carex Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, -JB- said: Hey man, don’t blame me for this **** ! I'm not, I'm reveling in your misery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, MartinC said: 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 after you have run the ball 4 to 5 times in the previous 10 plays than 1 time. Then you fator in RPO's to the conversation ... Their theories are often its not how often you run but how good is your QB and O line at faking the run. And does your passing game and run game synch well where the looks can throw defenses off. Not sure about how many times you have to run, etc to increase its impact. But I know according to them there isn't a strong correlation between the number of runs and the success of play action. The PFF guys especially stress this. But I don't know, I've never quantified it or pored through the numbers. But yeah they love play action. I noticed Kellen Moore is already anointed as a new football age type guru in part because he really amped up the % of the Cowboys play action plays. McVay also goes heavy play action. Their point is to use the pass to set up the run more so than the reverse. they value the run to ice a game but not to build a lead. They believe you run your offense aggressively with the passing game to build the lead and then run out the clock to finish it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: 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. I have to think part of this is because Reed was out, and McLaurin, Richardson, Quinn, Davis and Guice is your best 5 playmakers on offense in that scenario. When Reed is back, I'm guessing you see more variety. 12 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Not sure about how many times you have to run, etc to increase its impact. This goes WAY back, but I remember watching a Colt's game when they used to run that zone-stretch play and play-action off of it constantly, and watching Peyton pull the ball from Jame's stomach something like 20 times in a row. I don't know if they ever actually ran the ball. But it was damn effective every single time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 18 minutes ago, FuriousD said: Joe Gibbs, is that you? No its George Allen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 2 hours ago, megared said: Why would we exclude the longest TD ever executed on that defense? Because you're using that one play to justify a terrible argument against a gameplan on offense that actually worked. One ****ty angle from a safety and now a 34 year old Adrian Peterson is what, the 26 year old version of himself? An MVP that we can't dare bench for not being able to catch, block, or run out of a shotgun? You'd have game planned around running Peterson out of the I all day and he'd have gotten 15 carries for 20 yards and we'd have lost by 30 instead. This argument is peak ExtremeSkins nonsense. I do not understand how you all have the energy to argue with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 29 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said: I have to think part of this is because Reed was out, and McLaurin, Richardson, Quinn, Davis and Guice is your best 5 playmakers on offense in that scenario. When Reed is back, I'm guessing you see more variety. This goes WAY back, but I remember watching a Colt's game when they used to run that zone-stretch play and play-action off of it constantly, and watching Peyton pull the ball from Jame's stomach something like 20 times in a row. I don't know if they ever actually ran the ball. But it was damn effective every single time. Could be but I saw V. Davis playing plenty. Reed is a similar player. He's more of a pass catcher than a blocker. 11 personnel still has a TE. I guess with both Davis and Reed on the field at the same time then you'd be playing 12 personnel some but even if so that version of it would be similar to 11 in principle since both TEs are pass catchers. I doubt they go 95% 11 personnel all the time, that's crazy pass heavy formation so I'd presume they will tone it down some. But it could be a portent of playing out of passing formations more and out of the shot gun a lot more. If so I get Jay having a predisposition for Guice over Peterson. Too bad we don't have Bryce Love in these type of settings, he'd be great especially if he develops more as a pass catcher. This is their early down percentage of plays from Sunday by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickyJ Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 1 hour 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. Preseasons, my man. It's a shame Gruden doesn't use them for the starters. 