Somebody else from ESPN that thinks....

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:42 pm

Well, based purely on raw talent I think that Taylor is better than Dawkins

*THROWS FLAME RETARDANT SUIT ON!*

IMO I'd say based on raw talent that Taylor COULD eventually be better than Taylor.

redskincity · Post by **redskincity** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:01 pm

Gambit, Philly has one receiver worth anything. Pink-stone-hands cant catch and Mitchell had one good catch last year.

Pinkston better hope he does not play slot, because he is to small to go X the middle

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:10 pm

chaddukes wrote:Well, based purely on raw talent I think that Taylor is better than Dawkins.

Why would you make decisions based purely on raw talent? Would you consider Jeff George better than Brad Johnson? Michael Westbrook better than Wayne Chrebet?

If I had to win a game tomorrow, Dawkins is the guy I would want at free saftey. I want the guy who gives me the best chance to win, not the guy who has better raw talent...

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:56 pm

I agree. "Talent" is better when cooked.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:48 pm

redskincity wrote:Gambit, Philly has one receiver worth anything. Pink-stone-hands cant catch and Mitchell had one good catch last year.

Pinkston better hope he does not play slot, because he is to small to go X the middle

Freddie had one unbef$ckinglievable catch last year. Of his 35 regular season catches, I'd say he had 23 good ones. Pinkston on the other hand can go to hell and die. This is his last year as a starter, and I'm hoping for a lot of single WR sets.

chicosbailbond · Post by **chicosbailbond** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:46 pm

the eagles were pretty lucky last year... their defense is suspect... teams put up huge numbers on them running the ball.. and they lost their whole secondary... kearse wont be the savior... i still think they are the team to beat in our division but there are better teams in the NFC... the packers and rams are still pretty legit... the packers had the eagles beat... and if bulger can protect the ball better the rams are pretty strong...

psuLaVar · Post by **psuLaVar** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:56 pm

some of you people know nothing bout the eagles, they have been the better team then the redskins and they are until proven differently. Trotter was a monster in Philly too. He had over 200 tackles one year.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:21 pm

The talking heads can say what they want we'll say what we feel the bottom line is it's July 1st the iggles are 0-0 just like the skins that makes us even

The season starts 9/12 then it will matter but
11/21/2004 at Philadelphia Eagles 4:15 p.m. will tell us a lot

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:50 pm

psuLaVar wrote:some of you people know nothing bout the eagles, they have been the better team then the redskins and they are until proven differently. Trotter was a monster in Philly too. He had over 200 tackles one year.

Show me this magical 200 tackle season. I'd love to see it. Anyway, despite his incredible number of tackles he was a poor player. Great players can tackle a runningback without having to to turn around and chase him down.

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:10 am

Steve Spurrier III wrote:
chaddukes wrote:Well, based purely on raw talent I think that Taylor is better than Dawkins.

Why would you make decisions based purely on raw talent? Would you consider Jeff George better than Brad Johnson? Michael Westbrook better than Wayne Chrebet?

If I had to win a game tomorrow, Dawkins is the guy I would want at free saftey. I want the guy who gives me the best chance to win, not the guy who has better raw talent...

Hey I don't claim to be an authority...I misspoke about the FS position.

I forget all the time who play's FS and who plays SS. I mean who can keep it straight? Oh Yeah, you guys obviously can.

Honestly I forgot Dawkins was the FS. I thought that he was the SS. I still think that Taylor will be better than Dawkins. But when asked I got a little defensive...I should have just stated that I misplaced the guy.

Chad

gambit187 · Post by **gambit187** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 8:06 am

redskincity wrote:Gambit, Philly has one receiver worth anything. Pink-stone-hands cant catch and Mitchell had one good catch last year.

Pinkston better hope he does not play slot, because he is to small to go X the middle

See I guess you guys are forgetting Coles tender toe. Even though he will be wearing a special shoe, the toe is still messed up.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:04 am

chaddukes wrote:I forget all the time who play's FS and who plays SS. I mean who can keep it straight? Oh Yeah, you guys obviously can.

Honestly I forgot Dawkins was the FS. I thought that he was the SS. I still think that Taylor will be better than Dawkins. But when asked I got a little defensive...I should have just stated that I misplaced the guy.

Chad

Sorry for jumping all over you. I agree that Taylor could end up being better than Dawkins, just not yet...

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:47 am

Steve Spurrier III wrote:Sorry for jumping all over you. I agree that Taylor could end up being better than Dawkins, just not yet...

Not a problem! Really.

Chad

ii7-V7 · Post by **ii7-V7** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:51 pm

chicosbailbond wrote:the eagles were pretty lucky last year... their defense is suspect... teams put up huge numbers on them running the ball.. and they lost their whole secondary... kearse wont be the savior... i still think they are the team to beat in our division but there are better teams in the NFC... the packers and rams are still pretty legit... the packers had the eagles beat... and if bulger can protect the ball better the rams are pretty strong...

I completely agree. I think the Eagles defense is overrated.

