From ESPN:

[Skeletor The Invincible]

Has this been missed?

From El Pasquarelli

Finding balance in Washington: In the first two games of the season, the Washington Redskins have had 72 pass plays and 65 rushing plays, a pretty balanced mix. Far more balanced than in 2002, when the club had 77 pass plays and 50 runs snaps in its first two outings, as coach Steve Spurrier tried to prove his Fun-'N'-Gun offense could succeed in the NFL. The Ol' Ball Coach deserves considerable credit for the metamorphosis this year but, from what we hear, not all the credit.

ESPN.com has learned that at halftime of last week's game in Atlanta, some Washington offensive linemen, notably left tackle Chris Samuels, went at the Redskins coaching staff (principally Spurrier and coordinator Hue Jackson) for the lopsided play-calling of the opening two quarters. And with good reason. In the first half, Washington had just 10 rushes and 29 pass plays. With the Atlanta defense all but ignoring the run, Redskins quarterback Patrick Ramsey was sacked five times, and the offense was far too predictable. At the behest of the players, the coaches changed the protection scheme for the second half and agreed to run the ball more. The Redskins had 21 run calls and just 16 passes in the second half. The result: Ramsey was brilliant, completing 13 of his 15 attempts for 186 yards, two touchdowns and no interceptions, and was sacked just one time. If the Redskins can maintain the kind of offensive balance demonstrated in the second half of the comeback victory at Atlanta, it will accelerate the learning curve for their young quarterback.

But the staff has to be wary about falling into the kind of trap it did last week. Even before the game, Washington veterans were concerned about the game plan, because it put so many receivers into the pattern and left just skeleton pass protection. The aim was to take advantage of a suspect Atlanta secondary, one that was playing without both starting safeties, and in which the corners are dubious. It's ironic that the Redskins bombed the Falcons secondary more in the second half, when they mixed in the run, and kept the Atlanta defense more honest. Of some concern is that Ramsey already has been sacked 10 times in two games. There are times when Samuels has looked bad and the Washington line has appeared confused. But the coaches, ESPN.com learned, have attributed many of the sacks to Ramsey. Of the five sacks surrendered in the first half last week, only one was counted against the line. It seemed Ramsey too often tried to check off in a noisy Georgia Dome and his blockers didn't often hear the audibles. Twice the Washington running backs missed checkoffs that called for them to abandon their pass patterns and stay in the backfield as blockers. "Part of the learning process for a young quarterback," allowed one coach. "Patrick will get better at that stuff. At least he's taking the sack as opposed to panicking and throwing interceptions. If there's anything good about the sacks, and this is a stretch, it's that he keeps getting up, and our players are finding out he's a damned tough kid."

Link

[Om]

Hmm. So Samuels & Co. "went after" the coaches at the half, huh? This kind of reporting drives me nucking futs. No quotes, no independent verification ... nothing. No way to confirm, no way to deny.

Just gotta take 'ol Lenny at his word.

If he's "right" ... we've possibly got a situation on our hands, with enough obvious concerning angles to look at that we could spend a day or two writing about here ad-frickin'-nauseum. Of course, if he's just making **** up, or, more likely, exaggerating the hell out of some rumor he might have got wind of regarding raised voices in the heat of a locker room ... then, as Art has said before ... Lenny's just fat.

I know, maybe ASF can clear it up for us.

Gonna just file this one away for future reference. Anything beyond that just lends credence to shoddy and sensationalized "reporting."

[TK]

Originally posted by Skeletor The Invincible

Has this been missed?

From El Pasquarelli

The Redskins had 21 run calls and just 16 passes in the second half. The result: Ramsey was brilliant, completing 13 of his 15 attempts for 186 yards,

Nice math:rotflmao: :gaintsuck

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Om

Hmm. So Samuels & Co. "went after" the coaches at the half, huh? This kind of reporting drives me nucking futs. No quotes, no independent verification ... nothing. No way to confirm, no way to deny.

