What single factor is key for the Skins this year?

[PIG#1]

in my opinion it all starts with the head coach.the sucess of this team rides on his shoulders.zorn has alot to prove in this league and to dan synder.so far so good but we shall see how it all works out come sept.can he make jc the qb he thinks he can.not getting a few more free agents in,the draft.will his system work.i certinly hope so.to add one more thing that worries me is the defense.it's getting old.bottom line.

[Longtimefan]

"Health" Coupled with the continued development of our young players.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

We've got a new head coach, a new OC with a new scheme, a new DC, a young QB, a banged up and aging defense, a WR corps with a lot of question marks, a banged up and aging O-line, etc. I think there are a LOT of reasons to be optimistic, but there are just as many questions. If I had to pick the biggest question mark, it would probably be JC.

[Ade Jimoh Fan Club]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

Of course coaches have an impact, I'm just saying it's not usually a game-changing impact. Coaches are given way too much credit when they come in and teams start winning more (and too much blame as well). They're just a figurehead -and it comes with the job description. Let's face it, most head coaches are smart, smart men who are there for a reason. Mistakes are made, but sometimes mistakes that turn out to be good plays make the coach a genius. It's very arbitrary. Here's what Easterbrook actually said:

"The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small, especially in college at the football-factory level, where many outcomes are not close."

I think he makes sense.

[irish]

It JC. He will determine the success or failure of the offense.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

Of course coaches have an impact, I'm just saying it's not usually a game-changing impact. Coaches are given way too much credit when they come in and teams start winning more (and too much blame as well). They're just a figurehead -and it comes with the job description. Let's face it, most head coaches are smart, smart men who are there for a reason. Mistakes are made, but sometimes mistakes that turn out to be good plays make the coach a genius. It's very arbitrary. Here's what Easterbrook actually said:

"The first flaw is obvious -- coaches don't play! A coach's hard work, good judgment and good play calling help, but these are only a few of many factors in sports success -- and all trail the athletic ability of the players by a large margin. I'd hazard an unscientific guess that in football, the coach can be responsible for up to a 10 percent swing in results: 10 percent more points scored under good coaching, 10 percent fewer under bad coaching. In a close game or a Super Bowl run, that 10 percent swing really matters. In the majority of games, the coaching differential between opponents is small, especially in college at the football-factory level, where many outcomes are not close."

I think he makes sense.

I think he's making up stats. Did you know that you can make up stats off the top of your head to prove anything? 83% of all people know that.

[2BIG2BSKINNY]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

I going with the performance of the offensive line. If they stay healthy, protect Jason, and open up the running game like they did a couple of years ago, everything will click easier.

For me this statement says it best! It all starts up front. O-line and d-line will determine our success. But it seems that the o-line is the most important. Without them Jason Campbell could have Art monk and Jerry Rice to throw too but not have enough time to find them!

[skinsnut]

long-snapping

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd have to disagree, and Easterbrook is a moron.

Coaching has a huge affect on the game. Coaches can overcomplicate schemes, they can put players out of position (Archuleta), they can clash with each other on philosophy (Saunders vs Gibbs & Bugel), they can inspire a team (Gibbs' December record), etcetera. Most of all, coaching comes into play when a new system is being put into place. When you're running a new system, how you perform in year one is all about the ability of the coach to teach and translate the playbook message onto the field.

Tagging GW as a genius would be to ignore his flaws, and the results those flaws caused.

In a single game situation, tactical coaching is pretty important. I mean, a few plays here and there can change who wins and loses a game.

But here's the thing: can you name even one instance where going into the game you were able to say, "Team A is more talented than team B on paper, but Team B's coach is 100 times smarter than coach A and will never loose this game" and be right?

Of course not. It's just as easy for the perceived "dumb coach" to get lucky and totally outscheme the opposing "genius". It happens all the time. Spurrier outschemed Belichiek. It happens, and it happens every week in the NFL.

Therefore, over the long haul, Easterbrook is correct. Williams may have outschemed his opponent one week, and then got beaten the next. No coach is hired to coach a single game, so it's safe to say that these guys know each other well enough that they give no significant edge over the course of the season.

If you disagree with this, I implore you to name some geniuses in the NFL, and I'll be happy to point out instances where they totally got their lunch handed to them by the opposing coach.

[Stuck in TX]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

injuries

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

I going with the performance of the offensive line. If they stay healthy, protect Jason, and open up the running game like they did a couple of years ago, everything will click easier.

Everyone is mostly saying JC but I think JC would have already became who we all want him to be, but is being held back by an unhealthy O line year after year. If our stud O line stays healthy, JC will just need to get the ball in the air and one of our many many WR's will come down with it. Also, if our O line holds, our All Star Pro Bowl RB will get behind his 300lb FB and potentially two (or at least one that we know of on the strong side) solid TE's and rush for 2000 yards. Defense wins championships and we have proved that our defense can hang. We can close down games and even make that elusive comback every now and then if we have a healthy O line.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Tagging GW as a genius would be to ignore his flaws, and the results those flaws caused.

