Washington Redskins 2010 season preview (NY Times)

I don't see the word "flashy" here nor any mention of Snyder controlling football decisions
Yes, but it's tenuous connection at best that Bruce's style of picking up players is like his dad's. I mean, Allen didn't just prefer vets, he absolutely hated rookies and the draft and traded away picks like they were nothing for "his guys".

LOL. I guess it's just safe to say we'll still be bad due to our past decade and what not, but honestly it's just stupid.

Guy acts like these off season changes are really no big deal, come on.

That was uplifting

LOL. I guess it's just safe to say we'll still be bad due to our past decade and what not, but honestly it's just stupid.

Guy acts like these off season changes are really no big deal, come on.

Well let's face it, we're coming off a 4-12 year and we have a lot of new pieces that may or may not work. Like he said, we'll probably be the most improved but we have a lot of work to do to get back to the top. Can it happen? Sure, but to think it may not happen this year isn't unrealistic

Well let's face it, we're coming off a 4-12 year and we have a lot of new pieces that may or may not work. Like he said, we'll probably be the most improved but we have a lot of work to do to get back to the top. Can it happen? Sure, but to think it may not happen this year isn't unrealistic

I'm just taking it from his attitude. It felt like he acted like Gibbs v2 was a failure. In the goal to win a Super Bowl, yes, but he definitely turned the team around, two playoff appearances with him, don't see how that was really a failure.

I just don't see how it appears he thinks that Shanahan and Allen wont do anything much better for the franchise. Reason I put it that way is because it sounded like he was saying they were only better than Cerrato.

I agree Ruh, it is difficult to argue against the article but it seems rather generic in following the Skins-bash formula of writers. Point out Snyder's shortcomings as an owner, talk about the age of the team (ignoring that the Saints were one of the NFL's oldest teams last year-age is overrated), talk about the middling WR group being less than what McNabb had in Philly, talk about the OL weaknesses from '09 and of course the obligatory Haynesworth commentary. Blah, blah, blah.

I'd love to see a national writer talk about the value of a winning pedigree with Shanahan and McNabb and the positives they bring. Talk about how even in the midst of the Zorn debacle the team was in all but about 4 games last year so there is talent here.

It also amazes me that Portis, Johnson and Parker are 'worn down' but no-one mentions Marion Barber & Brandon Jacobs fading badly the past 2 seasons. Felix Jones is fast but fragile and what has McCoy proven in Philly? Nobody will confuse our trio with young and spry but are they ready for the retirement home like most writers seem to think?

The article isn't wrong factually nor is it overly biased against us, just kinda lazy.



Well said. Where was the climax here?? It is not an antagonist take on our outlook as fans, it is a bland assessment of what we did as a bottom tier team in the division in the off-season. These are not the 02-03 wizards piecing together young/old stars and pseudo/ real stars. I think the improvements at o-line will take us to 9 + wins despite our lack of "explosiveness". I compare the 2010 redskins to the 2006 Patriots. A well balanced team that can win a division, and sneak up on teams in the playoffs. Veteran and symbolic of their head coach. Not the same continuity as the pats team.. but a similar steadily progressive offensive team, void of the big play but a winning winning style. AND A 3-4 D !!

Well said. Where was the climax here?? It is not an antagonist take on our outlook as fans, it is a bland assessment of what we did as a bottom tier team in the division in the off-season. These are not the 02-03 wizards piecing together young/old stars and pseudo/ real stars. I think the improvements at o-line will take us to 9 + wins despite our lack of "explosiveness". I compare the 2010 redskins to the 2006 Patriots. A well balanced team that can win a division, and sneak up on teams in the playoffs. Veteran and symbolic of their head coach. Not the same continuity as the pats team.. but a similar steadily progressive offensive team, void of the big play but a winning winning style. AND A 3-4 D !!I think the arguments about the depth of the article are just basic critiques of an outsider's perspective on the Redskins. I think guys like Benoit can dig a little bit deeper for each of the 32 teams (just a little), maybe into something like a McNabb age progression analysis, but when he notes things like our receivers being "unable to beat man coverage", that's a pretty impressive attention to detail for a writer who doesn't waste a lot of time following the Redskins.

Comparisons between DeAngelo Hall and Carlos Rogers, projections for Rocky McIntosh, and appreciation of guys like Phillip Daniels and Andre Carter are things that you can pretty much expect national writers to ignore. Just like you wouldn't expect me to be able to tell you the difference between Johnathon Joseph and Leon Hall (Hall is better), how truly underrated Daryl Smith has been, and appreciate future hall of famer Dwight Freeney's complete mastery of his position vs. more one dimensional guys in the same salary tier like DeMarcus Ware and Elvis Dumerville.

I just don't see how it appears he thinks that Shanahan and Allen wont do anything much better for the franchise. Reason I put it that way is because it sounded like he was saying they were only better than Cerrato.My personal opinion of ShanAllen aside, the arrogance of our fans to expect the rest of the world to kiss Snyder's feet for pairing two guys who were fired from their previous jobs is truly staggering.

There's plenty of reason to think that it can work here (namely: we have money, and aren't afraid to throw it around), but it's not going to be because we got the two front office guys that every team wanted. Shanahan would have landed somewhere as a head coach, but we were one of two teams (Buffalo) willing to give up input in personnel. Even Detroit is past the archaic, historically unsuccessful idea that you can have a plus personnel man who is also your head coach. At best, this is going to take a very delicate balance between Shanahan and Allen to co-exist and create a front office better than the sum of it's parts, which is essentially a pair of castoffs.

I'm glad nobody's talking the Skins up. Winning as an underdog is so much sweeter.

I'm just taking it from his attitude. It felt like he acted like Gibbs v2 was a failure. In the goal to win a Super Bowl, yes, but he definitely turned the team around, two playoff appearances with him, don't see how that was really a failure.



Gibbs II was a failure in terms of building a core that could make it to the Super Bowl. Gibbs did not trust the draft, somehow failed to realize the FA's and traded players also came with a risk of not working out, and "spent" his draft picks with little "frugality", Cerrato was just plain stupid, and Snyder was impatient and not football bright. At least with Shanahan and Allen, they seems to be better at squeezing the juice out of the fruit with their transactions(conditional picks, incentive-laden contract, etc).

Making "just making the playoffs" as some standard of "success" means the embracing of mediocrity because the level of competition in the regular season is nowhere near it is in the playoffs. A few lucky bounces and strength of schedule can mean the difference between 10-6 and 6-10. Besides, look at the teams that took part in the Super Bowl during the years the Gibbs II Skins made the playoffs and you'll see that the teams made it to the Super Bowls had some things that were lacking on the Redskins in those years.