Network News

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

Cooley plays down lack of involvement in the offense

Much of the attention coming off of Sunday's loss to the Rams deservedly focuses on the team's pass defense and the offense's struggling rushing attack, but it's worth noting that tight end Chris Cooley did not seem to have a particularly active role until late in the game.

Cooley finished with a respectable 53 yards on five catches, but he wasn't regularly targeted by quarterback Donovan McNabb until the fourth quarter.

Cooley made his regular appearance Monday evening on 106.7 The Fan and was asked by LaVar Arrington right out of the gate, "Chris, why did they not throw you the ball, bro?" Cooley handled the question the best he could.

"That's a good question. That's something that I'm going to try my best not to complain about," he said. "We're a work in progress right now. We have a lot of things going on and we're trying to get better."

Cooley was targeted just three times in the first half (12 yards on two catches). Nearly 20 minutes passed before he was targeted a fourth time, late in the third quarter. Four of the eight times he was targeted came in the fourth quarter, when the Redskins were throwing the ball and trying to catch up.

"I feel like especially on third down, I feel like I'm a viable option," Cooley said during his radio appearance. "There was some stuff going on with the Rams' blitz package. We stayed in and protected. We thought we could get the tight ends and the backs some balls in the flat. Checking out, we felt like they played a little bit soft.

"There were a lot of times I felt like I had a chance. There was also a lot of times that we threw balls and made plays that I could've got balls on, so..."

Cooley spent plenty of time on the field. He explained the Redskins utilized their "heavy" personnel package about 75 percent of the time against the Rams, which is essentially a single-receiver package that also includes Cooley, Fred Davis, Mike Sellers and one running back. This package gave both tackles some help and should've enabled the Redskins to better handle the Rams' blitzes.

It didn't always work, and Cooley wasn't involved in the passing game the way he normally likes. He said every player on the team shoulders the responsibility for the loss, though.

"I don't want to take anything away from the Rams because they played hard and they had a lot of things going for them, but I'm embarrassed," said Cooley, who's fifth among tight ends with 197 yards on 14 catches through three games. "I'm embarrassed by what happened to us."

By Rick Maese  | September 28, 2010; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Chris Cooley  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Portis still listed No. 1 on the Redskins' depth chart
Next: Rams rookie Sam Bradford leaves Redskins impressed

Comments

Five catches for 53 yards isn't bad for the team's FIRST option. Just need to get more TDs...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 6:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:04 AM | Report abuse

This goes a long way to explaning this game and why we looked like the '09 team again:

". . . . "heavy" personnel package about 75 percent of the time against the Rams, which is essentially a single-receiver package that also includes Cooley, Fred Davis, Mike Sellers and one running back. This package gave both tackles some help and should've enabled the Redskins to better handle the Rams' blitzes"

Our o-line is so thin at tackle that when we use a backup (who couldn't even serve as a backup elsewhere) we have to change our whole gameplan to compensate.

But, again, why no run more if you have to use that package?

Posted by: Cookie4 | September 28, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 28, 2010

For that matter, the Redskins had trouble deciding who was going to suit up just hours before the game. They submitted an inactive list, then tried to change it, then realized they had to stick with the original. They ended up with only one backup offensive lineman on the active roster.

What the heck?

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:09 AM | Report abuse

Little-known fact about Tony Sparano...dude is wearing the shades because he HAS to, not because he wants to:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Tony-Sparano-is-not-trying-to-be-Corey-Hart?urn=nfl-272506

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Brownwood...F Whitlock because you think he's wrong, or b/c the truth hurts? You seem like a realist to me and there is not a whole lot there I can argue with...even though I hate every single word of it.

Like the article or not...this is the best line of copy I've ever read about CP26 - Clinton Portis is old, weird, washed up and running behind one of the league's worst lines.

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Where did you get that from MColeman? That's just scary...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:19 AM | Report abuse

I was really hoping to see more production out of the two tight end sets. Moving forward I'll bet we do.

Posted by: wireman65 | September 28, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

An AP article in the Richmond Times Dispatch this morning.

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Brownwood...F Whitlock because you think he's wrong, or b/c the truth hurts?

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:18 AM


Both.

No objective statistical analysis will support what I'm about to say: this won't be a blowout. Just a gut feeling I have, based on years of watching Redskins football. The Redskins have a nasty habit of losing the games they should win and winning the games they should lose (or at least playing the better team closer than expected). I won't go out on a limb and predict victory (yet), but I highly doubt this will be the 52-0 rout like everyone seems to think.

I mean, karma has to kick in somewhere, right? Philly has a sh*tty fanbase, did McNabb all kinds of wrong over his 11 years there...he's just gotta go back victorious, doesn't he?

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Even though the offense hasn't been great it has still looked better than last season!!

The defense however.....MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!

Dead last!!!!??? really!?

We now have Philly led by "Dog Vader", Indy and the "Big Brother Manning", followed by Green Bay and "The Prodigy" Rodgers for the next 3 games.

Say hello to 1-5 folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: skins91r | September 28, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

Talking to a buddy of mine that's a Packer fan...dude is dyin' for RB help. Told we'll take A.J. Hawk straight up for Portis. He hung up...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm. I figure today we'll hear of a few personnel changes. I'm expecting some shuffling of the wide receiver corps, and maybe another DT being brought in.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:26 AM

Agreed. Over the past several decades the Skins have an uncanny knack of playing up to and down to the level of competition. We'll sneak it to a few good teams this year and stink it up when playing "inferior" teams. Hope we can make Philly and Vick have a real bad Sunday.

Posted by: wireman65 | September 28, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

"we felt like they played a little bit soft"

I'm sure the feeling was mutual..

Posted by: ga8085 | September 28, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

No, I agree with you. The Beagles had better be ready for a dog fight...pun intended. The Skins are embarrassed right now and they do have a tendency to play to the level of their competition. They have a fighters chance Sunday, I think.

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm. I figure today we'll hear of a few personnel changes. I'm expecting some shuffling of the wide receiver corps, and maybe another DT being brought in.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:36 AM


Not sure how WR shuffling will help the defense...but if we can bring in another CB, NT, and 2 or 3 LBs we should be good...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm. I figure today we'll hear of a few personnel changes. I'm expecting some shuffling of the wide receiver corps, and maybe another DT being brought in.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:36 AM

Not sure how WR shuffling will help the defense...but if we can bring in another CB, NT, and 2 or 3 LBs we should be good...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:41 AM
-------------------------------------------
My thought is someone will get released from the receiver corps and either Banks will be re-signed, or they will elevate Terrence Austin. No one is happy with any receiver not named Moss right now.

