The Myth of a great defense

[Deadskins]

Listen, the clear weaknesses on the Redskins last year were the offensive and defensive lines. The talent was there, in both FA and in the draft, to upgrade the defensive line, significantly. However, the only FAs worth getting for the o-line were drastically overpaid (Jason Brown, for instance) for mediocre talent, and by the time we drafted, it was a choice between the best 4-3 DE in the draft (Orakpo), or a OT that was the 4th best prospect at the position.

If there was an OT in the supplemental draft who was as well-regarded as Jarmon, I'm sure we would have gone after him. However, there wasn't.

Next year, the o-line. Shrug.

And I think last year's defense was better than "bend but don't break," because that connotes a defense that gives up a lot of yards but not a lot of points. Last time I checked...we gave up the 4th least yards in the NFL...that's not a lot of bending or breaking. But the Skins defensive line was severely weak in the passrush and could stand to be upgraded...and that's exactly what we did.

Totally agree. That's exactly what I meant when I said the FO worked primarily on the D because of circumstance, not the lack of confidence in last year's unit.

[HEROHAMO]

I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

For the record I have always wanted to upgrade the defensive line. Even if it went against what most fans wanted. I have been wanting a pass rushing defensive end or linebacker for 8 years now. I would take Haynesworth over any of the free agent tackles or draftees any day.
Also thought getting Orakpo was a gift from the football gods.

Also as far as the FO goes. They have made it pretty clear what there strategy is. They rate all the players and put them on a board. I belive it is something like a hundred players. Then they just draft according to who is the best available. I never said the FO drafted according to what we wanted.
I said there were a number of fans who have been screaming for years about upgrading the defensive line. When we acquired Haynesworth and Orakpo that made me and many others very happy. I did say most but I will correct that to alot of fans were happy with the move.

I still say the Defense played heroicly in spite of no offense outside of Portis, ey and Moss maybe.

[yupchagee]

I agree with most on this one. The defense was very good last year. Especially the secondary in my opinion.

Whats great is this. Our front office addressed what all of us have been screaming for. Help on the defensive line. We acquired arguably the best defensive tackle and drafted arguably the best defensive end prospect.

So whats the need for a post saying the defense was overrated?
The Redskins defense has been the reason the Redskins actually have appearances in the Playoffs this decade.

The defense only got better and younger. The secondary is very young. The Linebackers are mostly young except for Fletcher. The defensive line is pretty young as well. The defense should be a positive unit for at least five years strong.

Redskins concerns should be as follows.
1. Passing game
2. Pass protection
3. More turnovers, sacks and fumbles. We seemed to get some interceptions and deflected passes last year.

So that is about it. That is what I see.

My post was written to explain why the FO decision to focus on the DL rather than the Oline from the draft to the present was rational whether we believe it was the right decision on not. To do that I first showed that last season's "great D" was only an "average" D and had plenty of holes that the FO reasoned had to be filled. I went on from there to complete the explanation.

My whole post shows that the overrating of the D was due to homer myth about the quality of the D and shielded from the eyes of many homers the FO rational.

Are you getting this, Fios? Your straw should be the filter for what is drawn up from the gunk in your cup.

For the record I have always wanted to upgrade the defensive line. Even if it went against what most fans wanted. I have been wanting a pass rushing defensive end or linebacker for 8 years now. I would take Haynesworth over any of the free agent tackles or draftees any day.
Also thought getting Orakpo was a gift from the football gods.

Also as far as the FO goes. They have made it pretty clear what there strategy is. They rate all the players and put them on a board. I belive it is something like a hundred players. Then they just draft according to who is the best available. I never said the FO drafted according to what we wanted.
I said there were a number of fans who have been screaming for years about upgrading the defensive line. When we acquired Haynesworth and Orakpo that made me and many others very happy. I did say most but I will correct that to alot of fans were happy with the move.

I still say the Defense played heroicly in spite of no offense outside of Portis, ey and Moss maybe.

Way more. 256 players get drafted so I'm sure we have at least that many on our board.

