PDA

View Full Version : Quick Hitters: Week 9


Spence
11-05-2007, 08:52 AM
Kudos this week go to LT Chris Samuels and LG Pete Kendall, who absolutely destroyed the Jets defensive linemen and opened up one big hole after another for Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts. It is rare to see such physical domination by one professional football player, let alone two, but we saw it on Sunday. The Redskins rushed for almost 300 yards on Sunday and almost all of it went right over Samuels and Kendall. The running back gets the glory, but it was Samuels and Kendall who made it happen.Read it all! (http://www.hailredskins.com/?p=260)

RedskinRyan
11-05-2007, 08:58 AM
at 5-3 with such conservative playcalling, that is what is really impressing me. after the philly game next week, campbell will have started 16 games, a full season. it's time to open up the playbook and see what he can do.

dj_stouty
11-05-2007, 09:25 AM
Until the NFL starts factoring in "style points" in the win/loss standings, I'll certainly not lose any sleep over a close win.

GolfFreak
11-05-2007, 09:31 AM
I’m happy to have the win, but I’m not impressed.

Me too! A lot of things went our way yesterday (17 unanswered points), but I don't think anyone in the league is scared of our team. We need to beat some good teams, some NFC East teams. Our next two games are very important IMO.

Spence
11-05-2007, 09:38 AM
Until the NFL starts factoring in "style points" in the win/loss standings, I'll certainly not lose any sleep over a close win.It is not a matter of losing sleep [I haven't lost sleep over the Redskins since I was in college], it's a matter of looking down the schedule and trying to find teams as bad as the Jets. The Redskins are a difficult team to figure out. They've lost to teams with a combined record of 22-3. They've won 2 games in overtime against teams with a combined record 1-16. I have a feeling that the Redskins could be a lot better than they are, but I just don't see the head coach allowing that to happen.

I've finally figured out what Gibbs and Dan Snyder have in common. They both want to win, but they don't want to win no matter what. Snyder doesn't want to win if it means hiring a real GM and Gibbs doesn't want to win if it means using a 21st century offense that just freaks him out. They only want to win on their own terms.

smoak
11-05-2007, 09:51 AM
I agree with some of what was written, but I would clarify with the following:

- Vilma's replacement (forget the guy's name this second) had 17 tackles the week before and seemed to play a good game against the Redskins. I'm not so sure there is a huge drop-off there.
- Campbell was off yesterday and the running game was working. Is there a person in the world that would have flipped the mix? I hope not, b/c in the world of football, I think you still win by running the football successfully and converting third downs. I completely agree with Gibbs that this is what Redskins football is all about, but I think the real problem is we shouldn't expect this level of success against better teams. Still, it is a start. Fabini and Wade are not NFL starting caliber players IMO and it hampers everything we want to accomplish.
- Paying lots of $$$ for a player never should translate to on-field expectations. Of all people, I'd think a Redskins fan would know that. If guys aren't getting it done, I am all for looking for cheaper alternatives and I refuse to agree that we should throw more b/c our WRs make a lot of money. We simply overvalued ARE and Lloyd and Moss has fallen off a cliff in terms of his production.
- Agree on the penalties. Between that and the kick return, this game wouldn't have been close... But we all know the Redskins don't roll that way and something had to contribute towards shortening our life expectancy.
- The blitzes for the most part were ineffective garbage, and the soft zones was worse. Whether its Gibbs fault or not, GW has lost his moxie IMO. That said, the defense is certainly good enough to take us to the playoffs Starting this week, teams will show us a heavy diet of short passes until the Redskins man up and stop it. The Pats showed a blue print on how to beat us, and thankfully the Jets can't execute as well as the Pats b/c we are slow to adjust IMO.

Hr fan
11-05-2007, 10:01 AM
at 5-3 with such conservative playcalling, that is what is really impressing me. after the philly game next week, campbell will have started 16 games, a full season. it's time to open up the playbook and see what he can do.

At the postgame news conference JG said he is finally satisfied with the O with a 2-1 run over pass, avoid the redzone because of ineffectiveness there, throw overlong to "loosen" the opposing D... Where in this litany do you see the playbook opening? I see it closing.

SkinsfaninNJ
11-05-2007, 10:01 AM
Spence, you said everything I have been thinking since yesterday.

A note on Campbell. The problem with handcuffing him is his inability to get into a flow. Just as we have all been saying leave Portis out there and let him run it to get into a flow, the same can be said of Campbell. When you only give a guy one or two chances to make a play, it is hard to get anything going. There is no margin for error.

I was thinking when he missed Moss long, JC cannot miss those, because the coaches and defenses are only going to give the opportunity once a game at most.

Finally, sort of along the same lines as what Spence said, we are not going to beat many teams the way we did yesterday. Our unhealthy line just isn't good enough, so we have to brush up our passing game whenever possible. There were situations yesterday that were begging for a play action long pass. You can bet that a team with killer instinct like Cowboys and Pats would have put 14+ points on the Jets in that fourth quarter and blew the game wide open.

SkinsfaninNJ
11-05-2007, 10:04 AM
At the postgame news conference JG said he is finally satisfied with the O with a 2-1 run over pass, avoid the redzone because of ineffectiveness there, throw overlong to "loosen" the opposing D... Where in this litany do you see the playbook opening? I see it closing.

I don't get the ineffectiveness in the redzone. First, we used to be really good down there. Second, we have almost everything you need to be effective down there. We have a power back in Sellers. We have a tailback with a knack for getting in the endzone in Portis. We have a mobile QB who can buy time and even run one in. We have a very good pass catching TE and FB. The only thing we are missing is the 6-3 WR.

To me, this is more about the coaches coaching scared. We should be licking our chops when we get down there, not calling plays that will avoid mistakes.

Syllable
11-05-2007, 10:10 AM
You didn't mention us shutting down Thomas Jones which was a good sight.

Also, I enjoyed reading the bit on the playcalling and who is really controlling this offense. Most of our games will end up like this, unless Gibbs budges.

openallnight
11-05-2007, 10:10 AM
- The blitzes for the most part were ineffective garbage, and the soft zones was worse. Whether its Gibbs fault or not, GW has lost his moxie IMO. That said, the defense is certainly good enough to take us to the playoffs Starting this week, teams will show us a heavy diet of short passes until the Redskins man up and stop it. The Pats showed a blue print on how to beat us, and thankfully the Jets can't execute as well as the Pats b/c we are slow to adjust IMO.

Smoak, I don't get what you mean here? We started blitzing in the 2nd half and it seemed that every time we blitzed Clemons hurried his throw and made an errant pass. The blitzes were very effective yesterday. I'm glad they're back in our arsenal.

smoak
11-05-2007, 10:44 AM
Smoak, I don't get what you mean here? We started blitzing in the 2nd half and it seemed that every time we blitzed Clemons hurried his throw and made an errant pass. The blitzes were very effective yesterday. I'm glad they're back in our arsenal.

