Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

my definition of conservative play-calling (from what i saw yesterday):

throwing screens on 3rd and 13 with a one possession lead

rushing 4 and dropping 7 into a prevent shell with a 2 point lead

- i dont have a problem with conservative play-calling, i like coach gibbs approach of running the ball early and often, eating up the play-clock, and not turing the ball over and letting your D be the deciding factor in winning games but we just cant do that now with our O line injuries

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

Edit, edit

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

hahaha firstdown are you catching feelings from last weeks post about fan behavior? lighten up buddy, were on the same team!!!

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=firstdown;367561]Its funny when MB was playing people said that he was always dumping the ball off now when JC does this its conservative play calling.[/quote]

The difference is, Brunell never even looked downfield until the game was all but lost, and he couldn't possibly be blamed for giving it away. Campbell takes shots downfield, and even on a few plays yesterday, you could see Campbell looking deep before checking down.

Brunell also had the benefit of a receiver that had a chip on his shoulder and a point to prove. Campbell is dealing with the same receiver, but he's become a headcase that forgot how to make plays.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=firstdown;367561]Its funny when MB was playing people said that he was always dumping the ball off now when JC does this its conservative play calling.[/quote]

We were not calling deep passes yesterday. Sanders even mentioned it in his interviews after the game. He said we went in with a conservative game plan.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;367575]We were not calling deep passes yesterday. Sanders even mentioned it in his interviews after the game. He said we went in with a conservative game plan.[/quote]

I'm not sure what your definition of "deep" is, but there were at least a few called. Thrash dropped a pretty long toss.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;367518]By my definition, I would say conservative play calling is simply calling any play that prioritizes [U][B]limiting[/B][/U] the chance of a mistake over [U][B]gaining[/B][/U] yards, and first downs and or points.

I think this is a GREAT thread because it does little good to criticize play calling with out first defining what conservative play calling is.

No offense can have success if the play calling is too conservative. However, it's my understanding that people in general don't themselves understand what conservative play calling is prior to voicing their opinion. [B]By definition, a running play on third and eight is NOT CONSERVATIVE if it was called with the primary intent of picking up the first down. It can only be "conservative" if the intent was simply to waste a down without turning the ball over.[/B] Generally with the lead, you want to get more conservative as it gets later and later, and the Skins have adhered to this principle thus far. It's the execution that has prevented late game success.[/quote]
Very nice post, and I agree with you. By this definition, wouldn't it make sense to try to limit mistakes when leading with a young QB? I agree that I'd like to see more passes on 1st and 2nd, but who wants to see a 1st down pick or sacks that put us in 3rd&21?
Keep the clock moving. The frustration for me is the incompletions and TO's in the second halves. Of course, a screen pass should never be picked off.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=Southpaw;367580]I'm not sure what your definition of "deep" is, but there were at least a few called. Thrash dropped a pretty long toss.[/quote]

Forget the real deep stuff. I'm looking for more mid range 15-25 yards stuff. What happened to the creative stuff we had against Det? How about a hurry up offense once in a while? JC seems to run that real well. Someone mentioned in another thread about rolling JC out. How come we don't see this anymore? Gibbs 1 use to roll out Rypien all the time. JC has way more mobility than Rypien ever had. Just do anything to try and score more than 14 freakin points a game. If it doesn't work then fine. At least we are trying instead of letting the defense try and win it every week. It's just the same old shit week in and week out.

I'm happy to be 4-2 but to beat alot of teams we have coming up we are going to have to play alot better on offense. You mean to tell me that we have all these offensive coaches and that was the best gameplan you can come up with? If I were Snyder I would be pissed as hell.