[SkinsFreak]

I won't put you down as a personal supporter of me. You're misrepresented everything I've written, attributed to me the opposite of my views and then ridiculed me for believing things that I don't believe and have not suggested I believe. You have either not unstood my post, not carefully read my post, or or writing with deliberate malice and invented reasons for mockery.

Typical response from someone lacking an actual rebuttal of substance. Comprehension evades everyone else, nobody understands you and everyone in turn mocks you with deliberate malice. Hmm... wonder why...

I've reread every post you've written in this thread. Perhaps you should do the same. I've misrepresented nothing, but only countered your empty assertions, as has most others here. Remember, you're the one who said we should google Samuels ankle injury, yet you failed to consider that someone would actually call your bluff on that nonsense.

You, not me, are football idiots.

Yeah, we get it... everyone else here are football idiots and you're the only one who gets it.

[crazyhorse1]

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

well now! that makes things a lot clearer

Taking a quote out of context so that it seems absurd and then mocking it would get your fired from every responsible publication. I shows that you have given up your personal integrity for some personal advantage. I have published written work on a almost constant basis for forty eight years and have never once done that.

[crazyhorse1]

I won't put you down as a personal supporter of me. You're misrepresented everything I've written, attributed to me the opposite of my views and then ridiculed me for believing things that I don't believe and have not suggested I believe. You have either not unstood my post, not carefully read my post, or or writing with deliberate malice and invented reasons for mockery.

Typical response from someone lacking an actual rebuttal of substance. Comprehension evades everyone else, nobody understands you and everyone in turn mocks you with deliberate malice. Hmm... wonder why...

I've reread every post you've written in this thread. Perhaps you should do the same. I've misrepresented nothing, but only countered your empty assertions, as has most others here. Remember, you're the one who said we should google Samuels ankle injury, yet you failed to consider that someone would actually call your bluff on that nonsense.

You, not me, are football idiots.

Yeah, we get it... everyone else here are football idiots and you're the only one who gets it.

I'll take your word for it that you have honestly tried to represent the thoughts in my posts, so now will now make a statement to every reader to the board that your interpretations do not represent my thoughts or posts. In fact, they very nearly represent the oppositite of my thoughts.

Further, I remind or inform everyone still concerned that my actual thought have been correctly interpreted by another member of this board and fairly defeated in debate and that I have acknowledged that defeat. His theory that the F0 acted with expediency and as the best players became available rather than deciding in advance to fortify the defense rather the offense can not be countered by me and may well be the better theory than mine.

Further, a poster helpfully revealed how the FO displayed players according to their abilities on a board and simply picked the top talent regardless of whether the player played offense or defense. This fact leads me even further toward a conviction that my theory, correctly understood, is wrong.

In summary. This matter is over as a debate. But further attempts to misrepresent the thoughts in the posts, as well as honest misrepresentations, will be addressed.

[crazyhorse1]

I won't put you down as a personal supporter of me. You're misrepresented everything I've written, attributed to me the opposite of my views and then ridiculed me for believing things that I don't believe and have not suggested I believe. You have either not unstood my post, not carefully read my post, or or writing with deliberate malice and invented reasons for mockery.

Typical response from someone lacking an actual rebuttal of substance. Comprehension evades everyone else, nobody understands you and everyone in turn mocks you with deliberate malice. Hmm... wonder why...

I've reread every post you've written in this thread. Perhaps you should do the same. I've misrepresented nothing, but only countered your empty assertions, as has most others here. Remember, you're the one who said we should google Samuels ankle injury, yet you failed to consider that someone would actually call your bluff on that nonsense.

You, not me, are football idiots.

Yeah, we get it... everyone else here are football idiots and you're the only one who gets it.

Samuels' ankle injury was noted where I said it was. You are either not telling the truth or or too tense to find info on your computer. I also told you where to find the special info on Randy Thomas' injuries. Did you fail find it too. Try it, find it, deny it. I'll prove you a liar on this board.

