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

[skinsnut]

I think Gibbs (and every other Redskin) should always get credit for every win.

Dan Snyder is always responsible for the losses.

[BDBohnzie]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We've won 4 games because of ... Shawns Springs...

We've lost 2 games because of ... Shawns Springs...

Sorry Double S, had to do it...

It's a collective effort among coaches, players and other staff. Everyone is held accountable, so why single one person out, even if it's the head coach? Just be glad to be 4-2, and not 0fer like the 'phins and Rams.

[Daseal]

Taylor and Fletcher were GW moves. If memory serves correctly Gibbs wanted Winslow, but GWill talked him into Taylor.

Since as fans we have no clue who is responsible for game plans, half time adjustments, playcalling, etc. I feel I can't answer the question. It's in spite of whoever turns our offense off at half time.

[Paintrain]

Both.. He's brought a level of order, discipline and professionalism that was lacking before he got here that has permeated the organization.. He also has brought conservatism and a mentality of fearing turnovers and playing not to lose that has resulted in a tough loss vs. the Giants..

[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.

[TrustinGibbs]

With the offensive line as it is we cannot consistantly run....or pass the ball. The only route to go is ultra conservative and rely on the defense. If they call one pass after another or deeper pass plays to make the fans happy Campbell will spend the afternoon running from D-lineman or on his butt. The injuries to the offensive line are killing this teams offense at the moment. We have a total of one guy starting on the O-line right now who started last season...how many other teams would be 4-2 in such a difficult situation? Gibbs ball control offense relies more on a stout offensive line then most. Balanced O and ball control wins in the playoffs in most cases...this is a time tested formula for success.

Get the O-Line healtier or the back ups up to par and the offense will show some life. Until then do whatever you can to win ball games.

[firstdown]

Any time your the leader you get credit for wins and losses.

[irish]

In spite of Gibbs. I'd like to see Gibbs get out of the way and let AS do his thing.

[paulskinsfan]

I really think Gibbs influences the playcalling when we get a lead. I believe he steps in and dictates whether we run or throw the ball. Do I have any hard evidence of this? Nope. What really irritates me is how poorly the clock is managed and replay challenges are handled. For example, at the end of the Giants game I don't think anyone had a clue what was going on, it looked like a team that never ran a 2 minute offense.

[MTK]

Personally I doubt that Gibbs overrules Saunder's play calling during a game, if he does I think it's pretty rare. Does he influence the game plan heading into the game? Of course, after all he is still heavily involved with the offense.

And as someone already pointed out, despite Saunders' reputation as being this high flying offensive guru, his offenses have produced some pretty hearty running games over the years, and that's one of the reasons that Gibbs went out and recruited Saunders.

[freddyg12]

Gibbs has got the organization on the right track, even Peter King agrees w/that.

Let's be happy that he's brought some stability & although we got our hopes up after the 05 playoffs & thought we had a contender, things take a while. He's helped to undo some bad moves & bad practices. Of course, he also had a hand in moves like getting B.Loyd, but I'll take that along w/the positives.

I share the feeling of many here that Gibbs seems too worried about losing leads which has in turn led to doing just that. I think he'll see the light w/the situation now though. This o-line is better at pass blocking than run blocking. JC is a good qb & we have a decent wr corps & nice TE.

I expect to see the ball in the air a lot on sunday. We'll set up the run w/the pass like we did in Detroit. That's our only hope IMO. I'd be absolutely shocked if we could pound the ball on NE in the first half.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

For those of you who want Gibbs to let Saunders have complete autonomy in the offensive gameplanning, do you remember when he first came here and they were running about thirty reverses a game? Gibbs is the overwhelming yin to Saunder's yang.

Yes, I said yang, not wang.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

For those of you who want Gibbs to let Saunders have complete autonomy in the offensive gameplanning, do you remember when he first came here and they were running about thirty reverses a game? Gibbs is the overwhelming yin to Saunder's yang.

Yes, I said yang, not wang.

I could go for that gameplan against NE.

Randel El, Moss if he holds onto the ball, Portis, heck even Lloyd could run those plays well.

On the other plays, we either throw long bombs or hand it to Big Mike.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Buster

I could go for that gameplan against NE.

Randel El, Moss if he holds onto the ball, Portis, heck even Lloyd could run those plays well.

On the other plays, we either throw long bombs or hand it to Big Mike.

I would actually really like Sellers to get a good amount of carries. I'm talking maybe 10-15.

[irish]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

For those of you who want Gibbs to let Saunders have complete autonomy in the offensive gameplanning, do you remember when he first came here and they were running about thirty reverses a game? Gibbs is the overwhelming yin to Saunder's yang.

Yes, I said yang, not wang.

IMO, Gibbs help AS and GW keep from killing each other. I think if Gibbs ever stepped down then either GW or AS would go because I just dont think they could work together. Gibbs is the buffer