Are we 4-2 because of Gibbs, or in spite of him?

[JWsleep]

Looking at the specifics of game-day stuff, rather than the overall organizational stuff, I think we are 4-2 because of him, but we might be 6-0 if he'd back off a bit on the ball-control with the lead thing, and give Campbell some more room to improvise and throw. But we could be 2-4 for the same reason. It's a tough call--hence the endless discussions.

On redskins radio (skins.com) today, he had a few questions about why he doesn't pass more. He said what he always does: what he likes is balance. And I don't think that's a bad thing the way our (healthy) team is built--with Portis and a strong o-line, we should be able to cram it down the Cardinals or Packers throat, score a last TD on a back-breaking time eating drive, and keep these pass-happy attacks off the field. But we don't have that o-line now, and Portis hasn't really flashed anything on his own (nor has Betts). Given that, we should throw more, but did that work in GB? We threw way more than we ran in the second half there, and lost it.

I think the balance philosophy is actually very good--if we can execute it. One: we have a good D: keeps opponents scores down. Two: you do not want to get into a bombs away shootout with the likes of Brady, etc. Three: a dominate run game forces safeties into the box, allowing for play-action (see, for example, the missed TD pass in Philly: that was classic Gibbs to me, though we missed it). Four: if you get more plays on offense than the other team, you tend to win. Five: it takes the pressure off of JC--not a bad thing until he's got some seasoning (people love to forget this one, especially given Brady. BUt most QBs need some time to grow).

We need to execute, though, to make this work. But I really do think it's the best strategy in the long run for stopping these high-powered offenses. The Key is 3rd down conversions on O, especially 3rd and short--that stat has been telling for us this year.