Is Gibbs being conservative or protecting Brunell?

[GSF]

We've all watched Coach Gibbs go into hyper-conservative mode over the last 4 games, trying to sit on 7 point leads with over a quarter left to play. Many of us, including myself I admit, have asked, what is he doing? Can he not see what's going on here?

Thinking about it, Gibbs was far from conservative against the Broncos and Chiefs, so why now? Looking at the last 4 games, Brunell has barely thrown a pass downfield. Guys have been covered, but even when they've been open, he's been checking down. The only deep ball he threw all game yesterday was well short, but Moss made an excellent play going back for the ball.

All of this seems to coincide with Brunell hurting his hammy a few weeks ago. Anyone else notice how much the offense has looked like last year's offense in recent weeks, just a little better.

I think Gibbs is protecting Brunell, like last year. I think he's avoiding going down field b/c he does not want to expose the fact the Brunell is playing hurt, and might not be able to make the throws. He's still thrown a couple of long balls to Jacobs and Moss to keep the defense honest, but Brunell really hasn't been able to hit those. Almost all of the other throws have been short to the sides. I can't remember throwing a deep out for several games now.

I could be wrong here. Obviously this is a bit of a guess, but it is the only explanation I can come up with to the continued ultra conservative play, even when his players have told him they need to keep attacking. I think Gibbs is just trying to put as little pressure on Brunell as possible, hoping Mark can get healthy again to finish out the season. The less throws the better.

What worries me about this is that the Giants and Cowboys will see this watching film. They are going to stack up bigtime against us an make Brunell beat them. If he can't make the throws we're going to be in big trouble in those games. OTOH, if Brunell can get back to his early season form, I think we can win both of those games b/c both the Pukes and the Giants have been inconsistent on offense in recent weeks, giving up a lot of turnovers.

Brunell's health and play is really the key if we're going to make a run.

Thoughts?

[Henry]

I think our WR situation is a problem. Moss is the only one anyone worries about now.

[PCRoughrider]

There is nothing wrong with Mark Brunell.

[GSF]

I think our WR situation is a problem. Moss is the only one anyone worries about now.

Oh yeah, I agree with that, but we do have some young guys that could at least spread out the defense a little if Gibbs would them on the field. Granted, he's not going to be able to rely on those guys too much, but at least mix it up a little.

[GSF]

There is nothing wrong with Mark Brunell.

How do you know? Did anyone know he was playing hurt last year?

[jbooma]

I think our WR situation is a problem. Moss is the only one anyone worries about now.

When Royal is the man they continue to go to it shows that they D is taking Moss out and we have no other options. Yesterday on some of the 1 WR sets they had Farris out there, telling the Rams they had no intentions to throw at all. With Jacobs hurt and never showing up, we are down another WR.

[DB44]

Interesting point and I think its both. Although losing all those games and almost knocking us out of the playoffs would make a coach possibly reconsider that approach.

[myzhi]

Answer is: All the above.

When you have a conservative coach + take no chance QB, it's going to be run, run, quick / short pass, and then, punt on most drives.

[Henry]

Oh yeah, I agree with that, but we do have some young guys that could at least spread out the defense a little if Gibbs would them on the field. Granted, he's not going to be able to rely on those guys too much, but at least mix it up a little.

Go back and watch the Raiders game again. We pushing it downfield all day against them, but Jacobs simply couldn't get open against that terrible secondary. It was our worst offensive showing outside of the Giant game. I think after that, Gibbs realized he didn't have the horses to force the ball downfield anymore and started working the run game more. I think it's the right call given the circumstances. We're going to have trouble passing the ball until Thrash gets back, and by then it might be too late.

But I don't think it's Brunell. Maybe a little, but not significantly.

[jbooma]

But I don't think it's Brunell. Maybe a little, but not significantly.

According to the TV guys yesterday Brunell and the skins QB coach have went to Gibbs about opening up the O, and well we know where we stand with that

[skinsmania123]

We need to pick up a WR, and I think Price would be fine in fact. I do not think Brunell is hurt at all. But Jacobs is a bust IMO, and so is anyone else out there. But to tell you the truth it seems to me that other teams like the Giant's for example just goes to Plaxico, Jeremey and they run Tiki and that works for them. Only occasionally do they go to others...like us.

