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

VetSkinsFan wrote:I agree completely. You can't fault a man who is trying to make something happen, and that's what he did. As he said in his postgame, boneheaded, yes. Decided the game? Not even close.


On a side note, think how awesome it would have been to have Kendall get in the end zone with that!!

I agree. He might have said it was boneheaded but personally I think it was heads up. Should he have fallen on the ball? Maybe but, the way I look at it, he was trying to make something happen and hes is not to blame. If I was going to blame one Redskin who was consistently bad it would be our punter. No big deal maybe it was a good thing we lost. I have faith that we wont let it happen again in the next three games. I know I am new here and this is only my second post btw but, I have to say this forum was worth registering at and I am happy to be here. Please forgive my spelling if I mess that up.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

cleg wrote:

BossHog wrote:Big mistake - big man for admitting it, but while IMO it was easily the game's turning point - it shouldn't have been.

This loss, like any other, and like any WIN as well, falls on the whole team.

Equally a turning point was London Fletcher not holding on to the INT that kept the Rams drive alive in which they kicked a FG.

Unfortunatley, there were too many of these types of plays in the game. Time to move on and get ready for the Browns.

I don't see a dropped INT even remotely in the same category as a fumble for a TD...call me crazy.

Not exactly the same, but pretty close. As great as the Skins D played they made three big gaffs. Fletchers INT drop was the biggest! Moore not blitzing when he was supposed to on the 43 yard bomb to Avery. If he blitzes the Rams don't make that play nad the Skins win. The other was the first dropped int.

Granted the D played well, but had a chance to make 4 game changing plays and only made 1.

But the biggest play of the game was the Kendal catch. I won't say fumble, because once he caught the ball it was almost a certainty the he was going to fumble the ball! When you have a chance to put a bad team down by 7 to 11 points, but instead they go up 3, that is HUGE!!! The worst play of the year so far. Even worse than the Punts returned for TDs.

Kendal did earn some respect by owning up to his bone headed play.

Now lets see how they mess up the Browns game.

The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The "jumpin' off the bus" kind.

Kilmer72 wrote:I agree. He might have said it was boneheaded but personally I think it was heads up. Should he have fallen on the ball? Maybe but, the way I look at it, he was trying to make something happen and hes is not to blame. If I was going to blame one Redskin who was consistently bad it would be our punter. No big deal maybe it was a good thing we lost. I have faith that we wont let it happen again in the next three games. I know I am new here and this is only my second post btw but, I have to say this forum was worth registering at and I am happy to be here. Please forgive my spelling if I mess that up.

Welcome to the board, 72.

Pete Kendall has been the most consistent member of the O-Line since coming over from the Jets. He has no need to apologize for anything. If you score only 17 points in the NFL, you lose most game anyway.

Also, Kendall played a great game on Sunday (excluding that play). After watching the game at the stadium, I watched the game on tape to see where all the pressure was coming from, as it looked like a jailbreak on every pass play. It was apparent during my "film study" where the hole was....Jon Jansen. Leonard Little was killing him all day. Pete Kendall consistently stoned his guy and the combo of him and Samuels helped roll up on most of yards off that left side of the line.

class guy... understandable what happened, but still a lack of situational awareness on his part...

VetSkinsFan wrote:The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The defense gave up 4 field goals in the game. Really, you can't ask for more than that. Yes, it would have been nice to stop that pass to Avery, but...this loss was on the offense and the special teams.

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The defense gave up 4 field goals in the game. Really, you can't ask for more than that. Yes, it would have been nice to stop that pass to Avery, but...this loss was on the offense and the special teams.

A great D makes the play to win the game. I don't care if they give up 3 or 30 points. If they make a play at the end of a 31 - 30 game to save the game, then they had a better game then if they had gotten a safety and the team is leading 2 - 0 and they gave up a big play that sets up the game winning FG, then that game wasn't as good as the 31 - 30 game.

Yes, the Offense gave up 3 fumbles and the D got a fumble, but the D contributed to the loss by not getting 2 more turn overs to make the turn over ratio a zero instead of a -2. They also gave up the game winning play because a rookie didn't blitz when he was supposed to.

The O got the lead, the D couldn't hold it for one drive. That is all they needed to do. The rest of the game means nothing if you give up the game winner.

Just like the O could play bad all game but if they get it together at the end and make a couple of plays (see Dallas game 2005) to win the game then they did what was needed.

