Dr Z: Back on his Medication apparently....

[akhhorus]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/dr_z/09/28/ranks.week3/index.html?cnn=yes

14. Washington Redskins: Up four spots after the bye. What gives? Only that I got a late look at their Cowboys victory and it was very impressive and I'm ashamed that it took me so long to tune in. (As poor Uncle Don said in his famous final show for WEAF Radio about 65 years ago, "That ought to hold the little b- - - - - - s," and he wasn't talking about his e-mailers.)

[Keino]

He made it a point to take a swipe at our fans.

What a Jerk. I still haven't finished my letter to SI yet, and have yet to figure a way we can get a bunch of sigs on it.....

[superbowl06]

It's about time! Still, number 14 isn't all that impressive...

[Skinz4lyfe]

Is that a compliment from Dr. Z?!? Who cares? Don't give us any props now. I'm eager to see what happens after the Seattle game. Its a lose/lose situation. First if we win he'll say Seattle is a bad road team and they didn't show up. But if we lose he'll say I should have known the 'Skins suck, Gibbs' sucks, yada, yada, yada. Whatever dude!

:weak:

[PennSkinsFan]

It's about time! Still, number 14 isn't all that impressive...

14 is right where they should be. This tream does not deserve to be in the top ten until they display offensive consistency. Remember after weekone, there was doom and gloom about this offense, but just two passes erases all those concerns?

[BIGSEF3]

It's about time! Still, number 14 isn't all that impressive...

for the most part, the skins performance hasnt been all that impressive either. Some have us rated as high as 8, and i'm certainly not going to complain about that, but i dont think we really deserve to be at 8 yet.

The only thing I can disagree with about his rankings are seattle and kansas city being ahead of us. Kansas looked worse than the skins have ever looked in recent memory monday night and Seattle has not really done anything spectacular.

i think we deserve to be in the 11-14 range. after a victory sunday, we should be an undisputed top 10, though.

[smoak]

14 is right where they should be. This tream does not deserve to be in the top ten until they display offensive consistency. Remember after weekone, there was doom and gloom about this offense, but just two passes erases all those concerns?

I agree with the exception that I felt good about our offense in week 1. Granted we have work to do in the red zone and eliminating mistakes, but I liked that Brunell was able to put together some drives.

[The Skinsinator]

Professionalism at it's finest.

[superbowl06]

14 is right where they should be. This tream does not deserve to be in the top ten until they display offensive consistency. Remember after weekone, there was doom and gloom about this offense, but just two passes erases all those concerns?

There are ten teams ahead of us with one defeat, and one that has a losing record. Rankings should be based on performance to date. Yes, we still have a lot to do, and yes, we have some glaring weaknesses, but we have not lost a game. At this point a 1-2 team (carolina) should not be ranked above us. Winning trumps how pretty your play is. And some of those 2-1 teams shouldnt be ranked ahead of us, either. you really think miami is better than the skins?

[BIGSEF3]

There are ten teams ahead of us with one defeat, and one that has a losing record. Rankings should be based on performance to date. Yes, we still have a lot to do, and yes, we have some glaring weaknesses, but we have not lost a game. At this point a 1-2 team (carolina) should not be ranked above us. Winning trumps how pretty your play is. And some of those 2-1 teams shouldnt be ranked ahead of us, either. you really think miami is better than the skins?

I couldnt disagree more. These are POWER rankings that try to take the "intangibles" into account. Thats whey everyone's power rankings are different. They are more open to opinion. If you want to see WINNING rankings, based on records, click here: NFL Standings (http://www.nfl.com/standings)

[Patrick]

Other than our great hR poll ...... WHO CARES???????
Come Sunday, all I want to see our Skins give their all, NOT make stupid mistakes, and hopefully end up with a W.......................Ranking them in the course of the week really doesn't mean 2 cents to me!

[PennSkinsFan]

There are ten teams ahead of us with one defeat, and one that has a losing record. Rankings should be based on performance to date. Yes, we still have a lot to do, and yes, we have some glaring weaknesses, but we have not lost a game. At this point a 1-2 team (carolina) should not be ranked above us. Winning trumps how pretty your play is. And some of those 2-1 teams shouldnt be ranked ahead of us, either. you really think miami is better than the skins?

Overall, since there are only two games under our belt, i dont hold the record to weight yet, i hold performance. If the Skins were sitting at 6-0, thats different. BUT, we bearly beat a bad team in Chicago, and won by two passes over dallas. The way the offense has LOOKED, MINUS the two passes, do i thinkt here are 2-1 tyeams that look better than us? Absolutely.