I think we can throw to Cooley more, and Moss, and actually continue to work Cartwright with Portis in the backfield. That should be sufficient really. And then occasionally throw to Royal.

.

[Destino]

Go back and watch the Raiders game again. We pushing it downfield all day against them, but Jacobs simply couldn't get open against that terrible secondary. It was our worst offensive showing outside of the Giant game. I think after that, Gibbs realized he didn't have the horses to force the ball downfield anymore and started working the run game more. I think it's the right call given the circumstances. We're going to have trouble passing the ball until Thrash gets back, and by then it might be too late.

But I don't think it's Brunell. Maybe a little, but not significantly.

Against the Raiders we an the same straight up the field route with Jacobs so much that the corner (who is insanely fast) was immediately turning and running down the field. Why didn't we run more crossing patterns or a quick stop that took advantage of the corner going full speed downfield?

The offense play calling in that game was horrible. We need to run more 3 wide out sets when teams move to take away one option. I think the problem is we are too scared of what the OL might do if we don't give them tons of help .

[Skins11]

Jacobs isn't really good at running straight down the field. He is pretty decent at running crossing routes and the like. However, yesterday, one time Jacobs had his man deep beat, and if Brunell had seen him, that would have gone for a TD. That was the play where Brunell had like 3 different guys to throw it to, all of them wide open, but he chose to run it instead. :doh:

[fansince62]

"I think our WR situation is a problem. Moss is the only one anyone worries about now."

bingo...that and pass protection!

[AlexRS]

Why didn't we run more crossing patterns or a quick stop that took advantage of the corner going full speed downfield?

yeah I was wondering about that as well. All of our throws seem to be towards sidelines. We do not seem to throw any slants, or anything towards the middle of the field, really.

[chaught76]

I don't see Jacobs making this team next year. The guy has the talent, but gets hurt to often. I don't know how much time he has left with us contract wise, but I can't see Jacobs lasting much longer with this team. Again, he has the necessary skills to be successful, but it just doesn't show up on the field when it matters, or in his case on the bench with injuries.

[AlexRS]

Maybe they just dont want anybody else to get damaged... i hear those kinds of throws have a higher chance for injury.

[318 SKIN]

I really think the problem is D cordinaters got a chance the watch 3weeks of video and realized Brunnell can't make the tuff throws down the middle of the field 15-25yds. We all complain about our #2 & 3 recievers, but one of there most important job in our system with Moss/Portis is that they keep the safties from double teaming Moss by bringing a safty over top. It also allows the ss to cheat up to stop Portis. It is not coincedence that in the first game when PR was playing Patten had several key 3rd down catches down the middle of the field. PR had the ability to keep D's honest with his arm strengh. Now, i'm not advocating starting PR - just stating a fact. All you have to do is look at how many balls Patten caught and where they where in the 3 series PR played.

[FBChick]

According to the TV guys yesterday Brunell and the skins QB coach have went to Gibbs about opening up the O, and well we know where we stand with that

And the O-line and those coaches said to run more.. which we did and we won! You ask me if we had run as much against the chargers instead of trying to salvage a dead passing game.. we would have won there too. How many third and shorts did we pass on and blow it?

There's no weird conspiracy and the problem is so blantant you guys just don't want to see it. Our backup WR's stink. That throw to Moss was right where it needed to be for Moss to make a play in the double coverage. Any deeper and it would have been intercepted by the safety, any lower intercepted by the CB.

All those throws to the outside are designed to allow the receiver to make a play while minimizing the risks of an interception. Our problem isn't the QB, but the fact that outside of Moss, we don't have a single WR who can make a play. Jacobs and Ferris have no ability to read and react to what is going on, on the field. If the play doesn't unfold the way expected.. they do nothing to help Brunell. After awhile, a QB stops trusting his 2nd and 3rd receiver and tries to salvage the play himself.

[Peregrine]

OUR WR CORE IS NOT THE PROBLEM

Santana Moss showed what we all know he is capable of... going up and getting the ball in double coverage.

THATS WHAT GOOD RECIEVERS DO

Yet we dont throw it to ANY reciever unless they are wide open. At least give our recievers a shot to make a play, youd think with Moss succes we would be a little less afraid to take some shots.

