Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!!

GTripp0012 · 10-11-2010, 12:57 PM

Carlos' ascencion back to top-level defensive back has been a bit quiet. Whereas Landry's ascension has been right in the forefront of those studying our defense (all offensive NFL coaches) which is why he's going to the pro bowl this year.

Landry = Troy Polamalu without any ability to cover in the deep field. Which bites, because he plays safety.

MTK · 10-11-2010, 12:59 PM

Speaking of Carlos he had another potential INT bounce off him. That one yesterday hit him square in the chest.

It's comical at this point.

jdlea · 10-11-2010, 01:00 PM

I was impressed with the way this team stayed in this game. In year's past, I think we all know this game would have been an L.

One major gripe, though, on the deep ball to Santana, that eventually lead to the FG, why does he not even try to stay in bounds? He's 2 steps behind the nearest defend and just lets his momentum carry him out of bounds. I'm not saying he could have stayed in or would have scored, but he made no attempt at all. It irritated me a little bit.

GTripp0012 · 10-11-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Speaking of Carlos he had another potential INT bounce off him. That one yesterday hit him square in the chest.

It's comical at this point.

Yeah. Wouldn't even consider that one a drop because of his body position. I do find it comical that Rogers ends up defensing more passes with his chest than most corners do with their hands in an entire season.

Still, he already has two flat drops on the year of balls that hit him in the hands. If he keeps blanketing star receivers, that number could reach 10 or 11 by the end of the year.

12thMan · 10-11-2010, 01:06 PM

Rogers and Hall are very quitely putting together a good season at the corner position. They shut down Philly's duo last week and had another solid outing yesterday. Forget the Dallas game, but I don't remember any of their wideouts going wild either.

artmonkforhallofamein07 · 10-11-2010, 01:07 PM

Austin had a good day.... but who cares. they lost.

SirClintonPortis · 10-11-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

I was impressed with the way this team stayed in this game. In year's past, I think we all know this game would have been an L.

One major gripe, though, on the deep ball to Santana, that eventually lead to the FG, why does he not even try to stay in bounds? He's 2 steps behind the nearest defend and just lets his momentum carry him out of bounds. I'm not saying he could have stayed in or would have scored, but he made no attempt at all. It irritated me a little bit.

Santana is not Santonio. Santonio knows the art of improvising after a route if the play is busted and has helped pad Rapistberger's stats because of that. He got called out by it by the commentators, and I have to agree with them.

saden1 · 10-11-2010, 01:28 PM

I'm going with Armstrong because that wicked route running and catch got us into the game.

saden1 · 10-11-2010, 01:30 PM

I am far from impressed with our CBs...they play too deep and you can pretty much get all the underneath stuff at will the first two downs on them.

MTK · 10-11-2010, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

I was impressed with the way this team stayed in this game. In year's past, I think we all know this game would have been an L.

One major gripe, though, on the deep ball to Santana, that eventually lead to the FG, why does he not even try to stay in bounds? He's 2 steps behind the nearest defend and just lets his momentum carry him out of bounds. I'm not saying he could have stayed in or would have scored, but he made no attempt at all. It irritated me a little bit.

Yeah he left some yards out there on that one. Not sure if he just thought he was closer to the sidelines than he was or what. Still, hard to get too mad at the guy who's on pace for a career year. Hope he stays healthy because I would hate to see our passing game if he went out for any length of time.

SouperMeister · 10-11-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

I was impressed with the way this team stayed in this game. In year's past, I think we all know this game would have been an L.

One major gripe, though, on the deep ball to Santana, that eventually lead to the FG, why does he not even try to stay in bounds? He's 2 steps behind the nearest defend and just lets his momentum carry him out of bounds. I'm not saying he could have stayed in or would have scored, but he made no attempt at all. It irritated me a little bit.

Look at the replay - Donovan's throw led Moss to the sideline. His first job is to catch it cleanly and get two feet down. Perhaps if the throw was delivered more upfield, Moss would've had more room to stay inbounds. That was a huge 3rd down conversion that started the comeback, so I have no problem with Moss on that play.