[Ibleedburgundy]

14 is reasonable. I think we should be in the 13-17 range at 2-0. It's not that we need to show offense IMO, it's that we need to beat a good team. It's obvious the Cowboys were overrated coming in to this season for what reason I have no idea. We should have no problem sweeping the Giants this year, just a hunch.

[ArtMonk4HOF]

We haven't looked impressive, so I don't know what the complaining is about. 2 games where we squeaked by. If we were 1-2 like carolina, and they were 2-0, our excuse for being ranked ahead of them would be that they barely won their games, or either of those wins could have easily been losses.

Either way, the rankings game is just something to keep everyone's mind on football...we pay a lot of attention on guys who rank the teams when their qualifications are no better than ours much of the time.

We know we will be considered contenders if we can take the seahawks on and beat them by at least two scores. but if we continue to beat people by less than a score, we will have our doubters.

[Keino]

Overall, since there are only two games under our belt, i dont hold the record to weight yet, i hold performance. If the Skins were sitting at 6-0, thats different. BUT, we bearly beat a bad team in Chicago, and won by two passes over dallas. The way the offense has LOOKED, MINUS the two passes, do i thinkt here are 2-1 tyeams that look better than us? Absolutely.

You know I've seen you make this argument in a number of threads now and it's time you are taken to task over it.

Since when in the NFL do we pick and choose certain plays to exclude when evaluating a team or an offense? This is similar to the arguments made last year about Portis...Well If you take away the big run yadda yadda yadda. You can't take away the big run, anymore than you can take away the 2 Game winning passes when the game was on the line. It all counts.

Chicago has one of the Better defenses in the league. This offense which you say looks so anemic moved the ball very well on that team, just failed to convert in the Red-Zone. That's not anemia, that's failing to close the deal. Furthermore, if this offense was so anemic, how then, is it possible that this offense was ranked in the top 10 AFTER week 2? Clearly, the ball is being moved.

If you are going to cite that the team looks bad on offense because it's not punching the ball into the end-zone, you will have no argument from me. But don't sit here and analyze the offensive unit by discounting the positive things they have done in the clutch, because in the end you discredit yourself. Those 2 game winning passes were huge and while Dallas was expecting it (As you may recall they were in a Cover 4 Scheme) and consequently shouldn't be discounted. You also seem to forget about the 41 yard pass completed to Santana Moss in the 3rd Quarter.

[superbowl06]

You know I've seen you make this argument in a number of threads now and it's time you are taken to task over it.

Since when in the NFL do we pick and choose certain plays to exclude when evaluating a team or an offense? This is similar to the arguments made last year about Portis...Well If you take away the big run yadda yadda yadda. You can't take away the big run, anymore than you can take away the 2 Game winning passes when the game was on the line. It all counts.

Chicago has one of the Better defenses in the league. This offense which you say looks so anemic moved the ball very well on that team, just failed to convert in the Red-Zone. That's not anemia, that's failing to close the deal. Furthermore, if this offense was so anemic, how then, is it possible that this offense was ranked in the top 10 AFTER week 2? Clearly, the ball is being moved.

If you are going to cite that the team looks bad on offense because it's not punching the ball into the end-zone, you will have no argument from me. But don't sit here and analyze the offensive unit by discounting the positive things they have done in the clutch, because in the end you discredit yourself. Those 2 game winning passes were huge and while Dallas was expecting it (As you may recall they were in a Cover 4 Scheme) and consequently shouldn't be discounted. You also seem to forget about the 41 yard pass completed to Santana Moss in the 3rd Quarter.

AMEN!

[Keino]

AMEN!

Actually the answer I was looking for was "Hallelujah!", but I will check with the judges to see if they will accept "Amen!"

[PennSkinsFan]

You know I've seen you make this argument in a number of threads now and it's time you are taken to task over it.

Since when in the NFL do we pick and choose certain plays to exclude when evaluating a team or an offense? This is similar to the arguments made last year about Portis...Well If you take away the big run yadda yadda yadda. You can't take away the big run, anymore than you can take away the 2 Game winning passes when the game was on the line. It all counts.

Chicago has one of the Better defenses in the league. This offense which you say looks so anemic moved the ball very well on that team, just failed to convert in the Red-Zone. That's not anemia, that's failing to close the deal. Furthermore, if this offense was so anemic, how then, is it possible that this offense was ranked in the top 10 AFTER week 2? Clearly, the ball is being moved.

If you are going to cite that the team looks bad on offense because it's not punching the ball into the end-zone, you will have no argument from me. But don't sit here and analyze the offensive unit by discounting the positive things they have done in the clutch, because in the end you discredit yourself. Those 2 game winning passes were huge and while Dallas was expecting it (As you may recall they were in a Cover 4 Scheme) and consequently shouldn't be discounted. You also seem to forget about the 41 yard pass completed to Santana Moss in the 3rd Quarter.