[Oldfan]

Thinking about it, Gibbs was far from conservative against the Broncos and Chiefs, so why now? Looking at the last 4 games, Brunell has barely thrown a pass downfield. Guys have been covered, but even when they've been open, he's been checking down. The only deep ball he threw all game yesterday was well short, but Moss made an excellent play going back for the ball.

I think you are mixing up two different issues. Joe Gibbs is conservative but there's more going on.

Mark Brunell was going downfield against the Broncos and Chiefs because they weren't doubling Santana. Since the Giants game, The production of the Brunell-Moss connection has dropped off sharply.

Do our other receivers stink or are they getting open but not getting the ball? I don't know how any of us could give an intelligent answer without examining game film.

318 SKIN thinks that it's because Brunell doesn't make the intermediate range throws well. He could be right. Perhaps, defenses have simply adjusted to his game and taken away his strengths.

Joe Gibbs is a conservative coach. He could afford to be when he had the best talent in the division in years past. Brunell plays the game close to the vest...which is why Joe likes him.

[Dirk Diggler]

I've found that Gibbs tends to call games according to the defense. Not the opposition's defense but rather, to our defense. When our defense is playing well, he takes fewer chances. When they are not playing so well, he tends to open things up a bit (Tampa, Denver). The overall level of competition doesn’t seem to matter. That’s why the Skins are often accused of “playing down to the competition.” If going for the kill shot means exposing the QB then Gibbs isn’t going to do it.

Look at our last 4 opponents: all of them rush the passer very well. Even St. Louis can be dangerous rushing the passer on their turf so why give them the opportunity to get after Brunell? Make their 3rd string QB beat us. Sure, some stupid writers are still going to complain that we didn’t win by enough but who cares?

Gibbs has been perfectly happy to put the game in the defense's hands in the second half of games and he will continue to do so as long as they are playing well. But this has backfired when the offense was completely stoned. If they can’t hold the ball for a couple of first downs and sustain a few drives in the second half then we will continue to blow leads (San Diego, Oakland). Had they done that, the defense would have been fresher and playing at a higher level. Some people call it “playing not to lose” but I consider it “playing to our strength: defense.”

It's conservative but with our inconsistencies on offense, it probably gives us the best chance to win. And that's all we can ask for as fans.

[jaw3232]

318 SKIN thinks that it's because Brunell doesn't make the intermediate range throws well. He could be right. Perhaps, defenses have simply adjusted to his game and taken away his strengths.

After the Skins game, I turned over to the KC/SD game. Keenan McCardell was making plays, intermediate plays, just like he used to for Brunell.

We have the Jimmy Smith piece (Moss), we don't have the McCardell piece. The upside is, the Jags never had Cooley.

[Dirtbag 28]

I think its a little of both. Brunell is off a bit, and the WRs are limited. If we get Jacobs back out there by next week, we will see more passes. But if running the ball wins the game. Keep it on the ground. I still think Farris needs to be tested more in game situations though. He was open on a number of plays yesterday!:2cents:

[GSF]

I've found that Gibbs tends to call games according to the defense. Not the opposition's defense but rather, to our defense. When our defense is playing well, he takes fewer chances. When they are not playing so well, he tends to open things up a bit (Tampa, Denver). The overall level of competition doesn’t seem to matter. That’s why the Skins are often accused of “playing down to the competition.” If going for the kill shot means exposing the QB then Gibbs isn’t going to do it.

Look at our last 4 opponents: all of them rush the passer very well. Even St. Louis can be dangerous rushing the passer on their turf so why give them the opportunity to get after Brunell? Make their 3rd string QB beat us. Sure, some stupid writers are still going to complain that we didn’t win by enough but who cares?

Gibbs has been perfectly happy to put the game in the defense's hands in the second half of games and he will continue to do so as long as they are playing well. But this has backfired when the offense was completely stoned. If they can’t hold the ball for a couple of first downs and sustain a few drives in the second half then we will continue to blow leads (San Diego, Oakland). Had they done that, the defense would have been fresher and playing at a higher level. Some people call it “playing not to lose” but I consider it “playing to our strength: defense.”

It's conservative but with our inconsistencies on offense, it probably gives us the best chance to win. And that's all we can ask for as fans.

Interesting points.