What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?
 

We're going to be discussing the playcalling all week long again because there are a segment of us who are fed up with the offense we're seeing and a segment of us who would like to see more but feel we are doing what we can with what we have to work with.. Which camp are you in an what would you like to see different or stay the same?

I think we're too conservative, especially with a lead.. What seems to be missing from our offense once we have a 2 td lead is:

1. Aggressiveness-Gibbs seems to throttle back the aggressiveness once we've gotten a 'comfortable' lead on the other team and doesn't keep attacking. NE has a defense that rivals if not exceeds ours and they never play like they are comfortable with their lead.. I'm not comparing personnel, just philosophy.. Being aggressive isn't bombing the ball 30 yards downfield at every chance. It can be as simple as calling a mid range pass play on 1st and 10 rather than a dive play. It can be calling a screen on 2nd and 5.. Our mid range and across the middle of the field passing game disappears in the 2nd half of games. There are many ways to be aggressive without taking a 7 step drop and looking deep..

2. Imagination-When 90% of us can call the play before the Redskins break the huddle, that's bad. How many times have we seen run, run, pass, punt in the second half of games this year? As great as our defense is, how much better would they be if they weren't on the field for 20 minutes in the 2nd half? I believe Saunders has the plays and imagination to call a dynamic game plan (which we saw vs. Detroit) but is handcuffed..

3. Courage-How many times have we heard JG17 allude to he was 'afraid of what bad may happen' in post game pressers? He's afraid of turnovers, afraid to put his players in certain positions during a game, afraid of getting a FG blocked, etc.. Scared money don't make money in the NFL.. When you coach scared, your players play scared (see Brunell, Mark) and you can't be effective.. Against the Giants, we all felt like we went down with plenty of bullets left in the gun.. Same as yesterday, we got SO tight in the 2nd half once Portis scored it was crazy.. We all know about the OL injuries and that certainly has an effect on play calling and the game plan, but we've still got to man up and play OUR GAME with what we have.

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

with the pats we might as well air it up on ofense, come out completely different. were not going to be able to scrap with NE i dont think, they are too explosive on D. even with our D being as good as they are right now, this is the week to put the Gibbs/Saunders playbook down and watch the cleveland/cincinnati tape from a few weeks ago. we need to get creative this week.

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

I'll probably sound like a broken record by the end of this week but here goes. I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating how damaging it is to an offense to have 3 starters out on the offensive line. Thomas and Rabach are HUGE keys to the running game when it comes to getting guys out in space on pulling plays. We sorely miss their athleticism along with Rabach's ability to make all the line calls and do it well.

Our OL depth has been stretched beyond it's limit and I think it's having a serious impact on the offense in regard to consistency, game planning, and play calling on game day. We could barely scrape together enough guys to practice during the week and people are acting surprised that the offense is sputtering. It's simply amazing to me that some people are either so thick-headed that they can't see this or they are just plain dumb. Sorry just calling it like I see it, I hate to be blunt but the shoe seems to fit.

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

[quote=Mattyk72;367404]I'll probably sound like a broken record by the end of this week but here goes. I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating how damaging it is to an offense to have 3 starters out on the offensive line. Thomas and Rabach are HUGE keys to the running game when it comes to getting guys out in space on pulling plays. We sorely miss their athleticism along with Rabach's ability to make all the line calls and do it well.

Our OL depth has been stretched beyond it's limit and I think it's having a serious impact on the offense in regard to consistency, game planning, and play calling on game day. We could barely scrape together enough guys to practice during the week and people are acting surprised that the offense is sputtering. It's simply amazing to me that some people are either so thick-headed that they can't see this or they are just plain dumb. Sorry just calling it like I see it, I hate to be blunt but the shoe seems to fit.[/quote]

You are 100% correct. I already knew the offensive line troubles were going to hamper the running game, but I was personally shocked by how big of a problem the injury to Rabach turned out to be. Seeing linebackers shooting gaps completely untouched, and ends coming around the corners unblocked was frustrating as hell to watch.

Mike Pucillo seems to be able to handle the actual blocking well enough at the center position, but he's obviously lacking experience when it comes to calling out the O line audibles. I hope for their sake that Rabach is able to go next week.

