Monday, November 13, 2006

Bears and Redskins

Bears started slow but their defense was solid in the first half and was able to keep the Giants from blowing the game wide open early. The Bears then scored 35 points over the last 32 minutes of the game. Great win, and it sent a message to the NFC that they are still the team to beat. Rex had a very good game and the running game started to go as the game wore on. The defense gave up a lot of rushing yardage to Tiki - they are going to need to tighten up their rushing D.

Redskins started slow and never got anything going. The defense wasn't terrible, but they gave up big plays yet again. Brunell did nothing and the Redskins cannot throw the ball down the field with Brunell. The players are bad and this team has no chemistry or identity. I have to say that the Redskins coaching is just plain horrible. They don't hold anyone responsible and I get sick of hearing Gibbs after the game saying "we're in this together," "our guys have character," and "we have smart guys." Gibbs needs to look in the mirror and decide if he really wants to coach. If he does, then he needs to stop making excuses for the poor plays and the penalties and hold some players responsible. Let the J.C. era begins - PLEASE!

Day 1889!


matar-alloo said...

Bears looked like Bear crap until Thomas Jones got them that 1st down on 3rd and 20 something late in the 1st half. After that, they rolled all over the Gigantics. Good game for Rex too. He turned it around and showed some character.

Now the Skins game...they blow. Brunell made some poor throws. I didn't mind so much about the interception. That's just one throw. But there were a few plays where he could've gotten a 1st down had he not let the ball sail. Portis going out obviously hurts a lot. But they should still be able to get some offensive production without him in the game.

The Defense was okay save for a few big plays. That one fumble that was taken for a touchdown was a fluke.

Just another frustrating day for Skins fans. Oh well.

Hooray for the election results!

deepie said...

Like I said last week, the Bears are still the class of the NFC. Rex made an early blunder that probably had Rob calling for Griese era to begin in Chicago, but Rex pulled it together and had another great game against a very good team. It was a good win by a team that knows how to pull itself together and play competitively in the face of adversity.

On the other end of the spectrum are my beloved Redskins. Here's a team that stinks to high hell and doesn't seem to realize least they don't show it. Every week it's the same thing. We're better than this, we're in it together, we've got to take a look at things and figure out what can be done because our guys are playing tough and playing with heart, blah, blah, blah...What a crock. My team is lost. We play with no heart, no anger, no intensity, no desire, no nothing.

This shell of a team has no one on defense that scares anyone. There's no pass rush, corners are playing 10 yards off the receiver on 3rd and 4, linebacker play is atrocious, and the same can be said about the play of the safeties. It's bad all around and it looks like the players can see that it's not getting any better.

On offense it's not much better. The o-line isn't playing well, but I really am unhappy with Brunell now. He showed us his true colors yesterday. He's a coward back there. It's not his fault. He's old and fragile. That being said, he doesn't belong on a football field. He doesn't allow pass plays to develop. He's not seeing the field. He's incapable of stepping up in the pocket to buy a little additional time when the pocket collapses. It is time to bring on our savior, J.C.

Portis getting hurt is a moot point now. Let him rest. He's been banged up all year and he's been trying to play at 75%. Maybe now we'll see more of Duckett.

All in all, da Bears are good. The 'Skins suck. I'm going to be a Rutgers fan now.

Rob said...

Go Rutgers! I am in agreement on that.

Let me be clear - I never called for the benching of Grossman. So let it go, Deepie. If you look at my post from last week, I said that if he doesn't get it together there won't be any choice. He got it together against a good, albeit banged up, Giants D.

The Bears do need to continue to improve their running game. Assuming they get home field throughout the playoffs, I don't want to see them have to throw 30 times in the swirling wind and cold of Soldier Field - especially with the defense they have.

The Redskins need a complete overhaul. However, it needs to start from the top. Gibbs needs to have a real personnel/cap guy clean house and get rid of a lot of the dead wood that is f**king up the team. The problem is that with all of their problems, they don't have draft picks and don't have cash to bring in free agents. They are stuck with many of these players for a while.

J and K's D said...

First, let me say that I like Rutgers as well. Unfortunately, barring a miracle, they will never get an opportunity to compete for the national championship. That is why I don't like the bowl system in Division I-A. I like the playoff system in Division I-AA where the top 16 teams make the playoffs and compete for the championship. Yes, it makes for a longer season but, to me, this is the only way to identify a "true" champion. It also doesn't penalize a team that had one bad game during the season and lost and ruined their chances at a championship.