Sometimes when I watch football, I like to guess who is blitzing, and my gut feeling is that it is much easier to tell when and where the Skins are coming than other teams. I'd have to review film, but my thought was that Clemons picked us apart underneath and we were lucky that some passes were flat out dropped. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT unhappy after a win.... But I miss 2004 when I felt GW had more confidence to just pull anything out of his butt and make it work.

skins74
11-05-2007, 11:02 AM
Gibbs' game plan almost got us beat, run run run doesn't work most of the time, it's all about deception and our offense has none of it. There is such a thing as a foward pass. Was there a fire at Redskin park and Al's playbook got burned down to 3 pages?

Bluuz
11-05-2007, 11:25 AM
Gibbs' game plan almost got us beat, run run run doesn't work most of the time, it's all about deception and our offense has none of it. There is such a thing as a foward pass. Was there a fire at Redskin park and Al's playbook got burned down to 3 pages?

I disagree. The running game is the reason we won. IMO, more passing would have resulted in 3 and outs and allowed the Jet's offense more time on the field, which given the inconsistent play of the defense, would likely have resulted in more Jets scores.

When you have a guy like Portis who can break for a TD on any play, you keep giving him the ball until the other team stops him. With a 196 yards rushing yesterday, the Jets didn't stop him too often.

smoak
11-05-2007, 11:26 AM
I disagree. The running game is the reason we won. IMO, more passing would have resulted in 3 and outs and allowed the Jet's offense more time on the field, which given the inconsistent play of the defense, would likely have resulted in more Jets scores.

When you have a guy like Portis who can break for a TD on any play, you keep giving him the ball until the other team stops him. With a 196 yards rushing yesterday, the Jets didn't stop him too often.


I'm convinced some fans would rather be entertained than win football games. Of course running the football successfully wins games. Who cares about chucking the ball around when you're getting 5 yards at a clip???

Keino
11-05-2007, 11:29 AM
The observation that Clemens killed the 3rd down blitz all day is one I disagree with. He beat it occasionally, but if one were to go back and look at the vast majority of 3rd down conversions, in particular those on 3rd and Long, there was some soft cushion zone BS called by Williams and not an aggressive blitz.

The lack of a bona fide pass rush is killing this defense coupled with a coach who is content not to try to generate pressure in a bend but don't break style of defense. Maybe we'll keep getting lucky and teams will continue to drop catchable balls, but depending on that seems a bit foolish if you ask me.

Spence
11-05-2007, 11:38 AM
- Vilma's replacement (forget the guy's name this second) had 17 tackles the week before and seemed to play a good game against the Redskins. I'm not so sure there is a huge drop-off there.Yeah, but it is not just a matter of how many tackles were made, it's also a matter of where they were made. Vilma is a genuine star, capable of making tackles all over the field. Did his replacement make tackles 3 yards down the field or 7 yards down the field?

- Campbell was off yesterday and the running game was working. Is there a person in the world that would have flipped the mix? I hope not, b/c in the world of football, I think you still win by running the football successfully and converting third downs.I didn't think Campbell was off yesterday. His interception was the result of pressure. I think he was very close on those deep passes and if the Redskins had shown more patience, would have hit one or two to end the game early. My main beef was with the playcalling in the red zone. Doesn't anyone else find it odd that the Redskins ran for almost 300 yards against a lousy team and had to win in overtime? That strikes me as very odd indeed.

- Paying lots of $$$ for a player never should translate to on-field expectations. Of all people, I'd think a Redskins fan would know that. If guys aren't getting it done, I am all for looking for cheaper alternatives and I refuse to agree that we should throw more b/c our WRs make a lot of money. We simply overvalued ARE and Lloyd and Moss has fallen off a cliff in terms of his production.We should throw as much as it takes for our offense to operate efficiently. My point about the wideouts is that the Redskins are inefficient in many ways. On offense they are inefficient and in the front office they are inefficient. Money poorly spent on wideouts that are apparently not intended to be used is money that could have been spent on offensive linemen.

- The blitzes for the most part were ineffective garbage, and the soft zones was worse.For weeks now I have been telling people who demanded more blitzes to be careful what they wish for. If Gregg Williams has been reluctant to expose our linebackers in coverage, yesterday we saw why that is so.

Bluuz
11-05-2007, 11:41 AM
I'm convinced some fans would rather be entertained than win football games. Of course running the football successfully wins games. Who cares about chucking the ball around when you're getting 5 yards at a clip???

LOL. Grinding out wins with a running game suites me just fine. Take me back to the days of the Hogs and John Riggins and I'll be happy. As far as passing, it all starts with a strong ground game. Without fear of the run, the other team just tees off on your QB and blankets you with zones.

Spence
11-05-2007, 11:42 AM
I'm convinced some fans would rather be entertained than win football games. Of course running the football successfully wins games. Who cares about chucking the ball around when you're getting 5 yards at a clip???I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. My point was not that the Redskins shouldn't have run the ball. I simply didn't write that. If you look again, you'll see nothing of the sort appears in my Quick Hitters article. I'm as happy as anyone to keep doing whatever works. My point was simply that what I took from Gibbs' post-game press conference is that he thinks he's hit on his magic formula to win games: Run the ball well. Hey, no kidding. That's been understood by all and sundry since the beginning of time. My point is that the Redskins should not expect to do against Dallas what they did against the Jets and see it work just as well. The Jets are bad enough that they can be beaten with a stone age offense. A lot of other teams are not. If the Redskins are going to beat a good team or two, they're going to have to throw the ball well. They are going to have to make plays in the passing game. So far the only halfway decent team the Redskins have beaten was Detroit and in that game, Jason Campbell completed 23 of 29 passes for 250 yards and 2 TD.

CarMike
11-05-2007, 12:29 PM
Sometimes when I watch football, I like to guess who is blitzing, and my gut feeling is that it is much easier to tell when and where the Skins are coming than other teams. I'd have to review film, but my thought was that Clemons picked us apart underneath and we were lucky that some passes were flat out dropped. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT unhappy after a win.... But I miss 2004 when I felt GW had more confidence to just pull anything out of his butt and make it work.

IMO, that's due to our CBs playing 10 yards of the LOS, even during blitz packages. Smart move by the Jets to see it and adjust. Once again, the other team out coaches us.

redskin_rich
11-05-2007, 01:01 PM
I was glad to see the blitzes and I think the majority of them were effective. I think we got burned when they were telegraphed. And I know sometimes you telegraph a blitz as a ploy but that's not what we did. We showed blitz and brought it in most instances.

I also didn't mind the Landry hit for the 15 yard penalty. He'll probably get fined and I think it was deliberate but I don't mind doing those kind of things early in the game.
The Fletcher penalty was a mistake on his part but it should have been nullified by an obvious hold that wasn't called. That doesn't excuse it but just saying...

