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

I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

grampi wrote:I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

It was an exciting game. I know we lost but still. I didn't even think we could come back but a friend kept insisting and well you saw it...

Kilmer72 wrote:

grampi wrote:I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

It was an exciting game. I know we lost but still. I didn't even think we could come back but a friend kept insisting and well you saw it...

No, actually I didn't get to watch the game, but I kept seeing the Skins score increasing. I figured since they had all the monetum near the end of the game, they'd go ahead and finish off the Crackboys, but they must've peckered out there at the end. Such a waste of what would've been an impressive comeback...

grampi wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote:

grampi wrote:I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

It was an exciting game. I know we lost but still. I didn't even think we could come back but a friend kept insisting and well you saw it...

No, actually I didn't get to watch the game, but I kept seeing the Skins score increasing. I figured since they had all the monetum near the end of the game, they'd go ahead and finish off the Crackboys, but they must've peckered out there at the end. Such a waste of what would've been an impressive comeback...

Ahh, Grampi, so sorry you missed it. I think you would have been proud of our offensive performance compared to what has been happening.

grampi wrote:I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

Exactly!

When the Skins were down 27-7 with over 12 minutes left in the 3rd they should have rolled over. I mean, why put the effort in to score another 23 points til the end of the game?

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:Bowing to the player's preferences is simply proof that you don't truly believe in your system.

It's not bowing to the player's preferences, it's making the sytem fit the personnel.

Kilmer72 wrote:

grampi wrote:

Kilmer72 wrote:

grampi wrote:I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

It was an exciting game. I know we lost but still. I didn't even think we could come back but a friend kept insisting and well you saw it...

No, actually I didn't get to watch the game, but I kept seeing the Skins score increasing. I figured since they had all the monetum near the end of the game, they'd go ahead and finish off the Crackboys, but they must've peckered out there at the end. Such a waste of what would've been an impressive comeback...

Ahh, Grampi, so sorry you missed it. I think you would have been proud of our offensive performance compared to what has been happening.

We had Rex making some bad throws...Just to fill you in some. He made a better show of it in the second half. I felt like we could do this in the late 3rd quarter. I got into it at this point. Rex can do it. He isn't Macnabb but he can throw that ball ok. He got us into the game down by 20 points due to him. He gave them at least 10 points. He is rusty and has always been a mistake guy. I think the Shanny's were trying to prove a point and knew that Rex would show that he is way smarter than you know who. They win in my book. Draft a QB because we need. Draft anyone because we need all possitions and last but not least get Olinemen.!!!!!!!!!

Deadskins wrote:It's not bowing to the player's preferences, it's making the sytem fit the personnel.

That's not my philosophy. The player fits the system or the team gets rid of the player. That's part of why I hate the salary cap so much. It traps teams with players who are not willing to play in the team's system.

Deadskins wrote:

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:Bowing to the player's preferences is simply proof that you don't truly believe in your system.

It's not bowing to the player's preferences, it's making the sytem fit the personnel.

A coaching attribute which, obtw, won Joe Gibbs 3 Lombardis. Love him or hate him, Bill Belichick has made a living of adapting to the players he has availible.

Truly successful coaches understand that they will not always have the ideal personnel for their system... so they adapt.

RF... are you suggesting that the Shanahans CAN'T adapt?

Countertrey wrote:A coaching attribute which, obtw, won Joe Gibbs 3 Lombardis. Love him or hate him, Bill Belichick has made a living of adapting to the players he has availible.

Please do not EVER, EVER compare those two individuals again in my presence. Joe Gibbs is one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. Bill BeliSCUM is a never-was and a never-will-be. To even use their names in the same paragraph is sacreligious so far as I'm concerned.

Countertrey wrote:Truly successful coaches understand that they will not always have the ideal personnel for their system... so they adapt.

Truly successful coaches don't have to do that because they get the right personnel to begin with.

