Commanders Post at The Warpath - What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)

- Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'? (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=20428)

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

[QUOTE=Paintrain;367827]Nice job of taking all of the logic out of a reasonable discussion.. The bottom line is we all want to win games but would enjoy not sweating out a victory of a game that we've dominated for 2.5 quarters but then decided to ease off the pedal and coast the rest of the way hoping to bleed the lead. Winning ugly is fine, but winning decisively is better..[/QUOTE]

Guess I struck a nerve. I must be closer to the truth than what you assumed I would be. Too bad you didn't read the rest of the post.

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

I thought their play-calling was atrocious especially on first down. In addition that second-down long pass to Thrash was highly ill-advised. Was that the highest-percentage pass they could come up with?

Using the information in your post, look at the results on first down:
Rush: -2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 4!, 3 (8 carries, 9 yards)
Pass: 26 (short pass)

It was obvious the defense was focusing on the run on first down. When JC had his "breakthrough" game, Saunders said afterwards they were focusing on getting JC's completion percentage up. Why not the high-percentage quick hits on first down? After all, their first-down runs were not getting them towards new downs. This was because everybody knew we couldn't get yardage to the right so they could stack the left, thus leaving us unable to get yardage on either side (or the middle with Rabach out.) But with the passing game, the whole field, left to right, was available for attack.
Interestingly, when they passed on second down they were 2 for 2 for 5 yards each before the ill-advised throw to Thrash. (These were high-percentage passes.)
Thus they had 3 high-percentage passes on first and second down, all three were completed, and the worst gained a healthy 5 yards.
In short, our high-percentage passes had almost as much chance of keeping the clock moving as a run, but would have set us up much better to try to get a first down since it would have always been second or third and short. Except for the second and goal, on average on second down we needed 9 yards for the first down.

On the other hand, passing on third down was (or should have been) a disaster. Here's how third down went
Rush: 1 yd.
Pass: sack(-8), 3(1st down), 8(scramble for a 1st, but nothing open), 8(no 1st), incomplete
???(probably pass): Penalty

If our line can't open up the lanes for the run, can we try high-percentage passes on first down to have second and short? By being quick routes the OL doesn't have to block that long, and at the same time the defensive guys who get penetration are out of the play.

[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]

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

[quote=Mattyk72;367783]He says JC generally had plenty of time to throw.

Very interesting observation. Just not sure what game he was watching exactly but whatever.[/quote]

I thought the same thing when I read that. JC had time sometimes, but whenever the Cards brought any kind of pressure it was a complete CF. JLC brings good info and I generally like his stuff, but let's face it, the guy's passion is soccer, football is his job. I'm not looking to him for the hard-hitting analysis of the nuances of football and I'm not going to run to him to break down game film.

I will, however, concede that the latest article in the Post would seem to bolster the case of the "conservative play-calling" folks. I still don't think they had the opportunities to do much in that second half, but from JG's lips to God's ears I suppose.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102202112.html]washingtonpost.com[/url]

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

Some of you guys may want to check the bottom of those Kool-Aid cups.. Gibbs said the offense was 'too conservative' [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/22/AR2007102202112.html]washingtonpost.com[/url] in Sunday's game..

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

[QUOTE=Paintrain;367907]Some of you guys may want to check the bottom of those Kool-Aid cups.. Gibbs said the offense was 'too conservative' [url=http://washingtonpost.com]washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines[/url] in Sunday's game..[/QUOTE]

I think that article pretty much sums up Gibbs whole approach since his return, he has tried to lay the burden of winning the game on the defense, which he has done over and over since his return, the problem is he doesn't get it, no matter how many times he goes 3 and out because the opposing team knows we are going to run the ball he continues any way. Gibbs in 4 seasons has yet to realize our line is not a line that will knock players backwards unlike the hogs, they have to maneuver and push players to the side because they can't push them backwards, which is fine if you utilize it properly, it is as if Gibbs is blind, and no one told him the hogs are gone. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, I would love for Gibbs to show us he's not insane when it comes to football and stop pretending that the hogs are still out there blocking?

He needs to pass more on first down, keeping the defense off balance with the purpose of putting us in 2nd and 3rd and short which does not allow the defense to focus in on a one dimensional pass offense looking for a first down, it is so much easier for a defense to know it just has to defend against a pass and a pass alone, rather than having to respect both the run and the pass.

Further more Gibbs better stop watching and hoping that the defense looks good that day and decide to ride them to victory, he needs to play full throttle until the game is in the bag, the fact that he made some of those statements in that article just tells me he doesn't get it and he ain't going to either.

