A win is nice, but, this is time to buckle down.

[Art]

I'm happy as hell we won. Excited we showed enough fight and heart to hang in there, overcome, and ultimately take the victory. This morning actually, I was thinking back on that Tennessee game and wondering why we didn't run that trick play ever again. I was thrilled to see it.

But, this game leaves me very concerned.

Watching this game, something struck me. EVERYTHING the Seahawks did offensively was easy. They had easy runs. Easy passes. They did this while really never being able to consistently challenge on the outside against Bailey and especially Smoot. Before I continue, I'll say now what I've thought was possible before the year began. Fred Smoot may or may not be a better corner than Bailey. What is unquestionably certain is that he's more of an impact on a game than Bailey. Game after game teams challenge Bailey. Even when Smoot was out, Bailey still had more balls at him than Bauman did because of how we rolled coverage.

When Smoot's in there, team's just don't test him much. Two or three times a game to teams even bother going his way. The reason is they watch the film and realize Smoot is in position to make plays if the pass is dropped or slightly off. Bailey is almost NEVER so. He's always in the trail position and he has absolutely no ball awareness so teams can go at him pretty safely.

Now, with that done, let me continue .

The Seahawks had things easy. Everything we did was hard. Every rush hard was pretty hard fought. Where Alexander would have eight yards before being touched, the Rock would be hit at the line of scrimmage and have to fight through. Ramsey's successful passes weren't to open guys mismatched against weaker players, as we saw with the Seahawks. We went to our top receivers against their top corners and had to make remarkably accurate throws and very tough catches.

We won the game and that's great. But you don't often win when every yard you muster is hard and every one they get is pretty damn easy. The most disturbing part of the victory was that there was so little pressure on Ramsey. While that's a great sign, the fact is, the Seahawks and Rhodes were EXTREMELY arrogant. Norv-like belief in a system is great. But, sheesh, I'd fire Rhodes tomorrow for not blitzing more. He's seen what a blitz does to our running backs especially. And for him to arrogantly just line up and play pretty basic coverages all game is just idiotic.

We won because they were stupid. That's great. But, not everyone's so dumb.

We have seen clear improvement in recent weeks with taking fewer false start penalties and fewer holds along the offensive line. The line is blocking pretty well against their men as well. So while it's nice to go through a game with this type of performance, it doesn't really tell us anything because the Seahawks didn't really challenge us where we are weak.

I'm not sure the Panthers will either given the strength of their line. But that's for later in the week.

I'm generally very upbeat about the Redskins and perhaps if this win was in week two or three I'd be much more excited about it. We scored 27 points and left a lot on the field. That's good. At 4-5 you have hope for some sort of short term run that could really boost the team. It's just that the way we played today won't get it done.

The way we played today can spark better play. But, we've played this way this year and it hasn't so far. So, I take a cautionary approach into the next game and perhaps next few. That fourth down play was gutsy. That play alone could turn out to be the real turning point for this Redskins team. That's the kind of play that inspires players. It communicates with them. It tells them that despite ALL the nonsense, you trust them. And when they succeed they talk about wanting to do nice things for the coaches.

It is the type of play call that can bring a team together on a nice short-term run and that play gets me very excited about the next game because it's the type of emotional play that changes season's. Will it be that for us? I don't know. I just know it's good to get a win. And I'm glad the Seahawks decided not to do the things that have worked agianst us to help us get there.

It's just what this team needed to start believing again. And with belief comes possibilities that aren't totally lost to us.

[Stone Cold]

the problem with our d is two very basic things...tackling and pass rush. i disagree with your view of champ. while he does give up what appear to be easy catches, he's always in position to make a tackle after the catch and a play on the ball...this after 4-5 seconds have elapsed in the pocket for the opposing qb. the problem with champ is his faults are always going to be magnified. he's paid to cover the other team's best wr. other than "it's not a toomer" he's faired very well. contain the other team's best wr.

what i think we're all starting to realize, is that smoot plays a much more vital role in our d than previously thought. playing the 2nd wr gives him a little more room to gamble and make plays. champ doesn't really have this oppurtunity. i'll take champ cancelling out against their best wr anytime.

our dl continues to make things easy for opposing team's o. absolutely no pressure up the middle. this is vital in disrupting what a team wants to do offensively. one of our main weeknesses in years past if you will...our rotation of guards was comical.

russell hopefully will continue to progress in his game shape and make a difference...he's been effective in his limited time thus far.

to call out champ because he's "not making plays" i think is rediculous. worthy of money he's expecting...certainly not, but capable of canceling out opposing team's best wr. i'll take that and a double on "it's not a toomer" anytime

[Skeletor The Invincible]

To move away from what you said, but I need someplace to say this: I see yet another 8-8 season ahead of us. It's almost written on the wall.

We've been very mediocre for a very long time now. And It's very distressing.