This is a team sport. All three phases had chances to win or lose the game and they all contributed to the loss.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Now lets see how they mess up the Browns game.

Why bother being a Skins fan? We're 4-2 and beat the Girls and Beagles on the road and STILL this is your attitude?

Whatever!

I will be a Skins fan until the day I die, but this is the point of the season where this team tradionally loses games it should win. I thought we had shaken that problem and really thought they would spank the Rams, but these are the same old Skins. It is that time of the yaer where they flounder and ruin a good season.

I really hope I'm wrong and with the Browns kicking the bat gwana out of the Gmen this team will take the Browns more serious.

LoL, #33 how much money did you lose on the last game?


Seriously though, I can't blame you for feeling the way you do about the last game. I just thought that hey, in the 4th qtr. We woke up and realized we needed a score, we scored. Yah we slacked around and let them hang on, but we outplayed them, it's not like it's a quintessential blunder that has plagued us in the past few years, we didn't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! The rams snatched a win out of our hands. It was the 3 TO that did us in, but we came roaring back and scored to get ahead, of course, them having a swish cheese run defense allowed them to get the ball back with 3 mins and change. Had they been better at stopping the run, it would've taken us longer to score. =) and we prolly would've won.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The defense gave up 4 field goals in the game. Really, you can't ask for more than that. Yes, it would have been nice to stop that pass to Avery, but...this loss was on the offense and the special teams.

A great D makes the play to win the game. I don't care if they give up 3 or 30 points. If they make a play at the end of a 31 - 30 game to save the game, then they had a better game then if they had gotten a safety and the team is leading 2 - 0 and they gave up a big play that sets up the game winning FG, then that game wasn't as good as the 31 - 30 game.

Yes, the Offense gave up 3 fumbles and the D got a fumble, but the D contributed to the loss by not getting 2 more turn overs to make the turn over ratio a zero instead of a -2. They also gave up the game winning play because a rookie didn't blitz when he was supposed to.

The O got the lead, the D couldn't hold it for one drive. That is all they needed to do. The rest of the game means nothing if you give up the game winner.

Just like the O could play bad all game but if they get it together at the end and make a couple of plays (see Dallas game 2005) to win the game then they did what was needed.

This is a team sport. All three phases had chances to win or lose the game and they all contributed to the loss.

Wow, what a lopsided attitude. The defense went with it's average of 1 turnover per game. The defense held to it's average points for opponents. The defense held to average yards allowed per game. Expecting the defense to score in any game is actually kinda silly.

The offense, on the other hand, gave up 3 turnovers that they haven't done all year. That's 3 turnovers in 1 game when there were 0 turnovers by the offense the rest of the year.


The xfactor in this equation is the offense.

I can see why you hold ONE play against the defense and deeming them the losing cause. Thank you, sir, for the wonderful insight.

frankcal20 wrote:I wanted to say that its nice to see a guy step up and take the credit for the loss even though it was not exclusively his fault. The whole team could have done more from where I am standing and more guys should step up and talk about what they did not do today to help this team win.

AMEN.

How about ey stepping up and saying: "I screwed up. I should know better than changing the ball from one hand to the other in the middle of a tackle".

I do not know about you guys but I can -always- remember several key plays where miscues by Chris, such as a dropped pass or a fumble, cost us a key offensive drive or even a game at a critical moment. He is a great player but I always feel that everything will go to the dogs after a screwed up play by him.

It is probably unfair to expect him to be our clutch player but in my mind he is (or should be IMHO).

VetSkinsFan wrote:I can see why you hold ONE play against the defense and deeming them the losing cause. Thank you, sir, for the wonderful insight.

I agree with you VSF. But I will qualify it.

If Torrance was STUPID enough to run his mouth on the face of the head coach of the Rams (it should have been an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty), if he wants to TALK THE TALK, then he better WALK THE FRIGGING WALK.

He got burned. Everybody in the darn stadium and the whole of us in the TV audience knew how many yards were needed. He could have played a bit deeper and/or smarter. He could have had help from a safety too.

This was a game that the RAMS earned. But we helped them win with our mistakes. It's football folks. Personally, I actually feel that there is a lot positive from this defeat. Many of you now know that this was a reality check and all that talk about super bowl is going to take second place to a fight every single week from now on.

