Playoff Game - breakdown/discussion

[fansince62]

debating whether to answer this one....hmmmmmm.....maybe...maybe not....I dunno....well......

1) does experience equate to "better team"?

2) unpopular as it may be....and leveraging off the first bullet...we played a team with a winning record (late season swoon or not)...some of the redskin season magic was just that...against faltering teams

3) some of Cousins' weaknesses resurfaced...under pressure...though overall I thought his final regular season six games pretty much addressed my earlier wanks....though I still don't know if he will ever be the guy to carry an offense; fumbling under pressure somehow seems evocative of another Redskin QB

4) Gruden & Barry: outcoached

5) o-line broke down in pass pro against an ok defense

6 ) d-line broke down in the second half

7) second half trend of not amping up in the third qtr seemed to continue

8) Rodgers took us to task

eh.....it's a journey in my mind....so this game doesn't bother me all that much. waiting to see how Scott manages the cap with Reed, DJax, Pot Roast and Cousins lining up at the money trough.

things are on the rise. let's hope we aren't Bungals in the making but surpass their reconstruction track record.

 

[Bulldog]

The Packers didn't beat anyone of note coming down the stretch and it took them all they had to stay in the chase with wins at Detroit and Chicago, so I am not about to write off the loss yesterday to 'shock' over facing a functional team with a competent head coach.

The truth of the matter is that the Redskins in some ways went back to the more passive offensive sets they had a number of weeks ago when they lost to Dallas.

After that game, Gruden and his staff finally worked out that running inside in key spots was not going to be effective. We were consistently failing to pick up yards running between the tackles with Morris and replacement in LeRibeus at center/guard.

We started to throw more on first down, we saw more bootlegs and passes to the backs (Thomas and Thompson) out of the backfield.

We went 'dagger' down the field to challenge teams and stretch out the coverages.

Yesterday, we went back to what was NOT working.

Crashing the ball into the line TWICE in a row with Alfred Morris at the goal line after the Jackson catch was a mistake.

On first down, I would have either booted out wide with the qb (as we did later in the game) or looked for a Reed or Garcon matchup against a smaller GB corner in the end zone on a quick hitter.

The more conservative approach reared its ugly head again in the early fourth quarter when Rodgers was moving the Packers and the Redskins D needed a breather with a long Redskins drive and/or score to take the pressure off.

The Redskins simply failed to challenge Green Bay's defense in the second half the way they needed to.

We didn't take many chances, meanwhile Green Bay was trying everything to get started from having Randall Cobb run the ball from the backfield, to running a no huddle attack, to setting the Redskins up so that the late draws by Lacey and Starks were effective.

That adaptability to try some new things as in-game adjustments left the Redskins behind.

We seemed lost to be able to counter any of these moves with ones of our own.

In the second half the defense decided to rush 3-4 guys and drop 8 into coverage. You can't do that against Aaron Rodgers.

He isn't going to simply make that killer mistake if you give him the 10-11 plays he needs to go down field a chunk at a time.

How many third downs did Rodgers convert with 'ease' as he could step up and throw on balance with no rush in his face?

 

[Neophyte]

Honestly, I put it on the coaches more than anything.

We had them on the ropes in the first quarter. The blueprint was there to take advantage of (Smith/Kerrigan vs their LT) and we failed to do it.

You can credit Rogers if you like but the man has a history of that kind of quick snap when defenses are changing personnel. Who controls the personnel changes? The coaches. Maybe he gets one. Maybe. However, with his history that should have been something Barry and his staff were both aware of and prepared for. Even if we give them one, that doesn't explain the second one. Inexcusable, no matter who we had on the field. The defense should have been prepared ahead of time for the possibility that Rogers goes no huddle and they can't sub personnel packages in and out. If Troy Aikman can figure that out, so can a professional DC.

On offense we got predictable. Why no play action fake on 2nd down and Goal after Jackson's blunder at the goal line? Hell, why not a play action naked bootleg with Kirk? The kid doesn't have Griff's wheels but he has enough to pull that off. In short, where was the play no one had seen all season long? That is the difference in coaching Sept through Dec and coaching in Jan/Feb. There has to be a couple of wrinkles and we had nothing. Zero.

