Redskins.com: You first, coach.

[TheLongshot]

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?

Sometimes I wonder who is the one being obtuse.

First off, I think you have your date wrong. The San Diego game where they got a penalty and were knocked out of field goal range was in 2005. I don't know why you keep mentioning 2004.

Second, certainly he is making decisions based on past experience. What coach doesn't? It is called learning, and even a HOF coach can learn a few things.

As for the status of the current team, while it was currently driving well, there has been a series of problems all day with the team, if it was holding onto the ball, throwing interceptions, or whatever other problems had come up. In any case, the Skins self-destructed a few times during the game.

Based on that AND based on past experience, Gibbs decided to kick a field goal once he got into range. I do not at all believe that he would have done the same thing if his offense was executing correctly all day. Course, if it was we would have won the game handily and wouldn't have been in that situation.

You might ask, "Why didn't he say that?" Well, you know from experience that Gibbs tries very hard to not say ill of his team, so he gave you half of the story. You can infer the other half by reading between the lines.

I don't know, it seems obvious to me.

Jason

[Art]

Ok, Jason, one last chance.

Don't read between the lines. Remove that altogether. Assume what he said was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nothing else was a factor. Nothing. Just what he said.

Just once, please, once, imagine that.

And tell me what you think. That you keep adding meaning between the lines tells me you weren't comfortable with the lines.

[rcl6h]

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.

[rcl6h]

Sorry about the above No-Post-My fault. Sonny, Timmy Smith's run WAS stepping on

their Throats. How you can complain about a long run, during a 35 point quarter in

the Super Bowl, I can't understand. You'll notice the last TD was a pass to Didier, he

wasn't playing for a FG. Again, a 35 point history making quarter, and you have a problem with the play calling?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Based on that AND based on past experience, Gibbs decided to kick a field goal once he got into range. I do not at all believe that he would have done the same thing if his offense was executing correctly all day. Course, if it was we would have won the game handily and wouldn't have been in that situation.

You might ask, "Why didn't he say that?" Well, you know from experience that Gibbs tries very hard to not say ill of his team, so he gave you half of the story. You can infer the other half by reading between the lines.

I don't know, it seems obvious to me.

Jason

Or maybe he was tired of being in the hot sun.

Or maybe he had to pee.

That's how I felt at the time.

From experience, I'm sure that Coach has been hot in the sun before, and also had to pee before.

So it must be that, I am convinced.

[turbodiesel#44]

OK Art, I have a question. I understand you are not concerned about the decision. You seem unconcerned about the reasons behind the decision. Are you worried about the underlying implications to the teams confidence in themselves? Or the teams faith in their coach? Or are you concerned about Gibbs confidence in himself? Or the team? Or do you have a preconcieved notion of what the "identity" of a JG I type team should be and want to apply it in 2007?

[Art]

OK Art, I have a question. I understand you are not concerned about the decision. You seem unconcerned about the reasons behind the decision. Are you worried about the underlying implications to the teams confidence in themselves? Or the teams faith in their coach? Or are you concerned about Gibbs confidence in himself? Or the team? Or do you have a preconcieved notion of what the "identity" of a JG I type team should be and want to apply it in 2007?

I'm concerned about the decision based on the reasons behind it, not the reasons others have read into the situation so they don't feel uncomfortable. Primarily I'm concerned, based on the reasoning, as I wrote in the article, with the coach's confidence in the team leading to a situation where the team is inevitably unable to rise above past problems because of that lack of confidence.

Gibbs just stood there and said because of mistakes from years ago he decided to do something. The only reply I have to appreciate why that is ok is if we ignore that and pay attention to things he didn't actually say, but, apparently, hid in order to protect the team from the hot weather reason he could have given.

The ONLY hidden comment he could have had here was a critique of the officials, which, I agree could have been a big part of it.

[Utah]

Fair enough Art.

The question now is how much should Coach Gibbs depend on his experience and what would be the criteria for those times that mimic a current situation?

[Art]

Fair enough Art.

The question now is how much should Coach Gibbs depend on his experience and what would be the criteria for those times that mimic a current situation?

And that's a good question. One would hope he'd factor in his experience greatly. As I said, he's not wrong to be scared to death of this team making a mistake. That's what it does. So, some factoring in of that reality has to be at play. How much? I don't know.

What he did Sunday simply struck me as the single worst way to deal with a bumbling team, though, there is some merit to the statement you teach the team how to win before you teach it how to be good. There's enough good conversation here so I do not claim to have the final answer on it.

I just know I don't want Gibbs afraid to have his team make plays because another team he had didn't.