[Art]

SC,

Bailey is capable of removing the opposition's best receiver from much consideration. He's not been to that point though since early in the year and he's had a few bad games. He was atrocious against Buffalo as an example, and he was horrible against Tampa as well. Today he was fine. He just seems to be utterly incapable of being a playmaker. He's a great player, there's no doubt about it. But, he's just not a playmaker and teams aren't afraid to throw his way.

He's had almost three times the number of balls thrown at him as compared to Smoot this year. It's not just because he's on the team's best receiver because, in case you hadn't noticed, we aren't doing any flopping anymore at the corner. We stopped that a few weeks ago after the Giants game. Smoot and Bailey are now playing sides for the most part and Smoot often is in coverage against the best receiver.

[Stone Cold]

saw that today when smoot made a play on a ball thrown to koren. i do agree with your assessment that champ does not make plays. what he does do...and excels at for the most part is controlling the other team's best wr. i'd take my chances with champ over any other corner in the league now. champ's not going to give up too many big plays. he'll bite on the double move every now and then, but he (stealing from old school dan patrick here) doesn't stop the 1 wr, but contains them.

as a whole on d, we've been missing a gamechanger/playmaker for some time now. lavar could be that, but until he learns some control and doesn't run himself out of too many plays, will not be consistent enough. champ's got his hands full every sunday. covering wrs for 4-5 seconds is no easy task and for the most part, the other teams 1.

we do need a difference maker...think we have one in lavar. don't forget about iffy though. he seems to always be around the ball. that's what we need as a d. a guy that makes plays. i think our guys are a little short changed now with the lack of pass rush though. any nfl qb worth his weight in salt, can pick apart any d with 4-5 seconds to throw the ball

[Guest 979guy]

Art, the exact same thought occurred to me during the game, why does it look so easy when THEY do it, and so hard-fought and fragile for us?

To be truthful, I think its simply because we aren't (yet?) a better team, not in the long-run. Seattle came into this game at 6-2, we were 3-5. You could see that from the beginning, Seattle were better organized, better disciplined.

Where did we get our breaks from?: Coles' hustle back to play safety and a gutsy 4th down call (and another gutsy lateral call), both plays leading to excellent drives and subsequent TDs. I think these plays motivated the entire team, making the players believe in themselves, and above all - it was a showing of character. I wouldn't dismiss the OL's game, giving Patrick more time and protection (giving us the second TD) or even some of the DL's plays which were key. It was not about who is better or to which team it comes easier, it was about character, and the Skins, coaches included this time, finally showed lots of it. I just hope they keep the momentum.

[RiggoDrill]

Hey Art. Nice synopsis of the game.

I agree about Champ. The play that stands out in my mind was the pop-fly that Hasselbeck heaved towards the right sideline with pressure in his face (2nd qtr?). The ball was up for grabs -- Champ was technically in good position against his receiver, but, come on!! The frickin' receiver is going deep ... you know the ball's coming, so go after it!! Smoot, by contrast, smelled the ball coming, sold his body out and knocked away a similar ball going to the endzone on the left side, as he's done several times.

Where Champ beats Smoot is in run coverage -- Smoot often gets turned around or otherwise faked out of his jock. However, that's not enough in my book to give Champ a gigantic contract and shortchange the team's future.

Regarding the 'tough yards', I agree, but the Redskins with a learn-as-you-go college coach were squaring off against two coaches (Rhodes and Holmgren) who both have Superbowl wins under their belts ... both of whom are thriving because they both have accepted their limitations and are doing the jobs that they do best.

And we still beat 'em

Regarding the rest of the season, I share your concern that our victory came against a team that bafflingly did not pressure our weak spots.

However, I will say this: The Redskins are headed back to glory.

Why? Because we have a coach that is willing to swallow his pride and do whatever it takes to win. Spurrier's willingness to seek advice and to step away from the offensive playcalling tells me that we have at least a chance of having another Joe Gibbs, who adapted, versus a Norv or a Marty, who always told us "what we do works" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I just hope Hue Jackson can slip in some more power running plays.

[spanishomelette]

Unfortunately I don't think I've witnessed this team capitalizing on potential "season-changing" moments yet. Perhaps this was the first game where they've appeared.

I was pretty excited when the 'Skins won, but when I read a post from Skeletor about the lack of blitzing, I came back down to earth. I mean I can't really see Skeletor's point of view about an 8-8 season as pessimistic. In fact it may even be optimistic.

I'd like to believe that they feel the "force" is with them and be energized by the fortunate plays that went their way. But a carolina win seems like the impossible dream.

Oh well, Today was a good day in Redskin land.

[88Comrade2000]

I'm staying at 6-10. Win against Panthers and Dolphins and then you'll bring me back at 8-8. Seahawks defense didn't blitz. I don't think Carolina or Miami will make that mistake. So we'll see how this team responds to what should interesting road games- one them on national tv.

