Are we really being more conservative than other teams?

[LoudMouth12thMan]

The answer is no. Any coach with a lead is going to have some level of conservative nature or mind-set in the forth quarter. Especially, if a team has a lead and is trying to control the clock, he is more inclined to run on 1st and 2nd down to try and eat clock. We throw on 3rd and short and can't get it done. It's execution not conservatism. Drop balls and penalties this week. What's it gonna be next week, a win, or more excuses for losses?

HHTR!

[PCRoughrider]

You don't "run out the clock" when you're one score up and have the entire 4th quarter to play, which is what Gibbs tried to do against the Chargers.

The Chargers kicked a field in the first minute of the 4th quarter, making the score 17-10.

The next Redskins possession, we open with 2 te, 1 hb, 1 wr, 1 rb. As I posted in another thread, this formation is horrible, particularly at this stage of the game. And Robert Royal was one of the tight ends!

With an entire quarter to play, we're trying to hold on to a 7 point lead. Even in the best of situations, one defensive mistake, and the game is tied.

If we have the lead and we score everytime they score then they can't win.

Instead of trying to run out the clock with a 7 point lead and 14 minutes to play, how 'bout trying to expand the lead?

And in that first possession after the Chargers field goal, we had 3 yard run, 2 yard run, incompletion to Robert Royal, punt. Took about a minute of the clock. :doh:

[bubba9497]

You don't "run out the clock" when you're one score up and have the entire 4th quarter to play, which is what Gibbs tried to do against the Chargers.

The Chargers kicked a field in the first minute of the 4th quarter, making the score 17-10.

The next Redskins possession, we open with 2 te, 1 hb, 1 wr, 1 rb. As I posted in another thread, this formation is horrible, particularly at this stage of the game. And Robert Royal was one of the tight ends!

With an entire quarter to play, we're trying to hold on to a 7 point lead. Even in the best of situations, one defensive mistake, and the game is tied.

If we have the lead and we score everytime they score then they can't win.

Instead of trying to run out the clock with a 7 point lead and 14 minutes to play, how 'bout trying to expand the lead?

And in that first possession after the Chargers field goal, we had 3 yard run, 2 yard run, incompletion to Robert Royal, punt. Took about a minute of the clock. :doh:

See if you don't covert third downs ... you can't be aggressive on offense.

Last week The Skins went deep ften, and got away from the run went 3 & out.... the Raiders had enough time to come down and take the lead.

This week, he didn't abandon the run... which was working through 3 quarters... but in the 4th the Skins couldn't convert the third downs. It is that simple. It isn't anything wrong with the scheme, or play calling,

When Gibbs went deep, people ****ed he should have ran more, when he runs the ball, people ***** he is too conservative..... of course if the Skins had won... nothing would have been said.

[CTaylor42]

A lot of coaches do the same thing that Joe did Sunday. Both Cowher and Parcells like to run the ball with the lead. We might of started trying to eat up the clock a little too early, but I see nothing wrong with the stategy. If we would have been throwing with 8:00 left in the game and thrown a pick for a TD. The same people that is saying we were to conservative. Would be saying, why were we throwing with the lead in the 4th quarter?

[PCRoughrider]

See if you don't covert third downs ... you can't be aggressive on offense.

Last week The Skins went deep ften, and got away from the run went 3 & out.... the Raiders had enough time to come down and take the lead.

This week, he didn't abandon the run... which was working through 3 quarters... but in the 4th the Skins couldn't convert the third downs. It is that simple. It isn't anything wrong with the scheme, or play calling,

When Gibbs went deep, people ****ed he should have ran more, when he runs the ball, people ***** he is too conservative..... of course if the Skins had won... nothing would have been said.

...but with Joe Gibbs as coach, a lead in the fourth quarter and that terrible formation, the defense knows we're going to run. All they have to concern themselves with is that 3rd down pass because they can just go where the running back goes on first and second and stop it. And the numbers are in their favor, the back is running and the qb isn't going to block so they outnumber us 11-9. And of course, they have only one running back to attack.

How about running on first or second with 2 or 3 wideouts? If you make the defense think you might pass, running the ball is actually easier. Or heaven forbid, passing on first or second occasionally!!!

But the biggest problem, I think, is that formation.

I watched the Colts tonight. They had a 16 point lead in the fourth quarter. When they tried to run out the clock, they had two wideouts and they actually passed the ball out of that formation, while trying to run out the clock.

[Chrisbob74]

When the Skins have a lead, they have gotten predictable and conservative IMO.

VS the Chargers, once the 10 point lead was gained, it was 1st down - run, 2nd down - run, 3rd down pass. The Chargers could see it coming and so could I. I'd like to see a bit more aggressive play calling in those situations.

[santanamoss89]

were conservative

[Thiebear]

Being conservative or not changes when personnel changes occur.

Rogers came in and gave a spark.

Brian Kozlowski has come in 2 times with 2 catches for 8/18. Royals gotta go.

I was the fickled fan that screamed we gotta run it more.

I was the fickled fan that screamed were running it too much.

(but I was fickled about it because I could call it.. there was no surprise).

[sydshobob]

This says it all...

