Redskins.com: You first, coach.

[TheLongshot]

And, again, I ask you not to evaluate the factors YOU felt where part of the decision, but the factors Gibbs told you were HIS. Why is that hard? If a word within your consideration was not uttered by the coach, remove it, and think about what HE said, not what YOU think.

From his post-game interview: "I'm not passing up a sure chance to win a football game."

There it is in black and white. He knows that there are aspects that aren't under his control. Hell, he had some good examples during the game of that, with penalties called and not called. Everyone on the field is human and are prone to mistakes, whether at fault or not. This wasn't coaching scared, this was eliminating a lot of the variables. A ball goes from the snapper to the holder to the kicker. Not much time for a mistake to happen. He also has confidence that his kicker can make a 40 yard field goal.

Another quote from the post-game interview:

"Obviously, we missed some things all over the place. What I'm hoping now is that you get this under your belt, you win a game like this, an extremely hard fought [game].

"Now, we get better. We start making some plays and doing some things we missed today."

The important thing on Sunday was getting a win. Other things we can take care of later.

Jason

[DCthomahal]

Cali,

It's not really about making fans happy. I'm willing to guarantee there are a number of players in that locker room who utterly hated how the game ended, despite the win. I'd almost go so far as to say this reasonably controversial statement. The team was actually HARMED, as a unit, MORE by winning like that than they would have been losing with Rabach having a hold, or Portis fumbling.

This is a team we'll ask to power out victory again and again and when called upon to do it, deep down, they can't help but wonder if the guy asking them even thinks they can without messing it up. It's a culture of play. Right now our culture is one of fearing the big negative rather than expecting the big positive. It's that transition that will mean everything for us.

I want to add my thanks to Art for his take on this. I have heard some very good arguments FOR doing what Gibbs did and so have come down from screaming incredulously at the TV "It's FIRST DOWN! It's FIRST DOWN!!!" at the time, to seeing the other side of the argument.

But to me, in the end, it doesn't matter a whole lot what the effect is on us fans --it's what kind of message the players get that could potentially matter here.

I remember a lot of talk coming out of the locker room last year that the offense line guys wanted to have the load put on them. They wanted it all put on their shoulders. That's when they felt at their best and when they performed at their best. To me, in a situation like the one we're talking about I want, as a fan who recognizes that's all I am --just a guy who loves the team and not an expert or adviser --what I would love to see is the Head Coach say "Guys, there is a serious chance we could blow it here. It has happened before. There are several ways we could end up losing this incredibly important game just by trying to do the basics... continue to run the ball. And you know what, you are the men I want to run that risk with. Win or loose, this is your mens' job... to overcome risks and obstacles and win the damn game by doing what you're paid to do. And you are the men I want to run that risk with and have every confidence are up to it --so go out there and get it done."

Now, I love Gibbs and I love that we won. I also think that the ability we showed in overtime to OVERALL run the ball down the fins' throat will go a long way to promote the kind of attitude in the running game that I am saying I would have liked to have seen further promoted right there at the end by the Head Coach.

But I do think that I have a right to respectfully disagree on specific points with even with those I idolize. Especially when I make sure I am putting it in the context of simply putting my two cents in, rather than telling Coach Gibbs how to do his job.

So... my :2cents:

Go Skins!

[Om]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. This is hardly a surprise, and it reflects on my biggest beef with Gibbs as a coach. His #1 priority on offense is to avoid the negative play. This is the way it has been since Rocket Screen.

Inexplicably, Gibbs, deep in his own end and with little time remaining in the half, tries this play and it is a historic failure. Since then, any Redskin two-minute drill with him as coach is utterly predictable (provided they aren't behind at the end of a game) - see if you can run the ball for a first down while eating clock and making sure that the other team doesn't get a chance for a big momentum play. It drove me nuts back then and it still drives me nuts.

Sonny, I have to ask. Did the fact that Gibbs went on to win two more Super Bowls in the next 8 years mitigate your frustrations over what you perceived as his chicken**** 2-minute play calling?

[Die Hard]

From his post-game interview: "I'm not passing up a sure chance to win a football game."

There it is in black and white. He knows that there are aspects that aren't under his control.

The important thing on Sunday was getting a win. Other things we can take care of later.

All fine and dandy for now.

And what you're going to see later in the season.... is the exact same situation where the Redskins are driving in the opponent's end of the field.... and in that situation he's going to make plays until it's 4th down before he kicks the field goal.

I guarantee you that.

And you're going to begin to see that there's no rhyme or reason for that decision in week 1.

