PDA

View Full Version : Why we have won 5 in a row


OCSkinzFan
12-28-2005, 02:28 PM
It's not a coincidence that we've won 4 in a row and the Redskins defense has allowed four touchdowns in the last four games COMBINED.

SkinsFan73
12-28-2005, 02:30 PM
Defense thats what wins championships

S.Taylor36
12-28-2005, 02:34 PM
Defense has been great!

The Dirtbags and Clinton Portis have been great!

And in the last two games the 12th Man has been a HUGE factor!

Ibleedburgundy
12-28-2005, 02:34 PM
Great stat! 4 TD's in 4 games? That's nothing. I would like to give additional props to our D-line. They are stepping up at just the right time.

OCSkinzFan
12-28-2005, 02:45 PM
Great stat! 4 TD's in 4 games? That's nothing. I would like to give additional props to our D-line. They are stepping up at just the right time.
When the whole D line is healthy they are a VERY effective group. They're going to have to step up the pressure again this week with Rogers and Chris Clemons on IR. Arrington is "questionable" right now, but it would be nice to see him get Clemons' snaps and just wreak havoc on 3rd downs.

LadyNRedskinsfan
12-28-2005, 02:51 PM
It's not a coincidence that we've won 4 in a row and the Redskins defense has allowed four touchdowns in the last four games COMBINED.
nice.............:beer:

Syllable
12-28-2005, 02:58 PM
Yup plus the 2 35 point games we put up.

helimech24
12-28-2005, 03:23 PM
That is a great stat OC, I think every team but the texans can win with their team only giving up one td a game

halter91
12-28-2005, 03:35 PM
wait, you mean it's not the all white uniforms? :banghead:

Man, It's been a lot of things, D line is playing the best it's played all year, the O line is blowing up defenders, we are putting pressure on the QB without blitzing every down and our O skill guys are making the easy plays!!

oh, and the white uni's! :lol1:

IHATEDALLAS'82'87'91
12-28-2005, 03:56 PM
The Defense has played Great but it was a effort from the whole team

guinness4health
12-28-2005, 04:03 PM
. They're going to have to step up the pressure again this week with Rogers and Chris Clemons on IR

I know that clemons is on IR, but last i heard rogers was tried to get healthly enough to try and play this week....has something changed?

redskin_rich
12-28-2005, 04:24 PM
I know that clemons is on IR, but last i heard rogers was tried to get healthly enough to try and play this week....has something changed?
Nothing's changed, Rogers will try to practice this week and if his arm respond's well, he may play.

Don't forget folks, we are also finally getting some turnovers, we have been on the positive side of the turnover ratio in these last 4 games. If we had managed that all season, we would probably have 12 wins and be home throughout the playoff's.

The Skinsinator
12-28-2005, 04:26 PM
Defense has played awesome and once again Gregg Williams has done a masterful job of scheming/planning and maximizing the defense with injuries. They have been a huge reason for our success all season. I can't wait to see them next year with a big time threat coming from the defensive end position.

smoak
12-28-2005, 04:26 PM
Don't forget folks, we are also finally getting some turnovers, we have been on the positive side of the turnover ratio in these last 4 games. If we had managed that all season, we would probably have 12 wins and be home throughout the playoff's.

Bingo!

Plus Portis had not posted back-to-back 100 yard games until this streak. All phases of the game are clicking.

OCSkinzFan
12-28-2005, 04:32 PM
I know that clemons is on IR, but last i heard rogers was tried to get healthly enough to try and play this week....has something changed?
My bad, Rogers is not on the IR, but he is listed as questionable. That with the signing of CB Christian Morton to the active roster could mean something though.

The DB situation is not 100% airtight right now. Rogers may be out and Springs is still coming off an injured groin and the Eggels like to toss it more than a Peewee Herman at a dirty movie. The DL needs to step up again to keep the pressure off the CB's. We can't give McNabb all day.

PSUredskins
12-28-2005, 05:32 PM
actually i think if we give mcnabb all day we'll do just fine....considering he's still recovering from the surgery to repair his abdomen. That and the eagles would be breaking NFl regulations by playing somebody who they placed on IR.

IowaSkinsFan
12-28-2005, 06:26 PM
It's not a coincidence that we've won 4 in a row and the Redskins defense has allowed four touchdowns in the last four games COMBINED.

Carlos Rogers becoming a starter in that span as well. Coincidence? I think not.

smoak
12-28-2005, 06:34 PM
Carlos Rogers becoming a starter in that span as well. Coincidence? I think not.

To be fair he got hurt in AZ and was out the past two games. Don't get me wrong, I love the kid... Just being fair.

colkurtz
12-28-2005, 06:56 PM
Carlos Rogers becoming a starter in that span as well. Coincidence? I think not.

Rogers and Griffin are playing. Cornelius Griifn solidifies the DL and singlehandedly makes that whole unit better. He came back from his injuries and the team starts winning

P.S. LaVar is also in and playing better than Holdman (not on same level of improvement as Rogers or Griffin)

OCSkinzFan
12-28-2005, 08:37 PM
Rogers and Griffin are playing. Cornelius Griifn solidifies the DL and singlehandedly makes that whole unit better. He came back from his injuries and the team starts winning

P.S. LaVar is also in and playing better than Holdman (not on same level of improvement as Rogers or Griffin)

Rogers has been out for two weeks and is still listed as questionable. Do you know something new?

helimech24
12-28-2005, 08:43 PM
To be fair he got hurt in AZ and was out the past two games. Don't get me wrong, I love the kid... Just being fair.

I will give credit to Rogers though for pushing Harris to do better. Harris was a liability in the secondary before Rogers took his spot. Now Harris is hanging tough with the receivers.

OCSkinzFan
12-28-2005, 08:46 PM
actually i think if we give mcnabb all day we'll do just fine....considering he's still recovering from the surgery to repair his abdomen. That and the eagles would be breaking NFl regulations by playing somebody who they placed on IR.
Good point.

But his momma might start handin out that soup and you seen what happens then!

helimech24
12-28-2005, 09:12 PM
Good point.

But his momma might start handin out that soup and you seen what happens then!

