Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Redskins gameplanning for Michael Vick's skills

By Jason Reid

When the Redskins last faced the Philadelphia Eagles in Week 4, quarterback Michael Vick slowly walked off the field during the final minute of the first quarter of Washington's 17-12 victory at Lincoln Financial Field.

Vick was knocked out of the game with a rib injury suffered as he was tackled at Washington's goal line by cornerback DeAngelo Hall and free safety Kareem Moore. The two-time Pro Bowler sat out the remainder of the game and was sidelined for the Eagles' next three games.

But Vick is definitely back.

He was named the NFC offensive player for Week 9 after leading the Eagles to a 26-24 victory against the Indianapolis Colts. Vick completed 17 of 29 passes for 218 yards with one touchdown and no interceptions, and rushed for 74 yards (with a 7.4-yard average) and another touchdown. He had a strong passer rating of 93.7.

Up next for Vick is Round 2 against the Redskins, Monday night at FedEx Field.

"It's the same challenge with him. He's playing great football," inside linebacker and defensive captain London Fletcher said. "He's making plays. He hasn't thrown an interception yet.

"He's doing a lot of good things when he's in the pocket throwing the ball. And, obviously, when he's outside the pocket, being able to make throws on the run and run the ball as well."

During the teams' first meeting in October, Redskins defensive coordinator Jim Haslett focused on shutting down speedy Eagles wide receivers DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. Hall and cornerback Carlos Rogers were extremely physical in jamming Jackson and Maclin at the line.

Haslett was content to give up completions underneath (Eagles running back LeSean McCoy had 12 receptions for 110 yards) in an attempt to contain Jackson and Maclin, who finished with four receptions for 34 yards, with no touchdowns. Eagles backup quarterback Kevin Kolb does not have Vick's scrambling ability, so it's unknown how effective the Redskins' game plan would have been had Vick not been injured.

"We didn't get to see much of him. He only played three series," Fletcher said. "...We'll change up some things. Obviously, we'll do some different stuff, but they're not changing. We know the challenges he presents."

After watching Vick work against the Colts, the Redskins believe he is in top form again.

"With Vick, we've got to go back to the game plan the first game, when we knew he was going to be the starting quarterback," said outside linebacker Brian Orakpo. "And that's know that he's very good on his feet, and he's throwing the ball very well, so it's a dual-threat guy. We've got to be sound."

Meanwhile, another QB well-known to Redskins fans received Al Davis's endorsement today.

By Jason Reid  | November 10, 2010; 1:15 PM ET
Categories:  3-4 defense, Brian Orakpo, Jim Haslett, London Fletcher  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Anthony Armstrong may return punts and kicks
Next: What ever happened to Fred Davis?

Comments

The undisputed MVP of the offense so far has been Chris Cooley.

And the unanswered MVP question is, whatever happened to the 'two-tight end' passing attack that was all the talk this past summer?

Oh, I remember: the decision was to make a pass catching tight end (Davis) a blocking tight end in the same way our running back is a better blocker than runner (whenever he's healthy, that is.).

Let Logan Paulsen/Mike Sellars pass block.

Let Fred Davis become more of an option on passing plays.

And let the analysis begin there.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 10, 2010 7:24 AM

Just as quick note to this -- most of the top teams this season use blocking TEs or a fullback. There's a definite trend towards running the ball in successful teams. If you look at dallas, that is team that doesn't bother with a blocking TE or FB -- -- their QB is went down -- and their offense struggled even with him. In contrast, the jints go with a FB and their TEs are more blocking sorts ... and their offense is much better.

The extra blocker is a big deal in 2010

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 10, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

...The extra blocker is a big deal in 2010

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 10, 2010 1:25 PM

But this offense wasn't supposed to be following trends, it was supposed to be setting them.

Adapting to the talent, using "never before seen" formations with 2 TEs... this is what we were led the beleive the Shanahans were bringing to the table.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 10, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Near the top 5, means he was closer to 5 then 10. U can't know that cause your kool aid colored lenses.

I'd take zorn and vinnie if it meant we kept JC and our 2nd rounder.

Meanwhile, Randle els TD pass, rock Cartwright ST and O contributions.

Yes Banks did win me over by scoring before he fumbled, but DT didn't need to b cut to sign Banks.

Posted by: pabrian2003 | November 10, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse


...The extra blocker is a big deal in 2010

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 10, 2010 1:25 PM

But this offense wasn't supposed to be following trends, it was supposed to be setting them.

Adapting to the talent, using "never before seen" formations with 2 TEs... this is what we were led the beleive the Shanahans were bringing to the table.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 10, 2010 1:37 PM |

it's only a smoke screen so no one knows what they'll do on game day, brilliant

Posted by: hessone | November 10, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

using "never before seen" formations with 2 TEs... this is what we were led the beleive the Shanahans were bringing to the table.

