Hooskins Presents the "Who Needs to Step Up" Poll

[Warpath]

Im going to vote other. I think we had problems on both sides of the ball last season. The D can't win games alone, and the O needs to score at least say 21 points to consistently win games. Since I can't vote JC (I think we only go as far as he can take us by performance) Ill say the D-line. We need to create pressure which in turn will lead to turnovers and 3 and outs.

On a side note, heres me and Rocky:

And Golston...

(pics from Renaldo Wynn's car show at redskins park)

[70Chip]

I voted Rogers because if he were to play at a higher level it would have a greater impact than any other player. It would be worth 5 to 10 overall defensive ranking spots by itself. I assume that by stepping up he would also learn to catch. Second choice: Golston.

[jsarno]

I think it's McIntosh and Wade. Here's why...We are not expecting Rogers to be a #1 CB, so the pressure isn't there to "step up". If he doesn't step up and he plays #2 or #3 ball, that's what we expected.
McIntosh however, needs to step up for the LB core. There is no one else that we are expecting to start in that position, and I'm sorry, I feel our backups are weak considering 2 of them are rookies.
Wade would also be a great pick due to the fact that we had one of the best lines in the league last year and he has some big shoes to fill. We all know it's important to have chemistry and this will be a key to our success.

[hesscl34]

If the team fought their guts out we wouldn't have lost. Sad truth, but it is the truth. I think there were a lot of players that just didn't care, or were frustrated and gave up way too early in the season. Gibbs wouldn't have had to scream at them at the end of the year if they had been fighthing their guts out.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

If the team fought their guts out we wouldn't have lost. Sad truth, but it is the truth. I think there were a lot of players that just didn't care, or were frustrated and gave up way too early in the season. Gibbs wouldn't have had to scream at them at the end of the year if they had been fighthing their guts out.

Not true. That assumes that every team that loses could have won if they tried harder. Players who don't go all out on every play don't last very long in this league. It was not an effort issue.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Not true. That assumes that every team that loses could have won if they tried harder. Players who don't go all out on every play don't last very long in this league. It was not an effort issue.

Disagree. The games when the put in effort, we usually won.. it was close, but we won.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

Disagree. The games when the put in effort, we usually won.. it was close, but we won.

We were 5-11. Effort was put into all the games as a neccesity to not being blown out of the water.

[12thMan]

GTripp, I hear what you're saying. But I look at a team like Philly. To me, there's nothing special about their defense or their team for that matter. But you know what, they are extremely well coached; Year after year after year.

In my opinion, when your talent only takes you so far, coaching takes you the rest of the way. Coaching is that decisive and competitive advantage that separates poor teams from good teams and good ones from great ones.

When you listen to player post game interviews after a big win, I tend to hear the same thing...."the coaches did a good job getting us ready"...or "we were really prepared for this game". Maybe it's just my selective hearing, but I rarely heard that coming from our locker room last season.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

GTripp, I hear what you're saying. But I look at a team like Philly. To me, there's nothing special about their defense or their team for that matter. But you know what, they are extremely well coached; Year after year after year.

In my opinion, when your talent only takes you so far, coaching takes you the rest of the way. Coaching is that decisive and competitive advantage that separates poor teams from good teams and good ones from great ones.

When you listen to player post game interviews after a big win, I tend to hear the same thing...."the coaches did a good job getting us ready"...or "we were really prepared for this game". Maybe it's just my selective hearing, but I rarely heard that coming from our locker room last season.

The Eagles also do a wonderful job with their personel year after year. And Reid is the league's top coach right now IMO. But if you kept their personel and made Marty Mornignweg the coach there, I don't think you'd see a noticible dropoff in their team play.

Coaching can provide a strategic (and unpredictable) advantage in the short term, but in the long run, I just feel that the talent on the field has to carry the team.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The Eagles also do a wonderful job with their personel year after year. And Reid is the league's top coach right now IMO. But if you kept their personel and made Marty Mornignweg the coach there, I don't think you'd see a noticible dropoff in their team play.

Coaching can provide a strategic (and unpredictable) advantage in the short term, but in the long run, I just feel that the talent on the field has to carry the team.

I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.

We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.

The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.

We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.

