Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;358045]You can make the case that that's why Gibbs is in the Hall of Fame. He came to the Redskins ready to unleash Air Coryell, then he saw what he had in Riggins and went with the "Heavy Jumbo", then he got the big play ability of Clark and Sanders and unleashed an aerial attack. And so on.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely you can. Gibbs was a great offensive mind, and I also think his defensive skills were extremely underrated. He knew how to exploit teams, and made us perennial winners. But that was part 1 of Gibbs.
So why, in your opinion, is he unwilling to make those adjustments now SS?

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;358058]Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?[/quote]

Depends on how you look at it. The end of the game showed 27 rushes to 36 passing attempts (when you count the 2 sacks). But as we all know, we left any sort of game plan at the end of the game when we had to pass every down. So you take away the last two drives and you get a different result.
For instance, our last drive had 9 consecutive passing attempts (2 spikes) and 2 rushing attempts with Betts. Our second to last drive have 8 consecutive passing attempts and no rushes. That's 17 passing attempts in the last two drives. SO in actuality, we had 19 passing attempts to 27 rushes. Not so even if you ask me.

[quote]That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.[/quote]

Strongly disagree. While I see your point, we have a banged up O line and we are not as effective running the ball. We only had 82 yards rushing on 27 attempts vs a poor Giants D. That's only 3.04 YPC. We need to take the handcuffs off Campbell and let him to continue throwing downfield. That will take the pressure off the run and open up the offense.

[quote]Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.[/QUOTE]

Well Roethlisberger has averaged almost 26 attempts per game this year, and has 6 td's to 1 int, and they have won every game and blew out every opponant by an average of close to 24 points a game...all because they throw more now then they ever have. Tomlin has a passing attack mentality as opposed to Cowher's run first approach and now they aren't in close games, they are blowing everyone away. Thanks for the example, it helped to prove my point. If the Steelers can scrap a game plan engrained in their minds for many years, why can't we? It works to throw the ball people!

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;358058]Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.[/QUOTE]
The 'run it down their throats' wasn't just specific to last week, it's a general notion that 'Gibbs football' is a smashmouth, run it 30-40+ times a game philospohy..

Aikman said last week that they won 3 Super Bowls in Dallas running Gibbs offense.. Vermiel won a Super Bowl in St. Louis with it with the Greatest Show on Turf. Mike Martz runs concepts of it, Saunders has run it for years.. It's all the Coryell system. We know it works, but the difference is how he does it now..

One core concept of 'Gibbs football' is get an early lead and control the clock with the running game.. That's what all of the coaches above did, and Gibbs has tried to do also since he's been back, but the difference is 'getting the lead' today means you have to have a 3 TD cushion before running the ball repeatedly to control the clock.. We've seen too many leads pissed away by conservative, predictable play calling in close (less than 3 TD) games.. Remember 11 loses with a 2nd half lead, 12 loses with an 11 point or more lead, both worst in the NFL since 2004.. That's not coincidence, it's a trend that indicates a flawed philosophy..

Why we seem to collectively lose aggressiveness (on offense and defense mind you) in the 2nd half in games that we lead is beyond me.. The 'let's not take any chances' approach to football is a recipe for failure in the NFL..

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;358058]Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.[/quote]I've always felt that pass/run ratio can be misleading. If you're unwilling to try to get the ball downfield in your passing game, you give the opposing safeties no reason to respect the pass. Other than the missed shot deep to Moss in the second half, did Campbell attempt a single pass over 10-12 yards prior to the final drive? I feel that in addition to a great deep ball, he throws an excellent 15-20 yard pass over the middle, as he did to Randle El to set up the goal-line sequence. I'd like to see more of that type of passing play to force safeties to respect the pass. Campbell certainly has the gun to fire the ball into tight spaces.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

Week 1- 4.7 yards per rush (win)
Week 2- 4.0 yards per rush (win)
Week 3- 3.0 yards per rush (loss)

Notice a trend here? We're getting worse at the running the ball, and week 3 we played the weakest D. I'm all for pounding the ball when it works, when it doesn't, it's time to change.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=Paintrain;358070]The 'run it down their throats' wasn't just specific to last week, it's a general notion that 'Gibbs football' is a smashmouth, run it 30-40+ times a game philospohy..

Aikman said last week that they won 3 Super Bowls in Dallas running Gibbs offense.. Vermiel won a Super Bowl in St. Louis with it with the Greatest Show on Turf. Mike Martz runs concepts of it, Saunders has run it for years.. It's all the Coryell system. We know it works, but the difference is how he does it now..

