H-back Position Disappearing ?

warriorzpath · 05-12-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirthogs311

I dont think it will be a complete offensive overhaul. If theres anything we dont need its that. We dont really want that. The system could have got us to the Super Bowl last year, but we ran out of gas and we ran out of WR's in the end. There will still be some Gibbs plays. He is the head coach, if he doesnt like the play he will overule it and change it to whatever he wants. I think we will see a slow transition from Gibbs offense to Saunders', until Gibbs retires when Saunders will have total control and Williams is the head coach.

From just the simple reason that there will be no h-back, says to me that gibbs won't be able to overrule anything because Saunders will have complete control. Why the h-back reason ? Simply because they took away the one position that was the trademark of a gibbs offense- and how would he know more about Saunders's offense than Saunders (to overrule him) ?

I'm not saying this is a bad thing or it's going to be major transition/change (a bad choice of words earlier). But I don't think it's going to be a slow transition; it's Saunders's offense now.

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-12-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirthogs311

Well thats not fair, he was injured, and I'm sure Gibbs did not want to take a chance with Pat Ramsey

Sure it's not fair, but I'm entitled to my opinion. I think he should have taken himself out of the game if he knew he was going to play like that.

warriorzpath · 05-12-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirthogs311

There will still be some Gibbs plays.

I think there would be some Gibbs plays, if Saunders allows it or it happens to be in Saunders's playbook.

But I'm wondering: how can Gibbs really add plays or call plays without an h-back ?

Daseal · 05-12-2006, 03:04 PM

Saunders and Gibbs branch from the same tree, so chances are the differences we see won't be too huge. I predict a bit more inspired playcalling, increased Portis and Cooley production. I wonder what our WRs will do this year, Saunders WRs never really did a whole lot.

As far as the Brunell issue goes. Im sure we can all agree when he's healthy hes a decent QB in the league. Good enough to manage games, not exactly someone I want to force to win a game (MNF Week 2 is the only one I can remember) but once Brunell gets a little nicked up he plays AWFUL, and nothing changes. That Tampa Bay playoff game made me vomit.

BigSKINBauer · 05-12-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

BRUNELL ran out of gas. I place that solely on him.

I say that if Randy didn't get hurt we would be there. Our run offense struggled and Brunell wouldn't have gotten hurt had there been Randy on the line. Thomas is a beast and its arguable that he is the best player on this offense, though we have Moss, Lloyd, Samuels, Cooley, and CP. Man we are going to be so fucking good next year.

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-12-2006, 03:08 PM

Yeah, Thomas had a LOT to do with it. He's diesel. I don't think any of us can deny though that Thomas or not, Brunell's throws were not even close in many situations.

That being said, I don't want to take ANY credit away from the year he had last year. He was one of the single reasons we played as well as we did (and one of the reasons we lost to Seattle).

warriorzpath · 05-12-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

That Tampa Bay playoff game made me vomit.

Yeah me too - it wasn't so much that I accidently swallowed it though

. Maybe because they still won the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

I wonder what our WRs will do this year, Saunders WRs never really did a whole lot.

Yup, I was wondering the same thing.

steveo395 · 05-12-2006, 03:18 PM

http://www.redskins.com/team/default.jsp?sortBy=title

The h-back position has been gone. I don't know if any of you noticed that on their roster page , but it has said TE and FB for a while. The system is not going to change that much though....and cooley is a TE

scowan · 05-12-2006, 03:19 PM

Let's get back to this H-back position dissappearing.... All you are talking about to me is trying to create mis-matches. You can line Cooley up as a FB to block or run little playaction flat passes, a TE to run short routes and in the slot to run more intermediate routes. He had to learn 2-3 positions. This year he may be more of a TE and just have life simplified. I guess I keep thinking about Tony Gonzales and the way he is used. I think Cooley will be able to focus more on catching the ball and not blocking from the FB position and we will go back to having more legit FBs who just block and catch passes from the back field.

