What single factor is key for the Skins this year?

The defense.

I think it's a given that the offense is going to be really rough, since we're in year 1 of a new system.

I think we're all waiting to find out exactly how big a loss GW was. Since Blache is keeping the system in place, we all tend to assume we'll be fine. But GW isn't referred to as a genius for nothing. If our defense stays in the top 10, we can still compete for a playoff spot. If it falls off, we'll go 5-11.

zorn, blache and campbell are all big question marks. but i'm gonna go against the grain here and say the rookies, particularly the 2nd round picks, are the x-factor.

despite learning 2 systems since arriving here, jc has improved steadily and there's no reason to think that pattern will change. however, he had very little help from his receivers last year and the resulting domino effect of that is obviously a big part of the struggles we had.

with many of our losses last year coming with a single score difference, just one of those 3 newbies having a big year will be the difference in our record.

at the moment, my money's on kelly.

#1 factor is the QB. JC has shown flashes of being good, but so did Patrick Ramsey. If JC makes believers out of us, the Redskins will have a great season. But in order to do that, we need to think that he's going to have that last second scoring drive no problem (a la Manning) vs. "JC, please don't screw up, please, please!" I have no confidence in him as a "STAR" player yet - nor has he given anyone a reason to feel confident in him.

#2 OL. This has a direct impact on how #1 above turns out.

Coaching at the high school level and maybe college is important, because the players need to be coached what to do. At the pro level, they all know what to do and when to do it, so coaching has little to no impact on the game. Don't fool yourselves. I think Easterbrook from TMQB stated that coaching may have an impact on game if you have one of the top 3-4 or bottom 3-4 coaches. All the coaches in between are not going to really impact the outcome of the game. I was initially pissed about the Zorn hire until I read this article - but it makes sense. Now I just hope that Zorn helps JC come along -cause that is truly where he could make a difference.

#1 factor is the QB. JC has shown flashes of being good, but so did Patrick Ramsey. If JC makes believers out of us, the Redskins will have a great season. But in order to do that, we need to think that he's going to have that last second scoring drive no problem (a la Manning) vs. "JC, please don't screw up, please, please!" I have no confidence in him as a "STAR" player yet - nor has he given anyone a reason to feel confident in him.

#2 OL. This has a direct impact on how #1 above turns out.

Coaching at the high school level and maybe college is important, because the players need to be coached what to do. At the pro level, they all know what to do and when to do it, so coaching has little to no impact on the game. Don't fool yourselves. I think Easterbrook from TMQB stated that coaching may have an impact on game if you have one of the top 3-4 or bottom 3-4 coaches. All the coaches in between are not going to really impact the outcome of the game. I was initially pissed about the Zorn hire until I read this article - but it makes sense. Now I just hope that Zorn helps JC come along -cause that is truly where he could make a difference.

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

I would disagree that Easterbrook is a moron, while agreeing that coaches do make a difference. Here is the link referred to for anyone who cares to parse the language. ESPN Page 2 - TMQ: SuperCoach? (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071218)

in my opinion it all starts with the head coach.the sucess of this team rides on his shoulders.zorn has alot to prove in this league and to dan synder.so far so good but we shall see how it all works out come sept.can he make jc the qb he thinks he can.not getting a few more free agents in,the draft.will his system work.i certinly hope so.to add one more thing that worries me is the defense.it's getting old.bottom line.

"Health" Coupled with the continued development of our young players.

We've got a new head coach, a new OC with a new scheme, a new DC, a young QB, a banged up and aging defense, a WR corps with a lot of question marks, a banged up and aging O-line, etc. I think there are a LOT of reasons to be optimistic, but there are just as many questions. If I had to pick the biggest question mark, it would probably be JC.

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

Of course coaches have an impact, I'm just saying it's not usually a game-changing impact. Coaches are given way too much credit when they come in and teams start winning more (and too much blame as well). They're just a figurehead -and it comes with the job description. Let's face it, most head coaches are smart, smart men who are there for a reason. Mistakes are made, but sometimes mistakes that turn out to be good plays make the coach a genius. It's very arbitrary. Here's what Easterbrook actually said:

"The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small, especially in college at the football-factory level, where many outcomes are not close."

I think he makes sense.

It JC. He will determine the success or failure of the offense.