I just owned myself. Go ahead, laugh at me.

[gca61087]

Let's take a look at those 80's/'92 Superbowl teams...in order of importance.

1. They had the most dominate offensive line in football, perhaps of all time. The hogs obliterated any defensive line they faced. There really was no answer to these guys. They gave Gibbs the ability to control the clock and tempo of the game.

2. They had a series of great runningbacks. Riggo especially. These guys were constantly expected to, and did, carry the ball 30-40 times a game. Behind the hogs anybody looked good, and they dominated on the ground

3. Gary Clark and Art Monk. Self explanitory.

4. Quarterbacks that managed games, but had the ability to play lights out. Doug Williams is the perfect example here.

5. A defense that held its own behind the most dominate offense in the game.

I'm sorry, but I could have fallen a**-backwards into a superbowl with those teams. What a complicated gameplan. Run 40 times behind the best offensive line in football, and throw 20-25 times with great success off play action. I'll give Gibbs the credit for mentoring his young QB's and getting them ready to play though. He is perhaps the best at it and that's why it scares me that we haven't seen Campbell. Either Gibbs has failed at progressing him, or JC doesn't have it.

Now, when faced with adversity, what can Gibbs do with a struggling offense? Nothing. Now in his third year, the offense has remained stagnant.

Even last year when we went 10-6, that was very rarely due to great offensive play. Our defense was great and kept us in games. Until our last 3 huge wins, the offense only scored more that 21 points 3 times out of 13 games. 52 against SF, 24 against St. Louis, and 35 against Tampa. St. Louis and SF were bottom-tier defenses.

You can't get away with running the ball 40 times behind this line. I love Joe's philosophy, but when it was unsuccessful he showed no ability to change and adapt to his current talent. He's had the same problem in the past too. It took a career ending injury to replace the struggling Theismann.

Thus led to the hiring of Al Saunders (thats right, Gibbs was REPLACED), whose system has fallen victim to Brunell's inability to strech the field and open up those screens that everyone complains about. If we had anything resembling a downfield threat, the underneath plays and running game would open up, and you would see this offense start to roll. Santana especially is great making plays after the catch on underneath routes and screens. ARE would greatly benefit here too. Since we have playmaking recievers and a great offensive mind at coordinator, the blame falls on Brunell and the line.

Because teams know we have such a hard going deep, they just blitz and take away the underneath routes. There is rarely more than one safety deep, and the deep routes are often in man-to-man coverage. This should be easily recognized throughout the game and with halftime adjustments. The problem is, we have nothing to adjust to. The only answer here is a QB change. We have seen what Brunell's limitations, which I admit are partially due to protection, have done to this offense. He makes us completely one dimensional. Whether it be Campbell or Collins, I don't care. We just need to give teams something else to gameplan for.

This offense has become so predictable it's pathetic. I'm sure i'm not the only one who can sit at home and call out exactly whats coming. I'm right about 70% of the time, so imagine what professional defensive coordinators are getting. I'm 19 with no coaching experince, and I'm calling the skins out on 3 out of 4 plays.

For everyone who will immediately reply calling out the O-line: I can probably count on two hands the number of great throws Brunell has made with protection. And also, he causes his protection to break down alot of the time by dropping back WAY too far. He has no pocket presence and is afraid to stand in there and, god forbid, take a hit while delivering the football. Not to mention our blocking schemes are just stupid most of the time. We'll strand TE's against DE's and not help with the edge rushers. Last year we ran alot of max protect (8 men blocking) to solve this problem. This falls on Bugel, not the players.

For everyone who will immediatley reply calling out the defense: They have had flashes of great play. Overall, I think they have played decently enough to win games, but have given up WAY too many big plays that have killed us. The Eagles game was a perfect example.

Last week we were already down 17-3 before half but had held McNabb to like 4-16 for 132 yards and the 2 TD. With the exception of the big plays, we were OWNING him. The Eagles started twice in our territory near the end of the half and they were shut down. That kind of play is what is supposed to fire up an offense. They were unable to produce and we went in the half still down 14. An offense that has put up 3 points on the road against your division rivals will win you NO games, regardless of how the defense does.

For any Brunell supporters left: Last week's performance destroyed and credible defense of him.

For Joe Gibbs: Brunell goes, Bugel goes, and instill some discipline in your defense.

