A lot of people are saying the Pro Bowl is a complete waste of time and no one is interested in watching. I disagree. I think it's a great opportunity to see all of the best players, some of whom I've never heard of. For instance, I had no idea Jon Beason on the Panthers was a three-time All-Pro. Dude made a great play to pick off Matt Cassell and return it for a TD.
As for D. Hall...awesome. He's a good player who gets a lot of crap for talking too much and gambling on the field on occasion. He proved to be a tough, solid tackler this season (something that he was accused of not being) and he single-handedly won at least two games for the Skins this year (Cowboys in week 1 and the Bears game). I'm glad he's on my team.
The best part of the game was seeing Fletcher, Orakpo, and Hall on the field together. It's amazing that our D was ranked as low as it was with those three on the field. Hopefully things will improve next season.
Pro Bowl is a waste of time. There is no blitzing (although they cheat a lot), the tackling is sub-par and guys are going half speed all the time. No one wants to get hurt and so they play like it.
Hall can thank Jay Cutler for the invite - as for Fletcher and Orakpo they got there after about 10 other guys declined to go because they were "injured."
I haven't watched the Pro Bowl in at least 10 years.
Leave it to Robs to continue to bash the Skins any opportunity he gets.
Fletcher is one of the classiest, hardest working guys in the NFL. He is the model of consistency and is finally being recognized for his talents.
Osakpo would have doubled his sack totals if he wasn't held. He too is a guy that brings it day in day out.
D. Hall can thank Jeff Cutler but he has also proven that he is a true cover corner that is not afraid to hit as he often made strong tackles throughout the season.
Don't forget LaRon Landry who was having a defensive POY type of season before his injury. He seems to have found his way finally in the NFL and hopefully he comes back stronger next season.
Robs is still bitter about the Pear loss. However, I agree largely with Robs assessment of the Pro Bowl. It is more for fun and entertainment and the fans (although don't tell that punter who got laid out by Sean Taylor a few years back). I will flip to the Pro Bowl but don't really watch much of it.
D. Hall had a great game in Chicago no doubt but he was solid all year. To say he wasn't deserving of a Pro Bowl berth is just your opinion NOT A FACT. His play at the Pro Bowl confirmed his selection.
Who were the "bunch of guys" that "declined" to go to the Pro Bowl? You have that as a FACT so list the names please.
Winning MVP at the Pro Bowl means nothing. It is a glorified scrimmage. Who won the MVP last year? Who cares? No one remembers because it means nothing.
Fletcher and Orakpo were last minute replacements - it is a fact. They had to call around to get some replacements to show up and Fletcher and Orakpo were available.
Again, to say D. Hall wasn't deserving of a Pro Bowl berth is just your opinion NOT A FACT. He had a very good year and was deserving of the bid. I didn't hear anyone complaining about his getting the nod. So again, how is your opinion a FACT?
I understand that Fletcher and Orakpo were replacements. Orakpo was given the nod early on because he just missed the cut and since either Briggs or Matthews was going to the Super Bowl, Orakpo was next in line. I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of the "bunch of guys" that "declined" to go to the Pro Bowl? Again, this should be easy for you since it is FACT so list the names please. I am just curious to know the list of players that declined to participate allowing Fletcher to go. What I'm getting at is that you seem to be insinuating that Fletcher is somehow not deserving to go to the Pro Bowl and he is not that caliber player.
So, again, please provide the list of players that "declined" to go.
Take it easy Snapper. Tramon Williams was snubbed and D. Hall got in because of one game. There is no question who the better play is. If you think D. Hall is better that is fine with me, but it is just a cold hard fact that Williams is better. If you wouldn't trade Williams for Hall straight up right now you don't know what you are talking about.
As for Orakpo and Fletcher, they were late add ons. We know they weren't voted in. The NFL doesn't announce replacements until they confirm they will go - they don't want to name players and then have those players decline because it looks bad.
It is possible they were the first choices after the starters - but given how bad the Deadskin D was and how sub-par their stats were I think it is pretty safe to say that they were not the first choices. I don't have actual proof, but I think it is unreasonable to think otherwise. If you disagree that is fine, but believing that 3 guys from this particular Deadskin D were the most deserving is just a joke given how truly bad the Deadskin D was.
The Packers and Bears had 3 Pro Bowl defensive players. The Ravens had 3 and the Steelers had 2. You want to tell me that the Deadskins are equivalent (and even better than the Steelers). Fine, maybe next year their 3 Pro Bowl players will help them break into the Top 20 defenses.
I'm sure if you really think about it you actually agree with me. If not, believe what you want.
I am not sure who Tramon Williams is. Sorry but it's the truth. I'm sure he is fine player but to say D. Hall isn't deserving is your opinion.
Okay. So at least you backed off of your FACT statement. So you admit that you were wrong on that.
As far as Fletcher and Orakpo and where they were on this so called list that you are talking about we don't know. However, to think that they aren't Pro Bowl caliber players is just plain wrong.
The Skins have been a top 10 defense the 3 previous years so there is no question they have quality players on that defense. We have been through this but the one big change to this defense was the new coaching staff and scheme. It doesn't fit all the players. Still, Fletcher and Orakpo have played well and, again, to think that they are not Pro Bowl caliber players is silly.
Rob's incessant hating makes me want to ignore his comments more and more, but I'll just say this...The FACT that you're looking for, Robs, is that Hall, Osakpo, and Fletcher are three of the best players in their conference at their positions. Opposing teams game plan for them because they are play makers. That FACT makes them deserving of their Pro Bowl berths, regardless of being alternates and/or being part of a weak team.
If they had played FA, they would have 5 Pro Bowl defensive players according to you guys.
It is silly - you want to believe that for a team that has gone 10-22 the last two years. Whatever.
Until you start to get realistic with your team you are just going to continue to be surprised that they are a losing franchise. Snyder is running it into the ground and you think you are loaded with Pro Bowl talent. It's sad really.
