Skeptical That Redskins Can Win With Grossman Or Beck

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:10 pm

^^ Jim Miller is one of the few analysts that I have total respect for...

I'm concerned that he's trying so hard to get my hopes up... :-k

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:11 pm

It's a pretty good bet that a 6-10 / 7-9 year two will pretty much shut down any possibility of a year 3.

That's the concern I have. Shanny deserves three years, but I expect us to be 6-10 at best in 2011 and I have no idea how Snyder is going to react to that. We are likely going to have Grossman or Beck starting for us and given that fact anything better than 7-9 would probably be a miracle.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:17 pm

Once again, my point is these were reserves playing against an even better team than the Jags or Cowboys who had even more to gain then the Jags because if they went the play-off they would have played the Bears - a team they had beaten earlier in the season.

You're vastly overstating our use of reserves in those late season games.

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:30 pm

SkinsJock wrote:It's a little after 6pm and I was just listening to former QB Jim Miller on Sirius - in his words - "with Snyder's money and Allen and Shanahan running things, I'm certainly not going to be surprised if the Redskins don't do well and surprise a lot of people this year ... "

Miller feels that it's not out of the realm of possibility that MacNabb wants to play here and will do what it takes to be the starter
He says that would be the best scenario at QB for the Redskins

He likes both the RB out of Nebraska (Helu??) and the WR from Miami (Hankerson) - He thinks we may have found a NT, and would not be surprised if we did not make a big effort to keep as many of our own free agents as possible and maybe add some more key components

I'll be honest .. Miller had me thinking we just might be a lot better than I thought THIS YEAR

I know we've been a bad franchise as far as pre season expectations go - BUT ... NOT with these 2 in charge

6 wins to 9 or 10 wins is pretty big to me

9 or 10 wins?!?!?! I'm not sure we will play 9 or 10 games!

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:08 pm

let's just say - IN THE NEXT DRAFT - I'm pretty sure we're not going to be picking in the top 9 - no matter how many games are played

I'm not sure who will be the QB but I think this group might just be a little better than I thought a few weeks ago

GEEZ - I hope we get back to 'business' real soon :roll:

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:14 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I'll be honest .. Miller had me thinking we just might be a lot better than I thought THIS YEAR

I know we've been a bad franchise as far as pre season expectations go - BUT ... NOT with these 2 in charge

6 wins to 9 or 10 wins is pretty big to me

Couldn't have said it better myself.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:30 pm

Miller feels that it's not out of the realm of possibility that MacNabb wants to play here and will do what it takes to be the starter
He says that would be the best scenario at QB for the Redskins

Nothing good would come from McNabb being with the team next year. The OC and qb relationship is arguably the most important on a football team and clearly the relationship between McNabb and Kyle is broken. Generally when a player's agent and his coach got at through the media, that's a sign that it's time to move on. McNabb staying on this team would result in drama and more dysfunction.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:11 am

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Once again, my point is these were reserves playing against an even better team than the Jags or Cowboys who had even more to gain then the Jags because if they went the play-off they would have played the Bears - a team they had beaten earlier in the season.

You're vastly overstating our use of reserves in those late season games.

Rob Jackson,, Kevin Barnes at safety, HB Blades, Anthony Bryant, Macho Harris, Jeremy Jarmon, Joe Joseph, Perry Riley, Anderson Russell, Darrrion Scott, Byron Westbrook, Chris Wilson, Rex Grossman, Logan Paulsen, Brandon Banks at wide out, and Darrell Young playing in those games.

I saw as many as five of these guys on the field at one time on defense. I do know that Shanny didn't wait until the second half in any of the three games to start substituting and I do know that even when the Dallas game got close, he didn't put all the starters back in. If you feel that this is vastly overstating our use of reserves then I will respect your opinion and leave it at that.

I do want to point out that Shanny was evaluating players so it seems that a true evaluation would not have all back ups playing since a coach might want to see how a player plays with guys who will be on the team. Also, playing all back ups at one time throughout the game would possibly constitute tanking.

On another note:

I left off these guys because they either started at one time during the season or they were part of packages. I did not take the time while watching the game to try to see if these guys were playing in the starter's role or playing in their packages.

