Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Thoughts on Gibbs, Brunell, and why that was the perfect way to win a game...


Dirk Diggler

Recommended Posts

In the past 16 hours, I can't even count how many times I've read or heard "There's no way they can win in Seattle with this kind of offense." This is up there with "In order to win, the Redskins need to score more points than Seattle." TJ punctuated this by suggesting there's no way we win in Seattle next week.

But you won't be seeing that offense in Seattle. 120 yards/game hasn't been the norm, even if Tom Jackson and the rest of the mediots want to act like it is. We've had a good, balanced offense all season. Assuming we have Portis relatively healthy, you will see an offense next week that generates about 330 yards and the 21-24 points that it will take to be in the game.

I've made the point a number of times that Gibbs has always played to the defense since he's been here. Playing to the strength of the team is simply solid, egoless coaching. It's why Brunell is in and Ramsey is not. Gibbs feels that Ramsey can compromise the defense by turning the ball over and taking sacks. Perhaps he's sacrificing some yardage and even some points, but it's obvious that it puts us in the best position TO WIN and that's all that matters.

I turned to my brother when we were up 14-3 and I said "Gibbs is going to put the offense in the bag." And he did. He got even more conservative when Portis went down because he doesn't trust Betts to pick up the blitz. It wasn't pretty but it was enough to win the game. With the exceptions of the Brunell INT and the shank, we made them go the length of the field and they could only do it once. If we're in Seattle up 2 scores early, I can GUARANTEE you that he handles the offense differently i.e. calls a less conservative game.

While my blood pressure would indicate differently, this was a great way to win. The Seahawks watch TV. They see and hear the talk. They will hear every "expert" on the planet picking them to roll over us. The public already thinks we don't have a chance (9 point spread). I love it. They think we'll be bringing that same offense into Seattle. But they won't find out they're wrong until Saturday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact we won so handily against the Bucs with so little from the offense, says more about the strength of this team, than weakness.

It's not like the Skins offense has been bad all season, heck the last 3 games against 3 good defenses (and NFC East teams) we avg. 33 pts. a game, and Portis had 5 straight 100+ yard games... come on.. this is not going to happen against Seattle.

and the Seahawks defense is not the bucs defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But will Portis be better?? And they did score 36 on us the last time we played. I agree the conservative pound the ball approach was the right one but we cut it sooooooo close.

We will have to have significant improvement. One bad offensive game does not mean we're terrible as others are stating but it was bad......not jus conservative.

We just gave them so many opportunities with three and outs in the second half. I felt relief, not elation when we finished on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone said the same thing after the Arizona game. Gibbs did enough to win, just like in that game. No need to take chances throwing the ball or breaking out exotic gameplans when you're ahead and your D is playing lights out. You won't see the same type of performance against the Seachickens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree w/ ur post....we wouldn't want to lose portis by keep putting him in with that shoulder sting and yeah....betts might have allowed the blitz to come through clean if we were to throw....i'm satisfied with this win! yeah i almost had 4 heart attacks but thats just something everyone has to deal with while watching football...esp watching a team u love

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post.... totally agree. We did what we needed to win..

If this had been a game pre-Gibbs... (granted, not in the playoffs, but during regular season)... I have a question.. WOULD WE HAVE WON?

No. We wouldn't have. Pre-Gibbs skins didn't have faith in each other.

These guys do. One team is having a tough time, another picks it up a notch.

That's what Gibbs teams do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I turned to my brother when we were up 14-3 and I said "Gibbs is going to put the offense in the bag." And he did. He got even more conservative when Portis went down because he doesn't trust Betts to pick up the blitz. It wasn't pretty but it was enough to win the game. With the exceptions of the Brunell INT and the shank, we made them go the length of the field and they could only do it once. If we're in Seattle up 2 scores early, I can GUARANTEE you that he handles the offense differently i.e. calls a less conservative game.

Actually, Sonny said something like this on NBC4 after the game, that the defense was part of the reason that Gibbs was so conservative with his playcalling. Also, if you saw the pre-game show, Suzy Kolber said, when talking about Shawn Springs not playing, according to the defense, their gameplan was so good that they could by without Springs this week and get him back for the Seahawks.

That would also tie into why the playcalling was so conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rushes 31

Passing 16

Ever see a game with those stats?

They did it on purpose. Of course they would have liked to score more, or made more progress. But how much can you expect, when the #1 D in the league knows we are going to run?

3.1 yards a carry against the #1 D is ownage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Sonny said something like this on NBC4 after the game, that the defense was part of the reason that Gibbs was so conservative with his playcalling. Also, if you saw the pre-game show, Suzy Kolber said, when talking about Shawn Springs not playing, according to the defense, their gameplan was so good that they could by without Springs this week and get him back for the Seahawks.

That would also tie into why the playcalling was so conservative.

That and they ran Betts so much, and sat Portis more.

Portis can play hurt, and I bet he would have had no problem running every play they ran.

But I think Gibbs was looking forward to the Seahawks, after a 14 point lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rushes 31

Passing 16

Ever see a game with those stats?

They did it on purpose. Of course they would have liked to score more, or made more progress. But how much can you expect, when the #1 D in the league knows we are going to run?

3.1 yards a carry against the #1 D is ownage!

We can continue to play this way on offense as long as we continue to have the leads and get scores/turnovers from the defense. I am confident that under these circumstances, we can continue to find ways to win football games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media are hypocrites...