As for what Gibbs said in his after game presser, meh, it's typical Gibbs coachspeak. I don't even bother listening to those usually, unless it's after a loss and that is only because I want to see if coach will ever hold anyone, other than himself, accountable.

We got our running game going and I don't care who we did it against. That was an important step. It sounds like people think we can flick a switch and suddenly become the Patriots or Colts offensive juggernaut.
Newsflash- Campbell is not Brady or Manning, as a matter of fact, he wasn't even nearly as good as the 2nd time starter for the Jets yesterday. I am afraid if they turned JC loose right now, he would be a turnover machine.

That said, I think Campbell plays much better out of the shotgun and I don't know why we don't run quick slants over the middle. Teams sure do like to abuse our defense with them.

Biggie
11-05-2007, 01:21 PM
Newsflash- Campbell is not Brady or Manning, as a matter of fact, he wasn't even nearly as good as the 2nd time starter for the Jets yesterday. I am afraid if they turned JC loose right now, he would be a turnover machine.
I'm sorry, but there is not much basis for that. He held on to the ball yesterday when he was hit, which Redskins.com said he had worked on, and besides that, he's not exactly Jake Plummer when it comes to throwing interceptions. He's shown he can pull the ball down and run with it instead of throwing it into coverage, and even that would be a huge boon to an offense that can't seem to do more than one thing at once.

redskin_rich
11-05-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm sorry, but there is not much basis for that. He held on to the ball yesterday when he was hit, which Redskins.com said he had worked on, and besides that, he's not exactly Jake Plummer when it comes to throwing interceptions. He's shown he can pull the ball down and run with it instead of throwing it into coverage, and even that would be a huge boon to an offense that can't seem to do more than one thing at once.His accuracy can best be termed as scattershot right now. That's my basis. And how many fumbles does he have this year? One week of practice and it's all fixed? The INT he had yesterday was because his arm got hit while in throwing motion but he double clutched before the throw, had he thrown the ball with the first motion, it wouldn't have happened.

SkinsfaninNJ
11-05-2007, 01:37 PM
I was glad to see the blitzes and I think the majority of them were effective. I think we got burned when they were telegraphed. And I know sometimes you telegraph a blitz as a ploy but that's not what we did. We showed blitz and brought it in most instances.

I also didn't mind the Landry hit for the 15 yard penalty. He'll probably get fined and I think it was deliberate but I don't mind doing those kind of things early in the game. The Fletcher penalty was a mistake on his part but it should have been nullified by an obvious hold that wasn't called. That doesn't excuse it but just saying...

As for what Gibbs said in his after game presser, meh, it's typical Gibbs coachspeak. I don't even bother listening to those usually, unless it's after a loss and that is only because I want to see if coach will ever hold anyone, other than himself, accountable.

We got our running game going and I don't care who we did it against. That was an important step. It sounds like people think we can flick a switch and suddenly become the Patriots or Colts offensive juggernaut.
Newsflash- Campbell is not Brady or Manning, as a matter of fact, he wasn't even nearly as good as the 2nd time starter for the Jets yesterday. I am afraid if they turned JC loose right now, he would be a turnover machine.

That said, I think Campbell plays much better out of the shotgun and I don't know why we don't run quick slants over the middle. Teams sure do like to abuse our defense with them.

The thing that bothered me about the Landry hit is there is a time and a place. Against the Pats when the game was out of reach was the time and place. We are not good enough to spot other teams first downs or 15 yards at a clip.

Keino
11-05-2007, 01:45 PM
Im torn on the Landry hit. My first inclination is to think that it was as textbook type of hit, the type you are taught to make from the first time you hit the Tackling Dummy. Problem is, it is illegal and every player is aware of the illegality of helmet to helmet hits on the QB, even though you are taught since youth that the crown of the helmet should hit the opponents face mask as you get lower and Hit - Wrap - Lift and Drive. The Fletcher hit should not have happenned.

I hate these "Protect the QB" rules. It's not like it prevents anything but good aggressive play from defenses.

JoeDaSchmoe
11-05-2007, 01:58 PM
Personally, I thought the blitzes were extremely effective yesterday. The third downs the Jets converted usually happened when we didn't blitz - our linebackers have coverage responsibilities either way. And much more painful were the conversions that happened when we didn't blitz, backed our back seven ten yards off the line of scrimmage, then watched Clemens run for a first down because we didn't bring any heat from the outside and he easily escaped the pocket.

The blitzes were the least of our problems yesterday.

Meatsnack
11-05-2007, 02:20 PM
I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. My point was not that the Redskins shouldn't have run the ball. I simply didn't write that. If you look again, you'll see nothing of the sort appears in my Quick Hitters article. I'm as happy as anyone to keep doing whatever works. My point was simply that what I took from Gibbs' post-game press conference is that he thinks he's hit on his magic formula to win games: Run the ball well. Hey, no kidding. That's been understood by all and sundry since the beginning of time. My point is that the Redskins should not expect to do against Dallas what they did against the Jets and see it work just as well. The Jets are bad enough that they can be beaten with a stone age offense. A lot of other teams are not. If the Redskins are going to beat a good team or two, they're going to have to throw the ball well. They are going to have to make plays in the passing game. So far the only halfway decent team the Redskins have beaten was Detroit and in that game, Jason Campbell completed 23 of 29 passes for 250 yards and 2 TD.
The thing that stands out more and more about the Detroit game as we descend further into the offensive Stone Age (what's next, the Single Wing?) is the play calling. Saunders said that they called that game to Campbell's strengths, the medium range passing game thrown on the 3 and 5-step drop. In other words, passes that require arm strength and can be thrown accurately without air under them. Jason is good to great in the medium passing game, where he can laser-beam balls directly into his receivers. But, since Detroit, we haven't called those passes again. Why?

The deep out is very hard to defend and sets up the stutter-go routes (as the CB tries to jump the route) that equate to long TD strikes. We have one of the 5 or 6 QBs in football who have the arm to throw it with enough velocity not to get it picked off and we never throw it. The playcalling puzzles me more every week.

smoak
11-05-2007, 03:20 PM
I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. My point was not that the Redskins shouldn't have run the ball. I simply didn't write that. If you look again, you'll see nothing of the sort appears in my Quick Hitters article. I'm as happy as anyone to keep doing whatever works. My point was simply that what I took from Gibbs' post-game press conference is that he thinks he's hit on his magic formula to win games: Run the ball well. Hey, no kidding. That's been understood by all and sundry since the beginning of time. My point is that the Redskins should not expect to do against Dallas what they did against the Jets and see it work just as well. The Jets are bad enough that they can be beaten with a stone age offense. A lot of other teams are not. If the Redskins are going to beat a good team or two, they're going to have to throw the ball well. They are going to have to make plays in the passing game. So far the only halfway decent team the Redskins have beaten was Detroit and in that game, Jason Campbell completed 23 of 29 passes for 250 yards and 2 TD.