Fred Davis, Phillip Buchanon, Terrance Austin, Andre Carter at linebacker since he started the season there but played LB at times in those games, Vonnie Holliday, Artis Hicks (not sure that he even played - I did not see him at all, Stephon Heyer, Reed Doughty back up for Landry

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:07 am

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Miller feels that it's not out of the realm of possibility that MacNabb wants to play here and will do what it takes to be the starter
He says that would be the best scenario at QB for the Redskins

Nothing good would come from McNabb being with the team next year. The OC and qb relationship is arguably the most important on a football team and clearly the relationship between McNabb and Kyle is broken. Generally when a player's agent and his coach got at through the media, that's a sign that it's time to move on. McNabb staying on this team would result in drama and more dysfunction.

"McNabb staying on this team would result in drama and more dysfunction"

I disagree - the players & coaches want the better QB - IF McNabb shows he's able to handle this & put it behind him, he's the better QB

Nobody here feels that McNabb will be the Redskins' QB unless Kyle & Mike feel that he will be the best option for them at QB

I don't think that it's possible that NcNabb and Kyle can repair their relationship ... it's NOT imposssible

I don't think that McNabb will be a part of this franchise ... but as of today, he's still a Redskin :wink:

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:46 am

I disagree - the players & coaches want the better QB - IF McNabb shows he's able to handle this & put it behind him, he's the better QB

Kyle didn't want the team to trade for McNabb. Once he got here they didn't get along and Kyle wanted to play Rex instead. What in the world makes you think that Kyle wants McNabb as his qb????

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:00 am

AGREED - however, McNabb is still a part of this franchise

no matter - this franchise might end up with Luck as QB but I feel very confident that they will not be as bad as your signature indicates :lol:

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:08 am

Red_One43 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Our games proved that we were not a good team not that everyone's players were better than ours, pure and simple.

I disagree. You look at last year's team and it is clear that there was a significant lack of talent, and, in particular, speed. Sure, year two in s scheme will help somewhat, but the main problem is lack of talent at key positions all throughout the roster. It's going to take a while to build our roster.

Wouldn't that be rather obvious in year 1 of changing offensive and defensive schemes? There is a lot of turnover and the talent to run the 4-3 is different than the talent needed to run 3-4. I believe this subject has been beaten to death.

The offense was just lacking in general IMO. I got nothin for that.

I have to agree with your "the talent to run the 4-3 is different than the talent needed to run 3-4." We definitely need to get more guys who fit the scheme like Cullen Jenkins but they have to be "team first" guys as well."

Subject beaten to death? Aw shucks! I am just having fun and high anxiety as the rollercoaster reports roll in about the possible agreement this week.

Offense definitely is definitely lacking overall when compared to the D. I here you on that.

It seems like there is a consensus that it will take at least another
offeason of drafting and free agency to get us ready to compete for a play off run. My point is we have enough scheme talent to improve and play competative ball this year with Beck or Grossman at QB. My biggest selling point is look at the last three games, especially the last two when we sent reserves to play against two play off hungry teams. The Dallas game, the shuffling of the roster hurt us early, but these guys pulled it together especially the special special teamers who were atrocious early on on punt coverage. Nobody has yet to explain how reserves put in such a strong showing against mostly regulars who had every incentive to win (Giants and Jaguars - play-off; Dallas playing an arch rival at home) if our roster was so bad across the board. If one says, they were fighting for their jobs so they were playing at a high level then that supports my point that it is execution and high motor that can trump talent. See George Allen's "Over The Hill Gang." We all know Shanny is not going to let the roster sit as it is, so we can anticipate him adding his guys to that mix that we saw at the end of the season with Grossman as QB and YES there will be an upgrade in talent for the guys that Shanny signs for free agency. We aren't expected to win a championship with Grossman at QB, but all is not lost either and with key upgrades, we might even surprise a lot of folks.