As for nose tackles, Kemo just isn't getting it done, and maybe they will just shuffle around existing guys, but I am betting they are looking for a pure nose tackle.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

"We now have Philly led by "Dog Vader", Indy and the "Big Brother Manning", followed by Green Bay and "The Prodigy" Rodgers for the next 3 games."

Say hello to 1-5 folks!


1-5 is the start of a heckuva wormhole.

But after sitting through 4-12 a couple times, I say, "What's the dif?"

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm. I figure today we'll hear of a few personnel changes. I'm expecting some shuffling of the wide receiver corps, and maybe another DT being brought in.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:36 AM

Not sure how WR shuffling will help the defense...but if we can bring in another CB, NT, and 2 or 3 LBs we should be good...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 7:41 AM
-------------------------------------------
My thought is someone will get released from the receiver corps and either Banks will be re-signed, or they will elevate Terrence Austin. No one is happy with any receiver not named Moss right now.

As for nose tackles, Kemo just isn't getting it done, and maybe they will just shuffle around existing guys, but I am betting they are looking for a pure nose tackle.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:46 AM
-----------------------------------------
Anything that keeps the offense on the field longer is a win for the defense.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Is anybody else surprised that Chris Wilson can't supplant Carter? I know Haslett knows more about both players and what he needs that I ever will, but Wilson just moves better in space.

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Something I wanted to menion yesterday, but didn't get around to:

-It seems like every time Sam Bradford rolled out there was a different defender in pursuit. One time I saw Andre Carter and he was clearly losing the foot race. Another time, I saw McIntosh and he was losing the foot race as well. Carter, I knew about and I think many of us believe he shouldn't be playing linebacker, but McIntosh? Is this guy that slow? I always thought he was kind of a light linebacker good in pass defense, but after yesterday, I just think he is small and slow.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Is anybody else surprised that Chris Wilson can't supplant Carter? I know Haslett knows more about both players and what he needs that I ever will, but Wilson just moves better in space.

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:51 AM
------------------------------------------
I'm surprised Lorenzo Alexander isn't out there ahead of him. Zo is faster, plays better in space, and just looks like he belongs out there. They really would be doing Carter an awesome favor by trading him to a 4-3 team where he can go back to playing end and the team can fill in the void left by Carter's departure quite easily.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

MistaMoe

I thought we actually had .500 talent last year, but we had the biggest joke QB in the league and an even bigger punch line for a coach.

I thought 8-8 or 9-7 wasn't out of the realm of possibility. MY MISTAKE!!

What I'd really like to know is who thought the schedule the Skins have to play was a good Idea for a last place team!!!??? They're not the Saints for Christ sake!

Posted by: skins91r | September 28, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse


F Jason Whitlock for this:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/michael-vick-donovan-mcnabb-not-a-fair-fight

Posted by: brownwood26 |

Um, did you actually read the piece? I think it's a pretty sad but accurate assessment of the state of the team, and a nice opportunity to shove his words down his throat. Here's some of them:


"This -- Redskins vs. Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field -- won't be a fair fight. McNabb is headed home for war unarmed, flanked by overmatched troops and with no ground support.

We can agree now the Washington Redskins are a horrendous mess, as bad as any team in the league. Losing by two touchdowns to the St. Louis Rams removes all the false shine from Washington's lucky season-opening victory over the Cowboys, doesn't it?"

Posted by: TheCork | September 28, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

"Cooley spent plenty of time on the field. He explained the Redskins utilized their "heavy" personnel package about 75 percent of the time against the Rams,"---RI

Hmmm, seems to me I remember something about Cooley putting a photo of his heavy personnel package on the internet not to long ago.

Posted by: TheCork | September 28, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 28, 2010

For that matter, the Redskins had trouble deciding who was going to suit up just hours before the game. They submitted an inactive list, then tried to change it, then realized they had to stick with the original. They ended up with only one backup offensive lineman on the active roster.

What the heck?

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:09 AM

Yeah, they suited only 6 OL. They got lucky they didn't have any injuries. They could have suited 10, it wouldn't have made a difference.

The Rams beat us without their two starting DTs, TEs, SS and without Jackson and OJ Atogwe for the 2nd half.

We've lost to the Rams 2 of the last 3 times. We are closer to the Rams then we are a playoff team.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

couldn't help but be jealous of the GB team last night....they use EVERYONE on offense, they throw the ball DOWN the field, to set up the run...and that cat Matthews on defense....Hasletsupalottayards needs to watch that game and start to use Rak like they use Matthews...all he does is rush..other cats cover...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Is anybody else surprised that Chris Wilson can't supplant Carter?

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 7:51 AM


No.

Chris Wilson is an undrafted "tweener". He's probably more valuable as a special teamer than anything else. Seems to me, if he had game enough to unseat Carter, he would have been competing with him for a starting spot instead of Lo Alexander.

We need to just wrap our heads around the reality that this team had a LOT of holes to fill from last season and we've only been able to address a few of them. It's gonna take time and we just need to know that we'll see some of the ugly before we see the payoff at the end.

Hopefully, we can take down a couple division opponents while we wait.

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

redskinhead

"Kemo just isn't getting it done, and maybe they will just shuffle around existing guys, but I am betting they are looking for a pure nose tackle."


What's sickening is that AH has the girth and presence to be that 'pure nose tackle' you speak of, but won't commit to learning to be a force in the middle.

So much what this defense is supposed to do was predicated on AH being a monstah in the middle.

So far, all he's been is a Sulking Sultan on the Sidelines.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 28, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

couldn't help but be jealous of the GB team last night....they use EVERYONE on offense, they throw the ball DOWN the field, to set up the run...and that cat Matthews on defense....Hasletsupalottayards needs to watch that game and start to use Rak like they use Matthews...all he does is rush..other cats cover...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:04 AM


To be fair, GB is a year further in their process of switching to a 3-4 and had better personnel for it from the start.