I certainly wasn't directing my comment to you (or anyone for that matter) and it is NOT limited to Redskins fans. I feel all fans get more juiced about throwing the rock around. Everyone gets carried away with seeing teams light it up through the air... For me it goes back to the Brunell era when we went 10-6, but fans were still complaining and miserable b/c there was no vertical passing attack (which isn't even an entirely accurate statement).

Reacting to your point, I don't know how much stock to put into what Gibbs says to the media. I think we intentionally get a lot of cliché and rhetoric with the goal of being vanilla after games. But I admit that is at best an assumption on my part. While I don't disagree with you that the Skins should not expect 300 rushing yards against dallass, I would also hold up that we should NOT expect Campbell to be 23 of 29 with 250 yards and 2 TDs I haven't seen many dallass games, but my impression is that unlike us, they are successful bringing pressure from all angles at all times. If we are not able to establish any degree of running game, I think it'll be a LONG day. For most successful teams, the running game sets up the passing game, and the LAST thing I want to see is Campbell killed b/c of the patchwork O-line. Like it or not, the kid is the present and future (at least "near future") of the Redskins and the line is about as stout and a half consumed warm pint of Miller Lite. (Sorry about the lame attempt at a beer joke, but it was the first thing that came to mind). Either way, your argument about the Jets works both ways when considering the Lions who (at the time at least) were one of the WORST pass defenses in the league. I'd also argue that the Eagles are still a decent team. They are simply struggling to get into the red zone (aside from the scorching of the aforementioned Detroit club).

But I don't disagree at all that better efficiency in the passing game is needed. I just think that with an inexperienced QB and a very questionable line, we are asking for trouble if we start chucking it 30 times per game. The key is that Campbell needs to improve on his accuracy, WRs need to catch the ball, and I think we need to do a better job tailoring our play calling to the opponent.

smoak
11-05-2007, 03:30 PM
IMO, that's due to our CBs playing 10 yards of the LOS, even during blitz packages. Smart move by the Jets to see it and adjust. Once again, the other team out coaches us.

I agree on the cushion (although my guess is that 10 yards is a bit of an exaggeration), but I really don't see where we were flatly out coached. We gave up 7 on a return and 10 in part b/c of our stupid penalties that could have been avoided. I don't put that on GW (although I wasn't thrilled with the D). I also praise Saunders/Gibbs for sticking withe the running game down 17-3. Most importantly, I applaud Danny all day for recogniozing the onsides kick would work! What a great catch on the film study despite the fact that Suisham almost botched it.

I thought yesterday was one of our better coaching days and I wonder how much of the negativety is b/c overall we are not as good as we should be. Overall in all phases we should be better (that includes coaching, execution, front office decisions, etc.), but I thought yesterday would have been a blowout if we executed better. We didn't, but still found a way to win a tough game so kudos to us.

Spence
11-05-2007, 03:44 PM
One way to throw the ball and minimize the risk of pressure on the quarterback is to chuck it on first down. I don't know why we don't do it more often. I don't know where it is written in stone that a team must run on first, run on second and throw on third. You can throw on first down. I've seen teams do it so I know it is perfectly legal. And you can even throw on first down when you're not trailing by 3 touchdowns. Seriously. It's perfectly within the rules of football, even if it appears to have never occurred to Joe Gibbs.

smoak
11-05-2007, 03:44 PM
Yeah, but it is not just a matter of how many tackles were made, it's also a matter of where they were made. Vilma is a genuine star, capable of making tackles all over the field. Did his replacement make tackles 3 yards down the field or 7 yards down the field?
Fair, and that is why I said "maybe" the drop-off isn't as bad as we'd expect. that was the first time I'd seen the Jets all year, but from what I hear, Vilma was not playing up to par. I remember a couple plays the rookie made yesterday were nice and without studying the film I thought he was ok. Certainly he is not Vilma, but apparently Vilma wasn't Vilma this year. I personally do not know. But again, I agree with your point.

I didn't think Campbell was off yesterday. His interception was the result of pressure. I think he was very close on those deep passes and if the Redskins had shown more patience, would have hit one or two to end the game early. My main beef was with the playcalling in the red zone. Doesn't anyone else find it odd that the Redskins ran for almost 300 yards against a lousy team and had to win in overtime? That strikes me as very odd indeed.
I adamantly disagree here, but JC didn't throw a lot of passes so it is tough to tell. He continues to be off with Moss, and while # 89 deserves the lion share of the blame there, Campbell missed him ~ 3-4 times I believe (it should be on NFL replay so I'll check it out). The deep ball and the pass over the middle in the red zone were some of the worst passes I've seen from him... At least the deep miss against the Eagles was just thrown too far. The pass yesterday was too deep and way over the wrong shoulder. That makes me think it was a miscommunication? Either way, I think JC has a bright future and I'm not don on the guy after one bad game. The maturation curve is not a straight line.

The reason we almost lost was simple 5 FGs and 1 TD plus big plays by an inferior team. It isn't really that odd in my mind. When the Redskins are going to "run first and run often", then Campbell needs to convert the first downs and punch it in on red zone opportunities. I blame the coaching staff on the play calling down there in the first half, but the team still should have executed better.

We should throw as much as it takes for our offense to operate efficiently. My point about the wideouts is that the Redskins are inefficient in many ways. On offense they are inefficient and in the front office they are inefficient. Money poorly spent on wideouts that are apparently not intended to be used is money that could have been spent on offensive linemen.
Absolutely agree. Lets purge the roster slowly and spend first on the lines and second on skill position players that touch the ball 5 times a game.

For weeks now I have been telling people who demanded more blitzes to be careful what they wish for. If Gregg Williams has been reluctant to expose our linebackers in coverage, yesterday we saw why that is so.
Agree again. I just don't understand why we can't disguise our blitzes better and call them sparingly rather than every down at times. Clemens adjusted very well to the blitzes I thought, and reading the quotes in the paper, the Redskins players agreed. Many were very complimentary of him.

CarMike
11-05-2007, 04:26 PM
I agree on the cushion (although my guess is that 10 yards is a bit of an exaggeration), but I really don't see where we were flatly out coached. We gave up 7 on a return and 10 in part b/c of our stupid penalties that could have been avoided. I don't put that on GW (although I wasn't thrilled with the D). I also praise Saunders/Gibbs for sticking withe the running game down 17-3. Most importantly, I applaud Danny all day for recogniozing the onsides kick would work! What a great catch on the film study despite the fact that Suisham almost botched it.

I thought yesterday was one of our better coaching days and I wonder how much of the negativety is b/c overall we are not as good as we should be. Overall in all phases we should be better (that includes coaching, execution, front office decisions, etc.), but I thought yesterday would have been a blowout if we executed better. We didn't, but still found a way to win a tough game so kudos to us.
We were out coached when the Jets made adjustments to our coverage. We brought the blitz so shortened their pass routs.

