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

[BleedBurgundy]

Maybe I'm not saying this clearly. If, IF, the players execute the gameplan well, we win. We had the lead at the end of the first half. The detractors say that Gibbs is too conservative, so... if the players execute this conservative offense and chew up yardage and clock, we win. Ask anyone that's actually on the team, I'll bet you hear the same thing.

[BleedBurgundy]

And 17 points in a half isn't too bad for a conservative offense? Our guys just didn't match intensity and focus in the 2nd half. If we keep changing everything every 3-4 years we're not going to get anywhere. That said, I'd like to point out that I enjoy your posts Daseal, because you actually put something behind them. I don't agree with them, but at least they show that you've put thought into them. I wish everyone did.

[skinsguy]

Football isn't any different now than what it was 20 years ago. Aside from a couple of rule changes, the majority of the game is the same as it was years ago.

I keep hearing that today's game does this and does that. Show me how the game in the 80's didn't support the passing game? That's stupid! Go to you tube and watch some vintage videos of Gary Clark. Our team (and other great teams from that era) put up just as many points as teams are doing today.

[BrunellMVP?]

the simple answer that i've been hearing/reading is:
1) our losing record since he's been back.
2) our inability to score points (our lack of production for a generally talented Offense.
3) our inability to manage the clock.
4) mark brunell, pierce, smoot (round 1), champ bailey, ryan clark, walt harris, etc. (more specifcally- player management-whether its williams or saunders, still gibbs call.
5) perceived(?) conservatism when we have a lead.


This is what i consistently hear...i agree with some, and disagree with others...overall gibbs has not "lost it" i just think perhaps he needs to take more control, or completely cede authority...too many chiefs (IMO).

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Football isn't any different now than what it was 20 years ago. Aside from a couple of rule changes, the majority of the game is the same as it was years ago.

I keep hearing that today's game does this and does that. Show me how the game in the 80's didn't support the passing game? That's stupid! Go to you tube and watch some vintage videos of Gary Clark. Our team (and other great teams from that era) put up just as many points as teams are doing today.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
In 1986,
There were only 8 players that had 1000 or more rushing yards. 23 in 2006. (that's 15 more)
There were only 10 people that had 1000 or more receiving yards. 19 in 2006. (that's 9 more)
There was only 1 player that had 2000 or more yards from scrimmage. 5 in 2006. (that's 4 more)
There were only 16 that had 2500 or more passing yards. 21 in 2006. (that's 5 more)
There were only 2 that had 4000 or more passing yards. 5 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were only 7 that had 80 or more receptions. 18 in 2006. (that's 11 more)
There were only 13 that had 70 or more receptions. 27 in 2006. (that's 14 more)
There were only 28 that had 60 or more receptions. 44 in 2006. (that's 16 more)
There were only 19 players that averaged 6 or more points per game. 37 in 2006. (that's 18 more)

Those numbers speak for themselves. Every era is different, and usually the more we progress the better the players get. We have more prolific players and offenses today.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
In 1986,
There were only 8 players that had 1000 or more rushing yards. 23 in 2006. (that's 15 more)
There were only 10 people that had 1000 or more receiving yards. 19 in 2006. (that's 9 more)
There was only 1 player that had 2000 or more yards from scrimmage. 5 in 2006. (that's 4 more)
There were only 16 that had 2500 or more passing yards. 21 in 2006. (that's 5 more)
There were only 2 that had 4000 or more passing yards. 5 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were only 7 that had 80 or more receptions. 18 in 2006. (that's 11 more)
There were only 13 that had 70 or more receptions. 27 in 2006. (that's 14 more)
There were only 28 that had 60 or more receptions. 44 in 2006. (that's 16 more)
There were only 19 players that averaged 6 or more points per game. 37 in 2006. (that's 18 more)

Those numbers speak for themselves. Every era is different, and usually the more we progress the better the players get. We have more prolific players and offenses today.

Interesting numbers. I'm assuming you factored in the addition of three franchises-Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars

[jsarno]

In terms of teams, in 1986,
There were only 20 teams that had 300 or more yards offense. 27 in 2006. (that's 7 more)
There were only 18 teams that averaged 175 or more yards passing a game. 26 in 2006. (that's 8 more)
There were only 3 teams that scored 25 or more ppg. 6 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were 1 teams that scored 26 or more ppg. 4 in 2006. (that's 3 more)


Now look at the similarities in rushing offense:
There was 1 team that averaged more than 160 per game. 2 in 2006. (that's only 1 more)
There were 4 teams that averaged more than 150 per game. 3 in 2006. (that's 1 fewer)
There were 9 teams that averaged more than 125 per game. 9 in 2006. (exact same)
There were 19 teams that averaged more than 105 per game. 21 in 2006. (that's only 2 more)

It's clear we are in a more pass happy day and age.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Interesting numbers. I'm assuming you factored in the addition of three franchises-Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars

Actually it's 4 teams. You forgot the Ravens. (or the Browns depending on your point of view)
And those were individual acheivements, so the 4 extra teams out of 32 teams would not make THAT big of an impact.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well here's a question for you then (and everyone else) is it better to play to your own strengths, or against the opponents' weakness?

