Poll: Which has contributed the most to the Washington Redskins 3-6 record? Injuries, Lack of Quality Depth, or Coaching?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phat Hog

Wish there was an "All of the Above" option...

---

The lack of depth shows from the injuries, and the coaches can't overcome injuries like others can (see: Pitt, G-Men). So, I guess I'll go with injuries, since seven starters is a lot. That said, an all of the above option would be best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painkiller

For me I go with the Injuries as the single biggest contributing factor. I think the depth we have is the best we could get because of capgate, which I don't blame the organization one iota for, and I don't blame the coaches as the single biggest factor either. I don't believe that Haslett is the answer, and I am definitely hoping he is replaced at or by the end of the year, but I don't think Dick Lebeau could turn this group into a solid defensive unit. They just aren't talented enough.

I'm starting to think that this team has just had a horrid run of bad luck, and isn't catching any breaks. They just can't seem to break out of this rut no matter what they do.

---

I agree. Key injuries to starters on a team that wasn't very good to start with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeSkins

an all of the above option would be best.

---

an all of the above is like another poster said too easy, because like I said for example. If you acknowledge that injuries have crippled the team, which everyone pretty much universally has acknowleged...then how can you say that it's poor talent evaluating or coaching that brought us to this. You don't have to believe that they don't exist at all as problems to admit that one is more the problem than the other two. Truth is, we really don't know how good this team would have been without the injury bug, predominantly on defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fat Stupid Loser

I agree. Key injuries to starters on a team that wasn't very good to start with.

---

Yep.

I think we'd at least be 5-4 if Merriweather and Garcon had been playing this whole time. Our receivers are on the whole pretty average (that's being nice), and the secondary is terrible. It's really a combo of injuries, lack of depth, lack of starter talent, and coaching.

Honestly I'm surprised anyone thought this team would be good this year. After watching the pre-season, I thought 7-9 at best, and I'm sticking with it. I also said Chicago and Atlanta will be the best teams in the NFC, so basically I'm right and everyone else is wrong! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painkiller

on all of the above is like another poster said too easy, because like I said for example. If you acknowledge that injuries have crippled the team, which everyone pretty much universally has acknowleged...then how can you say that it's poor talent evaluating or coaching that brought us to this. You don't have to acknowledge that they don't exist as problems to admit that one is more the problem than the other two. Truth is, we really don't know how good this team would have been without the injury bug, predominantly on defense.

---

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be critical of the poll's design, because you're right, easy questions yield easy answers with nothing to talk about. You're also right that the point had already been made ad nauseum.

My call is the injury bug, because it's not only losing seven starters, it's what was expected from them. The best two receivers, the best pass rusher, the best interior pressure, both safeties at once, and a huge dropoff at RT. A team could easily survive losing Meriweather, Carriker and Brown, but compounding it to the degree this team has suffered is deadly. Morgan is turning into a really good second WR, playing first. Paulsen is a good blocker who is a sneaky receiver, but not a first option like Davis. Jackson is smart and versatile but not the athlete Rak is. Polumbus, Doughty, and Williams just aren't NFL starters. They are all at home and productive in the spots they were brought in to occupy. Think of Morgan getting to match up with an opposing team's nickel corner, which he doesn't get to now. Think of Paulsen being ignored as a blocker, only to slip out to the flat, which he can't do now. Think of Jenkins being part of the two-deep instead of having to start. Think of the coverages that would be different with experienced, starting caliber safeties on the field, or the alleviated coverage burdens with Rak in. That's why my pick was injuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeSkins

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to be critical of the poll's design, because you're right, easy questions yield easy answers with nothing to talk about. You're also right that the point had already been made ad nauseum.

---

No reason to apologize at all, I knew that would be an issue brought up and it has been. Some people really feel that it's all three equally, and that's their perogative. For me, I don't. I feel it's probably about 50% injuries, 40% lack of quality depth, and 10% coaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeSkins

My call is the injury bug, because it's not only losing seven starters, it's what was expected from them. The best two receivers, the best pass rusher, the best interior pressure, both safeties at once, and a huge dropoff at RT. A team could easily survive losing Meriweather, Carriker and Brown, but compounding it to the degree this team has suffered is deadly. Morgan is turning into a really good second WR, playing first. Paulsen is a good blocker who is a sneaky receiver, but not a first option like Davis. Jackson is smart and versatile but not the athlete Rak is. Polumbus, Doughty, and Williams just aren't NFL starters. They are all at home and productive in the spots they were brought in to occupy. Think of Morgan getting to match up with an opposing team's nickel corner, which he doesn't get to now. Think of Paulsen being ignored as a blocker, only to slip out to the flat, which he can't do now. Think of Jenkins being part of the two-deep instead of having to start. Think of the coverages that would be different with experienced, starting caliber safeties on the field, or the alleviated coverage burdens with Rak in. That's why my pick was injuries.

---

I agree completely.

Combination of awful talent and awful coaching.

Take away RG3 and we'd be on pace for 0-16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painkiller

Now we are talking about semantics. The bottom line is we lost several key contributors at least 4 of which were going to be starters. That's a lot of people whether it's actually half or not.

