Repetition, Repetiton, Repetition...

[daveakl]

Think about it like this, if you pulled the player w/ the most fals starts in the group from every other team, their numbers would go down too.

Where would the Redskins group minus Paulson be with respect to every other team w/ their highest player removed?

If you do that and the Redskins aren't high any more, then Paulson might REALLY be the problem. If not, then you have a problem beyond Paulson.

I don't know, I didn't pull the highest penalized person from each team to find out.

Maybe my point is not coming across. The original premise of this thread was that if we could solve the problem of the Redskins receivers committing false start penalties then we would win more games. The solution in the post was that we should simplify the offense. Practice 50 plays and get them down so perfectly that players wouldn't think about their assignment and would focus on the snap count. The offensive system we have now is too difficult to learn.

What I am trying to point out is that the player that is skewing our stats high is playing a roll that he did not practice as much for and getting him up to speed during the season is complicated by the fact that the new CBA limits the amount of practice time. The offensive system does not seem to be the problem. When you look at the penalties committed by the starters and players that worked during the preseason to play the majority of the snaps, they are not having a problem with it. The player that was forced into an increased roll due to injury is the issue.

[Skinsinparadise]

Okay, but I don't see how you can consider our WRs 'below average at best view' when our passing game and offense are average and above average.

I said below average WITHOUT Garcon or Davis. The offenses stats weren't propelled at least points wise via the last 2 games which were the first two full games without either player. RG 3 = stud. Garcon looked good in the first game. Davis looked good before getting hurt. Without those two guys -- yeah I would contend that receiving crew is below average. Which WR makes defenses lose sleep over?

Even going by pro football focus metric (ironically enough) the 2 receivers I currently considered the least productive on the roster but the greatest upside) are ranked #60 A.Robinson and #62.
That would make them starting caliber WRs (based on their being 32 teams with 2 starting WRs per team).

I get your point and I agree that Hankerson and Robinson have the most potential, its a given they are young and unproven and they are ranked as the best we got to Pro Football Focus. My point is that's not saying much. So the best we got are 2 WRs who would be among the LOWEST ranked #2 receivers on any NFL team. And then the other guys Moss and Morgan according to Football Focus are ranked as middle of the pack #3 receivers. You might be right about the future of the Wrs and actually I hope you are. there was a time i was optimistic too. But the overall numbers of the WRs make my case pretty clearly that this is a below average corp.

Moss is ranked #48 in DYAR and #42 DVOA Morgan is #50 and #51 respectively

that's better but still 2 middle of the pack #2 receivers -- wouldn't that add up to below average, we don't have a #1 receiver or for that matter or highly rated #2 receiver -- I at least see that as below average.

Here's what Kiper said last week in a Q & A

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat...guru-mel-kiper

How long can the Redskins continue to run a college offense? Is an offense that relies on deception, gadget plays and designed qb runs sustainable in today's NFL?

Mel Kiper (1:09 PM)


It's almost like when a pitcher goes through the lineup and around the 3-4 inning they start to get to you. LeBeau now is 14-1 against rookie QBs. He's got an incredible record when he has to design a defense against rookies. A lot of things hinged on the fact that Washington's defense is banged up. Santana Moss is his go-to guy, which is not good. He doesn't have a No. 1 WR. Overall, let's see in the next few weeks. Right now, there are tendencies of things RGIII likes to do and defenses are adjusting, so now he has to adjust as well

[darrelgreenie]

I said below average WITHOUT Garcon or Davis. The offenses stats weren't propelled at least points wise via the last 2 games which were the first two full games without either player. RG 3 = stud. Garcon looked good in the first game. Davis looked good before getting hurt. Without those two guys -- yeah I would contend that receiving crew is below average.

Wow caps? really? I'm fully aware that were talking about the WRs without Garcon (who btw has really only played 1 healhty qtr of football.)
And to be clear you said 'worst in the NFL'. Our current WRs are neither worst in the NFL nor do we have a below average passing game as unit (and yes that is without the WR who's only played 1 healhty qtr of football). Given the fact that our passing game if simple don't you think our 'league worst' WRs would yield a league worst passing offense?

