Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Four years ago today (January 7th) Joe Gibbs returned to the Washington Redskins. But, in the words of Ronald Reagan, are we better off now than we were four years ago?

This has nothing to do with whether or not you think Gibbs should come back. This is about whether you think right now we are in better position to be consistent winners than we were on January 7, 2004

Where do your beliefs lie?

Vote

Nation of Irish (this guy's everywhere): Worse off. Gibbs hasn't met expectations and he's old

The Tripp Republic: Still the same. We're running in motion but not really getting anywhere

Commonwealth of JoeRedskin: Look at our roster. Of course, we're better off

(I know that for some your answer will be dependant upon whether Gibbs comes back)

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

I am happy with the guys we have right now. We are better off.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

I have to say we are most definitely better off.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

4 years, Two playoff seasons. We only had one playoff year the previous 12 or 13 years.
We are a better team but that still doesn't mean we are a good team.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

I don't know how anyone can say we aren't better off. Look at all the players we had at key positions on the Spurrier team who are out of the league now. Check this out:[url=http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/rosters.nsf/Annual/2003-was]2003 Washington Redskins[/url]

This was not a team built for the future, the present, or really anytime. We aren't where I'd like to be now, but we are definitely better off.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

In 2004, we were an average football team with the potential to be good could we have found some offense. 2004 was the last time we could generate a pass rush with the front four. Griffin was a monster. Springs was a total shutdown corner. We had a great budding middle linebacker, who lacked experience. Marcus Washington was playing great. We had a rookie safety who was going to grow into his talent, and Fred Smoot talking trash all the while. Philip Daniels could rush the passer back then, and Renaldo Wynn was a big run stuffer on the outside. Brandon Noble and Jermaine Haley created a pretty good run stuffing combo, and man, could LaVar bring the pressure on the QB (knees permitting).

That was a GREAT defense.

Every one of those players who are still on the roster as of this day is older and playing like it. Griffin can still play like a beast for the first six weeks of any given season, but he gets banged up and plays average. Phillip Daniels can still play in this league, but is no longer the pass rusher he once was. Marcus Washington is starting to lose some athleticism to age. Fred Smoot is no longer a promising football prospect. Springs is now hovering around average.

We made a huge mistake when we let Pierce walk, but at least for the short term, we finally found a worthy replacement in London Fletcher. The 2nd defensive tackle spot has undergone massive changes, followed then by an influction of youth, but it hasn't really improved. Andre Carter has the pass rushing skills that Daniels lost, but not the complete game Phillip once had. Rocky McIntosh is injured now, looked promising, but he will never replace LaVar. Sean met his tragic end way too soon, but Landry is very much a similar player at a similiar age compared to Taylor in 2004. Overall, this defensive unit is worse than it was in 2004, and father time is the cause.

But the offense is another story. Back in the day of the great Ramsey/Brunell debates, we actually had a running game. Portis was in his 3rd season, and needed just some time to get used to an altered running style to be elite. Portis should have made at least one pro bowl over the last 4 years. Betts was young and unproven. The offensive line was a lot younger than it is now, but not a whole lot different. Samuels, Jansen, and Thomas had a lot less mileage on them, but we were playing with the inexpierenced Dockery, and the terrible Raymer. (The line of course, did improve when Dockery did, and when the gaping hole that was Raymer was replaced). There was one receiving threat to speak of, Coles. Cooley didn't make an impact until mid year.

The receivers are so much better now. Looking back on it, Coles for Moss was a wash, but Cooley has become an elite receiver. Randle El has really become an offensive weapon, and Reche Caldwell would have easily been the number two target back in 2004. This team lacks a competant blocking TE, and constantly looks to the jumbo-sized Lorenzo Alexander...who isn't much of a blocker himself. Dockery became Kendall, but Kendall isn't a whole lot better than Dock was in 2004. Rabach isn't good either, but he's not the gaping hole Raymer was. The big issue here is the running game, where Portis can't seem to hit the holes as well as he could at age 23.

