Skins Steelers postgame thread

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Postby Red_One43 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:16 pm

oneman56 wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:
oneman56 wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:I believe his point was weaning us off the 34 to a 43. Not that his defense it rated number 1.



I guess i'm just failing to understand, if the Patriots were successful with that transition then the point would make more sense to me. I guess they are a better defense than we are so point taken on that account but it's mostly been their defense in recent years that has failed them.


They aren't so successful. Here is an example when they are http://www.boston.com/sports/football/p ... story.html


I think what Red was saying was we can be both until we get the players to be a successful 43. Another words look at them as a team to convert soon.



Fair enough, i can live with someone saying we should maybe play both a bit. You could find articles over the past two years of our current defense "rebounding" however. Personally, I didn't mind the switch to a 3-4 because either way you have to have players and while are 3-4 did pretty good and had players suited to it they were never as good as our stats, IMO, due to our offenses incapabilities at that time and other teams not needing to do anything but burn clock. We need Rak healthy, i think his value (while some say he's overrated) has been proven for this team, and we need a slot corner and free safety to start. Our rush defense is good but 3-4 or 4-3 or whatever we need a pash rush and a few quality back end guys.


Yes, I am saying that we can be both and Haz has argued that we do run some 4-3. I am not an adovcate to switch back to the 4-3. I am saying play the scheme that fits our players and keep loading up for the 3-4. If other teams start switching back to the 4-3 like the Bills and the Pats, let's stay here while the demand for 3-4 players decreases. The hybrid that I propose does not fit Shanny's philosophy explained in my previous post.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Postby oneman56 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:16 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
oneman56 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:We are stuck now. We have to see this through.


Why are we stuck? Look at Belichick. How long did it take for him to start using a majority 4-3 scheme after so many years as a 3-4?

Kilmer72 wrote:Mike will not give up on his 34 ideals or Jim Haslett


Nevermind. You're right, we are stuck. :(




Why does everyone keep saying look at Belichick? What am i looking at? His defense has fallen off so much in recent years and this year they aren't statistically that much better than we are. Just because he's running a 4/3 sometimes cause it fits his personnel better (his opinion), the stats don't show much to support that.


Why should Shanny look at Belichick?

1. Belichick and Shanny are friends - He spent time with the Pats during his year away frocm coaching.
2. Belichick is doing something about it - He feels that the 4-3 fits his personnel so he is trying something.
3. Belicheck's D was, as you noted, sucking as a 3-4 lately, so he drafted Hightower and Chandler. They are doing quite well. They might get that thing turned around. Remember there is one stat that counts more than others for a D - total points allowed (They are tied for 14th for most points given up p where would we be if we were tied for 14th instead of tied for second)

Not saying do exactly as Belichick. Shanny doesn't need to make the 4-3 his primary. Try some 4-3 combinations. Afterall, Cofield is a DT and an natural NT. Kerrigan is a DE and not an natural OLB. Rak is a DE and not a natural OLB (though he is IR now).

Now, you point out that Belichick D still is not showing anything statistically - That is ammo to argue it might not be the scheme at all. Belichick claims that as well. I don't think that these guys would suddenly be a top D in the 4-3.

Maybe Shanny should stay the course as a primary 3-4, but as I have posted several times and John Keim reported the specifics (which I posted as well) - Hazlett is running a more complicated 3-4 than the Steelers are running and the Steelers are the model. Hats off to Haz for coming up with the schemes, but his players can't run his D. They aren't fast enough, so there is a needs to eliminate complication to speed up reaction times. Less thinking and more instinct.

Shanny won't change because he feels that if the players play in the system for years, the ones who are his neucleus will have down and teach the new gifted players that he adds later.

Buuuut - what happens in the meantime while Shanny and Haz tinker to get their players? What you see happening now - Lackluster play at times? Why These are high motor work ethic guys.

Setbacks? Landry, Atogwe, Jackson, Merriweather, Jenkins, Lockout, Capgate, Of course, not all their fault, but setbacks happen when you try to fit players to a scheme instead of a scheme to the players.

One thing Shanny says that is true - his way takes time and by the money of Snyder, he will have it. It is quite possible that we will see the fruits of this labor, but probably not before the 5th year (I think that he gets it). Maybe Kyle will have pulled it together by then and Haz, if he is still around, will be the Tom Coughlin of DCs.



