What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

****OFFICIAL 2008 Washington Redskins Thread**** (1 Viewer)

:lmao:
Taylor to Have Second Procedure (Updated)Jason Reid reports:Defensive end Jason Taylor will undergo a second surgical procedure Monday to have fluid drained from his left calf, Coach Jim Zorn said after practice today at Redskins Park."There's been talk about it, but to be honest, I don't even know what the game plan is right now," Taylor said late this afternoon of his upcoming surgery. "I'm going to the hospital now to find out what we're going to do. The only thing I'm really focusing in on right now is hopefully playing in the game on Sunday and trying to help this team beat the Lions. The rest of it doesn't really matter right now. I've been hurt for a month, and it hasn't changed."Taylor, whom Zorn said would play against the Detroit Lions at Ford Field, has healed slowly after having emergency surgery Sept. 22 to relieve acute compartment syndrome, a buildup of pressure on muscle groups because of internal bleeding. It is unclear whether Taylor would miss the Nov. 3 game against the Pittsburgh Steelers at FedEx Field.The former NFL defensive player of the year has healed slowly, in part, because he has played the last two weeks against the St. Louis Rams and Cleveland Browns. The constant pounding on Taylor's calf has had an adverse effect on the healing process, Zorn said.Taylor underwent tests Thursday to determine if an infection could be contributing to his lack of progress in healing. He has no infection, Zorn said.By Cindy Boren | October 24, 2008; 1:17 PM ET
 
For a guy is has barely been to battle with other players in B &G, he sure is a trooper. Can you imagine if he'd played with some of these guys or the organization for years? I liked the Jason Taylor fella before, but now I like him even more. :goodposting: Now if he could get healthy and start to really produce on the field.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For a guy is has barely been to battle with other players in B &G, he sure is a trooper. Can you imagine if he'd played with some of these guys or the organization for years? I liked the Jason Taylor fella before, but now I like him even more. :thumbup: Now if he could get healthy and start to really produce on the field.
They're 5-2 without him for the most part, and certainly without him at a peak level at all. I'm hopeful that he can start turning it on from the DE spot down the stretch. With the way that the back seven is blanketing receivers, that could be a defense to behold if that happens.
 
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.

 
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
 
Did Portis and Zorn have some sort of brush up on the sidelines?
The way I heard it described, Alexander was in, the quarter ended, Portis went in to start the next quarter without Zorn knowing it, and he had already decided on the play call based on personnel on the field. Zorn said he told Portis to stay by the position coach, who will let Zorn know he's ready to go in, and that of course he'll put him in. But that he wants to know who's on the field without having to look out there.Did not sound like a big deal.
 
Did Portis and Zorn have some sort of brush up on the sidelines?
The way I heard it described, Alexander was in, the quarter ended, Portis went in to start the next quarter without Zorn knowing it, and he had already decided on the play call based on personnel on the field. Zorn said he told Portis to stay by the position coach, who will let Zorn know he's ready to go in, and that of course he'll put him in. But that he wants to know who's on the field without having to look out there.Did not sound like a big deal.
Thanks for the info.Good win for you guys.
 
Did Portis and Zorn have some sort of brush up on the sidelines?
The way I heard it described, Alexander was in, the quarter ended, Portis went in to start the next quarter without Zorn knowing it, and he had already decided on the play call based on personnel on the field. Zorn said he told Portis to stay by the position coach, who will let Zorn know he's ready to go in, and that of course he'll put him in. But that he wants to know who's on the field without having to look out there.Did not sound like a big deal.
Yeah, what I read was that Portis came out because of an equipment problem and wanted to go back in and replace Alexander immediately once it was fixed, and Zorn's reaction was as fatness described. It was a sideline rebuke, but it doesn't sound like a big deal.
 
Did Portis and Zorn have some sort of brush up on the sidelines?
The way I heard it described, Alexander was in, the quarter ended, Portis went in to start the next quarter without Zorn knowing it, and he had already decided on the play call based on personnel on the field. Zorn said he told Portis to stay by the position coach, who will let Zorn know he's ready to go in, and that of course he'll put him in. But that he wants to know who's on the field without having to look out there.Did not sound like a big deal.
Thanks for the info.Good win for you guys.
Every win's important, but this team is merely good and needs to learn how to dominate inferior opponents. Too many mistakes make too many games close. But for Campbell not throwing INT's, this team's record would be very different IMHO, and that streak can't last forever.
 
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
I like the passion.wonder who was rolling their eyes?
 
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
I like the passion.wonder who was rolling their eyes?
Why do I have a feeling it's JLC...
 
Holy crap!

Minnesota Vikings quarterback Gus Frerotte is the only quarterback to face the Lions this season who did not set a career high in passer efficiency rating.Washington's Jason Campbell set his person best with a 127.4 -- topping his career-best against Detroit last year.
Wow the Lions are awful! :mellow:
 
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
I like the passion.wonder who was rolling their eyes?
Why do I have a feeling it's JLC...
It wasn't - you can tell his nerdy, over-caffeinated, stuttering voice anywhere. The guys on Extremeskins were saying it was the Wash Times' Ryan O'Halloran. I have no idea outside of that though.
 
