Angus Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I am a Cowboys fan, but a realistic one. I have already posted on a Cowboys board that I think the Redskins will win next Sunday. I think they would win even if the game were in Dallas. The inept play of Quincy Carter has demoralized the Dallas team, I believe, and because Carter is unable to handle the pressure of the playoffs quest late in the season, I believe he will throw two or three more interceptions in the coming game. By the way, congrats on your win over the Giants, who, I fear, will also beat Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 IMPOSTER!!!! No way are you a Dallas Fan..... (Joke).....yah dude...Quincy looked like my 12 yr old nephew last night throwing the ball.....I hope LaVar ends his career and you guys can go for another replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Carter benefitted greatly from Parcells changing the system in Dallas and putting him in nice positions to win. As teams have altered how they play you it's been difficult for Carter to maintain that level because he's not a very good QB. Like Hasselbeck, I think he's shown he's an excellent backup in this league, which is not something I thought was possible to start this year. But he has so many warts in his game it's unrealistic to see him as the answer. Still, in no game Bill Parcells coaches against Steve Spurrier would I favor the Redskins. Regardless of Carter's mistakes. Regardless of relative talent level. Right now Spurrier and his staff have shown themselves capable only of being outsmarted and outcoached. Parcells is a master. He is the kind of guy who'll have you so prepared we will struggle unless we do something substantially different than we've shown to this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Brown #43 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I have a good feeling about this one from the Skins' perspective, but no...you won't lose to the Giants. They are dreadful right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Well Angus, I hope you're right. But if there's any team that the Redskins have proven they can lose to no matter what the circumstances, it's the Cowboys. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktball74 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Bellichek is a master as well, and Spurrier beat/outcoached him. Parcells can only do so much with the talent he has. If the Skins don't shoot themselves in the foot, then they will probably win. The Skins have more talent then the Cowboys. Plus the Cowboys undersized defense is finally wearing down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Spurrier is no idiot compared to Parcells....Parcells success came in the pros and Spurrier's (mostly) in college. Lets face it. Its not like Spurrier came here from another planet. He was in the NFL for how many years? He coached in the USFL. He coached at a top notch college in a top notch conference. I cannot wait until he starts laying a$$ whoopins' on all these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 KT, Actually, no, we didn't outcoach Belichek. We beat the Patriots, but we were outcoached. We have the talent to beat any number of teams and at times we will, often despite being less than optimally utilized -- especially defensively. They had four turnovers because we stepped up and made plays. That's to our credit. But it's not coaching so much -- though to some degree it is I suppose. In any case, I wouldn't want the Patriots right now against us when they aren't turning the ball over. They did almost anything they wanted to do to us but kept turning it over. The only person Spurrier has directly outcoached this year was Rhodes, who really was just stupid more than Spurrier did something different. I'm not sure Edwards has had the advantage over anyone to this point. But there's still time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktball74 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 For a moment, it was a nice thought! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I guess the great Parcells didn't prepare them to snap the ball in shotgun formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins26 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 What?!??! I thought Quincy was pro bowl material?? hahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainSkinsFan Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by Art KT, Actually, no, we didn't outcoach Belichek. We beat the Patriots, but we were outcoached. We have the talent to beat any number of teams and at times we will, often despite being less than optimally utilized -- especially defensively. They had four turnovers because we stepped up and made plays. That's to our credit. But it's not coaching so much -- though to some degree it is I suppose. How did Belichek outcoach Spurrier? I mean, this can be argued either way...I could say that Spurrier had his team "prepared" to take advantage of/cause turnovers in that game. You seem to credit, your god, Bill Parcells for this kind of thing. What is your obsession with Parcells?? Can you explain the Cowgirls decline in the past few weeks. Is the great coach asleep at the wheel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 KT, The Cowboys are no longer a surprise. Parcells is