Countertrey wrote:RF... are you suggesting that the Shanahans CAN'T adapt?

I am suggesting that like most things in life it's not a matter of CAN or CAN'T but a matter of SHOULD or SHOULDN'T. In this case.... SHOULDN'T.

Hoss wrote:

grampi wrote:I hate games when the Skins erase huge deficites, only to end up losing the game anyway. It's like the entire effort to comeback was completely wasted....

Exactly!

When the Skins were down 27-7 with over 12 minutes left in the 3rd they should have rolled over. I mean, why put the effort in to score another 23 points til the end of the game?

Well, when you put it that way.....it still sucks they came back all that way just to end up losing anyway though...

A loss to the dairyqueens alwas hurts, but at least it wasn´t embarrasing like the last beagles loss.

HaiL,

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

Countertrey wrote:A coaching attribute which, obtw, won Joe Gibbs 3 Lombardis. Love him or hate him, Bill Belichick has made a living of adapting to the players he has availible.

Please do not EVER, EVER compare those two individuals again in my presence. Joe Gibbs is one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. Bill BeliSCUM is a never-was and a never-will-be. To even use their names in the same paragraph is sacreligious so far as I'm concerned

You never have had any gray in your views. The cheating thing sucked. However, personal shortcomings aside, Belichick is a lot like Gibbs as a coach as Trey points out in that he's good at leveraging his player's skills and adapting. Though Belickick hasn't won a Super Bowl without a HOF bound QB and Gibbs never had a HOF bound QB.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

Countertrey wrote:A coaching attribute which, obtw, won Joe Gibbs 3 Lombardis. Love him or hate him, Bill Belichick has made a living of adapting to the players he has availible.

Please do not EVER, EVER compare those two individuals again in my presence. Joe Gibbs is one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. Bill BeliSCUM is a never-was and a never-will-be. To even use their names in the same paragraph is sacreligious so far as I'm concerned. .

Well... my preferrence is that when someone creates an "I'm Done" thread, that they actually follow through. To that end, knowing how irritating some find this, perhaps I should do it more frequently...

Bottom line... it was... and IS a valid comparison. Both coaches were/are skilled at making maximum use of the talent availible on their roster. Neither was confined to a rigid application of their personal coaching preferrences. And, both got great results.

Countertrey wrote:Truly successful coaches understand that they will not always have the ideal personnel for their system... so they adapt.

Truly successful coaches don't have to do that because they get the right personnel to begin with.

This is a silly assertion. The coach who has the luxury of a roster that is completely designed to use his coaching philosophy is doomed to a single season of success, followed by doldrums. It is rare... and when it happens, it does not last...

Countertrey wrote:RF... are you suggesting that the Shanahans CAN'T adapt?

I am suggesting that like most things in life it's not a matter of CAN or CAN'T but a matter of SHOULD or SHOULDN'T. In this case.... SHOULDN'T.

Ludicrous assertion. The correct response, in this case, is WOULDN'T, or WON'T. This is ego, pure and simple. This coaching duo went and got an interim quarterback... It was clear that the intent was to compete while planning for a long term aquisition, most likely via draft, of the next franchise quarterback, who would then be cultivated, and brought to maturity with no pressure.

They've now blown that. Once there is film on Grossman, I don't see him carrying the load... I'd like to be wrong, but all I have is his history to go on. Will Alex adapt? Will his play calling matrix be modified? Will he play to his players strengths? Or, will someone be thrown under the bus? According to YOU, that would be the latter...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

Countertrey wrote:A coaching attribute which, obtw, won Joe Gibbs 3 Lombardis. Love him or hate him, Bill Belichick has made a living of adapting to the players he has availible.

Please do not EVER, EVER compare those two individuals again in my presence. Joe Gibbs is one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. Bill BeliSCUM is a never-was and a never-will-be. To even use their names in the same paragraph is sacreligious so far as I'm concerned

You never have had any gray in your views. The cheating thing sucked. However, personal shortcomings aside, Belichick is a lot like Gibbs as a coach as Trey points out in that he's good at leveraging his player's skills and adapting. Though Belickick hasn't won a Super Bowl without a HOF bound QB and Gibbs never had a HOF bound QB.

