jwebst1 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Questioned by Kelli Johnson on the decision to pass on 3rd and 1, Saunders said essentially that we've run the ball the last six 3rd and 1's and struggled to convert... since it's such a "struggle" to convert 3rd and 1's, can someone tell me why TJ Duckett is still sitting on the sideline since we specifically brought him here for short yardage and goaline? it just doesn't make sense to me. maybe we should have at least asked for a box full of dog crap in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerbo Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Uhmmmm....Duckett wasn't brought here to be our short-yardage back....... He was brought here to keep the benches warm :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfanevan Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 sad but true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apickmans Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 was this 3rd and 1 right before our missed field goal?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Gibbs II Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 He needs to learn the playbook. There is 1 3rd and short running play on every page in that book. Duckett needs to learn all 700 which contain different variations of "duck head and run forward" "Lower shoulders and plow through" "Truck through D-line" That takes time to learn.. i dunno why duckett isnt in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOOG Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Questioned by Kelli Johnson on the decision to pass on 3rd and 1, Saunders said essentially that we've run the ball the last six 3rd and 1's and struggled to convert... since it's such a "struggle" to convert 3rd and 1's, can someone tell me why TJ Duckett is still sitting on the sideline since we specifically brought him here for short yardage and goaline? it just doesn't make sense to me. maybe we should have at least asked for a box full of dog crap in return? I dont care who you put in on 3rd and 1...that line had NO push yesterday and it wasnt happening. If Portis cant get it...Duckett aint getting it either.:logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 How about on 3rd and 1 we put 4 wide receivers on the field and QB sneak it or give it to Portis on a dive play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sellers!!??!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I have no problem with passing on 3rd and 1 as long as it's play action. The problem I have is the lack of reverses or screens which, the way the Giants were flying to the ball, would likely have worked. We did nothing to try to set them back on their heels like we did against the Jags, we just went right at them and it proved to be a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Sellers!!??!?!?!? Yeah him too!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Duckett was brought here, not because he's some force of nature on short yardage downs, but because the team wasn't sure how serious Portis' injury was and wanted some insurance. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been used, just pointing out that I don't think the team ever envisioned him being the 'go-to' guy (under any circumstances) if Portis and Betts were healthy. He was insurance, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I dont care who you put in on 3rd and 1...that line had NO push yesterday and it wasnt happening. If Portis cant get it...Duckett aint getting it either.:logo: correct easiest thing in the world is to second guess, after the fact... if we missed the 4th and 1, the exact same people questioning why we didn't try, would be complaining that we didn't kick the fg today :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwebst1 Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 I have no problem with passing on 3rd and 1 as long as it's play action. The problem I have is the lack of reverses or screens which, the way the Giants were flying to the ball, would likely have worked. We did nothing to try to set them back on their heels like we did against the Jags, we just went right at them and it proved to be a big mistake. yeah, I don't question the 3rd and 1 pass play either... I guess my point was that Saunders flat out acknowledged they are having problems converting on 3rd and short with the run and Duckett remains on the bench... :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Duckett was brought here, not because he's some force of nature on short yardage downs, but because the team wasn't sure how serious Portis' injury was and wanted some insurance.I'm not saying he shouldn't have been used, just pointing out that I don't think the team ever envisioned him being the 'go-to' guy (under any circumstances) if Portis and Betts were healthy. He was insurance, plain and simple. seems that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SackMachine Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I thought Al thrived on being unpredictable, so if we were to put TJ in there at 3rd and 1, they would know we are running which is a big no no. As said above, wed always second guess, but id like to see TJ used once in a while on short yardage situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwebst1 Posted October 9, 2006 Author Share Posted October 9, 2006 Duckett was brought here, not because he's some force of nature on short yardage downs, but because the team wasn't sure how serious Portis' injury was and wanted some insurance.I'm not saying he shouldn't have been used, just pointing out that I don't think the team ever envisioned him being the 'go-to' guy (under any circumstances) if Portis and Betts were healthy. He was insurance, plain and simple. so if he was only going to play if Betts, Cartwright, AND Sellers went down, why again did we trade a high pick for him? That would be like trading a 3rd and swapping 1sts for another 3rd string QB should Brunell go down. In a salary cap league, that's a move a smart team doesn't make... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 A 250 pound guy can fall forward for 1 yard. We want know becasue we dont seem to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I thought Al thrived on being unpredictable, so if we were to put TJ in there at 3rd and 1, they would know we are running which is a big no no. That's why you give him/Sellers more than 1 package or play. Just as Thrash primarily comes in to run block in a single WR set but we threw him a playaction long ball yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentClinton07 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Ofcourse I couldnt watch Sportsnite because of this stupid situation going on with directv. :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walking Deadman Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I don't get it either....for what I've seen of Duckett (from preseason and Atl games) he looks like a guy that Gibbs would love (at least in the oldschool Gibbs system). What I don't understand if he's only supposed to be the 4th string RB.....why trade a 3rd rounder for him???? If we're not going to use him...why did we get him? I mean the guy looks very talented and could be a great fit on another team (**cough*** Pittsburgh**cough**) I mean we had 2-3 other RBs in training camp/preseason that we could have kept if CP wasn't 100% and done what we've done with TJ. And my other gripe.....Duckett is activated on Sunday (but not used) and Anthony Montgomery was inactivated (so far has been in more plays than Duckett this year) when we could have used some extra depth in the D-Line. So I just don't get it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 so if he was only going to play if Betts, Cartwright, AND Sellers went down, why again did we trade a high pick for him? That would be like trading a 3rd and swapping 1sts for another 3rd string QB should Brunell go down. In a salary cap league, that's a move a smart team doesn't make... I didn't say it was smart Now if Portis wasn't able to return, it may have looked a lot different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 yeah if you ain't gonna use TJ trade him to Pittsburgh for a DB or linebacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Duckett was brought here, not because he's some force of nature on short yardage downs, but because the team wasn't sure how serious Portis' injury was and wanted some insurance.I'm not saying he shouldn't have been used, just pointing out that I don't think the team ever envisioned him being the 'go-to' guy (under any circumstances) if Portis and Betts were healthy. He was insurance, plain and simple. Hard for me to argue this given the way we've handled him. But for a talented guy for whom we gave up a 2nd rounder and who is a UFA after this year has publicly said that he wants to go somewhere where he'll play, I wish we could at least see what he could do for us before we part ways with him. Remember that Betts is a UFA after this season too. One of those guys needs to be back with us next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I think the whopping 42 plays we had in the Giants game had a lot to do with that. I don't see them making him active just to make him feel good. The game never opened up to the point where they felt like they could use it to give him some snaps and evaluate him in a game situation. Hell, Betts is a Saunders favorite, and he got, what, 1 snap???? I think he'll get some playing time before too much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Thought I heard some guy from the Wash Times saying on the 3rd and 1 that Fauria was wide open and of course super smart Mark throws to a double-covered Cooley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.