ArtMonk_fav.redskin Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 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. :logo: Didn't we already have Trent Green? :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 we did well against St. Louis, Dallas and NY overall but once Brunell got hit on the knee against NY the Skins offense was compromised the next 3 weeks. We won the Philly and Tampa games on defensive turnovers and the short field. Against Seattle Portis was added to the list of key players who were fatigued and then the show was over as our backfield was unable to make any plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 we did well against St. Louis, Dallas and NY overall but once Brunell got hit on the knee against NY the Skins offense was compromised the next 3 weeks. We won the Philly and Tampa games on defensive turnovers and the short field. Against Seattle Portis was added to the list of key players who were fatigued and then the show was over as our backfield was unable to make any plays. Your right. Brunnell is a servicable to good QB when healthy. If he has a problem with his legs he seems to lose accuracy and velocity. I think thats what was wrong with him alst year and at the end of this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 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 Ummmm, Art Monk did put up numbers like that, maybe not the yardage but the catches. And do you remember who the receivers were in Gibbs' first two Super Bowls? Art Monk, Charlie Brown and Alvin Garrett. Other than Monk, not exactly household names. Now onto Riggins. How many times has Clinton Portis carried the ball 375 times in a season? In 1983-84 Riggins carried the ball 702 times for 2,586 yards. The last two years Portis has carried the ball 695 times for 2,831. And you will have to explain to me how throwing the ball away inflates anything? And since many of you are so convinced that Joe Gibbs' offense didn't work are you calling for Gregg Williams to be fired or that he needs some help? I mean the offense was ranked 5th in the NFC while the defense was ranked 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many teams right now feature the three receivers like the Redskins in the early 90's ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 well the stats were inflated because of the niners game. And a 11 out of 32 is pretty average. Not very well. Its okay Does that mean we are disgarding the Panthers 44-11 win against the Falcons as well as the Giants 44 they put up on the Rams or the 41 the Seahawks put up on the 49ers or the.......? But you are correct, when the offense wasn't very good it wasn't very good and you really can't count the good games because, well, it doesn't support your argument. Nevermind that the Skins had the #1 rushing offense in the entire NFL the last 6 weeks of the season. Nevermind that they averaged 34 points a game the last three weeks of the season against our 3 division rivals. I am not saying the offense can't improve because it can but this offense looked pretty darned good going down the stretch. To win the Super Bowl it has to get better, as does the defense, but that doesn't mean it needs a major overhaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many teams right now feature the three receivers like the Redskins in the early 90's ? Seattle does (Jackson, Engram, Jurevicius) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many teams right now feature the three receivers like the Redskins in the early 90's ? Indy is about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 21, 2006 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. You would if you were at the stadium then you'd be shaking your head like alot of fans did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunellSuperbowl Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 nothing wrong with the recievers. Brunell cuts half the feild everytime he throws. I remember vs the Cowboys last yr on monday night Brunell threw to Gardner everytime because he was lined up on the left. Brunell has been a joke since the late 90s. i can not belive he is starting playoff games throwing for 41 yards in 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 well the stats were inflated because of the niners game. And a 11 out of 32 is pretty average. Not very well. Its okay This is idiotic. The stats were inflated because of a good game, but not diminished because of a bad game like the Giants? The average is just that. It's an average. Good, bad, indifferent all factor in. The offense in yards per game was inflated because of strong early performances with Patten being something of a threat. The scoring was inflated because we beat four of five teams to finish the year by double digits. But, that's what averages do for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 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). Right and a slightly better than average scoring offense invalidates the premise the offense didn't work. We did sputter toward the end with some injury and being beaten up a little But, we were a very good offense on the whole. Not an elite offense, but a very good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Just out of curiosity, how many teams right now feature the three receivers like the Redskins in the early 90's ? If you have Fitzgerald on one side and Boldin on the other, no need for the third receiver anyway. Ramsey to Cardinals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins28 Posted January 21, 2006 Author Share Posted January 21, 2006 You know, as I said I