[Duke]

One thing I see though, we dont tackle well especially in the open field. The guys miss so many tackles and let the opponents gain easy yards.

Good defense shouldn't have this kind of problem.

[Ax]

SC,

the big play Champ gave up down the sideline didn't take 4-5 seconds. Our blitz on that play JUST missed. It seems to me during his whole career, he gives up 1-2 big plays a game where it seems like he's thinking about what movie he's gonna watch that night, instead stopping his man. It's like he starts thinking, I'm Champ Bailey. There not gonna throw at me.

But, just when I'm ready to kill him, he'll come up with a good play. I just think in order to be called one of the elite CB's, he needs to be more consistent.

[GB81]

Originally posted by Art

That fourth down play was gutsy. That play alone could turn out to be the real turning point for this Redskins team. That's the kind of play that inspires players. It communicates with them. It tells them that despite ALL the nonsense, you trust them. And when they succeed they talk about wanting to do nice things for the coaches.

It is the type of play call that can bring a team together on a nice short-term run and that play gets me very excited about the next game because it's the type of emotional play that changes season's. Will it be that for us? I don't know. I just know it's good to get a win.

I have to disagree with you. While it was a gutsy call and it may have changed the game, it was so idiotic, I just can't give Spurrier a pass on that one. In a tie game with about 5 or so minutes left, you NEVER go for fourth and one from your own 28. You just don't. If they don't pick up that first down, you veryu likely lose that game--it is just not worth it--an unnecessary risk.

Thought Hue and SOS had a good game plan and did a great job putting in some new things to combat potential blitzes...but that play call was pure idiocy. If you are 1 and 7...maybe you do something like that...but not 3-5 when there are still possiblities.

[redskin56]

I'm beginning to think that Champ isn't worth what he's asking for. That play in the 2nd quarter was inexcusable.

It was 2nd and 20 from our 40 someodd yardline and we had just forced them into an intentional grounding call. Hasselbeck (sp?) was under intense pressure and got creamed as he let go of the ball. It was a jump ball and was thrown up for grabs. Bailey was lost and couldn't even find the ball. He knew we were blitzing and should have expected the QB to throw one up for grabs, but he was lost. That should have either been an INT or batted down resulting in a 3rd and 20. I still can't believe that it was so EASY to complete that play. Never should have happened.

[Art]

KC,

The only problem I have with your reply is your assertion that the Seattle defense is really any good. It isn't. It's 19th in the league. It's 31st in the league in third down defense and it was dead last until they got to us.

Also, you may not think Rhodes was being arrogant, but you'd be wrong. Holmgren said the Hawks didn't have anything specifically designed for the Redskins defensively this week. No new blitzes to take advantage of the film. That's arrogant. And given our struggles, that's stupid.

As for our offensive playcalls, it was mildly different, but largely the same. We opened the Bills game with six runs and two passes. We've tried to estabilish the "short" passing game frequently. The real difference against Seattle wasn't the length of the long passes but the fact that we reintroduced the short/intermediate passing game which forced the defense to guard three levels.

I was watching the Bills game again yesterday and it just struck me. The Bills blitzed, we picked it up, and time and again, threw the ball and found a WALL of defenders there. No one from 0-15 yards from the ball. Everyone stacked up from 15-30. We had no outlets to pick up an easy eight yards. That was somewhat reintroduced today and it allowed some of the 12-20 yard throws to be available.

Though, I don't ever want Ramsey rolling out again. But, again, they didn't blitz not because they couldn't. They merely didn't. It's baffling.

[Art]

Originally posted by GGB81

I have to disagree with you. While it was a gutsy call and it may have changed the game, it was so idiotic, I just can't give Spurrier a pass on that one. In a tie game with about 5 or so minutes left, you NEVER go for fourth and one from your own 28. You just don't. If they don't pick up that first down, you veryu likely lose that game--it is just not worth it--an unnecessary risk.

Thought Hue and SOS had a good game plan and did a great job putting in some new things to combat potential blitzes...but that play call was pure idiocy. If you are 1 and 7...maybe you do something like that...but not 3-5 when there are still possiblities.

GG,

Fundamentally you may be correct. Stupid is as stupid does and all. But, when you say you NEVER go for forth and one from your own 28 I'd counter that you DO do it when you're successful and you ultimately win the game on that drive. Sometimes the line between genius (or guts) and dumb insanity is success.

Sometimes that success given the obvious nature of how unconventional and likely dumb the play was is just what a team needs to rally around. They were trusted to go out there and make it and they did, if barely. Spurrier tired of putting the game in the hands of the defense. He decided if his guys couldn't get half a yard that the game was theirs anyway. Again, it's certainly not a call you're likely to see every week. But, flatly, it was gutsy in any case and since it worked out, it's the sort of thing that can rally the troops. Even fire up the defense who will look at themselves and think they weren't trusted and want to get that trust back.