Not sure where you're going with the 'Rak comment...about the ONLY thing we're doing right on defense is moving #98 around and getting him to the QB...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

As much as it PAINS me to say it....

Haynesworths complaints about the Skins runnin a 3-4 seem to speak for themselves at this point!

Posted by: skins91r | September 28, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Figured Soprano wore shades under any circumstance for a reason. Don't see to many OWGs wearing shades just for the hell of it.
---------------------------------------------------------

brown, McNabb coming to Philly and getting the win 'cause of the Philly fans treated him for 11 years -- good karma for McNabb? Not likely.

McNabb wears a DC professional team uniform now. They're all cursed. Nothing of substance happens with DC pro teams anymore.

When McNabb came to DC he sold his karma to the devil or some sort of evil gypsy.

Posted by: RedDMV | September 28, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

brown, didn't see the last game, but it seems like Rak is out in coverage some...Matthews was just straight ahead rushing the passer...someone wound him up, and said go......

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

From Riggin's Riggo44 blog, I guess Diesel44 was taken.

Coffee Is For Closers

Say what you want about whether Haynesworth has earned his paycheck so far this season, but, there’s a guy yesterday that will definitely need rear view mirrors to pick his up this week. The sad part is he never set foot on the field in St. Louis. He was on the sidelines, monitoring the debacle. I’m hard pressed to believe that Mike Shanahan is not accountable for how the B and G played against St. Louis. When a team is dispirited and loses energy, particularly to a team, they were superior over, it reflects poorly on the person charged with their preparation.
As can happen, Washington started poorly, but from the outset I could see St. Louis was waiting for that moment of “here we go again”. And, it happened right before the half with Washington blocking a field goal after St. Louis held the ball for seven minutes. So, how did Washington allow the Rams to overcome them in the second half without the Ram’s best player on the field? Washington was not properly prepared to play, and that job falls on the head guy.

I watched Coach Shanahan’s press conference immediately following the game; he seemed delusional. He referenced how his team fought back to take control of the game. No, St. Louis was a lame duck team waiting for its opponent to set the pecking order, instead the Rams dictated to Washington. He did not want to acknowledge the fact that his team played with no energy, when it counted, or that they lost focus in the crucial moments of the second half. Washington players seemed fatigued, both mentally and physically.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

beantown

"...they use EVERYONE on offense, they throw the ball DOWN the field, to set up the run..."


Don't post this or the "Why You Pickin' On Kyle Shanahan?" crowd will come git ya'.

The bears have a solid front 7.

So, the Pack spread their formations and used short passes to the wide side of the field like running plays.

And until Portis gets healthy or Williams/Torain steps up, why not use short passes (3/5 step drops) to the flat (outs, hitches, slants, arrow routes) in lieu of a running game?

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 28, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Red, hopefully McNabb coming to town reverses the curse. I mean, look at what's happened in recent years...the Nats getting Strasburg, the Wiz getting Michael Jordan and then Arenas as a FA...

Wait, that didn't come out right...let me start again...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Riggin's from his Riggo44 blog, I guess the name Diesel44 was taken.

Coffee Is For Closers

Say what you want about whether Haynesworth has earned his paycheck so far this season, but, there’s a guy yesterday that will definitely need rear view mirrors to pick his up this week. The sad part is he never set foot on the field in St. Louis. He was on the sidelines, monitoring the debacle. I’m hard pressed to believe that Mike Shanahan is not accountable for how the B and G played against St. Louis. When a team is dispirited and loses energy, particularly to a team, they were superior over, it reflects poorly on the person charged with their preparation.
As can happen, Washington started poorly, but from the outset I could see St. Louis was waiting for that moment of “here we go again”. And, it happened right before the half with Washington blocking a field goal after St. Louis held the ball for seven minutes. So, how did Washington allow the Rams to overcome them in the second half without the Ram’s best player on the field? Washington was not properly prepared to play, and that job falls on the head guy.

I watched Coach Shanahan’s press conference immediately following the game; he seemed delusional. He referenced how his team fought back to take control of the game. No, St. Louis was a lame duck team waiting for its opponent to set the pecking order, instead the Rams dictated to Washington. He did not want to acknowledge the fact that his team played with no energy, when it counted, or that they lost focus in the crucial moments of the second half. Washington players seemed fatigued, both mentally and physically.

I don’t think the saga of Albert Haynesworth is all on Shanahan; I think there are external forces at work that Shanahan is powerless to control. But, this lingering malady has to have some affect on this team’s ability to prepare, if only in its collective subconscious. Shanahan should know better, and after this monumental loss now is the time to embrace Haynesworth or send him on his way.
The scary part of this is Shanahan appeared after the game to be someone that had had an augury, and this vision did not please him. It’s as if his last year in Denver was revisiting him, when the team collapsed and lost the last three games to finish 8-8. He seemed to be a man reconciling the truth that only he knew. That, as a coach, he might have lost it.

They are only three games into the season, and in a weak division this year, but as this team corrects the mistakes of yesterday and looks forward to the Eagles, it’s not just the players that have to reenergize themselves. Now is when a coach earns his keep. Coach Shanahan has a vast field of opportunity in front of him. But, Coach; you know the rules, the Glengarry leads are only for closers.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

When McNabb came to DC he sold his karma to the devil or some sort of evil gypsy.

Posted by: RedDMV | September 28, 2010 8:14 AM

Maybe that only happens if you sign a FA contract. DMac got traded...it was out of his hands.

Posted by: MColeman51 | September 28, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse


The Redskins have a nasty habit of losing the games they should win and winning the games they should lose (or at least playing the better team closer than expected).


Oh, we lose games we should win because we are no better or worse than those teams. Did you ever think that the good teams are playing down to our level, taking us lightly. How many wake up calls are needed. I'm not overreacting either, just something I've noticed based on years of watching Redskins football.

Posted by: hessone | September 28, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the 2x post, RI eat the original and then I condensed it and now both appeared.

Look for Bryant to get more looks at NT and it's too bad we don't have a back up center to move Rabach to the bench. I thought Edwin showed some potential but he's on the Bears practice squad.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I think the Packers have better LBs that can actually cover so I think that's why they can do that. Because our LBs suck, 'Rak is one of the better cover LBs we have, in addition to being our best pass rusher. I would think that's why he's not pinning his ears back every play like Matthews.

