Art Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 This game was not really in doubt the moment Grossman went down with injury. The Chicago Bears had no chance of winning a game against a Gregg Williams defense with a rookie QB making his first start on the road. Today, you clearly felt there was no way the Bears could do anything against our defense. We set them up for points and the scored, but, for the most part, other than a blind falling down pass, the Bears offense was going to be and WAS hopeless against the Redskins defense. Washington has a championship-level defense, coordinated by a top defensive mind. We're going to win games because of that. But, we're not going to be much better than last year with below average QB play by BOTH our QBs as we had today. We're not going to win a lot of games with three turnovers. We saw today what we could expect to see. We saw an offense with a top runner capable of controlling the game. We saw a dangerous receiver capable of getting loose downfield. We saw a strong, powerful offensive line. And we had QB play where Brunell had a 70.5 QB rating and Ramsey had a 49.4 rating. We will lose games with play like that. Just not against teams with no hope against our defense. Any team with a remote bit of ability on offense beats us today because we don't put teams away and limit mistakes. We haven't for a very long time. It's frustrating to see the same errors over and over and over and over. It is the definition of our team. If we ever turn the corner where the mistakes don't define us, but smart, controlled, solid play does, we will be deadly with the ability to create on offense and dominate on defense. We just never seem to get closer to this lofty goal. This win was unsatisfying because we never seem to improve the one aspect of play that most limits our ability to win. But, winning does give us a bit of momentum to build on. This team is one run of a few wins away from believing it can achieve what it hasn't achieved. You can't start a run until you win one . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drone007 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 it wasn't pretty but i'll take it. you might be able to say the same things about the chicago team... their defense is fairly stout, and I think we may have better luck with our offense down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Art, keep in mind that the Bears have a damn good defense and probably one of the best d-lines in the league. Also keep in mind that one of those two fumbles was completely bogus. If we end up keeping the ball, it may be a different game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 This was a bad Bears team we beat today. It's nice and all but when your goal is to make the playoffs, these kind of wins make you more inclined to think you won't get there then you will. With that being said, let's see Ramsey play a full game next time and then we will have a much better idea of what we are capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Exactly Art. We lose this game against probably 28-29 other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Nice post, Art. First off, I'm very happy we won. That's the most important thing. But you are right. We seem to have the same problems we had last year. Eratic QB play and turnovers. We seemed to have kept the penalties down, which is good. And we were playing a pretty good 'D' in the Bears.... we should've done better, though. Speaking of 'D', this Redskin 'D' would've had a shut out today had it not been for the A. Brown fumble. :doh: All in all, I'm happy we won, but there is NO way we beat the better teams of this league with errant throws and multiple ints./fumbles. Most of the mistakes were Ramseys. Brunell didn't make many mistakes, he was just insonsistent. Hpefully, Gibbs and his coaches can work on that this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 This win was unsatisfying because we never seem to improve the one aspect of play that most limits our ability to win. But, winning does give us a bit of momentum to build on. This team is one run of a few wins away from believing it can achieve what it hasn't achieved. You can't start a run until you win one . That is the key. If we can eek out a few wins, they will start to believe. If we win next week, it will be a huge boost. Also, I think we lose this game last year. We were able to fight through it and eek one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Any team with a remote bit of ability on offense beats us today because we don't put teams away and limit mistakes. We haven't for a very long time. It's frustrating to see the same errors over and over and over and over. It is the definition of our team. Agreed. Those arguing the starter at the QB position are missing the big picture. Neither of our guys are getting it done. A strong argument for either can not be made IMO. Until one begins to show they can take the offense to the next level.....and put the oppenent to bed........then we don't have a clear cut guy at the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Agreed.Those arguing the starter at the QB position are missing the big picture. Neither of our guys are getting it done. A strong argument for either can not be made IMO. Until one begins to show they can take the offense to the next level.....and put the oppenent to bed........then we don't have a clear cut guy at the position. Thus the reasoning behind the decision to draft Jason Campbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 11, 2005 Author Share Posted September 11, 2005 Art, keep in mind that the Bears have a damn good defense and probably one of the best d-lines in the league. Also keep in mind that one of those two fumbles was completely bogus. If we end up keeping the ball, it may be a different game. There was nothing bogus about the fumble on Ramsey. Ramsey did fumble. The rules should have protected him, but I don't actually LIKE the rules in this case . But, I wouldn't call it bogus. The Bears ran a nice play and generated a turnover. It should have been called back because of the illegal contact, which, again, I HATE, but, it wasn't bogus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I hope it is a positive that the team still won with 3 turnovers, but on the road it might not have happened. At least Gibbs is dead on focused on solving the problems, and not just floundering around saying he doesn't have the answers or what we do works blah blah blah. He's more action than talk..They're happy about the win, and so am I. Perhaps beating the unmentionables on MNF will stop the TO bleeding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Will the rookie be ready to start next year? heh. Art is spot on, our team is still being held back by horrible QB play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Strange game. It almost felt at times like we didn't attack