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

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:you can think it's all going really well

Where did I say that? I just pointed out that we were both competitive and consistent, especially when you consider the teams we have played so far.

I was not saying you said that - you have indicated that you think we are going to have a lot better record here than I think is realistic is all

I do think that we are getting there but there are still times during the game that I see that are just frustrating - we'll get there but we need to replace 3 or 4 offensive linemen and we need to get an infusion of youth somehow

I am enjoying the ride back up to respectability and I do like the fact that we're playing hard

I don't kid myself that we're consistently competitive yet though and implying that we're consistent and competitive in these games is the same to me

I do like that we're 4-3 but I'm more impressed with how much better we are becoming than with the record - I'm really hoping that Haslett can continue to adjust (as I think he did yesterday) and get more out of our defense as the offense is not going to be a strong part of our game until we can get an offensive line in here

CanesSkins26 wrote:

McNabb has played poorly at times, and never like an all-pro, but he's not as bad as you are making him out to be, IMO.

He's near the bottom in just about every statistical category for a qb. He has been terrible for the most part this year.

Since when are "awesome" and "terrible" the two basic options? Actually McNabb, purely in terms of playing, has been mediocre. His YAR (yards above replacement) is 11th, and adjusted for the strength of the defenses he's faced (DYAR) it's 14th. Those two statistics alone are worth more, in terms of analysis, than just about anything one can cherry-pick off of NFL.com or pro football reference. Weighted, statistical analysis just doesn't agree with your perspective here.

Throw in his leadership and his penchant for playing much better when the game is on the line — two difficult-to-measure, relatively uncommon qualities in quarterbacks — and you've got a QB who really isn't that bad.

We obviously agree that he's an upgrade over Campbell. But I really can't imagine how anyone would think we upgraded merely to "terrible" from [?? what adjectives are left?]. I'd say McNabb so far has been mediocre with some upside. The real experts (IMHO) in statistical analysis appear to agree with me, too . . .

Irn-Bru wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

McNabb has played poorly at times, and never like an all-pro, but he's not as bad as you are making him out to be, IMO.

He's near the bottom in just about every statistical category for a qb. He has been terrible for the most part this year.

Since when are "awesome" and "terrible" the two basic options? Actually McNabb, purely in terms of playing, has been mediocre. His YAR (yards above replacement) is 11th, and adjusted for the strength of the defenses he's faced (DYAR) it's 14th. Those two statistics alone are worth more, in terms of analysis, than just about anything one can cherry-pick off of NFL.com or pro football reference. Weighted, statistical analysis just doesn't agree with your perspective here.

Throw in his leadership and his penchant for playing much better when the game is on the line — two difficult-to-measure, relatively uncommon qualities in quarterbacks — and you've got a QB who really isn't that bad.

We obviously agree that he's an upgrade over Campbell. But I really can't imagine how anyone would think we upgraded merely to "terrible" from [?? what adjectives are left?]. I'd say McNabb so far has been mediocre with some upside. The real experts (IMHO) in statistical analysis appear to agree with me, too . . .

Those stats are through 6 weeks. Let's see where McNabb is after this week.

I'm not going to argue to argue with you whether McNabb has been "mediocre" or "terrible." The bottom line is that he hasn't been good and certainly hasn't played up to the level that is expected of him.

1niksder wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

1niksder wrote:That doesn't look like a guy just going through the motions

He had a great game. It was nice of him to show up now that the season's almost half over. I'm not talking about the funeral, but that this was the first actual complete game he played.

Kaz must have missed the Philly game

He played well, but in a far more limited role

The Hogster wrote:

1niksder wrote:Kaz must have missed the Philly game

Or he just loves whining and complaining about the offseason. He needs to get over it.

That is so uninsightful. I am bashing him. Show me any post that's "whining" or "complaining." I'm being opinionated and critical. Buy a dictionary...

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:you can think it's all going really well

Where did I say that? I just pointed out that we were both competitive and consistent, especially when you consider the teams we have played so far.

