Welcome to the Washington Redskins Derrius Guice RB LSU

[Going Commando]

8 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I do like this about Gruden. I dont think it worked well, but I like where his mind was if this was the case.  

 

I agree, the plan was sound.  But no plan is going to work out when you can't get your plays blocked and you can't get off the field on defense.  The only real issue I have with our plan heading into the game is in activating Brantley over Hester.  I grant that it's not ideal to run a player who just got here out onto the field, but he's a playable body and Brantley apparently was not.

[volsmet]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

A player favoring their non-surgically repaired knee in their first few games back from said surgery is completely normal. It is a mental thing.  It doesn't mean he was necessarily hurt going into the game.  However, with that said, the coaching staff and medical staff should have been prepared for this and had AP active for this very reason.  You can't tell me with a straight face that coming out of halftime down 20-7, the Eagles defense would have been looking forward to facing off against AP.  

 

Washington is still in the 1940’s.

[megared]

47 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Jay did a good play fake coming into this game.  Talked up running the ball.  Instead, he thew the ball like crazy and out of 11 personnel.  Eagles are stout against the run.  Clearly, Jay didn't plan to pound the rock so who cares if he gave Peterson 5 out of the 10 carries Guice got.  Guice got a light work load and clearly Jay knew that's how it would unfold because it was his game plan.   If they planned to pound the rock and Guice got 25 carries, I'd feel differently.   But context matters.   Context is everything. 

 

I started rewatching the game and understand why Guice got a good PFF score.  As @MartinC stated, good pass blocking and he was a decent catching the ball.  Both things by the way are Peterson's weaknesses.

 

 

 

Last season we lost both games, and were outscored 52-13.  Let's not hold Jay's gameplanning as Normandy Beach level of strategic planning.  Our coach's 'brilliant' plan consists of hoping Mark Sanchez, Josh Johnson, and now Case Keenum are going to overwhelm an Eagle's defense.  Considering we're 0-5 in the last five contests, what even gives you confidence that Jay's gameplanning is capable of beating the Eagles? 

[Going Commando]

2 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Last season we lost both games, and were outscored 52-13.  Let's not hold Jay's gameplanning as Normandy Beach level of strategic planning.  Our coach's 'brilliant' plan consists of hoping Mark Sanchez, Josh Johnson, and now Case Keenum are going to overwhelm an Eagle's defense.  Considering we're 0-5 in the last five contests, what even gives you confidence that Jay's gameplanning is capable of beating the Eagles? 

 

That's who he has to work with at QB.  What would you rather he do, line up behind center and run 40 times?  With this OL?  Against that front?

 

The Eagles are a Superbowl caliber team with a dominant front.  The only weak point to attack is that secondary, which we did successfully all things considered.  The gameplan was fine.

[megared]

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

That's who he has to work with at QB.  What would you rather he do, line up behind center and run 40 times?  With this OL?  Against that front?

 

The Eagles are a Superbowl caliber team with a dominant front.  The only weak point to attack is that secondary, which we did successfully all things considered.  The gameplan was fine.

 

We were 7-1 in 2018 when AD got 17 or more touches...0-8 when he got less than 17.  I trust him to run the ball better than I trust either of those 3 to be good QBs.  How many 300+ 3 TD, O  INT games do you really think Keenum is going to give you per season?  And even with him playing as well as you could reasonably expect, we still lost.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

18 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Last season we lost both games, and were outscored 52-13.  Let's not hold Jay's gameplanning as Normandy Beach level of strategic planning.  Our coach's 'brilliant' plan consists of hoping Mark Sanchez, Josh Johnson, and now Case Keenum are going to overwhelm an Eagle's defense.  Considering we're 0-5 in the last five contests, what even gives you confidence that Jay's gameplanning is capable of beating the Eagles? 

So Derrius Guice and AP were going to just run right through the Eagles Dline?

 

C’mon man.

 

This is not the hill to die on.