The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.

I'm with you, 12th. Gregg Williams really made me pause and think about that big contract extension he got. Maybe he started to believe his press and that's what did him in last year. Whatever it was, the entire D was atrocious with absolutely diddley squat in the turnover department, no run support, shoddy tackling and poor coverage. To me, that reflects upon the scheme and coaching, especially when you have players like Marcus, ST, Cornelius etc.
So my vote is for the entire defensive staff and players.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I feel just the opposite. I think the talent, in many cases, is close at this level. Closer than we think. The way rosters turn over in the NFL now a days, the only constant is the coaching staff and continuity of thought.

We agree that Reid is one of the top coaches in the NFL, but I disagree that any old Joe Schmo can't get the same results with the same team. This guy takes J. Trotter, who by some accounts, is a system linebacker. Yet he somehow manages to be in the discussion as one of the better linebackers in the NFC.

The fact of the matter is, one would really have a hard time quantifying good coaching. Other than wins and losses, it's hard to really 'see' it over the course of a game. Sure, if it's third and one, and your team has rushed for over two hundred yards during the game, and the coach decides to thow a bomb to the end zone, that probably was a questionable call there.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I happen to think Gregg Williams is a wonderful coach but this is his year to step up.

I would completely agree that the talent at this level is closer than anyone things. But I don't think the difference in consistent winning team and consistent losing teams is about coaching. I would argue that its even simplier. Because the level of talent between the two teams is always close (unlike college football), the chances of an upset due to random fluctuations of dumb luck are far greater.

Even if the far superior Coach "A" devises a master gameplan to face Coach "B", its not improbable at all in this sport for the blind Coach "B" squirrel to provide his team a coaching advantage in a single game. Suppose Coach A does a masterful job mixing up his runs and passes and his blitzes, while Coach B selects plays at random. What's to say that Coach B's team wont have the strategic advantage? The fact that luck of the draw can completely mitigate a lot of strategy in football definately deemphizizes the effect of coaching on the outcome of a game.

Now if Coach A is playing his best 11 players for the situation at all times, and Coach B is not, Coach A's team now has a big advantage.

I think it shows up in areas like lack of penalties, exececution of time clock, tackles made/missed, passes caught/dropped and maybe a few other areas. It's more mental. I believe players excute to the extent of their preparedness and confidence in the overall strategy. That's why you can fight your guts out every game and still lose week after week. At this level true professionals have the mental edge over the opponent.

I agree that those things are mental, but I'm not sure how much a coach can do to improve those things. I mean, number one, they are going to happen in every game anyway regardless of how prepared you are. Number two, I believe that no coach will be able to better a player who doesn't want to better himself. I also believe the type of player who is good enough at football to make it to the NFL is probably near his optimal level of mental acuity and composure. After all, its the only way they'd make it. Maybe its just me but I just can't imagine how the hypothetical Coach A would get his players to perform measurably better than Coach B could, provided that they were the exact same players.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Maybe its just me but I just can't imagine how the hypothetical Coach A would get his players to perform measurably better than Coach B could, provided that they were the exact same players.

I respectfully disagree. I am no pro athlete, but I played a lot of sports at the youth, high-school, and college level and I can tell you for a fact that certain coaches know how to get the best out of their guys and others don't. It comes down to preparation and trust. Some coaches have a natural ability to instill trust that their system and approach will work, which builds confidence in the players and translates in to increased performance.

Case in point: Norv Turner, by all accounts an offensive genius and overall a nice guy. He is not, however, a good HC. He doesn't have the inherent leadership skills to instill confidence as an HC and hence, his record when in charge is well below .500.

In all walks of life, sports, business, performing arts, military, etc., a true "leader" can make a tremendous difference in how a group performs.

[That Guy]

rocky and landry can't step up since they haven't actually played yet. golston did step up, but he doesn't really look like he'll ever be a stud DT.

wade played well in limited time, he just needs to keep it up.

that leaves only rogers that actually needs to step up, but even if he continues to struggle, smoot and macklin are right there, so that's not really an amazing option either.

Other - the entire D, especially the front four.

[SmootSmack]

Hooskins, our poll is getting picked apart. Not surprising I suppose. This always happens with polls.