Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

In no uncertain terms, Clinton Portis stated that "He's ready to carry this team". I totally agree. Anyone who thinks yesterday was a result of playing a week defense, think again. I think he's just said enough is enough. And I'll bet this offensive line and more importantly, Clinton Portis, are brimming with smash mouth confidence right now.

I'm starting to wonder, however, if Clinton is also reaching a level of, not frustration with the two back tandem, but a give me the god damn ball already mentality. No more nice guy share the load crap.

I've thought all along that he needs somewhere in the neigborhood of 25-30 touches to do his thing. If the Redskins are going to grind it out for the final eight games, Portis will have to start ripping off a few more 100 yrd performances. Sorry, love Betts to death, but Portis is the heart and soul of this team. We desperately need to hang our hat on something or someone! I have all the confidence in the world in Jason Campbell, but I think the reality is, Portis' legs and Campbell's arm must work together in concert; and in that order.

I also wonder if Portis is drawing motivation from Adrian Peterson? [FONT=Tahoma]During an interview he said how two years ago, he'd be finishing off runs like Peterson is doing right now. [/FONT]In the meantime, I'm very content with Betts making sparse appearances for breathers. But CP has to be the center piece of this offense if we want to be taken serisouly as a playoffs contender.

Next on deck: Philly

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

good thread and post 12th man, portis' performance yesterday plus his comments after the game really deserve some earnest discussion. i like the fact that we stuck with and played our true smashmouth football. we need to work on some things (connecting on the play actions, getting 6 when were in teh red zone) but the formula we used yesterday is the recipe to this teams success.

rabach coming back was huge for us as well. like the washington post article said a few weeks ago, he is the guy that reads the D and directs our O line.

can clinton carry the load? yes he can but he will need help and a commitment to him from coaches

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374157]I'm starting to wonder, however, if Clinton is also reaching a level of, not frustration with the two back tandem, but a give me the god damn ball already mentality. No more nice guy share the load crap. [/quote]

I agree with just about everything you said 12th, except for what I qouted above. I do think that Portis should be in the 25+ range as far as carries, but at the same time, I think he's perfectly content with Betts getting in for a five or six play stretch. He pulls himself out on occasion, and if Betts is able to pick up 5+ yards for a few carries, then by all means, let him run it to the half yard line, and then bring Portis back in to touchdown vulture Betts.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I love it. This is what our football team is all about. Portis is the man, and has not had the O line working well. I know this Jets Defense was not the best. But who cares. We needed this after the drubbing we took last week. We need to work on our play action, and maybe one day JC and Moss will hook up on one of these deep balls.

I hope our coaches realize this is our team's identity. Al I'm looking at you. And to anyone who likes to bash coach Gibb's. just back the hell of until the we see how this year will turn out. No one outside of the guys and gals on this board thought our team would do anything this year. But look at us now sitting at 5-3, and back to playing the kind of footbal the Skinz are known for. Philly your next!! HAIL!!!

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Yesterday was a statement performance from CP. He wants the ball, saddle him up and let's ride.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Here is the breakdown of carries per game:

Win vs. Miami - Portis: 17, Betts: 17
Win vs. Philly - Portis: 17, Betts: 6
Loss vs. Giants - Portis: 14, Betts: 7
Win vs. Detroit - Portis: 18, Betts: 8
Loss vs. Green Bay - Portis: 20, Betts: 3
Win vs. Arizona - Portis: 18, Betts: 3
Loss vs. New England - Portis: 11, Betts: 3
Win vs. Jets - Portis: 36, Betts: 9

From the looks of things, this hasn't been a two-back tandem. Aside from Game 1, Portis has been asked to carry the load, and yesterday was the first time he got more than 21 carries. And aside from Game 1, Betts hasn't seen the ball more than 9 times in a game.

Was it a case of a lighter load because of his preseason? Who knows. Can Portis carry the load? Of course. However, the team needs to be committed to letting him carry the ball. For the offense to be successful, Portis needs to get the ball 25+ times, and Campbell needs to be around 60% on pass completion. Betts needs to be a 1-2 play breather, and 4th quarter mop up duty from here on out.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

haha after yesterday hes #7 in the league in rushing yards... pretty quick turn around from where he was headed....he still might have a shot of finishing with 1500 + yds... but i see 1300 as of now..

