coverage, but yet we're still hearing about how THEY'RE the new Super Bowl favorites.

I wish TO was out or suspended most of the season so we can see just how mediocre Romo is without TO taking the coverage that he did.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

I wouldn't say they've improved "tenfold" but they finished strong last year & looked like a playoff team. McNabb should come into the year fairly healthy & motivated. He's a solid vet qb & he & Ried know how to make that O work just enough to move the ball steadily w/out many big plays, though Westbrook is a big play guy.

Their D is always solid, but is certainly older & w/out as much athleticism. Samuel will help, but how much of an upgrade is he over a healthy Lito? I agree w/many that he's a bit overated.

I still see philly as a contender for the div. & playoffs. They are well coached & sadly remind me somewhat of Gibbs' old teams in that they can be overachievers w/the limited talent they have. I would be shocked if we swept philly and I don't see anyone else in the div. sweeping them either. They've played dallas well the past few years & always give them problems. I think they're better than the g-men & just a little better than us.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;454113]Same with Dallas. Everyone is acting like Pacman Jones is the missing piece of the puzzle. He doesn't make up for those safeties. Him and Newman can only cover two receivers at once. Their LBs are also a liability in pass coverage, but yet we're still hearing about how THEY'RE the new Super Bowl favorites.

I wish TO was out or suspended most of the season so we can see just how mediocre Romo is without TO taking the coverage that he did.[/quote]

funny malcolm, I remember disagreeing w/you about Dallas D before last year too! They didn't play as well as I thought they would but they were still tough & got better later in the year.

Pacman could be a huge addition cause he's a very good cb & it will allow them to play the rookie Jenkins at nickel. Tank might also start to make an impact too.

I think Dallas as a super bowl pick makes a lot of sense, though I hate it. If Wade P et al have any heart they'll learn from last year & be seriously motivated this year. A parallel would be the steelers a few years ago, they went 15-1 then lost to NE in the playoffs. Next year they go 11-5 & win it all. Hate it, but it seems possible.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

This is a blessing.
Remeber last year at this time...many publications had the Giants as coming in last in the NFC east....and they won the SUPER BOWL...
This is a good omen for the Skins.

...not to mention the Skins always win the Superbowl the year after the Giants do.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;454111]I'm still waiting to hear more on that too. Other than Samuel what else did they do that's so impressive?[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone thinks that, but when they were all together last year they looked pretty good. They got their act together at the end of the season and finished at 8-8, one more win and they could have had the Skins spot in the playoffs. They improved a little on D and while standing pat on offense (and still not getting a legit receiving threat) they weren't all that bad last season.

I mean, if you look at that team last year they were a few fumbles against Green Bay away from being 9-7. Also, Donovan missed a game against the Seahawks last year, he had a pretty good year, they only lost 24-28 without him, they could have very well won that game and been 10-6.

All that said, it may be an impossibility at this point to expect Donovan McNabb to play 16 games, but that has to be what you base any prediction on. I don't see them having another down year this year, but I see the Eagles and Skins battling it out for second place.

In regards to Dallas, they didn't need to make that many upgrades. They were 11-5 last year. Granted, they're a year older, but that usually means that Romo is going to be better. Unfortunately for them they still don't have much receiving depth past TO and their safeties are liabilities, but if they can pressure the passer the way we all know they can that will take a lot of pressure off of those guys.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;454111]I'm still waiting to hear more on that too. Other than Samuel what else did they do that's so impressive?[/quote]Chris Clemons?

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;454113]Same with Dallas. Everyone is acting like Pacman Jones is the missing piece of the puzzle. He doesn't make up for those safeties. Him and Newman can only cover two receivers at once. Their LBs are also a liability in pass coverage, but yet we're still hearing about how THEY'RE the new Super Bowl favorites.

I wish TO was out or suspended most of the season so we can see just how mediocre Romo is without TO taking the coverage that he did.[/quote]Philadelphia sure looks like a better team than Dallas at this point.

Dallas passing offense > Philadelphia passing offense, right now, but I would take Philadelphia in every other facet of the game of football right now.

Dallas also got a really good year from their rookie kicker last year, if he comes back to the average, thats another win that Dallas loses over last year.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

So Philly bringing in one DB and McNabb being healthy makes them possible favorites for the NFCE? I just don't see it.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

I know a lot of people are referencing close games as how good the rest of the NFCE was last year, but you either have to take ALL of them into account or none of them, including the Redskins who were just a few away from winning them all except NE.

