PDA

View Full Version : SURE FIRE way to win the next 8 games! [old thread rehashed]


War Hogg
10-11-2004, 10:20 PM
SURE FIRE WAY TO WIN THE NEXT 8 GAMES.

The first thing Gibbs needs to do is not panick by calling Ramsey's number and remember why he isnt starting in the first place....... Brunell is not WINNING games but he is also is not LOSING them for us....I think Gibbs and Co. are smart enough to know that the last thing we need is a QB that could POSSIBLY start giving away games. Change the scheme before scrapping Brunell and keep a clipboard in ramsey's hand ( not a football).

Second, I think Gibbs needs to reevalutate the need for the Double Tightend formations. Lawrence Taylor does not play any more (who is the reason for the Hbacks creation.) and its just a waste of position. It provides max protection for the QB, but its killing our offensive production by denying portis a lead blocker, or not allowing us to put more than two receivers on the field. We need to start running Portis out of the the I-formation with Kozlowski @ fullback (until Cartright gains his weight back) busting that hole open. I gaurentee you portis will not have trouble getting three yards running behind a 6'3" 250lb fullback.

Third, By switching to the I-formation we will be able to fully utilize our sure-handed rookie tightend. Cooley, as a traditional tightend, can help the right tackle (where we are already weak) as well as becoming a respectable pass threat. We've got to utilize the talent on this team. Cooley's hands are way to good to be blocking every down and portis is too fast to have to wait for slow 300lb linemen to pull for a blocks on counter treys.

Forth, we've gotta start running some 3 receivers sets, and shot guns.

Fifth. Fire the replay challenge guy.

Someone please email this to Gibbs along with my resume......

JoeDaSchmoe
10-11-2004, 10:23 PM
The thing first thing Gibbs needs to do is not panick by calling Ramsey's number and remember why he isnt starting in the first place....... Brunell is not WINNING games but he is also is not LOSING them for us....

Yep, that fits right in with that old sure-fire football adage, "Don't play to win games, play to not lose them."

War Hogg
10-11-2004, 10:28 PM
Also, if you are watching the Titans&Packers game, watch Chris Brown run behind the fullack and imagine Portis having that much room past the line of scrimmage..... Portis is praying for a fullback....

skins74
10-11-2004, 10:54 PM
Also, if you are watching the Titans&Packers game, watch Chris Brown run behind the fullack and imagine Portis having that much room past the line of scrimmage..... Portis is praying for a fullback....


What happens if there is no hole for the fullback to run through first?

War Hogg
10-11-2004, 10:56 PM
What happens if there is no hole for the fullback to run through first?

Are you saying that Bugel cant get the line to create a hole?

skins74
10-11-2004, 11:00 PM
Are you saying that Bugel cant get the line to create a hole?

No, I am saying the O-line might not be able to open up a hole.

inevitable
10-11-2004, 11:03 PM
The o-line is opening holes, we're not running the ball enough.

akhhorus
10-11-2004, 11:03 PM
38

JoeDaSchmoe
10-11-2004, 11:03 PM
No, the O-line is definitely not consistently opening up holes.

LATrueRedskin
10-11-2004, 11:05 PM
I agree we need some big changes at offense. Luckily, that's Gibbs' bread and butter. I don't think the H-back will be there much longer, and maybe we'll see a more open running game. We'll figure this out and get it on the right track.

LATrueRedskin
10-11-2004, 11:05 PM
No, the O-line is definitely not consistently opening up holes.

Yeah, the OLine isn't doing much to help this offense.

skins74
10-11-2004, 11:09 PM
Yeah, the OLine isn't doing much to help this offense.


I do think that they are pass protecting a little better this year. Start Ramsey.

War Hogg
10-11-2004, 11:10 PM
everyone that thinks the line doesnt open holes......

When Samuels and dockery open a hole and block the defensive end and the defensive tackle....who do you thinks waiting on the other side of that hole....

When you run a counter trey and your waiting for randy Thomas and Cory Ramyer to pull and come around and block who do you think is waiting for you .

The entire secondary....

There is no need to run the ball if you are unble to get an inch.......

NCskinsfanatic
10-11-2004, 11:15 PM
Yeah, the OLine isn't doing much to help this offense.
Actually I think they are a good 75% of the problem, if we had KC's line for instance we wouldnt be talking about Portis or Brunell in regards to lack of production IMO.

skins74
10-11-2004, 11:19 PM
everyone that thinks the line doesnt open holes......

When Samuels and dockery open a hole and block the defensive end and the defensive tackle....who do you thinks waiting on the other side of that hole....

When you run a counter trey and your waiting for randy Thomas and Cory Ramyer to pull and come around and block who do you think is waiting for you .

The entire secondary....

There is no need to run the ball if you are unble to get an inch.......

I have watched every minute of every the pre-season and regular season and I have yet to see a gaping hole opened up. Minus the 64yarder.

JoeDaSchmoe
10-11-2004, 11:24 PM
everyone that thinks the line doesnt open holes......

When Samuels and dockery open a hole and block the defensive end and the defensive tackle....who do you thinks waiting on the other side of that hole....

When you run a counter trey and your waiting for randy Thomas and Cory Ramyer to pull and come around and block who do you think is waiting for you .

The entire secondary....

There is no need to run the ball if you are unble to get an inch.......

So... what's your point?

War Hogg
10-11-2004, 11:31 PM
So... what's your point?

do you understand football?


Portis is meeting linebackers and safties in the hole.....He's wieghs 200 lbs.....you figure it out.....

He needs a buffer.... someone in between him and the first person to make contact contact to make a cut.

