Positives of this Game

[Swarley]

It really does get rather tiring seeing our corners play so far off the line

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I think it's a huge positive that after the game in one of Zorn's many interviews he flat out stated that the secondary was playing too far off the line of scrimmage.

That really needed to be addressed. Even though the entire fanbase already knows it Blache might actually have to tone down the "If you want an eight yard completion at any point in the game we are happy to oblige defensive backfield philosophy."

Next up I hope we will address the Blache "Don't you dare try and throw any seventy yard passes against us because Laron Landry is fifty yards off the line of scrimmage philosophy."

There is an argument being made by some that because Blache lets his DB's play so far back off the line of scrimmage, there is less chance of them getting beat deep and the fact that his defense ranks high in the "points allowed" category justifies this and validates his strategy. It allows the play to happen in front of the DB where he can make a tackle instead of behind him for a TD. Of course this often allows for long drives that end up for 3 points. What it doesn't take into account is the amount of time the defense is on the field and the offense is on the sideline. Of course that means fewer chances for the offense to score or get into a rhythm, (sorry CRedkinsRule). I can't speak for GTripp but I believe that's one of the points he trys to make, unsuccessfully to those who always see the bottom line as, " The defense's job is to not allow a lot of points...PERIOD!". When we need to score and the defense cannot get off the field, I think we see the fallacy of this strategy.

[EternalEnigma21]

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by EternalEnigma21

Nice hit Fletcher.

HTTR.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Lost in all the shuffle was this:

The Giants DID take away Moss, and the passing offense didn't suffer. Not one bit. We were actually better off NOT going to Moss.

When was the last time we could say that?

Maybe we should find a way to stop LETTING teams "take away" Moss if he's such an effective weapon. There are plenty of good receivers out there who are the focus of attention each and every week (just about every #1), but they still find a way to produce. It's not like they had pro-bowlers all along their secondary. It's just another bogus excuse that I'm tired of hearing about.

[skins89moss]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

Nice hit Fletcher.

HTTR.

Oh yea nice Hit London. You notice he did not try to taunt his opponet cause he is a real pro.

[skins89moss]

How hope we can let Moss some WR reverses since they want to use a safety over the top to stop him. Lets get him the ball earlier in the game. He better hold on the ball unlike the Green Bay game when he fumbled which lead to a Packers touchdown.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by EternalEnigma21

I guess Fletch didn't get the report that you have to hit Jacobs low.

The dude is amazing.

[dmek25]

nice payback for Landry getting trucked last year

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I guess Fletch didn't get the report that you have to hit Jacobs low.

The dude is amazing.

Yeah going low didn't work for Landry last year. You just have to head hunt with some guys. If one way of tackling doesn't work, then try another. You would think that going low would work, but it looks like hitting Jacobs higher is better.

[Njall]

Originally Posted by skins89moss

Oh yea nice Hit London. You notice he did not try to taunt his opponet cause he is a real pro.

Fletcher is borderline Hall of Famer if he keeps it up. To think he started Fletcher with the St. Louis Rams as an undrafted free agent.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

Maybe we should find a way to stop LETTING teams "take away" Moss if he's such an effective weapon. There are plenty of good receivers out there who are the focus of attention each and every week (just about every #1), but they still find a way to produce. It's not like they had pro-bowlers all along their secondary. It's just another bogus excuse that I'm tired of hearing about.

What in the heck are you saying?

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

Yeah going low didn't work for Landry last year. You just have to head hunt with some guys. If one way of tackling doesn't work, then try another. You would think that going low would work, but it looks like hitting Jacobs higher is better.

That's retarded. First, LaVar explained the Landry hit in great detail last week. Laron's first giving up a lot of weight to that impact(obviously). 2nd, Laron thought about going low, and hesitated to follow through. That split 2nd allowe Jacobs' to get all of his weight much lower and Laron set himself up to take the hit.

London's hit was another case of mistaken momentum. You don't take 265 lb running backs normally by hitting them square in the chest, no matter who you are. And if you think so, stop watching football now, you'll never get it. Jacobs was already in a crowd of Redskins, and if you look at his body, he's still moving forward before the hit, but his weight isn't low at all. In fact, he's nearly running completely upright, positioning himself to be knocked over.

Just like anything else, collisions/tackles don't take place in a vacuum. Every angle is different. Every player is different. Every body position is different.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

That's retarded. First, LaVar explained the Landry hit in great detail last week. Laron's first giving up a lot of weight to that impact(obviously). 2nd, Laron thought about going low, and hesitated to follow through. That split 2nd allowe Jacobs' to get all of his weight much lower and Laron set himself up to take the hit.

London's hit was another case of mistaken momentum. You don't take 265 lb running backs normally by hitting them square in the chest, no matter who you are. And if you think so, stop watching football now, you'll never get it. Jacobs was already in a crowd of Redskins, and if you look at his body, he's still moving forward before the hit, but his weight isn't low at all. In fact, he's nearly running completely upright, positioning himself to be knocked over.

Just like anything else, collisions/tackles don't take place in a vacuum. Every angle is different. Every player is different. Every body position is different.

I agree about Landry, and momentum, but watch the hit in the video posted here, Jacobs is breaking a leg tackle or two and in good running posture, Fletcher basically makes a perfect tackle, squaring up and launching at Jacobs. Both men shook their head when they got up from the collission

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

That's retarded. First, LaVar explained the Landry hit in great detail last week. Laron's first giving up a lot of weight to that impact(obviously). 2nd, Laron thought about going low, and hesitated to follow through. That split 2nd allowe Jacobs' to get all of his weight much lower and Laron set himself up to take the hit.

London's hit was another case of mistaken momentum. You don't take 265 lb running backs normally by hitting them square in the chest, no matter who you are. And if you think so, stop watching football now, you'll never get it. Jacobs was already in a crowd of Redskins, and if you look at his body, he's still moving forward before the hit, but his weight isn't low at all. In fact, he's nearly running completely upright, positioning himself to be knocked over.

Just like anything else, collisions/tackles don't take place in a vacuum. Every angle is different. Every player is different. Every body position is different.

Of course, tackles don't take place in a vacuum. But like I was saying, it apparently is better to try to hit Jacobs in his upper body than going low. If you're taking the stance that lower is always better, then I think your post is retarded. That's not always the case just cause that's what the popular opinion is.

Given everything you said, I would still like my chances of hitting Jacobs in the same manner as Fletcher rather than Landry - just because of the extreme results of one in comparison to the other. I would obviously rather dish out a bone jarring hit than take one. And when it is all is said and done - Fletcher dished it out and Landry took one.

And to your comment that I should stop watching football - maybe YOU should stop watching sportscenter (and these other 2 bit shows) to get your football knowledge.