Now, let me move on to the Bears. Good game. They won and have proven they are the #1 team in the NFC. It was a mistake laden game but they won. Football games all come down to a handful of plays and the key plays for the Bears were the 3rd and 22 first down run by TJ who kept a lost drive alive and gave them that TD shortly before halftime. Petitgout's broken leg resulting in 15-year vet Whitfield getting beaten consistently by Alex Brown. Hester catching the Giants sleeping and running back the missed FG for a TD.

I don't want Rob to get defensive or upset so I will try to remain sensitive to him. Again, the Bears won and deserve the #1 ranking in the NFC. However, I don't think they are the dominant team we all thought they were at the beginning of the year. The defense gave up a lot of rushing yards to Ronnie Brown last week and allowed Tiki 146 yards this week where he averaged 7.4 yards per carry. Grossman definitely improved; however, I am not sold on him. He concerns me everytime he drops back and I'm not sure what he is going to get. Yes, he completes some deeper balls and has a good arm but he also throws some where it's like what was he thinking (this reminds me of another #8). I don't want to take anything away from the Bears. They won the game but I just don't think that they are that dominant as was thought a few weeks ago. They are a good team but they can certainly be beaten. Len Pasquarelli talked about how sloppy the game was and that if that game represented to two best teams in the NFC than the best of the AFC would have to 2 TD favorites in the Super Bowl. I would not go that far but I think the Bears aura of invincibility has diminished. I spoke with Rob last night and it will be interesting to see if Grossman can continue to improve as a QB through the rest of the season.

Finally, the 'Skins. I will not be as harsh as Deepie. I agree with Matar Alloo. Save a couple of big plays, the defense played pretty well. Still, it is the same old stuff. They give up the big plays which is frustrating. The luck play of the fumble and then recovery for a TD is just bad luck but it's par for the course. 'Skins have not played well and just have had bad luck as well. Still, only allowed a FG for the remaining two and a half quarters. It truly is the same old story...big plays cost us. What makes the Stallworth bomb so bad is that it happened on Taylor, our best defensive player. Even Williams was a little disappointed because he said that he felt pretty good having Taylor on that side but Taylor bit and it cost us.

Offensively, Brunell SUCKS! He is old and timid back there and he cannot throw the ball down field. He over threw Lloyd and Moss on a couple of key third downs that could have extended drives and potentially gotten us points. I'm sick of his dump offs. He ranks high in the league in completion percentage but all those completions are to safety valves. I can only assume that Campbell will start from here on out. If Brunell plays next week, I will be VERY confused and disappointed and lose a lot of respect for Gibbs as a coach in his second tenure.

It was funny in the Comcast postgame. The panel (Chick Hernandez, Ken Harvey, Brian Mitchell, and Steve Czaban) are just ripping into Brunell then they get a chance to interview him right after the game and Czaban, who has been the most critical of Brunell, says, "Mark, at this point, would you be willing to go to Coach Gibbs and just say, 'hey coach, I can't get the job done anymore why don't you just play the kid.'" I couldn't believe he asked the question. Brunell was pretty shocked too as well as the panel. It was classic. I actually felt a little bad for Brunell but we had better see Campbell next week.

I am also getting a little tired of the Gibbs post game speeches.

I expect Campbell to make mistakes but I also expect him to make some plays. Comcast was showing some footage of Campbell in the preseason and it was exciting to see how strong and athletic he is. The guy has a cannon for an arm and he just looks lively out there.

I still believe the 'Skins are a huge disappointment and they should be better. I still hold on to my belief that we have quality players but we are not executing and the coaches have mucked up identity by not figuring out what we want to be. Hopefully the long awaited Campbell era will be the beginning of righting things.

Agree (and have mentioned multiple times) that we need a true GM.

Rob said...

JKD, I am not sensitive to your opinion about the Bears. That is today's NFL. The Colts struggled against Buffalo and Tennessee this year. Denver barely got by Oakland yesterday. The Patriots lost to the Jets. That is what happens in the NFL.

As for the Redskins, the Eagles just got tired of beating up on them and moved toward the running game after they were up big. Andy Reid gave up the offensive play calling duties and Marty Morniweig took over for yesterday's game. That is why the Eagles uncharacteristically went to the run. After getting up 17-3 at halftime, the Eagles committed to running the ball and playing defense against the impotent and hapless Redskins offense.

