Commanders Post at The Warpath - Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)

- Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=32477)

Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

You'll hear game reviews that describe a game as "a tale of two halves." As the narrative goes, two even teams trade battle blows evenly in one half, but whenever the first team needs a big play, it's never there. Until of course, after halftime, when the tables turn and the first team can do no wrong. It simple, short, to the point, and an easy way of taking an evenly played game and making it look like two very different games played on the same field in the same three hours.

This was not that game. For the Redskins offense, what worked in the first half worked in the second half. What didn't work in the first half wasn't any better in the second. But for the third time in four weeks, the Redskins went into halftime chasing 10 points. And if it wasn't for a few timely big plays, the Redskins would have lost this game, at home, to the Bucs.

Through 4 weeks, the Redskins have been a good team when playing with a lead, but a well below average team when trailing in the game. The problem is, they can't seem to get that first strike in, and it seems to take them forever to dig out of an early hole. Luckily, the difference in this game was not three Jason Campbell interceptions, but one massive Tampa Bay coverage breakdown: the equivalent of an massive error from the defensive perspective.

While it's fair to say that if the Redskins get down 10-0 against a team that is better prepared than Tampa has been, the game is probably over, it's also fair to draw comparisons between this game and the [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200711250tam.htm"]six turnover affair in Tampa in 2007[/URL]. The Redskins lost four fumbles in that game, and Campbell was picked twice nullifying a great defensive effort on the day prior to the Sean Taylor shooting. The Redskins get down in the score early when they commit turnovers, which takes the overall offensive product from good to terrible.

As mentioned in the intro, the offensive issues that plagued the Redskins in the first half were not corrected in the second half, but they also did not appear on tape to be as bad as they seemed in the first half.

[B]Passing Game

[/B]There's definately something to be said for Jason Campbell moving through his reads too quickly. He's getting to the 4th or 5th option incredibly quickly...probably too quickly. However, I'm not sure that was really one of his issues against Tampa Bay. He appeared to be seeing the field just fine, with some minor nitpicky exceptions, from start to finish. Where Jason really struggled all game Sunday was in the accuracy department.

The protection started off quite awful. On the first drive, the protection was laughable, as Campbell had less then three seconds to make a move on both plays. I initially put the blame for the lost fumble on Campbell as trying too hard to make a play, but the guy who sack-stripped him (Jimmy Wilkerson) actually beat a double team by putting Rabach on the ground and stepping inside of the inexperienced Rinehart. If I were the coach on the sideline at the game, I would let my quarterback have it after dropping the ball on a third down sack, but the first fumble was hardly a situation reflecting an issue with ball security. When a quarterback has his eyes downfield, he's not supposed to assume that two guys blocking a mid-tier defensive tackle is inadequate. Campbell has to be able to trust the interior OL.

After that drive, however, the protection was noticeably better the rest of the game. Poor protection was not a factor on any of Campbell's interceptions -- unlike his pick in Detroit. All three can be chalked up to simple inaccuracy, although two of the INTs should also never have been thrown.

The biggest issue in his 12/22 day was that the receivers were just hilariously covered the whole game. A week ago against Detroit, Campbell was intercepted when he tried to force a third down throw into Santana Moss, however, Antwaan Randle El was completely uncovered on a drag route. If Campbell had time to go through his progression, he would have found Randle El, but instead, he just threw the ball blind to a spot where Ko Simpson was waiting. On the first interception, Malcolm Kelly was never, ever open...and neither were Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, or Randle El. Campbell was intercepted because the ball was thrown well behind Kelly and Aqib Talib caught up to him and picked it off (Ronde Barber was going to break the pass up anyway). Either way, the drive was ending. Tampa was using a spy on Campbell on that play, which proved to be a effective strategy most of the game. And with Tampa willing to waste a defender on Campbell's running skills, the inability of four receivers to get open all day against 6 cover guys was ridiculous.

On the second interception, Jim Zorn drew up a great third down and two play to get Malcolm Kelly the ball deep with no safety help. The ball was intercepted in part because Campbell threw a very flat ball, in part because Kelly ran a very poor isolation route, and in part because Talib made a fantastic play. Because the play was such an offensive "win" from the start, it took all three factors to make the play end in a turnover. It was also key, because the Redskins receivers are getting locked up on third and short situations. All defenses who play the Redskins expect to have the ball come out quickly on that down, and so that's contributing to no one getting open in the short zone. Somebody who isn't Santana Moss needs to be able to beat a receiver vertically on third down, and Campbell might need to have to absorb a hit or two to get the ball out to Malcolm Kelly or Devin Thomas or Fred Davis on that down and distance.

The receivers not getting open is evidenced by the fact that Jason Campbell ran on 25% of all called pass plays, and that even includes screens. That also could be a product of Campbell progressing through his reads too quickly, but he was looking downfield the whole game. The fact that he had more INTs when throwing to his wideouts than he had completions tells you really all you need to know about the job those guys did (and yes, Campbell flat missed an open Randle El on a third down play prior to the first INT, but that would have just made it 3 completions to 3 INTs). Malcolm Kelly has to be enemy number one here, because the Bucs' zone lock coverage scheme (admittedly, an advanced scheme) completely shut him down. Randle El wasn't in often enough for the zero catch stat to be relevant, and Devin Thomas only ran two routes the whole game. But you can't let Santana Moss off the hook either. He only had two catches in a gameplan that was designed to get him the ball early and often. That's not a good effort. Ronde Barber should not be able to lock him down at this point in his career, especially since Barber has been a cover two corner since the beginning of time. But Moss needed but some safety help over the top to be held completely useless most of the game.