[Redskin in Canada]

Listen, the clear weaknesses on the Redskins last year were the offensive and defensive lines. The talent was there, in both FA and in the draft, to upgrade the defensive line, significantly. However, the only FAs worth getting for the o-line were drastically overpaid (Jason Brown, for instance) for mediocre talent, and by the time we drafted, it was a choice between the best 4-3 DE in the draft (Orakpo), or a OT that was the 4th best prospect at the position.

If there was an OT in the supplemental draft who was as well-regarded as Jarmon, I'm sure we would have gone after him. However, there wasn't.

Next year, the o-line. Shrug.

And I think last year's defense was better than "bend but don't break," because that connotes a defense that gives up a lot of yards but not a lot of points. Last time I checked...we gave up the 4th least yards in the NFL...that's not a lot of bending or breaking. But the Skins defensive line was severely weak in the passrush and could stand to be upgraded...and that's exactly what we did.

Totally agree. That's exactly what I meant when I said the FO worked primarily on the D because of circumstance, not the lack of confidence in last year's unit.

I agree with the analyses and thoughts behind these two posts.

I am convinced that our DL urgently needed an upgrade. The actions of the FO point in that direction, which is in agreement with at least most of the fans analyses I have seen.

I am convinced, and analyses of the Draft and FA availability show it, that it was more effective in quality to address needs at Defense than Offense. There were better defensive players available.

Our defense improved but there might still be question marks in at least one LB position and LB and CB due to lack of depth. Otherwise, we should be in a better position than last year.

My serious concern, which is shared by many other fans and analysts in the NFL, is the OL and the performance of our QB as a result of that. The OL is the most serious candidate to injury, age problems, fatigue and overall decay in performance, particularly during the second half of the season.

But the main argument of the original post was that the FO decided to act on Defense based on the perception that the whole defense was over-rated and it was basically a myth to consider it a strength of this team.

As usual, emphasis and tone of the original post affect the substance and tone of the reactions. The 2008 Redskins Defense was very strong on several areas. One of those areas was NOT the DL. But from the weakness of one unit to call a myth the whole Defense, there is an abyss, which cannot be proven with speculation or second-guessing.

My view is that there are too many holes in this aging team and the FO did the best job it could with the material that became available in the Draft and FA. That might not be enough to win us a championship in the NFC East this year or even wise in terms of long term progress but it certainly addressed urgent needs at Defense.

The FO did enough work to keep the interest and attention of the faithful and from an economic perspective, thatis all that matters. We will have to wait for anotheryear to address our serious problems at Offense.

PS Back to my offseason slumber. Zzzzzzzzzz

[Deadskins]

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

well now! that makes things a lot clearer

Taking a quote out of context so that it seems absurd and then mocking it would get your fired from every responsible publication. I shows that you have given up your personal integrity for some personal advantage. I have published written work on a almost constant basis for forty eight years and have never once done that.

I agree about the consequences, but not that the quote is out of context. Out of context would be if he quoted you as saying, "The first time I rode a bike I was ... high...," or if you had used the quote sarcastically, or as a metaphor in another argument. But the quote in question was a stand-alone paragraph from one of your posts, and certainly not out of context.

[Deadskins]

My view is that ... the FO did the best job it could with the material that became available in the Draft and FA.

[SkinsJock]

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

well now! that makes things a lot clearer

Taking a quote out of context so that it seems absurd and then mocking it would get your fired from every responsible publication. I shows that you have given up your personal integrity for some personal advantage. I have published written work on a almost constant basis for forty eight years and have never once done that.

I agree about the consequences, but not that the quote is out of context. Out of context would be if he quoted you as saying, "The first time I rode a bike I was ... high...," or if you had used the quote sarcastically, or as a metaphor in another argument. But the quote in question was a stand-alone paragraph from one of your posts, and certainly not out of context.

