SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Somehow, this just irritates the h*** out of me, even though as has been said many times, rankings right now are useless.

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/22/backfields/index.html]Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson lead top NFL backfield - NFL - SI.com[/url]

New York #2
Dallas #3
Eagles #5

I will let you look for yourselves where they put JC/CP and crew. (hint: look on the last page)

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

JC is probably somewhere between 25-32 as far as QBs in the league right now. Portis has been taking a ton of punishment over the past few years. I really can't argue with our ranking.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I was going to post this thread but it pissed me off so much I couldn't do it. 26 seriously! JC and CP are worst then 25 other combo's in the NFL? Really, do they get paid for this shit?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Daseal;559898]JC is probably somewhere between 25-32 as far as QBs in the league right now. Portis has been taking a ton of punishment over the past few years. I really can't argue with our ranking.[/quote]

Wow, I can't fathom either statement. Regardless of the JC's standing, CP ran for nearly 1500 yds, had a combined total around 1800. He is under 30, and will be elite for atleast this year, probably next. For this ranking to be right, you would have to have JC like 56th out of the 32...

Is it September yet.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=mredskins;559899]I was going to post this thread but it pissed me off so much I couldn't do it. 26 seriously! JC and CP are worst then 25 other combo's in the NFL? Really, do they get paid for this ***?[/quote]

I hear ya. I probably should have let it pass by, but man...

If JC/CP are even close to that number, then DS must be slipping Koolaid into my soda all the time, cuz I can't see it in anyway shape or form.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Rankings don't mean shit come September. Who cares.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Mattyk72;559902]Rankings don't mean shit come September. Who cares.[/quote]

Agreed but still pisses me off...I am sick of all this no respect.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

This s**t is laughable. It just makes it that much sweeter when we outplay the teams ranked ahead of us. Maybe I should have been a sportswriter, anybody can write that crap. The best way to get these morons is to prove them wrong. Hurry September!

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

LOL...what a joke.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I have trouble discerning any logic to this list and that is not just with regards to the Redskins. I mean, the Jaguars 32nd in the NFL? Seriously? Have you ever watched Jones-Drew? But Orton and Moreno are 24th? This list is even more arbitrary than the "Power Rankings." Plus are we still believing that Tomlinson is the 2006 version?

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

No surprise there. JC has shown nothing as a QB and CP is good but like the piece states, he's getting long in the tooth. The rank may be a bit low but I cant see them being higher than 20.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I dont see why anyone would think Campbell/Portis would be any higher. Campbell hasnt shown anything yet in the NFL. Hopefully he can step up his game but right now its hard for me to rank Campbell/Portis highly. Portis is a good RB but when teams started to shut down the running game last year Campbell was terrible. From what anyone has seen so far it would be hard for anyone to rank Campbell/Portis higher. I do think Campbell/Portis have the potenial to move up on this list this season.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

How can they not be higher than the Jets when Sanchez hasn't even taken a single NFL snap? You say Campbell has shown nothing, well what has MS shown? And give me Campbell any day of the week over Shaun Hill or Sage Rosenfels.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I'd have to think they're more in the 15-20 range. People have gone way overboard in their downgrading of Campbell as the offseason has gone on. It's going to be really interesting around these parts (and especially over at ES-dear God!) come November when we're in the thick of the division race and JC is leading the way for us.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=SmootSmack;559948]How can they not be higher than the Jets when Sanchez hasn't even taken a single NFL snap? You say Campbell has shown nothing, well what has MS shown? And give me Campbell any day of the week over Shaun Hill or Sage Rosenfels.[/quote]

Honestly I didnt even look at the complete list. The main reason why I didnt was the way our offense got shut down last year. The Skins had the 4th ranked defense in the NFL and had trouble winning games. No matter who is ranked ahead of Campbell/Portis its hard for me to say they should be higher on this list after the way the team played last year. When Campbell starts living up to his potenial as a QB then ill talk about moving Campbell up on any list.

As for Sanchez I could understand why they would rank the Jets higher. The combo of Jones and Washington was great last year. Sanchez hasnt played in the NFL yet but most people would take a guy who hasnt shown anything in the NFL yet over a player like Campbell who has shown he cant lead a NFL offense as of today.

