I usually read the Post rather than the Times for Skins news. Today I read the Dan Daly's column at the Times and it seems their sports coverage is about on par with their political coverage (not that the Post is a beacon of outstanding political journalism - it's not, not even remotely close). So Daly today breaks down the 2008 skins:
...Jim Zorn's collection of Gibbs hand-me-downs, who are exhibiting far more intangibles than they ever did under Coach Joe.
Five games into the schedule, the Redskins are 4-1, including
back-to-back road victories over the Cowboys and Eagles. The Philly
win, in particular, was a watershed, because it showed the Redskins are
capable of playing at the highest level two weeks in a row. That's what
you have to do to advance in the playoffs ... and what they haven't
done since the '91 Super Bowl season.
The team this season clearly is playing at level now that arguably they haven't reached since the 91 Super Bowl campaign. But, seriously, not two great efforts in a row? Has Daly been absent from the planet for two of the last three years? Anyone remember how the team finished 05? or 07? They certainly played at their highest level for more than just one game wouldn't you say. Day's point is that they could never string more than one really good game together. That is just not true, and further, after Sean Taylor's death last year you could certainly argue that the "intangibles" that went into that winning streak were about as dominant as they have ever been in Redskins' history.
And now the real howler:
Portis has been a little more vocal - and with good reason, perhaps.
Why, he's wondered, did Gibbs and his staff take a sword and try to
turn it into a sledgehammer? Why did they take a Joe Washington-type
back and try to transform him into John Riggins?
I really, really doubt Portis referred to himself as a Joe Washington-type back. Portis runs with exceptional power for someone his size and about as hard as anyone. Again perhaps he wasn't utilized best by Gibbs (though 1500 yards in a season, a franchise record, ain't too bad). But Portis a scatback. Ridiculous.
The point is sportswriters, like most journalists, crave simple narratives. Gibbs did everything wrong, Zorn everything right and everything now is wonderful and nothing from the past was salvageable. Usually a successful analysis of a situation requires a little more nuance. The team this season has been amazing and without a doubt Gibbs 2 was a mere shadow of Gibbs 1. That said, though, I feel of the many reasons that this team is successful today there are two that can be traced to last year. One, as Al Saunders said today:
...The thing Joe did was bring together a group of high-character, great-work-ethic guys...
Secondly, and this was what my hope rested upon for the entire season, was the continuity factor. With so little turnover from a play-off team that went to hell and back together, there was some reason to be optimistic. Now it pains me greatly to quote Cerrato but he's right here:
"We have a good locker room," Cerrato said. "When you have good guys
and a good locker room that [has] good players, why change? And usually
the most successful teams have the least amount of turnover. We thought
we could compete with these guys."
Of course, Zorn has done magnificantly to date and has vastly exceeded expectations. But rewriting history in the pursuit of simplistic narratives does nothing to explain how this occured.
Recent Comments