Realistic "State of the Skins"

scowan · 09-20-2005, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUNRA

I agree. But on a lighter note. We really watched the Redskins score three touchdowns in 2:37 seconds. I guess the Referees didn't want the defense to hurt their feelings. Sean Taylor landed the biggest hit and turnover of the week and Walt Harris picks it up. What do we hear, an incomplete pass. Get the hell out of hear. The real score would be 21-13. Man f$%k the Cowboys.

Sundra, you are right about that hit by Taylor. That was a completed pass and a fumble. That guy caught that pass, was it Crayton I don't remember, turned up field, took two steps and got hammered! If the replay officals would have stopped the game for a review, it would have been overturned. That was a wicked, very legal hit by Taylor.

redrock-skins · 09-20-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scowan

Sundra, you are right about that hit by Taylor. That was a completed pass and a fumble. That guy caught that pass, was it Crayton I don't remember, turned up field, took two steps and got hammered! If the replay officals would have stopped the game for a review, it would have been overturned. That was a wicked, very legal hit by Taylor.

There was another similiar play earlier in the game too, where the Cowboys caught and then fumbled the ball. So we got screwed twice. The ref blew the whistle in both case I believe, which makes the play not reviewable. I've heard cries elsewhere about "phantom holding calls" against Dallas toward the end of the game so all I have to do is bring up those two "phantom non-fumble calls".

That Guy · 09-20-2005, 11:22 AM

where the hell did that playcalling come from in the last 4 minutes? and can we always do that please?

I want more mark rypien bombs away passing...

memphisskin · 09-20-2005, 11:23 AM

I think we found out that Brunell may have a little something left in his tank and maybe the gameplan wasn't as conservative as it appeared. Field position really dictated that we not take chances for most of the game, but now that we've found the deep ball things might just open up.

The Good - Team Defense. Just outstanding, they kept us in the game without the offense contributing much and slammed the door when they needed to.

The Bad - Pass protection and penalties. For all the talk about protecting the qb we still struggled in blitz pickup and Brunell got hit and harassed way too much. Cleaning up the penalties may get our offense untracked, but hopefully the deep passes are the spark that we need to ignite our offense.

The Ugly - Team Offense. Maybe these two deep balls will give them the confidence that they need. But it looked too much like the same old offense for 3+ quarters and that's not a good thing. Where were the stretch plays, all the new stuff to get Portis on the edge or maybe even a screen pass to Portis.

But the bottom line is that we're 2-0. Hey, did anyone notice that our win over Dallas is getting very little attention. I saw Peter King has Dallas (12) and Chicago (15) in his Fine 15. Wonder if we'll get any mention considering we beat both of those teams.

memphisskin · 09-20-2005, 11:25 AM

I think we found out that Brunell may have a little something left in his tank and maybe the gameplan wasn't as conservative as it appeared. Field position really dictated that we not take chances for most of the game, but now that we've found the deep ball things might just open up.

The Good - Team Defense. Just outstanding, they kept us in the game without the offense contributing much and slammed the door when they needed to.

The Bad - Pass protection and penalties. For all the talk about protecting the qb we still struggled in blitz pickup and Brunell got hit and harassed way too much. Cleaning up the penalties may get our offense untracked, but hopefully the deep passes are the spark that we need to ignite our offense.

The Ugly - Team Offense. Maybe these two deep balls will give them the confidence that they need. But it looked too much like the same old offense for 3+ quarters and that's not a good thing. Where were the stretch plays, all the new stuff to get Portis on the edge or maybe even a screen pass to Portis.

But the bottom line is that we're 2-0. Hey, did anyone notice that our win over Dallas is getting very little attention. I know if we lost the Cowboys would have been Super Bowl contenders, but we win and we're still a "flawed team." At least we know the flaw isn't on defense. And I saw Peter King has Dallas (12) and Chicago (15) in his Fine 15. Wonder if we'll get any mention considering we beat both of those teams.

