Memo to Joe

[Uno Mas]

For the past week or so Ive tried not to harp on the old ball coach, as hard as its been. But I cant help thinking of what could have been if he had it in him to call a game like New Englands coach, 'The Jerk'. ( I cant stand the guy so I wont give him the respect of using his name.) New England is sitting on a 2 touchdown lead and what do they do? Drive in the dagger, thats what they do! And thats why they win. They continue to mix it up and pass while the defense surely expects them to run the clock out.

And for those of you who still think its not Joe Gibbs making the conservative calls, think again.

As much as I hope Gibbs has learned his lesson, im afraid Im only dreaming.

[Touchdown Redskins]

As I've said this past week, I've lost faith in Joe Gibbs. We will not see the likes of a 34-13 win (the score currently in the Pats/Bengals game) because JG won't let it happen. Why did the Pats do this? Was it classless or smart? I say the latter because they know that the Bengals can score. They play with respect for the other opponent, so when they get up they STAY up. We play like we're arrogant, or that half a game of domination proved that we're better. It's sickening.

[Stew]

Dont be so pessimistic. Joe is also known for his adjustments. I think we see something wild on Sunday. Gibbs can unload, dont think he cant. Its going to depend on the front four, without heavy blitzing to get pressure. Its a big game for Monty and Golston, they need to step up this week and take control of their position. No worries here, I think we are going to go right at Detroit, I hope we get the ball first.

[Beauty is Only]

For the past week or so Ive tried not to harp on the old ball coach, as hard as its been. But I cant help thinking of what could have been if he had it in him to call a game like New Englands coach, 'The Jerk'. ( I cant stand the guy so I wont give him the respect of using his name.) New England is sitting on a 2 touchdown lead and what do they do? Drive in the dagger, thats what they do! And thats why they win. They continue to mix it up and pass while the defense surely expects them to run the clock out.

And for those of you who still think its not Joe Gibbs making the conservative calls, think again.

As much as I hope Gibbs has learned his lesson, im afraid Im only dreaming.

Was the play calling conservative in the Giants game? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213885

How well do you know the personnel/abilities on this team? As well as Joe Gibbs? How many hours do you spend watching the players practice and talking with position coaches? Is the current version of the Redskins as talented and experienced and successful as the current version of the New England Patriots? Is Jason Campbell just as good as Tom Brady? Should Joe Gibbs emulate the play calling of Bill Belichick with his current cast of characters?

Just askin'.

[Touchdown Redskins]

Honestly, I understand the sentiment that JG is a coach for a reason, and that he should know the team better than anyone else, but shouldn't that logic play for ANY head coach? Do you think it would have worked for Norv Turner or Steve Spurrier? I'm not comparing Norv or Spurrier to Gibbs, I'm just saying that you can't blindly follow someone. Sometimes questioning leads to enlightenment, or else we'd all still be living in the Eastern Hemisphere saying the world is flat.

[Beauty is Only]

Honestly, I understand the sentiment that JG is a coach for a reason, and that he should know the team better than anyone else, but shouldn't that logic play for ANY head coach?

I would say that someone with relatively little football knowledge (i.e., the original poster or just about everyone on this board) is the person least qualified to question an NFL coach's methods, especially one who has won 3 Super Bowls. Do you disagree?

Do you think it would have worked for Norv Turner or Steve Spurrier? I'm not comparing Norv or Spurrier to Gibbs, I'm just saying that you can't blindly follow someone.

Nor is it good practice to blindly question someone based on what you feel or what you think you see. First, do research. If, after accumulating facts and processing those facts you still have questions, THEN, by all means, bring your well-researched questions to bear.

Sometimes questioning leads to enlightenment, or else we'd all still be living in the Eastern Hemisphere saying the world is flat.

Questioning with the intent of actually getting to the truth leads to enlightenment. Not all questions are such. As for the belief in a flat earth prior to westward exploration by Europeans, that is still a debated topic.

[Touchdown Redskins]

I would say that someone with relatively little football knowledge (i.e., the original poster or just about everyone on this board) is the person least qualified to question an NFL coach's methods, especially one who has won 3 Super Bowls. Do you disagree?

Nor is it good practice to blindly question someone based on what you feel or what you think you see. First, do research. If, after accumulating facts and processing those facts you still have questions, THEN, by all means, bring your well-researched questions to bear.

Questioning with the intent of actually getting to the truth leads to enlightenment. Not all questions are such. As for the belief in a flat earth prior to westward exploration by Europeans, that is still a debated topic.

