Gibbs Hog Heaven

Disciplined, commitment to the run football back in DC and it works! Who knew?

Recommended Posts

Getting upset at faceless posters is not something I care to do on an internet message board. Being surprised at your repeated ignoring of what's actually said and inferring something completely different would be more to the point. 

 

I wasn't aware I had/ was expected to have,  a position shy of pointing out some dramatic changes to the first 5 weeks play on Sunday in conjunction with the changes made on a day-to-day basis here the past week. Which I don't think it's any kind of a leap to see the effect they've had. The same way you chose to point out things to the contrary in your brief synopsis of the weekend. 

 

What am I missing here? 

 

Hail. 

Edited by Gibbs Hog Heaven
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so this thread has me in a quandary. I am all for a win. Glad they got it. Was nice to be no the positive side of things. And there were some individual performances that were commendable. But to draw any, and I mean any conclusions to a coaching change from it is, well with all due respect pretty much nuts. 

 

Let's go through this starting with the title. Yes, this year there had been a change in run/pass % on 1st down. But let's be realistic. The last 3+ years the team has run on 1st down more than any team in football. In fact running more on first down is not a change from along time tradition of passing more on first, it was a return to same bull**** from the last 3 or so years. He did run more on 2nd down than we have for some time. But that's because they were getting good yds on first. Had they been getting 4 - 6 yds a carry on first they would have been able to call more 2nd down runs the past few years. But they kept getting 1 to 3 yd so they had to pass more. 

 

Was it more effective Sunday? Yes. But not because of new direction from the coach or some renewed energy from the players. It's because Miami stinks. They were giving up 175 yds gm on the ground coming in! We got 145 if I remember correctly. More importantly we scored 17 pts on a team that was giving up an average of 40+ pts a game!!  That's not even half! Even if you say well the last two games were better - yea 31 and 30! So we score just barely more than half. 

 

Less holding? Due to "more discipline"? LOL Come on man. When the talent on other Dline is ****, you don't need to hold. Nothing magical there. The positive you can say is they took advantage of playing a **** team. At least they didn't come out and not be able to run. 

 

Let's go another direction though - just for kicks and grins. Let's say that the run game was exponentially better and it was due to hard work and discipline. Where was this the last 3 or so yrs and especially the first 5 gms? Wasn't he in charge of the Oline? Didn't he own the run game? Was Bill coaching them down so he become HC? That makes no sense unless he is a complete POS of a human being.  Some of his players and coaches in Oakland have said just that but to be fair I do not know. I honestly do not think so. I think it's more likely that Bill had little to do with Sunday's success. It had a lot to do with playing a really bad team. 

 

 

Having said that, I think it only fair to define what I see as success with Bill and the things I think he can make a difference in that he maybe could not from an assistant position - especially if he and Jay had gone different directions. Full disclosure I was a fan of Jays and still am. But I am a Redskins fan first. So I want to see a path forward. Also, I am not tied to a record. In fact i could care less if it's 1-15 or anything else. I do agree with the OP in this that it is not about winning so much right as instilling a playing culture. 

 

1. Intensity for 60 mins. Jay's teams just never seemed be 100% focused for 60 mins. Even in games we won there were lapses. And not just a player missing an assignment it was more like the entire team was just not focused. If Bill can get the guys to play 60 mins win or lose I see that as a huge improvement. He is not off to a very good start. They fell asleep in the second half but in fairness he barely had time to address anything like that. He can with 10 gms left though. 

 

2. Be more creative on offense but especially on Def. They seemed to be more aggressive in the first half but then when Fitz came in it disappeared. There were some really nice and well timed blitzes the first half. But then once Fitz came it they disappeared. I am not saying blitz every down but dropping 7 or 8 every time is just plain stupid. Yea you will get torched for a few long one but get these guys started playing a more aggressive type defense so when you add a few pieces next off-season it's not a full learning from scratch experience. 

 

3. The penalties continue to go down, especially on the oline. One week is not enough time to make a difference and again it was against inferior competition. But win or lose he could still at least get them to play with more discipline. So if Sunday turns out to be a trend not an outlier, then good on him - although I have to go back to my question before - why now? He has owned the Oline group the entire last 6 groups. Was he coaching them down? 

 

4. Half time adjustments - One of Jays bigger weaknesses. I think he made adjustments just not good ones. Would be great to see evidence of positive adjustments at the half. 

 

5. Have the guts to bench some guys not performing, regardless of contract. If you don't want to work sit the **** down. 

 

6. Work Haskins in - I would like to see him in by say game 10 - earlier is fine if they think he can go or the other guys are that bad. But we need to see what we have in this guy. It will make a huge difference in what we do with our top 3 pick 🙂  

 

7. This is a bonus and will never likely happen and in fairness maybe should not - but I would be impressed as hell if he could get Bruce to start unloading contracts and building up draft picks.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

You left out the part where the near-loss was against the winless, tanking team that lost all its prior games by at least 20.  The point is, committing to the run is not a winning long-term strategy in today's league.

