The unpleasant truth

[Lanky Livingston]

Okay? I already admitted it was a mistake on my part.

The thing you seem to be missing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why, is that we don't want Griffin running the ball 12 times a game. Its bad for his career longevity.

 

[tshile]

no, you don't want him running.
you want to then characterize designed runs as 'abandoning' the run just because you don't approve of who the ball carrier is.

every single argument you've made for us 'abandoning' the run has been refuted down to it simply being you don't like the name and number on the jersey carrying the ball.

you don't want it to be banks, you don't want it to be griffin.
fine, all well and good. i disagree with you, but it's an opinion, that doesn't make you or me wrong.

but you keep saying we 'abandoned' the run. we didn't. and that's where you're flat out, undeniably wrong. i've provided screen shots, game log recaps for every drive you insist we 'abandoned' the run on, and stats broken down by quarter, play, and player. you continue to say we abandoned the run. i've run out of options for trying to show you you're wrong. You, on the other hand, have provided absolutely zero evidence to support your claim - none.

i wouldn't be so concerned if this wasn't a typical gut reaction by this fan base across multiple message boards and the media. this knee-jerk, over analysis leads to people running around saying things that just flat out aren't true - like we 'abandoned' the run.

i'm not arguing against not having griffin carry the ball. it concerns me just as much as it concerns you I think he should run, but I'm concerned with the hits and not against the idea of having him run less often.

Steve Czaben (from ESPN 980) had a good write up on it here - (BEWARE - NOT WORK SAFE) http://czabe.blogspot.com/2012/09/and-beatings-shall-continue.html
I don't agree with him 100%, but i think he makes some good points and I agree with most of them.

 

[Om]

LL and others still arguing over who runs the ball....

I'm curious. Do you guys think the Shanahans envision running RG3 as much as they have in the first 3 weeks this season long term, i.e, a central part of the offense, or they view this as a temporary and necessary answer to the issue of having 1) a rookie QB with little experience in a pro-style offense, and/or 2) the state of the OL in 2012?

So as not to sandbag, my take is clearly the latter.

 

[Henry]

Really, this is how you want to start arguing? Come on, man. You're better than this.

If it was a draw, I certainly didn't make it up, it was a mistake. Nonetheless, riddle me this - if they had instead of throwing an incomplete pass on first down, they did the same two plays on 2nd and 3rd on 1st and 2nd. Now, instead of 4th and 1, its 3rd and 1, and they likely convert to keep the drive moving. Instead, Kyle tried to get fancy, and ABANDONED THE RUN.

So Lanky, is it your position that unless you run on first down you've abandoned it?

Also, I'd like to point out that Banks' final rush came on a 2nd and 5. And he got 8 yards. The Redskins ran that play four times and three times it gained at least 6 yards. You seem fixed on the one time it didn't. All teams use change-of-pace runners. This is not unique to the Redskins and it is not a sign that the team has abandoned the run or the primary runningback.

 

[tshile]

Also here's a write up by Kevin Shehan, from ESPN 980, he's a pretty smart football guy in general. Bit of a homer, and believes in 'In Shanahan We Trust':
http://espn980.com/blogs/kevin.php

The take-aways:
- Majority of the hits on Griffin came in trying to pass, not running or the option
- The option worked in the second half and is what allowed the redskins to get back in the game. A good second half adjustment by the offense

some other random things I think we missed, like Moss deserving a penalty.

 

[Om]

Typical Czabe---fan the flames of postgame discontent, then run to the front of the crowd with a bullhorn and pitchfork yelling, "Let's get 'em! Follow me!"

What he fails to mention, curiously, is that forcing RG3 into "pocket passer" mode behind the current sorry excuse for an OL was getting the man killed as a stationary target, not unlike what Spurrier did to Ramsey.

The switch to the option run game was in response to getting hammered and contained trying to run the exact kind of offense Czabe seems to favor. And the team getting hammered on the scoreboard as well.

Whatever. It's Czabe.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

no, you don't want him running.
you want to then characterize designed runs as 'abandoning' the run just because you don't approve of who the ball carrier is.

