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

...pun intended...

i'm trying to convince myself that brunell can play as well as he did in preseason. but then what i realize is, my main concern is actually the play-calling. gibbs swore we would "open things up" this year, and he definitely got us the WRs to go with that concept. these little guys probably won't do too well with all those dink and dunk little passes, they are much more suited to getting downfield. the fact that gibbs brought them in makes me feel like gibbs is committed to doing that...

but i still worry, after how conservative we were last year. and in the bears game, a single mistake on defense in the 4th quarter would've cost us that game, as gibbs really tightened up. i understand and agree with the idea of "playing against the clock", but i think when you are up by only one score or less you still have to make some attempt at really moving the ball and trying to score again, unless there are only a couple minutes left in the game.

what does everyone else think about this? i just feel like playing that tight will probably only get us something like 6-10 again or maybe 8-8 at best. thoughts?

he didn't show it against the bears.. because it wasn't necessary... I'm guessing he knew we could beat the bears with very little offensive fire power... there's no need to whip out our best plays against a team with little to no offense... better to save it against some team with a much better offense and not give them anything to look at... ..

my thoughts are that if i'm forced to watch 2-point games all year, i might as well go out and buy a case of pepto right now.

BringThePain! wrote:he didn't show it against the bears.. because it wasn't necessary... I'm guessing he knew we could beat the bears with very little offensive fire power... there's no need to whip out our best plays against a team with little to no offense... better to save it against some team with a much better offense and not give them anything to look at... ..

that's definitely what i was hoping.

BringThePain! wrote:he didn't show it against the bears.. because it wasn't necessary... I'm guessing he knew we could beat the bears with very little offensive fire power... there's no need to whip out our best plays against a team with little to no offense... better to save it against some team with a much better offense and not give them anything to look at... ..

I wish/hope that that is what he was doing. Just saving the deep-plays and hiding some of our offensive schemes. Somehow, I just doubt it though. Joe Gibbs is usually a no BS kind of coach. He usually employs one strategy. Run happy and a conservative passing game. I can't really see him changing that all of the sudden, but I hope he does incorporate our speedy receivers to do downfield plays a little bit more than last year.

The idea that he is hiding his offensive plays is a little far fetched and definitely out of character for Gibbs. The play calling really scares me . Looks like we may be in for a season of soccer-like scoring and predictable play calling.

blchizzleke wrote:

BringThePain! wrote:he didn't show it against the bears.. because it wasn't necessary... I'm guessing he knew we could beat the bears with very little offensive fire power... there's no need to whip out our best plays against a team with little to no offense... better to save it against some team with a much better offense and not give them anything to look at... ..

I wish/hope that that is what he was doing. Just saving the deep-plays and hiding some of our offensive schemes. Somehow, I just doubt it though. Joe Gibbs is usually a no BS kind of coach. He usually employs one strategy. Run happy and a conservative passing game. I can't really see him changing that all of the sudden, but I hope he does incorporate our speedy receivers to do downfield plays a little bit more than last year.

some mark rypien average yards per game under gibbs:
1989: 269.14
1990: 207.00
1991: 222.75
1992: 205.13

that's not a ton but it is plenty. he may not be running the "Chuck 'N' Duck" but it's definitely a few steps above "MartyBall" or whatever you want to call it.

remember that ryp had a beautiful deep ball, and the skins connected on long passes quite often. if brunell can equal that, he might have the same type of averages. if he can't, he'll be back to dink and dunk numbers of 150 per game.

jazzyjimmy wrote:The idea that he is hiding his offensive plays is a little far fetched and definitely out of character for Gibbs. The play calling really scares me . Looks like we may be in for a season of soccer-like scoring and predictable play calling.

actually, gibbs is notorious for being very clandestine about his gameplans and playbook and such. so it is conceivable... i sure hope it is true, because otherwise, there would be two very unsettling consequences:

1. we are doomed. this season will be a repeat of last season.

2. we will be in the terrible situation of knowing that gibbs is not going to get it done, and must be replaced. hopefully if his offense is as dismal this year as it was last year, he will face the facts that he can't do it anymore, and step down. otherwise, how do you fire joe gibbs??? you can't. which means we will be stuck with a lousy offense and no hope of the playoffs for years to come. additionally, gregg williams will surely leave to take a head coaching job elsewhere, and we will have a hard time continuing our defensive success.

so please, gibbs, don't let this happen! save us!!!

