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

Coupla blogs that you should read this week fam:

A Note to Kyle

And new blogger Sean Bishop is really hitting his stride with:

Analysis of the Washington Redskins and Fans

Appreciate your support!

BH

Two very good pieces, Boss. Thanks.

I read the Kyle thing earlier today. It was great. Great job.

Thx for the love guys. It's appreciated.

Great Hogs Net just keeps getting better.

Oh man that blog about Kyle is EXACTLY what every Redskins fan is thinking. It's like you read my mind with the part about the horrid playcalling almost "sabotaging" Beck's performance. Excellent read!

Cheers again guys.

Please check out today's Game Day Preview: Cowboys II for our great cross-blog promotional article.

Preesh, and Hail!

StorminMormon86 wrote:Oh man that blog about Kyle is EXACTLY what every Redskins fan is thinking. It's like you read my mind with the part about the horrid playcalling almost "sabotaging" Beck's performance. Excellent read!

Sometimes you write something, and it happens so quick that you know it will resonate.

I feel you brother... that's why I wrote the blog.

If you check my history, it is not one of slinging mud.

Kyle deserved a little kaka.

I read the blogs earlier this week. I was too angry and frustrated to write anything about the Kyle thing.

If ONLY they would not have put their reputations at stake with the Grossman /Beck combo. There was another piece elsewhere about "this can get real ugly soon" by our DT Cofield. I agree. If we do not win this week, things WILL get a lot uglier for everybody in DC.

I do not see how they can turn this season around. There was a time when people here thought that my prediction of 8 - 8 was too pessimistic. We were flying high at 3 - 1. Now, 8 - 8 looks like the best deal we could possibly get. Instead, it looks as if this will be another losing season.

We can only hope that the owner has the yet-to-be-found patience not to pull the trigger before this front office tries at least one more season. Yep, anything is possible with the Danny if he feels that a marketing stunt needs to be made. I hope not.

This week's game, if played well and won, has the opportunity to give the coaching staff some much needed breathing time. Fans can forgive a losing season as long as we beat the pukes. But if they lose and, worse, if they play poorly ... then all bets are off. People are already throwing the entire coaching staff under the bus (not without entire blame).

Yep, it can get ugly indeed.

Thanks for the blogs and your work!

WOW

those 2 blogs were AWESOME
We've seen some great stuff from Mark before but Sean did a helluva job with his blog too

THANKS GUYS - BIG time

man oh man - that stuff is inspiring and insightful

John Madden this week said of the Redskins "when you have 2 starting QBs you really have none .. "

we are not far off but Bruce & Mike really have to work some magic with the QB position next season

BossHog wrote:Coupla blogs that you should read this week fam:

A Note to Kyle

And new blogger Sean Bishop is really hitting his stride with:

Analysis of the Washington Redskins and Fans

Appreciate your support!

BH

I'm not sure who wrote "note to Kyle" (I actually couldn't even get through it), but if the opposing team is putting an eighth defender in the box, I'm not in favor of forcing the issue just to run the ball. I'll start paying more attention to what the defense is doing in this next game to confirm my thoughts, but it made me wonder if this was justified or not. So I investigated.

I reviewed the last 3 games, and the first 15 plays in each game were pretty balanced so I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about on the playcalling. I mean, does anybody honestly think Torain is a very good back? The reason he didn't play until Hightower got hurt was because in a zone blocking scheme, and really any good running game, you have to have a runner who possesses vision to see the backside. Torain constantly misses it, so the defense only has to take away the front side and the play is dead. Remember, Walsh's system (Shannahan's system) scripts the first 15 plays to understand what the defensive gameplan is, and adjusts. If you have a RB who can't see the entire field, and the defense is putting 8 in the box daring you to pass...well, is there anyone who still thinks we should force the run? Seems pretty logical to me not to. I hope the writer pays a bit more attention to this during the next game before writing an article like this. Is the safety coming down into the box, is the back missing the backside, are the lineman even creating holes? Let's examine these issues before stating that Shannahan is awful for not running the ball more, because we have to win the time of possession.

Bills game 7 runs / 8 passes
San Fran 8 runs / 7 passes
Miami 7 runs / 8 passes

Also, just because Helu didn't get the start, doesn't mean jack squat anymore. He actually had more touches in the game, so again, we're not a one back offense, so who starts is meaningless.

Did you notice that after TEN SACKS Shanahan did not make any attempt to adjust his playcalling to include more checkdowns and dump passes? Cause every other Skins fan sure did.

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm not sure who wrote "note to Kyle" (I actually couldn't even get through it), but if the opposing team is putting an eighth defender in the box, I'm not in favor of forcing the issue just to run the ball. I'll start paying more attention to what the defense is doing in this next game to confirm my thoughts, but it made me wonder if this was justified or not. So I investigated.