One core concept of 'Gibbs football' is get an early lead and control the clock with the running game.. That's what all of the coaches above did, and Gibbs has tried to do also since he's been back, but the difference is 'getting the lead' today means you have to have a 3 TD cushion before running the ball repeatedly to control the clock.. We've seen too many leads pissed away by conservative, predictable play calling in close (less than 3 TD) games.. Remember 11 loses with a 2nd half lead, 12 loses with an 11 point or more lead, both worst in the NFL since 2004.. That's not coincidence, it's a trend that indicates a flawed philosophy..

Why we seem to collectively lose aggressiveness (on offense and defense mind you) in the 2nd half in games that we lead is beyond me.. The 'let's not take any chances' approach to football is a recipe for failure in the NFL..[/quote]NFL routes have guys going deep on every play. The Quarterback has to decide when he's got a matchup that makes the throw worth the risk.

Last year we didn't throw downfield as much as the average team did, and we blamed the Quarterback. This year we are throwing downfield often, having some success, and people still have a problem with it. We just can't handle the fact that it's a low percentage throw. 28% leaguewide. That means if you throw one deep ball in every quarter, you are only likely to complete one deep ball. [B]In general[/B], throwing the ball down the field is a negative value offensive strategy. There are times where an NFL defense will give you a great matchup downfield that you should take advatage of, teams do this all the time. But chew on this: if a deep completion is such a great thing (and it is), and sometimes you get good matchups to throw it (which you do), and it STILL hurts your team more times than not, why would you ever want to do it MORE?!?!?! If you force the deep ball into tight coverage, you are more likely to be intercepted than to have a completion.

We have taken advantage of some good matchups in the deep game this year. We've probably been a bit too aggressive with it, but we've done pretty well. Our offense has been really balanced so far. Our running game has not been efficient. So to agree with those who have said this before, I WOULD take some pressure off this running game and throw the ball more. But that doesn't mean we need Campbell to throw the ball all over the place. Some screens, short passes, bootlegs would do a lot to take pressure off the running game. We don't have to do any 4 wide crap or the sort. I would try the running game, and if its not getting 4 yards an attempt, I'd run it less. If it is, I'd run it more.

Of course, thats what the coaches did Sunday, and people are still all up ons.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;358065]Well Roethlisberger has averaged almost 26 attempts per game this year, and has 6 td's to 1 int, and they have won every game and blew out every opponant by an average of close to 24 points a game...all because they throw more now then they ever have. Tomlin has a passing attack mentality as opposed to Cowher's run first approach and now they aren't in close games, they are blowing everyone away. Thanks for the example, it helped to prove my point. If the Steelers can scrap a game plan engrained in their minds for many years, why can't we? It works to throw the ball people![/QUOTE]

I'll just respond to this part just because I want to make clear that I'm talking about when Roethlisberger first started QBing. They didn't throw him out there to launch the ball 25-30 times a game. He was eased into it. I don't doubt that as the season progresses they'll entrust more of the game into Campbell's hands

You've actually helped me come up with a good question for Tony McGee for our next chat. Thanks!

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;358082]I'll just respond to this part just because I want to make clear that I'm talking about when Roethlisberger first started QBing. They didn't throw him out there to launch the ball 25-30 times a game. He was eased into it. I don't doubt that as the season progresses they'll entrust more of the game into Campbell's hands[/quote]

Gotcha.
It was easy to hold Big Ben to fewer passes, they had an established run. If they had Favre he would have to hand the ball off too. They won conservative though, so I understand your point.
If the Skins had a top 5 rushing attack, and top 5 defense, we could bring back Rypien to win us a super bowl. But we don't on both...we need Campbell to step up...especially with the injuries to Thomas and Jansen.

[quote]You've actually helped me come up with a good question for Tony McGee for our next chat. Thanks![/QUOTE]

What question is that?

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;358080]NFL routes have guys going deep on every play. The Quarterback has to decide when he's got a matchup that makes the throw worth the risk.

Last year we didn't throw downfield as much as the average team did, and we blamed the Quarterback. This year we are throwing downfield often, having some success, and people still have a problem with it. We just can't handle the fact that it's a low percentage throw. 28% leaguewide. That means if you throw one deep ball in every quarter, you are only likely to complete one deep ball. [B]In general[/B], throwing the ball down the field is a negative value offensive strategy. There are times where an NFL defense will give you a great matchup downfield that you should take advatage of, teams do this all the time. But chew on this: if a deep completion is such a great thing (and it is), and sometimes you get good matchups to throw it (which you do), and it STILL hurts your team more times than not, why would you ever want to do it MORE?!?!?! If you force the deep ball into tight coverage, you are more likely to be intercepted than to have a completion.