He runs around like an idiot, and makes bad jokes.

OCSkinzFan
12-28-2005, 09:34 PM
He runs around like an idiot, and makes bad jokes.
It was a bad joke, but I wasn't running around at the time!

helimech24
12-28-2005, 09:39 PM
It was a bad joke, but I wasn't running around at the time!
:lol1: , well you should have been.

whistleandthumb
12-28-2005, 10:02 PM
Our D has given up some plays, and has actually allowed some teams to move the ball (the VaGiants and Cards come to mind), but has REALLY stiffened up when they needed to. We've played clutch, and have been forcing turnovers. This is the best our D has looked all year, BY FAR!

Paintedbird
12-28-2005, 10:11 PM
It's not a coincidence that we've won 4 in a row and the Redskins defense has allowed four touchdowns in the last four games COMBINED.



If defense wins championships, why weren't we at least in the playoffs last year.

These little catch phrases have begun to bother me. The latest one is: The Redskins are a Running Team.

For some reason the last two games have inspired that one. Here are the actual combined stats for the Redskins/Cowboys game and the Redskins/Giants games, possibly our two biggest games of the year.

Total yards rushing: 327 Total touchdowns rushing: 3

Total yards passing: 396 Total touchdowns passing: 8

Here's another little eye opener for those who rate Ramsey's performance against the Giants as just OK:

Brunell against Cowboys: QB rating-- 125.6
Brunell against Giants: QB rating-- 99.2
Ramsey against Giants: QB rating-- 153.3

All three ratings are excellent. Ramsey's is astronomical.

Portis' yardage against Dallas: 112 4.9
Giants: 108 4.0

By most yardsticks of which I am aware the quarterback play in the last two game has at lease equaled or been superior to Portis' play, especially when one considers that most of the rushing yardage in both games was picked up at game's end when scoring damage had already been done.

There seems no way to me to justify the notion that the Redskins are a "running team" based on the last two games, two of the most successful games as a so-called "running team" the team has had.

As for the Defense wins Championship notion....I don't think it will win us a championship this year. We're going to have to keep on putting big numbers up on the board.

helimech24
12-28-2005, 10:21 PM
If defense wins championships, why weren't we at least in the playoffs last year.

These little catch phrases have begun to bother me. The latest one is: The Redskins are a Running Team.

For some reason the last two games have inspired that one. Here are the actual combined stats for the Redskins/Cowboys game and the Redskins/Giants games, possibly our two biggest games of the year.

Total yards rushing: 327 Total touchdowns rushing: 3

Total yards passing: 396 Total touchdowns passing: 8

Here's another little eye opener for those who rate Ramsey's performance against the Giants as just OK:

Brunell against Cowboys: QB rating-- 125.6
Brunell against Giants: QB rating-- 99.2
Ramsey against Giants: QB rating-- 153.3

All three ratings are excellent. Ramsey's is astronomical.

Portis' yardage against Dallas: 112 4.9
Giants: 108 4.0

By most yardsticks of which I am aware the quarterback play in the last two game has at lease equaled or been superior to Portis' play, especially when one considers that most of the rushing yardage in both games was picked up at game's end when scoring damage had already been done.

There seems no way to me to justify the notion that the Redskins are a "running team" based on the last two games, two of the most successful games as a so-called "running team" the team has had.

As for the Defense wins Championship notion....I don't think it will win us a championship this year. We're going to have to keep on putting big numbers up on the board.


But...in the Cowboys game, a lot of the yards in passing came from the run. Ie Cooley pass/run on screen, play action to Coles for the big play with one on one.

Same with the Giants. Most of those yards came from the one-on-one coverage to moss on those big pass plays, which was set up with the run

My point is that we have been opportunistic with the big plays that are set up from the running attack that we have been forcing down teams throats.

BurgundyNGold
12-28-2005, 10:22 PM
If defense wins championships, why weren't we at least in the playoffs last year.

These little catch phrases have begun to bother me. The latest one is: The Redskins are a Running Team.

For some reason the last two games have inspired that one. Here are the actual combined stats for the Redskins/Cowboys game and the Redskins/Giants games, possibly our two biggest games of the year.

Total yards rushing: 327 Total touchdowns rushing: 3

Total yards passing: 396 Total touchdowns passing: 8

Here's another little eye opener for those who rate Ramsey's performance against the Giants as just OK:

Brunell against Cowboys: QB rating-- 125.6
Brunell against Giants: QB rating-- 99.2
Ramsey against Giants: QB rating-- 153.3

All three ratings are excellent. Ramsey's is astronomical.

Portis' yardage against Dallas: 112 4.9
Giants: 108 4.0

The saying should be "All things being equal, defense wins championships". You cannot even make the playoffs if you don't have balance. 30th in the NFL on offense in 2004 is not the kind of balance that makes the playoffs, let alone wins championships.

Don't think that just because Akh is out of town that you can play "Fun With Numbers". The Redskins ARE a running team. Just look at the play selection the last 4 games:

Week 13 (@Rams): 40 runs, 22 passes
Week 14 (@Cards): 38 runs, 28 passes
Week 15 (Dallass): 40 runs, 20 passes
Week 16 (Gints): 43 runs, 19 passes

If you still think that the Redskins aren't a running team who uses the run to set up a well timed pass, then you obviously don't know Redskins football under Joe Gibbs.

As for Ramsey, he only had 7 passes against the Gints. I wonder how he got overlooked for the pro bowl? How about using Ramsey's lifetime passer rating of 75.0 as a much more complete mosaic of his ability?

Paintedbird
12-29-2005, 02:10 AM
The saying should be "All things being equal, defense wins championships". You cannot even make the playoffs if you don't have balance. 30th in the NFL on offense in 2004 is not the kind of balance that makes the playoffs, let alone wins championships.

Don't think that just because Akh is out of town that you can play "Fun With Numbers". The Redskins ARE a running team. Just look at the play selection the last 4 games:

Week 13 (@Rams): 40 runs, 22 passes
Week 14 (@Cards): 38 runs, 28 passes
Week 15 (Dallass): 40 runs, 20 passes
Week 16 (Gints): 43 runs, 19 passes

If you still think that the Redskins aren't a running team who uses the run to set up a well timed pass, then you obviously don't know Redskins football under Joe Gibbs.