J and K's D said...

I never said that any of those teams that you were listed were dominant either. I just think that the Bears are very beatable.

17-3 at halftime is by no means a large enough margin for any coach to believe he can take the rest of the afternoon off and allow others to take over and go on cruise control. Some credit has to be given to the defense.

Rob said...

I didn't say that you thought those other teams are dominant. I was just making a point about the NFL. Still, team with good records are clearly better than teams with bad records - even if they are not "dominant."

As for the Eagles, 17-3 against the Redskins is enough to get conservative. Which is what they did. It wasn't like Brunell was going to light them up.

J and K's D said...

Okay. It sounded like you were getting a little defensive about what I said. Certainly the Bears are good. I mentioned that. However, I just don't think that they are dominant like they were perceived several weeks ago. Their defense (who I still consider to be good) has allowed back to back weeks of big rushing yards. I am not sold on Grossman. Part of what made the Bears good this year was that I think teams were scared to face them. I don't know if that is the case anymore.

I will still give the defense some credit. I still don't think any coach would believe the game is over with a 17-3 halftime lead.

Rob said...

The Eagles didn't think it was over - they just got conservative because they knew their opponent.

The Redskins are not a come-from-behind team because Brunell is not going throw downfield. If you are not going to be giving up any big plays, then it is easy to go conservative.

J and K's D said...

That's not true.

In the second half (not including their last drive when the game was pretty much over), the Eagles had 12 pass plays versus 8 running plays. I don't think that that is conservative. They went for it on a 4th and 3. I don't think that that is conservative.

We all know Brunell cannot throw the ball downfield but to say that Philly got conservative is wrong and I will still give the defense some credit for stopping the NFL's #1 ranked offense

deepie said...

Stop trying to convince yourself that the D played ok yesterday. This defense continues to give up big plays, continues to be porous on 3rd downs, and does not create turnovers. Finally, at the end of the game when the Eagles got the ball with 10 minutes to go, despite having an anemic running game, they were able to run out the clock. I heard this morning that Gibbs was going to put Collins when they got the ball back, but the chance didn't come up.

This defense is not effective at anything except looking inept. I will continue to agree with you on the talent issue. Despite a major hole in the ability to pass rush, there's enough talent to be better than this, but something has broken.

J and K's D said...

Something's broken alright? You're spirit, man!! If I was next to you right now I'd batch slap you so hard you'd think you could play O-line for the 'Skins.

The defense is ranked 30th. I know they are not good. We consistently give up big plays. This is not good. I have said we need better linemen for a better pass rush. However, in that stretch that I mentioned earlier, they did a pretty decent job of shutting down the #1 ranked offense in the league. If we had any semblance of a real QB that didn't look terrified back there, we could have possibly made a game of it. Brunell ALWAYS looks like a frightened little field mouse back there. He runs like a guy with two prothestic legs and any pass more than 3 yards requires him to exert every ounce of atrophied muscle he has in his tired body.

Who cares about Todd Collins at that point? That's replacing Dumb with Dumber. It's just silly mop up duty that is meaningless. I can only assume JC is the starter now. His education begins today. The 'Skins future begins today. Deepie, stop being a batch and crying about the problems. Have a little pride and lets think of the solutions.

Rob said...

For the Eagles, their game plan was very conservative and heavy on the run. They could afford to do that because they knew the Redskins offense is weak.

The ONLY WAY the Redskins were going to come back and win after it was 17-3 was if the Eagles turned the ball over and gave the game away.

deepie said...

I'm not crying. I've opened my eyes and realized that I should have covered my nose instead because this stinks like shart!

Here's a solution. At the end of the season, cut Archuleta. Take the cap hit and rely on Vincent and Prioleau to play SS. It might hurt for a year, but it has to be done to free up cap space in the future. Trade Griffin for a solid pick. Golston is a rookie and looks to be every bit as good as Griffin. Get Holdman out of there and put McIntosh in. Pick up a good MLB in free agency or the draft if possible.

We'll still need help at corner, but that can be addressed with the 1st round pick we have. Springs still has another solid 1-2 years in him. This would give time to groom another young CB.