SUNRA · 09-20-2005, 11:27 AM

What about Dan Synder? Man you would have thought Jesus Christ came back by the way he was jumping up and down. All I could imagine him saying, "Pure unadulterated Ecstacy." Thank you, Jesus!

That Guy · 09-20-2005, 11:41 AM

man, look at the defensive stats... looks like pierce singlehandedly made the gints run defense awesome, maybe we should have kept him...

RedskinPete · 09-20-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

man, look at the defensive stats... looks like pierce singlehandedly made the gints run defense awesome, maybe we should have kept him...

Sure would have love that but the LB's we have are as good or better!

Southpaw · 09-20-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

GOOD - Sean Taylor's hit on Crayton at the end of the game. Awesome!
BAD - Sean Taylor's coverage for most of the game. While I still think Taylor has the potential to be a beast in the NFL, I have to be honest about the fact that he is nowhere near the neighborhood of Roy Williams, Ed Reed or even Mike Brown in terms of dominating a game. Not close.

Saying Mike Brown is better than Taylor is borderline blasphemy. People are afraid of Taylor. Have you ever seen a Sportscenter highlight where someone says "so and so gets JACKED UP by Mike Brown"? ST also plays the run 10 times better than Brown. The only thing that Brown has going for him is his ability to be in the right place at the right time, which seems to have diminished a bit over the years.

And ST has way better coverage ability and recovery speed than Roy Williams. ST got beat on a flea flicker, which if done correctly, will beat any defense(I specifically remember a Monday night game last year where Ed Reed and Ray Lewis got beat on a flea flicker). Roy got beat twice by a standard double move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

GOOD - TEAM defense
BAD - You are nutzo if you think the defense is better off w/o Lavar in the lineup. Where the hell was he? Didn't hear Carlos Rogers name called all game either (although I saw him in the game at least). These guys are gamechangers, supposedly. We tallied NO sacks and NO turnovers. Did you see Roy Williams last night - he was everywhere. We need some of that. Getting our playmakers in the game will help. Don't worry, G-Williams will still have them playing like a team.

I agree with this statement, somewhat. A lot of people try to act like we're just fine without LaVar, but he's a playmaker. A lot of times, he's the only pressure on the QB because of our dismil defensive line(my only knock on the defense). He's a ball hawk and causes chaos for offenses when he's healthy. You'll see the difference in the defense when he's %100.

BleedBurgundy · 09-20-2005, 12:32 PM

I think the play calling was over-conservative for most of the game. What changed was that we didn't have enough time to play that way anymore... so we started attacking and we got the first TD. What impressed me most was that when we got the ball back, down 13-7, We went long on 2nd down with a lot of clock left. Normally, we'd be expecting a few short throws to try and move the chains. Instead, we went for the jugular... I think that was a huge change in philosophy.

illdefined · 09-20-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

What impressed me most was that when we got the ball back, down 13-7, We went long on 2nd down with a lot of clock left. Normally, we'd be expecting a few short throws to try and move the chains. Instead, we went for the jugular... I think that was a huge change in philosophy.

agreed. that was a first down play!

but even throwing it long on 4 & 15th was a gutsy non-conservative move. i really hope something broke in that stodgy, conservative philosophy that only ensures we lose by a respectable amount. no more please!

redsk1 · 09-20-2005, 12:49 PM

What a game. I think I woke the neighborhood up at 1245am last night screaming at the tv. Good win, but we have a lot of improving to do. I don't see how the ref's missed TWO calls on fumbles. Unbelievable.
Realistically our offense was horrible for 3 qtrs. Maybe this will open some things up. Did anyone notice, Michaels and Madden, using phrases like no weapons, nothing to scare to defense, predictable, to describe our offense? I think they were being nice. Lets enjoy this win but know we have GOT to do a better job offensively.
BTW- Greg Williams said they practiced the f-flicker 3 times in practice this week.

hurrykaine · 09-20-2005, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

I hear you! It seems like the Cowbitches get at least one bogus call like that every time we play them. Every time. Under 2 Min's - that should have at least been reviewed.

