Doc Walker One-on-One Interview with Vinny Cerrato

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Truth is though, if not for that blocked punt (a unit that sucked all year), we probably win or are at least in the game in the second half.

BHA pointed this out in another thread, but the general lethargy of the offense in the first quarter when game strategy is fairly neutral was terrible all season long. We always performed better later in the game than we did earlier in it, but whereas a healthy offensive unit led comebacks against New Orleans and Philadelphia (two very good teams), they failed to come back against the St. Louis', Pittsburgh's, Baltimore's, and Cincinnati's of the world.

There was a pretty clear line between the aptitude of this team in the second half of games drawn in the sand between Weeks 5 & 6, and then again between Weeks 14 & 15. What two events occurred during those two weeks?

1) In Week 5, Chris Samuels hurt his knee and was less effective from that point out the rest of the year.

2) In Week 14, Samuels tore his labrum and missed the rest of the year.

The season-long issue with sustaining offense was a receivers issue. But the ability that the team had early on in the year to put teams away and not turn the ball over appeared to be a line-based issue. As the line decline, those dominant fourth quarters turned to mediocre performances in losing efforts as we chased points against the best defenses in the league.

Bottom line: If we want a great offense, we need to rebuild the OL and have the Receivers develop. If we want to win close games, simply one or the other will suffice.

It's hard to disagree with this. We definitely need to get younger up front. I just sense that too many people are in denial about the dismal state of our receiving corps. It's just as easy to assume everything will magically improve on the line as it is with the receivers which is what I hear. "I'm sure Thomas and Kelly will come around." Really? Why on earth do you think that? I'd rather put my money on Jansen being the Comeback Kid than on those two doing anything. You can't just chalk everything up to the fact that the offensive line is less than All-Universe. Not you, but a lot of people in here.

It's like a baseball team that averages less than 1 run a game and then blames the pitching because they only have 1 Cy Young candidate instead of 4.

[GridIron26]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

So are we cutting Samuels? Here's why I think we're not looking OT at #13. We're good at LT with Samuels. We seem to be content letting Heyer enter camp as the starter at RT (which as I've said wouldn't be the end of the world) and I don't think we're really looking to draft a LT, move him to RT and then have to re-convert him to LT in 3 years. Seems more likely that we will go DE/LB and then draft a OL in the 3rd.

I never said anything about cutting Samuels? I believe I said when Heyers finally develops into good T, which will take more than a year.. Unless he surprises us all this season.. I only meant to explain that we would not have any concerns regarding T for years if Heyers flourishes and we draft a future stud T.. It doesn't mean we would have to cut Samuels - god, I hope this won't be the case.. Samuels have done alot for us, ain't going to be a great way to pay him back by cutting him.. When Samuels retires, we wouldn't have to worry about getting a T because we would already have Heyers waiting in the wing (that, of course, is only if we extend his contract or resign him; which I am hopeful but kinda pretty sure that the FO will)..

[djnemo65]

Oh man, that picture of Cerrato that comes up when you play the podcast says it all...

[djnemo65]

Interesting to hear VC explain the selection of Devin Thomas over Eddie Royal in terms of team needs, claiming that since we already had smaller receivers in Moss and ARE that Thomas fit what we were trying to do more. That's fine, but when he then proceeded to take receivers with the next two picks didn't he justify it by saying that you take the best player available no matter what, and don't draft for need? Which one is it?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It's also a function of stamina. Fatigue leads to bad fundamentals AND mental errors.

Good point.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It's hard to disagree with this. We definitely need to get younger up front. I just sense that too many people are in denial about the dismal state of our receiving corps. It's just as easy to assume everything will magically improve on the line as it is with the receivers which is what I hear. "I'm sure Thomas and Kelly will come around." Really? Why on earth do you think that? I'd rather put my money on Jansen being the Comeback Kid than on those two doing anything. You can't just chalk everything up to the fact that the offensive line is less than All-Universe. Not you, but a lot of people in here.

It's like a baseball team that averages less than 1 run a game and then blames the pitching because they only have 1 Cy Young candidate instead of 4.

The other thing is that the defense is at fault as well. They don't give up points often, but if you allow the other team to control the ball and chew up clock (which unquestionably happened), well then you are going to be responsible for the limited amount of points your team scores. One defensive TD all year? For real?

In general, the receivers, the OL, and the defense (specifically, the outside linebackers and the play-calling, not so much the DL now) have vast room for improvement.

And, I don't disagree for you that it's not a foregone conclusion that the next great receiving tandem of the Skins is in house. But Davis looks good, and in Kelly's case, what we have is a lack of information, not necessarily negative feedback.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The other thing is that the defense is at fault as well. They don't give up points often, but if you allow the other team to control the ball and chew up clock (which unquestionably happened), well then you are going to be responsible for the limited amount of points your team scores. One defensive TD all year? For real?

In general, the receivers, the OL, and the defense (specifically, the outside linebackers and the play-calling, not so much the DL now) have vast room for improvement.

And, I don't disagree for you that it's not a foregone conclusion that the next great receiving tandem of the Skins is in house. But Davis looks good, and in Kelly's case, what we have is a lack of information, not necessarily negative feedback.

I'm sure Greg Blache would be the first to say he wants more turnovers and points off turnovers and to generally create more chaos and general disarray. In a way, the fact that they DIDNT do much if any of that makes their defensive ranking even MORE impressive. I don't mind people criticizing the defense in areas where they need improvement. You can always improve.

I think what bothers me is that they make these arguments as a way of explaining our offensive ineptitude. If I was a member of the Redskins defense and I heard people saying, "Well, too bad the offense didn't get a little more help from the defense - we might have done something", I wouldn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Any criticism of the defense should be kept seperate from the problems our offense faces RIGHT NOW because those problems are far more serious and deeply entrenched than the defensive ones. Once Zorn gets same of his basic issues sorted out, then I would be willing to entertain an analysis of field position and turnover ratio and so forth. We have to be able to move the ball before we start going there.

[GridIron26]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I'm sure Greg Blache would be the first to say he wants more turnovers and points off turnovers and to generally create more chaos and general disarray. In a way, the fact that they DIDNT do much if any of that makes their defensive ranking even MORE impressive. I don't mind people criticizing the defense in areas where they need improvement. You can always improve.

I think what bothers me is that they make these arguments as a way of explaining our offensive ineptitude. If I was a member of the Redskins defense and I heard people saying, "Well, too bad the offense didn't get a little more help from the defense - we might have done something", I wouldn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Any criticism of the defense should be kept seperate from the problems our offense faces RIGHT NOW because those problems are far more serious and deeply entrenched than the defensive ones. Once Zorn gets same of his basic issues sorted out, then I would be willing to entertain an analysis of field position and turnover ratio and so forth. We have to be able to move the ball before we start going there.

Good post

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I'm sure Greg Blache would be the first to say he wants more turnovers and points off turnovers and to generally create more chaos and general disarray. In a way, the fact that they DIDNT do much if any of that makes their defensive ranking even MORE impressive. I don't mind people criticizing the defense in areas where they need improvement. You can always improve.

I think what bothers me is that they make these arguments as a way of explaining our offensive ineptitude. If I was a member of the Redskins defense and I heard people saying, "Well, too bad the offense didn't get a little more help from the defense - we might have done something", I wouldn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Any criticism of the defense should be kept seperate from the problems our offense faces RIGHT NOW because those problems are far more serious and deeply entrenched than the defensive ones. Once Zorn gets same of his basic issues sorted out, then I would be willing to entertain an analysis of field position and turnover ratio and so forth. We have to be able to move the ball before we start going there.

On this, I think it's the other way around. The reason I was so adamant that we recognize our defensive weaknesses way back in December is so that we don't end up looking at the offense (improperly) as some inept unit based on the fact that the point totals were down.

I absolutely agree that the defense and the offense have to be separate entities. Just not if points for/against is being used as the measuring stick. That's essentially why the league uses yards to rank defenses and offenses, because points are far more dependent on the other unit.

But, obviously the offenses below average ability to score is something that can only be solved by fixing the offense. The defenses inability to get off the field is something that can only be solved by fixing the defense. We can spend our first pick on one side of the ball, but not both, so that's where the tricky part is.

The fact that the offense is so much further from greatness than the defense shouldn't detract from the fact that the offenses current ability to not self-destruct under Campbell is valuable within itself to the point where we can get value from the offense without addressing the receivers and OL.

But if we want to one day have a great offensive unit, it's clear that plenty of current players just won't cut it.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

On this, I think it's the other way around. The reason I was so adamant that we recognize our defensive weaknesses way back in December is so that we don't end up looking at the offense (improperly) as some inept unit based on the fact that the point totals were down.

I absolutely agree that the defense and the offense have to be separate entities. Just not if points for/against is being used as the measuring stick. That's essentially why the league uses yards to rank defenses and offenses, because points are far more dependent on the other unit.

But, obviously the offenses below average ability to score is something that can only be solved by fixing the offense. The defenses inability to get off the field is something that can only be solved by fixing the defense. We can spend our first pick on one side of the ball, but not both, so that's where the tricky part is.

The fact that the offense is so much further from greatness than the defense shouldn't detract from the fact that the offenses current ability to not self-destruct under Campbell is valuable within itself to the point where we can get value from the offense without addressing the receivers and OL.

But if we want to one day have a great offensive unit, it's clear that plenty of current players just won't cut it.

I wonder if this team is destined to be a defensive team, kinda like the Ravens and Titans. I just feel that over the past 5-6 seasons the defense has been the strength.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I wonder if this team is destined to be a defensive team, kinda like the Ravens and Titans. I just feel that over the past 5-6 seasons the defense has been the strength.

No one is destined to be anything, but some teams just can't evaluate talent on one side of the ball.

But for us, most of the established talent (sans Haynesworth) is on the offensive side. All we need to do is fix the major holes in the middle and on the outside, and we can have a good offense. It doesn't seem that hard, we've just failed at it so far.

[hooskins]

landry, st, champ, rodgers, etc have alll been talented

[GTripp0012]

But not pro bowl talented like Portis, Sellers, Moss (in his prime), Samuels, and Cooley.

More of a prospective type of talent on defense.

[70Chip]

If the defense stays at its current level and the offense improves to say 19 points a game, how many wins does that add up to. I bet that would be 10 or 11 wins. If the offense could get to 23 points per, I think you might win 12 games with last year's defense. I like a defense that doesn't give up more than 25 points in any game all year.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Snyder owns about 5 million shares, Gates' Investment arm owns around 10 million shares. But it's Snyder's team managing it

Sorry to continue on the off-topic banter, but did he sell some in the past couple of years? Back in 05 he had 8 or 9pct and then bought more to take himself/Red Zone above Gates.