Welcome to the Washington Redskins Derrius Guice RB LSU

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, megared said:

 

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.  

 

That was Adrian's longest run for his whole career from what i recall let alone he just does these things all the time.  He had some nice runs last year but it's not like he killed it with long runs that year, he was more of a grinder.   

 

Look I love Adrian Peterson so i don't enjoy this debate.  If you think Keenum and the passing game was lacking and instead they should have pounded the ball with Peterson and would have won that way -- have at it.  I've made my point enough. 😀 

[HigSkin]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

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.

 

Agree, was listening to Craig Hoffman before the Eagles game, he said you have to game plan them to go after their DB's which is the weakest link.  Their LB'rs are very active in shooting the gaps making them hard to run on. 

 

Also, Chris Thompson said had Reed been in, he would have had SS Jenkins on him all day and not CT.  CT would have gotten a LB instead.  

 

It's amazing Skins did as well as the did in that game.

[Skinsinparadise]

I have to rewatch the game, I just started to but case in point

 

 

 

 

[HigSkin]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I have to rewatch the game, I just started to but case in point

 

 

I think this is the one he's talking about.  Awesome hole opened up by Quinn.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, HigSkin said:

 

I think this is the one he's talking about.  Awesome hole opened up by Quinn.

 

 

 

McLaurin and Harmon are good blockers for receivers.  Cooley says Quinn is, too.  Weird to have good blocking receivers but not TEs.   But hopefully after the next draft we have both.  

[megared]

25 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That was Adrian's longest run for his whole career from what i recall let alone he just does these things all the time.  He had some nice runs last year but it's not like he killed it with long runs that year, he was more of a grinder.   

 

Look I love Adrian Peterson so i don't enjoy this debate.  If you think Keenum and the passing game was lacking and instead they should have pounded the ball with Peterson and would have won that way -- have at it.  I've made my point enough. 😀 

 

That run gave him the most 50+ yard TDs in NFL history.  That'd qualify to me as being 'kind of what he does'.  Without Guice ever having done so, there's no reason for me to believe that he's capable of it.  

 

I'm not saying they give it to him 55 times out of the I formation.  But getting him the ball a reasonable number of times gives us more of a chance to win a game, than relying on Case Keenum to be perfect.  Not sure how that's debatable.  

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, megared said:

 

That run gave him the most 50+ yard TDs in NFL history.  That'd qualify to me as being 'kind of what he does'.  Without Guice ever having done so, there's no reason for me to believe that he's capable of it.  

 

I'm not saying they give it to him 55 times out of the I formation.  But getting him the ball a reasonable number of times gives us more of a chance to win a game, than relying on Case Keenum to be perfect.  Not sure how that's debatable.  

 

Case Keenum throwing the ball all over the yard against the Eagles for 380 yards worked out pretty well.  I don't see how that's debatable. Being frustrated about that approach especially with the benefit of hindsight -- to me seems odd.    But yeah if Peterson is a 50 plus yard guy because that's just how he rolls regardless of what point he is in his career and I thought Guice isn't capable of having big runs.  Then maybe I'd think the same as you.  But I don't.   So let's agree to disagree.  

[MartinC]

4 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

Or maybe CT in the 2nd half was the game plan all along, and Jay just followed the script and wanted a curveball thrown/expected us to be losing big.   If he wanted to ditch the run game entirely after the first half, I fully endorse that too, since passing proved mega fruitful in the first half.

 

The first two plays we ran in the second half were runs by Guice. So we clearly came out with the run and Guice as part of our game plan. We ran a grand total of 10 (legal) plays in the second half before the final drive. We attempted one more run (Guice) later and it was called back for a hold and a chop block on the same snap.

 

We didn't run the ball in the second half because we didn't have the ball. There was not a single rushing attempt by CT in the second half. 

 

 

[megared]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Case Keenum throwing the ball all over the yard against the Eagles for 380 yards worked out pretty well.  I don't see how that's debatable. Being frustrated about that approach especially with the benefit of hindsight -- to me seems odd.    But yeah if Peterson is a 50 plus yard guy because that's just how he rolls regardless of what point he is in his career and I thought Guice isn't capable of having big runs.  Then maybe I'd think the same as you.  But I don't.   So let's agree to disagree.  

 

What about it worked out?  We lost.

 

That's the same result we've gotten every time we decide that the only way to beat the Eagles, is through the passing game.  

 

Engaging better aerial attacks in shoot outs, while ignoring time of possession is not a formula to success.  

