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

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/f ... ref=sihpT1

I honestly do not know what to say about this. They have us one game better than the Rams? The hating has to stop. I don't even think we go to the playoffs but 8-8, 9-7, 10-6 seems very likely. 6-10?

with the schedule they have 6-10 would be horrific. At least ESPN has them at 8-8

brad7686 wrote:with the schedule they have 6-10 would be horrific. At least ESPN has them at 8-8

Yeah, they have 6 games against absolutely terrible teams. Budget 3 wins in division, and that's 9 right there, assuming they beat the bad teams. I'm personnally betting 10 wins.

6 wins happens if Samuels missing a significant portion of the season due to injury - I think the Oline would be really bad if he gets hurt. Heyer at LT and Williams at RT is just plain scary at this point.

Three wins in division?

That's high on the optimism, no?

RedskinsFreak wrote:Three wins in division?

That's high on the optimism, no?

I think 10 wins is optimistic. They won three in division last year. Purely a budget number - they'll likely win 2,3, or 4, so I went in the middle. Four if they are really lucky. I've had them pencilled in for a loss in the first game against the Giants, but with the Giants injuries, I'm becoming more optimistic. Still think it's a loss, but if things break right they could win. Might be catching them at the right time.

cleg wrote:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/09/01/main/index.html?eref=sihpT1

I honestly do not know what to say about this. They have us one game better than the Rams? The hating has to stop. I don't even think we go to the playoffs but 8-8, 9-7, 10-6 seems very likely. 6-10?

I don't think the Skins get the credit they deserve either. But maybe it's the Redskins fault?

We did lose to the Rams last year, didn't we? Game 6 ... and long before the injuries to Portis and the online?

The stats show that we ran for 181 yards, but passed for only 187. Portis had the only 2 TD's of the game for the Redskins, and the passing game was pathetic given the less than stellar Ram's defense.

As the devils advocate, the prognosticators may be anticipating a continuation of the offensive problems from last yea given no change to the position most important in a team's offense.

If we win consistently, this crap won't happen. It doesn't even faze me because the team has yet to do anything to deserve better. I understand that this is a low figure even for our mediocrity but so what? What is the team going to do to remedy it? Go 8-8 again? Are they going to go 10-6 this year and then 7-9 in 2010?

I can see us going 10-6 or better if we play like we did vs Pats...(with game planning of course). 6-10 is a joke.

SnyderSucks wrote:

RedskinsFreak wrote:Three wins in division?

That's high on the optimism, no?

I think 10 wins is optimistic. They won three in division last year. Purely a budget number - they'll likely win 2,3, or 4, so I went in the middle. Four if they are really lucky. I've had them pencilled in for a loss in the first game against the Giants, but with the Giants injuries, I'm becoming more optimistic. Still think it's a loss, but if things break right they could win. Might be catching them at the right time.

Not that I am predicting this to actually happen, but, 10-6 should be an easy mark to hit.

And 3-3 in the division should be too. The Giants offense is short handed with PB gone. And I think our defense will match them blow for blow, and then some.

Cowboys are a mess, and Roy Williams WILL NOT produce like TO.

Philly, by means of karma will have a less than spectacular year as Vick will be a net minus, and their defense may seriously miss JJ and Dawkins.

The big caveat is .. will Jason Campbell step up, and put points on the board. That's the only question mark.

i think si did this to make the odds of winning the superbowl movea against the skins so when their writers bet on them (cuse they see our talent) they can win big!

Whatever...

At first, I was like, "what the hell is SI thinking?" That was until I clicked the link and saw exactly who made that projection. Peter King. Gee... there's a surprise.

These projections mean nothing to me. It's always based largely in past on last year, and in many cases around the league, what a team did a year prior doesn't mean crap. For example, I think like 7 of the last 8 Super Bowl losers didn't even make the playoffs the following year.

By the way... King has three teams from the NFC North making the playoffs but only one team from the NFC East making the post season. He's got the Bears beating the Packers and the Vikings in the playoffs on their way to an appearance in the Super Bowl.

SkinsFreak wrote:Whatever...

At first, I was like, "what the hell is SI thinking?" That was until I clicked the link and saw exactly who made that projection. Peter King. Gee... there's a surprise.

These projections mean nothing to me. It's always based largely in past on last year, and in many cases around the league, what a team did a year prior doesn't mean crap. For example, I think like 7 of the last 8 Super Bowl losers didn't even make the playoffs the following year.

By the way... King has three teams from the NFC North making the playoffs but only one team from the NFC East making the post season. He's got the Bears beating the Packers and the Vikings in the playoffs on their way to an appearance in the Super Bowl.

Agreed.

I also really don't understand the Jay Cutler making the Bears a Super Bowl team thing. The guy simply is not a winner.

I just hope the Giants read these predictions and prepare for a 6-10 team!

Being overlooked isn't a bad thing.....

I also really don't understand the Jay Cutler making the Bears a Super Bowl team thing. The guy simply is not a winner.

