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

Irn-Bru wrote:The following is just my opinion; obviously it's not a majority view, but I'm surprised I don't see more people taking it:

You can't cover over a loss. Plenty of things to blame for this one. But it was a game of extremes; it was a shootout; it was a very close game against two clearly skilled teams. Despite whatever stats get thrown around here, it was really well played by both sides. (Shootouts always make both teams look weak in a way that they really aren't.) This was a great game of football.

Frankly, this loss doesn't bother me that much. (I mean relatively speaking, of course. When can anyone ever say that a loss wasn't a bad one?) I really think the Skins played hard and played a tough game. All things considered, they did a good job. We look like a different football franchise than the Redskins of 2-3 years ago.

We should have won it. We choked. The holes in this team left by Vinny and Danny are glaring. But I'm still amazed that Shanahan and Allen were able to account for as many weaknesses as they did. There were some very bright spots in this game.

And, in the final analysis, we looked pretty good, in my opinion. And I was proud of the effort our guys gave on the field.

HEROHAMO wrote:This game has to blamed on Haslett. While our aggressive defense kept Houston at bay in the first half.
Haslett failed to make the necessary adjustments in the second half.


We had a 17 point lead in the second half. At this point Houston has little option but to pass the ball.
We could have easily went to a nickle, dime or even quarters and play coverage for the rest of the game.
.

grampi wrote:I hear some of you blaming the lack of a running game for the loss, and others blaming the defense. Both the offense and defense blew this game. Yes, our running is game is pathetic, but our passing game was shredding their defense the entire game and we had several scoring opportunities in the 4th qtr that we failed to take advantage of. Our defensive front 4 blows at putting pressure opposing QBs, and our secondary couldn't cover a team full of Betty Whites. They were leaving the Texan receivers wide open the entire game. This "pass off" coverage scheme obviously doesn't work. They need to put a body on the receiver and have that guy cover throughout the entire route. This game illustrates exactly why Billichick does what he does; when you get up on a team, you keep hammering them so they can't come back. You don't let teams hang around so they can get back into the game. Winners finish teams when they go up on them. Losers do what the Skins did against the Texans....

SprintRightOption wrote:I wonder what the Houston newspapers are printing? To put things in perspective, they gave up as many passing yards as the Redskins, and it's only because they won that they probably feel good, but their defense got exposed too.

The Redskins are building and trying to lay a good foundation. If you want to buy a Super Bowl, maybe the Redskins should have spent a ton of money in the off season to get Julius Peppers like they did two years to get Albert Haynesworth. Or to get [insert name here of the latest high priced free agent] That approach hasn't worked. Improving through the draft is how the Redskins will get better players. The Denver Broncos in Mike Shanahan's first year as head coach had both John Elway and Terrel Davis (He ran for over 1,000 yards), but the team didn't make the playoffs and finished 8-8.

All teams lose and with a new coach and system that doesn't mean the team is the same as before. There is a new culture that is apparent when you hear the players speak. Look at the Vikings. They are mortgaging their future by being smitten with Brett Favre. They were only a few plays away from winning it all last year with Favre, and now he is a great liability as everybody expected him to be. Would you rather be the Vikings or the Cowboys or the Redskins? The first two teams were anointed Super Bowl contenders three weeks before the season started and now both teams are 0-2.

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

On defense, yes. We don't have the personnel for the 3-4 and that is becoming blatantly obvious.

chiefhog44 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

On defense, yes. We don't have the personnel for the 3-4 and that is becoming blatantly obvious.

Right, we all knew that going in, but the 3-4 is the better defense. We need to make the change, and, yes for the first year or two, it will be a lot of square pegs in round holes, but it will get better. Can you imagine when this team does have the personel while being this aggressive? I can't wait. Give it time my fine feathered friend.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

On defense, yes. We don't have the personnel for the 3-4 and that is becoming blatantly obvious.

Right, we all knew that going in, but the 3-4 is the better defense. We need to make the change, and, yes for the first year or two, it will be a lot of square pegs in round holes, but it will get better. Can you imagine when this team does have the personel while being this aggressive? I can't wait. Give it time my fine feathered friend.

I disagree with your premise that the 3-4 is the better defense. Both can lead to elite defenses with the right personnel.

chiefhog44 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

On defense, yes. We don't have the personnel for the 3-4 and that is becoming blatantly obvious.

