We Suck

Talk about the Washington Football Team here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
EasyMoney
Hog
Posts: 354
youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: Germantown, Maryland

Post by EasyMoney »

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, what constitutes sucking? Does a team that would rank, say, around the mid-point of the league suck? Does a team have to be a Superbowl contender not to suck? If the answer to those last two questions is "yes", then it's a no-brainer. I don't think anyone is under the impression that this team has a chance at the Superbowl. But where should this team rank? Does anything short of the playoffs count as sucking? At what point has a team crossed that line?


I don't think a team has to be a Superbowl contender to not suck. But I think a team has to be a consistent playoff contender to not suck. When you're in a conference like the NFC where sometimes .500 teams make the playoffs and you're not a contender... you suck.

Irn-Bru wrote:Consider that the Redskins have has had a tough schedule that probably ranks in the top 5 of the league. (The analysts at Football Outsiders, for example, who have developed complex statistical models to rank teams and their schedules, put the Redskins as having the 3rd hardest schedule. Take a look at how other teams with tough schedules have fared.) We also play in a very tough division, where even the other bottom-feeder gave New England a run for their money, played Green Bay tough, and crushed Detroit. (Heck, we crushed Detroit.) Consider that the Redskins — even if this is due to problems with our training and conditioning staff — have had far more than their fair share of injuries this year. Name me another team that could lose 3 starters on the offensive line without losing their ability to run the ball and protect the quarterback.


Because the NFL is an any given Sunday league, I think that rating schedules is conditional from year to year. Last year the NFC North was awful, this year its a bit different. Last year the AFC East was tougher, Pats and Jets were good, this year its the Pats by themselves. I could go on and on with this. All in all I think that rating schedules doesn't really prove anything other than the NFL is such a topsy turvy league. I'm not sure that rating schedules makes much sense these days.

Irn-Bru wrote:Consider that, aside from the New England game, we have yet to be truly outplayed by a team. Even in our ugly wins where we probably didn't deserve the W, the other team wasn't looking pretty either. In fact, we've had mostly ugly games this year, win or lose, and the closeness of these matchups shouldn't be overlooked (one way or the other!).


Whats the old chiche? Good teams put away bad teams? Even in our playoff run two years ago we were losing games we "should" have won. You bring up the point about playing ugly games. I'm not sure about you but I'm sick of watching this team play to their opponents. The one time this year I would've liked to see them play to their opponents they get blown out. Which brings up the old chiche again...

Irn-Bru wrote:So, back to the original question. Do we suck? I guess if you think any team not in the top 1/3rd of the league is terrible, then you will include the Redskins in that category. But I'd place the Redskins somewhere at the mid-point of the NFL. We can beat most of the teams in this league, and we have been getting consistently more healthy in the past couple of weeks (a trend that I expect will continue). Jason Campbell has developed this season, and will continue to do so. We are getting Randy Thomas back. My answer is a definite "no" in this case.


I think this is the exact reason why people are so frustrated. We can beat most of the teams in this league but for some reason, we do not. The talent on this team should be able to overcome injuries. It's not a question of talent on this team, its a question of why we consistently lose games the way we lose games. The Redskins beat the Redskins. I can't think of anything more frustrating as a fan.
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
**LPJ**
Posts: 6714
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
Contact:

Post by langleyparkjoe »

GSPODS wrote:"We Suck"? Speak for yourself.
I do none of the following:

suck /sʌk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Pronunciation[suhk]
–verb (used with object) 1. to draw into the mouth by producing a partial vacuum by action of the lips and tongue: to suck lemonade through a straw.
2. to draw (water, moisture, air, etc.) by or as if by suction: Plants suck moisture from the earth. The pump sucked water from the basement.
3. to apply the lips or mouth to and draw upon by producing a partial vacuum, esp. for extracting fluid contents: to suck an orange.
4. to put into the mouth and draw upon: to suck one's thumb.
5. to take into the mouth and dissolve by the action of the tongue, saliva, etc.: to suck a piece of candy.
6. to render or bring to a specified condition by or as if by sucking.
–verb (used without object) 7. to draw something in by producing a partial vacuum in the mouth, esp. to draw milk from the breast.
8. to draw or be drawn by or as if by suction.
9. (of a pump) to draw air instead of water, as when the water is low or a valve is defective.