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

I'll second Matty's (and others) statement about the line.

Gibbs conceded that the game plan was conservative, I think the staff was really worried about JC given that Pucillo was playing & the center is so vital to line communication. I think Gibbs was so happy to get the win because he knows that Rabach will be back & they can open the playbook up a little more.

I am a little tired of hearing about Saunders' play calling. I think he's done a good job this year, we've just had so many drops. As the WP article about Saudners notes, if Moss or Loyd had hauled in one of those passes last week at GB, those questions don't come up.

The only thing I was really disappointed with in the game plan was that unlike the previous 2 weeks, we didn't set up the run w/the pass nearly enough. Against Detroit we didn't run well untill we'd worn them down w/short passes. I see that as our new O identity - pass first & wear defenses down to run in the 2nd half. This o-line seems much better at pass blocking than run blocking.

Maybe it's an issue for a separate thread, but what I've worried about in re: to Saunders, is if Gibbs is trying to tweak his game plans so much that he doesn't have enough freedom to call the game the way he'd like. Sometimes, it's just best to have 1 person in charge.

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

Its been rough on the offensive line, but why don't we run quick passes to take some pressure off those backup linemen in running situation. Get the ball out of Campbells hand FAST so he's NOT running for his life. Quick slants, outs, etc could really back the defense off the running game some and open up some running room for Portis/Betts.

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

[quote=Southpaw;367411]You are 100% correct. I already knew the offensive line troubles were going to hamper the running game, but I was personally shocked by how big of a problem the injury to Rabach turned out to be. Seeing linebackers shooting gaps completely untouched, and ends coming around the corners unblocked was frustrating as hell to watch.

[B]Mike Pucillo seems to be able to handle the actual blocking well enough at the center position[/B], but he's obviously lacking experience when it comes to calling out the O line audibles. I hope for their sake that Rabach is able to go next week.[/quote]

I'll have to watch some of the game again but I honestly wasn't very impressed with his blocking ability. Granted the Cards have a big and physical defensive line, but I saw Puccillo getting blown up way too much for my taste. Rabach is a big loss and I think we saw just how valuable he is yesterday.

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

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;367404]I'll probably sound like a broken record by the end of this week but here goes. I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating how damaging it is to an offense to have 3 starters out on the offensive line. Thomas and Rabach are HUGE keys to the running game when it comes to getting guys out in space on pulling plays. We sorely miss their athleticism along with Rabach's ability to make all the line calls and do it well.

Our OL depth has been stretched beyond it's limit and I think it's having a serious impact on the offense in regard to consistency, game planning, and play calling on game day. We could barely scrape together enough guys to practice during the week and people are acting surprised that the offense is sputtering. It's simply amazing to me that some people are either so thick-headed that they can't see this or they are just plain dumb. Sorry just calling it like I see it, I hate to be blunt but the shoe seems to fit.[/QUOTE]
Matty, I agree with you that the OL injuries are a factor in game planning and execution but I am talking more about overall philosophy than yesterday's game.. Yesterday we almost saw the same thing we've seen 12 times in the past 3 years, we can't use yesterday's injuries as a blanket excuse for it all. By now Wade and Fabini are starters. They've had 4 games and a bye week together so we can't continue to bemoan missing 3 starters. Having Rabach makes a huge difference no doubt and we'll be more talented and effective with him in there.. The overall philosophy is what's more of an issue than the injuries.

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

The offense has been undoubtedly affected by the injuries to the o-linemen. Moreover, when JC drops back to throw and dumps it off, it's hard to know what play was actually called. Did Saunders call for JC to dump it off? Or were the wideouts covered and was JC, therefore, forced to throw to a back in the flats? So, it's hard to conclusively say that the offense is "conservative."

However, we did seem to be running the ball an awful lot. I understand that it is important to run the ball and get the d-linemen to back off of bliting JC. But, when the running game is your bread and butter, and it is ineffective because the D is stacking the box, it is important to at least establish the threat of going deep. We have been able to do that in some games and have failed to do so in other games.

Hopefully, our offensive woes are a function of the injuries and once guys heal, our offense will display the explosiveness that we all expect, or at least want, to see.

