More work for the FO to do

[sch1977]

Wow. This once again shows your lack of knowledge for the game of football, what have we been doing for the last 12 years crazyhorse, picking up top free agents and emptying our pockets, where has that gotten us? exactly

no, this is how the skins created the mess. too many yes men agreeing with snyderbrenner and nobody with the stones to say 'the emperor has no clothes'. if you think moss/patten/jacobs compare with randy moss/porter/curry you are out of your mind. how about harrison/stokely/wayne?

Porter is an underacheiver, and Curry had ONE decent year. Some top receiving corp.

[sch1977]

Here's a simple question or two: What receiver do we have that has ever required double coverage?
How many teams do we play that have no corner capable to taking on Santana one on one?
Who, besides ey, who must block, is our posession receiver?
Why is Gardner being bad mouthed when in fact he can catch over the middle and actually had--by film review-- only nine drops last year?
What conceivable justification is there in believing that Dison or McCants or Thrash is as good as Gardner?
Why are we content with a TE that caught less than 10 passes last year and whose TD's resulted from pin-point passes rather than separation.
Why do you assume Samuels can remain healthy or that Jansen can bounce back after a poor season and then a season off from injury.
Why would you assume that Thomas' journeyman season last year was caused purely by Raymer (that's a stretch)?
Why would you assume Samuels and Dockery would develop an interest in run blocking and stop jumping off-sides?

Please stop calling me a hater. I am merely trying to discuss the coming season rationally. I've been a loyal Skins fan since the time of Gene Brito and Charlie Justice.

You say Gardner only had 9 drops? Did you see how many balls he flat out DIDNT catch? I'll take Patten over Gardner any day, and when healthy I will take Moss over Coles. You are right that we dont have a "Star" receiver, but who in the "Posse" was a superstar? No one, they were just blue collar guys who were VERY productive.

[SkinsJock]

I am as positive about the defense as I am negative about the offense...

Patience my friend. This is not about players. I think that you will be very surprised by what you are going to see this year.

The D last year was very good because of the system. The O this year will be very good because of the system. Joe has had a year and he seems to think that he has the players for the offense this year. The scheme will take advantage of the skills of the players. These are talented people - they're in the NFL!

This is a team and coaches that will make the most of a great D (we did not have Lavar last year!) and a vastly inproved offensive line and IMO we will be very good on special teams.

Patience - it's about the team, not about a few talented super stars who typically are more trouble than they are worth. I think Portis is going to be great this year in this system and ey will make you forget anybody you were thinking about drafting (this year or last!).

[crazyhorse1]

Crazy: How old are you? I thought I was old, but if you were a fan of Justice, who retired in '52, you must be in your 60's to remember that. If that is so, then you certainly lived thru the first Gibbs tenure. But you certainly don't talk like most people who have experienced that run. Most who have experienced it seem to have a little more faith in Gibbs than you do.

(You mention we only have a bunch of journeyman. Gibbs has won superbowls with journeyman!)

I'm over sixty. I played with guys in college who later played with Skins, Rams, Colts, and Cardinals. I was hoping at one point to be drafted by the Skins, but was injured in college. After that, the only feelers I got were from the Cowboys, who were than still pretty much an expansion team and were scouting everybody with great thoroughness...a breakthrough that led to their domination later on.

[JPFair]

Crazy (I see how you got the name),

Here's an "answer or two" to your "question or two".

What receiver do we have that has ever required double coverage?

We don't, but do we need one? Did the Patriots need one last year? Where in the history of the Super Bowl does it require you to have a WR who requires double coverage or not? Defending a wide receiver has as much, if not more, to do with your entire defensive scheme than it does with simply "double coverage" of one wide receiver.

How many teams do we play that have no corner capable to taking on Santana one on one?

We dont' know the answer to that question, because we haven't witnessed Santana Moss play in a Joe Gibbs offense yet. Your presumptive attitude is based only on your negativity and not about factual possibilities. If you want the answer to what teams we play that can shut down Santana Moss, then you need to watch the Redskins in 2005. With all due respect, but you're not the head coach of a NFL team (at least I hope you're not) and you can't speak with any degree of authority on how, or even if, any of the teams on our schedule this coming season will defend against Santana Moss.

