Offensive Report Card (Bucs game)
 

vote and discuss

Voted B. We did a great job of controlling the clock late in the game, but we still could've put more points on the board. The passing game still needs some work, but overall we did enough to come up with the W.

Gave them a "B" as we need to step it up in the passing game to get some pressure off Portis. He can't carry the ball 30 times a game all season.

I gave it a low B. need to work on QB center exchange and a deeper pass threat.
QB- low B (did not do much but did not really hurt us either other than the exchange
RB- High B had the one big run then kinda fizzled out and got tough yards
WR- C kinda there nothing really much to talk about
TE/HB- Low A Blocked well, Cooley had nice catch
O line- A no sacks 100 yard rusher pretty well

B. I agree with how you put things, Bridaman. I think these things will come with time. THe Bucs and Kiffin are a good D, so that's some of it as well.

I gave them a B. Portis ran 29 times for 148 yds (3 ypc avg if you take out the 64 yd td run). Bucs made some good adjustments at the half to slow him down a bit. I also think the passing game will come around in a few weeks. There are going to be teams that will shut the run game down coming in the next few weeks and they will have to pass to win.

C, run blocking wasn't great on most plays, QB/WR need to get more in sync, exchange errors shouldn't happen, brunell threw into a lot of double coverage and made that hand off mistake.

on the plus side, we beat a good D, ran out the clock and got portis good yardage from generally poort field position.

i was very tempted to give a C, because of our lack of passing offense. brunell wasnt very accurate, but we controlled the clock so well, so i went with a b. TB defense iss till good also

We beat a very good defense and controlled the clock. We had no sacks and one turnover. This was a solid performance.

If we don't improve one iota offensively, we will murder the Giants. However, this coaching staff isn't going to rest on its laurels.

i gave'em a C. Portis had the big run, the O-line yeilded no sacks. but there's not a whole lot of fluidness at this point in the season.

[QUOTE=BrudLee]We beat a very good defense and controlled the clock. We had no sacks and one turnover. This was a solid performance.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this and I gave them a B. Nothing too amazing but they made very few mistakes and did what they needed to win the game.

solid B.

They controlled the clock and in the process the game. No sacks allowed and only 1 turnover. Huge game by Portis. Betts needs to get more work as the season goes on, Portis isn't going to hold up with 25+ carries per game.

Controlled the clock in the last 4 minutes of the game and in the 1st quarter, otherwise the time of possesion goes to the Bucs.
No Sacks - But Brunnel did take a couple of wicked hits.
Run Game other then the long run was less then 3 yards a carry.
Fumbles
Unable to score inside the red zone.
Missed challenge oppurtunity.
Cooley caught a great one and dropped another
Garner had two bad drops
Coles and Thrash were missing in action
No way that is a B performance (B is above average, at least that is the grading scale they are using in Montgomery County Schools)
Average game I would say with much improvement needed. C

[QUOTE=CRT3]Controlled the clock in the last 4 minutes of the game and in the 1st quarter, otherwise the time of possesion goes to the Bucs.
No Sacks - But Brunnel did take a couple of wicked hits.
Run Game other then the long run was less then 3 yards a carry.
Fumbles
Unable to score inside the red zone.
Missed challenge oppurtunity.
Cooley caught a great one and dropped another
Garner had two bad drops
Coles and Thrash were missing in action
No way that is a B performance (B is above average, at least that is the grading scale they are using in Montgomery County Schools)
Average game I would say with much improvement needed. C[/QUOTE]
Did you not see james thrash blocking?? they even had an article on espn praising thrash for helping open holes. it looked like he was playin some h-back, i think he was critical to the offense.

[QUOTE=Big C]Did you not see james thrash blocking?? they even had an article on espn praising thrash for helping open holes. it looked like he was playin some h-back, i think he was critical to the offense.[/QUOTE]
Yes he blocked on the one long run for Portis. No what about the other 33 runs that we averaged 3 yards on

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1880301[/url]

well these ppl share my opinion.

lets see..the only touchdown we had was off of that run, we lose the game maybe if we dont get that run. id say he did alright

After one game and Lenny P is convinced we're going to be a team that 'doesn't throw effectively' and also called it a 'fairly rudimentary offense'.

This jerk just can't help himself, he is addicted to digging on the Skins. He's pathetic.

