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

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

For me to answer the question in the title of this thread, someone will have to define for me what "work" means.

In 2005 we made the playoffs and went 10-6. Did Gibbs football not "work" that year? Is something "working" defined as winning a Superbowl and that's it?

I mean, last year we were 4th in the league in rushing offense. Seems like whatever football it was (Gibbs football or Saunders football) it worked - except for the fact that we didn't have much of a QB. What didn't work was Gregg Williams football.

Did Gibbs football not work against the Dolphins and the Eagles this year? Did it not work for the first half against the Giants? Really, of the 12 quarters of football we've played this year, hasn't Gibbs football worked for most of them?

The other thing I'm going to say is that the Salary Cap Era forces you to adapt your roster and transform your team a little more slowly. With the absolute mess that Spurrier left this team in, for Gibbs to get us to 10-6 and to the playoffs in his second year, is probably one of the greatest coaching accomplishments of his illustrious career. I'll admit, last year he had a down year, mainly attributable to his defense. But the jury's still out on this year folks. I think Gibbs football is "working" as we speak.

We were 4th in rushing offense but we were losing and we were not scoring enough points. That's the bottom line.

In 2005 the offense was better than 04 but honestly the defense, for the most part carried the team. The defense won the playoff game because we couldn't even get a 1st down in that game.

I think someone had a stat in another thread where it showed that since Gibbs has been back we have only broke 24 points far less than half the games he has coached. That is a very telling stat and to me that shows that he is not getting it done on his side of the ball which is the offense.

I want to see more mid range /deep passes on 1st down. I want to see some creativity in getting Cooley and Moss the ball more. I want to see another wr catch a pass besides ARE and Moss. I want to see more 4 wr sets where the defense is spread out more. I want to see JC roll out more. I want to see a passing game where it's not a struggle to break 200 yards.

I am asking too much here? These offensive coaches are paid millions and millions of $ to fix it. It's time to fix it.

[Daseal]

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.

Now, I'm not saying ignore our running backs like the Eagles. We can use the passing game to work in the running game. Allow the explosiveness of our backs in both the passing game, and against 7 man fronts instead of the usual 8 they're seeing.

Right now, we're #21 in NFL scoring at 17.7 PPG. Considering the Cowboys and Patriots are at 38.7 and 38 respectively. I mean, Houston at spot #12 is a full TD PER GAME ahead of us. That's pretty bad, in my opinion.

No one can nor wants to take what Gibbs did in the past away from him. Much of what we see today came from Gibbs, who learned a lot what he learned from Air Coyell (Im sure I butchered the spelling, don't yell!) at SD state. However, that doesn't mean he's guaranteed success at this point.

As Ive said multiple times before. I hate leading at the half. Someone posted an article saying when leading at the half, we're 12-11 or something very similar. That is PATHETIC. We probably have a better chance to win the game coming from behind.

This isn't me just blaming Gibbs, they seem to try to keep it a secret from us as far as who has control of the offense and who does what. I don't care who's responsible for this, but my gut says Gibbs. Saunders has been scoring points and been nothing but aggressive for Vermeil in KC. Maybe his offense isn't completely in, but I doubt he still wouldn't be extremely aggressive with his play calling.

When it comes down to it, we need more consistent play from the players. I don't buy that whole "execute" bullshit. If you go by that type of mentality, you can call any play in the world as long as you "execute" the play will be successful. It comes down to more than that, there are defenses that counter it, and if the defense executes, does that mean to offense isn't? Or maybe the defense was just in the right position because of coaching. Yes, with Moss and Cooley dropping balls, that's execution. A whole play not working is play calling and coaching.

We need to score points. We've seen this A LOT since Gibbs came back. We get ahead, and we try to run the clock out at the half. Keep going for blood. I don't care if the other team gets a little sad because they were blown out. We need to finish teams, and finish them hard. If Gibbs doesn't make the playoffs this year, he has 1 playoff appearance in 4 years. That is what it is, pathetic. We have a huge payroll and tons of talent on both sides of the ball.

You are what your record says you are. Simple as that. If Gibbs doesn't get us into the playoffs, he'll be out of D.C. and history won't look back on his 2nd stint favorably. People are so blinded by what he did in the past that they can't possibly think that hes not getting the job done.

[brent]

Before drinking the kool-aid, its best to spike the kool-aid first.

[BleedBurgundy]

The NFL is about moving the chains, be it through passing or running the ball. It's not about stats. It's not about dynamic flashy offense. It's not about the latest offensive trends. It's not about running up the score. It's about winning. Gibbs' offense is not dynamic, flashy, exotic or revolutionary. It's somewhat simplistic. But it works. It has worked in the past, it will work in the future. Our problem is in execution, not play calling. For those who say we didn't hold onto our lead because we got too conservative, what about the incomplete passes on our first drive in the second half? It looked like Moss and JC were on completely different pages in the playbook. We didn't execute in the 2nd half. We could have Mike Martz calling the plays with 4 wide the whole time, running intermediate crossing patterns and throwing the ball 40 times per game but if no one executes, what the hell good does it do?