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;374184]Here is the breakdown of carries per game:

Win vs. Miami - Portis: 17, Betts: 17
Win vs. Philly - Portis: 17, Betts: 6
Loss vs. Giants - Portis: 14, Betts: 7
Win vs. Detroit - Portis: 18, Betts: 8
Loss vs. Green Bay - Portis: 20, Betts: 3
Win vs. Arizona - Portis: 18, Betts: 3
Loss vs. New England - Portis: 11, Betts: 3
Win vs. Jets - Portis: 36, Betts: 9

From the looks of things, this hasn't been a two-back tandem. Aside from Game 1, Portis has been asked to carry the load, and yesterday was the first time he got more than 21 carries. And aside from Game 1, Betts hasn't seen the ball more than 9 times in a game.

Was it a case of a lighter load because of his preseason? Who knows. Can Portis carry the load? Of course. However, the team needs to be committed to letting him carry the ball. For the offense to be successful, Portis needs to get the ball 25+ times, and Campbell needs to be around 60% on pass completion. Betts needs to be a 1-2 play breather, and 4th quarter mop up duty from here on out.[/quote]

Yeah it's been clear for a while now that this isn't a 2 back tandem.

Most importantly we need to run plays that CP likes and what he runs well. He's never liked the outside zone blocking stuff. Yesterday we ran it inside a lot more and the results speak for themselves. Give him a hole and let him go.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;374184]Here is the breakdown of carries per game:

Win vs. Miami - Portis: 17, Betts: 17
Win vs. Philly - Portis: 17, Betts: 6
Loss vs. Giants - Portis: 14, Betts: 7
Win vs. Detroit - Portis: 18, Betts: 8
Loss vs. Green Bay - Portis: 20, Betts: 3
Win vs. Arizona - Portis: 18, Betts: 3
Loss vs. New England - Portis: 11, Betts: 3
Win vs. Jets - Portis: 36, Betts: 9

From the looks of things, this hasn't been a two-back tandem. Aside from Game 1, Portis has been asked to carry the load, and yesterday was the first time he got more than 21 carries. And aside from Game 1, Betts hasn't seen the ball more than 9 times in a game.

Was it a case of a lighter load because of his preseason? Who knows. Can Portis carry the load? Of course. However, the team needs to be committed to letting him carry the ball. For the offense to be successful, Portis needs to get the ball 25+ times, and Campbell needs to be around 60% on pass completion. Betts needs to be a 1-2 play breather, and 4th quarter mop up duty from here on out.[/quote]

I'm not really questioning the distribution of carries, but as you've said we yanked CP before he really got winded or any type of rhythm.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Just to clarify the title of thread: I'm not speaking only in terms of carries, but also can Portis carry the emotional load. I get the feeling that's where he's coming from too.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Certainly we need CP to produce if we are going anywhere. And, yes, I think he can carry the load, both physically and emotionally. Betts was very good in a backup role yesterday, and I think that's the best role right now--getting CP in a rhythm is important.

But we are not going to face any D as bad against the run as the Jets, so we can't become one-dimensional in that direction either. And we still don't have the force on the right side to really work a consistent heavy run thing--teams will begin to stack the left side.

We need to get teams keying on the run to open up the passing game, and CP is absolutely crucial for that. We want teams to come in thinking "we must stop CP" and then hit them with the passing attack. And then run it late to ice the game (with a back-breaking long bomb COMPLETED for good measure). That's the formula, as I see it.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I think a few years ago CP could handle the load, today I'm not so sure. I just dont think he's enough of a horse anymore. He has a lot of mileage on him and he has been dinged (which I think still bothers him). Running that way and that often against the terrible Jets is one thing, we will see if he a big enough horse to do it against Dal, Phil & NYG.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

i say lets saddle him up, and ride all the way into the playoffs. lets get coach Saunders on the same page. and not try to get to cute

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;374184]For the offense to be successful, Portis needs to get the ball 25+ times, and Campbell needs to be around 60% on pass completion. Betts needs to be a 1-2 play breather, and 4th quarter mop up duty from here on out.[/quote]

I gotta weigh in on this kind of analysis. Not to pick on you, BD, because I see it all the time all over the papers and all over the TV, and something just has to be said.

Saying that "in order to be successful, Portis needs the ball 25+ times a game" is exactly backwards. The proper way to say it is that in order to give Portis the ball 25+ yards per game, he needs to be successful.

It's no secret that our coaches want to run the ball a buttload. But in games when we haven't run much, it's not because the coaches weren't trying. It's because they handed the ball off, the runs got stopped, and we had to punt.

