One Decision Overlooked!

[MTK]

Yeah that was a mega shitty spot on that catch by Cooley. I was hoping for a challenge too.

[Sean Taylor]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah that was a mega shitty spot on that catch by Cooley. I was hoping for a challenge too.

50 yd atttempt maybe?

[GMScud]

Amazing that for a man who is as supposedly brilliant as Gibbs, this kind of clock mismanagement has become a trend this time around. As a skins fan I am SOOOOOO tired of saying "what if."

[Rajmahal33]

In defense of Gibbs on the decision to not challenge, that is really the responsibility of Saunders or someone up in the booth with access to multiple camera angles to make that call. It is really hard to know from the sideline that the spot was bad when it happened on the other sideline. It could have gone on Cooley as well b/c he has to let Gibbs know but i didn't see him running over to the sideline and pleading his case. Also given the lack of definitive markers to respot the ball (since he dove out of bounds), the call probably wouldnt have been overturned (as most spotting reveiws aren't) and almost certainly wouldn't have given us a first down. How is Gibbs supposed to intuitively know that the spot was bad and just throw away one of his reviews. I don't however defend the Timeout on 3rd and 7, that was stupid, but it seemed like JC was the one who wanted it cuz he was unsure of something. Also the play call on 4th and short was awful...RUN WITH MIKE SELLERS and if nothing else never throw an OUT (esp on a muddy field), throw a swing pass with ur FACE to the defender

[SC Skins Fan]

HORRIBLE spot, I agree. But remember when Green Bay challenged the spot against the Bears last week. They moved the ball but GB still didn't pick up the first down and they were still charged a time out. I can't remember the reason (even though Mike Perrara gave his 'yes man' evaluation on NFLN last week). Would would the same rule have applied had Gibbs decided to challenge because Cooley probably didn't have the first down. The time out clearly made no sense. Not that it mattered the way the Skins couldn't move the ball at the end.

[scowan]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

HORRIBLE spot, I agree. But remember when Green Bay challenged the spot against the Bears last week. They moved the ball but GB still didn't pick up the first down and they were still charged a time out. I can't remember the reason (even though Mike Perrara gave his 'yes man' evaluation on NFLN last week). Would would the same rule have applied had Gibbs decided to challenge because Cooley probably didn't have the first down. The time out clearly made no sense. Not that it mattered the way the Skins couldn't move the ball at the end.

SC Skins, I understand your logic, but look at it this way, we challenge the spot, it gets overturned, the Skins pick up an extra yard or yard and a half, they STILL get charged a timeout because they don't get the first, but now you have 4th a 1/2 and not 4th and 2. Net result.... you gained 1 yard to 1 1/2 yards during the timeout you were going to take anyway? Ok, I saw this and thought this during the game, not now on Monday afternoon. I don't get paid millions to tell Gibbs to challenge, but someone does!!! Why don't they see these things that we all see?

[skinsfan242]

Originally Posted by scowan

SC Skins, I understand your logic, but look at it this way, we challenge the spot, it gets overturned, the Skins pick up an extra yard or yard and a half, they STILL get charged a timeout because they don't get the first, but now you have 4th a 1/2 and not 4th and 2. Net result.... you gained 1 yard to 1 1/2 yards during the timeout you were going to take anyway? Ok, I saw this and thought this during the game, not now on Monday afternoon. I don't get paid millions to tell Gibbs to challenge, but someone does!!! Why don't they see these things that we all see?

I still think some of you don't understand the Challenge Rule. If you challenge and they change the spot you are NOT charged a timeout. If you get a challenge right there is not a timeout, but you get all that time to come up with a play, even more time then a timeout. It doesn't matter hwether or not you get the first down that is not what you challenge, you can challenge a spot anytime you want. If you get it wrong you use a timeout you were going to call anyway, it is thinking like that gets us killed, why not gamble for an extra yard and more time when you have NOTHING to lose.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by scowan

SC Skins, I understand your logic, but look at it this way, we challenge the spot, it gets overturned, the Skins pick up an extra yard or yard and a half, they STILL get charged a timeout because they don't get the first, but now you have 4th a 1/2 and not 4th and 2. Net result.... you gained 1 yard to 1 1/2 yards during the timeout you were going to take anyway? Ok, I saw this and thought this during the game, not now on Monday afternoon. I don't get paid millions to tell Gibbs to challenge, but someone does!!! Why don't they see these things that we all see?