The bottom line is Gibbs just can't seem to coach to win. He coaches not to loose and it is getting so old and it almost cost us the game yesterday.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;367462]LOSING franchises make excuses

WINNING franchises make up for it....we are at a crossroads right now..and what happens this sunday in NE may set the trend[/quote]

God i hope it doesnt set the trend, im already trying to forget it.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;367561]Its funny when MB was playing people said that he was always dumping the ball off now when JC does this its conservative play calling.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that JC has been going deep on a pretty consistent basis, he just wasn't going deep against the Cards. MB rarely went deep. Saunders admitted during the offseason that JC gives the ability to go deep on a more consistent basis.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

here is what frustrates me. everyone wants to blame the offensive line with injuries. if I am correct, the two games we lost and the 3 of the 4 we won we had comfortable 1st half leads. How did we get the lead, by playing to win!! how did we lose, by playing not to lose!! IF the O-line is so freaking horrible, then how come we seem to move the ball early in games and score 14 or 17 first half points?? Ofensive line play has been bad, but its not the reason we are giving up 2nd half leads and losing games.

We are playing NOT to lose, instead of playing to WIN. We need to throw that crap out the window and run the freaking offense to win games. Stop playing not to have turnovers. That puts zero confidense in your players when you stop playing your offense because you are afraid of turnovers. Plus, teams are making adjustments to stop us in the 2nd half, taking away what we are able to do in the 1st half. where are our adjustments to the defense?? We seem to have one way of playing and if the team stops us, well then we are done. No adjustments what so ever. I dont want to hear about the line play, we all agree they are no where near as good as they would if Jansen and Thomas were playing. But we dont have scrubs playing either. Wade, Fabini, Demulling we are starters for several years.

Coaches seem to need to adjust to the game at hand and they dont seem to be doing that.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=#56fanatic;367628]here is what frustrates me. everyone wants to blame the offensive line with injuries. if I am correct, the two games we lost and the 3 of the 4 we won we had comfortable 1st half leads. How did we get the lead, by playing to win!! how did we lose, by playing not to lose!! IF the O-line is so freaking horrible, then how come we seem to move the ball early in games and score 14 or 17 first half points?? Ofensive line play has been bad, but its not the reason we are giving up 2nd half leads and losing games.

We are playing NOT to lose, instead of playing to WIN. We need to throw that crap out the window and run the freaking offense to win games. Stop playing not to have turnovers. That puts zero confidense in your players when you stop playing your offense because you are afraid of turnovers. Plus, teams are making adjustments to stop us in the 2nd half, taking away what we are able to do in the 1st half. where are our adjustments to the defense?? We seem to have one way of playing and if the team stops us, well then we are done. No adjustments what so ever. I dont want to hear about the line play, we all agree they are no where near as good as they would if Jansen and Thomas were playing. But we dont have scrubs playing either. Wade, Fabini, Demulling we are starters for several years.

Coaches seem to need to adjust to the game at hand and they dont seem to be doing that.[/quote]

You're acting like prior to yesterday we've had zero issues along the OL.

Fact is along with missing two starters on the right side, Kendall is brand spanking new on the left side, and the adjustment period of plugging in new starters each week has undoubtedy hurt our ability to get some chemistry going.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

#56fanatic,

In the GB game, we were not playing a conservative game in the 2nd half. Moss dropped a 55 yard bomb and fumbled on a reverse in the second half. Those are just two plays that cannot be called conservative. I don't know of anyone who said the coaches called a conservative game against GB; I think the consensus was that the execution was simply awful.

In the Arizona game, we got 14 points off of turnovers (7 directly by the defense) in the first half. Our playcalling was pretty much the same in both halves. So, I don't think you can say we were going for the throat in the first half and then went "full-flaps" in the second half.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=Southpaw;367574]The difference is, Brunell never even looked downfield until the game was all but lost, and he couldn't possibly be blamed for giving it away. Campbell takes shots downfield, and even on a few plays yesterday, you could see Campbell looking deep before checking down.

Brunell also had the benefit of a receiver that had a chip on his shoulder and a point to prove. Campbell is dealing with the same receiver, but he's become a headcase that forgot how to make plays.[/quote]
Watching on TV its hard to tell what the QB has as far as open WR's. I know when I was at the Giants game JC missed allot of opportunities down field. At this point I don't know if its the coaches or JC that is not getting the ball farther down field or maybe its a compination of both.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;367629]You're acting like prior to yesterday we've had zero issues along the OL.