We have taken advantage of some good matchups in the deep game this year. We've probably been a bit too aggressive with it, but we've done pretty well. Our offense has been really balanced so far. Our running game has not been efficient. So to agree with those who have said this before, I WOULD take some pressure off this running game and throw the ball more. But that doesn't mean we need Campbell to throw the ball all over the place. Some screens, short passes, bootlegs would do a lot to take pressure off the running game. We don't have to do any 4 wide crap or the sort. I would try the running game, and if its not getting 4 yards an attempt, I'd run it less. If it is, I'd run it more.

Of course, thats what the coaches did Sunday, and people are still all up ons.[/QUOTE]
I'm not advocating airing it out and throwing bombs every play or each drive.. What's missing in our offense is the a mid range passing game.. Where are the 10 yd slants, the 15 yard ins, the skinny post, the post corner routes, the out n ups from our offense? These move the chains by reception or penalty (we seldom get illegal contact penalties to our benefit, why is that?) Those loosen up the LB which open up running lanes.. Those invite blitzes which opens up the screen game..

Taking shots down the field (20+ yards) probably eqaute to less than 15% of successful plays in the most prolific offenses but they (Cincy, Indy, Dallas, Detroit) have the mid range game as a core component of their offense.. 1 big problem I've noticed in our passing game is other than the go route, [b][i]most[/b][/i] of our routes (hooks & curls) have the receivers catching the ball with their feet set or heading to or running up the sideline which limits RAC.

It's not as bad as with Brunell, but let's not be afraid of the middle of the field.. As other teams have shown on our defense, the middle of the field is a first down haven but we tend to ignore it exists..

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=Paintrain;358086]I'm not advocating airing it out and throwing bombs every play or each drive.. What's missing in our offense is the a mid range passing game.. Where are the 10 yd slants, the 15 yard ins, the skinny post, the post corner routes, the out n ups from our offense? These move the chains by reception or penalty (we seldom get illegal contact penalties to our benefit, why is that?) Those loosen up the LB which open up running lanes.. Those invite blitzes which opens up the screen game..

Taking shots down the field (20+ yards) probably eqaute to less than 15% of successful plays in the most prolific offenses but they (Cincy, Indy, Dallas, Detroit) have the mid range game as a core component of their offense.. 1 big problem I've noticed in our passing game is other than the go route, [B][I]most[/I][/B] of our routes (hooks & curls) have the receivers catching the ball with their feet set or heading to or running up the sideline which limits RAC.

It's not as bad as with Brunell, but let's not be afraid of the middle of the field.. As other teams have shown on our defense, the middle of the field is a first down haven but we tend to ignore it exists..[/quote]

I agree with you that we ignore the middle of the field it seems. Over the last 3 years, we've relied on Cooley for that yardage I think. But getting a more experienced "possession" receiver would help us in that regard. That's one of the strengths for Thrash. He grabs the ball with his hands, and then knows when to get his head down and avoid the "kill."

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

That's a great point about not taking advantage of the middle of the field passing...with 2 speedy wideouts like Moss ARE, they could run by most corners and all linebackers!

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

Welcome to the Warpath, tell your friends.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=Daseal;357687]Someone earlier posted that the NFL is about running and stopping the run and it hasn't changed in twenty years. That statement couldn't be much farther from the truth. As Pat Kirwan spent about 30 minutes talking about on NFL radio the other day, the league has turned into a pass first league. The rules are slanted towards the passing game. PI may be the best way to move the ball in football, illegal contact is a nice chunk of yards. etc.

For instance, lets look at the top 5 teams in the league in passing offense: Lions, Bengals, Patriots, Colts, Cowboys. These teams have a combined record of: 12-3 this far into the season. That's a pretty accurate example that being able to pass the ball, and doing it often is very important in this league. The tide is changing, the NFL wants it to be a passing lane, it's exciting and grabs the casual fans attention. Quote/


Crazyhorse1

I agree. Anytime I hear anyone say we're going to win with the running game, I cringe, and have been cringing for years. As a former linebacker, forty years ago, I learned that the running game was a lot easier to stop than the passing game.

For one, it's easier to slip a run block than it is to run around or through a pass blocker. For another, it's easier to tackle a running back than it is to back pedal and stay with a receiver while trying not to draw a penalty.

To stay with a receiver who is as fast or faster than you are requires you to guess which way a receiver is going to cut, and whether he's going to pull up or fly. I think that good receivers should be open about half to three forths of the time, unless double teamed. If three or more receivers going out someone is open on virtually every play. In other words, good execution in the passing game is close to unstoppabled if talent levels are equal.

