Post Game Thread...Atl @ Was

Washington Redskins' Game Day discussions for 2003, 2004, and 2005
Joe's#1Fan
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:59 am
Location: chocowinity nc

Postby gibbsfan » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:53 am

SkinzCanes wrote:
Oh, what a relief. Such a disappointing result, and I now I find that it's down to playcalling, Holdman, the new kicker. Thank God it's not down to poor execution by the whole darned team. Otherwise, we'd really be in trouble.

It's the reverse. No, it's the draw plays. No, it's the interceptions. No, the runs up the middle. It's Gregg Williams. It's going for a field goal when the game is tight, and we're within 50 yards.

It's a simple game. Run, block, catch and tackle. Any amount of playcalling and game-planning will not overcome an inability to execute the basc requirements of NFL football. Something is seriously wrong when a running back on a Joe Gibbs team runs for 150+, and the team still loses.

By the way, Andre Carter did have a good game, or so the stats say.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to bed.


Bottom line is that this team just isn't very good. People can point to the 5 game winning streak last season but that looks more and more like an abbaration.


in short you sumed it up this team isn,t very good period..
last year was just that last year..
Thanks for 10 years .
HTTR



































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

-------
Posts: 2947
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 1:41 pm
Location: Lanham, MD

Postby RedskinsFreak » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:32 am

ArizonaHOG wrote:Key series: We are up 14-0 and get the ball back at about midfiedl. Instead of running the ball, like we had been doing effectively, we try "trick plays and go 3-and-out. Poor coaching decision cost us a chance tu bury the falcons in the 2nd quarter.

I didn't mind the first-down call. Gibbs I did this a lot -- going for the jugular immediately after a mid-field change of possession -- and it's an extreme morale buster. So, no troubles there.

But after it doesn't click, how in the Sam Hill do you come back with a reverse on second down? You still have a 14-0 chokehold on the game and Betts hadn't been stopped. Yeah, this might have some 20/20 hindsight in it, but that was the time to go back to the body blows after missing the KO hook to the head.
***** Hail To The Redskins!!! *****

BA + MS = A New Beginning

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Hopewell, VA

Redskins Grades...

Postby Redskin Don » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:36 am

Coaching - F
Horrible time management. Bad play calling. Run, run, pass is not going to cut it. Running draw plays with no timeouts left and 1 min left is retarded.

QB - C
RB - A
TE - D
WR - B
Offensive line
running - A
passing - D
Defensive line
pass rush - C
run stop - C+
LB - C+
DB - B-
Safety - C+
S/T - A
K - F+


Coaching - F
QB - C
RB - A
TE - D
WR - B
Offensive line
running - A
passing - D
Defensive line
pass rush F-
run stop - F-
LB - F-
DB - F-
Safety - F-
S/T - F-
K - F+

The entire defense gets a well-deserved F as does the coaching staff. Not sure how or why you lay down after taking a 2 freaking touchdown lead, but these morons sure did it. They need to blow the whole team up and start over. This team is as bad as anything I ever saw during the days of Visor Boy and Norbert. Somebody pinch me and tell me this isn't happening. Didn't these retards go to the playoffs one short year ago?
"Winning isn't the only thing... it's EVERYTHING"

~~~~~~~~
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby ii7-V7 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:30 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Charm City Sports wrote:GW's refusal to bend, and make ajustments cost us


What does that mean?


It means that the defenses that other teams emplyed to keep the Falcons in check were ignored. It means that he again used a cover 2 on obvious running downs. It means that when his scheme stopped working he refused to deviate from the plan.

kazoo
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:48 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Charm City Sports wrote:GW's refusal to bend, and make ajustments cost us


What does that mean?


chaddukes wrote:It means that the defenses that other teams emplyed to keep the Falcons in check were ignored.


Which you know because...

chaddukes wrote:It means that he again used a cover 2 on obvious running downs.


Details?...

chaddukes wrote:It means that when his scheme stopped working he refused to deviate from the plan.


Which you know because...

My objection is to posts which follow this logic: The Redskins suck, so I can make any sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation that I want to in my posts. I'm not asking you to support that the Skins suck this year, I watch the games. But if you are going to write posts with specific accusations, you should be able to explain and justify them.

