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

yupchagee wrote:Adding 1 sack & 1 int/game is a HUGE goal. Improving the pass rush should impeove the int's, but not vice versa. That's part of why I'm in favor of picking a DE early. There should be some very good DE's available at #21. Most of the DE's you mentioned were late round picks. I think that once Rogers is back in shape, we will be fine at CB. I'm opposed to using a #1 or 2 pick to deal with a temporary problem. Smoot & Springs did well as starters last yr & Torrence did his job as nickel back. I still see the need for starters at WR & DE. interior OL depth is 3rd & S depth is 4th IMHO.

Here's a Homer's Heros draft for you:

Marcus Monk - Projected 6th Round
Dexter Manley II - Projected 7th Round

Neither of these prospects may turn into anything but they both have the right genetics and Redskins Family heritage.

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Adding 1 sack & 1 int/game is a HUGE goal. Improving the pass rush should impeove the int's, but not vice versa. That's part of why I'm in favor of picking a DE early. There should be some very good DE's available at #21. Most of the DE's you mentioned were late round picks. I think that once Rogers is back in shape, we will be fine at CB. I'm opposed to using a #1 or 2 pick to deal with a temporary problem. Smoot & Springs did well as starters last yr & Torrence did his job as nickel back. I still see the need for starters at WR & DE. interior OL depth is 3rd & S depth is 4th IMHO.

Here's a Homer's Heros draft for you:

Marcus Monk - Projected 6th Round
Dexter Manley II - Projected 7th Round

Neither of these prospects may turn into anything but they both have the right genetics and Redskins Family heritage.

Are you sure that Marcus is related to Art? I haven't seen that anywhere.

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Adding 1 sack & 1 int/game is a HUGE goal. Improving the pass rush should impeove the int's, but not vice versa. That's part of why I'm in favor of picking a DE early. There should be some very good DE's available at #21. Most of the DE's you mentioned were late round picks. I think that once Rogers is back in shape, we will be fine at CB. I'm opposed to using a #1 or 2 pick to deal with a temporary problem. Smoot & Springs did well as starters last yr & Torrence did his job as nickel back. I still see the need for starters at WR & DE. interior OL depth is 3rd & S depth is 4th IMHO.

Here's a Homer's Heros draft for you:

Marcus Monk - Projected 6th Round
Dexter Manley II - Projected 7th Round

Neither of these prospects may turn into anything but they both have the right genetics and Redskins Family heritage.

Are you sure that Marcus is related to Art? I haven't seen that anywhere.

I have no idea. But "Monk" and the Redskins go together. He's also 6'5", 220lbs with a 35 inch vertical. Big target, possession type receiver, likely to be available in the later rounds. Kelly, Sweed, Hardy, Jackson may all be gone by the time the Redskins draft, and the Redskins may not be looking for a receiver in the first round by the time the draft comes around.

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

yupchagee wrote:Adding 1 sack & 1 int/game is a HUGE goal. Improving the pass rush should impeove the int's, but not vice versa. That's part of why I'm in favor of picking a DE early. There should be some very good DE's available at #21. Most of the DE's you mentioned were late round picks. I think that once Rogers is back in shape, we will be fine at CB. I'm opposed to using a #1 or 2 pick to deal with a temporary problem. Smoot & Springs did well as starters last yr & Torrence did his job as nickel back. I still see the need for starters at WR & DE. interior OL depth is 3rd & S depth is 4th IMHO.

Here's a Homer's Heros draft for you:

Marcus Monk - Projected 6th Round
Dexter Manley II - Projected 7th Round

Neither of these prospects may turn into anything but they both have the right genetics and Redskins Family heritage.

Are you sure that Marcus is related to Art? I haven't seen that anywhere.

I have no idea. But "Monk" and the Redskins go together. He's also 6'5", 220lbs with a 35 inch vertical. Big target, possession type receiver, likely to be available in the later rounds. Kelly, Sweed, Hardy, Jackson may all be gone by the time the Redskins draft, and the Redskins may not be looking for a receiver in the first round by the time the draft comes around.

