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

[Cowell]

Originally Posted by bertoskins2

winning SB with different QB's signifies that Joe Gibbs football will work

hail to the skins

I don't think Gibbs football will work too much better than it has in the last couple of seasons. The game has changed, this isn't the 80s. Defenses usually consist of much better atheletes than the offenses do. Therefore they are quicker to the gap and harder hitting. We really do need to adjust our gameplan a little bit, we still haven't put up over 20 points this year, and if we can't we do it on the Giants, then that's an issue.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Cowell

I don't think Gibbs football will work too much better than it has in the last couple of seasons. The game has changed, this isn't the 80s. Defenses usually consist of much better atheletes than the offenses do. Therefore they are quicker to the gap and harder hitting. We really do need to adjust our gameplan a little bit, we still haven't put up over 20 points this year, and if we can't we do it on the Giants, then that's an issue.

Exactly how has the game changed? I keep hearing this, but I haven't seen any evidence of it on the field. The teams are still running and passing the ball and having to kick field goals and score touchdowns to score points.

Are you trying to tell me that the defensive players of today hit harder than someone like Lawrence Taylor or Ronnie Lott did in the 80's? Believe me, if the game has changed that much, it isn't because of the defense, but because of the ticky tack rules that the NFL has placed on defenders nowadays. Go back and watch the last Super Bowl the Redskins were in. They threw Jim Kelly and his receivers around all day. Over half of that stuff would be called for personal fouls penalties in today's game.

It all comes back to execution. Joe Gibbs football works and will always work. You just need the right players and the right team chemistry to make it work.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Exactly how has the game changed? I keep hearing this, but I haven't seen any evidence of it on the field. The teams are still running and passing the ball and having to kick field goals and score touchdowns to score points.

Are you trying to tell me that the defensive players of today hit harder than someone like Lawrence Taylor or Ronnie Lott did in the 80's? Believe me, if the game has changed that much, it isn't because of the defense, but because of the ticky tack rules that the NFL has placed on defenders nowadays. Go back and watch the last Super Bowl the Redskins were in. They threw Jim Kelly and his receivers around all day. Over half of that stuff would be called for personal fouls penalties in today's game.

It all comes back to execution. Joe Gibbs football works and will always work. You just need the right players and the right team chemistry to make it work.

The game has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 yrs.. For example:
-Rule changes have made the game siginificantly tilted to the passing game.. The illegal contact rule, the emphasis on roughing the passer tends to protect QBs more, defensive holding is called much more than ever before..
-Exotic defenses change the way offense is called.. You'd hardly ever see 8 in the box before the past 15 years.. The 3-4 wasn't around, you would NEVER see some of the defensive formations the Pats do (1 down linemen, 4 LB and 6 DB) and as a result offenses have gotten more aggressive to exploit those defenses. Gibbs has not shown any innovation in his game plan or philosophy since his return..
-Players today are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.. While not diminishing any players of before (I am a child of the 70's and 80's so I saw all of the same ones you mentioned play) for every Lawrence Taylor, I give you Shawn Merriman or Brian Urlacher. For every Ronnie Lott, I give you Brian Dawkins or Ed Reed.. Today's players are more athletic, run faster and hit just as hard..

Yesterday's players were probably smarter, but overall today's game is different. By that I mean the game is tilted to what coaches can maximize their teams talents by suiting their gameplan to his team's strengths rather than teach a team to fit into their system.

A perfect example is Tony Dungy. His background is old school Chuck Noll, run the ball, take some shots downfield and play great defense. He turned TB from the NFL dregs to a powerhouse with that formula because he had those type of players.. When he got to Indy, he had a great QB, great WR and a bad defense.. Rather than force his philosophy, he let the offense continue to air it out (against his background) while trying to improve the defense. He's going to the Hall of Fame because he knew how to and was willing to adapt to the strengths of his team rather than stubbornly stick to 'his system'.

Gibbs seems like he's trying to fit square pegs into his round hole and that's why it's not working..

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

He's going to the Hall of Fame because he knew how to and was willing to adapt to the strengths of his team rather than stubbornly stick to 'his system'.