~~~~~~~~
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby ii7-V7 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:25 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Charm City Sports wrote:GW's refusal to bend, and make ajustments cost us


What does that mean?


chaddukes wrote:It means that the defenses that other teams emplyed to keep the Falcons in check were ignored.


Which you know because...

chaddukes wrote:It means that he again used a cover 2 on obvious running downs.


Details?...

chaddukes wrote:It means that when his scheme stopped working he refused to deviate from the plan.


Which you know because...

My objection is to posts which follow this logic: The Redskins suck, so I can make any sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation that I want to in my posts. I'm not asking you to support that the Skins suck this year, I watch the games. But if you are going to write posts with specific accusations, you should be able to explain and justify them.


I posted specific accusations because these are the specific faults that I noticed. I noticed because I watched the games. I watched the Falcon's.....I'm from GA. My dad is a huge Falcons' fan. When Cleveland, Baltimore, and NO played them they kept 8 men in the box. They blitzed often. When we pleyd them we had 6 men in the box and barely blitzed. This is an observation! Do I need to cite some talkng head for you accept my observations? We didn't change our gameplan because......again, in the third and fourth quarter we were running the same personnel and plays as we were in the first. Again, an observation.

This isn't a medical experiment. Its a football game. Do I really need to find emperical evidence?
Last edited by ii7-V7 on Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kazoo
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:22 pm

chaddukes wrote:This isn't a medical experiment. Its a football game. Do I really need to find emperical evidence?


Sorry, I didn't realize that my choices were:

- Scientific proof.
- Nothing but accusation. No argument or data at all.

OK, so you're offering an "opinion." Other than third and long, I don't believe we only kept 6 men in the box. I can check for that on my TiVo though.

I lived in Atlanta many years and am a VT alum, so I'm well aware of what Vick can do. What I saw was:

- We were shredding them offensively. Their O was suffering and they were dropping passes, an issue this year.

- Our O started to get 1 or 2 first downs and punt. If you do that, Vick will get in a groove. He did. When you cover, he will scramble. He's a nightmare to stop when he does that. Unfortunately this time I wanted to stop him. I loved when he did that and I was rooting for him.

- Put under pressure, Campbell made rookie mistakes. I love his arm and poise, but he needs more experience and he's only getting that by playing. The coaches got more conservative to "protect" him. I disagree with that being the right move, but I'm not a pro-football coach.

I was very disappointed in the D and almost anything you want to bash their play for I would probably not question. But Vick was Vick and we haven't been able to stop ANYBODY this year. You chose rather than to question the D's execution to go off the board and say things like GW wasn't paying attention to others or adapting, which I didn't see any way you could have the data to say.

You are agreeing I was right but it's what you think. OK, that I can't argue, it is what you think.

Hog
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Dayton MD

Postby redskins12287 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:33 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
chaddukes wrote:This isn't a medical experiment. Its a football game. Do I really need to find emperical evidence?


Sorry, I didn't realize that my choices were:

- Scientific proof.
- Nothing but accusation. No argument or data at all.

OK, so you're offering an "opinion." Other than third and long, I don't believe we only kept 6 men in the box. I can check for that on my TiVo though.

I lived in Atlanta many years and am a VT alum, so I'm well aware of what Vick can do. What I saw was:

- We were shredding them offensively. Their O was suffering and they were dropping passes, an issue this year.

- Our O started to get 1 or 2 first downs and punt. If you do that, Vick will get in a groove. He did. When you cover, he will scramble. He's a nightmare to stop when he does that. Unfortunately this time I wanted to stop him. I loved when he did that and I was rooting for him.

- Put under pressure, Campbell made rookie mistakes. I love his arm and poise, but he needs more experience and he's only getting that by playing. The coaches got more conservative to "protect" him. I disagree with that being the right move, but I'm not a pro-football coach.

I was very disappointed in the D and almost anything you want to bash their play for I would probably not question. But Vick was Vick and we haven't been able to stop ANYBODY this year. You chose rather than to question the D's execution to go off the board and say things like GW wasn't paying attention to others or adapting, which I didn't see any way you could have the data to say.

You are agreeing I was right but it's what you think. OK, that I can't argue, it is what you think.


He already made solid points. What more do you want?
Gotta respect the 'Skins

kazoo
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:29 pm

redskins12287 wrote:He already made solid points. What more do you want?


