Dead Money Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I guess we could have run the ball IF WE HAD ANY FRIGGIN TIMEOUTS LEFT!!! Every little thing has its own consequence.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I have no problems with the call. It's a common situation. Just to put some perspective on things, our red zone offense hasn't been 'Mr. Reliable' this year. In fact, how many series have you seen where we had the ball inside the 20, and wind up punting from midfield? (I know you've see at least two such series: In Philly I and Philly II). How many people, all year, have been telepathically broadcasting at the TV "Take a shot at the end zone", at least 20 times this season? (I know I'm one). The pass to the back of the end zone is such a traditional play that I'd be amazed if it's not specifically practiced. And if performed as practiced, it's about as safe a play as you can find. I have no doubt that every QB since High School has been told "Throw it high. That way, if it goes through the receiver's hands it can't get intercepted, and you can try again." ------------ Now, all that said, I also have to admit. If I could pick a fantasy play for that situation, I'd send three receivers into the end zone, but one of them will enter the end zone and come back for the ball. The "back of the end zone" play is a cliche, everybody expects it. But let's face it: The way that game was going, if the game goes into OT, our odds of winning are about 90%. If I recall correctly, Philly did not earn a single first down in the entire fourth Q. To me, the only reason I wouldn't kick a FG on first down is that I wanted to run off some time. But we may not have practiced such a special-purpose play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLSKINSFAN Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 If we run the ball 3 times and settle for a field goal attempt, everbody on the board would have been ready to kill Gibbs for not playing to win. It was the right call, just the wrong desicion by Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the big slim Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 My question is directed the those who are never happy.......... What is your problem? Good call/Bad call Good throw/Bad throw Who cares...game over, move on, be a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 We had 2 Timeouts left at the time of the "throw" I liked the call. I even said to my brother, "this is where we should go deep" after we got the first down. Problem was it was a bad throw. That simple. I liked the call in that situation a lot. Go for the jugular. Our D was not going to give up a TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkPSkins Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 If the play would have worked and we gave the Eagles 1:30 with all their timeouts left, the Eagles would have needed a TD to win the game. Our defense was playing well, if not inspired. However, we play it close to the vest, run the clock down kick the field goal to tie. Say we lose the coin toss, and face it guys, we're the Redskins, we would have lost the coin toss. We now give the ball to the Eagles, no time constraints and them only needing a FG from arguably the best kicker in the game. I'm glad we went for the win. He just threw a bad pass. A POOR FREAKING THROW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 If the ball is still moving in Dawkins hands, how in the hell can it be called an INT. Regardless of the bad decision on Patrick's part, I didn't think that that call should've stood 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 Cskin 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. Bingo...couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 It was a questionable call. However since it was ruled an INT on the field, I don't think there was enough to overturn it. 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 MarkPSkins If the play would have worked and we gave the Eagles 1:30 with all their timeouts left, the Eagles would have needed a TD to win the game. Our defense was playing well, if not inspired. However, we play it close to the vest, run the clock down kick the field goal to tie. Say we lose the coin toss, and face it guys, we're the Redskins, we would have lost the coin toss. We now give the ball to the Eagles, no time constraints and them only needing a FG from arguably the best kicker in the game. Excellent point...especially the "face it guys, we're the Redskins, we would have lost the coin toss" part...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick 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? Why not? Portis was averaging barely 3 yards a carry.. what good would it have done to hand him the ball, unless you were resigning yourself to a field goal. Gain three yards, gain three yards.. take a pot shot and field goal. It was a try to win play that was called, and had Ramsey read it better, he should have been able to still check down and gained yardage. Also starting on 1st down meant with good desicions, we had three tries for the endzone. Something this team still needs is that extra shot, since we aren't consistant enough to count on hitting it the first time through. It was also Gibbs strong faith in the D. He knew they had a better then average chance of holding the Eagles from getting a TD in under 2 mins. And a TD was the only thing that would have saved the Eagles had we hit that endzone. The whole thing makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is this insane belief that miraculously, Portis was going to break it open when he hadn't manage to do it in 25 carries all game! His average was actually dropping the more he ran! He was at 4.1 at half time, then dropped to 3.2 by the end of the game. Running the ball would have meant a tie at best and Gibbs wasn't willing to roll over and play dead yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick 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. Why is somehow giving McNabb a 1:30 more dangerous then giving him another 14 mins? Take our chance with our D with under just over a min, with the need for a TD, over taking a chance with our D for a field goal with 14 mins... seems a little disporportinate to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I think it was a bad call. Too much time left on the clock for a quick strike. Wrong player to throw it to also Cooley is not going to out jump the DB's. They should have run the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Any play that is executed correctly will score! I don't want to hear anything about play calling! Yes, do I want more deep passes yes! There may be a reason why we don't throw the deep pass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by