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

A Quick look at the stats and we passed for 34 times and ran only 23 times... not Gibbs Football

CP only 14 atts and LB only 7... that is not how we do it there JG..

BUT

Got notin' but love for ya...
HAIL!!!

yeah...thank god for the bye week. re group.

I won't argue with the stats, but we were winning by passing more than running. When we started running to "control the clock," we couldn't and had a bunch of 3 and outs. Poor execution coupled with bad play calling (on the goalline) cost us this game.

A Quick look at the stats and we passed for 34 times and ran only 23 times... not Gibbs Football

Sorry, but that is just too simplistic a point of view. We tried to come out at half time and run the ball, but we were getting 1 yard, or no yards, or even a loss of yards. When we run the football EFFECTIVELY we win games, but if we keep pounding the ball for no gain then you would rightly have to criticize us for being too conservative. We didn't run the ball because we were constantly in 2nd and long and 3rd and long.

i think the fact that we couldnt get first downs because we couldnt run led to the lack of running attempts. If they were to space their runs out with the pass, they would get first downs, which would lead to more time of possession, which would lead to more carries for the rb's.

We always need to run the ball between 25-30 times. But we were too conservative in the second half. Our D just ran out of gas

Hey, if you didn't notice, we're missing half of our starting O Line. That's gonna hinder our game plan, especially if Strahan with the stray hands is on that side....

http://www.the-hogs.net/content/story.php?id=819


Sometimes we pass more than we rush for the right reasons. We tried rushing in the second half, but when it's not working then it's time to switch tactics.

We should have passed on CARLOS ROGERS...he is the worst! Can't catch and wiffed on a tackle that goes for a touchdown...HORRIBLE!!!

ICEMAN wrote:We should have passed on CARLOS ROGERS...he is the worst! Can't catch and wiffed on a tackle that goes for a touchdown...HORRIBLE!!!

And to think that we could've had Merriman instead.

With secondary that the Giants have, JC shown have thrown the ball "fiddy" times today. The secondary is the Giants achilles heel and we didn't do alot to exploit it.

if we did the same in the second half as we did in the first half then we would of won...that being said...we needed to pass, we got nowhere in the 2nd half because they knew we were going to run the ball for clock management.

If we played the way we did in the first half...we would have opened it up and won by atleast 2 td's

So you think that is the kind of O we have now... a more Pass then Run... We do have the talent... SM, ARE, CC, CP, LB, and the great JC...

dmwc wrote:So you think that is the kind of O we have now... a more Pass then Run... We do have the talent... SM, ARE, CC, CP, LB, and the great JC...

I don't think that it necessarily has to be more pass than run. Balance is always a good thing. But I think that we need to open things up a little more and not be as predictable. ARE said that in a post game interview. And JC also said after the game that he feels that he is capable of handling more of the offense. But sometimes we def should be passing more than running, especially against a team with a secondary that is as bad as the Giants' is.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

dmwc wrote:So you think that is the kind of O we have now... a more Pass then Run... We do have the talent... SM, ARE, CC, CP, LB, and the great JC...

I don't think that it necessarily has to be more pass than run. Balance is always a good thing. But I think that we need to open things up a little more and not be as predictable. ARE said that in a post game interview. And JC also said after the game that he feels that he is capable of handling more of the offense. But sometimes we def should be passing more than running, especially against a team with a secondary that is as bad as the Giants' is.

I almost want JC to give the middle finger to the sideline and call his own plays.

Gibbs is going to have to make a change somehow, when the players start taking things tend to get out of hand.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

dmwc wrote:So you think that is the kind of O we have now... a more Pass then Run... We do have the talent... SM, ARE, CC, CP, LB, and the great JC...

I don't think that it necessarily has to be more pass than run. Balance is always a good thing. But I think that we need to open things up a little more and not be as predictable. ARE said that in a post game interview. And JC also said after the game that he feels that he is capable of handling more of the offense. But sometimes we def should be passing more than running, especially against a team with a secondary that is as bad as the Giants' is.

It's one thing to focus on being a run-first, ball-control offense, but you have to be able to change your scheme just enough to exploit the other team's weaknesses. If a team has a solid D-line and weak secondary, and you're having success through the air, you have to keep passing. Once you have a comfortable lead you don't start ramming your RB into a wall, rack up 3-and-outs and say it's because you're"protecting the lead."

