Run the damn football!

[skinsfan69]

This isn't 1983 and we don't have the Hogs!!!!! Let's face it. For the most part the NFL is a passing league and you have to pass the ball and get chunks of yardage to score. Why bring in the 2nd coming of the posse if we are not going to pass the ball?????? Plus you can beat some of the average teams by running it but in order to be a Super Bowl contending team you have to throw the ball. Yesterday Seattle won w/out Alexander on the road by throwing it!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

This isn't 1983 and we don't have the Hogs!!!!! Let's face it. For the most part the NFL is a passing league and you have to pass the ball and get chunks of yardage to score. Why bring in the 2nd coming of the posse if we are not going to pass the ball?????? Plus you can beat some of the average teams by running it but in order to be a Super Bowl contending team you have to throw the ball. Yesterday Seattle won w/out Alexander on the road by throwing it!

Tell me who won the Super Bowl last year.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Tell me who won the Super Bowl last year.

you like ignoring my posts Matty. while i totally agree with you on the direction we should take, do you really think Saunders would stick to one chapter in his playbook? the Gibbs chapter we already had?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by illdefined

you like ignoring my posts Matty. while i totally agree with you on the direction we should take, do you really think Saunders would stick to one chapter in his playbook? the Gibbs chapter we already had?

Ignoring your posts? I guess you're the only one posting on this issue, sorry for skipping over your post, next time I'll read yours and only yours.

To answer your question, YES, if all we do well right now is pages 1-8 of his playbook, then HELL YES junk the rest and get back to basics.

Where is this offense going as it is right now? Nowhere. It's time to realize what this team does best and just do it.

This team is at a crossroads. The road that has brought us to the brink of the season hasn't worked. It's time to re-evaluate and plot a new course. If that means going back to last year's philosophy I'm all for it. Blindly plowing forward as is isn't getting us anywhere.

Gibbs needs to sit down with Saunders and say look, this isn't working. We need to focus on what we do well and scrap this 700-page experiment for now. They can get back to it in the offseason, or pepper some of it in as we go, but for right now we really need a basic approach.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Ignoring your posts? I guess you're the only one posting on this issue, sorry for skipping over your post, next time I'll read yours and only yours.

To answer your question, YES, if all we do well right now is pages 1-8 of his playbook, then HELL YES junk the rest and get back to basics.

Where is this offense going as it is right now? Nowhere. It's time to realize what this team does best and just do it.

This team is at a crossroads. The road that has brought us to the brink of the season hasn't worked. It's time to re-evaluate and plot a new course. If that means going back to last year's philosophy I'm all for it. Blindly plowing forward as is isn't getting us anywhere.

Gibbs needs to sit down with Saunders and say look, this isn't working. We need to focus on what we do well and scrap this 700-page experiment for now. They can get back to it in the offseason, or pepper some of it in as we go, but for right now we really need a basic approach.

yeah i mean, that's everyone thought when Al Saunders was brought here. why fix whats not broken? old argument. while i wish Gibbs would take back the reigns, he brought Saunders for all this crap, and i have a sinking feeling he may keep trying it.

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by illdefined

yeah i mean, that's everyone thought when Al Saunders was brought here. why fix whats not broken? old argument. while i wish Gibbs would take back the reigns, he brought Saunders for all this crap, and i have a sinking feeling he may keep trying it.

i would love to see Gibbs take control again. Saunders is a genius, dont get me wrong, but we WON with Gibbs style to run it at till they puke and pass when they're beatdown. Saunders adds a little variety, but gets WAY away from the reason y we were winning in the first place


RUNNING LIKE MAD MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RobH4413]

I think we need to set the tone against INDI.

Why don't we institute a "full house" backfield. Sellers, Portis, and Duckett.
Saunders can run his sweeps with Sellers and Duckett blocking. Should the safeties "play the outside"... we pound it up with lead plays right up the gut giving Duckett the ball.

We do not have the tools to throw deep

We have not been running our WR's successfully to the outside

We have not established an identity. (I heard Sonny imply that we are a football team that doesn't know what to do. We're trying to finess the opponent when we have people like Duckett and Sellers in the backfield being used sparingly.)

Changing to this offense will control the clock more and most importantly take some weight off our defense. It will minimize turnovers, and I think it's the correct gameplan to run against INDI.

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I think we need to set the tone against INDI.

Why don't we institute a "full house" backfield. Sellers, Portis, and Duckett.
Saunders can run his sweeps with Sellers and Duckett blocking. Should the safeties "play the outside"... we pound it up with lead plays right up the gut giving Duckett the ball.

We do not have the tools to throw deep

We have not been running our WR's successfully to the outside

We have not established an identity. (I heard Sonny imply that we are a football team that doesn't know what to do. We're trying to finess the opponent when we have people like Duckett and Sellers in the backfield being used sparingly.)

Changing to this offense will control the clock more and most importantly take some weight off our defense. It will minimize turnovers, and I think it's the correct gameplan to run against INDI.

Holy fuck.....y the hell dont yopu have Gibbs and Saunders #?? Tell them what you wrote about the fullhouse backfield and if they dont run with THAT FUCKING wonderful whale of an idea, then the game has TRULY passed both them at light speed.....

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I think we need to set the tone against INDI.

Why don't we institute a "full house" backfield. Sellers, Portis, and Duckett.
Saunders can run his sweeps with Sellers and Duckett blocking. Should the safeties "play the outside"... we pound it up with lead plays right up the gut giving Duckett the ball.

We do not have the tools to throw deep

We have not been running our WR's successfully to the outside

We have not established an identity. (I heard Sonny imply that we are a football team that doesn't know what to do. We're trying to finess the opponent when we have people like Duckett and Sellers in the backfield being used sparingly.)

Changing to this offense will control the clock more and most importantly take some weight off our defense. It will minimize turnovers, and I think it's the correct gameplan to run against INDI.

Then we miss out on Cooley. the one receiver big and slow enough for Brunell to see in the middle.

despite his size, Duckett isn't a fullback and probably wouldn't take to lead blocking. Cooley has done that a good deal though. i think Cooley lead blocking for Sellers is a hell of an idea at times, Sellers has some pretty good feet! it's true!

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

I think we need to set the tone against INDI.

Why don't we institute a "full house" backfield. Sellers, Portis, and Duckett.
Saunders can run his sweeps with Sellers and Duckett blocking.

oh, you either minced your words there or implied Duckett would block for Portis whenever they went that direction. either way, Cooley would be best for that plus pose the passing threat from there or the TE position.

sadly, we actually use this package ALOT!