Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments

[skinny21]

It's funny that I find myself thinking Manusky called a hell of a game, and 'all he did' was let his guys play.  No blitzes all game.  He just challenged his guys and they embraced it.  A Gibbsian 'super smart', minimalist game plan.  

 

All of that said, I don't know how much he mixed up coverages to throw Carr off, but (continuing the debate above) I never felt that Carr looked confused or lost... just frustrated that almost nothing worked.  I don't recall seeing many plays where I thought he missed open guys, threw the ball poorly or looked particularly rattled.  Defense just shut it all down.  

[Hail4Life]

I was telling my dad during the game i think watching a dominating defense is more fun than watching a dominating O. Something about watching your opponent get man handled and overpowered. Especiallyit being the raiders - my 4th most hated team.

[Art]

38 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

It's funny that I find myself thinking Manusky called a hell of a game, and 'all he did' was let his guys play.  No blitzes all game.  He just challenged his guys and they embraced it.  A Gibbsian 'super smart', minimalist game plan.  

 

All of that said, I don't know how much he mixed up coverages to throw Carr off, but (continuing the debate above) I never felt that Carr looked confused or lost... just frustrated that almost nothing worked.  I don't recall seeing many plays where I thought he missed open guys, threw the ball poorly or looked particularly rattled.  Defense just shut it all down.  

 

I would not call it Gibbsian.   Pettibone had complex defenses and was innovative.   There was rarely anything simple.   Pettibone was a lot like Belichick in terms of defensive innovation and flexibility.   I would, though, agree the play we saw was not one iota special.   We had a game plan, certainly.   We were going to sit on quick developing routes as Carr gets the ball out so quickly.   But, we didn't blitz, or twist, or really mix coverages.   We lined up and beat the guy across from us.   That was VERY much like the Marty time when we went from an overly complex, idiotic scheme to simple.   The defense last night was a LOT like some of the games we saw then.   Lavar playing downhill backer, like Zach Brown, was his best year.   He was used dumbly as a pass rusher after that.   Dan Wilkinson was dominant that year.   Our corners were super strong.   But once the team rebelled and had a come to Jesus meeting after game 5 and Marty just called vanilla games that team started pounding on folks pretty well, at least on defense.

 

That, to me, is the most encouraging thing about last night.   We weren't smarter than the Raiders staff.   We weren't more clever.   We didn't out scheme them (though we probably out game planned them).   Gibbs and Pettibone often won with lesser talent on some clever plays and adjustments.   On Sunday, we won, our men against theirs, and we did so convincingly.   That is a hell of a nice thing to have witnessed as it would be great if we ALSO could throw in some sneaky scheme things that add some to that mix :).

[TheGreek1973]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

It's funny that I find myself thinking Manusky called a hell of a game, and 'all he did' was let his guys play.  No blitzes all game.  He just challenged his guys and they embraced it.  A Gibbsian 'super smart', minimalist game plan.  

 

All of that said, I don't know how much he mixed up coverages to throw Carr off, but (continuing the debate above) I never felt that Carr looked confused or lost... just frustrated that almost nothing worked.  I don't recall seeing many plays where I thought he missed open guys, threw the ball poorly or looked particularly rattled.  Defense just shut it all down.  

It was very smart actually not to blitz alot because that is how Carr gets you underneath and then his receivers can break a tackle and they are gone.  Now the fact that we got consistent pressure on him with a 4 men rush says too things.  Incredible game by our DL and even better game from our secondary allowing the rush to get to Carr, all by the way against arguably the best OL in the league.

[skinny21]

@Art

Yeah, I was trying (and failing) to be a bit silly.  The Gibbs reference was just about the super smart bit, not the simplicity.  Meant that it was smart to go with a simplified scheme that trusted our guys to make tackles.  

 

Smart because Manusky had been blitzing a good deal and then (seemingly) threw the Raiders off by going with 4 rushers all game.  

 

Edit:  one other thing.  Not sure how often we did it on Sunday, but I know Cooley really likes the pattern matching we were doing.  Seems like it's an interesting way to throw off qbs that send guys in motion to figure out if it's man or zone (I could easily be wrong here).  