The game was won on a stretch of 7 straight passes in the third quarter. The big three passes were: the fourth down boot pass to Cooley where the Bucs blew the zone-lock scheme, the touchdown pass to Cooley where Campbell hung in the pocket, anticipated that Cooley would split two linebackers and hit him with a strike in the front of the end zone once he did, and the 59-yard bomb to Moss on the first play of the next drive.

The bomb to Moss should not have worked, but it did for two reasons: 1) Moss had time to execute a double move on Aqib Tailb, and 2) When S Sabby Piscatelli saw Moss throttle down, he jumped a crossing route by Malcolm Kelly for no really good reason at all; Ronde Barber had Kelly covered stride for stride. Piscatelli's coverage error was the difference in the game as Moss got Talib flat-footed, and then turned on the jets when Campbell hit him with a deep strike for the go ahead score. It was a nice route combination by Zorn, not to mention a solid route by Moss, but the Bucs have had coverage breakdowns like that all year. They are improving: they had three of those screw ups against the Cowboys, and are now making only one a game. But that's why they are closer to getting their first win, yet, still 0-4.

[B]Redskins run to Win

[/B]The Redskins' best friend in this game was the running game. It was effective in the first quarter, effective in the second quarter, on the back burner in the third quarter, and effective in the fourth quarter. You may have realized a trend here: when the Redskins run the ball, they don't score points. But that doesn't mean they aren't running an effective ball control offense that's eating clock minutes. And it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't putting the passing offense in convertible third downs either.

But the Redskins offense is highly mistake prone, and the running game offers the Redskins no source of big plays. The longest run on Sunday was a 10 yard scamper by Portis. But the Redskins had 7 runs that went for more than 5 yards. All in all, that's a pretty good running game, but it's also one that doesn't punish teams for overpursuit with big gainers. That's what the Redskins use their screen game for: punishing the defense if their pass rushers are pinning their ears back.

But with a lead, the Redskins change their focus from scoring points to running out the clock. This is a major contribution to the Redskins inability to score points, but it also makes them a really hard team to beat if they are playing with the lead. In the Zorn era, when the Redskins have held leads at ANY point in the second half, the team is 10-3 (.769), and 2-0 in 2009. Is it the right strategy? I'm not so sure I wouldn't go for the knockout shot myself, but Zorn clearly prefers to run the clock and make the other team go the length of the field to win. It's proved to be a winning strategy so far.

[B]Lineman Yards

[/B]It's official: the Redskins are a better team when running to the RIGHT than the left. The problem with running to the left is that plays in that direction only break for Clinton Portis if he can get outside off LT Chris Samuels and behind FB Mike Sellers. If the play breaks to the inside, Derrick Dockery is worth almost a yard less. That doesn't sound like a lot, until you consider that I've charted Samuels with 25 rushing attempts to 44 for Dockery. Plays that go left tend not to get outside anymore. But plays that go right don't necessarily need to get outside of Stephon Heyer to work: the Redskins have enjoyed success the last two weeks running in the RG-RT gap with or without Sellers leading the play. This is thanks to the work of RG Chad Rinehart.

Here's a season-to-date Lineman Yards update:

1. Mike Sellers 5.32 LY (32 attempts)
2. Chad Rinehart 4.77 LY (16 attempts)
3. Chris Samuels 4.32 LY (25 attempts)
4. Stephon Heyer 4.19 LY (27 attempts)
5. Chris Cooley 3.61 LY (19 attempts)
6. Will Montgomery 3.58 LY (9 attempts)
7. Randy Thomas 3.35 LY (5 attempts)
8. Casey Rabach 3.27 LY (37 attempts)
9. Derrick Dockery 3.10 LY (44 attempts)
10. Fred Davis 2.82 LY (6 attempts)

Dockery might be doing a crappy job in run blocking, but the work he did as a pass blocker in this game should not be understated. He was beyond excellent on most plays. He and Heyer have been the team's best pass blockers this season (although if you adjust for the quality of competition faced, I'm sure Samuels would come out on top still -- LT's get the big bucks for a reason). Dockery is a big improvement in the pass protection schemes over Pete Kendall. When it's all said and done, I think Rinehart will be an improvement over Thomas, but he's not yet.

I thought it was a mistake to get rid of Jon Jansen when the team could have had him as a backup, but looking at the protection schemes, it's obvious that he was just a poor scheme fit for the move-up-in-the-pocket preaching that Zorn does with Campbell (at least at RT, it was still a mistake). Now, if I only had an explanation for Mike Williams being on this team...oh right, he's off the field friends with Dockery.

[B]Summary[/B]

The Bucs game served as a reality check for those of us (raises hand) that thought the passing game was on the verge of great things. It's not. It's been good this year, on the whole, but it hasn't been great, and the turnovers are a big reason the Skins are only .500. More specifically, Jason Campbell isn't on the verge of greatness. He's got all season to win games and get to the next level, but it was enough of a disaster to bring him back to earth.

But, while it's a nice reality check, I don't think the team (offense, specifically) took a step back this week. I actually think they took a step forward from the Lions disaster. Jason Campbell made mistakes, but he didn't make mistakes he hadn't been making in the past, the Bucs just managed to make him suffer every time he screwed up. They were remarkably opportunistic, defensively. But they aren't very good. And if Campbell wants to be here past next season, he needs to have multi-TD games against good defenses.

And no, the Panthers and Chiefs don't qualify. But they will be part of the learning experience of a young OL and receiving corps.