I agree with many of your points and you're right, points allowed is a big differentiator in our teams. I guess i'd just like to see some continuity built here and less change so perhaps scale back the current system (simplify) for the players. I don't know, something obviously needs to be done but personally i'm not sure running some 4/3 looks would help any unless it helped generate a pass rush. To me, that's the single biggest difference for us from last season. Right now I beleive we have 14 sacks through 8 games which is no where near the production we had last year. Bowen and Cofield have not generated the pressure they did last year. Perhaps Carriker's loss is more devastating than I thought it would be or maybe Rak does truly draw THAT much attention. At any rate, i'm not attempting to argue I just didn't really see the point but I understand now where you were coming from.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Postby Red_One43 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:40 pm

oneman56 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
oneman56 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:We are stuck now. We have to see this through.


Why are we stuck? Look at Belichick. How long did it take for him to start using a majority 4-3 scheme after so many years as a 3-4?

Kilmer72 wrote:Mike will not give up on his 34 ideals or Jim Haslett


Nevermind. You're right, we are stuck. :(




Why does everyone keep saying look at Belichick? What am i looking at? His defense has fallen off so much in recent years and this year they aren't statistically that much better than we are. Just because he's running a 4/3 sometimes cause it fits his personnel better (his opinion), the stats don't show much to support that.


Why should Shanny look at Belichick?

1. Belichick and Shanny are friends - He spent time with the Pats during his year away frocm coaching.
2. Belichick is doing something about it - He feels that the 4-3 fits his personnel so he is trying something.
3. Belicheck's D was, as you noted, sucking as a 3-4 lately, so he drafted Hightower and Chandler. They are doing quite well. They might get that thing turned around. Remember there is one stat that counts more than others for a D - total points allowed (They are tied for 14th for most points given up p where would we be if we were tied for 14th instead of tied for second)

Not saying do exactly as Belichick. Shanny doesn't need to make the 4-3 his primary. Try some 4-3 combinations. Afterall, Cofield is a DT and an natural NT. Kerrigan is a DE and not an natural OLB. Rak is a DE and not a natural OLB (though he is IR now).

Now, you point out that Belichick D still is not showing anything statistically - That is ammo to argue it might not be the scheme at all. Belichick claims that as well. I don't think that these guys would suddenly be a top D in the 4-3.

Maybe Shanny should stay the course as a primary 3-4, but as I have posted several times and John Keim reported the specifics (which I posted as well) - Hazlett is running a more complicated 3-4 than the Steelers are running and the Steelers are the model. Hats off to Haz for coming up with the schemes, but his players can't run his D. They aren't fast enough, so there is a needs to eliminate complication to speed up reaction times. Less thinking and more instinct.

Shanny won't change because he feels that if the players play in the system for years, the ones who are his neucleus will have down and teach the new gifted players that he adds later.

Buuuut - what happens in the meantime while Shanny and Haz tinker to get their players? What you see happening now - Lackluster play at times? Why These are high motor work ethic guys.

Setbacks? Landry, Atogwe, Jackson, Merriweather, Jenkins, Lockout, Capgate, Of course, not all their fault, but setbacks happen when you try to fit players to a scheme instead of a scheme to the players.

One thing Shanny says that is true - his way takes time and by the money of Snyder, he will have it. It is quite possible that we will see the fruits of this labor, but probably not before the 5th year (I think that he gets it). Maybe Kyle will have pulled it together by then and Haz, if he is still around, will be the Tom Coughlin of DCs.



I agree with many of your points and you're right, points allowed is a big differentiator in our teams. I guess i'd just like to see some continuity built here and less change so perhaps scale back the current system (simplify) for the players. I don't know, something obviously needs to be done but personally i'm not sure running some 4/3 looks would help any unless it helped generate a pass rush. To me, that's the single biggest difference for us from last season. Right now I beleive we have 14 sacks through 8 games which is no where near the production we had last year. Bowen and Cofield have not generated the pressure they did last year. Perhaps Carriker's loss is more devastating than I thought it would be or maybe Rak does truly draw THAT much attention. At any rate, i'm not attempting to argue I just didn't really see the point but I understand now where you were coming from.


