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

Back in the 1960s in a similar situation, any well-coached QB would have been walking to the line with having most likely called a run in the huddle which he could then AUDIBLE OUT OF if the box were stacked.

Instead, we did what you describe below.

DarthMonk

Countertrey wrote:2nd quarter vs Jets, with the run game still effective: 22 plays. 5 runs.
That's a problem. That's the issue. That's Kyle's philosophy in action... "Hey, the run is working... let's fool them, and put the game in Rex's hands".

Chris... how stupid is that????

Countertrey wrote:2nd quarter vs Jets, with the run game still effective: 22 plays. 5 runs.
That's a problem. That's the issue. That's Kyle's philosophy in action... "Hey, the run is working... let's fool them, and put the game in Rex's hands".

Chris... how stupid is that????

They definitely need to stick with the run more than they do. On some levels, I understand why. In other circumstances, it's baffling. Hopefully we have the talent we need next year to execute this thing properly.

Teams are stacking the box, forcing us to pass because they know who our quarterback is and how easy it is to force turnovers on us.

Countertrey wrote:2nd quarter vs Jets, with the run game still effective: 22 plays. 5 runs.
That's a problem. That's the issue. That's Kyle's philosophy in action... "Hey, the run is working... let's fool them, and put the game in Rex's hands".

Chris... how stupid is that????

You're completely using that stat out of context. Prior to our last drive of the second quarter, when we took over with 3 minutes left in the half, our run/pass split was 4/6, nearly 50/50.

On that last drive, we took over at our own 20, ran on first down for no gain, which burned 39 seconds off the clock. At that point you can't keep running the ball because there is no time left to do so. Our last 9 plays of the half were pass plays (both before and after the Jets fumble) and its clear that was dictated by home much time was left on the clock.

Up until 3 minutes left in the half, our run/pass split was 10/11.

In the third quarter we ran the ball 7 times, one of which was the Helu fumble, and passed it 5 times. We also didn't pick up a single first down. In his 7 rushing attempts in the third quarter, Helu gained 17 yards and fumbled once. That's an average of under 2.5 yards per carry.

It's clear that outside of our 2 minute offense at the end of the first half our run/pass split was even. It was also pretty clear during the game that the Jets came out in the 2nd half intent on stacking the box and stuffing the run. We were run-heavy in the third quarter, didn't pick up a first down, and lost a fumble.

We took over possession right at the end of the third quarter, Helu rushed (last play of the 3rd quarter) on first down for no gain, we passed 5 times in a row for 41 yards, then ran the ball two times (on first and second down) for a total of 5 yards, and on 3rd down had an incompletion.

On our second drive of the 4th quarter, we ran on 1st and 2nd down for a total of 3 yards, then had an incompletion on 3rd and long. So through 2 drives in the 4th we had a run/pass split of 4/7.

Our next drive was a sack, short gain on a run, and an incompletion on 3rd and long.

It wasn't until 4:43 left in the game that we started to go almost exclusively to the pass. We took over with about 4 minutes left and down 20-16 at our own 20. The run game at that point was completely shut down. What else did you want them to do? We passed on three plays and Grossman fumbled on the 3rd play. The Jets scored and we were down 27-16 with 3:31 left. At that point there is no choice but to try and pass.

Countertrey wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Countertrey wrote:This COMPLETELY (and probably deliberately) mistates the issue we are voicing.

There are people on this forum that still want Beck.

Don't know that it makes a difference... Beck doesn't win games... Grossman loses games... both go down as an L.

My point is, Kyle clearly fails to understand that winning does not have to be the result of a "sexy" offense (so to speak). If you are moving the ball... and scoring... by pounding the rock... YOU FREAKING POUND THE ROCK...

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR OPTIONS ARE LOSE THE GAME ON GROSSMAN'S ARM OR FAIL TO WIN ON BECK'S ARM.

Kyle is totally enamored with his offensive concept, and stubbornly refuses to permit success in the run game from preventing his concept from being used. Unfortunately, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE PLAYER TALENT TO RUN HIS CONCEPT. No matter... he'll do it anyway. So, when we get that short field, late in the first half... we are going to pass 6 times in a row... even though the Jets have failed to stop our run.