I was not saying you said that - you have indicated that you think we are going to have a lot better record here than I think is realistic is all

So far Every game has gone according to my script except the Rams game and the GB game. And since they cancel each other out, we are right on schedule to finish at my predicted mark. Until I see a reason to believe differently, I'll go with that.

SkinsJock wrote:I do think that we are getting there but there are still times during the game that I see that are just frustrating - we'll get there but we need to replace 3 or 4 offensive linemen and we need to get an infusion of youth somehow

I am enjoying the ride back up to respectability and I do like the fact that we're playing hard

I don't kid myself that we're consistently competitive yet though and implying that we're consistent and competitive in these games is the same to me

It's not me who's implying anything. You're the one saying we aren't competitive or consistent, when the scores and outcomes of our games proves otherwise.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

1niksder wrote:Kaz must have missed the Philly game

Or he just loves whining and complaining about the offseason. He needs to get over it.

That is so uninsightful. I am bashing him. Show me any post that's "whining" or "complaining." I'm being opinionated and critical. Buy a dictionary...

Shabutie wrote: What you said is extremely debatable and is actually untrue. This year we have been competitive in every game. Again, I will have to question your understanding of the word itself.

WRONG - sorry buddy - you're missing a very important word here - I am looking forward to having a consistently competitive team here again - not a team that is built by guys that have no concept of how to build and acquire players that don't suit the players and system we have

I do like how we are playing "competitively" and are involved in games with a chance to win in the 4th quarter but for I'm looking for these guys to get this franchise back to the level where each game we can be sure of seeing a competitive product on the field - we are not close

we will get there with these guys but we have to undo many years of dumb and dumber having no idea of who to bring in here

we are the oldest team in the NFL and we need to bring in a bunch of players that make the other young guys now on the roster even better

I'm liking where we're headed but it will take a little longer to get to the level that we can be confident we'll be competitive in ALL of the games and not just lucky that the other teams are not playing well as we have been in the past

The product on the field in B&G has not been even close to being consistently competitive for many years - I am looking for Allen & Shanahan to put guys on the field that expect to win each and every week because they are better and they know it - not because the other team doesn't play well that week

The Colts and Patriots and Ravens, et al don't win every week but they show up each year in the playoffs because they have guys managing and adding players that suit what they are doing NOT like dumb and dumber did here every year


that's what I'm talking about

I am encouraged at the progress but we have a lot of players that are just very old and it will take time to get them replaced while we're apparently trying to put a competitive product out there each week


being constitently competitive will take time - even if we were to win the next 7 games we'd still not be able to say we're a constently competitive team again because there is no way you'd be able to convince me that we can have won all the games we've got left without an incredible amount of luck

it would be great to win every game though

a constently competitive team will not need to be lucky - they're just good

SkinsJock wrote:

Shabutie wrote: What you said is extremely debatable and is actually untrue. This year we have been competitive in every game. Again, I will have to question your understanding of the word itself.

I do like how we are playing "competitively" and are involved in games with a chance to win in the 4th quarter but for I'm looking for these guys to get this franchise back to the level where each game we can be sure of seeing a competitive product on the field - we are not close

HOPEFULLY the fat man will continue to be given the opportunity to play AND he will keep playing at that level so we can get something for the lazy fat slob when this season is over

SkinsJock wrote:

Shabutie wrote: What you said is extremely debatable and is actually untrue. This year we have been competitive in every game. Again, I will have to question your understanding of the word itself.

WRONG - sorry buddy - you're missing a very important word here - I am looking forward to having a consistently competitive team here again - not a team that is built by guys that have no concept of how to build and acquire players that don't suit the players and system we have

I do like how we are playing "competitively" and are involved in games with a chance to win in the 4th quarter but for I'm looking for these guys to get this franchise back to the level where each game we can be sure of seeing a competitive product on the field - we are not close

we will get there with these guys but we have to undo many years of dumb and dumber having no idea of who to bring in here

we are the oldest team in the NFL and we need to bring in a bunch of players that make the other young guys now on the roster even better

