For those who Decry "Conservative" Approach with a Lead

[richhilljr]

I'll make this simple--Gibbs would have won that game. He would have kept the ball on the ground and kicked a field goal with about 7:00 to go. Assuming the defense still steps up, that would make the difference in the game.

Like it or not, there are always games that make both points. The Giants game showed the weakness of the conservative approach. Last night's game showed the virtues of a conservative approach.

In one case, the defense came up big, in the other the defense did not. Its that simple. If you come to play, bring your defense.

[Thoth]

There's a difference between coming out conservative to begin the 3rd quarter, for an entire 2nd half, against one of the more explosive passing offenses in football. . . and chipping a field goal that puts a game on ice with less than half a quarter remaining.

Apples and oranges.

And there's a big difference between calling it conservative when you are in guaranteed field goal range, and have essentially guaranteed points, and calling it conservative before you are in scoring range.

Once again, apples and oranges.

Sorry, no dice, no excuses for Giants loss. That was a coaching loss, period, and no amount of stretched comparisons will change this fact. Lets hope Gibbs has learned, which it seems he has.

Finally, there is a difference between trusting a rookie QB to pass in that situation, and one who has been in the league several years and has started almost a dozen games. Yet again, apples and oranges.

And we might not have won that game because Carlos would have dropped 2 of the 5 INTs. . .kidding there, but. . .

Your comparison is bogus, man.

[Taylor 36]

Actually, that was a players failure to execute loss, not a coaches loss. Try reading up on the actual stats of the plays called in the second half. It was not that conservative.

[BLEED-B&G]

One has nothing to do with the other....

The game was lost on a 3rd and 4 interception when the coaches should have called a run and taken the 3.

The playcalling in the Giants game wasn't just conservative it was just bad....the G-men made adjustments at halftime which we failed to address.

And never in your life compare Dick Labeau to Joe Gibbs

[richhilljr]

All fair points. I was--however unartfully--trying to make the point that for every situation which illustrates against something, there is often an example which shows the opposite. Not always, but often.

If Buffalo had connected on that pass, there would probably be some folks talking about how "aggressive" and genius Buffalo's coach is and how Gibbs and Co. could learn from his guts and "modern" approach. I would still be saying that it was the wrong call, regardless of the outcome. So, I'm sure, would coach Gibbs.

[BLEED-B&G]

If Buffalo had connected on that pass, there would probably be some folks talking about how "aggressive" and genius Buffalo's coach is and how Gibbs and Co. could learn from his guts and "modern" approach. I would still be saying that it was the wrong call, regardless of the outcome. So, I'm sure, would coach Gibbs.

You are absolutely right on this one.....I was calling for the run before the play ran; all I could say was "whatever you do....don't pass the ball." Sure enough they did and it was a bonehead play if I've ever seen one. I considered it way too aggressive and Buffalo was in no position to try and force that play after how they had performed all night.

They were only able to muster 3 points on offense so they should have been content with putting up another 3 which would have put the game out of reach. So I would agree with you, there is a time for being aggressive and a time for being conservative.

Skins vs Giants in the 2nd half.....be agressive.

Buffalo vs Cowboys on Monday night ahead one score....be conservative.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

I'll make this simple--Gibbs would have won that game. He would have kept the ball on the ground and kicked a field goal with about 7:00 to go. Assuming the defense still steps up, that would make the difference in the game.

Like it or not, there are always games that make both points. The Giants game showed the weakness of the conservative approach. Last night's game showed the virtues of a conservative approach.

In one case, the defense came up big, in the other the defense did not. Its that simple. If you come to play, bring your defense.

being conservative in the 4th quarter with 7 minutes left, with an offense with 1 playmaker and a weak rookie QB, is completely night and day than starting to get conservative in the 3rd quarter with a group of talented vets and big time playmakers that the redskins posess.

the bills shouldnt have put the ball in the air at that point. the redskins should have continued attacking but they stopped.

the redskins put up 17 offensive points in that first half.

the bills mustered a field goal with their unit.

[jbowman]

We brought our defense.... they were also on the field the entire second half because the offense didn't just sputter, it stopped.

[#98QBKiller]

Actually, that was a players failure to execute loss, not a coaches loss. Try reading up on the actual stats of the plays called in the second half. It was not that conservative.

If you don't count the final two drives when we were behind with the clock winding down, then no it wasn't that conservative.

[richhilljr]

Again, all fair points.

I was also trying to make the point that it is very hard to win in the NFL without a solid defense. Impossible, no! But difficult.

Last night, the Bills almost won despite an anemic and poor offensive performance from start to finish. The Cowboys won despite a horrible offensive performance. In both cases, the defense bailed the offense out.

You cannot rely solely on your offense or you will be burned and often! Just ask the Packers about that.

[SkinsFanAnt]

Actually, that was a players failure to execute loss, not a coaches loss. Try reading up on the actual stats of the plays called in the second half. It was not that conservative.

Players failure to execute = COACHES LOSS! Give me a break!? How hard is it to get that though peoples heads? They failed to execute because the coaches put them in position to fail. Take away the bonehead mistakes that we had for both games, you are pretty much left with the same situation. I don't remember how many times we tried to predictably run left on the Giants. We didn't do that this game. We didn't run Betts on the goal line..we ran Sellers and threw to Sellers. We didn't go into predictable run, run, pass, punt mode.

Please...we should have won the Giants game just as easily with

same aggressive playcalling and mentality during the second half of the Lions game...if it was simply players being boneheads, we would have still won but the coaches were the boneheads against the Giants in the second half.

[richhilljr]

We brought our defense.... they were also on the field the entire second half because the offense didn't just sputter, it stopped.

I understand this argument--I just don't buy it. Two of the scores were in the third quarter when the defense wasn't that tired. At the same time, they actually came up with a couple of stops late in the game.

Whatever was in the Gatorade this past Sunday was not in the Gatorade during our second half against the Giants...on either offense or defense.

Having said all of this, our loss to the Giants would have been much worse if we would have given up an onsides kick at the end of the game...that would have been brutal.