Redskins.com: You first, coach.

[TheLongshot]

That all he said, Jason, or did he say anything else? Since you know the answer, why would you cherry pick what was said almost as an afterthought to the primary answer he spent more time on in explaining?

I was pointing out that Gibbs said what he wanted to hear. Anything else Gibbs said was immaterial to the subject I was replying to.

Jason

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Cali, I don't think you're actually baffled. I don't think you believe the field goal was a good call because he made it or that it would have been a bad call had he missed it. A call is good or bad the moment is is made. The outcome doesn't impact the decision itself. I do not believe you allow yourself to judge everything that happens solely based on the outcome.

Do you?

No, I think it was a good call regardless of whether or not it was made because Suisham was easily within his makable range...we fans may not want to believe that, but he was. And I don't see this call being one iota different than the call for a field goal on 2nd down against Seattle in 2005...the only difference was that Moss made it to around the 16 yard line as where Portis made it to the 22 yard line. I don't see six yards as being worth chastising Gibbs over.

[Art]

But, if you have confidence that your field goal kicker can make a 40 yard field goal, is it a bad decision to let him kick it? You seem to think it is.

Jason

It's a bad decision in nearly every known instance, yes. It can be acceptable when you have an established kicker and a less established offense. But the negative of the decision is compounded when you openly state you were so afraid of something bad happening with the other guys. As much confidence as you may have in Suisham, the other 11 guys play a lot more than he does. Like for every 25 plays they play, Suisham plays one. Stoke the confidence of those who need it if you intend to really achieve anything.

[TheLongshot]

:laugh:It was my way of saying that lacking a logical argument you felt the need to exaggerate Suisham's ability. He's still unproven. This confidence of yours is born of hindsight.

Well, Gibbs is so confident in this "unproven" kicker that he had no competition in training camp for his position.

Fact is, Gibbs has seen in practice and in game situations what the kid can do, and has confidence that he could do his job. Whether or not you have confidence in him is immaterial.

Jason

[Califan007 The Constipated]

:laugh:It was my way of saying that lacking a logical argument you felt the need to exaggerate Suisham's ability. He's still unproven. This confidence of yours is born of hindsight.

Have you even looked at his stats from within 40 yards? From within 45 yards? Were you paying attention to how accurate and long his kicks were during the game? I was. I was no more nervous about him making a 40 yarder than I would have been about him making a 30 yarder.

We all jump up and down about how Portis and Betts were playing well and should have taken advantage of that fact. Nobody, NOBODY, says the same about Suisham and how well HE was playing and how we should have taken advantage of THAT fact. It's like the man doesn't even exist..."What's his name again? Swishee? Squishee?...Who is that guy out there about to kick the field goal? Where'd he come from?"...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

And again, I still don't get how these two statements...

"Gibbs is "playing scared" if he kicks the field goal on 1st down...

Yet Gibbs is "taking a risk" by not moving the ball forward more so that the field goal is a safer bet..."

...can co-exist in anyone's mind and have them both make sense.

[Art]

No, I think it was a good call regardless of whether or not it was made because Suisham was easily within his makable range...we fans may not want to believe that, but he was. And I don't see this call being one iota different than the call for a field goal on 2nd down against Seattle in 2005...the only difference was that Moss made it to around the 16 yard line as where Portis made it to the 22 yard line. I don't see six yards as being worth chastising Gibbs over.

Cali,

I don't know how to clearly make you understand something that is so clear to me. What Gibbs did, both how and when and what he said after, is a straight insult to the guys who worked their way down the field. It's about timing and establishing an identity. Gibbs mentioned it after the game. He said he thought we started to establish an identity in there in overtime.

He said it almost as if he know we didn't finish that job because he called it early. While that's purely me reading into his words, what's not reading in is the fact he made the decision based on his FEAR of FAILURE, not his confidence in success. When you coach afraid of the mistake, your team plays tight and makes mistakes.