hardly my God. But what he is, is an excellent coach who prepares his team for every eventuality. The Cowboys are playing better teams now and losing. That's to be expected. They aren't a very good team. Teams also have a better book on what Parcells will do with his Dallas talent and they are reacting well and taking things away from him because there are a ton of smart people in the league. I think Belichek is similar to Parcells in terms of game planning and properly preparing his players but he's actually better at the innovation and confusion he can create with his guys. Perhaps you need to rewatch the Pats game to recall just how badly we were outcoached in that contest to fully appreciate what good coaching is. The lack of preparation on the Redskins is astounding when compared to competent coaching elsewhere in the league. The inability -- or should I say unwillingness since we have the ability -- to create mismatches is stunning. You NEVER see Coles alone against a safety. You never see him alone against a backer. We do nothing by formation to create advantages. We just run ball plays. That's fine, because that's what Spurrier does and you can see how it can work if we execute. Defensively there's a greater schematic problem. We simply are unprepared for even simple things. Like the mere possibility of a reverse. An outside screen into seven-man coverage. SIMPLE things that we are getting exploited on. Parcells would have THIS Redskin team at 9 or 10 wins. Because he'd hide our weaknesses and play to our strengths until teams exploited them. I have hopes that Spurrier is learning how to get to that level. He's just not there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by Art The lack of preparation on the Redskins is astounding when compared to competent coaching elsewhere in the league. Completely true and seemingly inexcuseable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big z Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I want our Skins to crush dallas so badly..... but then I cringe when thinking of Snyder..... him saying....maybe we should give the ol' ballcoach another year afterall..... please....please no..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainSkinsFan Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Art, Ok, so you say that Belichek is far ahead of Spurrier in terms of coaching skill, but somehow, we found a way to beat him. If you are saying the same thing about Parcells then why..."Still, in no game Bill Parcells coaches against Steve Spurrier would I favor the Redskins"...how do you know we won't find a way to beat them? Maybe there is more to winning a football game than Art's perception of "great coaching". Also, it seems a bit hypocritical/unfair to say that Spurrier doesn't do a good job at preparing the team but then not give him credit when his team actually beats a "well-prepared" team. The excuse you give for the Cowboys is laughable. It is very convenient to give Parcells the credit when the Cowboys win, but then blame the players abilities when they lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by Art KT, The Cowboys are no longer a surprise. Parcells is hardly my God. But what he is, is an excellent coach who prepares his team for every eventuality. The Cowboys are playing better teams now and losing. That's to be expected. They aren't a very good team. Teams also have a better book on what Parcells will do with his Dallas talent and they are reacting well and taking things away from him because there are a ton of smart people in the league. I think Belichek is similar to Parcells in terms of game planning and properly preparing his players but he's actually better at the innovation and confusion he can create with his guys. Perhaps you need to rewatch the Pats game to recall just how badly we were outcoached in that contest to fully appreciate what good coaching is. The lack of preparation on the Redskins is astounding when compared to competent coaching elsewhere in the league. The inability -- or should I say unwillingness since we have the ability -- to create mismatches is stunning. You NEVER see Coles alone against a safety. You never see him alone against a backer. We do nothing by formation to create advantages. We just run ball plays. That's fine, because that's what Spurrier does and you can see how it can work if we execute. Defensively there's a greater schematic problem. We simply are unprepared for even simple things. Like the mere possibility of a reverse. An outside screen into seven-man coverage. SIMPLE things that we are getting exploited on. Parcells would have THIS Redskin team at 9 or 10 wins. Because he'd hide our weaknesses and play to our strengths until teams exploited them. I have hopes that Spurrier is learning how to get to that level. He's just not there now. Spurrier seems to have the shotgun preparation tactics better than Parcells. As long as we can pick and choose the parts of games that are attributable to preparation, I choose to attribute yesterday's safety from a shotgun snap (and they were lucky it was just a safety) to Parcells preparation. I'm sure Spurrier would be blamed if it happened to us; it would be Spurrier's lack of preparation... I'd be seeing posts about how they don't practice the shotgun enough... I also think that while you can say "Spurrier