[turbodiesel#44]

I'm concerned about the decision based on the reasons behind it, not the reasons others have read into the situation so they don't feel uncomfortable. Primarily I'm concerned, based on the reasoning, as I wrote in the article, with the coach's confidence in the team leading to a situation where the team is inevitably unable to rise above past problems because of that lack of confidence.

Gibbs just stood there and said because of mistakes from years ago he decided to do something. The only reply I have to appreciate why that is ok is if we ignore that and pay attention to things he didn't actually say, but, apparently, hid in order to protect the team from the hot weather reason he could have given.

The ONLY hidden comment he could have had here was a critique of the officials, which, I agree could have been a big part of it.

Ok, I see our disconnect now. I only trust JG for what he does, not what he says.

You see, when Joe was young, he was in a terrible accident. The little Devil that rode on his right shoulder was knocked off. Now, all he has is the Angel on his left shoulder telling him what to say. Only positive things. They could be true. They could be half true. They could be pure fiction. His brain is still normal, it just doesn't connect with his mouth in the presence of microphones.

I honestly don't think he would have a bad thing to say about Charles Manson, but you know he would be thinking it. I can't recall JG saying anything bad about anybody. Ever. Not personally.

There are undoubtedly numerous reasons he made that call to kick on 1st. Not the least of which would be his lack of confidence in the team as it builds it's own identity by winning. He's not going to mention that at his presser.

He's not going to cry about CPs ribs. JC being a little wild and unsettled with his footwork. Moss dropping everything. And he's sure is not going to say sweat was pouring down his ass crack and he had to pee like a racehorse. Old guys do have to pee a lot.

And if he learns from his past mistakes and applies that knowlege, well, that's why he's here. What an easy way to finish off a quick presser.

I'm more worried about his declining game management skills.He never has regained his mastery of the clock, and I don't think anybody in the Stadium fell for that 4th and 2 go. 6" maybe, but even that is pushing it for JG II.

I think you are worried about nothing. The tundra must have cool nights by now. You should start a fire, find a nice single malt, and have warm sparkly dreams about our most promising season in years.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm concerned because it is simply a bad football decision. In no way shape or form is a 40-yard field goal in OT a gimme. It simply ain't. There was a much greater risk that Suisham would miss than there was a risk that something horrible would happen on a first down run behind two all pros.

The decision had everything. It was a decision based on a total lack of confidence in his players not to screw up. It was a horrible decision based on the odds. It was a weird decision based on the fact that I don't think I've ever witnessed a 40 yard field goal on first down in any circumstance aside from the last seconds of a half or game.

[TheLongshot]

Ok, Jason, one last chance.

Don't read between the lines. Remove that altogether. Assume what he said was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Nothing else was a factor. Nothing. Just what he said.

Just once, please, once, imagine that.

And tell me what you think. That you keep adding meaning between the lines tells me you weren't comfortable with the lines.

Oh, now I KNOW you are being obtuse.

You know damn well that Gibbs almost never tells you everything in a press conference. No, he doesn't lie, except maybe by omission, but he will not openly lay any member of the team on the carpet in public, and I'm pretty sure he won't tell you that he made a decision because he felt his team wasn't up to par on that day. He'd rather take the heat on himself than to do that.

That's why I can't take what he says as the whole truth. Is there a lot of insight in what he says? Sure. But, I don't believe that that's all there is to it.

Now, if later you can give me more evidence that it is true, maybe I'll listen. But it seems to logically follow that his experience, combined with all the troubles this team had on Sunday, and the confidence he had in Suisham, that going for the field goal and ending the game was a good decision.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

I'm concerned because it is simply a bad football decision. In no way shape or form is a 40-yard field goal in OT a gimme. It simply ain't. There was a much greater risk that Suisham would miss than there was a risk that something horrible would happen on a first down run behind two all pros.

The decision had everything. It was a decision based on a total lack of confidence in his players not to screw up. It was a horrible decision based on the odds. It was a weird decision based on the fact that I don't think I've ever witnessed a 40 yard field goal on first down in any circumstance aside from the last seconds of a half or game.

Considering everything you saw on Sunday, the interceptions, the bad calls or non-calls by the refs, the inconsistent offensive performance, would you really trust that nothing bad would happen in the next couple of plays?

No, he probably doesn't completely trust his offense, and to be honest they haven't earned that trust yet. So, he decided to go for the win and end it. Any sort of damage that would cause is far less than if they blew the game.

As people keep pointing out, this is a team that is coming off of a 5-11 season. Right now, wins are of paramount importance to the confidence of this team.

You were wondering about the percentages for kickers. I did an average of the busiest 15 kickers from last year. From 30-39 yards success is about 90%. From 40-49 is about 79%. Split the difference, and for the average NFL kicker it is probably about an 85% success rate. I wouldn't say the odds are all that bad.

