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

I'm scared to death of taking (and paying for) a first round QB. Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey, Heath Shuler (and we really really tried hard to get Rick Mirer)... Our track record with O-linemen is a little better...

SnyderSucks wrote:The 12th pick last year had an 8-8 record. Going 6-5 down the stretch would be an outright miracle. They'd have to bring in the Pope to certify it!
They've got a chance this week against K.C., but will likely lose. After that, I can't see them favored in any game the rest of the year.

that's the thing - why do so many people look at the past and say "look what happened last year, this is why this or that is going to happen" ... we are not playing last year's schedule and we are not playing against last year's teams - why will the results be the same?

The ONLY thing that we can look at as far as the past is concerned is that with the current methodology of running a NFL franchise in place here, this team will most likely remain in mediocrity

look - I'm not predicting that we are going to suddenly beat any of these teams coming up but in looking at the other teams around the NFL this year I think that we are picking around 9th - 13th in the draft next year - despite what we have looked like, we are not as bad a team as many here think and IMO we are going to have a better record than about 9 - 12 teams


the problem with all this draft prediction BS is that we look like we will still have the same guys running this team that the apologists think are heading this franchise in the right direction and who knows really what they or the new coach are going to do

SkinsJock wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:The 12th pick last year had an 8-8 record. Going 6-5 down the stretch would be an outright miracle. They'd have to bring in the Pope to certify it!
They've got a chance this week against K.C., but will likely lose. After that, I can't see them favored in any game the rest of the year.

that's the thing - why do so many people look at the past and say "look what happened last year, this is why this or that is going to happen" ... we are not playing last year's schedule and we are not playing against last year's teams - why will the results be the same?

The ONLY thing that we can look at as far as the past is concerned is that with the current methodology of running a NFL franchise in place here, this team will most likely remain in mediocrity

look - I'm not predicting that we are going to suddenly beat any of these teams coming up but in looking at the other teams around the NFL this year I think that we are picking around 9th - 13th in the draft next year - despite what we have looked like, we are not as bad a team as many here think and IMO we are going to have a better record than about 9 - 12 teams


the problem with all this draft prediction BS is that we look like we will still have the same guys running this team that the apologists think are heading this franchise in the right direction and who knows really what they or the new coach are going to do

I wasn't basing anything on the teams they played last year. I was saying that pick twelve means you probably win about 8 games. The previous post said the team would end up with the 12th pick. That's the prediction and it wasn't made by me. Which 11 teams are going to finish with a worse record this year than Washington?

At this point, their record against the worst teams in the league is 2-2, and three of those games were before their best O-lineman went down due to a congenital spine condition. Mediocre would be a massive improvement. At this point, they might win this weekend, maybe, and they have a good shot against the raiders. That's four wins. It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins.

frankcal20 wrote:That's an easy thing to be correct on b/c he's probably not going to resign here and will go elsewhere and flourish.

...and I'll say he will be a starter wherever he goes. Maybe not the 1st year. Any player is going to need a rehab year after playing for this team.

If JC ever makes the probowl, after leaving the Skins, I will make my final post on this site applogizing to everyone for being wrong, but I think I'm safe in saying JC will NEVER flourish as an NFL QB!

skinsfan#33 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:That's an easy thing to be correct on b/c he's probably not going to resign here and will go elsewhere and flourish.

...and I'll say he will be a starter wherever he goes. Maybe not the 1st year. Any player is going to need a rehab year after playing for this team.

If JC ever makes the probowl, after leaving the Skins, I will make my final post on this site applogizing to everyone for being wrong, but I think I'm safe in saying JC will NEVER flourish as an NFL QB!

Taking a bigger risk than you might realize. Remember, Gus Frerotte made the pro bowl one year.

SnyderSucks wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:That's an easy thing to be correct on b/c he's probably not going to resign here and will go elsewhere and flourish.

...and I'll say he will be a starter wherever he goes. Maybe not the 1st year. Any player is going to need a rehab year after playing for this team.

If JC ever makes the probowl, after leaving the Skins, I will make my final post on this site applogizing to everyone for being wrong, but I think I'm safe in saying JC will NEVER flourish as an NFL QB!

