Duckett to be used in goalline situations (1 Viewer)

[redman]

Comcast is reporting in the DC area (no links as of yet) that Gibbs and Saunders are saying that Duckett is going to be used in goalline and short-yardage situations instead of Portis.

Assuming this is true, that obviously reduces Portis' value and gives Duckett at least some nominal value for the first time this year. Definitely follow this if you're a Portis owner.

I'll add more as I find more info to give you.

 

[redman]

Here's an article that touches on this issue but doesn't come right out and make this announcement:

Goal-Line Futility Is Getting a Close Look

By Jason La Canfora

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, November 10, 2006; E07

By Monday morning, Earnest Byner had studied the troubling sequence of plays on three occasions, and had mapped out a week's worth of primers for his players. Washington Redskins running backs carried the ball six times inside the 4-yard line on their opening drive Sunday, and failed to get into the end zone, something the running backs coach and the rest of the team are not likely to forget anytime soon.

Washington is trying to restore its identity as a forceful running team, and while last week's opponent, Dallas, had a strong run defense, there are no excuses being made for their failure around the goal line. It has been a topic of meetings and practices this week, and is something the 3-5 team knows it can not afford to replicate.

"That's as disappointing a thing as I've ever been around in football," said Al Saunders, associate head coach-offense.

Coach Joe Gibbs has ceded play-calling to Saunders, but said he agreed with Saunders's approach to this drive, pounding the ball on the ground relentlessly and trying to make a statement about the wobbling running attack. Tailback Clinton Portis rushed five times and Ladell Betts once, and neither could pick up more than a yard on any carry.

Portis gained a yard to the outside on first down, then was knocked for a one-yard loss. A Dallas penalty gave Washington a first down from the 2, and Portis nudged ahead for another yard, then was pounded for no gain. Betts was thumped for no gain on third. On fourth down, the Redskins tried to fool the Cowboys, sending fullback Mike Sellers diving left, but Portis, with the ball, was hit for no gain. (He claims that he crossed the goal line but that officials missed it.)

Gibbs said the inability to gain that final yard came down to different players at the line failing to win their matchups. He also gave praise to the Cowboys.

"Some of it was them, and some of it was us," Gibbs said.

Byner wanted to determine whether his backs may have been somehow tipping off the Cowboys or allowing them to get a jump on plays. He and the rest of the staff feel that the team should always be able to get a yard in these situations, particularly with the chance to set the tone with a 14-play scoring drive.

"We do a lot of additional self-study and look at some things other people are doing and definitely try to get better," Byner said. "And I think the challenge is showing guys on tape and finding out what we can do to get better. It's always something here or there; we don't make a block or they run through some people. But I think we did the right things. I think going for it on fourth down was the right decision."

The Redskins are specifically looking to address the left side of their goal-line offense. Dallas safety Roy Williams was allowed to slip in from that side on several occasions and hit the ballcarrier before he crossed the line of scrimmage, doing enough to hold him up until the linebackers and linemen finished him off.

"Roy was getting in a lot from the edge," Byner said. "He was definitely blazing around that edge and if that's going to be the case we have to watch that and make note of that as well."

Several team sources said that should similar instances arise in the future, tailback T.J. Duckett stands a better chance of getting a carry.

Link

 

[Bizkiteer]

Comcast is reporting in the DC area (no links as of yet) that Gibbs and Saunders are saying that Duckett is going to be used in goalline and short-yardage situations instead of Portis. Assuming this is true, that obviously reduces Portis' value and gives Duckett at least some nominal value for the first time this year. Definitely follow this if you're a Portis owner. I'll add more as I find more info to give you.

Welcome to Washington's version of the Bucs Alstott. At least they might get some use for their 3rd rounder...

 

[Big Score]

Saunders is already using Betts the majority of the time in designed passing plays to the RB & now he plans to use Duckett as the designated Short Yardage / Goal Line Back?

Add in the fact that whenever the Skins have a juicy matchup against a weak Run D, Saunders only calls runs for half a dozen or so, offensive plays.

I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for Portis as an elite back, through no fault of his own.