Your points are well taken and I think that it is wise to stay the course with the 3-4. Like I said, your observations of the Pats do provide good support for your position of continuity. As far as the hybrid, I am thinking that Cofield at DT. Jenkins at the other DT. Kerrigan at DE and you have a pass rush. The weak link which could make my position of a hybrid faulty is the other DE position. Without Rak, who can do it? Can Wilson? Can Jackson?

I think that Shanny won't do the hybrid 3-4/4-3 because he wants and values the continuity. Which is what you are saying.

For me, one these discussion boards, I try to guess what Shanny wants and at times I sprinkle in what I want. I want the hybrid, but I believe that Shanny won't go for it, so I say, then simplifiy your 3-4. Something needs to be done.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Postby Red_One43 » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:59 pm

the Receiver Drops of the Steeler Game According to Shut Down Corner

I didn't count Cooley's as a drop. Does anyone agree with Doug Farrar on the third drop?

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:11 am

The ball and the defender arrived at Cooley at the same time, but he still might have caught it. I just wish they had given Chris more targets,
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

~~~~~
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 6:54 am
Location: Finksburg MD

Postby Warmother » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:05 am

Red_One43 wrote:
Warmother wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Warmother wrote:Yesterday was a disappointment. It looked like a lot of guys had no interest in playing.
I am still optimistic about the season though. In years past we have started well only to crash later. I think this year will be the opposite. I think RG3 and the boys will get better as the year goes on. We may not make the playoffs but they will learn how to win, and then next year watch out.


Question: If in years past we started to crash later, what do you make of the 0-23 lackluster perfomance against Buffalo last year right at this time, on October 30th?

Yesterday may have been the worst, but the Shanahan Redskins have had a history of lackluster performances throughtout the season.



I think RG3 will make the difference, as well as he has played this year he's still a rookie. By the end of the year, with more experience, I think his drive and leadership will rub off on the guys who are under performing, (See recievers).
The Shanahan Redskins finally have an on the field leader who will not let the rest of the team slack off as the year goes along.
I think of this team like the 1981 team that started 0-5 and finished 8-8. Once this team learns to win like that one did, it will be a beautiful thing.


I agree with you about RGIII being a difference maker this year performance and leadership and I love your optimism. With the '81 team, Gibbs made a major adjustment with the O. Shanny has made such an adjustment this year. Good analogy so far.

*2005, Redskins 5-6, win next 5 games. Philosophy change - pound the ball.

*2007, Redskins 5-7, QB change by injury. QB who knows the O, comes in and wins 4 straight games.

*In the '81, '05, '06 seasons a major change in philosophy (run the ball) or personnel (QB who knows the system), led to the consecutive victory runs.

The Steeler game showed that even with RGIII, Kyle continues to showcase his arsenal of plays rather than maximize our strengths. A Flea Flicker? Against a disciplined D playing zone? A pass to a QB with the in D in Zone? Running wide with a no speed Alfred Morris against the Steelers? Why?

Haz continues to try to make his Steeler model defense more complicated than what the Steelers do.

Without a philosophy change from these two or at least one of them, we will have to rely on RGIII like we did in the Viking game. I can't see an '81, '05 or an '07 run in this team. There are too many flaws that we saw in 2010 still happening in the third year.

Will We bounce back from the Steeler game? We bounced back from the 2010 whupping by Philly, 59-28, so I know we will next week.

John Keim on Simplifying the Defense like the Steelers
2.Talked to a very knowledgeable NFL guy after the game and his point summed up some differences between the teams. The Redskins and Steelers run the same defense, right? Well, this person said that’s true only to a point. The Steelers are much more basic on early downs and it shows in their execution. While they will change things up and they will blitz a lot, most of their so-called exotic looks come on third down. They rarely learn anything new. It’s a major key to why they execute so well.



As for the trick plays, the flea flicker and pass back to QB, I don't have a big problem trying something different against a good defense. While the plays may not always work it keeps the defenses honest and whoever your playing the next week now has to prepare for those trick plays.

As for running wide I agree with a slower back it seems dumb, but who knows what the coaches in the booth saw and relayed to the sideline.

I think if the recievers had caught half the passes that were dropped the game may have been different. Maybe not a win but at least closer.

I agree with your assesment of the D. Play base fundamental defense where everybody does their job. Then blitz more often from as many different angles as you can get.
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the way I am."

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:55 am

They should have tried that QB throwback play at the end of the G-strings game.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5165
