By TK in ES Coverage

[jbooma]

Spurrier said yesterday that will be sweeping changes. I assume this means assistants as well as players. He did mention that the skins need to get a big back (davis type ) to play in the NFC east and the bad weather. The way he said that to me thinks he wanted to keep Davis all along but it was the FO that wanted to get rid of him.

I am curious of Spurrier in his contract that he can make Snyder hire a GM, it sounds like he isn't happy with the personel he has gotten. He said we will know everything in 2 weeks, and they are already planning for the offseason.

He kept saying we need to fix the team, it sounded like someone who is dedicated to fixing this. This is the first time I have heard him talk about the future of the team and it sounds like he will be here.

He wants to resign Champ and Lavar and Samuels, right away.

[@SkinsGoldPants]

Find a team in the league that was willing to pay what Davis would of made in DC.

[jbooma]

One other thing Spurrier also said they had two gameplans for yesterday one if the Cowboys blitzed and one if they played zone. So those stories about the skins only prepared for one reaction are stupid.

He just said that Tim and the offense played the worst game ever.

[Hitman56]

Right, Steve. Keep throwing at Terrence Newman.

[bobzmuda]

Originally posted by Hitman56

Right, Steve. Keep throwing at Terrence Newman.

Hello. Welcome to the world of Free Will. Tim was the one throwing jumpballs out there.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by jbooma

One other thing Spurrier also said they had two gameplans for yesterday one if the Cowboys blitzed and one if they played zone. So those stories about the skins only prepared for one reaction are stupid.

From the score it looks like they didn't use either one. :laugh:

[Riggo-toni]

Spurrier did not call a bad game on Sunday - Hasselbeck simply stunk up the place.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by jbooma

Spurrier said yesterday that will be sweeping changes. I assume this means assistants as well as players. He did mention that the skins need to get a big back (davis type ) to play in the NFC east and the bad weather.

Yeah, unfortunately it only took him two years to figure out what most of us already knew from watching years of NFC East football. So now its screw the DL again and full steam ahead and blow the #1 draft pick on a RB. :laugh:

Bulldog was right about the RB. :laugh:

[Art]

Stability and continuity means something. It means we support Spurrier. It means we'll sacrifice another year for the alter of continuity. To witness something of a plan in place and see if it can build. For those of us talking about stability, that's why we're willing to go another year with Spurrier.

Sweeping changes though means we're not having stability. It means there won't be continuity. Absent that, the question becomes whether Spurrier's a guy we'd still support in such a situation. Honestly, I don't view the problem with this team as a lack of personnel so much as a lack of coaching.

But, I'm not going to quibble with "sweeping" changes in personnel. I think we have a number of players who have great skill and talent, but, may lack the heart and personality to play the way a lesser player with those intangibles might play. I love Trotter and think he's still a possibly dominating player if used correctly, but, he continues to blow assignments. You can see him doing it.

If this team can get better by bringing in hungrier players, I'm all for it. But in such a case I could also be persuaded to support a change in coaching staff as well. I'm interested to see what "sweeping" changes are in store. I support relative continuity. Returning almost the entire starting group if possible and see what transpires.

If we're going to blow things up, I don't know that it makes a tremendous amount of sense to do that AND to keep Spurrier.

[rdsknbill]

Riggo, you are dead on! He looked completely lost

[jbooma]

Originally posted by inmate running the asylum

Yeah, unfortunately it only took him two years to figure out what most of us already knew from watching years of NFC East football. So now its screw the DL again and full steam ahead and blow the #1 draft pick on a RB. :laugh:

Bulldog was right about the RB. :laugh:

What a lot of you fail to recognize is if we had a good back you know how many times we would have scored inside the 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We kicked so many fing fg's because we couldn't punch it in. We are not going to find the help for DL in the draft, it takes time to develop these picks. We have to look towards freeagency to fix it now and then draft to make it stronger in the future. I see as taking the safety from Miami in the draft especially if we lose Champ.

[Art]

Booma,

We've had 7 short field goals of the variety you're talking about.

St. Louis has 15. Indy has 17. Baltimore 16. Carolina 13. Denver 10. New England 15. I can go on if you'd like. The point is we don't have an abnormal number of short field goals. So in your effort to continue to play down the coaching problems we've had you continue to have to create a situation where it's not his fault. In this case you've made up a stat you had in your head we were worse than most teams and now discover we're actually BETTER than most.

Our problems on offense haven't been in the red zone this year. Our problems on offense have been GETTING to the red zone this year.

