A good off-season review for the Redskins

NFL.com - NFL News (http://nfl.com/news/story/10234177)

We actually don't get bashed here.


You shouldn't.I call it as I see it and I see it this way

NFC EAST........

1)Skins ....one of the first quite off season's you've had and I think it will beifit you.

2)Cowboys/Giants.......this is tuff but I'll give the edge to the boys.It could very easly go to the Giants I'm not sure about our running game ,Eli,our LBers or coaching other than that we'll kick ass.

4) Eagles,McNabb is on his way out and I think Philly is pushing him.

I don't think I said anything like that at all, I simply said I tend to believe they know what they're doing. What's more crazy... trusting the coaches or some armchair fan's opinion?

Well, who was right? This armchair fan has said for several seasons we needed more help along the D-line!

I think the 2006 season backs up the armchair fan, not the coaches.

In the 2 seasons prior I'd say the coaches won out regarding the performance of the defense. We'll see how things play out this year. I'll still put my money on the coaches over the fan anyday.

And I still say coaches are flawed human beings just like armchair fans are. Sometimes the fans were right, and sometimes the coaches are right.

As an organization, we can say with some degree of clarity that the Washington Redskins haven't been right all that much considering their success since, oh ... about 1991.

And I still say coaches are flawed human beings just like armchair fans are. Sometimes the fans were right, and sometimes the coaches are right.

As an organization, we can say with some degree of clarity that the Washington Redskins haven't been right all that much considering their success since, oh ... about 1991.


what happened in 1991?http://www.thewarpath.net/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.thewarpath.net/images/icons/icon12.gif

Of course the coaches can be wrong... but they are still far more trustworthy and knowledgeable about the personnel than we can ever dream of being. I never said they shouldn't be questioned, I don't see why one small sign of support is seen as some sort of homeristic blind allegiance.

We don't have the benefit of working with these guys and seeing them up close on a daily basis.

It seems to be clear that the coaches felt last year's defensive problems stemmed from injuries and coverage issues in the secondary. They've addressed the secondary and they claim the defensive line is now healthy and will be in attack mode more often this year.

The beauty of it is we'll see if they are right soon enough.

Well, who was right? This armchair fan has said for several seasons we needed more help along the D-line!

I think the 2006 season backs up the armchair fan, not the coaches.
Well 05 you would have been wrong and 06 correct but if asked after 05 would our D be our weak link in 06 most people if not all would have said no way.

I give our off-season is a B.

Of course the coaches can be wrong... but they are still far more trustworthy and knowledgeable about the personnel than we can ever dream of being. I never said they shouldn't be questioned, I don't see why one small sign of support is seen as some sort of homeristic blind allegiance.

We don't have the benefit of working with these guys and seeing them up close on a daily basis.

It seems to be clear that the coaches felt last year's defensive problems stemmed from injuries and coverage issues in the secondary. They've addressed the secondary and they claim the defensive line is now healthy and will be in attack mode more often this year.

The beauty of it is we'll see if they are right soon enough.

I agree with you here but don't forget about the terrible LB play!

Points we all agree on:

1: Last Years D sucked and, as part of that: a) The line put on no pressure; b) Our LB's were pushed around and pretty much non-factors in both run and pass defense; and our secondary was often out of position and, even when in position, didn't have the horses to run with the big dogs (ahhh mixed metaphors, gotta love'em - this year we're gonnna ring their clocks).

2: We have taken significant steps to improve our secondary.

3. With the addition of Fletcher and the good reports on Rocky, there is reason to hope that our LB play will be greatly improved.

4. JC's play at QB is likely the key to the offense.

Points upon which there is a divergence of opinion:

1. The DL will be fine this year. Essentially, as has been pointed out by others, the coaches clearly made the choice to upgrade the back 7 as opposed to the front 4. The point of contention, it seems to me, is whether or not this was a mistake b/c I think it unreasonable to try and entirely revamp/replace all three elements of the D. I think the DL will be fine but unspectacular. Not sure I trust GW as much as I used to, mainly b/c of his relieance on older players to start on the line. But you never know - three years ago we went into the season and GW said "trust me - AP can do the job". He was right. Maybe it went to his head and he was sure he could make anyone into a star. Maybe last year knocked him down a notch. Maybe, maybe maybe...

I think, when it comes to the DL, we are all crossing our fingers and hoping GW isn't talking out his butt when he says it will be fine. I hope he is right and, I choose to believe (at this point anyway), that last year was an anomaly in his coaching career and that, this year, he will return to the ranks of respected D-Cood's.