Great line. That sums it up perfectly.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

The game has changed dramatically over the past 10-15 yrs.. For example:
-Rule changes have made the game siginificantly tilted to the passing game.. The illegal contact rule, the emphasis on roughing the passer tends to protect QBs more, defensive holding is called much more than ever before..
-Exotic defenses change the way offense is called.. You'd hardly ever see 8 in the box before the past 15 years.. The 3-4 wasn't around, you would NEVER see some of the defensive formations the Pats do (1 down linemen, 4 LB and 6 DB) and as a result offenses have gotten more aggressive to exploit those defenses. Gibbs has not shown any innovation in his game plan or philosophy since his return..
-Players today are bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic than ever before.. While not diminishing any players of before (I am a child of the 70's and 80's so I saw all of the same ones you mentioned play) for every Lawrence Taylor, I give you Shawn Merriman or Brian Urlacher. For every Ronnie Lott, I give you Brian Dawkins or Ed Reed.. Today's players are more athletic, run faster and hit just as hard..

Yesterday's players were probably smarter, but overall today's game is different. By that I mean the game is tilted to what coaches can maximize their teams talents by suiting their gameplan to his team's strengths rather than teach a team to fit into their system.

A perfect example is Tony Dungy. His background is old school Chuck Noll, run the ball, take some shots downfield and play great defense. He turned TB from the NFL dregs to a powerhouse with that formula because he had those type of players.. When he got to Indy, he had a great QB, great WR and a bad defense.. Rather than force his philosophy, he let the offense continue to air it out (against his background) while trying to improve the defense. He's going to the Hall of Fame because he knew how to and was willing to adapt to the strengths of his team rather than stubbornly stick to 'his system'.

Gibbs seems like he's trying to fit square pegs into his round hole and that's why it's not working..

There were nickel and dime defenses back in the 80's and yes, there was the 3-4 defense back in those days as well, so I'm not buying that the defenses has changed that much. As far as the rule changes, I do agree, they do favor the passing game more, but there are also defensive schemes that counter act that...such as the bump and run and the blitz packages.

And further more, it's good that you brought up Tony Dungy. Sure, he had to change his philosophy when he came to Indy. HOWEVER, notice the Colts didn't win their Super Bowl until they had a defense that was reliable, and they ran the football more.

Remember. Joe Gibbs' philosophy really isn't conservative football. He came out of the mold of Don Coryell...."Air Coryell". He molded his offense with the type of players he had in the 80's. In the early to mid 80's, the offense centered around John Riggins. In the second half of the 80's and early 90's, it focused a lot on the Posse' (Monk, Clark, Sanders,) while maintaining and strong running game.

It's all about what type of team you have....the type of players you have. Gibbs philosophy deals with the type of team he has. If he has a young, inexperienced QB, he's going to run more. If he has Mark Rypien or Doug Williams under center he's going to air it out, but he's going to do so when the quarterback is experienced enough to take the team on his back. Jason isn't there yet. But, people would be blind to not see that we are giving Campbell more opportunities to go down field.

There's nothing wrong with Gibbs' philosophy. If there was, over half of the current head coaching staff in the league wouldn't have jobs.

[redsk1]

JG's football is scoring points, being physical, and winning. So far in JG's 2 it hasn't been so much of that. So far...

Today's football you are only go to go as far as your QB takes you. Let's face it we haven't had a talented Qb here for a long time. Don't get me wrong i like JC but i can't be sure he is long time starter material. I thought Ramsey was starter material for a long time. He could make some great throws that would make you think this guy is talented. But he's didn't have the intangibles. QB's makes coaches geniuses, generally. Right now we need JC to keep improving and show us he has intangibles.

Now we could get into personel and who started a below average QB for 2 years...

[SmootSmack]

Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

Depends on how you look at it. The end of the game showed 27 rushes to 36 passing attempts (when you count the 2 sacks). But as we all know, we left any sort of game plan at the end of the game when we had to pass every down. So you take away the last two drives and you get a different result.
For instance, our last drive had 9 consecutive passing attempts (2 spikes) and 2 rushing attempts with Betts. Our second to last drive have 8 consecutive passing attempts and no rushes. That's 17 passing attempts in the last two drives. SO in actuality, we had 19 passing attempts to 27 rushes. Not so even if you ask me.

