Come back to us Joe Gibbs

[desertfox59]

anybody ever heard the phrase, "If it ain't broke...Don't fix it."?

The reality is that Joe Gibbs's offense wasn't broken. We were successful last year when we established the run and play action passed. The definition of Redskins football on the offensive side.

Have you all forgotten that we won Six games in a row last year? We almost beat the NFC superbowl represenitive in their house? We were without Thomas, or any capable #2 reciever? Jansen was playing with two broken thumbs? Portis had a shoulder injury? Brunell was injured, and we were playing two backups on the o-line at the end of the season?

And yet we were a couple of big plays and missed holding calls away from playing in the championship game. How do you argue with that success?

Joe Gibbs football has been working since the days of Walter Camp. Why We brought in Al "Super-ego" Saunders and his 700 page how-to-play-fancy-pants-football-with-little-or-no-execution-of-the-basics-

of-the-game playbook I'll never know.

Maybe Joe Gibbs just lost faith in Joe Gibbs. No one is going to follow a leader who doesn't believe in himself.

Take this team back Joe Gibbs. Take it back before you lose it and your reputation. Remember that Football is about two things blocking and tackling. Make a personal commitment to insuring that next years Redskins are the best Blockers and Tacklers in the league. That's Redskins football. It used to be the same as Joe Gibbs football. It's not anymore. It's not too late for next year. Come back to us Joe Gibbs....We need you.

[redskin81]

It does work. Teams that pound the ball and set up play action win. Combine that with solid defense (which we lacked from week 1) and those are the teams that will be playing in January.

[aussieskin]

I could not agree more, JG needs to take the team back to his football to his redskins football

[Teller]

I agree with the premise of your post, desertfox, but I think it's too late.

Hindsight being 20-20, I don't think Joe Gibbs should have brought Al Saunders in here in the first place. Although I have to admit I applauded the move at the time.

I do think Joe Gibbs' style of smashmouth football can still work in the NFL. I believe there is a place for teams who are technically sound, and do a handful of things very well. (As opposed to teams that do a ton of different things halfway.)

However, now that we've brought in Saunders and his offense, we have no choice but to go with it. Otherwise, we spend next year learning/re-learning a new offense yet again. Translation: we suffer through another year like this one.

I think consistency is in order. Jason Campbell should have this offense down pat come the start of the 2007 season. Heck, he might even start to get a little comfortable running the same offense from one year to the next. That's a good thing.

If Coach Gibbs chooses to take back more of a lead role in the offense for 2007, I'm all for it. But I think scrapping Saunders' offense and starting over (again) would be a mistake.

[redskin81]

I agree with the premise of your post, desertfox, but I think it's too late.

Hindsight being 20-20, I don't think Joe Gibbs should have brought Al Saunders in here in the first place. Although I have to admit I applauded the move at the time.

I do think Joe Gibbs' style of smashmouth football can still work in the NFL. I believe there is a place for teams who are technically sound, and do a handful of things very well. (As opposed to teams that do a ton of different things halfway.)

However, now that we've brought in Saunders and his offense, we have no choice but to go with it. Otherwise, we spend next year learning/re-learning a new offense yet again. Translation: we suffer through another year like this one.

I think consistency is in order. Jason Campbell should have this offense down pat come the start of the 2007 season. Heck, he might even start to get a little comfortable running the same offense from one year to the next. That's a good thing.

If Coach Gibbs chooses to take back more of a lead role in the offense for 2007, I'm all for it. But I think scrapping Saunders' offense and starting over (again) would be a mistake.

Its not learning a new offense. Its the same offense that we ran last year.

[Teller]

Its not learning a new offense. Its the same offense that we ran last year.

I understand that. But you know as well as I do, that there isn't room between ones ears to thoroughly know, understand and remember two NFL offenses.

It's not as simple as just saying, "OK guys, just go back to what we did last year." They would have to re-learn the bulk of the offense, not to mention the terminology, etc. It wouldn't be quite as bad as learning a brand-new offense, but it would be close, IMO.

[Oldfan]

Dissenting vote here.

It's amazing how we fans can see the same games and come away with completely different impressions. That stretch run last year is a prime example.

In four or five games early in 2005, we had an effective passing game because single-covered Santana was running wild and because Brunell was rolling left and dumping off short effectively. But when our opponents saw the film and adjusted to take those things away, we had little answer.

Down the stretch, Gibbs emphasized the running game because he had no choice. Luckily, we faced rushing defenses like the 2005 Rams, Cards and the injury-riddled Giants. At the same time, the defense jacked up its game giving us turnovers and short fields.

At least, that's what I saw and I wasn't overly impressed with our offense.