In a single game situation, tactical coaching is pretty important. I mean, a few plays here and there can change who wins and loses a game.

But here's the thing: can you name even one instance where going into the game you were able to say, "Team A is more talented than team B on paper, but Team B's coach is 100 times smarter than coach A and will never loose this game" and be right?

Of course not. It's just as easy for the perceived "dumb coach" to get lucky and totally outscheme the opposing "genius". It happens all the time. Spurrier outschemed Belichiek. It happens, and it happens every week in the NFL.

Therefore, over the long haul, Easterbrook is correct. Williams may have outschemed his opponent one week, and then got beaten the next. No coach is hired to coach a single game, so it's safe to say that these guys know each other well enough that they give no significant edge over the course of the season.

If you disagree with this, I implore you to name some geniuses in the NFL, and I'll be happy to point out instances where they totally got their lunch handed to them by the opposing coach.

Your point is well taken but that still doesn't in any way negate the opinion that coaching is extremely important & a major factor in a teams performance over the long haul. Yes, in any game you might see the nobody beat the "genius" but the measure of coaches is over seasons & in playoff games. Spurrier beat Belicheck & the Skins were 3-1 in 03, but later that year he lost control of the team & they all looked foolish v. the cowpokes when Hassellback had a 0.0 rating & crack dealer T. Hambrick had like 173 yards. By the end of the year there was no question that Spurrier was literally out of his league & he knew it too.

One of the best examples in pro sports of the impact of coaching IMO is Phil Jackson's first year w/the Lakers. He's often criticized as always having talented players, but go back & look at that team when Kurt Rambis was coaching them. They had Kobe, Glen Rice & Shaq yet they couldn't get out of the first round of the playoffs. Phil takes over & they go on to win 3 straight titles.

I think if anything what is often overstated about coaches is the "genius" line while what is overlooked is simple; motivation. Good coaches are good leaders & know how to motivate players. GW got his guys to play hard & he prepared them like few in the nfl can IMO. We will definitely miss Gregg Williams.

[skinsfan_nn]

To me this one is pretty simple if we can avoid a major case of the injury bug to our starters will be the key to success. I don't think we will see much change on defense with Blache. And I think JC and the rest of our team are plenty smart enough to understand and have the talent to execute the system Zorn will install.

I would be pleased with forward progress from where we left off last season and seeing this team living up to there potential.

[SBXVII]

All teams could say injuries. So I'll leave that out. That leaves...
Coach
QB
Offense
Defense.

I truely believe the Coach will turn out fine. He might have some set backs like Gibbs had his first yr but I think he will be fine.

Many people are making a big difference about JC and the WC offense. He played in that system in college and did well in it. I'm sure there will be a learning curve with the "Play Calling" but the system should be similar. He has played in the NFL for a few seasons also so getting up to "Speed" with the NFL is already there. Learning to read Defenses is already there. I think its all about knowing the plays called and finding the open WR which I think he has shown improvement each yr in already.

Then theres the Offense. Again if everyone stays healthy then the line will be fine. The running game can only improve with the new WR causing teams to have to sit back and wait to see where the ball is going instead of loading the box. I'm betting that Mix will shine with JC both being in the same system they had in college. Adding the other two tall WR's along with Moss and Randel El, Cooley, Davis(TE), and using the RB as a WR out of the back field is enough to confuse defenses.

So now my prediction. I think it is the Defense. Why? Well....it goes back to us not having any pass rush, a CB injured, will Doughty step up further, and the biggie is whether Blache can get as much out of the guys as GW did. Also I'm not sure Blache had a great time with the Bears. Didn't they fire him for another coach? Wasn't his defense mediorcre? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he learned something from GW. Maybe making the defense simpler will keep help out a lot. but all my questions lean toward how Blache will do with the defense. I don't think GW was anything special other then to get more out of what he had.

[pstylee]

For me the keys will be...

1. Injuries, if we can upgrade our strength and conditioning coaches then the little injuries are more avoidable, if not then we will be in the same situation as earlier seasons.

2. Depth, while our WR's, RB, FB, TE's are all well and we have talented depth behind the starters, my concern is the DB's, and the OL. While guys like Heyer, and Fabini stepped in and played well above expectations, if a starter goes down then we may be on the shorter end of the Win Loss Column.

3. And finally, when the Offense will "Click". Now JC having played a similar system in college and the knowledge of Zorn, I believe once he works on the smaller aspects he'll be fine, my concern is the timing and route running of the WR's. We all know what they can do after the catch, but the real question will be how well they get open.

Overall, I will be patient with the offense, cause I truely believe that once it gets going it will be a very successful system. And we definately have the talent to do some damage. The Defense barring serious injury should be able to pick up where they left off last season, and hopefully bring in some vets to provide depth and knowledge.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Personally, I'd go with coaching because of the inexpirence that so much of the staff has.
I would hate to see us doing some of the same dumb things we've done in the past like burn a TO because the play clock is winding down and it's 4th and 10 from our own 35 and the punt team is still on the sideline.