Just gotta take 'ol Lenny at his word.

If he's "right" ... we've possibly got a situation on our hands, with enough obvious concerning angles to look at that we could spend a day or two writing about here ad-frickin'-nauseum. Of course, if he's just making **** up, or, more likely, exaggerating the hell out of some rumor he might have got wind of regarding raised voices in the heat of a locker room ... then, as Art has said before ... Lenny's just fat.

I know, maybe ASF can clear it up for us.

Gonna just file this one away for future reference. Anything beyond that just lends credence to shoddy and sensationalized "reporting."

Om, love Lenny or hate him, it's very clear that he's well wired to the Redskins within the past year. At minimum he's been fed stories by Cerrato, and it's clear he's talked to Snyder at times.

I don't know who fed Lenny this story, but Lenny is so well wired that he's in an excellent position to disprove false leads -- check with Cerrato to find out if this actually happened, etc.

As to the meat of the story, there seems to be a misconception about my view of pass protection. People think this is a black-and-white dispute about whether or not the OL is giving up too many sacks. When they think it's on the RBs, they say "ah-ha! there's no problem with the OL or with Helton's and Spurrier's schemes and gameplanning."

Obviously I'm on record in believing that Helton is a poor coach and a poor judge of talent. He hasn't developed a single player in 18 months, and top players like Samuels and Jansen show signs of regressing. But it goes beyond this to the overall pass-protection scheme (a primary responsibility of Helton) and to game-planning (Spurrier).

Regarding the scheme, good OL systems seem to be able to adjust to the blitz and stunts by rotating responsibilities before and after the snap. Our five OL players seem locked into a particular assignment that doesn't change regardless of what the defense is doing, which can leave two OL players blocking no one while two blitzers are converging on Ramsey and a single RB. There seems to be a crude simplicity about the Redskin pass-protection scheme that is easily defeated by attacking defenses.

Regarding game-planning, Spurrier almost lost the Falcons game by going to deep drops and allowing Ramsey to audible when the Georgia Dome was at its loudest. He's now putting the audibles on Ramsey, but I still say that's bad coaching: Ramsey should have been clear that he was not allowed to audible when the crowd was so loud. (I'd like to dramatically cut down on the audibles overall, regardless of crowd noise. NFL defenses are so smart that they seem to be tricking us into the audibles they want, and our offense also seems confused too often by the audibles.)

As to the deep drops, I sensed an arrogance in Spurrier's playcalling, a lack of recognition that what was needed first was to neutralize the Falcon rush through quick runs and quick passes, even if such an attack was less dramatic on a play by play basis.

[Om]

Jesus, ASF, you're so damn sincere ... and so unbelievably full of yourself. I should know the syndrome, by the way ... I'm something of a poster child myself. Difference is, unlike you, I don't pretend to know more about the inner workings of an NFL team -- not to mention the psyche of its' participants (you "sense an arrogance" in the playcalling? Gimme a break, man) -- like you do.

But, since I did open the door by teasing you, and you just HAD to jump in with both feet again and dazzle us with your inside knowledge and superior insight, I guess I owe you a response.

See, I think you have no idea how "wired" Len Pasquerelli is. I think you just assume. As usual. If I'm wrong, prove it. Tell me who's whispering in your ear and feeding you inside information.

And I think you have no idea whatsoever to what extent Kim Helton is or is not responsible for either the successes or failures of the offensive line, or of any individual playing on it; nor do I think you have any appreciable insight into what extent that units performance in any given game, or over any length of time, are attributable specifically to the LINE, as opposed to some combination of line play with QB play, RB play, defensive play, or simply the vagaries of play-by-play action in the NFL.

I think you just watch the games on TV like the rest of us, read what the press has to say about it, cogitate a bit ... and decide you have it all figured out. If I'm wrong, hermano, and you ARE watching game film with the coaches (or even on your own), and/or DO have someone on the inside whispering in your ear, then I apologize profusely and sit intently and eagerly at your knee, awaiting further insight. Otherwise, I think you're just blowing smoke up our collective arses, and smiling and telling us what province of Cuba it was grown in.

