Welcome To The Washington Commanders Brian Robinson RB Alabama

[Spaceman Spiff]

5 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

ToP doesn't mean jack if you're not ending drives with points.

You can run for touchdowns too. 

[Koolblue13]

10 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

ToP doesn't mean jack if you're not ending drives with points.

Are you sure?

[Warhead36]

51 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Are you sure?

If you're getting 0 points every drive it doesn't matter if you have tons of time of possession.

 

Points per possession is a much better stat.

56 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

You can run for touchdowns too. 

Sure, but long 10+ play drives are not sustainable. Your margin of error is super low. If you have one bad play, your drive is basically over. The best teams need to be able to make big plays and occasionally score from 30+ yards out.

 

Why do you think Marty Schottenheimer lost in the playoffs every year?

[Koolblue13]

20 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

If you're getting 0 points every drive it doesn't matter if you have tons of time of possession.

 

Points per possession is a much better stat.

Sure, but long 10+ play drives are not sustainable. Your margin of error is super low. If you have one bad play, your drive is basically over. The best teams need to be able to make big plays and occasionally score from 30+ yards out.

 

Why do you think Marty Schottenheimer lost in the playoffs every year?

So, you're saying that someone saying longer drives and more ToP didn't infer scoring drives, correct?  And you're making the point that allowing your opponent less chances to score, doesn't give you a higher chance of winning?

[Spaceman Spiff]

25 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

 

 

Why do you think Marty Schottenheimer lost in the playoffs every year?

 

"The Drive" authored by John Elway, where they didn't blitz him the entire time.  Think he'd have liked to have kept Elway off the field?  Ernest Byner's fumble, too.

 

Quote

 

1988 AFC wild-card round: Houston 24, Cleveland 23 Schottenheimer assumed the OC duties and called the plays. The Browns even got back to the playoffs despite cycling through four starting quarterbacks due to injuries. Cleveland had the ball late near midfield while trailing by five, but someone named Mike Pagel threw an interception.

 

1990 AFC wild-card round: Miami 17, Kansas City 16 Even after Marino led a pair of fourth-quarter scoring drives to give the Dolphins the lead with 3:28 to play, Kansas City still had a chance. The Chiefs quickly drove to the Miami 26-yard line before a holding penalty knocked them back to the 37. Kansas City ran the ball on second-and-20 and wound up settling for a 52-yard field goal try by Nick Lowery. He missed.

 

1993 AFC Championship Game: Buffalo 31, Kansas City 13 To bolster an offense that kept losing to better QBs, the Chiefs traded for 37-year-old living legend Joe Montana and signed future Hall of Fame running back Marcus Allen in free agency. Both moves paid off. Kansas City won a pair of playoff games - including a road upset of an outstanding Oilers team - before stumbling against the Bills again. Montana suffered a concussion that knocked him out of the game early in the second half when the Chiefs were already down 20-6. Schottenheimer would never win another playoff game.

 

1994 AFC wild-card round: Miami 27, Kansas City 17 Montana and Marino were tied at 17 at halftime, but on back-to-back drives in the fourth quarter, Montana was picked off by J.B. Brown near the goal line and Allen had the ball ripped from his hands by Michael Stewart. It was the last game of Montana's career.

 

 

1995 AFC divisional round: Indianapolis 10, Kansas City 7 Journeyman quarterback Steve Bono had a brilliant regular season, but his limitations were on full display in frigid conditions. Bono threw three second-half interceptions before being yanked for Gannon, who guided the Chiefs into field-goal range with less than a minute remaining. Lin Elliott's 42-yard attempt sailed wide left - one of his three missed kicks that afternoon.

 

1997 AFC divisional round: Denver 14, Kansas City 10 Schottenheimer elected to start Elvis Grbac at QB even though Gannon led the Chiefs to five straight wins late in the season while Grbac was injured. So much went wrong: The Chiefs burned a pair of timeouts in the third quarter, including one after Grbac picked up a first down on a scramble and the Broncos' defense seemed gassed. A fake field goal on fourth-and-6 with holder Louie Aguiar trying to run for the sticks ended in disaster. And Grbac's headset malfunctioned on the failed final drive, when having another timeout or two might have helped.

