Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

Let's take off the burgundy and gold glasses and look at both the good and bad of last night's game:

GOOD - Brunnel's two passes to Moss for TD's
BAD - All of his other passes

GOOD - Defensive playcalling (albeit more conservative than normal)
BAD - Offensive playcalling was more vanilla than Mr. Ice himself - the two long TD's were out of necessity instead of plan. The theme of the first 55 minutes was "Please, please don't f*ck it up Brunell!!" when it should have been "I can't wait for Brunell to f*ckin' light it up, baby!"

GOOD - Sean Taylor's hit on Crayton at the end of the game. Awesome!
BAD - Sean Taylor's coverage for most of the game. While I still think Taylor has the potential to be a beast in the NFL, I have to be honest about the fact that he is nowhere near the neighborhood of Roy Williams, Ed Reed or even Mike Brown in terms of dominating a game. Not close.

GOOD - James Thrash always seems to be there when you need him on 3rd down or in ST coverage - Mr. Reliable.
BAD - Either Taylor Jacobs is a really, really unlucky guy, or this guy is made of paper mache. It seems that his after-the-catch celebration is to get in the fetal postition and suck his thumb. How much longer can we wait for the training room's "Customer of the Year" to make a play for us? Answer - not much longer...

GOOD - TEAM defense
BAD - You are nutzo if you think the defense is better off w/o Lavar in the lineup. Where the hell was he? Didn't hear Carlos Rogers name called all game either (although I saw him in the game at least). These guys are gamechangers, supposedly. We tallied NO sacks and NO turnovers. Did you see Roy Williams last night - he was everywhere. We need some of that. Getting our playmakers in the game will help. Don't worry, G-Williams will still have them playing like a team.

GOOD - A VERY gratifying win AT Dallas ON Monday Night. In the same manner that they usually beat us.
BAD - Undoubtedly, the press will say we "got lucky" and beat a better Dallas team (although they were up 2-0 on turnovers and still lost). They'll say Brunell was shaky and the offense looked lost. And that's fine. Let them talk. Do you know what will shut up the doubters? More winning. That's it. So let's not spend the next two weeks crying about how unfair the press is after our "big win" - let's just keep winning and smiling.

Way to go Skins - Way to go ADE!

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

seems like a reasonable assessment except for saying that Roy Williams is better than ST. he got beat 2x down the field vs. ST's one. i've always seen RW as just another linebacker playing safety whereas i think ST's coverage is at least mediocre and will improve

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]Let's take off the burgundy and gold glasses and look at both the good and bad of last night's game:

GOOD - Brunnel's two passes to Moss for TD's
BAD - All of his other passes


I disagree with Brunell having only 2 good passes. I distinctly remember moss and patten each dropping a pass that was right between the numbers.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

The skins looked pretty bad for 56 mins of this game but after 60 they were looking good. I dont think the 'state of the skins' has changed much with this win because except for 2 big plays this was pretty much the same pathetic O we saw last week. Hopefully those big plays will ignite the O and give them the confidence they need to get rolling.

Bottom line is the skins are 2-0 and thats as good as a team can be right now.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

I'll add 2 things for the discussion:

1. Good-- Robert Royal. Where the hell did he come from?
2. Great-- Marcus Washington. He has taken over LaVar as the face of the defense.
3. Poor-- Special teams. Did anyone else have a pit in their stomach when Dallas took the kickoff back to like the 40 at the end of the game? The rest of the ST play wasn't very good either.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]I'll add 2 things for the discussion:

1. Good-- Robert Royal. Where the hell did he come from?
2. Great-- Marcus Washington. He has taken over LaVar as the face of the defense.
3. Poor-- Special teams. Did anyone else have a pit in their stomach when Dallas took the kickoff back to like the 40 at the end of the game? The rest of the ST play wasn't very good either.[/QUOTE]

All good points. Special Teams has been very "ho-hum" so far this year. At least we didn't fumble a return this week!

