Washington quote on Alexander

Let's be just a bit analytical here for a moment.

Shaun Alexander played 6 games this year against some pretty mediocre defenses in the NFC West; that's not open to debate. But every RB with good stats played some soft defenses this year. LT got to play the Raiders and Chiefs twice each. Tiki Barber got to play the Chiefs and the Cardinals and the Saints and the 49ers and the Raiders. Even Clinton Portis got to feast on the Cards, Chiefs, 49ers, Rams and Raiders.

But to say Alexander's soft when he led the NFL in rushing this year and missed leading the NFL in rushing last year by one-yard has to be a bit of an exaggeration.

When you say that he's good because he has a wonderful OL in front of him that makes him sound like a "system back". If someone said that about Clinton Portis, people here would be apoplectic and say that just isn't so.

And by the way, if the Skins OL is so "questionable" on this thread, why is everyone so willing to cut them slack and point out how good Dockery is on the poll about the Skins' biggest need in the offseason?

Alexander is not the best RB in the NFL, but he's certainly in the top 10 and probably in the top 5. The problem with signing him is that he's about to turn 30 and most - but certainly not all - RBs over the age of 30 tend to regress in their careers. I would not pay him huge money nor would I sign him to any 5-7 year deal in order to amotize a huge signing bonus. But right now - and probably for a year or so - he's a damned good RB.

And Marcus Washington's comments were a bit out of place. Usually Washington is a thoughtful and insightful kind of guy so I'm surprised to hear him say this. The fact that the opposition lost their "Superman" and yet was able to win the game handily would make the opposing defense look like it might have been - - overrated. I don't think that's the message he meant to convey, but it is certainly a conclusion one might draw.

And Marcus Washington's comments were a bit out of place. Usually Washington is a thoughtful and insightful kind of guy so I'm surprised to hear him say this. The fact that the opposition lost their "Superman" and yet was able to win the game handily would make the opposing defense look like it might have been - - overrated. I don't think that's the message he meant to convey, but it is certainly a conclusion one might draw.

John Riggins did the game for Westwood One and he later echoed Washington's statements - and I don't think he had read those statements either - on his afternoon show on Sirius. He basically said that Alexander looked like he had tunnel vision in the early going and pointed to the fact that he basically just dropped the ball on the Seahawks first drive. He even went so far as to say that the 'Hawks might have been better off without Alexander that day because it looked like he was tightening up in the big game. He also said that had it been him he probably would have found a way to get back on the field. I think Riggo is a pretty insightful guy and he doesn't usually get caught up in a lot of bravado so I take his comments pretty seriously. That Washington - another player whose opinion I respect - says the same thing also makes me wonder. Add to that the fact that Seattle was willing to deal Alexander in the offseason for a 3rd round pick and it has got to make you wonder a bit. You can't argue with the numbers he put up this season, but just some food for thought. I guess we will have to see how he fares against that very good Panthers D in the NFC Championship.

Let's be just a bit analytical here for a moment.

Shaun Alexander played 6 games this year against some pretty mediocre defenses in the NFC West; that's not open to debate. But every RB with good stats played some soft defenses this year. LT got to play the Raiders and Chiefs twice each. Tiki Barber got to play the Chiefs and the Cardinals and the Saints and the 49ers and the Raiders. Even Clinton Portis got to feast on the Cards, Chiefs, 49ers, Rams and Raiders.

But to say Alexander's soft when he led the NFL in rushing this year and missed leading the NFL in rushing last year by one-yard has to be a bit of an exaggeration.

When you say that he's good because he has a wonderful OL in front of him that makes him sound like a "system back". If someone said that about Clinton Portis, people here would be apoplectic and say that just isn't so.

And by the way, if the Skins OL is so "questionable" on this thread, why is everyone so willing to cut them slack and point out how good Dockery is on the poll about the Skins' biggest need in the offseason?

Alexander is not the best RB in the NFL, but he's certainly in the top 10 and probably in the top 5. The problem with signing him is that he's about to turn 30 and most - but certainly not all - RBs over the age of 30 tend to regress in their careers. I would not pay him huge money nor would I sign him to any 5-7 year deal in order to amotize a huge signing bonus. But right now - and probably for a year or so - he's a damned good RB.

And Marcus Washington's comments were a bit out of place. Usually Washington is a thoughtful and insightful kind of guy so I'm surprised to hear him say this. The fact that the opposition lost their "Superman" and yet was able to win the game handily would make the opposing defense look like it might have been - - overrated. I don't think that's the message he meant to convey, but it is certainly a conclusion one might draw.

Good post, I agree with most everything you have said. Alexander is not the best in the NFL, at all, but is definately in the top ten. I do however agree with most people in this thread, that he is overrated because of this monster year. The key about the softness arguement is that other backs, such as CP had good games agaisnt good teams as well. He takes more of beating that Alexander, and in that sense he is tougher. In-conference games are some of the most important games, because the level of toughness and competition within those games. In general backs that succeed in hard conferences, play in very tough games, that are more demanding and physical than any ordinary game. Backs that peform well in these games, can generally be accepted as better and more reliable than backs that peform well in weak conferences. The main point being good backs in tough conferences are better backs.