Skinz4lyfe
10-11-2004, 11:34 PM
I think Gibbs is coaching pretty conservative. I believe he needs to open up the offense a little more. I haven't seen one screen play or misdirection play or anything like that. IMO Portis did have a point because right now our offense is pretty Vanilla. How about pulling a reverse or flea flicker. We need a couple of big plays on offense so that we can gain confidence.

Also, I don't like the routes our receivers are running. Our receivers are running routes that take way too long to develop. How about running some slants and hook patterns? We haven't run many timing patterns. Teams are playing a 2 deep zone to take away the deep pass so we might need Cooley to go up the middle to occupy the safeties.

I don't think we necessarily need an overhaul like instituting the I-Formation. That would take way too long to develop. But we can tweek what we have been using (which I think Gibbs will do) and try to make it work. One thing is for sure though, if Brunell plays like he did Sunday night, he'll be on the bench. He stunk up the joint!

JoeDaSchmoe
10-11-2004, 11:36 PM
do you understand football?


Portis is meeting linebackers and safties in the hole.....He's wieghs 200 lbs.....you figure it out.....

He needs a buffer.... someone in between him and the first person to make contact contact to make a cut.

Do I understand football? Don't make me laugh. The problem was the way you wrote your last most made very little sense.

skins74
10-11-2004, 11:39 PM
If Portis had a decent size hole to work with he could juke around the LBs and DBs, but he is getting tiny holes at best.

whitskins
10-11-2004, 11:45 PM
If Portis had a decent size hole to work with he could juke around the LBs and DBs, but he is getting tiny holes at best.

Yes the holes he's getting to work with are laughable, I don't blame Portis for anything except the fumbles.

WRSK1NS
10-12-2004, 05:17 AM
I think one of the major problems is that when we shift our TE or H back to one side of the line we always run to that side. Watch the defense when they see that shift they run to that side too. I think we need to run some counters to the weak side to keep the defense honest. I was encourage the other night when I saw the H back shift into the full back position on a couple of plays. Does anyone remember the Dallas game where they lined up with 2 full backs (one on the left and one on the right) and then a running back? I think that is an excellent formation because you are a threat to run to either side and the QB has three options on who to hand the ball to. On a pass play you would have max protrct if you wanted or at least each back could chip a rushing player on their way out to be a receiver. I dont remember what they called the formation, does anyone else?

dabro
10-12-2004, 05:38 AM
The H-back plays the fullback in many situations. If you'll notice, he's not always on one end of the line. He is often right behind a guard and tackle. Gibbs has often said that he likes the H-back because they are bigger than fullbacks, as a rule, and it gives the offense more options. The O-line IS opening up holes. The problem is that if the defense has 8-10 men in the box, there aren't enough offense guys to block them. Note that Jamal Lewis had 19 yds in the first half against us because we were stacking the line of scrimmage. The key is to get the ball down the field and force the safeties to cover, thus getting them out of the box. Anyway, while you may see the "I", don't expect Gibbs to go away from the H-back position.

flave1969
10-12-2004, 07:10 AM
SURE FIRE WAY TO WIN THE NEXT 8 GAMES.

The first thing Gibbs needs to do is not panick by calling Ramsey's number and remember why he isnt starting in the first place....... Brunell is not WINNING games but he is also is not LOSING them for us....I think Gibbs and Co. are smart enough to know that the last thing we need is a QB that could POSSIBLY start giving away games. Change the scheme before scrapping Brunell and keep a clipboard in ramsey's hand ( not a football).

Second, I think Gibbs needs to reevalutate the need for the Double Tightend formations. Lawrence Taylor does not play any more (who is the reason for the Hbacks creation.) and its just a waste of position. It provides max protection for the QB, but its killing our offensive production by denying portis a lead blocker, or not allowing us to put more than two receivers on the field. We need to start running Portis out of the the I-formation with Kozlowski @ fullback (until Cartright gains his weight back) busting that hole open. I gaurentee you portis will not have trouble getting three yards running behind a 6'3" 250lb fullback.

Third, By switching to the I-formation we will be able to fully utilize our sure-handed rookie tightend. Cooley, as a traditional tightend, can help the right tackle (where we are already weak) as well as becoming a respectable pass threat. We've got to utilize the talent on this team. Cooley's hands are way to good to be blocking every down and portis is too fast to have to wait for slow 300lb linemen to pull for a blocks on counter treys.

Forth, we've gotta start running some 3 receivers sets, and shot guns.

Fifth. Fire the replay challenge guy.

Someone please email this to Gibbs along with my resume......


I agree with most of what you say. H-Back has had his day. I want to see a lead blocker for Portis more often. I want to see a new millenium version of the Possee. We have the receivers, lets do it.

Jimreaper007
10-12-2004, 07:51 AM
If you are a student of the game, you understand that a two TE set allows for quicker contact on those you intend to block.

A fullback has to find the guy to block coming out of the backfield, while the tight end is either already on the line of scrimmage or sent in motion to get a better blocking angle on his assigned target.


The single back set presents more problems to the defense because they are not sure what that TE's are doing until the ball is snapped. Unfortunately Gibbs is a little more predictable these days because of the QB's limited arm and no bulldozer for a running back.

IMO: I think he should make more of an effort to get Cooley the ball over the middle and in the seems. Cooley can open up the field for Portis by taking a linebacker or safety out of blitz mode and making him play Cooley-spy.


In the Gibbs philosophy, more people at the point of attack is a good thing. It gives him more options.

Skins57
10-12-2004, 08:02 AM
Yep, that fits right in with that old sure-fire football adage, "Don't play to win games, play to not lose them."


