JLC Rant/Rip on Playcalling

[SC Skins Fan]

Redskins Insider

Bear in mind, this morning I defended against those who called the playcalling too "conservative". JLC goes the other direction and suggests the Skins should have run MORE in the second half. I still think players failed to make plays in this game, but I think JLC's analysis is a lot closer to the truth than those ripping Gibbs/Saunders for being too "conservative". The Skins need to run and JC is not ready to take a game on his shoulders at this point at least. Also, though I didn't necessarily see a ton of glaring breakdowns on the right side (apart from Strahan getting off a couple of times) I think JLC's analysis of the trouble caused by the injuries is spot on. Randy Thomas going down is going to hurt us big time and it just freaking kills me.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

Redskins Insider

Bear in mind, this morning I defended against those who called the playcalling too "conservative". JLC goes the other direction and suggests the Skins should have run MORE in the second half. I still think players failed to make plays in this game, but I think JLC's analysis is a lot closer to the truth than those ripping Gibbs/Saunders for being too "conservative". The Skins need to run and JC is not ready to take a game on his shoulders at this point at least. Also, though I didn't necessarily see a ton of glaring breakdowns on the right side (apart from Strahan getting off a couple of times) I think JLC's analysis of the trouble caused by the injuries is spot on. Randy Thomas going down is going to hurt us big time and it just freaking kills me.

Obviously, JLC wasn't paying attention to the first 4 second half drives. The overly conservative play calling on those drives led to 3 three and outs and a fumble, and the Skins didn't register a first down until they attacked the Giants with the pass late. NY hadn't been able to cover anyone all year, yet for the first 55 minutes, Gibbs/Saunders didn't trust Campbell enough to exploit that weakness.

[RobH4413]

It's funny, I started my thread this morning trying to prove that the play calling was bad. After looking at the 2nd half again, I was totally convinced it was lack of execution. I still believe you've got to place blame on the failure to execute.

I think a point JLC makes is that we could have squeaked by without having to execute these complex plays. He says we should stick to our weapons, CP and Ladell. Lineman would rather run block anyways. Sometimes what's best, is what's simplest. Makes a valid argument.

But after Campbell's performance on Monday night, if your Saunders, don't you feel like you want to open up the offense and "go for the kill." I mean, your defense has been playing great all year, giving up only one touchdown. I think that's what Saunders was trying to do, and I don't think our offense showed up for the challenge.

The game yesterday just shows us Campbell and this offense aren't ready yet for the full blown Saunders experience. Maybe Jason is right, and we should stick to the run, eat up the clock as much as we can, and utilize Campbell with the play action. It makes sense to me.

I think Saunders saw what Campbell did on Monday night, and liked what he saw. He decided to open up that play book and let Campbell run it. Let him look deep first, and then take what's available. Unfortunately, it looks as if it was a bit early, and the poor execution (especially Portis' fumble) cost us a football game.

[SmootSmack]

Going for "the kill" doesn't have to mean 50 yard bombs. The kill can be a 8 minute power running drive that results in points and time taken off the clock.

[stbabyy]

true but they werent getting it done. Its alot easier to defend the run if they know its coming every time. Having all of our WR we should mix it up alot more to keep them guessing.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

It's funny, I started my thread this morning trying to prove that the play calling was bad. After looking at the 2nd half again, I was totally convinced it was lack of execution. I still believe you've got to place blame on the failure to execute.

I think a point JLC makes is that we could have squeaked by without having to execute these complex plays. He says we should stick to our weapons, CP and Ladell. Lineman would rather run block anyways. Sometimes what's best, is what's simplest. Makes a valid argument.

But after Campbell's performance on Monday night, If your Saunders, don't you feel like you want to open up the offense and "go for the kill." I mean, your defense has been playing great all year, giving up only one touchdown. I think that's what Saunders was trying to do, and I don't think our offense showed up for the challenge.

The game yesterday just shows us Campbell and this offense aren't ready yet for the full blown Saunders experience. Maybe Jason is right, and we should stick to the run, eat up the clock as much as we can, and utilize Campbell with the play action. It makes sense to me.

I think Saunders saw what Campbell did on Monday night, and liked what he saw. He decided to open up that play book and let Campbell run it. Let him look deep first, and then take what's available. Unfortunately, it looks as if it was a bit early, and the poor execution (especially Portis' fumble) cost us a football game.

Rob, I'm of the opinion bad play calling and lack of execution go hand in hand. I really believe this. While it's easy to chart the play calling, execution is a matter of focus; it's more mental. And I think the two are absolutely related.

Look, they played bad in the second half. There's no denying that. But I think it's kind of like a prize fighter, once he starts to think his left hook is dangerous and deadly, and you say look I think you can take this guy out with your right jab. You just lose something there.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by stbabyy

true but they werent getting it done. Its alot easier to defend the run if they know its coming every time. Having all of our WR we should mix it up alot more to keep them guessing.

Well, between 14-3 Redskins and 17-17. We had 5 running plays and 9 passing plays

[GoSkins!]

Fabini << Thomas

plain and simple.

The bye week is coming at a good time. We need to work on solidifying the right side of the line and readjust run blocking. Cooley is being kept in to much or asked to chip block and his passing stats are suffering because of it.

