ummagumma Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Disagree - The gameplan last week was smart and played to our strengths. The game plan this week, well, it didn't exist. There is some talent here and when it's allowed to shine it can do so to a certain extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. D Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 "they kicked our tails" "they kicked our tails" "they kicked our tails" thanx for the insight there Stevie. I can't wait for next week when it can happen all over again. I must be a glutton for punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by Richard Nixon ppl talking about getting a GM, why? maybe you have a point but RIGHT NOW Spurrier should have won more than 5 games with this group of players If a GM is competent and given full authority, he is the one that can mentor the coach. I think that is what SS needs, a tutor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne I agree with one sentiment of this post, at least- before anyone says the turnover ratio is what killed us, actually look at how many points were scored off turnovers. One part of that stat that is missing, however, is that Hasselbeck (according to Sonny, he audibled on the play) threw the int inside the 15 once, so that's points they could take from us. The team played really poorly. It's true they turned the ball over a lot, but they still had a chance DESPITE the turnovers in the second half. They didn't put anything together, though, and instead looked as bad or worse. The Cowboys were prepared to make a statement today, and did; both to get into the playoffs and to make sure they knew they could get a road win. I don't know what the Redskins were thinking today. By the way, midweek I heard a news story that the practice facility was flooded or something, and Spurrier wanted Danny to build an indoor facility. I wonder if that played any part at all in laying a freaking goose egg. Despite the bad individual performances of a couple players in my opinion, I hesitate to lay a lot of blame on the defense. Other than that opening drive and towards the end, they didn't play too poorly for the larger portions of the game, and a better offensive display may have inspired them to play better down the stretch, and may have also let them get some rest. Instead, the offense (as we all saw) was pathetic. The defense at least deserves some credit in bailing us out of all of those turnovers early on, and keeping us in the game. Unfortunately, we just continually gave the ball back on 3-and-outs and other pathetic drives. The turnovers did kill us. It ended drives early, and kept the defense on the field allowing Dallas to control the clock. The turnover at the end of the first half to give Dallas an another TD was a huge blow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskeypeet Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originaly posted by JerseyGator Where's the talent on offense aside from Coles at the skill positions? We actually have a talented and deep receiving core. Coles, Garnder, McCants, and Johnson all have talent. Granted its extremely hard for a receiver to produce when the qb can't get them the ball....and when the line doesn't give the qb time to get rid of the ball. And that brings up another point. Why isn't our line better? Why can't the potential there be harnessed? Coaches have done more with less in this league. Somehow SS seems to do less with more. I, do however want to see what his offense will look like with a healthy and more experienced Ramsey. Im not ready to run him out of town yet.....but how much more patient should we be? Lets at least see the team develop some momentom and improve week to week. SS hasn't accomplished that yet. Also I don't think the Boys have a FO that has won 3 superbowls. To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, the only major piece left from that FO is Jerry Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Who knows if the gameplan would have worked, the offense couldn't execute squat today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 15, 2003 Author Share Posted December 15, 2003 A GM can't mentor the coach. This is a sentiment I've now seen repeatedly that seems utterly nonsensical. Name ONE GM who's a coach's mentor. A coach is supposed to be a coach. A GM is supposed to gather personnel. We've been successful in gathering the sort of personnel our coach needs. Our coach has been increasingly LESS successful USING that talent. The reason. Despite more talent the offense is performing at a lower pace because teams are comfortable with Spurrier and know how to defense him and he seems unsure how to react. Again, no one is mistaking the fact that he's been able to get guys open for easy gains and we've missed them as playing a major role in things. And, who knows, next year Ramsey may be at a point in his development where he's a 58 percent passer and we're a 12-4 team because suddenly all these drives that die on the vine now are continued for points. But, KNOWING we don't have that ability now Spurrier lacks the ability to adjust in a signicant way. Simply running a half dozen slants in a row isn't really HELPING us out a whole lot. Number One, I think the defense played pretty well for a good long stretch as well. The problem isn't that. The problem is that with this defense if we would be a little more imaginative and attacking, we'd be a lot better for a lot longer than we are. I actually think Edwards is afraid to be innovative at all because he's been burned by blown plays so much. But, still, that's his problem for not getting his guys ready to play their assignments a little better. Spurrier is just lost. Without a QB who can execute, he can't make the thing go. He can't manage a team and a game. He doesn't play field position. He needs a QB who will complete passes. The problem is, so often the QB is facing defenses that know where we're going with the ball and they are hesitant to pull the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by bubba9497 The turnovers did kill us. It ended drives early, and kept the defense on the field allowing Dallas to control the clock. The turnover at the end of the first half to give Dallas an another TD was a huge blow. See, you say the turnovers "killed" us and talk about the first half. We were still in the game at the beginning of the second half. As I said in the game thread, the opening drive of the second half would be telling- it would tell you if we had figured anything at all to do against them offensively, and hopefully make