3WR sets

[jamf]

It forces the Defence to play atleast man to man on one WR. It drops the Safeties back.

Gibbs had alot of success running bunch plays with the Posse.

Why not go back to it? Is gibbs so scared of our Oline that he wont get out of max protect? granted we dont have WR's, but if he wanted to run it, we would have more than 4 WR's on the roster

If there is one thing i would like to see next year, its 3Wr sets on 1st and 2nd down.

[offiss]

It's up to Gibbs to bring in the kind of players to make that happen, he should focus more attemtion on the line's which are the most important part of any team, rather than the more high profile players, we really need to get significantly better on the O-line.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by jamf

It forces the Defence to play atleast man to man on one WR. It drops the Safeties back.

Gibbs had alot of success running bunch plays with the Posse.

Why not go back to it? Is gibbs so scared of our Oline that he wont get out of max protect? granted we dont have WR's, but if he wanted to run it, we would have more than 4 WR's on the roster

If there is one thing i would like to see next year, its 3Wr sets on 1st and 2nd down.

I think you answered your own question. It's because Joe ran it with the posse, Art, Gary, and Ricky! We don't have three receivers of that cailber on our team right now to make it as successful. That could change next year, however!

[htownskinfan]

my guess its based more on protection issues with the qb then who the wr's are

[irish]

A team has to have 3 WRs to run 3 WR sets. This team didnt.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by offiss

It's up to Gibbs to bring in the kind of players to make that happen, he should focus more attemtion on the line's which are the most important part of any team, rather than the more high profile players, we really need to get significantly better on the O-line.

I disagree. We have a pretty solid line (when they are all healthy). Not the best in the world, but good enough to protect the QB. I think the problem is that defenses stack 7 or 8 in the box on pass plays because they know they can put the safety on Moss and man-up everyone else. If we had another WR, then they have to drop 2 safeties (if not a linebacker), and it takes pressure off the O-line.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by jamf

It forces the Defence to play atleast man to man on one WR. It drops the Safeties back.

Gibbs had alot of success running bunch plays with the Posse.

Why not go back to it? Is gibbs so scared of our Oline that he wont get out of max protect? granted we dont have WR's, but if he wanted to run it, we would have more than 4 WR's on the roster

If there is one thing i would like to see next year, its 3Wr sets on 1st and 2nd down.

I think you touched on a significiant topic here. I too am not convinced Gibbs has the utmost confidence in the O-line in the passing game. On numerous ocasions during the season he hinted at protection problems. He did all he could (scheme wise) to protect Brunell because of his limited faith in Ramsey it was imperative he keep him healthy and in the game. Hence on many ocasions we just were not using formations where we could open up the offense. Too many one man patterns with max protection. There just weren't enough 3 wide receiver sets to guage what we could do in the passing game from that formation. "Maybe", I'm hoping we'll see more of an open offense in 2006. Maybe it's just me, but I feel our offense is much too limited constantly using tight formations with only one receiver in the pattern. Let's open the offense, get more people involved, and spread the ball around not relying on one receiver to make all the plays all the time.

[saden1]

Did you see what the Steelers did to the Colts? Sorry, I'll take a 2WR + TE/HB sets any day.

[MTK]

Gibbs offense centers around the running game and protecting the QB at all costs, don't look for that to change. He might add a few more wrinkles next year, kinda how the shotgun was added this year, but his offense isn't going to change drastically.

[Dana87]

A 3WR set would be a great change of pace formation, if you have the personel ie...Monk, Clark, Sanders. I would not use it more than 6-7 times a game.

[JWsleep]

To do this, you really need protection. Even back in the day before the all out blitz-sytle of D, Gibbs sometimes had Monk block with the line. If we have a WR like monk again, maybe Gibbs will do 3WRs.

I would like to see it more, just to wrong-foot the Ds we play, and to free up Clinton.

[SmootSmack]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playof...ohn&id=2296522

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by saden1

Did you see what the Steelers did to the Colts? Sorry, I'll take a 2WR + TE/HB sets any day.

I wish I could find the article, but anyhow, Gibbs popularized three-receiver sets in the NFL. Ther was a really good article about that but I can not find it anywhere. Here is a excerpt from a SI article about 3WR sets, kind of giving Gibbs the credit of the 3WR set.

"In 1981, Joe Gibbs' Redskins switched to a one-running back set and their offense took off. Gibbs inverted traditional logic by softening the defense with the passing game to open up the running game, and later in the '80s he used three talented receivers -- Art Monk, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders -- to do this. Dr. Z rattled off dozen nicknames for the Redskins' multi-receiver attack -- Trips, Spaghetti, Bunch, the Snake. (He was simultaneously discussing lunch with the Flaming Redhead, so perhaps I misunderstood some of the names). Whatever you called it, the 'Skins' single-back gameplan caught defenses off guard. With all those talented receivers running around, defenses had to lay back to guard the pass, which helped the running game."