The unpleasant truth

servumtuum said:
I think that's included in the job description for NFL football fans. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. The problems arise when I MMQB things other than football in my life. I tried it with my wife's cooking yesterday, and...

...well, the sofa was comfortable, so I guess it worked out all right.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Maybe this will help, t - but probably not.

The running game helps establish the passing game and everything else. Everything can come off the running game. If the defense thinks the ball is going to the RB, then there are tons of other things that can happen. This only works when you give the ball to the RB enough times for the opposing D to respect it. This is the simple version of the play-action strategy - you run run run and then fake the run to catch the defense cheating towards run.

This works for all offensive philosophies, including the option. Give it to the RB, especially when he's gashing them, and it opens up everything else. This is the basic philosophy of Redskins football for the past billion years.

Does that help you understand where I'm coming from?
Click to expand...


For what it's worth I agree 100% with you.
Thats why I think us turning to the running game in the 2nd half produced more points, more yards, and allowed us to actually make (somewhat) of a game out of it.

I was never arguing the importance of running the ball. I was arguing against the idea that we 'abandoned' or 'got away from' running the ball as the game went on. I think adjusting our running attack to include the triple option with Banks, and committing to giving Morris the ball, is why we bounced back so quickly in the 3rd. I think having no timeouts and being down two scores is why we didn't have the option to run the ball on our last two drives. And we didn't need to run the ball on either of those last two drives, Griffin had us on the Bengals 20 yard line with 30 seconds to go, stopped clock, down by a TD.

Mental mistakes cost us to lose over 30 yards in the next 2 plays, and thus the game.
 
If you have the ball for over 32 minutes and run for 213 yards(the most rushing yards in a game since Shanny's been here), how in the hell did you abandon the run?
 
All I can tell you is to read the thread, cause I'm not getting into this again.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
MIsleading, we cannot depend on RG3 for 85 yards on 12 carries every game, not only will that stunt his growth as a passer (see career of Randall cunningham) but it could result in him being injured and after what we paid, that would be a disaster. this reminds me of when ATL was leading the NFL in rushing, but you take vicks yards away and suddenly they were 4th, a QB's job is to THROW THE BALL. RG3 actually could be superlative at it, but first we need to protect him.
 
Henry said:
I seriously doubt anyone would accuse me of being an optimist on this board ... just yesterday I said eight wins would be a good season. But I'm not upset at what I'm seeing. We're not finished yet and it shows.
Click to expand...


This right here. I'm not even mad about this team either. Secondary and OL and we are "set." I'm seeing RG3's mobility negating SOME of the terrible OL play. But it makes me nervous, should unfortunate things happen *knock on wood*

We had a civilly discussed disagreement last week, but we're on the same exact page this week. This why I don't even go to the other board. Level heads.

Cheers to you, sir.
 
MikeSr619 said:
dude, as much as you hate our OL and know it sucks you had to have prepared yourself for it though, right?

I mean..saying you dont want him taking any unnecessary hits is just not possible.
Click to expand...

I know, and I shouldnt get so irked but im looking at another top 10 pick going to the rams and all im thinking is " for the love of god dont let this kid get hurt or get gunshy." unnecssary hits include running the option.

I remember watching randall cunningham in an interview saying he wished that he had had a less QB run happy coach because it wasnt until near the end of his career that the light went on as a passer.
 
Ryman, the light is already on as a passer for RG3.
 
113 posts about the distribution of carries in the run game ... in a game the Skins scored 31 points, rushed for 213 yards, won TOP, and still lost because their defense gave up almost 500 yards with a tunstile secondary?

What'm ah missin?
 
He's already there as a leader too, which is equally as impressive to me.
 
Rymanofthenorth said:
MIsleading, we cannot depend on RG3 for 85 yards on 12 carries every game, not only will that stunt his growth as a passer (see career of Randall cunningham) but it could result in him being injured and after what we paid, that would be a disaster. this reminds me of when ATL was leading the NFL in rushing, but you take vicks yards away and suddenly they were 4th, a QB's job is to THROW THE BALL. RG3 actually could be superlative at it, but first we need to protect him.
Click to expand...