[NavyDave]

I dont think he looks lost he looks flabergasted at the lack of effort and execution from our so called stars.

And it is unrealistic to think a parttime carpenter was going to come in off the street in the middle of the season and perform like a pro bowler.

The only carpenter who could pull off a miracle like that has a birthday next Thursday

[JackC]

I agree with Art, no more sweeping changes! Please let's bring most of this talent back next year, draft a pass rusher and a bigger running back and go to war! Maybe we win some of those close games we lost this year.

[skinsfanjoe]

Originally posted by Art

Our problems on offense haven't been in the red zone this year. Our problems on offense have been GETTING to the red zone this year.

Exactly! And this points to a problem with Spurriers coaching! His lack of developing any kind of rythm for Ramsey, passing three straight downs, passing on way to many 3rd and shorts, or running a sweep or toss instead of pounding it up the gut. His offense is so College it's pathetic.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Art

Booma,

We've had 7 short field goals of the variety you're talking about.

Art,

Look you are a smart man I hope you understand I am not talking about how many but when they happened. Think about this, the Miami game , we would have won that game if we could punch it in, Carolina, Philly, NY, the Tampa Game might have been different, NO, etc....

So if we had a RB that could punch it in we would have had maybe 5 or 6 more wins. That would put us at 10-4 or 9-5, guess what we would be talking playoffs not coaching changes.

Also the teams you mentioned were in the redzone many more times then us so of course they would have higher numbers.

This also doesn't take away we might have Ramsey now playing because a good back would take away a lot of the punishment he was taking because they would respect the running game more.

[NavyDave]

Betts and da rock are the type that can do it but the o line needs to reintroduced to smashmouth since most of are runs are draws and betts being injured this year didnt help

[@SkinsGoldPants]

The OL needs to be reintroduced to coaching and not "stand with your hands up" type of talk.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by NavyDave

Betts and da rock are the type that can do it but the o line needs to reintroduced to smashmouth since most of are runs are draws and betts being injured this year didnt help

Can we all say the Betts experiment is a disaster!!! 2 seasons and he has played in 6 games I think. He gets hurt looking at the defense in the game :doh:

[bubba9497]

Spurrier said there will be changes, but I wouldn't say "sweeping" exactly. It sounded to me he was talking about the coaching, (and possibly FO?) He said we would know more at the end of the season, and wouldn't go into details.

[BD]

Originally posted by Art

Booma,

We've had 7 short field goals of the variety you're talking about.

St. Louis has 15. Indy has 17. Baltimore 16. Carolina 13. Denver 10. New England 15. I can go on if you'd like. The point is we don't have an abnormal number of short field goals. So in your effort to continue to play down the coaching problems we've had you continue to have to create a situation where it's not his fault. In this case you've made up a stat you had in your head we were worse than most teams and now discover we're actually BETTER than most.

Our problems on offense haven't been in the red zone this year. Our problems on offense have been GETTING to the red zone this year.

In addition, Ramsey was money inside the red zone this season. Had some of the best numbers of any QB, thanks to Darnerian.

BD

[NavyDave]

how is that a disaster he was a backup to S Davis until S Davis was hurt

He was hurt in the preseason and again this year as had the rest of our backs heck nearly all of the star backs this year have missed multiple games.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by NavyDave

how is that a disaster he was a backup to S Davis until S Davis was hurt

He was hurt in the preseason and again this year as had the rest of our backs heck nearly all of the star backs this year have missed multiple games.

You don't see a trend here Navy? Every second game he is in he gets hurt. He is always hurt during Training Camp, etc......

I don't think this is just a coincedence now do you :doh:

He could be a good backup but has not showed anything that he can be a feature back in the NFL.

[Art]

JB,

What you're saying is if the Redskins were the only team in the league to score touchdowns 100 percent of the time in the red zone we'd win a lot more games? Uh, no sh!t. We'd be killing teams. But, again, that's not reasonable. We have a very low number of field goals in the red zone. We're not losing because of that. We're losing because we're not getting down there enough. If we had twice as many field goals in the red zone we'd also have won five or six more games. Just look at the list of teams I provided you already if you need proof.

[Riggo-toni]

Betts looks solid when he's healthy, but he hasn't proven by any means he can stay healthy

Everyone has criticized our RB by committee approach but let's be honest: None of our RBs is durable enough to play whole games for most of the season Every single tailback has been injured this year Betts and Rock with Morton as the changeup back looks good to me - IF they can stay healthy

Oh, and statistically, I remember some broadcaster stating since Spurrier's been here, we'e run more in the red zone than any other team