The good news is at 2-1 we are still in good shape, have time to make some adjustments, and a few winable games coming up. If we can get Thomas back for the 3-5 final games, we should be able to make a push for the playoffs

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Going for "the kill" doesn't have to mean 50 yard bombs. The kill can be a 8 minute power running drive that results in points and time taken off the clock.

No, I agree totally... I'm just saying I think that's what Saunders was trying to open up given the history of the Giants pass defense.

Jason Campbell was saying that they changed a lot of their looks from their previous game,

"They took away a lot of the deep stuff, played a safety over our receivers.... We hit one deep ball, got by the Safety, but they played the two shell, trying to not give up anything deep and leave us with just stuff in the underneath..."

I agree with JLC, and I think we should have run the ball more. I think Saunders had a lot of confidence in Jason from his strong outing on Monday night, and so he didn't give it to his running backs as much. Turned out to be a fatal error.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Rob, I'm of the opinion bad play calling and lack of execution go hand in hand. I really believe this. While it's easy to chart the play calling, execution is a matter of focus; it's more mental. And I think the two are absolutely related.

Look, they played bad in the second half. There's no denying that. But I think it's kind of like a prize fighter, once he starts to think his left hook is dangerous and deadly, and you say look I think you can take this guy out with your right jab. You just lose something there.

Very true.

[JWsleep]

To get 40 running plays, you gotta convert your third downs. We did a great job of that in the first two games; we failed to do so in this game. Then, we gave up LONG drives on D, and we lost the lead. So, you pass.

I feel the same about execution, RobH--if you don't block well, you can't run. And if you don't pass well, you can't convert or score deep. We didn't play well in the second half, whatever the play calling was.

Gibbs is most likely correct: it's a combination across the board. Bad play calls at times, bad execution at others, good plays (hard as it is to admit!) by the gints, bad D/good O on the other side of the ball. Altogether, it equals a very tough loss. (BTW, better than our first game against the gints last year, though that was in NY...)

[GMScud]

I understand we have an identity of a being a smash-mouth run first team. As we should with a strong O-line and Portis/Betts/Sellers. But you CANNOT ignore a team's weakness. The Giants got completely shredded in the air weeks 1 and 2, and we didn't start throwing in the 2nd half until our backs were against the wall. I also understand we were trying to protect a lead, but we've got to develop a killer instinct, score more points, and learn to better exploit weaknesses. How we come out week 5 against Detroit is going to dictate the rest of our season. Our schedule only gets harder.

[The Zimmermans]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

No, I agree totally... I'm just saying I think that's what Saunders was trying to open up given the history of the Giants pass defense.

Jason Campbell was saying that they changed a lot of their looks from their previous game,

"They took away a lot of the deep stuff, played a safety over our receivers.... We hit one deep ball, got by the Safety, but they played the two shell, trying to not give up anything deep and leave us with just stuff in the underneath..."

I agree with JLC, and I think we should have run the ball more. I think Saunders had a lot of confidence in Jason from his strong outing on Monday night, and so he didn't give it to his running backs as much. Turned out to be a fatal error.

What was the fatal error? JC didn't lose the game for us. The only obvouis mistakes were portis fumbling and the coaches telling campbell to spike the ball...wasting a down. those two mistakes cost us 14 points...neither were campbell's fault in my opinion

[redsk1]

We had done exactly nothing in the run game all day long. I don't think we needed to continue to go 3 and out in the fourth. So, i gotta disagree w/ JLC.

Now, i do agree w/ him on JC. He should start putting up some #'s and be more comfortable managing the game in our 2 minute offense. Right now he's not. He's a 3rd year player w/ about 10 games played. Has he had a 300 yard day? A 3 TD day yet? Yeah, i know, what alot of you are going to say...He makes some great passes and he's young. True, but i remember hearing that about Patrick Ramsey too.

Bottom line JC has got to start showing improvement and scoring some points. He's got to start showing some signs for us to bank on him being the answer.

We have the talent there is no excuse for this team.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

What was the fatal error? JC didn't lose the game for us. The only obvouis mistakes were portis fumbling and the coaches telling campbell to spike the ball...wasting a down. those two mistakes cost us 14 points...neither were campbell's fault in my opinion

Well, potentially running the ball more could have burnt the clock down... rested a worn defense, and changed the dynamics of the game.

It's all pure speculation of course, and if you don't execute it doesn't matter, but in general, running the ball with a 14 point lead makes more sense than passing as much as we did, especially if you're the Washington Redskins.

I was saying in my post that our game plan could have been influenced by Jason's prior success, and the Giants prior futility. Why not design a game plan attacking a weak Giants secondary? That's what we all expected wasn't it? A blow out.

The only problem was that since the Giants changed their defense around, this provided a window, aided by our ineptitude to convert first downs and hold onto the ball, that the Giants capitalized on. We couldn't run that offense, plain and simple. Our o-line couldn't hold up, Jason played inconsistent, and we were stifled.

On top of it all, the type of futility we suffered was the worst kind. Not only did we lose the ball, but we preserved the clock.

The Giants then downright beat us. They sustained several long and efficient (converting countless 3rd downs) touchdown drives. Our defense got torched all the way up the field, and no thank to our offense...had to go right back out there almost instantly.

But we saw the game, we know what happened... and we wouldn't be Redskins fans if weren't masochistic enough to relive the pain and talk about it for two weeks.