Postgame thread

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:53 am

crazyhorse1 wrote:
SouthLondonRedskin wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote:Cheer up everybody. It's the morning after the day before, and I can honestly say: things may well get worse.....

At the end of the season, we may well look back at the first three weeks and say "well, at least our team made it close at the end of those games". Because, this team will NOT continue to score 30 points every week. If the defence continues to suck at this historic rate, we may well be looking at some major blow outs in the second half of the season.

Meanwhile, somewhere in his cave, Daniel Snyder is sharpening his knives.........

No, no, no, no,, no!!!!

No way will we go 9-7 and no way our will defense will hold up this week. What are you smoking. We simply cannot defense against the pass. Not at all. I liked Crawford until the first play of the Bengals game. Wasn't it Crawford who let the receiver run by him, basically uncontested?

No way our defense will hold up and no way we'll go 9-7. You're dreaming. I liked Crawford until the first play of the Bengal's game. I think it was Crawford who allowed the receiver to just run by him, basically uncontested. If that wasn't Crawford, let me know.
Come on man, we all had a clue the secondary would struggle this year, didn't we...???

I don't think anybody thought the arrival of Cedric and Maddy would be the long term answer, mainly cos they're not very good.

This is a patchwork year for the secondary. I felt confident they'd do OK but that was with Jackson and Meriweather starting. Since then Meriweather's been out injured and Jackson just tottally messed his life up...

So let's just see if Raheem can earn his corn. I think tactics and players may well have to change back there, be good to see more of Crawford, may as well blood him in this year.

I think Wilson is a very good player. If Crawford can get a game on the other side, Meriweather can return from injury, DeAngelo in the slot and Gomes to step up, it's an improved secondary straight away.

Next season we'll splash out on a top FA safety or CB, and draft more of the same I'm sure, with a lineman or two and Shanny's regulatory RB pick.

As for this year, well I think we're going to be agonisingly inconsistent, don't be surprised next week if the D holds up but the offense stumbles. That's often the way with young, developing teams.

I'm still saying 9-7, remember we do tend to lift our game against the better teams, our only win this season again proves that.

Mississippiskinsfan2 · Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:09 am

I haven't got to see any of the games yet so can someone tell me if it is just one player or just everyone in the secondary?.... Or is it the play calling?

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:14 am

Sorry if someone said this already as I can't go back and read all of it but I totally blame the coaching on this loss.

Haslett's all out blitzing kills us.. maybe we need to rethink that.
Calling 2 timeouts in the 2nd half.. was that because the play didn't come in on time or did RG see a defense that scared him?
Don't we have guys in the booth to tell the coach whether to challenge a play or not?

Oh well.. go Skins, beat the Bucs!!!

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:16 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:What's sad is that for two weeks in a row, Shanny has elected to put the game in the hands of the special teams on a play that has .00001% chance of succeeding.

Exaggerate much!

The onside kick DID work, the refs just called it wrong. The first player to touch the ball was a Shins player at the 45 yard line. 45 - 35 = 10. The ball has to go ten yards before the living team can touch it and it did!

If Shanny hadn't challenged that punt that clearly wasn't a touchback he would have had a time out to challenge the onside kick. Of course if he had a time out he probably wouldn't have kicked the onside kick. I was sitting 15 rows up in section 402 and I could tell it on the line. Then they replayed the play on the big screen an froze the ball as it was sitting on thr goal line.

You're wrong on both plays. Replays clearly showed Hankerson touching the ball at about 9 3/4 yards. And the punt bounced just in front of the goal line, though the nose did break the plane. But on a punt that doesn't matter. As long as no part of the ball (or the downing player) touches the goal line or in the endzone, it is not a touchback. But my point wasn't that we should have challenged the onsides kick, but rather never attempted it in the first place. 3:35 is way too much time to kick onsides, even with no timeouts.

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:17 am

langleyparkjoe wrote:Sorry if someone said this already as I can't go back and read all of it but I totally blame the coaching on this loss.

