Going for it on 4th Down

[skins4eva]

1 yard is not a gimme against a defense like the boys. (against the run, at least)

Gibbs went for it last year against the boys on the 1 yard line, we didnt get it bc our o-line couldn't even get any push.

I wanted to go for it, but I realize why we go for a field goal. You take the points. He learned his lesson on IMHO lost us the eagles game(2pt, a extra point)

You take the easier pts. Our team was not owning the boys up front and they were destroying our guards and centers.

But, Kevin, the point is that you're not taking the points--if you assume a 50/50 rate of succeeding on 4th and 1, that's still better than Suisham's rate from 50 yards. Therefore, you have a greater chance of converting the down than you do of making the field goal, which is why it's a bad decision.

[willyt]

He does make a good point. Texas Stadium is VERY friendly to kickers. It is the only stadium like it. Very nice turf and the field is convex. The middle of the field is slightly over one yard higher than the sidelines.

Very nice turf and the field is "crowned"

[Rufus T Firefly]

I thought the field goal goes from where the LOS. Same spot as the spot on the 4th down.

I dont think you can critize Gibbs for kicking the field goal. If he made that, we are up by 3. If we go for it and dont make it, we get nothing. Yes, we missed.

Sorry, I dont find it useful to critize our coach for messing up on one play. Hindsight is 20/20.

Again, not hindsight. It was obviously bad decision making as it was happening. And a 50 yard field goal is a longshot regardless. And the possession starts from where the field goal was tried, basically 8 yards more field position for Dallas.

Basically, we decided to try 2 things that had small chances of success (Portis to run for 3 on 3rd down, Suisham to hit a 50 yard FG), with the downside being great field position and a chance to swing momentum for Dallas.

[Shilsu]

The frustrating thing is that the SAFE CHOICE was to actually GO FOR IT.

Instead, we:

1. Got 0 points.

2. Gave Cowboys GREAT field position that led to a TD.

3. Killed our momentum that we had been building driving all the way from our 4-yd line.

[great28]

Dude, I'm glad that you brought this up!! You and I have the same thought process. Just last week we had an instance where we were 4th and approx. 8 inches. Now mind you, we were rolling down the field with ease. Instead of going for it, we not only punt the ball to the eagles, we also punt away all our momentum. The eagles were faced with the same situation, yet they went for it, and got it. They score on the very next drive. It's about thinking outside the box. When you go for it on 4th and 1, you're sending a message to your OL that says, I believe in you and I know you can do it, so therefor I'm putting it in your hands. Nine times out of ten you end up with a successful conversion.

Again I agree with you 100%. We definitely need to start going for it on 4th and 1 more often

[wysknz1]

I just watched the replay of the Montana vs Mont State game. The Griz just hit a 50 yarder. Cut suisham and sign thier FG kicker. j/k

[Newera]

The point is this. This coaching staff loses so many close games by not taking enough chances. This is not rocket science. This team is better then it's record. It's the conservative coaching that is killing them. They think to damn much -- and need to put the ball in Jason's hand. We could have beat Dallas on the road in a hostile environment and lost to Green Bay by only three points -- the two best teams in the NFC. Playing not to lose versus playing to win is a very subtle difference.

By playing close to the vest, this teams record is where it should be 5 - 5. You win some, you lose some. However, if we played more aggressive we would probably be something like 7-3 -- at least right now.

You have to play relentlessly -- and keep the pressure on -- keep teams on their heels. We have kicked far too many field goals in the last three games -- and field goals will not beat the elite teams. We've lost two our of our last three games, and, won the Jets game on last second field goal in ovetime -- even when the coach was afraid to try and convert a 3rd and one.

Here's the deal: We can probably play close to the vest and beat 50% of the teams in the league. But, to beat the elite teams -- you have to play with a killer mind-set.

Every game in this league does not have to be close -- if you have a decent team. If you think every game will be close -- you will play to keep them close by always taking the safe route.

Right now -- the Packers actually believe they're good -- and you can see it. They have swagger now. They were not as confident say four games ago.

The Redskins with confidence could be an exceedingly dangerous team -- but only if the coaches allow them to be. They need to allow that down during this critical stretch run.

I just want to know why it takes our million dollar coaching staff to see things about this team that are obvious to everyone else.

Joe should have gone for it on the first field goal attempt. No excuses there. I remember when we were 11 - 0 in 1991 and Jimmy Johnson and the young Cowboys came into Washington and won. The Cowboys were going for it on fourth down. Throwing Hail Mary's before half time -- and won the damn game. That temperment set the tone for the whole game. They were taking no prisoners. That team went on to win three straight Super Bowls the next three years. But the mind set started there. You play to win the game.