Marcus Washington is playing great - like you said. The other guy who was just dominating last night was our other pickup from last year - Cornelious Griffin. He was a steal.

Royal caught some balls - but I think that's more a factor of the Skins "dump off" offense. I think Gibbs was trying to set a record for average 1 yard per catch.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

AJFC -

I'd say Taylor's misplays were a function of the conservative defnsive plan - a plan that tightened up dramatically once the team got beat on the flea flicker. Standard Williams blitz downs (3rd and long, etc) were seeing four-man rushes after that.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]I'll add 2 things for the discussion:

1. Good-- Robert Royal. Where the hell did he come from?
[/QUOTE]


and where was Cooley? think he only caught one pass. did only Patrick keep track of him on the field?

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

Hey guys, everyone still seems to slam Brunell, but you know what, he looked a hell of a lot better than Culpepper and Harrington this week. How would you like to be a Vikings fan or a Lions fan with those QB performances this week! YUCK! There is a lot of really BAD QB play in the league and while Brunell threw a pick and got sacked 5 times last night, he won the game, which was more than Bledsoe could say! The skins just need to discover what they do well. Man this win feels good. I know I have bags under my eyes today at work from staying up so late. BUT WHO CARES!!

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

If you don't believe a lot has changed because of this victory, then you still don't believe in Joe Gibbs. The deep pass is what we've all been calling for and when we see it, we still can't believe it happened. Listen, this game will open up the playbook because now we now no one can stay with Moss. This guy is fast and can carry the ball the distance. Bottom line, it also will open up for Portis who has run into an eight-man box for most of the night. Just admit it, if this were Ramsey with the same results, you would be talking about how tough he is and how he deserves....blah, blah, blah.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=SUNRA]If you don't believe a lot has changed because of this victory, then you still don't believe in Joe Gibbs. The deep pass is what we've all been calling for and when we see it, we still can't believe it happened. Listen, this game will open up the playbook because now we now no one can stay with Moss. This guy is fast and can carry the ball the distance. Bottom line, it also will open up for Portis who has run into an eight-man box for most of the night. Just admit it, if this were Ramsey with the same results, you would be talking about how tough he is and how he deserves....blah, blah, blah.[/QUOTE]

Im not going to argue with anyone today. We won, we beat those bastards who had the audacity to schedule their ring ceremony during our game because they have owned us in recent years! I really don't care how we look the rest of the year! I don't think we are a playoff team, but like I said, right now I just don't care.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]Let's take off the burgundy and gold glasses and look at both the good and bad of last night's game:

