Broncos vs Skins Post Game Thread

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I think it's give and take w/ Morris. Yeah he may not break off Chris Johnson type of runs, but he also makes yards when yards are not there. Besides, all the best offenses throw for their points.

More give than take, IMO. John Riggins didn't have many long runs but I'd say he was effective. Moving the chains is what it's all about. Most of the breakaway type runners in the NFL couldn't break the tackles that get Morris his 10 and 20 yard runs. So, where would that put them?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

More give than take, IMO. John Riggins didn't have many long runs but I'd say he was effective. Moving the chains is what it's all about. Most of the breakaway type runners in the NFL couldn't break the tackles that get Morris his 10 and 20 yard runs. So, where would that put them?

Oh I agree. Yesterday they should've given him the ball 35 times. Kyle still thinks he's calling plays in Houston.

[KI Skins Fan]

If you gash them enough with the run, the safeties will come up to try to stop it. Then, you can hit them with the bomb. If they never stop the run, then you never stop running. Joe Gibbs 101.

[GTripp0012]

I do think people are overblowing the fact that the Redskins "went away from the run." I know Aikman made a critical comment about it on the broadcast in (I think) the third quarter, and then a graphic showed on the screen that Morris had 17 carries, which is a LOT. And that doesn't count how many carries Helu had.

Because the Redskins weren't going to be able to win yesterday without finding something to lean on in the passing game, it seems shortsighted to criticize them attempting to find the passing game. I'm not sure here if anyone thinks that the Redskins were going to be able to grind out that win up seven, but I think that's pretty far from the truth. Up 11 or 14? There's a chance.

It's a lot more frustrating because two quarterbacks and multiple critical throws to Aldrick Robinson and Santana Moss later, the passing game was still ineffective. And I think Kyle Shanahan deserves a lot of blame for how ineffective it was against a team that can not cover anyone.

More to the actual point, my worry level on Griffin now is somewhere between 5-10%. Still very low, but not that far from serious. They have not done a good job in his development. To be fair, that knee injury hurts his development, a lot. But even considering this a lost offseason, he's nowhere near where he should be. We're close to the point where I would consider a coaching change exclusively because of RG3's lack of development, independent of the 23-32 record.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I do think people are overblowing the fact that the Redskins "went away from the run." I know Aikman made a critical comment about it on the broadcast in (I think) the third quarter, and then a graphic showed on the screen that Morris had 17 carries, which is a LOT. And that doesn't count how many carries Helu had.

Because the Redskins weren't going to be able to win yesterday without finding something to lean on in the passing game, it seems shortsighted to criticize them attempting to find the passing game. I'm not sure here if anyone thinks that the Redskins were going to be able to grind out that win up seven, but I think that's pretty far from the truth. Up 11 or 14? There's a chance.

It's a lot more frustrating because two quarterbacks and multiple critical throws to Aldrick Robinson and Santana Moss later, the passing game was still ineffective. And I think Kyle Shanahan deserves a lot of blame for how ineffective it was against a team that can not cover anyone.

More to the actual point, my worry level on Griffin now is somewhere between 5-10%. Still very low, but not that far from serious. They have not done a good job in his development. To be fair, that knee injury hurts his development, a lot. But even considering this a lost offseason, he's nowhere near where he should be. We're close to the point where I would consider a coaching change exclusively because of RG3's lack of development, independent of the 23-32 record.

You say trying to find a passing game that wasnt there? Protection horrible, RG3 accuracy was a disgrace yesterday. So go away from a running game that was dominating? No that doesnt make much sense.

If you wanted to "find the passing", you find it but moving the pocket, or 3 step drop or do something different in the scheme. RG3 wasnt see the field, or getting crush by the pass rush. You dont abandon any part of game, you adjust whats not working. Look at RG3 numbers entering the 3rd quarter, why would you not run the ball.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

You say trying to find a passing game that wasnt there? Protection horrible, RG3 accuracy was a disgrace yesterday. So go away from a running game that was dominating? No that doesnt make much sense.

If you wanted to "find the passing", you find it but moving the pocket, or 3 step drop or do something different in the scheme. RG3 wasnt see the field, or getting crush by the pass rush. You dont abandon any part of game, you adjust whats not working. Look at RG3 numbers entering the 3rd quarter, why would you not run the ball.

In hindsight, the passing game never produced. And that's the real story from the game. The run enough/didn't run enough is a distraction from the fact that the passing game could not handle the Denver Broncos, who hadn't stopped anyone else prior to yesterday.

The point is, if you go run heavy in the second half because you don't trust RG3 to throw against the Broncos, you're going to lose anyway, and you're going to lose in the worst way possible: conservatively.

I am not going to let Kyle off the hook for the failure of the passing game he built, but the "run the football more" argument seems, on it's face, to be a bit of a distraction.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

In hindsight, the passing game never produced. And that's the real story from the game. The run enough/didn't run enough is a distraction from the fact that the passing game could not handle the Denver Broncos, who hadn't stopped anyone else prior to yesterday.

The point is, if you go run heavy in the second half because you don't trust RG3 to throw against the Broncos, you're going to lose anyway, and you're going to lose in the worst way possible: conservatively.I am not going to let Kyle off the hook for the failure of the passing game he built, but the "run the football more" argument seems, on it's face, to be a bit of a distraction.

Yeah Im just gonna disagree here, because of the way we won the first half. To allow the defense to breath and to bleed the clock was clicking just fine. Lets be honest, Haslett had Peyton yesterday until RG3 threw INTs and fumbled the ball away along with the win. So giving the game away to them due to the passing game was ok?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yeah Im just gonna disagree here, because of the way we won the first half. To allow the defense to breath and to bleed the clock was clicking just fine. Lets be honest, Haslett had Peyton yesterday until RG3 threw INTs and fumbled the ball away along with the win. So giving the game away to them due to the passing game was ok?

'Worst way to lose' is completely subjective. But I doubt that if it had played out as run 60% of the time = loss, anyone would disagree with me. It would feel way worse than it does today. It would have felt non-competitive. I think people wanted to run AND win, not run TO win.

Haslett had Peyton a lot yesterday. I've never seen Peyton misread zone for man so many times in a single game. Complete 180 from 2010. Would have been an excellent storyline if the offense didn't suck.

I do think you probably misread me saying I was going to hold Kyle accountable for the passing game he built as 'being okay with it.' Denver saw the Dallas tape. They prepared for us and squatted on all of our route combinations in the passing game. Teams know what we're going to run based on formation and alignment. Kyle gets outcoached every week.

Personally, I can't wait for the Kyle Shanahan-Matt Schaub experience in Tampa next season.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Because the Redskins weren't going to be able to win yesterday without finding something to lean on in the passing game, it seems shortsighted to criticize them attempting to find the passing game I'm not sure here if anyone thinks that the Redskins were going to be able to grind out that win up seven, but I think that's pretty far from the truth. Up 11 or 14? There's a chance.

You miss the point. When playing the Broncos, you want Peyton Manning
and their offense on the bench. You want to limit their possessions and shorten the game.

I don't mind that Kyle tried to hit a bomb. But I am dumbfounded that he would abandon the running game. We were killing them with the running game. It's simple, if they can't stop it, keep doing it. **** trying to find the passing game. If you run the ball well enough, wide open passing opportunities will present themselves.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

You miss the point. When playing the Broncos, you want Peyton Manning
and their offense on the bench. You want to limit their possessions and shorten the game.

I don't mind that Kyle tried to hit a bomb. But I am dumbfounded that he would abandon the running game. We were killing them with the running game. It's simple, if they can't stop it, keep doing it. **** trying to find the passing game. If you run the ball well enough, wide open passing opportunities will present themselves.

I...I think that's what he was thinking too. Which makes be a bit miffed that you point that out while arguing the opposite.

If you shorten the game, it just makes every possession more valuable. It doesn't really change the equation as far as winning the game goes. It probably increases Peyton's effect on the outcome of the game.

It makes you a lot less likely to lose by 24, but much more likely to lose by 7.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I...I think that's what he was thinking too. Which makes be a bit miffed that you point that out while arguing the opposite.

If you shorten the game, it just makes every possession more valuable. It doesn't really change the equation as far as winning the game goes. It probably increases Peyton's effect on the outcome of the game.

It makes you a lot less likely to lose by 24, but much more likely to lose by 7.

Of course it changes the equation. If you are within 7, anything can happen. If you're behind by 24, your goose is cooked.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Of course it changes the equation. If you are within 7, anything can happen. If you're behind by 24, your goose is cooked.

But if it ends with you defending your goal the whole second half, you're out of the realm of anything can happen, and into the realm of defeatism.

The point is, it's the same probability of winning either way, unless you really like your chance of stopping Peyton Manning on any given drive. Like, if you kept a secret defense he's never seen in your pocket the whole game. But I don't think that exists, and by shorting the game, you're just giving the best player on the field more control over the outcome.

I thought clearly, the best opportunity to win was more posessions = more turnovers. The second Hall pick...total gamechanger if the offense wasn't busy crapping the bed.

[SmootSmack]

I still support Kyle wholeheartedly. Think lack of execution was as much to blame, but as I've been saying he's got to go. Not a good fit here

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I still support Kyle wholeheartedly. Think lack of execution was as much to blame, but as I've been saying he's got to go. Not a good fit here

Tension rumors right SS? is it more Father and Son or RG3 and Kyle? Thanks

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Tension rumors right SS? is it more Father and Son or RG3 and Kyle? Thanks

I think it's more father and son, but others may say otherwise