You do it until you can't. Plus = TOP and keeping other offense off the field. Rests your D, keeps em fresh. No down side if you are getting +3 yards per rush. We have "new" QB's with receivers and timing is off..Case wasn't leading the receivers on crossing routes..too many behind the receiver.

 

I have nothing wrong on planning to run the ball &screens with occasional deep ball. Richardson is/has been useless..would like to see someone who WANTs to get open out there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the "it was the Dolphins" camp, but still enjoyed seeing us break it off in bigger chunks.

 

Show some of the same signs, for more than a half, against the 9ers, and I'll start to believe it.

Edited by Stadium-Armory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

Please, feel free to point out when and where I've been calling anyone a such. 

I don't have the ability nor time to go back and see every post you've made since returning to the stadium.  Just last week, you were saying that folks were not willing to give Callahan a chance, being negative, etc.  So perhaps you didn't use the 'nellies' part of it but you certainly referred to folks as negative when encountered with rebuttal to your take on things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

That'll be a no then. 

 

Moving on ..... 

 

Hail. 

Upon further review, the hypocrite tag still stands.  1st down BatteredFanSyndrome!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callahan is nothing more than a finish-the-season fill-in, so his physical practices and "commitment to the run" will mean very little come January. Half the guys on this team as currently configured won't be on the team next year, and there will be wholesale changes on the coaching staff.

 

At least if Haskins was starting I could maybe buy that there is a process or some grand scheme to reverse the perpetual mediocrity of a franchise in slow decline.

 

Until then, no gold starts for barely beating a team that is content with losing every game.

 

But at least I can sleep at night knowing the culture is damn good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, desertbeagle85 said:

Can we close this thread after the 49ers game?

 

 

 

So does this opinion still hold up if we go 1-15, because I'm going to have to agree. That game meant nothing and this weekend will show everyone why it meant nothing.

Ya, and it still does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don’t think we can look at the Miami game and say, “hey, the changes Callahan has instituted worked!”, I also think we can’t dismiss those changes as insignificant (at least as of yet).  To the OPs point, we don’t need to show a dramatic turnaround in running game production or record - improvement in penalties, facing fewer 3rd and longs (which at least partially corresponds with penalties and more), and other details could be a big help to the culture.  I’d love to not hear how our practices are soft, I’d love to minimize shooting ourselves in the foot with penalties.  I would like our young guys to see how things should be handled in the NFL.  I‘ll add that I think it’s certainly possible that Callahan can both improve the mindset of the team - the culture - and not be a very good coach.  As I referenced above, it’s also possible the ‘changes’ don’t amount to a hill of beans... we’ll see.  
 

I’ll liken it to building.  The first builder (although fairly innovative) does a poor job laying the foundation and is fired, the second one (not very creative, very traditional) improves the foundation but doesn’t do anything exciting construction-wise.  Sucks to have to move on to a 3rd builder, but at least the foundation should be better.  They might still have to put a lot of work into shoring up the foundation, but hopefully it’s at least better than it was so they can do some real building.  
 

One thing I do like about shifting to a run-centric team is the experience it gives these guys for the future.  A new coach might go pass heavy, run more out of a spread look, etc, but I’d like to think our oline, TEs and receivers can benefit from this focus.  Would be great if our new coach could come in with a decent running game already in place.  

Edited by skinny21
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

You left out the part where the near-loss was against the winless, tanking team that lost all its prior games by at least 20.  The point is, committing to the run is not a winning long-term strategy in today's league.

 

He said "Can't wait to hear how the "commitment to the run game" allowed the Redskins to win."

 

Not "allows" the Redskins to win or "Gives them the best chance moving forward" to win.

 

Committing to the run "allowed" a winless 0-5 team that had scored a grand total of 10 points over the last two weeks to beat a team that was giving up over 175 rushing yards per game.

 

You both left out that underlined part, by the way lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cheer for a soccer club led by a revolutionary manager that is changing the game 

 

 

yet American football wise, you’re applauding caveman tactics and mindset in 2019

 

this is strange lol 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 The point is, committing to the run is not a winning long-term strategy in today's league.

 

As amusing as this thread is, I confess to not having read anywhere near half of it due to time constraints.  But this comment jumped out at me and at first, I thought I had to be misconstruing something.  But after a quick re-read, I'm not so sure... So, I ask politely if you are serious?   If you are, I would love to hear your reasoning because this goes against all conventional wisdom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

You cheer for a soccer club led by a revolutionary manager that is changing the game 

 

 

yet American football wise, you’re applauding caveman tactics and mindset in 2019

 

this is strange lol 

 

With respect mate, classing running the football as a 'caveman tactic and mindset', regardless of the year or era, is a seriously strange notion to me. Even more so when you have a real poor QB pool, outside of a rookie, and a dearth of skill players to catch the ball. 

