Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?

[jsarno]

Just an FYI,
When we won in 91 (14-2), our passing offense was ranked 5th in yards, and 1st in points. The rushing O was ranked 7th.
When we won in 87 (11-4), our passing offense was ranked 5th in yards, and 5th in points. The Rushing O was ranked 7th.
When we lost in the NFC championship game in 86 (12-4), our passing offense was ranked 6th in yards, and 9th in points. The rushing O ranked 17th.

That being said, in the past 3 years (not including this year) we have had the 29th (04), 22nd (05), 23rd (06), ranked passing offense and have had only 1 winning season in those 3 years. This year we have the 22nd best passing O.
Last year we had the 4th best rushing O in the league and still only managed 5 wins. Granted there are other factors, but we were 20th in points scored. That says a lot.
Gibbs knows how to win with a passing offense, and maybe it's lack of faith, maybe it's the fact that he wants to play the TOP game...I don't know. But I do know, we need a top ten passing attack to win in this day and age unless we have a top 3 defense (which we don't).

[JWsleep]

Look--we all agree his team needs to score more points on a consistent basis. But I don't think it's so black and white that they went all conservative in the playcalling in the second half. JLac was complaining about the LACK of rushes in that same half. Check out the numbers. And when JC misses a pass or dumps to the short receiver, maybe that was on an aggressive play that wasn't executed.

And in general what Gibbs aims for is balance. It's not run for the sake of run. It's run to set up the pass, preferably a long shot. Are people saying that this basic strategy does not work?

Finally, there is the issue of just who's playcalling were arguing about. Gibbs brought in Saunders. Now many people are worried that Gibbs isn't "letting" Saunders call the sort of game he wants to. What evidence do we have for that? Neither Gibbs nor Saunders have said this. What we have is the low score. But there's another variable here--the players. Maybe both JG and Saunders are aggressive, but the players are not getting it done.

The real answer is most likely that it's a combination of all of this. My guess is that when JG/JC are more comfortable, and when the Oline stabalizes, and when a legit #3 WR emerges, we'll be plenty aggressive. And when we are aggressive, it will ACTUALLY WORK. They called the perfect dagger-in-the-heart bomb against Philly, it was wide open, and the kid, bless his heart, overthrew it. That was an aggressive play call right in the Rypien to Clark mold there, and we missed it.

(Again, way too long--sorry!)

[Longtimefan]

I'm in favor of a balanced attack, be it run first or pass first really dosen't matter. In order to be successful on a sustained basis the offense must be balanced, a staple Gibbs will live and die by. Now, if that does not work, so be it, but I don't think you'll see Gibbs having his young QB throwing the ball 35-40 times a game espically when he has runners like Portis and Betts. Gibbs philosophy of offense reqires a strong defense, not one that just gives up points like water. He likes to shorten the games, and make the opposition earn everything they get. However his offense must improve in order for his defense to operate at a quality level for four quarters.

[BleedBurgundy]

Maybe I'm not saying this clearly. If, IF, the players execute the gameplan well, we win. We had the lead at the end of the first half. The detractors say that Gibbs is too conservative, so... if the players execute this conservative offense and chew up yardage and clock, we win. Ask anyone that's actually on the team, I'll bet you hear the same thing.

[#56fanatic]

I think the philosophy has changes from 20 years ago for most of these new coaches. The coaches from earlier years (except Vermeil) all have the same approach. get a lead and eat clock. the newer coaches run the offense no matter what the score is. I heard a former football player say this the other day who was talking about our game with the Giants (the radio show is in charlotte NC) he said if they were up at half by 14 or 21 or what ever the coach would say, do not let up, we'll run our offense until the game is out of reach. If they were up 14 the coach would say, look guys 14 points, thats two plays.
I like that mentality. 14 points is really only two plays, any two plays. so their coach would run their offense until the end of the game, or when there was absolutely no chance of them coming back. Hopefully this will open the coaches and everyone else's eyes they need to let the offense run. seemed like we just paniced in the 4th quarter.

it is very early in the season. we have a long way to go. I will hate to see whats out here if we ever lose multiple games. this is crazy how we all react after 1 loss insn't it?

[BleedBurgundy]

And 17 points in a half isn't too bad for a conservative offense? Our guys just didn't match intensity and focus in the 2nd half. If we keep changing everything every 3-4 years we're not going to get anywhere. That said, I'd like to point out that I enjoy your posts Daseal, because you actually put something behind them. I don't agree with them, but at least they show that you've put thought into them. I wish everyone did.

[skinsguy]

Football isn't any different now than what it was 20 years ago. Aside from a couple of rule changes, the majority of the game is the same as it was years ago.

I keep hearing that today's game does this and does that. Show me how the game in the 80's didn't support the passing game? That's stupid! Go to you tube and watch some vintage videos of Gary Clark. Our team (and other great teams from that era) put up just as many points as teams are doing today.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Football isn't any different now than what it was 20 years ago. Aside from a couple of rule changes, the majority of the game is the same as it was years ago.

