RedzoneHunter Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 After last season, we kept hearing rumblings about how the offense was going to be more aggressive this year. We invested a small fortune luring Al Saunders from Kansas City, and this appeared to be a step towards being more aggressive.. Then we were aggressive in free agency, signing Randle El and trading for Brandon Lloyd. These were great moves for the offense. We were hearing how the greatest show on turf was coming to Washington. That made sense because it was Saunders who was coordinating the Rams high powered offense with those speedy receivers, Bruce, Hakim and Holt. In week one we saw no signs of an aggressive high powered offense. Instead, we saw more of a very conservative dink and dunk version, which reminded me more of the west coast offense. Every move was safe and very calculated. I was not impressed in the least. Something just doesn't add up. Why would you invest in speedy receivers and not use their speed for an overwhelming advantage? This Redskins offense has more talent than the Rams greatest show on turf, yet we appear to be hiding this talent for some unknown reason. I would have rather seen more risks taken on deep balls. Even if we had an interception or two, they could be considered as punts. And we are severely lacking the element of surprise, which strikes fear into the enemy. I didn't see fear from the Vikings defense, I saw confidence, and that should never, never, never happen in our own backyard at FedEx Field. One long pass won't scare anyone. It was the Redskins that appeared to be on their heels on both sides of the ball. The defense could have blitzed more, especially when one of our starting corners is out. Brad Johnson will pick any defense apart that doesn't apply any pressure. Special Teams is not very special. Hall is damaged goods. If he is not capable of kicking off, he's in the wrong line of work, not to mention that I get real nervous when he has to kick one beyond 40 yards. Our punter is not much better. But worst of all is the Special teams coach. Any time you start putting your starters out on the coverage units and the job still isn't getting done, that is a dead give away that your coordinator is not a very good leader. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it is what it is. I sure hope we can turn it around sooner this year than we did last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Guys haven't fully learned the Offense yet. It's going to take some time. The Chiefs Offense wasn't amazing its first year under Saunders either. The only problem could be Brunell. Lets say it takes half a year for the Offense to get clicking. Which means for the second half of the year we'll have a great Offense. Fine, but what happens after that? We may be too far behind to make noise in the postseason even if we qualify, and then Brunell is a whole year older and likely closer to retirement. Enter Jason Campbell, and now we have to go through another learning process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 the Redskins team in 2006 does not have the pure talent that the 1999 Rams had. Faulk is a HOF back with a proven 10 year career as one of the all-time rushers as well as a receiver par excellence. Isaac Bruce was a pro bowl receiver before Dick Vermeil got to St. Louis. Torry Holt, the #7 pick in the 1999 draft, has been perhaps the most consistent receiver in the NFL over the past 7 years. On the offensive line, Orlando Pace in his athletic prime was a much more physical presence at LT than Chris Samuels has ever been for this team. Adam Timmerman inside at the time was a top guard, coming off a pro bowl year in Green Bay after helping GB to the Super Bowl. Kurt Warner was a league all-pro in 1999 and 2001 leading the Rams to Super Bowl berths with one season of 40 plus touchdowns.................. Sorry, folks but that beats what we have now. Portis over time may prove to be in Faulks' class as a rusher and he is a better receiver than the Redskins have been able to exploit to this point. Moss has had one all-pro season but must prove to be consistent over time. He and Lloyd in my mind are not up to the class of Bruce and Holt in 1999-2001. On the offensive line, Samuels has been overrated for years. Yes, he is a solid tackle. But he has slumps where he can go through 3-4 games a year where he looks very average. He also has the balance of 10 games where he is as advertised. But the lack of consistency and the lack of durability (he always seems to be playing with some form of injury that limits his mobility or ability to push off) has dogged him for years. Dockery is an average player. A C+ linemen on a team where the Super Bowl standard in the past was considerably higher, even for the backups. Former Redskins backups such as Ken Huff, Raleigh McKenzie and later Ray Brown were all better players than Dockery. It took these other players a lot more time to get on the field and make their mark. Brunell is no Kurt Warner. At least not the Warner that wandered the NFL from 1999-2001. Warner put up numbers in those 3 or 4 years that we have seen only from Dan Marino and Dan Fouts in recent NFL history. And he got those teams to the Super Bowl, something Fouts never did. Marino's one appearance was a 38-16 loss to the 49ers. So, let's be straight about the team The 2006 Washington Redskins have the talent to be a playoff team. They have the talent to compete in the playoffs to advance if they are healthy and players perform up to their expectations. But this is also a team that has to fight week to week to win. The talent here while good is not overwhelming. This team is not going to win playing 75-80% as they did Monday Night against the Vikings. Part of the 20-25% that was missing was execution. As others have posted that can come in time with reps and the chance to learn more about each other on the field. The other part that was missing was intensity. The Redskins did not play this game as if the season depended upon them winning it. The sense of urgency seemed to be with the Vikings, especially in the second half when you would have expected the Redskins to come out strong at home and put the hammer down on an opponent that was already down on the scoreboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMOSS89 Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 I'd say the biggest thing we gotta learn is spreading the ball around. Once we can get to the point where everyone is involved, our offense will get extremely scary. Sometimes you look at least year and almost wish they hadnt gone to the playoffs. The reason is because a season like that lowers the patience level of the fans. I still have the same patience level as last year, where I didnt have hgih expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted September 14, 2006 Author Share Posted September 14, 2006 Guys haven't fully learned the Offense yet. It's going to take some time. The Chiefs Offense wasn't amazing its first year under Saunders either. The only problem could be Brunell. Lets say it takes half a year for the Offense to get clicking. Which means for the second half of the year we'll have a great Offense. Fine, but what happens after that? We may be too far behind to make noise in the postseason even if we qualify, and then Brunell is a whole year older