[megared]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So Derrius Guice and AP were going to just run right through the Eagles Dline?

 

C’mon man.

 

This is not the hill to die on.

 

No, if I was going to bet on someone running through their defense, it wouldn't be Guice.  Do you really believe he's supplanted a HOF, once a generation back, in two weeks?  Same guy that is probably the only reason our coaches are still employed?

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, megared said:

 

We were 7-1 in 2018 when AD got 17 or more touches...0-8 when he got less than 17.  I trust him to run the ball better than I trust either of those 3 to be good QBs.  How many 300+ 3 TD, O  INT games do you really think Keenum is going to give you per season?  And even with him playing as well as you could reasonably expect, we still lost.  

 

So you think it would have worked out better to game plan around Peterson instead?  To attack the strength of the Eagles D instead of their weakness?

[desertbeagle85]

So has anything else came out about Guice. Like how long he'll be in out?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 minutes ago, megared said:

 

No, if I was going to bet on someone running through their defense, it wouldn't be Guice.  Do you really believe he's supplanted a HOF, once a generation back, in two weeks?  Same guy that is probably the only reason our coaches are still employed?

I don’t care if it was Guice, AP or Barry Sanders, the way to beat the Eagles is not ground and pound behind our Oline.

[FrFan]

 

[megared]

7 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

So you think it would have worked out better to game plan around Peterson instead?  To attack the strength of the Eagles D instead of their weakness?

 

Considering we don't do what they're weak at, well enough to exploit them...I'd always go for doing what we do best.  Peterson had a 90 yard run on this defense.  They're very aware of him, and would've conceivably had to account for him.  is it his fault he had all of 8 carries for the rest of that game?

 

To be honest, the only reason this game was close-ish, again, was because Case played great, and our offensive line held its own in pass pro.  Whereas the previous four games to this one, we gave up between 3-4 sacks every game.  Vast majority of Eagles losses last season, a team had success on them, on the ground.  Dallas ran them over twice, Ingram had a good day on them when the Saints beat them...this defense isn't the 2001 Ravens.  

 

Just admit you like the aesthetic appeal of a high flying passing game, better than the 4 yards and a cloud of dust.  Because if you are considering Ws & Ls alone, there's no justification you can give anyone for not feeding AD early and often, if your primary focus is to win games.

[Skinsinparadise]

52 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Last season we lost both games, and were outscored 52-13.  Let's not hold Jay's gameplanning as Normandy Beach level of strategic planning.  Our coach's 'brilliant' plan consists of hoping Mark Sanchez, Josh Johnson, and now Case Keenum are going to overwhelm an Eagle's defense.  Considering we're 0-5 in the last five contests, what even gives you confidence that Jay's gameplanning is capable of beating the Eagles? 

 

Multiple pundit types have said (including ex-GMs like Gil Brandt) the Eagles are the most talented team in the NFL.    We were the biggest underdog in the NFL last Sunday for a reason.  They have more talent than we do.

 

They put up 400 yards, Keenum had a career game against one of the best defenses in the league.  The Eagles bled the clock in the 2nd half, the offense couldn't get back on the field.  That game was on the defense.   

 

The Eagles were top 10 against the run, so was Dallas by the way last year.  Our O line according to PFF metrics aren't hot as run blockers. So somehow we are going to maul the Eagles on the ground and that's the formula that makes sense?   I read somewhere with the exception of Peterson's one long run against the Eagles last year, he had 8 runs for 12 yards against Philly last year. 

[CowboyKillerz]

15 minutes ago, FrFan said:

 

What is the misdiagnoses? I dont have room to install the app for the full article.

 

 

Imo Guice excelled where ADs weaknesses are.. And Bo Jackson would've been stuffed vs that Philly D. Game plan was solid- inactive being a silly move but not what broke the camels back by any stretch- penalties drops and the miss to McScorchn lead to our woes on O. AD doesnt save the day unfortunately

[RandyHolt]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

According to an Athletic article I just read, Guice felt the soreness after the game.