I don't really know why but terms like "team-first guy" and "high-motor guy" just set my teeth to grinding. First of all, almost everyone does everything he can to help his team win and almost everyone attempts to "execute" if they want to stay in the league. Guys like Haynesworth are few and far apart. Second, I don't even know what high-motor means-- well conditioned? determined? tries hard on every play?, etc. Whatever,
it should be obvious to everyone that the NFL is not a league in which effort and execution trump talent very often. Usually, talented players come against you as hard as they can and execute well. Unfortunately, nothing we have can stand up to that. That's why we usually lose. Basically, we only play good games against teams that come in flat. We lose close games because slumping teams that take up for granted eventually wake up during the course of games, especially in the second half. Talent usually prevails because intangibles even out. The notion that we are almost as good as the teams that barely beat us is an illusion. Our players, as I've said, are simply not good enough. We need to spend some bucks, high motor and team guys not withstanding.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:33 am

Red_One43 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Along with Hall, Fletcher, Orakpo and Landry. We had Rogers, Rocky, Albert, Golston, Doughty, Daniels, Zo, Jarmon, Carter, HB Blades, Chris Wilson, Westbrook, Horton, Barnes, Moore on our 2009 top 10 defense.

Landry has yet to actually live up to his full potential. For all the hype he gets for some of his big hits, he can't cover, commits too many stupid penalties, and misses too many routine plays.

Albert - hasn't done anything here.

Golston is average at best, Doughty is a bench player, Daniels is over-the-hill, Zo doesn't have a real position, Jarmon hasn't done anything, Carter doesn't fit the defense and will be gone, Wilson is a role player, Blades has never been a full-time starter, Westbrook is a back up, and Hornton/Barnes/Moore wouldn't start on most teams.

In all honesty, the only players that we have on D that are consistent, top-level players are Orakpo and Fletcher. Pretty much everyone else is replaceable.

I believe that your argument is solid when you say that we have few top level players. I like your argument here and I agree with you that we need to upgrade the roster to make a championship run and as you said it will take awhile. - I define awhile as another off season.

My point is talent is not everything. The same guys that you listed above that aren't top level guys, pulled it together in a scheme that they fit and ranked in the top ten in defense and that was with an offense that had trouble scoring points. These guys knew their roles and they executed properly. They bent, as was Blatche's philosophy - don't give up the big play, but they seldom broke. Yes, with more talent, they may have been a dominating defense, but my point is, our season, this year, is not going to be another disasterous season because of the roster we have. My point, is knowing the schemes this year and a few free agent additions, a good high motor rookie class (who are not the most talented at their positions), a QB in tune with the OC, and the fact that this will be Shanny's team, we will see a team that is showing identityy and showing that we are headed in the right direction.

Adding guys who have limited skills aren't going to help us much. We need better match ups, on the OL in particular. The only guy on the OL last year who graded out as better than "below" average for the NFL was Montgomery. The problem at left tackle is not solved, and Williams, at this point, doesn't seem too dedicated. The DL was also terrible, and we have only one prospect there, one who it is hoped will be adequate. Still, no NT.
There's no indication the team is headed in the right direction. Kerrigan was the 4th ranked linebacker coming out of college last year and may or may not be a player. Hankerson is a long shot. The only new bright spots last year were AA (adequate) and Banks (a top returner). The defence took a turn for the worse. We know longer have QB of much talent. Face it, guys, there's no reason to think we're headed in the right direction.

It is even arguable that we lost our two best players because of attitude problems or conflicts with coaches (take your pick). Even if McNabb can be considered a victim of age, the loss is still there. Worse, our D suddenly became the worse D in the league. I do not know how anyone can say we made progress.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:34 am

Red_One43 wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Along with Hall, Fletcher, Orakpo and Landry. We had Rogers, Rocky, Albert, Golston, Doughty, Daniels, Zo, Jarmon, Carter, HB Blades, Chris Wilson, Westbrook, Horton, Barnes, Moore on our 2009 top 10 defense.

Landry has yet to actually live up to his full potential. For all the hype he gets for some of his big hits, he can't cover, commits too many stupid penalties, and misses too many routine plays.

Albert - hasn't done anything here.

Golston is average at best, Doughty is a bench player, Daniels is over-the-hill, Zo doesn't have a real position, Jarmon hasn't done anything, Carter doesn't fit the defense and will be gone, Wilson is a role player, Blades has never been a full-time starter, Westbrook is a back up, and Hornton/Barnes/Moore wouldn't start on most teams.