and likely closer to retirement. Enter Jason Campbell, and now we have to go through another learning process... Yeah, I agree it's going to take some time to perfect this system, but you still have to take some shots. And I really hated that screen to Cooley deep in the backfield, he's not fast enough for that. Maybe Brunell locks on his primary target too much, and maybe he's not the fastest at learning a new system, but he knows how to throw a great deep ball, which is not that complicated. If nothing else, deep balls loosen up defenses even when they aren't always completed. And they are low risk when you can consider it as a punt. I'm not in favor of yanking Brunell too soon, however, Jason Campbell has already proven time and time again that he is a fast learner, but I wouldn't put him in if Brunell isn't playing bad. He played a great game, but it just appeared to be too conservative. We need more 15-20 yard pass routes, along with a few bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 The defense could have blitzed more, especially when one of our starting corners is out. Brad Johnson will pick any defense apart that doesn't apply any pressure. Sometimes the loss of a starting corner is a reason to blitz less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted September 14, 2006 Author Share Posted September 14, 2006 Sometimes the loss of a starting corner is a reason to blitz less. Why, does it help the second stringer to know that the QB will be given all day to pick him apart? No one can cover someone all day. This is a great recipe for losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayn trouble Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Guys haven't fully learned the Offense yet. It's going to take some time. The Chiefs Offense wasn't amazing its first year under Saunders either. The only problem could be Brunell. Lets say it takes half a year for the Offense to get clicking. Which means for the second half of the year we'll have a great Offense. Fine, but what happens after that? We may be too far behind to make noise in the postseason even if we qualify, and then Brunell is a whole year older and likely closer to retirement. Enter Jason Campbell, and now we have to go through another learning process... See, and this is exactly what I thought the gameplan was last year (SuperBowl Target date January 31st 2008), after we'd picked up Portis and drafted Campbell. Taking those two key acquisitions into consideration with the bearing Brunell's sliding scale salary suggests (his money was loaded up front, so as to be all but paid off after the first 4 years... after 2006 he'll be making pittances) that the Skins were going to get Campbell acquainted with the offense in an expanding role for two years, so that he'd be ready for the big push in 2007. But then, with Campbell not getting the clear nod ahead of Collins (much less being able to apparently compete with Brunell for the starters job), I sucked it up and figured Gibbs was ready to ride Brunell into glory this year. But with the added overhaul on offense now too, I really don't know what the timeline is supposed to look like. Do we ever really have a plan, or is this simply Dan Snyder's tinker toy hell ride, as the media continually suggests? ... and seems to keep getting right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwills1 Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Danny Smith as special teams coach SUCKS!!!!!! I have been saying this for some time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 You can't blitz a veteran like Brad Johnson he gets rid of the ball way to fast and is just mobile enought to shuffle out of the way in order to throw the ball away or in a blitzing situation find that soft spot in the coverage to complete a hot route or a big pass. Having said that Im against changing the nature of your defense becuase of one player. I understand scaling it back, but to only blitz Johnson a handful of times was a mistake IMO especially on those long 3rd down plays where if he gets rid of the ball quickly it will be only for 5 yards or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 Danny Smith as special teams coach SUCKS!!!!!! I have been saying this for some time! Me too. I wonder why no one at Redskin Park can see this? Since money is never an object in Washington, it would be a wise move to go after Coach Rodriguez, who was in Seattle the last I heard. Now that would be a wise investment on Snyder's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 You can't blitz a veteran like Brad Johnson he gets rid of the ball way to fast and is just mobile enought to shuffle out of the way in order to throw the ball away or in a blitzing situation find that soft spot in the coverage to complete a hot route or a big pass. Say, you wouldn't happen to watch the game the same way Gibbs watched Jon Hall's final attempt last week would ya? If so, I'd open my eyes next time, so you can see it doesn't work that way. Making him get rid of the ball too quick is when he starts making mistakes or throwing the ball away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpath11 Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Say, you wouldn't happen to watch the game the same way Gibbs watched Jon Hall's final attempt last week would ya?If so, I'd open my eyes next time, so you can see it doesn't work that way. Making him get rid of the ball too quick is when he starts making mistakes or throwing the ball away. Say did you read the rest of what I wrote or just the part you quoted? In case you missed it... Having said that Im against changing the nature of your defense becuase of one player. I understand scaling it back, but to only blitz Johnson a handful of times was a mistake IMO especially on those long 3rd down plays where if he gets rid of the ball quickly it will be only for 5 yards or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I wonder how much of what we say last Monday was playcalling vs. Brunell not opting to go for the longer throws because of what he saw in coverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gusthecat Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 After last season, we kept hearing rumblings about how the offense was going to be more aggressive this year. We invested a small fortune luring Al Saunders from Kansas City, and this appeared to be a step towards being more aggressive..Then we were aggressive in free agency, signing Randle El and trading for Brandon Lloyd. These were great moves for the offense. We were hearing how the greatest show on turf was coming to Washington. That made sense because it was Saunders who was coordinating the Rams high powered offense with those speedy receivers, Bruce, Hakim and Holt. In week one we saw no signs of an aggressive high powered offense. .......... We saw no high powered offense, because the offensive line could not protect the quarterback. Has anyone even mentioned the offensive line?:dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordash Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 The O-line did an excellent job Monday. When was the last game they didn't allow a sack on Brunell? Most of the pressure on him was because he dropped way out of the pocket. Interior O-line put out some great work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.