As for Ramsey, he only had 7 passes against the Gints. I wonder how he got overlooked for the pro bowl? How about using Ramsey's lifetime passer rating of 75.0 as a much more complete mosaic of his ability?

My post was not a rant for Ramsey but rather a reaction to the fact that Redskins QB's and the passing game in particular have not gotten due credit for the last two wins. Eight TD tosses is phenominal. If the passing game stays as sharp (and mistake free) as it has been, running room will be there (as it has been) and we'll have a shot at going far. I think a lot of our defense too, but don't think this is a year for big defensive wins. I'm anticipating shoot outs and guess we'd better game plan on scoring 30 or more a few times out.
So that's my prediction BNG and I'll eat crow if I'm wrong: We keep right on scoring big with TD tosses opening up things for the running game, or we get bogged down with one and two yard plunges and run out of the playoffs. What say you? Or do you want to wait for AK to come back before coming up with a competing generality?

PS. RUNNING TEAMS don't pass twenty times a game and throw a pass for every two running plays, especially when about half of those running plays were used by Gibbs just to kill the clock in both the Cowboys and Giant games.

Paintedbird
12-29-2005, 02:10 AM
The saying should be "All things being equal, defense wins championships". You cannot even make the playoffs if you don't have balance. 30th in the NFL on offense in 2004 is not the kind of balance that makes the playoffs, let alone wins championships.

Don't think that just because Akh is out of town that you can play "Fun With Numbers". The Redskins ARE a running team. Just look at the play selection the last 4 games:

Week 13 (@Rams): 40 runs, 22 passes
Week 14 (@Cards): 38 runs, 28 passes
Week 15 (Dallass): 40 runs, 20 passes
Week 16 (Gints): 43 runs, 19 passes

If you still think that the Redskins aren't a running team who uses the run to set up a well timed pass, then you obviously don't know Redskins football under Joe Gibbs.

As for Ramsey, he only had 7 passes against the Gints. I wonder how he got overlooked for the pro bowl? How about using Ramsey's lifetime passer rating of 75.0 as a much more complete mosaic of his ability?

My post was not a rant for Ramsey but rather a reaction to the fact that Redskins QB's and the passing game in particular have not gotten due credit for the last two wins. Eight TD tosses is phenominal. If the passing game stays as sharp (and mistake free) as it has been, running room will be there (as it has been) and we'll have a shot at going far. I think a lot of our defense too, but don't think this is a year for big defensive wins. I'm anticipating shoot outs and guess we'd better game plan on scoring 30 or more a few times out.
So that's my prediction BNG and I'll eat crow if I'm wrong: We keep right on scoring big with TD tosses opening up things for the running game, or we get bogged down with one and two yard plunges and run out of the playoffs. What say you? Or do you want to wait for AK to come back before coming up with a competing generality?

swheeler
12-29-2005, 02:29 AM
But...in the Cowboys game, a lot of the yards in passing came from the run. Ie Cooley pass/run on screen, play action to Coles for the big play with one on one.
That's just wrong...

smoak
12-29-2005, 07:36 AM
My post was not a rant for Ramsey but rather a reaction to the fact that Redskins QB's and the passing game in particular have not gotten due credit for the last two wins. Eight TD tosses is phenominal. If the passing game stays as sharp (and mistake free) as it has been, running room will be there (as it has been) and we'll have a shot at going far. I think a lot of our defense too, but don't think this is a year for big defensive wins. I'm anticipating shoot outs and guess we'd better game plan on scoring 30 or more a few times out.
So that's my prediction BNG and I'll eat crow if I'm wrong: We keep right on scoring big with TD tosses opening up things for the running game, or we get bogged down with one and two yard plunges and run out of the playoffs. What say you? Or do you want to wait for AK to come back before coming up with a competing generality?

PS. RUNNING TEAMS don't pass twenty times a game and throw a pass for every two running plays, especially when about half of those running plays were used by Gibbs just to kill the clock in both the Cowboys and Giant games.

I prefer the term that the Redskins are a "run first" team rather than a running team, but I think it is insane to consider us a passing team? To me, I think of the Iggles when I think of a passing team. The Skins have good balance IMO.

From NFL.com:

The Redskins are #5 in total rushing yards
The Redskins are #10 in rushing yards per play
The Redskins are #19 in total passing yards
The Redskins are #14 in passing yards per play
The Redskins have the 8th highest % of yards gained on the ground. (Chicago being the highest and other really good team -- record wise -- being high b/c they have more leads to gring out)

The bottom line (for me) is that anyone can plainly see we are a balanced team capable of running or throwing the footballl. However, watching the games, I feel we are very much a run-first team.

Our passing game is so successful b/c of (not in spite of) the running game. For example, against the Giants, Moss noticed the FS slide over before the snap to help stop Portis. Moss knew right away that he had Will Allen one on one and took him deep. Does that same play happen if we are the Iggles? No, The defense worries primerality about getting beat deep by McNabb b/c the Iggles don't run the ball.

Brokenstriker
12-29-2005, 07:53 AM
there are lots of good things happening ... but I think that the primary reason the Skins are on a roll is that the big men on offense and defense have found their game. Both lines have stepped it up significantly. When an offensive line does that ... a Rypien can be the Super Bowl winner and never need his jersey washed. When the D Line is stuffing the run and getting enough pressure on the QB that you don't have to bet the ranch blitzing DBs so many good things can happen.

lets give it up for the linemen ... I think they have earned it

Paintedbird
12-29-2005, 09:04 AM
I prefer the term that the Redskins are a "run first" team rather than a running team, but I think it is insane to consider us a passing team? To me, I think of the Iggles when I think of a passing team. The Skins have good balance IMO.

