A telling interview with Santana Moss

[Rocky52Mc]

Sounds a lot like what many here have said' date=' once defenses figured out that JC had 1 primary [santana'] they took him away and it was check down city for JC, they brought the heat knowing he was to slow, and to inaccurate to do any real damage finding secondary recievers. I know the O-line was less than stellar last year, but a quick read and delivery can help an O-line a whole lot.

That's your theory. It can be part that, but you're missing something important here. Santana is referring to the fact that once they took "HIM" .. who's HIM? HIM is the #1 receiver for the Washington Redskins. When number #1 is covered who do you most often throw to? #2...#3....#4... yep. There's my point.

And if you still don't get it ... no one was open. It's not all JC damnit.

[FLRedskins]

sounds postitive for next year

[mbws]

Zorn played on terrible Seahawks teams as they were an expansion franchise. Similar in how Doug Williams played like trash for the Buccaneers

He (Williams) got them to the NFC Championship game in his 2nd year with the Bucs.

Just Saying.

True he didn't do much for them after that.

[Skinsinparadise]

First I don't disagree with your list of general needs for a good leader. I do think however one year, or even two in a competitive atmosphere such is the NFL is not giving your candidtate a resonable chance of success. .

I agree with that. That's why I said I'd give him another year, and I don't think he should have been canned, that would be hasty.

And please follow along a second, I have managed all kinds of people. There are the guys who start out hot and blow wind every which way, some of those surprise you and stick with thier enthusiastic approach and succeed. Then there are guys who seem to be totally different once hired then the guy you hired in the first place, some never get back to becoming that guy. And others once they settle in and get a grip start to develop as great leaders. It is called getting a feel for the task at hand. Why am I so high on Zorn, He was one heck of a QB, he is competitive and has that drive. HE also obviously was extremely prepared when he interviewed for the OC position and that is what got him this job.

I agree about your take on employees and I run my own business so I manage people too. One of the things I look for are people's desire to excel. Some of course have higher standards than others.

For the most part I look at NFL coaches as A students in terms of having an obsessive desire to succeed. Listening and watching Zorn he just strikes me a B plus student in a sea of A students. He works hard but my guess is he's surrounded by coaches who work harder. I won't elaborate on that point here, since I explained that point in my other posts.

I am not with him so I can't judge him like we can with employees. So am open to being wrong but that's my guess. And I hope you are right and I am wrong.

What I liked initially about Zorn is he struck me based on what I read as potentially an outside the box thinker. But I didn't see it in play. I thought the Skins not the Ravens for example, would be the team that pulls rabbits out of their hats and would look inventive. I thought Zorn would be the strange guy (but in a good way) with a zany streak. Instead, he seemed ordinary on all fronts.

There are some coaches that just come across hungry, and will do whatever it takes to beat the opponent. I don't notice many comments from Zorn or about Zorn on that -- instead I've read multiple times how he doesn't want to live and die by football. Heck i never thought I'd be getting suggestions from a head coach about good mystery novels to read DURING the season.

All of which I read about Zorn makes me think, great guy, cool guy to hang out with. But something tells me while Zorn is at home reading Daniel Silva mystery novels, the opponent's coach is putting in extra time to figure out how to defeat Zorn's team. And we saw how the season went downhill once the oppoistion did figure out Zorn's offense -- the critique by even some of his supporters was that he didn't figure out how to counter move that.

So yeah that's why I am still not sure. I also don't know if he has the humility to improve. The its not me its them (the players) drill in the interviews has me a little worried. From my experience the ones that improve the most are good at seeing their own flaws and learning from them.

But again purely a guess. And good points in your post.

[NVskinsfan]

Now we just need Moss to take careof his hamstrings...to be healthy all year!

[NewCliche21]

Skinsinparadise:

The thing that pisses me off about Zorn is that he WAS inventive and he DID have the cajones. I remember him going for it on fourth and short more in one game than Gibbs did his entire time back (Please check my record, I was, and am, the biggest Gibbs II supporter on here), and that was so refreshing.

I just don't know what happened. He lost confidence in himself and the line fell apart, I guess, or at the very least I'd like to believe.

Moss, however, if he can keep himself on the field, is definitely someone I want leading this team. This was a great interview for a guy who isn't exactly known for his PR skills.