Id easily take Rosenfels/Peterson over Campbell/Portis. As for Hill/Gore id say thats pretty even right now. Hill is the better QB but Portis is the better RB.

I do think Campbell will step up his play this year but until the offense shows a pulse its hard for me to say Campbell/Portis should be higher than another combo.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

SI's ranking are offensive....to anyone with half a clue about the NFL.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;559954]SI's ranking are offensive....to anyone with half a clue about the NFL.[/quote]

I do agree that looking at the list some teams should be moved around.

As for the Redskins anyone who ranks them higher needs to put in the tapes from last season. No sports source is going to put out rankings where the Redskins are ranked higher until they start showing something on the field. So until Campbell learns how to throw a football dont expect for the Redskins to be ranked any higher in any rankings than they are now.

Hopefully for Redskins fans sakes across this Country Campbell can step up his game so the Skins can win this year.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;559897]Somehow, this just irritates the h*** out of me, even though as has been said many times, rankings right now are useless.

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/22/backfields/index.html]Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson*lead top NFL*backfield - NFL - SI.com[/url]

New York #2
Dallas #3
Eagles #5

I will let you look for yourselves where they put JC/CP and crew. (hint: look on the last page)[/quote]

Just how the heck does Philly get #5!?!?!??! They were something like 2% on converting 3rd and 1's last year! How the heck is that #5?

You know, SI is just dumb!

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;559959]I do agree that looking at the list some teams should be moved around.

As for the Redskins anyone who ranks them higher needs to put in the tapes from last season. No sports source is going to put out rankings where the Redskins are ranked higher until they start showing something on the field. So until Campbell learns how to throw a football dont expect for the Redskins to be ranked any higher in any rankings than they are now.

Hopefully for Redskins fans sakes across this Country Campbell can step up his game so the Skins can win this year.[/quote]I can't wait for the season to start, and I pray our OL stays healthy and productive. Myself and several others can't wait to call out all the JC haters/doubters with a BIG, FAT, I told you so.

Considering the first half of 2008 (JC was mentioned as a Pro Bowler & CP led the NFL in rushing) along with the second half, please don't tell me you'd rather have the following in the backfield besides JC & CP:

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown
Flacco, McClain/McGahee
Schaub, Slaton
Rosenfels, Peterson
K. Collins, Chris Johnson
S. Hill, Gore
Tampa's mess
Orton, Moreno
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Thats funny that the 4th leading rusher, and the 19th leading passer (who by the way is ranked better than Kyle Orton, and only 2 places behind Jay Cutler) is considered by SI the 26th ranked backfield. Whoever wrote that article based it purely on opinion and who their favorite teams are.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;559970]I can't wait for the season to start, and I pray our OL stays healthy and productive. Myself and several others can't wait to call out all the JC haters/doubters with a BIG, FAT, I told you so.

Considering the first half of 2008 (JC was mentioned as a Pro Bowler & CP led the NFL in rushing) along with the second half, please don't tell me you'd rather have the following in the backfield besides JC & CP:

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown
Flacco, McClain/McGahee
Schaub, Slaton
Rosenfels, Peterson
K. Collins, Chris Johnson
S. Hill, Gore
Tampa's mess
Orton, Moreno
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington[/quote]

Nice post Sammy. It's bad enough hearing this crap from SI, but to hear it from some of our own posters is ridiculous.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown -- Absolutely a better combo.
Flacco, McClain/McGahee -- In my opinion, about equal.
Schaub, Slaton -- We have the slight edge on them.
Rosenfels, Peterson -- Rosenfels isn't good, but AP is the best in the league, so I can see why he's ahead of them.
K. Collins, Chris Johnson -- I'd rank them ahead of our guys.
S. Hill, Gore - We're better than Hill and Gore.
Tampa's mess - We're better than Tampa.
Orton, Moreno - Orton is probably better than JC, but MOreno is a total question mark, Id have to put us as better.
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington - We're about even here, having us slightly ahead. Jones led the AFC in rushing last year, but Sanchez/Clemens are too wild cardish.

Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

DALLASSSS #3?????