And 10 yards was the cushion on most of the plays that I watched. Most you couldn't even see Smoot or Springs in the picture. [when the cameras were at a certain angle]

skins74
11-05-2007, 06:08 PM
I disagree. The running game is the reason we won. IMO, more passing would have resulted in 3 and outs and allowed the Jet's offense more time on the field, which given the inconsistent play of the defense, would likely have resulted in more Jets scores.

When you have a guy like Portis who can break for a TD on any play, you keep giving him the ball until the other team stops him. With a 196 yards rushing yesterday, the Jets didn't stop him too often.

I love running the ball, but the key is to run when they think you are gonna throw and vice versa, he isn't calling plays like that it's run run run run run and every defensive coordinator knows what they are gonna do. In the second half of games it is killing us, yesterday should have never gone to OT.

redskin_rich
11-05-2007, 06:31 PM
I love running the ball, but the key is to run when they think you are gonna throw and vice versa, he isn't calling plays like that it's run run run run run and every defensive coordinator knows what they are gonna do. In the second half of games it is killing us, yesterday should have never gone to OT.

We racked up over 400 yards on offense, only punted twice the entire game, won the TOP battle, all of this while playing from a deficit for over 3/4ths of the game. We went into OT because our "vaunted" defense could not hold an offense missing their best player and led by a QB in his 2nd ever start. The Jets had a 61% 3rd down conversion ratio against us yesterday but all people keep saying is, "we only gave up 13 points on defense." That is such a ridiculous argument to make and is irrelevant, since those were the amount of points the Jets needed and they got them when they needed them the most.

Tell me how, exactly, the offensive playcalling can be blamed for this game going into overtime. I can't wait to hear this since you understand the game of football so much more than myself and some others here.
Seriously, I want to be enlightened.

Syllable
11-05-2007, 06:33 PM
We racked up over 400 yards on offense, only punted twice the entire game, won the TOP battle, all of this while playing from a deficit for over 3/4ths of the game. We went into OT because our "vaunted" defense could not hold an offense missing their best player and led by a QB in his 2nd ever start. The Jets had a 61% 3rd down conversion ratio against us yesterday but all people keep saying is, "we only gave up 13 points on defense." That is such a ridiculous argument to make and is irrelevant, since those were the amount of points the Jets needed and they got them when they needed them the most.

Tell me how, exactly, the offensive playcalling can be blamed for this game going into overtime. I can't wait to hear this since you understand the game of football so much more than myself and some others here.
Seriously, I want to be enlightened.

Thats not taking the fact that we failed to score in 4 drives that resulted in field goals instead of points. For so much hate you guys seem to give the defense, they are playing considerably better than the offense is right now.

redskin_rich
11-05-2007, 06:56 PM
Thats not taking the fact that we failed to score in 4 drives that resulted in field goals instead of points. For so much hate you guys seem to give the defense, they are playing considerably better than the offense is right now.

There is no doubt that the defense is the strength of our team, so why do they get a pass for being conservative while our depleted, struggling offense is expected to go all out?

smoak
11-05-2007, 07:00 PM
We were out coached when the Jets made adjustments to our coverage. We brought the blitz so shortened their pass routs.

And 10 yards was the cushion on most of the plays that I watched. Most you couldn't even see Smoot or Springs in the picture. [when the cameras were at a certain angle]

Shottenheimer called a great game no doubt, but I think people are too quick to throw around the term "outcoached". I agree that the Jets had a nice game plan for the Redskins, but I have a hard time saying we were outcoached when we camback from down 17-3. It is just my personal opinion though.... I give more credit to Clemens than most for executing throws than some veteran QBs sometimes have trouble making. I wish we had more for Campbell when he is under pressure than the dump to Sellers. That is the worst play in our "arsenal" IMO.

Syllable
11-05-2007, 07:15 PM
There is no doubt that the defense is the strength of our team, so why do they get a pass for being conservative while our depleted, struggling offense is expected to go all out?

Because say that our defense gets aggressive and we get beat for quick scores, can we expect our offense to answer back? I would say no. The "put everything in front of you" method seems to work considering we are winning games with a below average offense. If we had a good offense that could capitalize on most drives, I would expect the defense to go for turnovers and aggressive blitzes to end drives quickly.

NCskinsfanatic
11-05-2007, 07:19 PM
I'm convinced some fans would rather be entertained than win football games. Of course running the football successfully wins games. Who cares about chucking the ball around when you're getting 5 yards at a clip???

Steve Spurrier...ohh wait we already tried that didnt we...lol

redskin_rich
11-05-2007, 07:45 PM
Because say that our defense gets aggressive and we get beat for quick scores, can we expect our offense to answer back? I would say no. The "put everything in front of you" method seems to work considering we are winning games with a below average offense. If we had a good offense that could capitalize on most drives, I would expect the defense to go for turnovers and aggressive blitzes to end drives quickly.

It doesn't work like that every week. You play to your strengths and ours is defense. You can't be conservative on both sides of the ball. If you play ball control offense, which is what we are trying to do, than you need to attack on defense, especially when you are playing an inexperienced QB. Our method of defense isn't stopping anything, other than a couple one dimensional teams. We only stopped the Jets on 3 drives and I believe those stops occurred when we blitzed or when they dropped the ball.

smoak
11-05-2007, 07:56 PM
I love running the ball, but the key is to run when they think you are gonna throw and vice versa, he isn't calling plays like that it's run run run run run and every defensive coordinator knows what they are gonna do. In the second half of games it is killing us, yesterday should have never gone to OT.

UGH! I am so tired of the MISCONCEPTION that we don't "go for it. I am NOT saying that we have the perfect balance (we don't), but all this belly aching about "run, run, run" is nonsense. It simply is not true. Now I am getting older and uglier by the day so my memory is NOT what it used to be, but I feel like in almost every game we took shots and FAILED TO EXECUTE.

Miami:
Tied at 10 in the 4th quarter:
1-15-WAS 15 (3:37) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 45-M.Sellers to WAS 19 for 4 yards (25-W.Allen; 99-J.Taylor). FUMBLES (25-W.Allen), ball out of bounds at WAS 19.
2-11-WAS 19 (3:09) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 89-S.Moss to WAS 23 for 4 yards (25-W.Allen; 29-T.Daniels).
3-7-WAS 23 (2:27) 17-J.Campbell scrambles right end pushed ob at WAS 35 for 12 yards (98-M.Roth).
1-10-WAS 35 (1:55) 46-L.Betts up the middle to WAS 42 for 7 yards (54-Z.Thomas).
2-3-WAS 42 (1:17) 46-L.Betts right tackle to WAS 45 for 3 yards (94-K.Traylor; 91-V.Holliday).
1-10-WAS 45 (:47) 46-L.Betts up the middle to WAS 44 for -1 yards (52-C.Crowder).
2-11-WAS 44 (:04) 17-J.Campbell pass short middle to 89-S.Moss to MIA 40 for 16 yards (54-Z.Thomas).
Decent mix there, but when the Redskis decide to "go for it", Lloyd decides to quit on the play, his teammates, and all the fans.
1-10-MIA 40 (15:00) 17-J.Campbell pass deep left intended for 85-B.Lloyd INTERCEPTED by 29-T.Daniels at MIA -7. 29-T.Daniels to MIA 22 for 29 yards (66-P.Kendall). PENALTY on MIA-99-J.Taylor, Unnecessary Roughness, 11 yards, enforced at MIA 22.
The next series was run heavy, but again it was working until the play calling got "cute" and end around to ARE :rolleyes: If only we were MORE conservative and kept pounding the snot out of Miami. In the end the drive stalls, but we take a 3 point lead.

