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

SkinsFreak wrote:"Aimed" for a 50/50 split, and you know where that came from.

He subsequently incorporated substantial play action into his offense to deal with modern defensive schemes and strives for a 50-50 run-pass ratio

Aims and strives are different from the actual. My simple point is that receivers are used far more frequently in the WCO verses a conservative running offense, plain and simple. Argue all you want, doesn't change the elementary comprehension of the two systems.

BTW - I am absolutely amused how you take every topic and search far and wide for any possible negative and then bash the team for it. Well done.

Your fundamental argument is correct. If the system calls for more passing, then you will get more production out of your receivers.

I think what Caneskins is trying to argue is that you don't know how much more or less productive a receiver will be until the bullets are flying.

You're both correct.

chiefhog44 wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:"Aimed" for a 50/50 split, and you know where that came from.

He subsequently incorporated substantial play action into his offense to deal with modern defensive schemes and strives for a 50-50 run-pass ratio

Aims and strives are different from the actual. My simple point is that receivers are used far more frequently in the WCO verses a conservative running offense, plain and simple. Argue all you want, doesn't change the elementary comprehension of the two systems.

BTW - I am absolutely amused how you take every topic and search far and wide for any possible negative and then bash the team for it. Well done.

Your fundamental argument is correct. If the system calls for more passing, then you will get more production out of your receivers.

I think what Caneskins is trying to argue is that you don't know how much more or less productive a receiver will be until the bullets are flying.

You're both correct.

LOL... though I think Canes has his hands pretty full of nits at the moment...

My simple point is that receivers are used far more frequently in the WCO verses a conservative running offense, plain and simple.

That may be true. But the point that you are missing and that I was trying to make in my last post, is that we actually did throw the ball a good amount last season. Yes we got overly conservative in the second half of games, but JC and Collins combined for over 500 pass attempts last season (523 to be exact). JC, before he got injured, had games in which he attempted 37, 34, 36, 34, 49, 54, and 37 passes. Despite the high number of pass attempts, our receivers still managed to post awful numbers last season. So my point is, that even with a new WCO system, we likely aren't going to be throwing the ball more than we did last season. Therefore, the change in offenses might not be as great as you think it will be and it is premature to just assume that the numbers will go up for our receivers. Hopefully Zorn is able to implement a more efficient passing attack that allows for JC to get the ball to our playmakers, but until I see it actually happen on the field I'm not buying into an automatic increase in production.

When Al Saunders came here two seasons ago, you could've made a very similar argument to what you are making now about an increase in production for the receivers. However, that didn't happen and our production in the passing game actually went down from 2005 to 2006. So yes the passing game will ideally get better and the receivers more productive, but there are too many variables and too many things that can go wrong for you to just assume that the receivers will be more productive.

Totally agree with you, Canes.

That´s why Snyder has been so effective during the offseason: he sells expectation. He´s a good salesman.

How wil Zorn´s offense perform? Will the WCO work in DC? That´s what every Redskins fan is asking.

chiefhog44 wrote:I think what Caneskins is trying to argue is that you don't know how much more or less productive a receiver will be until the bullets are flying.

I guess I'm not clarifying the issue. My argument for an increase in production relates specifically to the distinct difference in offensive philosophy. In the evaluation process of the two systems, there is a hypothetical condition or assumption that the receivers will catch the ball. A running offense verses a passing offense.

Simply looking at pass attempts doesn't hold water. How many of those attempts came in the late 4th quarter when the Skins were behind on the scoreboard. Check out the Pat's numbers from last year, they were rarely behind in games.

The pass routes alone suggest a higher percentage for greater production. For total yards, a downfield route and throw has a lower percentage reception rate verses shorter, midrange passes that allow the receiver to gain yards after the catch. Are there other variables? Absolutely, there always is in every scenario. I'm merely looking at the larger picture and comparing the overall philosophies. Canes is trying to nitpick intricate components of the system or trying to say we don't know if the receivers will catch the ball.

