Vikings postgame thread

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16063
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:57 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:I think our D played a great game. Not only did they score, but they gave RGIII the ball deep in Vikings territory, despite once again not getting any of the blatant holds right in front of the refs. Not to mention a couple of really bad interference calls, which could have easily gone the other way.


I agree with you on the positives. They kept us in the game, they scored. But giving up three straight drives when we had a three score lead which resulted in two TD's and almost a third removes the "great" from the performance.


I have to agree with Kaz - having a 19 point lead in the 4th qtr and the game turning into a nail biter definitely removes the "great." After reading a few posts, I can definitely see the postive side of the performance of the D, better today, than I did last night at the game.

And I'd have to disagree with you both. I just watched the game again, and I still say the D played great. They gave us 14 points, and while they did give up two TDs in the 4th quarter, they were both very time consuming drives, where they were purposely giving up the middle, short routes to run time off the clock. And the second drive was ref-aided by an interference call in the end-zone that should have gone against the Vikings.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

Hog
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:27 pm
Location: Arlington, VA (Ballston)

Postby ACW » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:15 am

Red_One43 wrote:
cvillehog wrote:I missed this last week, but Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ column on ESPN on 10/9 started with a long description of how the Vikings running a simple offense and winning is proof that the NFL has gotten too complex. I haven't rewatched the game yet, but I have to say I didn't think their offense was particularly vanilla. What did you guys think?

http://espn.go.com/espn/playbook/story/ ... licity-win


I don't know if I would call it vanilla, but Ponder threw a lot of short passes against the Skins and methodically marched the ball down the field. With a guy like Harvin, dumping the ball off to him can easily turn into a big gain. With a running back like Peterson to compliment the short passing game, it is a formula that has to work. The D is not too Shabby as well. When the Skins were conventional, the completely shut down the Skins - that helps a simple offense as well. Speaking of simple the D also looks like a simple Cover 2 with everyone being where they are supposed to be.

Here's some evidence that the Vikings are keeping it simple. Last year Ponder comp pct was 54.3%. This year it is 68.6%. How did his pct rise so dramatically in one year? Has he become RGIIIish with his accuracy in one year? No! The shorter passes are helping him big time.

I do agree with the article - simple just might be better. Vikes are 4-2. Not a bad start for one of the worst teams last year and they have beaten some good teams like the Niners and Lions.
Niners sure, but Lions are odd this year.

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

Postby Red_One43 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 am

Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Deadskins wrote:I think our D played a great game. Not only did they score, but they gave RGIII the ball deep in Vikings territory, despite once again not getting any of the blatant holds right in front of the refs. Not to mention a couple of really bad interference calls, which could have easily gone the other way.


I agree with you on the positives. They kept us in the game, they scored. But giving up three straight drives when we had a three score lead which resulted in two TD's and almost a third removes the "great" from the performance.


I have to agree with Kaz - having a 19 point lead in the 4th qtr and the game turning into a nail biter definitely removes the "great." After reading a few posts, I can definitely see the postive side of the performance of the D, better today, than I did last night at the game.

And I'd have to disagree with you both. I just watched the game again, and I still say the D played great. They gave us 14 points, and while they did give up two TDs in the 4th quarter, they were both very time consuming drives, where they were purposely giving up the middle, short routes to run time off the clock. And the second drive was ref-aided by an interference call in the end-zone that should have gone against the Vikings.


That's a loose def of the word "great. Usually "great" is reserved for the performances like the Raven's, Bear's and other defenses of the past that destroy offenses. I agree that it was a good performance as compared to what the rest of the league's D's are doing, but great? I define great as a dominating performance.

There was no reason to call that ineffective blitz (was it a zero blitz? - loooked like it.) on that play when the object was to keep the ball in front of you and eat time. I have said that our D is better than our stats and that Haz is putting them in situations that do not fit their talent. I think that we can find common ground that our D is better than its stats. If you see the game again, would you count the number of times Haz called his zero blitz and if it was ever effective? Thanks.

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16063
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:59 pm

Oh please! I'll stick with great, while you can look for a once in a decade-like performance. :roll:

BTW, London Fletcher said they played great, too. I'll take his opinion over yours. :P
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

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

Postby Red_One43 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:35 pm

Deadskins wrote:Oh please! I'll stick with great, while you can look for a once in a decade-like performance. :roll:

BTW, London Fletcher said they played great, too. I'll take his opinion over yours. :P


I'll take Fletch's opinion over mine as well, but check it out, on any thread, I have always said that the players played great especially on D.

I will agree with you that the defensive players played great. They aren't the most talented D line evidenced by their lack of a pass rush. They aren't the most D talented players in the the league. We know about the secondary weeaknesses, so yes, the D players played great in this game as well as in others. These are high motor guys that Shanny chose because they give it their all.

But as far as the defensive performance goes - I wouldn't call a "bend, but don't break" performance with over 400 yards of offense given up, a 19 point 4th quarter lead nearly squandered, giving up 26 total points and the same issues with wide open receivers in the flat taking place, great. Keep in mind the Vikings rank as just an average offense (17th in yardage after posting 400+ against the Skins).

As I have said in other threads, these D issues are a case of a coordinator not basing his scheme on the talent of his players. Everytime, we have gotten leads, we have watched teams close on us. Check out the games! Saints, Rams, Bucs, and now Vikings. Why is that? Not the players, they played great to get the lead in the first place. (let's not forget TDs in 4 games). When Haz gets a lead he goes back to his blitzing stuff and we get burned quick. We don't have the personnel for what Haz wants to do. Keep it simple like the Vikings D does and have everybody in the right place. Greg Cosell said on ESPN980 that has has back down and called more conservative game plans lately and we have seen better results. Cosell noticed less all out blitzes, but keeping the traditional blitzes. Less man coverage. Haz needs to stay with this approach even when we get a double digit lead.

This Skins' win was not a win with great defense, it was a win because both sides of the ball came together and made the plays that they had to make and get the win which was great (along with the individual performance of RGIII).

08 Champ
Posts: 13239
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:46 pm

:shock: you have to be kidding me ...

there is no 'reasoning' with JSPB - he's in his own little world ... :twisted:

the defense played OK ....

but .... with 'great' effort ... :lol:
We are lucky to have Cousins - Griffin will become the better QB as he learns to use the pocket & read defenses

Until then, I hope that Cousins takes full advantage of this opportunity

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

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

Postby Red_One43 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:57 pm

SkinsJock wrote::shock: you have to be kidding me ...

there is no 'reasoning' with JSPB - he's in his own little world ... :twisted:

the defense played OK ....

but .... with 'great' effort ... :lol:


SkinsJock, you spelled out what I am saying - "great" effort, but the performance was "good" enough. One of these days I will learn to use fewer words to make my point. :lol:

I wouldn't go as far as saying there is no reasoning with JSPB. He provided evidence to support his case. The term "great" is relelvant. 3 Turnovers! 1 TD and set up another! Held them to 3 FGs instead of 3 TDs. That is what Haz has and Shanny have been harping on about the change to this defense.

I thought it was a good discussion. He saw that as great and I saw it as just good enough, but I also saw the players playing above their talent level, now ain't that just great! :)

I respect where he is coming from - my perspective is just my perspective - not the right perspective.

08 Champ
Posts: 13239
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:39 pm

beauty is in the eye of the beholder ...

I thought the defense played well and there were some good aspects ... but

I'm not going to agree that this was a great game by the defense
We are lucky to have Cousins - Griffin will become the better QB as he learns to use the pocket & read defenses

Until then, I hope that Cousins takes full advantage of this opportunity

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

The Punisher
Posts: 2593
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Manassas

Postby Bob 0119 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:28 pm

Here's a few random stats I stumbled across

The 2011 Redskins had a grand total of 28 touchdowns in 16 games.
-8 rushing TDs
-19 passing TDs
-1 defensive TD (INT returned)

That goes along with 13 interceptions and 8 defensive fumble recoveries.


The 2012 Redskins have so far in six games had a grand total of 22 TDs
-11 rushing TDs
-6 passing TDs
-5 defensive TDs (2 fumble returns, 3 INTs returned)

That goes in with 8 total interceptions and 5 defensive fumble recoveries.

While our D may look awfully bad sometimes, we have really turned a corner in the turnover department and certainly in the defensive scoring.
“If you grow up in metro Washington, you grow up a diehard Redskins fan. But if you hate your parents, you grow up a Cowboys fan.”-Jim Lachey

08 Champ
Posts: 13239
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Postby SkinsJock » Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:42 am

that's the thing - the defense this year has not been awful but, there's no way that I would say that we have a good defense

I also would not categorize last week's overall work by the defense as 'great' - good yes but not great


the defense as a whole is OK but the area we have some issues with is the secondary

last wek's EFFORT by the defense was great - the defense helped - GREAT JOB
We are lucky to have Cousins - Griffin will become the better QB as he learns to use the pocket & read defenses

Until then, I hope that Cousins takes full advantage of this opportunity

HAIL


Week 2 - 17-15

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

Postby Red_One43 » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:54 pm

Haslett's take on the defensive perfomamce against the Vikings


...fourth defensive touchdown of the year.


Defense has 4 TDs this year

“Bend but don’t break,” is a description that several players used to describe their performance in the 38-26 victory. But defensive coordinator Jim Haslett dislikes the phrase. Although pleased with the turnovers, touchdown and stingy red zone effort, Haslett says his unit has to do a better job of getting off the field.


That has got to change for the Giant game.

“I don’t like [bend but don’t break], because we blitzed like five times a row in the fourth quarter. I wouldn’t say it’s ‘bend but don’t break’ if you’re blitzing,” Haslett said Thursday. “Last week, we had a nice lead and we didn’t want to give it up and we kind of played conservative along the way, trying to eat up time on the clock. I don’t think we’re bend but don’t break. I wouldn’t use those terms.”


Blitzing 5 times in a row is conservative for Haz.
Notice Haz bragging about how many times he blitzed in a row. How many times were those blitzes effective? Are his blitz schemes the best schemes? Is he bltizing at the right times. He blitzed on that PI in the end zone when I thought the conservative approach was working and eating up the time. Haz seems to be more concerned with getting credit for his schemes than the wins.

But the Redskins allowed the Vikings to get out of bounds at the end of those runs and catches, stopping the clock — exactly what Haslett didn’t want. That left the Vikings plenty of time to stage a comeback.

“We were trying to play it safe. We didn’t want to give up any big [plays],” Haslett said. “We were up by 2-1/2, three scores, so we were just playing coverage and trying to eat up time. We were actually trying to keep them in bounds, but we obviously didn’t do a very good job of that. We’re going to do a drill today.”


I am glad that Haz is pointing this one out - this was the only sore spot I saw in the play of the players; however, Haz is always saying, after the fact, that we will have to work on that. Shouldn't fundamentals like this be coached all year long? Why doesn't he have the D ready to go, game after game? I don't beleive that our players are that bad - not as talented yes, but not that bad.

Again, I point to a flawed complicated scheme that robs the players of instinct and fundamentals - too busy trying to remember where they are supposed to be than playing football. We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 16063
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:47 pm

Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

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

Postby Red_One43 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:41 am

Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.


The all pro thing is exaggeration on my part, but let's look at someplayers:

Walt Harris flat out didn't play well in Gregg's Scheme. He went to the Niners and darn near leads the league in INTs. Walt didn't suddenly get more talent - he was used in a many that fit his strengths.

Let's look at another: Carlos Rogers. good cover guy here, but you may have forgotten that his nickname was "double move" because he bit on that so much in single cover.

But, I don't have to speculate with Carlos. He is the one who came out and said that the Niners simplified things and ask guys how they think they should be used and then draw up the schemes to fit the guys strengths.

Evidence to support Carlos:
With Harbaugh, he took over the same players and 3-4 base that the Singletary had on D and made that D better - Did he infuse a lot of new talent into the D? No, he simplified things and put played players to their strengths.

Haz puts the same guys in a 3-4. He tries Andre Carter at LB, doesn't work so they use him primarily as a rush end in the 4-3. Andre Carter is still ineffective. The next year, Andre Carter goes to the Pats. The Pats play a 3-4 base, but find a way to get 10 sacks out of Andre Carter as a hand in the dirt rush end in an injury shortened season (not all pro but much better than Haz got out of him).

*Note I remember some folks posted back in 2010 that Haz wasted Andre Carter and I said that he didn't because Carter proved to be ineffective at LB and was too small to play DE in the 3-4. I was wrong, I didn't know that DCs were allowed to be creative and deviate from their base defense. Haz knew, he didn't want to because players must fit the scheme not scheme fit the players.

Haz and Gregg's schemes are about being aggressive and too me, they get overly aggressive for theirs and the defense's own good.

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 1965
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby emoses14 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:05 am

Red_One43 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.


The all pro thing is exaggeration on my part, but let's look at someplayers:

Walt Harris flat out didn't play well in Gregg's Scheme. He went to the Niners and darn near leads the league in INTs. Walt didn't suddenly get more talent - he was used in a many that fit his strengths.

Let's look at another: Carlos Rogers. good cover guy here, but you may have forgotten that his nickname was "double move" because he bit on that so much in single cover.

But, I don't have to speculate with Carlos. He is the one who came out and said that the Niners simplified things and ask guys how they think they should be used and then draw up the schemes to fit the guys strengths.

Evidence to support Carlos:
With Harbaugh, he took over the same players and 3-4 base that the Singletary had on D and made that D better - Did he infuse a lot of new talent into the D? No, he simplified things and put played players to their strengths.

Haz puts the same guys in a 3-4. He tries Andre Carter at LB, doesn't work so they use him primarily as a rush end in the 4-3. Andre Carter is still ineffective. The next year, Andre Carter goes to the Pats. The Pats play a 3-4 base, but find a way to get 10 sacks out of Andre Carter as a hand in the dirt rush end in an injury shortened season (not all pro but much better than Haz got out of him).

*Note I remember some folks posted back in 2010 that Haz wasted Andre Carter and I said that he didn't because Carter proved to be ineffective at LB and was too small to play DE in the 3-4. I was wrong, I didn't know that DCs were allowed to be creative and deviate from their base defense. Haz knew, he didn't want to because players must fit the scheme not scheme fit the players.

Haz and Gregg's schemes are about being aggressive and too me, they get overly aggressive for theirs and the defense's own good.


Didn't NE switch to a 4-3 the in the year that Andre had all those sacks? And hasn't Andre been out of football since that year?
I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

-Santana Moss on Our QB

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

Postby Red_One43 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:32 am

emoses14 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:We saw it with Gregg and we see it with Haz. Players going to other teams and becoming all-pros.

Can you point to one of those players? We've had a couple of guys leave and play well elsewhere, but it's not like they didn't play well here too, and were hamstrung by the scheme.


The all pro thing is exaggeration on my part, but let's look at someplayers:

Walt Harris flat out didn't play well in Gregg's Scheme. He went to the Niners and darn near leads the league in INTs. Walt didn't suddenly get more talent - he was used in a many that fit his strengths.

Let's look at another: Carlos Rogers. good cover guy here, but you may have forgotten that his nickname was "double move" because he bit on that so much in single cover.

But, I don't have to speculate with Carlos. He is the one who came out and said that the Niners simplified things and ask guys how they think they should be used and then draw up the schemes to fit the guys strengths.

Evidence to support Carlos:
With Harbaugh, he took over the same players and 3-4 base that the Singletary had on D and made that D better - Did he infuse a lot of new talent into the D? No, he simplified things and put played players to their strengths.

Haz puts the same guys in a 3-4. He tries Andre Carter at LB, doesn't work so they use him primarily as a rush end in the 4-3. Andre Carter is still ineffective. The next year, Andre Carter goes to the Pats. The Pats play a 3-4 base, but find a way to get 10 sacks out of Andre Carter as a hand in the dirt rush end in an injury shortened season (not all pro but much better than Haz got out of him).

*Note I remember some folks posted back in 2010 that Haz wasted Andre Carter and I said that he didn't because Carter proved to be ineffective at LB and was too small to play DE in the 3-4. I was wrong, I didn't know that DCs were allowed to be creative and deviate from their base defense. Haz knew, he didn't want to because players must fit the scheme not scheme fit the players.

Haz and Gregg's schemes are about being aggressive and too me, they get overly aggressive for theirs and the defense's own good.


Didn't NE switch to a 4-3 the in the year that Andre had all those sacks? And hasn't Andre been out of football since that year?


This was a sore subject for him all year last year. He said due to the strike shortened season, it would be easier to start out in a 4-3 and mix up the fronts from odd to even. Yes, they were in the 4-3 more than the 3-4, but that is EXACTLY my point use the scheme that fits your players. Belicheck showed the flexibility and Haz has yet to. Haz did and does use the 4-3 from time to time, in 2010, he could haved used it more than not during that tranisiton. Again, I hindsight this to show that Haz is not a put the players in the scheme that works guy, but more of a "this is what we do guy." A lot of DCs will tell you that they use multiple fronts. The Pats proved that Andre Carter had a lot left if used right and could be used on a team that traditionally ran a 3-4. Haz could have done the same or similar, but didn't.


“We’ve played a mixture of odd fronts and even fronts, but I just felt like from a starting point — given the lack of spring opportunities to practice and meet, and the shortened training camp in terms of actual number of practices — that from a teaching standpoint we felt like there would be more carryover teaching our base defense and nickel defense really as one front,” Belichick explained.


This talk shows the willingness of Belicheck to make the adjustments.

LINK

Andre Carter suffered a severe quad tear against us last year and took awhile to recover. Though he is 33 and coming off a severe injury, he is currently playing for the Oakland Raiders.

Oakland Raiders

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football