rayprils Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 mistake. We win if Portis runs for over 100 yards. We could've easily gotten 20 yards out of Portis from that series on. But, we went for the win on the first play when, we could've ran the ball. Portis finished with 80 yards. Oh well, I'm sick........... :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Wrong. That's a brilliant call. JUST what you have been wanting to see all year and certainly all game. Why Ramsey felt he should fit that ball in there like that is beyond me. But, it was an unquestionably fine playcall. One of the first we've seen all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 How was that a great playcall? And why did Ramsey feel the need to pass to the only person he's passed to all night? We needed to take some time off the clock, should have atleast ran on first down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I've said it before. That Portis stat is misleading. If Portis rushes for 100, it means they are controling the clock, and therefore are probably going to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I agree that it was a bad playcall. We passed to get into that position. It was 1st down. There was plenty of time left on the clock. So even if it works, the Eagles have time and 3 TOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad4comp Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Art Wrong. That's a brilliant call. JUST what you have been wanting to see all year and certainly all game. Why Ramsey felt he should fit that ball in there like that is beyond me. But, it was an unquestionably fine playcall. One of the first we've seen all year. Why is it a brilliant call. We play conservative the whole game and had a chance to win it if we played conservative throughout, but i dont know why Gibbs decided to go for it with about 2 mintues left on the clock with a 1st and 10, and we could have rushed it with Portis, and got to maybe the 10-15 yard line, and then put in Cooley and Mccants for a TD. All the while, Philly would only have 15-30 seconds or so to answer back.... Overall i think Gibbs called a good game up until the last two minutes, why go conservative the whole game and then in the last two mintues try to go deep..not brilliant if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I agree that I wouldn't have minded a run or two. But let's say we run on first and second down and then throw incomplete on third down and miss a 40 yard FG. Don't we ***** and moan about NOT taking a shot?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pga Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Yeah, the football thinker in me said "awesome" when I saw the play start. Then it went to "oh no, oh no" two green shirts, one white shirt not even looking yet. Then, I thought, he did what he thought was correct.....throw it to the corner where only Cooley can catch it.....but Cooley wasn't in position to do that. I'm guessing he just got excited and wanted to make the play, but hindsite says throw it away and it's 2nd down in great field position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I don't know art. The way we had been playing, there wasn't really a need to chuck it deep. Portis is the strength of this team, why not put the ball in his hands? The little dinks and dunks put us in position to tie the game, possibly even win it, why change? I do think that gibbs needs to open up the passing game deep, but not like that. What I have been seeing is that every week gibbs is adding things. There are things that he clearly works on in practice that he adds each week. Eventually he'll add sme deep routes that will work, but this wasn't that nite. We hadn't gone deep all game, and there is an argument that gibbs got away from his bettter judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 It's a brilliant call because while you all keep saying we should have run, the fact is, the Eagles probably could have been expected to think that way too. We go into play action and have all day to throw. Ramsey has two options doing a criss cross. He should probably have tried the post or thrown it away. He didn't. It happens. But, you GO FOR THE WIN in a situation like that. You have a team on its heels and you hope to catch them on a blitz or in a defense where they're playing something else and you take the game. We should have 10 of those plays a game not only called but thrown. Last night, we had ONE of them called and thrown. We didn't lose because that was a bad playcall. We lost because of all the bad calls prior to that final good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I remember a game vs. Philly in 2000 when McNabb was just getting started. He made some horrible decisions late in a game to hand us a victory over the Eagles. It's the type of play that builds character in a QB and a team. Would I have preferred a different result? Sure. But it happened and the key is that Patrick needs to regroup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I'd stop short of calling it breathtaking ( ), but the call itself was fine---aggressive, even. You have to believe that either implicit or explicit in it, though, was that "IF IT'S COVERED, CHECK DOWN OR THROW IT AWAY." It was 1st down. Only way Pat should release that ball and let it fall into