CanesSkins26 wrote:That may be true. But the point that you are missing and that I was trying to make in my last post, is that we actually did throw the ball a good amount last season. Yes we got overly conservative in the second half of games, but JC and Collins combined for over 500 pass attempts last season (523 to be exact). JC, before he got injured, had games in which he attempted 37, 34, 36, 34, 49, 54, and 37 passes. Despite the high number of pass attempts, our receivers still managed to post awful numbers last season.

Overall, as chiefhog says above, you're both right.

However, Canes, you're also making a mistake. Where you're making a mistake is that we threw the ball a lot last year (and you keep saying that...and technically you're correct), but the ball didn't go to wideouts, it went to the tight ends (helping put ey into the Pro Bowl) and running backs (Portis with a career high in catches). Lots of checkdown throws. Saunder's system, as we saw in Kansas City, has always emphasized getting the ball to the tight end and running backs, and thus it shouldn't surprise you we saw the same thing in DC.

In the WCO, theoretically you have a system that is more geared towards getting the ball to wideouts by spreading the ball around more; by not being so TE/RB centric. I think that's what Skinsfreak is trying to say. However, you're also absolutely correct in that we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

Color me as a homer, if you will, but I am thinking (hoping) that the offense we had here since Gibbs returned will be replaced by an offense that has more opportunity to be successful. Specifically, because this would seem to be more of an offense that is "familiar" to the players of today. Not saying that Gibbs (Saunders) were old fashioned per se but the offense did seem to me, to be too predictable, in certain situations.

I am hoping that the offense that Zorn and co will use will be a little more "attacking" especially on the passing side.

I think that utilizing the WRs and RBs as potential receivers in the red zone will make our offense less predictable when we are inside the 20. I felt that Gibbs became more conservative and hated to risk a turnover at the expense of having a more attacking offense in those areas.

I may be wrong but the RB and TE were almost our featured players down close and as a result we did not have many TDs from our WRs.

PulpExposure wrote:In the WCO, theoretically you have a system that is more geared towards getting the ball to wideouts by spreading the ball around more; by not being so TE/RB centric. I think that's what Skinsfreak is trying to say. However, you're also absolutely correct in that we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

Yes, that's exactly right. Thanks, you took it a step further to further clarify the issue. ey was our leading receiver last year, much like Tony Gonzales was the leading receiver in Kansas City during Saunders tenure there. ey runs more shorter to midrange routes, able to gain yards after the catch. Yes, Moss and ARE ran some of those routes too, but they were sent on fly patterns and deeper routes a greater percentage of the time. If some remember, our passing game became more productive last year when Saunders went to more midrange passes. That was pointed out here several times.

BTW, I also agree that we need to see what version of the WCO Zorn will run. He has two pretty good backs and has already said in pressers that he plans to use them. The addition of two former RB coaches, Smith and Sherman, also suggest our running game will be used. But our receivers are in for a treat, as they will get their hands on the ball more often in the WCO.

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works. Therefore, any speculation about the how is about as useless as breasts on a bull.

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

A Who's Who list of teams that annually and perennially choke in the playoffs is not encouraging.

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

A Who's Who list of teams that annually and perennially choke in the playoffs is not encouraging.

We can only assume Zorn´s offense will work. Utilizing that logic would be like comparing every car Ford has produced with their latest model. As you can plainly see, you have no guarantees of the final quality of the product.

Besides, we are dealing with humans beings here. A "system" baed on the performance of people in one place at one given time does NOT imply success under a different set of conditions. Succes ain´t that easy to copy.

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

A Who's Who list of teams that annually and perennially choke in the playoffs is not encouraging.

Tampa, San Fran, Oakland, Denver and Green Bay have won SB's in the WCO. I'm sure I'm missing a few others. Philly made it to the championship game four years in a row. So they didn't win the SB. Does that mean the system is flawed because they lost that particular game?

PulpExposure wrote:

fleetus wrote:The veteran minimum for a player like Hackett is approx. 500k. I'm saying we could offer triple that. Stallworth, a much better WR, only got 10 mil (of his 35 mil) guaranteed over 7 years.

You're inconsistent within your own response!

So we could offer Hackett a 5 year 15 mil contract with 5 mil guarnteed, for example. We would never pay him more than 2 mil a year unless he played lights out.

