Our offense CANNOT score!!!

[Schneed10]

I can't fault playcalling against the Cardinals. Look at the statistics, why wouldn't you run against these guys?

We had 2 interceptions occur right at the goalline, both on really stupid throws by Brunell. You have to figure that if the ball weren't picked in those instances, that the Skins probably would have come away with 10 points between those 2 possessions. That would have swung the game to a 27 point performance.

Brunell forced those throws.

I do agree with everyone who says we're strategically limited because of our 2nd WR situation. But given those limitations, I think the playcalling is doing fine. Against the Cardinals, the main problem was Brunell's execution. His brain took a day off, apparently.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I'd like to see the Redskins improve in a few areas, namely establish another #2 receiver, be it someone on the team, via draft, or via free agency, but I really think we need to make teams double Moss but lay awake wondering what #2 will do 3 days before the game. I think that Royal is okay, and minus that one absolutely pathetic game has played pretty darn well this year, but a big name TE could really help us in a division that isn't known for safeties/linebackers able to cover great TEs, if we could use a TE to open up the middle a bit I think Portis would reap the benefits greatly.
WE WANT DALLAS.

we already have a big name TE, what more could you want from Chris Cooley? he's a star in the making. i think we're set at TE - we need a no.2 WR

[skindogger47]

I just hope Gibbs has been saving all of his plays for this stretch.

[Daseal]

ill, I love Cooley (although he needs to learn to tuck that ball, he's been giving up a lot of TOs lately) but I want a 2nd TE threat. I don't want a Gates or Shockey who just catch balls, I want someone like Alex Smith (stanford TE) that came out last year. Who is very versatile, basically I want another Chris Cooley, only maybe a little bigger. This gives our offense two weapons who can slip out for decent pickups and make great safety valves. I know it's a lot to ask, but this is probably more realistic than getting a feared #2 receiver.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but often we have Cooley and Royal in at the same time don't we? Maybe I want to move Cooley to TE and get a more typical fullback. But a big name TE would limit Sellers playtime considerably. Either way, Ill, I think we agree on pretty much everything. I just think that we could use another TE (however, I'm willing to give Royal and that undrafted guy from Auburn, especially when Campbell is playing, a shot.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by illdefined

lack of true No.2 reciever

and sucks to say, but not enough improvement on the offensive line.

#2 receiver I agree with. However, offensive lines need a few years to gel, and Jansen wasn't with this team last year with the injury. We have a 40 something year old playing tackle, and that side of the line was in flux with people coming in and out trying to play tackle. Give it some time, I see a remarkable improvement over the second half of the season. Our real tests come in the next few weeks.

[Daseal]

I must admit, I like where our line is going. We have our book-ends, I don't know how much longer Thomas can stay playing like he is, but I think Dockery is slowly getting better and better (still makes stupid mistakes). More than anything, I want this group to stay together. The last two games, though they've been against pretty poor defenses, really showed that they can drive the defense off the ball. I also like the pulling ability of both the left and right sides.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

No reason to respect the running game, huh? I always thought that putting eight in the box to stop the run on better than 50% of your defensive plays meant that you were worried about the run, and didn't fear the passing threat.

Until we can win a game by running the ball when we have to and getting touchdowns as a result, I'd say that our opponents right now are more concerned with stopping Santana Moss than Clinton Portis.

That 7-yard run to seal up the win was the first time I can remember since the Chicago game that Portis and the O-line was able to run out the clock and get a first down when the team absolutely needed it. When this team starts doing that consistently, I maintain that this rushing attack is far from being considered "scary."

I would also dispute that teams are stacking the box on more than 50% of Redskin offensive plays. We saw it a lot yesterday because Arizona is known for playing an aggressive defense.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Daseal

PLaycalling.

Ditto!

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

After checking the stats, only one wide receiver other than Santana Moss caught the ball today:

Taylor Jacobs -- 1 catch for 7 yards.

That's pathetic, and Taylor Jacobs is officially not up to being a wide receiver in the NFL.

I mean really, is there anyone who will dispute this?