the field of play is if he sees Cooley isolated and behind his guy. To take the risk Pat did in that particular circumstance----with the game on the line and a realisitic shot at a potential game-tying FG already in his pocket---was not an NFL-caliber decision. Pat would tell you so himself. What he learns from it---or doesn't---is all that matters now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Mittens How was that a great playcall? And why did Ramsey feel the need to pass to the only person he's passed to all night? We needed to take some time off the clock, should have atleast ran on first down. Cooley was hardly the "only person he passed to all night"...did you forget that Coles had 12 receptions?? I agree with Art, it was a good call to make...I just don't think Ramsey executed it well, because there was no reason whatsoever to think that Cooley was worth throwing to. Ramsey should have realized that instantly and looked elsewhere, even thrown it out of the end zone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPSkins Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 We score there and we're up 4 with 1:40 to play. I like our chances. Just a bad throw. Good call, bad throw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Art Wrong. That's a brilliant call. JUST what you have been wanting to see all year and certainly all game. Why Ramsey felt he should fit that ball in there like that is beyond me. But, it was an unquestionably fine playcall. One of the first we've seen all year. It is only a great call if the Redskins complete the pass successfully. Since the call did not work, bad call. That is the way the cookie crumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 as i have stated before... Gibbs playing calling wasnt the problem... it was the bad excution and bad decision by the players... umm if it is such an obvious thing to do is run... why shouldnt we take a shot down field? first Ramsey didnt throw the INT... we would have taken a shot downfield to win the game when the defense was expecting a run and then have two more downs to pick up a first down or get shorter FG... the people who are questioning Gibbs' play calling are people who are saying with 20/20 hindsight... Gibbs play calling might not be perfect but who is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ignatius J. I don't know art. The way we had been playing, there wasn't really a need to chuck it deep. Portis is the strength of this team, why not put the ball in his hands? The little dinks and dunks put us in position to tie the game, possibly even win it, why change? I do think that gibbs needs to open up the passing game deep, but not like that. What I have been seeing is that every week gibbs is adding things. There are things that he clearly works on in practice that he adds each week. Eventually he'll add sme deep routes that will work, but this wasn't that nite. We hadn't gone deep all game, and there is an argument that gibbs got away from his bettter judgement. The dinks and dunks didn't have us in position to do anything. The deeper pass put us in position. In the drive that ended with the Ramsey INT, we had a 30-yard plus completion to Cooley. In our previous scoring drive we had a 20-plus yard completion. In the drive before that we had two 18-yard completions. Just before the half it was 14, 20 and 10 yard passes that moved us. It was the intermediate and deeper passing game that sparked us. We did NOTHING all game with the dink and dunk. It was not until we actually started throwing the ball more than 10 yards in the air that we finally started hurting the Eagles. That call there was the perfect call at the end of the game because it is a completely safe play. If you have one of those two guys in single coverage, you throw it in there. If you don't, you don't. Ramsey did, but threw to the other guy, and we lost. Again, it happens. But, that's what I want my team doing. I want my team going for the victory. You guys can want us to run up the gut three times and try for a field goal. You guys can root for a team like that that has no chance. You let me root for a team that goes for the win and I'm guessing I'll be more pleased with my team than you will be with yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Om To take the risk Pat did in that particular circumstance----with the game on the line and a realisitic shot at a potential game-tying FG already in his pocket---was not an NFL-caliber decision. Not sure John Hall would have hit a 42 yarder. Did you see his first kick? He kicked it so low he was probably lucky it wasnt blocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clubisyohankovic Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by TenaciousB15 I've said it before. That Portis stat is misleading. If Portis rushes for 100, it means they are controling the clock, and therefore are probably going to win. I agree completely. It's like people think if Portis hits 100, the refs will stop the game and award the win to the Redskins. Like you said, it all depends on the ability to control the clock. For example, if the running game is not really working (i.e.