........well theres proof of them being AMERICAS FAVORITE Team. marion barber is good, but defintely not THAT good. and romo is...........well he's romo. MR. HIGHS/lows.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Daseal;559981]Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown -- Absolutely a better combo.
Flacco, McClain/McGahee -- In my opinion, about equal.
Schaub, Slaton -- We have the slight edge on them.
Rosenfels, Peterson -- Rosenfels isn't good, but AP is the best in the league, so I can see why he's ahead of them.
K. Collins, Chris Johnson -- I'd rank them ahead of our guys.
S. Hill, Gore - We're better than Hill and Gore.
Tampa's mess - We're better than Tampa.
Orton, Moreno - Orton is probably better than JC, but MOreno is a total question mark, Id have to put us as better.
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington - We're about even here, having us slightly ahead. Jones led the AFC in rushing last year, but Sanchez/Clemens are too wild cardish.

Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. [B]If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense[/B].[/quote]
That is true enough, but then they should say that is part of it.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I'm sure New England, Indianapolis, and Baltimore love seeing the Giants as the second best backfield in the NFL. Jacobs is probably a top ten back in the NFL, but Ward left, and Eli is clearly the worst QB in their top 5. So, who knows really?

The list gets pretty bad in the second half, so given that, I don't think it matters that the Skins are "below" anyone in particular. No one actually puts thought into the 18th-27th teams on any list anyway. People have better things to do.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

It does seem criminal to put the Falcons at No. 7, and then not even mention Jerious Norwood. Without him, that's not a good offensive backfield.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

And I think he has Jamaal Charles confused with Priest Holmes, and Matt Cassel confused with an established QB.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;559970]I can't wait for the season to start, and I pray our OL stays healthy and productive. Myself and several others can't wait to call out all the JC haters/doubters with a BIG, FAT, I told you so.
[/quote]

If you go through my posts I actually think this is the year Campbell will step up and play better in a contract year.

All im saying is I can understand why Campbell/Portis had a low ranking when you look at what happened last year. I would take Campbell/Portis over alot of those players for this upcoming season. I can understand why SI had the Skins ranked so low in these rankings though.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=53Fan;559978]Nice post Sammy. It's bad enough hearing this crap from SI, but to hear it from some of our own posters is ridiculous.[/quote]

What has Campbell done since hes been our QB that makes anyone think he should be rated higher than 26 with Portis? The 2nd half of the season the Redskins sucked. I will say part of that is the offensive line. Part of it also was Campbell and his terrible passing where he seemed to want to throw balls over WRs heads and get them decked, throw to the WRs feet, throw behind the WR, or throw to a WR behind the 1st down marker.

Im banking on Campbell playing better in the 2nd year of Zorns offense, and the fact that hes in a contract year. I just cant say SI screwed the Skins over in these rankings when as of today Campbell/Portis hasnt done anything to suggest they should be ranked higher based on what happened last season when we actually played good teams in the 2nd half.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I think that ignores that Campbell/Portis were essentially responsible for 6 out of our 8 wins. With Collins and Betts in those rolls, we're a 4-12, or maybe 3-13 team. Which, I think, is something that unit rankings have to figure in.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=dall-assblows;559991]DALLASSSS #3?????


........well theres proof of them being AMERICAS FAVORITE Team. marion barber is good, but defintely not THAT good. and romo is...........well he's romo. MR. HIGHS/lows.[/quote]

Im sorry but you got me :laughing2

You actually think they rated the Cowboys #3 because they are Americas Favorite Team?

Romo even with his up and down play at times is a top 10 QB in the NFL. The Cowboys RB trio of Barber, Jones, and Choice is probably the best trio in the league.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Daseal;559981]Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. [B]If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense.[/B][/quote]Agreed 100%, the performance of any skill player relies on the OL. Early in 2008 our OL played great and was healthy, JC & CP lit it up. Second half injuries/age/poor play by the OL killed the whole offense. To blame JC is to ignore that Portis' numbers were dismal also.

