Preseason Predictions Thread

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Tripp, you are just wrong. We have solid depth across the board, our starters may be weak - ie Safeties, but our depth can come in and play to a reasonable level, as was proved last year.

Dallas' depth across the board is weak:
QB - Romo -- Orton, um maybe two years ago.
RB - DeMarco Murray -- ? (and by ? I mean their backup is untested or not worth being a backup)
WR - Bryant, Austin --> ?
TE - Witten --> rookie
OT - Smith, Free --> Purnell (who was miserable subbing in), ?
OL - Waters, Bernadeau, Frederick --> Costa (decent) OG's ?
Again there #1's are named players I get that, but below #1 is a shallow depth.
Compare that to ours:
QB - Griffin -- Cousins/Grossman not sexy but both proven(for Cousins as much as a first year can be
RB - Morris -- Helu sexy even
WR - Garcon/Moss - Hankerson/Morgan not sexy but both proven .
TE - Davis/Paulsen - Paul/Reed Damn sexy
OT - TW/Polumbus - Compton Heck our backup maybe better than our RT
OL - almost all are starting quality and can play multiple positions

I could do the same for Defense. Point is the depth of the Cowboys is VASTLY inferior to our depth, while their #1s are, in some cases, better than ours, but not overwhelmingly so.

I'm not in disagreement necessarily about the quality of our depth vs. Dallas', but I do see that you've bought into the narrative around this team, so there's really no point for me to take the discussion further.

I'll gladly concede any debate about the Redskins and the Cowboys depth charts, but you can't look at our backup OL, see starting quality across the board, and be taken seriously. It's a non-starter.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'm not in disagreement necessarily about the quality of our depth vs. Dallas',

Yes you specifically disagreed with me by saying their depth is like ours, I specifically listed out the comparable offensive depth chart, and they are not as you said earlier : "Their depth is like ours, it's highly concentrated." It's just blatantly wrong.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

but I do see that you've bought into the narrative around this team, so there's really no point for me to take the discussion further.

I will take it further. I'm not "buying in to the narrative", in my position by position listing, it shows that our depth is more consistent (not claiming star power, just solid depth) and that better depth also shows when our twos are playing "mano y mano" in preseason against other teams ones (or 3 vs 2 etc).

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I'll gladly concede any debate about the Redskins and the Cowboys depth charts,

Good

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

but you can't look at our backup OL, see starting quality across the board, and be taken seriously. It's a non-starter.

Depth is not for "starting quality" it's for the ability to play at a position with the least amount of dropoff if called upon. I said almost all our OL is starting quality, I don't really think Polumbus should be starting in a non-zone blocking, or straight drop type offense, but he does fit the bare minimum for what our offense needs most of the time, the backups all are cross trained (minus Compton) and we could suffer a loss at one position(excluding our Stud LT), and not have our line deteriorate completely. There just aren't many teams that have starting quality OL backups, and maybe only 1 or two who could replace their LT without a drop in performance. Bottomline, you are setting a false goal if you think any team has 8 starting quality OL, and I certainly never claimed or implied we did.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Bryant/Jackson/Cruz in division will get their scores against teams, but ultimately all three of those teams fail at the depth issue.

How so ?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

How so ?

I hesitated in putting the Giants into that mix, but your depth is mainly poor because again this year you are already depleted by the injury issue. If you ever have a healthy team again, you will be good at depth.

I did the Cowboys offense above, not doing Philly.

[Evilgrin]

The hired a 4-3 coordinator for a team full of 3-4 personnel...

They don't do things that create success. They do things that create alot of hype and press.

[MTK]

Another year, another overrated Dallas team. What else is new?

[Chico23231]

At every position group on offense, starter to depth, Redskins > Cowboys. Defense group, more even.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

At every position group on offense, starter to depth, Redskins > Cowboys. Defense group, more even.

Receiver to Dallas, I think. Tight end up for grabs. In a 1 TE offense, you'd take Witten. Multiple TEs, you want the Redskins.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Receiver to Dallas, I think. Tight end up for grabs. In a 1 TE offense, you'd take Witten. Multiple TEs, you want the Redskins.

WR is def the place where its the closest, but Id still go with the Skins. I think you look at the group at TE, no question its the Skins. Think Fred is gonna get that contract this year.

[GTripp0012]

The thing is, when you factor in how difficult the Redskins are to prepare for as opposed to the Cowboys, it's easy to say that the Redskins offense is far and beyond Dallas'. And it is.

[GTripp0012]

There's no question that the Redskins are best in the division at OL (given 100% health for all four teams), RB, QB, and near the top at TE. That's most of an offense right there, and it's why I'm so optimistic about our offense this year.

The defensive depth is better than it was last season, which is saying something, but we're very weak right up the middle of the defense. A place to keep an eye on. Because I think we're strong enough on the edges to have a really good defense.

[MTK]

New Orleans gave up the most yards in NFL history last year. I think their safeties may have played a role in that.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

New Orleans gave up the most yards in NFL history last year. I think their safeties may have played a role in that.

I did mention NO, or did you miss that? Plus they were terrible everywhere. Our D-line and LB's were easily better than NO's. But we are specifically talking about safeties in pass coverage, not safeties in supporting the run or overall defense.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

I did mention NO, or did you miss that? Plus they were terrible everywhere. Our D-line and LB's were easily better than NO's. But we are specifically talking about safeties in pass coverage, not safeties in supporting the run or overall defense.

Our safeties weren't worse than theirs. That's why I said that.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Our safeties weren't worse than theirs. That's why I said that.

When talking strictly about pass coverage, I still doubt it.