Monk is 1 of several big possession type receivers likely to be available in the late rounds. 1 of the WR's you list above should be available at #21, & there should be some good prospects at #51 as well.

I think this offense suits our team better.
One- protection- I don't think our o-line is good enough for long routes.
two- Portis- I am sorry he was solid and played hard, I just don't think he was a power everydown back. I think this multi-purpose back of a west coast offense suits him better. I think we will see the Portis in a Denver uniform when he had 5.5 yds. per game, I know we don't have the o-line Denver had, but I think this offense will suit him perfectly. I am really excited for Portis next season. I am not saying he was bad under Gibbs I just think Portis under this offense could take it to another level.
3- We give our recievers more plays were they get to go one on one with the Db's which I think suits Randel El and Moss better.

As far as the draft is concerned I think our lines were really exsposed in the playoffs. I will be happy with ethier D-line or Wr's in the first round. We need a O-line man with two of the three second and third round picks though I think, if we draft a De in the first round pick. If we draft a wr in the first round, the two third round picks and second round pick I think need to go to the lines on both sides of the ball.

I agree with you that the personnel we have may be better suited to the WCO. After all, we're not talking Joe Montana's offense, we're talking the 2008 Zorn WCO which will likely incorporate many nuances and adjustments suited to 2008 defenses. So there will be power running, screen passes, deep fly routes etc. But our bread and butter will hopefully be quick, short passes to ey, Moss, Portis etc.

Where I disagree with you is that the WCO is better suited to our receiving corps. I think our receiving corps is poorly put together because of the lack of any real possession guy. This is a problem no matter what offense we adopt, but under the WCO, it will be a huge problem, EVEN if we draft Kelly, Sweed or Hardy in the 1st round, because we can't count on major production from a rookie WR.

John Manfreda wrote:I think this offense suits our team better.
One- protection- I don't think our o-line is good enough for long routes.
two- Portis- I am sorry he was solid and played hard, I just don't think he was a power everydown back. I think this multi-purpose back of a west coast offense suits him better. I think we will see the Portis in a Denver uniform when he had 5.5 yds. per game, I know we don't have the o-line Denver had, but I think this offense will suit him perfectly. I am really excited for Portis next season. I am not saying he was bad under Gibbs I just think Portis under this offense could take it to another level.
3- We give our recievers more plays were they get to go one on one with the Db's which I think suits Randel El and Moss better.

I agree that Portis is not well suited to being an inside power runner. He's not big enough to take that kind of beating & his speed is at least partially wasted. I'm not sure this O will get our WR's more single coverage, but D's will have to play short passes which will help our WR's get free on long routes from time to time.

yupchagee wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:I think this offense suits our team better.
One- protection- I don't think our o-line is good enough for long routes.
two- Portis- I am sorry he was solid and played hard, I just don't think he was a power everydown back. I think this multi-purpose back of a west coast offense suits him better. I think we will see the Portis in a Denver uniform when he had 5.5 yds. per game, I know we don't have the o-line Denver had, but I think this offense will suit him perfectly. I am really excited for Portis next season. I am not saying he was bad under Gibbs I just think Portis under this offense could take it to another level.
3- We give our recievers more plays were they get to go one on one with the Db's which I think suits Randel El and Moss better.

I agree that Portis is not well suited to being an inside power runner. He's not big enough to take that kind of beating & his speed is at least partially wasted. I'm not sure this O will get our WR's more single coverage, but D's will have to play short passes which will help our WR's get free on long routes from time to time.

They will also have to account for Rb and FB getting passes so that will take away safety help, well thats my theory at least. Who knows, ur probably right.

yupchagee wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:I think this offense suits our team better.
One- protection- I don't think our o-line is good enough for long routes.
two- Portis- I am sorry he was solid and played hard, I just don't think he was a power everydown back. I think this multi-purpose back of a west coast offense suits him better. I think we will see the Portis in a Denver uniform when he had 5.5 yds. per game, I know we don't have the o-line Denver had, but I think this offense will suit him perfectly. I am really excited for Portis next season. I am not saying he was bad under Gibbs I just think Portis under this offense could take it to another level.
3- We give our recievers more plays were they get to go one on one with the Db's which I think suits Randel El and Moss better.