Right, we all knew that going in, but the 3-4 is the better defense. We need to make the change, and, yes for the first year or two, it will be a lot of square pegs in round holes, but it will get better. Can you imagine when this team does have the personel while being this aggressive? I can't wait. Give it time my fine feathered friend.

I disagree with your premise that the 3-4 is the better defense. Both can lead to elite defenses with the right personnel.

Caner, I'll let the expert break it down for you. If you think you know more than him, than we're at odds, not only on the fact that I think the 3-4 is a better d, but that you could know more than Pat Kirwin.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... he-numbers

Secondly, look at the rankings from last year. 4 of the the top 5 defenses (total yards allowed) or 5 of the top 5 (total scoring allowed), or 3 of the top 5 in sacks, (or...the list goes on) were all 3-4 defenses.

What is your argument?

granthpaulsen

Lorenzo Alexander on why the defense gave up 500 yds: Couldn't make stops on 3rd down, and dint generate enough pass rush

granthpaulsen

DeAngelo Hall is upset that he wasn't on Andre Johnson on the TD catch. He says from now on he wantso cover the guy getting the ball.

Russellmania09

Sounded like @one_man_gang97 agrees with what I walked away with, maybe too many blitz schemes. #redskins

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

No need to start blaming the coaches. You think the coaches are actually not putting our players in the best position to win?

On defense, yes. We don't have the personnel for the 3-4 and that is becoming blatantly obvious.

Right, we all knew that going in, but the 3-4 is the better defense. We need to make the change, and, yes for the first year or two, it will be a lot of square pegs in round holes, but it will get better. Can you imagine when this team does have the personel while being this aggressive? I can't wait. Give it time my fine feathered friend.

I disagree with your premise that the 3-4 is the better defense. Both can lead to elite defenses with the right personnel.

Caner, I'll let the expert break it down for you. If you think you know more than him, than we're at odds, not only on the fact that I think the 3-4 is a better d, but that you could know more than Pat Kirwin.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... he-numbers

Secondly, look at the rankings from last year. 4 of the the top 5 defenses (total yards allowed) or 5 of the top 5 (total scoring allowed), or 3 of the top 5 in sacks, (or...the list goes on) were all 3-4 defenses.

What is your argument?

First of all, the argument by Kirwin is extremely flawed because it doesn't look at the talent/personnel on any of the teams that he talks about. Ofcourse a 3-4 Ravens D is going to be better than a 4-3 run by the Rams, for example.

Secondly, these fads come and go all the time in the NFL. To say that one style of defense, when there are so many variations of each, is absurd. The best defense is the one that takes advantage of the strengths of your players and minimizes their weaknesses.

Third, the Bucs in 2003 and the Giants in 2008 had elite 4-3 D's that led them to Super Bowl wins. There can be elite defenses in either system, to this otherwise is absurd.

Fourth, the top 10 D's last year (by yardage) were split evenly among base 4-3 and 3-4 defenses.

Monday, September 20, 2010, 12:22 p.m.

By Ryan O’Halloran
Staff writer
CSNwashington.com

DeAngelo Hall no longer wants to be exclusively the Redskins’ starting left cornerback.

A day after the Houston Texans passed for 497 yards and Andre Johnson caught a game-tying 34-yard touchdown catch with 2:03 remaining in regulation of what would end up being a 30-27 overtime victory, Hall said he’s done being contained to one side of the field, the philosophy of Redskins defensive coordinator Jim Haslett.

Hall wants to face the best regardless of where they’re lined up on the field.

“From here on out, I’m going to where the [bleeping] ball is going,” he said today in the Redskins’ locker room. “Wherever the receiver is going, that’s where the [bleep] I’m going.”

Hall hadn’t watched the game video but was seething that Johnson lined up on the opposite side of the field, covered by cornerback Phillip Buchanon – the team’s No. 3 cornerback, and safety Reed Doughty, a fill-in starter.

“It won’t happen like that again,” Hall said. “If Andre Johnson is out there, I’m going to be out there.”

Asked if he thinks Haslett is open to a player walking into his office and requesting a role change, Hall said: “It don’t matter what he say. This is my team. This is my defense. I’m going to follow these receivers around. If we got to do that to win games, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Hall later added of Haslett: “We never really talked about. Has knows me. He’s seen me play over the years. He knows I like to do that. I don’t see it being a problem at all.”

