Skip to content

Need to Know: Five bold predictions for the 2016 Redskins

Sep 9, 2016, 5:27 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Friday, September 9, three days before the Washington Redskins open their season against the Pittsburgh Steelers.


Today’s schedule: Practice 11:55; Jay Gruden and Sean McVay news conference and player availability after practice approx. 1:15

—The Redskins last played a game that counted 243 days ago. It will be three days until they host the Steelers in their 2016 season opener.

Days until: Cowboys @ Redskins 9; Browns @ Redskins 23; Redskins @ Ravens 30

2016 Redskins bold predictions

Here are some long-shot predictions for the 2016 Redskins. They are best-case scenarios that will need everything going right plus a little bit of luck to for them to come to fruition. I did this a year ago and two of the five turned out to be correct.

Matt Jones will rush for 1000 yards—Normally saying that a starting running back has a chance to rush for 1000 yards in a season would not be very bold but there are a lot of questions surrounding Jones. If he runs as well as he is capable of, the only thing that will keep him from topping 1000 would be a lack of carries. An average of 4.0 per carry is a reasonable goal and with 250 carries he will get his 1000. An injury or someone like Rob Kelley taking carries from him will keep him short.

Ziggy Hood will get 7 sacks—Yes, I’ve gone from a guy who, at the start of training camp, predicted that Hood would not make the final 53 to a big fan of his play. He’ll have to stay healthy and play well for 16 games to make this happen and the defense will have to be playing with a lead consistently. But he has the ability to have a late-career revival season.

Preston Smith will be in DPOY discussion—This is probably the longest shot on the board here. Second-year players who didn’t really come on until the end of their rookie years usually don’t get serious defensive player of the year considerations. I don’t think he’ll win it but he could get a combination of sacks, interceptions, forced fumbles, and defensive touchdowns to raise some eyebrows.

Kirk Cousins will have a 5:1 touchdown to interception ratio—I’m thinking 30 touchdowns to six interceptions but it could be closer to 35 and seven. This would not require any vast improvement over last year, just a continuation of his last 10 games last year when he rang up 23 and three.

The Redskins will win 11 games—I see this is their best-case scenario, a number they could reach with a reasonable amount of good fortune. The key would be going 5-1 against the NFL East. Even if they aren’t at the level to be able to beat the Cardinals or Panthers they could get to 11 by winning three out of four against the NFC North and against the AFC North. Home games will be the key. They play only one true road game against a team that had a winning record (Cardinals). If they take care of business at FedEx Field they have a chance to have their highest win total since 1991.

Tandler on Twitter Instagram

Crowder with a nice catch in the corner. #Redskins

A video posted by Rich (@richtandler) on

In case you missed it 


114 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 5:34 AM

    Those are five great bold predictions; of all of them, the one I really want are the 11 Redskins wins!

    NFL had a great start to the season last night. Looking forward to Sunday and of course Monday! Looking forward to continued Redskins coverage until the game. HTTR!

  2. colorofmyskinz - Sep 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM

    Holy cow that was one heck of a game last night! Again confirmation that the QB does not win the tough games, defense does. This game was won by stiff defensive pressure on the QB from the front 7. The running game for the Broncos shows you running offenses can score the required points to win if your defense is great.

    Cam is a cocky trash talking mega athlete that brings on major venom from the other team. Thus all the hits. He plays not like typical read option QB. He is an active fullback on 15-20 plays. Defenses are going to hit a QB like that more. And the refs need to allow the hits if the QB is going to play a fullback role. The helmet hits were not appropriate however. But, you can’t have refs protecting a guy that stands as a QB but acts and runs like a fullback.

    I shutter to think of a game where Cousins would be hit like that in a game. He would not make a single game with hits like that. Thank god we would only see them in the Super Bowl this year if we do.

    • colorofmyskinz - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:05 AM

      The Broncos proved to the world of NFL that you can beat the best team in the NFL with 2 different below average performance QBs and that the QB is not really the most important position in the draft – edge rusher is. Manning was playing some of his worst football when he won and the Broncos just started a backup QB and did the same exact thing. Defense wins championships consistently, not QBs. Great QBs can but they are not required.

      • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:44 AM

        They’re multiple ways to win Super Bowls.

        Great, dominant defenses can win championships … such as 1985 Bears, 2000 Ravens, 2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks …

        You can also win Super Bowls with a very good (but not dominant) defense and outstanding offense or with strong, balanced teams.

        There’s more than one formula that gets you there, and while you can do it riding a dominant defense, I don’t think it’s a particular, easy route to get there nor has history shown that it is an easy to repeat championships / sustain year-over-year.

    • colorofmyskinz - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:13 AM

      Next year in the draft if we went edge rusher, center, NT, RB (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) we would be virtually unstoppable.

      • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:22 AM

        We can revisit at the end of the season, but I think we’ll need both OLB and DE; I would not neglect Guard nor Safety either.

      • skinsgame - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:01 AM


      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:17 PM

        How would this team be unstoppable with that draft? I assume you are anticipating year one or two elites from the first three picks. As mentioned, where are the safeties coming from? This team has tried picking safeties in later rounds but with no success.

        Do you think there is any remote comparison to Denver safeties and the ones at Washington? That whole position needs to be rebuilt almost from starter sown to backups, and it won’t happen selecting players in the 5 to 7th rounds. It’s also not easy to land a quality safer in the FA market who can also transition well to another defense.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:21 PM

          Indeed. If you want a quality safety you better take him high. Centers and NTs, on the other hand, can be taken a little lower. Maybe still round 3-4 but I would want a first or second round safety if we really set out to fix the position. Maybe a third of the guy has some behavior or injury issues.

          But these needs are going to change before the next draft. We will have injuries, departures in free agency, arrivals in free agency, players snagged off waivers, surprise contributors this season, surprise flops this season (*cough* Morgan Moses *cough*) it’s just a hair too early to start talking about 2017 draft needs. Like, you know, five or six months too early.

        • skinsgame - Sep 9, 2016 at 9:16 PM

          I don’t disagree those aren’t positions of need but 1st: Scot doesn’t draft “need” and B: the draft is not a crystal ball venture. I agree that safety is a massive liability. While I love Deangelos heart, I don’t think he’s going to make a decent safety. And that position is often the heart of a good D. HTTR!

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 10:59 PM

          What about Hall’s game makes you think he won’t be a good safety?

        • skinsgame - Sep 10, 2016 at 8:53 AM

          He played ok last year at that spot. What I don’t like about him being there is that he’s playing out of position and his age. Specifically, what I don’t like is:
          He is going to be one of the smallest safeties in the league and when the field gets shorter, I believe that will really show up. He does play physical which is a great thing until he gets hurt while tackling a RB or drawing a penalty because of his smaller stature forcing him to interfere. Also, he often over-commits and gets burned in coverage. Well, he did at CB anyway. He’s comparable to a draft pick in that he’s an unknown right now only, he’s 33.
          On the plus side, he has ball hawking instinct and tons of experience that gives him an edge of reading the field.
          I realize there have been some successful moves from CB to safety but, outside of Lott and Woodson, most have been short lived experiments that started out ok and peaked at just that.The odds are not good that this is a solution at safety. I am rooting for him in any event.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 12:24 PM

          I agree Hall’s size and age could pose issues for him in coverage. He doesn’t possess the speed he once did for coverage but still is probably as fast as the average safety. I’m on the fence about Hall playing safety. I honestly love the guy and consider a true blood Redskin in the likes of Santana Moss, Monk, Green, Riggo, etc.

          Despite his size he was at his best covering bigger wide outs like Dez. I hope it translates to free safety.