Truth is, I don't think you have any more idea of what goes into the game-planning and playcalling on an NFL level than any other serious fan here. But I don't think you're aware of that. You say you "sense an arrogance in Spurrier's playcalling?" Fair enough. I sense an arrogance in your constant pronoucements and assumptions - in everything from Helton to Spurrier to SUV's to -- well ... maybe let's just leave it at football for now.

I may be arrogant to call you out, ASF, but dammit, man, I know what I don't know.

Can you say the same?

*

By the way ... if SS "almost lost the Falcons game" with his playcalling early, does he then also get credit for "winning it" with his adjustments? Or maybe it was Helton that did it. Maybe we should ask Lenny.

[Utah]

Since he still gets mixed up as to who is responsible for what OM, does it really surprise you?

[bubba9497]

Football is a TEAM sport. It says something when the coaches listen to their players, instead of being stubborn.

[JimboDaMan]

"Nucking futs", Om? Is that a Dickie Roberts reference? :laugh:

Here's something I don't understand:

It seemed Ramsey too often tried to check off in a noisy Georgia Dome and his blockers didn't often hear the audibles. Twice the Washington running backs missed checkoffs that called for them to abandon their pass patterns and stay in the backfield as blockers. "Part of the learning process for a young quarterback," allowed one coach.

Not sure I follow the logic here that this becomes Ramsey's fault. Sure, maybe an audible is close to or actually impossible under those conditions. But how can he be blamed for the sack by calling an audible to increase his pass protection? Doesn't the real blame lie in the guy, presumably Spurrier, who called the original play? How can Patrick be wrong by recognizing the blitz and taking corrective action? That's what he's supposed to do.The only other possible actions are to call a TO, throw the ball away, or say a prayer and run the play as called - all of which are less desirable options, at least until the audible is proven unworkable.

[Om]

Dickie Roberts? Nah, I hate David Spade.

Not quite sure where I first heard it, Jimbo. Just found it kind of rolls off the fingertips ...

[Om]

As to the audibles in question, my understanding is that on both sack-fumbles, Patrick tried to audible out of comparatively quick-hitting plays into a longer developing hitch-and-go play (both times), and the backs weren't able to get the call and change their protections.

Hey ... maybe it's on Spurrier for not having instilled in Patrick enough savvy to know better at this point in his career; or maybe it's on Patrick for not realizing the dangers inherent in that change at that juncture; or maybe it's on the backs for simply not being tuned in enough and missing the calls, or maybe they just missed their blocks; or maybe Lenny Moore should have known to change the OL protection to cover for the backs, knowing how loud it was and that they might miss the call, making it Kim Helton's fault.

OR ... maybe the Falcons just took advantage of a bad play by the Skins offense under the circumstances, and earned their damned money on those two snaps.

It's hard to say.

[Spear]

Our offense was just clicking in the second half and it had nothing to do with balance. We did nothing but run 3-and-out during the last 10 minutes, so the stats are skewed.

[jimster]

I saw Samuels get beat on a couple of those sacks and he jumped offsides a couple of times to boot - he needs to take it on himself to do better

...I think the amount of times we audible is a little much - we need to start doing fake audibles the majority of time to throw off the defenses

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Om

By the way ... if SS "almost lost the Falcons game" with his playcalling early, does he then also get credit for "winning it" with his adjustments?

The Falcons game was a gimme before the first whistle. I posted prior to the game how easy it would be for the Skins because of the matchups on both sides of the ball, *assuming* Spurrier did the smart and obvious thing: neutralize the crowd and the blitzing 3-4 by deploying a quick-hitting, simplified offense early that relied on quick runs and quick passes off three-step drops. I also explicitly warned against audibles and long drops in the Georgia Dome facing the blitzing Falcon 3-4.

