The offense.... it's Brunell.

[jrockster21]

If this was posted by anyone else I would have scoffed.. I find myself kind of having to take your word on this one DH..

That being said, I've quietly believed we'd of had a better record if Ramsey was the starter all year long.

I notcied the slant thing a few weeks ago. You have a blazing WR like Moss who you've had a tough time getting him the ball, yet we never see a quick slant and let him do what he does best, and that's pick up YACs.

I'm beginning to believe those folks who say Gibbs is stubborn and is either going to win with his old system or he'll just retire.

Actually, the lack of slant-patterns is a relatively new thing...we were running them a lot earlier in the year. In fact, in Moss' best day as a Skin against KC he took a slant for 30 yards or so...

Me and bonef1de (who I watch the games with) have been commenting on this since they stopped happening. The slant is pretty much impossible to defend with a guy like Moss running it, and it hits him running, so he can get some serious YACs...but Gibbs just seemed to stop calling them.

The only reasoning I came come up with is that he's lulling opposing defenses to sleep as goskins said, getting them to think we're not throwing slants anymore. That's what I hope, anyway. Maybe we'll see them back in the playbook against Dallas or New York??? :whoknows:

Die Hard -- I cannot believe what I'm hearing from you. We're going to get crushed by the Cowboys??? CRUSHED?!?!?!?! I mean...come on, dude. The only thing I can think of is that you are removing all hope of victory so that when it happens it will be that much sweeter.

Eff Dallas....I will NOT lost faith, no matter who says we're going to lose. No offense to Die-Hard, but the detractors be damned, the only people who will determine what the Skins do on Sunday is the Skins. They can win this one, and I believe they will.

[Skins3000]

2 receivers.... 1 to the left (Brunell's good side).. 1 to the right.

The receiver to the right has man-coverage.... the receiver to the left has a corner.... with the safety covering overtop.

And the linebackers are dropping into zone coverage in the middle of the field.

The left side of the field is convoluted. That's why you see people catching tipped passes.

The right side of the field... the receiver enjoys man coverage. Brunell just never looks there. For whatever reason.

You do know the offensive coordinator sits in a booth way above the stadium just to read coverages. The coordinator in return sends pictures to the bench which I am sure Brunell does see this. One thing to add, there is always two safeties playing a game and unless the Cardinals were playing eight in the box, which they were not, then that coverage was not being played.

[Pete]

I find it funny that people continue to say the recievers need to step up, when it's clear that Brunell doesn't look at everybody going out, and now confirmed by a poster with a little more know then many. I also find it funny that people make the point that Brunell protects the ball better then Ramsey at this point, when he's turned it over fairly often.

Thanks for the break down Die Hard, great post.

[H-O-G]

I think its clear Brunell is just having a few bad weeks, he'll be ready for Dallas

[hail2skins]

There's only one explanation for this thread......somehow, AJ Skins has taken over Die Hard's computer!!!

[santanamoss89]

We are going to get killed by the Cowboys.

Not a chance man.

[kleese]

DH--

First of all, I respect your opinion on this matter, and I think you make some great points. Who cares if he's a moderater on a message board or an NFL head coach? This is a message board after all, where people are SUPPOSED to discuss their OPINIONS on football. People need to get their panties out of a wad.

But I do disagree with you to a certain degree.

I was at the Rams game in the upper level, so I had a pretty good view of how the offense is laid out-- I paid particular attention to the WR's. Here's my take:

1. Brunell IS old and he IS on his last legs. I think we've all known that since we traded for him. However, he still has some zip on the ball and is throwing it overall, MUCH better than he did last year. But at the very best, we're getting the last drops out of his career, which is exactly why we drafted Campbell. Look, Gibbs and company KNOW that Brunell is not the answer-- thus the trade up in the draft. That's all I needed to see-- that they understand Brunell is a stop-gap measure. That's why I don't have a problem with it.

2. Ramsey had his chance. Although he played decent down the stretch last year, he still showed a propensity to make the GAME CHANGING error-- the INT on first down in the Philly game is a great example. Against Chicago, in his limited action, he still managed to commit two turnovers. I think Gibbs KNEW that respectability was important this year in order to keep the team interested and motivated. He's done that. We're 7-6 and playing for the playoffs down the stretch. As limited as Brunell has been, IMO, he still gives you a better chance to win than Ramsey.

