Core of the Redskins problem: Greed

jdlea · 10-16-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I know we all want answers but this thread is really digging for something that isn't there. I think it's really dangerous to start throwing around the race card and insinuating that players are upset with what other players are making. This sort of speculation is a little over the top in my opinion. Let's get back to some of the more likely issues we're struggling. Adjusting to a new offense, no offensive identity, injuries, etc.

I disagree with the race issue. However, I don't buy that fe agent additions don't hurt. Look at the Yankees, they don't win cause they don't have chemistry. It's kinda the same situation. Hell, baseball's hardly a team game. The Skins have to be on the same page or they get exploited. With constant turnover in the roster, you can't tell me that doesn't hurt.

Beemnseven · 10-16-2006, 02:14 PM

I disagree with the "greed" aspect. Can anyone define greed, by the way?

Is it greedy to win as many games as you can? Is it greed to make as much money as you can?

I've never understood the whole "greed" thing, in any sense. We all want what's best for us, and the same goes for the team.

MTK · 10-16-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

I disagree with the race issue. However, I don't buy that fe agent additions don't hurt. Look at the Yankees, they don't win cause they don't have chemistry. It's kinda the same situation. Hell, baseball's hardly a team game. The Skins have to be on the same page or they get exploited. With constant turnover in the roster, you can't tell me that doesn't hurt.

We didn't have that much turnover this year. We have two new starters defensively. That shouldn't tear a defense apart.

jdlea · 10-16-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We didn't have that much turnover this year. We have two new starters defensively. That shouldn't tear a defense apart.

There are a lot of guys hurt right now, so there were 3 on the line yesterday, 2 in the defensive backfield and kinda 1 in the linebacking core. When you lose Springs and add a guy who can't cover it's gonna hurt. I think Springs getting back would help...a lot. However, Clark was much better in coverage than Archuleta and they were fine against the run last year, so why replace him?

JWsleep · 10-16-2006, 02:22 PM

I'm throughly tired of the Snyder angle. Look, we can't have it both ways here: Gibbs is team president, head coach, the face of the skins, and intemately involved with EVERY decision the team makes, at pretty much every level. Snyder is an easy target becuase we won under JKC, Snyder came in, and we haven't won. Plus, his style rubs lots of people the wrong way. But do you REALLY think that Snyder is doing things that his boy hood idol and hero Joe Gibbs doesn't ask him to? He signs the people that Gibbs asks him to sign. Full stop. This is not 2000; this is not the Spurrier era. This is a Joe Gibbs football team, and it's successes and failures are his. I am a huge fan of Gibbs, and he is one of my heros as well. But he'd be the first to say that this is on him, and that Danny has only done what he's been asked to do by the football people at redskins park. And that means JG.

MTK · 10-16-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWsleep

I'm throughly tired of the Snyder angle. Look, we can't have it both ways here: Gibbs is team president, head coach, the face of the skins, and intemately involved with EVERY decision the team makes, at pretty much every level. Snyder is an easy target becuase we won under JKC, Snyder came in, and we haven't won. Plus, his style rubs lots of people the wrong way. But do you REALLY think that Snyder is doing things that his boy hood idol and hero Joe Gibbs doesn't ask him to? He signs the people that Gibbs asks him to sign. Full stop. This is not 2000; this is not the Spurrier era. This is a Joe Gibbs football team, and it's successes and failures are his. I am a huge fan of Gibbs, and he is one of my heros as well. But he'd be the first to say that this is on him, and that Danny has only done what he's been asked to do by the football people at redskins park. And that means JG.

I agree 110%. Snyder isn't to blame here.

jdlea · 10-16-2006, 02:27 PM

I'm not really going with the Snyder angle, I'm just saying what the Skins do with free agents is wrong, I don't care whose fault it is. It's not really a good long term solution. I said people would defend Snyder, I didn't say it was him.

MTK · 10-16-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

There are a lot of guys hurt right now, so there were 3 on the line yesterday, 2 in the defensive backfield and kinda 1 in the linebacking core. When you lose Springs and add a guy who can't cover it's gonna hurt. I think Springs getting back would help...a lot. However, Clark was much better in coverage than Archuleta and they were fine against the run last year, so why replace him?

GW obviously sees AA as an upgrade. It's not like Clark was an all-pro or something. He's an average DB in this league. Do you really think having Clark right now would make them an entirely different defense?

Our front seven was shredded yesterday and hasn't held up well all season. You can't pin that on AA.

jdlea · 10-16-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

GW obviously sees AA as an upgrade. It's not like Clark was an all-pro or something. He's an average DB in this league. Do you really think having Clark right now would make them an entirely different defense?