And lastly and maybe the biggest problem that happens when you shut your offense down is you lose momentum, and continuity, timing is the name of the game in the passing game and it is very hard to turn it on immediately if you have shut it down for a while, players need that continual repetition through out the game, not much different than a pinch hitter in baseball it's tough to just turn it on after [for the most part] you have sat on the bench most of the game, getting away from the passing game will cause the same problem especially for a young inexperienced QB, in the passing game you need to have and maintain rhythm. And what that article confirms is that even though Saunders calls the plays Gibbs makes sure he outlines the type of plays he wants to run, because I see no difference in the game planning now than in any other season of Gibbs 2. Saunders in his career has not been able to throw the ball enough in any situation but all of a sudden he has had a changes of heart? I don't think so! You would think sooner or later a bell will go off in Gibbs head, but if it hasn't rang already I don't think it's going to.

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

[quote=Paintrain;367907]Some of you guys may want to check the bottom of those Kool-Aid cups.. Gibbs said the offense was 'too conservative' [url=http://washingtonpost.com]washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines[/url] in Sunday's game..[/quote]

I don't think the debates have been over whether the offense was conservative or not, the debate for me has been WHY the offense was conservative.

Some seem to think that we should just "open up the offense" and things will be fine and dandy. That's the thinking I take issue with.

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

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;367912]Not I sir. I said the playcalling was conservative against Arizona, but the playcalling the Arizona game was not representative of the playcalling this season (see post #87 in this thread). I think that TMC said the same thing during the game thread.[/quote]

I did indeed. If we have game-plans like we did against Detroit and Green Bay, THOSE are the types that win games.

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

[quote=Mattyk72;367957]I don't think the debates have been over whether the offense was conservative or not, the debate for me has been WHY the offense was conservative.

Some seem to think that we should just "open up the offense" and things will be fine and dandy. That's the thinking I take issue with.[/quote]

Opening up the offense might not go that smoothly...agreed...but to be a contender we need to be good on both sides of the balll. Therefore, since the two O-linemen are not coming back in the near future...we gotta build on JC and become a real contendor in the NFC East. Gotta see what we got in the passing game...don't you agree

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

[QUOTE=The Zimmermans;368094]Opening up the offense might not go that smoothly...agreed...but to be a contender we need to be good on both sides of the balll. Therefore, since the two O-linemen are not coming back in the near future...we gotta build on JC and become a real contendor in the NFC East. [B]Gotta see what we got in the passing game[/B]...don't you agree[/QUOTE]

We do. But I have been upset with our passing attack in just two games. First, against Green Bay, I loved the playcalling, but hated the execution by the wideouts. Second, against Arizona, I liked the run-out-the-clock offense, but think we should have called a few more pass plays. So, aside from the Arizona game, I have had no complaints about the playcalling on offense.

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

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;367957]I don't think the debates have been over whether the offense was conservative or not, the debate for me has been WHY the offense was conservative.

Some seem to think that we should just "open up the offense" and things will be fine and dandy. That's the thinking I take issue with.[/QUOTE]

Isn't there something to be said of coaches allowing their teams to "evolve" to the circumstances they're in? If three of your best bulldozers are out, then you have to adjust to the situation. A possible example could be to morph your offense into a 'west coast' type scheme. If running the ball has been a problem, use the short passing game to compensate. If pass protection is lacking, utilize more quick, 3-step drops, slants, and hitches.

Bottom line, in this league you cannot be stagnant. Forcing a square peg into a round hole is something Steve Spurrier tried to do with the personnel he had and was excoriated for it. Attempting to be road-graders without the players who can carry it out isn't going to work, and it really won't work against New England.

As SouperMeister correctly put it in some other thread, why try to play smashmouth when your offensive line is a weakness and not a strength?

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

[url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/]Redskins Insider[/url]

JLC's latest - pretty convincing #s to show that we can't run the ball like Gibbs (& AS for that matter) would like us to.

I said in previous posts that the problem was more execution than play calling, but in the AZ game Gibbs himself admitted the approach was too conservative. These #s & the state of our line seem to make a good case to set up the run w/the pass.

Let's be a pass first team!

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

[quote=The Zimmermans;368094]Opening up the offense might not go that smoothly...agreed...but to be a contender we need to be good on both sides of the balll. Therefore, since the two O-linemen are not coming back in the near future...we gotta build on JC and become a real contendor in the NFC East. Gotta see what we got in the passing game...don't you agree[/quote]

I'm all for leaning on JC more, I think he's shown that he's capable and we should take the handcuffs off of him a bit. I don't think should completely abandon the run, I think that's an issue that we need to continue to try to iron out, but in the meantime I definitely think we should let JC take on more responsibility, as long as the protection is there of course.

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

[QUOTE=freddyg12;368132][url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/]Redskins Insider[/url]

JLC's latest - pretty convincing #s to show that we can't run the ball like Gibbs (& AS for that matter) would like us to.

I said in previous posts that the problem was more execution than play calling, but in the AZ game Gibbs himself admitted the approach was too conservative. These #s & the state of our line seem to make a good case to set up the run w/the pass.

Let's be a pass first team![/QUOTE]

That's interesting because these numbers seem to indicate that CP improves as the game goes on and he gets more carries

[url=http://www.nfl.com/players/clintonportis/situationalstats?id=POR792942]Clinton Portis: Situational Stats[/url]