3. Our NUMBER ONE goal offensively is to protect the QB. Our pass routes may be simple, but another thing is that we often don't even HAVE pass routes. We run a TON of 1 WR sets where we either hand the ball off or run conservative short passes to backs and TE's. As predictable as our passing game has been, we still manage to use Cooley, Royal, the RB's, etc... effectively out of the backfield. You'd think if our passing attack was THAT easy to diagnose, that teams would eliminate those options. But we consistently use that to our advantage-- and Brunell does a good job of finding those targets.

4. Santana Moss is having by far his best year as a pro and he's having more impact on games than Coles ever did for us. That shows me two things: 1) That Gibbs recognized his talent and made a really smart trade. 2) Even with our offensive limitations, we still manage to get him the ball. He's not making the HUGE plays like he did earlier in the season, but he's still getting us first downs, etc... His catch down the field against the Rams sealed that win for us.

5. It's not the most exciting philosophy in the world and at times I do believe Gibbs has been TOO conservative with this approach, but he is gameplanning for us to control the clock, reduce errors, and put our defense in the best position to help us win the game. While it may not look good to squeek one out against the Cards, that approach actually worked to a TEE against San Diego until Rabach had his bone-headed holding call. We also played right with Tampa on the road in a game where Gibbs modified his play calling to the circumstances of the day.

6. We simply don't have the talent (on either side of the ball) to just blow teams away-- even average or bad teams. Instead, Gibbs has taken the approach of turning the game as ugly as possible, motivating the team with toughness and smarts, limiting huge errors, and giving ourselves a chance at the end. I KNOW that Gibbs will open up the offense more once we have a more talented QB and another weapon or two on offense. If Campbell is the real deal, then I think we'll see a more "varied" offense as early as next year. One thing I LOVE is that the line is learning to play together and gradually improving-- protecting the QB is PARAMOUNT to his philosophy and that could really help the young QB once he gets his chance.

7. Much like you, I think we may be on borrowed time this year. By no means do I consider us a "threat" to make a run deep into the playoffs. I too, believe that we're going to lose one of these next two games-- probably due in large part to the fact that Brunell is a limited QB. I have a feeling that in one of these next two games, we're going to need more than "game management" and he will most likely come up short. HOWEVER, this team intruiges me and I do think we're going to WIN one of these next two games as well. I think we're headed for 9-7 this year and I think we'll just miss the post-season. IMO, that will be a HUGE leap forward. And I think we will have made that huge leap forward due in large part to the simplified approach on the offensive side of the ball.

8. Having said all that, I'd be STUNNED if Dallas whips us this weekend. I am definitely worried about our CB's and if Rogers AND Springs are out, I really couldn't pick us to win. But we've played close games all year long with one exception (Giants). I do not see Dallas coming in and pasting us with all the emotion (and confidence) that will be on our side. I think it will be close in the 4th quarter, and my gut tells me we come up just a bit short, but I think you're wrong to think this will be a mis-match.

[Skins3000]

Now, I did see man coverage and double Moss over the top in the Raiders game and I do believe Taylor Jacobs could not get open to save his life. I think we as Redskins fans are ready to always throw a player under the bus when they have one bad game. I have been there but learn my lesson for example Royal who was awful in the Raiders game but have stepped it up since. Bottom line, the Skins do not have a legitimate number 2 receiver and until the Skins do acquire one, the passing game will always be lacking. Oh yeah, those who question Brunell, his passer rating was an 89.6 prior going into the Cardinals game. Ramsey never had a passer rating that high after 13 games. That passer rating was in the top ten with 16 touchdowns and 5 ints. Now these are facts that can be seen by all and not by one and easily manipulated into their own fashion.

[Trevor]

Brunell has been done for about 5 weeks now. It's been obvious. I noticed it a while back and thought that he needed rest as the only time he's accurate anymore is within 10 yards. Anytime he has to put a lot on the pass it sails high. He never takes chances that he should, like when we have one on one coverage, yet he still is a turnover machine.

It's a shame that Gibbs has little to no faith in Ramsey as Brunell is more of a hinderance than help at this point.

[jrockster21]

So DieHard, my question is now how were things so different in the Tampa, Denver, Kansas City games?

Is it that whatever fatal flaw there was, the Raiders caught. Was their DB right in that "Moss tips off the whole offense," or was it once again just a mere matter of the passing O executing far better in those games then of late.

