New England: Gambling for the Upset

[Oldfan]

Let's play the coaching game.

Generally, a coach should call the game conservatively if his team has a lead, or if he has the better team and the score is tied. Otherwise, he should gamble. The Redskins should be planning to gamble for an upset of the Patriots.

Offensively -- fourth and short, second and short -- these are the key gambling situations in down and distance because they minimize risk.

The stats guys at Football Outsiders track something they call the Agressiveness Index, basically a ratio reflecting how often a coach goes for it on fourth and short. With 1.0 representing the average, in 2006, Gibbs was a conservative .75 while Belichick, at 1.75, was the most agressive in the NFL.

I'd like to see the Skins coaches get creative with short yardage situations on both sides of the ball. Stopping Belichick if he gambles, and cashing in a couple of fourth-down gambles of our own, could fuel an upset.

A nine-yard gain on first down is better than a 13 yard gain on first down. Second and short is the most favorable down and distance situation in the game. A coach can create more second and short situations by calling first down plays that make that result more likely. Using the RB on a swing pass is more likely to produce second and short than running him off tackle, for example.

I don't have a stat to support this observation, but the Redskins rarely gamble on second and one regardless of the score. They usually run to pick up the first. On the road at New England, they need to open up in this situation. Imagine the Redskins have a second and one on the 50. This is the time to gamble for a big chunk of yardage. If the attempt fails, they can run for the first on third down. If that fails, they can gamble and run for it on fourth down to keep the drive alive and keep Brady on the bench.

I'm not as high on our defensive personnel as most Redskins fans. I think we have just average talent overall, but Gregg Williams is back on his A game this year, getting the most from his troops. Unless the Patriots get a two-score lead, I'm guessing that Gregg will sell out to stop the passing game with pretty much the same plan he used against against Detroit.

I think that's a gamble worth taking. We want Brady handing off to running backs. We want them running time off the clock. We want to keep the score down. Our chances of winning a high-scoring game aren't very good.

What are your thoughts on our strategy going into the game?

[Chump Bailey]

Unless the Patriots get a two-score lead, I'm guessing that Gregg will sell out to stop the passing game with pretty much the same plan he used against against Detroit.

I would agree except for the tiny issue of New England having a vastly better offensive line than does Detroit

We won't be able to pressure Brady with only four DL. The Pat's also have Kyle Brady to help block if needed. If we blitz, then we'll likely get killed also. That's the rub. Brady will have too much time and has too many weapons to utilize.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

You may have a point especially when they get to the red zone. They have to stop becoming so obvious!

[Zhouse]

1. We cannot make mental mistakes on D that keeps Brady moving the chains

2. Capitalize on those double coverage throws Brady makes to Moss. As good as Moss is in those situations, we have to be want the ball more.

3. Our OL HAS TO OPEN UP RUNNING ROOM.

4. Jason hand company has to bring their A+ game (No drops, run good routes, PLAY YOUR HEARTS OUT)

[Stan Neal]

If you think back to the Detroit game, the coaches opted for a two point conversion even though the Redskins were 14 points up. I don't think that they have a problem with agressiveness or gambling. My read is this: Coach Gibbs wanted to play a very conservative game Sunday so as not to give the Patriots anything to practice for this week in their preparation for the Skins. Bill Belichick and Joe Gibbs are old adversaries and both are very smart coaches. I think that the conservative approach almost backfired but we did escape with a win. If you analyse this season, this is the third time the Redskins have faced either the league's or the conference's best offenses. Once against Detroit, then Green Bay and now New England. We nullified Detroit and Green Bay by ball control and aggressive play calling. When they finally got their offenses on the field, the Redskins played execellent defense. The Patriots can be and will be beaten by the Redskins by using the same approach. The 16+ point spread and the doom & gloom predictions are simular to the week leading up to the Saints game last December. The Saints had just dismantaled the Cowboys but the Redskins beat them on their field. Once again, the Saints had the leagues leading offense. If we stick to the game plan we used for Detroit, the NFL will get quite a shock this Sunday.

[Henry]

I agree Oldfan. If there was ever a game to take some chances and open things up, this is it.