One thing I'd like to see against the Chiefs (and it's probably a lot easier said than done), is for the ILB sent to cover the flats go for some hits on the TE on their way.  Hit him as he releases off the line to (attempt to) throw off timing routes.  I'm not worried about the receivers much, but the TE and run game are going to be a lot harder to contain IMO.  

[RandyHolt]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

It's funny that I find myself thinking Manusky called a hell of a game, and 'all he did' was let his guys play.  No blitzes all game.  He just challenged his guys and they embraced it.  A Gibbsian 'super smart', minimalist game plan.  

 

All of that said, I don't know how much he mixed up coverages to throw Carr off, but (continuing the debate above) I never felt that Carr looked confused or lost... just frustrated that almost nothing worked.  I don't recall seeing many plays where I thought he missed open guys, threw the ball poorly or looked particularly rattled.  Defense just shut it all down.  

 

He called a plan to let them go play, in which in turn made the players simply believe in themselves. I think, getting more out of them.  Less thinking, more doing. Coaches need to put them into a place to succeed, and then get the hell outta the way.

 

I can almost imagine what he said. You guys have been in camp / training for 4 months. It's time for me to stand down and let you go do what you do, and not micromanage you from the first snap to the last, for 16 straight games. 

 

 

[RandyHolt]

Has Swearinger officially moved to strong?

 

Seeing the snap counts makes me think so. Montae got a lot of snaps, Everette only got 8.

 

D.J. Swearinger 51

Zach Brown 51

Josh Norman 47

Martrell Spaight 46

Kendall Fuller 46

Bashaud Breeland 46

Montae Nicholson 43

 

Hat tip to @JaxJoe for the link

[Riggo-toni]

Manusky's game plan was a lot like Pete Carroll's defense in Seattle. Stick to basics, don't make mistakes, and beat the snot out of them.

The Barry and Perry show left our DBs lost and confused. Mostly thise same guys plus Nicholson looked like Legion of Boom.

Crabtree, did he have, like, even two catches?

[skinny21]

35 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

Has Swearinger officially moved to strong?

 

Seeing the snap counts makes me think so. Montae got a lot of snaps, Everette only got 8.

 

D.J. Swearinger 51

Zach Brown 51

Josh Norman 47

Martrell Spaight 46

Kendall Fuller 46

Bashaud Breeland 46

Montae Nicholson 43

 

Hat tip to @JaxJoe for the link

In an interview on 980 (IIRC) Nicholson said that they are interchangeable, but that Swearinger was playing in the box a bit more (than Nicholson).  It wasn't an insightful interview persay, but it added to my respect for Nicholson.  He came across as a pretty smart dude... (his engineering degree furthers that notion).   

[NewCliche21]

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

In an interview on 980 (IIRC) Nicholson said that they are interchangeable, but that Swearinger was playing in the box a bit more (than Nicholson).  It wasn't an insightful interview persay, but it added to my respect for Nicholson.  He came across as a pretty smart dude... (his engineering degree furthers that notion).   

 

1)  I take it you don't know that many engineers (joking!)

2)  I wonder if it's just like playing the hot hand at running back.  Nicholson got a pick against a guy who doesn't throw picks on the SECOND play.  I wonder if that earned him snaps especially given that none of them were supposed to be the starting safety other than Swearinger.

[RandyHolt]

Look at Allen manhandling Osemele on this one!

 

 

 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, RandyHolt said:

 

He called a plan to let them go play, in which in turn made the players simply believe in themselves. I think, getting more out of them.  Less thinking, more doing. Coaches need to put them into a place to succeed, and then get the hell outta the way.

 

I can almost imagine what he said. You guys have been in camp / training for 4 months. It's time for me to stand down and let you go do what you do, and not micromanage you from the first snap to the last, for 16 straight games. 

 

 

I would say yes and no to this.  I would guess that in a chess match type of game, the coach will be more hands on, especially during the week's preparation.  This past game was much more of a hands off approach as you said.  I think the Oakland plan can be used in quite a few games this year, but there will probably be some games where they (feel the) need to blitz more often.  Playing a team like Seattle, they would probably employ a qb spy and so would need to change things up quite a bit.  Loved how the team fed off the simple 'let 'em play' and 'beat your man' mindset though.  God that was fun to watch.  

