SkinSabbath Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 After studying the Packers defense I have chosen a few play that (IMHO) will exploit their weaknesses. Anybody else have any clever ideas? These are 3 potential BIG PLAYS for the Skins today: 1) I-Form Normal, PA fake dive to Portis, Campbell hits Moss on the out-n-up. This play will be PERFECT to use once the Skins have disrupted the defense by establishing a solid running attack. The Packers will have to commit seven or eight to stopping our rush attack, and then the PA will = SIX 2)A Strong I formation, fake to FB Sellers, Counter Step to Portis This misdirection play will confuse the Packers linebackers, and Portis will see big holes. Of course, we can only get away with one or two of these tricky plays per game, so we must time them wisely. 3) Singleback formation (Saunders' Favorite), Twin TE right, 2 WR. With two TE threats on the right side, the Defense is forced to use one safety to cover the extra TE. This leaves Randle El one-on-one to the outside, Campbell hits him on a curl and ARE gets some YAC PS I also think that, in order to win this game, we MUST force turnovers and either score on them, or score directly after them. Sean Taylor will make a forced fumble on run defense: HAIL and GOOD LUCK :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 nice re cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbnva Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 probably never work but a toss to portis who throws it across the field to ARE and let him run it to the end zone OR pass it down field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 probably never work but a toss to portis who throws it across the field to ARE and let him run it to the end zone OR pass it down field Oh yeah, isn't that play called "Seven-Yard-Loss" or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 This play will be PERFECT to use once the Skins have disrupted the defense by establishing a solid running attack. The Packers will have to commit seven or eight to stopping our rush attack, and then the PA will = SIX From what I've seen, which is not much, the Pack seem to play a ton of 7 or 8 in the box and leave their corners in man. Nice analysis though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShredder Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 From what I've seen, which is not much, the Pack seem to play a ton of 7 or 8 in the box and leave their corners in man. Nice analysis though. Yes, they do seem to isolated the corners man to man with what they call, two shut-down corners. I don't think that there is a true shut down corner this year. Champ has been scored on a few times and besides him, I have trouble finding a true shut down corner vs a true #1 Wide Out. There is certainly a trend to taking what they give you, in this NFL season. Every commentator and would be expert keeps using that phrase to no end. The other phrases were run to set up the pass, and dink and dunk before you take your shot. I believe it's how the Offensive Coordinator sets up the next play, with the others that set the trend. Nice chess game inside the real game of Pro Football. :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I'd like to see one play where the Packers have eight men in the box, and we still hand off to Sellers, just to see how many Packers it takes to bring the man down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parlett316 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I'd like them to run plays that result in positive yardage. I would not like them to run plays that result in negative yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I'd like them to run plays that result in positive yardage.I would not like them to run plays that result in negative yards. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Insightful, yet redundant with a strong finish-98 rating from whine spectator :doh: :laugh: :doh: :laugh: :doh: :laugh: :doh: :laugh: :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I think the NFL will investigate CP if he really ran that fast. But whatever it takes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS FAN #56 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Oh yeah, isn't that play called "Seven-Yard-Loss" or something? Sometimes sarcasm hurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I would like to see a great running attack and to start the game, Campbell making short passes to help get him into a rhythm, then when the safeties start creeping up. PA pass deep to Moss or ARE (if he is able to play). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasTomasz Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 The Redskins will need to run the ball. With Charles Woodson and Al Harris, Green Bay has two guys they feel very comfortable leaving in man coverage. With the Redskins top two receivers nursing hamstring injuries, practicing or not, means that they can afford to leave that extra safety in the box, and leave only one deep. That is the advantage that the Pack have by having two top corners who are #1's on most other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin11 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I personally like the play where we fake to sellers and pitch it to Portis. We scored on it against the cowboys and we used it against detriot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.