isle-hawg Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I just hope we actually utilize both of these guys next year in 2 TE sets. I would like that to be our base formation next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Random observation: Vinny's 2008 draft is coming on strong. And, in that draft Fred Davis was the controversial pick, the pick that was certainly based on the theory of drafting the BPA rather than need. So, Fred's emergence as a player is doing a lot for Vinny's reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Random observation: Vinny's 2008 draft is coming on strong. And, in that draft Fred Davis was the controversial pick, the pick that was certainly based on the theory of drafting the BPA rather than need. So, Fred's emergence as a player is doing a lot for Vinny's reputation. Incorrect. Davis was a need pick, per Zorn's wishes. This was not a BPA pick and actually validates the fact that BPA will shoot you in the foot. This wasn't a Vincenzo pick at so there is no validation at all. Back to the OP: Davis is right, this sucks. Playing conservative in the redzone has cost this team the last 3 games. This is purely on Zorn's head, as he installs and calls the 3rd down and red zone offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
“Misdirection” Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 To bad our WRs are as effective as our TEs.I think if we can get our O-line fixed, you could make an strong argument that this team is trying to be something it is not. Better yet, we have no identity as a team. This was brought up in another post, but I truly believe this is the issue with this team. Are we going to be a smashmouth team first, but keep you honest with a reliable mid-range passing game OR are we a pass first team that can damage you occassionally with the run? I think we SHOULD be a pass first team with the receiving options we now have, and the instability at at runningback we are experiencing. Therefore we are going to do the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Incorrect.Davis was a need pick, per Zorn's wishes. This was not a BPA pick and actually validates the fact that BPA will shoot you in the foot. This wasn't a Vincenzo pick at so there is no validation at all. Back to the OP: Davis is right, this sucks. Playing conservative in the redzone has cost this team the last 3 games. This is purely on Zorn's head, as he installs and calls the 3rd down and red zone offense. Whoa whoa what? "Need pick"? I don't care whose wishes they were. We had two tight ends on the roster in Cooley and Yoder. "Need" has nothing to do with us drafting Davis. It ends up being a good move if we can trade Cooley for a 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePreciating Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And as far as "conservative in the red zone," that's BS. The field goal was absolutely the right decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Whoa whoa what? "Need pick"? I don't care whose wishes they were. We had two tight ends on the roster in Cooley and Yoder. "Need" has nothing to do with us drafting Davis.It ends up being a good move if we can trade Cooley for a 2nd. Zorn wanted it, it was a "need" pick. You can spin it any way you want, Zorn pushed for it enough that the FO bent to his wishes. And by your logic Thomas and Kelly weren't need picks either, cos we had Moss and ARE on the roster, right? And you can only possibly trade Cooley if there is no CBA, as his contract would have serious cap ramifications if we did that with a cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And as far as "conservative in the red zone," that's BS. The field goal was absolutely the right decision. 3 running plays in a row wasn't. That's what they mean by "conservative in the red zone". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 3 running plays in a row wasn't. That's what they mean by "conservative in the red zone". Sherman Smith said that those plays should have scored us a touchdown if they were executed correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I would like that to be our base formation next year. We don't necessarily need to use the two TE formation, but Cooley and Davis on the field together in a base scheme is a no-brainer, IMO. Two move-the-chains, yards after catch guys who can also run block -- an OC who can't use that should lose his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Sherman Smith said that those plays should have scored us a touchdown if they were executed correctly. That and 5 dollars will get you a small cup of coffee at Starshmucks. This is Smith (who has zero point zero % to do with the offense) sticking up for Zorn. You have 3 - 6'3"+ receivers in Kelly, Mitchell and Davis that can be used in the redzone yet you rely on the O-line, the single greatest weakness of the team to make a hole and get a 2nd or 3rd string RB in the end zone? Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Incorrect.Davis was a need pick, per Zorn's wishes. This was not a BPA pick and actually validates the fact that BPA will shoot you in the foot. This wasn't a Vincenzo pick at so there is no validation at all. At the time, Vinny said Davis was the BPA. I'm sure I recall the post-draft presser. He said Davis had a 1st Round grade on the 'skins draft board & when we came to select his name was 'still up there', far above anyone else. Maybe my memory is letting me down, tho :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 At the time' date=' Vinny said Davis was the BPA. I'm sure I recall the post-draft presser. He said Davis had a 1st Round grade on the 'skins draft board & when we came to select his name was 'still up there', far above anyone else. Maybe my memory is letting me down, tho :whoknows:[/quote'] Vinny was correct in saying that Davis was rated as a 1st round pick, and was responding to people being incredulous about the team taking another TE when Cooley just had a great year. Zorn later came out and said that this was his selection and that he lobbied hard for Davis because he wanted a 2nd pass catching TE to run the