 

Edit:  @NewCliche21You could be right.  I will say that I was lead to believe that Nicholson was slotted to play in our Nickel D and Everett in our base.  So if we played a lot more nickel...

 

 

Sidenote - remember how we were concerned about the spine of our defense this offseason (and before that)?  Allen, Ioannidas, Brown, Swearinger and Nicholson.... wow, what a difference.  

[Darrell Green Fan]

4 hours ago, Art said:

 

DGF. uh, no.

 

Cousins missed wide open guys against Philly.   He threw high, consistently.   He was drastically off target on anything deep.   That wasn't Philly.   That was us.   Yes, Philly blitzed, but when you have a 5-8 guy wide open for a TD AND you correctly throw it to him, if you actually throw ANYTHING mildly NORMAL it's a score, and when you don't it is disconcerting.

 

THAT is where Kirk often struggles to become a fan favorite.   No one cares about a game where he doesn't shine because the other team is in good coverage or whipping the offensive line or circumstances dictate a game he'd struggle.   If his passes are generally in the right area it's fine.   He said on his pass to Doctson that could have gone the other way.   Amerson could have picked it.   That would STILL have been a great ball.   Perfectly thrown.   To a man in a one on one situation.   If we lose it we can live with it.   The ball was thrown well.

 

One of the announcers and Gruden commented on the red zone play where Kirk just took a couple yard run for a field goal attempt instead of forcing it.   THAT is a decision he doesn't always make either.   But did against the Raiders.   Kirk's problem isn't that he can have bad games.   It's that there are things he does that NO really good QB does as consistently.   As I said, if he has his horrendous starts to seasons down to one game, we can live with it.   But you can't reasonably question his play against Philly as being in any way good.   He missed a ton.   Watch the Game Pass on NFL.com with the coaches tape.   It's UNREAL how much he missed.   Scary really.   But, he threw some great balls against the Raiders that make you believe he's excellent.   If he could get rid of the wildly terrible play like he had against Philly he'd be a sure bet Top 5 guy.   Because he HAS that potential otherwise.

 

You realize I could make the exact same argument, with specifics as well, about Carr's game too right? But why bother?  The facts show that I am correct here but by all means don't ever let facts get in the way of a good rant.  

 

[skinny21]

13 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You realize I could make the exact same argument, with specifics as well, about Carr's game too right? But why bother?  The facts show that I am correct here but by all means don't ever let facts get in the way of a good rant.  

 

Well, considering one of the big stats we're talking about is accuracy, Kirk's 58% was worse than Carr's 61%.  I think you left that out earlier.  

 

If I'm looking at both games, oline play was a big problem for both Washington and Oakland.  Neither team ran well and neither team protected the qb well.  Set those aside and the glaring issue (IMO) for the respective offenses was Washington's defense shut down Oakland's opportunities for YAC, while Kirk missed plenty of fairly easy throws.  

 

So, yes, if you're hanging your hat on the stats... Kirk wins.  That's not the whole story though.  I have to admit, I'm surprised you (or anyone) would disagree with the premise Art and I laid out.  

 

You mentioned that maybe my bias was factoring in... I find myself wanting to ask you the same.  

 

Anyone else wanna weigh in on this?  Who played/looked worse - Kirk vs the Eagles or Carr vs the 'Skins?

[Playaction2Sanders]

On 9/25/2017 at 12:16 AM, Burgundy Yoda said:

Watched this game at a sports bar in Northern California flooded with Raiders jerseys. I was telling them I had no idea what team was on the screen but that's not my team. 

 

That was the best defense I have seen since Gibbs 2. Actually it looked better tbh. 

 

Whoa??? Statistically only the '91 defense was better than Gibbs '04 defense, and you have to take into account they were on the field much much more than the '91 defense since we had no offense.. This defense this year is fundamentally sound, and fantastic tacklers and I'd say their front 7 at least on the line and edge rushers is better than the '04 team..

