Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=metalskins;1201309]Cris Collinsworth? Is that you???[/quote]

LOL! Now here's a guy who recognizes a CC when he sees it. We talked to him before this post and he had a great week of practice, he said he's feeling great. I think he's one of those guys who could really have a major impact on this thread.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1201305]You should look up correlation and causation.

It also seems like you didn't actually read the post.

More pressures may mean more sacks or it may not. That's what a correlation is, rather than a causation.

Again, it's about defining terms: hurries and pressures.

Another knee jerk post.

Typical.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk[/quote]

You're beginning to embarrass yourself.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=MTK;1201307]Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point.

Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.[/quote]

People don't understand what they're watching. Too many just follow the ball with their eyes and conclude that if the player didn't tackle the player with the ball, they were not impactful. It's a basic lack of understanding about the game of football.

And yes they deserve to be condescended for it.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=MTK;1201307]Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point.

Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.[/quote]

It wasn't [U]my[/U] intent to focus on Kerrigan. However, I think I know why there is so much focus on him. When people think that there is only one OLB who can be counted on bring a consistent pass rush, it is human nature to want more from him because they believe they can't expect to get much more from the others.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1201312]People don't understand what they're watching. Too many just follow the ball with their eyes and conclude that if the player didn't tackle the player with the ball, they were not impactful. It's a basic lack of understanding about the game of football.



And yes they deserve to be condescended for it.[/QUOTE]



Do you ever read back any of your posts and throw up in your mouth a little bit like the rest of us when we read them?

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=Dlyne8r;1201240]I've read your posts for years now and on countless occasions you come across as a [B]know-it-all[/B] and repeatedly put people down as if everyone but [B]you[/B] is an idiot. I seldom post and typically come to this site as a simple Redskin fan just trying to enjoy all other fan's viewpoints but your frequent arrogance ruins the experience. You've clearly been hurt somewhere in life with a resulting insecurity that motivates you to talk to others like shit in order to make yourself feel better. Sitting in front of a keyboard makes it far to easy for you to get away with your smug comments and I'm surprised more people on this site haven't called you out. Who are you anyway? [B]What makes you an "expert"[/B] in all things football and Redskins related? Doesn't really matter as whoever you are doesn't excuse such condescending behavior. Douche.[/QUOTE]



This is great. Lol. Plenty have called him out, most ignore him, and a couple have actually enjoyed some of the random nerdy knowledge that he plagiarizes off the interweb. Douche. Hahaha. Good stuff man. You need to post more often.

Re: Post game Packers
 

Oh yeah. I am getting my popcorn and beer ready this thread has taken a fun turn.

Re: Post game Packers
 

I've never been more scared than I am right now.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201311]You're beginning to embarrass yourself.[/quote]

I don't think expressing the idea that there are different degrees, tiers, grades of "hurries" and "pressures" is embarrassing at all.

Further, I don't think expressing the idea that the crappiest "hurries" that fall into the crappiest tier may not relate to sacks even though they may show up on ESPN's stat sheet is embarrassing either.

I do think going straight to ad hominem attacks without mentioning, in any way, the argument with which you disagree is embarassing because it is a lazy rhetorical crutch.

I simply proposed in post #152 (for those reading along) that all "pressures" are not the same, and that some may not be a good indicator of a near sack, and some, on the other hand probably are, but there isn't necessarily a correlation, and definitely not a causation.

Scenario 1, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 3 of a 5 step drop. The pressure gets there before Luck is expecting it and before the Offensive line drops to block for 5 steps. They are out of position because the pressure arrives to quickly. He has to throw the ball out of bounds BECAUSE Kerrigan gets there ahead of schedule.

Scenario 2, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 7 of a 5 step drop. Luck has already gone through all of his reads, nobody is open, Kerrigan is closing in and nearly gets his hands on him, Luck is EXPECTING pressure because it is a 5 step drop and he has been holding the ball too long. He throws the ball out of bounds.

Those plays would show up in ESPN's stat column as pressures, but they are radically different in the likelihood of resulting in a sack.

In the first, Luck isn't expecting pressure and has an "oh crap" moment and isn't able to plan but has to react.