offense with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Vinny was correct in saying that Davis was rated as a 1st round pick, and was responding to people being incredulous about the team taking another TE when Cooley just had a great year.Zorn later came out and said that this was his selection and that he lobbied hard for Davis because he wanted a 2nd pass catching TE to run the offense with. Fair enough, I just recalled that quote from Vinny, for some reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 You have 3 - 6'3"+ receivers in Kelly, Mitchell and Davis that can be used in the redzone yet you rely on the O-line, the single greatest weakness of the team to make a hole and get a 2nd or 3rd string RB in the end zone? The three point field goal ices the game. There's about a 95% chance of making it. You don't need seven points, so it would be foolish to take the risk involved with putting the ball in the air. Higher risk, negligible reward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 The three point field goal ices the game. There's about a 95% chance of making it. You don't need seven points, so it would be foolish to take the risk involved with putting the ball in the air. Higher risk, negligible reward. You are missing the point. I have no issue with kicking the ball on 4th down. I am furious that we wasted 3 opportunities to get into the endzone by running a 2nd/3rd string RB into the teeth of their defense in order not to blow it for a kick. That shows lack of confidence in the offense and a willingness to not play to win but rather play it safe. It was the offensive version of a bad prevent defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 You are missing the point. I have no issue with kicking the ball on 4th down. I am furious that we wasted 3 opportunities to get into the endzone by running a 2nd/3rd string RB into the teeth of their defense in order not to blow it for a kick.That shows lack of confidence in the offense and a willingness to not play to win but rather play it safe. It was the offensive version of a bad prevent defense. No, I didn't miss your point. We just disagree. I play to win the game by minimizing the risk of a turnover and taking the chip shot FG. "Playing to win" doesn't entail taking foolish risks, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 We were supposed to score there huh. Running wide with the Rock? Maybe if we didnt show heavy jumbo three plays in a row it would have been a little easier to run it up the gut. I think you go 3 or 4 wide on that 3rd down, look for a blown coverage, if nothing is there, QB sneak/draw. The risk of a RB fumbling is close to the risk of Jason throwing an INT. We are afraid to pass when push comes to shove, we never finish off opponents, we all know it. We play it safe, we almost seem afraid to call timeouts near the ends of half when we can get the ball back. We always waste at least 10 seconds before we call that timeout. The past paranoia has us up in arms about the FG. But the FG was a respectable plan there, but we should have centered the ball if that was our goal. Why run wide and make him kick from the wide hash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkFan8 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Sherman Smith said that those plays should have scored us a touchdown if they were executed correctly.Find me a single coach that wouldn't say that about every play they draw up...We've been super conservative this year in the redzone many, many times, despite the fact that our QB has very good redzone stats. Not saying it wasn't the right decision at that point in the game, but if we want to win (and win consistently) then we need to develop some killer instinct. I'm glad Fred seems to have that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braxford Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I am very pleased about the performance of the young Skins on offense. Defeats like this are always bad but hopefully they will take in the feeling and use it to make them stronger and play even harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21forlyfe Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Sherman Smith said that those plays should have scored us a touchdown if they were executed correctly. WOW,this is the first time I have ever heard a Redskins coach say somthing like that:silly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21forlyfe Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 And as far as "conservative in the red zone," that's BS. The field goal was absolutely the right decision. I see you like to lose:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 ...We've been super conservative this year in the redzone... Conservative? Jim Zorn has been as aggressive as Belichick in going for it on fourth downs in the RZ this season. Conservative coaches would be settling for more FGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paredskinsfan Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Fred Davis is showing he has talent when given the opportunity this season, that being said, the notion that we should just trade Cooley is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 That and 5 dollars will get you a small cup of coffee at Starshmucks. This is Smith (who has zero point zero % to do with the offense) sticking up for Zorn. Last I checked, he calls the running plays, so you are wrong. You have 3 - 6'3"+ receivers in Kelly, Mitchell and Davis that can be used in the redzone yet you rely on the O-line, the single greatest weakness of the team to make a hole and get a 2nd or 3rd string RB in the end zone?Please. If we did that and the Saints had time to score twice (not unrealistic), we'd be complaining about the fact that our staff didn't eat some clock. Really, the game plan against an offense like the Saints should be to keep the ball out of their hands as much as possible. Course, if we make the field goal, all of this arguing is moot because we won the game. In that situation, you expect that your kicker is going to make the kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.