Skins vs Colts post game discussion thread - PG

Washington Redskins' Game Day discussions for 2003, 2004, and 2005
---
User avatar
Posts: 18570
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Skins vs Colts post game discussion thread - PG

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:02 pm

admin wrote:I know the board will be hopping mad.. so do me a favor... I'm going to start two threads... this one for any civil discussion that might go on... and one in smack for people to speak their mind without any retribution...

Try to remember that you're welcome to say whatever you like... all we ask is that you put it in the appropriate place and follow the house rules.

Thanks.



Sorry for the confusion guys. I made a new thread so that it wouldnt get mixed up with posts from the previous game in the other thread. I apologize for any inconvience. Those who posted today in the other post-game discussion please copy and paste your comments here.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

~~~
Posts: 2992
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Champsturf » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:22 pm

Good luck getting many responses here. I bet the vast majority is in "Smack."
You'll always be remembered Sean. R.I.P.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 8:02 am
Location: under there

Postby (d)oink » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:23 pm

dang.
darn.
crap.
fig newton.
fiddlesticks.
fetch.
flip.
flippin' fetch.




There.....I feel better.
What the....

Hog
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Seoul

Postby Snout » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:43 pm

How's this for a statistic: The most desperate year in recent Redskins history was 2003, the second and final year of the disastrous Spurrier experiment. That year Patrick Ramsey was passing to Laveranues Coles, Rod Gardner and Taylor Jacobs.

After 7 games that team was 3-4.

Here is another statistic: Walt Harris has 3 interceptions for the 49ers so far this year.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby die cowboys die » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:52 pm

Snout wrote:How's this for a statistic: The most desperate year in recent Redskins history was 2003, the second and final year of the disastrous Spurrier experiment. That year Patrick Ramsey was passing to Laveranues Coles, Rod Gardner and Taylor Jacobs.

After 7 games that team was 3-4.


you just gave me a stomach-ache.

Hog
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:02 pm

Postby nnskinsfan » Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:57 pm

Well, I'm not sure where we go from here but I guess it's good we have the bye now to address the many problems we seem to have. I don't think things are over yet though with the Eagles losing and either the Giants or the Cowboys losing tomorrow night. It's a stretch but I'm not ready to give up on the season just yet.

It's a little disappointing to see us have so much trouble trying to run the ball so I think that's the first thing that needs to be fixed. On defense, we've just got to find a way to get more pressure on the QB. In the first half we had Manning rattled and hurting but didn't get to him hardly at all in the 2nd half. Anyway, if we can fix those two things, I think a lot of the rest will fall into place.

Hog
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Seoul

Postby Snout » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:15 pm

nnskinsfan wrote:Well, I'm not sure where we go from here but I guess it's good we have the bye now to address the many problems we seem to have. I don't think things are over yet though with the Eagles losing and either the Giants or the Cowboys losing tomorrow night. It's a stretch but I'm not ready to give up on the season just yet.



Remember when Marty was here and the team started 0-5 with several blowouts? They they won 5 straight and were right back in the thick of things.

Of course the difference then was that Marty kept saying he was seeing improvements, kept saying that "We're getting closer to where we want to be." He proved that the team can be competitive even with Tony Banks at quarterback.

This team can come back, but it needs a spark. Where is that going to come from? If the coaches cannot point to anything and say "We are making progress and getting closer to where we want to be" then I think it is a chemistry problem, and I think that means you make a change at quarterback.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby die cowboys die » Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:23 pm

i posted this in the smack thread but it's been hijacked by a troll...


i really strongly believe gibbs knew the game was out of hand, and he had no choice but to bench brunell afterwards. the playcalling seemed evident to me that we were absolutely not trying to win in the 2nd half. the intention seemed more like, trying to make sure brunell was able to play out the last game of his career in a "respectable" fashion, instead of trying to wing it all over the place and throw a bunch of INTs or incompletions.

that's all that makes sense to me. because if we WERE trying to win, then it basically means our offensive coaches know nothing about football. that is obviously not the case. they know that you can't keep running the ball in the 4th quarter when you're down by 3 TDs Idea

i see no other explanation. the decision has been made, brunell is done.

~~~
Posts: 2992
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Champsturf » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:04 pm

[quote="nnskinsfan"]Well, I'm not sure where we go from here but I guess it's good we have the bye now to address the many problems we seem to have. I don't think things are over yet though with the Eagles losing and either the Giants or the Cowboys losing tomorrow night. It's a stretch but I'm not ready to give up on the season just yet.[/quote]

That's exactly what scares me. The coaches will also think that we're still in the hunt and keep Brunell under center. Man, this sure seems like 2004.

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:57 am

I've posted my thoughts before over the past few weeks, and it seems that this game confirms my fears....

Our Redskins have major coaching issues. Don't get me wrong, I love Gibbs. He's a class act, and has given us Redskin fans a whole bunch of good times, but because he's the head coach, whatever coaching problems there may be, he is ultimately responsible.

I haven't seen much talk about anything other than Brunell this, and Brunell that on this board.....and some of that criticism is certainly valid. But, I see a clear problem with this team coaching wise. This started to become visable last year when we let go Pierce and Smoot in the offseason, and we had Arrington sitting on the bench replaced by Holdman who is still playing poorly. We slipped from being the #3 defense in 2004 to # 9 2005.

