Where was Keiland Williams???

Far be it from me to start a frustration thread, but he has been a bright spot on offense. So why wasn't he used more today? James Davis? Really??

I was wondering the same thing myself.
I was looking forward to seeing James Davis BUT not at the expense of Keiland Williams and continuity in the running game.
If we're not gonna run the ball a lot why not just give Keiland the carries?
He was effective on the 1st series then put on the shelf why James Davis threw up on himself a little bit: pass protection/drop of a routine pass/multiple runs for no gain (which is one reason why i like Keiland he minimizes the 0 and negative yards run no matter how poor the blocking is Keiland runs hard enough to pick up some yards)

Far be it from me to start a frustration thread, but he has been a bright spot on offense. So why wasn't he used more today? James Davis? Really??

We don't want to much of a good thing bro, We are the Redskins ;)
I agree with you 100%

Looks like we are going to have to go RB in the upcoming draft, sucks because we have so many needs it's a little crazy.

Well if you're passing 3 downs, I'm pretty sure that the other team is going to play the pass and NOT the run. Vikes were blowing up McNabb all game. Did we even do 1 draw play all game? That's the whole point. It's the Gibbs philosophy. I'm saying they need to mix it up. Gibbs never completely abandoned the run, even in tough games. The first drive of the game, Skins mixed it up. Did some dual TE forms, wildcat, they had a pretty mixed bag. Then after that they went conservative. Dink and dunk passes and it wasn't until we switched into desperation mode after the half we started throwing downfield. And if we're gonna throw, why are you gonna complete phase out Cooley after he produced so well in the first drive? I get that he was probably covered but damn, 3 whole quarters he wasn't even a target afterwards?

Keiland Williams had done decent in previous games. He's no Portis or Torrain but when you're taking a practice squad dude over someone who has at least proven that they can play a backup role... Well....


First of all, the first 10 to 15 plays of the game are just about always scripted. That is the reason why you normally see the offense look decent at the start of any game. Plus, the defenses adjust to the game plan making you as the offensive coordinator having to adjust your game plan according to the defense's adjustments. That's pretty much the cat and mouse game of any NFL game you're going to watch.

Secondly, this isn't Gibbs' offense. It really doesn't matter if a team is a run first to set up the pass or the other way around. There isn't anything in the bible that says "Thou shalt always run first to set up the pass". It all happens with your offensive line, always. Philosophy has nothing to do with. Gibbs had big offensive linemen who didn't need to worry about quickness as much as power to open up holes up the middle or maybe just enough speed for counter plays. But, Gibbs philosophy wasn't built upon a zone running type of offense as what Shanahan's offense is based on. The offense obviously still doesn't have the right personnel up front to make Shanahan's offense work on a consistent basis.

Also, there were plenty of plays in which the Redskins would have had first downs or would have had large gains if not for poor execution. Armstrong makes a huge play down field only to drop a pass right to him in the flat. You can't expect to stick with the run when you're facing 3 and 10 or 3 and 15. Look, the Redskins were facing a very talented, all-pro defensive line. I don't care what their record was, it is tough to run against that team, especially with our offensive line. THAT is the reason why you were seeing more dink and donk and a pass happy offense than what Shannahan normally likes to do. In the case of the Vikings and our running back situation, we did just exactly what we needed to do game plan wise, the players just didn't execute.

I think coming into the game the Skins gameplanned as if the run wasn't really an option today. Like they knew going in if they we were going to win, it would be because the passing game worked. Now I know you use the run to set up the pass, and I know you don't abandon it when there's no room to run, but that philosophy has been obvious for decades now and it still hasn't stopped offensive coordinators from abandoning the run.

And for those wondering why it was Keiland Williams and James Davis, that's because those are our top two backs right now. Portis is done, Torain is out, Simpson is done, K.Williams and James Davis are now up to bat. That's why they were playing today.