- 17 carries, 37 yards in the first iggles game, right?), then the team is not converting first downs and keeping drives alive. If that happens, then there's no way the offense will even get enough SNAPS to get portis the magical 100 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Art is right... I believe he thought the Eagles were thinking he was going to tighten up.... keep it conservative... go for the tie with a couple of runs and a FG. Gibbs giving Ramsey the "OK" to take a shot says something.... that Gibbs was in the game and trying to outcoach the Eagles. If that play opens up differently... and Ramsey hits Cooley for a touchdown.... they're carrying Gibbs out of the stadium on their shoulders and annointing him the king. This board would be buzzing about Gibbs' fine play calling and the killer instinct displayed. It went differently, Ramsey throwing the ball where he shouldn't. A young QB mistake... something we're going to live with to couple with some of Ramsey's fantastic throws. Anyone notice the accuracy on that seam route to Cooley to the five? The ball literally fell over the defender's shoulder and right into Cooley's hands. That... my friends... is what Ramsey brings us. The mistakes will lessen.... those throws will come more common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by sonsofwashington Not sure John Hall would have hit a 42 yarder. Did you see his first kick? He kicked it so low he was probably lucky it wasnt blocked. Not the point, brother. And of course I'm not "sure." All I'm saying is, as a QB in that situation, you simply cannot risk losing even the chance at the "realistic shot" at the FG I said was alrealy at hand. Again, I have no problem with the call to pass on 1st. I do have a problem with the decision Pat made to float that ball into trouble under those circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieselfan44 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I agree with bad play calling. Sure it was a horrible throw into triple coverage, but we had plenty of other options. I am a Gibbs man til the end, but we blew it on that one. If we score there then we give Philly about 1:20 to come back. That's way too much time for Mcnabb & Co. Our game plan was working fairly well until that point. I like our chances in OT with our Defense. Yes, you try to get seven in that position, but not that quick. Run the ball at least once to chew up some time. Make them think that are going to concede to kick a field goal, then go for the TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Here's what I find so laughable about ANY person claiming that last call was a bad play call. ALL game ALL of us recognized we're the 4-8 team playing the 11-1 team. We all commented that when you're 4-8 you've got nothing to lose. So, WHY NOT let things loose a little. Why not take chances. The ONLY way to really win -- especially with the penalties -- was to take a chance and hope it worked for you. Then, we suddenly are in position where we took that chance and people are screaming that we should have played the game like WE were the 11-1 team. That was the PERFECT call for our team at that time. It didn't work out. But, we went down trying to win. Not trying to go into OT. I'll take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saqs Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by dieselfan44 I agree with bad play calling. Sure it was a horrible throw into triple coverage, but we had plenty of other options. I am a Gibbs man til the end, but we blew it on that one. If we score there then we give Philly about 1:20 to come back. That's way too much time for Mcnabb & Co. Our game plan was working fairly well until that point. I like our chances in OT with our Defense. Yes, you try to get seven in that position, but not that quick. Run the ball at least once to chew up some time. Make them think that are going to concede to kick a field goal, then go for the TD. Cosign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_33 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 It was a stupid terrible call!!!!!!!!!! Why take a chance turning the ball over when the worst possible case scenario was an attempted game tieing Field goal...!!! We should have ran 3 times in a row regardless of how many yards we got... why?Would have ate clock making either the eagles burn their Timeouts....OR.....got us closer for a Field goal or a Portis rushing TD..... You never take a chance like that unless a TD is required to tie or win.....!!period.... I'm a coach and know that..! Had the score been 21-14...then yes...it would have been a great call to catch them off guard on 1st and 10....and knowing you need 7 to tie..... BUT never...when only down by 3 or less do you take a chance with a team like the eagles to score a TD like that when 3 was all that was needed to extend the game....People... Lets say we do score on that play.......Well...The eagles would have had over a minute and 1/2 left with all their timeouts to drive down the field....STUPIDSTUPIDSTUPID..call....I would never had done that.....Period.... You run the ball and make them use up what time outs they had......And if they dont use them....Then you eat up as much time on the clock while keeping it in Portis's hands while we either tie or win.... We didn't even get the opportunity to try a Field goal...And you guys are justifying the Playcall..... You are all wrong....I'm sorry...(those that think it was a good call) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.