Report Card
 

Gibbs & coaching staff = B-: Gibbs and his offensive guys should get a D, but as a result of Gibbs, we are finally a team - one that plays with effort, a quality group of guys, no finger pointing & blaming others.

Offense: Overall grade = C-, playcalling = D

Brunell = F: A bust in all respects, no arm, no footwork, no leadership.

Ramsey = C: Came back admirably in the second half of the season, but has caused too many (atleast 4-5) turnovers around the opponents 20yd line, which is inexcusable. Has showed a lot of signs that he's picking up the ball control offense that we want to run here, and has started releasing the ball quicker. Hopefully, will be much better next year with improved pass protection.

Portis = B minus: Maybe his shoulder has been a factor all season, but on certain days, he just doesn't come out with any intensity. Hasn't fully mastered the Counter tre yet. Either he masters it, or we develop a Denver style O-line with zone blocking, or all his talent is wasted.

Betts = B: A better grade that Portis..why? because he's being graded as a back-up, and Portis as a starter. Hits the holes hard, and should be called upon more often to grind out the tough yards and in 3rd and shorts. Still needs a lot of work on his blocking skills and blitz pick ups.

O-line = C minus: Marginally better than last year, but a poor run blocking line against good defenses, which is a serious problem since our offense is centered around the run. Clearly need a new center. Hopefully, an improved downfield passing game next year will improve our running game. Giving up too many sacks for a Buges line, and not adept at blitz pick-ups just yet.

Coles = B: Still a playmaker, albeit slightly hobbled. Get that surgery today! High points for effort and intensity.

Gardner = C: 50-50 simply ain't gonna cut it for a starting receiver.

Thrash = A minus: For a back-up or as a 3rd receiver coupled with special teams skills & class act, the guy is a rare find. Welcome back!

Jacobs = B+: Graded as a back-up, 4th receiver. Has shown flashes of playmaking ability and the ability to get open. Could and should start opposite Coles next year.

Cooley = A-: For a rookie H-back, has been a monster contributor - sure hands, but needs to work a li'l harder at blocking.

Royal = B: Nice comeback in the second half of the year, and making plays in the red zone - still not a sure a pair of hands, and needs to block better.

Defense: Overall grade A, play calling = A+

With a good pass rusher next year, we would have to blitz less and won't be as vulnerable to big plays against high-powered offenses. To have created more than 15 INTs and sacked QBs like Daunte, McNabb & Big Ben mulitple times is a huge achievement for a bunch of no names.

D-line = B: Which is a high grade for those overachievers. A stellar performance compared to last year. Clearly, without disguised blitzing, couldn't get much pressure on the QB except for Griffin (who gets an A++). If we get a premium rusher in the draft, then Wynn (C) could play more at DT, assuming we still keep him.

Linebackers = A: Washington & Pierce were exceptional, with Lemar filling in admirably. Must resign Pierce.

Shawn Springs = A+: True redskin, great FA acquisition, and please stay healthy next year. Leads the team in sacks (I believe) & INTs - how about that?

Smoot = B+: Decent year, and improved coverage skills, but is still one of the worst tacklers. Is irreplaceable as the emotional leader of the team, and must be back next year.

Walt Harris = A minus: Being graded as a back-up/limited role, has filled in exceptionally well, and also has great special teams value.

Safeties = B+: Taylor gets a B+ He's showcased tremendous potential, and gotta love the way the rookie trash talks the TOs, Mosses and Keyshawns of the league. Has been burned 4-5 times for TDs this season, but does instill fear in opposing receivers. He needs to finesse his game, focus less on the red socks and bandage tape on his facemask, and limit boneheaded penalties.

Special teams: Overall grade C+
A lot of penalties, and poor blocking, though must seriously consider keeping Antonio Brown - he's cheap, has some blazing speed and has matured since his fumble in the Dallas game (called for a fair catch in the 4th quarter yesterday even when he didn't have to). Special teams have shown some improvement over last year though, especially with the blocked punts. Maybe Danny Smith is worth keeping after all.
Suggestion: Since Greg Williams is already assistant head coach - also give him responsibility for Special teams - I heard him say yesterday that he's been a ST coordinator in the league and been No. 1 - does anyone know where?