I reviewed the last 3 games, and the first 15 plays in each game were pretty balanced so I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about on the playcalling. I mean, does anybody honestly think Torain is a very good back? The reason he didn't play until Hightower got hurt was because in a zone blocking scheme, and really any good running game, you have to have a runner who possesses vision to see the backside. Torain constantly misses it, so the defense only has to take away the front side and the play is dead. Remember, Walsh's system (Shannahan's system) scripts the first 15 plays to understand what the defensive gameplan is, and adjusts. If you have a RB who can't see the entire field, and the defense is putting 8 in the box daring you to pass...well, is there anyone who still thinks we should force the run? Seems pretty logical to me not to. I hope the writer pays a bit more attention to this during the next game before writing an article like this. Is the safety coming down into the box, is the back missing the backside, are the lineman even creating holes? Let's examine these issues before stating that Shannahan is awful for not running the ball more, because we have to win the time of possession.

Bills game 7 runs / 8 passes
San Fran 8 runs / 7 passes
Miami 7 runs / 8 passes

Also, just because Helu didn't get the start, doesn't mean jack squat anymore. He actually had more touches in the game, so again, we're not a one back offense, so who starts is meaningless.

I wrote the Letter to Kyle and since some of your 'questions' were actually covered in the piece, I guess you should have read the whole thing.

If scripting your plays with daddy and splitting the load, and then running 3-5 more times in the whole game (off the script) isn't proof that you're abandoning the run, I don't know what is.

Find me a running back that doesn't run better rushes 10-20 than 1-10, most need a few carries to get warmed up, hell, it used to take Portis until 20-25th carry to fully hit his stride in a game... but I guess that ain't a factor either right?

Nor is the fact that the offensive coordinator is happy to throw Beck under the bus for almost all 10 sacks against buffalo - not the guy who wasn't smart enough to call shorter developing plays, or rollouts, or bootlegs, or add TE protection - you're right, it's obvious that the players should be able to succeed DESPITE the stupid play-calling.

Thanks for your 2cents.

SkinsJock wrote:WOW

those 2 blogs were AWESOME
We've seen some great stuff from Mark before but Sean did a helluva job with his blog too

THANKS GUYS - BIG time

man oh man - that stuff is inspiring and insightful

Thanks bud, appreciate it.

BossHog wrote:

chiefhog44 wrote:I'm not sure who wrote "note to Kyle" (I actually couldn't even get through it), but if the opposing team is putting an eighth defender in the box, I'm not in favor of forcing the issue just to run the ball. I'll start paying more attention to what the defense is doing in this next game to confirm my thoughts, but it made me wonder if this was justified or not. So I investigated.

I reviewed the last 3 games, and the first 15 plays in each game were pretty balanced so I'm not sure I understand what the fuss is all about on the playcalling. I mean, does anybody honestly think Torain is a very good back? The reason he didn't play until Hightower got hurt was because in a zone blocking scheme, and really any good running game, you have to have a runner who possesses vision to see the backside. Torain constantly misses it, so the defense only has to take away the front side and the play is dead. Remember, Walsh's system (Shannahan's system) scripts the first 15 plays to understand what the defensive gameplan is, and adjusts. If you have a RB who can't see the entire field, and the defense is putting 8 in the box daring you to pass...well, is there anyone who still thinks we should force the run? Seems pretty logical to me not to. I hope the writer pays a bit more attention to this during the next game before writing an article like this. Is the safety coming down into the box, is the back missing the backside, are the lineman even creating holes? Let's examine these issues before stating that Shannahan is awful for not running the ball more, because we have to win the time of possession.

Bills game 7 runs / 8 passes
San Fran 8 runs / 7 passes
Miami 7 runs / 8 passes

Also, just because Helu didn't get the start, doesn't mean jack squat anymore. He actually had more touches in the game, so again, we're not a one back offense, so who starts is meaningless.

I wrote the Letter to Kyle and since some of your 'questions' were actually covered in the piece, I guess you should have read the whole thing.

If scripting your plays with daddy and splitting the load, and then running 3-5 more times in the whole game (off the script) isn't proof that you're abandoning the run, I don't know what is.

Find me a running back that doesn't run better rushes 10-20 than 1-10, most need a few carries to get warmed up, hell, it used to take Portis until 20-25th carry to fully hit his stride in a game... but I guess that ain't a factor either right?

Nor is the fact that the offensive coordinator is happy to throw Beck under the bus for almost all 10 sacks against buffalo - not the guy who wasn't smart enough to call shorter developing plays, or rollouts, or bootlegs, or add TE protection - you're right, it's obvious that the players should be able to succeed DESPITE the stupid play-calling.

Thanks for your 2cents.

This is in no way a personal attack on the writer, just a suggestion of what to actually include in an article that rips a offensive coordinator without too much evidence of actual football. I read the entire thing, and still did not see much in the way of facts of how the defense is playing against his offense. It was pretty much what I suspected the rest of the article to be, jabbing at Shannahan insinuating that Rex took him out for dinner and the like.

