flexxskins Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I guess you haven't read much on the WCO?!?!?!They use the passing game to score and open up the running game. Once they're up, then can run the clock out... Instead of running time and time again so the D knows you're going to run and stops you before you get a first down. If you run too much the D will play run, if you pass too much the D will play pass. If you do both (hopefully) they won't have any idea what's coming to them, which is what a WCO does. The Eagles seem to be running an entirely different brand of the WCO than the one you just discribed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 The Eagles seem to be running an entirely different brand of the WCO than the one you just discribed. The Eagles seem to have done pretty well for the last five out of six years, and how many times a game to they run the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Hmmm... sounds like he wants a balanced and unpredictable attack. Buncha ****ing over nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsRedskin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 and when was the last time we went to the super bowl?With a pound it down your throat running football team that used its attack to set up the long passing game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fieldy Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 The Eagles seem to be running an entirely different brand of the WCO than the one you just discribed. Are we going to be running the same version of the WCO as the Philthy Iggles??? I hope we never stoop that low:twitch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsMaster88 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I guess you haven't read much on the WCO?!?!?!They use the passing game to score and open up the running game. Once they're up, then can run the clock out... Instead of running time and time again so the D knows you're going to run and stops you before you get a first down. If you run too much the D will play run, if you pass too much the D will play pass. If you do both (hopefully) they won't have any idea what's coming to them, which is what a WCO does. Exactly, which was one of the reasons our offense was too predictable under Gibbs/Saunders. We had too much of an emphasis on power running and teams would just stack the line. We finally achieved success with a balanced attack late in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsMaster88 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 With a pound it down your throat running football team that used its attack to set up the long passing game. We've tried that for the last 4 years. You need more balance in today's NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 True, it worked in KC. I couldn't really name one WR there excpet for Tony Gonzalez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Are we going to be running the same version of the WCO as the Philthy Iggles???I hope we never stoop that low:twitch: I'm assuming our WCO will be similar to Holmgren's style of WCO which he ran in Green Bay and Seattle... and always featured a strong running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Its been said a million times but here it goes again how about we trade Betts and pick up a big WR Jason can throw to so that we can actually have a balanced offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I was excited to hear Zorn talk of already working on Campbell's footwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsMaster88 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Its been said a million times but here it goes again how about we trade Betts and pick up a big WR Jason can throw to so that we can actually have a balanced offense? And here is the main reason: who would even trade for Betts? There'd be no value gained in that situation. Betts will be 29 years old by the start of the season, with only 11 starts in his career. What trade value does he have? He's much more valuable to keep for us, than to trade for any late-round draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 And here is the main reason: who would even trade for Betts?There'd be no value gained in that situation. Betts will be 29 years old by the start of the season, with only 11 starts in his career. What trade value does he have? He's much more valuable to keep for us, than to trade for any late-round draft pick. I guess but I wouldn't mind the Skins at least dangling him out there to see if anyone bites, he's at least a proven veteran RB who could be a decent starter on a NFL team. I'm by no means ant-Betts and I'd love to have him on the team I just don't know if we can afford that luxury right now. But if there aren't any takers, you're right he's better off here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsRedskin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 It's so funny how this board has went from OUTRAGED over the hiring process and this inexperienced coach to drinking his Kool-Aid. Trade Betts for some third-tier wide receiver, considering Portis' injury-plagued past? ARE YOU CRAZY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 It's so funny how this board has went from OUTRAGED over the hiring process and this inexperienced coach to drinking his Kool-Aid. Trade Betts for some third-tier wide receiver, considering Portis' injury-plagued past? ARE YOU CRAZY? Find where I said "third-tier wide reciever" and get back to me. I was merely suggesting that we try and see if we can get a good, big WR for Betts. Don't put words in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 who is this 2nd great running back you speak of? One season != great running back. sorry. Anyways the quote says balanced, not passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I guess but I wouldn't mind the Skins at least dangling him out there to see if anyone bites, he's at least a proven veteran RB who could be a decent starter on a NFL team. I'm by no means ant-Betts and I'd love to have him on the team I just don't know if we can afford that luxury right now.But if there aren't any takers, you're right he's better off here. Betts is way too valuable to the Redskins. He's our #1 back up running back. He is a very good out of the back field threat, and he already has a very good relationship w/ his teammates which is what it looks like the FO is going for this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Find where I said "third-tier wide reciever" and get back to me. I was merely suggesting that we try and see if we can get a good, big WR for Betts.Don't put words in my mouth. But that would leave him with nothing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 What team are we talking about? I only see one great runningback and a serviceable backup in Washington. BTW, our fullback is good at a few things, but I wouldn't characterize him as anything more than a hunk of meat you want running through people and not trying to jump over the line of scrimmage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Betts is way too valuable to the Redskins. He's our #1 back up running back. He is a very good out of the back field threat, and he already has a very good relationship w/ his teammates which is what it looks like the FO is going for this season. Valuable? Yes. Way too Valuable? Not so sure. I agree with all your other points but if a team were to bite and send a WR our way that would fit in as a good posession WR for the WCO, I think it might be a decent idea. The only reason why I still think this is because RB is pretty much the only position I think we have enough talent at to possibly trade away our second stringer. Yes, Portis has been injured before I understand that but we NEED a big WR now. Plus, I think a rookie running back could step into a second string position and provide some depth rather easily whereas a rookie WR asked to be an integral part of the WCO could struggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 But that would leave him with nothing to say. :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Did you even bother to read what you just quoted? He said he wanted to create balance between the two. Further, year in and year out we have emphasized the running game and deemphasized the passing game. No wonder we havent had a potent offense or any semblance of a passing game for years. You may not like it, but the fact of the matter(and it is a fact) is that good offensive teams pass the ball well. The top teams in the NFL are for the most part passing teams. Colts, Pats, Packers, and Cowboys were the top 4 last year. In order to be good in today's NFL a team has to pass the ball. Until we do that, we will continue to have a mediocre at best offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Valuable? Yes.Way too Valuable? Not so sure. I agree with all your other points but if a team were to bite and send a WR our way that would fit in as a good posession WR for the WCO, I think it might be a decent idea. The only reason why I still think this is because RB is pretty much the only position I think we have enough talent at to possibly trade away our second stringer. Yes, Portis has been injured before I understand that but we NEED a big WR now. Plus, I think a rookie running back could step into a second string position and provide some depth rather easily whereas a rookie WR asked to be an integral part of the WCO could struggle. I personally would rather have a rookie WR that could play somewhere between 2-4 than have a rookie #2 RB. I know that we have Rock, but I don't feel comfortable w/ him actually running the ball on anything other than KOR. Just my opinion. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I personally would rather have a rookie WR that could play somewhere between 2-4 than have a rookie #2 RB. I know that we have Rock, but I don't feel comfortable w/ him actually running the ball on anything other than KOR. Just my opinion. :2cents: Fair enough, I see your point especially considering Portis' past injuries. However, isn't the draft class considered to have deeper talent at RB than WR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Fair enough, I see your point especially considering Portis' past injuries. However, isn't the draft class considered to have deeper talent at RB than WR? To be honest, I have no idea. I don't really watch or pay attention to college ball, and I don't really have a clue of who anybody is, or what they are capable of. That is why I never say the Skins should draft this guy or that guy, I say what postition I think that they should go after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.