When the run game is working, an intelligent OC will put his marginal quarterback into a game management mode. Run and PA will be the order of the day, until the opponent stops it. Nope... not very sexy... but you will win a few games that way.

+1

Kyle is trying to do too much too soon in this offense. No flexibility. He obviously inherited his ego from his pops. Sad thing is, his pops actually found ways to succeed with his concept (stretch running with less than marquee RBs and Linemen).

Kyle is trying to prove his mettle and is failing miserably.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

Countertrey wrote:2nd quarter vs Jets, with the run game still effective: 22 plays. 5 runs.
That's a problem. That's the issue. That's Kyle's philosophy in action... "Hey, the run is working... let's fool them, and put the game in Rex's hands".

Chris... how stupid is that????

They definitely need to stick with the run more than they do. On some levels, I understand why. In other circumstances, it's baffling. Hopefully we have the talent we need next year to execute this thing properly.

I hope the same thing. But, I'm not holding my breath. Assuming we draft a Top end QB, I think Kid Kyle will think he can finally do his thing--the same thing that is.

CanesSkins26 wrote:You're completely using that stat out of context. Prior to our last drive of the second quarter, when we took over with 3 minutes left in the half, our run/pass split was 4/6, nearly 50/50.

Wow!! And I thought I picked the games apart! LOL Thanks for clarifying.

With 3 minutes, and 3 time outs, you do not panic and go to pass only (especially with a turnover machine as your quarterback). You have PLENTY of time in this circumstance to continue to use your entire offense... INCLUDING the part that is working best... the run. Asserting otherwise as the backbone of your argument flies in the face of reality.

Were it not for the clear FACT that abandoning the run in the early first half is a demonstrable pattern with this OC, I could dismiss it... but it is... and it represents a problem.

StorminMormon86 wrote:Teams are stacking the box, forcing us to pass because they know who our quarterback is and how easy it is to force turnovers on us.

The defense has 11 and the offense has 11 .... putting 8 in the box or 11 in the box is no guarantee of stopping anything.

All of the great running teams in history ... including the majority of the dominant teams in the NFC east have managed to run successfully. Are you suggesting that "stacking the box" is a new concept or tactic? It's not, you know.

The strategy is simple ... on defense, you want more bodies moving toward the ball than there are blockers to block them. On offense, it's the reverse of that. This is why offenses long ago began using formation shifts to adjust those ratios, and defenses disguise their formations too.

The winners are the ones that do something other than what the other expected them to do based on those formations. And that is part of what the Redskin offense seems particularly poor at accomplishing.

RayNAustin wrote:The defense has 11 and the offense has 11 .... putting 8 in the box or 11 in the box is no guarantee of stopping anything.

No, but when it does work the opposing team knows we'll be forced to rely on Rex throwing the ball...in other words we lose miserably.

RayNAustin wrote:All of the great running teams in history ... including the majority of the dominant teams in the NFC east have managed to run successfully. Are you suggesting that "stacking the box" is a new concept or tactic? It's not, you know.

Don't really see how you would think I was suggesting this was something new. It's something that teams are doing against us because our quarterback sucks.

RayNAustin wrote:The strategy is simple ... on defense, you want more bodies moving toward the ball than there are blockers to block them. On offense, it's the reverse of that. This is why offenses long ago began using formation shifts to adjust those ratios, and defenses disguise their formations too.

Our offense doesn't really adjust to anything, thanks to Kyle. Remember the Buffalo game? How many check downs, slants, and/or dump passes did we attempt? I understand the basic fundamental concept of football. Defense vs. Offense. No need to spell it out for me. My point was that "stacking the box", sending more pressure, stopping the run game, etc. is all the teams have to do against us to beat us. They pressure Kyle (by stopping our run) into calling more pass plays, which have statistically usually resulted in us losing this year.

RayNAustin wrote:The winners are the ones that do something other than what the other expected them to do based on those formations. And that is part of what the Redskin offense seems particularly poor at accomplishing.

You can thank Rex Grossman for that.

Darrelle Revis on Grossman: "Coming into this game, that’s what we wanted to do. We know he turns it over a lot. So I think we just wanted to put pressure on him this game, show him different looks and get him to throw some turnovers.”

See what I mean?