should be more involved in the defense", personally I'd hesitate before saying "Spurrier is to blame for our defensive problems." From what I have read, heard, and seen, Spurrier does not involve himself very much into the defensive side of the ball. I think he has increased his involvement at times (and I think it has helped and shown some growth), but I wouldn't blame Spurrier for our defensive woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by KTrainSkinsFan Art, Ok, so you say that Belichek is far ahead of Spurrier in terms of coaching skill, but somehow, we found a way to beat him. If you are saying the same thing about Parcells then why..."Still, in no game Bill Parcells coaches against Steve Spurrier would I favor the Redskins"...how do you know we won't find a way to beat them? Maybe there is more to winning a football game than Art's perception of "great coaching". Also, it seems a bit hypocritical/unfair to say that Spurrier doesn't do a good job at preparing the team but then not give him credit when his team actually beats a "well-prepared" team. The excuse you give for the Cowboys is laughable. It is very convenient to give Parcells the credit when the Cowboys win, but then blame the players abilities when they lose. Who said I didn't forsee the possibility of a Redskins victory? I said in no game Bill Parcells coaches against Steve Spurrier would I favor the Redskins. A Cowboy fan here was doing that. I'm fully hopeful of a victory. I can see many ways it can happen. As I wrote about the Pats, we are a team that has enough individual talent to rise up and beat a lot of teams that are better than us. Despite being unprepared and looking clueless for portions of those very games. There's a great deal more to winning games than great coaching. There's great talent. Or, even so-so talent, as Parcells has shown. A fashion by which many teams lose those is due to poor coaching. In fact, that's often a way in a league full of parity teams find themselves losing games. Parcells has taken a team of three consecutive 5-11 records and made it competitive. Of course he's going to get credit for that. This is not a team that's actually done a great deal of improving in the offseason. There's pretty much Parcells and his staff, Terence Newman and Terry Glenn that's really different about this team. Coaching matters in football like no other sport. If you fail to recognize that then you have a very big problem understanding the game of football. Ultimately I think we are a team with better talent than the Cowboys. And that talent will often win us football games against teams that are better than we are. Which, right now, the Cowboys are. And they are so because Parcells has lifted that organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne Spurrier seems to have the shotgun preparation tactics better than Parcells. As long as we can pick and choose the parts of games that are attributable to preparation, I choose to attribute yesterday's safety from a shotgun snap (and they were lucky it was just a safety) to Parcells preparation. I'm sure Spurrier would be blamed if it happened to us; it would be Spurrier's lack of preparation... I'd be seeing posts about how they don't practice the shotgun enough... I also think that while you can say "Spurrier should be more involved in the defense", personally I'd hesitate before saying "Spurrier is to blame for our defensive problems." From what I have read, heard, and seen, Spurrier does not involve himself very much into the defensive side of the ball. I think he has increased his involvement at times (and I think it has helped and shown some growth), but I wouldn't blame Spurrier for our defensive woes. This is fairly inane. I realize a number of you begrudge the obvious and here the obvious is Parcells is an excellent coach who makes a difference in the ability of his football team. Mistakes happen by humans. No, Spurrier wouldn't be blamed for a poor snap from center or from a QB not being ready for a snap. Anymore than he's to blame for fumbles or interceptions or missed field goals. Mistakes are part of the game. Where he is responsible is for penalties. False starts and even holds as there is technique to avoid that. He is responsible for creating positive matchups that favor us and limiting those that don't. He is responsible for teaching the team, including the defense, that everyone has a job and everyone must DO their job. I don't know that I blame Spurrier either for our defensive problems. He's trying to be like Gibbs and leave the defense alone. But as the head coach when he sees the same types of mistakes and blown assignments caused by freelancing, he either has to compel Edwards to do something about it, or he has to himself. When time and again you see Ramsey throwing into double coverage despite having an eight man blitz on, you know there's something wrong with the prep of getting him ready to play. Against the Giants when you have first and goal from the one and the Giants blitz up the middle on first down, then play edge defense on second down, then have your tight end covered on a play action on third down, sacking your QB, you know what good coaching is and what it isn't. Spurrier is very capable of running exquisitely designed and executed routes. But too often teams know everything we're doing