Guest Xtrmskn04 Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Ok. We know the defense is playing at a very high level. So, what is the main cause of the skins offensive problems? 1) Poor offensive line play? 2) Sub par WR's or WR play? 3) Inconsistent QB play? 4) Conservative play calling? 5) Other (please state)? I am going to go with a combination of conservative play calling and a QB who may not be willing to take many chances as he is playing not to lose vs. playing to win. Also I wonder if given Gibbs quick hook due to turnovers is making our QB play too conservatively for fear of losing job? I guess if this is the case, at least it something that could be overcome. I am just having a hard time figuring out with the talent the skins have why they can't seem to move the ball a lot better (exclusive of the two big plays monday night of course). I mean there are some other teams in the NFL that don't seem to have as much talent and have scored more points. So what is up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossWalker Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 "I mean there are some other teams in the NFL that don't seem to have as much talent and have scored more points. So what is up?" The Bears and Cowboys play very good defense. Brunnel hasn't had much work with the first team and Coach Gibbs has only been back for one season and two games. Basically, the chemistry isn't where it could be. I think we all saw that start to change with the deep balls to Moss. Players have to learn to trust each other in a team sport like football. One guy can't carry the entire load. Once they get used to playing together and trusting each other you will see more offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdskn4eva Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Well, being as that weve had: 70 yard pass 45 yard pass 52 yard pass 41 yard run some 20 yard passes, dont know how many in 2 games, thats pretty good if you ask me. We wanted big plays, we are getting big plays, we just gotta sustain drives and smash the ball into the endzone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 I think if you remember Coach Gibbs' first tenure, it wasn't about stretching the field all the time. I think JG is a master of taking the deep shot when (and only when) the defense presents the opportunity. Brunell made some mistakes Monday night, especially the INT, which on TV at least, looked like a terrible throw. But on the other hand, taking those deep shots late and opening things up, even though it was out of necessity Monday shows a willingness to stretch the field. If Santana shows a consistent ability to beat teams deep, it's going to open up the whole field. That's when we'll see Portis really get going. It's almost the opposite of the old days -- our passing game has to set up the run, instead of the other way around. It'll take a few games of near-300-yard passing by MB for teams to respect the deep ball. Once they do, look out! I, like a lot of others prior to Monday night, questioned the benching of Ramsey. I was promptly silenced by our HOF coach, who clearly knows a helluva lot more than I do. I think we'll see some of your questions answered in the coming weeks too. Be patient. And by the way... :point2sky WE BEAT DALLAS! :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 honorary hog said it all in that first sentance. Joe Gibbs always seemed to set up most of the passing game with the solid rushing game. The exact opposite of this just as an example is Mike Martz in St. Louis who goes pass to run and very little running at that. Basically people that want non stop big plays out of a Joe Gibbs offense are kidding themselves. Eventually we will get more big SCORING plays (thats the key, anyone can get big plays, the biggest part is maiking something of em) and eventually Joe will be able to push defenses onto their heels not knowing which he will burn them with: a deep pass, a misdirection run, etc. Right now we have everything in place. We have a talented running back, a good offensive line, talented recievers, and a QB that is at least capable of making plays, and at the least doesnt turn the ball over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timurchin Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 The difference in a big time scoring offense and our offense is a very small thin line. It's several small things that we are doing wrong that are adding up. Penalties, the offensive line is missing blocking assignments and hasn't jelled quite yet, the QB play has been subpar but has shown signs of greatness, we go from one extreme to the other in the play calling a little to much, in my opinion we are just a couple of notches away from having a breakout game and being real good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 we are just a couple of notches away from having a breakout game and being real good. Agreed. Maybe Seattle is walking into something bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmiJo Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 I understand that it has been a little frustrating to watch them so far this year. However, we are 10th overall in offense. I think we are are going to have a much better year, and I think it began Monday night with about 5 minutes remaining in the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Xtrmskn04 wrote... I am going to go with a combination of conservative play calling and a QB who may not be willing to take many chances as he is playing not to lose vs. playing to win. Also I wonder if given Gibbs quick hook due to turnovers is making our QB play too conservatively for fear of losing job? You are on the money. Add to that: The one-back scheme Gibbs installed in the sixth game of 1981 was then unconventional. It took defenses several seasons to catch up. Now, it's considered antiquated. Furthermore, a power back with good hands would be better in this scheme. As it is, we are wasting a dynamite defense with an anemic offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Basically people that want non stop big plays out of a Joe Gibbs offense are kidding themselves. Depends what you mean by "non-stop". Gibbs's teams were never afraid to throw the ball during his first tenure. What we are seeing now is far less productive than anything I ever remember seeing in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Xtrmskn04 wrote... I am going to go with a combination of conservative play calling and a QB who may not be willing to take many chances as he is playing not to lose vs. playing to win. Also I wonder if given Gibbs quick hook due to turnovers is making our QB play too conservatively for fear of losing job?You are on the money. Add to that: The one-back scheme Gibbs installed in the sixth game of 1981 was then unconventional. It took defenses several seasons to catch up. Now, it's considered antiquated. Furthermore, a power back with good hands would be better in this scheme. As it is, we are wasting a dynamite defense with an anemic offense. I think you are totally off the mark about a one-back offense. That's what the Colts run...in fact, the FB position is becoming endangered, and teams are looking more at having an H-back, precisely because of the increased use of one-back sets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 Ok. We know the defense is playing at a very high level. So, what is the main cause of the skins offensive problems? 