Is this the Skins' Breakout Week>
 

I suspect that the Redskin defense will confuse and confabulate Eli Manning on Sunday and that the Redskins offense will find a way to avoid a repeat of the last Giants' game where they gave the ball away 7 times.

So, I think this is the week that the Skins' offense wears down the opposition defense and uses good field position to win comfortably - by more than 10 points and maybe by more than 14...

I hope you're right.....



:thumb:

God I hope you're right. I can't take to many more 7 point performances.

Don't be surprised if it is 3-2 final score

That's what I like to hear. I think the Redskins have a great chance of winning this game. I believe they have a great shot at winning the rest of their games...with the exception of the Eagles game...that one is going to be tough and I know the Vikings game is going to be tough but we have always played pretty good against the Vikings.

If Curmudgeon feels good about this weekend's game that's enough for me. Skins by more than 14

This is about a good of matchup for us as possible, our O-line is banged up and not that good to begin with the Giant's D-line is the same, we have a very aggresive confusing defense, the Giant's have no offensive line and a rookie QB with 1 start under his belt, should we win? Yes, will we break out NO! That wont happen until we revamp the O-line with players who can run block.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26552-2004Dec1.html[/url]

This is a pretty good article on a scout's take of our offense, and Portis. I have said time again that Portis was a system back not to say he isn't a phemominal system back but none the less, he does not fit Gibb's system even with the changes we have made, this scout hit the nail on the head in order to take advantage of Portis's abilities you have to allow him to find his hole and react, he has a big problem if you ask him to hit a pre-determined hole that's big back territory as I said way back if we are not going to change our blocking scheme to accommodate Portis than he's a wasted trade, I recieved some critizism at the time for questioning Gibb's GM abilities but I was right about Portis, and Brunell, Portis has big time talent but that talent is unique and not conventional and he has to be used accordingly, if we can't utilize him we are big time screwed for season's to come because of these 2 cap hit's.

What kind of team would we have right now if we did as I wanted at the time and traded champ for a #1 and a #2, well we would still have Taylor as well our choice of any back in the draft, 2 #2's with which we could have taken Cooley and still have another #2 from the Bailey trade as well as keeping our #2 this draft from not having to give up a pick this year for Cooley, and keeping our #3 from the Brunell trade, we would also have big time cap room this upcoming draft as well a much more experienced P. Ramsey. My argument at the time was when Beatherd left, it was because he and Gibb's weren't seeing eye, to eye, on player's, when Gibb's finally had an opportunity to make that decision he gave up 2 #1's to draft D.Howard, I was irrate at the time because I wanted Chester McGloughtin, and Carl Picken's, who we could have had at our respected pick's, we needed D-linemen at that time and both went on to all pro career's we all no how Howard worked out, we wound up with nothing more than a kick returner on a team with Brian Mitchell, and Daryl Green, that was Gibb's last season we were left with no WR, no all pro D-lineman, and Desmond Howard, and these moves may very well turn out to be worse because the cap ramification's that we will experience if we have to replace both is ridiculous, changing the blocking for Portis sound's easy enough, but is it? Are our linemen capable of that type of blocking? Are they quick enough? Take a look at denver's linemen they don't have big guy's they have guy's who are quick and can pull ala the old 49er's had for year's, we may need to really revamp our line just for Portis, I feel this has to be laid at Gibb's feet and it's up to him to make this thing work, he cannot try to make Portis fit his system, he has to fit the system to fit Portis, is he capable of coaching that type of a system?

The Skins won't have a "breakout" game this year. Playcalling is far too bad!

This is a game where the skins can finally gain some confidence on offense. Hopefully we can sustain a few drives and let them get in a rhythm. This team needs confidence and that's about it right now.

I must say, when we're in 3rd or 4th down with X to go. Why don't we try for X instead of X-1?

[QUOTE=Daseal]I must say, when we're in 3rd or 4th down with X to go. Why don't we try for X instead of X-1?[/QUOTE]

Wait, I took Algebra, I know this.

Give me a minute.

X=6?

[QUOTE=offiss]This is about a good of matchup for us as possible, our O-line is banged up and not that good to begin with the Giant's D-line is the same, we have a very aggresive confusing defense, the Giant's have no offensive line and a rookie QB with 1 start under his belt, should we win? Yes, will we break out NO! That wont happen until we revamp the O-line with players who can run block.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26552-2004Dec1.html[/url]

This is a pretty good article on a scout's take of our offense, and Portis. I have said time again that Portis was a system back not to say he isn't a phemominal system back but none the less, he does not fit Gibb's system even with the changes we have made, this scout hit the nail on the head in order to take advantage of Portis's abilities you have to allow him to find his hole and react, he has a big problem if you ask him to hit a pre-determined hole that's big back territory as I said way back if we are not going to change our blocking scheme to accommodate Portis than he's a wasted trade, I recieved some critizism at the time for questioning Gibb's GM abilities but I was right about Portis, and Brunell, Portis has big time talent but that talent is unique and not conventional and he has to be used accordingly, if we can't utilize him we are big time screwed for season's to come because of these 2 cap hit's.