[Darrell Green Fan]

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Well, considering one of the big stats we're talking about is accuracy, Kirk's 58% was worse than Carr's 61%.  I think you left that out earlier.  

 

If I'm looking at both games, oline play was a big problem for both Washington and Oakland.  Neither team ran well and neither team protected the qb well.  Set those aside and the glaring issue (IMO) for the respective offenses was Washington's defense shut down Oakland's opportunities for YAC, while Kirk missed plenty of fairly easy throws.  

 

So, yes, if you're hanging your hat on the stats... Kirk wins.  That's not the whole story though.  I have to admit, I'm surprised you (or anyone) would disagree with the premise Art and I laid out.  

 

You mentioned that maybe my bias was factoring in... I find myself wanting to ask you the same.  

 

Anyone else wanna weigh in on this?  Who played/looked worse - Kirk vs the Eagles or Carr vs the 'Skins?

 

Yeah I'd like to get other's opinion as well.  And no doubt Kirk was inaccurate.  But the difference in accuracy percentage is very minor.   While they never tell the entire story I prefer to use QB ratings which tells gives a much more accurate assessment than just completion %.   Again Kirk was:  QBR:  34.8  Rating 72.9    Carr was QBR:  3.5  Rating 52.9. That is a HUGE difference and takes more into account than a 3% difference in completion percentage.    Do you have any idea how bad you need to be to put up a QBR of 3.5? Have you bothered to look at his 2 picks? Carr threw right into coverage on both of them, why is this being ignored is puzzling to me. 

 

Not sure which one of you said it but to put the Carr showing so much on the Redskins defense while failing to acknowledge the role the Eagles played in Kirk's performance is complete nonsense.  Their pressure FORCED Kirk to throw an off balance high throw that was picked. Why is this totally dismissed as we only credit the Redskins defense?  .  

 

As for bias I have none. I have said all along Kirk is good but not great.  This is what you get with him, some good, some bad, but he sure beats the other options.  That hardly means I will defend him to the end.  I just know the difference between a QBR of 34.8 and a QBR of 3.5.  . . 

[BleedBNG]

On 9/25/2017 at 12:19 AM, RedskinsSerbia said:

Dominated a game in EVERY. SINGLE. CATEGORY.

 

As NFL.com (Elliot Harrison) put it... The most impressive win of the 2017 season - even more so than the Chiefs upending the Patriots on opening night.

They gave us a 7 ranking, and CBS gave us a 6. Others were in the range of 11-14. 

 

[skinny21]

4 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Yeah I'd like to get other's opinion as well.  And no doubt Kirk was inaccurate.  But the difference in accuracy percentage is very minor.   While they never tell the entire story I prefer to use QB ratings which tells gives a much more accurate assessment than just completion %.   Again Kirk was:  QBR:  34.8  Rating 72.9    Carr was QBR:  3.5  Rating 52.9. That is a HUGE difference and takes more into account than a 3% difference in completion percentage.    Do you have any idea how bad you need to be to put up a QBR of 3.5? Have you bothered to look at his 2 picks? Carr threw right into coverage on both of them, why is this being ignored is puzzling to me. 

 

Not sure which one of you said it but to put the Carr showing so much on the Redskins defense while failing to acknowledge the role the Eagles played in Kirk's performance is complete nonsense.  Their pressure FORCED Kirk to throw an off balance high throw that was picked. Why is this totally dismissed as we only credit the Redskins defense?  .  

 

As for bias I have none. I have said all along Kirk is good but not great.  This is what you get with him, some good, some bad, but he sure beats the other options.  That hardly means I will defend him to the end.  I just know the difference between a QBR of 34.8 and a QBR of 3.5.  . . 

First off, after reading your last paragraph, I feel I should make my stance on Kirk clear.  I think he's a great quarterback.  I'm bummed the FO couldn't get their act together to sign him for less money than he'll likely earn (last year, this year, and going forward), but I'm still fine paying him the big bucks to stay.  I've spelled out my reasoning throughout the Cousins thread - 1) don't think the cap hit seriously hinders us from fielding a good team around him, 2) his stats are excellent, 3) he's improving in areas we want him to improve, 4) his RZ issues of last year were both not all his fault and should rebound to his previous play there and 5) he's a lot more clutch than people give him credit for.  

