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

[jsarno]

Week 1- 4.7 yards per rush (win)
Week 2- 4.0 yards per rush (win)
Week 3- 3.0 yards per rush (loss)

Notice a trend here? We're getting worse at the running the ball, and week 3 we played the weakest D. I'm all for pounding the ball when it works, when it doesn't, it's time to change.

[Redskins247]

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!

[Monksdown]

Welcome to the Warpath, tell your friends.

[JWsleep]

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.

[MTRedskinsFan]

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?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by MTRedskinsFan

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.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by MTRedskinsFan

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?

How are they predicting our offensive game plans so well? Are we not 2-1 right now? If teams predict our game plan so well, we'd be 0-3. Right now, it is our players' execution that isn't running the score board up, not that opposing defenses are stopping us. Most of the time, we're stopping ourselves.

[MTRedskinsFan]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

How are they predicting our offensive game plans so well? Are we not 2-1 right now? If teams predict our game plan so well, we'd be 0-3. Right now, it is our players' execution that isn't running the score board up, not that opposing defenses are stopping us. Most of the time, we're stopping ourselves.

You're right yo, execution is huge problem. How can Moss and Portis drop passes on the numbers, or Betts run w/o a head of steam? But I still take back to coaching/playcalling. Thrash has best hands on the team, so when Moss is dropping shit left and right why don't we at least pick up a few yards w/ Thrash. Maybe it's not a matter of predictability but Gibbs and maybe Saunders reactingly too slowly to what's happening on the field.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by MTRedskinsFan

You're right yo, execution is huge problem. How can Moss and Portis drop passes on the numbers, or Betts run w/o a head of steam? But I still take back to coaching/playcalling. Thrash has best hands on the team, so when Moss is dropping shit left and right why don't we at least pick up a few yards w/ Thrash. Maybe it's not a matter of predictability but Gibbs and maybe Saunders reactingly too slowly to what's happening on the field.

You do bring up good points, but I think there is one thing I should be clear on. Just because there is a theoretically better option can NOT mean the playcalling was wrong. In the NFL, you can't just replace the playcall, you must change the playcaller, and generally the entire offense with it. With playcalling such a fraction of a percent of the reason for any given outcome of a game, I don't think we can seperate a few plays from the rest of the game.

I say it's pointless to debate over playcalling, even if your right in the instances you bring up (I believe you are) because it's one of the nitpickiest things you can do. If a coach is helping his team instead of hurting it, like I believe Gibbs' staff is, we can live with the mistakes.

Everyone makes them. I believe Andy Reid is the best active coach, but he made a mistake that cost him 4 points against us. But I know over the course of the season, he will atone for that.

It's a long season, a few plays against the Giants in September will not matter.

Can I have some more of that killer aid.

[htownskinfan]

okay,Gibbs in his first go round was known for making great halftime adjustments,I've been doing some research and heres what i came up with.In Gibbs first tenure,he had 28 wins in which we were losing at halftime,7 of those happened in his first 3 yrs.Gibbs #2 in his first 3 yrs has 5 wins after losing at halftime,{this includes dallas-2td moss game,dont know if this should be counted}
On the flip side,Gibbs #1 had 11 games in 12 yrs in which he lost a game that he was winning at halftime,and one of those games you can throw out{91 season,we were 14-1,Gibbs rested starters in the 2nd half}
Gibbs #2 already has 11 losses in which we had a lead at halftime,with 5 of those happening last yr,and I dont think you can blame that on last yrs def,of those 5 losses we only scored a total of 29 second half points in 5 games.Of those 11 games 4 were second half shutouts with a total of us being outscored in the 2nd half of those 11 games 182-53.
What does all this mean? besides Gibbs #2 is def not as good as Gibbs#1?
well he has almost as many come from behind wins in his 2nd go round as he does in his first,so you might say he can still make good halftime adjustments.
Now for the 11 losses after leading at halftime,does that mean he's gotten too conservative in his old age and wants to sit on a lead?
Its been said that Gibbs#1 took other peoples players and fit his style around them and thats what made him a great coach,I can agree with that,but Gibbs #2 has handpicked his players for his system and its a struggle to score any points,does this make him a bad talent evaluator or bad coach? or both?
I think the bottom line is Gibbs#2 just hasnt been that good and deserves to be criticized,if he was any other coach he might be out of a job,2 of the teams that are# 2 and #3 behind us in most losses after leading at halftime since 2004 have fired their coaches.
But,I am glad that Snyder hired Gibbs,it has brought some stability to the organization,which we needed desperately.If Gibbs decides to finish out his 5 yr contract even if we suck he deserves that chance because of what he did the first time,but that doesnt mean he doesnt deserve the criticism he gets and we as fans shouldnt be chided for criticizing him .