I get your point and I agree that Hankerson and Robinson have the most
potential, its a given they are young and unproven and they are ranked as the
best we got to Pro Football Focus. My point is that's not saying much. So the
best we got are 2 WRs who would be among the LOWEST ranked #2 receivers on any
NFL team. And then the other guys Moss and Morgan according to Football Focus
are ranked as middle of the pack #3 receivers. You might be right about the
future of the Wrs and actually I hope you are. there was a time i was
optimistic too. But the overall numbers of the WRs make my case pretty clearly
that this is a below average corp.

Actually my point wasn't even that Hankerson and Aldrick have the most potential. Personally I don't like Hankerson because I think he either has a chicken heart or low football IQ. However, I think Moss and Morgan are more then capable of sustaining a decent passing offense and their numbers and the passing game as whole would be better if the targets spent on Hankerson were split between Moss/Morgan.
Would you consider Fitzgerald and Flyod below average as well? Because Morgan/Moss finish ahead of them individually and as unit.

Here's what Kiper said last week in a Q & A

Not sure how Kiper relates to our discussion. But, a couple of inaccuracies. The LeBeau/Steelers didn't stop our offense, the receiving unit had a terrible day with 10-12 drops. Everyone likes to bang on Tana, never mind that's been clutch 3rd/4th down and productive in limited targets.

Again, I'm not saying our WRs are world beaters. But they're not the problem for a top 10 offense (yards/scoring). Fact is we're running a run based offense with little emphasis on rhythm drop back passing, the passing game we do employ is very simple one that doesn't throw deep because imo the aim is efficiency and ball control to protect our defense. The bulk of the passing game if form play-action and the limited targets are being spread around instead of being consolidated in the productive WRs (which imo is a coaching mistake) yet the passing game and offense are still productive. If you want to be frustrated about this be my guest. I have nothing further....

Hail

[joeknows]

.

Why are Skins receivers creating drive-killing false start penalties? If we could solve that problem, we could win a couple more tight football games.

I have a theory about it.

The car you drive is probably the most evolved manmade system on the planet. The very first cars had to be started with a crank, outside, in the front of the car. Most women couldn't start it. Men broke arms when the crank didn't disengage.

Today's cars are much easier to operate. A child could start one. You car is much more complex than the first cars, but the complexity has been kept under the hood. That should be a common goal of all systems, including football systems. Make it simple to operate. Keep the complexity under the hood.

From what I've read, Archie Manning seems to have the right idea. I've read that Peyton had about 50 pass plays in his Indy playbook. The typical NFL playbook has about 150. And, I've read that, after Eli looked like a bust in his first year, Archie had his son suggest to his Giants coaches that they pare down the playbook to those passes that Eli felt most comfortable throwing.

It's simple math. Since your practice time is limited, you have three times as much time to practice 50 plays than you do with 150. The Manning brothers are not great passers. Their accuracy results, in part, from more practice time on fewer plays.

So, why does Logan Paulsen commit false start penalties? Most likely he's thinking about his assignment and not about the snap count. And... he does that because he hasn't practiced the play enough to just forget about his assignment.

Jim Haslett has said that the defense he's teaching takes three years to master. Mike Shanahan has said the same thing about his offense. If those statements are true, they are admissions of poor system design. They are too difficult to learn.

Every youth coach has been advised to apply the KISS principle. I think simplifying the scheme is a great idea at all levels. What many people don't realize is that simplifying things is hard work. Keeping the complexity under the hood isn't easy.

i am always interested by your insight oldfan.... i dont always agree but you always pose your honest perception usually well communicated. this is no exception and i happen to agree ...

[Oldfan]

i am always interested by your insight oldfan.... i dont always agree but you always pose your honest perception usually well communicated. this is no exception and i happen to agree ...