Did Portis and Zorn have some sort of brush up on the sidelines?
The way I heard it described, Alexander was in, the quarter ended, Portis went in to start the next quarter without Zorn knowing it, and he had already decided on the play call based on personnel on the field. Zorn said he told Portis to stay by the position coach, who will let Zorn know he's ready to go in, and that of course he'll put him in. But that he wants to know who's on the field without having to look out there.Did not sound like a big deal.
Here's another account of what happened, Bankerguy:
Casual Display Wears Thin On ZornBy Sally JenkinsMonday, October 27, 2008; Page E01DETROIT The two strongest personalities on the Washington Redskins belong to Clinton Portis, he of the kingly garb and brazen statements, and Jim Zorn, the head coach with the unpredictable flare and a steel trap for a jaw when he gets angry. Each of them is a vital actor on this team, which only made their tempest on the sideline against the Detroit Lions more conspicuous. It was a piece of public theater, and a view inside this team's developing drama, why they are 6-2, and liable to get better, maybe a lot better, unless they blow up first.Afterward Portis stood before his locker clad in so many rich textiles he seemed upholstered, from his red cashmere V-neck to his gleaming red square-toed, soft crocodile shoes. He was the image of surfeit, after his fifth straight game with over 120 yards (126 on 24 carries) and he kicked up an exquisite loafer to show it off. "Feel it," he said. "Bend it. It feels fabulous." But what didn't feel so fabulous was the face chewing he got from Zorn while sitting on the bench in the second quarter. What exactly did Zorn say to him, anyway?"You're digging too deep into things," Portis said.What happened was this: On the first series of the second quarter, Portis took a couple of plays off to get his helmet adjusted, and sent his new backup Shaun Alexander on the field in his stead. Then he trotted back out without letting Zorn know why he had been absent. Zorn was livid. The Redskins were backed up on their 11, and trailing a winless team 7-3, and things seemed entirely too casual to him. When Portis returned to the bench Zorn stalked over and launched into a ferocious tirade. Portis snapped back a reply. Zorn delivered a few more choice phrases.ad_icon"We had a sweet exchange of words," Zorn said.Portis bent his head under a towel and sat, motionless. Gradually, teammates leaned over and said comforting words. Ladell Betts spoke to him, then Chris Cooley. Santana Moss wandered over."You single-handed get called out by the coach, you get down," Portis said. "I got pride. Just like Coach Z got pride."It was a small mistake, not having his headgear in order and not communicating. It could have been committed by anybody. But that was the whole point: Zorn lit into the league's leading rusher and the highest-paid player on the team for committing an apparently minor misstep. The last time something like this happened, it was the lowest man on the Redskins' totem poll, the rookie punter, whom Zorn bit into. Zorn's statement was clear: His organization will be the kind in which the smallest errors aren't tolerated, whether you are first or last on the roster.The Redskins' penchant for misfiring is obviously beginning to eat at Zorn, the tiny miscues, penalties (eight for 67 yards against the Lions) and missed assignments that are holding them back. The Redskins are piling up yards -- 439 in total offense against the Lions -- and not getting near enough points out of them, and their 25-17 victory over the Lions was closer than it should have been. If a team with a 6-2 record can be called an underachiever, then that's what the Redskins are as far as Zorn is concerned."It's the underachieving in concentration, in situations of being careless," Zorn said. "If you have a letdown, the other team cannot only make it close, they can beat you. This game was close. Those are the little things that make a difference between a good team and one that's just fighting to keep its head above water."It was probably inevitable that Zorn and Portis would have a confrontation. Portis is a great self-sacrificing runner, he scuttles, he bangs, he practically crawls for more yards. But there is a bit of a lingering question as to whether Portis is a great locker-room leader. He's a bundle of sensitivities, a walking dose of sodium pentathol, his innermost thoughts come babbling out of his mouth, and sometimes the result is delightful, and sometimes he can sound selfish and petulant, as when he complained earlier this season, "I get a lot of touches with nowhere to run."Portis had an excellent relationship with Joe Gibbs, who gave him his way. When he wanted a lighter practice load in order to feel fresh, Gibbs granted it and then joked that Portis just wanted "to be in pajamas all week and show up and draw some stuff on the ground." Gibbs spoiled Portis a little, because he always appreciated how Portis sacrificed his body, and loved the fact that he not only didn't mind contact, he initiated it.But Zorn is a different personality. He has a temper and is capable of fearsome explosions -- he had another in the media room after the game when he slammed his hand on the podium in response to what he felt was rudeness from a reporter. He's an overtly frank, demanding coach and he doesn't coddle anyone, not even league-leading rushers with a touch of diva in them. Zorn's brutal frankness and Portis's exquisite sensitivity met squarely on the sideline.It had never happened to Portis before: "Not with a head coach," he said. What wounded him was that Zorn acted like he was goldbricking -- like he wasn't there when his team needed him most -- and laid into him without asking for an explanation. "If there is some miscommunication, just come ask me," Portis said. "Don't point your finger."If Portis and Zorn have one quality in common, it's emotional honesty. It's not a bad trait to have -- it's one often found on championship teams -- if it results in accountability. That's what Zorn is seeking. While it's great the Redskins are 6-2, it's the next six or eight games that will be far more defining. "It's very fragile, to keep a team going in one direction," Zorn said. "Very fragile."
Most 'Skins fans will tell you that Sally Jenkins is no friend of the team and has written a lot of negative columns in recent years, though she's come out in the last two weeks with a big pro-Zorn column. Anyway, this is about as objective and detached of a voice as you're likely to hear on this. I do agree that Zorn is getting annoyed at the team's self-defeating mistakes and he showed his ### today on a couple of occasions, this being one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another view of the Portis/Zorn dust-up from Dan Steinberg:

DETROIT, Oct. 26 -- The last time Washington Redskins Coach Jim Zorn got into a televised shouting match with one of his players, the target of his anger was a wide-eyed rookie punter. Sunday in Detroit, Zorn again publicly displayed frustration with one of his charges, but this time it was his biggest star, running back Clinton Portis, who continued to shine in Washington's 25-17 win.

The NFL's leading rusher gained 126 yards on 24 carries, giving him 944 at the season's midway point and preserving his spot among the front-runners for league MVP. Still, after his fifth straight game gaining at least 120 yards, many of the postgame questions concerned Portis's run-in with his rookie head coach.

Portis didn't enter the game when Washington took possession on the last play of the first quarter. As the second quarter began, Portis stayed on the sideline, dealing with an equipment problem, while backup Shaun Alexander remained on the field. According to Zorn, Portis then checked himself back in without conveying that information to the coach, leading to confusion in Zorn's play-calling. After that drive ended and Detroit took over, cameras showed Zorn animatedly reprimanding Portis on the sidelines.

