GB81 Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Golgo-13 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. That's a fair point. The D was not doing a great job of stopping the Hawks offense and in general, the Spurrier Skins are not a big field position team. If that was the thinking, I would be a little disheartened if I was on the Skins D. I see your point, but getting the ball at the Redskins 25 versus the Seahawks 40--a TD seems much more likely--and then we are playing for a tie with 3 minutes left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 KC, You may continue to disbelieve the obvious statement that the Hawks didn't blitz against us hardly at all. You can disbelieve what the Redskins said. You can disbelieve what Hue Jackson said, almost lamenting it. You can disbelieve what Holmgren said. You can disbelieve what every announcer has picked up on. The Hawks didn't blitz us. It wasn't because they were afraid. We didn't have a SINGLE play that beat the blitz against Seattle. They only blitzed four of five times total. They only got to Ramsey three times total, two on blitzes with two of them coming in the second half. Rhodes doesn't blitz much. Never has. He didn't here. The Seattle PI article outlines that the strategy not to blitz was the wrong move. And yet even from that article you seem to think it was something WE did that stopped it. It wasn't. We prepared for the blitz and it didn't come. We were hoping along the sidelines screaming they weren't blitzing. Jackson couldn't believe it himself and like me, is a little worried that we still don't know whether we can stop the blitz. Rhodes is an arrogant coordinator as many are. He's not the sort to adjust his scheme for anything. And to ignore the obvious problems we've had stopping blitzes, that's not chicken on his part, it's arrogant and it cost the Seahawks. I'm glad it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBlue Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Art, Watching the game, I didn't think they blitzed much, if at all. However, last night watching the new NFL channel, Holmgren stated that they actually blitzed 18 times. However, the commentators pointed out that they only brought one player (usually a LB) when the blitzed as opposed to the 'Boys who seemed to bring everybody (at LEAST a safety consistently). I didn't really see them blitzing, but that's what Holmgren said, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 Holmgren is counting zone blitzes NBlue. They did a number of those, where they still only rush four, but changed some of the angles here and there. And, you're (he is) probably right that they did blitz a fifth guy any number of times. That's not the kind of thing that has halted the Redskins offense though. Not doing those things against is is what we're talking about with regard to the Seahawks blitzing. Only three or four times did they actually bring the sorts of blitzes that have hurt us. Of the three times they got to Ramsey at all, two came on those plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Geez Art. Just enjoy the win man! We didn't win because they made it easy. We beat them bro! And their success was at the beginning of the game...that's when they scored, that's when it was easy fro them to move the ball. We held them at the end of the game. They were a 6-2 team, and we beat them. Enjoy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Those of you saying that no matter the outcome, the 4th and inches call was dumb, I don't agree. Now, I would agree that 99.99% of coaches wouldn't do it. But this is the type of call that Spurrier was hired for. Same with the game-winning TD play. It's these types of calls and decisions that people feared when they played him in college. And now, let's be honest with ourselves for one minute. How many times have teams punted against us on 4th and 1 after debating it for a couple seconds and you privately breathe a sigh of relief??? Maybe this doesn't happen often from the 25, but I know I always think that in the back of my mind, that team probably would get a 4th down against our D. All Spurrier did was not give the Seahawks that sigh of relief. He is an attacking coach and that is his nature. I guarantee that if he coaches an entire year with this mentality, the outcome will be more good than bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 Freak, I don't want to enjoy the victory. Enjoying the victory is what gets this team, and we as fans, in so much trouble. We didn't beat them in a way that can be satisfying. Not only because they had things so easy while we had things so hard in matching with them, but, because they played us in a way that doesn't answer the question of whether we're able to compete against teams that do. Until that question is answered and we win in such a game, I wouldn't enjoy any victory, because a victory like Sunday is to be expected when you are fortunate enough to play an opposition that refuses to take advantage of the weaknesses we've shown on film. We have to win a game in the face of the weaknesses we've shown or there is no future this year or next year until we do. Once we do, I'll be very excited. Maybe that will come this week. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakofthesouth Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 You have good points Art, as you normally do. But, I really hope we do win this week, so you can enjoy a little bit of the success we could have. I would love to see a game where we come out and dominate...that would be great! But...think of this...IF we win this Sunday, that's 3 division leaders that we've defeated this season. That's not too shabby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by KC'Dave ART, The article also clearly states that they stopped blitzing. Which means they started out blitzing. Hue Jackson expected the blitz and designed his game plan to beat the blitz. Rhodes sees the plays to beat the blitz and backs off. The Seattle reporter says he should have continued to blitz and Rhodes makes no comments to the press to explain himself. The reporter is entitled to his opinion but that's all that it is. Actually, without the opening fumble and Coles' superman show stopping the TD on the INT (not forgetting "heads up and hustle" Thomas with the recovery), Rhodes called a good game by backing off. If Parcells had blitzed 7 and 8 against that same offense Ramsey and Co. would have iced his tunas. KC, Just do me a favor and watch the game over. I've seen it three times now. They didn't blitz early. They did blitz some more late. In fact, our biggest play against the blitz was the Cartwright run for 21 yards. But, just watch the game, take out some paper and see what they did. The Seattle reporter is incorrect that they blitzed early and stopped. They mixed a light handful of blitzes throughout the game, with the majority of them coming in the second half. If any team started blitzing and backed off, it was us, since we blitzed on almost every play in the opening drive and then got scared when they scored. Parcells DID blitz seven or eight against the same offense and we didn't ice him. We ran very effectively against the Cowboys. We simply didn't sustain any drives in the passing game largely because of the blitz and some bad penalties that set us back in the first place. There was NOTHING different about our offense in this game as compared to many weeks except we were able to generate a majority of our first downs in the passing game which allowed more opportunities to run. Generally speaking I agree that it's going to be a good way to beat us in the future to back off and play coverages. But, that's NOT the way teams have beaten us so badly the last few weeks and not engaging in a similar gameplan is idiotic and arrogant in the extreme. And until we beat a team that does come after us we won't really know where we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 I was going to argue but Spurrier is 5 of 7 on 4th downs. Maybe he knows something. KC, let's hope so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.