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

Let's keep it civil. Remember to attack the post, not the poster.

Deadskins wrote:Let's keep it civil. Remember to attack the post, not the poster.

Thanks, DS.

Countertrey wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Let's keep it civil. Remember to attack the post, not the poster.

Thanks, DS.

To be fair, fellas, I am a total douche. And also full of bologna. I take no offense.

I will take a modern (ie, bigger) version of the 1991 OL and DL (including line backers), the same Posse, same Mark-the-Ripper at QB, same DBs. Same Joe Gibbs smash-mouth football. I can joke that it's "big boy" football until the Redskins start playing the NFC East. They will still grind up opponents.

The various option offenses are dull. The spread is dead, except in colleges...where the games are won or lost during recruiting and fund-raising. Whatever happened to that coach from Florida that Dan Snyder hired before Joe Gibbs? Did he ever take a team to the NFL playoffs?

In 1991, NFL teams tried a gimmic offense called "run and shoot". Also tried the no-huddle. Both failed, and, best I remember, the Redskins played and crushed every run&shoot team in the NFL. The first Atlanta game and both Detroit games were awful. Nobody considered the option...even teams like Seattle, who drafted an option QB from Notre Dame.

Dig deep in Football 101, and there is an argument from someone who believed that the option would work in the NFL. Others thought that a skilled NFL QB should not run along tghe line of scrimmage and then pitch back or pass or run himself. Seemed risky. It worked for a while, when Robert Griffin was a rookie, but not afterward.

I suppose some coaches will try it again when stuck with a trained option QB. Wouldn't it be better, though, if colleges ran an NFL offense?

welch wrote:I will take a modern (ie, bigger) version of the 1991 OL and DL (including line backers), the same Posse, same Mark-the-Ripper at QB, same DBs. Same Joe Gibbs smash-mouth football. I can joke that it's "big boy" football until the Redskins start playing the NFC East. They will still grind up opponents.

The various option offenses are dull. The spread is dead, except in colleges...where the games are won or lost during recruiting and fund-raising. Whatever happened to that coach from Florida that Dan Snyder hired before Joe Gibbs? Did he ever take a team to the NFL playoffs?

In 1991, NFL teams tried a gimmic offense called "run and shoot". Also tried the no-huddle. Both failed, and, best I remember, the Redskins played and crushed every run&shoot team in the NFL. The first Atlanta game and both Detroit games were awful. Nobody considered the option...even teams like Seattle, who drafted an option QB from Notre Dame.

Dig deep in Football 101, and there is an argument from someone who believed that the option would work in the NFL. Others thought that a skilled NFL QB should not run along tghe line of scrimmage and then pitch back or pass or run himself. Seemed risky. It worked for a while, when Robert Griffin was a rookie, but not afterward.

I suppose some coaches will try it again when stuck with a trained option QB. Wouldn't it be better, though, if colleges ran an NFL offense?

College coaches are paid to win college games. Period.

yupchagee wrote:College coaches are paid to win college games. Period.

Undoubtedly. There's a lot of criticism though about those offenses though. At some point, won't playing pro style offenses v spread offenses start to affect the ability to recruit top QBs?

Just a question. I watch college games sporadically, but don't follow them as closely as the NFL.

riggofan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:College coaches are paid to win college games. Period.

Undoubtedly. There's a lot of criticism though about those offenses though. At some point, won't playing pro style offenses v spread offenses start to affect the ability to recruit top QBs?

Just a question. I watch college games sporadically, but don't follow them as closely as the NFL.

The success of the spread will dictate that teams learn to defend it. Once it gets shut down, teams will go back to tried and true. Keep in mind, even the spread requires a certain skill set. There is only so much championship level talent in the country... Even for spread quarterbacks. Everything comes around.

HEROHAMO wrote:San Francisco and Kapernick. They utilize the ability to run the ball. Kapernick does not try to do too much. He has a good defense to back him up as well.

Phillys offense still looked good even with Sam Bradford.

I just want to bronze this thread. Enshrine it for posterity.

riggofan wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:San Francisco and Kapernick. They utilize the ability to run the ball. Kapernick does not try to do too much. He has a good defense to back him up as well.

Phillys offense still looked good even with Sam Bradford.

I just want to bronze this thread. Enshrine it for posterity.

Ha! What;s lost in all this is all the sacks Cousins is taking

DEHog wrote:Ha! What;s lost in all this is all the sacks Cousins is taking

Truth. The incredible turn around by our offensive line is mind blowing.

riggofan wrote:

DEHog wrote:Ha! What;s lost in all this is all the sacks Cousins is taking

Truth. The incredible turn around by our offensive line is mind blowing.

