Is this the Skins' Breakout Week>

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Uhhh, that is DENVERS SYSTEM. Zone block, let him make one cut and run in the open field. He obviously didnt do well in Gibbs system. I also dont understand why we find something that works and quickly abandon it.

So Denver invented zone blocking??

Anyhow that was my point that I was trying to make, when something starts to work for us we abandon it!!

[Daseal]

I didnt say anything about inventing. That's the system Shenehan RUNS. Which has made countless backs successfull. Portis didn't do well in Joe Gibbs system. Therefore Clinton Portis is a system back.

This isn't a bad thing. John Riggins would have failed horribly in Denvers system (today's Denver.) You have to build your system around your personel.

[bedlamVR]

Doesn't Denvers system utilise cut blocking stealing candy from babies and plotting humanities demise?

I think we abandoned it because Samuels strugled with it and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to win games anayway it is about the taking part and stuff.

Seriously though I think Gibbs has thrown the towel in on the season and doesnt see the point running Portis into the ground when he can see what else he has out there and save his ace card for later... i hope

[heybigstar]

As much as a i would like to see a blowout of these Giants, i just dont know if we have the offensive firepower to blow anyone out, hopefully we will get a win

[SKINSnCANES]

I still want to see Portis break 1500 yds again though... I wish he was getting more touches, we only win when he breaks 100

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I didnt say anything about inventing. That's the system Shenehan RUNS. Which has made countless backs successfull. Portis didn't do well in Joe Gibbs system. Therefore Clinton Portis is a system back.

This isn't a bad thing. John Riggins would have failed horribly in Denvers system (today's Denver.) You have to build your system around your personel.

Only problem about building a system around your players is if those players get hurt or leave because of free agency, then who's to say the ones you plug in will be able to fit the system the sameway? I do agree though that implementing some modifications into an established system for certain players is definitely feasible...and we have done that on several occasions with Portis.

I still believe establishing a system and going out to get players that fit that system is the best way to go. I like Portis, but I think what would have worked the best (which goes along with what you're saying) is having a back like we had with Stephen Davis. Imagine if we still had Davis and him being healthy.....he would have been a perfect fit with this system.

I'm happy with Portis though and think he'll work just fine!

[Daseal]

Skinsguy: We zoneblocked all game for Portis vs the Lions where he was constantly ripping off 6-7 yard carries. Why did we stray away from that? You have to fit your system based on personel, and it will change nearly every year a little bit.

Stephen Davis and healthy is a contridiction anyhow. Best move Spurrier ever made was canning that injury factory.

[Gmanc711]

Dasel is exactly right. I havent been able to understand why we have gone away from that, when clearly it was working. You can have a average offensive line and still be somewhat effective with a zone block, because it will give Portis more options and more room. When you try to smash-mouth it, if our offensive line isnt doing good, theres absolutley no where to go. We have to do exactly what we need for Portis to have the room to run; he is that type of back.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Skinsguy: We zoneblocked all game for Portis vs the Lions where he was constantly ripping off 6-7 yard carries. Why did we stray away from that? You have to fit your system based on personel, and it will change nearly every year a little bit.

Stephen Davis and healthy is a contridiction anyhow. Best move Spurrier ever made was canning that injury factory.

That game we played in a Dome on that artifcal grass...of course the zone blocking would work like a charm...also knowing the Lions were not THAT good against the run!

Against Cincy we had to go to the pass more because we got behind 17-0 and we were just not moving the ball on the ground. Philly was stopping our running attack and we needed to get the ball downfield. Portis was injured for a series last week so we put in Betts that does better with counter-gap plays than Portis...not to mention that we also had to go to the pass more because we were not moving the ball at all on the ground and I do remember seeing some zone blocking run plays to Portis before he went out.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

That game we played in a Dome on that artifcal grass...of course the zone blocking would work like a charm...also knowing the Lions were not THAT good against the run!

Against Cincy we had to go to the pass more because we got behind 17-0 and we were just not moving the ball on the ground.

So how about when Portis ran all over the Bears? Last time I checked the bears play outside and on real grass.

And the Cincy game yeah we got down 17-0 early, but if I remember right we passed like the first 5 or 6 plays, and didnt even try to run. It was like Spurrier was on the sidelines again.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

So how about when Portis ran all over the Bears? Last time I checked the bears play outside and on real grass.

And the Cincy game yeah we got down 17-0 early, but if I remember right we passed like the first 5 or 6 plays, and didnt even try to run. It was like Spurrier was on the sidelines again.

The field wasn't as sloppy as it was in Pittsburgh which gave Portis fits, not to mention that we were always leading in that game so we could stick with a ball controlled offense.

As far as the Cincy game, Gibbs wanted to shake things up, because he knew Cincy would single in on stopping the run. Unfortunately for us, we couldn't complete alot of passes because Brunell went 1-8 and the passes that were on target the receivers dropped.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The field wasn't as sloppy as it was in Pittsburgh which gave Portis fits, not to mention that we were always leading in that game so we could stick with a ball controlled offense.

As far as the Cincy game, Gibbs wanted to shake things up, because he knew Cincy would single in on stopping the run. Unfortunately for us, we couldn't complete alot of passes because Brunell went 1-8 and the passes that were on target the receivers dropped.

You are right about the field conditions but I really dont think that is why Portis couldnt get it going, I mean think about it this guy never ran only on turff!! What I mean is that in high school, college, and in the pros his team was always a non-turff team, they were mainly a grass field team. So I really dont think that the conditions on the field are an excuse, maybe if we were talking about McAllister, Falulk, James, and any other back that is predominatly running on turff.