I post these quotes not to defend Kyle (I believe that he needs to go), but to understand why "he abandoned the run."

The NFL is a pass happy league.

In a copy-cat league, complete domination of your peers on the offensive side of the ball will almost always lead to other teams trying emulate your offensive scheme. They also invest a whole lot of time and money designing defenses to stop you.

In today's NFL, teams like the Green Bay Packers, New Orleans Saints and New England Patriots are the franchises that everyone is trying to be.

First of all, Kyle didn't abandon the run. The running game is not how he rolls. Mike preaches establishing the run. You have never heard Kyle "preach" that. Kyle attacks what he see as weaknesses in the defense. If he sees the line stacked and open spots downfield, his philosophy says attack those spots regardless of whether the run is working or not. Kyle's running game sets up his passing game. His philosophy is in accordance with today's top NFL teams.

Why isn't it working?

1. It is not because Kyle is an incompetent OC. He proved himself in Houston. Chris Cooley, who is known to speak his mind, speaks on 106.7 The Fan (DC area) every Monday and Fridays and says that he loves the way Kyle is calling plays and that it is the execution that is the problem.

2. We don't have the talent to fit Kyle's play calling. I think that a lot of us believe this. A lot of us believe that Mike and Kyle should tailor the O to fit the personnel until we get more talent. To a lot of us, this makes good football sense. But, aren't we talking about the Shanahans, here? Scheme first! Get the players to fit the scheme, not fit the scheme to the players. The excuse for not winning now is that it will take 3 to 4 years to fix this thing. Is this unreasonable? Look at Buffalo, very similar to the Redskins in personnel decisions in the past and personnel on the roster today. The Bills' coach tailored his O to fit Fitzpatrick, but injuries and depth has left them right where we are. Look at KC and TB - Losers in 2009. Winners in 2010 and losers in 2011. Shanny says lets do it the right way. Build a solid foundation - that takes time. He believes in his system. Phil Daniels (On The FAN) said that he supports Shanny in that belief.

3. So, we be patient and hope we have another good offseason of aquisitions - particulary a QB among other positions. Not quite.

Clearly Mike and Kyle don't speak with the same tongue. Mike says, in so many words, that we live by the run. Kyle says you take what the D gives you. These two philosophies don't go together. Anybody wonder why a vet coach like Mike has looked like a rookie on the sidleines the last two years? Even with the new talent, if Mike and Kyle don't get it together, we are going to still have a few all around lackluster performances like the Bills game because of the different philosophies touted by Mike and Kyle. Anthony Armstrong said, a week ago (Monday the 28 - yes, on the FAN), that Mike and Kyle need to get it together. He didn't elaborate on that, but the question posed concerned the two different viewpoints concerning offensive football coming out of the two coaches' mouths.

In Denver, Mike was known to throw the ball around too, so if Kyle were to leave, I don't think that we would miss a beat. Afterall, this is really Daddy's offense tweaked by Kubiak and spiced up by Kyle.

Though I don't agree with his offensive philosophy (different strokes for different folks) even though it seems to be what the NFL has become, I see him as a competent OC; however, because of their stated philosophies, I don't feel that Mike and Kyle don't go together as coaches. Kyle needs go after this season.

Fire Kyle? Ain't going to happen and I don't advocate it. A Division I college (I am sure that he wouldn't settle for anything less to leave Daddy's side) knocking on Kyle's door offering an HC position, Maybe. Hopefully! Otherwise, it is hopefully, the two Shannies get it together.

Just some more info on where the NFL is with the pass:

Since the Rams won the Super Bowl in 1999, only three teams have won the championship without employing pass-happy offense: The 2000 Baltimore Ravens, the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers, who have become more finesse on offense every year since.

With the Green Bay Packers, New Orleans Saints and New England Patriots as the odds-on favorites to win it all this year, it's fairly safe to say that 10 out of the last 13 Super Bowl winners will have employed pass-heavy spread offenses.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/9351 ... -tim-tebow

Countertrey wrote:With 3 minutes, and 3 time outs, you do not panic and go to pass only (especially with a turnover machine as your quarterback). You have PLENTY of time in this circumstance to continue to use your entire offense... INCLUDING the part that is working best... the run. Asserting otherwise as the backbone of your argument flies in the face of reality.

