The Redskins Are Close

I think the bottom line is this:

If we continue to suck on offense, I'm fine with that. Just as long as the offenses we play, suck worse than we do. A "W" is a "W" dammit, and I don't care how we get it. It could be the 60-70's style football and the game can be hard-nosed, and end in a 6-3 Redskins win. As long as we are on top, it doesn't matter. Sure, we all want JC to be the next Brady or Manning, blazing down the field throwing 5 TD's a game, but that's not Redskins football. We are a tough running team, and we've gotten away from that for several reasons.....

Bottom line is that we need to get the "job" done each week, and walk away healthy, and with a win.

HTTR!!!!

I don't disagree that a hardnose football team can consistently win games ugly but I really don't consider us a hard nosed team. That's what makes our offense so sketchy to begin with.

If we had a hard nosed offense our offensive line would be WAY better and it would be opening up holes for our backs. That is not happening. We have a fairly feeble rushing line and we don't wear down defenses by being on the field so much and dragging our drives with the run game.

I'm fine with winning ugly on the back of a strong rushing offense...that isn't the case here. We won ugly with an inept offense and a defense that spent way too long on the field.

I don't disagree that a hardnose football team can consistently win games ugly but I really don't consider us a hard nosed team. That's what makes our offense so sketchy to begin with.

If we had a hard nosed offense our offensive line would be WAY better and it would be opening up holes for our backs. That is not happening. We have a fairly feeble rushing line and we don't wear down defenses by being on the field so much and dragging our drives with the run game.

I'm fine with winning ugly on the back of a strong rushing offense...that isn't the case here. We won ugly with an inept offense and a defense that spent way too long on the field.

Outside the redzone, I would disagree with the assertion that are offense was inept but that's just my opinion (based on the facts that (a) we held the ball for 35 minis. and (b) we had 5 long drives of 13 plays or more).

As for the defense being on the field to long? That's just a stupid, baseless statement. We had a 10 minute time of possesion advantage over them. Our defense was on the field 25 minutes - less than half the game. Those are numbers teams strive for.

If you want to criticize, fine. But at least stick to the facts.

Is he Campbell or Zorn?


I was referring to Campbell, but you could probably go both on that one when you think about it. Zorn, if he ever gets some trust in his young players, may call some shots for Kelly if he knows Kelly will go up and fight for the ball, same with Thomas.

Outside the redzone, I would disagree with the assertion that are offense was inept but that's just my opinion (based on the facts that (a) we held the ball for 35 minis. and (b) we had 5 long drives of 13 plays or more).

As for the defense being on the field to long? That's just a stupid, baseless statement. We had a 10 minute time of possesion advantage over them. Our defense was on the field 25 minutes - less than half the game. Those are numbers teams strive for.

If you want to criticize, fine. But at least stick to the facts.

My only criticism between the 20s is they consistently require too many plays and too much time to get down the field. They only had 7 possessions against the Rams. I believe the average is 12. Hard to score a lot of points when you're limited to 7 possessions. Even if they scored a TD on every trip to the red zone, they would have scored only 28 points (or maybe 35?). Teams are scoring 30 plus with regularity these days.

It doesn't help that the D can't hold anyone to a 3 and out, but they're doing their job just fine. The O needs to get yards in chunks.

I think the bottom line is this:

If we continue to suck on offense, I'm fine with that. Just as long as the offenses we play, suck worse than we do. A "W" is a "W" dammit, and I don't care how we get it. It could be the 60-70's style football and the game can be hard-nosed, and end in a 6-3 Redskins win. As long as we are on top, it doesn't matter. Sure, we all want JC to be the next Brady or Manning, blazing down the field throwing 5 TD's a game, but that's not Redskins football. We are a tough running team, and we've gotten away from that for several reasons.....

Bottom line is that we need to get the "job" done each week, and walk away healthy, and with a win.

HTTR!!!!

I'd settle for him being the next Trent Edwards at this point;) Oh no I didn't!

