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

hooskins · 10-07-2009, 09:23 PM

Do you think our new offensive consultant will help any of this?

GTripp0012 · 10-07-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

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.

hooskins · 10-07-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

GTripp0012 · 10-07-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

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.

hooskins · 10-07-2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

GTripp0012 · 10-07-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

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.

SC Skins Fan · 10-08-2009, 08:33 AM

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.

10-07-2009, 09:23 PM	#1
hooskins Most Interesting Man in the World Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Chantilly, VA Age: 38 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

10-08-2009, 08:33 AM	#7
SC Skins Fan The Starter 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.

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

Locker Room Main Forum