I was really just kind of put off by the lack of integrity in the original post and wanted to make a jab at you and only posted what you said and then made a trite comment - no big deal

Our defense last year was not near as bad as you indicated while at the same time I will say that they were not as good as the stats indicated either - we should have done better with the 4th ranked defense but we did not and there were a couple of times that the defense could have helped the team but were not able to.

I agree with RiC and others in that I think the team has adressed a big concern in adding a great DT and a young potentially very good DE - we have need an upgrade in our ability to apply pressure in my opinion and that seems to be what has happened.

I do not agree with you at all about how well we played defensively or the reasons for doing what we have done this past offseason - I am concerned about our team offensively but I presume that we will make the additions there over time as well - we are getting better, maybe not to the level of winning the NFC East but we're getting there. I will say that I think we are going to be much better team defensively and who knows how that will translate as far as wins and losses are concerned

[langleyparkjoe]

The Myth of a Great Post.

You may feel that because you ranked first in the use of the word obfuscation, or set records in the field of alienating fans of the same team that you are smart, and know a lot about football.

Well it has been made clear to me by points of the other posters that you rank dead last in the fields of winning over your peers and making points that expand the reader’s knowledge base, which are really the two key factors in a great post.

You are correct when you point out that the front office made more changes to the Defense than the offense, however you fail to put this in the context of what was available.

Jordan Gross resigned with Carolina, we were out gunned in a bidding war for Jason Brown as the Rams overpaid for him (I wanted the guy, but not at that price), we did get Dock back. We already have enough money and talent allocated to carrying the ball. We got slammed in the media for inquiring about Cutler. We looked into what it would cost for Boldin and deemed it too expensive when we had two 2nd rd picks that we want to develop.

Haynesworth was available, and could make a difference. D-Hall was a re-sign, not a new face.

Short of Taking an OT at 13, rather than Orakpo, who was rated as a top ten player, and the premier tackles were gone, We focused on where we could upgrade/get younger.

Our defense should be better this year, but that does not mean it was average last year. It was in fact a good defense.

I'd like to have a talk with your boss. I'm sure he/she and I can find some obscure things you did not do so well last year. That in addition to him/her signing you up for some training should make it possible to take a big ol' dump on your performance evaluation. After all, by your logic, if there is anything that can be improved, and you try to do so.....you suck.

Crazy:
1. mentally deranged; demented; insane.
2. senseless; impractical; totally unsound

Not sure about the horse part

Really gotta like this post..

[SkinsFreak]

I won't put you down as a personal supporter of me. You're misrepresented everything I've written, attributed to me the opposite of my views and then ridiculed me for believing things that I don't believe and have not suggested I believe. You have either not unstood my post, not carefully read my post, or or writing with deliberate malice and invented reasons for mockery.

Typical response from someone lacking an actual rebuttal of substance. Comprehension evades everyone else, nobody understands you and everyone in turn mocks you with deliberate malice. Hmm... wonder why...

I've reread every post you've written in this thread. Perhaps you should do the same. I've misrepresented nothing, but only countered your empty assertions, as has most others here. Remember, you're the one who said we should google Samuels ankle injury, yet you failed to consider that someone would actually call your bluff on that nonsense.

You, not me, are football idiots.

Yeah, we get it... everyone else here are football idiots and you're the only one who gets it.

Samuels' ankle injury was noted where I said it was. You are either not telling the truth or or too tense to find info on your computer. I also told you where to find the special info on Randy Thomas' injuries. Did you fail find it too. Try it, find it, deny it. I'll prove you a liar on this board.

I responded to your posts about Thomas in this thread and acknowledged his recent injuries, injuries in which he's currently healed from. I specifically called your bluff regarding your assertions of an alleged ankle injury to Chris Samuels, to which you went on to say that the team had concerns or "serious doubts" with Samuels "ankle". Here, let me refresh your memory...

We fell apart when he was hurt last year and what I hear is that his ankle is in serious doubt. <snip> Samuel is unlikely to ever again reach past levels-- check out his ankle. <snip> and ankle on Google by entering "Chris Samuels ankle."