I agree that Portis is not well suited to being an inside power runner. He's not big enough to take that kind of beating & his speed is at least partially wasted. I'm not sure this O will get our WR's more single coverage, but D's will have to play short passes which will help our WR's get free on long routes from time to time.

They will also have to account for Rb and FB getting passes so that will take away safety help, well thats my theory at least. Who knows, ur probably right. For this offense to work Campell has to make reads faster and and be more accurate, his accuracy was not good last year, I don't care what anyone says.

John Manfreda wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:I think this offense suits our team better.
One- protection- I don't think our o-line is good enough for long routes.
two- Portis- I am sorry he was solid and played hard, I just don't think he was a power everydown back. I think this multi-purpose back of a west coast offense suits him better. I think we will see the Portis in a Denver uniform when he had 5.5 yds. per game, I know we don't have the o-line Denver had, but I think this offense will suit him perfectly. I am really excited for Portis next season. I am not saying he was bad under Gibbs I just think Portis under this offense could take it to another level.
3- We give our recievers more plays were they get to go one on one with the Db's which I think suits Randel El and Moss better.

I agree that Portis is not well suited to being an inside power runner. He's not big enough to take that kind of beating & his speed is at least partially wasted. I'm not sure this O will get our WR's more single coverage, but D's will have to play short passes which will help our WR's get free on long routes from time to time.

They will also have to account for Rb and FB getting passes so that will take away safety help, well thats my theory at least. Who knows, ur probably right. For this offense to work Campell has to make reads faster and and be more accurate, his accuracy was not good last year, I don't care what anyone says.

Totally agree with you on this one, John.

Campbell has had trouble with the short pass. I don´t care how good he was in the WCO during college, in DC he´s shown he´s fantastic with the long and intermidiate routes, but has trouble with the 5-7 yard throws. In practically every game I remember JC over or underthrowing the RB coming out of the backfield.

I don´t care if you sign Rice, Cris Carter and Tim Brown. If your QB ain´t good in the system, your WR´s do not matter.

El Mexican wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:I think this offense suits our team better.
One- protection- I don't think our o-line is good enough for long routes.
two- Portis- I am sorry he was solid and played hard, I just don't think he was a power everydown back. I think this multi-purpose back of a west coast offense suits him better. I think we will see the Portis in a Denver uniform when he had 5.5 yds. per game, I know we don't have the o-line Denver had, but I think this offense will suit him perfectly. I am really excited for Portis next season. I am not saying he was bad under Gibbs I just think Portis under this offense could take it to another level.
3- We give our recievers more plays were they get to go one on one with the Db's which I think suits Randel El and Moss better.

I agree that Portis is not well suited to being an inside power runner. He's not big enough to take that kind of beating & his speed is at least partially wasted. I'm not sure this O will get our WR's more single coverage, but D's will have to play short passes which will help our WR's get free on long routes from time to time.

They will also have to account for Rb and FB getting passes so that will take away safety help, well thats my theory at least. Who knows, ur probably right. For this offense to work Campell has to make reads faster and and be more accurate, his accuracy was not good last year, I don't care what anyone says.

Totally agree with you on this one, John.

Campbell has had trouble with the short pass. I don´t care how good he was in the WCO during college, in DC he´s shown he´s fantastic with the long and intermidiate routes, but has trouble with the 5-7 yard throws. In practically every game I remember JC over or underthrowing the RB coming out of the backfield.

I don´t care if you sign Rice, Cris Carter and Tim Brown. If your QB ain´t good in the system, your WR´s do not matter.

Is there a Jason Campbell was the most accurate quarterback in history movement that I missed?

