Random Commanders Thoughts

[SkinsFTW]

I hope we show up monday night, I don't think it will be a close game. Either we kick their ass, or we get stomped.

Good thing we dont face the Jaguars because I'm sure we'd trail them by 20+ at the half as well.

 

[Docsandy]

I keep hoping one of the vets (Fletcher, Moss, shoot I'd settle for DHall) screams a little before Monday night about people getting their act together. Perhaps it would at least wake them up for the first 3/4 of the game.

 

[fansince62]

well…in a backhanded way I have a positive thought. I remember several years ago when Grossman was at the helm and we were looking at a 3-5 win season the ferocious arguments we all had about winning vice higher draft position (i.e., losing). since we don't have a number one, I'm all onboard with winning out!

HTTR…do something that suggests pride on national television (for a change).

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Have you guys been watching San Fran this year? Their defense is not the monster it was...still good but they don't dominate like they did the past few years. Crapernick is not a very good QB. He could pose problems because of his mobility though. The only real threat the have that scares the daylights out of me is Boldin...the Freak is not so freakish anymore. Gore will get some yardage but we've been decent at stopping power backs...it's the quick slashers that kill us. I ain't skeer'd. They are 6-4 for a reason.

Had you been watching Minnesota this year before we played them? We should have destroyed them, but we didn't. We should have beaten Philly x 2, but we didn't. We should have beaten Dallas, but we didn't. We should be 7-3, but here we sit at 3-7. And you think we have a snowball's chance in hell on Monday night? I'll have what you're having!

 

[Boone]

Had you been watching Minnesota this year before we played them? We should have destroyed them, but we didn't. We should have beaten Philly x 2, but we didn't. We should have beaten Dallas, but we didn't. We should be 7-3, but here we sit at 3-7. And you think we have a snowball's chance in hell on Monday night? I'll have what you're having!

If we play to our strengths (we do have some), eliminate some of the mistakes, and play a full 60 minutes we can compete with and beat most opponents. That's a lot of ifs, but to say we have no chance is overstating it. We definitely are capable of winning. Whether we show up or not - who knows. But the snowball rolling down the mountain has to stop somewhere.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

If we play to our strengths (we do have some), eliminate some of the mistakes, and play a full 60 minutes we can compete with and beat most opponents. That's a lot of ifs, but to say we have no chance is overstating it. We definitely are capable of winning. Whether we show up or not - who knows. But the snowball rolling down the mountain has to stop somewhere.

Oh I agree, we've shown it this year. We've beaten the hell out of teams for 20, 30, even 45 minutes. Then they ease up, forget how to play football, whatever it is, and suck for spurts that cause us to lose. Its the most frustrating season I can remember, knowing that they CAN be good, they just AREN'T.

I know they CAN beat the 49ers, I just don't think they will.

 

[Win4us]

I've been leaning towards our first quality O-line pick to be a RT but recently think we may just need a stud G. That way he can take some of the heat off Monty and Polumbus's replacement.

 

[Bulldog]

The Redskins defense allows everyone to get healthy. The Eagles scored 3 points against Dallas but then got up 24-0 on us.

 

[Fear The Spear]

I keep hoping one of the vets (Fletcher, Moss, shoot I'd settle for DHall) screams a little before Monday night about people getting their act together. Perhaps it would at least wake them up

Hall commits so many penalties with late hits, if he could only slap one of his own teammates upside the head, as well, to wake them up.....and of course, slap himself.

 

[Fear The Spear]

"Mike Glennon is so far more advanced than RGIII playing NFL quarterback that it's not even close," Cosell told WFHS-FM in Tampa this week. "They shouldn't even be in the same discussion."

Is Mike Glennon already a better QB than RGIII? - NFL.com

 

[Burgundy Burner]

G. Cosell is a trip. He goes to the same gym where I did rehab back in South Jersey. I'd wear a Redskins t-shirt or cap and he always had a snide remark. Kinda nice, but he is an Eagles homer.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Glennon over Griffin? That's just ludicrous.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Goaldeje]

Hate to say it, but I don't find that too preposterous, right now. Now if anyone thinks they should choose Glennon over Griff long term, then yeah, pass the bong. But Griff has been off all year, and I went and watched the game from Sunday on DVR this week and he was terrible last weekend. I haven't watched one TB game this year (has anyone?), and I wouldn't know Mike Gelnnon if he walked in with a nametag that said, Hi, I'm Mike Glennon, but it is not inconceivable to me that he is playing the QB position better than Robert right now.