Were it not for the clear FACT that abandoning the run in the early first half is a demonstrable pattern with this OC, I could dismiss it... but it is... and it represents a problem.

Going pass heavy with 3 minutes left in the half constitutes abandoning to run? That's a pretty heavy exaggeration. Especially since we came out in the second half running the ball. Other than the last 3 minutes of the first half and the end of the 4th, when we fell behind and had to pass, our run/pass split was pretty much even.

And more importantly, the drive on which you are complaining that we "abandoned" the run at the end of the first half, we drove 75 yards to Jets 5 and kicked a field goal.

Blaming Kyle for this loss is not based in any sort of reality.

RayNAustin wrote: The defense has 11 and the offense has 11 .... putting 8 in the box or 11 in the box is no guarantee of stopping anything.

All of the great running teams in history ... including the majority of the dominant teams in the NFC east have managed to run successfully. Are you suggesting that "stacking the box" is a new concept or tactic? It's not, you know.

Yes but you're completely glossing over the talent factor. If you don't have the players capable of running the ball at will no matter how many players are in the box, what do you do? This is just ludicrous.

riggofan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote: The defense has 11 and the offense has 11 .... putting 8 in the box or 11 in the box is no guarantee of stopping anything.

All of the great running teams in history ... including the majority of the dominant teams in the NFC east have managed to run successfully. Are you suggesting that "stacking the box" is a new concept or tactic? It's not, you know.

Yes but you're completely glossing over the talent factor. If you don't have the players capable of running the ball at will no matter how many players are in the box, what do you do? This is just ludicrous.

Ludicrous? Yeah ... the Redskins have lacked a top flight QB for years, but we've managed a decent running game most of the time. Along comes Mike Shanahan, with the reputation for a strong running game. But he hires his Son who decides that passing 70% of the time is the proper course of action even though he selected two of the potentially worst QBs we've had here in over a decade?

That is ludicrous.

RayNAustin wrote:

riggofan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote: The defense has 11 and the offense has 11 .... putting 8 in the box or 11 in the box is no guarantee of stopping anything.

All of the great running teams in history ... including the majority of the dominant teams in the NFC east have managed to run successfully. Are you suggesting that "stacking the box" is a new concept or tactic? It's not, you know.

Yes but you're completely glossing over the talent factor. If you don't have the players capable of running the ball at will no matter how many players are in the box, what do you do? This is just ludicrous.

Ludicrous? Yeah ... the Redskins have lacked a top flight QB for years, but we've managed a decent running game most of the time. Along comes Mike Shanahan, with the reputation for a strong running game. But he hires his Son who decides that passing 70% of the time is the proper course of action even though he selected two of the potentially worst QBs we've had here in over a decade?

That is ludicrous.

I agree Ray. I will say this...I think it is the zone block more than anything else. In the NFC east you have to be more smash mouth I believe. There is some here that will say- The Shans are going to make us a better team. They will get us to where we need to be in a short time even. I think the zone blocking tactic is a hindrance in this division. Our team identity has always been run the ball. I have said before and will again. Joe Gibbs in his first stint learned that the Air Coryell just didn't work so he went to the smash mouth. Turner tried to bring more of the air game only to understand that he needed to run. I could go on but whats the point? These guys might get it, but I doubt it. One thing I do believe is, these guys might just build a team. The next coach will have an easier time winning. I am just glad that we aren't buying players anymore.

riggofan wrote:

RayNAustin wrote: The defense has 11 and the offense has 11 .... putting 8 in the box or 11 in the box is no guarantee of stopping anything.

All of the great running teams in history ... including the majority of the dominant teams in the NFC east have managed to run successfully. Are you suggesting that "stacking the box" is a new concept or tactic? It's not, you know.

Yes but you're completely glossing over the talent factor. If you don't have the players capable of running the ball at will no matter how many players are in the box, what do you do? This is just ludicrous.

Doesn't your logic work in reverse Riggofan? If you don't have the talent at QB and WR, shouldn't that factor into which of the two phases of the game you favor?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:With 3 minutes, and 3 time outs, you do not panic and go to pass only (especially with a turnover machine as your quarterback). You have PLENTY of time in this circumstance to continue to use your entire offense... INCLUDING the part that is working best... the run. Asserting otherwise as the backbone of your argument flies in the face of reality.

