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

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Does anyone think a 9-7 record will make the playoffs?

Sure. Why not? Recent NFC history overwhelmingly shows that 9-7 is good enough to make the playoffs.

Two 9-7 teams made the playoffs last year in the NFC. Including us.

Two 9-7 teams made it into the playoffs in 2006 in the NFC.

In 2004, a 9-7 team and TWO 8-8 teams made it into the playoffs in the NFC.

I know everyone thinks I pull this stuff out of my butt. I don't.

There's a reason why everyone thinks things, GSPODS.

Is 9-7 a mediocre record?

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Does anyone think a 9-7 record will make the playoffs?

Sure. Why not? Recent NFC history overwhelmingly shows that 9-7 is good enough to make the playoffs.

Two 9-7 teams made the playoffs last year in the NFC. Including us.

Two 9-7 teams made it into the playoffs in 2006 in the NFC.

In 2004, a 9-7 team and TWO 8-8 teams made it into the playoffs in the NFC.

I know everyone thinks I pull this stuff out of my butt. I don't.

There's a reason why everyone thinks things, GSPODS.

Is 9-7 a mediocre record?

Did you post:

GSPODS wrote:Does anyone think a 9-7 record will make the playoffs?

Where is there any mention of 9-7 being a mediocre record in that quote? Because that's exactly your quote that I'm addressing.

Please, point it out to me.

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Does anyone think a 9-7 record will make the playoffs?

Sure. Why not? Recent NFC history overwhelmingly shows that 9-7 is good enough to make the playoffs.

Two 9-7 teams made the playoffs last year in the NFC. Including us.

Two 9-7 teams made it into the playoffs in 2006 in the NFC.

In 2004, a 9-7 team and TWO 8-8 teams made it into the playoffs in the NFC.

I know everyone thinks I pull this stuff out of my butt. I don't.

There's a reason why everyone thinks things, GSPODS.

Is 9-7 a mediocre record?

Did you post:

GSPODS wrote:Does anyone think a 9-7 record will make the playoffs?

Where is there any mention of 9-7 being a mediocre record in that quote? Because that's exactly your quote that I'm addressing.

Please, point it out to me.

This entire discussion began when I posted that the Redskins would be mediocre to downright awful this season, earlier in this thread. Since that post, I've been posting to prove that I didn't pull that assessment out of my backside. That was the part you responded to. It seems you didn't read the initial post, or you'd likely have known the second post was in response to backing the first post. Neither here nor there at this point, excepting the likely 9-7 record, backed by the Redskins history in the previous post, which is a mediocre record. Therefore, the statement that the Redskins would be mediocre this season was not off base or without merit.

GSPODS wrote:This entire discussion began when I posted that the Redskins would be mediocre to downright awful this season, earlier in this thread. Since that post, I've been posting to prove that I didn't pull that assessment out of my backside. That was the part you responded to. It seems you didn't read the initial post, or you'd likely have known the second post was in response to backing the first post. Neither here nor there at this point, excepting the likely 9-7 record, backed by the Redskins history in the previous post, which is a mediocre record. Therefore, the statement that the Redskins would be mediocre this season was not off base or without merit.

Well, strictly speaking, mediocre means "moderate or low quality." 8-8 would be an average season, so anything above that would be... wait for it... above average (I know, this is a stunning feat of logic, try to keep up ). So, 9-7 would probably line up with the "moderate quality" meaning of mediocre, but not so much with the "low quality" meaning. However, at the point where a 9-7 record earns a playoff birth, I would think it would rise above the level of moderate.

cvillehog wrote:

GSPODS wrote:This entire discussion began when I posted that the Redskins would be mediocre to downright awful this season, earlier in this thread. Since that post, I've been posting to prove that I didn't pull that assessment out of my backside. That was the part you responded to. It seems you didn't read the initial post, or you'd likely have known the second post was in response to backing the first post. Neither here nor there at this point, excepting the likely 9-7 record, backed by the Redskins history in the previous post, which is a mediocre record. Therefore, the statement that the Redskins would be mediocre this season was not off base or without merit.

Well, strictly speaking, mediocre means "moderate or low quality." 8-8 would be an average season, so anything above that would be... wait for it... above average (I know, this is a stunning feat of logic, try to keep up ). So, 9-7 would probably line up with the "moderate quality" meaning of mediocre, but not so much with the "low quality" meaning. However, at the point where a 9-7 record earns a playoff birth, I would think it would rise above the level of moderate.