2004 AFC wild-card round: NY Jets 20, San Diego 17 (OT) In overtime, San Diego marched to the Jets' 22, but they called three straight LaDainian Tomlinson runs to set up a 40-yard Nate Kaeding field goal in rainy conditions. As you might have guessed, Kaeding missed. The Jets won it on their next possession.

The quarterbacks

Quarterback play is the one constant in Schottenheimer's playoff futility. And it worked both ways; 10 of his 13 postseason defeats came against five Hall of Fame quarterbacks: Elway, Marino, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Tom Brady. By contrast, Schottenheimer never got to work with an exceptional QB for any extended period of time.

Schottenheimer had four seasons with Bernie Kosar at the start of Kosar's career, two with Montana at the end of Montana's career, four with Drew Brees at the start of Brees' career, and one with Philip Rivers in Rivers' first season as a starter. Beyond that? A whole lot of ordinary dudes. According to Football Perspective's Stuart, Schottenheimer won games with 18 different starting quarterbacks, which is far and away an NFL record. If you don't count the victories from the three quarterbacks Schottenheimer won with most - Kosar (32 wins), Brees (30), and Steve DeBerg (28) - Schottenheimer still managed to win 110 games, as Stuart notes.

 

 

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/2116740

 

I mean, we're on a Redskins message board talking about the effectiveness of running the football.  Have we forgotten what we did under Gibbs?  

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I was talking to a buddy of mine this past weekend and I told him I think you'll see some teams go back to a run-heavy offense.  

 

I know, I know, it sounds absurd..."BUT SPIFF IT'S A PASSING LEAGUE LOL" and it is.

 

But as a hypothetical and to illustrate my point for arguments sake, say we woke up tomorrow and we were thrust into the AFC West.  We've got to play Derek Carr, Justin Herbert, Russell Wilson and Patrick Mahomes 8 times a year.  For a team that's perpetually ****ed at quarterback like us, that's scary.  Thank goodness we don't have world beaters in our current division at QB.  Jalen Hurts, Danny Dimes and Dak being the obvious best in the conference.  Wentz has a chance to be the 2nd best, IMO.

 

Anyway, back to my point.  If I have to square up against quarterbacks like that multiple times a year, IMO, I think the best way to beat them is to just run the ball and keep them off the field.  I don't want us to get into a shootout with Mahomes, odds are we'll come out on the wrong side of that one.

 

I'd much rather try to win the time of possession and have the ball for 38 minutes of the game.  Win the time of possession by a strong margin and you'll end up winning the game.  And to do that, just run it.  Ball control offense, old school Marty-ball.  It's not sexy, it's not fun, but I don't want to have to find a guy who can go toe to toe with Mahomes, Wilson, Carr and Herbert.  

 

IMO, I think Robinson very well might be a step in that direction for us.  At least I hope he is.  The video that @PCSposted was nice...obviously he can hit the open holes that are created for him but he can make some people miss, too.  It looks like he can create something for himself when a hole isn't readily available to him.  He seems to have good vision and I like that he runs angry.  

 

And if it's true that he's great in pass protection, even better.  IMO, watching Portis run block was awesome.  If he's on that level, that's fantastic.

 

The problem with this is that you usually don't have a choice about being in a shootout with guys like Mahomes, Wilson, and Herbert. Unless they're having a bad day and/or you have an absolutely elite defense, they're going to score points. If they start putting up points you're by default in a shootout and your "pound the rock, control the clock" offense will do nothing for you besides maybe help you lose by 20 points instead of 30.

 

With that sort of offense in this sort of league you basically have 3 outcomes:

 

Win by a thin margin

Lose by a thin margin

Lose by a lot

 

14 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

"The Drive" authored by John Elway, where they didn't blitz him the entire time.  Think he'd have liked to have kept Elway off the field?  Ernest Byner's fumble, too.

