Should Gibbs Flip The Script: Passing Team Now?

I think the balance attack approach is such a bunch of BS. You do what you have to do to score TD's. If the opponent is weak against the run then run it. If they are weak in coverage then pass it. All depends on the opponent and how they play defense.

It still remains that the championship teams can run the ball and run it very well. No matter if they open things up with the run, or open things up with the pass, being an unbalanced team will only get you so far. Case in point, the Colts. They were a heavy passing team but didn't win it all until they started relying more on a stronger running game than what they did in seasons past. So, to say that needing a balanced offensive attack is BS is completely wrong. I do agree with you that you attack the weakness of the defense, but eventually you're going to have to rely on both the passing and the running aspects of your offense to be most successful.

Ok, forward into the future. Let's look at the lions offense, Awesome WR's, pretty good RB's, OL, etc. and a "genius" OC (Martz) that you would probably like as the next coach (NOT!!!) All they do is pass the ball even though they have a pretty good offense. What happened to them against a tough D? If you don't balance your game you become predictable and if you go against a half decent DC, they will shut you down.


That's just it! How many points did the mighty offense of Detriot score yesterday? 10? Wow. How exciting. <tic>

It still remains that the championship teams can run the ball and run it very well. No matter if they open things up with the run, or open things up with the pass, being an unbalanced team will only get you so far. Case in point, the Colts. They were a heavy passing team but didn't win it all until they started relying more on a stronger running game than what they did in seasons past. So, to say that needing a balanced offensive attack is BS is completely wrong. I do agree with you that you attack the weakness of the defense, but eventually you're going to have to rely on both the passing and the running aspects of your offense to be most successful.The reason the Colts can run the ball effectively is twofold:

1) Teams have to respect the pass first with Manning, Harrison, Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

2) The Colts have a very good RB in Addai.

Now that the Skins are showing that they can excel passing the ball, I'm hoping that it will help open the run game. Our backs aren't too shabby either.

The reason the Colts can run the ball effectively is twofold:

1) Teams have to respect the pass first with Manning, Harrison, Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

2) The Colts have a very good RB in Addai.

Now that the Skins are showing that they can excel passing the ball, I'm hoping that it will help open the run game. Our backs aren't too shabby either.

I agree. Teams do have to respect the passing attack of the Colts first, because they are a pass first oriented team. However, my point to SF69 is simply, that being one deminisional will only take you so far. If we're talking about having a SB contender, you have to have a team that can pass and run effectively and balanced. Even if a team passes heavily in the first half, and it opens the running game in the second half, you still have to have both aspects working for your offense in order to be most successful.

Of course, if you run AND pass well that is the best option. However, to say that one-dimensional teams aren't successful, or don't win championships, is wrong. Remember the 2000 Ravens? No offense to speak of, and they won it all. Can anyone explain that?

The bottom line is that "what works" is varied, and changes week to week. So, I think you try to do what you do best, and when/if the opposing defense stops you, then you move on to something else.

Of course, if you run AND pass well that is the best option. However, to say that one-dimensional teams aren't successful, or don't win championships, is wrong. Remember the 2000 Ravens? No offense to speak of, and they won it all. Can anyone explain that?

The bottom line is that "what works" is varied, and changes week to week. So, I think you try to do what you do best, and when/if the opposing defense stops you, then you move on to something else.

The Ravens had a steady balance of run/pass on offense. Of course, they won because they had a record setting defense.

I think it's a week-to-week/gameplanning issue. Exploit weaknesses. Dallas has a very strong run D and can put up points in a hurry. So we didn't run much. JC looked great against Philly opening it up and spreading the ball around, and Dallas has a suspect secondary. So we threw. And we SHOULD have won (again).

Tampa has a suspect run D, so I would expect more runs this week. I'd still like to see the no huddle/shotgun, just mix in some creative runs out of those formations to accompany the passing game.

Of course, if you run AND pass well that is the best option. However, to say that one-dimensional teams aren't successful, or don't win championships, is wrong. Remember the 2000 Ravens? No offense to speak of, and they won it all. Can anyone explain that?