Jeff Chandler = B+: Has only missed 1 ridiculously long range kick (as far as I know), and is a reliable kicker (better than Kimrin). Needs to get more leg into his kick offs though (if possible at all). Must consider wasting a practice squad position for him if Hall doesn't fully recover.

Hall = C: Missed a bunch of medium range kicks this season, and was a shadow of his former self.

I agree with mostly everything you said with just a couple of exceptions. I definitley agree with the defense...what an awesome job Gregg Williams has done for our defense. I expect us to be number one next season. As for Joe Gibbs playcalling, I think he deserves a higher grade than 'D'. This is a rather conservative offense for the most part, but will loosen up more when players get more comforatable with it. I would say Gibbs gets at least a 'C' for playcalling. I thought playcalling has been very well balanced...especially since the second Giants game. Gotta remember, we had to agonize through Mark Brunell for over half of the season and even the most conservative high percentage passes were a challenge for MB. I think Gibbs gets an 'F' for wanting Brunell, but its sort of the thing of who knew he was going to suck this bad!

I kinda knew Brunell would suck. Not as bad as he did, but I knew his contract was unwarranted. There's a reason he lost his job to the younger QB with a strong arm...twice now.

[QUOTE=hurrykaine]
Smoot = B+: Decent year, and improved coverage skills, but is still one of the worst tacklers. Is irreplaceable as the emotional leader of the team, and must be back next year.
[/QUOTE]
Have you lost you're mind?!?!

For a CB(granted, not saying much) he is one of the better tacklers in the league.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Have you lost you're mind?!?!

For a CB(granted, not saying much) he is one of the better tacklers in the league.[/QUOTE]

Nope...Springs is a sure tackler, Bailey is a sure tackler, Darrell Green was a sure tackler - Smootie, though I love the guy, stinks at tackling.

[QUOTE=jdlea]I kinda knew Brunell would suck. Not as bad as he did, but I knew his contract was unwarranted. There's a reason he lost his job to the younger QB with a strong arm...twice now.[/QUOTE]


Same here, I knew he wasen't a very good QB but with that said I figured he would have been better than what we saw, I believe Gibb's offense had a lot to do with him looking worse than he really is.

Although I agree with Green, Bailey, and possibly Springs being sure tacklers, but have we followed the same Fred Smoot??? I think Smoot has done a heck of a job with tackling this year.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I agree with mostly everything you said with just a couple of exceptions. I definitley agree with the defense...what an awesome job Gregg Williams has done for our defense. I expect us to be number one next season. As for Joe Gibbs playcalling, I think he deserves a higher grade than 'D'. This is a rather conservative offense for the most part, but will loosen up more when players get more comforatable with it. I would say Gibbs gets at least a 'C' for playcalling. I thought playcalling has been very well balanced...especially since the second Giants game. Gotta remember, we had to agonize through Mark Brunell for over half of the season and even the most conservative high percentage passes were a challenge for MB. I think Gibbs gets an 'F' for wanting Brunell, but its sort of the thing of who knew he was going to suck this bad![/QUOTE]


We kinda agree on the playcalling grade infact. For the most part, the playcalling was balanced and does get a C - however, the reason I downgraded it was because the play calling was poor in some critical situations - aka, the Dallas game when we should've thrown to Cooley to make a 1st down with 1:43 to go instead of running 40 gut three straight times with Betts and then punting.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Although I agree with Green, Bailey, and possibly Springs being sure tacklers, but have we followed the same Fred Smoot??? I think Smoot has done a heck of a job with tackling this year.[/QUOTE]

I think when you're being generous to Smootie's tackling because he lacks the size that Bailey and Springs have....but I use that to say he needs to work extra hard on his tackling, precisely because he lacks the size. There's no way for example, that Smoot could bring down a Culpepper, Favre, Mcnabb or Roethlisberger. In G William's defense, a CB's responsibility isn't just to cover WRs, he has to blitz the QB from time to time, and when you blitz and fail to sack the QB, he usually makes you pay.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]Although I agree with Green, Bailey, and possibly Springs being sure tacklers, but have we followed the same Fred Smoot??? I think Smoot has done a heck of a job with tackling this year.[/QUOTE]


Smoot has done a heck of a job, but he still has room for improvement. He has "whiffed" a couple of tackles. But I think hes improved tremendously since last year and the year before.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Have you lost you're mind?!?!