[Skinsinparadise]

Skinsinparadise:

The thing that pisses me off about Zorn is that he WAS inventive and he DID have the cajones. I remember him going for it on fourth and short more in one game than Gibbs did his entire time back (Please check my record, I was, and am, the biggest Gibbs II supporter on here), and that was so refreshing.

I just don't know what happened. He lost confidence in himself and the line fell apart, I guess, or at the very least I'd like to believe.

You are right. It was strange, it seems like Zorn took on a whole new persona after the beginning.

In the first game he looked downright lost on just about everything, especially clock management. I was at that game in NY.

Then in the next 4 games -- he was a daredevil with the go for it on 4th downs, you had that amazing deep pass with the game on the line against the Cardnals, etc. Exciting football.

After the Rams game which didn't go well, things went downhill and he got strangely conservative. I thought the offense looked awful in the Browns game and then for the most part was bad for the rest of the season.

Not only did Zorn stop going for it on 4th, heck if I recall he punted the ball a few times after they broke the opponent's 40 yard line.

For me its not the losses, its how they lost. The offense was painful for me to watch, might have been the most boring offense in the NFL. They didn't throw deep for the most part. A deep ball was 15 yards. They barely used the middle of the field.

Really almost nothing innovative IMO -- he didn't want to try the wild cat even though we arguably have the ideal player (Randle El) to run it. And I know the Campbell haters want to put it all on him, but its hard for me to imagine that Jason didn't want to throw the ball deep. He was running Zorn's scheme.

I recall a Ravens player talk on the radio after they played and said how amazingly simple it was to figure out and stop the Redskins offense.

But you bring up a good point -- what happened to early season Zorn? And I don't mean winning versus losing, I mean daring versus conservative.

[turbodiesel#44]

But you bring up a good point -- what happened to early season Zorn? And I don't mean winning versus losing, I mean daring versus conservative.

I was blaming Zorn for not helping JC beat the blitz with playcalling. Then I realized the man has no line. Towards the end of the season, they were unable to protect Jason or open holes for CP. They are old, hurt and tired. Zorn was swamped with a leaky OL. He couldn't do anything.

[HailGreen28]

Zorn played on terrible Seahawks teams as they were an expansion franchise. Similar in how Doug Williams played like trash for the Buccaneers

Not to mention Zorn played during the "dead ball" era of modern football.....

[jtyler42]

Dallas and St Louis are the only two games that come to mind to me. I honestly can't think of another. Both those games, also, the Defense spent a ton of time on the field. The Offense had that one nice drive to get the TD near the end of the St Louis game, but they were pretty quiet for 75% of the game.

Also add the 49er's game...So let's see that's three come from behind wins he would have led us to...8-8 +3 is 11-5...We would have been in the paloffs and possibly won the division...

I'm pretty sure the opinion of JC would be different if this had happened...All 3 of those losses the D gave up the lead at the end of the game...

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Also add the 49er's game...So let's see that's three come from behind wins he would have led us to...8-8 +3 is 11-5...We would have been in the paloffs and possibly won the division...

I'm pretty sure the opinion of JC would be different if this had happened...All 3 of those losses the D gave up the lead at the end of the game...

It never end's, 3 come from behind wins he would have led us to:pint:? And your attempting to shift the blame on the defense? As if they were supposed to shut out every team we played so JC can be elevated into the winning QB he isn't, but many believe he should be? If JC performed 1/3 as well as our defense did last season we would have been in the playoffs. Guess what? Our defense had it's own crutch as well, no pass rush, and yet they were still able to get the job done unlike JC. The way JC plays QB he will always be in a position to come from behind, defenses can't stay on the field all game, they ware down. And that is what JC brings to the field an inability to sustain drives, and convert critical 3rd Downs.

Some how it's our defenses fault because JC couldn't score any points, when they were the 4th ranked defense in the league? I guess JC is going to need the 85' Bears D to possibly sniff the playoffs?

[RocketCitySkins]

defenses can't stay on the field all game' date=' they ware down. And that is what JC brings to the field an inability to sustain drives, and convert critical 3rd Downs.

[/quote']

Our defense did not stay on the field all game. They did not stay on the field even half the game. I remember reading that our offense averaged 31 minutes a game for time of possession. When I add all the TOP in the games I get 29.26 for the offense, still almost half the game.

[Skinsinparadise]

I was blaming Zorn for not helping JC beat the blitz with playcalling. Then I realized the man has no line. Towards the end of the season, they were unable to protect Jason or open holes for CP. They are old, hurt and tired. Zorn was swamped with a leaky OL. He couldn't do anything.