"Our goal is to try to hold it on offense in that situation, and don't give it back," Gibbs said of the fourth-quarter play-calling. "Run time off the clock and protect the lead. We need to average more than that when we're rushing the football."

I think trying to use up 15 minutes of clock with a 7 point lead is a little preposterous - especially with this offense. The goal should be to SCORE - and that's where the problem lies. End of story.

[Mister Happy]

We end up passing on 3rd down in the conservative mode anyway. The difference between 2 runs and 2 passes is maybe 40 seconds, so the worst case scenario clockwise is that you give up 40 seconds.

Really, the difference between run-run-pass-punt and mixing it up is only 1 extra pass or none, which would be 20 seconds or less.

We had just marched down the field on a 5 minutes 79 yard touchdown drive. Brunell hadn't thrown an interception in the last 9 quarters. What is the big risk of sticking with what was working? Is 20 seconds of a 15 minute quarter really worth abandoning your gameplan for?

Frankly, to me, the bigger risk is giving up the chance of a first down by going with the run-run-pass. All you do is give the #2 scoring offense the ball and good field position for another chance to tie the game.

When the #1 run defense knows you are going to run the ball, you have a very low probability for success. At least throw in a play action pass in there and catch them by surprise.

[SonnyRules]

When Gibbs went deep, people ****ed he should have ran more, when he runs the ball, people ***** he is too conservative..... of course if the Skins had won... nothing would have been said.

It's amazing how some folks change their thought process from week to week...simple knee jerk reactions.

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

I'm comfortable with our game plan towards the 2nd half. But it isn't that us being conservative is the problem, its the lack of a 2nd receiver worth throwing to. If Jacobs and Ferris really step up down the stretch(which they've shown the ability to do) we will be fine. Although I would like to see a much more aggressive approach in the 1st quarter. Because as we have seen with our defense late in the 4th quarter lately, we could use all of the points we can get.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

This says it all...

"Our goal is to try to hold it on offense in that situation, and don't give it back," Gibbs said of the fourth-quarter play-calling. "Run time off the clock and protect the lead. We need to average more than that when we're rushing the football."

I think trying to use up 15 minutes of clock with a 7 point lead is a little preposterous - especially with this offense. The goal should be to SCORE - and that's where the problem lies. End of story.

End of story?? OK, close the thread!!

Gibbs does what any coach this side of Mike Martz does, he gets more conservative (not TOO conservative) with the lead late in the game. Don't think for a minute that the Redskins were realistically attempting to burn 15 minutes off the clock in one drive. They were trying to slow things down WHILE gaining yardage. They don't run plays with the intention of not gaining yards. Anyone who believes that is just not thinking clearly!

Even on last night's MNF broadcast, Madden and Michaels talked about the different coaches who slow things down and milk the clock when holding a lead late in the game. There's a reason people get so frustrated with coaches like Martz, he tends to get too aggressive late in games sometimes.

Anyway, the point is, Gibbs ran the types of plays that 90% of coaches around the NFL run in those types of situations. Conservative, predictable play-calling does not keep us from executing. We had dropped passes, head-scratching throw-aways, dumb penalties, and some bad blocking during several of our 4th quarter plays so the LAST thing I'd blame for this meltdown would be the plays that were called.

[RedskinzOwnU]

we'll find out how conservative we are when we play one of the worst defenses in the league on sunday

[scrol14]

I feel the conservatism deals with the type of runs we are trying. Hand off left guard, then hand off right guard. It seems to me when you desperately need to keep the clock running you would have a run type play that will pick up a few yards.

It also seemed to me that Portis was open on a few of the 3rd and shorts and Brunell didnt see him except for the one he threw behind line of scrimmage.

Another thing that amazes me: We send 8 on a blitz and everybody gets picked up. Colts had a four man rush early in the game and got Ben, and it wasnt one guy that broke free it was 3 of them.

When they blitz Brunell its all over but the crying

It just seems like our execution and recognition is way off at times. B/C when we start moving the ball our offense looks like a well oiled machine.

[Ball Coach]

It seems to me that against the Raiders, we passed too much and should have run the ball more. Now this week we ran too much and should have passed more. The good teams can move the ball and take time off the clock even when the other teams know what they are going to do.

The Redskins just aren't there yet, it has very little to do with 'conservative' play calling.

[sydshobob]

There's no doubt they were "conservative". His quote states that quite clearly. They weren't trying to build their lead, they weren't hoping for a big play, they were hoping the clock would run out before the Chargers caught them. Nobody can possibly argue that they weren't conservative.

Now, is it right or wrong? My feeling is that if you have a 7 point lead against a team like the Chargers, and your defense has shown a tremedous propensity for giving up big plays at critical times and not being able to protect a lead, you're setting yourself up for failure. Sure they might have kept them from scoring, but they didn't. And they haven't done it 3 weeks in a row.

The odds were against them - big time! That's why everyone is reacting this way. Now if they had started passing and thrown a pick for a TD (like McNabb vs. Cowboys), a lot of the same people would say he should have been running the ball. That's being irrational. My point is, the season is on the line, your chances of protecting this VERY slim lead are poor, you've proven you haven't been able to execute this aspect of the game - why put yourself in that position. Why keep running the ball when you've proven all day that the only way you can move it is by passing (and passing well on 2 TD drives!)?