 

Thanks.  I assume most guys are sore but with adrenaline pumping injuries aren't noticed until later / next day.

 

So it sounds like Jay planned to gave Guice the light load some had hoped for. Easing him in.

 

If we could have held them on their first drive of the 3rd quarter, and gotten a CT led TD on our drive... I would have then been REALLY wanting to see AP finish them.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, megared said:

Just admit you like the aesthetic appeal of a high flying passing game, better than the 4 yards and a cloud of dust.  Because if you are considering Ws & Ls alone, there's no justification you can give anyone for not feeding AD early and often, if your primary focus is to win games.

I know that wasn't in response to me, but it might as well have been.

 

I think I can speak for most everyone when I say that nobody was head over heels for a Case Keenum led aerial assault.  So your comment is just nonsense from that standpoint.  Case's play was a pleasant surprise to most of us and had he hit just one more play, you wouldn't have much reason to whine.  If Case would have went out there and tossed a bunch of picks, gave up strip sacks, etc. - your point holds more water.  But if you actually go back and look at the sequence for how everything went down, you would see that the gameplan was strong, and hindered by penalties, drops and the Eagles playing keep away.

[megared]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Multiple pundit types have said (including ex-GMs like Gil Brandt) the Eagles are the most talented team in the NFL.    We were the biggest underdog in the NFL last Sunday for a reason.  They have more talent than we do.

 

They put up 400 yards, Keenum had a career game against one of the best defenses in the league.  The Eagles bled the clock in the 2nd half, the offense couldn't get back on the field.  That game was on the defense.   

 

The Eagles were top 10 against the run, so was Dallas by the way last year.  Our O line according to PFF metrics aren't hot as run blockers. So somehow we are going to maul the Eagles on the ground and that's the formula that makes sense?   I read somewhere with the exception of Peterson's one long run against the Eagles last year, he had 8 runs for 12 yards against Philly last year. 

 

so the 12 yards bother you more than the 8 attempts over two games? 
 

The bottom line is that Jay's offense had the most success by far when it features a balanced attack.  And him using the rushing attack as an afterthought in his game planning is making it ineffective.   

 

Don't tell me you're committed to winning now if you are going to plan to not use one of the biggest indicators of success in your offense.  As an offense we were best when we used AD.  One opponent doesn't change that.   They are not unbeatable.  

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, RandyHolt said:

 

Thanks.  I assume most guys are sore but with adrenaline pumping injuries aren't noticed until later / next day.

 

So it sounds like Jay planned to gave Guice the light load some had hoped for. Easing him in.

 

If we could have held them on their first drive of the 3rd quarter, and gotten a CT led TD on our drive... I would have then been REALLY wanting to see AP finish them.

 

Going 11 personnel the whole game, shot gun mostly, he clearly didn't plan to pound the rock.  Guice to me is more suited to that game plan because he brings more to the passing game both as a pass catcher and a blocker.

 

Switching gears, some make fun of the Smallwood special teams stuff.  But he played on the Eagles special teams just days back.  He knows them well.  The Eagles special teams is really good.  They had a season where if I recall they had 6 TD returns or something insane like that.   So if Jay planned to only give Guice 10-15 carries, then splitting that with Peterson is no big deal.  If he were running the ball 25 times or so its a different story. 

[megared]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I know that wasn't in response to me, but it might as well have been.

 

I think I can speak for most everyone when I say that nobody was head over heels for a Case Keenum led aerial assault.  So your comment is just nonsense from that standpoint.  Case's play was a pleasant surprise to most of us and had he hit just one more play, you wouldn't have much reason to whine.  If Case would have went out there and tossed a bunch of picks, gave up strip sacks, etc. - your point holds more water.  But if you actually go back and look at the sequence for how everything went down, you would see that the gameplan was strong, and hindered by penalties, drops and the Eagles playing keep away.

 

You see it as one play away...I see it as above and beyond his week to week ceiling. 

