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

curveball wrote:

OL Eagles Cowboys, Redskins Giants.
Blame coaching all you'd like, but Thomas was the only decent Skins o-lineman last season. The Giants O line may surprise some if they stay healthy.

You cant be serious, look at the Boys rushing stats. What a joke? At least we can blame the college system we were running. What is your excuse??


Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. Dallas beat Washington in Rushing Yards, Yards per Attempt, and Rushing First Downs. What other rushing statistic would you have me look at.

You better check the facts because as far as running backs are concerned our YPG is 3.96 while Dallas' 3.85 per ESPN statistics. Another important fact is that we lost our left guard at the start of the season while the starting center was out half of the season. The left tackle missed about a quarter of the season. Look at our injuries to the running backs and consider our Coach never let the oline developing any kind of run blocking chemistry. Yet through all this we somehow came out with similar rush stats. Your coach tried to run the ball from the onset of the season but ours never did. You will find out soon how good our oline is when Gibbs gives them the opportunity to succeed, something they never had under Spurrier.

My thing is that some people have the physical makeup to handle certain hits/falls/whatever and Ramsey is over Detmer on that. I always though that their 3rd string was better thats why he is in Miami now.

I'm going to assume you didn't see the injury. It has nothing to do with physical makeup and everything to do with not trying to break your fall when you're being sacked.

Yeah i saw the hit. I'm sure now he wished that he wouldnt have tried to break the fall. What im trying to say is that when a person is in better shape they can take hits or their body is able to withstand more than others. So whats your take, would you prefer Ramsey or Detmer?

Oh, I think Ramsey could easily be a great QB if given half a chance. I'm just saying Koy isn't all that fragile.

kkryan wrote:You better check the facts because as far as running backs are concerned our YPG is 3.96 while Dallas' 3.85 per ESPN statistics. Another important fact is that we lost our left guard at the start of the season while the starting center was out half of the season. The left tackle missed about a quarter of the season. Look at our injuries to the running backs and consider our Coach never let the oline developing any kind of run blocking chemistry. Yet through all this we somehow came out with similar rush stats. Your coach tried to run the ball from the onset of the season but ours never did. You will find out soon how good our oline is when Gibbs gives them the opportunity to succeed, something they never had under Spurrier.

According to NFL.com, the Cowboys had a higher yards per rush than the Redskins. This even with the worst starting running back in the NFL, if not NFL history.

Nice attempt to spin it however. You implied that Dallas had inferior production in the running game and were proven wrong.

Now it's injuries and poor coaching. Dallas had almost equal injuries along the O-line. Losing their starting center before the season even started, losing their RT and having several injuries hamper perhaps the best lineman in NFL history.

Are these "poor" coaches the same ones that you guys were praising less than a year ago? But it's different now because???

OK Curveball...get it out now. This year is going to be a very different story. Our OL is now in the hands of Bugel and with addition of Portis anyone with half a brain would say that we have a slight edge over the Cowboys. Who cares what happened last season. We finally have a real coach that understands the importance of establishing a running game. Only time will tell...but my money is on Portis not Hambrick.

curveball wrote:

kkryan wrote:You better check the facts because as far as running backs are concerned our YPG is 3.96 while Dallas' 3.85 per ESPN statistics. Another important fact is that we lost our left guard at the start of the season while the starting center was out half of the season. The left tackle missed about a quarter of the season. Look at our injuries to the running backs and consider our Coach never let the oline developing any kind of run blocking chemistry. Yet through all this we somehow came out with similar rush stats. Your coach tried to run the ball from the onset of the season but ours never did. You will find out soon how good our oline is when Gibbs gives them the opportunity to succeed, something they never had under Spurrier.

According to NFL.com, the Cowboys had a higher yards per rush than the Redskins. This even with the worst starting running back in the NFL, if not NFL history.

Nice attempt to spin it however. You implied that Dallas had inferior production in the running game and were proven wrong.

Now it's injuries and poor coaching. Dallas had almost equal injuries along the O-line. Losing their starting center before the season even started, losing their RT and having several injuries hamper perhaps the best lineman in NFL history.

Are these "poor" coaches the same ones that you guys were praising less than a year ago? But it's different now because???