This is not true in the running game. Run blocking in very difficult. The offensive player gets the jump but the defensive player can use his hands. If talent levels are equal, only about half the blocks thrown at the line will hold and in the secondary many less. Since it takes multiple relatively difficult blocks to hold to gain short yardage on the ground, long drives on the ground are highly unlikley if talent levels are equal.

Deduction: Because of the nature of the game, the defense has the upper hand in the ground game if talent levels are equal. The opposite is true in the air.

The top colleges in the country do well in the running game because talent levels are notoriously uneven in the college game. College teams that don't attract superior talent try to find accurate throwers and superior receivers to make themselves competitive. When the top colleges meet each other, their vaulted ground games are usually ineffective and they score or don't score in relation to their QB's and receivers, usually the wide receivers.

In the NFL. teams are too well matched to allow the ground game to sustain drives and score many points. Considering the emerging fact that we don't have a defense that can really shut down teams, I think that the Skins should throw at least half the time, and throw first, to set up the run. We lost to the Giants because we didn't do this and the Giants knew we wouldn't do it.

Gibbs won superbowls largely the ground because of great offensive players who were in fact superior to the opposition man for man. He definately does not have that now. Only two of our offensive lineman are supeior players and, at present, only three of offensive players at skill posiions are superior-- Cooley, Portis, and Moss, not one of whom can run block at better than an adequate level. Sellers is probably a superior blocker in the run game, but that's not enough. We've got to pass.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

Saunders and Gibbs are no doubt aware of the need to score points--they've both led offenses in the NFL that have done so at a great rate, so they of all people are aware of the shortcoming. Gibbs football never meant not scoring points. It just meant controlling the clock and using the run to effectively set up the pass--that's still a god strategy, but they must modify things enough to execute and especially to keep defenses off balance. There are times when it sure seems they get predictable, and that's a worry.

But look--hitting the deep and intermediate stuff when it's called is crucial, and they didn't do that in the second half against the Giants. I would like to see more slants and over-the-middle stuff: I think teams are cheating against the run and deep stuff, so that should be there. Also, I think the screen will work for this team: recall that great screen to Betts earlier in the year. More creativity and better execution. And if we can CONSISTENTLY hit a few, that will open everything else up.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain;358042]The game has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 yrs.. For example:
-Rule changes have made the game siginificantly tilted to the passing game.. The illegal contact rule, the emphasis on roughing the passer tends to protect QBs more, defensive holding is called much more than ever before..
-Exotic defenses change the way offense is called.. You'd hardly ever see 8 in the box before the past 15 years.. The 3-4 wasn't around, you would NEVER see some of the defensive formations the Pats do (1 down linemen, 4 LB and 6 DB) and as a result offenses have gotten more aggressive to exploit those defenses. Gibbs has not shown any innovation in his game plan or philosophy since his return..
-Players today are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.. While not diminishing any players of before (I am a child of the 70's and 80's so I saw all of the same ones you mentioned play) for every Lawrence Taylor, I give you Shawn Merriman or Brian Urlacher. For every Ronnie Lott, I give you Brian Dawkins or Ed Reed.. Today's players are more athletic, run faster and hit just as hard..

Yesterday's players were probably smarter, but overall today's game is different. By that I mean the game is tilted to what coaches can maximize their teams talents by suiting their gameplan to his team's strengths rather than teach a team to fit into their system.

A perfect example is Tony Dungy. His background is old school Chuck Noll, run the ball, take some shots downfield and play great defense. He turned TB from the NFL dregs to a powerhouse with that formula because he had those type of players.. When he got to Indy, he had a great QB, great WR and a bad defense.. Rather than force his philosophy, he let the offense continue to air it out (against [u][i]his[/u][/i] background) while trying to improve the defense. He's going to the Hall of Fame because he knew how to and was willing to adapt to the strengths of his team rather than stubbornly stick to 'his system'.

Gibbs seems like he's trying to fit square pegs into his round hole and that's why it's not working..[/QUOTE]

There were nickel and dime defenses back in the 80's and yes, there was the 3-4 defense back in those days as well, so I'm not buying that the defenses has changed that much. As far as the rule changes, I do agree, they do favor the passing game more, but there are also defensive schemes that counter act that...such as the bump and run and the blitz packages.

And further more, it's good that you brought up Tony Dungy. Sure, he had to change his philosophy when he came to Indy. HOWEVER, notice the Colts didn't win their Super Bowl until they had a defense that was reliable, and they ran the football more.

Remember. Joe Gibbs' philosophy really isn't conservative football. He came out of the mold of Don Coryell...."Air Coryell". He molded his offense with the type of players he had in the 80's. In the early to mid 80's, the offense centered around John Riggins. In the second half of the 80's and early 90's, it focused a lot on the Posse' (Monk, Clark, Sanders,) while maintaining and strong running game.

It's all about what type of team you have....the type of players you have. Gibbs philosophy deals with the type of team he has. If he has a young, inexperienced QB, he's going to run more. If he has Mark Rypien or Doug Williams under center he's going to air it out, but he's going to do so when the quarterback is experienced enough to take the team on his back. Jason isn't there yet. But, people would be blind to not see that we are giving Campbell more opportunities to go down field.

There's nothing wrong with Gibbs' philosophy. If there was, over half of the current head coaching staff in the league wouldn't have jobs.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

I realize I'm gonna catch a lot of shit for saying this (especially being new to the Warpath), but I can't help pointing out the mistake in the title. It should read "Why Doesn't 'Gibbs' Football' Work for the NFL." I do not think Gibbs would do much better coaching the Colts or Pats at this stage in his career. Great man, HOF coach, but too conservative, predictable in today's NFL and stuck with what he seems to regard as a QB too young and green to let loose. Also, I don't think Gibbs commands as much respect among his boys as Belachick or Dungy do among theirs. Our offense rarely plays w/ passion as a unit (we see it in Portis, Cooley, Moss and now ARL quite a bit though). On the other hand Williams' defense plays with passion at least 50% of the time (discounting the '06 nightmare). Just my opinion.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=MTRedskinsFan;358135]I realize I'm gonna catch a lot of shit for saying this (especially being new to the Warpath), but I can't help pointing out the mistake in the title. It should read "Why Doesn't 'Gibbs' Football' Work for the NFL." I do not think Gibbs would do much better coaching the Colts or Pats at this stage in his career. Great man, HOF coach, but too conservative, predictable in today's NFL and stuck with what he seems to regard as a QB too young and green to let loose. Also, I don't think Gibbs commands as much respect among his boys as Belachick or Dungy do among theirs. Our offense rarely plays w/ passion as a unit (we see it in Portis, Cooley, Moss and now ARL quite a bit though). On the other hand Williams' defense plays with passion at least 50% of the time (discounting the '06 nightmare). Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing you didn't read the first post, it would (should) explain why I chose this thread title.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

I read it, and the breakdown you provide of Gibbs contributions through innovation is very good. But I'm basically shooting a question back to you "Where's the innovation today?" Why do teams, especially ones most familiar with the Skins, predict our offensive gameplans so well? Why can't we score 20+ pts each game, even against lousy defenses, with all the offensive weapons?

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=MTRedskinsFan;358139]I read it, and the breakdown you provide of Gibbs contributions through innovation is very good. But I'm basically shooting a question back to you "Where's the innovation today?" Why do teams, especially ones most familiar with the Skins, predict our offensive gameplans so well? Why can't we score 20+ pts each game, even against lousy defenses, with all the offensive weapons?[/QUOTE]

To not answer the question to a question with a question, but it goes back to my initial question really.

It seems to work elsewhere, why not here. Why not here on a regular basis, that is.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=MTRedskinsFan;358139]I read it, and the breakdown you provide of Gibbs contributions through innovation is very good. But I'm basically shooting a question back to you "Where's the innovation today?" Why do teams, especially ones most familiar with the Skins, predict our offensive gameplans so well? Why can't we score 20+ pts each game, even against lousy defenses, with all the offensive weapons?[/QUOTE]

How are they predicting our offensive game plans so well? Are we not 2-1 right now? If teams predict our game plan so well, we'd be 0-3. Right now, it is our players' execution that isn't running the score board up, not that opposing defenses are stopping us. Most of the time, we're stopping ourselves.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

Can I have some more of that killer aid.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=skinsguy;358165]How are they predicting our offensive game plans so well? Are we not 2-1 right now? If teams predict our game plan so well, we'd be 0-3. Right now, it is our players' execution that isn't running the score board up, not that opposing defenses are stopping us. Most of the time, we're stopping ourselves.[/QUOTE]

You're right yo, execution is huge problem. How can Moss and Portis drop passes on the numbers, or Betts run w/o a head of steam? But I still take back to coaching/playcalling. Thrash has best hands on the team, so when Moss is dropping shit left and right why don't we at least pick up a few yards w/ Thrash. Maybe it's not a matter of predictability but Gibbs and maybe Saunders reactingly too slowly to what's happening on the field.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=MTRedskinsFan;358191]You're right yo, execution is huge problem. How can Moss and Portis drop passes on the numbers, or Betts run w/o a head of steam? But I still take back to coaching/playcalling. Thrash has best hands on the team, so when Moss is dropping shit left and right why don't we at least pick up a few yards w/ Thrash. Maybe it's not a matter of predictability but Gibbs and maybe Saunders reactingly too slowly to what's happening on the field.[/quote]You do bring up good points, but I think there is one thing I should be clear on. Just because there is a theoretically better option can NOT mean the playcalling was wrong. In the NFL, you can't just replace the playcall, you must change the playcaller, and generally the entire offense with it. With playcalling such a fraction of a percent of the reason for any given outcome of a game, I don't think we can seperate a few plays from the rest of the game.