On offense, I hate to say it, but trade Portis. He's a leader and the soul of the team right now, but Betts and Duckett fit what Gibbs and Saunders want to do better. Use Portis to get a HIGH pick or two or to get a couple very good o-linemen. The QB situation is addressed with Campbell. Receivers are solid. Cooley is solid. We could use a better blocking TE though as Fauria blows donkey doo-dads.

It'll hurt for a while to get these pieces adjusted, but in the long run, its needed.

Rob said...

Deepie, congratulations on waking up and opening your eyes. Welcome to the light.

Gibbs is going to step aside - the team does not care to listen to him and his excuses anymore. I am amazed at how many fans on talk radio want him out. Unless the the team finishes better than 5-11 (which I doubt will happen), I think he retires as coach at the end of the year.

As for Archuletta, there is no way they are going to cut him this year. They will have to wait one or two more years because the remaining amount if his huge signing bonus would count against the cap immediately. Right now it is divided across the 6 years of his contract.

Besides, Vincent is not going to be around next year. Besides being 36, the Redskins won't offer him anything more than the league minimum. He will either go to a contender or a team that will be willing to pay him more (or both). His time with the Redskins is just an NFL tryout to showcase his skills for his next contract.

J and K's D said...

Rob, why do you say it was heavy on the run. I had just said, "In the second half (not including their last drive when the game was pretty much over), the Eagles had 12 pass plays versus 8 running plays. I don't think that that is conservative. They went for it on a 4th and 3. I don't think that that is conservative." Why do you say that it was conservative and heavy on the run?

Deepie, your saying some good things but c'mon, lets be realistic. What do you really think you would get for Griffin? The guy is aging and has had a number of injuries. You could maybe get a 5th round pick for that guy.

We are stuck with Archuleta for a little while. Perhaps Prioleau will be a better option though for us next year. Agree with the insertion of McIntosh.

I would not be opposed to trading Portis but the deal would have to be very good. Betts is not a starting running back in this league and we don't know what we have with Duckett. Hopefully he gets some action and is a stud but the concern with trading Portis is that you lose a premier RB in this league AND the face of the team. Again, I would not be opposed to exploring those options but the deal would have to be very good.

I know I don't listen to as much talk radio as Rob but I try to listen to it to and from work and I haven't heard anyone calling for Gibbs being fired yet. I will admit though that I would be somewhat surprised if a number of people are calling in calling for his head. Maybe I will hear it on the way home.

Rob said...

I just looked at the Philly play-by-play for the second half.

First drive of second half - 5 runs and 6 passes.

Second drive of second half - 5 runs and 4 passes.

Third drive of secon half (last drive of game) - 12 runs and 1 pass.

That looks pretty heavy on the run to me.

But at a higher level, do you really think the Eagles would be taking a lot of chances throwing the ball downfield with a 14-17 point lead in the second half? They pulled back on their offensive reins - they weren't really stopped by the Redskins vaunted defense.

Rob said...

You want to take out the last drive. Why? The last Philly drive started with 9:03 left in the game. They blasted the Redskins on the final drive and ate up more than 9:00 minutes.


J and K's D said...

I did the same play by play analysis. It was 12 pass and 8 run. I am counting the McNabb scramble and the McNabb sack as pass plays because they were called as pass plays and not running plays. Thus, it was 12 vs. 8. Again, this is not conservative if you ask me.

I take out the last drive because at that point the score was 27-3. Of course they are going to run the ball. Of course they will be conservative at that point. Why bother passing when you are up by 24 points with 9 minutes remaining? Yes, disappointing we couldn't stop them but the point was for a long stretch we did stop the #1 ranked offense.

AGAIN, I am not saying that the 'Skins have an unbelievable defense. I recognize they are ranked #30. They are ranked where they are for a reason. However, I will go back to my original post in that I agree with Matar-Alloo that outside of the couple of big plays, the defense was okay. I will give them some credit for that. Sadly, Brunell sucked and could not throw a pass downfield and then threw the interception and that demoralized the team.

Rob said...

I re-looked at the first two Philly drives of the second half and it was 9 rushes and 11 passes. But, I don't see how you can discount the last drive that started with 9 minutes to go in the game.

If you think the D is OK or really improving, you are in denial about how bad they really are. It is a terrible defense that doesn't stop anyone. Big plays continue to be a problem, but teams can rack up yards on them without any trouble.

J and K's D said...


"AGAIN, I am not saying that the 'Skins have an unbelievable defense. I recognize they are ranked #30. They are ranked where they are for a reason."