ROTFALMAO G.. your just 'ignant'
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

EasyMoney wrote:I don't think a team has to be a Superbowl contender to not suck. But I think a team has to be a consistent playoff contender to not suck. When you're in a conference like the NFC where sometimes .500 teams make the playoffs and you're not a contender... you suck.


Even by that logic the jury is still out on whether or not we suck. Despite being 5-7 we have some chance of making the playoffs. Not likely, but it's there. Making 8-8 is also realistic.

EasyMoney wrote:Because the NFL is an any given Sunday league, I think that rating schedules is conditional from year to year.


The FO rating is based on this year. Check out their website (some other good stuff there, too). That's also part of my point: yes, we play in the NFC which has been weaker than the AFC in recent years—yet, we also play in the toughest division (top to bottom) in the NFC, if not the NFL. I think that tempers your first point as well.

EasyMoney wrote:Whats the old chiche? Good teams put away bad teams? Even in our playoff run two years ago we were losing games we "should" have won. You bring up the point about playing ugly games. I'm not sure about you but I'm sick of watching this team play to their opponents. The one time this year I would've liked to see them play to their opponents they get blown out. Which brings up the old chiche again...


I agree with all of this, but I don't think that it addresses the point that you were responding to.

EasyMoney wrote:I think this is the exact reason why people are so frustrated. We can beat most of the teams in this league but for some reason, we do not. The talent on this team should be able to overcome injuries. It's not a question of talent on this team, its a question of why we consistently lose games the way we lose games. The Redskins beat the Redskins. I can't think of anything more frustrating as a fan.


I agree with that as well. It's why I think we're really a middle-of-the-pack team right now, as a matter of fact.
Skinsfan55
+++++++++
+++++++++
Posts: 5227
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:21 pm
Contact:

Post by Skinsfan55 »

PulpExposure wrote:
Who did they get last year?

London Fletcher Baker (an acknowledged leader who had played MLB for Williams), and Fred Smoot (a great locker room guy, who played CB for Williams).

Yep, sure went after the biggest names on the market (they're mid-level names in all honesty), got them without a regard for team chemistry (both are great chemistry guys, and they KNEW this), and they sure didn't know if they'd fit with the defensive system (both played for Williams and excelled for him before).

Uh huh.

Welcome to 2007. Time to change that tired mantra.



Chemistry isn't the problem. That was the positive side of the FA signings this season. Still, they were the signings of a team who expected to be a contender, like we always expect.

London Fletcher is a very good linebacker, but he's also going to be 33 next season. Smoot's going to be 29.

The Redskins aren't a contender right now, and it's not looking good for 2008. A rebuilding team looks for character (in the form of coachability) and youth.
"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog
EasyMoney
Hog
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: Germantown, Maryland

Post by EasyMoney »

Irn-Bru wrote:Even by that logic the jury is still out on whether or not we suck. Despite being 5-7 we have some chance of making the playoffs. Not likely, but it's there. Making 8-8 is also realistic.


Agreed. By my logic we can't yet label them as a team that sucks.

Irn-Bru wrote:The FO rating is based on this year. Check out their website (some other good stuff there, too). That's also part of my point: yes, we play in the NFC which has been weaker than the AFC in recent years—yet, we also play in the toughest division (top to bottom) in the NFC, if not the NFL. I think that tempers your first point as well.


Agreed here too. I should've said something along the lines of I wonder how they rated our schedule before the season started and I wonder how much it's changed since. I can remember seeing our schedule and marking off games that we would probably win and games we would probably lose and it's changed so much since the start. Confidence and optimism have been tempered, wouldn't you agree?

Irn-Bru wrote:I agree with all of this, but I don't think that it addresses the point that you were responding to.


You're point was the closeness of the matchups shouldn't be overlooked. My point was good teams put away bad teams. The correlation there is that isn't almost every single matchup close? In any given week how many blowouts are there and how many close games are there? Without looking at stats I would think there are many more close games than blowouts. This thread is a blanket statement that we suck. If we suck we're certainly not a good team. Good teams find a way to win, be it a blowout or a close game. Bad teams or teams that suck find a way to lose. Right now, we're finding ways to lose.