Moe, we can't do a lot of 3-step drops because A) McNabb will get killed by our interior O-line and B) we don't have any WRs that can get open that quick. Well, maybe Moss but he's also one of the smallest WRs we have.

Interesting stuff from Diesel...both the poster and the original. If that's true, hopefully Shanahan wakes up to that and does something about it heading into Philly.

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

moe, I don't see how anyone could defend the game plan this past weekend......and sorry, but at this point, Galloway is a better practicer than DT, AWESOME for Joey, but then they don't throw the ball to Galloway, so how's that working out oh thats right, its NOT...the coach needs to put his PRIDE to the side, and figure out a way to get this guy on the field....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Not sure where you're going with the 'Rak comment...about the ONLY thing we're doing right on defense is moving #98 around and getting him to the QB...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse"

Agreed.

Somewhat. Orakpo isn't the only positive in this defense. Carriker is playing like a 1st rounder, McIntosh may be supplanting Fletcher as the stud ILB, and Landry is living up to his status as a top 10 pick at safety.

It really is two huge pieces that are killing this defense. You can't win with a 3-4 with good play from the NT. Kemoeatu is regularly getting blown back off the LOS. It's to the point where if he's only moved back 1-2 yards instead of 3-4 yards, it's a success for him. That can't happen.

The other missing piece is the OLB opposite Orakpo. I thought Carter could be schemed for to mask his weaknesses, but it's looking like that won't happen. He simply can't cover or contain in space consistently.

Obviously the other aspect of the game that was lacking was the cornerback play against STL. That really is independent of the 3-4 though. They were outright beaten regardless of scheme.

Posted by: psps23 | September 28, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

All the complaining about coaches and there is a hold over from the Zorn era flying under the radar.

Danny Smith. Every week one facet of his special teams fail.

week 1: short punt giving the Girls a short field setting up their only score

week 2: blocked FG (davis), missed FG

week 3: opening KO OB (Gano), blocked punt (k. williams)

Not to mention giving the P job to a guy with a bad hip and Buchanan at PR. It's long over due but Smith needs to be held accountable.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Why hasn't Buchanon been fired yet? The Skins are better off playing Barnes at CB. They would have the same punt return production by going after the punter every time and putting anyone back to return.

Posted by: siris | September 28, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Why hasn't Buchanon been fired yet? The Skins are better off playing Barnes at CB. They would have the same punt return production by going after the punter every time and not putting anyone back to return.

Posted by: siris | September 28, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

or bring Banks back as a punt returner...

Posted by: siris | September 28, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Lots of Packers love up in here, and they have a good offense, but don't forget that they also lost yesterday. As for the Skins, what troubles me is the lack of team speed on defense, #98 excepted.

Posted by: manlius1 | September 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

moe, I don't see how anyone could defend the game plan this past weekend......and sorry, but at this point, Galloway is a better practicer than DT, AWESOME for Joey, but then they don't throw the ball to Galloway, so how's that working out oh thats right, its NOT...the coach needs to put his PRIDE to the side, and figure out a way to get this guy on the field....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:31 AM |

So you don't watch the game, you can't watch the practices, yet you're convinced that the coach's pride is what's keeping DT off the field? It used to be when someone posted stuff this off the wall stupid a guy in Boston would jump all over them.

Posted by: mack1 | September 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Orakpo isn't the only positive in this defense. Carriker is playing like a 1st rounder, McIntosh may be supplanting Fletcher as the stud ILB, and Landry is living up to his status as a top 10 pick at safety.

Posted by: psps23 | September 28, 2010 8:32 AM


100% agree. I was only referencing the LBs, in which case Fletcher and Orakpo are the only guys playing well.

I'll never understand the contingent of RI regulars that consistently call for younger players to play...do you want the best 22 on the field or do you want a daycare? Coaches don't play the old guys because they like old guys, they play 'em because THEY'RE BETTER THAN THE YOUNG GUYS. I'm all for a youth movement, provided that youth is able to beat the likes of Joey Galloway, Andre Carter, and Clinton Portis in open competition. They haven't...so they don't. It really is as simple as that...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

beans, I was thinking about all the targets Rodgers has at his disposal... Finley, Driver, Jennings, Lee, Jones... your boy Jordy, and I can't decide if they're that good, or is it Rodgers making them look that good. All I know is that GB has a damn good QB for a long time. If I'm Rodgers I'd send constant shout outs to the GB fans who were hollering 'we want Brett' at Packers training camp a few years back.

Posted by: RedDMV | September 28, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I think the Packers have better LBs that can actually cover so I think that's why they can do that. Because our LBs suck, 'Rak is one of the better cover LBs we have, in addition to being our best pass rusher. I would think that's why he's not pinning his ears back every play like Matthews.

Moe, we can't do a lot of 3-step drops because A) McNabb will get killed by our interior O-line and B) we don't have any WRs that can get open that quick. Well, maybe Moss but he's also one of the smallest WRs we have.

Interesting stuff from Diesel...both the poster and the original. If that's true, hopefully Shanahan wakes up to that and does something about it heading into Philly.

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:27 AM
------------------------------------------
Sure, we can do three step drops. The Rams took it to us several times with the wide receiver screen and their wide receivers are a bunch of no-names, too. You stack DT and Moss on one side, throw to Moss and let DT clear a path. You can do the same thing with a tight end, but there you might have a bigger defender lined up out there who will absorb a block.

This all gets back to what I was saying yesterday: the Redskins let the Rams defense dictate their formations. They went heavy protection when they should have gone with multiple wideouts. If you want to go deep, then fine, but get some other guys with speed out there to draw the safeties in so you truly have one defender on one receiver. You mix up that little wide receiver screen with some deep passes and then you have something. Trying to run your passing game from a heavy or jumbo formation is just silly - especially if there is no threat of a run.

Kyle Shanahan has only a few days to develop a better game plan against the blitz, because the Eagles are just as blitz happy. I like getting guys in space. If a team is bunching up defenders to blitz, there should be fewer guys on the periphery - a fact that the Rams exploited.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse


Play to the level of the other team ?

Could someone explain this to me, because it sounds like a sorry ass excuse. The Redskins were beat Sunday by a team that is better than us, considering they've beaten us two years running. Whether it's the players or the coaching staff, we got beat by the better team, as painful as it is to admit it.