Chad

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:53 pm

Yes, a defense that lost 3 starters in the defensive backfield, one linebacker, both starting defensive ends, and a heap of backups during the season is overrated.

njskinsfan · Post by **njskinsfan** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:31 pm

C'Mon Cowgirl Fan

Eagles more depth at RB ?????? Say what?

WR: Eagles? They have T.O. and who else????

CB: Push??? Taylor and Vincent gone !!!

SS: Eagles? Bowen and Taylor will deystroy opponents WR's

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:55 pm

njskinsfan wrote:Eagles more depth at RB ?????? Say what?

I'm sure others will be along to address all your questions, but I'll take this one right now. Westbrook and Buckhalter are both capable of being fulltime starters. Both are capable of 1200 yard seasons. You may not believe that, so here's so numbers.

Westbrook is credited with 8 starts last season and 117 carries for 603 yards. Granted, he didn't have all his carries in just those games, but it serves as a compaison to the 290 carries Clinton Portis had last season. With the yards per carry he had last season Westbrook would have needed 231 carries for 1200 yards. Still not a fulltime load, since his biggest knock is durability. It could be argued that he would have had a great deal of success as a receiver out of the backfield as well.

Buckhalter, who is supposed to be a more durable back than Westbrook, is credited with 5 starts and 126 carries. His yards per carry is lower than either Portis or Westbrook, but he would have had 1200 yards on a workhose load of 280 carries.

Nobody knows what rookie Thomas Tapeh will do, but with his size it's safe to assume he'll be asked to fill in Duce's power back role. At 245 he's slightly heavier than most linebackers, so goal line runs will probably be where he makes his living this season.

And of course there's Jon Ritchie at Fullback. He's not considered much of a runner, probably because he has15 carries for his career, but he's a very good blocker and a decent receiver.

Remember, the question was depth. The Redskins have Portis, of course, but after him there's a tiny receiver and not much else. I haven't paid much attention to Carwright to say if he's a good fullback or not, but he does appear to be a competent receiving threat.

To get to the point, Westbrook and Portis are both the starters for their teams. If both were to go down which team do you think would be in a better position to keep RB production at or near a quality level?

psuLaVar · Post by **psuLaVar** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:51 pm

The Eagles by far have better depth at RB. Dawkins and Lewis are one of the best safety combos in the league and Matt Bowen is not very good, hopefully Taylor will be better than Dawkins but that is saying alot because Dawkins is the best player on the Eagles. Trotter was a great player for the eagles when he had a good dline in front of him, which alot of Middle LBs need to be successful. The Skins def have the advantage at CB. The Eagles DLine is leaps and bounds better than the Skins.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:49 am

chaddukes wrote:
General Failure wrote:Please sir, tell me the name of this free safety that you think is better than Dawkins.

Well, based purely on raw talent I think that Taylor is better than Dawkins.

Chad

Wow...that's a big statement. I think we should get the guy signed before we start to say he's better than a All-Pro safety.

As for the topic, like I said before the Eagles are still the class of the division. Owens is good and has respect for McNabb, something he didn't have for Garcia. Kearse is good and Johnson will use him well. Everyone points to their CB,s but they held there own last year while Taylor and Vincent were out. To me the question marks are McNabb, yes McNabb I did not like the way the season ended for him last year, and he must improve his accuracy. Also the running game is suspect, Yes it worked for them last year but they lost one of the heads. Either way there're still the team to beat!

eaglegary · Post by **eaglegary** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:11 am

General Failure wrote:You forgot FS and special teams.

the eagles would take both of those categories too.

eaglegary · Post by **eaglegary** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:30 am

chaddukes wrote:
gambit187 wrote:I dont know about the skins having more talent then the eagles.

QB :Eagles
RB: Skins, but eagles depth is better
O-line: push
TE: Eagles
WR: Eagles

Dt: eagles
DE: Eagles
LB: Skins
CB:push
SS:Eagles

First off, and this isn't directed at you Gambit, there is a big difference between talent and success. Talent is just one part of what makes a good team. When the Redskins beat the Dallas Cowboys with the Scab's it wasn't because the Scab's were more talented than the Cowboy's. I personally think that the Panthers were more talented than the Patriot's but I knew the patriots would win.

Talent is very subjective and you can't help but have a subjective opinion. But I do think that the Redskins have more talent than the Eagles. Its just that the Eagles have had more solid schemes, fundementals, tenacity, and desire than the Redskins.

******************************************************

Gambit,
As for the Direct comparison based soley on talent I have to disagree with you on a few areas.

I would have to say:
Starting QB: Eagles
QB Depth: Redskins
O-Line: Redskins (Based Solely on talent not on success)
TE: Eagles
WR: Redskins (Coles out performed TO last year, even though I would agree that TO is more talented than Coles. However, the Redskins definetly have more quality depth, including young potential starters in Jacob's and McCants and Veteran leadership in Thrash.)
Starting RB: Redskins
Depth at RB: Eagles

The Redskins offense is far more talented than the Eagles!