In my first post, I said, "They give up the big plays which is frustrating." This has haunted them all year.

You were saying that at halftime the Reid just circled the wagons, put down his headset, and the Eagles just ran the ball and got conservative.

I disagreed with you. I said that in the second half the Eagles did not come out and play conservative. They continued to pass and even went for it on a 4th down. I don't know what you call conservative but in my book, that is not conservative play.

I still counted 12 vs. 8 but fine we will go with your 11 vs 9. I think you now agree with me that this is not conservative. I am glad I have convinced you of that and you can admit that you were wrong.

I discussed the last 9 minutes. "I take out the last drive because at that point the score was 27-3. Of course they are going to run the ball. Of course they will be conservative at that point. Why bother passing when you are up by 24 points with 9 minutes remaining? Yes, disappointing we couldn't stop them but the point was for a long stretch we did stop the #1 ranked offense."

I have copied much of this post from previous posts I put up today because I don't think you are paying attention to them the first time I put them up. If you need me to post them up for a third time, please let me know.

Rob said...

You cannot just eliminate 9 minutes of the game. That is ridiculous.

I think at halftime, Reid said we are up 17-3 against a very weak opponent, let's not blow it. So the Eagles - who normally pass the ball all of the time - decided to make more of a commitment to the run in the second half. That clearly was the case when you look at the stats.


If you care to read, I said, "If you think the D is OK or really improving, you are in denial about how bad they really are. It is a terrible defense that doesn't stop anyone."

JKD, stop accusing me of not reading - it is you who has the problem.

Rob said...

FYI, the last 8 offensive plays Philly ran in the second half were all passes.

I think Reid went into halftime and considered the score and who they were playing and changed course. I think it is odd to only count the first 47 minutes of the game, but that is up to you.

However, if you look at the full game stats:

First half - 12 runs, 16 passes
Second half - 22 runs, 12 passes

The fact remains that this is a terrible defense that cannot stop anyone.

J and K's D said...

Fine. I never said that I was okay with the D. I have said on SO many occasions that we need pass rush. We need a good D lineman. I am not pleased with Holdman. I think McIntosh would be a better option and hopefully much like the situation with Campbell, lets give McIntosh some playing time. He will make mistakes but I think he could be a player. I am okay with Springs and Rogers. I love Taylor. Sure, he blew the coverage on the deep ball last week but he has tremendous talent. Vincent is a step up on Archuleta. Archuleta said he will improve. We will see. Otherwise, that safety position will need to be addressed.

Your point about the Eagles passing the last 8 offensive plays quarter only point to their not being conservative.

Philly had lost 3 in a row. One of their big knocks was that they do not have a balanced mix of run and pass. Even though they wanted to make more of a commitment to run, they STILL passed more in the third and beginning of fourth quarters. I do not know how this is conservative. It is beyond me that you believe that this is conservative play. You think that Reid went into halftime and considered the score and who they were playing and changed course. The numbers do not reflect your thinking.

I addressed the last 9 minutes of the game. When you are up by 24 points with 9 minutes left, OF COURSE you will run the ball and kill the clock. THAT is conservative. I will agree to that. That makes perfect sense. I already mentioned that it was disappointing that we couldn't stop them...especially when we have to know that they are going to run the ball.

I have said that the defense is not good. I have said that we are the 30th ranked defense and there is a reason for that. However, we did shut down the #1 offense for a good stretch there and if our offense was able to generate anything other than little, predictable dump off passes, we might have been able to make a game of it. The sad part is we were able to run the ball fairly effectively (we ran for 142 yards and a 4.2 yards/carry); however, because Brunell cannot throw the ball downfield AND missed Lloyd and Moss on at least 3 critical third and short passes (all slant ins that he over threw), it killed drives.


Clearly, we believe conservative play means two completely different things. You believe passing more is conservative. I don't.

Rob said...

I don't understand anything that you are writing. Your last paragraph is non-sensical. Where do I say I think that passing is more conservative than running?

The second half for the Eagles - 22 runs, 12 passes.

In my last post I said, "I think Reid went into halftime and considered the score and who they were playing and changed course."

The Eagles last 8 offensive plays before halftime were all passes. In the second half they cut down on the passing (even if you don't want to count the last 13 minutes of the game) - that means that they changed course.

There is no question based on the play calling statistics for the full game that the Eagles were more conservative with their play calling in the second half. You do agree with this statement, don't you?