GOOD - Brunnel's two passes to Moss for TD's
BAD - All of his other passes
[/QUOTE]
yeah alot of passes were off the mark but he seemed to amkke good decisions on them anyways.
[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - Defensive playcalling (albeit more conservative than normal)
BAD - Offensive playcalling was more vanilla than Mr. Ice himself - the two long TD's were out of necessity instead of plan. The theme of the first 55 minutes was "Please, please don't f*ck it up Brunell!!" when it should have been "I can't wait for Brunell to f*ckin' light it up, baby!"
[/QUOTE]
yeah we have been way too conservation again so far this year.
[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - Sean Taylor's hit on Crayton at the end of the game. Awesome!
BAD - Sean Taylor's coverage for most of the game. While I still think Taylor has the potential to be a beast in the NFL, I have to be honest about the fact that he is nowhere near the neighborhood of Roy Williams, Ed Reed or even Mike Brown in terms of dominating a game. Not close.
[/QUOTE]
you're out of your mind. Taylor's coverage was fine. He blew one coverage on a trick play where he actually slipped trying to get back. If you ever state that Taylor is not in the same class as MIke Brown I might have to poke my eye out after reading it again. Now Reed and Williams are the elite group and I'd say Taylor DID doiminate much the same way they do. He is right there with them in my mind.
[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - James Thrash always seems to be there when you need him on 3rd down or in ST coverage - Mr. Reliable.
BAD - Either Taylor Jacobs is a really, really unlucky guy, or this guy is made of paper mache. It seems that his after-the-catch celebration is to get in the fetal postition and suck his thumb. How much longer can we wait for the training room's "Customer of the Year" to make a play for us? Answer - not much longer...
[/QUOTE]
no kidding.
[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - TEAM defense
BAD - You are nutzo if you think the defense is better off w/o Lavar in the lineup. Where the hell was he? Didn't hear Carlos Rogers name called all game either (although I saw him in the game at least). These guys are gamechangers, supposedly. We tallied NO sacks and NO turnovers. Did you see Roy Williams last night - he was everywhere. We need some of that. Getting our playmakers in the game will help. Don't worry, G-Williams will still have them playing like a team.
[/QUOTE]
results baby are all that count. they bring the results each week. some turnovers would be nice though.
[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - A VERY gratifying win AT Dallas ON Monday Night. In the same manner that they usually beat us.
BAD - Undoubtedly, the press will say we "got lucky" and beat a better Dallas team (although they were up 2-0 on turnovers and still lost). They'll say Brunell was shaky and the offense looked lost. And that's fine. Let them talk. Do you know what will shut up the doubters? More winning. That's it. So let's not spend the next two weeks crying about how unfair the press is after our "big win" - let's just keep winning and smiling.
[/QUOTE]
Both of those are good. I'd rather be underestimated.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

Like I said on the thread asking what the score would be. JUST ONE POINT was all I was asking for. I think this may be the spark that our O needed. Lets not harp on the negatives lets take this victory and just enjoy it for a couple of days.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=paulskinsfan]Im not going to argue with anyone today. We won, we beat those bastards who had the audacity to schedule their ring ceremony during our game because they have owned us in recent years! I really don't care how we look the rest of the year! I don't think we are a playoff team, but like I said, right now I just don't care.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But on a lighter note. We really watched the Redskins score three touchdowns in 2:37 seconds. I guess the Referees didn't want the defense to hurt their feelings. Sean Taylor landed the biggest hit and turnover of the week and Walt Harris picks it up. What do we hear, an incomplete pass. Get the hell out of hear. The real score would be 21-13. Man f$%k the Cowboys.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=SUNRA] I guess the Referees didn't want the defense to hurt their feelings. Sean Taylor landed the biggest hit and turnover of the week and Walt Harris picks it up. What do we hear, an incomplete pass. Get the hell out of hear. The real score would be 21-13. Man f$%k the Cowboys.[/QUOTE]

I hear you! It seems like the Cowbitches get at least one bogus call like that every time we play them. Every time. Under 2 Min's - that should have at least been reviewed.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

Before this game I wrote a thread about getting over the hump. Last night I think the skins might have done it. It only takes a little bit, and BOOM! We got a win in dallas. The Cowboys treated this game like a homecomming. So they deserved that 4rth quarter asswhooping. Brunnel looked liked the old brunnel in jacksonville before the injruy. If we can build on that and our offense has more confidence going agianst Seattle we will be a serious threat to everyone in the NFC East.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

i'd like to add another good to mark brunell's performance. he threw three good passes, two were for tds, and the other was a 41 yarder on third and 2.

bad: where's lavar, i really think he could've helped us in the turnover department last night.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=SUNRA]I agree. But on a lighter note. We really watched the Redskins score three touchdowns in 2:37 seconds. I guess the Referees didn't want the defense to hurt their feelings. Sean Taylor landed the biggest hit and turnover of the week and Walt Harris picks it up. What do we hear, an incomplete pass. Get the hell out of hear. The real score would be 21-13. Man f$%k the Cowboys.[/QUOTE]

Sundra, you are right about that hit by Taylor. That was a completed pass and a fumble. That guy caught that pass, was it Crayton I don't remember, turned up field, took two steps and got hammered! If the replay officals would have stopped the game for a review, it would have been overturned. That was a wicked, very legal hit by Taylor.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=scowan]Sundra, you are right about that hit by Taylor. That was a completed pass and a fumble. That guy caught that pass, was it Crayton I don't remember, turned up field, took two steps and got hammered! If the replay officals would have stopped the game for a review, it would have been overturned. That was a wicked, very legal hit by Taylor.[/QUOTE]

There was another similiar play earlier in the game too, where the Cowboys caught and then fumbled the ball. So we got screwed twice. The ref blew the whistle in both case I believe, which makes the play not reviewable. I've heard cries elsewhere about "phantom holding calls" against Dallas toward the end of the game so all I have to do is bring up those two "phantom non-fumble calls".

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

where the hell did that playcalling come from in the last 4 minutes? and can we always do that please?

I want more mark rypien bombs away passing...

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

I think we found out that Brunell may have a little something left in his tank and maybe the gameplan wasn't as conservative as it appeared. Field position really dictated that we not take chances for most of the game, but now that we've found the deep ball things might just open up.

The Good - Team Defense. Just outstanding, they kept us in the game without the offense contributing much and slammed the door when they needed to.

The Bad - Pass protection and penalties. For all the talk about protecting the qb we still struggled in blitz pickup and Brunell got hit and harassed way too much. Cleaning up the penalties may get our offense untracked, but hopefully the deep passes are the spark that we need to ignite our offense.

The Ugly - Team Offense. Maybe these two deep balls will give them the confidence that they need. But it looked too much like the same old offense for 3+ quarters and that's not a good thing. Where were the stretch plays, all the new stuff to get Portis on the edge or maybe even a screen pass to Portis.

But the bottom line is that we're 2-0. Hey, did anyone notice that our win over Dallas is getting very little attention. I saw Peter King has Dallas (12) and Chicago (15) in his Fine 15. Wonder if we'll get any mention considering we beat both of those teams.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

I think we found out that Brunell may have a little something left in his tank and maybe the gameplan wasn't as conservative as it appeared. Field position really dictated that we not take chances for most of the game, but now that we've found the deep ball things might just open up.

The Good - Team Defense. Just outstanding, they kept us in the game without the offense contributing much and slammed the door when they needed to.

The Bad - Pass protection and penalties. For all the talk about protecting the qb we still struggled in blitz pickup and Brunell got hit and harassed way too much. Cleaning up the penalties may get our offense untracked, but hopefully the deep passes are the spark that we need to ignite our offense.

The Ugly - Team Offense. Maybe these two deep balls will give them the confidence that they need. But it looked too much like the same old offense for 3+ quarters and that's not a good thing. Where were the stretch plays, all the new stuff to get Portis on the edge or maybe even a screen pass to Portis.

But the bottom line is that we're 2-0. Hey, did anyone notice that our win over Dallas is getting very little attention. I know if we lost the Cowboys would have been Super Bowl contenders, but we win and we're still a "flawed team." At least we know the flaw isn't on defense. And I saw Peter King has Dallas (12) and Chicago (15) in his Fine 15. Wonder if we'll get any mention considering we beat both of those teams.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

What about Dan Synder? Man you would have thought Jesus Christ came back by the way he was jumping up and down. All I could imagine him saying, "Pure unadulterated Ecstacy." Thank you, Jesus!

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

man, look at the defensive stats... looks like pierce singlehandedly made the gints run defense awesome, maybe we should have kept him...

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]man, look at the defensive stats... looks like pierce singlehandedly made the gints run defense awesome, maybe we should have kept him...[/QUOTE]
Sure would have love that but the LB's we have are as good or better!

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - Sean Taylor's hit on Crayton at the end of the game. Awesome!
BAD - Sean Taylor's coverage for most of the game. While I still think Taylor has the potential to be a beast in the NFL, I have to be honest about the fact that he is nowhere near the neighborhood of Roy Williams, Ed Reed or even Mike Brown in terms of dominating a game. Not close.
[/QUOTE]

Saying Mike Brown is better than Taylor is borderline blasphemy. People are afraid of Taylor. Have you ever seen a Sportscenter highlight where someone says "so and so gets JACKED UP by Mike Brown"? ST also plays the run 10 times better than Brown. The only thing that Brown has going for him is his ability to be in the right place at the right time, which seems to have diminished a bit over the years.

And ST has way better coverage ability and recovery speed than Roy Williams. ST got beat on a flea flicker, which if done correctly, will beat any defense(I specifically remember a Monday night game last year where Ed Reed and Ray Lewis got beat on a flea flicker). Roy got beat twice by a standard double move.

[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]
GOOD - TEAM defense
BAD - You are nutzo if you think the defense is better off w/o Lavar in the lineup. Where the hell was he? Didn't hear Carlos Rogers name called all game either (although I saw him in the game at least). These guys are gamechangers, supposedly. We tallied NO sacks and NO turnovers. Did you see Roy Williams last night - he was everywhere. We need some of that. Getting our playmakers in the game will help. Don't worry, G-Williams will still have them playing like a team.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with this statement, somewhat. A lot of people try to act like we're just fine without LaVar, but he's a playmaker. A lot of times, he's the only pressure on the QB because of our dismil defensive line(my only knock on the defense). He's a ball hawk and causes chaos for offenses when he's healthy. You'll see the difference in the defense when he's %100.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

I think the play calling was over-conservative for most of the game. What changed was that we didn't have enough time to play that way anymore... so we started attacking and we got the first TD. What impressed me most was that when we got the ball back, down 13-7, We went long on 2nd down with a lot of clock left. Normally, we'd be expecting a few short throws to try and move the chains. Instead, we went for the jugular... I think that was a huge change in philosophy.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy]What impressed me most was that when we got the ball back, down 13-7, We went long on 2nd down with a lot of clock left. Normally, we'd be expecting a few short throws to try and move the chains. Instead, we went for the jugular... I think that was a huge change in philosophy.[/QUOTE]

agreed. that was a first down play!

but even throwing it long on 4 & 15th was a gutsy non-conservative move. i really hope something broke in that stodgy, conservative philosophy that only ensures we lose by a respectable amount. no more please!

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

What a game. I think I woke the neighborhood up at 1245am last night screaming at the tv. Good win, but we have a lot of improving to do. I don't see how the ref's missed TWO calls on fumbles. Unbelievable.
Realistically our offense was horrible for 3 qtrs. Maybe this will open some things up. Did anyone notice, Michaels and Madden, using phrases like no weapons, nothing to scare to defense, predictable, to describe our offense? I think they were being nice. Lets enjoy this win but know we have GOT to do a better job offensively.
BTW- Greg Williams said they practiced the f-flicker 3 times in practice this week.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]I hear you! It seems like the Cowbitches get at least one bogus call like that every time we play them. Every time. Under 2 Min's - that should have at least been reviewed.[/QUOTE]

I just saw it more closely on the highlight reel - Crayton took two steps after catching the ball (aka a football move) before Taylor leveled him. Fumble!!!!!!

Wish we could get an independent review of this.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=hurrykaine]I just saw it more closely on the highlight reel - Crayton took two steps after catching the ball (aka a football move) before Taylor leveled him. Fumble!!!!!!

Wish we could get an independent review of this.[/QUOTE]
There's no need for an independent review. The play is about as clear as it can be. He catches the ball and takes two steps and gets flattened. Catch-hit-fumble-skins recovery-running for td-whistle blows-skins screwed. You can call the freaking supreme court and it won't change that the skins we screwed on that one. I guess we oughta be getting used to it by now.

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

[QUOTE=Ade Jimoh Fan Club]Let's take off the burgundy and gold glasses and look at both the good and bad of last night's game:

GOOD - Brunnel's two passes to Moss for TD's
BAD - All of his other passes

GOOD - Defensive playcalling (albeit more conservative than normal)
BAD - Offensive playcalling was more vanilla than Mr. Ice himself - the two long TD's were out of necessity instead of plan. The theme of the first 55 minutes was "Please, please don't f*ck it up Brunell!!" when it should have been "I can't wait for Brunell to f*ckin' light it up, baby!"

GOOD - Sean Taylor's hit on Crayton at the end of the game. Awesome!
BAD - Sean Taylor's coverage for most of the game. While I still think Taylor has the potential to be a beast in the NFL, I have to be honest about the fact that he is nowhere near the neighborhood of Roy Williams, Ed Reed or even Mike Brown in terms of dominating a game. Not close.

GOOD - James Thrash always seems to be there when you need him on 3rd down or in ST coverage - Mr. Reliable.
BAD - Either Taylor Jacobs is a really, really unlucky guy, or this guy is made of paper mache. It seems that his after-the-catch celebration is to get in the fetal postition and suck his thumb. How much longer can we wait for the training room's "Customer of the Year" to make a play for us? Answer - not much longer...

GOOD - TEAM defense
BAD - You are nutzo if you think the defense is better off w/o Lavar in the lineup. Where the hell was he? Didn't hear Carlos Rogers name called all game either (although I saw him in the game at least). These guys are gamechangers, supposedly. We tallied NO sacks and NO turnovers. Did you see Roy Williams last night - he was everywhere. We need some of that. Getting our playmakers in the game will help. Don't worry, G-Williams will still have them playing like a team.

GOOD - A VERY gratifying win AT Dallas ON Monday Night. In the same manner that they usually beat us.
BAD - Undoubtedly, the press will say we "got lucky" and beat a better Dallas team (although they were up 2-0 on turnovers and still lost). They'll say Brunell was shaky and the offense looked lost. And that's fine. Let them talk. Do you know what will shut up the doubters? More winning. That's it. So let's not spend the next two weeks crying about how unfair the press is after our "big win" - let's just keep winning and smiling.

Way to go Skins - Way to go ADE![/QUOTE]


Excellent, excellent assessment. I couldn't agree more. As much as I enjoyed last night's victory and still want to savor it, our offense still has a LONG way to go. I was very troubled that, for at least 56 minutes of the game, it could do virtually nothing. We didn't even get close enough to attempt a field goal! And the play-calling looked eerily like last year, which is to say it was ineffective to the extreme.

Sure hope Gibbs opens things up. Weren't we promised that in the pre-season?

Re: Realistic "State of the Skins"
 

I think Brunnell actually had some very nice passes other than the 2 TDs. The scramble throw to Moss on the sidelines was a thing of beauty--they show it from the "sky cam" view--a perfect throw on the move. And he hit some nice third down pickups to Thrash, one to Cooley on the move, another to Moss. Remember--he got sacked FIVE times and hit a bunch more. Sometimes you don't have time to get it downfield.

As for Taylor, I disagree as well--Roy got smoked on two late plays with the D in prevent. Wha? He had some nice blitzes. Fine, mostly unblocked. One was a friggin horsecollar. He's stout against the run. But he's vulnerable deep, and this is not the first time he's shown it (though this may be the most obvious case). Taylor hits at least as hard, if not harder (see the play on the late third down). He's faster. He's got great ball skills. And he's just in his second season, still learning NFL D. The flea-flicker is going to happen. THe other long pass to Glenn was nice (Taylor had him on a deep out from the slot), but Bledsoe had all day back there. The skins played a sagging cover defense, designed to stop the run and stop the big play. But for the flea-flicker, it worked.

Two players deserve kudos that haven't gotten much yet. James Thrash had a very nice game, with some big third down and foruth down receptions. And Walt Harris was excellent all night, especially tackling in the flat. THat fourth down stop was a great play.