Cowpukes postgame finger pointing thread

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

He's got some good points.
I'd still say moving Cravens to SS would be the "less bad" solution for this year. Next year we definitely need new safeties.

How long have we needed new safeties?!?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

How long have we needed new safeties?!?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

And drafted 2 which neither panned out, Shanahan's picks.

[skinsfaninok]

Cravens needs to start and play all game, he's like a Troy Palomalu type player, Foster is good too. Our Main problem though is still DL, we just can't stop the run ever.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Bucket]

Cravens is not an ideal Safety. He's actually and Ideal Outside LB in a 4-3. We will never run a 4-3 though. Most scouts pegged him as an LB. I actually think our two best linebackers on the team for this defense are Sua Cravens and Garvin. If we could run the 4-3 it would be...

OLB Garvin
MLB Compton or Foster
OLB Cravens

Yet again, I doubt we go to a 4-3.

Biggest issue with moving Cravens to safety in Joe Barry defense is he requires his safeties to be interchangeable. So there really is no "strong safety" and "free safety"

Cravens is a liability when it comes to using his hips and lateral movement. I actually like how he's being used right now in our 4-2-5 package. Only issue with this package is we don't have the beef on the line to stop the runs from shotgun and pistol. Compton is terribly slow as well and his speed from sideline to sideline is below average.

This defense right now is built for turnovers and for us to obtain leads, force teams to pass, and play catch up. Yet, we seem to only throw up points when we are falling behind and fail in the redzone early.

If we want to focus on this type of fast offense in the future. We need to get faster on defense too.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Bucket

Biggest issue with moving Cravens to safety in Joe Barry defense is he requires his safeties to be interchangeable. So there really is no "strong safety" and "free safety"

I think Cravens can play both. He could drop some weight, you know. If Barry doesn't think so, he can change his damn system, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I think Cravens can play both. He could drop some weight, you know. If Barry doesn't think so, he can change his damn system, as far as I'm concerned.

He could easily gain weight as well just like Trent Murphy. We need to draft a good safety and not try to plug in another to fill the role like we've done for a decade

Moving Sua to Safety would not only allow him to regress at Linebacker this year. It'll prevent valuable experience he could obtain at the tail end of the year at his more natural position.....Linebacker.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Bucket

He could easily gain weight as well just like Trent Murphy. We need to draft a good safety and not try to plug in another to fill the role like we've done for a decade

Moving Sua to Safety would not only allow him to regress at Linebacker this year. It'll prevent valuable experience he could obtain at the tail end of the year at his more natural position.....Linebacker.

We're not going to agree on Cravens' eventual position. I don't see the need to move him to SS this season but I'd like to see him starting there next season.

[Bucket]

For anyone criticizing the first onside kick. It was a perfect play call. Terrible execution. Ball wastate 10 yards with nobody around it but Redskins. It just continued to roll another 8 after.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Bucket

For anyone criticizing the first onside kick. It was a perfect play call. Terrible execution. Ball wastate 10 yards with nobody around it but Redskins. It just continued to roll another 8 after.

Perfect play call? It is a gamble call. When you are down 5 in enemy territory and have some momentum I personally would not gamble. It was not a horrible call, and you are correct the execution was terrible.
Was not terrible, but was certainly not perfect. Just a gamble. Imo a bad time to do so.....
If we were down 12 with ten minutes left it would have been a smart gamble - or perfect gamble - whatever. Just didn't see a need to gamble at that point.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Perfect play call? It is a gamble call. When you are down 5 in enemy territory and have some momentum I personally would not gamble. It was not a horrible call, and you are correct the execution was terrible.
Was not terrible, but was certainly not perfect. Just a gamble. Imo a bad time to do so.....
If we were down 12 with ten minutes left it would have been a smart gamble - or perfect gamble - whatever. Just didn't see a need to gamble at that point.

When you make calls like that. Just like in Tampa Bay last year, you actually watch film and prepare for the situation. They noticed Dallas gets lazy and drops early on kick return. He even said in the press he noticed they have a gap. That pretty fucking good film study on a short week if you ask me.

He saw the opening and took it. I didn't see it as a gamble, I saw it as preparation and execution. Just like if you decide that a 2 TE set is more effective against one team then the other.

Only problem was, it was poor execution.

[Bangee7]

Originally Posted by Bucket

When you make calls like that. Just like in Tampa Bay last year, you actually watch film and prepare for the situation. They noticed Dallas gets lazy and drops early on kick return. He even said in the press he noticed they have a gap. That pretty fucking good film study on a short week if you ask me.

He saw the opening and took it. I didn't see it as a gamble, I saw it as preparation and execution. Just like if you decide that a 2 TE set is more effective against one team then the other.

Only problem was, it was poor execution.

well said...I was good with the call, even though it didn't go our way. I'd much rather go-down swinging than by dying a slow death!

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Bucket

For anyone criticizing the first onside kick. It was a perfect play call. Terrible execution. Ball wastate 10 yards with nobody around it but Redskins. It just continued to roll another 8 after.

Except everyone knew it was coming. Washington took only a little over a minute to score on that pass to DJax. And that was right after Dallas had another long scoring drive. As soon as Jax scored I told my wife "Washington scored too fast and they will want to give their defense more rest. Watch for this onside kick that is coming."

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Except everyone knew it was coming. Washington took only a little over a minute to score on that pass to DJax. And that was right after Dallas had another long scoring drive. As soon as Jax scored I told my wife "Washington scored too fast and they will want to give their defense more rest. Watch for this onside kick that is coming."

It doesn't look like everyone knew it was coming. Dallas clearly didn't hold at the 45, and if the ball had died right, the Skins had a good shot at it.

I think it was a very good call and time for the call. It just didn't work...

[punch it in]

He is certainly familiar with playing both positions. I think he would be an upgrade at safety- rookie or not. That being said I will just let the coaches decide where he can make the biggest impact.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by punch it in

He is certainly familiar with playing both positions. I think he would be an upgrade at safety- rookie or not. That being said I will just let the coaches decide where he can make the biggest impact.

He would actually have to basically learn a new playbook... BUT the safety position is easier to learn (didn't say easier to play) because you """only""" have to learn coverage (which you also need to know as a LB), but your run responsibility is basically always the same (at least it is not nearly as complicated as it is for a LB). And since he has played the position, I'm sure he could do it.