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

According to this article, we have been hit second hardest by the injury bug. We can hate on coaches, QB's, etc. but when you are a 3-4 win team the past few years, you do not have the depth to deal with these types of injuries like the Packers and Steelers who are number 1 and 3 on this list. If some of the people on this site were working at the disadvantage Gruden is, and evaluated by their boss the way you evaluate Gruden, there would be a lot of unemployed folks on this site with plenty of time to post. I don't think we can fairly evaluate the staff right now. I know, the problem is we have been saying this for years. The result was what seemed like an eternity with Haslett as the DC. I don't know, just seeing what you all think.

2. Washington Redskins

The Redskins faced the Jets with an offensive line that had combined to make 14 NFL starts. Their top two tight ends right now were both elsewhere at the start of training camp, with none of the team's projected top three options available. The Redskins' projected starting secondary has played one game together, including the preseason. It's been that kind of a year. At least they'll get left tackle Trent Williams and center Kory Lichtensteiger back sometime soon. The Redskins need to run the ball to be successful, but they've struggled there lately in part because of injuries. With left guard Shawn Lauvao in the lineup, Washington has averaged 5.18 yards on runs to the left side; that's dropped to 3.19 in the three games since his injury, according to ESPN Stats & Information. It's not all the fault of his backup, Spencer Long, but it is a steep drop. Lauvao was playing well. -- John Keim
Players out for season: DE Junior Galette (Achilles), TE Niles Paul (ankle), S Duke Ihenacho (wrist), TE Logan Paulsen (foot), OLB Adam Hayward (knee), G Shawn Lauvao (ankle), OLB Martrell Spaight (concussion), RB Silas Redd (knee), DB Justin Rogers (foot)
Players injured: WR DeSean Jackson (hamstring), CB DeAngelo Hall (toe), CB Chris Culliver (knee), TE Jordan Reed (concussion), ILB Perry Riley Jr. (calf), C Kory Lichtensteiger (shoulder/finger), T Trent Williams (concussion), RB Matt Jones (toe)
Total starts missed: 76 -- Galette (16), Paul (16), Ihenacho (15), Lauvao (13), Jackson (5), Hall (3), Culliver (2), Reed (2), Riley (2), Lichtensteiger (1), Williams (1)

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/32f ... teams-1-32

Yes and No. Injuries prevent a team from playing at its best level but this team's best level is below average.

I believe this is a very difficult question to answer...there are a lot of variables that don't allow a yes/no answer.

First, I don't believe it's all about the number of injuries.

I think it depends on where the injuries occur. If the injuries are spread out over different positions, or where you have quality backups or to NON-pro bowl level players -- no, not an excuse. Like, losing Crowder or Grant instead of DJax.

However, Losing...

1) Gallett -- Best pass rusher - not replaceable
2) Williams -- Pro Bowl LT -- not replaceable
3) DJax -- Pro Bowl deep threat WR -- not replaceable
4) Reed, Paul and Paulsen -- Losing 2 of 3 TEs before season, and losing number 3 for multiple games-- not replaceable
4) Culliver and Hall -- Top 2 cornerbacks -- one has been replaced
5) Kory L -- Starting Center - this can be replaced
6) Ihenacho -- Starting strong safety -- he was replaced
7) Hayward -- Best special teams player
Lauvao -- Starting LG -- should be replaceable

We lost 3 of 4 of the DBs we started the year with.
We lost our best pass rusher before the season began
We have a young qb, he needs a quality oline. Versus Jets we had 2 of the 5 starting OL in the game, and both of those guys were virtually first year guys.
We've lost a number of quality and important special teams players.
Losing Djax and Reed -- 2 of our 3 major weapons for our young qb.

I believe our injuries can be used as an excuse for our losing season so far.

The Redskins injury list is a fact and it has contributed to the play on the field or lack thereof - it is not an excuse - there are other factors that have not helped as well - this team is going through a rebuilding process and I don't think the record will be much different than if we had ended up with not as many injuries - don't get me wrong, the injuries have taken a toll but they also provided some other players with an opportunity and there have been a lot of other factors that have contributed to our play on the field - we might not get to 8 wins but we'll be close

Not an excuse per se, but a reason as to why they don't look as competitive as they should. Not saying that the injuries impact our W-L column, because this team still has plenty of holes to fill, but the injuries aren't helping the way the team can compete.

