PDA

View Full Version : Absolute awful 16-30


washingtonredskins1
26.09.2010, 11:28 PM
what a shambles. mcnabb whats he doing throwing. he cant throw to save his life. so many incomplete passes.

16 -30 thats wrong

theres something awfuly wrong with our setup

sdmaca
26.09.2010, 11:49 PM
Thats McNabb for you. He just has games like that sometimes... well a lot of the time. Anyway, you'll find that out for yourself.

wuds100
27.09.2010, 12:15 AM
Thats what happens when you ditch the run and go
completely unbalanced,
Andy Reid does this all the time and maybe McNabb has passed
the bug onto our coachs,
As for today Bradford looks the real deal but Haslett has a lot to answer
for given that Steven Jackson exited the game so early and Rams should
never have been allowed to move the ball so easily.

towen5
27.09.2010, 12:19 AM
59% career completion percentage says it all

Britskin
27.09.2010, 10:17 AM
Last night was woeful to watch in every area.

How often did we get them to 3rd down only for Rams to get a 1st down and I see we still have not lost the habit of throwing inside the markers on 3rd down.

my_friend_goo
27.09.2010, 12:12 PM
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I was looking for this game to be proof that the Redskins were starting to turn a corner, not dramatically, but starting to put an end to the rot of the last decade (asides from a couple of spirited performances in the second Gibbs era). In spite of the changes we've seen, the offense remains ineffective in the red zone. There's unusual decisions - Keiland Williams gets promoted to #2 back, only for Ryan Torrain to get activated from the practice squad the day before the game and take a significant percentage of the reps before the running game disappeared completely. not that the running game was any more effective, bar two long runs. Like so often last season, the defense gives up anything between 3rd and 1 and 3rd and 30 and whilst they gave up less yardage through the air than in the previous two matches, they still gave up about 100 yards too much for a team with a rookie QB and unproven or not-rated receivers.

It wasn't unrealistic to expect the team to struggle transitioning to a 3-4 defense. But while they may be aggressive, right now they only are as aggressive as the kind of guy who goes looking for fights on a night out, even though he loses every one. Shanahan seemed to think the best defensive teams in the league play a 3-4, yet there are plenty of teams who have kept that level of intensity desired in a 4-3 for years and have built a reputation for it. Gregg Williams has often succeeded in aggressive 4-3 play. Most years, the Bears manage pretty well. Right now, the coverage is essentially non-existent and it's going to hurt badly unless Haslett can find a way to fix it. How many people have already put Vick and Jackson in their fantasy teams for next week? I know I'm tempted to.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not giving up on the season yet. Last night showed it's going to be a long one. It may even prove to be as bad as the last. But, win or lose, down the stretch I want to see signs that the team is starting to get it together. I want to see 3-and-outs by the opponents offence more than our own. I don't want to hear the names of unheralded receivers being called for making catches. I want to see the ball in the red zone mean touchdowns for our offence against good and bad defences. It may take 2 excellent off-seasons to get this team ready to be a contender, and then a couple more seasons to be in with realistic superbowl hopes. There's need for an OLB who can cover (and possibly a secondary for that matter!) a NT (and maybe another DE) who occupies blockers in the backfield rather than getting pushed downfield. Three solid interior lineman, more receiving threats, a running back and a quarterback of the future. But if for the rest of the season, then the next, all I see is a repeat of seasons past, I'm going to be distraught.

fyodor dostoevsky
27.09.2010, 05:54 PM
my_friend_goo : I agree with most of what you say but for me right now this season IS done. The run of games we have coming up is a major task and we have a D that frankly isnt up to that task. We must be averaging around 400 yards given up per game? and were dictated to by the Rams last night.

Offensively I have harped on about the run game since pre-season and CP's body language in the second half would have done one of my kids proud.