From NFL.com:

The Redskins are #5 in total rushing yards
The Redskins are #10 in rushing yards per play
The Redskins are #19 in total passing yards
The Redskins are #14 in passing yards per play
The Redskins have the 8th highest % of yards gained on the ground. (Chicago being the highest and other really good team -- record wise -- being high b/c they have more leads to gring out)

The bottom line (for me) is that anyone can plainly see we are a balanced team capable of running or throwing the footballl. However, watching the games, I feel we are very much a run-first team.

Our passing game is so successful b/c of (not in spite of) the running game. For example, against the Giants, Moss noticed the FS slide over before the snap to help stop Portis. Moss knew right away that he had Will Allen one on one and took him deep. Does that same play happen if we are the Iggles? No, The defense worries primerality about getting beat deep by McNabb b/c the Iggles don't run the ball.


I absolutely agree that we are a RUN FIRST team with a balanced attack and thank you for the terminology, since it is reflective of the truth and gives due credit all around as well as provides prospective.

The other thing irritating me at the moment is the site writer himself referring to Ramsey's performance as "ok" and now, today, as "decent." Whether or not one thinks Ramsey is a horrible QB or an All Time Great on a daily basis, or in the past; against the Gints he had a QB rating of over 150 coming in cold off the bench for a half-- the words "ok" and "decent" do not belong in the same sentence with such a QB rating. A 150 rating is superstar stuff. One many argue all one wants that Ramsey is not a superstar--fine. But it is ridiculous to argue that he did not play like one in the Gint's game. By the way, his pass to Moss was not underthrown, was placed away from the defender, and looked fired from a cannon; his pass to Cooley was a superb second look in rhythm; and his footwork is vastly improved. Detractors might want to check out Gibbs' and Brunell's latest remarks on Ramsey's coming stardom and recent play.

Battle Cat
12-29-2005, 09:56 AM
The Redskins are playing better because both lines have stepped it up. The Defensive line stepped up but got better because Griffen is healthy. He is a low key guy but he is probably the most important or at least the guy we can least afford to lose on the whole team. And I must give Daniels credit I downed him and he not only played big in the Dallas game but the game before and every game after. The offensive line has played better since they went to Gibbs and asked to pound the ball. And the Redskins are a running team. Especially this time of year if you dont play in a dome you better be able to run the ball. The offensiive line's better play come from in my opinion the fact that they wear on a D line before we go to allot of passing. Earlier in the season we would come out passing and D Line men would pin their ears back and beat our whole O line and now after getting punched in the mouth for about a quarter and a half the other teams D line is not so swift at rushing the passer when we start to incorporate the pass. It is no coincidence us running more and no opposing D linemen having big games like earlier in the season. And the easiest test of whether a team is a run team is to look at their passes. If their passes are mainly off of play action then you have a running team. I don't care how many times they throw it or how many passing yards. Play Action doesn't work without fear of the running game.

Paintedbird
12-29-2005, 04:56 PM
The Redskins are playing better because both lines have stepped it up. The Defensive line stepped up but got better because Griffen is healthy. He is a low key guy but he is probably the most important or at least the guy we can least afford to lose on the whole team. And I must give Daniels credit I downed him and he not only played big in the Dallas game but the game before and every game after. The offensive line has played better since they went to Gibbs and asked to pound the ball. And the Redskins are a running team. Especially this time of year if you dont play in a dome you better be able to run the ball. The offensiive line's better play come from in my opinion the fact that they wear on a D line before we go to allot of passing. Earlier in the season we would come out passing and D Line men would pin their ears back and beat our whole O line and now after getting punched in the mouth for about a quarter and a half the other teams D line is not so swift at rushing the passer when we start to incorporate the pass. It is no coincidence us running more and no opposing D linemen having big games like earlier in the season. And the easiest test of whether a team is a run team is to look at their passes. If their passes are mainly off of play action then you have a running team. I don't care how many times they throw it or how many passing yards. Play Action doesn't work without fear of the running game.

Yet another ad hoc definition of Running Team pulled out of somebody's whizbang for somebody's latest fad labeling. Our rushing yardage has come late, not early. You guys are in the grip of some wierd myths-- Gibbs has never been a Running Team coach; Riggo was not a dominating running back; those superbowl teams had great receivers and quarterbacks who threw long; and the capacity to run out the clock when needed with Riggo's short gains. By the way, as much as I loved Riggo, he showed up to play about half the time and was considered a moody, sometime weapon; and, as much as I loved Ripien, he was one of the most error prone, immobile donkeys ever to hit the field about half the time. Ripien didn't know how to spell play action.
Too bad you guys are too young to remember that Gibbs was considered ahead of his time as a designer of passing attacks and that except to ice a game never showed much desire to run. If we had another Gary Clark to go along with Moss we'd be passing two out of three times instead of one out of three.
That stuff of legend you guys talk about comes from a series of games and a superbowl win that were not characteristic of Riggo or the Skins of the period.
Conditions were right for it, it happened. It did not and does not define who Gibbs is and was as a coach. Dealing for strong armed QB's and great receivers does.

CowboyKilla
12-29-2005, 04:57 PM
CAUSE WE BELIEVE.!!!!

OCSkinzFan
12-29-2005, 05:34 PM
Riggo was not a dominating running back.
:rolleyes: There were games when Riggo carried the Redskins.
Your memory seems quite selective; so I'll try to re-inform you.

John Riggins:
Seasons among the league's top 10:
Rushes: 1975-7, 1978-9, 1979-8, 1982-1t, 1983-2, 1984-5
Rushing yards: 1975-7, 1979-9, 1983-5, 1984-6
Rushing TDs: 1975-10t, 1979-9t, 1981-2t, 1983-1, 1984-1t
Yards from scrimmage: 1975-6
Rush/Receive TDs: 1979-7t, 1981-5t, 1983-1, 1984-3t


In 1983 Riggins carried 375 times for 1347 yards that's a 3.6 yd avg. and oh yea, he had 24 TDs that year; more than anybody in the NFL that year. Not very dominating, sure whatever...

Paintedbird
12-29-2005, 06:41 PM
:rolleyes: There were games when Riggo carried the Redskins.
Your memory seems quite selective; so I'll try to re-inform you.

