Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Sorry Guys! It's still the offenses fault


Mr. Nostril

Recommended Posts

I'm not letting the defense off the hook, we don't have a pass rush, and the secondary played very poorly. We are far from being the defenseive unit we were last year. However, you can't expect to win games when you turn the ball over 3 times a game, and you can't expect the defense to hold an offense to 3 points when they're getting a short field. If we weren't commiting so many turnovers we would be 8-1 right now, and that rests solely on the offense.

I realize yesterday was a little different. Two of our turnovers would good defensive plays by Boldin. However, there's no reason our receivers shouldn't have caught the balls. When a ball a receiver the way the two interceptions did, they have to catch it. The fact that they were hit isn't an excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turnover hurt but didn't we come back to take the lead AFTER the turnovers? Yes we did. Twice. What happened then? How many field goals did Tampa kick? How many times were they forced to punt in the second half?

Like I said before the short field is NOT AN EXCUSE. The 3rd overall defense from last year should be EXPECTED to come through in tough situations. They failed to stop Tampa from scoring no matter where they started with the ball. Tampa scored 5 touchdowns....they were never forced to kick a field goal NOT ONCE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The failure of the offense to run out the clock hasn't hurt us until this game. We need to STAY in our offense late, NOT go into a shell and put the pressure on the defense (which this week was minus 2 of its best players) to close out the game. Gibbs, of all people, should understand that this isn't the same defense it was last year, and allow the offense to do it's share late in games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I admitted that the defense isn't playing as well as they did last year, and that this game was a particularly weak game.

Still, when the game was decided by only one point, and TB scored 14 off of turnovers, I have trouble buying the argument that this was the defenses fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not letting the defense off the hook, we don't have a pass rush, and the secondary played very poorly. We are far from being the defenseive unit we were last year. However, you can't expect to win games when you turn the ball over 3 times a game, and you can't expect the defense to hold an offense to 3 points when they're getting a short field. If we weren't commiting so many turnovers we would be 8-1 right now, and that rests solely on the offense.

I realize yesterday was a little different. Two of our turnovers would good defensive plays by Boldin. However, there's no reason our receivers shouldn't have caught the balls. When a ball a receiver the way the two interceptions did, they have to catch it. The fact that they were hit isn't an excuse.

Actually you can expect a defense to hold a team to 3 on a TO, why because that's their job. Secondly if I told you we would score 35 points and Portis would have over 140 yards there's not a person on here who thought we would have lost.

Blame the offense, that's just bad, 35 freakin points against the #1 D in the NFL at their place, yeah sorry offense.

:dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I admitted that the defense isn't playing as well as they did last year, and that this game was a particularly weak game.

Still, when the game was decided by only one point, and TB scored 14 off of turnovers, I have trouble buying the argument that this was the defenses fault.

I would agree with you had the defense not allowed 5 touchdowns. Even with a short field a top defense should be expected to force a field goal at least once per game. No matter how you look at it 5 touchdowns is way too many against the 21st ranked offense in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Defense had no pressure on Simms if they just could have knocked him around a little bit it would have made him think more about what was coming at him rather then feeling comfortable back there. Yes the turnovers hurt but still could have should have gotten away with a W. Screwed up a great opportunity to tie for division lead with the Giants loss. UGGHHH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the offense committs turnovers, gets the redskins in a hole, and they have to come back. If they hadn't committed the turnovers the score would have been 13-7(given the benefit of a doubt that the offense wouldn't have scored on the possession they turned it over on) at half time. After the two touchdowns in the 2nd half, we would have been up 27-7. So, the offense made mistakes that kept them from taking a commanding lead, but somehow the game was the defenses fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be my imagination, but doesn't it always seem that the defense hold them and with about 3:00 minutes left our offense gets the chance to ice the game with a first down? Then, as convention says, we dive right, dive left, and on third and short, dive again forcing us to punt and allow the other team the chance to score. I would like to see play action- I know kill the clock- but we just seem to never convert the third down and then always punt. I also seems that we leave enough time still on the clock for our opponents to win or scare us to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree, my actual blame is on the officials. The Redskins did enough to win the game, and they should have won it. I actually go further than some who "It definitely wasn't on purpose." I don't know how much the officials make, but I assume it's low enough that they could deal with more money(I mean no one makes so much that they can't) Since they never have to answer for making bad, game-changing calls, I don't see any reason to think they wouldn't take bribes. Anyone who gets a chance to make a large sum of money and doesn't have to answer for their actions might do that.

I'm just saying which side of the ball had a chance to do something even more to beat the officials as well. My answer is the offense. All they had to do was hold on to the ball.

To be more specific, I don't think it's the whole offense. It's Santana Moss, David Patten and Mark Brunell. The people responsible for the 3 turnovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waaaa! WAaaaaa! Waaaa!

It's Patrick Ramsey's fault! It's Greg Williams' fault for not playing Lavar earlier in the season! It's Gibbs conservative play calling! It's Patten not getting the game! It's Brunell's arm!

Whatever man...The team lost. The D could have made more stops. The O could have turned over less...It's 50/50...

Just accept it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waaaa! WAaaaaa! Waaaa!

It's Patrick Ramsey's fault! It's Greg Williams' fault for not playing Lavar earlier in the season! It's Gibbs conservative play calling! It's Patten not getting the game! It's Brunell's arm!

