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

good news is this.... we are 1 game from the last playoff spot, with only team in front of us... detroit. and we hold the tiebreaker on them. and detroit has the HARDEST schedule remaining in the nfl. there are two teams tied with us at 5-5, eagles and zona. we hold the tiebreaker on both of them. head to head win versus zona. and conference record on philly. SO, if we sit back and root for green bay on thursday, we would slide into the 6 seed with a win at tampa. with that being said, we then head home for 2 games against inferior teams, bills and bears. so, if we build on this effort, grab a win in tampa (and assume green bay takes care of detroit), we can actually start putting some daylight between us and the rest of the teams chasing the wild card by playing at home for those 2 games that we'll be heavily favored in. and i think we proved by competing in both green bay and dallas, that if we get into the playoffs, and have randy thomas and sean taylor back... we could make some noise.

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

spudstr04 wrote:We have the Bucs, the Bills, the Vikes, the Bears, the Giants, and the Cowboys left on the schedule. we can easily go 4-2 and sneak into the wildcard spot.

hell, i'm thinkin we can easily go 6-0 and barrel our way into the first wildcard spot!

Fios wrote:Folks, please avoid having a back and forth here about who is and is not a fan, it isn't germane.

He started it!

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

More D Line pressure on Romo would have helped, but from what I saw on the relays I think it was a lack of commincation between our DB's by not knowing what their coverage responsibilities were and what area of the field they were supposed to be covering.

Hoss wrote:i'm not too upset with this loss. sure, it sucks, but the skins have shown me they are only a few tweaks away from being a contender for the nfc crown. though we lost today, i think this could be the beginning of a tipping point.

I can't agree more. The team actually played with quite a bit of pride for once.

The 'Skins definitely raised a few eyebrows in loss and I can see only a bright future in this season yet.

clock managment was much better today. we actually had timeouts to work with when it mattered. but i still don't like either call to go for a feild goal on 4 and 1. its not like suisham is automatic. especially from 50 yds. and feild goals don't win the game for you when playing an offensive team.

Mursilis wrote:Looks like the "Bench Brunell" crowd from last year was right.

No one ever disagreed that Campbell had a bright future. The question of last year was "which QB gives us the best chance to win this Sunday." Campbell is looking better and better, but he took some lumps early and had some bad decisions along the way. While we still had a chance, Brunell was the better choice (in the opinion of some).

grampi wrote:

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

You are out of your mind. We have one corner right now that can reliably cover in man, as the other has a bum hammy.

Hoss wrote:

spudstr04 wrote:We have the Bucs, the Bills, the Vikes, the Bears, the Giants, and the Cowboys left on the schedule. we can easily go 4-2 and sneak into the wildcard spot.

hell, i'm thinkin we can easily go 6-0 and barrel our way into the first wildcard spot!

if you look at my post prior to this, if 9-1 green bay beats detroit on thanksgiving, and we win in tampa... we ARE in the playoffs heading into our back to back home games versus bills and bears.

hailskins666 wrote:clock managment was much better today. we actually had timeouts to work with when it mattered. but i still don't like either call to go for a feild goal on 4 and 1. its not like suisham is automatic. especially from 50 yds. and feild goals don't win the game for you when playing an offensive team.

Did anyone notice on the last touchdown drive that the clock didn't stop when Moss went out of bounds early in the drive? Then, twice, including that one, after a Redskins receiver got out of bounds, the clock started before the snap.

Countertrey wrote:

grampi wrote:

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

You are out of your mind. We have one corner right now that can reliably cover in man, as the other has a bum hammy.

I don't think people realize just how good this Dallas offense is, and how reasonably well our defense played against them given our circumstances. How do we know? We had not one but TWO chances to make a game-winning offensive drive late in the game.

The D did their job. They could have been better, but I refuse to get mad at them because they aren't the 2005 Bears.

Countertrey wrote:

grampi wrote:

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

You are out of your mind. We have one corner right now that can reliably cover in man, as the other has a bum hammy.

Then they should've put that guy on TO and kept him there. You don't leave the best receiver on the team wide open unless you want to lose.

Fios wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:clock managment was much better today. we actually had timeouts to work with when it mattered. but i still don't like either call to go for a feild goal on 4 and 1. its not like suisham is automatic. especially from 50 yds. and feild goals don't win the game for you when playing an offensive team.

Did anyone notice on the last touchdown drive that the clock didn't stop when Moss went out of bounds early in the drive? Then, twice, including that one, after a Redskins receiver got out of bounds, the clock started before the snap.

Yes! I was infuriated.

Well let's see what Football Night in America has to say, and then I'm out of here. I'm sure C. C'Worthless will give us lots of praise.

Irn-Bru said

Speaking of that INT by Macintosh, welch, which I agree WAS an interception—how about the very next play being a 40+ yard pass interference call? Amazing how the game could turn on two calls like that. That stung, and I felt it all the way through our last Hail Mary.

I thought the same. Giant swing, from Redskins ball on the Cowboys three, to bingo, Cowboys swoop for TD.

Campbell is good. The OL isn't overpowering, but they've pulled together (minus the Samuels miss on Ware, leading to a fumble). The defense is playing above their personel.

Who's up next?

Irn-Bru wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

grampi wrote:

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

You are out of your mind. We have one corner right now that can reliably cover in man, as the other has a bum hammy.

I don't think people realize just how good this Dallas offense is, and how reasonably well our defense played against them given our circumstances. How do we know? We had not one but TWO chances to make a game-winning offensive drive late in the game.