some kind of headway into their lead. Regardless, we had to make some yards on that opening drive to have a chance. What happened? Tried a trick play to LC, lost a yard on that one. Two incomplete passes later we're punting on 4th and 11. The key thing here is our offense versus their defense was a ridiculously one-sided battle. Turnovers or not, we could NOT do ANYTHING on offense. Maybe it can be blamed on Tim. Maybe it was preparation. I mean, we can have a lot of conjecture here, but what is obviously true is our offense could not do anything today. This was a day they chose not to blitz really, but instead to say "You cannot run, you must beat us with the pass." That's what it looked like as safeties came up to the line. What's stupid is that was supposed to be our gameplan, since we didn't think much of QC according to the press. Instead our QB turns out to be the goat. It didn't help that Morton added a punt fumble to the mix (which our D bailed us out of, if I remember correctly). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Art, I think you're completely off base here. No one wins when a QB completes two more passes to his own team than the other team. No one. To hold this against spurrier is laughable. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by Whiskeypeet Originaly posted by JerseyGator Granted its extremely hard for a receiver to produce when the qb can't get them the ball....and when the line doesn't give the qb time to get rid of the ball. That's the key..especially tonight...Tim couldn't throw the ball to the F'n Posse tonight and get 100 yards...say all you want about the line, but everytime I looked up he was overthrowing, underthrowing, or just tossing the ball away...it was bull****. What can we expect from a 3rd game starter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Sack Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 We have to hope Spurrier recognizes what seems so clear and does something to change it. Decides that simply calling ball plays isn't enough. He has to identify weakness on the opposition and target it and then have a plan for what to do when they adjust. He needs to spend countless nights sleeping at the facility, watching tape of the next opponent over and over, with a plan in his head. He needs to fine players for their stupidity and under-achievements. He needs to work them until they're puking blood. He needs to be a godd@mn NFL coach and cut the fluffy sh!t !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer Art, I think you're completely off base here. No one wins when a QB completes two more passes to his own team than the other team. No one. To hold this against spurrier is laughable. -DB I hold it against Spurrier not because I don't understand your point, that the players ultimately have to execute, but because in the face of REALITY, you don't keep going to that particular well. In other words, when your QB is having the day from hell, don't put the game in his hands to win. We'd probably have lost anyway today, but I'll not absolve Spurrier from culpability when he treated Hasselbeck like he was Brett Favre in the 2nd half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by Tarhog I hold it against Spurrier not because I don't understand your point, that the players ultimately have to execute, but because in the face of REALITY, you don't keep going to that particular well. In other words, when your QB is having the day from hell, don't put the game in his hands to win. We'd probably have lost anyway today, but I'll not absolve Spurrier from culpability when he treated Hasselbeck like he was Brett Favre in the 2nd half. According to Sonny on the radio, Dallas started sending a clear message that we'd have to complete passes before we would be allowed to run. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what Sonny said on the radio. He said they were clearly putting 8 men in the box. I was watching the game and I saw what he was referring to, but couldn't help thinking they would still be better served with more running than they did today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 I fully expected to open this thread and see Art making excuses for why SOS isn't as bad as we think based on this loss. However, he said pretty much what I've been thinking for the past few weeks. I think some of us put on some excessively rose colored glasses due to the Gints win. Fact is, we beat the Giants because they are a more horrible team than we are. Worse, Snyder really can't fire SOS now because of the vote of confidence given last week and because he can't be seen as being "rash" again. We're just stuck for another season whether we like it or not. All we can do is hope SOS spends significant time this offseason watching film and making changes. Also, I'm hoping our F.O. gets us a new D.C. (meaning a future H.C. in waiting as a contingency plan in case SOS doesn't improve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgordon Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave I'm just tired of trying to blame Snyder for everything like we were so great prior to him with john kent cooke or jack kent cooke in the post gibbs era I'm certainly not blaming Snyder....He gave Spurrier the players he wanted, and it STILL is not working. It is time for SOS to resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne According to Sonny on the radio, Dallas started sending a clear message that we'd have to complete passes before we would be allowed to run. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what Sonny said on the radio. He said they were clearly putting 8 men in the box. I was watching the game and I saw what he was referring to, but couldn't help thinking they would still be better served with more running than they did today. what has been Dallas's weakness the past two games? teams going downfield on them, when Washington (i.e. Hasselback) showed he couldn't get it done passing today, Dallas loaded up the run defense. The second half there was no where to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 A quality GM would not of let the QB situation we are suffering happen in the first place. A quality GM would not let us continually set up a coaching situation that deteriorates after one season. Our DC situation has been a JOKE! A quality GM wouldn't of let an entire defensive line be made up of has beens and never will be's going into the season. A quality GM probably wouldn't of made a WR our top priority in the draft fresh off solidifying the position in free agency. And a quality GM would solidify a position