Whatever man...The team lost. The D could have made more stops. The O could have turned over less...It's 50/50...

Just accept it...

Wouldn't it have been much easier for you to just not post? After such games, it's quite common for folks to want to break down reasons for losing. If you don't care for this, take a hike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is how many points does a good Offense have to score, to allow the D to keep the game manageable enough to win.

Well our Offensive scored many, many points like 5 TD's enough.

You are lying to yourself if you believe for one second that the D did NOT lose the game for us. They LOST this game. Our Offense had us up by 7 late in the 4th quarter. IT is up to the D to stop a QB with a mere 5 starts in the league from scoring yet again.

Sorry our secondary D is awful. And weren't we just lamenting week in and week out our ridiculous run D. And then our lack of pass rush...every game except against San Fran.

Look we may or may not make it to the playoffs but a team like Indy, a team playing like Seattle, and even the Bungles would beat the crap out of us. Let's be real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Redskins offense committed three turnovers. But still, the defense is responsible for keeping Tampa Bay's medicore offense from out of the endzone. The defense made Chris Simms look like Dan Marino. Sean Taylor was absent but these guys are professionals and they know what it takes to become a top 5 defense.

You don't keep calling blitzes constantly leaving lackluster cornerbacks like Harris to fend for himself. Williams costed us the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line....turnovers and inability to pressure quarterback has done us in plain and simple.

Coaches have learned to use our lack of pass rush against us...they are picking up the blitz and figuring out how to get guys open. Last year teams hadn't figured out how to defend Gregs schemes but now they are. If we don't get pass rushers it will continue to get worse.

In just about every game we control the time of possesion. This should convert into wins but the turnovers kill us! If we can turn around the turnover problem and score more points we will be in good shape and it will take pressure of the defense to not have to defend teams getting turnovers on the short field. I am encouraged that we seem to dominate the time of possesion each week...it shows signs that our offense has a good foundation and future ...the team just needs to clean up the mental mistakes.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't put it on the offense this week, fellas. Just can't.

35 points has to be enough to beat a team with a raw rookie QB and no discernible running game.

This one was on our utter lack of an NFL-caliber pass rush. With one, we win this game faily easily, and we're talking about Simms' fumbles and picks being the big story.

The Skins have a major problem right now. They can't rush the passer.

What they can or cannot do about that the rest of the way will determine whether this team plays a meaningful January game or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't put it on the offense this week, fellas. Just can't.

35 points has to be enough to beat a team with a raw rookie QB and no discernible running game.

This one was on our utter lack of an NFL-caliber pass rush. With one, we win this game faily easily, and we're talking about Simms' fumbles and picks being the big story.

The Skins have a major problem right now. They can't rush the passer.

What they can or cannot do about that the rest of the way will determine whether this team plays a meaningful January game or not.

Which is exactly WHY we should have never allowed our defense to see the field again. We were CLEARLY struggling on defense without Griffin and Taylor, and all the offense had to do was get ONE first down and the game was over. Putting pressure on a depleted defense with a "prevent" offense that went into a shell when it mattered most was our downfall. We've done it previously this season, this was the first time it cost us a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted a more agressive series there too, SRBfan. Personally, I wanted him to roll Brunell out and give him a couple quick underneath options, and if they were covered, to simply have Brunell eat the ball and take the 1 or 2 yard loss. That way you keep the clock running at worst, and give yourself the option of your VERY hot QB making yet another key play at best. A play that would in all likelihood had ended the game.

Why Gibbs didn't attack more in that situation is something I'll never know. He's made a career out of being conservating in similar situations. More often than not, it's worked. Here it didn't. But I DO know enough to realize what I might think in that circumstance is seen from the safety of my couch, not the crucible Gibbs was standing it. :)

But the larger point was ... it should never, EVER have come down to one or two plays in this game. The ONLY reason it was as close as it was, in my view, is because we allowed a guy barely ready to play in the NFL, and leaning on no running game to protect him, to get comfortable in the pocket. We simply never forced him to make quick decisions, the way you DO with a young QB, to force mistakes. And he was further allowed a comfort zone by our inability to hit him even AFTER he'd released the ball, or even to throw out of rhythm very much.

This one should never have come down to officials' calls or playcalling. To me, our inability to mount any legitimate pressure was the story--the difference between a nailbiter to parse the next day, as we're having to do here, and a fairly easy win.

What if anything we can do about this problem is going to be the story of the rest of the 2005 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't put it on the offense this week, fellas. Just can't.

35 points has to be enough to beat a team with a raw rookie QB and no discernible running game.

This one was on our utter lack of an NFL-caliber pass rush. With one, we win this game faily easily, and we're talking about Simms' fumbles and picks being the big story.

The Skins have a major problem right now. They can't rush the passer.

What they can or cannot do about that the rest of the way will determine whether this team plays a meaningful January game or not.

the way I see it. Not turning the ball over is part of the foundation for a good offense. You can build off that, but the first thing is you can't turn it over. You can't have a good offense if you turn the ball over frequently.

What the Redskins have done is developed aspects of a very good offense without getting the foundation. The result - The Redskins have a very impressive bad offense that loses games for them.

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...