Were it not for the clear FACT that abandoning the run in the early first half is a demonstrable pattern with this OC, I could dismiss it... but it is... and it represents a problem.

Going pass heavy with 3 minutes left in the half constitutes abandoning to run? That's a pretty heavy exaggeration. Especially since we came out in the second half running the ball. Other than the last 3 minutes of the first half and the end of the 4th, when we fell behind and had to pass, our run/pass split was pretty much even.

And more importantly, the drive on which you are complaining that we "abandoned" the run at the end of the first half, we drove 75 yards to Jets 5 and kicked a field goal.

Blaming Kyle for this loss is not based in any sort of reality.

You will have a difficult time reconciling your last statement with what I am doing. My problem is not with losses... my problem is with repeatedly abandoning... yes, abandoning... the only part of the Redskins offense that has demonstrated any ability to be consistently effective, in the EARLY stages of the game. Making maximum use of the run may have made no difference in the outcome of the game... but his failure to do so guaranteed the outcome that we got, by maximizing Grossman's opportunities to screw something up.

FACT... only 5 offensive plays run in the second quarter... THAT IS THE ENTIRE SECOND QUARTER... were runs. The run game had not been stopped by the opponent. Yet it was not utilized, probably because Kyle doesn't see it as sexy enough. He insists on refusing to adapt to the hand that he pulled from the deck, and forcing his philosophy.

I have watched him abandon the run game prematurely, in the first and second quarter, in at least 5 games this year. You allege that the stats for this game are insignificant. I suggest that they are part of a pattern. You insist that I am viewing the stats "out of context" for this game... I will insist that the context is the entirety of the season... and that anecdote is as important in evaluating what is happening, as are the numbers.

How many Super Bowl trophys would be in the Redskins case had Gibbs refused to adapt to his talent? His coaching tree is firmly rooted in Don Coryell's PASS HEAVY model... but how was Gibbs first SB won? Ball control. The talent that Shanahan currently has IS capable of a ball control game... and is not adequately consistent in the vertical game (Grossman will consistently find the triple covered receiver, and Beck will look to check-down and dump-off to the FB 2 yds behind the LOS).

Kyle says "I don't change". That's a problem, whether you wish to admit it, or not... Seems that he is more intent on being one of the cool kids (by having a wide open passing game) than on giving himself the best shot at winning games with what he currently has. I don't say this based upon just the Jets game... but on what I have seen in virtually all of our losses. Kyle wants to pass, and sees the run as only a means of enhancing the pass. He will never allow it to be a primary weapon... apparently, even when it's the only weapon that can be relied on.

its not Kyle's fault and let me break it down.

it's the equipment managers fault. you never noticed how our guys are running ackwardly? it's because of the tight jock straps our guys wear. so i blame the equipment manager.

go skins.. beat.. no wait, score against the pats!!!

^ Wow... I hadn't even noticed...

how astute, LPJ! I'm on the Joe train, now!

Although perceptions are not always accurate, I ran some numbers regarding pass/run % for each game .... then I combined the % for the 4 wins, and for the 8 losses.

4 Wins ----- 55% pass 45% run

8 Losses --- 70% pass 30% run

Now, one stat doesn't always tell the whole story, as play selection heavily leaning toward passing can be dictated by falling way behind and needing to throw more to get back in a game. But when you look at that one stat over the course of 12 games, you see a pattern emerge, and the criticism of Kyle Shanahan abandoning the run game is valid, based on these numbers.

Interestingly, our largest margin of loss was to Buffalo 23-0 .. and the Pass/run for that game was 80/20 .... Buffalo's 23 points were equally spread out over the entire game ... and we were behind 13-0 at half time. So it's not like it was 20 - 0 in the 1st Q, demanding pass pass pass to catch up. Against the 49rers the ratio was 77/23, and Philly 74/26 for an average of 77/23 for those 3 losses.

You CAN NOT WIN when you pass 3/4ths of the time, unless your QB is Brady, Brees, P. Manning ..... when your QB is Grossman/Beck, you're screwed right out of the blocks when you call a game that lopsided and imbalanced. This is the NFL ... not Madden 2011.