In the second, Kerrigan is just as close to Luck, but the internal clock is ticking and Luck knows he has to throw it away. Despite being just as close to a sack physically, in reality Kerrigan isn't close at all because Luck is prepared to end the play with as positive a result as the situation makes possible.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Dlyne8r;1201240]I've read your posts for years now and on countless occasions you come across as a [B]know-it-all[/B] and repeatedly put people down as if everyone but [B]you[/B] is an idiot. I seldom post and typically come to this site as a simple Redskin fan just trying to enjoy all other fan's viewpoints but your frequent arrogance ruins the experience. You've clearly been hurt somewhere in life with a resulting insecurity that motivates you to talk to others like shit in order to make yourself feel better. Sitting in front of a keyboard makes it far to easy for you to get away with your smug comments and I'm surprised more people on this site haven't called you out. Who are you anyway? [B]What makes you an "expert"[/B] in all things football and Redskins related? Doesn't really matter as whoever you are doesn't excuse such condescending behavior. Douche.[/quote]

Hold on just a second.

When I think of the intellectual giants of our age, and throughout history, I distinctly recall one common trait.

Without exception, the mark of a true genius is telling others, their peers, just how smart they are.

This makes sense when you think about it. If he didn't tell us how smart he was, then how would we know.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=BaltimoreSkins;1201318]Oh yeah. I am getting my popcorn and beer ready this thread has taken a fun turn.[/QUOTE]



It usually does when he goes full douche because someone disagrees with his “factual opinions”
Anyway I hope I am still worthy of his ire. Otherwise my life is utterly worthless. [emoji22]

Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=DYoungJelly;1201320]I don't think expressing the idea that there are different degrees, tiers, grades of "hurries" and "pressures" is embarrassing at all.



Further, I don't think expressing the idea that the crappiest "hurries" that fall into the crappiest tier may not relate to sacks even though they may show up on ESPN's stat sheet is embarrassing either.



I do think going straight to ad hominem attacks without mentioning, in any way, the argument with which you disagree is embarassing because it is a lazy rhetorical crutch.



I simply proposed in post #152 (for those reading along) that all "pressures" are not the same, and that some may not be a good indicator of a near sack, and some, on the other hand probably are, but there isn't necessarily a correlation, and definitely not a causation.



Scenario 1, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 3 of a 5 step drop. The pressure gets there before Luck is expecting it and before the Offensive line drops to block for 5 steps. They are out of position because the pressure arrives to quickly. He has to throw the ball out of bounds BECAUSE Kerrigan gets there ahead of schedule.



Scenario 2, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 7 of a 5 step drop. Luck has already gone through all of his reads, nobody is open, Kerrigan is closing in and nearly gets his hands on him, Luck is EXPECTING pressure because it is a 5 step drop and he has been holding the ball too long. He throws the ball out of bounds.



Those plays would show up in ESPN's stat column as pressures, but they are radically different in the likelihood of resulting in a sack.



In the first, Luck isn't expecting pressure and has an "oh crap" moment and isn't able to plan but has to react.



In the second, Kerrigan is just as close to Luck, but the internal clock is ticking and Luck knows he has to throw it away. Despite being just as close to a sack physically, in reality Kerrigan isn't close at all because Luck is prepared to end the play with as positive a result as the situation makes possible.[/QUOTE]



Your first paragraph says it all. There are absolutely unequivocally different degrees of hurry and pressure. I completely agree with you. Can you imagine if we had even one dominant edge rusher in that front 7. My God.
I do not think RK is a weakness by any means, he is definitely above average and smart. Good team player. Smith on the other hand? But neither of them strike fear in the heart of the opposing quarterback. Probably a position that we can upgrade after the year along with wr and interior o line.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=MTK;1201307]Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point.

Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.[/quote]

Well if you're a OLB in a 3-4 you're supposed to be under a microscope.It comes w/ the territory.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1201320]I don't think expressing the idea that there are different degrees, tiers, grades of "hurries" and "pressures" is embarrassing at all.

Further, I don't think expressing the idea that the crappiest "hurries" that fall into the crappiest tier may not relate to sacks even though they may show up on ESPN's stat sheet is embarrassing either.

I do think going straight to ad hominem attacks without mentioning, in any way, the argument with which you disagree is embarassing because it is a lazy rhetorical crutch.