Posted by: hessone | September 28, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

By Rich Tandler
Redskins Blogger
Quick Take

After losing to the Lions, losers of their previous 19 games, in Week 3 of the 2009 season, the glass half-full types—actually, it was more like they were saying that the glass was one-tenth full and not nine-tenths empty—said that Detroit wasn’t as bad as they were the year before, and that the Lions would win more games than many thought.

The Lions rewarded that line of thinking by going out and winning one of their remaining 13 games. So much for the positive spin.

One should not have any kind of lofty expectations for the 2010 Rams. The blemish left by this loss will be just as ugly in January as it seems to be now, just like the Lions game turned out to be last year.

It’s not necessarily back to the drawing board for the Redskins, but right now they are not nearly as good as many in the media, many of their fans and, apparently, many players and coaches, thought they were.

On the other hand, the Redskins aren’t as bad as many people think they are at this moment either. They are in the muddled middle of the NFL, a group of about two dozen teams that can win on any given week and lose on any given week. There are better days ahead for this team; unfortunately, there also are some days ahead that might be as bad as Sunday as well.

Rams make do at wide receiver

I don’t want to hear about the Redskins lacking depth at wide receiver any more. The Rams managed to make do with a group of wide receivers that is just as much a rag-tag bunch as the Redskins have on their roster. Their top wideout, Donny Avery, went on injured reserve during the preseason with a knee injury. Laurent Robinson, their no. 1 in Avery’s absence, was inactive with a foot injury. But Sam Bradford completed 15 passes for 181 yards to four different wide receivers. Their credentials are no more impressive than those of the Redskins’ wide receiver corps:

• Mark Clayton, a first-round bust for the Ravens, was obtained by the Rams just before the season for a swap of sixth and seventh round picks. He caught five passes for 85 yards.
• Danny Amendola, a first-year, undrafted free agent out of Texas Tech, who was let go by the Cowboys and Eagles, caught six passes for 56 yards.
• Brandon Gibson, 6-1, a sixth-round pick of the Eagles in 2009 who was released by them, and then picked up by Rams this year, caught three passes for 33 yards.
• Mardy Gilyard, a rookie, fourth-round pick out of Cincinnati, caught just one pass for seven yards but the reception was important. It got the Rams a first down just before Kenneth Darby’s go-ahead touchdown run in the third quarter.

Meanwhile, the Redskins' wideouts not named Santana Moss spend vast stretches of games utterly missing in action.

Bradford’s prowess, by the way, was nothing new for a rookie quarterback against the Redskins. Washington has lost its last six games against rookie signal callers.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

mack, here you go:

Shanahan said wideout Devin Thomas, who has barely taken the field except on kick returns, has to play better in practice than the other receivers in front of him on the depth chart. When he does, he'll get more time.

Tell me how the #2 receiver has looked for the Redskins....oh thats right, there isn't one.....

So let me set this up for you...Galloway apparently is a great practicer, but come game day, is NON-EXISTENT.....lather rinse repeat with Roydell Williams...

So DT doesn't practice great, so they don't know what he can give to the team, but they refuse to give him the chance...instead they'll use 2 other guys who as we've seen give virtually NOTHING...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Why not build your CURRENT defense around the players that are here, and good? In doing this, you modify how you build for your future defense. Meaning - we have a bunch of good DL for the 4-3. What are we missing in trying to convert to the 3-4? An NT and a bunch of LB. We stop trying to convert 4-3 DE's who can't cover in space by grabbing enough LB's to allow a relatively deep rotation at DE in the 3-4. In a couple years when we can get rid of Haynie, carter, etc., we will have enough LB and 3-4 DL to make the 3-4 defense work.

It is ludicrous to not tailor your scheme to the talent you have. By not using the talent you have, you are making everything worse. That isn't so bad if you're thinking of better draft position and actually keep your freaking draft picks. But when you give them away for players that may not be here when you turn good, you just shoot yourself in the foot. Consider also - if you make your players look good, even those that don't fit your scheme, you can get better trade value for them - what a concept.

To give an analogy - you're trying to make college math majors who are at the 5th grade level learn calculus by taking the 4-3 players we have and putting them immediately into a 3-4. Instead, why not take some time in installing your defense - allowing the remedial freshman (5th grade math level) learn algebra first - before they go full blast into the 3-4/calculus. In having the kids for a couple years, you can know who isn't ready for calculus despite the remedial instruction, and put them in a different major (trade/cut them), while keeping the advanced students, and adding in some advanced students from outside - math majors who took calculus in HS (draft), or transferred in with calculus (FA, etc.). In the process of making the kids learn advanced math, you don't confuse them so much that they get stupider/worse, and revert back to a kindergarten math level, which is what Haslett is doing with our defense. They are confusing everyone, making players play positions they are not suited for/capable of playing, etc. which makes everything worse. When you install a scheme and have no players for it, you either do it slowly, adapting your scheme to your players and make the scheme more like your original vision as you add more players that can play in it, or you do it all at once and are labeled a total loser (Haslett).

Posted by: JesusFreakKaren | September 28, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

(continued)

Third-down follies

You probably know that the Redskins were one-for-10 on third-down conversions. But that statistic doesn’t go far enough in demonstrating just how bad the Redskins were on third down. They weren’t just ineffective; they were bumbling.

I’m not going to go over all 10 of the plays, but a few stand out. On their first third-down attempt with 12 yards to go, McNabb threw to Chris Cooley just over the line of scrimmage and the tight end was tackled after a short gain.

That was one of five third-down passes that did not travel past—or anywhere near—the sticks.

The worst single play came on third-and-goal at the Rams' three on the Redskins' initial possession of the second half. The call was Clinton Portis off left tackle. The play relied on Stephon Heyer getting off of his initial block and to the second level. Heyer isn’t a starter for a reason; he’s not capable of consistently executing his part of a play like that. Also, Mike Sellers whiffed on his block, and Casey Rabach was pushed all the way back from the center position into Portis’ path. The play had zero chance from the moment it was called.

The only third-down conversion the Redskins did attain came not by design but by accident. On third-and-eight from the Rams' 45, McNabb dropped back, found nobody open, and scooted for 25 yards.

