Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Let me say this while it's on my mind: We need to adopt a no matter what mentality. No matter what, we're running the damn ball. Again, the caveat being, if we fall behind early we have to adjust and tweak the gameplan.

Too often it seems, we have a reactionary game plan. If we're up, we slow down. If we're behind, we try to speed up. I'd like to see us impose our will on a team from start to finish. That's why I have no problem with New England "running up" the score. They have a style and a mindset they play with and they're not apologizing for it.

I think we were close to seeing that yesterday. People look at the final score, and say wait the Skins barely beat the Jets. You take away that kickoff and an untimely penalty and you have a different outcome. Same thing with the Cards game a couple weeks back.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Gidde up! Bout time we got some production outta the run game. Ride that horse!

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374212]Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't think it's obvious in the least - I mean ESPN's talking heads say stuff like this all the time.

Committing to the running game doesn't mean it's going to perform well. Execution and the decision to try to execute, are two entirely different things.

You can come up with all the philosophy you want, but in the end, your philosophy needs to be dictated by what your players are capable of doing.

I agree that we need to be running the ball, because it gives us our best chance to win. But I don't agree with blindly handing the ball off without any regard to the success the run game is having - that's how you turn into a predictable offense. The team needs to be capable of both running and throwing the ball. All teams need a plan B, otherwise there's not a lot of adjusting you can do come halftime when you're down by 10 and need to score points.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I have been very critical of Portis as of late. He doesn't seem as fast or as explosive. He seems pretty gingerly and it doesn't look like he can make cuts or push off on those knees.

Still, I'm all for running it all day long.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374212]Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. [B]But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of. [/B]

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.[/quote]You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on [I]consecutive[/I] carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=saden1;374282]I have been very critical of Portis as of late. He doesn't seem as fast or as explosive. He seems pretty gingerly and it doesn't look like he can make cuts or push off on those knees.

Still, I'm all for running it all day long.[/quote]He did make some great cuts in that Jets game.

His vision though was lacking at times. On one play in the third quarter, the Jets sent their nickel back on a fire play. Randle El comes in and seals the blitzer inside right into Todd Wade's hip opening up about 20 yards of field to the outside and Portis just never saw it. Ran right into the guy that ARE sealed off. Randle El made a very clear display of disappointment with Portis' decision.

I don't know if this has always been an issue for Portis and he has just never seen it, or if this is a new problem based on his new offense that will iron itself out.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

lets hope so. im interested in seeing CP do it for two weeks in a row. eagles will be a good test and dallas after that. Hopefully his fumbling problems from this year are over

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;374314]You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on [I]consecutive[/I] carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.[/quote]

I think you and Schneed make some good points, but it sounds like you guys are not getting where I'm coming from. Or maybe you are, but you just flat out disagree. And both are fine with me.

But my opinion, not argument, is pretty straight forward; I feel that if we can get Portis the ball between 25-30 times a game, we'll see more of the Clinton Portis we've been accustomed to. Period. I can't substantiate that with hard core stats, but I'm willing to bet, he's more productive and so is our win/loss record. I don't see what's so backwards about that.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

If Portis doesn't start to carry the offense, we might as well count our play-off hopes out.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I think he started carrying the load last week.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374520]I think you and Schneed make some good points, but it sounds like you guys are not getting where I'm coming from. Or maybe you are, but you just flat out disagree. And both are fine with me.

But my opinion, not argument, is pretty straight forward; I feel that if we can get Portis the ball between 25-30 times a game, we'll see more of the Clinton Portis we've been accustomed to. Period. I can't substantiate that with hard core stats, but I'm willing to bet, he's more productive and so is our win/loss record. I don't see what's so backwards about that.[/quote]I'm sort of following your reasoning here, but either:

1) I'm missing a big part of your argument here and unjustly critizing it
or
2) There's a pretty big hole in the argument/opinion/whatever.

Outside of the fact that giving CP 25-30 carries each of the final eight games will likely end his career going foward due to abuse on his body, there is an oppertunity cost to running 30 times a game with a single back.