Fact is along with missing two starters on the right side, Kendall is brand spanking new on the left side, and the adjustment period of plugging in new starters each week has undoubtedy hurt our ability to get some chemistry going.[/quote]


No, we have had line issues since the beginning of year, (2nd game). I acknowledge that. I just can't keep making excuses for the line because of injuries. I think we are all smart enough to realize it has and will hinder our ability as an offensive unit. But if the line was so bad(like everyone is saying) then we wouldn't be able to move the ball and score points at all. Which that is not the case. We move the ball well enough to score 14 to 17 points in the first half, then all of the sudden it stops?? I dont think that is the case.

i think it has more to do with the "lets not lose this game" mentality.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=over the mountain;367572]hahaha firstdown are you catching feelings from last weeks post about fan behavior? lighten up buddy, were on the same team!!![/quote]
It was not said towards you but your right it was not needed.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=#56fanatic;367636]No, we have had line issues since the beginning of year, (2nd game). I acknowledge that. [B]I just can't keep making excuses for the line because of injuries.[/B] I think we are all smart enough to realize it has and will hinder our ability as an offensive unit. But if the line was so bad(like everyone is saying) then we wouldn't be able to move the ball and score points at all. Which that is not the case. We move the ball well enough to score 14 to 17 points in the first half, then all of the sudden it stops?? I dont think that is the case.

i think it has more to do with the "lets not lose this game" mentality.[/quote]

If we had 1 injury I wouldn't make any excuses. But c'mon, when you have 3 starters out and another guy in Kendall is new, if you really expect the offense to be clicking you need to step away from the pipe.

Not sure what game you were watching yesterday, but I didn't see us moving the ball well all day long, not just in the 2nd half.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic;367636]No, we have had line issues since the beginning of year, (2nd game). I acknowledge that. I just can't keep making excuses for the line because of injuries. I think we are all smart enough to realize it has and will hinder our ability as an offensive unit. But if the line was so bad(like everyone is saying) then we wouldn't be able to move the ball and score points at all. Which that is not the case. We move the ball well enough to score 14 to 17 points in the first half, then all of the sudden it stops?? I dont think that is the case.

i think it has more to do with the "lets not lose this game" mentality.[/QUOTE]

[I]Besides the Arizona game[/I], do you (or anyone else) actually think the play-calling has been conservative? Aside from yesterday's game, JC has been going deep pretty often and certainly far more than any Washington QB has in years. JC has connected on all of the deep attempts (see JC to Moss against Philly, JC to Moss against GB, JC to ARE against NYG), but he's certainly trying. In fact, until yesterday, the vast majority of posters who commented on our offense said it was so nice to deep passing attempts.

So, my question to everyone is, do people really think our offense has been conservative this season as a whole, or just in yesterday's game?

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

Yes, we run a very very conservative offense....any person who sits next to me and watches the game as a non-redskin fan always says how boring and conservative we are

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

It seems that all of us have biased views cause we watch our skins every week...instead of seeing other teams around the league

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=#56fanatic;367636]We move the ball well enough to score 14 to 17 points in the first half, then all of the sudden it stops??.[/quote]

You call it moving the ball well, and I call it taking advantage of good field position. I don't even think the Washington offense broke 100 yards in the first half.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

I hate to confuse the issue by inserting some facts into the conversation, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Let's actually take a look at the play-by-play from the second half of yesterdays game. Bear in mind that these facts don't give you a proper understanding of exactly how horribly the offensive line played yesterday, but hopefully we can all take that as a given at this point, even though some still like to say that "Fabini and Wade have started four games now, they're starters!" (there is a reason that Fabini got cut by the Cowboys and there is a reason Pucillo was a 7th round pick and there is a reason Wade didn't pan out in either Miami or Houston and there is a reason DeMulling was available to sign of the street in week four ... they are just not as good as the guys who were starting in front of them and couldn't start for most teams in the NFL). That being said:

Drive 1:
-Rock Cartwright returns kick to AZ 21
-1st and 10: Portis Run for -2
-2nd and 12: Portis run for 8
-3rd and 4: J. Campbell Pass attempt, sacked by a completely untouched Calvin Pace -8
-4th and 12: Suisham misses 41 yard kick

Conservative play calling? Maybe you don't like the runs on 1st and 2nd, but they got us to a manageable 3rd and 4. Clearly a protection breakdown by the right side because Wade blocked air and Pace was completely untouched. I have no problem with the play calling here, piss poor execution does the Skins in again.