The quarterback situation however is a major plus. Jason Campbell appears to be a great prospect, and Todd Collins played better in 4 games than either Brunell or Ramsey ever did here. Campbell is still improving, and thats the big thing here.

The development of a potentially great passing game offsets much of the defensive decline we have suffered due to age, but the offense hasn't taken the next step due to the inability to develop any sort of power running game, which, honestly is the only type of running game that no team can do without. If you don't have the big play running game, you compensate by throwing. If you don't have the short yardage running game, you have to compensate by throwing, which tends not to be particularly effective.

The core of this roster is stronger than it was in 2004, but many, many critical personnel errors have kept depth from improving. Allowing Pierce to walk, signing Arch and Lloyd, which then in turn kept us from being able to re sign Dockery all killed this team in the long run.

We've spun the wheels and changed a lot, but this team is maybe just a tad better off, and it's all because of what Jason Campbell could potentially be. Because the thread is not asking me to predict what this could become, rather what it is, I have to say no change.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Well, I did more like September 2004 than January 2004. Truth is, we are better off than January 2004, and it's because of guys like Cooley, and Washington who came in. Giving up Champ probably evens that out, but didn't we know back in Jan. 04 that Champ wasn't likely to return?

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Obviously, IMO, we are better. Anyone remember the misery of Spurrier's last games? The team had given up. We were the team that others teams said "Punch'em in the mouth and they go away." There was no toughness. Coaching was abysmal and talent was wasted. (Remember Jansen's quote about never having a game plan under Spurrier?). On top of that we had been through Norv, Marty and Spurrier in short order. Champ left b/c he WANTED to - He wasn't coming back. He saw and hated, the lack of continuity, the disarray in the FO, and the complete breakdown of communication between the FO and coaches. Throw in Snyder's blatant favoritism towards certain players and you have a morass that, although talented, that wasn't winning and wasn't going to win.

Gibbs changed that culture. For good or ill, there is continuity. Players are a team and, as this season showed, punch us in the gut and we will just play harder. Irishism's aside, this is a tough team. We can argue about whether it is talented enough or whether it is properly maximizes its talent but no one can doubt it's will to play.

Has Gibbs' record been vastly better than his predecessors? Nope. Has he shown consistent progress in terms of team accomplishments? Nope. (2006's 5-11 was a huge step back). Is the team more talented than it was in the post 2003, pre-2004 off season? Maybe, maybe not.

Even with all those no's, and IMHO, this team has something the team didn't have in Jan. 2004. A legitimate hope - Is the FO the morass that was Vinny/Snyder over? No. Does this team enter every game believiing it can/should win? Yes. Do players want to play for this team? Resoundingly yes. Players will come and stay, no longer is it [I]just[/I] b/c Snyder pays the most but because Gibbs is the coach. The team is aquiring (Landry, Golston, Montgomery, Heyer) and retaining (Betts, Cooley) its young talent. I believe this trend will continue.

Are there still problems? Sure - but would you trade them for Atlanta's? Miami's? Baltimore's? San Fran's? Oakland's? These are teams looking into the morass that was the post-2003 Redskins and each has a long way to go.

The Skins have not put it all together yet, but at least they are no longer consistently tearing things apart. Soon enough, my friends, soon enough. Consistent winning is coming and with it, a chance to catch the spark that makes a good team into a championship team.

Feel good, crank the tunes and wait til next year.

We will play hard and we will win.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

No question we're better off. Gibbs brings respectability that OBC and Norv could not. When the guy walks in the door he commands respect and that's what I like about him most. Guys like Norv Turner and OBC just don't have that. But moving forward we need to get the o-line some depth. Both playoff losses since Gibbs' return were due to not being able to overcome injuries on the O-line. This must be addressed in the off season.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Without a doubt, we are exponentially better off today. If 2 of 4 seasons in the playoffs isn't enough (we hadn't been that many times since JOe left in 93), then look at the roster we had in 03 as someone just pointed out. Those last games under Spurrier were an embarassment.