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

[quote=Mattyk72;367404]I'll probably sound like a broken record by the end of this week but here goes. I think a lot of people are seriously underestimating how damaging it is to an offense to have 3 starters out on the offensive line. Thomas and Rabach are HUGE keys to the running game when it comes to getting guys out in space on pulling plays. We sorely miss their athleticism along with Rabach's ability to make all the line calls and do it well.

Our OL depth has been stretched beyond it's limit and I think it's having a serious impact on the offense in regard to consistency, game planning, and play calling on game day. We could barely scrape together enough guys to practice during the week and people are acting surprised that the offense is sputtering. It's simply amazing to me that some people are either so thick-headed that they can't see this or they are just plain dumb. Sorry just calling it like I see it, I hate to be blunt but the shoe seems to fit.[/quote]

I get so tired of everyone crying about the injuries to the o-line. I would understand if we had rookies on the right side of the line. Balt. had three rookies starting on the o-line yesterday. If we had that situation then I could see. But these guys have been in the NFL for a long time. No reason we can't throw the ball down the field more than 15 yards. Especially on 1st down. It's just pathetic. It shows a complete lack of respect for your skill players. If I were JC I would be screaming at Gibbs and Sanders for that bullshit that went on yesterday. Why the hell do you have Moss ARE and Cooley? To throw stupid ass screens every play? If your so worried about pass protection then run some play action passes and keep 7 guys in to block.

Not sure if anyone heard Sanders comments after the game. But he said we decided to play to the strength of our team and come in with a conservative game plan. If they pull that shit next week we are going to get beat down real bad.

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

[quote=Mattyk72;367419]I'll have to watch some of the game again but I honestly wasn't very impressed with his blocking ability. Granted the Cards have a big and physical defensive line, but I saw Puccillo getting blown up way too much for my taste. Rabach is a big loss and I think we saw just how valuable he is yesterday.[/quote]

The biggest issue was at center........ARizona was reading the snap count ALLL GAME, by the time pucillo snapped the ball, there were two DT's in the backfield.....if he has a whole week to practice and cannot change up the snap count....that is on the coaching staff. Arizona knew exactly when the snap was coming on every third down...giving JC no time to convert on the third down passes.

THAT'S high school level football.

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

[quote=skinsfan69;367441]I get so tired of everyone crying about the injuries to the o-line. I would understand if we had rookies on the right side of the line. Balt. had three rookies starting on the o-line yesterday. If we had that situation then I could see. But these guys have been in the NFL for a long time. [/quote]

Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that sub par O line play has a negative impact on EVERYTHING the Redskins try to do offensively? In yesterdays game specifically, there were next to no running lanes, and Campbell was under constant pressure all day. He was hurried every time he took more than a three step drop. How were they supposed to take shots downfield with linebackers and ends rushing him, basically untouched?

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

[quote=Paintrain;367386]We're going to be discussing the playcalling all week long again because there are a segment of us who are fed up with the offense we're seeing and a segment of us who would like to see more but feel we are doing what we can with what we have to work with.. Which camp are you in an what would you like to see different or stay the same?

I think we're too conservative, especially with a lead.. What seems to be missing from our offense once we have a 2 td lead is:

1. Aggressiveness-Gibbs seems to throttle back the aggressiveness once we've gotten a 'comfortable' lead on the other team and doesn't keep attacking. NE has a defense that rivals if not exceeds ours and they never play like they are comfortable with their lead.. I'm not comparing personnel, just philosophy.. Being aggressive isn't bombing the ball 30 yards downfield at every chance. It can be as simple as calling a mid range pass play on 1st and 10 rather than a dive play. It can be calling a screen on 2nd and 5.. Our mid range and across the middle of the field passing game disappears in the 2nd half of games. There are many ways to be aggressive without taking a 7 step drop and looking deep..

2. Imagination-When 90% of us can call the play before the Redskins break the huddle, that's bad. How many times have we seen run, run, pass, punt in the second half of games this year? As great as our defense is, how much better would they be if they weren't on the field for 20 minutes in the 2nd half? I believe Saunders has the plays and imagination to call a dynamic game plan (which we saw vs. Detroit) but is handcuffed..

