Are the Redskins Below Average?

[Schneed10]

Yeah, lot of good Lavar would have done us while sitting on the bench with a torn achilles.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah, lot of good Lavar would have done us while sitting on the bench with a torn achilles.

I dont think LaVar would have made a bit of difference on our team last year. One LB spot was a really small portion of our problem.

[FRPLG]

Other than Clinton Portis, Santana Moss, Chris Samuels, Chris Cooley, Sean Taylor, and maybe Marcus Washington there isn't a single player on the Redskins team that would take over at least 10 players at that position.

This is a dumb assertion because the top 10 is not even half. Try the top 16.:

QB-Campbell: no
HB-Portis: yes
FB-Sellers: yes (name me 16 better fullbacks)
WR1-Moss: yes
WR2-?: no
TE-Cooley: yes
LT-Samuels- yes
LG-?: no
C-Rabach: no
RG-Thomas: yes
RT-Jansen: not sure...we'll say no

CB1-Springs: yes(name me 16 better CBs)
CB2-Rogers: no
S-Taylor: yes
S-Landry: no(???)
RE-Carter: no
DT-Golston: no
DT-Griffin: yes(name me 16 better DTs when healthy)
LE-Daniels: no
OLB-Washington: yes
MLB-Fletcher: yes
OLB-McCintosh: no

By my count that is 11. Now some of them are obvious and some aren't(Griffin,Spirngs, Sellers) but on talent alone they are certainly better than half of the comparables. The question is health.

As to talent anyways...we didn't have much "talent" when our defense was ranked 3rd so maybe "talent" doesn't mean quite as much as he thinks.

He has some solid stuff but I think he is a little too negative for my liking.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This is a dumb assertion because the top 10 is not even half. Try the top 16.:

QB-Campbell: no
HB-Portis: yes
FB-Sellers: yes (name me 16 better fullbacks)
WR1-Moss: yes
WR2-?: no
TE-Cooley: yes
LT-Samuels- yes
LG-?: no
C-Rabach: no
RG-Thomas: yes
RT-Jansen: not sure...we'll say no

CB1-Springs: yes(name me 16 better CBs)
CB2-Rogers: no
S-Taylor: yes
S-Landry: no(???)
RE-Carter: no
DT-Golston: no
DT-Griffin: yes(name me 16 better DTs when healthy)
LE-Daniels: no
OLB-Washington: yes
MLB-Fletcher: yes
OLB-McCintosh: no

By my count that is 11. Now some of them are obvious and some aren't(Griffin,Spirngs, Sellers) but on talent alone they are certainly better than half of the comparables. The question is health.

As to talent anyways...we didn't have much "talent" when our defense was ranked 3rd so maybe "talent" doesn't mean quite as much as he thinks.

He has some solid stuff but I think he is a little too negative for my liking.

But even top 16 wouldn't be half in many cases. Take CB for example. Each team starts 2, so half would be 32 (not 16)

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But even top 16 wouldn't be half in many cases. Take CB for example. Each team starts 2, so half would be 32 (not 16)

good point.

Springs and Griffin are undeniably in the top 32 at their positions.

Plus what it comes down to, like Grills showed in 04 and 05 is using the talent you have properly. If you tookmthe best at every position in the league and put them on the field using a bad scheme they'd get beat. Scheme and gameplan is as important as talent in today's NFL.

Look at it this way. Talent is the tool and scheme is the handyman. Just because the handyman has the right tool doesn't mean he knows how to use it effectively. What remains to be seen is whether Grills can use the talent we have better than he did last year.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But even top 16 wouldn't be half in many cases. Take CB for example. Each team starts 2, so half would be 32 (not 16)

He has CB1 and CB2.

That list shows us to have top half talent at half the positions on the team. Which sounds pretty average. With 6 of those ten in the top ten, which seems like a decent sign to me, I guess.