The quarterback needs to change and you need to get someone in there that will get this offensive line playing Redskins football, or atleast get them protecting well enough to let Saunders' system succeed. If this defense stops giving up the big plays, they will look alot better and get us back in games. Those three decsions are on YOU Joe Gibbs. I refuse to believe that you will sit and watch the franchise that you made prestegious fall into mediocrity or worse. I am calling you out Joe. Give your fans and your players something to believe in.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think you'd look less idiotic if you did some research.

Show me the games where our running backs carried the ball 40 times. I'll check back in a little while. Also, you seem to be lumping the entire 12 year run into one team...as if we didn't have turnover or anything. The Hogs from 82 were almost all gone by 92.

Basically, we shouldn't detract from what Gibbs accomplished just because he might be struggling during his second stint.

[Bat~man]

your 19 years old? well if i am too young to really remember a lot of those days them im sure you are way to young ..... i remember being good and yea they were good .... they arent now so what

[dwbiggs]

1. They had the most dominate offensive line in football, perhaps of all time. The hogs obliterated any defensive line they faced. There really was no answer to these guys. They gave Gibbs the ability to control the clock and tempo of the game.

Wrong....can you say LT and the D-line of the Eagles with Reggie White.

[Betterman]

I dont have the attention span to read posts that long....sorry:silly:

[Major Harris]

Basically, we shouldn't detract from what Gibbs accomplished just because he might be struggling during his second stint.

this was the one fear that sat way in the back of my head when gibbs came back. could he tarnish his legacy? he won't in my mind, but.....

[Destino]

oh man :doh:

DIAF

[Major Harris]

Wrong....can you say LT and the D-line of the Eagles with Reggie White.

he was talking about o-lines.....

[PeterMP]

The other thing is you act like it was one OL. The OL changed. How many times do see one great OL merge into another?

If anything, Gibbs has adjusted to talent better than anybody (at least the first time around). An offense with Riggins, Theisman, and the fun bunch was very different than the offense with Byner, Rypien, and the posse. Riggins was a powerback, Byner never was, and his best years were in Cleveland before he got here. Theisman couldn't throw the deep ball like Ryp, but he was more mobile (at least early in his career).

I mean at 19, I know you can't remember so ask somebody that does before you start spouting nonsense.

Also, did I miss the Ernest Byner HOF induction? Did miss the induction of all of those great OL and defensive players? Clearly, the impression amongst the experts is that Gibbs did more with less than the likes of Walsh.

[Burgold]

I would point you to look at some of the Vikings teams. There are too many teams to count with great talent that go nowhere. Look at Marty's teams too. Gibbs was a genius at the half-time adjustment. He retooled his philosophy based on the teams' strengths and weaknesses and out chessed almost everyone he fought. While there should be, there is not a single Hog who made it to the HOF. Your argument is laughable.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

this was the one fear that sat way in the back of my head when gibbs came back. could he tarnish his legacy? he won't in my mind, but.....

I'm right there with you.

Seeing how this is probably going to turn out (so far one good year and two bad ones), I'm almost to the point where I wish he'd have stayed retired. At least then, we could always think back about how perfect a coach Joe was. Even if the thinking was flawed, there was no evidence to prove us wrong. Now that he'll probably end up coaching two losing teams in three years (after only having ONE losing record in his first tenure), it's going to be tough to think of the "good old days" without also thinking about this failed experiment.

[NoCalMike]

People forget, before the salary cap era, EVERY TEAM was a well built machine, so when the Redskins were making the playoffs and winning superbowls they were doing so against the other big-time money machines of that era. People act like the Redskins were the only team that spent money before the salary cap. It's BS.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Wow that was embarrasing, I do feel sorry for you kid

Joe Gibbs had to answer Lawrence Taylor. You want "adversity" in one player LT was able to wreck what Gibbs had brought in. Along came the two TE system

Gibbs won the Superbowl with 3 different QB's. The game plan was never run 40 times and take a few shots, you seem to be inferring a 2000 Baltimore Ravens type team

Wrong. 1989-3 WR's over 1,000 yards recieving

1986- 4,000 yard passer in Jay Schroeder

1991 and 1983- highest scoring offenses in the NFL, with the 1983 scoring an NFL record 541 points

[dwbiggs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dwbiggs

Wrong....can you say LT and the D-line of the Eagles with Reggie White.

he was talking about o-lines.....

