PDA

View Full Version : WP: Wilbon - Defense, Portis Will Do, for Now



spanishomelette
September-11th-2005, 10:33 PM
Defense, Portis Will Do, for Now
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091101475.html
By Michael Wilbon

Monday, September 12, 2005; Page E01

Until Patrick Ramsey emerges or Mark Brunell regains at least some of his old form, what the Redskins did yesterday is what they're going to have to do indefinitely. We saw the formula for victory against the Bears: play great defense and get at least 100 yards from Clinton Portis.

This is what the Redskins can do at the moment, maybe all they can do: hit the other guy in the mouth on defense, and move the chains enough on offense to kick the occasional field goal and allow the defense to rest. Hey, John Riggins, Joe Theismann and Art Monk aren't walking through that door.


Sunday, the Redskins asked the defense to make plays even when the ball wasn't snapped.

Here's the key sequence of the season opener: Chicago's Thomas Jones stopped for a three-yard loss by Redskins cornerback Shawn Springs; Bears false start; Bears false start; Bears false start; Chicago's Kyle Orton sacked by Redskins defensive end Demetric Evans for a 10-yard loss to force third and 38 with 6 minutes 1 second to play. Ballgame.

Joe Gibbs can say that the raucous home fans caused the Bears to be confused and commit that trio of false-start penalties that took them out of what could have been game-winning field goal range in the fourth quarter. Personally, I'll take dead silence and Gregg Williams's defense playing mind games with a quarterback making his NFL debut. The Bears didn't make unforced errors in that sequence; the Redskins forced those mistakes, all of them. They changed defensive fronts. They faked blitzing Orton with people they had no intention of blitzing. They made him call audibles with the play clock running out. "We showed them," Springs said, "a double corner blitz and they tried to audible," which forced one false start penalty. Or, as linebacker Marcus Washington said, "They know we're a blitzing team, so we got down there with one foot up and eyes all big."

And Orton, who this time last year was playing for Purdue University, got discombobulated, at least once fooled completely. Three times, 15 yards.

"The kid did pretty well," defensive end Phillip Daniels said, "but he seemed rattled toward the end."

The Redskins rattled him, as they should have. No rookie quarterback should go on the road and in his first start beat a team with a defense as good as the one the Redskins have. You hit him, you throw stuff at him he's never seen. You act as if you're in one defense when you're really in another. You put people on the field he's not expecting. You play to your strengths. You expect to pitch a shutout. "That's what we talked about," Springs said, "giving up nothing."

When Gibbs mentioned the defense, he didn't stop with Williams, the assistant head coach-defense, and Greg Blache, the defensive coordinator; he singled out every defensive assistant, as he should have.

Of course, the defense won the game, overcoming sub-par passing, a special teams turnover that led to the Bears' only points, and the opponent. Williams runs from credit, but he's getting it whether he likes it or not. "Just when you think you've got us figured out," Springs said, "he's got another package, he's come up with something else. We knew we had to come after [Orton] today, mentally and physically. Muhsin Muhammad even told me before the game, 'We know what you're going to try to do to him.' "

But the Bears aren't good enough offensively, not yet, to counter the Redskins' defense, just as the Redskins, offensively, aren't good enough to counter the Bears' defense. The game played out just the way it figured to: hard hitting and one-dimensional. Two defenses that could be top five in the NFL this season manhandled quarterback-challenged offenses, and the 9-7 result should surprise nobody.

I'm sure, given the history of "quarterback controversies" around here, that most folks will spend all their available breath debating Brunell-or-Ramsey between now and the game against the Cowboys a week from tonight. Ramsey, who certainly hasn't inspired confidence among the coaches, didn't help his cause in the three series he played yesterday. The first ended with him throwing an interception. The second ended with Jon Jansen recovering his fumble on third down. The third ended with him losing a fumble to the Bears on a hang-'em-high sack by Chicago's Lance Briggs. (Please, let's not have any whining about Briggs's tackle. That's football. How do you think **** Lane got the name "Night Train"? If a quarterback can't take a hit, then as the rabid Jack Lambert once said, "Put a dress on 'em!" What is this, flag football?)

