2 Qualms with the loss
 

1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.

2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Well, we stayed away from shooting ourselves in the foot for the most part, minus that pass interferance penalty. We could have beat a better team because of it. Can't really complain about injuries, shit happens.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

I'm gonna get alot of heat.. BUT I don't blame the coaches for the skins' loss...

instead:

Campbell: key interception late in the game which basically lost it for us..
Suisham: missing the field goal that would have made the deficit 2 points (and we would have kicked a field goal..
Secondary: Player mistakes NOT the scheme led TO to a big game..

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Yeah with the exception of the 50 yard attempt I have no problems with how the coaches managed the game. In fact I thought they managed the clock exceptionally.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=CPAlltheWay012;379993]I'm gonna get alot of heat.. BUT I don't blame the coaches for the skins' loss...

instead:

Campbell: key interception late in the game which basically lost it for us..
Suisham: missing the field goal that would have made the deficit 2 points (and we would have kicked a field goal..
[B] Secondary: Player mistakes NOT the scheme led TO to a big game..[/B][/quote]

Please elaborate, because to me, the coaches fall for this one for letting 1 player beat your deep 4 times. Unacceptable. Why not double him with a safety at all times? Sure it leaves others open, but by that point you have to pick your poision, and if the goal of the defensive gameplan is to stop TO I would say GW got a F.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Cowell;379996]Yeah with the exception of the 50 yard attempt I have no problems with how the coaches managed the game. In fact I thought they managed the clock exceptionally.[/quote]

I don't think clock management was too bad. I just wish we went for it on, rather than kicking a tough FG. It was 1 yard and we have to play Dallas with an "all-in" mentality.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=hooskins;379985]1) I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. [/quote]

Decent would be a real big upgrade. Decent pro athletes if our safties other than Landry deserve this distinction make big money and when they look this bad I honestly think the should be deducted one paycheck for sucking. IMO.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Oh and like I posted plenty in the game thread we played very good today mostly.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=wilsowilso;380002]Decent would be a real big upgrade. Decent pro athletes if our safties other than Landry deserve this distinction [B]make big money and when they look this bad I honestly think the should be deducted one paycheck for sucking. [/B]IMO.[/quote]

I agree, if I were a manager I would so do that. Then again, no one is going to want to play for me lol...

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Dallas is just on fire right now, but i do think if we had ST we would have won! JC looks better and better every game

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

I'm still struggling with the whole "if ST was back" reasoning. I do think he would have helped the secondary, but I still think it is an excuse. how can a coach let the same player be wide open, and beat us the same way 3 times? If someone can convince me not to be upset at GW, go for it because I am trying damn hard.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;379985]1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 50/50, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, but I'm pretty sure hindsight is 20/20...

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

The one and only coaching call I didnt like was the feild goal of 50 yards. I said before the play started that we should either go for it, or punt it away. Again like you said hindsight is 20/20, but that was one that I really didnt like before and after the fact. I mean, were going to have bad plays/calls every game, so it is what it is. They're a very good football team...that was the type of effort I wanted to see against New England.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=jdlea;380015]I agree, but I'm pretty sure hindsight is 20/20...[/quote]

lol sorry, fixed it. You know what I meant though.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;379985]2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.[/QUOTE]

In addition, they said on the air that Gregg Williams stressed taking away TO. If that's his idea of taking a player away...I'm not sure what to say.