3. Courage-How many times have we heard JG17 allude to he was 'afraid of what bad may happen' in post game pressers? He's afraid of turnovers, afraid to put his players in certain positions during a game, afraid of getting a FG blocked, etc.. Scared money don't make money in the NFL.. When you coach scared, your players play scared (see Brunell, Mark) and you can't be effective.. Against the Giants, we all felt like we went down with plenty of bullets left in the gun.. Same as yesterday, we got SO tight in the 2nd half once Portis scored it was crazy.. We all know about the OL injuries and that certainly has an effect on play calling and the game plan, but we've still got to man up and play OUR GAME with what we have.[/quote]

Agree with everything here. Good post.

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

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;367438]The offense has been undoubtedly affected by the injuries to the o-linemen. Moreover, when JC drops back to throw and dumps it off, it's hard to know what play was actually called. Did Saunders call for JC to dump it off? Or were the wideouts covered and was JC, therefore, forced to throw to a back in the flats? So, it's hard to conclusively say that the offense is "conservative."

However, we did seem to be running the ball an awful lot. I understand that it is important to run the ball and get the d-linemen to back off of bliting JC. But, when the running game is your bread and butter, and it is ineffective because the D is stacking the box, it is important to at least establish the threat of going deep. We have been able to do that in some games and have failed to do so in other games.

Hopefully, our offensive woes are a function of the injuries and once guys heal, our offense will display the explosiveness that we all expect, or at least want, to see.[/quote]

True- and I'll be the first to admit that when i watch the game, I probably can't tell you what the aim of each pass call was...but i tend to agree with pain train with the perception of conservatism. We seem to run, run, pass, punt far too often with the lead. fact is, we aren't good enough to run for first downs consistently...

I also agree that the 0-line injuries are largely a part of it, but aren't these guys pros? Wasn't Wade supposed to be so good as to challenge jasen (teammate opinion? At this point, a lot of the line have played several games together not to mention practice (i'm not specifically talking about yesterday's game either), if they aren't good enough to fill the void (perhaps we should be more prudent about giving way draft pick- which deplete our depth).

at the same time, a win is a win...
i'll take it...4-2 ain't bad

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

[quote=Southpaw;367449]Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that sub par O line play has a negative impact on EVERYTHING the Redskins try to do offensively? In yesterdays game specifically, there were next to no running lanes, and Campbell was under constant pressure all day. He was hurried every time he took more than a three step drop. How were they supposed to take shots downfield with linebackers and ends rushing him, basically untouched?[/quote]

No excuse. Throw the damn ball down the field! Just throw and keep on throwing.

~removes tin foil hat~

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

can someone explain how the first half ended?
were we surprised that the cards went for the TD and thus called the TO? i feel like we really bailed them out there with the TO as they had NO chance of getting the play off in time...(in terms of play clock)...

if we had the wrong personnel on the field, that is fine, clearly, but seems like we bailed'em out of a 5 yard procedure penalty...

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

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

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

For people here to say or act like they know so much about football I've read some pretty stupid stuff.

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

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;367456]No excuse. Throw the damn ball down the field! Just throw and keep on throwing.

~removes tin foil hat~[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are many people on here wishing to change to the run and shoot but how is mocking a desire for a more imaginative and consistent offense constructive dialog?? Are we to take from your comments and stance that since we have injuries on the OL then we should be happy with 3 & outs until we're healthy??

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

[quote=Paintrain;367468]I don't think there are many people on here wishing to change to the run and shoot but how is mocking a desire for a more imaginative and consistent offense constructive dialog?? Are we to take from your comments and stance that since we have injuries on the OL then we should be happy with 3 & outs until we're healthy??[/quote]

Who's happy with the offense right now??

I'm certainly not... however I can understand there are legit reasons as to why the offense is struggling.

That understanding seems to be escaping a lot of people right now.

The offense will only improve as the health of the line improves. People that are calling for more imaginative plays and more consistency just don't understand that you can't have that without solid, consistent play from the front five... you just can't.

When you're juggling the lineup every week, signing guys off the street, and moving a DL to the OL just to have enough guys to practice, that doesn't scream problems to anyone else??