I say it's pointless to debate over playcalling, even if your right in the instances you bring up (I believe you are) because it's one of the nitpickiest things you can do. If a coach is helping his team instead of hurting it, like I believe Gibbs' staff is, we can live with the mistakes.

Everyone makes them. I believe Andy Reid is the best active coach, but he made a mistake that cost him 4 points against us. But I know over the course of the season, he will atone for that.

It's a long season, a few plays against the Giants in September will not matter.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

okay,Gibbs in his first go round was known for making great halftime adjustments,I've been doing some research and heres what i came up with.In Gibbs first tenure,he had 28 wins in which we were losing at halftime,7 of those happened in his first 3 yrs.Gibbs #2 in his first 3 yrs has 5 wins after losing at halftime,{this includes dallas-2td moss game,dont know if this should be counted}
On the flip side,Gibbs #1 had 11 games in 12 yrs in which he lost a game that he was winning at halftime,and one of those games you can throw out{91 season,we were 14-1,Gibbs rested starters in the 2nd half}
Gibbs #2 already has 11 losses in which we had a lead at halftime,with 5 of those happening last yr,and I dont think you can blame that on last yrs def,of those 5 losses we only scored a total of 29 second half points in 5 games.Of those 11 games 4 were second half shutouts with a total of us being outscored in the 2nd half of those 11 games 182-53.
What does all this mean? besides Gibbs #2 is def not as good as Gibbs#1?
well he has almost as many come from behind wins in his 2nd go round as he does in his first,so you might say he can still make good halftime adjustments.
Now for the 11 losses after leading at halftime,does that mean he's gotten too conservative in his old age and wants to sit on a lead?
Its been said that Gibbs#1 took other peoples players and fit his style around them and thats what made him a great coach,I can agree with that,but Gibbs #2 has handpicked his players for his system and its a struggle to score any points,does this make him a bad talent evaluator or bad coach? or both?
I think the bottom line is Gibbs#2 just hasnt been that good and deserves to be criticized,if he was any other coach he might be out of a job,2 of the teams that are# 2 and #3 behind us in most losses after leading at halftime since 2004 have fired their coaches.
But,I am glad that Snyder hired Gibbs,it has brought some stability to the organization,which we needed desperately.If Gibbs decides to finish out his 5 yr contract even if we suck he deserves that chance because of what he did the first time,but that doesnt mean he doesnt deserve the criticism he gets and we as fans shouldnt be chided for criticizing him .

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=htownskinfan;358222]okay,Gibbs in his first go round was known for making great halftime adjustments,I've been doing some research and heres what i came up with.In Gibbs first tenure,he had 28 wins in which we were losing at halftime,7 of those happened in his first 3 yrs.Gibbs #2 in his first 3 yrs has 5 wins after losing at halftime,{this includes dallas-2td moss game,dont know if this should be counted}
On the flip side,Gibbs #1 had 11 games in 12 yrs in which he lost a game that he was winning at halftime,and one of those games you can throw out{91 season,we were 14-1,Gibbs rested starters in the 2nd half}
Gibbs #2 already has 11 losses in which we had a lead at halftime,with 5 of those happening last yr,and I dont think you can blame that on last yrs def,of those 5 losses we only scored a total of 29 second half points in 5 games.Of those 11 games 4 were second half shutouts with a total of us being outscored in the 2nd half of those 11 games 182-53.
What does all this mean? besides Gibbs #2 is def not as good as Gibbs#1?
well he has almost as many come from behind wins in his 2nd go round as he does in his first,so you might say he can still make good halftime adjustments.
Now for the 11 losses after leading at halftime,does that mean he's gotten too conservative in his old age and wants to sit on a lead?
Its been said that Gibbs#1 took other peoples players and fit his style around them and thats what made him a great coach,I can agree with that,but Gibbs #2 has handpicked his players for his system and its a struggle to score any points,does this make him a bad talent evaluator or bad coach? or both?
I think the bottom line is Gibbs#2 just hasnt been that good and deserves to be criticized,if he was any other coach he might be out of a job,2 of the teams that are# 2 and #3 behind us in most losses after leading at halftime since 2004 have fired their coaches.
But,I am glad that Snyder hired Gibbs,it has brought some stability to the organization,which we needed desperately.If Gibbs decides to finish out his 5 yr contract even if we suck he deserves that chance because of what he did the first time,but that doesnt mean he doesnt deserve the criticism he gets and we as fans shouldnt be chided for criticizing him .[/quote]Good post, and some good points.