You also have to consider the fact that Brunell didnt get much work that week with the first string offense and he doenst have as well a rhythm with the new WR as he would have had he been the starter from the get go. I think it was scaled back for that reason and we didnt really need anything spectacular to beat the bears that day so it was just about playing mistake free football once we got the lead and letting the D do its thing.

Now i dont really agree with that but this week i dont think the playcalling will be as conservative having Brunell practice full time with the first string offense. We shall see...

FatPat wrote:You also have to consider the fact that Brunell didnt get much work that week with the first string offense and he doenst have as well a rhythm with the new WR as he would have had he been the starter from the get go. I think it was scaled back for that reason and we didnt really need anything spectacular to beat the bears that day so it was just about playing mistake free football once we got the lead and letting the D do its thing.

Now i dont really agree with that but this week i dont think the playcalling will be as conservative having Brunell practice full time with the first string offense. We shall see...

good point, pat. i hadn't thought about that.

joebagadonuts wrote:remember that ryp had a beautiful deep ball, and the skins connected on long passes quite often. if brunell can equal that, he might have the same type of averages. if he can't, he'll be back to dink and dunk numbers of 150 per game.

Remember Ryp stood on the sidelines with Joe for about a year and a half

maybe longer. i love looking at the 'bowl 22 tape and seeing him in street clothes.

The playcalling sucked. It was just as bad as last year. I hope it's better this week.

I was under the impression that recently Joe decided to turn the play calling per se over to Jack Burns and Don Breaux with Gibbs having the "final say" as it were. I think that he does want a more "aggressive" game plan but I wonder if that was intended for the overall intent and perhaps not for that first game. I think we wanted to be a little more conservative because,, hopefully, we thought they were not going to be able to score a lot of points and we could win with that type of offensive plan.

That will not be the case this week and we may see more aggressive plays called. I hope that Brunell has a very good game because the puke players are going to be a lot more difficult to beat than that group we faced last week.

This is a good team just like we are but they are not a very good team and we should beat them. I believe our offensive line can handle their defensive group and I am very sure that our D is better than their O.
So IMO it comes down to execution and no mistakes.

We can beat the Cowboys but we have to ensure that we do not beat ourselves first.

The conservative play calling and conservative QB play with Brunell is only going to last but so long. What happens when Dallas scores off of special teams mistakes and takes a two touchdown or 10-0 lead? We are down, do we play conservative? Can Brunell lead us back and put points on the board or will we run Portis and Betts into the ground and try to catchup that way?

The first two offensive series Monday night will give us an indication on how much respect the Dallas Defense will have for Brunell. If the run is stuffed and we go two consecutive 3 and outs, it's will be a long night.

Also, how long will Gregg Williams and the defense tow the company line and remain mum about the offense's inability to score and get his defense some rest....

roybus14 wrote:Also, how long will Gregg Williams and the defense tow the company line and remain mum about the offense's inability to score and get his defense some rest....

As long as Coach Gibbs is the coach and Coach Williams is a Redskin.

roybus14 wrote:The conservative play calling and conservative QB play with Brunell is only going to last but so long. What happens when Dallas scores off of special teams mistakes and takes a two touchdown or 10-0 lead? We are down, do we play conservative? Can Brunell lead us back and put points on the board or will we run Portis and Betts into the ground and try to catchup that way?

Or we score off an interception and our special teams recovers the kick off - we kick a field goal and are up 10 - 0

..The first two offensive series Monday night will give us an indication on how much respect the Dallas Defense will have for Brunell. If the run is stuffed and we go two consecutive 3 and outs, it's will be a long night..

Yeah, but I prefer the scenario that involves Lavar and the puke QB injury & fumble recovery.






by the way welcome to the site. We are going to find out about our offense this week - you're right about that.

