Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Turnovers

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2006, 08:45 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Hail2em's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Va. Beach, Virginia
Posts: 229
Turnovers

Yes we had 3 turnovers but 3 points to show for all of them. But how big would it have been if Carlos Rogers had picked that ball off and ran in to score? How would the game have changed?

Last edited by Sheriff Gonna Getcha; 01-14-2006 at 09:05 PM.
Hail2em is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-14-2006, 09:06 PM   #2
Special Teams
 
LadyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 219
Re: Turnovers

Why didn't the offense capitalize on the turnovers for more than 3 lousy points? That's why we lost tonight. You can't have the type of first half total lack of offense that we had and expect to win. The "D" did its job, just as it has all season. My God, do they have to score each week so that we can win? Sure seems that way.
LadyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 09:15 PM   #3
The Starter
 
dgack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
Re: Turnovers

I wouldn't beat the offense up too much. Their defense did a good job bottling up key players for most of the first half.

The big problem today was the line, you can't expect to lose Randy Thomas, then Ray Brown, and have Raymer go in there cold, and have Brunell get the time he needs.

We lost because we were worn down and more injured than they were.
dgack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 09:24 PM   #4
Special Teams
 
LadyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 219
Re: Turnovers

The poor offensive performance started with our first possession, when Ray Brown was still in there, and continued throughout the game, even after he returned. It was almost a repeat of what we did last week against Tampa Bay.

The "D" is the part of the team that has carried us for 2 years. They've even won many games for us by scoring themselves.

If our offense was half as good as our "D" we would have cruised to a victory tonight. After all, Seattle lost its best offensive weapon early in the game and still managed to score more points that our woeful offense. So, if injuries are our excuse, then Seattle could certainly have claimed the same excuse. But, I dare say that losing Alexander is a heck of a lot more disastrous than losing Ray Brown or Randy Thomas.

Hasselbeck played a very good game tonight, despite losing his most potent offensive weapon. Brunell's play was less than impressive, as it was last week.
LadyT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 09:59 PM   #5
Special Teams
 
LBrown43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Clinton (as in Portis) New Jersey
Age: 53
Posts: 217
Re: Turnovers

The complextion would have certainly changed if we go up 10-0 but in the end what ifs don't mean anything. Seattle showed they do have a pretty good ball club, but I don't see them winning it all.


Go Colts!!!
LBrown43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 10:04 PM   #6
The Starter
 
dgack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyT
But, I dare say that losing Alexander is a heck of a lot more disastrous than losing Ray Brown or Randy Thomas.
Clearly not, as Morris and Strong were able to move the chains when they needed to.

We couldn't run, and that made us one-dimensional. So now we're relying on the passing game, but the line isn't holding up and Brunell is out there running around scrambling like mad, unable to make plays because the pocket is collapsing constantly.

I don't see what the argument is? Moss had a huge game but dropped a few key balls. Cooley had a huge game. Brunell didn't throw any pickles. Portis didn't get much going (though the playcalling was terrible IMO, we didn't get Clinton outside enough).

What part of the offense are you complaining about? The WR2 we don't have? It was the line, pure and simple.
dgack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 10:18 PM   #7
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 44
Posts: 4,988
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail2em
Yes we had 3 turnovers but 3 points to show for all of them. But how big would it have been if Carlos Rogers had picked that ball off and ran in to score? How would the game have changed?
That was a 14 pt swing (we would have had 7, instead we gave up 7) and would have been a HUGE momentum boost.. Alexander had just gone out, Jackson was banged up, Hasselbeck would have pressed and who knows what may have happened.
__________________
Paintrain's Redskins Fandom
1981-2014

I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 10:34 PM   #8
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,766
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgack
What part of the offense are you complaining about? The WR2 we don't have? It was the line, pure and simple.
Some feel better by pointing fingers. I think our offense overall has much improved from last year. We still need to have a good compliment to Moss at WR, but we're coming along. People have the Snyder syndrome that if it isn't working right away then junk it all and start from scratch. That approach has already been proven a failure. Our offense has had some really nice games this year - and not to take anything away from Gregg Williams and the defense, but I dare say it's probably tougher coming up with a good offensive scheme that is going to be quite productive. There isn't anything wrong with the offense. When you enter the playoffs missing Randy Thomas - and having Portis beat up along with one true and healthy deep threat receiver, that isn't a system breakdown.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!"
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 10:40 PM   #9
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 8,317
Re: Turnovers

I know my fan credentials will be questioned for my opinion, but I don't think that "there is nothing wrong with the offense."

The team has made big strides. The team had a fantastic season. The offense re-appeared after being in a hiatus for several seasons. The coaching staff did a great job. BUT, the offense has several problems that must be addressed. Teams lose talent all the time to injury, the great offenses are capable of compensating for such losses. We were a good, but inconsistent offense that was not capable of compensating for such losses.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 10:49 PM   #10
The Starter
 
dgack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The ATX (formerly Balmer)
Posts: 1,125
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
Teams lose talent all the time to injury, the great offenses are capable of compensating for such losses. We were a good, but inconsistent offense that was not capable of compensating for such losses.
I don't disagree with the idea that we're not very deep on offense. On defense, we lost key player after key player and kept on going (on a side note, did Demetrick Evans play well today or what?), but on offense, we had very little help past the big three of Portis, Moss, and Cooley.

Betts and Sellers need to be more involved, IMO, and if not David Patten (even when he wasn't injured, he wasn't doing much), we need a legit WR2 (and it would help to have some promising WR3's waiting for a shot).

More than anything, I'm curious as to how Campbell is coming along.
dgack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 11:15 PM   #11
Impact Rookie
 
hurrykaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Age: 41
Posts: 762
Re: Turnovers

I think we lost to a pretty good QB. I was surprised that Matt Hasselback played so well. Once he settled down in the second quarter, he was able to pick our defense apart.

Of course, that Rogers dropped pick could have changed the complexion of the game. The crowd was antsy and nervous when that TD drive started. A score would've taken the 12th man out of the game.
hurrykaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 11:17 PM   #12
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 8,317
Re: Turnovers

Hasselbeck did play well. I am stunned by the lack of pressure on him. It's amazing that we had 3 turnovers with none resulting from pressure on the QB.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 11:20 PM   #13
Impact Rookie
 
redrock-skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 783
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrykaine

Of course, that Rogers dropped pick could have changed the complexion of the game. The crowd was antsy and nervous when that TD drive started. A score would've taken the 12th man out of the game.
The crowd was very nervous and many people near me were near turning on their team. That drive was a game-changer.
redrock-skins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 11:43 PM   #14
The Starter
 
steveo395's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,674
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgack
More than anything, I'm curious as to how Campbell is coming along.
if hes at least like decent, i think they should start him next year...he'll only get better and brunells only getting worse. campbell's probably gonna struggle early no matter when we put him in so they might as well do it now

the quarterback isnt asked to do that much in this offense anyway
steveo395 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2006, 11:46 PM   #15
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,051
Re: Turnovers

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo395
if hes at least like decent, i think they should start him next year...he'll only get better and brunells only getting worse. campbell's probably gonna struggle early no matter when we put him in so they might as well do it now

the quarterback isnt asked to do that much in this offense anyway
This team is a good team. A team that is one or two pieces and some extended health away from being a top team. I think putting a 100% inexperienced 2nd year guy in is not the best way to go unless he shows miraculous abilities in pre-season. He needs at least one year as a number 2 before throwing him in. Some seasoning would be the best descripton. Teams that have no chance now and are building only for the future throw guys in like. Teams with a shot find a way to get a vet who can win.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.44401 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25