and we know too little of what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainSkinsFan Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Originally posted by Art Coaching matters in football like no other sport. If you fail to recognize that then you have a very big problem understanding the game of football. Ultimately I think we are a team with better talent than the Cowboys. And that talent will often win us football games against teams that are better than we are. Which, right now, the Cowboys are. And they are so because Parcells has lifted that organization. I am aware of the importance of coaching in the NFL. What I am confused about is the reasoning you use in attributing great and poor coaching to certain wins/losses. Before, you asked me to watch the Pats game again. I was actually at that game. I do respect your apparent football knowledge, but, I am having a hard time seeing how we were so handily outcoached. Please explain...You can find the play-by-play at NFL.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 KT, I don't have to specifically look anything up. I recall that game very well. We started out well. Had things going pretty good even. Kind of like we did against Tampa. But when the adjustments came we were through. If I'm not mistaken we didn't hold the Pats to a single three and out. That's coaching. That's design. That's allowing them to get on top of us and keep us off balance and live on the edge. We won despite that. Offensively after a nice start, I remember looking on with dread as we just got stoned in the second half. Fortunately we kept getting turnovers which is not always about coaching, but sometimes the luck of the bounce. We're one of the best teams in the league in turnover ratio. A lot of that has been the luck of the bounce. That game was the first game you saw in which Ramsey looked bewildered. He couldn't figure out a place to go with the ball. It could well be possible Spurrier simply went into a shell in the second half, but, that's really not Spurrier. He's not going to pull up short in the third quarter. From that game on the offense took a deep spiral downward. We couldn't get anything going on any consistent basis and a lot of it was the fact that we couldn't do so against a depleted Pats team based on the looks we were getting. That was the first game I recall Ramsey holding the ball looking endlessly for somewhere to go with it. And since you've never seen him overcome that tentative nature because so much of what we do is known precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyGator Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 This board sounds more and more like the PC media to me. Why do so few people mention how hobbled the Redskins offense is, but many of our opponents are "beaten up" with comparable injuries when we played them? The Patriots were missing Washington, Vrabel and Johnson when they played the Skins. Fiore has only played 3 games. Ramsey has missed 3 and been hobbled probably for several more. Betts, Jacobs, Samuels, Canidate and Moore have all missed a fair amount of time. I don't think it's real fair to compare Belichek with Spurrier at this point when the Patriots talent level on offense, Spurrier's specialty, is comparable, with the exception of receivers, to that of the Skins. I think Belicheks defense has much more talent than Spurrier's offense. Not a whole lot of people wanted Johnson, McCants and Canidate. I'm also not sold on Ramsey by any means so far. He's shown a few flashes but can learn a lot from Hasselbeck. For Spurrier to be successful as a passing oriented coach, he needs a smart, tough QB. It's easier for a defensive coach to make adjustments than an offensive coach, who relies on the QB virtually every play. People seem to forget that Parcells, who started as an LB coach, inherited LT in his prime. That's like Spurrier getting someone far greater than Ramsey at this point at QB. I think the biggest disparity between the Cowboys, Patriots and Skins lies in the front office. Kraft and Jones have taken their teams to multiple Super Bowls. Neither of them inherited much when they got there. We can beat the Cowboys on Saturday, especially if the offensive players play smart and execute. BTW, I also think Spurrier outcoached the Dolphins with a very green QB in Miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Well, when we played the Pats they certainly didn't have more talent defensively than we had offensively. Whether they do now or not is certainly an interesting topic of conversation. As for discussing other teams that are beat up versus when we are the reason why we might not always discuss it is because we aren't all that terribly beat up. Fiore is out and that really impacted us the first three weeks or so he was in there, but that's ceased being an issue of late as Dockery may actually be an upgrade. Haley is out, but Dalton is actually outperforming him as well as Russell in the mix. Essentially we're out Ramsey and that's only been for a couple of weeks. We've been a pretty healthy team this year on the whole. We've certainly not experienced the injury problems the Pats have as an example. As for outcoaching the Dolphins, let me say first that it's VERY hard to clearly outcoach the opposition in a game you lose. Second, when you combine that with