I don't care what Parcells or Martz or anyone else does. I want to see a coach - any coach of the Redskins - go for the freaking throat for a change. The pass was working, the run was not. That was obvious from the 1st quarter on. Even if you do want to just take time off the clock and you're not trying to score (still a mind-boggling strategy - do you think you'd ever hear Peyton Manning say they weren't trying to score with a 7 point lead?), you use up clock by getting first downs, not by running the ball. It doesn't matter how you get the first downs. Run plays that will get them. Yes, they failed to execute and got penalties and all that - even more reason to roll the dice a little if that's what you want to call it. They're not a very good team - do something different!

What's more, once they took over at the 31 after the interception, they even managed to leave the Bolts with 30+ seconds to move into FG range after trying an impossibly long FG with a half-healthy kicker! Luckily they didn't manage to get in range but the Skins awesome clock killing allowed enough time for 2 scores and a hail mary. Who thinks that's acceptable?

End of story?? OK, close the thread!!

Gibbs does what any coach this side of Mike Martz does, he gets more conservative (not TOO conservative) with the lead late in the game. Don't think for a minute that the Redskins were realistically attempting to burn 15 minutes off the clock in one drive. They were trying to slow things down WHILE gaining yardage. They don't run plays with the intention of not gaining yards. Anyone who believes that is just not thinking clearly!

Even on last night's MNF broadcast, Madden and Michaels talked about the different coaches who slow things down and milk the clock when holding a lead late in the game. There's a reason people get so frustrated with coaches like Martz, he tends to get too aggressive late in games sometimes.

Anyway, the point is, Gibbs ran the types of plays that 90% of coaches around the NFL run in those types of situations. Conservative, predictable play-calling does not keep us from executing. We had dropped passes, head-scratching throw-aways, dumb penalties, and some bad blocking during several of our 4th quarter plays so the LAST thing I'd blame for this meltdown would be the plays that were called.

[Destino]

See if you don't covert third downs ... you can't be aggressive on offense.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. Another is you can’t get first downs if you aren’t the least bit aggressive. Look at how the skins play when they have to score, and compare it to how they play when they have the lead in the 4th. We can move the ball on ANYONE when we want to, which is why everyone points at the coaching staff for choking at the end.

Last week The Skins went deep ften, and got away from the run went 3 & out.... the Raiders had enough time to come down and take the lead.

This week, he didn't abandon the run... which was working through 3 quarters... but in the 4th the Skins couldn't convert the third downs. It is that simple. It isn't anything wrong with the scheme, or play calling,

When Gibbs went deep, people ****ed he should have ran more, when he runs the ball, people ***** he is too conservative..... of course if the Skins had won... nothing would have been said.

The problem wasn’t that the skins went deep. The problem was that the skins decided to go deep on a Jacobs go route that was covered every time Mark Brunell over threw it….and they kept going back to the same ineffective play.

When people say they want the skins to play more aggressive they don’t mean throw it 8 yards over a covered receivers head. They mean change it up a little and keep the defense guessing. Running on 1st and 2nd only to predictably throw it on 3rd doesn’t work, I don’t know how many more times it has to fail for people to understand that.

[Destino]

The answer is no. Any coach with a lead is going to have some level of conservative nature or mind-set in the forth quarter. Especially, if a team has a lead and is trying to control the clock, he is more inclined to run on 1st and 2nd down to try and eat clock. We throw on 3rd and short and can't get it done. It's execution not conservatism. Drop balls and penalties this week. What's it gonna be next week, a win, or more excuses for losses?

HHTR!

Sorry amigo but you are dead wrong. The answer is clearly and obviously YES. A one score lead with a defense that is prone to giving up the big play is not enough. Going into conservative mode with a one score lead and an entire quarter left to play, is suicidal.

[DC_Native,NC_Fan]

Sorry amigo but you are dead wrong. The answer is clearly and obviously YES. A one score lead with a defense that is prone to giving up the big play is not enough. Going into conservative mode with a one score lead and an entire quarter left to play, is suicidal.

Man, am I glad to have a 7,000 plus poster to back me up. :laugh:

You hit it right on the noggin. When you're up by 3 or 7 points with ten-plus minutes left, why would you suddenly change the playcalling to conservative don't-lose ball? Whether it be Joe Gibbs or Joe Mama, it just doesn't make sense.

Everyone, repeat after me: "You can criticize a decision made by Joe Gibbs and still be a true Redskins fan. You can criticize a decision made by Joe Gibbs and still be a true Redskins fan. You can criticize a decision made by Joe Gibbs and still be a true Redskins fan. You can criticize a decision made by Joe Gibbs and still be a true Redskins fan."

[Bonez3]

No, the answer is no.

[LoudMouth12thMan]

Repeat after me: "you can still be a moron and not realize how good Joe Gibbs is as a coach." You can't be a Redskins fan and not be a Gibbs fan. Its like saying I love the meat but I hate the butcher...comprende' amigos! :0)

HTTR!