Hunter the punter...

It's probably just as well for him. Being the Redskin's punter has to take, like, 3 years off the life of your leg for each year you play the position.
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
It's probably just as well for him. Being the Redskin's punter has to take, like, 3 years off the life of your leg for each year you play the position.

I wonder if they tend to drift when they walk?
 

BuddyLee

Football addict
Despite popular belief, Hunter the Punter didn't play very well at all this season. In fact, he didn't play that well last season either. That's how bad last year was. We saw a punter shine in a few games and gave him all the glory in the world.:lol:

There's a reason he wasn't picked up before the Redskins re-signed him.
 

Peter Forsberg

New Member
Despite popular belief, Hunter the Punter didn't play very well at all this season. In fact, he didn't play that well last season either. That's how bad last year was. We saw a punter shine in a few games and gave him all the glory in the world.:lol:

There's a reason he wasn't picked up before the Redskins re-signed him.
Gano should also go!
 
Personally, they should just do away with the field goals and just award 7 points for TD's. I hate OT games won on long field goals, prove your offense is good and drive the ball down to the end zone. And if your offense stinks, you get your @ss handed to you every week.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Gano should also go!

Perhaps, but if the O could get the ball in the endzone there wouldn't be much to talk about here. How many times have the Skins gone down the field with apparent ease only to get in the redzone and settle for a FG? Perhaps they ought to focus more on people like Kyle, McNabb, and the entire O line. We can agree that Gano cost the Skins that game but he duffs a couple of FGs in the rain and he gets the fall, while the ones that couldn't get what should have been an easy 6 or 12 on the board remain. Amazing!
 

BuddyLee

Football addict
Perhaps, but if the O could get the ball in the endzone there wouldn't be much to talk about here. How many times have the Skins gone down the field with apparent ease only to get in the redzone and settle for a FG? Perhaps they ought to focus more on people like Kyle, McNabb, and the entire O line. We can agree that Gano cost the Skins that game but he duffs a couple of FGs in the rain and he gets the fall, while the ones that couldn't get what should have been an easy 6 or 12 on the board remain. Amazing!
Exactly.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Perhaps, but if the O could get the ball in the endzone there wouldn't be much to talk about here. How many times have the Skins gone down the field with apparent ease only to get in the redzone and settle for a FG? Perhaps they ought to focus more on people like Kyle, McNabb, and the entire O line. We can agree that Gano cost the Skins that game but he duffs a couple of FGs in the rain and he gets the fall, while the ones that couldn't get what should have been an easy 6 or 12 on the board remain. Amazing!

Couple of points.


Who got the fall? Not Gano. Not saying he should have but, the holder is the one who got fired.

And, redzone, every D in the league tries the same basic philosophy; giving up yards and giving up points are two very different things. The Redskins are not an elite team that can and will score a lot. They are, like most teams, pretty comparable in terms of talent so, the small plays, a few a game, are the difference between 6-10 and 10-6.

The Skins are not good enough to make little mistakes. They MUST have those field goals, especially the short ones. It's not like they were asking the kid to make 45-50 yarders in a snow storm every week. One of the hall marks of Joe Gibbs I was that the team ALWAYS came away with points even if it was just a field goal so, a 17-16 loss would be a 26-17 win or even a 33-16 blowout as the other team presses, trying to come from behind, and ends up paying for it. So it is with most teams in the league.

As for the O line, we needed 4, maybe 5 pieces in the offseason. We added maybe 2. At WR, we needed at least 2 and added none. McNabb was supposed to over come that by making a few more plays a game.

A few plays a game. That is the NFL.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Couple of points.


Who got the fall? Not Gano. Not saying he should have but, the holder is the one who got fired.

And, redzone, every D in the league tries the same basic philosophy; giving up yards and giving up points are two very different things. The Redskins are not an elite team that can and will score a lot. They are, like most teams, pretty comparable in terms of talent so, the small plays, a few a game, are the difference between 6-10 and 10-6.

The Skins are not good enough to make little mistakes. They MUST have those field goals, especially the short ones. It's not like they were asking the kid to make 45-50 yarders in a snow storm every week. One of the hall marks of Joe Gibbs I was that the team ALWAYS came away with points even if it was just a field goal so, a 17-16 loss would be a 26-17 win or even a 33-16 blowout as the other team presses, trying to come from behind, and ends up paying for it. So it is with most teams in the league.

As for the O line, we needed 4, maybe 5 pieces in the offseason. We added maybe 2. At WR, we needed at least 2 and added none. McNabb was supposed to over come that by making a few more plays a game.

A few plays a game. That is the NFL.

My reply was to PF’s assertion that Gano should go, not to who actually got fired. Defensive philosophy aside, the Skins have a consistent track of record of failing to score TDs. It seems the Skin’s philosophy is “don’t worry about 6; just get down the field and we’ll settle for 3”.

I’m not making excuses for Gano or any other player. I was :confused: when he missed those two FGs and that extra point. Of course it was raining, but that is no excuse for missing chip shots. But I was even more :confused: when they seemed to have autonomy going down the field in short order then, time and time again, stalling in the redzone. And now I’m :confused: at who they are dumping as a result of a larger team problem.

The rest of your points on the O line and McNabb only expound on what I already pointed out, and now we’re at rebuild the offensive line and get rid of McNabb. It seems now, even when McNabb isn’t under pressure he is more inclined to throw the ball in the dirt.
 
Top