What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

~removes tin foil hat~

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??

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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??

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??

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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??

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.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

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??

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.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

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.

Which is the exact reason that I made the thread reflective of the entire season and the philosophy that we operate under. 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.

[70Chip]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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.

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.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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.

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?