• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Free Agency, Mock Drafts, Camps, Roster Predictions, 2018

I'm no expert, but I was listening to Riggo on the pre-game radio show yesterday evening. He stated that he looked at some tape (first preseason game) and thought Kelly/Perrine were making good cuts. I was surprised to hear him state he thought the problem was that there were guys on the o-line who just weren't good run blockers. He had good things to say about Scherff and Roullier, but not the others. I know, Trent?

Trent didn't play, so without him covering for the LG, I can see what Riggo is talking about. We need a LG, but they were creating holes big enough for Kelly. But he ran up behind the back of his lineman a couple of times when had he hesitated just a split second, waited for the hole to open, he could have hit it. i'm afraid he is not going to cut it. And anyone behind him beside Perrine, who is hurt, are not the answer either.

I keep hearing we shouldn't waste a roster spot on a vet who will come in for a year until Guice is back. Who is to say Guice ever comes back? And even so, we need Gruden to develop a run game somehow, some way for this team to have success. I just don't understand the mindset that a year long rental is a waste when Alex Smith has enough to worry about with his WR crew that is unproven...maybe we should bring in someone who can actually run the foobtall? And let's get them in here now so they can learn the playbook.
 
Well - if you don't believe Gruden can fashion an effective rushing attack/scheme, it's a pointless debate - because it won't matter who is back there. My only point is - who is out there on the street that's significantly 'better' than the guys we have? If there's someone currently not playing who can help us, sure, can't hurt to bring someone in. Highly skeptical there's a difference making back not on a roster elsewhere. And if there's not someone talented sitting at home somewhere - that likely means a trade of a player or picks. It also means one less roster spot in a year when we have one of the most talented rookie draft classes we've had in eons.

I don't know if Guice will be the same guy when he returns. But come on, there's no question he'll return.
 
I'm no expert, but I was listening to Riggo on the pre-game radio show yesterday evening. He stated that he looked at some tape (first preseason game) and thought Kelly/Perrine were making good cuts. I was surprised to hear him state he thought the problem was that there were guys on the o-line who just weren't good run blockers. He had good things to say about Scherff and Roullier, but not the others. I know, Trent?

Trent didn't play, so without him covering for the LG, I can see what Riggo is talking about. We need a LG, but they were creating holes big enough for Kelly.

Interesting, so I'm not the only one seriously question the ability of our run-blocking.
I made an observation, that might imply a ridiculous conclusion, and may be just coincidence, but after hearing what you said about Riggo's statements, I'm starting to wonder if it has merit.

And here's the observation - in each of the 2 preseason games, we had a 30+ yard rush. And each time, it was our SECOND string Oline, going against the opponents' FIRST string defense. Combine that with my observations over the last couple years, that while our 1st string OL does a great job in pass-pro, they don't seem to open much holes in the run game. So could some of our backup linemen actually be better at run-blocking than some of our 1st string linemen ? Probably could get you all to agree on that, at least with the LG position.
 
I'll never believe our Oline can't run block. They clearly can. What they lack, is consistency. But I think a big part of that goes to what El, myself, and others have been saying for a while now. When guys know that running the ball is an afterthought of the head coach. And that pass pro will keep them their job here much more so than run blocking, it's only natural that they'd work a little harder on that. Especially when it's the main focus at practice. When people say teams start to take on the personality of the head coach, this is a shining example. They all TALK about being a better run team. But talk isn't getting it done.


The other thing is what El has been driving home. And it's not just Kelly. NONE of our RB's seem to possess what John Riggins called, "the point of patience". The ability to pause for a split second, making defenders commit to a gap, then plant, cut, and accelerate through the emerging hole. Part of that could be that since we've used a RBBC approach under Gruden, with no one given ample carries to develop a feel for the game, along with constant Oline changes that makes them have to learn/read the tendencies of the new blockers in front of them, and we're left with a running attack that always looks like they just started working on last week.

We won't know if Guice has the patience, or not, for a year now. But I did hear several pre-draft "experts" claim he did. Let's hope.
But for now, the best, most patient RB we've had, under Gruden, was Alfred Morris. And we all know what happened there.
He was shipped out because he didn't add much to Gruden's first love.
The passing game.