One of the things that amount of passing does is stop the clock, and extend the amount of time and plays your opponents offenses have with the ball, giving them more opportunities to score and putting much more pressure on your defense. Secondly, it allows your opponent's defense to come after you more with pass rushes and blitzes, creating more opportunities for turnovers, which might explain why the Redskins are at the bottom in the league in takeaways at -13 ... and this also allows the opposing defenses to concentrate on stopping one dimension, with play action losing it's effectiveness.

Furthermore, defenses will see these tendencies and commit to stopping the run game early, knowing that if they stop you, you'll give up the run, and pass, pass, pass. Heck, we've even given up the run when it was working!!! And it's a gift to your opponents when you become one dimensional ... running the ball tends to wear down a defense over the course of the game, and that shows up in the 4th Q, with games on the line. And you need to run to eat clock and seal victories.

Now, I did a similar analysis last year, and the same pattern was there showing far more balance over the 6 wins, and imbalance on the 10 losses. Consequently, it is my opinion that the Shanahans are not very good at critical "self-analysis" ... because this isn't an obscure idea or rocket science ... the need for a balanced attack in the NFL is just as valid today as it ever was ... even in this new age of throwing more. In the old days the goal was close to 50/50 run/pass, while today that may have shifted some to perhaps around 55/45, and even 60/40 .... but when you get into that 65/35 and 70/30 range, you lose more than you win.

Given Mike Shanahan's extensive experience, I would expect them to have analyzed this failure to be more balanced last year, and corrected this by not making the same mistakes this year. Unfortunately, they must have convinced themselves that they had no choice but to pass more. And this is endemic to those with egos that enter the room 5 minutes before their bodies do. The bottom line is you have to find a way to run the ball successfully, or you will not win.

Now, to answer those that claim that opposing defenses are "stacking the box" to force the Redskins to throw, here's some interesting data regarding Tom Brady and the Patriots. (I doubt opposing defenses are trying to force Brady to throw). This year, they're 9-3 ... their pass/run % is ... for the 9 wins .. 57/43 ...and for their 3 losses they are 69/31. So even with Tom Brady as the QB (and he's having a great year) the Pats don't win when he's throwing 70% of the time. So how in the world do the Redskins think they're going to beat anyone with Grossman or Beck doing it?

And, how much would Kyle pass if he had Tom Brady? Would it be 80% every game?

Here's the reality ... Kyle couldn't get it together with McNabb last year, so they bench him and put in Grossman. This year it was supposed to be Beck to the rescue, but Grossman beat him out in the preseason. Then they bench Grossman for Beck. Then they bench Beck and put Grossman back in and all the while, we keep seeing the same results.

When are they going to consider what THEY are doing wrong, rather than keep switching players back in and back out? When are they going to realize that you can't win when you pass 70% of the time, regardless of who your QB is. If Tom Brady can't win passing 70%, neither is Grossman, or Beck, or the UNFORTUNATE rookie who gets drafted by the Redskins in 2012.

However it needs to happen, Kyle Shanahan needs to be removed from this organization, because I see no change in their approach from last year to this year, and that is disturbing. That means he isn't growing and learning and becoming a better coordinator. He's an immature coach, who caught a ride on the backs of Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson, calling plays from Kubiak's playbook ... and he's fallen flat on his face here.

I look at it like what happened in Denver when they brought in Josh McDaniels .... who literally imploded the team. He didn't have the qualifications to be a HC, and his running the Patriot offense was his only calling card ... and obviously, it was the superior talent of the pats offense that succeeded in spite of him rather than because of him.

And that's what we have right now in Redskin land ... an inexperienced coach, over his head ... with the biggest problem being that his father is his boss. So if Dad can't make the tough decision ... and it's highly unlikely that he will ... then the both of them have to go, if that is the only way to get Kyle out of the driver's seat, and prevent another wreck next year.

The Hogster wrote:Doesn't your logic work in reverse Riggofan? If you don't have the talent at QB and WR, shouldn't that factor into which of the two phases of the game you favor?