It's a difference in opinion Sean. I don't see much that has changed from last year. Do I want to exclude the two passes to Moss, no. Maybe I used the term anemia in a wrong manner instead of actaully applying the anemia term to the lack of ability to score. This offense still has an inability to sustain a long scoring drive and punch the ball in the endzone. We still have no rushing TD despite having one of the better backs in the NFL. Say what you want, defend what you want, but for me, not much change from last season. DEid the two passes to Moss spark a new beginning? Did it spark a new offensive momentum? Did it provide a new punch? We shall see and I believe it we excute the game plans the way I think Gibbs may, the offense may very well turn it around, but i still have concerns about scoring and I thuink they are well groudn based on what I have seen and looking at a comparative to last season.

[MoeRedskins]

Power rankings in the first 5 weeks are meaningless. Teams really don't start to seperate until week 5.

[PennSkinsFan]

Power rankings in the first 5 weeks are meaningless. Teams really don't start to seperate until week 5.

I agree. I think week 4 you begin to see some sort of pattern of teams, they way the react and respond and by week five I think they settle into the team they are going to be. There are some exceptions, like Carolina last year, but for the most part, the first 3 to 4 weeks are trial and error in picking what teams will be like. We have even less, we have played just two games.

[IowaSkinsFan]

You know I've seen you make this argument in a number of threads now and it's time you are taken to task over it.

Since when in the NFL do we pick and choose certain plays to exclude when evaluating a team or an offense? This is similar to the arguments made last year about Portis...Well If you take away the big run yadda yadda yadda. You can't take away the big run, anymore than you can take away the 2 Game winning passes when the game was on the line. It all counts.

Chicago has one of the Better defenses in the league. This offense which you say looks so anemic moved the ball very well on that team, just failed to convert in the Red-Zone. That's not anemia, that's failing to close the deal. Furthermore, if this offense was so anemic, how then, is it possible that this offense was ranked in the top 10 AFTER week 2? Clearly, the ball is being moved.

If you are going to cite that the team looks bad on offense because it's not punching the ball into the end-zone, you will have no argument from me. But don't sit here and analyze the offensive unit by discounting the positive things they have done in the clutch, because in the end you discredit yourself. Those 2 game winning passes were huge and while Dallas was expecting it (As you may recall they were in a Cover 4 Scheme) and consequently shouldn't be discounted. You also seem to forget about the 41 yard pass completed to Santana Moss in the 3rd Quarter.

I agree, you can't discount the final 3 minutes of the Cowboys game....no more than you can discount the first 57 minutes of the game. So what does that make the offense then? Not every team's safties are going to be sitting on those routes like Williams was.

[ryflan47]

Power rankings in the first 5 weeks are meaningless. Teams really don't start to seperate until week 5.
I agree with this. Week 6 usually gives you a picture of who is the real deal, but in week 5 you see the "haves" and the "have-nots".

[MDSkins#1]

ok we gain a little bit of respect from the guy, but 14 isnt that goo, but expect us to move into the top ten if we beat seattle.

[Dexter72]

You know I've seen you make this argument in a number of threads now and it's time you are taken to task over it.

Since when in the NFL do we pick and choose certain plays to exclude when evaluating a team or an offense? This is similar to the arguments made last year about Portis...Well If you take away the big run yadda yadda yadda. You can't take away the big run, anymore than you can take away the 2 Game winning passes when the game was on the line. It all counts.

Chicago has one of the Better defenses in the league. This offense which you say looks so anemic moved the ball very well on that team, just failed to convert in the Red-Zone. That's not anemia, that's failing to close the deal. Furthermore, if this offense was so anemic, how then, is it possible that this offense was ranked in the top 10 AFTER week 2? Clearly, the ball is being moved.

If you are going to cite that the team looks bad on offense because it's not punching the ball into the end-zone, you will have no argument from me. But don't sit here and analyze the offensive unit by discounting the positive things they have done in the clutch, because in the end you discredit yourself. Those 2 game winning passes were huge and while Dallas was expecting it (As you may recall they were in a Cover 4 Scheme) and consequently shouldn't be discounted. You also seem to forget about the 41 yard pass completed to Santana Moss in the 3rd Quarter.

Absolutely agree. And another point: when the offense needed points - i.e. when they were trailing late - in both games, they got em. They were down a point in the 3rd quarter, and they drove 63 yards down the field and got a chipshot FG (19 yds), and obviously we all know about the 2 late TDs in Dallas. When Carolina went to the SB two years ago they were 11-5 --- 7 of their wins were by 3 points or less. Were they lucky? I don't think so -- I think both their offense and defense knew how to close teams out...Our defense knows how to, and maybe our offense is getting that killer instinct as well.

