The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

When you look at the source of the Patriots' success, one thing has to stand out more than any other: They control the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

And whoever controls the line of scrimmage wins the game. The reason that offense is impossible to shutdown is because of Brady's ability to sit in the gun and take his pick of 4 or 5 receivers anytime he chooses. The offensive line is the key to the success of the Patriots, and even if you do get some pressure, as the Cowboys were able to with Demarcus Ware (and the Skins probably will with Andre Carter from the same side) it's still a case of that offense having way too many possessions and eventually wearing you down.

The Patriots' O presents a nightmare regardless of the strength of the defense because:

1. The O-line rarely misses their assignments and protect the blitz particularly well
2. Brady to Moss
3. The sheer number of capable receivers at Brady's disposal and the combination of routes and threats presented at each level of the defense makes it almost impossible to get sack the guy, be it via good coverage or blitz scheme.
4. Brady to Welker
5. Brady's ability to read, make his decision quickly, and make ALL the throws means that the Pats can call anything they want, regardless of the situation.
6. Brady to Moss
7. Most of their backs, particularly Heath Evans and Kevin Faulk, are above-average receivers, further extending Brady's options.
8. Oh yeh, Brady has Moss, Welker, not to mention Watson (not sure about his status), Stalworth, and Gaffney... ALL above-average receivers, in my opinion.

The Redskins running and short-passing game absolutely has to be in-tune this weekend. The defense is gonna have to make some plays and cause some turnovers or cause some Patriots not to be able to finish the game.

The Patriots prefer to stay on the outside, dance and look pretty, and land bombs upside their opponent's head. The Skins have to stay right in their chest, grab, hold, low blow here or there, head butt, etc..

It's gotta be an ugly, difficult-to-referee fight for the Skins.

Here's some stats that should stir the pot a little.

These are largely taken from Redskins.com

http://www.redskins.com/gameday/default.jsp?gameId=82

Washington and New England have played seven times in the regular season, with the Redskins holding a 6-1 advantage.

The Redskins have won the last six games in the series. The last time they lost was on Oct. 1, 1972. Four of the Redskins' six wins have been decided by five points or less.

That's 35 years since they've beat us in the regular season.

The last time the Redskins and Patriots played in the regular season was on Sept. 28, 2003 at FedExField. The Redskins defeated the Patriots 20-17, fending off a late rally by Tom Brady. Safety Ifeanyi Ohalete intercepted a Brady pass in the final minutes to secure the Redskins' victory. Following that loss, New England would go on to set an NFL record by winning 21 consecutive games and back-t0-back Super Bowl titles in 2003 and 2004.

Most of us should remember that game. It was the only bright spot for that season.

Joe Gibbs is 3-0 all-time in games against the New England Patriots. A fourth game, in 1987, was cancelled due to the players strike that year.
Gibbs has coached against a Belichick-led team only twice, and just once in the regular season.

In 1991, Gibbs and the Redskins were 6-0 and on their way to a Super Bowl XXVI title when they hosted the Cleveland Browns in Week 7. Belichick was in his first year as head coach of the Browns. The Redskins won in convincing fashion, 42-17.

I didn't know he coached the Browns, talk about going from worst to first...

For the third time in the last four games, the Redskins' defense will face the NFL's top-ranked passing offense in the New England Patriots.

The Redskins held the Detroit Lions passing game to just 106 yards in Week 5 and the Green Bay Packers passing attack to just 188 yards.

Tom Brady and the Patriots are averaging 299.4 passing yards per game in their 7-0 start

And finally, my favorite...

The Redskins are the only NFL team that Tom Brady does not own a victory against as a starting quarterback.

Sunday's game is just Brady's second career start against the Redskins. The Patriots dropped a 20-17 decision in Brady's only previous start against Washington on Sept. 28, 2003.

Bob 0119 wrote:Here's some stats that should stir the pot a little.

That's good. Lets give them even more reason to blow us out.

BnGhog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Here's some stats that should stir the pot a little.

That's good. Lets give them even more reason to blow us out.

I think we can reasonably conclude the New England Patriots do not visit these message boards.

Fios wrote:

BnGhog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Here's some stats that should stir the pot a little.

That's good. Lets give them even more reason to blow us out.

I think we can reasonably conclude the New England Patriots do not visit these message boards.

We might even reasonably conclude they could care less what we think on these message boards.

PulpExposure wrote:

Fios wrote:

BnGhog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Here's some stats that should stir the pot a little.

That's good. Lets give them even more reason to blow us out.

I think we can reasonably conclude the New England Patriots do not visit these message boards.

We might even reasonably conclude they could care less what we think on these message boards.

They could care less, but not much less.

Fios wrote:

BnGhog wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:Here's some stats that should stir the pot a little.

That's good. Lets give them even more reason to blow us out.

I think we can reasonably conclude the New England Patriots do not visit these message boards.

Its on Redskins.com, reporters even asked Gibbs about it.
If they will ask JG, they will ask BB.

It gets around. I didn't really ment on this board. Jus speaking in general.

I firmly believe the Patriots are the antichrist.

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:I don't care if he played against the 7 worst defenses in the league in the first seven games. He has a 27/2 TD-to-Interception ratio, a 138 QB Rating, is completing 73 percent of his passes and has thrown for over 2,100 yards. These are professional football teams he's playing and he's put up those kinds of numbers.

I agree that the Skins secondary is the best he's faced so far. I'm assuming they'll test the Pat's offense. But those are historic numbers he's been putting up and poo-pooing them out of hand because the defenses he's faced aren't up to snuff seems to be whistling past the graveyard.

Right, and I just showed you that Derek Anderson has put up the SAME numbers against the SAME teams. Those defenses all suck, why won't you accept that?

Once again, the numbers that Anderson and Brady put up against those two teams didn't occur in a vacuum. I illustrated the circumstances in Brady's games against those two teams but you ignored them.

All the defenses that Pats have played have not sucked. And even if they all did, trying to somehow prove that Brady's insane numbers are not completely legitimate through comparisons to Derek Anderson or any other means is a straw man.

Please, just name ONE TEAM in the NFL that has played a worse group of defenses than New England. Just one team is all I'm looking for.

PatsAddict, your silence is very telling. Sorry to give you a trick question. It is impossible to name an NFL team that has played a worse group of defenses because New England has played the WORST schedule this season. I hope you understand this.

hkHog wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:I don't care if he played against the 7 worst defenses in the league in the first seven games. He has a 27/2 TD-to-Interception ratio, a 138 QB Rating, is completing 73 percent of his passes and has thrown for over 2,100 yards. These are professional football teams he's playing and he's put up those kinds of numbers.

I agree that the Skins secondary is the best he's faced so far. I'm assuming they'll test the Pat's offense. But those are historic numbers he's been putting up and poo-pooing them out of hand because the defenses he's faced aren't up to snuff seems to be whistling past the graveyard.

Right, and I just showed you that Derek Anderson has put up the SAME numbers against the SAME teams. Those defenses all suck, why won't you accept that?

Once again, the numbers that Anderson and Brady put up against those two teams didn't occur in a vacuum. I illustrated the circumstances in Brady's games against those two teams but you ignored them.

All the defenses that Pats have played have not sucked. And even if they all did, trying to somehow prove that Brady's insane numbers are not completely legitimate through comparisons to Derek Anderson or any other means is a straw man.

Please, just name ONE TEAM in the NFL that has played a worse group of defenses than New England. Just one team is all I'm looking for.

PatsAddict, your silence is very telling. Sorry to give you a trick question. It is impossible to name an NFL team that has played a worse group of defenses because New England has played the WORST schedule this season. I hope you understand this.

Can only get on this board in the afternoons.

I really don't have the time to go through each team's schedule and see who've they played, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it that they've played the worst defenses in the league every week for the past seven weeks.

I'll reiterate that it doesn't matter if they have played the seven worst defenses in the league (which they haven't), the numbers of mthe offense in general and Brady in particular are historical. If you want to minimize it that's your deal. We'll see where the Skins D ranks around 8PM Sunday night.

PatsAddict wrote:

hkHog wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:I don't care if he played against the 7 worst defenses in the league in the first seven games. He has a 27/2 TD-to-Interception ratio, a 138 QB Rating, is completing 73 percent of his passes and has thrown for over 2,100 yards. These are professional football teams he's playing and he's put up those kinds of numbers.

I agree that the Skins secondary is the best he's faced so far. I'm assuming they'll test the Pat's offense. But those are historic numbers he's been putting up and poo-pooing them out of hand because the defenses he's faced aren't up to snuff seems to be whistling past the graveyard.

Right, and I just showed you that Derek Anderson has put up the SAME numbers against the SAME teams. Those defenses all suck, why won't you accept that?

Once again, the numbers that Anderson and Brady put up against those two teams didn't occur in a vacuum. I illustrated the circumstances in Brady's games against those two teams but you ignored them.

All the defenses that Pats have played have not sucked. And even if they all did, trying to somehow prove that Brady's insane numbers are not completely legitimate through comparisons to Derek Anderson or any other means is a straw man.

Please, just name ONE TEAM in the NFL that has played a worse group of defenses than New England. Just one team is all I'm looking for.

PatsAddict, your silence is very telling. Sorry to give you a trick question. It is impossible to name an NFL team that has played a worse group of defenses because New England has played the WORST schedule this season. I hope you understand this.

Can only get on this board in the afternoons.

I really don't have the time to go through each team's schedule and see who've they played, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it that they've played the worst defenses in the league every week for the past seven weeks.

I'll reiterate that it doesn't matter if they have played the seven worst defenses in the league (which they haven't), the numbers of mthe offense in general and Brady in particular are historical. If you want to minimize it that's your deal. We'll see where the Skins D ranks around 8PM Sunday night.

Actually no one said the Pats had played the seven worst defenses, that would be inaccurate, they've played four of the seven worst, including the worst and second-worst. Now, I have already granted that good teams are supposed to beat bad teams, but that sword cuts both ways. Those historic numbers are, in fact, inflated.

While I am a big fan of "Bite Lip, and save trash talk till after the GAme" technique... I honestly do not like the chances we have this sunday. I can see only a few scenarios on how we can win, and all those scenarios revolve around Time of possesion, and the defense being rested.

Countertrey wrote:

I STRONGLY DISAGREE...

That just means that you are STRONGLY WRONG. You don't have to like them. The Patriots offense is clearly the class of the league this year, a fact that can be seen even by Stevie Wonder and Jose Felliciano. You are in denial. Get help.

Being a Redskins fan does not mean you can't make accurate assessments of other teams.

This game will depend on TOP, if it's about 50-50 then we'll be ok,

How is this inconsistent with admitting that the Patriots offense is pretty darned good? I think we all agree that, if any defense can match up with the Patriots offense, it is the Redskins. I think we can also agree that, given enough time, any good offense will eventually wear down an equivalent defense. You leave any defense out to dry too many times, and they will start to slide.

Time of possession in this game will have much more to do with OUR offense moving the ball than it will with the Patriots. If we are at 50-50, it means that our O was actually able to move the ball, and we are in the game.

If TOP goes to the Patriots, it means that they weren't, and we will lose.
But, again... that's about OUR offense... not the Patriots.

Strongly disagree to the fact that you would change crack dealers, read my post again and do not read between the lines


My point is that if we can keep our offense on the field, just as much as theirs we have a better chance of winning. Our defense matching with their offense, there is no question there... We all know they can match up, but for how long? The defense cannot hold if you keep them in the game too long, everyone knows that. If they get 3-5 mins rest in between (meaning our Offense sustains drives, no 3-n-outs) Then not only will the Offense get into a rythmn, but they will also rest our Defense, this formula gives us the best chance. Even if it's a shoot out, we a have the personnel to catch up. Let's be realistic, we will not be able to play "keep away" with these pats.

Well, Chris Samuels is optimistic.

"To be honest, I think we're good enough to beat anybody as long as we take care of our business," Samuels said. "So I hope they prepare for us and don't overlook us. I want them to bring their best game, and we're going to bring ours."




http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=30698

SKINFAN wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

I STRONGLY DISAGREE...

That just means that you are STRONGLY WRONG. You don't have to like them. The Patriots offense is clearly the class of the league this year, a fact that can be seen even by Stevie Wonder and Jose Felliciano. You are in denial. Get help.

Being a Redskins fan does not mean you can't make accurate assessments of other teams.

This game will depend on TOP, if it's about 50-50 then we'll be ok,

How is this inconsistent with admitting that the Patriots offense is pretty darned good? I think we all agree that, if any defense can match up with the Patriots offense, it is the Redskins. I think we can also agree that, given enough time, any good offense will eventually wear down an equivalent defense. You leave any defense out to dry too many times, and they will start to slide.

Time of possession in this game will have much more to do with OUR offense moving the ball than it will with the Patriots. If we are at 50-50, it means that our O was actually able to move the ball, and we are in the game.

If TOP goes to the Patriots, it means that they weren't, and we will lose.
But, again... that's about OUR offense... not the Patriots.

Strongly disagree to the fact that you would change crack dealers, read my post again and do not read between the lines


My point is that if we can keep our offense on the field, just as much as theirs we have a better chance of winning. Our defense matching with their offense, there is no question there... We all know they can match up, but for how long? The defense cannot hold if you keep them in the game too long, everyone knows that. If they get 3-5 mins rest in between (meaning our Offense sustains drives, no 3-n-outs) Then not only will the Offense get into a rythmn, but they will also rest our Defense, this formula gives us the best chance. Even if it's a shoot out, we a have the personnel to catch up. Let's be realistic, we will not be able to play "keep away" with these pats.

Ack! I misread your post... yup... read into it.

It all makes sense now.

PatsAddict wrote:

hkHog wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:

hkHog wrote:

PatsAddict wrote:I don't care if he played against the 7 worst defenses in the league in the first seven games. He has a 27/2 TD-to-Interception ratio, a 138 QB Rating, is completing 73 percent of his passes and has thrown for over 2,100 yards. These are professional football teams he's playing and he's put up those kinds of numbers.

I agree that the Skins secondary is the best he's faced so far. I'm assuming they'll test the Pat's offense. But those are historic numbers he's been putting up and poo-pooing them out of hand because the defenses he's faced aren't up to snuff seems to be whistling past the graveyard.

Right, and I just showed you that Derek Anderson has put up the SAME numbers against the SAME teams. Those defenses all suck, why won't you accept that?

Once again, the numbers that Anderson and Brady put up against those two teams didn't occur in a vacuum. I illustrated the circumstances in Brady's games against those two teams but you ignored them.

All the defenses that Pats have played have not sucked. And even if they all did, trying to somehow prove that Brady's insane numbers are not completely legitimate through comparisons to Derek Anderson or any other means is a straw man.

Please, just name ONE TEAM in the NFL that has played a worse group of defenses than New England. Just one team is all I'm looking for.

PatsAddict, your silence is very telling. Sorry to give you a trick question. It is impossible to name an NFL team that has played a worse group of defenses because New England has played the WORST schedule this season. I hope you understand this.

Can only get on this board in the afternoons.

I really don't have the time to go through each team's schedule and see who've they played, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it that they've played the worst defenses in the league every week for the past seven weeks.

I'll reiterate that it doesn't matter if they have played the seven worst defenses in the league (which they haven't), the numbers of mthe offense in general and Brady in particular are historical. If you want to minimize it that's your deal. We'll see where the Skins D ranks around 8PM Sunday night.

Historically they are not that impressive and a case can be made that the 1991 Skins got off to a better start in their first 7 games.

07 Pats; PF 279 PA 120 net 159; oppositions record 17-27; notable: won every game by atleast 17 points and one team currently has a winning record.

91 Skins; PF 231 PA 82 net 149; oppositions record 22-22; opened the season with 3 consecutive home shut outs - yes, that's right the score for the 3 games at RFK in Sep of 91 was Skins 102 - Lions, Cardnials, Eagles 0. Only 2 of the 7 teams had a losing record by the 7th game.

Gibbs ran the ball almost every play in the second half of those shut outs, because he didn't want to run up the score. Three of thos teams the Skins played in the first 7 games of 91 ended up being playoff teams and a fourth (Eagles) missed the playoffs at 10-6.

So the Pats aren't off to a historical start! They're not even as impressive as the 91 Skins after 7 games.

I can't think of any teams as impressive as the '91 Skins... Maybe the '83 Skins.

No woories count... well ok I'll be honest, I'm worried about this sunday.. I hope noone else gets hurt. We are running out of big warm bodies up front.

JSPB22 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Everyone who thinks the Patriots cannot run the ball, just look at this.

Patriots: 32 Rushing Attempts per game. 4.2 yards per attempt, 934 yards, 133.4 yards rushing per game. Ranked 7th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Redskins: 32.2 Rushing Attempts per game. 3.6 yards per attempt, 688 yards, 114.7 yards rushing per game. Ranked 16th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Yes, the Patriots have a far better rushing attack than the Skins do and run the ball just as often as we do.

They have a top 10 rushing attack. They can run the ball. And they do.

We have played much better defenses than they have, and you obviously know about our O-line problems.

Uh oh, you said "we" and "our." Oh no.

Puh - leez.

BTW - WE can win and I hope WE do. I at least like OUR chances of covering.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Everyone who thinks the Patriots cannot run the ball, just look at this.

Patriots: 32 Rushing Attempts per game. 4.2 yards per attempt, 934 yards, 133.4 yards rushing per game. Ranked 7th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Redskins: 32.2 Rushing Attempts per game. 3.6 yards per attempt, 688 yards, 114.7 yards rushing per game. Ranked 16th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Yes, the Patriots have a far better rushing attack than the Skins do and run the ball just as often as we do.

They have a top 10 rushing attack. They can run the ball. And they do.

We have played much better defenses than they have, and you obviously know about our O-line problems.

Uh oh, you said "we" and "our." Oh no.

Puh - leez.

BTW - WE can win and I hope WE do. I at least like OUR chances of covering.

DarthMonk

I like your chances of covering New England's wide receivers about as much as I like my chances of covering them. And I ran a 4.30 40 in high school. You can win if you place a bet. Other than that, you can watch along with the rest of us. Then you can take underserved credit if the Redskins win and equally undeserved blame if the Redskins lose.

How I love beating this horse.

GSPODS wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Everyone who thinks the Patriots cannot run the ball, just look at this.

Patriots: 32 Rushing Attempts per game. 4.2 yards per attempt, 934 yards, 133.4 yards rushing per game. Ranked 7th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Redskins: 32.2 Rushing Attempts per game. 3.6 yards per attempt, 688 yards, 114.7 yards rushing per game. Ranked 16th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Yes, the Patriots have a far better rushing attack than the Skins do and run the ball just as often as we do.

They have a top 10 rushing attack. They can run the ball. And they do.

We have played much better defenses than they have, and you obviously know about our O-line problems.

Uh oh, you said "we" and "our." Oh no.

Puh - leez.

BTW - WE can win and I hope WE do. I at least like OUR chances of covering.

DarthMonk

I like your chances of covering New England's wide receivers about as much as I like my chances of covering them. And I ran a 4.30 40 in high school. You can win if you place a bet. Other than that, you can watch along with the rest of us. Then you can take underserved credit if the Redskins win and equally undeserved blame if the Redskins lose.

How I love beating this horse.

He was talking about covering the spread, not the WRs.
And as part of the Redskins family, he has every right to say "we" and "our" when referring to the Skins. .

JSPB22 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Everyone who thinks the Patriots cannot run the ball, just look at this.

Patriots: 32 Rushing Attempts per game. 4.2 yards per attempt, 934 yards, 133.4 yards rushing per game. Ranked 7th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Redskins: 32.2 Rushing Attempts per game. 3.6 yards per attempt, 688 yards, 114.7 yards rushing per game. Ranked 16th in the NFL in yards per game rushing.

Yes, the Patriots have a far better rushing attack than the Skins do and run the ball just as often as we do.

They have a top 10 rushing attack. They can run the ball. And they do.

We have played much better defenses than they have, and you obviously know about our O-line problems.

Uh oh, you said "we" and "our." Oh no.

Puh - leez.

BTW - WE can win and I hope WE do. I at least like OUR chances of covering.

DarthMonk

I like your chances of covering New England's wide receivers about as much as I like my chances of covering them. And I ran a 4.30 40 in high school. You can win if you place a bet. Other than that, you can watch along with the rest of us. Then you can take underserved credit if the Redskins win and equally undeserved blame if the Redskins lose.

How I love beating this horse.

He was talking about covering the spread, not the WRs.
And as part of the Redskins family, he has every right to say "we" and "our" when referring to the Skins. .

I like my chances of covering (with a blanket) in the winter.

The "Redskins Family"? There's a delusional concept. Either a person is an actual employee of the Washington Redskins or a person is not.

People can say whatever they like. This is a message board so when people say whatever they like they should expect replies.

I enjoy playing Devil's ... err, Hailskins666 advocate every so often.
I don't personally subscribe to everything I post. Often, I post from a counter-point of view simply to initiate 'conversation'. If everyone simply agrees with everyone else there isn't much to discuss.

So the Pats aren't off to a historical start! They're not even as impressive as the 91 Skins after 7 games.

Here it is. My point all along has been that the Patriots Offense is not "over rated". That folks are finding it necessary to go to the second highest scoring team in NFL history for comparisons speaks to that.

"not even as impressive as the 91 skins"? Isn't that a bit like saying "that Lamborghini is not as good as that Ferrari"? If the Lamborghini is, in fact, not quite as good, does that mean that it is over rated?

Note that, at no point have I said that this version of the 'skins "cannot win". I agree with the points that several have made, that TOP is critical... and it cannot swing in favor of the Pats if the Redkins are to have a decent chance to win. It's time for the offense to protect the D for a change. I actually like our team's chances... quite a bit. Our O is both embarrased, and pissed. They will be playing with a chip on their shoulders...

The patsys are a very, very good team on offense and the 2 new WRs have really helped both Brady and the offensive game planners, but I still think it is not that far fetched to think that our defense can give us a chance to win and we have a number of weapons on offense and special teams who can play at a level good enough to say that we might even manage a win this week.

Whether we win or not we are still just a decent football team - we might be looked at differently by others but we all know how good we are and while we are not as good as many AFC teams we are, in my opinion, still a top 5 NFC team That is mainly because at this stage of this season there are very few NFC teams that are looking very good at all.

I still think that we and the pukes will be in the playoffs - actually, I think the Eagles may even end up on top of the giants who I think will end up at 8-8 or 9-7 at best


hail

I enjoy playing Devil's ... err, Hailskins666 advocate every so often.
I don't personally subscribe to everything I post. Often, I post from a counter-point of view simply to initiate 'conversation'.

Great... a lawyer, who's hobby is arguing. No good can come from this.

Oh, the humanity...

Countertrey wrote:

I enjoy playing Devil's ... err, Hailskins666 advocate every so often.
I don't personally subscribe to everything I post. Often, I post from a counter-point of view simply to initiate 'conversation'.

Great... a lawyer, who's hobby is arguing. No good can come from this.

Oh, the humanity...

Paychecks come from this.
Well, not here at THN but it keeps me in practice.