Gibbs took over when this team was a total mess. If he walks away today, he will have succeeded in getting this franchise the building blocks it needs for the next few seasons or more. Of course he's made mistakes, on & off field, but the fact remains that no coach since he left in 93 has gotten us to the playoffs twice.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

We are definitely better. We really really sucked back then and had no future. We are coming off a playoff season and i am confident in many of our positions. We have the building blocks for the future and i think that is what gibbs was brought here to do. Bring us back to winning contention. He doesn't exactly have to win a super bowl in this term to be successful.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

I gotta vote with Tripp because this is a vote on the team and not Gibbs (as the heading implies). I think this team is spinning its wheels and doesnt get better and doesnt really get worse. I dont see the Skins being any better next year than this year. It will be an 8-8 or 9-7 team again.

Sure this team has made the playoffs but in reality this team has won nothing since Gibbs returned and I'm sure had we taken a poll 4 years ago today predicting the next 4 years and I predicted 2 playoff appearances but no playoff wins I would have been skewered. Unfortunately that has been what happened. It always looks like this team is getting better but they never really do.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;403407]We will play hard and we will win.[/quote]

Would you venture to say "live to win"?

[yt]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_OvpzForHyU[/yt]

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[quote=irish;403447]I gotta vote with Tripp because this is a vote on the team and not Gibbs (as the heading implies). I think this team is spinning its wheels and doesnt get better and doesnt really get worse. I dont see the Skins being any better next year than this year. It will be an 8-8 or 9-7 team again.

Sure this team has made the playoffs but in reality this team has won nothing since Gibbs returned and I'm sure had we taken a poll 4 years ago today predicting the next 4 years and I predicted [B]2 playoff appearances but no playoff wins[/B] I would have been skewered. Unfortunately that has been what happened. It always looks like this team is getting better but they never really do.[/quote]

except we do have a playoff win

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;403451]except we do have a playoff win[/QUOTE]

Yes I forgot about that win. Thanks for catching that. 1 for 3 in the playoffs is not what most on this board would have expected. It Still does not change the fact that this team always seems to look like its getting better but it never does.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Understand that I'm not saying are we better than you expected them to be than when Gibbs returned. I'm saying is the leadership, roster, and culture on the franchise in better shape now and in better position to win consistently than it was four years ago.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

we are better off for sure compared to the previous year before gibbs came back but we still need frontline players that can stay healthy for a season on offense/defense..

stability and continuity ...we just need more of it..

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Are the Skins really better off? I don't see it.

Yes, 2 playoff appearances in 4 years vs. 1 between 1993 and 2004 is great and all. However, those 2 playoff appearances came about because this team went out and had huge winning streaks. Great teams do not have to run off 4 or 5 straight to make the playoffs. Great teams do not need their backs against the wall to start executing. This Redskins team does.

The pieces are there to build a great team, a team that will consistently make the playoffs. However, until the holes are filled, this will be an 8-8 team that will be a 6th seed at best.

With that said, I'm looking forward to next year. To see if this team can execute without the emotion that they lived off of in December 2007. To see if the weaknesses are strengthen, and the key personnel are kept and improve.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Hard to say that we're not better off now considering the downward spiral we were in from the infamous Spurrier era.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;403492]Are the Skins really better off? I don't see it.

Yes, 2 playoff appearances in 4 years vs. 1 between 1993 and 2004 is great and all. [B]However, those 2 playoff appearances came about because this team went out and had huge winning streaks. Great teams do not have to run off 4 or 5 straight to make the playoffs. Great teams do not need their backs against the wall to start executing. This Redskins team does.[/B]

The pieces are there to build a great team, a team that will consistently make the playoffs. However, until the holes are filled, this will be an 8-8 team that will be a 6th seed at best.

With that said, I'm looking forward to next year. To see if this team can execute without the emotion that they lived off of in December 2007. To see if the weaknesses are strengthen, and the key personnel are kept and improve.[/quote]

I've never understood that view.