So, if a no brainer FA RB becomes available, at a good price? Sure, we can give him a look.
Of course, why would a good one want to sign on with a team where RB's go to die?
 
I think there's some truth to that Ax. My next question would be, so what? Before I say what I'm going to say, I want to clearly state that I know the running game is an important part of the game. What I would argue though, is that the lack of a dominant running game is neither the reason we haven't been a consistent playoff team, nor is it an absolute essential requirement for the Redskins success.

The Skins have been a respectable team the past 3 seasons. Rarely did we enter games with no chance to win. And in most games, we've been very competitive. But we've faced a ton of challenges. If you ask me, the lack of even an above average running game is way down the list of reasons we haven't been a perennial playoff team. Well higher on the list of reasons imho would be:

1) Mediocre to poor defense. Last season was the first year we had an aggressive, competent defensive coaching staff in place and showed flashes of evolving into a top defense. When your defense can't get the bad guys off the field, or keep the score close, it's the other team that gets to rely on the running game and burn clock. Not you. That describes most of our losses.

2) Schedule. During a stretch where we were shedding older players and significantly infusing youth (and inexperience) into a rebuilding roster, we inexplicably have had several of the toughest schedules of any NFL team. That's just plain bad luck.

3) Injuries. We've discussed it to death. But I'd argue few teams (or coaching staffs) have had to navigate more critical injuries than the Redskins over the past several years. We can seize on that as yet another reason to criticize the coaching staff, but I really think that's mostly just more bad luck.

I think those are the top 3 reasons we haven't won more games. I will make one caveat here. And that's that I believe having a rushing attack that other teams at least respect even if they don't 'fear it' is important in one specific aspect of the game - in the 'Red Zone'. Red zone defense in the NFL is generally pretty tough. Over the past 3 years, we were 21st in red zone scoring, with just a 37.5% chance of a score. To be a top 10 red zone offense, you have to have 3 things. You have to have a QB who makes great decisions under pressure (sorry Kirk - you didn't consistently do this). You have to have physical, ball hawking WRs (we haven't). And you have to keep your opponents guessing as to what you will do in terms of playcalling. That's where a guy like Guice could be a game changer.

We're a passing team. We'll remain a passing team. And it's a passing league. But we really need a rushing game that gives us a chance to score in the Red Zone. That's where a mediocre run game has killed us during the Gruden era. Our lack of success isn't because we don't rush the ball 55% of the time. It's not because we haven't handed the ball off to a top tier RB 35 times a game. It's because, in crunch time in the red zone, teams know that we're going to pass, almost every time, and that makes keeping us out of the end zone exponentially easier.
 
I think there's some truth to that Ax. My next question would be, so what? Before I say what I'm going to say, I want to clearly state that I know the running game is an important part of the game. What I would argue though, is that the lack of a dominant running game is neither the reason we haven't been a consistent playoff team, nor is it an absolute essential requirement for the Redskins success.

The Skins have been a respectable team the past 3 seasons. Rarely did we enter games with no chance to win. And in most games, we've been very competitive. But we've faced a ton of challenges. If you ask me, the lack of even an above average running game is way down the list of reasons we haven't been a perennial playoff team. Well higher on the list of reasons imho would be:

1) Mediocre to poor defense.


Once again, I believe you're minimizing the value of a good run game. It's not about just rushing for 150 yards a game, it's about having the ability to keep your defense, that has been struggling, off the field in the 4th Q of games by grinding out the clock.

How many leads has this team lost in the 4th Q of games over the course of the last 3 seasons you're suggesting we've been respectable?

Sorry bud, but it doesn't matter how good our defense is, if our offense puts them back on the field 4 even 5 times in the 4Q of a game, like we have for years, then we will continue to see that defense wither from exhaustion, and likely continue to give up the lead late in the game.
 
Running the ball is a unit effort.

The Redskins could run the ball back in the day not only because they they had superior OL but because they had tight ends and wide receivers that BLOCKED.

Art Monk got his hands on people. Clint Didier got his hands on people despite being a downfield threat as well. And we all remember Don Warren flattening guys at the line of scrimmage.

Since the departure of Pierre Garçon we don't have receivers that impact the run game.

At tight end we have a subpar blocker in Reed, an average blocker in Davis and a mostly unknown in Sprinkle.

This all adds up to an average to slightly below average ground game.

