D.C. Examiner: Zorn's job in jeopardy? (not so fast he's coming back)

There you go again. If you're going to pump stats at me you're going to need to improve your analytical thinking.

Go back and read my post. I said we came out flat in the first quarter and got ran up on, and then we started fighting in the second quarter. So don't throw Benson's FULL GAME line at me.

In the first quarter, he ran for 41 yards on 7 carries, for nearly a 6 yard average. Then the Redskins started shutting him down, allowing only 32 yards on 14 carries the rest of the way. If you're right though, what you are saying is that we should have shut Benson down in the first quarter, and he should have rushed for two yards per attempt, or whatever he did the rest of the way (32/14).

But a lot of times, the only difference between the five carries you want to discuss and the rest of his line is a minor tweak or two that Blache had to make, and not because of coming out flat.

I mean, yeah, the first quarter is when we really struggled to handle their offense. Given. Obviously. You're asserting that they came out flat, which I don't totally disagree with, but also that they should be immune to coming out flat? I think?

Why should this team be immune to bad plays in the first quarter, prior to adjustments being made?

So what, the Redskins forgot how to defend the run in the first quarter and suddenly remembered in the second?? No, they didn't get their heads in the game early enough, and got run over.Is it okay if both of these things sound about equally implausible and nominal? How can you assert something that isn't disprovable?

I think that Zorn tried to load up his plate at the buffet a bit too much.. HC.. basically the QB Coach.. calling the plays, etc.. things he hasn't had to deal with before

Granted if you're taking a positional coach and making them a head coach, maybe that's something to be expected since they have something to prove

I wonder how Sherman Smith feels and what he would be doing

Yes that's totally true, but Campbell's decline in play over the recent five to six game stretch is also reflected in his yards per attempt and completion percentage numbers as well.

All this was to say that GTripp was kind of being ridiculous by telling us that in 2008 Campbell has a better INT rate than everyone but Jeff Garcia. Nobody cares, because he's at that level on the strength of his first 8 games. But we all know from watching the team, the performances we saw from the Redskins in the first 8 games are long gone.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to evaluate Campbell's full season stats when what we're really asking ourselves is why has the team fallen so hard from it's great start? We should look at the stats SINCE then, not over the whole season. It's convoluted reasoning.No. No, no, no, no, no.

It's selective sampling to say this. Campbell's two worst games of the last six were also the furthest away. Film study shows me that he got back on track against Seattle and has played at a pretty consistent level since then.

If we are in fact asking why they've fallen so far, we have to look at the reasons why when Campbell improved his level of play, the rest of the offense didn't improve theirs?

Cooley, Portis, Sellers, and Betts have all fumbled the ball away in the last four games, and the receivers have been going through a serious case of the dropsies. That's your answer.

If Zorn gets canned, it wouldn't surprise me. It would dissapoint me, I think the real problem is Cerrato (with Snyder talking in his ear). He just doesn't seem to be able to address a need the last few years. I love some of the picks, like Landry and Horton, but the lines haven't been addressed in the top of the draft in recent years. He hasn't drafted wisely in my opinion. The O & D lines just can't man up with the better lines in the league.

If you're right though, what you are saying is that we should have shut Benson down in the first quarter, and he should have rushed for two yards per attempt, or whatever he did the rest of the way (32/14).

But a lot of times, the only difference between the five carries you want to discuss and the rest of his line is a minor tweak or two that Blache had to make, and not because of coming out flat.

I mean, yeah, the first quarter is when we really struggled to handle their offense. Given. Obviously. You're asserting that they came out flat, which I don't totally disagree with, but also that they should be immune to coming out flat? I think?

Why should this team be immune to bad plays in the first quarter, prior to adjustments being made?