Also, please explain to me where I say that you think the Redskins Defense is good. I never said that in this series of posts, but you keep arguing, cutting and pasting, and generally carrying on as if I said that.

You do believe that the defense played OK - you did post that earlier. I disagree with you wholeheartedly and say that they suck, but I never said that you think the defense is "good" or "unbelievable" as you keep insisting by the content of your posts.

Rob said...

JKD, your last post began with, "Fine. I never said that I was okay with the D."

Just to remind you, from your earlier posts, you said this:

"Save a couple of big plays, the defense played pretty well."

". . . outside of the couple of big plays, the defense was okay. I will give them some credit for that."

You are the one who contradicts and doesn't read.

J and K's D said...

I don't know what you don't understand.

I don't want to repeat everything I just wrote. I would encourage you to read my previous post again.


The Eagles came out in the second half passing more than running.

The last 9 minutes of the game, the Eagles were conservative. They were up by 24. OF COURSE they will run the ball to kill the clock. Hence the change in play calling.

You originally said that they were up 17-3 and became conservative. I am telling you that was not the case. You even pointed out that the last 9 plays of the second quarter they were all passes. That is NOT conservative. You said that they became conservative after halftime. They passed more than ran in the third and beginning of the fourth quarters. That is NOT conservative. You were wrong. Can we agree on that?

I am in agreement that the last 9 minutes was conservative. They only ran the ball. They were up by 24 points. Why bother passing? Why chance stopping the clock? Why not keep the clock moving? Why not run out the game? Any team would have done the same. THAT is conservative play calling. If that is what you are trying to get me to agree to, then fine I agree with that but that is not what your earlier posts were saying.

I suppose we had a misunderstanding with the defense. You asked if I thought the defense was okay or improving and if I did, I was in denial. I thought they played decent enough in that stretch for our offense to make a game of it. Brunell did nothing and we could not take advantage of our defense holding down the #1 ranked offense. You can say they sucked the whole game. I disagree with that. Outside of those big plays which have continued to haunt us all year (and I am not forgiving those mistakes), they played pretty well that game. We effectively shut them down forcing them to punt a number of times. If our offense was able to throw a pass downfield or if Brunell could have converted a third down, we might have been able to make a game of it.

J and K's D said...

Seriously, Rob, what is wrong with you? Can you not admit when you are wrong? Do you feel this absolute need to be right and make sure that you sway others? Do you have some sick pleasure in that?

I feel like you will argue even when you know you are wrong. It's almost like you can't give up and concede.

Rob said...

I don't care whether you change your mind or not. It doesn't matter to me, but you are wrong. Not only that, but you have changed your argument about what you think about the Redskins D.

We are repeating ourselves, but here are the facts.

1. You initially said the Redskins D played well - it was not in response to any question. Now you are backtracking.

2. I like to look at a game as being 60 minutes, not 47.

3. No team scores on every drive. So every defense plays well for stretches of almost every game. The idea that the Redskins D was OK, or improving is just laughable to me (but I want you to have your own opinion). For most of the first half, the Eagles moved the ball at will. Then for virtually the entire fourth quarter the Redskins D was run over. I know you don't like to count the last 9 minutes of the game, but it is part of the game.

4. Even if we look at what happened right before and after halftime (which is when I said Reid thought about his game plan), we see a significant change. The 8 offensive plays right before halftime were passes. In the second half they came out and had a different game plan.

J and K's D said...

I am not wrong and I haven't changed my position. I don't know what you are talking about.

1. Outside of the big plays, I still think they played pretty well. They stopped the #1 ranked offense and gave our offense an opportunity to put up some points. How did I change?

2. I like to look at a game as being 60 minutes as well.

3. You are wrong. The Eagles scored a FG on their first drive (first quarter). Got their big play in the first quarter and the second catch, fumble for TD right at the beginning of the second quarter. For the remaining of the first half, they were shut down. They punted on the remaining 4 drives of the first half. I guess we have different interpretations of moving the ball at will for most of the first half. The Eagles offense was held to just a FG for the remainder of the game. Yes, we did not stop their ground attack with 9 minutes left. I have addressed this over and over again. The game was well out of reach and running the ball made sense. Any team would do that in that situation. I have said this. It is disappointing that we didn't stop them.

4. 8 straight passes is an anomaly (sorry to use your new favorite word). They came out in the second half still passing more than running. I don't think that this is conservative. You seem to think so because that is what you said.