I keep hearing that. And let me start with the premise that yeah I agree that the line needs an upgrade but:

1. The Redskins offense arguably played poorly BEFORE the O line injuries. For half of the games in the first half the O looked good. They stunk against the Giants, were so so against the Rams. And yeah they beat the Browns but the offense looked pathetic in that game, they were shut out completely in the first half. Against the mighty Detriot Lions, a Santana Moss punt return TD saved the day.

2. The offensive line injuries were MUCH worse the season before. They lost Jansen in game one and Thomas in game 2. We had Fabini playing guard all season. Plus that season both Randle and Santana actually missed games.

I am not saying you are saying this. But to speak to the poor Jim Zorn crowd, look at all the obstacles the guy faced, when healthy the team was on fire, then they got some injuries, a tougher schedule, and things went south. I just don't see how that is this case. Yeah they struggled against some good teams in the 2nd half but look at the overall picture.

Forget the good teams, rewatch the games against some of the worst teams in the NFL last year: The Browns, Seahawks, Lions, Rams, Bengals, and 49ers. Half of those games were in the first half of the season. Overall their record against them 3-3. Scary thing is it could have easily been 0-6. Though they should have won the game against the Rams.

For a team that scored less than the Detriot Lions -- can you imagine where this team would have been without the defense? The defense kept them in just about every game. This team could have easily been 3-13 without them.

[Taylor 36]

I keep hearing that. And let me start with the premise that yeah I agree that the line needs an upgrade but:

1. The Redskins offense arguably played poorly BEFORE the O line injuries. For half of the games in the first half the O looked good. They stunk against the Giants, were so so against the Rams. And yeah they beat the Browns but the offense looked pathetic in that game, they were shut out completely in the first half. Against the mighty Detriot Lions, a Santana Moss punt return TD saved the day.

2. The offensive line injuries were MUCH worse the season before. They lost Jansen in game one and Thomas in game 2. We had Fabini playing guard all season. Plus that season both Randle and Santana actually missed games.

I am not saying you are saying this. But to speak to the poor Jim Zorn crowd, look at all the obstacles the guy faced, when healthy the team was on fire, then they got some injuries, a tougher schedule, and things went south. I just don't see how that is this case. Yeah they struggled against some good teams in the 2nd half but look at the overall picture.

Forget the good teams, rewatch the games against some of the worst teams in the NFL last year: The Browns, Seahawks, Lions, Rams, Bengals, and 49ers. Half of those games were in the first half of the season. Overall their record against them 3-3. Scary thing is it could have easily been 0-6. Though they should have won the game against the Rams.

For a team that scored less than the Detriot Lions -- can you imagine where this team would have been without the defense? The defense kept them in just about every game. This team could have easily been 3-13 without them.

Stop with the facts and logic; they're not allowed in these threads.

[SWFLSkins]

I think most of us here at ES would have his head if he were the Skins' QB nowadays -

Jim "INT Machine" Zorn:

Career TDs: 111

Career INTs: 141

Career Avg Comp %: 53.0

His team was not to blame for that?:doh:

He made them even slightly competitive. I remember watching them lose games but the fact that Seattle was even in the game was because of Zorn's play. When you are constantly trying to play catch-up football INT's happen.

[SWFLSkins]

He (Williams) got them to the NFC Championship game in his 2nd year with the Bucs.

Just Saying.

True he didn't do much for them after that.

The comparison is that Zorn and Williams made the Hawks and Bucs watchable. Without those two those teams would have be blown out time and time again. Even when they were beaten it was exciting watching one of those guys try and lead them back or at least score some points.

[SWFLSkins]

I am not with him so I can't judge him like we can with employees. So am open to being wrong but that's my guess. And I hope you are right and I am wrong.

What I liked initially about Zorn is he struck me based on what I read as potentially an outside the box thinker. But I didn't see it in play. I thought the Skins not the Ravens for example, would be the team that pulls rabbits out of their hats and would look inventive. I thought Zorn would be the strange guy (but in a good way) with a zany streak. Instead, he seemed ordinary on all fronts.

________________

I just don't know at this point either, but I am hopeful the Zorn's potential you spoke of shows it's head early this year and has the staying power. If there is no improvement or strides taken, then yes I am afraid you are right and we must move on quickly. I hope to see a progression this year and ascension the following.