          My biggest concern is with a diminished Dline and undersized ILB, this could leave Hall vulnerable in open field taking down much bigger RBs and TEs. It is just not the best scenario for Hall being moved to FS

    • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:18 AM

      What stood out to me was the quarterback pressures by both defenses. While the O-lines did not play poorly, the defensive schemes were varied and neither quarterback usually had a lot of time to execute in the pocket. Shows both O-line and D-line play are critical in my opinion.

      • colorofmyskinz - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:34 AM

        I very much agree. Games are won on the line of scrimmage. However wins that line wins. Oline to protect and DLine to crank up pressure.

      • ET - Sep 9, 2016 at 10:39 AM

        On the other hand, you have teams like the Jets, Rams, Texans and Cowboys around to prove that a top-notch line on either side of the ball will only get you so far. Turns out coaches and skill position players matter, too.

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 11:55 AM

      Um, guys, the only thing the Broncos proved last night was that missed field goals win championsh…errr games. Not defense. They lost that game and good fortune gave it back. Let’s not overreact here. You need a QB to consistently win in this league.

      • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:54 PM

        The QB pressures from both defenses stood out for me; fairly even affair, as you point the game could have swung either way, but neither Newton nor Siemian had a lot of time in the pocket. That’s what that game was about for me.

        With a +2 turnover margin, Carolina should have not let that game be as close as it was, but strong QB pressure kept both Denver and Carolina in the game.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:30 PM

          Well of course. Denver’s defense is amazing. Like, historically good. That unit last night actually looked better than the previous year to me (keeping in mind it’s just one game.) But Denver really should have lost the game. So that just tells me you can have a historic defense and still lose at home to a team where the QB melts down.

          And building a defense like that is not a sustainable plan for success. Go look at the team’s in the SB the past 10 years. How many didn’t have elite QBs? Or at least very good QBs? Now how many had bad QBs but historic defenses? Let’s not forget that the Broncos won with Peyton Manning under center. And it’s an extreme oversimplification to say he was playing like crap because A) his SB numbers were actually decent and B) he still got Denver into the correct play and threatened the defense. Many defenders came out and said they never stopped respecting Peyton at the line so they played balanced. It’s a fallacy to say Peyton didn’t help them win.

          Those defenses come along once every now and then and quickly evaporate because players leave. It’s hard to keep them together. A franchise QB could mean 15 years of success.

          And Cam had more time than he allowed. Toward the end he basiclsky took the snap, brought the ball down, and ran all in the same motion. But Carolina also has AWFUL tackles. Awful. That’s why a RT is a bigger need than a center for us.

        • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:19 PM

          Yes. I thought Denver missed Malik Jackson and Carolina missed Josh Norman last night; maybe not….

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:51 PM

          Yes. Thank you. Somebody brought it up and reminded me. Ever since Norman was cut all I’ve heard about was how he really isn’t that good and anybody can play behind that front 7 and look good. Granted, NOBODY said that before Carolina cut him. And people largely based that off some stupid videos of him 1-on-1 with Desean where he’s not supposed to win. But it was still so irritating to hear people keep repeating that.

          Then we get our first look at Carolina’s D without Norman. Siemien wasn’t setting the world on fire but he was completing passes that I don’t think would have if Norman was there. The secondary was weaker and it made the rest of the D look weaker. They lost a vocal leader and now they’re not able to play knowing one side of the field is locked down. It affected them in pass and run D.

          My point is that 1) Norman appears to be as good as advertised but 2) we focus way too much on the line vs. secondary vs. edge vs. middle. I’m guilty of it at times too. But it’s all connected. A great player will help all phases of the defense. Some more than others, but they’re all connected. A great CB can have a huge impact on a D. Denver has an amazing pass rush and secondary. But I’m not so sure Carolina actually has as good a front 7 as people claim. I think they’re decent, but the secondary made them look better. That’s the theory for now. I may be changing my tune after a few more games ;)

        • ET - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM

          ” A great player will help all phases of the defense. Some more than others, but they’re all connected.”

          That’s an important and relevant point. A pair of CBs like Norman and Breeland can change the nature of an offensive attack. Cascading effects could include an extra few tenths of a second for our DL and OLBs to reach the quarterback. Heck, I’m hoping their presence will allow Barry to throw more (and more varied) blitz packages at opponents, among other things. Once Cravens gets up to speed, the added implications are intriguing as well.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 1:05 PM

          With a team like Denver, it doesn’t matter where the weakness on the line is since they’ll attack it where ever it goes remember the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. A QB would normally be positioned at a straight line behind the center. Of course a tackle is far more valued than a center. However, there is a huge difference between even the average Center and a bad one. I’m seriously concerned we have sunk even further into the ground of bad Center than even last year.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 2:29 PM

          Would you agree that smart but smaller centers have had histories of surviving in the NFL because they get guard help? It’s often not one-on-one with a center.

          Of course the guys still has to be able to play. But I’ll take a smarter center over a bigger center any day. That’s a false dilemma because you can have a smart and big center. I just don’t believe we currently own one. But I want a guy who is ready for a delayed blitz and for stunts. Because those are often ran through the middle and it’s sickening when the center isn’t paying attention because he’s trying to help the guard. I understand that’s his assignment sometimes and the RB is supposed to be looking for the LB tearing through the middle. But not always.

          Kory is good with his assignments and getting the line into proper protection. Which allows Cousins to focus on everything else instead of protections too. Put Long or Reiter at center and Cousins now has to add protection to his pre snap checklist.

          I worry about Kory’s age and nerve damage. Someone quoted Cooley saying Kory is already on the decline and isn’t going to get better. Great point. But if he can even sustain how he played pre-injury last year then I’m not worried at all. I think he’s a very adequate center who gets way more grief than he deserves.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM

          I agree a smart center outplays a big but less astute Center any game. I think you hit on Kory’s biggest issue and it’s the nerve damage. If you ever noticed, I never had issues with Kory at Center until now and it’s the nerve damage culminated with age that really concerns me.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 11, 2016 at 2:43 PM

          And I guess it should. I’ve had a lot of faith in the guy but I’m starting to get concerned too. Not because of his play in the preseason but just the age and injury. Seems like he’s much more likely to breakdown as the season wears on than most.

          It’s a shame the whole Stork thing didn’t work out. But I have complete faith in Bill Callahan. There’s something wrong with Long if he can’t develop into an adequate center under Callahan. We’re not going to have a top 5-10 center this year. But I’m really fine with that. Just need the proper protections, good snaps, and adequate blocking for this offense to work.

      • John - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:49 PM

        Trey regarding championship teams and defenses and QBs. They should look for balance but every once and a while teams like the Bears, Ravens and Broncos come along. Dilfer was not very good but good enough for the Ravens. The Bears offense was never that good and Peyton’s body broke down but he still had the smarts. The awesome defense compensated for the other shortfalls.

        The Skins teams of the 80s and early 90s had talent but only a handful of great players (HOF) and a lot of role players and great coaching.

        The Steelers were loaded with HOF players. Knoll gets to much credit there. Dallas had talent in key areas back in the 70s, not to mention Roger the dodger.

        Few teams have the Steelers talent or Denver’s defense but if they can get it together with good coaching, stars in key areas and a solid if not spectacular QB, they can still win the big one. Even Elway, perhaps the best ever was not able to win the big one until he had a solid supporting cast. Manninng with the Colts, empty handed until they had balance with a running game (Adai and Potts).

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 4:18 PM

          Yes. I completely agree about balance. But those great defenses come along and win a SB about once every decade at the most? The 85 Bears, that was one year. How did they do after that? One of the main points of my argument was that it’s not a sustainable way to consistently win. Too many moving pieces. Too hard to hold onto those guys.

