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

For all of the doom and gloom around here, the schedule makers gave the team five prime time games. Seems like the league has higher expectations for them.

based on last season, we all should expect the roster & team to be a little better and win 9 games at least - 10 or 11 wins is doable

SkinsJock wrote:based on last season, we all should expect the roster & team to be a little better and win 9 games at least - 10 or 11 wins is doable

Well, you're a smart enough fellow to know "based on last season" is meaningless. The Panthers were 6-10 in 2016. Based on 2015, they should have won the super bowl last year!!!

I'm not going to judge this team until after the draft next weekend. Not that I expect anyone drafted this year to immediately impact the team, but I think its the first chance to set expectations. If it looks like a competent draft, I'll feel better about their chances this fall. If it looks like an absolute s**t show, I'll fall in line on the doom and gloom.

Regarding the schedule, I did hear Bram Weinstein talking about it this morning, and he said the league might not actually be worried (or judging) whether they expect the Redskins to be good or not this year. A few certain teams: Dallas, Washington, Steelers, Giants get good prime time ratings whether they're good or not, and the league wants to avoid the bad ratings from last year. I don't know if that's true or not, but it does sound credible. God knows, look at those of us who continue to follow this team no matter how awful it gets.

the Redskins "marketability" is still worth a lot when you think of the fans both for and against this franchise

Gruden had a tough first year with not much to work with, since then he's won 17 and we should expect more this season

if we don't get 9 wins or more we should be disappointed

riggofan wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I really wish they had done more in free agency.

I don't, and I don't think Redskins fans should be complaining about that. The team is following the same FA strategy that McCloughan did. Don't reach and overpay for guys whose previous teams didn't think enough of them to do what it takes to keep them.

If you followed FA too, it wasn't a great year for free agents.

Absolutely. Besides how many times have The Skins gone crazy in FA and it didn't amount to a hill of beans come the season?

SkinsJock wrote:if we don't get 9 wins or more we should be disappointed

Many of us will be disappointed if he ONLY gets 9 wins.

Bishop Hammer wrote:Absolutely. Besides how many times have The Skins gone crazy in FA and it didn't amount to a hill of beans come the season?

Its been a few years since the team took that approach, and I think people are starting to forget what a terrible path that was.

The draft is the only way to go, but it requires 1) patience and 2) the right people making those picks. Legit questions right now whether we have either.

riggofan wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:if we don't get 9 wins or more we should be disappointed

Many of us will be disappointed if he ONLY gets 9 wins.

more importantly - hopefully, Dan & Bruce will be really disappointed

I can't remember ever having less enthusiasm for the draft, I'm apathetic. I usually invest time learning about the prospects and have frequently watched the draft, not this year I am becoming indifferent. I guess this what it feels like to drift away from a team I've followed for decades. First I got really feed up and stopped renewing my tickets during the Griffin fiasco. Scot M and Kirk's emergence gets me excited again. After end of last season I was really excited and optimistic. The 2016 was better than the 2015 division winners and I expected Scot to find us more talent to improve the 2017 team, then the wheels fall off. Scot gets canned, the low ball Cousins again and Garçon and Jackson leave.

I am sure I checkout who they draft afterwards, my fandom maybe on life support but I'll be curious. But if a guy like me is tuned out the Skins have a real issue.

I can't remember ever having less enthusiasm for the draft, I'm apathetic. I usually invest time learning about the prospects and have frequently watched the draft, not this year I am becoming indifferent. I guess this what it feels like to drift away from a team I've followed for decades. First I got really feed up and stopped renewing my tickets during the Griffin fiasco. Scot M and Kirk's emergence gets me excited again. After end of last season I was really excited and optimistic. The 2016 was better than the 2015 division winners and I expected Scot to find us more talent to improve the 2017 team, then the wheels fall off. Scot gets canned, the low ball Cousins again and Garçon and Jackson leave.

I am sure I checkout who they draft afterwards, my fandom maybe on life support but I'll be curious. But if a guy like me is tuned out the Skins have a real issue.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:This is probably going to sound racist, but White running backs scare the hell out of me. Very few become four or five year starters. Not many more become solid role players.

1: Why yes... yes, it does. It's no different than the mindset that said "blacks can't be quarterback.

2: That Riggins dude... flash in the pan... 4 years at most.

Countertrey wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:This is probably going to sound racist, but White running backs scare the hell out of me. Very few become four or five year starters. Not many more become solid role players.

1: Why yes... yes, it does. It's no different than the mindset that said "blacks can't be quarterback.

2: That Riggins dude... flash in the pan... 4 years at most.

Come on. You know what I meant. Riggins played a decade longer than most NFL running backs. Only three players in the top 30 in career rushing yards played longer than Riggo.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:This is probably going to sound racist, but White running backs scare the hell out of me. Very few become four or five year starters. Not many more become solid role players.

1: Why yes... yes, it does. It's no different than the mindset that said "blacks can't be quarterback.

2: That Riggins dude... flash in the pan... 4 years at most.

Come on. You know what I meant. Riggins played a decade longer than most NFL running backs. Only three players in the top 30 in career rushing yards played longer than Riggo.

Your mindset also said, for several decades that "white kids can't be receivers"... "black kids can't be quarterback"... the result was that kids didn't try and coaches didn't look. There's plenty of proof that both were wrong. There is only ONE race. Human.

Stop channeling Jimmy the Greek... he was wrong then... he's wrong now.

Countertrey wrote:Your mindset also said, for several decades that "white kids can't be receivers"... "black kids can't be quarterback"... the result was that kids didn't try and coaches didn't look. There's plenty of proof that both were wrong. There is only ONE race. Human.

Stop channeling Jimmy the Greek... he was wrong then... he's wrong now.

I still think McCaffrey will be far less than advertised but at least if I'm wrong about him he's not in the NFC East.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Your mindset also said, for several decades that "white kids can't be receivers"... "black kids can't be quarterback"... the result was that kids didn't try and coaches didn't look. There's plenty of proof that both were wrong. There is only ONE race. Human.

Stop channeling Jimmy the Greek... he was wrong then... he's wrong now.

I still think McCaffrey will be far less than advertised but at least if I'm wrong about him he's not in the NFC East.