So I'm glad Spurrier eventually adjusted and did the obvious thing to take advantage of the matchups favoring the Skins and to neutralize the potential Falcons advantages. But as this article indicates, I wasn't the only one upset with the gameplan: the players were as well. And the gameplan I suggested prior to the game was the same strategy that allowed the Skins to transform a 17-point deficit into a 9-point lead.

But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. Thanks for the free character checkup, Om -- worth every penny.

[Mad Mike]

Truth is, I don't think you have any more idea of what goes into the game-planning and playcalling on an NFL level than any other serious fan here. But I don't think you're aware of that. You say you "sense an arrogance in Spurrier's playcalling?" Fair enough. I sense an arrogance in your constant pronoucements and assumptions - in everything from Helton to Spurrier to SUV's to -- well ... maybe let's just leave it at football for now.

Om. I could not have said it better myself. But I'll try anyway.

ASF from your various posts on a variety of subjects, from your "insite" into the Redskins organization, to your conspiracy theorys, I can only conclude that you are a victim of your over-active imagination.

As a creative person I respect a wonderful imagination such as yours. Where I lose respect is your insistence that the fruit of your imagination be given credence.

Perhaps if you would simply preface your theorys with something to the effect of... "I'm just thinking out loud here but maybe..." I would be more inclined to ponder your theorys for what they are; the imaginative musings of somone no more or less qualified than the next person to speak about the subject at hand.

Now I realize that what I am saying may sound harsh but my only intent is to provide you with a bit of advice. Think about what we are saying here. Do you really possess factual information that would give you greater insite on a given subject? Or are you theorizing and presenting the results as fact?

[Om]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

The Falcons game was a gimme before the first whistle. I posted prior to the game how easy it would be for the Skins because of the matchups on both sides of the ball, *assuming* Spurrier did the smart and obvious thing: neutralize the crowd and the blitzing 3-4 by deploying a quick-hitting, simplified offense early that relied on quick runs and quick passes off three-step drops. I also explicitly warned against audibles and long drops in the Georgia Dome facing the blitzing Falcon 3-4.

So I'm glad Spurrier eventually adjusted and did the obvious thing to take advantage of the matchups favoring the Skins and to neutralize the potential Falcons advantages. But as this article indicates, I wasn't the only one upset with the gameplan: the players were as well. And the gameplan I suggested prior to the game was the same strategy that allowed the Skins to transform a 17-point deficit into a 9-point lead.

But I guess I don't know what I'm talking about. Thanks for the free character checkup, Om -- worth every penny.

You make this too easy, my friend. You choose to answer a critique of your "if only the poor blind lost souls knew what I know" style with perhaps the most drippingly masturbatory self-congratulation of a post I've seen since ... well ... a long time.

Let's see ... if I recall, the general thrust of your pre-game analysis was to attack an aggresive, blitzing defense with draws and quick passes. DAMN ... I wish we had thought of that. And GEEZ dontcha just with the REDSKINS had thought of it?

Ah .. well, hey, at least they came around to your way of thinking in time to salvage the game, right? I'm thinking Lenny probably rushed into the lockerroom with a printout of your "guarantee that we'd blow them out if they follow my unique blueprint" post.

If only he'd gotten it there sooner ... maybe it wouldn't have been so very difficult. I just wish I had been there when SS read your post, and his eyes began to gleam, and the hair stood up on the back of his neck, and he slapped himself on the effing forehead and cried, "EUREKA! Why didn't I think of that!?"

*

Well hey ... at least I get to pat myself on the back now, too. I suggested 7 posts ago that you'd not really have any idea what I'm talking about.

[NVskinsfan]

This whole line of thought gets a DUH!

Thats what football is all about;.... adjustments!

[Utah]

ASF, I would pay good money to see you put your money where your mouth is (or fingers are in this case.)