The RUNNING BACK ypg not the team rushing ypg which includes the qb and wr. All I was saying is Parcells tried to run it every game with limited success while Spurrier never tried to run it and our stats were pretty much identical to yalls. And speking of spinning it, I guess its Hambrick's fault you couldnt run and not the oline. I never praised any of the prior coaches!!

I think the Skins offense will be much better then the Boy and Giants. The Eagle offense can be good IF McMeat is effective.

I can't beleive you Boy fan keep praising QC as your QB. I beleive what you saw of QC last year is the best you will see from him. I just don't see him being anything but a back-up QB for all team except for the Bolts. As for Hutchingson, I havent seen anything special from him. Yes in 2002 he was pumbled alot thats maybe why he was so shell shock. Henson, he maybe a good QB or he might be a bust. In college is was a very good QB but that doesn't mean anythink. We all have seen great QB in college but were bust in the NFL. Remember, he has been out of football for 3 years so don't espect much, if anythink, from him this year.

While I realize that someone who might have only seen Hambrick run against the Redskins might believe that he actually has some talent, blades of grass and turf monsters tackled him more than opposing defenses. Two words: HE S#CKS. He does many things well, such as pick up the blitz and play on special teams, he cannot run with the football.

The coaching remark wasn't aimed at you, but rather some of your brothers in arms (side note: one of the ten best albums of all time).

Everyone keeps mentioning "Bugel" with a certain reverance. When I hear that name, I picture the inept over-matched coach of the Cardinals.

There's two ways to look at it. Either Bugel is one of the greatest O-line coaches in football history, or you can believe as I do, that "The Hogs" were probably the best O-line man for man the NFL's seen in the last 30 years.

The fact that Barry Switzer is out there somewhere wearing a Super Bowl ring kind of swayed my opinion.

QB: Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Cowboys.
McNabb is seriously overrated. It doesn't matter who he has at receiver, he isn't accurate enough to be playing in a west coast offense. He should be in an option offense (which would work in the nfl). I didn't see Collins play much this year, but from what I have seen of him in the past, he is definitely better than McNabb. If Drew Henson can develop, the Cowboys could be on the top of this list in a few years.

HB: Redskins, Giants, Eagles, Cowboys.
The Redskins don't have any depth, but they do have the best starter. The Eagles would be second, but because Staley left, they have too many questions. The Cowboys have absolutely no one.

FB: Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins.
The Cowboys have a versatile player in Richie Anderson and a good run blocker in Jamar Martin. I have absolutely no idea who the fullbacks are for the Giants and Redskins so they tie for 3rd.

WR: Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, Eagles.
The swap of Galloway for Johnson is a downgrade in terms of talent but an upgrade in terms of production. The Cowboys have three solid receivers. The Eagles still only have one receiver worth a damn.

TE: Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, Redskins.
The Cowboys get the nod due to depth. Campbell is a solid blocker and Witten really developed as maybe the Cowboys best receiving option towards the end of the year. The Giants would have been first but Shockey drops too many passes.

OL: Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins, Giants.
This is actually a pretty mediocre division when it comes to offensive lines. I know many of you may disagree with this, but the Redskins line isn't very good. You have the false start twins starting at both tackle positions, and no center. Last years performance may very well have been worse than the Cowboys' in 2002.

DL: Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins.
The Eagles have the slight advantage, although Kearse is one of the more overrated players in the league. Has any player gotten more out of one season than Kearse? The Giants really only have Strahan and the Redskins don't really have anyone that is all that good. Griffin hasn't been very good since 2000.

LB: Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Giants.
This is a tie for first between the Cowboys and Redskins. Dat Nguyen is one of the better linebackers in the league, and proved it last year. The Redskins aren't first because they are getting rid of Trotter and don't have a MLB. Also, for all his talent, Arrington hasn't even come close to reaching his potential and is one of the more overrated players in the league. At least Kearse had a good NFL season. Arrington has gotten all of his hype from what he did in college.

CB: Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, Giants.
The Cowboys are first for only one reason. Terance Newman. They would have been third, but the Redskins traded Bailey, and the Eagles didn't resign Taylor and Vincent.