I, personally, don't feel that Gregg Williams should be the next head coach of this team. I'm not sure that he should be the D Coordinator next year. I think he's overrated. He came up with terrible gameplans today, against the Pats and against the Eagles. I don't like the way he deploys his defense and I think they've been garbage the last few weeks because of him.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

I don't know how to judge the game. We played some really good football today and had a couple of chances to hit them when they were down and didn't. The 4th and 1 was a no-brainer for me, we should have went for it.
ST in the game equals TO having half the numbers he had. Plain and simple.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Gmanc711;380016]The one and only coaching call I didnt like was the feild goal of 50 yards. I said before the play started that we should either go for it, or punt it away. Again like you said hindsight is 20/20, but that was one that I really didnt like before and after the fact. I mean, were going to have bad plays/calls every game, so it is what it is. They're a very good football team...that was the type of effort I wanted to see against New England.[/quote]

Well I would disagree, I would much rather see a FG attempt than a punt. But to mean the logical choice is to go for it, because of the attitude I think we should have come in with.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Let me add my 2:

Samuels played the worst of the 5 linemen. Overall, they did enough to win but samuels getting beat really cost us.


Campbell was good, Unfortunately he is never good enough in the clutch. If only he had hit moss in the end zone. It seems like every loss there is an open WR that he misses.


We could've pulled this one out :(

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=hooskins;380014]I'm still struggling with the whole "if ST was back" reasoning. I do think he would have helped the secondary, but I still think it is an excuse. how can a coach let the same player be wide open, and beat us the same way 3 times? If someone can convince me not to be upset at GW, go for it because I am trying damn hard.[/quote]

I am assuming our players are decent and smart, and have the ability to prevent one player beating them multiple times.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Just a thought about ST being out today. Does anyone here really think TO would have scored 4TDs with ST lurking? And without those 4TDs who wins? Maybe its just as simple as that...

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=SCRedskinsFan;380030]Just a thought about ST being out today. Does anyone here really think TO would have scored 4TDs with ST lurking? And without those 4TDs who wins? Maybe its just as simple as that...[/quote]

I don't TO would score 4, but at the same time how come our D cannot adapt to 1 play and player when given 3 chances?

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=hooskins;379985]1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.

2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.[/quote]I agree with point 1. It was early in the game, and getting that first down and perhaps driving for a 14-0 lead would have made a statement at that point.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=jamf;380025]Let me add my 2:

Samuels played the worst of the 5 linemen. Overall, they did enough to win but samuels getting beat really cost us.


Campbell was good, Unfortunately he is never good enough in the clutch. If only he had hit moss in the end zone. It seems like every loss there is an open WR that he misses.


We could've pulled this one out :([/QUOTE]

Agree about Samuels, but they need to give him more help than that, in my opinion. D. Ware is way too good for that.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Gmanc711;380044]Agree about Samuels, but they need to give him more help than that, in my opinion. D. Ware is way too good for that.[/quote]

Yea same here, but at the same time perhaps our receivers might not have been so open if we left one more back. Basically maybe JC needed more options to find someone open.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Chris Samuels is the absolute last of our worries and I mean last.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

You all DO realize that we had 50% backups in our secondary and were playing against one of THE premier wide receivers in the modern era of football?

I hate TO with all my heart and would love nothing more than to see him get drilled into next Tuesday coming across the field, but you can't argue with the guys stats and career. He's climbing the list of all-time TD and his physical skills are tops NFL history.

We had one decent (usually) starting CB in Springs, a backup CB in Smoot, a rookie safety in Landry who's strength isn't coverage and a backup safety in Prioleau.

Yes, they got lit up by Romo and TO. It's pretty damn amazing that it wasn't worse, all things considered.

You take a hodge-podge, banged-up, cobbled-together secondary and ask them to blanket one of the top 5 WRs in the game and I think we got what is to be expected. No amount of scheming is going to make up for just not having the talent to shut TO down.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;379985]1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.

2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.[/QUOTE]

Yeah,not even thinking twice about going for it on 4th and 1 is kinda disturbing.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Also, with under 2:00 in the 4th quarter, down in the redzone, I felt that there was a bit of unnecessary urgency. I thought for sure they would have given the ball to Portis once or twice when they got near the 10 yard line.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=mheisig;380057]You all DO realize that we had 50% backups in our secondary and were playing against one of THE premier wide receivers in the modern era of football?