As goes the NFL, you're a play or two away from winning most of the time.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

I noticed this too, but we've proven them wrong before.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;454151]I don't think anyone thinks that, but when they were all together last year they looked pretty good. They got their act together at the end of the season and finished at 8-8, one more win and they could have had the Skins spot in the playoffs. They improved a little on D and while standing pat on offense (and still not getting a legit receiving threat) they weren't all that bad last season.

I mean, if you look at that team last year they were a few fumbles against Green Bay away from being 9-7. Also, Donovan missed a game against the Seahawks last year, he had a pretty good year, they only lost 24-28 without him, they could have very well won that game and been 10-6.

All that said, it may be an impossibility at this point to expect Donovan McNabb to play 16 games, but that has to be what you base any prediction on. I don't see them having another down year this year, but I see the Eagles and Skins battling it out for second place.

In regards to Dallas, they didn't need to make that many upgrades. [b]They were 11-5 last year.[/b] Granted, they're a year older, but that usually means that Romo is going to be better. Unfortunately for them they still don't have much receiving depth past TO and their safeties are liabilities, but if they can pressure the passer the way we all know they can that will take a lot of pressure off of those guys.[/QUOTE]
Actually they were 13-3 last year, but that feeds into a point I am going to make. Realistically Dallas and NYG are due to come back to the pack a little. Dallas isn't going to win 13 games again, they will likely cap out at 11.

I don't know anyone who thinks the Giants are better than or even as good as they were last year. They lost 4 defensive starters, have some chemistry issues on offense (Shockey wants out, Plex want more $) and they got hot at the right time last year, I'd be surprised if they were better than 8-8, only 2 off of what they were last year.

Philly is the wildcard. They always worry me, but don't scare me anymore. McNabb, Westbrook and Dawkins need to play 16 games in order for them to be a playoff team IMO. They are solid across the board but great nowhere.

Playing the 'if' game could have put us at 12-4 easily last year (IF Betts didn't trip, IF Moss didn't fumble, IF Campbell didn't throw the INT to Newman)..

Why isn't it August?

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;454190]So Philly bringing in one DB and McNabb being healthy makes them possible favorites for the NFCE? I just don't see it.[/quote]I don't even think McNabb matters. This year, we can just refer to him as "Philadelphia QB". Whomever it is McNabb/Kolb/Garcia, pretty much anyone but AJ Feeley will be successful in that offense. Successful as in above average, like last year.

Here's some interesting stats from last year:

[url=http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff.php]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2008[/url]

Washington and Philadelphia had the exact same DVOA, the exact same strength of schedule, and were pretty much just as consistent from week to week. We split against them last year. The ONLY difference is that we won 1 more game than they did, despite that they had a bit better of a point differential (though that difference was pretty much just luck of the draw).

Point being: any 'gap' between the Redskins and Eagles last year is a figment of ones imagination. They were two equally matched teams.

Anyway, they were one of the youngest teams in the league last year, and we were one of the oldest. Which means that if all other things are equal, they will get better, and we will get worse.

Are all other things equal? Not really. They signed one of the best (albeit somewhat overrated) CBs in the NFL, which makes them even better. We didn't make any FA moves, and got a year older at every position but receiver.

Now, we do have an ace in the hole this year: Jason Campbell's development. He was an above average passer last year, if he can leapfrog McNabb and become one of the best ten passers in this league, we probably finish ahead of the Eagles anyway.

I don't want to crap all over McNabb: the guy is a good quarterback, but I think the Eagles realize that McNabb is already in or past his prime, and as long as he's their quarterback, they can't really improve any more on the offensive side of the ball. They can simply try to sustain.

The next time that the Eagles are out of the playoff hunt (Dec. 2009?), I think it will be Kolb's turn.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;454111]I'm still waiting to hear more on that too. Other than Samuel what else did they do that's so impressive?[/QUOTE]

The addition of DeSean Jackson is going to help more than people will think. They have one of the best secondaries in the league.
On top of that Brian Westbrook has really come into his own and is scary good. If Donovan McNabb can stay healthy I think they are going to come in second in the division.

Re: Why the low expectations from the pre-season mags?
 

[quote=Paintrain;454206]Playing the 'if' game could have put us at 12-4 easily last year (IF Betts didn't trip, IF Moss didn't fumble, IF Campbell didn't throw the INT to Newman).. [/quote]IF Rackers doesn't miss, IF McNabb hits Curtis after Torrence falls down, IF we lose the coin toss in OT on opening day.

Our luck did even out. As I was telling Skinsfan69 at the time, we could win our last four games if we play well. I didn't think we would, but I knew we [I]could[/I] and we did. Lady luck is fickle, but she isn't always mindlessly working to spite us and our team.