Yeah I agree with SJ. Nobody wants to hear excuses, but you can't deny the fact that we've been beat down with injuries. That list you put together... damn! 12 starting players?

Where do the Pukes rank on that list btw? They may not have the same number of players injured, but I think losing Romo AND Dez has to be as bad or worse than our situation.

SKIN4LIFE wrote:According to this article, we have been hit second hardest by the injury bug. We can hate on coaches, QB's, etc. but when you are a 3-4 win team the past few years, you do not have the depth to deal with these types of injuries like the Packers and Steelers who are number 1 and 3 on this list. If some of the people on this site were working at the disadvantage Gruden is, and evaluated by their boss the way you evaluate Gruden, there would be a lot of unemployed folks on this site with plenty of time to post. I don't think we can fairly evaluate the staff right now. I know, the problem is we have been saying this for years. The result was what seemed like an eternity with Haslett as the DC. I don't know, just seeing what you all think.

We actually do have the depth to deal with injuries. Just about the only position where an injury can cripple us is at safety. Everywhere else, we've got competent backups.

If we had either Rogers or Roethlisberger at quarterback, we'd be a zero- or one-loss team right now. Really the only piece we are missing to be a consistently competitive team is good QB play.

#1 on that list: Green Bay Packers. They seem to be doing just fine...... However, they aren't nearly as banged up as we are. The ratings are schewed because they don't evaluate the impact each injured player has for their respective team.

I think generally speaking, injuries shouldn't be an issue; after all, injuries are a forgone conclusion in the NFL. However, in our case, we are rebuilding. We are thin and lack depth due to years over years of poor drafting. Green Bay is one of, if not the, best drafting team in the NFL. This is why they aren't hurting in the same way. The fact they have one of the best QBs in the NFL doesn't hurt either.

For us, the injuries have killed us. Lets get real. The loss of DJax, Reed, and 3 OL is HUGE. Lauvano has been even more significant than everyone thought. Jones is even tough and concerning given he's a rookie. We don't have the depth to replace them all. Our roster isn't a "next man up" one similar to the top NFL teams. The DB situation has been rough, but the silver lining is that Breeland has stepped up; however, it takes 1 on each side. That said, it would be unrealistic to sit here and expect that we'd be injury free up to this point; however, if you had told me that we would have lost 12 starters by week 6, I'd be surprised. This is why depth is one of the most important aspects of an NFL roster -- something Danny boy's front office puppets (except for Scot, which doesn't appear to be the case) have never valued.

markshark84 wrote:#1 on that list: Green Bay Packers. They seem to be doing just fine...... However, they aren't nearly as banged up as we are. The ratings are schewed because they don't evaluate the impact each injured player has for their respective team.

I think generally speaking, injuries shouldn't be an issue; after all, injuries are a forgone conclusion in the NFL. However, in our case, we are rebuilding. We are thin and lack depth due to years over years of poor drafting. Green Bay is one of, if not the, best drafting team in the NFL. This is why they aren't hurting in the same way. The fact they have one of the best QBs in the NFL doesn't hurt either.

For us, the injuries have killed us. Lets get real. The loss of DJax, Reed, and 3 OL is HUGE. Lauvano has been even more significant than everyone thought. Jones is even tough and concerning given he's a rookie. We don't have the depth to replace them all. Our roster isn't a "next man up" one similar to the top NFL teams. The DB situation has been rough, but the silver lining is that Breeland has stepped up; however, it takes 1 on each side. That said, it would be unrealistic to sit here and expect that we'd be injury free up to this point; however, if you had told me that we would have lost 12 starters by week 6, I'd be surprised. This is why depth is one of the most important aspects of an NFL roster -- something Danny boy's front office puppets (except for Scot, which doesn't appear to be the case) have never valued.

Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL, not one of the best. I agree with the rest of this.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL, not one of the best. I agree with the rest of this.

LOL. It's not clear. A VERY easy case can be made for Tom Brady. Brady is superior to Rodgers in most all passing categories, except my personal favorite, QBR.

That said, from a statistical perspective including QBR, my boy Andy Dalton is the best QB in the league RIGHT NOW. It's not open and shut, which is why I said "one of".

markshark84 wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote: Rodgers is the best quarterback in the NFL, not one of the best. I agree with the rest of this.