You never responded to my posts in the other thread when I called your bluff on Samuels. So I assumed you conceded the bluff about an ankle injury that you asserted is in serious doubt. If it is so, and you want to prove you're not a liar, google it and show us these concerns regarding Samuels ankle injury. Because other than a slight injury back in 2005 in which he didn't miss any playing time, and a 10/19/08 injury report in which he was listed as questionable but still didn't miss a game from an ankle injury... there AREN'T any reports or concerns with Samuels ankle. If there is and I missed it, just show us and prove you weren't blowing smoke. That's all you have to do.

[Redskin in Canada]

My view is that ... the FO did the best job it could with the material that became available in the Draft and FA.

... which does not change my opinion that the FO allowed our OL to deteriorate over the last few years to the point that it is generally perceived throughout the NFL as our weakest unit in the team.

But I stand by the praise to the choices made under the current circumstances with a view to fill-in glaring gaps.

[crazyhorse1]

The first time I rode a bike I was stopped only by a neck-high clothesline.

well now! that makes things a lot clearer

Taking a quote out of context so that it seems absurd and then mocking it would get your fired from every responsible publication. I shows that you have given up your personal integrity for some personal advantage. I have published written work on a almost constant basis for forty eight years and have never once done that.

I agree about the consequences, but not that the quote is out of context. Out of context would be if he quoted you as saying, "The first time I rode a bike I was ... high...," or if you had used the quote sarcastically, or as a metaphor in another argument. But the quote in question was a stand-alone paragraph from one of your posts, and certainly not out of context.

The quote was out of context because it was placed alone as if was not a direct response to a specific question as to how well I was able to write a bike. My response was totally true. When I first rode a bike I ran into a clothesline that caught me by the neck.

The poster who quoted me knew when he posted it knew that he would make the quote seem like an out-of-the-blue remark of a lunatic if he posted it without the prompting question.

The fact that the prompting question was in not in the same paragraph with the answering question is grammatically correct for a question and answer format. Your suggestion that he is free from charges of libel because of a grammatically correct format that naturally occured in a question and answer format is pure nonsense. I could win in court an open and shut case of malicious libel against him right now with only the evidence at hand, as well as cause him to be fired from the staff of any half respectable publisher in the country.

The only problem with easily winning at case against him in court would be the certainty that I would not receive damages because I couldn't prove he had damaged me in any way. materially or otherwise. He doesn't have the swat as a writer to damage me.

To get him fired from a job in journalism I would have to discover his real name. Then I would send the following with the blanks filled in to the owner or Editor-in-Chief of the publishing company for whom he works:

Dear ------,

You've got a loose cannon on your staff. I happened to notice he's committed malicious libel under an assumed name on one of the nation's more respected discussion forums. I have enclosed the a copy of the libel.

My advice is to submerge the guy before he has your company hung up in
court.

Respectfully,

-------------

Owner and Editor-in-Chief

-------- Press, -------, ------- (West Coast)

-------- Arts Magazine, --------, (East Cost)

Available at ------------- (phone number),

[SkinsFreak]

crazyhorse1, the smileys in SkinsJock's post clearly indicate he was joking. Please take it as such and move on. You are way off topic with your previous post. Thank you.

[crazyhorse1]

crazyhorse1, the smileys in SkinsJock's post clearly indicate he was joking. Please take it as such and move on. You are way off topic with your previous post. Thank you.

Ok. I'll move on. I hope he does the same.

[SkinsJock]

I'd love to move on - I hope that I'm not in danger of losing my job over this - it was just a smart ass comment because I was annoyed at the original bunch of drivel that was posted - last year's defensive ranking may have been a little high but they were certainly not an "average defense" that became "even worse" towards the end of the season

I'm done with this - I think that others here have made the point much better than I and that was just not a very educated post, in my opinion

[SkinsFreak]

last year's defensive ranking may have been a little high

No, it wasn't... and that's the point. The ranking is what it is. The numbers and stats are kept by the league and weren't conjured up by the Redskins FO in an attempt to mislead the fans.