[Riggo-toni]

Excellent analysis OldFan. I've been screaming at the TV for some time for them to do more play-action on 2nd and short.

[Oldfan]

I would agree except for the tiny issue of New England having a vastly better offensive line than does Detroit

We won't be able to pressure Brady with only four DL. The Pat's also have Kyle Brady to help block if needed. If we blitz, then we'll likely get killed also. That's the rub. Brady will have too much time and has too many weapons to utilize.

I wasn't suggesting that the strategy would work as well as it did against Detroit, of course. The choice is the lesser of evils.

I am curious to see how Gregg defends the shotgun spread. The Pats are killing defenses with that.

[Wyndorf25]

Let's play the coaching game.

Generally, a coach should call the game conservatively if his team has a lead, or if he has the better team and the score is tied. Otherwise, he should gamble. The Redskins should be planning to gamble for an upset of the Patriots.

Offensively -- fourth and short, second and short -- these are the key gambling situations in down and distance because they minimize risk.

The stats guys at Football Outsiders track something they call the Agressiveness Index, basically a ratio reflecting how often a coach goes for it on fourth and short. With 1.0 representing the average, in 2006, Gibbs was a conservative .75 while Belichick, at 1.75, was the most agressive in the NFL.

I'd like to see the Skins coaches get creative with short yardage situations on both sides of the ball. Stopping Belichick if he gambles, and cashing in a couple of fourth-down gambles of our own, could fuel an upset.

A nine-yard gain on first down is better than a 13 yard gain on first down. Second and short is the most favorable down and distance situation in the game. A coach can create more second and short situations by calling first down plays that make that result more likely. Using the RB on a swing pass is more likely to produce second and short than running him off tackle, for example.

I don't have a stat to support this observation, but the Redskins rarely gamble on second and one regardless of the score. They usually run to pick up the first. On the road at New England, they need to open up in this situation. Imagine the Redskins have a second and one on the 50. This is the time to gamble for a big chunk of yardage. If the attempt fails, they can run for the first on third down. If that fails, they can gamble and run for it on fourth down to keep the drive alive and keep Brady on the bench.

I'm not as high on our defensive personnel as most Redskins fans. I think we have just average talent overall, but Gregg Williams is back on his A game this year, getting the most from his troops. Unless the Patriots get a two-score lead, I'm guessing that Gregg will sell out to stop the passing game with pretty much the same plan he used against against Detroit.

I think that's a gamble worth taking. We want Brady handing off to running backs. We want them running time off the clock. We want to keep the score down. Our chances of winning a high-scoring game aren't very good.

What are your thoughts on our strategy going into the game?

Well said. Maybe you should make the trip to Foxboro since Gibbs has publicly stated that he has no game-plan for the Pats and that the Skins are going to struggle.

[SonnyJ]

While I still disagree with you in that I think the D talent is better than you estimate, I wholeheartedly agree on your basic premise.

The Redskins cannot play this close to the vest (unless they are miraculously up by 2 scores with just a few minutes remaining). They have to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to maintain possession of the ball. Now, that doesn't suggest that they should go for it on 4th & 8 from their own 22, but it does mean that Gibbs is going to have to step outside his comfort zone, even with the knowledge that the occasional negative play is inevitable.

On the defensive side, I don't think Williams can get too creative. Brady will eat up all but the most cleverly disguised blitzes. And you're not going to fool him with exotic coverages. You want to mix things up on him, but if you get "creative", you're leaving something wide open, and Brady will find it. The best approach, IMO, is just playing fundamentally sound football and SMACK THE SNOT out of the receivers once they catch it - kind of like the old strategy of playing the Martz offense of the Rams. Brady will get his, the important thing is to not let it start avalanching.

[redskin56]

I don't like the gambling on fourth and short. You cannot give Brady a short field. He will make plays and produce points out of those gambles if you fail to convert.

The second and short situation; however, I believe you are spot on. The Redskins must challenge New England's defense vertically. We must attempt passes over 20 yards at least six times this Sunday. If we do not challenge them deep, they will hover around the LOS and their linebackers will kill us.

[Oldfan]

I don't like the gambling on fourth and short. You cannot give Brady a short field. He will make plays and produce points out of those gambles if you fail to convert.

