Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=27164)

GTripp0012 12-11-2008 03:42 PM

Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
For the first time this year, the Redskins threw to 3 different wide receivers 5 or more times each. The interesting trend here is that the Redskins also used fullback Mike Sellers more than they had at any point this year. So if Jim Zorn is moving away from the 3 WR sets and toward the more power oriented I backfield, why exactly are more passes going towards our third wideout than at any point this year?

Football is a game of matchups. And most teams cannot match up with Chris Cooley over the middle of the field. But the Ravens absolutely made him the focal point of the passing defense, and took him away. That means that Jason Campbell's most favorable matchups were elsewhere, particularly with the slot receivers. And that's why it's difficult for me to come back to you and report that Moss, Randle El, and Devin Thomas all had rather forgettable days.

The good news is that Devin Thomas is clearly improving. He's moved out of totally "useless rookie" category, and into "high draft pick with unfulfilled potential" territory. Ravens CB Samari Rolle may not have much left in the tank, but he at one point in his career was considered a shutdown corner, and Devin held his own in the matchup. In five targets, he made three catches, and one of the incompletions was a pass that was tipped at the line and had his trajectory changed. But it was the other incompletion, a miscommunication between him and Jason Campbell, that has dogged his season into becoming a very forgettable one.

[B]Pass Offense

[/B][U]Vital Statistics[/U]
Total adj yards = 187
Yards per play = 4.68
Success rate = 40% (16/40)

The notion that the Redskins simply cannot generate offense without a consistent running game is a total myth. For the second straight week, the running game was a non factor against a stingy run defense, and the Redskins tore off chunks of yards in the passing game consistently. The Redskins had 5 plays of 15+ yards against the Ravens defense, (25, 23, 19, 18, 17) and were the first team in 4 weeks to score a touchdown on them. Here's how you know the Zorn offense works: those chunks of yardage were generated by 5 different Redskins. (Moss, Betts, Portis, Devin Thomas, Randle El respectively). On top of this, the Redskins offense had plenty more room to make plays against this defense, but missed a few opportunities on well-thrown, well-covered fade balls.

What is not a myth, is the fact that the Redskins passing offense cannot sustain itself without help from the running game. We look at those big plays, and get really excited about what this team can do, but then we realize that there were 18 separate occasions in Baltimore in which a passing play for the Redskins was incomplete, or otherwise generated negative yardage. This number is too high. The Redskins had 16 successful plays through the air, but 18 that weren't only unsuccessful, but ended up being wasted downs at best, or drive killing plays at worst. The Redskins need more plays like the other six unsuccessful ones: plays that go forward instead of backwards, and put pressure on the defense to stop you rather than doing the defenses job for them.

This is where having Santana Moss as a number one receiver really kills you. For a guy with his raw vertical speed you would figure that opponents would respect his ability to drive them off the ball more than they do. But when Moss wants to run a short route, every CB he lines up against reads it right away. He'll get open underneath against very, very soft coverages, but Zorn likes the three step drop short passing game, and he keeps putting Moss as the split end*

*[I]Quick passing offense lesson here. In an I formation, the split end goes to the opposite side as the tight end. This gives him more room to work in the short passing game because the linebackers are often caught further inside than they are on the slot side. Against MOST coverage, a QB's pre-snap read will indicate that he should go to the split end with the pass.

[/I]Only Moss never really drives off the coverage on these shorter routes. Corners always seem to get to him before the ball gets there. I think he might be telegraphing his routes. In any event, Jason Campbell has to go to his second, or his third read to get the ball to an open man. This should never happen. Moss is effective on longer developing routes, but those aren't the problem in this offense. It's the shorter developing safer routes that aren't working.

[B]Receivers
[/B](Targeted, Completed, SR, YPA)

Antwaan Randle El - [B]8, 5[/B], 50%, 5.63
Santana Moss - 7, 4, [B]57%, 6.86[/B]
Devin Thomas - 5, 3, 40%, 5.2
Clinton Portis - 4, 3, 25%, 3.75
Ladell Betts - 3, 2, 33%, 10.0
Chris Cooley - 2, 1, 50%, 6.0
Mike Sellers - 2, 2, 50%, 7.5

The Redskins got good production from their backs in the receiving game, which made up for the fact that Cooley was taken away. I think you can argue that against the Baltimore Ravens defense, the receivers did better than expected. That may be true, but Baltimore is a team without a shutdown corner. The stats say that all of our top three receivers did very average. Thusly, we had a very average passing game against a very good defense. I think this same effort is all we really need, but we still have to do something about the consistency factor. If your BEST receiver is going to produce a 57% success rate, then you need to run the ball more than the Redskins did. 57% is above average for Moss (season ave=49%), and above the league average for a wideout (54%), but unless you are a long TD pass or two, it's still a win for the defense if they are selling out to stop the run (which is not really what Baltimore was doing, but the Giants certainly were).