Posted by: Alan4 | November 10, 2010 1:37 PM

Ha-ha. Good one. "Never before seen formations." The reason they weren't seen before is because they wouldn't have worked.

Maybe this is what you believed, but I thought what they were bringing was a new, professional culture and they've delivered. I thought they'd put the players in a position to win. And, they've delivered.

Posted by: beep-beep | November 10, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

If memory serves, Skins D-coaches were also thinking about assigning a shadow/stalker to Vick -- if only to keep him honest and in the pocket. Dude is formidable -- an accurate passer who can run, improvise his way out of a busted play, and block too. Beware the double move!

Posted by: Vic1 | November 10, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Vick won't make it thru the 1st half. I'm more worried about McCoy, DJack, & TCole.

Go ahead and crown the Eagles again. I won't....

Skins 17
Eagles 14

Posted by: Diesel44 | November 10, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

And what we got was adapting the D to bench it's best player, devaluing Carter, putting Orakpo in space.

Benching Dockery and mcNabb, cutting young talent while keeping old has beens.

No overall improvment at O line.

Had to cut a punter, have th worst kicker in the league.

Less depth at RB, I thought that would be impossible, but Shanny pulled it off

Posted by: pabrian2003 | November 10, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Vick Sucks.

Beeps again.

Posted by: PlayAction | November 10, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Just as quick note to this -- most of the top teams this season use blocking TEs or a fullback. There's a definite trend towards running the ball in successful teams. If you look at dallas, that is team that doesn't bother with a blocking TE or FB -- -- their QB is went down -- and their offense struggled even with him. In contrast, the jints go with a FB and their TEs are more blocking sorts ... and their offense is much better.

The extra blocker is a big deal in 2010

Posted by: zcezcest1 | November 10, 2010 1:25 PM
------------------------------------------
I can almost buy into this. It makes sense to go heavy with all of the teams that are out there running 3-4 defenses: it gives you a better chance of blocking those linebackers. Using two tight ends has very little to do with what other teams are doing, though. It is simply a matter of getting your best players on the field who can present the defense with the greatest number of variations. Davis and Cooley can line up as run blockers run and then shift to receivers. Other players on the roster do not have that kind of versatility.

I think another strong argument for having two tightends is the ability to line them both up on one side to block guys as McNabb rolls out. McNabb is much more effective on the run and two tight ends can block for him as he scrambles and then release into a nice little five and out pattern.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | November 10, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Is this a Football Blog or a Girlie Cry ME a River Blog?

Posted by: 4thFloor | November 10, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

zcezcest1

In contrast, the jints go with a FB and their TEs are more blocking sorts ... and their offense is much better.

This is where I am.

If we aren't getting true production from Galloway or Williams, you have to ask how we lose out by using Fred Davis as a 'big' receiver?

Among the other trends league-wide is the sudden explosion of 'flexed' or athletic tight ends (look at Witten, Carlsen, Pettigrew, Clark, Gates, Moeki, the Hernandez kid in NE or a healthy Finley in Green Bay).

I'd druther see Sellars or Paulsen blocking, and Fred Davis getting lined like Galloway.

Use Davis like a receiver and let others block.

Posted by: MistaMoe | November 10, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I hate to break to the Redskin faithful - but this will not be a low scoring affair - not for the Eagles anyway. Vick will be extra motivated to beat the team that cost him three weeks this year.

Your wonderful coach ruined what was a promising season by driving a wedge into the locker room trying to protect his son.

Also, Haslet is no genius. Facing the NFC East teams for a second time this season he will be exposed.

This one will be lopsided and ugly for Washington. Eagles 31 Skins 13.

Posted by: misteripi | November 10, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Mr. IPI, this will be ugly for Philly, with Vick getting hurt again and the Skins beating you twice this season.

HTTR! Beat the igglets!

Redskins 17
igglets 6

Posted by: TKing1 | November 12, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Vick, and the Eagles, are not to be underrated. They are good, and contenders to win the division. Win this game, and we are as good as them. We've lost some games that we should have won on paper, but beat Philly tonight and we still do not have a division loss, and that is huge at the end of the season.

This game is huge. Especially now that the Cowpokes humped Dallas yesterday. Do not under estimate Philly. Anyone who does should know better. They are a good solid team who has built, unlike the Redskins under Cerrato, from the ground up. They are talented and deep, and do not have the Redskins salary cap problems. Donnovan can tell you all about it.

As usual, the game will be won or lost on the front line. I'd like to see us stuff McCoy and the Eagles running game (are you listening Haynesworth?) and make the Eagles one, or at least two, dimensional.

For Gosh sakes......we lost to Detroit. I hope there is some fire left in these guys, or it will be a long second half of the season. Go Skins! Play your hearts out.....like Dallas did yesterday.

HTTR

Posted by: steven09 | November 15, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company