S: Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Redskins.
The Cowboys have a great tandem in Williams and Woodson. Dawkins is a great player for the Eagles. The Redskins and Giants don't have anyone.

I agree that Hambrick was the worst starter in the league last year. And the thing that is so frustrating about it is that the problem isn't talent, its toughness. Not only that, it isn't toughness in blocking, its toughness in running. Hambrick is one of the better backs at picking up the blitz. Countless times last year he completely stoned linebackers at the LOS. But he also frequently fell down rather than get hit by cornerbacks.

This is actually a pretty mediocre division when it comes to offensive lines. I know many of you may disagree with this, but the Redskins line isn't very good. You have the false start twins starting at both tackle positions, and no center. Last years performance may very well have been worse than the Cowboys' in 2002.

How can you say that?? There oline averaged 4.8 yards per carry. There coach just does't run the ball that much

DL: Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Redskins.
The Eagles have the slight advantage, although Kearse is one of the more overrated players in the league. Has any player gotten more out of one season than Kearse? The Giants really only have Strahan and the Redskins don't really have anyone that is all that good. Griffin hasn't been very good since 2000.

There dline is awesome, it is the strength of the team. They had so many injuries last year and still were good. They lost one player to the 49ers via the Owens trade but they will be great again next year since they added a true pass rusher in Kearse!!

Arrington has gotten all of his hype from what he did in college.

Hardly, when Marvin Lewis was dcoorinator Arrington had an eleven sack season.

CB: Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, Giants.
The Cowboys are first for only one reason. Terance Newman. They would have been third, but the Redskins traded Bailey, and the Eagles didn't resign Taylor and Vincent.

Why is Newman so good?? He got abused several times last year. Fred Smoot played better and didnt benefit from all the protection from the qb pressure.

QB: Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Cowboys.
McNabb is seriously overrated. It doesn't matter who he has at receiver, he isn't accurate enough to be playing in a west coast offense. He should be in an option offense (which would work in the nfl).

You cant be serious. The option would work in the NFL...get a clue!! He would get killed even though he is big and talented. Middle linebackers like Urlacher and Ray Lewis would put him in concussionville...like Arrington did to Aikman!

kkryan wrote:

QB: Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Cowboys.
McNabb is seriously overrated. It doesn't matter who he has at receiver, he isn't accurate enough to be playing in a west coast offense. He should be in an option offense (which would work in the nfl).

You cant be serious. The option would work in the NFL...get a clue!! He would get killed even though he is big and talented. Middle linebackers like Urlacher and Ray Lewis would put him in concussionville...like Arrington did to Aikman!

I always love it when people who know nothing about football pretend to be experts. The triple option offense is a sound offense, and it provides many advantages that the pro style offense does not. I always dismiss the argument that the quarterback would get killed. It lets me know that the person making that argument doesn't know what they are talking about, so they are content to blindly follow the media rather than think for themselves. Is this not football? Is it not a violent game? Should the Cowboys not have given the ball to Emmitt so much because he might have gotten hurt? An option quarterback is more runner than passer, so you treat him like a running back. Also, why don't you tell Troy Aikman and Steve Young that you don't get hit in the pocket. Lets just look at some of the advantages of option football.

1. 11 on 11 football instead of 10 on 11: With the qb involved in the running game, the offense essentially has an extra blocker. That means that the defense can get in an 8 man front and still not outnumber the offense. So the FS has to get involved in stopping the run. This opens up one on one matchups in the passing game. If the FS is biting on the run, the corners have no deep help, and the offense can run a backside post off of option action.

2. Easier blocking: With the triple option, the offense is eliminating two players at the point of attack without having to block them. This means that you don't have to have a physical offensive line to run the ball and control the clock.

3. Big plays: with the option you put "speed in space." You do this often enough and big plays are inevitable. The option puts an incredible amount of pressure on the defense to not screw up, because they don't have to make much a mistake for a big play to happen.

4. Larger talent pool: You don't need extremely versatile people to play in a triple option offense. Say you are running it out of the I formation. You need a quarterback that can run and that doesn't have to be an great passer. You need a fullback that can run, and doesn't have to be much of a blocker. You need a halfback with speed. You don't need a guy like Ricky Williams who has size and speed. A guy like Darren Sproles from Kansas State would be great in an option offense even though he is only 5'7".

