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.