Name the 1 (singular) play that cost us the game

[RayNAustin]

As everyone surely agrees, there were several botched plays (as usual) from the offense. And they've ben doing this regularly to open games which puts the Skins in a hole both in points and psychologically.

Rather than try to select one play that cost us .. the better question would be which single factor cost us the game. And that would be relatively easy to pin down.

Jason "deer in headlights" Campbell would be that factor ... then I'd have to say weakness on the o-line .. and special teams 3rd.

The good news is that the defense showed no quit out thee in spite of all of the bad spots the offense and special teams put them in ... (ignoring Rogers and Landry's sub-par play).

I'm left with the conclusion that the Skins wasted 3 1st round picks in Campbell, Rogers, and Landry ... and what a difference it would be to this team had these picks been three solid star players.

[chiefhog44]

I'd say the play when Westbrook had a concussion. Had he stayed in the game, we would have been beaten even worse, and had that happened, Snyder would have fired Vinny this week. So that play alone really cost because now we have to live with this baffoon all year

[redskincity]

ARE should be cut.. He cant catch, or return punts..

Man why did you sign this guy Vinny???

[DEHog]

ARE should be cut.. He cant catch, or return punts..

Man why did you sign this guy Vinny???

After the first seven weeks of this season do you really think Vinny has ever had a say...Snyder has fired people for so much less...this is Snyder teams top to bottom.

[Bob 0119]

There were several as many have mentioned, but I think the muffed punt was a spirit crusher. We scored, the D forced a three-an-out and we muff the punt.

I voted for the Campbell interception, but I agree with this.

The 'Skins had all the momentum at this point and while that muffed punt may have only counted as three of the 13 points we gave them, it was a momentum killer.

[riggofan]

Yeah I had to vote for the ARE play. Felt like we had some momentum going, that play was a punch in the gut.

[markshark84]

The 3 turnovers are what killed us. take away points off of our stupid mistakes and we win 17-14.

That isn't the way it works. Do you really think that we would have scored that final TD with 1:30 left in the game had the score been 10-14? No chance. That was a gift from the eagles.

The eagles were the better team (by far) on the field last night. Regardless of the score, there wasn't a chance we were going to win last night. The current score predicts the plays. Had the score been 10-14, the defensive fronts would have been different; JC would have been doing his normal checking off of the receivers and dumping the ball to either Davis or a RB. The game would have been totally different. THis game was over at half and everyone knew it. Did you see the eagles players trotting in at half? They were joking and laughing like there was 1 minute left in the game and they were up by 30.

Total speculation mark. Momentum shift in a funny way. The game plan changed once you're 17 pts down, so almost everything woulda been different. Nice try, though.

Not sure if you read into what I was saying or perhaps I didn't make the statement as clear as I should have, but that is to a degree the point I was trying to make, except for the fact that, all in all, the eagles are a better team. You can't say that had we not turned the ball over, we would have won. That isn't the way it works. And, because the eagles were a better team, the propensity for them to win is higher.

[VetSkinsFan]

I do believe we could have won that game without turnovers. The Eagles weren't nearly aggressive until they had the lead. If it was a closer game, they wouldn't have been so aggressive and possibly given JC a better chance.

JC was doing noticeably better than in previous weeks IMO. And counting his garbage yards, he did have 284 yds passing. Considering we CAN compare it to other garbage weeks, he did fairly well if the TOs were eliminated. Not great, but serviceable.

[redskincity]

ARE should be cut.. He cant catch, or return punts..

Man why did you sign this guy Vinny???

After the first seven weeks of this season do you really think Vinny has ever had a say...Snyder has fired people for so much less...this is Snyder teams top to bottom.

Oh I forgot, Vinny was just the Yes man..

[markshark84]

I do believe we could have won that game without turnovers. The Eagles weren't nearly aggressive until they had the lead. If it was a closer game, they wouldn't have been so aggressive and possibly given JC a better chance.

JC was doing noticeably better than in previous weeks IMO. And counting his garbage yards, he did have 284 yds passing. Considering we CAN compare it to other garbage weeks, he did fairly well if the TOs were eliminated. Not great, but serviceable.

I think that his 2 TOs killed the team and momentum (especially for the defense). Our offense, discounting for points off offensive TOs, only scored 7 points -- with that TD coming when the game was essentially over. Again, JC did his best when the game had already been decided.

Yards passing isn't a great indicator of how a QB plays. JC had 340 against Detroit and I wouldn't say that was one of his better games. He missed a number of wide open receivers and consistently dumped the ball off. I was disappointed in his decision-making on 3rd downs --- consistently throwing the ball well short of the first down marker. He did do a better job with pressure, but he gave up and accepted sacks on certain plays AND he threw the ball away a number of times when there was no pressure.