          And the game had undoubtedly changed even since the Ravens won their first SB. But particularly since the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Like I said, in the past decade, how many SBs have been won by a non-future HOF QB? How many teams without a great QB are perennially in the playoffs?

          And Peyton actually had a pretty decent game in the SB. But multiple defenders have come out and said, even at his worst, Peyton made a big difference when he was in the game. He got them in the right protections, in the right plays, the correct audibles, and the defenses played them honestly because it was still Peyton. It was a great defensive performance, don’t get me wrong. But the QB wasn’t irrelevant.

          The Seahawks had Wilson and Lynch. I think it’s probably been since the Ravens that a defense really truly won a SB for a team between last year. And even the , Denver still had Peyton.

          My point is that it’s ridiculous for people to come yelling and screaming about how QBs aren’t important just because one team built a historic defense. Obviously you want all of your until a to be as strong as possible. But the plan shouldn’t be to just build an amazing defense and ignore the QB. That’s a very hard thing to do. Harder than finding a franchise QB.

    • greed - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:19 PM

      what ? Doesnt matter how big or strong CAM or any other qb is helmet to helmet is illegal unless your declared a runner and CAM was clearly on 2 hits was a passer

    • greed - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:25 PM

      Qb dont win tough games ! Lol Gano dont win tough games

      • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:44 PM

        Indeed. Denver has a great team and all but the gloating I keep hearing from Denver fans on the radio is kind of unreal. Denver didn’t win, Gano lost. Pretty big difference. It will says W next to Denver but we know what really happened.

        Cam was obviously not right later in that game. I don’t know if it was the hits or if that pass rush just got in his head but he was not himself. If it was just the pass rush, then credit the defense. But if it was the hits to the head then good luck doing that all season.

  3. colorofmyskinz - Sep 9, 2016 at 5:57 AM

    I agree with the predictions all of them. And they are very achievable. I think we get 11. That is my stretch goal. I think 10 is likely.

    If we get the running game going and defensive QB pressure sky is the limit.

    • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:26 AM

      6-10 or worse – disappointed
      7-9 – so-so / comparable to last season (no real improvement)
      8-8 – borderline acceptable
      9-7 – guess at Redskins record
      10-6 – very good
      11-5 – excellent / great
      12-4 or better – exceeds expectations

      • colorofmyskinz - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:38 AM

        I go with a simple standard here:
        -8 or less unacceptable
        -9-10 meets expectations
        -11 or greater exceeds expectations

        • goback2rfk - Sep 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM

          I go with an even simpler standard.

          10 or more acceptable

          9 or under unacceptable

        • nikoknight - Sep 9, 2016 at 9:22 AM

          Although I do see 9-10 wins, this team may end up being better without the record reflecting that

        • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 11:34 AM

          I can live with 7 or 8 wins if the team is close in a lot of the losses. I hope the team does better than this obviously, but I’ll look at the season not only in terms of wins and losses but the overall play and level of contention.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:04 PM

          8-8 would be a very good season for this team considering where they are in the rebuild process and where they came from.

          I understand the optimism, this team got better. But you have to truly evaluate our roster and then truly look at the schedule. We have a brutal road schedule. You can’t just look at the team and say “oh we can beat them.” You have to take into account that they will have been on the road for 3 weeks straight and coming off a tough game vs. a SB contender.

          Teams must win division games and home games right? That’s where it starts. But look at our home games. Carolina, that’s a loss. Greenbay, probably a loss. Minnesota, probably a loss (that defense is amazing + AP). Steelers, I see it as a winnable game but it’s no slam dunk. So that’s already a huge problem because it’s hard to win on the road in the NFL but we have teams like Baltimore and Arizona on the road. Then Cincinnatti in London. That’s a tough game.

          They could go 9-7 or could go 7-9 but it’s not as clear cut as anything under 9 is a disappointment. It’s a rough schedule and this team is still rebuilding. A successful season is seeing our young player develop, QB develop, be competitive in the division, if we lose then we lose close, keep building comradery and a winning culture, tighten up penalties, keep fighting even if the season is lost, stay healthy, and build momentum for next season. But a record is pointless at this stage.

          We’re not truly ready for a championship push so who cares? Just be respectable and build toward the future. I’ll take the higher draft pick over a meaningless NFC East championship. You know that center you guys wanted so bad? We could have had him if we didn’t win the division. Was losing one playoff game really worth all that to you?

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:33 PM

      You realize these aren’t predictions? They’re BOLD predictions? As in, just for fun? Rich isnt honestly predicting the Redskins win 11 games or that Hood will get 7 sacks. He’s saying it’s possible, but a long shot.

      So you’re kind of showing your delusions if you think all of these are “very achievable.” You guys are in for a very disappointing season if this is your standard.

  4. Prospero - Sep 9, 2016 at 7:27 AM

    What a catch by Crowder! Absolutely mossed the defender.

  5. wvredskins - Sep 9, 2016 at 7:47 AM

    This is something I was thinking yesterday evening as I was watching nfl network. They said Marshawn Lynch is thinking about coming out of retirement. Say Seahawks decide they would want to trade him, do you think Scott m. Would persue him? I kinda think he would. It would be an upgrade imo, and would only help Matt jones. Probably won’t happen, but it would be something that might become possible.

    • sidepull - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:29 AM

      The dynamic duo. Beast Mode and Least Mode

    • renhoekk2 - Sep 9, 2016 at 9:04 AM

      Depends if Lynch thinks the Redskins are contenders. Players who come out of retirement usually only do it if there is a chance for glory at the end.

      • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:36 PM

        Dead on Ren. He’s not coming back just for fun. But, to add, I also have to imagine he only wants to return to Seattle. Where all his boys are are he’s a living legend. Now, maybe he would play in Oakland since that’s his home, where his family and friends are, and he is also a living legend there. But why would he literally move coast to coast, away from his family, to a city he’s never played in, just to win 5 more games before he retires? Doesn’t make any sense.

  6. skinsgame - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:20 AM

    When the spotlight is at its brightest, the Redskins have usually wilted. This Monday is a big test of their mettle. Sure the Steelers are good but they’re missing a bunch of folks right now and if the Redskins can’t exploit that, then it will be difficult to see this team as formidable let alone capable of winning 11.

    • sidepull - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:33 AM

      Amen to that. No excuses. Pittsburgh has missing quality players and Redskins could not catch them at a better time than now. Hope they rise to the occasion and kick the shi# out of PItt. Come on Redskins. Time to get it in gear.

  7. chimps000 - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:41 AM

    Talking about edge rushers, I wanted Nkemdiche not doctson… I’ll be watching closely how he does in Arizona. There are just a lot more elite pass catchers than there are elite edge rushers, it’s a far more valuable position. I don’t like highly drafted wrs or RBs unless they are truly special, and doctson just might be truly special.

    Ezekiel elliot has to be extremely special for that pick to work out for Dallas in my opinion, most people have a very high opinion of him, so we will see.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:27 PM

      I agree with your comment. If you place Dotson in other drafts with more receiver talent then he likely falls to the 2nd round. I do like what I see in him but as you stated, it better to reserve first for a pass rusher unless the guy is special coming into the draft. Dotson running a 4.5 at 6.2 feet doesn’t normally fit that category. He has great hands, can position himself well with the ball in the air, and looks like a good route runner. I agree he could prove to be special in the NFL but I don’t think he proved the same as a draft pick.

      Okay it was on the other end of a 1st round but the quality in this draft was supposed to be along the defense line. Maybe Scot will prove that was not the case and I hope does. He gets paid to be right on talent and not us.

