Page 1 of 1
For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:17 pm
by Burgundy&GoldForever
“The redskins are winning 11 games next year,” Chris C00ley said on ESPN 980 Thursday morning. “The Redskins are a building team that when you look around at the eyes of the people in the building, you’re told we’re damn good. We’re really good. The Redskins are winning 11 games next year. …
“The team is so the Seattle Seahawks of 2012, with a little bit more experience at quarterback and maybe a little less talent on defense,” C00ley later said. “They’re winning 11 games, I’ll tell you that, and I’ll give you this as a bold prediction: 12 won’t surprise me. I’m going to say it right now, June 30, before anyone else gets into this, before anyone else jumps on this bandwagon: they’re winning 11 games. They’re winning the division.”
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:03 pm
by riggofan
hah. Love the optimism. I'd love to share in it, but I feel like I gotta see the D in action first. Still feel like they were probably luckier than good last year.
I'd also say as a longtime Skins fan I'm all too aware of the perils of expectations coming off a first round playoff loss the previous year.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:36 pm
by Prowl33
ey was over optimistic for saying 11 games minimum, but I think 11 games is possible and realistic.
The defense doesn't worry me as much as the run game, with a good run game the offense could carry a terrible defense, which we are far from a terrible defense, but if the run game collapses and brings the pass game along with it, that's what will bring us down
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:59 am
by SkinsJock
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:03 am
by langleyparkjoe
Oh pleeeeaaasseeee.... everyone knows how it'll go down...
5-1 in the NFC East with our only loss to the Giants in NY.
10-6 overall record.. NFC East champs.
Either that or we go undefeated and I get to go out on a date with a supermodel
Naw but seriously, those are our only options, nothing else.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:32 am
by Irn-Bru
Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:“The redskins are winning 11 games next year,” Chris C00ley said on ESPN 980 Thursday morning. “The Redskins are a building team that when you look around at the eyes of the people in the building, you’re told we’re damn good. We’re really good. The Redskins are winning 11 games next year. …
“The team is so the Seattle Seahawks of 2012, with a little bit more experience at quarterback and maybe a little less talent on defense,” C00ley later said. “They’re winning 11 games, I’ll tell you that, and I’ll give you this as a bold prediction: 12 won’t surprise me. I’m going to say it right now, June 30, before anyone else gets into this, before anyone else jumps on this bandwagon: they’re winning 11 games. They’re winning the division.”
I'm buying the hype. There really isn't that much difference between a 6-10 team and a 10-6 team in the NFL. Winning 11 games is optimistic but realistic, and I don't think 12 is out of the question.
On the downside, I'd be surprised if we lose more than 9 games.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:05 am
by OldSchool
I am optimistic more optimistic than I have been in a very long time. The Skins are a quiet, competent, well run franchise now with good team chemistry and I think they have enough going for them to repeat as division champs and take another step in the playoffs. I'm not projecting an additional 2 regular season wins like
ey but I do expect the team will be better in 2016. I think the division will be tougher also so I expect 9-10 wins and a division title in 2016.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:49 am
by SkinsJock
riggofan wrote:... Love the optimism. I'd love to share in it, but I feel like I gotta see the D in action first.
Still feel like they were probably more lucky than good last year.
I agree - however, not sure why there are so many that don't see us winning or contending for the NFC East title in 2016
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:26 pm
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:riggofan wrote:... Love the optimism. I'd love to share in it, but I feel like I gotta see the D in action first.
Still feel like they were probably more lucky than good last year.
I agree - however, not sure why there are so many that don't see us winning or contending for the NFC East title in 2016
You mean media, etc?
I don't know. I say this every offseason/preseason. The majority of writers, opinion people, etc; are just shockingly lazy when it comes to predicting the season ahead.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:36 pm
by SkinsJock
^^ true dat - and we are still "the same old Redskins" to most of these guys
we all can see the difference - it will take more than 2 seasons for the rest to catch on to what's really going on here
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:40 pm
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:^^ true dat - and we are still "the same old Redskins" to most of these guys
we all can see the difference - it will take more than 2 seasons for the rest to catch on to what's really going on here
Most likely. I'm totally cool with that too. Put all of the pressure on Dallas. No doubt all they need is a healthy Romo...
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:54 am
by PAPDOG67
I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but everyone on this board does realize we didn't beat 1 team with a winning record last season right? When Captain Kirk and Co start beating good competent franchises I'll be even more of a believer. Until then, I'm still a tad skeptical of this group.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:42 pm
by DarthMonk
PAPDOG67 wrote:I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but everyone on this board does realize we didn't beat 1 team with a winning record last season right? When Captain Kirk and Co start beating good competent franchises I'll be even more of a believer. Until then, I'm still a tad skeptical of this group.