that is relatively undefined in this organization because of a headstrong owner determined to have a hand in the position causing a host of indecisions and unstability in the organization as a whole. We need a quality GM, and we'll be on our way back to respectability. Until the Snyder/Cerrato duo proves me wrong, I'll always think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by Art A GM can't mentor the coach. This is a sentiment I've now seen repeatedly that seems utterly nonsensical. Name ONE GM who's a coach's mentor. A coach is supposed to be a coach. A GM is supposed to gather personnel. We've been successful in gathering the sort of personnel our coach needs. Our coach has been increasingly LESS successful USING that talent. Well you're probably right and I guess "mentor" is probably not exactly what I meant. First, I thought that Ron Wolf did actually mentor Mike Sherman at least in in front office duties in order for Sherman to replace Wolf. A GM can say things like: "Nope, we're gonna get you a stud DL cuz that's what this team needs, not 20 WRs." "We're gonna take a RB in the 2nd round because your offense needs to be able to run the ball." And then have conversations on Monday like, "Look, you had a lead going into the 4th Qtr, we just got you a stud DL and a power RB, you needed to play to the ability of this team." And then if the coach does not listen, then the GM will fire the coach. That's what I meant by a competant GM with full authority. Seriously though, you're probably right. Obviously there aren't too many guys like that out there even if we would be willing to go that route, which we probably aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 This was one of those games where nothing worked. Blame it on the play-calling, blame it on the players, blame it on Danny, blame it on me for Christ's sake. They just plain sucked. This is the worst game that they played in teh past two years. And to the Cowboys, at that. I'm embarassed right now...everyone ridiculing me at the bar, calling out the 'Skins...I was embarrased. But waht could I do to respond to the naysayers...nothing!!! I couldn't say ****, because they got waxed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsNumberOne According to Sonny on the radio, Dallas started sending a clear message that we'd have to complete passes before we would be allowed to run. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what Sonny said on the radio. He said they were clearly putting 8 men in the box. I was watching the game and I saw what he was referring to, but couldn't help thinking they would still be better served with more running than they did today. If there's any shooting to be done here I'll aim the gun at my own head :shot: I don't doubt that Dallas dared us to beat them on the ground in the 2nd half. But we didn't face the challenge. We'll never know for sure whether Rock could've had the 2nd half of his life. He didn't get the chance. Like I said. Its likely we'd have lost anyway. But any moron could see Hasselbeck was incapable of pulling this game out for us in the 2nd half today. In view of that, I say you stick to the run in the 2nd half, 8 men in the box or not. At least then, when you do call play-action, you have a chance at catching them out of position. Todays gameplan, like much of our season, clearly ignored the reality of what our team can, and can't do. And thats the ultimate indictment of Spurrier.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 We have to hope Spurrier recognizes what seems so clear and does something to change it. Decides that simply calling ball plays isn't enough. He has to identify weakness on the opposition and target it and then have a plan for what to do when they adjust. Herein lies the problem. Spurrier does not recognize what works and how to win games. One week we run the hell out of the ball and it wins us the game. The very next week he reverts back to the pass, even if it isn't working. It reminds me of the old story of the scorpion and the frog. They were both at the river and needed to cross. The scorpion asks the frog if he can ride on the frogs back to make the crossing. The frog says "No, if you get on my back and I start to swim across, you will sting me". The scorpion says, "No I won't. If I do that we will both drown". This makes sense to the frog, so he agrees, and the scorpion hops on the frogs back. About half way across the river, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, "Why did you do that? Now we will both drown!" The scorpion says, "I couldn't help it, it's in my nature" Sound like a certain ball coach in regard to the pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 It seems that Spurrier needs to get into a rhythym with his playcalling. When the team grinds out a first down or two, it appears that he gets comfortable on the drive and really starts dialing in. But, he seems to have a really hard time getting drives started. He seems to be at a loss as to how to go with the initial plays of a drive. Kind of like throwing stuff at a wall and seeing what sticks. He's gotta prepare better. I think today was a lost cause because Hasselbeck was the QB from Hell. I don't think Spurrier really knows what to do if his QB can't hit the broad side of a barn. He NEEDS plays to be made in the passing game. He'll lean on the run sometimes to get by, but that has to be augmented by the threat of the pass. If he doesn't have that, and he clearly didn't today, the thing won't go at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 AGree completely. There's no way that anything can happen when Terence Newman has more receptions that the Redskins receivers!!! Rock ran okay, but put 8 in the box and let Hasselbeck beat you, which is what the Cowgirls did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowtrain Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Snyder's endorsement of Spurrier was misguided and premature. With new coaches all over the league debunking the "Coaching Continuity Myth," the Skins would be best off cutting bait on Spurrier and starting fresh. He's taken the team backwards in spite of having better talent and a year of NFL experience. That's damning. And if fans have lost confidence in him after watching his coaching skills exposed, how do you think his own players feel? Continuity? Ask Panthers, Cowboys or Bengals fans how much stock they put in the continuity theory. With some focus on the DL, the Skins will have a nice assembly of talent in 2004. Don't waste it on Spurrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.