think Joe was doing great in the mid-part of the year, but we had patten go down and so they keyed in on our big deep wep and that is moss, we were moving the ball at will on people but people getting hurt like patten and james makes a team almost one road and that is running the ball. I think Joe has did well in coaching, its the wide outs getting hurt that hurt us and now he brings in a new OC but I think it will be a mix of joes ideas and his new OCs AL) ideas. I think it will be great with Joe and AL working to make us better. I really hope we get a big wide out(6'4" or 6'5") in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 The offense was inconsistent because of Mark Brunell. The recipe for success in Washington at the end was what? Run the ball well and play great defense. Note that "have a strong passing game" is missing. That's because Mark had a handful of good games all year and couldn't be relied upon to make plays consistently. The offense worked. However I think that Saunders can take it another step forward, or three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Right and a slightly better than average scoring offense invalidates the premise the offense didn't work. We did sputter toward the end with some injury and being beaten up a little But, we were a very good offense on the whole. Not an elite offense, but a very good one. Ok you made your point. Is it just me or does it seem like we dealt with two phases of the season for our offense: Phase 1: (Through the Oakland game). Record: 5-5. Turnovers galore, but high yardage Phase 2: (San Diego game through Seattle in playoffs). Low yardage, yet fewer turnovers Record: 6-2 This suggests that while we cut back on turnovers later in the season, offensive production decreased, and a number of our scores on offense were set up by our defense forcing turnovers rather then the offense taking command. Next year, if we are able to keep turnovers at a minimum as we did at the end of the season, and move the ball the way we did at the beginning of the season...and click on defense...I think we are a Super Bowl caliber team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossWalker 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. Thank you Art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF 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. Art is absolutely right. The offense slowed down due to injuries to Brunell, Thomas, and the receivers at the end of the season, but overall the offense worked very well. It's amazing how short of memories some of you guys have. The Skins put up 35 on the Bucs, Cowboys, and Giants, and moved the ball very well against the Broncos, Chiefs, and Seahawks. Turnovers killed them in some of those games, but when Brunell and the oline were healthy the offense played well. Is there room for improvement? Obviously. Did Gibbs get stuffed in a couple of games? Yup. But to say that the offense did not work is just incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Seattle does (Jackson, Engram, Jurevicius) Not even close. None of the three went over 1000 yards, in fact Engram was the leader with 778, and Jackson did not even get over 500. Monk, Clark and Sanders all when over 1000 yards that season. Frankly, I don't think there is a team with 3 WRs like we had then. The last team that was close was StL with the Bruce, Holt, Hakim combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie 14 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 One thing is to be an architec( coach) and another to be an engineer(players,mainly QB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoreyuppies Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 am i the only one here who misses henry ellard? i hope someday we'll bring in another 3rd down receiver who comes up big when we need it like he always did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I think football is a talent game not coaching. Ahhhh, No I Love football because its the BEST example of a TEAM game! You want a multi-player Talent example?...watch half spead NBA, Or Pitcher vs Batter. Remember there is a player that touch's the ball MORE than the QB, and thats on EVERY play. Snyder is exploiting the area he has a Competative advantage......Money. So we get the best coaching available. Gibbs never had "The QB" but he won 3 SBs....tell me Brady won't be in the HOF?.......tell me Coaching doesn't matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Not even close. None of the three went over 1000 yards, in fact Engram was the leader with 778, and Jackson did not even get over 500. Monk, Clark and Sanders all when over 1000 yards that season. Frankly, I don't think there is a team with 3 WRs like we had then. The last team that was close was StL with the Bruce, Holt, Hakim combo. True, but I'm saying as far as talent goes. The numbers those 3 put up are insignificant because Engram and Jackson were out more then half the season. We saw how dangerous Jackson is when we played last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Bringing Saunders in should alleviate the problems of not having 3 WRs. And the key word is should. Kennison, Parker, Hall, and Horn. I would say Moss, Patten, Thrash, and Jacobs are even in terms of talent. The difference is the scheme and a QB who can see the field and distribute the ball. If Saunders can get Ramsey, Brunell, or Campbell to do that, then this offense is fixed. If he can't, then it won't matter who the Skins bring in as the #2 receiver, the QB still won't get him the ball... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.