Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?

I'm not advocating airing it out and throwing bombs every play or each drive.. What's missing in our offense is the a mid range passing game.. Where are the 10 yd slants, the 15 yard ins, the skinny post, the post corner routes, the out n ups from our offense? These move the chains by reception or penalty (we seldom get illegal contact penalties to our benefit, why is that?) Those loosen up the LB which open up running lanes.. Those invite blitzes which opens up the screen game..

Taking shots down the field (20+ yards) probably eqaute to less than 15% of successful plays in the most prolific offenses but they (Cincy, Indy, Dallas, Detroit) have the mid range game as a core component of their offense.. 1 big problem I've noticed in our passing game is other than the go route, most of our routes (hooks & curls) have the receivers catching the ball with their feet set or heading to or running up the sideline which limits RAC.

It's not as bad as with Brunell, but let's not be afraid of the middle of the field.. As other teams have shown on our defense, the middle of the field is a first down haven but we tend to ignore it exists..

I agree with you that we ignore the middle of the field it seems. Over the last 3 years, we've relied on Cooley for that yardage I think. But getting a more experienced "possession" receiver would help us in that regard. That's one of the strengths for Thrash. He grabs the ball with his hands, and then knows when to get his head down and avoid the "kill."

That's a great point about not taking advantage of the middle of the field passing...with 2 speedy wideouts like Moss ARE, they could run by most corners and all linebackers!

Welcome to the Warpath, tell your friends.

[quote=Daseal;357687]Someone earlier posted that the NFL is about running and stopping the run and it hasn't changed in twenty years. That statement couldn't be much farther from the truth. As Pat Kirwan spent about 30 minutes talking about on NFL radio the other day, the league has turned into a pass first league. The rules are slanted towards the passing game. PI may be the best way to move the ball in football, illegal contact is a nice chunk of yards. etc.

For instance, lets look at the top 5 teams in the league in passing offense: Lions, Bengals, Patriots, Colts, Cowboys. These teams have a combined record of: 12-3 this far into the season. That's a pretty accurate example that being able to pass the ball, and doing it often is very important in this league. The tide is changing, the NFL wants it to be a passing lane, it's exciting and grabs the casual fans attention. Quote/


Crazyhorse1

I agree. Anytime I hear anyone say we're going to win with the running game, I cringe, and have been cringing for years. As a former linebacker, forty years ago, I learned that the running game was a lot easier to stop than the passing game.

For one, it's easier to slip a run block than it is to run around or through a pass blocker. For another, it's easier to tackle a running back than it is to back pedal and stay with a receiver while trying not to draw a penalty.

To stay with a receiver who is as fast or faster than you are requires you to guess which way a receiver is going to cut, and whether he's going to pull up or fly. I think that good receivers should be open about half to three forths of the time, unless double teamed. If three or more receivers going out someone is open on virtually every play. In other words, good execution in the passing game is close to unstoppabled if talent levels are equal.

This is not true in the running game. Run blocking in very difficult. The offensive player gets the jump but the defensive player can use his hands. If talent levels are equal, only about half the blocks thrown at the line will hold and in the secondary many less. Since it takes multiple relatively difficult blocks to hold to gain short yardage on the ground, long drives on the ground are highly unlikley if talent levels are equal.

Deduction: Because of the nature of the game, the defense has the upper hand in the ground game if talent levels are equal. The opposite is true in the air.

The top colleges in the country do well in the running game because talent levels are notoriously uneven in the college game. College teams that don't attract superior talent try to find accurate throwers and superior receivers to make themselves competitive. When the top colleges meet each other, their vaulted ground games are usually ineffective and they score or don't score in relation to their QB's and receivers, usually the wide receivers.

In the NFL. teams are too well matched to allow the ground game to sustain drives and score many points. Considering the emerging fact that we don't have a defense that can really shut down teams, I think that the Skins should throw at least half the time, and throw first, to set up the run. We lost to the Giants because we didn't do this and the Giants knew we wouldn't do it.

Gibbs won superbowls largely the ground because of great offensive players who were in fact superior to the opposition man for man. He definately does not have that now. Only two of our offensive lineman are supeior players and, at present, only three of offensive players at skill posiions are superior-- Cooley, Portis, and Moss, not one of whom can run block at better than an adequate level. Sellers is probably a superior blocker in the run game, but that's not enough. We've got to pass.

Saunders and Gibbs are no doubt aware of the need to score points--they've both led offenses in the NFL that have done so at a great rate, so they of all people are aware of the shortcoming. Gibbs football never meant not scoring points. It just meant controlling the clock and using the run to effectively set up the pass--that's still a god strategy, but they must modify things enough to execute and especially to keep defenses off balance. There are times when it sure seems they get predictable, and that's a worry.

But look--hitting the deep and intermediate stuff when it's called is crucial, and they didn't do that in the second half against the Giants. I would like to see more slants and over-the-middle stuff: I think teams are cheating against the run and deep stuff, so that should be there. Also, I think the screen will work for this team: recall that great screen to Betts earlier in the year. More creativity and better execution. And if we can CONSISTENTLY hit a few, that will open everything else up.