And that wrinkle idea goes for the defense too. GB likes to line guys up in a tight slot. Where was the CB blitz out of the slot? Would it have worked? Hell if I know for sure but it would have been something McCarthy and Rogers had not seen on tape and would have gotten them thinking. How about jamming guys at the LOS? If you can't get to Rogers, hit is receivers so no one gets a clean release. We did not adjust at all. You can't do worse than lose.

If the team capitalizes on our early chances it's 16-0 at the end of the 1st Qtr. A three score game just feels totally different from a 2 score game.

 

[JohnssBass]

In the first Quarter, the Skins D played their LB's tight to the line and the DBs on the line with the receivers. Rogers went 1 for 8 and the Pack netted 11 yards.

Into the 2nd, guys were playing further off. Can't do that with Arron - the receivers go out 4 or 5 yards, turn around and sit on the pass. With no pressure on Rodgers GB could go with a 1 back or empty backfield giving them more WRs they could deploy. That has been kind of a tendency with the D. Start tight and later start deep and backpedal. Pretty well killed stopping the run also. Rogers burned the Skins when Washington tried swapping out personnel on the field. Too many players on the field penalties, at least twice, is too many guys trying to change alignments.

Offensively - when was their first screen pass? 4th Quarter? That would've helped keep the Packers LB's at home and out of the backfield. They didn't really stretch the field. Sending guys deep doesn't help much if you don't throw it deep once in awhile. Kirk didn't get a lot of time to do that though. Alf had a really good run on one play and they pulled him on the next one. That's a bad call from the sideline.

IDK - would it be easier to go back to a four-three base defense or try to fix the 3-4? It would give them some better choices of guys that could set up for the rush playing in the 5 technique. Especially when a team like GB goes to an empty backfield/one back set. You just have to go after a guy like Arron with that many receivers available, he's going to find at least one guy to hit if you don't make him uncomfortable in the pocket. Maybe it's too late without a lot of lineman getting replaced. But it might help with not having to swap guys back and forth from the sideline and help in run defense.

 

[Elephant]

That's just my 1st reaction... We were out-coached... that was it. In a home playoff game we got crushed in, how do you actually separate game analysis from "the bad stuff"?

The one play that I've been arguing about on Twitter right now is the Matthews sack on Cousins. Matthews was lined up over Scherff... Long (could've been LeRibeus) stepped down to help Lichte with his man & Trent was left to handle Perry. Matthews ended up circling around, stunting to the right of Trent. It was argued that Trent should've passed off Perry to Long and taken Matthews on the outside. However, Long/LeRibeus never actually had Perry and Trent was stuck trying to handle both men. Now, people on twitter were quick to say Trent was to blame... I think Cousins should've recognized this and went to his check down (Reed was open). It was 1st & 10 and we were in GB territory. Long was really out of position to take Perry if Trent passed him off, so maybe Long was to blame. The only guy I'm not willing to blame is Trent in that case, because the jail-break had already happened & blocking assignments are out the window when you have two players. Trent had a bad game, but I don't think this one play was on him.

That is the play that I think was the turning point as well. You could sense we were trying to get Desean into the game, Cousins made a full 7 step drop to try to get Desean time to get open, all the while the defense was prepared and stunted Matthews around the edge. I do not think Trent was to blame, he just could not get off his man to do anything...Matthews came around that edge quickly. It was another perfectly timed defensive call from Green Bay.

 

[ThatDaveGuy]

Great back-n-forth here, there are a lot of issues that might be raised but I found myself watching (and rewatching) the O line play as the game went on. Again and again I saw GB targeting the LG, Trent trying to help inside so he lost it wide, etc. Callahan has done a brilliant job for us this year, coaching these kids up and shuffling players to mask a weak hand, but IMO the loss of Lich and Lauvao early on cost us more than anything else. Kory coming back to start a playoff game? LeRib backing up at LG? The Pack knew where to apply the pressure, and we've known all season where the line was weakest, no great surprise here. If you didn't think that Dom Capers was going to come in with a scheme to wreck what we liked to do then I don't know what to say. WE just needed to gameplan for that happening and have a Plan B, didn't seem like we did.