Edit: Let me modify something. I don't think that Gibbs has confidence that the offense can recover if it gets into a long yardage situation. He certainly tried to protect Campbell as much as possible, limiting his pass attempts.

Jason

[Pedro]

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.

Your fundamental argument hinges on the reason Coach gave being the actual reason for the call.

It boils down to do you believe Coach is giving it to you straight in a presser or believe he may be hiding something.

It may be you are correct. If it is IMO it is then up to this team to not make mistakes that remind him of a game way back when. But then if they had played like that we would have won the game in regulation anyway.

It may be that the reason given is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think it's a combination of both. I hope it's more of the latter. Not because I'm worried about Coach calling plays scared and not giving his team the responsibility they need to get to the next level. Rather because he saw the player errors I did but due his greater intimacy with the team knew it was more likely to happen again rather than hoping it was just first game jitters like me.

We shall see.

[Rhettskinfan]

Well written Art. I, initially felt this so some degree. After thinking on it, hearing JJG's version of his decision, and pondering a little more, I must disagree with you. Gibbs knows how to win games. He also knows what this team needs most, i.e. THE WIN !! As has been so well pointed out, the men in striped shirts seem to think we pay these insane prices to see THEM. Don't you think the Dolphins are pros trying their butts off to stop this drive? It is all about growth, my friend. We must walk before we can run on 4th and 3 from the 42!!! And this is just what coach knows. He is bringing these guys along as he knows how to,......... soooooo much more than you and I will ever get a grasp on, no matter how passionate we are for this franchise. What if.....what if the unthinkable (or in this case the thinkable) did happen? Well then our HOF coach would be so many steps behind where he is today in developing a winning belief amongst these warriors. Once again, thanks for the thought provoking write, and Lets hope we continue to show the GROWTH WITH WINS against the green slime!!:helmet: :2cents: :helmet:

[fansince62]

for my own part......when I think about Art's piece......the issue is not whether Art is fundamentally right or wrong about what JG's thought process/trust factor really is. no.....I am onboard with Art in the sense that when I was watching the game and the decision was made I had the same, immediate, gut reaction: what? why are we doing this? we should push the ball forward some more - there is time and we have been mauling these cats.

Art may be wrong....but I refuse to believe that the bulk of the board didn't have at least one fleeting moment when they asked themselves "are we close enough? can we reduce the risk with a few more rushes? why are we doing this" It was (and is) a very reasonale set of thoughts to march through. and it opens up the sorts of larger questions Art is exploring. Again, Art may be wrong....but I don't think posing the hypothesi is by any means outrageous, idiotic or alarming.

[wpenn1]

Is it me or does Andy Reid's butt look firmer these days?

Edited to comply with forum rules. ~ihs

[TheLongshot]

Art may be wrong....but I refuse to believe that the bulk of the board didn't have at least one fleeting moment when they asked themselves "are we close enough? can we reduce the risk with a few more rushes? why are we doing this" It was (and is) a very reasonale set of thoughts to march through. and it opens up the sorts of larger questions Art is exploring. Again, Art may be wrong....but I don't think posing the hypothesi is by any means outrageous, idiotic or alarming.

I might have had a slightly ****ed eyebrow for a second when he sent Suisham on the field, but considering all the lost opportunities that happened in the game, it made perfect sense to me: let's not let anything else happen in this game and just end it right now and get off the field with a win. Yeah, it was slightly unusual, but not THAT unusual.

Let me say this: It wasn't the same reaction as I had when we ran on 2nd down on the 2 minute drill in the 4th quarter. That really didn't make much sense to me.

As for Art's hypothesis, I don't think it is a bad one, but I don't see the strong evidence for it as of yet. All Art has are Gibbs' words at his press conference, which we all know is almost never the whole story. I think my counterargument is as valid an explanation as Art's.

Jason

[Thirtyfive2seven]

I said the exact same thing in the game thread; I didn't like the call, win or no win. It shows a lack of confidence in the team.

[*Connecticut_Skins_Fan*]

As much as i wanted them to continue on, driving, thinking a kick on 1st down was not the right thing,(but who am i) i can see where , we kick it to win, and not take the chance on a fumble or any other negative happining.

[Jimbo]

Every Skins fan in the bar I watched the game in had the same reaction....WTF? None of us could believe we were kicking on first down from that far out. Obviously, we were all ecstatic that Suisham made the kick but the discussion afterwards centered on what a gamble it was and what a clutch, perfect kick Shaun made. Of course, we had just witnessed the Broncos beating the Bills, the Packers beating the Eagles and the Skins beating the Fins, all on last second or OT Field Goals, in just a matter of minutes. The bar was a happy place after all of that so we didn't want to dwell on the negatives too much.