having less offense than the opposition, as an offensive coach, it's hard to say you outcoached the opposition. Now, that was a nice game for Spurrier, but, are we really at a point where we have 277 yards of total offense and we brag about outcoaching the opposition IN A LOSS. A win is another story. You can outcoach the opposition in a win under any number of crazy scenarios where they outgain you. We're just not a team that's really to that point yet I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDALERT Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Actually, the Redskins beat the Patriots by exploiting the younger players that we're in the game for the injured ones. Furthermore, the Patriots defense wasn't on the same page early in the season due to the injuries they had and the players that we're in there replacing them. It was like the 2nd string players in there we're throwing off the entire defense and they we're somewhat confused. I'm quite sure we can relate to that problem with the Redskin defense over the past couple of years. Anyhow, that goes to show how good of a coach Bellichik really is, because he has the knack to bring dysfunctional defenses and players together to eventually get them all on the same page no matter who's in there. Fortunately, we caught him and the defense not being on the same page early in the game. But what we witnessed was Bellichik eventually getting the guys on the same page after the 1st half of the game. Because the 2nd half, he totally shut the Redskin offense down. But after we had gathered up enough points early in the game by exposing their injuries, it was too late and a big enough cushion to carry us to the win. Not only that, but Bradey was making bad decisons trying to carry the team that wasn't on the same page on defense, the same defense that got the Pats behind by letting Spurrier expose the early confusion caused by the subs. So bradey started forcing passes into coverage late in the game that led to turnovers. The entire Patriot team became shell shocked early by the defense playing so badly and not being on the same page, that it caused the offense and Bradey to get desperate late in the game. Well! thiat desperation caused the Patriots the game. Because we we're out coached in that game by the Patriots coaching staff and the early confusion by the Pats defense and the missing players on defense helped the Redskins and Spurrier jump all over them early. But like I said, Bellichik adjusted and finally got the subs and the entire defense to start playing like they were capable of once they got confident in what they were doing and what Bill Bellichik and the DC was telling them. But Unfortunately, the early jump by the Redskins was too much for them and bradey to overcome. Not when you have Tom Bradey trying to carry the team on his shoulders and making desperate throws into coverage. Those mistakes saved the Redskins and helped propell us to the victory. But no! I would'nt want to play them same healthy Patriots today when the 1st stringers are all now healthy and on the same page. If we did and Ramsey was QB, Ramsey probably would have more than just his foot ailing. He'd be getting his entire Arse put back together after the game.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainSkinsFan Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Originally posted by Art KT, I don't have to specifically look anything up. I recall that game very well. We started out well. Had things going pretty good even. Kind of like we did against Tampa. But when the adjustments came we were through. If I'm not mistaken we didn't hold the Pats to a single three and out. That's coaching. That's design. That's allowing them to get on top of us and keep us off balance and live on the edge. We won despite that. You disappoint me Art. Let's just say that you are right. The Skins got totally outcoached in the second half of the Pats game. SINCE WHEN DOES A HALF MEAN THE WHOLE GAME??? Can't you see that you are being selective about where you attribute good/bad coaching. I could come right back and say, "The Pats were outcoached in the first half, Spurrier is the greatest...he destroyed Belichek!!!". You have pretty much won the argument for me here. Your bias and propensity to credit good coaching for the opposing team's success while crediting "dumb luck" to ours is shining through. With that being said, I am still reluctant to say that we got totally outcoached in the second half. I am looking at the play-by-play, and I don't see it. Take NE's first drive in the second half for instance: 1-10-NE20 (15:00) T.Brady pass to T.Brown to NE 23 for 3 yards (C.Bailey). 2-7-NE23 (14:31) K.Faulk left end to NE 26 for 3 yards (J.Trotter). 3-4-NE26 (13:55) (Shotgun) K.Faulk right end to NE 21 for -5 yards (C.Bailey). FUMBLES (C.Bailey), touched at NE 17, RECOVERED by WAS-M. Bowen at NE 6. M. Bowen to NE 1 for 5 yards (D.Branch). Now, you say the turnovers were just "lucky bounces", but in this case, Bailey makes that big play in the BACKFIELD so the Pats would have had to punt anyway if they didn't fumble. Are the Skins being punished here. in your eyes, because they caused a turnover?? We all have biases, and that's cool...we can't help that. The important thing is to realize your bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.