So we give the team to Ramsey who has the much desired arm. Did anyone see the Giants game? That great arm threw it a long way but it hit blue almost everytime. Did we ru hte ball any better? So exactly what did Ramsey do to imporove our teams chances?

I just think we need to let Joe get this team turned around and bringing in a guy who is as mobile as a big rock, who has shown he likes to hold on to the ball too long and may have a color blind problem. Sorry getting a little carried away :D

Sunday night on the Ed Reed sack and fumble return, was that Mark's fault? heck no, our Betts guys left Reed go and barely put a hand on him.

I could see going to Ramsey but he showed nothing all preseason and got even worse in the only time he has played so far. I do not see why to change. Just my opinion

War Hogg
10-12-2004, 08:19 AM
If you are a student of the game, you understand that a two TE set allows for quicker contact on those you intend to block.

A fullback has to find the guy to block coming out of the backfield, while the tight end is either already on the line of scrimmage or sent in motion to get a better blocking angle on his assigned target.


The single back set presents more problems to the defense because they are not sure what that TE's are doing until the ball is snapped. Unfortunately Gibbs is a little more predictable these days because of the QB's limited arm and no bulldozer for a running back.

IMO: I think he should make more of an effort to get Cooley the ball over the middle and in the seems. Cooley can open up the field for Portis by taking a linebacker or safety out of blitz mode and making him play Cooley-spy.


In the Gibbs philosophy, more people at the point of attack is a good thing. It gives him more options.

I understand your point that more TE's creates more options and uncertainty among the defense......The only problem is we only have one TE that poses any pass threat. There is no LB or Safety that fears Walter rasby or Robert Royal as a pass threat there for they look past them and crowd the line. Gibbs attempted to make the ravens respect Rasby as a pass threat and we all saw how scary those passes were to Rasby.

The issue is our TE's are limited in what they can do.

skins74
10-12-2004, 08:31 AM
:cry: If you are a student of the game, you understand that a two TE set allows for quicker contact on those you intend to block.

A fullback has to find the guy to block coming out of the backfield, while the tight end is either already on the line of scrimmage or sent in motion to get a better blocking angle on his assigned target.


The single back set presents more problems to the defense because they are not sure what that TE's are doing until the ball is snapped. Unfortunately Gibbs is a little more predictable these days because of the QB's limited arm and no bulldozer for a running back.

IMO: I think he should make more of an effort to get Cooley the ball over the middle and in the seems. Cooley can open up the field for Portis by taking a linebacker or safety out of blitz mode and making him play Cooley-spy.


In the Gibbs philosophy, more people at the point of attack is a good thing. It gives him more options.

I agree that Cooley needs the ball. I haven't seen him blatantly drop any passes actually I seen him make some awesome catches. But we need to complete some mid-deep range passes to loosen things up, then its up to the O line.

War Hogg
10-19-2004, 01:45 AM
Wow, I guess my offensive adjustments must have leaked out to Gibbs staff just in time.....Now all Gibbs has to do is follow step #3 of my plan and we will definitely win the next 8 games.

ps. keep an eye out for my new book...."how to go 16-0 every season"

lol

War Hogg
10-19-2004, 01:49 AM
Where are all the nay sayers of the "All Mighty I-FORMATION"...please show yourself or I will call you out tommorow.

JoeDaSchmoe
10-19-2004, 06:39 AM
Where are all the nay sayers of the "All Mighty I-FORMATION"...please show yourself or I will call you out tommorow.

I don't think there were too many naysayers to the actual substance of your post. It's the way you talk. You make T.O. look like Art Monk. If you have yourself a nice piece of humble pie, you'd probably wind up with a few more friends.

Skin-E-Dip
10-19-2004, 06:48 AM
I just realized that the only wins we have are against the 1-4 Bears and the 1-5 Bucs. Any other 1 win teams on the schedule?

Jimreaper007
10-19-2004, 06:56 AM
Gibbs has learned that the more people you bunch up to mass protect, the more options it gives the opponets to blitz.

Patton said always ATTACK....That way you dictate the flow of the war and you force your enemy to react to you thus keeping him defensive.

Gibbs did that Sunday with the 3 WR sets and spreading out the defense in order to give Portis more space and holes to run in. It also gives you a pretty clear indication of when the opposition is going to blitz.

The key for the Redskins is to ATTACK and not try to be reactive.


If Greg Williams were a Soldier, he would be one of Patton's favorites. The one game where we stopped attacking was the Giants game and we saw that result.

ATTACK and Dictate...Stick and move and keep your opponet guessing...

That will win us the next batch of games

smoak
10-19-2004, 07:16 AM
I just realized that the only wins we have are against the 1-4 Bears and the 1-5 Bucs. Any other 1 win teams on the schedule?

bengals... niners? packers? there are a couple two win teams.

i look at it this way. in almost all of our losses we beat ourselves with mistakes that can and will be corrected. this is a playoff caliber team talent wise and the coaching staff will be prepared for halloween (against green bay). if we can find a way to win that one, then we have winable (not automatic) games in detroit and home against cincy.

IF (and thats a big "IF") we are 5-4 going into the game againt philly, i think we'll make a playoff run. look at the NFC. other than the division winners, the teams are all average at best. the key will be getting back to .500 in the division which means we have to beat philly, dallas, and NY. none of those teams is unbeatable but philly will be very tough. throw in a game against the niners and we can be 9-7 at the end of this which is at least in the playoff hunt.

flave1969
10-19-2004, 07:30 AM
If you are a student of the game, you understand that a two TE set allows for quicker contact on those you intend to block.

A fullback has to find the guy to block coming out of the backfield, while the tight end is either already on the line of scrimmage or sent in motion to get a better blocking angle on his assigned target.