You know this if you've played sports at any level. Do you know this? Whether you agree that's what Gibbs did or not, do you agree if you're coached and culture is fear of failure that the team will be less good because of it?

Gibbs has always coached on the premise of fear of the opponent. He's always used that to build up the enemy to get his team to stay as focused as possible. That's typically something that works. It NEVER works to base coaching decisions on bad things that happened a few years ago.

[Jimbo]

I certainly understand a lot of younger guys having no problem with Gibbs kicking on first down. Nowadays, most of us are happy with a win anyway we can get it. Us older guys remember when Riggo would have kept trudging through the line or Gibbs would have gone play-action with a safe pass to get the ball even closer for a Mark Moseley chip shot.

I guess we just got spoiled during Gibbs v1.0 watching our offense ram it right down the other team's throat and then put the final nail in the coffin. We felt then like we beat them down. Using boxing terminology, it was a KO in the final round.

This felt like we won on points by getting the last jab in. You still win but did you really prove anything?

[TheLongshot]

It's a bad decision in nearly every known instance, yes. It can be acceptable when you have an established kicker and a less established offense. But the negative of the decision is compounded when you openly state you were so afraid of something bad happening with the other guys. As much confidence as you may have in Suisham, the other 11 guys play a lot more than he does. Like for every 25 plays they play, Suisham plays one. Stoke the confidence of those who need it if you intend to really achieve anything.

Art, every coach is afraid of something bad happening, which is why most overtimes end with a field goal. Most coaches get their team in range and end it. I don't see how this is much different.

Going back to the example of 2005, the problem there was that John Hall had questionable range, so Gibbs did need to get closer. He had no confidence in his kicking game. And, it ended up costing us that game. If the team is in the range of their field goal kicker, I don't have a problem with them kicking it. Gibbs' confidence in Suisham was justified.

Jason

[Art]

And again, I still don't get how these two statements...

"Gibbs is "playing scared" if he kicks the field goal on 1st down...

Yet Gibbs is "taking a risk" by not moving the ball forward more so that the field goal is a safer bet..."

...can co-exist in anyone's mind and have them both make sense.

You've created a contradiction that does not exist.

The risk of kicking a field goal is a miss and change of possession. That risk is far higher than running a dive play. The further out you are, the greater than risk. It's that simple. The fact he'd take that risk by being afraid of the risk of continuing the drive based on the Thanksgiving weekend game against San Diego and other things is distressing. It's not a slam on Gibbs, because, as I wrote, he has legitimate reason to doubt his guys can do such things. But, it's a message to them as well, and, it's a message that, itself, limits what we can be until the message changes.

[Art]

Art, every coach is afraid of something bad happening, which is why most overtimes end with a field goal. Most coaches get their team in range and end it. I don't see how this is much different.

Going back to the example of 2005, the problem there was that John Hall had questionable range, so Gibbs did need to get closer. He had no confidence in his kicking game. And, it ended up costing us that game. If the team is in the range of their field goal kicker, I don't have a problem with them kicking it. Gibbs' confidence in Suisham was justified.

Jason

It's different because it was first down and because Gibbs said he did it because he couldn't trust his offense not to go in reverse. If you're honestly making the point that once you reach a kicker's range, you ought bring him out, then why didn't we on the third and 4. Third is traditionally the down you do kick on to save the extra down in case of a bad snap. Why advance one inch further once you already attained your goal of getting into range?

You know the answer. Knowing it is what invalidates the rest of what you say.

[TheLongshot]

He said it almost as if he know we didn't finish that job because he called it early. While that's purely me reading into his words, what's not reading in is the fact he made the decision based on his FEAR of FAILURE, not his confidence in success. When you coach afraid of the mistake, your team plays tight and makes mistakes.

While there is the fear that something could happen if you run another offensive play, on the other hand there is the confidence that Suisham can make a kick from that distance. Gibbs was able to make that call because of his confidence in Suisham. Without that, he would have to feel like he needed to get a few more yards, like he did against San Diego in 2005.

