Smoot Lays the Smack Down (Redskins vs. Rams)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

We agree more often than not, but I'm going with the former on this one. I think it's system. However, the truth is usually found somewhere in the middle. But if I had to put it on one or the other I would say it's Zorn. Has to be. This team moved the ball up and down the field yesterday, almost at will, until it got into the red zone. The same Redskins players that amassed those stats between the 20s marched right into the red zone. It wasn't the players that changed, it was the play calling and the tempo. That's on Jim Zorn. Besides, how would you know if you have playmakers if you don't call the right plays to even find out? Further when I look around the league, there are more mediocre and average players than great ones. So it's not about having a stud at every position.

The Cowboys took Brandon Jacobs out of the game last night, so what does Coughlin do? He kept chucking the ball to Manningham. At some point Tom Couglin said, we can't score 30 points and keep up with the Cowboys pounding the ball up the middle. So he abandoned the run relatively early and spread the ball around. They even lost one of their top receivers and top defenders, both playmakers, and still pulled it out. That's good coaching.

Certainly I didn't mean to imply that Jim Zorn is blameless. He very well could be lost and clueless, but looking at it as objectively as I can, I wonder if our "playmakers" are as good as we all think they are. And I don't believe our offensive issues are limited to just the red zone. Our success between the 20's could be due to the relative health of the O-line. But if you think back to last year, as the guys up front began to get nicked up, it was no picnic between the 20's either. To assume that the offensive line will be able to maintain good health for the season is a notion that has already begun to fall apart.

Chris Cooley is a world-class tight end. No doubt about it. Though with only one TD catch last year, obviously he isn't being utilized to his best ability. The Clinton Portis debate might rage on forever, but no one can rationally argue that he's just as explosive five years ago as he is today. He gets you the tough yards; he's more of a workhorse back than a home-run threat.

Santana Moss hasn't been close to the level he was at in 2005. Defenses are better able to take him out of the game and reduce his ability to be a factor than ever before. In addition to all of that, it now looks like his head's not completely in it, with some attitude issues to boot.

Randle El is a possession guy only, and he hasn't once been able to add the extra dimension to the offense the way we, and I think the team, envisioned. Simply put, he's not a dynamic playmaker.

So that's a brief, but I think accurate rundown of our four so-called playmakers. And don't forget this: These are the same four guys who were here when Joe Gibbs was running the offense, when Al Saunders was running the offense, and now for Jim Zorn's offense. The results seem to be the same no matter who the coach is. There's not a game-breaker on our roster, and while Zorn's scheme hasn't proven it can get the best from the players on our roster, I'm not sure our best would be good enough no matter what the system is, or which coordinator is running it.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Certainly I didn't mean to imply that Jim Zorn is blameless. He very well could be lost and clueless, but looking at it as objectively as I can, I wonder if our "playmakers" are as good as we all think they are. And I don't believe our offensive issues are limited to just the red zone. Our success between the 20's could be due to the relative health of the O-line. But if you think back to last year, as the guys up front began to get nicked up, it was no picnic between the 20's either. To assume that the offensive line will be able to maintain good health for the season is a notion that has already begun to fall apart.

Chris Cooley is a world-class tight end. No doubt about it. Though with only one TD catch last year, obviously he isn't being utilized to his best ability. The Clinton Portis debate might rage on forever, but no one can rationally argue that he's just as explosive five years ago as he is today. He gets you the tough yards; he's more of a workhorse back than a home-run threat.

Santana Moss hasn't been close to the level he was at in 2005. Defenses are better able to take him out of the game and reduce his ability to be a factor than ever before. In addition to all of that, it now looks like his head's not completely in it, with some attitude issues to boot.

Randle El is a possession guy only, and he hasn't once been able to add the extra dimension to the offense the way we, and I think the team, envisioned. Simply put, he's not a dynamic playmaker.

So that's a brief, but I think accurate rundown of our four so-called playmakers. And don't forget this: These are the same four guys who were here when Joe Gibbs was running the offense, when Al Saunders was running the offense, and now for Jim Zorn's offense. The results seem to be the same no matter who the coach is. There's not a game-breaker on our roster, and while Zorn's scheme hasn't proven it can get the best from the players on our roster, I'm not sure our best would be good enough no matter what the system is, or which coordinator is running it.

I agree. The Skins have some nice players but they are not the dynamic playmakers and weapons most on this board think/want them to be.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

I agree. The Skins have some nice players but they are not the dynamic playmakers and weapons most on this board think/want them to be.

How do we know that?

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How do we know that?

Because Irish says they aren't. Come on Smoot, do you really need more proof than that?

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Because Irish says they aren't. Come on Smoot, do you really need more proof than that?

Yeah Smoot. Us Irish are part of a group 36 million strong in America (ironically only 4 million in all of ireland). Do you really want to question us or must we be settling this back down by me boondocks? Wait what am I agreeing to again?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by irish

I agree. The Skins have some nice players but they are not the dynamic playmakers and weapons most on this board think/want them to be.

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How do we know that?

Originally Posted by 53fan

Because Irish says they aren't. Come on Smoot, do you really need more proof than that?

We know from watching four seasons with these guys under 3 different coordinators. Our record has been mediocre to average at best, and the offense has been really the only thing keeping this team from reaching the next level. These are the "playmakers" we have on offense.

The proof is what we've seen on the field since 2006.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

We know from watching four seasons with these guys under 3 different coordinators. Our record has been mediocre to average at best, and the offense has been really the only thing keeping this team from reaching the next level. These are the "playmakers" we have on offense.

The proof is what we've seen on the field since 2006.

While it's true that we really only have one playmaker (Cooley), it's not like we've had to suffer through an Oakland or Cleveland stretch of offensive ineptitude or anything.

