Gregg Williams quote

[TheLongshot]

I think you are right, to an extent. However, if Gibbs told GW to pull back a bit(I doubt GW has that authority himself), then he more than likely told the offensive coaches the same thing.

You don't know Gibbs very well, do you? Even back in the glory days, he never told Pettibone how he wanted the defense to play. He has always left his defensive coach to run defense however he wants to run it.

I'm pretty confident that the decision is all Williams.

Jason

[PCS]

I think you are right, to an extent. However, if Gibbs told GW to pull back a bit(I doubt GW has that authority himself), then he more than likely told the offensive coaches the same thing. I did notice in the third quarter the defense playing a deep zone(even a deep cover 3), and I remember complaining about it then. Then it went into the fourth and it became evident the offense starting doing the same(I didnt specificaly remember the offense doing that in the 3rd quarter). I dont like it regardless, and I think the stats, records, and succesful offenses in the NFL speak for themselves, but I do think you are right about his comments having more to do with his defense then the offense.

Actually, I think GW does have that authority. My guess he told Coach Gibbs what he was doing with the assurance that his defense could hold. Especially considering the conditions and the way the Giants had played up to that point. Also makes sense because the Giants, though with plenty of time and despite conditions, were clearly looking to throw the ball. GW could sit back there and let them do it. If memory serves, at least twice this strategy nearly worked with near interceptions. He did go back to some attacking as soon as the Giants started having more success moving the ball, (which they did in part as a result of GW's defense hanging back).

[deejaydana]

How about how the offense just played a clear run formation 3 times straight when approx. 5 minutes was left? We basically conceeded to them what we were going to run and they knew we'd be punting to them after we got stuffed on 3rd down. It was more vintage "protect the lead" Gibbs.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

maybe this will shut up all the people who call out Joe Gibbs for being conservative with the lead.

If they can read it that is.

My point is that 22-3 isn't enough to sit on any lead and call off your defenders. I don't care if the score is 22-0 and it's the 4th quarter with about 8 minutes left. Why bother going to prevent. Just keep up the pressure and get the ball back. Then allow your offense to run out the clock. What is with this reverse mentality that GW has? He wants the other teams offense to run out the clock?? This is stupid IMO and it's cost us games.

GW cost the Redskins games by calling off the dogs. Not Joe Gibbs.

[Gigantor]

Did u see that stat? Gibbs leads the league in losing leads at halftime in past 4 years.

yeah, it definitely doesn't help when your qb throws interceptions inside the 20 on critical game winning drives and looses the game for you.

The good news is that fate solved that problem for us, 'til next season atleast... when Jason "the choker" Campbell might return.

[Peregrine]

Course, you don't bother to mention that the difference is only one point. If we kick an extra point, you don't even have an argument.

Jason

Actually what you just said confirms my very point...

That all of the teams that won in the NFL finished the game by scoring my points then their opponent in the second half(the only reason ours was an exception to the rule I put forth was we went for two). In otherwords, they didnt just play to "hold" the team from catching up to them.

[Peregrine]

Actually, I think GW does have that authority. My guess he told Coach Gibbs what he was doing with the assurance that his defense could hold. Especially considering the conditions and the way the Giants had played up to that point. Also makes sense because the Giants, though with plenty of time and despite conditions, were clearly looking to throw the ball. GW could sit back there and let them do it. If memory serves, at least twice this strategy nearly worked with near interceptions. He did go back to some attacking as soon as the Giants started having more success moving the ball, (which they did in part as a result of GW's defense hanging back).

Well, if GW has that authority, then doesnt that have the potential to throw of the entire teams gameplan? We know Gibbs tells the offense when to pull back, and we know he does so because he doesnt want to take any chances, he doesnt want to lose the game through mistakes. So taking that into account, if he changes his offensive philosophy to be less agressive, then wouldnt GW all of the sudden deciding to change up his defense to be more agressive(blitz more, less safety coverage) completely clash with the entire teams gameplan? Doesnt that defy the very definition of a team(people coming together to work together for a common goal)?