 

Not knocking Guice, but nothing he's demonstrated to this point says he's better at anything AD has done for us, as recently as last season. 

 

Are we trying to win games or tank?  

[FrFan]

1 hour ago, CowboyKillerz said:

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

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Are we trying to win games or tank?  

We never tanked even when we could have (RG3)

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, megared said:

 

What about it worked out?  We lost.

 

That's the same result we've gotten every time we decide that the only way to beat the Eagles, is through the passing game.  

 

Engaging better aerial attacks in shoot outs, while ignoring time of possession is not a formula to success.  

 

Not knocking Guice, but nothing he's demonstrated to this point says he's better at anything AD has done for us, as recently as last season. 

 

Are we trying to win games or tank?  

 

We lost last season with the 90 yard run, too.  And it wasn't close.  We lost in the season ender against Philly too with 20 plus runs.  That wasn't close either.  

 

The loss on Sunday according to most who watched it (me included) was on the defense not the offense.    If Peterson could play DT and stop Sproles and maybe play some CB to stop D. Jax then I'd get it.  

 

The offense was surprisingly explosive on Sunday.  And this coming from a guy who was far from in love with Keenum and conversely I love Peterson.  But I can't just pretend that Keenum didn't have a killer game on Sunday and if only Peterson carried the rock instead.  Jay schemed up a good game plan.  Manusky on the other hand?  🙄

[KDawg]

The reasons for having Peterson inactive Sunday make a ton of sense, to be quite honest, from a strictly gameplan perspective.

 

The problem is, nothing happens in a vacuum. And nothing Jay Gruden has done has earned him the benefit of the doubt from the players in the locker room.

 

Peterson being inactive caused a distraction on a team that doesn't deal well with distractions. We can sit here, on the internet, and say, "Well, these guys are supposed to be pros! Those things shouldn't be a distraction!" but that's not how things work. It's on Gruden to have the pulse of the team. He didn't. He was totally tone deaf. When a good portion of your locker room is against a decision like that, they are all waiting for the first opportunity to say, "This is where Peterson would have helped!" or "Our team MVP is a healthy scratch for a rookie with a bad knee... wtf?"

 

I'm not as down on Gruden as many. He has good moments and bad moments. I love the design philosophy of his offense. I think he's a poor manager of people/personnel. I think he's very poor and knowing his locker room. He's excellent at Xs and Os. He's a VERY good talent evaluator. I really believe that completely. But making Peterson inactive was tonedeaf.

 

Belichick could have gotten away with it. Maybe even a guy like Pederson. And a handful of others. Gruden does not have enough good will to earn the right to do that.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

The reasons for having Peterson inactive Sunday make a ton of sense, to be quite honest, from a strictly gameplan perspective.

 

The problem is, nothing happens in a vacuum. And nothing Jay Gruden has done has earned him the benefit of the doubt from the players in the locker room.

 

Peterson being inactive caused a distraction on a team that doesn't deal well with distractions. We can sit here, on the internet, and say, "Well, these guys are supposed to be pros! Those things shouldn't be a distraction!" but that's not how things work. It's on Gruden to have the pulse of the team. He didn't. He was totally tone deaf. When a good portion of your locker room is against a decision like that, they are all waiting for the first opportunity to say, "This is where Peterson would have helped!" or "Our team MVP is a healthy scratch for a rookie with a bad knee... wtf?"

 

I'm not as down on Gruden as many. He has good moments and bad moments. I love the design philosophy of his offense. I think he's a poor manager of people/personnel. I think he's very poor and knowing his locker room. He's excellent at Xs and Os. He's a VERY good talent evaluator. I really believe that completely. But making Peterson inactive was tonedeaf.

 

Belichick could have gotten away with it. Maybe even a guy like Pederson. And a handful of others. Gruden does not have enough good will to earn the right to do that.

 

I agree with most of this.  I don't agree with him not knowing the locker room though.  But I do agree that specifically in this situation he didn't or maybe he did but didn't care.    One of the things a few beat guys have said is part of Jay's longevity is because the players love him.   At least most of them do.  Most of them have his back.  So this is a rare misplay for Jay on that front.

 

I do understand the football decision in the context of this game to activate Smallwood over Peterson.  If the featured Rbs aren't going to get much touches anyway and you are going to throw the ball like mad then have the pass catching-pass blocking type RBs and special teams guys and that wouldn't be Peterson.