Haslett's all out blitzing kills us.. maybe we need to rethink that.
Calling 2 timeouts in the 2nd half.. was that because the play didn't come in on time or did RG see a defense that scared him?
Don't we have guys in the booth to tell the coach whether to challenge a play or not?

Oh well.. go Skins, beat the Bucs!!!

Coaches and RG both said that the play didn't come in until there was 10 seconds on the shot clock. RG will get better though with that as time goes on. I'm sure he's being coached to just call a play if something doesn't come in before a certain time.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:18 am

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:I haven't got to see any of the games yet so can someone tell me if it is just one player or just everyone in the secondary?.... Or is it the play calling?

The last two!

Play calls suck! If I ever see another zero blitz it will be too soon. It is a gimmick play that depends on the pass risk causing an errant throw. If the pass rush doesn't alter the QB's throw then the secondary has zero chance of defending the play. It matter naught if they have perfect coverage the QB just has to throw the ball to the opposite side of the defender. Just like playing seven on seven, but with six on defense!

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:20 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:I haven't got to see any of the games yet so can someone tell me if it is just one player or just everyone in the secondary?.... Or is it the play calling?

The last two!

Play calls suck! If I ever see another zero blitz it will be too soon. It is a gimmick play that depends on the pass risk causing an errant throw. If the pass rush doesn't alter the QB's throw then the secondary has zero chance of defending the play. It matter naught if they have perfect coverage the QB just has to throw the ball to the opposite side of the defender. Just like playing seven on seven, but with six on defense!

All of our DB's had bad games, but coaches didn't do anything to help them!

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:22 am

chiefhog44 wrote:Coaches and RG both said that the play didn't come in until there was 10 seconds on the shot clock. RG will get better though with that as time goes on. I'm sure he's being coached to just call a play if something doesn't come in before a certain time.

Thanks man.. that was really bothering me after the game. Things like that just can't happen, especially when there's a whole dag gone coaching staff over there.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:36 am

I don't know. You guys are free to your opinions, and I don't blame anybody for feeling frustrated. I just don't know how you watch a game like that and come away thinking that we lost because of the play calling - especially on the offensive side.

We're missing Garcon and lost our left tackle in the beginning of the game. Our offense was completely bottled up in the first half. The coaches adjusted at half time, came out with that crazy triple option stuff and gave us a chance to win the game.

Sucks to lose that game yesterday, and the schedule isn't going to get any easier.

gushogs · Post by **gushogs** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:41 am

So we are 1-2, the only win against a team that is 0-3...... To say things don't look good is an understatement. A string bikini covers more than our secondary
I watched the Gints game on Thursday and they crushed the Panthers and its very mobile QB.
RGIII is the only reason the Skins have a chance to win, so he's become a moving target for all defenses. If he is not protected, he'll get killed.

HaiL,

fetus · Post by **fetus** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:37 pm

I know I'll get hell for this and I don't miss the injury but.....

fetus · Post by **fetus** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:38 pm

riggofan wrote:I don't know. You guys are free to your opinions, and I don't blame anybody for feeling frustrated. I just don't know how you watch a game like that and come away thinking that we lost because of the play calling - especially on the offensive side.

+1

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:19 pm

Deadskins wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:What's sad is that for two weeks in a row, Shanny has elected to put the game in the hands of the special teams on a play that has .00001% chance of succeeding.

Exaggerate much!

The onside kick DID work, the refs just called it wrong. The first player to touch the ball was a Shins player at the 45 yard line. 45 - 35 = 10. The ball has to go ten yards before the living team can touch it and it did!

If Shanny hadn't challenged that punt that clearly wasn't a touchback he would have had a time out to challenge the onside kick. Of course if he had a time out he probably wouldn't have kicked the onside kick. I was sitting 15 rows up in section 402 and I could tell it on the line. Then they replayed the play on the big screen an froze the ball as it was sitting on thr goal line.

You're wrong on both plays. Replays clearly showed Hankerson touching the ball at about 9 3/4 yards. And the punt bounced just in front of the goal line, though the nose did break the plane. But on a punt that doesn't matter. As long as no part of the ball (or the downing player) touches the goal line or in the endzone, it is not a touchback. But my point wasn't that we should have challenged the onsides kick, but rather never attempted it in the first place. 3:35 is way too much time to kick onsides, even with no timeouts.

