skins28 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 He doesn't have 3 great receivers like he did back the old days, like Ricky Sanders, Gary Clark and Art Monk(like you guys didn't know this) The media just bashed him, saying he didn't know how to coach anymore and that is BS! Man he really only has Moss and we need two more good receivers. Moss is alot like Gary Clark to me. Can we find a big guy over the middle like Monk? and a 3rd fast recevier that can catch the ball like Sanders? I think we can just takes time, then you would see Joe Gibbs doing great again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 He doesn't have 3 great receivers like he did back the old days, like Ricky Sanders, Gary Clark and Art Monk(like you guys didn't know this) The media just bashed him, saying he didn't know how to coach anymore and that is BS! Man he really only has Moss and we need two more good receivers. Moss is alot like Gary Clark to me. Can we find a big guy over the middle like Monk? and a 3rd fast recevier that can catch the ball like Sanders? I think we can just takes time, then you would see Joe Gibbs doing great again. I don't know if I buy that it was the receivers that were the bulk of the problem. Its truly hard to believe that with Taylor Jacobs speed he could never get separation. I think that Brunell only rolled to the left side, and hence would only see half the field on a given play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Moulds and Robinson could fill those spots temporarily if they can be afforded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Any offense that NEEDS "3 great receivers" to work is far from genius. I'd like to think that gibbs has the talent to make an offense not chock full of skill position standouts succeed. Either way, we have al saunders now, so I'm a little more optomistic about our offense - with or without 3 good rece ivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The premise is incorrect. The offense worked very well as the No. 11 offense in football and No. 13 scoring offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Any offense that NEEDS "3 great receivers" to work is far from genius. I'd like to think that gibbs has the talent to make an offense not chock full of skill position standouts succeed. Either way, we have al saunders now, so I'm a little more optomistic about our offense - with or without 3 good rece ivers. By my definition of success. He did make it work. He went to the divisional round of the playoffs with 1 receiver. Thats speaks volumes to his coaching ability as well as Williams. You can only cover up lack of talent so deep in the playoffs. You must be talented and well coached to win the SB. I just think our talent level on offense was not where it needs to be yet for a SB win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The premise is incorrect. The offense worked very well as the No. 11 offense in football and No. 13 scoring offense. How so? With the number 13 scoring offense (the statistic that truly matters), that suggests an only slightly better then average offense. And the concern is that the offense sputtered when we needed it most (playoffs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The premise is incorrect. The offense worked very well as the No. 11 offense in football and No. 13 scoring offense. well the stats were inflated because of the niners game. And a 11 out of 32 is pretty average. Not very well. Its okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 By my definition of success. He did make it work. He went to the divisional round of the playoffs with 1 receiver. Thats speaks volumes to his coaching ability as well as Williams.You can only cover up lack of talent so deep in the playoffs. You must be talented and well coached to win the SB. I just think our talent level on offense was not where it needs to be yet for a SB win. The Ravens were able to win the 2000 Super Bowl with a subpar offense, so that's not necessarily true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washskins81 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The premise is incorrect. The offense worked very well as the No. 11 offense in football and No. 13 scoring offense. Exactly....hence this year we make the playoffs, where last year we didn't. If we wanna get technical, since the D played relatively as strong as last year, the O being much improved is what got us to the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The Ravens were able to win the 2000 Super Bowl with a subpar offense, so that's not necessarily true. But the Ravens talent level on defense was above ours. So their overall team talent was above what ours is. You have to reach as a team a certain talent level to win the SB. We are not there yet. Hopefully this offseason we can get close to it or reach it. I believe with someone like Norv coahing we would have been 7-9 maybe 8-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins28 Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 I don't know if I buy that it was the receivers that were the bulk of the problem. Its truly hard to believe that with Taylor Jacobs speed he could never get separation. I think that Brunell only rolled to the left side, and hence would only see half the field on a given play. I think he just really zoned in on Moss most of the time but Brunell did have games where he did spread the ball out in some games. I think Gibbs has done the best with what he has had to deal with. I think that if we could get two or hell even one good reeiver would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNeverDie Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 One word: Inconsistant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 i do not think the offense improved at all other then Santana Moss. All the big plays we got were to Moss. When David Patten was playing with Brunell he did not get the ball. I think football is a talent game not coaching. If we get Trent Green to go with Moss then we can have a super bowl offense. If we keep Brunell and his limiations the offense will not improve much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 actually the Skins need one wide receiver. we have Cooley who caught 71 passes in 2005 as an option in the passing game that the team never had under Gibbs I. the simple truth is that in the era of the salary cap you can't assemble and keep together a stable of veteran pro bowl wide receivers as the Skins did in the 1980's and early 1990's. besides, we can look at teams like the 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs and 2003 Patriots as teams that won the Super Bowl without top talent at the wide receiver position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 i do not think the offense improved at all other then Santana Moss. All the big plays we got were to Moss. When David Patten was playing with Brunell he did not get the ball. I think football is a talent game not coaching. If we get Trent Green to go with Moss then we can have a super bowl offense. If we keep Brunell and his limiations