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:44 PM

      I wanted nothing to do with Nkemdiche. Go ask the Cowboys how it’s going taking players with histories of behavior problems. That guys is a head case. And, beyond the off the field stuff, there were big questions about his work ethic. He just took plays off in college while Doctson was neck and neck with Corey Coleman for the best receiver in college football until he was injured. We don’t need to waste a first or second round draft pick on a risk like that.

      2015 was the edge rushing draft. We were in perfect position to take an elite edge rushing talent and we took a guard. 2016 was the interior line draft. Reed or Robinson, OK, I get why someone would want to draft them. But not Nkemdiche.

      And Doctson wouldn’t have been ranked so high in a draft with Amari Cooler, Julio, OBJ, and Kevin White. But that’s why he didn’t go in the top 10. I think he was drafted in about the perfect spot.

      • chimps000 - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:54 PM

        I read an article on nkemdiche and granted, it’s just one article, but he came across as thoughtful and a bit eccentric, not a drug addled loser. The article referenced that many NFL types were leery of his brother as a bad influence, and that was their main concern.

        The guy took a stupid drug in college as a young man and has paid a price in terms of his draft position and compensation. All draft picks are rolls of the dice, I would rather roll with an elite pass rusher in the first round than a very good wr. I just think they are more rare and more valuable.

        He was generally viewed as the consensus most talented pass rusher in the draft. I also remember the freak combine that dontari Poe exhibited, he supposedly had a lot of possible “lazyness” issues, was drafted high and has turned out to be an ironman stud. Also Pierre paul, who was somewhat unheralded except for his freakish athleticism, also drafted first round and a guy who certainly proved worthy of that pick, regardless of the fireworks and back injuries.

        I’ll be happy if doctson turns out to be a sick baller. The draft is all about the crystal ball, who knows how these guys will turn out.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:18 PM

          I will never judge anyone for drug use. Even if he were addicted to heroin. But especially not if the only issue was that he took a drug one time. But that’s not even close to the entire story.

          First, let’s clarify, he’s a defensive tackle. Not an edge rusher. DTs with pass rush ability still have a ton of value but it’s not quite the same as an edge rusher.

          Now, the incident in the hotel where he fell off a balcony and lied about it. The lying is a red flag but so is the decesion making. He was supposed to be preparing for the most important college game of his career and preparing for the combine. Instead he was focused on partying.

          His college production is also a huge red flag. He only had 7 career sacks and 19 career tackles for loss. That’s stunningly low. According to Mel Keiper that is the lowest of any DT to come out in 25 years. That also just adds to the work ethic concerns. Because it’s not all speculation. We know he has the physical ability to make plays, but he doesn’t.

          You want this guy based off pure potential and speculation that he can be good. Not because he showed it on the field. I get it, he’s a great athletic talent. But that’s not a risk we need to take. Just because in the last guys with concerns went to teams and did well doesn’t mean those concerns weren’t legitimate. Maybe they did have issues but the team had strong enough leadership to mentor those guys and get them on track. Arizona has a track record of doing that and I’m sure that’s why they felt comfortable taking him. But it’s not a risk we need to take right now.

          Obviously a lot of GMs were concerned because he’s a top 5 talent and went 29th overall to a team known for taking on troubled players.

  8. renhoekk2 - Sep 9, 2016 at 9:01 AM

    Thank You Rich. I’ve said they are a 10-12 win team this season. People predicting 7-9 or 9-7 for different reasons. Only way the win less than 10 games is because of key player injuries. If they stay relatively healthy they win 10 games minimum. Also been telling people about Ziggy Hood since they first signed him. Defense will be better than people think. The additions of Hood, Cravens, Norman are upgrades at every level of the defense. Add in the fact that they have a full season of the P. Smith they got the last few games of last season, and the abundance of quality depth at CB, and I feel this defense will surprise a lot of people. I don’t think Jones will stay healthy enough to get to 1000yds. Players don’t suddenly start getting injured less. It usually works the other way.

  9. smotion55 - Sep 9, 2016 at 9:30 AM

    Talk about drinking the spiked cool-aid. If 2 of those 5 bold predictions come true it would be positive but which 2 are the most likely and most important to get to that magical upper level of the league. Preston Smith and Cousins would be my 2.

    I am so used to Snyder’s teams losing the next year after just barely getting above 500 that I see 9 wins at best. A 9 win season this year should be enough to keep drama to a minimum. Everybody is quick to forget this was and still is a 3 year turn around minimum with a real GM taking over finally.

    The schedule is harder and this a make or break year for QB, Coach , and GM because if the D-Line is as bad as everybody says== blame game. What happens if RG3 plays better than Kirk and Morris plays better than Jones . It will be a circus all over again. Sure hope you are right. They need 10 just to keep above all the crap that always follows.

    Rich, What did you write and think when the new GM took over, how many years to turn it around. Get your imaginary 100 dollars out and do your % per win chart. Setting ourselves up for another let down . Cooley and Kevin espn 980 are way out there also, they think 11 or 12 wins. SLOW DOWN and get realistic.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Sep 9, 2016 at 10:26 AM

      If Cousins has that 5:1 TDs to Ints again, I think we’re in the playoffs.

      • ET - Sep 9, 2016 at 11:19 AM


        That kind of TD-to-interception ratio signals that the passing game is humming along smoothly.

        If our defense can manage average / competent across the board (and I think they can), those two factors point toward a strong season.

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:03 PM

      They’re called BOLD predictions for a reason. Not reasonable predictions.

    • Rich Tandler - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:48 PM

      The title of the post was “bold predictions” and I said in the intro that these are best case–with luck–scenarios. Calm down, just trying to have a little fun.

    • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM

      At the beginning of last season, it would have been a bold prediction to say that the Redskins, with a struggling rushing attack and defense, would improve from 4-12 to 9-7 in 2015 yet it happened right?

      • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:22 PM

        Well there were quite a few people around here predicting 9-10 wins so, I don’t know how bold that really would have been. It was nothing but optimism about Knoghton, Goldson, Jeron Johnson, Chris Culliver, Paea, and RJF. We were going to have one of the best run defenses in football because Scot fixed the D-line. Oops. Only one of those guys is still on the team. Let’s not go counting our chickens yet.

        But yes, it’s unusual to improve that much. We had help though. The other three teams in our division imploded.

        • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:17 PM

          Interesting. I wouldn’t have guessed that. I can’t recall my prediction but I think it was 7-9. I remember starting confused because I thought we would beat the Dolphins but lose to the Rams. I was way off.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:12 PM

          There was a lot of optimism about the incoming free agents. A lot. People (myself included) thought the defense was going to be much better. Especially the run D. I figured the secondary would be better, but not great. I thought, and still think, very highly of Chris Culliver. But he was injured almost he whole time and it just didn’t work out. But I really thought Knighton and Paea especially would make a huge difference. Oops.

          That’s why I try not to get too excited before the season even starts. Reality is we have no idea how these guys will do. Hood could be awful. Murphy could get 13 sacks. Desean could get injured game 1 and be out the whole season. Jones could rush for 1,500 yards. Breeland could regress. Long or Kory could have a career year. You just never know.

          I was still very pessimistic about the team last year. But I especially let the Knighton signing get to me. I really thought he was going to make a huge difference. Just gotta temper expectations back to reality or else fans end up disappointed and lose patience.

  10. Mr.moneylover - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:16 PM

    Rich I dont think having Preston Smith as DPOY is a long shot he is the rookie that lead all rookies in sacks last year with not playing full speed all the time…im glad ziggy hood starting maybe he can give that D-line some more help moving the O-line backwards when pass rushing

  11. goback2rfk - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:49 PM

    Those are bold predictions all right. Like so bold none have even a remote chance of happening.