At some point, Gibbs has to be on the same page with his coaches, and they with him. I just find it hard(ok, impossible) to believe that Gibbs(especially since he isnt calling any plays) allows one coach to do one thing while the other coach pulls in the opposite direction.

[TheLongshot]

Actually what you just said confirms my very point...

That all of the teams that won in the NFL finished the game by scoring my points then their opponent in the second half(the only reason ours was an exception to the rule I put forth was we went for two). In otherwords, they didnt just play to "hold" the team from catching up to them.

No, you are wrong. Three games were tied in scoring in the second half. (Phi - Dal, NE-NYJ, Buf-Cle) If Gibbs decides to kick an extra point, he joins those games.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

How about how the offense just played a clear run formation 3 times straight when approx. 5 minutes was left? We basically conceeded to them what we were going to run and they knew we'd be punting to them after we got stuffed on 3rd down. It was more vintage "protect the lead" Gibbs.

And the Giants needed to score two TDs in that time, without any timeouts.

Considering throwing was dicey all day, it wasn't a bad call.

Jason

[NVskinsfan]

Dummy coaching again....:doh:

[Peregrine]

No, you are wrong. Three games were tied in scoring in the second half. (Phi - Dal, NE-NYJ, Buf-Cle) If Gibbs decides to kick an extra point, he joins those games.

Jason

So, you were quick to call me wrong, yet failed to actually read my post... I said that in every single game this week the winning team outscored the losing team, or was equal in the second half. So your argument is, that every single losing team in the NFL this week, all 15 of them, failed to play better than their opponent in the second half, and so im wrong for saying that teams have to play well in the second half. Pardon me if im less than convinced.

[TheLongshot]

So, you were quick to call me wrong, yet failed to actually read my post... I said that in every single game this week the winning team outscored the losing team, or was equal in the second half. So your argument is, that every single losing team in the NFL this week, all 15 of them, failed to play better than their opponent in the second half, and so im wrong for saying that teams have to play well in the second half. Pardon me if im less than convinced.

Course, you didn't mention the "tied" part in your second post.

Still, my point stands: Your argument is weak at best. It isn't like the Giants were roaring back into the game. It is all about a coaching decision that didn't have much effect on the outcome.

Jason

[Whiskeypeet]

Comedy. Anyone who believes this team has the guns at this point to win consistently is absolutely dillousional. In fact, its questionable wether the team had such talent prior to all the injuries. However, feel free to continue ignoring this.

[GSF]

OK it was both. The defense stopping them and they stopping them selves. But they still got into position what scared me. If they get the FG early its 22-13.

Thats scary. They get to the redzone next drive. They fail but than we go on a 3 and out when they used all 3 time outs. I was scarred that we mess up this big lead

This post makes more sense so I take back calling you a dummy.

I know what you mean, and I was nervous too. I'm sure most Skins fans were, especially considering how many leads we've blown this year. Don't forget though, we blew most of those leads turning the ball over and/or giving up big plays, which is exactly why they went conservative. They did the right thing under the circumstances. You follow me?

[Peregrine]

Course, you didn't mention the "tied" part in your second post.

Still, my point stands: Your argument is weak at best. It isn't like the Giants were roaring back into the game. It is all about a coaching decision that didn't have much effect on the outcome.

Jason

I still fail to understand how you can call it "weak at best". It was supported UNANIMOUSLY this week. Its rare for teams in the NFL to get outscored in the second half and still win the game. It isnt an arguement about the Giants game(judging a philosophy on one game is foolish at best), its an arguement about a philosophy of trying not to lose in the second half. You can call it whatever you like, but take a look, and you will see that in the NFL, its absolutely clear across the board, teams that outplay in the second half win. Its not how you start, its how you finish.

[skinsince72]

Being conservative and sitting on leads works when the defense can stop the pass. But you should only sit on a 21 point lead in my opinion. Sitting on a 7, 10, or 13 point lead is ridiculous.

[TheLongshot]

I still fail to understand how you can call it "weak at best". It was supported UNANIMOUSLY this week. Its rare for teams in the NFL to get outscored in the second half and still win the game. It isnt an arguement about the Giants game(judging a philosophy on one game is foolish at best), its an arguement about a philosophy of trying not to lose in the second half. You can call it whatever you like, but take a look, and you will see that in the NFL, its absolutely clear across the board, teams that outplay in the second half win. Its not how you start, its how you finish.

So, why don't you go back to other weeks and collect stats there, if it isn't just about this week? As I said, if Gibbs decides to kick the extra point instead of going for two, you wouldn't have an argument. You need more than just this to make a convincing argument.

BTW, two of the three teams that were tied in the second half had something in common with the Skins game: Inclement weather.

Jason

[skinfan4ever]

It just doesn't make sense to let the opposing team start gaining confidence then when they get within a TD you flip the switch and expect them to be able to stop them on defense or score on offense.If thats their gameplan its no wonder we lost so many close games.

[mistertim]

yeah, it definitely doesn't help when your qb throws interceptions inside the 20 on critical game winning drives and looses the game for you.

The good news is that fate solved that problem for us, 'til next season atleast... when Jason "the choker" Campbell might return.

Yes, because Campbell has been our starting QB since 2004, right? Come on. Look we know you don't like Campbell but we're talking about a consistent trend since Gibbs came back. They were talking about the most blown halftime leads since 2004, not "since Campbell was their QB". Can't you give it a rest for one thread?

[Muzzah]

Continuing to toss deep balls and play the passing game with 25mph winds is kinda dumb. Especially when we had already dodged quite a few bullets. No need to play roulette with a loaded gun, let the other guy take his chances.

[Mister Happy]

When the Giants' Offense couldn't get out of its own way is exactly the time you want to step on their throats. If you let them hang around, they might get hot again and come back and win, like they did last game.

Gibbs gets a pass because of the crazy weather, but this is the kind of crap that could keep us out of the playoffs.

How many 2nd half leads does Gibbs have to lose before he gets the point?

I don't think anybody can honestly say that they felt safe that the Giants wouldn't come back and win.

[Johnny White Guy]

Guys, we didn't lose, RELAX.

[dizzinator53]

Welcome to Redskins football under Gibbs/Williams.

Dip your foot in....the water is warm.

It's actually piss.

[mcarey032]

In case Coach Gibbs and the rest of the team has forgotten 2005 and earlier this year, just because you are up by a large margin do you let a team up. In 2005 we were stomped in the meadowlands 36-0 and then this year by the patriots 52-7. Haven't we learned anything by those losses and when we are up. When you can score points, you do. You don't let up and you don't lay off. If we were to go up by large margin then you put in back ups, but yo don't let off. I agree with what most of the people who have posted have said thus far and that is you can't just sit on leads. You go for the win. That is why we are where are because we decide to try and run the clock out and we don't want our QB making mistakes. I think that they have let loose a little bit with Jason, but I worry that too many times that the coaching staff has liked to use that plan and we fall in the end. I hope that the team looks at this strategy and mentality and say to the coach, lets go for the win. But that would be just wishful thinking in reality.

[Skins247]

Earlier today I was listening to the radio (czaban show) and they were talking about the skins win. They then played a clip from gregg williams after the game. He said something along the lines of they were comfortable with the 22-3 lead and that they would lay off a bit, and that if the Giants were to pull within ONE score they would start attacking again. Guys we had that lead at the beginning of the second half and they then decidid to start playing clock games. God I hate this mentality, this is why we lose these leads all the time because we don't attack. We were moving the ball at will against them and Gibbs decides to call off the dogs. I don't understand I don't see ANY other coach in the NFL pull this crap except Gibbs. The defense stopped attacking Eli, and they strated moving the ball on us. If it weren't for some timely drops, this game could have ended in devastating fashion again. It just so happened to work this time because the Giants stunk up the field, and it scares me because Gibbs might think it works.

Is it just me, or was that decision to go for two early in the 2nd a stupid move? And, im not saying this in hindsight. I was actually saying, "what the **** is he doing?" at the time it was happening. Seriously, I didn't understand the logic there, at all. VERY early 2nd half, you just scored a TD to go up by 19. Why do you think its wise to take a sure point off the board? To me, that was almost like he was thinking that he expected them to come back. I don't go to "the card" until the 4th quarter at the earliest. Especially if you're up 19 like we were.