SirClintonPortis · 10-11-2010, 01:42 PM

Opposing Kickers choking is a positive in my book.

skinsfan69 · 10-11-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Rogers and Hall are very quitely putting together a good season at the corner position. They shut down Philly's duo last week and had another solid outing yesterday. Forget the Dallas game, but I don't remember any of their wideouts going wild either.

I disagree. They both play way too soft. I understand they don't want to give up deep balls but it seemed that when ever Rogers wanted a 10 yard out he got it. I'd like to see both play a little more aggressive. Hall would've been the goat had Crosby made that FG. He played way too soft on a 3rd string TE.

skinsfan69 · 10-11-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Speaking of Carlos he had another potential INT bounce off him. That one yesterday hit him square in the chest.

It's comical at this point.

That would've been a real tough catch but if he ever wants to become elite status he's gotta make that play.

skinsfan69 · 10-11-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlea

I was impressed with the way this team stayed in this game. In year's past, I think we all know this game would have been an L.

One major gripe, though, on the deep ball to Santana, that eventually lead to the FG, why does he not even try to stay in bounds? He's 2 steps behind the nearest defend and just lets his momentum carry him out of bounds. I'm not saying he could have stayed in or would have scored, but he made no attempt at all. It irritated me a little bit.

it would've been real tough for him to stay in bounds on that play. moss was outstanding yesterday. this might be his best year since 05.

View Poll Results: Who gets your game ball for the Skins 16-13 win over the Pack?
McNabb	15	13.64%
Landry	75	68.18%
Armstrong	16	14.55%
Moss	1	0.91%
Cooley	0	0%
Smith	0	0%
Other	3	2.73%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

10-11-2010, 12:57 PM	#76
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 36 Posts: 15,994	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! Carlos' ascencion back to top-level defensive back has been a bit quiet. Whereas Landry's ascension has been right in the forefront of those studying our defense (all offensive NFL coaches) which is why he's going to the pro bowl this year. Landry = Troy Polamalu without any ability to cover in the deep field. Which bites, because he plays safety. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

10-11-2010, 12:59 PM	#77
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! Speaking of Carlos he had another potential INT bounce off him. That one yesterday hit him square in the chest. It's comical at this point. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

10-11-2010, 01:00 PM	#78
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 40 Posts: 3,109	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! I was impressed with the way this team stayed in this game. In year's past, I think we all know this game would have been an L. One major gripe, though, on the deep ball to Santana, that eventually lead to the FG, why does he not even try to stay in bounds? He's 2 steps behind the nearest defend and just lets his momentum carry him out of bounds. I'm not saying he could have stayed in or would have scored, but he made no attempt at all. It irritated me a little bit.

10-11-2010, 01:06 PM	#80
12thMan MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: washington, D.C. Posts: 11,460	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! Rogers and Hall are very quitely putting together a good season at the corner position. They shut down Philly's duo last week and had another solid outing yesterday. Forget the Dallas game, but I don't remember any of their wideouts going wild either.

10-11-2010, 01:07 PM	#81
artmonkforhallofamein07 Pro Bowl Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Charleston , SC Posts: 5,001	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! Austin had a good day.... but who cares. they lost. __________________ Just win.

10-11-2010, 01:28 PM	#83
saden1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 45 Posts: 10,069	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! I'm going with Armstrong because that wicked route running and catch got us into the game. __________________ "The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder." -Jenkins

10-11-2010, 01:30 PM	#84
saden1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 45 Posts: 10,069	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! I am far from impressed with our CBs...they play too deep and you can pretty much get all the underneath stuff at will the first two downs on them. __________________ "The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder." -Jenkins

10-11-2010, 01:42 PM	#87
SirClintonPortis Pro Bowl Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,052	Re: Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!! Opposing Kickers choking is a positive in my book. __________________ Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness". Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten. The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is Don Juan.

Redskins vs. Packers - POSITIVES!!

Locker Room Main Forum