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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

"Blatantly wrong" would imply that there was something easily refutable about it, but all you offered was one of the most over-optimistic defenses of some players on our roster who just barely made the cut. The argument in favor of the Redskins depth over Dallas isn't that we're in a completely different league, but rather that we go 53 deep, and Dallas has struggled in recent years. When you go point by point through the roster, it's hard to create the idea that it's really different unless you already bought into that idea before you started.

Which you did.

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'm not going to quibble over your definition of depth, other than to say that every team in the league qualifies as having depth by it, so then you get to a point where you're rating backups based on a really small number of plays and concluding that one team "has depth" and another does not.

Given that you saw the whole Redskins preseason, I'm not surprised that you arrived at the conclusions you did. You're familiar with our roster = our roster has depth. The Cowboys have struggled with depth in the past = their roster lacks depth. Two different standards.

No one is arguing that the Cowboys have depth but the Redskins do not. I am just pointing out that you can not be a really deep team if you don't have OL depth, don't have secondary depth, and seems to be distrusting of it's receiver depth. Those positions are, what, 40% of the roster? Having depth on 60% of the roster (every other position) is fantastic. But it's not like a lot of the league isn't in the same boat. The Cowboys are in that same boat. Which is not to defend Dallas' depth at all. They're thin at some key positions. But it's not their biggest organizational issue.

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.

We don't disagree here.

But we are in trouble if one of our young backups HAS to play for a majority of the season. As backups, it doesn't really matter how ready they are. Once they are forced into the lineup, they can't be hidden.