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

[QUOTE=Paintrain;367386]1. Aggressiveness-Gibbs seems to throttle back the aggressiveness once we've gotten a 'comfortable' lead on the other team and doesn't keep attacking. NE has a defense that rivals if not exceeds ours and they never play like they are comfortable with their lead.. I'm not comparing personnel, just philosophy.. Being aggressive isn't bombing the ball 30 yards downfield at every chance. It can be as simple as calling a mid range pass play on 1st and 10 rather than a dive play. It can be calling a screen on 2nd and 5.. Our mid range and across the middle of the field passing game disappears in the 2nd half of games. There are many ways to be aggressive without taking a 7 step drop and looking deep..[/QUOTE]

I would agree a little that JG looks a little to complacent to ride out a win but I would argue that this mentality has died down a little. In reference to yesterday I think a lot of people are forgetting that it wasn't like in the first half we were rolling on offense. We didn't throttle anything back at all. Our offense sucked first and 2nd halves.

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

"Conservative Playcalling" is the excuse Redskins fans like to use when the team loses. When the team went 5-0 down the stretch in 2005 thanks mainly to mistake-free, smashmouth football and a tight defense that was "Redskins Football" Otherwise, it's "conservative playcalling" like it's the plague or something

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death

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

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;367476]Who's happy with the offense right now??

I'm certainly not... however I can understand there are legit reasons as to why the offense is struggling.

That understanding seems to be escaping a lot of people right now.

The offense will only improve as the health of the line improves. People that are calling for more imaginative plays and more consistency just don't understand that you can't have that without solid, consistent play from the front five... you just can't.

When you're juggling the lineup every week, signing guys off the street, and moving a DL to the OL just to have enough guys to practice, that doesn't scream problems to anyone else??[/QUOTE]
I'm not disagreeing with you that our offense will improve in performance when the health of the line improves but that's the excuse for yesterday, what's the excuse for the other games?? This is the first game since the 2nd half of the Eagles game week 2 that we've had a different starting OL.. Wade and Fabini weren't starters week 1, but they are now. We've been able to be imaginative, consistent and aggressive in the 1st half of games, other than in GB what changed in the 2nd half that we don't maintain that? You can't deny the play calling has been different in 2nd halves of our games.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;367487]"Conservative Playcalling" is the excuse Redskins fans like to use when the team loses. When the team went 5-0 down the stretch in 2005 thanks mainly to mistake-free, smashmouth football and a tight defense that was "Redskins Football" Otherwise, it's "conservative playcalling" like it's the plague or something

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death[/quote]
Funny thing is that if Brunell was playing we would have a bunch of post saying that he always is dumping off the ball. People have to remember that we do have a young QB who is still learning. If we asked people before the season started would they be happy to be 4/2 after six games I bet 95% would have said yes.

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

A good OL is not a collection of five great, talented players. It's 5 guys who play well as a cohesive unit. When the center misses the protection call the RT and RG both look in and the LE has a free shot. The best lines have played together. The biggest concern bringing Kendall in was the lack of time with his linemates and he worked extra time with Samuels and Rabach to help that. I contend that Wade is a good tackle (remember the game he filled in for Jansen last year) and that Fabini, Pucillo and Heyer are solid. But when you are learning about the guy beside you as you go you are already in a bad position.

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

[quote=Southpaw;367449]Why is it so hard for people to comprehend that sub par O line play has a negative impact on EVERYTHING the Redskins try to do offensively? In yesterdays game specifically, there were next to no running lanes, and Campbell was under constant pressure all day. He was hurried every time he took more than a three step drop. How were they supposed to take shots downfield with linebackers and ends rushing him, basically untouched?[/quote]

There were no running lanes because we couldn't back the defense off the line. Ariz had 8 guys lurking around the line most of the game. It reminded me off last year when Brunell was playing. Cooley had one catch? Moss had 2? Sorry but there is no excuse for that.

No reason we can't run shotgun on 1st down and be less predictable. And who cares if we have a back-up center. The guy is a pro. I watch college teams run shotgun all game long w/out any problems.

