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

What is BLADES doing on the WR depth chart? I hope it's a misprint.
And CALDWELL is 3rd behind BL...?

OFFENSE Depth Chart
Position 1st String 2nd String 3rd String
WR 89 - Santana Moss 83 - James Thrash 54 - H.B. Blades
LT 60 - Chris Samuels 74 - Stephon Heyer
LG 66 - Pete Kendall 69 - Jason Fabini
C 61 - Casey Rabach 62 - Mike Pucillo
RG 77 - Randy Thomas 69 - Jason Fabini
RT 71 - Todd Wade
TE 47 - Chris ey 87 - Todd Yoder 84 - Cody Boyd
WR 82 - Antwaan Randle El 85 - Brandon Lloyd 86 - Reche Caldwell
QB 17 - Jason Campbell 15 - Todd Collins 8 - Mark Brunell
FB 45 - Mike Sellers
RB 26 - Clinton Portis 46 - Ladell Betts 31 - Rock Cartwright

http://www.redskins.com/team/depthchart.jsp

You're not reading the chart correctly.

Left WR 89 - (1)Santana Moss 83 - (2)James Thrash 54 - (3)H.B. Blades

Right WR 82 - (1)Antwaan Randle El 85 - (2)Brandon Lloyd 86 - (3)Reche Caldwell

Blades is a linebacker..... when did he convert to WR...

I think it's just a misprint....

They must have meant Bodiford. Both start with the letter B. Isn't that close enough?

I'd pay to see Blades run a WR screen.

joebagadonuts wrote:I'd pay to see Blades run a WR screen.

I'd also pay to see Blades block downfield on a wide receiver screen.

I would rather see him make the Pro Bowl as a linebacker.

id rather see him stay on the bench and learn from our great LB core.

gay4pacman wrote:id rather see him stay on the bench and learn from our great LB core.

2nd that

dmwc wrote:

gay4pacman wrote:id rather see him stay on the bench and learn from our great LB core.

2nd that

All in favor say, Aye.

Aye!

However, if we get any more injuries to the D-line and we will have to go to a 3-4 (I know we only have one and he will be back this week, but one injury at a time is al that thin line can handle)

We will not be playing a 3-4 defense in the true sense of that - we do not have the players for that "system" - we will see some formations that look like it but it is not a 3-4 defense.

SkinsJock wrote:We will not be playing a 3-4 defense in the true sense of that - we do not have the players for that "system" - we will see some formations that look like it but it is not a 3-4 defense.

I don't agree that we lack the personnell for a 3-4. Carter has played OLB in a 3-4 & Wilson probably could as well. I think Montgomery & Golston could play in a 3-4. That doesn't mean that GW likes the 3-4 or will use it.

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:We will not be playing a 3-4 defense in the true sense of that - we do not have the players for that "system" - we will see some formations that look like it but it is not a 3-4 defense.

I don't agree that we lack the personnell for a 3-4. Carter has played OLB in a 3-4 & Wilson probably could as well. I think Montgomery & Golston could play in a 3-4. That doesn't mean that GW likes the 3-4 or will use it.

Whose the big body NT in this scheme?
Didn't Carter's play fell off when he played OLB in SF?
Wilson made the team because of his speed coming off the edge why stand him up and have him a step off the line?
Montgomery & Golston both are in there second year and neither has played in the scheme before, why would you think they can do it now?

I'd say stick with the cover 3 morphing in and out of cover 2

1niksder wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:We will not be playing a 3-4 defense in the true sense of that - we do not have the players for that "system" - we will see some formations that look like it but it is not a 3-4 defense.

I don't agree that we lack the personnell for a 3-4. Carter has played OLB in a 3-4 & Wilson probably could as well. I think Montgomery & Golston could play in a 3-4. That doesn't mean that GW likes the 3-4 or will use it.

Whose the big body NT in this scheme?
Didn't Carter's play fell off when he played OLB in SF?
Wilson made the team because of his speed coming off the edge why stand him up and have him a step off the line?
Montgomery & Golston both are in there second year and neither has played in the scheme before, why would you think they can do it now?

I'd say stick with the cover 3 morphing in and out of cover 2

If it ain't broke don't fix it

It has been said many times, that the cover 3's weak link is 7-15 yard passes. I think it is too. All of McNabb's passes were in this range. We will have to mix this up. Otherwise, it won't take long for our opponets to start using this to their advantage.

As Joe an Al do consistantly the 7-15 yard passes will kill us, and time of possesion. We mixed it up more against the Eagles than we did in our first game. I also wonder, If this is only because thats what we saw GB used and the Eagles couldn't do much. We didn't see that bump-n-run in the first game.

1niksder wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:We will not be playing a 3-4 defense in the true sense of that - we do not have the players for that "system" - we will see some formations that look like it but it is not a 3-4 defense.

I don't agree that we lack the personnell for a 3-4. Carter has played OLB in a 3-4 & Wilson probably could as well. I think Montgomery & Golston could play in a 3-4. That doesn't mean that GW likes the 3-4 or will use it.

Whose the big body NT in this scheme?
Didn't Carter's play fell off when he played OLB in SF?
Wilson made the team because of his speed coming off the edge why stand him up and have him a step off the line?
Montgomery & Golston both are in there second year and neither has played in the scheme before, why would you think they can do it now?

I'd say stick with the cover 3 morphing in and out of cover 2

I think Wilson has the speed & agility to play OLB in a 3-4. Golston & Montgomery have the athleticism to handle DE in 3-4. Daniels has the strength & skills. Griff can clog the middle. I'm not saying we SHOULD run a 3-4, just that we could add that to the mix once in a while.

BernieSki wrote:I would rather see him make the Pro Bowl as a linebacker.

Linebacker that can catch.. hopefully that's what it means..