The #4 ranking came despite the poor statistical data attributed to the defensive line. That offers evidence that the defense was even better than the stats lead one to believe, since other areas of the defense had to pull more weight to offset the less than desirable performance of the d-line. Even though the players drafted and signed were products of circumstance, the team recognized the need to upgrade that unit, which in turn will make the defense even better and at the same time will put the offense in better field position, leading to more productivity.

[El Mexican]

last year's defensive ranking may have been a little high

No, it wasn't... and that's the point. The ranking is what it is. The numbers and stats are kept by the league and weren't conjured up by the Redskins FO in an attempt to mislead the fans.

The #4 ranking came despite the poor statistical data attributed to the defensive line. That offers evidence that the defense was even better than the stats lead one to believe, since other areas of the defense had to pull more weight to offset the less than desirable performance of the d-line. Even though the players drafted and signed were products of circumstance, the team recognized the need to upgrade that unit, which in turn will make the defense even better and at the same time will put the offense in better field position, leading to more productivity.

Yep. Last year's defense was ordered to stop the big play on Offense, even if that meant creating fewer turnovers.

Now that could change if the coaches go all crazy with the talent added this offseason and start implementing more agressive schemes. I would prefer to stay the course.

[SkinsJock]

last year's defensive ranking may have been a little high

No, it wasn't... and that's the point. The ranking is what it is. The numbers and stats are kept by the league and weren't conjured up by the Redskins FO in an attempt to mislead the fans.

The #4 ranking came despite the poor statistical data attributed to the defensive line. That offers evidence that the defense was even better than the stats lead one to believe, since other areas of the defense had to pull more weight to offset the less than desirable performance of the d-line. Even though the players drafted and signed were products of circumstance, the team recognized the need to upgrade that unit, which in turn will make the defense even better and at the same time will put the offense in better field position, leading to more productivity.

my bad - boy do you have to be very careful how you express yourself here

I guess my post should have been a lot more clearly stated - in my opinion the Redskins defense was not as good as the stats indicated - by getting a #4 ranking, one might assume that this defense was a lot tougher than it actually was - in my opinion, the defense on a few occasions last season let the team down, and, in my opinion was not as good as the stats indicated.

My whole point here though was not that the Redskins defense was worthy of a #4 ranking defensively or not! - the fact is, it was not a mediocre defense as some here were indicating

I am very glad that we have a group of players on defense that look like they will be more effective than last year & even if they are statistically ranked #10 in the NFL, I believe they will be one of the top 3 defenses in the NFL because of how effective they are on the field as a team & not because of the stats that are kept by the NFL

stats can be used in a lot of ways to make things look anyway you really like - fact is, if the defense is better, it will mainly be because of how we put together this group this past offseason

[SkinsJock]

Redskin struggles to the end zone last season seem to have sparked the myth that last year's defense was excellent. If it was excellent, it was only in comparison to last year's offense, which featured a near total collapse in the second half of the season.

Actually, the defense was only about average in the NFL last season and tailed off at the end of the season in a fashion that alarmed the FO into stocking up densive players throughout the pre-season and draft.

I totally disagree about the thought that last year's defense was regarded as excellent. The NFL stats had the team "ranked" as the #4 defense but I did not think that anybody was saying that this was "excellent"!

Our defense last year was good and the stats "say" they were #4 in the NFL - HOWEVER, there have been concerns about the defensive line and I think that was the reason we did what we did - that and the fact that we could not find the quality we needed at our draft position to help some of the offensive issues we also have - we had to make a choice and the offense will I'm sure be addressed very soon also

I also totally disagree that the Redskins' "stocked up on defensive players" because they were "alarmed" - I do think that the Redskins' thinking about addressing the issues this team has had with the defensive line led them to make some really great additions this past 6 months.

We are going to be a much improved defense this year and I predict that if we do not make the playoffs it will certainly not be because we have any issues with our defensive play

This offseason we needed to improve the defensive line and we have done that - we look like we may have some issues to address offensively next year but that will have to wait until we know where we stand at QB, at WR and with the offensive line

The tough D last year is a Myth, my fellow Skins fan, and this year's a gamble for unlikely success now, rather than an attempt to build for the future. In relation to Danny's dreams, it's more of the same.