Who cares how it happens, as long as it happens?

As the saying goes it's not how you start but how you finish. Gibbs is famous for having teams that finish strong. I'm not sure why that is something that should be looked down upon.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

We're better off, but not where we need to be. We need to win the division so we can have playoff game or two at home. Playing at Seattle is very, very tough. We need to take down the Cowboys and Giants next year and let the Seahawks travel across the country in the playoffs to play at FedEx.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

before joe gibbs came we were coming off 2 losing seasons with spurrier...now we are coming off a playoff year. we are better off for sure. he has stabilized the organization if nothing else

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=Twilbert07;403500]We're better off, but not where we need to be. We need to win the division so we can have playoff game or two at home. Playing at Seattle is very, very tough. We need to take down the Cowboys and Giants next year and let the Seahawks travel across the country in the playoffs to play at FedEx.[/QUOTE]

Well put. I'll send you positive reputation points once I'm allowed to do so again

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

To me, roster means nothing. look at the superbowl teams NE fielded. No really big names, but just players. We have lived off the hype of the roster for 10 years, and really nothing to show for it. I do think having Campbell is one of the bright spots. Cooley, Landry, and Rocky - other than that who knows. I can't put Moss in that catagory because you just dont know. He had one stellar year, and average for the rest. I dont think we are any better than we were 4 years ago. records speak of that.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=irish;403447]I gotta vote with Tripp because this is a vote on the team and not Gibbs (as the heading implies). I think this team is spinning its wheels and doesnt get better and doesnt really get worse. I dont see the Skins being any better next year than this year. It will be an 8-8 or 9-7 team again.

Sure this team has made the playoffs but in reality this team has won nothing since Gibbs returned and I'm sure had we taken a poll 4 years ago today predicting the next 4 years and I predicted 2 playoff appearances but no playoff wins I would have been skewered. Unfortunately that has been what happened. It always looks like this team is getting better but they never really do.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? You honestly can say with a straight face that this team is no better than it was in 2003? If so, someone is going to have to send you tapes of some of those games.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=irish;403447]Sure this team has made the playoffs but in reality this team has won nothing since Gibbs returned and I'm sure had we taken a poll 4 years ago today predicting the next 4 years and I predicted 2 playoff appearances but no playoff wins I would have been skewered. Unfortunately that has been what happened. [B]It always looks like this team is getting better but they never really do[/B].[/QUOTE]

I disagree. After the final game of the Spurrier regime, and Spurrier's resignation (remember, he quit on the Redskins, not vice versa. In fact, as I recall, Snyder tried to convince him to stay), this team did not look like it was getting better and, in fact, I would say it was looking into the future with despair.

Who could we get to coach? How would restore respectability? How could we avoid being consistent cellar-dwellers given the state of our cap and the apparent age of our roster?

I don't know how you felt at the time, but I felt pretty hopeless.

Gibbs brought immediate credibility and immediate hope. Unfortunately, the hope was overblown but, again IMO, the credibility was not. Four years of continuity in management and message has made a difference. Read the players post season comments. This is a team that expects to win AND has shown the capability to do so. Compare these to the 2003/2004 pre-Gibbs offseason.

Before you can be consistent, you may have to be sporadic. Right now, over four years we have had two losers and two winners. If we can put another winning season together next year (which I anticipate - not a perfect season, but a winning one), three of four seasons will be winners and the culture of consistent winning can be re-established.

I think the 2003/2004 offseason was the pits and the years of mismanagement and infighting had come home to roost. Again, Gibbs has changed the way the team and, importantly, its non-player employees look at the time.

Does it have flaws, of course. Are we on a downward spiral? No. Can we legitimately hope to win even if our talent level is not top-notch, or the injury bug strikes? Yup.

More importantly, do the players believe they can win even if our talent level is not top-notch, or the injury bug strikes? Again, I think that this season gives that a resounding yes.

Further, unlike the euphoria of post-2005, when the team thought all it had to do was show up to win, this team seems to realize that it takes a team working hard ALL the time to win.