I just looked at both plays on my DVR and the punt 100% touched the goal line. It didn't just break the plain, it touched the line, but I do agree that they never should have attempted to punt or challenged it!

The onside kick, I can see why you would say it came up short. The Skins player that touched it (think it was Niles Paull) his hands were at the 45 when he touched the ball. Sure the ball looked short, but if Niles' hands were at the 45 then the ball had to make it to the 45. The ref closests to the play (the guy with the best view didn't throw the flag (so I would assume he thought it looked good to him), the ref ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FIELD is the guy that threw the flag. The replay shown on the big screen at the stadium must have been from a slightly diffeent angle, because it looked like it was timed perfectly! I fact, a had a friend with with that is a Bungle fan and he thought the Benbles got a break on the bad call on that.

Either way it was so close it certainly would have been nice to have a time out left to challenging it instead of wasting it on a touchback that there was no chance the ref would overturn the call!

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:24 pm

Like I said, 3:35 is way too much time to kick onsides, even with no timeouts.

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:48 pm

fetus wrote:I know I'll get hell for this and I don't miss the injury but.....

Err, no. Lol.

cowboyhater4life · Post by **cowboyhater4life** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:55 pm

cowboyhater4life · Post by **cowboyhater4life** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:56 pm

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:53 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:What's sad is that for two weeks in a row, Shanny has elected to put the game in the hands of the special teams on a play that has .00001% chance of succeeding.

Exaggerate much!

The onside kick DID work, the refs just called it wrong. The first player to touch the ball was a Shins player at the 45 yard line. 45 - 35 = 10. The ball has to go ten yards before the living team can touch it and it did!

If Shanny hadn't challenged that punt that clearly wasn't a touchback he would have had a time out to challenge the onside kick. Of course if he had a time out he probably wouldn't have kicked the onside kick. I was sitting 15 rows up in section 402 and I could tell it on the line. Then they replayed the play on the big screen an froze the ball as it was sitting on thr goal line.

You're wrong on both plays. Replays clearly showed Hankerson touching the ball at about 9 3/4 yards. And the punt bounced just in front of the goal line, though the nose did break the plane. But on a punt that doesn't matter. As long as no part of the ball (or the downing player) touches the goal line or in the endzone, it is not a touchback. But my point wasn't that we should have challenged the onsides kick, but rather never attempted it in the first place. 3:35 is way too much time to kick onsides, even with no timeouts.

I just looked at both plays on my DVR and the punt 100% touched the goal line. It didn't just break the plain, it touched the line, but I do agree that they never should have attempted to punt or challenged it!

The onside kick, I can see why you would say it came up short. The Skins player that touched it (think it was Niles Paull) his hands were at the 45 when he touched the ball. Sure the ball looked short, but if Niles' hands were at the 45 then the ball had to make it to the 45. The ref closests to the play (the guy with the best view didn't throw the flag (so I would assume he thought it looked good to him), the ref ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE FIELD is the guy that threw the flag. The replay shown on the big screen at the stadium must have been from a slightly diffeent angle, because it looked like it was timed perfectly! I fact, a had a friend with with that is a Bungle fan and he thought the Benbles got a break on the bad call on that.

Either way it was so close it certainly would have been nice to have a time out left to challenging it instead of wasting it on a touchback that there was no chance the ref would overturn the call!

I've not seen the angle that shows 100% touching of the goal line, and it certainly wasn't clear from the angle looking toward the endzone ... remember, the bottom of the ball is round, and you could lay the ball just slightly off the line, and at that angle it could appear that half the ball was touching the line. It was very very close. But I agree that the ball should not have been punted to begin with ... it was a gift to Cincy to do it, given their success at moving the ball against our D.

I'm generally in favor of going for it on 4th and 1 or less, almost anywhere between the opponents 45 -35 yard lines, because the risk/reward leans heavily toward doing so, except in specific situations, like inside 2 minutes with a small lead .... you don't want to risk giving a team good field position near mid-field with time running out, BUT ONLY if you have reason to trust that your D will be able to keep them pinned deep! I don't know how anyone could have found that confidence yesterday. The call was poorly conceived from every point of analysis .... we had the momentum on our side ... their D was on their heels, and clearly our best 11 on the field .... and a terribly struggling defense that we needed to keep off the field as much as possible. Go for it, and make them stop stop it. It really was a no brainer decision that apparently escaped the two geniuses on the sideline. This may have been the pivotal point in the game.

But it doesn't surprise me to see the two Shanahans making poor decisions ... it's really not a rare occurrence. Watching RG3 get hammered out there for the first three weeks ought to be the big clue that these two coaches are more interested in their own egos, than in the best interests of the team, and the health of our young superstar.

I'm appalled by how he's being used and battered .... and who do they have come in to replace Mr. Trent "I can't play three weeks in a row without being hurt" Williams? One of Kyle's boys from Houston, who could barely manage to be anything more than a speed bump. What chance does that clown have against the Giants, Cowboys, Eagles pass rushers? This is who they put out there to protect RG3's blindside? If you need evidence of the utter incompetence of this staff .... LOOK NO FURTHER.

Let me again remind everyone that Mike Shanahan is 12-23 at this point, which is three games worse than Jim Zorn was, and Zorn was forced to be successful with Jason Campbell running his offense.

Now I can identify with those moaning about the defense, because right now, that is the big stinky elephant in the living room. But that too is the responsibility of the HEAD COACH. It was, after all, at Shanahan's insistence that the entire defense be rebuilt into a 3-4 defense when the roster at that time was loaded for 4-3. All of the player acquisitions needed to create that 3-4 defense delayed addressing the more glaring needs on offense, and now that they have ostensibly completed the transition, what we now have may be the worst defense the Redskins have had in 20 or more years. Take RG3 out of the picture, and the Redskins are 0-3 ... with three huge blowout losses and no reason to believe we'll be any better than the first day Shanahan arrived .. and likely worse, since our record ALREADY IS WORSE than when he arrived.

Jon Gruden wants to get back to coaching in the NFL, and if I were Snyder, I'd be asking him ... "when do you want to start ... next week? ..... PLEASE ?"

Yes, that is what I'm saying .... I would be making serious plans for a transition BEFORE RG3 has his body torn apart by these nincompoops posing as NFL coaches. I'd rather have Zorn back .... at least he cared about the players, and I promise you, neither Mike or Kyle care about anyone other than themselves.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:25 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
Let me again remind everyone that Mike Shanahan is 12-23 at this point, which is three games worse than Jim Zorn was, and Zorn was forced to be successful with Jason Campbell running his offense.

Comparing Zorn's record with Shanny's record would only be relevant if they took over the same team. They did not. Zorn took over a team coming off of a playoff appearance. In fact they had been in the playoffs two of the previous three years when Zorn (and Vinny) took over for Gibbs. MS took over a team that had won just 6 games in the prior 24.

The team was old when Zorn got it and it was two years older (the oldest in the NFL) when MS got it!

I have no problem with people saying they don't like the results MS has had or they don't like the direction of the team (even though I think those people are crazy), but to compare MS' record with Zorn's is just not painting the full picture. Zorn won 6 of his first eight (basically Gibbs' team won those six inspite of Zorn) and then proceded to win 6 more out of the next 24.

Zorn took over a playoff team and ran it into a 4-12 team that was the oldest in the NFL. MS took over a steaming pile, not a playoff team! The Skins are now one of the youngest teams in the NFL and they have a franchise QB.

None of the three offseasons MS has had could be called usual. His first he had to deal with the fact that all of the younger FAs that would have normally been available were now restricted because of the impending labor strike, then he had the labor strike/lock out, and then he had the Mara imposed cap penelaty that was sprang on the Skins minutes before FA started!

Sure I wish they had spent the limitted money he had differently! For the cost of Josh Morgan we could have signed a FA OT (like Winstin). For the cost of Garcon and Morgan we could have signed a OT and a very good CB.

