• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

“It’s deflating,” defensive tackle Kedric Golston said.

"Futile Crescent"

Both funny and sad at the same time.
 
We are a VERY VERY BAD team right now. It will require a lot of luck to win another game this season unless changes are made, and even THAT won't guarantee another win. This might be the worst team the Skins have fielded in my lifetime.
 
the 1994 Redskins under Turner finished 3-13 but had a WHOLE lot less on the roster and in payroll than this club.

and whatever else you can say about Turner's later turn as coach, the 1994 squad did give 100% effort and did a decent job on offense with Jon Friesz at quarterback and the 34 year old Henry Ellard at WR.
 
That 1994 team was in full rebuild mode. Nobody expected them to be good. We knew the team was investing in the future so there would be growing pains to endure.

This team right now is in full collapse mode. If we finish 3-13 this time around, which looks all too likely, it won't be growing pains we feel. It will be death throes.

So yes, this is right now looking like the worst Redskin team of my lifetime.
 
To be fair, there was another time the Redskins looked this bad six weeks in: 1998. That year we started out 0-7 ... five years into Norv Turner's reign. I remember thinking 'five years of rebuilding for THIS?' It culminated with that 41-7 loss to the Vikings that brought Darrell Green to tears.

But after the bye week following the Vikings game, something just clicked. The team figured something out and went 6-3 down the stretch. The next year they won the division.

So, as bad as it looks now, and as bad as the future looks ... well, you just never know. I'm not saying I'm optimistic, but stranger things have happened than a team turning things around in the middle of the season.
 
Henry said:
To be fair, there was another time the Redskins looked this bad six weeks in: 1998. That year we started out 0-7 ... five years into Norv Turner's reign. I remember thinking 'five years of rebuilding for THIS?' It culminated with that 41-7 loss to the Vikings that brought Darrell Green to tears.

But after the bye week following the Vikings game, something just clicked. The team figured something out and went 6-3 down the stretch. The next year they won the division.

So, as bad as it looks now, and as bad as the future looks ... well, you just never know. I'm not saying I'm optimistic, but stranger things have happened than a team turning things around in the middle of the season.
Click to expand...
Wait, you mean we're leading into a rinse and repeat of the 2000s?? And that's if thing get turned around. I'm not sure I like that as a silver lining. Maybe a poisonous lead and mercury lining, but definitely not silver.
 
Pravda said:
Wait, you mean we're leading into a rinse and repeat of the 2000s?? And that's if thing get turned around. I'm not sure I like that as a silver lining. Maybe a poisonous lead and mercury lining, but definitely not silver.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm doing the best with what I've got. :)
 
Henry said:
To be fair, there was another time the Redskins looked this bad six weeks in: 1998. That year we started out 0-7 ... five years into Norv Turner's reign. I remember thinking 'five years of rebuilding for THIS?' It culminated with that 41-7 loss to the Vikings that brought Darrell Green to tears.

But after the bye week following the Vikings game, something just clicked. The team figured something out and went 6-3 down the stretch. The next year they won the division.

So, as bad as it looks now, and as bad as the future looks ... well, you just never know. I'm not saying I'm optimistic, but stranger things have happened than a team turning things around in the middle of the season.
Click to expand...

That team had Darrell Green.
 
you know what's really deflating?

watching Larry Johnson, sporting a 2.4 yards per carry average, break off 10 plus yard runs in the second half of last week's game against the Redskins 'premiere' defensive line and front.
 
Bulldog's Twin said:
you know what's really deflating?

watching Larry Johnson, sporting a 2.4 yards per carry average, break off 10 plus yard runs in the second half of last week's game against the Redskins 'premiere' defensive line and front.
Click to expand...

When the offense can only manage 3 and outs and not score touchdowns, the defense eventually wears down both mentally and physically. It will get ugly when they don't even give the effort at the beginnings of games, then we'll start to see the Redskins being blown out.
 
China said:
When the offense can only manage 3 and outs and not score touchdowns, the defense eventually wears down both mentally and physically. It will get ugly when they don't even give the effort at the beginnings of games, then we'll start to see the Redskins being blown out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was going to say something along those lines. We are ranked 30th in TOP. KC had the ball for 20 minutes of the first half. It's no wonder the defense started getting gashed in the second.

I do fear that we are looking at another 37-7 Spurrier-type night against he Eagles. One of these days the defense is going to call it a day and the floodgates are going to open.
 
Funny in their prime years with a funky offense that had trouble scoring I never heard these excuses from Ray Lewis or Ed Reed.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
That's because even the Ravens' low scoring 2000 SuperBowl team wasn't as bad as the Redskins. That team averaged almost 19 points a game during the regular season. This year the Redskins are averaging 13. That's almost a touchdown per game difference. The offense has to do its share.

I couldn't find the stats for time of possession, but I'd be willing to bet those Ravens had better time of possession than the Redskins do as well.
 
China said:
That's because even the Ravens' low scoring 2000 SuperBowl team wasn't as bad as the Redskins. That team averaged almost 19 points a game during the regular season. This year the Redskins are averaging 13. That's almost a touchdown per game difference. The offense has to do its share.

I couldn't find the stats for time of possession, but I'd be willing to bet those Ravens had better time of possession than the Redskins do as well.
Click to expand...

China, I found the TOP stats for the 2000 Ravens in a PDF file on the Ravens website. During the regular season they averaged 33:19 and in the post-season 30:10. Currently the Skins are averaging 27:04 which is 30th in the league.

Time of possession can be deceptive also, currently leading the NFL are the Dolphins at 35:29, the Chiefs are #10 at 30:54 and the Colts are #24(!) at 28:37.

Here's the link to the league stats:http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/stats/teamsort/NFL/OFF-TOTAL/2009/regular?sort_col_1=15&_1:col_1=15

And here's the link to the 2000 Ravens team stats if you're interested.http://www.baltimoreravens.com/News/History/~/media/08DBC9F361BA404E8446E1CCA9253B38.ashx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top