jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 Nono I think people would be cussing the team out because the Giants put up 12 points and we won by less than a TD ... The same arguments would be in effect ... Campbell is no good, Orakopo is a bum and Haynesworth not worth 10c let alone 100 million $$$ Alas...you are probably correct... Thank you for killing my optimism. You truly are the devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 More then 2 plays and lets not even mention the "superfecta" Jason messed up. Let's talk about the 5 punts we had when the Giants only punted once. Even with any and all the other negatives, we were still those two plays away. We could talk about all the other things that went wrong, and even the other things that went right. But the swing that those two plays represent meant so much more to the eventual outcome than any others. And those two plays can and will be corrected in the future. Even if we play horrible football...we played right there with the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I just want to point out that the tread title should really say: Two Plays Is All It Takes. Sorry for playing the grammar police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Benching one player and firing one coach is all it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 I just want to point out that the tread title should really say: Two Plays Is All It Takes. Sorry for playing the grammar police. No. No it shouldn't. It is called subject-verb agreement. If the subject is plural, the verb should also be plural. In this case, "plays" is the plural subject. "Is" is a singular verb, such as: One play is all it takes. "Are" is a plural verb, such as: Two plays are all it takes. Sorry to police the grammar police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 Benching one player and firing one coach is all it takes. I doubt that would be productive at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD.C RedskinsFan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Oooh, I know these kinds of threads. This is the type of thread where I like to read the first post and then not read anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 Oooh, I know these kinds of threads. This is the type of thread where I like to read the first post and then not read anything else. Why, pray tell, do you read the first post and then not read anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I doubt that would be productive at this point. We win far more games with Buges at HC and Collins as QB than dumb and dumber with those positions today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 We win far more games with Buges at HC and Collins as QB than dumb and dumber with those positions today. How so? What can Buges bring as HC? What precedent is there for such a claim? And I know TC worked a miracle a couple years ago. But that was a couple of years ago. He is a couple of years older. I don't know if that necessarily helps or hurts him in this situation, But I do not believe he is the savior he might once have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD.C RedskinsFan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Why, pray tell, do you read the first post and then not read anything else? Positive threads after a loss and negative threads after a win are scary and they have a way of drawing you in if you stick around for too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Campbell getting stripped not a recurring problem? I'm not sure about that. in 2007 it was. i don't suspect it will be this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CounterTrey Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 IF my aunt had balls she would be my uncle....IF is the biggest word with these Redskins and is muttered after each dissapointing loss. If we had only done this, or If only this person was coaching us. I'm tired at the IF's and the excuses and CP and Colley opening their mouths saying "We could blow anyone out" If we didn't do this or that. I still remember these two "hunting Rams" last year before we lost. I have a feeling either our coach can't get our team up to play or we just don't have any sense of responsibility on this team on either side of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisSplitLip Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 The problem with the OP's assessment of the game is that he appears to be looking through bias fanboy goggles. Sure there are plenty of 'what ifs' in any game. What if Jacobs gets a first down on 4th and 1? Tack another 3-to-7 points that were down and realistically should of been down. The fact is the defense was far from spectacular and the offense played their best when it didn't matter. As fans of football I think most of us can step back and look at this game and see that the score was probably closer than the game was. We never really had any rhythm on either side of the ball and the Giants did, it's as simple as that. With that said, the Giants had some poor play-calls on third and fourth and short especially considering that they had their way with us on third and longer than 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 How so?What can Buges bring as HC? What precedent is there for such a claim? And I know TC worked a miracle a couple years ago. But that was a couple of years ago. He is a couple of years older. I don't know if that necessarily helps or hurts him in this situation, But I do not believe he is the savior he might once have been. What was the "miracle"? Watching a Redskins team win games against strong competition and win by an average of over 14 points? JC is also 2 years older and he is no different. You lose all credibility when you diminish the accomplishments of other Redskins to make excuses for your man crush on a useless player. Evaluate Collins with the same deluded criteria you use to evaluate Campbell, then post. Until then, keep staring at his poster and dream of Pro Bowls, rainbows and unicorns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveWarrior Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 And the Redskins are a good team.They played well against a great team on Sunday. We lost on two plays. We were two plays away. Other than those two plays, or defense didn't give anything up and our offense moved the ball and scored points. That sounded so much like what Norv Turner said after every loss that I got a chill down my spine. He was always saying how the game was lost on one or two plays which he wished he could have had back. Turner had one playoff win to show for his seven years of losing games by one or two plays. Great teams can look at a game and point to several plays in a game where they did what it took to get the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 How so?What can Buges bring