Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Paintrain;245737]For weeks we've been hearing MB and Gibbs repeatedly say they can't go deep because opposing defenses have played cover 2 or a 2 deep safety shell so the dump offs were 'taking what was available'. Everyone knows the way to beat a cover 2 is throwing to the deep middle or corner routes, 2 routes Brunell didn't have the arm strength or confidence to throw. With JC taking the reins should we see more of those throws against that coverage?[/quote]

That dump off crap is a bunch of bullshit. Not to be too technical but with this type of covergae you can throw deep curl routes and deep dig or crossing routes in the 15-25 yard range. But you MUST have a TE who can run right down the middle in between the safties. The TE will occupy the middle backer and one of the safties 9-10 times. As long as your TE can get off the line and get in the 2ndary quickly, then the deep crossing and curl routes open up underneath the TE running down the field. This is why KC had a strong passing game with average WR's. The TE makes it all go against this type of coverage. I use to play HS football and most of the defenses we played used this type of covergae.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[IMG]http://www.thehogs.net/images/uploads/jason-campbell.jpg[/IMG]
Sunday is so far away!!!!

I was just thinking about this on the way home today. I've always thought before a game, If I'm a defensive co-ordinator, how can I beat the redskins. When Brunell was in the game, you think ... well shoot... we'll make him beat us if he can. Put pressure on him, and then key the dump off.

Now with Campbell in, you've got to think they'll take a similar strategy. Pressure the QB, force the dump off, and key that guy. Letting the underneath stuff slide, and cover tight mid-range. The only problem is... suppose Campbell takes the heat well, or our o-line plays inspired.

Campbell will be able to launch the ball over the safeties. With our speedy WR's it could be deadly.

All of this is pure speculation, and I can only assume Saunders will come out firing. Campbell may be confused by some defenses, throw a few picks, but ultimatly I'm thinking Saunders wants to take shots downfield.
If we lose, I'm expecting to lose Brett Favre style, and partially cut out this conservative nonsense for a game. It'll be exciting, that you can count on.

Godspeed JC.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;246132]That dump off crap is a bunch of bullshit. Not to be too technical but with this type of covergae you can throw deep curl routes and deep dig or crossing routes in the 15-25 yard range. But you MUST have a TE who can run right down the middle in between the safties. The TE will occupy the middle backer and one of the safties 9-10 times. As long as your TE can get off the line and get in the 2ndary quickly, then the deep crossing and curl routes open up underneath the TE running down the field. This is why KC had a strong passing game with average WR's. The TE makes it all go against this type of coverage. I use to play HS football and most of the defenses we played used this type of covergae.[/quote]
While this is true.... a 15-25 yd dig is one of the longest plays to develop. Curls work, and we do tend to use them as well, but with the corners easing back in the flats, it gets dangerous when you've got a noodle arm at QB. So therefore, CB's anticipate the flat pass, and jump the hell out of it. That's basically what our offense couldn't overcome.

The route that beats the cover 2, is the WR post & a TE skinny post. Both great plays for a QB who can place a ball well (and is tall enough to see the field). We'll see what happends. I'm excited.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;245957]i get it.

ALL HAIL GIBBS! GO SKINS! FIGHT ON!*


* unless you bench no.8[/quote]

hahah, yupp you got it right

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;245746]Yeah, it seems like the Redskins are the only team in the NFL who's offense is completely ineffective when the opponent is in a Cover 2.[/QUOTE]

The Colts had no problem lighting up the Cover 2 on a regular basis. The middle of the field is nice and vulnerable.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=RobH4413;246141]While this is true.... a 15-25 yd dig is one of the longest plays to develop. Curls work, and we do tend to use them as well, but with the corners easing back in the flats, it gets dangerous when you've got a noodle arm at QB. So therefore, CB's anticipate the flat pass, and jump the hell out of it. That's basically what our offense couldn't overcome.

