Rpredskins Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I don't buy that part in red...I think Mike and Kyle can come up with ways to have Gaffney and Armstrong (or Stallworth or Austin, whoever ends up #3) to have success against Rogers-Cromartie and Samuel. Can they make plays against those corners? Sure. Moss might be able to make a play or two against Asomugha too but over the course of 30-40 pass attempts their guys are going to come out ahead on most of them. Given who they are and who our guys are, I would have to say we are pretty much neutralized. Pretty much every team will be, even Green Bay, Indy, NE, New Orleans, which is the whole point of having those 3 guys. But when you take one off the field and look at their run defense and non-CBs they are not really impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Can they make plays against those corners? Sure. Moss might be able to make a play or two against Asomugha too but over the course of 30-40 pass attempts their guys are going to come out ahead on most of them. Given who they are and who our guys are, I would have to say we are pretty much neutralized. Pretty much every team will be, even Green Bay, Indy, NE, New Orleans, which is the whole point of having those 3 guys. But when you take one off the field and look at their run defense and non-CBs they are not really impressive. Let's say we have 30 pass attempts against the Eagles...if 10 of those attempts are completed to our top 3 WRs then I can't call that "absolutely neutralized". 5 catches, 70 yards and a TD is indeed possible against either Samuel or Cromartie...that's not being neutralized. And if our running game in up to speed it's gonna help wear down their corners because the DBs are gonna be making more tackles than they should be, along with they will have to constantly be looking for a running play...which could give our WRs that extra half-second needed to get open and make a reception. If it were just 7 people on the field--Grossman or Beck and our top 3 WRs going up against their top 3 DBs--then I'd be more worried. But there are a multitude of ways of neutralizing any team's defensive strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rpredskins Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Let's say we have 30 pass attempts against the Eagles...if 10 of those attempts are completed to our top 3 WRs then I can't call that "absolutely neutralized". 5 catches, 70 yards and a TD is indeed possible against either Samuel or Cromartie...that's not being neutralized. And if our running game in up to speed it's gonna help wear down their corners because the DBs are gonna be making more tackles than they should be, along with they will have to constantly be looking for a running play...which could give our WRs that extra half-second needed to get open and make a reception.If it were just 7 people on the field--Grossman or Beck and our top 3 WRs going up against their top 3 DBs--then I'd be more worried. But there are a multitude of ways of neutralizing any team's defensive strength. Looking at last year's games against the Eagles, Moss was held to 0 catches in the first game and 3 in the second. Overall McNabb was 25 for 50. That was pre-Asomugha. Here are the key stats from those games: Fred Davis 71 yd catch. Cooley 31 yd catch. AA 76 yd and 51 yd catches. Mike Sellers 27 yd catch. Keiland Williams in game two 5 receptions (led team). We didn't get consistent WR production against them especially from Moss, and now they have upgraded so we should expect even less. The trend last year was TE and RB receptions and catching them with deep balls to TEs and AA. I can't tell you exactly what happened on those long TDs but I can tell you anecdotally from watching the Eagles last year and the fact that long receptions usually involve safeties that the Eagles suspect safeties are the guys we should be looking to beat when we aren't rushing or doing screen plays. I think what you are missing is that after our top 3 WRs, its not like we have Stallworth and Hankerson (or whoever) against defensive linemen. Of course they have a huge dropoff in talent after Asante but whoever they have against our guys is probably as good or better than the receiver he is covering. Not to mention the fact that the more guys you yank out of pass protection, there are diminishing returns of receiving threat and increasing returns of blitzing threat. In other words if you go from 1 blocking TE and 4 WRs to 5 WRs, the advantage you gain from having one extra receiever spreading the field nets you less than the advantage of having an extra blocker. Which is why you only use 5 WR if you know you can get a mismatch, which we cannot do against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I remember a year where we had Darrell Green, Deion Sanders, and Champ Bailey all in the same Redskin secondary. That's three probable HOFers with two already in. QBs could still pass. You're over worrying the thing. The Eagles' corners are still human, still flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheREALJBird Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 For as good as those Eagles corners are, they still have a terrible LB corps. They certainly have their weaknesses and I'm confident Kyle can find ways to make the offense click against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 For as good as those Eagles corners are, they still have a terrible LB corps. They certainly have their weaknesses and I'm confident Kyle can find ways to make the offense click against them. Probably the fabled 2 TE attack which we've heard so much about but rarely seen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Well, Mike has confirmed today that he does not class Banks as a WR. He is our outright KR/PR for the season and is deemed a special teamer. So, that makes it only 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctorfro Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 For a change, we have a WR controversy. Good problem to have. I just hate having a "project" in Hankerson. Like having guys that can play....NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brasi Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 For a change, we have a WR controversy. Good problem to have. I just hate having a "project" in Hankerson. Like having guys that can play....NOW! Yeh, he's wasting a roster spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Yeh, he's wasting a roster spot. I'd rather have him waste one on our roster than on someone else's (because if he went to the practice squad he would get snatched in a heartbeat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.