For a CB(granted, not saying much) he is one of the better tacklers in the league.[/QUOTE] I agree, I think smoot is a good tackler and is not scared to take a hard hit. Hurrykaine,Bailey is a very poor tackler that would not take the hard hit to make the tackle. Kinda like Deion.

I'm not saying Smoot is the best tackler but he doesn't stink at tackling. That honor goes to Dieon Sanders, lol!

In regards to the Dallas game...although throwing to Cooley MIGHT have kept the chains moving...an incomplete pass stops the clock. Running was the best thing we could do because it kept the clock running and forced Dallas to use their time-outs. In those situations, running is the better option....we just didn't run effectively.

One of the best moments of the season for me came yesterday, in a comcast sportsnet interview with Ryan Clark, who claimed that the defense had a horrible outing yesterday since they didn't create any turnovers to put the offense in decent scoring position.

Those are exceptionally high standards for a defense, and extremely ambitious remarks from a rookie safety. Gotta love that....just pray that G. Williams does infact come back next year.

He's already stated he's coming back. I expect him to be here at least 3 years and maybe longer if he feels he has a good shot at Head Coach when Gibbs retires.

hurrykaine:

Here are my grades per your listing:

Coaching staff: B- I agree with you here. This is a team that could have come apart at the seams with offense/devense finger pointing and it did not happen. That is what brings the grade up from C-/D+ which is what a 6-10 team has actually earned on the field.


Offense: Overall grade = D-. Look at the team record; look at where they rank in terms of scoring - the statistic that actually makes a difference when it comes to team record - and the Redskins offense this year is barely above abject failure.

offensive players should be ranked only by effort.

here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.

young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.

the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.

the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?

Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...

redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.

willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+


so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.

wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.

Smoot is a decent tackler, but often gets juked out of his shoes in the open field. That's the only knock I have on him.

Sorry, I hit the wrong "button". Let me try this again.


hurrykaine:

Here are my grades per your listing:

Coaching staff: B- I agree with you here. This is a team that could have come apart at the seams with offense/devense finger pointing and it did not happen. That is what brings the grade up from C-/D+ which is what a 6-10 team has actually earned on the field.


Offense: Overall grade = D-. Look at the team record; look at where they rank in terms of scoring - the statistic that actually makes a difference when it comes to team record - and the Redskins offense this year is barely above abject failure.


Brunell F. He was worse than I could have imagined back in June.

Ramsey C-. He is improving and should get a higher grade next year. But he did not have a winning record in his starts this year with a top flight defense so I can't say that he is average or above just yet.

Portis C+. Had a few big games and a few where he was a non-factor. I do NOT like his whining and complaining at all and I don't like that he does not let his play on the field do his talking for him. And that business with welching on his deal with a teammate - at the time - bothers me too. He needs an attitude adjustment.

Betts B+ When he got a chance to do something, he contributed positively. I don't think he is nearly as talented as Portis but he may be a better fit for this offense than Portis. If that is so, then we have a $50M problem on our hands.

Offensive Line D-. Randy Thomas played hard and played smart and played hurt. He gets orchids for the year. The rest of them played substandard football and deserved to get onions instead of orchids. Losing Jansen was the biggest setback of the year.

Coles C+. Lots of catches but at a reduced yards per catch than in the past. ONE TD. Hello? Yes, he played hurt and yes, he played hard all year long and he deserves nothing but praise for that. But when your lead receiver gets into the end zone once for a season, that can't be something you call "above average".

Gardner D-. I think he's as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Thrash C. Not nearly the physical talent of Coles or Gardner or maybe even Jacobs, but he gives you 100% on every play on offense and on special teams. He gets his average grade on hustle and effort.