The route that beats the cover 2, is the WR post & a TE skinny post. Both great plays for a QB who can place a ball well (and is tall enough to see the field). We'll see what happends. I'm excited.[/quote]

Skinny post works very well against cover 2 and we saw some of that against Indy. There are many ways to attack the cover 2 in the 15-25 yard range. If the line can protect, (and that's a big if) it will be interesting to see if Campbell is willing sit in the pocket and wait for those down the field routes to develop. If you ask me, Brunell just didn't have the willingness the sit in there and wait for things to develop down the field. Plus Brunell needed perfect protection to get in down the field.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

gibbs won't need the cover-2 excuse, cause campbell can throw deep all day... he might need an interception excuse, but hopefully we score more than tampa so he won't have to anything besides "we got great QB play."

I'd guess it'll be a bit rough against tampa on the road, but there's always a chance it just works out.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

why do you guys have to go and get hessy all fired up? and hessy, i dont understand why you dont want campbell to have sucess right now, as opposed to next season?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

I DO want him to have sucess right now, but it isn't going to happen. Not mid season..

... It's time for doom and gloom folks. All down hill from here - UNTIL NEXT YEAR!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=hesscl34;246241]... It's time for doom and gloom folks. All down hill from here - UNTIL NEXT YEAR![/QUOTE]

You're trying to be sarcastic aren't you?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

The end is near.... I think I'll go kick an poor elderly guy while he's down. Maybe that will make me feel better.... ;)

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=hesscl34;246256]The end is near.... I think I'll go kick an poor elderly guy while he's down. Maybe that will make me feel better.... ;)[/QUOTE]

It helps if he happens to be walking his big-eyed puppy

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

If you have not already read it, read the JC article posted by Matty "From idle to idol". It will get you stoked up to see him play!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

campbell brings an elememnt to the redskins too that brunnell was
probably one of the best in history at,and tha's scrambling.how
many plays have you guys seen this year that brunnell of old could scramble 10-15 yards,and get a first down out of?campbell can do that,he's big,smart,very athelitic,and has a great arm.
ading a qb that can run and scramble will bring an element to the redskins qb issues that they have hardly ever had.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=RobH4413;246137][IMG]http://www.thehogs.net/images/uploads/jason-campbell.jpg[/IMG]
Sunday is so far away!!!!
[/quote]

That's the first pic I've ever seen of him with SOME emotion!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;245822]all the receivers are [B]REALLY going to try[/B] and get separation now, because they know Campbell has the arm to really get it to them. even out of the pocket. [B]the whole character of this team has changed. watch and see.[/B][/quote]*saves post*

Unfortunately the defense STILL sucks, and the offensive line STILL holds. You have to love Randle El's versatility, but as a wideout he is worse than average. Lloyd has been even worse than him so far, although he's starting to make some big catches in 1 v 1 coverage (what he's paid to do).

Not saying they won't pick it up, just don't see any reason why they will.

But I appreaciate your conspiracy theroy that they weren't really trying for MB.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

The change in QB just might energize some guys and Thomas has already alluded to the fact that they know they have to step up in order to help Campbell out.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

From a purely X's and O's standpoint...

Seeing as that a cover 2 requires that the safeties get deep, the two MOST effective ways to beat it are short passes and running the football. Throwing deep is a terrible method to beat the cover 2 since there are so many versions of it (soft or quarters, hard 2, bastardized 2 (usually a zone blitz)), espicially for a young QB playing against a D as good as Tampa's on the road, it can be really difficult for any QB to read the different varitions. In the hard two (what Dallas was playing a majority of the time two weeks ago), you can beat it down the middle, but in pretty much every other version of cover 2, the safeties will pinch, and force you to hit them in the 'hole' between the corners and safeties. It's a tough throw for anyone to make, and one that Campbell may or may not have the accuracy to throw.

This year, we've been throwing short to beat the 2, and we've been picking up first downs against it. Our drives seem to stall in enemy territory, keeping our PPG lower than it should be, and I have no idea why this happens. Luck maybe? Sh*tty playcalling? At this point, since CP is going on IR, and our QB is green as grass, it's moot point because I don't think we will be in opponents territory very often.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

I had a nightmare last night that I woke up to the radio saying "There's sad news from Redskins park this morning... Joe Gibbs has stepped down."... UGH! I was so glad when I became fully awake a realized it was a dream!