"I'm calling the game based on who's in there, right?" Zorn said later. "And when he went in there, he just misunderstood the situation, and we had a sweet exchange of words about when to go in."

Under previous coach Joe Gibbs, Portis had the freedom to signal in backup Ladell Betts and head to the sideline at his own discretion. After Sunday's game, Portis said he wasn't sure whether he was supposed to relay every substitution to the head coach, but he repeatedly labeled the incident a "miscommunication" and said he regretted it had happened. "He was excited, and I was excited, so when two grown men get excited and two grown men [are] eager, you know, you'll have that miscommunication," Portis said. "I never want somebody to question or feel like I wasn't there. I never want my teammates to feel like I wasn't there, I never want my coaches to feel like I wasn't there.

"Every Sunday I'm gonna show up. I mean, I'm gonna give all I've got. So if there's any miscommunication about why I'm not somewhere and you think I'm supposed to be there, or why something didn't happen, come ask me. You never point the finger and not know. It's just like you're innocent until proven guilty. So it was really a miscommunication."

Portis and several of his teammates said such emotional conversations are not unusual on NFL sidelines, and they're quickly forgotten. Still, Zorn saw fit to address the incident in the locker room at halftime, and Portis appeared momentarily discouraged after the conversation. "I mean, that's me," he said. "When you're building something special like what we're building here, being 6-2, the accomplishments that we have; when everybody's playing together, and you single-handedly get called out? I've got pride just like Coach Zorn's got pride."

Several teammates approached Portis on the sidelines to offer a pat on the back or a few words of encouragement, and they said they had no doubt he would respond well. "Whatever energy you're feeling, just direct it towards the Detroit Lions, focus on the game and go out there and do your job," said Betts, summarizing his message. "I mean, there's so many emotional things that go on on the sidelines in the course of a game. You'll see many different players get into different situations, yelling matches, whatever you want to call it, but it's part of the game."

Portis provided a scare late in the fourth quarter when he blazed 31 yards through the heart of the defense but then came up lame, writhing on the turf. He said he aggravated a lingering ankle issue, and the sharp pain calmed down before he left the field. He said he expected to be in pain this week, but he would be ready for next Monday night's meeting with the Pittsburgh Steelers.

As for his coach, both Zorn and Portis said the issue was settled. After their noisy conversation, Zorn called Portis's number on five of Washington's next seven plays, and he continued to rely on the back throughout the Redskins' win. "It was the heat of the game for me," Zorn said. "And he explained what happened to him. I explained what my deal was. And so we just came to an understanding."

Zorn's first public target, rookie punter Durant Brooks, was released several weeks after drawing his coach's ire. Portis, who has 260 more rushing yards than anyone in the league and is on pace to set a career high in that category, obviously will face a different fate. "A lot of time when you're in a groove like this, you have so much stuff going in your mind," said Alexander, who also attempted to encourage Portis during that second quarter. "He's a good player, and he's about to step into greatness, and we want to make sure that we can ride this horse as far as it can go."
 
Code:
9	   Nov 03	  PIT @  WAS	  8:30 PM10 	Bye 	11 	Nov 16 	DAL @ WAS 	8:15 PM 					12 	Nov 23 	WAS @ SEA 	4:15 PM 			13 	Nov 30 	NYG @ WAS 	1:00 PM 			14 	Dec 07 	WAS @ BAL 	1:00 PM 			15 	Dec 14 	WAS @ CIN 	1:00 PM			16 	Dec 21 	PHI @ WAS 	1:00 PM 			17 	Dec 28 	WAS @ SF 	4:15 PM
 
I gotta say I was giggling when you guys hired Zorn as the Head Coach. My gigling has stopped and he is impressing me.

Edit- Any time you can light up and critize your best player in front of the team and it not affect the game or Clinton's play. This goes a long way to ensuring yZorn gets the most out of your bottom third of the 53 man roster. This stuff makes teams better. Zorn's focus on the little things speaks big as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red....errr...tatum, I agree with you, we have to learn to dominate. If you looked at the stats of the game, you'd think we killed the Lions. Sad part is we only won by a TD. Costly penalties and a turnover or two keep hampering our ability to take over a game and shove it down the opponants throat. I like the win and am happy to get it, but only beating a winless team by one TD does not promote too much confidence. Nice to see Tanaman light it up though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tatum Bell said:
Meast21 said:
buster c said:
Tatum Bell said:
fatness said:
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
I like the passion.wonder who was rolling their eyes?
Why do I have a feeling it's JLC...
It wasn't - you can tell his nerdy, over-caffeinated, stuttering voice anywhere. The guys on Extremeskins were saying it was the Wash Times' Ryan O'Halloran. I have no idea outside of that though.
Yes, it was O'Halloran. Heard him this morning just saying they there was some miscommunication. Zorn didn't realize what Ryan was asking and Ryan's body language (including rolling his eyes) really irked Zorn. Ryan said he and Dan Daly talked to Zorn after the PC with the play-by-play log and explained what he was asking and they sorted it all out.
 
Tatum Bell said:
Holy crap!

Minnesota Vikings quarterback Gus Frerotte is the only quarterback to face the Lions this season who did not set a career high in passer efficiency rating.Washington's Jason Campbell set his person best with a 127.4 -- topping his career-best against Detroit last year.
Wow the Lions are awful! :popcorn:
:goodposting: Gus gets another chance to set his own record!The Redskins receivers were ridiculously open yesterday.
 