I would never say FA should/would be a Pro Bowl player.
What's funny is that you claim facts that are strictly your opinions. For a guy that seems to think he is analytical and all about the numbers and statistics, I find it surprising that you have difficulty understanding the difference between fact and opinion.
I agree that Landry was playing at a Pro Bowl level in fact prior to going down, he was a possible Defensive POY.
You say Fletcher isn't a Pro Bowl caliber player and his numbers don't line up with Urlacher. Look at the number, pal.
Fletcher had more tackles than Urlacher, 1.5 less sacks, just as many INTs, more forced fumbles and just as many recoveries. He was second overall in number of tackles by LBs in the NFC. He has consistently been a top performer in the league at his position but somehow you think he is not deserving of his spot as a Pro Bowler.
As you say, you can believe what you want but please don't confuse fact with opinion.
Osakpo is one of the finer pass rushers in the league. There is no question he earned his spot on the Pro Bowl team last season and he had a solid year this year. Again, it's your opinion that he is not deserving.
I thought D. Hall had a very strong year so I have no problem with his selection. Sure, Cutler handed him the starting nod for the Pro Bowl but even otherwise he was solid. You (along with others) used to complain that he would shy away from contact but he was very strong and aggressive this year in tackling.
The problem with you is that you are SO biased that it affects your thinking.
You are entitled to your opinions but please don't pass off your opinions as facts.
FA is an actual Pro Bowl player - he just needs to play. The Deadskins didn't use him, but he certainly has talent. I'm sure he'll return to form wherever he goes because they will actually use him.
Landry was an impact player and was deserving of a Pro Bowl invite. But he was the only one on the Deadskins' D.
The other guys aren't impact players and they are not guys who teams would build around. Orakpo is borderline and certainly the best of the bunch, but his decline last year was evident from his rookie year - we'll see if he improves.
Hall wouldn't have made it without Cutler and there are probably 6-10 corners in the NFC who are better than him. Frankly, Carlos Rogers is probably a better cover corner. If I had to pick Rogers or Hall for the Bears to sign, I would take Rogers without question. Hall was torched regularly - the Eagles game comes to mind.
Fletcher simply is not an impact player. He regularly missed tackles, is too slow, and is a liability in coverage. Catching running backs who are 5-10 yards downfield on a regular basis is good for tackling stats but to say that Fletcher and Urlacher are comparable is silly. I'm sure you would rather have Urlacher because he is a much better player.
Fletcher is the Neil Olkiwicz (spelling?) of our time - nice, solid player - but not an impact player.
So a team with 4 Pro Bowlers failed to succeed because of scheme? How many Pro Bowlers do you need to run a scheme? The Bears, Pack, Steelers, and Ravens all ran their schemes with fewer Pro Bowlers and were far more successful. If all of your guys are truly Pro Bowlers then the Deadskin D should have been better.
It stands to logic that there are better players out there who did not go to the Pro Bowl.
Orakpo was fine. He was more than solid. There is no question he is a quality player that teams are aware of.
That is TOTAL B.S. that Hall was torched regularly. That is purely your opinion based on the FACT that you hate the Redskins.
Your assessment of Fletcher is TOTALLY off. The guy most certainly can cover as he does that regularly against opposing TEs going down the seam. If you watch, you would see that. He is one of the most sure, fundamentally sound tacklers in the league. Of course, like most everything Redskin related, you will discount his stats based on your own biases. It's pathetic.
The Skins had a top 10 defense the previous 3 seasons. We weren't stockpiling Pro Bowlers then. How do you explain?
First, get your FACTS straight. The Skins were ranked #10 in defense in 2009.
I can't follow you. You seem to change your points left and right.
According to your logic, a top ranking defense should be sending more Pro Bowl players. Is that correct?
In 2009, we were ranked 10 and sent one replacement on defense (Fletcher).
In 2008, we were ranked 4 and sent Taylor who obviously couldn't play because he was murdered.
In 2007, we were ranked 8 and only sent Taylor as a replacement.
So again, to your logic, we should have sent more players in previous years because we were a top 10 ranked defense. You can't have it both ways, dude.
See, your problem is that you don't even realize how biased you are. You will criticize the Skins about something and when I discount your logic, you will change your argument to continue to criticize. Thus, it makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. The above is a good example of that.
Another example is Fletcher. You will say that his stats don't match up with Urlacher and I will show you that Fletcher's stats are better than Urlacher's but you will for some reason discount Fletcher's stats as not as important/valued. It doesn't make sense, dude.
Look, you are entitled to your opinions but, again, don't pass those off as facts. I know you cannot admit that you are wrong but it's safe to say that you are wrong.
Also, don't pretend that you are unbiased. You are incredibly biased and it makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
I enjoy the banter but I take our discussions with a grain of salt understanding that you have the inability to admit you are wrong and that you are incredibly biased.
The only stat that applies year after year with Robs is that his propensity to gloat about the Bears and bash the Skins is directly related to the success of the Bears.
You can look at yards or other factors I suppose, but scoring D is what really counts. There are plenty of defenses that are bend but don't break as part of their system. Everyone who runs the Tampa-2 (including the Bears) has this philosophy.
Yards are not points.
In any event, the Deadskins had one great year on D - scoring wise. But, that was also an unusual year because they did it without creating turnovers or getting sacks. They have been above average just one other time over the last 5 years. The remaining three years they were below the median - hardly an indicator of a dominant D loaded with Pro Bowl talent.
You guys think your team is loaded with talent, yet you haven't had a winning record in three years and you have only had one season since the 2000 season in which you won 10 games. More often than not over the last decade you have ended up with 5-7 wins. The Deadskins have become a pathetic team - yet you want to believe it is loaded with Pro Bowl talent. FINE!!! Then you can also continue to be surprised when they continue to lose I suppose.