I'm glad you agree, but even more pleased that my view interests you even when you don't.

[Skinsinparadise]

Wow caps? really? I'm fully aware that were talking about the WRs without Garcon (who btw has really only played 1 healhty qtr of football.)
And to be clear you said 'worst in the NFL'. Our current WRs are neither worst in the NFL nor do we have a below average passing game as unit (and yes that is without the WR who's only played 1 healhty qtr of football). Given the fact that our passing game if simple don't you think our 'league worst' WRs would yield a league worst passing

I did caps because you cited the teams overall stats in two responses to my posts, and the overall stats don't pertain to my point, so was guessing that you missed that I included not just Garcon but Fred too. It was all in good spirits, as opposed to me being combative. Without Fred in the last 2 games the offense hasn't been that good. But yeah if we include Fred in the offfense stats are good. My point is without Fred or Garcon there is no threat to stretch the field. Morgan has been alright, but you don't see him running down the field and catching a deep ball heck he ever rarely catches the medium 20 yard or so variety. It's not his thing.

If according to profootball focus our top WR wouldn't even be the #2 WR for almost every team in the NFL, meaning that our top WR would be the #3 guy on just about every team in the NFL, that's pretty bad. If that's not the worst NFL receiving crew in the NFL its pretty close to being so. How well Fitzgerald is playing or not playing has nothing to do with anything am saying, unless your point is stats are deceiving. I agree stats are deceiving but to my naked eye its not like I have been impressed by these guys and then disillusioned once I saw the stats.

As to looking forward -- great QB, great RB (to set up play action) and mediocre to bad WRs IMO shouldn't equal to bad overall passing stats. Rg 3 and Morris should help offset these guys to a degree and I expect them to. But can you imagine this team with a true #1, heck even a true #2 WR? Hankerson seems lost going deep so I don't blame them not going to that well over and over again. But we know a lot of RG 3's magic in college was driven by his super accurate deep ball. If he had his Kendall Wright here, IMO he'd be throwing deep more.

I included Kipers comments because he when asked about RG 3, went into his lack of a #1 receiver and as he said if Santana is your #1 guy "its not good"

This season really every game we have had a WR to worry about. Maybe aside from the Rams game though arguably Denny Amendola is better than any guy we have. I like to read the opponents newspapers before each game. There is no article about what are we going to do to stop Santana or Morgan or that dude Hankerson is really emerging, etc. We lost that threat when Fred Davis got hurt. Teams did talk about stopping him. Am not saying you are on the opposite side of all of this, just saying our current passing threats if not the worst is pretty close to it.

---------- Post added November-7th-2012 at 08:34 AM ----------

I'm glad you agree, but even more pleased that my view interests you even when you don't.

Curious Oldfan on this subject, with our current crop of receivers (without Garcon, without Davis) ballpark how do you think our receiving threats rate against the league?

[Oldfan]

...Curious Oldfan on this subject, with our current crop of receivers (without Garcon, without Davis) ballpark how do you think our receiving threats rate against the league?

Garcon isn't a #1, in my opinion. He's a #2, and since we don't have anyone else as good as he is, our top WR right now is probably Morgan who is a #3.

Paulsen has surprised, so I see no loss there (assuming he can clean up his false start penalties).

I don't have my pulse on the other 31 teams, but I would guess our WRs currently are below average.

[darrelgreenie]

I did caps because you cited the teams overall stats in two responses to my posts, and the overall stats don't pertain to my point, so was guessing that you missed that I included not just Garcon but Fred too. It was all in good spirits, as opposed to me being combative. Without Fred in the last 2 games the offense hasn't been that good. But yeah if we include Fred in the offfense stats are good. My point is without Fred or Garcon there is no threat to stretch the field. Morgan has been alright, but you don't see him running down the field and catching a deep ball heck he ever rarely catches the medium 20 yard or so variety. It's not his thing.