I thought he was claiming that the Hogs dominated everyone and nobody had an answer to them.

[PF Chang]

I'm right there with you.

Seeing how this is probably going to turn out (so far one good year and two bad ones), I'm almost to the point where I wish he'd have stayed retired. At least then, we could always think back about how perfect a coach Joe was. Even if the thinking was flawed, there was no evidence to prove us wrong. Now that he'll probably end up coaching two losing teams in three years (after only having ONE losing record in his first tenure), it's going to be tough to think of the "good old days" without also thinking about this failed experiment.

Bad, but worse is the feeling that we had right before Joe and that is now multiplied: who can fix this franchise? If we are 3-6 with Joe Gibbs...who could fix this?

[Robbnva]

Brunell does drop back way to much and I think that does make it harder for the o-line to block because it gives them more Angles to work, however they can still block better.

Our defense is horrible. We lead the league is the most 40+ pass plays in the NFL. This makes it easy for the other teams to gameplan for doesn't it. You can park a couple of school busses in the cushion our CB's give the other team's WR. No Interceptions and not that many if at all Real good forced fumbles.

You say flashes of greatness.... I say even the sun shines on a Dog's A** somedays.

[USS Redskins]

Gibbs won 3 bowls with Gibbs style football - run, protect the QB and let Ritchie Petitbone's D run itself. He won 3 bowls with 3 very different QB's - never done.

If you want to call out a coach for not being all that his rep is - call out Bill Walsh - he had Joe Freaking Montana and Jerry Rice and Roger Craig - the same players were there for all 4 Superbowls! (I think - Rice may not have been there for the 1st) - but there was more continuity on 49ers skill positions.

Gibbs had: Theismann, Riggins (17 & loss in 18), Williams, Smith (22) and Rypien, Byner (26). For Gibbs football, the QB and RB are the keys - he ran the offenses based on their strengths.

[IHOPSkins]

I would add Montana's O-line to the list (49ers)

They were good and underated

[Baculus]

I'm sorry, but I could have fallen a**-backwards into a superbowl with those teams. What a complicated gameplan. Run 40 times behind the best offensive line in football, and throw 20-25 times with great success off play action

I'd suggeset to do a bit more watching of game tapes from that time period. There was a most definite adjustment of the early-to-mid 80's "Riggo" and Theisman 'Skins team and the later late 80's - early 90's 'Skins team, with a more pass-oriented system. (Though the earlier decade team definitely did not lack a lot of passing...) It is somewhat of a myth that Gibbs teams were purely run-oriented when some of his schemes actually more so resembled a modern passing team with its aggressive downfield attacking. For example, the "bunch" formation that you see a lot today is a Gibbs innovation in the passing game. And never mind Gibbs heavy use of shifts and movement, another trade mark of modern offenses. Whenever I watch John Gruden's game planning, I am immediately reminded of a Gibbs' system. (Gruden has acknowledge that he has been heavily influenced by Gibbs.)

The reason why Gibbs was able to win with multiple quarterbacks was due to his ability to scheme for the personnel at hand. It was due to merely pounding behind the Hogs and play action (though both of these strategies were a part of the Gibbs system). You also have to take into consideration the manner in which Gibbs changed after he came from San Diego and the more pass-oriented Coryell system, especially in his first year in D.C., and how he developed and tweaked his Gibbs-Coryell system with modifications such as the H-back. Also, he developed multiple tight-end schemes, using one, two, and even three, that are still used to this day.

Gibbs has always been about innovation - let's not forget that. And let's not just think of Riggo and the Hogs as the extent of his offensive system: It's far from it. That is probably why a lot of fans who watched Gibbs the first time around were a bit puzzled because, while Gibbs did sometimes have conservative formations he used a fair bit, such as the max-protect/two-wide formations, he also had innovate offensive attacks. We rarely saw the flashes of the Old Gibbs in his game planning over the last two years. (Or we didn't see enough, I should say...) Maybe this is due to the shorter game clock; maybe he listened to everyone who said his system couldn't still work. Or perhaps he has just lost some of his flair - I dunno. It happens to the best, so it is hard to tell.

Let's not forget, though, that Gibbs, in his day, was just as innovate as Al Saunders.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bad, but worse is the feeling that we had right before Joe and that is now multiplied: who can fix this franchise? If we are 3-6 with Joe Gibbs...who could fix this?