I never said (and I don't recall Deepie ever saying) that the Skins are "loaded with Pro Bowl talent."
Your whole point is that Fletcher, Orakpo, and D. Hall are not Pro Bowl caliber players. You say that is a fact. I am saying that you confuse your opinions as facts and to not pawn off your opinions as facts.
Again, by your logic top ranked defenses should be sending more Pro Bowl players. When we had better defenses, we didn't send as many. In fact, the Pear defenses were worse than the Skins defenses over the years and the Pears sent more guys to the Pro Bowl so that argument doesn't hold water.
In a nutshell, we get it Robs. You love the Pears, hate the Skins, and are totally biased and unable to be objective, and change your arguments depending on which way the wind is blowing during that particular moment on that particular day.
You believe the Deadskins have 4 Pro Bowl defensive players - that is what I call loaded. Yet the Deadskin D has been average at best over the last 5 years.
You've had 4 coaches over the last decade and just one 10 win season. The problem is talent.
Robs...Your ignorance and ability to BS your way through this is truly amazing. If you had watched and suffered through the Skins over the last few years (as JKSD and I have), you would have noticed that the Skins only real weakness on D has been a terrible front four (and now front 3). We've rarely been blown out early in games. In fact, the 'Skins have probably had the most games determined by 3 points or less in the last few years. The front seven get beaten down over the course of a game due to the weak DL and the offense's inability to generate points and the points pile up late.
All of the 'Skins Pro Bowlers are LBs and DBs, which are clearly the strengths of the D.
I know JKSD will understand what I'm saying. You on the other hand will have your Pears blinders on and will not be able to make sense of this logic. I don't expect you to understand or even attempt to understand.
Here are the comparison of defenses over the last few years and who was sent to the Pro Bowl. These are FACTS (again, don't confuse this with opinion):
2009 season: Washington: #10 yards, #18 points
Chicago: #17 yards, #22 points
Pro Bowl selections: Washington: Fletcher and Orakpo Chicago: Briggs
2008 season: Washington: #4 yards, #6 points
Chicago: #21 yards, #17 points
Pro Bowl selections: Washington: none Chicago: Briggs
2007 season: Washington: #8 yards, #11 points
Chicago: #28 yards, #16 points
Pro Bowl selections: Washington: Taylor Chicago: Briggs, Harris
Your argument doesn't hold water. Again, these are FACTS not OPINIONS just so it is clear for you to understand.
By in large, the Redskin had the far superior defense during those three years but the Pears sent more players to the Pro Bowl. In fact, the one year we were near the top in defense (2008), we didn't send a single person to the Pro Bowl. Meanwhile, the Pears who were on the lower end of the league in defense still sent a player (Briggs).
To your logic, that wouldn't make sense. Again, it's your biases that cloud your judgement. I understand you will come back with some alternate rationale and change your tune as that is your M.O. Do what you gotta do.
But even with your own list of players you can see that the Bears were getting one or two players - not the four you apparently thing the Deadskins had this past year.
Since D-Hall came aboard what has happened to the Deadskin D? It got much much worse. Fletcher is not an impact player. Orakpo is certainly above average and is a bubble Pro Bowler. Landry had a very good year before getting hurt - the only player of real significance on the Deadskin D.
The Deadskins have one or two Pro Bowlers - just the Bears got in recent years. They are certainly not deserving of 4 slots on D. Your own data on the Bears is consistent w/this view.
Just to make a point about yards vs. points. The Chargers were number one this year in terms of yards. They were number 10 in points allowed.
If you think the Chargers D was better than the 9 teams in front of them (Pitt, Pack, Ravens, Bears, Falcons, Jets, Saints, Pats, and Bucs) then you're crazy.
Robs, your point about yards vs. points is meaningless because the Skins D was far superior in both categories compared to the Pears in the time period I pointed out.
Your other point of statistically good defenses should be sending Pro Bowlers and not statistically bad ones is also not true as even when the Skins had their best defense, they didn't send a single Pro Bowlers whereas the Pears (who were much worse) did. That counters your argument.
I have never said that the Skins have 4 top ranked, full fledged Pro Bowlers. Your point was that the guys selected some how didn't deserve their slot on the Pro Bowl roster and only got there after a "list" was put together and the top guys on said "list" refused to go so they went with the Skins. I said that they were deserving of their spot. Sure, they may not have been the top guy at their position but to think that there was this "list" and they were way down on this "list" and only accepted after several people backed out is silly. That was my point. That these guys are solid players and deserving of their spot on that roster.
You think D. Hall caused the Skins D to collapse? Are you serious? If so, you really don't know football. It would seem plainly obvious that the big difference was the change of coach who brought in a new scheme and several new players coupled with players that are not suited for the scheme. You want to some how discount that and put it all on D. Hall. Okay! Good logic!
Despite what you want to believe and pawn off as fact, D. Hall had a very solid year. He was very good in coverage, showed that he could be very physical, and is a true playmaker.
Believe what you want but please don't pawn off your opinions as facts. It cheapens your arguments.
The fact is that the Deadskins suck. If they didn't suck so bad then maybe they would be deserving of 4 Pro Bowl defensive players (I am of course counting Landry who was the only truly legitimate defensive Pro Bowler this past year).
If you don't like those facts it's fine with me. Continue your delusions of grandeur that guide your love for the Deadskins. Maybe in the next decade they will have another 10 win season. They are good for one every 10-11 years.
Robs. You do understand that football is a team sport, right? So, there are 4 individuals on the Skins D that are Pro Bowl material. So what? A few talented players means absolutely nothing in terms of wins if all 11 players on both sides of the ball don't perform. Fletcher, Landry, Orakpo, and Hall make the Skins better despite the lack of overall team talent due to their own exceptional talent. Without them, I doubt the Skins would be in so many close games over the last few years.
Face it. Individual talents do not translate to team wins. Your argument holds no water.