Well, isn't blindly questioning someone's football knowledge just as bad? You simply assumed the OP had no knowledge of the game whatsoever. Yes, I will whole-heartedly agree that he or she may not have the same bank of knowledge as JG, but that doesn't necessarily mean the OP is wrong. After all, I think we can all agree that JG has been coaching very conservatively during his second tenure with the Redskins. Simply because someone doesn't have the same amount of knowledge as someone else, doesn't mean they can't draw their own conclusions and have valid opinions, or else there's no point to this forum or any job for that matter, as there will always be a more knowledgeable person than you in that field.

Now, we may not know exactly what is going on with the organization, but when you boil football down, it's a simple game. This is not rocket science or brain surgery, folks. Yes, schemes can be complicated, but Xs and Os do not make up for or hide a coach's personality and the way he calls plays. Bottom line for the Giants game: Gibbs admitted taking over calling plays in the second half for the offense, and we gained 9 total yards until our last drive and score zero points in the second half. In the first half, we scored 17 points and were moving the ball with efficiency. Cause and effect, it's as simple as that.

By the way, it seems you are questioning our intent in questioning Gibbs. Don't you think we want the same result as you, a fan who does not question Gibbs? We are simply asking for wins, so I guess our if we're not becoming enlightened than neither are you.

As for the world being flat, it's an example that has turned into a cliche. I don't need a history lesson.

[Uno Mas]

Was the play calling conservative in the Giants game? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213885

How well do you know the personnel/abilities on this team? As well as Joe Gibbs? How many hours do you spend watching the players practice and talking with position coaches? Is the current version of the Redskins as talented and experienced and successful as the current version of the New England Patriots? Is Jason Campbell just as good as Tom Brady? Should Joe Gibbs emulate the play calling of Bill Belichick with his current cast of characters?

Just askin'.

Was the playcalling conservative in the Giants game? Not until we had a lead. The second half was predictable, as its been whenever we hold a lead. Im assuming that you grew up watching Gibbs like I did. He coached the same way back then, except back then obvious running plays worked to our advantage because A.) Our offensive line was one of the best ever assembled, and B.) We had a big bruising back by the name of John Riggins who was a bit more reliable in short yardage situations than our current backs.

All of your other questions, IMO, are irrevelant for one reason. If we had called the game in the second half the same way we did in the first half, the way in which we were able to secure a two touchdown lead, that would be different. Ive never understood why a team would stop doing what got them the lead. If it aint broke, dont fix it. Joe thought he could run out 30 minutes with the old standby; Run, Run, Pass, Punt. It didnt work. I know that I predicted the playcalling, as well as most of the skins fans I know. If I can predict such things with the very little football knowledge I have, its no wonder our divisional rival saw the same thing coming.

[TotalRecall]

For the past week or so Ive tried not to harp on the old ball coach, as hard as its been. But I cant help thinking of what could have been if he had it in him to call a game like New Englands coach, 'The Jerk'. ( I cant stand the guy so I wont give him the respect of using his name.) New England is sitting on a 2 touchdown lead and what do they do? Drive in the dagger, thats what they do! And thats why they win. They continue to mix it up and pass while the defense surely expects them to run the clock out.

And for those of you who still think its not Joe Gibbs making the conservative calls, think again.

As much as I hope Gibbs has learned his lesson, im afraid Im only dreaming.

I reviewed the Redskins-Giants second half. The play calling wasn't conservative. The plays were poorly executed. If Brady & co. poorly executed the play calls like the Redskins' offense did, they would have gotten 3 & outs also. The Redskins' defense folded and the Redskins' offense played poorly. Even the last drive had a couple of penalties they had to overcome.

Besides the penalties and turnover, the things that I didn't like about the 2nd-half offense were:

1. They used Cooley as a blocker and a decoy. They didn't even throw to him in the second half.

2. Campbell threw to Portis, Betts, Moss, Randle-El, and Sellers. He needs to include Cooley and one more WR to be more effective passing, otherwise the defense will just double team Moss & Randle El and single cover the RBs & 3rd WR.

3. I didn't like the last 4 plays at the goaline. Also, the end-around to Moss usually doesn't amount to anything and is a wasted play.

[Uno Mas]

I reviewed the Redskins-Giants second half. The play calling wasn't conservative. The plays were poorly executed. If Brady & co. poorly executed the play calls like the Redskins' offense did, they would have gotten 3 & outs also. The Redskins' defense folded and the Redskins' offense played poorly. Even the last drive had a couple of penalties they had to overcome.

Besides the penalties and turnover, the things that I didn't like about the 2nd-half offense were:

1. They used Cooley as a blocker and a decoy. They didn't even throw to him in the second half.

2. Campbell threw to Portis, Betts, Moss, Randle-El, and Sellers. He needs to include Cooley and one more WR to be more effective passing, otherwise the defense will just double team Moss & Randle El and single cover the RBs & 3rd WR.

3. I didn't like the last 4 plays at the goaline. Also, the end-around to Moss usually doesn't amount to anything and is a wasted play.