But just because Ramsey really, really struggled doesn't mean Brunell was Steve Young, okay? Brunell looks better than he did last year, but last year he was a ghost. Brunell is almost certain to start in Dallas, which would make me start drooling if I were a Cowboys defender. Truth is, neither guy is worth getting excited about.

Luckily for the Redskins, Portis is. Since joining the Redskins, Portis has rushed for 100 yards or more six times. The Redskins have won all six of those games. When Gibbs said the offense did two really good things -- hold the ball late and move out of the shadow of the goal line successfully -- he was talking largely about things Portis did. He and Ladell Betts ran so well against a nasty Bears defense that it ought to provide Gibbs with some options as he plots for the Cowboys next week. Portis seemed to run tougher as the game progressed. In fact, he carries himself with the toughness of a defensive player. With Betts's continued improvement, Gibbs has told Portis to go 100 mph until he's winded, then come to the sideline and turn it over to Betts for a few plays. Right now, Portis and Betts behind a stout offensive line are the best things the Redskins have going offensively.

Still, it's clear the defense is going to have to carry the team for the first few games, at least, as was the case all of last season. Daniels, bless his heart, played with the offensively challenged Bears, too, before coming to Washington. Asked about the lack of offensive production, Daniels said he felt pretty good about the offense keeping the ball long enough (34:15 to the Bears' 25:45) to keep the defense rested and fresh. Hey, that's better than three-and-punt, which characterized the Redskins' offense last season. Daniels said he believes the offense is going to come around sooner, not later. "And they've got us," he said of the defense, "until they get there

Truant
September-11th-2005, 10:41 PM
Nice quote by Philip Daniels.

In this day and age of football I can understand the skepticism... but we're developing a team over here.

jbooma
September-11th-2005, 10:46 PM
The first ended with him throwing an interception. The second ended with Jon Jansen recovering his fumble on third down. The third ended with him losing a fumble to the Bears on a hang-'em-high sack by Chicago's Lance Briggs. (Please, let's not have any whining about Briggs's tackle. That's football. How do you think **** Lane got the name "Night Train"? If a quarterback can't take a hit, then as the rabid Jack Lambert once said, "Put a dress on 'em!" What is this, flag football?)

So Mark leads us to 9 points and 2 of those fg's should have been TD's but the play calling was terrible. I thought Ramsey outplayed Mark according to everyone here, so please can someone tell me how that is if when Ramsey was behind center we didn't do anything.

AJ_Skins
September-11th-2005, 10:46 PM
Agree generally, except Ramsey didn't have enough time to do anything before he was knocked out by what was clearly an illegal hit...Wilbon is showing his Bears fandom on that one.

McMetal
September-11th-2005, 10:47 PM
It seems that rushing the passer is not a necessary component of the "Bend-but-don't-break" defense. I don't mean that glibly either.

I was baffled why they refused to blitz the kid but it's entirely possible it was by design, rather than by any outstanding effort by the Bears' O-line. Maybe they were just expecting them to run the ball to protect Orton. Seems like pressure always creates havoc though, so I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the idea. A good QB will be able to pick us apart without more of a pass rush.

bubba9497
September-11th-2005, 10:54 PM
So Mark leads us to 9 points and 2 of those fg's should have been TD's but the play calling was terrible. I thought Ramsey outplayed Mark according to everyone here, so please can someone tell me how that is if when Ramsey was behind center we didn't do anything.


oh plwase jbooma, you are baiting, Ramsey lead a TD drive called back by a bad call, and the last fumble was clearly a penalty and shouldn't have been a fumble. The first fumble ...his fault the OL allows the DL to get to him.... yeah OKAY :rolleyes:

Wow 9 points??? Ramsey would have scored TDs. Brunell throws short yardage passes, and can't challenge deep.....

geez

AzSkinsFan63
September-11th-2005, 10:58 PM
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about...