No question you have to have talent to win. Agree that we don't have enough of it so it is not contrary to what I believe.
Deepie said, "Individual talents do not translate to team wins." I am assuming that he agrees with the above.
Robs, you seem to be changing discussions/arguments again. I THOUGHT the discussion was about whether those Skins selected were Pro Bowl caliber players. You seem to think that they suck and I say that they are Pro Bowl caliber players. I recognize that these are our opinions but you want to pawn off your opinions as facts. I told you to not do that as it cheapens your argument.
Yes, you have to have talent. Yes, we don't have enough of it. There are guys on our line/LB positions that just don't fit the scheme are are getting older. Carter and Alexander do not fit in the 3-4. Holliday is too old. Kemoeatu is older and suffers injuries. We don't have the down linemen to play a 3-4. Despite the talent elsewhere on the defense, it will hurt the rest of the defense if the line does not play well. It's simple Football 101.
I enjoy the banter but it's amazing that you just choose to ignore these arguments and then will abandon everything and just cry, "Deadskins suck." It is like a child that gets backed into a corner and has no legs to stand on in an argument and just blurts out something meaningless.
I don't say they suck - I say that they are not Pro Bowl caliber players. Big difference from "they suck."
Look, any team that is loaded with Pro Bowl talent - and I consider 4 Pro Bowl players loaded - will be a very good defense regardless of scheme.
Frankly, the only two Pro Bowlers on the Deadskin team are Landry and FA. Orakpo is a notch below and could rise up, and Landry could slip if he isn't able to replicate his performance from last year.
Fletcher and Hall are not Pro Bowl players. They are good players - but not deserving in my opinion.
Orakpo didn't have a Pro Bowl year - he was far more impactful as a rookie. We'll see in coming years what he is.
Not true. It's a team game. If you have a weak line and weaknesses at other key positions (outside LB and FS), it doesn't matter if you have a handful of talented players. They can't save the defense. That is the whole point of the Skins defense from a few years ago. that is the point of the Steeler defense today. They don't have a couple of good players. They are solid all around with guys that are good and that play within their scheme/position. That is how you are successful.
You started by saying basically that your opinions were facts. That was wrong. If you want to disagree on the quality of those players that's fine and we can hold to our opinions but don't claim that your opinions are facts. It's hard to take you seriously if you do that.
The only truly worthy Pro Bowl defensive player on the Deadskins was Landry - he wasn't invited, but he was the only truly impact player on the D.
You may not agree, but I am 100% positive that personnel guys throughout the NFL would pick other players instead of Hall, Fletcher, and Orakpo at their respective positions it they had to build a team. Yes I am saying 100% positive.
The only thing I will change is that there are not 10 other guys who declined to go - but I am sure Fletcher and Orakpo were also not the first ones asked. They just were not impact players this year.
It is perfectly fine with me if you don't agree, but then again, this is the problem with Deadskin fans - you think your team is full of impact players and just need one or two more guys to get over the hump. Your talent level is weak and it is evident by the horrible record you have had over the last decade.
Teams with 3-4 Pro Bowl players on D should not be one of the weaker defenses, finish 6-10 for the year, and finish 10-22 over the last two years with these same guys - irrespective of scheme or the other guys on D.
I never said that they were the first guys selected to the Pro Bowl roster at their position. Yes, that is a FACT.
However, you were saying that there was this "list" and they scrolled down the list and then finally got to Fletcher and Orakpo.
You were trying to pawn that off as fact. You were also saying that these guys were not deserving of their selection.
I'm fine with you having that opinion but don't pawn that off as fact. Again, it cheapens your argument.
I am of the opinion that given the injuries to the Pro Bowl starters, I have no problem with their selections.
Also, I just said that there are talent issues with the defense and that the guys we have do not match the scheme (which is the larger problem - again, you don't go from a top 10 defense to near the bottom). However, the guys that made the Pro Bowl roster, I have no issues with and believe they are very good at their positions.
If we are determined to run a 3-4 defense, we need to get the right personnel in here. Specifically, a true/quality NT and outside LB. The 3-4 is predicated on a quality NT and we didn't have that. Carter is not a 3-4 LB and Alexander tried his best but he too is not a LB. Additionally, our other linemen weren't the greatest but they are serviceable. FS was an issue as well. That said, it doesn't matter how good Landry, Orakpo, D. Hall, Fletcher is, they cannot make up for the shortcomings at the other positions.
Seems like you would understand this. Also, should be clear now that I don't think that we are 1 or 2 players away from greatness.
Not sure where your confusion is and also not sure how/why you confuse your opinions with facts.
For the record, Hall was chosen as a starter. He lead the league in turnovers created with eight.
Orakpo was a first alternative (as was Mike Sellers).
Fletcher was a second alternative (as was Cooley and Lorenzo Alexander for special teams).
The 'Skins have talent in a few places, but not enough to make up for the lack of talent at many other key spots. Having one clear-cut starter on the Pro-Bowl team for one season doesn't mean the team is loaded. Neither JKSD nor I have said that. We just happen to have some good players at some spots that got a chance to go to Hawaii. All along, I haven't understood why Robs has such a problem with this or why he can't accept that these players fans and peers ranked them as some of the better players at their positions.
40 comments:
A lot of people are saying the Pro Bowl is a complete waste of time and no one is interested in watching. I disagree. I think it's a great opportunity to see all of the best players, some of whom I've never heard of. For instance, I had no idea Jon Beason on the Panthers was a three-time All-Pro. Dude made a great play to pick off Matt Cassell and return it for a TD.
As for D. Hall...awesome. He's a good player who gets a lot of crap for talking too much and gambling on the field on occasion. He proved to be a tough, solid tackler this season (something that he was accused of not being) and he single-handedly won at least two games for the Skins this year (Cowboys in week 1 and the Bears game). I'm glad he's on my team.
