Author Topic: 2007 Washington Redskins Season Thread  (Read 38607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CALSGR8

  • Posts: 11620
  • BE LOUD. BE PROUD. BE POSITIVE!
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #50: September 23, 2007, 10:17:49 PM »
 :bang: :rant: :doh:

The emotions of every Redskin today!

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16273
  • pissy DC sports fan
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #51: September 23, 2007, 11:34:29 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

Brian Mitchell's post-game analysis, on Comcast SportsNet, of the Redskins loss was spot-on accurate in every respect.  They should make HIM the head coach.  By contrast, Gibbs and his defensive coordinator came across as clueless old men, who are only here to collect big paychecks.  Gibbs statement that we should "expect every week to be a dogfight" is an admission that:
(a) He has NO expectation of slaughtering weak teams.
(b) He has no idea WHY he lost, which is why he will CONTINUE to lose.
(c) The Redskins will probably LOSE to the Lions after a bye week, and will lose to any other team that can mount a credible offense.


I couldn't believe that "dogfight" comment.  In fact, Gibbs has supplanted Clinton Portis; he is supreme in the area of "Redskins who have pissed me off with a moronic comment about dog fights."

Seriously, if you're not going to go for the jugular against the downtrodden Giants, just hang it up.  If you want to run the ball in the second half in order to eat time off the clock and move the chains, then great.  if that's your most effective strategy, then go for it!  If you do everything, when you have a lead, in order to merely keep the score status quo, then I don't see the point in showing up and playing in the second half.  Did he learn nothing from the Oilers/Bills playoff game from '92?  No lead is sacred.  You should never be content.

Anyway, watching this Dallas game, I must admit it: Dallas is far and away the NFC's best at the moment.  It's hard to imagine anyone stopping them from getting to the Super Bowl.  Maybe the Packers will if their offense remains consistent.  I'm prepared for the worst.

Offline metssuck

  • Posts: 5925
  • Werth on a roll!!!!
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #52: September 23, 2007, 11:53:24 PM »

Anyway, watching this Dallas game, I must admit it: Dallas is far and away the NFC's best at the moment.  It's hard to imagine anyone stopping them from getting to the Super Bowl.  Maybe the Packers will if their offense remains consistent.  I'm prepared for the worst.
:thumbs:

Offline ronnynat

  • Posts: 23269
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #53: September 24, 2007, 01:46:07 AM »
(Image removed from quote.)

Brian Mitchell's post-game analysis, on Comcast SportsNet, of the Redskins loss was spot-on accurate in every respect.  They should make HIM the head coach.  By contrast, Gibbs and his defensive coordinator came across as clueless old men, who are only here to collect big paychecks.  Gibbs statement that we should "expect every week to be a dogfight" is an admission that:
(a) He has NO expectation of slaughtering weak teams.
(b) He has no idea WHY he lost, which is why he will CONTINUE to lose.
(c) The Redskins will probably LOSE to the Lions after a bye week, and will lose to any other team that can mount a credible offense.



Haha. Mitchell talks more trash about the Skins than you know. He really, honestly hates them. I've drank w/ him a couple times and every single time he starts to get even the least bit drunk, he'll go off on how terrible the Redskins are. He really enjoys our losses. He's a pretty smart football dude, but he'll never be a fan of the Skins.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #54: September 24, 2007, 08:52:04 AM »
And i think yall should've went for it on first goal at tha end instead of spiking tha ball. There was plenty of time on tha clock.

DING.  That was awful. I'm kind of indifferent towards the skins, but after that I hoped they would lose.  The Madden-clock-management-specialist in me was disgusted.

There was over a minute left right? I think it was about 1:15.  That is plenty of time to run 4 plays, definitely enough to run 3 plays.  Crap, :45 is enough time.  So, dont waste one and automatically give yourself only 3 plays.  If you dont spike it and only get three plays in, you are no worse off than you would have been if you spiked it and then only have three plays no matter what.

That is garbage and if Campbell was TOLD to spike it, that coach should be fired. 

Sometimes fans think they know a lot and get upset about playcalling/schemes/whatever, but spiking the ball was obviously the wrong move

The Redskins have been been overmatched by other teams coaches since I've lived here (when Gibbs came back).  At first he didnt know how to use reviews.  Well, clock management hasnt changed since the 90's so what is your excuse this time?

Everyweek he gets grilled about stuff and he gives his "Well, schucks..." defense and says crap like "Blame me, its not the players".  Can he please just say "Fire me"?

