Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=DirtBagZ;1039996]Sorry disagree, there has been a lack of pass rush, and collapsing the pocket and this has been a hallmark of Redskins teams for a long time. Kerrigan is a decent player, probably the best on the front seven, just not an elite pass rusher. Orako is serviceable, if he was better player he would make plays, for whatever reason he does not make the play. Coaching can make a difference but the bottom line is, the players don't execute and they don't make plays. Further there is a chronic lack of discipline and a tendency to make boneheaded 15 yd penalties that have a knack of allowing the other team to score. This has happened repeatedly this season, and was a major issue last night.[/quote]

So your fix is to do what exactly? Burn through the entire defense, change the whole coaching staff, and do all this without a number one draft pick this offseason? Wow, sounds like a plan to me!

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=fanarchist;1040028]But there wasn't double coverage on Reed and Garcon on 4th down in that situation. In fact Reed was singled up with a LB, beat him immediately off the line, and was wide open in the middle of the endzone. If everyone knew it, everyone was wrong. That everyone including those who make the calls, and those who are paid to execute them. Moreover on the 3 previous plays the blitz was evident, every receiver was in single coverage, and the middle of the field was wide open every time. We tried to run one rub route on a slant to Garcon, but RG mistimed the pass and released the ball too early with no discernible pressure.

The offense and playcalling are as much to blame as the defense. And good teams score as many points as they need to win, and in most cases far exceed that. This argument that some phantom number of points is enough to beat a particular team is a straw man fallacy.[/quote]
All points you made are correct. I guess my wording was confusing. In a short yardage 4th and goal, if the play call is a fade, the QB does not have time to read through his progressions. If you look at the play again, RG3 had his eyes on that back pylon the whole time and did not even look at anyone else but Moss. It's a 2 step drop then lob it at the pylon. If he goes through his progressions, a fade does not work. My point is, that the 'Skins coaching staff was anticipating double coverage on the 2 receivers that were killing the Vikes all night. But that did not happen.

During the time out the play called was fade to Moss. There was no secondary or check down receivers.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=Paintrain;1040027]Seriously?!?! The O-line, while not perfect was #5 in sacks allowed and the team is in the top 5 running the ball coming into last night.

So far the team has drafted almost an entire line (T. Williams, LeReibus, Gettis, Compton). Now development of those players can be discussed but using draft picks on O-linemen is about 15th on the list of what's wrong with this team.
[/quote]

Only one of those players starts. A sixth round pick and a 5th round pick mainly used for depth is not my idea of developing a lineman. They obviously emphasized skill players over offensive linemen, Trent Williams being the exception.

Just by watching the game yesterday, you can see Morris being hit in the backfield, while still getting positive yards, and obviously RG3 has been hit a lot this year.

I just do not think this offensive line has played well as unit and if you look at the good offensive lines from around the league, those teams drafted those players and developed them, something the redskins have failed to do.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1040029]Was listening to ESPN DALLAS this morning and they basically were saying as long as Snyder owns the team it will always be a circus for instance now it's the name issue and RG3's knee , team never being able to consistently win under DS.. ETC.. Kinda hard to argue it though[/quote]

Yea I think the only way the Skins win under Snyder is if he hires a Jimmy Johnson kind of coach. Might be a terrible person to be around but he knew how to win. Also was not afraid to confront Jones which I think Snyder needs

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1040029]Was listening to ESPN DALLAS this morning and they basically were saying as long as Snyder owns the team it will always be a circus for instance now it's the name issue and RG3's knee , team never being able to consistently win under DS.. ETC.. Kinda hard to argue it though[/quote]

They need to look in the fucking mirror. You should call in and asked about their managment example: their cap issue, their hiring of monte Kiffen a fucking disaster, and Jason Garrett. Shanny > Garrett all day long. Garrett is a horrible coach. But yeah they win the division this year 8-8, 9-7 the typical idiot dallas fan will be talking about how great Garrett is.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=Chico23231;1040035]They need to look in the fucking mirror. You should call in and asked about their managment example: their cap issue, their hiring of monte Kiffen a fucking disaster, and Jason Garrett. Shanny > Garrett all day long. Garrett is a horrible coach. But yeah they win the division this year 8-8, 9-7 the typical idiot dallas fan will be talking about how great Garrett is.[/quote]


They said dallas is basically in the same boat but skins fans were calling in and basically saying it's time to clean house so it's not just on the WP it's everywhere lol.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=donofriose;1040033]Yea I think the only way the Skins win under Snyder is if he hires a Jimmy Johnson kind of coach. Might be a terrible person to be around but he knew how to win. Also was not afraid to confront Jones which I think Snyder needs[/quote]


Problem is who is that? Saban? Yuck Stoops? No

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1040031]All points you made are correct. I guess my wording was confusing. In a short yardage 4th and goal, if the play call is a fade, the QB does not have time to read through his progressions. If you look at the play again, RG3 had his eyes on that back pylon the whole time and did not even look at anyone else but Moss. It's a 2 step drop then lob it at the pylon. If he goes through his progressions, a fade does not work. My point is, that the 'Skins coaching staff was anticipating double coverage on the 2 receivers that were killing the Vikes all night. But that did not happen.

