Thanks to those who participated. To submit a question for next week — for myself or if you have one for a player, I can get that answered, too — [email protected].
Recommended Stories
John: Haslett said all the “right” things, but he can’t let Hall dictate the game plan. If so, I think Albert Haynesworth would also like some input. How do you see this playing out?
— Leon Reed
Leon: Ha. I agree that Albert must be thinking, ‘Hey, what about my needs?’ It’ll fall on deaf ears. But as far as Hall goes, it’s clear that the coaches weren’t all that bothered by what he said, maybe because he went to them and explained himself. But the fact that Haslett is a former player works to Hall’s favor. He understands the emotion behind Hall’s comments and seems to appreciate them. He understands this is a player’s league; some coaches here in the past seemed to feel otherwise.
— JK
John: Hello there. Glad to chat with the man who tell it like it is. Look both defenses clearly could not stop the pass [Sunday]. It was just a matter of who would get the catches and touchdowns. My two concerns with the team are the pass defense and running game. Is Clinton slowing down and can this defense start getting more turnovers?
— AJ Tampellni
AJ: Thanks. Clinton has been slowing down for a few years. He’s not getting a lot of help from the blocking and getting in sync with the running game could take a while. Too often last week he’s making his first cut too deep in the backfield; sort of a problem. Also, a couple times last week Houston had nine defenders in the box — on one of those times he still gained 6-7 yards. But for the most part he lacks the burst on the cutbacks, so he can’t set up defenders by pressing the hole and then cutting as he once did, the way Arian Foster or even LaDainian Tomlinson can. As for the defense, it’s created only two turnovers despite the pressure and zone defenses. If LaRon Landry keeps blitzing this well against lesser quarterbacks, there should be more turnovers. But the real problem is they’re not applying enough pressure with four rushers. That could change Sunday vs. St. Louis. Kareem Moore should help, too. He’s more athletic and instinctive than Reed Doughty at free safety. He should be; it’s a natural fit.
— JK
John: I am a Big Fan thanks for your great work. It seems to me that this is year 2 of Mike Sellers missing blocks all over the place. I see that they are using his ability to catch more, but are the coach’s seeing the same thing I am about his blocking? I am sure
Portis is.
— Phil Hatem
Phil: Thank you. The coaches wouldn’t say it even if they’re thinking it; not this group. But I agree with your opinion of his blocking. The key is limiting his options and presenting him with one guy to block. Previous staffs did that. If you’ve noticed, they’ll use an H-back to serve as a lead back, too. By the way, I’m not a huge fan of throwing the ball to him more than once – maybe twice on certain occasions — a game.
— JK
John: You give some of the smartest most thorough commentary on the Redskins available. Thanks for that. But that said, I can’t believe you actually typed out the announcer-speak “untracked.” As far as I know, this erroneous construction infected football broadcasters sometime in the late 80’s, early 90’s. Anyway, I hope you will take this opportunity to address this problem in print, thus helping sports-talkers everywhere to get back “on track.” Or, if I’m wrong, I hope you will demonstrate to jerks like me why “untracked” is the right way to say “on track.”
— Steve Harper
Steve: First off, thanks for the compliment. But, man, you made me think! Had to get some aspirin. Anyway, according to Dictionary.com, the informal definition of untracked is “achieving a superior level of performance after a slow start: The team suddenly got untracked and began to score.” You had me worried for a second.
— JK
John: Love your coverage of the Skins! You really do an amazing job! I’ve got a questions, that may seem a bit crazy, but it could pay dividends next year or beyond. With Devin Thomas currently our #5 WR, and no progress in sight, why don’t the skins consider trying him out at Running Back? Maybe dabble this year, and throw him in the deep end next off-season?
1. He came out of college as “a raw WR, with running-back-like skills”.
2. He has breakaway/get-to-the-edge speed that the skins currently don’t have at RB
3. He has shown an ability to make 1 cut and go while returning kicks… maybe he can learn to press the hole as a runner and and cut-back.
4. He would obviously have great hands out of the backfield, and pose match-up issues on swing passes, screens, and motioning out to the outside.
5. Obviously, he’s not the complete package as a RB (i.e., pass-blocking), but good coaches find ways to maximize their roster’s strengths. Leaving DT on the bench is a waste of size, speed, strength, and hands.
6. Worst comes to worst, he swallows his pride, gets a fat lip, and plays out his rookie deal giving effort as a back-up RB and KR.
7. Best case scenario, the skins find an X-factor on offense, bulk him up, teach him how to protect the ball, and pass-block, and we’ve got our RB of the future when CP breaks down.
Just my thoughts. What do you think?
— Tommy Schmitz
Tommy: I think you like to think a lot! That’s good. And you’re thinking outside the box and trying to figure out a way to get a talented player on the field. But there would be so much he’d have to learn and this is a guy who is struggling to do things the right way at a position he’s more familiar with and best suits him. Between blitz pickups, knowing how to set runners up; learning how to run through a hole (different than on kick returns) without standing straight up; learning how to press the hole… it would be a lot to handle. Running back is a very instinctual position and that’s not something you can learn, especially during the season. Devin’s best chance to make it is as a receiver; he needs to get to a team that liked him coming out of college so he can get more chances. It’s clear that Mike Shanahan did not like him in that draft.
— JK