That's a ridiculous statement. Cutler is a stud. It's not his fault that he played on crappy teams in Denver.

SkinsFreak wrote:Whatever...

At first, I was like, "what the hell is SI thinking?" That was until I clicked the link and saw exactly who made that projection. Peter King. Gee... there's a surprise.
These projections mean nothing to me. It's always based largely in past on last year, and in many cases around the league, what a team did a year prior doesn't mean crap. For example, I think like 7 of the last 8 Super Bowl losers didn't even make the playoffs the following year.

and it seems like every year we have to go through this with SI and especially P. King - I wonder if anyone has ever "tracked" this guy's predictions - what a bunch of drivel

cleg wrote:.. I also really don't understand the Jay Cutler making the Bears a Super Bowl team thing. The guy simply is not a winner.

say what IF the Bear's make it to the Super Bowl it will not be because of Jay Cutler - having a great QB is not an entry into the Super Bowl - HOWEVER - while you may not think Jay Cutler is a 'winner' - IMHO he happens to be one of the better QBs in the NFL and is a lot better QB and 'leader' than any QB in the NFC East

brad7686 wrote:with the schedule they have 6-10 would be horrific. At least ESPN has them at 8-8

....the thought comes: "ANY GIVEN SUNDAY"....yeah Baby!

10-6 is my prediction.

Everyone acknowledges our #4 defense got better, and that the young WRs seem ready to break out. How that translates to 2 more losses in PK's tiny brain is anyone's guess.

I personally love that we were picked to go 6-10....It seems every year the "experts" pick us to have a bad year, we surprise people and end up in the playoffs. These "experts" are no smarter than any of us posting on this board. Predicting sports is like predicting the weather, especially when it comes to the NFL.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:If we win consistently, this crap won't happen. It doesn't even faze me because the team has yet to do anything to deserve better. I understand that this is a low figure even for our mediocrity but so what? What is the team going to do to remedy it? Go 8-8 again? Are they going to go 10-6 this year and then 7-9 in 2010?

I could not agree more. We have always looked awesome on paper and thought we were a playoff team. But we never live up to potential. So we don't deserve a good prediction(not that they matter, it's just nice to see that the "experts" see us as a threat). I think this is the year they right the ship and consistantly get it done. At least I hope.

I could care less about this stuff. And I don't want any love or respect if we make a playoff run either.

The Skins have not done anything to earn a 1st place prediction or even a 8 win season prediction. Respect is earned not given.
I never really cared about predictions anyways.

The negatives. Our passing game is nearly non existent. Our pass protection is still a huge question mark.

The positives. We added two huge pieces to an already good defense. We landed the best defensive tackle to our defensive line. We added the best draft prospect at the defensive end in ORakpo which was huge.

Our running game has always been there. So what I expect to see is more smash mouth football this year. A one two punch with Portis and Betts.
All though I wish we can see one or two of our receivers getting 1000 yards. I just do not see it happening.


So the best recipe for success is an old tried and true football recipe.
Great defense and great running game. Some playaction mixed with punishing running game. Disciplined football. Good special teams. Time consuming offensive drives that lead to at least a field goal. With a shutdown defense.

I just looked at "The Sporting News" magazine that has the Skins finishing 4 and 12. I asked my friend (a P-burge fan) what he thinks their predictions was and he said, "Don’t say something crazy like 6-10".

The national media for some unknown reason is as absurdly down on the Skins as they are up on the Charger (I can't understand that either).

Who cares about repsect? It's not about repsect, it's about performance. Granted we haven't outperformed the Patriots or the Steelers, but for Pete's sake, we're not the freakin Lions or Browns, either.

We have 1 'loss' (if you consider Springs part time participation a loss) on D. We improved with Orakpo and Haynesworth.

We addressed SOME of the line with Dockery. We got depth on the line (arguably). Second year in the same system for JC and the receiving corps.

Our 2nd round draft picks are looking better this year in addition to Mitchell's red zone potential prowess (he's the best looking fade receiver we have IMO).

How, exactly, with the addition/loss we've had, does this constitute a degradation in performance from last year? I'd really like to hear it broken down. It appears that some people just like to whine and get down on the skins so they can be 'pleasantly surprised' when they're wrong.

VetSkinsFan wrote:Who cares about repsect? It's not about repsect, it's about performance. Granted we haven't outperformed the Patriots or the Steelers, but for Pete's sake, we're not the freakin Lions or Browns, either.

We have 1 'loss' (if you consider Springs part time participation a loss) on D. We improved with Orakpo and Haynesworth.

We addressed SOME of the line with Dockery. We got depth on the line (arguably). Second year in the same system for JC and the receiving corps.

Our 2nd round draft picks are looking better this year in addition to Mitchell's red zone potential prowess (he's the best looking fade receiver we have IMO).

How, exactly, with the addition/loss we've had, does this constitute a degradation in performance from last year? I'd really like to hear it broken down. It appears that some people just like to whine and get down on the skins so they can be 'pleasantly surprised' when they're wrong.

Word!