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

So which is it. The offense only scored 6 points.

I missed most of the second half so I don't know if they squandered a lot
of opportunities or not.

Dallas played tough, specially at the run, but there were holes in the secondary. We'll get better, the O will pick it up. Nice to see a QB that can extend plays with his legs though.

Redskinsfansince81 wrote:So which is it. The offense only scored 6 points.

I missed most of the second half so I don't know if they squandered a lot
of opportunities or not.

Dallas has a good defense and our offense needs to improve. The O line is improved, but need to get more used to playing together and Trent's good but needs to get more experience. Better then last year though. McNabb was already as comfortable with the receivers in one game as JC was over several seasons, so they'll get better. Unfortunately our receivers are a problem still as we still only have two, Moss and ey. Deadskins, note I said "receivers" not "wide receivers." RB is an area of concern too. We have depth but no one looked good running. Dallas has good run D and CP improved in the second half so there's some hope, but it wasn't heartening and LJ didn't do much at all.

Yeah, the running game was weak. One nice run by Portis and one by McNabb, the rest came out to 2.5 yards per run average. 15-32 passing didn't help, and there HAS to be a TD where they took the points off the board and eventually botched the field goal.

A lot of changes have been made for this season, so I understand that things aren't perfect yet. As long as there's progress from game to game, i don't mind it.

Dallas has a great D BUT we need our wide outs to step up, either that or teams are going to put 7-8 men in the box and portis is going nowhere.

remember how that happened to us last year? and the year before? and the year before.....

we havn't had more than one good wide out for years now.

it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

He's not even 30....

Our offense looked rusty, but we moved the ball on several drives, just did not put it in the endzone. McNabb's lack of game time since the 2nd preseason game showed with missed passes. Also there were several dropped balls. The pass blocking was very good for the first game, but the run blocking left much to be desired. On defense, we were better vs. the pass than the run. Luckily, Dallas basically abandoned the run for some reason. I think we'll see good improvement as the season goes on, and the team has a chance to gel. I'm not worried.

Unless I remember wrong, which is possible, we had no fumbles, no interception, and one, maybe two sacks?

I'm not saying we should buy playoff tickets just yet but it could've been worse.

I pretty much expected this to be a defensive battle, so I'm not reading too much into what the offense did or didn't do.

They need to make sure they get all the quick receivers we have open in space, so we at least move the ball. The red zone will be a problem. Maybe get some double tight going with cooley/davis?

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

I actually thought that he showed a pretty good burst and good quickness the few times that the line actually opened up some running lanes.

Deadskins wrote:Our offense looked rusty, but we moved the ball on several drives, just did not put it in the endzone. McNabb's lack of game time since the 2nd preseason game showed with missed passes. Also there were several dropped balls. The pass blocking was very good for the first game, but the run blocking left much to be desired. On defense, we were better vs. the pass than the run. Luckily, Dallas basically abandoned the run for some reason. I think we'll see good improvement as the season goes on, and the team has a chance to gel. I'm not worried.

The dropped balls were a big problem. At least three and probably 5 or so. Also, the team had first and goal at the 5 and came away with no points. I think that gets fixed as K.S. gets more familiar with his personnell. One of the national columnists notes that if they had simply run the ball three times there instead of three incomplete passes, more time would have run off the clock and Dallas never makes that last drive.

SnyderSucks wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Our offense looked rusty, but we moved the ball on several drives, just did not put it in the endzone. McNabb's lack of game time since the 2nd preseason game showed with missed passes. Also there were several dropped balls. The pass blocking was very good for the first game, but the run blocking left much to be desired. On defense, we were better vs. the pass than the run. Luckily, Dallas basically abandoned the run for some reason. I think we'll see good improvement as the season goes on, and the team has a chance to gel. I'm not worried.

The dropped balls were a big problem. At least three and probably 5 or so. Also, the team had first and goal at the 5 and came away with no points. I think that gets fixed as K.S. gets more familiar with his personnell. One of the national columnists notes that if they had simply run the ball three times there instead of three incomplete passes, more time would have run off the clock and Dallas never makes that last drive.

Wasn't the 1st and goal in the 3rd quarter? You can't go back that far into the game and say we could have run more time off the clock. Hall's "injury" time out would have sealed the deal, too, if Dallas had to use one of theirs instead of us. Or if Rogers or Landry make the INT on the last drive... Any number of things could have gone differently (thankfully, they didn't), and changed the outcome. No need to second guess the victory when we were on the winning side.

Deadskins wrote:

SnyderSucks wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Our offense looked rusty, but we moved the ball on several drives, just did not put it in the endzone. McNabb's lack of game time since the 2nd preseason game showed with missed passes. Also there were several dropped balls. The pass blocking was very good for the first game, but the run blocking left much to be desired. On defense, we were better vs. the pass than the run. Luckily, Dallas basically abandoned the run for some reason. I think we'll see good improvement as the season goes on, and the team has a chance to gel. I'm not worried.