Clearly this is an area where the Redskins need work. They have a way to go before achieving even mediocrity.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Orakpo isn't the only positive in this defense. Carriker is playing like a 1st rounder, McIntosh may be supplanting Fletcher as the stud ILB, and Landry is living up to his status as a top 10 pick at safety.

Posted by: psps23 | September 28, 2010 8:32 AM


100% agree. I was only referencing the LBs, in which case Fletcher and Orakpo are the only guys playing well.

I'll never understand the contingent of RI regulars that consistently call for younger players to play...do you want the best 22 on the field or do you want a daycare? Coaches don't play the old guys because they like old guys, they play 'em because THEY'RE BETTER THAN THE YOUNG GUYS. I'm all for a youth movement, provided that youth is able to beat the likes of Joey Galloway, Andre Carter, and Clinton Portis in open competition. They haven't...so they don't. It really is as simple as that...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 8:41 AM
------------------------------------------
I guess what I would say to that is, "I would rather have a rookie in there that's underperforming than an aging veteran underperforming". You at least know the rookie has a few things to learn. The aging veteran peaked years ago, and if he isn't getting it done today, he's not going to get it done tomorrow.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

redskinhead

"This all gets back to what I was saying yesterday: the Redskins let the Rams defense dictate their formations. They went heavy protection when they should have gone with multiple wideouts."

Amen, reverend, amen.

Posted by: MistaMoe | September 28, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, the Redskins' wideouts not named Santana Moss spend vast stretches of games utterly missing in action.

mack, read the article by Rich Tandler, and then ask yourself why the Rams were able to win with that group of receivers, and the Redskins refuse to get DT on the field....oh yeah, thats right, he's doesn't practice hard enough...so what the coach is going to do is LOSE with the guys who practice hard, rather than get DT out there and see what can happen...GOOD BLEEPING CALL.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, the Redskins' wideouts not named Santana Moss spend vast stretches of games utterly missing in action.

mack, read the article by Rich Tandler, and then ask yourself why the Rams were able to win with that group of receivers, and the Redskins refuse to get DT on the field....oh yeah, thats right, he's doesn't practice hard enough...so what the coach is going to do is LOSE with the guys who practice hard, rather than get DT out there and see what can happen...GOOD BLEEPING CALL.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:58 AM
-----------------------------------------
DT probably would not have won the game for them if he was in there because he is inconsistent; however, I think the bigger question is why didn't they throw more to Cooley - one of their most consistent receiving threats?

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"Bradford’s prowess, by the way, was nothing new for a rookie quarterback against the Redskins. Washington has lost its last six games against rookie signal callers."

This makes me sick to my stomach...worse than losing to the lions, the rams, etc. And to think we were all on here last week licking our chops.

Posted by: PlayAction | September 28, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

"Could someone explain this to me, because it sounds like a sorry ass excuse."

That's not an excuse. That's an opinionated recount of what happened.

All the absolutists make me chuckle. They beat us so they're better than us. If that's what you believe, then okay, fine; it's your prerogative. We're better than Dallas, Houston is better than us, and Dallas is better than Houston. The Falcons are better than the Saints and Houston is better than the Colts. It all makes sense.

This is not an unheard of phenomenon. Teams have the ability to play well or play poorly. The Redskins playing at the height of their ability are better than the Rams playing at the height of theirs, just like the Colts and Saints playing at the height of their abilities are better than the Texans and Falcons playing at the height of theirs.

If you're resigned to the idea that the Rams are better than the Redskins, then you would make an awful coach. There are many, many, many things that occurred in that game that the Redskins could have done and should have done better based on the talent level of the players on the field. If they couldn't improve on some of those things, then I'd say the Rams are better. But that's not the case. We know very well that Kareem Moore knows how to wrap up a ball-carrier, that Deangelo Hall isn't going to slip and fall on a regular basis, and that Santana Moss won't just drop the ball into a defender's hands without contact consistently.

Posted by: psps23 | September 28, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Shanny has got get over his gigantic ego and start AH and DT. Probably wont make that much diff, but come on, give us the best chance to win

Posted by: divi3 | September 28, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

rsh, thats kinda my point...we've had 3 games now where Joey Practices Hard Galloway has given us bupkis....what exactly is the problem with getting Thomas the ball....at least get him on the field to block...something...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

When you install a scheme and have no players for it, you either do it slowly, adapting your scheme to your players and make the scheme more like your original vision as you add more players that can play in it, or you do it all at once and are labeled a total loser (Haslett).

Posted by: JesusFreakKaren | September 28, 2010 8:49 AM

Shanahan made the choice to convert to a 3-4. He then hired Haslett who has experience in running both the 3-4 & 4-3.

I have no problem with the switch, my only thought is that they should employ both formations and make it more of a hybrid 3-4 to match the talent on the field.

But make no mistake, the 3-4 is here to stay and even their shortcomings doesn't take away from the fact that D is on the field an average of 25 more plays per game than their opponents and the O can't convert 3rd downs or in the red zone.

Posted by: Diesel44 | September 28, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse


I'll never understand the contingent of RI regulars that consistently call for younger players to play...do you want the best 22 on the field or do you want a daycare? Coaches don't play the old guys because they like old guys, they play 'em because THEY'RE BETTER THAN THE YOUNG GUYS. I'm all for a youth movement, provided that youth is able to beat the likes of Joey Galloway, Andre Carter, and Clinton Portis in open competition. They haven't...so they don't. It really is as simple as that...

brown, I agree, that is if you want to win now, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon regardless of who plays. When you have an old team like the Redskins and you trade your future picks away for older veterans, you'll never get younger. I mean, how long will we operate this way ? Stop with the trading picks already, or field these old veteran teams we have for the past decade. I'm on the record as saying the first mistake Shanahan and Allen made was not releasing AH. The second and third mistakes were trading our precious draft picks for DM and JB. Now I'm beginning to think this switch to a 3-4 defense is just moronic, dead last in the NFL moronic. Just sayin'

Posted by: hessone | September 28, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

rsh, thats kinda my point...we've had 3 games now where Joey Practices Hard Galloway has given us bupkis....what exactly is the problem with getting Thomas the ball....at least get him on the field to block...something...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 9:04 AM
------------------------------------------
In all fairness to Galloway, read the following from the article above:

"Cooley spent plenty of time on the field. He explained the Redskins utilized their "heavy" personnel package about 75 percent of the time against the Rams, which is essentially a single-receiver package that also includes Cooley, Fred Davis, Mike Sellers and one running back."