My final conclusion is this: Just because it's a successful decision doesn't mean it's the right decision.

I agree with most of what Art says but now it's time to relish the fact we are 1-0 and look ahead to the Monday Night game in Philly and see if we can learn from this and build on it.

[fansince62]

I might have had a slightly ****ed eyebrow for a second when he sent Suisham on the field, but considering all the lost opportunities that happened in the game, it made perfect sense to me: let's not let anything else happen in this game and just end it right now and get off the field with a win. Yeah, it was slightly unusual, but not THAT unusual.

Let me say this: It wasn't the same reaction as I had when we ran on 2nd down on the 2 minute drill in the 4th quarter. That really didn't make much sense to me.

As for Art's hypothesis, I don't think it is a bad one, but I don't see the strong evidence for it as of yet. All Art has are Gibbs' words at his press conference, which we all know is almost never the whole story. I think my counterargument is as valid an explanation as Art's.

Jason

I hear ya Jason. and, yea, we will just have to wait and see what happens in similar situations down the road. again, the only thing I'm asserting is that I REACTED the same way Art did AT THE TIME this took place. like others...end game for me is just that! the game ended and we won!

on a different tact...is the Suishman really that good/dependable? I have no clue.

[Aston]

My final conclusion is this: Just because it's a successful decision doesn't mean it's the right decision.

I had just about put my horse-beating stick down, but reading this sentence ignited the remaining brain cells I have left from last night's binger. I didn't know why at first, but I couldn't let it go. I thought, tried to forget about it, but couldn't forget or remember why this statement was so important to this coversation.

So I re-read Art's piece again. And there it was, jumping out off the page like a neon sign.

At halftime, trailing by four after an unconventional, gutsy call by Dolphins first-year coach Cam Cameron, I wrote we are, as a team, what we've too long been. We are an inconsistent bunch incapable of stringing enough good plays together to really emerge as a team.

Can anyone think of a more fitting example of a call being successful, but (conventionally anyway), not right?

Sure, they ended up scoring. Sure, it gave them a bit of momentum. But sure, it was a stupid call when you weigh the calculations, risk, closeness of the game, etc. If Rogers turns his head a split second sooner and knocks that ball down, and then we end up going up by 14 after our opening drive in the second half, we don't even come close to overtime! So in that scenario, Art, is first-year head coach Cameron still "gutsy" or just plain dumb? Think about that.

Then fast forward to the end of the game. Gibbs, a HOF coach with 3 Super Bowl trophies, is presented with a first down in overtime with the opportunity to end the game with a 40 yard field goal.

A coach younger, more reckless, gutsy, ballsy, or whatever you want to call it, would have kept going. Kept pressing. Kept showing confidence. Kept giving us fans more excitement, with no consideration of risk and no awareness that eminent doom may lie in the next play. Like a delusional contestant on Deal or No Deal, he would have been blinded by the glory of the Perfect Scenario - marching it down their throats and basking in the glory of his own personal greatness in front of a group a reporters eager to call him the Next Great Gunslinger Coach.

A smarter coach, using years of wisdom, recognized the opporunity to end the game on the next play, and didn't hesitate to take it.

My final conclusion is this: I'm glad we have the smarter coach.

[Art]

Aston,

You go for the win on the road and the tie at home. Old sports axiom as it relates to football. Cameron's call was unconventional. It was risky. You're right, it wasn't a BETTER decision because it worked than it was if it didn't, but, I LOVED that call. If we did it and failed, I'd be deflated, but, I'm not one who will ever criticize a risky call with cat calls because it failed. I like that type of confidence.

Still, I do not apply what ifs typically to my views. I don't think what Gibbs did was WORSE if Suisham had missed it. I'm glad he made it, but don't think the decision was better because he did. We can allow ourselves one heck of a conversation if we speak about things that didn't happen. And, if we use your scenario where the Dolphins failed, use the one where we miss the kick. We give a dying team a new life. We demoralize our guys. We don't know what happens, but, we know in one kick, we could have turned our momentum in to their momentum.

[gortiz]

anybody ever stop to think (maybe they did after 299 posts) that JG knows/thinks/feels something about Suisham that nobody knows about? Remember, he didn't bring in another kicker for a reason. And don't tell me JG doen'st think kickers are important.

Would have JG done the same thing with Hall? The kid from Maryland? Maybe he is just that damn confident in this kid. Maybe he was more confident in the kid making the kick the the offense not making a mistake.