With the game tied and under two minutes to go, Gibbs opens with the run. Now contrary to popular belief, this is a smart call with three timeouts in the bank. Unfortunately, the Redskins failed to convert on third down and we punted.

On the overtime drive we ran 6 times for an average of somewheree in the neighborhood of 6-7 yards a clip (again I ask why would we stop running).

Philly:
Leading 20-12 (one score) with over 6 minutes remaining, the Redskins go for the whole enchilada on 2nd and 6. Campbell overthrows Moss and the drive stalls.

Giants:
Tied @ 17 our next drives end as follows:
3 and out (incomplete pass on third down)
Fumbled handoff
EIGHT straight passing plays before a punt after a sack
The rest is too painful

To be continued at a later date b/c Heroes is coming on soon.

skins74
11-05-2007, 09:11 PM
We racked up over 400 yards on offense, only punted twice the entire game, won the TOP battle, all of this while playing from a deficit for over 3/4ths of the game. We went into OT because our "vaunted" defense could not hold an offense missing their best player and led by a QB in his 2nd ever start. The Jets had a 61% 3rd down conversion ratio against us yesterday but all people keep saying is, "we only gave up 13 points on defense." That is such a ridiculous argument to make and is irrelevant, since those were the amount of points the Jets needed and they got them when they needed them the most.

Tell me how, exactly, the offensive playcalling can be blamed for this game going into overtime. I can't wait to hear this since you understand the game of football so much more than myself and some others here.
Seriously, I want to be enlightened.

Wow...that does sound great....and we had to go to overtime to beat the 1-7 Jets, yeah your right the offensive playcalling was genious and so deceptive the Jets had absolutely no clue we were going to run run run with a 3 point lead. BTW our WRs still don't have a TD, I put alot of that on the crappy playcalling. I guess you don't see the trend here, and sure we have a young QB but he does have a right arm and a brain. Do you think playcalling like this will beat the Cowboys, Eagles, ect.. The answer is no.

Spence
11-06-2007, 08:01 AM
I'll say this about that Jets quarterback: He's better than Chad Pennington. Clemons bought time against those blitzes and Pennington could not have done that. Unless Clemons goes down to injury, Pennington should not start another game for the Jets.

smoak
11-06-2007, 08:22 AM
Wow...that does sound great....and we had to go to overtime to beat the 1-7 Jets, yeah your right the offensive playcalling was genious and so deceptive the Jets had absolutely no clue we were going to run run run with a 3 point lead. BTW our WRs still don't have a TD, I put alot of that on the crappy playcalling. I guess you don't see the trend here, and sure we have a young QB but he does have a right arm and a brain. Do you think playcalling like this will beat the Cowboys, Eagles, ect.. The answer is no.

Feel free to keep beating the drum and oversimplifying the issue if you'd like, but the fact remains that with a patchwork offensive line and a questionable outing by our starting QB, we still accumulated impressive yardage. To me that doesn't scream poor playcalling at all. Let me ask you/anyone this question. If you're gashing a defense on the ground for the tune of ~ 5 yards a carry, would you do more than take the occasional PA shot down the field? If so, why? This isn't a Gibbs or Saunders things, but rather I can not think of a coach short of Andy Reid who make such an idiotic decision. Running the football is the fastest way to demoralize a defense. Ask any lineman in the NFL if they prefer to run block or pass block. I'm positive that 75% of them would say "run block" b/c they get to be aggressive and pop someone in the mouth. That is what football is all about, right? Physically dominating the line of scrimmage?

I haven't seen anyone saying that things offensively arte perfect, but I'm not sure how or why we'd have too many complaints about Sunday? If anything I would say the red zone offense should be worked all week.

Defensively I am scared that we'll play the Eagles like we did the Jets and get killed. We have to play them physically and get in the WRs faces to disupt those short timing plays. The Eagles offense is still potentially dangerous.

CarMike
11-06-2007, 08:23 AM
Shottenheimer called a great game no doubt, but I think people are too quick to throw around the term "outcoached". I agree that the Jets had a nice game plan for the Redskins, but I have a hard time saying we were outcoached when we camback from down 17-3. It is just my personal opinion though.... I give more credit to Clemens than most for executing throws than some veteran QBs sometimes have trouble making. I wish we had more for Campbell when he is under pressure than the dump to Sellers. That is the worst play in our "arsenal" IMO.

To quick? It's been happening for as long as I can remember. lol

Sure we came back from 13 down. But that doesn't take away from Williams not getting his CBs up to the LOS to take away the short passes kept drives going for the Jets. That is being outcoached IMO.

redskin_rich
11-06-2007, 08:26 AM
Feel free to keep beating the drum and oversimplifying the issue if you'd like, but the fact remains that with a patchwork offensive line and a questionable outing by our starting QB, we still accumulated impressive yardage. To me that doesn't scream poor playcalling at all. Let me ask you/anyone this question. If you're gashing a defense on the ground for the tune of ~ 5 yards a carry, would you do more than take the occasional PA shot down the field? If so, why? This isn't a Gibbs or Saunders things, but rather I can not think of a coach short of Andy Reid who make such an idiotic decision. Running the football is the fastest way to demoralize a defense. Ask any lineman in the NFL if they prefer to run block or pass block. I'm positive that 75% of them would say "run block" b/c they get to be aggressive and pop someone in the mouth. That is what football is all about, right? Physically dominating the line of scrimmage?

I haven't seen anyone saying that things offensively arte perfect, but I'm not sure how or why we'd have too many complaints about Sunday? If anything I would say the red zone offense should be worked all week.
.
What we did wasn't sexy enough. The long ball is sexy and we aren't doing that on offense. Conversely, our defense isn't giving up the long ball but is getting gashed underneath but that is fine with people.

CarMike
11-06-2007, 09:12 AM
Not with me Rich. Neither are playing worth a crap, IMO.

SkinsfaninNJ
11-06-2007, 09:39 AM
What we did wasn't sexy enough. The long ball is sexy and we aren't doing that on offense. Conversely, our defense isn't giving up the long ball but is getting gashed underneath but that is fine with people.