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

okay,Gibbs in his first go round was known for making great halftime adjustments,I've been doing some research and heres what i came up with.In Gibbs first tenure,he had 28 wins in which we were losing at halftime,7 of those happened in his first 3 yrs.Gibbs #2 in his first 3 yrs has 5 wins after losing at halftime,{this includes dallas-2td moss game,dont know if this should be counted}
On the flip side,Gibbs #1 had 11 games in 12 yrs in which he lost a game that he was winning at halftime,and one of those games you can throw out{91 season,we were 14-1,Gibbs rested starters in the 2nd half}
Gibbs #2 already has 11 losses in which we had a lead at halftime,with 5 of those happening last yr,and I dont think you can blame that on last yrs def,of those 5 losses we only scored a total of 29 second half points in 5 games.Of those 11 games 4 were second half shutouts with a total of us being outscored in the 2nd half of those 11 games 182-53.
What does all this mean? besides Gibbs #2 is def not as good as Gibbs#1?
well he has almost as many come from behind wins in his 2nd go round as he does in his first,so you might say he can still make good halftime adjustments.
Now for the 11 losses after leading at halftime,does that mean he's gotten too conservative in his old age and wants to sit on a lead?
Its been said that Gibbs#1 took other peoples players and fit his style around them and thats what made him a great coach,I can agree with that,but Gibbs #2 has handpicked his players for his system and its a struggle to score any points,does this make him a bad talent evaluator or bad coach? or both?
I think the bottom line is Gibbs#2 just hasnt been that good and deserves to be criticized,if he was any other coach he might be out of a job,2 of the teams that are# 2 and #3 behind us in most losses after leading at halftime since 2004 have fired their coaches.
But,I am glad that Snyder hired Gibbs,it has brought some stability to the organization,which we needed desperately.If Gibbs decides to finish out his 5 yr contract even if we suck he deserves that chance because of what he did the first time,but that doesnt mean he doesnt deserve the criticism he gets and we as fans shouldnt be chided for criticizing him .

Good post, and some good points.

The biggest difference between Gibbs 1.0 and Gibbs 2.0 is that he cannot run over teams anymore because the roster he has is no longer dominant. He brought in Al Saunders to try to allieviate this, and say what you want about the job Saunders has done, but he specifically told Gibbs to go out and get Brandon Lloyd because he was the greatest talent he had ever seen. Because of moves like this, Gibbs has been unable to build a dominant roster.

The perception that we should NEVER give up a lead more than a touchdown in the second half of a game is downright ridiculous. We are about league average in closing games out. Sometimes, you end up getting outplayed by a comprable team in the second half. The first half DOES NOT HAVE MORE WEIGHT THAN THE SECOND. You could make the argument that we were lucky to have a 2 TD lead over the Giants with the drops and turnovers they committed. The fact that we were up by 2 TDs has nothing to do with the expectations for the second half.

You'd like to win every game you ever had a lead in, but if you can't deal with losing one every once in awhile without having to make excuses for the loss, it may be time to go root for another team who dominates its opponents.

Anyway, good post htownskin fan, and I hope this one doesn't get swept under the rug.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Good post, and some good points.

The biggest difference between Gibbs 1.0 and Gibbs 2.0 is that he cannot run over teams anymore because the roster he has is no longer dominant. He brought in Al Saunders to try to allieviate this, and say what you want about the job Saunders has done, but he specifically told Gibbs to go out and get Brandon Lloyd because he was the greatest talent he had ever seen. Because of moves like this, Gibbs has been unable to build a dominant roster.

The perception that we should NEVER give up a lead more than a touchdown in the second half of a game is downright ridiculous. We are about league average in closing games out. Sometimes, you end up getting outplayed by a comprable team in the second half. The first half DOES NOT HAVE MORE WEIGHT THAN THE SECOND. You could make the argument that we were lucky to have a 2 TD lead over the Giants with the drops and turnovers they committed. The fact that we were up by 2 TDs has nothing to do with the expectations for the second half.

You'd like to win every game you ever had a lead in, but if you can't deal with losing one every once in awhile without having to make excuses for the loss, it may be time to go root for another team who dominates its opponents.

Anyway, good post htownskin fan, and I hope this one doesn't get swept under the rug.

thanks,but I think this thread has played out

[12thMan]

I think a better question is why doesn't "Saunders Football" work?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think a better question is why doesn't "Saunders Football" work?

Saunders system has worked for many years, until he came to Washington. I don't think there is a coincidence in that.