If we don't gamble, we will probably lose by a two score margin. If our gambles succeed, we could win by offsetting that two score difference. If our gambles fail, we could lose by four scores.

The point you're missing is that the margin of victory doesn't matter in football.

[DiscoBob]

I almost started a similar thread while thinking about the upcoming game yesterday. We are clearly playing a more talented team who would probably win 8-9 times out of 10.

Our best shot is to take a "What the h***" attitude. We need to draw up an offensive gameplan that is 180 degrees from what we've been doing. 1st Series we should come out and try to throw long (20+ yards) three plays in a row. Try giving Sellers 10+ carries. Run 4 WR sets. Have ARE play QB for a series (run the option!).

ANYTHING to keep the Pats off balance.

On Defense, Rush 3-4 80% of the time and let them get the 4-5 yard carries. If we blitz, do it from the CB's and Safeties off the edge or delayed. Play outside coverage on receivers and dare them to get lit up by our safetys......

[Chump Bailey]

I wasn't suggesting that the strategy would work as well as it did against Detroit, of course. The choice is the lesser of evils.

I didn't think you were OF. IMO, you're certainly among the smartest posters here, if not the smartest. Your contributions are welcomed and appreciated.

I am curious to see how Gregg defends the shotgun spread. The Pats are killing defenses with that.

Me too...

Did you catch Ditka's supposed theory on how to defense them yesterday by chance? He proposed a 2-4-5 scheme I guess you would call it. Rush two with possibly a LB and drop everyone else back in coverage.

[jthor99]

I dont see Coach Williams changing out of his Cover 3 schemes which we have been using against the pass happy offenses we have played so far this season. IMO, this is the way to go about New England. You have to be able to limit there big plays. The more times they have to throw the football that is one more chance we will have to possibly intercept the football. Blitzing the Patriots dosent work, and if we do decied to do so then i think we need to do it sparingly and straight up the middle. Everyone knows Brady loves stepping up in the pocket we need to take that away from him somehow.

[redskin56]

Maybe Gibbs should review the game film from the Dallas/Washington Game from November of 1991.

Washington was undefeated and Dallas recovered an onside kick and kept the Skins off balance the entire game and pulled off the improbable upset. This is the mentality that Gibbs needs to display to keep New England off balance and win the game.

How about this for a quote...........

"If you have a big gorilla, you don't hit him lightly," (Jimmy) Johnson said. "We felt to have any chance, we'd have to play aggressive. We'd have to onside kick, go for it on fourth down, the whole thing. We knew we weren't going to beat 'em unless we played that way."

[redskin56]

Maybe Gibbs should review the game film from the Dallas/Washington Game from November of 1991.

Washington was undefeated and Dallas recovered an onside kick and kept the Skins off balance the entire game and pulled off the improbable upset. This is the mentality that Gibbs needs to display to keep New England off balance and win the game.

How about this for a quote...........

"If you have a big gorilla, you don't hit him lightly," (Jimmy) Johnson said. "We felt to have any chance, we'd have to play aggressive. We'd have to onside kick, go for it on fourth down, the whole thing. We knew we weren't going to beat 'em unless we played that way."

[Oldfan]

4. Jason hand company has to bring their A+ game (No drops, run good routes, PLAY YOUR HEARTS OUT)

I think we need the short passing game to augment the run game for ball control ala the Detroit game -- more first down, high percentage passes.

[Oldfan]

4. Jason hand company has to bring their A+ game (No drops, run good routes, PLAY YOUR HEARTS OUT)

I think we need the short passing game to augment the run game for ball control ala the Detroit game -- more first down, high percentage passes.

[moviedude25]

If I were Gibbs I'd say to the players that there jobs are on the line for this game. If they play poorly they don't want to be on the team next season. I'd tell Al Saunders that the offense is attacking every play, we aren't going to run portis 20 times instead we are putting the game in Jason's hands and will toss the ball down the field all game. If we get INT's then so be it. If we have any chance to win this game at all all the stops will be pulled out. If we have a 4th and 3 or less on the opponants side of the feild we go for it. We will not try and field goals. I'd tell the defense that they will beat the tar out of the WR's and I'd tell Sean and Laron that they need to make there receivers scared to catch the ball. I'd tell the Dline to rush every play and hit the QB every play.