The game has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 yrs.. For example:
-Rule changes have made the game siginificantly tilted to the passing game.. The illegal contact rule, the emphasis on roughing the passer tends to protect QBs more, defensive holding is called much more than ever before..
-Exotic defenses change the way offense is called.. You'd hardly ever see 8 in the box before the past 15 years.. The 3-4 wasn't around, you would NEVER see some of the defensive formations the Pats do (1 down linemen, 4 LB and 6 DB) and as a result offenses have gotten more aggressive to exploit those defenses. Gibbs has not shown any innovation in his game plan or philosophy since his return..
-Players today are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.. While not diminishing any players of before (I am a child of the 70's and 80's so I saw all of the same ones you mentioned play) for every Lawrence Taylor, I give you Shawn Merriman or Brian Urlacher. For every Ronnie Lott, I give you Brian Dawkins or Ed Reed.. Today's players are more athletic, run faster and hit just as hard..

Yesterday's players were probably smarter, but overall today's game is different. By that I mean the game is tilted to what coaches can maximize their teams talents by suiting their gameplan to his team's strengths rather than teach a team to fit into their system.

A perfect example is Tony Dungy. His background is old school Chuck Noll, run the ball, take some shots downfield and play great defense. He turned TB from the NFL dregs to a powerhouse with that formula because he had those type of players.. When he got to Indy, he had a great QB, great WR and a bad defense.. Rather than force his philosophy, he let the offense continue to air it out (against his background) while trying to improve the defense. He's going to the Hall of Fame because he knew how to and was willing to adapt to the strengths of his team rather than stubbornly stick to 'his system'.

Gibbs seems like he's trying to fit square pegs into his round hole and that's why it's not working..

There were nickel and dime defenses back in the 80's and yes, there was the 3-4 defense back in those days as well, so I'm not buying that the defenses has changed that much. As far as the rule changes, I do agree, they do favor the passing game more, but there are also defensive schemes that counter act that...such as the bump and run and the blitz packages.

And further more, it's good that you brought up Tony Dungy. Sure, he had to change his philosophy when he came to Indy. HOWEVER, notice the Colts didn't win their Super Bowl until they had a defense that was reliable, and they ran the football more.

Remember. Joe Gibbs' philosophy really isn't conservative football. He came out of the mold of Don Coryell...."Air Coryell". He molded his offense with the type of players he had in the 80's. In the early to mid 80's, the offense centered around John Riggins. In the second half of the 80's and early 90's, it focused a lot on the Posse' (Monk, Clark, Sanders,) while maintaining and strong running game.

It's all about what type of team you have....the type of players you have. Gibbs philosophy deals with the type of team he has. If he has a young, inexperienced QB, he's going to run more. If he has Mark Rypien or Doug Williams under center he's going to air it out, but he's going to do so when the quarterback is experienced enough to take the team on his back. Jason isn't there yet. But, people would be blind to not see that we are giving Campbell more opportunities to go down field.

There's nothing wrong with Gibbs' philosophy. If there was, over half of the current head coaching staff in the league wouldn't have jobs.

I realize I'm gonna catch a lot of shit for saying this (especially being new to the Warpath), but I can't help pointing out the mistake in the title. It should read "Why Doesn't 'Gibbs' Football' Work for the NFL." I do not think Gibbs would do much better coaching the Colts or Pats at this stage in his career. Great man, HOF coach, but too conservative, predictable in today's NFL and stuck with what he seems to regard as a QB too young and green to let loose. Also, I don't think Gibbs commands as much respect among his boys as Belachick or Dungy do among theirs. Our offense rarely plays w/ passion as a unit (we see it in Portis, Cooley, Moss and now ARL quite a bit though). On the other hand Williams' defense plays with passion at least 50% of the time (discounting the '06 nightmare). Just my opinion.

I realize I'm gonna catch a lot of shit for saying this (especially being new to the Warpath), but I can't help pointing out the mistake in the title. It should read "Why Doesn't 'Gibbs' Football' Work for the NFL." I do not think Gibbs would do much better coaching the Colts or Pats at this stage in his career. Great man, HOF coach, but too conservative, predictable in today's NFL and stuck with what he seems to regard as a QB too young and green to let loose. Also, I don't think Gibbs commands as much respect among his boys as Belachick or Dungy do among theirs. Our offense rarely plays w/ passion as a unit (we see it in Portis, Cooley, Moss and now ARL quite a bit though). On the other hand Williams' defense plays with passion at least 50% of the time (discounting the '06 nightmare). Just my opinion.

I'm guessing you didn't read the first post, it would (should) explain why I chose this thread title.

I read it, and the breakdown you provide of Gibbs contributions through innovation is very good. But I'm basically shooting a question back to you "Where's the innovation today?" Why do teams, especially ones most familiar with the Skins, predict our offensive gameplans so well? Why can't we score 20+ pts each game, even against lousy defenses, with all the offensive weapons?

I read it, and the breakdown you provide of Gibbs contributions through innovation is very good. But I'm basically shooting a question back to you "Where's the innovation today?" Why do teams, especially ones most familiar with the Skins, predict our offensive gameplans so well? Why can't we score 20+ pts each game, even against lousy defenses, with all the offensive weapons?

To not answer the question to a question with a question, but it goes back to my initial question really.

It seems to work elsewhere, why not here. Why not here on a regular basis, that is.