This season has been one problem after another, after another. I feel like Porits and Moss cannot WAIT for it to end. Which makes me sad for the team.... What a mess we are all in.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;246425]The change in QB just might energize some guys and Thomas has already alluded to the fact that they know they have to step up in order to help Campbell out.[/quote]Don't you think Gruden will have Tampa energized to play at home against JC this week? The complexity of the game changes a bit when things get high-emotion, but utimately if we get beaten in the trenches, there's no way we get into double digits this week.

I really hope that Tampa doesn't show up, but that team is hungry for a win and with CP on IR for a 4 week injury, its obvious to me that we are playing for next year.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=hesscl34;246430]I had a nightmare last night that I woke up to the radio saying "There's sad news from Redskins park this morning... Joe Gibbs has stepped down."... UGH! I was so glad when I became fully awake a realized it was a dream!

This season has been one problem after another, after another. I feel like Porits and Moss cannot WAIT for it to end. Which makes me sad for the team.... What a mess we are all in.[/quote]Good news is we get the 4th place schedule...Arizona and Tampa next year.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

the redskins really have'nt thrown downfield at all this year!
maybe that will change because of campbell.i'm sick of seeing these little swing passes to betts and cooley.they only way you can make plays better is by throwing the ball down field,not on screen passes every other play!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[COLOR="Red"]Good news is we get the 4th place schedule...Arizona and Tampa next year.
[/COLOR]

the 49ers too!are the skins on schedule to play the afc east next year,or the ravens divison?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;246425]The change in QB just might energize some guys and Thomas has already alluded to the fact that they know they have to step up in order to help Campbell out.[/quote]

The Cowboys seem to be a pretty good example of this.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;246435]The Cowboys seem to be a pretty good example of this.[/quote]

Especially if he can come in and make some plays right off the bat that Brunell couldn't, I think the team as a whole will be jacked up.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246419]*saves post*

Unfortunately the defense STILL sucks, and the offensive line STILL holds. You have to love Randle El's versatility, but as a wideout he is worse than average. Lloyd has been even worse than him so far, although he's starting to make some big catches in 1 v 1 coverage (what he's paid to do).

Not saying they won't pick it up, just don't see any reason why they will.

But I appreaciate your conspiracy theroy that they weren't really trying for MB.[/QUOTE]

oh i've got a ton of your posts saved as well.

i don't know how you can make a conclusion about any of our wide receivers this season other than Betts. if you are judging them by how often they get the ball, consider, for just a minute, maybe that's why no.8 was benched and not the receivers.

it was far from a conspiracy theory, its what happens when teams lose hope, which in spite of your FO stats, matters very much in a football game. by this time everyone in the league knew what to expect from no.8, every defensive coordinator, every defensive back and sadly our own receivers. Lloyd was the first to show his frustration at the offense.

Gibbs saw the team's spirit sag along with no.8's passes. and thats why he made the change, the theory you made earlier, that Gibbs listened to the fans for this change, is far more ridiculous than any comment about the team's morale. something neither you nor FO acknowledge.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Wow, way too many people wanting to say I told you so. It couldn't POSSIBLY be worse than what Brunell was doing to the team.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

I agree that it's not fair to judge ARE and Lloyd just yet... have they really had an honest chance to display their abilities?

I really don't think so.

I think given their limited opportunities they've looked pretty good. Lloyd has shown that he can stretch the field, and ARE has shown a nice ability to find holes in the coverage.

I'm really excited to see what they can do with a QB that has the ability to stretch the field.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

One thing I can say, when Lloyds number has been called as a receiver... he's responds almost every time.

I've been very pleased with that acquisition.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Speaking of Randle El and Lloyd, have they not caught basically anything reasonable thrown their way? I don't think it's them being busts. We'll get a good idea within two to three games of Campbell's tenure if they were busts or not.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246444]oh i've got a ton of your posts saved as well.

i don't know how you can make a conclusion about any of our wide receivers this season other than Betts. if you are judging them by how often they get the ball, consider, for just a minute, maybe that's why no.8 was benched and not the receivers.

it was far from a conspiracy theory, its what happens when teams lose hope, which in spite of your FO stats, matters very much in a football game. by this time everyone in the league knew what to expect from no.8, every defensive coordinator, every defensive back and sadly our own receivers. Lloyd was the first to show his frustration at the offense.

