Elfin of Washington Times...........

SKINZ_DOMIN8 · Post by **SKINZ_DOMIN8** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:32 am

Did anyone catch "Nationals Extra" with Dave Feldman last night, he has on Elfin of the Washington Times and I caught the last part of it.........

His main point was that the Redskins would be "very lucky" to go 8-8 because of all the new players.....

I was wondering if anyone caught the entire interview...

This to me is surprising since The Washington Times is usually more Redskin-friendly.

Thoughts?

FanofallthatisGibbs · Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:35 am

the new players -

WRs, and a corner back and LB or two...

The WRs don't need the kind of chemistry the linemen need to dominate games, they just need speed and good hands. Hopefully we got it on both accounts.

The DBs and LBs are in a system where there is a lot of substitutions. I am not worried about our additions or subtractions in these areas. We still have a solid foundation in the secondary even without ST.

The Lines on both sides of the ball have more depth and no turnover in the offseason. This is where personel turnover can kill a team, not in the playmakers.

ejay183 · Post by **ejay183** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:04 pm

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Did anyone catch "Nationals Extra" with Dave Feldman last night, he has on Elfin of the Washington Times and I caught the last part of it.........

His main point was that the Redskins would be "very lucky" to go 8-8 because of all the new players.....

I was wondering if anyone caught the entire interview...

This to me is surprising since The Washington Times is usually more Redskin-friendly.

Thoughts?

I saw it, he said the lost of Smoot and Pierce will hurt the offense and taking a 9 million cap hit for the Coles trade was a stupid move.

oafusp · Post by **oafusp** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:24 pm

SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Did anyone catch "Nationals Extra" with Dave Feldman last night, he has on Elfin of the Washington Times and I caught the last part of it.........

His main point was that the Redskins would be "very lucky" to go 8-8 because of all the new players.....

I was wondering if anyone caught the entire interview...

This to me is surprising since The Washington Times is usually more Redskin-friendly.

Thoughts?

He's a sports reporter, not Miss Cleo.
They are entitled to their opinions on sports, thats what they do for a living. They don't drink the Kool-Aid we fans guzzle.

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:30 pm

Wait he said losing Pierce and Smoot would hurt the offense????? How could we possibly believe a man that says that, he obviously had been hanging with oafus and drinking just a few too many.

If that was intended to say defense then I still don't buy it. Pierce was a no body prior to Greg Williams implenting his defense here. So he can in theory take any no body and make them fill Pierces shoes. And Smoot will be missed but we have quite a few people on defense that will actually create plays. Bowen is a good example. He was out last year. Look for him to be a very vocal leader this year.

ejay183 · Post by **ejay183** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:35 pm

NikiH wrote:Wait he said losing Pierce and Smoot would hurt the offense????? How could we possibly believe a man that says that, he obviously had been hanging with oafus and drinking just a few too many.

If that was intended to say defense then I still don't buy it. Pierce was a no body prior to Greg Williams implenting his defense here. So he can in theory take any no body and make them fill Pierces shoes. And Smoot will be missed but we have quite a few people on defense that will actually create plays. Bowen is a good example. He was out last year. Look for him to be a very vocal leader this year.

He said it would hurt both sides of the ball, because AP was great in GW's system and the defense would lower in strength, putting more pressure on the offense.

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:43 pm

Wow that is pretty lame. As a fan I'd like to see the offense take a little more of the pressure. Last year the defense carried this team and while it can work to win games (see the Ravens a few years ago) from time to time that is not how football is supposed to work.

I'm not down by his assessment by any means, I just don't think it's right. Being a bit of an underdog works though, as it always motivates players to do better.

MarcusBeNimble · Post by **MarcusBeNimble** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:03 pm

i agree that as far as chemistry goes, it is more crucial between the offensive line and the quarterbacks. receivers can rely more heavily on speed, good hands, blocking etc. defensively though, i think chemistry is what made the clock tick last year.

welch · Post by **welch** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:07 pm

His main point was that the Redskins would be "very lucky" to go 8-8 because of all the new players.....

I was wondering if anyone caught the entire interview...

This to me is surprising since The Washington Times is usually more Redskin-friendly.

It's hard to predict an 8-8 only because they lost Pierce and Smoot. Losing Pierce, yes, that will hurt. Still, there seem to be a lot of good LB's on the team, and the team is well-coached. Where was Pierce in previous years? Perhaps the same coaches who spotted something in Pierce will find something in another player.

Smoot? Who knows yet, but they drafted to fill Smoots place.

On the other side the offense look much stronger. The OL is one year more coherent. We all agreed last season that the team was playing a good reserve at center and RT. Will the OL improve with Rabach at C and Jansen at RT? And with reserves able to fill in as the starters get hurt, which they will.

Ramsey will be sharper.

The offense has been modified to get more from Portis.

Finally, the team improved by losing players who don't agree with the Gibbs system.

So...this looks good.

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:33 pm

FanofallthatisGibbs wrote:the new players -

WRs, and a corner back and LB or two...