But let's not forget:

K: Suisham- no
P: Frost- no (?)
WR3 harder to tell
WR4 no
KR: yes
PR: yes

Our depth is where we start to lose serious ground IMO. Where other teams insert third and fourth rounders when starters go down, we turn to Holdmans, Poseys, Foxes, Rumphs, (that is to say retreads,) and undrafted rookie types. Depth issues hurt you on special teams and filling in for injured starters. At least this has been a major knock on us, perceived or otherwise.

We seem capable of fielding a competitive starting outfit year in year out, we just can't handle injuries at all. The Eagles and Pats stick out in my mind as teams that are extremely well prepared to deal with injuries. Most teams can't win if they lose more than a starter or two, but the good ones can.

The other big knocks on us over the last decade and a half have been continuity, leadership and QB play, with QB play being the biggest factor IMO. Hell, if we had gotten a franchise type QB after JG I, Norv Turner would probably be the longest tenured, highest paid head coach in the league right now.

Fortunately, we have continuity and leadership now. So the good news is that it is all going to come down to talent, execution, injuries, luck and Jason Campbell. Now, anyone want to predict what going to happen next year?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

He has CB1 and CB2.

Good catch. As for the other question of how many times our offense has won games for us. Didn't we have a couple of games last year (Rams and Giants I think) where we put up over 30 points but still lost? I mean what more can the offense do there

[T.O.Killa]

I think it had to do more with poor linebacker play. I think thats why they wanted Briggs so bad.

[skinsfan_nn]

Simple.....NO. We are way above average, just wait and see!

[Defensewins]

I don't care how our talent looks on paper, you do not win games on rated talent on paper.
Only two things matter:
1) W-L record
2) Winning the Super Bowl
The rest is for Madden Gamers and Fantasy football enthusiasts.

[skinsfan69]

I think Griff has really regressed. He needs to stay healthy and get back to his play of 04. But he is getting older so it's probably not going to happen. We need some youth and a talent upgrade on the Dline. I sure hope Goldston and Montgomery are ready.

[skins009]

Here's how I would break it down.
O line Above average
Recievers/TE Average
RB Above average
QB Below average
DLine Below average
LB Average
DB Above average

You see there a two crucial positions where we are below average, QB and Dline. Thats the problem with the skins and why i see us winning 8 games this year.

[CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR]

our oline and dline are getting old. QB is still up in the air on how good he will be. Anything better than Brunell. Good rb's, just one good WR. Good TE. Dline stinks and LB's are good> Above average secondary. Would be better if we had a damn pass rush. Kicking game is average at best. And im being kind. Lucky to be 8-8 most likey 6-10 or 7-9.

[hail_2_da_skins]

Unfortunately, this guy makes a lot of valid points. The Redskin talent is mediocre and has been that way for the past decade. The team's philosophy of going after high priced free agents and trading away draft picks is a failed policy. Not addressing obvious weaknesses is also a big problem. I agree with him, the Skins need a General Manager.

[brent]

Originally Posted by hail_2_da_skins

Unfortunately, this guy makes a lot of valid points. The Redskin talent is mediocre and has been that way for the past decade. The team's philosophy of going after high priced free agents and trading away draft picks is a failed policy. Not addressing obvious weaknesses is also a big problem. I agree with him, the Skins need a General Manager.

You should differentiate between PHILOSOPHY and IMPLEMENTATION. The implementation has been terrible. The philosophy itself may not be the problem.

And don't overlook that we did draft one very key position: QB. And the development of said QB is really what will define how far this offense can go. I'm not satisfied with the receivers, which still seem week outside of inconsistent Santana Moss, but the running attack could be in the league's top 5. As far as the defense, clearly being about last in 2006 leaves us below average but considering where they were the year before, all hope is not lost.

I don't agree with the "superbowl or bust" point of view. The truth is the superbowl winners are teams that are competitive at the top of the league every year. The last couple winners weren't even in their respective "best" year. But if you are going to make a list of goals, include sweeping the Cowboys.