If Rackers FG curls around the goal post we are running Gibbs and Sanders out of town today.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;367487]"Conservative Playcalling" is the excuse Redskins fans like to use when the team loses. When the team went 5-0 down the stretch in 2005 thanks mainly to mistake-free, smashmouth football and a tight defense that was "Redskins Football" Otherwise, it's "conservative playcalling" like it's the plague or something

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death[/quote]

After the fumble against GB expect even more 2nd half "Redskin Football".

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

[quote=Paintrain;367468]I don't think there are many people on here wishing to change to the run and shoot but how is mocking a desire for a more imaginative and consistent offense constructive dialog?? Are we to take from your comments and stance that since we have injuries on the OL then we should be happy with 3 & outs until we're healthy??[/quote]

The argument of playcalling versus execution has been a topic all season. I've been on both sides of that argument at different times, but yesterday, it was quite obviously execution.

Washington is facing an unusual amount of injuries this season, especially along the offensive line. They're pulling guys off the street, playing guys out of position, and converting a defensive linemen who hasn't played on offense since high school. Their execution as a unit was very poor this week, but was that really a shock to anyone? They may get better with a few more weeks of practice, but to expect this incarnation of the line to be immediately successful is ridiculous. And to completely overlook the bad performance of the line and blame the playcalling is even more ridiculous.

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

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;367487]Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death[/QUOTE]

It certainly is not. That very same conservative offense served us well in 2005, when our offense was running over everyone. The only problem is that, right now, it is not serving us well. As a run-first, smash-mouth team that cannot run the ball effectively, we do need to start passing a little more to open up the running lanes.

However, as I said above, the injuries to the O-line undoubtedly have a big effect on the offense and it is unclear if Saunders is failing to call deep/intermediate passing plays or JC is simply checking down. Moreover, the deep passing game has been there in weeks past, just not against the Cards.

Although all of our woes on offense cannot be attributed to the injuries to the O-line, it is pretty crazy to argue that they don't have a dramatic effect on the offense. Losing the entire right side of the line and playing with a wounded second-string right tackle IS going to affect your play-calling and player execution of those plays. Our team has relied on the strength of its O-line for awhile and that strength has become a weakness.

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

[QUOTE=Southpaw;367510]The argument of playcalling versus execution has been a topic all season. I've been on both sides of that argument at different times, but yesterday, it was quite obviously execution.

Washington is facing an unusual amount of injuries this season, especially along the offensive line. They're pulling guys off the street, playing guys out of position, and converting a defensive linemen who hasn't played on offense since high school. Their execution as a unit was very poor this week, but was that really a shock to anyone? They may get better with a few more weeks of practice, but to expect this incarnation of the line to be immediately successful is ridiculous. And to completely overlook the bad performance of the line and blame the playcalling is even more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Which is the exact reason that I made the thread reflective of [b]the entire season and the philosophy that we operate under[/b]. I know yesterday was an exception because we were starting 3 backups (although I contend at this point Wade and Fabini are starters since they've been there for 4+ weeks) and Rabach is the key to the entire line.. That goes without saying.. However, to use that as a complete excuse as to why the coaches call a COMPLETELY different game in the 2nd half of games where we are ahead is just as ridiculous as blaming playcalling for yesterday's offense.

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

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.

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

Everyone is saying that the offensive line is the reason we went so basic yesterday. More specifically, the reason we went so basic yesterday is that Pucillo doesn't have the knowledge to make all the calls up front. If Rabach gets back, then we can have more complexity. We still won't be able to run the ball in all likelihood, but at least the coaches won't be so afraid to let Campbell drop back. I think Gibbs just decided that if they lost the game it wasn't going to be because of a sack-fumble or an interception. There was a play in the 2nd half when Wade completely blew his pass pro for no obvious reason. He blocked down like he was suppossed to seal the guard or something and just let the end come free. I'd like to think that Rabach would help eliminate that sort of breakdown.

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

The injured o line is a huge problem no doubt. However, you kind of got to play to win sometimes. Not throw all the time, run all the time, but create a little mix. Throw some on first...roll out or something. We had NO run game at all yesterday. Lets try to win and get a first down. The question is would you rather try to win and get a couple of first downs or take our chances on a FG that is about 50-50 chance for us to win/lose. It seems like we just were content on running for no yardage yesterday. Did anyone think that we were actually going to run for more than 3 yards on first and second down? Again the injuries are a huge deal, but we had no run game at all, so let's try to get a first down or two.