[revallenjr]

Parden me for not agreeing with you Art, but I think you are completly off base. Suisham has never missed from inside 40. Gibbs is right, there are way too many things that can go wrong trying just two dive plays. They had tried earlier to go for it on 4rth down. I don't know if they ever intended to run a play or just draw miami off sides, but Gibbs was not happy with the results of that play. Looking back at week 1 in the NFL, our team not excluded, injuries was the number one issue. If we get a penalty we have a longer field go attemp (We had 7 penalties for 65yrds). We could have turned the ball over, which Miami might have been able to convert (Two turnovers even though none were on the ground). My biggest concern was risking an injury on a play that does not need to happen. If you are like me, you put your faith in Joe Gibbs, because he knew how to win ballgames. Don't lose faith, because he won one. I really don't think Portis or any player feels like Joe Gibbs does not believe in them. I may be wrong, but it was the first game of the year, and nobody wants overtime. IMO they got the win, what more could you ask for?

[TheLongshot]

All fine and dandy for now.

And what you're going to see later in the season.... is the exact same situation where the Redskins are driving in the opponent's end of the field.... and in that situation he's going to make plays until it's 4th down before he kicks the field goal.

I guarantee you that.

And you're going to begin to see that there's no rhyme or reason for that decision in week 1.

Problem with your logic is that the same situation isn't likely to appear this season. How many overtime games does the average NFL team play in a season? Two, maybe?

In regulation, you are going to run off as much time as possible. If you are in the kicker's field goal range, that could happen with a simple kneeldown. It doesn't often happen that way, since usually you are trying to gain the extra yard, but I have seen teams do that. You don't have to do that in overtime.

And Gibbs certainly gave a reason. It is posted above.

Jason

[Die Hard]

Problem with your logic is that the same situation isn't likely to appear this season. How many overtime games does the average NFL team play in a season? Two, maybe?

In regulation, you are going to run off as much time as possible. If you are in the kicker's field goal range, that could happen with a simple kneeldown. It doesn't often happen that way, since usually you are trying to gain the extra yard, but I have seen teams do that. You don't have to do that in overtime.

And Gibbs certainly gave a reason. It is posted above.

Jason

Mark my words.... you'll see the same situation arise at least a few more times this season.

[TheLongshot]

Mark my words.... you'll see the same situation arise at least a few more times this season.

You expecting a lot of overtime games?

Jason

[Oldfan]

Jason,

would the following reasoning have been acceptable if the kick had been missed?

Gibbs: From his post-game interview: "I'm not passing up a sure chance to win a football game."

The answer, of course, is NO... because it would been obvious that success wasn't a sure thing.

The correct decision on calls like this doesn't depend on the outcome. Some of the dumbest decisions turn out well. Some of the best turn out badly.

[Aston]

Art, great article. Well written, and a point that's certainly poignant if nothing else. I saw the game, scratched my head with the rest of you, but I honestly feel that despite the implication, it was the right call.

If this happened in the 4th quarter with us down by 3, I would agree wholeheartedly that such a call would be totally faithless if not downright cowardly. But in overtime, on the opening day following perhaps the most disappointing season in either of his two tenures, at home, after we were fortunate enough to win the toss and get into field goal range to win the game, I honestly can't justify any reason to press your luck there considering the risk vs. reward for each scenario.

I do, however, agree that the whole praying during the kick thing isn't exactly a symbol of unwavering confidence, not to mention the fact that any God, Redskin fan or otherwise, would hardly consider praying for a made field goal a proper usage of divine power.

[Big Bake]

Reguardless of what Coach Gibbs decides to do, some of you will still find something wrong with it. What he could have done was: Not come back to all of this second guessing from the media and the fans. Maybe not try to bring this team back to respectability, stay home with the grandkids, or just stick to Nascar. Tell me second guessers, where would we be now. :doh:

[Aston]

On a slightly off topic sidenote, I feel the ultimate problem in this entire situation isn't Gibbs, but rather the N.F.L's overtime structure. Wondering if there had ever been any movement to change what I consider a ridiculously unfair way to settle a football game, I came across this article.

Turns out, they did take a vote to petition a change to overtime in 2003, with teams voting 17-14 with 1 absention in favor of keeping it the same.

And guess who stood up during the meeing and applauded the NFL's overtime system, claiming it was the "best going"?

Steve Spurrier. As if the 'Fun & Gun' and the attempted murder of Patrick Ramsey wasn't enough. Effing a-hole.

[Pedro]

I know what Art is saying, and I agree JG has become more concerned with not losing games than winning them. MB is a perfect example of this. But I find Art's conclusions flawed because he is basing his argument more on what JG said than what he did.