When a RB is ripping off 6 yards on most carries, and sustaining drives, then certainly the RB's carries will get up nice and high, because the team keeps making first downs, and the coach will keep feeding him the ball. But if the run is getting stopped, then we get into passing situations on 3rd down, and the other team gets the ball.

In other words, you can't just say "hand the ball off 30-35 times a game" and we'll be successful. If the run game is going nowhere, you have to try something else.

This is to say that coaching philosophy or playcalling has never been a problem. Execution has been the problem. If the line opens the holes, then feeding Portis 25 carries looks like a genius move. If the line gets stonewalled, then feeding it to him 25 times looks idiotic. Whether it's injuries or whatever, it's on the offensive line. If we want to win, we need them to smash face.

25+ carries are the cart. Don't put them before the hogs.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=Schneed10;374204]I gotta weigh in on this kind of analysis. Not to pick on you, BD, because I see it all the time all over the papers and all over the TV, and something just has to be said.

Saying that "in order to be successful, Portis needs the ball 25+ times a game" is exactly backwards. The proper way to say it is that in order to give Portis the ball 25+ yards per game, he needs to be successful.

It's no secret that our coaches want to run the ball a buttload. But in games when we haven't run much, it's not because the coaches weren't trying. It's because they handed the ball off, the runs got stopped, and we had to punt.

When a RB is ripping off 6 yards on most carries, and sustaining drives, then certainly the RB's carries will get up nice and high, because the team keeps making first downs, and the coach will keep feeding him the ball. But if the run is getting stopped, then we get into passing situations on 3rd down, and the other team gets the ball.

In other words, you can't just say "hand the ball off 30-35 times a game" and we'll be successful. If the run game is going nowhere, you have to try something else.

This is to say that coaching philosophy or playcalling has never been a problem. Execution has been the problem. If the line opens the holes, then feeding Portis 25 carries looks like a genius move. If the line gets stonewalled, then feeding it to him 25 times looks idiotic. Whether it's injuries or whatever, it's on the offensive line. If we want to win, we need them to smash face.

25+ carries are the cart. Don't put them before the hogs.[/quote]

Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Let me say this while it's on my mind: We need to adopt a no matter what mentality. No matter what, we're running the damn ball. Again, the caveat being, if we fall behind early we have to adjust and tweak the gameplan.

Too often it seems, we have a reactionary game plan. If we're up, we slow down. If we're behind, we try to speed up. I'd like to see us impose our will on a team from start to finish. That's why I have no problem with New England "running up" the score. They have a style and a mindset they play with and they're not apologizing for it.

I think we were close to seeing that yesterday. People look at the final score, and say wait the Skins barely beat the Jets. You take away that kickoff and an untimely penalty and you have a different outcome. Same thing with the Cards game a couple weeks back.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Gidde up! Bout time we got some production outta the run game. Ride that horse!

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374212]Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of.

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly disagree with that. I don't think it's obvious in the least - I mean ESPN's talking heads say stuff like this all the time.

Committing to the running game doesn't mean it's going to perform well. Execution and the decision to try to execute, are two entirely different things.

You can come up with all the philosophy you want, but in the end, your philosophy needs to be dictated by what your players are capable of doing.

I agree that we need to be running the ball, because it gives us our best chance to win. But I don't agree with blindly handing the ball off without any regard to the success the run game is having - that's how you turn into a predictable offense. The team needs to be capable of both running and throwing the ball. All teams need a plan B, otherwise there's not a lot of adjusting you can do come halftime when you're down by 10 and need to score points.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I have been very critical of Portis as of late. He doesn't seem as fast or as explosive. He seems pretty gingerly and it doesn't look like he can make cuts or push off on those knees.

Still, I'm all for running it all day long.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374212]Well, Schneed not to nit pick, but aren't you pointing out the obvious? Yes, we must exectute along the offensive line. That goes without saying. I don't think anyone is saying if Portis get's the ball 25-30 times, we are magically going to be successful or it's some key formula. [B]But rather, him getting the ball that number of times "increases" the probability of Portis doing the type of damage he's capable of. [/B]

Truthfully, I don't think one is before the other. They work hand in hand. If the offensive line knows Clinton will get x amount of carries in a game, then I think they respond accordingly. If we can unconditionally commit to a philosphy, we'll probably see better results from both Portis and the offensive line. It's the interchanging of backs, in my opinion, before we get anything going which has been disconcerting, injuries notwithstanding.[/quote]You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on [I]consecutive[/I] carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=saden1;374282]I have been very critical of Portis as of late. He doesn't seem as fast or as explosive. He seems pretty gingerly and it doesn't look like he can make cuts or push off on those knees.

Still, I'm all for running it all day long.[/quote]He did make some great cuts in that Jets game.

His vision though was lacking at times. On one play in the third quarter, the Jets sent their nickel back on a fire play. Randle El comes in and seals the blitzer inside right into Todd Wade's hip opening up about 20 yards of field to the outside and Portis just never saw it. Ran right into the guy that ARE sealed off. Randle El made a very clear display of disappointment with Portis' decision.

I don't know if this has always been an issue for Portis and he has just never seen it, or if this is a new problem based on his new offense that will iron itself out.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

lets hope so. im interested in seeing CP do it for two weeks in a row. eagles will be a good test and dallas after that. Hopefully his fumbling problems from this year are over

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;374314]You see, the probability is unaffected by the number of carries.

There's really no specific evidence to confirm (or deny) your theory of Portis' increased effectiveness with increased carries. I can say this: studies have been done on [I]consecutive[/I] carries, and have found that in almost all situations, giving consecutive carries to the same back will decrease effectiveness on the second carry.

So I can't really understand what is making you say that running Portis until his legs fall off is our best course of action. That REALLY seems like (but has not yet proven to be) backwards logic. He ran very well this week against a bad defense who did not use their safeties at all around the line until the overtime period. We pushed their nickel defense around all day, and Portis made a bunch of nice plays. The best way to attack the Jets was to keep running him.

Please don't cite this one game example as absolute validation of your theory. Most teams won't be so slow as to make adjustments to the run as the Jets were.[/quote]

I think you and Schneed make some good points, but it sounds like you guys are not getting where I'm coming from. Or maybe you are, but you just flat out disagree. And both are fine with me.

But my opinion, not argument, is pretty straight forward; I feel that if we can get Portis the ball between 25-30 times a game, we'll see more of the Clinton Portis we've been accustomed to. Period. I can't substantiate that with hard core stats, but I'm willing to bet, he's more productive and so is our win/loss record. I don't see what's so backwards about that.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

If Portis doesn't start to carry the offense, we might as well count our play-off hopes out.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I think he started carrying the load last week.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=12thMan;374520]I think you and Schneed make some good points, but it sounds like you guys are not getting where I'm coming from. Or maybe you are, but you just flat out disagree. And both are fine with me.

But my opinion, not argument, is pretty straight forward; I feel that if we can get Portis the ball between 25-30 times a game, we'll see more of the Clinton Portis we've been accustomed to. Period. I can't substantiate that with hard core stats, but I'm willing to bet, he's more productive and so is our win/loss record. I don't see what's so backwards about that.[/quote]I'm sort of following your reasoning here, but either:

1) I'm missing a big part of your argument here and unjustly critizing it
or
2) There's a pretty big hole in the argument/opinion/whatever.

Outside of the fact that giving CP 25-30 carries each of the final eight games will likely end his career going foward due to abuse on his body, there is an oppertunity cost to running 30 times a game with a single back.

Against the leagues worst defense, who consistently played with 6 in the box vs. our 3 WR sets and never ever brought up a safety into the box prior to O.T., Portis was able to average over 5 YPC in a game for the first time this season. So because he was consistently picking up big chunks of yards, they kept feeding him. This, of course, is what Schneed was saying.

However, even with the massive success the ground game was having, remember that every down we ran was a down in which we couldn't throw. Even the worst passers average a higher YPA than the best runners. You want to acheive offensive balance, but even when the running game is working, if you can't have a passing game, you end up taking a 1-7 team to O.T.

The fact that we went to O.T. does not tell you to the level that our guys physically dominated that football game, but chewing up all that clock did shorten the game enough for one kick return on the first play of the game to turn total domination into an overtime struggle.

I'm not knocking our gameplan at all, and I can't fault them with going with what was working, but looking ahead, when the oppertunity cost of giving CP 30 carries a game to get on track as opposed to 15 involves:

1) Giving a workload to CP that will most likely end the effective stage of his career and make him injury prone for the rest of it.

2) Take the ball out of Jason Campbell's hands

and

3) Shorten the length of the game allowing a few big plays to decide the course of it (while running 30 times a game)

Then at this point, even if you are right and Portis could be very effective down the stretch with 30 carries a game, I still disagree that it would be a good idea.

I'm all for running as long as it is effective, but the notion that it has to be Portis doing the running, and we have to do it until it works, do or die just seems a bit crazy to me, even if you are correct.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

I think Portis being the Skins #1 back is what pushes people like myself to say he needs to get the rock 25+ times a game. It could be anyone back there, but the bottom line is for this team to be effective, to play Gibbs football, the run game needs to be established. It allows the offense to take some pressure off a young quarterback...

Of course you don't run it so many times if you behind, but in the past, this team has been very successful when the QB has less than 30 attempts, and the RBs get 40+ carries. It usually means the Redskins have controlled the clock and the defense has done their job keeping the opponent's offense off the field. And I think that is the gameplan that Gibbs, Saunders and G-Dub has gone with thus far.

There are other variations that need to be implemented into the offense as well. Jason Campbell needs to be more accurate on his intermediate pass routes. It seems that if it's not chucking deep, or a short (less than 7 yards) dump, he's missing the boat. I mentioned 60% earlier (18 of 30), however in those completions, they cannot all be dinks and dunks. He needs to stretch the field a bit, in order for the run game to be more effective. Defenses have stacked the box and made the Redskins beat them deep. Gibbs 1.0 had that ability. But Gibbs 1.0 also had Art Monk, Charlie Brown, Alvin Garrett, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders. While Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El are good receivers, they are no Clark and Sanders.

Another guy who has to step up is Mike Sellers. Too many missed assignments and too many drops for a guy who has been a catalyst in this offense in the past...

And the offensive line has had a few weeks together. It's time to put up or shut up. Injuries aside, these guys are professionals. Time to gel and move like one.

Sitting at 5-3, the Redskins are in a good position to make a run during the 2nd half. Last week, they proclaimed the "return of Redskins football". Let's see if they continue the course, or abandon it at the first sign of trouble.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Who do you want to have the ball ?
The 7th highest rated running back
Or the 25th best quaterback who turns the ball over more than once a game [ more interceptions than touchdowns plus the most fumbles by far]
Sure Byner has taught them how to fumble like he did but not enough to keep them out of the playoffs
Run the ball and hope you get a decent hand off!!!

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;374534]I'm sort of following your reasoning here, but either:

1) I'm missing a big part of your argument here and unjustly critizing it
or
2) There's a pretty big hole in the argument/opinion/whatever.

Outside of the fact that giving CP 25-30 carries each of the final eight games will likely end his career going foward due to abuse on his body, there is an oppertunity cost to running 30 times a game with a single back.

Against the leagues worst defense, who consistently played with 6 in the box vs. our 3 WR sets and never ever brought up a safety into the box prior to O.T., Portis was able to average over 5 YPC in a game for the first time this season. So because he was consistently picking up big chunks of yards, they kept feeding him. This, of course, is what Schneed was saying.

However, even with the massive success the ground game was having, remember that every down we ran was a down in which we couldn't throw. Even the worst passers average a higher YPA than the best runners. You want to acheive offensive balance, but even when the running game is working, if you can't have a passing game, you end up taking a 1-7 team to O.T.

The fact that we went to O.T. does not tell you to the level that our guys physically dominated that football game, but chewing up all that clock did shorten the game enough for one kick return on the first play of the game to turn total domination into an overtime struggle.

I'm not knocking our gameplan at all, and I can't fault them with going with what was working, but looking ahead, when the oppertunity cost of giving CP 30 carries a game to get on track as opposed to 15 involves:

1) Giving a workload to CP that will most likely end the effective stage of his career and make him injury prone for the rest of it.

2) Take the ball out of Jason Campbell's hands

and

3) Shorten the length of the game allowing a few big plays to decide the course of it (while running 30 times a game)

Then at this point, even if you are right and Portis could be very effective down the stretch with 30 carries a game, I still disagree that it would be a good idea.

I'm all for running as long as it is effective, but the notion that it has to be Portis doing the running, and we have to do it until it works, do or die just seems a bit crazy to me, even if you are correct.[/QUOTE]

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

[quote=BDBohnzie;374541]I think Portis being the Skins #1 back is what pushes people like myself to say he needs to get the rock 25+ times a game. It could be anyone back there, but the bottom line is for this team to be effective, to play Gibbs football, the run game needs to be established. It allows the offense to take some pressure off a young quarterback...

Of course you don't run it so many times if you behind, [B]but in the past, this team has been very successful when the QB has less than 30 attempts, and the RBs get 40+ carries.[/B] It usually means the Redskins have controlled the clock and the defense has done their job keeping the opponent's offense off the field. And I think that is the gameplan that Gibbs, Saunders and G-Dub has gone with thus far.

There are other variations that need to be implemented into the offense as well. Jason Campbell needs to be more accurate on his intermediate pass routes. It seems that if it's not chucking deep, or a short (less than 7 yards) dump, he's missing the boat. I mentioned 60% earlier (18 of 30), however in those completions, they cannot all be dinks and dunks. He needs to stretch the field a bit, in order for the run game to be more effective. Defenses have stacked the box and made the Redskins beat them deep. Gibbs 1.0 had that ability. But Gibbs 1.0 also had Art Monk, Charlie Brown, Alvin Garrett, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders. While Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El are good receivers, they are no Clark and Sanders.

Another guy who has to step up is Mike Sellers. Too many missed assignments and too many drops for a guy who has been a catalyst in this offense in the past...

And the offensive line has had a few weeks together. It's time to put up or shut up. Injuries aside, these guys are professionals. Time to gel and move like one.

Sitting at 5-3, the Redskins are in a good position to make a run during the 2nd half. Last week, they proclaimed the "return of Redskins football". Let's see if they continue the course, or abandon it at the first sign of trouble.[/quote]

First, before I respond to the bolded part in BD's post here, I have to say that GTripp has basically summed up my argument pretty well.

On to the bolded part. My whole thing here is that people tend to look back at our wins, and say hey, we ran a lot more than we threw in our wins. And people say hey, there's a theme there. If we run, we win. It's just not that simple - you can't just hand it off 40+ times and expect a win. If you hand the ball off 15 times in the first half, and you gain 30 yards on those carries and score only like 2 field goals, wouldn't you be an idiot to simply keep doing the same thing in the second half? You either need to start passing, or make some adjustments so your running game starts to work.

I think we're pretty much all on the same page here, we all agree the Skins' best chance is to run the ball. I'm just saying the line has to establish itself before you can think about how many carries a back should get.

In other words, the number of carries are the RESULT of a successful day. Not the CAUSE. The cause of a successful day would be the line smashing face - it comes down to coaching during the week (teaching technique, motivation, etc.) and then execution by the team.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Also let me say, that if we're going to end up in the playoffs, we're going to need to get Santana Moss and Randle El back on track with Campbell. The running game definitely is our bread and butter, but during this final 8-game stretch, there WILL be times when it falters. We're going to need to make some big plays through the air at times.

I guess all I'm saying is the running game is great, but I hope Gibbs doesn't get so focused on it that he forgets to tune up the passing game. We're going to need both, because we're not facing the Jets defense 8 times in a row down the stretch here.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Excellent arguments all around. This may be the most coherent, intelligent debate I've read on the Warpath in a long time.

I have one (minor) caveat to a lot of discussions like this. In almost every discussion someone seems to jump in and argue something along the following lines:

"Here's the keys to our success: just get Campbell to not turn it over, have him complete 60% of his passes with a nice mix of short and long attempts. This will make teams respect our passing game which will open up the run and CP can start knocking 'em out with 6 YPC and 25 carries a game."

Or the "Run opens up the pass" alternative:

"Give the ball to CP 30 times a game and we're guaranteed 150 yards/game. This will draw the DBs up and open up the passing game and Campbell can just start bombing them down the field."

Not to sound obnoxious to all of this, but my response is essentially "yeah, duh." It sure would be nice if Campbell completed 60%+ of his passes, all our WRs got in the game and caught everything and CP ran the ball 30 times a game with no injuries and got 150+ yds/game.

Yep, that'd be cool. We'd basically be the Patriots.

Unfortunately that isn't the case. I enjoy discussion and debate as much as the next guy, but at a certain point we're just stating the obvious. No other team in the NFL does what the Patriots do, and we aren't going to either. Everyone expects us to go 10-6 or 9-7 or something pretty close. It ain't going to be pretty and we'll probably have a lot more games like the Jets game.

Re: Can Clinton Carry the Load?
 

Sure she can carry the load--it's just wrong to think a woman can't be president. And is she REALLY a woman? I think she's some kind of super android with a computer for a brain and laser... Oh, THAT Clinton.

My bad. ;)