Taking a bigger risk than you might realize. Remember, Gus Frerotte made the pro bowl one year.

Oddly enough, he did make the pro bowl as a skin, though. You can't take away anything from Gus. He has been able to stay in the NFL for 15 years, starting in 2/3rds of his NFL games. Not bad for a 7th rounder.

While I don't think Tim Tebow will ever be a great, I do think he can be good, and I think he would make an impact on this team. Tell me, when was the last time we had a leader on offense, never mind at QB.

Tebow will be successful in the NFL, because of his leadership. I don't know how good he will be, but I guarantee his team, and whatever team drafts him that team will be "his" team, will play above the collective level of their individual tallent.

He is a leader and a winner. I hope we end up with him (and of course we fix the OL too).

SnyderSucks wrote:.. At this point, their record against the worst teams in the league is 2-2, and three of those games were before their best O-lineman went down due to a congenital spine condition. Mediocre would be a massive improvement. At this point, they might win this weekend, maybe, and they have a good shot against the raiders. That's four wins. It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins.

OK! - do me a favor and show me why "It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins."

SkinsJock wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:.. At this point, their record against the worst teams in the league is 2-2, and three of those games were before their best O-lineman went down due to a congenital spine condition. Mediocre would be a massive improvement. At this point, they might win this weekend, maybe, and they have a good shot against the raiders. That's four wins. It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins.

OK! - do me a favor and show me why "It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins."

It's not impossible but when have you ever seen 11 teams finish with less than 4 wins? That's right, never.

SkinsJock wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:.. At this point, their record against the worst teams in the league is 2-2, and three of those games were before their best O-lineman went down due to a congenital spine condition. Mediocre would be a massive improvement. At this point, they might win this weekend, maybe, and they have a good shot against the raiders. That's four wins. It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins.

OK! - do me a favor and show me why "It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins."

It isn't impossible. Just like it isn't "impossible" for the skins to still make it to the SB.

I think that what SnyderSucks is saying is the PROBABILITY that we will finish with anywhere from 4-6 wins is relatively high. Which isn't a stretch at this current point --- according to almost everyone. No one here has a crystal ball; all we can go on is what we have seen on the field thus far against what we have seen from the competition. Historically teams with those records receive picks in the top 5-8. Not sure why you aren't getting this....

I understand that you think this team is an "average" team, but you are in the vast minority here. After all, we are essentially 2-2 against the leagues worst teams --- and that was with a healthy OL. Not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that this team is in the 14-18 range in the NFL --- which is "average" or "mediocre". We have only scored more points than 5 teams in the NFL and, have, thus far, had the easiest schedule in football --- and have a losing record.

I just love how some have to make a ridiculous assertion to try and make a point and then others think they can support that ridiculous position

now - just because we are looking so bad this year there are some here that are trying to make out like we are going to finish the season with a high draft pick - all I'm pointing out is that no matter if we only win 4 to 6 games this year, in my opinion, there is a very good chance that 9 or 10 teams will finish with worse records, than we do - that's all I'm saying



btw - where are all the posters that were slamming those of us that had concerns about this team this year? - not that I felt we were a bad team but it certainly did not look like we were a team with much of a chance at making the playoffs

if you say it's "impossible" that is what I think you mean -

SkinsJock wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:.. At this point, their record against the worst teams in the league is 2-2, and three of those games were before their best O-lineman went down due to a congenital spine condition. Mediocre would be a massive improvement. At this point, they might win this weekend, maybe, and they have a good shot against the raiders. That's four wins. It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins.

OK! - do me a favor and show me why "It's impossible for 11 teams to finish with less than four wins."