These lists are pretty much a waste of storage and webspace. Just something to generate web-hits and kill time until Training Camp.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;560013]Agreed 100%, the performance of any skill player relies on the OL. Early in 2008 our OL played great and was healthy, JC & CP lit it up. Second half injuries/age/poor play by the OL killed the whole offense. To blame JC is to ignore that Portis' numbers were dismal also.

These lists are pretty much a waste of storage and webspace. Just something to generate web-hits and kill time until Training Camp.[/quote]

When did Campbell light it up in the 1st half? Portis played great but I wouldnt go out on a limb and say Campbell lit it up also. He played solid managing the game but their was only 3 games last year where I thought Campbell actually played great (one of them was in Detroit).

While I agree the OL is key to skill players success I also think the OL wasnt the only reason why the team fell apart in the 2nd half of 08. Injuries were a factor near the very end of the season but the injuries imo didnt have anything to do with the Skins problems for the most part of the 2nd half. The age factor I dont think factors in because they were old when they were playing well. It wasnt like the line got old overnight.

The poor play was the whole offense not just the line. Many times last year I saw Campbell make a bad throw when he had enough time in the pocket. The slight problem I have with Portis is that he needs the offensive line to play great to make plays. If the line has even a slight problem he seems to become a different RB. I still think Portis is a damn good RB but his play gets on my nerves at times.

Overall I think the whole offense in general had problems last year. Campbell, Portis. the WRs, Cooley, and the offensive line. In the 2nd half the Skins regressed as a whole and honestly the biggest reason was Jim Zorn and his inability to adapt to what the defense is doing.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;559900]Wow, I can't fathom either statement. Regardless of the JC's standing, CP ran for nearly 1500 yds, had a combined total around 1800. He is under 30, and will be elite for atleast this year, probably next. For this ranking to be right, you would have to have JC like 56th out of the 32...

Is it September yet.[/quote]

Yeah I agree with you. Although I am not yet 100% sold on JC as being the guy to lead us to a SB, he did end up 13th in passing last season. Not Pro Bowl necessarily, but definitely solid starter material, especially for what he has to work with. I am concerned about CP though. He is taking real punishment now, and I am worried he will go the way of Stephen Davis. We really screwed both of these guys with not addressing the O line deficiencies from last season. Clinton is going to get hammered and JC is going to be running for his life. Orakpo is great, but unless we really get a substantial lift in the turnover ratio with good field position to boot, we really aren't going to improve all that much in terms of wins and losses. Our offense will mirror that of last year. I wouldn't put too much stock in those rook WR's of last season either. They will improve, but that is because they sucked so bad last year that improving is all they can do.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

We have ventured into the vast desert of the NFL offseason.
The path ahead looks bleak. An ocean of sand stretches to the horizon in all directions.
But we have traveled this mighty desert many times before.
The next NFL season is out there.
Waiting.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote]The Thought: Campbell isn't as good as either of those two. And Portis is going into his eighth season. That's too much heavy lifting for high-volume legs.

[/quote]

I think this is the funniest part. LOL. Campbell's not as good as either.....but he was the league leading QB last yr for the first 8 games. and if I'm not mistaken he was above them percentage wise. Hmmmm. So let me see.....Campbell who with protection, plays better then them, or two other QB's who produced similar results by the end of the season statistically? Those other two are not upgrades they would simply be lateral moves for us.

I guess anyone can write whatever they want even if it's BS and as long as it's different from what others are saying or puts Dallas or the Eagles at the top then it's golden.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;560021]Yeah I agree with you. Although I am not yet 100% sold on JC as being the guy to lead us to a SB, he did end up 13th in passing last season. Not Pro Bowl necessarily, but definitely solid starter material, especially for what he has to work with. I am concerned about CP though. He is taking real punishment now, and I am worried he will go the way of Stephen Davis. We really screwed both of these guys with not addressing the O line deficiencies from last season. Clinton is going to get hammered and JC is going to be running for his life. Orakpo is great, but unless we really get a substantial lift in the turnover ratio with good field position to boot, we really aren't going to improve all that much in terms of wins and losses. Our offense will mirror that of last year. I wouldn't put too much stock in those rook WR's of last season either. They will improve, but that is because they sucked so bad last year that improving is all they can do.[/quote]

I agree with you. I think another part of our problem is we are kinda one demensional in the RB department. Most teams know now that they need a 2 back system. No problem we have that. However I think with our back field we have two similar style of runners, both are between the tackle runners...pounding the ball. They do not have the speed to get outside and get yardage. Portis has not been used as a receiving out of the back field RB but on few occassions to include screens. I believe most teams know then if we run the ball it's going to be between the tackles so all they have to worry about is stopping the run up the middle and worry more about the pass plays.