1) Poor offensive line play? 2) Sub par WR's or WR play? 3) Inconsistent QB play? 4) Conservative play calling? 5) Other (please state)? I am going to go with a combination of conservative play calling and a QB who may not be willing to take many chances as he is playing not to lose vs. playing to win. Also I wonder if given Gibbs quick hook due to turnovers is making our QB play too conservatively for fear of losing job? I guess if this is the case, at least it something that could be overcome. I am just having a hard time figuring out with the talent the skins have why they can't seem to move the ball a lot better (exclusive of the two big plays monday night of course). I mean there are some other teams in the NFL that don't seem to have as much talent and have scored more points. So what is up? This is a broken record, but in my opinion it's Brunell, plain and simple. Gibbs's decision to play him is what has handcuffed the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 AJ_Skins said... Depends what you mean by "non-stop". Gibbs's teams were never afraid to throw the ball during his first tenure. What we are seeing now is far less productive than anything I ever remember seeing in the past. Correct. Like 25.2 points per game then versus 14.5 ppg now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 AJ_Skins said... I think you are totally off the mark about a one-back offense. That's what the Colts run...in fact, the FB position is becoming endangered, and teams are looking more at having an H-back, precisely because of the increased use of one-back sets. In 1981, two-back sets were the norm. So ANY version of the one-back set was unconventional. My point was that Joe Gibbs was running an offense that was ahead of the game. Now, his smash-mouth, run-first scheme is old hat and that lacking a dominant O line and a power running back, it is inconsistent. The Colts are a finesse team. It's their passing game that defenses fear...which makes running easier. Also, they make ample use of the shotgun formation. I'm not advocating a return to a two-back offense. I'm simply saying that sound but unconventional approaches give offenses an edge, sometimes for years (Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense, for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted September 25, 2005 Share Posted September 25, 2005 AJ_Skins said... I think you are totally off the mark about a one-back offense. That's what the Colts run...in fact, the FB position is becoming endangered, and teams are looking more at having an H-back, precisely because of the increased use of one-back sets.In 1981, two-back sets were the norm. So ANY version of the one-back set was unconventional. My point was that Joe Gibbs was running an offense that was ahead of the game. Now, his smash-mouth, run-first scheme is old hat and that lacking a dominant O line and a power running back, it is inconsistent. The Colts are a finesse team. It's their passing game that defenses fear...which makes running easier. Also, they make ample use of the shotgun formation. I'm not advocating a return to a two-back offense. I'm simply saying that sound but unconventional approaches give offenses an edge, sometimes for years (Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense, for example). Like I said, I think the problem is Brunell. Same as it was last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley83 Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I think we have a big QB problem. Brunell was good but he is aging and is showing it. Ramsey is just not a starting QB, he can't make big plays and he can't consistently deliver the deep ball. Campbell has a great deal of potential but he needs some NFL experience. We have to be effective with our passing game and develop what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooby Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 i think it's been conservative playcalling, short passes and whatever, we need more intermediate throws, throws for 10-15 yards and the such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsaddict Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 our redzone offense could use some work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinzelwashington Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 after the dallas win, i hope the redskins opens up the play book more aand play less conservative.. need to practice more on redzone offensive.. more trick plays.... reverses such as brunel to portis to santana... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamSneed36 Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 inconsistancy all around. The O just isnt working together as one, theres always a missed block or a poorly run route or a bad throw and so on. They need to tighten up and really execute each play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RF4L Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 This is a broken record, but in my opinion it's Brunell, plain and simple. Gibbs's decision to play him is what has handcuffed the offense. We'd be 1-1 and in a major funk w.o. Brunell, you knucklehead. I hope you were kidding. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck812 Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 This is a broken record, but in my opinion it's Brunell, plain and simple. Gibbs's decision to play him is what has handcuffed the offense. Your right but those two throws will keep him on the field the rest of the year baring injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I'd say the Redskins' most offensive problem is their nickname and logo. Apparently some people think it's deragatory toward...wait a minute. You mean "offensive" like when we have the ball. The playcalling has still been a little conservative. Our field position hasn't been great. We've played two pretty good defenses. And we haven't had stability at QB. Seattle's a good team, but I think our offense will start to come together this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 I think we have a big QB problem. Brunell was good but he is aging and is showing it. Ramsey is just not a starting QB, he can't make big plays and he can't consistently deliver the deep ball. Campbell has a great deal of potential but he needs some NFL experience. We have to be effective with our passing game and develop what we have. QB is our biggest offensive problem. I am just hoping Campbell is the real deal. I am tired of watching other teams QB rip defenses. Heck, E. Manning is looking real good tonight against SD. We need our QB to step up and play. That said, I am hoping Brunell regains some form our this will be a long season. Without good QB play we won't make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earthcat Posted September 26, 2005 Share Posted September 26, 2005 Mostly 3 and a bit of 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.