Ramsey was just starting to get it done when the "should have been called" PF occurred..and Brunell filled in nicely as expected..

could have had a little better completion percentage from both of them but it's game one.

how about Moss and Patten looking prety solid.

Spaceman Spiff
September-11th-2005, 11:10 PM
Agree generally, except Ramsey didn't have enough time to do anything before he was knocked out by what was clearly an illegal hit...Wilbon is showing his Bears fandom on that one.

Certainly had time to throw one of his trademark interceptions. Proof positive that no matter how long ramsey is in the game for he finds a way to **** the bed, somehow, some way.

Skins24
September-11th-2005, 11:11 PM
Wow 9 points??? Ramsey would have scored TDs. Brunell throws short yardage passes, and can't challenge deep.....
Portis and Betts led one FG drive (Brunell averaged a whooping 4 yards per pass on this drive)
A penalty led another (Brunell was 0 for 4 including a called back int. on this drive).
So...it's not even 9 points.

He says those should have been TDs if it wasn't for the playcalling. We'll Ramsey's drives should have been TDs if it wasn't for our O line. How's that?

The extremist
September-11th-2005, 11:12 PM
(Please, let's not have any whining about Briggs's tackle. That's football. How do you think **** Lane got the name "Night Train"? If a quarterback can't take a hit, then as the rabid Jack Lambert once said, "Put a dress on 'em!" What is this, flag football?)
news for wilbon: Night Train Lane's era and the things he used to do are LONG DEAD and ILLEGAL!!! Along with Deacon Jones' headslap, Jack Tatum's spearhead, Conrad Dobler's kneecap blocking, the Raiders OL sharpening the rivets in their helmets, etc etc...

and this is the only time Briggs' and Lane's name will EVER be mentioned in the same sentence...I promise you if Wilbon's boyfriend McNoob got hit like that, he'd lobby for a one-year suspension

if he wants to question the actual validity of the rule, fine, but until then, please let the game be called as it is stated in the rulebook :rolleyes:

The Bounty Hunter #21
September-11th-2005, 11:34 PM
I hope we can score more than 9 against Dallas

RypienBoyhoodHero
September-11th-2005, 11:45 PM
I think Wilbon for the most part (It was a penalty, Mike, get a hold of yourself.) is a voice of reason. He is 100% correct in saying this is what we are going to have to do to win football games. I don't care which of the 3 QB's Gibbs trots out there, Portis is the backbone to this offense, and more importantly, the (offensive) key to winning football games. So we didn't exactly put on a thriller like Dallas or run up the score like the Giants, but hey, in the standings tomorrow, we are right there at the top with them.

This is the team we have to deal with, and we have to use the strengths we have to win football games.

Blue Collar Skins
September-11th-2005, 11:52 PM
If that's what it takes to win, then that's what they'll do.

TheLongshot
September-12th-2005, 12:12 AM
I disagree with the statement that Ramsey was "struggling". Really, I can point out only two mistakes he made during the game. The interception (Which probably would have been avoided if the play call had been better), and the first fumble, which the skins got back. Other than that, he was looking pretty good until he got knocked out of the game.

I agree, tho, that a lot of the Skins success is going to ride on the defense and Portis. Problem is, this is nothing new. If Wilbon was in town, he'd realise that.

Jason

flexxskins
September-12th-2005, 12:49 AM
I disagree with the statement that Ramsey was "struggling". Really, I can point out only two mistakes he made during the game. The interception (Which probably would have been avoided if the play call had been better), and the first fumble, which the skins got back. Other than that, he was looking pretty good until he got knocked out of the game.

I agree, tho, that a lot of the Skins success is going to ride on the defense and Portis. Problem is, this is nothing new. If Wilbon was in town, he'd realise that.

JasonYou are blaming a interception on the play? :doh:

flexxskins
September-12th-2005, 12:56 AM
The bottomline, as far as Ramsey goes...I am still not convinced that he is unable to get the job done. I saw some good crisp throws and third down conversions from him that were damn impressive. So, I hope that he continues to start, but if he doesn't, I will support that dicision as well.

Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin
September-12th-2005, 12:58 AM
Certainly had time to throw one of his trademark interceptions. Proof positive that no matter how long ramsey is in the game for he finds a way to **** the bed, somehow, some way.

So wait, there's a particular type of interception that he's known for?

Tell me, when Carr threw his three picks yesterday, which one was his 'trademark?'

When Jake Delhomme threw a pick on what looked like a hook, was that a trademark?

how about Brees pick?

Qbs throw picks--that pick didn't kill us, and it's not like his other throws after he settled down hit bears in their hands. He was starting to get on target.

Hollywood2k3
September-12th-2005, 01:03 AM
So Mark leads us to 9 points and 2 of those fg's should have been TD's but the play calling was terrible. I thought Ramsey outplayed Mark according to everyone here, so please can someone tell me how that is if when Ramsey was behind center we didn't do anything.


My thoughts EXACTLY!! I was at the game and Ramsey didn't do anything worth speaking of. Everybody just needs to except the fact that Brunell is playing better than he was last year and if in trouble the least thing he does better than Ramsey is make smart plays. He'll buy time for himself on some plays and on others he'll throw the ball away instead of forcing it and making another turnover

Joe Sick
September-12th-2005, 01:11 AM
You are blaming a interception on the play? :doh:

When you run a pass pattern to the short side of the field, with two receivers within about 8 yards of each other, yes, the playcall (or play design) is at fault.

In a decently designed pass play, that throw was just an average overthrow, resulting in an incompletion.

TheShredder
September-12th-2005, 01:21 AM
Bad play call again...and again...how many TD's does Ramsey have to throw to the other team before he pulls that pass back?

It was another poor decision. No improvement from pre-season except that he has a little more chemistry with the WR's. But damn...poor judgement. He is very unpredictable. I will swallow it better if he can score some TD's. I really don't think Mark Brunnell is the answer to anything more that a good backup. I had a chance to light it up!!!!
He didn"t, he won"t, Ramsey will be back.

flexxskins
September-12th-2005, 01:25 AM
When you run a pass pattern to the short side of the field, with two receivers within about 8 yards of each other, yes, the playcall (or play design) is at fault.

In a decently designed pass play, that throw was just an average overthrow, resulting in an incompletion.I understand what you are saying about the design of the play. But I just don't think that there was any way of fore seeing a interception...especially because of the play that was called or where they were on the field.

barefoot
September-12th-2005, 06:21 AM
When you run a pass pattern to the short side of the field, with two receivers within about 8 yards of each other, yes, the playcall (or play design) is at fault.

In a decently designed pass play, that throw was just an average overthrow, resulting in an incompletion.

Yeah, you tell'em, there is no way a reciever could have run the wrong route, it's definately the coach's fault, that dumbass Gibbs :doh:

kappaluvacee
September-12th-2005, 06:39 AM
I'll take the wins however they come. I just want the wins to keep coming.

fansince62
September-12th-2005, 07:14 AM
"Wow 9 points??? Ramsey would have scored TDs. Brunell throws short yardage passes, and can't challenge deep....."

and that sums up PR in a nutshell........"...would have..."...that's all any of us have been hearing for the last 4 years. unadulterated you know what. it's time for results and reduced INTs.......

TheGreek1973
September-12th-2005, 08:08 AM
news for wilbon: Night Train Lane's era and the things he used to do are LONG DEAD and ILLEGAL!!! Along with Deacon Jones' headslap, Jack Tatum's spearhead, Conrad Dobler's kneecap blocking, the Raiders OL sharpening the rivets in their helmets, etc etc...

and this is the only time Briggs' and Lane's name will EVER be mentioned in the same sentence...I promise you if Wilbon's boyfriend McNoob got hit like that, he'd lobby for a one-year suspension

if he wants to question the actual validity of the rule, fine, but until then, please let the game be called as it is stated in the rulebook :rolleyes:

Bravo :applause: :applause: :applause:

Monte51Coleman
September-12th-2005, 08:19 AM
Funny how the profanity filter blocked Night Train Lane's first name.
For the record it is ****. :D

Underwater Ally
September-12th-2005, 08:52 AM
My thoughts EXACTLY!! I was at the game and Ramsey didn't do anything worth speaking of. Everybody just needs to except the fact that Brunell is playing better than he was last year and if in trouble the least thing he does better than Ramsey is make smart plays. He'll buy time for himself on some plays and on others he'll throw the ball away instead of forcing it and making another turnover

Ramsey was on pace to throw for 300 yards and actually got it to a reciever in the end zone. If Brunell is better than last year, we certainly didn't see it yesterday. Like 74 yards passing? No deep game? Not even a mid-range passing game to speak of? If this is the bus you're driving, then I want off.

Underwater Ally
September-12th-2005, 09:01 AM
When you run a pass pattern to the short side of the field, with two receivers within about 8 yards of each other, yes, the playcall (or play design) is at fault.

In a decently designed pass play, that throw was just an average overthrow, resulting in an incompletion.

That's a very good point. I dislike those little quick slants anyway, and when they are designed to go into traffic, you are asking for trouble.

By the way, with the running game doing nothing in the beginning of the game, and Portis even commenting that it was a problem with the scheme, do you think Gibbs was trying to show a vanilla offense early on?

redskin81
September-12th-2005, 12:07 PM
I think Wilbon for the most part (It was a penalty, Mike, get a hold of yourself.) is a voice of reason. He is 100% correct in saying this is what we are going to have to do to win football games. I don't care which of the 3 QB's Gibbs trots out there, Portis is the backbone to this offense, and more importantly, the (offensive) key to winning football games. So we didn't exactly put on a thriller like Dallas or run up the score like the Giants, but hey, in the standings tomorrow, we are right there at the top with them.

This is the team we have to deal with, and we have to use the strengths we have to win football games.

Now this is a well stated post. This is the Portis show, we will HAVE to ride on his shoulders. I dont see how any skins fan can be comfortable with either qb. I have defended Ramsey until i am blue in the face but he's a turnover waiting to happen. Sorry its true. And Brunell should walk into Danial Snyders office and say gotch ya. Now before you all blast me think about this when CP runs for 100 yards we win when he doesnt we lose. We have 2 qb's HAVE to have a dominant running game to be productive. Neither one can take a team on his shoulders and carry it.

Epistopheles
September-12th-2005, 12:20 PM
Now this is a well stated post. This is the Portis show, we will HAVE to ride on his shoulders. I dont see how any skins fan can be comfortable with either qb. I have defended Ramsey until i am blue in the face but he's a turnover waiting to happen. Sorry its true. And Brunell should walk into Danial Snyders office and say gotch ya. Now before you all blast me think about this when CP runs for 100 yards we win when he doesnt we lose. We have 2 qb's HAVE to have a dominant running game to be productive. Neither one can take a team on his shoulders and carry it.

I hear that and second it. But goddamn I would like one of these two QBs to show us SOMETHING, preferably next Monday.

Portis really beat the Bears D up on a lot of those runs. He gained a lot of power without losing a step. He really impressed me. Betts did too. Now I just hope we keep Ladell back there returning kicks too. :dallasuck

jimster
September-12th-2005, 12:31 PM
news for wilbon: Night Train Lane's era and the things he used to do are LONG DEAD and ILLEGAL!!! Along with Deacon Jones' headslap, Jack Tatum's spearhead, Conrad Dobler's kneecap blocking, the Raiders OL sharpening the rivets in their helmets, etc etc...

and this is the only time Briggs' and Lane's name will EVER be mentioned in the same sentence...I promise you if Wilbon's boyfriend McNoob got hit like that, he'd lobby for a one-year suspension

if he wants to question the actual validity of the rule, fine, but until then, please let the game be called as it is stated in the rulebook :rolleyes:


you got that right.

WHen Roy Williams injured Tyrone Calico last year with the horse collar tackle, no one cared - When he did it to Terrell Owens, there's a rule change.