One wide receiver, Bean. DT wouldn't have been on the field in that package anyway. Cooley, on the other hand, was out there a lot.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Bean,
Playing guys who don't practice or don't practice well because they don't know the playbook or don't pay attention or whatever is exactly how you field a lousy team. I thought we brought in MS and BA because we were tired of being an undisciplined joke. And now you're blaming the coach because DT can't beat out a group of has-beens and nobodys? I blame DT.

Posted by: mack1 | September 28, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: hessone | September 28, 2010 9:08 AM

Thought we just swapped picks for Brown hess...not a bad deal at all.

Posted by: PlayAction | September 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Cooley plays down lack of involvement in the offense

By Rick Maese | September 28, 2010; 6:00 AM ET

It takes two idiots like Maese and Arrington to translate five receptions (second only to Moss with six) into "lack of involvement." If the offense would have made a few more first downs then Cooley would have had more chances.

And when Cooley says "I'm embarrassed by what HAPPENED TO US" it's more of that "We're Redskins! We're entitled." It didn't "happen to us," Chris. You guys went out there and did it to yourselves.

Posted by: beep-beep | September 28, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

rsh, yeah, how'd that game plan work out?? I know what you're saying, but after losing by 14 points, we now know that the game plan was extremely flawed.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Greg, I get that you're a DT fan but try to be a little objective here...I mean, just because the dude looks the part doesn't mean he plays it well. Shanahan ain't shooting himself in the foot...if DT showed he could be a #2 WR, he'd be in as such.

If he can play, needs to put it on film. We used to have this same discussion about Darnerian McCants. Big target, looks the part, but can't demonstrate in practice that he can be dependable. It's not a crazy assumption that if a guy can't practice, he can't play...you're not give a kid algebra if he can't do multiplication. When DT shows something, he'll play. I don't think it's too much for him to have to do it in exactly that order...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

"The Redskins playing at the height of their ability are better than the Rams playing at the height of theirs, just like the Colts and Saints playing at the height of their abilities are better than the Texans and Falcons playing at the height of theirs."

That's the same thinking the players engage in after every loss and it's delusional (imo).

Bottomline is the Rams whupped us, and have now beaten us 2 out of 3 times over the last 3 seasons. The Rams are better than the Redskins. And any analogies involving the Saints and Colts simply do not apply to our Skins (unfortunately).

Posted by: divi3 | September 28, 2010 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Bean,
Playing guys who don't practice or don't practice well because they don't know the playbook or don't pay attention or whatever is exactly how you field a lousy team. I thought we brought in MS and BA because we were tired of being an undisciplined joke. And now you're blaming the coach because DT can't beat out a group of has-beens and nobodys? I blame DT.

Posted by: mack1 | September 28, 2010 9:09 AM
------------------------------------------
Getting back to my convo of yesterday, DT is on the active roster come game day. He is the kick returner and he is on the active roster - why not use him if not just as a decoy or blocker? If you want to maximize the use of the guys you have active on game day, then use him!

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Shanahan ain't shooting himself in the foot

how is Galloway working out? I'm trying to be objective, but so far the offense in 3 games has scored 4 touchdowns, and the #2 wideout has been invisible...if something isn't working, and by all accounts its not, all I'm asking for is adaptability, trying something different...

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Hess, we got a franchise QB and a Pro-Bowl OT for waaay below market value. I don't care where you are in the process of rebuilding, you do that 10 times outta 10.

And don't get on the "we need to stop trading draft picks" kick...that's offseason talk. We all agree on that for the most part and it's not the time to rehash that whole thing. Last time I checked, we still have 13 games left...regardless of whether the fans that see the sky falling think there's any hope of winning any of them or not.

The only time I can get behind young players going in over vets without earning it is at the end of the year WHEN YOU'RE MATHEMATICALLY ELIMINATED FROM THE PLAYOFFS. Nobody gets eliminated in Week 3. If the older vets give you best chance to win, that's who you play. I can't think of a more assinine thing to do than to play rookies who haven't earned their keep in the name of "seeing what you've got" if you've got a vet who is clearly better. You play the best 53, you play to win the games. Not a difficult concept...

Posted by: brownwood26 | September 28, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

bradford beeps

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:31 AM |

So you don't watch the game, you can't watch the practices, yet you're convinced that the coach's pride is what's keeping DT off the field? It used to be when someone posted stuff this off the wall stupid a guy in Boston would jump all over them.

Posted by: mack1 | September 28, 2010 8:39 AM |

Why are fans in such denial, I'll never understand. I'm not being negative, but if anyone thinks Cerrato's class of 2008 isn't a bust by now they'll never get it.

FD is on the field. He can't block and after 3 games has 3 catches for 73 yds. Subtract the 62 yd catch and run and he has 2 catches for 11 yds. Last year ain't this year and if any of the three stick in the NFL, it's going to be FD. I don't think it's going to happen, just my opinion though.

DT can't earn his way onto the field. In his third year, if you listen to his comments, he sounds like a rookie trying to earn a roster spot. HE WILL NEVER MAKE IT AS A RECEIVER IN THE NFL.

MK can't even get on the practice field. HE WILL NEVER MAKE IT AS A RECEIVER IN THE NFL.

Posted by: hessone | September 28, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

rsh, yeah, how'd that game plan work out?? I know what you're saying, but after losing by 14 points, we now know that the game plan was extremely flawed.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 9:12 AM |
------------------------------------------
Agree. My point is, DT playing would not have mattered. The offensive play calling needs to change and then we can start getting guys like DT involved. Personally, I would like to see the team try to stretch the field with four and five receiver sets, as well as getting two tight ends involved in the passing game. It makes no sense to run a jumbo package just to throw deep to Moss several times. The defense figured that one out.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | September 28, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

mack, read the article by Rich Tandler, and then ask yourself why the Rams were able to win with that group of receivers, and the Redskins refuse to get DT on the field....oh yeah, thats right, he's doesn't practice hard enough...so what the coach is going to do is LOSE with the guys who practice hard, rather than get DT out there and see what can happen...GOOD BLEEPING CALL.....