I simply proposed in post #152 (for those reading along) that all "pressures" are not the same, and that some may not be a good indicator of a near sack, and some, on the other hand probably are, but there isn't necessarily a correlation, and definitely not a causation.

Scenario 1, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 3 of a 5 step drop. The pressure gets there before Luck is expecting it and before the Offensive line drops to block for 5 steps. They are out of position because the pressure arrives to quickly. He has to throw the ball out of bounds BECAUSE Kerrigan gets there ahead of schedule.

Scenario 2, Kerrigan pressures Andrew Luck on step 7 of a 5 step drop. Luck has already gone through all of his reads, nobody is open, Kerrigan is closing in and nearly gets his hands on him, Luck is EXPECTING pressure because it is a 5 step drop and he has been holding the ball too long. He throws the ball out of bounds.

Those plays would show up in ESPN's stat column as pressures, but they are radically different in the likelihood of resulting in a sack.

In the first, Luck isn't expecting pressure and has an "oh crap" moment and isn't able to plan but has to react.

In the second, Kerrigan is just as close to Luck, but the internal clock is ticking and Luck knows he has to throw it away. Despite being just as close to a sack physically, in reality Kerrigan isn't close at all because Luck is prepared to end the play with as positive a result as the situation makes possible.[/quote]

Too long, didn’t read.

I’m just going to assume it was all drivel.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1201330]Well if you're a OLB in a 3-4 you're supposed to be under a microscope.It comes w/ the territory.[/quote]

Some people can’t be saved, Matty. :doh:

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1201332]Too long, didn’t read.

I’m just going to assume it was all drivel.[/QUOTE]Of course you are.

You're an insecure online bully who needs to convince all you are the smartest.

You parrot whatever theme is being put forward by various analysts as insight.

You ignore logic and reason as it applies to something indefensible you say, probably of the cuff, then defend like it is some holy doctrine.

You're response was truly perfect, in character, and predictable.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1201334]Of course you are.

You're an insecure online bully who needs to convince all you are the smartest.

You parrot whatever theme is being put forward by various analysts as insight.

You ignore logic and reason as it applies to something indefensible you say, probably of the cuff, then defend like it is some holy doctrine.

You're response was truly perfect, in character, and predictable.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk[/quote]

This. Good to know that there are others on this site that recognize this key board commando as a fraud. Unfortunately, I'm sure he, she, or whatever Schneed is will probably enjoy all the discussion about him, her, or whatever Schneed is. I fully expect a rapid response in another lame attempt to illustrate to us all just how intelligent he, she, or whatever Schneed is in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... Always relish meeting people like this in person as most times they are not as they seem and typically down play their elitist persona.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201333]Some people can’t be saved, Matty. :doh:[/quote]

I actually thought Kerrigan was ok last week. My point is he isn't above being called out.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201312]People don't understand what they're watching. Too many just follow the ball with their eyes and conclude that if the player didn't tackle the player with the ball, they were not impactful. It's a basic lack of understanding about the game of football.

And yes they deserve to be condescended for it.[/quote]

At this point I just lol at the shit that comes out of your mouth. It's pure comedy and entertainment.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=MTK;1201307][B]Feels like every year we put Kerrigan under the microscope and it's just beyond silly at this point. [/B]

Here's a guy who averages 10 sacks a year, has been to 3 Pro Bowls, and probably most impressively hasn't missed a single damn game and somehow he's always the one getting singled out. I don't get it, never have, never will.[/quote]

Agreed.
And I've been one to knock Kerrigan for not producing more.

But at some point you just gotta accept [U][I]he's not Khalil Mack, he's not Von Miller...[/I][/U]
But [I][U]he's a reliable, consistent edge rusher who plays well[/U][/I], is available, and is having a really good beginning of a season so far.

Saying he's not in the same category as those other guys is true IMO.
But we've had this discussion for several years now, so I'm guessing [I][U]that dead horse has been reduced to a putrefying steak tartare that nobody will (nor should) ever eat after all that beating.[/U][/I]

Re: Post game Packers
 

I have no complaints with Kerrigan as a pass rusher, I just wish he'd show up a little more in the run game. Now that we have a competent d-line, it should free him up to make stops when they run the ball. Same for Preston Smith.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1201340]I have no complaints with Kerrigan as a pass rusher, I just wish he'd show up a little more in the run game. Now that we have a competent d-line, it should free him up to make stops when they run the ball. Same for Preston Smith.[/QUOTE]



Preston who?