The biggest difference between Gibbs 1.0 and Gibbs 2.0 is that he cannot run over teams anymore because the roster he has is no longer dominant. He brought in Al Saunders to try to allieviate this, and say what you want about the job Saunders has done, but he specifically told Gibbs to go out and get Brandon Lloyd because he was the greatest talent he had ever seen. Because of moves like this, Gibbs has been unable to build a dominant roster.

The perception that we should NEVER give up a lead more than a touchdown in the second half of a game is downright ridiculous. We are about league average in closing games out. Sometimes, you end up getting outplayed by a comprable team in the second half. The first half DOES NOT HAVE MORE WEIGHT THAN THE SECOND. You could make the argument that we were lucky to have a 2 TD lead over the Giants with the drops and turnovers they committed. The fact that we were up by 2 TDs has nothing to do with the expectations for the second half.

You'd like to win every game you ever had a lead in, but if you can't deal with losing one every once in awhile without having to make excuses for the loss, it may be time to go root for another team who dominates its opponents.

Anyway, good post htownskin fan, and I hope this one doesn't get swept under the rug.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;358225]Good post, and some good points.

The biggest difference between Gibbs 1.0 and Gibbs 2.0 is that he cannot run over teams anymore because the roster he has is no longer dominant. He brought in Al Saunders to try to allieviate this, and say what you want about the job Saunders has done, but he specifically told Gibbs to go out and get Brandon Lloyd because he was the greatest talent he had ever seen. Because of moves like this, Gibbs has been unable to build a dominant roster.

The perception that we should NEVER give up a lead more than a touchdown in the second half of a game is downright ridiculous. We are about league average in closing games out. Sometimes, you end up getting outplayed by a comprable team in the second half. The first half DOES NOT HAVE MORE WEIGHT THAN THE SECOND. You could make the argument that we were lucky to have a 2 TD lead over the Giants with the drops and turnovers they committed. The fact that we were up by 2 TDs has nothing to do with the expectations for the second half.

You'd like to win every game you ever had a lead in, but if you can't deal with losing one every once in awhile without having to make excuses for the loss, it may be time to go root for another team who dominates its opponents.

Anyway, good post htownskin fan, and I hope this one doesn't get swept under the rug.[/QUOTE]

thanks,but I think this thread has played out

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

I think a better question is why doesn't "Saunders Football" work?

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;358409]I think a better question is why doesn't "Saunders Football" work?[/QUOTE]

Saunders system has worked for many years, until he came to Washington. I don't think there is a coincidence in that.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

JOE GIBBS football will work consistently if we hire a GM that picks the personnel to support joe gibbs football.

That includes a big HB, and small fast HB

A big possession third down receiver, and a solid offensive line

Otherwise, "JOE GIBBS" football will struggle

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=The Zimmermans;358559]JOE GIBBS football will work consistently if we hire a GM that picks the personnel to support joe gibbs football.

That includes a big HB, and small fast HB

A big possession third down receiver, and a solid offensive line

Otherwise, "JOE GIBBS" football will struggle[/QUOTE]

I agree on that...unfortunately I don't think that's going to happen...even if Gibbs stayed on for 3 more years.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

yeah, I support the game plan we have....but it doesnt seem to always work due to lack of personnel, who the hell are we gonna throw to if we don't have moss....we should be going to cooley ALOT

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

Hell I don't think we're going to Cooley enough now!!! Where are the crossing routes? From any of them??? ARE is having a great year so far though...

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=Redskins247;358578]Hell I don't think we're going to Cooley enough now!!! Where are the crossing routes? From any of them??? ARE is having a great year so far though...[/quote]We're using Cooley far too often as an extra blocker on passing downs due to the OL injuries. I found it troubling that he was locked up with Strahan late in the Giants game. If you want an extra blocker, make that Sellers' assignment, not Cooley's.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;358580]We're using Cooley far too often as an extra blocker on passing downs due to the OL injuries. I found it troubling that he was locked up with Strahan late in the Giants game. If you want an extra blocker, make that Sellers' assignment, not Cooley's.[/QUOTE]

Excellent Point!!! Cooley is far too valuable as a receiver....I really thought they would be using him as much as the colts use dallas clark in the passing game this year....but not yet.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=The Zimmermans;358559]JOE GIBBS football will work consistently if we hire a GM that picks the personnel to support joe gibbs football.

