Week 1: Arizona Cardinals GDT

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

Al Galdi said this morning that Jamison Crowder only played 62% of the snaps in week 1 because we were in so many running formations with two tight ends, particularly in the second half.

One would assume that if Crowder played 80% of the snaps or so that he would’ve had a few more receptions. If We hadn’t been in so many run heavy formations, Crowder probably has 5 or 6 receptions for 60 TDs.

Then there’s the PRich play where Jamar Taylor held him and took the 5 yard penalty because if he hadn’t, PRich was probably going to score in that play. The ball was a perfect ball, it’s just PRich got held - twice actually on the play - and if that’s complete it’s at least a 42-yard reception and probably the would’ve  been a 77-yard TD for PRich because he was already behind Taylor.

Then, of course there is the Doctson drop.

So, the passing offense easily could’ve  had 4 or 5 more completions for 120 more yards and another TD. I don’t think the passing game is that far off from clicking with the WRs as some people think. 

If Crowder gets 20% more snaps, Jamar Taylor doesn’t hold PRich twice on one play so PRich doesn’t beat him for a 77-yd TD and Doctson doesn’t drop a pass, Alex Smith throws for around 375 yards and 3 TDs on 34 pass attempts, at a 73.5% completion rate.

[Woz]

14 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

19 hours ago, Woz said:

Unfortunately, it seems so.

To paraphrase Highlander (apparently): "There must always be One!"

It’s “there can be only one”

yes ... I know that ... that was the point.

 

Admittedly, I used "paraphrase" incorrectly (probably better to have said "corrupt" or "borrow" or "modify"), but that's semantics.

[Woz]

15 hours ago, turtle28 said:

But.... it didn’t go that way. We won, the game was never close and most in the forum were constantly complaining even though the score was never close and the Cards really only had 1 good drive all game.

I'm not going to speak for the rest of the forum, but I was upset about the fact that the Redskins could have shellacked them, and instead decided to let them back into the game. As I pointed out, it hasn't even been a year since they took their foot off the gas and turned a possible season saving win into a disastrous loss (New Orleans). The defensive coaching staff doesn't seem to have the necessary killer instinct (again, figuratively speaking) to push the team's talent into the top ten again.

The Cardinals only had one good drive in the game because the Redskins let them. Why? Why suddenly play soft coverages when REPEATEDLY this has turned out poorly for the team over the years? The defense punched the Cardinals in the mouth for three quarters ... and then decided to ease off.

Yes, letting the Cardinals up off the mat didn't hurt them. This time. What happens when the Redskins meet teams with more competent quarterbacks like ... I dunno ... Indianapolis or Green Bay?

15 hours ago, turtle28 said:

And, I’ll also point out that perhaps the Redskins defense was the reason that Sam Bradford struggled yesterday and we need to give them more props than we are. Sam Bradford played poorly, and from what I can tell the Redskins secondary played well, especially our 2 young corners - Dunny & Moreau - JNo looked like his old self and our safeties played well also.

Last year in week 1, Bradford threw for 346 yards and 3 TDs for the Vikings. Yesterday, he only threw for 153 yards with 1 int.

So... perhaps it wasn’t so much that Bradford isn’t competent but it’s that the Redskins defense is better than most are giving them credit for.

This is true. The defense looked good.

They could have become feared if the coaching staff didn't decide to coast to the end of the game.

[e16bball]

19 hours ago, Woz said:

1. They did not run up the white flag. In fact, once Peterson fumbled, it injected a bit of life into the Cardinals. Had Bradford not first thrown into the middle of the field (wasting precious seconds) and then later get strip-sacked by Ioannidis, this would have been yet another down-to-the-wire, nail biter we have come to know and dread in Washington.

Yes, they did. 

They got the ball back down 24-0 with 12 minutes left. They proceeded to yank their star RB (even the remarkably dense play-by-play guy commented that if it was a one-possession game, not a three-possession game, Johnson would have been in there) and started throwing short passes in the field of play and running the ball. They were taking 25-35 seconds to get every play off. They took 13 plays and 6.5 leisurely minutes to get that score. It was classic white flag "we're just gonna try to put some points on the board" stuff. I agree with you that they probably didn't have to pack it in at that point, and they may have gotten a lesson in why not. But they did.

Peterson fumbled with 1:45 left on the clock, in their territory, and with them out of timeouts down by 18. If that injected life into them, they need some lessons in late-game football. And arithmetic. 