Scot turned a deaf ear to the catcalls about Scherff, did what he thought best and it paid off. I expect that Callahan stays and gets reinforcements to build a much more solid unit there, the run game doesn't evaporate and Kirk gets the whole camp to fine tune his choreography w/ the protection in front and things are very different. As it stands, we have a lot to work with and are trending up, but I'm a nuts-n-bolts kinda fan, consistently solid, intuitive line play and the QB has more time, cleaner pockets, better run support and I think a lot of good things happen.

 

[ntotoro]

Well, the momentum of the game was decidedly changed when our defensive substitutions were flagged for too many men.

It looked like it wrecked the entire defensive strategy for rest of the entire game.

The Packers no huddle is designed to take advantage of substitution situations.

I don't think Barry was prepared for it.

I never felt Barry was prepared for more than a quarter or two per-game, but that's just me...

Nick

 

[Om]

Well, the momentum of the game was decidedly changed when our defensive substitutions were flagged for too many men.

It looked like it wrecked the entire defensive strategy for rest of the entire game.

The Packers no huddle is designed to take advantage of substitution situations.

I don't think Barry was prepared for it.

Completely agree with when the tide turned. Green Bay forced us to do defensively what I think looking back on it was what teams should have been doing all season ... force us to try to generate consistent pressure w/o the ability to cover our lack of pass rushing talent with substitutions, packages and rotation. In their case, it didn't hurt that they have one of the best quarterbacks of his generation to take advantage of that.

Whether or not the "blame" for failing to apply the necessary pressure anyway is on Barry or on the talent he had to work with is subjective, and as I've already stated I think it was more of the latter than the former. But I know reasonable people can disagree on that point ... and expect that they will over the course of the long coming offseason.

 

[Boone]

Neo - well thought out comments. Only counter I might make is that 'knowing' and even 'game planning' are one thing. Having the horses and talent to respond is another. I agree we got out-coached, but just as we talk about the playoff experience differential on the player side, this was The first playoff game ever for almost all of our coaches in their current roles. I expect us to do better in future efforts. We lost but the truth is we not only competed, we had the upper hand for most of the first half.

And we were facing a HOF QB who caught fire at an unfortunate time which of course we all know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Neophyte]

Neo - well thought out comments. Only counter I might make is that 'knowing' and even 'game planning' are one thing. Having the horses and talent to respond is another. I agree we got out-coached, but just as we talk about the playoff experience differential on the player side, this was The first playoff game ever for almost all of our coaches in their current roles. I expect us to do better in future efforts. We lost but the truth is we not only competed, we had the upper hand for most of the first half.

And we were facing a HOF QB who caught fire at an unfortunate time which of course we all know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boone, I'm torn. There is talent on this team, granted not as much as some other teams, but there is talent. I just can't decide if it is being used correctly or not.

And I know about the playoff "experience" thing. Other than Rogers vs Cousins, I'm not sure that makes much difference here but it might.

I guess that today I am just feeling that we game planned not to lose a game rather game planning to win one, and I'd be much happier in defeat if we had come out and gone for it. All in, nothing to lose.

And...I am still looking for in game adjustments from this coaching staff. I'm just nothing to going to be happy until I see some of those, whether those adjustments succeed or not.

 

[Om]

Bob,

Just a couple thoughts ... again, since this is all opinion they're just to add to the tapestry:

- In terms of the playoff experience factor, Dom Capers vs Sean McVay was a bit of a mismatch. So was Mike McCarthy vs Jay Gruden. I noted several times during the game that Capers was definitely in Sean's head--or at least a full step ahead of him almost all night long. And it really can't be stated enough--they had Aaron Rodgers. We had a guy in his first full season making his first playoff start.