As I've said before I think its more likely that lack of deep passing is by intent not because of skillset or lack thereof. All our WRs have deep speed, all our WRs can run and Griffin, unless something has changed, throws a good deep ball. But, this offense is 30th in % of throws greater then 20 yards at only 16%. Which imo is for the purpose of ball control and efficiency. So i think you are inaccurately attributing the lack of deep passing game to the WRs as opposed to the intent of the playcalling/playcaller.

Griffin:
21-30yards 5/7comp/atts 71.4% 1 TD 0 INT 153.3 Rating
31-40--------0/4------------------------------------------39.3
41+-----------0/7--------------14.3%-1 TD------------107.1

If according to profootball focus our top WR wouldn't even be the #2 WR for
almost every team in the NFL, meaning that our top WR would be the #3 guy on
just about every team in the NFL, that's pretty bad. If that's not the worst
NFL receiving crew in the NFL its pretty close to being so. How well Fitzgerald
is playing or not playing has nothing to do with anything am saying, unless your
point is stats are deceiving. I agree stats are deceiving but to my naked eye
its not like I have been impressed by these guys and then disillusioned once I
saw the stats.

My point is the individual WR ranking doesn't automatically equate to the quality of the WR. And if you are going to point to the rankings and make a claim about our WRs then the same claim should apply to any other WR with a similar ranking.

And pro football focus is but 1 metric, football outsiders has our WRs ranked higher. And if you're going by pro football focus metric yes our top 2 WRs wouldn't be '#3' WR but then again by the same metric our 3 & 4 WRs would be '#2' WRs (Aldrick #60 and Hank #62).

And I ask again, honestyly don't you think that having the 'worst' WRs would have some sort of negative impact on our passing game as unit? Especially given the simple design and short passing focus? Yet, as a unit the passing game is 6th in YPA. That doesn't sound to me like a passing game that is being held back by the 'worst' WRs in the NFL.

I simply don't see how anyone can look at the design of the passing offense (simple structure with spread out targets and shuffling of WRs) and compare it against the production as unit and the overall production of the offense. And reach this level of frustration:

Am just VERY frustrated at the Wr crew. More disappointed in Mike not finding a good WR in the draft........But IMO its really an abysmal bunch without Garcon and Davis.

If you remove every team's #1 WR and #1 TE there will be drop off, so keep that in mind along with the design and circumstances of our passing offense when you're bagging on WRs.

E.g.-A team I watch often is the Panthers, can if they lost Steve Smith and Greg Olsen they would be done.

As to looking forward -- great QB, great RB (to set up play action) and
mediocre to bad WRs IMO shouldn't equal to bad overall passing stats. Rg 3 and
Morris should help offset these guys to a degree and I expect them to. But can
you imagine this team with a true #1, heck even a true #2 WR? Hankerson seems
lost going deep so I don't blame them not going to that well over and over
again. But we know a lot of RG 3's magic in college was driven by his super
accurate deep ball. If he had his Kendall Wright here, IMO he'd be throwing
deep more.

I addressed a lot of this early about the nature of our passing game.
And imo if a WR can't get open they can't get open. You cannot change that through scheme.
I don't think the lack of deep passing game is an issue of skillset but of design.

[Oldfan]

...And pro football focus is but 1 metric, football outsiders has our WRs ranked higher. And if you're going by pro football focus metric yes our top 2 WRs wouldn't be '#3' WR but then again by the same metric our 3 & 4 WRs would be '#2' WRs (Aldrick #60 and Hank #62)...

I don't think these individual rankings have any value.

A football player's individual statistics measure his performance in the context of his team -- teammates, coaches, schemes. Therefore, we can compare two WRs on the same team, two O-linemen on the same team or, on a sizeable sample, even two QBs on the same team. But, we cannot use individual stats to fairly compare the performances of players on different teams to determine a ranking.

[Skinsinparadise]

As I've said before I think its more likely that lack of deep passing is by intent not because of skillset or lack thereof. All our WRs have deep speed, all our WRs can run and Griffin, unless something has changed, throws a good deep ball.