First of all, the first 10 to 15 plays of the game are just about always scripted. That is the reason why you normally see the offense look decent at the start of any game. Plus, the defenses adjust to the game plan making you as the offensive coordinator having to adjust your game plan according to the defense's adjustments. That's pretty much the cat and mouse game of any NFL game you're going to watch.

Secondly, this isn't Gibbs' offense. It really doesn't matter if a team is a run first to set up the pass or the other way around. There isn't anything in the bible that says "Thou shalt always run first to set up the pass". It all happens with your offensive line, always. Philosophy has nothing to do with. Gibbs had big offensive linemen who didn't need to worry about quickness as much as power to open up holes up the middle or maybe just enough speed for counter plays. But, Gibbs philosophy wasn't built upon a zone running type of offense as what Shanahan's offense is based on. The offense obviously still doesn't have the right personnel up front to make Shanahan's offense work on a consistent basis.

Also, there were plenty of plays in which the Redskins would have had first downs or would have had large gains if not for poor execution. Armstrong makes a huge play down field only to drop a pass right to him in the flat. You can't expect to stick with the run when you're facing 3 and 10 or 3 and 15. Look, the Redskins were facing a very talented, all-pro defensive line. I don't care what their record was, it is tough to run against that team, especially with our offensive line. THAT is the reason why you were seeing more dink and donk and a pass happy offense than what Shannahan normally likes to do. In the case of the Vikings and our running back situation, we did just exactly what we needed to do game plan wise, the players just didn't execute.

So I guess it's just deja vu we're ranked 30th in rushing attempts. Yet when we do rush we're 14th in average yards and smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to breaking runs for 20+ yards.

The run game works, if implemented, skillfully used and executed properly. But I guess its hard to give something a chance to work when you hardly use it.

I'm also not sure why you're under the impression I think we should just run run run. I've said the run compliments the pass. If you can weave your game plan together, execute, then you can rely less on the run, more on the pass or whatever you choose. But the Redskins do neither. They can't mix together play calls nor can they execute what's been called. It's not about pro DL or not. The Lions don't have a Pro DL and they schooled us, along with the Rams. Between the awful playcalling and the awful execution, the Skins are pretty bad.

But I digress.

I know but James Davis or Keiland? Why??


???? There's nobody else to run the ball!

I think coming into the game the Skins gameplanned as if the run wasn't really an option today. Like they knew going in if they we were going to win, it would be because the passing game worked. Now I know you use the run to set up the pass, and I know you don't abandon it when there's no room to run, but that philosophy has been obvious for decades now and it still hasn't stopped offensive coordinators from abandoning the run.

And for those wondering why it was Keiland Williams and James Davis, that's because those are our top two backs right now. Portis is done, Torain is out, Simpson is done, K.Williams and James Davis are now up to bat. That's why they were playing today.

I think Quake was trying to figure out why they ran with Davis instead of Williams, when Williams has at least shown he can make it upfield. Its like trying to eat your noodles with a spoon instead of a fork. You can do it if you work real hard at it... But don't expect it to be pretty.

So I guess it's just deja vu we're ranked 30th in rushing attempts. Yet when we do rush we're 14th in average yards and smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to breaking runs for 20+ yards.

The run game works, if implemented, skillfully used and executed properly. But I guess its hard to give something a chance to work when you hardly use it.

But I digress.


Read the bold statement again. I think you just answered your own question. And really, that statement can be true for anything you're trying to do offensively. Obviously today, the run game didn't work, because it was not executed skillfully. If Shanahan thought Davis and Williams could run the ball effectively against the Vikings front DL, then the game plan would have emphasized the run a bit more. Obviously, Shanny didn't believe running the football would have been effective against the Vikings. Normally, however, I would agree that you always need to remain balanced and you stick with the running game, but let's look at the facts. The Vikings are tough against the run, our offensive line is not very good at all. It's not like we had John Riggins or Earnest Byner to hand the ball off to.

The running game was clearly ineffective regardless of who the back was. The passing game was gonna have to carry things today.

Exactly right. I'm not putting this loss on the run vs. pass ratio.

If we ran the ball 65 times would that make people happy?