5 for 15 is 3 million a year

That's a reasonable contract in this market. Triple the 500k figure you talked earlier, 1.5 million a year, is not.

I specified GUARANTEED MONEY. I'm worried more about how much it will cost to get rid of him when he turns out to be B. Lloyd II. His salary is simply what we pay while he's here. How much dead cap space he will occupy after he is gone is my main concern. No one really cares what we back load into the final few years of the contract. Sorry to be so callous.

El Mexican wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

A Who's Who list of teams that annually and perennially choke in the playoffs is not encouraging.

We can only assume Zorn´s offense will work. Utilizing that logic would be like comparing every car Ford has produced with their latest model. As you can plainly see, you have no guarantees of the final quality of the product.

Besides, we are dealing with humans beings here. A "system" baed on the performance of people in one place at one given time does NOT imply success under a different set of conditions. Succes ain´t that easy to copy.

Whoa there, you are being way to realistic for this forum. You're supposed to argue wildly for success or failure. No exceptions. No middle ground. Now which is it? We are doomed for failure, salary cap hell and a complete turn over of personnel, a future similar to the Detroit Lions? OR, Zorn's offense will break the Patriots record for yards and touchdowns next season, Campbell will be MVP and Hackett is the next coming of Jerry Rice?

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

A Who's Who list of teams that annually and perennially choke in the playoffs is not encouraging.

Tampa, San Fran, Oakland, Denver and Green Bay have won SB's in the WCO. I'm sure I'm missing a few others. Philly made it to the championship game four years in a row. So they didn't win the SB. Does that mean the system is flawed because they lost that particular game?

If and when you desire to bring this conversation into the current Millenium, I'll participate. Discussing teams who last won the SuperBowl well over a decade ago or teams who had one exceptional season in a span of several mediocre ones doesn't drive any point home.

I never said the system Jim Zorn intends to use is flawed. What I'd said was that we have no way of knowing if the system will work with the current Washington Redskins player personnel. I said I am not encouraged by the discussion of teams who usually fade out early.

I am neither encouraged nor discouraged about Jim Zorn's offense, because as I stated earlier, without any concrete evidence of past successes or failures, discussing the hows or the ifs of the intended offense is useless.

fleetus wrote:I specified GUARANTEED MONEY.

I were thinking you were talking overall compensation, salary AND bonus.

Let's read your original statement again:

fleetus wrote: I say, if D.J. costs more than mediocre $$ (salary + bonus in guaranteed money - approx. 1-1.5 mil/year) then it is a bad move.

That reads salary + bonus as 1-1.5 mil/year to me....

Sorry to be so callous.

No sweat, I don't take things on an forum personally.

GSPODS wrote:If and when you desire to bring this conversation into the current Millenium, I'll participate. Discussing teams who last won the SuperBowl well over a decade ago or teams who had one exceptional season in a span of several mediocre ones doesn't drive any point home.

OK. We're talking about production of receivers in different styles of offense. What kind of offense do the Patriots run? What's their run / pass ratio? How about the Colts? I'm not saying it's going to be the exact same offense Zorn will use, merely that 'pass first' offenses have been proven to work efficiently and have been employed more often in todays NFL, as well as years past.

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:If and when you desire to bring this conversation into the current Millenium, I'll participate. Discussing teams who last won the SuperBowl well over a decade ago or teams who had one exceptional season in a span of several mediocre ones doesn't drive any point home.

OK. We're talking about production of receivers in different styles of offense. What kind of offense do the Patriots run? What's their run / pass ratio? How about the Colts? I'm not saying it's going to be the exact same offense Zorn will use, merely that 'pass first' offenses have been proven to work efficiently and have been employed more often in todays NFL, as well as years past.

I understood what you were attempting to state in your post. I wasn't convinced you understood what I was attempting to say in my post. I'm all for 300 yard passing games. Hell, I can't remember the last time a Redskins' quarterback had one. I'm just not convinced this team has the personnel to run the offense we think Jim Zorn intends to use.

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:If and when you desire to bring this conversation into the current Millenium, I'll participate. Discussing teams who last won the SuperBowl well over a decade ago or teams who had one exceptional season in a span of several mediocre ones doesn't drive any point home.