Though it is technically true we did not beat a team with a winning record it should be noted that ...
the Bills did not have a winning record (8-8) BECAUSE WE BEAT THEM ... AND
the Eagles did not have a winning record (7-9) BECAUSE WE BEAT THEM TWICE.
Additionally, we only PLAYED 3 teams with a winning record and they were all on the road - @ the Jets, @ the Patriots, and @ the Panthers. No shame there.
This factoid is over hyped.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:18 pm
by SkinsJock
one of the reasons we're not getting much love is because of what this franchise showed on the field last season
If we had a really good QB in Cousins he would have been signed to a nice long term contract by now
given another 12 months under McCloughan and by this time in 2017 we should be in pretty good shape
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:38 am
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:If we had a really good QB in Cousins he would have been signed to a nice long term contract by now
Right. Because teams frequently use the franchise tag on mediocre players.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:15 am
by SkinsJock
riggofan wrote:SkinsJock wrote:If we had a really good QB in Cousins he would have been signed to a nice long term contract by now
Right. Because teams frequently use the franchise tag on mediocre players.
where, in that post, did I say that Cousins was mediocre? they franchised tagged him because he provides the best option at a very important position - if the FO thought Cousins was worth what he and his advisors thought, the long term deal would have been completed a while ago
Cousins is going to get a lot of money because he's a QB in today's market NOT because he's a really good NFL QB
If Cousins can convince everyone that he's a really good NFL QB he will make even more
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:53 am
by riggofan
SkinsJock wrote:riggofan wrote:SkinsJock wrote:If we had a really good QB in Cousins he would have been signed to a nice long term contract by now
Right. Because teams frequently use the franchise tag on mediocre players.
where, in that post, did I say that Cousins was mediocre? they franchised tagged him because he provides the best option at a very important position - if the FO thought Cousins was worth what he and his advisors thought, the long term deal would have been completed a while ago
Cousins is going to get a lot of money because he's a QB in today's market NOT because he's a really good NFL QB
Thanks just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Can't be bothered.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:02 am
by Irn-Bru
DarthMonk wrote:PAPDOG67 wrote:I'm as optimistic as the next guy, but everyone on this board does realize we didn't beat 1 team with a winning record last season right? When Captain Kirk and Co start beating good competent franchises I'll be even more of a believer. Until then, I'm still a tad skeptical of this group.
Though it is technically true we did not beat a team with a winning record it should be noted that ...
the Bills did not have a winning record (8-8) BECAUSE WE BEAT THEM ... AND
the Eagles did not have a winning record (7-9) BECAUSE WE BEAT THEM TWICE.
Additionally, we only PLAYED 3 teams with a winning record and they were all on the road - @ the Jets, @ the Patriots, and @ the Panthers. No shame there.
This factoid is over hyped.
I'm glad someone said it. I've gotten tired of typing it out myself, and you put it better than I do.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:53 am
by SkinsJock
I am optimistic about this franchise and I do think that we will surprise a lot of the skeptics
not sure that I'd go so far as to say that we will see 11 or 12 wins but how great would that be if it came about
it's July, everything and anything is possible
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:30 pm
by Prowl33
This year honestly is a HUGE test because there are a lot of good teams we face.
Steelers
First Cowboys game
Ravens
Bengals
Vikings
Packers
Cardinals
Panthers
Bears
You can't say we are an odds on favorite for any of these games, good chance we split with the Giants, if Dallas is healthy later in the year it's possible we lose 2 to them, at the very least winning both would be hard. A few years ago, I'd call this a 3-4 win season. If we go 8-8 yeah it'll be disappointing, but it's one of the hardest schedules this year, we go 10-12 wins, I think no one has the right to say anything bad about the team anymore.
Hoping for that 10-12 win scenario
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:23 pm
by DarthMonk
Instead of Panthers, Saints, Falcons, Bucs we have Packers, Vikes, Bears, Lions. How much more difficult is that ? I say it's a push.
Instead of Patriots, Jets, Bills, Dolphins we have Steelers, Bengals, Ravens, Browns. How much tougher is that? I say it's a push.
Instead of Rams, Bears, we have Panthers, Cardinals. That's tougher. We split these strength-of-schedule games last year.
We get the Panthers at home. If we could find a way to split these two, the rest of the schedule isn't any tougher than last year, IMO.
Re: For The Eternal Optimists
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 9:12 pm
by Deadskins
Prowl33 wrote:Steelers
First Cowboys game
Ravens
Bengals
Vikings
Packers
Cardinals
Panthers
Bears
Cowpies, Vikings, and Bears don't scare me at all, Don't really have an opinion on the Steelers and Ravens. The rest are good teams, though.