The best part of the game was seeing Fletcher, Orakpo, and Hall on the field together. It's amazing that our D was ranked as low as it was with those three on the field. Hopefully things will improve next season.
Pro Bowl is a waste of time. There is no blitzing (although they cheat a lot), the tackling is sub-par and guys are going half speed all the time. No one wants to get hurt and so they play like it.
Hall can thank Jay Cutler for the invite - as for Fletcher and Orakpo they got there after about 10 other guys declined to go because they were "injured."
I haven't watched the Pro Bowl in at least 10 years.
Leave it to Robs to continue to bash the Skins any opportunity he gets.
Fletcher is one of the classiest, hardest working guys in the NFL. He is the model of consistency and is finally being recognized for his talents.
Osakpo would have doubled his sack totals if he wasn't held. He too is a guy that brings it day in day out.
D. Hall can thank Jeff Cutler but he has also proven that he is a true cover corner that is not afraid to hit as he often made strong tackles throughout the season.
Don't forget LaRon Landry who was having a defensive POY type of season before his injury. He seems to have found his way finally in the NFL and hopefully he comes back stronger next season.
Robs is still bitter about the Pear loss. However, I agree largely with Robs assessment of the Pro Bowl. It is more for fun and entertainment and the fans (although don't tell that punter who got laid out by Sean Taylor a few years back). I will flip to the Pro Bowl but don't really watch much of it.
Facts are facts. You may not like what I said about your guys, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true.
What fact?
D. Hall made the Pro Bowl based on the one game - there were far better corners including Tramon Williams.
Fletcher and Orakpo were added after a bunch of other guys declined.
That's not hating - those are facts.
D. Hall had a great game in Chicago no doubt but he was solid all year. To say he wasn't deserving of a Pro Bowl berth is just your opinion NOT A FACT. His play at the Pro Bowl confirmed his selection.
Who were the "bunch of guys" that "declined" to go to the Pro Bowl? You have that as a FACT so list the names please.
Winning MVP at the Pro Bowl means nothing. It is a glorified scrimmage. Who won the MVP last year? Who cares? No one remembers because it means nothing.
Fletcher and Orakpo were last minute replacements - it is a fact. They had to call around to get some replacements to show up and Fletcher and Orakpo were available.
Again, to say D. Hall wasn't deserving of a Pro Bowl berth is just your opinion NOT A FACT. He had a very good year and was deserving of the bid. I didn't hear anyone complaining about his getting the nod. So again, how is your opinion a FACT?
I understand that Fletcher and Orakpo were replacements. Orakpo was given the nod early on because he just missed the cut and since either Briggs or Matthews was going to the Super Bowl, Orakpo was next in line. I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of the "bunch of guys" that "declined" to go to the Pro Bowl? Again, this should be easy for you since it is FACT so list the names please. I am just curious to know the list of players that declined to participate allowing Fletcher to go. What I'm getting at is that you seem to be insinuating that Fletcher is somehow not deserving to go to the Pro Bowl and he is not that caliber player.
So, again, please provide the list of players that "declined" to go.
I will be waiting.
Take it easy Snapper. Tramon Williams was snubbed and D. Hall got in because of one game. There is no question who the better play is. If you think D. Hall is better that is fine with me, but it is just a cold hard fact that Williams is better. If you wouldn't trade Williams for Hall straight up right now you don't know what you are talking about.
As for Orakpo and Fletcher, they were late add ons. We know they weren't voted in. The NFL doesn't announce replacements until they confirm they will go - they don't want to name players and then have those players decline because it looks bad.
It is possible they were the first choices after the starters - but given how bad the Deadskin D was and how sub-par their stats were I think it is pretty safe to say that they were not the first choices. I don't have actual proof, but I think it is unreasonable to think otherwise. If you disagree that is fine, but believing that 3 guys from this particular Deadskin D were the most deserving is just a joke given how truly bad the Deadskin D was.
The Packers and Bears had 3 Pro Bowl defensive players. The Ravens had 3 and the Steelers had 2. You want to tell me that the Deadskins are equivalent (and even better than the Steelers). Fine, maybe next year their 3 Pro Bowl players will help them break into the Top 20 defenses.
I'm sure if you really think about it you actually agree with me. If not, believe what you want.
I am not sure who Tramon Williams is. Sorry but it's the truth. I'm sure he is fine player but to say D. Hall isn't deserving is your opinion.
Okay. So at least you backed off of your FACT statement. So you admit that you were wrong on that.
As far as Fletcher and Orakpo and where they were on this so called list that you are talking about we don't know. However, to think that they aren't Pro Bowl caliber players is just plain wrong.
The Skins have been a top 10 defense the 3 previous years so there is no question they have quality players on that defense. We have been through this but the one big change to this defense was the new coaching staff and scheme. It doesn't fit all the players. Still, Fletcher and Orakpo have played well and, again, to think that they are not Pro Bowl caliber players is silly.
Rob's incessant hating makes me want to ignore his comments more and more, but I'll just say this...The FACT that you're looking for, Robs, is that Hall, Osakpo, and Fletcher are three of the best players in their conference at their positions. Opposing teams game plan for them because they are play makers. That FACT makes them deserving of their Pro Bowl berths, regardless of being alternates and/or being part of a weak team.
I'm done. You can go back to irritating JKSD now.
The only deserving player is Landry.
If they had played FA, they would have 5 Pro Bowl defensive players according to you guys.
It is silly - you want to believe that for a team that has gone 10-22 the last two years. Whatever.
Until you start to get realistic with your team you are just going to continue to be surprised that they are a losing franchise. Snyder is running it into the ground and you think you are loaded with Pro Bowl talent. It's sad really.
I would never say FA should/would be a Pro Bowl player.
What's funny is that you claim facts that are strictly your opinions. For a guy that seems to think he is analytical and all about the numbers and statistics, I find it surprising that you have difficulty understanding the difference between fact and opinion.