Tatum Bell said:
Meast21 said:
buster c said:
Tatum Bell said:
fatness said:
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
I like the passion.wonder who was rolling their eyes?
Why do I have a feeling it's JLC...
It wasn't - you can tell his nerdy, over-caffeinated, stuttering voice anywhere. The guys on Extremeskins were saying it was the Wash Times' Ryan O'Halloran. I have no idea outside of that though.
Yes, it was O'Halloran. Heard him this morning just saying they there was some miscommunication. Zorn didn't realize what Ryan was asking and Ryan's body language (including rolling his eyes) really irked Zorn. Ryan said he and Dan Daly talked to Zorn after the PC with the play-by-play log and explained what he was asking and they sorted it all out.
perhaps we heard the same thing, dgreen. the 980 interview with Polin & crew? I could barely understand what this marble-mouthed MF-er was saying (thankfully he is part of the print media). WTF was he saying about 'giving up a field goal' by running a draw play on 2nd & long? was he saying that the Skins, by trying to run out the clock before the half, would ultimately have surrendered a Lion FG?? he eventually made it clear that he was trying to ask Zorn if they were running out the clock, but the part about the FG was not clear at all (although, I am inferring from Kevin Sheehan's reply that that was what it was).
 
Tatum Bell said:
Meast21 said:
buster c said:
Tatum Bell said:
fatness said:
I can't find the full video. It looks like at least the third time Zorn tried to answer the guy's question and he just got frustrated. It's odd seeing that kind of heat after a win. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though.
I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Zorn's intense and definitely not complacent, and this mistake-prone 6-2 team definitely needs a kick in the ### to push it over the hump from "good" to "dominant". They're so close, but their own mistakes keep holding them back and keep helping inferior opponents stay in games.
I like the passion.wonder who was rolling their eyes?
Why do I have a feeling it's JLC...
It wasn't - you can tell his nerdy, over-caffeinated, stuttering voice anywhere. The guys on Extremeskins were saying it was the Wash Times' Ryan O'Halloran. I have no idea outside of that though.
Yes, it was O'Halloran. Heard him this morning just saying they there was some miscommunication. Zorn didn't realize what Ryan was asking and Ryan's body language (including rolling his eyes) really irked Zorn. Ryan said he and Dan Daly talked to Zorn after the PC with the play-by-play log and explained what he was asking and they sorted it all out.
perhaps we heard the same thing, dgreen. the 980 interview with Polin & crew? I could barely understand what this marble-mouthed MF-er was saying (thankfully he is part of the print media). WTF was he saying about 'giving up a field goal' by running a draw play on 2nd & long? was he saying that the Skins, by trying to run out the clock before the half, would ultimately have surrendered a Lion FG?? he eventually made it clear that he was trying to ask Zorn if they were running out the clock, but the part about the FG was not clear at all (although, I am inferring from Kevin Sheehan's reply that that was what it was).
I think his question centered around the Lions' timeout after the Portis draw. It was 3rd and 19 with 0:36 left at their own 17 yard line and the Lions stopped the clock. It appeared the Redskins were going to just let the clock tick. Ryan wanted to know what the Skins would have done there had the Lions not called a timeout. He thought the Lions should not have called a timeout and went to the lockerroom up 10-3 (assuming the Redskins were willing to let the clock run out). Sheehan disagreed and thought the timeout was the right move for the Lions because you should expect to get a stop on 3rd and 19. Instead, the Skins complete a big pass to Thrash and end up with a FG to cut the lead to 10-6. They moved the ball down the field very quickly.I think Zorn originally thought Ryan was just questioning his use of timeouts and the "lack of urgency" on the first few plays of that drive. I think Zorn felt his intelligence was being challenged. Zorn said he had 3 timeouts and he doesn't want to use his first timeout until there's less than a minute left, something I completely agree with, BTW. Aside from the 4th Q against the Giants, I think Zorn has been great in his time management and use of timeouts. Too many teams panic and waist a timeout with like 1:45 left.
 
I gotta say I was giggling when you guys hired Zorn as the Head Coach. My gigling has stopped and he is impressing me.Edit- Any time you can light up and critize your best player in front of the team and it not affect the game or Clinton's play. This goes a long way to ensuring yZorn gets the most out of your bottom third of the 53 man roster. This stuff makes teams better. Zorn's focus on the little things speaks big as well.
Yeah, it's been impressive. Winning certainly gives you credibility as a new coach, and the players also apparently respect the fact that Zorn is a former player and understands their challenges as players. He seems to have the right mixture of passion/intensity and control/intelligence. I think most 'Skins fans would admit to you that they're relieved because none of us could say with certainty that we knew Zorn would be a success, and I say that as a strong advocate for the hiring of first time, "unproven" head coaches by organizations because those are the types of guys who tend to have the highest ceiling (to go along with the highest failure rate, to be sure).
 
This is a pretty good summary of yesterday's game and where the team now finds itself, from LaCanfora's blog today:

Monday Morning H-BackThe Detroit Lions are who we thought they were. They are 0-7 with a bullet, brothers and sisters. A performance like Sunday's, against any other operation, and the Skins lose. That Detroit defense is a joke. The Skins could back up to third-and-30 and still pick up first downs when they had to. You don't overcome the holding penalties and personal fouls against decent football teams. Teams with anything going for them don't allow that bizarre drive at the end of the half with the long field goal.Skins commit a hold to negate a 19-yard gain, back themselves up to their own 9 inside the two-minute warning, then have an offensive pass interference wipe out a 17-yard gain. On the drive the Skins faced second-and-19, second-and-27, third-and-19, first-and-20, first-and-15 ... and still picked up four first downs, moved 58 yards on eight plays in 2:22 and connected on a 47-yard field goal at the end of the half.Rod Marinelli must have wanted to gather his entire defense on the sideline and do his best impression of Jim Zorn ripping Durant Brooks/Clinton Portis. Yikes. That's bad football.As we always say, you take the ugly win every time, but the time will be coming soon when winning ugly won't be as easy. It's been a while since we've seen a sound, disciplined outing on all phases of play, and should the Redskins continue the penalty/turnover/miscue fest against the Steelers, they could get embarrassed on national TV Monday night.As for the game, you guys tell me how a team could compile the following statistical domination in the opening half and yet trail:The Skins outgained the Lions 250-90, held the ball for 21:27, ran 39 plays to just 19 for the Lions and Detroit completed just three passes. Well, the six penalties for 48 yards sure had a lot to do with it, and the shoddy pass protection - which led to sacks and fumbles - didn't help, and the lack of pass rush/turnovers from the defense - against a team as hell-bent on imploding as the Lions are - doesn't help, either. And the Skins getting six points out of three trips to the red zone, and the Lions getting 14 out of their two trips goes a long way to explaining the situation as well.It's clear there are a few issues that need to be corrected here at the midpoint. On offense, all of a sudden it's impossible to score more than a TD or two a game.They have to finish drives, and the litany of errors around the goal line on that opening dive was brutal (Skins also became the only team to allow the Lions to score in the first quarter all season, off that turnover; it was 55-0 entering the game). Santana Moss's individual brilliance, coupled with what was essentially a statistically perfect outing from Jason Campbell, was enough to overcome the collective malaise.On defense, the sacks/turnovers quotient is going to have to be there to win games in January. It's vital. Carlos Rogers is playing like a total stud, but those dropped INTs are the difference between putting inferior teams away early, and playing another four-quarter battle royale. If Jason Taylor is indeed playing at 60 percent as he says he is, then save him from himself and play someone else until he is healthy. The procedure he is supposed to have might end up doing that for the Redskins, but especially with Cornelius Griffin coming back and Demetric Evans not having to play as much at tackle, give Demetric Evans the bulk of the snaps at right end. He's thriving and had another excellent game yesterday. Taylor needs to sit.On special teams, the penalties are crippling. LaRon Landry's diving block in the back directly in front of an official was flawlessly executed (he's beginning to fall into the penalty rut that was a big issue in his rookie season). There seems to be at least a few potentially-damning teams penalties each week. And the punting game needs to become more consistent. I think Ryan Plackemeier will be okay in that regard.As for the game itself, I thought that Zorn was just being Zorn in the sideline thing with Portis. That's who he is and I think it was great of him to seize the moment and express how he feels. And I also think it's hardly that big a deal and is the kind of thing that happens all the time in this league. Would the previous coach ever have dreamed of doing it? No way, but he also gave Portis special treatment. The rest of the coaches and players knew it, and that's why Zorn handling his issues with Portis in the same direct manner he would have with Brooks or anyone else was well received.That's football, folks. People get angry and coaches expect and demand certain things. Then the moment passes, you feed the guy the ball and you move on.The game again had the feel of the Gibbs-led Skins. Zorn favored the run and didn't take too many shots, it again had the look of the Gibbs offense and not the typical West Coast approach (power running, deeper drops for Campbell), just with a few more multi-receiver sets. Some of the constant issues from Gibbs 2.0 are cropping up with more regularity now (penalties, turnovers, not finishing drives) and again the Redskins had to scramble late to get out of the stadium with a win (if Jon Jansen hadn't pounced on that late fumble, the Lions might have just pulled this thing out).Chris Samuels can't come back soon enough for Campbell's health. Stephon Heyer had a rough, rough day, and let me tell you that was docile a road environment as you will ever find. There were empty seats all over the place and the crowd had no detectable pulse. Samuels' knee problem is not said to be too serious, and the way Pittsburgh moves those LBs in that 3-4 scheme and stunts and overloads ... yikes. It's very difficult coming in cold after being out with injury for a while, and having to switch to the left side on top of that, and Heyer will battle, but that was a rough outing.Kedric Golston put together a second straight excellent game, and Evans does not get nearly as much credit as he deserves filling a huge role with Griffin out. He got a big sack and was a presence, which is saying something on a line without Griffin and with Taylor not adding much. They need to get more big plays out of their starting ends - Carter and Taylor combined for one sack.I thought the Skins did a nice job on Calvin Johnson for the most part - with Landry shaded over him on a lot of obvious passing downs - save for a few missed tackles. Devin Thomas's growing affinity for special teams is a positive sign, and he made another big play Sunday (though nearly knocking down Moss on that punt return might have been huge).As much as Moss adds to the return game, it really is a risk. With no real complimentary deep threat emerging, he's on the field constantly, and also returning punts is tough. Losing him would be crushing and that hamstring was barking a little Sunday, at least enough for the team to put him on the injury list. Hammies have not been kind to him and I'm sure they will watch it closely.I thought it was a little odd that Fred Davis never got on the field after being featuring in three-wide sets, with an emphasis placed on getting him the ball, and I wonder if Greg Blache starts giving Chris Wilson a few more chances to rush the passer on third down (I didn't think Marcus Washington made much of his opportunities to blitz Sunday). I thought Mike Green did a heck of a job as a starting safety in a last-minute change of roles after being here only a week or so.Bottom line, is few people around the NFL expected the Skins to be 6-2 at the midway point, me included. The first half was tough and they found ways to win, and string victories together. They actually have a little margin for error with NFC East games upcoming and if they beat the teams they are supposed to beat, they should be in line for a playoff push.
 
Tatum Bell said:
Most 'Skins fans will tell you that Sally Jenkins is no friend of the team and has written a lot of negative columns in recent years, though she's come out in the last two weeks with a big pro-Zorn column. Anyway, this is about as objective and detached of a voice as you're likely to hear on this.

I do agree that Zorn is getting annoyed at the team's self-defeating mistakes and he showed his ### today on a couple of occasions, this being one.
;) Unless, by "objective and detached of a voice" you mean "knows nothing about the NFL or even about males in high levels of competition".

She opens up the piece with this gem:

It was a piece of public theater, and a view inside this team's developing drama, why they are 6-2, and liable to get better, maybe a lot better, unless they blow up first.
"Public theater"? "This team's developing drama"? "Get better...unless they blow up first"? Really? That's an objective view of the situation? Did she not watch the rest of the game? Did she not hear any of the post-game comments? Has she never been around NFL players and coaches?Zorn's exchange with Portis boils down to a whole lot of nothing. Nothing about it was out of the ordinary on a typical NFL sideline on any Sunday. Zorn did not start using Portis differently. Portis did not start performing differently.

Maybe it made for good TV, and maybe it makes for good copy, but, IMO, this will have a zero net effect on "team drama" and whether or not the team "blows up".

And I think Zorn has been showing his annoyance with self-defeating mistakes ever since TC. I'm surprised that so many people (not necessarily you, Tatum) think this is a new, or previously unseen, side of Zorn.

 
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tatum Bell said:
Most 'Skins fans will tell you that Sally Jenkins is no friend of the team and has written a lot of negative columns in recent years, though she's come out in the last two weeks with a big pro-Zorn column. Anyway, this is about as objective and detached of a voice as you're likely to hear on this.

I do agree that Zorn is getting annoyed at the team's self-defeating mistakes and he showed his ### today on a couple of occasions, this being one.
:kicksrock: Unless, by "objective and detached of a voice" you mean "knows nothing about the NFL or even about males in high levels of competition".

She opens up the piece with this gem:

It was a piece of public theater, and a view inside this team's developing drama, why they are 6-2, and liable to get better, maybe a lot better, unless they blow up first.
"Public theater"? "This team's developing drama"? "Get better...unless they blow up first"? Really? That's an objective view of the situation? Did she not watch the rest of the game? Did she not hear any of the post-game comments? Has she never been around NFL players and coaches?Zorn's exchange with Portis boils down to a whole lot of nothing. Nothing about it was out of the ordinary on a typical NFL sideline on any Sunday. Zorn did not start using Portis differently. Portis did not start performing differently.

Maybe it made for good TV, and maybe it makes for good copy, but, IMO, this will have a zero net effect on "team drama" and whether or not the team "blows up".

And I think Zorn has been showing his annoyance with self-defeating mistakes ever since TC. I'm surprised that so many people (not necessarily you, Tatum) think this is a new, or previously unseen, side of Zorn.
"Objective" may have been a poorly chosen word, but the point of my posting her article is that she's not inclined to cut the team any breaks if she can help it. She certainly isn't one to sweep team turmoil under the rug if it in fact exists.
 
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production.
If turnovers are far easier to correct, then why haven't they corrected it yet? They have forced one turnover in their last 4 games. They've had a defensive turnover problem for years now.
 
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.
The Skins of this year remind me of the Cowboys last year.
 
"Objective" may have been a poorly chosen word, but the point of my posting her article is that she's not inclined to cut the team any breaks if she can help it. She certainly isn't one to sweep team turmoil under the rug if it in fact exists.
She may not sweep it under the rug when it exists, but the fact that she's more than willing to create turmoil when none exists tells me she's an unreliable source for any credible information regarding the "inner workings" of the team.If someone cries foul at every little perceived bump in the road I'm sure they'll eventually be right about something. That doesn't legitimize all the times they were wrong, though.
 
thanks for the explanation dgreen.

The Redskins play to the level of their competition, plain & simple. I've seen many teams in many sports do this enough to know that it is a reality of competitive sports. Hell, I can remember looking past lowly St. Michaels in CYO hoops and ended up going something like 2 for 12 when I was anticipating a 20 point game!

bottom line: they play to the level of the competition and therefore the Steelers will get their attention and I predict a big Skins victory next Monday.

 
"Objective" may have been a poorly chosen word, but the point of my posting her article is that she's not inclined to cut the team any breaks if she can help it. She certainly isn't one to sweep team turmoil under the rug if it in fact exists.
She may not sweep it under the rug when it exists, but the fact that she's more than willing to create turmoil when none exists tells me she's an unreliable source for any credible information regarding the "inner workings" of the team.If someone cries foul at every little perceived bump in the road I'm sure they'll eventually be right about something. That doesn't legitimize all the times they were wrong, though.
Believe me, you and I are in agreement regarding Ms. Jenkins' character as a columnist writing about the Redskins. I figured if even she wasn't seeing this as a big deal, then that was noteworthy. I'm certainly not endorsing her work at large however.This was prompted specifically by Bankerguy, an ifriend of mine on this board who's both a Cowboys fan and who also writes (very well, I might add) the Redskins game recaps. Aside from wanting to help him gather facts, I also realize that I've gone into Cowboys threads - the TO and PacMan threads in particular - and pointed out how certain statements or events didn't bode well for that team. I felt I owed it to Bankerguy in fairness to fully thresh this Redskins event out too. Obviously, if this becomes a recurring event between Zorn and Portis, then it will take on new meaning and I'll say as much. Fortunately this looks like a "heat of the moment" type of thing that will soon be forgotten.
 
"Objective" may have been a poorly chosen word, but the point of my posting her article is that she's not inclined to cut the team any breaks if she can help it. She certainly isn't one to sweep team turmoil under the rug if it in fact exists.
She may not sweep it under the rug when it exists, but the fact that she's more than willing to create turmoil when none exists tells me she's an unreliable source for any credible information regarding the "inner workings" of the team.If someone cries foul at every little perceived bump in the road I'm sure they'll eventually be right about something. That doesn't legitimize all the times they were wrong, though.
Believe me, you and I are in agreement regarding Ms. Jenkins' character as a columnist writing about the Redskins. I figured if even she wasn't seeing this as a big deal, then that was noteworthy. I'm certainly not endorsing her work at large however.This was prompted specifically by Bankerguy, an ifriend of mine on this board who's both a Cowboys fan and who also writes (very well, I might add) the Redskins game recaps. Aside from wanting to help him gather facts, I also realize that I've gone into Cowboys threads - the TO and PacMan threads in particular - and pointed out how certain statements or events didn't bode well for that team. I felt I owed it to Bankerguy in fairness to fully thresh this Redskins event out too. Obviously, if this becomes a recurring event between Zorn and Portis, then it will take on new meaning and I'll say as much. Fortunately this looks like a "heat of the moment" type of thing that will soon be forgotten.
I certainly wasn't trying to stir the pot here boys. I had flipped to the game after it just happened and heard the commentators discussing it. I just wanted to know what went down for my own, not as any part of my write up (Thanks for the props though) as I had the Eagles game this week. It looks like this event was handled well by Zorn.Carry on boys. Thanks for the info and insight.
 
"Objective" may have been a poorly chosen word, but the point of my posting her article is that she's not inclined to cut the team any breaks if she can help it. She certainly isn't one to sweep team turmoil under the rug if it in fact exists.
She may not sweep it under the rug when it exists, but the fact that she's more than willing to create turmoil when none exists tells me she's an unreliable source for any credible information regarding the "inner workings" of the team.If someone cries foul at every little perceived bump in the road I'm sure they'll eventually be right about something. That doesn't legitimize all the times they were wrong, though.
Believe me, you and I are in agreement regarding Ms. Jenkins' character as a columnist writing about the Redskins. I figured if even she wasn't seeing this as a big deal, then that was noteworthy. I'm certainly not endorsing her work at large however.This was prompted specifically by Bankerguy, an ifriend of mine on this board who's both a Cowboys fan and who also writes (very well, I might add) the Redskins game recaps. Aside from wanting to help him gather facts, I also realize that I've gone into Cowboys threads - the TO and PacMan threads in particular - and pointed out how certain statements or events didn't bode well for that team. I felt I owed it to Bankerguy in fairness to fully thresh this Redskins event out too. Obviously, if this becomes a recurring event between Zorn and Portis, then it will take on new meaning and I'll say as much. Fortunately this looks like a "heat of the moment" type of thing that will soon be forgotten.
I certainly wasn't trying to stir the pot here boys. I had flipped to the game after it just happened and heard the commentators discussing it. I just wanted to know what went down for my own, not as any part of my write up (Thanks for the props though) as I had the Eagles game this week. It looks like this event was handled well by Zorn.Carry on boys. Thanks for the info and insight.
Don't worry, GB. Nobody was misunderstanding you here.
 
"Objective" may have been a poorly chosen word, but the point of my posting her article is that she's not inclined to cut the team any breaks if she can help it. She certainly isn't one to sweep team turmoil under the rug if it in fact exists.
She may not sweep it under the rug when it exists, but the fact that she's more than willing to create turmoil when none exists tells me she's an unreliable source for any credible information regarding the "inner workings" of the team.If someone cries foul at every little perceived bump in the road I'm sure they'll eventually be right about something. That doesn't legitimize all the times they were wrong, though.
Believe me, you and I are in agreement regarding Ms. Jenkins' character as a columnist writing about the Redskins. I figured if even she wasn't seeing this as a big deal, then that was noteworthy. I'm certainly not endorsing her work at large however.This was prompted specifically by Bankerguy, an ifriend of mine on this board who's both a Cowboys fan and who also writes (very well, I might add) the Redskins game recaps. Aside from wanting to help him gather facts, I also realize that I've gone into Cowboys threads - the TO and PacMan threads in particular - and pointed out how certain statements or events didn't bode well for that team. I felt I owed it to Bankerguy in fairness to fully thresh this Redskins event out too. Obviously, if this becomes a recurring event between Zorn and Portis, then it will take on new meaning and I'll say as much. Fortunately this looks like a "heat of the moment" type of thing that will soon be forgotten.
I certainly wasn't trying to stir the pot here boys. I had flipped to the game after it just happened and heard the commentators discussing it. I just wanted to know what went down for my own, not as any part of my write up (Thanks for the props though) as I had the Eagles game this week. It looks like this event was handled well by Zorn.Carry on boys. Thanks for the info and insight.
Don't worry, GB. Nobody was misunderstanding you here.
Yeah, this certainly wasn't about you, Bankerguy. As others have stated here before, you're contributions to this thread are welcomed, despite your allegiances. :bag:As long as TB and I are in agreement that SJ is a hack, at best, when it comes to Redskins "reporting", all is well in the world. :goodposting:
 
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.
PAST wins and losses are measured by total points. When it comes to predicting future success, I seem to recall that yards gained and allowed (especially if modified to something like DVOA or another advanced metric) are far more accurate predictors of future wins and losses than points scored/points allowed.All I was saying is that JLC focused on the negative, as has been his modus operandi. This team is playing well. Should you be concerned about the penalties? Sure. But it shouldn't outweigh consistent beatdowns from a yard production standpoint, not by a longshot.

 
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.
PAST wins and losses are measured by total points. When it comes to predicting future success, I seem to recall that yards gained and allowed (especially if modified to something like DVOA or another advanced metric) are far more accurate predictors of future wins and losses than points scored/points allowed.All I was saying is that JLC focused on the negative, as has been his modus operandi. This team is playing well. Should you be concerned about the penalties? Sure. But it shouldn't outweigh consistent beatdowns from a yard production standpoint, not by a longshot.
Not to worry. I'm not ignoring those yardage totals - in fact, they're what frustrate me the most. They are indeed a sign of potential, but when a team for three weeks in a row grossly underperforms on the scoreboard when compared with those totals, I start getting concerned/frustrated. Frankly, even the score of the Cowboys and Eagles games were a good deal closer than the time of possession, yardage and just general flow of those games indicated they should be, but that got lost in the euphoria of those unexpected and exciting road wins.

They definitely need to get away from those sorts of problems if they want to beat Pittsburgh and the Giants in the next two games.

 
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.
PAST wins and losses are measured by total points. When it comes to predicting future success, I seem to recall that yards gained and allowed (especially if modified to something like DVOA or another advanced metric) are far more accurate predictors of future wins and losses than points scored/points allowed.All I was saying is that JLC focused on the negative, as has been his modus operandi. This team is playing well. Should you be concerned about the penalties? Sure. But it shouldn't outweigh consistent beatdowns from a yard production standpoint, not by a longshot.
Not to worry. I'm not ignoring those yardage totals - in fact, they're what frustrate me the most. They are indeed a sign of potential, but when a team for three weeks in a row grossly underperforms on the scoreboard when compared with those totals, I start getting concerned/frustrated. Frankly, even the score of the Cowboys and Eagles games were a good deal closer than the time of possession, yardage and just general flow of those games indicated they should be, but that got lost in the euphoria of those unexpected and exciting road wins.

They definitely need to get away from those sorts of problems if they want to beat Pittsburgh and the Giants in the next two games.
Yardage would be lower and scoring would be higher if they could force some more turnovers, creating shorter fields. Anyone know how the Redskins rank in average starting field position?
 
Tatum Bell said:
Anyone catch Zorn's angry response to some reporter's question in the post game presser? WTF was that all about? I want to see the uncut presser but it's not up on redskins.com yet.
Full, un-cut post-game presser up on redskins.com now.The outburst really starts around the 8:15 mark. Good stuff.

"Why am I frustrating you!?" :shrug:
Angry Jim Zorn: "You keep rolling your eyes...and I am getting ticked off....and I think I am answering your question!"*slam*

Angry Jim Zorn: "Are you ok?!"

Nice Jim Zorn: "Okay"

:lmao:

 
dgreen said:
Tatum Bell said:
TobiasFunke said:
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.
PAST wins and losses are measured by total points. When it comes to predicting future success, I seem to recall that yards gained and allowed (especially if modified to something like DVOA or another advanced metric) are far more accurate predictors of future wins and losses than points scored/points allowed.All I was saying is that JLC focused on the negative, as has been his modus operandi. This team is playing well. Should you be concerned about the penalties? Sure. But it shouldn't outweigh consistent beatdowns from a yard production standpoint, not by a longshot.
Not to worry. I'm not ignoring those yardage totals - in fact, they're what frustrate me the most. They are indeed a sign of potential, but when a team for three weeks in a row grossly underperforms on the scoreboard when compared with those totals, I start getting concerned/frustrated. Frankly, even the score of the Cowboys and Eagles games were a good deal closer than the time of possession, yardage and just general flow of those games indicated they should be, but that got lost in the euphoria of those unexpected and exciting road wins.

They definitely need to get away from those sorts of problems if they want to beat Pittsburgh and the Giants in the next two games.
Yardage would be lower and scoring would be higher if they could force some more turnovers, creating shorter fields. Anyone know how the Redskins rank in average starting field position?
They're +2 net on turnovers. Nothing wrong with that. You'd love to do better, sure, but that's about as well as you can hope to do over 8 games without a lot of good fortune on your side.Couldn't find anything on field position, but with the obvious exception of the St. Louis game, I don't recall them really suffering from a field position standpoint due to turnovers.

 
dgreen said:
Tatum Bell said:
TobiasFunke said:
I agree with some of the La Canfora post, but his tone so negative that you can't take him seriously.

There's two ways to look at what the Redskins have done over the last two games. One, you do what La Canfora has done, which is highlight the biggest concerns- penalties and turnovers, which he attributes to sloppiness. I think those things are far more random than he seems to think.

The other way to do it, and in my mind the correct way, is to highlight that this is the seventh straight week that the Redskins have outgained their opponent, and the fourth straight week that they have done so by at least 100 total yards. Think about those two things for a minute. That's not "finding a way to win," as La Canfora says. It's a consistent level of performance that you almost never see in the NFL. Turnovers and penalties are far, far, far easier to correct than problems with offensive/defensive production. I'm not sure there's another team in the NFL that's in a better position than the Skins right now.
Wins and losses are measured by points, not by winning time of possession or yards gained. This team is consistently doing self-defeating things to prevent it from scoring points, and the disparity between the yards/time of possession differentials and the point differentials week to week proves that. This should have been a ~35-10 ball game.

Last week vs the Browns should have been at least a 14-3 ball game.

The week before vs. the Rams should have been a ~28-9 ball game.

The reason those games (universally considered the softest part of the schedule) were close was because of turnovers, penalties and mental errors, usually on the offense. That has to stop. This team will lose early in the playoffs with that sort of effort, that is if they even get there given the relatively tough remainder of their schedule.

The good news is that the Dallas and Philly wins showed us that they're capable of doing this against good teams, but playing down to your opposition's level for three weeks in a row is really bothering me. There is no freaking way that I'm going to accept a tie score against the Lions at the end of that game but for a Santana Moss PR TD. They have work to do.
PAST wins and losses are measured by total points. When it comes to predicting future success, I seem to recall that yards gained and allowed (especially if modified to something like DVOA or another advanced metric) are far more accurate predictors of future wins and losses than points scored/points allowed.All I was saying is that JLC focused on the negative, as has been his modus operandi. This team is playing well. Should you be concerned about the penalties? Sure. But it shouldn't outweigh consistent beatdowns from a yard production standpoint, not by a longshot.
Not to worry. I'm not ignoring those yardage totals - in fact, they're what frustrate me the most. They are indeed a sign of potential, but when a team for three weeks in a row grossly underperforms on the scoreboard when compared with those totals, I start getting concerned/frustrated. Frankly, even the score of the Cowboys and Eagles games were a good deal closer than the time of possession, yardage and just general flow of those games indicated they should be, but that got lost in the euphoria of those unexpected and exciting road wins.

They definitely need to get away from those sorts of problems if they want to beat Pittsburgh and the Giants in the next two games.
Yardage would be lower and scoring would be higher if they could force some more turnovers, creating shorter fields. Anyone know how the Redskins rank in average starting field position?
They're +2 net on turnovers. Nothing wrong with that. You'd love to do better, sure, but that's about as well as you can hope to do over 8 games without a lot of good fortune on your side.Couldn't find anything on field position, but with the obvious exception of the St. Louis game, I don't recall them really suffering from a field position standpoint due to turnovers.
I'm only talking about one side of the equation: takeaways. They're +2 because they don't have many giveaways.Just looking at the DET game, Redskins drives started at:

WAS 20

WAS 20

WAS 11

WAS 13

WAS 38

WAS 5

WAS 38

WAS 20

DET 47 (leading to one kneel down play)

That's an average of starting at the WAS 24. That's horrible.

 
Pass rush is still non-existent. Even when they blitz, they can't get any pressure. A better pass rush would help create some turnovers.

Let us never take Chris Samuels for granted. He catches flak in some circles, but we gotta have that guy in there.

The bye week can't get here soon enough. Big test standing in the way.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top