Jacobs D. Talk about an invisible player... He has to be considered below the league average WR based on what he has produced ont he field in the last two years. Does he have potential? Sure. But at some point you have to say that his absence from the field MIGHT indicate that his potential is never going to be realized.

Cooley B. Good hands; good route running; good in the red zone. He's never going to be a Tony Gonzales as a deep threat from the TE position, but neither will a lot of good TEs in the NFL. He is better than average.

Royal C. This guy is average - - I guess. But he's certainly not any better than that.

Defense: A-. The only reason they do not get an A is that they did not score much (1 TD) and did not create turnovers when needed to get a short field for the offense so that a field goal - at a minimum - could go on the board in a tight game situation.

D-Line: B. They get this grade for effort and hustle and not for innate talent because I really don't think there is a lot of raw talent there. But as long as they keep playing hard and playing smart, that will be fine with me.

Linebackers: A- Pierce and Washington were very VERY good. Marshall was more than adequate. Take a breath here because this might be shocking. I thought the linebackers as a unit played BETTER with Arrington on the inactive list. Just an observation...

Springs A-. Played better than I thought he would. And he does not take plays off which is very good.

Smoot B+. Far better than average as a CB in the league, but Springs was the better CB on this team this year.

Walt Harris C. Did not play enough to get a grade above average. In fact, an average grade might be generous.

Safeties Overall grade = C. This is clearly the weakest part of the defense; it's not close.

Clark C. Probably played better than most people thought he would but then again no one thought he could play much at all before the season started. He is out of position a lot.

Taylor C. And I'm being very generous with that grade because I don't want anyone to think that I'm downgrading him for being a Meathead. Taylor cost the Skins the 2nd Dallas game; it was his mistake in coverage and his failure to do what he was supposed to do in his deep coverage resonsibilty that gave up the winning TD. He was the one who got beat twice on the final drive in the Cleveland game that led to the Browns' winning TD in the final minutes. He was the one who got beat at the 2 yardline by Greg Lewis in the Philly game and then missed the tackle on Dorsey Leavens on the next play to give Philly a TD which was the difference in the game. Even though it was meaningless yesterday, he gave up a "Hail Mary TD". He was the one who was there and did not make the play. HOw many of those Hail Mary's wind up as TDs per year in the NFL? Two? Maybe...

Special Teams D: Mediocre on coverage teams and mediocre on returns until about Week 15 when it ceased to matter. Punting by Tupa was good - and that is important because he certainly more than enough times when he had to do that. Place kicking (field goals and kickoffs) was well below average. Way too many kickoffs were fielded by the opponent outside the 15 yardline.

Chandler C. We did not see enough of him to give him a high grade. Remember, this is a guy who did not cut it with a team that was 2-14 for the year.

Hall D-. Yes, he was injured but when in there he was below average.

Kimrin: D- You can find a kicker of that quality hanging aorund every NFL camp in the summer and the only chance he has to make a team is for the real kicker to get hurt.


Remember, you asked...

Curmudgeon -
When the highest grades on offense go to a rookie H-back, the backup RB, and the oft-injured right guard, the problem on offense should be evident.

I can agree with your Arrington-free assestment of the LBs. I hope LaVar realizes that he can't freelance every play when the guys next to him expect him to be elsewhere.

The reason the D gets an "A" in my book, despite your excellent point about scoring and takeaways, is that they got the yardage numbers they did without an effective ball control offense for most of the year. Imagine how they would be if we won the time of possession war?

[QUOTE=jamf]offensive players should be ranked only by effort.

here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.

young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.

the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.

the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?

Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...

redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.

willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+


so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.

wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.[/QUOTE]

Interesting take on grading the offensive players within the framework of the coaching, playcalling, quarterbacking, etc. I guess my grades were based on what they did or didn't do (in my opinion) when they were handed or thrown the ball and how they blocked.

[QUOTE=jamf]offensive players should be ranked only by effort.

here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.

young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.

the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.

the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?

Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...

redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.

willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+


so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.

wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.[/QUOTE]


Why is not fair to grade the players? After all they're supposed to be making the plays, right? Wouldn't you grade the players based on performance? Players play, coaches coach. It's all about execution.