First he made accusations with no support at all. When I asked how he knew he came back with some generalizations. That is not persuasive to a critical mind, I don't know how you can characterize that as "solid points."

I don't even disagree with him, I have no idea at all if GW is doing a good job coaching or not. I do agree the product on the field this year is dreadful. But the products on the field GW's first two years were not. I want a persuasive argument, not accusations and generalizations.

I will agree that he explained why he believes it. I agreed it was his opinion. But why would I believe it based on those high level observations if I am not already anti-GW willing to believe whatever's thrown out there?

~~~~~~~~
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby ii7-V7 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:51 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
redskins12287 wrote:He already made solid points. What more do you want?


First he made accusations with no support at all. When I asked how he knew he came back with some generalizations. That is not persuasive to a critical mind, I don't know how you can characterize that as "solid points."

I don't even disagree with him, I have no idea at all if GW is doing a good job coaching or not. I do agree the product on the field this year is dreadful. But the products on the field GW's first two years were not. I want a persuasive argument, not accusations and generalizations.

I will agree that he explained why he believes it. I agreed it was his opinion. But why would I believe it based on those high level observations if I am not already anti-GW willing to believe whatever's thrown out there?


I made accusations with the support of what I observed with my eyes! Would a traffic cop interview a witness and then say, "Well, he says the the red car caused the accusation but he couldn't back it up with anything but what he saw with his eyes?"

Critical mind! This is football board. This isn't realclearpolitics.com. I'm all about the critical mind. However, when I give you my observations regarding what I've seen from watching the football games its ridiculous to say, "Well, I want tangible proof." Just by it, or don't. I'm not going to sit down and do a play by play analysis, organizing every play and position, formation, etc. into a pie chart for you. Now if you want to talk about science or history then we can talk about the critical mind, but this is a football board and whether you like it or not we are just fans. We aren't coaches.

Having said that, I still stand by my points. If you'd like to study the game film and interview the players and coaches about what the play calls were in given situations go ahead. Just have your report on my desk by close of business Friday and then we will discuss.

kazoo
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:06 pm

chaddukes wrote:However, when I give you my observations regarding what I've seen from watching the football games its ridiculous to say, "Well, I want tangible proof."


Did you read what I wrote? I never asked for tangible proof. You offered no obervations at all only sweeping conclusions, until I asked. Then you made a couple high level obervasions and said it's yoru opinion. I said OK it's your opinion.

I've asked for nothing sense then. Nothing. So what's your point? Do you want me to apologize for having asked about your sweeping conclusions? Show me anywhere in my posts I asked for tangible proof or anything like that. You can't because I didn't. I asked for a coherent argument.

All I said was that a critical mind would not accept a couple general statements in support of sweeping conclusions as sufficient to persuade them.

Personally I think you're reading these opinions on message boards about GW and are parroting those opinions. That's my opinion based on your argument, but I don't believe a critical mind should believe what I just said because I said it. But I still think it. And that's fine. Just like it's OK for you to believe the GW's incompetent and arrogant and you can't expain it.

~~~~~~~~
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby ii7-V7 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:42 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
chaddukes wrote:However, when I give you my observations regarding what I've seen from watching the football games its ridiculous to say, "Well, I want tangible proof."


Did you read what I wrote? I never asked for tangible proof. You offered no obervations at all only sweeping conclusions, until I asked. Then you made a couple high level obervasions and said it's yoru opinion. I said OK it's your opinion.

I've asked for nothing sense then. Nothing. So what's your point? Do you want me to apologize for having asked about your sweeping conclusions? Show me anywhere in my posts I asked for tangible proof or anything like that. You can't because I didn't. I asked for a coherent argument.

All I said was that a critical mind would not accept a couple general statements in support of sweeping conclusions as sufficient to persuade them.

Personally I think you're reading these opinions on message boards about GW and are parroting those opinions. That's my opinion based on your argument, but I don't believe a critical mind should believe what I just said because I said it. But I still think it. And that's fine. Just like it's OK for you to believe the GW's incompetent and arrogant and you can't expain it.


My statements were not sweeping conclusions without any basis in fact. They were observations seen from watching the game and play calling. You clearly have some kind of agenda here to have taken such a heady stance against what I clearly observed. Additionally, you accuse me of having nothing to back up my observations. Yet, I don't see you bringing anything to the table to refute what I have seen. Nonetheless, you insist on calling my observations, "accusations [made] with no support at all." I accused no one of anything. I simply stated what I observed to be true.