And, I don't think he was coaching scared at that point either. That pass to Cooley wasn't a gimmie. Someone could have stopped him before getting a first down, but he had confidence that everyone could do their job.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

It's different because it was first down and because Gibbs said he did it because he couldn't trust his offense not to go in reverse. If you're honestly making the point that once you reach a kicker's range, you ought bring him out, then why didn't we on the third and 4. Third is traditionally the down you do kick on to save the extra down in case of a bad snap. Why advance one inch further once you already attained your goal of getting into range?

You know the answer. Knowing it is what invalidates the rest of what you say.

The answer is that it would have been a 50+ yard field goal, since the ball was on the 32 yard line. Portis gained about 11 yards on that play. If Gibbs did try a field goal from that distance on 3rd down, I probably would have questioned his sanity.

But, he didn't. He tried from a closer 40 yards, which should be automatic for an NFL caliber kicker.

Jason

[Oldfan]

Have you even looked at his stats from within 40 yards? From within 45 yards? .

It's the first game winner he has ever kicked at any level. This is the same guy who missed both attempts over 32 yards at Dallas and got cut. We all hope he's the real thing, but don't exaggerate the situation for the sake of argument. He's not Nick Novak but he's not Adam Vinatieri either.

[turbodiesel#44]

I see exactly what Art is saying. But it's hard to argue with the win, and I don't blame JG for showing just a little hesitance in fully trusting in the offense after last years debacle. And trusting the refs too. But getting closer would have made for poorer field position for the fins if the kick was off. And getting closer would have improved the probability a little bit too.

So the bright side is we have a win and a dependable clutch kicker. How many games over the last two years did we lose because we had to go for it or punt instead of risking a 45 yarder with Hall? This is a good thing. 1-0 is a good thing. There are way more important shortcomings to this squad than how we win games. I think the team will earn trust from their coach once they prove themselves. We will see how the call is made in a similar situation further in the season.

[tryfuhl]

good writeup

I'm so sick of just pulling enough **** out of our asses to scrape by

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You are only talking about 10 yards. Not really all that much difference there. In the NFL, you expect your field goal kicker to be automatic within 40 yards. While it isn't a chip shot, you expect him to make that kick.

Jason

Ten yards is absolutely enourmous when it comes to kicking fieldgoals. Probably something like 15 percent.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm still baffled how calling a game-winning play is "silly", especially when the guy you're asking to make that play is pretty much 100% accurate from inside that range and has been kicking them 20 yards deeper?...

Our kicker is still named Suisham, right?

He's not 100 percent anything at this point in his career. At this time next year, he may be Jason Elam. Right now, he is a kid who has bounced around the league and may be the answer.

(By the way, even if our kicker is named Jason Elam, it is the wrong call).

Didn't Herm Edwards lose a playoff game by doing something similar to this?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I certainly understand a lot of younger guys having no problem with Gibbs kicking on first down. Nowadays, most of us are happy with a win anyway we can get it. Us older guys remember when Riggo would have kept trudging through the line or Gibbs would have gone play-action with a safe pass to get the ball even closer for a Mark Moseley chip shot.

I guess we just got spoiled during Gibbs v1.0 watching our offense ram it right down the other team's throat and then put the final nail in the coffin. We felt then like we beat them down. Using boxing terminology, it was a KO in the final round.

This felt like we won on points by getting the last jab in. You still win but did you really prove anything?

It's not an older guy/younger guy thing.

It's a "best football decision" thing.

Question: If Gibbs had called for the field goal from 50+ out and Suisham had made it, would that have been a good decision? Or a crazy decision that he got lucky with?

[aussieskin]

What is wrong with taking the win when it is there to be taken, a good kick is better than a fumble pass missed block or strip, sometimes being conservative is really good, especially when the kick is good.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But, he didn't. He tried from a closer 40 yards, which should be automatic for an NFL caliber kicker.