---

Its not semantics its about accuracy. You said we lost half our starters on defense. That statement is simply incorrect. My post that you replied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darrelgreenie

Umm scratching my head we didn't lose half our starters on defense. We lost 2 and a possible, lets call it 3. And I don't for the record blame Haslett.
Plenty of teams lose starters and are still competitive. The Giants and Packers recently won superbowls despite being depleted with injuries. Last year the Texans won a playoff game without their 3rd string QB, a banged up #1 WR and their best pass rusher.

---

certainly contained more then the correction of your factual error but you chose to focus on trying to argue against a simple and rather obvious point of fact as opposed to responded to the rest of the post about teams overcoming injuries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darrelgreenie

Its not semantics its about accuracy. You said we lost half our starters on defense. That statement is simply incorrect. My post that you replied certainly contained more then the correction of your factual error but you chose to focus on trying to argue against a simple and rather obvious point of fact as opposed to responded to the rest of the post about teams overcoming injuries

---

Ok, you want me to concede that we did not actually lose HALF of the defensive starters. Fine, I concede that, but we lost a lot of key contributors. Most of which would have been the clear starters.

Yes, teams have won with injuries. Some have won big despite them. I guess the other question to ask is in year 2 of the actual "rebuild" since most have admitted that the first year was a throw away, should we have expected to be so deep with quality talent that we could overcome so many injuries?

Edit: and in addition, those teams that do overcome them have usually had the same front office personnel and scouting personnel for several years, and have been able to fill the team with players they know can contribute to what they will ask of them. Sometimes it's just luck. For quite a while, LUCK has not been on the Redskins side. I once read a quote that said something to the effect of "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity"

Have they had enough time to build a team from top to bottom with depth players that could take advantage of their opportunity?

For injuries, we lost:
Offense: Helu, Hightower, Garcon, Davis, and Brown
Defense: Carriker, Orakpo, Jackson, and Meriweather (and Neild)

Let's imagine, for a moment that the Texans lost:
Offense: Ben Tate, Justin Forsett, Andre Johnson, Owen Daniels, Derek Newton (RT)
Defense: Watt, Barwin, D. Manning (SS), and Glover Quin (FS)

In those circumstances how would you expect them to perform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painkiller

Yes, teams have won with injuries. Some have won big despite them. I guess the other question to ask is in year 2 of the actual "rebuild" since most have admitted that the first year was a throw away, should we have expected to be so deep with quality talent that we could overcome so many injuries?

---

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that some teams in the NFL succeed despite injury then claim its okay for us to then struggle because of injuries.

You can't pick the players then complain they're not good enough or there is a lack of depth. And if the players you selected are good enough then you've got to coach up a better product on the field.

I don't want get into the whole 're-build' excuse, whenever there is a lack of success you can't then blame it on rebuilding.

And BTW what did Mike Shanahan say about our depth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogofWar1

Let's imagine, for a moment that the Texans lost:
Offense: Ben Tate, Justin Forsett, Andre Johnson, Owen Daniels, Derek Newton (RT)
Defense: Watt, Barwin, D. Manning (SS), and Glover Quin (FS)

In those circumstances how would you expect them to perform?

---

This is an excellent way of looking at this situation. 90% of the time, the performance of the team will drop off significantly. Are there exceptions? Sure there are, see 2011 Packers, but they definately aren't the norm.

---------- Post added November-5th-2012 at 01:42 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darrelgreenie

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that some teams in the NFL succeed despite injury then claim its okay for us to then struggle because of injuries.

You can't pick the players then complain they're not good enough or there is a lack of depth. And if the players you selected are good enough then you've got to coach up a better product on the field.

I don't want get into the whole 're-build' excuse, whenever there is a lack of success you can't then blame it on rebuilding.

---

It's not a black and white issue. Just because one team succeeds because of injuries doesn't mean another will. Context is important. Have we had the front office stability of the Green Bay Packers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darrelgreenie

And BTW what did Mike Shanahan say about our depth?

---

that we are the deepest we have been since he has been here. I don't think in saying that he meant, no matter who we lost on the field, we were guaranteed to be a competitor this season with the players that replaced them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogofWar1

For injuries, we lost:
Offense: Helu, Hightower, Garcon, Davis, and Brown
Defense: Carriker, Orakpo, Jackson, and Meriweather (and Neild)

Let's imagine, for a moment that the Texans lost:
Offense: Ben Tate, Justin Forsett, Andre Johnson, Owen Daniels, Derek Newton (RT)
Defense: Watt, Barwin, D. Manning (SS), and Glover Quin (FS)

In those circumstances how would you expect them to perform?

---

If the Texans lost all of those players, do you think they would rank last in almost every meaningful defensive statistic? I don't believe they would. Because they have a respectable NFL COACHING staff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingarthur65

If the Texans lost all of those players, do you think they would rank last in almost every meaningful defensive statistic? I don't believe they would. Because they have a respectable NFL COACHING staff.

---

that's anger talking, not reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogofWar1

For injuries, we lost:
Offense: Helu, Hightower, Garcon, Davis, and Brown
Defense: Carriker, Orakpo, Jackson, and Meriweather (and Neild)

Let's imagine, for a moment that the Texans lost:
Offense: Ben Tate, Justin Forsett, Andre Johnson, Owen Daniels, Derek Newton (RT)
Defense: Watt, Barwin, D. Manning (SS), and Glover Quin (FS)

In those circumstances how would you expect them to perform?

---

To equate the players we lost to the hypothetical players that Houston would lose is laughable