This is the other issue that maybe I didn't convey. Yeah, we ran for over 200 yards, but 85 of those came from the QB. This is the same old Redskins that last year NOBODY had a problem bitching about abandoning the run; the difference? Now our QB gets somewhere when he's scrambling. That's it.

Don't make me go back and find similar run outputs (minus the QB) from last year, and threads talking about how we abandoned the run too early! LOL
 
Lanky Livingston said:
This is the other issue that maybe I didn't convey. Yeah, we ran for over 200 yards, but 85 of those came from the QB. This is the same old Redskins that last year NOBODY had a problem bitching about abandoning the run; the difference? Now our QB gets somewhere when he's scrambling. That's it.

Don't make me go back and find similar run outputs (minus the QB) from last year, and threads talking about how we abandoned the run too early! LOL
Click to expand...

So if we 'only' ran 22 times for 128 yards in a game in which we were behind by two scores for most of the day you think everyone here would be complaining that we abandoned the run?

And the difference is that this team actually scores points. This team doesn't turn the ball over four times a game. This team moves the ball up and down the field with a semblance of regularity. This team has the number one offense in the league.

That's a big difference. That's more than just 'our QB scrambles. That's it.' A lot more.
 
Last edited:
There's also a big difference between the QB scrambling, and a design run being called (an option) and the QB keeping the ball.

Majority of Griffin's yards were called designed runs. Not called passing plays where he scrambled. We've already broken this down via the play log.
 
Henry said:
So if we 'only' ran 22 times for 128 yards in a game in which we were behind by two scores for most of the day you think everyone here would be complaining that we abandoned the run?
Click to expand...

We saw it last year, Henry. Yes I do, I know I would have.

We had a pass/run breakdown of 54%/46%, but that includes scrambles. Its more like 60/40, a number that Andy Reid has lived by for years, and gotten a LOT of grief for.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
We saw it last year, Henry. Yes I do, I know I would have.

We had a pass/run breakdown of 54%/46%, but that includes scrambles. Its more like 60/40, a number that Andy Reid has lived by for years, and gotten a LOT of grief for.
Click to expand...

4 of griffins 12 rushes were scrambles.
the other 8 were designed runs where he kept the ball

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20120...enu=highlights&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

take those 4 scrambles out completely and you have:
34 passing attempts, 30 rushing attempts. 47% of the plays were rushing calls.

if you want to consider the scrambles passing attempts that just didn't work, then its:
38 passing attempts 30 rushing attempts. 44% of the play calls were rushing calls.

if you want to consider them actual running plays that just weren't originally called that way:
34/34, which is 50%.

I think that's pretty good for being down by 2+ TD's as often as we were.
 
The other "unpleasant truth" is that we can't pass-block for crap. Griffin was sacked 6 times yesterday, a number that should have been closer to 10 if not for his escapability. Grossman would have been sacked minimum 50 times yesterday. Now, if only there was a way to keep the defense honest, so they can't just attack Griffin every single play!

Oh, I know! :idea: Hand the ball off to your running back!
 
tshile said:
4 of griffins 12 rushes were scrambles.
the other 8 were designed runs where he kept the ball

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/20120...enu=highlights&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay

take those 4 scrambles out completely and you have:
34 passing attempts, 30 rushing attempts. 47% of the plays were rushing calls.

if you want to consider the scrambles passing attempts that just didn't work, then its:
38 passing attempts 30 rushing attempts. 44% of the play calls were rushing calls.

if you want to consider them actual running plays that just weren't originally called that way:
34/34, which is 50%.

I think that's pretty good for being down by 2+ TD's as often as we were.
Click to expand...

Re-check your numbers, you're not including sacks (which count as passing plays). Total plays = 74. Total rushing plays = 34, but if you take away the 4 scrambles, then its 30.

30/74 = .405 = 40.5%.
 
15 first downs by rushing (13 by passing)
34 total rushing plays
6.3 yards per rushing play
213 net rushing yards

yeah, obviously we didn't run the ball enough... thats why we lost. we just didn't run the ball enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top