Om Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Did anyone catch Peter King (I know, I know) on ESPN radio about a half hour ago? I came in right in the middle of where he was talking about SS and the Redskins. Specifically, I thought he was saying that, based on his conversations with SS (or perhaps sources), the coach understood that Stephen Davis & the OL were the strengths of the offense. I also thought he was intimating that SS recognized that the running game would be featured this year since the passing game he wants to institute won't be ready to go full blast for a while.<br /><br />No great revelations, but it might at last partially calm the concerns many posters have about losing Davis and/or getting away from the running game too much. <br /><br />I'd appreciated anyone who could expand on King's comments and the context in which they were made ...<br /> <br /> <small>[ February 28, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Om ]</small> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 well, from a philosophical standpoint, I don't understand how on the one hand we are bringing in all these ex-Florida players to ease the transition to the new 'system' and at the same time are admitting that it is going to take a year or two to get this thing online.<br /><br />because if that is the case, why not pass on the ex-Florida players and just get the BEST players possible regardless of background and just work them into the system this year, counting on Davis and the running game until the second half of 2002 or the 2003 season?<br /><br />the payoff on acquiring players already knowledgeable with Spurrier's offense is likely to be greatest THIS season.<br /><br />My attitude is that if you go out and get the best players you can at WR and QB (unless they are poor attitude cases like Jeff George) you can get them to perform at a high level in many different systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted February 28, 2002 Author Share Posted February 28, 2002 I guess I can understand the concern, bulldog, but at the risk of grossly oversimplifying this ... I'd suggest that bringing in players who are familiar with the system certainly can't hurt ease/speed the process. <br /><br />I'd like to think that what SS is saying is that he's taking the approach that you maximize what you have (read Davis & the running game), while going about implementing your overall scheme with all deliberate speed. Seems to me guys who already know the ropes can only help in the regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Looking over Mr. Spurrier's play call history at Florida, his run/pass split was about even and more run-oriented than the pros. In fact, the year he won the NCAA crown, he ran more often then he passed by a significant margin. <br /><br />After this study, I wonder why people seem to think he's "pass-happy". He does avoid what I'd call wimpy-passes (his primary patterns are rarely less than 10 yards and when you do see them, its a check-down or taking advantage of something the defense is giving him or he's inside the 10), he does build fast teams (quick?) and he likes to run spread offenses to create mismatches (he'll go with the mismatch, if opposing team fear the pass, he'll run while if they play us straight-up watch for crossing patterns and wheels or slants by the slot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 OM, I agree that for the compensation given up so far, which is NOTHING, signing a guy like Doering and even trading for Wuerffel is not necessarily a bad thing, IF they are managed properly.<br /><br />And by that I mean we don't see either out there as a starter come opening day. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> <br /><br />If the Redskins ARE interested in signing Dilfer or Chandler I don't really see any reason to add Matthews as well as Wuerffel.<br /><br />That seems to be overkill, although I will admit from what I know of the pair, I think Matthews has shown more in the NFL and is probably a better #2 than Wuerffel at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rat_Boy Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Assuming that in camp we have:<br /><br />1) VET<br />2) Mathews<br />3) Wuerffel<br />4) Sage<br /><br />I fail to see a problem with it. And all I think that should happen, is that the BEST QB performance wise should start, regardless of their name or college of choice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[smile]" src="smile.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 man, after all this talk about other quarterbacks, if Rosenfels ends up being the starting quarterback of this team in a year or two, I am going to be rolling on my back and laughing hard enough to bring down the foundations of my house <img border="0" title="" alt="[big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rat_Boy Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Now that would be truly funny BullDog. <img border="0" title="" alt="[big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 28, 2002 Share Posted February 28, 2002 Now I can tell the truth:<br /><br />Late last night, Mr. Spurrier called me and asked if I'd play qb for the team. This morning Mr. Mendes offered me a 5 year $25M deal, looks like I'm going to sign. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.