It sounds that simple but to do that we would have had to let the clock keep running while our people up in the booth had a chance to review the play and then the spot of the ball. That would have run allot of time off the clock and we may have then decided that is was not worth a challange and then had to burn a time out still. We cannot call a time out then ask for a review because then we would have been charged with another time out.

[Darrell_Green_28]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

HORRIBLE spot, I agree. But remember when Green Bay challenged the spot against the Bears last week. They moved the ball but GB still didn't pick up the first down and they were still charged a time out. I can't remember the reason (even though Mike Perrara gave his 'yes man' evaluation on NFLN last week). Would would the same rule have applied had Gibbs decided to challenge because Cooley probably didn't have the first down. The time out clearly made no sense. Not that it mattered the way the Skins couldn't move the ball at the end.

because i think it was something like it did not make it a first down. because when you challenge that you are basically challenging to try for a first down which in this case the spot was wrong but not enough to give them a first down..
But still why not challenge it hell you still get charged a time out. but you will have a longer time out with them reviewing it and give you more time to figure out plays and not rush to it. yeah i know it gives the def a time out to rest too but shouldnt rush when making a decision that will cost you the game. I would have gone for the FG i know it would have been a long 50yd but didnt suish make one that long before. or atleast line up to try and draw them offsides as i stated in another post. no worries about the center cuz rabach wouldnt be in for a long snap. but on that play i dont see why JC didnt go to Keenan McCardell, who looked wide oopen to me.
I may not have worded it right but thats how i think it was.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Rajmahal33

In defense of Gibbs on the decision to not challenge, that is really the responsibility of Saunders or someone up in the booth with access to multiple camera angles to make that call. It is really hard to know from the sideline that the spot was bad when it happened on the other sideline. It could have gone on Cooley as well b/c he has to let Gibbs know but i didn't see him running over to the sideline and pleading his case. Also given the lack of definitive markers to respot the ball (since he dove out of bounds), the call probably wouldnt have been overturned (as most spotting reveiws aren't) and almost certainly wouldn't have given us a first down. How is Gibbs supposed to intuitively know that the spot was bad and just throw away one of his reviews. I don't however defend the Timeout on 3rd and 7, that was stupid, but it seemed like JC was the one who wanted it cuz he was unsure of something. Also the play call on 4th and short was awful...RUN WITH MIKE SELLERS and if nothing else never throw an OUT (esp on a muddy field), throw a swing pass with ur FACE to the defender

Wrong, Sellers was just the first read on the play. McCardell was open and JC just messed up. He got scared and threw a quick pass.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Wrong, Sellers was just the first read on the play. McCardell was open and JC just messed up. He got scared and threw a quick pass.

Can we just ditch that play altogether? Gibbs ran the same swing pass to the flat on 2nd down at the goal line against the Giants. Campbell is not particularly accurate on throws to the flat. It reeks of Martyball - run a 1 yard route on 4th and 2.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Can we just ditch that play altogether? Gibbs ran the same swing pass to the flat on 2nd down at the goal line against the Giants. Campbell is not particularly accurate on throws to the flat. It reeks of Martyball - run a 1 yard route on 4th and 2.

If you know anything about football you would know a play has multiple reads. Those are options, like in Madden. Remember all those routes?? The ones that are orange are primary reads, and the rest are nonprimary. So it falls on Campbell, because he is suppose to read the coverage and notice Sellers was not open.

I really don't think is any room to criticize the coaching staff on that call, all Campbells fault.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by hooskins

If you know anything about football you would know a play has multiple reads. Those are options, like in Madden. Remember all those routes?? The ones that are orange are primary reads, and the rest are nonprimary. So it falls on Campbell, because he is suppose to read the coverage and notice Sellers was not open.

I really don't think is any room to criticize the coaching staff on that call, all Campbells fault.

Maybe you could chalk that one up to inexperience. Sellers was his first read and he dumped it off to him immediately. McCardell was his second read, was wide open in the flat, and probably could have had at least a 10-15 gain. I'd blame that one play on JC maybe, but he did too many other things right to hamper on that one decision...