I've already defined what I think of as "the run." And by "we," I meant those of us in this argument with you. You can continue to argue semantics all day long if you want, but it really is tiring. Especially when you resort to PA tactics.

every single argument you've made for us 'abandoning' the run has been refuted down to it simply being you don't like the name and number on the jersey carrying the ball.

you don't want it to be banks, you don't want it to be griffin.
fine, all well and good. i disagree with you, but it's an opinion, that doesn't make you or me wrong.

but you keep saying we 'abandoned' the run. we didn't. and that's where you're flat out, undeniably wrong. i've provided screen shots, game log recaps for every drive you insist we 'abandoned' the run on, and stats broken down by quarter, play, and player. you continue to say we abandoned the run. i've run out of options for trying to show you you're wrong. You, on the other hand, have provided absolutely zero evidence to support your claim - none.

i'm not arguing against not having griffin carry the ball. it concerns me just as much as it concerns you I think he should run, but I'm concerned with the hits and not against the idea of having him run less often.

I've provided evidence, but apparently you haven't read it. And holy Jesus, if you agree that Griffin shouldn't carry the ball as much, then WTF are we arguing for??????

LL and others still arguing over who runs the ball....

I'm curious. Do you guys think the Shanahans envision running RG3 as much as they have in the first 3 weeks this season long term, i.e, a central part of the offense, or they view this as a temporary and necessary answer to the issue of having 1) a rookie QB with little experience in a pro-style offense, and/or 2) the state of the OL in 2012?

So as not to sandbag, my take is clearly the latter.

I hope its temporary - he won't last long if not. But if it were more of a temporary thing, I would like to see them doing more roll outs...haven't seen a lot of that so far.

 

[tshile]

LL and others still arguing over who runs the ball....

I'm curious. Do you guys think the Shanahans envision running RG3 as much as they have in the first 3 weeks this season long term, i.e, a central part of the offense, or they view this as a temporary and necessary answer to the issue of having 1) a rookie QB with little experience in a pro-style offense, and/or 2) the state of the OL in 2012?

So as not to sandbag, my take is clearly the latter.

Om,
I think it's the later - that is a temporary thing. I think it has to do more with #2 than #1 - although I do thing the comfort factor plays into it a bit.

I think RG3 should run the ball. I think he's way to effective at it to pull it out of the playbook. I also think, as Kevin Shehan points out, the hits he's taking are not nearly as bad as redskins nation is claiming nor as bad as the media is claiming; it's very over exaggerated.

But I see a very legit concern/argument for protecting him and not putting him out there so far.

More importantly, I think judging a team/offense/player/scheme after 3 weeks is absurd.
Especially this year, with replacement refs that clearly have an influence on the game.

 

[tshile]

I've provided evidence, but apparently you haven't read it. And holy Jesus, if you agree that Griffin shouldn't carry the ball as much, then WTF are we arguing for??????

You've cited drives and stats that me, and others, have corrected. You've done things like called a design run a 'scramble' (see above), or claimed we 'abandoned the run' on a drive where it was 3rd and 18 - you really can't run in that situation unless you just want to set up for a punt.

Everything you've posted has been refuted.

Finally, I said I think he should run but I'm not arguing against him not running:

i'm not arguing against not having griffin carry the ball. it concerns me just as much as it concerns you I think he should run, but I'm concerned with the hits and not against the idea of having him run less often.

I'm specifically arguing against, mentioned for the umpteenth time now, the idea that we abandoned the run. We RELIED on the run in the 2nd half to get back into the game.

 

[tshile]

Typical Czabe---fan the flames of postgame discontent, then run to the front of the crowd with a bullhorn and pitchfork yelling, "Let's get 'em! Follow me!"

What he fails to mention, curiously, is that forcing RG3 into "pocket passer" mode behind the current sorry excuse for an OL was getting the man killed as a stationary target, not unlike what Spurrier did to Ramsey.

The switch to the option run game was in response to getting hammered and contained trying to run the exact kind of offense Czabe seems to favor. And the team getting hammered on the scoreboard as well.