Some people seem to have a very hard time making the distinction between the gameplan as executed and the original gameplan itself.

Had we gotten a little more push on fourth down and Betts doesn't trip on his own feet, would we be so worried? I highly doubt it with the never ending exception of a very vocal minority. Had JC hit Moss in the hands on the pass plays we did attempt, would Gibbs be encouraged to further entrust the game to a QB with 10 games of starting experience? I'm guessing yes.

BTW, we're 2-1, it's a winning record, so as far as this season goes our record says we're a good football team. That makes me happy. I must be naive.

[Daseal]

BlledBurgundy, Obviously Gibbs strategy since he's been here of running HASN'T gotten it done. One amazing and unprobable run to the playoffs by winning all those games in 05 on the back of our defense. But if I recall correctly he has a below 500 record in his 2nd stint.

[BleedBurgundy]

Daseal, it seems you're acting as if he never left. Surely you can admit he needs time to get everything going. Everybody wants this thing done yesterday, doesn't work like that all the time. And I will say the strategy is fine, it's the execution that is lacking. You can't seriously tell me that if our players make very routine plays on Sunday that we still lose. You're laying the blame on the wrong doorstep here.

[BleedBurgundy]

Daseal, what changes would you make? What exactly are you suggesting? I don't see how any "strategic" changes make our players execute better. Where's the strategy in both your players not knowing which route to run?

[Longtimefan]

I need someone to tell me exactly what is Joe Gibbs Football. I hear the term used so often...We need to get back to playing Redskin Football, or Joe Gibbs Football.

Redskin Football and Joe Gibbs Football in everybody's Football, many teams operate on the same premice, run the ball to set up the pass. This has been Gibbs philosophy for as long as I can remember, so this Joe Gibbs Football is just no more than a cliche that's been used so much it's worn out it's usefullness.

The Redskins are what they are. The NFL consists of a handfull of what could be considered good teams, a handfull of teams somewhere in the middle, and a handfull of bad teams. The Redskins are among the group in the middle, and have a ways to go in order to move into that upper tier of teams. Whether Joe Gibbs will be successful in acomplishing that feat remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, it's going to require more than just a notion to get it done.

I have learned over the years to stay on an even course when it comes to the outcome of games, and how they're played, never get too high or too low. It's the best way to protect my sanity.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

First of all, I'm not about to apologize for being a Gibbs' fan. People want to throw all that "You drink the Kool-Aid" "You think Gibbs can do no wrong" accusations they want. Do I think he's infallible? Of course not. But he was the centerpiece of the team during the 80's and the biggest reason I'm part of this site. If not for him, I'm probably not that big a fan. The Redskins were a huge part of my childhood. I have a lot of great memories thanks to the Redskins and Joe Gibbs. For those that grew up in my generation I'm sure you can relate. For those that didn't and don't care about Gibbs, understand what Gibbs means to us.

All that said, here's my question. Why is that people think Gibbs' style of football can't win in today's NFL?

It can win in the NFL, it's just not going to win consistantly because conservative plays no longer win games. In his day (and yes I am of that generation for all you that don't know), it was all about time of possession and running the ball and clock out. It's a pass happy NFL now.
I love Gibbs for what he did, and how he has changed the attitude in DC, but I want him to realize it's time to open up the offense.
With two of our best O linemen out, it's time to scrap the theory that 30 or more carries wins a ball game. It's the passing game we need embrace. Use the passing game to set up the run, not use the running game to set up the pass. I've played football at the collegiate level, and followed Redskins football, and NFL football for almost 30 years, the game is different than it used to be, and Gibbs has been extremely hesitant to roll with these changes.

"Gibbs' Football" permeates throughout the league. The single back sets you see all throughout the league, you can thank Joe Gibbs for that. The Steelers offense that won them a Super Bowl 2 years ago, and has them at 3-0 this year, you can thank Joe Gibbs for that. The Trips formations that the aforementioned Steelers and defending champion Colts use, you can thank Joe Gibbs for that. The multiple (2-3) tight end sets that arguably the two best teams in the NFL today (Cowboys and Patriots) use, you can thank Joe Gibbs for that.

1- no one is saying he was not innovative.
2- while he did revolutionize the NFL with certain plays (the counter trey was his too), you can't live off a few plays. None of those teams you mentioned rely on one thing. The Colts change things up on a regular basis.
One thing you mentioned was the Steelers, and they have come the closest to Gibbs football in recent memory. One problem is that when the run wasn't working, they threw the ball instead of insisting after 3 straight 3 and out's that it will work. I doubt anyone would care about "conservative" play calling if it was working.

These are all Joe Gibbs innovations. He's one of the most creative coaches the NFL has seen in the last 30 years and his impact is felt throughout the league.