I am concerned about how well we will do as far as the record is concerned but I just do not agree with you on why we did things or where we are going but you are certainly entitled to think what you like - we shall see and we will remember to point this out after the season is over

[crazyhorse1]

Redskin struggles to the end zone last season seem to have sparked the myth that last year's defense was excellent. If it was excellent, it was only in comparison to last year's offense, which featured a near total collapse in the second half of the season.

Actually, the defense was only about average in the NFL last season and tailed off at the end of the season in a fashion that alarmed the FO into stocking up densive players throughout the pre-season and draft.

I totally disagree about the thought that last year's defense was regarded as excellent. The NFL stats had the team "ranked" as the #4 defense but I did not think that anybody was saying that this was "excellent"!

Our defense last year was good and the stats "say" they were #4 in the NFL - HOWEVER, there have been concerns about the defensive line and I think that was the reason we did what we did - that and the fact that we could not find the quality we needed at our draft position to help some of the offensive issues we also have - we had to make a choice and the offense will I'm sure be addressed very soon also

I also totally disagree that the Redskins' "stocked up on defensive players" because they were "alarmed" - I do think that the Redskins' thinking about addressing the issues this team has had with the defensive line led them to make some really great additions this past 6 months.

We are going to be a much improved defense this year and I predict that if we do not make the playoffs it will certainly not be because we have any issues with our defensive play

This offseason we needed to improve the defensive line and we have done that - we look like we may have some issues to address offensively next year but that will have to wait until we know where we stand at QB, at WR and with the offensive line

The tough D last year is a Myth, my fellow Skins fan, and this year's a gamble for unlikely success now, rather than an attempt to build for the future. In relation to Danny's dreams, it's more of the same.

I am concerned about how well we will do as far as the record is concerned but I just do not agree with you on why we did things or where we are going but you are certainly entitled to think what you like - we shall see and we will remember to point this out after the season is over

My perception was that other people on this board thought that the D was excellent as a whole. I based that purely on my perception and didn't try to mathmatically evaluate it or rate ran perception because I felt that was impossible or at least beyond me. I felt that the FO would not concur with fan perception based on the FO's own careful analysis of the D, including a good look at the whole. That was my theory, which I have not abandoned. I still think the FO regarded last year's D as only average or slightly above. I still believe the D last year was only average or above and have not abandoned that belief.

What I did abandon was the larger theory I had-- that the FO decided to fortify the D, especially the DL, even before they knew what new talent was available. I have now abandoned that belief and now embraced the position that I believe defeated my own. I am content,

Futher, I have already embraced your position, There's no reason to wait for anything at all to see who has won the argument. I lost. Those posters who understood my post and countered my argument won and converted me. Those posters who did not understand the argument were never in the arguement and will never understand why they were not. Game over.

Final Score:

Smart guys (Your side) : Win

Crazyhorse1: Loss

Idiots (no show)


Change is Standings:

None. Crazyhorse1 still last in popularity on the board. Still leads the board in drawing invectives and using high rhetoric and unintentional lapses to fill seats with irrational boo birds.

[DarthMonk]

Dear crazyhorse1:

Been away for awhile. Just got through this thread. I loved the old "thinking with feelers" and "feeling with thinkers." Also excellent was "Those posters who did not understand the argument were never in the arguement and will never understand why they were not." There were many others. Touche.

I know that when I watched games last year my thinker often felt like we really couldn't "stop 'em" when we had to. I was the original poster of the "BLOW IT UP" thread and was in favor of dumping many and taking a long-term view. I agree with your essential assessment of the D and still think your point about the FO looking short-term (for whatever reason, by design or due to circumstance) is valid. In fact, since they didn't "blow it up" they must think "we're close." Either that or it's ALL about $$$.