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=punch it in;1201341]Preston who?[/quote]

Preston is the guy I'd be more concerned with than Kerrigan, seems like he's only made a couple plays so far this season.

Also full disclosure, this is only my personal eye-test, non-researched opinion, maybe he's made a couple plays that don't show up on the stat sheet like occupying blockers so someone else can make a play, or pressuring the qb. But I know the sacks ain't there lol.

Re: Post game Packers
 

Just watched game all-22. Not keying in on anyone in particular. First impressions:

1. This defense is good. We made Rodgers Checkdown Charlie. Half way through the 1st quarter he gave up on getting down field passes because coverage was too good and the interior line destroyed the pocket. Their first TD drive was all quick passes, and the defense kept everything in front of them. If it were anyone else than Aaron Rodgers they would have made a mistake and thrown a pick or had an incomplete 3rd down pass somewhere along the way. He got back to it later in the game, but he only ever had time when he scrambled. Certainly the knee didn't help, particularly with the accuracy of throws on the run, but he was still slippery especially for the edge rushers who nearly got home several times.

2. Kerrigan & Co. was pressuring him especially early on and some of the Dline success was because Rodgers had to step up or couldn't get around the edge. Ultimately their impact was limited because he was slippery and began dinking and dunking and they didn't have time to get home. They also did their job in the run and screen game. Smith especially had a number of good tackles in the run game.

3. Ryan Anderson has something. He looks much improved and has more explosiveness and bend around the edge than I thought he was capable of. I think he will have 6+ sacks this year. He also stayed disciplined on the outside and reacted well on screens. This was a pleasant surprise.

4. Monte Nicholson on the other hand is an unpleasant surprise. He was fine in coverage. No complaints there. He's still fast and covers ground quickly and is an asset on coverage, although he didn't get tested because Rodgers couldn't get a deep ball off. The problem is he missed like 5 open field tackles. I think he's playing scared and doesn't want to reinjure his shoulders. Its not good and hopefully he'll play his way through it, but it looks like he's avoiding contact.

5. Doctson was open or had favorable position in a 1 on 1 matchup on many pass attempts, but there were a number of reasons the ball didn't go to him. Smith didn't have time in the pocket or was flushed in the opposite direction, the play was clearly designed for another player, or Smith on 3rd down took the sure 1st down with his legs. In different game situations he will get some of those targets.

6. Jay said GB had a good Dline, maybe that's true, but it was a little concerning how many 2 yard runs AP had. Very small nit to pick I know.

7. Bergstrom and Roullier looked very good in pass pro and good in run blocking. Chase looked a little lost on some second level blocks and on screens, but overall they looked impressive. Nsekhe was ok.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Re: Post game Packers
 

WillH, Thanks for posting your impressions from the All-22. Good information. I enjoyed reading it.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=WillH;1201344]Just watched game all-22. Not keying in on anyone in particular. First impressions:

1. This defense is good. We made Rodgers Checkdown Charlie. Half way through the 1st quarter he gave up on getting down field passes because coverage was too good and the interior line destroyed the pocket. Their first TD drive was all quick passes, and the defense kept everything in front of them. If it were anyone else than Aaron Rodgers they would have made a mistake and thrown a pick or had an incomplete 3rd down pass somewhere along the way. He got back to it later in the game, but he only ever had time when he scrambled. Certainly the knee didn't help, particularly with the accuracy of throws on the run, but he was still slippery especially for the edge rushers who nearly got home several times.

2. Kerrigan & Co. was pressuring him especially early on and some of the Dline success was because Rodgers had to step up or couldn't get around the edge. Ultimately their impact was limited because he was slippery and began dinking and dunking and they didn't have time to get home. They also did their job in the run and screen game. Smith especially had a number of good tackles in the run game.

3. Ryan Anderson has something. He looks much improved and has more explosiveness and bend around the edge than I thought he was capable of. I think he will have 6+ sacks this year. He also stayed disciplined on the outside and reacted well on screens. This was a pleasant surprise.