In all honesty, the only players that we have on D that are consistent, top-level players are Orakpo and Fletcher. Pretty much everyone else is replaceable.

I believe that your argument is solid when you say that we have few top level players. I like your argument here and I agree with you that we need to upgrade the roster to make a championship run and as you said it will take awhile. - I define awhile as another off season.

My point is talent is not everything. The same guys that you listed above that aren't top level guys, pulled it together in a scheme that they fit and ranked in the top ten in defense and that was with an offense that had trouble scoring points. These guys knew their roles and they executed properly. They bent, as was Blatche's philosophy - don't give up the big play, but they seldom broke. Yes, with more talent, they may have been a dominating defense, but my point is, our season, this year, is not going to be another disasterous season because of the roster we have. My point, is knowing the schemes this year and a few free agent additions, a good high motor rookie class (who are not the most talented at their positions), a QB in tune with the OC, and the fact that this will be Shanny's team, we will see a team that is showing identityy and showing that we are headed in the right direction.

Adding guys who have limited skills aren't going to help us much. We need better match ups, on the OL in particular. The only guy on the OL last year who graded out as better than "below" average for the NFL was Montgomery. The problem at left tackle is not solved, and Williams, at this point, doesn't seem too dedicated. The DL was also terrible, and we have only one prospect there, one who it is hoped will be adequate. Still, no NT.
There's no indication the team is headed in the right direction. Kerrigan was the 4th ranked linebacker coming out of college last year and may or may not be a player. Hankerson is a long shot. The only new bright spots last year were AA (adequate) and Banks (a top returner). The defence took a turn for the worse. We know longer have QB of much talent. Face it, guys, there's no reason to think we're headed in the right direction.

It is even arguable that we lost our two best players because of attitude problems or conflicts with coaches (take your pick). Even if McNabb can be considered a victim of age, the loss is still there. Worse, our D suddenly became the worse D in the league. I do not know how anyone can say we made progress.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:36 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:
I don't really know why but terms like "team-first guy" and "high-motor guy" just set my teeth to grinding. First of all, almost everyone does everything he can to help his team win and almost everyone attempts to "execute" if they want to stay in the league. Guys like Haynesworth are few and far apart. Second, I don't even know what high-motor means-- well conditioned? determined? tries hard on every play?, etc. Whatever,
it should be obvious to everyone that the NFL is not a league in which effort and execution trump talent very often. Usually, talented players come against you as hard as they can and execute well. Unfortunately, nothing we have can stand up to that. That's why we usually lose. Basically, we only play good games against teams that come in flat. We lose close games because slumping teams that take up for granted eventually wake up during the course of games, especially in the second half. Talent usually prevails because intangibles even out. The notion that we are almost as good as the teams that barely beat us is an illusion. Our players, as I've said, are simply not good enough. We need to spend some bucks, high motor and team guys not withstanding.

Football is a business as well as a team sport. Some players ephasize the business more than the sport. There have been plenty of cases throughout the years of players shutting down after they get their big pay day besides Haynesworth. Remember Dana Stubblefield? Rather than list several players let's look at a team. The 2010 Dallas Cowboys a Super Bowl favorite of many in last year's preseason's polls.

2010 Dallas Cowboys regular season record.

Washington Redskins L 7–13
Chicago Bears L 20–27
Houston Texans W 27–13
Tennessee Titans L 27–34
Minnesota Vikings L 21–24
New York Giants L 35–41
Jacksonville Jaguars L 17–35
Green Bay Packers L 7–45
New York Giants W 33–20
Detroit Lions W 35–19
New Orleans Saints L 27–30
Indianapolis Colts W 38–35 (OT)
Philadelphia Eagles L 27–30
Washington Redskins W 33–30
Arizona Cardinals L 26–27
Philadelphia Eagles W 14-13