Regarding the HOF quarterback... who was it that identified this diamond, when no one else saw it? Who was it that was willing to roll the dice with this untested, unproven player, even when his franchise quarterback returned to health? That HOF bound quarterbach was a Bellichick discovery and, quite possibly, creation. So, while it is a point of pride that Gibbs did it with journeyman talent calling the signals, it's also not quite fair to claim that Belichick was "lucky" to have a quarterback of the talent level of Brady.

BTW, before I am condemned as a Belichick shill, personally, I think he is a character deficient shrew, and a pathetic human...

But, like Mike Vick... he is one incredible football talent, and I do enjoy watching his product at work.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You never have had any gray in your views. The cheating thing sucked. However, personal shortcomings aside, Belichick is a lot like Gibbs as a coach as Trey points out in that he's good at leveraging his player's skills and adapting. Though Belickick hasn't won a Super Bowl without a HOF bound QB and Gibbs never had a HOF bound QB.

No, I have not, nor will I ever.

The "HOF bound QB" wouldn't have ever made it in the OLD/REAL NFL (pre-1994). I will agree that the lack of a high caliber QB is one of the few downsides to Gibbs' career.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:The "HOF bound QB" wouldn't have ever made it in the OLD/REAL NFL (pre-1994). I will agree that the lack of a high caliber QB is one of the few downsides to Gibbs' career.

The first statement is just ignorant. Heard of Joe Montana? Lack of a Hall Of Fame QB is a testament to Joe Gibbs ability to adjust his system to his players strengths and to coach them up, as is his success with three different running backs. I wouldn't call that a "downside."

TCIYM wrote:The first statement is just ignorant. Heard of Joe Montana?

I don't remember Joe being a 7th Round pick who had essentially no experience in college at all. Tom Brady wouldn't even have been drafted (nor should he have been). He's a product of a system designed to take advantage of the messed up rules the NFL currently is run under. Nothing more. IF he is ever inducted into the HOF, I will never be able to step foot in that building again.

TCIYM wrote:Lack of a Hall Of Fame QB is a testament to Joe Gibbs ability to adjust his system to his players strengths and to coach them up, as is his success with three different running backs. I wouldn't call that a "downside."

I would. Obviously we have different viewpoints. You can feel free to ignore mine just as I will ignore yours.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote: IF he [Tom Brady] is ever inducted into the HOF, I will never be able to step foot in that building again.

Another empty promise?

FTR, Brady would survive nicely in any post 50's era... he is very much the type of passing surgeon that Johnny U, Sonny, and Montana were...

<tweak>

Redskins_Fanatic wrote: IF he [Tom Brady] is ever inducted into the HOF, I will never be able to step foot in that building again.

I guess you won't be stepping in there than because Brady IS going in bro. I'm glad too, he's a stud and I don't give two hoots about what anyone says about the organization.. dude has serious talent.

Countertrey wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Though Belickick hasn't won a Super Bowl without a HOF bound QB

Regarding the HOF quarterback... who was it that identified this diamond, when no one else saw it? Who was it that was willing to roll the dice with this untested, unproven player, even when his franchise quarterback returned to health? That HOF bound quarterbach was a Bellichick discovery and, quite possibly, creation. So, while it is a point of pride that Gibbs did it with journeyman talent calling the signals, it's also not quite fair to claim that Belichick was "lucky" to have a quarterback of the talent level of Brady.

BTW, before I am condemned as a Belichick shill, personally, I think he is a character deficient shrew, and a pathetic human...

But, like Mike Vick... he is one incredible football talent, and I do enjoy watching his product at work.