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

[quote=70Chip;367519]Everyone is saying that the offensive line is the reason we went so basic yesterday. More specifically, the reason we went so basic yesterday is that Pucillo doesn't have the knowledge to make all the calls up front. If Rabach gets back, then we can have more complexity. We still won't be able to run the ball in all likelihood, but at least the coaches won't be so afraid to let Campbell drop back. I think Gibbs just decided that if they lost the game it wasn't going to be because of a sack-fumble or an interception. There was a play in the 2nd half when Wade completely blew his pass pro for no obvious reason. He blocked down like he was suppossed to seal the guard or something and just let the end come free. I'd like to think that Rabach would help eliminate that sort of breakdown.[/quote]Exactly. You really can't fault the overall game plan in that one, it certainly worked. It wasn't the gameplan that gave up an onside kick, nor was it the gameplan that allowed quick passes into the flat to set up a FG attempt. That was more of an adjustment from the gameplan that needed to be made, and wasn't.

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

Conservative Playcalling: (n). A derisive term used to denigrate the coaching staff of the Washington Redskins after any loss, or victory of less than 21 points.

See also: "smoking crack", "backseat quarterbacking", "glass half empty"

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]For example: every play we call on third and less than five.

Conservative? Not at all.

Stupid, ridiculous, painful to watch, predictable, and rarely successful? All of the above.

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

[quote=70Chip;367519]Everyone is saying that the offensive line is the reason we went so basic yesterday. More specifically, the reason we went so basic yesterday is that Pucillo doesn't have the knowledge to make all the calls up front. If Rabach gets back, then we can have more complexity. We still won't be able to run the ball in all likelihood, but at least the coaches won't be so afraid to let Campbell drop back. I think Gibbs just decided that if they lost the game it wasn't going to be because of a sack-fumble or an interception. There was a play in the 2nd half when Wade completely blew his pass pro for no obvious reason. He blocked down like he was suppossed to seal the guard or something and just let the end come free. I'd like to think that Rabach would help eliminate that sort of breakdown.[/quote]

nice analysis. Gibbs II is so much more cautious than Gibbs I. Seems to me that they are really thinking long term w/each game & resting players if they feel the injury could worsen. He might've been too cautious w/the game plan, but it's hard to argue against the points you made about Pucillo. If JC got nailed & hurt we'd all be saying; why didn't he have a more conservative game plan that protected the qb?

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

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;367513]It certainly is not. That very same conservative offense served us well in 2005, when our offense was running over everyone. The only problem is that, right now, it is not serving us well. As a run-first, smash-mouth team that cannot run the ball effectively, we do need to start passing a little more to open up the running lanes.

However, as I said above, the injuries to the O-line undoubtedly have a big effect on the offense and it is unclear if Saunders is failing to call deep/intermediate passing plays or JC is simply checking down. Moreover, the deep passing game has been there in weeks past, just not against the Cards.

Although all of our woes on offense cannot be attributed to the injuries to the O-line, it is pretty crazy to argue that they don't have a dramatic effect on the offense. Losing the entire right side of the line and playing with a wounded second-string right tackle IS going to affect your play-calling and player execution of those plays. Our team has relied on the strength of its O-line for awhile and that strength has become a weakness.[/quote]

in 2005 we had a solid/healthy O-line and a Moss that was catching the ball...but i think you've touched on a good point, what constitutes conservative play-calling?

In my mind, play-calling becomes conservative when you know you are unlikely to get the first down, but you do it anyway to eat clock. While there is certainly a time and place for this strategy (end of game or when you are up by 3 possession at the start of 4th quarter) i think we start playing the clock game too early (not enough of a lead). We seem to be willing to accept (though clearly they want to get first downs) burning a min or two off the clock via a run, run, short pass play calling that often results in 3 and outs, and then relying on the D to hold yet again.

In 2005, our line was good enough to run for first downs- and thus could legititmarely expect to achieve/obtain first downs via the run- with our current patchwork line, this is not the case...

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

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.

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]And thats my new sig.