At some point I think we should all set our expectations higher. Making the playoffs would be nice and heck being a consistent playoff team would be even nicer. But it wouldn't be as nice as winning the Superbowl. Can any of us realistically hope for a Superbowl victory anytime soon? Did you think we would still be in this same rut three and a half years into Gibbs' return? I didn't. After 05 I thought we were on the up and up and we haven't done anything but go down and further down.

I'm just not sure I can deal with another season like the last two. Marred by injuries, conservatism and the same old tired act. We all expected progress, but none of us are seeing progress. The team plays hard, harder than it did with Spurrier thats for sure but its still not affecting the W-L column.
Skinsfan55
+++++++++
+++++++++
Posts: 5227
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:21 pm
Contact:

Post by Skinsfan55 »

Speaking of rebuilding here is a list of guys on the Redskins who are 25 or younger according to ESPN:

Jason Campbell (25)
Chris Cooley (25)
Stephon Heyer (23)
Kedrick Golston (24)
Anthony Montgomery (23)
Rocky McIntosh (25)
Reed Doughty (25)
LaRon Landry (23)

(FYI Clinton Portis and Carlos Rogers are 26, there's also a couple minor players and practice squad guys I didn't include.)

Can that nucleus be built around? I really don't know if that's the core you want to go with. :(

For all sports I believe in building around youth and supplimenting that core with free agents... but it gets very hard when you try to take a veteran group and inject a core of young rookies into them. It could be done though, it's just not easy.
"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog
Gnome
Hog
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:15 am
Location: Peachtree City, GA

Post by Gnome »

What constitutes sucking?

1993 4-12
1994 3-13
1995 6-10
1996 9-7
1997 8-7-1
1998 6-10
1999 10-6
00 8-8
01 8-8
02 7-9
03 5-11
04 6-10
05 10-6
06 5-11
07 5-7

1 winning season in the last 7 years.
3 winning seasons in the last 15 years.

That pretty much sucks for us as fans. I still love the Skins. But the record doesn't lie.
All Hail the Maroon and Black!!!!
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

EasyMoney wrote:Agreed here too. I should've said something along the lines of I wonder how they rated our schedule before the season started and I wonder how much it's changed since.


It started out looking OK to somewhat difficult, but just about every team on our schedule has been playing better than was expected, with the exception of the Miami (who is surely one of the best 0-12 teams in league history), the Eagles (who are nevertheless a decent team this year), and the Jets.

Confidence and optimism have been tempered, wouldn't you agree?


Definitely. . .


EasyMoney wrote:You're point was the closeness of the matchups shouldn't be overlooked. My point was good teams put away bad teams. The correlation there is that isn't almost every single matchup close? In any given week how many blowouts are there and how many close games are there? Without looking at stats I would think there are many more close games than blowouts. This thread is a blanket statement that we suck. If we suck we're certainly not a good team. Good teams find a way to win, be it a blowout or a close game. Bad teams or teams that suck find a way to lose. Right now, we're finding ways to lose.


OK, I see what you're going for. And, to be honest, I agree with most all of this. . .


At some point I think we should all set our expectations higher. Making the playoffs would be nice and heck being a consistent playoff team would be even nicer. But it wouldn't be as nice as winning the Superbowl. Can any of us realistically hope for a Superbowl victory anytime soon? Did you think we would still be in this same rut three and a half years into Gibbs' return? I didn't.


We are definitely below what I thought would have been a reasonable prediction of success. We are even on the low side of what I thought would even be possible, especially after 2005. I guess in the end my threshold of tolerance before declaring that a team 'sucks' is a little bigger than many fellow fans here at THN.

I also allow future optimism to play into my judgment of the team now. I think that we've had good drafts in the last 2-3 with the few picks that we've had (and we're keeping our future ones so far, fingers crossed). I think that aside from the offseason 2 years ago we've had good FA acquisitions since Joe's return (although the way we've bled draft picks in the process is a huge negative as well).

We are older in key positions and there are challenges facing us. Lots of opportunities to screw it up but I haven't lost hope. All of this factors in to my judgment of the team as a whole right now, which is why I'm still not able to say that we suck, as bad as things may look to some.

