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

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:55 pm**

crazyhorse1 wrote:
JPM36 wrote:I love Clinton Portis, I really do.

But would the Redskins have traded Champ Bailey AND a 2 to get Portis if they knew Betts was gonna be this good...

I'm shocked by Betts. I keep expecting him to come to earth but he keeps getting better. What if Betts keeps averaging 5 yard plus per carry for the rest of the year, to go with his catches? What do we do then?

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 9:56 pm**

Everyone relax on the Betts comments, please. He is a back up RB who has had a couple of good games vs. shaky D's. Doesn't have the vision or speed or Hands of portis. So kill that garbage now!

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 10:20 pm**

Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.

Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:14 pm**

JPM36 wrote:I love Clinton Portis, I really do.

But would the Redskins have traded Champ Bailey AND a 2 to get Portis if they knew Betts was gonna be this good...

I know you're not banging on Portis, but IMHO, Betts is getting the benefit of having someone that can and will throw downfield under center. Portis has yet to have that luxury. Also, the line is finally starting to block better. Why now? What took so long?

There is no way, again IMHO, that there should even be a question as to who the starter is next year. PORTIS, hands down.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:43 am**

HitDoctor wrote:Everyone relax on the Betts comments, please. He is a back up RB who has had a couple of good games vs. shaky D's. Doesn't have the vision or speed or Hands of portis. So kill that garbage now!

what perpetuates this myth that portis is a good receiver? he drops half the balls that are thrown to him. betts has MUCH better hands than portis, he almost NEVER drops a pass.

Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

Irn-Bru, i agree with you 100% :shock:

the FG there was the only rational choice. it's just sickening that it ever came down to that in the 1st place. we had a 1st down on the 3 yard-line, why didn't we just pound it on the ground 4 times in a row if necessary for the go-ahead TD??? and the 12 men in the huddle??? how can we possibly self-destruct so badly on such a consistent basis, with such fundamental, no-brainer things like that? it's just mystifying. is it a lack of discipline? is it a product of confusion from having too many coaches barking out instructions? i just can't understand.

as sickened as i am about all this, i am also very encouraged by the development of Chicken Noodle, and the fact that it looks like the offense is FINALLY starting to click with saunders' offense. i think the worst thing we could do is switch now, even if we're unhappy with some of the playcalling (rightfully so). campbell and the o-line need to keep rolling with the same system next year and not have to start all over again.

as for who could we replace gibbs with,
my vote would be some kind of mule or something, a horse or a donkey maybe. on every 4th down in opposition territory (or when down by 3 scores) we could just ask him to stomp once for "KICK" or twice for "GO FOR IT!". i think that would be a tremendous improvement over gibbs, because even though it obviously has no idea what it's stomping about, there would probably at least be a 50% chance of getting to go for it, whereas gibbs' ongoing cowardice gives us maybe a 10% chance.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:40 am**

as for who could we replace gibbs with,

- Perhaps Vince Lombardi...oops not available.

- Amos Alonzo Stagg...oh my, not available, either

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:50 am**

Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.

Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

The problem is with a young QB in short yardage, would we have fooled them with another formation? And the two INTs were in short yardage throws, and not even on the goal line.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the opions were limited and the thing they did not want was a turnover. There was plenty of time on the clock.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:11 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.

Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

The problem is with a young QB in short yardage, would we have fooled them with another formation? And the two INTs were in short yardage throws, and not even on the goal line.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the opions were limited and the thing they did not want was a turnover. There was plenty of time on the clock.

Obviously, a INT doesn't help at all, but neither does being so obvious as lining up in formation (someone else called it 'heavy jumbo') which so obviously telegraphed the call, especially at the 3 yard line. We'll never know how a run from a different formation would've worked, but it's just so bitter to see the team get to the 3(!) and not get the go-ahead TD. :evil:

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:18 am**

Mursilis wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.

Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

The problem is with a young QB in short yardage, would we have fooled them with another formation? And the two INTs were in short yardage throws, and not even on the goal line.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the opions were limited and the thing they did not want was a turnover. There was plenty of time on the clock.

Obviously, a INT doesn't help at all, but neither does being so obvious as lining up in formation (someone else called it 'heavy jumbo') which so obviously telegraphed the call, especially at the 3 yard line. We'll never know how a run from a different formation would've worked, but it's just so bitter to see the team get to the 3(!) and not get the go-ahead TD.

I agree with that.

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

iggles post game thread