Beem's, it's hard to really see whats going on with Jacobs watching on television, is he getting open and not getting the ball? Is it simplistic pass patterns which are easy to read and cover, or is it actually him? This question may be better answered by someone who attends the games and has a view of the entire field on every play, could it just be all Jacobs? Yes, but it could be more of the rest of the offense and lack of ability or effort to involve him.

Don't know if you attend the games or not, I was curious if the Jacobs evaluation is based on that, or just the fact that he's really not doing much? I am very curious to know one way or the other myself.

The reason i raise this question is the fact that Patten was a very productive reciever on the best team in football the past 4 years and didn't do much with us, so who's really to blame?

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Daseal

ill, I love Cooley (although he needs to learn to tuck that ball, he's been giving up a lot of TOs lately) but I want a 2nd TE threat. I don't want a Gates or Shockey who just catch balls, I want someone like Alex Smith (stanford TE) that came out last year. Who is very versatile, basically I want another Chris Cooley, only maybe a little bigger. This gives our offense two weapons who can slip out for decent pickups and make great safety valves. I know it's a lot to ask, but this is probably more realistic than getting a feared #2 receiver.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but often we have Cooley and Royal in at the same time don't we? Maybe I want to move Cooley to TE and get a more typical fullback. But a big name TE would limit Sellers playtime considerably. Either way, Ill, I think we agree on pretty much everything. I just think that we could use another TE (however, I'm willing to give Royal and that undrafted guy from Auburn, especially when Campbell is playing, a shot.

yeah, we use Royal and Cooley at the same time very often, and i'm wondering if that space wouldn't be better served by Cooley and Sellers, who i think IS in that typical fullback mold. Not in the old ballcarrier way, but as a strong lead blocker for Portis and a short yardage receiving option. I think he may still be leading the league in fullback TDs in fact.

http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=9576

I think one real pass receiving TE is good and short of Gonzales or Shockey we are golden with Cooley. If we had a reliable no.2 WR to go over the middle along with Cooley, I'd like to have another big body in the backfield to stiffen the OLine up and punch defenses in the mouth.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I would also dispute that teams are stacking the box on more than 50% of Redskin offensive plays. We saw it a lot yesterday because Arizona is known for playing an aggressive defense.

Yes, they're a very aggressive, 26th ranked defense. And you must be right. Why would anyone respect Washingtons rushing attack, which is only 5th in the league, when you have the 19th ranked passing attack to watch out for?

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Yes, they're a very aggressive, 26th ranked defense. And you must be right. Why would anyone respect Washingtons rushing attack, which is only 5th in the league, when you have the 19th ranked passing attack to watch out for?

eh, don't bother Southpaw. apparently stats are relative.
http://www.thewarpath.net/showpost.p...3&postcount=16

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

I agree with Daseal here. Not so much that the playcalling sucks, but I wish we could be a little more creative.....especially in the 4th quarter. Maybe some more screens, playaction bootlegs......anything different. We can't be too predictable.

You want to talk bad playcalling. How about Dennis Green running a sweep to JJ Arrington on 4th and 2 with the game on the line. What was that all about? You don't look for Fitz or Boldin, instead you toss it outside when you've had no runner rush for more than 60 yards in a game this season-and usually far less?

And to think Dennis Green was supposedly the leading candidate to be our next coach had the Gibbs deal fallen through.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I would also dispute that teams are stacking the box on more than 50% of Redskin offensive plays. We saw it a lot yesterday because Arizona is known for playing an aggressive defense.

I strongly dispute your contention that opponents are not stacking the box on at least 50% of our plays. Sorry, but I watch the games several times a week and I'm seeing something completely different than you. I suggest you explicitly look for it next time you watch a Skins game.

[Redskins8588]

I agree that the playcalling is in need of improvement. Not so much the plays themselves but the lack of audibles. I mean watching the Arizona game there was one play where AZ had everyone and their brother on the line of scrimage, knowing that we want to run up the gut. Brunell walked to the line and ran the up the gut and we get stuffed, rather than seeing that the D is expecting up the gut and AUDIBLING to a pass or an outside pitch.

I understand that Gibbs is not a big fan of audibles but if he is going to trust Brunell with this team let him read the opposing D and make adjustments when needed.