Technically, the historical winning percentage of .550 equates to 8.8 wins in a 16 game season, which is 8 wins, not nine wins. Winning percentages are never rounded up, only carried to the next decimal, and the next, and the next, until there is a winner. Or a playoff. So, I was being positive by saying 9-7, instead of 8-8.

Unfortunately, I think it will take 10-6 to make the playoffs this season, and I just don't see that out of Jim Zorn, if Joe Gibbs, and Ray Flaherty couldn't do it in their first seasons. It's not a knock on Zorn, but there is a learning curve.

GSPODS wrote:This entire discussion began when I posted that the Redskins would be mediocre to downright awful this season, earlier in this thread. Since that post, I've been posting to prove that I didn't pull that assessment out of my backside. That was the part you responded to. It seems you didn't read the initial post

Oh I read the thread, start to finish. However, I was addressing that one specific assertion you made in support of your post, not the entirety of the post.

People are allowed to do that, you know...

GSPODS wrote:Unfortunately, I think it will take 10-6 to make the playoffs this season, and I just don't see that out of Jim Zorn, if Joe Gibbs, and Ray Flaherty couldn't do it in their first seasons. It's not a knock on Zorn, but there is a learning curve.

I don't see Zorn winning 10 either. We're in a vicious division, and he's been given a pretty brutal schedule. He doesn't have to make the playoffs in year one to be considered a success to me.

I do see 9-7 getting in the playoffs in the NFC, however. I just don't see that many good teams in the NFC.

The best teams are in the NFC East. Outside of our division...you've got the NFC North (top to bottom, a joke), the NFC South (9-7 will likely win that division as it has done the past few years), and the NFC West, which will probably get won by Seattle...again...with a 9-7 or 10-6 record.

I may be missing something, though.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you seem to be missing the same thing that everybody is now missing in the thread... it is about B. Lloyd and the Bears.



Come on people - we have different forums for every type of conversation - let's make more of a conscious effort to keep things on topic so that the staff don't habve to 'police' such a simple request, that truly benefits everybody.

Thx.

How about that B. Lloyd?

Brandon Lloyd always looked great in the preseason here too.

I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

Hope the Bears start him. Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Bob 0119 wrote: Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Not sure those are the only two possibilities...

cvillehog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote: Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Not sure those are the only two possibilities...

Bob 0119 wrote:I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

That's WAY to simplistic an explanation for what got people's "dander" up. And for the record I strongly defended Lloyd the first year into the second that you can't catch passes when you have a QB who blows. But his attitude (locker room, giving up on balls) got old and he didn't get any better. The player has the responsiblity to practice well to demonstrate they have the plays and the team attitude to make the coaches put them in the game. They have to run the routes and get open. Unless you're arguing a conspiracy to shut down someone they could have just cut between the coaches AND the QBs to shut him down, the guy just didn't do it and if he goes to Chicago and does well that doesn't change the fact the failure here was clearly by the end his fault.

Bob 0119 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote: Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Not sure those are the only two possibilities...

For instance, could it not be possible that Gibbs was wrong for keeping him on the bench, but that we didn't miss out by not playing him?

Bob 0119 wrote:Brandon Lloyd always looked great in the preseason here too.

I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

Hope the Bears start him. Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Pretty sure that Brandon Lloyd only ever scored ONE preseason TD here for the record (last year)... so it isn't a true statement to say that his preseason TDs got everyone's dander up.. it was just one.

And your point is really only correct if you COMPLETELY discount the fact that we paid him $30M to come here and play. No matter WHAT side of the above 'equation' you sit on, the money SHOULD be a bigger part of the equation than it ever seems to be.

Wanna pay someone that kind of coin, in my opinion, you find ways to use them, not NOT use them... same goes for several Skins in Gibbs II.

It looks like the Bears are at least going to give him an opportunity to earn his cheque.

cvillehog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote: Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Not sure those are the only two possibilities...

For instance, could it not be possible that Gibbs was wrong for keeping him on the bench, but that we didn't miss out by not playing him?

I kinda thought that part was implied, but I suppose there could be a camp out there that would think that Gibbs was right in keeping him on the bench, even if he actually was a talented playmaker.

Me, if you can play, you play. If you can't you don't. Unfortunately, I'm not a coach...just some random guy on the internet.

BossHog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Brandon Lloyd always looked great in the preseason here too.