The D did their job. They could have been better, but I refuse to get mad at them because they aren't the 2005 Bears.

Again, with Taylor, the Redskins win

joedondero1919 wrote:

Hoss wrote:

spudstr04 wrote:We have the Bucs, the Bills, the Vikes, the Bears, the Giants, and the Cowboys left on the schedule. we can easily go 4-2 and sneak into the wildcard spot.

hell, i'm thinkin we can easily go 6-0 and barrel our way into the first wildcard spot!

if you look at my post prior to this, if 9-1 green bay beats detroit on thanksgiving, and we win in tampa... we ARE in the playoffs heading into our back to back home games versus bills and bears.

preach it, brother!

welch wrote:Chris, you're quick on the draw...or I'm about a minute behind real game time.

- defense can only gamble part of the time. Miss some db's (especially one big, fast, hard-hitter), miss some depth at LB, and miss a DL man they haven't had since Mann, Butz, Grant, Manley. If they could generate a pass rush without the blitz!

- wish the Redskins had a big WR...what a difference Art Monk would make...maybe the guy shoukd be in the Hall of Fame????

- Campbell still learning. I wish he had run rather than toss that ever-so-close pass on the run that got intercepted. But he'll learn.

Campbell also missed A LOT of open receivers today. I think we can pretty well conclude that for at least today, the problem is not receivers, at least with McCardell around. It's Campbell's accuracy, not to mention his decision making (anybody remember Randle El WIDE OPEN for a TD when ey couldn't hang on to that short pass near the goal line?) which is still a problem. Other than that, he took a big step forward today.

Boy are our front office screw ups coming back to haunt us. What good is Portis when you have no depth at O-Line? I love Portis, but I'd sure like to have Bailey and that 2nd round pick back.

Situation: Three teams need wide receivers. Team A obtains Randy Moss. Team B obtains Terrell Owens. Team C obtains Brandon Lloyd. Question: which team has the worst front office?

grampi wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

grampi wrote:

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

You are out of your mind. We have one corner right now that can reliably cover in man, as the other has a bum hammy.

Then they should've put that guy on TO and kept him there. You don't leave the best receiver on the team wide open unless you want to lose.

There are 2 players on our team who can man-up on TO... and both are out. TO has been shut down by ST and CR. Both can cover him, and both are tall enough to keep him from going over the top. And, both hit hard... that causes him to drop balls... which he didn't do much of today.

Irn-Bru wrote:Good game by the Redskins. It would have been sweet to steal one from Dallas. I'm with the posters in this thread who saw the game as a great effort by the team.

Speaking of that INT by Macintosh, welch, which I agree WAS an interception—how about the very next play being a 40+ yard pass interference call? Amazing how the game could turn on two calls like that. That stung, and I felt it all the way through our last Hail Mary.

Boy are we missing Sean Taylor, too. He would've had a pick today, I think, and there is no way T.O. would have had 4 TD's deep.

It was a great game, I'll have to admit. Who would've thought it'd come down to the last play, especially after it was learned Taylor would be out? A commendable effort all around. But it also highlights what's aggravating about this team - they seem to play at about the level of the opposition, regardless of how good or bad they are. They've had at least one legit blowout, and been blown out once. All the rest have been close. We play the cream of the NFC (Cowboys, Packers) close, but struggle against the gutter, too (Miami, Jets, and Eagles, with whom we split). So frustrating . . .

Fios wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

grampi wrote:

welch wrote:

Leaving TO uncovered

Leaving TO uncovered, or being short a few coverage players? Would it have mattered if Rogers (yes, the Redskins seem to miss him) and Sean Taylor had played? I recognized Landry, Smoot, and Springs, but the other guys?

Could Owens have had less coverage because the Redskins were blitzing?

They could've went to man coverage. It couldn't have worked any worse than the cover 2 did.

You are out of your mind. We have one corner right now that can reliably cover in man, as the other has a bum hammy.

I don't think people realize just how good this Dallas offense is, and how reasonably well our defense played against them given our circumstances. How do we know? We had not one but TWO chances to make a game-winning offensive drive late in the game.

The D did their job. They could have been better, but I refuse to get mad at them because they aren't the 2005 Bears.

Again, with Taylor, the Redskins win

Have to concur with that.

SCSkinsFan wrote:Well let's see what Football Night in America has to say, and then I'm out of here. I'm sure C. C'Worthless will give us lots of praise.

Nothing but a tired TO interview. Have a great week folks.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.!

old-timer asked:

Situation: Three teams need wide receivers. Team A obtains Randy Moss. Team B obtains Terrell Owens. Team C obtains Brandon Lloyd. Question: which team has the worst front office?

Yes, I've thought about. Still wouldn't want R Moss or T Owens, anymore than Keyshawn J.

B Lloyd seems a mistake, though.

old-timer wrote:

welch wrote:Chris, you're quick on the draw...or I'm about a minute behind real game time.

- defense can only gamble part of the time. Miss some db's (especially one big, fast, hard-hitter), miss some depth at LB, and miss a DL man they haven't had since Mann, Butz, Grant, Manley. If they could generate a pass rush without the blitz!

- wish the Redskins had a big WR...what a difference Art Monk would make...maybe the guy shoukd be in the Hall of Fame????

- Campbell still learning. I wish he had run rather than toss that ever-so-close pass on the run that got intercepted. But he'll learn.

Campbell also missed A LOT of open receivers today.

True enough, but it seemed like most of the game he was being chased around back there, so he never had much time to scan the whole field - he was running for his life many times.