I hate TO with all my heart and would love nothing more than to see him get drilled into next Tuesday coming across the field, but you can't argue with the guys stats and career. He's climbing the list of all-time TD and his physical skills are tops NFL history.

We had one decent (usually) starting CB in Springs, a backup CB in Smoot, a rookie safety in Landry who's strength isn't coverage and a backup safety in Prioleau.

Yes, they got lit up by Romo and TO. It's pretty damn amazing that it wasn't worse, all things considered.

You take a hodge-podge, banged-up, cobbled-together secondary and ask them to blanket one of the top 5 WRs in the game and I think we got what is to be expected. No amount of scheming is going to make up for just not having the talent to shut TO down.[/quote]

You honestly thought prior to the game, based on our talent, that TO would score 4 TDs(all long bombs)? And three of those being nearly the same exact play? Also when the emphasis from GW was to minimize his production?

I suspect the answer is no.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Gmanc711;380044]Agree about Samuels, but they need to give him more help than that, in my opinion. D. Ware is way too good for that.[/quote]

For me dude, I'd rather take a sack or two and have the offense opened up like it is. The offense looks amazing today. Two turnovers in the red zone? We could easily have had 35 points.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;380069]Also, with under 2:00 in the 4th quarter, down in the redzone, I felt that there was a bit of unnecessary urgency. I thought for sure they would have given the ball to Portis once or twice when they got near the 10 yard line.[/QUOTE]

Completley agree. Kind of reminded me of the Giants game a bit. We had a couple timeouts and I think we could have gone a little bit slower with it, maybe added a run or two, but it is what it is. Not upset with it or anything, but ya know? I'm trying not to be a downer, because I like how we played today.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection;380084]For me dude, I'd rather take a sack or two and have the offense opened up like it is. The offense looks amazing today. Two turnovers in the red zone? We could easily have had 35 points.[/QUOTE]

Well I agree with that too. In addition, it seemed like most of the plays Ware had, he was guessing the Snap count pretty well and getting ahead of the play by just a hair (which is all you need in the NFL), so we might want to change up the snap count in the future.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;380071]You honestly thought prior to the game, based on our talent, that TO would score 4 TDs(all long bombs)? And three of those being nearly the same exact play? Also when the emphasis from GW was to minimize his production?

I suspect the answer is no.[/QUOTE]

No, I never made a prediction that TO would score 4 TDs - and to nitpick, only 3 were long bombs, his first was a 7 yarder. ;)

I didn't expect a lot of things, but does TO getting the numbers that he did surprise me? Of course not. It makes perfect sense if you look at our situation, regardless of what anyone expected/predicted/hoped/whatever going into the game.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Anyhing that went wrong coulda gone right and then anything that went right coulda gone wrong. The key to winning a football game is to get more things right than wrong. If the D had watched TO better, Crayton or Witten woulda done something.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

The problem with TO's TDs is that the 3 long ones he was wide open. How many times can you blow the same coverage. TO said on the postgame show that they saw what the skins were doing at halftime and decided to attack it, and "they" (the skins) never adjusted the D, to prevent it form happening again.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=jamf;380025]Let me add my 2:

Samuels played the worst of the 5 linemen. Overall, they did enough to win but samuels getting beat really cost us.


Campbell was good, Unfortunately he is never good enough in the clutch. If only he had hit moss in the end zone. It seems like every loss there is an open WR that he misses.


We could've pulled this one out :([/quote]

Several of the times Samuels was beat it was JC's fault. Snap count was too rythmic and the D was getting off the line before the snap. It's nearly impossible to block a speed rusher who is parrallel with you when you start back.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=Beemnseven;380069]Also, with under 2:00 in the 4th quarter, down in the redzone, I felt that there was a bit of unnecessary urgency. I thought for sure they would have given the ball to Portis once or twice when they got near the 10 yard line.[/quote]
Generally speaking I would agree 100% w/ you. I think the Giants game was lost because of rushing at the end when there was plenty of time. In this instance though I think the hurry up was more to take advantage of what JC was doing well and the D was having trouble stopping. I'm not sure how to get stats on it, but JC seems to be much better in the hurry up the rest of the game.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;379985]1) Not going for it on 4th and 1 and missing that 50 yarder. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I felt we really should have thought about that with a "nothing to lose" attitude.

