It may just be my opinion but I am tired of hearing that our offense is terrible because we only managed to put 120 yards in the books. Lets think about it for a second we were up against the #1 defense.
I would rather be shut out offensively by a #1 Defense and still win then put up 500 yrds of offense and lose. Our D played a hell of a game when we needed them to, and this weekend we will not see the Cover 2 which will open up our passing game again.
TB was the only team I can see that had the D to stop our 3-tiered offensive (Moss-Deep, ey-Mid, Portis-short). This is the formula that worked for the dreaded Cowboys when they won their last superbowl. No one ever seems to include Jay Novacheck <?sp?> in thier little run but it was his consistant play that made it impossible to double Irivin or stop Emitt.
The reality of our offense is that we are the most well rounded team in the NFC and we can beat everyone left. We just got our heads bashed in by a great defense. My hat is off to TB's Defensive unit and they will continue to be a threat in the future.
Two factors played into last weeks offensive debacle.
#1. The BUCS defense
#2. Joe Gibbs conservative approach
I think once Joe saw that we weren't getting any yards he shut the offense down. You simply can't do that because he really tired out the defense although I think Taylor leaving the game was a bigger impact.
The good thing is that we took out the #1 defense. The Seahawks wont be able to negate the offense like the Bucs did, not in their wildest dreams.
The Bucs did what they said they were going to do. They kept a man deep to take away Santana. They shadowed ey all day long - he was only open a couple of times. And they kept everyone up in the box. Know what that means? Our other WR was open -- or should have been open -- all day long.
I like the fact that we stuck with the run. Even if it meant only 2 first downs in the whole second half. Even if it meant all three and outs in the fourth quarter. If you're going to go three and out, you might as well go three and out smash-mouth style.
I mentioned this earlier but by winning the way we did, with that terrible offensive performance will help us win this week. The media will rip us all week that we have NO offense and that we don't stand a chance, blah blah blah............ That will sink into the mind set of the seahawks and they will over look us and start thining who they might play in the NFC championship game.
i agre.the whole offense story this week has been blown way out of proportion.we did what we had to do to win.its the playoffs and not every game is gonna be pretty,but we got the job done.personally i think it helps that we had a game like this to wake the offense up a little bit.it seems when brunell has a couple of off games he steps up.im not worried a bit about our offense and damn sure not scared of the seahawks.
Keep in mind, too, that road wins are not easy to come by IN THE REGULAR SEASON. Now, in the playoffs they become even more difficult (though not impossible -- as we witnessed) to attain. Big ups to the Skins for going into that hostile arena and pull out a win against one of the better teams in the NFC this year.
xhadow wrote:It may just be my opinion but I am tired of hearing that our offense is terrible because we only managed to put 120 yards in the books. Lets think about it for a second we were up against the #1 defense.
So? Even that woeful Chicago offense (ranked well below ours) got 239 yards (nearly double what we did) against the Bucs during the regular season. We were by far the least productive offense vs. that defense all year. The 'skins aren't going to Detroit if only half the team continues to show up like last Sat.
I would rather be shut out offensively by a #1 Defense and still win then put up 500 yrds of offense and lose. Our D played a hell of a game when we needed them to, and this weekend we will not see the Cover 2 which will open up our passing game again.
.
We can agree on that - winning beats losing. But consider this - Brunell has been under 50% completetions for the last two games (6 for 25 against Philly and 7 for 15 against Tampa, with 1 TD and 2 INTs), with passer ratings of 50 and 25. Did you see that skip pass to Moss on Sat.?!? It hit the ground a good 5 feet in front of him - it was like the 2004 season all over again, when Brunell was hurt and hitting less than 50%. Brunell is clearly injured out there now (from that shot to the knee he took against the Giants), and I don't see our passing game opening up unless he heals up before Sat.
TB was the only team I can see that had the D to stop our 3-tiered offensive (Moss-Deep, ey-Mid, Portis-short).
Moss and ey are irrelevant if Brunell is too banged up to get them the ball. I just hope he's better by Sat., because he'll be starting no matter how bad the knee is.
The reality of our offense is that we are the most well rounded team in the NFC and we can beat everyone left.
Our offense wasn't terrible -- the playcalling was ultra-conservative. It's like we expected to win after putting up 14 points in the first quarter. Just have to keep calling 26-gut. I'm loving and savoring the win, but we have to move back to a balanced offense to beat the Hawks.
"The biggest misrepresentation there is that [it's because] Dan's got a lot of money. That's not it," Gibbs said. "We've got a rule. Believe me, if we had no rules, Dan would spend some money."
It was beneath terrible - they set the record for the least productive offense for a winning team in play-off history. Luckily, the defense got 7 and gift-wrapped that other TD for the offense by getting the ball back to the 5. Other than that, the offense managed only a FG on their own. Even Chicago managed better against the Tampa D, and there's a reason Chicago is considered a one-dimensional team.
the playcalling was ultra-conservative.
So the plays were designed to NOT get points/yards? Brunell finished with a 25 passer rating on Sat. - that's not the fault of the play-calling.
It's like we expected to win after putting up 14 points in the first quarter. Just have to keep calling 26-gut. I'm loving and savoring the win, but we have to move back to a balanced offense to beat the Hawks.
I just hope Brunell heals up before then, or I want to see Ramsey. A 33% completion percentage since Brunell's injury in the Giants game won't get it done.
Let the media trash us all day long. We won!!!! After all, these are the same guys that predicted 1) Philadelphia, 2) Dallas, 3) Giants and 4) Redskins. It turned out to be 1) Giants 2) Redsins 3) Dallas and 4) Philadelphia. Division teams left in the play-offs after the first week 1 - Redskins. So much for thier creditbility.
aswas71788 wrote:Let the media trash us all day long. We won!!!! After all, these are the same guys that predicted 1) Philadelphia, 2) Dallas, 3) Giants and 4) Redskins. It turned out to be 1) Giants 2) Redsins 3) Dallas and 4) Philadelphia. Division teams left in the play-offs after the first week 1 - Redskins. So much for thier creditbility.
Yes sir!!
Our Skins in the NFC East: 5-1; the Giants: 4-2
Our Skins on the season: 10-6 w/8 home games;
the Giants 11-5 w/9 home games
Our Skins: still in the playoffs; the Giants: on the couch
Now who is the real champion of the NFC East?
After every game, every play & every highlight, I'll always remember #21. RIP Sean.
AZHog wrote:Our offense wasn't terrible -- the playcalling was ultra-conservative. It's like we expected to win after putting up 14 points in the first quarter. Just have to keep calling 26-gut. I'm loving and savoring the win, but we have to move back to a balanced offense to beat the Hawks.
Brother AZHog..my opinion is that the play call gets more conservative with the lack of execution of the basic play calling package. Brunell is missing some throws due to his injury. That limits what Joe Gibbs wants to do. We don't seem to have a viable #2 wide out on the field. He also came out of the gate with an option pass that Portis under threw. That should have been 7.
Do you really think we should blame the play calling for what happened on Saturday?
Last edited by WuSkinsFan on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
After every game, every play & every highlight, I'll always remember #21. RIP Sean.
Mursilis wrote:It was beneath terrible - they set the record for the least productive offense for a winning team in play-off history. Luckily, the defense got 7 and gift-wrapped that other TD for the offense by getting the ball back to the 5. Other than that, the offense managed only a FG on their own. Even Chicago managed better against the Tampa D, and there's a reason Chicago is considered a one-dimensional team.
So the plays were designed to NOT get points/yards? Brunell finished with a 25 passer rating on Sat. - that's not the fault of the play-calling.
I just hope Brunell heals up before then, or I want to see Ramsey. A 33% completion percentage since Brunell's injury in the Giants game won't get it done.
Just to reiterate, Brunell tried to throw the ball a grand total of 15 times. In contrast, 27 rushing plays were called. After getting the 14 point lead the game went rush, rush, pass...rush, rush, pass...and so on. There was no mixing things up or trying to hit a deep threat. No team is going to generate huge numbers playing the game like that.
And no, the plays were not designed to generate huge chunks of yards -- it was to keep the clock moving. Period. Playcalling was the issue, plain and simple. Brunell's looking OK and I think he'll get better this week. We need to rebalance the offense -- ala earlier this year -- to open up the rushing game.
"The biggest misrepresentation there is that [it's because] Dan's got a lot of money. That's not it," Gibbs said. "We've got a rule. Believe me, if we had no rules, Dan would spend some money."
WuSkinsFan wrote:Brother AZHog..my opinion is that the play call gets more conservative with the lack of execution of the basic play calling package. Brunell is missing some throws due to his injury. That limits what Joe Gibbs wants to do. He also came out of the gate with an option pass that Portis under threw. That should have been 7.
Do you really think we should blame the play calling for what happened on Saturday?
I certainly don't think Brunell was anywhere near perfect. But if there are no 15-20 yard passing plays called, what's the man supposed to do? His accuracy is definately off -- he's throwing too high or too low. Either way, he wasn't given ample opportunity to go for the deep plays, even on third downs where we were trying to hit recievers no deeper than 8-10 yards (with one or two exceptions).
All this being said, Gibbs will adjust and will make a ballgame out of this Saturday's game. Hail to the Redskins!
"The biggest misrepresentation there is that [it's because] Dan's got a lot of money. That's not it," Gibbs said. "We've got a rule. Believe me, if we had no rules, Dan would spend some money."
skinsRin wrote:I mentioned this earlier but by winning the way we did, with that terrible offensive performance will help us win this week. The media will rip us all week that we have NO offense and that we don't stand a chance, blah blah blah............ That will sink into the mind set of the seahawks and they will over look us and start thining who they might play in the NFC championship game.
I totally agree! The media is allready starting to bash us, and i love it. Also.. we have kinda played 2 subpar games in a row IMO... and we are ready for a breakout! I feel good about our chances. We could easily lose this game... but we play the way we are capable of playing.. the sky's the limit!
xhadow wrote:It may just be my opinion but I am tired of hearing that our offense is terrible because we only managed to put 120 yards in the books. Lets think about it for a second we were up against the #1 defense.
So? Even that woeful Chicago offense (ranked well below ours) got 239 yards (nearly double what we did) against the Bucs during the regular season. We were by far the least productive offense vs. that defense all year. The 'skins aren't going to Detroit if only half the team continues to show up like last Sat.
True enough but when they played Tampa wasn't playing to go to the next round of the playoffs, not to mention the Bears were playing for thier lives as they have been all year. I believe that we would have produced more if we were playing from behind at any point in the game but the fact is that we weren't and we all know the type of coach Gibbs is. Add to that that Portis had something wrong.
Mursilis wrote:
xhadow wrote:TB was the only team I can see that had the D to stop our 3-tiered offensive (Moss-Deep, ey-Mid, Portis-short).
Moss and ey are irrelevant if Brunell is too banged up to get them the ball. I just hope he's better by Sat., because he'll be starting no matter how bad the knee is.
Well that had a lot to do with the way a cover 2 is played as much as it did Brunnells injury. The Cover 2 takes away most deep routes by having a double team set as a default, not to mention it camps the LB in the middle of the field which takes away the area of the field where ey is the most effective.[/quote]
I think this whole, throw Ramsey in there talk, is ridiculous. The team won... in the playoffs, that's all that matters - by any means necessary. If Brunell is in there and we're winning, Gibbs isn't going to change it up and I don't blame him. The only way we see Ramsey is if Brunell cannot go...
Who gives a crap what other teams did? An ugly win is better than a pretty loss any day of the week. Our coach doesn't have 17 postseason wins for no reason.
Plus, we're not going to have the advantage of a 14 point lead early on this week - we're going to have to fight hard until the end and that means keeping up with Seattle's offense.
I love how some people, here (and on the other 'skins fan sites too) and in the media, make it sound as if we didn't win or think they could coach better than Joe Gibbs. Personally, I think winning the way we did on Saturday was the best possible thing to happen. This team will be ready on all sides of the ball this week.
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.
Was there some kind of rule change where the team's scoring differential factors into the playoff positioning or something? Do we get a share of the Super Bowl if Brunell's QB rating tops 120? This isn't soccer. Who cares if we only scored 17 points? Who cares about the yards? Yes, the play-calling was ultra-conservative. It was supposed to be that way! We have a dominant defense and, for much of the game, a two-touchdown lead. In fact, the only questionable call was when Brunell passed on third down with 4 minutes to go and it was intercepted.
Obviously, if the score was tied, the calls would have been different. Gibbs isn't an idiot, he doesn't script his plays for the whole game. That's why we had a halfback pass early in the game but, for some reason, didn't try it again, or a reverse, in the fourth quarter.
Blame the playcalling? All I can say is, thank goodness for the playcalling! It won the game for us.
Personally I think Gibbs was being conservative because he didn't want to show all his cards yet. Up by 2 tds at halftime is no reason to open up the playbook and let it fly. Just shows he has confidence in the D. That said I still think he is going to ride the offence hard this week for the lack of production on the few plays we did run.
"When you are born into this world you are given a ticket to the freak show, when you are born in america your given front row seats."-George Carlin
If anyone saw espn after the game, they showed all the teams that set won playoff game but put up the lowest total yards of offense. Ironically all of these teams won the superbowl/nfl championship i.e the '00 ravens whose record we 'broke'.
Hail to the Redskins,
Hail victory,
Braves on the warpath,
Fight for old D.C.!!
ey-Mid, Portis-short). This is the formula that worked for the dreaded Cowboys when they won their last superbowl. No one ever seems to include Jay Novacheck <?sp?> in thier little run but it was his consistant play that made it impossible to double Irivin or stop Emitt.