 

Why would you not want a strong running identity when everything else bounces off of that? (Keeping opposing D's honest/ play actions off the run. controlling the clock et al.). Before you even start on the traditional black and blue division we play in. Where our opposition is tooling up with top RB talents to pound the rock first and foremost. (And we drafted one real high ourselves to counter that.). 

 

Fundamental football doesn't change. As trend-driven as the NFL can be. 

 

A strong running attack opens up the rest of the offense. When did that principle change? 

 

Hail. 

Edited by Gibbs Hog Heaven
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

He said "Can't wait to hear how the "commitment to the run game" allowed the Redskins to win."

 

Not "allows" the Redskins to win or "Gives them the best chance moving forward" to win.

 

Committing to the run "allowed" a winless 0-5 team that had scored a grand total of 10 points over the last two weeks to beat a team that was giving up over 175 rushing yards per game.

 

You both left out that underlined part, by the way lol...

 

C'mon man.  I'm not going to get in an argument over semantics.  I think you get the point.  And the reason they were giving up over 175 rushing yards per game was because teams were up over two scores on them and were running out the clock.

 

10 minutes ago, FuriousD said:

 

As amusing as this thread is, I confess to not having read anywhere near half of it due to time constraints.  But this comment jumped out at me and at first, I thought I had to be misconstruing something.  But after a quick re-read, I'm not so sure... So, I ask politely if you are serious?   If you are, I would love to hear your reasoning because this goes against all conventional wisdom.

 

Not a fan of analytics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's kind of wild?...Before the season started, it was generally agreed that the Skins' defense and running game would be the keys to having any chance whatsoever at winning this season. 

 

Now we're generally laughing off the idea of committing to the running game having a positive effect lol...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some data on how great running the football early and often has been working for us (especially when not facing a blatantly tanking team):

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

You know what's kind of wild?...Before the season started, it was generally agreed that the Skins' defense and running game would be the keys to having any chance whatsoever at winning this season. 

 

Now we're generally laughing off the idea of committing to the running game having a positive effect lol...

Actually that philosophy is why i thought they’d win 5 games this year. It’s an inefficient way to play unless you have an elite defense and no matter the hype, i never saw that coming. 
 

It “worked” last year because Alex Smith was elite at not turning the ball over. That type of play is too dependent on luck and not making mistakes in 2019. 


the only way I saw them being a good team was Haskins being good early and actually getting a shot to play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Actually that philosophy is why i thought they’d win 5 games this year. It’s an inefficient way to play unless you have an elite defense and no matter the hype, i never saw that coming. 
 

It “worked” last year because Alex Smith was elite at not turning the ball over. That type of play is too dependent on luck and not making mistakes in 2019. 


the only way I saw them being a good team was Haskins being good early and actually getting a shot to play. 

 

Maybe all this is true but it is the only false hope wagon available for us to climb onto so I'm dragging my fat, tired, old butt up on it because we are bound for glory!

Edited by Veryoldschool
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

You know what's kind of wild?...Before the season started, it was generally agreed that the Skins' defense and running game would be the keys to having any chance whatsoever at winning this season. 

 

Now we're generally laughing off the idea of committing to the running game having a positive effect lol...

And if the Skins are successful in running it down the throats of defenses, and actually stop teams that aren’t fielding one of the worst rosters of the salary cap era of football, folks might be more inclined to believe in that.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

 

With respect mate, classing running the football as a 'caveman tactic and mindset', regardless of the year or era, is a seriously strange notion to me. Even more so when you have a real poor QB pool, outside of a rookie, and a dearth of skill players to catch the ball. 

 

Why would you not want a strong running identity when everything else bounces off of that? (Keeping opposing D's honest/ play actions off the run. controlling the clock et al.). Before you even start on the traditional black and blue division we play in. Where our opposition is tooling up with top RB talents to pound the rock first and foremost. (And we drafted one real high ourselves to counter that.). 

 

Fundamental football doesn't change. As trend-driven as the NFL can be. 

 

A strong running attack opens up the rest of the offense. When did that principle change? 

 

Hail. 

Because ppl who run that philosophy often believe in nonsense like this:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

Not a fan of analytics?

 

We're currently VERY bad at keeping TE's healthy but you wouldn't advocate scratching TE's from the roster, would you?  

 

Do you remember the Run & Shoot offense, by chance?  It was a concerted effort to feature the pass over the run.  Played exclusively from the gun and flooding the secondary with 4 or 5 receivers on every play.  Some very smart people spent a ton of time and effort trying to change the pass-run ratio to their advantage and guess what? It didn't work!  No clock control.  No way to throttle the opposition when nursing a lead and it floundered in the red-zone with the field shrunk up and no power running game to fall back on.

 

It really doesn't matter how bad the Skins are at running the ball, they have to keep trying.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.