This is what I observed. In three of the last four weeks the Falcons played teams that employed a scheme to stop the falcon's run game and to pressure Vick. They did this by keeping safeties in the box and blitzing on obvious passing downs. These teams all won. When we played the falcons we consistently lined up in a cover two with linebackers spread wide. We had seven and sometimes six guys in the box. We only blitzed about five times. When the Falcons started running on us at will we didn't change our defensive plan. We continued to run a cover 2 and didn't walk the safeties up. This is not a sweeping accusation. Its an observation. I didn't make any statements that GW was arrogant, or that he was too incomeptent to see what was going on. I simply stated what I observed. Hence, it was never opinion.....it was what I saw! You was the game. What formation did we use on every Falcon's First down? What did the safeties do? How many players were in the box?

When you respond to my statements with phrases like, "When I asked how he knew he came back with some generalizations," and "so I can make any sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation that I want to in my posts," how can I see that as anything but your being either disrepectful to me or just too full of yourself to accept that someone else might have a valid point of view. I don't have to have "data" to back up my observation. But unless you want to refute my observations with "data" of your own, then I suggest you stop holding my sunday afternoon football observations up to the standards of a first year college science book. Do you have a dog in this fight or are you just trying to agitate someone? Is GW your Uncle? What is it that make you so persistent in calling my observations, "sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation?" Do you enjoy calling me a liar....or just an idiot?

The Evil Straw
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:30 pm
Location: Leather Chair

Postby Fios » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:11 pm

chaddukes wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
chaddukes wrote:However, when I give you my observations regarding what I've seen from watching the football games its ridiculous to say, "Well, I want tangible proof."


Did you read what I wrote? I never asked for tangible proof. You offered no obervations at all only sweeping conclusions, until I asked. Then you made a couple high level obervasions and said it's yoru opinion. I said OK it's your opinion.

I've asked for nothing sense then. Nothing. So what's your point? Do you want me to apologize for having asked about your sweeping conclusions? Show me anywhere in my posts I asked for tangible proof or anything like that. You can't because I didn't. I asked for a coherent argument.

All I said was that a critical mind would not accept a couple general statements in support of sweeping conclusions as sufficient to persuade them.

Personally I think you're reading these opinions on message boards about GW and are parroting those opinions. That's my opinion based on your argument, but I don't believe a critical mind should believe what I just said because I said it. But I still think it. And that's fine. Just like it's OK for you to believe the GW's incompetent and arrogant and you can't expain it.


My statements were not sweeping conclusions without any basis in fact. They were observations seen from watching the game and play calling. You clearly have some kind of agenda here to have taken such a heady stance against what I clearly observed. Additionally, you accuse me of having nothing to back up my observations. Yet, I don't see you bringing anything to the table to refute what I have seen. Nonetheless, you insist on calling my observations, "accusations [made] with no support at all." I accused no one of anything. I simply stated what I observed to be true.

This is what I observed. In three of the last four weeks the Falcons played teams that employed a scheme to stop the falcon's run game and to pressure Vick. They did this by keeping safeties in the box and blitzing on obvious passing downs. These teams all won. When we played the falcons we consistently lined up in a cover two with linebackers spread wide. We had seven and sometimes six guys in the box. We only blitzed about five times. When the Falcons started running on us at will we didn't change our defensive plan. We continued to run a cover 2 and didn't walk the safeties up. This is not a sweeping accusation. Its an observation. I didn't make any statements that GW was arrogant, or that he was too incomeptent to see what was going on. I simply stated what I observed. Hence, it was never opinion.....it was what I saw! You was the game. What formation did we use on every Falcon's First down? What did the safeties do? How many players were in the box?