 

If you have to rely on Chase to throw 400+ yards, 4 TDs you're not going to win ANY games...300+ yards, 3 TDs 0 INTs is his best case scenario.  And even then, as you can see, that's no guarantee of winning the game.  And his 300 yards usually come with plenty more miscues and bad decisions.  

 

At this point, I wouldn't even want Gruden to have the option to start Haskins...so he can drop him back 50 times a game??  Is that the desired end state of this offense???

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, megared said:

 

At this point, I wouldn't even want Gruden to have the option to start Haskins...so he can drop him back 50 times a game??  Is that the desired end state of this offense???

Considering our run blocking vs. pass blocking in our one game sample and what we know of who is out there, I would say yes - I'd rather be a passing team.

[megared]

1 minute ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Considering our run blocking vs. pass blocking in our one game sample and what we know of who is out there, I would say yes - I'd rather be a passing team.

 

And hope our offensive line holds up well enough to not get our QB killed?  Lol. 

 

At this point we aren't even sure whether Haskins is capable of that.  Even most teams that have the personnel at QB to do that, don't.  

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, megared said:

 

so the 12 yards bother you more than the 8 attempts over two games? 
 

The bottom line is that Jay's offense had the most success by far when it features a balanced attack.  And him using the rushing attack as an afterthought in his game planning is making it ineffective.   

 

Don't tell me you're committed to winning now if you are going to plan to not use one of the biggest indicators of success in your offense.  As an offense we were best when we used AD.  One opponent doesn't change that.   They are not unbeatable.  

 

We got a different QB and mostly different receivers than last year.  So not sure how 2018 = 2019. 

 

But to play along, in the last game in 2018 they ran it 21 times in total for 1.8 yards per attempt.  They mixed the RBs as for carries.  Ironically Smallwood was the Eagles leading rushing on the other side with 4.4 YPC. 

 

The first game they didn't run as much, 14 times.  If you take out the 90 yard run, they averaged 1 yard per carry in that game.

 

If you want to argue that if they just stuck with it in the last game in 2018 and ran 30 times (which is a lot) and those 9 extra attempts would have broken the damn -- you never know but it sounds counter intuitive to me.   If the Eagles weren't good against the run maybe I can run with that thought a little. 

 

Belichick is a legend in part for attacking a team's weakness not their strength.    

[megared]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If you take out the 90 yard run, they averaged 1 yard per carry in that game.

 

You CAN'T take it out.  Why would we exclude the longest TD ever executed on that defense?  That's what AD does, and is still capable of.  And maybe if the gameplan was to get him the ball, he would've had more of those.  Or opened up more opportunities in the passing game.

 

Last season EVERY TIME we made the running game an afterthought, we lost.  

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I agree, the plan was sound.  But no plan is going to work out when you can't get your plays blocked and you can't get off the field on defense.  The only real issue I have with our plan heading into the game is in activating Brantley over Hester.  I grant that it's not ideal to run a player who just got here out onto the field, but he's a playable body and Brantley apparently was not.

 

I can probably find a bunch of stuff I dont like with the roster if I tried hard enough. Im sure that was the deciding factor on hester but im still confused on why we decided on keeping a 3rd QB when one of them no one wants and would be waiting for us when he was healthy. There must be some kind of reason to it, I just dont understand it. 

 

At the end of the day you are right. Dude just calls the plays and game plans. He cant do anything if the players dont block their assignments correctly. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

10 minutes ago, megared said:

 

And hope our offensive line holds up well enough to not get our QB killed?  Lol. 

 

At this point we aren't even sure whether Haskins is capable of that.  Even most teams that have the personnel at QB to do that, don't.  

By no means am I under the impression that this team is or will stay solid enough to win games that really matter later in the season or even talk about playoffs.  I don't see this as that type of team whether they run it 50 times or pass it 50 times a game.  What I am saying is that if I was Jay Gruden, who had to win a game against Philly on Sunday, I'd try to do it through the air vs. pound it via the running game all day long.