Should Gibbs Flip The Script: Passing Team Now?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Of course, if you run AND pass well that is the best option. However, to say that one-dimensional teams aren't successful, or don't win championships, is wrong. Remember the 2000 Ravens? No offense to speak of, and they won it all. Can anyone explain that?

The bottom line is that "what works" is varied, and changes week to week. So, I think you try to do what you do best, and when/if the opposing defense stops you, then you move on to something else.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Of course, if you run AND pass well that is the best option. However, to say that one-dimensional teams aren't successful, or don't win championships, is wrong. Remember the 2000 Ravens? No offense to speak of, and they won it all. Can anyone explain that?

The bottom line is that "what works" is varied, and changes week to week. So, I think you try to do what you do best, and when/if the opposing defense stops you, then you move on to something else.

The Ravens had a steady balance of run/pass on offense. Of course, they won because they had a record setting defense.

[GMScud]

I think it's a week-to-week/gameplanning issue. Exploit weaknesses. Dallas has a very strong run D and can put up points in a hurry. So we didn't run much. JC looked great against Philly opening it up and spreading the ball around, and Dallas has a suspect secondary. So we threw. And we SHOULD have won (again).

Tampa has a suspect run D, so I would expect more runs this week. I'd still like to see the no huddle/shotgun, just mix in some creative runs out of those formations to accompany the passing game.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I think it's a week-to-week/gameplanning issue. Exploit weaknesses. Dallas has a very strong run D and can put up points in a hurry. So we didn't run much. JC looked great against Philly opening it up and spreading the ball around, and Dallas has a suspect secondary. So we threw. And we SHOULD have won (again).

Tampa has a suspect run D, so I would expect more runs this week. I'd still like to see the no huddle/shotgun, just mix in some creative runs out of those formations to accompany the passing game.

Yes, I totally agree, if saunders/gibbs could come up with some complimentary running plays to the no-huddle/shotgun passing attack the running game might be more effective then it has when we go in with "jumbo packages".

Although, we do have Mike Sellers for a reason. So it is probably best to work in multiple different packages. I just dont want to see the skins let this little spark of offensive prowess go out. We need to take advantage of it, give it some AIR if you will, and it might just catch into a blazing inferno.

OK, dumb metaphor. But in all seriousness, this team has finally found something that could lead to a dominating offensive attack, so yes certainly "mix it up," but build off of what you've started, the running attack will come along too, but start off the game in Tampa with the flurry of passes we've seen from the fast-paced style of offense in the past two games, and then start to work the run in.

Now, I am not saying "pass at first to get up, run late to kill the clock." What I am saying is hit them with the no-huddle right off the bat, mix it up and confuse them by working in draws, sweeps, screens, even a gut here and there to keep them honest, but don't be predictable, and certainly don't let them stay in the game, GO FOR THE THROAT if they give you the deep ball later in the game.

That, it seems to me, is how the BIG BOYS get it done and blow teams out, and we can't afford to let games stay close if we can avoid it.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by WillH

Yes, I totally agree, if saunders/gibbs could come up with some complimentary running plays to the no-huddle/shotgun passing attack the running game might be more effective then it has when we go in with "jumbo packages".

Although, we do have Mike Sellers for a reason. So it is probably best to work in multiple different packages. I just dont want to see the skins let this little spark of offensive prowess go out. We need to take advantage of it, give it some AIR if you will, and it might just catch into a blazing inferno.

OK, dumb metaphor. But in all seriousness, this team has finally found something that could lead to a dominating offensive attack, so yes certainly "mix it up," but build off of what you've started, the running attack will come along too, but start off the game in Tampa with the flurry of passes we've seen from the fast-paced style of offense in the past two games, and then start to work the run in.

Now, I am not saying "pass at first to get up, run late to kill the clock." What I am saying is hit them with the no-huddle right off the bat, mix it up and confuse them by working in draws, sweeps, screens, even a gut here and there to keep them honest, but don't be predictable, and certainly don't let them stay in the game, GO FOR THE THROAT if they give you the deep ball later in the game.

That, it seems to me, is how the BIG BOYS get it done and blow teams out, and we can't afford to let games stay close if we can avoid it.

Good post. You mention the Gibbs jumbo package and how he loves to run out of this formation more than anything else. Then you talk about how Gibbs/Saunders need to "come up" with complimentary running plays out of the no-huddle/shotgun sets. Saunders has the plays in his arsenal. But I think this is where we've had an issue with the Gibbs/Saunders hybrid. The personnel packages in what Gibbs likes to run from and what Al likes to throw from are very different, so it makes fluidity more difficult. Those no-huddle drives involved very little running (Portis had only 12 carries). Is our O-line athletic enough to handle a few stretch plays and tosses? Portis has the speed for sure. I'm in no way suggesting we eliminate jumbo packages and Sellers packages, I just think it's imperative we mix in the run with this new found passing attack.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Good post. You mention the Gibbs jumbo package and how he loves to run out of this formation more than anything else. Then you talk about how Gibbs/Saunders need to "come up" with complimentary running plays out of the no-huddle/shotgun sets. Saunders has the plays in his arsenal. But I think this is where we've had an issue with the Gibbs/Saunders hybrid. The personnel packages in what Gibbs likes to run from and what Al likes to throw from are very different, so it makes fluidity more difficult. Those no-huddle drives involved very little running (Portis had only 12 carries). Is our O-line athletic enough to handle a few stretch plays and tosses? Portis has the speed for sure. I'm in no way suggesting we eliminate jumbo packages and Sellers packages, I just think it's imperative we mix in the run with this new found passing attack.

