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

Someone please explain to me why we've had issues pounding the ball in at the goal line for the past few years.

My hunch is that somebody keeps moving the goal line.

But I suspect that there are others who might be able to give a better answer than that.

My guess would be very obvious play calling. Sometimes they'll run 1st and 2nd down and then obviously be in a position to throw the ball on 3rd. It's just a combination of things. Sometimes I wish they'd try more play action on 1st or run a bootleg on 1st instead of always waiting until 3rd down to try that.

Sure, it's more than that, but those are a few things that frustrate me.

I'm sure you'd find the goal line stand to be well-practiced just about anywhere. It may well be the most difficult thing to do, getting past a wall of men specifically positioned to keep you from getting by. Consider that (even in the long 'I') you have no forward running room really to build up momentum. If a hole is opened for you, it isn't there for long.
I always advocated having the fullback (one year, we had a rather athletic DE report in as FB) do that job for the high school team I was working with. It was my view then, and now, that you need the guy with legs like oak trunks to push the pile back...never the scatback, who would bounce off and try to find a new opening.
You don't have all day to get in there, you know. Eventually you bounce backwards onto your tush, or out of bounds.
We regularly played a school (Warwick, NY) who would initially line up as the field goal team does, only to shift into one of four or five mutations of the common stand. They'd even have a few of the smaller guys behind the line to "fill the gaps" (we called it 'caulking') and to do what later became known as the "Lavar Leap". The lead coach for our "O" team generally went with the sneak or an option because we couldn't solve the "D". He'd try to get the linemen and the TE's to form a short line that pushed into a human wedge (except the tip of the wedge was cast either left or right...almost never straight) in which the last man through was the quarterback, and it often collapsed before the kid even got into the neighborhood. It was a thing of beauty to watch from their sidelines, I'll bet. The "D" front would 'saloon door' the "O" linemen (sometimes allowing their forward momentum to carry them wildly windmilling their arms into the back of the endzone), only to seal up right behind them. Once you've got the tackles behind you, they've been rendered obsolete; there's no way to legally reopen your path of entry from behind.
I guess this isn't really an answer, is it? How's this?
"We've been having problems at the goal line lately because our staff never gives the ball to the guy who can drive the pile back...Sellers."
Better?
I wonder now if you were chumming a little, Chrissy. Are you setting me up for a "No CP at the goal line" thing here?

tcwest10 wrote:I wonder now if you were chumming a little, Chrissy. Are you setting me up for a "No CP at the goal line" thing here?

Not all. You can put anyone back there as long as there is a hole for them to go through.

It was a legit question and I think it boils down to the line, the strength of the back, the WR's and the plays.

Can the line get enough of a push?
Are the plays easy to predict?
Is the RB stout enough to not get pushed backwards easily, how is his 2nd and 3rd effot?
Do we capable WR's/TE to run routes in the end zone?

Let's blame it on Dockery, since he's gone. It was all Dockery's fault. Now we can put someone else in there and score every time.

I think it's also a question of it simply being difficult to score on a goal-line stand. This might be overstating the obvious but you're allowing the defense to play the shortest field possible, the location itself eliminates several options for the offense.
The Chargers were far and away the leaders in rushing touchdowns last season but, and this is purely from my observations, it seemed as if a lot of those rushing TDs came from 5 plus yards out, giving LT time to hit the corner and use his speed to beat the defender as opposed to plowing through the line from the 1.
The Redskins were in the top half of the league in rushing TDs and if they had shifted to the run-first offense earlier in the season, we can reasonably say they would have been in the top 10 if not the top 5. My point is that I don't think it's a question of o-line strength, the Redskins had 123 rushing first-downs, fourth-best in the league. That, to me, is a much more effective measure of the o-line play when the team puts the ball on the ground. I would wager that most coaches would prefer a first-and-goal from the 5 to 10 yard line as opposed to the 4 and under.

I say we bring John Riggins out of retirement.

The simple and right answer is the o-line just doesn't seem to want it as bad. Lets be honest here, all they need is 1 - 2 yards. Get them all in a 4pt stance and run a dive or a simple iso.
Then obviously you can play off that once the o-line gets their butts in gear (ie. play action, bootlegs, etc.)

Hill66 wrote:The simple and right answer is the o-line just doesn't seem to want it as bad. Lets be honest here, all they need is 1 - 2 yards. Get them all in a 4pt stance and run a dive or a simple iso.
Then obviously you can play off that once the o-line gets their butts in gear (ie. play action, bootlegs, etc.)

Totally off topic, but hello brother!!!

Holler at me when you've got a second... by phone... or by PM... whatever.