OL not blocking Alex Brown
 

Can anyone explain why Alex Brown da bears DE came in unblocked about 75% of the time and forced Brunell to get flushed out to the sideline?

who was he lining up against?

I think Samuels. Did you see how fast Brown was? He was all over the field making plays.

I heard Samuels was playing on a bad ankle, can anyone confirm that?

what our coaching staff/players have done thus far is key up on the big threat and ignore "the other guy"... we held simeon rice in check, and strahan (he got 0 sacks, BUT the giants got 5 on the day), and in this game AO was really quiet, but the other guy (alex brown) sure wasn't... it wasn't 75% of plays, but it was a lot...

bugel said samuels had a fat ankle for what its worth.

Alex Brown looked like a hall of famer yesterday, hopefully Samuels can rest up if that was the case.

Most of the time when Brown was getting free was when he was against a TE or when the TE would pull and Samuels would either pick up a blitzing LB or help on the DT. This is a scheme though. When this is done, 99% of the time it's a running play to the right. Brown was so fast that he could blast into the backfield and get the RB before he hit the hole. I think they just underestimated Brown's ability. The Bears do have an excellent set of Dlinemen, though. We need a guy named Tank, by the way. We should call Ola Kimrin Tank.

It figures it was Samuels, he has not played as dominantly as I thought he would this year. I really figured that Samuels and the entire line would blossom under Bugel, and while they are improved it's still not enough to keep our qb upright or to open big holes for Portis. Samuels may have made it to the Pro Bowl a few times, but no one could confuse him for a Pro Bowler in our last 22 games.

It was Samuels who gave up that pressure that led to Chicago's only score wasn't it? This season only proves who our best offensive lineman is, and it's not the guy who farts and burps in meetings either.

samuels is good, but i really don't think he's ever really been pro bowl caliber (even when he did get in)...

Samuels has been fine this year and has definitely stepped up his play from last year.

I was at the game. What a JOKE. The Bears have to be the worst team in the NFL at this point and Brunell STILL looked aweful. Can we please have a Patrick Ramsey sighting? No doubt he could have hit the WIDE OPEN Coles, that would have blew the game wide open. I guess 15 yards past the nearest defender isn't open enough. Tupa could have punted the ball closer. It was nice to see the skins win, but they didn't win by much, and the Bears are HORRID.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Samuels has been fine this year and has definitely stepped up his play from last year.[/QUOTE]
I agree.

I also think he was deserving of his Pro Bowl status a few years ago, contrary to today's popular opinion.

if you look at those plays sameuls wasnt assigned to block brown. the ball was going to the opposite direction and the runningback should have been gone by the time brown got to the backfield. no one was covering brown. samuels should have had a linebacker on those plays.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Samuels has been fine this year and has definitely stepped up his play from last year.[/QUOTE]

I think that says it all. He can't be just fine, he's got to dominate. He's the 3rd overall pick, you expect to get a top notch guy in that spot, I'd be hard pressed to put Samuels up with the top guys. The line play has been spotty so far all around, but Samuels has disappointed so far because he can play better. He's not close to a Pro Bowler this season, he must be hurt because you don't go from dominant to also ran in your 5th season.

[QUOTE=cpayne5]Most of the time when Brown was getting free was when he was against a TE or when the TE would pull and Samuels would either pick up a blitzing LB or help on the DT. This is a scheme though. When this is done, 99% of the time it's a running play to the right. Brown was so fast that he could blast into the backfield and get the RB before he hit the hole. I think they just underestimated Brown's ability. The Bears do have an excellent set of Dlinemen, though. We need a guy named Tank, by the way. We should call Ola Kimrin Tank.[/QUOTE]

cpayne5 hit the nail on the head.

Samuels must be doing something right with all the rushing yards yesterday, and even the Bears announcers called his name a few times for laying some guys out on blocks, or were they running to the right all day?? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=memphisskin]I think that says it all. He can't be just fine, he's got to dominate. He's the 3rd overall pick, you expect to get a top notch guy in that spot, I'd be hard pressed to put Samuels up with the top guys. The line play has been spotty so far all around, but Samuels has disappointed so far because he can play better. He's not close to a Pro Bowler this season, he must be hurt because you don't go from dominant to also ran in your 5th season.[/QUOTE]
I think Matty's point was that he is improving, as is the entire line. But that does not mean they are anywhere near where they should be. It takes time. Just as with Gibbs for the offense as a whole, people kind of expected Bugel to "wave his magic wand" and the O-line would become dominant overnight. It just doesn't happen that way, plus the loss of Jansen was huge, but they are definitely getting there...