I simply do not believe that a D coordinator would go 2 series without adjusting his passing D to our passing O and shutting it down. And this includes early in the year in the Denver, KC, SF, and Tampa games

If you have caught it so quick, what was working before?

Die Hard -- why did you avoid this question? I'd really like to hear your take on it. Why was the offense working against good teams like Denver and KC and Tampa? Do you think Brunell is hurt? Is that why you say he is done?

And you seem to put a lot of credit in Parcells, that he is playing "to win," and that you are worried about Dallas because of it. However what you are not talking about is the decimated O-Line the Cowgirls have, and how much more often Bleedsoe is coming under pressure. You're not talking about how their running game has struggled recently. You're not talking about how their defense is giving up 4.4 yards a carry and got absolutely shredded by Larry Johnson.

Yet you're quick to point out the Skins problems, and say we will get killed. But you think Gibbs is turning this franchise around...but why then does he get absolutely no credit? You seem to be saying that Dallas will win, despite all the problems they have at the moment, because they have a coach who is playing "to win." But the Skins will lose because of their problems, even though we've got a hall-of-fame coach who is righting the ship.

Sorry, that just seems a little inconsistent to me.

Dallas is a decent team, but by no means are they that much better than we are. They are 8-5, we are 7-6...not that much different.

They have big time injury problems, we have big time injury problems.

They lost to Denver in overtime, we were one play away from taking the Broncs to overtime.

They beat KC in the final seconds on a missed field goal, we were a finger-tip away from taking KC to overtime, and one Brunell fumble away from beating them outright.

They came close to losing to the 49ers, we dropped 52 points on them.

We've been in pretty much every game, they've been in pretty much every game. Looking at the stats, the two teams are almost statistically identical:

Offensive stats:

Yards per game -- Dallas 332.4, Skins 330.5; Rushing -- Dallas 14th, Skins 5th; Passing -- Dallas 14th, Skins 19th; Scoring -- Dallas 21.8, Skins 19.8

Defensive stats:

Yards per game -- Dallas 300.7, Skins 298.8; Rushing -- Dallas 106.4, Skins 106.3; Passing -- Dallas 194.3, Skins 192.5; Scoring -- Dallas 17.9, Skins 18.9

As you can see, these teams are eerily similar. And while it can be argued that they are scoring more points than us, they got to play Kansas City and Denver at home, while we had to travel to KC and Denver...two of the hardest stadiums to play at in the entire NFL.

This game will come down to who wants it more, plain and simple. Both teams have injuries, true. But Arrington will be back, and he wasn't in there the first time we played. Sean Taylor's game has improved week to week, and he is playing at an all-world level right now. I KNOW he is aching for some payback after getting burned twice by Dallas now. I believe this game is up for grabs, and it being at Fed-Ex, you've GOT to give the SKins the advantage. Vegas certainly will be.

And just so everyone doesn't forget -- this team is 2 plays away from being 9-4, tied with the Giants and in prime position to control our own destiny in the division. Just keep that in mind....I do, and its very comforting.

[JimmiJo]

There's only one explanation for this thread......somehow, AJ Skins has taken over Die Hard's computer!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :rotflmao:

[Dr. D]

DH,

great observations re: the Offense.

I wish I could witness some of this myself and look forward to the video tape (ala' Warner Wolf). Today's NFL coverage is some of the worst I have ever seen: the screen is crowded with flags and banners, We get great looks at the face of the coach, QB, sideline reporter, cheerleaders, Owner's box, etc.. And see the play sometimes seconds after the snap. It(the game) is so much more difficult to follow now(especially with all the myriad of substitutions) I never really know who is on the field at any given time let alone where in the hell they(the players) are lined up and in what orientation...frustrating.

Last night, I was surprised at the level of coverage on ABC for MNF (substantially better than the "other" two networks). but still.

Thank god for Tivo or else this whole thing(NFL football) would be an unwatchable morass of commercialism and "fluff".

[JimmiJo]

And just so everyone doesn't forget -- this team is 2 plays away from being 9-4, tied with the Giants and in prime position to control our own destiny in the division. Just keep that in mind....I do, and its very comforting.

I like the way you think.

[jrockster21]

There's only one explanation for this thread......somehow, AJ Skins has taken over Die Hard's computer!!!

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

How did I miss that the first time?? :rotflmao:

[Oldfan]

Diehard, thank you for your informative post.

