Congratulations Joe Gibbs.

I think we finally got to see how Joe Gibb's offense really works when players execute like they're supposed to do! Also, by players executing, it certainly makes the playcalling look alot more balanced...which it was! I realize the nah-sayers will down play this game saying that the Giants' defense was without three quarters of their defense...but ya know our offense hasn't done as well against worse defenses this year..obviously.

I hope at least this week, the performance will put to rest the talks about Joe Gibbs needing an offensive coordinator. I believe he's more than capable of calling a good ball controlled game...and this game was an example of when players execute the way they're expected to, the offense works like a charm! To add on execution, once receivers were CATCHING the ball, and Portis and Betts running successfully, Gibbs was able to go deeper into the play book and show us some formations that some here had questioned why we didn't use (more than two wide receiver formations.)

We've been waiting for at least one breakout game all year to give us confidence and something to build on and we got it yesterday! And Ramsey showed us he can be a pretty decent manager of the game! I dont' expect us to light it up against the Eagles like we did against the Giants, but I do expect this offense to play with a little more confidence and I expect this team to give the Eagles fits this coming week.

It's taken longer than some of us expected for the team to come around, and injuries certainly have played a part in holding back the development of the offense, but it looks like guys are finally settling in to the offense.

The plays in this offense aren't complicated, but what does complicate things is the constant shuffling of personnel and of course the motion and shifting.

It takes time for players to get in to the flow of a system like this, but once they do we saw how effective it can be.

Yesterday was vintage Redskins, it was a lot of fun to watch, it really took me back, I felt like I was 16 again!

I think that Gibbs underestimates the younger players on the team. I mean he brought Brunell in to manage the game and because he felt more comfortable with a veteran running his offense. But if you think about how players look at the game now as to when Gibbs was here his first time. I mean there is not alot of players that come out of college and dont take the NFL seriously. Ramsey is a young QB, but you can tell that when he does play he leaves it all out on the field. Where as when Brunell was playing it always seemed that when he was comming off the field he looked like he soulda tried to do something else.

I do think that we would be better in the records if Ramsey either started the season or came off the bench sooner. I mean after 3 games he looks good, and he keeps improving!!!

BRING ON THE EAGLES!!!!!!!

Gibbs was able to go deeper into the play book and show us some formations that some here had questioned why we didn't use (more than two wide receiver formations.)
Tell me again why we didn't use them earlier? As I said in another thread go 4 WRs, spread out the D and do some run and pass plays out of that. It worked well. That's just saying playcalling changed, much for the better. I enjoyed it.

Playcalling has CHANGED. The plays have changed slightly, but more importantly the order they were called in. Some of the games I watched the calls were uninspired. Watching us run it up the middle three times to no avail is painfull. Gibbs had me guessing what he was doing with the ball. I couldn't have asked for better play-calling than we had last week. I loved seeing a balance, I loved seeing Portis run like he's built to, I loved to see virtually mistake free football. We played a great game, and like matty I was extremely pleased in what I was seeing.

That being said, I hope this can stay constant. I've seen us zone block, play great, then abandon it. I saw a lot more motion and personel groupings than I normally did, and I would like to see Jacobs get a real shot this week, I think he can really bring the speed we're lacking with Coles injury.

That being said, mistakes were cut down tremendously. WRs made the catches, Cooley played amazing, and the O line really set up some nasty blocks. It was a great game, but I think it's silly to say play-calling hasn't changed at all. It has, and I feel that made about 50% of the difference along with the players dedication to this season no matter where they are. It speaks volumes about Gibbs that these notorious quitters are still right behind him. I've never questioned Gibbs as a leader of men, just a playcaller.

Tell me again why we didn't use them earlier? As I said in another thread go 4 WRs, spread out the D and do some run and pass plays out of that. It worked well. That's just saying playcalling changed, much for the better. I enjoyed it.