4. Monte Nicholson on the other hand is an unpleasant surprise. He was fine in coverage. No complaints there. He's still fast and covers ground quickly and is an asset on coverage, although he didn't get tested because Rodgers couldn't get a deep ball off. The problem is he missed like 5 open field tackles. I think he's playing scared and doesn't want to reinjure his shoulders. Its not good and hopefully he'll play his way through it, but it looks like he's avoiding contact.

5. Doctson was open or had favorable position in a 1 on 1 matchup on many pass attempts, but there were a number of reasons the ball didn't go to him. Smith didn't have time in the pocket or was flushed in the opposite direction, the play was clearly designed for another player, or Smith on 3rd down took the sure 1st down with his legs. In different game situations he will get some of those targets.

6. Jay said GB had a good Dline, maybe that's true, but it was a little concerning how many 2 yard runs AP had. Very small nit to pick I know.

7. Bergstrom and Roullier looked very good in pass pro and good in run blocking. Chase looked a little lost on some second level blocks and on screens, but overall they looked impressive. Nsekhe was ok.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk[/quote]

Man, my eyes didn’t fool me because I’ve seen the same thing with Monte, dude been terrible coming up on run support and tackling in general.

Good to hear about Ryan Anderson...

And maybe lauvao should stay on the sideline.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1201338]At this point I just lol at the shit that comes out of your mouth. [B]It's pure comedy and entertainment.[/B][/quote]

Somebody's finally getting it.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=WillH;1201344]Just watched game all-22. Not keying in on anyone in particular. First impressions:

1. This defense is good. We made Rodgers Checkdown Charlie. Half way through the 1st quarter he gave up on getting down field passes because coverage was too good and the interior line destroyed the pocket. Their first TD drive was all quick passes, and the defense kept everything in front of them. If it were anyone else than Aaron Rodgers they would have made a mistake and thrown a pick or had an incomplete 3rd down pass somewhere along the way. He got back to it later in the game, but he only ever had time when he scrambled. Certainly the knee didn't help, particularly with the accuracy of throws on the run, but he was still slippery especially for the edge rushers who nearly got home several times.

2. Kerrigan & Co. was pressuring him especially early on and some of the Dline success was because Rodgers had to step up or couldn't get around the edge. Ultimately their impact was limited because he was slippery and began dinking and dunking and they didn't have time to get home. They also did their job in the run and screen game. Smith especially had a number of good tackles in the run game.

3. Ryan Anderson has something. He looks much improved and has more explosiveness and bend around the edge than I thought he was capable of. I think he will have 6+ sacks this year. He also stayed disciplined on the outside and reacted well on screens. This was a pleasant surprise.

4. Monte Nicholson on the other hand is an unpleasant surprise. He was fine in coverage. No complaints there. He's still fast and covers ground quickly and is an asset on coverage, although he didn't get tested because Rodgers couldn't get a deep ball off. The problem is he missed like 5 open field tackles. I think he's playing scared and doesn't want to reinjure his shoulders. Its not good and hopefully he'll play his way through it, but it looks like he's avoiding contact.

5. Doctson was open or had favorable position in a 1 on 1 matchup on many pass attempts, but there were a number of reasons the ball didn't go to him. Smith didn't have time in the pocket or was flushed in the opposite direction, the play was clearly designed for another player, or Smith on 3rd down took the sure 1st down with his legs. In different game situations he will get some of those targets.

6. Jay said GB had a good Dline, maybe that's true, but it was a little concerning how many 2 yard runs AP had. Very small nit to pick I know.

7. Bergstrom and Roullier looked very good in pass pro and good in run blocking. Chase looked a little lost on some second level blocks and on screens, but overall they looked impressive. Nsekhe was ok.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk[/quote]

Will this is a great post.

The point on Doctson is especially useful for me because that's what you miss when you watch the game live via the sideline network cameras, you can't always see the WRs when the ball doesn't go to them. Nice to see that you feel Doctson at least represents a threat. Guys don't suddenly forget how to play football - so I always wonder what's going on when you see someone's production suddenly plummet from one year to the next. It's only three games in, and it's not like Doctson lit it up last year, but he made some key plays and so far nada. Hoping he'll make his fair share the rest of the way.