The single back set presents more problems to the defense because they are not sure what that TE's are doing until the ball is snapped. Unfortunately Gibbs is a little more predictable these days because of the QB's limited arm and no bulldozer for a running back.

IMO: I think he should make more of an effort to get Cooley the ball over the middle and in the seems. Cooley can open up the field for Portis by taking a linebacker or safety out of blitz mode and making him play Cooley-spy.


In the Gibbs philosophy, more people at the point of attack is a good thing. It gives him more options.


Good Post Jim.

I agree with what you say about the twin TE's but only if you have a more direct running style. A lot of the plays we ran up to the Bears game were traps and pulls, that take time to develop. A second is a long time on a play and if your play is till developing then you lose the momentum of the initial contact. I do not wholly agree about the full back necessarily looking for a guy to block is a bad thing if you assign him an area to clear out then that is his task. I think the point is variety is the spice of life, a combination of all sets is preferable, and we saw some of the adjustments in the game at Soldier Field. The toss play was included and it netted nearly thirty yards the two or three times it was used.

Could not agree more on the Cooley front, he is valuable even if his name is not called on a play. I would love to see him used more.

Jimreaper007
10-19-2004, 08:23 AM
Good Post Jim.

I agree with what you say about the twin TE's but only if you have a more direct running style. A lot of the plays we ran up to the Bears game were traps and pulls, that take time to develop. A second is a long time on a play and if your play is till developing then you lose the momentum of the initial contact. I do not wholly agree about the full back necessarily looking for a guy to block is a bad thing if you assign him an area to clear out then that is his task. I think the point is variety is the spice of life, a combination of all sets is preferable, and we saw some of the adjustments in the game at Soldier Field. The toss play was included and it netted nearly thirty yards the two or three times it was used.

Could not agree more on the Cooley front, he is valuable even if his name is not called on a play. I would love to see him used more.

Thanks Flave 1969,

I could see the future of the Skins while watching the Bears game and that future is a hyrbid offense of the Rams and Chiefs. Keep in mind that the Rams, Chiefs and Colts all use hybrid forms of the Gibbs Offense of the 80's.

The Rams Part: Would put combinations of Wr's and TE's out wide to force the defenses to move people out of the box. This gives Portis running lanes as well as makes teams show what they are doing. This type of set allows the Redskins to dictate to the defense what they are going to do instead of a crowded line of scrimmage which allows zone biltzes to be more effective. Zone blitzes rely on the fact that you have no idea where it is coming from. Spreading the field forces coverage and negates a lot of that.

The Chiefs Part: The Chiefs part of the Offense is the toss sweeps, Screens with Cooley and Rasby opening up the seems down the middle of the field. You have to utilize Portis speed on the outside and those types of plays will usually net big gains.

As you could see in Chicago, Mark Brunell had a couple of big play opportunites that he whiffed on. The score should have been 27-10 had he connected on those. Joe Gibbs is starting to learn that the best way to beat modern day NFL Defenses is to attack them. You run over the teams that you physically can do that against and you spread the field against teams that like to blitz and attack them vertically. Timing is crucial.


NOTE: Kurt Warner and the Giants played a textbook game on how to attack attacking defenses when they beatup Dallas a week back. They ran over the cowboys with a weak offensive line and they beat the cowboys blitz with quick screens traps and going deep on ocassion.


PORTIS: I think it is very important that people stop whining about not having a bigger running back. Portis is a rare breed that can run between the tackles and on the outside. Portis is someone defenses would fear way more than a bigger back because Portis can catch out of the backfield as good as most recievers. He is an enigma because you cannot cover him with a LB because he will blow by most of them and most secondary guys cannot bring him down. Bottom line is whenever Portis is on the field teams have to key on him.

The Skins will be fine on offense if they adapt the same philosophy as the defense and ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK...

hockeygoalie29
10-19-2004, 08:33 AM
Very good Post Jimreaper, I still expect to see a dominant offense once everyone is clicking and Gibbs reinvents his style of play. We have way too much talent on this team to be averaging 14 points a game.

IowaSkinsFan
10-19-2004, 08:35 AM
SURE FIRE WAY TO WIN THE NEXT 8 GAMES.

My recipe is a can't miss formula!

Score more points than the other team!

Jimreaper007
10-19-2004, 08:49 AM
Thanks HG29,

Just like his first stint...it takes Joe gibbs a couple of weeks to see how teams are playing him in order to adjust. Neccesity is the mother of invention and when Gibbs lost five straight in his first stint he looked around and noticed that he had Riggins and a massive (at the time) Offensive line. We quickly became a running team and the rest was history.

This team will be different. It will be a hybrid team that is a combination of power, deception and speed on offense with an attacking defense. One huge advantage over his previous stint is that Gibbs actually has a DOMINANT DEFENSE That will get him the ball more often so it is key that the offense capitalize on those increased opportunities.

The scary part about the defense is that they are not as good as they are going to be. Dominant Defenses score points and in a couple of weeks you will see our defense start scoring. People who know football and watch film realize that the skins defense is getting healthier and better by the game. By december those guys will be totally dominant. I guarantee you that no one will want to play the Redskins in later this year.

NOTE: The other thing I have noticed is that we match up very favorably against the Eagles. Personally I cannot wait until that game because I think that will be our breakout game in Philly (when all of the cylinders start to click) We have the best secondary in the NFC east to negate TO and no one will run on us so bring on the Eagles. When we beat them we will be surpemely confident and look out.

The one problem that remains is the fact that our QB cannot make teams pay deep. If we had a QB with a decent Arm in the Bears game the score is 27-10.

