There are 129 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Our Passing game has been the reason for our success

We better murder the Rams, if we let them hang in like the Skins did..my doubts will come pouring in again.
I'd like to see some audibles at the LOS from time to time. It seems like Raye doesn't allow Hill to change the play even when it's obvious the D is set to stuff the run.
Originally posted by AKfanster:
I'd like to see some audibles at the LOS from time to time. It seems like Raye doesn't allow Hill to change the play even when it's obvious the D is set to stuff the run.

Raye is calling the plays with his eyes closed so he actually thinks the D doesn't know what we are going to call
[ Edited by BirdmanJr on Sep 28, 2009 at 2:20 PM ]
It isn't just that we ran the ball 6 straight times for negative yards -- it is that each run was right up the gut, with no attempt to be aggressive or creative at all.

It was almost like a team that is trying to get on the right hash mark to line up for a field goal.

And what good is running there 'to run out the clock' when the other team has 3 time outs left?

As f&&&&&cking Favre proved, 1:39 was more than enough time even with no timeouts.
Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
We better murder the Rams, if we let them hang in like the Skins did..my doubts will come pouring in again.

redskins lost the lions


we are going to kill the rams
  • Blitz
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,858
Originally posted by DesiDez:
You do realize that our committment to the run opens the passing game, right?

I am not sure a lot of people in the zone recognize that. My speculation is the minute teams unload that box, our passing game is likely going to start heading down the hill quick.

Opposing teams have been selling out on the run, and it's made what passing game we have possible. When they quit doing that, we may well end up gving up plenty of TO's and sacks in the passing game. We have already given up plenty of sacks, and that's with this respect other teams are showing to the run. What do people think is going to happen if teams get in a situation where they can actually turn the dogs lose and pin their ears back against the pass? I'll tell you what's going to happen.... it's going to get ugly and Hill is going to get beat up bad, with plenty of TO's along the way.
Originally posted by RonMexico:
Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
We better murder the Rams, if we let them hang in like the Skins did..my doubts will come pouring in again.

redskins lost the lions


we are going to kill the rams

that's what I'm saying
Originally posted by Xestenz:
It isn't just that we ran the ball 6 straight times for negative yards -- it is that each run was right up the gut, with no attempt to be aggressive or creative at all.

It was almost like a team that is trying to get on the right hash mark to line up for a field goal.

And what good is running there 'to run out the clock' when the other team has 3 time outs left?

As f&&&&&cking Favre proved, 1:39 was more than enough time even with no timeouts.


They weren't all up the middle, there was the pitch to Coffee that went for -4 or -5 yds.
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by DesiDez:
You do realize that our committment to the run opens the passing game, right?

I am not sure a lot of people in the zone recognize that. My speculation is the minute teams unload that box, our passing game is likely going to start heading down the hill quick.

Opposing teams have been selling out on the run, and it's made what passing game we have possible. When they quit doing that, we may well end up gving up plenty of TO's and sacks in the passing game. We have already given up plenty of sacks, and that's with this respect other teams are showing to the run. What do people think is going to happen if teams get in a situation where they can actually turn the dogs lose and pin their ears back against the pass? I'll tell you what's going to happen.... it's going to get ugly and Hill is going to get beat up bad, with plenty of TO's along the way.

Yea, and when the opposing team thinks you're going to pass, that's when you run draws, screens, and runs where the DEs are pulled in.

It works both ways. The pass can also setup the run.
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Blitz:


Yea, and when the opposing team thinks you're going to pass, that's when you run draws, screens, and runs where the DEs are pulled in.

It works both ways. The pass can also setup the run.

This is a huge part of the west coast offense.
  • jcs
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,395
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by DesiDez:
You do realize that our committment to the run opens the passing game, right?

I am not sure a lot of people in the zone recognize that. My speculation is the minute teams unload that box, our passing game is likely going to start heading down the hill quick.

Opposing teams have been selling out on the run, and it's made what passing game we have possible. When they quit doing that, we may well end up gving up plenty of TO's and sacks in the passing game. We have already given up plenty of sacks, and that's with this respect other teams are showing to the run. What do people think is going to happen if teams get in a situation where they can actually turn the dogs lose and pin their ears back against the pass? I'll tell you what's going to happen.... it's going to get ugly and Hill is going to get beat up bad, with plenty of TO's along the way.