 

But I wouldn't have benched him because its not hard to foresee the drama.  And I hated the 55 run comment which clearly was born out of anger about the questioning because all his other answers were respectful and diplomatic.   Though I admit I didn't think it would blow up this bad but i did think it would blow up.  If I recall you and I were the first to comment on that Sunday morning when it went down. 

 

From the Athletic article that some seem to be sourcing here.

 

 

23 minutes ago, FrFan said:

 

We never tanked even when we could have (RG3)

 

The full quote

 

[PF Chang]

We were balanced offensively in the 1st half and scored 20 points. In the 2nd half we only ran 10 plays before the last garbage time drive.

 

We tried to run in the 2nd half but got stuffed and committed OL penalties which tends to happen when your OL is overmatched by a good front 7. I really don't get how that's on Gruden. 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

We were balanced offensively in the 1st half and scored 20 points. In the 2nd half we only ran 10 plays before the last garbage time drive.

 

We tried to run in the 2nd half but got stuffed and committed OL penalties which tends to happen when your OL is overmatched by a good front 7. I really don't get how that's on Gruden. 

 

I just read the Athletic power rankings, we got #23.  It praised Keenun but their main point was they don't believe in this defense after witnessing how they performed in the 2nd half against the Eagles.  

 

I think many (me included) were surprised by the performance of the passing game and equally surprised how inept the defense played.  It was a tale of two units.  Hopefully, the passing game keeping humming like they did against the Eagles and the defense wakes up. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

25 minutes ago, MartinC said:

We didn't run the ball in the second half because we didn't have the ball. There was not a single rushing attempt by CT in the second half. 

Yup.  It didn't help that the first 2 runs were stuffed.  The second drive, I have NO problem taking a shot on first down, it was open, and I like the aggressiveness.  And in the third drive, they had a good start with a pass to Guice, then went backwards because .... stupid.  

 

1st drive

1st down - Guice run for 0.

2nd down (after penalty) Guide -5

3rd down Complete to CT then Punt

 

2nd drive

(There were 3 passes in this drive, the deep shot to McLaurin Keenum overthrew, the drop by RIchardson, and then the pass to VD which was incomplete.)

 

3rd drive

1st down - Pass to Guice for 7

2nd down - Run called back by penalty.  Then the wheels come off with the chop block and punt.

 

 

The second down draw play is about the only play in the second half where I just hate the play call.  It was SO obvious, and you needed more than what a Draw would probably get you.  They'd been throwing the ball effectively, so I would have liked to have seen a little quick game.  Or maybe a screen.  The draw in that situation is kindof a give-up.  

 

As a general rule, I prefer that they pass on first down instead of run on first down.  

 

1st down and 10 runs;

Drive 1 - 3 first downs, 3 runs.  5, 3 and 1 yards respectively.

Drive 2 - Had 4 first down and 10's, ran on 3 of them.  One was called back on a penalty.  1 yard, 6 yards (penalty), 4 yards

Drive 3 - 1 st down, run for 2 yards.  Then TD to McLaurin

Drive 4 - 1 st and 10, ran for 5 yards, holding, then ran for 5 yards on 2nd and 12. 

Drive 5 - 1 st and 10, incomplete on 1st, CT for 7 on second, and the direct snap to CT didn't work. 

Drive 6 - (not going through this one, drive started with 1:41 left in the half.)

 

2nd Half

Drive 1: 1 st down, run for 0. Punt

Drive 2: 3 incompletes. Punt

Drive 3: Pass to Guice, then the wheels fell off.

 

So by my math, they ran on 7 of 9 first and 10 opportunities not counting the last drives of each half.  The best was the first 5 yard run of the game.  They totaled 16 yards.

 

To all of those who keep saying "RUN THE BALL."  this is why they CAN'T run the ball.  

 

1. They get an average of just over 2 yards on first down.

2. That means they most often have to pass on 2nd down.

3.  Because they basically ONLY run on 1st down (there were only 3 non-first down runs in the game if I counted correctly), and they average squat, they're always in passing situations on 2nd down. When they DO try and run on second down after a busted first down run, typically that doesn't go so well.

 

The solution:  Don't run on 7 of 9 first and 10 opportunities.  This is a 5 year trend.  Break the damn trend.  Throw on first, run on second.  

 

I posted elsewhere, "running to protect the QB" doesn't work if you're not actually gaining positive yards.  You're forcing the QB in to more known passing situations.  Which is bad.  

 

I don't want to see them run the ball. I want to see them pass the ball and try and score as many points as possible.  Screw the running game.  It doesn't work and with this group, it won't work.  

