2007 NFC East Predictions

You are exactly right. Its basically gonna be the same team as last year that won 6 games. Giving the skins 9 wins means they win 50% more games than last year. IMO thats about as big an improvement as can be expected.I think you are putting too much stock into a sample of sixteen games. Anyone who follows the NFL knows that the 2006 standings are going to be a really poor predictor of the 2007 standings.

We aren't a top team and we certainly have issues defensively, and in short yardage offense, but most of the teams we play next year are going to be worse than us and THAT is the key to being a winning team; to be the best team on the field more often than not. Not to have won last year, that's irrelivant.

5-11 doesn't mean crap anymore.

I would say that 9 wins would be the expectation for this team. Any more and they are exceeding expectations, any less and they would be failing to meet them.

Some of you guys have glasses with a hole in the bottom, forget about half empty.

So your predictions are that Portis, Moss, the entire secondary except Taylor and half of the rest of our D will be hurt again this year?


Not likely.

Our injuries played a big part in our struggles last season, but they don't explain everything. For example, Betts filled in very nicely for Portis and Moss wasn't hurt for the entire season. Yet, we still struggled to develop a consistent and effective passing game and to produce points on a consistent basis. I'd say a lot of that has to do with the fact that we had a new O-coordinator, but who knows.

I am cautiously optimistic about our 2007 season. I don't buy into the "offiss" school that we will always suck, nor do I buy into the 13-3 crowd (most of whom predicted a 14-2 2006 campaign).

Our injuries played a big part in our struggles last season, but they don't explain everything. For example, Betts filled in very nicely for Portis and Moss wasn't hurt for the entire season. Yet, we still struggled to develop a consistent and effective passing game and to produce points on a consistent basis. I'd say a lot of that has to do with the fact that we had a new O-coordinator, but who knows.

I am cautiously optimistic about our 2007 season. I don't buy into the "offiss" school that we will always suck, nor do I buy into the 13-3 crowd (most of whom predicted a 14-2 2006 campaign).

Yes, it definately DID play a big role, as injuries did.

Another reason to be MORE optimistic about 2007. Our guys have had a whole year witht the system under their belts and as Todd Collins said "it will take a whole year for the system to run smoothly".

:)

Redskins 11-5
Eagles 0-12-4
Dallas 0-12-4
Giants 0-12-4

I don't think Campbell had any control over the 32nd ranked defense.
No JC didn't have control over the D, but you have to ask yourself why was the D so horrible from the previous season? Brunell was absolutely horrid himself at QB. 3 and outs were quite common, leaving the D on the field for 2/3 of the game in many instances. Of course a D is going to falter when out on the field for that long. If JC would have started 5-6 weeks earlier than what Coach put him in we could have at least won 3 of those games. IF JC was the qb, our scoring would have increased probably 10-14 points a game, given the D a nice rest, and at 9-7 gotten us a wildcard berth.

Simple. SKINS WIN THE EAST!

No JC didn't have control over the D, but you have to ask yourself why was the D so horrible from the previous season? Brunell was absolutely horrid himself at QB. 3 and outs were quite common, leaving the D on the field for 2/3 of the game in many instances. Of course a D is going to falter when out on the field for that long. If JC would have started 5-6 weeks earlier than what Coach put him in we could have at least won 3 of those games. IF JC was the qb, our scoring would have increased probably 10-14 points a game, given the D a nice rest, and at 9-7 gotten us a wildcard berth.This analysis seems to be based in weak self serving evidence.

The starting field position for our offense was No. 32 in the league. Both of our return units ranked pretty well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the common denominator.

I really can't believe you'd come to this conclusion AFTER we played Campbell and scoring and yardage both decreased. It's like, the projections proved your theory wrong, and then it was proved wrong on the field, and yet you still stand by it.

One thing that I do agree with you on is that had Campbell gotten more starts, he also would have gotten more quality starts near the end of the year. But there was no way to avoid those first 5 games of Campbell's tenure when our passing game was a black hole. The plan was to have a decent defense, and let Brunell play the way he did for us en route to 11 or 12 wins and a deep playoff run. If Brunell had gotten injured late in the season, we might have needed Collins to play instead of Campbell. He gonna be good, but like every other QB to ever play, theres an adjustment period.

You couldn't have actually watched last season and thought that we had a passing game in between Weeks 11 and 15. That's just not possible.

In all fairness GTripp, Brunell wasn't lighting things up either. In his 9 starts he only had 3 games where he passed for more than 200 yards.

But, this thread is about predictions, not the past, so let's just move on.