One person that shoulders little to no blame in all this is Jason Campbell. His one big mistake in the game was throwing that pass that Ed Reed intercepted, but the Redskins were already trailing by 2 TDs inside of two minutes to play, so the fact that the ball needed to go down the field is not Campbell's fault. Campbell could have been intercepted 4 or 5 times in this one if he was less careful with the ball, but was seeing the field really well, and made numerous clutch throws right before getting hit hard. People are going to look at the score of the Steelers game, and of the Ravens game and think that Campbell hasn't improved, but it's completely night and day. Jason Campbell really came to play against a great defense, and the stats bear that out.

And as non-helpful as the receivers were to Campbell on this day, they can not be held responsible for any of the three turnovers that cost the Redskins the game. That's on the guys who play on the interior.

[B]Pass Protection

[/B]The Redskins had poor pass protection in this game. Not quite as bad as against Pittsburgh, but still pretty bad, as in that Jason Campbell might still have Suggs' #55 imprinted on him somewhere. However, the offensive line didn't really play that bad. The PROTECTION itself was poor. As Jim Zorn said at half, its a communication issue. Guys blocking no one, guys miscounting rushes, and guys just generally not being on the same page.

The blocking of the running backs is a big problem. We're talking about four man rushes against six guys in the protection, and NOT ONE RAVEN is getting double teamed. That means on most plays, at least two Redskin blockers are standing around doing nothing. usually, it's the back. Sometimes, it will be Rabach, or Thomas (not so much Rabach in this game). Jon Jansen has been doing a pretty darn good job, in my opinion, of one on one blocking against guys like Jarrett Johnson, Bart Scott, and Justin Tuck the last few weeks, but the Redskins are actually more likely to give Jason Campbell time to pass if the opponent blitzes. The Redskins are so afraid of a blitz that they won't go help each other in double teams to protect Campbell. This is (was) really killing Samuels against Suggs, who three or four times went right around the outside on him with the speed rush, and the back, Portis, Betts, or Sellers, they're just standing around watching this happen. This is not team football. This is not a cohesive unit between the OL and the RBs and TEs. This is embarrassing. Jim Zorn, Joe Bugel, and Stump Mitchell all have to shoulder some of the blame as well. Betts, Sellers, and Portis are all more than willing blockers, and stuff like this should not be happening this late in the year.

Samuels injury was a total freak play. He tore his right tricep while trying to reach and block Suggs...with his left arm. Just a run-of-the-mill sudden motion, and the muscle didn't hold up.

[B]Pressure Chart

[/B]Samuels - 3 pressures, 1 hit (none of these pressure should have been allowed...he should have had help)
Sellers - 1 pressure, hit, sack
Yoder - 1 pressure (why do we keep doing this?!)
Randy Thomas - 1 pressure, hit
Stephon Heyer at RT - 1 pressure
Justin Geisinger at LT - 1 sack
Stephon Heyer at LT - 1 pressure
Pete Kendall - 1 pressure
Plus three DB fires that Campbell took care of by getting the ball out before the pressure got there.

When teams come with the blitz, we step up, hit them, and give Jason Campbell a second or two of a nice pocket to get the ball out. When they don't blitz, Campbell has no time to do anything. Thanks, protection schemes that can't stop the zone blitz.

When Heyer gets beat, he gets too high, and then driven back into the QB. Jansen is stronger in the lower body, but Heyer's handwork is really good for a second year guy. Heyer against the run is sort of an adventure though. On draw plays, he seems to trip over his own feet and allow pressure to cross his face. On zone plays away from him, he allows too many ends to run across his face. But on zone plays towards him, Heyer does a great job sealing the edge. He just seems more inexperienced than anything else.

Misc: Cooley was really struggling to block Terrell Suggs in the running game. Randy Thomas is mediocre against the pass, but he doesn't block anyone in the zone running game. He's a lot like Rabach: let him chase down a linebacker and you'll have a nice hole to run behind. Make him block a defensive lineman and he's going to be shed within two seconds.

[B]Rush Offense

[/B][U]Vital Statistics[/U]
Total adj yards = 40
Yards per play = 2.0
Success rate = 30% (6/20)

Ultimately, I thought Zorn gave up on the run too early in the first half and early second. With that said, two of our first four second half drives were largely successful while throwing the football, and by the last drive, time was a decisive factor. So I'm okay with a 2:1 pass-run ratio against a defense like Baltimore.

[B]Rushing Chart
[/B](Runs, Successful runs, yards per carry average)
Clinton Portis - [B]11[/B], 3, [B]2.91[/B]
Ladell Betts - 6, [B]2[/B], 0.67
Mike Sellers - 2, 1, 8.0

Sellers, he does it all. I hope he's one of our pro bowl reps. I think he will be.

[B]Overall Offense

[/B][U]Vital Statistics[/U]
Total adj yards = 227
Yards per play = 3.78
Success rate = (36.7%)

Too many negative plays in both the rushing and passing games to call this a successful day, but our offense outplayed their offense against a far better defense, so perhaps that's a small win. We have to eliminate the turnovers. We can't be letting teams get hits on the QB on deep passes, and Portis has to hold onto the football. In this league, that's the margin between winning and losing.

MTK 12-11-2008 04:16 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
Good stuff as always Gtripp

SouperMeister 12-11-2008 11:45 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
These are my favorite posts following each game. Thanks again for another thorough job. Regarding Santana tipping shorter routes, giving DBs a jump, I was wondering whether you see Campbell doing anything that may be giving the D a clue there. Just a thought.

30gut 12-12-2008 02:50 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
First off, nice breakdown.:food-smil

[quote=GTripp0012;510638] But when Moss wants to run a short route, every CB he lines up against reads it right away. He'll get open underneath against very, very soft coverages, but Zorn likes the three step drop short passing game,[/quote]

[quote=SouperMeister;510725] Regarding Santana tipping shorter routes, giving DBs a jump, I was wondering whether you see Campbell doing anything that may be giving the D a clue there. Just a thought.[/quote]

I don't think Moss or Cambell are tipping anything.
IMO defenses are tipped off by watching tape.
They know our fondness for the 3 step drop routes and that Moss is are main threat.

GTripp0012 12-12-2008 06:28 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=30gut;510812]First off, nice breakdown.:food-smil





I don't think Moss or Cambell are tipping anything.
IMO defenses are tipped off by watching tape.
They know our fondness for the 3 step drop routes and that Moss is are main threat.[/quote]They certainly see a steady diet of three step drops on tape, but I still think Moss is tipping his route, because he can still run a fade, a slant, or a hitch/curl out of this passing series, but he's not open on ANY of it.

And the curls at the first-down marker, I mean yeah, defenses are not shocked by these routes, but still, you have to give yourself enough separation to make the catch. I feel like Moss can do this, but not with consistency like in 05, and 06 pre injury.

I would say the Moss we saw in September was a different and more effective player than the one we have seen recently.

GTripp0012 12-12-2008 06:33 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=SouperMeister;510725]These are my favorite posts following each game. Thanks again for another thorough job. Regarding Santana tipping shorter routes, giving DBs a jump, I was wondering whether you see Campbell doing anything that may be giving the D a clue there. Just a thought.[/quote]I don't think Campbell is trying to disguise anything though. He stands straight up and looks at his first read. The coverage guy doesn't even look at Campbell, because if he does, it's already over.

The routes I'm talking about would be totally on Moss, if there was a problem at all.

Being perfectly honest, I would need to see the coaches tape to know if his routes were sloppy, or if he's just not catching the ball, or whatever, but what I can see on the television broadcast is that plays that go to Moss, even the well-designed ones, fail far too often. You can apply the same criteria to ARE and Cooley, and see that those plays are more successful.

ARE isnt even a deep threat, but he can get open in the three step drop game. Moss can only got open against ultra-soft coverage (like the first play of the game).

30gut 12-12-2008 06:50 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510866] he can still run a fade, a slant, or a hitch/curl out of this passing series, but he's not open on ANY of it...........I would say the Moss we saw in September was a different and more effective player than the one we have seen recently.[/quote]

Yeah, Moss might not be full strength. Also i don't think corners repect Moss going deep because he doesn't do it that often anymore and the corners often have safety help which allows them to play Moss ultra aggressive on the underneath routes.

But, hopefully with more time Zorn/JC back the corners off with some intermediate and deep routes.


:food-smil

GTripp0012 12-12-2008 07:47 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=30gut;510869]Yeah, Moss might not be full strength. Also i don't think corners repect Moss going deep because he doesn't do it that often anymore and the corners often have safety help which allows them to play Moss ultra aggressive on the underneath routes.

But, hopefully with more time Zorn/JC back the corners off with some intermediate and deep routes.


:food-smil[/quote]Kelly and Thomas both, one of the main things they've done right this year is display good route running skills, and the ability to get open. For a plethora of reasons, most of which has to do with rookie mistakes, this hasn't translated into production. But for the type of game Zorn likes to call, both of whom are a better fit than Moss.

Which isn't to say we don't need Moss in 3 WR sets. But that we should limit him to those sets, and certain plays out of 2 WR sets.

hooskins 12-12-2008 07:53 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
Great stuff as usual, good to rational analysis in a sea of crap(noob posters). I see the points about performing well in pass w/o the run, but dont you think it is really important for us to establish the run first? Especially against teams like the Bengals, where we can just wear them down by going to PA-pass, since stopping the run and over-committing to it is their weakness?

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3762234]ESPN - Week 15: Numbers Crunching - NFL[/url]

GTripp0012 12-12-2008 08:02 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=hooskins;510880]Great stuff as usual, good to rational analysis in a sea of crap(noob posters). I see the points about performing well in pass w/o the run, but dont you think it is really important for us to establish the run first? Especially against teams like the Bengals, where we can just wear them down by going to PA-pass, since stopping the run and over-committing to it is their weakness?

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3762234"]ESPN - Week 15: Numbers Crunching - NFL[/URL][/quote]I don't think it's as important to establish the run early as it is to run effectively throughout the game. I think we would have beaten Baltimore if 1) obviously, we didn't turn the ball over, but 2) we had been able to run the ball with a moderate amount of success in the second half.

It's tough to run down 17-0, but the turnovers generated by the defense bailed us out. You aren't going to come back from that deficit without mistakes by the opposing offense, so I can say that Zorn played it correctly in the second half.

That decision to punt at the end of the first half down 14-0 was terrible though.

skinsfan69 12-12-2008 09:27 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
Basically it looked like the same old offense. No creativity on offense, unable to sustain drives and a total lack of pass protection.

GTripp0012 12-12-2008 10:11 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=skinsfan69;510892]Basically it looked like the same old offense. [B]No creativity on offense[/B], unable to sustain drives and a total lack of pass protection.[/quote]A lot of times, when people say no creativity on offense, they just don't know what they are talking about. Since I believe you do know what you are talking about, what exactly do you mean? Lack of gadget plays? Not enough misdirection? Bad pass to run ratio? Poor use of deception plays, like draws, screens, and play action passes? Badly designed route combinations? A mixture or all of the above?

What exactly is the problem, in your opinion?

30gut 12-12-2008 10:15 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510876]Kelly and Thomas both, one of the main things they've done right this year is display good route running skills, and the ability to get open. For a plethora of reasons, most of which has to do with rookie mistakes, this hasn't translated into production. But for the type of game Zorn likes to call, both of whom are a better fit than Moss.

Which isn't to say we don't need Moss in 3 WR sets. But that we should limit him to those sets, and certain plays out of 2 WR sets.[/quote]


Why do you want to limit Moss in the base 2 WR/3 WR sets?

I don't think Moss problems getting open are due to poor route running (maybe a litte) nor do i think that the rookies or ARE are better route runners. IMO the source of the problem is that Moss often gets doubled.

At the begining of the year i was surprised when Zorn moved Moss to the X receiver, but it worked great until teams started doubling him.

Now i would like to see Devin@X and Moss@Z my reason is this:

1) Moss often draws double coverage, a corner playing tight underneath coverage with safety help up top, with Moss as the Z receiver he would bring his double with him and draw the attention of the strong side safety away from Cooley

2) As the Z receiver Moss would have a free release making it easier to get off press coverage (if he needs it)

3) This allow whoever plays the X receiver to reap the benefits traditional benefits of the position b/c they wouldn't face double like Moss

:food-smil
-btw good discussion

GTripp0012 12-12-2008 10:36 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=30gut;510896]Why do you want to limit Moss in the base 2 WR/3 WR sets?

I don't think Moss problems getting open are due to poor route running (maybe a litte) nor do i think that the rookies or ARE are better route runners. IMO the source of the problem is that Moss often gets doubled.

At the begining of the year i was surprised when Zorn moved Moss to the X receiver, but it worked great until teams started doubling him.

Now i would like to see Devin@X and Moss@Z my reason is this:

1) Moss often draws double coverage, a corner playing tight underneath coverage with safety help up top, with Moss as the Z receiver he would bring his double with him and draw the attention of the strong side safety away from Cooley

2) As the Z receiver Moss would have a free release making it easier to get off press coverage (if he needs it)

3) This allow whoever plays the X receiver to reap the benefits traditional benefits of the position b/c they wouldn't face double like Moss

:food-smil
-btw good discussion[/quote]When teams have the resources to do so, they do like to double Santana Moss, however, teams don't have enough players on the field to put 8 in the box AND put a safety over the top on Moss. Teams with a single safety against the Redskins will put him in the middle of the field. So while when Moss was hot, teams were scared enough of him to alter their gameplans, that's no longer really the case.

Randle El, obviously, will never be the guy who pulls the strong safety out of the box. He's a complimentary receiver, and a darn good one if the guy he's complimenting is feared. He's also exactly what this offense needs for it's second receiver, a guy who's very dependable on 3rd and 6. Whether he works out of the slot or the outside depends on the play.

Basically, this team needs Malcolm Kelly or Devin Thomas to be a Plaxico-type target, and show enough deep ability to pull a safety out of the box. I think Santana could be lethal out of the slot, but he's only valuable when he's not the guy who people expect to get the ball, which isn't the case right now.

Basically, I'm answering the question "If Kelly/Thomas becomes the number one target on the Redskins, who is the better complementary receiver: Moss or Randle El?" The answer is Randle El. But the question also implies that Kelly/Thomas become the player that we want Moss to be right now, that he simply is not.

skinsfan69 12-12-2008 10:42 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510895]A lot of times, when people say no creativity on offense, they just don't know what they are talking about. Since I believe you do know what you are talking about, what exactly do you mean? Lack of gadget plays? Not enough misdirection? Bad pass to run ratio? Poor use of deception plays, like draws, screens, and play action passes? Badly designed route combinations? A mixture or all of the above?

What exactly is the problem, in your opinion?[/quote]

If my offense totally sucks and can't score points I'm going to mix things up. Cause what we're doing isn't working. Now if I can sit here and name some things how come our coaches can't? It just baffles me. Anyway I'm going to do some of the following things.

1. Run Portis on some pass patterns and try and get him on a LB in space instead of simple check downs.
2. I'm going to have designed roll outs for JC.
3. I'm going to have some 2 TE sets with Davis and Cooley on the field at the same time.
4. I might try the wildcat a little bit and line Portis up in shotgun. Didn't Saunders do this in one game last year? I remember it cause it worked.
5. I'm going to throw deep on first dowm a little more.
6. I might have some formations where Betts and Portis and in the game at the same time.
7. I'm going to max protect some more on deep pass patterns so we can actually get the pass off. Even Chicago throws the ball downfield. They didn't complete any last night but they sure got some important PI's

30gut 12-12-2008 11:51 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510899]
Basically, I'm answering the question "If Kelly/Thomas becomes the number one target on the Redskins, who is the better complementary receiver: Moss or Randle El?" The answer is Randle El. But the question also implies that Kelly/Thomas become the player that we want Moss to be right now, that he simply is not.[/quote]

Woah, i still think Moss should be the number one target. I would rather see him as the Z receiver because with Cooley and Moss on the same side of the field it would be harder for teams to double both of them. When Moss gets doubled Cooley should have a favorable match-up. And as the Z receiver he gets a free release and can go in motion.

Conversely, whoever plays X receiver would then have the benefits that Moss doesn't when he plays the X because teams focus on Moss.

Moss is still the best receiver on this team.

:food-smil

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 12:32 AM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=skinsfan69;510901]If my offense totally sucks and can't score points I'm going to mix things up. Cause what we're doing isn't working. Now if I can sit here and name some things how come our coaches can't? It just baffles me. Anyway I'm going to do some of the following things.

1. Run Portis on some pass patterns and try and get him on a LB in space instead of simple check downs.
2. I'm going to have designed roll outs for JC.
3. I'm going to have some 2 TE sets with Davis and Cooley on the field at the same time.
4. I might try the wildcat a little bit and line Portis up in shotgun. Didn't Saunders do this in one game last year? I remember it cause it worked.
5. I'm going to throw deep on first dowm a little more.
6. I might have some formations where Betts and Portis and in the game at the same time.
7. I'm going to max protect some more on deep pass patterns so we can actually get the pass off. Even Chicago throws the ball downfield. They didn't complete any last night but they sure got some important PI's[/quote]There's some good ideas here, but also a lot of things we already do. I'll try to address this in brief.

1) The Redskins had a 3-4 game span where they put Portis in routes a lot, culminating in the massacre against Pittsburgh. It was somewhat effective, and Portis was maybe our most valuable receiver in October, and definately our biggest weapon in the passing game against Pittsburgh. Not so coincidentally, this also coincides with our 5 game span of the worst pass protection known to man.

2) Hooskins suggest this as well. Couldn't hurt, but I doubt it would help. JC is already seeing the field really well from the pocket.

3) Makes more sense than Yoder/Cooley sets.

4) Ultimately though, Zorn will never do this because he sees it as a gadget formation. Is he being stubborn? For sure. Would this solve all the problems with scoring points? Doubt it.

5) That's when Zorn takes his shots already. Although it wouldn't kill us to be more aggressive more often, I'd like to see shots taken on THIRD down. That's been our problem down all year, and it would give us the best chance to make big plays with Moss or Cooley. Our third down screens and draws have been largely effective, but I'd like to see Zorn scrap the easy to cover throws at the sticks and try to double move someone or just go deep.

6) Lots of this earlier in the year, none of it since Betts got hurt. I think there's a lot of creative ideas earlier in the year that Zorn has got away from, none more costly than the lack of misdirection. Of course, he's going to come back to them eventually.

7) We do max protect on our deep passes. We just don't help on the edge rushers. The one that Reed picked off, that was a deep throw to Devin Thomas, and Portis, for whatever reason, just didn't make the block on Suggs, who went around Samuels. But Portis and Cooley both stayed in on the play.

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 12:42 AM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=30gut;510908]Woah, i still think Moss should be the number one target. I would rather see him as the Z receiver because with Cooley and Moss on the same side of the field it would be harder for teams to double both of them. When Moss gets doubled Cooley should have a favorable match-up. And as the Z receiver he gets a free release and can go in motion.

Conversely, whoever plays X receiver would then have the benefits that Moss doesn't when he plays the X because teams focus on Moss.

Moss is still the best receiver on this team.

:food-smil[/quote]I agree with you that if we switched Moss and Randle El in our formations, it might help both of them produce more. We use Randle El and Cooley in a lot of route combinations. Perhaps Moss would benefit from running these route combinations instead.

On non-timing plays though, Moss is still pretty effective. It's those three step drop or five step blitz beaters that he's really struggling with.

skinsfan69 12-13-2008 01:52 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510910]There's some good ideas here, but also a lot of things we already do. I'll try to address this in brief.

1) The Redskins had a 3-4 game span where they put Portis in routes a lot, culminating in the massacre against Pittsburgh. It was somewhat effective, and Portis was maybe our most valuable receiver in October, and definately our biggest weapon in the passing game against Pittsburgh. Not so coincidentally, this also coincides with our 5 game span of the worst pass protection known to man.

2) Hooskins suggest this as well. Couldn't hurt, but I doubt it would help. JC is already seeing the field really well from the pocket.

3) Makes more sense than Yoder/Cooley sets.

4) Ultimately though, Zorn will never do this because he sees it as a gadget formation. Is he being stubborn? For sure. Would this solve all the problems with scoring points? Doubt it.

5) That's when Zorn takes his shots already. Although it wouldn't kill us to be more aggressive more often, I'd like to see shots taken on THIRD down. That's been our problem down all year, and it would give us the best chance to make big plays with Moss or Cooley. Our third down screens and draws have been largely effective, but I'd like to see Zorn scrap the easy to cover throws at the sticks and try to double move someone or just go deep.

6) Lots of this earlier in the year, none of it since Betts got hurt. I think there's a lot of creative ideas earlier in the year that Zorn has got away from, none more costly than the lack of misdirection. Of course, he's going to come back to them eventually.

7) We do max protect on our deep passes. We just don't help on the edge rushers. The one that Reed picked off, that was a deep throw to Devin Thomas, and Portis, for whatever reason, just didn't make the block on Suggs, who went around Samuels. But Portis and Cooley both stayed in on the play.[/quote]

I brought this up in another thread and it's off topic a little bit. We need a back that can come out of the backfield and has the ability to take it to the endzone. Someone that's just a pure speed guy. A Reggie Bush, Leon Washington Felix Jones type of guy. Gibbs used Joe Washington out of the back field in the 80's. Betts is good but I'm talking about a guy that can really make people miss in the open field. This is something that should possibly be addressed in the offseason. It's never talked about but I like the idea.

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 02:02 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=skinsfan69;510955]I brought this up in another thread and it's off topic a little bit. We need a back that can come out of the backfield and has the ability to take it to the endzone. Someone that's just a pure speed guy. A Reggie Bush, Leon Washington Felix Jones type of guy. Gibbs used Joe Washington out of the back field in the 80's. Betts is good but I'm talking about a guy that can really make people miss in the open field. This is something that should possibly be addressed in the offseason. It's never talked about but I like the idea.[/quote]I agree, and openly am desiring that we use our 5th round pick on an offensive playmaker at RB who dropped because he couldn't handle the load of the position.

We used Betts in this role in 2005, but we haven't had a game-breaker since then.

The Goat 12-13-2008 03:23 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510899]When teams have the resources to do so, they do like to double Santana Moss, however, teams don't have enough players on the field to put 8 in the box AND put a safety over the top on Moss. Teams with a single safety against the Redskins will put him in the middle of the field. So while when Moss was hot, teams were scared enough of him to alter their gameplans, that's no longer really the case.

Randle El, obviously, will never be the guy who pulls the strong safety out of the box. He's a complimentary receiver, and a darn good one if the guy he's complimenting is feared. He's also exactly what this offense needs for it's second receiver, a guy who's very dependable on 3rd and 6. Whether he works out of the slot or the outside depends on the play.

[B]Basically, this team needs Malcolm Kelly or Devin Thomas to be a Plaxico-type target, and show enough deep ability to pull a safety out of the box. I think Santana could be lethal out of the slot, but he's only valuable when he's not the guy who people expect to get the ball, which isn't the case right now.[/B]

Basically, I'm answering the question "If Kelly/Thomas becomes the number one target on the Redskins, who is the better complementary receiver: Moss or Randle El?" The answer is Randle El. But the question also implies that Kelly/Thomas become the player that we want Moss to be right now, that he simply is not.[/quote]

This doesn't surprise me. I don't feel like it's a knock on Moss either. The debate whether he's a legit #1 receiving target is sort of moot because the proof is in the pudding i.e. when there is another very potent target the defense has to be mindful of Moss becomes a 2nd #1 receiver in a sense. Moss is phenomenal after the catch, but IMO he lacks the skill of say Smith in Carolina to consistently get open (even against double coverage). We so need Thomas or Kelly to become a monster possession receiver - a #1 target really who has super-glue hands, the ability to snatch the ball out of the air under pressure and in heavy coverage (none of our WRs can do this today) and can consistently get some separation. Very hard to say at this point whether one of them can rise to the challenge. I honestly believe if one of these guys can become [I]that[/I] guy during the off-season our offense will be ****ing fantastic next year (assuming we really go to work on the o-line).

GT it was really good to hear you say Campbell played well. To my untrained eye it's very hard to tell whether piss-poor protection and overall line performance is dragging JC down, but in this game especially [I]felt[/I] like he was on his game and seeing the field well. I think Jason deserves serious props for this because it basically shows he is progressing while the offensive line disintegrates and he gets beat up most games. I feel more confident in JC now than ever before :)

The Goat 12-13-2008 03:27 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
Also GT, I was wondering whether you think R. Thomas is on the decline. Prior to this year I thought he was our best run-blocker when healthy and a very good pass protector. Doesn't seem this way anymore (as you pointed out). Does he need to be replaced next year, and aside from him which lineman do you think need to be replaced for our offense to be effective?

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 05:20 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=The Goat;510965]Also GT, I was wondering whether you think R. Thomas is on the decline. Prior to this year I thought he was our best run-blocker when healthy and a very good pass protector. Doesn't seem this way anymore (as you pointed out). Does he need to be replaced next year, and aside from him which lineman do you think need to be replaced for our offense to be effective?[/quote]If his level of play stayed exactly where it is right now, I would say he's a liability to the team. Luckily, I think it's more of a down year sort of deal, but his best years are certainly behind him.

I think we can field a good offensive line next year with him at RG, but the coaches should meet him halfway and help him out a little bit with the scheme as he learns the new schemes.

Rabach must be replaced. The rest can stay, but depth must be added.

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 05:24 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=The Goat;510964]GT it was really good to hear you say Campbell played well. To my untrained eye it's very hard to tell whether piss-poor protection and overall line performance is dragging JC down, but in this game especially [I]felt[/I] like he was on his game and seeing the field well. I think Jason deserves serious props for this because it basically shows he is progressing while the offensive line disintegrates and he gets beat up most games. I feel more confident in JC now than ever before :)[/quote]It's hard for a lot of people to tell over the last five games, but it's night and day Campbell from Pittsburgh to New York and Baltimore. He was missing holes in the secondary against Pittsburgh, and generally was confused in the pocket, and held the ball too long. Now he's not holding the ball too long, knows exactly when his teammates SHOULD have the rush picked up, and knows where to go with the football.

It's basically been an entire season of maturation under our (the collective our, not just you and me) noses in the last five games, but we're stuck on what didn't happen against Pittsburgh and Dallas

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 05:26 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=The Goat;510964]This doesn't surprise me. I don't feel like it's a knock on Moss either. The debate whether he's a legit #1 receiving target is sort of moot because the proof is in the pudding i.e. when there is another very potent target the defense has to be mindful of Moss becomes a 2nd #1 receiver in a sense. Moss is phenomenal after the catch, but IMO he lacks the skill of say Smith in Carolina to consistently get open (even against double coverage). We so need Thomas or Kelly to become a monster possession receiver - a #1 target really who has super-glue hands, the ability to snatch the ball out of the air under pressure and in heavy coverage (none of our WRs can do this today) and can consistently get some separation. Very hard to say at this point whether one of them can rise to the challenge. I honestly believe if one of these guys can become [I]that[/I] guy during the off-season our offense will be ****ing fantastic next year (assuming we really go to work on the o-line).[/quote]I should point out that Plax has never been a very reliable player at any point in his career either. But if they can bring the spectacular to the offense, I feel the consistency will come shortly behind.

The Goat 12-13-2008 05:38 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=GTripp0012;510985]I should point out that Plax has never been a very reliable player at any point in his career either. But if they can bring the spectacular to the offense, I feel the consistency will come shortly behind.[/quote]

I don't want to have anything to do w/ Plax. Really I don't think we should have to focus on making another big addition to the WR position - can't always just count on recruiting already developed talent - the coaches should work like hell on Thomas/Kelly. IMO odds are one of those guys should have the talent/ambition to be the weapon opposite Moss.

Just hoping we spend FA money and draft picks on trench talent. Replace Rabach like you said. Bring in a franchise RT to replace Jansen (do you think Jansen can be persuaded to save us some money and move to the guard position or backup RT?) and get a monster DT. Oh, and another solid OLB. How's that for a Christmas wish list!

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 05:42 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[quote=The Goat;510987]I don't want to have anything to do w/ Plax. Really I don't think we should have to focus on making another big addition to the WR position - can't always just count on recruiting already developed talent - the coaches should work like hell on Thomas/Kelly. IMO odds are one of those guys should have the talent/ambition to be the weapon opposite Moss.

Just hoping we spend FA money and draft picks on trench talent. Replace Rabach like you said. Bring in a franchise RT to replace Jansen (do you think Jansen can be persuaded to save us some money and move to the guard position or backup RT?) and get a monster DT. Oh, and another solid OLB. How's that for a Christmas wish list![/quote]There's not a whole lot we can do with Jansen since most of his contract was already paid to him at the time. Not a whole lot of non-guarenteed cash in that deal for the first three years. Luckily, I don't really see Jansen has the huge problem others do. I think he's totally overmatched against elite ends, and will give up sacks to great players, but he generally knows what he's doing, and although his future is probably on the interior, we could do worse than to suck it up for one more year with him at RT.

And I hope either Kelly or Thomas is the solution, or a team that badly needs to hit on it's draft picks pissed away an entire opportunity to do so. Definately not looking WR in the draft this year.

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 07:47 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
[URL="http://redskinshogheaven.com/2008/12/campbells-attention-to-detail-evident-in-delvelopment.html"]Campbell's attention to detail evident in delvelopment - Hog Heaven[/URL]

Wrote a bunch of words here, basically proving that Jason Campbell's "regression" is nothing more than a bump in the road that he already overcame. Got too high after the Detroit game, torn down (literally, by NFL defenses), rebuilt, and now we have a solid QB again.

Can't seem to spell development correctly though.

GTripp0012 12-13-2008 08:18 PM

Re: Redskins v Ravens Offensive GT Review: Skins lose turnover battle, game
 
Yay! Game valuation!
[B][U]
Game Valuation[/U][/B]
1. Jason Campbell
2. Mike Sellers
3. Ladell Betts
4. Pete Kendall
5. Casey Rabach
6. Santana Moss
7. Devin Thomas
8. Chris Samuels
9. Chris Cooley
10. Clinton Portis
11. Stephon Heyer
12. Antwaan Randle El
13. Jon Jansen
14. Todd Yoder
15. Malcolm Kelly
16. Randy Thomas
17. Justin Geisinger
18. James Thrash


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.15893 seconds with 9 queries