Sure. I just don't think we have much talent in the passing game OR the running game right now. Take a look at the stats though from the previous two games against Dallas and Seattle though and tell me whether we were more successful running or passing the ball. Grossman passed for about 300 yards and 2 TDs in each game. Helu ran for 35 yards in one and 100 yards in the other.

And I'm not sure what this has to do with Ray's statement that it shouldn't matter how many players the Jets put in the box or how good their defense is or how injured and depleted our offensive line is. He seems to be saying we should just say we're going to run the ball and go to town at will. It sounds like a great plan - I'm kind of amazed every team in the NFL isn't doing it.

riggofan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Doesn't your logic work in reverse Riggofan? If you don't have the talent at QB and WR, shouldn't that factor into which of the two phases of the game you favor?

Sure. I just don't think we have much talent in the passing game OR the running game right now. Take a look at the stats though from the previous two games against Dallas and Seattle though and tell me whether we were more successful running or passing the ball. Grossman passed for about 300 yards and 2 TDs in each game. Helu ran for 35 yards in one and 100 yards in the other.

And I'm not sure what this has to do with Ray's statement that it shouldn't matter how many players the Jets put in the box or how good their defense is or how injured and depleted our offensive line is. He seems to be saying we should just say we're going to run the ball and go to town at will. It sounds like a great plan - I'm kind of amazed every team in the NFL isn't doing it.

Sorry for the long message, but I gotta school Riggofan real quick.

This is an overly simplistic retort. For one, you can't go on the yards to say the running game isn't effective. If you run the ball sparingly, then you're not going to total many yards. Even averages are misleading when you telegraph what you're doing. A running back can run the ball 15 times for a total of 35 yards (a 2.3 yard average) then break 3 15+ yard runs and finish with a 4.4 yard average or better. 18 rushes for 80 yards or 18 rushes for 110 yards, is much better than 15 for 35. But, you'll never get there if you stop at 15 runs. As knowledgable football observers understand, the principle of the zone running scheme is to run laterally (stretch out) the defensive line, and hit lanes downhill. The concept is also designed to tire out the defense toward the later part of the game. If you are running this concept more in the 1st half, you'll never get to the point where you can exploit the defense.

As for your opposite view, that is just what it is, an opposite view. Rex Grossman will throw for 300 yards if he's throwing the ball 40 times. The problem with that is, if you've watched Rex for the last 8 years, you know that he's going to give the ball away 2-3 times for every 20-30 times he drops back.

You can't win that way.

Whether you like it or not, we stand a much better chance at least attempting to impose our will with a run-heavy offense based on our talent. If we stuck with it, we could have the chance to break open some runs in the second half. Instead, Kyle goes into panic mode. Even his pressers reveal a somewhat overreactive style. He rationalizes the high pass ratio because we're "behind."

Well, being behind by 1 or 2 scores in the 3rd Quarter is not time to get away from the run, unless you are a Pass-First Coordinator. Most of us think that this team isn't ready to be Pass-First. And, that's magnified when Helu looks able to carry the load. Pretty Simple.

Run plays, whether successful or not, take time off the clock. Incomplete passes stop the clock. Interceptions and Fumbles turn over the ball, stop the clock, and give the other team the ball.

What does that mean??? It means our defense will be on the field TOO much unless we can execute a Pass First Offense. We CAN'T. Some coaches make things more complex than they are. We need to shorten the game. We suck at QB and WR. No brainer.

For a guy who goes by RIGGO fan, I would think you would agree with this.

riggofan wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Doesn't your logic work in reverse Riggofan? If you don't have the talent at QB and WR, shouldn't that factor into which of the two phases of the game you favor?

Sure. I just don't think we have much talent in the passing game OR the running game right now. Take a look at the stats though from the previous two games against Dallas and Seattle though and tell me whether we were more successful running or passing the ball. Grossman passed for about 300 yards and 2 TDs in each game. Helu ran for 35 yards in one and 100 yards in the other.

And I'm not sure what this has to do with Ray's statement that it shouldn't matter how many players the Jets put in the box or how good their defense is or how injured and depleted our offensive line is. He seems to be saying we should just say we're going to run the ball and go to town at will. It sounds like a great plan - I'm kind of amazed every team in the NFL isn't doing it.