Our front seven was shredded yesterday and hasn't held up well all season. You can't pin that on AA.

dude...all I said was they'd be better in coverage with Clark. I didn't say he was some great safety, but he's underrated. He was kinda like Chris Hope (maybe why he replaced him) in the sense that he wasn't all about making huge plays, but he was usually in the right place at the right time. That's all Marshall does and people love him. He was good because he was solid. AA is horribly inconsistent and he wasn't really tackling that well yesterday. I never said AA was the reason they got run on. I actually said in another post that they had 3 different starters from the last season on the line yesterday. And Holdman got replaced last year cause he was bad, so don't try to act like I put it all on Archuleta.

Okay, I kinda see where you got that from...so what I'm saying is that Clark wasn't really a liability against the run. So, there was no need to put a linebacker at SS.

illdefined · 10-16-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

GW obviously sees AA as an upgrade. It's not like Clark was an all-pro or something. He's an average DB in this league. Do you really think having Clark right now would make them an entirely different defense?

Our front seven was shredded yesterday and hasn't held up well all season. You can't pin that on AA.

Clark was fast and worked well with ST. they vibed really well. AA is an older, slower, weaker ST and doesn't add anything to the mix.

MTK · 10-16-2006, 02:36 PM

AA hasn't picked up this defense very well. I think when he does he'll show what Williams had in mind when he brought him in.

jamf · 10-16-2006, 02:38 PM

Drift, I agree completely.
Portis, Betts and Rock were pissed when they brought Duckett in. We had good chemistry with our backs. I getting the feeling that Gibbs pretty much benched duckett just to keep our RB's happy.

jdlea · 10-16-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

AA hasn't picked up this defense very well. I think when he does he'll show what Williams had in mind when he brought him in.

That may be and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this disappointing start to the season is making a bit restless.

djdunick · 10-16-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I. Adjusting to a new offense, no offensive identity, injuries, etc.

MattyK,

New Orleans has a new QB, coach etc. and they look like they're playoff bound. Big money free agents don't have the incentive that hungry players do and not just the money aspecet the chemistry aspect is crucial. Constant upheaval is not good. And as Shawn Springs was saying they're too soft, they don't have people who want to hit people in the mouth.

MTK · 10-16-2006, 02:47 PM

Where is our upheaval?? I'm not seeing it.

We added Arch and Carter to the D. Lloyd is the only new starter to the offense. People are acting like we ripped up the roster this offseason and started over. The new offense wasn't supposed to be a huge issue, and it certainly doesn't help explain the sudden demise of the defense.

Let's face it, we have the talent to win ballgames but for whatever reason they're just not getting it done on the field.

10-16-2006, 02:14 PM	#17
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 50 Posts: 5,311	Re: Core of the Redskins problem: Greed I disagree with the "greed" aspect. Can anyone define greed, by the way? Is it greedy to win as many games as you can? Is it greed to make as much money as you can? I've never understood the whole "greed" thing, in any sense. We all want what's best for us, and the same goes for the team.

10-16-2006, 02:22 PM	#20
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,717	Re: Core of the Redskins problem: Greed I'm throughly tired of the Snyder angle. Look, we can't have it both ways here: Gibbs is team president, head coach, the face of the skins, and intemately involved with EVERY decision the team makes, at pretty much every level. Snyder is an easy target becuase we won under JKC, Snyder came in, and we haven't won. Plus, his style rubs lots of people the wrong way. But do you REALLY think that Snyder is doing things that his boy hood idol and hero Joe Gibbs doesn't ask him to? He signs the people that Gibbs asks him to sign. Full stop. This is not 2000; this is not the Spurrier era. This is a Joe Gibbs football team, and it's successes and failures are his. I am a huge fan of Gibbs, and he is one of my heros as well. But he'd be the first to say that this is on him, and that Danny has only done what he's been asked to do by the football people at redskins park. And that means JG. __________________ Hail from Houston!

10-16-2006, 02:27 PM	#22
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Re: Core of the Redskins problem: Greed I'm not really going with the Snyder angle, I'm just saying what the Skins do with free agents is wrong, I don't care whose fault it is. It's not really a good long term solution. I said people would defend Snyder, I didn't say it was him.

10-16-2006, 02:36 PM	#26
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: Core of the Redskins problem: Greed AA hasn't picked up this defense very well. I think when he does he'll show what Williams had in mind when he brought him in. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

10-16-2006, 02:38 PM	#27
jamf Pro Bowl Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Diego Ca Posts: 5,319	Re: Core of the Redskins problem: Greed Drift, I agree completely. Portis, Betts and Rock were pissed when they brought Duckett in. We had good chemistry with our backs. I getting the feeling that Gibbs pretty much benched duckett just to keep our RB's happy.

10-16-2006, 02:47 PM	#30
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: Core of the Redskins problem: Greed Where is our upheaval?? I'm not seeing it. We added Arch and Carter to the D. Lloyd is the only new starter to the offense. People are acting like we ripped up the roster this offseason and started over. The new offense wasn't supposed to be a huge issue, and it certainly doesn't help explain the sudden demise of the defense. Let's face it, we have the talent to win ballgames but for whatever reason they're just not getting it done on the field. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

Core of the Redskins problem: Greed

Locker Room Main Forum