How Saunders & Gibbs think it's a good thing to further limit the touches of one of the two bona fide game breakers (Mini Moss is the other one) they have on offense, is beyond me.

Skins are well deserving of the type of season they're having IMO.

 

[bonesman]

i'll believe it when i see it

 

[redman]

I'm still trying to find confirmation of this but am unsuccessful thus far. I'm relaying the Comcast report from multiple 'Skins fans who live in the area, but I have not seen it myself.

At this point the risk is that Comcast is reporting their conclusion that Duckett will be used at the goalline based upon the report in the Washington Post that Duckett may be used more, instead of upon a direct statement from Gibbs and Saunders. That's a possibility. In light of that, and subject to confirmation, I'd ask that the mods change the title to "Comcast reporting Duckett to be used in goalline situations".

I'll add links if/when I find them.

 

[redman]

i'll believe it when i see it

This is a valid comment. Even assuming Saunders and Gibbs actually made this statement, they've also stated intentions earlier in the year about changes they wanted in their offense and they haven't always seemed to follow through. Still, it's worth noting that all of the coaches used that bye week to break down every single play they've run this year as part of a reassessment. This led to a more power-based rushing attack against Dallas, and the removal of Archuleta from the lineup in favor of Troy Vincent on defense. They are certainly determined to fix problems right now, so this may be in the same vein.

 

[Big Score]

Still, it's worth noting that all of the coaches used that bye week to break down every single play they've run this year as part of a reassessment. This led to a more power-based rushing attack against Dallas, and the removal of Archuleta from the lineup in favor of Troy Vincent on defense. They are certainly determined to fix problems right now, so this may be in the same vein.

I'm not sure how further diluting the touches / opportunities of one of their two play makers on offense, is going to fix anything. I can only see it exacerbating the problems of an already impotent offense. I mean why keep telegraphing to D's, what you're doing? Defenses already have the tell of a pass play to Betts, when he comes in on 3rd & long. Now Gibbs & Saunders want to further tip the offeses hand to opposing D's, by replacing Portis with Duckett on Short Yardage & Goal Line plays?I wonder what else they can do to make the Skins offense even more predictable?

 

[redman]

Saunders is already using Betts the majority of the time in designed passing plays to the RB & now he plans to use Duckett as the designated Short Yardage / Goal Line Back?

Add in the fact that whenever the Skins have a juicy matchup against a weak Run D, Saunders only calls runs for half a dozen or so, offensive plays.

I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for Portis as an elite back, through no fault of his own.

How Saunders & Gibbs think it's a good thing to further limit the touches of one of the two bona fide game breakers (Mini Moss is the other one) they have on offense, is beyond me.

Skins are well deserving of the type of season they're having IMO.

I have faulted Saunders for failing to recognize sooner that this is a team designed for power running and play-action passing, whereas he's been calling more finesse running plays and short passes. Not coincidentally the team has not looked very good. Let's not exaggerate how much they're passing right now or failing to utilize their RB's. As of right now their run/pass play ratio for the season is 228/229. Projected over the course of a season they're on pace for more than 550 carries this year. Even if Portis gets "only" half of those, that's 275 carries (coincidentally, the number I projected for him as being an optimal amount to reduce wear and tear on him but to also enable him to still be featured).

Right now, Portis has 121 carries, but remember that he missed 1.5 games due to that shoulder injury early in the season. In addition, given Saunders' under-utilization of him in the first half of the season and the team's apparent re-commitment to the running game (finally!) that number can only increase in the second half of the season. Not coincidentally, when they went on that 5-game win streak last season to make the playoffs, they rode Portis hard during that stretch with games of 27, 26, 23, 27 and 27 carries. He was by far his most productive during that stretch, scoring 6 of his 11 TD's and never rushing for less than 105 yards.

I also think that this news of Duckett at the goalline may generate overreaction in Portis owners. If you recall, a lot of TD's that last year should have seemed to go to Portis went to Mike Sellars on play-action rollouts inside the 5-yard line, and of course to Cooley and even to Moss on occasion. Portis tends to score his TD's from farther out than 5 yards. Only 5 of Portis' 11 TD's last year were from within 5 yards (only 4 from inside 3 yards), and Sellers, Betts and Cartwright each added one more.

