Coach Gibbs might consider extending stay.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Scoring Defense, that's the stat that counts. Our D has given up few td's.

You need to take GW's scheme into consideration; he's employed the cover 2, bend don't break approach this year & it has been overwhelmingly successful w/2 exceptions, the NE & Dallas games. In the latter, we actually got beat a few times when we blitzed Landry instead of playing cover 2.

This is not a dominant shut down unit, but it's one that teams have a hard time scoring on. The talent level is now mediocre, but not the performance.

In case anyone did not see this - here is an article form the Washington Times "Caution Trumps Free Spending"

Caution trumps free spending - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/SPORTS01/212860805/1005/SPORTS)

43 catches, 636 yds, 0 TD.. Which #1 WR is he playing like?

Perhaps David Patten, Bobby Wade, Jeff King, James Jones, Eric Johnson? He trails all of them in receptions, yards and/or TD.. Not to mention he's made virtually no impact in the return game..

Sorry, I'm a huge fan of the guy, but that's a bust.

I guess I was referring to the games when we actually had a passing attack.

- ARE's had two 100 yard games.
- Zero TD's, sure. However we all know he was stopped at the goal line at least twice this year. Nobody has a problem giving Portis credit for those rushing TD's.
- The dude has a 14.8 yd/rec average. That puts him in some pretty solid company: Andre Johnson (15.0), Chad Johnson (14.9), Plexico Burress (14.4), Chris Chambers (14.4), Larry Fitzgerald (14.0).
- Number of games in which ARE has caught a pass and averaged LESS than 14 yards per reception? Three. Number of times TO has had this happen? Five. Reggie Wayne? Five. Larry Fitzgerald? Seven. Randy Frickin' Moss? Seven.

The point here is that I don't think ARE can be blamed for our lowly passing game. The entire passing offense is woeful, so I don't see how he can be viewed as anything other than a pleasant surprise rather than a bust.

He's outplaying Santana, who's the WR1 on this team, and would have equal receiving yardage with Cooley had he played the same number of games -- it's not ARE's fault if our playbook nearly always throws to the TE in the red zone.

Only Redskins fans could find a way to see negatives in something like the play of Randle El this year. Good grief.

In case anyone did not see this - here is an article form the Washington Times "Caution Trumps Free Spending"

Caution trumps free spending*-*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/SPORTS01/212860805/1005/SPORTS)

I think we'll see a cautious approach much like last year. First off, we're not in position to be aggressive because of the cap situation, and second and most importantly I think Gibbs has seen that while free agency can be a valuable tool to supplement a roster, it needs to be used wisely.

I think we'll see a cautious approach much like last year. First off, we're not in position to be aggressive because of the cap situation, and second and most importantly I think Gibbs has seen that while free agency can be a valuable tool to supplement a roster, it needs to be used wisely.

I hope your right on this. I think when teams buy the super expensive free agents more often than not it doesn't always pan out like they planned. If I rememeber correctly wasn't everyone expecting the San Francisco 49ers to make the playoffs after they went in an offseason free agent spending splurge this past offseason - boy that worked out well for the Niners didn't it?