I guess we should just cut Samuels right now, he's had 6 games to get back to a Pro Bowl level with a new staff and he's just not hacking it.

Get rid of him! Where's Winey?

cut samuels? why not just cut the other 52 players, so the coaches can give him more attention... cause that's all he really needs... attention and some time alone.

Samuels is doing better then everyone on your o-line maybe except Randy Thomas. It was Rasby who was getting beat by Brown. If you listened to the announcers they would mention Rasby's name whenever Brown pentrated. Remember in Week 1 when Samuels shut down Simeon Rice. I'm pretty sure Simeon Rice is a premier end the league.

More often than not, it was a schematic flaw that allowed Brown to come free. As others have said, Rasby was often matched up against him, while Samuels was assigned to a DT or LB. On some plays, there was no blocker assigned to him, since the running play was going the other way, and it was expected that Portis would be gone before Brown could get to him. Obviously, that wasn't the case on a few plays. But most of the time, when Samuels was actually matched up against Brown, Samuels kept him in check. I noticed the Bears were lining Brown up way outside on a lot of plays, hoping that he would beat Samuels with his speed from that angle. Samuels did a pretty good job of sliding out to block him, though.

Seems like JoeCrisp was the only one paying real attention. Brown was effective when the Bears' scheme require that he line up to the outside (the left shoulder) of our TE. In those cases, Brown wasn't Samuels' direct responsibility; it was the responsiblity of our TE, who was closest to Brown and usually got overpowered due to size disadvantage. In fact, we should be giving Samuels credit for not falling for the scheme, because the scheme was intended to prompt Samuels to slide over, which would have allowed the linebackers to sneak into the area where Samuels would have vacated.

[QUOTE=SkinsRock]I think Matty's point was that he is improving, as is the entire line. But that does not mean they are anywhere near where they should be. It takes time. Just as with Gibbs for the offense as a whole, people kind of expected Bugel to "wave his magic wand" and the O-line would become dominant overnight. It just doesn't happen that way, plus the loss of Jansen was huge, but they are definitely getting there...[/QUOTE]

So wait, we need to be patient with the offensive line but not the quarterback? I'm not saying Brunell is improving in the least, but I don't see much improvement out of Samuels.

My point is we can't scapegoat the players. I even saw a post about Brunell not being "committed to winning." Let's give this team some time, the frustration in here is due to our view that the team is underachieving, well the special teams and offense are underachieving. This team is clearly not playing as well as the sum of its parts, but there are 10 games left.

Cut Samuels, good one matty and point taken.

[QUOTE=memphisskin]So wait, we need to be patient with the offensive line but not the quarterback? I'm not saying Brunell is improving in the least, but I don't see much improvement out of Samuels.

My point is we can't scapegoat the players. I even saw a post about Brunell not being "committed to winning." Let's give this team some time, the frustration in here is due to our view that the team is underachieving, well the special teams and offense are underachieving. This team is clearly not playing as well as the sum of its parts, but there are 10 games left.

Cut Samuels, good one matty and point taken.[/QUOTE]

You know immediately after the game, I logged in and I was a little surprised at the backlash of negative threads questioning Gibb's decision to stay with Brunell. We finally get a Coach who loves this team and fans more than life itself and the first poll after the game asks whether Brunell should be replaced by Ramsey. It's an insult to Gibbs because we won the game. Not one person mentioned the horrible special teams in the Baltimore game who gave up a TD or the one that almost got away in Chicago. Brunell sucks! Gibbs is defending Brunell! In life some people you just can't please even in victory.

It's clear that Brunell's injured hamstring has affected his running and throwing. Do Brunell and Gibbs a favor and let our opponents trash our QB.

[QUOTE=SUNRA]You know immediately after the game, I logged in and I was a little surprised at the backlash of negative threads questioning Gibb's decision to stay with Brunell. We finally get a Coach who loves this team and fans more than life itself and the first poll after the game asks whether Brunell should be replaced by Ramsey. It's an insult to Gibbs because we won the game. Not one person mentioned the horrible special teams in the Baltimore game who gave up a TD or the one that almost got away in Chicago. Brunell sucks! Gibbs is defending Brunell! In life some people you just can't please even in victory.