as HC? What precedent is there for such a claim? And I know TC worked a miracle a couple years ago. But that was a couple of years ago. He is a couple of years older. I don't know if that necessarily helps or hurts him in this situation, But I do not believe he is the savior he might once have been. Couple years older and no wear. Get off the age thing, do you realize Sonny played successfully until he was 40? Todd is 4-1 here Jason is 16-21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 What was the "miracle"? Watching a Redskins team win games against strong competition and win by an average of over 14 points?JC is also 2 years older and he is no different. You lose all credibility when you diminish the accomplishments of other Redskins to make excuses for your man crush on a useless player. Evaluate Collins with the same deluded criteria you use to evaluate Campbell, then post. Until then, keep staring at his poster and dream of Pro Bowls, rainbows and unicorns. I wasn't attacking you. I was asking legitimate questions. I was hoping to be educated, but instead you attempt to insult me? Weird. For the record: I am not and never have been a JC fanboy. I didn't have faith in him when he was on the bench, let alone when he started throwing passes. The whole of his career has inspired nothing but disgust and disappointment. I don't know how you concluded otherwise. I'm not saying JC is any better. I was just asking how after two years of inactivity, is Collins the better option? And how Buges qualifies as a good replacement for Zorn? Way to be presumptuous, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkypoo Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 Couple years older and no wear. Get off the age thing, do you realize Sonny played successfully until he was 40? Todd is 4-1 here Jason is 16-21 Yes, but can Todd be as successful in this system? I realize he did well during that stretch, But before that stretch he was not a winning QB. And Todd is nowhere near as tested or seasoned as Sonny. It is two different types of 40 year-old players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveWarrior Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Part of the problem, or most of the problem is playing not to lose and that's what the Redskins have done for years now. Campbell doesn't get a chance to learn like Favre did. He just gets to do what the coaches aren't afraid to run. Could be why he's playing like a rookie still in some ways. Like when he made the 2 big mistakes in NY. A guy like Roethlisberger would be allowed to tear the opponent up trying to make up for it. And he would make even more mistakes too in the process. Campbell isn't given this opportunity. If he had been given this opportunity from the beginning we'd have known 2-3 years ago if he is worth keeping around. Since he's treated like a rookie still though, he still hasn't proven one way or the other. He makes a mistake, its back to the conservative scared stuff. Well said, SkinsFTW. I've been reading tons of posts here and have been trying to come up with reasons why Campbell seems permanently stuck in rookie mode, but I think you summed it up very nicely. Thank you. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Calling legitimate wins against great competition and we blow them out a miracle. Yes, I am presumptuous that you are not deluded. The fact you start this thread makes you a Campbell fan boy. You might not be the highest bidder on his underwear on Ebay, but you aren't that far away either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Yes, but can Todd be as successful in this system?I realize he did well during that stretch, But before that stretch he was not a winning QB. And Todd is nowhere near as tested or seasoned as Sonny. It is two different types of 40 year-old players. Don't know until you give him a chance but I don't see how he could be worse. Biggest problem is demoting Jason because he will be toast mentally so that leaves you with no back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvtbred Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Part of the problem, or most of the problem is playing not to lose and that's what the Redskins have done for years now. Campbell doesn't get a chance to learn like Favre did. He just gets to do what the coaches aren't afraid to run. Could be why he's playing like a rookie still in some ways. Like when he made the 2 big mistakes in NY. A guy like Roethlisberger would be allowed to tear the opponent up trying to make up for it. And he would make even more mistakes too in the process. Campbell isn't given this opportunity. If he had been given this opportunity from the beginning we'd have known 2-3 years ago if he is worth keeping around. Since he's treated like a rookie still though, he still hasn't proven one way or the other. He makes a mistake, its back to the conservative scared stuff. With Gibbs he wasn't experienced enough to have the whole playbook and he couldn't handle a fraction of Saunders playbook and NOW he can't handle the little bit (although expanded) playbook Zorn has given him. Interesting isn't it and when was the last time you saw Ben or Brett throw a pick over the line of scrimmage or check down to a run on 3rd and 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpheusmeyers Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Yes, but can Todd be as successful in this system?I realize he did well during that stretch, But before that stretch he was not a winning QB. And Todd is nowhere near as tested or seasoned as Sonny. It is two different types of 40 year-old players. The offense looked markedly better from the point that TC entered that Bears game back in 07, and continued to look good in wins against the Vikings and Cowboys. TC struggled some in the win in NY, but I think the wind played a role in that game. Given how good he looked then, I would say that TC would be successful in this system, especially since he's had 2 years to learn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The offense looked markedly better from the point that TC entered that Bears game back in 07, and continued to look good in wins against the Vikings and Cowboys. TC struggled some in the win in NY, but I think the wind played a role in that game.Given how good he looked then, I would say that TC would be successful in this system, especially since he's had 2 years to learn it. Learning any system is getting the terminology, formations etc. memorized. However, reading a defense doesn't change significantly when you change your offensive system. There are nuances with audibles, hot routes etc., but the underlying skill of reading a defensive scheme at the line is for the most part the same. Todd showed he has that ability. Seriously, what is the harm in letting him play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.