What does 6-10 mean?

SkinsLaVar · Post by **SkinsLaVar** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:35 am

A loss is a loss no matter how you look at it and 6-10 is no way to end a season, especially with the greatest coach in the NFL. However, if you look at the 2004 schedule, you'll see that we were in every game. I mean losing to the Cowcraps twice by 3 lousy points?? I mean come on! Still a loss is a loss. That's basically how the whole season went, coming way too close to a W and then doing something stupid and ending up with an L; but don't take my word for it, see for yourself. A 6-10 record is perfect for the situation we're in. In 2005, the Redskins will be the underdogs of the NFL and avenge for the L's they received instead of the W's that should have been there. Gibbs is a very competitive guy, and with a little tweaking on offense here and there, the Skins are going to be rollin'. Check out the W's and L's on last year’s schedule. You'll see for yourself, we are not far behind at all. http://www.redskins.com/news/schedule.jsp

ATV · Post by **ATV** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:31 pm

I have to agree. I've written this before, and I'm certainly not alone, but two or three of last season's games not only could have been won but should have been won, or in fact WERE won. I'm of course talking about those atrocious calls on those three or four critical plays. Joe Gibbs came back to football after watching race cars zip around a track for eleven years and leads a team to a 6-10 record (though, again, it was a better performance than this). ELEVEN YEARS. Consider in his first year of being a Head Coach Andy Reid led the Eagles to a 5-11 record and he had been away from the NFL for ZERO YEARS. I've also written this before - I'd rather see Skins have Joe Gibbs and a 6-10 record than ANY other coach with ANY other record.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:38 pm

It's like a low rent 7-11.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:57 pm

JansenFan wrote:It's like a low rent 7-11.

The master of the understatement, at it again.

Apart from the closeness of a couple (more?) of the games the 2 things I thought were "good" for our team last year was the tackling and the way we "held in there"! i thought that the team played "together" better than we have seen and that is attributable to Joe. Now, he has to pick up on some other areas obviously but that will happen.

Now I agree 6-10 is what it is (low rent?) but we played fairly well against the better teams and I liked the improvement overall.

I am really encouraged that we are getting back to being considered a competitive team again - where we belong!

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:08 pm

Teams with bad records usually don't get blown out. They just can't win the close ones.

cvillehog · Post by **cvillehog** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:10 pm

General Failure wrote:Teams with bad records usually don't get blown out. They just can't win the close ones.

Also, most NFL games are close.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:18 pm

I agree with both assessments and would only add that IMO we played well against teams that were thought to be very good. Or, much better than we had in the past years!

2 years ago we beat the ne team and they then went on a tear and won the SB!! So I guess winning or losing to some "good" teams is not an indication of how either team is doing?

How's that for shooting down my own theory? Must be a Friday thing!!

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:19 pm

cvillehog wrote:
General Failure wrote:Teams with bad records usually don't get blown out. They just can't win the close ones.

Also, most NFL games are close.

And increasingly so each year, it seems.

I'd say that we weren't a 6-10 team at the beginning of the year. . .if we had played at that same level we would have been lucky to finish 5-11 or 4-12. But by the end of the year we were a better team than 6-10 IMO. Not every team gets better as the season progresses. . .check out the '99 Skins if you want a good example of choking. Or any of the Vikings teams of the last 3-5 years. The encouraging thing about last year was how much better we were looking by season end.

Of course, as fans of the Redskins we're the only ones that think this actually means anything. . .

. . . .hmmm, on the bright side--our offseason has gone pretty well!

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:19 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I am really encouraged that we are getting back to being considered a competitive team again - where we belong!

So am I ...
I think we started to turn that corner this past year. Not only did we play those games close but for the 1st time in years the Skins played hard from start to finish.

By the end of the season there were few NFC playoff teams that would have scared me, but many that would have wooried about facing the Skins

chicosbailbond · Post by **chicosbailbond** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:24 pm

the first giants game and the cleveland game...

those were the only two games we played bad....

the GB game and the second Cowboys games were two that got away...

I agree that our tackling was fantastic...