IF teams stop stacking the line and blitzing every play it might give Hill enough breathing room to make better decisions...not that his decisions have been bad...he's played incredibly well considering how poor our WR's and Oline are.
  • Blitz
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,858
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Blitz:
Originally posted by DesiDez:
You do realize that our committment to the run opens the passing game, right?

I am not sure a lot of people in the zone recognize that. My speculation is the minute teams unload that box, our passing game is likely going to start heading down the hill quick.

Opposing teams have been selling out on the run, and it's made what passing game we have possible. When they quit doing that, we may well end up gving up plenty of TO's and sacks in the passing game. We have already given up plenty of sacks, and that's with this respect other teams are showing to the run. What do people think is going to happen if teams get in a situation where they can actually turn the dogs lose and pin their ears back against the pass? I'll tell you what's going to happen.... it's going to get ugly and Hill is going to get beat up bad, with plenty of TO's along the way.

Yea, and when the opposing team thinks you're going to pass, that's when you run draws, screens, and runs where the DEs are pulled in.

It works both ways. The pass can also setup the run.

Yes it can, as long as you can run block. If not, they will not respect you, period. They will just forget about the run for the most part, tee off on the passing, the screen and the draw. Seattle is good example of a failed pass to set up the run philosophy. They can't run block for s**t, so nobody respects the run, they just focus on pressuring the QB, good coverage, and guarding against the draw and screen.
Originally posted by DaveWilcox:
Originally posted by Cuphalffull:
It is easy to be an armchair OC. The reality is that it is common practice to attempt to run the clock out by running the ball, even if you don’t convert. While I don’t like the results, anyone who knows the game can’t argue the play calling (at least calling a run play). The first two runs were a no-brainer. We needed to use up the clock or get them to use up their timeouts. The last run makes sense as well. We had not had a third down conversion all game, we forced them to use their last timeout, and the defense had played well all game and we would be able to force them to march 80 yards in just over a minute to have to score a touchdown. You throw in that situation and don’t convert and you are in the same situation or you have an incomplete pass and not only do you punt but they have an additional timeout to give them more time.

Granted, they have Farve who has worked miracles in his time but you have to play the odds. I agree with Sing, in that had we won, no one would have questioned the call and we were very close to doing so. That said, if Hill had been handling the pressure on 3rd down at all during the game, it makes one wonder if they may have gone with a pass.

What I don’t understand is why abandon your defensive game plan. They went from being aggressive to playing soft and giving up plays underneath on their last drive. Their success had come from an aggressive pass rush limiting Farves time. He has proven year in and year out that if you give him time, he will kill you. He did just that. I think we should have blitzed the hell out of him. Do what our guys know and play tough no nonsense smash mouth football right up to the end. We have good coverage DBs trust them to control the field for 3-4 seconds instead of doing what we did and giving Farve all day to throw, 10 seconds went of the clock on that last play…… he had way too much time…..

At the risk of seeming like an armchair QB, I will say this. Conventional/conservative wisdom holds, that you run all 3 downs, if you happen to get a 1st down, GREAT, if not, punt and turn the game over to your defense. On the 3rd down, 3rd and 6 I think it was. I think they could have or should have dialed up a play action, read option, where Hill has the option of passing or running. There was absolutely no chance of getting 6 yards against the Vikes D when they were playing 9 in the box.

I see what you are saying and each approach has its risks. If we were to say do a play action pass and the ball fell incomplete the clock would have stopped and they would not have burned that last timeout(Who knows how that would have affected the game but the reality is that you try to limit time available to the opposing offense which is what they did). Now there is also the risk of throwing an interception and really putting your defenses back against the wall. Running the ball three times in a row puts them in a position of having to call all of their timeouts, you stand a chance of breaking one and getting a 1st, and there is less of a risk of a turnover.

Now we can look back and say that he did the wrong thing but I maintain that given the circumstances the way they were, time left on the clock, defense had been playing well, and the fact that it took a miracle throw for them to win they made the right choice. I also maintain that the conservative play-calling on D on that last drive played more of a role in the loss. A defense should be able to stop an offense from scoring when they have no timeouts and less then a minute and a half left. We got away from our aggressive play-calling and went soft.
Hill hasn't made very many mistakes when he's allowed to throw the ball and his game is markedly improved when he does so. Sooner or later they are going to have to show more confidence in him and allow him to open it up. It seems pretty obvious to me, but still we plug along with this overly safe game plan that keeps Hill from winning games.
we need to start a game off with a play action on the first play.
it would work against any team.