The Cowboys start out 1-5 granted its a tough schedule but they were supposed to beat most of these teams including the Skins. Then what happens, the bottom falls out - The are slaughtered by Jax. Jax? Are you kidding me? If you saw the Monday nighter against the Packers, you will know that these professional athletes, the ones you believe almost always do what it takes to win, quit in two straight games and never really played up to their ability to start with. It was noted in preseason games that the Cowboys looked flat, but folks said, "It's preseason!" The Cowboys are one of the highest paid teams in the NFL. High motor teams are your Steelers, Pats, Colts and now Packers - each of these teams let high priced divas go when they want more money. How many Steeler LBs have you seen walk without the big contracts only to see a guy like James Harrison who was cut multiple times move in and take their places with the same all pro play? (Kendrell Bell, Larry Foote (returned), Mike Merriweather, Chad Brown, Kevin Greene, and Joey Porter. How is it so easy for the Steelers to develop so many linebackers over so many years? Remembe James Harrison was cut several times. How many receivers for the Pats were let go because they wanted more money. These teams have seen light and keep the hungry players and coach them up. Guys like Atonio Pierce and Ryan Clark who Snyder didn't like who now have Super Bowl rings. They aren't and weren't the best at their positions but they played every down and are students of the game -study their assignments - first on the field and last to leave. McNabb is not a first on the field and last off type of guy that Shanahan wants and looks for - how he goofed here is another story, but I mention McNabb only as an example of a guy who is not a high motor guy. McNabb is clearly talented but doesn't work on his mechanics and doesn't do not overtime.

Let's get back to the Cowboys. Phillips is fired after the Packer blowout. The Cowboys are 1- 7. They win two striaght and lose to N.O. when Roy Williams is stripped after taking the game clinching (not winning ) pass to the 5 yard line. That was in the last two minutes game would have been over the Cowboys would have run out the clock. Roy Williams is an example of a big fat pay check diva who underachieves. They beat the Cots in OT in Indy. Lose to the Eagles in a close game. Beat the Skins. They are now 5-9. They lose to the Cardinals by one with a Cardinal DB has two long TD returns. They beat the Eagles in the last game for 6-10. These same Cowboy players who went 1-7. Go 5-3 the rest of the way and even more amazing is their 3 losses were not indicative of bad team play. How do you explain that the same players could start out so bad and then turn it around, pretty much 180 degrees? Remember, this was considered to be a talented team. My answer, as professionals, they weren't concerned about work ethic and going out on the field with high motors and giving it all they had. Wade Phillips phhilosophy is - You are a grown man, I don't need to tell you what to do to prepare. Once they got a new coach who instilled discipline and work ethic, things changed big time for them, but it was too late to salvage their season. YES! That is a good thing!

High motor means working hard in practice to get the scheme down and the technique. It means working late when necessary. It means during games, playing every play like it will determine the the outcome of the game. Leave nothing on the field. It mean execute the game plan as planned or adjusted. It means being a student of the game, learn from mistakes. Study the game plan and the film.

In the NFL, not every team comes to play. Are the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Colts so much more talented than everyone else? Look at the Chargers another talented underchieving team. They didn't make the play offs. A medicore team like the Raiders with systemic problems ran the table in the AFC West. How does this happen? Again, this is a business. Teams that see it like a business, throwing money at players, at best, get a play off every now and then. Sounds like a team we know. Teams that understand the business and understand team first, consistently win. Look for the Atlanta Falcons to join this club. I believe that under Shanahan we will join this club as well. Dallas Cowboys 2010 season is a perfect example of what happens when guys don't put team first and what happens when they turn around and decide to put team first. Same players, but different results when the emphasis changed.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:00 pm

Are the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Colts so much more talented than everyone else?

Yes, they generally are. And a big reason for it is their qbs. Their are other reasons that contribute to their success, but talent is the major reason for their success.

Look at the Chargers another talented underchieving team. They didn't make the play offs.

They still finished with a winning record, which is better than a lot of other NFL teams. I don't think it's fair to call them underachieving either. They had injuries on offense and have a lot of holes on defense.

A medicore team like the Raiders with systemic problems ran the table in the AFC West. How does this happen?

I'm not sure what your point is. The Raiders finished with a .500 record.[/quote]

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:52 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Are the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Colts so much more talented than everyone else?

Yes, they generally are. And a big reason for it is their qbs. Their are other reasons that contribute to their success, but talent is the major reason for their success.

