Preseason Predictions Thread

Sure thing, glad you asked.

Ware, Spencer, Lee, Romo, Bryant, Witten, Tyron Smith, Hatcher, and Carr would fit my definition of top end talent. Austin, Murray, Ratliff, Claiborne, and Bruce Carter would fall short.

Orakpo, Fletcher, Kerrigan, Griffin, Davis, Williams, Coefield, Morris, and wait for it...... Hall. (compare his stats to Carr)

I'm not in disagreement necessarily about the quality of our depth vs. Dallas',
Yes you specifically disagreed with me by saying their depth is like ours, I specifically listed out the comparable offensive depth chart, and they are not as you said earlier : "Their depth is like ours, it's highly concentrated." It's just blatantly wrong.

but I do see that you've bought into the narrative around this team, so there's really no point for me to take the discussion further.

I will take it further. I'm not "buying in to the narrative", in my position by position listing, it shows that our depth is more consistent (not claiming star power, just solid depth) and that better depth also shows when our twos are playing "mano y mano" in preseason against other teams ones (or 3 vs 2 etc).


I'll gladly concede any debate about the Redskins and the Cowboys depth charts, Good

but you can't look at our backup OL, see starting quality across the board, and be taken seriously. It's a non-starter.
Depth is not for "starting quality" it's for the ability to play at a position with the least amount of dropoff if called upon. I said almost all our OL is starting quality, I don't really think Polumbus should be starting in a non-zone blocking, or straight drop type offense, but he does fit the bare minimum for what our offense needs most of the time, the backups all are cross trained (minus Compton) and we could suffer a loss at one position(excluding our Stud LT), and not have our line deteriorate completely. There just aren't many teams that have starting quality OL backups, and maybe only 1 or two who could replace their LT without a drop in performance. Bottomline, you are setting a false goal if you think any team has 8 starting quality OL, and I certainly never claimed or implied we did.

Orakpo, Fletcher, Kerrigan, Griffin, Davis, Williams, Coefield, Morris, and wait for it...... Hall. (compare his stats to Carr)

Nice...although if you compare their stats, Carr was substantially better in catches allowed.

Hall: 94 tackles, 4 INTs, 1 sack, 75 catches allowed

Carr: 53 tackles, 3 InTs, 0 sacks, 51 catches allowed

Nice...although if you compare their stats, Carr was substantially better in catches allowed.

Hall: 94 tackles, 4 INTs, 1 sack, 75 catches allowed

Carr: 53 tackles, 3 InTs, 0 sacks, 51 catches allowed

Carr also had better help from safeties. Hall had basically none. Safeties have a fair say in that particular stat unless its a true shut down corner that is left on an island the whole time. Which neither Carr nor Hall are.

Carr also had better help from safeties. Hall had basically none. Safeties have a fair say in that particular stat unless its a true shut down corner that is left on an island the whole time. Which neither Carr nor Hall are.

If you factor safety play in, than Hall is better. 94 tackles and 4 INTs isn't too shabby for an almost-30 year-old corner.

Orakpo, Fletcher, Kerrigan, Griffin, Davis, Williams, Coefield, Morris, and wait for it...... Hall. (compare his stats to Carr)I'm very comfortable with the Redskins top end talent, but Hall's numbers are much more comparable to Claiborne's than Carr's. And Claiborne is either a rookie who will improve, or a Top Ten draft bust. He has to be better than he was last season.

The Skins top end talent list has a potentially great TE coming off an achillies injury, without any great season to date, and 38 year old London Fletcher. Maybe sports medicine is at a point where Davis is truly 100% and maybe Fletcher will have another great season before retirement, but the "maybes" are what pushes a guy off a top-end talent list for me.

Everyone else you put up there would be on my Redskins top-end talent list.

Yes you specifically disagreed with me by saying their depth is like ours, I specifically listed out the comparable offensive depth chart, and they are not as you said earlier : "Their depth is like ours, it's highly concentrated." It's just blatantly wrong."Blatantly wrong" would imply that there was something easily refutable about it, but all you offered was one of the most over-optimistic defenses of some players on our roster who just barely made the cut. The argument in favor of the Redskins depth over Dallas isn't that we're in a completely different league, but rather that we go 53 deep, and Dallas has struggled in recent years. When you go point by point through the roster, it's hard to create the idea that it's really different unless you already bought into that idea before you started.