The WRs don't need the kind of chemistry the linemen need to dominate games, they just need speed and good hands. Hopefully we got it on both accounts.

Actually, I do think the WR's need to gel, but not with themselves but with the QB. That's why Peyton and the Colts are so good, because he has a feel for each WR.

I also think the Defense needs to gel again. Now I'm not saying that we will be worse on D, just that with a new MLB running the show, Arrington back, Bowen back, and maybe with Taylor gone, our Defense might need to just get a feel for whose out there.

washington53 · Post by **washington53** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:42 pm

tahts just stupid..... i mean were gonna do good.
leme just touch up on Bowen.
If you guys have seen the defense highlight video you will see what a great player Bowen is... look at it and watch

SkinsLaVar · Post by **SkinsLaVar** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:19 pm

2 words.... "Think Detroit"

oafusp · Post by **oafusp** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:39 pm

washington53 wrote:tahts just stupid....... look at it and watch

What if I watch and look at it?

Is there sound? Cause I'd love to listen and hear it too.

ROTFALMAO

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:57 pm

If Barrow is back at MLB, there will be no drop-off by the D. He has run G. Williams system before and is a better overall player than Pierce.

ejay183 · Post by **ejay183** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:59 pm

JSPB22 wrote:If Barrow is back at MLB, there will be no drop-off by the D. He has run G. Williams system before and is a better overall player than Pierce.

The only problem is age and if he gets injured again.

Ravenzsuck · Post by **Ravenzsuck** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:37 pm

Don't sweat the journalists. Remember last year, these same guys were saying that we were heading to the playoffs. Just stay positive and don't get rapped up in the bs

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:53 pm

ejay183 wrote:
SKINZ_DOMIN8 wrote:Did anyone catch "Nationals Extra" with Dave Feldman last night, he has on Elfin of the Washington Times and I caught the last part of it.........

His main point was that the Redskins would be "very lucky" to go 8-8 because of all the new players.....

I was wondering if anyone caught the entire interview...

This to me is surprising since The Washington Times is usually more Redskin-friendly.

Thoughts?

I saw it, he said the lost of Smoot and Pierce will hurt the offense and taking a 9 million cap hit for the Coles trade was a stupid move.

Smoot and AP have already been replaced, we just don't know who it will be for sure. The news on Barrows seems to get better everyday(I think he would be a upgrade over Antonio). We drafted a couple of rookies to compete with Marshall, Holdman and others if Mike Barrows can't go.
Carlos Rodgers will be replace Smoot at some point but there are a few seasoned vets competing to hold down that spot until he is ready. Walt Harris is the front runner here, and he has a year in the system.

The lost of Smoot and Pierce won't hurt the offense but the lost would have to effect the defense first and it won't. There will be 3 new starters on offense, so they may need a little time to gel. But we are talking a center and 2 wideouts. Moss missed some of the off-season workout, but mostly weightroom stuff. They all must gel with Ramsey( how many thinks that hasn't happened)

Everyone points out the guys that we lost (up and left is more like it), some will throw in Moss. Very few mention we picked up Rabach and Patten although they were our first 2 off-season moves, and no one mentions the players coming back from injuries.

Before anyone perdicts the outcome of the 2005 season for the Redskins they should asked themselfs 1 question.

What grade do you give a 6-10 team that added ....
Lavar Arrington, Mike Barrow, Matt Bownam, and Jon Janson

We didn't add these guys they were already here (learnig the schemes with their teammates.

We drafted a hand full of guys hoping half can make the team. That team in Texas drafted twice as many, and are hoping half can START, and they have a NEW ( ROTFALMAO

) QB

Fo_Block · Post by **Fo_Block** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:14 pm

ejay183 wrote:
taking a 9 million cap hit for the Coles trade was a stupid move.

it doesn't take an expert to restate the obvious. i never understood why snyder gave coles roster bonus this year. i don't proclaim to be a salary cap guru, but at some point doesn't snyder have to pay the piper for his mistakes?

RedskinsFreak · Post by **RedskinsFreak** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:20 pm

Being "Redskins-friendly" doesn't necessarily equal picking them to have a good record.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:50 pm

Fo_Block wrote:it doesn't take an expert to restate the obvious. i never understood why snyder gave coles roster bonus this year. i don't proclaim to be a salary cap guru, but at some point doesn't snyder have to pay the piper for his mistakes?

The roster bonus came due while he was on the roster, I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. Coles was willing to give that part of the bonus back for his outright release (making him a free agent). "the Danny" and Gibbs wanted something or someone in return. That is why he was still on the roster, before you asked.
To dumb it down even further I'll just say "the Danny" honored the contract and LC didn't

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Elfin of Washington Times...........

Elfin of Washington Times...........

Re: Elfin of Washington Times...........

Re: Elfin of Washington Times...........

Re: Elfin of Washington Times...........

Re: Elfin of Washington Times...........

Re: Elfin of Washington Times...........