On Nicholson, there was a play later in the game where the ball went to Jimmy Graham along the sideline and Nicholson just dove at his feet. I agree he looked afraid of contact because he took his eyes off the target pretty early. I think he's not taking the right lines/angles in a lot of cases.
But for him it's more important that his range represent a threat in the deep middle. That's a big reason why the corners feel like they can be aggressive. Dunbar was money in the first game and I think it was because he felt he could play fearlessly: a) he knew the defensive line wouldn't give Bradford any time and b) he knew Montae was back there if someone got behind him.

Re: Post game Packers
 

With Doc I think it’s a chemistry thing with Smith. It could be a something as simple as Doc making a big play for Smith and the team to get that trust there.

But this also falls on Gruden to make a commitment to script a couple plays early in the game to get that connection going.

Doc has the talent...but it takes more than talent to contribute to the team.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201349]With Doc I think it’s a chemistry thing with Smith. It could be a something as simple as Doc making a big play for Smith and the team to get that trust there.

But this also falls on Gruden to make a commitment to script a couple plays early in the game to get that connection going.

Doc has the talent...but it takes more than talent to contribute to the team.[/quote]

Alex has never had a big season with his WR's (only last yr). Tyreke Hill is just a freak, so Doc really isn't a huge part of the pass attack, neither is PR.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1201350]Alex has never had a big season with his WR's (only last yr). Tyreke Hill is just a freak, so Doc really isn't a huge part of the pass attack, neither is PR.[/quote]

imo he is missing out in opportunity for bigger plays and getting the ball to multiple receivers is better strategy than feeding just one or two.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201351]imo he is missing out in opportunity for bigger plays and getting the ball to multiple receivers is better strategy than feeding just one or two.[/quote]

I don't think he's played any different than we expected, you are right tho, he likes to spread it around. That's why I knew our guys wouldn't be great numbers guys with Alex, but I'd rather have the consistent 250 yards and 2 tds with 0 Ints. The pass last week to Reed was a miscommunication, Reed was supposed to run an out.

Re: Post game Packers
 

Jay did say in his press conference that he promised that Doctson will be factored into the game plan in future games so we'll see. I'm still skeptical but I was glad to see it wasn't that he was blanketed the whole time. He certainly wasn't wide open, but he often had inside leverage that with his skill set suggests to me that he could be targeted in the future.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=WillH;1201353]Jay did say in his press conference that he promised that Doctson will be factored into the game plan in future games so we'll see. I'm still skeptical but I was glad to see it wasn't that he was blanketed the whole time. He certainly wasn't wide open, but he often had inside leverage that with his skill set suggests to me that he could be targeted in the future.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk[/quote]

Glad to hear positives about him. He has become the whipping boy for 90% of all Redskins fan. The guy is held to an absurd standard. His play style is not Desean Jackson where he's blowing by folks. Its getting a step and/or leverage and/or positioning and making a play on the ball because he's bigger, stronger, and has way more athletic ball skills than the man covering him. The more chances he gets the more AS will trust him. Looking forward to seeing the progress over the course of the season.

Re: Post game Packers
 

Don't know if its been posted but Breeland has signed w GB

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1201354]Glad to hear positives about him. He has become the whipping boy for 90% of all Redskins fan. [B]The guy is held to an absurd standard.[/B] His play style is not Desean Jackson where he's blowing by folks. Its getting a step and/or leverage and/or positioning and making a play on the ball because he's bigger, stronger, and has way more athletic ball skills than the man covering him. The more chances he gets the more AS will trust him. Looking forward to seeing the progress over the course of the season.[/quote]

Baloney! He is was First Round draft pick three years ago and he hasn't done squat, so far.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201351]imo [B]he is missing out in opportunity for bigger plays[/B] and getting the ball to multiple receivers is better strategy than feeding just one or two.[/quote]

There were plenty of big plays versus the Packers.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1201356]Baloney! He is was First Round draft pick three years ago and he hasn't done squat, so far.[/quote]

On specific plays not overall performance is what I was talking about, still might be baloney to you, but I should've been more specific.

I don't really count his 1st season and I think he did at least decent last year in his 1st full season. 13 more games to go still this year.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1201355]Don't know if its been posted but Breeland has signed w GB[/quote]

He will fill a need for them. I liked Breeland, but at the same time feel we have done a good job in spotting and developing talent at CB.

Re: Post game Packers
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1201357]There were plenty of big plays versus the Packers.[/quote]

True...but going forward.