Whatever. It's Czabe.

To be fair, Czabe is very clear that he supports the idea of using designed runs for Griffin inside the 20. He just doesn't like them being a staple of every drive.

I really like Czabe, I think it's less 'fan the flames', because he doesn't do this all the time; I think he utterly despises Shanahan, and has since the start, and that kind of fuels his attitude in these situations

He certainly does have an attitude you need to be wary of when listening/reading his opinions though

 

[Om]

I think Czabe has almost unlimited talent---he's articulate and creative and, I think, a pretty smart cookie. Which is why I've been so hard on him over the years. He's also a shameless panderer who takes the easy (read: fan the flames) road far too often for my tastes. I think his talent has been largely wasted trying to create a "buzz" and a name for himself in ways that make him blend IN with the crowd rather than stand above it.

So there.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Good God, are you guys still talking about this?

Bottom line is we abandoned a rushing attack that had just been successful on the previous drive for TD. We follow that up with the "option" that saw our prized possession QB get drilled at least 3 times.

Why?

"Abandoned the run" may have been the wrong phrase to use in this case because you guys are clinging to the idea that the option was successful. Semantics. OK, the run game was not "abandoned", but smart play calling was. The option was fine, it is a good tool with Griff behind center to throw defenses off balance. It worked a couple of time during their 2nd drive for a TD. But it also got Griff hit more often than he should...those hits take their toll.

What this reminds me of is the same ole' BS that gets this team in trouble when they get momentum going. When we have an opportunity to stick a dagger in, Kyle Shanahan gets cute and calls some play that he thinks will make him look like a genius, only to have it blow up in our face. I have seen it all too often over the past 3 years.

The option would have been great if they'd just left it at the 21 yards gain Banks made on the first time they ran it. Then get back to what had been working. It is even more opened up now. But Kyle gets greedy with Banks and on the next series we go 3 and out after a turnover. Our defense holds, we get good field position again. We punt when we are inside the opposition's territory instead of going for it on 4th and 1 (For the first time in a long time, I felt confident we would convert that 4th down). Then...momentum has just taken a swing in the other direction leaving us with no time outs because Shanahan challenged a stupid play.

It wasn't "abandoning the run" game, if you want to include gadgetry and QB runs, but it was questionable play calling at a crucial point in the game.

I'll quote El one more time, because it sums up my position perfectly (as I've said, repeatedly). And now I'm really done with this argument. I keep getting told everything I've said has been refuted, but I don't think that's the truth. Yes, I am specifically focusing on three drives in the third & fourth quarters when the score was tied. We ran Morris, a lot, to get the score tied (last one we were down 7, because we gave the ball back right away due to not sustaining any drives). And then we didn't run very much in those three drives, in fact we tried to pass a lot. The result? We lost. You can draw whatever conclusions you want or accuse me of making up whatever you want, but the end results are not going to change.

T, you're clearly a smart guy, so I don't really understand why you're fixating on semantics like a bulldog - so let's just agree to disagree, because we'd have a better chance of convincing fs62 to vote for Obama than coming to any sort of resolution - clearly we're both set in our opinions.

 

[tshile]

Om,
That's an interesting way of looking at it. And when I think about it I can't really say I disagree

And then we didn't run very much in those three drives, in fact we tried to pass a lot.

This is flat out not true and is not in any way a realistic description of what happened. It's been shown countless times and you just keep saying it. The drive log is clear as day which has been posted multiple, multiple times.

This is why I keep arguing with you. It's not semantics, it's facts. You started by saying we abandoned the run - so I showed drive logs for teh entire 2nd half.
Then you said well it's these 3 drives that we did it on, when you think we should have run it the most; the first of the 3 was a 3 and out and we ran more than passed, the second was a 5 play drive with 2 runs and 3 passes, the 3rd had 1 run and 2 passes the second pass came on 3rd and 18 after a sack and no option to run.

How can you not get that this is the issue I have with what you're saying? To just say we abandoned the run on those 3 drives is not in any way an accurate way of describing what happened. Then, in the context of the entire 2nd half, to characterize the game as 'abandoning the run' becomes a joke...

