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

Paralis wrote:There isn't a single reserve OL on this team I'd want to see start a game without getting hugely drunk first.

Better starting drinking then, because apparently Randy Thomas is out for the year.

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:There isn't a single reserve OL on this team I'd want to see start a game without getting hugely drunk first.

Better starting drinking then, because apparently Randy Thomas is out for the year.

Wow .... that's really bad news

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:There isn't a single reserve OL on this team I'd want to see start a game without getting hugely drunk first.

Better starting drinking then, because apparently Randy Thomas is out for the year.

Zorn downplayed it during his press conference, said it's the opposite arm from last year and might just be a sprain.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:There isn't a single reserve OL on this team I'd want to see start a game without getting hugely drunk first.

Better starting drinking then, because apparently Randy Thomas is out for the year.

Zorn downplayed it during his press conference, said it's the opposite arm from last year and might just be a sprain.

Recognizing fully that the Post has been wrong about this kind of thing before:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... eason.html

Fios wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:There isn't a single reserve OL on this team I'd want to see start a game without getting hugely drunk first.

Better starting drinking then, because apparently Randy Thomas is out for the year.

Zorn downplayed it during his press conference, said it's the opposite arm from last year and might just be a sprain.

Recognizing fully that the Post has been wrong about this kind of thing before:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redski ... eason.html

I heard Kelli Johnson just confirmed it. Ouch.

One of our aging offensive linemen out for the season...who could have possibly seen that coming?

That's lousy news, but it's not surprising. Nobody expected Thomas was going to make it through the season, but week 2? Ugh.

I'm just really pessimistic about the fact that given that he was always going to be the weak point on the OL, regarding injury, that Rinehart couldn't crack the starting 45. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his play, but it takes a real deep breath.

Paralis wrote:That's lousy news, but it's not surprising. Nobody expected Thomas was going to make it through the season, but week 2? Ugh.

I'm just really pessimistic about the fact that given that he was always going to be the weak point on the OL, regarding injury, that Rinehart couldn't crack the starting 45. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his play, but it takes a real deep breath.

Ok I'm going to play optimist here. It's possible that they didn't activate him because he can only play RG, whereas Montgomery can play LG, C, and RG. So as a game-day backup, it makes more sense for Montgomery to be active, to provide more cover.

However, more likely, it's because Rinehart stinks...

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:That's lousy news, but it's not surprising. Nobody expected Thomas was going to make it through the season, but week 2? Ugh.

I'm just really pessimistic about the fact that given that he was always going to be the weak point on the OL, regarding injury, that Rinehart couldn't crack the starting 45. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his play, but it takes a real deep breath.

Ok I'm going to play optimist here. It's possible that they didn't activate him because he can only play RG, whereas Montgomery can play LG, C, and RG. So as a game-day backup, it makes more sense for Montgomery to be active, to provide more cover.

However, more likely, it's because Rinehart stinks...

Maybe I'm mistaken but he did/improved a lot in the preseason.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:That's lousy news, but it's not surprising. Nobody expected Thomas was going to make it through the season, but week 2? Ugh.

I'm just really pessimistic about the fact that given that he was always going to be the weak point on the OL, regarding injury, that Rinehart couldn't crack the starting 45. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his play, but it takes a real deep breath.

Ok I'm going to play optimist here. It's possible that they didn't activate him because he can only play RG, whereas Montgomery can play LG, C, and RG. So as a game-day backup, it makes more sense for Montgomery to be active, to provide more cover.

However, more likely, it's because Rinehart stinks...

Maybe I'm mistaken but he did/improved a lot in the preseason.

I agree that's likely, but you HAVE to wonder why the dude hasn't been active yet. Perhaps it's my scenario 1, but...

Chris Luva Luva wrote:At the end of the game we have one WR on the field and that was Santana Moss. He was on the field for about 7 plays or so. Why not have Kelly out there so that the defense has to respect a fade pass? Why make it easy for their defense to focus in on the run because they know we cannot possibly throw it to him.

To wind back a few posts, I think you're making a bigger deal of the personnel grouping than is warranted. We've got two good receiving tight ends and two good receiving backs (okay, maybe Sellers isn't all that good), and all take the field in the jumbo set. I don't think we have the protection to do it, but there's really no reason Zorn couldn't go empty backfield from that set, with Sellers lined up tight, Davis and Moss wide, and ey and Portis in the slot.