My hope is that as Gibbs continues to alter his style, he notices what all of us are saying (Brunell has a noodle arm). If Brunell continues to whiff on big plays Ramsey's number will be called soon. The Redskins need only to look at the Ravens to see that they can make it to the Superbowl with a Dominant Defense and an adequate offense. Our offense is much better than the Ravens.

Patrick
10-19-2004, 09:18 AM
My recipe is a can't miss formula!

Score more points than the other team!

Yep - that will do it. ...... AND I go back to what Coach Gibbs said. The problem starts with pass protection.

jonesy
10-19-2004, 11:14 AM
Brunell was losing some games for us with picks and tunrovers...

War Hogg
10-19-2004, 12:09 PM
I don't think there were too many naysayers to the actual substance of your post. It's the way you talk. You make T.O. look like Art Monk. If you have yourself a nice piece of humble pie, you'd probably wind up with a few more friends.

lol, you sound like my wife and you're right, I am a "I told you so type of person"......but really, im not really looking for online buddies....I called the I-Formation about 2weeks ago and Gibbs used it last weekend and portis ran for 171 yrds....im gonna begin making a post every friday on adjustments and predictions according to what teams we play....

It'll be called "How to win a game 101!"

look out for it.....

chad101
10-19-2004, 12:16 PM
bengals... niners? packers? there are a couple two win teams.

i look at it this way. in almost all of our losses we beat ourselves with mistakes that can and will be corrected. this is a playoff caliber team talent wise and the coaching staff will be prepared for halloween (against green bay). if we can find a way to win that one, then we have winable (not automatic) games in detroit and home against cincy.

IF (and thats a big "IF") we are 5-4 going into the game againt philly, i think we'll make a playoff run. look at the NFC. other than the division winners, the teams are all average at best. the key will be getting back to .500 in the division which means we have to beat philly, dallas, and NY. none of those teams is unbeatable but philly will be very tough. throw in a game against the niners and we can be 9-7 at the end of this which is at least in the playoff hunt.

Turnovers happen....provide a offensive scheme(4 wide spread the field???)that gets you one,yes one more TD a game and we win these games.

14PPG will NOT beat any of the teams you mention above.

whistleandthumb
10-19-2004, 12:31 PM
Where are all the nay sayers of the "All Mighty I-FORMATION"...please show yourself or I will call you out tommorow.
I've never been called out on anything, so just so I can fit in, I'll be a nay-sayer of the I-formation. C'mon, bring on the hate!!

War Hogg
10-19-2004, 12:50 PM
I've never been called out on anything, so just so I can fit in, I'll be a nay-sayer of the I-formation. C'mon, bring on the hate!!

No need....just tune in to "how to win a football game 101!". Every friday @ Noon! Ill make you a follower too.....

skinswin
10-19-2004, 12:50 PM
SURE FIRE WAY TO WIN THE NEXT 8 GAMES.

The first thing Gibbs needs to do is not panick by calling Ramsey's number and remember why he isnt starting in the first place....... Brunell is not WINNING games but he is also is not LOSING them for us....I think Gibbs and Co. are smart enough to know that the last thing we need is a QB that could POSSIBLY start giving away games. Change the scheme before scrapping Brunell and keep a clipboard in ramsey's hand ( not a football).

Second, I think Gibbs needs to reevalutate the need for the Double Tightend formations. Lawrence Taylor does not play any more (who is the reason for the Hbacks creation.) and its just a waste of position. It provides max protection for the QB, but its killing our offensive production by denying portis a lead blocker, or not allowing us to put more than two receivers on the field. We need to start running Portis out of the the I-formation with Kozlowski @ fullback (until Cartright gains his weight back) busting that hole open. I gaurentee you portis will not have trouble getting three yards running behind a 6'3" 250lb fullback.

Third, By switching to the I-formation we will be able to fully utilize our sure-handed rookie tightend. Cooley, as a traditional tightend, can help the right tackle (where we are already weak) as well as becoming a respectable pass threat. We've got to utilize the talent on this team. Cooley's hands are way to good to be blocking every down and portis is too fast to have to wait for slow 300lb linemen to pull for a blocks on counter treys.

Forth, we've gotta start running some 3 receivers sets, and shot guns.

Fifth. Fire the replay challenge guy.

Someone please email this to Gibbs along with my resume......

You are flat out wrong!!!!!!!!!!!! We are a one demensional team at best with Brunnell as our QB. We are not going to beat any real teams with Brunnell as our QB.

People don't want to say it but Gibbs is wrong about Brunnell and if Gibbs just puts in the time and coaches up Ramsey, he would bet better and better because Ramsey has upside. Can that be said for Brunnell? NO!!

Maybe a loss to the Packers is what it's going to take for Gibbs and you to realize that Brunnell can't and won't take us where we want to go.

War Hogg
10-19-2004, 12:56 PM
You are flat out wrong!!!!!!!!!!!! We are a one demensional team at best with Brunnell as our QB. We are not going to beat any real teams with Brunnell as our QB.

People don't want to say it but Gibbs is wrong about Brunnell and if Gibbs just puts in the time and coaches up Ramsey, he would bet better and better because Ramsey has upside. Can that be said for Brunnell? NO!!

Maybe a loss to the Packers is what it's going to take for Gibbs and you to realize that Brunnell can't and won't take us where we want to go.

Lol, Did you read the whole post...did you read the title? Gibbs kept brunell in, he ran the I-formation and three receiver sets and we won....Case closed. You know, even if we won the next 7 games straight with Brunell starting I think you Ramsey followers would still be crying to put him in.....

Look out for "How to win a football game 101!" every friday @ noon!!!

