Skins v Eagles post game thread

I said food thought he said NOT even a thought meaning he knows something.

And you are using hindsight.

It is not to crazy to think KC goes on to have a good/great career and RG's career is marred with injury.

I said "NOT!" meaning I strongly believe that the Redskins should be committed to RGIII as their QB without any reservations or second thoughts.

Here is something very interesting I found. While the Eagles fans are all euphoric over Monday Night's win, I was curious to see what the similarities were between Steve Spurrier's first regular season game with the Redskins and Chip Kelly's first game with the Eagles. Here are the stats:

Spurrier's first game: 73 plays, 442 yards of total offense and 31 points.
Chip Kelly's first game: 77 plays,443 yards of total offense and 33 points.

Almost identical numbers in plays, yardage and points. Of course the Eagles win seems more impressive since they scored most of their points in a half, and it was against the division champs. The Redskins' win was against the Cardinals. Still, not a whole lot of difference between the two, though. Both were/are supposed to be offensive geniuses. Other similarities I found is that Spurrier's offense seemed to expose the quarterback to a lot of hits. Kelly's seems to also have that issue - especially once the offense tires and the "foot if lifted off the gas". Any quarterback with less elusiveness is going to get killed - at least from my observation.

That's why any talk (I know it's not here but you know everybody else in football land will be talking) of the Eagles' being a scary team that's going to transform the NFL is way pre-mature. I still have my doubts - especially since it fizzled out in the second half. Most certainly, I could be wrong, but Philly is going to have prove that to me throughout the season.

You only posted half of the numbers between the two coaches. The other knock on Spurrier was that neglected the D putting everything into the O. How do the defensive numbers compare?

I said "NOT!" meaning I strongly believe that the Redskins should be committed to RGIII as their QB without any reservations or second thoughts.

Borat - Not Joke | Free Video Clips | SPIKE (http://www.spike.com/video-clips/3zwmeh/borat-not-joke)

please reference these NOT joke directions please


After reading your post I was inspired to post something like Cousins should be starting and then type "psyche"

This thing about Griffin not wanting to run the RO is bugging me.

Plus can we stop saying we have a read option based offense? It's a play-action based system. A play we ran 8 times per game doesn't equate to a base system.

The read option isn't off the table. Otherwise why did they practice it so much and ran it a bunch in preseason games with White?

It's definitely still in the game plan, but depending on game situations sometimes it will be called more often, sometimes less.

We fell behind early against Philly and couldn't get anything going. The RO isn't a threat when the other team knows you're in catchup mode and are going to pass every play.

Too many people are falling into the trap of looking at the results of one game and drawing hardline conclusions about how the other 15 games are going to go.

I said "NOT!" meaning I strongly believe that the Redskins should be committed to RGIII as their QB without any reservations or second thoughts.

Fair enough.

And I agree at this point you ride the RGIII bus but another major knee injury and the KC bus will start showing up in the rear view mirror.

This thing about Griffin not wanting to run the RO is bugging me.

Plus can we stop saying we have a read option based offense? It's a play-action based system. A play we ran 8 times per game doesn't equate to a base system.

The read option isn't off the table. Otherwise why did they practice it so much and ran it a bunch in preseason games with White?

It's definitely still in the game plan, but depending on game situations sometimes it will be called more often, sometimes less.

We fell behind early against Philly and couldn't get anything going. The RO isn't a threat when the other team knows you're in catchup mode and are going to pass every play.

Too many people are falling into the trap of looking at the results of one game and drawing hardline conclusions about how the other 15 games are going to go.


Completely right.

We'd be foolish to abandon the offense that had us ranked #1 in the league in rushing and 5th overall.


Did any of you ever think that perhaps we went with a simple game plan for RGIII's first game back not just to protect him, but to ease him back in? Even with a simple playbook, he still struggled. He just needed (needs) rep and once his rhythm and confidence back, we'll roll out everything we ran last season.

And as Matty said, we fell behind and had to abandon the run game to get back into the game, which we did.

The read option did not get him injured, trying to run through defenders on scrambles instead of getting down our to the sidelines did.

Griffin is one of the most competitive players in the league. Why wouldn't he want to run what works?

At his press conference followng the game, Griffin was asked if he had gotten more comfortable in the second half and if that was the reason for the improvement. In describing the offensive woes and the improvements in the second half, Griffin responded with his "can't-get-rights" comment and followed that by saying the team used the passing game to get a spark in the second half.

He then made the remark "but that's not who we are as a team" and talked about getting the run game fixed. Not sure how that fits into the RO debate but it struck me as a recognition that we are a run oriented team first and that he buys into that.

At his press conference followng the game, Griffin was asked if he had gotten more comfortable in the second half and if that was the reason for the improvement. In describing the offensive woes and the improvements in the second half, Griffin responded with his "can't-get-rights" comment and followed that by saying the team used the passing game to get a spark in the second half.

He then made the remark "but that's not who we are as a team" and talked about getting the run game fixed. Not sure how that fits into the RO debate but it struck me as a recognition that we are a run oriented team first and that he buys into that.

After leading the league in rushing last year it's quite obvious the type of team we are. The run sets up everything in this offense.

You only posted half of the numbers between the two coaches. The other knock on Spurrier was that neglected the D putting everything into the O. How do the defensive numbers compare?

Spurrier vs Kelly

PTS........ 23...... 27
FD......... 14...... 25
TotYds.. 257...... 382
PassYds. 187....... 308
RushYds. 70...... 74
TO.......... 1...... 3

This thing about Griffin not wanting to run the RO is bugging me.

Plus can we stop saying we have a read option based offense? It's a play-action based system. A play we ran 8 times per game doesn't equate to a base system.

The read option isn't off the table. Otherwise why did they practice it so much and ran it a bunch in preseason games with White?

It's definitely still in the game plan, but depending on game situations sometimes it will be called more often, sometimes less.

We fell behind early against Philly and couldn't get anything going. The RO isn't a threat when the other team knows you're in catchup mode and are going to pass every play.

Too many people are falling into the trap of looking at the results of one game and drawing hardline conclusions about how the other 15 games are going to go.



yeah I think we'll see more RO sunday wouldn't u think?