19 hours ago, Woz said:

1. Even if I accept your premise, I still find it distasteful for two reasons:
   1. Washington had a chance to break one of the longest streaks in the NFL (the lack of shut outs). As I said earlier in the GDT, nearly two thirds of the opening day roster were not even alive the last time the Redskins shut out an opponent. The oldest man on the roster (Alex Smith) was (probably) in second grade when that occurred.
   2. Would Bill Belichick have taken his foot off the pedal like that? Yes, I know that's a rhetorical question because we've seen the answer: an emphatic no. If the Redskins are to get back to competing for championships on a year-in, year-out basis, they need to develop a "curb stomp your opponents" mentality (figuratively speaking).

I couldn't possibly care less about the shutout streak. The only thing I really care about is winning that game, and then winning the one after that and the one after that. If going to a softer defense and allowing them to make easy, short gains even slightly increased our likelihood of keeping all our defensive players healthy -- by keeping our guys out of situations where they are closely engaged with Cardinals guys, trying to make quick turns and pivots and plants and changes of direction -- then I'm all for it.

Plus, why show more of the playbook/scheme than we have to, especially with a new QB and RB in the fold? Give Indy and GB a nice look at more of how we're going to operate, just so we can beat the Cardinals worse than we already had? Show them more of our motions and checks and tendencies and blitzes and DL games we're going to employ with the young studs? I don't really understand that either. If it  was Week 14, when everybody knows what everybody is doing and there would be no uncertainty left as to how our scheme with these new guys operates, that would be one thing. But there will be some legitimate uncertainty as far as what to expect out of us in the next couple weeks, especially on offense. I don't think we should have sacrificed that in order to more thoroughly finish off the Cardinals. 

As for Belichick, well, I think there are plenty of Pats fans who would beg to differ about them employing a "prevent" defense. They do tend to keep the gas pedal down on offense, but they sag back and then rally up on defense just like everybody else. Hell, their base defense, for like a decade now, has been predicated on the "bend but don't break" concept where they give up lots of yards and try to force opposing offenses to run lots of plays and methodically convert many first downs in order to score, instead of yielding big plays. And there are lots of articles on Google about games where teams (or individual players) scored their only TD against the Pats in garbage time when they had lapsed into their prevent defense.

Don't get me wrong, the prevent defense sucks. In a one-possession game, or even 10 point game or something like that, it's a terrible strategic choice. But up by 3 possessions (and realistically more like 4 given that they would have needed to get three 2-point conversions), it's not unreasonable. 

20 hours ago, Woz said:

I am happy about the win, but I can foresee (and have seen) games where taking that lackadaisical approach will come back to the haunt them. Had the Redskins been facing a more competent QB, it could have happened (again!) yesterday.

I'm glad you're happy about the win. I hope everybody is. I guess what I was getting at more than anything is that so many of you guys are so snakebit by the Redskins' past that you didn't seem to be enjoying even a bona fide trouncing while it was happening. That's entirely your choice, obviously, I just figured we might as well enjoy the "ups" together as much as we commiserate the "downs"

[Woz]

Just now, e16bball said:

I couldn't possibly care less about the shutout streak. The only thing I really care about is winning that game, and then winning the one after that and the one after that. If going to a softer defense and allowing them to make easy, short gains even slightly increased our likelihood of keeping all our defensive players healthy -- by keeping our guys out of situations where they are closely engaged with Cardinals guys, trying to make quick turns and pivots and plants and changes of direction -- then I'm all for it.

Plus, why show more of the playbook/scheme than we have to, especially with a new QB and RB in the fold? Give Indy and GB a nice look at more of how we're going to operate, just so we can beat the Cardinals worse than we already had? Show them more of our motions and checks and tendencies and blitzes and DL games we're going to employ with the young studs? I don't really understand that either. If it  was Week 14, when everybody knows what everybody is doing and there would be no uncertainty left as to how our scheme with these new guys operates, that would be one thing. But there will be some legitimate uncertainty as far as what to expect out of us in the next couple weeks, especially on offense. I don't think we should have sacrificed that in order to more thoroughly finish off the Cardinals. 

I guess where we differ in opinion is here. You have a point that showing more of the playbook this early would be detrimental (for the record, I'm okay with being a bit more conservative on offense). However, my thought with the defense was establishing/reinforcing a mentality of "destroy opponent." The Washington Redskins have not had a top ten defense in nearly a decade. In fact they've struggled to get to the top half of the league for most of the 2010s.