LOL. It's not clear. A VERY easy case can be made for Tom Brady. Brady is superior to Rodgers in most all passing categories, except my personal favorite, QBR.

That said, from a statistical perspective including QBR, my boy Andy Dalton is the best QB in the league RIGHT NOW. It's not open and shut, which is why I said "one of".

I don't know. I think if you give all three the same receivers Rodgers accomplishes more. Dalton has AJ Green. Rodgers has Randall Cobb. Tyler Eifert has almost as many receptions as Cobb.

I wish we could use an injury excuse for the bad quarterback play by the Redskins. I don't think any of our quarterbacks could throw for 300 yards with a four receiver set of Julio Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, and AJ Green.

I just don't see this roster as being good enough for injuries to be the difference between 10-6 and 6-10.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I don't know. I think if you give all three the same receivers Rodgers accomplishes more. Dalton has AJ Green. Rodgers has Randall Cobb. Tyler Eifert has almost as many receptions as Cobb.

That may be the case, but that is an opinion. Statistically & currently, Dalton is having the best season. Historically, Brady is the best QB in the past decade. Rodgers is very good, but he's not CLEARLY the BEST QB in the NFL without argument.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I wish we could use an injury excuse for the bad quarterback play by the Redskins. I don't think any of our quarterbacks could throw for 300 yards with a four receiver set of Julio Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, and AJ Green.

That is pretty rough. Kirk is not a good QB, but you give him those 4 and time to work with them, I think he'd be okay.....

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:I just don't see this roster as being good enough for injuries to be the difference between 10-6 and 6-10.

I actually look at it in the complete opposite way. Teams with good enough rosters are actually the ones were injuries would NOT be the difference between 10-6 and 6-10. The best rosters are ones with depth. When you have good players all around you, no one particular injury is that costly because the other quality players will step up. Outside of the QB position, no one player wins you 4 games a season.

The teams with the best players generally are the ones that can absorb injuries and not let it affect the team as significantly as the teams with bad rosters and rely heavily on the production of a couple guys (like we do).

let's accept that injuries are a part of the NFL - having a lot of injuries affects the product on the field but it does not affect the product on the field as much when the franchise has good depth, especially on both lines

the Redskins have a lot of injuries and because they have been so badly managed they have very little depth

there have been some positives though, we have seen a number of players step up and show that they might have potential where we might not have seen that potential without having the injuries we've had

almost all the QBs in the NFL are talented including the back-ups - to say that Cousins might be a lot better with a good O line and great receivers is a statement that can be made about a lot of QBs ...... especially a lot of back-up QBs like Cousins

this franchise is showing signs of improvement and even considering the injuries, is better to watch each Sunday than last season

I actually look at it in the complete opposite way. Teams with good enough rosters are actually the ones were injuries would NOT be the difference between 10-6 and 6-10. The best rosters are ones with depth. When you have good players all around you, no one particular injury is that costly because the other quality players will step up. Outside of the QB position, no one player wins you 4 games a season.

The Colts with Manning as qb were playoffs every year. He injured his neck and the Colts won one game. Leading up to the draft that got the Colts Andrew Luck. Who then took the Colts who were previously 1-15 to the playoffs. One player can make a huge difference especially a great Qb. In fact most teams who lose a all pro starter immidiatley lose the following game at least.

HEROHAMO wrote:The Colts with Manning as qb were playoffs every year. He injured his neck and the Colts won one game. Leading up to the draft that got the Colts Andrew Luck. Who then took the Colts who were previously 1-15 to the playoffs. One player can make a huge difference especially a great Qb. In fact most teams who lose a all pro starter immidiatley lose the following game at least.

That is a VERY good example of my point. The Colts were a mediocre team in a poor division. Their MO was to destroy their weak division, go somewhere around 6-4 out of division and then lose in the first round of the playoffs. Their greatest asset was they play JACK, TEN, and HOU twice a year.....

Their roster was soft and when Manning went down, that roster was exposed. They had been going downhill fast after 2009 and by 2011 the roster had huge holes in it --- which is why they fired their GM......

PS -- They actually won 2 games that year. Make sure your facts are straight.