Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

I don't have much of an opinion about all of this, but I will say that the Redskins seem to be pretty mediocre. I am happy with th 5-3 record, and hopeful that we will finish the season out strong, and I believe we have a legitimate chance of going 10-6 this season which is about what I predicted after Pre-season.

BUT this team has done very little to inspire confidence, and I think it is just as likely we go 8-8, which would be a huge disappointment IMO.

There is a lot of football to be played, and as far as Gibbs goes I am a Kool Aid drinker. I think this team will have a better second half, especially if the running game builds off of this past weekend, that will hopefully give Campbell more time in the pocket to take more then one deep shot a game, and hopefully that will help him and Moss get on the same page.

Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

Its the Patriots

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;374892]Why didnt you put up defensive rankings, is offense the only side of the ball? So there mediocre because the Skins barely defeated the Cardinals, you do realize the Cardinals beat the Steelers, the third best team in the AFC. You give me no reasons at all, your using victories as the reason for the skins being mediocre. This is the NFL, were not going to blow out opponents week after week, it just doesnt happen like that. We didnt blitz Kurt Warner at all and guess what? he threw two picks, one of which went for a touchdown, not to mention Andre Carter sacked him and forced a fumble, so we were able to get three turnovers without blitzing, but obviously you know more about coaching defense than Gregg Williams. A win is a win, do you think Dallas is complaining about barely beating Buffalo?
If your going to use stats instead of wins to consider a team mediocre than your going about it all wrong, we set a league record for the least amount of offensive yards in the playoff game against Tampa Bay, and we still won, was anyone complaining and calling us mediocre then? Stats are for fantasy football[/quote]


OK, have it your way. The Skins are, on defense:

18th in passing defense
23 in total yards allowed
15th in total scoring allowed
9th against the run

Im a fan, and Im a realist. If you cannot see that this team is a very mediocre team, then fine no one can convince you otherwise. There are several mediocre teams in the NFC. If you want to go strictly by wins then so be it.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan;374941]OK, have it your way. The Skins are, on defense:

18th in passing defense
23 in total yards allowed
15th in total scoring allowed
9th against the run

Im a fan, and Im a realist. If you cannot see that this team is a very mediocre team, then fine no one can convince you otherwise. There are several mediocre teams in the NFC. If you want to go strictly by wins then so be it.[/QUOTE]

They're 10th in yards, not 23rd. The 15th in scoring is a very skewed stat; they've allowed an opposing offense to score 20 points just twice this season and, if you look at each game, they've held opposing offenses to [B]about 8 points [/B]under their average score. Aside from the Patriots game, the Redskins defense has been [B]allowing opposing offenses to score just 13 points per game[/B]. If you're not satisfied with a defense allowing 13 points per game, you're never going to be satisfied with a defense.

I'll freely admit that the offense leaves a lot to be desired, but the defense is pretty damn stout. Why is it that many "Kool-Aid drinkers" are willing to concede that the offense has serious problems, but many of the team's critics won't admit that the defense is good.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;374946]They're 10th in yards, not 23rd. The 15th in scoring is a very skewed stat; they've allowed an opposing offense to score 20 points just twice this season and, if you look at each game, they've held opposing offenses to [B]about 8 points [/B]under their average score. Aside from the Patriots game, the Redskins defense has been [B]allowing opposing offenses to score just 13 points per game[/B]. If you're not satisfied with a defense allowing 13 points per game, you're never going to be satisfied with a defense.

I'll freely admit that the offense leaves a lot to be desired, but the defense is pretty damn stout. Why is it that many "Kool-Aid drinkers" are willing to concede that the offense has serious problems, but many of the team's critics won't admit that the defense is good.[/QUOTE]

The Patriots game skews the defensive stats like crazy. Obviously the stats are going to count every game and the Patriots were on our schedule, like it or not.

I think, however, that we can all agree that the Patriots are a rare exception in the league, not just this year either. Take out the Pats game and the defense is way up there.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

This is interesting:

[url=http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/2_987_2007_Quality_Standings.html]Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: 2007 Quality Standings[/url]

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=paulskinsfan;374941]OK, have it your way. The Skins are, on defense:

18th in passing defense
23 in total yards allowed
15th in total scoring allowed
9th against the run

Im a fan, and Im a realist. If you cannot see that this team is a very mediocre team, then fine no one can convince you otherwise. There are several mediocre teams in the NFC. If you want to go strictly by wins then so be it.[/quote]