Here is where I differ from what you and Smoak have been saying in this thread. I am not necessarily looking for the long ball. We had the Jets set up perfectly for play action pass in the second half and we were scared to throw after the INT. That is what bothers me about the offense. When we got the ball back deep in our own territory with 9 minutes to go, we could have and should have finished the Jets right then and there by going up 10. All we needed was a balanced drive, because there is no way we were going to march 90+ yards by just running the ball.

I don't know if this analogy will make sense to anyone other than my warped mind. If you and I were standing in one spot and we each had to move the other off the spot to win. You began pushing against me and I began pushing against you with all of our power to a stalemate. Wouldn't I be a fool not to use your leverage against you and stop pushing and actually pull you of the spot?

That is my point, the Jets were so overcommitted to stopping the run because the game was on the line for them, we should have been able to complete even a conservative pass for at least a first down and more likely a big gainer.

It seems like Gibbs is losing faith in JC, and I don't know why or when it happened.

redskin_rich
11-06-2007, 10:12 AM
Here is where I differ from what you and Smoak have been saying in this thread. I am not necessarily looking for the long ball. We had the Jets set up perfectly for play action pass in the second half and we were scared to throw after the INT. That is what bothers me about the offense. When we got the ball back deep in our own territory with 9 minutes to go, we could have and should have finished the Jets right then and there by going up 10. All we needed was a balanced drive, because there is no way we were going to march 90+ yards by just running the ball.

I don't know if this analogy will make sense to anyone other than my warped mind. If you and I were standing in one spot and we each had to move the other off the spot to win. You began pushing against me and I began pushing against you with all of our power to a stalemate. Wouldn't I be a fool not to use your leverage against you and stop pushing and actually pull you of the spot?

That is my point, the Jets were so overcommitted to stopping the run because the game was on the line for them, we should have been able to complete even a conservative pass for at least a first down and more likely a big gainer.

It seems like Gibbs is losing faith in JC, and I don't know why or when it happened.
I'm not trying to make excuses for the offense but I think it is a false perception around here that better playcalling will fix all the problems. The running game worked very well the entire game, the passing game didn't. On that drive, we were trying to keep the clock rolling and sustain a nice drive. I don't have a problem with doing what had been working best. It's easy to say with hindsight, "well we should have done this.." and I'm sure the coaches will look at it and say the same thing.

The point I have been trying to get across is the offense has issues and the playcalling hasn't been stellar either but that was not the problem this past week, nor has it been nearly as big of a problem as the execution of the players.

On the contrary, the defensive playcalling has been too conservative and some excellent plays made by some of the players have made the unit look better than they should be, well, that and some timely drops by our opponents WR's.

I'm calling like I see it, each week. Unlike some, I don't bang the same drum week after week. What I saw this week was an offense that finally got one part (the major part) of their arsenal back on track, sustained drives and had a decent game. Still need to work on the passing game and punching the ball into the end zone though and hopefully that will come around as well.
The defense got ripped apart underneath for the second week in a row, this time by a far weaker opponent. The defense nearly cost us that game. The defense is our more talented unit and by the coaches own words, they are the strength of the team. This bend until you break philosophy is getting weaker by the week. I was encouraged by the blitzes we used but sure enough, when the game was on the line, GW goes into his passive shell and the Jets tie the game up.
I can excuse the conservative nature of our offense right now but not our defense.

SkinsfaninNJ
11-06-2007, 10:45 AM
I'm not trying to make excuses for the offense but I think it is a false perception around here that better playcalling will fix all the problems. The running game worked very well the entire game, the passing game didn't. On that drive, we were trying to keep the clock rolling and sustain a nice drive. I don't have a problem with doing what had been working best. It's easy to say with hindsight, "well we should have done this.." and I'm sure the coaches will look at it and say the same thing.

The point I have been trying to get across is the offense has issues and the playcalling hasn't been stellar either but that was not the problem this past week, nor has it been nearly as big of a problem as the execution of the players.

I agree with you on this totally. It would take a lot of work, but if someone went back over each game film and counted the amount of times poor execution killed a drive (missed block, dropped pass, overthrown pass, etc.), I believe it would outnumber the times a bad play was called.

On the contrary, the defensive playcalling has been too conservative and some excellent plays made by some of the players have made the unit look better than they should be, well, that and some timely drops by our opponents WR's.
I agree with you here too. We have seen some tremendous individual performances this year from our D from guys like Fletcher, Rocky and Taylor. My problem with GW is he has had a tendency to lock onto one method to play D this year, and sometimes it changes from half to half. He seems to lack imagination and fails to make necessary, obvious adjustments.

I'm calling like I see it, each week. Unlike some, I don't bang the same drum week after week. What I saw this week was an offense that finally got one part (the major part) of their arsenal back on track, sustained drives and had a decent game. Still need to work on the passing game and punching the ball into the end zone though and hopefully that will come around as well.
The defense got ripped apart underneath for the second week in a row, this time by a far weaker opponent. The defense nearly cost us that game. The defense is our more talented unit and by the coaches own words, they are the strength of the team. This bend until you break philosophy is getting weaker by the week. I was encouraged by the blitzes we used but sure enough, when the game was on the line, GW goes into his passive shell and the Jets tie the game up.
I can excuse the conservative nature of our offense right now but not our defense.

The bolded part is interesting to me, because I feel like I'm doing the same thing with my complaints about the passing game. I think the passing game has regressed, but I don't think it is because of the QB. I think Gibbs has lost or is losing confidence in Campbell, and it seemed to have started with the Patriots. If there was ever a game to give everyone a mulligan, it was the Patriots game. I know his ball security was awful, but everyone's everything was awful that game.

I don't think Campbell had a bad game against the Jets, and I hate the short leash he seems to be on now. He has not played poorly enough to deserve such treatment.

The other things you mentioned about the defense I agree with.

smoak
11-06-2007, 11:50 AM
To quick? It's been happening for as long as I can remember. lol

Sure we came back from 13 down. But that doesn't take away from Williams not getting his CBs up to the LOS to take away the short passes kept drives going for the Jets. That is being outcoached IMO.

Although I am right there with you on the CB issue, I see that as more of a stubborness in GW than being "outcoached". I think he believes he can do it his way and win... And for the most part, I think we'd all admit he has gotten away with it so far. I have my concerns as well, but if anything, I'd say the Jets defensive coached was out dueled. You know you're facing a flawed one-dimensional team and you let that one player keep gashing you? At some point I would have put 9 in the box and played man to man on the outside.

We can agree to disagree I suppose, but unless you believe our talent is obviosly superior on a weekly basis, I am fairly happy with 5-3. We aren't that good of a football team to expect to be undefeated, but we've been in every game (save one) this year. So are we winning un spite of our keystone coaching staff??? Are the the misreable disaster that the HR boards would indicate? Is our world really coming apart at the seems or is it a case of sometimes "excrement happens" and you have to improve in all phases. I certainly don't think Dungy is a bad coach b/c he lost a game in the fourth quarter (disclaimer: I really didn't see the game).