I agree that Landry was playing at a Pro Bowl level in fact prior to going down, he was a possible Defensive POY.
You say Fletcher isn't a Pro Bowl caliber player and his numbers don't line up with Urlacher. Look at the number, pal.
Fletcher had more tackles than Urlacher, 1.5 less sacks, just as many INTs, more forced fumbles and just as many recoveries. He was second overall in number of tackles by LBs in the NFC. He has consistently been a top performer in the league at his position but somehow you think he is not deserving of his spot as a Pro Bowler.
As you say, you can believe what you want but please don't confuse fact with opinion.
Osakpo is one of the finer pass rushers in the league. There is no question he earned his spot on the Pro Bowl team last season and he had a solid year this year. Again, it's your opinion that he is not deserving.
I thought D. Hall had a very strong year so I have no problem with his selection. Sure, Cutler handed him the starting nod for the Pro Bowl but even otherwise he was solid. You (along with others) used to complain that he would shy away from contact but he was very strong and aggressive this year in tackling.
The problem with you is that you are SO biased that it affects your thinking.
You are entitled to your opinions but please don't pass off your opinions as facts.
FA is an actual Pro Bowl player - he just needs to play. The Deadskins didn't use him, but he certainly has talent. I'm sure he'll return to form wherever he goes because they will actually use him.
Landry was an impact player and was deserving of a Pro Bowl invite. But he was the only one on the Deadskins' D.
The other guys aren't impact players and they are not guys who teams would build around. Orakpo is borderline and certainly the best of the bunch, but his decline last year was evident from his rookie year - we'll see if he improves.
Hall wouldn't have made it without Cutler and there are probably 6-10 corners in the NFC who are better than him. Frankly, Carlos Rogers is probably a better cover corner. If I had to pick Rogers or Hall for the Bears to sign, I would take Rogers without question. Hall was torched regularly - the Eagles game comes to mind.
Fletcher simply is not an impact player. He regularly missed tackles, is too slow, and is a liability in coverage. Catching running backs who are 5-10 yards downfield on a regular basis is good for tackling stats but to say that Fletcher and Urlacher are comparable is silly. I'm sure you would rather have Urlacher because he is a much better player.
Fletcher is the Neil Olkiwicz (spelling?) of our time - nice, solid player - but not an impact player.
So a team with 4 Pro Bowlers failed to succeed because of scheme? How many Pro Bowlers do you need to run a scheme? The Bears, Pack, Steelers, and Ravens all ran their schemes with fewer Pro Bowlers and were far more successful. If all of your guys are truly Pro Bowlers then the Deadskin D should have been better.
It stands to logic that there are better players out there who did not go to the Pro Bowl.
Orakpo was fine. He was more than solid. There is no question he is a quality player that teams are aware of.
That is TOTAL B.S. that Hall was torched regularly. That is purely your opinion based on the FACT that you hate the Redskins.
Your assessment of Fletcher is TOTALLY off. The guy most certainly can cover as he does that regularly against opposing TEs going down the seam. If you watch, you would see that. He is one of the most sure, fundamentally sound tacklers in the league. Of course, like most everything Redskin related, you will discount his stats based on your own biases. It's pathetic.
The Skins had a top 10 defense the previous 3 seasons. We weren't stockpiling Pro Bowlers then. How do you explain?
I don't. The Deadskins stink - that is a fact.
They are 3-time cellar dwellers of the East.
FYI, the Deadskins D was not a top 10 D in 2009.
First, get your FACTS straight. The Skins were ranked #10 in defense in 2009.
I can't follow you. You seem to change your points left and right.
According to your logic, a top ranking defense should be sending more Pro Bowl players. Is that correct?
In 2009, we were ranked 10 and sent one replacement on defense (Fletcher).
In 2008, we were ranked 4 and sent Taylor who obviously couldn't play because he was murdered.
In 2007, we were ranked 8 and only sent Taylor as a replacement.
So again, to your logic, we should have sent more players in previous years because we were a top 10 ranked defense. You can't have it both ways, dude.
See, your problem is that you don't even realize how biased you are. You will criticize the Skins about something and when I discount your logic, you will change your argument to continue to criticize. Thus, it makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. The above is a good example of that.
Another example is Fletcher. You will say that his stats don't match up with Urlacher and I will show you that Fletcher's stats are better than Urlacher's but you will for some reason discount Fletcher's stats as not as important/valued. It doesn't make sense, dude.
Look, you are entitled to your opinions but, again, don't pass those off as facts. I know you cannot admit that you are wrong but it's safe to say that you are wrong.
Also, don't pretend that you are unbiased. You are incredibly biased and it makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
I enjoy the banter but I take our discussions with a grain of salt understanding that you have the inability to admit you are wrong and that you are incredibly biased.
The above points prove those points.
See NFL team stats on NFL.com.
2010 - 31st
2009 - 10th
2008 - 4th
2007 - 8th
The only stat that applies year after year with Robs is that his propensity to gloat about the Bears and bash the Skins is directly related to the success of the Bears.
Scoring Defense -
2010 - 21st
2009 - 18th
2008 - 6th
2007 - 11th
2006 - 27th
You can look at yards or other factors I suppose, but scoring D is what really counts. There are plenty of defenses that are bend but don't break as part of their system. Everyone who runs the Tampa-2 (including the Bears) has this philosophy.
Yards are not points.
In any event, the Deadskins had one great year on D - scoring wise. But, that was also an unusual year because they did it without creating turnovers or getting sacks. They have been above average just one other time over the last 5 years. The remaining three years they were below the median - hardly an indicator of a dominant D loaded with Pro Bowl talent.
You guys think your team is loaded with talent, yet you haven't had a winning record in three years and you have only had one season since the 2000 season in which you won 10 games. More often than not over the last decade you have ended up with 5-7 wins. The Deadskins have become a pathetic team - yet you want to believe it is loaded with Pro Bowl talent. FINE!!! Then you can also continue to be surprised when they continue to lose I suppose.