I don't get your grading system.

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Curmudgeon -
When the highest grades on offense go to a rookie H-back, the backup RB, and the oft-injured right guard, the problem on offense should be evident.[/QUOTE]


I don't think Betts' B+ can be compared to Portis C or whatever. Betts has to be graded as a back-up based on his talent level, whereas Portis has to be graded as a starter (where standards are much higher) based on a much higher talent level. By no means does this mean that Betts performed better than Portis did.

Just saw this on the washinton times about Samuels. Gibbs thinks he had a good year and Samuels wants to stay. Does this mean he's willing to restructure??

[I]Samuels' last hurrah?
Gibbs gave left tackle Chris Samuels a vote of confidence following what might have been the final Redskins game for the one-time Pro Bowl pick.
Speculation is swirling about Samuels' future following his fifth NFL season, in which he rebounded from lousy 2002 and 2003 seasons but participated in a generally erratic offensive line and didn't earn even alternate status for the Pro Bowl.
A 2001 Pro Bowl starter, Samuels could get traded or cut this offseason unless Washington can rework the $6.5 million he is scheduled to make in 2005. But Gibbs sounds eager to stick with Samuels, blaming himself for the one sack Samuels surrendered all year and even saying Samuels showed "real leadership" with right tackle Jon Jansen out.
"Chris had probably one of the best years," Gibbs said. "Other than that [one sack], I think he had a perfect year."
Said Samuels: "I thought I had a pretty good season overall. Last year, coming off the bad year, I really wasn't myself out there. I just didn't play like I wanted to. But this year, I made it a goal in my life to come back and be a pro — film work, weight room, everything it takes. I think I did just that."
Added Samuels: "I'm just looking forward to being back. I don't want to play for anyone else." [/I]

Samuels has already indicated he's willing to restructure, I personally hope we can keep him. Quality LT's aren't easy to find and we have other holes to fill without having to find another LT.

I'm tired of you all bad mouthing sean t because he is only a rookie and he has made some impressive plays for someone who did not even start the season(which was bs). Next year I don't expect him to give those plays. He's an impressive young safety who has the ability to become a bigger, faster, and stronger ronnie lott. Give him a break.

[quote]Why is not fair to grade the players? After all they're supposed to be making the plays, right? Wouldn't you grade the players based on performance? Players play, coaches coach. It's all about execution.[/quote]

Okay - so every losing team simply just didn't execute their coaches plan? Spurrier didn't do well because our players didn't execute? Norv failed because players didn't execute? You can argue that forever, but he makes a good point. Greg Williams made all those defensive players look great when no one knew who they were while Gibbs made some players look great (Cooley) and make others look worse. I agree with a lot of jamf's post.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Okay - so every losing team simply just didn't execute their coaches plan? Spurrier didn't do well because our players didn't execute? Norv failed because players didn't execute? You can argue that forever, but he makes a good point. Greg Williams made all those defensive players look great when no one knew who they were while Gibbs made some players look great (Cooley) and make others look worse. I agree with a lot of jamf's post.[/QUOTE]

Spurrier didn't do well because he was running a college system in the NFL. Why do you keep on going back to Spurrier? Norv had no control over his own players. Everyone knows that. Even Spurrier lost some of his players last season.

So I guess Gibbs already failed, right? Norv had what 7 years? And your boy Spurrier quit.

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]Why is not fair to grade the players? After all they're supposed to be making the plays, right? Wouldn't you grade the players based on performance? Players play, coaches coach. It's all about execution.

I don't get your grading system.[/QUOTE]

if you put jeff gordan in a pinto, do you complain when he finishes last?

the WR's ran comeback routes all year. every DB in the league knows that no deep balls will be thrown.
receivers never had a chance to catch the ball while moving downfield. running backs never got into the secondary. all completed passes were dump passes.

coles had 80+ receptions and less than a 1000 yards receiving. it wasnt for lack of effort either.

do you grade coles for a crappy yards per catch or do yo grade for catches? or do you say he was given a pinto to drive...

