Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


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

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-07-2009, 08:45 PM   #1
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
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 six turnover affair in Tampa in 2007. 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.

Passing Game

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.

Redskins run to Win

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.

Lineman Yards

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.

Summary

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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 10-07-2009, 08:46 PM   #2
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

The amount of time Campbell had in the pocket to find a receiver was all over the place, but generally consistent with the type of pass the Redskins were running. After the first quarter, Campbell did more damage by leaving the pocket quickly than the line did by not giving him time.

Of course, one could be a product of the other or injury might be a factor.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:03 PM   #3
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,341
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Good job, good read. Thanks GTripp.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:05 PM   #4
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Good job GTripp. I think Rinehart is here to stay at RG and will become very, very good. With all the talk about we only run left, I thought my eyes were deceiving me, because it looked to me like not only do we run right, but we do it pretty well. I wonder how much JC's inaccuracy was due to injury or self-imposed pressure?
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:22 PM   #5
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Good stuff man. Keep it up, this is probably one the only threads I look forward to (and the defensive one too).
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:23 PM   #6
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Do you think our new offensive consultant will help any of this?
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 09:56 PM   #7
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Do you think our new offensive consultant will help any of this?
In a word: no.

It might help some things organizationally. It will not help our offensive point output.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:13 PM   #8
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
In a word: no.

It might help some things organizationally. It will not help our offensive point output.
I really don't either. To tell you the truth, the more I think about it the more upset it makes me. Just another sign the FO hasn't really become any more patient. If this whole MH thing works out, then maybe it will be good but even if he is coach we have major issues.
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:23 PM   #9
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
I really don't either. To tell you the truth, the more I think about it the more upset it makes me. Just another sign the FO hasn't really become any more patient. If this whole MH thing works out, then maybe it will be good but even if he is coach we have major issues.
Well, there's a whole lot riding on the success of this team over the next two months. But there was a whole lot riding on the team down the stretch last year as well. That's why they signed D-Hall, I think.

We failed miserably at the end of last year, and I think we were lucky to get another shot at it. I don't like the desperation either, but everyone is disappointed. I don't really even care about long-term organizational strength anymore, I just really want the current set up to work.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:28 PM   #10
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Well, there's a whole lot riding on the success of this team over the next two months. But there was a whole lot riding on the team down the stretch last year as well. That's why they signed D-Hall, I think.

We failed miserably at the end of last year, and I think we were lucky to get another shot at it. I don't like the desperation either, but everyone is disappointed. I don't really even care about long-term organizational strength anymore, I just really want the current set up to work.
But is there a realistic chance it will? All we have seen shows us there is not. I really wouldn't mind losing for a bit more just to find out if we aren't giving it enough time.
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:32 PM   #11
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,357
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Hopefully we build off the second half of last week. I thought that was the best half of football we played all year. We are getting no production out of the second receiver spot (Kelly) and think we need to run some basic, easy route to him early and get the ball to him to at least get Carolina's D to pay attention as well as for his confidence. If he doesnt produce the first half, put Marko or Thomas in. The first half offense this year has been rather horrible. Zorn needs to mix it up this weekend with maybe a no huddle or just some new plays for a spark. We cant get behind early in Carolina expect a win in the second half like last week. Good analysis GTripp but the bottom line is points and this offense has struggled this year so far putting them up.
Chico23231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 10:32 PM   #12
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
But is there a realistic chance it will? All we have seen shows us there is not. I really wouldn't mind losing for a bit more just to find out if we aren't giving it enough time.
I don't know. There seems to be a serious disconnect between running and scoring. I don't know if Zorn has the political capital at this point to do what is right...and do whatever it takes to kickstart our offense.

In my opinion, he's doing his part to get us out of this mess, but he's as responsible as anyone for getting us here.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2009, 08:33 AM   #13
The Starter
 
SC Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,555
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

I think it is good that you tempered your enthusiasm on Campbell some in this review. I re-watched the game this morning hoping to see something that I could be positive about and it simply was not there. I guess the best thing you could say was that Portis looked quicker than he has at any point this season, so that is positive. Campbell, however, was just bad. Really no way to temper that. You can try to identify some mitigating factors, like the receivers are not "getting open," or, more specifically, that Jim Zorn and his inexperienced staff do a poor job understanding route combinations and breaking down opposing defenses. I think that was probably there to some extent, though it is incredibly difficult to evaluate from the television feed.

