jbooma Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I pray we did not just throw away another pick, when we need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir L Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Who cares about Ducket WHERE WAS PORTIS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel 36 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Portis was in the game...Duckett was not.. THAT is why we are asking the question. Were there any quotes from Gibbs about why the big fella didn't play? I'm just looking for an answer...which still hasn't come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Who cares about Ducket WHERE WAS PORTIS! In the endzone, and then taking care of his injury. That is where Portis was. Brunell didnt utilize Cooley, plain and simple. When he did throw at Cooley it was to throw the ball away and Brunell didnt give Cooley a catchable ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'm sorry, I just don't buy the learning the playbook excuse... uh, run right, dude.... . . . except if you audible out of it because the safety's crowding the line, in which case we'll audible to the pass to the weak side and Duckett's is then assigned to pick up the outside blitzer on the strong side . . . It's not high school. There's a little more to NFL plays than "run right, dude." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel 36 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Did Gibbs mention anything in his press conference about why TJ didn't play??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaSkins21 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I think Portis being in there pushed Duckett out of the rotation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jivelikenice Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't understand why he didn't play....Makes no sense....3 times we were inside the 10 and din't score a td, thats inexcusable...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
box8276 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 . . . except if you audible out of it because the safety's crowding the line, in which case we'll audible to the pass to the weak side and Duckett's is then assigned to pick up the outside blitzer on the strong side . . .It's not high school. There's a little more to NFL plays than "run right, dude." Umm.. he was referring to the goal line carries dude, in which case it is run right for 2 yds. touchdown. Oh and i never ever guess gibbs but.... rock at kr? i was very sad to see that. I bet duckett plays next week. He didnt have much time to learn the plays so maybe they figured give him 2 wks to learn the dallass gameplan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somebody509 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. We do, but if we do worse than denver we switch our first round picks. So we could end up towards the end even if we suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Good thing is denver looks like crap too. As for the final kickoff return, I too was shocked that moss and randel el weren't back there to field it. When the game is on the line like that, you use your best players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Baltimore looks great this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsRMoney06 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 If you think about it, we didn't really have many 3rd-and-short or goalline situations. Most of our 3rd downs were medium or long distance situations. That's the only reason I can think of for him not being in there . . . well, that and he's still learning the playbook. Ok, maybe he has to learn the book, BUT it doesnt take a rocket scientist to throw his body and gain a yard or two. 4 and 1 AND YOU PLACE THE ENTIRE GAME ON JOHN FRIGGIN HALL?!?!?! How about Ducket pounding for the first, a spike, and then the kick or maybe and additional play to at least get hall some sort of respectable field position, why the hell are we paying saunders all this money if he doesnt see basic s*&^ like this, maybe im overreacting but come on you go out and acquire this punishing RB and dont even use him in a situation that he thrives in RIDICULOUS:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel 36 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 and still nothing in the post about this or from Q&A with coaches??? Anyone out there heard anything/read anything? Still waiting to know why!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers22 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 He didn't do anything. We should have put him in there just to see what he could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Ok, maybe he has to learn the book, BUT it doesnt take a rocket scientist to throw his body and gain a yard or two. 4 and 1 AND YOU PLACE THE ENTIRE GAME ON JOHN FRIGGIN HALL?!?!?! How about Ducket pounding for the first, a spike, and then the kick or maybe and additional play to at least get hall some sort of respectable field position, why the hell are we paying saunders all this money if he doesnt see basic s*&^ like this, maybe im overreacting but come on you go out and acquire this punishing RB and dont even use him in a situation that he thrives in RIDICULOUS:doh: Duckett would've been a non-factor at the end of the game. We had no time outs and even if Duckett picks up the first down you have to quickly spike the ball and there's no way you have time for an extra play........Hall's sorry leg would still have to make a 45+ yarder. But I was puzzled at not using Duckett inside the 5. Someone mentioned that you could only play 3 RBs....is this true? If so, maybe they feel Rock is too valuable on special teams to leave inactive, but if this were the case and knowing that Portis was available, perhaps Betts should've been the odd man out. We need a sledgehammer inside the 5, and we also need a guy who can make long FGs. Last year's game was eerily reminiscent of the 2000 game against Philly, where we couldn't get into the end zone from the 3 in six downs (due to Stephen Davis being injured) and Steady Eddie Murray was short from 45 yards at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 The whole Duckett thing has been driving me crazy as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz89 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 TJ shoulda been in on the drive where moss was decked in the endzone on 3rd down, run it up the middle with sellars blocking for him, just imagine that:D a RB just as big as his FB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksun247 Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 On the bench, waiting for his number to be called. Maybe, he'll get a carry or two against the Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I hope he gets more than that. He should be in there inside the 5 yard line. I like Portis and all, but I want a bruiser inside the 5 and to save CP for the rest of the running Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammond72 Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 Duckett with Sellars blocking, two tight ends and an extra tackle...seems like you could squeeze out 6 yards in 3 carries. I know it is old school and maybe not in the 700 page play book but you don't always need 14 set shifts with people going in all directions. JG made a career out of counter tre and those backs didn't have half the beef. By my count Sellars plus Duckett is over 520 pounds...and that is just the running backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moondog Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 We need to get Duckett in this offense and fast. With Portis declaring he's 101% then we don't need Rock. If the three back max active list is the truth, Betts returns kickoffs, Portis is the featured back, and Duckett gets the short yard situations and most of the goalline ones, hell line him up as a second fullback and he can run or block along with Sellers. Either way, Portis and Duckett should be sharing carries, not Betts...he showed he can't create when the o-line is getting pushed back last night. Obviously that unit needs to play better but at least Portis could still find ways to pick up yards when he got the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36HAMMER Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 i too thought that saunders might have gotten alittle too cute for his own good. for all the motion and recievers and plays, sometimes you've just got to strap it on and beat the guy in front of you.and nothing fires up a o-line like blocking for a td. :dallasuck :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.