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Strongly disagree. While I see your point, we have a banged up O line and we are not as effective running the ball. We only had 82 yards rushing on 27 attempts vs a poor Giants D. That's only 3.04 YPC. We need to take the handcuffs off Campbell and let him to continue throwing downfield. That will take the pressure off the run and open up the offense.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.

Well Roethlisberger has averaged almost 26 attempts per game this year, and has 6 td's to 1 int, and they have won every game and blew out every opponant by an average of close to 24 points a game...all because they throw more now then they ever have. Tomlin has a passing attack mentality as opposed to Cowher's run first approach and now they aren't in close games, they are blowing everyone away. Thanks for the example, it helped to prove my point. If the Steelers can scrap a game plan engrained in their minds for many years, why can't we? It works to throw the ball people!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Well Roethlisberger has averaged almost 26 attempts per game this year, and has 6 td's to 1 int, and they have won every game and blew out every opponant by an average of close to 24 points a game...all because they throw more now then they ever have. Tomlin has a passing attack mentality as opposed to Cowher's run first approach and now they aren't in close games, they are blowing everyone away. Thanks for the example, it helped to prove my point. If the Steelers can scrap a game plan engrained in their minds for many years, why can't we? It works to throw the ball people!

I'll just respond to this part just because I want to make clear that I'm talking about when Roethlisberger first started QBing. They didn't throw him out there to launch the ball 25-30 times a game. He was eased into it. I don't doubt that as the season progresses they'll entrust more of the game into Campbell's hands

You've actually helped me come up with a good question for Tony McGee for our next chat. Thanks!

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'll just respond to this part just because I want to make clear that I'm talking about when Roethlisberger first started QBing. They didn't throw him out there to launch the ball 25-30 times a game. He was eased into it. I don't doubt that as the season progresses they'll entrust more of the game into Campbell's hands

Gotcha.
It was easy to hold Big Ben to fewer passes, they had an established run. If they had Favre he would have to hand the ball off too. They won conservative though, so I understand your point.
If the Skins had a top 5 rushing attack, and top 5 defense, we could bring back Rypien to win us a super bowl. But we don't on both...we need Campbell to step up...especially with the injuries to Thomas and Jansen.

You've actually helped me come up with a good question for Tony McGee for our next chat. Thanks!

What question is that?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.

The 'run it down their throats' wasn't just specific to last week, it's a general notion that 'Gibbs football' is a smashmouth, run it 30-40+ times a game philospohy..

Aikman said last week that they won 3 Super Bowls in Dallas running Gibbs offense.. Vermiel won a Super Bowl in St. Louis with it with the Greatest Show on Turf. Mike Martz runs concepts of it, Saunders has run it for years.. It's all the Coryell system. We know it works, but the difference is how he does it now..

One core concept of 'Gibbs football' is get an early lead and control the clock with the running game.. That's what all of the coaches above did, and Gibbs has tried to do also since he's been back, but the difference is 'getting the lead' today means you have to have a 3 TD cushion before running the ball repeatedly to control the clock.. We've seen too many leads pissed away by conservative, predictable play calling in close (less than 3 TD) games.. Remember 11 loses with a 2nd half lead, 12 loses with an 11 point or more lead, both worst in the NFL since 2004.. That's not coincidence, it's a trend that indicates a flawed philosophy..

Why we seem to collectively lose aggressiveness (on offense and defense mind you) in the 2nd half in games that we lead is beyond me.. The 'let's not take any chances' approach to football is a recipe for failure in the NFL..

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

The 'run it down their throats' wasn't just specific to last week, it's a general notion that 'Gibbs football' is a smashmouth, run it 30-40+ times a game philospohy..

Aikman said last week that they won 3 Super Bowls in Dallas running Gibbs offense.. Vermiel won a Super Bowl in St. Louis with it with the Greatest Show on Turf. Mike Martz runs concepts of it, Saunders has run it for years.. It's all the Coryell system. We know it works, but the difference is how he does it now..

One core concept of 'Gibbs football' is get an early lead and control the clock with the running game.. That's what all of the coaches above did, and Gibbs has tried to do also since he's been back, but the difference is 'getting the lead' today means you have to have a 3 TD cushion before running the ball repeatedly to control the clock.. We've seen too many leads pissed away by conservative, predictable play calling in close (less than 3 TD) games.. Remember 11 loses with a 2nd half lead, 12 loses with an 11 point or more lead, both worst in the NFL since 2004.. That's not coincidence, it's a trend that indicates a flawed philosophy..

