Why does everyone think the Redskins are going to do bad this year?

I agree with you. They made some good choices in the offseason. CB from maryland and of course Brian O. But 85% of the ppl on here are 13 year old preteen kids who have no clue what they are talking about.

I am a seattle fan who contsantly hears on here that seattle is a crap team. Its a shame seattle has the 3rd most wins in playoffs since 2005. Real bad team if you ask me. They also say hasselbeck is a bad Qb and he cant last. Yet he has taken solid hits to the back so far and is doing fine. They say Jim Mora Jr sucks as head coach when in atlanta yet took team to playoffs and has a winning record. But these kids cant recall the fact that the falcons wr's had the worst hands back then regardless how good vick was. They also say seattle will have no run game. That is why i posted this question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ago.X...

and yet no one can answer it proving my theory correct.

Do not let people on here tell you the skins suck. They are a good team that has a hard divison. This year should be a little easier for them and i do them around 9-7. Best of luck bud.

I'm a Redskin fan. This team has a chance to be VERY good, but it also has some key vulnerabilities. The team is critically shallow in depth at CB and OT, is relying heavily on a group of unproven young players like Kelly, Thomas, Davis, Heyer, and Campbell. I think that group will do quite well, but one can understand why outside observers might be expecting them to 'prove it'.

I am particularly terrified about our backup CB and OT spots as I hinted above. At CB, Rogers is outstanding, and Hall is decent...he gambles to much, but he'll make his share of plays. Without Rogers this preseason the coverage has been awful because Rogers being out puts Hall on top WRs, and bring Smoot into the starting lineup where he is overmatched...actually, Smoot is overmatched by third WRs, starters just embarass him. If Rogers' leg injury affects him into the season, the coverage could be very weak.

The situation at OT is even worse. Heyer has looked better than I expected in camp, but the club has NO NFL caliber backup on the roster. Mike Williams has three years of rust to shake off and there's no way he will be ready to contribute this year. The club cut Bridges. If Heyer, or (god forbid) Samuels gets hurt, this team is in for a losing streak. Remember how bad the OL looked last year when Samuels got hurt in the Ravens game? This will be worse. The lack of planning on Cerrato's part is almost criminal here. It's like he want Campbell to fail so he can go draft McCoy.

Overall though I think that if those two situations work out, I am confident enough that Orakpo/Haynesworth/Carter are going to form a brutal pass rush trio (and don't sleep on Jeremy Jarmon next year) and give us the big play capability this defense has lacked. I am confident that if the line hold up this passing game will be more than good enough to keep the defense honest and keep drives alive to complement the run game that is already there.

Look at their schedule , its harder than you think. Some tough games include week 1, 5, 7, 9. 12. 12. 15, and 17 and they have a really week o-line so the offense will have problems. Campbell has potential but is still inexperienced just like the below average head coach. Portis is always hurt and Haynesworth is a traditional 3-4 nose tackle. He doesn't really fit in to the traditional 4-3 scheme. You are right about O-Sack-Po but they released Marcus Washington and their best linebacker is nearing the end of his career.

I don't know. I ask the same question when people talk about the Raiders. How does a team that went 5-11 last year, has no significant losses player wise, has an easier schedule and the division got far weaker, yet their expected to do worse?

I think when it comes to these things, people tend to not use their head, and go with their personal bias. I like to look at schedules versus just assuming that a team is going to be good or bad.

I wonder the same thing. I see them at least 8-8 this year. Maybe 9-7, that's not too good, but giving them 4 or 5 wins is disrespectful and foolish. They are an okay team, not a good team and not a bad team but okay. So their record will be okay.

If the NFL doubled the amount of teams in the NFC east, the Redskins would be eighth best. They have a bad qb, weak and inexperienced wr's, an aging rb, and yet another free agent blockbuster deal that prevented them from paying for any talent at any other position.

I think the only "surprise" with regards to the Redskins will be if they beat the Giants for 3rd place in the NFC East, making the Giants fall to 4th.

The Redskins are a good team, that's in a tough division.

The NFc east is not the place to be a for team that lacks offense. In another NFc divison, they are probably the best team in the divison. But they will struggle to get oer .500 in the east.

Because of the qb. Not to mention he has to face the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles defense twice this season. Won't score enough against the Saints or Chagers, and Carolina and Atlanta will most likely beat them by double digits. It's going to be a long season.

heres the real reason, jason cambell is not a good quarterback. he is a decent qb but not good... if they would have a good qb you would see people saying that they would compete in the nfc east. maybe next year when the year is uncapped they can spend new york yankee money and still miss the playoffs