FBChick Why not? Portis was averaging barely 3 yards a carry.. what good would it have done to hand him the ball, unless you were resigning yourself to a field goal. Gain three yards, gain three yards.. take a pot shot and field goal. It was a try to win play that was called, and had Ramsey read it better, he should have been able to still check down and gained yardage. Also starting on 1st down meant with good desicions, we had three tries for the endzone. Something this team still needs is that extra shot, since we aren't consistant enough to count on hitting it the first time through. It was also Gibbs strong faith in the D. He knew they had a better then average chance of holding the Eagles from getting a TD in under 2 mins. And a TD was the only thing that would have saved the Eagles had we hit that endzone. The whole thing makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is this insane belief that miraculously, Portis was going to break it open when he hadn't manage to do it in 25 carries all game! His average was actually dropping the more he ran! He was at 4.1 at half time, then dropped to 3.2 by the end of the game. Running the ball would have meant a tie at best and Gibbs wasn't willing to roll over and play dead yet! Portis broke a great run, but unfortunately it was called back due to McCants's penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by burritopunk Portis broke a great run, but unfortunately it was called back due to McCants's penalty. And there you have the question.. was it a great run BECAUSE of McCants error, or in spite of it. Regardless.. one more decent run would still have left portis with a dimishing average. The Eagles had found away to shut down the run during the second half. The chance of Portis breaking a run were much lower then Ramsey actually hooking up with Cooley in the end zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Money Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan We had 2 Timeouts left at the time of the "throw" I liked the call. I even said to my brother, "this is where we should go deep" after we got the first down. Hey I liked the call, just not the decision to throw the ball...... My point was if we had all of our timeouts going into the final 2 minutes of a game (for a change) we could have run it a few times and stopped the clock a couple of times instead of having to save one for the end if we didn't score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B&G Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 No question but that Pat Ramsey made a terrible choice to float that pass out there like that. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I do strongly disagree that the call was a good one. We have a young quarterback who's played in only a few games this year and whose confidence in himself (derived from his perception of Coach Gibb's opinion of him) may be fragile. Team has a 4-8 record, desparately needs a win, our defense has just thown Philly off the field 3 or 4 times in a row, 3 and out, we have a gamebreaking runningback who proved he could run against this defense and we've moved the ball positively using Gibb's conservative approach. All of a sudden Gibbs decides to stake it all on one throw of the dice?? Absolutely moronic! ANY call but this one would have been more appropriate. Even if you did choose to do this, why would you call this play on first down? DUMB, DUMB, DUMB! I'm all for playing less conservatively throughout the game but to make this wild call at this juncture in the game was stultifyingly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Art 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. I agree. I think that if we HAD gone for the tie and missed it, we'd be seeing threads like "Why doesn't Gibbs take a small risk" etc etc. Some of you guys can't be pleased no matter what happens. At least we took a shot at it. Ramsey made a boneheaded decision when he had decent time to check down if needed. He forced a pass that didn't need to be forced. It was first down, and he had other options available to him, i.e. throw the ball away, or look for the underneath guy and take 2-3 more shots:doh: Even if the grab WAS made, there was over 1:30 on the clock and it would have given the Eagles enough time to put the ball in McNabb's hands and throw the ball down the field 2-3 times which would have given the refs a chance to get involved again. Regardless, the play call was good but Ramsey made a bad decision. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Weren't people RIPPING Mike Martz for not going for the win against the Panthers in the playoffs? And Martz had a playoff team with a consistent offense. Joe Gibbs is still trying to figure out what works on offense best with our personnel. Oh, and his QB making his 4th start in the system. Geez people! There's always something to criticize, I guess. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 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. Word. Great call, bad throw. Open and shut case. If we'd of scored a TD there's no way the eagles could've come back. It'd be over. Just a bad throw on Ramsey's part, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big#44 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. if you really think thats the only person hes passed to all night you need to meet a guy named lavarneus coles. cooley had 6 receptions. coles had like 11 0r 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big#44 Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 I think its just one of those things. Last year ramsey was wihtin 1 play of tying the game and this year the same thing. its all part of the leaning experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The extremist Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Originally posted by Art 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. I have no problem with the call, but by now Ramsey HAS to be smart enough to know that it was Cooley alone against three eagles, and that pass had less than a one percent chance of being completed...He HAS to be smart enough by now to know that if no one is open, tuck and run, or throw it out of the end zone...I knew that ball was picked the moment he let it go:rolleyes: Now I know that for most of the game, Ramsey played stellar (by his standards) ball, but that pass was so risky it seemed like rookie year preseason all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaVarGreen2856 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. Finally!! Thanks!! I agree.... BTW, that was a bad call, and a bad decision by both Gibbs and Ramsey respectively, IMO. We had almost the tie already! :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.