JoeDaSchmoe
10-19-2004, 05:55 PM
Lol, Did you read the whole post...did you read the title? Gibbs kept brunell in, he ran the I-formation and three receiver sets and we won....Case closed.

You, my friend, are possibly the most egotistical person I've ever seen on this board.

chad101
10-19-2004, 06:09 PM
do you understand football?


Portis is meeting linebackers and safties in the hole.....He's wieghs 200 lbs.....you figure it out.....

He needs a buffer.... someone in between him and the first person to make contact contact to make a cut.


I thought you wanted to scrap the 2nd back who would block into this hole ahead of Portis?

suppitty
10-19-2004, 06:50 PM
What happens if there is no hole for the fullback to run through first?
Fullbacks create holes. They run over whoever is in front of them. Even if it is one of there lineman. If the play is going up the 4 hole, and the tackle can get off the line of scrimmage the fullback will put his ass on the ground. Thats their job, and they get far less recognition than olineman.

War Hogg
10-20-2004, 02:43 PM
You, my friend, are possibly the most egotistical person I've ever seen on this board.


Dont get me wrong, I just saw the problem with run game against Tampa (despite the big run). When I mentioned the I-formation here on the board only a few people seemed to think it would work, and I was crazy for even questioning Joe Gibbs scheme. Now, After Joe included the I-Formation against the Bears successfully everyone is all for it....Its just funny to me.....

RedHokieSkin
10-20-2004, 02:54 PM
SURE FIRE WAY TO WIN THE NEXT 8 GAMES.

The first thing Gibbs needs to do is not panick by calling Ramsey's number and remember why he isnt starting in the first place....... Brunell is not WINNING games but he is also is not LOSING them for us....


Since playing not to lose is widely known as being a winning strategy? ;)


Third, By switching to the I-formation we will be able to fully utilize our sure-handed rookie tightend. Cooley, as a traditional tightend, can help the right tackle (where we are already weak) as well as becoming a respectable pass threat. We've got to utilize the talent on this team. Cooley's hands are way to good to be blocking every down...


And who is going to get the ball to Cooley? Brunell? Not likely...


Forth, we've gotta start running some 3 receivers sets, and shot guns.


And who is going to get the ball to the receivers? Brunell? Not likely...


Fifth. Fire the replay challenge guy.


No joke...what's up with that guy? I thought Gibbs wanted him to suggest challenging plays that had at least a chance. The guy is challenging stuff that the rest of America knows shouldn't be challenged immediately.
Someone please email this to Gibbs along with my resume......[/QUOTE]

RedHokieSkin
10-20-2004, 03:11 PM
Lol, Did you read the whole post...did you read the title? Gibbs kept brunell in, he ran the I-formation and three receiver sets and we won....Case closed.


If you think winning a football game is as simple as that, you are more naive than I originally thought.

The fact that we won the game is great. We're all thrilled about that. But frankly, we played the Bears. If our offense does the exact same thing against most other teams, would we win? It's not likely.

I attribute the win against the Bears to a phenomenal Redskins defense and a horrid Bears offense and defense. If the Bears had been just a little better on offense or defense, there's a good chance we would have lost the game.

Is what you are suggesting for the offensive sets true? Maybe. But I really can't see how Brunell has helped us at all.

JoeDaSchmoe
10-20-2004, 03:31 PM
Dont get me wrong, I just saw the problem with run game against Tampa (despite the big run). When I mentioned the I-formation here on the board only a few people seemed to think it would work, and I was crazy for even questioning Joe Gibbs scheme. Now, After Joe included the I-Formation against the Bears successfully everyone is all for it....Its just funny to me.....

Lots of people said there was a problem with the running game. Lots of people said that we should try using a fullback more often, including myself. The problem is that you seem to think that you're the only one who came up with this idea, and that anyone who disagreed with any single part of your post (like me, for example, with the Brunell part) disagreed with the whole thing. Then, you took it upon yourself to rub these two flawed thoughts of yours in everyone's face.

War Hogg
10-20-2004, 07:21 PM
If you think winning a football game is as simple as that, you are more naive than I originally thought.

The fact that we won the game is great. We're all thrilled about that. But frankly, we played the Bears. If our offense does the exact same thing against most other teams, would we win? It's not likely.

I attribute the win against the Bears to a phenomenal Redskins defense and a horrid Bears offense and defense. If the Bears had been just a little better on offense or defense, there's a good chance we would have lost the game.

Is what you are suggesting for the offensive sets true? Maybe. But I really can't see how Brunell has helped us at all.

Whats your point

Spearfeather
10-20-2004, 08:04 PM
Cooley is used in the Fullback role on a fair amount of plays.

I would like to see more screens to Portis...Brunnell drops back three steps and swings it out to Portis..It just doesn't seem like they've done that enough.

Skins4life
10-20-2004, 11:28 PM
Sure fire way..................bench Brunell.

RedHokieSkin
10-21-2004, 04:04 PM
Whats your point

That you attributed our win to our offense by stating: "Gibbs kept brunell in, he ran the I-formation and three receiver sets and we won....Case Closed." And that this is obviously nonsense.

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 08:56 PM
That you attributed our win to our offense by stating: "Gibbs kept brunell in, he ran the I-formation and three receiver sets and we won....Case Closed." And that this is obviously nonsense.


If Gibbs continues to use the I-Formation, 3 receiver sets, and Brunell....and we dont win....holla at me....

JoeDaSchmoe
10-21-2004, 09:03 PM
If Gibbs continues to use the I-Formation, 3 receiver sets, and Brunell....and we dont win....holla at me....