Against the leagues worst defense, who consistently played with 6 in the box vs. our 3 WR sets and never ever brought up a safety into the box prior to O.T., Portis was able to average over 5 YPC in a game for the first time this season. So because he was consistently picking up big chunks of yards, they kept feeding him. This, of course, is what Schneed was saying.

However, even with the massive success the ground game was having, remember that every down we ran was a down in which we couldn't throw. Even the worst passers average a higher YPA than the best runners. You want to acheive offensive balance, but even when the running game is working, if you can't have a passing game, you end up taking a 1-7 team to O.T.

The fact that we went to O.T. does not tell you to the level that our guys physically dominated that football game, but chewing up all that clock did shorten the game enough for one kick return on the first play of the game to turn total domination into an overtime struggle.

I'm not knocking our gameplan at all, and I can't fault them with going with what was working, but looking ahead, when the oppertunity cost of giving CP 30 carries a game to get on track as opposed to 15 involves:

1) Giving a workload to CP that will most likely end the effective stage of his career and make him injury prone for the rest of it.

2) Take the ball out of Jason Campbell's hands

and

3) Shorten the length of the game allowing a few big plays to decide the course of it (while running 30 times a game)

Then at this point, even if you are right and Portis could be very effective down the stretch with 30 carries a game, I still disagree that it would be a good idea.

I'm all for running as long as it is effective, but the notion that it has to be Portis doing the running, and we have to do it until it works, do or die just seems a bit crazy to me, even if you are correct.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I think Portis being the Skins #1 back is what pushes people like myself to say he needs to get the rock 25+ times a game. It could be anyone back there, but the bottom line is for this team to be effective, to play Gibbs football, the run game needs to be established. It allows the offense to take some pressure off a young quarterback...

Of course you don't run it so many times if you behind, but in the past, this team has been very successful when the QB has less than 30 attempts, and the RBs get 40+ carries. It usually means the Redskins have controlled the clock and the defense has done their job keeping the opponent's offense off the field. And I think that is the gameplan that Gibbs, Saunders and G-Dub has gone with thus far.

There are other variations that need to be implemented into the offense as well. Jason Campbell needs to be more accurate on his intermediate pass routes. It seems that if it's not chucking deep, or a short (less than 7 yards) dump, he's missing the boat. I mentioned 60% earlier (18 of 30), however in those completions, they cannot all be dinks and dunks. He needs to stretch the field a bit, in order for the run game to be more effective. Defenses have stacked the box and made the Redskins beat them deep. Gibbs 1.0 had that ability. But Gibbs 1.0 also had Art Monk, Charlie Brown, Alvin Garrett, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders. While Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El are good receivers, they are no Clark and Sanders.

Another guy who has to step up is Mike Sellers. Too many missed assignments and too many drops for a guy who has been a catalyst in this offense in the past...

And the offensive line has had a few weeks together. It's time to put up or shut up. Injuries aside, these guys are professionals. Time to gel and move like one.

Sitting at 5-3, the Redskins are in a good position to make a run during the 2nd half. Last week, they proclaimed the "return of Redskins football". Let's see if they continue the course, or abandon it at the first sign of trouble.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Who do you want to have the ball ?
The 7th highest rated running back
Or the 25th best quaterback who turns the ball over more than once a game [ more interceptions than touchdowns plus the most fumbles by far]
Sure Byner has taught them how to fumble like he did but not enough to keep them out of the playoffs
Run the ball and hope you get a decent hand off!!!

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;374534]I'm sort of following your reasoning here, but either:

1) I'm missing a big part of your argument here and unjustly critizing it
or
2) There's a pretty big hole in the argument/opinion/whatever.

Outside of the fact that giving CP 25-30 carries each of the final eight games will likely end his career going foward due to abuse on his body, there is an oppertunity cost to running 30 times a game with a single back.

Against the leagues worst defense, who consistently played with 6 in the box vs. our 3 WR sets and never ever brought up a safety into the box prior to O.T., Portis was able to average over 5 YPC in a game for the first time this season. So because he was consistently picking up big chunks of yards, they kept feeding him. This, of course, is what Schneed was saying.

However, even with the massive success the ground game was having, remember that every down we ran was a down in which we couldn't throw. Even the worst passers average a higher YPA than the best runners. You want to acheive offensive balance, but even when the running game is working, if you can't have a passing game, you end up taking a 1-7 team to O.T.