I thought the play to Sellers was actually a nice, well run play that should have been an easy TD. The play to DT was another one of those awkwurd, herky-jerky red zone plays for the Skins. Not to say that's an excuse for either the arguably poor throw or dropped pass, but it demonstrates a lack of comfort level with red zone plays. Plays seem to break down when they get down there. They look less fluid and more sandlot when they get close.

I agree. We can look pretty smooth going 60 yards but once we hit the 20 it looks like we're in uncharted territory with no idea what to do next. "Let's just draw a play in the sand and try it" is what it looks like. All of a sudden linemen jump and everyone looks tight. That's why I think once we get the redzone worked out we'll be a very good offense/team. But why is this happening? Of course there is less field for the defense to cover, but it looks more like we're inept then the defense is playing well. I think it's become more complex than it needs to be. Execution needs to be sharp in the redzone and that seems to be where our execution falters. When they start playing aggressive and with confidence in the redzone, that's when this team will start putting people away. It also wouldn't hurt to try to score before we get into the redzone.

I agree. We can look pretty smooth going 60 yards but once we hit the 20 it looks like we're in uncharted territory with no idea what to do next. "Let's just draw a play in the sand and try it" is what it looks like. All of a sudden linemen jump and everyone looks tight. That's why I think once we get the redzone worked out we'll be a very good offense/team. But why is this happening? Of course there is less field for the defense to cover, but it looks more like we're inept then the defense is playing well. I think it's become more complex than it needs to be. Execution needs to be sharp in the redzone and that seems to be where our execution falters. When they start playing aggressive and with confidence in the redzone, that's when this team will start putting people away. It also wouldn't hurt to try to score before we get into the redzone.
I agree 100 % on scoring before we reach the 20 !! How about throwing into the enzone from 40 - 50 yds out , maybe get some P.I. Penalty's ?

My only criticism between the 20s is they consistently require too many plays and too much time to get down the field. They only had 7 possessions against the Rams. I believe the average is 12. Hard to score a lot of points when you're limited to 7 possessions. Even if they scored a TD on every trip to the red zone, they would have scored only 28 points (or maybe 35?). Teams are scoring 30 plus with regularity these days.

It doesn't help that the D can't hold anyone to a 3 and out, but they're doing their job just fine. The O needs to get yards in chunks.

This is one of these "no matter what the Redskins do they lose in public opinion" cases.

against the Giants, the Skins had 2 end of half quick scoring long drives (both over 70 yds, both resulting in 7 points)

against the Rams, the Skins had 5 drives over 50 yards, all long time consuming, keep the Defense off the field, type drives.

Skinny has complained that the quick end of half drives don't count because, they were quick and at the end of half's

you argue that the long slow drives don't count because they require too many plays and too much time.

Last I checked it's a good thing if your team can:

- drive down at the end of the first half, against a top rated D, and get 7 points is a good thing.

- have long sustained drives that keep your opponent's offense off the field.

but somehow the Skins manage to do both, and still manage to give the appearance on the field that they don't have offensive cohesion.

the other thing is if we had capped our long drives against the Rams with TD's, the game would have been a blowout, and none of these questions would be there.

This is one of these "no matter what the Redskins do they lose in public opinion" cases.

against the Giants, the Skins had 2 end of half quick scoring long drives (both over 70 yds, both resulting in 7 points)

against the Rams, the Skins had 5 drives over 50 yards, all long time consuming, keep the Defense off the field, type drives.

Skinny has complained that the quick end of half drives don't count because, they were quick and at the end of half's

you argue that the long slow drives don't count because they require too many plays and too much time.

Last I checked it's a good thing if your team can:

- drive down at the end of the first half, against a top rated D, and get 7 points is a good thing.

- have long sustained drives that keep your opponent's offense off the field.

but somehow the Skins manage to do both, and still manage to give the appearance on the field that they don't have offensive cohesion.

And wear down the opposing defense I might add. I thought that was a good thing, no? Winning the "time of possession" battle is always a goal. You want to give their offense as few chances to score as you can don't you?