Go back and look at the play calling in the second half. Up until we lost the lead, which was only two offensive possessions, it was Run, Run, Pass, Punt. When we lost the lead, panic set in and it was all pass from there.

Point is, we are not so potent of an offense that we can run all over someone even when they know we're running, and the same surely holds true in the passing game.

Like I said, go back and look at the playcalling. Its in black and white. What is debatable, however, is if Gibbs can grow a pair and learn from his mistakes and not be so damn predictable. Or hows this, let the man in the booth, you know, the one you HAD to have so therefor Snyder is paying him insane amounts of money.....yeah, that guy. How about letting him do his job. What an original idea!

This topic gets me fired up, I'll stop while Im ahead.

[ZoEd]

Point is, we are not so potent of an offense that we can run all over someone even when they know we're running, and the same surely holds true in the passing game.

Hope you don't mind if I piggy back on this statement:

What team in the NFL has such a potent running game? Can anyone name one? Every potent running game I've seen has had a good, not necessarily great, passing game to go along with it. Most teams with a "potent" running game go down field often enough to get guys out of the box opening up running lanes. It's simple, cause and affect. They feed off each other. We go deep just enough to keep a defense somewhat honest then it's right back to the running game even when it isn't working. Every opposing coach knows JG will run, run, run. In my limited football knowledge I know this and so does everyone else. Just like everyone knows JG goes into a shell when we have the lead and simply tries to run the clock out. It just doesn't make sense.

Does he not have enough confidence in his young QB to keep going down field? Does he not know that first downs gets his Defense off the field? When we have our opponent down we need to step on their throats until we can't step on it anymore, plain and simple. The team and fans not only need it but deserve it. Lets blow some teams out! That's the only way we'll ever instill fear and respect into our opponents. :2cents:

[TotalRecall]

Go back and look at the play calling in the second half. Up until we lost the lead, which was only two offensive possessions, it was Run, Run, Pass, Punt. When we lost the lead, panic set in and it was all pass from there.

Point is, we are not so potent of an offense that we can run all over someone even when they know we're running, and the same surely holds true in the passing game.

You didn't read Om's post in that link provided by "Beauty is Only." His play-by-play was pretty accurate. Campbell was 7 for 16 in the second half. There were 2 drops, 2 miscommunications between Moss/Campbell, 3 passes to not open receivers, and 2 passes overthrown.

They did run, run, pass, punt and then run, run & fumble in the 2 series when they were TIED. They had 4 possessions until they lost the lead.

[Uno Mas]

You didn't read Om's post in that link provided by "Beauty is Only." His play-by-play was pretty accurate. Campbell was 7 for 16 in the second half. There were 2 drops, 2 miscommunications between Moss/Campbell, 3 passes to not open receivers, and 2 passes overthrown.

They did run, run, pass, punt and then run, run & fumble in the 2 series when they were TIED. They had 4 possessions until they lost the lead.

So it is your opinion that we called the second half of the game much like we called the first half? Or are you knit picking?

[Chris0894]

theres too many long posts in this thread :doh: too tired to read them :munchout: so i'll just watch

[Uno Mas]

theres too many long posts in this thread :doh: too tired to read them :munchout: so i'll just watch

I hear ya. Im going to bed. Im sure I'll have the mob after me in the morning though. It kills me that people can watch that Giants game and come away with the opinion that Gibbs didnt call a 'prevent offense'

Looking back, there were a pass or two more than I remembered. But I would bet a lot of money that on those passing downs before we lost the lead that we were in one reciever sets. I just dont remember any real attempt to go after the defense while holding the lead.

[Guest Rafterman]

Well, isn't blindly questioning someone's football knowledge just as bad? You simply assumed the OP had no knowledge of the game whatsoever. Yes, I will whole-heartedly agree that he or she may not have the same bank of knowledge as JG, but that doesn't necessarily mean the OP is wrong. After all, I think we can all agree that JG has been coaching very conservatively during his second tenure with the Redskins. Simply because someone doesn't have the same amount of knowledge as someone else, doesn't mean they can't draw their own conclusions and have valid opinions, or else there's no point to this forum or any job for that matter, as there will always be a more knowledgeable person than you in that field.

Now, we may not know exactly what is going on with the organization, but when you boil football down, it's a simple game. This is not rocket science or brain surgery, folks. Yes, schemes can be complicated, but Xs and Os do not make up for or hide a coach's personality and the way he calls plays. Bottom line for the Giants game: Gibbs admitted taking over calling plays in the second half for the offense, and we gained 9 total yards until our last drive and score zero points in the second half. In the first half, we scored 17 points and were moving the ball with efficiency. Cause and effect, it's as simple as that.

By the way, it seems you are questioning our intent in questioning Gibbs. Don't you think we want the same result as you, a fan who does not question Gibbs? We are simply asking for wins, so I guess our if we're not becoming enlightened than neither are you.

