I sweated through this one without the benefit of actually watching it live. Thankfully, the magic of cellphones and old-school VCR recorders allowed me to enjoy the game in full, but perhaps with a little more perspective. Only getting play-by-play text messages from friends when the team was in the red-zone, I experienced only the most depressing aspects of the game while it was live. That sucked. 

Then I got in my car to crawl home through beltway traffic on my way home so I could finally watch my recording of the game. I new the outcome, so I listened to the analysis and fans. That sucked too.

When I finally got home I opened Hogs Haven and the ESPN game story, intent on not having any opinion of my own to formulate while watching the game. In the game story, I read this doozie from All-Pro Tight End, and All-Around Awesome Guy, Chris Cooley:

"I understand that they want us to beat the Rams by 40," said Cooley, who led the Redskins with seven catches for 83 yards. "But we still won, and if we continue to win games, that's great. The booing was unnecessary."

Ouch.

So then I decided to actually watch the game. And with a little perspective (namely knowing the ultimate outcome), I came away feeling pretty damn good about a couple of really important things.

#1: This defense had two poor series all game. One that was defined by a huge play by one of the big-time players in the league, and one that was defined by an even bigger play by a future pro-bowler (IMO) in Chris Horton. Apart from those two series, the Defense harassed Bulger, got off the field on third downs, and made gigantic stops when it absolutely had to. That all-or-nothing stand at the end was a thing of beauty; I cheered out loud knowing what had already happened, and I encourage everyone to go back and watch it again if you can because it will tell you a lot about the heart of the D's key pieces. Just as important though, was the stop after the team punted out the shadow of their goal line to give Campbell the ball back. The D improved significantly from last week and I think Blache also called a more creative game. Though we only got one turnover, players were in position for a couple more, and they will come.

#2: Jim Zorn didn't panic. Confronted with a hostile home crowd, whispers of Shanahans in the wind, and frustrating red-zone results, he stuck to a balanced game plan and put the team in a position to win the game. The defense played big when it needed to, but without the offense running 70 plays, rackings up 362 yards of offense, and holding the ball from almost 35 minutes, Stephen Jackson might have made us play. Yes, 0-5 in the redzone is absolutely unnacceptable, and a lot of that falls on Zorn. He needs to give Campbell chances to execute the more conventional red-zone plays, but a couple touchdowns were left off the scoreboard because players didn't execute. However, between the twenties, the offense moved the ball methodically, spreading it around with more variety, taking shots down field, and running between the tackles very well.

If I had been watching live, I would have been screaming at the television when Zorn was calling running plays on first down when we were losing in the the third quarter. Instead, I was applauding he resolve to stick with the run when it was working. He also called a lot of first down pass plays, which worked well. My man Malcolm Kelly also had his biggest game as a pro and did just enough to get my fantasy team a win. You cannot say anything bad about the playcalling or the execution for 80% of the team's offensive snaps. If Zorn had gotten nervous and started chuckin it around, this game could have been even uglier.

So, frustrating? Yes. Time to panic and boo your own team? Hell no. There is no such thing as a must-embarass game in the NFL. We aren't playing to impress for the coaches poll. This was a must-win game. And we won. 

Hail to the Redskins. Lets go get Stafford.

 

Images via a.espncdn.com

One year ago, the Redskins were in a very similar position. Jim Zorn had walked into Giants stadium in his first regular season game as a head coach and playcaller. Things didn't look too good from the get-go. 

The Giants received the opening kick-off and marched down the field 81 yards on 11 plays for an Eli Manning touchdown run. The Redskins responded by losing 8 yards on their first play from scrimage, failing to establish any rhythm and promptly setting the tone for a really long night. The Redskins defense bent over repeatedly for the Giants but (characteristically) did not break as they scored field goals on their next three possessions.

Why am I reminding all of you about that sad, sad Thursday night? Because this season opener was eerily similar, in a good way. 

One year ago, the Redskins finally mustered some momentum at the end of the half with a touchdown to head to the locker rooms down by only 9. For some strange reason, we all started to feel like there might be some hope. 

One year ago, when the defense finally made a couple plays to let the offense do its work, the Redskins moved the ball better but shot themselves in the foot with penalties and poor clock management. With Jason back in shotgun, the Redskins sniffed the redzone on their last two possessions but were left with nothing to show for it and no time to build on their late game success. We all got drunk and angry and it wasn't pretty.