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Postby riggofan » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:46 am

Red_One43 wrote:I think that you are being a little too casual in defending the use of that play. With that play, an OC, doesn't want to "try" to make things happen. He wants to be smart about using it. This play had no chance to work. Steelers had two guys back there.


Totally true, and I have no idea what went on when that play was called. Even Shanny called that one dumb in hindsight, so I gotta agree with you and SkinsJock that that specific play shouldn't have been called.

I think you guys would agree in that game we really needed a spark at that point. I just can't fault the coaches for trying to make that happen. You run a trick play like that and RGIII goes for a touchdown, suddenly its an 8 point game and you have some momentum. We clearly weren't going to win grinding it out against that team.

And SkinsJock, I still don't think Kyle was much of an issue Sunday. The Steelers are the #2 defense in the league. We still ran for 86 yards on them, and I thought Morris was doing well. He could have done better if the WRs would have caught more balls instead of keeping us in long yardage situations. The players weren't dropping balls because Kyle Shanahan wasn't calling the right play.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 5220
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby cvillehog » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:55 am

Whether the call was a good idea at the time or not, the players were very clearly not *coached* right on the play. Mike said so himself in the press conference. He should have told Josh not to throw it if the Steelers rolled coverage to RGIII...

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:28 am

To be fair, RGIII dropped his only pass as well. :twisted:
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

08 Champ
Posts: 13928
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: New England

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:29 pm

the play should not have been used against a decent secondary - there's little doubt in drawing that play up that the Steeler DBs are going to have time to be in position - to 'plan' to have RG3 be the guy that was going to get the ball and take the hits was not a good call - this play should not have been used against that secondary

running the ball against the Steelers was not the problem - we did get 86 yards - we might have had more success if we'd tried more runs up the middle and less to the outside is all I'm pointing to

no offense is going to be very successful if the receivers do not catch the ball
The Redskins need to change to improve - we need a better GM and we need to do a better job of who we bring in to coach and play here - players and coaches need to be held accountable when they do not do their jobs well

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16277
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:03 pm

SkinsJock wrote:the play should not have been used against a decent secondary - there's little doubt in drawing that play up that the Steeler DBs are going to have time to be in position - to 'plan' to have RG3 be the guy that was going to get the ball and take the hits was not a good call - this play should not have been used against that secondary

First, the Steelers secondary is not that good, Polamalu was out and Ryan Clark went down during the game. But the design of the play is to surprise the defense by having RGIII go out into a route after handing off the ball on an apparent end-around. The idea is that he's going to be uncovered altogether as everyone is in run support mode. The Steelers had to be very disciplined not to bite on the run.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

ch1
Posts: 3633
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Postby crazyhorse1 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:56 pm

Deadskins wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:the play should not have been used against a decent secondary - there's little doubt in drawing that play up that the Steeler DBs are going to have time to be in position - to 'plan' to have RG3 be the guy that was going to get the ball and take the hits was not a good call - this play should not have been used against that secondary

First, the Steelers secondary is not that good, Polamalu was out and Ryan Clark went down during the game. But the design of the play is to surprise the defense by having RGIII go out into a route after handing off the ball on an apparent end-around. The idea is that he's going to be uncovered altogether as everyone is in run support mode. The Steelers had to be very disciplined not to bite on the run.


No one may agree with me, but I think we run the ball too much. RG 111 is probably the most accurate passer in the NFL, but has relatively few attempts, among the lowest in the league. We should be passing our opponents silly, and could, instead of letting Morris' runs being predictable. We simply can't afford so many futile attempts to grind it out, when it's clear we have to score on nearly every possession. Here's a news bulletin: it's difficult to run the ball consistently in the NFL. It's a dumb way to play catch up. We've got to be aggressive in the air from the beginning, if only by using short passes-- that way Alfred will find more holes when he does run. His yardage will stay the same. By the way, our bombs don't work. We don't have receivers who can get separation long.

I wish we had kept Gaffney, every time I look at Hankerson, Briscoe, and Robinson.