The culture of winning, so thoroughly destroyed by Spurrier/Cerrato/Snyder troika, is returning and coming to fruition under Gibbs.

This team will play hard for Gibbs and, in doing so, will win for him.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic;403513]To me, roster means nothing. look at the superbowl teams NE fielded. No really big names, but just players. We have lived off the hype of the roster for 10 years, and really nothing to show for it. I do think having Campbell is one of the bright spots. Cooley, Landry, and Rocky - other than that who knows. I can't put Moss in that catagory because you just dont know. He had one stellar year, and average for the rest. I dont think we are any better than we were 4 years ago. records speak of that.[/QUOTE]

what records are you looking at?

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;403498]As the saying goes it's not how you start but how you finish. Gibbs is famous for having teams that finish strong. I'm not sure why that is something that should be looked down upon.[/QUOTE]
I'm not looking down upon finishing strong, I'm looking down upon the fact that it takes a strong finish to make something out of nothing. I think it's great that the Skins finished strong in 05 and 07 and made the playoffs, but the simple fact is losing streaks both years put them into position to win or die. The "better" teams do not have 3 or 5 game losing streaks.

Gibbs 1.0 built a great team. The Skins were consistently winning 10+ games a year, and making the playoffs. Under Gibbs now, the team doesn't have that consistency. This isn't to implying anything about Gibbs, it's just stating the obvious. Being better off means getting better from year to year. This team since '04 has been a roller coaster. The Skins are not worse off than 4 years ago because they are finally starting to build towards the future. However, they are not better off either because year in and year out, there are personnel and coaching issues. And while all teams have it to some extent, not to the extent these Skins have had them. It seems that the Skins are grinding their gears, which is why I voted for The Tripp Republic response in the voting.

I think if you ask the question next year "Five Years Later: Are We Better Off?", it will be a profound yes. I have faith in the staff to make the necessary adjustments and continue building this team into a consistent winner. And the gears they are grinding this year will be in the right gear going forward. Here's to a good to better '08 and to the start of a Redskins dynasty.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic;403513]To me, roster means nothing. look at the superbowl teams NE fielded. No really big names, but just players. We have lived off the hype of the roster for 10 years, and really nothing to show for it. I do think having Campbell is one of the bright spots. Cooley, Landry, and Rocky - other than that who knows. I can't put Moss in that catagory because you just dont know. He had one stellar year, and average for the rest. I dont think we are any better than we were 4 years ago. records speak of that.[/QUOTE]

You mean big-names like Brady, Randy Moss, Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Roosevelt Colvin, Adalius Thomas, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Asante Samuel? Many of those guys were free agents BTW.

As for our record, it was 5-11 in 2003 and 9-7 this year. Almost doubling your wins is pretty decent IMO, but maybe that is just me.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;403534]You mean big-names like Brady, Randy Moss, Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Roosevelt Colvin, Adalius Thomas, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Asante Samuel? Many of those guys were free agents BTW.

As for our record, it was 5-11 in 2003 and 9-7 this year. Almost doubling your wins is pretty decent IMO, but maybe that is just me.[/QUOTE]

To play devil's advocate though I can see where people might say but we went from 6-10 to 5-11 to 10-6 to 9-7.

However, I think the first year was a wash. And the ensuing years started to forming the future of this team by selecting guys like Rogers, Golston, Montgomery, Cooley, Landry, Campbell, etc.; keeping core guys like Cooley; establishing a new (but proven in the league) offense; and more than anything establishing a culture of unity and confidence.

I don't deal with them much anymore on a personal level so I only know from secondhand knowledge what's it like inside Redskins Park. But I dealt with them almost every day from Summer 1998 to December 1992 and it was a horrible environment. It was a defeatist, every man for himself culture. The Turner era was one of disrespect, Schottenheimer one of egos (but not Matty), though it may have been the most similar to this one in terms of confidencek and the Spurrier era one of apathy.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;403534][B]You mean big-names like Brady, Randy Moss, Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Roosevelt Colvin, Adalius Thomas, Vince Wilfork, Ty Warren, and Asante Samuel? Many of those guys were free agents BTW.[/B]

As for our record, it was 5-11 in 2003 and 9-7 this year. Almost doubling your wins is pretty decent IMO, but maybe that is just me.[/quote]

Who?