- And as to in-game adjustments, while I agree in the GB game in particular it looked like we got schooled in that area, I'm not sure how we can tell looking at things from the stands or on TV how much of it not making adjustments vs making ones that simply didn't "work." We might have been adjusting to beat the band, but found that the Packers countered us effectively, whether as a result of their experience, talent or some combination of both.

- All that said, I wouldn't have minded seeing us scrapping the "68 is eligible" approach, getting Pierre Thomas and Chris Thompson more involved, and letting Kirk go 4- and 5- wide and just attacking relentlessly. I understand wanting to control TOP and keep Rodgers off the field as much as possible once he got rolling, but at some point during those 5 consecutive scoring drives he put on us, it looked pretty clear to me the only chance we were going to have to win the game was to have the ball last and be trailing by 6 or less. My hope is that Jay, Sean, Scot et al will look back on that aspect of their first playoff game together, learn from it, and be better prepared to offer a more assertive response next time find ourselves in a playoff game. Next year would be good.

 

[MikeSr619]

we ran a screen in the NO game and it went for 68 and a touchdown. after that it was like they were afraid to overuse it or have it exposed so they just rarely used it. even when the game was pretty much out of hand in the 4th and we used it, we got a HUGE chunk from it.

that is a serious lack of coaching there.

 

[Om]

... or perhaps a function of the Saints defense under Caveman Ryan being as bad as any in the modern era of football.

Hard to say.

 

[Ax]

Getting ANY help from the offense, besides the one drive to start the third, would have helped stifle them scoring on 5 straight drives too.

 

[MikeSr619]

... or perhaps a function of the Saints defense under Caveman Ryan being as bad as any in the modern era of football.

Hard to say.

except it worked when we did run it. besides, if it works you try it. if the defenses can stop it then you dont run it again. but you dont just abandon something that has worked so well for you.

 

[Neophyte]

Bob,

Just a couple thoughts ... again, since this is all opinion they're just to add to the tapestry:

- In terms of the playoff experience factor, Dom Capers vs Sean McVay was a bit of a mismatch. So was Mike McCarthy vs Jay Gruden. I noted several times during the game that Capers was definitely in Sean's head--or at least a full step ahead of him almost all night long. And it really can't be stated enough--they had Aaron Rodgers. We had a guy in his first full season making his first playoff start.

I have already given you the Aaron Rogers thought. I know the guy can play. I know he is a difference maker. Kirk isn't in that class yet, if he ever will be.

- And as to in-game adjustments, while I agree in the GB game in particular it looked like we got schooled in that area, I'm not sure how we can tell looking at things from the stands or on TV how much of it not making adjustments vs making ones that simply didn't "work." We might have been adjusting to beat the band, but found that the Packers countered us effectively, whether as a result of their experience, talent or some combination of both.

Mark, we have not adjusted all season long, or if we have we haven't done it well. Our coaches create a game plan and stick to it doggedly, even in the face of over whelming evidence that it isn't working. Just look at the play calling...it was the same stuff all game long.

I guess it is possible that we as laymen are so totally ignorant of how football works at the NFL level that we wouldn't know an adjustment if it walked up and bitch slapped us but I'm having a hard time buying it right now.

-

All that said, I wouldn't have minded seeing us scrapping the "68 is eligible" approach, getting Pierre Thomas and Chris Thompson more involved, and letting Kirk go 4- and 5- wide and just attacking relentlessly. I understand wanting to control TOP and keep Rodgers off the field as much as possible once he got rolling, but at some point during those 5 consecutive scoring drives he put on us, it looked pretty clear to me the only chance we were going to have to win the game was to have the ball last and be trailing by 6 or less. My hope is that Jay, Sean, Scot et al will look back on that aspect of their first playoff game together, learn from it, and be better prepared to offer a more assertive response next time find ourselves in a playoff game. Next year would be good.

Exactly my point. At some point you have to toss the game plan in the dumpster and just go for it, and I don't think you can wait for the last 4 minutes to do it either (not that we did it then either). That's all I'm saying.

Look, I'm frustrated because I thought going in that GB was the weakest team in the playoffs this year, us included. I felt we had a better than even chance of winning the game although I never thought it was a lock. I always knew there was a chance Rogers would wake up against us just because it was the playoffs. I'm also frustrated that we don't seem to learn from our mistakes like the Dallas game and the game with GB felt a lot like the Dallas game to me even though the score doesn't reflect that.

