Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jamf
offensive players should be ranked only by effort.
here is a different viewpoint.
Gwilliams comes to town and everyone accross the board on defence has career years(well the players that played). smoot,springs,washington,griffin and a couple of other veterens played at a probowl level.
young players like ryan clark, lamar marshall and pierce really did will with the exception of pierce who was flat out amazing. wynn looked good. noble looked good.
the point is, Gwilliams put the players in the position to play at their best. he got everything out of his players.
the flip side is Gibbs.
coles, gardner, portis(not that bad),brunell, samuels, and dockery all had the worst years of their careers.
gardner looked downright aweful at times, why didnt McCants, jacobs and/or thrash get playing time?
Gibbs didnt use portis to the best of his abilities.
all the routes were garbage. i cant believe we have a receiver with 80+ catches and doesnt have a 1000 yards...
redskins have one of the worst offences in the league with pretty good talent. gibbs gets an F.
willaims has some good talent,but some major holes. they are in my oppinon the best D in the league. williams gets an A+
so basicly its not fair to grade the offensive players except gardner and brunell. brunell was so terrible he couldnt even throw in a highschool offence.
gardner dropped too many balls thats not acceptible.
wait, you can also grade thrash for playing everywhere and doing it was class and maximum effort.
|
Interesting take on grading the offensive players within the framework of the coaching, playcalling, quarterbacking, etc. I guess my grades were based on what they did or didn't do (in my opinion) when they were handed or thrown the ball and how they blocked.