You have to keep it in perspective: since 2005, the only players we invested in our offense with were the three 2008 2nd round draft picks. The only chance we have at offensive improvements is for the investments to pay off. Honestly, I can't see any other way we can generate offensive firepower.

On Sunday, we threw at Kelly 6 times and he made 4 catches for 36 yards. But Campbell also missed him on the route he ran the best during the game. Davis had the big block on the 3rd and 1 run on the last drive. Thomas was 0 for 2 attempts.

Marko Mitchell is starting to get some opportunities as well. It's not the dead end that the offense reached in the middle of October the last two years, there's actual reason to think that they might get better in the second half, you know, when they need to be.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

While it's true that we really only have one playmaker (Cooley), it's not like we've had to suffer through an Oakland or Cleveland stretch of offensive ineptitude or anything.

You have to keep it in perspective: since 2005, the only players we invested in our offense with were the three 2008 2nd round draft picks. The only chance we have at offensive improvements is for the investments to pay off. Honestly, I can't see any other way we can generate offensive firepower.

On Sunday, we threw at Kelly 6 times and he made 4 catches for 36 yards. But Campbell also missed him on the route he ran the best during the game. Davis had the big block on the 3rd and 1 run on the last drive. Thomas was 0 for 2 attempts.

Marko Mitchell is starting to get some opportunities as well. It's not the dead end that the offense reached in the middle of October the last two years, there's actual reason to think that they might get better in the second half, you know, when they need to be.

Actually, since the start of the 2008 season, the Oakland Raiders have averaged more points per game (16.4) than the Redskins (16.2). And in that same span, we've averaged less than 2 ppg more than the Browns (14.3). So really, we're suffering the same sort of ineptitude. We're doing less with more when compared to Oakland actually. Sure, we can amass more yards than they can, but scoring wins football games.

Since the start of last year, only St. Louis, Cincy, and Cleveland have averaged less ppg than we have, and Cincy was an aberration IMO because Palmer was hurt most of last season. In addition to the Raiders, the 0 for the last 19 Lions have outscored us over that span. Pretty sad.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Actually, since the start of the 2008 season, the Oakland Raiders have averaged more points per game (16.4) than the Redskins (16.2). And in that same span, we've averaged less than 2 ppg more than the Browns (14.3). So really, we're suffering the same sort of ineptitude. We're doing less with more when compared to Oakland actually. Sure, we can amass more yards than they can, but scoring wins football games.

Since the start of last year, only St. Louis, Cincy, and Cleveland have averaged less ppg than we have, and Cincy was an aberration IMO because Palmer was hurt most of last season. In addition to the Raiders, the 0 for the last 19 Lions have outscored us over that span. Pretty sad.

Okay, go back a year. Does your disproof hold? Go back another year. Does it still hold?

Okay then, no need to cherry pick your argument.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Okay, go back a year. Does your disproof hold? Go back another year. Does it still hold?

Okay then, no need to cherry pick your argument.

Um, huh? I mean, I know you're never wrong, but what are you talking about? I did go back a year. I went back to the start of the Zorn era. Not sure what you're getting at. How are we not suffering the same sort of ineptitude as Oakland when they're outscoring us over that span? Because they've used draft picks on offensive players?

(PS- don't be so arrogant when people disagree with you. It's not necessary).

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

We know from watching four seasons with these guys under 3 different coordinators. Our record has been mediocre to average at best, and the offense has been really the only thing keeping this team from reaching the next level. These are the "playmakers" we have on offense.

The proof is what we've seen on the field since 2006.

Fair points. I guess what I see are recently drafted guys like Kelly, Davis, Mitchell not really being given the opportunities to make plays in the end zones (instead they go to Sellers?) and wonder if we know we don't have "playmakers"

I mean I see us lining up Moss as the #1 WR and think wouldn't it be so much better to have Kelly as the #1 and Moss as even the # 3? Wouldn't it be great to line up both Kelly and Mitchell for a fade in the red zone, instead of a shovel pass to Betts?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Certainly I didn't mean to imply that Jim Zorn is blameless. He very well could be lost and clueless, but looking at it as objectively as I can, I wonder if our "playmakers" are as good as we all think they are. And I don't believe our offensive issues are limited to just the red zone. Our success between the 20's could be due to the relative health of the O-line. But if you think back to last year, as the guys up front began to get nicked up, it was no picnic between the 20's either. To assume that the offensive line will be able to maintain good health for the season is a notion that has already begun to fall apart.

Chris Cooley is a world-class tight end. No doubt about it. Though with only one TD catch last year, obviously he isn't being utilized to his best ability. The Clinton Portis debate might rage on forever, but no one can rationally argue that he's just as explosive five years ago as he is today. He gets you the tough yards; he's more of a workhorse back than a home-run threat.

Santana Moss hasn't been close to the level he was at in 2005. Defenses are better able to take him out of the game and reduce his ability to be a factor than ever before. In addition to all of that, it now looks like his head's not completely in it, with some attitude issues to boot.

Randle El is a possession guy only, and he hasn't once been able to add the extra dimension to the offense the way we, and I think the team, envisioned. Simply put, he's not a dynamic playmaker.

So that's a brief, but I think accurate rundown of our four so-called playmakers. And don't forget this: These are the same four guys who were here when Joe Gibbs was running the offense, when Al Saunders was running the offense, and now for Jim Zorn's offense. The results seem to be the same no matter who the coach is. There's not a game-breaker on our roster, and while Zorn's scheme hasn't proven it can get the best from the players on our roster, I'm not sure our best would be good enough no matter what the system is, or which coordinator is running it.

Other teams have done better with less. The problem is . . . .drum roll please . . . . Shit, I don't know?