Gibbs saw the team's spirit sag along with no.8's passes. and thats why he made the change, the theory you made earlier, that Gibbs listened to the fans for this change, is far more ridiculous than any comment about the team's morale. something neither you nor FO acknowledge.[/quote]It's not a conclusion, it's just an evaluation to this point. Quality of play flucuates so much during a season, not only on a team level, but on a personal level. It would be silly to write the Lloyd and Randle El moves off this early since they have only been Redskins for 9 games. Even if they don't improve this year, recievers more than any other position can have extreme high years and extreme low years. Case in point, Mushin Muhammad. Top WR in the league in 2004, below average in 2005, and has performed very well so far this season.

But what we know about Randle El and Lloyd through nine games is this: if you remove them not getting the ball often, remove Randle El's versatility, remove all contract issues about how much they are paid because that really doesn't matter in-season, and you have two guys that as receivers though 9 games have played worse situationally than you would expect from a replacement level receiver.

DPAR is not a percetage stat, and although not getting the ball will affect totals, when you are NEGATIVE, there is no one to blame but yourself. Considering if you never saw the ball once, your DPAR would be 0.0, and Randle El and Lloyd have posted numbers worse than that so far, they have yet to 'get it done', if you will.

If you want to blame Mark Brunell for seriously ALL the team's problems, continue to do so, but with what he had to work with he did better than expected. It's his fault the team's morale is low, its his fault the defense can't get off the field, it's his fault that anytime we get something going offensively, we commit a stupid penalty.

If we have lost hope, we have nothing to blame but losing itself.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Lloyd is showing flashes of brilliance whenever the ball gets near him as of late, he should definitely be our redzone option in the passing game, he can go up and get the ball like a big receiver. Randal El's presence in the punt return game is crucial, always gives us a shot to break a big return, and we need to keep cartwright on KOR because he's got great speed and reads the seems very well. I don't think randal el is a good KOR because he's mistake prone and not as strong of a runner as cartwright. Rock is fumble prone so I don't konw of other teams will be after him, i think we should resign him.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

And as has been mentioned many times, how nice is it to sit back on a punt and KNOW that it's not going to be a fumble and that every time he touches the ball, there's a chance at it going all the way.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=RobH4413;246454]One thing I can say, when Lloyds number has been called as a receiver... he's responds almost every time.

I've been very pleased with that acquisition.[/quote]

Me too, Lloyd has done all he could, I just hope he isnt upset with the situation because he seems like a solid reciever. Another thing about Lloyd, is his passion for the game. He seems to be one the few guys with a pulse, when we are getting destroyed. I love his energy, he acts like a little kid playing football in the park, and that is very refreshing to see from this team of deadbeats.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;246475]And as has been mentioned many times, how nice is it to sit back on a punt and KNOW that it's not going to be a fumble and that every time he touches the ball, there's a chance at it going all the way.[/quote]Well, I'd be surprised if he NEVER fumbled in a Redskin uniform, but your point is well taken.

His versatility has certainly been a breath of fresh air, and his running and even throwing has propelled our still top 10 efficency rating (we dropped 3 spots after the Phili game if anyone cares). Even though it's narrow minded to look only at Randle El's receiving, he's been not so great so far. Between drops and not getting first downs that are right there...he's left more to be desired in that aspect of his game.

Worse than replacement doesn't mean that he CAN'T (or isn't) get the job done. It means he's not doing a job quite as well as some guy on the waiver wire (who doesn't completely suck) could.

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;246469]IBut what we know about Randle El and Lloyd through nine games is this: if you remove them not getting the ball often, remove Randle El's versatility, remove all contract issues about how much they are paid because that really doesn't matter in-season, and you have two guys that as receivers though 9 games have played worse situationally than you would expect from a replacement level receiver.

