Quote:
Originally Posted by MTRedskinsFan
Yeah baby I like this article. Like djnemo65 said above it sort of reveals some guys have not bought into the play-calling/gameplan up to this pt (as if it wasn't obvious enough on gameday!). Who's to say whether they will totally buy in going forward, but it sounds like it should be a better situation going forward.
Also, the article referred to the hybrid offense. IMO this has been the biggest f'n problem. It's not really Gibbs' gameplan or Saunders gameplan but a weakened compromise. If either guy were to fully takeover the result would be better than what we've seen. My personal opinion is that Saunders full takeover will yield the very best results (if or when that actually happens), but for now if the offense is going to return more heavily to Gibbs style attack, w/ the whole o-line digging in for battle in the trenches, we should see some improvement. Gibbs is smashmouth, and hopefully it can be done w/ the players we have today. When Thomas gets back Gibbs' smashmouth will work even better. Meanwhile, Saunders relies on a rhythm of play-calling to constantly throw the defense off kilter (remember KC). His style probably requires a higher level of execution and for everyone to be onboard, but I think in today's NFL it can be more effective than the smashmouth.
|
We have no ability whatsoever to play smashmouth football. Our OL is weak and old and fragile. We're sure to get our butts kicked and lose a couple more players, including Portis. We're even terrible on short yardage and have been for years, even before half our line got knocked out. If I were a DL or LB I would be dying to play us right now-- especially after this macho nonsense about the running game. DL's are much more physical than our OL, which can't move or split the D line.
I'd rather play the whole game in a two minute offense rather than try to sustain drives on the ground with our current personnel. We're going to see a lot of three and outs.
11-01-2007, 07:15 PM
Threaded Mode