Our coaching styaff deserves a ton of blame for not evolving this team to the point where we can expect to win week in and week out, but based on the circumstances that exist today, should we be killing them for THIS season? I don't think so. It would have been very easy to point to the injuries and say "oh well, I guess we won't win games this year". We've gone conservative to protect Campbell and we're trying to scratch out wins... I respect that. If it fails, maybe we blow up the entire team and rebuild, but maybe we tred water until we get Thomas back and allow our offense some time to gel behind a hopefully rejuvenated Portis.

(Of course my guess is that after this whole wasted speech, we lose to the Iggles. :rolleyes:)

skinfan43
11-06-2007, 11:58 AM
Although I am right there with you on the CB issue, I see that as more of a stubborness in GW than being "outcoached". I think he believes he can do it his way and win... And for the most part, I think we'd all admit he has gotten away with it so far. I have my concerns as well, but if anything, I'd say the Jets defensive coached was out dueled. You know you're facing a flawed one-dimensional team and you let that one player keep gashing you? At some point I would have put 9 in the box and played man to man on the outside.

We can agree to disagree I suppose, but unless you believe our talent is obviosly superior on a weekly basis, I am fairly happy with 5-3. We aren't that good of a football team to expect to be undefeated, but we've been in every game (save one) this year. So are we winning un spite of our keystone coaching staff??? Are the the misreable disaster that the HR boards would indicate? Is our world really coming apart at the seems or is it a case of sometimes "excrement happens" and you have to improve in all phases. I certainly don't think Dungy is a bad coach b/c he lost a game in the fourth quarter (disclaimer: I really didn't see the game).

Our coaching styaff deserves a ton of blame for not evolving this team to the point where we can expect to win week in and week out, but based on the circumstances that exist today, should we be killing them for THIS season? I don't think so. It would have been very easy to point to the injuries and say "oh well, I guess we won't win games this year". We've gone conservative to protect Campbell and we're trying to scratch out wins... I respect that. If it fails, maybe we blow up the entire team and rebuild, but maybe we tred water until we get Thomas back and allow our offense some time to gel behind a hopefully rejuvenated Portis.

(Of course my guess is that after this whole wasted speech, we lose to the Iggles. :rolleyes:)
C'mon Big Poppa, don't talk like that...for me, the upcoming Philthy game would be amazingly satisfying to win, because I for one still think that at 3-5, the Egirls still have a chance to turn things around. They still have Westbrook and a decent defense...but dropping to 3-6 with New England and the Cowboys still left to play would totally destroy their season IMO - as well as put us at a pretty amazing 6-3 (all things considered). No matter what has happened to us so far this season, this win would wash away all the ugly and replace it with the image of a naked Scarlett Johansson IMHO;)

skins74
11-06-2007, 12:21 PM
Feel free to keep beating the drum and oversimplifying the issue if you'd like, but the fact remains that with a patchwork offensive line and a questionable outing by our starting QB, we still accumulated impressive yardage. To me that doesn't scream poor playcalling at all. Let me ask you/anyone this question. If you're gashing a defense on the ground for the tune of ~ 5 yards a carry, would you do more than take the occasional PA shot down the field? If so, why? This isn't a Gibbs or Saunders things, but rather I can not think of a coach short of Andy Reid who make such an idiotic decision. Running the football is the fastest way to demoralize a defense. Ask any lineman in the NFL if they prefer to run block or pass block. I'm positive that 75% of them would say "run block" b/c they get to be aggressive and pop someone in the mouth. That is what football is all about, right? Physically dominating the line of scrimmage?

I haven't seen anyone saying that things offensively arte perfect, but I'm not sure how or why we'd have too many complaints about Sunday? If anything I would say the red zone offense should be worked all week.

Defensively I am scared that we'll play the Eagles like we did the Jets and get killed. We have to play them physically and get in the WRs faces to disupt those short timing plays. The Eagles offense is still potentially dangerous.


Because to score points you throw the ball. It's like ground hog's day with the playcalling.BTW If I was rude to anyone I apologize, I'm just really frustrated with Gibbs or Al or maybe Danny is calling the plays now ;)

smoak
11-06-2007, 01:26 PM
I agree with you on this totally. It would take a lot of work, but if someone went back over each game film and counted the amount of times poor execution killed a drive (missed block, dropped pass, overthrown pass, etc.), I believe it would outnumber the times a bad play was called.

Not only that, but I would say it isn't even close. The deficit is probably more than 10-1 against the execution, which ultimately still rests with the coaching staff to fix. If someone was killing Gibbs, Buges, Saunders, GW, etc for the execution at this point in the season, I doubt I could say much to defend it.

At some point you force Portis run extra laps after every practice until he pukes. You make Moss hit the jugs machine for 2 extra hours per day. You decide what the heck to do with Sellers in the offense, and make him work harder at catching the ball. You stop using Cooley as an expensive and marginally gifted blocker. You just replace Wade and Fabini with truck drivers if need be. You tell Lloyd to go "pro create" with himself (which would probably make his day b/c he would be with the only person he truly loves). Ypu line Philip Daniels up in practice and say he needs to get to the scout team QB to start. If he can't, you put the next guy in. It might be a bit of an exaggeration (the players union would have a field day huh?), but my point is simple... On THIS team, I don't see the team leaders like Art Monk, Charles Mann, Joe Jacoby, Russ Grimm, etc. Maybe there are a few, but the classic Gibbs teams were choc full of guys who you could expect to work hard to accomplish the team goals.

Overall, my biggest beef is that in my ultra limited perception, the coaching staff coddles these millionaires which just will not work. You have to break them down and slowly build them back up in your mold. (**cough, cough Coughlin cough, cough**). Anyone that doesn't want to conform can hit the door. Take playing time away regardless of salary or tenure... I hate the fact that I feel the inmates are running the show at times. Last year Gibbs relents on an easier camp which was a HUGE mistake IMO given all the new pieces. I doubt it, but maybe you break a Branfdon Lloyd down early and get more out of him if you're doing two-a-days. This year Gibbs allowed the players to work out on there own which I think is yet again another mistake. These guys are human. We know they go out an party. We know they drink. We know they hit strip bars. So after those nights, what motivation do they have to put in extra time in the weight room? What motivation do they have to run sprints? They are 25 years old for Christs sake. How many of us worked 10+ hours a day at that point in our lives? Well this is their job and they get paid too well to not be in premium shape, and I am sick of it. Why does it take losing in embarrassing fashion and the subsequent "players only" meeting to get anything accomplished???

Ugh. This team sickens me sometimes, buty I just don't buy that the biggest problem is playcalling.

Keino
11-06-2007, 01:43 PM
Just when my headache from watching the game on Sunday goes away, I read that post from Smoak and I begin to rub my temples again.

I agree with 95% of that post Smoak, but all of the things you talk about go right back to the coaching staff.