The point, Hogg, is that one game against a one-win team doesn't close any case. Hell, if it did, I could say the following:

The Redskins will win every time Mark Brunell throws an interception and it is returned for a touchdown. Last Sunday, he threw an interception and it was returned for a touchdown. Case closed.

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 09:10 PM
Someone please email this to Gibbs along with my resume......

I hope Gibbs never sees this or the sight of your resume.

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 09:21 PM
I hope Gibbs never sees this or the sight of your resume.

1

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 09:22 PM
The point, Hogg, is that one game against a one-win team doesn't close any case. Hell, if it did, I could say the following:

The Redskins will win every time Mark Brunell throws an interception and it is returned for a touchdown. Last Sunday, he threw an interception and it was returned for a touchdown. Case closed.

2

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 09:27 PM
3

hockeygoalie29
10-21-2004, 09:29 PM
Alright, you all can count.

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 09:29 PM
you can't :weak:

LadyNRedskinsfan
10-21-2004, 09:30 PM
whats the deal with the counting? is this seasme street?

hockeygoalie29
10-21-2004, 09:33 PM
you can't :weak:

?

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 09:42 PM
The point, Hogg, is that one game against a one-win team doesn't close any case. Hell, if it did, I could say the following:

The Redskins will win every time Mark Brunell throws an interception and it is returned for a touchdown. Last Sunday, he threw an interception and it was returned for a touchdown. Case closed.

What rock did you guys crawl from under (lol)....drink some HATORADE and get over it. Emmanoul, you said that you used to be a fullback and that the "I" would never work against 8 man fronts, then when portis runs for 171yrds in the "I" you're all for it. Smooe....I dont know who stole your bicycle but I had nothing to do with it! (lol)

The absence of the I-Formation was stalling Portis and I called it...BEFORE THE CHANGE WAS MADE. Im not saying im a genius or a HOF coach, im just saying I know football.

I see why redskins are fighting each other at the games.....There's a lot of haters amongst us.

Anyhow, since Im getting so much attention why dont you'll check out my rare breed italian mastiffs @ www.dovespringscanecorso.com

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 09:44 PM
What rock did you guys crawl from under (lol)....drink some HATORADE and get over it. Emmanoul, you said that you used to be a fullback and that the "I" would never work against 8 man fronts, then when portis runs for 171yrds in the "I" you're all for it. Smooe....I dont know who stole your bicycle but I had nothing to do with it! (lol)

The absence of the I-Formation was stalling Portis and I called it...BEFORE THE CHANGE WAS MADE. Im not saying im a genius or a HOF coach, im just saying I know football.

I see why redskins are fighting each other at the games.....There's a lot of haters amongst us.

Anyhow, since Im getting so much attention why dont you'll check out my rare breed italian mastiffs @ [url]www.dovespringscanecorso.com

4

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 09:46 PM
whats the deal with the counting? is this seasme street?

Im counting all the haters in the house.....Please tell them to get over it Lady....

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 09:48 PM
Im counting all the haters in the house.....Please tell them to get over it Lady....


Oh I thought you were doing homework,

dj_stouty
10-21-2004, 09:50 PM
Everyone needs to chill on the numbers game...it is gettin annoying..

War Hogg~ As soon as you rub someone's nose in something they said, you open the flood gates for it to be done to you ten fold. Remember that...

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 09:51 PM
Oh I thought you were doing homework,

Lets let bygones be bygones...anyhow, what do you think of the hogs (dogs)lol

JoeDaSchmoe
10-21-2004, 09:51 PM
What rock did you guys crawl from under (lol)....drink some HATORADE and get over it. Emmanoul, you said that you used to be a fullback and that the "I" would never work against 8 man fronts, then when portis runs for 171yrds in the "I" you're all for it. Smooe....I dont know who stole your bicycle but I had nothing to do with it! (lol)

The absence of the I-Formation was stalling Portis and I called it...BEFORE THE CHANGE WAS MADE. Im not saying im a genius or a HOF coach, im just saying I know football.

I see why redskins are fighting each other at the games.....There's a lot of haters amongst us.

Anyhow, since Im getting so much attention why dont you'll check out my rare breed italian mastiffs @ www.dovespringscanecorso.com

Bicycle?

Lots of people were calling for the I formation. Everyone was calling for Gibbs to spread the field more. You're acting like you're something special because you had the same thought as thousands of other people.

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 09:53 PM
Bicycle?

Lots of people were calling for the I formation. Everyone was calling for Gibbs to spread the field more. You're acting like you're something special because you had the same thought as thousands of other people.

Who? called for the "I"? show me proof....I need dates, posts, threads...lol

JoeDaSchmoe
10-21-2004, 09:56 PM
Lord, Hogg, I'm not your secretary. I'm a moderator on this forum, check it out practically every day, and see nearly every thread. I know people besides yourself wanted to use a fullback. Perhaps if you infuriate me enough I'll bother to go dig up a couple quotes, but for now I'll simply try once again to let you know that nothing so far has shown you to be the next coming of Vince Lombardi.

dj_stouty
10-21-2004, 10:03 PM
This is crazy...

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 10:04 PM
Lets let bygones be bygones...anyhow, what do you think of the hogs (dogs)lol

okaaaay in that case let me say when I said FBs wouldn't work against 8 man fronts, I didn't mean literally it would never work. Almost every team has a FB and defenses still put 8 man fronts to stop the run. Most offenses adjust by going to the air and the successful offenses get it done one way or another.

There's a heirarchy IMO in changing things, I'm not suggesting a formation change before tinkering w/ the passing game. Whatever, I said if Gibbs thinks it will work he'll do it, hopefully Portis keeps it going.

LadyNRedskinsfan
10-21-2004, 10:12 PM
i think you guys need to tone this conversation down a bit or we will see one of those nice little locks at the bottom of this thread.