Just making some observations that this article doesn't address what is actually happening IN the game. Take out the pissing and moaning, and you have an article that is dealing in generalities on how to win a football game. Great, we need to run the ball more to win. We need to control the time of possession. Does it occur to you that maybe, just maybe the defense is not allowing us to run the ball? We don't have a good enough offense to dictate how we win. Further, how about actually looking at the game film and using those facts to support your argument. My conclusion (after reading the entire article) is that you didn't, that's all. Don't get pissed about that, because there's a good chance your points are correct, just think you should think more about what's actually happening than use generalities.

Actually, I personally think you aren't looking at what's happening on the sidelines. Brian Mitchell and I have been watching Kyle's demeanor with Rex and John for 6 straight weeks and observing the difference in the dynamics between them. We talk about it every week on his Tailgate Show. It bears mentioning, and if you don't think it does, that's fine but I think it's a sign of a much bigger problem.

I didn't go into the x's and o's because that's not what the letter is about. It isn't meant to be some comprehensive manifesto to Kyle to fix all that it wrong with him. Sean's blog the day before went into some of the football side of it, I felt no need to regurgitate what he said. This is about philosophy and behavior, not individual play calls.

And why you think I am pissed, I have no idea. I honestly couldn't care any less about what you thought about the article - no offense - I don't mean anything snide or snarky about that since you're likely to take it that way. I know that EVERY time I write something, there will be people that agree with what I write, and people that I don't. Not like I haven't been doing this for a while.

It wasn't meant to be a, "type a 500 word essay on the things Kyle needs to change about this offense," but if that's what you're looking for, then why not go ahead and write one?

Damn man you read my mind again. He continually gave Beck the cold shoulder on the sidelines while he was the starter, yet you see him and Wrecks huddled up together after every drive (presumeably to talk about when they will be getting matching tattoos).

StorminMormon86 wrote:Did you notice that after TEN SACKS Shanahan did not make any attempt to adjust his playcalling to include more checkdowns and dump passes? Cause every other Skins fan sure did.

Not only that, in his pres conference that week, when asked just that question, he put most of the sacks squarely on Beck. He went through them individually and though he doled out a couple for other players, he was pretty happy to throw Beck squarely under the wheels of the bus.

You don't see a coach do that very often. Usually you get #coachspeak about it "being no particular person's fault - combination of things - working to fix this and that"... blah, blah, blah. But Kyle went through and put about 7 of the sacks on something Beck did wrong, and my jaw was pretty much on the floor listening to it. There were even a couple where he addressed something someone else did wrong as well, but then added something like, "But that's still on John to get that throw in there..." That isn't an exact quote at all, I am merely paraphrasing the gist of what he was saing. To me it was unprofessional at best, spiteful at worst.

Of course, these are just one man's observations and opinions.

I brought the whole "sabotaging" Beck's chance angle in an earlier thread after the Bills game, most of the posters scoffed at the idea. Now I'm really starting to wonder. Rex (coming from the Texans) has and always will be "Kyle's guy". I don't think the players influenced the switch back to Rex, there's no doubt in my mind it was squarely because Shanny Jr. wanted it that way.

StorminMormon86 wrote:I brought the whole "sabotaging" Beck's chance angle in an earlier thread after the Bills game, most of the posters scoffed at the idea. Now I'm really starting to wonder. Rex (coming from the Texans) has and always will be "Kyle's guy". I don't think the players influenced the switch back to Rex, there's no doubt in my mind it was squarely because Shanny Jr. wanted it that way.

Prolly because sabotage is probably too strong a word.

If I'm fair, it isn't sabotage so much as just not doing everything you can to set someone up to be successful. That refers to the plays that are called, and taking him aside on the sidelines and pointing out improvements and mistakes (or not doing so at all).

I've also been saying for weeks - square pegs, round holes. That seems to be how Kyle is calling this offense right now.

You're responding to me talking about his sideline behavior right now, and really only spend two sentences in your article discussing it. I'm not talking about that, although it's a pretty interesting thought. Can't wait to look for it.

I'm addressing the philosophy (as you call it) side of it, which you spend 5 paragraphs on. All I'm saying is sometimes philosophy meets reality.

chiefhog44 wrote:You're responding to me talking about his sideline behavior right now, and really only spend two sentences in your article discussing it. I'm not talking about that, although it's a pretty interesting thought. Can't wait to look for it.

I'm addressing the philosophy (as you call it) side of it, which you spend 5 paragraphs on. All I'm saying is sometimes philosophy meets reality.

Yeah, I don't know what your beef is, but thankfully, it doesn't matter much to me.

Do you see anywhere where I say, "this is the best and most absolutely written blog in the history of blogs?" I get it, you didn't like it. Your prerogative. Lots of people disagreed with you and liked the piece.

And did my statement say " I have split the argument up into two separate and equal in length segments - one dealing with Kyle's demeanor on the sidelines, one dealing with philosophy."?

Nope - just said the blog talks about both - wouldn't matter if it was HALF a sentence - the blog still talks about it.

As I said, happy to set up a blog account for you so that you have somewhere to write your own if you like...