JG has an extra lobe in his brain that only deals with cameras and microphones. It is separate from logic, truth and 4 letter words. It does not understand the concepts of hate, evil or vindiction. It cannot utter a bad word about anyone, much less a Redskin.

Let's look at the factors that likely were going through JGs head when he decided to kick.

• Portis had banged his ribs to the point they had to wrap them
  
• Betts has been known to fumble at crucial times in the past
  
• Sellers already had a fumble that day
  
• There was already a bumbled handoff between JC & CP
  
• CP had only been practicing with the team for a week
  
• He had a brand new guard with the team only a week
  
• He had a rookie at tackle in his 1st game, UDFA no less
  
• BL is useless
  
• Moss was dropping everything that day
  
• Cooley was being smothered
  
• His pass D was questionable at best
  
• He had a kicker he believed to be so reliable the guy had no camp competition
  

So he pulled the trigger. And hit his mark. I would have rushed it a couple times, but I don't see the watershed event that Art does. Not this early in the season anyway. Were this to happen later in the season, I would be more in agreement with Art. But I do see where he is coming from.

We have a winner :applause:

[Oldfan]

Reguardless of what Coach Gibbs decides to do, some of you will still find something wrong with it. What he could have done was: Not come back to all of this second guessing from the media and the fans. Maybe not try to bring this team back to respectability, stay home with the grandkids, or just stick to Nascar. Tell me second guessers, where would we be now. :doh:

Dunno, Bake. Snyder could have done worse, but we'll never know.

[Dan T.]

Just another media hack piece disrespecting Joe Gibbs and the Redskins.

[KCJDLJ]

Do you honestly think the players have less confidence in their coach and team mates because a field goal was kicked on 1st down instead of 3rd or 4th down. Thats rather silly. Art, quiet frankly after reading many of your previous posts I'm surprised to read you feel this way about an important opening game win. Let's say it's first down and we run the ball, 3 yard gain. Second down, we run the ball, 2 yard gain. Do we kick now? They know we're going to run. It gets much harder to gain yardage when you get close to the red zone and shrink the field. They know we're going to run the ball. Let's try one more time. What the heck, we have really good backs and a very good o-line. Portis runs off tackle for 3 yard.... Whoooops, wait Zack Thomas hits Portis and he fumbles. Let's say we recover the ball. Wow, that was close. We kick the field goal. We win the game. Would we feel better? OR would we feel worse. We narrowly escaped with the win. A positive attitude would be better developed with a winning record, not trying to impose our will on another team. Let's just win the games. The attitude will follow.

[Art]

I don't think I said anything about the players confidence in themselves or their teammates or their coach. My thrust was the coach doesn't have confidence in his offensive players because, as he said, he's seen them screw up in that situation before. When that's the view and that doubt is expressed to the players, the result is they PRESS in the same situation because they view it as uncomfortable because their coach has made it uncomfortable. They will play tight because their coach is afraid of the mistake, which is what Gibbs said. It's that limitation that could be impacting to us if not corrected.

[KCJDLJ]

If we win exactly the same way against Philadelphia on Monday night, by another OT 1st down field goal, and we're 2-0 with a 2 game lead on the Eagles, would you feel the same? In December do you think anything but the amount of wins will matter? If you feel the need to worry then worry about the inconsistant play that happened before the coach made the decision to kick on first down. I don't think they were pressing because of a decision that had not yet been made. If we're going to worry lets's worry about JCs' inacuracy and Santanas' butter fingers. Lets worry about injuries and our depth being used up this early in the season. Let's worry about Westbrook gashing our "improved" defense. Do you really think the coach dosen't have confidence in his players because of this one game winning decision? Are there any other examples of this lack of confidence? I think he showed a lot of confidence in the team by putting the game in the hands of the O-line thoughout the game. He showed confidence by letting JC throw the ball long after the opening game interception. He showed confidence in the special teams by kicking the ball on 1st down. I think there's enough ulcer inducing thigs to worry about without worrying about attitude. Let's just win the games.

[Aston]

They will play tight because their coach is afraid of the mistake, which is what Gibbs said. It's that limitation that could be impacting to us if not corrected.

I agree, but let's not forget that this chain reaction didn't start with Gibbs doubting his players. It started with players screwing up, so Gibbs' reaction is to call plays in cruicial situations with care. Gibbs was the effect, not the cause. Right?

You grow frustrated with the halting, hit-and-miss element this team has as defining traits. On both sides of the ball, the only consistent thing about us is our ability to consistently make a mistake that puts the game in jeopardy. We miss the open receiver. That receiver drops easy first downs. Our corner makes an ill-timed, silly illegal contact. Someone slips. Someone holds. Someone misses a key block. We lose critical yards. We get into field goal position to win games and go backward. Always at the worst possible time.

