Theismann made a great point during MNF.

[skinsfan69]

Anyone watch the Pats last night? Joe T. made a great point. He said the Pats offense doesn't care about balance. They care about production and points. Plus I don't think I saw one false start or any penalties on the Pats 0-line on the road with crowd noise. Unlike the Skins line they are so disiplined. Brady is pointing out blitzers and they execute. Plus who are the WR's? Gabriel, Caldwell, Jackson and T. Brown? Give me a break! I know the TE is a stud but please. Why is it that the Skins always say that they must run to win? You bring in two new WR's w/ S. Moss and Cooley and you want to be a running team? Has anyone told Gibbs for the most part it's a passing league now???? How about you attack the weakness of your opponent? Does the Skins offense ever do this? We saw it with Indy. They didn't even bother messing around with Bailey. They just killed the other corner. Does the Skins offense ever attack? It always seems they come out and try and ram it down everyone's throat. Sometimes it's just painful to watch. Not smart offense in today's NFL! Just my .02.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Anyone watch the Pats last night? Joe T. made a great point. He said the Pats offense doesn't care about balance. They care about production and points. Plus I don't think I saw one false start or any penalties on the Pats 0-line on the road with crowd noise. Unlike the Skins line they are so disiplined. Brady is pointing out blitzers and they execute. Plus who are the WR's? Gabriel, Caldwell, Jackson and T. Brown? Give me a break! I know the TE is a stud but please. Why is it that the Skins always say that they must run to win? You bring in two new WR's w/ S. Moss and Cooley and you want to be a running team? Has anyone told Gibbs for the most part it's a passing league now???? How about you attack the weakness of your opponent? Does the Skins offense ever do this? We saw it with Indy. They didn't even bother messing around with Bailey. They just killed the other corner. Does the Skins offense ever attack? It always seems they come out and try and ram it down everyone's throat. Sometimes it's just painful to watch. Not smart offense in today's NFL! Just my .02.

I agree with your analysis of the modern-day NFL offense. For us, it's not so much playing to our opponent's weaknesses as it is to playing to our own strengths. If the passing game is struggling, we run it more. If the running game struggles we throw. We definately have the talent to do both. The Pats' offensive style is similar to ours in many ways. Brady is better than Brunell, but we will YAC you to death. In terms of efficiency, we have virtually the same production numbers this season. Because of this, I wouldn't put any blame on Gibbs' because we pretty much emulate the Pats offense anyway. Now if we could only emulate the defense.

[skinsfan69]

If the Skins running game struggles Brunell will throw a 5 yard pass when it's 3and 10. Yes Brady is MUCH better than Brunell but when do we ever see the Skins offense attack a defense? Come out with empty sets and pass the ball over 5 yards? Pass to set up the run? Never never never. This week against Dallas they will come out and run run run and you will see Dallas crowd the line of scrimmage. It's like the offense has no strategy or game plan. It's always run run run. Plus the offesne has no audibles. Shocking for an NFL offense to not have the ablility to change the play. I played high school football and our offense had audibles!

[SkinsFan89]

The skins offense is painful to watch on sunday's. Nothing makes me more mad than to see mark brunell throw a 5 yard dink on 3 and 15. And how about taking a shot down field on a first down or second and short. I mean what was the point of bringing in antwaan randle el or brandon lloyd if we're not going to use them to their potential? I'm not expecting big things from the redskins this year and nobody else should either. But I do trust in the almighty joe gibbs to get it together between now and the start of the 2007 season.

[saden1]

The prerequisite for not caring is a solid QB. I would let Brady toss the ball around all day but when you have Mark at the helm you have to care, less you don't care about your defense. It's really ironic that Parcells said the following in week 2 of the season:

Referring to Al Saunders, Parcells says: “This other guy, I think, he’s a lot more indiscriminate. I think he’s not going to be as concerned about the effect on his defense.” In other words, the Redskins’ defense will pay the price — in time spent on the field, in fatigue — for Saunders’s disinterest in controlling the ball and the clock.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I'd prefer we do it like last year at home. We pound the ball down their throats and MAKE them stop us. They knew it was coming and we threw in and pass here and there for good measure.

[redsk1]

I agree a little w/ the assessment BUT, we don't have Tom Brady or Peytonn Manning. When you have a great QB it can make the coaching that much easier and vice versa.

We need one of those.

[jdlea]

Yeah, when you have Clinton Portis as your running back and Mark Brunell as your quarterback, you can't afford to be a pass first offense. Brunell can't do that. And Portis is too good to be a complimentary player. The Pats are a good example because they have a couple very good runners, but their offense is still predicated on the pass. However, they have the best or second best quarterback in the NFL. The Skins have Mark Brunell...that's why it's not pass first. That and it's not the philosophy of anyone on the staff, really.

[dmek25]

everyone is forgetting last season and how we gave it to clinton, and said run, clinton, run. and we ran right into the playoffs. lets get on #26s back again and make a playoff push

[memphisskin]

Again, I see other qbs and wonder "why not us?"

Teams also don't seem to care about our motion anymore, we start off in one set, move Moss or Randle-El out of the backfield and out into the flat and other teams are like "so?"

Instead of 700 pages of plays, how bout one play and 700 formations?

[The Zimmermans]

Run first works if you are winning...............or if you have a good defense, we don't fall into either of those categories, so we are screwed. I like how saunders tried to come out throwing last week, it proved effective until brunell started screwing it up in the second half. Running the ball is only effective in sustaining drives in the second half, when defenses are tired, in the first half, it's usually just a compliment to the pass. These are all points intended for the MODERN nfl, not the 80s and 90s NFL.

[dmek25]

running the football = winning the time of possesion, which in turn = keeping the defense off the field. sounds like a winning formula to me

[The Zimmermans]

that's good theoretically, but running the ball does not get you first downs consistently. We need a way to spread out the defense, then the running game would dominate.

[61cad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

everyone is forgetting last season and how we gave it to clinton, and said run, clinton, run. and we ran right into the playoffs. lets get on #26s back again and make a playoff push

I didn't forget. But the defense was kicking ass and not stinking out the place!

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For us, it's not so much playing to our opponent's weaknesses as it is to playing to our own strengths. If the passing game is struggling, we run it more. If the running game struggles we throw. We definately have the talent to do both. The Pats' offensive style is similar to ours in many ways. Brady is better than Brunell, but we will YAC you to death. In terms of efficiency, we have virtually the same production numbers this season. Because of this, I wouldn't put any blame on Gibbs' because we pretty much emulate the Pats offense anyway. Now if we could only emulate the defense.

Brady uses the entire field, and his whole complement of receivers, backs and TEs. he had thrown to seven different guys in the first half. that alone makes our offense vastly different. whether in execution or philosophy.