I will put this out though in order to help you out. Explain how a gameplan is put together, who impliments what and how it is practiced during the week and then what are the adjustments you would make based on how the other team reacts. You can guess on what a team will do.

If your able to put those on the board in a sensible way that even PCS would understand ( ), then I bet you wouldn't be called out all the time.

I, however, won't be able to judge what you put on the board because my coaching ablity isn't on the same level as to what your talking about, but I know there are people here on the board who watch alot of football who can be fair judges.

I think if you do that, you will add alot of weight to your statements about the Skins.

[Yomar]

Vinny Cerrato has been quoted an inordinate number of times in Lenny P's articles over the last few months, or at least its seemed that way to me

[Woofer]

Originally posted by bubba9497

Football is a TEAM sport. It says something when the coaches listen to their players, instead of being stubborn.

I agree. If Spurrier did listen to his players, it shows that he is willing to learn and take suggestions.

But, who's to say that Jansen made a suggestion that Spurrier was already thinking?

[JoeSkins]

Originally posted by Mooflocker

Originally posted by Skeletor The Invincible

Has this been missed?

From El Pasquarelli

The Redskins had 21 run calls and just 16 passes in the second half. The result: Ramsey was brilliant, completing 13 of his 15 attempts for 186 yards,

Nice math:rotflmao: :gaintsuck

15 pass attempts and 1 sack equals sixteen passing plays.

[GSF]

No way of knowing if what Fatso says is true about the players going after SOS at halftime or not since he provides no quotes or factual evidence. Sure feels like a BS story though. We ran a bunch of running plays at the end of the game trying to get out of there so the pass/run stats are a little misleading. I'm not privy to any inside info, but I sat right behind the Skins bench, and I can tell you that Samuals and Fiore were really blowing it in the first half. They were coming off the field after just about every possesion in the first half pointing at themselves and shaking their heads. I guess you could indirectly blame Helton, but I think more likely they just botched a bunch of plays. Some of the sacks may have been the rbs' or Ramsey's fault, but the protection just wasn't there until later in the second quarter. They settled down though, and the protection was there in the second half, and that was the difference in the game from the first to second half. I do agree with ASF though that there was a problem with the audibling. There was a lot of confusion with most of the audibled plays b/c of the noise. There were a few audibles were more than 1 guy didn't know what was going on.

[kaffeen]

Pontificus Vulgaris

Common Name, ASF

Taxonomy - First described by Om (2003), ASF was first given the Nomus Nudem name of Nucking Futs, however, subsequently, Kaffeen (2003) designated the species Pontificus Vulgaris. The genus name, Pontificus, derived from the French pontif and Latin pontifex, means one that resembles (at least to himself) a pope (in authority), and the epithet, Vulgaris, meaning coarse, gross, and pretentious.

Common Names (Other) - Idiot, Nucking Futs, Pretentious ****, PV (sounds similar to VD), and other like slang are English language common names.

Geographical Distribution - The Pontificus Vulgaris is commonly found throughout the world's Internet. It is a wide-ranging species that is at home both in the most open and accessible regions of the Internet as well as the most private and highly inaccessible regions of the Internet. Reports of individuals have been reported in the real world; however, they are probably the result of roaming Pontificus Vulgaris searching for the next Internet Café or high speed Internet connection.

Habitat - The Pontificus Vulgaris has a notable tolerance for many different types of habitat, but generally prefer the anonymity and relative protection of the Internet. It is well known that they move about the Internet in a seasonal manner, most notably during football season, and are capable of traveling long distances in a short amount of time due to a high speed Internet connection.

Biology - Due to their habitat, this is usually unknown, however it is generally accepted that they are entities capable of chameleon like ability and can duplicate themselves many times over with different pseudonyms, temperament, and identity.

Pontificus Vulgaris are usually solitary hunters that feed primarily at night. They are most easy to recognize by the phantom sensory perception that one can smell bullsh*t in the near vicinity.