Now, I know we all entered into this game with a little more perspective and a lower BAC. What I saw was a more disciplined team (4 penalties as opposed to 7), a more successful offense (15 first downs, two touchdowns), and a defense that played significantly better in key areas (particularly the run) than they did last year, but bent one too many times again.

The offense moved the ball well through the air in the second half, especially when Jason dropped back into the shotgun. Questionable play calling, poor clock management, and crippling, headscratching, momentum killing, fluky mistakes made it impossible for the team to execute its game plan and use the weapons that we all believe it to have.

via www.blogcdn.com

The key differences between last year and this year is that Campbell moved the ball much more easily (even without half of its offensive toolbox making a contribution), the defense shut down the best running attack in the league, the OL protected well against the best defensive line in the league, and we ended up a recovered onside kick (or one avoided turnover) away from competing well against one of the most solid teams in the league from top to bottom, and one that has had the Redskins number the last few years.

Is it excusable to get beat in pretty much the exact same way for the second year in a row? No. But the improvements that we saw from one year ago and the key pieces that we have yet to see but strongly believe to be there, mean that we should look forward to seeing how they respond. 

Remember, one year ago we responded with 4 of the most complete games of the season.

Am I crazy to think that we have a ton of (potential/developing) talent on the second and third spots of some positions? I would be confident in giving a bunch of bottom-of-the-roster guys snaps, either to help out if someone gets banged up, to give a guy a breather, or just to keep the freshest legs on the field at all times. I have a much better feeling about the depth of this roster than I have in a long time -- though we clearly still have issues at a few key positions.

The problem is we can't activate everyone every week. BayAreaBullet raised this issue with his post about Marcus Mason, so I decided I would pose the question: Which 7 (healthy) players* will the Redskins place on the inactive list on a weekly basis? Clearly injuries change this and the coaches will probably mix it up depending on the gameplan, but we'll probably see a solid core of bench warmers.

With no emergency 3rd QB, the decision becomes a little tougher for the coaches, but here is what I'm thinking:

1. Kevin Barnes: This is the easiest decision. This guy is still very raw and would be the biggest liability in the secondary (yes, even more so than Justin Tryon).
2. Edwin Williams: Also not too tough. I think this guy is going to be starting at either center or guard in 2-3 years, but he at the bottom of the OL depth chart and with 10 on the roster, two will probably sit each week.
3. D'Anthony Batiste: On the offical depth chart he is Chris Samuels' backup, and we all know how tenuous a situation that is. But its also the consensus that if Samuels goes down, Heyer will move to the left side and Mike WIlliams will step in on the right (hold your breath). Batiste takes a seat.
4. Byron Westbrook: I actually think this spot on the bench is between Westbrook and Kareem Moore. A lot of people have been singing Moore's praises, but I think Doughty deserves to play over him. That said, the skins love to run that Cobra formation with three safeties on the field, in which case we wouldn't need 5 active corners. I think Westbrook also loses out to Tryon.
5. Jeremy Jarmon: Real tough decision. This guy can play but take a look at the roster and tell me who should sit in his place. Maybe Renaldo Wynn takes the hit, but I think Wynn gets the nod against all heavy running teams. He is still young and he is technically from the future (cue Outer Limits theme).
6. Robert Henson: Other people were not as impressed, but I think this guy is a playmaker and could make an impact if he was asked to give a guy like Rocky McIntosh a breather. That said, he's behind Chris Wilson and the numbers aren't in his favor.
7. Marcus Mason: I sincerely doubt that we would spend a roster spot on Mason and he never sees the field. He will sit until he demonstrates an ability to make ST tackles consistently in practice or Betts really craps the bed. I think Betts will actually do better than a lot of people think, and if he can be the number 2 back that Zorn wants him to be, Mason will not crack the active roster. If Mason plays himself onto special teams, he will likely take a spot from Justin Tryon or Kareem Moore (if not Ladell Betts himself).

Ok, so where am I wrong? Which one of the players on my list has the best chance of being activated or which one would you most like to see activated earlier rather than later? Who gets benched instead?

Poll

Who makes the active roster each week?

