3rd Generation Die Hard Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 thought he could have provided lots of positive gains reulting from falling forward seeing how large he is but we refused to even give the man a touch. I dont know what they have in store for him but he wont be happy here shortly if he doesnt get some touches. I do see why we got him though after seeing betts get a chance tonight but lets use him! AA, AC & BL - get it together fellas! not one big play from $80 Millon or whatever it is. Not to jump ship but I am very nervous where this season is going with our strugling secondary (I miss smoot) and non existant pass rush that is all to familiar. :doh: :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoReincarnated Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I agree, I also thought we'd see more with Sellers and Cooley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Where WAS Duckett? Was he active? I saw him dressed on the sideline at the end of the game...but you can only have 3 running backs listed as active, and we had Portis, Betts, and for whatever reason, Cartwright. Would've been nice to see Duckett on one of those red zone trips maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FranklinNoble Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I was wondering about Duckett, too. Betts didn't impress me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt [Redskins Fan] Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 This is one of the few negative threads I agree with. From what I've seen of Duckett he would be pretty nasty in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus87 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 ']This is one of the few negative threads I agree with. From what I've seen of Duckett he would be pretty nasty in the red zone. Exactly! Which is why it really remains a mystery to me why he didn't get the ball all night. Or Sellers even. We struggle 3 times in the red zone and don't even blink at the thought of using the short yardage back we just traded for? Huh? Maybe Saunders feels like he doesn't know the offense well enough yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I questioned his absence as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt [Redskins Fan] Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I questioned his absence as well Well **** if bubba's worried you know something is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 no one has confirmed it but I think he was one of the inactives..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
909997 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 duckett looked pissed after we kicked the feildgoal in the endzone maybe we r saving duckett for dallas? to run over those cows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir L Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Who cares about Duckett and Betts WHERE WAS PORTIS! He ran well when in there we needed more of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodriggo Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Agree. Why didn't he come in when we were inside the five? Wouldn't their D respect his inside running enough to open up the Brunell rollouts we kept going to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins4ever Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 T.J. Duckett would have helped the running game tonight because it suffered. Portis had like 10 carries for 39 yards. Betts ran the ball effectively on a few plays. But I would have liked to see T.J. get the ball also. Maybe Joe Gibbs was showing more confidence in Betts by not playing Ducket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir L Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 T.J. Duckett would have helped the running game tonight because it suffered. Portis had like 10 carries for 39 yards. Betts ran the ball effectively on a few plays. But I would have liked to see T.J. get the ball also. Maybe Joe Gibbs was showing more confidence in Betts by not playing Ducket. 10 carries for 39 yards is almost a 4 yard per carry avg. Portis brings alot to the game defense are scared of him and he can block on passing downs. Portis would of gotten stronger as the game went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcoles11 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't know about you guys but i'm just thrilled that we have given up another draft pick, this time a 3rd rounder, for a guy that I guess we don't even intend on playing. Tell me we atleast still have our 1st Rd pick for 07? Because after tonight and looking at our scheduel we might be picking in the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Sack Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Yeh, I think the coaching staff had a complete brain fart on this one. Portis looked healthy enough to take most of the carries, Betts stunk up the joint, my grandmother could have run kick offs back better than Rock, and WHY THE HELL did we bring Ducket in again? Ah, I see, so he could stand on the side lines and hand out gatorade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmchairRedskin Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Yeah, I figured at the very least we'd see Duckett in the redzone, if not on 3rd and short. Betts didn't surprise me, I figured he'd catch a few balls out of the backfield and not much else. He just doesn't have the vision nor change of direction to be effective as our go to guy. Cooley was conspicuously absent from most of the gameplan and I don't think LLoyd nor Moss got enough looks. Brunell needs to step INTO the pocket, not pedal backwards trying to avoid the rush. It'll buy him more time to look over the coverage. All in all, though, it's our first game and it's a long season. We have some kinks to work out offensively, but I can see where this offense could be once it gets it's feet under it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_Fan Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Exactly, I brought up Duckett last night too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan72 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 More than anything on the offensive side, Im completely baffled at Cooley's lack of touches. 2? Since when? Didnt we all hear about how much the tightend is used in Saunders gameplan, like that guy, umm whats his name , Gonzalez 102 catches, 1258 yards 7 Tds in 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 The running game was a puzzle to me all night. Portis ran very well, and should have had more carries. Betts didn't run well at all, and FGs of 27, 27 & 22 means three stalled drives inside the 10 where Duckett, a touchdown machine, works best. Yet, zero carries for him. Send Betts to Indy (they looked worse than we did on the ground) for a 3rd rounder and put Duckett behind Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'll join the crowd with wondering where he was. With him in there we might have gotten six instead of three at least once I thought that was his job, to go in in short yardage instead of Portis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ33 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 2nd and goal on the 4 and no Duckett? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Maybe he is not use to the full playbook yet and betts was the guy and portis was backing him up. I think portis got plenty of touches, I was one who felt he should have sat out this game but I guess he is ahead of schedule and should be ready to rock for dallas. I think duckett will get his carries dont worry. And I think the thing with cooley is saunders didnt unload the full arsenal with dallas getting geared up for us. I think cooley will be found in the dallas game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Portis was good, Betts showed he isn't a starting quality RB YET AGAIN. Come on, Duckett has to be much better than Betts. Betts sucks, his average yesterday was awful. The only good thing he can do is catch the ball out of the backfield and return kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsSuperBowl21 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Steve Hutchinson single handedly won that game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.