Agreed, but that doesn't make him a winner on Gibbs part 2.

So why do people insist his way won't work in today's NFL? And I know it hasn't at a consisent level so far for the Redskins. But it does for others.

Why is that?

Like I said, I think it can work, but adjustments need to be made.
You have to ask yourself, if you did something for your boss and he didn't like it...then you did it again, and again, and again, and again...do you think he'll all of sudden like it, or do you think you better make some sort of adjustment to ensure satisfaction? Same applies here, Gibbs can keep insisting certain (what I call conservative) play calling will work every team we step out on the field.

[NYCSkin]

I don't doubt the fact that Gibbs' football can win in this league. Smootsmack has elegantly outlined several teams that have used Gibbs' blueprints to achieve victory. However, I do worry that Gibbs himself cannot follow his own blueprints as effectively as other teams now do...

[Daseal]

BleedBurgundy, most coaches get three years in this league. In the 2nd year Gibbs went to the playoffs, in the 3rd, he regressed, and the 4th is still up in the air.

As far as changes, never stop. Don't try to run out the game in the 3rd quarter. Moving the chains burns more clock than anything else, and every point on the board matters. I just think we need to really improve our scoring offense if we want to win games in this day and age. Teams are airing it out and putting up gaudy numbers because todays game supports the passing game.

[jsarno]

Just an FYI,
When we won in 91 (14-2), our passing offense was ranked 5th in yards, and 1st in points. The rushing O was ranked 7th.
When we won in 87 (11-4), our passing offense was ranked 5th in yards, and 5th in points. The Rushing O was ranked 7th.
When we lost in the NFC championship game in 86 (12-4), our passing offense was ranked 6th in yards, and 9th in points. The rushing O ranked 17th.

That being said, in the past 3 years (not including this year) we have had the 29th (04), 22nd (05), 23rd (06), ranked passing offense and have had only 1 winning season in those 3 years. This year we have the 22nd best passing O.
Last year we had the 4th best rushing O in the league and still only managed 5 wins. Granted there are other factors, but we were 20th in points scored. That says a lot.
Gibbs knows how to win with a passing offense, and maybe it's lack of faith, maybe it's the fact that he wants to play the TOP game...I don't know. But I do know, we need a top ten passing attack to win in this day and age unless we have a top 3 defense (which we don't).

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by NYCSkin

I don't doubt the fact that Gibbs' football can win in this league. Smootsmack has elegantly outlined several teams that have used Gibbs' blueprints to achieve victory. However, I do worry that Gibbs himself cannot follow his own blueprints as effectively as other teams now do...

I disagree with that. He is a master mind...that I have no doubt. You do need personel to pull things off though. Last I checked, Joe Jacoby isn't walking through that door to help out on this banged up O line. This is one of the reasons I feel it's time to adjust and pass more. Portis is mega talented, but even he needs blocking.
I hope that Gibbs is looking at the play calling and saying to himself "Joe, that line of play calling not only didn't work, it cost us the game, we need to try something else." We are way too talented to have THAT many 3 and out's vs an inferior defense.

[JWsleep]

Look--we all agree his team needs to score more points on a consistent basis. But I don't think it's so black and white that they went all conservative in the playcalling in the second half. JLac was complaining about the LACK of rushes in that same half. Check out the numbers. And when JC misses a pass or dumps to the short receiver, maybe that was on an aggressive play that wasn't executed.

And in general what Gibbs aims for is balance. It's not run for the sake of run. It's run to set up the pass, preferably a long shot. Are people saying that this basic strategy does not work?

Finally, there is the issue of just who's playcalling were arguing about. Gibbs brought in Saunders. Now many people are worried that Gibbs isn't "letting" Saunders call the sort of game he wants to. What evidence do we have for that? Neither Gibbs nor Saunders have said this. What we have is the low score. But there's another variable here--the players. Maybe both JG and Saunders are aggressive, but the players are not getting it done.

The real answer is most likely that it's a combination of all of this. My guess is that when JG/JC are more comfortable, and when the Oline stabalizes, and when a legit #3 WR emerges, we'll be plenty aggressive. And when we are aggressive, it will ACTUALLY WORK. They called the perfect dagger-in-the-heart bomb against Philly, it was wide open, and the kid, bless his heart, overthrew it. That was an aggressive play call right in the Rypien to Clark mold there, and we missed it.

(Again, way too long--sorry!)

[Longtimefan]

I'm in favor of a balanced attack, be it run first or pass first really dosen't matter. In order to be successful on a sustained basis the offense must be balanced, a staple Gibbs will live and die by. Now, if that does not work, so be it, but I don't think you'll see Gibbs having his young QB throwing the ball 35-40 times a game espically when he has runners like Portis and Betts. Gibbs philosophy of offense reqires a strong defense, not one that just gives up points like water. He likes to shorten the games, and make the opposition earn everything they get. However his offense must improve in order for his defense to operate at a quality level for four quarters.