Again, if this is a long term discussion, then... yeah. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Hate to say it, but I don't find that too preposterous, right now. Now if anyone thinks they should choose Glennon over Griff long term, then yeah, pass the bong. But Griff has been off all year, and I went and watched the game from Sunday on DVR this week and he was terrible last weekend. I haven't watched one TB game this year (has anyone?), and I wouldn't know Mike Gelnnon if he walked in with a nametag that said, Hi, I'm Mike Glennon, but it is not inconceivable to me that he is playing the QB position better than Robert right now.

Again, if this is a long term discussion, then... yeah. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Right now, post knee surgery, yes. Most QBs are playing better than Griffin. But overall? Mike Glennon could never put up the numbers Griffin did last year. Not in his wildest dreams.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Not really a Redskins thought, more of a random football thought.

With the caveat that I'm extrapolating from a limited data set here: Rushing three defenders when the offense is in a desperate long-yardage situation is quite possibly the dumbest thing football coaches do, save perhaps rote punts on fourth-and-millimeters. Any college or pro quarterback worth his salt can make a long toss if you don't harass him.

Deadspin article on what most football fans know already - going prevent is for SUCKERS.

A Three-Man Front Is A Late-Game Defensive Formation For Suckers

 

[Henry]

Not really a Redskins thought, more of a random football thought.



Deadspin article on what most football fans know already - going prevent is for SUCKERS.

A Three-Man Front Is A Late-Game Defensive Formation For Suckers

A three man rush on third-and-ten maybe. But on a hail mary? Sorry, I have no problem with a three man rush there. Did the writer actually use the top ten hail marys of all time to prove that hail marys work when the defenses rush three? That's insanely stupid.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

A three man rush on third-and-ten maybe. But on a hail mary? Sorry, I have no problem with a three man rush there. Did the writer actually use the top ten hail marys of all time to prove that hail marys work when the defenses rush three? That's insanely stupid.

Yes, on a hail mary. The point is defensible IMO - when given time, QBs at this level (EDIT: college and above) can get off a perfect pass every time. Might as well just drop 9 or 10 into coverage, because your 3-down linemen are essentially useless. You're effectively making your defense only 8 guys.

EDIT: And yes, he used one youtube commenter's top 10 of all time. Of course the Hail Mary's that work are going to be perfect examples of his point, because most of them were up against 3-man fronts. How many of those would have been prevented with a pass-rush?

 

[tshile]

A hail marry requires the WR's to get down field. Rushing 3 gives the QB time. Rush 5 and go after him. Hurry the throw.

 

[Henry]

Yes, on a hail mary. The point is defensible IMO - when given time, QBs at this level (EDIT: college and above) can get off a perfect pass every time. Might as well just drop 9 or 10 into coverage, because your 3-down linemen are essentially useless. You're effectively making your defense only 8 guys.

I'm not sure I want to get into the Battle of the Layman's Analysis here. But if they're going five-wide, how many are you rushing? Are you really going to put someone, or everyone, one-on-one? Blitzes get beat all the time. If, say, you rush six and man-up and that blitz or that man gets beat ... ballgame. Without knowing the percentage of how many jump-balls in the endzone that actually succeed for the offense there's not way to know if that's worth the risk.

Which brings me to ...

EDIT: And yes, he used one youtube commenter's top 10 of all time. Of course the Hail Mary's that work are going to be perfect examples of his point, because most of them were up against 3-man fronts. How many of those would have been prevented with a pass-rush?

Simply put, it's anecdotal evidence. That makes his analysis absolutely worthless, and worse, lazy. If he really cared about this subject and thought he had a valid point, he'd actually do some real research and give us an actually study. He may have a point or he may not, but we don't know because this article is pure crap.

 

[Henry]

A hail marry requires the WR's to get down field. Rushing 3 gives the QB time. Rush 5 and go after him. Hurry the throw.

Again, five on five is hardly a blitz, and then you've got 5 WRs against 6 DBs. Several one-on-one match ups. Not sure that's a better plan.