I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

Hope the Bears start him. Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Pretty sure that Brandon Lloyd only ever scored ONE preseason TD here for the record (last year)... so it isn't a true statement to say that his preseason TDs got everyone's dander up.. it was just one.

And your point is really only correct if you COMPLETELY discount the fact that we paid him $30M to come here and play. No matter WHAT side of the above 'equation' you sit on, the money SHOULD be a bigger part of the equation than it ever seems to be.

Wanna pay someone that kind of coin, in my opinion, you find ways to use them, not NOT use them... same goes for several Skins in Gibbs II.

It looks like the Bears are at least going to give him an opportunity to earn his cheque.

I thought he got one in both years.

What a player is paid should have exactly no bearing on whether he plays or not. Your paycheck doesn't make you a better player, quite often it's the opposite.

Now how a player plays should have a huge bearing on what he gets paid, but alas that is also not always true. That's how freshly drafted rookies can enter the league and instantly make more than three-time pro-bowlers before they've ever taken a snap.

Bob 0119 wrote:

BossHog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Brandon Lloyd always looked great in the preseason here too.

I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

Hope the Bears start him. Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Pretty sure that Brandon Lloyd only ever scored ONE preseason TD here for the record (last year)... so it isn't a true statement to say that his preseason TDs got everyone's dander up.. it was just one.

And your point is really only correct if you COMPLETELY discount the fact that we paid him $30M to come here and play. No matter WHAT side of the above 'equation' you sit on, the money SHOULD be a bigger part of the equation than it ever seems to be.

Wanna pay someone that kind of coin, in my opinion, you find ways to use them, not NOT use them... same goes for several Skins in Gibbs II.

It looks like the Bears are at least going to give him an opportunity to earn his cheque.

I thought he got one in both years.

What a player is paid should have exactly no bearing on whether he plays or not. Your paycheck doesn't make you a better player, quite often it's the opposite.

Now how a player plays should have a huge bearing on what he gets paid, but alas that is also not always true. That's how freshly drafted rookies can enter the league and instantly make more than three-time pro-bowlers before they've ever taken a snap.

I think the eternal debate at the time was how many chances should BL have gotten before he was labeled a bust in WAS. I thought he showed enough laziness that he earned his spot riding the pine. Othered strongly disagreed. I never saw consistancy, or even frequent enough flash, for him to earn his money or his roster spot.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

BossHog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Brandon Lloyd always looked great in the preseason here too.

I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

Hope the Bears start him. Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Pretty sure that Brandon Lloyd only ever scored ONE preseason TD here for the record (last year)... so it isn't a true statement to say that his preseason TDs got everyone's dander up.. it was just one.

And your point is really only correct if you COMPLETELY discount the fact that we paid him $30M to come here and play. No matter WHAT side of the above 'equation' you sit on, the money SHOULD be a bigger part of the equation than it ever seems to be.

Wanna pay someone that kind of coin, in my opinion, you find ways to use them, not NOT use them... same goes for several Skins in Gibbs II.

It looks like the Bears are at least going to give him an opportunity to earn his cheque.

I thought he got one in both years.

What a player is paid should have exactly no bearing on whether he plays or not. Your paycheck doesn't make you a better player, quite often it's the opposite.

Now how a player plays should have a huge bearing on what he gets paid, but alas that is also not always true. That's how freshly drafted rookies can enter the league and instantly make more than three-time pro-bowlers before they've ever taken a snap.

I think the eternal debate at the time was how many chances should BL have gotten before he was labeled a bust in WAS. I thought he should enough laziness that he earned his spot riding the pine. Othered strongly disagreed. I never saw consistancy, or even frequent enough flash, for him to earn his money or his roster spot.

I never saw enough passes within Lloyd's reach to label him a bust. The question is if those passes were off because of the QB or because Lloyd was running the wrong routes. My guess is that since Lloyd saw the field so infrequently, he was probably running the wrong routes AND the passes were off. It does take some practice for a QB and a receiver to get on the same page with eath other's tendencies. Less than two opportunities per game wouldn't allow any two players to get "on the same page" in my opinion. Who is to blame for the limited opportunities? I blame Saunders and Gibbs both. When your other options are Keenan McCardell and Reche Caldwell what is there to lose by having at least a remote deep threat on the field? Especially when your two best receivers are either out or playing injured and at half-speed. Nothing, in my opinion, but that is also why I'm not getting any calls to coach the Skins.

GSPODS wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:

BossHog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Brandon Lloyd always looked great in the preseason here too.