The Redskins have allowed 745 yards passing in two games.

Johnson caught 12 passes for 158 yards and Kevin Walter 11 passes for 144 yards. Hall said he rarely lined up against Johnson.

“I hadn’t played Andre in the league, I played against him in college,” Hall said. “I gave him a lot of props before the game, during the game. He didn’t scare me. He didn’t do anything that looked spectacular, didn’t do anything to make me feel like he was the best. He came out with 12 catches, [one] touchdown – maybe the numbers indicate he is [the best]. I didn’t feel that way when I lined up against him.”

Hall said he would move around the field during his time with the Atlanta Falcons and is willing to be thrown at if it gives him a chance to make plays.

“Guys are going to catch balls,” he said. “My first four years in Atlanta, I followed the guys around, the best receivers around. They caught balls. Didn’t matter. Give me enough opportunities, I’m going to make plays. That’s how it is. Yesterday, I didn’t have enough opportunities to make [any] plays. That’s frustrating, you know? It’s frustrating to go out there, be up 17 points and still lose the game. I don’t care if they catch 20 balls. Throw it 20 times my way and I’ll make some plays.”

The Redskins led 27-10 when Houston’s offense went to work. Schaub was 23-of-34 for 332 yards and two touchdowns in the second half/overtime.

“We were hitting Schaub – we had him rattled,” Hall said. “I was sitting at home trying to figure out what the hell happened. I couldn’t figure it out. I couldn’t walk the game through my mind and figure out how the hell it ended up the way it ended up. At one point, I felt the game was over. We were dominating those guys, hitting Schaub whenever we wanted to. He was falling down without anybody around him like Peyton Manning does a lot. I don’t know what transpired from third to fourth to spark that comeback and us eventually losing.”

By Mike Jones

Still seething from the Houston Texans' 30-27 overtime comeback victory over his Washington Redskins, cornerback DeAngelo Hall said that things will be changing in his team's secondary.

From now on out, Hall will draw the assignment of covering the opponent's top receiver. That would change from defensive coordinator Jim Haslett's original design of having a cornerback be responsible for covering a particular side of the field rather than moving from side to side depending on where a receiver lines up.



"That’s how it was, but that’s not how it’s going to be," Hall said the morning after watching Houston's Andre Johnson on fourth-and-10 blow past fellow cornerback Phillip Buchanon and then outjump safety Reed Doughty in the end zone for a touchdown that forced overtime. "From now on, I’m going wherever the [expletive] ball is going to be. Wherever the receiver’s going, that’s where I’m going to be. That’s a change."

Johnson last night made 12 catches for 158 yards and a touchdown. Hall said he didn't go up against the Pro Bowler receiver "but a couple of times," but "only a couple of guys caught passes on my side of the field."

When asked if the assignment change was his idea or Haslett's, Hall said he hadn't spoken to the defensive coordinator about it, but was planning on meeting with him and telling him "That's something we've got to do in order to win games. So that's what's going to happen."

When asked if he thought Haslett would be receptive to Hall's plan, the defensive back said he didn't care.

"It don’t matter what he say," Hall said. "It’s my team. It’s my defense. So I’m gonna to follow the receiver around. If we've got to do that to win games, that's what I'm going to do."

Hall said that he wasn't blaming Doughty or Buchanon for the touchdown, but did indicate that there was a blown assignment.

"On that particular instance, I felt like we had the perfect play call, that it could’ve been me, or even you on him. The problem should’ve been resolved.
It shouldn't have been fourth-and-10," Hall said. "It’s a two-man coverage, which has a gap playing under and a man up top. Yeah, [Buchanon] came off kinda early. But you wouldn’t expect Reed to come up with that play anyway. [Johnson] is a good receiver in this league."

When asked if he would have prevented the touchdown, Hall said, "We'll never know."

But he made it clear, he just wants the chance to at least try to shut down the opponent's top receiver, as opposed to last night where he only covered Johnson a couple of times in the Redskins' zone coverage scheme.

"Guys are going to catch balls," Hall said. "My first four years in Atlanta, I followed guys around and they caught balls, but it didn’t matter. I still had the opportunity to make plays. Yesterday, I didn’t have an opportunity to make plays, and that’s frustrating. It’s frustrating to be up 17 points and still lose the game. I don’t care if they catch 20 balls. You throw 20 balls my way I’ll have the opportunity to make plays."