I do think Zorn became overwhelmed last year and that partly might have to do with the staff he had in place under him(offense, ST-especially). What he does this year should signal how his future plays out.

Thanks for the great discussions in this thread, this is what ES is about.

[Skinsinparadise]

I just don't know at this point either, but I am hopeful the Zorn's potential you spoke of shows it's head early this year and has the staying power.

I do think Zorn became overwhelmed last year and that partly might have to do with the staff he had in place under him(offense, ST-especially). What he does this year should signal how his future plays out.

Thanks for the great discussions in this thread, this is what ES is about.

Thanks, yeah fun discussion, something NFL related to kill time before the draft for me. Yeah hopefully Zorn turns things around.

[DexterSackMachine]

One factor that everyone overlooks in the offensive downturn was that Portis was banged up very badly. This was a well accepted fact until he pitched a fit on the radio, then everyone started pretending like he wasn't.

He was the big offensive star early in the year, not Jason Campbell. The line didn't play as well as it had during that tough series of games 2/3 of the way through the season, but they didn't fall apart until Samuels left the lineup. Understandable.

[bubba9497]

I keep hearing that. And let me start with the premise that yeah I agree that the line needs an upgrade but:

1. The Redskins offense arguably played poorly BEFORE the O line injuries. For half of the games in the first half the O looked good.

you are arguing apples and oranges.. in 07 you had a different offense in place, where in 08 Zorn installed a brand new offense for everyone to learn

The Skins based everything off the run game, and in the first half (before CP started having injuries) He was setting the world on fire leading the NFL in rushing, 5 straight games with over 100 yards rushing.

2. The offensive line injuries were MUCH worse the season before. They lost Jansen in game one and Thomas in game 2. We had Fabini playing guard all season. Plus that season both Randle and Santana actually missed games.

Sorry but that simply is not true, not in the passing game.

The OL was worse last season than in 06 and 05

but look at th stats the Redskins allowed 38 sacks this season to only 29 last season

JC was sacked 21 times in 13 games (TC was sacked 8 in 3 1/2)

his sack rate was 1.61 in '07, but jumped to 2.38 in '08

Forget the good teams, rewatch the games against some of the worst teams in the NFL last year: The Browns, Seahawks, Lions, Rams, Bengals, and 49ers. Half of those games were in the first half of the season. Overall their record against them 3-3. Scary thing is it could have easily been 0-6. Though they should have won the game against the Rams.

and we could have just as easily been 11-5, 12-4

The Skins offense this season was based on and around the run game, controlling the clock, relying on the defense. You are confusing the lack of huge scores with a belief that the Skins weren't controlling the games they won.

The Rams game, take away the crazy Kendall play in scoring position.. the Skins had a 10 or 14 point turn around at the half. The Second half the Skins dominated the clock, and should have won if not for the DEFENSE letting up and gave up a big pass play at the end of the game.

Seattle and Detroit? did you even watch those games... the Skins were in complete control.

Cleveland The Skins put up 351 yards, including Portis 175 yards rushing

The Bengals two key turnovers, and a dropped TD pass at the end... and that's a victory.

And some of our losses... If Big Ben had stayed in the game, we possibly would have beaten the Steelers, If the Defense could have stopped MBIII in the pokes game 2... we had a chance of winning that game

For a team that scored less than the Detriot Lions -- can you imagine where this team would have been without the defense? The defense kept them in just about every game. This team could have easily been 3-13 without them.

and the defense also let up and helped us lose at least 3 games

and scoring less than the Lions? :hysterical:

please that has absolutely nothing to prove anything, The Lions offense wasn't the reason they went 0-16, but a porous defense.

No one is arguing the Skins offense was a scoring machine, but the offense was much better in the first half, and really struggled the second half when Portis started getting injured, Samuels got injured, and the OL started breaking down.. against some of the best defenses in the NFL

[Skinsinparadise]

you are arguing apples and oranges.. in 07 you had a different offense in place, where in 08 Zorn installed a brand new offense for everyone to learn

OK, I'll play along. if you want more of an apples to apples comparison, the first season they installed Saunder's new offense that offense was ranked higher than this one.

Sorry but that simply is not true, not in the passing game. The OL was worse last season than in 06 and 05. but look at th stats the Redskins allowed 38 sacks this season to only 29 last season

With all respect, you act here as if you are responding directly to my point but you aren't. I was specifically talking about injuries to the Offensive line. And yeah what I was saying about it was true.

