Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Let's Discuss the 2007 Schedule

Locker Room Main Forum


View Poll Results: Toughest out of division game in 2007?
Bears 11 8.46%
Patriots 116 89.23%
other 3 2.31%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 04-13-2007, 03:57 PM   #14
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
Re: Let's Discuss the 2007 Schedule

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
Gtripp you sure love to bring out the stats. I would rather have a guy who can give an offense big play potential rather than 6 yard dink and dunk passes. You don't score points in the NFL when you have to run 12-15 plays every single drive becuase your offense can't get big plays out of the passing game. What McNair and Brunell do don't impress me at all becasue they are nothing but care takers. At some point in a game you need your qb to make plays, have the ability to take the game over from the pocket. McNair just can't do it anymore and we all know Brunell sure can't. It showed up in the playoffs for Balt. and it showed up for us every single year Brunell has been here. McNair just looks old now. You can throw Trent Green in there too. Although he's a gunslinger Farve still has the arm to play at a high level.

What impresses me are guys that push the ball down the field and still complete a high number but don't turn it over too much. One guy who really impresses me is Drew Brees. How SD let the guy walk out of town is beyond me. Dude has a below average NFL arm but always pushes it downfield and completes a high %.
I think Brunell and McNair have more than adequate big play potential. Just because you have the potential for big plays doesn't mean they are going to happen.

I see what you are saying with the long sustained 12-15 drives point. It takes a lot more execution to execute 15 successful plays than one big one. But this is the philosophy of big plays to me. As far as I'm concered, big plays are a random occurence.

The whole philosophy behind running the sustained offense, is that every once in a while, things are going to line up just perfectly so that after your receiver makes the catch or after the RB breaks through the initial wave of defenders, there is a golden plated path to the end zone. Think Chris Cooley vs. Carolina this year or Steve Smith in the 2nd OT vs. the Rams in the 2003 playoffs.

If you try to force the ball deep in an illadvised situation, you greatly increase your chances for an interception. It's a low pct. attempt. More than likely, the pass will fall incomplete and you really hurt an otherwise successful drive.

Trying to "force" big plays is a bad idea. The QB should be taking his shots once in awhile, but then again, Brunell and McNair both did this--even in 2006. The problem with Campbell early on is that he was taking his shot every other play, and ended up completing about 50% of his passes. Drives weren't sustained, and the TOP swung heavily in favor of our opponents.

Campbell seemed to learn something the last two games of the season. Instead of forcing the ball into impossible coverages downfield, he took the intermediate routes. Campbell played really well those last two games, even though the defense gave him little help.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.37586 seconds with 12 queries