I think or maybe perhaps the team is hoping with picking up a change of pace back like Alridge then teams have to worry about him either running inside, outside, or even catching passes out of the back field. In college he was used in this capacity. Putting both Portis and Alridge in the back field would create a headache for teams having to figure out fast enough who's getting the ball and adjusting for that particular runner.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

I was looking over the rankings, and I wouldn't put Jason and Clinton much higher. Look at all the QB's that are higher, then the RB's. break them down seperately. Most of the QB's are better, and the teams with so-so QB's or not so good QB's have legit RB's. (vikings)

Hey, you have to have a few good seasons to have any respect. Jason has yet to do anything remarkable, and CP, although a work horse, didn't have a great year last year. His YPC is way down, actually below league minimum I believe.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560018]When did Campbell light it up in the 1st half? Portis played great but I wouldnt go out on a limb and say Campbell lit it up also. He played solid managing the game but their was only 3 games last year where I thought Campbell actually played great (one of them was in Detroit).

While I agree the OL is key to skill players success I also think the OL wasnt the only reason why the team fell apart in the 2nd half of 08. Injuries were a factor near the very end of the season but the injuries imo didnt have anything to do with the Skins problems for the most part of the 2nd half. The age factor I dont think factors in because they were old when they were playing well. It wasnt like the line got old overnight.

The poor play was the whole offense not just the line. Many times last year I saw Campbell make a bad throw when he had enough time in the pocket. The slight problem I have with Portis is that he needs the offensive line to play great to make plays. If the line has even a slight problem he seems to become a different RB. I still think Portis is a damn good RB but his play gets on my nerves at times.

Overall I think the whole offense in general had problems last year. Campbell, Portis. the WRs, Cooley, and the offensive line. In the 2nd half the Skins regressed as a whole and honestly the biggest reason was Jim Zorn and his inability to adapt to what the defense is doing.[/quote]

I think [B]we all [/B]are talking partial truths. I agree in saying Campbell was not playing lights out, but he was the QB with the highest % and least (I think zero) interceptions. So no he did not put up 4-6 TD's a game or put up like 40-50 points per game, but he did somewhat manage the game well. Even though his 2min. drill sucks. Hopefully he fixes that this yr. Also it was no coincidence that he started doing terrible when the O-line broke down. So yes both heavily rely on the O-line, but I would assume all those teams would heavily rely on their O-lines also.

Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields
 

[quote=Brian Orakpo;560018]When did Campbell light it up in the 1st half? Portis played great but I wouldnt go out on a limb and say Campbell lit it up also. He played solid managing the game but their was only 3 games last year where I thought Campbell actually played great (one of them was in Detroit). [/quote]
Saints 24-36-321 1-0
Cards 22-30-193 2-0
Cowgirls 20-31-231 2-1
Eagles 16-29-176 0-0
Rams 18-26-208 0-0 (3 Skins fumbles in Rams territory)
Browns 14-23-164 1-0
Lions 23-28-328 1-0

Out of the first 8 games I'd say he lit it up in 4 and played well in the rest, except for the Giants game.

[quote]While I agree the OL is key to skill players success I also think the OL wasnt the only reason why the team fell apart in the 2nd half of 08. Injuries were a factor near the very end of the season but the injuries imo didnt have anything to do with the Skins problems for the most part of the 2nd half. The age factor I dont think factors in because they were old when they were playing well. It wasnt like the line got old overnight. [/quote]The injuries and poor play were most likely due to the age of the OL.

[quote]In the 2nd half the Skins regressed as a whole and honestly the biggest reason was Jim Zorn and his inability to adapt to what the defense is doing.[/quote]Ever try to call plays with an inneffective OL? Not sure what you wanted Zorn to do.