Why is it all or nothing with you?
I never said (and I don't recall Deepie ever saying) that the Skins are "loaded with Pro Bowl talent."
Your whole point is that Fletcher, Orakpo, and D. Hall are not Pro Bowl caliber players. You say that is a fact. I am saying that you confuse your opinions as facts and to not pawn off your opinions as facts.
Again, by your logic top ranked defenses should be sending more Pro Bowl players. When we had better defenses, we didn't send as many. In fact, the Pear defenses were worse than the Skins defenses over the years and the Pears sent more guys to the Pro Bowl so that argument doesn't hold water.
In a nutshell, we get it Robs. You love the Pears, hate the Skins, and are totally biased and unable to be objective, and change your arguments depending on which way the wind is blowing during that particular moment on that particular day.
Thanks for playing.
What Bears are you referring to in years past?
You believe the Deadskins have 4 Pro Bowl defensive players - that is what I call loaded. Yet the Deadskin D has been average at best over the last 5 years.
You've had 4 coaches over the last decade and just one 10 win season. The problem is talent.
Robs...Your ignorance and ability to BS your way through this is truly amazing. If you had watched and suffered through the Skins over the last few years (as JKSD and I have), you would have noticed that the Skins only real weakness on D has been a terrible front four (and now front 3). We've rarely been blown out early in games. In fact, the 'Skins have probably had the most games determined by 3 points or less in the last few years. The front seven get beaten down over the course of a game due to the weak DL and the offense's inability to generate points and the points pile up late.
All of the 'Skins Pro Bowlers are LBs and DBs, which are clearly the strengths of the D.
I know JKSD will understand what I'm saying. You on the other hand will have your Pears blinders on and will not be able to make sense of this logic. I don't expect you to understand or even attempt to understand.
Here are the comparison of defenses over the last few years and who was sent to the Pro Bowl. These are FACTS (again, don't confuse this with opinion):
2009 season:
Washington: #10 yards, #18 points
Chicago: #17 yards, #22 points
Pro Bowl selections:
Washington: Fletcher and Orakpo
Chicago: Briggs
2008 season:
Washington: #4 yards, #6 points
Chicago: #21 yards, #17 points
Pro Bowl selections:
Washington: none
Chicago: Briggs
2007 season:
Washington: #8 yards, #11 points
Chicago: #28 yards, #16 points
Pro Bowl selections:
Washington: Taylor
Chicago: Briggs, Harris
Your argument doesn't hold water. Again, these are FACTS not OPINIONS just so it is clear for you to understand.
By in large, the Redskin had the far superior defense during those three years but the Pears sent more players to the Pro Bowl. In fact, the one year we were near the top in defense (2008), we didn't send a single person to the Pro Bowl. Meanwhile, the Pears who were on the lower end of the league in defense still sent a player (Briggs).
To your logic, that wouldn't make sense. Again, it's your biases that cloud your judgement. I understand you will come back with some alternate rationale and change your tune as that is your M.O. Do what you gotta do.
Thanks for playing.
I've already said yards is meaningless.
But even with your own list of players you can see that the Bears were getting one or two players - not the four you apparently thing the Deadskins had this past year.
Since D-Hall came aboard what has happened to the Deadskin D? It got much much worse. Fletcher is not an impact player. Orakpo is certainly above average and is a bubble Pro Bowler. Landry had a very good year before getting hurt - the only player of real significance on the Deadskin D.
The Deadskins have one or two Pro Bowlers - just the Bears got in recent years. They are certainly not deserving of 4 slots on D. Your own data on the Bears is consistent w/this view.
Just to make a point about yards vs. points. The Chargers were number one this year in terms of yards. They were number 10 in points allowed.
If you think the Chargers D was better than the 9 teams in front of them (Pitt, Pack, Ravens, Bears, Falcons, Jets, Saints, Pats, and Bucs) then you're crazy.
Robs, your point about yards vs. points is meaningless because the Skins D was far superior in both categories compared to the Pears in the time period I pointed out.
Your other point of statistically good defenses should be sending Pro Bowlers and not statistically bad ones is also not true as even when the Skins had their best defense, they didn't send a single Pro Bowlers whereas the Pears (who were much worse) did. That counters your argument.
I have never said that the Skins have 4 top ranked, full fledged Pro Bowlers. Your point was that the guys selected some how didn't deserve their slot on the Pro Bowl roster and only got there after a "list" was put together and the top guys on said "list" refused to go so they went with the Skins. I said that they were deserving of their spot. Sure, they may not have been the top guy at their position but to think that there was this "list" and they were way down on this "list" and only accepted after several people backed out is silly. That was my point. That these guys are solid players and deserving of their spot on that roster.
You think D. Hall caused the Skins D to collapse? Are you serious? If so, you really don't know football. It would seem plainly obvious that the big difference was the change of coach who brought in a new scheme and several new players coupled with players that are not suited for the scheme. You want to some how discount that and put it all on D. Hall. Okay! Good logic!
Despite what you want to believe and pawn off as fact, D. Hall had a very solid year. He was very good in coverage, showed that he could be very physical, and is a true playmaker.
Believe what you want but please don't pawn off your opinions as facts. It cheapens your arguments.
The fact is that the Deadskins suck. If they didn't suck so bad then maybe they would be deserving of 4 Pro Bowl defensive players (I am of course counting Landry who was the only truly legitimate defensive Pro Bowler this past year).
If you don't like those facts it's fine with me. Continue your delusions of grandeur that guide your love for the Deadskins. Maybe in the next decade they will have another 10 win season. They are good for one every 10-11 years.
If you want to just discount and abandon the discussion and reply simply with a "Deadskins suck" so be it.
I guess that is about all you can come back with. Well played.
It's at the heart of why I say the Deadskins don't deserve so many Pro Bowl slots.
