Why aren't the Redskins winning at home?

[REDSKINS4ever]

Just a question that needs answering. The better teams in the NFL win at home. The Redskins haven't won at home since week 2 of the 2011 season. Since then the Redskins are 0-8 at FED EX FIELD. What is it that is preventing them from winning at home. This is a far cry from the Redskins teams of the past who won 5/8 or half of their games on their own home turf. Even Norv Turner's Redskins could win at home.

Why the hell can't the Redskins win in front of their own fans?

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Because we are a terrible team that is a good 2-3 years and a lot of good draft picks away from doing squat.

[Chico23231]

Flat out no excuse. terrible

[REDSKINS4ever]

But they are good enough to win some of those games. They should have beaten Dallas at FED EX last year. They should have beaten the Vikings at FED EX last year too. They let New England get out of there with a win. They play good enough to win but end up not winning.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

But they are good enough to win some of those games. They should have beaten Dallas at FED EX last year. They should have beaten the Vikings at FED EX last year too. They let New England get out of there with a win. They play good enough to win but end up not winning.

"Should have" is an interesting choice of words; what's the scenario in which a team loses a game but "should have" won? The implication is that the team performed well enough, but a few mental errors or seemingly forgivable mistakes made the difference in close game. But I'm not sure if a team deserves to win a game like that. If a team gets ripped off because of a bad call (ie the Packers and the Fail Mary game), then I can understand. But I can't think of any games in the eight game home losing streak in which the Redskins did enough to earn a victory.

[donofriose]

Cause Fedex field sucks. Should have never left RFK. but the biggest reason is probably the team just has not been that good.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by Coff

"Should have" is an interesting choice of words; what's the scenario in which a team loses a game but "should have" won? The implication is that the team performed well enough, but a few mental errors or seemingly forgivable mistakes made the difference in close game. But I'm not sure if a team deserves to win a game like that. If a team gets ripped off because of a bad call (ie the Packers and the Fail Mary game), then I can understand. But I can't think of any games in the eight game home losing streak in which the Redskins did enough to earn a victory.

Even with Rex Grossman quarterbacking, the Redskins weren't the best offensively in the NFL, but they moved the ball well enough last season. The game against Dallas at Fed Ex Field was close. The defense gave up huge plays in that game especially that 59 yard pass from Romo to Witten where he outran the entire Redskins defense on the way to the end zone. It's huge plays like that one given up that causes the Redskins games. Witten is tough to defend, but the defense should never allow a play like that. Take away that play and the play where DeAngelo Hall allowed Dez Bryant to convert on 3rd and long and the Skins win that game.


In the New England game the defense allowed Gronkowski to catch passes for over 150 yards. The Pats virtually had no running game and no defense. Grossman had another fine day that day. But the defense allowed Brady and the Pats offense to remain in the game which is why they lost.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

Even with Rex Grossman quarterbacking, the Redskins weren't the best offensively in the NFL, but they moved the ball well enough last season. The game against Dallas at Fed Ex Field was close. The defense gave up huge plays in that game especially that 59 yard pass from Romo to Witten where he outran the entire Redskins defense on the way to the end zone. It's huge plays like that one given up that causes the Redskins games. Witten is tough to defend, but the defense should never allow a play like that. Take away that play and the play where DeAngelo Hall allowed Dez Bryant to convert on 3rd and long and the Skins win that game.


In the New England game the defense allowed Gronkowski to catch passes for over 150 yards. The Pats virtually had no running game and no defense. Grossman had another fine day that day. But the defense allowed Brady and the Pats offense to remain in the game which is why they lost.

Really solid post. The defense has been the bigger problem under the current regime, which is a shame because we've had the talent all along to at least be above average consistently. Really poor decision to force the switch to the 3-4 w/o securing the personnel to make it thrive. Frankly, we would have been much better off sticking w/ the Blache defense.

