Zorn calls team "Soft"

I think Zorn's offense is soft.For that matter, I've always viewed the WCO as soft compared to "Redskins Football" - pounding out the run to set up play action. When the Peter King's of the world were keeping Art Monk out of the HoF, one of the stats they held as evidence was Monk's relatively low career TD numbers (68). I would argue that historically, the Redskins have run the ball in the red-zone, while most WCO's still pass over 50% of the time, even near the goal-line. I've always felt that nothing is more demoralizing to a defense than pounding the run in the redzone for a TD. Until Snyderato gets serious about building the top O-line in the league, I feel that we will have a dink and dump offense that raises little fear - I believe that soft is a very appropriate term.

That's a great point. I was thinking about this the other day -- define our offense. Can anyone do it?

Are we a running team? Portis' number of carries would suggest so, but that's not how a 'West Coast' offense typically operates. Then we have Jason Campbell as our quarterback who has a cannon for an arm. He did nothing but throw ICBMs downfield at Auburn which is what fit Joe Gibbs' offense best. Then last year we go out and draft three pass catchers in our first round.

I get the feeling that the players don't really know what their true identity is as an offense. And maybe Zorn doesn't either.

A pure WCO doesn't even exist anymore, everyone is running hybrid systems.

As for WCO teams not running the ball I think that's a myth these days. Alexander put up some monster rushing numbers in Seattle. Gruden in Tampa loved to "pound the rock" as he put it, Green Bay has had their share of good rushing attacks over the years and they even had some guy named Favre that was known for having a big arm.

Well the Ravens just have a vitality we don't have right now. They're a home grown team with a lot of depth.

Maybe Coach Zorn's comments will light a fire. I know that one important part of what really lights a fire under a team is a sense that you are always in contention to have a starting job, and that if you play well enough, you'll be the starter. Your play is what determines whether and how much you play.

At the quarterback position, Jason Campbell, a good person with respectable talent, got installed as quarterback, but I think he should have lost his job permanently to Todd Collins after the way Collins played at the end of 2007. Collins earned the starting job. But the Redskins wanted to put Campbell back in as a starter at the beginning of 2008, and closed the competition from the onset.

Then, after the season, deciding they'd made a mistake, the upper management goes gangbusters to try to trade the house to get a new quarterback in the offseason, ignoring Todd Collins and a potential star in Colt Brennan on their own roster.

All of this sends a very de-motivating message to players in my view. You can play your heart out and do superb, like Todd Collins, but it doesn't effect whether you'll play. That's for upper management to make a decision about.

You can be a budding potential star like Colt Brennan, but you can find yourself on a team ready to make huge sacrifices to bring on some shiny player from afar at your position.

If you want players to play hard, one of the keys is setting up a situation where there is a direct connection between how hard and well they play and whether and how much they play.

Otherwise you get players who play soft. There already are fabulously well paid free agents at the position you're playing at. You know you don't have a chance. You know that the players you're playing with are there because they were brought here or installed here. You know that the effort isn't what is paramount.

The Baltimore Ravens are built on the draft; they aren't a handpicked team. They play with a great deal of energy and passion because they know that is what gives them the opportunity to start. Starters aren't installed - they are always challenged.

I hope Jim Zorn is able to remake this team. I like Jim Zorn and I think he has a ton to offer. But the thing is that the coach is another replaceable part. He could easily be dumped for yet another new coach (how many have we had here?). How many coaches have the Pittsburgh Steelers had since 1969? Three coaches.

OK, time to step down from my soapbox!

I applaud what you are saying. You hit the nail right on the head. The Ravens and the Skins are exact opposites in organization philosophy. You brought up an interesting issue about the lack of intensity by the backups because they know the organization does not value building from within.

Not sure why the team played so bad on Thursday night but after a game like that its a good chance to see how the coach will respond and get the team playing like it should. I really don't care after 1 preseason game but if they do not show improvement then I'll start to show the concerns.

Not sure why the team played so bad on Thursday night but after a game like that its a good chance to see how the coach will respond and get the team playing like it should. I really don't care after 1 preseason game but if they do not show improvement then I'll start to show the concerns.
DITTO, our first string needs to prove we can put up points and deny the Steeler first string.

DITTO, our first string needs to prove we can put up points and deny the Steeler first string.

Well against teams like the Ravens and the Steelers they need more then a few series to get things going and Zorn needs to let them play longer. I like the fact that or O is up against some good D's to get them ready for the season.

I, as much as everyone, hated the 0 on the scoreboard Thursday. But in review the individual pieces seemed fair to good. If we put up 0 again I will hate it just as much, but until regular season starts, the points in these games have 0 meaning. If our 1st offense drives and scores on the first two possession I would be happy, but still we need to see it against the Giants, when it counts. (I think we will)

Like a true Redskins sucker for pain that I am, I watched the game over again last night. Did they play soft? They did and they didn't in IMO. They (the D) got burned up for many plays. I think that they play calling was soft / vanilla. I was happy to see the first string O-line give the QBs time. I didn't see the snap and pop from the QBs. Whether this was because of them or the WRs, I don't know. Time will tell.

I'm sure Angry can relate as well as I can.

When your people don't respond to normal methods of leadership, you have to go a little more extreme. As Jsarno said, it will light a fire under them. Keep up the good work Zorny.

I love negative reinforcement.

Time for me to tell my wife how much her cooking sucks.

A pure WCO doesn't even exist anymore, everyone is running hybrid systems.

As for WCO teams not running the ball I think that's a myth these days. Alexander put up some monster rushing numbers in Seattle. Gruden in Tampa loved to "pound the rock" as he put it, Green Bay has had their share of good rushing attacks over the years and they even had some guy named Favre that was known for having a big arm.

So true. You can even go back farther to Roger Craig/Tom Rathman with San Fran in the '80's. People remember Montana to Rice but the Niners actually ran the ball a good deal.