Who, besides ey, who must block, is our posession receiver?

When you say "possesion receiver", what do you mean? I would hope that ALL of our receivers have good "possesion" skills. But, why don't you define "possesion receiver" for me? This year, our wide receiving corps have a different look. Insinuating that we do not have a "possesion receiver" is, again, merely a presumption on your part and a negative one at that. I mean no disrespect to you, but you haven't proven yourself to me to be so knowledgable on football as to make a negative presumption such as saying we do not have a "possesion receiver" when you have yet to see how any of our receivers operate in a Joe Gibbs system. Again, no direspect, but I think I'll side with Joe Gibbs over you on this one. As Skinjock so rightfully pointed out, he's earned the right to have judgement on his second tenure as Head Coach be based on MORE than one season. But, not to defer your question, ask it again at the end of the season and we should be able to name a few "possesion receivers".

Why is Gardner being bad mouthed when in fact he can catch over the middle and actually had--by film review-- only nine drops last year?

Who is doing the bad-mouthing? Certainly you're not suggesting that the coaches have been bad-mouthing Gardner are you? Gardner has shown potential, but requested a trade. Joe Gibbs clearly feels that Rod Gardner is not suited to the type of offense that he plans on utilizing. As for his dropped passes, I personally feel that he dropped crucial passes at crucial times. He never really showed any above average skills in gaining yards after the catch, and basically never developed in to what many people thought he would be. Yes, the fans have bad-mouthed him because he's dropped passes, but that's normal for a player if he makes a mistake. Were you bad-mouthing Mark Brunell every time he made a bad pass? What's the big deal? Bad-mouthing is part of being a fan. But, in your case, there's a HUGE difference between "bad-mouthing" and having a negative attitude. Your negative attitude towards the future is exactly what this team does NOT need. I liken it to this: For an offense to be productive the players need to "buy into the system". Can you argue with that? Well, then, for fans to be happy, they too must "buy into the system". Dude, buy in to Joe Gibbs' system or save yourself the aggravation and negativity and leave it. It's one thing to disagree with a personnel decision or a play call, but to express such definitive negativity in every facet of how this team is being run at the moment is, in my opinion, un-necessary and serves no purpose other than to create aggravation for yourself and those that read your posts. Suit yourself, but don't expect us to agree with your "sky is falling down" attitude.

What conceivable justification is there in believing that Dison or McCants or Thrash is as good as Gardner?

Neither your nor I can answer that question. Have you interviewed Rod Gardner? Have you spoken to James Thrash? Have you seen Dyson work out in front of you? Have you practiced with Darnerian McCants? Do you have a history of being a competent authority on player development? Well, neither do I so join the club. In other words, the only ones able to "justify" such a decision are the only ones that did make the decision. Obviously, those people are Joe Gibbs and his staff. Neither You nor I are paid to "justify" such decisions (again, at least I hope you're not). Joe Gibbs, Joe Bugel, Greg Williams, et. all do not have an asterisk in their contract that says everything they do has to be approved by crazyhorse. Let them be coaches and let them do their job, just as they let you be a fan. You don't hear them questioning your decisions in life, do you? Only time and history will be able to answer not just this, but any of your questions. Let it stay that way, but in the meantime, BE HAPPY AND CONFIDENT!!!! It's not that hard to do!!

Why are we content with a TE that caught less than 10 passes last year and whose TD's resulted from pin-point passes rather than separation.

This is again a case of letting the coaches being coaches and the fans being fans, but I'll try and answer your question: The job description for a TE is not limited to how many catches he makes. Tight Ends must do a hell of a lot more than merely catch footballs. It would be unwise to think that we (and I presume you mean the Redskins in general) are "content" with a TE that caught less than 10 passes, as none of us have been in any staff meetings since the end of the season when Joe Gibbs decided to do a complete and thorough review of the offense. I think it's safe to assume that during that review, the coaches discussed the TE position. To say that we're content, is IMO, inaccurate. We don't know what Joe Gibbs has up his sleeve for the coming year. For your part, I would suggest you have a little more faith and a more positive attitude. Negativity in this situation doesn't do any good, and it most certainly won't sway the decision making process that's already in place at Redskins Park.