Fortunately, two other division opponents lost stupid games too. It is a four-way race for the playoffs ... AGAIN.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:I wanted to say that its nice to see a guy step up and take the credit for the loss even though it was not exclusively his fault. The whole team could have done more from where I am standing and more guys should step up and talk about what they did not do today to help this team win.

AMEN.

How about ey stepping up and saying: "I screwed up. I should know better than changing the ball from one hand to the other in the middle of a tackle".

I do not know about you guys but I can -always- remember several key plays where miscues by Chris, such as a dropped pass or a fumble, cost us a key offensive drive or even a game at a critical moment. He is a great player but I always feel that everything will go to the dogs after a screwed up play by him.

It is probably unfair to expect him to be our clutch player but in my mind he is (or should be IMHO).

Not unfair at all... fact is, when they need a play, they look for ey. That is the definition of a clutch player.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The defense gave up 4 field goals in the game. Really, you can't ask for more than that. Yes, it would have been nice to stop that pass to Avery, but...this loss was on the offense and the special teams.

A great D makes the play to win the game. I don't care if they give up 3 or 30 points. If they make a play at the end of a 31 - 30 game to save the game, then they had a better game then if they had gotten a safety and the team is leading 2 - 0 and they gave up a big play that sets up the game winning FG, then that game wasn't as good as the 31 - 30 game.

Yes, the Offense gave up 3 fumbles and the D got a fumble, but the D contributed to the loss by not getting 2 more turn overs to make the turn over ratio a zero instead of a -2. They also gave up the game winning play because a rookie didn't blitz when he was supposed to.

The O got the lead, the D couldn't hold it for one drive. That is all they needed to do. The rest of the game means nothing if you give up the game winner.

Just like the O could play bad all game but if they get it together at the end and make a couple of plays (see Dallas game 2005) to win the game then they did what was needed.

This is a team sport. All three phases had chances to win or lose the game and they all contributed to the loss.

Wow, what a lopsided attitude. The defense went with it's average of 1 turnover per game. The defense held to it's average points for opponents. The defense held to average yards allowed per game. Expecting the defense to score in any game is actually kinda silly.

The offense, on the other hand, gave up 3 turnovers that they haven't done all year. That's 3 turnovers in 1 game when there were 0 turnovers by the offense the rest of the year.


The xfactor in this equation is the offense.

I can see why you hold ONE play against the defense and deeming them the losing cause. Thank you, sir, for the wonderful insight.

First, it wasn't one play, it was three. Two dropped INTs and a rookie mistake (Moore didn't blitz when he should have).

Second, just because I put partial blame on the D doesn't mean it was their fault. I just don't think they should get off scott free like some here.
The Offense made way too many mistakes, but when push came to shove, they got the lead with less than 4 minutes to pley. The D didn't get the ball back. If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't. Yes, if the O had played better in the first half the game wouldn't have came down to a last minute stand. Off cours, if the D had held on to either of the picks they had, the game would have been different too.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The defense gave up 4 field goals in the game. Really, you can't ask for more than that. Yes, it would have been nice to stop that pass to Avery, but...this loss was on the offense and the special teams.

A great D makes the play to win the game. I don't care if they give up 3 or 30 points. If they make a play at the end of a 31 - 30 game to save the game, then they had a better game then if they had gotten a safety and the team is leading 2 - 0 and they gave up a big play that sets up the game winning FG, then that game wasn't as good as the 31 - 30 game.

Yes, the Offense gave up 3 fumbles and the D got a fumble, but the D contributed to the loss by not getting 2 more turn overs to make the turn over ratio a zero instead of a -2. They also gave up the game winning play because a rookie didn't blitz when he was supposed to.

The O got the lead, the D couldn't hold it for one drive. That is all they needed to do. The rest of the game means nothing if you give up the game winner.

Just like the O could play bad all game but if they get it together at the end and make a couple of plays (see Dallas game 2005) to win the game then they did what was needed.

This is a team sport. All three phases had chances to win or lose the game and they all contributed to the loss.

Wow, what a lopsided attitude. The defense went with it's average of 1 turnover per game. The defense held to it's average points for opponents. The defense held to average yards allowed per game. Expecting the defense to score in any game is actually kinda silly.

The offense, on the other hand, gave up 3 turnovers that they haven't done all year. That's 3 turnovers in 1 game when there were 0 turnovers by the offense the rest of the year.


The xfactor in this equation is the offense.

I can see why you hold ONE play against the defense and deeming them the losing cause. Thank you, sir, for the wonderful insight.

