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

grampi wrote:Maybe one of you can explain this to me, but I don't understand why our D always plays so far off the receivers. The entire game, the Rams always had at least one receiver wide open. Is the plan there to just hope their receivers drop the the ball? What are they trying to accomplish with this scheme, other than to allow opposing defenses to march down the field?

That's what we didn't do last week ... we played press coverage and man to man almost entirely, and it worked. Why we would switch and play a soft zone, and stay in it all game long, even as we were being dissected like a medical corpse, defies explanation. I hate .... HATE soft zone defense. It's the old "prevent defense" ... and all it does is prevent you from winning.

What went into this decision? Does Hasslett think that the Rams offense is better than N.O. ? Bradford better than Brees? I mean, that's really the big mystery to me.

And WHY .... WHY would you even try to kick a 62 yard field goal with this kicker? Had we kept Gano, I could see trying it ... but not Condiff ... he was terrible last year outside the 45.

Sometimes this team seems to be coached by amateurs.

Bob 0119 wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe one of you can explain this to me, but I don't understand why our D always plays so far off the receivers. The entire game, the Rams always had at least one receiver wide open. Is the plan there to just hope their receivers drop the the ball? What are they trying to accomplish with this scheme, other than to allow opposing defenses to march down the field?

I don't know. I've always hated that as well. Used to drive me crazy when Greg Williams used it all the time and here I was screaming about it tonight.

Yep, but sometimes, Williams left his DBs one on one against the teams best receivers and we all saw the results. Overlly blitz happy DCs win some impressive games, but they tend to lose games that could have been won with a tailored plan. We live by the blitz and die by it gets old.

Things that are on 980 right now.

Haslett made adjustments, and it showed in the 2nd qtr. The defense...when pressed, came up big in this game at the end.

The defense gave up 8 on short field
They were probably in zone for a reason...Amendola could of had an even bigger game against man to man.

Shannahan was irate over the no ten second run off at the end of the first half for the holding call...which, would have not given them the time to kick the field goal...which was the difference in the game.

RayNAustin wrote:And WHY .... WHY would you even try to kick a 62 yard field goal with this kicker? Had we kept Gano, I could see trying it ... but not Condiff ... he was terrible last year outside the 45.

Sometimes this team seems to be coached by amateurs.

+1
There was no chance of making that. I wanted to see if RGIII could make some magic.

RayNAustin wrote:

grampi wrote:Maybe one of you can explain this to me, but I don't understand why our D always plays so far off the receivers. The entire game, the Rams always had at least one receiver wide open. Is the plan there to just hope their receivers drop the the ball? What are they trying to accomplish with this scheme, other than to allow opposing defenses to march down the field?

That's what we didn't do last week ... we played press coverage and man to man almost entirely, and it worked. Why we would switch and play a soft zone, and stay in it all game long, even as we were being dissected like a medical corpse, defies explanation. I hate .... HATE soft zone defense. It's the old "prevent defense" ... and all it does is prevent you from winning.

What went into this decision? Does Hasslett think that the Rams offense is better than N.O. ? Bradford better than Brees? I mean, that's really the big mystery to me.

And WHY .... WHY would you even try to kick a 62 yard field goal with this kicker? Had we kept Gano, I could see trying it ... but not Condiff ... he was terrible last year outside the 45.

Sometimes this team seems to be coached by amateurs.

Cundif: 2 of 13 with FGs over 50 yds since 2003. I rather the ball in RGIII's hands.

Deadskins wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:And WHY .... WHY would you even try to kick a 62 yard field goal with this kicker? Had we kept Gano, I could see trying it ... but not Condiff ... he was terrible last year outside the 45.

Sometimes this team seems to be coached by amateurs.

+1

It was a dome.

chiefhog44 wrote:Things that are on 980 right now.

Haslett made adjustments, and it showed in the 2nd qtr. The defense...when pressed, came up big in this game at the end.

The defense gave up 8 on short field
They were probably in zone for a reason...Amendola could of had an even bigger game against man to man.

Shannahan was irate over the no ten second run off at the end of the first half for the holding call...which, would have not given them the time to kick the field goal...which was the difference in the game.

I don't blame the zone calling so much as the consistent blitzing. Mix it up. Look at what happened with a four man rush in the end zone. Fletch intercepts. Mix it up with the heavier mix in favor of the four man rush.

How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:And WHY .... WHY would you even try to kick a 62 yard field goal with this kicker? Had we kept Gano, I could see trying it ... but not Condiff ... he was terrible last year outside the 45.

Sometimes this team seems to be coached by amateurs.

+1

It was a dome.

I don't care ... his history shows that outside of the 50, he's terrible ... 60+ it was like Shanahan buying a lottery ticket.

A very poor decision. Relying on miracles is not a good plan.

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

Oh please! How many kicks has Cundiff made from 60+?

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

With Cundif's percentage on 50 yard kicks 1 out of 6 last year. 2 out of 13 since 2003, you are better off with RGIII at 4th and 16. Plus you also have the added chance of a roughing the passer which is a better pct than Cundif making a 50 yrd FG let alone a 62 yarder. He has the leg but for some reason, he can't even get it close.