I agree going to an all passing game is nuts. We ought to run the ball every four or five plays just to keep our opponents honest. Our running game should consist of surprise stuff with Portis, Betts, and Sellers and scrambles by Campbell.

Also, ARE should pass more often. The guy is seriously good as a passer.

It's going to be years and a few rule changes before a team manages to go anywhere without being able to put up 30 or so points a game.

So be it.

ARE is looking pretty good when we decide to take passing seriously, Cooley is one of the best, and if Moss is back we have a fine group of WR's and a good backup, plus adequate to excellent receivers coming out of the backfield. We also have better pass blocking than run blocking.

If Gibbs hasn't seen the light by now, it's time for him to go. I hope he's seen it. If he has, we'll have a shot at the playoffs.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

I agree going to an all passing game is nuts. We ought to run the ball every four or five plays just to keep our opponents honest. Our running game should consist of surprise stuff with Portis, Betts, and Sellers and scrambles by Campbell.

Also, ARE should pass more often. The guy is seriously good as a passer.

It's going to be years and a few rule changes before a team manages to go anywhere without being able to put up 30 or so points a game.

So be it.

ARE is looking pretty good when we decide to take passing seriously, Cooley is one of the best, and if Moss is back we have a fine group of WR's and a good backup, plus adequate to excellent receivers coming out of the backfield. We also have better pass blocking than run blocking.

If Gibbs hasn't seen the light by now, it's time for him to go. I hope he's seen it. If he has, we'll have a shot at the playoffs.

Brunell better watch his back.

[offiss]

The name of the game is ball control, it doesn't matter how you do it, so long as you do it, and it results in points. To try and force the issue is just plain stupid, if you can't run then don't continue to bang your head against a wall, throwing will eventually open up that running game if you are effective, 2nd and 2 will allow for a lot of running plays they then don't have to be for a lot of yards to move the chains. Our problem has been we for the most part can't get 1 to 2 yards when teams are waiting for it. IMO Gibbs is way behind in developing Campbell, he should be much further ahead at this stage of his career. The big question is after the past 2 weeks of letting Campbell open up will Gibbs revert back when he feels the pressure, or will he continue to attack in the air which should allow Campbell to learn at a much faster pace? I beleive he has to allow Campbell to attack down field with reckless abandon, he really needs those type of in game repetitions to really get his timing down, and understanding of what, and how defenses are scheming, you just can't simulate game speed and conditions in practice.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Of course, if you run AND pass well that is the best option. However, to say that one-dimensional teams aren't successful, or don't win championships, is wrong. Remember the 2000 Ravens? No offense to speak of, and they won it all. Can anyone explain that?

The bottom line is that "what works" is varied, and changes week to week. So, I think you try to do what you do best, and when/if the opposing defense stops you, then you move on to something else.

And how often have you seen a team like the 2000 Ravens win it all as opposed to teams like The New England Patriots, The Dallas Cowboys of the 90's, The 49ers and Redskins of the 80's? I don't want to have a fluke campionship team in Washington, I want to have a consistent winner.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

And how often have you seen a team like the 2000 Ravens win it all as opposed to teams like The New England Patriots, The Dallas Cowboys of the 90's, The 49ers and Redskins of the 80's? I don't want to have a fluke campionship team in Washington, I want to have a consistent winner.

Yeah, but I think the point to be made is that the league has changed. It was once a rushing league, and now it's a passing league. I too want a consistent contender. What do the teams you mentioned have in common? HOF quarterbacks.

Personally, I have never been impressed by the Patriots rushing offense. They've had good games here and there, but I think their strength -- this year, and others -- has been their passing attack. Excellent QBs can't be stopped consistently. I don't think that will ever change in the NFL.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Yeah, but I think the point to be made is that the league has changed. It was once a rushing league, and now it's a passing league. I too want a consistent contender. What do the teams you mentioned have in common? HOF quarterbacks.

Personally, I have never been impressed by the Patriots rushing offense. They've had good games here and there, but I think their strength -- this year, and others -- has been their passing attack. Excellent QBs can't be stopped consistently. I don't think that will ever change in the NFL.

Well true, they all had HOF QBs, but the point is, they also had HOF or HOF worthy running backs too. Well, the jury is still out on the Patriot's but for the rest of the teams mentioned, there were guys like E. Smith, Roger Craig, John Riggins, Earnest Byner, etc... The pass first philosophy has always been in the league along with the run first philosophy. I believe it really comes down to what your team can do best. However, regardless, (and some of what Offiss said was true,) you still have to control the ball on offense. So, that means a combination of short and intermediate passes, and a strong running game. If a team is stronger with the running game, you go with that, if they're a stronger passing team, you go with that. But regardless, you have to control the ball and the clock. It keeps your defense well rested and strong, and it tears down your opponent's defense.

[SFREDSKIN]

Do you all remember the"run and shoot offense"? It sure got far didn't it? Maybe in college (University of Hawaii) but not in the pro's.