Why do you assume Samuels can remain healthy or that Jansen can bounce back after a poor season and then a season off from injury.

I know you should never answer a question with a question, but why should we assume that Samuels WON'T remain healthy? Why shouldn't we assume that Jon Jansen will have a season that he's shown he's capable of? Why shouldn't we assume that a person who never even missed a practice, much less a game, should be able to bounce back and have as good as if not better year than he's had in the past? Again, this is nothing more than a "doom and gloom" attitude. Jon Jansen has proven himself to be reliable, talented, and dependable. We have no reason to doubt that he can do it again, just as you have no reason to doubt that you'll be able to walk across the street tomorrow like you did today.

Why would you assume that Thomas' journeyman season last year was caused purely by Raymer (that's a stretch)?

I spent ten minutes trying to decipher this question, and still haven't been able to understand it. Could I respectfully ask you to re-word this question using language that can be easier understood.

Why would you assume Samuels and Dockery would develop an interest in run blocking and stop jumping off-sides?

The simple answer to this is COACHING!!! Coaches are paid a lot of money to coach. Samuels "interest" has been expressed by his willingness to re-do his contract and stay with the Redskins. Dockery and Samuels already have an "interest" in run blocking and are committed to developing the Offensive line into the unit that they need to be. As many people have already pointed out, your issues are based solely on last season and do not include such integral parts of a winning team as development, cohesion, growth, faith, improvement, and most of all determination. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors at Redskins Park, so you, I, sportswriters, fans, and anyone else can not vouch or testify to the commitment and "interest" of not just Samuels and Dockery, but ANYONE on the team.

Crazy, I don't begrudge you your opinion or your beleif in your opinion. But, do yourself a favor and at least TRY to have some faith. Hypothetically speaking, suppose the Redskins have a good, if not great, season this year. Suppose they go to the playoffs and possibly beyond. How will you feel when you reflect on it all and say to yourself that you had such questions as those you mention in your post? Will you rather say to yourself "I knew Joe could do it and that's why I had such faith in him" or would you rather say "Dayum, was I ever wrong on this guy"? Think about it!! It doesn't cost anything to buy into a system. No one is demanding you to buy into Joe Gibbs' system, and if you don't, then I wish you the best of luck with whoevers' system you would like to buy into. Be a fan, but dont' be a messenger of doom and gloom. Clearly, your negativity is such that you have absolutely no faith whatsoever in not just the players, but the coaching staff right on up to the owner. Why then are you even a fan?

Dude, no offense, but try to be a little more upbeat. Joe Gibbs will not be coaching this team forever. But, for the time he is coaching here, give him your support. You don't have to agree with his every move to give him your support, but you do need to have faith in him in order to provide support. Relax and let him do his job. If he fails, then you can say I told you so. But, until then, give him the emotional support that he would like. He's sacrficed more than you can possibly ever imagine to try and help this franchise win. He's "giving it everything he's got" and has shown in the past that he can and more than likely will get positive results. If you don't agree with him, at least accept the fact that he's the coach and he's "giving it everything he's got'.

I could ramble on for hours about the negativity that you so un-necessarily display. But, it serves no purpose. Keep the faith!!

[SkinsJock]

JP you missed your calling my friend - great summation!

I'm looking forward to "kicking" you into gear on 9/11!

[Scottskins]

Great post JP, saved me some time lol

crazy, if you've been a redskins fan as long as you say, then how can you not trust the guy who is currently in charge? He's the man who got us those rings. He's the man who redefined what an offense is supposed to do. He won with everyone else's castoffs. He won with a great running game and an average passing game. He won with a great passing game and an average running game. He is the guy that can take any group of guys, as long as they are his type of players, and make them good enough to win a superbowl. He doesn't need a superstars skill or attitude.