I heard that Rypen was falsly put on IR for two years so that he could learn the offense.

die cowboys die wrote:...pun intended...

i'm trying to convince myself that brunell can play as well as he did in preseason. but then what i realize is, my main concern is actually the play-calling. gibbs swore we would "open things up" this year, and he definitely got us the WRs to go with that concept. these little guys probably won't do too well with all those dink and dunk little passes, they are much more suited to getting downfield. the fact that gibbs brought them in makes me feel like gibbs is committed to doing that...

but i still worry, after how conservative we were last year. and in the bears game, a single mistake on defense in the 4th quarter would've cost us that game, as gibbs really tightened up. i understand and agree with the idea of "playing against the clock", but i think when you are up by only one score or less you still have to make some attempt at really moving the ball and trying to score again, unless there are only a couple minutes left in the game.

what does everyone else think about this? i just feel like playing that tight will probably only get us something like 6-10 again or maybe 8-8 at best. thoughts?

The one time Brunell tried to throw deep he under threw his receiver by 10 yards and the ball was intercepted and then he blamed it on not warming up enough. Gibbs can't open it up now, that would require Brunell throwing for more than 100 yards in the game and we all know that isn't going to happen!

The Bears play a safety deep most of the time so you would not see many deep routes. One thing I noticed is that the corners were playing 8-10 yards off the speedy receivers several times and we just tossed a quick pass and let the guys run. I think Patton had at least two like this and Moss had one. We should see this a lot, and we'll likely see them break a few for long gains. If we can get the running game going against Dallas, look for play action and some deep throws when williams comes forward in run support. If we get a lead we should run the ball. I just love watching us run out the clock pounding the ball down their throat. The passing stats against the Bears should have been better. Moss had another long gain, but we ended up with the yardage on a pass interference penalty. Plus, we got the running game going so there was no need to take chances throwing low percentage long passes. Overall, the offense and play calling seemed like an improvement over last year.

ArizonaHOG wrote:If we get a lead we should run the ball. I just love watching us run out the clock pounding the ball down their throat.

i agree with you in theory. when you have the lead in the 4th quarter, you are playing against the clock. my problem is, "run for 3 yards, run for 3 yards, run for 1 yard, punt" hardly qualifies as "punding the ball down their throat", and that seems to be what happens all to often when we have the lead in the 4th. it just doesn't take enough time off the clock. you have to pick up a couple first downs to eat enough clock, and you are just going to have to try a few passes to accomplish that.

i think we are going to pull a LOT of play action out of the bag on monday. when you have an overaggressive safety like roy williams, and a very aggressive corner like anthony henry, it only seems logical with the WR that we have that if we can get them both to bite, SOMEONE is going to be wiiiiiiiiiiide open, and with the way brunell has been throwing with that heat on the ball, i think he might just be able to get it there.

BringThePain! wrote:he didn't show it against the bears.. because it wasn't necessary... I'm guessing he knew we could beat the bears with very little offensive fire power... there's no need to whip out our best plays against a team with little to no offense... better to save it against some team with a much better offense and not give them anything to look at... ..

It seems a little crazy, but it may actually be true. I remember thinking that when the Bears scored that TD I knew it was probably the only score they would get, so I wasn't even worried.

die cowboys die wrote:

ArizonaHOG wrote:If we get a lead we should run the ball. I just love watching us run out the clock pounding the ball down their throat.

i agree with you in theory. when you have the lead in the 4th quarter, you are playing against the clock. my problem is, "run for 3 yards, run for 3 yards, run for 1 yard, punt" hardly qualifies as "punding the ball down their throat", and that seems to be what happens all to often when we have the lead in the 4th. it just doesn't take enough time off the clock. you have to pick up a couple first downs to eat enough clock, and you are just going to have to try a few passes to accomplish that.

True..but, we are a better running team than passing right now, and with our defense the better option might be to run for a first, keep the clock running, and punt it to our defense if we don't convert the first (play the field position game). I agree using high percentage passing will also accomplish the goal of keeping possession, I'm just not confident we can do that consistently, plus incompletions are just like extra timeouts for the opposing team who is trying to stop the clock.

This sounds like a typical philisophical difference; do you run the ball to open up the pass, or do you pass the ball to open up the run. I prefer running first, and love it when it works. I have not been able to enjoy watching us pound the ball down their throat very often the last few seasons, but it it still one of my favorite parts of the game.