But again, I think the fact that we're not seeing that (or even 4-5 routes out of a more conservative formation) says more about the OL than it does about the coaching. Not that it'll matter at the end of the season.

I'm not asking for 5wrs, simply take Moss out and insert Kelly!!! One change. Put in a tall WR so we ATLEASt have the option to throw a fade and so thT the defense must respect it.

That's all I'm saying.

Bradford, McCoy, Snead, Tebow, Claussen...

Replace "Kelly" with "Mitchell," and maybe we have something. Kelly looked pretty horrible on fade routes in the pre-season, and looked like he was struggling with the press coverage in the red zone early in the game. With Davis and ey on the field, there shouldn't be an absolute need for another big body, so if Zorn wants to go with Moss in that case, I'm not going to spend a lot of time second-guessing it. There's enough that worries me more.

Paralis wrote:Portis's line was 19 for 79. That's 4.1, not 4.4.
Add Betts' and Mason's totals, and you get 26 carries for 97 yards, or 3.7YPC... against the Rams.

Right. Cut both of these bums ... and all of the o-linemen too.

Paralis wrote:Sellers and Thomas won't always drop TDs. Thomas hopefully will learn that if he runs too close to the sideline, he doesn't leave room for Campbell to throw the ball away from coverage.

hahahahaha Yes. Darned dummy. Stop making Campbell lead you out-of-bounds. When the coach calls a play, ignore it, and run a post. That way Campbell would have to be 30 yards off target to throw it out-of-bounds. Brilliant.

Paralis wrote:Kelly hopefully will figure out that he's bigger than opposing cornerbacks and actually get off the jam, especially in the red zone.

Yes sir ree ... and most especially on those running plays that Zorn keeps calling in the red zone.

Paralis wrote:But we're looking right now at starting Will Montgomery at RG next week. Or maybe Mike Williams, who's been out of football for two years and wasn't any good when he was on a roster. Or Chad Rinehart, who can't beat Mike Williams and dress on Sundays. And the running game's not going to look any better with any of those three on the field.

Right again. Those freaking bums .... last year they REFUSED to pass pro Campbell ... This year, they're REFUSING to block for Portis. But wait ... didn't they give Campbell enough time to pass today? Oh, right ... the running game is responsible for no TD passes ... sorry .. I lost my train of thought.

Paralis wrote: somehow this is Campbell and Zorn's fault. I just know it!

Hey .. those Campbell haters would blame him for a rainy day. It's just part of the job as a QB for the Washington Redskins. SO WHAT if he only scores 9 points a game ... whatta ya expect when you have guys like Portis, Moss, and ey to work with ... AM I RIGHT ??? Of course I'm right.

Next year I say we cut those 26 bums that keep letting other teams score 7 points a game and those 25 bums that can't block, run and catch. Then we can save Jason's career.

PulpExposure wrote:

Paralis wrote:That's lousy news, but it's not surprising. Nobody expected Thomas was going to make it through the season, but week 2? Ugh.

I'm just really pessimistic about the fact that given that he was always going to be the weak point on the OL, regarding injury, that Rinehart couldn't crack the starting 45. Maybe it didn't have anything to do with his play, but it takes a real deep breath.

Ok I'm going to play optimist here. It's possible that they didn't activate him because he can only play RG, whereas Montgomery can play LG, C, and RG. So as a game-day backup, it makes more sense for Montgomery to be active, to provide more cover.

However, more likely, it's because Rinehart stinks...

It doesn't matter either way. Neither Portis nor any other back can carry a team that cannot throw balls to wide receivers, so o-line blocking is irrelevant when your offense predominately consists of 4 yard passes. Just reverse the progressions, and Campbell won't have time to get sacked. Just hit the dump off first, instead of last.

Bravo. It usually takes you a lot more words to get to no valid point whatsoever.

If you don't see the causal relationship between Devin Thomas dropping the ball in the end zone and Mike Sellers dropping the ball behind his linebacker at the 3, and not scoring TDs... well, what more is there to say?

Do you really not see any problems with the running game? Last year, Portis ran 21 times for 129 yards and 2 TDs; Betts ran 7 times for 32. This year? 19/79 and 4/13. That's not a regression?

Paralis wrote:Bravo. It usually takes you a lot more words to get to no valid point whatsoever.

If you don't see the causal relationship between Devin Thomas dropping the ball in the end zone and Mike Sellers dropping the ball behind his linebacker at the 3, and not scoring TDs... well, what more is there to say?