28 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: Because you're using that one play to justify a terrible argument against a gameplan on offense that actually worked. One ****ty angle from a safety and now a 34 year old Adrian Peterson is what, the 26 year old version of himself? An MVP that we can't dare bench for not being able to catch, block, or run out of a shotgun? You'd have game planned around running Peterson out of the I all day and he'd have gotten 15 carries for 20 yards and we'd have lost by 30 instead. This argument is peak ExtremeSkins nonsense. I do not understand how you all have the energy to argue with this. Very few people are saying that Guice shouldn't have touched the ball because AP is on the team. They're saying that AP should have been active because AP is on the team. If Guice lights it up during the game and it cuts back on AP's touches, great. If Guice gets injured or does poorly, you've got a thousand yard rusher behind him to share the load. The meme that he only does I-formation gets old, he ran out of single-back formations for the majority of last year. We have a hyped-up Guice, that 34 year old Adrian Peterson who also kind of got a thousand yards last season, and Chris Thompson. That is a good backfield, and no team looks for a way to not use all their runningbacks to their advantages. Look at any successful team in the NFL with multiple runningbacks that had even the slightest success. When the Eagles had Ajayji and Blount, would Pederson have deactivated Blount for a special teamer? Hell no. Did McVay bench C.J. Anderson in the Super Bowl because he wanted extra kick coverage? Of course not. Peterson is STILL better than Blount, Anderson, and more than half the 2nd string RBs this year. You can trash the single TD that's been debated over and over again, but I can't stress it enough. Peterson ran for 1k yards, behind the best and worst of lines. There is no way you can convince me that that is by a hobbled old man who can't keep up with Wendell ****ing Smallwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: Because you're using that one play to justify a terrible argument against a gameplan on offense that actually worked. One ****ty angle from a safety and now a 34 year old Adrian Peterson is what, the 26 year old version of himself? An MVP that we can't dare bench for not being able to catch, block, or run out of a shotgun? You'd have game planned around running Peterson out of the I all day and he'd have gotten 15 carries for 20 yards and we'd have lost by 30 instead. This argument is peak ExtremeSkins nonsense. I do not understand how you all have the energy to argue with this. It didn't work. Outside of a freakishly effective half, the results were largely the same as they always were. Did anyone get the feeling that if the game was 90 minutes, we'd have scored more? We didn't have to run Peterson out of the I...but we also didn't have to gameplan to use the run game out of the shotgun in the 2nd half either. How'd the Saints beat the Eagles in the playoffs? Did they pass as much as our game plan had us doing? (quick answer no) If the end all, be all to offensive production is how well you pass the ball, why are some of the most successful teams still not passing 50 times a game (and with QBs that you'd trust to do so)? LA, Kansas City, Dallas, all teams with good offenses, still prioritize the running game. GB went out and got a good offensive coach, so that they don't have to put the ball in Rodgers hands 50 times a game. Yet we're collectively comfortable basing our entire offense's success off Case Keenum's ability to do so??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 The problem is not that Adrian Peterson wasn’t used. Peterson being inactive is on Gruden and in my opinion, a bad decision from a management standpoint. I’ve documented that... The bigger problem, and something I’ve been hammering for the last few years along with many of you is the front office. IF ITS TRUE... that Gruden wanted to cut Peterson because he didn’t really have a role in the current offense and the FO didn’t let him, the FO deserves more blame than they are getting. For signing Peterson to an extension, for cutting Gruden’s knees out and for trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Problem is: AP IS on the roster. And therefore, making him a healthy inactive is just poor management. Our total management is piss poor. The FO and Gruden included. That needs to be fixed. Quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, megared said: we also didn't have to gameplan to use the run game out of the shotgun in the 2nd half either. We ran the ball 3 times in the second half. We had 10 plays in the second half prior to the last drive. Not sure what you are drawing any information from to say the game plan was to run from shotgun the second half. 7 minutes ago, megared said: GB went out and got a good offensive coach, so that they don't have to put the ball in Rodgers hands 50 times a game. The Packers threw it 30 times versus just 19 called runs against the Bears in a game that was always 1 score. They also only scored 10 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said: 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. Agreed. I was surprised by the lack of pressure from our front 7 but the Eagles OL is probably top 5 in the league. I'll be interested to see how the pass rush looks next week against another top 5 quality OL. Regardless of the matchup the defense has to be better than it was in the 2nd half. Eagles drives were TD, TD, TD, FG, end of