I think some people are hearing the words "West Coast Offense" and assuming this is an offense that is tightly defined as short quick passing routes all day long. For one, today's WCO is much harder to recognize. There are 20 different versions of it floating around. Most teams are only using parts of the original WCO as they incorporate it along with other offensive styles they use because in todays NFL you can't hang your hat on any one thing. Bottom line is, if Zorn is the coach we hope him to be, he will design the offense AROUND JC, not in spite of him. So this endless debate over whether JC FITS in a WCO is pointless.

Fios wrote:.. Is there a Jason Campbell was the most accurate quarterback in history movement that I missed?

interesting question many here seem to forget that Campbell is just taking a little longer to become the QB that he can be. The jury is still out as to whether he's going to adapt to the speed of the game. He seems to have all the intangibles that probably could be why Gibbs wanted to make a bit of an effort to get him in here but he is still a work in progress.

I think Campbell can be a very good QB but the only thing that seems to be holding him back is that he doesn't seem to know that yet. Having a coach like Zorn and an offense that is a little bit easier to manage might give him the confidence to take it to the next level.

This offense and this coach might just be what Cambell needs to get things going. He needs to be a lot quicker making his reads and getting rid of the ball and he needs to learn to look at the whole field. He almost seems to hesitate in his decision making and that is most likely affecting his confidence to be able to do what Gibbs had a feeling he was going to be good at doing.


This offense is going to be a good change of pace for everyone but I think it is going to be a real help to Campbell (and maybe Portis) most of all and especially because the coach is going to help him get a lot more confident in his abilities.

I also believe that JC can be good, possibly great. I cna't remember which game it was, but when he had a comms malfulnction and had to manage his own drive, he looked relaly good. I think that the playcalling was a major contributor to his mediocrity in addition to all the injuries.

VetSkinsFan wrote:I also believe that JC can be good, possibly great. I cna't remember which game it was, but when he had a comms malfulnction and had to manage his own drive, he looked relaly good. I think that the playcalling was a major contributor to his mediocrity in addition to all the injuries.

Hey, we all WANT JC to be the best QB for the Skins.

But you can´t help to mention that he was hand-picked by Joe Gibbs to operate in a Gibbs-style offense. I don´t care how you pitch it, but our offense with Gibbs had little to nothing related to the WCO.

Yes, yes, JC played in the WCO during his college years. So what? You´d be living in fantasy land if every player that had a good college translated that same succes to the NFL.

Man, how in the world did Redskins become a WCO team? Is this a first? Maybe the history buffs can answer that one.

El Mexican wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I also believe that JC can be good, possibly great. I cna't remember which game it was, but when he had a comms malfulnction and had to manage his own drive, he looked relaly good. I think that the playcalling was a major contributor to his mediocrity in addition to all the injuries.

Hey, we all WANT JC to be the best QB for the Skins.

But you can´t help to mention that he was hand-picked by Joe Gibbs to operate in a Gibbs-style offense. I don´t care how you pitch it, but our offense with Gibbs had little to nothing related to the WCO.

Yes, yes, JC played in the WCO during his college years. So what? You´d be living in fantasy land if every player that had a good college translated that same succes to the NFL.

Man, how in the world did Redskins become a WCO team? Is this a first? Maybe the history buffs can answer that one.

It wasn't called that, but Jurgy ran something close to the WCO. More by necessity than design. Since we had no running attack, short passes were our bread & butter. A typical game was 30/50 for 300 yds. 1 yr we had 3 of the top 4 receivers in the league (in # of catches).

yupchagee wrote:

El Mexican wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:I also believe that JC can be good, possibly great. I cna't remember which game it was, but when he had a comms malfulnction and had to manage his own drive, he looked relaly good. I think that the playcalling was a major contributor to his mediocrity in addition to all the injuries.

Hey, we all WANT JC to be the best QB for the Skins.

But you can´t help to mention that he was hand-picked by Joe Gibbs to operate in a Gibbs-style offense. I don´t care how you pitch it, but our offense with Gibbs had little to nothing related to the WCO.