Look at the Chargers another talented underchieving team. They didn't make the play offs.

They still finished with a winning record, which is better than a lot of other NFL teams. I don't think it's fair to call them underachieving either. They had injuries on offense and have a lot of holes on defense.

A medicore team like the Raiders with systemic problems ran the table in the AFC West. How does this happen?

I'm not sure what your point is. The Raiders finished with a .500 record.

[/quote]

Talent certainly helps, but it's not everything. Football is a team sport. Skill sets have to fit together & coaches have to make best use of players skills. A perfect example is McNabb. He obviously has talent, with 6 Pro Bowls to proove it. He played poorly last year becauxe Kyle didn't use him properly.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:03 pm

yupchagee wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Are the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Colts so much more talented than everyone else?

Yes, they generally are. And a big reason for it is their qbs. Their are other reasons that contribute to their success, but talent is the major reason for their success.

Look at the Chargers another talented underchieving team. They didn't make the play offs.

They still finished with a winning record, which is better than a lot of other NFL teams. I don't think it's fair to call them underachieving either. They had injuries on offense and have a lot of holes on defense.

A medicore team like the Raiders with systemic problems ran the table in the AFC West. How does this happen?

I'm not sure what your point is. The Raiders finished with a .500 record.

Talent certainly helps, but it's not everything. Football is a team sport. Skill sets have to fit together & coaches have to make best use of players skills. A perfect example is McNabb. He obviously has talent, with 6 Pro Bowls to proove it. He played poorly last year becauxe Kyle didn't use him properly.[/quote]

He's also 34 years old, was traded by his team to a division rival, hasn't finished in the top 10 in qb rating since 2007, and has been to the Pro Bowl once since 2004. At this stage in his career his is not a top 10 player at his position.

And nobody in this thread is saying that talent is everything, it isn't.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:42 pm

It's also interesting that a player is often perceived as a "talented" player because of the success of the team around him - many times these players are not as "talented" as judged by the media & fans and are just a part of a successful team

we're all saying the same thing - talent is great but it's not nearly as important as having players that suit what the DC and OC want to do - bringing in talented players that do not suit what the coaches need is what this franchise has been very good at for over 10 years

McNabb might not be in the top 10 in your opinion but if he had done what he's capable of and applied his abilities in the manner that Kyle wanted him to we would not be so anxious as to who is going to lead this franchise for the next year or 2

McNabb still has a lot to give in the right situation

McNabb is still a better QB than 22 other starting QBs in the NFL

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:22 pm

Red:

Are the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Colts so much more talented than everyone else?

Canes:

Yes, they generally are. And a big reason for it is their qbs. Their are other reasons that contribute to their success, but talent is the major reason for their success.

Steelers still won with Neil O"Donnell - went to the Super Bowl with him. They still won with Kordell Stewart -went to the AFC championship with him.

What sets these teams apart from others is that for years they have been letting talented players who ask for more money go. They take cast offs like James Harrison and make them in to a talent. Few of the star LB's that they let go had the kind of success on other teams that they had with the Steelers. Take a look at the Steelers Offensive line - definitely one of the least talented offensive lines.

Joe Gibb's system has produced three Super Bowls with three different QB's. What was missing to keep the Redskins a consistent winner - a front office that knew the secret of the Colts, Steelers, Pats, and I now include the Packers not just because they won a Super Bowl, they have been winning. After the Super Bowl, they decided to let guys test the market when other teams over pay to keep them. Notice that Shanhan has this practice and who did he visit on his year off? The Pats. Whose Defense does Haslett mirror - the Steelers.

Red:

Look at the Chargers another talented underchieving team. They didn't make the play offs.

Canes:

They still finished with a winning record, which is better than a lot of other NFL teams. I don't think it's fair to call them underachieving either. They had injuries on offense and have a lot of holes on defense.