To me we seem to have some kind of old style Raiders game plan. If McNabb gets the bomb going we look spectacular (some of the plays against the Texans) but jeez, no bomb and its three and out over and over with the same old players dominating play - Moss, Cooley and Portis (well that is when we feel like running the ball).

my_friend_goo
27.09.2010, 08:34 PM
fyodor dostoevsky: yup, I understand what you're saying. I think we all underestimated the challenge Shanahan had ahead of him and whilst some of the moves made in the offseason were useful, others now seem a bit puzzling. We've got a tough schedule and it won't get any easier. I'll worry tremendously if what we've seen so far sets the tone for the whole of the rest of the season. That would indicate to me that Shanahan and the rest of their staff are so set in their ways that they are unwilling to adapt, a very bad thing. The 3-4 concept isn't working, yet. With a NT coming of a significant injury last year and too many converted players, you have to wonder whether or not it will. But good coaching staff will find a way to make the most with what they have. Schottenheimer did that in his one season. Those first five games were completely embarrassing, yet he turned them around to a respectable 8-8 team. Sure, that's a challenging goal with the rest of the schedule and Mike may not feel he can do that kind of thing. If he can't, we'd better hope for some shrewd offseason moves to give us a better chance next year.

Here's a thought: if you were determined to make the team a 3-4 team, given what you've seen so far, would you try and install more 4-3 elements in the hope to get more victories (and in a way call the 3-4 a work in progress/failed idea for now) or would you try to get the players you want to keep used to playing it it for a season, no matter how bad?

fyodor dostoevsky
27.09.2010, 09:09 PM
well, defeat isnt so bad if you can see that you have players that are moving forward, improving and being more effective with each game and that next season we will have a D to reckon with. Right now we look a team that has players that cant play the 3-4 and that to continue would be a tactical blunder.

Of course its not just the D. Our offense looked great against a team that has awful defensive backs (Houston) but against a misfiring Dullass and then the Rams we got nowhere. We have made some poor coaching decisions - who came up with the idea that Larry Johnson (or indeed Willie Parker) was a solution to our running game?

We have bits and pieces for the future (Orakpo, Williams) but the real quality level of player required just isnt there or is getting older and older (I really cant see McNabb behind centre for long, then what? - we have no real strategy for a young QB)

Bengalsman
27.09.2010, 11:05 PM
Don't the Redskins always seem to have a 'team of the future??'

Lets face it...as long as Dan Snyder owns that team the Redskins success will be extremely limited.

A bit like Mike Brown and the Bengals. Offensively the Bengals stink?> Why...well the off co-ord Bratkowski sucks and has done for a few years..but because he's a close family friend of the Browns....

Bratkowski has single handedly destroyed Palmer, who is now also pretty close to being thrown in the scrapheap.

citizenstu
28.09.2010, 12:07 PM
Don't the Redskins always seem to have a 'team of the future??'

I'd say, in the Dan Snyder era, the problem was always we tried to have a team for now, in the large part, who believed they were much better than whatever record they posted that season. So in a sense, we always had a team for "next year".

Not to blow up right now, in reality this year for me was always rebuilding and we were always going to struggle to go .500. We needed a premier LT and QB to lead the offense badly and we only had 1 first round pick. OK, as the draft panned out we could've had Clausen in the 2nd Round but without that hindsight (if you happen to like him) grabbing McNabb was probably the right way to rebuild.

It remains to be seen if becoming a pass first team was the right move but it's going to take more than 1 preseason for McNabb to gel with his somewhat makeshift receiving corps. What we need to see is progress this year if this is our future offensive strategy. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with pass first, but personally I'd prefer to put the ball in McNabb's hands over Portis any day.

ritchieb
28.09.2010, 02:58 PM
I admit it was disappointing against the rams. I'm still getting over the defeat at home to Houston! All the teams in the division are struggling and we've already gubbed the Cowboys so a win at Philly will put us back on track.

fyodor dostoevsky
28.09.2010, 07:30 PM
I admit it was disappointing against the rams. I'm still getting over the defeat at home to Houston! All the teams in the division are struggling and we've already gubbed the Cowboys so a win at Philly will put us back on track.

gubbed?!!!

Morpheus_00
02.10.2010, 01:22 PM
59% career completion percentage says it all

...says what exactly?! (and I think the official figure is 62%).

I think McNabb is quality; not just in his arm, but in his mobility, scrambling threat and proven leadership abilities (he reminds me of Cunningham). Under him the Skins have looked to have more conviction and represented more of a threat. Discipline on the field from the offensive line hasn't helped. He also needs more options downfield than Moss.