5. It is a team offense: You are not completely reliant on having a great QB or a great RB. You can share the wealth, and the triple option offense is the epitome of "taking what the defense gives you."

6. You limit coverages and blitzes: Defense against the option are mostly going to be playing man free and cover 3. You also limit blitzing, because one wrong blitz can easily result in a big gain.

7. Limits the defenses aggressivness: You take defenses out of their element. Especially in todays game, they want to attack and get 11 men to the football. But if they have to worry about their assignment, they will be forced to play more passively.

8. It is a complete offense: The triple option is designed to attack defensive adjustments. Often pro style offenses are more a collection of random plays that don't build off of each other and take advantage of defensive adjustments.

9. It is a positive yardage offense: When you run the option you are often left with 2nd and 5 or 6, and 3rd and 3 or 4. With a pro style offense, you can often be put into long yardage situations that make it difficult to sustain an offensive drive.

10. The offense is based more on athleticism than skills: Athleticism doesn't have off days like skills do. A passing offense can be unstoppable when it is hot, but when it isn't, you are going to see a lot of three and outs. This can really wear out a defense.

So if these reasons aren't enough to convince you, please in all of your infinite wisdom, tell me why the option wouldn't work in the NFL.

Dear God, you cannot be serious. The triple option? Does NOT work in the NFL. The defenders are too fast, smart and disciplined for that to ever work. If it is so sound-proof, why hasn't it been done before? Why has no option ever existed, let alone succeeded? Maybe when you land your coaching job you can prove us all wrong.

In the NFL, the option play is nothing more than a play that might catch your opponents off-gaurd enough to gain eight yards if you run it like once every three season. Exposing Donovan McNabb to a hit every play is not worth running a college offense.

Seriously, the Fun 'N Gun is a better pro offense than the option. Get a clue indeed...

What an idiot!! The option works because you can fool less talented defensive ends. Try running an option against Reggie White, Bruce Smith, Richard Dent, or even Micheal Strahan. They would chew it up and spit it out. Quarterbacks cant absorb being tackled by 300 pound animals for a sixteen game season. I am sorry if you are so smart why hasnt any coach tried to run this offense in the NFL? Even you're boy Barry Switzer isn't that stupid!!!

The option works because a defensive end cannot take both the quarterback and the pitch man. If he can then the qb and pitch back don't have good pitch relationship. They are either too close, or the pitch back is too far behind the quarterback. The pitch back should catch the pitch heading downfield, not towards the sideline.

The reason that the option hasn't been tried is becasue NFL owners and coaches are gutless. Coaches know they won't get hired if they run the option because owners think that fans won't pay to see it. Ask any defensive coach and he'll tell you that the hardest offense to defend is the triple option offense being run with great athletes and a high level of execution.

The quarterbacks don't take nearly as much punishment as you are suggesting. Unlike pocket qbs, option qbs see the hits and are taught to give with them to soften the blow.

We already know that the fun n gun wasn't a sound system and won't work in the NFL. The option hasn't been tried yet.

I have to tell you guys, I am not impressed. Is this the best you can come up with? Can't you come up with a legitimate argument as to why the option won't work? Oh yeah, thats right. Neither of you know anything about football.

Why did Dallass go away from it with Campo?? I tell you why Quincy was getting killed even running the option as a change of pace.

Well, we've already started using the Wishbone last year. I suppose an option play or two wouldn't hurt.

Heres the thing with any option offense. All of the defensive players were drafted b/c they were experts at stopping those types of plays. If you ever played defense then when you see something for 4 years and then you see it later in life, say a college player turned pro, you will know what that it.

"The option works because a defensive end cannot take both the quarterback and the pitch man. If he can then the qb and pitch back don't have good pitch relationship. They are either too close, or the pitch back is too far behind the quarterback. The pitch back should catch the pitch heading downfield, not towards the sideline."

We know the theory behind the option offense. The point is if a team ran an option offense, defensive coordinators would have a field day picking it apart. NFL players are too smart, fast, and disciplined to be fooled by the option. It works in college because the players aren't talented enough to stop it.

