Fred Davis Done for Season. Welcome Back Cooley

Well, he only plays in 3 WR sets now. He doesn't bring much to the table in terms of run blocking like Hankerson or Morgan and he's clearly best suited for the slot at this point in his career.

Matty, you have just hit on something that I find a little predictable with our playcalling. I obviously don't have the stats to prove it, but when Santana is in the game, the Skins are passing. When he is not and Hankerson and Morgan are in, there is a higher chance the Skins are rushing. Hankerson and Morgan are big bodied receivers who can block. Santana, not so much. Like I said, I don't have the stats on this, but try to notice it this week and see if I'm not right.

Some might say, well of course we are passing and not running because with Moss we are in a 3WR set. But you can run out of that set as well, but the Skins, don't do that very often. Anyway, just my 2 cents coming off your observations about Hankerson and Morgan.

Matty, you have just hit on something that I find a little predictable with our playcalling. I obviously don't have the stats to prove it, but when Santana is in the game, the Skins are passing. When he is not and Hankerson and Morgan are in, there is a higher chance the Skins are rushing. Hankerson and Morgan are big bodied receivers who can block. Santana, not so much. Like I said, I don't have the stats on this, but try to notice it this week and see if I'm not right.

Some might say, well of course we are passing and not running because with Moss we are in a 3WR set. But you can run out of that set as well, but the Skins, don't do that very often. Anyway, just my 2 cents coming off your observations about Hankerson and Morgan.

Hmm. I think it's a good observation, as I can't remember us running the ball much with Tana on the field.

In terms of predictability, I suspect the option is getting predictable. NY blew it up what, three or four times? Maybe using the 3 WR set instead of so many option reads would do the offense some good.

I realize the stats on offense are still impressive, but frankly, offense lost the NY game as much as defense, and overall the offense has been very unimpressive unless Kyle puts the ball in RG3 hands i.e. RG3 runs pretty often. And now even that isn't fooling the defense most of the time.

Regardless, we haven't scored that many points in the last few weeks, and certainly not enough to win given the damage this regime has done to the defense.

Edit: I meant to say three out of the four last weeks. The offense was great against the Vikings, although there you go right back to it falling on RG3 running to make it happen.

Moss has been in fewer running plays as the season's progressed. But he has been in some.

Hmm. I think it's a good observation, as I can't remember us running the ball much with Tana on the field.

In terms of predictability, I suspect the option is getting predictable. NY blew it up what, three or four times? Maybe using the 3 WR set instead of so many option reads would do the offense some good.

I realize the stats on offense are still impressive, but frankly, offense lost the NY game as much as defense, and overall the offense has been very unimpressive unless Kyle puts the ball in RG3 hands i.e. RG3 runs pretty often. And now even that isn't fooling the defense most of the time.

Regardless, we haven't scored that many points in the last few weeks, and certainly not enough to win given the damage this regime has done to the defense.

Edit: I meant to say three out of the four last weeks. The offense was great against the Vikings, although there you go right back to it falling on RG3 running to make it happen.

yeah 480 yds, 4 drives ended by turnover, not by punt or loss of downs. Still not buying your stance on the offense. Our offense shoot's itself in the foot more than any defense has stopped it, and I include the few bone head moments from KS in that.

Hmm. I think it's a good observation, as I can't remember us running the ball much with Tana on the field.

In terms of predictability, I suspect the option is getting predictable. NY blew it up what, three or four times? Maybe using the 3 WR set instead of so many option reads would do the offense some good.

I realize the stats on offense are still impressive, but frankly, offense lost the NY game as much as defense, and overall the offense has been very unimpressive unless Kyle puts the ball in RG3 hands i.e. RG3 runs pretty often. And now even that isn't fooling the defense most of the time.

Regardless, we haven't scored that many points in the last few weeks, and certainly not enough to win given the damage this regime has done to the defense.

Edit: I meant to say three out of the four last weeks. The offense was great against the Vikings, although there you go right back to it falling on RG3 running to make it happen.

