(Merged Thread) Overreacting to a loss

This team has gone toe to toe with some of the best teams in the league this year. That point isn't even up for debate. We beat the Seahawks and Bears, and took teams like the Chiefs, Broncos, & Chargers down to the wire.

The team has made some nice progress over last year, there's a very thin line in this league between being 10-6 and 6-10, and I think this team is still trying to figure out how to cross over that line.

Speaking of next week. If memory serves me correctly, though talented, Bruce and Holt are two of the biggest pansy asses in the league. I'm sure Rogers and Taylor will have something to say about that. (It's nice to say Rogers for once. He lays some wood on people)

People are overreacting because there are expectations. When we lost yesterday in the 4th quarter, I really wasn't surprised, therefore, not too upset. My expectations for this team are realistic. We will probably go 9-7 this year which is not bad and a significant improvement from last year. Let's be honest...how many of you expected the Redskins to go to the super bowl this year?? It is always a hope but the best this team can do is 5-6 so far. So next week, I'll be watching, just like I have EVERY GAME this year including preseason, and hoping for a win but not living and dying by a loss.

I am not sure what people are looking at. This team does not fit the way our coaches like to play. Portis is not a grind it out back that can get 4 yard by falling forward after getting hit(like stephen davis, alexander ect) Moss needs a #2 receiver, Moss has been nothing short of Probowl material, but still needs a number two guy that can take double teams away from him. We routinely send 1 guy or maybe two, in routes and nobody can get open. Our offensive line is just not the smash mouth kind of line they thought it was going to be. Or, atleast they have yet to show it against a good defensive unit. As far as our defensive until, we dont have a true speed corner to cover one on one on the outside. We dont have a D-Line that can cause pressure, leaving LBs free to come at the QB, or safeties for that matter. Last year, we had smoot who could cover speed guys pretty good, and springs who could muscle up with the big guys. Our Blitz packages were "NEW" and no one could really figure them out, however teams are watching game film and have figured out the complicated blitzes and can block them. This is just not personel wise, the team that Joe and Co. want it to be. You need pressure guys upfront with GW schemes that make his blitz harder to pick up. When your dline man can be handled one on one that leaves someone to pick up the blitzer. When they have a guy that needs to be doubled, that leaves an opening to the QB, we just dont have the guy up front that creates double teams. Again, we are facing another offseason of free agent pick ups, because year after year we trade our picks away.

Portis is not a grind it out back that can get 4 yard by falling forward after getting hit(like stephen davis, alexander ect)

Stephen Davis is averaging three yards a carry this year. And for the millionth time, Seattles' offensive line is vastly superior at run blocking than Washingtons' line. If Portis had the holes to run through that Alexander does(like he did in Denver) he'd have comparable numbers. Alexander doesn't run any better, when he's bottled up between the tackles, than Portis does. Just look that the Washington-Seattle game. Alexander didn't do anything between the tackles, and his only substantial gain came on an edge play where he was basically untouched.

When Portis can reach the second level untouched, 7-10 times a game, I'll be the first to bitch if he still can't get 4.5+ yards a carry. But until then, the blame cannot fall completely on his shoulders.

Stephen Davis is averaging three yards a carry this year. And for the millionth time, Seattles' offensive line is vastly superior at run blocking than Washingtons' line. If Portis had the holes to run through that Alexander does(like he did in Denver) he'd have comparable numbers. Alexander doesn't run any better, when he's bottled up between the tackles, than Portis does. Just look that the Washington-Seattle game. Alexander didn't do anything between the tackles, and his only substantial gain came on an edge play where he was basically untouched.

When Portis can reach the second level untouched, 7-10 times a game, I'll be the first to bitch if he still can't get 4.5+ yards a carry. But until then, the blame cannot fall completely on his shoulders.

I did not put the blame totally on Portis. I said he is one of the factors in Gibbs #2 not winning. Yes Davis is below his average. I used him as a previous example in the TYPE of back best fit for the Gibbs running. Alexander is another example. Maybe I should have said that, but thought I did. Portis is not the kind of back that can bounce off a hit and keep moving, I dont think anybody would dispute that. He is a good back in a system that puts in open spaces. He does not get that here. We are asking him to get inbetween the tackles and grind it out, especially at the end of games, which we are failling miserably at. People want to jump on my back when I state the obvious. Stop drinking the we are better than our record coolaid. We are what we are. I was simply stating a point that Gibbs needs a different kind of back in his offense. As well as other position upgrades to be succesful. Dont read one statement and jump on my ass. read the whole thing first.

Portis is not the kind of back that can bounce off a hit and keep moving, I dont think anybody would dispute that. He is a good back in a system that puts in open spaces.

I actually agree with this assessment of Portis to some extent, but my point is, Shawn Alexander is the exact same type of back. He performs well in open spaces. He is listed at 5'11" and 225 pounds, the same size as Portis. The difference is, Seattle makes every effort to get him into open space, while Gibbs likes to force Portis between the tackles.

And I didn't "jump on your ass". You just happened to be the most recent person who claimed something like "Portis isn't the power back that Alexander is", so I quoted it. If anyone thinks Shawn Alexander is a "power back" they need to watch more Seattle games.

This team has gone toe to toe with some of the best teams in the league this year. That point isn't even up for debate. We beat the Seahawks and Bears, and took teams like the Chiefs, Broncos, & Chargers down to the wire.

The team has made some nice progress over last year, there's a very thin line in this league between being 10-6 and 6-10, and I think this team is still trying to figure out how to cross over that line.

In responce to that, we have lost the the Raiders (3-6) at home. To a first year starter(simms) who put up huge numbers. Denver I'll give you. Chiefs were at a losing record when we lost, with one of the worst defenses in the league, as the Giants were when we played them and got shut out. Good teams win these games. we barely beat the Bears, lucky against seattle because there kicker missed a makeable FG, and the Cowboys game was a miracle. I acknowledge that good teams have luck, but good teams also beat up on teams they should beat and dont blow games at the end.

In responce to that, we have lost the the Raiders (3-6) at home. To a first year starter(simms) who put up huge numbers. Denver I'll give you. Chiefs were at a losing record when we lost, with one of the worst defenses in the league, as the Giants were when we played them and got shut out. Good teams win these games. we barely beat the Bears, lucky against seattle because there kicker missed a makeable FG, and the Cowboys game was a miracle. I acknowledge that good teams have luck, but good teams also beat up on teams they should beat and dont blow games at the end.


In response to your response, "Good teams win these games". Your right, we are not a good team...........yet. It's a journey. It's on track. The teams we "barely" beat are the same type of loss's we have had.....squeakers. Were they lucky to have beat us?

I'm impressed that you can remain so positive, but the Skins are not going to magically right the ship, and reel off four or five wins in the final five weeks. Of their six losses, they should have won, or at least had a chance to win five of them, but as has been the case for several years, they're unable to close games at the end of the season. They had no business losing any of the last three games, but yet, they managed to give it away at the end.

I agree that we should have won all of those games.

That's why I think we can win. We played on a high enough level to win, we just didn't finish things off and come away with the W.

I'm not saying we can assume or expect that to change, but the fact is we have been playing well enough to win, especially against weak competition like the Rams and the Cardinals.

If we were getting blown away, then I'd say we have no shot. But few teams are clearly outplaying us, especially amongst our remaining competition.