Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2009, 02:27 PM   #16
Slingin Sammy 33
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

SI's ranking are offensive....to anyone with half a clue about the NFL.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-27-2009, 02:41 PM   #17
Brian Orakpo
Guest
 
Brian Orakpo's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
SI's ranking are offensive....to anyone with half a clue about the NFL.
I do agree that looking at the list some teams should be moved around.

As for the Redskins anyone who ranks them higher needs to put in the tapes from last season. No sports source is going to put out rankings where the Redskins are ranked higher until they start showing something on the field. So until Campbell learns how to throw a football dont expect for the Redskins to be ranked any higher in any rankings than they are now.

Hopefully for Redskins fans sakes across this Country Campbell can step up his game so the Skins can win this year.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:24 PM   #18
Miller101
Special Teams
 
Miller101's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 362
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Somehow, this just irritates the h*** out of me, even though as has been said many times, rankings right now are useless.

Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson*lead top NFL*backfield - NFL - SI.com

New York #2
Dallas #3
Eagles #5

I will let you look for yourselves where they put JC/CP and crew. (hint: look on the last page)
Just how the heck does Philly get #5!?!?!??! They were something like 2% on converting 3rd and 1's last year! How the heck is that #5?

You know, SI is just dumb!
__________________
"And the Redskins went down there and manhandled them and they basically undressed them and now everybody's been lining up to get a piece of them." - John Riggins on the last game we played in Texas Stadium
Miller101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:24 PM   #19
Slingin Sammy 33
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Orakpo View Post
I do agree that looking at the list some teams should be moved around.

As for the Redskins anyone who ranks them higher needs to put in the tapes from last season. No sports source is going to put out rankings where the Redskins are ranked higher until they start showing something on the field. So until Campbell learns how to throw a football dont expect for the Redskins to be ranked any higher in any rankings than they are now.

Hopefully for Redskins fans sakes across this Country Campbell can step up his game so the Skins can win this year.
I can't wait for the season to start, and I pray our OL stays healthy and productive. Myself and several others can't wait to call out all the JC haters/doubters with a BIG, FAT, I told you so.

Considering the first half of 2008 (JC was mentioned as a Pro Bowler & CP led the NFL in rushing) along with the second half, please don't tell me you'd rather have the following in the backfield besides JC & CP:

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown
Flacco, McClain/McGahee
Schaub, Slaton
Rosenfels, Peterson
K. Collins, Chris Johnson
S. Hill, Gore
Tampa's mess
Orton, Moreno
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:42 PM   #20
diehardskin2982
Another Year, another mess.
 
diehardskin2982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,581
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Thats funny that the 4th leading rusher, and the 19th leading passer (who by the way is ranked better than Kyle Orton, and only 2 places behind Jay Cutler) is considered by SI the 26th ranked backfield. Whoever wrote that article based it purely on opinion and who their favorite teams are.
__________________
That got ugly fast
diehardskin2982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:46 PM   #21
53Fan
Franchise Player
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,570
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
I can't wait for the season to start, and I pray our OL stays healthy and productive. Myself and several others can't wait to call out all the JC haters/doubters with a BIG, FAT, I told you so.

Considering the first half of 2008 (JC was mentioned as a Pro Bowler & CP led the NFL in rushing) along with the second half, please don't tell me you'd rather have the following in the backfield besides JC & CP:

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown
Flacco, McClain/McGahee
Schaub, Slaton
Rosenfels, Peterson
K. Collins, Chris Johnson
S. Hill, Gore
Tampa's mess
Orton, Moreno
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington
Nice post Sammy. It's bad enough hearing this crap from SI, but to hear it from some of our own posters is ridiculous.
__________________
Defense wins championships. Bring it!
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:46 PM   #22
Daseal
Puppy Kicker
 
Daseal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Age: 42
Posts: 8,341
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown -- Absolutely a better combo.
Flacco, McClain/McGahee -- In my opinion, about equal.
Schaub, Slaton -- We have the slight edge on them.
Rosenfels, Peterson -- Rosenfels isn't good, but AP is the best in the league, so I can see why he's ahead of them.
K. Collins, Chris Johnson -- I'd rank them ahead of our guys.
S. Hill, Gore - We're better than Hill and Gore.
Tampa's mess - We're better than Tampa.
Orton, Moreno - Orton is probably better than JC, but MOreno is a total question mark, Id have to put us as better.
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington - We're about even here, having us slightly ahead. Jones led the AFC in rushing last year, but Sanchez/Clemens are too wild cardish.

Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense.
__________________
Best. Player. Available.
Daseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:58 PM   #23
dall-assblows
The Starter
 
dall-assblows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: round the way
Age: 42
Posts: 2,211
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

DALLASSSS #3?????


........well theres proof of them being AMERICAS FAVORITE Team. marion barber is good, but defintely not THAT good. and romo is...........well he's romo. MR. HIGHS/lows.
__________________
SOMEBODY PINCH ME
dall-assblows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:00 PM   #24
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 58
Posts: 21,702
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
Chad Pennington, Ronnie Brown -- Absolutely a better combo.
Flacco, McClain/McGahee -- In my opinion, about equal.
Schaub, Slaton -- We have the slight edge on them.
Rosenfels, Peterson -- Rosenfels isn't good, but AP is the best in the league, so I can see why he's ahead of them.
K. Collins, Chris Johnson -- I'd rank them ahead of our guys.
S. Hill, Gore - We're better than Hill and Gore.
Tampa's mess - We're better than Tampa.
Orton, Moreno - Orton is probably better than JC, but MOreno is a total question mark, Id have to put us as better.
Sanchez/Clemens, Jones/Washington - We're about even here, having us slightly ahead. Jones led the AFC in rushing last year, but Sanchez/Clemens are too wild cardish.

Like Orakpo I don't agree with all the rankings, and could see the skins move up a few spots. But I can't argue with a lot of the rankings. That said, a lot of mention of offensive lines in the article. If we're factoring in O-lines, I feel like the list makes more sense.
That is true enough, but then they should say that is part of it.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:05 PM   #25
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

I'm sure New England, Indianapolis, and Baltimore love seeing the Giants as the second best backfield in the NFL. Jacobs is probably a top ten back in the NFL, but Ward left, and Eli is clearly the worst QB in their top 5. So, who knows really?

The list gets pretty bad in the second half, so given that, I don't think it matters that the Skins are "below" anyone in particular. No one actually puts thought into the 18th-27th teams on any list anyway. People have better things to do.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:07 PM   #26
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

It does seem criminal to put the Falcons at No. 7, and then not even mention Jerious Norwood. Without him, that's not a good offensive backfield.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:10 PM   #27
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

And I think he has Jamaal Charles confused with Priest Holmes, and Matt Cassel confused with an established QB.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:18 PM   #28
Brian Orakpo
Guest
 
Brian Orakpo's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
I can't wait for the season to start, and I pray our OL stays healthy and productive. Myself and several others can't wait to call out all the JC haters/doubters with a BIG, FAT, I told you so.
If you go through my posts I actually think this is the year Campbell will step up and play better in a contract year.

All im saying is I can understand why Campbell/Portis had a low ranking when you look at what happened last year. I would take Campbell/Portis over alot of those players for this upcoming season. I can understand why SI had the Skins ranked so low in these rankings though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:30 PM   #29
Brian Orakpo
Guest
 
Brian Orakpo's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53Fan View Post
Nice post Sammy. It's bad enough hearing this crap from SI, but to hear it from some of our own posters is ridiculous.
What has Campbell done since hes been our QB that makes anyone think he should be rated higher than 26 with Portis? The 2nd half of the season the Redskins sucked. I will say part of that is the offensive line. Part of it also was Campbell and his terrible passing where he seemed to want to throw balls over WRs heads and get them decked, throw to the WRs feet, throw behind the WR, or throw to a WR behind the 1st down marker.

Im banking on Campbell playing better in the 2nd year of Zorns offense, and the fact that hes in a contract year. I just cant say SI screwed the Skins over in these rankings when as of today Campbell/Portis hasnt done anything to suggest they should be ranked higher based on what happened last season when we actually played good teams in the 2nd half.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:32 PM   #30
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 15,994
Re: SI Ranks Offensive Backfields

I think that ignores that Campbell/Portis were essentially responsible for 6 out of our 8 wins. With Collins and Betts in those rolls, we're a 4-12, or maybe 3-13 team. Which, I think, is something that unit rankings have to figure in.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.09877 seconds with 10 queries