I'm liking where we're headed but it will take a little longer to get to the level that we can be confident we'll be competitive in ALL of the games and not just lucky that the other teams are not playing well as we have been in the past

The product on the field in B&G has not been even close to being consistently competitive for many years - I am looking for Allen & Shanahan to put guys on the field that expect to win each and every week because they are better and they know it - not because the other team doesn't play well that week

The Colts and Patriots and Ravens, et al don't win every week but they show up each year in the playoffs because they have guys managing and adding players that suit what they are doing NOT like dumb and dumber did here every year


that's what I'm talking about

Again, do you know what the word competitive means? In our last 23 games, 20 of the games have been competitive. The two years before that we had a combined winning record. Do you mean a consistently good team?

Deadskins wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:

Shabutie wrote: What you said is extremely debatable and is actually untrue. This year we have been competitive in every game. Again, I will have to question your understanding of the word itself.

I do like how we are playing "competitively" and are involved in games with a chance to win in the 4th quarter but for I'm looking for these guys to get this franchise back to the level where each game we can be sure of seeing a competitive product on the field - we are not close

I don't get it either.

Irn-Bru wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

McNabb has played poorly at times, and never like an all-pro, but he's not as bad as you are making him out to be, IMO.

He's near the bottom in just about every statistical category for a qb. He has been terrible for the most part this year.

Since when are "awesome" and "terrible" the two basic options? Actually McNabb, purely in terms of playing, has been mediocre. His YAR (yards above replacement) is 11th, and adjusted for the strength of the defenses he's faced (DYAR) it's 14th. Those two statistics alone are worth more, in terms of analysis, than just about anything one can cherry-pick off of NFL.com or pro football reference. Weighted, statistical analysis just doesn't agree with your perspective here.

Throw in his leadership and his penchant for playing much better when the game is on the line — two difficult-to-measure, relatively uncommon qualities in quarterbacks — and you've got a QB who really isn't that bad.

We obviously agree that he's an upgrade over Campbell. But I really can't imagine how anyone would think we upgraded merely to "terrible" from [?? what adjectives are left?]. I'd say McNabb so far has been mediocre with some upside. The real experts (IMHO) in statistical analysis appear to agree with me, too . . .

We also have an OL playing at a higher (Although not good) level. An overall better receiving core and a better offensive scheme with a more balanced attack. None of those factor into that weighted, statistical analysis.

Similar example, Portis gets a 40 yard run with pefect blocking and tripps on his own feet. Torrain breaks 3 tackles and gains 40 yards before getting dragged down. One run was much better than the other.

I think SkinsJock is simply looking for the emergence of a team that can place an exclamation point on games against teams such as the Bears, Lions, and Rams, teams that a truly good team will easlily handle... and will be truly frightening to the better teams in the league. Teams should not consider the Redskins to be a probable win... That's what he wants... and he simply knows that we are not yet there.

He wants to be comfortable that the game is well in hand by the middle of the 3rd quarter... and that the 4th quarter will always consist of a single Redskin drive of 4 yard runs, ending with a touchdown as the clock runs to 0.

I get it.

It will come... for now, we must continue to invest in Tums, Prilosec, and Advil.

As long as most of them are wins... I'll take it.

Shab man - I'm not sure that you and I watched the same games here the last few years

OK - let's try this - I want to see a group of players that have been selected and coached by NFL guys, that opposing teams know they will have to play very well in order to get a win - we have not had that here for a long while and it will take time

being in a game like we were against the Colts OR the Texans, after all the yards we gave up is not being consistently competitive IMHO - each week we hope luck is a part of our make up - consistently competitive teams don't need to hope that luck is with them - they bring it


no worries - we're going to get rid of all that dead weight on our offensive line in the very near future and replace a lot of the other older guys here and then you'll see - because the guys in charge here now wont just bring in players that are good - they'll bring in players that make the other players around them better - that was something dumb and dumber could never do

I honestly don't believe that you can go from where we've been to where all of us truly want our team to be (define that however you want, but I thnk Skinsjock's "consistently competitive" definition works just fine) without going through this stretch for some length of time. I see signs, without being completely blinded by my burgundy and gold colored glasses, but there is a lot left to be done.