 

Anyone wanting to respond to those points, it would be great if we could take it up in the Cousins thread.  

 

Anyway, with that out of the way, my view on comparing Carr's and Cousins' bad games this year boils down to this - 

 

Kirk vs the Eagles - I thought he looked thoroughly uncomfortable through most of the game.  He had guys open and consistently missed them with what were mostly relatively easy throws.  Sometimes this was due to pressure in his face, but he let his footwork go at other times as well.  Sailed numerous passes because of it.  It was a very winnable game and he was a big reason for the loss.  

 

Carr vs the Redskins - on the first int, Carr used his eyes to move Nicholson away from his target, but didn't expect Nicholson would be able to flip his hips quickly enough and cover enough ground to make the play.  Ball could have been better, but I took it as a great play by our young safety.  Why do I start there?  With that int, Breeland and Norman playing as they had been, and considering Oakland's strength (getting the ball out quickly and relying on YAC, as well as a stout run game), they went back to their bread and butter.  But our dline manhandled their oline - run and pass (as I mentioned earlier, the Eagles did the same to us).  Thing is, our secondary (and ILBs) shut down their passing game.  Our guys swarmed to the ball, and limited YAC in a big way.  We completely stymied the Raiders offense.  Carr never had a chance.  I never once thought Carr looked like a terrible qb.  I didn't see his mechanics go to hell.  I didn't see him miss easy throws.  I didn't see him rattled by the pressure.  

 

In the Cousins thread, @tshile was talking about how Kirk's night vs Oakland was helped immensely by impressive plays made by Thompson and Doctson.  Aside from Cook's td, I can't recall a single offensive player for the Raiders do something to make Carr look better.  Our defense was simply outstanding.  In the Eagle's game, as I said, the dline took it to us... but there were plays to be made.   Numerous throws sailed even when he didn't face pressure.  If Kirk had played that game as calm and comfortably as he did this past Sunday night, I'm almost certain we'd have won that game.  It might not have even been close.  

 

Again, I love Kirk.  Game 1 didn't really bother me other than giving more ammo to his detractors.  I knew our oline could play better, I knew his rapport with his receivers would improve, I knew Gruden could (and likely would) help him with a commitment to the run game and some higher percentage throws to let him get comfortable.  Carr had all of those things but couldn't do anything because our defense played at a whole other level.  They couldn't run inside, outside, jet sweeps, end arounds, couldn't break tackles or shake off the guys in coverage.  Not much Carr could have done to make a difference IMO.  It was just the perfectly wrong matchup at the perfectly wrong time against a defense that is coming together and has a lot of talent.  

 

Throughout this conversation I've tried to debate myself to see what I might be missing.  Easy enough, I thought, to work around the stats you provided (it's a team game and those same stats ignore the eye test), easy enough to say that neither team got the help they needed from their receivers, coaches, run game and olines.  Here's the one thing I do have some trouble arguing when looking at the flip side of the argument (I alluded to it all earlier).... prior to playing us, Oakland had showed off a talented oline, receivers that could get it done, a strong running game.  They were clicking.  So, Carr helmed an offense that stumbled in every way.  Kirk, on the other hand, didn't have those benefits heading into the Eagle's game.  So, should those things affect how we view their respective games?  If so, how much?

 

It's not enough for me to say I'm wrong about my stance, but it is enough for me to say maybe we should just agree to disagree.  We seem to be at an impasse and are cluttering this thread with our stubbornness.  Maybe we should go back to enjoying the big win and hoping we can do something similar to the Chiefs.  Cheers man.  

[skinny21]

On a separate note... how about Moreau's two ST tackles - only return yardage on the two were from the returner falling forward.  

 

I think it was Galdi I heard talking about the improvement in team speed this year.  So, so true.  

 

Based purely on what I've read/heard, I like that our base D has some serious run stopping ability/potential with the Macs, Hood, Anderson, Foster and Brown (and Swearinger sometimes rolling into the box).  Adding Galette into the mix just seems like a great fit - adds some speed/pass rush.  