 

[Lanky Livingston]

This is flat out not true and is not in any way a realistic description of what happened. It's been shown countless times and you just keep saying it. The drive log is clear as day which has been posted multiple, multiple times.

LOL. Or, you could keep arguing. From said drive chart:

Washington Redskins at 02:53
1-10-CIN 47
(2:53) (Shotgun) 16-B.Banks right end pushed ob at CIN 47 for no gain (55-V.Burfict).
2-10-CIN 47
(2:28) 10-R.Griffin sacked at WAS 45 for -8 yards (93-M.Johnson).
3-18-WAS 45
(1:56) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin pass incomplete deep left to 85-L.Hankerson [96-C.Dunlap].
4-18-WAS 45
(1:49) 6-S.Rocca punts 41 yards to CIN 14, Center-54-J.Snow, fair catch by 19-B.Tate.

Washington Redskins at 00:04
1-10-WAS 47
04) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin pass incomplete short middle to 11-A.Robinson.
END QUARTER 3
4th Quarter
Washington Redskins continues ...
2-10-WAS 47
(15:00) (Shotgun) 46-A.Morris up the middle to WAS 49 for 2 yards (99-M.Lawson; 94-D.Peko).
3-8-WAS 49
(14:24) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin left end to CIN 44 for 7 yards (58-R.Maualuga; 22-N.Clements).
0-0-
Timeout #1 by CIN at 13:41.
4-1-CIN 44
(13:41) 6-S.Rocca punts 44 yards to end zone, Center-54-J.Snow, Touchback. Washington challenged the touchback ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #3 at 13:27.)

Washington Redskins at 11:24
2-M.Nugent kicks 71 yards from CIN 35 to WAS -6. 16-B.Banks to WAS 20 for 26 yards (57-V.Rey).
1-10-WAS 20
(11:19) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin pass short right to 16-B.Banks pushed ob at WAS 25 for 5 yards (22-N.Clements).
2-5-WAS 25
(10:51) (Shotgun) 16-B.Banks right end pushed ob at WAS 33 for 8 yards (22-N.Clements).
1-10-WAS 33
(10:19) 46-A.Morris right end to WAS 37 for 4 yards (22-N.Clements).
2-6-WAS 37
(9:36) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin pass incomplete deep middle to 85-L.Hankerson [93-M.Johnson].
3-6-WAS 37
(9:28) (Shotgun) 10-R.Griffin pass incomplete short middle to 11-A.Robinson (93-M.Johnson, 56-R.Muckelroy).
4-6-WAS 37
(9:22) 6-S.Rocca punts 49 yards to CIN 14, Center-54-J.Snow. 19-B.Tate to CIN 28 for 14 yards (36-D.Young).


That's 2 plays out of 11. 18% of the plays went to Morris.

/drops mic
//walks off stage

 

[Neophyte]

I think we get it guys.

Lanky only counts running plays that involve Morris and T counts any play as a run where Griffin didn't throw the ball.

The horse is dead. Probably time to stop beating the corpse and move on.

 

[tshile]

and 5 of the plays were designed runs. and no, none of them were scrambles. they were DESIGNED run plays.
or 45%.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I think we get it guys.

Well, almost everyone gets it.

Lanky only counts running plays that involve Morris and T counts any play as a run where Griffin didn't throw the ball.

The horse is dead. Probably time to stop beating the corpse and move on.

I'm trying.

 

[tshile]

Eh.

"I don't like the guy running the ball" or "I don't like the running plays we're using" is not the same as "Our coaching staff abandoned the run"

This sort of thing runs rampant in our fan base. (i'm sure others as well, i'm not really a member of any other fan base to know )

edit: and to be fair neo it's not like we really have anything else to talk about i've had a boring week :\ passing time is all.

 

[Neophyte]

It was just a friendly suggestion, not a moderation thing. If you guys want to keep up a civil discussion about it because there isn't much else to talk about that is fine.

 

[Om]

edit: meh....never mind.