If you were a realist you would understand that were a mediocre offense with really good special teams and a very stout defense. The offenses inability to put teams away does not take away from the defense pretty much winning all our games for us. If Santana Moss doesnt fumble in the Packers game, and Joe Gibbs quits coaching like hes scared to run up the score than we crush the Giants, that would mean we would have 1 loss on our record, its amazing how two simple mistakes can make a good team look mediocre.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;375031]If you were a realist you would understand that were a mediocre offense with really good special teams and a very stout defense. The offenses inability to put teams away does not take away from the defense pretty much winning all our games for us. If Santana Moss doesnt fumble in the Packers game, and Joe Gibbs quits coaching like hes scared to run up the score than we crush the Giants, that would mean we would have 1 loss on our record, its amazing how two simple mistakes can make a good team look mediocre.[/quote]


You cannot factor "ifs" into the analysis. "If" Carlos Rogers made an interception 2 years ago against the Seahawks we might have gone to the Super Bowl. "Ifs" are part of the game.

Im not saying the Skins defense isn't solid, Im saying that as a whole its a bad offense with a slightly better then average defense, leaving us with a medicore team. The defense is now going to be worse since Rogers is out. The defense is the reason we are 5-3, but they are going to struggle more now that a dinged up Smoot is covering the No. 2 and Torrence is covering the ever dangerous slot receiver.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

Matty - If Boller was the answer, Billick would have stuck with him during McNair's injury. Billick knows Boller isn't worth the Charmin Extra-Soft he wipes his butt with, and that McNair is his best chance to win.

As far as the Skins go, the defense has bailed the offense out more than once, and until the offense can continually produce as they did in the Lions game, it's going to be close games from here on out. Does that make them weak? No, just makes them aware that any mistake can be quite costly.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;374946]They're 10th in yards, not 23rd. The 15th in scoring is a very skewed stat; they've allowed an opposing offense to score 20 points just twice this season and, if you look at each game, they've held opposing offenses to [B]about 8 points [/B]under their average score. Aside from the Patriots game, the Redskins defense has been [B]allowing opposing offenses to score just 13 points per game[/B]. If you're not satisfied with a defense allowing 13 points per game, you're never going to be satisfied with a defense.

I'll freely admit that the offense leaves a lot to be desired, but the defense is pretty damn stout. Why is it that many "Kool-Aid drinkers" are willing to concede that the offense has serious problems, but many of the team's critics won't admit that the defense is good.[/quote]I think if we are going to use scoring defense, we can't just throw the Pats game out. It did happen, and we didn't stop them.

I think we should treat that game as a 35 spot. After all, anytime a defense gives up more than 35 points, it's not really a game anymore.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;375031]If you were a realist you would understand that were a mediocre offense with really good special teams and a very stout defense. The offenses inability to put teams away does not take away from the defense pretty much winning all our games for us. If Santana Moss doesnt fumble in the Packers game, and Joe Gibbs quits coaching like hes scared to run up the score than we crush the Giants, that would mean we would have 1 loss on our record, its amazing how two simple mistakes can make a good team look mediocre.[/quote]GiantsSuck,

Just because you can make quick excuses for our shortcomings doesn't make them go away. If you going to blame a HOF coach for costing his team the Giants game for "being scared," then it's pretty likely you have no idea why we lost that game, and are just throwing something out there.

I have no issue with that, so long as you don't confuse that with things that are actually happening.

I think you can describe our defense as very stout, although we are giving up plenty of yards against the run. Overall, we are a top 1/4 defense in this league thus far.

But to describe our special teams as really good without acknowledging incredibly short kickoffs, and not so great kickoff coverage, and a punt return game of which it's single best achievement this year is not turning the ball over...that's just not a good job of evaluation.

There are things to like about our special teams unit, namely Rock Cartwright, and a punt coverage team who smothers everything, but you described our special teams unit as "very good", which is simply overlooking the major issues with it.

As far as the offenses ability to put teams away, how is that not a symptom of a bigger problem that his just inconsistency all around?

I appreciate your optimism, but being optimistic is one thing, but telling someone else they aren't being realistic because they aren't optimistic is another.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;375047]Matty - If Boller was the answer, Billick would have stuck with him during McNair's injury. Billick knows Boller isn't worth the Charmin Extra-Soft he wipes his butt with, and that McNair is his best chance to win.