;)

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

Corey Dillon

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

4 year ago we were coming out of the OBC era. So yeah we are better off. I don't believe we are where we need to be but we are better off.

I'm proud of this team in 2007 and their accomplishments. I think we may have gotten the most out of the talent on this team.

I'd like to start winning some nfc east titles though. That's going to be where we need to get to. If you do that you're going to get some home field advantage through the playoffs. That's where we want to be and JG knows that. Its too tough to win on the road.

Maybe 2008? That should be our goal.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

I'm with Tripp Republic, the team is running in place. The team has talent but has never reached it's full potential. I'm not placing any blame, but that is just the fact. The reason the team has continued to run in place is because of the organization's philosophy of trying to quick fix the team by getting overpaid free agents and trading away valuable draft picks. As a result of try to win now for the last ten years, the team lacks depth and youth. For every good free agent pickup, you can name a bad acquisition. Meanwhile, every year, the team has to do cartwheels to get under the salary cap. This never ending cycle keeps the team handcuffed. Stop the madness!

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

We are better off. In our [B]hearts[/B] we probably think the Skins should be better than they currently are but our [B]heads[/B] should tell us that we were a laughingstock franchise 4 years ago and now the Skins are at least respectable. We are in the conversation about good teams in the NFL and no longer in the punchline.

I have been harsh on the Skins but it has been pointed out to me--2 playoff appearances in 4 years speaks for itself. My heart wants us to be the juggernaut that we were in the 80s but I am spoiled and know that step 1 has nearly been accomplished--the Skins should field a consistent playoff team. We are at least going to the dance now with Gibbs. He just needs to pretty us up to be prom queen.

Next year--I will expect playoffs again with sights on the division crown. Trying to get a home playoff game next year will keep the momentum from this seasons going...

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[quote=NYCSkin;403612]We are better off. In our [B]hearts[/B] we probably think the Skins should be better than they currently are but our [B]heads[/B] should tell us that we were a laughingstock franchise 4 years ago and now the Skins are at least respectable. We are in the conversation about good teams in the NFL and no longer in the punchline.

I have been harsh on the Skins but it has been pointed out to me--2 playoff appearances in 4 years speaks for itself. My heart wants us to be the juggernaut that we were in the 80s but I am spoiled and know that step 1 has nearly been accomplished--the Skins should field a consistent playoff team. We are at least going to the dance now with Gibbs. He just needs to pretty us up to be prom queen.

Next year--I will expect playoffs again with sights on the division crown. Trying to get a home playoff game next year will keep the momentum from this seasons going...[/quote]

You made a very good point. The Skins have definitely improved if you consider they have gone from a laughing stock (Deadskins) to a respected contender.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

We're a better football team than we were in 2004 but I'm in agreement with what others have said, we're still not consistently good. We've made the playoffs twice (sandwiched by 6-10 and 5-11 seasons) with miraculous end of the season runs that coincided with improbable circumstances of other teams losing (NO at home to Philly, GB losing to make the Dallas game meaningless for them) and us hitting a mini stride at the right time. A legitimate argument can be made that we were more lucky than good and were the beneficiary of being the right team at the right time.

Good teams don't have to do that, they take care of business from September-December. If we win games we should have won/closed out (NYG, GB, PHI, BUF) we are sitting at home on Saturday rather than trudging across country on 5 days rest. Those are the differences between good teams that make it deep into the playoffs consistently and teams that occassionaly flash. We are a mirror of Tampa Bay, 6-10 to 10-6 to 5-11 to 10-6 (except we were 9-7 this year) and nobody considers Tampa a strong consistent team. Most prognosicators picked them last in their division this year and if injuries/stupidity didn't decimate their competition (Atlanta-Vick, Carolina-Delhomme & Smith missed most of the year, NO-McAllister, Payton's playcalling) do we really think they are a 10 win team?

