Coach Gibbs might consider extending stay.

[Luxorreb]

Joe will definitely be back next season as Head Coach. Unsure about the following year. I think he might stay on as head coach and fade his operations to mostly AL and Gregg. I think he's already done that in a big way. I think we'll be able to keep most of the team together thru next season and perhaps the next if we get to playoffs this year.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I beg to differ that we were 'hit harder' on defense this year.. Last year Springs missed almost the entire season, Marshall was banged up all year and ineffective, Griffin missed significant time, Prielou (sp) was gone all season.. This year, aside from Taylor (which is significant obviously), we've been without Rogers (no bog loss IMO) for half the season, Washington for 3 games, Smoot for one and who else? We've been relatively healthy on defense this season..

If anything we can credit Gibbs for addressing the depth issues we had in the offseason but the bloom is off the Grilliams rose for me..

I'd argue the impact of Taylor's death has far exceeded any injury we had last year. And I definitely don't agree that Rogers was no big loss.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'd argue the impact of Taylor's death has far exceeded any injury we had last year. And I definitely don't agree that Rogers was no big loss.

I agree with you on Taylor 100% but that has been less than 1/4 of the season (really it's been 3 games, in which we've been 2-1).. We'll agree to disagree on Rogers.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Say what you will but MB did take us to the playoffs in 2005. Let's not gloss over that.

IMO an above average/good qb would have taken us even further w/ a dominant defense like we had. I'll give MB credit for managing the game/not losing games for us. Let's face it though MB was asked not to lose the game in most cases.

If we had a QB that could stretch the field for us, who knows? SB? That's not out of the question. I don't see how the MB experiement could be seen as a success.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by redsk1

IMO an above average/good qb would have taken us even further w/ a dominant defense like we had. I'll give MB credit for managing the game/not losing games for us. Let's face it though MB was asked not to lose the game in most cases.

If we had a QB that could stretch the field for us, who knows? SB? That's not out of the question. I don't see how the MB experiement could be seen as a success.

Well for one season the results were good. Other than that I would say the experiment didn't work out. But you do have to wonder how things might have been last year if the D wasn't a total mess.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I agree with you on Taylor 100% but that has been less than 1/4 of the season (really it's been 3 games, in which we've been 2-1).. We'll agree to disagree on Rogers.

Rogers' loss is significant if only for the fact it bumped everyone else up the depth chart. If Rogers was healthy we might not have been subjected to Leigh Torrence seeing significant action.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How has the D been mediocre this year?

10th overall (19th vs. pass, 9th vs. rush).

12th overall in points given up per game with 20.2.

9th overall in 3rd down conversion % with 38%

They are in the top 1/3 in most major categories. Sorry but that's really not fitting of the definition of mediocre.

Those numbers do look great but with the game on the line they have not been able to make a stands and keep the opponent from scoring. As I have said in the past, I really dont care about stats as I have noticed losing teams love to quote stats in an attempt to show that they really are better than their record while I rarely ever hear winners talk about stats. When the D was needed to win games they didnt come through. that why I believe they are mediocre.

[skinsguy]

I, for one, would love to see Gibbs coach this team until his health no longer will allow him to do so. Of course, I'm biased. But still, if most (and I think most have) can agree that Joe Gibbs has brought some sort of stability to this team, then you have to believe that is quite an important aspect that the team has lacked all these years. I realize we all want results, and results equals winning records every year, playoff appearances, and the eventual Super Bowl title.

But consider this. Under Coach Gibbs, just about all of the losses we've had have been games that we've been leading in, and or lost late in the fourth quarter. Basically, games we've given away in the 11th hour. There have been very few games that we were clear losers from the get go. The line between the Redskins being a good, playoff team and being a losing team is very, very thin. With the exception of the Patriots, this team has proven that it can stand up against every team in this league...including the Colts. This is what I've seen in the last few seasons. I can't really say that about years before then.

The end results is what we all look at, and if this is the case, we can all agree that the end results can be much different with a matter of a play or two and some good luck thrown our way. That's pretty much it. That, to me, doesn't call for the Redskins to make a huge change in the coaching and players department. It just means more patience and to stick with what we get, because it's going to start paying off.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

Those numbers do look great but with the game on the line they have not been able to make a stands and keep the opponent from scoring. As I have said in the past, I really dont care about stats as I have noticed losing teams love to quote stats in an attempt to show that they really are better than their record while I rarely ever hear winners talk about stats. When the D was needed to win games they didnt come through. that why I believe they are mediocre.

You seem to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what it takes to call a defense good.

Stats need to be taken with a grain of salt at times, but when most of the stats indicate our defense is in the top third of the league in the major categories, I find it hard to disregard those and call the defense mediocre.

And just going by what I've seen personally, I'd say our defense is a good one. Not great, but certainly not mediocre. If our D is mediocre then I guess 2/3 of the league must be medicore to bad.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You seem to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what it takes to call a defense good.

Stats need to be taken with a grain of salt at times, but when most of the stats indicate our defense is in the top third of the league in the major categories, I find it hard to disregard those and call the defense mediocre.

And just going by what I've seen personally, I'd say our defense is a good one. Not great, but certainly not mediocre. If our D is mediocre then I guess 2/3 of the league must be medicore to bad.

I guess I could go with calling them good but like you say, I was using the word mediocre because they are not great.

[MTK]

Mediocre is defined as "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance: Ordinary, so-so."

I don't see how that really fits when talking about this D.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Mediocre is defined as "of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance: Ordinary, so-so."

I don't see how that really fits when talking about this D.

Well the word ordinary fits but the rest of the definition does not apply.

[MTK]

Yeah not really but I'm done with defining words for today.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah not really but I'm done with defining words for today.

I guess I am curious why you think they are more than an ordinary NFL D this year. The numbers you show are good but when they need to make a stop on 1 drive at the end of a game they have blown it more than once. The weak O put the team in a position to win and the D (supposedly the strong point of the team) needs to stop the opponent just once and they dont. IMO if this D had played close to what we thought it would be this team would be at least 9-5 and pretty well assured of a playoff spot instead of needing to win and hoping for help.

[MTK]

The offense has failed us more often than the defense this year. It seems that you're looking for a flawless defense or something. The truth is even the best defenses falter at times. Overall I've seen many more good things than bad this year from the D. They are a playoff caliber defense. Again I'll reiterate they are in the top third of the league in many of the critical categories that defenses are judged on. Sorry but I just can't put them in the mediocre or ordinary category. Your expectations and evaluation of their performance just isn't realistic.