Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:15 pm
by GSPODS
CanesSkins26 wrote:Truly a waste of commentary in any case since only the Redskins know the actual play called. Just because the run went to the same side and looked similar to the Portis run earlier in the game does not mean the play call was the same. The Betts run appeared to be a different formation, with different personnel and may have been designed to be run through a different gap. The offensive line blocking assignments may not have been the same. Since we don't have the playbook and to most fans, one rushing attempt to the left looks nearly identical to another, watching the tape is of no help except to confirm that the Gnats were already in the backfield before Betts attempted to turn upfield.
Gibbs, Saunders, and Portis have all said that it was the same play that CP ran earlier in the game. Gibbs' reasoning for having Betts in there instead of CP has been rather unconvincing. He said that he considers the two backs "interchangeable" (total nonsense btw) and then yesterday he said that it was Byner's decision to have Betts in there instead of CP. Saunders hasn't given a clear answer to the question that I have seen and it didn't seem like it was his decision as to which back was in the game (kind of strange since he is supposedly calling the plays). And CP said that he had no idea why he wasn't in on those plays from the 1.
That is my point. With all of this passing the buck and "I don't know" going on, are they even sure they ran the right play? It probably was the same play CP ran earlier in the game but is that the play they wanted? Nobody seems to know what in the hello was going on.
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:30 pm
by Sgraham
They lost the game, get over it.
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:17 pm
by The Hogster
If you own both a Ferrarri and a Mustang, and you're racing for your life....I'd rather lose with my Ferrarri and know that I'd been beaten, than lose with my Mustang and always wonder what if?
Sure both can go fast, but we all know the Ferrarri is better, faster, and a helluvalot more expensive....why leave it in the garage.
I think we all know who is the Ferrarri and who is the Stang..ironcially Gibbs feels they are interchangable...at least that is what he says.
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:26 pm
by GSPODS
The Hogster wrote:If you own both a Ferrarri and a Mustang, and you're racing for your life....I'd rather lose with my Ferrarri and know that I'd been beaten, than lose with my Mustang and always wonder what if?
Sure both can go fast, but we all know the Ferrarri is better, faster, and a helluvalot more expensive....why leave it in the garage.
I think we all know who is the Ferrarri and who is the Stang..ironcially Gibbs feels they are interchangable...at least that is what he says.
Maybe someone needs to advise Joe Gibbs these aren't ASCARS. You don't build them all the same and replace like for like. Besides, if Betts is Portis then why did the Redskins trade for Portis? They had other needs at the time. Sometimes this team's leadership makes me ill.
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:16 pm
by dlc
joebagadonuts wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote:When he cut back inside hole was apparently open, the outside was apparently not.
I agree with this. A step or two after Betts is handed the ball, a large hole opens over the guard. A soon as Betts makes his cut, the LB fills the hole and makes a great play. A further misfortune is that Rabach is cut immediately, whereas if he had been able to keep his feet and move left, he may have gotten enough of a chip on the LB to allow Betts to squeak through.
So I don't think Betts made a bad cut, but it wasn't the best option available. He should know to keep his eyes on the '45' on Sellers back and follow it. And it still doesn't explain why our best back wasn't in there with the game on the line.
Wait...isn't one of the major traits of an RB vision and anticipation? If I understand it right, untalented or inexperienced backs are criticized for not seeing where holes WILL BE and where they WON'T BE. It is also setting up blocks to create holes. If it were simply reacting to where it looks like you should run, why would you ever choose an older experienced back over a young physical phenom. The reason being is that anticipation and vision are skills learned. LB is a great back to hit a hole hard if it stays open, but on the goal line, a good back either makes a hole and finds it through the pileup. It's evident that some backs simply have a knack for it better than others.
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:49 pm
by funbunch
I'm not saying CP shouldn't have been in the game, or that he would have scored based on what I see in the video. If you look at the CP TD from earlier, the O-line had much better penetration and there was a huge hole to the left, thus CP followed that.
On the Betts run, the O-line didn't get as much penetration and the hole to the left wasn't as big as the one to the right, he saw the big hole to the right but probably couldn't see the Linebacker to the right about to plug the hole(with a football helmet on you lose some peripheral vision). So in Betts' defense who's to say CP wouldn't have done the same?
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:03 am
by HEROHAMO
Betts is a solid runner for us. The thing is in the second half our offense did not develop a rythym at all. Our offense went three and out four consecutive times previously.
Conservative approach, lack of execution, turnovers. We have to remember Portis did fumble the ball and gave the Giants good field position and we cant blame that on Betts?
When the game is on the line we do need to have Portis carrying the ball. Betts is still a good player for us.
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:13 pm
by joebagadonuts
dlc wrote:joebagadonuts wrote:crazyhorse1 wrote:When he cut back inside hole was apparently open, the outside was apparently not.
I agree with this. A step or two after Betts is handed the ball, a large hole opens over the guard. A soon as Betts makes his cut, the LB fills the hole and makes a great play. A further misfortune is that Rabach is cut immediately, whereas if he had been able to keep his feet and move left, he may have gotten enough of a chip on the LB to allow Betts to squeak through.
So I don't think Betts made a bad cut, but it wasn't the best option available. He should know to keep his eyes on the '45' on Sellers back and follow it. And it still doesn't explain why our best back wasn't in there with the game on the line.
Wait...isn't one of the major traits of an RB vision and anticipation? If I understand it right, untalented or inexperienced backs are criticized for not seeing where holes WILL BE and where they WON'T BE. It is also setting up blocks to create holes. If it were simply reacting to where it looks like you should run, why would you ever choose an older experienced back over a young physical phenom. The reason being is that anticipation and vision are skills learned. LB is a great back to hit a hole hard if it stays open, but on the goal line, a good back either makes a hole and finds it through the pileup. It's evident that some backs simply have a knack for it better than others.
You've hit the nail on the head. While I wouldn't call Betts 'inexperienced', I would certainly want a back like Portis, who has proven his knack for finding the hole, in there with the game on the line.
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:22 pm
by CanesSkins26
The really frustrating thing about this is that Gibbs said the reason we didn't give Sellers the ball is because he is our best lead blocker. But yet Betts decides not follow Sellers and instead cut back inside and got stuffed. That whole series was a debacle.