When you respond to my statements with phrases like, "When I asked how he knew he came back with some generalizations," and "so I can make any sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation that I want to in my posts," how can I see that as anything but your being either disrepectful to me or just too full of yourself to accept that someone else might have a valid point of view. I don't have to have "data" to back up my observation. But unless you want to refute my observations with "data" of your own, then I suggest you stop holding my sunday afternoon football observations up to the standards of a first year college science book. Do you have a dog in this fight or are you just trying to agitate someone? Is GW your Uncle? What is it that make you so persistent in calling my observations, "sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation?" Do you enjoy calling me a liar....or just an idiot?
Fellas, this is drifiting dangerously close to Smack, please stick to addressing the posts rather than the poster.
RIP Sean Taylor

kazoo
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:42 pm

chaddukes wrote:My statements were not sweeping conclusions without any basis in fact. They were observations seen from watching the game and play calling. You clearly have some kind of agenda here to have taken such a heady stance against what I clearly observed. Additionally, you accuse me of having nothing to back up my observations. Yet, I don't see you bringing anything to the table to refute what I have seen. Nonetheless, you insist on calling my observations, "accusations [made] with no support at all." I accused no one of anything. I simply stated what I observed to be true.

This is what I observed. In three of the last four weeks the Falcons played teams that employed a scheme to stop the falcon's run game and to pressure Vick. They did this by keeping safeties in the box and blitzing on obvious passing downs. These teams all won. When we played the falcons we consistently lined up in a cover two with linebackers spread wide. We had seven and sometimes six guys in the box. We only blitzed about five times. When the Falcons started running on us at will we didn't change our defensive plan. We continued to run a cover 2 and didn't walk the safeties up. This is not a sweeping accusation. Its an observation. I didn't make any statements that GW was arrogant, or that he was too incomeptent to see what was going on. I simply stated what I observed. Hence, it was never opinion.....it was what I saw! You was the game. What formation did we use on every Falcon's First down? What did the safeties do? How many players were in the box?

When you respond to my statements with phrases like, "When I asked how he knew he came back with some generalizations," and "so I can make any sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation that I want to in my posts," how can I see that as anything but your being either disrepectful to me or just too full of yourself to accept that someone else might have a valid point of view. I don't have to have "data" to back up my observation. But unless you want to refute my observations with "data" of your own, then I suggest you stop holding my sunday afternoon football observations up to the standards of a first year college science book. Do you have a dog in this fight or are you just trying to agitate someone? Is GW your Uncle? What is it that make you so persistent in calling my observations, "sweeping, unsubstantiated, vague, unsupported accusation?" Do you enjoy calling me a liar....or just an idiot?


I re-read my quotes and I didn't call you anything. I also never said you were wrong. I am curious as to the GW bashers and asked you to support your opinion. As to your questions:

This is what I called "sweeping statements." Your first post:

chaddukes wrote:It means that the defenses that other teams emplyed to keep the Falcons in check were ignored. It means that he again used a cover 2 on obvious running downs. It means that when his scheme stopped working he refused to deviate from the plan.


I can't add anything other than quoting you that your statements that GW "ignored" other teams and "refused to deviate from the plan." being sweeping statements. You had no examples. Nothing. So I asked how you know that and you came back with:

chaddukes wrote:I posted specific accusations because these are the specific faults that I noticed. I noticed because I watched the games. I watched the Falcon's.....I'm from GA. My dad is a huge Falcons' fan. When Cleveland, Baltimore, and NO played them they kept 8 men in the box. They blitzed often. When we pleyd them we had 6 men in the box and barely blitzed. This is an observation! Do I need to cite some talkng head for you accept my observations? We didn't change our gameplan because......again, in the third and fourth quarter we were running the same personnel and plays as we were in the first. Again, an observation.

This isn't a medical experiment. Its a football game. Do I really need to find emperical evidence?


You came back with you watched the game, you noticed, your dad's a falcon fan. You talked about blitzing, and erroneously said we only had 6 men in the box. These are general statements. You also asked why you needed empirical evidence, which I didn't actually ask for. They explain your view but are not compelling to someone who sees a successful coach having a down year, and doesn't know why.

But if you can, please just answer this question. We hired GW becuase of his defensive success. He had 2 years of top 10 defenses. Now you say he's not studying film or adapting during games. How do you reconsile that? How did he all of a sudden become incompetent?

~~~~~~~~
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Postby ii7-V7 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:47 pm

Look, this is ridiculous. I don't want to keep going down this road with you. You don't seem to understand my point. Thats fine. Just don't try to humiliate me or imply that I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't think that this stupid argument in a forum from two guys who support that same team is going to do anything positive for either of us or the team. I don't draw any personal satisfaction out of these kinds of exchanges, so right, wrong or indifferent, I'm done.

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