2)Giving up FOUR long bombs to TO, 3 of them were pretty much the exact same play. I realize ST wasn't there and all, but GW is a smart man and our players are decent enough to not get beat by the same player the same way 3 times. I really wouldn't mind Witten or Crayton getting a big TD over the middle, but you can't leave TO that open so many times. This really falls on GW. I am sure with ST back that will be less of an issue, but still it is unacceptable.

Point two really hurts me just because I know GW is better than that. On a whole I am just hurt because I know we could have won the game. My hat is off to JC for an awesome game and for Saunders/Gibbs for growing a pair and letting JC do more in the offense. We should run no-huddle more in beginning of the game.


Also please NO Debbie-downers. I do not mean for this to be a pessimistic thread. No "Gibbs/GW should be fired" "we suck" etc etc. And if you want to mention another point, just back it up. I will negative reputation the hell out of you guys if you ruin this thread by being pessimistic and posting crap :). That is all.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes I think Gibbs has lost his nerve in his old age! That 50 plus FG that we missed on a 4th and one was a killer. You really need to look at the up side if you do make it vs the down side if you don't from that far! Making it is all well in good but if you don't that field postion to a Good Dallas O is just asking for it. Kicking a punt would have been better but missing was a kill at that place on the field. Really missing it was if we went for it but didn't make it! Sometimes to beat a team better then you[Dallas is just that] you need to make big plays and your big time coach needs to lead the way! MR Gibbs for the rest of the season think out side the box and go with what made you the Hall of Fame Coach you are. What do you have to lose? More games we have done that the pass two week very well!!!!

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

[quote=RedskinPete;380209]Sometimes I think Gibbs has lost his nerve in his old age! That 50 plus FG that we missed on a 4th and one was a killer. You really need to look at the up side if you do make it vs the down side if you don't from that far! Making it is all well in good but if you don't that field postion to a Good Dallas O is just asking for it. Kicking a punt would have been better but missing was a kill at that place on the field. Really missing it was if we went for it but didn't make it! Sometimes to beat a team better then you[Dallas is just that] you need to make big plays and your big time coach needs to lead the way! MR Gibbs for the rest of the season think out side the box and go with what made you the Hall of Fame Coach you are. What do you have to lose? More games we have done that the pass two week very well!!!![/quote]

I was yelling at the TV at that one. I really think they should have gone for it on those 4th and 1's, they should have gone and tried to win the game rather than just hang in there. Now, having said that, if Suisham doesn't push that first one just barely left then the Skins would only have needed a field goal to win at the end, so there you go. Still think they should have gone for it, but I'll reserve that judgement until after this week. Tampa has just become a do or die game.

Re: 2 Qualms with the loss
 

Everybody played well except for the secondary. As far as the field goal on 4th and 1 goes, it had the distance and was just barely wide left. Gibbs was testing Suisham to see what he had in case the game came down to a long field goal situation, and he proved he has the leg and was only about 1 yard wide. In hindsight I would have loved to see them go for it, but at the time wasn't a bad call.
No player should ever get 4 td's on us. Shawn Springs looked ridiculous out there, and we should have just played without a safety at all on that side and it would have been the same outcome. But overall the rest of the team played VERY WELL, JC was pretty damn good, Santana is back, marion Barber didnt even have 40 yards and he is one of the toughest runners to bring down. They just exploited our weakness as much as they could and they won because of it. We are stronger for it though. Let's get ready for a tough tampa bay team next week and put oursleves in position so that next time Dallas is around on Dec. 30th the game means something, like playoffs!!