I agree, I gave you credit for pointing out he was good at using his player's skills and him for doing that. As for the QB, I agree with you he recognized what he had. My comment on the HOF bound QB more though was regarding Brady's skill as a QB far exceeded anyone that Gibbs won a Super Bowl with. I didn't mean he didn't get credit for his talent evaluation.

And even more then as you pointed out he recognized how good Brady was, he did it when everyone thought he had a franchise QB already in Bledsoe. Usually when guys like Brady turn out to be the diamond in the rough they get their shot because the other QB's blow.

Here we go again.

Anagram for Redskins Fanatic = Insane Dick Farts

Yes - there is truth in anagrams!

DarthMonk

PS - During his first full year as starter, he (Brady) set Michigan records for most pass attempts and completions in a season. Brady was All-Big Ten (honorable mention) both seasons he started and team captain his senior year. The Wolverines won 20 of 25 games when he started and shared the Big Ten Conference title in 1998. Brady capped that season with a win over Arkansas in the Citrus Bowl. In the 1999 season, Brady led Michigan to an overtime win in the Orange Bowl over Alabama, throwing for 369 yards and four touchdowns. (Wiki)

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

TCIYM wrote:The first statement is just ignorant. Heard of Joe Montana?

I don't remember Joe being a 7th Round pick who had essentially no experience in college at all. Tom Brady wouldn't even have been drafted (nor should he have been). He's a product of a system designed to take advantage of the messed up rules the NFL currently is run under. Nothing more. IF he is ever inducted into the HOF, I will never be able to step foot in that building again.

TCIYM wrote:Lack of a Hall Of Fame QB is a testament to Joe Gibbs ability to adjust his system to his players strengths and to coach them up, as is his success with three different running backs. I wouldn't call that a "downside."

I would. Obviously we have different viewpoints. You can feel free to ignore mine just as I will ignore yours.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:The "HOF bound QB" wouldn't have ever made it in the OLD/REAL NFL (pre-1994)

Because...

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:I will agree that the lack of a high caliber QB is one of the few downsides to Gibbs' career.

How so? I think he deserves extra credit for that

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Because...

First off, I don't think he would even have been drafted. If he had, it would have been even lower than he already was and that's pretty low to begin with. Most of Brady's success is based on a system tailored to work with a bunch of nobodys. It's not designed to actually go out and WIN games. It's designed to stay close, not make mistakes, and simply allow your opponent to beat themselves. In the Pre-1994 NFL teams like the Redskins, Steelers, Cowscum, 49ers, etc.... would have eaten a team like that alive.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:How so? I think he deserves extra credit for that

This goes back to my definition of GREATNESS that we discussed a week or two back. Getting the most out of a bunch of Has-Beens and Never-Will-Be's isn't Greatness in my mind. Taking Great Talent and molding it into a dominant force is what Greatness is in my mind. Like the 1991 Redskins team, for example (with a few exceptions like Rypien)

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Because...

First off, I don't think he would even have been drafted. If he had, it would have been even lower than he already was and that's pretty low to begin with. Most of Brady's success is based on a system tailored to work with a bunch of nobodys. It's not designed to actually go out and WIN games. It's designed to stay close, not make mistakes, and simply allow your opponent to beat themselves. In the Pre-1994 NFL teams like the Redskins, Steelers, Cowscum, 49ers, etc.... would have eaten a team like that alive.

Thanks for explaining. I was right the first time...what you said didn't make sense...

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:How so? I think he deserves extra credit for that

This goes back to my definition of GREATNESS that we discussed a week or two back. Getting the most out of a bunch of Has-Beens and Never-Will-Be's isn't Greatness in my mind. Taking Great Talent and molding it into a dominant force is what Greatness is in my mind. Like the 1991 Redskins team, for example (with a few exceptions like Rypien)

I knew what you were referring to Pods. I wanted you to repeat it so those who didn't originally make the connection realize how I knew who you were. Your post is gibberish, but you're entitled to your view, my friend...