I don't think Al Saunders will have the success here that he had in Kansas City because his offense needs a Trent Green type QB to run it and we don't have one here. Game manager Brunell doesn't fit and Campbell isn't prepared. Still, there is more hope of a useful passing game in our future with the Saunders-Campbell combination than with Gibbs-Brunell, in my opinion.

[redskin81]

I understand that. But you know as well as I do, that there isn't room between ones ears to thoroughly know, understand and remember two NFL offenses.

It's not as simple as just saying, "OK guys, just go back to what we did last year." They would have to re-learn the bulk of the offense, not to mention the terminology, etc. It wouldn't be quite as bad as learning a brand-new offense, but it would be close, IMO.

I see where your going with that. But when we went on that streak last year we lined up and hit the defense in the mouth. Its not like it was based on complicated sets shifts or formations.

[desertfox59]

I understand that. But you know as well as I do, that there isn't room between ones ears to thoroughly know, understand and remember two NFL offenses.

It's not as simple as just saying, "OK guys, just go back to what we did last year." They would have to re-learn the bulk of the offense, not to mention the terminology, etc. It wouldn't be quite as bad as learning a brand-new offense, but it would be close, IMO.

It's not about the play book....it's about how we execute the fundamentals of blocking and tackling. That to me is the difference between Gibbs I and Gibbs II. those earlier teams were so increadibally sound in these two aspects of the game. When you look at the team now I just don't see that basic execution that was there during the glory days.

I would argue that it was the perfection of these basics first and than and only than Gibbs innovative offense that was the reason for our success. I think we have the cart before the horse right now and we need the old work horse back.

[Teller]

I see where your going with that. But when we went on that streak last year we lined up and hit the defense in the mouth. Its not like it was based on complicated sets shifts or formations.

Oh, no question. Gibbs' offense is simpler. That's why I said that I do think there's a place for teams that do a few things very well, as opposed to many things part way. But there would still be a process for un-learning Saunders' offense, and re-learning Gibbs'. It wouldn't be like starting over, but wouldn't be as easy you might think either.

Watching Betts run rough-shod over defenses the last two weeks has reminded me of the "old days." It's easy to get nostalgic and want to see Russ Grimm telling Randy White, "Hey, we're running the same play again, right over you," and then doing it. But Coach Gibbs has made a conscious decision to go in a different direction. I hope it works.

[redskin81]

Oh, no question. Gibbs' offense is simpler. That's why I said that I do think there's a place for teams that do a few things very well, as opposed to many things part way. But there would still be a process for un-learning Saunders' offense, and re-learning Gibbs'. It wouldn't be like starting over, but wouldn't be as easy you might think either.

Watching Betts run rough-shod over defenses the last two weeks has reminded me of the "old days." It's easy to get nostalgic and want to see Russ Grimm telling Randy White, "Hey, we're running the same play again, right over you," and then doing it. But Coach Gibbs has made a conscious decision to go in a different direction. I hope it works.

To be honest do you really think that they ever learned Saunders Offense?

[Teller]

It's not about the play book....it's about how we execute the fundamentals of blocking and tackling. That to me is the difference between Gibbs I and Gibbs II. those earlier teams were so increadibally sound in these two aspects of the game. When you look at the team now I just don't see that basic execution that was there during the glory days.

I would argue that it was the perfection of these basics first and than and only than Gibbs innovative offense that was the reason for our success. I think we have the cart before the horse right now and we need the old work horse back.

Sure, on those aspects I completely agree. I misunderstood part of your original post. I thought you wanted to re-install Gibbs' old offense.

There's no question that O-line technique was where it all started offensively during Gibbs I. I believe we've got the athletes on the line today to be able to do the same thing. We've also got the same teacher trying to show these guys proper technique. I'm baffled as to why it doesn't work.

As far as tackling, I don't know how you fix that in today's NFL. I think tackling technique has dropped off league-wide. And I think it's because coaches are more worried about getting guys hurt in practice. Going 1/2 speed wrapping up (bulldogging) in practice does not make you a better tackler on Sunday, it makes you worse. On the other hand, if you go full speed and actually tackle, guys are going to get hurt. It's a Catch 22, and I don't know how to fix it.

You're absolutely right though. During Gibbs I, we did the little things PERFECTLY. Damn I miss those days.

[Teller]

To be honest do you really think that they ever learned Saunders Offense?

Kurt Warner won a Super Bowl in this offense. He said it takes one full season to learn. At this point, that looks like a legitimate statement. So, no, at this point, I don't think they have completely learned (or at least mastered) this offense.