I'm not asking for dialing up every exotic look, but I want to see focus and intensity for four quarters. Yes, that comes with increased injury risk (but given that the team is much younger than years past, especially on defense, this may be "once bitten, twice shy" thinking). At the same time, it sets a tone for the defense: "This is what we expect. This is how we play."

Just now, e16bball said:

I'm glad you're happy about the win. I hope everybody is. I guess what I was getting at more than anything is that so many of you guys are so snakebit by the Redskins' past that you didn't seem to be enjoying even a bona fide trouncing while it was happening. That's entirely your choice, obviously, I just figured we might as well enjoy the "ups" together as much as we commiserate the "downs"

For me, it soured the win a tad. Had that one score come from getting beaten over the top or from David Johnson pulling a beautiful run out of his helmet, I think I would have been less grumpy about the defense because they looked so good for three quarters. An over-the-top to Fitzgerald? Well, that sucks but he's a future Hall of Famer; it happens. But to let them march down the field like that without really pressing them? That bothered me.

Still, a win is a win, especially one on the road.

[Woz]

Lest it be thought that I'm a complete negative Nancy, here's some interesting things from Hog's Haven's offensive snap article: https://www.hogshaven.com/2018/9/11/17834856/skins-stats-snaps-redskins-cardinals-offense

Quote

3rd & 4th Down- The Redskins converted on six of their 13 third-down attempts against the Cardinals. Half of those conversions were on third-and-longs (7, 9 and 12 yards to go) and two of the other three conversions resulted in touchdowns.

Amazingly, the 46.2% conversion rate on the money down represented the team’s best success rate since Week 6 of last season (50% at San Francisco). They only moved the chains on 40 of 140 third-down attempts between this game and that one (28.6%).

The offense was also able to pick up a first down on their only fourth-down try of the afternoon.

The Redskins picked up a total of 30 first downs in the game, the second most in the league this week (the Chargers had 33 first downs).

This is good!

Quote

Red Zone- The Skins scored touchdowns on their first three trips to the red area and went 3-for-4 inside the 20 in the game. They averaged an impressive 4.46 yards on their 13 plays inside the red zone. The Redskins only posted a conversion rate of 75% or higher when they made four or more trips inside the 20-yard line twice in their last 22 games (Weeks 5 and 6 of last season).

This is better!

[Woz]

Also (same article):

Quote

Crowder is currently sitting at 195 receptions for his career and will likely reach the 200-catch mark sometime in the next two weeks (his 49th or 50th career game). If he does, he will become the fourth fastest Redskins player to record 200 catches in franchise history. The only players who did it faster are Jordan Reed (38 games), Gary Clark (43 games) and Charley Taylor (47 games).

WTG Crowder!

[turtle28]

I’m with E, I just don’t understand being so bothered with a 24-6 win. I understand as Redskins fans we should be worried we’ll give up big leads, that if we quit being aggressive that the other team will come back on us, wanting a shutout and a win by 30 or 40 points - instead of JUST 18 - because it’s happened so many times that we’ve given up leads but I don’t understand being bothered by it so much that it seems you didn’t enjoy the win.

Again, that didn’t happen. We won by 18 points, the game was never close and AZ only put one good drive together all game. We should be happy about that! Not worried because of something that happened in the past, but didn’t happen on Sunday.

I’ll say it again, it doesn’t make sense to me that half of this game day thread reads as if the team was losing by 21 points at half time and was down by 24 points in the 4th quarter rather than what was really happening and we were up by 21 and 24 points.

[Woz]

Just now, turtle28 said:

I’ll say it again, it doesn’t make sense to the resident eternal optimist that half of this game day thread reads as if the team was losing by 21 points at half time and was down by 24 points in the 4th quarter rather than what was really happening and we were up by 21 and 24 points.

FTFY.

[MKnight82]

4 hours ago, Woz said:

yes ... I know that ... that was the point.

 

Admittedly, I used "paraphrase" incorrectly (probably better to have said "corrupt" or "borrow" or "modify"), but that's semantics.

Better Highlander, Conner or Duncan?  Discuss.

[Woz]

Just now, MKnight82 said:

Better Highlander, Conner or Duncan?  Discuss.

I'm more a Duncan fan, myself. The movie-of-which-we-shall-not-speak-of did a lot to hurt Connor in my eyes.