Am I angry that we lost? No. As I said, while I thought we had a good chance at winning I never considered it a lock. I'm not even upset at how the team played. It wasn't an embarrassing beat down like Houston took. We didn't shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly like Houston and Cincy. Nor did we botch a cheap shot to win it like the Vikes.

I guess what it comes down to for me is that I would have liked to see some more creativity from our coaches but then I have been looking for that all year. When you don't have the horses to just flat beat the other team you need guile and I didn't see much in the way of guile this season, and none on Sunday against GB.

 

[Om]

Neo,

I wasn't "taking" Rodgers--just pointing out again the difference a generational talent at QB can make in a game. I think in this particular game it was the single biggest advantage the Packers had over the Skins. I don't think it was great offensive coaching on their part ... the Eagles went no-huddle against us too, but had Sam Bradford at the controls.

Rightly or wrong, I do think Joe Barry has a clue what needs to happen against a team that can force you to keep the same 11 guys on the field for entire drives. And in my opinion I think he tried his do so against GB and it simply didn't work, primarily because the talent he had to work with wasn't good enough to win enough one-on-one battles to apply meaningful pressure ... that he simply didn't have the horses he'd have needed to beat one of the best QB's to ever play the game once he got it going.

I'm not saying I'm "right" or that he was great--maybe Buddy Ryan or Marvin Lewis or Bill Arnsparger in their heydays could have done something with what Barry had to work with against Rodgers. But maybe not. Sometimes the other guy is just better.

Offensively, I think we're on the same page insofar as this game. I think Dom Capers beat Sean and Jay straight up. I'm hoping our guys learn from it.

Just one more thought on the adjustments angle, and this is not directed at you, just a general observation. Every NFL coaching staff makes adjustments--you don't become an NFL coach without being able to. Some are better than others at it, some are quicker studies, but they all do it. And they all have different levels of talent to work with. I would argue 'til I'm blue in the face that the current Redskins staff is learning on the job insofar as in-game adjustments like any new staff would, and that at some level, going from 4-12 to 9-7 indicates maybe they're doing so. Obviously (drink!) talent comes in to play as well, but I think like most things they work in concert.

And anyway, if they NEVER made adjustments, I'm thinking we lose the Tampa Bay game this year 96-0.

 

[redskins26]

Well, the momentum of the game was decidedly changed when our defensive substitutions were flagged for too many men.

It looked like it wrecked the entire defensive strategy for rest of the entire game.

The Packers no huddle is designed to take advantage of substitution situations.

I don't think Barry was prepared for it.

the first one should have been a replay of downs as packers TE didn't get set at the line of scrimmage

 

[TomE]

NFL tells Redskins first 12-man penalty should have been negated by Packers' foul - Washington Redskins Blog- ESPN

The Green Bay Packers might have turned the game around thanks to quarterback Aaron Rodgers’ ingenuity, catching the Washington Redskins with 12 men on the field. There’s just one problem: The first time he did so, the Packers should have been flagged for illegal motion.

That’s what the NFL told the Washington Redskins, per a source.

The Redskins lost to Green Bay 35-18, so one call wasn’t going to make or break the outcome. But it was a series in which the Packers started to generate offensive momentum. They had been forced to punt on three consecutive possessions before using more up-tempo offense – and before catching the Redskins with 12 men on the field.

Rodgers actually did this twice on the same drive, forcing Washington to alter its defensive strategy and preventing the Redskins from subbing more.

“That tempo messed up our defensive strategy,” Redskins end Chris Baker said. “We had to stick with our nickel so we didn’t get caught in bad passing situations.”

Strategy aside, it seems to me that whatever package is needed to combat this stuff needs upgraded talent so substitutions are not really needed for other than giving players a blow. High level one trick ponies vs guys that can do all at a higher level.

 

[Goaldeje]

I HATE illegal motion penalties when the Packers are involved against us.