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #55: September 24, 2007, 09:10:55 AM »
Quote
The first play was the simplest: As he ran up the field, quarterback Jason Campbell looked to the sidelines and saw coaches calling for him to spike the ball and stop the clock, which he did. The Redskins had already spent their third timeout for the half. Coach Joe Gibbs said the spike was intended to allow the team to bring its "jumbo" package onto the field. After the ball was downed, the clock showed 51 seconds.



I can see wanting to get your jumbo guys out there, but to waste a play is ridiculous.  Call some kinda of safe pass play that results in a TD or incomplete. Give yourself a chance

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 8160
  • Nats Supporter in Exile
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #56: September 24, 2007, 12:10:17 PM »
Sunday 23rd September 2007 - a sports day that moved from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In the early afternoon - the Nats-Phillies RFK finale, a great come-from-behind win to ring the curtain down on baseball at RFK...stayed till the final out then headed for the Metro...

...to Redskins-Giants (got there about midway through the first quarter, just as the Skins pulled ahead)...fine first half, horrific second half...and a bit of cheap entertainment on the way out, with two chaps, one in a Bo Jackson Raiders replica top, outside my section (440) shoving and yelling at each other and one finally sucker-punching the other onto the floor, and on the ground concourse another chap in a Sean Taylor replica top looking like he was about to literally explode, steaming to get into somebody and being restrained by three PG County cops. Just plain ugly, on and off the pitch.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #57: September 24, 2007, 05:48:47 PM »
Brian Mitchell's contempt for the Redskins is BARELY disguised.  He shouldn't be in a Redskins telecast, period.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #58: September 25, 2007, 09:58:31 AM »
Brian Mitchell's contempt for the Redskins is BARELY disguised.  He shouldn't be in a Redskins telecast, period.

Somebody needs to offset the Gibbs love that goes on in this town. He needs to be taken out of the Hall of Fame.

The only thing worse than reading his sorry ass explanations for things is actually hearing them in his aww shucks country boy tone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401845.html

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #59: September 25, 2007, 11:02:41 AM »
Somebody needs to offset the Gibbs love that goes on in this town. He needs to be taken out of the Hall of Fame.

The only thing worse than reading his sorry ass explanations for things is actually hearing them in his aww shucks country boy tone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401845.html


I agree with this post except for the part about taking him out of the HOF.


On another note, I don't understand, and can't justify, how the Redskins lose a division game at home and Gibbs gives them the entire bye week off. I can see them having 3 to 4 days off but the entire week! They need to come in for 3 days this week to work on some of the kinks they have on both sides of the ball, especially the OL. This is not the same Gibbs from his first coaching stint that got him enshrined in Canton. Our head coach's name may be Gibbs but he acts and coaches like a fusion of Barney Fife and Arnold Horshack.  :?

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #60: September 25, 2007, 11:36:09 AM »

I agree with this post except for the part about taking him out of the HOF.


On another note, I don't understand, and can't justify, how the Redskins lose a division game at home and Gibbs gives them the entire bye week off. I can see them having 3 to 4 days off but the entire week! They need to come in for 3 days this week to work on some of the kinks they have on both sides of the ball, especially the OL. This is not the same Gibbs from his first coaching stint that got him enshrined in Canton. Our head coach's name may be Gibbs but he acts and coaches like a fusion of Barney Fife and Arnold Horshack.  :?

The HOF comment just me being a wiseass.

Give them players a week off and let Gibbs and his coaching staff make a chart of when to call time out and spike the ball.

It's not the players fault. Gibbs says it all the time "It's me!". Yeah, well fix yourself. F'ing guy...

nospinzone1

  • Guest
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #61: September 25, 2007, 02:57:27 PM »
Somebody needs to offset the Gibbs love that goes on in this town. He needs to be taken out of the Hall of Fame.

The only thing worse than reading his sorry ass explanations for things is actually hearing them in his aww shucks country boy tone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401845.html

you got to be kidding. how do you take somebody out of the hall when they already are in ?
the way he explained in the paper today, I cant find a disagreement with what he said.

Offline OldChelsea

  • Posts: 8160
  • Nats Supporter in Exile
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #62: September 25, 2007, 03:00:29 PM »
you got to be kidding. how do you take somebody out of the hall when they already are in ?
the way he explained in the paper today, I cant find a disagreement with what he said.

There is a movement on to get O. J. Simpson kicked out - how this will turn out I don't know.