Eleven teams times 16 games is 176 games. Someone will have to be the winner in each of those games. Of those, roughly a third of the time, those eleven teams will play each other. So roughly 60 times they play each other, and one way or another, someone has to win, barring 60 ties. So there is no way to split up 60 wins among eleven teams and have each of them win only 3 games.

markshark84 wrote:...I understand that you think this team is an "average" team, but you are in the vast minority here. After all, we are essentially 2-2 against the leagues worst teams --- and that was with a healthy OL. Not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that this team is in the 14-18 range in the NFL --- which is "average" or "mediocre". We have only scored more points than 5 teams in the NFL and, have, thus far, had the easiest schedule in football --- and have a losing record.

you must be new here, or you have no clue about me - I do not think this is an "average team" - I do not think we are a good team and have re-iterated that on many occasions but I do think we will finish up picking about 10 - 12 in the draft

we lost to Detroit but may in fact end up picking above them - that does not make us better or worse - I only measure the Redskins by their potential to be a "team" - right now IMO they are not a very good team or a really bad team

I only measure the Redskins by their potential to be a "team" - right now IMO they are not a very good team or a really bad team

Actually a really bad team is exactly what we are right now.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:If you have a chance for a "CAN'T MISS" lineman, you've got to take him. Could you imagine if we could get a 2nd coming of Chris Samuels and put him at RT? Man that would be nice.

You can't hope for tto much better than Samuels and Jansen in back to back season. We are 68 and 81 with Samuels as our starting LT. The year before we drafted Samuals we had Andy "who the" Heck playing LT and we won the division and a playoff game because we got good QB play from BJ.

In 05 we got good QB play from Brunell and we went to the playoffs and won a playoff game. In 2007 we got good QB play at he end of the season from TC and we went to the playoffs.

Yes, we desperately need OL help, but a good QB can cover up a lot of problems on a team. A great QB can down right take a bad OL to the SB, just like Warner and Big Ben did last year.

You stick Soup on the 91 Skins team and they don't even make the playoffs!

Here, here. You got that straight.

Big Ben is a classic example of a guy who makes plays on his own. He's been sacked and pressured more than Campbell, but doesn't lose sight of his targets down field.

The moment pressure appears, Campbell is looking for his dump off, instead of finding that extra second for a deep target to come open.

Ben is a different type of player than JC. Around the league, he's known as a guy who you can't bring down. Also, regardless of who's at RB, they have a ground game. We do not. They may not have stars on their line but they are effective enough to provide protection for ben to at least get back to his drop.

With JC, the big plays require a 7 step drop. He is not allowed to audible b/c I think that Zorn feels the play he called will always work. We also don't have WR's who get separation. We all can agree that no WR on this team can hold a candle to Ward or Santonio Holmes.

On another note, their top 3 lineman are very good. Chris Kemoeatu, Justin Hartwig and Willie Colon. They all are better than anyone we have on the line playing on Sunday.

Depending on where we pick, I'd look to trade down to acquire more picks, would also see if any vets can be traded for picks. This teams biggest problem along with poor coaching is depth and a lack of good young talent.

If they can get 4 picks in the first two rounds, that would be good. I would want 1-2 OL with those picks, a RB, a DL, and maybe a QB. OLB would be a consideration as well.

I think Campbell is much better than most, plus you can often find solid guys through free agency or after the first two rounds. Taking a QB with a top 5 pick is a big risk, and even more-so when playing with a poor O-Line, poor running game, and mediocre receivers.

In looking at LBR, you've got to find a true SAM linebacker so that Orakpo can go back to doing what he's known to do - rush the passer.

I also agree with your Campbell post. With a good oline, I think he's talented enough to work for us. But I think with him, time is running out and the negative environment from the fan base is enough to steer him to sign elsewhere should he be a free agent at the end of the season.

SnyderSucks wrote:Eleven teams times 16 games is 176 games. Someone will have to be the winner in each of those games. Of those, roughly a third of the time, those eleven teams will play each other. So roughly 60 times they play each other, and one way or another, someone has to win, barring 60 ties. So there is no way to split up 60 wins among eleven teams and have each of them win only 3 games.

where do some of you come up with "stuff" like this?

I'll give you 11 teams that could, highly unlikely, I'll agree, but they could end up with 3 wins or less: Detroit, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Seattle, St Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Oakland and Kansas City

my point remains that many posters here make all sorts of weird claims that are not factual

and then there are others that just love to point out how terrible this team is and that is just not really close either - we are managed terribly but we have been and most likely will continue to be a mediocre team

RayNAustin wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:If you have a chance for a "CAN'T MISS" lineman, you've got to take him. Could you imagine if we could get a 2nd coming of Chris Samuels and put him at RT? Man that would be nice.