Bill Callahan might have been a good idea.

welch wrote:I will take a modern (ie, bigger) version of the 1991 OL and DL (including line backers), the same Posse, same Mark-the-Ripper at QB, same DBs. Same Joe Gibbs smash-mouth football. I can joke that it's "big boy" football until the Redskins start playing the NFC East. They will still grind up opponents.

The various option offenses are dull. The spread is dead, except in colleges...where the games are won or lost during recruiting and fund-raising. Whatever happened to that coach from Florida that Dan Snyder hired before Joe Gibbs? Did he ever take a team to the NFL playoffs?

In 1991, NFL teams tried a gimmic offense called "run and shoot". Also tried the no-huddle. Both failed, and, best I remember, the Redskins played and crushed every run&shoot team in the NFL. The first Atlanta game and both Detroit games were awful. Nobody considered the option...even teams like Seattle, who drafted an option QB from Notre Dame.

Dig deep in Football 101, and there is an argument from someone who believed that the option would work in the NFL. Others thought that a skilled NFL QB should not run along tghe line of scrimmage and then pitch back or pass or run himself. Seemed risky. It worked for a while, when Robert Griffin was a rookie, but not afterward.

I suppose some coaches will try it again when stuck with a trained option QB. Wouldn't it be better, though, if colleges ran an NFL offense?

I never agrued against a traditional pro style offense.

I was making a point. We drafted a spread QB in Robert in which we already invested highly. So why would he hire a west coast offense guy in Gruden.

Does not mean you cant run a spread with Big Olineman either.


New England isnt running anything complicated they just execute and have talent across the board.

these coaches don't care what media labels are put on their squads - they just try and find ways to win

basically success is more likely if you can effectively run the ball when you want to & effectively stop the other team from running when they want to plus be able to get the ball back in the hands of your offense - IMO ( & I've never played) teams have more chance at winning a game by having a good passing game which is a lot more likely if they have a really good run game i.e. the passing game is set up by 'establishing' the run ... then they can go back to running the ball (& the clock) in the 4th quarter - the same can be said in reverse (the pass sets up the run) if the team has a great passing game & a really good QB - we do not

this West Coast Offense, Read Option and Zone Read stuff is just fluff - these coaches do anything and everything they can to win games and they have evolved a lot in the past 20 years - todays QBs with good football smarts enjoy more success than the QBs with great athleticism

Seems familiar.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ck-record/
Russell Wilson, Alex Smith competing for chance at sack record

Wilson has now been sacked 18 times through four games, putting him on pace for 72 — and putting both guys in position to challenge the all-time record of 76.

The bigger concern is a matter of basic physics. The more a quarterback is hit, the more likely he’s eventually going to be hurt. For Wilson, who does a great job of avoiding contact and properly absorbing it when running, getting banged around by guys he doesn’t see coming behind the line of scrimmage eventually could do harm that no amount of nanobubbles will quickly heal.

So if the offensive line isn’t going to do a better job of blocking, Wilson needs to get rid of the ball faster and/or to get out of the pocket quicker. Or he may not be on the field long enough to be sacked 76 times.

riggofan wrote:Seems familiar.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ck-record/
Russell Wilson, Alex Smith competing for chance at sack record

Wilson has now been sacked 18 times through four games, putting him on pace for 72 — and putting both guys in position to challenge the all-time record of 76.

The bigger concern is a matter of basic physics. The more a quarterback is hit, the more likely he’s eventually going to be hurt. For Wilson, who does a great job of avoiding contact and properly absorbing it when running, getting banged around by guys he doesn’t see coming behind the line of scrimmage eventually could do harm that no amount of nanobubbles will quickly heal.

So if the offensive line isn’t going to do a better job of blocking, Wilson needs to get rid of the ball faster and/or to get out of the pocket quicker. Or he may not be on the field long enough to be sacked 76 times.

It seems teams have adjusted defensively to the entire concept of the read option being an effective play. I think ultimately teams need a "stand and deliver" quarterback. They seem to be the only kind that has any record of sustained success.

riggofan wrote:Seems familiar.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ck-record/
Russell Wilson, Alex Smith competing for chance at sack record

Wilson has now been sacked 18 times through four games, putting him on pace for 72 — and putting both guys in position to challenge the all-time record of 76.

The bigger concern is a matter of basic physics. The more a quarterback is hit, the more likely he’s eventually going to be hurt. For Wilson, who does a great job of avoiding contact and properly absorbing it when running, getting banged around by guys he doesn’t see coming behind the line of scrimmage eventually could do harm that no amount of nanobubbles will quickly heal.