As far as the Skins go, the defense has bailed the offense out more than once, and until the offense can continually produce as they did in the Lions game, it's going to be close games from here on out. Does that make them weak? No, just makes them aware that any mistake can be quite costly.[/quote]

Oh my god McNair is AWFUL. If Billick does not start Boller then he should be fired. Watching McNair the other night it reminded me of watching Brunell in the rain at Philly last year. McNair looked old, slow and brittle the other night and he refused to throw the ball over 8 yards. He IS NOT a starting NFL QB anymore. I know Boller might not be the guy but anything is better than McNair at this point.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;375055]Oh my god McNair is AWFUL. If Billick does not start Boller then he should be fired. Watching McNair the other night it reminded me of watching Brunell in the rain at Philly last year. McNair looked old, slow and brittle the other night and he refused to throw the ball over 8 yards. He IS NOT a starting NFL QB anymore. I know Boller might not be the guy but anything is better than McNair at this point.[/quote]McNair may be a shell of his former self, but think about what you are arguing here.

Boller (2007)--[B]5.4 yards/attempt[/B] (against the softest schedule ever), and a bleh 59.5% completion.

McNair (2007)--[B]5.5 yards/attempt[/B] (against a harder schedule), but has completed 64.8%

So Boller is just as bad in that offense than McNair is, but more likely to F up. No worse as far as getting the ball down the field.

Shouldn't have cut Derek Anderson ;)

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;375047]Matty - If Boller was the answer, Billick would have stuck with him during McNair's injury. Billick knows Boller isn't worth the Charmin Extra-Soft he wipes his butt with, and that McNair is his best chance to win.[/quote]

If McNair is their best option with the sorry state he's in, they are truly F'd.

I know Boller isn't anything special but at least he's got a live arm. McNair is completely broken down right now. It's sad to watch him like that.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;375067]If McNair is their best option with the sorry state he's in, they are truly F'd.

I know Boller isn't anything special but at least he's got a live arm. McNair is completely broken down right now. It's sad to watch him like that.[/quote]


yeah he really has dropped alot over the past couple of seasons.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;375057]McNair may be a shell of his former self, but think about what you are arguing here.

Boller (2007)--[B]5.4 yards/attempt[/B] (against the softest schedule ever), and a bleh 59.5% completion.

McNair (2007)--[B]5.5 yards/attempt[/B] (against a harder schedule), but has completed 64.8%

So Boller is just as bad in that offense than McNair is, but more likely to F up. No worse as far as getting the ball down the field.

Shouldn't have cut Derek Anderson ;)[/quote]

McNair should complete 80% cause he never thows the ball more than 5 yards. It's almost comical. At least Boller has the ability and it looks like he has improved in the limited time he has played. McNair just can't do it anymore and it's time to move on.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;375079]McNair should complete 80% cause he never thows the ball more than 5 yards. It's almost comical. At least Boller has the ability and it looks like he has improved in the limited time he has played. McNair just can't do it anymore and it's time to move on.[/quote]But what is your excuse for Boller then? If McNair is that he never throws downfield (seems to fit), why has Boller been even worse?

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;375053]GiantsSuck,

Just because you can make quick excuses for our shortcomings doesn't make them go away. If you going to blame a HOF coach for costing his team the Giants game for "being scared," then it's pretty likely you have no idea why we lost that game, and are just throwing something out there.

I have no issue with that, so long as you don't confuse that with things that are actually happening.

I think you can describe our defense as very stout, although we are giving up plenty of yards against the run. Overall, we are a top 1/4 defense in this league thus far.

But to describe our special teams as really good without acknowledging incredibly short kickoffs, and not so great kickoff coverage, and a punt return game of which it's single best achievement this year is not turning the ball over...that's just not a good job of evaluation.

There are things to like about our special teams unit, namely Rock Cartwright, and a punt coverage team who smothers everything, but you described our special teams unit as "very good", which is simply overlooking the major issues with it.

As far as the offenses ability to put teams away, how is that not a symptom of a bigger problem that his just inconsistency all around?

I appreciate your optimism, but being optimistic is one thing, but telling someone else they aren't being realistic because they aren't optimistic is another.[/quote]

I really have no problem with the fact that hes not optimistic, really. I love to debate and it just wouldnt be that fun if everyone agreed all the time. Im just voicing my opinion, does that make me right? No, its just my opinion. I think its great that Paul sticks to his guns and doesnt drink the Kool-aid, but I choose to see it from another angle, but I really dont want that to come off as me attacking other posters, if it came off that way I apologize.

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

To answer the question...probably us right now. (or anyone in the AFC West...LOL)

Re: Who is "weakest" team with winning record?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;375067]If McNair is their best option with the sorry state he's in, they are truly F'd.[/QUOTE]
Why yes, yes they are...and with the injuries to their defense, games like their "effort" against Pittsburgh will become more of the norm.

It's pretty much 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other in regards to McNair and Boller. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I think the team rallies around McNair more than Boller, so you have to go with that veteran leadership. However, McNair's been on his last legs for several years now, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start to utilize a two QB system...