The dropped balls were a big problem. At least three and probably 5 or so. Also, the team had first and goal at the 5 and came away with no points. I think that gets fixed as K.S. gets more familiar with his personnell. One of the national columnists notes that if they had simply run the ball three times there instead of three incomplete passes, more time would have run off the clock and Dallas never makes that last drive.

Wasn't the 1st and goal in the 3rd quarter? You can't go back that far into the game and say we could have run more time off the clock. Hall's "injury" time out would have sealed the deal, too, if Dallas had to use one of theirs instead of us. Or if Rogers or Landry make the INT on the last drive... Any number of things could have gone differently (thankfully, they didn't), and changed the outcome. No need to second guess the victory when we were on the winning side.

I was pointing it out more to say they easily could have scored more. I do, though, hate fade routes in the end zone. If you have Randy Moss or Larry Fitzgerald, you can run that and let them jump up and grab it. Otherwise, don't run them, and especially don't run them consecutively. I think they'll get it fixed.

I think at the goal line, there are a few plays that work well. You run the ball up the middle against smaller fronts. You run the ball wide against bigger, slower fronts. You leak the full back or the TE into the endzone for a pass. You run play action and bootleg the QB in the opposite direction. The big problem with that series was the failure to run on either of the first two downs. That made the third down an obvious pass. If they ran it on either of the first two downs and gained even two or three yards, then the third down play has many more options.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

I actually thought that he showed a pretty good burst and good quickness the few times that the line actually opened up some running lanes.

Yeah, and another way to tell that CP was doing well was to watch Larry Johnson try to run when he gave Portis a spell. Huge difference between the two.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

I actually thought that he showed a pretty good burst and good quickness the few times that the line actually opened up some running lanes.

I agree, and I swear I could start to see CP "remembering" his One Cut and Go days. Since coming here we tried to turn him into a between the tackles guy, and to his credit, he hasnt complained (much), and had been effective. So im excited to see how things turn out, but he looks quicker this year to me.

Irn-Bru wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

I actually thought that he showed a pretty good burst and good quickness the few times that the line actually opened up some running lanes.

Yeah, and another way to tell that CP was doing well was to watch Larry Johnson try to run when he gave Portis a spell. Huge difference between the two.

If Kyle had given either of them a shot instead of going to Armstrong on back to back calls, that last play of the game might not have happened. Back to back runs and .....

Yeah, I thought our run game looked pretty good down the stretch. I can see why they decided on the two Armstrong fades, but I think they'll be a lot more careful going forward. It's really good to have that first game — and the first win — taken care of.

Irn-Bru wrote:Yeah, I thought our run game looked pretty good down the stretch. I can see why they decided on the two Armstrong fades, but I think they'll be a lot more careful going forward. It's really good to have that first game — and the first win — taken care of.

Hey Bru, I was happy to see us try a fade pass after ALLLLL these years.. Sure beats the 2 fake field goals huh man?

Those dropped balls in the endzone were an issue. With that, we would have had 20; if all else was equal. I was disappointed in Armstrong's performance. I thought he could be one of those diamond in the rough types; he still could, but I am not as confident in this after a poor performance against Dallas.

20 against the Cowboys isn't a bad number -- much better than the 6 and 0 points we put up on them last year.... It is just nice to see a QB that can lead and have confidence in.

The need for a wide receiver and a running game is going to be a recurring theme all year, but I'll say one thing... even though CP isn't much of a pass receiver, and he he's always stumbling when he does get an opening, he is a QB's best friend when the blitz comes... that dude puts everything he has into protecting the QB, and with the so-so talent we have on offense, that might be the most important role he has...

by the way, I think the other recurring theme is going to be can our outside "linebackers" (who are all defensive ends) going to be able to play the run and short pass in space? Only once in that game did they make a play from the linebacker spot (not rushing the passer)... the safeties were helping them all game, especially Landry, and that could come back to bite us...

markshark84 wrote:Those dropped balls in the endzone were an issue

The first was just an ugly drop. I agree he should have caught the second, but he was interfered with

Irn-Bru wrote:Yeah, and another way to tell that CP was doing well was to watch Larry Johnson try to run when he gave Portis a spell. Huge difference between the two.

I really hope CP has a good year. I really like him. OK, he's "quirky," but he's been a great Redskin

1niksder wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

TincoSkin wrote:it also doesnt help that CP is 500 years old and is lacking some of that young guy quickness

I actually thought that he showed a pretty good burst and good quickness the few times that the line actually opened up some running lanes.

Yeah, and another way to tell that CP was doing well was to watch Larry Johnson try to run when he gave Portis a spell. Huge difference between the two.

If Kyle had given either of them a shot instead of going to Armstrong on back to back calls, that last play of the game might not have happened. Back to back runs and .....

I think I read somewhere that the second fade was an option audibled by Mcnabb. A run may have been the first call.....