Today was a good day...

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:43 pm

I mean, I love the fact we just wupped on an opponent, and ran the ball down their throats, at will.

Yeah, it's the Texans, but still.

I do have a couple concerns:

1. Our defense still scares me. I mean we got one sack against a team that gives up sack like candy on Halloween.

2. TJ Duckett. We gave up a 3rd rounder for him, and he...doesn't even play for us. I mean it's not like we're flush in high draft picks in the first place. Oh, and Betts played pretty well today...

Reassure me!

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:31 pm

I agree, today was a good day. Like you, I do have concerns also.

1. Is Springs going to be ready for next week? We will need him not necessarily for speed but for his physical presence against the 6'2 and over receiving corp of Jacksonville.

2. Even though we dominated an opponent we should have, we still didn't go do the field with any deep balls even though our running game was dominate today. Brunell was very impressive going for 22 straight completions with none being over 15-20+ yards...

3. Our "heads" after a win against a win against an inferior opponent. Are we keeping it in perspective or are we getting "big headed"?

I'm happy and looking forward to next week.....

Riggmonkman · Post by **Riggmonkman** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:46 pm

TJ Duckett. We gave up a 3rd rounder for him, and he...doesn't even play for us

People keep bringing this up and isn't the obvious reason that he hasn't played because he is still learning the offense (I mean, he was a pretty late pickup)?

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:15 pm

Riggmonkman wrote:
TJ Duckett. We gave up a 3rd rounder for him, and he...doesn't even play for us

People keep bringing this up and isn't the obvious reason that he hasn't played because he is still learning the offense (I mean, he was a pretty late pickup)?

He had five carries last week, so not playing at all this week was a bit of a suprise. When everyone is healthy, it's hard to see how they are going to give everyone playing time - although I suppose that's a good problem to have.

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:16 pm

T.J. Duckett was inactive today because we needed the depth at TE. Gibbs discussed it with him prior to making him inactive. There was apparently an injury issue and he wanted to make sure that we were covered there. He knew we had the depth with CP, Betts, and Rock at RB.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:26 pm

T.J. Duckett was inactive today because we needed the depth at TE. Gibbs discussed it with him prior to making him inactive. There was apparently an injury issue and he wanted to make sure that we were covered there. He knew we had the depth with CP, Betts, and Rock at RB.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering why he wasn't in the game.

theoneandonly#9 · Post by **theoneandonly#9** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:32 pm

The future is STILL NOW. T.J was a great pick up for insurance. We may NOT need him, but it is good to know that he is with us. Besides, I would rather give up an unknown (draft pick, that may hold out on you without ever having played a pro game) for a proven vet. that will give his all on Sunday.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:48 pm

theoneandonly#9 wrote:Besides, I would rather give up an unknown (draft pick, that may hold out on you without ever having played a pro game) for a proven vet. that will give his all on Sunday.

Fair enough - but the problem is that when everyone is healthy, he isn't even active for Sunday. It's still too early to judge the pickup, but I still don't see how this is all going to work unless someone is moved.

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:52 pm

EVERYONE WAS NOT HEALTHY!

JOE GIBBS EXPLAINED WHY HE WAS INACTIVE!!!!!!

Some people post like they're hard headed!!!!! Read above if you'd like to know what caused him to be inactive. It has nothing to do with the health of any running back.

Steve Spurrier III · Post by **Steve Spurrier III** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:58 pm

NikiH wrote:EVERYONE WAS NOT HEALTHY!

JOE GIBBS EXPLAINED WHY HE WAS INACTIVE!!!!!!

Some people post like they're hard headed!!!!! Read above if you'd like to know what caused him to be inactive. It has nothing to do with the health of any running back.

Chill out. I was referring to the health of the runningbacks.

The point is, when you invest a third-round pick in somebody, you sort of hope he isn't the guy that gets de-activated when you need depth at tight end.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:58 pm

EVERYONE WAS NOT HEALTHY!

JOE GIBBS EXPLAINED WHY HE WAS INACTIVE!!!!!!

I think what SS3 meant was when all the running backs are healthy. As in, how is this going to work when Portis, Betts, Duckett, and Rock are all healthy for a game. For example, in Game 1 Duckett didn't play in Game 1 as Betts and Portis got the carries. Last week Portis didn't play so Duckett got 5 carries and split time with Betts. Today they needed an extra tight end like you said so he was innactive. It will be interesting to see how the carries are divided up next week. It's too soon to be able to judge whether or not Duckett was worth a 3rd round pick or not.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:10 pm

Goal line specialist.

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:16 pm

Goal line specialist.

Possibly. But I doubt that Portis gets taken out for every goalline carry. When he played in Denver Portis was very effective in goalline situations.

HailSkins94 · Post by **HailSkins94** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:20 pm

To add to that:

#1. Still waaaaaay to many penalties

#2. Defense has a loooooooong way to go (think #24 will help a lot)

#3. Offense still did not throw the ball down the field (dump offs won't work against jax)

#4. No pressure on QB once again (3 sacks through 3 games)

Positives:

1. Defense still has not allowed a 100 yard rusher.

2. #26 is back and appears to be the missing ingredient that our offense needed

Riggmonkman · Post by **Riggmonkman** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:40 pm

2. #26 is back and appears to be the missing ingredient that our offense needed

Or maybe playing Houston?

HailSkins94 · Post by **HailSkins94** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:00 pm

Riggmonkman wrote:
2. #26 is back and appears to be the missing ingredient that our offense needed

Or maybe playing Houston?

Houston or not he is a HUGE part of our offense and I'm not sure they or anyone else thought he would be missed as much as he was. Huge step forward today for us in that aspect.

RedskinsFreak · Post by **RedskinsFreak** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:23 am

I liked what a saw but am unsure about how much the IWH (It Was Houston) Factor camouflaged the truth about this team.

Don't get me wrong, momentum is a powerful thing and they have the chance to make that work to their advantage against JAX.

I know what Gibbs said about Duckett, but his words aren't necessarily 100% at-face-value believable any more. He won't lie to you, but his fear of excess availability of information will have him tell half-truths more than you might think.

To me, they're viewing Duckett as a straight sub for Portis. If Portis plays, Duckett doesn't.

I liked the way they ran the ball, and then had the return of that wonderful feeling of having the lead and the ball and running out the clock with Houston unable to do anything about it.

That first victory pizza from Papa John's will be real tasty tomorrow.

Hail!

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:02 am

SkinzCanes wrote:
Goal line specialist.

Possibly. But I doubt that Portis gets taken out for every goalline carry. When he played in Denver Portis was very effective in goalline situations.

In some ways, Duckett gives us what we've been missing since Big Country moved on to Carolina.
At least, in theory. I haven't seen him too much, either.
Anyhow, I like that CP doesn't necessarily have to be in there to push the stack back. Betts, by and large, has been ineffective there.
I always thought Sellers would be the guy to do it, but...here we are.

gus · Post by **gus** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:53 am

HailSkins94 wrote:To add to that:

#1. Still waaaaaay to many penalties

100% agree with you. Not only drive killers, but also defensive penalties that result in points for the opponents... That isn't Gibbs style of football.

HAiL,

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:07 pm

gus wrote:
HailSkins94 wrote:To add to that:

#1. Still waaaaaay to many penalties

100% agree with you. Not only drive killers, but also defensive penalties that result in points for the opponents...

Not sure which penalties you're referring to here. Which ones were drive killers? The one defensive penalty that led to Texans' points was a bad call, IMO, that should have gone against the offense.

gus · Post by **gus** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:31 pm

I wasn't referening only to yesterday's game, the first two games were also plagued with penalties.

Arionquinn · Post by **Arionquinn** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:51 pm

Portis had a huge game, and the 75-yard shovel pass was huge. Here's my concern with the offense:

Take away the 75-yard Portis catch-and-run, and Brunell's numbers are:
23-26, 195 yards, 1 TD. 7.5 yards per attempt

These are respectable numbers, but again, the lack of a deep threat will make it more difficult for Portis to see open space. Jacksonville shut down the Indy running game and the "vaunted" Pittsburgh running game. If we don't go deep at least a few times, we're in trouble.

But other than that, today is definitely a good day. It feels good to win, regardless of who the opponent is.