Our nickel D... man, I don't know how much happier I could be - Nicholson looks like a gem on the back end, Fuller has been solid (and phenomenal on screens), Allen and Ioannidas are studs in the middle, and Kerrigan and Smith are consistently causing problems vs both run and pass.  

 

I left off the corners, but I've got nothing but gushing praise for them.  Best duo we've had in ages.  

[Darrell Green Fan]

6 hours ago, skinny21 said:

First off, after reading your last paragraph, I feel I should make my stance on Kirk clear.  I think he's a great quarterback.  I'm bummed the FO couldn't get their act together to sign him for less money than he'll likely earn (last year, this year, and going forward), but I'm still fine paying him the big bucks to stay.  I've spelled out my reasoning throughout the Cousins thread - 1) don't think the cap hit seriously hinders us from fielding a good team around him, 2) his stats are excellent, 3) he's improving in areas we want him to improve, 4) his RZ issues of last year were both not all his fault and should rebound to his previous play there and 5) he's a lot more clutch than people give him credit for.  

 

Anyone wanting to respond to those points, it would be great if we could take it up in the Cousins thread.  

 

Anyway, with that out of the way, my view on comparing Carr's and Cousins' bad games this year boils down to this - 

 

Kirk vs the Eagles - I thought he looked thoroughly uncomfortable through most of the game.  He had guys open and consistently missed them with what were mostly relatively easy throws.  Sometimes this was due to pressure in his face, but he let his footwork go at other times as well.  Sailed numerous passes because of it.  It was a very winnable game and he was a big reason for the loss.  

 

Carr vs the Redskins - on the first int, Carr used his eyes to move Nicholson away from his target, but didn't expect Nicholson would be able to flip his hips quickly enough and cover enough ground to make the play.  Ball could have been better, but I took it as a great play by our young safety.  Why do I start there?  With that int, Breeland and Norman playing as they had been, and considering Oakland's strength (getting the ball out quickly and relying on YAC, as well as a stout run game), they went back to their bread and butter.  But our dline manhandled their oline - run and pass (as I mentioned earlier, the Eagles did the same to us).  Thing is, our secondary (and ILBs) shut down their passing game.  Our guys swarmed to the ball, and limited YAC in a big way.  We completely stymied the Raiders offense.  Carr never had a chance.  I never once thought Carr looked like a terrible qb.  I didn't see his mechanics go to hell.  I didn't see him miss easy throws.  I didn't see him rattled by the pressure.  

 

In the Cousins thread, @tshile was talking about how Kirk's night vs Oakland was helped immensely by impressive plays made by Thompson and Doctson.  Aside from Cook's td, I can't recall a single offensive player for the Raiders do something to make Carr look better.  Our defense was simply outstanding.  In the Eagle's game, as I said, the dline took it to us... but there were plays to be made.   Numerous throws sailed even when he didn't face pressure.  If Kirk had played that game as calm and comfortably as he did this past Sunday night, I'm almost certain we'd have won that game.  It might not have even been close.  

 

Again, I love Kirk.  Game 1 didn't really bother me other than giving more ammo to his detractors.  I knew our oline could play better, I knew his rapport with his receivers would improve, I knew Gruden could (and likely would) help him with a commitment to the run game and some higher percentage throws to let him get comfortable.  Carr had all of those things but couldn't do anything because our defense played at a whole other level.  They couldn't run inside, outside, jet sweeps, end arounds, couldn't break tackles or shake off the guys in coverage.  Not much Carr could have done to make a difference IMO.  It was just the perfectly wrong matchup at the perfectly wrong time against a defense that is coming together and has a lot of talent.  

 

Throughout this conversation I've tried to debate myself to see what I might be missing.  Easy enough, I thought, to work around the stats you provided (it's a team game and those same stats ignore the eye test), easy enough to say that neither team got the help they needed from their receivers, coaches, run game and olines.  Here's the one thing I do have some trouble arguing when looking at the flip side of the argument (I alluded to it all earlier).... prior to playing us, Oakland had showed off a talented oline, receivers that could get it done, a strong running game.  They were clicking.  So, Carr helmed an offense that stumbled in every way.  Kirk, on the other hand, didn't have those benefits heading into the Eagle's game.  So, should those things affect how we view their respective games?  If so, how much?