I give the offense a B. As a lot of people have pointed out, there are a number of things that need to be improved and I did think about giving it a C. However, it is the first game of the year, the o-line gave up no sacks and, when it really counted, they ate up clock almost like an old-fashioned Riggo drill. If this were November, it'd be a C, but in September I'll give it B.

[QUOTE=Big C][url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1880301[/url]

well these ppl share my opinion.[/QUOTE]
These ppl is Len Pasquerilla and he is a real believable person when it comes to the Redskins

I had to give them a 'C' just because the scoring was quite low and a couple problems with Center and GQ exchange. Other than that, they did everything they needed to do..especially controlling the clock. If the Skins can start putting up at least 3 TDs a game and Iron out a few wrinkles, they should be a grade 'A' offense in no time.

This was the bucs and they are still a very good defensive team regardless of what people say . Yet we allowed no sacks and only had one turn over . The offence wasn't firing but it needs to get some belief in itself one thing I rember people saying in the offseason is the Gibbs passing game is a trust based system, throwing the ball to where the reciver is going to be not where they are, and that will need time to gel. Alot of offences use the timing systems but timing systms need time to work. We are still a 5-11 team untill someone steps up at tells us otherwise

[QUOTE=bedlamVR]We are still a 5-11 team untill someone steps up at tells us otherwise[/QUOTE]Ok I'll be the one to break the news, we're actually a 1-0 team

:)

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]'fairly rudimentary offense'.
QUOTE]


It is a fairly rudimentary offense, it's not rocket science. The difference is that Gibbs gets his players to buy into and execute this rudimentary offense to perfection. It's not flashy, (although I was fuckin' thrilled when I saw the counter tre) it's good, old fashioned football brought to us by a hall of fame coach. Any jackass can draw up complicated schemes, but they tend to fall apart when shit hits the fan. A great game day coach like Gibbs brings a simplistic (yet beautiful) gameplan that can be executed against any team. Every Sunday we will run the ball. When the defense brings extra personnel in to stop Portis, that's when we go for the deep ball. Pick your poison. It's not rocket science, it's fundamentals. :httr:

One: It will take time to get all the wrinkles into this offense. Gibbs has a huge playbook, and he barely cracked it yesterday. He needs to lay down that base coat of smash mouth running and pass protection first. Then he'll add the details.

Two: Why take a risk against a Monty Kiffin D? And when you've got a Williams D on your side? Get the W and set the tone!

Three: Pasta ass doesn't want to have to say something good so he calls it a "fairly rudimentary offense." What a load of crap. Do you really think that's all we've got, you bloated bowl of BS? Let's hope the rest of the league believes that and stacks the run. Gee, I wonder if Joe Gibbs has any pass plays? Gee, I wonder if he knows how to trick defenses with shifts and play action? This isn't Marty-ball. Gibbs is a bonafide offensive genius. But he knows better than to have his team beat themselves. One step at a time. Fairly rudimentary, my ass.

Big C, no offense, but you gotta check your sources here. See the thread where Wilbon takes Pasta to task. This is another sportswriter talking, not some hothead like myself on a message board.
[URL=http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=2786]Wilbon vs. Pasta[/URL]

Pasquarelli clearly has some sort of personal agenda against the Redskins, but he's right when he said that Thrash's block was key on the Portis run and I think that's all that Big C was trying to point out

Whoa! My Bad, Big C!!! I just caught the one where you say "these ppl share my opinion." Thrash defiently threw a nice block threre, and had some good play on punt coverage.

Sorry, man. Seeing anything even like a pro-pasta post gets me going! So, to all: take my crit of Pasta, not of the Big C. :doh:

I don't have a problem with someone saying the offense is rudimentary, but coming from Lenny P and knowing his agenda you can pretty much bet on the fact that's his little way of taking yet another jab at the Redskins.

The offense is rudimentary in the way it focuses on the basic fundamentals, but when you also look at the shifts, the pulling lineman and h-backs and the blocking schemes, I think calling it rudimentary is glossing over the beauty of it.

[QUOTE=smootsmack]Pasquarelli clearly has some sort of personal agenda against the Redskins, but he's right when he said that Thrash's block was key on the Portis run and I think that's all that Big C was trying to point out[/QUOTE]


He did have the key blocks on that one run, no doubt. But where was he the rest of the game which was my point. Say the quote below that Big C said which is what I disagree with. He then refers to Pasquirella as how Thrash played. You know that is a big no no around this site. Len P is not a authority on the skins.

