Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Isn't it weird?


project myu

Does it mean that lavar will play?  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Does it mean that lavar will play?

    • yes
      23
    • no
      34


Recommended Posts

Last year, we were all hyped up about or offense and worried about our defense. Surprise, our offense blew chunks and our defense was the only thing keeping us in our games.

This year, we were kind of skeptical about the offense position (all the Ramsey vs Brunell threads, initial controversy about losing two starting wideouts for two "little guys", etc.) but of course we had hope, but it was still a question mark. Meanwhile, we expected our defense to be #1.

Now, our defense isn't bad by any means, but it isn't as dominant as last year, and it is prone to giving up the big play here and there in each game. But our offense that is lighting it up.

Except for the turnovers.

But anyway, soon.. Once the turnovers are gone.. WE WILL DOMINATE!

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have issues still with the Team and our offense...

1) No rushing TD's

2) Redzone problems

3) Turnovers (which wouldnt be as bad if the D got one back!)

4) Unknown kicker = a worry in such close games. We want Hall back!

on the D:

1) Lack of negative disruption plays (sacks, fumbles caused/recovered, INT's)

2) CB injuries and starting a rookie

3) the LAVAR issue is a distraction

4) Missed tackles (that 6 yard TD run by Holmes was terrible for us)

I think on th positive...

Mark Brunell/Moss/Cooley/Portis (and the one/two punch of Betts)

Coaching by Gibbs is better. (Greg Williams... hmmm... jury still out.)

At least all our games have been worth playing to the last minute and not blow outs.

And... WE BEAT DALLAS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree to some extent. The other thing playing into it right now is injuries. Springs and Clark being out changes the face of the D, and the way Williams calls it. We had a rookie and our second string CB out there. We also had back up safeties rotating in and out to play with Taylor. Williams can't be as agressive when he has to roll a safety over to help a corner where he wouldn't normally have to do that.

If we can get Springs back quick, Harriss will go back to his side, Rogers will fill the nickle role, and we won't be in such bad shape. If Clark makes it back quickly, we're gonn look just like last years unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have issues still with the Team and our offense...

1) No rushing TD's

2) Redzone problems

3) Turnovers (which wouldnt be as bad if the D got one back!)

4) Unknown kicker = a worry in such close games. We want Hall back!

on the D:

1) Lack of negative disruption plays (sacks, fumbles caused/recovered, INT's)

2) CB injuries and starting a rookie

3) the LAVAR issue is a distraction

4) Missed tackles (that 6 yard TD run by Holmes was terrible for us)

I think on th positive...

Mark Brunell/Moss/Cooley/Portis (and the one/two punch of Betts)

Coaching by Gibbs is better. (Greg Williams... hmmm... jury still out.)

At least all our games have been worth playing to the last minute and not blow outs.

And... WE BEAT DALLAS!!!

Agreed, the two losses KC experienced was aided by injuries to key personnel, and Warfield is much the same kind of distraction in KC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...