I think it was his pre-season touchdowns that got everyone's dander up about the fact that he rarely played in the regular season.

Hope the Bears start him. Maybe then one side or the other can finally concede that either Gibbs II was right for keeping him on the bench, or that they missed out by not playing him.

Pretty sure that Brandon Lloyd only ever scored ONE preseason TD here for the record (last year)... so it isn't a true statement to say that his preseason TDs got everyone's dander up.. it was just one.

And your point is really only correct if you COMPLETELY discount the fact that we paid him $30M to come here and play. No matter WHAT side of the above 'equation' you sit on, the money SHOULD be a bigger part of the equation than it ever seems to be.

Wanna pay someone that kind of coin, in my opinion, you find ways to use them, not NOT use them... same goes for several Skins in Gibbs II.

It looks like the Bears are at least going to give him an opportunity to earn his cheque.

I thought he got one in both years.

What a player is paid should have exactly no bearing on whether he plays or not. Your paycheck doesn't make you a better player, quite often it's the opposite.

Now how a player plays should have a huge bearing on what he gets paid, but alas that is also not always true. That's how freshly drafted rookies can enter the league and instantly make more than three-time pro-bowlers before they've ever taken a snap.

I think the eternal debate at the time was how many chances should BL have gotten before he was labeled a bust in WAS. I thought he should enough laziness that he earned his spot riding the pine. Othered strongly disagreed. I never saw consistancy, or even frequent enough flash, for him to earn his money or his roster spot.

I never saw enough passes within Lloyd's reach to label him a bust. The question is if those passes were off because of the QB or because Lloyd was running the wrong routes. My guess is that since Lloyd saw the field so infrequently, he was probably running the wrong routes AND the passes were off. It does take some practice for a QB and a receiver to get on the same page with eath other's tendencies. Less than two opportunities per game wouldn't allow any two players to get "on the same page" in my opinion. Who is to blame for the limited opportunities? I blame Saunders and Gibbs both. When your other options are Keenan McCardell and Reche Caldwell what is there to lose by having at least a remote deep threat on the field? Especially when your two best receivers are either out or playing injured and at half-speed. Nothing, in my opinion, but that is also why I'm not getting any calls to coach the Skins.

Life isn't fair. If he got 2 opportunities to make a good or bad impression, then he needed to make 2 good impressions. Bottom line, he didn't perform. That's why he's not here. I'm going to assume that the coaching staff put the blame on BL as opposed to JC b/c JC is still here and BL is now wearing OJ and black (or whatever their colors are). Argue, debate, cut and reply word by word, that's what's happening now. I that he was just in a bad situation and he excels there, but history tends to repeat itself, and he's failed in the past or he would still be on a previous team. No salary cap implications cut him, it was his lack of performance, regardless of who any individual arm chair GM wants to point the finger at.

Did Lloyd play last nite? I turned the game off at halftime.

I only saw a little of the game last night. He did have a sweet blocked punt. I don't know if he is playing on special teams by choice or not, but he was putting good effort into it.

The problem with Lloyd is that he has no heart... He reminds me of Kwame Brown, the Wiz's first pick a few years ago. 7 foot tall and the guy was gutless. This doesn't mean that they can't make a play now and again but they don't have the all-the-time toughness that makes them consistent. James Thrash and Mike Sellers have heart but less talent than Lloyd...the difference is that they're tough on every play, that's why they're making our final 53!

If you don't heart, guts, toughness you can't play professional sports -- especially those played by MEN.

If the Bears are considering him as one of their WR's, they're desperate.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Did Lloyd play last nite? I turned the game off at halftime.

Didn't see too much of him on the O-side but, as has been mentioned, he had a pretty sweet blocked punt - that's a couple of kicks the Bears have blocked in the pre-season.

BearSkins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Did Lloyd play last nite? I turned the game off at halftime.

Didn't see too much of him on the O-side but, as has been mentioned, he had a pretty sweet blocked punt - that's a couple of kicks the Bears have blocked in the pre-season.

Didn"t he NOT play teams here

Maybe he learned something while he was here.

1niksder wrote:

BearSkins wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:Did Lloyd play last nite? I turned the game off at halftime.

Didn't see too much of him on the O-side but, as has been mentioned, he had a pretty sweet blocked punt - that's a couple of kicks the Bears have blocked in the pre-season.

Didn"t he NOT play teams here

Maybe he learned something while he was here.

It's probably more accurate to say that, maybe, he learned something while he was NOT here!