    • Rich Tandler - Sep 9, 2016 at 12:54 PM

      I apologize for trying to have a little fun. I’m sure I’ll have plenty of doom and gloom to come.

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM

      You don’t think there’s even a remote chance Jones gets 1,000 yards? Or Cousins gets the same TD to INT ratio he had the majority of the season last year? Come on man. As far as bold predictions go, a 1,000 yard back is pretty reasonable.

      • ET - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:29 PM


        What if he gets 10 sacks …?

      • ET - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM

        Ooops, that was supposed to be a response to your pants crappin’ post.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 5:25 PM

          Ha. That’s OK. Seven sacks for a 3-4 DE is elite. Remember, Baker had a breakout season and was one of the best 3-4 DEs last year with six sacks. Obviously there’s more to it than just sacks. But I don’t even know what I would do if he got 10 sacks. Probably have a seizure from the disbelief then wake up, go buy a lottery ticket, call Megan Fox and ask her on a date, and then apply for the head coaching job at Baylor. Because if Ziggy Hood can get 10 sacks in 2016, then anything is possible.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 8:48 AM

        I certainly think Jones can knock down 1000 in a season. I think bold would have been 1500.

        It’ll be hard for almost any QB to repeat the TD to INT ratio Cousins had last season. I actually don’t think he needs to match it to have a better season. We agree that Cousins should be more aggressive this season throwing down field and with more quality opponents than last season, it’s acceptable to think he may launch a few more INTs. As long as he can increase his yards passing, YAC, and help get us scoring more on offense then it’s an improvement even if his TD to INT is slightly worse

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 12:09 PM

          His completion % will probably go down too. Which is fine. If he can take more shots downfield and still complete 70% of his passes then they may as well just put him in Canton now.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 2:42 PM

          I’m not giving myself any credit here but stating my personal history. When we drafted both RG3 and Cousins, I spent considerable time defending the choice to draft two QBs so early. I have always stated Cousins had the potential to be a professional QB. I watched him since his time at Michigan State and I liked him then more than most Mich St fans did.

          He has a fearless side of him that while it made him unpredictable, it also was when he could be at his best. He is a lot more like Brett Farve than many realize IMO. My biggest concern with Cousins would he had a ceiling because of his arm strength. It’s funny how many think he has a strong arm. I know he threw one of the fastest passes velocity wise at the NFL Combine. However velocity is not arm strength; it’s more speed than distance. Farve had a damn strong arm throwing distance and I think that is what separates the two.

          Regardless, if we are going to stick with Cousins; we have to let Cousins play his game. I, like you, feel he was held back last season. I just want the staff let him use both his smarts and instincts to play his game. He may hurt use on turnovers at times but he’ll make up for it if you don’t penalize him early for making these mistakes.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM

          I think I that was very well said. There is more than one way to win. More than one offense that works. More than one certain type of play that works. I don’t mean to be captain obvious. I’ve just seen people who essentially want to do nothing but run the ball and take deep shots. Probably because they were a fan of an offense like that at one point.

          But different QBs have different strengths and you have to play to that. Cousins doesn’t have Big Ben’s arm strength so he’s going to play a bit different. Doesn’t mean he can’t be very good. I personally believe Cousins can be a very good QB for a long time, like you said, if he’s allowed to play to his strengths and eventually be unleashed. But I did appreciate how they held him back last year and let him develop.

          And I don’t see that as you talking yourself up. I understand what it’s like to really, really follow a guy in college and know what he’s capable of more skme than fans who just got introduced to him through mock drafts. There’s just some things stats and measurables don’t tell. Or even just watching one or two games. That doesn’t mean you’re better at evaluating talent than other people. Just that you’re working with more information. I didn’t know much about Cousins when he came out.

  12. abanig - Sep 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM

    Agree with all! I see your jumping on the Ziggy Hood train with me. Just remember when he was signed I said it was a good signing and I thought he’d make the team and be a major contributor! 😜😉😁 ;)

    • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:26 PM

      That’s good. I thought he would make the team but I did not project to what extent Ziggy would contribute. A lot of pundits didn’t think he would make the 53 player roster before training camp; this could be due to the fact that Ziggy started to show better as time went on, especially in the preseason games.

      • abanig - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:29 PM

        Well that was my point, and sorry to say this about Rich, but yes, I consider the Redskins “beat reporters” pundits…

        All in good fun though… ;)

      • Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 3:24 PM

        Well Hood hasn’t actually done anything yet so let’s relax a little bit. I’ll crap my pants if he gets 7 sacks.

  13. greed - Sep 9, 2016 at 2:22 PM

    rich / what were the 2 bold predictions you were right about?

    • Rich Tandler - Sep 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM

      A simple click on the post will answer that question for you!

      • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Sep 9, 2016 at 6:09 PM

        Clickin’ is HARD WORK. But that’s why I’m here for you, Mr. or Ms. greed.

        1) The Redskins will start the season 3-0

        2) Alfred Morris will rush for 700 yards

        3) Kirk Cousins will start all 16 game

        4) The Redskins special teams won’t improve much if at all

        5) Preston Smith will be the defensive rookie of the year

        2) and 3).

  14. kenlinkins - Sep 9, 2016 at 4:11 PM

    Nice wish list Rich, IYO how much “Good Fortune” did the Redskins have in 2015? Using a 1 to 5 with 5 being outstanding Good Fortune, IMO it was a 4 and I wonder if the Redskins can get that lucky again.

  15. Trey Gregory - Sep 9, 2016 at 5:28 PM

    I didn’t remember the very bold prediction of Preston Smith being defensive rookie of the year. Pretty close though. Rookie sack leader would have been a pretty unbelievable prediction. Especially with all the strong candidates taken before him.

  16. redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 7:08 PM

    Here’s a great bold prediction from last year:

    troylok – Sep 12, 2015 at 7:44 AM
    Okay, as long as we playing make-believe, here is my five:

    -Jordan Reid finally overcomes the injury bug and leads the league in receptions by a tight end.

    Troylok, take a bow; only off by 8 receptions!

  17. bangkokben - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:22 PM

    Here are my four bold predictisons:

    1) Monday’s match-up is a preview of Super Bowl 51.

    2) The Redskins will win Monday night

    3) The Steelers will win the Super Bowl

    4) Trey Gregory will be disappointed in the Redskins “meaningless” season since they will be picking 31st in next year’s draft.

    • redskins12thman - Sep 9, 2016 at 11:16 PM

      Could we switch the teams in 2) and 3) above?

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:10 AM

      Come on Ben. That’s not what I said and you know it. First, I never said meaningless season. I said a meaningless playoff game.

      But there’s a very big difference between going to a Super Bowl and going one and done in the playoffs. Taking advantage of a weak division and then getting waxed in a home playoff game does nothing for me. If you like it then that’s great, I’m not going to judge you for that. But there were teams with more wins than us who didn’t make the playoffs and picked before us in the draft. I’m not going to go around town bragging about that.

      How impressed were you with the 2015 Houston Texans? Didn’t it kind of feel like they just made the playoffs because a division rival’s QB got hurt and like they didn’t really belong in the playoffs? If the team truly isn’t ready to make a push then what’s the point? Now, really good teams lose in early rounds of the playoffs. That doesn’t mean they weren’t ready to just means they fell on some bad luck or whatever. But the 2015 Washington Redskins were not a true championship contender so that playoff game was irrelevant to me. I don’t care about division championships more than long-term success. I get more from regular season wins than I do a 9-7 division championship. So yes, I’ll take a 9-7 record without a playoff berth and with a higher draft pick before choosing to go one and done in the playoffs. And I do not believe this team is actually ready to make a deep playoff push so none of that other stuff matters to me. I just want to see them get better and keep moving forward.