In short, even if this report is true, I think the Redskins' recommitment to the run during this stretch drive will outweigh the negative effect upon Portis' numbers of the use of Duckett as a goalline ball-carrier.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

It was encouraging to see Portis get 20+ touches and finish the game healthy. Hopefully, it's a sign of things to come.

 

[SteelerMurf]

Hmmm, has Duckett has dressed for 2 out of 8 games this year. Duckett has only carried the ball in 1 game this year .

All the sudden they are gonna activate him and give him the very important goalline touches.

No story here, move on....

 

[dj_stouty]

I'm still trying to find confirmation of this but am unsuccessful thus far. I'm relaying the Comcast report from multiple 'Skins fans who live in the area, but I have not seen it myself.

At this point the risk is that Comcast is reporting their conclusion that Duckett will be used at the goalline based upon the report in the Washington Post that Duckett may be used more, instead of upon a direct statement from Gibbs and Saunders. That's a possibility. In light of that, and subject to confirmation, I'd ask that the mods change the title to "Comcast reporting Duckett to be used in goalline situations".

I'll add links if/when I find them.

The only thing I've heard from Comcast as of late was an interview with Al Saunders where he said Portis didn't get it done on the goaline last week and he will look into other options if that continues to be the case.I think Comcast is speculating on this...

I personally hope TJ is dressed for this game. With the wind being a factor at gametime, the Skins are going to have to run it all day. (Assuming screen passes aren't affected by the wind) *rim shot*

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

[rant]

duckett does one thing well, short yardage. For some reason, the skins have not been willing to use the one trick pony for his one trick. And now all of the sudden they are going to? it took trying portis and betts four times at the GL last week and getting nothing off a first and goal inside the 5 to make them think "hey that duckett guy might be better at this." Now you're asking the skins coaching staff to learn from their mistakes. Thats as likely as Art Shell actually giving Lamont Jordan 20+ carries.

[/rant]

 

[Big Score]

Saunders is already using Betts the majority of the time in designed passing plays to the RB & now he plans to use Duckett as the designated Short Yardage / Goal Line Back?

Add in the fact that whenever the Skins have a juicy matchup against a weak Run D, Saunders only calls runs for half a dozen or so, offensive plays.

I think we're seeing the beginning of the end for Portis as an elite back, through no fault of his own.

How Saunders & Gibbs think it's a good thing to further limit the touches of one of the two bona fide game breakers (Mini Moss is the other one) they have on offense, is beyond me.

Skins are well deserving of the type of season they're having IMO.

I have faulted Saunders for failing to recognize sooner that this is a team designed for power running and play-action passing, whereas he's been calling more finesse running plays and short passes. Not coincidentally the team has not looked very good. Let's not exaggerate how much they're passing right now or failing to utilize their RB's. As of right now their run/pass play ratio for the season is 228/229. Projected over the course of a season they're on pace for more than 550 carries this year. Even if Portis gets "only" half of those, that's 275 carries (coincidentally, the number I projected for him as being an optimal amount to reduce wear and tear on him but to also enable him to still be featured).

Right now, Portis has 121 carries, but remember that he missed 1.5 games due to that shoulder injury early in the season. In addition, given Saunders' under-utilization of him in the first half of the season and the team's apparent re-commitment to the running game (finally!) that number can only increase in the second half of the season. Not coincidentally, when they went on that 5-game win streak last season to make the playoffs, they rode Portis hard during that stretch with games of 27, 26, 23, 27 and 27 carries. He was by far his most productive during that stretch, scoring 6 of his 11 TD's and never rushing for less than 105 yards.

I also think that this news of Duckett at the goalline may generate overreaction in Portis owners. If you recall, a lot of TD's that last year should have seemed to go to Portis went to Mike Sellars on play-action rollouts inside the 5-yard line, and of course to Cooley and even to Moss on occasion. Portis tends to score his TD's from farther out than 5 yards. Only 5 of Portis' 11 TD's last year were from within 5 yards (only 4 from inside 3 yards), and Sellers, Betts and Cartwright each added one more.

In short, even if this report is true, I think the Redskins' recommitment to the run during this stretch drive will outweigh the negative effect upon Portis' numbers of the use of Duckett as a goalline ball-carrier.

The Skins may well WANT to run more, but if they insist on making their offense sooooo predictable by their personnel substitutions in the backfield, Defenses will have a huge tell on the play about to be run & the end result will be a lot of offensive series getting short circuited ending in fewer than normal offensive plays. Ad that to the Skins D taking a big step backwards this year & not being able to get the quick three & outs like previous recent seasons & you've got a lower than normal number of offensive plays that can be run per game.My anyway

 

[Da Guru]

Duckett will be a good goal line back for the Skins.

 

[Big Score]

Duckett will be a good goal line back for the Skins.

Gee...thanx for the in depth analysis here.

 

[Dave Stauff]

[rant] duckett does one thing well, short yardage. For some reason, the skins have not been willing to use the one trick pony for his one trick. And now all of the sudden they are going to? it took trying portis and betts four times at the GL last week and getting nothing off a first and goal inside the 5 to make them think "hey that duckett guy might be better at this." Now you're asking the skins coaching staff to learn from their mistakes. Thats as likely as Art Shell actually giving Lamont Jordan 20+ carries.[/rant]

Well said

 

[digitalamish]

I actually think it's encouraging that they are talking about who can get the job done vs keeping Portis healthy. Give Duckett a couple of cracks at the endzone. Once they see he's no better than Portis (possibly worse), then we go right back to status quo. If anything, maybe it'll light a fire under Portis to perform better.

 

[Big Score]

[rant]

duckett does one thing well, short yardage. For some reason, the skins have not been willing to use the one trick pony for his one trick. And now all of the sudden they are going to? it took trying portis and betts four times at the GL last week and getting nothing off a first and goal inside the 5 to make them think "hey that duckett guy might be better at this." Now you're asking the skins coaching staff to learn from their mistakes. Thats as likely as Art Shell actually giving Lamont Jordan 20+ carries.

[/rant]

Well said

Except it won't matter if it's Duckett, Cartwright, Sellars, Betts or Portis if they don't get the O'line blocking fixed. No back is going to have much success punching it in, when they're getting stood up in the backfield.

By Jason La Canfora

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, November 10, 2006; E07

Gibbs said the inability to gain that final yard came down to different players at the line failing to win their matchups. He also gave praise to the Cowboys.

It's always something here or there; we don't make a block or they run through some people.

The Redskins are specifically looking to address the left side of their goal-line offense. Dallas safety Roy Williams was allowed to slip in from that side on several occasions and hit the ballcarrier before he crossed the line of scrimmage, doing enough to hold him up until the linebackers and linemen finished him off.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Still, it's worth noting that all of the coaches used that bye week to break down every single play they've run this year as part of a reassessment. This led to a more power-based rushing attack against Dallas, and the removal of Archuleta from the lineup in favor of Troy Vincent on defense. They are certainly determined to fix problems right now, so this may be in the same vein.

I'm not sure how further diluting the touches / opportunities of one of their two play makers on offense, is going to fix anything. I can only see it exacerbating the problems of an already impotent offense. I mean why keep telegraphing to D's, what you're doing? Defenses already have the tell of a pass play to Betts, when he comes in on 3rd & long. Now Gibbs & Saunders want to further tip the offeses hand to opposing D's, by replacing Portis with Duckett on Short Yardage & Goal Line plays?I wonder what else they can do to make the Skins offense even more predictable?

I agree with your comment that limiting the touches of your best weapon is silly, but having a specialist is not silly and doesn't tip anything off unless you let it do so. For example, the Giants have Jacobs for the same reason that we are talking about Duckett here. On 3rd and short you would expect a run no matter who is back there, but with Jacobs it is even more a "sure" thing, until you play action for an easy gain. The Giants never did anything but hand it to Jacobs and eventually that didn't work so well last year. this year, not only are they using play action more, but they are bringing in Jacobs in throwing downs and other downs as well to mix it up. It has worked real well for them. If you only do one thing every time then you are giving them a "tell" but the coaching needs to mix it up once in awile to be effective. There are also times that with the Giants OL and Jacobs you can make the yard regardless of what the defense knows.Not sure if I confused the message or not, but the point is that having a specialist can only increase your chances of success if used correctly. If it is true that portis is not good on short situations than having Duckett come in is a good thing as you can plow it home or play action once in awhile. Having Betts come in on 3rd down IF HE CATCHES BETTER than Portis is a good thing as long as you run once in awhile and have the ability to pick up a 3rd and 6 running. Not really sure in your example if on 3rd and long bringing in betts tips to the other team you are going to throw though.

 

[Big Score]

Still, it's worth noting that all of the coaches used that bye week to break down every single play they've run this year as part of a reassessment. This led to a more power-based rushing attack against Dallas, and the removal of Archuleta from the lineup in favor of Troy Vincent on defense. They are certainly determined to fix problems right now, so this may be in the same vein.

I'm not sure how further diluting the touches / opportunities of one of their two play makers on offense, is going to fix anything. I can only see it exacerbating the problems of an already impotent offense. I mean why keep telegraphing to D's, what you're doing?

Defenses already have the tell of a pass play to Betts, when he comes in on 3rd & long. Now Gibbs & Saunders want to further tip the offeses hand to opposing D's, by replacing Portis with Duckett on Short Yardage & Goal Line plays?

I wonder what else they can do to make the Skins offense even more predictable?

I agree with your comment that limiting the touches of your best weapon is silly, but having a specialist is not silly and doesn't tip anything off unless you let it do so. For example, the Giants have Jacobs for the same reason that we are talking about Duckett here. On 3rd and short you would expect a run no matter who is back there, but with Jacobs it is even more a "sure" thing, until you play action for an easy gain. The Giants never did anything but hand it to Jacobs and eventually that didn't work so well last year. this year, not only are they using play action more, but they are bringing in Jacobs in throwing downs and other downs as well to mix it up. It has worked real well for them. If you only do one thing every time then you are giving them a "tell" but the coaching needs to mix it up once in awile to be effective. There are also times that with the Giants OL and Jacobs you can make the yard regardless of what the defense knows.Not sure if I confused the message or not, but the point is that having a specialist can only increase your chances of success if used correctly. If it is true that portis is not good on short situations than having Duckett come in is a good thing as you can plow it home or play action once in awhile. Having Betts come in on 3rd down IF HE CATCHES BETTER than Portis is a good thing as long as you run once in awhile and have the ability to pick up a 3rd and 6 running. Not really sure in your example if on 3rd and long bringing in betts tips to the other team you are going to throw though.

Indeed a specialist can increase your chances, IF the play calling is mixed up.Unfortunately that is not the case so much in Washington.

Now they're going to have one back for obvious passing downs, in Betts. If Betts comes in, it's roughly an 85+% chance that he is going to be the primary read on 3rd & longs.

Another back for Short Yardage & Goal Line plays, in Duckett. It hasn't played out yet, but I'd be willing to bet when Duckett is in, the percentages will be roughly the same as when Betts comes in on passing downs.

And yet another back for the other occasions, in Portis.

I don't know why Saunders is calling such a predictable game this year, but he is. Everytime I've watched the Redskins, I've been able to call the offensive play they're going to run, with an 85+% accuracy rate, just from their down & distance situation & the RB substitution.

If I can peg thir play calling that easily, you KNOW Defensive Coordinators can.

 

[hellz_fireflies]

Just asking how long was Duckett on Washington..this is week 10 as all know.

 

[TankRizzo]

I'm STILL dumbfounded by the trade for duckett.

The way the 'skins are run, I wouldn't doubt it if they lost both Betts and Duckett this offseason.

 

[redman]

Still, it's worth noting that all of the coaches used that bye week to break down every single play they've run this year as part of a reassessment. This led to a more power-based rushing attack against Dallas, and the removal of Archuleta from the lineup in favor of Troy Vincent on defense. They are certainly determined to fix problems right now, so this may be in the same vein.

I'm not sure how further diluting the touches / opportunities of one of their two play makers on offense, is going to fix anything. I can only see it exacerbating the problems of an already impotent offense. I mean why keep telegraphing to D's, what you're doing?

Defenses already have the tell of a pass play to Betts, when he comes in on 3rd & long. Now Gibbs & Saunders want to further tip the offeses hand to opposing D's, by replacing Portis with Duckett on Short Yardage & Goal Line plays?

I wonder what else they can do to make the Skins offense even more predictable?

I agree with your comment that limiting the touches of your best weapon is silly, but having a specialist is not silly and doesn't tip anything off unless you let it do so. For example, the Giants have Jacobs for the same reason that we are talking about Duckett here. On 3rd and short you would expect a run no matter who is back there, but with Jacobs it is even more a "sure" thing, until you play action for an easy gain. The Giants never did anything but hand it to Jacobs and eventually that didn't work so well last year. this year, not only are they using play action more, but they are bringing in Jacobs in throwing downs and other downs as well to mix it up. It has worked real well for them. If you only do one thing every time then you are giving them a "tell" but the coaching needs to mix it up once in awile to be effective. There are also times that with the Giants OL and Jacobs you can make the yard regardless of what the defense knows.Not sure if I confused the message or not, but the point is that having a specialist can only increase your chances of success if used correctly. If it is true that portis is not good on short situations than having Duckett come in is a good thing as you can plow it home or play action once in awhile. Having Betts come in on 3rd down IF HE CATCHES BETTER than Portis is a good thing as long as you run once in awhile and have the ability to pick up a 3rd and 6 running. Not really sure in your example if on 3rd and long bringing in betts tips to the other team you are going to throw though.

Indeed a specialist can increase your chances, IF the play calling is mixed up.Unfortunately that is not the case so much in Washington.

Now they're going to have one back for obvious passing downs, in Betts. If Betts comes in, it's roughly an 85+% chance that he is going to be the primary read on 3rd & longs.

Another back for Short Yardage & Goal Line plays, in Duckett. It hasn't played out yet, but I'd be willing to bet when Duckett is in, the percentages will be roughly the same as when Betts comes in on passing downs.

And yet another back for the other occasions, in Portis.

I don't know why Saunders is calling such a predictable game this year, but he is. Everytime I've watched the Redskins, I've been able to call the offensive play they're going to run, with an 85+% accuracy rate, just from their down & distance situation & the RB substitution.

If I can peg thir play calling that easily, you KNOW Defensive Coordinators can.

I agree that Saunders' play-calling needs improvement. Last year they were far better in the red zone - and particularly in close to the end zone - than they are this year. They used play-action masterfully last year inside the five-yard line. We'll have to see whether that issue is addressed as part of this overall effort to improve. BTW, don't read too much into those seven running plays against the Cowboys. They were trying to set a tone with that obviously predictable play-calling, so believe it or not there was an agenda there outside of simply scoring. That happens to be a part of why I do believe they're going back to their roots running the ball.

 

[Bizkiteer]

The way the 'skins are run, I wouldn't doubt it if they lost both Betts and Duckett this offseason.

Ditto, wouldn't surprise me either. Who knows if they were blocking Philly and their attempt to get Duckett or they had a knee jerk reaction to Portis' injury, all I know is that it's an expensive price to pay when you're the oldest team in the division.

 

[Bri]

FB/H-back Sellers should be able to punch it in if they need a change of pace. Different RB brings predictability IMO. Any FB for that matter. I'd swear they drafted a few bruisers the last few years.

 

[Two Deep]

FB/H-back Sellers should be able to punch it in if they need a change of pace. Different RB brings predictability IMO. Any FB for that matter. I'd swear they drafted a few bruisers the last few years.

When it is 1st and goal inside of 5 yards its not like the defense is not expecting someone to attempt to punch the ball in the end zone.

 

[Bri]

FB/H-back Sellers should be able to punch it in if they need a change of pace. Different RB brings predictability IMO. Any FB for that matter. I'd swear they drafted a few bruisers the last few years.

When it is 1st and goal inside of 5 yards its not like the defense is not expecting someone to attempt to punch the ball in the end zone.

that's quite true, esp if El and Moss are lined up wide they're not gonna lob it either.

 

[SteelerMurf]

Duckett has only carried the ball in one game this season. ONly dressing for 2 games

This would be the equivalent of saying Duece Staley is all the sudden gonna start dressing and taking goalline carries form Parker and his backup Davenport.....

 

[Two Deep]

FB/H-back Sellers should be able to punch it in if they need a change of pace. Different RB brings predictability IMO. Any FB for that matter. I'd swear they drafted a few bruisers the last few years.

When it is 1st and goal inside of 5 yards its not like the defense is not expecting someone to attempt to punch the ball in the end zone.

that's quite true, esp if El and Moss are lined up wide they're not gonna lob it either.

Couldn't they just as easily bring in Duckett as a decoy, make the defense think they are going to run it when in reality they pass it. What I am saying is the predictability thing does not hold water. You can be as predictable or unpredictable as you want no matter what personnel is on the field.

 

[Bri]

FB/H-back Sellers should be able to punch it in if they need a change of pace. Different RB brings predictability IMO. Any FB for that matter. I'd swear they drafted a few bruisers the last few years.

When it is 1st and goal inside of 5 yards its not like the defense is not expecting someone to attempt to punch the ball in the end zone.

that's quite true, esp if El and Moss are lined up wide they're not gonna lob it either.

Couldn't they just as easily bring in Duckett as a decoy, make the defense think they are going to run it when in reality they pass it. What I am saying is the predictability thing does not hold water. You can be as predictable or unpredictable as you want no matter what personnel is on the field.

and I agreed+conceded quit beating me up already

 

[redman]

Duckett has only carried the ball in one game this season. ONly dressing for 2 gamesThis would be the equivalent of saying Duece Staley is all the sudden gonna start dressing and taking goalline carries form Parker and his backup Davenport.....

To the TJ Duckett enthusiasts...ask yourself one question...is Duckett effective on special teams?

He hasn't really played special teams, which has been a major obstacle to him being on the active roster given that Betts and Portis have remained healthy, and Cartwright (the 3rd RB) is an excellent and valuable special teamer. They also need all five WR's as James Thrash is likewise very good on special teams, and they've preferred to keep 3 TE's active as well because of their versatility in running different packages. There hasn't been room on the roster for him. Remember, he was acquired when both Portis had just suffered that preseason shoulder injury (and was possibly lost for at least much of the season) and when Betts, too, was out with a leg injury and had been for some time. The assumption was that he'd be the starter and would carry the load with Betts when Betts got healthy. As far as the Deuce Staley analogy goes, it really doesn't apply. Duckett isn't washed up and has been one of the best goalline RB's in the leauge. To the extent that you are looking for some angle to criticize, I guess you criticize the front office for acquiring him in the first place, but again you need to realize the context of it at the time.At the end of the day I'm in no position to say whether this story is true, but to ridicule the very idea of Duckett getting goalline carries seems absurd to me.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

I'm not sure if this story is valid or not, but it has made my decision on whether to start Portis or Parker this week a little easier. I'll keep a close eye on the GL opps for Washington this week and in the meantime start the guy (Parker) who I know will be getting carries inside the 5.

 

[Two Deep]

FB/H-back Sellers should be able to punch it in if they need a change of pace. Different RB brings predictability IMO. Any FB for that matter. I'd swear they drafted a few bruisers the last few years.

When it is 1st and goal inside of 5 yards its not like the defense is not expecting someone to attempt to punch the ball in the end zone.

that's quite true, esp if El and Moss are lined up wide they're not gonna lob it either.

Couldn't they just as easily bring in Duckett as a decoy, make the defense think they are going to run it when in reality they pass it. What I am saying is the predictability thing does not hold water. You can be as predictable or unpredictable as you want no matter what personnel is on the field.

and I agreed+conceded quit beating me up already

Sorry, I wasn't sure if that was sarcasm. Apparently I'm a little too defensive.