If the option had any chance of being successful in the NFL, someone would have tried it. Everyone is too scared? It sounds like your argument is the one that's weak.

"I have to tell you guys, I am not impressed. Is this the best you can come up with? Can't you come up with a legitimate argument as to why the option won't work? Oh yeah, thats right. Neither of you know anything about football."

I know nothing about football because I don't believe the option offense will work in the NFL? The argument you have come up with is perfect argument for why the option should be used in high school. The NFL is a completley different animal. Don't believe me? Just ask Eric Crouch, Tommy Frazier, Michael Bishop or Woody Dantzler...

The option is not an NFL offense. Heck, it barely works in college anymore for one simple reason : SPEED.

It works when the QB and I-back have a distinct speed advantage over the defenders. It doesn't work when the DE's are running 4.7s and the LB's 4.5s.

The 5.2 DEs and 4.9 LBs that are taken advantage of are weeded out before they see the field in the NFL.

This post is going to address several of the other posts.

As far as the Cowboys running the option with Quincy Carter, you can't determine whether or not it would be successful because they were running it once or twice a game. To really be successful running the option, your offense has to be based around it, and you have to practice it. No other offense requires as much precision.

The option offense doesn't work in college today?. Have you seen what Navy and Air Force have done. They have a very limited amount of talent, yet week in and week out compete with schools that have much more talent. I guess Nebraska wasn't destroying people in the mid to late 90's with the option. Hell, there was nothing wrong with their offense only two years ago when they had Crouch. The option can be successful with a limited amount of talent, but for it to truly be explosive, it is no different than any other offense. You need great talent.

You guys keep bringing up speed, but it can be dealt with. The key is getting your blockers out to the second level on the linebackers. First off, you need to establish the fullback. You can't just do this with the triple option, you need to have some called dives. If the fullback is a threat, then the linebackers will not be so quick to get to the outside. Just getting them to freeze for a split second can often give your blockers enough time. Also misdirection is needed. Start the flow one way, and then go the other way. Your blockers have to hold their blocks a little longer, but it gives them time to get to the second level. Another way to handle speed is using different blocking assignments. For example, on the inside veer, the basic blocking scheme is the "veer" or "inside" blocking scheme. It means that the playside guard and tackle will down block. If the defense is flowing too fast, then the offense can go to the "loop" blocking scheme in which the playside guard and tackle will not down block, but will take a cutoff angle to the second level. The tackle would loop around the dive read. People say that speed kills the option, but I think that the option offense handles fast flowing defenses better than a conventional running game.

I'm going to keep saying this until you guys get it, but when a team runs the option, one defensive player cannot take away two options unless the offense is not being run correctly . I don't care how well they read and recognize, they cannot be in a position to either tackle the fullback and take the qb, or take the qb and then turn around and chase down the pitch back as he runs downfield. Even if you could find a defensive player who could do that, he wouldn't make the tackle before a substantial gain is made.

Defenses use different tactics to stop the option. They can have the pitch read slow play the qb, or they can have him take the qb hard. Option offenses practice against all of the different ways that they will be played. Slow playing can be effective if the offense cannot block the linebackers because the play will get stretched to the sideline and the qb will have no where to go. But if the offense can block the defense and the other team slow plays the qb, he will have a huge day. Hard charging the qb can force him into a quick decision, but it also means that the pitch happens very fast and the linebackers may not have time to get to the outside to stop the pitch back.

Another point I want to make is that you guys are thinking of the option as a gimmick play. It isn't. It is a complete offensive system, that has been as productive as any ever created. The goal of the option isn't to fool the defense, it is to out execute the defense.

The reason that some of the great option qbs are not qbs in the nfl is because their talents don't fit a pro style offense. Because they aren't the best passers doesn't mean that they aren't great athletes. In fact, this is another advantage of the option. You could pick up 3 or 4 starting quality qbs in the late rounds of the draft or as free agents.

Obviously this is never going to be settled. We will never see an option offense in the NFL (you say it's because owners are scared, I say it's because it is a stupid idea). Find me one coach, credible sportswriter or player who will back you up on this. Until then, I have nothing more to say about it...