Defense

DT: Eagles
DE: Eagles, if Kearse is injured then the DE's aren't nearly as intimidating....still better than the skins though.
LB: Redskins, the eagles have made positive strides in this area.
CB: Redskins...Its tough but I think I have to go with Smoot and Springs here v.s. the two Rookies in Philly.
SS: Eagles
FS: Skins

Eagles Defense is clearly more effective, but I think that is primarily because they have put the focus in the right area...the Line, versus the Redskins efforts at improvimg the LB's. Talent wise I have to give a slight nod to the Eagles. But clearly the Eagles use their talent more effectively.

Overall, the Redskins exhorbinant talent on offense give them an edge over the Eagles who have only a slight edge on Defense.

Chad

just to play devils advocate here.....

starting qb--eagles
qb depth---eagles--->we have a former probowler playing 3rd string! i cant say that ramsey is a better qb than koy detmer, because i haven't seen him play better.

o line--eagles--->i would have to base how good an o-line is on the success that they have. what good is talent if you don't produce.

TE--->eagles

wr--->eagles--->i like coles and mccants, but thrash and Jacob's....please. i'd take pinkston/mitchell over your 2/3..and before you say anything bad about pinkston just remeber that he's had some of his better games against the skins.

RB--skins--easily. i really like portis and cringed when i heared that the skins picked him up. westbrook is explosive, but not in portis' class.

i think the eagles offense will be head and shoulders above the skins' this season.

Defense

DL--Eagles--->no question. if they stay healthy this could be one of the best d-lines in football this season.

LB's--Skins-->this should be the skins' strength. i really like LA and i wanted the eagles to pick up Washington this offseason. i think the skins should have the best lb core in the nfl.

DB's--Eagles--->i can't remember when S. Springs was a shutdown corner. he's hurt too much and he gets burned deep(in fact i think TO caught the "Sharpie" touchdown on Springs). Taylor is a beast but in his first year, i don't think can match up with Dawkins. our CB's aren't rookies either. plus i think Smoot is horrible. no eagle bias there, i just don't think he's a starting caliber Cb. i'd say the same thing if he played for the eagles.

all in all i think the redskins have made strides and i think they'll be noticably improved from last year....just not in the eagles class....yet.

Big C · Post by **Big C** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:37 am

gambit187 wrote:
chaddukes wrote:I think that you can make the statement that the Redskins have more talent than the Eagles, but you certainly can't say that the Redskins are better. We have a very talented team, particularly on the offensive side of the ball, but haven't lived up to our talent for years. Philly has some talented players, but they, like the Patriots, tend to rely on blue collars guys and solid coaching, schemes, and fundementals. It has also helped them that the NFC East has not been very competetive in recent years.

Because the Eagles win games it makes it seem that they have more talented guys than they really do. Likewise, since the Redskins have been losing it makes it seem as though our talent level is less than it really is. That's why our very talented O-Line is constantly maligned in the press. Perception becomes people reality.

Chad

I dont know about the skins having more talent then the eagles.

QB :Eagles
RB: Skins, but eagles depth is better
O-line: push
TE: Eagles
WR: Eagles

Dt: eagles
DE: Eagles
LB: Skins
CB:push
SS:Eagles

I think also the eagles have talented people for there system, whereas Gibbs will need this year to evaluate the talent he has for his system. Hope this thread is not Flaming.

I disagree with with the Eagles having more depth at RB
Betts has a lot of potential, we have rock also. I personally think the Eagles HB's are overrated.

I also think that we have much better CB's than the Eagles. Remember, they lost Vincent and Taylor, and are left with 2 unproven CB's, who are undersized.

As for WR, they have one reciever, Owens, who is better than ours. We have much more depth, and quality at the #2, #3, and on down. Gardner, Jacobs, McCants, Thrash are better than the Eagles Pinkston, Mitchell, etc.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Big C wrote:Remember, they lost Vincent and Taylor, and are left with 2 unproven CB's, who are undersized.

Guys, I really can't keep pointing out how false this is. Pretty soon I'm going to have to put it in my signature to save myself some time.

First, Brown and Sheppard got plenty of playing time last year while Taylor and Vincent were out with injuries and pretend injuries. I'll let you guess which one had which. A good deal of the time they were starting they didn't have Dawkins behind them.

Second, the height issue. I'm bored today, so I looked this up. The majority of starting corners in the NFL are 5'11 or shorter. That tells me it's not height, but talent that carries this position. But since nobody ever wants to believe that the Eagles went ahead and drafted a 6'2 corner.

Big C · Post by **Big C** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:27 pm

regardless, we have much better, and deeper CBs. As far as im concerned, we are 5 deep. Springs and Smoot are better than Sheppard and Brown any day. How could they be better?What have they done to prove they are better? I dont see how some of u could say they are stronger there.

General Failure · Post by **General Failure** » Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:35 pm

I suppose we'll see how they do in their first full year as starters with an actual pass rush in front of them.