I agree it was probably a combination. And if there is one thing I'm on the same page with you on, it is Blache. He is slow to make adjustments, and the primary evidence of this is the lack of presnap movements directed by London Fletcher. Under GW, Fletcher was moving guys all over the place, making adjustments based on the formation and personnel. This never happens under Blache. Blache waits to see a few plays before he begins adjusting, and by then it's often too late; it probably contributed to our early game deficit this week.

Is it okay if both of these things sound about equally implausible and nominal? How can you assert something that isn't disprovable?

Because it's an opinion based on what I saw on TV today. There are no stats to measure effort. I simply saw 11 guys lined up on defense, but failing to attack the line of scrimmage with vigor. I didn't see guys flying to the ball, and I didn't see guys taking on pulling blockers willingly.

Should we expect that the team should never come out flat at any time during the season? No, that's unrealistic. But is it unreasonable to expect them to get up for a December game when they're 7-6 and in the playoff hunt? Not at all. A Joe Gibbs Redskin team may not have won this game, we don't know that for sure. But I can promise you they would not have come out flat.

Because it's an opinion based on what I saw on TV today. There are no stats to measure effort. I simply saw 11 guys lined up on defense, but failing to attack the line of scrimmage with vigor. I didn't see guys flying to the ball, and I didn't see guys taking on pulling blockers willingly.

Should we expect that the team should never come out flat at any time during the season? No, that's unrealistic. But is it unreasonable to expect them to get up for a December game when they're 7-6 and in the playoff hunt? Not at all. A Joe Gibbs Redskin team may not have won this game, we don't know that for sure. But I can promise you they would not have come out flat.Schneed, I respect your opinion, and I don't want to come off like I'm dismissing it because you are saying it. It's actually quite the opposite. I'm re-evaluating my own opinion becuase you've seen something that I didn't.

But I'm still brought back to the conclusion that it's probably not just a lack of effort, especially considering what this team did last year, and in 2005, and that they certainly knew what was at stake, and then they got their shit together, both sides of the ball, in the second quarter.

So if that's what you saw, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll be looking at the tape tonight, and will consider the possibility that I am incorrect.

But this does all lead back to the point that our first quarter has been horrendous on both sides of the ball. It seems to me that there has to be some cause.
It's been all season long that our first quarter is our biggest achilles heel. (again can't find the points for and against in the first quarter)

No. No, no, no, no, no.

It's selective sampling to say this. Campbell's two worst games of the last six were also the furthest away. Film study shows me that he got back on track against Seattle and has played at a pretty consistent level since then.

If we are in fact asking why they've fallen so far, we have to look at the reasons why when Campbell improved his level of play, the rest of the offense didn't improve theirs?

Cooley, Portis, Sellers, and Betts have all fumbled the ball away in the last four games, and the receivers have been going through a serious case of the dropsies. That's your answer.

I agree that turnovers are the biggest culprit for our recent swoon. I agree that Campbell has faced tougher defenses over the last five games. I agree that the supporting cast has let him down as pass protection has failed at times.

I definitely think that if the supporting cast played better, Campbell's numbers would reflect it.

And please, I understand statistical sampling. Campbell's numbers are a product of the team's play around him, so to look at his numbers the past 5 games and say that Campbell has regressed would not be correct.

But to spit out full-season stats on Jason Campbell is about as helpful and meaningful as the next duplicate "fire Jim Zorn" thread we're sure to have on this site.

Well, perhaps. But Zorn isn't giving up yards by doing stupid things. Blache is. So while it is my opinion that Zorn should be given a pass for not having the answers (and a lot of smart people are going to disagree with me), it's pretty obvious that Blache has called some moronic defenses that decrease our chances of getting off the field, especially on third down.

Bottom line is we don't give up a lot of points and I believe we're at the top of the NFL in 3 and outs. Blache has more than done his job.

im all about "NOT" changing again, BUT... zorn has had some horrible play calls and especially today against the bungs. i mean so bad that if i was the play caller it wouldn't have been that bad. so is he ready???? i think he gets canned and we get cowher. just imo