This team scares the hell out of me. You are conditioned as a fan through years of bad play to expect the worst.

Gibbs doesn't have the luxury of feeling the same way. Or, more appropriately, he can feel exactly that way. He just has to stop showing it.

This would imply that Gibbs "showing it" would be the effect, not the cause, which I agree.

Until the players themselves can prove to themselves and to Gibbs that they can execute consistently, he has every right to doubt them. In fact [and here's my controversial retort, if you will], it's his responsibility as a coach to doubt them until they prove otherwise.

His primary duty as a coach is to give his team the best chance to win in every situation. If that means kicking a field goal on first down or punting on thrid down, it's his job to make decisions that give us the highest possibility for success while reducing the liklihood of disaster.

And besides, who's fault was it that we were in overtime, anyway? If balls were caught, tackles were made, pentalties were avoided, he wouldn't have needed to make that call in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. Gibbs certainly wasn't without fault. And I'm sure you're right - I bet he hated making that call. But he had to. Pretending that he was unaware of how error-prone this team is at the most critical juncture in the game would be foolish and irresponsible.

But to be honest, I think this call had little to do with his faith in the players and everything to do with his faith in the refs. He's won and lost a bunch of close ones involving the outcome of a questionable call, so again, I don't blame him for ensuring this one had nothing to do with the zebras.

[Blondie]

I know what Art is saying, and I agree JG has become more concerned with not losing games than winning them. MB is a perfect example of this. But I find Art's conclusions flawed because he is basing his argument more on what JG said than what he did.

JG has an extra lobe in his brain that only deals with cameras and microphones. It is separate from logic, truth and 4 letter words. It does not understand the concepts of hate, evil or vindiction. It cannot utter a bad word about anyone, much less a Redskin.

Let's look at the factors that likely were going through JGs head when he decided to kick.

• Portis had banged his ribs to the point they had to wrap them
  
• Betts has been known to fumble at crucial times in the past
  
• Sellers already had a fumble that day
  
• There was already a bumbled handoff between JC & CP
  
• CP had only been practicing with the team for a week
  
• He had a brand new guard with the team only a week
  
• He had a rookie at tackle in his 1st game, UDFA no less
  
• BL is useless
  
• Moss was dropping everything that day
  
• Cooley was being smothered
  
• His pass D was questionable at best
  
• He had a kicker he believed to be so reliable the guy had no camp competition
  

So he pulled the trigger. And hit his mark. I would have rushed it a couple times, but I don't see the watershed event that Art does. Not this early in the season anyway. Were this to happen later in the season, I would be more in agreement with Art. But I do see where he is coming from.

I like this post.

I have read every post in this thread.

I have stopped......left my computer......and come back to read again.

I still do not see the controversy of this play.

I dont see it as anything other than what it was.

OMG hot on that field....an opportunity to get the win and get out of there.

Maybe the next piece Art writes will be one that I can digest and concur.

We shall see.

[Art]

I like this post.

I have read every post in this thread.

I have stopped......left my computer......and come back to read again.

I still do not see the controversy of this play.

I dont see it as anything other than what it was.

OMG hot on that field....an opportunity to get the win and get out of there.

Maybe the next piece Art writes will be one that I can digest and concur.

We shall see.

Blondie, and to the others, there's a level of obtuse in the replies that are at least moderately distressing. As I said to Utah and Jason and others, and now you, if Gibbs thought it was hot and worried about his players and kicked there, we'd likely not have any discussion whatsoever, because, at his presser the day of and day after, he'd have said, "Gosh, it was hot out there. My guys were sucking wind. I wanted to get off that field when we got where we were. They earned it."

While still unconventional as a call to kick on first in that case, at least he clearly outlines the reasoning and no one would dispute it as it is perfectly reasonable and clearly reasoned. That you, and others, continue to fixate on the very rationale that WOULD make it acceptable to do what Gibbs did, you merely highlight just how much you ACTUALLY disagree with what he did for the actual reasons stated.

If it is acceptable to do what he did because it was hot, that means, you don't think it was acceptable to do what he did because of a mistake three years ago. That's the discussion. The discussion is not that there COULD be very many valid reasons to kick on first down there, as Utah outlined. I've agreed there are.

None were the answer provided for why we actually did it.

So, again, I merely ask those who don't know why this is a concern based on reasoning they have come to, but was not part of the decision, that you ask yourself the simple question here. Do you want your head coach making decisions NOT on the heat or the status of the existing situation or team, but, on his team from 2004?

NONE of you would say you would. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that?