You write that Campbell is often too quick to get to his 4th and 5th read (i.e. the proverbial "check down") and I think that is probably true in the broadest sense, in that he has a tendency to check hit a check down receiver when he does not see an opening. But the biggest issue in the Tampa game, and it is really not a new phenomenon though it could be exacerbated by the ankle injury, is how incredibly slow Campbell is in everything he does. His drop is slow, his footwork was slow, his delivery is still slow, and I think you have to say that his reads were very slow on Sunday. If the "West Coast offense" means anything at all (and we know it means many things to many people) it is a timing and rhythm offense. I think even from the limited views we get on TV that it is pretty clear that is what Jim Zorn is trying to accomplish with his route combos (and, again, some looked just ridiculous even from the TV look). That means Campbell has to get to the end of his drop, read the coverage clearly, and release the ball. He certainly was not doing that against Tampa. The issue, it seemed, was that he was progressing through his reads too slowly rather than too quickly. You use the fact that Campbell scrambled so frequently as prima facie evidence that the receivers were covered, but it is just as easily evidence that he was unable to identify the correct receiver and make throws into tight windows. As I have said before, he seems to lack the timing and anticipation needed to get to the top of his drop and make those type of passes. We simply have not seen evidence of his ability to do so and with this large of a sample size the odds of seeing it are quickly diminishing.

As you mentioned, his throw to Moss was a coverage breakdown by both Talib and 21. The both bit on the double move and the safety might also have been trying to jump Kelly, who was probably the initial read on the play. I'm not sure if Jim Zorn had seen any tape on Tampa, but their safeties were a serious liability, lacking range and coverage skills. Maybe they could have attacked them more in the gameplan (in fairness, that play to Kelly also took advantage of their coverage liabilities, but was an incredibly bad throw). By the second half Zorn seemed to be covering for Campbell's inability to make quick reads by giving him single-read plays (i.e. all of those tight end screens). That is something you do for a rookie quarterback, not a guy making his 40th start.

I think it is probably difficult not to lay some of the blame for the lack of development in Campbell's game on Jim Zorn. That is why he was hired. Certainly the decision to hand him control of an NFL team rather than having him work more exclusively with Campbell and the offense is also part of that problem. If they did not want to hire Gregg Williams because of "personality issues" then they should have given the head job of Fassel (as was originally planned) and not been so concerned about the initial public relations problem (how are those public relations going now?) Maybe it will come out that Campbell was more injured than we knew (as SmootSmack has suggested) and that will help to explain the incredibly poor mechanics that Campbell displayed during the game. At this point, though, they are really just magnifications of deficiencies that have long existed. He has not shown the type of progression that we all hoped after being in the same offense for a second season. He has not done so even with the benefit of facing three of the NFL's worst defenses. That is disappointing. Plenty of blame to go around for that.

But just to offer a summation. The reason he played poorly was not simply because of the interceptions. The interceptions were a product of poor mechanics and poor identifications. That is the most disturbing part about Sunday. He was not trying to make throws into tight spaces (or, he was, but not because he was trying to give the receiver a chance, but because he made poor throws and/or poor reads). Those are the type of mistakes that represent endemic problems in the quarterback play. If it is in fact an injury that is exacerbating this problems the team should let it be known and allow Campbell to recover rather than being a liability on the field.
__________________
It has taken a long time, but I have finally realized that nothing I say about the Redskins will have any effect upon anything the Redskins do.
SC Skins Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2009, 08:56 AM   #14
Franchise Player
 
mredskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,658
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

And if it wasn't for a few timely big plays, the Redskins would have lost this game, at home, to the Bucs.

This is what football is! A bunch a plays that lead up to a meaningful play. You can look at nearly every football game played exculding blow outs and say if this didn't happen or this happened the out come would be diffrent.

I am tired of people removing plays or stats to help fuel their argument. Look at the entire body of work no need to throw in or take out certain variables.
__________________
When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!
mredskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2009, 08:59 AM   #15
The Starter
 
SC Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,555
Re: Redskins vs. Bucs Offensive Review: Gamblers, Losers, and Winners

Quote:
Originally Posted by mredskins View Post
And if it wasn't for a few timely big plays, the Redskins would have lost this game, at home, to the Bucs.

This is what football is! A bunch a plays that lead up to a meaningful play. You can look at nearly every football game played exculding blow outs and say if this didn't happen or this happened the out come would be diffrent.

I am tired of people removing plays or stats to help fuel their argument. Look at the entire body of work no need to throw in or take out certain variables.
Sure, a few plays are often the difference between winning and losing, but it is not the difference between playing well or not. That is a whole body of work. I have no idea how you could watch the Tampa game and find much encouraging. It is a testament to the power of fandom that so many of this site are managing to do so. Kudos to you.
__________________
It has taken a long time, but I have finally realized that nothing I say about the Redskins will have any effect upon anything the Redskins do.
SC Skins Fan 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 04:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.39743 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