Yes, yes, JC played in the WCO during his college years. So what? You´d be living in fantasy land if every player that had a good college translated that same succes to the NFL.

Man, how in the world did Redskins become a WCO team? Is this a first? Maybe the history buffs can answer that one.

It wasn't called that, but Jurgy ran something close to the WCO. More by necessity than design. Since we had no running attack, short passes were our bread & butter. A typical game was 30/50 for 300 yds. 1 yr we had 3 of the top 4 receivers in the league (in # of catches).

Thanks a lot for the info, Yup! Been a while sin ce Jurgy, though.

I see JC getting heat because of his "slow reads". I don't bash him for that because he is young, and not really young like a rookie but more like young in the offense.

You see this is my understanding. (And I'm sure I might be wrong.)

It is my understanding that when a QB like Brady snaps the ball. First of all he is not thinking about his play because it is second nature to him, he has been with the same play book (with small changes) and same coaches for several years. So the second he snaps the ball he is watching the MLB and he also sees the other LBs and Safety with is peripheral vision. He watched their first steps direction. From this he can tell if they are blitzing or manning up with someone or droping into zone. This starts with his first day of the week when he prepairs for the game watching videos of the opposing D and their tendencies.

After that first step he has an idea of what the D is doing and he can tell (most of the time) which WR will wants to target.



JC don't have that right now. Well, #1 the plays are NOT second nature to him. He spends his first couple of days prepairing for the game, learning the game plan from the coaches, not helping decide the game plan with the coaches. So, then on game day and he gets the snap. He has spent more time on game plan learning and less on reading the D. So far this has been left to the coaches on predicting the D. Then, when he gets the ball, he is thinking about the play (unlike Brady). He goes through his reads, RW1 then 2 and so on untill he finds someone open. There is a lot of slit second reads that Brady is able to skip those steps because of what he has read from the D, and he can finnish this because he knows exactly where the WR will be, but JC has to think about it.

I don't think this will change untill he has been in ONE system with the same coaches for a while. Untill he is able to spend more time studing the opposing D then learning the Game plan and plays in this weeks plan, I don't see how he be able to read the D better and undstand the gameplans in a new system AND know the autibles etc...

And with JC's over and under thrown balls. I have not heard in any interview what the coaches ask of the WR. So, it is hard to say if they were in fact over or under thrown. IF the WRs were just told to run a slant but try to find an open space while running that slant. Well then, most of the time JC trys to get the ball before the cut, and if the WR thinks he should cut sooner because of how he is being covered, then JC's ball is overthrown. If the WR feels he needs another step to get separation from the Defender, then takes his cut the ball is underthrown. If that is the case, that is not all JC's fault, but I have never heard Saunders or Gibbs or any WR accually state, if they make them run precise routes.

El Mexican wrote:But you can´t help to mention that he was hand-picked by Joe Gibbs to operate in a Gibbs-style offense. I don´t care how you pitch it, but our offense with Gibbs had little to nothing related to the WCO.

JC played in a WC system his senior year at Auburn. So, Gibbs went out and drafted a WC QB to run his system. Hmm, I wonder why? Now, they did run the ball a lot that year, but Gibbs said it himself, numerous times, the main reason they drafted him was they were extremely impressed with JC's accuracy after reviewing game tape from all four years at Auburn. There were other reasons as well, but JC's arm had a lot to do with it.

The heat for "slow reads" is somewhat unjustified and over exaggerated in my opinion. Slow reads was a product of Gibbs system. Gibbs and Saunders employed a down field passing game. It takes time for those kinds of plays to develop and for the receiver to run the intended route, which were longer routes by design. When they went to more shorter and midrange passing routes in the latter half of last season, JC had no problem getting the ball out. I specifically remember when Brunell used to talk about what Gibbs wanted from him. "Take your time, go through your reads and progressions, and throw the ball away if it isn't there." Brunell used to do the same thing, and it was because of the system.

