Let's Gamble With Musgrave

[Oldfan]

We need to gamble because:

a) It will probably require a 10-6 record to make the playoffs;

Opponents have reduced the production of the Brunell-Moss connection, we have suffered injuries at the WR position, and we cannot reasonably hope that one of the new signees will provide the help we need.

How about giving Bill Musgrave a shot at calling plays?

In recent weeks, Gibbs and staff have been predictable in calling runs on second and long. Joe Gibbs has been predictable in calling for runs on second and short since his first tour of duty.

Musgrave will erase the predictable element, at least for the short term.

[TheSteve]

I always thought 2nd and short was the perfect time to call a deep bomb, but I'm not a head coach..

[Oldfan]

I always thought 2nd and short was the perfect time to call a deep bomb, but I'm not a head coach..

I think most coaches regard, say second and one, as a better situation than first and ten. It doesn't necessarily call for the bomb, but unless you have the lead in a ballgame, it's a good time to try to pick up a big play.

If you have the lead, running the football is usually the right call.

[Whiskeypeet]

In recent weeks, Gibbs and staff have been predictable in calling runs on second and long. Joe Gibbs has been predictable in calling for runs on second and short since his first tour of duty.

Musgrave will erase the predictable element, at least for the short term.

Wouldn't "Gibbs and staff" included Musgrave?

You are trying to make it sound as if Musgrave is some outside element that hasn't been contributing to the problems througout the season.

You are also assuming Musgrave would call those situations differently than Gibbs. Why?

[Oldfan]

Wouldn't "Gibbs and staff" included Musgrave?

You are trying to make it sound as if Musgrave is some outside element that hasn't been contributing to the problems througout the season.

You are also assuming Musgrave would call those situations differently than Gibbs. Why?

I think that the play calling is suggested from upstairs by Jack Burns and Don Breaux with Gibbs having the final say.

Am I wrong about that?

[RedskinzOwnU]

I think he's correct in assuming that musgrave would call some plays differently than gibb's and co. and I wouldn't be opposed to the idea.

[Whiskeypeet]

I think that the play calling is suggested from upstairs by Jack Burns and Don Breaux with Gibbs having the final say.

Am I wrong about that?

I don't know if you are or not.

Either way it would seem that there would be considerable game planning during the week where Musgrave could give his input.

Is it inconceivable that he, or anyone else on the staff for that matter, may have said, "hey, why don't we throw deep on second and short." (or something to that effect). I'd be suprised if those conversations were not had.

It just smacks of oversimplification to assume that letting Musgrave call the plays would cure the evils of the offense.

My guess is that playcalling is limited by the talent on the field.

[Whiskeypeet]

I think he's correct in assuming that musgrave would call some plays differently than gibb's and co.

Not that I think you are necessarily wrong but why do you assume Musgrave would call the play differently.

I don't reallly know enough about him from his Denver/Caronlina/Jacksonville days to make the connection.

[Oldfan]

It just smacks of oversimplification to assume that letting Musgrave call the plays would cure the evils of the offense.

It smacks of someone merely being argumentative when you create a ridiculous strawman like that.

[Whiskeypeet]

It smacks of someone merely being argumentative when you create a ridiculous strawman like that.

Take her easy there big guy. Do I just have to accept something on faith because you said it?

I'm willing to be persuaded if you see my reply to RedskinzOwnU.

Just give me some evidence.

Further, I suggested the playcalling is limited by the talent level of the players. How is that a ridiculous strawman?

[Oldfan]

Take her easy there big guy. Do I just have to accept something on faith because you said it?

I'm willing to be persuaded if you see my reply to RedskinzOwnU.

Just give me some evidence.

Further, I suggested the playcalling is limited by the talent level of the players. How is that a ridiculous strawman?

No. You don't have to take anything I say on faith. I would sincerely appreciate it though if you could refrain from twisting my words in order to make me appear foolish.

The strawman you created was quoted. Nothing I wrote could have been interpreted to suggest that I was offering the idea as a way to "cure the evils of the offense."

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

Just give me some evidence.

Musgrave ran a west coast style offense in Jax. Do you think that might be a little different than what JG does???? we might actually see a quick slant or ANY slant. The Skins have run about 5 slants that I've seen this year. Every one of them was completed for 9-20 yards. They have run ONE slant in the last 3 weeks. That is terrible play calling, IMO. :logo:

.

[Oldfan]

I think most fans will be willing to assume, along with me, that two different coaches are likely to call a game differently no matter who they are.

I don't feel the need to prove that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Musgrave will erase the predictable element, at least for the short term.

I don't think the Redskins are predictable so much as they are limited.

Teams now double cover Moss on every play. Our number two receiver is...um....it will come to me in a second. We don't have a number three receiver at this point. Sellers is hurt. Cooley is very good at what he does but he's not as versatile as, say, a Gates or Shockey. And there is not much behind Portis right now.

Our offense is Portis, Cooley, and Moss right now. And teams are going to put all their effort in stopping Moss. Play-calling during the game is not going to utilize that talent any better. Game-planning prior to the game will, and I think Musgrave has a large hand in that.

[Oldfan]

I don't think the Redskins are predictable so much as they are limited.

Agreed, but I don't have any suggestions about dealing with their limitations.

I don't chart our play calls, as our opponents would, but in certain down and distance situations, I know what to expect. I figure they do too.

[Jumbo]

I think that the play calling is suggested from upstairs by Jack Burns and Don Breaux with Gibbs having the final say.