The Chargers were 14-2 the season before Norv took over. Each year of Norv's years they were considered favorites because of their talent to include their QB. Each year they failed to produce. Injuires and holes? Like I said, they do not belong in the category of Pats, Steelers, and Colts. The Packers had 18 guys on injured reserve and still won the Super Bowl. When Bob Sanders went down, the Colts replaced him with Melvin Bullet and he played like an all-pro. I mentioned that James Harrison was cast off several times, but not enough that the Steelers didn't develop him as a talent. This is why the teams I mentioned keep winning. Injuries may slow them down but they do not derail them. They don't have holes because they develop their own.

Red:

A medicore team like the Raiders with systemic problems ran the table in the AFC West. How does this happen?

Canes:

I'm not sure what your point is. The Raiders finished with a .500 record.

Fair enough. I wasn't referring to just this season in referring to the Raiders as mediocre. This season they were average. I should have said a mediocre organization. My point was an average less "talented" (I put that in quote because I don't emphasis talent as to why teams when and lose) ran the table in a division with the more "talented" Chargers whose QB is head and shoulders above the Raiders QB and the division of the more "talented" Chiefs."

The only thing I agree with you is a team must have talent ( I assume we mean by talent - top level - top at their position talent) at key positions. The Gibbs I SB teams did not have top level talent at the QB but their QBs played like top talent. One key talent was in their offensive line, but give Buges some credit for finding and coacching up Jacoby. Give Jacoby credit for switching himself form offense to defense - this was a high motor move by a high motor player.

"Talent" is such a subjective concept. Nobody is going to agree on a top 10 at each position or even a top 15. Often players are selected to the Pro Bowl because the team is winning. The Pro Bowl roster is ,at least, a good dicsussion point on who has the most talent.

Atlanta Falcons - 9-#1 - Did very well but didn't win it all even though they had a clear lead in the NFC (next highest 6) in the number of talented players.
Patriots - 8 - no surprise to anyone

Dallas - tied for third with 6 - like I said in my earlier post - Dallas is often regarded as the most talented team record for 2010: 6-10 just like the Redskins

Steelers - 4 - tied for 11th place with 6 other teams. Dolphins, Raiders, Chargers (guess I was wrong about talent here - they are only as talented as the Steelers), Bears (What is a NFC Championship runner up doing down here?), Vikings (Favre from pro bowl to dog house), Titans.

Redskins - 3 - 1 LESS THAN THE STEELERS tied for 12th with 5 other teams - including the JETS (AFC Championship runner ups)

Only the Bengals and the Seahawks had none. Bengals makes sense, but SEAHAWKS? Didn't they beat the Saints in the first round of the play-offs?

Pro Bowl Selections by team:

AFC Team Selections NFC Team Selections
New England Patriots 8 Atlanta Falcons 9
Kansas City Chiefs 6 Dallas Cowboys 6
Baltimore Ravens 5 Green Bay Packers 6
Indianapolis Colts 5 New Orleans Saints 5
Miami Dolphins 4 New York Giants 5
Oakland Raiders 4 Philadelphia Eagles 5
Pittsburgh Steelers 4 Chicago Bears 4
San Diego Chargers 4 Minnesota Vikings 4
Tennessee Titans 4 Arizona Cardinals 3
Houston Texans 3 Carolina Panthers 3
Jacksonville Jaguars 3 Washington Redskins 3
New York Jets 3 Detroit Lions 2
Cleveland Browns 2 San Francisco 49ers 2
Denver Broncos 2 St. Louis Rams 1
Buffalo Bills 1 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1
Cincinnati Bengals 0 Seattle Seahawks 0

Once again, my evaluation of Pro Bowl numbers isn't scientific but judging who is most talented never is and never will be. I think that we will agree that talent is needed at key positions which is still only part of the ingredients of a consistent winning franchise.

Let's look at he Packers who have joined that club

Excellent Front Office
Excellent Coaching
Talent at key positions
Not willing to over pay players that don't merit it (ie not in a key position)
High motor team core
Develop their own players - Depth

(Remember Shanny is not just trying to get us a play off season and then back to losing - his stated goal is to build a foundation to keep this franchise winning for years to come. Front Office - not excellent but improving; Coaching - improving; Talent at key positions - NEEDS WORK; Not willing to over pay - Looks like we are headed there; High Motor Core - working on it; Develop own players - working in on it. Long way to go to be consistent winners, but that does take time - but this doens't mean that we can't have a good season before the foundation is complete - see Packers below)

With this formula, the Pack have been consistent winners even with a coaching change and even after letting go a Hall of Famer (Favre) who was in a key talent position. After each down year, they bounced back. I expect them to stay up there now.