First, it wasn't one play, it was three. Two dropped INTs and a rookie mistake (Moore didn't blitz when he should have).

Second, just because I put partial blame on the D doesn't mean it was their fault. I just don't think they should get off scott free like some here.
The Offense made way too many mistakes, but when push came to shove, they got the lead with less than 4 minutes to pley. The D didn't get the ball back. If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't. Yes, if the O had played better in the first half the game wouldn't have came down to a last minute stand. Off cours, if the D had held on to either of the picks they had, the game would have been different too.

The defense played their normal game. They didn't play exceptionally well, they didn't play exceptionally bad, average based on their performance this year. The defense dropped their normal amount of INTs and the skins, in other games this season with this non-abnormal performance, could still pull out the win.

The offense played their average this year EXCEPT they gave up THREE more balls than they have all year. Overall, with all above actors included, it was in fact the offense that played differently.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:The offense turns the ball over three times and the defense gets blamed? What kind of logic is that?

The defense gave up 4 field goals in the game. Really, you can't ask for more than that. Yes, it would have been nice to stop that pass to Avery, but...this loss was on the offense and the special teams.

A great D makes the play to win the game. I don't care if they give up 3 or 30 points. If they make a play at the end of a 31 - 30 game to save the game, then they had a better game then if they had gotten a safety and the team is leading 2 - 0 and they gave up a big play that sets up the game winning FG, then that game wasn't as good as the 31 - 30 game.

Yes, the Offense gave up 3 fumbles and the D got a fumble, but the D contributed to the loss by not getting 2 more turn overs to make the turn over ratio a zero instead of a -2. They also gave up the game winning play because a rookie didn't blitz when he was supposed to.

The O got the lead, the D couldn't hold it for one drive. That is all they needed to do. The rest of the game means nothing if you give up the game winner.

Just like the O could play bad all game but if they get it together at the end and make a couple of plays (see Dallas game 2005) to win the game then they did what was needed.

This is a team sport. All three phases had chances to win or lose the game and they all contributed to the loss.

Wow, what a lopsided attitude. The defense went with it's average of 1 turnover per game. The defense held to it's average points for opponents. The defense held to average yards allowed per game. Expecting the defense to score in any game is actually kinda silly.

The offense, on the other hand, gave up 3 turnovers that they haven't done all year. That's 3 turnovers in 1 game when there were 0 turnovers by the offense the rest of the year.


The xfactor in this equation is the offense.

I can see why you hold ONE play against the defense and deeming them the losing cause. Thank you, sir, for the wonderful insight.

First, it wasn't one play, it was three. Two dropped INTs and a rookie mistake (Moore didn't blitz when he should have).

Second, just because I put partial blame on the D doesn't mean it was their fault. I just don't think they should get off scott free like some here.
The Offense made way too many mistakes, but when push came to shove, they got the lead with less than 4 minutes to pley. The D didn't get the ball back. If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't. Yes, if the O had played better in the first half the game wouldn't have came down to a last minute stand. Off cours, if the D had held on to either of the picks they had, the game would have been different too.

The defense played their normal game. They didn't play exceptionally well, they didn't play exceptionally bad, average based on their performance this year. The defense dropped their normal amount of INTs and the skins, in other games this season with this non-abnormal performance, could still pull out the win.

The offense played their average this year EXCEPT they gave up THREE more balls than they have all year. Overall, with all above actors included, it was in fact the offense that played differently.

So what? I said the Offense played the worst! You can't admit that the D even shares some of the blame?

skinsfan#33 wrote:If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

Agreed, and all three do share blame (the team lost, after all...). However, the offense was far more responsible. See below.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't.

Disagree. The offense scored 17 points on a team that had been giving up 30 a game before that. In reality, the offense had 1 sustained drive that produced a TD. Sure, it was great to have it at the end of the game to take the lead, but it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. Really, I'd argue that one TD drive against the worst defense in football is not making plays, it's severely underperforming.

PulpExposure wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

Agreed, and all three do share blame (the team lost, after all...). However, the offense was far more responsible. See below.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't.

Disagree. The offense scored 17 points on a team that had been giving up 30 a game before that. In reality, the offense had 1 sustained drive that produced a TD. Sure, it was great to have it at the end of the game to take the lead, but it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. Really, I'd argue that one TD drive against the worst defense in football is not making plays, it's severely underperforming.

I agree Pulp.