game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 29 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said: Because you're using that one play to justify a terrible argument against a gameplan on offense that actually worked. One ****ty angle from a safety and now a 34 year old Adrian Peterson is what, the 26 year old version of himself? An MVP that we can't dare bench for not being able to catch, block, or run out of a shotgun? You'd have game planned around running Peterson out of the I all day and he'd have gotten 15 carries for 20 yards and we'd have lost by 30 instead. This argument is peak ExtremeSkins nonsense. I do not understand how you all have the energy to argue with this. Did it work because of the play, or because of the person executing it? If you say it's the play, why has no one on our team ever done that before (or since)? And why had it also never been done on that defense? No need to speculate...let's talk about games we lost by ~30 points. Saints 19-43 L: Peterson: 4 carries, 6 yards Falcons 14-38 L: Peterson: 9 carries, 17 yards Giants 16-40 L: Peterson: 10 carries, 16 yards Philly 0-24 L: Peterson: 4 carries, 0 yards See a pattern? I mentioned that we went 7-1 in games where he had 17 or more carries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, megared said: Saints 19-43 L: Peterson: 4 carries, 6 yards Falcons 14-38 L: Peterson: 9 carries, 17 yards Giants 16-40 L: Peterson: 10 carries, 16 yards Philly 0-24 L: Peterson: 4 carries, 0 yards See a pattern? I mentioned that we went 7-1 in games where he had 17 or more carries. Pattern appears to be that Peterson was very inefficient in those games and that you can't give him the ball 17+ times when you're down by 20+ points. The stats about winning % and number of carries are basically a correlation/causation issue. If you're able to get 5 yards a carry running it 30 times of course you probably won, and you were probably bleeding clock with a lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 1 minute ago, PF Chang said: Pattern appears to be that Peterson was very inefficient in those games and that you can't give him the ball 17+ times when you're down by 20+ points. The stats about winning % and number of carries are basically a correlation/causation issue. If you're able to get 5 yards a carry running it 30 times of course you probably won, and you were probably bleeding clock with a lead. Or the results of those games ended up being worse because we didn't feed him the rock. Those were by and large the games where we abandoned the run completely, and the scores got out of hand. There weren't many games where we had a productive rushing attack and weren't competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 If I were an NFL general manager, I would shy away from players with knee injuries in college. Of course some are able to overcome them and go on to have productive NFL careers, but more often than not they end up reinjuring the same knee or messing up the other one. It's just a bad sign. That's why I'm not optimistic about Guice ever amounting to anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJacobyHOForRIOT Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 1 hour ago, abdcskins said: If I were an NFL general manager, I would shy away from players with knee injuries in college. Of course some are able to overcome them and go on to have productive NFL careers, but more often than not they end up reinjuring the same knee or messing up the other one. It's just a bad sign. That's why I'm not optimistic about Guice ever amounting to anything. The Redskins always swing for the fences on players with a sketchy medical history, I don't feel like digging through all my posts to find this long winded write up i did a month ago about all the injury prone players we draft. actually.... I'll be back, let me look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain James Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said: The Redskins always swing for the feces Fixed that for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeJacobyHOForRIOT Posted September 10, 2019 Share Posted September 10, 2019 25 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said: The Redskins always swing for the fences on players with a sketchy medical history, I don't feel like digging through all my posts to find this long winded write up i did a month ago about all the injury prone players we draft. actually.... I'll be back, let me look 1 hour ago, abdcskins said: If I were an NFL general manager, I would shy away from players with knee injuries in college. Of course some are able to overcome them and go on to have productive NFL careers, but more often than not they end up reinjuring the same knee or messing up the other one. It's just a bad sign. That's why I'm not optimistic about Guice ever amounting to anything. Lets recap Draft position College Issues NFL ISSSUES current status RD2 19 Montez Sweat- Heart Issues ""possibly misdiagnosed"" N/A RD2 18 Derrius Guice Knee Injury Torn ACL First NFL drive Knee Injury out RD1 17 Jonathen Allen 2 shoulder surgerys week before combine Foot fracture Injured RD1 16 Josh Doctson