What kind of team would we have right now if we did as I wanted at the time and traded champ for a #1 and a #2, well we would still have Taylor as well our choice of any back in the draft, 2 #2's with which we could have taken Cooley and still have another #2 from the Bailey trade as well as keeping our #2 this draft from not having to give up a pick this year for Cooley, and keeping our #3 from the Brunell trade, we would also have big time cap room this upcoming draft as well a much more experienced P. Ramsey. My argument at the time was when Beatherd left, it was because he and Gibb's weren't seeing eye, to eye, on player's, when Gibb's finally had an opportunity to make that decision he gave up 2 #1's to draft D.Howard, I was irrate at the time because I wanted Chester McGloughtin, and Carl Picken's, who we could have had at our respected pick's, we needed D-linemen at that time and both went on to all pro career's we all no how Howard worked out, we wound up with nothing more than a kick returner on a team with Brian Mitchell, and Daryl Green, that was Gibb's last season we were left with no WR, no all pro D-lineman, and Desmond Howard, and these moves may very well turn out to be worse because the cap ramification's that we will experience if we have to replace both is ridiculous, changing the blocking for Portis sound's easy enough, but is it? Are our linemen capable of that type of blocking? Are they quick enough? Take a look at denver's linemen they don't have big guy's they have guy's who are quick and can pull ala the old 49er's had for year's, we may need to really revamp our line just for Portis, I feel this has to be laid at Gibb's feet and it's up to him to make this thing work, he cannot try to make Portis fit his system, he has to fit the system to fit Portis, is he capable of coaching that type of a system?[/QUOTE]


I really still dont think that Portis is a system back, I understand what you are saying. We need to have our O-line zone block rather than just stright-up block with pulling guards or tackles. But if you remember Gibbs did start using the zone blocking and then it seems that he went away from it for what ever reason. I mean look at the game we had against the Lions. Portis was running everywhere, and at the same time the o-line was zone blocking. Then against the Bengals, for what ever reason, it seemed that we never even tried to run the ball at the begining of the game, let alone run plays where the o-line could zone block.

But you are right about using Portis, we need to do more screens to him and passes out of the backfield to him, kinda what green bay does with Green. Get the ball to Portis out in the open and let him make a play against the corner that is trying to come up to make the tackle.

unfortunatly, X seems to equal 24 way too often.

Oh and who was willing to give us there #1 and #2 pick for Champ?

[quote]I really still dont think that Portis is a system back, I understand what you are saying. We need to have our O-line zone block rather than just stright-up block with pulling guards or tackles.[/quote]
Uhhh, that is DENVERS SYSTEM. Zone block, let him make one cut and run in the open field. He obviously didnt do well in Gibbs system. I also dont understand why we find something that works and quickly abandon it.

This is a very big game for the skins, in my opinion. Losing to Philly and Pittsburgh on the road is one thing: you can hold your head up and say, "well, we kept it close, etc." But this is a game between two struggling teams in the same division, on our home field. If we can't beat NY with their rookie QB and patchwork defense at HOME, then we may fall apart. We need to gain a little confidence here, and we need to show the Giants that we're headed up and they're headed down. And we have to avenge that god-awful loss early in the year.

I'd love to see us get on track and blow them out, but I'll take any win. But man, every time we need to beat the jints over the last 12 years, and I go to a bar here in NYC, I've been disapointed, to say the least. Can we please turn this thing around?!?!?! I need at least a little pride, living up here! :banghead:

[QUOTE=Daseal]Uhhh, that is DENVERS SYSTEM. Zone block, let him make one cut and run in the open field. He obviously didnt do well in Gibbs system. I also dont understand why we find something that works and quickly abandon it.[/QUOTE]

So Denver invented zone blocking??

Anyhow that was my point that I was trying to make, when something starts to work for us we abandon it!!

I didnt say anything about inventing. That's the system Shenehan RUNS. Which has made countless backs successfull. Portis didn't do well in Joe Gibbs system. Therefore Clinton Portis is a system back.

This isn't a bad thing. John Riggins would have failed horribly in Denvers system (today's Denver.) You have to build your system around your personel.

Doesn't Denvers system utilise cut blocking stealing candy from babies and plotting humanities demise?

I think we abandoned it because Samuels strugled with it and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to win games anayway it is about the taking part and stuff.