 

And Jay DOES NOT want to adapt his offense to what AP is best at. Guice is better at what Jay wants to do.  But now he's hurt.  

 

Personally, I'd dress all three, but I'd actually start CT, and just pass 65% of the time, use a draw or two, and then bring AP in for a power "change of pace."  

 

There is no written rule that you need to have the small-fast guy only in on passing situations. 

 

This whole "first/second down back vs. third down back" thing is archaic and stupid.  Get the best players on the field and then have them do what they are best at.  

[Commander -JB-]

On 9/9/2019 at 1:35 PM, carex said:

 

fans like you don't deserve a good team

Hey man, don’t blame me for this **** !

[MartinC]

51 minutes ago, megared said:

Not knocking Guice, but nothing he's demonstrated to this point says he's better at anything AD has done for us, as recently as last season. 

 

On that logic you would never play a rookie ever. Because until they play they will never show they are better than the vet.

 

I posted earlier some of APs rushing lines from games last year. He had games last season with worse stat lines than Guice had this week believe it or not (and before the QB and O'line situations imploded).

[Skinsinparadise]

15 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I don't want to see them run the ball. I want to see them pass the ball and try and score as many points as possible.  Screw the running game.  It doesn't work and with this group, it won't work.  

 

And Jay DOES NOT want to adapt his offense to what AP is best at. Guice is better at what Jay wants to do.  But now he's hurt.  

 

Personally, I'd dress all three, but I'd actually start CT, and just pass 65% of the time, use a draw or two, and then bring AP in for a power "change of pace."  

 

There is no written rule that you need to have the small-fast guy only in on passing situations. 

 

This whole "first/second down back vs. third down back" thing is archaic and stupid.  Get the best players on the field and then have them do what they are best at.  

 

I agree with this part though for me sometimes it would depend on their opponent.  They got better receivers this year.  And this is with Jordan Reed not even back yet.  Chuck the ball around the field.   You win in today's NFL by throwing more so than running.  Analytic types like Sharp and Football Outsiders pound this point home whenever they can.

 

Jay can scheme up the passing game with the best of them.   One of the points of the Athletic article that has been cited here is that Jay wants to finish (what likely is his last season) on his own terms.  Let it fly (pun intended) for better or worse.

 

I'd throw it on Dallas, too.  They are also a bear to run against.  They were ranked even better than Philly against the run last year -- likely because of their monster MLBs. 

[Dirt]

Why aren't we talking about Guice's potential nickname in this thread like the other one lol.  Lot more to work with, with all this drama.  He started over Adrian Peterson and is hurt, so instead of All Day maybe it's Some Day?  Lol I kid

[Llevron]

Just now, Dirt said:

Why aren't we talking about Guice's potential nickname in this thread like the other one lol.  Lot more to work with, with all this drama.  He started over Adrian Peterson and is hurt, so instead of All Day maybe it's Some Day?  Lol I kid

 

How about 1 day cause thats typically all we get hahahaha (i laugh to hide my pain) 

[Skinsinparadise]

They were in passing down formation like crazy (more than any other team) on Sunday and that included when they ran the ball.   They didn't run much out of heavy sets.  And yeah this is different from last season.  I don't know if they stick with it.  But no one can say its not aggressive.  Being in 11 personnel for 95% of the plays is VERY aggressive.   The only team that was arguable more aggressive was Arizona.

 

 

 

[MartinC]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Analytic types like Sharp and Football Outsiders pound this point home whenever they can.

 

This drags us into an interesting side discussion but this is the wrong thread so let's not go fully down this road here. But there is a lot of data to show that while passing is generally more successful than running play-action passing is more successful than drop back passing. The conventional wisdom is that to be successful with the play action you must first establish the threat/intention to run. But actually data shows that play action is no more successful if you use it after you have run the ball 4 to 5 times in the previous 10 plays than 1 time.

 

Then you factor in RPO's to the conversation ...

[Est.1974]

48 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I'm not as down on Gruden as many. He has good moments and bad moments. I love the design philosophy of his offense. I think he's a poor manager of people/personnel. I think he's very poor and knowing his locker room. He's excellent at Xs and Os. He's a VERY good talent evaluator. I really believe that completely. But making Peterson inactive was tonedeaf.

 

Agree. He adds great value in some areas but is in the wrong job.

[FuriousD]

16 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

On that logic you would never play a rookie ever. Because until they play they will never show they are better than the vet.

 

Joe Gibbs, is that you?