Robs. You do understand that football is a team sport, right? So, there are 4 individuals on the Skins D that are Pro Bowl material. So what? A few talented players means absolutely nothing in terms of wins if all 11 players on both sides of the ball don't perform. Fletcher, Landry, Orakpo, and Hall make the Skins better despite the lack of overall team talent due to their own exceptional talent. Without them, I doubt the Skins would be in so many close games over the last few years.
Face it. Individual talents do not translate to team wins. Your argument holds no water.
You have to have talent to win. The Deadskins don't have enough of it - contrary to what you guys think.
No question you have to have talent to win. Agree that we don't have enough of it so it is not contrary to what I believe.
Deepie said, "Individual talents do not translate to team wins." I am assuming that he agrees with the above.
Robs, you seem to be changing discussions/arguments again. I THOUGHT the discussion was about whether those Skins selected were Pro Bowl caliber players. You seem to think that they suck and I say that they are Pro Bowl caliber players. I recognize that these are our opinions but you want to pawn off your opinions as facts. I told you to not do that as it cheapens your argument.
Yes, you have to have talent. Yes, we don't have enough of it. There are guys on our line/LB positions that just don't fit the scheme are are getting older. Carter and Alexander do not fit in the 3-4. Holliday is too old. Kemoeatu is older and suffers injuries. We don't have the down linemen to play a 3-4. Despite the talent elsewhere on the defense, it will hurt the rest of the defense if the line does not play well. It's simple Football 101.
I enjoy the banter but it's amazing that you just choose to ignore these arguments and then will abandon everything and just cry, "Deadskins suck." It is like a child that gets backed into a corner and has no legs to stand on in an argument and just blurts out something meaningless.
I don't say they suck - I say that they are not Pro Bowl caliber players. Big difference from "they suck."
Look, any team that is loaded with Pro Bowl talent - and I consider 4 Pro Bowl players loaded - will be a very good defense regardless of scheme.
Frankly, the only two Pro Bowlers on the Deadskin team are Landry and FA. Orakpo is a notch below and could rise up, and Landry could slip if he isn't able to replicate his performance from last year.
Fletcher and Hall are not Pro Bowl players. They are good players - but not deserving in my opinion.
Orakpo didn't have a Pro Bowl year - he was far more impactful as a rookie. We'll see in coming years what he is.
Not true. It's a team game. If you have a weak line and weaknesses at other key positions (outside LB and FS), it doesn't matter if you have a handful of talented players. They can't save the defense. That is the whole point of the Skins defense from a few years ago. that is the point of the Steeler defense today. They don't have a couple of good players. They are solid all around with guys that are good and that play within their scheme/position. That is how you are successful.
You started by saying basically that your opinions were facts. That was wrong. If you want to disagree on the quality of those players that's fine and we can hold to our opinions but don't claim that your opinions are facts. It's hard to take you seriously if you do that.
You are hung up on the word "fact."
The only truly worthy Pro Bowl defensive player on the Deadskins was Landry - he wasn't invited, but he was the only truly impact player on the D.
You may not agree, but I am 100% positive that personnel guys throughout the NFL would pick other players instead of Hall, Fletcher, and Orakpo at their respective positions it they had to build a team. Yes I am saying 100% positive.
The only thing I will change is that there are not 10 other guys who declined to go - but I am sure Fletcher and Orakpo were also not the first ones asked. They just were not impact players this year.
It is perfectly fine with me if you don't agree, but then again, this is the problem with Deadskin fans - you think your team is full of impact players and just need one or two more guys to get over the hump. Your talent level is weak and it is evident by the horrible record you have had over the last decade.
Teams with 3-4 Pro Bowl players on D should not be one of the weaker defenses, finish 6-10 for the year, and finish 10-22 over the last two years with these same guys - irrespective of scheme or the other guys on D.
I never said that they were the first guys selected to the Pro Bowl roster at their position. Yes, that is a FACT.
However, you were saying that there was this "list" and they scrolled down the list and then finally got to Fletcher and Orakpo.
You were trying to pawn that off as fact. You were also saying that these guys were not deserving of their selection.
I'm fine with you having that opinion but don't pawn that off as fact. Again, it cheapens your argument.
I am of the opinion that given the injuries to the Pro Bowl starters, I have no problem with their selections.
Also, I just said that there are talent issues with the defense and that the guys we have do not match the scheme (which is the larger problem - again, you don't go from a top 10 defense to near the bottom). However, the guys that made the Pro Bowl roster, I have no issues with and believe they are very good at their positions.
If we are determined to run a 3-4 defense, we need to get the right personnel in here. Specifically, a true/quality NT and outside LB. The 3-4 is predicated on a quality NT and we didn't have that. Carter is not a 3-4 LB and Alexander tried his best but he too is not a LB. Additionally, our other linemen weren't the greatest but they are serviceable. FS was an issue as well. That said, it doesn't matter how good Landry, Orakpo, D. Hall, Fletcher is, they cannot make up for the shortcomings at the other positions.
Seems like you would understand this. Also, should be clear now that I don't think that we are 1 or 2 players away from greatness.
Not sure where your confusion is and also not sure how/why you confuse your opinions with facts.
For the record, Hall was chosen as a starter. He lead the league in turnovers created with eight.
Orakpo was a first alternative (as was Mike Sellers).
Fletcher was a second alternative (as was Cooley and Lorenzo Alexander for special teams).
The 'Skins have talent in a few places, but not enough to make up for the lack of talent at many other key spots. Having one clear-cut starter on the Pro-Bowl team for one season doesn't mean the team is loaded. Neither JKSD nor I have said that. We just happen to have some good players at some spots that got a chance to go to Hawaii. All along, I haven't understood why Robs has such a problem with this or why he can't accept that these players fans and peers ranked them as some of the better players at their positions.
I am not sure why either. I am fine if it is just an opinion. However, he is trying to pass of his opinions as facts.
Post a Comment