Drive 2:

1-10-WAS 41 (11:45) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 82-A.Randle El to ARI 33 for 26 yards (52-M.Beisel).
1-10-ARI 33 (11:23) 26-C.Portis left end to ARI 31 for 2 yards (92-B.Berry).
2-8-ARI 31 (10:47) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 83-J.Thrash to ARI 26 for 5 yards (26-R.Hood).
3-3-ARI 26 (10:07) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 47-C.Cooley to ARI 23 for 3 yards (25-E.Green).
1-10-ARI 23 (9:32) 26-C.Portis right guard to ARI 21 for 2 yards (21-A.Rolle).
2-8-ARI 21 (8:58) 26-C.Portis right end to ARI 19 for 2 yards (97-C.Pace).
3-6-ARI 19 (8:18) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell scrambles right end pushed ob at ARI 11 for 8 yards (42-T.Holt).
1-10-ARI 11 (7:50) 46-L.Betts right end to ARI 11 for no gain (98-G.Watson).
2-10-ARI 11 (7:14) 46-L.Betts right guard to ARI 1 for 10 yards (42-T.Holt).
1-1-ARI 1 (6:30) 45-M.Sellers left guard to ARI 1 for no gain (93-C.Cooper).
2-1-ARI 1 [B](5:51) 26-C.Portis left guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.

[/B]Great Drive in my opinion and Jason made two big plays that made the whole thing work. The throw to Randle El was terrific, he put it right on his back shoulder because he saw the saftey coming over the middle. The location of the pass and Randle El's adjustment to it allowed El to turn the ball towards the sideline and pick up some nice YAC. If Jason throws it in front of El then he gets smashed and maybe drops the ball. On 3-6 the Skins called a shovel pass and Jason sees the Cards have it covered perfectly. Instead of throwing it into coverage and causing an incompletion or turnover he holds the ball and runs for the first down, two veteran plays. Betts has a nice run and I think he scored, nonetheless Portis gets into the endzone.

Drive 3:

1-10-WAS 30 (14:47) 26-C.Portis up the middle to WAS 30 for no gain (92-B.Berry, 52-M.Beisel).
2-10-WAS 30 (14:10) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 26-C.Portis to WAS 35 for 5 yards (25-E.Green).
3-5-WAS 35 [I](13:28) (Shotgun) PENALTY on WAS-47-C.Cooley, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 35 - No Play.
[/I] 3-10-WAS 30 (13:16) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short middle to 45-M.Sellers to WAS 38 for 8 yards (54-G.Hayes, 90-D.Dockett).

Here is where the boo birds came out at FedEx (what the hell is the point of booing your own team? I'll never understand that...Philly fans do that, Skins fans should be better than that). I guess you could say conservative play calling here. The penalty on Cooley put them in a third and long, they went shotgun (don't all you guys love the shotgun?) and I GUARANTEE that Sellers was not the first option on that pass (probably the fourth). I'd have to get the all-22 to see, but I think we can say the Cards had it covered down field, or at least JC thought so.

Drive 4:

1-10-WAS 13 (7:14) 26-C.Portis up the middle to WAS 17 for 4 yards (24-A.Wilson).
2-6-WAS 17 (6:40) 45-M.Sellers up the middle to WAS 18 for 1 yard (52-M.Beisel).
3-5-WAS 18 (6:03) 17-J.Campbell pass incomplete short middle to 82-A.Randle El.

Probably the worst drive of the game, conservative? Yes, I'd say so. The call to Sellers was less than inspired, but if they pick up three or four than it is 3rd and short. Still a manageable third down situation. JC got big pressure here and the throw to El was both short of the first down and off target. JC rushed the throw and probably gave up on some deeper reads very quickly because of pressure, either perceived or real (I'd have to go back and look. I can't remember but I think the Cards brought a full house blitz, maybe it was a fire zone, I don't think the blocking was completely horrible, but JC went quick to his hot and was probably a bit spooked by this point).

Drive 5:

1-10-WAS 20 (3:38) 26-C.Portis left end to WAS 23 for 3 yards (54-G.Hayes).
2-7-WAS 23 (3:03) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass incomplete deep right to 83-J.Thrash (26-R.Hood).
3-7-WAS 23 (2:56) 26-C.Portis left end pushed ob at WAS 24 for 1 yard (25-E.Green). Penalty on WAS-60-C.Samuels

Three minutes left in the game, Skins ahead. Should be able to go into a four-minute offense here and run out the clock. Unfortunately that would require actually blocking someone up front and the Skins couldn't do that all day. On second and long the Skins line up in [B]Shotgun (gasp!)[/B] but Thrash can't hold onto the ball, granted it was a tough catch but he got his hands on it. Those are the plays you need to make to win games. Watching the game I think to myself "well, at least the guys on the Warpath can't say the Skins didn't take any shots deep at the end of the game. [B]WRONG.[/B] After taking the deep shot and missing you could try again and risk a turnover or an incompletion to stop the clock. Skins decide to run, don't have a problem with that, but can't block anyone and penalty on Samuels stops clock anyway. Poor execution again.

I don't have a problem with the play calling, personally, and I'd also point out that the Cards never abandoned the run even though they got stuffed the whole game. By the end Edge started breaking off some nice runs and they wore the Skins D out. That is why you continue to run the football. I know I have convinced no one and it is like bashing my head against a brick wall, but I thought I would at least try to bring some empiricism to the discussion.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=Southpaw;367574]Brunell also had the benefit of a receiver that had a chip on his shoulder and a point to prove. Campbell is dealing with the same receiver, but he's become a [B]headcase[/B] that forgot how to make plays.[/quote]That must be it. Same guy, but now hes out to hurt the team!

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

I don't know what my full definition of conservative playcalling is, but I can't stand that we NEVER throw down the middle of the field. AND we're heading into week 8 and don't have a single stinkin WR with a TD! That's pathetic. Our rush average is lame, and we're reverting back to the old horizontal offense. We struggle mightily to get first downs, especially in the second half with the game on the line. We have a QB who can make every throw imaginable, yet we rarely try to stretch the field. 2 or 3 yard runs on 1st and 2nd down may be "Gibbs Football," but with our line in the tattered shape it's in, we need to adapt a little here. We've got to mix it up, and do it more often than the occasional throw of 15+ yards. We are deeper at WR than most teams in the league, and we repeatedly fail to get the passing game going.

Our second half offense is glaringly bad. Defesive coaches are making adjustments at halftime and we're not readjusting. And our offensive coaches (Bugel, Gibbs, Saunders, Breaux...) are pretty set in their ways. Unfortunately I don't see it changing any time soon. It's stunk pretty badly the entire time Gibbs has been here (except during the 5 game run to the playoffs in '05), and if not for Gregg Williams bailing him out with great defense, we'd probably be 2-4 or worse.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;367660]That must be it. Same guy, but now hes out to hurt the team![/quote]

I hate to say it Tripp, but the amount of money we have tied in to Moss and Lloyd compared to their production is a laugh out loud joke. In the last 2 weeks they've combined for what, 2 or 3 catches, 8 total yards, 4 or 5 drops and a fumble that cost us the game? Hard to have any faith in that. I see $50M+ circling the drain with those two right now...

We NEED a breakout game from Moss to build some confidence. NEED.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;367660]That must be it. Same guy, but now hes out to hurt the team![/quote]

I didn't say he was a cancer. I said "headcase". As in something is in his head, that is causing him to lose concentration.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;367654]I hate to confuse the issue by inserting some facts into the conversation, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Let's actually take a look at the play-by-play from the second half of yesterdays game. Bear in mind that these facts don't give you a proper understanding of exactly how horribly the offensive line played yesterday, but hopefully we can all take that as a given at this point, even though some still like to say that "Fabini and Wade have started four games now, they're starters!" (there is a reason that Fabini got cut by the Cowboys and there is a reason Pucillo was a 7th round pick and there is a reason Wade didn't pan out in either Miami or Houston and there is a reason DeMulling was available to sign of the street in week four ... they are just not as good as the guys who were starting in front of them and couldn't start for most teams in the NFL). That being said:

Drive 1:
-Rock Cartwright returns kick to AZ 21
-1st and 10: Portis Run for -2
-2nd and 12: Portis run for 8
-3rd and 4: J. Campbell Pass attempt, sacked by a completely untouched Calvin Pace -8
-4th and 12: Suisham misses 41 yard kick

Conservative play calling? Maybe you don't like the runs on 1st and 2nd, but they got us to a manageable 3rd and 4. Clearly a protection breakdown by the right side because Wade blocked air and Pace was completely untouched. I have no problem with the play calling here, piss poor execution does the Skins in again.

Drive 2:

1-10-WAS 41 (11:45) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 82-A.Randle El to ARI 33 for 26 yards (52-M.Beisel).
1-10-ARI 33 (11:23) 26-C.Portis left end to ARI 31 for 2 yards (92-B.Berry).
2-8-ARI 31 (10:47) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 83-J.Thrash to ARI 26 for 5 yards (26-R.Hood).
3-3-ARI 26 (10:07) 17-J.Campbell pass short right to 47-C.Cooley to ARI 23 for 3 yards (25-E.Green).
1-10-ARI 23 (9:32) 26-C.Portis right guard to ARI 21 for 2 yards (21-A.Rolle).
2-8-ARI 21 (8:58) 26-C.Portis right end to ARI 19 for 2 yards (97-C.Pace).
3-6-ARI 19 (8:18) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell scrambles right end pushed ob at ARI 11 for 8 yards (42-T.Holt).
1-10-ARI 11 (7:50) 46-L.Betts right end to ARI 11 for no gain (98-G.Watson).
2-10-ARI 11 (7:14) 46-L.Betts right guard to ARI 1 for 10 yards (42-T.Holt).
1-1-ARI 1 (6:30) 45-M.Sellers left guard to ARI 1 for no gain (93-C.Cooper).
2-1-ARI 1 [B](5:51) 26-C.Portis left guard for 1 yard, TOUCHDOWN.[/B]

Great Drive in my opinion and Jason made two big plays that made the whole thing work. The throw to Randle El was terrific, he put it right on his back shoulder because he saw the saftey coming over the middle. The location of the pass and Randle El's adjustment to it allowed El to turn the ball towards the sideline and pick up some nice YAC. If Jason throws it in front of El then he gets smashed and maybe drops the ball. On 3-6 the Skins called a shovel pass and Jason sees the Cards have it covered perfectly. Instead of throwing it into coverage and causing an incompletion or turnover he holds the ball and runs for the first down, two veteran plays. Betts has a nice run and I think he scored, nonetheless Portis gets into the endzone.

Drive 3:

1-10-WAS 30 (14:47) 26-C.Portis up the middle to WAS 30 for no gain (92-B.Berry, 52-M.Beisel).
2-10-WAS 30 (14:10) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 26-C.Portis to WAS 35 for 5 yards (25-E.Green).
3-5-WAS 35 [I](13:28) (Shotgun) PENALTY on WAS-47-C.Cooley, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 35 - No Play.[/I]
3-10-WAS 30 (13:16) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass short middle to 45-M.Sellers to WAS 38 for 8 yards (54-G.Hayes, 90-D.Dockett).

Here is where the boo birds came out at FedEx (what the hell is the point of booing your own team? I'll never understand that...Philly fans do that, Skins fans should be better than that). I guess you could say conservative play calling here. The penalty on Cooley put them in a third and long, they went shotgun (don't all you guys love the shotgun?) and I GUARANTEE that Sellers was not the first option on that pass (probably the fourth). I'd have to get the all-22 to see, but I think we can say the Cards had it covered down field, or at least JC thought so.