the offense will not improve much. The offensive line improved as well in my opinion, particularly after the first Giants game. Remember last year how frustrated Portis was trying to run the football with absolutely no space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 But the Ravens talent level on defense was above ours. So their overall team talent was above what ours is. You have to reach as a team a certain talent level to win the SB. We are not there yet. Hopefully this offseason we can get close to it or reach it. I believe with someone like Norv coahing we would have been 7-9 maybe 8-8. Our defense is top 5 i think. But Ravens was number 1 and number 1 easily. Our defense does not have the cover corners like we did last yr. We need Rogers to develop this off season and to add another young corner because Springs is always hurt. And the most important thing add a pass rusher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 of course let's ignore Cooley and his 71 catches. Portis and his 1,516 yards :laugh: no, this offense didn't improve at all over 2004 :laugh: Brunell? Yep, up and down season based on his health, which was poor at the end after the hit by Greisen in the NY game. But overall, his numbers were 3,000 yards passing with 23 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Those are better numbers than most of the quarterbacks in the NFC. Go back and check the stats for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The offensive line improved as well in my opinion, particularly after the first Giants game. Remember last year how frustrated Portis was trying to run the football with absolutely no space. Portis does not have much space still. I want to see him lose the weight he gained and run with Saunders the zone blocking. I want to see him break the home runs next yr like he did with Denver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 of course let's ignore Cooley and his 71 catches. Portis and his 1,516 yards :laugh:no, this offense didn't improve at all over 2004 :laugh: Brunell? Yep, up and down season based on his health, which was poor at the end after the hit by Greisen in the NY game. But overall, his numbers were 3,000 yards passing with 23 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Those are better numbers than most of the quarterbacks in the NFC. Go back and check the stats for yourself. do you realize why guys get stats like this? Cooley and Moss were the only targets. And Portis was the featured back. Art Monk did not put numbers like this because he was sharing with Clark and Sanders the Redskins never got a tight end 71 balls because they were getting big play from there wide outs in Gibbs first era Riggins and Byner never got 1500 because Gibbs used a 2 back system. Joe Washington was just as important as John Riggins. And Ricky Ervins was just as important as Byner. These stats are inflated. Brunell 23 touchdownas and 10 ints are because he throws the ball away more then any QB in the NFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 of course let's ignore Cooley and his 71 catches. Portis and his 1,516 yards :laugh:no, this offense didn't improve at all over 2004 :laugh: Brunell? Yep, up and down season based on his health, which was poor at the end after the hit by Greisen in the NY game. But overall, his numbers were 3,000 yards passing with 23 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Those are better numbers than most of the quarterbacks in the NFC. Go back and check the stats for yourself. Since you like stats so much . Is Brunell better then the Carolina QB because he throws less ints? Is he on par with Hassleback? Did he have a better yr the Eli Manning? Stats are just stats. In Martys yr , Gardner was the only reciver we had. Caught 88 balls, does that mean he was one of the top 5 wide outs in the game that year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 2004: 6-10 2005: 11-7 Offense worked fine for most of the year, just check the Dallas and Giants defensive coordinators postgame interviews from their December games at FedEx. Add a few more healthy players, a new Offensive Coordinator who led the #1 NFL offense and home field in the playoff...who knows what might happen. We didn't get to where Coach Gibbs found us in one year and it is totally unrealistic to think we'd have it all turned around in two years and go to the Super Bowl...then again doggone it...Coach had us thinking we might just get it done and didn't the 2005 Redskins' players and coaches almost make it happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 4th in the NFC total offense with 330.6 ypg, 11th in the NFL 2nd in the NFC in 3rd down conversions at 42.2%, 6th in the NFL 2nd in the NFC in average TOP with 32.34 mpg, 5th in the NFL 5th in the NFC in scoring with 22.4, 13th in the NFL Dare I bring up the stats from 2004? Dramatic improvement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Gardner didn't have 88 catches that year, he had 71 As to the quarterback comparison, I think people are too easily seduced by reputation and perceived pedigree. Eli Manning was downright average down the stretch for the Giants. Most of my family are Giants fans and they are the first ones to point out that Manning had his problems at times this season. So, no I don't think Manning had a better year than Brunell did overall. How great of a quarterback is Hasselbeck if Shaun Alexander gets almost 400 carries? You talk about Portis' 1,500 yards as evidence that the qb and passing game were off the mark, but what does Alexander's 1,800 yards then show about Seattle? As to the tight end numbers, I couldn't disagree with you more. A productive tight end is a staple of most of the league's better passing offenses. Just look at the Chiefs with Tony Gonzalez. Or the Chargers with Antonio Gates. Cooley's 71 catches are symptomatic of the fact the team has a sure-handed player to count on for the possession catches in the short and intermediate zones. In fact a productive tight end is probably harder to find than a #2 receiver will be in free agency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 4th in the NFC total offense with 330.6 ypg, 11th in the NFL2nd in the NFC in 3rd down conversions at 42.2%, 6th in the NFL 2nd in the NFC in average TOP with 32.34 mpg, 5th in the NFL 5th in the NFC in scoring with 22.4, 13th in the NFL Dare I bring up the stats from 2004? Dramatic improvement You have a point...though our TOP in the early part of the season was inflated in my opinion...we had a good bit of yardage, but turnovers upon turnovers to give the other team a short field and get the ball back soon. Kudos to the team for cutting back on the turnovers...though it seems like that came at the expense of offensive production as it seems like early in the season we moved the ball at will against good opponents (Bears, Seahawks, Broncos, Chiefs), but didn't have much to show for it because of turnovers. From the San Diego game onward, it seems like we cut back on turnovers but the offensive production was diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.