As for the world being flat, it's an example that has turned into a cliche. I don't need a history lesson.

:applause:

Thanks for putting Beauty is Obnoxious in his place.

[Guest Rafterman]

I hear ya. Im going to bed. Im sure I'll have the mob after me in the morning though. It kills me that people can watch that Giants game and come away with the opinion that Gibbs didnt call a 'prevent offense'

Looking back, there were a pass or two more than I remembered. But I would bet a lot of money that on those passing downs before we lost the lead that we were in one reciever sets. I just dont remember any real attempt to go after the defense while holding the lead.

There was none, it was a totally vanilla prevent offense that sucked for air.

[s0crates]

For the past week or so Ive tried not to harp on the old ball coach . . .

Please don't call Joe Gibbs the old ball coach. Bad association.

[SkinsFTW]

Go back and look at the play calling in the second half. Up until we lost the lead, which was only two offensive possessions, it was Run, Run, Pass, Punt. When we lost the lead, panic set in and it was all pass from there.

Point is, we are not so potent of an offense that we can run all over someone even when they know we're running, and the same surely holds true in the passing game.

I agree that the offense was offensive but it wasn't run, run, pass, punt on either drive.

At least go look for yourself before proving to everyone that you didn't really even watch the game.

[Gregpeck99]

Gibbs should play Campbell in the Shotgun on every down ... pass at least 50 times a game ... and use the pass to set up an occassional run. That's the only way Campbell will learn. Did you watch Brady last night? Duh!

[budski]

Gibbs better do something. He's had long enough, the past is the past. I'm impressed with his past, but not the present.

[allwet]

As far as the original post asking for this team to try to put a team away, don't forget in the previous game when Jason Campbell threw deep to Santana Moss to put the game away. That wasn't conservative call--it was a call to put the game away.

I just wish, when something goes wrong, we look at the whole season rather than two or three plays to make sweeping conclusions about this team's potential, future, and coaches.

The basic fact is they couldn't get a first down in thier first four drives and they couldn't stop the Giants from converting first downs on third down. It's easy to say this or that, but until you can get some rythm with being on the field for more than three plays it doesn't really matter.

P.S. Run, run, pass worked well in Miami.

[AAARedskin]

Hey people, it's way too early to be this down. The Lions offensive attack IS FOR REAL. They are no fluke. Mike Martz has been running that offense for a while now. If the Skins can win Sunday, they will be sitting pretty at 3-1, and will have vanquished a formidable opponent, and gained some decent momentum for upcoming road games...

[Blondie]

I dont understand why people are saying JG didnt call the right game..or was being too conservative. I really dont.

I watched that game....and I saw many plays that just were not executed. HAD those same plays been successful....all of these threads would be null and void. They would not have been written....because we would have been successful on the field.

I dont understand the "playing not to lose' concept. I do agree we wont win with 17 points each week.....that just wont cut it.

I have read every post.....and I read the points of view of those posting.

I just dont understand why when we dont execute on the field due to miscues that it is the coaches fault.

Can someone explain?

And I really hope Beauty will speak up here since he states most everyone on this board has no football knowledge.

I do agree and have stated many times that we have NO clue what goes on in the film room or in practice.

I still think Jason is in the learning curve...and we have a ways to go.

This game will be a test for sure.

[Potato Sack]

I dont understand why people are saying JG didnt call the right game..or was being too conservative. I really dont.

I watched that game....and I saw many plays that just were not executed. HAD those same plays been successful....all of these threads would be null and void. They would not have been written....because we would have been successful on the field.

I dont understand the "playing not to lose' concept. I do agree we wont win with 17 points each week.....that just wont cut it.

I have read every post.....and I read the points of view of those posting.

I just dont understand why when we dont execute on the field due to miscues that it is the coaches fault.

Can someone explain?

And I really hope Beauty will speak up here since he states most everyone on this board has no football knowledge. Maybe you can grace this post with your vast knowledge.....since you seem to think we can all learn from you.

:applause: :applause:

Thank you Blondie. I was a little upset with the playcalling in the second half, but I've since gone back and disected the plays. It wasn't the playcalling as much as it was failed execution. Rabach almost completely blew our chances. And if it weren't for a couple of good pass-play calls at the end there and JC's arm we wouldn't have been at the goalline. Thus, we wouldn't have even had a chance to punch it in if we could.

Which brings up the failed-execution argument once again. I've mentioned the highlights on NFL.com. Go look at the first run play at the goalline. You'll see that the play was designed for Betts to follow Sellers, but he didn't execute. He took it upon himself to cut inside - into traffic - and try to score on his own. Failed execution and egos do not give any team a chance to win in the end imho.

My :2cents: