Skins/Saints Post Game Discussion

[Fios]

Campbell needs to work on his short and mid range touch passes. Once he's able to float the ball in between a short and a deep guy, he'll be fine. I would guess that it's a pretty typical fault of young qb's, trying to rifle everything in.

Agreed, his release point is very low on those types of passes but that is the kind of thing that can be fixed with practice.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

I just love how many times we went deep today... [Campbell] is still much better than [Bru]nell.

That was one thing that really stod out to me as well. The Skins went deep lik 5 straight times (it seemed)!!!! Admittedly, we would not have done that with Mark under center. JC uses his height advantage to see the entire field, and that (plus his cannon) really gives the team a deep threat.

Now, toward the end of the 1st half, JC was overthrowing passes to Moss and others along the sideline that Brunell could hit in his sleep.

Of course, once he gets those down (with practice, as CLL suggested), he will be a monstah!!!

[Cappster]

I just love how many times we went deep today... [Campbell] is still much better than [Bru]nell.

That was one thing that really stod out to me as well. The Skins went deep lik 5 straight times (it seemed)!!!! Admittedly, we would not have done that with Mark under center. JC uses his height advantage to see the entire field, and that (plus his cannon) really gives the team a deep threat.

Now, toward the end of the 1st half, JC was overthrowing passes to Moss and others along the sideline that Brunell could hit in his sleep.

Of course, once he gets those down (with practice, as CLL suggested), he will be a monstah!!!

I am just like you guys. Shocked that we went downfield so many times. I believe this is the type of offense that Saunders was bought in for. Gashing with the run and going for the big pass play. I am with you guys on the fact JC just needs more practice and getting the timing down with his WRs. I also like the fact that JC is playing smart football. He isn't turning the ball over but he is taking chances.

I also like his decision making when he gets flushed. When he decides to run, he doesn't hesitate, he makes the decision and he either goes or throws.

[1niksder]

Everyone is saying his best pass is the deep fade, and we have 3 recievers that are perfect for running that type route. So coners will play off the wideouts and safties will not be able to come down in the box.

Play-action will help the run and the deep routes will help the run game. Not a real option before JC got under center

[RayNAustin]

I believe Campbell played very average at best, and that's all. All of the dirt balls and overthrown balls to wide open recievers is not good QB play, especially with the running game working so well and the protection he had......he was hardly touched, and had all day to throw. So the jury is still out on him IMO. So far i've seen very little to get overly excited about. He is far from the level of play that we see in Young, and Rivers, and Romo

Betts and the O-Line on he other hand were as good as it gets, and the old D of the past showed up and played great.

But I still just don't get this offensive play calling. The red zone offense is plain pitiful....we're running great....we get in the red zone and get cute and try some mis-direction and lose yards. And kicking FG from iside the 5 yard line is gutless. It almost cost us the game again yesterday. We're lucky Rodgers was having an out-of-body experience.

[joebagadonuts]

But I still just don't get this offensive play calling. The red zone offense is plain pitiful....we're running great....we get in the red zone and get cute and try some mis-direction and lose yards. And kicking FG from iside the 5 yard line is gutless. It almost cost us the game again yesterday. We're lucky Rodgers was having an out-of-body experience.

While I agree that the playcalling has caused some head scratching this year, I hope you realize that NOT going for it on 4th and 2 and kicking the FG actually won us the game for us yesterday. The Saints were in FG range on the final drive, but were forced to go for 6 BECAUSE of the decision by Gibbs to go for the FG.

[joebagadonuts]

Also, anyone catch Rocky Mac playing a little WLB in the 4th quarter? I didn't see him do anything specatular, but he looked like he was having fun out there.

[redskins12287]

Also, anyone catch Rocky Mac playing a little WLB in the 4th quarter? I didn't see him do anything specatular, but he looked like he was having fun out there.

yeah, that was nice to see.

[StatKid]

Also, anyone catch Rocky Mac playing a little WLB in the 4th quarter? I didn't see him do anything specatular, but he looked like he was having fun out there.

he should have fun while he can, before he starts in '07 (hopefully)

[sch1977]

I believe Campbell played very average at best, and that's all. All of the dirt balls and overthrown balls to wide open recievers is not good QB play, especially with the running game working so well and the protection he had......he was hardly touched, and had all day to throw. So the jury is still out on him IMO. So far i've seen very little to get overly excited about. He is far from the level of play that we see in Young, and Rivers, and Romo

Betts and the O-Line on he other hand were as good as it gets, and the old D of the past showed up and played great.

But I still just don't get this offensive play calling. The red zone offense is plain pitiful....we're running great....we get in the red zone and get cute and try some mis-direction and lose yards. And kicking FG from iside the 5 yard line is gutless. It almost cost us the game again yesterday. We're lucky Rodgers was having an out-of-body experience.

Actually, JC's stats are better than those of Young. JC has a higher QB rating, higher TD/INT ratio, the same completion %, and a higher Yards/completion avg.

[RayNAustin]

joebagadonuts

I don't think that is a totally fair statement. First, if we score a TD the point is moot, and N. O. needs two scores just to tie. , instead of one score to win. Secondly, if we don't score, N. O. starts on their goal line , 70 yards away from FG range instead of their own 40, after that all too frequent short kick off and a 26 yard return.

It could just as easily be said that not going for it came very close to losing the game for us, as has been the case in other games There is a reason why this team is 5-9 instead of 9-5, and that cowardly play calling is part of the reason. We've lost 4 games this year by 3 points or less.

I hope you realize that scoring 16 points isn't going to win you very many ballgames . In fact, 30 of the 32 NFL teams are averaging over 16 points a game, which would make the odds of winning with 16 points, very slim.