[QUOTE=jamf]if you put jeff gordan in a pinto, do you complain when he finishes last?

the WR's ran comeback routes all year. every DB in the league knows that no deep balls will be thrown.
receivers never had a chance to catch the ball while moving downfield. running backs never got into the secondary. all completed passes were dump passes.

coles had 80+ receptions and less than a 1000 yards receiving. it wasnt for lack of effort either.

do you grade coles for a crappy yards per catch or do yo grade for catches? or do you say he was given a pinto to drive...[/QUOTE]


All those things you pointed out falls on the O-line. Except for Coles. The WR's ran post routes, and flys. Problem is the QB didn't have enough time to throw. Or the QB wasn't accurate.

Redskins_P: Here's the point I'm trying to drive. Every coach in the history of the game can use the excuse "My players didn't execute." If your players throw, catch, block, run like you plan pre-game then of course you win. Jamf makes very good points and it's hard to give the offense a good grade. It wasn't their fault in my eyes, but still they didn't get any real production.

Will Gibbs turn it around - most likely. Do I want him to? Most definitely. Did he do it this year? Absolutely not.

[QUOTE=hurrykaine]There's no way for example, that Smoot could bring down a Culpepper. . .[/QUOTE]

On Sunday, neither could Ron Warner and Chris Clemons. A lot of players have trouble bringing down Daunte Culpepper. He's like 270 pounds.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]On Sunday, neither could Ron Warner and Chris Clemons. A lot of players have trouble bringing down Daunte Culpepper. He's like 270 pounds.[/QUOTE]

Well, Springs did it single handedly....that's my point...Smoot would've bounced off Daunte, like he did off Brett Favre's ass in the Greenbay game.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Redskins_P: Here's the point I'm trying to drive. Every coach in the history of the game can use the excuse "My players didn't execute." If your players throw, catch, block, run like you plan pre-game then of course you win. Jamf makes very good points and it's hard to give the offense a good grade. It wasn't their fault in my eyes, but still they didn't get any real production.

Will Gibbs turn it around - most likely. Do I want him to? Most definitely. Did he do it this year? Absolutely not.[/QUOTE]


Fair enough Daseal. I see your point. I guess we'll just have to wait till next year to see how much Gibbs has learned after this season.

[QUOTE=Redskins_P]Smoot has done a heck of a job, but he still has room for improvement. He has "whiffed" a couple of tackles. But I think hes improved tremendously since last year and the year before.[/QUOTE]

atleast he doesn't "tackle" like his idol deion.

Here's my quick and dirty report card for '04

QB: C- overall. Ramsey gets a C+, Brunell an F
RB: B
WR: C
TE/h-back: B
OL: C
DL: B+
LB: B+
DB: B+
ST: C+
Coaching: C+

Hard to give any A's, after all this is a 6-10 team.

Offensive MVP: Portis with Coles a close 2nd, honorable mention to Cooley
Offensive rookie of the year: Cooley

Defensive MVP: Griffin, Washington a close 2nd
Defensive rookie of the year: Taylor

Most Disappointing Player: Brunell in a landslide
Most Pleasant Surprise: Cooley

Coaching-playcalling and clock management
COACHES=OFFENSE=D, DEFENSE-A

DEFENSE A they were a BIG surprise and did it without Arrington...Griffin, Pierce, Springs, Washington......EXCELLENT!

OFFENSE D although injury to Jansen played a part.......offensive line was at time.....offensive.....we won't mention Brunell's performance.....and although Portis had a few plays he also disappointed.....Coles showed grit playing hard and playing hurt.....Gardner was a no show.......Thrash wasn't flashy and reliable when Gibbs finally put him in............others were so-so. Cooley became the go to guy.......Red zone play calling and execution were terrible............

Special Teams F-they cost us the Dallas game......at times the opponent had excellent field position=coverage return left much to be desired...the Swedish replacement for Hall was awful......again cost us some games...........thank God Chandler came in...........

I wouldn't dismantle the team.........we need some tweaking on offense, a healthy Jensen will definitely bring an upgrade to the line....a new center, guard, WR....a DE and better execution and maybe some new blood with late late draft rounds or practice squad......