      Maybe you think I’m an idiot for thinking like that. But I think anyone is nuts if they believe the 2016 Washington Redskins are on par with Carolina, Arizona. Minnessota, or Seattle. Maybe GreenBay too. Those are three teams we have to get through to even see a conference championship game. I hope they prove me wrong. Save this post and make me eat it if I am. But I think I’m looking at it realistically and rationally. N

      • bangkokben - Sep 10, 2016 at 6:34 PM

        Oh man,

        I had an awesome and way too lengthy response to you but alas my computer overheated and here I am at square one. Suffice it to say. We have clear disagreements in what is beneficial for building a team. I respect you tons but this negativity shrouded in realism is pathetic. You are trying to keep your expectations in check in an effort to limit your disappointment in the season’s final result. Never mind that your rationale is inconsistent with your core beliefs. Let me quote you: “We’re not truly ready for a championship push so who cares?…I’ll take the higher draft pick over a meaningless NFC East championship.”

        You have stated this rhetoric multiple times this offseason — ramping it up this week. I get it. You want to build a sustainable winner — not a flash in the pan. We all do. Early I had responded with comparisons of the 2010 Seahawks and how they went from 7-9 and the 25th pick in the 2011 draft to Super Bowl champs and two Super Bowl appearances and the 2010 Rams who also went 7-9 because they lost to Seattle in the finale and then got super studly Robert Quinn with the 14th pick. Seattle lost all of nine draft slots because of winning the “meaningless” DIVISION and backing it up with an improbable home win over the Saints but has BUILT SUSTAINED SUCCESS while the Rams have yet to get to just a winning season. Seattle went 7-9 the following year missing out on the playoffs but have been back for last four years. All the while not having a 1st round pick since 2012 — until this year. It’s not where you pick but who you pick. They selected Richard Sherman in 2011 with the 154th pick.

        Fallacy number one: Draft position is how you build a sustained winner. There is zero evidence supporting this theory and mountains of contrary evidence. If this were true, teams that routinely pick in the top ten would have multiple Super Bowl appearances. When was the last time that New England even picked in the top half of the draft. Now, I know that you didn’t directly say this but there certainly implications.

        Suggesting that two to eight draft slots in the first round is better for the Redskins competing for the Super Bowl next year is completely inconsistent as well as not being true. The Redskins aren’t one rookie first rounder picked with the 17th pick away from competing are they? No. Nor are they a center away.

        We both know that there are a multitude of variables in how you build a successful team and you want to bet on the most uncontrollable? Draft position. One of the variables that contributed to Seattle’s success and other teams is playoff experience. You don’t get that by drafting 15th instead of 21st. Despite the comings and goings on an NFL roster there is valuable experience gained by being in the playoffs. You learn what it takes to win at the next level and whether you have it. You experience the intensity. When was the last Super Bowl team that emerged without any playoff experience? Carolina’s 15-1 season followed a 7-8-1 “meaningless” division title that included two playoff games. The first, a win against a Cardinal team using it’s 3rd string QB and the second, a loss against the Seahawks which they avenged last year. Experience.

        The last Giants team is the most recent team that went to a Super Bowl without being in the playoffs the previous season. They still had experience that carried over from years before but that brings up fallacy number two. “Why try since you can’t compete?” This is utter ridiculousness since there is no way of determining who will be in the Super Bowl six months before hand. Nobody outside of the Carolinas had the Panthers in the Super Bowl last season and that is hardly an anomaly. In fact the outlier is Seattle’s back-to-back appearance a couple of years ago. The AFC has been pretty predictable: Brady, Manning, or Roethlisberger represented 13 out of the last 15 years. But the NFC has not. Furthermore, six of the last eleven Super Bowl winners won a wild card game. If you make it in, you’ve got a chance.

        I don’t think you’re an idiot for thinking this way. I’ve got a lot of respect for you and your opinions. You engage in debate without being argumentative. I try to do that as well but tend to be a bit pugnacious. The written language can easily be contentious although the thoughts behind the words were diplomatic with just an omission of few articles and sometimes we wake up on the wrong side of the bed and are less filtered. However, I am fine if you think that I’m not only nuts but mad as a hatter for thinking the 2016 Redskins are the equals of the 2016 Panthers and Vikings. I think both of those teams have taken steps backward with losing three starting DBs and the other losing its QB as well as having tougher schedules. Let’s not forget that those teams will be playing stiffer competition as well. The Panthers get the Redskins, Vikings, Cheifs, Seahawks, and Cardinals on their schedule while the Vikings have the Packers twice as well as the Panthers, Redskins, Texans, and Cardinals. If Carson Palmer is the 2015 playoffs version of himself, I’ll include them as well. Bottom line it’s not just how you match-up with each of these opponents but how they match up with the rest of the league.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 11, 2016 at 2:48 AM

          Man that sucks. It’s happened to me too many times where I write something then it craps outs. And I do all my writing here on my phone so I usually don’t feel like doing it all over again. I feel your pain.

          I seem to have unintentionally offended you. Even if just slightly. I also seem to have miscommunicated a couple of my opinions. Because I agree with a lot of what you said there.

          When I was talking about a meaningless NFC East Championship I was talking about how I personally feel about it. It does nothing for me as a fan to win the division and go one and done. I wasn’t saying it’s pointless for the players or it shouldn’t make you happy.

          I’ve realized I’m the opposite of a lot of fans. A lot of guys only care about the regular season as a means to the playoffs. But every regular season game matters a lot to me. It makes or breaks my week. I am admittedly way too attached to the successes or failures of the teams I root for. I’ve dealt with a lot of losing teams and I would rather then win 15 games and lose in the playoffs than win 7, somehow make the playoffs, and get a playoff win. That’s just me though.

          About last year’s team. I found them exciting and refreshing. I loved the fight, I loved the improvement, and I loved the unexpected success (from those outside). But I did not believe they were ready to compete with the best teams in the league in the playoffs. As was evident to me in the Carolina and New England games. So, to me, 9-7 and no playoff game was the same as 9-7 and a division title. I just wanted to win more than we lost, build some momentum, and reload for next year. Now, I completely agree about playoff experience and I even said that after. But that’s for the players. But you wouldn’t have seen me running around bragging about being NFC East champs because I didn’t feel like they were a team truly ready to win a playoff game. I did, however, brag about the spectacular turnaround from two awful season into a winning season with an aparsnt franchise QB. That’s just what’s important to me right now. When I feel the team is better, then I’ll set my expectations to playoff wins.

          I do not believe you have to have a higher draft position to build a contender. However, a higher pick is generally host to better talent. If nothing else it’s a larger selection for the GM to get the guy he wants. There’s more trade value in exchanging picks too. I’m sure you know not all second round picks are worth the same in a trade.

          I also never said we were one rookie or one center away from being a competitor. If anything I’ve said the opposite.

          Also remember with team’s like Seattle and Carolina, those teams were built with high draft picks at first. Like, Cam Newton being the #1 overall pick. And Seattle had a trifecta of Coach, GM, and Scot McCloughan building that roster. But that started in 2008. Took them 5 years to get to the Super Bowl. Forget the playoff win vs. the Saints. They got to the playoffs with a crappy record and caught a team off guard. But it took five years with an excellent coach and front office to turn that organization around. We’re at year two with 1/3 of that crew.

          I’m sure the area I offended you in was where I said you’re nuts if you think the Redskins are on par with the top teams in the NFC. I was partially saying that in a playful way. I absolutely do not believe Washington is on par with them, but it’s fine if you do. I just can’t get excited about something I don’t honestly believe. I’m not interested in blustering fans hyping up their team because they’re lying to themselves or too blinded by their fandom. That’s just not me. I try my best to evaluate teams with an unbiased eye and that’s just what I see.