Roster wise we are in much better shape with a franchise QB in Campbell, Portis still going strong, Moss, Cooley and Randle-El serviceable at WR (but we need a stud WR, Moss is a #2 at this point and ARE is a #3), the OL is solid, the DL has some good young talent, LB should be a strength in '08 (Fletcher, Washington and I'm calling Briggs a Redskin) and the secondary has 2 solid players in Landry & Smoot with some young depth and hopefully Rogers coming back by midseason..

While I have backed off of my 'Gibbs must go' mantra of pre-Taylor murder, I still think a philisophical change needs to occur offensively to become much more aggressive. We need to model the aggressiveness after the Patriots, Packers and Cowboys (ugh) who attack for 60 minutes and try to hang as many points on the board as they can.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain;403624]While I have backed off of my 'Gibbs must go' mantra of pre-Taylor murder, I still think a philisophical change needs to occur offensively to become much more aggressive. We need to model the aggressiveness after the Patriots, Packers and Cowboys (ugh) who attack for 60 minutes and try to hang as many points on the board as they can.[/QUOTE]

When we get an O-Line that can consistently keep our QB clean and open holes in the 4th quarter - the points will come.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

[quote=Paintrain;403624]We're a better football team than we were in 2004 but I'm in agreement with what others have said, we're still not consistently good. We've made the playoffs twice (sandwiched by 6-10 and 5-11 seasons) with miraculous end of the season runs that coincided with improbable circumstances of other teams losing (NO at home to Philly, GB losing to make the Dallas game meaningless for them) and us hitting a mini stride at the right time. A legitimate argument can be made that we were more lucky than good and were the beneficiary of being the right team at the right time.

Good teams don't have to do that, they take care of business from September-December. If we win games we should have won/closed out (NYG, GB, PHI, BUF) we are sitting at home on Saturday rather than trudging across country on 5 days rest. Those are the differences between good teams that make it deep into the playoffs consistently and teams that occassionaly flash. We are a mirror of Tampa Bay, 6-10 to 10-6 to 5-11 to 10-6 (except we were 9-7 this year) and nobody considers Tampa a strong consistent team. Most prognosicators picked them last in their division this year and if injuries/stupidity didn't decimate their competition (Atlanta-Vick, Carolina-Delhomme & Smith missed most of the year, NO-McAllister, Payton's playcalling) do we really think they are a 10 win team?

Roster wise we are in much better shape with a franchise QB in Campbell, Portis still going strong, Moss, Cooley and Randle-El serviceable at WR (but we need a stud WR, Moss is a #2 at this point and ARE is a #3), the OL is solid, the DL has some good young talent, LB should be a strength in '08 (Fletcher, Washington and I'm calling Briggs a Redskin) and the secondary has 2 solid players in Landry & Smoot with some young depth and hopefully Rogers coming back by midseason..

While I have backed off of my 'Gibbs must go' mantra of pre-Taylor murder, [B]I still think a philisophical change needs to occur offensively to become much more aggressive.[/B] We need to model the aggressiveness after the Patriots, Packers and Cowboys (ugh) who attack for 60 minutes and try to hang as many points on the board as they can.[/quote]

I think down the stretch with Collins we saw a much more aggressive approach. It's amazing how different things are with an experienced QB. We still have some work to do to get JC to that point where the coaches aren't afraid to hand the game over to him, and most importantly, he needs to start throwing TDs in big spots and not INTs.

Re: Four Years Later: Are We Better Off?
 

I see your points Paintrain, but, to quote Han Solo, "I don't believe in luck." To dismiss 9 wins in 9 weeks (5 in 05' and 4 in 07') as lucky isn't fair. Equally true, of course, is the fact that we are solely responsible for our losses.