That same trend has continued in the 2005 offseason we let go Clark, and Harris, and replaced them with Archuleta and Wright, and now Rumph....all of which are playing terribly by comparison....with Archuleta being paid twice what Clark would have cost. Our big defensive pick in the draft (Rodgers) looks to be another bust. We deal another pick away just recently to get Duckett only to leave him on the bench right next to Campbell which we wheeled and dealed picks to get. Lots and lots of terrible personnel decisions have caused our slide from #3 to our current #22 defense, and bringing in a totally new offense this year now seems to have been a big mistake as well. These are the behind the scenes moves that indicate management/coaching problems.

On the field, it gets no better. Back in the Giants game....we're behind late in the game and we choose to kick (and miss) a field goal when we should have been going for it on 4th down. We've seen some of the most inexplicable and atrocious clock management issues for the past two years, and this team shows horrible disipline with the amount of penalties.

Today, the problems are exactly the same as they've been all year. First, what was once a trademark quality of the Redskins (half time adjustments) is the exact reverse. We are being killed in the second half, and we have not shown any improvement in that area. This tells me we are being out coached. Secondly, today, just like the Giants game, we are down by 20 with 10 min to play and we ATTEMPT A FIELD GOAL ????? DOWN BY 20 IN THE 4TH QUARTER?? IS THIS A DECISION THAT SAYS WE ARE TRYING TO WIN THIS FOOTBALL GAME?? No. And there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for making that call to kick a damned field goal down by 20 with 10 minutes left in the bloody game. Down by 3 scores with 10 minutes left puts you in 4 down territory on every possession. The decision to kick was an "I QUIT" call just as surely as if the players walked off the field refusing to play anymore. And what do these types of calls say to the players?? If you can't see the signs of the players questioning the decision making here, you aren't paying attention. This team is beginning to lose confidence.

These are the real obvious issues....the others that may not seem so obvious are the 5 yard passes on third and 15 that seem to take place several times a game. And don't tell me that's Brunell....these 5 yard passes are to primary recievers with a three step drop indicating that was in fact the call, and not simply a check down. How many times have we seen this team complete third down passes 5 yards short of a first down this year???

I'm sorry to say that the problems we're seeing here cannot be fixed over the bye week. This isn't just about a few injuries. This is about an all out missmanagement of personnel and of poor game decisions that are continuing week in and week out.

Greg Williams (who I first thought was a genius after 2004) has for all intents and purposes dismantled a solid core defensive group by deciding his system would function fine with plug and play players, so he didn't need a fine MLB like Pierce. Nor did he need a three time pro bowler like Arrington. Didn't need Clark either, or Harris. And now we see what might arguably be one of the worst defenses in the NFL right now......worse than the 2003 version.

Ultimately, this falls back on coach Gibbs. After the Jaacksonville game, Gibbs was giddy over this great win? Bull......we lost two forth quarter leads and almost the game if it were not for a little Brunell to Moss magic in OT. And after watching the Texans kick butt on Jacksonville today, that puts a new light on our two wins against both of these teams now.....so I'm not so sure anymore how we can say we are a good football team.

At 2-5, we are pretty bad, and I see no signs of improvement in any of the areas that we've had problems this year.

Mmmm...donuts
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: How much text will they let me fit in this 'Location' space? I mean, can I just keep writing and wr

Postby joebagadonuts » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:25 am

RayNAustin wrote:we are down by 20 with 10 min to play and we ATTEMPT A FIELD GOAL ????? DOWN BY 20 IN THE 4TH QUARTER?? IS THIS A DECISION THAT SAYS WE ARE TRYING TO WIN THIS FOOTBALL GAME?? No.


Down by 19, actually. Novak hits the field goal, and it's now 16. Which, coincidentally enough, is the EXACT number of points you can get from two touchdowns and two 2-point conversions.

Defense causes a quick turnover, Brunell to Moss for a TD, Portis on a shovel pass for the 2 pointer, and it's down to 8. Quick three and out (three incompletions by Manning), offense gets the ball back, Randle El scores on a long run off a screen pass. Brunell to Cooley in the corner for the conversion as time expires, sending the game into OT. Skins get the ball, Brunell drops back, the RB is covered, so he runs it in himself 80 yards for the winning TD.

See? Simple. Seriously, I don't think Gibbs & Co. were giving up at that point. I think they saw a FG and two TDs with two conversions as our best chance to win.