Case in point for this past weekend, our strengths so far this season have been our running game and our defense. For all of Campbell's potential and the flashes we've seen, the passing offense isn't necessarily a strength at the moment.

On the other hand, the Giants' weakness most would agree is their pass defense.

So what's the right strategy? My feeling is you do what you do best and make the other team stop you at what you do best. It's like jsarno said in a fantasy football thread (to paraphrase) "If you're going to lose, lose with your best."

What sayeth thou?

Sorry it took so long to respond.

I think it would be better to be able to adapt to who you are playing then to become so predictable that the defense knows whats coming all the time. Going into the game, the Giants were only giving up 3.8 ypc(I think). WHen the Skins were getting stuffed on the ground They should have been prepared with a plan B. They weren't, the Giants knew what was coming, and had no problem stopping it.

[KLHJ2]

I wish that we would just develop a "score as many offensive points as possible as quickly as possible and never let up" attitude. Hell, a 21 point lead in the NFL isn't anything in today's NFL when it comes down to the last 2 minuites of the game. I would like to see them ditch the whole clock control theory and put some points on the board rapidly through 3 quarters. Play clock control in the 4th if you have a 28+ point lead. Force them to throw more often so that the D can pin their ears back and get sacks and intercecptions. Joe Gibbs does not have the killer instinct to just destroy opposing teams, that is the part of the game that he is lacking.

Look at the teams that are winning right now. Indy, Dallas, NE, and GB. They keep putting up points and do not let up until they completely devastate you. They make you shoot yourself in the foot by trying to play catch up against their solid defenses. That is the type of attitude and type of strategy that Gibbs is lacking. Gibbs was great in the 80's but the league is no longer a conservative one.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Hell, a 21 point lead in the NFL isn't anything in today's NFL when it comes down to the last 2 minuites of the game.

It is if you can play defense. Which I guess is a big part of this whole thing.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's clear we are in a more pass happy day and age.

Using a different perspective:

In 1986 the top 10 Passing leaders threw for a combined 37740 yards.
In 2006, the top 10 passing Leaders threw for a combined 39026 yards.

The difference being a total of 1286 yards or,
128.6 yards per QB per season or,
8.0375 yards per QB per game.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by jsarno

In terms of teams, in 1986,
There were only 20 teams that had 300 or more yards offense. 27 in 2006. (that's 7 more)
There were only 18 teams that averaged 175 or more yards passing a game. 26 in 2006. (that's 8 more)
There were only 3 teams that scored 25 or more ppg. 6 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were 1 teams that scored 26 or more ppg. 4 in 2006. (that's 3 more)


Now look at the similarities in rushing offense:
There was 1 team that averaged more than 160 per game. 2 in 2006. (that's only 1 more)
There were 4 teams that averaged more than 150 per game. 3 in 2006. (that's 1 fewer)
There were 9 teams that averaged more than 125 per game. 9 in 2006. (exact same)
There were 19 teams that averaged more than 105 per game. 21 in 2006. (that's only 2 more)

It's clear we are in a more pass happy day and age.

You also have to consider the shift of teams around the league. Teams switching conferences or divisions will play a role in that as well. And certainly, the addition of NFL teams will increase those numbers as well. And really, in those comparisons, they don't really show a huge, drastic, increase between 1986 and 2006. In 20 years, you're talking about a matter of a few teams. Not enough of a difference to say we're clearly more pass happy in this day and age. Now if those differences were double digit in every category, then I'd say we're clearly a different NFL from 20 years ago, but according to this, I don't see where this will prove we're more of a pass happy league. And.... what still rings true is that teams who win the Super Bowl, have relied on their running game and defense.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's 4 teams. You forgot the Ravens. (or the Browns depending on your point of view)
And those were individual acheivements, so the 4 extra teams out of 32 teams would not make THAT big of an impact.

True, it's not that big an impact. But still more teams means more players means a larger sample size means it does impact the numbers somewhat

[#56fanatic]

I think the philosophy has changes from 20 years ago for most of these new coaches. The coaches from earlier years (except Vermeil) all have the same approach. get a lead and eat clock. the newer coaches run the offense no matter what the score is. I heard a former football player say this the other day who was talking about our game with the Giants (the radio show is in charlotte NC) he said if they were up at half by 14 or 21 or what ever the coach would say, do not let up, we'll run our offense until the game is out of reach. If they were up 14 the coach would say, look guys 14 points, thats two plays.
I like that mentality. 14 points is really only two plays, any two plays. so their coach would run their offense until the end of the game, or when there was absolutely no chance of them coming back. Hopefully this will open the coaches and everyone else's eyes they need to let the offense run. seemed like we just paniced in the 4th quarter.

it is very early in the season. we have a long way to go. I will hate to see whats out here if we ever lose multiple games. this is crazy how we all react after 1 loss insn't it?