So if the offensive line isn’t going to do a better job of blocking, Wilson needs to get rid of the ball faster and/or to get out of the pocket quicker. Or he may not be on the field long enough to be sacked 76 times.

Seattle traded a Pro Bowl center in Max Unger for Jimmy Graham. Seattle has all kinds of issues with pass protection.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

riggofan wrote:Seems familiar.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ck-record/
Russell Wilson, Alex Smith competing for chance at sack record

Wilson has now been sacked 18 times through four games, putting him on pace for 72 — and putting both guys in position to challenge the all-time record of 76.

The bigger concern is a matter of basic physics. The more a quarterback is hit, the more likely he’s eventually going to be hurt. For Wilson, who does a great job of avoiding contact and properly absorbing it when running, getting banged around by guys he doesn’t see coming behind the line of scrimmage eventually could do harm that no amount of nanobubbles will quickly heal.

So if the offensive line isn’t going to do a better job of blocking, Wilson needs to get rid of the ball faster and/or to get out of the pocket quicker. Or he may not be on the field long enough to be sacked 76 times.

It seems teams have adjusted defensively to the entire concept of the read option being an effective play. I think ultimately teams need a "stand and deliver" quarterback. They seem to be the only kind that has any record of sustained success.

Seattle has been to two SuperBowls winning one. Ill take that type of success any day.

HEROHAMO wrote:Seattle has been to two SuperBowls winning one. Ill take that type of success any day.

We've been to four, winning three. Those are ancient history. It's about the next game.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Seattle has been to two SuperBowls winning one. Ill take that type of success any day.

We've been to four, winning three. Those are ancient history. It's about the next game.

Ours may be ancient history, but Seattle's certainly aren't.

Deadskins wrote:Ours may be ancient history, but Seattle's certainly aren't.

They won almost two years ago. That's an eternity. No one cares when you lose. Ask Buffalo.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Ours may be ancient history, but Seattle's certainly aren't.

They won almost two years ago. That's an eternity. No one cares when you lose. Ask Buffalo.

Their Super-Bowls were the most recent two. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

Deadskins wrote:Their Super-Bowls were the most recent two. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

I get it. You have to get there to win one. We're a long way away from that. We're still in the Jim Mora "Playoffs? Playoffs? We're just trying to win a game!" portion of our programs.

Deadskins wrote:

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Ours may be ancient history, but Seattle's certainly aren't.

They won almost two years ago. That's an eternity. No one cares when you lose. Ask Buffalo.

Their Super-Bowls were the most recent two. It doesn't get more relevant than that.

What is this discussion even about?

The fact SEA has gone to the past 2 SBs in 100% relevant when discussing success in general. Not sure how anyone could say otherwise. That being said, SEA also primarily runs a west coast offense. They do implement read option plays, but they are considered a WCO. Not sure if posters were attempting to falsely conclude that a read option offense is one capable of winning SBs since SEA runs it --- because that isn't fully accurate.

SEA has OL issues. They always have had a mediocre OL. Wilson has been sacked often in his career --- I believe averaging about 40 sacks per year. They still win. Oddly enough if you go on one of the many SEA fan forums MANY are blaming Wilson for not throwing the ball quick enough. The perception of how well an OL plays is multi-fold. As we have learned, just because a QB gets sacked doesn't mean the OL isn't doing their job.....

markshark84 wrote:What is this discussion even about?

The fact SEA has gone to the past 2 SBs in 100% relevant when discussing success in general. Not sure how anyone could say otherwise. That being said, SEA also primarily runs a west coast offense. They do implement read option plays, but they are considered a WCO. Not sure if posters were attempting to falsely conclude that a read option offense is one capable of winning SBs since SEA runs it --- because that isn't fully accurate.

SEA has OL issues. They always have had a mediocre OL. Wilson has been sacked often in his career --- I believe averaging about 40 sacks per year. They still win. Oddly enough if you go on one of the many SEA fan forums MANY are blaming Wilson for not throwing the ball quick enough. The perception of how well an OL plays is multi-fold. As we have learned, just because a QB gets sacked doesn't mean the OL isn't doing their job.....

We got derailed a bit but I was making the point NFL defenses have caught up to the read option. Wilson is on pace to take 72 sacks this season. RGIII is in street clothes. It's not a successful long term strategy to have your quarterback running by design. That doesn't mean it doesn't help to have one who can run or that you can't fool some of the people some of the time but these coaches and coordinators get paid a lot of money to live and die by the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" philosophy. They know how to adjust.

Burgundy&GoldForever wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Seattle has been to two SuperBowls winning one. Ill take that type of success any day.

We've been to four, winning three. Those are ancient history. It's about the next game.

No.
We've been to FIVE, winning three. The team's history goes back to ancient times before 1982.