I understand your concern, but this is something I think is overblown.

I think there are probably several candidates that could fix this issue. I don't see any reason why we couldn't bring in a young coordinator (Grimm for example) and redefine ourselves.

Just because Gibbs had the golden touch in the 80s and 90s doesn't mean that we're doomed to flounder forever because he couldn't drop everything and bail us out at the age of 65. The man has accomplished too much and has been through a lot to be expected to eat, drink, breathe, and sleep football again.

Hopefully his successor will be someone who can do this and is hungry to climb the mountain.

[PF Chang]

I understand your concern, but this is something I think is overblown.

I think there are probably several candidates that could fix this issue. I don't see any reason why we couldn't bring in a young coordinator (Grimm for example) and redefine ourselves.

Just because Gibbs had the golden touch in the 80s and 90s doesn't mean that we're doomed to flounder forever because he couldn't drop everything and bail us out at the age of 65. The man has accomplished too much and has been through a lot to be expected to eat, drink, breathe, and sleep football again.

Hopefully his successor will be someone who can do this and is hungry to climb the mountain.

Tough to argue with that. I think it is just a knee-jerk reaction to what I've seen since Norv. That feeling of rock-bottom...well, at least there is nowhere to go but up.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Tough to argue with that. I think it is just a knee-jerk reaction to what I've seen since Norv. That feeling of rock-bottom...well, at least there is nowhere to go but up.

I've had the same feelings...don't get me wrong. I've just spent more time than a normal person thinking about the Redskins during my life and I'm sometimes able to take a step back and think about things objectively.

As funny as it is, Snyder's best hire so far might turn out to be Spurrier. Spurrier did a woeful job here but at least he was an up-and-coming coaching genius at the time. Every other decision was of the quick fix/short term variety. Don't get me wrong, he missed on Spurrier, but at least his intention was to get a coach who could be the figurehead of the Redskins for 10 years.

Marty and Gibbs were brought in to fix it now with Snyder having to know that they couldn't stay around for too long.

[gca61087]

I think you'd look less idiotic if you did some research.

Show me the games where our running backs carried the ball 40 times. I'll check back in a little while. Also, you seem to be lumping the entire 12 year run into one team...as if we didn't have turnover or anything. The Hogs from 82 were almost all gone by 92.

Basically, we shouldn't detract from what Gibbs accomplished just because he might be struggling during his second stint.

'83 Superbowl:

Riggins - 38 carries for 166 yards.

Harmon - 9 carries for 40 yards

Other - 5 carries for 70 yards

Total: 52 Carries, 276 yards. Theismann had 23 pass attempts.

'87 Superbowl:

Smith - 22 carries for 202 yards.

Bryant - 8 carries for 38 yards.

Rogers - 5 carries for 17 yards.

Other - 5 carries 25 yards.

Total: 40 carries, 282 yards. Williams had 29 pass attempts.

Most of the hogs were gone by '92, but they still ran more than they passed.

Got a reply for that? I'm obviously the idiot so you must have one.

[kwitt]

What garbage. You are really showing your age. If you want to criticize Gibbs II go ahead, that is fair. But to post this crap about anyone coulda won in his situation back in the day is laughable.

Winning three Super Bowls with three different QBs (and really different teams all together) remains the most impressive coaching feat the NFL has ever seen.

You just owned Joe Gibbs? You have got to be kidding. :doh:

[gca61087]

Joe Gibbs had to answer Lawrence Taylor. You want "adversity" in one player LT was able to wreck what Gibbs had brought in. Along came the two TE system

Gibbs won the Superbowl with 3 different QB's. The game plan was never run 40 times and take a few shots, you seem to be inferring a 2000 Baltimore Ravens type team

Wrong. 1989-3 WR's over 1,000 yards recieving

1986- 4,000 yard passer in Jay Schroeder

1991 and 1983- highest scoring offenses in the NFL, with the 1983 scoring an NFL record 541 points

Ok, one freak player that nobody could stop. Next.

See my response to the first reply. They ran more than threw in all their superbowl wins. They ran more than 50 times in the '83 bowl. Next.

'89 a super bowl year? No. Next.

Yeah Schroder was successful in the passing game, with much thanks to his line and a great running game. How did his career play out? Next.

I never said the offense didn't score points. Just that they had the most dominate line/running game in football. I know they scored a lot of points, "the quarter" perhaps?