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | September 28, 2010 8:58 AM

Yeah, when he was a starter last year he practically set the league on fire. In those ten starts he had 25 receptions.

Look, I don't get all the love for DT. He can't practice better than Roydell Williams, Joey Galloway, or Anthony Armstrong. So everyone concludes that he'll be a lot better on game day than they are. Sorry, but his record doesn't back it up.

Posted by: beep-beep | September 28, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"Bottomline is the Rams whupped us, and have now beaten us 2 out of 3 times over the last 3 seasons."

2 points to be made here.

(1) This is not the same team the Rams played last season, let alone 3 seasons ago. Different head coach, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, QB, 80% of the offensive line, 60% of the WRs, the entire defensive line, and a shuffled secondary (among other changes).

I know you're a Wizard's fan, so I'll put it this way: trying to compare this Redskins team with any Redskins team of recent years is like trying to compare the upcoming John Wall-led Wizards with the Tapscott/Jamison/Butler Wizards. They're not even close to the same teams.

(2) Yes, the Rams whupped the Redskins. But I refuse to believe DHall can't cover Mark Clayton, Donovan McNabb can't convert a 3rd down, Kareem Moore can't tackle a running back, and Santana Moss can't hold onto the football. They didn't on Sunday, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future.

The sky is not falling. It was a bad game. Jeez, I'm surprised half this fanbase isn't suicidal given the nature of some of the comments up here recently.

Posted by: psps23 | September 28, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

DT is on the active roster because he's our best returner and coaches see the same potential we all see. But because they're afforded a more close up view of the player they obviously don't like the other stuff they're seeing. I trust their judgment on this.

Posted by: mack1 | September 28, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Hess, we got a franchise QB and a Pro-Bowl OT for waaay below market value."

The problem is that if we're terrible this year, Mcnabb will be in 'zona or minny next season and we'll be out a 2nd and 4th rounder. Not a good plan for the oldest team in the NFL.

Posted by: divi3 | September 28, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

This makes me sick to my stomach...worse than losing to the lions, the rams, etc. And to think we were all on here last week licking our chops.

Posted by: PlayAction | September 28, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

What's funny (really sad) is the next 4 weeks are brutal: @ Philly, GB, Indy, @ Chicago. But then we go to the Lions. Do we REALLY look forward to that game? To me that's another let down game. I'd rather lose to the next 4 than the Lions, but we do play to the level of our competition, which can be good or bad! I'm so confused.......

Posted by: monk811 | September 28, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I look at it like this, its a team sport and whether you catch balls in the 1st qtr. or 4th qtr,Cooley caught the balls that came his way.Donovan knows how to spread that thing around, besides the defense was on the field more vs.the Rams anyway. Cooley will get his fair share, ..him not getting the ball early on is the least of our issues...Lets Get it Skins!!!!Lets go get one in Philly

Posted by: dspower33 | September 28, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Listening to CP on the radio. CP trying to the high road, but interviewers trying to get him to say something controversial.

Posted by: TWISI | September 28, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

CP will not throw HC under the bus. Good job.

Posted by: TWISI | September 28, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Yea TWISI seemed like LA was tryin to do the same w/Cooley when he asked him about balls being thrown his way...when adversity strikes..the team gotta stay tight.....

Posted by: dspower33 | September 28, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Cooley is a true team player. He doesn't complain even when the offensive coordinator and QB try to "make things happen" that are not there. Cooley has shown year after year that he is a class receiver who gets open. It looks like the coaches are trying to play their schemes with the wrong personnel. A good coach plays to his personnel until he can build a unit of guys to fit his scheme.
We have some good players but the coaches (O & D) haven't impressed. Oh yeah, add Special Teams to that list.

Posted by: pjohn2 | September 28, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I see we have some great arm chair coaches assessing the game. We have the right NT in a 4-3 defense. I am asking a question now. Can we mask the 4-3 defense and make it look like we are playing the 3-4? Every year we never get the kind of down lineman that can get to the quarterback without blitzing all of the time.Haynesworth is that type of player in a 4-3 defense. He is actually in the best shape of his career. I do think Coach is punishing some players for whatever reason and it is hurting the team now. Think about this, food for thought. Portis is having his best game. We have come back to take the lead. Suddenly, he takes Portis out the game and it effects the entire team emotionally. It would have been different if he was injured or wasn't playing well. I like Terrain and I want all of our talent playing to help us win. The timing was bad. Now I want us to stay in first place and all we have to do is beat Philly. The Redskins fans believe in our team more than the team believe in themselves. That is not a curse it is a problem that winning solves. Allow McNabb to lead us Sunday and we will become victorious. We must get the ball thrown Cooley's way at least 10 times or more a game regardless who is on him. Santana and Cooley all third down plays when we aren't running the ball. Devin Thomas is a game player. I know he doesn't run the best routes but put him in for the bomb plays. I promise you he will catch it! Turnovers will be the key to Sunday's victory.

Posted by: fmy0013 | September 28, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Shanahan said wideout Devin Thomas, who has barely taken the field except on kick returns, has to play better in practice than the other receivers in front of him on the depth chart. When he does, he'll get more time.

Tell me how the #2 receiver has looked for the Redskins....oh thats right, there isn't one.....

So let me set this up for you...Galloway apparently is a great practicer, but come game day, is NON-EXISTENT.....lather rinse repeat with Roydell Williams...

So DT doesn't practice great, so they don't know what he can give to the team, but they refuse to give him the chance...instead they'll use 2 other guys who as we've seen give virtually NOTHING...


Didn't Shannahan praise DT for how hard he was working before the start of season? What changed since then? We do not have a legitimate no. 2 receiver and that is killing us. I am all for giving MS the time he needs but you have got to work with what is in front of you. Galloway and Williams are not getting it done. What can it hurt to move DT in and also bring Austin up from the PS. They certainly can't do any worse.

Posted by: SkinsFan771 | September 28, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"We now have Philly led by "Dog Vader", Indy and the "Big Brother Manning", followed by Green Bay and "The Prodigy" Rodgers for the next 3 games."

Say hello to 1-5 folks!


1-5 is the start of a heckuva wormhole.


Posted by: MistaMoe | September 28, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

_______________________________

Try 1-6. They won't beat Chicago either.

Posted by: owiz | September 28, 2010 4:51 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