Coach Mike ShermanGB 2000 9 7 0 .563 3rd in NFC Central - - - -
GB 2001 12 4 0 .750 2nd in NFC Central 1 1 .500 Lost to St. Louis Rams in NFC Divisional Game
GB 2002 12 4 0 .750 1st in NFC North 0 1 .000 Lost to Atlanta Falcons in NFC Wild-Card Game
GB 2003 10 6 0 .625 1st in NFC North 1 1 .500 Lost to Philadelphia Eagles in NFC Divisional Game
GB 2004 10 6 0 .625 1st in NFC North 0 1 .000 Lost to Minnesota Vikings in NFC Wild-Card Game
GB 2005 4 12 0 .250 4th in NFC North - - -

Coach Mike McCarthy
GB 2006 8 8 0 .500 2nd in NFC North - - - -
GB 2007 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC North 1 1 .500 Lost to New York Giants in NFC Championship Game.
GB 2008 6 10 0 .375 3rd in NFC North - - - -
GB 2009 11 5 0 .688 2nd in NFC North 0 1 .000 Lost to Arizona Cardinals in NFC Wild-Card Game.
GB 2010 10 6 0 .625 2nd in NFC North 4 0 1.000 Super Bowl XLV Champions

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:28 pm

yupchagee wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Are the Pats, Steelers, Packers, and Colts so much more talented than everyone else?

Yes, they generally are. And a big reason for it is their qbs. Their are other reasons that contribute to their success, but talent is the major reason for their success.

Look at the Chargers another talented underchieving team. They didn't make the play offs.

They still finished with a winning record, which is better than a lot of other NFL teams. I don't think it's fair to call them underachieving either. They had injuries on offense and have a lot of holes on defense.

A medicore team like the Raiders with systemic problems ran the table in the AFC West. How does this happen?

I'm not sure what your point is. The Raiders finished with a .500 record.

Talent certainly helps, but it's not everything. Football is a team sport. Skill sets have to fit together & coaches have to make best use of players skills. A perfect example is McNabb. He obviously has talent, with 6 Pro Bowls to proove it. He played poorly last year becauxe Kyle didn't use him properly.[/quote]

Well said!

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:30 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:And nobody in this thread is saying that talent is everything, it isn't.

We agree on this statement

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:37 pm

SkinsJock wrote:It's also interesting that a player is often perceived as a "talented" player because of the success of the team around him - many times these players are not as "talented" as judged by the media & fans and are just a part of a successful team

we're all saying the same thing - talent is great but it's not nearly as important as having players that suit what the DC and OC want to do - bringing in talented players that do not suit what the coaches need is what this franchise has been very good at for over 10 years

Well said!

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:24 pm

What sets these teams apart from others is that for years they have been letting talented players who ask for more money go.

Ok, who are all of these talented players that the Colts, Steelers, Pats, and Packers let go that ask for more money? I'm not saying that they don't let some players go, but every team does. We did it with Antonio Pierce, for example. If anything, what has kept the teams that you mention successful is their ability to develop players and then retain them. Just think for how long Manning and Wayne, for example, have been together. Sure, you can point to guys like Asante Samuel (who the Pats still haven't adequately replaced) but there are examples like that with every NFL team. And for every Asante Samuel, you can also point to an Adalius Thomas that they've paid big money for.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:32 pm

The Chargers were 14-2 the season before Norv took over. Each year of Norv's years they were considered favorites because of their talent to include their QB. Each year they failed to produce. Injuires and holes? Like I said, they do not belong in the category of Pats, Steelers, and Colts.

How to the Chargers not produce? They've won their division four out of the last five years and are a consistent playoff contender. Before last season, what differentiated the Chargers and the Packers? You can't just point to a team that hasn't won a Super Bowl recently and say that they've failed to produce. I would LOVE for the Skins to have the kind of success that the Chargers have had in the last five or so years.