If you in fact WERE a skins fan during Gibbs first tenure, quit saying we suck on offense because we didn't get this guy or that guy. Joe Gibbs does NOT need them, and you sir, should already know that!!!

[JPFair]

crazy, if you've been a redskins fan as long as you say, then how can you not trust the guy who is currently in charge? He's the man who got us those rings. He's the man who redefined what an offense is supposed to do. He won with everyone else's castoffs. He won with a great running game and an average passing game. He won with a great passing game and an average running game. He is the guy that can take any group of guys, as long as they are his type of players, and make them good enough to win a superbowl. He doesn't need a superstars skill or attitude

Not only did he do all that, but he did it after everyone was gunning for his head when he lost his first five games. In addition, he did it after starting with a pass first attack and then changed MID SEASON to a run-oriented attack. In short, he's capable of making adjustments and changes to adapt to the current culture. He'll do it again!

[crazyhorse1]

Dear JP. I find your position intelligent and well argued and will take due notice of many excellent points. There are a couple of points, however, I would like to touch upon. First, I believe that forcing mismatches and double coverages are an integral part of the game in the NFL. At least one of the two WR's should force a double coverage to open other things up, even if his receptions are few. The tight end, if he is a good receiver, can also occupy two men; he can freeze a linebacker even as he blocks down on a tackle if he is a short yardage threat, and he can freeze the cornerback if he is fast enough to outrun the linebacker and break long. A tight end who is a good, fast and tough receiver can momentarily freeze two men just by being on the field. He is also great for creating mismatches in that he might be too fast for a linebacker to cover and too big for a cornerback to handle.
A tight end who is a good receiver and a WR who requires double coverage cause havoc for defensive coordinators, who are forced to play guessing games and leave holes. In such a situaion, consider Portis gone.
Further, a posession receiver is a receiver capable of taking a beating while catching multiple short passes for first downs, often over the middle or in blind positions in which he is sure to be creamed. He should have a big body to take the hits and sure hands to hold onto the ball when he does. He also needs to have a big body because many catches for short yardage are made with a minimum of separation and the use of the body to shield the ball. A posession receiver can catch and hold onto the ball whether he's open or not. It's easy to reach in on a small receiver and knock the ball away when there's too little separation. Patton and Moss, regardless of the number of passes they catch, are not posession receivers. Gardner is, albeit, not an especially talented one. I wanted the Skins to draft Mike Williams because he's a great posession receiver, as well as effective going after the long ball. He'll draw double coverage his whole career; even if his numbers are worse than Gardner's have been, he'll be much more valuable to his team. He's capable of mismatches and drawing double coverage everywhere...a real headache, who can have put another wheel on Detroit's offense.
Last year, nobody worried about any of our receivers. You saw the result-- Portis..3.8 yards a carry.

Oh, here's a note for Scottskins: If Gibbs can "take any group of guys, as long as they are his type of players, and make them good enough to win the superbowl," as you say, so can I. My type of players are Peyton Manning,
Marcus Washington, Gale Sayers, Jim Brown, Deacon Jones, Jerry Rice, Ed Reed, Ray ...

[JPFair]

Crazy,

Thank you for ackowledging my post. Let me just address one of your issues right now, and I'm going to respond to the others later on.

I wanted the Skins to draft Mike Williams because he's a great posession receiver, as well as effective going after the long ball. He'll draw double coverage his whole career; even if his numbers are worse than Gardner's have been, he'll be much more valuable to his team. He's capable of mismatches and drawing double coverage everywhere...a real headache, who can have put another wheel on Detroit's offense.

He's going to draw double coverage? How do you know? He hasn't played a down yet and you're saying he's going to draw double coverage? They were saying the same about Desmond Howard. You simply can NOT make that type of statement. This is my whole point!! You can't make the type of statements that you're making until after the fact. Williams, while arguably having potential, hasn't done diddly squat in the NFL. Until he does something special, he's just another rookie.

[Fo_Block]

Porter is an underacheiver, and Curry had ONE decent year. Some top receiving corp.

are you serious with this post?