But I don't want to take a step backwards. If it takes a year to learn this offense, then I want to see some kind of payoff next year.

[jimster]

Saunders offense has plenty of running in it. Larry Johnson rushed for 1750 yards in 12 games last year, KC overall was 4th overall in the NFL for rushing (we were 7th)

in 2004 they were 5th in the NFL in rushing (we were 21st)

in 2002 they were 3rd.

I truely believe Joe Gibbs went out and got Saunders because, as mentioned by Oldfan, he felt his offense was behind the times as evidenced by the last few games of last season. - Our only TD's in the Tampa AND Seattle game both came on real short fields because of our D getting a turnover. (Remember in Tampa we passed for less than 100 yards total) - I think he may have also been thinking about the future as well, to have somone in place if he retires in a few years.

I don't think he realized how much more complex this offense is compared to his and that it would be so difficult to learn, but at this point it would be a waste to change yet again. - We should just be happy Campbell is in there growing with it. - Between the remainder of this season and all of the off-season, the chemistry will a brewing.

[Oldfan]

It's not about the play book....it's about how we execute the fundamentals of blocking and tackling. That to me is the difference between Gibbs I and Gibbs II. those earlier teams were so increadibally sound in these two aspects of the game. When you look at the team now I just don't see that basic execution that was there during the glory days.

The blocking and tackling was better in Gibbs I because the overall talent was among the league's elite.

On the offensive side, bear in mind also that Joe was operating an innovative offense that was ahead of the defenses of the day.

[redskin81]

We'll see and I sure hope that next year they get it because i honestly dont think they even came close to getting it this year.

[tonyriggins]

The way Gibbs has handled the QBs, he has no business running the offense. Plus Saunders is handicapped because of the quarterbacks, which Joe conitues to make the calls on that.

[Oldfan]

The way Gibbs has handled the QBs, he has no business running the offense. Plus Saunders is handicapped because of the quarterbacks, which Joe conitues to make the calls on that.

With our QB situation, I have wondered why Al would come here. Then I remember that he had two million reasons.

[str8jacket]

I agree. I think we have changed too much. We had a good year and with all the moves we really hurt ourselves depth wise. And given this years injuries that was a killer.

[pgitta]

I agree with the premise of your post, desertfox, but I think it's too late.

Hindsight being 20-20, I don't think Joe Gibbs should have brought Al Saunders in here in the first place. Although I have to admit I applauded the move at the time.

I do think Joe Gibbs' style of smashmouth football can still work in the NFL. I believe there is a place for teams who are technically sound, and do a handful of things very well. (As opposed to teams that do a ton of different things halfway.)

However, now that we've brought in Saunders and his offense, we have no choice but to go with it. Otherwise, we spend next year learning/re-learning a new offense yet again. Translation: we suffer through another year like this one.

I think consistency is in order. Jason Campbell should have this offense down pat come the start of the 2007 season. Heck, he might even start to get a little comfortable running the same offense from one year to the next. That's a good thing.

If Coach Gibbs chooses to take back more of a lead role in the offense for 2007, I'm all for it. But I think scrapping Saunders' offense and starting over (again) would be a mistake.

You are 100%, absolutely correct. Know how I know?

Because I agree with you.

I haven't been wrong since 1976...and that was when I thought I was mistaken.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Our offense has played well enough to win, it has nothing to do with that side of the ball - IT IS ENTIRELY DEFENSE!

[Oldfan]

Our offense has played well enough to win, it has nothing to do with that side of the ball - IT IS ENTIRELY DEFENSE!

It's not entirely anything.

We have more talent on the offense. The coaches should have done better than they did. The talent is too thin on the defense, a few injuries and it broke down.

Springs has an injury history going back to Seattle. Griffin has an injury history. When those two go down or play at less than 100%, we suffer.

[skinpride1]

Joe Gibbs is the man!!!True this has been an awful year but the offense will be better next year!!!The talent is there on the offensive side of the ball.What scares the hell out of me is our defense because I do not think the talent is there.Cough,cough (secondary and a good pass rush)we need some good players.Stick with same and we will be ranked low again in defense next year.(Griffin,Taylor,Washington,Golston are keepers)

[Oldfan]

The talent is there on the offensive side of the ball.

Big question mark at the QB position. Depth at O line also questionable.

I suggest you wait until the end of this year before you pass judgment on the talent issue.

I'm not doubting that we have greater need on the defense, though.

[Guest Rafterman]

With our QB situation, I have wondered why Al would come here. Then I remember that he had two million reasons.

:applause:

Money changes everything.

If there is a decent free agent out there this team needs to take a look. Even if Campbell makes it we need more than Boonell and Collins.