Redskin in Canada wrote:If Torrance was STUPID enough to run his mouth on the face of the head coach of the Rams (it should have been an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty), if he wants to TALK THE TALK, then he better WALK THE FRIGGING WALK.

What did Torrence say to Haslett? I mean, you must know, the way you are railing on him for "talking the talk," right? Because if you don't know what was said, and still made that statement, I'd have to say you are just bitching to try and make yourself feel better. Won't help.

PulpExposure wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

Agreed, and all three do share blame (the team lost, after all...). However, the offense was far more responsible. See below.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't.

Disagree. The offense scored 17 points on a team that had been giving up 30 a game before that. In reality, the offense had 1 sustained drive that produced a TD. Sure, it was great to have it at the end of the game to take the lead, but it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. Really, I'd argue that one TD drive against the worst defense in football is not making plays, it's severely underperforming.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I understand were most people are coming from and I can't say that your wrong. However, the O got the lead (on a bad team) and the D gave up the game winning drive (to a bad team!).

So this is my last post on this subject. I understand what you and Vetskinsfan are saying and yes the O was far more responsible, but the D could have won the game too and they didn't. A great D would not have surrendered that final 3 points.

Why do you think JZ went for it on forth down in some of our previous games? He didn't want to give the other teams O a chance to win the game (or our D a chance to lose it). A great D never let them cross the 50 in that situation. Our D is just not great, yet! And obviously the O is still a work in progress.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

Agreed, and all three do share blame (the team lost, after all...). However, the offense was far more responsible. See below.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't.

Disagree. The offense scored 17 points on a team that had been giving up 30 a game before that. In reality, the offense had 1 sustained drive that produced a TD. Sure, it was great to have it at the end of the game to take the lead, but it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. Really, I'd argue that one TD drive against the worst defense in football is not making plays, it's severely underperforming.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I understand were most people are coming from and I can't say that your wrong. However, the O got the lead (on a bad team) and the D gave up the game winning drive (to a bad team!).

So this is my last post on this subject. I understand what you and Vetskinsfan are saying and yes the O was far more responsible, but the D could have won the game too and they didn't. A great D would not have surrendered that final 3 points.

Why do you think JZ went for it on forth down in some of our previous games? He didn't want to give the other teams O a chance to win the game (or our D a chance to lose it). A great D never let them cross the 50 in that situation. Our D is just not great, yet! And obviously the O is still a work in progress.

What a ludicrous statement:

A great D never let them cross the 50 in that situation.

Very few defenses hold ANY team in their own half of the field the entire game. Don't you think that's the general plan EVERY drive? I can't see Blache telling Fletcher and the boys, " Let them get in our side of the field this drive. I'm feeling kinda generous."

skinsfan#33 wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:If I had to rank ho wthey played overall the defense was the best of the three units, followed by the O, and ST last.

Agreed, and all three do share blame (the team lost, after all...). However, the offense was far more responsible. See below.

However, The O made the plays when they needed to, the D didn't.

Disagree. The offense scored 17 points on a team that had been giving up 30 a game before that. In reality, the offense had 1 sustained drive that produced a TD. Sure, it was great to have it at the end of the game to take the lead, but it never should have gotten to that point in the first place. Really, I'd argue that one TD drive against the worst defense in football is not making plays, it's severely underperforming.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I understand were most people are coming from and I can't say that your wrong. However, the O got the lead (on a bad team) and the D gave up the game winning drive (to a bad team!).

So this is my last post on this subject. I understand what you and Vetskinsfan are saying and yes the O was far more responsible, but the D could have won the game too and they didn't. A great D would not have surrendered that final 3 points.

Why do you think JZ went for it on forth down in some of our previous games? He didn't want to give the other teams O a chance to win the game (or our D a chance to lose it). A great D never let them cross the 50 in that situation. Our D is just not great, yet! And obviously the O is still a work in progress.

You have an impossible standard for a great defense, the defense allowed 200 yards of offense and 12 points, they did not allow an offensive touchdown. Nine of those points came on drives where the Rams started on their 38 yard line, their 42 yard line and the Redskins 33 yard line. If that isn't great, stop watching, you're never going to see great.

The thread is getting further and further off-topic - it is supposed to be about Pete Kendall. If you guys want to have a conversation about whether the offense or defense had more of an affect on the outcome of the game, then please just start another thread... or post it in the post-game...

Thanks.

d'oh ... I actually thought I was replying in the post-game thread