I just saw it more closely on the highlight reel - Crayton took two steps after catching the ball (aka a football move) before Taylor leveled him. Fumble!!!!!!

Wish we could get an independent review of this.

FRPLG · 09-20-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

I just saw it more closely on the highlight reel - Crayton took two steps after catching the ball (aka a football move) before Taylor leveled him. Fumble!!!!!!

Wish we could get an independent review of this.

There's no need for an independent review. The play is about as clear as it can be. He catches the ball and takes two steps and gets flattened. Catch-hit-fumble-skins recovery-running for td-whistle blows-skins screwed. You can call the freaking supreme court and it won't change that the skins we screwed on that one. I guess we oughta be getting used to it by now.

LadyT · 09-20-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ade Jimoh Fan Club

Let's take off the burgundy and gold glasses and look at both the good and bad of last night's game:

GOOD - Brunnel's two passes to Moss for TD's
BAD - All of his other passes

GOOD - Defensive playcalling (albeit more conservative than normal)
BAD - Offensive playcalling was more vanilla than Mr. Ice himself - the two long TD's were out of necessity instead of plan. The theme of the first 55 minutes was "Please, please don't f*ck it up Brunell!!" when it should have been "I can't wait for Brunell to f*ckin' light it up, baby!"

GOOD - Sean Taylor's hit on Crayton at the end of the game. Awesome!
BAD - Sean Taylor's coverage for most of the game. While I still think Taylor has the potential to be a beast in the NFL, I have to be honest about the fact that he is nowhere near the neighborhood of Roy Williams, Ed Reed or even Mike Brown in terms of dominating a game. Not close.

GOOD - James Thrash always seems to be there when you need him on 3rd down or in ST coverage - Mr. Reliable.
BAD - Either Taylor Jacobs is a really, really unlucky guy, or this guy is made of paper mache. It seems that his after-the-catch celebration is to get in the fetal postition and suck his thumb. How much longer can we wait for the training room's "Customer of the Year" to make a play for us? Answer - not much longer...

GOOD - TEAM defense
BAD - You are nutzo if you think the defense is better off w/o Lavar in the lineup. Where the hell was he? Didn't hear Carlos Rogers name called all game either (although I saw him in the game at least). These guys are gamechangers, supposedly. We tallied NO sacks and NO turnovers. Did you see Roy Williams last night - he was everywhere. We need some of that. Getting our playmakers in the game will help. Don't worry, G-Williams will still have them playing like a team.

GOOD - A VERY gratifying win AT Dallas ON Monday Night. In the same manner that they usually beat us.
BAD - Undoubtedly, the press will say we "got lucky" and beat a better Dallas team (although they were up 2-0 on turnovers and still lost). They'll say Brunell was shaky and the offense looked lost. And that's fine. Let them talk. Do you know what will shut up the doubters? More winning. That's it. So let's not spend the next two weeks crying about how unfair the press is after our "big win" - let's just keep winning and smiling.

Way to go Skins - Way to go ADE!

Excellent, excellent assessment. I couldn't agree more. As much as I enjoyed last night's victory and still want to savor it, our offense still has a LONG way to go. I was very troubled that, for at least 56 minutes of the game, it could do virtually nothing. We didn't even get close enough to attempt a field goal! And the play-calling looked eerily like last year, which is to say it was ineffective to the extreme.

Sure hope Gibbs opens things up. Weren't we promised that in the pre-season?