John Riggins:
Seasons among the league's top 10:
Rushes: 1975-7, 1978-9, 1979-8, 1982-1t, 1983-2, 1984-5
Rushing yards: 1975-7, 1979-9, 1983-5, 1984-6
Rushing TDs: 1975-10t, 1979-9t, 1981-2t, 1983-1, 1984-1t
Yards from scrimmage: 1975-6
Rush/Receive TDs: 1979-7t, 1981-5t, 1983-1, 1984-3t


In 1983 Riggins carried 375 times for 1347 yards that's a 3.6 yd avg. and oh yea, he had 24 TDs that year; more than anybody in the NFL that year. Not very dominating, sure whatever...

Your judgement seems a little wierd. Backs who average 3.6 yds a carry and who finish among the league's top ten rushers four times in their careers are hardly to be considered dominating. He was a very good power back and short yardage scorer and his stats reflect that. The league was and is filled with backs with better yds per carry and total yardage stats. He had excellent speed and power but few moves, poor flexibility and balance, and tended to fall forward with momentum but not break tackles. He was tough but had limited skill as a runner and often seemed unmotivated.

santanadasavior
12-29-2005, 06:53 PM
The saying should be "All things being equal, defense wins championships". You cannot even make the playoffs if you don't have balance. 30th in the NFL on offense in 2004 is not the kind of balance that makes the playoffs, let alone wins championships.

Don't think that just because Akh is out of town that you can play "Fun With Numbers". The Redskins ARE a running team. Just look at the play selection the last 4 games:

Week 13 (@Rams): 40 runs, 22 passes
Week 14 (@Cards): 38 runs, 28 passes
Week 15 (Dallass): 40 runs, 20 passes
Week 16 (Gints): 43 runs, 19 passes

If you still think that the Redskins aren't a running team who uses the run to set up a well timed pass, then you obviously don't know Redskins football under Joe Gibbs.

As for Ramsey, he only had 7 passes against the Gints. I wonder how he got overlooked for the pro bowl? How about using Ramsey's lifetime passer rating of 75.0 as a much more complete mosaic of his ability?

I think you are absolutly right. We have a championship caliber defense. We have a championship caliber running game and a quarterback who gets the job done. I got to say those stats look very familar, aaahhhh. I know it. We are playing like the 15-1 Steelers from a year ago. Running the ball well, playing great defense, and our quarterback is managing the game. I see us as the favorite in the NFC, I just don't know if we can take down the AFC team. But, if we make the Super Bowl, we'll have one 8 in a row and the last three would have been playoff games.

Paintedbird
12-29-2005, 08:23 PM
I think you are absolutly right. We have a championship caliber defense. We have a championship caliber running game and a quarterback who gets the job done. I got to say those stats look very familar, aaahhhh. I know it. We are playing like the 15-1 Steelers from a year ago. Running the ball well, playing great defense, and our quarterback is managing the game. I see us as the favorite in the NFC, I just don't know if we can take down the AFC team. But, if we make the Super Bowl, we'll have one 8 in a row and the last three would have been playoff games.

Ok, I give up. Santana Moss and Chris Cooley don't play for us. Brunell is a bum, and we don't really have or need a passing attack. Those eight TD's passing in the last two games were all caused by the threat of our running game's four yard plunges and deadly play action whammos. Get Dilfer in there-- we've got the greatest RUNNING TEAM since the pack had Hornung and Taylor.

helimech24
12-29-2005, 08:27 PM
That's just wrong...

LOL, whoops... my bad.

helimech24
12-29-2005, 08:29 PM
I prefer the term that the Redskins are a "run first" team rather than a running team, but I think it is insane to consider us a passing team? To me, I think of the Iggles when I think of a passing team. The Skins have good balance IMO.

From NFL.com:

The Redskins are #5 in total rushing yards
The Redskins are #10 in rushing yards per play
The Redskins are #19 in total passing yards
The Redskins are #14 in passing yards per play
The Redskins have the 8th highest % of yards gained on the ground. (Chicago being the highest and other really good team -- record wise -- being high b/c they have more leads to gring out)

The bottom line (for me) is that anyone can plainly see we are a balanced team capable of running or throwing the footballl. However, watching the games, I feel we are very much a run-first team.

Our passing game is so successful b/c of (not in spite of) the running game. For example, against the Giants, Moss noticed the FS slide over before the snap to help stop Portis. Moss knew right away that he had Will Allen one on one and took him deep. Does that same play happen if we are the Iggles? No, The defense worries primerality about getting beat deep by McNabb b/c the Iggles don't run the ball.

You know what, i like that. We run to start and finish the games and pass when possible or absolutely needed.

santanadasavior
12-29-2005, 08:30 PM
Ok, I give up. Santana Moss and Chris Cooley don't play for us. Brunell is a bum, and we don't really have or need a passing attack. Those eight TD's passing in the last two games were all caused by the threat of our running game's four yard plunges and deadly play action whammos. Get Dilfer in there-- we've got the greatest RUNNING TEAM since the pack had Hornung and Taylor.

I'm not saying that the passing game is for not, I'm saying that we are a running football team. We pass the ball well and we are efficient, not dominant. I think that if we were completley shut down offensively by a team it would be because of our running game, not our passing game. Brunell is having a great season and he is not being an all star. He is winning games. Which is what we need. We don't need 300 yards passing and 4 TDs. We need the time of possesion and the 0 Ints and we will be fine. Brunell is giving that to us.

santanadasavior
12-29-2005, 08:34 PM
You know what, i like that. We run to start and finish the games and pass when possible or absolutely needed.

Well put. We don't need to have a running game to pass and we have the passing game to burn people. We can also win games without passing teh ball. The point is we can win the game many ways and I don't have a problem with that.

X-Factor13
12-29-2005, 08:42 PM
CAUSE WE BELIEVE.!!!!



YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!!! The above is the SINGLE AND ONLY reason we have won four straight!!!

helimech24
12-29-2005, 08:43 PM
YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!!! The above is the SINGLE AND ONLY reason we have won four straight!!!

And the players believe in Gibbs and GW.

