Report Card

[jamf]

offensive players should be ranked only by effort.

here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.

young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.

the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.

the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?

Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...

redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.

willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+


so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.

wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.

[cpayne5]

Smoot is a decent tackler, but often gets juked out of his shoes in the open field. That's the only knock I have on him.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Sorry, I hit the wrong "button". Let me try this again.


hurrykaine:

Here are my grades per your listing:

Coaching staff: B- I agree with you here. This is a team that could have come apart at the seams with offense/devense finger pointing and it did not happen. That is what brings the grade up from C-/D+ which is what a 6-10 team has actually earned on the field.


Offense: Overall grade = D-. Look at the team record; look at where they rank in terms of scoring - the statistic that actually makes a difference when it comes to team record - and the Redskins offense this year is barely above abject failure.


Brunell F. He was worse than I could have imagined back in June.

Ramsey C-. He is improving and should get a higher grade next year. But he did not have a winning record in his starts this year with a top flight defense so I can't say that he is average or above just yet.

Portis C+. Had a few big games and a few where he was a non-factor. I do NOT like his whining and complaining at all and I don't like that he does not let his play on the field do his talking for him. And that business with welching on his deal with a teammate - at the time - bothers me too. He needs an attitude adjustment.

Betts B+ When he got a chance to do something, he contributed positively. I don't think he is nearly as talented as Portis but he may be a better fit for this offense than Portis. If that is so, then we have a $50M problem on our hands.

Offensive Line D-. Randy Thomas played hard and played smart and played hurt. He gets orchids for the year. The rest of them played substandard football and deserved to get onions instead of orchids. Losing Jansen was the biggest setback of the year.

Coles C+. Lots of catches but at a reduced yards per catch than in the past. ONE TD. Hello? Yes, he played hurt and yes, he played hard all year long and he deserves nothing but praise for that. But when your lead receiver gets into the end zone once for a season, that can't be something you call "above average".

Gardner D-. I think he's as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Thrash C. Not nearly the physical talent of Coles or Gardner or maybe even Jacobs, but he gives you 100% on every play on offense and on special teams. He gets his average grade on hustle and effort.

Jacobs D. Talk about an invisible player... He has to be considered below the league average WR based on what he has produced ont he field in the last two years. Does he have potential? Sure. But at some point you have to say that his absence from the field MIGHT indicate that his potential is never going to be realized.

Cooley B. Good hands; good route running; good in the red zone. He's never going to be a Tony Gonzales as a deep threat from the TE position, but neither will a lot of good TEs in the NFL. He is better than average.

Royal C. This guy is average - - I guess. But he's certainly not any better than that.

Defense: A-. The only reason they do not get an A is that they did not score much (1 TD) and did not create turnovers when needed to get a short field for the offense so that a field goal - at a minimum - could go on the board in a tight game situation.

D-Line: B. They get this grade for effort and hustle and not for innate talent because I really don't think there is a lot of raw talent there. But as long as they keep playing hard and playing smart, that will be fine with me.

Linebackers: A- Pierce and Washington were very VERY good. Marshall was more than adequate. Take a breath here because this might be shocking. I thought the linebackers as a unit played BETTER with Arrington on the inactive list. Just an observation...

Springs A-. Played better than I thought he would. And he does not take plays off which is very good.

Smoot B+. Far better than average as a CB in the league, but Springs was the better CB on this team this year.

Walt Harris C. Did not play enough to get a grade above average. In fact, an average grade might be generous.

Safeties Overall grade = C. This is clearly the weakest part of the defense; it's not close.

Clark C. Probably played better than most people thought he would but then again no one thought he could play much at all before the season started. He is out of position a lot.

Taylor C. And I'm being very generous with that grade because I don't want anyone to think that I'm downgrading him for being a Meathead. Taylor cost the Skins the 2nd Dallas game; it was his mistake in coverage and his failure to do what he was supposed to do in his deep coverage resonsibilty that gave up the winning TD. He was the one who got beat twice on the final drive in the Cleveland game that led to the Browns' winning TD in the final minutes. He was the one who got beat at the 2 yardline by Greg Lewis in the Philly game and then missed the tackle on Dorsey Leavens on the next play to give Philly a TD which was the difference in the game. Even though it was meaningless yesterday, he gave up a "Hail Mary TD". He was the one who was there and did not make the play. HOw many of those Hail Mary's wind up as TDs per year in the NFL? Two? Maybe...

Special Teams D: Mediocre on coverage teams and mediocre on returns until about Week 15 when it ceased to matter. Punting by Tupa was good - and that is important because he certainly more than enough times when he had to do that. Place kicking (field goals and kickoffs) was well below average. Way too many kickoffs were fielded by the opponent outside the 15 yardline.

Chandler C. We did not see enough of him to give him a high grade. Remember, this is a guy who did not cut it with a team that was 2-14 for the year.

Hall D-. Yes, he was injured but when in there he was below average.

Kimrin: D- You can find a kicker of that quality hanging aorund every NFL camp in the summer and the only chance he has to make a team is for the real kicker to get hurt.


Remember, you asked...

[BrudLee]

Curmudgeon -
When the highest grades on offense go to a rookie H-back, the backup RB, and the oft-injured right guard, the problem on offense should be evident.

I can agree with your Arrington-free assestment of the LBs. I hope LaVar realizes that he can't freelance every play when the guys next to him expect him to be elsewhere.

The reason the D gets an "A" in my book, despite your excellent point about scoring and takeaways, is that they got the yardage numbers they did without an effective ball control offense for most of the year. Imagine how they would be if we won the time of possession war?

[hurrykaine]

Originally Posted by jamf

offensive players should be ranked only by effort.

here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.

young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.

the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.

the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?

Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...

redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.

willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+


so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.

wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.

Interesting take on grading the offensive players within the framework of the coaching, playcalling, quarterbacking, etc. I guess my grades were based on what they did or didn't do (in my opinion) when they were handed or thrown the ball and how they blocked.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by jamf

offensive players should be ranked only by effort.

here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.

young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.

the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.

the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?

Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...

redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.

willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+


so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.

wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.

Why is not fair to grade the players? After all they're supposed to be making the plays, right? Wouldn't you grade the players based on performance? Players play, coaches coach. It's all about execution.

I don't get your grading system.

[hurrykaine]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Curmudgeon -
When the highest grades on offense go to a rookie H-back, the backup RB, and the oft-injured right guard, the problem on offense should be evident.

I don't think Betts' B+ can be compared to Portis C or whatever. Betts has to be graded as a back-up based on his talent level, whereas Portis has to be graded as a starter (where standards are much higher) based on a much higher talent level. By no means does this mean that Betts performed better than Portis did.

[Redskins_P]

Just saw this on the washinton times about Samuels. Gibbs thinks he had a good year and Samuels wants to stay. Does this mean he's willing to restructure??

Samuels' last hurrah?
Gibbs gave left tackle Chris Samuels a vote of confidence following what might have been the final Redskins game for the one-time Pro Bowl pick.
Speculation is swirling about Samuels' future following his fifth NFL season, in which he rebounded from lousy 2002 and 2003 seasons but participated in a generally erratic offensive line and didn't earn even alternate status for the Pro Bowl.
A 2001 Pro Bowl starter, Samuels could get traded or cut this offseason unless Washington can rework the $6.5 million he is scheduled to make in 2005. But Gibbs sounds eager to stick with Samuels, blaming himself for the one sack Samuels surrendered all year and even saying Samuels showed "real leadership" with right tackle Jon Jansen out.
"Chris had probably one of the best years," Gibbs said. "Other than that [one sack], I think he had a perfect year."
Said Samuels: "I thought I had a pretty good season overall. Last year, coming off the bad year, I really wasn't myself out there. I just didn't play like I wanted to. But this year, I made it a goal in my life to come back and be a pro — film work, weight room, everything it takes. I think I did just that."
Added Samuels: "I'm just looking forward to being back. I don't want to play for anyone else."

[MTK]

Samuels has already indicated he's willing to restructure, I personally hope we can keep him. Quality LT's aren't easy to find and we have other holes to fill without having to find another LT.

[Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor]

I'm tired of you all bad mouthing sean t because he is only a rookie and he has made some impressive plays for someone who did not even start the season(which was bs). Next year I don't expect him to give those plays. He's an impressive young safety who has the ability to become a bigger, faster, and stronger ronnie lott. Give him a break.

[Daseal]

Why is not fair to grade the players? After all they're supposed to be making the plays, right? Wouldn't you grade the players based on performance? Players play, coaches coach. It's all about execution.

Okay - so every losing team simply just didn't execute their coaches plan? Spurrier didn't do well because our players didn't execute? Norv failed because players didn't execute? You can argue that forever, but he makes a good point. Greg Williams made all those defensive players look great when no one knew who they were while Gibbs made some players look great (Cooley) and make others look worse. I agree with a lot of jamf's post.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Okay - so every losing team simply just didn't execute their coaches plan? Spurrier didn't do well because our players didn't execute? Norv failed because players didn't execute? You can argue that forever, but he makes a good point. Greg Williams made all those defensive players look great when no one knew who they were while Gibbs made some players look great (Cooley) and make others look worse. I agree with a lot of jamf's post.

Spurrier didn't do well because he was running a college system in the NFL. Why do you keep on going back to Spurrier? Norv had no control over his own players. Everyone knows that. Even Spurrier lost some of his players last season.

So I guess Gibbs already failed, right? Norv had what 7 years? And your boy Spurrier quit.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

Why is not fair to grade the players? After all they're supposed to be making the plays, right? Wouldn't you grade the players based on performance? Players play, coaches coach. It's all about execution.

I don't get your grading system.

if you put jeff gordan in a pinto, do you complain when he finishes last?

the WR's ran comeback routes all year. every DB in the league knows that no deep balls will be thrown.
receivers never had a chance to catch the ball while moving downfield. running backs never got into the secondary. all completed passes were dump passes.

coles had 80+ receptions and less than a 1000 yards receiving. it wasnt for lack of effort either.

do you grade coles for a crappy yards per catch or do yo grade for catches? or do you say he was given a pinto to drive...

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by jamf

if you put jeff gordan in a pinto, do you complain when he finishes last?

the WR's ran comeback routes all year. every DB in the league knows that no deep balls will be thrown.
receivers never had a chance to catch the ball while moving downfield. running backs never got into the secondary. all completed passes were dump passes.

coles had 80+ receptions and less than a 1000 yards receiving. it wasnt for lack of effort either.

do you grade coles for a crappy yards per catch or do yo grade for catches? or do you say he was given a pinto to drive...

All those things you pointed out falls on the O-line. Except for Coles. The WR's ran post routes, and flys. Problem is the QB didn't have enough time to throw. Or the QB wasn't accurate.

[Daseal]

Redskins_P: Here's the point I'm trying to drive. Every coach in the history of the game can use the excuse "My players didn't execute." If your players throw, catch, block, run like you plan pre-game then of course you win. Jamf makes very good points and it's hard to give the offense a good grade. It wasn't their fault in my eyes, but still they didn't get any real production.

Will Gibbs turn it around - most likely. Do I want him to? Most definitely. Did he do it this year? Absolutely not.