But you can't give the offense a pass, even looking at this season. Too inconsistent, especially on 3rd downs. But the real evaluation starts right now IMHO. We should see a more traditional offense going forward, and the play-calling and scheme will make it or break it. We've got a solid ground game, average WR corp (good enough to consistently move the chains), dominant TE and a QB with elite skills. It's on Mike and Kyle.

[skinsguy]

Cause the franchise needs to rebuild a brand new RFK stadium in D.C. and move back. Maryland has not been kind to the Redskins.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Cause the franchise needs to rebuild a brand new RFK stadium in D.C. and move back. Maryland has not been kind to the Redskins.

More and more I take exception (don't take it personally) to the idea that if the team played at RFK still, that many of the team's issues would suddenly be remedied. RFK was great because of the great teams that played there. It was a dump, otherwise. If the Skins of the late 1990s-2000s played there, many people would probably list it as one of the worst professional venues of all time. The atmosphere that existed within RFK during home Redskins games was a direct result of the quality of play on the field.

Building a new "RFK" and moving back into the city won't suddenly give the players talent, help the coaches call the right plays, or give the fans in the seats the vocal ability to deafen the opposing QB.

In response to the OP's question, the Redskins have been unable to win at home because they have been outmatched. Simple as that. Anything else is just a shallow excuse.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

More and more I take exception (don't take it personally) to the idea that if the team played at RFK still, that many of the team's issues would suddenly be remedied. RFK was great because of the great teams that played there. It was a dump, otherwise. If the Skins of the late 1990s-2000s played there, many people would probably list it as one of the worst professional venues of all time. The atmosphere that existed within RFK during home Redskins games was a direct result of the quality of play on the field.

Building a new "RFK" and moving back into the city won't suddenly give the players talent, help the coaches call the right plays, or give the fans in the seats the vocal ability to deafen the opposing QB.

In response to the OP's question, the Redskins have been unable to win at home because they have been outmatched. Simple as that. Anything else is just a shallow excuse.

I was actually just being factious, but have a nice day nevertheless.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Cause the franchise needs to rebuild a brand new RFK stadium in D.C. and move back. Maryland has not been kind to the Redskins.

Have you ever looked at the skins bad years at RFK?

[VTSkins1961]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Cause the franchise needs to rebuild a brand new RFK stadium in D.C. and move back. Maryland has not been kind to the Redskins.

Agreed.

[scowan]

Because we stay injured. 3 of the 11 projected Defense starters are not playing. Carriker, Orakpo, Merriweather. Kerrigan and Fletcher are the only pro bowl caliber players on Defense, the rest are backup quality. On offense, our biggest weapon Garcon has not lived up to expectations yet and Hankerson and Morgan are not making any plays. Thus the 1-9 on 3rd down or whatever the number is. Not enough playmakers across the board. Also last year we didn't have Trent williams and Fred Davis for the last 4 games = injury or basically not on the field.

Bottom line, can't stay healthy or otherwise keep good players on the field. Good chance we may have won last Sunday, BUT, RG3 hurt = can't stay on the field.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by scowan

Because we stay injured. 3 of the 11 projected Defense starters are not playing. Carriker, Orakpo, Merriweather. Kerrigan and Fletcher are the only pro bowl caliber players on Defense, the rest are backup quality. On offense, our biggest weapon Garcon has not lived up to expectations yet and Hankerson and Morgan are not making any plays. Thus the 1-9 on 3rd down or whatever the number is. Not enough playmakers across the board. Also last year we didn't have Trent williams and Fred Davis for the last 4 games = injury or basically not on the field.

Bottom line, can't stay healthy or otherwise keep good players on the field. Good chance we may have won last Sunday, BUT, RG3 hurt = can't stay on the field.

So tired of the injury excuse. The Giants have had injuries yet they keep on winning. Hell they have Justin Tryon and Sean Locklear playing for them The good teams with good coaching overcome it. The bad ones can't and don't.