Basically there would have to be a massive ground-swell in favour of expulsion - the only successful one I know of was Alan Eagleson being kicked out of the Hockey Hall of Fame a few years back. He had been inducted largely for organising the Canada Cup tournaments back in the 1980's; but later on he was convicted of various kinds of financial hanky-panky, some of which involved the players' pension fund...and even then he wasn't kicked out until something like half the living inductees threatened to boycott the Hall unless he was expelled.

Offline Dave B

  • Posts: 6033
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #63: September 25, 2007, 03:03:45 PM »
you got to be kidding. how do you take somebody out of the hall when they already are in ?
the way he explained in the paper today, I cant find a disagreement with what he said.

yes i was kidding, see above.

gibbs comments with my add ons:

We did exactly what we wanted to do," Gibbs said. "We were able to stop the clock and get our three plays (although four would be better) and the packages we wanted against the defense (but then the Giants also got the defense they wanted out there)."

 

The left side of the line was late off the ball, Gibbs said, and crowd noise was a factor, although that's generally a problem for the visiting team.  (Pathetic reason/excuse/whatever. Shut up Gibbs. I’m glad the writer added that last part. Gee, ever see a quarterback wave his arms to tell the crowd to be quiet?)

 

"The package that we were in was three wide receivers, and it was a two-minute operation," Gibbs said. "When you go down to that point of the field . . . there are a number of things you can do. You are in nickel [personnel]. That means you have three wide receivers. You could try and quarterback sneak. If you miss the quarterback sneak and you don't get the yards, then you would be spiking it on second down. The other thing you could do is run a [power run]. The risk there is if you don't get it, you have to spike it on second down.

I disagree with this, you dont have to spike at all. There was a minute left. you can sub and probably get your jumbos in there and get a play off before 40 seconds are left. You fail, get up, try again on 2nd, might be able to get another play off with 27 seconds. Third down play with with 14 seconds left. Fourth down play with a second left.  Granted I kinda tailored these time to meet my argument.  But I remember the Jets O-coordinator saying a couple of years ago, you can throw a 10-15 yard pass and and spike it within 15 seconds of the snap. Its gotta be at least 2 seconds less than that if you get stuffed and dont have to go anywhere.  Regardless, you can still get off three running plays and possibly a fourth without spiking it, thats if you WANTED TO RUN FOUR TIMES.  All I'm asking for is a pass attempt that, if unsuccessful, stops the clock and gives you three running plays.  They brought their jumbos in and passed anyway

"The other thing you could do is throw it. If you throw it, you are calling an audible, and you are doing it in a two-minute package. But you are calling an audible on the 2-yard line with three-wide personnel in there (So? People spread it out all the time at the goal line) . Could you do it? Yes, you could do it. We thought the better thing for us to do is spike the ball on first (and completely waste a play), get in the package we wanted to get in on the 2-yard line (same goes for Giants) and then have a chance with three plays (wouldn’t you have rather had 33% more chances?) to get into the end zone."


I might be nitpicking here over one play, a play that might just as well have resulted in an incompletion, thus rendering it moot.  But, wouldnt you want to give yourself EVERY chance to win?


Offline ronnynat

  • Posts: 23269
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #64: September 25, 2007, 03:11:05 PM »
On a positive note, how great is it that we kept McIntosh instead of trading him and picks for Briggs? He's definitely been our best defensive player so far. Fletcher was an awesome addition, too.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #65: September 25, 2007, 04:51:38 PM »

We did exactly what we wanted to do," Gibbs said.




We did? I thought we wanted to win the game. The way to do that is to maximize your opportunities. The reality is that Gibbs is not the same coach we had in the 1980's. He has become incompetent. When the Redskins win they win in spite of him not because of anything he has contributed.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 23905
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #66: September 25, 2007, 05:26:07 PM »
When the Redskins had the ball on the 1-yard line, the Giants were in a state of panic, and out of breath.  Giving them time to regroup AND giving away a play with a spike was stupid.  As it was, the Giants called a timeout after the spike, in response to the jumbo package the Redskins sent in for an obvious run attempt.  Had the Redskins run a play instead of a spike, Sellers should have been IN the end zone, if you're trying to fool them with him.  Otherwise, throw to someone with better hands.  Campbell should have skipped the spike, s-p-r-e-a-d the defense, and looked to run it in himself, if a hole was there.  The Giants might have called a timeout themselves, just to regroup.

Brian Mitchell will probably always be bitter that the Skins didn't keep him.  But he accurately described the  problems:  the Redskins got no yards on 1st and 2nd down in the 2nd half, went 3-and-out repeatedly, the Skins' defense couldn't stop anything then, and the Skins STILL do not know how to manage the clock.  With two men gone from their offensive line, nobody was going to be fooled by the last two runs.  Mitchell also pointed out that Gibbs was not the GM for the Super Bowl visits; Bobby Beathard played a major role for those teams.  Snyder is getting players late in their career at high prices, and they're not going to the Pro Bowl when they get here.  If Gibbs thinks that throwing ultra-conservative screen passes against a team with a poor defense is the way to add to a lead, he'd better RETIRE before the Lions potent offense comes here in two weeks.  It could be an instant replay of the Giants game.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 16273
  • pissy DC sports fan
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #67: September 30, 2007, 01:07:24 AM »
Quote
But he accurately described the  problems:  the Redskins got no yards on 1st and 2nd down in the 2nd half, went 3-and-out repeatedly
And you know what?  A lot of those three-and-outs resulted from incomplete passes.  I'm sick of hearing that the play calling wasn't good.  Saunders was calling a very balanced offense in the second half if you actually pay attention to the drive summaries.

Is the players' fault for lack of execution.

The biggest deficiency in this past game, IMO, was the blocking.  Especially the pass blocking, although the run blocking was pretty bad at times too.  The losses of Jansen and Thomas really hurt this team.  The Giants obviously devised a game plan to exploit that weakness.

nospinzone1

  • Guest
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #68: September 30, 2007, 01:26:11 AM »
Brian Mitchell's contempt for the Redskins is BARELY disguised.  He shouldn't be in a Redskins telecast, period.

TRUE, BUT THE SKINS NEED SOMEBODY LIKE THAT AS LONG AS THE CRITICISM IS LEGITIMATE AND HE DOES KNOW WHT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. I WAS OPTIMIST BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED BUT AFTER THE FIRST THREE GAMES, UNLESS CAMPBELL KEEPS PROGRESSING AND BECOMES THE NEXT SAMMY BAUGH, I DO NOT THINK, WITH OUR OUTMODED , OUTDATED COACHING STAFF FROM CACOON III, WE WILL NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #69: September 30, 2007, 08:59:01 AM »
And you know what?  A lot of those three-and-outs resulted from incomplete passes.  I'm sick of hearing that the play calling wasn't good.  Saunders was calling a very balanced offense in the second half if you actually pay attention to the drive summaries.

Is the players' fault for lack of execution.

The biggest deficiency in this past game, IMO, was the blocking.  Especially the pass blocking, although the run blocking was pretty bad at times too.  The losses of Jansen and Thomas really hurt this team.  The Giants obviously devised a game plan to exploit that weakness.

This is very true. The OL got pushed around in the second half of that game and there was lack of execution i.e., Randle El giving up on his blocking assignment on Moss' end around or Porits dropping a pass on 3rd down that would've resulted in a 1st down when he was covered by Strahan, just to name a couple of examples.

Offline CALSGR8

  • Posts: 11620
  • BE LOUD. BE PROUD. BE POSITIVE!
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #70: September 30, 2007, 12:19:32 PM »
I've got baseball on the brain.  Who are the skins playing today?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #71: September 30, 2007, 12:32:10 PM »
I've got baseball on the brain.  Who are the skins playing today?

:?

Offline kimnat

  • Posts: 7172
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #72: September 30, 2007, 12:37:47 PM »
I've got baseball on the brain.  Who are the skins playing today?

Aren't the Skins off this week?

Offline saltydad

  • Posts: 3722
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #73: September 30, 2007, 02:43:42 PM »
Aren't the Skins off this week?
Yeah...we've got a bye

nospinzone1

  • Guest
Re: 2007 Redskins discussion thread
« Reply #74: September 30, 2007, 03:37:26 PM »
Yeah...we've got a bye

I HATE EARLY IN THE SEASON TO HAVE IT. IN THIS CASE I WELCOME IT. GOT TO REST THE WALKING WOUNDED. THE WAY THE FIRST THREE GAMES HAVE GONE, I DONT THINK IT IS GOING TO DO ANY GOOD. THE CACOON III COACHES WILL SCREW IT UP AGAIN AND AGAIN. LONG FOR THE OLD DAYS WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG. THEN AGAIN, THIS OL GIZZAARD AINT WHT HE USED TO BE EITHER.