Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

An Alternate view: Conservative Playcalling is a good thing!


Mr. Nostril

Recommended Posts

I think that Gibbs might be calling plays conservatively, because he has no reason to have confidence in our offense. Every single week, we complain about two things, our offense gives up too many turnovers, and Gibbs playcalling is way too conservative. The problem with this is that it seems very possible and even like the later is a response to the former. If we turn the ball over as frequently as we do, while being conservative, can you imagine how bad it would be if we took risks? I believe Gibbs will be less conservative when he has an offense that is worthy of some confidence.

Hopefully, that will happen next year. Also, I still believe that barring an 0-5 or 1-4 run overthe next five games, 2005 was a successful season for the Washington Redskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, also I think Gibbs realizes that the shorter he makes these games, the fewer opportunities he gives our defense to give up the big, back-breaking plays.

Honestly, yesterday we were one more set of downs away from putting that game away. We milked the clock from over 8 minutes down to 4...if we gain a couple more yards, our D might not even have to step back on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BleedinBurgundyandGold

Just posted on this in another thread, but I completely agree with Gibbs play calling with one exception, the 2nd Down run call after the Rabach holding penalty. At that point you MUST get at least 7-8 of those yards back because John Hall simply can not make a 50+ yard field goal. I also mentioned in my other post that I have reverted back to my old position that Portis simply isn't the back Gibbs needs. He just doesn't grind out tough yards and can not stay on his feet after he gets hit like we DESPERATELY need (see Bucs game and SD game). Gibbs wont change the way he calls plays with a 10 point lead in the fourth quarter, we need to find someone that can get a first down running the ball 3 times in a row when everyone watching knows we're running....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just posted on this in another thread, but I completely agree with Gibbs play calling with one exception, the 2nd Down run call after the Rabach holding penalty. At that point you MUST get at least 7-8 of those yards back because John Hall simply can not make a 50+ yard field goal. I also mentioned in my other post that I have reverted back to my old position that Portis simply isn't the back Gibbs needs. He just doesn't grind out tough yards and can not stay on his feet after he gets hit like we DESPERATELY need (see Bucs game and SD game). Gibbs wont change the way he calls plays with a 10 point lead in the fourth quarter, we need to find someone that can get a first down running the ball 3 times in a row when everyone watching knows we're running....

See, now this is a fair criticism. After the holding call, you basically had two plays to gain 8 or so yards back. I would have preferred for us to go shotgun, 4 wideouts both times and drag Cooley or Moss across the middle for an easy completion. If you hit that play on 2nd down and get inside the 30 again...then feel free to run it on 3rd and 10 if you want to set up the FG.

Good post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need to find someone that can get a first down running the ball 3 times in a row when everyone watching knows we're running....

Portis could so do that if our O-Line didn't suck

I do agree with your main point too, but people are talking about the playcalling throughout the 4th quarter. You're talking about one play. I agree, we should have passed on that play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Portis could so do that if our O-Line didn't suck

Asking our Oline to block an 8 or 9 man front that is waiting eagerly for the run is not a fair fight... not in today's NFL.

As for your original post, I wonder the same myself. Is the reason for the conservative playcalling because Gibbs just does not trust Brunell and the offense to not turn it over? I have to say, based on our performance this year, Gibbs has a right to feel this way.

But I also think that nothing ventured nothing gained. At some point, our offense will need to grow a pair and go for the jugular. If we turn it over, well, then... we turn it over. But we won't say the next day that we didn't try. I would be cool with that.

......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BleedinBurgundyandGold
Portis could so do that if our O-Line didn't suck

My point is that there have been times late in the fourth quarter when we are trying to salt the game away and therefore the defense knows we are going to run it. They put 8, 9, 10 guys in the box to stop us. Even in max protection that leaves only 8 or 9 guys blocking, to get those yards Portis MUST be able to stay on his feet after being hit and gain at worst, 3 or 4 yards. I simply haven't seen that ability in him.

Also, I am not suggesting that we get rid of Portis, but we need to bring in a back that can take the ball late in games and grind out first down. Warrick Dunn is having a great year in Atlanta (more yards and touchdowns than Portis) and they've got a guy there in Duckett that has the sole responsibilty to get tough yards when the D knows you are going to run. We definitly need that here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I also think that nothing ventured nothing gained. At some point, our offense will need to grow a pair and go for the jugular. If we turn it over, well, then... we turn it over. But we won't say the next day that we didn't try. I would be cool with that.
Sometime trying involves avoiding you weaknesses. The Skins are weak at holding on to the ball. So we avoid situations where it's difficult to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that there have been times late in the fourth quarter when we are trying to salt the game away and therefore the defense knows we are going to run it. They put 8, 9, 10 guys in the box to stop us. Even in max protection that leaves only 8 or 9 guys blocking, to get those yards Portis MUST be able to stay on his feet after being hit and gain at worst, 3 or 4 yards. I simply haven't seen that ability in him.

Also, I am not suggesting that we get rid of Portis, but we need to bring in a back that can take the ball late in games and grind out first down. Warrick Dunn is having a great year in Atlanta (more yards and touchdowns than Portis) and they've got a guy there in Duckett that has the sole responsibilty to get tough yards when the D knows you are going to run. We definitly need that here...

I suppose I can support this. However, it's nowhere near 1st priority. more like 5th or 6th.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometime trying involves avoiding you weaknesses. The Skins are weak at holding on to the ball. So we avoid situations where it's difficult to do so.

After the third blown lead this season, at what point do we try something else?

Two blown leads is enough for me. I was SCREAMING at the TV for the Redskins to attempt a pass on first down yesterday. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BleedinBurgundyandGold
I suppose I can support this. However, it's nowhere near 1st priority. more like 5th or 6th.

I'm not so sure, with a TJ Duckett (for example) we win that Bucs game and probably win yesterday....not to mention the Oakland game....3 wins and we lead the division. Thats pretty important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone show me where being conservative when you have a defense who gives up as much as our does now, works in the NFL?

Yeah, our defense gave up 17 in regulation to a team that's averaging 30 points a game. That's such an awful defensive performance. :doh:

Funny, but Gibbs didn't seem to have these reservations about his offense in the first three quarters, so saying that "playing it safe" in the 4th was because of his lack of confidence is a bit questionable.

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...