2025 Washington Commanders- All Things Offense

SkinsNumberOne said:
The Green Bay game was nightmarishly bad. If rushing is not "foreign" to the gameplan, when you have a guy who has rushed 4 times, averaged 4+ yards a carry, and had a long of 5 (meaning there was no big outlier in that tiny sample)... and you are within two scores for the first 3 quarters...
That Math doesn't add up.

As for the two games - the Raiders game, rushing was truly the gameplan. That's what I posted above. The alignments, the formations - those rushes were 100% planned.

That was just not the case with the Giants game. As usual, a significant chunk of the rushing was with Jayden.
10 rushes for 86 yards from JCM. True, though, if you add all 3 RBs together you do get to 20 rushes, and even if there were a lot of RPOs that are not truly designed runs, I can give you that one.

So in our current small sample size, we have 2 good rushing games (or 1 excellent and 1 good; I don't want to equate those two gameplans), and then 1 horrendous. I mean, atrocious. I simply don't get the thinking in what we saw in GB. Frankly, if we had run the ball more, Jayden may not get injured; the running game protects the QB in many ways.

My problem here is not going to be solved with 2 good rushing games and 1 horrible one. My problem comes more from last year, a full year, of watching the playcalls not be great on the rushing side, and watching that very frank (and refreshingly honest) interview from Kliff where he talked about how he needs to be reminded to run the ball sometimes because he forgets. I will need to see more than what I've seen so far, and I would especially like to see it with JD5 under center.

Again: the alignments, formations... they were extremely run oriented against the Raiders. Like the Titans game last year, these were aberrations in the larger picture. Not comparable to the other games we've seen. Immensely successful, and against average or poor opposition, as if we are scared to run against tougher teams (because I maintain, we hardly try, especially when the game is within reach).
Click to expand...
I was on holiday so I didn’t see the GB game but didn’t we lose Bates early? His blocking is super important to our run game. I guess the coaches could be criticised for not having a backup plan for Bates going down but you can’t prepare for every possible scenario. The team had a week to prepare a scheme for the Raiders game using additional personnel to make use of Trent Scott providing the additional inline blocking and Sinnot blocking downfield. If Bates is back then I’d expect them to return to a scheme similar to game 1 but now they know they can also go to 12 and have Sinnot more involved and if Trent Scott is active then they can revert to the Raiders scheme should Bates still be struggling.
 
SkinsNumberOne said:
It's just that Kliff gets very confident, I think, in what JD can do and it's like a kid in a candy store, but the problem is you can't always dictate against the best teams. You really have to look at mixing things up and keeping those great defenses (think Eagles) on their toes. Kliff did against the Raiders (and last year against the Titans). I would like to see some of this kind of attack done with patience (even down 7 or 14 in the first half or third quarter). This idea that at 14 down prior to the fourth quarter, we can't still be run-focused.... this is kind of how I have interpreted a lot of what I've seen from Kliff.
Click to expand...
I was looking forward to seeing more running plays and see Kliff become more of a kid in the candy store, not so much with JD but by mixing up things with Deebo, Lane, Bill and maybe a little Sinnott. The injuries of Terry, Noah and Bates concern me going into this weekend though as to how much the WR's will be respected by the D's as drawing attention.

I see no reason why our talented OL can't look good moving forward regardless of the personnel used, there is a lot of talent and needs to be used properly.
 
Hail Raiser said:
Terry is an asshole for demanding money, then not being in football shape and getting predictably injured

I'm not worried about Kliff leaving. We'll be fine. I also don't think he wants to go.

Our OL coach needs to start catching some heat and I'm kinda shocked he hasn't. It was everyone's least favorite hire.
Click to expand...
I think kliff could stay if he is set to be the hc after dan
 
tomwvr said:
I think kliff could stay if he is set to be the hc after dan
Click to expand...
Kliff has been a HC and didn't like it. The HOG can pay him like a HC, while he enjoys a dream job. It's not like he's living in the shadows of a dominant HC, like Johnson was. Kliff could become asst HC if it matters.

I just think worrying about him leaving a dream gig for a bad team is silly.
 
Hail Raiser said:
Our OL coach needs to start catching some heat and I'm kinda shocked he hasn't. It was everyone's least favorite hire.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on why you feel this way?

I had no problem with the hire, he was fine in Buffalo and his stint in new york sucked but the giants o line sucked before he got there and it still sucks, that seems more a product of bad drafting and dabol's system than an o line coach, i think he was just the scapegoat.

Our o line last year was adequate considering what he had to work with and so far this year i haven't seen anything glaring.
We've run the ball well and pass protection has had some breakdowns and penalties but mostly due to a rookie learning his way against some pretty damn good defensive fronts.

Why do you think bobby johnson deserves criticism?
 


I think this fits very well with what many of us think about Kliff from a macro perspective. Obsessive in design and complexity, maybe a little myopic on game day, but mostly complementary here
 
This OL is one of the best run-blocking units in the league right now, we need to use that to protect the kid, especially with all our injured or gimpy receiving weapons. Control the clock, control the pace, and keep the defense off the field and you’ll rely less on Daniels making magic while less than 100%, and you’ll mitigate the damage Herbert & Co. can do

Kliff needs to calm down on the constant substitutions, too. He’s not as bad as Sean Payton in this regard (no one is), but sometimes we’ll be in the hurry up and him subbing skill players means the defense is also allowed the sub, so a huge benefit of running hurry up in the first place (catching your opponent with the wrong personnel and forcing them to stay on the field) is lost. It’s something I haven’t understood about Kliff going back to last year, it’s very unintuitive but not in a “hmm I’ll let the football geniuses cook I guess because it’s working” way…because it has hurt us at times and it feels noticeable.
 