It's clear that Brunell's injured hamstring has affected his running and throwing. Do Brunell and Gibbs a favor and let our opponents trash our QB.[/QUOTE]

Brunnell need to let go off his igo and fear to step down so that he can rest and get better. there is to much talent on the offensive side to under produce like they do. Gibbs sticks up for him, loves vetran qb's so why won't give him his job back when he feel up to it. Brunnell needs to do what's right for the team and not himself.

[QUOTE=SUNRA]You know immediately after the game, I logged in and I was a little surprised at the backlash of negative threads questioning Gibb's decision to stay with Brunell. We finally get a Coach who loves this team and fans more than life itself and the first poll after the game asks whether Brunell should be replaced by Ramsey. It's an insult to Gibbs because we won the game. Not one person mentioned the horrible special teams in the Baltimore game who gave up a TD or the one that almost got away in Chicago. Brunell sucks! Gibbs is defending Brunell! In life some people you just can't please even in victory.

It's clear that Brunell's injured hamstring has affected his running and throwing. Do Brunell and Gibbs a favor and let our opponents trash our QB.[/QUOTE]
Sunra, I posted that QB poll for a reason, after Brunell lit up the Bears on 8/22 passing I figured it just might be a hot topic for discussion. I don't think it's insulting to Gibbs or anyone else to discuss the game after a loss or a victory. Brunell's play is obviously a huge issue right now.

As for the poor special teams play, we've discussed that in several threads. People want to fire Danny Smith and cut Chad Morton all over the place, sound familiar?

That wasn't exactly a stellar victory, so of course there are going to be some unhappy people around. The team still has some major questions to answer, a win was nice but it didn't do much in answering some of those key questions.

[QUOTE=diehardskin2982]Brunnell need to let go off his igo and fear to step down so that he can rest and get better. there is to much talent on the offensive side to under produce like they do. Gibbs sticks up for him, loves vetran qb's so why won't give him his job back when he feel up to it. Brunnell needs to do what's right for the team and not himself.[/QUOTE]That's an excellent point, diehardskin2982 (SUNRA rolls his eyes). I'm not sure why we're supposed to excuse Brunell's poor play simply because he has been injured and may still be injured. If he's injured to the point where he is unable to effectively play the quarterback position and make the throws he needs to make to move the ball down the field and score, then he shouldn't be playing-- plain and simple.

It would clearly have been in the best interest of the team for Brunell to have taken himself out for a few weeks and allow the hamstring and/or or any other injuries to heal sufficiently. I appreciate his commitment to toughing it out and playing through the injury, but ultimately, that's not a sound decision when continuing to play negatively affects his performance and, subsequently, the performance of the offense as a whole.

Clearly, Gibbs is committed to Brunell as the Redskins quarterback this season, so missing a few games until the bye week shouldn't have been that big of a deal. I don't think Brunell would have lost his job, regardless of how well Ramsey played in his absence. The coaches and trainers have held out LaVar, despite his willingness to play, so that he can be completely healed and ready to contribute to the team down the backstretch of the season. Why couldn't they do the same with Brunell? It's not like Lemar Marshall is a LaVar clone. Sure, the quarterback is the linchpin of the offense, but isn't that even more reason to have a healthy quarterback in there? We're not talking about the difference between an injured Brett Favre and a healthy Doug Pederson here, or an injured Steve McNair and a healthy Billy Volek. We're talking about a guy (Brunell) who clearly isn't an effective quarterback when he's injured, and his backup (Ramsey) who is healthy and capable of performing much better than the injured starter.

joecrisp:

NFL players have egos; that is part of what makes them NFL players. If they did not really believe that THEY are difference makers, many of them would be in some other line of work where they did not take the punishment that they do. Wishing that Brunell would "check his ego at the locker room door" is a bit unrealistic and probably not in the best interest of the team.

And what do people say about Lavar Arrington who was obviously playing well below his skill level early in the year because of his injury? They say he is a "warrior" and a "beast". NO he is not. He is a football player with an ego that drives him to play the game and when it became too painful for him to play, he had the surgery that resulted in his "vacation".

If Arrington is a warrior for playing through his injury, so is Brunell. If you think Brunell is an egomaniac who has taken leave of his senses, then tell me why the same is not true of Lavar Arrington?

The Redskins' brain trust - the coaching staff not the players or the FO - have decided that Brunell is the best QB on the squad in October 2004. If people here think that decision is half as bad as it is protrayed here, then they should go to Fed Ex with signs calling for Gibbs and company to be fired for incompetence. But I haven't seen many of those - have you?

oop. looks like it was Rasby who couldn't handle Alex Brown...

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]joecrisp:

NFL players have egos; that is part of what makes them NFL players. If they did not really believe that THEY are difference makers, many of them would be in some other line of work where they did not take the punishment that they do. Wishing that Brunell would "check his ego at the locker room door" is a bit unrealistic and probably not in the best interest of the team.

And what do people say about Lavar Arrington who was obviously playing well below his skill level early in the year because of his injury? They say he is a "warrior" and a "beast". NO he is not. He is a football player with an ego that drives him to play the game and when it became too painful for him to play, he had the surgery that resulted in his "vacation".

If Arrington is a warrior for playing through his injury, so is Brunell. If you think Brunell is an egomaniac who has taken leave of his senses, then tell me why the same is not true of Lavar Arrington?

The Redskins' brain trust - the coaching staff not the players or the FO - have decided that Brunell is the best QB on the squad in October 2004. If people here think that decision is half as bad as it is protrayed here, then they should go to Fed Ex with signs calling for Gibbs and company to be fired for incompetence. But I haven't seen many of those - have you?[/QUOTE]
Whoah, SC, let's take a step back here and look at what I actually said, instead of making assumptions about my argument, based on your aggregate impression of what others on this board have said in this debate. You addressed this rebuke to me individually, so I think your quotations and implications should at least be relevant to my post.

The point I was making was [i]not[/i] that LaVar is a "warrior" or a "beast" for trying to play through his injuries, nor did I imply anything about Brunell or any other player "checking their ego at the door". I don't know where you got those ideas, but I didn't give them to you.

My point was that "the Redskins' braintrust" decided it was in the best interest of the team-- and it [i]was[/i]-- to sit LaVar while [i]he[/i] mended, despite the significance of his role in the defense, so why didn't they see fit to sit Brunell? I don't care about anybody's egos here, I just want the team to put guys on the field that will help the team win. You and the coaching staff may think that means putting an injured Brunell on the field the past few weeks. I happen to think a healthy Ramsey would've been a better option-- here in October of 2004-- for the sake of winning entirely winnable games that this team has lost since Brunell was injured.

And let's get one more thing straight here: just because I disagree with the decision to continue playing an injured Brunell, doesn't mean I'm diametrically opposed to Gibbs and his staff, nor do I plan to go post "Fire Gibbs" signs at FedEx. Gibbs is the whole reason I'm a Redskins fan, and I think he's still capable of leading this team back to greatness. But that doesn't mean I think the guy is infallible, either. The guy's made plenty of mistakes in his career, and I happen to think that Mark Brunell is one of them...

...and I reserve the right to change my mind and eat a large, heaping plate of crow if Brunell somehow reverts to his 90s form and leads this team to respectability this season. In fact, I hope he does, because that's the only way the Redskins will have a shot at the playoffs, since Gibbs won't abandon Brunell as his starter.

joecrisp:

My comment was addressed to you but indeed included commentary on some thoughts of others. It was not intended to be a rebuke; it was intended to be a rebuttal. There is a serious difference between those two things and if what I said came across as a rebuke then it was faulty expression on my part.

You said that it would have been in the best interest of the team if Brunell had taken himself out for a few weeks. My point is that a top-shelf NFL QB has an ego that will not allow him to "take himself out" for an injury that is not nearly debillitating. That ego got him where he has been and is now; it is not likely that he is going to have a complete psychological restructuring in a short period of time.

I belileve that in the depths of Brunell's mind (and the mionds of just about every starting QB in the NFL) there is a real sense that the ONLY way for the team to succeed is for them to be on the field as the leader. That may or may not be factually correct in the football sense, but I think they all believe that. So, for him to go to the coaches and "take himself out" would be a form of "checking his ego at the door".

I'm also pretty confident that if Brunell went to Gibbs/Bugel/Breaux and company and told them that his leg just will not make it through the week, the staff would decide to sit him down. I cannot see this coaching staff putting a player on the field who is too injured to play. The fact that he is playing tells me that the coaching staff is convinced that playing Brunell in whatever state of injury he exists at the moment is a better option than playing anyone else on the roster at QB. The coaches can only evaluate performance and project it to the next game; they cannot know the extent of Brunell's injury because there is no outward manifestiation of it; it's not like he's in a cast with his hamstring tug...

Another reason Brunell would be unmotivated to sit himself down is the stigma that brings to him. Last year, the Dolphins WR, Orande Gasden (sp?), opted for wrist surgery and the end to his season because he felt that playing with an injury would hurt his stats and reduce his bargaining power in his upcoming free agency. That decision turned around and bit him on the butt. He got labeled as a self-centered, me-first, greedy, undedicated player and he was not a "hot property" from that moment on. Other players have been called "soft" because of their propensity to miss games and that has cost some of them some contract money and some years of service in the league. So, there is no economic benefit to Brunell to offer to sit down. He can look around and see lots of examples where that kind of behavior has been less than fully productive for other NFL players.

I don't know if Ramsey would have been a better chioce for a starting QB than an injured Brunell in the recent weeks. But I'm not the least bit surprised that Brunell did not go to the staff and say that he could not play and that in the best interests of the Redskins, it was time to "put the kid in". That happens in movies and novels; I doubt it happens much on the sidelines.

Truth in Labeling Statement !!

Contents of this note contain the following:

Rebuke: Zero

Rebuttal: Plenty

Anger: None

Respect Lots

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]Contents of this note contain the following:

Rebuke: Zero

Rebuttal: Plenty

Anger: None

Respect Lots[/QUOTE]

Yes, but how many carbs?

[QUOTE=smootsmack]Yes, but how many carbs?[/QUOTE]
LOL

just remember, carbs - fiber = net carbs

smootsmack:

NO carbs, man. This is all meat!

Thanks for clarifying, SC. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with your assessment that the ego reigns supreme among NFL quarterbacks, and most NFL players, for that matter. I guess we just disagree where it pertains to how both Brunell and the coaching staff should have handled his injury.

When I say Brunell should have "taken himself out," I'm not suggesting that he make some altruistic sacrifice for the benefit of his young backup. I'm just saying that, as a veteran, he should have recognized that the injury has been affecting his ability to throw the ball effectively, and as a leader, he should have recognized that it would be in the best interests of himself and the team-- both in the short-term and the long-term-- to acknowledge the significance of the injury and rest himself until the injury healed completely.

Everybody knows hamstring and other muscle injuries tend to linger much longer, and are more susceptible to frequent aggravation, if that tissue isn't given the proper rest to completely mend. Time and again over the past few weeks, I've seen Brunell get knocked out of bounds, and he comes up limping. He's been trying to disquise the injury as much as possible, but it's clear that hamstring is giving him a little more than a tug. You can see it in the way he runs on rollouts and scrambles, and how he walks. I'm saying that as a former athlete and certified personal trainer. I've tried competing with those kinds of injuries, and I've worked with lots of injured athletes, so I have a pretty good eye for the way certain injuries affect a person's gait, body language, and physical performance. So I disagree that there is no outward manifestation of Brunell's injury. There's no cast or sling, but the injury is apparent, nonetheless.

From a financial and career standpoint, I really don't see taking 2-3 weeks off to heal a hamstring as having a detrimental effect for him and his career. Gibbs has repeatedly expressed his unwavering confidence in Brunell, and his intent to continue playing Brunell as the starter-- win, lose or draw. Brunell just signed a huge contract that, due to cap implications, will keep him a Redskin for at least three years-- which is all any player can really hope for at any given time. Plus, at this point in his career, Washington is likely to be his final stop, unless he decides to play through age 38. If Brunell sat and got healthy, Gibbs would put him right back in as soon as the injury was healed.

I think this whole thing has a lot more to do with Gibbs trying to avoid a quarterback controversy, and trying to be too protective of his quarterbacks (both Brunell and Ramsey), rather than doing what is ultimately the best thing for the team to win games now. Of course, playing Ramsey would entail certain risks, and Joe Gibbs is not a gambler-- at least not in football terms-- regardless of what the payout might have been. What I think he refuses to acknowledge (I think he knows it, but just isn't saying it-- at least not to the public) is that allowing Brunell to play injured may have been the biggest risk of all. It's clearly a risk that hasn't paid off-- at least, not yet.