I've watched a close to perfectly thrown deep ball weeks ago go through Aldrick's hands, I've seen Hankerson look awkward barely even stretching his arms to catch RG 3's deep ball and or struggling to get separation-- he has looked at best clunky going deep.

Speed is clearly not the only thing required to be a deep threat. And i don't see a serious deep threat on this team. If you see it that's cool, i guess lets agree to disagree. I am saying if we had a guy like Mike Wallace or Kendall Wright we'd see more deep balls thrown.

But, this offense is 30th in % of throws greater then 20 yards at only 16%. Which imo is for the purpose of ball control and efficiency. So i think you are inaccurately attributing the lack of deep passing game to the WRs as opposed to the intent of the playcalling/playcaller.

It's impossible to know one way or another unless we asked Kyle. Are they not throwing deep because of talent or scheme? I never counted the throws but it seemed under McNabb they'd go deep when Anthony Armstrong had a good year. Hard for me to imagine that after watching RG 3's deep ball in college they'd decide not to exploit that talent. But to me the kicker is this in limited opportunities our Wrs have not looked sharp chasing the deep ball, wouldn't shock me if its likewise in practice -- to me it least its not a stretch for them to be thinking for example Leonard Hankerson is no Kendall Wright -- we can't count on him to make those big plays to stretch the field so lets focus even more on high percentage throws that fit his skill set and our most reliable WR Josh Morgan.

I am not arguing they aren't going for ball control, I even argued that they are indeed for ball control with Oldfan in another thread. What am saying is they have relatively weak WR corp in its current state and they don't have a guy thus far that poses a serious threat to catch the deep ball. Yeah Robinson among the players would have the most potential since he can run, but he catches thus far a relatively low number of balls thrown his way. My point is i think they'd throw deep more if they thought they had the horses to catch those balls.

My point is the individual WR ranking doesn't automatically equate to the quality of the WR. And if you are going to point to the rankings and make a claim about our WRs then the same claim should apply to any other WR with a similar ranking.

You missed my point on this. I am not a football scout, am just going on what I see like we all are. Again to my naked eye, the WR corp is underwhelming and generally not as good as the teams we face week in and week out. it wasn't me thinking you know that dude Aldrick Robinson is doing pretty good, then I did a double take when I saw he only caught about 56% of the passes thrown his way after seeing his stats.

My thoughts about the Wrs came first from observation, the stats seemed to back what I see. If you personally like what you see or like the players better than me and question the stats, am not taking that away from you, you got a right to feel anyway you want.

And as down as I am about Robinson and Hankerson thus far, I don't rule them out, they got time to shine, just been disappointed thus far.

And pro football focus is but 1 metric, football outsiders has our WRs ranked higher. And if you're going by pro football focus metric yes our top 2 WRs wouldn't be '#3' WR but then again by the same metric our 3 & 4 WRs would be '#2' WRs (Aldrick #60 and Hank #62).

Football outsiders would indicate that we don't have a #1 receiver. They indicate we don't have a highly rated #2 receiver either. They indicate that we have 2 middle of the pack #2 Wrs on the team. That's not as bad but pretty bad too.

And I ask again, honestyly don't you think that having the 'worst' WRs would have some sort of negative impact on our passing game as unit? Especially given the simple design and short passing focus? Yet, as a unit the passing game is 6th in YPA. That doesn't sound to me like a passing game that is being held back by the 'worst' WRs in the NFL.

you keep hitting the aggregate stats when I keep pointing out that I think the story is different when Fred Davis plays because he's a playmaker, he's a guy that teams need to focus on and without him, i don't think there is a guy that the opposing defenses sweats about.

Are we ranked #6 in the last 2 games sans Davis, if so you got a point. I've not looked it up. If that's the case then you got a good talking point.

And as I stated i think Rg 3 in a blatant way and Morris is a more subtle way will prop the passing stats.