Do you really not see any problems with the running game? Last year, Portis ran 21 times for 129 yards and 2 TDs; Betts ran 7 times for 32. This year? 19/79 and 4/13. That's not a regression?

It's a continuation from the end of last year. It's not Portis, it the lack of respect to Campbell. No team thinks that he can beat them, so they focus on Portis. Wouldn't you after what you've seen for 18 weeks now?

It's amazing that Campbell can be blamed for marching the team up and down the field, and then failing to get in the end zone, when the problems to anyone with half a brain were Zorn's play calling, guys dropping TD passes, and the running game not coming through down there.

How many plays did JC have a chance to do anything in the red zone? What, 3? 2 of which ended in dropped passes, the other one resulted in him throwing the ball away since he didn't have an open receiver.

But sure, it's clearly his fault.

LoL, It's never the QB's fault. NEVER. It's the RBs fault, he should've carved up that Defense that gave up what, 38 points the week before? It' the Lineman's fault that they cannot pass protect for 10 seconds (the time it takes our QB to wind up and release/ make a decision). It's the reciever's fault they cannot get open on everyplay and have 6 steps on the CB (the space needed for our QB to under/over throw him when he's open). It's our D's fault they cannot hold them and stay on the field the whole game. It's always someone else's fault, what we are wishing is that if our O line can hold that long, ANY QB could make throws, If our RB can carve it up like what we need for our QB to be successful, ANY QB can be successful, If our recievers can get wide open, ANY QB can make that throw. If our D can hold then ANY QB can win. But we don't have that we need a QB that can overcome and take what we have and make pie with it. HELL, the iglles had a backup QB throwing 2 TD's and scoring 20 plus pts as a team, yah they lost but they scored pts. the Gnats and pukes both cracked 20 plus pts playing each other. We couldn't even score a TD on the Rams. I know Spagz would give our O fits but not the whole freakin game! LMAO, I thought we would at least adjust, adapt and overcome. As it looks right now YES it's the 2nd week! NO it's not too early to tell, but the so called experts ranking us last in the DIvision maybe were right. We all had our blinders on we couldn't see, but the only thing that will keep us competitive is our D, our O is just not good enough to hang with the other teams in this division. It seems whenever this O can produce 20 plus pts we have a chance to win in our division. Magic number is 20 coz I think the D can hold to less than that.

SKINFAN wrote:LoL, It's never the QB's fault. NEVER. It's the RBs fault, he should've carved up that Defense that gave up what, 38 points the week before? It' the Lineman's fault that they cannot pass protect for 10 seconds (the time it takes our QB to wind up and release/ make a decision). It's the reciever's fault they cannot get open on everyplay and have 6 steps on the CB (the space needed for our QB to under/over throw him when he's open). It's our D's fault they cannot hold them and stay on the field the whole game. It's always someone else's fault, what we are wishing is that if our O line can hold that long, ANY QB could make throws, If our RB can carve it up like what we need for our QB to be successful, ANY QB can be successful, If our recievers can get wide open, ANY QB can make that throw. If our D can hold then ANY QB can win. But we don't have that we need a QB that can overcome and take what we have and make pie with it. HELL, the iglles had a backup QB throwing 2 TD's and scoring 20 plus pts as a team, yah they lost but they scored pts. the Gnats and pukes both cracked 20 plus pts playing each other. We couldn't even score a TD on the Rams. I know Spagz would give our O fits but not the whole freakin game! LMAO, I thought we would at least adjust, adapt and overcome. As it looks right now YES it's the 2nd week! NO it's not too early to tell, but the so called experts ranking us last in the DIvision maybe were right. We all had our blinders on we couldn't see, but the only thing that will keep us competitive is our D, our O is just not good enough to hang with the other teams in this division. It seems whenever this O can produce 20 plus pts we have a chance to win in our division. Magic number is 20 coz I think the D can hold to less than that.

You are funny...

Skinsfan55 wrote:Bradford, McCoy, Snead, Tebow, Claussen...

There is no doubt in my mind that one of Bradford, McCoy, Snead will be on this team next year.

PulpExposure wrote:Ok I'm going to play optimist here...

However, more likely, it's because Rinehart stinks...

So, if you were not optimistic, what would you really say?

Sorry man. I could not refrain.

I always come back to this thread amused, because there's a pretty blatant misspelling in the thread title.

Hahahaha...Campnell....Just noticed that for the first time.