What Is RIGHT with the Redskins?

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by samtskins

If only Haynesworth wasn't going to command mad money this off-season.

Go get him

[SmootSmack]

There are plenty of threads where all we do is bitch and moan about all that is wrong with the Redskins. This one was designed to look at some of the positives and things that we have that we can build on. We're all frustrated and rightfully so but we can't simply look at the glass fully empty. If you're unable to then fine (sorry you're incapable) but don't waste your negative energies on this thread.

[RMSkins]

I love our young safety tandem in LaRon Landry and Chris Horton.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Mr. Redskin is syntactically and grammatically challenged :confused: but his point about the absolute irrelevance of "Redskins profitability" is absolutely correct. Citing that as a "success" or "strength" of the Redskins organization is an important point for bankers who are considering lending Danny Boy some more money so he can buy up a couple more radio stations or an amusement park somewhere. For people who pay to get into games and buy Skins' gear, it is irrelevant at the very best. Redskin fans ought to want Super Bowl Trophies and parades - - while the team barely breaks even - - far more than a AAA credit rating for Danny Boy.


Those who think the profitability thing is important probably cannot wait for the annual evaluation by Forbes Magazine listing the putative value that they put on sports franchises so they can see the Redskins at or near the top of the list. I know that is always a big day on the calendar for me.


And don't forget that big ranking in Fortune Magazine when they list the richest people in the world and we all get to see Danny Boy on the list. Gives me goosebumps every time it happens.


Now, Mr. Redskin is wrong to say there is nothing right with this team. There are plenty of things to build on:

1. Good young QB.

2. One very good RB and a very good back-up RB.

3. One very good TE - - and a rookie TE who was really good in college but who hasn't yet shown anything at the NFL level.

4. Good defensive ends.

5. A very good MLB.

6. Two young OLBs who might actually learn how to play their position instead of trying to rely on "athleticism" to make every play.

7. One good young CB (Rogers), one physically talented young CB (Hall) and several able veteran CBs.

8. One excellent and one very good safety.

[GMScud]

Well I'm gonna ignore the recent negativity on this thread and just throw my two cents in regarding the thread title.

When you look at two football teams lined up pre-snap, 11 on 11, what should be right with a team should start at the core- the front lines on both sides- and be built around that. Unfortunately we don't have that, at least as far as offense is concerned.

However, as SportsCurmudgeon points out, we have some very solid complimentary pieces. I don't think we're too far off from taking this pretty average team to pretty good. We need to build up the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, particularly offense.

But we've got pass catchers, all of whom are under 30 (thrash aside), a pair of very good backs, a solid young QB, a monster FB, and a damn good good defense.

Fix the o-line up and get more comfortable in WCO, and we could contend.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well I'm gonna ignore the recent negativity on this thread and just throw my two cents in regarding the thread title.

When you look at two football teams lined up pre-snap, 11 on 11, what should be right with a team should start at the core- the front lines on both sides- and be built around that. Unfortunately we don't have that, at least as far as offense is concerned.

However, as SportsCurmudgeon points out, we have some very solid complimentary pieces. I don't think we're too far off from taking this pretty average team to pretty good. We need to build up the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, particularly offense.

But we've got pass catchers, all of whom are under 30 (thrash aside), a pair of very good backs, a solid young QB, a monster FB, and a damn good good defense.

Fix the o-line up and get more comfortable in WCO, and we could contend.

Absolutely! We're not as bad as we sometimes look. Sometimes small, correctable things can make you look terrible when not executed properly. A couple of linemen, some more time in the WCO....we're closer than alot of people think. To hear some of our fellow posters you would think we'd be 0-13 since our personel and coaching supposedly "suck" so bad. It's a shame our rookies did'nt come in and tear up the league as some apparently thought they should, but given a little more time I think our rookies are going to turn out pretty good and our team as well. With growing, there are growing pains. No matter if we make the playoffs or not, I'm looking forward to next year because the WCO takes time and I believe we will get better.

[GTripp0012]

I'm finding as I sort out the Redskins-Ravens game, that the problem is not that we're out-personneled on the front five or front four (although, obviously, sans Samuels and Jansen this is a totally different issue), but that our backs are horrible at finding the guy they are supposed to block. The schemes are effective enough to work, but pass blocking on passing downs becomes a counting game so often, and the back is supposed to block the inside guy if he's got too many people to pick up, BUT a lot of times, we have enough guys to pick it up, and the backs go inside anyway.

This becomes a huge problem when Sellers/Portis DOESN'T think we have the right protection to pick up the blitz (actually a 4 man rush in many cases), but Campbell/the receivers counts the rushers and DOES think it's going to be picked up.

It's not that Campbell isn't looking to urgently getting the ball out, it's that he's got to allow the routes to develop, and he has no idea he's about to be killed from his blindside.

The result is a potential for turnovers. And it's not the fault of the offensive line, though I'm not sure whether it would kill Randy Thomas to help Jansen if no ones coming. We didn't extend his contract so he and Rabach could stand there.

The main point here is that we would actually be better off if the defense would send more than we could pick up. Because then Campbell would know that he's responsible for the outside guy, and he's athletic enough to evade him. But he has to know that he's not going to get blocked to do so.

[GTripp0012]

So when people say "we need to draft offensive lineman", what they really mean is that "we have to do a better job of protecting the QB". Because we do a piss poor job of the latter, but not always because of the former.

[GTripp0012]

What's right about the Redskins:

Greg Blache didn't blitz in the first half against Baltimore.

Joe Flacco completed two passes.

Hmmm. Never would have seen that one coming. If you take away the Portis fumble returned by Reed for a TD and rule him down via forward progress, we probably win the first half.

[30gut]

o Talent at the skill positions JC, CC, SM, ARE, CP, MS, LB
o Young talent at the skill positions waiting in the wings DT, MK, FD
o Solid defense, above average secondary
o Great MLB
o Pro-bowl LT
o Good KR

[A10sROCK]

Good defense, even though our DL is mediocre.

Clinton Portis. Close to MVP candidate.

Landry and Chris Horton.

Chris Cooley.

We have a decent-to-good team.

If we have a good 2009 draft with emphasis on the trenches; if we pick up some good FA - including a veteran QB and a big vet WR - we could definitely improve next season.

Zorn needs to replace himself with a better OC; he needs to dump Danny Smith as the ST coach.

Doing these things will make this team better and we could do much better in 2009.

[SmootSmack]

One post and gone. Banned

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

One post and gone. Banned

Eleven minutes? You're slipping

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

One post and gone. Banned

HA. That was reminiscent of that Cowboys fan (I forget his original user name) who got banned and kept on re-joining under a different name to continue to argue his case via the 3rd person (i.e. "what HE means is this, what HE said is this, etc). Pretty lame.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

One post and gone. Banned

was that mr. redskin under a different account? looked like the writing was in the same format, tone and thinking.

i/ve never actually seen someone do one of those "emotional personal attack" posts on here before and thats saying alot considering all the internet tough guys lurking around every corner. lol well his posts gave me a good laugh, thanks.

go skins!!