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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-17-2007, 03:07 AM   #1
hooskins
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 39
Posts: 8,606
Re: Let's Discuss the 2007 Schedule

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Well, there's no way to be certain about how many deep attempts are too many, its really about how the defense plays you.

I will say this: When Brunell was the QB, we had a lot of success with the short and intermediate games. We didn't throw deep very often, so the times that we did, it was wildly successful.

When Campbell was the QB, its like we threw deep every other play. While some TDs were created by this, it seemed to cost us many drives on the whole through incompletions. This might have been a playcalling flaw, but more likely, Campbell was just being uncharacteristically agressive with the football.

When Campbell did start throwing the short and intermediate routes with consistentcy and accuracy, we started moving the ball much better.

I think the flaw in NFL passing defenses today is covering the backs out of the backfield. The soft 2 that a lot of teams play will be eaten alive by a patient passing attack. This is what we seemed to lose by pulling Brunell.
Ok well I do see what you are saying. By forcing it you mean more incompletions when he throws deep. I thought you meant he just threw alot of INTs. I agree about the assessment of Brunell and his positives. I think Al realized he needed to tone it down a bit, and let them develop on their own.

I really think Al can make us amazing, and people should give him a chance and get mad at GW for ****ing up the defense.
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2007, 03:59 AM   #2
GTripp0012
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 38
Posts: 15,994
Re: Let's Discuss the 2007 Schedule

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Ok well I do see what you are saying. By forcing it you mean more incompletions when he throws deep. I thought you meant he just threw alot of INTs. I agree about the assessment of Brunell and his positives. I think Al realized he needed to tone it down a bit, and let them develop on their own.

I really think Al can make us amazing, and people should give him a chance and get mad at GW for ****ing up the defense.
Exactly.

It's not like Al Saunders is a bad playcaller in this league. His system isn't on Gibbs' level, but we can get away with that. Playcalling isn't a huge factor in deciding the outcome of a season. Essentially, you are trying to beat an expected defensive look on just a guess. Even the most educated man may guess wrong 40% of the time.

Additionally, even the play that has the advantage over the other can be easily spoiled by shoddy execution. With this in mind, is playcalling really that important?

On a play by play level, certainly. On a game or season level? Probably not at all.

If our guys can execute, we will do really well next year regardless of who is calling the plays.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.29628 seconds with 12 queries