The Effect of Parity on Our Expectations

[Huddle]

Originally Posted by That Guy

everyone gets up on teams too early. the media said gibbs would be an instant winner, and expected good things from lovie smith 2004 (the skins had almost 25 new players that year). this year it was the vikings and cards that were supposed to improve dramaticly. usually it takes an extra year after massive overhauls of your roster though. so i'd bet the vikes do much better next year (but a new untested coach and a possible change at QB might prevent that), and even though it didn't seem like it, the cards defense is probably going to be a lot better this year too. they were really young and rolle and berry were injured a lot, so the experience gained in 2005 should really help there.

saunders will be better than gibbs as far as playcalling is concerned. offensive playcalling and lack of DL pressure were our biggest weaknesses (also offensive depth at WR and this year at OL too). saunders is a terrible leader and someone i'd never want as the head coach of my team, but his knowledge of Xs an Os is top notch.

I'm not disagreeing with you on Saunders (I don't really have an opinion on it) but I always wonder what people have in mind when they speak of "leadership." Often, when I hear their explanations, it isn't what I have in mind when I think of that quality.

Last year, I would have said that a pass-rushing DE was our biggest need. I wasn't overly impressed when P. Daniel's had his big game against Dallas because it was done against Flozell Adam's backup. But Daniels' explanation for his late season surge in sacks was that he was being "used differently." I presumed that he meant that he was permitted to set up outside the tackle gap rather than playing inside in a stronger run-stopping position.