By Rich Tandler
There will be scrutiny of the Kyle Shanahan’s run-pass selections in Washington’s win over the Rams (and it will be broken down in detail here tomorrow as we did last week and the week before) but there is no disputing that for the game the play selection was slightly in favor of the run.
In the stat book the Redskins had 40 rushes but you take away five by Rex Grossman, three of which came when passes were called and two of which were kneel downs at the end of the game, and you get 35. Grossman threw 29 times and if you add in the three other plays that were called passes you have 32 pass plays.
It also is hard to argue that the offense was not effective. The Redskins outgained the Rams by almost a two to one margin, posting 339 yards of offense to just 172 for St. Louis.
Certainly, the raw numbers don’t tell the whole story and it is correct to take issue with some pass calls in certain situations but it is hard to argue with the overall effectiveness of the strategy.
You also can’t argue with how well the Redskins defense played even when you consider that they benefitted from a several dropped passes. The 172 total yards allowed were the fewest since they gave up 147 to Dallas on Dec. 30, 2007. Their seven sacks were the most since they sacked Raiders quarterbacks eight times on Dec. 13, 2009.
The Redskins did give up 10 points in the fourth quarter. But after Grossman threw another interception that gave the Rams the ball on the Washington 19 with a chance to tie, Bowen and Orakpo slammed the door with back-to-back sacks, forcing a punt. Then, after the offense went three and out, burning off just over a minute, the Redskins didn’t allow a last-chance drive advance out of Rams territory.

The Redskins always seem to be able to keep the game interesting right up to the final play or series. Hopefully this will be the year they learn how to win the close ones.
Posted by: Rick Thomas | Sunday, October 02, 2011 at 09:15 PM
Rich, can you please give us your opinion on Barry Cofield's play at NT. Once again it looked to me like he was going backwards pretty often. I understand that our other option there is a rookie but maybe Cofield should move back to DE(the position he is built for)and the rookie should get his shot. Thanks.
Posted by: SKINSRLIFE | Monday, October 03, 2011 at 02:47 AM
The Redskins had six sacks on the day. When was the last time the Redskins had six or more sacks in a game?
On another note, I felt badly for Bradford because he was hanging in there and his receivers weren't helping him, his offensive line wasn't helping him, and geesh, the coaches weren't helping him either. Bradford could have been a Redskin if some things had worked out differently. Too bad they didn't.
Posted by: TroyLok | Monday, October 03, 2011 at 08:14 AM
Rich, i'm gonna try to handle this for you: Cofield's NT play
1)How many sacks does the d-line have this year?
2)Don't watch Cofeild, watch how freely our lb's are getting into the backfield. Also, look for the first point of contact, it's at the line of scrimmage or in the back field. Lbs are free to make tacklrs because Cofeild's eating up blocks. Last year first point of contact was at the lb level, could never get off the field on third down.
3) How often did you see Fletcher in the backfield last year?
4)Turnover's anyone????
You welcome Rich.
Posted by: Kevin | Tuesday, October 04, 2011 at 01:54 AM
Our daughter and son-in-law are conscientious about offering three full meals each day with snacks. It is amazing to witness the change in behavior if/when we're a bit late with snacks, especially for our grandson: less helpful behaviors begin to ramp up. Within minutes of consuming the needed snack (cheese, nuts, cooked grains--brown rice, couscous, etc) his jovial, playful self returns.
Posted by: True Religion Outlet | Monday, October 10, 2011 at 10:38 PM
The theme of today’s lecture is don’t believe in arrests of alleged terrorists without proof as non-Muslims are liars … I don’t believe them because they are kuffaar and lying is part of their religion. (Kuffaar is an Arabic word meaning non-believer or an infidel. Its contemporary usage in the UK is highly derogatory).
Posted by: true religion outlet | Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 03:38 AM
For a long time I covered up the neighbor's chain-link fence with Morning Glories. A fabulous show. Granted, one afternoon I heard a little child ask her Mommy "What are those plants on that lady's fence?" and Mommy answered "Weeds," but that sting went away by the next morning.
Posted by: true religion outlet | Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 04:57 AM