I still like Gibbs and Saunders, but whoever is calling/approving the plays is playing scared, and whoever that is needs to get their head out of their chute and be prepared to put teams away or find a new line of work.

I still like Gibbs and Saunders, but whoever is calling/approving the plays is playing scared, and whoever that is needs to get their head out of their chute and be prepared to put teams away or find a new line of work.

The more I think about it, there is no way that it was Saunders' idea to run that conservative type of offense in the second half. I've seen enough of Saunders' games from KC to know that this isn't the type of approach that he has to play calling. When he was in KC those teams never let up and always kept piling up the points. The conservative game plan from the second half had Gibbs written all over it. Saunders may have been calling the plays but there is no doubt that it was Gibbs' idea to play conservatively in the second half.

REGRESSION... we are back in time to last year.... of all the teams it's the horrible GIANTS and of all the places, we lose at home... I'm so disappointed.

our coaching staff doesnt know how to finish teams off.. the only one I dont blame is Saunders because I dont feel like that 2nd half was dictated by him.. I understand what Gibbs was trying to do with a 2 touchdown lead but teams know hes going to do this and adjust there game plans accordingly.. its almost as if Gibbs is too nice of a guy and doesnt want to run up the score on anyone .. hes so used to the NFC EAST of old where the games where smashmouth nailbiters and alot of the times they still are but he doesnt need to make sure it becomes that kind of game when we could of blown them wide open ..

and we become very predictable on D too.. Gregg goes right to that Prevent D and cover 2 BS and teams just start to throw on us all half.. which then opens up there running game and we start getting gashed for 7 yards a run which gives them 2 and shorts and 3rd and shorts and BAM all of a sudden we find we dont have the game as in hand as we thought we did .. it gets so frustrating.. its sad that when we get a 2 TD lead Im just as worried as if it were tied up

B-Mitch should be on the coaching staff. He has the mind to understand what's going on, the loyalty for the organization, but the tough love to bring up the constructive criticism the team needs.

His comments along with mine, reiterate a lot of things that everyone else has said, but I'd like to emphasize a couple things.

Eli made some good throws, but he's always had the accuracy. You have to force some bad plays (which we did) and pour it on to make himself doubt himself. We could've put the Giants out for the rest of the season, now they see some light.

The cliched run-to-pass ratio is a bunch of BS. No one has proved one causes the other. Could it be that if you get a lead, people run a lot more to kill the clock. Was killing that clock what made you beat the other team, or the what you did to get that lead to begin with. I think you take what people give. Esp. because of injuries we don't have a line that can dominate the line as consistently as the Hogs of old. In this league, you have to keep defenses on their heels. That means labeling ourselves as a running team, and staying "TRUE" to it, in fact makes us a predictable team. Let's not be proud of being predictable. Good teams win with defense one game, the run game another, and the pass game when needed. Let's not be proud of being one-dimensional.

Lastly, let's play and acquire players who can play. There are cancers and there are leaders that can seriously effect success, but there are players who may not be the nicest "character" guys that can ball. I, just like the next guy, want a humble, team guy to win. But my next door neighbor is a hell of a guy, but I'd rather have Randy Moss running routes than him. As long as the guy isn't a cancer, coach him and play him at the same time. It is possible.

[quote="dlc"]B-Mitch should be on the coaching staff. He has the mind to understand what's going on, the loyalty for the organization, but the tough love to bring up the constructive criticism the team needs.

His comments along with mine, reiterate a lot of things that everyone else has said, but I'd like to emphasize a couple things.

How much of B itchell's radio show have you listened to? He's not nearly as loyal as you seem to think.

GSPODS wrote:

dlc wrote:B-Mitch should be on the coaching staff. He has the mind to understand what's going on, the loyalty for the organization, but the tough love to bring up the constructive criticism the team needs.

His comments along with mine, reiterate a lot of things that everyone else has said, but I'd like to emphasize a couple things.

How much of B itchell's radio show have you listened to? He's not nearly as loyal as you seem to think.

It depends on what you see as loyal. I believe he wants the organization to succeed, and his part is being the constructive criticism that might not be coming from within. For me, loyalty is doing whatever is needed to help a person/organization out, not telling them what they want to hear. But that's merely my opinion on what constitutes loyalty.