That first fourth down was our opportunity to set the same tone. Let Dallas know we came to play with an aggressive attack mind set. Plus, it gives confidence to your team -- that the coach believes in you. Gibbs just does not seem to have a feel of when to make that critical mommentum changing decision.

[skins4eva]

The point is this. This coaching staff loses so many close games by not taking enough chances. This is not rocket science. This team is better then it's record. It's the conservative coaching that is killing them. They think to damn much -- and need to put the ball in Jason's hand. We could have beat Dallas on the road in a hostile environment and lost to Green Bay by only three points -- the two best teams in the NFC. Playing not to lose versus playing to win is a very subtle difference.

By playing close to the vest, this teams record is where it should be 5 - 5. You win some, you lose some. However, if we played more aggressive we would probably be something like 7-3 -- at least right now.

You have to play relentlessly -- and keep the pressure on -- keep teams on their heels. We have kicked far too many field goals in the last three games -- and field goals will not beat the elite teams. We've lost two our of our last three games, and, won the Jets game on last second field goal in ovetime -- even when the coach was afraid to try and convert a 3rd and one.

Here's the deal: We can probably play close to the vest and beat 50% of the teams in the league. But, to beat the elite teams -- you have to play with a killer mind-set.

Every game in this league does not have to be close -- if you have a decent team. If you think every game will be close -- you will play to keep them close by always taking the safe route.

Great freakin post! Completely agree! That's the problem here.

[Leonard Washington]

i thought we were getting whatever we wanted in that drive, and had the momentum to convert the 4th and 1.

[Oldfan]

I would have gone for it on fourth and one, but I don't think it was the no-brainer that some posters think it was.

Did you consider the score? We were up by seven, doesn't that factor weigh heavily in your thinking? It does in mine.

[skins4eva]

I would have gone for it on fourth and one, but I don't think it was the no-brainer that some posters think it was.

Did you consider the score? We were up by seven, doesn't that factor weigh heavily in your thinking? It does in mine.

My thinking was, there's less than a 50% chance we make the FG, and greater than a 50% chance that we convert the first down. Additionally, we should extend this drive and keep the ball out of Dallas's hands for as long as possible.

Gibbs was just asked about that decision in the press conference and he said "I think it was the right call." That's the kind of thinking that has led us to 5-5.

[Larry Brown #43]

Did you consider the score? We were up by seven, doesn't that factor weigh heavily in your thinking? It does in mine.

Absolutely I considered the score. As soon as I saw Suisham run out there I thought, "Damn. He's going to miss this, Dallas is going to get the ball plus seven free yards, march down the field and tie this son of a ***** up."

[cakmoney61]

Go for it and make it? Brilliant call.

Go for it and get stopped short? Team sucks. Fire everyone.

The controversial call was attempting the very long FG. The more likelihood of success would have been to go for it on 4th down. No one would have asked for anyone's head if the Skins had been stopped.

[Veretax]

Not reading the entire thread. AT this point in the game Dallas offense was doing really badly, and we were moving pretty good. The handoff to betts/portis on that 3rd down play nearly got that 1st down. In my mind, our defense was playing very well, and going for it on 4th and 1 tells them I know you'll get me that ball back if we fail to get this thing. It was early in the game, and the momentum was heavily in their favor. Missing that field goal shortens the field and gives their defense and offense a lift emotionally. remember this Dallas team almost came back against the Pats as I recall.

[florida_skins_fan]

Just another gutless call by the skin's ultra-conservative braintrust. At least the calls are consistent - you know what's coming.

I've had an on-going problem this year with JG's mantra that every game is going to be close. It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I guess his thinking is if they're close at the end, they might be able to win the game. The problem with trying to play every game close is that you have no margin for error. The fact is, this team is not built or coached to be anywhere near error-free. I'd rather he said to his team and the press that they're going to try to blow out (or at least comfortably beat) every opponent. If he were to publically announce such a policy, I sure his mindset/play calling would be more aggressive.

JO

[Fan035]

I would have gone for it.

[Oldfan]

Absolutely I considered the score. As soon as I saw Suisham run out there I thought, "Damn. He's going to miss this, Dallas is going to get the ball plus seven free yards, march down the field and tie this son of a ***** up."

I understand the pessimism, but my thinking went like this:"We should go for it here, but Joe won't. On the otherhand, Suisham probably is 50/50 from here. How would I like our chances of beating Dallas on the road if we came into a 39 minute game given a ten-point handicap?"