We're averaging 17.7 per game 2006 compared to 22.4 in 2005. That's a huge differential, and the reason this team is out of the playoffs.

So much for the Al Saunders experiment. I'm thoroughly unimpressed.

[Irn-Bru]

joebagadonuts

I don't think that is a totally fair statement. First, if we score a TD the point is moot, and N. O. needs two scores just to tie. , instead of one score to win. Secondly, if we don't score, N. O. starts on their goal line , 70 yards away from FG range instead of their own 40, after that all too frequent short kick off and a 26 yard return.

It could just as easily be said that not going for it came very close to losing the game for us, as has been the case in other games There is a reason why this team is 5-9 instead of 9-5, and that cowardly play calling is part of the reason. We've lost 4 games this year by 3 points or less.

I hope you realize that scoring 16 points isn't going to win you very many ballgames . In fact, 30 of the 32 NFL teams are averaging over 16 points a game, which would make the odds of winning with 16 points, very slim.

We're averaging 17.7 per game 2006 compared to 22.4 in 2005. That's a huge differential, and the reason this team is out of the playoffs.

So much for the Al Saunders experiment. I'm thoroughly unimpressed.

If we don't take the field goal and fail to score a TD, then all the Saints need is a field goal to tie the game. The fact that they had to go for the touchdown is what forced them into 4th down plays, instead of simply trying to get into field goal range. Gibbs made the smart call, and jbd had it right in his post.

Also, I don't think that joebagadonuts is going to try and argue that 16 points will win every time, so the second half of your post is simply a red herring.

Although, I would like to say, that 1 season is too short to call a new coach a "failed experiment." If that's true, and Snyder used that kind of judgment, then welcome to the Skins of the last 5-10 years. . .you're in for quite a few more "failed experiments."

[joebagadonuts]

joebagadonuts

I don't think that is a totally fair statement. First, if we score a TD the point is moot, and N. O. needs two scores just to tie. , instead of one score to win. Secondly, if we don't score, N. O. starts on their goal line , 70 yards away from FG range instead of their own 40, after that all too frequent short kick off and a 26 yard return.

It could just as easily be said that not going for it came very close to losing the game for us, as has been the case in other games There is a reason why this team is 5-9 instead of 9-5, and that cowardly play calling is part of the reason. We've lost 4 games this year by 3 points or less.

I can completely understand your argument. In fact, I was initially disappointed when Gibbs decided to kick the FG. However, I realized that in this particular situation, I thought it was the right move. I have more faith in our defense to stuff the Saints in our redzone than I do in their ability to defend when the Saints are backed up. It just seems more difficult to drive 70 yards for a TD than it does to drive that same distance to get into field goal range. The Saints TEs and RBs had been beating our LBs all day underneath. Who's to say that they wouldn't be able to complete a couple of those to get away from their own goal line?

In any case, I like the decision to put our defense in a position to have to defend a TD instead of a FG. And make no mistake about it, if we go for it and fail to convert, and the Saints kick the game-tying FG, we most likely lose in OT. We're in someone else's stadium, and the momentum has swung.

As for the playcalling, I'd agree that it's been lukewarm, and definitely inconsistant. However, I'm still excited to see what Saunders can do once Campbell is comfortable back there, and has all those weapons to choose from.

[RayNAustin]

I guess that's my whole point....It's the age old "what if". If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather. No one knows the future, so decisions to go for it or not are based on situations and percentages. The fact that Rodgers defended that last pass in the endzone makes the decision to kick the FG work out well.(this time).....but it could just as easily have been a TD and another game lost in the final moments.

Given the situation......4-9, nothing to lose, running the ball successfully all day......Saints 9-4 #1 offense, the choice to try to win the game outright with a TD gave the Skins the best chance for a win. (imho) Just because it worked out this time doesn't necessarily make the decision correct, nor does it erase the many times such cowardly play calling cost us a potential win.

I'd go back to the first game of the year against the Vikes to illustrate the point. We lost that game by 3 points.....we kicked 3 fg's while inside the 10. On the last one, we had second down and 3 from the 4.....down 16-13 late in the 3Q. We ended up kicking a 20 yarder for the tie, and lost 19-16 with a 4th Q FG by the Vikes.

Another game comes to mind....the Giants....late 3Q, down 16-3, 3-1 at Giants 24, we pass incomplete. 4th and 1 we kick and miss the FG. We still had a season to fight for at that point, but you'd never know it by that call.....down by 13, defense not stoping Barber, and we kick a FG on 4th and 1 ?

And lets talk about the Colts for a minute...we're down 33-14 late in the 3rd Q, 4th and 5 on the colts 17. We kick and miss instead of trying to get back in the game against one of the best offenses in the NFL? For what purpose would that FG have served? That was a plain old "give up" with a full quarter to play. We had to have a TD just to get us within two scores and make a game of it. Again, a total give up. What message does this send to the team?

The 1st Philly game....down 17-0 late 2nd Q 4th and 6 at Philly 13, we kick for 3 to make it 17-3. Another give up, this time in the first half.

2nd Philly game- down 21-3 we kick to make it 21-6 2nd quarter. 3rd Q, down 21-6, 4th - 2 at the Philly 14 we kick to make it 21-9. We end up losing 21-19 with 4 FG's.

I could go on and on, but the point is we've been playing to "not lose" instead of playing to win ALL YEAR LONG, and that's why this team is such a dissapointing 5-9. And it's why we are averaging 5 points less per game than last year and watching the playoffs on TV

So it worked out this one time with the season over. Hooraaay Redskins. A fine call indeed....this one time.