If you want to switch the topic to which line gave up more sacks, cool enough, but how do we know scheme wasn't a part of that? You can argue perhaps that with Zorn you can crowd the line of scrimmage and not worry about being burned deep for example. If Campbell isn't going to throw deep what do you have to lose by blitzing?

Aside from the suffering from more injuries the season before. Apples to apples the lines are identical. Maybe you are contending Samuels and Rabach lost a step? OK maybe. Or Fabini the previous year was a better pass blocker than Thomas is now, or Heyer as a rookie was better than the current Heyer or Jansen, etc. Maybe but doubtfull.

and we could have just as easily been 11-5, 12-4

I'll play along -- if so would that be because of our offense or defense?

and scoring less than the Lions? :hysterical: please that has absolutely nothing to prove anything, The Lions offense wasn't the reason they went 0-16, but a porous defense.

Yeah their defense stank, but come on the 27th ranked offense in the NFL had nothing to do with it? Scoring about 16 points a game is fine, that didn't hurt them? When you go 0-16, I would assume there is more to it, than just the collapse of one component of the team.

I'll answer the game by game stuff shortly. Got to do some work first.

[Thiebear]

I went through the:

Its easier to name the QB's that 'arnt' a former Redskins.

Lets try and be consistent. Jeez.

[Skinsinparadise]

The Rams game, take away the crazy Kendall play in scoring position.. the Skins had a 10 or 14 point turn around at the half. The Second half the Skins dominated the clock, and should have won if not for the DEFENSE letting up and gave up a big pass play at the end of the game.

You make some good points about some games, but looking at it game by game it doesn't add up IMO to anything that contradicts my point about how they didn't play well for the most part against the bad teams and could have lost even more than 3 games against them. And yeah agree it could have turned the other way, too. But the fact that they are going toe to toe and down to the wire with the dregs of the NFL -- doesn't give me a lot of faith in this offense. Sorry.

IMO if they lose, its not just about finding a good stat in the mix, that's not hard to do for any game for most teams. If its a loss, and you contend that they should have won, it should be something IMO that is definitive to show that the result was misleading.

I will start with the Rams. The time of possession for our dominating control the clock team was a whopping 2 minute edge. 31 minutes to 29 minutes. Again am counting the whole game, its cool to get on a run in the 2nd half but the first half counts, too. But agree they played sloppy, 3 turnovers will kill most teams. If you read my post closely you'd notice I said they should have beaten the Rams. So we aren't on a different page about this game.

Cleveland The Skins put up 351 yards, including Portis 175 yards rushing

Portis had a great game besides the fumble. Ok but you are cherry picking, again easy to do. And very easy to do right back at you. Cleveland had better time of possession, they had about the same number of first downs. The Skins were shut out for a chunk of the game. I don't see how that was a statement game from them. And that game is IMO a good showcase for the idea that a healthy offensive line, playing a mediocre team, with Portis on fire, doesn't per se translate to a good offense.

Seattle and Detroit? did you even watch those games... the Skins were in complete control.

Statistically, these are two games they dominated, but won both by only one score, Seattle was just a field goal. But if you want to count those as statement games, I'll go along. But I don't think its a reach to say they could have lost games that they ended up winning by one score, especially the Seattle one.

The Bengals two key turnovers, and a dropped TD pass at the end... and that's a victory.

Cincy had better time of possession, more first downs, more yards. What else did Cincy have to do to show that they were the better team that day?

The other game I mentioned was SF. In that one, same number of first downs, SF totaled almost 100 yards more.

So of the 6 games I mentioned against the bad teams, the Skins dominated 2 of them statistically, winning both of those games by one score. Another game they had a slight stat edge. 2 where the other team had the stat edge. And one where you can argue it either way but if you want to go with ball control, they were the inferior team. Adds up pretty neatly to 3-3. Yeah could have been 0-6, could have been 6-0.

My point if I didn't make it well in the post you responded to is simply: this IMO was not a team that just struggled in the 2nd half when injuries hit and they played good teams. IMO they looked far from hot against bad teams.

[Geoff_K]

Much needed interview. A top guy in the locker room giving support for the head coach and the QB could help squash some of the negativity from last year going into training camp.

ROFL .. what do you think he was going to say ? they both suck and wont win anything ? pffft