Does he see the same things we do?

Wow, this came from left field.

I can't say that there are any holes in his argument. I agree with the offensive line comments. Earlier in the year, Brunell held onto the ball forever and a day so their stats didn't look so good. Now, people are questioning Portis because he didn't put up the stats that Betts has. Well this is a completely different offense than the one with Brunell. When you are facing a quarterback who cannot physically throw the ball 15 yards downfield, you are going to stack the box continuously. Betts does not face that now. If Portis was running right now, he would be putting up Betts' numbers except he would be taking long ones to the house. Portis in space is lethal.

If they get a proven pass rusher, this defense will look like the '04 version overnight. Expect a good year out of Carter in '07 too.

nice post, i agree with you 100 %.

Except for this:


He's completely missing the point of having two quality RBs. Both will play, although CP will technically be the #1 back.


agreed CP rules

this article sounds like someone from the warpath had written it. and the title of this thread kills me


yea i tried to change it after i posted it but it wont change...

all i want for christmas is some proper grammar schoolin....

"...But more important, Gibbs has had trouble letting go. A longtime micromanager and play-caller, he needs to let high-priced offensive guru Al Saunders cut loose. ..."

Really? I thought he DID let go, then took control back which is when we started having a running game again. If anything Gibbs needed to be meddling in the offensive strategy earlier and more often. Saunders has no magic plays.

But he is correct in his basic point that the Redskins are underachievers of the highest order. I'm not sure that we can assume, though, that next year will be any different. Gibbs needs to figure out what is working now and find a way to keep it going through the off season. Last August, it was as thouigh the players from the previous January had all been replaced by imposters. The same thing could happen next summer.

"...But more important, Gibbs has had trouble letting go. A longtime micromanager and play-caller, he needs to let high-priced offensive guru Al Saunders cut loose. ..."

Really? I thought he DID let go, then took control back which is when we started having a running game again. If anything Gibbs needed to be meddling in the offensive strategy earlier and more often. Saunders has no magic plays.

But he is correct in his basic point that the Redskins are underachievers of the highest order. I'm not sure that we can assume, though, that next year will be any different. Gibbs needs to figure out what is working now and find a way to keep it going through the off season. Last August, it was as thouigh the players from the previous January had all been replaced by imposters. The same thing could happen next summer.

Gibbs had his chance at running the offense, and quite frankly his offense since coming back...SUCKS. He needs to let Saunders go 100%...Saunders has proven himself in the new NFL, Gibbs hasn't. Utilyze your weapons.

Gibbs had his chance at running the offense, and quite frankly his offense since coming back...SUCKS. He needs to let Saunders go 100%...Saunders has proven himself in the new NFL, Gibbs hasn't. Utilyze your weapons.

:bdh:
Man you guys kill me with that crap. What, because he hasnt won 2 superbowls since hes been back? I mean wtf did u think he was going to do?? Yeah we all thought and wanted things to be more po sitive INSTANTLY, but in the back of most reasonable thinking minds we knew it could take SEVERAL years. whatever, im back to wrapping.

70 Chip is right, he has the Saunders story completely backwards. It wasn"t until Gibbs stepped back in and basically asserted that the team return to redskins football, with an emphasis on controlling both lines of scrimmage, that the offense appeared to get back on track. This is typical of a guy who is an idiot to begin with, and is writing about a team he obviously hasn't followed closely enough.

One thing I love about this site is that, on those rare occasions in which a national media article actually says something positive about the Skins everyone posts variations of, yup, it's a great article, no matter how inane it's argumentation. I remember an article before last year that said how good we would be, and listed as one of the reasons the addition of Springs, who of course was coming off a Pro-Bowl caliber season with the Redskins. And nobody said, well, obviously this guy is an idiot, how could you not know we already had Springs. People LOVED it!

The fact that Baldinger is saying good things about the Skins next year is reason enough for me to worry.....

70 Chip is right, he has the Saunders story completely backwards. It wasn"t until Gibbs stepped back in and basically asserted that the team return to redskins football, with an emphasis on controlling both lines of scrimmage, that the offense appeared to get back on track. This is typical of a guy who is an idiot to begin with, and is writing about a team he obviously hasn't followed closely enough.

One thing I love about this site is that, on those rare occasions in which a national media article actually says something positive about the Skins everyone posts variations of, yup, it's a great article, no matter how inane it's argumentation. I remember an article before last year that said how good we would be, and listed as one of the reasons the addition of Springs, who of course was coming off a Pro-Bowl caliber season with the Redskins. And nobody said, well, obviously this guy is an idiot, how could you not know we already had Springs. People LOVED it!

The fact that Baldinger is saying good things about the Skins next year is reason enough for me to worry.....


Funny how "Redskins Football" wasn't played until Campbell was inserted. "Redskins Football" includes bombs down the field which was not possible until JC took the snaps.

Why the hell would Baldinger's comments worry you? 5-9 worries me a hell of a lot more than Baldinger.

was it me, or did it seem like we threw more deep balls in the first half against new orleans, then we had all season? those throws open up the running game. this is what i expected out of Al Saunders and his offense. i guess brunell was alot worse then people thought

was it me, or did it seem like we threw more deep balls in the first half against new orleans, then we had all season? those throws open up the running game. this is what i expected out of Al Saunders and his offense. i guess brunell was alot worse then people thought

Yep, the blinding loyalty that Gibbs showed to Brunell superceded any rational observation of his actual abilities. And the team suffered because of it.

It's easy to look back now, but one has to wonder what might have been if:

Brunell was never brought to Washinton in the first place, going through 2004 with Patrick Ramsey to give him a second season to mature, and/or giving the reins to Jason Campbell this season if Ramsey didn't pan out.

Too often, this franchise has been focused on "win now, no matter what the costs". But we've seen that it's such huge gamble that way -- strangling the cap, losing draft picks, mortgaging the future... Sometimes players need a season or two to work the kinks out.

Now I'll brace myself for the inevitable tirades for bringing up the Ramsey-Brunell debate.