Wrist surgery Constant Achilles Underachiever/Released RD2 16 Sua Cravens ? Head case ? ? head case ? Out of the league RD1 15 Brandon Scherff Broken Fibula / dislocated ankle Torn Pec Healthy RD3 15 Matt Jones Torn Maniscus Knee Injury loses job to Kelly Out of the league RD2 14 Trent Murphy Minor Issues as a freshman 2014 broken hand 2017 torn ACL Buffalo Bill RD3 13 Jordan Reed No major issues To many to list Injured RD1 12 RGIII I'm done I didn't even get into players in Free agency , thats a whole other beast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 7 hours ago, megared said: 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....... No dog in the fight but there are 3 ways to win. Passing for 400, not giving up 400, or something in between. Many of the top teams standing wise in recent years have 400 yard passing offenses. Now that we have a defense we aren't far away from competing in all style games, with our new found toys at WR. When the D gives you lemon DBs crush em deep. When they are soft up front Jay will pound the rock. Book it. Philly points to aerial show to expose their weaknesses on D and he was not as far from winning as Vegas and many others thought. Penalites and drops killed us making it a close game then semi blowout. We had mistakes, they didnt. Turnover free games are decided by the other negative plays as much as the positives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertbeagle85 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 These Peterson stats and comparisons are great and all. Just wondering though if anything else was said about Guice health today? Last I heard was MRI yesterday morning. I would assume they got that information back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 A friend told me he heard meniscus whatever the **** that means. MY FRIEND IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE JAG DONT ****ING QUOTE ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertbeagle85 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, RandyHolt said: A friend told me he heard meniscus whatever the **** that means. MY FRIEND IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE JAG DONT ****ING QUOTE ME Yeah that's what is being said, but the last thing I saw was this. I have yet to hear what the MRI revealed. Which could be bad at this point. Allens MRI has come back ESPN's Jeremy Fowler reports Derrius Guice is dealing with a meniscus injury. Guice hopes to return in a "few weeks." That's likely a best-case scenario, but there should be more clarity when the results of his MRI are known. Adrian Peterson will be active Sunday and should take over for Guice as Washington's lead back. Chris Thompson will remain in a passing down role. https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/player/12693/derrius-guice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 I have no idea is this relevant but Guice was quick to preach SCT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megared Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 30 minutes ago, RandyHolt said: No dog in the fight but there are 3 ways to win. Passing for 400, not giving up 400, or something in between. Many of the top teams standing wise in recent years have 400 yard passing offenses. Now that we have a defense we aren't far away from competing in all style games, with our new found toys at WR. When the D gives you lemon DBs crush em deep. When they are soft up front Jay will pound the rock. Book it. Philly points to aerial show to expose their weaknesses on D and he was not as far from winning as Vegas and many others thought. Penalites and drops killed us making it a close game then semi blowout. We had mistakes, they didnt. Turnover free games are decided by the other negative plays as much as the positives. But most of those top teams also have franchise QBs that can do that week in, & week out. Since we don't, I don't think relying on that kind of production is a sound gameplan. Our receivers played better than expected, our line held up surprisingly well against the Eagles' rush, AND Keenum played mistake free football (while still taking shots downfield). That's not going to happen every week. If we eventually go to Haskins some time this season, how would he be able to step into that offense and perform? By no means am I absolving the defense, but I'm not surprised. They've proven time & time again that they can't compete with high powered offenses. Until they prove otherwise, that's the status quo to me. And it's another reason why we can't be drawn into shootouts with good offensive teams. Get points on the board, run the clock out..control time of possession. We are not going to win many relying on this defensive personnel to come up with stops or turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyHolt Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, megared said: We are not going to win many relying on this defensive personnel to come up with stops or turnovers. Unless we finally **** can Manusky and unleash the D proper under the guidance of a Ryan bloodline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.