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16744
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:20 pm

cvillehog wrote:Whether the call was a good idea at the time or not, the players were very clearly not *coached* right on the play. Mike said so himself in the press conference. He should have told Josh not to throw it if the Steelers rolled coverage to RGIII...


+1

Deadskins wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:the play should not have been used against a decent secondary - there's little doubt in drawing that play up that the Steeler DBs are going to have time to be in position - to 'plan' to have RG3 be the guy that was going to get the ball and take the hits was not a good call - this play should not have been used against that secondary

First, the Steelers secondary is not that good, Polamalu was out and Ryan Clark went down during the game. But the design of the play is to surprise the defense by having RGIII go out into a route after handing off the ball on an apparent end-around. The idea is that he's going to be uncovered altogether as everyone is in run support mode. The Steelers had to be very disciplined not to bite on the run.


Like cvillehog said... you have to tell Morgan to pull it down and run or throw it away if RGIII isn't WIDE open. You tell him in meetings, you tell him on the practice field and you tell him prior to running the play.


crazyhorse1 wrote:
No one may agree with me, but I think we run the ball too much. RG 111 is probably the most accurate passer in the NFL, but has relatively few attempts, among the lowest in the league. We should be passing our opponents silly, and could, instead of letting Morris' runs being predictable. We simply can't afford so many futile attempts to grind it out, when it's clear we have to score on nearly every possession. Here's a news bulletin: it's difficult to run the ball consistently in the NFL. It's a dumb way to play catch up. We've got to be aggressive in the air from the beginning, if only by using short passes-- that way Alfred will find more holes when he does run. His yardage will stay the same. By the way, our bombs don't work. We don't have receivers who can get separation long.

I wish we had kept Gaffney, every time I look at Hankerson, Briscoe, and Robinson.



ROTFALMAO
The Redskins had somewhere between 9-11 dropped passes last week most hit the receivers in the hands close to the body, so barring deflections there aren't many chances of interceptions even on the drops.


I'm agreeing with the crazy1 :shock:
He's right on all points... RGIII's first pass went for 88 yards but was a designed 7 yard slant.... The pistol formation is perfect for RGIII and he can throw out of this formations and still freeze the LBs with the threat of his running or handind the ball off to Alfred.

Anything would be better than having him start week in and week out with him under center, that takes the pressure off the D right off the back.
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4609
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: D.C.

Postby Red_One43 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:27 pm

riggofan wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:I think that you are being a little too casual in defending the use of that play. With that play, an OC, doesn't want to "try" to make things happen. He wants to be smart about using it. This play had no chance to work. Steelers had two guys back there.


Totally true, and I have no idea what went on when that play was called. Even Shanny called that one dumb in hindsight, so I gotta agree with you and SkinsJock that that specific play shouldn't have been called.

I think you guys would agree in that game we really needed a spark at that point. I just can't fault the coaches for trying to make that happen. You run a trick play like that and RGIII goes for a touchdown, suddenly its an 8 point game and you have some momentum. We clearly weren't going to win grinding it out against that team.

And SkinsJock, I still don't think Kyle was much of an issue Sunday. The Steelers are the #2 defense in the league. We still ran for 86 yards on them, and I thought Morris was doing well. He could have done better if the WRs would have caught more balls instead of keeping us in long yardage situations. The players weren't dropping balls because Kyle Shanahan wasn't calling the right play.


I agree with you that we needed a spark. Maybe Shanny said it the receivers won't catch RGIII's passes, then RGIII with have to do himself. :)

I just thought we were grasping at straws with those trick plays instead of taking it to the Steelers. Against the Panthers, that play works, but against the Steelers, that play will rarely work and probably wouldn't have worked in man, because LeBeau most likely would have accounted for RGIII.

I felt that the problem with Kyle was evident in his 2nd and 3rd calls of the game. Running Morris a slow back wide and off tack against the Harrison's side. Loses and no gains on 2 and 1 and 3rd and 1. The read option off tackle was working and burned Harrison when it was run. I don't understand the read option off the guard. Woodley defensed both RB and QB for a loss by himself. It just seems to me that Kyle likes to be fancy instead of just taking it to a team. Why less designed runs against the Steelers than the Giants?

Once again the RB averaged over 4.5 yards - once again, Kyle failed to capitalize on the weapons he had (See running Morris wide). Kyle struggles to find rhythm with his play calling. RGIII is making him look better than he is as a play caller.

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football