The bottom line is that "what works" is varied, and changes week to week. So, I think you try to do what you do best, and when/if the opposing defense stops you, then you move on to something else.

And how often have you seen a team like the 2000 Ravens win it all as opposed to teams like The New England Patriots, The Dallas Cowboys of the 90's, The 49ers and Redskins of the 80's? I don't want to have a fluke campionship team in Washington, I want to have a consistent winner.

I think it's a week-to-week/gameplanning issue. Exploit weaknesses. Dallas has a very strong run D and can put up points in a hurry. So we didn't run much. JC looked great against Philly opening it up and spreading the ball around, and Dallas has a suspect secondary. So we threw. And we SHOULD have won (again).

Tampa has a suspect run D, so I would expect more runs this week. I'd still like to see the no huddle/shotgun, just mix in some creative runs out of those formations to accompany the passing game.

Yes, I totally agree, if saunders/gibbs could come up with some complimentary running plays to the no-huddle/shotgun passing attack the running game might be more effective then it has when we go in with "jumbo packages".

Although, we do have Mike Sellers for a reason. So it is probably best to work in multiple different packages. I just dont want to see the skins let this little spark of offensive prowess go out. We need to take advantage of it, give it some AIR if you will, and it might just catch into a blazing inferno.

OK, dumb metaphor. But in all seriousness, this team has finally found something that could lead to a dominating offensive attack, so yes certainly "mix it up," but build off of what you've started, the running attack will come along too, but start off the game in Tampa with the flurry of passes we've seen from the fast-paced style of offense in the past two games, and then start to work the run in.

Now, I am not saying "pass at first to get up, run late to kill the clock." What I am saying is hit them with the no-huddle right off the bat, mix it up and confuse them by working in draws, sweeps, screens, even a gut here and there to keep them honest, but don't be predictable, and certainly don't let them stay in the game, GO FOR THE THROAT if they give you the deep ball later in the game.

That, it seems to me, is how the BIG BOYS get it done and blow teams out, and we can't afford to let games stay close if we can avoid it.

Yes, I totally agree, if saunders/gibbs could come up with some complimentary running plays to the no-huddle/shotgun passing attack the running game might be more effective then it has when we go in with "jumbo packages".

Although, we do have Mike Sellers for a reason. So it is probably best to work in multiple different packages. I just dont want to see the skins let this little spark of offensive prowess go out. We need to take advantage of it, give it some AIR if you will, and it might just catch into a blazing inferno.

OK, dumb metaphor. But in all seriousness, this team has finally found something that could lead to a dominating offensive attack, so yes certainly "mix it up," but build off of what you've started, the running attack will come along too, but start off the game in Tampa with the flurry of passes we've seen from the fast-paced style of offense in the past two games, and then start to work the run in.

Now, I am not saying "pass at first to get up, run late to kill the clock." What I am saying is hit them with the no-huddle right off the bat, mix it up and confuse them by working in draws, sweeps, screens, even a gut here and there to keep them honest, but don't be predictable, and certainly don't let them stay in the game, GO FOR THE THROAT if they give you the deep ball later in the game.

That, it seems to me, is how the BIG BOYS get it done and blow teams out, and we can't afford to let games stay close if we can avoid it.

Good post. You mention the Gibbs jumbo package and how he loves to run out of this formation more than anything else. Then you talk about how Gibbs/Saunders need to "come up" with complimentary running plays out of the no-huddle/shotgun sets. Saunders has the plays in his arsenal. But I think this is where we've had an issue with the Gibbs/Saunders hybrid. The personnel packages in what Gibbs likes to run from and what Al likes to throw from are very different, so it makes fluidity more difficult. Those no-huddle drives involved very little running (Portis had only 12 carries). Is our O-line athletic enough to handle a few stretch plays and tosses? Portis has the speed for sure. I'm in no way suggesting we eliminate jumbo packages and Sellers packages, I just think it's imperative we mix in the run with this new found passing attack.