The only thing I've ever really disagreed with you on (let's resolve it) has to do with Einstein and Newton. I'll be in The Lounge.

crazyhorse1 have anything to do with Neil Young?

DarthMonk

[crazyhorse1]

I won't put you down as a personal supporter of me. You're misrepresented everything I've written, attributed to me the opposite of my views and then ridiculed me for believing things that I don't believe and have not suggested I believe. You have either not unstood my post, not carefully read my post, or or writing with deliberate malice and invented reasons for mockery.

Typical response from someone lacking an actual rebuttal of substance. Comprehension evades everyone else, nobody understands you and everyone in turn mocks you with deliberate malice. Hmm... wonder why...

I've reread every post you've written in this thread. Perhaps you should do the same. I've misrepresented nothing, but only countered your empty assertions, as has most others here. Remember, you're the one who said we should google Samuels ankle injury, yet you failed to consider that someone would actually call your bluff on that nonsense.

You, not me, are football idiots.

Yeah, we get it... everyone else here are football idiots and you're the only one who gets it.

Samuels' ankle injury was noted where I said it was. You are either not telling the truth or or too tense to find info on your computer. I also told you where to find the special info on Randy Thomas' injuries. Did you fail find it too. Try it, find it, deny it. I'll prove you a liar on this board.

I responded to your posts about Thomas in this thread and acknowledged his recent injuries, injuries in which he's currently healed from. I specifically called your bluff regarding your assertions of an alleged ankle injury to Chris Samuels, to which you went on to say that the team had concerns or "serious doubts" with Samuels "ankle". Here, let me refresh your memory...

We fell apart when he was hurt last year and what I hear is that his ankle is in serious doubt. <snip> Samuel is unlikely to ever again reach past levels-- check out his ankle. <snip> and ankle on Google by entering "Chris Samuels ankle."

You never responded to my posts in the other thread when I called your bluff on Samuels. So I assumed you conceded the bluff about an ankle injury that you asserted is in serious doubt. If it is so, and you want to prove you're not a liar, google it and show us these concerns regarding Samuels ankle injury. Because other than a slight injury back in 2005 in which he didn't miss any playing time, and a 10/19/08 injury report in which he was listed as questionable but still didn't miss a game from an ankle injury... there AREN'T any reports or concerns with Samuels ankle. If there is and I missed it, just show us and prove you weren't blowing smoke. That's all you have to do.

Thomas' doctors do not approve of his playing football this year or ever again. They have told him flatly that is playing at risk of paralysis. You know this. There seems no way to deal with your constant half-truths, fabrications, and creative accusations without wasting my time and suffering increasing annoyance. Unless you start playing straight and can put your desire to discredit me aside, I'll just have to stop responding to your posts. Why would I want to exhange ideas with someone not interested in enlightening me or me enlightening him. We both have ideas that are of values and those that are not. Just have discussions with me that are civilized. I told you I wasn't sure about where I happened to read it and then, later, couldn't find it. I also told you I saw a Redskin injury report that listed Samuel's ankle and told you what I wrote in Google to find it. I told you the absolute truth in both case. You later informed everyone that you called my bluff and it wasn't there. It is there. Don't you know I know its there? After that, you told a half truth about Thomas' health in an article I directed you to. You said that the Thomas' doctors report that his injury has healed. Sure it has. but the doctors also told him he'd be risking paralysis, which you did not disclose. I know that you know I am instantly aware that you are not talking to me even when are pretended to talk to me. You are talking to the audience, not me. You are currying their favor by pouncing on an unpopular and disliked poster, me, anyway you can devise. You are trying to join a gang by proving yourself the baddest guy in town by transparent means.

Stop it. There's a growing awareness of what you are doing. There's no longer a need for me to continue to expose you, so I'm not going to bother to do it any more. You're already done. Dead in your quest and headed down here with me, semi-isolated, in last place.

I doubt you can stomach it. I can, because I am buttressed in real life by so much dedicated support in so many areas that its an odd sort of pleasure for me to have almost none down here.