 

It's not enough for me to say I'm wrong about my stance, but it is enough for me to say maybe we should just agree to disagree.  We seem to be at an impasse and are cluttering this thread with our stubbornness.  Maybe we should go back to enjoying the big win and hoping we can do something similar to the Chiefs.  Cheers man.  

 

Yeah I'm running out of steam on this as well.  While I totally agree with your assessment of Cousins I don't think you realize how bad Carr was.  I finally got a chance to watch that game again, I always watch big wins later.  Yeah Carr was horrible.  On the first pick as the camera got to the ball a half a second after it was released Nicholson is seen exactly 7 yards off the receiver.  It was a good play by Nicholson (so happy about that) but it's not like he covered 20 yards like Darrell Green.   With a ball that high that is simply throwing it up into coverage, it was an easy pick for most safeties.. Watch it again if you care to confirm this.  The second pick was a good play by Fuller but also a ball thrown right at him to a covered receiver.

 

He failed to generate any offense what so ever all night. In the third quarter, with the game slipping away, on consecutive 3rd downs he threw behind the receiver on a simple swing pass, giving him no chance.  Then hung Crabtree out to dry on that deep sideline pass that was too high to catch and ended with a big hit by the safety.  Then after Perine's fumble and  a Redskins penalty that left 1st and goal from the 5 he never came close to scoring on three straight passes.  By the 4th quarter he was throwing primarily short dump offs with his team trailing by 3 scores, hence the high completion percentage.

 

Oakland as a team played terrible but David Carr was downright horrible.

 

Have a good day man.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

On 9/25/2017 at 9:06 PM, skinsfan35yrs. said:

the worry some thing for me will be that they are so good that next year owners will be calling them to head coach or move up the ladder to higher positions on coaching staff 

 

I wouldn't worry too much. Owners thought Mike Zimmer was too rough around the edges (spoke his mind too much instead of being PC) and Greg M. is much "rougher" than him.

[moondog]

What a difference a week can make on here

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

On 9/26/2017 at 6:48 AM, RandyHolt said:

 

Good point - but I'll counter that I think the Bears offense was rather listless and suspect their D faced their fair share of snaps. Walter Peyton and trying not to laugh as I type this.... Jim McMahon was their offense. A shout out is due to Willie Gault I suppose.

 

 

 

The 1985 Bears were ranked 7th in total yards on Offense...try again

 

 

[RandyHolt]

Randyoms

I wish an easy study could be done on the effectiveness in sacking a QB in his first 2 passing attempts. I would be willing to bet my equifax password and the first 6 of my soc that QBs that are hit in the chin on their first drive, tend to not shake it off, and go on to have worse game than that same QB that also gets sacked twice, but at later points in the game.

 

I also think it makes OC tear up their game plans. Ok so I'll just go ahead and cross off all the 5 and 7 step drops today.

 

I think running Perine up the gut 20 times for 2.5 per, had a net positive effect. Not that anyone can prove one way or the other, but do think it wore down the defense, lulled them into thinking every play is a run up the gut. Folks clamor for a commitment to the run, but what are the net positives? Certainly committing alone does not guarantee run game success, as defenses know you are going to run, and thus it should theoretically be easier to stop. Did our run game help Kirk achieve greatness this week? One can argue facing 2nd and longs made his job harder, which circles back to - why is committing to the run so important.

 

I thought Crowder was going to have a monster year. I think Jay manages his game not unlike he does CT, only without telling everyone about it.

 

 

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

On 9/26/2017 at 7:07 AM, RandyHolt said:

 

I don't think we were in our faux base 3-4 at all Sunday night.  I am stalking the internets for snap counts.  The googles do nothing, as the sites are not yet updated for week 3 but this site shows a trend from game 1, to game 2, to Manusky using our 2 studs more....

 

I was wondering if I was imagining that...it appeared to be a 4 down linemen and 3 LBs look all night.