I keep hearing that today's game does this and does that. Show me how the game in the 80's didn't support the passing game? That's stupid! Go to you tube and watch some vintage videos of Gary Clark. Our team (and other great teams from that era) put up just as many points as teams are doing today.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
In 1986,
There were only 8 players that had 1000 or more rushing yards. 23 in 2006. (that's 15 more)
There were only 10 people that had 1000 or more receiving yards. 19 in 2006. (that's 9 more)
There was only 1 player that had 2000 or more yards from scrimmage. 5 in 2006. (that's 4 more)
There were only 16 that had 2500 or more passing yards. 21 in 2006. (that's 5 more)
There were only 2 that had 4000 or more passing yards. 5 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were only 7 that had 80 or more receptions. 18 in 2006. (that's 11 more)
There were only 13 that had 70 or more receptions. 27 in 2006. (that's 14 more)
There were only 28 that had 60 or more receptions. 44 in 2006. (that's 16 more)
There were only 19 players that averaged 6 or more points per game. 37 in 2006. (that's 18 more)

Those numbers speak for themselves. Every era is different, and usually the more we progress the better the players get. We have more prolific players and offenses today.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
In 1986,
There were only 8 players that had 1000 or more rushing yards. 23 in 2006. (that's 15 more)
There were only 10 people that had 1000 or more receiving yards. 19 in 2006. (that's 9 more)
There was only 1 player that had 2000 or more yards from scrimmage. 5 in 2006. (that's 4 more)
There were only 16 that had 2500 or more passing yards. 21 in 2006. (that's 5 more)
There were only 2 that had 4000 or more passing yards. 5 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were only 7 that had 80 or more receptions. 18 in 2006. (that's 11 more)
There were only 13 that had 70 or more receptions. 27 in 2006. (that's 14 more)
There were only 28 that had 60 or more receptions. 44 in 2006. (that's 16 more)
There were only 19 players that averaged 6 or more points per game. 37 in 2006. (that's 18 more)

Those numbers speak for themselves. Every era is different, and usually the more we progress the better the players get. We have more prolific players and offenses today.

Interesting numbers. I'm assuming you factored in the addition of three franchises-Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Interesting numbers. I'm assuming you factored in the addition of three franchises-Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars

Actually it's 4 teams. You forgot the Ravens. (or the Browns depending on your point of view)
And those were individual acheivements, so the 4 extra teams out of 32 teams would not make THAT big of an impact.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's 4 teams. You forgot the Ravens. (or the Browns depending on your point of view)
And those were individual acheivements, so the 4 extra teams out of 32 teams would not make THAT big of an impact.

True, it's not that big an impact. But still more teams means more players means a larger sample size means it does impact the numbers somewhat

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
In 1986,
There were only 8 players that had 1000 or more rushing yards. 23 in 2006. (that's 15 more)
There were only 10 people that had 1000 or more receiving yards. 19 in 2006. (that's 9 more)
There was only 1 player that had 2000 or more yards from scrimmage. 5 in 2006. (that's 4 more)
There were only 16 that had 2500 or more passing yards. 21 in 2006. (that's 5 more)
There were only 2 that had 4000 or more passing yards. 5 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were only 7 that had 80 or more receptions. 18 in 2006. (that's 11 more)
There were only 13 that had 70 or more receptions. 27 in 2006. (that's 14 more)
There were only 28 that had 60 or more receptions. 44 in 2006. (that's 16 more)
There were only 19 players that averaged 6 or more points per game. 37 in 2006. (that's 18 more)

Those numbers speak for themselves. Every era is different, and usually the more we progress the better the players get. We have more prolific players and offenses today.

The mid 80s seem to lie as a dead ball era in history. Defenses totally dominated offenses most of the time. Obviously, thats not true anymore, but the strategies and nuiances are ever so similar (statistically at least, not necessarily anecdoteally).

[BrunellMVP?]

the simple answer that i've been hearing/reading is:
1) our losing record since he's been back.
2) our inability to score points (our lack of production for a generally talented Offense.
3) our inability to manage the clock.
4) mark brunell, pierce, smoot (round 1), champ bailey, ryan clark, walt harris, etc. (more specifcally- player management-whether its williams or saunders, still gibbs call.
5) perceived(?) conservatism when we have a lead.


This is what i consistently hear...i agree with some, and disagree with others...overall gibbs has not "lost it" i just think perhaps he needs to take more control, or completely cede authority...too many chiefs (IMO).

[jsarno]

In terms of teams, in 1986,
There were only 20 teams that had 300 or more yards offense. 27 in 2006. (that's 7 more)
There were only 18 teams that averaged 175 or more yards passing a game. 26 in 2006. (that's 8 more)
There were only 3 teams that scored 25 or more ppg. 6 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were 1 teams that scored 26 or more ppg. 4 in 2006. (that's 3 more)


Now look at the similarities in rushing offense:
There was 1 team that averaged more than 160 per game. 2 in 2006. (that's only 1 more)
There were 4 teams that averaged more than 150 per game. 3 in 2006. (that's 1 fewer)
There were 9 teams that averaged more than 125 per game. 9 in 2006. (exact same)
There were 19 teams that averaged more than 105 per game. 21 in 2006. (that's only 2 more)

It's clear we are in a more pass happy day and age.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's clear we are in a more pass happy day and age.

Using a different perspective:

In 1986 the top 10 Passing leaders threw for a combined 37740 yards.
In 2006, the top 10 passing Leaders threw for a combined 39026 yards.

The difference being a total of 1286 yards or,
128.6 yards per QB per season or,
8.0375 yards per QB per game.