THey change opinions overnight!

Then: They were saying The offense has really been rolling, rushing over 100yds in the last 5 games and avg 30+ points a game over the last 3 games heading into the playoffs.

Now: They are saying how weak the offense is after one game against the #1 ranked defense. Only amassing 125yds of total offense.

The only good analysis of the tampa game was given by the "playbook" crew who pointed out the exceptional play of the redskins defense and "Baldy" who actually picked the bucs to win said that we would see a better offense against the seahawks because the offense simply had to manage the game against a bucs offense that gave up turnovers.

I like being underdogs.. There is a satifying feeling knowing that they made a bold prediction on national televeision and now have to put their foot in their mouth.

(Woody Paige) ( Chris Carter ) etc.. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've told alot of other people... People forget that we've put up 35 against the GMen and the 'Boys, 52 against SF and 31 against the Eagles. We have some games where we cannot move the football. The Tampa game was one of those. Tampa's D is outstanding.

It goes without saying that if we don't get yards when we need them in Seattle we aren't going to win... Mainly because you have to score points to win games. It's not rocket science. But remember, the offense did what it had to when it had to (Portis 5 yd td run).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont know guys. while i know the skins wont be as bad offensively next week against the hawks, im a bit concerned. im worried teams have figured us out. skins didnt do so well offensively against the eagles either. we had to rely alot on our defense to beat the eagles. we arent always going to get the turnovers. especially from a good offense like the hawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That and they ran Betts so much, and sat Portis more.

Portis can play hurt, and I bet he would have had no problem running every play they ran.

But I think Gibbs was looking forward to the Seahawks, after a 14 point lead.

Not to be the negative one here, but do you really think gibbs thought we had the game in the bag? The same guy who took San Fran seriously? He did almost the same playcalling the entire second half when we were only up 7.

Now gibbs did do enough to win, but if shephard made that catch and we couldnt score, we may be saying some of the things we had earlier in the season about closing out a game.

But he did do enough and like someone said earlier, we played to our strengths. That's a great point, and like he said before thats why brunell was in. And you guys are right. (sorry if it looks like im contradicting myself) His play calling reflected his strategy and his strategy worked. You cant do much better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Sonny said something like this on NBC4 after the game, that the defense was part of the reason that Gibbs was so conservative with his playcalling. Also, if you saw the pre-game show, Suzy Kolber said, when talking about Shawn Springs not playing, according to the defense, their gameplan was so good that they could by without Springs this week and get him back for the Seahawks.

That would also tie into why the playcalling was so conservative.

Well, I live in Jersey so I don't get to see the local TV. I did see the Kolber thing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether your offense is conversative or aggressive, you still need execution.

Of Brunell's 15 attempts, only 7 were completed for only 41 yards with an interception. I have no problem with Brunell only throwing 15 passes over the course of the game if the team can continue to create defensive turnovers, giving us a short field, and the running game can continue to chew some time off of the clock.

The offense, (passing offense in particular) has to execute better. Hopefully, that will take place next weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made the point a number of times that Gibbs has always played to the defense since he's been here. Playing to the strength of the team is simply solid, egoless coaching. It's why Brunell is in and Ramsey is not. Gibbs feels that Ramsey can compromise the defense by turning the ball over and taking sacks. Perhaps he's sacrificing some yardage and even some points, but it's obvious that it puts us in the best position TO WIN and that's all that matters.

I turned to my brother when we were up 14-3 and I said "Gibbs is going to put the offense in the bag." And he did. He got even more conservative when Portis went down because he doesn't trust Betts to pick up the blitz. It wasn't pretty but it was enough to win the game. With the exceptions of the Brunell INT and the shank, we made them go the length of the field and they could only do it once. If we're in Seattle up 2 scores early, I can GUARANTEE you that he handles the offense differently i.e. calls a less conservative game.

While my blood pressure would indicate differently, this was a great way to win. The Seahawks watch TV. They see and hear the talk. They will hear every "expert" on the planet picking them to roll over us. The public already thinks we don't have a chance (9 point spread). I love it. They think we'll be bringing that same offense into Seattle. But they won't find out they're wrong until Saturday.

I agree that Gibbs' conservative game plan was completely dictated by the circumstances, and it was the right call (I love playing Monday morning QB, it's so easy). Still- let's not go overboard and say it was Gibbs' plan to go 3-and-out so many times. Credit to the Bucs D for making big stops and giving Chrissy Simms as many opportunities as possible to get tipped passes intercepted. I credit Chrissy for having a good arm but the mocking of Carlos Rogers was pretty stupid. Also, I wonder why Gruden didn't go deep a couple more times much earlier; probably the Sean Taylor effect, but why not get that stupid Edell Shepherd (who is apparently a problem for us, esp when our CBs are all banged up and our FS is out) deep with Galloway as a decoy like they did late? I'm not sure, but regardless, the Skins O got shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a lot of fans, especially the younger ones, just need some perspective. In '87, when we won it all, we got to the Super Bowl by beating the Bears in Chicago 21-17 and then beating the Vikings at home 17-10 (score sound familiar?). Do you think those games weren't nail-biters? Of course they were. If it weren't for #28, we wouldn't have made it out of Chicago. Despite the low scores of the first two games, that didn't stop us from putting up 42 on the Broncos. A win is a win, and an ugly one on the road against a stout defense is just about the best you can hope for.

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...