A consistently competitive team isn't one that gets 4 turnovers and wins by 3. It buries that team and gets its backups some playing time to groom and evaluate them.

That's fine, but that's not what I call consistently competitive. I would call that sort of team consistently dominating, or consistently powerful, or consistent playoff contenders. We are now and have been for several years consistently competitive. I know because I find myself on the edge of my seat each and every game.

I'm a little encouraged by the defense, but not so much. I still think we are fundamentally unsound, both against the run and the pass. We emerged victorious because of an astounding, even historic, game by Hall and a couple of incredible plays by Haynesworth. We simply can't expect such heroics often. My guess is that Hall accounted for 21 points or so. In other words, without him and Cutler's insane decision to keep trying to beat him, it wouldn't have been close.

Deadskins wrote:That's fine, but that's not what I call consistently competitive. I would call that sort of team consistently dominating, or consistently powerful, or consistent playoff contenders. We are now and have been for several years consistently competitive. I know because I find myself on the edge of my seat each and every game.

REALLY geez - that explains something, I guess



I am just looking forward to having a team again - I haven't seen anything close for many years - just a bunch of different guys in B&G

I'll fall for this one more time

if what we all saw here the last few years plus, is what you consider to be a consistently competitive product then I understand why you've been almost "Kaz like" with your responses - that's not even close to being anything that I would want here after these guys get through the next few years

call it what you like "Dead man" - I would like to see a team that other teams respect like I respect some other teams and their management team - a team that knows it is good enough to win if you play well and NOT a team that hopes to win even when they play well

CanesSkins26 wrote:Those stats are through 6 weeks. Let's see where McNabb is after this week.

I don't think it will change too much just from one week, especially since McNabb's outing wasn't horrible.

I'm not going to argue to argue with you whether McNabb has been "mediocre" or "terrible." The bottom line is that he hasn't been good and certainly hasn't played up to the level that is expected of him.

Well I'm not sure what expectations you had, so I can't speak to those, but McNabb has been playing at just about — or slightly below — what I expected we'd see out of him this year.

Well I'm not sure what expectations you had, so I can't speak to those, but McNabb has been playing at just about — or slightly below — what I expected we'd see out of him this year.

You really expected a qb rating of 76 (which is below Seneca Wallace, Matt Cassell, Kyle Orton, Chad Henne, Josh Freeman, Shaun Hill and David Gerrard), a completion percentage below 60 percent and more int's than td's??? I wasn't expecting a Pro Bowl season but I was expecting production that was close to what McNabb did the last two seasons and at this point he isn't going to come close to that.

Shabutie wrote:We also have an OL playing at a higher (Although not good) level. An overall better receiving core and a better offensive scheme with a more balanced attack. None of those factor into that weighted, statistical analysis.

Similar example, Portis gets a 40 yard run with pefect blocking and tripps on his own feet. Torrain breaks 3 tackles and gains 40 yards before getting dragged down. One run was much better than the other.

I agree with you about the OL, but after Moss and ey we still have very, very little at WR. And your portrayal of CP's run is pretty revisionary to support a point rather then reflect accurately what actually happened

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Shabutie wrote:We also have an OL playing at a higher (Although not good) level. An overall better receiving core and a better offensive scheme with a more balanced attack. None of those factor into that weighted, statistical analysis.

Similar example, Portis gets a 40 yard run with pefect blocking and tripps on his own feet. Torrain breaks 3 tackles and gains 40 yards before getting dragged down. One run was much better than the other.

I agree with you about the OL, but after Moss and ey we still have very, very little at WR. And your portrayal of CP's run is pretty revisionary to support a point rather then reflect accurately what actually happened

We had LESS at WR last year. The Portis thing was a random scenario, although similar plays have happened. I just will not forget fans raiving about his 76 yard run against the cheifs last year where he ran straight ahead and got tackled by the first guy that touched him playing corner. No one said anything about the OL, it was, "WOW look at Portis" on a run that a lot of people could make getting off of their couch.