[Buzz Dog]

Crazy Horse is getting crushed for pointing out, albeit with a pretty fatalistic slant, that a lot has to go right for the Skins to dramatically improve on offense this year. I agree with that basic premise.

I also agree with the consensus that it is not all about players. The Pats offense is a great example.

This is why alot will, in fact, go right: the o-line's improvement will lead the offense. I truly believe that the return of a healthy Jansen cannot be underestimated. And since when are Chris Samuels and Randy Thomas on the tail-ends of their respective careers?

Joe Gibbs said it best himself -- the best way for a team to be effective in the air is to be affective on the ground. How far would the Colts and Rams go without their running backs? Look for some big Clinton Portis runs through holes created by Thomas and Jansen.

Seems to me Crazy had also thrown in the towel on #26, by the way. Watch out for a big year from this dude.

[welch]

SkinsJock said

Joe (and the FO) would love to have a lot of people.

That's the fundamental point. Gibbs would like to have a big, fast receiver who can slip around or overpower defenders after a catch. He would probably like to have two of them, clones of Jefferson and Taylor.

If wishes were horses, etc.

Gibbs and the front office improved the center, which gives depth on OL. He expects Jansen to be a strong as ever. That makes Ray Brown a super depth player. Even deeper.

If the OL is the engine that makes the offense run, and Gibbs has always appeared to believe it, then he and the FO focussed just where they needed to on offense.

Yes, maybe Mike Williams would have been nice, too, but Gibbs chose to protect the team's future at QB. That makes plenty of sense. Receivers might be easier to find than QB's. But, who knows? Remember the fan-screams when the Skins bypassed our local hero, Boomer Esiason, to draft a small CB from some little school in Texas? Maybe Boomer would have been just the guy to come off the bench when Joe T was hurt, but Jay Schroeder was not too shabby, and I don't know if Boomer would have been as valuable, long term, as Darrell Green. Whatever the answer, it's not obvious.

The Redskins also replaced Smoot, and perhaps upgraded CB. Certainly, (a) they have a younger guy, and (b) the extra money that Smoot received doesn't sound like enough to be decisive if he wanted to stay. So be it. Gibbs got a younger player who wants to be here.

On the entire receiving group, I'm willing to wait until I see how they play out. I have hopes for Taylor Jacobs. He tries. Maybe McCants can break through whatever fog has kept him mostly on the bench. No, none of these guys are like Art Monk II, but so what? Who is?

As I have read, again and again from the sports entertainment media, the pass interference rules have made it easier for fast little guys to catch passes. We'll see.

Gardner seems to disagree with Gibbs, just as Coles did. Both, Coles said, felt insulted that Gibbs would not change the offense to their liking. They know more offense than Gibbs. Both sound like players who improved the Redskins by getting lost. Improvement by subtraction.

The TE and H-back seem better than OK. Royal blocks hard, and that's his job. Run through the career stats for Don Warren, and you see:


Year Team Gmes Recv Yards Avg TD

1979 WAS 16 26 303 11.7 0
1980 WAS 13 31 323 10.4 0
1981 WAS 16 29 335 11.6 1
1982 WAS 9 27 310 11.5 0
1983 WAS 13 20 225 11.3 2
1984 WAS 16 18 192 10.7 0
1985 WAS 16 15 163 10.9 1
1986 WAS 16 20 164 8.2 1
1987 WAS 12 7 43 6.1 0
1988 WAS 14 12 112 9.3 0
1989 WAS 15 15 167 11.1 1
1990 WAS 16 15 123 8.2 1
1991 WAS 10 5 51 10.2 0
1992 WAS 11 4 25 6.3 0

Career 193 244 2,536 10.4 7

A silly news article said that Warren had his best year in 1980, when he caught 31 passes. Nonsense, and we know it. Football statistics are twisted so as to hide Warren's value to the team. Gibbs did not start him all those games just to add the threat of one reception per game.

Royal looks OK.

Likewise, ey looks pretty good: a smooth receiver, and a big guy who has learned to block.