Ask any running back in the NFL, and they'll tell you straight up ... it takes attempts to develop a rhythm and a feel for the defense, just like QBs need to develop a rhythm passing. You cannot develop a rhythm by 1) running 4 times per Quarter OR 2) switching backs every other play and series.

This offense has become "offense by committee", at both of the critical positions of QB and RB. We've had 3 QBs and 4 QB changes in 1 3/4 seasons. Last year you needed to take notes to keep track of the RBs running the ball ... watching this offense looks like kids playing Whack the Mole ... there is no consistency ... no commitment to a philosophy and no identity ... just a never ending replay of the same old story, week in and week out. A seemingly futile grasping at straws.

As far as the idea that the Redskins are so lacking in talent that they can't run or pass ... who's freaking fault is that? Could it be that the Geniuses picking the talent are just as adept at picking o-linemen and running backs as they apparently are with Quarterbacks? Are they just as savvy in designing plays and game plans as they are making excuses?

I got news for you my friend ... this team is WORSE this year than they were last year (aside the defense, which has improved as one should expect in the second year).

This same scenario played out with Jim Zorn, except ... Mikey boy needs to win 2 out of the next 4 games just to match Zorn's win loss record! Upcoming are the Patriots, @Giants, Vikings, and @Eagles. Which two are we going to win? Vikings and Eagles? Maybe. Pats and Giants? No chance.

So old Mikey maybe matches Zorn's record ... but Zorn had a little bit of an excuse ... 1) he'd never been a head coach ... 2) he never got the chance to pick his QB (let alone 3 different ones) ... 3) he was publicly castrated in his second year, and not even allowed to call his own plays ... the Redskins brought in the Bingo Guy, making Zorn a laughing stock, and he still won the same number of games!

So, let's hear how Mike's last name "Shanahan" means a damned thing as the Redskins wrestle with the Eagles for last place?

If anyone is waiting for that ton of bricks to fall on you all's heads ... it has already happened .... and that point was reached when Beck fell on his face after the declaration "I'll stake my reputation on it ...." in the off season.

Sound harsh? Well, lets just see what happens this weekend with Tom Brady and the Pats in town to a team that can't compete with the Dolphins and Panthers, and their struggling #1 o-lineman and there best receiver sits at home because they were bad boys.

Who ever hasn't seen enough of the Shanaklan at this point ... should just start watching NASCAR ... they have almost as many wrecks to look at.

The Hogster wrote:For a guy who goes by RIGGO fan, I would think you would agree with this.

hah. Yes I agree. There is no doubt that a team has a better chance of winning a game if they can run the ball. Thanks for schooling me!

As far as the idea that the Redskins are so lacking in talent that they can't run or pass ... who's freaking fault is that?

Probably Kyle Shanahan's. Let's fire the coaches and start over again.

Countertrey wrote:

Kyle says "I don't change". That's a problem, whether you wish to admit it, or not... Seems that he is more intent on being one of the cool kids (by having a wide open passing game) than on giving himself the best shot at winning games with what he currently has. I don't say this based upon just the Jets game... but on what I have seen in virtually all of our losses. Kyle wants to pass, and sees the run as only a means of enhancing the pass. He will never allow it to be a primary weapon... apparently, even when it's the only weapon that can be relied on.

I like Kyle and I don't feel that he should be fired, BUT, I have to admit that CT is right on this one about Kyle not changing. He should have adjusted his philosophy for this game. Don't take my opinion - Here's someone that is an expert on what goes on in the NFL.

I listen to Greg Cosell of NFL Films every Thursday on ESPN 980 (DC Local) at 4:30. He gives the Redskin film extra time just for the hosts of that time slot.

Cosell said that he was very surprised at Kyle trying to throw the ball so much. He said he understands what Kyle is trying to do and maybe Kyle saw something that he felt that he could exploit, but he said that Kyle, does not have the personnel to do what he wants to do. He also felt given the Jets Pass defense, he should not have been passing that ball like that.

I believe that that Kyle is holding Mike back. Like said, I like Kyle. I think that he needs to go his own way. Take a HC job at a DI school. I think he would do fine, because he could recruit the talent that he needs to run his O.

If Kyle stays then we go through more growing pains while we get the personnel for Kyle. That could take two more off seasons.