Now I like Garcon (Mr. Myfoot hurts) and Morgan, but I would have liked Eric Winstin and Brandon Carr better!

If you have a QB, can protect him, and can limitted the other team's scoring you can make due with average WRs!

tribeofjudah · Post by **tribeofjudah** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:31 pm

UK Skins Fan wrote:
fetus wrote:I know I'll get hell for this and I don't miss the injury but.....

Err, no. Lol.

He'll be hurt again and be out for rest of season....ala Revis

Tho I don't wish this on LL......it is bound to happen

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:03 pm

RayNAustin wrote:Watching RG3 get hammered out there for the first three weeks ought to be the big clue that these two coaches are more interested in their own egos, than in the best interests of the team, and the health of our young superstar

This is where you go astray. It was an excellent piece until you started going to the unfounded, wild accusations of their intent. There is no evidence it was "ego" driven. When you stick with the facts and observations, you're a pretty good analyst. When you start talking motivation, you're usually wrong.

the poster · Post by **the poster** » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:18 pm

tribeofjudah wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote:
fetus wrote:I know I'll get hell for this and I don't miss the injury but.....

Err, no. Lol.

He'll be hurt again and be out for rest of season....ala Revis

Tho I don't wish this on LL......it is bound to happen

living in NJ, though not having seen a jets game this, I've had some people inform me that he's playing at a pro bowl level and is their defensive MVP so far.

yeah....you're right....that's not needed in Washington. they don't need all the help they can get. tanard Jackson, anyone?

isn't it funny this come from the mouth of the fan of the team who replaced him with a guy who's yet to be healthy to play his first game yet. you know the guy. I'm talking about...the guy who's been cut from his last two teams.....

fetus · Post by **fetus** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:46 am

the poster wrote:
tribeofjudah wrote:
UK Skins Fan wrote:
fetus wrote:I know I'll get hell for this and I don't miss the injury but.....

Err, no. Lol.

He'll be hurt again and be out for rest of season....ala Revis

Tho I don't wish this on LL......it is bound to happen

living in NJ, though not having seen a jets game this, I've had some people inform me that he's playing at a pro bowl level and is their defensive MVP so far.

yeah....you're right....that's not needed in Washington. they don't need all the help they can get. tanard Jackson, anyone?

isn't it funny this come from the mouth of the fan of the team who replaced him with a guy who's yet to be healthy to play his first game yet. you know the guy. I'm talking about...the guy who's been cut from his last two teams.....

I, for one, am excited to see B.Meriweather play and see if he can turn around anything in our secondary. I have been a big fan of him since he was drafted by the pats and think his misfortune in Chicago was caused by a lack of him being used properly. Iunno I'm probably talking out of my crack but, I am interested to see him on the field in a real game. I hope that he can return to the Pro Bowl level of play that he has shown in the past.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:15 am

I'm a Landry fan but .... it was very clear that he felt he needed to play and prepare 'his way' and there is no way that he could stay here with that attitude

I hope that Landry makes the HOF - there is NO WAY that he would have helped this defense by continuing to think he knew better and would not follow the directions of his coaches

I have a lot of concerns about our franchise - the DC, the OC, even the HC, but ...
we do not need players that do not totally buy into being a part of the team and especially this team now that we have a QB

btw - I DO like the FO

some here just don't think and OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue about the team aspects of this game

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:23 am

SkinsJock wrote:I'm a Landry fan but .... it was very clear that he felt he needed to play and prepare 'his way' and there is no way that he could stay here with that attitude

I hope that Landry makes the HOF - there is NO WAY that he would have helped this defense by continuing to think he knew better and would not follow the directions of his coaches

I have a lot of concerns about our franchise - the DC, the OC, even the HC, but ...
we do not need players that do not totally buy into being a part of the team and especially this team now that we have a QB

btw - I DO like the FO

some here just don't think and OBVIOUSLY don't have a clue about the team aspects of this game

That doesn't work anywhere. LaVar showed more than anyone I recall how you can have incredible talent and fail because you won't follow direction. And LaRon does not have the talent LaVar did.