Drive 4:

1-10-WAS 13 (7:14) 26-C.Portis up the middle to WAS 17 for 4 yards (24-A.Wilson).
2-6-WAS 17 (6:40) 45-M.Sellers up the middle to WAS 18 for 1 yard (52-M.Beisel).
3-5-WAS 18 (6:03) 17-J.Campbell pass incomplete short middle to 82-A.Randle El.

Probably the worst drive of the game, conservative? Yes, I'd say so. The call to Sellers was less than inspired, but if they pick up three or four than it is 3rd and short. Still a manageable third down situation. JC got big pressure here and the throw to El was both short of the first down and off target. JC rushed the throw and probably gave up on some deeper reads very quickly because of pressure, either perceived or real (I'd have to go back and look. I can't remember but I think the Cards brought a full house blitz, maybe it was a fire zone, I don't think the blocking was completely horrible, but JC went quick to his hot and was probably a bit spooked by this point).

Drive 5:

1-10-WAS 20 (3:38) 26-C.Portis left end to WAS 23 for 3 yards (54-G.Hayes).
2-7-WAS 23 (3:03) (Shotgun) 17-J.Campbell pass incomplete deep right to 83-J.Thrash (26-R.Hood).
3-7-WAS 23 (2:56) 26-C.Portis left end pushed ob at WAS 24 for 1 yard (25-E.Green). Penalty on WAS-60-C.Samuels

Three minutes left in the game, Skins ahead. Should be able to go into a four-minute offense here and run out the clock. Unfortunately that would require actually blocking someone up front and the Skins couldn't do that all day. On second and long the Skins line up in [B]Shotgun (gasp!)[/B] but Thrash can't hold onto the ball, granted it was a tough catch but he got his hands on it. Those are the plays you need to make to win games. Watching the game I think to myself "well, at least the guys on the Warpath can't say the Skins didn't take any shots deep at the end of the game. [B]WRONG.[/B] After taking the deep shot and missing you could try again and risk a turnover or an incompletion to stop the clock. Skins decide to run, don't have a problem with that, but can't block anyone and penalty on Samuels stops clock anyway. Poor execution again.

I don't have a problem with the play calling, personally, and I'd also point out that the Cards never abandoned the run even though they got stuffed the whole game. By the end Edge started breaking off some nice runs and they wore the Skins D out. That is why you continue to run the football. I know I have convinced no one and it is like bashing my head against a brick wall, but I thought I would at least try to bring some empiricism to the discussion.[/quote]

Very nice to see some facts instead of people's skewed memories of what they thought happened.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

The offensive line is the heart of a football team, it provides a running game, it provides time for the passing game, and it allows you over all to sustain drives which keeps your defense off the field and fresh, the problem is we have IMO overrated our line we are not good run blockers, we do not have a line that knocks people off the LOS, they have to be utilized differently, as in draws, traps, screens, slant passes, our line is like a boxer who doesn't have one punch knock out power, he has to ware down his opponent in order to knock him out later in the match, I think Gibbs is stuck in a time warp believing he can run the same type of plays he did in his first tenure now, 1 problem, he doesn't have the hogs to knock guys off the LOS, he needs to figure out another way to move the ball to ware teams down, even with a healthy line. He has neglected building depth through the draft at the O-line position as if it is an after thought when it should be his top priority. So cutting Gibbs some slack right now because of a banged up line is definitely justifiable, but his lack of attention to bringing in some real horses for that line rests on him.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=offiss;367696]The offensive line is the heart of a football team, it provides a running game, it provides time for the passing game, and it allows you over all to sustain drives which keeps your defense off the field and fresh, the problem is we have IMO overrated our line we are not good run blockers, we do not have a line that knocks people off the LOS, they have to be utilized differently, as in draws, traps, screens, slant passes, our line is like a boxer who doesn't have one punch knock out power, he has to ware down his opponent in order to knock him out later in the match, I think Gibbs is stuck in a time warp believing he can run the same type of plays he did in his first tenure now, 1 problem, he doesn't have the hogs to knock guys off the LOS, he needs to figure out another way to move the ball to ware teams down, even with a healthy line. He has neglected building depth through the draft at the O-line position as if it is an after thought when it should be his top priority. So cutting Gibbs some slack right because of a banged up line is definitely justifiable, but his lack of attention to bringing in some real horses for that line rests on him.[/quote]