I'd like that -- and we had a 50/50 shot at it. So, I couldn't complain when Joe went the other way.

[cakmoney61]

Wait a minute! It wasn't "4th and inches". It was at least a full yard. Not a gimme at all. I too wish we would have gone for it, but it would have been a risk. It wasn't a matter of the QB just sneaking forward and getting the 1st. We would have had to earn it against a tough run defense.

I am tired of hearing how great the competition is...especially from Joe Gibbs. It's like he sees only the oppenents' strengths and his own teams weaknesses. Because of this mentality, he coaches in an overly respectful (aka cowardly) fashion.

[evangel_nc]

I would have gone for it on fourth and one, but I don't think it was the no-brainer that some posters think it was.

Did you consider the score? We were up by seven, doesn't that factor weigh heavily in your thinking? It does in mine.

We had the lead, but we were playing the best offense in the NFC, without ST. I could see the conservative approach against a Buffalo or Chicago, but Dallas? The risk-averse playcalling is so ingrained in this team, there's no accounting for the opponent.

If the 50 yd FG was good, maybe we win at the end with another one. Even so, it's a losing strategy -- we won't consistently beat the better teams never taking any chances.

[Hail2TheRedskins!]

I've been one of the most avid defenders of Gibbs on this board. That being said, I must be honest and admit that I was screaming "go for it" and was very upset when I saw the field goal unit coming out. In hindsight that call may have cost us the game.

I have disagreed with the second guessing in many other threads, however, and I still maintain that Gibbs is doing decent job with in game decisions and a fantastic job with game planning and preparation. The fact that we played Dallas so close even without ST is a minor miracle IMO.

[Oldfan]

We had the lead, but we were playing the best offense in the NFC, without ST. I could see the conservative approach against a Buffalo or Chicago, but Dallas? The risk-averse playcalling is so ingrained in this team, there's no accounting for the opponent.

If the 50 yd FG was good, maybe we win at the end with another one. Even so, it's a losing strategy -- we won't consistently beat the better teams never taking any chances.

I can't argue with your approach here, but I don't think there was that much difference between the two teams going into the game. I saw a much-improved offensive scheme in the Eagles game. I think Dallas is overrated and I'm not as high on Sean Taylor as many Redskin fans.

If Suisham makes the FG, we go up by ten with 39 minutes to play. As I said, I'd go for it -- but it was a tough call IMO.

[Hail2TheRedskins!]

I am tired of hearing how great the competition is...especially from Joe Gibbs. It's like he sees only the oppenents' strengths and his own teams weaknesses. Because of this mentality, he coaches in an overly respectful (aka cowardly) fashion.

Seems to me that most of the Head Coaches in the NFL hit pretty much the same tone. Don't hear too many saying "our next opponent sucks and we are going to lay them to waste." Have you listened to Belichick lately? They're blowing away everyone and he is still talking about how good their opponent is and how they'll have to play great to win. The idea is not to give the enemy any additional motivation.

[cakmoney61]

Seems to me that most of the Head Coaches in the NFL hit pretty much the same tone. Don't hear too many saying "our next opponent sucks and we are going to lay them to waste." Have you listened to Belichick lately? They're blowing away everyone and he is still talking about how good their opponent is and how they'll have to play great to win. The idea is not to give the enemy any additional motivation.

My point is not what he says, but that he really believes what he says in his heart. It's not coach speak to Gibbs. As a result, he coaches in a cowardly fashion. Do you think Belichik (sp) spends a lot of time worrying about his opponents' strengths? He focuses on his team's strengths and his opponents' weaknesses. Gibbs, on the other hand, is consumed with the opponent's strengths. I hope you can see the difference.

[skindogger47]

Go for it and make it? Brilliant call.

Go for it and get stopped short? Team sucks. Fire everyone.

Go for it and get stopped short? Not an option. That should be the mentality. Go for it and make sure you get it. Mike Sellers (on the ground) or QB sneak. Whats the problem.

[BleedBNG]

4th down conversions to date - 4/8 (1/1 against Dallas)

Suisham's FG's good from 45 yrds out - 1/45, 2/46, 1/47

Gibbs didn't go for the 1st down on 4th and 1 (49 FG attempt instead) because he didn't want the Cowboys all pumped up if we didn't make it. Might have also been thinking of last week when we went 0/2 on 4th down conversions against the Eagles. Didn't matter though because the Cowboys went down the field and scored anyways. I kept saying "Go for it, man" because I really felt Suisham was NOT going to make it. I didn't care what the odds were, we're playing the Cowboys damn it.