DPAR is not a percetage stat, and although not getting the ball will affect totals, when you are NEGATIVE, there is no one to blame but yourself. Considering if you never saw the ball once, your DPAR would be 0.0, and Randle El and Lloyd have posted numbers worse than that so far, they have yet to 'get it done', if you will.

If you want to blame Mark Brunell for seriously ALL the team's problems, continue to do so, but with what he had to work with he did better than expected. It's his fault the team's morale is low, its his fault the defense can't get off the field, it's his fault that anytime we get something going offensively, we commit a stupid penalty.

If we have lost hope, we have nothing to blame but losing itself.[/QUOTE]

whats the standard for a 'replacement player?' on the 2 or 3 times A MONTH that Randle El and Lloyd got the ball, did they run BACKWARDS or something? wouldn't it be about 10,000x times more likely is that it was a poorly thrown ball?

if you're going to keep spitting obscure stats to us here, you should do a better job of illustrating exactly how they work. while you're at it, you may want to forward your findings to coach Gibbs, the team, the NFL, and the NFL press.

and that last sentence? um, WHAT? :confused:

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;246490]Well, I'd be surprised if he NEVER fumbled in a Redskin uniform, but your point is well taken.

His versatility has certainly been a breath of fresh air, and his running and even throwing has propelled our still top 10 efficency rating (we dropped 3 spots after the Phili game if anyone cares). Even though it's narrow minded to look only at Randle El's receiving, he's been not so great so far. Between drops and not getting first downs that are right there...he's left more to be desired in that aspect of his game.

Worse than replacement doesn't mean that he CAN'T (or isn't) get the job done. It means he's not doing a job quite as well as some guy on the waiver wire (who doesn't completely suck) could.[/quote]

Here is my question... does anyone think that with TO, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice in his prime, etc, that they would have put up better stats than Lloyd and Randle El in this offense?

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Lloyd, Randles El AND Moss!

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

Is GTripp vs. Ill going to be the undercard for Hess vs. That Guy? These are the questions that truly need answers

Re: Does Campbell end the 'Cover 2' excuse?
 

[quote=illdefined;246497]whats the standard for a 'replacement player?' on the 2 or 3 times A MONTH that Randle El and Lloyd got the ball, did they run BACKWARDS or something? wouldn't it be about 10,000x times more likely is that it was a poorly thrown ball?

if you're going to keep spitting obscure stats to us here, you should do a better job of illustrating exactly how they work. while you're at it, you may want to forward your findings to coach Gibbs, the team, the NFL, and the NFL press.

and that last sentence? um, WHAT? :confused:[/quote]

Fair enough. I pulled some blurbs from FO to explain replacement level:

[QUOTE=Football Outsiders][W]e've determined that a replacement level player has a DVOA of roughly -13.3%.

Actually, while in general replacement level is -13.3%, technically it is different for each position depending on whether we are measuring passing, rushing, or receiving. And, of course, the real replacement player is different for each team in the NFL. (Kansas City started 2005 with Larry Johnson as the backup running back, while Houston had Vernand Morency. Big difference there.) No starter can be blamed for the poor performance of his backup, so we create a general replacement level for use across the league.

The idea of replacement level says that when a regular player gets injured, he isn’t usually replaced by an average player; all the average players are starting for other teams. He gets replaced by a replacement level player. In baseball, that’s a minor leaguer or bench scrub; in football, that’s a backup quarterback riding the bench, or a free agent some other team dropped in preseason, or a fourth receiver who suddenly finds himself playing opposite Randy Moss.

So now, an average player who can be used repeatedly — thus opening up other parts of the offense and gaining yards on a regular basis — becomes more valuable. Because if you lose him, you aren’t replacing him with a similar player. You’re replacing him with a significantly worse player.

[O]ur best approximation is that a team made up entirely of replacement-level players would be outscored 407 to 260, finishing with a 4-12 record. Conveniently, this is close to the average record of the last four expansion teams.
[/QUOTE]

The last sententce says, quite obviously, that any hope or morale lost this season was lost due to losing, and losing alone. Morale doesn't have to be measured because it's a simple concept. You win, people are happy. You lose, people aren't.