Can JC do better and is there room for improvement? Absolutely. I think his footwork, reads and throwing motion will all improve. And I believe we now have one of the best QB coaches working with the kid. I think JC will become a prolific passer in this league and I see a bright future for the guy. And I'm not just trying to be a homer here. Even when analysts and commentators watched or studied Campbell, they all recognize the talent and potential future game of this kid.

I'm pretty thankful Gibbs moved up to grab Campbell. Of all the QB's that have come out in recent years, as well as the year JC came out, I'm not sure there is anyone else I'd rather have at this point. I know Vince Young and Jay Cutler have had a few bright moments, but I still like Jason.

Here's a quote from JC shortly after he was drafted:

"[Gibbs] showed me his offense on the board and I was really surprised by the similarities they had with Auburn's offense we ran this year," Campbell said in a conference call. "The only difference at Auburn is we use words and they use a number system, and a number system is a lot easier for a quarterback."

So I will say it again, all the talk about systems and familiarity is overplayed because systems are all very versatile these days AND the Redskins were already running a system similar to the supposed WCO they were using at Auburn. Much ado about nothing.

fleetus wrote:Here's a quote from JC shortly after he was drafted:

"[Gibbs] showed me his offense on the board and I was really surprised by the similarities they had with Auburn's offense we ran this year," Campbell said in a conference call. "The only difference at Auburn is we use words and they use a number system, and a number system is a lot easier for a quarterback."

So I will say it again, all the talk about systems and familiarity is overplayed because systems are all very versatile these days AND the Redskins were already running a system similar to the supposed WCO they were using at Auburn. Much ado about nothing.

Sorry, Fleetus.

You can paint anyway you want but until I see JC running a WCO in the pros, every comparison to college ball is of little help.

Again, you guys are pointing out that JC´s slow reads are a symptom of Gibbs´system. Maybe. In reality I think Gibbs drafted JC because he the necessary weapons to be productive in HIS system, not a WCO we are accostumed to seeing in today´s NFL.

I really hope that I´m wrong on this one. Only time will tell and JC smarts will surely help (aced the Wonderlic?)

[quote="El Mexican] In reality I think Gibbs drafted JC because he the necessary weapons to be productive in HIS system, not a WCO we are accostumed to seeing in today´s NFL.

[/quote]


Gibbs drafted him because of his skills. He's accurate, he can scramble, he can throw on the run, he has the height to get good vision, he's smart with the ball, he listens to the coaches, and he is a great locker room guy.

So you think his skill are only good in Gibbs system? He has the skills that ANY coach looks for, in any type of offense. If a QB has a big arm for the deep ball, he is going to be able to throw the deep ball no matter what the play is, and if he can scramble, he can scramble no matter it a WCO or ECO(made that one up). He has the skills be a great NFL QB, and that would be a period.

Sorry El Mexican, but I think you are missing the fact that while this offense can be called a WCO I would be very surprised if what we are going to see is a basic WCO (if there is such a thing). The offense that Zorn will be using will be tailored to suit the players we have and not a "system" that he is confident will succeed because he has used it before. To me that is a big difference.

Campbell is very lucky in my opinion to have Zorn not only as his coach but also the guy that will be closely watching and guiding him this off-season. We will have a WCO offense but not one that is designed around anything other than the players who are here.

This is a useless thread. There are only so many offensive plays in football. Every team in the league uses the same plays. The only degree of separation is how many times per game a team will use a play.

Six different offensive formations don't change a play being a wide receiver slant as the primary target with the second wide receiver running a 15 yard out, with the running back being the checkoff.

Neither does being under center, in shotgun, the number of steps the quarterback drops or the snap count.

And just because every team uses their own terminology, and the media and the fans give stupid names like "West Coast Offense" to a team's offensive play-calling, it doesn't make the plays any better or any different.

Either the quarterback can throw a slant or he can't. Either he can throw an out or he can't. Either he can throw a screen or he can't. Either he can throw a deep ball or he can't.

You could call the offensive strategy the "Three And Out" and the plays would be the same plays everyone else is running, only in different proportions.