09-20-2005, 11:22 AM	#18
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Springfield, VA Age: 30 Posts: 15,624	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" where the hell did that playcalling come from in the last 4 minutes? and can we always do that please? I want more mark rypien bombs away passing... __________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

09-20-2005, 11:23 AM	#19
memphisskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 41 Posts: 958	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" I think we found out that Brunell may have a little something left in his tank and maybe the gameplan wasn't as conservative as it appeared. Field position really dictated that we not take chances for most of the game, but now that we've found the deep ball things might just open up. The Good - Team Defense. Just outstanding, they kept us in the game without the offense contributing much and slammed the door when they needed to. The Bad - Pass protection and penalties. For all the talk about protecting the qb we still struggled in blitz pickup and Brunell got hit and harassed way too much. Cleaning up the penalties may get our offense untracked, but hopefully the deep passes are the spark that we need to ignite our offense. The Ugly - Team Offense. Maybe these two deep balls will give them the confidence that they need. But it looked too much like the same old offense for 3+ quarters and that's not a good thing. Where were the stretch plays, all the new stuff to get Portis on the edge or maybe even a screen pass to Portis. But the bottom line is that we're 2-0. Hey, did anyone notice that our win over Dallas is getting very little attention. I saw Peter King has Dallas (12) and Chicago (15) in his Fine 15. Wonder if we'll get any mention considering we beat both of those teams.

09-20-2005, 11:25 AM	#20
memphisskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 41 Posts: 958	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" I think we found out that Brunell may have a little something left in his tank and maybe the gameplan wasn't as conservative as it appeared. Field position really dictated that we not take chances for most of the game, but now that we've found the deep ball things might just open up. The Good - Team Defense. Just outstanding, they kept us in the game without the offense contributing much and slammed the door when they needed to. The Bad - Pass protection and penalties. For all the talk about protecting the qb we still struggled in blitz pickup and Brunell got hit and harassed way too much. Cleaning up the penalties may get our offense untracked, but hopefully the deep passes are the spark that we need to ignite our offense. The Ugly - Team Offense. Maybe these two deep balls will give them the confidence that they need. But it looked too much like the same old offense for 3+ quarters and that's not a good thing. Where were the stretch plays, all the new stuff to get Portis on the edge or maybe even a screen pass to Portis. But the bottom line is that we're 2-0. Hey, did anyone notice that our win over Dallas is getting very little attention. I know if we lost the Cowboys would have been Super Bowl contenders, but we win and we're still a "flawed team." At least we know the flaw isn't on defense. And I saw Peter King has Dallas (12) and Chicago (15) in his Fine 15. Wonder if we'll get any mention considering we beat both of those teams.

09-20-2005, 11:27 AM	#21
SUNRA The Starter Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,680	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" What about Dan Synder? Man you would have thought Jesus Christ came back by the way he was jumping up and down. All I could imagine him saying, "Pure unadulterated Ecstacy." Thank you, Jesus! __________________ Redskins Member since 1970

09-20-2005, 11:41 AM	#22
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Springfield, VA Age: 30 Posts: 15,624	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" man, look at the defensive stats... looks like pierce singlehandedly made the gints run defense awesome, maybe we should have kept him... __________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

09-20-2005, 12:32 PM	#25
BleedBurgundy Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,434	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" I think the play calling was over-conservative for most of the game. What changed was that we didn't have enough time to play that way anymore... so we started attacking and we got the first TD. What impressed me most was that when we got the ball back, down 13-7, We went long on 2nd down with a lot of clock left. Normally, we'd be expecting a few short throws to try and move the chains. Instead, we went for the jugular... I think that was a huge change in philosophy. __________________ "All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine

09-20-2005, 12:49 PM	#27
redsk1 The Starter Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,351	Re: Realistic "State of the Skins" What a game. I think I woke the neighborhood up at 1245am last night screaming at the tv. Good win, but we have a lot of improving to do. I don't see how the ref's missed TWO calls on fumbles. Unbelievable. Realistically our offense was horrible for 3 qtrs. Maybe this will open some things up. Did anyone notice, Michaels and Madden, using phrases like no weapons, nothing to scare to defense, predictable, to describe our offense? I think they were being nice. Lets enjoy this win but know we have GOT to do a better job offensively. BTW- Greg Williams said they practiced the f-flicker 3 times in practice this week.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Realistic "State of the Skins"

Redskins Locker Room