I don't think we will be "killed" by Dallas because our defense will keep us in the ballgame. The injury situation on the defense is no worse than on any other team.

I'm sure you won't take it personally if I accept your observations as just one well-informed opinion of what's wrong with the passing game and not the final word on the matter. Still, it has been clear to many of us that our passing game has deteriorated and we'd like to know why.

As to your observation that Brunell is only using half the field on rollouts, you are over-estimating. It's less than half...as I pointed out in a post after the Denver game. He's not Michael Vick. He's not looking to run when he does that nor is he prone to throw it deep when he's on the move. As soon as he breaks the pocket, we know he's going to want to throw short on that side of the field and so do the defenders.

I won't dispute your observation that the passing plays against Arizona were basic, but that isn't a problem inherent to the Gibbs scheme. We have those plays in the playbook. If we're not using them, there's a reason. I think we have to give Joe Gibbs, the benefit of the doubt there.

Our offense, including the playcalling, has been tailored to Mark Brunell's strengths and weaknesses. While Mark's play has deteriorated significantly, changing QBs probably isn't a good option now. I say that even though I am among those who wanted Joe to build an offense around Ramsey.

I was hopeful that we'd find a patch to fix the passing game against Arizona. Without a passing game, we really don't have much of a choice but to run the football as Bugel would prefer. If Joe Gibbs is willing to gamble on some fourth and short situations to keep drives alive, as he did against the Cards, we might be able to score enough by pounding the run and playing the field position game with our superior defense.

There's still hope. Besides, the Cowboys aren't without their problems either.

[Ramsey11]

This is a very interesting analysis. I've long suspected that Brunell either looked to just one side of the field or primarily focused on Moss and Cooley as his only two options. When Ramsey came into the one game for mop up duty (it was a one sided game, either San Fran or the Giants game), one thing that struck me was that although he primarily handed the ball off, he did find Patten open on a couple of pass plays where Brunell hadn't hit him either much or at all the whole game.

[project myu]

This is a very interesting analysis. I've long suspected that Brunell either looked to just one side of the field or primarily focused on Moss and Cooley as his only two options. When Ramsey came into the one game for mop up duty (it was a one sided game, either San Fran or the Giants game), one thing that struck me was that although he primarily handed the ball off, he did find Patten open on a couple of pass plays where Brunell hadn't hit him either much or at all the whole game.

Ramsey also has been able to find Taylor Jacobs for nice gains, too.

[Art]

I do find it particularly troubling we NEVER pull out the slant or deep corner routes. We ran a deep corner to Jacobs a few weeks ago and you could see it opening wide for us. The slants, deep corners, deep outs and many of the aspects of preseason football all have gone away. Teams clearly have found something to key on and we've not really responded with any diversity to make it hurt them.

That's not to say we won't, just that we have not.

Steve Spurrier's offense was figured out much the same way, but, I had a feeling of dread and doom that he could ever figure out what to do to improve it. With Gibbs I think he knows what he has to do, but, I wonder if some limitations in his players, including Brunell with minor injuries, prevents him from doing so. If we'd simply run a slant on third down it'd be a guaranteed first down. I can't remember the last slant we ran . If we ran two or three timing outs we'd be golden. Just something to mix it up.

[Hail_Skinz]

I do not agree with this thread at ALL. The guy has ONE bad game and the Redskins are done?! Get real. Brunnell is the best QB we've had since BJ.

If it weren't for Brunell we'd be lucky to be 5-8 right now. I mean, he was instrumental in scoring 35 points against the Tampa Bay Bucs who had THEE best defense at the time. He's kept us in games ALL year. He really hasn't done anything to directly cause us a loss all year.

I will say, however, if he performs like he did last week...The Pokes will hose us big time. The Skins (in general) picked a good time to be on a losing streak. And MB picked the right time to have a bad game. Can we please not harp on the past and focus on the games ahead...ya gotta believe!!

[SlobberKnockinFootball]

Someone mentioned on here that Joe Gibbs's offense was very basic back in the day. That's true, but what made his offense unique was all the shifting and different formations that they'd line up in to run the same plays over and over again and the defense could never figure them out.

I'm not seeing that as much this time around. You can see some things here and there but you can see with the naked eye that this offense is a shell of what it was previously. Just like Art mentioned we aren't even running the same pass routes as we have before.