All in all, I would say that had you taken away the TOs his efforts would have been "servicable", BUT if you take into account his actual performance (especially because the type of TOs he made yesterday are consistent with his typical week-to-week performance; after all, he has 7 INTs and 10 fumbles (3 lost) in 7 games), it was not what you would expect from a first round, starting QB. Therefore, if JC had made NO mistakes, he would have been servicable, but, to me, that doesn't cut it. I don't want a servicable QB at best.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

I know that there are a few that stick out but which play do you thin cost us the game

You missed it, it's not on this list. We'd lost when they scored the first TD and built an insurmountable seven point lead in the first quarter over our O.

Agreed. There should be an OTHER option to this poll.

My tiny bit of Monday Night excitement was quickly shattered when the stalwart of this team, our defense, looked inept against on an end-around.

An end-around!!!???

The rest of the game should have been played with "Yakety Sax" playing in the background.

[old-timer]

I do believe we could have won that game without turnovers. The Eagles weren't nearly aggressive until they had the lead. If it was a closer game, they wouldn't have been so aggressive and possibly given JC a better chance.

JC was doing noticeably better than in previous weeks IMO. And counting his garbage yards, he did have 284 yds passing. Considering we CAN compare it to other garbage weeks, he did fairly well if the TOs were eliminated. Not great, but serviceable.

Even though many agree that Jason Campbell is slow for a pro QB, with suspect accuracy on the deep ball, he MIGHT be good enough (and I don't mean good on an absolute level) to lead this team to some respectable records PROVIDED the FO had a clue what they were doing, i.e., built an offensive line to protect the QB and give us a running game. Since we all know the FO is incompetent, we'll probably never know how good Jason Campbell could have been here with proper support.

The other thing about Campbell that just seems missing is the desire to win. I've never seen a QB that just plain seemed satisfied to dump off the ball short on 3rd and long, time after time after time after time...The dude just seems to take no chances. And turnover prone...sheesh.

[Champsturf]

I do believe we could have won that game without turnovers. The Eagles weren't nearly aggressive until they had the lead. If it was a closer game, they wouldn't have been so aggressive and possibly given JC a better chance.

JC was doing noticeably better than in previous weeks IMO. And counting his garbage yards, he did have 284 yds passing. Considering we CAN compare it to other garbage weeks, he did fairly well if the TOs were eliminated. Not great, but serviceable.

Even though many agree that Jason Campbell is slow for a pro QB, with suspect accuracy on the deep ball, he MIGHT be good enough (and I don't mean good on an absolute level) to lead this team to some respectable records PROVIDED the FO had a clue what they were doing, i.e., built an offensive line to protect the QB and give us a running game. Since we all know the FO is incompetent, we'll probably never know how good Jason Campbell could have been here with proper support.

The other thing about Campbell that just seems missing is the desire to win. I've never seen a QB that just plain seemed satisfied to dump off the ball short on 3rd and long, time after time after time after time...The dude just seems to take no chances. And turnover prone...sheesh.

First, you defend Campbell, saying it's the front offiice not giving him a proper OLine then you basically say that he's garbage? Take a stand!

[VetSkinsFan]

I do believe we could have won that game without turnovers. The Eagles weren't nearly aggressive until they had the lead. If it was a closer game, they wouldn't have been so aggressive and possibly given JC a better chance.

JC was doing noticeably better than in previous weeks IMO. And counting his garbage yards, he did have 284 yds passing. Considering we CAN compare it to other garbage weeks, he did fairly well if the TOs were eliminated. Not great, but serviceable.

I think that his 2 TOs killed the team and momentum (especially for the defense). Our offense, discounting for points off offensive TOs, only scored 7 points -- with that TD coming when the game was essentially over. Again, JC did his best when the game had already been decided.

Yards passing isn't a great indicator of how a QB plays. JC had 340 against Detroit and I wouldn't say that was one of his better games. He missed a number of wide open receivers and consistently dumped the ball off. I was disappointed in his decision-making on 3rd downs --- consistently throwing the ball well short of the first down marker. He did do a better job with pressure, but he gave up and accepted sacks on certain plays AND he threw the ball away a number of times when there was no pressure.

All in all, I would say that had you taken away the TOs his efforts would have been "servicable", BUT if you take into account his actual performance (especially because the type of TOs he made yesterday are consistent with his typical week-to-week performance; after all, he has 7 INTs and 10 fumbles (3 lost) in 7 games), it was not what you would expect from a first round, starting QB. Therefore, if JC had made NO mistakes, he would have been servicable, but, to me, that doesn't cut it. I don't want a servicable QB at best.

I don't count Rabach's botched snap on JC. He obviously thought JC was under center. There was another one that hit him in the knee and we know that JC has a problem getting low. Rabach is experienced enough where these things shouldn't be happening.

The strip from behind was on a sprained ankle and he was tryin to make something happen. It happens. The INT I don't put on JC, really, either. The Dline got pressure and got blocked the pass.

But I agree, without context, yes, he had a bad day. He wasn't as accurate as he needed to be, but McNubb wasn't that accurate with a good amount of bad passes and they won, so don't put all the blame on JC.