If you remove every team's #1 WR and #1 TE there will be drop off, so keep that in mind along with the design and circumstances of our passing offense when you're bagging on WRs.

Depends on the team but it makes my point. i've said right now RG 3 has the worst or close to the worst receiving crew in the league. the whole conversation started as a debate as to the team going forward it wasn't and "if and buts" conversation. Going forward we don't have Davis and we likely don't have Garcon.

If the conversation shifts as to what kind of receiving crop we have with everyone healthy, I'd say average.

[darrelgreenie]

I don't understand how you can agree that Kyle is aiming for ball control then point to lack of a deep passing attack as a means to downgrade our WRs.

To my naked eye I don't think our WRs are bad I think their stats are function of the design of the passing game.

I also don't understand how you can be critical of Aldrick because he missed on a or a couple of deep passes when quite obviously deep passes are very low percentage plays.

I would be curious about how our WRs deep catch targets/catches match-up with other WRs.

My bet we would be somewhere in the middle of pack once the number of attempts was averaged out.


And I use the aggregate passing offense metric because until they invent a measure of the passing game as unit that excludes TEs I don't see another snapshot stat-view of team's WRs as a unit.

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree then. But for me when I see a good offense (6th/10th) and a passing game that despite having a very elementary design still posts near league average as unit (17th), I'm gonna disagree that our WRs are league worst.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't understand how you can agree that Kyle is aiming for ball control then point to lack of a deep passing attack as a means to downgrade our WRs.

To my naked eye I don't think our WRs are bad I think their stats are function of the design of the passing game.

I also don't understand how you can be critical of Aldrick because he missed on a or a couple of deep passes when quite obviously deep passes are very low percentage plays.

I would be curious about how our WRs deep catch targets/catches match-up with other WRs.

My bet we would be somewhere in the middle of pack once the number of attempts was averaged out.


And I use the aggregate passing offense metric because until they invent a measure of the passing game as unit that excludes TEs I don't see another snapshot stat-view of team's WRs as a unit.

I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree then. But for me when I see a good offense (6th/10th) and a passing game that despite having a very elementary design still posts near league average as unit (17th), I'm gonna disagree that our WRs are league worst.

Getting into a conversation about the deep ball and ball control offense, goes a little off topic of my point though I've been engaged in it, but my original point is these WRs aren't good compared to the rest of the league. Going deep or non going deep, Aldrick has caught 56% of the balls thrown his way, that's not good. When I've watched Hankerson go for the deep ball he has just looked to me bad. If these guys ultimately don't turn out good, I blame Shanny not his son. Our division rivals seemed to be able to find young good Wrs, we don't, and Shanny thus far hasn't stopped this trend.

[darrelgreenie]

Getting into a conversation about the deep ball and ball control offense, goes a little off topic of my point though I've been engaged in it, but my original point is these WRs aren't good compared to the rest of the league. Going deep or non going deep, Aldrick has caught 56% of the balls thrown his way, that's not good. When I've watched Hankerson go for the deep ball he has just looked to me bad. If these guys ultimately don't turn out good, I blame Shanny not his son. Our division rivals seemed to be able to find young good Wrs, we don't, and Shanny thus far hasn't stopped this trend.

I'm not sure which WRs you refer to when you say 'these' and how you intend to compare them with the rest of the league. If you're comparing Aldrick to other 5th WRs then how can you judge him or them? They're simply unknown. Hankerson is also still basically a rookie WR after basically having his rookie year wiped out due to injury. I agree that you can't call them good...yet but imo you can't call them bad yet either. There unknown or developing. I'm not gonna judge Aldrick Robinson or any other WR on the 1st 17 targets of his career. Nor am I gonna write Hankerson off after his small handful of targets. And if the don't pan out I wouldn't blame Kyle either.

Now if by 'these' you mean Moss and Morgan then I would say they compare very well to they're league wide counterparts as #2,#3 WRs.