You can't hope for tto much better than Samuels and Jansen in back to back season. We are 68 and 81 with Samuels as our starting LT. The year before we drafted Samuals we had Andy "who the" Heck playing LT and we won the division and a playoff game because we got good QB play from BJ.

In 05 we got good QB play from Brunell and we went to the playoffs and won a playoff game. In 2007 we got good QB play at he end of the season from TC and we went to the playoffs.

Yes, we desperately need OL help, but a good QB can cover up a lot of problems on a team. A great QB can down right take a bad OL to the SB, just like Warner and Big Ben did last year.

You stick Soup on the 91 Skins team and they don't even make the playoffs!

Here, here. You got that straight.

Big Ben is a classic example of a guy who makes plays on his own. He's been sacked and pressured more than Campbell, but doesn't lose sight of his targets down field.

The moment pressure appears, Campbell is looking for his dump off, instead of finding that extra second for a deep target to come open.

The Steelers O-Line is way better than the Skins has been since mid last season. The biggest reason for all the sacks is Big Ben himself. He holds the ball forever.

Also the Cards are a good pass blocking team.

A good O-Line is very important.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

I only measure the Redskins by their potential to be a "team" - right now IMO they are not a very good team or a really bad team

Actually a really bad team is exactly what we are right now.

isn't it fun to be able to come here and try and get a rise out of people by making such assinine comments like this - this is really helpful to the discussion - as we have seen, we have some issues but this team is not really bad, sorry

SkinsJock wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:Eleven teams times 16 games is 176 games. Someone will have to be the winner in each of those games. Of those, roughly a third of the time, those eleven teams will play each other. So roughly 60 times they play each other, and one way or another, someone has to win, barring 60 ties. So there is no way to split up 60 wins among eleven teams and have each of them win only 3 games.

where do some of you come up with "stuff" like this?

I'll give you 11 teams that could, highly unlikely, I'll agree, but they could end up with 3 wins or less: Detroit, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Seattle, St Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Oakland and Kansas City

my point remains that many posters here make all sorts of weird claims that are not factual

and then there are others that just love to point out how terrible this team is and that is just not really close either - we are managed terribly but we have been and most likely will continue to be a mediocre team

.

I understand your point, but it is "impossible" for the eleven teams you named to all finish with three or less wins, barring a bunch of ties. They simply play each other too often. Each of them plays one of the other teams at least 3 times, and as many as six times. I do agree that individually, each of those teams could win only three, but collectively as they play each other, they're going to rack up some wins.

SnyderSucks wrote:Eleven teams times 16 games is 176 games. Someone will have to be the winner in each of those games. Of those, roughly a third of the time, those eleven teams will play each other. So roughly 60 times they play each other, and one way or another, someone has to win, barring 60 ties. So there is no way to split up 60 wins among eleven teams and have each of them win only 3 games.

SkinsJock wrote: where do some of you come up with "stuff" like this?

I'll give you 11 teams that could, highly unlikely, I'll agree, but they could end up with 3 wins or less: Detroit, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Seattle, St Louis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Oakland and Kansas City

.

SnyderSucks wrote:I understand your point, but it is "impossible" for the eleven teams you named to all finish with three or less wins, barring a bunch of ties. They simply play each other too often. Each of them plays one of the other teams at least 3 times, and as many as six times. I do agree that individually, each of those teams could win only three, but collectively as they play each other, they're going to rack up some wins.

you obviously do not know when to stop - you should let this go and accept the fact that the 11 teams I have indicated can finish with less than 4 wins and no ties - highly unlikely but it could happen

just stop trying to make something out of this - it's over

btw - I'm glad you understand the point

SkinsJock wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

I only measure the Redskins by their potential to be a "team" - right now IMO they are not a very good team or a really bad team

Actually a really bad team is exactly what we are right now.

isn't it fun to be able to come here and try and get a rise out of people by making such assinine comments like this - this is really helpful to the discussion - as we have seen, we have some issues but this team is not really bad, sorry

Really? A 2-3 team that has lost to the Lions and Panthers (both teams with zero wins when we played them) and barely beat the Bucs and Rams is not a bad team? Wow, you must have some absurd criteria for what constitutes a bad team then.