The fact that we went to O.T. does not tell you to the level that our guys physically dominated that football game, but chewing up all that clock did shorten the game enough for one kick return on the first play of the game to turn total domination into an overtime struggle.

I'm not knocking our gameplan at all, and I can't fault them with going with what was working, but looking ahead, when the oppertunity cost of giving CP 30 carries a game to get on track as opposed to 15 involves:

1) Giving a workload to CP that will most likely end the effective stage of his career and make him injury prone for the rest of it.

2) Take the ball out of Jason Campbell's hands

and

3) Shorten the length of the game allowing a few big plays to decide the course of it (while running 30 times a game)

Then at this point, even if you are right and Portis could be very effective down the stretch with 30 carries a game, I still disagree that it would be a good idea.

I'm all for running as long as it is effective, but the notion that it has to be Portis doing the running, and we have to do it until it works, do or die just seems a bit crazy to me, even if you are correct.[/QUOTE]

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;374541]I think Portis being the Skins #1 back is what pushes people like myself to say he needs to get the rock 25+ times a game. It could be anyone back there, but the bottom line is for this team to be effective, to play Gibbs football, the run game needs to be established. It allows the offense to take some pressure off a young quarterback...

Of course you don't run it so many times if you behind, [B]but in the past, this team has been very successful when the QB has less than 30 attempts, and the RBs get 40+ carries.[/B] It usually means the Redskins have controlled the clock and the defense has done their job keeping the opponent's offense off the field. And I think that is the gameplan that Gibbs, Saunders and G-Dub has gone with thus far.

There are other variations that need to be implemented into the offense as well. Jason Campbell needs to be more accurate on his intermediate pass routes. It seems that if it's not chucking deep, or a short (less than 7 yards) dump, he's missing the boat. I mentioned 60% earlier (18 of 30), however in those completions, they cannot all be dinks and dunks. He needs to stretch the field a bit, in order for the run game to be more effective. Defenses have stacked the box and made the Redskins beat them deep. Gibbs 1.0 had that ability. But Gibbs 1.0 also had Art Monk, Charlie Brown, Alvin Garrett, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders. While Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El are good receivers, they are no Clark and Sanders.

Another guy who has to step up is Mike Sellers. Too many missed assignments and too many drops for a guy who has been a catalyst in this offense in the past...

And the offensive line has had a few weeks together. It's time to put up or shut up. Injuries aside, these guys are professionals. Time to gel and move like one.

Sitting at 5-3, the Redskins are in a good position to make a run during the 2nd half. Last week, they proclaimed the "return of Redskins football". Let's see if they continue the course, or abandon it at the first sign of trouble.[/quote]

First, before I respond to the bolded part in BD's post here, I have to say that GTripp has basically summed up my argument pretty well.

On to the bolded part. My whole thing here is that people tend to look back at our wins, and say hey, we ran a lot more than we threw in our wins. And people say hey, there's a theme there. If we run, we win. It's just not that simple - you can't just hand it off 40+ times and expect a win. If you hand the ball off 15 times in the first half, and you gain 30 yards on those carries and score only like 2 field goals, wouldn't you be an idiot to simply keep doing the same thing in the second half? You either need to start passing, or make some adjustments so your running game starts to work.

I think we're pretty much all on the same page here, we all agree the Skins' best chance is to run the ball. I'm just saying the line has to establish itself before you can think about how many carries a back should get.

In other words, the number of carries are the RESULT of a successful day. Not the CAUSE. The cause of a successful day would be the line smashing face - it comes down to coaching during the week (teaching technique, motivation, etc.) and then execution by the team.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Also let me say, that if we're going to end up in the playoffs, we're going to need to get Santana Moss and Randle El back on track with Campbell. The running game definitely is our bread and butter, but during this final 8-game stretch, there WILL be times when it falters. We're going to need to make some big plays through the air at times.

I guess all I'm saying is the running game is great, but I hope Gibbs doesn't get so focused on it that he forgets to tune up the passing game. We're going to need both, because we're not facing the Jets defense 8 times in a row down the stretch here.