That includes a big HB, and small fast HB

A big possession third down receiver, and a solid offensive line

Otherwise, "JOE GIBBS" football will struggle[/QUOTE]

One problem no one is accounting for is that the game today is vastly different, and not just for reasons I have already mentioned, but for the fact we are in the salary cap era. The line that Gibbs had stayed relatively in tact for over a decade, while already in part 2 he's been through a bunch of O linemen. You just can't keep people like you could have in years past. I think this is a factor in a Joe Gibbs type system.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;358580]We're using Cooley far too often as an extra blocker on passing downs due to the OL injuries. I found it troubling that he was locked up with Strahan late in the Giants game. If you want an extra blocker, make that Sellers' assignment, not Cooley's.[/QUOTE]

While I see someone agreed with you...I respectfully disagree with you.
#1- Cooley is TE, and a TE by definition lines up to block first, be a weapon downfield 2nd.
#2- with all our injuries, someone needs to step up.
#3- Sellers isn't always on the field. When he is in passing situations, he's picking up the oncoming rush while Portis goes out to the flat. You can't expect him to pick up someone like Strahan after Strahan already had 5 yards to get his speed up. You need someone up on the line to block and Sellers doesn't do that.

There is no easy answer for the fact that our line is beat up...we need help from everywhere.

By the way, what was the final word on how long Thomas and Jansen will be out?? Anyone get a final answer?

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;358597]While I see someone agreed with you...I respectfully disagree with you.
#1- Cooley is TE, and a TE by definition lines up to block first, be a weapon downfield 2nd.
#2- with all our injuries, someone needs to step up.
#3- Sellers isn't always on the field. When he is in passing situations, he's picking up the oncoming rush while Portis goes out to the flat. You can't expect him to pick up someone like Strahan after Strahan already had 5 yards to get his speed up. You need someone up on the line to block and Sellers doesn't do that.

There is no easy answer for the fact that our line is beat up...we need help from everywhere.

By the way, what was the final word on how long Thomas and Jansen will be out?? Anyone get a final answer?[/QUOTE]

Jansen is officially out for the season (on IR) and Thomas is out until December, maybe the entire year depending on his rehab..

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

[quote=jsarno;358597]While I see someone agreed with you...I respectfully disagree with you.
#1- Cooley is TE, and a TE by definition lines up to block first, be a weapon downfield 2nd.
#2- with all our injuries, someone needs to step up.
#3- Sellers isn't always on the field. When he is in passing situations, he's picking up the oncoming rush while Portis goes out to the flat. You can't expect him to pick up someone like Strahan after Strahan already had 5 yards to get his speed up. You need someone up on the line to block and Sellers doesn't do that.

There is no easy answer for the fact that our line is beat up...we need help from everywhere.

By the way, what was the final word on how long Thomas and Jansen will be out?? Anyone get a final answer?[/quote]

A couple of things here-
Gibbs brought in Saunders to implement a system. He wouldn't have done that if he was satisfied his old school style would hold up nowadays. The TE is a huge part of a Saunders offense. And Cooley has been phenomenal. Just as Gonzalez was phenomenal when Saunders was in KC. I agree that Gibbs likes the TE to be a blocker, but Don Warren and Clint Didier caught their share of passes too. Cooley is a mismatch weapon on offense, and should be used as such. Gibbs drafted him to be his signature "h-back," and he's worked out as far as production is concerned, even though the h-back isn't around now. Now that the line is dinged we may need to use more two TE sets, with Cooley as a passing option and Yoder staying in to help block.

I disagree that Sellers can't block Strahan types. At 285lbs he is as big or bigger than most DE's in the league.

And despite the two injuries on the O-line, we are pretty healthy. We need to come out and pound this Lions squad.

Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?
 

I've said this before and I'll say it again. It's time to start passing the ball more. Since Gibbs has been back how many times have we gone over 250 yards passing??? I don't care if JC is young or not. When I see Derek Anderson throwing for 4-5 TD's then there are no excuses. Why is it that our gameplan every week is "we must establish the run." Frankly it's getting old and IMO that crap doesn't work every week. Here are some questions I have for Joe Gibbs football.

How come we never pass to set up the run?
How come we are never in shotgun on 1st down?
How come we are only in shotgun on passing downs? Makes us kind of predictable. Don't ya think?
How come we never run the ball out of shotgun?
How come we don't roll the pocket anymore? Especially with a mobile QB.