RG3 deserves a dominant o-line. As do the Redskins and Redskins fans.
If there are resources leftover after building one (and after shoring up safety and finding a d-lineman who can rush the passer when needed) I'd be all for adding a receiver.
Last edited by RedskinsInFebruary; January-13th-2013 at 06:44 PM.
1969 NFL MVP: RG1!
"Captain, it's a viewpoint--not one of ours! We're under attack!"
"I see it, ensign! Engage amygdala! Transfer all power from frontal lobes!
Suspend critical thinking field! Go to course heading of reflexive response 101 at full bias!
Now!'Enter' at will!"
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Seattle would not have beaten us with a healthy RG3. It would have been close, but RG3 was clutch all season long. We would have found a way.
Hell, maybe we could have held on with Cousins. We weren't given a chance though.
What does this have to do with our WR corps?
I have been saying since the season started that were going to need a true #1 big body possession WR for the red zone and as teams adjust to our offense. RG3 is going to need a safety valve that can get open by himself, not just scheme. Be it Bowe, another FA, or another draft pick.
Last edited by Rypien1191; January-13th-2013 at 05:50 PM.
Actually I disagree to some extent. I watched the all 22 and we had receivers running wide open on more than one occasion. Griffin either had pressure, didn't see them, or a combination of both. RGIII played poorly after the injury and missed some throws and open receivers.
I know I'm not the only one that noticed how many games we won because of our dominant running game more so then Griffin dominating in the passing game. The last Giants game comes to mind, and several of our loses standout with just the absence of Garcon. It's more then just the Seattle game, but that was just the last straw for me. Its not so much as me being pissed as me not wanting to ignore something that is a well masked problem when everything looks like its clicking.
We can easily let the situation continue and hope it improves naturally or acknowledge that this is something that could hold us back from getting over the top. That 3 game losing streak before the bye can be directly attributed to Garcon not playing and no one being able to pick up the slack to keep the passing offense effective enough to win. It is a problem and something we should not just ignore and let fester. We don't have to spend money we don't have given I do feel free safety is way more of a priority, but ignoring it will not make it go away.
We don't know what we think, we don't know what we know. All we have to go on, is what we say and what we show...
Now I can understand wanting more of a sure thing. I'd guess we're not likely to change things much this year (between cap and other priorities), but look instead to next year to see if these guys pan out. So... if that's the likely case, I'd say just hope these guys aren't as bad as you think and root for these guys to step up next year. Because If they don't we can look forward to Mike addressing it in 2014.
That's one thing I really like about Mike, he doesn't half-*** things. He wants a QB? He drafts two. Wrs? He signs two (tries for Royal as well). D-line? Carriker, Cofield, Bowen, Nield. Anyway you get my point. He'll work to fix it, assuming it does prove to be broken.
The 'Skins had to go 2 and a half quarters of scoring 0 points for the Seahawks to finally take the lead. It wasn't like they suddenly came roaring back to dominate this team.
Lets not forget just how long the game was 14-13 in our favor, as our fanbase was clinging to hope that the offense could muster ANYTHING with a hobbled RGIII under center.
Even after RGIII's injury, they still didn't take the lead until the 4th quarter. This is the biggest reason people are criticizing keeping RGIII in so late. People figured that if you put Cousins in, even if he got off to a slow start, he had ample time to get accustomed and into a rhythm, but in the game he was put in so late that his margin for error was basically negative 100.
In the Atlanta game on the other hand, Atlanta was up by 2 possessions late in the game and Matt Ryan crumbled under the pressure and made poor decisions, keeping the door open for the Seahawks.
In both games, the Seahawks were facing a "killshot" from their opponent, and were bailed out for different reasons. The difference is Atlanta had enough firepower to make up for it in the end, and Washington did not.
Last edited by NoCalMike; January-13th-2013 at 11:28 PM.
Listen to my podcast Retro Flick Fillet: Taking a second look at movies that deserve it or don't: http://idiotpod.libsyn.com/
Our red zone td % was 4th in the league for the season, and 1st for the last 3 weeks by a mile despite Griffin's injury. We don't need a big possession receiver as some have mentioned. When Davis comes back that certainly helps there (guarantee we're running heavy formations near the goal line and morgan/hankerson are big enough to fight for jump balls).
61 yards on 11 carries.
68 yards on 6 completions in 9 attempts.
Seems pretty balanced to me, more or less what we did all year.
The 3 game losing streak before the bye can be attributed to bad safety play against the giants, poor catching by the receivers against pittsburgh, and getting away from the run too much against the panthers. It wasn't like those games were all on the receivers. I don't even know what you mean by Garcon/Davis becoming Moss/Cooley. That they are the only passing options? Because Morgan/Moss/Hankerson are all better than Antwaan Randle El or Brandon Lloyd or the other #2's we used. Do you remember 2005? Our 2nd receiver had 200 yards on the year when we threw the ball 450 times. Niles Paul almost had more than that this year and he was our 3rd string tight end.
Our wr go 4 deep. The only other team in the league who can say that is Green Bay. Also remember that we are not a pass first offense, therefor our wr put up fewer numbers. Our biggest priority on offense is RT. People seem to think we desperately need another wr and point to Garcon's absence for it, but how does ANY team look when it's #1 wr goes down? Now imagine a team whose #1 and #2 receiving threats go down for a few games at the same time. It's just unreasonable to think our offense shouldn't miss a beat at all when that happens. You name a team that can excel when that happens, aside from maybe GB, and then sure, we should copy them, but unless losing our top 2 threats becomes a habit I really don't think its even remotely an important issue.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)