          But I’ll make you a promise. If we go to the playoffs and we beat either Carolina, Minnessota, or Arizona then I’ll never outwardly doubt a Jay Gruden and Scot McCloughan Redskins team again. I may even give it to you if they only lose by one score.

        • bangkokben - Sep 11, 2016 at 9:52 AM

          Trey, truly that last part is not what “offended” me at all. If anything I was “offended” at is they way you have so fatalistically defined the outcome of the season based mostly on your pessimistic nature and aggressively purported it on the eve of the season.

          I am in complete agreement with you that making the playoffs this year is a tall task and not achieving that goal doesn’t necessarily define failure. And you certainly don’t need to falsely build your expectations. But perhaps you have fallen victim to overselling the opposition?

          Let’s look at this season rationally — specifically the schedule. The Redskins schedule has already gotten easier this preseason in SIX games (Minnesota, Dallas 2x, Philly 2x, and Carolina). That doesn’t mean that those games are easy victories or victories at all. It simply means that those teams aren’t as good as they were originally perceived. Minnesota will take some time adjusting to Sam Bradford and theoretically could be better but for now I’d say that they have gone from a 11-win team to a 9-win team. Dallas with losing Romo is going from a potentially 10-win team to a TYPICALLY Dallas 8-8. The Eagles have gone from a possible 8-8 to a 6-win ceiling. Carolina could never expect to go back-to-back 15-win seasons but until their secondary improves, they are a 10/11-win team.

          Again, this does not mean that they’re going to win these games but that these teams are not the dominant once a decade teams the Redskins faced last year in New England and Carolina. The Redskins should be competitive in the above six games and could come away with 4-2 record.

          It all comes down to how you see the Redskins. If you’re thinking that they’re a 6-10 team that lucked its way into three extra victories last season, you’re going to see a lot more potential losses than if you think that they’re an above average team trending up.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 13, 2016 at 2:45 AM

          Ben, we obviously both really like this team and want them to succeed but see them at different stages of their development. I understand you do t care for my assessment but I’m not going to apologize for my genuine opinion about how this team will do. I kid about being fatally pessimistic and all that, but it’s all just for fun. After looking at this roster, the schedule, and their opponents I believe this is a 7-9 team who may get some lucky breaks and win 9 games. I enjoy honest talk and assessment about football. I have zero interest in fan bluster. I get wide eyed and full of hope before every kick off but I try to stay level headed when they’re not on the field. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this team and that’s how I feel.

          For every Seahawk’s and Panthers you give me I can give you a 2012 Redskins or 2013 Chargers (they even won a playoff game).

          I think this team is trending up. I like the progress and they might even win the division again. But I do not believe they’re ready to make a real playoff push. I know you’ve convinced yourself the run game is irrelevant, but it’s not. The entire offense is connected. The pass will suffer without the run. You can’t light up the scoreboard throwing 60 times if the defense rushes 3-4 and sits back in a zone. Especially if that team can run the ball and create 8-10 min drives. Your defense will wear out and the opponent will keep your offense off the field. So until they improve their run game, and get a better run defense, I can’t buy into playoff wins. There not on par with the best teams in the NFC yet.

          We played a legit SB threat tonight and got curb stomped while only running the ball 5 times. They threw all over our improved pass defense with Sammie Coates and Eli Rogers then closed us out with run after run from Williams. That’s what a team ready to contend looks like.

          And hey, we don’t have to argue about this. The season is here. The games will play out and we will see what happens. There’s plenty of time for them to prove me wrong.

        • bangkokben - Sep 13, 2016 at 3:51 PM

          This would come across A LOT more genuine if it came before last nights kick off. Instead it’s bunch of blah, blah, blah. I never said the Redskins would win every game without a running game. I merely suggested that their passing offense would be enough to win as much or more than they lose. After one game, I look like I could easily be wrong. Fortunately they don’t play Pittsburgh every week but the margin of victory is thin and had Cousins, Kerrigan, and Breeland brought their “A” games would’ve they gotten “curb stomped?” I don’t think so. There still would’ve been that issue about stopping the run and running the ball (love those 1st and 20s that stalled drives).

          Again, I never said the Redskins were ready to compete for the Super Bowl – other than in a tongue-in-cheek bold prediction. I have stated that the playoffs are a possibility and shouldn’t be jettisoned for few draft spots. That they are important for building long-term success that draftnik fans overlook. I haven’t said anything about the defense since before training camp. Before Galette tore his Achilles, I said that is was designed for a team with a lead. The offense has to force the opponent to be one dimensional by scoring early and often. Well they didn’t do that. They settled for FGs and bailed when they could’ve been aggressive. Sucks, I know but don’t blame me for seeing the potential.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 14, 2016 at 1:06 AM

          Well I was going to say the same thing before kickoff but I go to work in the afternoons and didn’t get to this until after the game. I’m able to reply to some people when it gets slow at work but not everything.

          Either way, I think it’s pretty consistent with what I’ve been saying all offseason. I was hesitant to even respond because I didn’t want it to seem like I was rubbing it in after a bad loss. Last night sucked for all of us. But if anything I was trying to say it’s not that bad. I expected them to lose. No, I didn’t think we would get curb stompped like that. This team is better than they played. Things just have a way of breaking down once it gets bad.

          I think Breeland played just fine. He was put in an impossible situation and Hall was out of position at times. I think Kerrigan played just fine too. Cousins was off and that killed our strength. But I don’t expect that every week. I think we will win our fair share of games and have some close losses in the games we lose.

          I wasn’t trying to say you were wrong. Just that I put a lot of thought into my assessment of this team and I’m not playing some kind of reverse psychology when I say they’re not ready to compete with the best teams in the league. It’s OK to disagree with me. But that’s my genuine assessment. They need more time to develop into that.

          Now, they’re right on track for the season I was expecting. I think they split with our division opponents so they could be 2-1 in just a couple of weeks and everything will feel a lot better.

          We match up BAD with the Steelers. Just bad. Every game won’t be like this. Our coverage will hold up in other games and our passing attack will get going. Plenty of the things you’ve been saying all offseason will happen. Probably as soon as next week. It’s all good.

        • bangkokben - Sep 14, 2016 at 9:43 PM

          I completely understand that work thing. Then there’s Comcast being your internet provider. When I say your, I’m actually saying my and when I say provider that is on their whim. I don’t do the mobile thing here because then I would never get work done and with the length of comments you and I write, mobile is an endeavor that would be too tedious for me. Kudos to you for doing it that way. There are times that I wish I wasn’t just lurking with my phone but it’s a necessary discipline. Disappoint first result but there are 15 more.

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:19 AM

      But my BOLD predictions.

      1) Trent Murphy gets 6 sacks and 30 tackles.

      2) Preston Smith gets 10 sacks and Ryan Kerrigan gets 15.

      3) Jordan Reed hauls in 15 TDs

      4) Chris Baker gets 8 sacks

      5) Josh Norman gets 0 INTs (because QBs refuse to throw to him). Breeland and Hall reap the rewards with 4 INTs each.

      • John - Sep 10, 2016 at 10:47 AM

        Good luck on Murphy. Total stretch there.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 12:02 PM

          I made that one specifically for you. Thought you would like that.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:06 PM

          I really thought by now someone would have called me nuts for saying Kerrigan gets 15 sacks. I’m his biggest fan and even I don’t believe that. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he leads he league in QB pressures. He’s elite in that category.

        • redskins12thman - Sep 11, 2016 at 1:13 PM

          Hope they all come true; they’re bold predictions for a reason!