(Sorry for the rambling; I should've cut this post in half).
User avatar
hailskins666
aka Evil Hog
aka Evil Hog
Posts: 6481
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 9:01 am
Location: South of Heaven, trying to hit a toilet on shrooms
Contact:

Post by hailskins666 »

wow. a conversation has developed. what the hell was i thinking??? :roll:



VetSkinsFan wrote:
hailskins666 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:Is the temper tantrum over yet? All I see is something I'd ground my 7yo for... throwing a fit.....
maybe you should beat his ass while you're at it, big guy. :roll:


You're the one throwing the tantrum there, Mr Glock .40, not me, and not my 7yo.....
well, then beat my ass, you certainly aren't going to 'ground' me, nor will you deter me from posting my opinion, even if you think i'm 'just throwing a fit'. ;)
THN's resident jerk.

Glock .40 Model 22 - First* line of home defense.... 'ADT' is for liberals.
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

And for God's sake, VetSkinsFan, if you go to HS666's house to settle things, don't walk on his lawn!
User avatar
hailskins666
aka Evil Hog
aka Evil Hog
Posts: 6481
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 9:01 am
Location: South of Heaven, trying to hit a toilet on shrooms
Contact:

Post by hailskins666 »

Irn-Bru wrote:And for God's sake, VetSkinsFan, if you go to HS666's house to settle things, don't walk on his lawn!
see. the scare tactics are working already!!!! Image let the revolution begin.... :rock:
THN's resident jerk.

Glock .40 Model 22 - First* line of home defense.... 'ADT' is for liberals.
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Canes Skin
Posts: 6684
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:02 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Post by CanesSkins26 »

So, back to the original question. Do we suck? I guess if you think any team not in the top 1/3rd of the league is terrible, then you will include the Redskins in that category. But I'd place the Redskins somewhere at the mid-point of the NFL. We can beat most of the teams in this league, and we have been getting consistently more healthy in the past couple of weeks (a trend that I expect will continue).


What constitutes sucking? For me, it's playing bad football, making the same mistakes, not improving as a team, and lack of development of players. The Redskins exhibit all of these things.

We play undisciplined football and make the same mistakes on the field over and over again. Dropped passes, penalties, missed blocking assignments, etc. are all common on this team.

Coaching wise, for the pat 3.5 years we have seen the same mistakes over and over again. Conservative play calling (especially in the red zone), problems getting plays in on time, wasted timeouts, problems with knowing the rules (Bears game this week, Packers game a few years ago when we didn't realize one of our plays included an illegal formation that cost us a td and the game), and problems communicating/dealing with players (Lavar, Arch, Lloyd).

If you look at this team as a whole, we have hardly improved at all since the Dolphins game. In fact, in many areas we have gotten worse. The offensive line, despite having plenty of time to gel, is an embarrassment. The defense, as a hole, has digressed as the season has gone on. Individual players have also gotten worse. Rocky and Fletcher aren't playing as well as they were earlier. The same can be said for Samuels and Rabach.

As for player development, JC is the only young player that has grown noticeably this season. Landry isn't playing much better than he was earlier this season. He is still taking bad angles and missing tackles. Rocky, as I mentioned above, hasn't looked as good recently. Montgomery hasn't progressed very much in my opinion.

So overall, yes I would say that we suck right now. We have a roster that isn't balanced, with certain positions being very young and other positions, such as defensive line and offensive line, are very old and in need of youth. We see the same types of mistakes from the players and coaches alike, and most troubling is the manner in which we continue to lose games in the second half. People tend to downplay this statistic, but we have lost 5 games after leading at the half this season. Even worse, we have no lost 15 games in the past 3.5 years after leading at this half. That is a pathetic statistic and is the sing of a badly coached football team.

Despite our losses, if we were improving as a team I would say that we do not suck. But we aren't improving, so I would say that we do suck right now.
Suck and Luck
chiefhog44
**ch44
**ch44
Posts: 2444
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: Chicago

I just read 9 pages of this crap

Post by chiefhog44 »

I just read nine pages of this crap. I've got a headache. We do suck. We lose games in the 4th quarter. Bottom line.