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 10:13 PM
I don't think I'm still out of line am I ?

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 10:17 PM
okaaaay in that case let me say when I said FBs wouldn't work against 8 man fronts, I didn't mean literally it would never work. Almost every team has a FB and defenses still put 8 man fronts to stop the run. Most offenses adjust by going to the air and the successful offenses get it done one way or another.

There's a heirarchy IMO in changing things, I'm not suggesting a formation change before tinkering w/ the passing game. Whatever, I said if Gibbs thinks it will work he'll do it, hopefully Portis keeps it going.

cool and the dogs.....? heres the website if you forgot it www.dovespringscanecorso.com. (shameless plug...lol)

I think im gonna change my screen name to Lombardi Hogg.....whatcha think?

LadyNRedskinsfan
10-21-2004, 10:18 PM
no. i can just see it getting out of line (will i get credit for that? lol, j/k...). the one thing i love about this board is reading the discussions and not having it get out of line and/or personal. i like reading the back and forth and just dont want to see the thread get locked. thats all.....

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 10:21 PM
i think you guys need to tone this conversation down a bit or we will see one of those nice little locks at the bottom of this thread.

Ahh, this aint bad...just a family squabble...all the smoke has cleared....

Emmanouel8
10-21-2004, 10:25 PM
the one thing i love about this board is reading the discussions and not having it get out of line and/or personal. ...


I thought you were different LadyN ;).

Hogg the dogs are blue ribbon but I'm a cat guy lol. I know I know, I just like to keep it low maintenance when it comes to anything but girlfriends and cars.

LadyNRedskinsfan
10-21-2004, 10:28 PM
I thought you were different LadyN ;).

im not sure how to take that E8......;)

War Hogg
10-21-2004, 11:42 PM
I thought you were different LadyN ;).

Hogg the dogs are blue ribbon but I'm a cat guy lol. I know I know, I just like to keep it low maintenance when it comes to anything but girlfriends and cars.

lol, understand.....Ive been looking for once of those low maintenance woman too but I think they stopped making them in 79'. I checked ebay, overstock.com, ....everywhere. let me know if you run into one.....

War Hogg
11-11-2005, 08:46 PM
I finally got a chance to watch Po-Po's impersonation of the sheriff and saw something that we all may find very interesting...

He made a public plea to gibbs to have a lead blocker...

I then dug up this post from exactly year ago (WEEK 9) to see what we were talking about last year around this time and found this post of me ranting and raving about Portis having a FB lead blocker.. Once you get past all the jokes from the sheriff you will see that he is practically BEGGING GIBBS to let Sellers lead block for him on EVERY RUN PLAY.....

I saw him lead block for portis alot more in the Eagles game and if Gibbs every decides to use the traditional fullback again WE WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE!!!

People thought I was crazy, but Im just telling you what I know!!!

Gclark84
11-11-2005, 09:00 PM
SURE FIRE WAY TO WIN THE NEXT 8 GAMES.

The first thing Gibbs needs to do is not panick by calling Ramsey's number and remember why he isnt starting in the first place....... Brunell is not WINNING games but he is also is not LOSING them for us.........


I don't understand the line above. Mark Brunell is a large part of the reason why we are winning games!!! If he continues at the pace he is going he will be the comeback player of the year. I have watched every game this season and with the exception of the Giant game in which no-one played well Brunell has done a very good job.

hail2skins
11-11-2005, 09:03 PM
I don't understand the line above. Mark Brunell is a large part of the reason why we are winning games!!! If he continues at the pace he is going he will be the comeback player of the year. I have watched every game this season and with the exception of the Giant game in which no-one played well Brunell has done a very good job.Check the date of this thread. It was last year.

2Cooley
11-11-2005, 09:04 PM
I don't understand the line above. Mark Brunell is a large part of the reason why we are winning games!!! If he continues at the pace he is going he will be the comeback player of the year. I have watched every game this season and with the exception of the Giant game in which no-one played well Brunell has done a very good job.
look at the date

hail2skins
11-11-2005, 09:04 PM
I finally got a chance to watch Po-Po's impersonation of the sheriff and saw something that we all may find very interesting...

He made a public plea to gibbs to have a lead blocker...

I then dug up this post from exactly year ago (WEEK 9) to see what we were talking about last year around this time and found this post of me ranting and raving about Portis having a FB lead blocker.. Once you get past all the jokes from the sheriff you will see that he is practically BEGGING GIBBS to let Sellers lead block for him on EVERY RUN PLAY.....

I saw him lead block for portis alot more in the Eagles game and if Gibbs every decides to use the traditional fullback again WE WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE!!!

People thought I was crazy, but Im just telling you what I know!!!I take what you call a plea as a joke by Portis. I don't think he was pleaing as you say. Both Sellers and Cooley have been lead blockers for Portis this year.

lefty420
11-11-2005, 10:16 PM
i love how he takes the time to fond a year old thread just tocontinue a argument lol. thats beypnd belief

War Hogg
11-12-2005, 07:10 PM
I take what you call a plea as a joke by Portis. I don't think he was pleaing as you say. Both Sellers and Cooley have been lead blockers for Portis this year.

First off, In respect of your comment I re-watched the Portis interview and you cant tell me that that wasnt a genuine plea to have a lead blocker on every run play....

he said verbatim

"Im trying to get more lead blocks for myself, I would love to have him in the back field every play, so coach if you are watching this put Mike in the backfield, PLEASE...

Second off, dont you think that it makes more sense to have a lead blocker for portis ALL THE TIME. Are you against having a permanent FB and less double TE formations?