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 11, 2016 at 2:46 PM

          And six sacks really isn’t even that bold. Some guys kind of luck into a couple sacks every now and then. But Murphy is the guy I’ve gone out on a limb for and who people could accuse me of being a delusional fan for. But I see something in the guy as a DE. My optimism revolves around him there, not OLB. So that’s a caveat. But I do expect him to line up as a DE in nickel so it shouldn’t be much of an issue.

  18. Skulb - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:30 PM

    I’d settle for nine wins. Last consecutive winning seasons came in 91-92. Just sayin’. If there’s one thing I’d like to end this season it’s this 24 year streak of always being putrid after a rare decent season.

    • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 2:50 AM

      I hear that. To me, that would be a sign of true progress. Even 8-8. Just don’t fall back into total chaos. There’s a lot of teams who are generally bad and flair up for a season every now and then. I dont want to be that.

      But compare this roster to 2013 and 2014. The difference in talent is so obvious. Even compared to 2012. There’s no doubt in my mind that this team is building toward something sustainable.

      • Skulb - Sep 10, 2016 at 7:36 AM

        I’m a Redskins fan. There’s always doubt. Cousins could join a cult and decide to move to Montana tomorrow. Jay Gruden could have a heart attack or someone could post his playbook on E-Bay. There are endless possibilities.
        I’m like 95% sure you’re right, but the doubt remains.

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:11 PM

          Lol. I COMPLETELY understand. I think I’ve rubbed a couple people the wrong way with my pessimism but I’ve just been burnt too many times before to jump on the bandwagon this quickly. I love this team, want them to success, and I genuinely believe they can. But I’m taking a very cautiously optimistic approach for now.

          I’ll keep it simple. If Cousins plays like a top 10 QB again (and gets a long-term deal) and these guys win at least 9 games, then I’ll drop the pessimism and be on the hype bandwagon. Because there’s other pieces that need to fall in place, but they won’t get 9 wins if those pieces don’t fall in place. And if Cousins doesn’t play well and stick around, then it won’t matter if those pieces fall in place.

  19. Skulb - Sep 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM

    Skins vs Chiefs in the Superbowl!

    I’m feeling it. The non-PC bowl of 2016 is coming.

    • - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:20 AM

      Do the Chiefs get crap about their name too? I’ve never heard that they do but I’ve always wondered if I just don’t hear it.

      • Skulb - Sep 10, 2016 at 7:33 AM

        They do, but more because of “cultural appropriation” than “racial slurs”.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 12:49 PM

          The only racial slur is Indian. It’s far more racial when you inherit a name from someone with a reputation on human rights upon other races who mistaken you for the East Indies than one name created by Native American and another that is just references the head of a group.

          Only uneducated ones that want to appear educated think either is a non-PC name

        • Skulb - Sep 10, 2016 at 1:51 PM

          It’s certainly a ridiculous name for them. But I actually use “American Indians” systematically because it’s what Russell Means said he preferred. If it was good enough for him it’s good enough for me.
          “Native American” is highly nonsensical to me, because anyone who was born in the western hemisphere at any point is a native American. So I can’t use this term either, without feeling like a moron. Technically I think “aboriginal American” might be the most accurate term. But then that might be even less PC than “Indian”, so it’s pretty difficult here all round.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 2:26 PM

          I like your reference to Aboriginal American. Of course that’s just too many words to place on a football team. You know in the early 90s when I was in college Indian was considered the racial slur but that was because then historical significance mattered in terms of what words you used. Today, there is no historical significance to suggest suddenly Redskins is a slur. All the matter today is who is insults regardless of the ignorance behind. We use be be a smarter nation.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM

          I hit the post comment button too soon …

          “All that appears to matter today is what word insults a group regardless of the ignorance behind why it is justifiably insulting. We use to be a smarter nation.”

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 2:48 PM

          I believe “indigenous people” is the most accurate way to describe them. Or “indigenous Americans.” Of course, even that isnt accurate as they crossed a land bridge to get to the Americas. But I find that plenty accurate. I’ll say “natives” in this conversation just for clarity though.

          I too find Indian as one of the more insulting terms. It’s basically sayin “we can’t tell you people apart.” Or, “we made a mistake 500 years ago and just don’t care enough to fix it.” It’s ridiculous. I’m from New Mexico and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is very prevalent out there. It’s stunning. A government agency with mostly natives working there with Indian in the name. Let’s get that fixed before saying Native American women get raped because Chief Osceola is a football mascot.

          But anyway. I am very sympathetic toward that part of history and reservation life today. I grew up around it and it’s just rough. One of the more interesting things we studied essentially being a communications major is how the definition of words change over time. And how language changes over time. The historical significance of a word is largely irrelevant. What matters is what you’re communicating when you use it today. There’s a whole host of words that used to mean one thing, and now mean another. Especially if we’re talking colloquially.

          I’m not trying to make a statement. Just something to think about. What I will say is I take pleasure in the many cultures that shaped this country. And native culture played a very big role. I believe their culture, before it was destroyed, is something to be celebrated and remembered. To some of us, football is very important, and making something a mascot is a high honor. But I have started to question if it’s actually an honor if those who we intend to honor feel differently. It’s just hard to know because the natives tribes aren’t very unified and there’s not a single elected leader or body to speak for them. All that basically to say, this is a complicated issue for me that isn’t so black and white in my eyes. But I understand why some people see it differently.

        • Skulb - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:00 PM

          @Trey Gregory

          I find that “indigenous” has the same problem as “native” does, only more so. Anything that originates in the western hemisphere is indigenous. If you make for instance a pot in your shed, that pot is indigenous American. Like I said I’m a fan of Russell Means, probably the most respected leader of American Indians since WWII. So I simply do what he said he preferred and ignore the noise usually. A great man I think.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 10, 2016 at 3:19 PM

          The historical significance of a word is ALL that matters if it applies to fact. There is no sense in being sympathize tic in a wed that was never intended to be offensive in its origin. Again, trying to redefine a word based on emotion and not fact is just playing to the ignorance of it

        • Trey Gregory - Sep 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM

          I understand what you mean. But you may have missed my point in saying that. The meanings of words change all the time. I guarantee you use words every day that had different meanings at one time. Here’s an example of just a few.

          The point is that in communication you send a message and someone receives it. Doesn’t matter what the message is, it matter what was received. Like RG3’s statement about how he has to think of himself as the best QB in the league in order to go out and do what he does. All some people heard was “I’m the best QB in the league.” Even though that’s not what he said. But he was criticized for the message received, not the message sent.

          To my knowledge there is no historical evidence that the word “Redskin” used to be a racial slur. But many people today now believe it is one. I didn’t really mean to open this can of worms but you can see how that creates a problem. If people perceive it to be a racial slur, then it is one to them. Words are just sounds that we attach meaning to and that meaning can/does change over time. That’s not ignorance. I can promise you that people with doctorates in English will tell you the same thing.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Sep 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM

          Actually playing to the ignorance is applicable in this case regardless of the opinion or level of education on has. Ignorance as a word itself is not a word intended to be insulting. It by definition means lack of knowledge.

          The idea that someone is criticized for how a message is received in false pretence is ridiculous. We, as a society, expense too much time coddling to those who become insulted or are outraged over a word or statement that doesn’t apply to said reaction. No offense to academia, but so much that is taught is contrary to common sense rarely applicable to anything of need in real life. Trying to fix communication by addressing the messenger on what was a clear statement instead of the recipients, is like focusing on the water in a sinking ship instead of the hole that caused the issue. Sure you can come up with good ideas about how to drain the water faster but you’ll never fix the ship.

          Again, we used to be a smarter nation. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter