Houston is THAT bad...

[70Chip]

The Texans are the worst defense I've seen in a while. Not only are they bad, but they looked as though they hadn't prepared for the game in any way. Bad players badly coached (on defense).

Having said that, you can only play the games on your schedule and there have been a few Redskins teams I could name in the last 15 years that would have sunk to the occasion. I like the fact that Gibbs wins the games he is supposed to win. Again, I think Brunell's performance is something to build on. Let us pray for the Health of Clinton.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by vaoutlaws2006

Houston is awful. They had me worried on their first drive. All i can say is beating them is no way to gauge us. the true test is the weekend at fedex. I can assure you jacksville is pissed off. We still have to figure out how to get the vertical game working. The dump off's are nice and they produced great results. against houston.

That's why I don't want to toot my horn too loud and will reserve my acolades for when we play and beat a good team (a playoff team) As much as I love wins I couldn'd get a good guage on the true progress of the team because the team we played today is terrible. At least we didn't play down to the level of competition.

[illdefined]

Houston is bad. so bad, that one player was enough to beat them today. a bit of hyperbole there, but seriously, against a playoff contending team we need to be using Moss and Cooley for more than little hitches. remember them?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

I think that the receivers were open deep, more than once.

Unless you were there, it's darn near impossible to see that on tv.

[kingerock]

I think they said it best during the broadcast. 3 weeks into the season, Al Saunders can now see what he has to work with in game situations with Brunell so you can cut about 650 pages out of that 700 page playbook. And Portis makes all the difference in the world.

I'm glad we won and looked good doing it.

[724Skinsfan]

The nice thing about having success solely on the short game is that our opponents are going to have to gameplan towards that. Remember Saunders typically doesn't run the same plays week in and week out. I think versus JAX we'll see quite a few long pass attempts to Lloyd, Randle El and some other dude that's good at catching the long ball.

[hesscl34]

I will say this one negative thing - I think Rogers BLOWS! We will not make it very far without Springs. He really needs to get healthy.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

I will say this one negative thing - I think Rogers BLOWS! We will not make it very far without Springs. He really needs to get healthy.

You're always so negative, H34

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You're always so negative, H34

... just wait until we are in the Playoffs!!!

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

The nice thing about having success solely on the short game is that our opponents are going to have to gameplan towards that. Remember Saunders typically doesn't run the same plays week in and week out. I think versus JAX we'll see quite a few long pass attempts to Lloyd, Randle El and some other dude that's good at catching the long ball.

I would like to beleive that, but it's not like Saunders asks Brunell to throw short. He sets up the plays with options for downfield passes, and short passes...Brunell checks down to the short passes and gives up on the deep passes. It's not Saunders, it's Brunell.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I would like to beleive that, but it's not like Saunders asks Brunell to throw short. He sets up the plays with options for downfield passes, and short passes...Brunell checks down to the short passes and gives up on the deep passes. It's not Saunders, it's Brunell.

Is that why Moss was in the backfield catching balls? Because Saunders really wanted Brunell to throw downfield? .... right... give me a break.

[MTK]

Yesterday's short passing emphasis was definitely more game plan related. There may have been a few instances where Brunell checked down, but all the screens, slants, and dumps were by design.

[hesscl34]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yesterday's short passing emphasis was definitely more game plan related. There may have been a few instances where Brunell checked down, but all the screens, slants, and dumps were by design.

I agree. Everyone is always looking for why we aren't good enough, or need to be better, or won't make it. It's so annoying.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I think it's the result of all the losses (including preseason). Had that happened last year after our undefeated start, we wouldn't hear as much bitching. He'll hit a couple bombs (I hope) and all will be right.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

Is that why Moss was in the backfield catching balls? Because Saunders really wanted Brunell to throw downfield? .... right... give me a break.

Sorry, bud, no break allowed here.
Watch the game films, break them down. Sure there were plenty of actually planned plays involving ARE and Moss on the short plays, but are you seriously trying to tell me that Lloyd, Moss and ARE (as well as Patton) did not have any downfield routes? WOW? How about the play when everyone was set up on curl routes (downfield) and Brunell hesitated too long to hit anyone. Moss stood there waiting, but Lloyd decided to keep moving, and Brunell hit him in stride after a long delay. Had it not been for the protection, that would have been a loss on the play.
So I ask you again to watch the film, watch how many plays had receivers doing crossing routes downfield, or deep outs, and Brunell not giving them a chance and checking down to the short passes. The problem is, we only remember the deliberate short passes / dumps. Of course those are planned, but what happened when they were not planned?