Playcalling has CHANGED. The plays have changed slightly, but more importantly the order they were called in. Some of the games I watched the calls were uninspired. Watching us run it up the middle three times to no avail is painfull. Gibbs had me guessing what he was doing with the ball. I couldn't have asked for better play-calling than we had last week. I loved seeing a balance, I loved seeing Portis run like he's built to, I loved to see virtually mistake free football. We played a great game, and like matty I was extremely pleased in what I was seeing.

That being said, I hope this can stay constant. I've seen us zone block, play great, then abandon it. I saw a lot more motion and personel groupings than I normally did, and I would like to see Jacobs get a real shot this week, I think he can really bring the speed we're lacking with Coles injury.

That being said, mistakes were cut down tremendously. WRs made the catches, Cooley played amazing, and the O line really set up some nasty blocks. It was a great game, but I think it's silly to say play-calling hasn't changed at all. It has, and I feel that made about 50% of the difference along with the players dedication to this season no matter where they are. It speaks volumes about Gibbs that these notorious quitters are still right behind him. I've never questioned Gibbs as a leader of men, just a playcaller.

We have used more than two wide receiver sets. However, when the passing game is not working, the only thing the defense has to do is shut down the running game, and so they did that by putting 8 and 9 guys up on the line to limit the running game. Therefore, putting in a 4 wide receiver set is useless unless the receivers are willing to catch the ball.

The play calling hasn't changed. The only reason why it appears that way is because players executed much better than previously. Even a blind person could see that the receivers' performance was like night and day compared to earlier performances. When the receivers are not catching the ball, Gibbs has to try to go to more of a running game. Unfortunately, when the run game is being stuffed....then you're up the creek!

So, other teams will leave 1-2 receivers wide open? Doubt it.

So, other teams will leave 1-2 receivers wide open? Doubt it.


I'm not sure you know what your getting at, but my point is quite simple. We executed extremely well yesterday, which means that opens the playbook wide open for us. With successful execution = better playcalling. When a team isn't executing, the playcalling is limited.

Skinsguy, that's true. However, your players get in a funk when you don't trust them. If they went 4 wide more often then we could have spread the D out and let Portis run, and just a few decent completions, which aren't out of Ramsey's range but simply WERENT CALLED could have been able to make the safeties honest. A key game was the Philly game, we could have stretched them downfield some but we went downfield very few times. I hope to see a change this week.

8 and 9 guys up on the line to limit the running game. Therefore, putting in a 4 wide receiver set is useless unless the receivers are willing to catch the ball.
If they put 8 guys in the box, that means you have three guys left for coverage so someone has to respect that #4 receiver. If nothing else that opens it up for Portis. If this wasn't Gibbs, would you be trying to make the same argument?

speaking of congratulating Joe Gibbs, our friend Len Pastabelly was nice enough to mention good ol Gibbie (we all know Zackmills :Smoker: was really Pasquarelli) on his column today...

"Congratulations, and, yeah, I'm being sarcastic, to the Redskins for finally scoring more than 18 (points). Maybe (Joe) Gibbs will realize that he should have gone to (quarterback Patrick) Ramsey a lot earlier in the season, huh?"


Sad to say but in a way he's right about going with Ramsey earlier...

Certainly its true that if we could have went 4 wide and got some decent completed passes downfield it would keep the defense honest. HOWEVER, if the receivers are not catching the ball, then its no sense in going with something that obviously isn't working. It worked yesterday because we EXECUTED!!! Its pretty much plain and simple.

I think you're trying to sway the argument way out in left field or either trying to argue for the sake of argument. Its obvious (for anybody who actually has been watching the games) that defenses were moving up more guys to stop the run because they didn't respect our pass. When we did pass...the receivers dropped the ball. IF our receivers had been consistant all along, then anything would have worked for us because defenses would have to shutdown a well balanced offense....example YESTERDAY.

Yeah, I kind of figured you'd turn this into a Gibbs worshipping argument. Regardless of who the coach is, I don't care if its you coaching, without execution, playcalling doesn't work..and the better the execution, the better and easier the playcalling seems....the deeper you can go into your playbook. If you only have 50% and less of your offense working, going with pass plays when passing is the weak point is stupid.