Conn said:
This OL is one of the best run-blocking units in the league right now, we need to use that to protect the kid, especially with all our injured or gimpy receiving weapons. Control the clock, control the pace, and keep the defense off the field and you’ll rely less on Daniels making magic while less than 100%, and you’ll mitigate the damage Herbert & Co. can do

Kliff needs to calm down on the constant substitutions, too. He’s not as bad as Sean Payton in this regard (no one is), but sometimes we’ll be in the hurry up and him subbing skill players means the defense is also allowed the sub, so a huge benefit of running hurry up in the first place (catching your opponent with the wrong personnel and forcing them to stay on the field) is lost. It’s something I haven’t understood about Kliff going back to last year, it’s very unintuitive but not in a “hmm I’ll let the football geniuses cook I guess because it’s working” way…because it has hurt us at times and it feels noticeable.
Click to expand...
I agree with the constant substitutions.

I've posted this a bunch, my favorite offense to watch of all time was the mid-2000's Colts with Manning. They basically lined up with Harrison, Wayne, Edgerin James, Dallas Clark and Ben Utecht and played ball. They went hurry-up, didn't substitute much, and could do just about everything with those players.

Now, it helps that James and Clark could basically be a 3rd WR in 3 wide sets.

They were both creative and simple, and almost unstoppable.

I will add, it does help having a GOAT at QB and 2-3 other HOF level players to make it go...
 
Well that's kind of like what it would have looked like if the 1991 team had Montana, Shannon Sharpe and Thurman Thomas to go with our WRs and OL.

Now we just need to go find the next Justin Jefferson, Barkley, Kittle, and Nabors.
 
SkinsFTW said:
Well that's kind of like what it would have looked like if the 1991 team had Montana, Shannon Sharpe and Thurman Thomas to go with our WRs and OL.

Now we just need to go find the next Justin Jefferson, Barkley, Kittle, and Nabors.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting it would be easy to replicate. :)

That said, I think you CAN do some of the same things with the players we have and substitute less. Deebo can do a lot of things, and they could move him from the backfield to a WR spot, Ertz is a piece you can move around. We also have Daniels, which is an element to the offense the Colts did not have.

I'd like to see them run 2-3 plays in a row with the same group of players. Now that Bates is back, you could go with Deebo and McCaffery outside, Ertz and Bates as TEs and pick your favorite RB. (All of these examples are without McLaurin, since he's hurt. When he comes back, it's even easier to mix things up) They could:
- Run 3 wide with Ertz lined up as a WR
- Go "heavy" and put Bates in the backfield, and Ertz in-line
- Switch things up and bring Deebo into the backfield with RB
- Spread everybody out, line up RB outside, Deebo outside, and they would still have a run thread with Daniels

My point is they could be creative with the personnel they have and go hurry up without substituting if they wanted to. They just like to substitute a ton. I get it for matchups and packages, I just wish they would do some of both.
 
I think this was the plan, but injuries and the slow development of some of our young players derailed it.

Looking forward, Luke, Lane, and Deebo are Swiss army knife players. They can be used in multiple ways. McLaurin's absence obviously hurts because he's still our best pure receiver and Lane and Luke are still about potential, but the group should be able to be dynamic and do a lot of different things. Sinnott who really is looking like a bust was also supposed to be that kind of multiple player. I think the reason we started Ekeler (which was wrong-footed) was because he was also our best multiple-RB. You could use him as a runner, blocker, or receiver which should cause more defensive uncertainty. So, I think we wanted a group of weapons that would require little substitution.

We have seen some small signs of growth from Luke. Lane is shining as a PR, but still pretty raw as a receiver, and with McLaurin out and Deebo knicked up, we have little choice but to rely on substition to reduce the wear and tear on players. Ironiclly, because we have no pass catching running back, we have no tell at running back so that means defenses do have to guess a little because while our runners are limited receivers we still have used all of them in that role.
 
burgold said:
I think this was the plan, but injuries and the slow development of some of our young players derailed it.

Looking forward, Luke, Lane, and Deebo are Swiss army knife players. They can be used in multiple ways. McLaurin's absence obviously hurts because he's still our best pure receiver and Lane and Luke are still about potential, but the group should be able to be dynamic and do a lot of different things. Sinnott who really is looking like a bust was also supposed to be that kind of multiple player. I think the reason we started Ekeler (which was wrong-footed) was because he was also our best multiple-RB. You could use him as a runner, blocker, or receiver which should cause more defensive uncertainty. So, I think we wanted a group of weapons that would require little substitution.

We have seen some small signs of growth from Luke. Lane is shining as a PR, but still pretty raw as a receiver, and with McLaurin out and Deebo knicked up, we have little choice but to rely on substition to reduce the wear and tear on players. Ironiclly, because we have no pass catching running back, we have no tell at running back so that means defenses do have to guess a little because while our runners are limited receivers we still have used all of them in that role.
Click to expand...
We substituted at about the same rate last year, though. I think it's kindof what Kliff does. Which is fine. He's a top 5 OC in the league and I'm a random fan who knows just about nothing in comparison.

But his thing is to try and get the perfect package and the right matchup for the situation, and do it quickly. That's fine.

Will they morph into more of a standard personnel set when the players you mentioned developed and McLaurin is back? Maybe. We'll see. But so far, they haven't gone that route either last year or this year.
 
Lane, post routes at top speed, all day.
 
prodigy said:
Bill is our #1 and the experiment should be over. Keep the committee approach, but Bill should get the overwhelming number of touches.
Click to expand...

If he keeps on crank out 100 yard games his nickname is going to have to be Dollar Bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 0, Guests: 3)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top