Redskins #14 in ESPN Offseason Power Rankings

[MTK]

Originally Posted by chrisl4064

Jets at 21, hmmm gonna have to disagree with that one. Also the Browns, and im not just hating on them because they are the Browns. I just dont see them there at the end of the season. As for us, respectable. I think Philly upgraded their D but didnt do much to the O-line imo. Even a healthy Mcnabb could have problems (as usual).

I definitely agree on Cleveland - way too high.

They are going to be everyone's sexy preseason pick this year.

Cleveland has talent and had a nice year in '07, but I can see them crashing and burning this year. They're under the microscope with a bunch of prime time and 4:00 national games this year. How they handle that pressure is going to be interesting.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I definitely agree on Cleveland - way too high.

They are going to be everyone's sexy preseason pick this year.

Cleveland has talent and had a nice year in '07, but I can see them crashing and burning this year. They're under the microscope with a bunch of prime time and 4:00 national games this year. How they handle that pressure is going to be interesting.

Also under that pressure will be QB Derek Anderson who is largely unproven and who really struggled down the stretch last season, especially against Cinci in a must win game Week 16, and Jamal Lewis who had YPCs of 3.4 and 3.6 in 2005 and 2006.

Also, they have to play the two toughest divisions in the AFC South and the NFC East. Are they better than the Colts or Jags? The Texans even? I think we'll beat em pretty good.

They look more like a 5-6 win team at this point, but I don't doubt that their long term prospectus is on the rise. People are just going to jump the gun on them too soon, because that's what people do.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Also under that pressure will be QB Derek Anderson who is largely unproven and who really struggled down the stretch last season, especially against Cinci in a must win game Week 16, and Jamal Lewis who had YPCs of 3.4 and 3.6 in 2005 and 2006.

Also, they have to play the two toughest divisions in the AFC South and the NFC East. Are they better than the Colts or Jags? The Texans even? I think we'll beat em pretty good.

They look more like a 5-6 win team at this point, but I don't doubt that their long term prospectus is on the rise. People are just going to jump the gun on them too soon, because that's what people do.

Or you can look at it this way. Clev added two solid d-tackles, D. Stallworth and Anderson has a full off season and training camp as the unquestioned starter. Add all that to Blaylon Edwards, Kellen Winslow Joe J., Jamal Lewis and you've got a pretty impressive set of skills guys. We'll see what happens but I like Cleveland over Balt, Pitts and Cinn.

[chrisl4064]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Or you can look at it this way. Clev added two solid d-tackles, D. Stallworth and Anderson has a full off season and training camp as the unquestioned starter. Add all that to Blaylon Edwards, Kellen Winslow Joe J., Jamal Lewis and you've got a pretty impressive set of skills guys. We'll see what happens but I like Cleveland over Balt, Pitts and Cinn.

Well i guess we will see, Clevelands road is not easy at all. Their first two games are Dallas and Pittsburgh.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Or you can look at it this way. Clev added two solid d-tackles, D. Stallworth and Anderson has a full off season and training camp as the unquestioned starter. Add all that to Blaylon Edwards, Kellen Winslow Joe J., Jamal Lewis and you've got a pretty impressive set of skills guys. We'll see what happens but I like Cleveland over Balt, Pitts and Cinn.

But with the schedule they are playing, if their defense (hypotetically) jumps into the top ten in the NFL, they are still only an 8-8 team. And that's a lot to ask from the 30th ranked defense last year.

I'm not writing off those defensive acquisitions here, but they also traded their best cover corner, maybe the best cover corner in that division (Bodden), to Detroit in the Rogers deal and they will be replacing him with the great...Gary Baxter. They are really going to be asking a lot from that front seven to improve 4 "wins"** worth just to keep them competitive in a tough division.

**My argument here is that last year's Browns roster playing this year's Browns' schedule would win 6-7 games. I have numbers to back up this theory, but for simplicity's sake, I'm just posting it as an opinion.

I will give you that Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are playing the same difficult schedule that Cleveland is, that much is certain, however I feel that those teams are far more prepared to play those tough opponents than the young Browns are AND they are just probably better teams overall. I don't think Cleveland is going to be relevant come December--unless a bunch of guys have career years.

[GTripp0012]

Top to bottom, we are the 4th best team in the East. We are also the oldest team in the league, so staying healthy will be an issue. If we can stay healthy, we do have as good a chance to win the East as any. It's just not a very smart bet.

[Joe Ribbs BBQ]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Top to bottom, we are the 4th best team in the East. We are also the oldest team in the league, so staying healthy will be an issue. If we can stay healthy, we do have as good a chance to win the East as any. It's just not a very smart bet.

We are STILL the oldest team in the league!?!?!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Joe Ribbs BBQ

We are STILL the oldest team in the league!?!?!

Yeah. Our draft probably slid the average age of player on our team under 30, but we are still a good .5 years older (on average) then anyone else.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Joe Ribbs BBQ

We are STILL the oldest team in the league!?!?!

How can that still be? This year remember we decided to resume participation in the NFL's annual draft??

[Stuck in TX]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

How can that still be? This year remember we decided to resume participation in the NFL's annual draft??

We need about five more years to catch up with everyone else.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

How can that still be? This year remember we decided to resume participation in the NFL's annual draft??

I think guys like Collins, Albright, and Daniels and throwing off the curve.

[Ruhskins]

I think 14 is a good ranking...and there are many question marks for our team. In regards to other teams, I think the Vikes are ranked too high...they have a mediocre QB and in a division with good defenses (Pack/Bears) he's not going to fare well.

[MTK]

Some other rankings that caught my eye:

Green Bay at #10 - Too high, no Favre = huge question mark if you ask me.

Saints at #11 - Too high, a little too early to predict a big turnaround from that D

Eagles at #13 - Too high, they always seem to have some sort of controversy brewing. With Sheppard still on the roster and McNabb not happy with entering another season without having a star WR, things could be ugly.

Titans at #16 - Too high, I know jsarno will love this, this team will go as far as VY can take them, and right now I don't think it will be that far.

Texans at #20 - A bit low for them. Forget about Cleveland, I think the Texans could be this year's darkhorse.

Jets at #21 - Too high for a team with major QB issues.

Broncos at #23 - A little too low, I think they'll bounce back this year.

[Hog1]

"Too many questions: a new coach, young QB and a pair of rookie WRs. Hard to get a good read. (MM)"

It doesn't get much more vague, and non-commital than that...........but, I would agree with it. TOOOO many q's

[GoSkins!]

After the Giants won the superbowl I realized the irony in trying to rank a team at this time of year and feel smart about it.