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:57 pm

That also has been pointed out! We seemed to play better but I also think we were begining to find ourselves as well.
I know we will miss some of these players but I am hoping others not only step up but also continue to improve. You just know that JG and the offensive side is going to get better.

by the way, this reminds me of an old song...

1niksder wrote:...but many that would have wooried ...

..it takes a wooried man, to sing a wooried song....

HogBrew73 · Post by **HogBrew73** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:24 pm

Guys, Guys.
I love the Redskins through thick and thin. But will not accept 6 and 10 no matter how close they were to winning a few more games. And please, 6-10 with Gibbs is still 6-10. I'll agree that I love watching him on the sidelines, but he must do better in order for his legacy to be protected. I beleive he would tell you that himself. As far as losing 2 games last year to Dallas, shouldn't it really be looked at more like losing 14 of the last 15? Daniel Snyder doesn't own the Redskins, Dallas does.
All of this talk about what the Skins played more like is delusional. What they are is a bad football team, that is poorly run, with 1 playoff trip in 13 years to show for it.

ejay183 · Post by **ejay183** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:33 pm

HogBrew73 wrote:Guys, Guys.
I love the Redskins through thick and thin. But will not accept 6 and 10 no matter how close they were to winning a few more games. And please, 6-10 with Gibbs is still 6-10. I'll agree that I love watching him on the sidelines, but he must do better in order for his legacy to be protected. I beleive he would tell you that himself. As far as losing 2 games last year to Dallas, shouldn't it really be looked at more like losing 14 of the last 15? Daniel Snyder doesn't own the Redskins, Dallas does.
All of this talk about what the Skins played more like is delusional. What they are is a bad football team, that is poorly run, with 1 playoff trip in 13 years to show for it.

But some teams have not been to the playoffs in 13 years at all. I love the Skins no matter what, but it makes it easier when they win.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:05 pm

HogBrew73 wrote:... but he must do better in order for his legacy to be protected. I beleive he would tell you that himself....

Welcome, again!

Easy does it! You obviously do not know this coach OR what sort of person he is. He is NOT motivated by his legacy! This guy is driven to succeed and he will.

Please! Have faith and a little patience!

FanofallthatisGibbs · Post by **FanofallthatisGibbs** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:30 pm

I agree that Gibbs humself would agree that 6-10 is not good enough to protect his legacy. But that poster clearly must understand that Gibbs would NOT return to football if that was his motive.

Back off the guy. It's his second post, and a damn good one after all this woulda coulda shoulda bs.

1 in 13 is a 7.7% playoffs rate. Not competitive.

14 losses in 15 tries is Webster's definition of ownership.

Gibbs came to reverse these. He will.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:52 pm

Your part way there! He has already made improvement and will continue to do so.

Some fans only look at the pukes games. Joe is making the team better but it is not to just beat the pukes. He wants to beat the good teams too.

The team is markedly improved from the season before and that was 6-10! The wins and losses mean nothing until the team gets back to where he wants it to be.

If we go 12-4 and 2 losses are to the pukes will you still feel that we are a bad team?

die cowboys die · Post by **die cowboys die** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:27 am

i think the most amazing thing to think about is how completely dreadful the offense was, and yet we were still SO CLOSE to being 10-6 or better.

i mean think about it-- the offense was just about as bad as you can possibly get last year. there is simply no WAY it can't get at least a little better in 2005. i believe the defense will still be solid, and with the offense even becoming average, we should easily win at least 4 more games to go 10-6.

HogBrew73 · Post by **HogBrew73** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:39 pm

I agree, Gibb's legacy is not what motivates him. However as fans of this proud franchise, Gibbs' legacy is part of what we all crow about. Whenever we are going at it with those chump Eagles fans about tradition and excellence, tell me you don't all refer to the 3 superbowl victories.
...I think we will be better, and agree that the skins 6-10 was a promising 6 and 10 due to fact that they fought to the end. What got me going was the comment that 6 and 10 with Gibbs is better than 6 and 10 without Gibbs. Just seems to me that it is still 6 and 10 and shouldn't feel good regardless. I am glad he is here too, but he has work to do. Snyders era has been embarrassing. It will take more than one season to reverse the trend at Redskins Park. I believe Gibbs will get it done. He is not known for his failings.