OK. We're talking about production of receivers in different styles of offense. What kind of offense do the Patriots run? What's their run / pass ratio? How about the Colts? I'm not saying it's going to be the exact same offense Zorn will use, merely that 'pass first' offenses have been proven to work efficiently and have been employed more often in todays NFL, as well as years past.

I understood what you were attempting to state in your post. I wasn't convinced you understood what I was attempting to say in my post. I'm all for 300 yard passing games. Hell, I can't remember the last time a Redskins' quarterback had one. I'm just not convinced this team has the personnel to run the offense we think Jim Zorn intends to use.

Didn't I here Zorn say in an interview.


We need a WR with good hands and speed. Hello! Moss. And ARL..

We need a good TE with good hands. Knock Knock. ey, Hello! Probowl..

And we need RBs that can catch. Portis Hello, And Betts. We have a tandem here.

BnGhog wrote:Didn't I here Zorn say in an interview.


We need a WR with good hands and speed. Hello! Moss. And ARL..

We need a good TE with good hands. Knock Knock. ey, Hello! Probowl..

And we need RBs that can catch. Portis Hello, And Betts. We have a tandem here.

Moss? Good hands? Last season he was trying to lead the league in dropped passes, only to be outdone by Terrell Owens.
Randle El? Good speed? That's why he's being moved to the slot. Because of all of that great separation he always gets from defenders.
ey? Check. Impossible to argue ey as a receiver.
Portis? Check. Portis is a team player, runs, catches, blocks, tackles.
Betts? I think I'd rather have Sellers catching passes.

Glaring hole? #2 receiver to keep Moss and ey from being double-covered. This sounds familiar.
Glaring hole? Offensive line built for Joe Gibbs' power running game.
Glaring hole? Jason Campbell's umpteenth new offensive coordinator.

GSPODS wrote:I'm all for 300 yard passing games. Hell, I can't remember the last time a Redskins' quarterback had one.

You're getting old, my friend.

Jason Campbell had 2 last season (Nov 11 & Nov 18).

PulpExposure wrote:

GSPODS wrote:I'm all for 300 yard passing games. Hell, I can't remember the last time a Redskins' quarterback had one.

You're getting old, my friend.

Jason Campbell had 2 last season (Nov 11 & Nov 18).

I must be getting senile, too.

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:we have no idea how Jim Zorn's WCO offense works.

We have no idea IF Jim Zorn's offense works.

To some degree, you're right. But Zorn has said his system will be derived from Holgrem's system, and we know that system has been successful in cities such as Green Bay, Seattle, San Fran, Philly, Tampa, etc... Obviously, Zorn will put his personal touches on the system and how that eventually pans out remains to be seen.

A Who's Who list of teams that annually and perennially choke in the playoffs is not encouraging.

um, every year, automatically, 11 of the 12 teams in the playoffs "choke". that's over 91%, and there is absolutely no way to avoid or alter that stat.

so pointing out how a system is constantly producing so few superbowl wins against so so many playoff flame-outs means nothing. in fact, it actually gives great credit that so many teams using the system are making the playoffs in the first place.

PulpExposure wrote:

fleetus wrote:I specified GUARANTEED MONEY.

I were thinking you were talking overall compensation, salary AND bonus.

Let's read your original statement again:

fleetus wrote: I say, if D.J. costs more than mediocre $$ (salary + bonus in guaranteed money - approx. 1-1.5 mil/year) then it is a bad move.

That reads salary + bonus as 1-1.5 mil/year to me....

Sorry to be so callous.

No sweat, I don't take things on an forum personally.

Ya did it again. You quoted me and conveniently left out the two words that came next.. Guaranteed Money You know, they do guarantee portions of the salary occasionally as well, so we can't simply state the bonus amount.

No big deal, not worth arguing about. The bottom line is, I don't think we should offer much guaranteed money to Hackett. Now if Snyder wants to back load his contract so he's making 3 times more in year 5 than year one, FINE. Just keep the bonus low. He's too injury prone and not nearly productive enough to expect great things, yet.