6%

Kevin Barnes

2 votes

0%

Edwin Williams

0 votes

6%

D'Anthony Batiste

2 votes

3%

Byron Westbrook

1 votes

41%

Jeremy Jarmon

12 votes

17%

Robert Henson

5 votes

24%

Marcus Mason

7 votes

29 votes | Poll has closed

I'm so tired of every FanPost on the site being dedicated to a quarterback controversy that shouldn't exist. There are so many more interesting storylines with this team that will ultimately prove to be much more important this season. Then we'll feel stupid for having wasted our energy trying to decipher punctuationless postings instead having a constructive discourse about our favorite team.

That being said, I'd like to talk about our running backs. I think it is safe to say that in Jim Zorn's version of the West Coast offense, the running game is the cornerstone. In the first half of last season, Clinton Portis was the league's #1 rusher and was neck in neck with Jason Campbell in league MVP discussions. No seriously, our team was actually getting praise last season, remember?

via misterirrelevant.com

In Saturday's preseason game against Pittsburgh, the running game was again the most impressive aspect of the first team's performance. Portis and Betts combined for 18 yards on two consecutive plays to bring us into the redzone. Portis finished his work with 5 carries for 26 yards. He also made me chuckle with his reaction to the bullshit roughness penalty on Deangelo Hall.

However, I am having some doubts that CP can carry the load as successfully this season. I actually advised a friend of mine not to take Portis too early in our fantasy draft cause I think his production will drop off. Now, there are a couple different reasons why this might happen and not all of them would spell doom and gloom for this team.

If Ladell Betts can step up to his 2006 production level and successfully spell Portis on a regular basis, then Portis' legs will remain fresh into January. If Rock Cartright can demonstrate that he can produce outside of special teams, it will be an added bonus. If Dominic Dorsey or Anthony Aldridge can show the semblance of a spark as a change-of-pace back in the preseason one of them might make the team. Maybe Marcus Mason might make the most of his moments. Whoever it ends up being, someone else needs to step up, because I'm not sure that Clinton can make it through another workhorse season.

It seems like the team is of the same mindset. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Ladell Betts will be the Redskins' official third down back. I heard on the radio that the team confirmed this decision, but I can't find a link to that. This move has a lot of implications. First, Zorn must be very confident in Betts, not only in his rushing, but also in his pass catching and blocking. Second, Zorn, conversely, must not be so confident in Portis-- perhaps in his pass catching but probably also in his ability to withstand the whole season. The question will be, is Portis ok with this move?


via redskinsblog.files.wordpress.com

I think that he would have to be. Portis loves the ball, loves to put the team on his back. He was very vocal last year about how he disapproved of being benched in the second half of the Ravens game. However, Portis has to know that he is getting older and if he wants to be productive for even another couple years he has to cut back on his carries. If the team is making an official decision and announcing it this eary, you have to think they have consulted Portis. Right? Then again, I wouldn't be all surprised if they hadn't.

When I first heard this, I immediately approved. I really want Portis' carries to be limited this year, at least early on, in order to keep him fresh at the end of games and at the end of the year. I like Betts; even if he has had ball security problems, I think he could start on another team. Plus, we were one of the only teams in the league that didn't operate with a committee of backs last year, which is a league trend that we would be stupid not to follow.

I also felt like "Official Third Down Back" wouldn't necessarily be a hard-set strategy that would be employed regardless of field position, scoreboard, or game clock. Its Third and One on the 3 yard line, Portis gets the ball, right? Well, maybe not. That exact scenario occured on Saturday. The result: Ladells Betts, no gain, field goal.

Now, because it's preseason we have no way of knowing whether the same play will be called come September 13. Maybe Zorn just wanted to see whether he could count on Betts in that situation. But that shouldn't stop us from speculating, criticizing, and getting way too worked up about it. So, what do you think?

Poll

What strategy should the Redskins use with their running backs this season?

13%

All Portis, all day long

15 votes

26%

Zorn has it right, give Betts a clear job and he will come through

30 votes

35%

"Third Down Back" needs to be a very loose title

40 votes

7%

The roles should be reversed, Portis should have a role similar to Marion Barber in 2007 (in on third downs and to grind out the clock)

8 votes

4%

Don't feature anyone, let's carry 7 RBs and rotate all of them in

5 votes

13%

Bring back John Riggins, the rest are all garbage.

15 votes

113 votes | Poll has closed