Jason

Jason Elam is as good as any kicker who has ever played. He is 97 for 107 from 30 to 39. And obviously that includes kicks a lot closer than 39 yards. So, let's say - for arguments' sake that Suisham is an 85 percent chance of making it. That means there is a 15 percent chance of disaster (a miss).

Do you think there was 15 percent chance of the Skins offense screwing up two running plays?

30 yards in is automatic. 40 yards in is a fairly safe kick but not a statistical certainty.

[Pedro]

This all depends on the reason why. If a part of it was that Suisham had never kicked a game winning FG, (all the way through High School, College and his time in the NFL) and this was a 'I need a clutch kicker blah blah' then I'm fine with it.

Remember how Suisham missed his first attempt last season then went on to make the rest? Maybe this was used to as a confidence boost for a game winning position held by a young guy who has the leg to be great?

Lemme see if there's any more straws within reach....

Our Offense was sporadic. Whilst it looked like we were on a roll over the course of the game they were up and down in effectiveness. Suisham hadn't missed.

Yep that will do for me now. Suisham walked the walk every time asked. The Offense are being challenged to match that level.

[Major Harris]

Eh, we kicked the field goal against the Seahawks in OT on 2nd down...nobody expressed doubts about Gibbs then...and it was only like 6 yards closer than the one against the Dolphins was.

Gibbs' goal was to obtain a victory, not to make fans "feel good". I'm MORE than fine with the decision.

i'd be interested to see what the % drop off is between a 39 yard fg and a 32 yard fg.

nice read, art, i agree 100%. i was screaming at the tv.

[Blondie]

Gibbs' move has a silver lining, though.

Suisham proved that in addition to making the routine kicks we can count on him to make a pressure kick at some distance to win a game for us

After our history the past few years with kickers, you have to smile over this development.

Given the close games the Redskins are likely to play in 2007 with a solid defense and an offense with a young quarterback still learning, Suisham may be the difference in 3-4 games.

Nice to think that we now have a chance to win those

Eh, we kicked the field goal against the Seahawks in OT on 2nd down...nobody expressed doubts about Gibbs then...and it was only like 6 yards closer than the one against the Dolphins was.

Gibbs' goal was to obtain a victory, not to make fans "feel good". I'm MORE than fine with the decision.

I quoted these out of all of the responses because they stated what I feel.

Had we NOT kicked.......had there been mental mistakes, silly mistakes, or ref mistakes..........this same article very well could have stated "why didnt we trust our kicker>'

For me, this article is damned if you do......damned if you dont.

I was a few rows from the field.....watching intently the faces of our guys.

They wanted the win.

They wanted the stated me of 1-0.

They wanted it over.

As they ran off the field and touched all of our outstretched hands, with those smiles........and the laughter.......I knew that decision was just fine with them.

[Art]

I quoted these out of all of the responses because they stated what I feel.

Had we NOT kicked.......had there been mental mistakes, silly mistakes, or ref mistakes..........this same article very well could have stated "why didnt we trust our kicker>'

For me, this article is damned if you do......damned if you dont.

I was a few rows from the field.....watching intently the faces of our guys.

They wanted the win.

They wanted the stated me of 1-0.

They wanted it over.

As they ran off the field and touched all of our outstretched hands, with those smiles........and the laughter.......I knew that decision was just fine with them.

Blondie,

No, the same article could not have been written. Not by a sane person. True, JLC would have written an expose where he'd have had a couple people secretly whisper to him that Suisham isn't an NFL kicker and Gibbs can't trust him so he has to make it as easy as possible for him. But, the decision to proceed that drive isn't one that's questioned because it's the normal, standard, right decision.

And, not for the first time in this thread, I'll say, the what if games don't work for me, but if you want to play the what if game, then you have to "what if" Suisham missed the kick. You know the answer as to which what if would have been worse. Thus you know why this isn't a damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a dammit, why'd you do that.