much on EITHER side of the ball because we were just waiting for Orton give us something. The D didn't blitz as much as I thought they would and take shots at the kid to see how well he handled physical adversity, and on offense we ran a VERY conservative scheme with only one or two flashes of creativity all day. I got the sense Gibbs was SO sure of Chicago's inability to generate anything on offense that he pulled in his horns on offense a bit on this one and simply waited Chicago out. Always nice to win ... but that approach won't work next week on the road and against a competent offensive team. We're going to have to play it like a real NFL game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 There was nothing bogus about the fumble on Ramsey. Ramsey did fumble. The rules should have protected him, but I don't actually LIKE the rules in this case . But, I wouldn't call it bogus. The Bears ran a nice play and generated a turnover. It should have been called back because of the illegal contact, which, again, I HATE, but, it wasn't bogus. It was bogus, Art. The illegal play caused the fumble. If you're standing up and someone comes and puts a forearm in your throat, you're coughing it up. The fact that the no-call should've negated the fumble is another issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I didn't think our D was "championship level" by any stretch today. There were times when Orten had 5-8 seconds back there. Any decent QB would have picked us apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I think part of the reason Orton had so much time is we rushed only four more than usual. Williams clearly wanted to make Orton beat all 7 guys in coverage consistently, rather that giving him even a puncher's chance for chuck and duck stuff downfield. We blitzed more late, but for much of the game, it seemed we were playing contain on the kid, mixing coverages, and hoping to bait him into bad throws into coverage. To his credit, he took the underneath stuff all day and kept his team in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I think part of the reason Orton had so much time is we rushed only four more than usual. Williams clearly wanted to make Orton beat all 7 guys in coverage consistently, rather that giving him even a puncher's chance for chuck and duck stuff downfield. We blitzed more late, but for much of the game, it seemed we were playing contain on the kid, mixing coverages, and hoping to bait him into bad throws into coverage. To his credit, he took the underneath stuff all day and kept his team in the game. It is also because we can not get pressure with just the DL. Surprise didn't hear LA's name much today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 44 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 This game reminded me too much of the first game last year. Tampa Bay was a lot like the Bears this year, very good D, bad offense. We played very much the same as we did against the Bucs last year. Deja vu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 11, 2005 Author Share Posted September 11, 2005 Mike, please, a lot of our game was designed to force Orton to throw against coverages. We are very strong in coverage. We often make QBs look bad even with time because of how we play defense. Remember Culpepper last year against us as a prime example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtyler42 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Art while I agree w/you in spirit, we played the game according to our opponent... We didnt play 28-29 other teams today, we didnt play a team w/a more explosive offense, we played the Bears... Gibbs called his game accordingly...He played field position/time of possesion game and played for FG's...It is not very entertaining but it was effective against a poor offensive team and we won...If all of us trust in Gibbs as we always say then you have to believe that he will call the game according to his opponent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted September 11, 2005 Author Share Posted September 11, 2005 Art while I agree w/you in spirit, we played the game according to our opponent...We didnt play 28-29 other teams today, we didnt play a team w/a more explosive offense, we played the Bears... Gibbs called his game accordingly...He played field position/time of possesion game and played for FG's...It is not very entertaining but it was effective against a poor offensive team and we won...If all of us trust in Gibbs as we always say then you have to believe that he will call the game according to his opponent... I have no doubt we fully understood our opponent. But, the fumble by Brown giving them points shows you just what could happen when you let a team hang around. You can't believe Gibbs called a game to keep the Bears alive, because one bad bounce kills you. It almost did. If Portis' fumble bounces the wrong way, we may lose this game. The fact remains, as long as we refuse to hold onto the ball -- especially against teams we're better than -- we can not reasonably expect to win with any regularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Art while I agree w/you in spirit, we played the game according to our opponent...We didnt play 28-29 other teams today, we didnt play a team w/a more explosive offense, we played the Bears... Gibbs called his game accordingly...He played field position/time of possesion game and played for FG's...It is not very entertaining but it was effective against a poor offensive team and we won...If all of us trust in Gibbs as we always say then you have to believe that he will call the game according to his opponent... So you're saying that we design our gameplan to the level of competition? If the team isn't that great, we just play field position and TOP? I would think it's the other way around. We should've been going for the kill against the Bears, we could've put that team away in the 2nd quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Running on third and seven at the end is a great example. We seemed to be playing not to lose today, not going for it and playing to win. I also was surprised we did not attack Orton more, but perhaps the coaches are thinking long term about not showing too much when they feel they have a grip on it. I agree again with Art that permits teams to hang around and steal a game on a bad bounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookie0720 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Playing not to lose may have worked this week, but you can't win in this league consistantly playing that way. It's not even debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 Charles Mann made an interesting comment on the gameplanning. He not only stated that the 'Skins played the offense down given the Bears' offense and the fact that he didn't want to show too much for the Cowboys next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.