Am I wrong about that?

Only going by the infallible TV reporters here , but the most recent story (not only story) I saw supports your comment. They did not mention Musgrave in play-calling during the actual game, with the camera shot emphasizing Burns & Breaux in the booth, then going down to JG on the sidelines. As to your proposition, I like it, if it's not already taking place.

It seems to me that Gibbs is patiently building the team in his image, which while inclusive of consistent basic themes, is historically flexible enough to win with many different types of talent. He seems to me to be doing it again with a multi-year (at least 5, as he's consistently said) picture in mind and not just going in all directions looking for the legendary one-two-year fix. But if you look at it objectively, he's already been very amenable to new ideas and I like taking it even farther in the way you suggest. It's not like your advocating re-vamping the whole scheme.

[JimmiJo]

I think that the play calling is suggested from upstairs by Jack Burns and Don Breaux with Gibbs having the final say.

Am I wrong about that?

No, from what I understand you are correct.

[RedskinLifer]

I think that whomever has been calling the final play, be it Gibbs, Breaux, Musgrave, or whoever, can only do what the players on the field can reasonable execute. If we can all see a trend in the playcalling, then you know that Gibbs can too.

This team has three legitimate offensive weapons: Moss, Cooley, and Portis. Teams are double-covering Moss and keeping the safeties deep to curtain Moss, so until we run the ball repeatedly down the throats of the other team and kill them with Cooley underneath, there isn't a whole lot that can be done.

With no reasonable threat at the other receiver, that also limits the playcalling. Taylor Jacobs, as Joe Bugel said, needs to start playing some football. If he comes out Sunday and has a solid game, then I think that the playcalling will diversify quite a bit next week and beyond.

IMO, the problem isn't who is calling the plays, rather it has to do with who is executing them.

[Oldfan]

But if you look at it objectively, he's already been very amenable to new ideas and I like taking it even farther in the way you suggest. It's not like your advocating re-vamping the whole scheme.

If we play a pat hand, the most likely result is 8-8 for this season which has all the thrill of kissing your sister (unless your sister's hot).

I would expect Musgrave to use the same formations, but in a different mix (maybe more Spread). In the process, we'd learn something even in failure.

[Oldfan]

IMO, the problem isn't who is calling the plays, rather it has to do with who is executing them.

If you are correct, then there is nothing that can be done to quickly change our fortunes. We're 5-5 with an offense that is less productive now than it was up until the Giants' game. The odds against finishing 10-6 are very high.

So, the smart thing to do is to ASSUME I'm right that a fresh mind calling plays could make a positive difference. If I'm wrong, what have we lost?

[MoeRedskins]

I think that the play calling is suggested from upstairs by Jack Burns and Don Breaux with Gibbs having the final say.

Am I wrong about that?

No that is correct, but everybody, please remember that Musgrave was the O coordinator for the Jags for the past few years, and that team wasn't exactly lighting up the scoreboard. I don't see how much of a difference it makes for Musgrave to make the calls opposed to Gibbs.

P.S. Has anybody see Musgrave on the sidelines, it looks like you could store a weeks supply of water in the bags under his eyes.

[chaught76]

The play calling could be a little more aggresive and the players could all be doing a little more. Granted solid playcalling and execution of those plays are important; however, I feel where we have been lacking of late is 2 parts:

1) Giving up on what is working; whether that be the running game, the play-action pass, screens, etc.

2) On the fly adjustments to the defense. Someone pointed out we have 3 main weapons: Portis, Moss, & Cooley. If the defense is going to roll double coverage to Moss, then that's 10 on 9; somewhere there is hole for Portis or a zone for Cooley to sit down in. If they bring 8 in the box to stop Portis, then Cooley and Moss are 1 on 1 or finding holes in zone. And then we have our role players fill in the gaps: Sellars, Jacobs, Royal, etc. In short, AUDIBLE. If Brunell is the field general we all see him to be, then he can read defenses and should be able to audible to something to counter a defense shift or formation (i.e. the Colts). :2cents:

[Oldfan]

No that is correct, but everybody, please remember that Musgrave was the O coordinator for the Jags for the past few years, and that team wasn't exactly lighting up the scoreboard. I don't see how much of a difference it makes for Musgrave to make the calls opposed to Gibbs.

P.S. Has anybody see Musgrave on the sidelines, it looks like you could store a weeks supply of water in the bags under his eyes.

It isn't about Musgrave doing it better than Joe Gibbs long term. He hasn't done it with the Redskins, with our plays and our formations, therefore for the remainder of this season, Musgrave's calls would be unpredictable... making life more difficult for opposing teams.

[RedskinLifer]

If you are correct, then there is nothing that can be done to quickly change our fortunes. We're 5-5 with an offense that is less productive now than it was up until the Giants' game. The odds against finishing 10-6 are very high.

So, the smart thing to do is to ASSUME I'm right that a fresh mind calling plays could make a positive difference. If I'm wrong, what have we lost?

No matter who is calling the plays, I believe that most would agree that the smart thing to do is to utilize the weapons the offense does have. Having said that, if my feeble mind can figure that out, the so can opposing defensive coordinators.

I'm for whatever jumpstarts the offense. Hell, let Bubba Tyer call the plays, as long as it works.....

[RF4L]

I always thought 2nd and short was the perfect time to call a deep bomb, but I'm not a head coach..

I remember a 4th and 1 many years ago when Sonny threw a bomb to a wide open receiver for a TD.

Superb.