SonnyJ Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 TOP: Skins: 40:07 Cards: 19:53 And the Redskins needed a deflected interception deep in 'Zona territory to set up a TD drive with the backup QB in the closing minutes to finally pull ahead and beat a mediocre ballclub that did very little on offense the whole day. And the Redskins themselves had only one turnover (although it did go for six the other way). Anyone question that this has to change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 I've got no problem winning close ones and keeping it on the ground...but that means we need at least one big offensive play in each game. Mostly likely more than 1. So, if the Skins can consistently pull magic from their collective arses for those big plays then fine. Once they can't do it, your system is broken in my eyes. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.nba.com/media/wizards/kwame_bobble90.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I44993-2001Sep05" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Martyball with a better QB yesterday has more time of possession for us, and as much as a 14-point swing in our favor because that stupid pass that was returned for a TD wouldn't have happened to have stopped the ongoing drive. The game would have at least ended 20-10. In sloppy weather, like yesterday's was, Martyball was the way to go as opposed to some fancy passing attack. But overall, I agree with you. The offensive scheme needs some serious examination and changes this coming year. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 The importance of a good QB cannot be stressed enough. That being said, we need a small quick receiver (or two) with yards-after-catch (YAC) capabilities. Marty loves big posession receivers because they can run block. Combine that with a fondness for calling a 5 yard passing plays on 3rd and 10, and you've got problems. Oh well. Let's see how this all shakes down and who our coach is. If it's Spurrier, we may all be reminiscing about Marty's 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 This is what we've been saying about Marty ball. This team has to play very close to the vest football to pull out victories. You won't find too many games in which one team holds the ball for 40 minutes yet only wins by three. But, this is the norm for Marty's style of leadership. And, you can win with that style, as Marty has. It's just that you have to play so well that the edge you play on is too tight to expect ultimate success. Look at the Cardinals game. If Graham doesn't make a pretty splendid play on a third and seven, do any of us think we win that game, or do we probably just fall a tad short? We ran on third and three for the touchdown, which worked out, but, if it was fourth down, how confident are we. We are always on the edge of winning and likewise, losing. Save when you get the Saints . It really isn't about Tony Banks though guys. This was not abnormal for a Marty team. This offense was pretty normal for a Marty team. He's had time in his career when the passing game has been better, but, in general, this is what you see. We could have had a better QB who could have gotten a bit more in this offense than Banks can, but, really, it's pretty much the same offense he's always run. He likes to run on third and long to run time and preserve field position and limit a big negative play. Marty ball is not new and not exclusive to when he has Banks at QB. It's been a pretty consistent standard. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted January 7, 2002 Author Share Posted January 7, 2002 As Art said, this isn't just about the QB. Of course the offense would run better with a competent QB at the helm. Remember, he had a QB here from the get-go who had trained in the offense all offseason. I shed no tears for Jeff George and am glad he is gone, but, while ultimately he's a loser, he has shown proficient passing skill. But in this offense he was just abysmal. Part of that is certainly on George, but it's partially on Marty, too. Raye isn't the problem, either. Just a year ago, he had a fairly prolific offense in KC, with arguably less tools. This IS Marty's offense. In desperation, he loosened up late in the Carolina game, part of the Giants game, and the Seahawk game. Then he started tightening up again, but the team was able to pull out a couple of classic MartyBall victories over the Broncos and Eagles. But he didn't readjust when necessary. MartyBall doesn't seem to be about scoring points - it's about controlling the ball. Which is great, as a means to an end. But it's not a means to an end for Marty, that is the end. Scoring points seems to be more of a happy coincidence than a goal. You would think with over a 2-1 TOP advantage, you would have a comfortable, if not dominating, victory (barring a rash of fluky plays, which, outside of the pick for a TD, didn't happen). But the Skins needed a lucky bounce to win this game. If I'm Snyder, I order Marty to change this approach. I see nothing wrong with the owner of an organization demanding that his head of operations take a different approach to the implementation of the product, especially when the need is so clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Why is it when Parcells runs precisely the same scheme with the Giants, and wins two Super Bowls with it, no one derisively labels that system "Tunaball" or some such thing? Marty has shown the ability to adjust his scheme to fit his personnel, perhaps not radically, but adjust it nevertheless. When he had Montana under him with the 1993 Chiefs , his teams put the ball up a fair amount of times more than they ran, which was markedly different from the 1992 Chiefs under Dave Krieg the year before. When Kosar became a good passer for the Browns in 1986 and 1987 , Marty passed more than he ran. Again, that was in contrast to the 1984 , 1985 , and 1988 teams which ran more than they passed because Paul McDonald was their QB, or because Kosar was a rookie or was injured, respectively. (And always remember that the number of rushing attempts includes QB scrambles on passing plays.) The point is simple: if Marty gets a QB he believes in, he'll use him. We'll never see Mike Martz's offense, but we'll see more passing with a better QB under Marty. And of course we'll always see tough, between the tackles running, solid special teams, and stingy defense, which are together the hallmarks of Martyball. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor [ by redman on January 07, 2002.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Redman, Marty ball isn't necessarily a bad word. It just happens to be bad ball . In New York, in 1986, the Giants had among the best defenses in the history of football. Yet, they were STILL No. 8 in points scored. In 1990, the team was slightly different and was a surprise winner, based upon a strong ground game and stingy defense. It's clear that scheme can win a Super Bowl. Marty has had a couple of teams that have done well, but the style he plays is self-limiting. It doesn't generally allow for great success on the offensive side, which puts great pressure on the defensive side. And if we had a great QB, even running this scheme perfectly, we are a limited offense because there are plays Marty won't allow to be run because of fear of the big negative. In many ways, Marty is to offense what Turner was to defense. Turner was a guy that cringed at big plays against his defense. He would play and prefer soft zone on every play forever to avoid getting big plays against him. Marty feels the same on offense where he feels a few first downs and a strong kicking game can win you football games. It can. It just has limits and when you run into a team that isn't playing tight, while we are, it's going to be hard to handle them come playoff time. Hell, in the yesterday's game, a totally meaningless game, Marty couldn't even allow something different to take place. When the playoffs come and you need a win, sometimes you have to change things up a bit. Marty doesn't do that. He does what he does and it WILL win games here. It just needs to be adjusted for us to win the games we really want to win. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Marty is capable of getting a team 75% to 80% of the way to a Super Bowl but doesn't realize he has shortcomings as well do that require him to delegate authority to others who can help him fill in that extra 25%. If he would hire an established offensive coordinator like say Sherman Lewis and allowed him to work with a new quarterback to improve the productivity of the offense, we could still play the solid defense, special teams and use the running game to be successful and maintain at the same time the ability to put other teams on the clear defensive with a few more big plays each contest. We are not talking about a wholesale change in philosophy here. This isn't near as much of an adaptation as Joe Gibbs made here after bringing in the Coryell offense in 1981. What this entire situation boils down to is this...... Is Marty more committed to winning a championship on his last go around in the NFL than he is to protecting his ego? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Sherman Lewis is never to be mentioned again. Here's a guy that had NEVER called an offensive play until a couple of years ago under Rhodes in Green Bay. He has done NOTHING in Green Bay or Minnesota to distinguish himself, EXCEPT have Carter and Moss lord over him in the huddle, refusing to run his plays and instead calling others to the point that he finally said, "I'm done, Denny, you call plays here." If he came here, I'd weep. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.