And, Blondie, I know you and others may be eager to return the obtuse crack, but, bear in mind, I'm the one who's actually yielded the point you've made, that if under a set of criteria the coach did not actually speak about, a decision to kick on first down was made, it would be ok. I've at least TRIED to walk that with you. I don't think you've tried actually talking both about what I've said, AND what Gibbs has said. If you do JUST that, I'm guessing you'll think differently.

[KCJDLJ]

I've wasted far to much time dicussing this issue. I don't think it's a problem worth worrying about. I'm very confident that the team has confidence in the coach and the coach has confidence in the team. I'll just end my portion of this by saying this is a non-issue in my eyes. Much ado about nothing.

[SonnyJ]

This might be the best post on this board in the last month...aside from everything I've written.

Very interesting.

Well, I could never approach your level of quality, LKB. I can only aspire - if one strives for greatness, one must reach for the stars .

[Blondie]

Blondie, and to the others, there's a level of obtuse in the replies that are at least moderately distressing. As I said to Utah and Jason and others, and now you, if Gibbs thought it was hot and worried about his players and kicked there, we'd likely not have any discussion whatsoever, because, at his presser the day of and day after, he'd have said, "Gosh, it was hot out there. My guys were sucking wind. I wanted to get off that field when we got where we were. They earned it."

While still unconventional as a call to kick on first in that case, at least he clearly outlines the reasoning and no one would dispute it as it is perfectly reasonable and clearly reasoned. That you, and others, continue to fixate on the very rationale that WOULD make it acceptable to do what Gibbs did, you merely highlight just how much you ACTUALLY disagree with what he did for the actual reasons stated.

If it is acceptable to do what he did because it was hot, that means, you don't think it was acceptable to do what he did because of a mistake three years ago. That's the discussion. The discussion is not that there COULD be very many valid reasons to kick on first down there, as Utah outlined. I've agreed there are.

None were the answer provided for why we actually did it.

So, again, I merely ask those who don't know why this is a concern based on reasoning they have come to, but was not part of the decision, that you ask yourself the simple question here. Do you want your head coach making decisions NOT on the heat or the status of the existing situation or team, but, on his team from 2004?

NONE of you would say you would. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that?

And, Blondie, I know you and others may be eager to return the obtuse crack, but, bear in mind, I'm the one who's actually yielded the point you've made, that if under a set of criteria the coach did not actually speak about, a decision to kick on first down was made, it would be ok. I've at least TRIED to walk that with you. I don't think you've tried actually talking both about what I've said, AND what Gibbs has said. If you do JUST that, I'm guessing you'll think differently.

Art,

I like the fact we spar. I appreciate the fact you actully talk to me as a fan who has football intellect.

I keep going back to what you have written about the twice shy Gibbs.

Maybe I am being obtuse.

Fool me once.......shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. This is why I thought the comment about the officials was on target. One penalty could have taken out of field goal range....and with what seemed to me as a lack of focus or whatever by Santana.....and even though CP was running well....that old what if comes up. This is why this is not hard for me.

Maybe I am hard headed. Maybe I have blinders. Maybe I want to be polar opposite of you. :laugh: :whoknows:

As I said, I look forward to your next installment.

And we very well go at it once again.

[SonnyJ]

Sonny, I have to ask. Did the fact that Gibbs went on to win two more Super Bowls in the next 8 years mitigate your frustrations over what you perceived as his chicken**** 2-minute play calling?

Mitigate? Absolutely. Eradicate? Not a chance. Take Super Bowl XXII. Second quarter. Offense is on absolute fire, Gibbs can dial up anything and he's going to get results. Redskins get the ball back with around 2 minutes left around their own 20-30 yard line. What does Gibbs do? Try to run out the clock - the announcers even talk about this. Of course, Timmy Smith proceeds to rip off about a 43-yard run, so they go on to score a TD. But he still tried to run out the clock rather than step on their throats. God, I hate that. He did the same thing with the '91 team - I would think if he had confidence in any team, it would have been that one.

Like I said, part of me was glad he left the first time, thinking at last we would get someone in there that would let it hang out more. I'm older and wiser now . In fact, I wised up pretty quickly as the shock of the Petibone season morphed into the curse of Norv. Now, I just accept it as the price for having a coach in there who I consider to be a legit leader of men. I just view all his decision-making through this prism, though. Even his gambles are aren't really "gambles" in the sense of the word as we understand it, but extremely calculated risks. It made his preference for Brunell crystal clear - Brunell wasn't going to commit the killer mistake. This is Gibbs' top priority and as long as you understand that, you won't be shocked when he does things like kick FGs on first down. As astute as I think Art is, I think he's reading WAY too much into this.