What Is Wrong With Jansen?

everyone believes we have the talent to be a much greater offense, but who needs to use all available talent when we can get decent stats using only half the team's potential?I think we both believe that if we put Campbell in and asked him to do the same things Brunell is doing, there is absolutely no reasonable way our offense could improve. So I think what you really are asking for is an offensive philosophy change to use JC's strengths to maximize our offensive potential.

Well, I really don't believe we have the potential to be too much better than we are. If you look at the offenses that are better than us (FO's efficiency metric), they really do out-talent us.

Indianapolis, Philadelphia, New York Giants, San Diego, St. Louis, New England.

Indy, Phili, St. Louis, and New England all have premier QBs plus weapons. New England runs a similar offensive system to us, and have a great runner in Maroney. They lack a complete back like Portis, and a weapon on the outside like Santana, but they have a bunch of capable recievers like us and use their two TE system effectively. St. Louis has all the weapons Bulger could desire with Holt and Jackson. McNabb is having his best season as a pro right now. And Indy...is Indy.

New York has Barber and Shockey to go with Toomer and Burress, and the Chargers play Gates and Tomlinson every week, plus Philip Rivers is rapidly becoming a great pro.

Did you really expect our offense to be far better than any of these offenses? I really don't think we are only using half our potential. You make a great point when you point out that our offense is built to complement a great defense, which we don't have. But it seems like the easiest solution to this would be to improve the defense. If my theroy (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/15312-moves-we-should-make-next-year-5.html#post236470) is right (or even if it isn't), and the personel we carefully selected to dominate opposing offenses is taking an otherwise mediocre defense and making it shitty, it seems like it should be the DEFENSIVE philosophy that changes, not the offense.

Sure an offensive philosophy change might result in increased production, but when you look at what we were last year, and now what we were this year, adding only no. 2 recievers while losing our blocking TE (arguably no upgrade at all), its REALLY difficult to be dissapointed in the offense. It's not like they are turning it over and putting the D in bad situations. They are moving the ball, scoring when they have good field position, pinning the opponent deep through ball movement and punting when they are given bad field position. And then of course, you watch nameless 31 ranked offense go right down the field on us, either getting points, or putting us in horrid field position.

My central point is this: it seems stupid to take a defensive problem, and try to beat it by improving the offense. Possible, yes. But quite illogical and if we changed our offensive philosophy, I have a hard time seeing an improved offense this season at least.

i wasn't just talking about JC. i was talking about Lloyd and Randle El.

do you think we're using them to their potential? or is anyone not named Moss and Cooley (who are still being underutilized) doomed to David Patten's fate?

i wasn't even talking about JC. i was talking about Lloyd and Randle El.

do you think we're using them to their potential? or is anyone not named Moss and Cooley (who are still being underutilized) doomed to David Patten's fate?OK, take Lloyd and Randle El. What do they bring to the table offensively that, say, a random rookie WR couldn't bring to us? Are we underutilizing them? Yeah, but only because this is a team with Moss and Portis already. They both (Lloyd and El) get about 2 balls a game. But that's what happens when you have 7 different offensive weapons. They ALL get underutilized. Doesn't matter what you do. The reason they don't touch the ball nearly as much as Moss does is because Moss is a special player after the catch. Randle El and Lloyd aren't special players. They are decent NFL recievers who if open should get the ball thrown to them. And they do. But I guess if that makes them "underutilized", then yes I would say they are. It's an impossibility to take Moss, Portis, Cooley, Lloyd and Randle El and use them all to their ability. Peyton Manning as the QB, it still doesn't happen.

I don't really see it as a problem though.

It's his 10th year, he's tired of losing...

OK, take Lloyd and Randle El. What do they bring to the table offensively that, say, a random rookie WR couldn't bring to us? Are we underutilizing them? Yeah, but only because this is a team with Moss and Portis already. They both (Lloyd and El) get about 2 balls a game. But that's what happens when you have 7 different offensive weapons. They ALL get underutilized. Doesn't matter what you do. The reason they don't touch the ball nearly as much as Moss does is because Moss is a special player after the catch. Randle El and Lloyd aren't special players. They are decent NFL recievers who if open should get the ball thrown to them. And they do. But I guess if that makes them "underutilized", then yes I would say they are. It's an impossibility to take Moss, Portis, Cooley, Lloyd and Randle El and use them all to their ability. Peyton Manning as the QB, it still doesn't happen.

thats a terrible argument. all the offenses you mentioned that were 'better' than us had more than 2 offensive weapons. you telling me Randle El isn't good at YAC?

Peyton Manning had 3 TDs yesterday, none of them to Harrison, all of them to Wayne, his number 2. you may consider Lloyd and ARE only "decent", but then what makes Ladell Betts so great in Brunell's eyes?

This thread has been officially jacked.

But, I'll weigh in anyways. I'm going to sound like a politician, but I think both sides have good arguments here. I think we do have so many weapons on offense that some or all of them will be underutilized. On the other hand, I think we may be able to exploit our weapons to a greater extent. The defense could help to exploit our weapons by getting our offense onto the field and the offense could help to exploit our weapons by producing more yards once they get there.

thats a terrible argument. all the offenses you mentioned that were 'better' than us had more than 2 offensive weapons. you telling me Randle El isn't good at YAC?

Peyton Manning had 3 TDs yesterday, none of them to Harrison, all of them to Wayne, his number 2. you may consider Lloyd and ARE only "decent", but then what makes Ladell Betts so great in Brunell's eyes?Reggie Wayne is better than Randle El and Lloyd in the same way that Manning is better than Brunell...it's not even close. There is rampant report that Snyder wanted Wayne before he resigned with Indy.

Who said Ladell Betts was a great reciever? He's simply the check down. That his role on the play. So if they take away the first and second options, its resonable to assume that Betts is open, and thus you get the check down. It works better with Portis in there as does every other play. When Betts is in, its him. When Portis is in its him.

ok, ok, we should get rid of all them then (Moss, Lloyd, ARE and Cooley), because they just aren't getting open enough. :rolleyes:

ok, ok, we should get rid of all them then (Moss, Lloyd, ARE and Cooley), because they just aren't getting open enough. :rolleyes:You don't get rid of them. They are what we have. We just have to stop acting like we have this limitless potential with our offense because we made some signings. We have an efficient offense. It's really all I was hoping for.

look, its really simple. the skins know that their defense isnt playing like the last couple of seasons. so you try to basically outscore the other teams. but thats not going to happen with 5 and 10 yard passes. lets open the damn thing up