That Guy · 05-12-2006, 03:30 PM

saunders has never had a WR like santana... he tried 18,000 different ways to turn dante's speed into production and it never worked. It'll probably be a bit more spread than last year (where it was moss, cooley, throw it away).

this change happened months ago btw.

warriorzpath · 05-12-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

this change happened months ago btw.

When did they announce it ?

FRPLG · 05-12-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

When did they announce it ?

When Saunders was brought in it was in the middle of several HC openings. He turned down the Oakland job in favor of this job. Gibbs stated in no uncertain terms that he was assuming a more mangerial function seeing as how is President of football OPS and HC. He said Saunders would have complete control of the offense and based on the fact that Saunders turned down a HC job I'd say he was quite sure he indeed would. Saunders is the offense now. Gibbs may say "hey what do you think of this?" but Saunders is the man with the plan.

TheMalcolmConnection · 05-12-2006, 03:46 PM

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Just remember, number one offense in the league with KANSAS CITY'S skill position players. They had Gonzo and Holmes. That's IT.

gibbsisgod · 05-12-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

And I'm perfectly fine with that. Just remember, number one offense in the league with KANSAS CITY'S skill position players. They had Gonzo and Holmes. That's IT.

oh , come on.... Eddie Kennison???

Daseal · 05-12-2006, 03:54 PM

And an amazing Oline...

05-12-2006, 03:04 PM	#19
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 8,341	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? Saunders and Gibbs branch from the same tree, so chances are the differences we see won't be too huge. I predict a bit more inspired playcalling, increased Portis and Cooley production. I wonder what our WRs will do this year, Saunders WRs never really did a whole lot. As far as the Brunell issue goes. Im sure we can all agree when he's healthy hes a decent QB in the league. Good enough to manage games, not exactly someone I want to force to win a game (MNF Week 2 is the only one I can remember) but once Brunell gets a little nicked up he plays AWFUL, and nothing changes. That Tampa Bay playoff game made me vomit. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

05-12-2006, 03:08 PM	#21
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? Yeah, Thomas had a LOT to do with it. He's diesel. I don't think any of us can deny though that Thomas or not, Brunell's throws were not even close in many situations. That being said, I don't want to take ANY credit away from the year he had last year. He was one of the single reasons we played as well as we did (and one of the reasons we lost to Seattle). __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

05-12-2006, 03:18 PM	#23
steveo395 The Starter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: New Jersey Posts: 1,674	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? http://www.redskins.com/team/default.jsp?sortBy=title The h-back position has been gone. I don't know if any of you noticed that on their roster page , but it has said TE and FB for a while. The system is not going to change that much though....and cooley is a TE

05-12-2006, 03:19 PM	#24
scowan The Starter Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: KY Age: 57 Posts: 1,559	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? Let's get back to this H-back position dissappearing.... All you are talking about to me is trying to create mis-matches. You can line Cooley up as a FB to block or run little playaction flat passes, a TE to run short routes and in the slot to run more intermediate routes. He had to learn 2-3 positions. This year he may be more of a TE and just have life simplified. I guess I keep thinking about Tony Gonzales and the way he is used. I think Cooley will be able to focus more on catching the ball and not blocking from the FB position and we will go back to having more legit FBs who just block and catch passes from the back field.

05-12-2006, 03:30 PM	#25
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 43 Posts: 17,620	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? saunders has never had a WR like santana... he tried 18,000 different ways to turn dante's speed into production and it never worked. It'll probably be a bit more spread than last year (where it was moss, cooley, throw it away). this change happened months ago btw.

05-12-2006, 03:46 PM	#28
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? And I'm perfectly fine with that. Just remember, number one offense in the league with KANSAS CITY'S skill position players. They had Gonzo and Holmes. That's IT. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

05-12-2006, 03:54 PM	#30
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 43 Posts: 8,341	Re: H-back Position Disappearing ? And an amazing Oline... __________________ Best. Player. Available.

H-back Position Disappearing ?

Locker Room Main Forum