When guys were healthy last year we didn't have any problems running the ball, same in 2005. So I'm really not sure where you're going here.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

he's saying we needed to address the lack of depth at O-line

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;367654]I don't have a problem with the play calling, personally, and I'd also point out that the Cards never abandoned the run even though they got stuffed the whole game. By the end Edge started breaking off some nice runs and they wore the Skins D out. That is why you continue to run the football.[/quote]

I don't think it was any reflection on the defense so much as we probably were playing pass considering how late in the game it was.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

I honestly don't have a problem with our OL depth, but when you're down to your 8th and 9th lineman, I think any team is going to have some issues.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

many teams take hits to their O-lines, adjust, and succeed

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=offiss;367696]The offensive line is the heart of a football team, it provides a running game, it provides time for the passing game, and it allows you over all to sustain drives which keeps your defense off the field and fresh, the problem is we have IMO overrated our line we are not good run blockers, we do not have a line that knocks people off the LOS, they have to be utilized differently, as in draws, traps, screens, slant passes, our line is like a boxer who doesn't have one punch knock out power, he has to ware down his opponent in order to knock him out later in the match, I think Gibbs is stuck in a time warp believing he can run the same type of plays he did in his first tenure now, 1 problem, he doesn't have the hogs to knock guys off the LOS, he needs to figure out another way to move the ball to ware teams down, even with a healthy line. He has neglected building depth through the draft at the O-line position as if it is an after thought when it should be his top priority. So cutting Gibbs some slack right now because of a banged up line is definitely justifiable, but his lack of attention to bringing in some real horses for that line rests on him.[/quote]I agree that we overrated our line in the past, but the past is pretty much irrelevant when only 1 guy on the line was relevant in the past...and he's probably even better.

I didn't think we'd be too much better than middle of the road when healthy, but you can't say that these injuries aren't killing us.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=offiss;367696]He has neglected building depth through the draft at the O-line position as if it is an after thought when it should be his top priority. So cutting Gibbs some slack right now because of a banged up line is definitely justifiable, but his lack of attention to bringing in some real horses for that line rests on him.[/quote]

What people seem to forget is Wade, Heyer, and Fabini were all backups at the beginning of the season, and if they were still backups now, I'd personally be very happy with the O line depth. Wade and Heyer specifically, are probably better than most teams third and fourth offensive tackles, but when they both go down with injuries in a game, it's just plain bad luck, and nearly impossible to prepare for.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[QUOTE=The Zimmermans;367709]many teams take hits to their O-lines, adjust, and succeed[/QUOTE]

I'd like to know what other teams with at least a 4-2 record have lost three starters along the O-line and have two of their backups injured (Wade and Heyer). In fact, forget the 4-2 record, find me a team with 5 o-linemen who have injuries that are as bad as Thomas', Jansen's, Rabach's, Heyer's, and Wade's.

It's nice and all to say "adapt and overcome," it's another to realistically expect a team to do so with those kind of injuries along the O-line. In fact, with all due respect, I find it kind of crazy.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=The Zimmermans;367709]many teams take hits to their O-lines, adjust, and succeed[/quote]

Show me any other team in the league that has had to resort to converting a defensive lineman to offense. Or any team that has lost five lineman in seven weeks of football.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;367719]Show me any other team in the league that has had to resort to converting a defensive lineman to offense. Or any team that has lost five lineman in seven weeks of football.[/QUOTE]

Who cares if they have to use a d-linemen on offense? I mean, they should be able to throw in Brandon Lloyd or Reche Caldwell at tackle and not miss a beat. It's not like that is asking too much.

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;367720]Who cares if they have to use a d-linemen on offense? I mean, they should be able to throw in Brandon Lloyd or Reche Caldwell at tackle and not miss a beat. It's not like that is asking too much.[/quote]

Patriots did it two years ago.....lost 3 of their starting 5....and had no receivers

Re: What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

We should have known that Jansen and Thomas get hurt every year. I am tired of excuses....you guys make as many excuses as you like...if the O-line is hurting, then why don't we punt the ball on first down