Skins @ Jets Post Game Catharsis....!!!

[Deadskins]

Kirk could have played better. If he did, would we have won? Almost certainly not. They are a much better team and it showed. However, we need to have standards for Kirk. This game wasn't winnable, IMHO, but Kirk's play made it worse.

I don't know how you can say the game wasn't winnable. If Kirk doesn't throw those picks, and hits even a few receivers in stride, we could have easily come away with a W. As it was, we reduced the lead to two scores, missed an easy onside kick recovery, and committed a penalty (I thought it was a dubious running into the kicker call), that kept us from possibly making it one score with several minutes left. I understand the Jets took their foot off the gas at the end, but it's not like a win was out of the question with some decent QB play.

So I guess based on what you are saying, then yes, if we played completely mistake-free on offense, defense, and special teams (something we have failed to do since perhaps the 90s) then we COULD have potentially won.

No, I'm not saying if we played completely mistake-free. I'm saying that if Kirk had even played half-way decently, we would have had a very good chance to win that game. Not possibly COULD have won. This isn't one of those times when I'm picking nits, just to get a rise out of you. I seriously don't see how you view that game as unwinnable.

- Our DEF literally couldn't stop their offense. At all. 1 punt on 11 meaningful drives. The rest were either TOs (in the 1st half) or scores.
- The onsides kick would have been nice, but we missed it --- just like most don't covert on less than 15% of onsides kicks. We failed to execute --- something all losing teams have in common.
- The 1st INT didn't kill us by any means. It resulted in a TD, but they started at their own 30 yard line or something. The NYJ OFF scored that. The second one was a killer.
- Not sure how that running into the kicker would have immediately resulted in a 1 score game. We still would have had to score twice with 2 mins left against a team we couldn't stop and get a on-sides kick that we initially failed to get, in addition to stopping an offense we failed to do all game (oh, except for once).
- We averaged 2.1 ypc rushing.

Even if you spotted them 7, they scored 27. We haven't scored that all season ---- and most definetely not against the #1 DEF in the NFL.

This is by no means a endorsement of Kirk. He played horribly and I don't think he (or any of our other QBs) could have won playing at his (their) best.

Lets get real here --- I honestly would have expected something more reasonable from you, honestly. The NYJs are a better team. They played better on Sunday. The only way we are winning that game is in a shootout and Kirk & our surgicaly repaired OFF is incapable of doing so.

Had Kirk played better:
-We don't go three and out every drive, keep their offense off the field, allow our defense a chance to rest, and presumably score more points.
-We wouldn't have needed to get the onside kick.
-You have your INTs backwards. The first was the one that gave the Jets the short field (and gave them the lead), which may have predicated the second, by forcing Kirk to press.
-I didn't say not getting the RIK call would have necessarily made it a one score game. And you are incorrect about how much time was left. We had just used all three of our TOs to stop the clock after the first three downs, and the RIK call was a back-breaker.

Yes, the Jets may be a better team over the long haul, but that game was certainly winnable on that given Sunday.

[markshark84]

- Our DEF literally couldn't stop their offense. At all. 1 punt on 11 meaningful drives. The rest were either TOs (in the 1st half) or scores.
- The onsides kick would have been nice, but we missed it --- just like most don't covert on less than 15% of onsides kicks. We failed to execute --- something all losing teams have in common.
- The 1st INT didn't kill us by any means. It resulted in a TD, but they started at their own 30 yard line or something. The NYJ OFF scored that. The second one was a killer.
- Not sure how that running into the kicker would have immediately resulted in a 1 score game. We still would have had to score twice with 2 mins left against a team we couldn't stop and get a on-sides kick that we initially failed to get, in addition to stopping an offense we failed to do all game (oh, except for once).
- We averaged 2.1 ypc rushing.

Even if you spotted them 7, they scored 27. We haven't scored that all season ---- and most definetely not against the #1 DEF in the NFL.

This is by no means a endorsement of Kirk. He played horribly and I don't think he (or any of our other QBs) could have won playing at his (their) best.

Lets get real here --- I honestly would have expected something more reasonable from you, honestly. The NYJs are a better team. They played better on Sunday. The only way we are winning that game is in a shootout and Kirk & our surgicaly repaired OFF is incapable of doing so.

Had Kirk played better:
-We don't go three and out every drive, keep their offense off the field, allow our defense a chance to rest, and presumably score more points.
-We wouldn't have needed to get the onside kick.
-You have your INTs backwards. The first was the one that gave the Jets the short field (and gave them the lead), which may have predicated the second, by forcing Kirk to press.
-I didn't say not getting the RIK call would have necessarily made it a one score game. And you are incorrect about how much time was left. We had just used all three of our TOs to stop the clock after the first three downs, and the RIK call was a back-breaker.

Yes, the Jets may be a better team over the long haul, but that game was certainly winnable on that given Sunday.

We went 3 and out on 4 out of 12 drives.... The TOP was 4 min less than NYJ --- we had a better TOP vs. NYJ than we did against ATL.... You also "presume" things that may or may not have happened and didn't have to do with Kirk. The RIK essentially resulted in the end of the game but wasn't why we didn't WIN the game or even a component of winning.... so it would have taken more than just Kirk having a "halfway decent game".

The reason I don't see this game as being winnable was because we lost by 14, we were outplayed all game, and their OFF literally owned our DEF. We would have needed at least 27-30 points to win that game if Cousins didn't throw the pick. The fact the NYJ DEF is #1 in the NFL and played like it may have contributed as well..... With what we have on our roster and how they were playing that Sunday, I just don't see us putting up 27-30+ OR our DEF stopping them down the stretch when it matters.

Honestly, I think we both know we'll just have to disagree on this one --- because neither one of us will budge on our OPINIONS (which is all they are). It isn't the first and won't be the last.

[DEHog]

^^^ I'd add it took 3 first half Jets turnovers for us to even be in the game...

[riggofan]

I really think the coaches are not getting enough out of the run game and the short passing game

We'll find out a lot this Sunday. The Jets are the #1 team in the league v. the rush. The Bucs are like #16. Money quote: "The Bucs are giving up 120 yards per game on the ground and they have played only one team, the Panthers, better than 16th in the league in rushing. "

We need to get after them.

[riggofan]

These film breakdowns the Post does during the week are pretty good IMO.

A closer look at why the Redskins’ run game is struggling
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/foo ... truggling/

Addresses some of the same things we've been discussing about the run game on Sunday and backs it up with photos of what happened on certain plays. These pieces stood out to me:

A common misconception that fans have with regards to the failure of the run game is the notion that teams are stacking the box because they don’t fear Cousins throwing over the top of them. While it’s true teams are bringing a safety into the box to help defend the run, it’s not the pretense of an extra defender that is blowing up the run game.

....

Eight defenders in the box isn’t ideal, but as we can see here, it’s the execution that hurt the Redskins run game, not an extra defender. The Redskins have been successful in the past running against eight defenders in the box; both Miami and St.Louis used extra defenders in the box and the Redskins ran for a combined 343 yards against them. The fact is, almost every defense brings an eighth man into the box against teams that want to run the ball, but the successful running teams still find ways to run the ball. The Redskins’ execution wasn’t good enough.

While the performance of the players wasn’t good enough, I’d also hold Jay Gruden accountable. To be a truly dominant rushing attack, Washington has to be committed to it. Ideally, you’d like to have an equal split of run and pass plays but there are times when that’s not possible. Against the Jets, however, Washington had plenty of opportunities to attempt to establish the run. In the first quarter they had 16 plays, only five of which were running plays. In the second quarter, with the score close or tied, the Redskins ran the ball on just six of 20 plays.

It does seem like the team wasn't all that willing to even try to run the ball. Definitely tried to replace those attempts with short passing.

[Deadskins]

The RIK essentially resulted in the end of the game but wasn't why we didn't WIN the game or even a component of winning.... so it would have taken more than just Kirk having a "halfway decent game".

I don't know why you keep harping on the RIK thing. I only mentioned that I thought it was a bad call, and that without it, even with Kirk's horrible play, we still might have kept the score to a one TD margin. I never said it kept us from winning or anything even close to that. I also don't understand how you can't see the correlation between throwing behind every receiver the entire game, and our offensive ineffectiveness. So what if we won TOP? If we had made more of our own offensive opportunities, then the Jets, by definition, would not have been able to put us in the desperate situation we were in at the end of the game. Yes, they have the #1 D in the NFL, but they weren't playing that way on Sunday. It's not like Kirk didn't have open receivers. He just couldn't hit them to where they could have any YAC, if they were even able to catch the ball at all.

[SkinsJock]

Be great for everyone if Cousins can somehow find a way to lift his game this Sunday ...

[riggofan]

Be great for everyone if Cousins can somehow find a way to lift his game this Sunday ...

No doubt, man. Anyone want to be talking about a loss to Tampa for two weeks during the BYE? Ugh.

I was listening to an interview with Louis Riddick from espn on Jason Reid's show this morning, maybe some of you guys heard it. He rightly pointed out that the difference between a starter and a backup in the league is consistency. His point was that Cousins so far has been all good games/bad games, peaks and valleys which is what you expect from a backup QB. I thought it was a fair point.

So yeah, would be awesome if Cousins plays well on Sunday, but I swear I'm not going to be one of the guys on here Monday morning saying told you so if he does. He really needs to show that he can do it over a couple games.

[SkinsJock]

I hope & pray that he has a good game but I'm just going to be very disappointed for him, the team and the fans if he doesn't

this QB 'issue' is over as far as I'm concerned

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Be great for everyone if Cousins can somehow find a way to lift his game this Sunday ...

No doubt, man. Anyone want to be talking about a loss to Tampa for two weeks during the BYE? Ugh.

I do. Nothing excites me more than the "If RGIII had been playing we'd have won!" crowd. I just love a quarterback controversy between three garbage quarterbacks.

[SkinsJock]

Be great for everyone if Cousins can somehow find a way to lift his game this Sunday ...

No doubt, man. Anyone want to be talking about a loss to Tampa for two weeks during the BYE? Ugh.

I do. Nothing excites me more than the "If RGIII had been playing we'd have won!" crowd. I just love a quarterback controversy between three garbage quarterbacks.

there are only a couple of guys here that might want Griffin instead of Cousins - hardly a crowd

I'm not sure the coaches think he's ready to play QB yet anyway

Cousins strikes me as someone that will feel he's got a lot to prove this Sunday at home

[HEROHAMO]

Be great for everyone if Cousins can somehow find a way to lift his game this Sunday ...

No doubt, man. Anyone want to be talking about a loss to Tampa for two weeks during the BYE? Ugh.

I was listening to an interview with Louis Riddick from espn on Jason Reid's show this morning, maybe some of you guys heard it. He rightly pointed out that the difference between a starter and a backup in the league is consistency. His point was that Cousins so far has been all good games/bad games, peaks and valleys which is what you expect from a backup QB. I thought it was a fair point.

So yeah, would be awesome if Cousins plays well on Sunday, but I swear I'm not going to be one of the guys on here Monday morning saying told you so if he does. He really needs to show that he can do it over a couple games.

If we lose to the lowly bucs. I really would be shocked. If Gruden n Kirk foul the bucs game up. I say heads must roll. However I think we should win handily.

[HEROHAMO]

The only reason im not calling for the benching of Kirk is because the team is behind him. I still believe with a healthy Griffin behind ctr we would do much better. Especially with the talent improved overall on the roster.

Griffin would've got killed against that Jets defense.

Your entitled to your opinion. Fact remains when Griffin was fully healthy, had the teams full support, father wasnt interfering and when Griffin was not a jerk. We won the division.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Your entitled to your opinion. Fact remains when Griffin was fully healthy, had the teams full support, father wasnt interfering and when Griffin was not a jerk. We won the division.

When Caitlyn Jenner had a penis he was Bruce. Stop living in the past. We went 10-6 three seasons ago, which is not that great an accomplishment. RGIII has personally gone 5-15 since. He's 14-21 for his career.

You're entitled to your opinion as well but there's absolutely no empirical data supporting it.

[StorminMormon86]

Your entitled to your opinion. Fact remains when Griffin was fully healthy, had the teams full support, father wasnt interfering and when Griffin was not a jerk. We won the division.

When Caitlyn Jenner had a penis he was Bruce. Stop living in the past. We went 10-6 three seasons ago, which is not that great an accomplishment. RGIII has personally gone 5-15 since. He's 14-21 for his career.

You're entitled to your opinion as well but there's absolutely no empirical data supporting it.

[SkinsJock]

haters are going to hate ...

[SkinsJock]

Hero is right - Cousins should have a good day Sunday ...

if for some reason, he really stinks it up, there is little doubt that we will have a new QB for the Patriots game

I am not a Cousins fan per se but I do think he can play QB well - I would be very surprised if he did not have a really good day on Sunday

[riggofan]

When Caitlyn Jenner had a penis he was Bruce. Stop living in the past.

There's still a lot of people hanging on to 2012. I don't blame anyone - I'll admit I was right there with them until about last November.

[riggofan]

If we lose to the lowly bucs. I really would be shocked. If Gruden n Kirk foul the bucs game up. I say heads must roll. However I think we should win handily.

The Bucs are 2-3. We are 2-4. Not sure we're in position to be calling anyone "lowly".

I don't know about winning handily, but I mostly agree with what you're saying. This isn't the Patriots we're playing. Its a winnable home game, go get it done.

[markshark84]

Yes, they have the #1 D in the NFL, but they weren't playing that way on Sunday. It's not like Kirk didn't have open receivers. He just couldn't hit them to where they could have any YAC, if they were even able to catch the ball at all.

We averaged 2.0 YPC rushing. They limited big plays, played tight coverages (preventing YAC -- especially when dealing with Garcon), applied consistent pressure, and prevented long drives.

All those things aren't 100% on our OFF and Kirk's inability to execute (although a number of times it was, but not enough where you can't say the DEF wasn't a factor). You have to give some credit where it is due sometimes.

[markshark84]

The only reason im not calling for the benching of Kirk is because the team is behind him. I still believe with a healthy Griffin behind ctr we would do much better. Especially with the talent improved overall on the roster.

Griffin would've got killed against that Jets defense.

Your entitled to your opinion. Fact remains when Griffin was fully healthy, had the teams full support, father wasnt interfering and when Griffin was not a jerk. We won the division.

Is this a serious post?

I am honestly not sure, but what makes this post even sadder is that even if all those things were true today, RGIII would still not be good enough. You'd have to include pocket presence, ability to read defenses, make correct pre-snap adjustments, run thru progressions quickly, etc etc etc.

[Deadskins]

Yes, they have the #1 D in the NFL, but they weren't playing that way on Sunday. It's not like Kirk didn't have open receivers. He just couldn't hit them to where they could have any YAC, if they were even able to catch the ball at all.

We averaged 2.0 YPC rushing. They limited big plays, played tight coverages (preventing YAC -- especially when dealing with Garcon), applied consistent pressure, and prevented long drives.

All those things aren't 100% on our OFF and Kirk's inability to execute (although a number of times it was, but not enough where you can't say the DEF wasn't a factor). You have to give some credit where it is due sometimes.

Where did I say their DEF wasn't a factor? You seem to do this in all of our back and forths; You either focus on some tangential comment (RIK penalty) or argue against a point I never made. Whatever, I think we are done here.

Me: This game was winnable with decent QB play.
You: We should not have even showed up; our losing was a foregone conclusion.

[markshark84]

Where did I say their DEF wasn't a factor? You seem to do this in all of our back and forths; You either focus on some tangential comment (RIK penalty) or argue against a point I never made. Whatever, I think we are done here.

Me: This game was winnable with decent QB play.
You: We should not have even showed up; our losing was a foregone conclusion.

When it comes to you, I actually mimic how you reply. I remove what I want and answer what I'd like to focus on. You do it quite often; it's a litigation tactic -- take the weak portion (regardless of context), disregard the rest, and tear thru it. Besides, YOU mentioned the RIK penalty, I didn't. I continued the discussion. If you didn't want me to address it, then don't post about it.

And your final Me-You is absurd. So absurd here is the exaggerated reverse:
Me: I think the NYJ were the better team and we were outplayed in all aspects of the game; Kirk couldn't have won this game for us on his best day.
You: The NYJs should be in the arena league. We could have easily won 77-3 had Kirk played even semi decently on Sunday.

Now, you take my "me" and your "you" and that is the reality. I did like your super mature response though..... and I did stoop to that level.

As I said a couple posts ago --- we are going to have to agree to disagree here. This is all opinion and neither one of us will be convinced otherwise. Now it is just a matter of who wants the last word.

[Deadskins]

Now it is just a matter of who wants the last word.

You.

[Burgundy&GoldForever]

Now it is just a matter of who wants the last word.

You.

Word.