OCSkinzFan
12-30-2005, 05:10 PM
Your judgement seems a little wierd. Backs who average 3.6 yds a carry and who finish among the league's top ten rushers four times in their careers are hardly to be considered dominating. He was a very good power back and short yardage scorer and his stats reflect that. The league was and is filled with backs with better yds per carry and total yardage stats. He had excellent speed and power but few moves, poor flexibility and balance, and tended to fall forward with momentum but not break tackles. He was tough but had limited skill as a runner and often seemed unmotivated.
Riggins carried 375 times for 1347 w/ 24 TDs in '83; imagine what he could have done if he had more skill and motavation. You make an excellent point.:rolleyes:

BurgundyNGold
12-30-2005, 07:37 PM
My post was not a rant for Ramsey but rather a reaction to the fact that Redskins QB's and the passing game in particular have not gotten due credit for the last two wins. Eight TD tosses is phenominal. If the passing game stays as sharp (and mistake free) as it has been, running room will be there (as it has been) and we'll have a shot at going far. I think a lot of our defense too, but don't think this is a year for big defensive wins. I'm anticipating shoot outs and guess we'd better game plan on scoring 30 or more a few times out.
So that's my prediction BNG and I'll eat crow if I'm wrong: We keep right on scoring big with TD tosses opening up things for the running game, or we get bogged down with one and two yard plunges and run out of the playoffs. What say you? Or do you want to wait for AK to come back before coming up with a competing generality?
What generality? Are you saying the pass is opening up the run? I don't know what you're saying here but I'm pretty sure I won't like it.

PS. RUNNING TEAMS don't pass twenty times a game and throw a pass for every two running plays, especially when about half of those running plays were used by Gibbs just to kill the clock in both the Cowboys and Giant games.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what running teams do. They run first, pass second. It is quite common to see more runs than passes for a running team precisely because they are running the ball.

When they do pass, it is often conservative or they will use the fear of the run to draw up the safety and then use play action to victimize the secondary.

What exactly are you arguing here?

helimech24
12-30-2005, 08:14 PM
What generality? Are you saying the pass is opening up the run? I don't know what you're saying here but I'm pretty sure I won't like it.


Actually, that's EXACTLY what running teams do. They run first, pass second. It is quite common to see more runs than passes for a running team precisely because they are running the ball.

When they do pass, it is often conservative or they will use the fear of the run to draw up the safety and then use play action to victimize the secondary.

What exactly are you arguing here?

There are three kinds of teams in the league. A running team (us), a passing team (Philly), and a balanced team (indy or KC).

Running teams run more than they pass like 2 runs to 1 pass
Passing teams pass more than they run like 40 passes a game
and balanced teams do both equally.

We are the first one on the list.

IowaSkinsFan
12-31-2005, 03:32 PM
To be fair he got hurt in AZ and was out the past two games. Don't get me wrong, I love the kid... Just being fair.

LOL. It was meant as a little jab at OC in reference to our sparring match about who was the better corner coming out of college, Pac Man or Carlos.

Of course we ALL know the answer to that now.

helimech24
12-31-2005, 03:35 PM
LOL. It was meant as a little jab at OC in reference to our sparring match about who was the better corner coming out of college, Pac Man or Carlos.

Of course we ALL know the answer to that now.

I am glad that we didn't have a higher pick, and get Pac Man instead. Rogers was doing very well before getting hurt.

Paintedbird
12-31-2005, 04:39 PM
Riggins carried 375 times for 1347 w/ 24 TDs in '83; imagine what he could have done if he had more skill and motavation. You make an excellent point.:rolleyes:

Everybody in football at the time of Riggins knew he should have been gaining over a 1000 yards every year inspite of his several weaknesses as a runner. Check his career record if you'd like to see how consistent he was. Also try to remember he played behind the best line in the NFL- HOF guys- and within one of the best passing offenses in the business.

OCSkinzFan
12-31-2005, 06:05 PM
Everybody in football at the time of Riggins knew he should have been gaining over a 1000 yards every year inspite of his several weaknesses as a runner. Check his career record if you'd like to see how consistent he was. Also try to remember he played behind the best line in the NFL- HOF guys- and within one of the best passing offenses in the business.
So the fact that Riggins didn't get 1000 yards every year isn't the O lines fault, but when he did get 1000 yds, it was because of O-line was so good? Very logical.

How about this, you say "Riggo was not a dominating running back."
Was OJ Simpson? Because Riggins has more yards than him.
Was Barry Sanders? Because Riggins has more TD's than him.

Riggins was a dominating back because if it was third and one EVERYBODY in the stadium knew who was gonna get the ball, but there was nothing anybody could do about it.

If you choose to not consider a back with the legacy of Riggins to be anything less than dominant, you obviously haven't examined the facts.

By the way, you mention that players from the O-line are in the HOF but forget to mention that Riggins is there too.

Here's a quote from his HOF bio:
The 6-2, 230-pound Riggins was not a spectacular running back but he was a classic workhorse ball carrier who specialized in the tough yardage in the big games. He carried 2,916 times for 11,352 yards and 104 touchdowns during his career. He also caught 250 passes for 2,090 yards and 12 touchdowns. His 13,435 combined net yards are among the best ever, as is his 116 touchdowns by rushing and receiving.


Maybe Riggins needed a little more twinkle in his toes to make your list of dominant backs, but for me, the way he ran defined dominant.

OCSkinzFan
12-31-2005, 06:08 PM
LOL. It was meant as a little jab at OC in reference to our sparring match about who was the better corner coming out of college, Pac Man or Carlos.

Of course we ALL know the answer to that now.
Thanks for passing the salt, but my ax wound doesn't need any yet.

BTW out for 3 games after starting once. Is that good?

vabeach_skinsfan
12-31-2005, 06:12 PM
Yeah not only has our defense played up to their potential, but we also committed to the ground game, getting Portis over the century mark the past 4 games. I'm glad we finaly got some balance between both sides of the ball. 97 more yards and Portis will go over 1500 3 times in 4 years. Thats simply outstanding.

JoeDaSchmoe
12-31-2005, 06:38 PM
My God.

PS. RUNNING TEAMS don't pass twenty times a game and throw a pass for every two running plays, especially when about half of those running plays were used by Gibbs just to kill the clock in both the Cowboys and Giant games.