[GB81]

Yep, it worked and it won the game, but I guess I just can't get by how stupid it was. To be somewhat crude, seems like failing to use protection with a Haitian hooker and not getting an STD. Yeah, it worked, but it was idiotic and it may demonstrate a ill-formed thought process that could cause problems in the future.

I'm happy we won and I think there are tons of positives that come out of this game...but I kind of though SOS had matured as a coach--this demostrated otherwise.

[freakofthesouth]

Originally posted by Rdskns2000

I'm staying at 6-10. Win against Panthers and Dolphins and then you'll bring me back at 8-8. Seahawks defense didn't blitz. I don't think Carolina or Miami will make that mistake. So we'll see how this team responds to what should interesting road games- one them on national tv.

The difference here is that they really couldn't blitz.

They tried a few times, they just didn't bring the house.

The difference was the running game. We were seeing some success on the ground, and the defense had to adjust to this...they really weren't in a position to bring eight men.

I believe that if we continue the success on the ground, and we stick w/ it, no team will be able to tee-off on Ramsey like they have in the past.

Also...the PA will work! It will have meaning if we are running successfully. PA is a big part of Spurrier's game-plan.

When Ramsey isn't on his back, he is on fire, regardless of his mistakes. Some of those throws were smoked, I mean smoked into his receivers...like on the final drive of the first half.

The run game was the difference this week.

[Art]

KC,

That article proves the Hawks didn't blitz, like we've been saying .

[Ryman of the North]

i cant believe that you guys are so wussy! if i was a head coach who had an oline that could run block id go for it on 4th and short everydamn time! just think the extra possesions wed get and the way it totally discombobulates the opponents who are not expecting it! its called balls people and yesterday we saw our ol ball coach put them on display!

[Ryman of the North]

well maybe not everytime but enough to get teams out of their comfort zone! this is why i love spurrier he will think outside the box!

[GB81]

Originally posted by Ryman of the North

well maybe not everytime but enough to get teams out of their comfort zone! this is why i love spurrier he will think outside the box!

You know, if we cut our punter, we could carry a 7th wide receiver. Why ever punt, really?

I stand by my assessment: It was really stupid. You don't risk what would almost certainly mean defeat when you are not forced to.

[SonnyJ]

Originally posted by GGB81

You know, if we cut our punter, we could carry a 7th wide receiver. Why ever punt, really?

I stand by my assessment: It was really stupid. You don't risk what would almost certainly mean defeat when you are not forced to.

Why would it have meant certain defeat?

There was enough time left, if the Seahawks had scored, for the Redskins to get a tying score. By your logic, you would concede a score to the Seahawks in that situation, and then figure that the Redskins couldn't respond with a tying score. Basically, showing no faith in the offense or defense.

How would it have been any different if they had punted? The D doesn't stop them from scoring, and the offense has a LOT less time for a tying score, if they can even manage one.

Again, it's a reeling, struggling 3-5 team playing to win versus playing not to lose.

How big a downside was there, really?

[Awesome]

Well, as stupid as that 4th and inches call was, I'll say this: At least we have a head coach with some balls. Think Marty would have ever made that call? Nope, he'd a punted on third down. And what about Norv? Please...

I don't think we'll ever see a gamble that big again from Spurrier, at least not this year, but I liked it. It told the players that he had faith in them and possibly cooled off some simmering bad blood between the players and coaches. It gave the players an opportunity to show what they're made of and I think there were a few guys out there who wanted it so bad just for Spurrier. That shows a lot and I think does a world of good for this team's chemistry behind closed doors.

[GB81]

Originally posted by SonnyJ

Why would it have meant certain defeat?

There was enough time left, if the Seahawks had scored, for the Redskins to get a tying score. By your logic, you would concede a score to the Seahawks in that situation, and then figure that the Redskins couldn't respond with a tying score. Basically, showing no faith in the offense or defense.

How would it have been any different if they had punted? The D doesn't stop them from scoring, and the offense has a LOT less time for a tying score, if they can even manage one.

Again, it's a reeling, struggling 3-5 team playing to win versus playing not to lose.

How big a downside was there, really?

Certain defeat was probably overstating it...but it was certain to relinquish the lead since it would have likely meant a short field goal or worse. Strategically, it was not the right call. It worked and it may be a turning point in the season. I still don't like it.

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by GGB81

I stand by my assessment: It was really stupid. You don't risk what would almost certainly mean defeat when you are not forced to.

Well there are some of us here who think that putting our Defense on the field to try to stop a potential game-winning drive would also spell certain defeat. They are all risks. For my money, putting our D on the field in bad field position is quite a large risk as well. Sometimes the "safe" route is not as safe as it seems.