Then and only then will we have a chance to score enough to keep up with them. The coaches will probably try and run the ball and play conservative and in turn I'm expecting to get our asses kicked and lose by 20.

[moviedude25]

If I were Gibbs I'd say to the players that there jobs are on the line for this game. If they play poorly they don't want to be on the team next season. I'd tell Al Saunders that the offense is attacking every play, we aren't going to run portis 20 times instead we are putting the game in Jason's hands and will toss the ball down the field all game. If we get INT's then so be it. If we have any chance to win this game at all all the stops will be pulled out. If we have a 4th and 3 or less on the opponants side of the feild we go for it. We will not try and field goals. I'd tell the defense that they will beat the tar out of the WR's and I'd tell Sean and Laron that they need to make there receivers scared to catch the ball. I'd tell the Dline to rush every play and hit the QB every play.

Then and only then will we have a chance to score enough to keep up with them. The coaches will probably try and run the ball and play conservative and in turn I'm expecting to get our asses kicked and lose by 20.

[Oldfan]

Well said. Maybe you should make the trip to Foxboro since Gibbs has publicly stated that he has no game-plan for the Pats and that the Skins are going to struggle.

No, Joe Gibbs and I have an agreement. I pay no attention when he speaks and he doesn't listen to me. He keeps muttering something about three Super Bowl rings.

[Oldfan]

Well said. Maybe you should make the trip to Foxboro since Gibbs has publicly stated that he has no game-plan for the Pats and that the Skins are going to struggle.

No, Joe Gibbs and I have an agreement. I pay no attention when he speaks and he doesn't listen to me. He keeps muttering something about three Super Bowl rings.

[#98QBKiller]

I think every little thing will contribute to pulling out an upset, including your points about taking gambles for big yardage on 2nd and short and if failing just running on 3rd and 4th down if necessary to pick up the yards.

I like this strategy a lot actually.

I would like to see short, west-coast style passes on 1st down to try and pick up 7-9 yards, setting us up for opportunities like this one.

Belichick is very smart and will have an idea of what to expect from our O. The best thing we can do is throw him off, play differently than we have thus far and gamble a lot. I think we should show 3 and 4 receiver sets on 1st downs and just run the ball up the middle on 3rd and short instead of trying to get it to Cooley or an RB in the flat.

I say we try to keep Brady on the bench, and I don't mean run the ball every play. The best way to keep him on the sideline is to drive with short-yardage passes and runs to the outsides occassionally, gambling on 4th and shorts to keep possession and taking big shots when Belichick is expecting a run or short pass play and when we can convert a 1st if we miss the big shot. We need to play desperate and play with fire, similar to how the Saints' offense played for most of the season last year.

I do disagree with your assessment of our defensive personnel though. I think we have several Pro-Bowl candidates on the squad including: Taylor, Fletcher, and Carter among possible others.

[#98QBKiller]

I think every little thing will contribute to pulling out an upset, including your points about taking gambles for big yardage on 2nd and short and if failing just running on 3rd and 4th down if necessary to pick up the yards.

I like this strategy a lot actually.

I would like to see short, west-coast style passes on 1st down to try and pick up 7-9 yards, setting us up for opportunities like this one.

Belichick is very smart and will have an idea of what to expect from our O. The best thing we can do is throw him off, play differently than we have thus far and gamble a lot. I think we should show 3 and 4 receiver sets on 1st downs and just run the ball up the middle on 3rd and short instead of trying to get it to Cooley or an RB in the flat.

I say we try to keep Brady on the bench, and I don't mean run the ball every play. The best way to keep him on the sideline is to drive with short-yardage passes and runs to the outsides occassionally, gambling on 4th and shorts to keep possession and taking big shots when Belichick is expecting a run or short pass play and when we can convert a 1st if we miss the big shot. We need to play desperate and play with fire, similar to how the Saints' offense played for most of the season last year.

I do disagree with your assessment of our defensive personnel though. I think we have several Pro-Bowl candidates on the squad including: Taylor, Fletcher, and Carter among possible others.