 

 

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/2116740

 

I mean, we're on a Redskins message board talking about the effectiveness of running the football.  Have we forgotten what we did under Gibbs?  

 

 

Why are we talking about stuff that happened over 30 years ago? It has almost no bearing on today's NFL.

Edited May 3, 2022 by mistertim

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, mistertim said:

 

The problem with this is that you usually don't have a choice about being in a shootout with guys like Mahomes, Wilson, and Herbert. Unless they're having a bad day and/or you have an absolutely elite defense, they're going to score points. If they start putting up points you're by default in a shootout and your "pound the rock, control the clock" offense will do nothing for you besides maybe help you lose by 20 points instead of 30.

 

With that sort of offense in this sort of league you basically have 3 outcomes:

 

Win by a thin margin

Lose by a thin margin

Lose by a lot

 

I don't disagree with that.  But I'd almost rather take my chances with a ball control offense with two really good running backs and a dominant offensive line instead of getting into a shootout with Mahomes.  

 

But that's the thing, any way you cut it, it's going to be hard to beat them.  It's going to be hard to win in a shootout, too. I'm simply in favor of giving them less opportunities to do so by keeping them off the field.  

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I don't disagree with that.  But I'd almost rather take my chances with a ball control offense with two really good running backs and a dominant offensive line instead of getting into a shootout with Mahomes.  

 

But that's the thing, any way you cut it, it's going to be hard to beat them.  It's going to be hard to win in a shootout, too. I'm simply in favor of giving them less opportunities to do so by keeping them off the field.  

 

Right, they're going to be hard to beat regardless, I agree...and I get where you're coming from. But IMO if you at least have the capability of winning a shootout you give yourself one more option to win. So instead of

 

Win by a little in a low scoring game

Lose by a little in a low scoring game

Lose by a lot in a high scoring game

 

You add "Win by a little in a high scoring game" on there so it's closer to 50/50 odds overall.

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Right, they're going to be hard to beat regardless, I agree...and I get where you're coming from. But IMO if you at least have the capability of winning a shootout you give yourself one more option to win. So instead of

 

Win by a little in a low scoring game

Lose by a little in a low scoring game

Lose by a lot in a high scoring game

 

You add "Win by a little in a high scoring game" on there so it's closer to 50/50 odds overall.

 

Sure, but I also don't believe our franchise is anywhere close to being able to get a QB that can win a shootout.  Is Wentz that guy?  Maybe, but I'd lean towards more likely not.  

[mistertim]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Sure, but I also don't believe our franchise is anywhere close to being able to get a QB that can win a shootout.  Is Wentz that guy?  Maybe, but I'd lean towards more likely not.  

 

Yeah who knows. Honestly at this point this is all theoretical. On paper right now we're not really close to being able to compete with those teams when it comes to shootouts, you're right. I was mostly just saying that intentionally building an offense predicated on pounding the ball with a middling game manager QB isn't really a very good long term strategy in the modern NFL.

 

But if that's all you got, then that's all you got.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, mistertim said:

 

Yeah who knows. Honestly at this point this is all theoretical. On paper right now we're not really close to being able to compete with those teams when it comes to shootouts, you're right. I was mostly just saying that intentionally building an offense predicated on pounding the ball with a middling game manager QB isn't really a very good long term strategy in the modern NFL.

 

But if that's all you got, then that's all you got.

 

Correct, we're not close to being able to compete with those teams.  I'm just wondering if it'd be easier to get there with a ground and pound attack. It's either that or continuing to fumble around to get that franchise QB which we've never been able to do.  

[mistertim]

5 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Correct, we're not close to being able to compete with those teams.  I'm just wondering if it'd be easier to get there with a ground and pound attack. It's either that or continuing to fumble around to get that franchise QB which we've never been able to do.  

 

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive though. We absolutely have to keep searching for that franchise QB. We'll never be truly relevant again until we do. But until then, if we have to survive by trying to run the ball and control the clock, then it is what it is. Hopefully Wentz will help there, but no guarantee of course.

[Die Hard]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

Yeah who knows. Honestly at this point this is all theoretical. On paper right now we're not really close to being able to compete with those teams when it comes to shootouts, you're right. I was mostly just saying that intentionally building an offense predicated on pounding the ball with a middling game manager QB isn't really a very good long term strategy in the modern NFL.

 

But if that's all you got, then that's all you got.

Except you don’t just stumble into that kind of roster construction. 
 

Because if you want to be an effective running team, you have to have ALOT of good (highly paid) players. Good backs, good O-line, good blocking receivers…. AND and elite defensive unit that can slow down opponents. 
 

Having a good QB is a force multiplier. They make everything better, so you can sign cheaper/inferior players at multiple positions. And those players are easily dispensable.

 

Except Tampa. That team is just stacked everywhere and they’re all highly paid. 

[IrepDC]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

The problem with this is that you usually don't have a choice about being in a shootout with guys like Mahomes, Wilson, and Herbert. Unless they're having a bad day and/or you have an absolutely elite defense, they're going to score points. If they start putting up points you're by default in a shootout and your "pound the rock, control the clock" offense will do nothing for you besides maybe help you lose by 20 points instead of 30.

 

With that sort of offense in this sort of league you basically have 3 outcomes:

 

Win by a thin margin

Lose by a thin margin

Lose by a lot

 

 

Why are we talking about stuff that happened over 30 years ago? It has almost no bearing on today's NFL.

Titans beat Mahomes by 3 touchdowns last year running the ball. They also beat Josh Allen, Wilson, and other top teams running the ball. San Fran keeps beating Rodgers in the playoffs running the ball. Balance the narrative.

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

Titans beat Mahomes by 3 touchdowns last year running the ball. They also beat Josh Allen, Wilson, and other top teams running the ball. San Fran keeps beating Rodgers in the playoffs running the ball. Balance the narrative.

 

So you're basically pointing to the exceptions and claiming they're equal to the mean.

 

The Titans are one of the few teams in the NFL who can win mostly with rushing, because they have an unstoppable All Pro RB in Henry. That's sort of like pointing to Calvin Johnson and saying "let's just have a passing offense like that". Sure, that's easy to say when you have an unstoppable 6'5 230lb WR who runs a 4.3 40 and can literally beat triple coverage every time so you can just chuck the ball up to him.

 

Also, the Titans didn't beat the Chiefs because they ran the ball. Combined they barely ran for 100 yards, with Henry running for 86. They beat the Chiefs because the Chiefs and Mahomes played like absolute garbage that game.

 

It's a passing league now. Pretty much every single NFL coach, GM, and FO admit it, even the older school ones. 

 

So sure, once we find a Derrick Henry, we can try to emulate the Titans. Let us know when that happens. Otherwise we need to keep looking for our QB.

[London Kev]

It's true that it's a passing league, but it's not a pass only league. Even the most pass happy teams still run the ball 25 times a game (maybe Tampa Bay was an exception last year?).

 

A solid, flexible running game is a bonus to any team and I really like the signing as it compliments what we already had.

[NeverSurrender]

This guy has size, vision, quick feet and good hands.   This is a dangerous combo for a back.  He is not just a power back.  

On 4/30/2022 at 10:50 PM, Stone Cold said:

One of my fav redskins was Stephen Davis. I’d love to see this young man develop into that

man i loved watching him run.  I lok for highlights of him on youtube but can never find any.  He was the perfect balance of speed and power.  Soo quick between the tackles and laid the wood on contact.

[mistertim]

15 minutes ago, London Kev said:

It's true that it's a passing league, but it's not a pass only league. Even the most pass happy teams still run the ball 25 times a game (maybe Tampa Bay was an exception last year?).

 

A solid, flexible running game is a bonus to any team and I really like the signing as it compliments what we already had.

 

Absolutely. I'm not trying to say that running the ball isn't necessary or helpful in today's NFL. It absolutely is. I'm just saying that the idea of building a team around an old school "smash mouth" running and clock control philosophy is pretty much completely dated nowadays and isn't a strategy for long term success.

 

Yeah the Titans can almost do it, but that's because they have a complete beast at RB. They're the exception. And with the shelf life of RBs nowadays, it's not going to last for long.

Edited May 3, 2022 by mistertim

[Stone Cold]

55 minutes ago, NeverSurrender said:

This guy has size, vision, quick feet and good hands.   This is a dangerous combo for a back.  He is not just a power back.  

man i loved watching him run.  I lok for highlights of him on youtube but can never find any.  He was the perfect balance of speed and power.  Soo quick between the tackles and laid the wood on contact.

SD’s quick, short choppy stepping thru the first line of defense, then bouncin outside and showin just how fast the big guy could move.  
BTW…he also beat out a highly touted runner most thought would win the starting job…skip hicks

 

i find the comp of Robinson to Davis to be eerily close.  Yay for us if that’s the case 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Stone Cold

[ThomasRoane]

I like his freeze cut and how he reads his blocks.  Too bad for Patterson.  I liked the kid but he can move a pile like B-Rob can.  I think he goes to PS or cut.  Robinson will definitely extend Gibson's playing career.  

[seantaylor=god]

I love the physicality and also he’s got great feet and decent speed. But where are you guys getting the fact that he has good hands from? Watching his highlights he’s a body catcher and I’m cringing every time they pass. He doesn’t look like a receiving back at all, which is fine, because we have two guys who do that really well.

[LetMeSeeYourWarFace21]

Reminds me of a smaller Brandon Jacobs. 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

1 hour ago, LetMeSeeYourWarFace21 said:

Reminds me of a smaller Brandon Jacobs. 

 

Brandon Jacobs was such a unicorn, nobody reminds me of him.  What RB's are 6'4 and 270lbs?  He was bigger than a lot of DE's.  Derrick Henry is small compared to Jacobs.

[LetMeSeeYourWarFace21]

2 hours ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

 

Brandon Jacobs was such a unicorn, nobody reminds me of him.  What RB's are 6'4 and 270lbs?  He was bigger than a lot of DE's.  Derrick Henry is small compared to Jacobs.

 

Read what you quoted...........I said he "Reminds me of a smaller Brandon Jacobs. "............RELAX

Edited May 4, 2022 by LetMeSeeYourWarFace21

[Redwards]

20 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I don't disagree with that.  But I'd almost rather take my chances with a ball control offense with two really good running backs and a dominant offensive line instead of getting into a shootout with Mahomes.  

 

But that's the thing, any way you cut it, it's going to be hard to beat them.  It's going to be hard to win in a shootout, too. I'm simply in favor of giving them less opportunities to do so by keeping them off the field.  

I think the overall, most effective strategy when building an offense is being able to do both.  For some reason in NFL circles it's one or the other.   Nope.  The absolute best offensive teams are able to deploy either strategy (quick-scoring or time-consuming, wear-you-and-the-clock-out drive) when the game demands it.

 

Our own 1991 offense was the absolute epitome of this.  We could score from 80 yards out or ram it down your throat and take all your energy and will on a plodding drive.

 

If Ron simply wants to build a one-dimensional offense around what we did in those 4 consecutive wins he's so fond of bringing up, then he's cemented our fate.  We may as well hang it up now.  You cannot win consistently in today's NFL with solely a ball control offense.

 

I think now that he has his QB and WRs, we'll see if Ron does indeed want a team that can score quickly when needed.  There's no reason this team can't do both, and assessing our personnel, we absolutely should be capable of doing both if our OC knows what he's got and what he's doing.  

 

My fear is that Ron is stuck in yesteryear when it comes to building a team but I could absolutely be wrong on that front, and it may be that Ron had to try and win in a 17-14 fashion every single game for two seasons because of previous personnel and QB limitations.   This season will tell us all we need to know on that front.