How do we change it? With a GM? With firing JG? With boycotting the games to make Snyder sell the team? With blowing it all up and starting over? No one on here has a clue.

I honestly want to see this team compete while fully healthy and one full year under JC's belt. Hate to say it but, next year might be the one...lol

I want to delete that last line
SkinsJock
08 Champ
08 Champ
Posts: 18385
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: New England

Post by SkinsJock »

The problem really is in the perception - we might not be winning games but this is still our team - I have a hard time saying "my team sucks" - I will continue to hope that they can get it together - IMO you are what you are and I prefer to support my team - I will never say my team sucks - Dallas sucks, the Giants suck big time and my impression of anyone who thinks the Redskins suck is just about the same.
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance
Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
Hoss
...unadulterated
...unadulterated
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 10:59 am
Location: that voice in your head

Post by Hoss »

SkinsJock......chin up my friend.
People may not remember exactly what you did
or what you said....

~BUT~
they will ALWAYS remember how you made them feel.
User avatar
redskinsrock
piglet
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Deltona, Fl

Post by redskinsrock »

We are not a bad team.Yes we need a GM that knows football.What we really need is an offensive coordinator.

Is a 700 page playbook really the answer? Or is understanding the talent you have, and playing to THEIR strengths a better idea. Are we the only team in the NFL that can't run a fade route inside the red zone.

What did Kanas City WIN when he was there? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

The defense has played well all year. Even with heavy hearts they played good enough to beat Buffalo.

Our play calling is to predictable.Don't like it, never have!!!

R I P #21 :cry:
User avatar
hailskins666
aka Evil Hog
aka Evil Hog
Posts: 6481
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 9:01 am
Location: South of Heaven, trying to hit a toilet on shrooms
Contact:

Post by hailskins666 »

just in case anyone missed it, this just in.....
WE SUCK!
THN's resident jerk.

Glock .40 Model 22 - First* line of home defense.... 'ADT' is for liberals.
User avatar
redskinsrock
piglet
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Deltona, Fl

Post by redskinsrock »

hailskins666 wrote:just in case anyone missed it, this just in.....
WE SUCK!


No.....Miami sucks, we just can't score in the RED ZONE.
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
kazoo
Posts: 10293
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Post by KazooSkinsFan »

I don't know if we ALL suck. I mean a bunch of us blow too.
Hail to the Redskins!

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
langleyparkjoe
**LPJ**
**LPJ**
Posts: 6714
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Langley Park, MD *Tick Tock*
Contact:

Post by langleyparkjoe »

I've never sucked and I never will.. YOU SUCK!

*GO SKINS!!!, PROVE DA HATERS WRONG*
User avatar
roybus14
Hog
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by roybus14 »

redskinsrock wrote:We are not a bad team.Yes we need a GM that knows football.What we really need is an offensive coordinator.

Is a 700 page playbook really the answer? Or is understanding the talent you have, and playing to THEIR strengths a better idea. Are we the only team in the NFL that can't run a fade route inside the red zone.

What did Kanas City WIN when he was there? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!

The defense has played well all year. Even with heavy hearts they played good enough to beat Buffalo.

Our play calling is to predictable.Don't like it, never have!!!

R I P #21 :cry:


What hurt KC was the same thing that hurt Air Coryell's Chargers back in the day, Defense....
Sean Taylor - 1983-2007 R.I.P.... Forever A Skin.....
User avatar
Bishop Hammer
Hog
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:33 am

Post by Bishop Hammer »

redskinsrock wrote:.What we really need is an offensive coordinator.

Is a 700 page playbook really the answer? Or is understanding the talent you have, and playing to THEIR strengths a better idea. Are we the only team in the NFL that can't run a fade route inside the red zone.

What did Kanas City WIN when he was there? NOTHING!!!!!!!!!


Our play calling is to predictable.Don't like it, never have!!!