Other teams are able to sign veterans at TE who are effective blockers but we avoid picking any of them up. Gruden seems to think a TE who is a blocker and not a real receiving threat is a waste of a roster spot.

And it has cost us on the field in short yardage and red zone especially.

In 2015 John Elway signed Anthony Fasano a 33 year old blocking TE to help the line and CJ Anderson ran for 1,100 yards on the way to the Super Bowl.

I don't see why we can't make relatively modest investments like this to elevate our rushing attack.

We aren't blessed by having a Witten, ertz or Gronkowski that can both block and be major assets in the passing game.

So it would seem if we keep Reed who plays at 239 that we need a true blocker behind him both for rush and pass pro.
 
Once again, I believe you're minimizing the value of a good run game. It's not about just rushing for 150 yards a game, it's about having the ability to keep your defense, that has been struggling, off the field in the 4th Q of games by grinding out the clock.

How many leads has this team lost in the 4th Q of games over the course of the last 3 seasons you're suggesting we've been respectable?

Sorry bud, but it doesn't matter how good our defense is, if our offense puts them back on the field 4 even 5 times in the 4Q of a game, like we have for years, then we will continue to see that defense wither from exhaustion, and likely continue to give up the lead late in the game.

So I ran some numbers. Just out of curiousity, I looked at who made the playoffs the past 3 seasons and compared it to the top 10 rushing attacks and top 10 passing attacks. Interestingly enough, during the past 3 seasons, teams with top 10 rushing attacks made the playoffs 17 times. During that same stretch, teams with top 10 passing attacks made the playoffs 15 times.

Now maybe, if I had a super computer, it would tell me that ideally a team has the 12th ranked offense and defense and that trumps everything :) Who knows...

But those numbers do undercut my 'the NFL is a passing league' argument.

I hate it when that happens.

Maybe a better way of putting it is that it's a 'QB driven league' and having a solid rushing attack really helps the other aspects of the game. I absolutely agree with you that the inability to 'keep sustained drives going' results in an exhausted and ineffective defense late in games. I think one could argue that it's an assumption that it's our rushing attack that kills most drives - that dropped balls, sacks, errant passes, penalties, or just poor play calling are also equally responsible for killing drives.

But I can't argue that at least in recent years, the top rushing teams are more likely to make the playoffs than the top passing teams. It's a fact.
 
Once again, I believe you're minimizing the value of a good run game. It's not about just rushing for 150 yards a game, it's about having the ability to keep your defense, that has been struggling, off the field in the 4th Q of games by grinding out the clock.

How many leads has this team lost in the 4th Q of games over the course of the last 3 seasons you're suggesting we've been respectable?

New Orleans :(
That's worse than all of them combined.
 
It's all relative. We've absolutely been competitive during the Gruden era. It's not good enough, but we aren't the Browns for Gods sake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's all relative. We've absolutely been competitive during the Gruden era. It's not good enough, but we aren't the Browns for Gods sake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then why do the Browns get more press than us? Haha!
 
 
Manusky will be gone next year. But it's okay.
If these DL studs make us a Top 5 defense, some team out there will think that Manusky was partially responsible and offer him a HC job.
If we DON'T end up with a Top 5 defense, he'll be fired for failing to fully utilize such tremendous talent.
Either way, Manusky is gone. But like I said, it's okay, because then we promote Gray to DC, and for once, we don't let hot talent that we groomed, just get away from us.

Gray as DC sounds pretty damn good to me. We need to keep replenishing the in-house pipeline with promising position coaches with hope of top coordinators.

Manusky has been given a 3 testicle unicorn this year. I cannot remember a time this team went back to back drafts taking stud linemen in the first. Settle was a he'll Uvalde grab too.
 
 
Last edited:
Yikes! The answer seems to be improvement in the backfield and the line including TEs. A better running game is something the Redskins have been chasing for years. I think Riggo was saying that Scherff and Roillier physically control their guys off the line most of the time. And that he hasn't seen that from the other 0-linemen.

Alex had a good running game in Kansas City.
 
....
Manusky has been given a 3 testicle unicorn this year. I cannot remember a time this team went back to back drafts taking stud linemen in the first. Settle was a he'll Uvalde grab too.

Aaaaaaaand I've gone retarded
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top