Okay, after reading this, I actually had to run down and take a couple Excedrin because I had suddenly gotten a migraine. You just defined a running team. What part of this says "we pass first"?

helimech24
12-31-2005, 09:10 PM
My God.



Okay, after reading this, I actually had to run down and take a couple Excedrin because I had suddenly gotten a migraine. You just defined a running team. What part of this says "we pass first"?

I think he just defined a running team in that quote. Running 2 out of 3 downs is a running team right? ( I don't count 4th down)

Paintedbird
01-01-2006, 12:05 AM
So the fact that Riggins didn't get 1000 yards every year isn't the O lines fault, but when he did get 1000 yds, it was because of O-line was so good? Very logical.

How about this, you say "Riggo was not a dominating running back."
Was OJ Simpson? Because Riggins has more yards than him.
Was Barry Sanders? Because Riggins has more TD's than him.

Riggins was a dominating back because if it was third and one EVERYBODY in the stadium knew who was gonna get the ball, but there was nothing anybody could do about it.

If you choose to not consider a back with the legacy of Riggins to be anything less than dominant, you obviously haven't examined the facts.

By the way, you mention that players from the O-line are in the HOF but forget to mention that Riggins is there too.

Here's a quote from his HOF bio:


Maybe Riggins needed a little more twinkle in his toes to make your list of dominant backs, but for me, the way he ran defined dominant.


I regard the HOF description of Riggins as absolutely accurate.

I didn't forget to mention Riggins was in the HOF. Everybody knows that.

Your idea that a back is dominating because he's great on 3rd and one is close to ludicrous. Listen to yourself.

Riggins had a lot of years in which he gained less than 1000 yds.
The Jets management finally gave up trying to get him motivated. They once ran an aging Jim Nance the entire pre-season in Riggins' place just to try to shake him up.

I saw everyone of his games as a Skin. Sometimes he was awake, sometimes he wasn't. Which Riggins was going to show up used to be a matter of pre-game discussions. When he dogged it, we passed.

The reason he had a great superbowl and great games up to the Superbowl is that he went to Gibbs and told him to give him the ball every time he wanted to. He basically told Gibbs he was going to play ball...and Gibbs believed him. The result was incredible.

Riggins could have been doing the same thing his whole career. He was not a great runner, but he had that kind of power. The irony is he could have been as dominant as you think he was. Truth is, he was half way a screw off.

OCSkinzFan
01-01-2006, 12:40 PM
I regard the HOF description of Riggins as absolutely accurate.

I didn't forget to mention Riggins was in the HOF. Everybody knows that.

Your idea that a back is dominating because he's great on 3rd and one is close to ludicrous. Listen to yourself.

Riggins had a lot of years in which he gained less than 1000 yds.
The Jets management finally gave up trying to get him motivated. They once ran an aging Jim Nance the entire pre-season in Riggins' place just to try to shake him up.

I saw everyone of his games as a Skin. Sometimes he was awake, sometimes he wasn't. Which Riggins was going to show up used to be a matter of pre-game discussions. When he dogged it, we passed.

The reason he had a great superbowl and great games up to the Superbowl is that he went to Gibbs and told him to give him the ball every time he wanted to. He basically told Gibbs he was going to play ball...and Gibbs believed him. The result was incredible.

Riggins could have been doing the same thing his whole career. He was not a great runner, but he had that kind of power. The irony is he could have been as dominant as you think he was. Truth is, he was half way a screw off.
When a back takes a pounding... let me start over... When a team has a running back that DELIVERS a pounding over and over all season long (you saw the games, did Riggins ever run out of bounds like ALL backs do today?) that back pays a certain price with regard to game readiness week in and week out. If it makes you sleep better at night to pretend that Riggins was Superhuman physically but chose to dog it because he was a "screw off" go ahead. As for me, and all the Hall of Fame voters, I choose to believe that he wasn't a spectacular talent; when he got the ball his cuts didn't break defenders ankles he didn't accelerate into the secondary at the blink of an eye but what he did do, he did with his heart and the willingness to deliver the blow and move the pile that extra yard. They don't call you a "classic workhorse back" for being "a screwup."

Cling to your fantasy dude; because you are alone in your very little world.

IowaSkinsFan
01-01-2006, 01:25 PM
Thanks for passing the salt, but my ax wound doesn't need any yet.

BTW out for 3 games after starting once. Is that good?

Bad luck is more like it. I am sure it happened supporting the run, like he always does. That's probably why Pac Man hasn't got injured. He stays away from that action. :D

FanFromArizona
01-01-2006, 02:22 PM
PaintedBird, you are entitled to your opinion, but it would be nice to see something POSITIVE in your posts. Can you give it a try?

As in the past and during our current streak, we have been 2 things:

1. Effective
2. Productive
Championships have been won for this very basic reason.

We play as a team and do not have any one individual which makes our team the Redskins. Collectively we play as a group, it was that way in Gibbs Era 1.0 as it is now.

John Riggins embodied effectiveness and production. He may not have been flashy, but in the end, GOT THE JOB DONE As the golf saying goes, "It's not how you hit it but how you get there" and the same is true in this great game of football.

A win is a win is a win, A HoFer is a HoFer, and A Superbowl victory will always make you the champs, it is the one thing that can't ever be taken away from a team.

PB, I only have one question and one comment for you:

Question: What is YOUR definition of a running team or passing team? Does it have any balance in the playcalling? According to you, a running team is 100% running and 0% passing.

Comment: We need to have balance in everything we do, balance is what makes this team dangerous, a one-sided offense is very easy to defend. It is what made the Redskins under Joe Gibbs dangerous, and is the reason[the lack of a passing game] we had a miserable 6-10 record last year.

Paintedbird
01-01-2006, 07:00 PM
PaintedBird, you are entitled to your opinion, but it would be nice to see something POSITIVE in your posts. Can you give it a try?

As in the past and during our current streak, we have been 2 things:

1. Effective
2. Productive
Championships have been won for this very basic reason.

We play as a team and do not have any one individual which makes our team the Redskins. Collectively we play as a group, it was that way in Gibbs Era 1.0 as it is now.