Where am I changing any arguments?

Rob said...

You changed your tune about the Redskins D. Quoting:

"Fine. I never said that I was okay with the D."

Earlier: ". . . outside of the couple of big plays, the defense was okay. I will give them some credit for that."

That is clearly a contradiction.

If you agree that the game is 60 minutes then you don't eliminate the Eagles last dominating offensive drive where they sucked any remaining life out of the Redskins.

But, I grow weary of pointing out all of your inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright falsehoods.


J and K's D said...

Misunderstanding. Outside of the big plays, I was okay with the defense on Sunday. They gave our offense an opportunity to score and give us a chance to make a game of it. I am not okay with the defense on the season. That is what I was trying to say. We had a breakdown in communication. The defense is ranked 30th and is ranked there for a reason. I am not okay with that. I have said all year that I have had problems with the defense. However, I originally said that I agree with Matar Alloo that outside of the big plays, I was okay with the defense on Sunday. I have NOT changed my opinion. Do you follow?

I have addressed the last 9 minutes so many times and said that it is a shame we couldn't stop them. I have said that that is conservative play calling. I have not changed my opinions.

It is you that should admit to your inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and outright falsehoods/lies about the moving ball at will for most of the first half and for the "conservative" playcalling when the game was 17-3 and coming out of halftime.

You are delusional or drunk or both because the numbers don't lie. Get your facts straight and don't put spin on things and worse, please do NOT lie. I will admit you are a master spinster but you shun and hide OR divert attention in another direction when you are confronted and wrong.

I too grow weary of trying to show you your inaccuracies, inconsistencies, lies, etc.

Good day, spinster.

Rob said...

You are wrong and cannot admit it.


J and K's D said...

Nice comeback.

You can't say anything more because YOU know you are wrong and can't admit it. Seriously, I am shocked on your ideas of "conservative" play calling and "moving the ball at will for the majority of the first half." You are either a liar or a fool or maybe both.

Good day, spinster!

Rob said...

I have been right on virtually everything regarding the Redskins. Go back to the August posts and look at what I wrote vs. what you wrote.

It is YOU (JKD) who cannot accept the reality of the Philly play calling coming out of halftime and in the second half.

J and K's D said...

I have mentioned several times before that the 'Skins have been one of the biggest disappointments in the NFL this year. Many experts had them going deep into the playoffs and even winning the Super Bowl. It is too bad what has happened. I'm sure you were right on certain things namely Archuleta and Carter.

However, I am right and stand by everything I said about the Philly game. The numbers don't like, Rob. It is surprising that you can't see it and accept it. Your not being able to recognize what I am saying and accept it leads me to believe that you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it, Rob?

You keep mentioning the last 8 plays of the first half being all passes, fine take that away and now the play selection is 12 run vs. 8 pass. So was the game plan to be conservative all along? You say that the play calling became conservative at 17-3. This is not true. You say the play calling became conservative at halftime. They passed more coming out of halftime so not true. Again, are you lying to us or just a fool? Which one, Rob?

Rob said...

Why in the world should we eliminate the last 8 offensive plays of the first half?

Look, you want to parse the numbers the way you want to do it. You want to take away the 4th quarter and the last 8 offensive plays of the first half to make your point. I don't. The first half play calling was different from the second half play calling. The statistics bear that out.

Go ahead and look at the numbers the way that you like. You believe the Redskins D played well except for a few big plays - I don't. I think the Redskins D was terrible. Those are our opinions. Let's just agree to disagree.

J and K's D said...

Fine. We agree to disagree.

Although, I will say that I am surprised at you and how you cannot see it my way when the numbers don't lie and I spell it all out for you well enough for a 2 year old to understand.

Whatever, we agree to disagree.

'Nuff said.

Rob said...

Still have to take a jab. Sad.

J and K's D said...

Rob, do you work at being an ass or is it just natural?

Rob said...

Why do you insist on creating controversy? Yet again, you won't let go of your need to argue. Sad. Seek some professional help, dude.

J and K's D said...

Why? I wanted to end the discussion. I simply pointed out that I was surprised that you could not agree with me when I was giving you cold, hard facts but I agreed with you that we agree to disagree.

Then you come back saying that I am taking a jab and that I am sad. Why didn't you just let it go?

Fine. I will go seek help but only if you come with me because you have the same problem.

What say you?