Does everyone remember Breaux and Bugel at the end of last year? All they kept saying was how explosive we were going to be on offense this year. Which in times we've seen and the second half of the season it looks like 2004 all over again.

[Die Hard]

Also, FWIW, the mood in the lockerroom after the game was good.... but a bit subdued. However, the word on the mind of the players was very uniform. "Dallas".

So the guys are going to be prepared from a mental aspect. That's nice to see.

[HaVoC]

Did any of you watch Michael Vick play last night against the Aint's? There is a perfect example of a quarterback with no accuracy what-so-ever. What does the offensive coordinator do? Play to Vick's strengths, that's what. Vick has completed less than 52% of his passes (according to the stats last night on MNF) good for last among quarterbacks from 2001-to 2005, yet he has the most yards based on the same. So Brunell sucks, and he has weaknesses. Gibbs will find a way to play to his strengths, just as he has all this year. Brunell is having a good to average year. I trust that Gibbs will find a way to get us into the playoffs. <sarcasm>Even if we are using the same passing tree everyone else uses</sarcasm>.

[ThatGuy]

I'm wondering how Monk, Sanders, & Clark all got over 1000 yards in one season with such horrid and unimaginative playcalling.

The play calling is fine. Gibbs can't call plays that Brunell won't throw the ball on. There are plays were Moss runs down the field in one on one coverage and Brunell will check down to Cooley or Portis.

From being in attendence Brunell only throws the following plays unless forced out of the pocket:

1) Screen pass to Moss or Portis

2) In route to Moss

3) Roll out pass to Cooley or Royal

4) Skinny post up the middle to Cooley or the running back (he was picked twice on this play, so he might eliminate this from his repoitoire)

You can call whatever the heck you want to call, but if the QB won't throw the ball what can you do. Jacobs and Farris might as well stand on the line of scrimmage as Brunell doesn't even look at them.

[Aghar]

The Defense will have to win this game for us. That along with 125% effort day from Portis( He knows he has to do it too ).

As for Brunell, just two questions.

When was the last time he had a 200 yard passing game?

When was the last time Gibbs actually said the QB didn't play well today? If I was a WR or a TE or RB or a DB or anyone else on the team and the coach blamed me for the QB playing like a piece of @#$%&* I'd be pretty pissed off!

Through the first 8 games he had a QB rating of 90 threw for 12 TDs and 3 INTs and was well on to 2000 yards with a 220+ yard a game average. :applause:

Since, he has a rating of 70, threw for 4 Tds and 5 INTs :yikes: and less than 900 yards for a 170 per game average. :doh:

Bottom line, besides the last Dallas game, Brunell hasn't WON any games for us. He won't. What we need him to do, is just move the ball downfield a little bit, hand the ball to Portis, and give the Defense some time to chill out on the bench.

So what we don't want is :

3 and outs! :doh:

Turnovers! :doh:

3 and OUTS and TURNOVERS! :tantrum:

If the Skins have zero "3 and outs" and zero turnovers on Sunday, the Cowgirls don't have a chance. In fact, if the Skins could play like that every week....well...let's just see it this week! :point2sky

:wewantd:

[The Sisko]

As much as it hurts me to say it, I tend to agree with you D.H. I think we're just too beat up to do much more than keep it close. The only thing I can quibble about is that I don't see us getting blown out as the Pukes have some injuries too. However, a loss is a loss no matter how you slice it.

I think it's obvious that Brunell has worn down a good bit over the season, which was what tempered our enthusiasm earlier in the year. Now that what we feared has come to pass I would hope that one more loss triggers a start for Campbell.

The downside of a QB rolling out is that it shrinks the field. That's just a fact of life no matter who your QB is. I observed the same thing last night with M. Vick. However, when you combine that with Brunell's lack of running ability/speed and sometimes poor field vision (or lack of confidence in your WRs) it decreases the chances of success on the play to almost nil.

However Kleese makes an excellent point that perhaps playing Scott was the best move so as to avoid the "here we go again" syndrome from what has been a losing team for the last 10 or so years. Playing Campbell next year coming off another 6-10 season this year would be a whole different ball of wax than coming off this year having establishing some forward momentum.

Contrary to what many have said, this is just the type of quality thread that I will chose to read and reply to with my limited time these days. Good analysis backed up by observations and facts wherever possible.

As for those of you screaming "haters", don't let something as insignificant as reality and facts get in your way. Just keep flaming.