And I disagree about the 5 yard passes on 3rd and 8. I do believe that those are check downs.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

Joe's#1Fan
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:59 am
Location: chocowinity nc

Postby gibbsfan » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:55 am

our guys fought their guts out today...we just came up a little short..

brunell played great ...


there i feel better...
Thanks for 10 years .
HTTR



































Another Year Full Of Redskins Drama
"As The World Turns"

Hog
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:02 pm

Postby nnskinsfan » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:46 am

die cowboys die wrote:i posted this in the smack thread but it's been hijacked by a troll...


i really strongly believe gibbs knew the game was out of hand, and he had no choice but to bench brunell afterwards. the playcalling seemed evident to me that we were absolutely not trying to win in the 2nd half. the intention seemed more like, trying to make sure brunell was able to play out the last game of his career in a "respectable" fashion, instead of trying to wing it all over the place and throw a bunch of INTs or incompletions.

that's all that makes sense to me. because if we WERE trying to win, then it basically means our offensive coaches know nothing about football. that is obviously not the case. they know that you can't keep running the ball in the 4th quarter when you're down by 3 TDs Idea

i see no other explanation. the decision has been made, brunell is done.

IMO, I don't see Gibbs benching Brunell until Brunell is the only issue. If the rest of the offense was clicking and it was just poor play from Brunell that was keeping us from scoring, I do think he would be benched.. Right now though, there are so many things wrong I don't think he'll do it because it would be like placing the blame on a single player.

As for the play-calling, I didn't really like it in the 2nd half. How many times do you run something that isn't working at all before you try something else? Are we incapable of adjusting to the defense we're facing on the fly or do we follow the script from start to finish no matter what. Anyway, to me, it seemed like someone was either being really stubborn or was trying to prove a point. What that point might be, I'm not sure.

I do also kind of agree with some of what you say. It's really bothersome that we didn't take many (if any) long shots at a quick score even if it meant interceptions. Yeah, we might be a lot more effective at the dink and dunk game but at a certain point, when you're down by that much, you just have to let it fly and hope some of your playmakers make a great play.

Mmmm...donuts
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: How much text will they let me fit in this 'Location' space? I mean, can I just keep writing and wr

Postby joebagadonuts » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:54 am

nnskinsfan wrote: As for the play-calling, I didn't really like it in the 2nd half. How many times do you run something that isn't working at all before you try something else? Are we incapable of adjusting to the defense we're facing on the fly or do we follow the script from start to finish no matter what. Anyway, to me, it seemed like someone was either being really stubborn or was trying to prove a point. What that point might be, I'm not sure.

I do also kind of agree with some of what you say. It's really bothersome that we didn't take many (if any) long shots at a quick score even if it meant interceptions. Yeah, we might be a lot more effective at the dink and dunk game but at a certain point, when you're down by that much, you just have to let it fly and hope some of your playmakers make a great play.


The Colts stacked the box and pushed the CBs up on the receivers to stop the screens. So what are you supposed to do? Throw deep to keep them honest. With the safeties in the box, a play action will give you single coverage on the outside, with the corner up, no less. We didn't, or couldn't do that. Either Saunders was afraid to call it, or MB was afraid to throw it. Either way, we didn't throw deep to keep the defense honest, and instead kept trying to run the sweep and throw to the RBs.
I'm a jack of all trades, the master of three
Rockin' the tables, rockin' the mikes, rockin' the young lay-dees.

Hog
Posts: 2355
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:56 am

Postby RayNAustin » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:07 pm

joebagadonuts

Defense causes a quick turnover, Brunell to Moss for a TD, Portis on a shovel pass for the 2 pointer, and it's down to 8. Quick three and out (three incompletions by Manning), offense gets the ball back, Randle El scores on a long run off a screen pass. Brunell to Cooley in the corner for the conversion as time expires, sending the game into OT. Skins get the ball, Brunell drops back, the RB is covered, so he runs it in himself 80 yards for the winning TD.

See? Simple. Seriously, I don't think Gibbs & Co. were giving up at that point. I think they saw a FG and two TDs with two conversions as our best chance to win.


Are you being serious?? Then I think you and Gibbs are both seeing things. Somewhere missing in this "equation" is a defense (2004 defense) that might prevent another score from Manning....which after the 7 minute 3 TD third quarter where they moved the ball and scored AT WILL.....and given they have a solid kicker and a QB-WR tandem the best in the NFL working against the lamest playing secondary in the NFL....what you suggest is as absurd as is this teams chances of making the playoffs, given such visions and poor decisions.


And I disagree about the 5 yard passes on 3rd and 8. I do believe that those are check downs.


Disaggree all you want.....you are again seeing things that aren't there. Those three step drops and wide reciever screens are not check downs.....they are designed plays. You need to check the definition of football terms. Of course, I know why they're doing it....because 1) the offensive line is not pass protecting 2) we have not been run blocking very well either..negating the effectiveness of play action 3) Brunell is very inconsistent with throws over 5-8 yards.

If you recall that NFL record breaking 22 straight....20 of them were for less than 6 yards.

Some people here (including me) saw some hope after the win against Jacksionville. After wathing the Texans blow out Jacksonville yesterday..well....perhaps what we saw was an average team finishing a hard road trip in Washington who came from behind twice in the 4th quarter and almost beat us....making that 2-5 record of ours 1-6. Perhaps that miracle OT win was in fact a miracle?

And don't expect things to get much better.....we might actually eak out a win against the Cowboys, ensuring that Campbell won't see any action until we are 3-9.

What I sadly see happening is yet another wholesale change needed to undue the damage the previous changes have already done the past two years.....and Campbell will remain as green as astroturf.

Return to Washington Redskins Game Day - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006