You gotta love what Morris has done though and the overachieving o-line. I know your not high on the french waiter because of his price tag but we do miss him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah 480 yds, 4 drives ended by turnover, not by punt or loss of downs. Still not buying your stance on the offense. Our offense shoot's itself in the foot more than any defense has stopped it, and I include the few bone head moments from KS in that.

I think we agree the offense has ridiculous potential, and has shown (many) flashes of it.

Maybe you mean lack of consistency when you say shooting itself in the foot. I feel the same, but I lay (significantly) more of the "blame" on our play-calling and play-design than execution and/or talent.

I acknowledge the offense is less predictable than it was before the RG3 era, but I still see many plays that are obviously read by the defense before the ball is snapped. What surprised me in the NY game was how early the defense picked up Kyle's thinking, and yet we continued to see the option, which should have resulted in more than 4 turnovers btw but we got lucky.

And when we haven't relied heavily on the option the offense is pretty pedestrian. I think that speaks volumes about the play-calling/play-design when you consider that we're rocking the most accurate passer in the league, have a fantastic running game, and have more than sufficient talent among our pass-catchers (even with Davis and Garcon out).

^^

Translation: Indeed, I believe wholeheartedly RG3 is saving both the Shanahans' asses from total failure with the Redskins.

I still don't really know whether to take the Mike and/or Kyle apologists serious. Like, I suspect people do it because they liked Mike from his Denver days, or have a personal liking for them somehow, or just want to f*ck with me. And those are good reasons. But when you have a regime that's done as much damage to one side of the ball (defense) as it has to the other side (offense), and the offense didn't get any better until arguably the most dynamic talent pro football has ever seen arrived (and then play-calling/play-design is still an issue)...well, I just don't get the love.

But whatevs, we've all seen stranger things.

I think we agree the offense has ridiculous potential, and has shown (many) flashes of it.

Maybe you mean lack of consistency when you say shooting itself in the foot. I feel the same, but I lay (significantly) more of the "blame" on our play-calling and play-design than execution and/or talent.

I acknowledge the offense is less predictable than it was before the RG3 era, but I still see many plays that are obviously read by the defense before the ball is snapped. What surprised me in the NY game was how early the defense picked up Kyle's thinking, and yet we continued to see the option, which should have resulted in more than 4 turnovers btw but we got lucky.

And when we haven't relied heavily on the option the offense is pretty pedestrian. I think that speaks volumes about the play-calling/play-design when you consider that we're rocking the most accurate passer in the league, have a fantastic running game, and have more than sufficient talent among our pass-catchers (even with Davis and Garcon out).

I've tried in the past being rational and the lack of reason and many logical disconnects within this post (i.e. talent not scheme is responsible for our success but coaching not talent responsible for opponent's success and other such nonesense) would usually invite a point by point refutation. However, that might be seen as to lawyerly and, since we're not in a court room, I'll just go with this:

]Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - YouTube

^^

Translation: Indeed, I believe wholeheartedly RG3 is saving both the Shanahans' asses from total failure with the Redskins.

I still don't really know whether to take the Mike and/or Kyle apologists serious. Like, I suspect people do it because they liked Mike from his Denver days, or have a personal liking for them somehow, or just want to f*ck with me. And those are good reasons. But when you have a regime that's done as much damage to one side of the ball (defense) as it has to the other side (offense), and the offense didn't get any better until arguably the most dynamic talent pro football has ever seen arrived (and then play-calling/play-design is still an issue)...well, I just don't get the love.

But whatevs, we've all seen stranger things.

Just b/c I don't believe MS is the epically bad coach you make him out to be, does not mean I am an "apologist". Your insistent, relentless and often irrational criticism is not the bar from which to judge other's "love" for the Shanahan regime. If it were, complimenting Kyle for hitting the urinal when he takes a piss would make one an "apologist".

Your entire statement above can be summed up as "If you don't agree with me that MS regime is epically bad, you don't know what your talking about." You make this point in every thread and every post.

Hey JR, you're on my ignore list so don't know what you posted but probably responded to me somehow??

I didn't mean to start another debate about the Shanahans or anything along those lines. Been trying to leave that alone as best I can resist lol and let the results (I go by wins and losses, btw) speak for themselves.

Aight...that's it and that's all man.