Seriously though I think Gibbs has thrown the towel in on the season and doesnt see the point running Portis into the ground when he can see what else he has out there and save his ace card for later... i hope

As much as a i would like to see a blowout of these Giants, i just dont know if we have the offensive firepower to blow anyone out, hopefully we will get a win

I still want to see Portis break 1500 yds again though... I wish he was getting more touches, we only win when he breaks 100

[QUOTE=Daseal]I didnt say anything about inventing. That's the system Shenehan RUNS. Which has made countless backs successfull. Portis didn't do well in Joe Gibbs system. Therefore Clinton Portis is a system back.

This isn't a bad thing. John Riggins would have failed horribly in Denvers system (today's Denver.) You have to build your system around your personel.[/QUOTE]


Only problem about building a system around your players is if those players get hurt or leave because of free agency, then who's to say the ones you plug in will be able to fit the system the sameway? I do agree though that implementing some modifications into an established system for certain players is definitely feasible...and we have done that on several occasions with Portis.

I still believe establishing a system and going out to get players that fit that system is the best way to go. I like Portis, but I think what would have worked the best (which goes along with what you're saying) is having a back like we had with Stephen Davis. Imagine if we still had Davis and him being healthy.....he would have been a perfect fit with this system.

I'm happy with Portis though and think he'll work just fine!

Skinsguy: We zoneblocked all game for Portis vs the Lions where he was constantly ripping off 6-7 yard carries. Why did we stray away from that? You have to fit your system based on personel, and it will change nearly every year a little bit.

Stephen Davis and healthy is a contridiction anyhow. Best move Spurrier ever made was canning that injury factory.

Dasel is exactly right. I havent been able to understand why we have gone away from that, when clearly it was working. You can have a average offensive line and still be somewhat effective with a zone block, because it will give Portis more options and more room. When you try to smash-mouth it, if our offensive line isnt doing good, theres absolutley no where to go. We have to do exactly what we need for Portis to have the room to run; he is that type of back.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Skinsguy: We zoneblocked all game for Portis vs the Lions where he was constantly ripping off 6-7 yard carries. Why did we stray away from that? You have to fit your system based on personel, and it will change nearly every year a little bit.

Stephen Davis and healthy is a contridiction anyhow. Best move Spurrier ever made was canning that injury factory.[/QUOTE]


That game we played in a Dome on that artifcal grass...of course the zone blocking would work like a charm...also knowing the Lions were not THAT good against the run!

Against Cincy we had to go to the pass more because we got behind 17-0 and we were just not moving the ball on the ground. Philly was stopping our running attack and we needed to get the ball downfield. Portis was injured for a series last week so we put in Betts that does better with counter-gap plays than Portis...not to mention that we also had to go to the pass more because we were not moving the ball at all on the ground and I do remember seeing some zone blocking run plays to Portis before he went out.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]That game we played in a Dome on that artifcal grass...of course the zone blocking would work like a charm...also knowing the Lions were not THAT good against the run!

Against Cincy we had to go to the pass more because we got behind 17-0 and we were just not moving the ball on the ground. [/QUOTE]

So how about when Portis ran all over the Bears? Last time I checked the bears play outside and on real grass.

And the Cincy game yeah we got down 17-0 early, but if I remember right we passed like the first 5 or 6 plays, and didnt even try to run. It was like Spurrier was on the sidelines again.

[QUOTE=Redskins8588]So how about when Portis ran all over the Bears? Last time I checked the bears play outside and on real grass.

And the Cincy game yeah we got down 17-0 early, but if I remember right we passed like the first 5 or 6 plays, and didnt even try to run. It was like Spurrier was on the sidelines again.[/QUOTE]


The field wasn't as sloppy as it was in Pittsburgh which gave Portis fits, not to mention that we were always leading in that game so we could stick with a ball controlled offense.

As far as the Cincy game, Gibbs wanted to shake things up, because he knew Cincy would single in on stopping the run. Unfortunately for us, we couldn't complete alot of passes because Brunell went 1-8 and the passes that were on target the receivers dropped.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]The field wasn't as sloppy as it was in Pittsburgh which gave Portis fits, not to mention that we were always leading in that game so we could stick with a ball controlled offense.

As far as the Cincy game, Gibbs wanted to shake things up, because he knew Cincy would single in on stopping the run. Unfortunately for us, we couldn't complete alot of passes because Brunell went 1-8 and the passes that were on target the receivers dropped.[/QUOTE]

You are right about the field conditions but I really dont think that is why Portis couldnt get it going, I mean think about it this guy never ran only on turff!! What I mean is that in high school, college, and in the pros his team was always a non-turff team, they were mainly a grass field team. So I really dont think that the conditions on the field are an excuse, maybe if we were talking about McAllister, Falulk, James, and any other back that is predominatly running on turff.