I mention the deep passing/ball control because you seem to target the lack of deep passing game as critical to your negative perception of the WRs. Which you do again above in regards to Hankerson, and 'looking bad' might have little bearing on Hankerson productivity on the deep ball. He might have a great deep ball catch rate or it could be terrible. Point being is that without some support; Hankerson looking bad on the deep ball to you is an empty statement.

In general you pay for what you get in terms of player production and draft expense. Our division rivals have invested far more high round draft picks on young WRs then Shanny. Dez, DeSean, Macklin, Nicks, Rueben Randle.

So depite the minimal high draft pick investment in the young WRs our passing game as unit is still near league average even without its best WR:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff
Football Outsiders ranks the pass offenses: Gaints #1--4th, Dallas #2--8th, Redskins #3--18th**, Eagles--28th.
**And if we had Garcon I'm sure our ranking would be some degree higher which would make it competitive with our division rivals

Right now here's where the division passing games rank by YPA: Redskins #1--7.7, Giants #2, Dallas #3, Eagles distant 4th. (not bad imo)


http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff

[illone]

You have personal experience with those old crank cars, of?

Nice post my man, one of your better efforts. I agree 100%. This is the same type of thing the skins would do with Riggins in the 4th quarter. The other team knew 50 gut was coming (bostic usually told them) but they couldnt stop it.

Execution is far more important that the type of scheme you run. Shanahan is way too full of himself to ever admit it, he's the type of guy that wants to be remebered as some type of innovator. Too bad all he'll be remembered for in washington is having a worse winning % than Spurrier or Zorn.

[thesubmittedone]

While agree with the basic premise of your thread Oldfan, wasn't Zorn's offense basically predicated on this very idea? It goes to show that having a minimal amount of plays isn't always the best way to go about things, especially if your talent level isn't up to snuff.

I would venture to say that, if you have awesome talent at the majority of your spots, then keep it simple and let the talent take over. I think that's what we were doing, for instance, when Pierre Garcon was healthy that first game of the season against the Saints. Our offense was simple and our passing game was basically to look for Garcon. If the CB played off of him, throw it out to him fast. If the CB was tight, run the option with two reads. In fact, during the offseason, Kyle said exactly this when he was posed the question "... is it easier to be more creative with the talent you now have on offense", or something to that effect. He then stated that it's actually the opposite, that it's easier to call plays when you have great talent at the skill positions because creativity is not necessary in those instances and it's just all about getting the ball in your player's hands.

The loss of Garcon has hurt us more than we know. The guy is a great talent and it's too bad everyone has to question his acquisition now because of a freak injury. He showed me more than any WR we've had here in decades other than Moss in 2005 in only one preseason and two series.

---------- Post added November-7th-2012 at 09:01 PM ----------

You have personal experience with those old crank cars, of?

Nice post my man, one of your better efforts. I agree 100%. This is the same type of thing the skins would do with Riggins in the 4th quarter. The other team knew 50 gut was coming (bostic usually told them) but they couldnt stop it.

Execution is far more important that the type of scheme you run. Shanahan is way too full of himself to ever admit it, he's the type of guy that wants to be remebered as some type of innovator. Too bad all he'll be remembered for in washington is having a worse winning % than Spurrier or Zorn.

See, this is exactly what I disagree with because it doesn't acknowledge the difference in talent and it's correlation to creativity/simplicity. Gibbs could call 50 Gut a hundred times a game because he had an Oline that was ridiculously more athletic than pretty much any front it faced. The question is, do you think Kyle would be calling the same plays if he was in the same exact position as Gibbs back then? If you're answer is no, you're severely under-estimating both Kyle and his father's abilities to coach an offense and overlooking everything they've said on the subject as well.

Furthermore, the logic here is so flawed that you're essentially saying any team could just practice 50 Gut a thousand times a week and then call it a lot during a game and it would work. Unless you have an amazing Oline filled with beasts and you're going against a weak front seven it's not going to work, period. The linemen are more athletic now on both sides of the ball and the vast majority of fronts could easily stop it, especially if they know it's coming.