Big C Quote "Did you not see james thrash blocking?? they even had an article on espn praising thrash for helping open holes."

The plantiff rests!! :dallas:

everyone in a gibbs offense blocks... i saw thrash coles and gardner all throwing down.

[QUOTE=That Guy]everyone in a gibbs offense blocks... i saw thrash coles and gardner all throwing down.[/QUOTE] Were you at the game? If not, how are you able to see that when the TV cameras don't cover the whole field for a running play unless it is a long run. Did they actually pan to Thrash and show him blocking. If they did tell me when so I can rewind my tape and watch. Please do not make things up along the way. He quite frankly disapeared during the game. Not to say he is bad but was MIA.

you umm.. caught the first play they replayed about 400 times right? or watched portis during the rest of the game when he was grinding? whats your problem man, jeez.

Running game was good. Center QB exchange was very dissapointing.

I thought that Coles was getting raped beyond the 5 yard no touch rule. If your going to say your going to start calling this type of penalty, Then call it on a consistant basis. I watched parts of nearly every game this last weekend, and I think that the NFL is full of sh*t. These receivers were being malled.

:food-smil [QUOTE=That Guy]you umm.. caught the first play they replayed about 400 times right? or watched portis during the rest of the game when he was grinding? whats your problem man, jeez.[/QUOTE] This is my whole point Thrash blocked real well for that 1st play. He was missing in action for the rest of the game. My problem is that you are making qoutes based on Lenny P's article with out really watching the WHOLE game. So if you want to quote like Lenny go to ESPN.com and join his forum there.

We didnt put as many points on the board as we should, the defense kept us in the game. However, for as many times as the offense didnt get it done, they looked as a team the whole. Somethign we havent done in years. It was soooooooo nice to see everyone on the same page. when plays didnt work it was becuase they got stuffed, or teh defense read it correctly,b ut we still followed through with everythign the way it was supposed to be run.

No jumping off sides for the Dirtbags.....With time the offense will be even better ....I'm sure we will see more of Cooley and a few wrinkles on play calling (and I don't mean on the coaching staff's faces :D ) , and I'm sure Burnell and the receivers will get better with more time together..........things are looking up! You can't argue with 148 yds rushing....although the mixups on the handoff were aggravating..............I gave 'em a B

[QUOTE]This is my whole point Thrash blocked real well for that 1st play. He was missing in action for the rest of the game. My problem is that you are making qoutes based on Lenny P's article with out really watching the WHOLE game. So if you want to quote like Lenny go to ESPN.com and join his forum there.[/QUOTE]
except i wasn't quoting LP (who would?), the announcers at the game even said, "look at gardner and coles throwing blocks, everyone in a the gibbs system blocks." or something similiar on one of portis's runs. I'm glad you can tell me where i got my quotes from though ;)

[QUOTE=That Guy]except i wasn't quoting LP (who would?), the announcers at the game even said, "look at gardner and coles throwing blocks, everyone in a the gibbs system blocks." or something similiar on one of portis's runs. I'm glad you can tell me where i got my quotes from though ;)[/QUOTE]
Sorry for mistaken identity there guy. You did not quote Lenny P.

But Thrash was missing in action the whole game except for 1 play. IF we had better run blocking for the game I think you would have seen our avg. run be better then 3 yards a carry. Even Gibbs said the run blocking was not up to snuff. Since our recievers all block they are responsible to. Am I wrong

In regards to the WR's blocking, unless the system calls for the WR's to sit on their hands during running plays of course they were blocking. How well is the question since it's hard to see them off camera.

Coles, Gardner and Thrash are all good blockers for receivers, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say they did their jobs on sunday.

CRT3, you're asking how we saw the WR's blocking, well, how did you see them [i]not[/i] blocking? If you were at the game please disregard my question.

[quote]But Thrash was missing in action the whole game except for 1 play. IF we had better run blocking for the game I think you would have seen our avg. run be better then 3 yards a carry. Even Gibbs said the run blocking was not up to snuff. Since our recievers all block they are responsible to. Am I wrong[/quote]

nope, run blocking could definately be better, but our WRs i'd think are actually better blockers than what some other teams have... i didn't see much of thrash besides a couple early plays, but i did see a good number of gardner/coles blocking throughout.