Deadskins wrote:

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

Oh please! How many kicks has Cundiff made from 60+?

I was against it, too, but it's not like there's no possible logic to it!

Here is the funny thing as I blame Haz for the loss. We always have trouble with the Rams even when Haz was the head coach of the Rams and he beat us in one of those ugly games. Go figure!

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

Come on ... let's do some math ..... Cundiff has had how many 62 yard field goals made in his entire career? Zero? How many 25 yard passes has RG3 made in just the past two weeks?

The decision was totally irrational. And that often happens when people who think they are geniuses think too much.

Red_One43 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

With Cundif's percentage on 50 yard kicks 1 out of 6 last year. 2 out of 13 since 2003, you are better off with RGIII at 4th and 16. Plus you also have the added chance of a roughing the passer which is a better pct than Cundif making a 50 yrd FG let alone a 62 yarder. He has the leg but for some reason, he can't even get it close.

You also have the chance of the Rams, who were playing dirty and getting lots of hits on RGIII all day, pinning their ears back and injuring Griffin.

cvillehog wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

Oh please! How many kicks has Cundiff made from 60+?

I was against it, too, but it's not like there's no possible logic to it!

No, there's no logic to it at all.

RayNAustin wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:And WHY .... WHY would you even try to kick a 62 yard field goal with this kicker? Had we kept Gano, I could see trying it ... but not Condiff ... he was terrible last year outside the 45.

Sometimes this team seems to be coached by amateurs.

+1

It was a dome.

I don't care ... his history shows that outside of the 50, he's terrible ... 60+ it was like Shanahan buying a lottery ticket.

A very poor decision. Relying on miracles is not a good plan.

He made a 62 yarder in college outside against San Diego. This time it was in a dome. Settle down

RayNAustin wrote:

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

Come on ... let's do some math ..... Cundiff has had how many 62 yard field goals made in his entire career? Zero? How many 25 yard passes has RG3 made in just the past two weeks?

The decision was totally irrational. And that often happens when people who think they are geniuses think too much.

Not many kicker have 60+ on their resume. Cundiff actually does. 62 yarder outside. There's your math.

RG3 is gonna get killed if he continues to run. I don't mind it near the endzone, but we have GOT to limit it between the 20's

cvillehog wrote:

Red_One43 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:How many plays do you have in your playbook for 4th and 16? I think Shanny just decided not to throw RGIII out there to get banged up on a very low percentage play.

With Cundif's percentage on 50 yard kicks 1 out of 6 last year. 2 out of 13 since 2003, you are better off with RGIII at 4th and 16. Plus you also have the added chance of a roughing the passer which is a better pct than Cundif making a 50 yrd FG let alone a 62 yarder. He has the leg but for some reason, he can't even get it close.

You also have the chance of the Rams, who were playing dirty and getting lots of hits on RGIII all day, pinning their ears back and injuring Griffin.

That is part of football, but I will concede that you could be right on this. After reading Shanny's book, one fonds out just how much of a long range thinker Shanny really is. He reveals some shocking things Though I disagree, you could be right.

It was good to for RGIII to be on the comeback trail. Thats experience he'll need down the road. He needs to learn how to slide, not to get hammered everytime he runs.
HaiL,

chiefhog44 wrote:RG3 is gonna get killed if he continues to run. I don't mind it near the endzone, but we have GOT to limit it between the 20's

No question about it. He took some heavy shots especially before his interception.

Red_One43 wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:Things that are on 980 right now.

Haslett made adjustments, and it showed in the 2nd qtr. The defense...when pressed, came up big in this game at the end.

The defense gave up 8 on short field
They were probably in zone for a reason...Amendola could of had an even bigger game against man to man.

Shannahan was irate over the no ten second run off at the end of the first half for the holding call...which, would have not given them the time to kick the field goal...which was the difference in the game.

I don't blame the zone calling so much as the consistent blitzing. Mix it up. Look at what happened with a four man rush in the end zone. Fletch intercepts. Mix it up with the heavier mix in favor of the four man rush.

Well, you should. When your DBs are playing 10 yards off the line, and you do it all game long .... NOBODY is going to be bothered by blitzes, and particularly not a good QB like Bradford. He and Amedola were playing catch out there all day long. It's this combination of soft zone and blitz that makes no sense. That won't beat anyone.

Amedola caught 15 out of 17 throws to him, while the rest of the Rams team caught only 11 total combined. That's not a failure of the secondary, that is a failure in the "plan".

We're going to pay one of these times Banks puts the ball on the ground. It's happened two weeks in a row now

Finnegan should've ALSO gotten 15 for the shove. Although, this is Morgan from today's WP:

"He's the ultimate competitor, a great competitor," Morgan said. "He's one of those guys that plays—you know how they say play to the whistle? He's one of those guys that plays until you walk back to the huddle…He's just got a little extracurricular with him, you know.

"You don't want to be the second guy because the second guy is going to get caught," Morgan said. "He's going to come at you and he's going to be the first, second and third guy. You've got to remind yourself not to be that fourth and fifth guy, and throw your hands up and walk back to the huddle."

Refs just terrible, period. Odd, odd game.

Serious question: What do you want Danny Smith to do? He's not suiting up.