Which you did.

Depth is not for "starting quality" it's for the ability to play at a position with the least amount of dropoff if called upon. I'm not going to quibble over your definition of depth, other than to say that every team in the league qualifies as having depth by it, so then you get to a point where you're rating backups based on a really small number of plays and concluding that one team "has depth" and another does not.

Given that you saw the whole Redskins preseason, I'm not surprised that you arrived at the conclusions you did. You're familiar with our roster = our roster has depth. The Cowboys have struggled with depth in the past = their roster lacks depth. Two different standards.

No one is arguing that the Cowboys have depth but the Redskins do not. I am just pointing out that you can not be a really deep team if you don't have OL depth, don't have secondary depth, and seems to be distrusting of it's receiver depth. Those positions are, what, 40% of the roster? Having depth on 60% of the roster (every other position) is fantastic. But it's not like a lot of the league isn't in the same boat. The Cowboys are in that same boat. Which is not to defend Dallas' depth at all. They're thin at some key positions. But it's not their biggest organizational issue.

I said almost all our OL is starting quality, I don't really think Polumbus should be starting in a non-zone blocking, or straight drop type offense, but he does fit the bare minimum for what our offense needs most of the time, the backups all are cross trained (minus Compton) and we could suffer a loss at one position(excluding our Stud LT), and not have our line deteriorate completely. There just aren't many teams that have starting quality OL backups, and maybe only 1 or two who could replace their LT without a drop in performance. Bottomline, you are setting a false goal if you think any team has 8 starting quality OL, and I certainly never claimed or implied we did.We don't disagree here.

But we are in trouble if one of our young backups HAS to play for a majority of the season. As backups, it doesn't really matter how ready they are. Once they are forced into the lineup, they can't be hidden.

Carr also had better help from safeties. Hall had basically none. Safeties have a fair say in that particular stat unless its a true shut down corner that is left on an island the whole time. Which neither Carr nor Hall are.Aren't the Dallas safeties one of the more obvious areas of concern throughout the league?

I'm very comfortable with the Redskins top end talent, but Hall's numbers are much more comparable to Claiborne's than Carr's. And Claiborne is either a rookie who will improve, or a Top Ten draft bust. He has to be better than he was last season.

The Skins top end talent list has a potentially great TE coming off an achillies injury, without any great season to date, and 38 year old London Fletcher. Maybe sports medicine is at a point where Davis is truly 100% and maybe Fletcher will have another great season before retirement, but the "maybes" are what pushes a guy off a top-end talent list for me.

Everyone else you put up there would be on my Redskins top-end talent list.

I had to list Hall. I know how much you like him so I couldn't resist. :) I agree with your overall perspective and analysis. I think the skins and cowpokes are close in terms of talent. The Cowboys have the edge in individual talent, we have an edge in team/system talent. Hard to explain that except through wins and losses, especially in head to head games.

I had to list Hall. I know how much you like him so I couldn't resist. :) I agree with your overall perspective and analysis. I think the skins and cowpokes are close in terms of talent. The Cowboys have the edge in individual talent, we have an edge in team/system talent. Hard to explain that except through wins and losses, especially in head to head games.I figured, but I still responded to be safe. Or sorry. Or whatever I was.

The original point is the Cowboys are an extreme outlier. They DO have all these players who are worth a ton of money to other teams, and they do have a quality roster, and for three consecutive years, they haven't figured out how to make it work over a 16 game season. The idea that if they just brought everyone back, they would figure it out this year is a VERY flawed premise. They are not MORE talented than in recent years. And they are likely doomed to the same fate.

All of this is true about the Cowboys, but it's also been true of the Redskins prior to 2012. It's always a little jarring when Redskins fans have short memories.

I'm not trying to crush anyones optimism before the season, I am just saying that the Redskins still have to prove to the fans that they are moving in the right direction. We can use 2012 as a stepping stone to much better things in 2013: we have the roster to do it. As we did in 2006 and 2009. I believe this year is different. But it won't take a whole lot to scare me into believing it isn't. I'm the textbook definition of cautiously optimistic about this season.