R I P #21 :cry:


Al Saunders is an excellent Offensive Coordinatior. Everyone says his offense sucks and cites Kansas City's record or lack of playoff success to Saunders. Last time I checked he was just an O coordinator! Last time I checked the Chiefs offense did their part and put points on the board! If you don't believe me then take a look at his stats with the Chiefs:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistic ... &year=2002

The problem with Saunders coming here is his style is not the same as Gibbs. Saunders is a high risk, high reward gambler; Gibbs likes to play it safe and not take unnecessary risks. If Saunders was the sole playcaller like in KC then maybe we would not be having this debate on whether or not Saunders is a good Coordiantor.

For the past three games the offense looked liked a well oiled machine when Gibbs wasn't calling the plays. That should be some proof that Saunders knows how to orchestrate an offense. Say what you want to about the playbook but Saunders has proven himself and has been successful more recently than Gibbs as an offensive guru.
I don't have to sell my soul,
He's already in me,
I don't need to sell my soul,
He's already in me.
I wanna be adored
I wanna be adored.

Stone Roses
I wanna be adored
User avatar
Bishop Hammer
Hog
Posts: 226
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:33 am

Post by Bishop Hammer »

PulpExposure wrote:
Bishop Hammer wrote:Unfortunately Dan the man is not going to because he wants to continue to play "Fantasy Football" and grab the biggest names on the market, regardless of team chemistry and if they are rigth fit for the offenseive and defensive systems of the coaching staff.


Who did they get last year?

London Fletcher Baker (an acknowledged leader who had played MLB for Williams), and Fred Smoot (a great locker room guy, who played CB for Williams).

Yep, sure went after the biggest names on the market (they're mid-level names in all honesty), got them without a regard for team chemistry (both are great chemistry guys, and they KNEW this), and they sure didn't know if they'd fit with the defensive system (both played for Williams and excelled for him before).

Uh huh.

Welcome to 2007. Time to change that tired mantra.


I will continue to chant that "tired mantra" until the Skins start winning again.

There are far more examples of Snyder being starstruck and going for a superstar than showing concern for team chemistry and settling for an unknown or moderate player who fits the system and can do what is required for the team;a prime example would be cutting Ryan Clark and inexpensive yet proven player for Adam Archuleta. The sole reason for getting Archuleta is it was easier to sell merchendise with his name on it because he was an established star. While Clark was very good, how many people outside of the the Skins family heard of him? Never mind that the defense was ranked in the top three of overall defenses and he was considered an on-field leader, Snyder wanted to place a big name in his place and the secondary became a weak point that season.

If Snyder constistently goes for building an overall team that can last in the long run instead of sparkling in the offseason and fading in the season then I will give him credit and relent on bashing him. When Snyder hires a GM and gives him time to do want he needs to do then I will believe he cares about building a winning team and not a group of mercenaries.

Ironically enough, the Patriots did the Redskins thing and they are actually succeding with it;that makes Snyder look even more incompetent as a personnell guy. Snyder is just an owner he should not be involved in making major talent decisions. As a contract negotiaotor and Salary Cap manager he has no equal in the NFL (in my opinion). However, until he changes his approach to running the franchise I will have to do a call back to the opening of my previous post: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I don't have to sell my soul,
He's already in me,
I don't need to sell my soul,
He's already in me.
I wanna be adored
I wanna be adored.

Stone Roses
I wanna be adored
Fios
The Evil Straw
The Evil Straw
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Leather Chair
Contact:

Post by Fios »

I'll grant Arch and Lloyd have been bad moves, looking over the past four seasons, please name some others. You can't say "far more examples" and list ONE dude. You have to be to demonstrate that statement has some validity (I can save you some time, it doesn't) if you are going to throw it out there.
RIP Sean Taylor
Irn-Bru
FanFromAnnapolis
FanFromAnnapolis
Posts: 12025
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
Location: on the bandwagon
Contact:

Post by Irn-Bru »

Fios wrote:I'll grant Arch and Lloyd have been bad moves, looking over the past four seasons, please name some others. You can't say "far more examples" and list ONE dude. You have to be to demonstrate that statement has some validity (I can save you some time, it doesn't) if you are going to throw it out there.



Even though I think many of our FA acquisitions have worked out, we did use an awful lot of draft picks to get them, and I think that's been part of the problem. We appear to have a terrible draft record and we have so little depth because many draft picks went for players like Lloyd or Portis.
Post Reply