[redskin_rich]

I don't like that Zimmerman made a reference to us fans as B_______'s.

Note to Zimmerman, you can rank us at the top of your useless ranking's, you will still catch our wrath for as long as you deny the great Art Monk from the HOF.

[D-Ruck #8]

Is that a compliment from Dr. Z?!? Who cares? Don't give us any props now. I'm eager to see what happens after the Seattle game. Its a lose/lose situation. First if we win he'll say Seattle is a bad road team and they didn't show up. But if we lose he'll say I should have known the 'Skins suck, Gibbs' sucks, yada, yada, yada. Whatever dude!

:weak:

Yeah, whichever way we never win the game, the other team seems to always do something wrong.

[Keino]

It's a difference in opinion Sean. I don't see much that has changed from last year. Do I want to exclude the two passes to Moss, no. Maybe I used the term anemia in a wrong manner instead of actaully applying the anemia term to the lack of ability to score. This offense still has an inability to sustain a long scoring drive and punch the ball in the endzone. We still have no rushing TD despite having one of the better backs in the NFL. Say what you want, defend what you want, but for me, not much change from last season. DEid the two passes to Moss spark a new beginning? Did it spark a new offensive momentum? Did it provide a new punch? We shall see and I believe it we excute the game plans the way I think Gibbs may, the offense may very well turn it around, but i still have concerns about scoring and I thuink they are well groudn based on what I have seen and looking at a comparative to last season.

I think where you are wrong is in the sentence "If you take away the 2......" You'll have no arguments, as I said if you talk about our troubles finishing the deal as it relates to putting the ball in the endzone, but this team has sustained long drives in the 2 games we've had and unlike last year, has played to the strengths of the overall team. While similarities to last year are duly noted, so is the marked improvement.

I agree, you can't discount the final 3 minutes of the Cowboys game....no more than you can discount the first 57 minutes of the game. So what does that make the offense then? Not every team's safties are going to be sitting on those routes like Williams was.

Again, I point to the 41 yard perfect pass to a streaking Santana Moss on the Sideline in the 3rd Quarter. Lets give Dallas some credit here, they came in with an effective plan to stop the run and they did it. Sometimes we have to give the other athlete credit, they get paid just like our players get paid.
Nobody is discounting the first 57 minutes of the game. We clearly struggled in the Dallas game, but we also did enough to win the game offensively. The bottomline is always wins and losses.

To answer your question, our offense is substantially improved over the offense that was last year, and continues to be a work in progress.

[X-Factor13]

Since i am not sure what Z is talking about with his thing in parentheses i won't even bother giving him the benefit of the doubt. We deserve 14 tho.

[BigPlayJay]

I don't care about his rankings. I am looking forward greatlyto our 5th win when Dr Z realizes that his 4-12 prediction was ridiculous.

[Santheb]

Who's that tard that projected us at 1-15?

[Biggie]

Who's that tard that projected us at 1-15?

I thought it was somebody at SI.

Bet they feel dumb real soon.

[skins74]

He is a little beach himself. It is amazing to me that people like this can get a job. I guess it shows you SI will hire anyone.

[SkinsFan4Life2003]

I could swear journalist weren't suppose to be bias. it's past ridiculous how many writers and analyst want us to fail.

[BigPlayJay]

I could swear journalist weren't suppose to be bias. it's past ridiculous how many writers and analyst want us to fail.
Unbias journalism is a thing of the past.

[wewantdallas]

This game against Seattle is huge. If we go out and lose, particularly if our offense plays poorly and doesn't score, suddenly our 2-0 start is labeled a "fluke," and understandably so.

If we go 3-0 and beat a good Seattle team to do it, stopping one of the best backs in the league in the process, people are going to start talking more positively about this team.

But I agree with others who say that the offense still hasn't shown us they're over the hump yet. The stats look better than last year, and that's encouraging, but we MUST GET POINTS, and we MUST BREAK THAT 20-POINT MARK!

I'm just hoping we see a huge day for Portis. It's got to get on his nerves that everyone's talking Sean Alexander and Tomlinson around the league. No one's mentioning CP at all. Hopefully that's a source of motivation for him and the Dirtbags this week.

First Skins offensive play: play action, deep to Patten or Moss. Look for it!

[GWBlitzST]

First Skins offensive play: play action, deep to Patten or Moss. Look for it!
I hope you are right, and I hope it is to Patten. That would freak the Seahawks out, and open the door for Portis and Cooley to have really big days.

[OCSkinzFan]

There is already a thread about this:

Thread (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=29215&page=1&pp=15)