John Riggins embodied effectiveness and production. He may not have been flashy, but in the end, GOT THE JOB DONE As the golf saying goes, "It's not how you hit it but how you get there" and the same is true in this great game of football.

A win is a win is a win, A HoFer is a HoFer, and A Superbowl victory will always make you the champs, it is the one thing that can't ever be taken away from a team.

PB, I only have one question and one comment for you:

Question: What is YOUR definition of a running team or passing team? Does it have any balance in the playcalling? According to you, a running team is 100% running and 0% passing.

Comment: We need to have balance in everything we do, balance is what makes this team dangerous, a one-sided offense is very easy to defend. It is what made the Redskins under Joe Gibbs dangerous, and is the reason[the lack of a passing game] we had a miserable 6-10 record last year.

Excellent question: What is a running team?

I consider a running team to be one that can move the ball down the field by throwing the ball only about one of three or four times, primarily to keep the defense honest. The Skins pass the ball only about one in three times (the mark of a running team), but use the long pass as their primarily scoring weapon.
The ratio of run to pass is high because Gibbs so often uses the running game just to run out the clock. This is not a characteristic of a true running team, in my opinion.
It's interesting to note that against the Eagles (a game basically won by forced turnovers rather than the pass or the run), the offense not only bogged down because Brunell was rusty, but Portis and Betts (by themselves) were heroic and excellent, but ended up battered. We pretty much relied on turnovers for field position. We click when things are balanced, but were just not good enough on the ground to say that we can win in the NFL without a great passing attack.
We could have easily lost to a bunch of nobodies today. I hope Brunell's ready by the next game. He was pretty bad today, and we can't beat anybody in the playoffs if he's this bad again, no matter how good we think the running game is.
A great back does not necessarily mean a team has a great running game. What we have is a great back, not a great running game.

IowaSkinsFan
01-01-2006, 07:36 PM
I edited the title of this thread for accuracy, since it is now 5 IN A ROW BABY!

FanFromArizona
01-01-2006, 08:41 PM
Excellent question: What is a running team?

I consider a running team to be one that can move the ball down the field by throwing the ball only about one of three or four times, primarily to keep the defense honest. The Skins pass the ball only about one in three times (the mark of a running team), but use the long pass as their primarily scoring weapon.

I am not sure we PRIMARILY use the pass as our scoring mechanism, I think it's a good mix. Clinton does have many rushing TDs this year. We seem to be a potent offense in the redzone [note the stat today of 9 TD in 9 attempts in the redzone] because teams stack the box expecting a run up the middle, which is PRECISELY when you go to the playaction. I think it is simply a matter of what hand the defense gives us, a simple "Pick your poison". Why would you run it up the gut when you have 8 men in the box? You don't.


The ratio of run to pass is high because Gibbs so often uses the running game just to run out the clock. This is not a characteristic of a true running team, in my opinion.


{Afleck duck shakes his head} HUH?


It's interesting to note that against the Eagles (a game basically won by forced turnovers rather than the pass or the run), the offense not only bogged down because Brunell was rusty, but Portis and Betts (by themselves) were heroic and excellent, but ended up battered.

In watching Brunell this year and last, I can make this basic statement that will dictate how Brunell plays: his legs. He needs to be at full strength for his arm and limited mobility to be a factor. If he cannot set and plant, he does not make good throws. Because of his injury last week, his inability to properly plant is what we got today. This changes the outlook of the game majorly. Brunell was not rusty today, he was playing injured and was hampered in the passing game.


We pretty much relied on turnovers for field position. We click when things are balanced, but were just not good enough on the ground to say that we can win in the NFL without a great passing attack.
We could have easily lost to a bunch of nobodies today. I hope Brunell's ready by the next game. He was pretty bad today, and we can't beat anybody in the playoffs if he's this bad again, no matter how good we think the running game is.
A great back does not necessarily mean a team has a great running game. What we have is a great back, not a great running game.

I think we have a great and balanced attack, and we need everyone to be healthy. Given the health status today, I think it was a TRUE TESTIMONY to the team and its attitude that we still play AS A TEAM through thick and thin, when injured & banged up.

IMALILTEAPOT
01-01-2006, 08:45 PM
i cant help but think this season will be one of the seasons that we all look back at in like 20 years and say, "wow, that was agreat year." hopefully we can make this year "super" too

helimech24
01-01-2006, 08:48 PM
i cant help but think this season will be one of the seasons that we all look back at in like 20 years and say, "wow, that was agreat year." hopefully we can make this year "super" too

I think you are right. We have been on a roller coaster of a season, with the toughest schedule. We are battle tested, and in Rhythm (somewhat), and have a ton of heart.

ldsdbomber
01-01-2006, 09:04 PM
Excellent question: What is a running team?
The ratio of run to pass is high because Gibbs so often uses the running game just to run out the clock. This is not a characteristic of a true running team, in my opinion. .


Then your opinion is deluded and just plain wrong. Time of possession is a crucial part of a running game which by definition eats clock and does not allow you to score often/quickly. In addition to eating clock, it wears down the defense and also keeps their offense off the field. Your idea is ludicrously wrong, try reading any books written by any NFL head coaches who espouse a running style attack. You're talking arse. Pure arse. Gold wrapped arse. Eating clock is exactly a characteristic of a running team. It sounds like you are the prototypical talker of arse on internet forums who just spouts contrary crap to make yourself feel better. But strangely enough, me pointing out your laughable mistake (no, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact) has made me feel better

IMALILTEAPOT
01-01-2006, 09:11 PM
whats our turnover margin now guys? we forced 6 TOs today, i think we are like +1 or +2

helimech24
01-01-2006, 09:16 PM
whats our turnover margin now guys? we forced 6 TOs today, i think we are like +1 or +2

That would be a hell of a turnaround for the defense.

camasterton
01-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Three of the five have been road games. Learning to win on the road is an important step (after you've learned to win at home of course) in becoming a playoff team. Hopefully we'll be more comfortable going to Tampa Bay this time with this new confidence and knowledge.