During the time out the play called was fade to Moss. There was no secondary or check down receivers.[/quote]

thats theyre play weve hit on that route a few times to santana. he hung on if you didnt notice but it was good defense could have even been a pass interference. its a 3 step drop and boom what are you talking about? checkdown? our defense lost that. tony likes to turn it over in those situations. too much overanalysis of that last clutch play.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

Stephen A Smith slamming the play calling of Shanahan on First Take. Looks like most everyone think s it is a problem. But our defense and Chris Chester lost that game last night.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

$36M is a lot of money

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1040031]All points you made are correct. I guess my wording was confusing. In a short yardage 4th and goal, if the play call is a fade, the QB does not have time to read through his progressions. If you look at the play again, RG3 had his eyes on that back pylon the whole time and did not even look at anyone else but Moss. It's a 2 step drop then lob it at the pylon. If he goes through his progressions, a fade does not work. My point is, that the 'Skins coaching staff was anticipating double coverage on the 2 receivers that were killing the Vikes all night. But that did not happen.

During the time out the play called was fade to Moss. There was no secondary or check down receivers.[/quote]

I agree completely. It was a single read for Griff, and no other option. Which leads directly to the question why the shortsightedness of the play caller? Why only a single read? They anticipated strong pressure, a blitz perhaps, maybe 6 man pressure, because you'd assume most offensive lines(not saying ours necessarily) are expected to hold up against a single blitzer. If you make that assumption that leaves only one player capable of being double covered. So by design, they decide a half fade/corner route kind of pass to the smallest receiver on the field into the short side of the endzone is the highest percentage play in that position. It just doesn't jive. I understand people saying Tana has made that play in the past, but based on that specific situation it is not your highest percentage play. That I have to put on the coaches. Mainly Kyle's, (unless it's Mike who has redzone and 3rd down duties, I doubt it though) clutch situational playcalling ineptitude.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

Here is a nice article on Redskins Special Teams from cbssports.com:

By Ryan Wilson | CBSSports.com November 8, 2013 11:53 am ET

"[B]In news that will surprise no one, the Redskins have the NFL's worst special teams unit.[/B] [I](my bolding)[/I] Mediocre returns, shoddy coverage and blocked punts and field goals tend to do that. And now, after Thursday night's game against the Vikings, we can add 'failed fake punt' to the mix.

Of course, the Redskins' futility is such that they couldn't even properly pull that off; there was an false-start penalty on the play. This negated punter Sav Rocca's 'pass to nowhere' ...

But Washington's special teams being what it is still found a way to mess this up. The ensuing punt led to a 20-yard Vikings return that also benefited from a Redskins 15-yard personal foul penalty.

[B]To recap: Redskins failed fake punt saved by Redskins false start but the subsequent 46-yard punt netted just 16 yards because of the 20-yard Vikings' return coupled with a Redskins personal-foul penalty.[/B] ([I]my bolding)[/I] In case you're wondering, Rocca wasn't actually supposed to throw that pass. He was, you know, supposed to punt it."

[I]I'd like to add that, from the replay, it looks like the play would have worked had it been called because Niles Paul would have been looking for the ball. That is, it would have worked if there hadn't been a procedure penalty against the Skins prior to the play. So maybe the play that wasn't called should have been called even though it wouldn't have counted if it had worked.

I have been following the Redskins since my childhood in the late 1950's and I can attest that the Redskins Special Teams this season are the worst, by far, that I have ever seen.[/I]

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

Joke

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=los panda;1040045]$36M is a lot of money[/quote]

1/2 of that is a lot of money too. the thing is, do we trust shanny to use that money? I'm starting to seriously question his ability to judge talent, other than that of a running back.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

I don't think it's worthwhile to nitpick at specific plays, players, or play-calls at this point. The problems here are way bigger. Looking at last night's game you see several themes or reoccurring problems from this season, last season, and even the whole Shanahan tenure:

1) Horrible defense. If there's one overarching theme if Mike's time in DC it is just terrible, terrible defense. Despite spending considerable resources in draft and FA to rebuild/remold this D into a 3-4 it's just a garbage unit.

2) Lousy discipline/preparedness among both players and coaches. This covers the penalties and missed assignments among players and horrible clock management. Having no timeouts (in a close game) in the last few minutes and long delays between plays is just inexcusable. It's an embarrassment to pro football.

3) Incomplete games/effort. The defense sucked all game, and offense really sucked in the 2nd half, adding just 3 points against a defense basically as bad as ours.

4) Offensive line that sucks in pass protection.

5) Lack of intensity/motivation, with few exceptions.