Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1039968]Y the fuck was Riley covering a WR is what i need to know[/quote]

From the article that was posted earlier in this threat

"10. One big play: the 25-yard pass to receiver Jerome Simpson on third-and-9 in the fourth quarter against linebacker Perry Riley. How does he end up on him? In that situation Riley's job was to play the No. 2 receiver to the weakside and that was Simpson. Riley said it was supposed to be zone coverage, but with man principles and when Simpson took off downfield he had to stay with him. Simpson got a free release to the outside making it even tougher to defend. Riley had no chance."

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1039970]yeah man but geez we all know he can't cover a slot.. just frustrating and is Hall hurt?[/quote]

I hear ya but mistmatches happen on both sides of the ball.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=DirtBagZ;1039918]I think the whole they will go a run like last year talk needs to end, it is not going to happen. There are at least three more losses on the schedule, don't see this inconsistent team with no defense winning against the likes of San Francisco or KC, and I don't think they will sweep the Giants. The loss is definitely on the defense, but still [B]I think Kyle gets too pass happy every time the game gets close. [/B]There seemed to be a couple of possessions in the second half where we got too pass happy and ended up with sacks and then having to punt.[/quote]

I have called Kyle out on his play calling in the past (on more than one occasion), but I have been thinking about this, and I am starting to think that Kyle just knows that the defense is going to give up points on every drive so he [B]HAS[/B] to score a TD on every possession. That's a lot of pressure put on the offense every week, knowing that if you don't score a TD every time you touch the ball your team is going to lose. Maybe this leads him to be over-agressive at times, or causes him to over analyze situations and get too cute with the playcalling on occasion, especially when the game is close. I mean this defense has given up over 30 points six times this year.

Don't you just know that when the other team's offense has the ball, unless [B]THEY[/B] make a mistake it is going to result in points?

So does Kyle.

This season is more about piss poor defense (tackling, scheme, personnel, whatever you want to point to) than it is about RGIII not being 100%, or play calling or anything else.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=Mattyk;1039965]The offense is near the top half of the league in most offensive categories while the defense is near the bottom in most, but yeah F Kyle. :doh:[/quote]

Yardage stats don't win anything. When you have the ball first and goal on the one against a one win team it should be a TD. Kyle has to be Don Coryell and throw it there twice. Why not give it to Morris there one more time?? Sorry but that's 100% shitty playcalling. Morris was gashing their D all night. That came back to bite us in the ass.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

I agree with Matt about the O we score enough a game to be a .500 team. Its the D that has lost most games for us and if it wasn't for AMERSON last week SD would have won on their final drive as well.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1039975]Yardage stats don't win anything. When you have the ball first and goal on the one against a one win team it should be a TD. Kyle has to be Don Coryell and throw it there twice. Why not give it to Morris there one more time?? Sorry but that's 100% shitty playcalling. Morris was gashing their D all night. That came back to bite us in the ass.[/quote]

I'm not talking strictly yardage. The offense is averaging 25.6 points per game (11th) while the D is giving up 31.9 (31st). That's a problem.

As far as running it another time, sure they could have tried it, but they were also working with no time outs and Morris get stuffed on his carry. If they run it again and get stuffed more time ticks off. Shouldn't have come down to those final plays anyways.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

The offense is good enough to win games. Its not Denver but if the Redskins had a decent defense they would probably be at least a .500 team.

For instance Indy averages one more point a game, Seattle averages .2 more points a game, and New England averages half a point more per game than the Skins.

The differences between those teams and the Redskins is they all have top 10 defenses and their records reflect that.

Offense is not perfect but it is good enough to win games with a decent defense.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=skinsfan69;1039929]Good points there and I agree. Ritchie was one of the best, if not the best at his craft. But when his players got old ( in 93) we saw there was nothing he could do. Haslett isn't anywhere near Ritchie's class, but I don't see a Mann, Manley or DG on any of his defenses. Name one Pro Bowl type of player on defense? Maybe D. Hall...Amerson looks like a future star but he's not there yet as Allen abused him last week. Who else? No one.[/quote]

Firstly, comparing 93' Pettibon to present day Haslett is apples to oranges when you consider Pettibon had taken over as head coach by the '93 season. But in '92 - Gibbs' last year, Pettibon still had his defense playing well enough to carry the 'skins into the playoffs. The offense didn't play nearly as dominate as it was the year before and it wasn't the best of seasons, but the defense played well enough to get the 'skins into the playoffs.

Secondly, as far as pro bowl [I]type[/I] of players on this current squad - you have Ryan Kerrigan, Brian Orkapo, London Fletcher, DeAngelo Hall - all who have made the pro bowl and capable of playing at such a level. Then you have guys like Stephen Bowen has played a very high level - some might consider pro bowl level. An then you have young guys like David Amerson who keeps getting better in each game, Jarvis Jenkins shows promise. There are quality guys on that defense. It isn't a defense full of bums. Yes, it isn't a defense full of hall of famers - but there is no reason why this group on defense can't play good enough to be middle of the road. At least playing at the level they were playing at toward the end of last season. There hasn't been a huge turnover on defense. This is mostly on Haslett.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=donofriose;1039982]The offense is good enough to win games. Its not Denver but if the Redskins had a decent defense they would probably be at least a .500 team.

For instance Indy averages one more point a game, Seattle averages .2 more points a game, and New England averages half a point more per game than the Skins.

The differences between those teams and the Redskins is they all have top 10 defenses and their records reflect that.

Offense is not perfect but it is good enough to win games with a decent defense.[/quote]

Exactly.

But hey F it, it's all on Kyle.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

^^^^ Its one thing to coulda, shoulda, woulda DEFENSE, but when you have the tools and ability to score and be more on offense, than yeah it is on Kyle.

Lets renew the Shanahans and see if Robert last 5 years in the league.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=Mattyk;1039984]Exactly.

But hey F it, it's all on Kyle.[/quote]

Kyle's biggest problem is his last name is Shanahan. The whole father/son coaching tandem is just bad, it was bad sign from the beginning for Mike to hire his son. There is carryover from the Denver game where the team gave up to early on the run. That sequence of plays where #93 collapsed the pocket and sacked Griff, I think back to back, sticks in people's craw and obviously there is still a lot of emotion after going through a debacle like that last night. That has got to be a top five in terms of most painful losses in the recent Redskins era.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=donofriose;1039982]The offense is good enough to win games. Its not Denver but if the Redskins had a decent defense they would probably be at least a .500 team.

For instance Indy averages one more point a game, Seattle averages .2 more points a game, and New England averages half a point more per game than the Skins.

The differences between those teams and the Redskins is they all have top 10 defenses and their records reflect that.

Offense is not perfect but it is good enough to win games with a decent defense.[/quote]

Exactly Don. The 'skins don't need a top five defense full of hall of famers to win ball games. A 15th - 17th ranked defense would probably have this team at 6-3 right now instead of 3-6.

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

[quote=SmootSmack;1039951]He's made that play several times[/quote]

SS, do you know if the offense game planning is all on Kyle or is Shanny involved as well?

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

The problem and it has been a problem for a long time is the complete lack of pass rush. This has been an issue for a long time. The only defensive lineman that I can think of that was decent coming off the edge was DeMarco Coleman, who came here via free agency. Name one defensive lineman the Redskins have drafted in the last twenty years that is/was Probowl worthy?

Re: Skins Viks Postgame
 

I wonder how bad it would be around here if the defense was run by Jim Shanahan.

Kyle's not 100% off the hook for the loss but of all our problems, are we really focusing on the one part of the team that looks somewhat competent?