Why we seem to collectively lose aggressiveness (on offense and defense mind you) in the 2nd half in games that we lead is beyond me.. The 'let's not take any chances' approach to football is a recipe for failure in the NFL..

NFL routes have guys going deep on every play. The Quarterback has to decide when he's got a matchup that makes the throw worth the risk.

Last year we didn't throw downfield as much as the average team did, and we blamed the Quarterback. This year we are throwing downfield often, having some success, and people still have a problem with it. We just can't handle the fact that it's a low percentage throw. 28% leaguewide. That means if you throw one deep ball in every quarter, you are only likely to complete one deep ball. In general, throwing the ball down the field is a negative value offensive strategy. There are times where an NFL defense will give you a great matchup downfield that you should take advatage of, teams do this all the time. But chew on this: if a deep completion is such a great thing (and it is), and sometimes you get good matchups to throw it (which you do), and it STILL hurts your team more times than not, why would you ever want to do it MORE?!?!?! If you force the deep ball into tight coverage, you are more likely to be intercepted than to have a completion.

We have taken advantage of some good matchups in the deep game this year. We've probably been a bit too aggressive with it, but we've done pretty well. Our offense has been really balanced so far. Our running game has not been efficient. So to agree with those who have said this before, I WOULD take some pressure off this running game and throw the ball more. But that doesn't mean we need Campbell to throw the ball all over the place. Some screens, short passes, bootlegs would do a lot to take pressure off the running game. We don't have to do any 4 wide crap or the sort. I would try the running game, and if its not getting 4 yards an attempt, I'd run it less. If it is, I'd run it more.

Of course, thats what the coaches did Sunday, and people are still all up ons.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

NFL routes have guys going deep on every play. The Quarterback has to decide when he's got a matchup that makes the throw worth the risk.

Last year we didn't throw downfield as much as the average team did, and we blamed the Quarterback. This year we are throwing downfield often, having some success, and people still have a problem with it. We just can't handle the fact that it's a low percentage throw. 28% leaguewide. That means if you throw one deep ball in every quarter, you are only likely to complete one deep ball. In general, throwing the ball down the field is a negative value offensive strategy. There are times where an NFL defense will give you a great matchup downfield that you should take advatage of, teams do this all the time. But chew on this: if a deep completion is such a great thing (and it is), and sometimes you get good matchups to throw it (which you do), and it STILL hurts your team more times than not, why would you ever want to do it MORE?!?!?! If you force the deep ball into tight coverage, you are more likely to be intercepted than to have a completion.

We have taken advantage of some good matchups in the deep game this year. We've probably been a bit too aggressive with it, but we've done pretty well. Our offense has been really balanced so far. Our running game has not been efficient. So to agree with those who have said this before, I WOULD take some pressure off this running game and throw the ball more. But that doesn't mean we need Campbell to throw the ball all over the place. Some screens, short passes, bootlegs would do a lot to take pressure off the running game. We don't have to do any 4 wide crap or the sort. I would try the running game, and if its not getting 4 yards an attempt, I'd run it less. If it is, I'd run it more.

Of course, thats what the coaches did Sunday, and people are still all up ons.

I'm not advocating airing it out and throwing bombs every play or each drive.. What's missing in our offense is the a mid range passing game.. Where are the 10 yd slants, the 15 yard ins, the skinny post, the post corner routes, the out n ups from our offense? These move the chains by reception or penalty (we seldom get illegal contact penalties to our benefit, why is that?) Those loosen up the LB which open up running lanes.. Those invite blitzes which opens up the screen game..

Taking shots down the field (20+ yards) probably eqaute to less than 15% of successful plays in the most prolific offenses but they (Cincy, Indy, Dallas, Detroit) have the mid range game as a core component of their offense.. 1 big problem I've noticed in our passing game is other than the go route, most of our routes (hooks & curls) have the receivers catching the ball with their feet set or heading to or running up the sideline which limits RAC.

It's not as bad as with Brunell, but let's not be afraid of the middle of the field.. As other teams have shown on our defense, the middle of the field is a first down haven but we tend to ignore it exists..

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I'm not advocating airing it out and throwing bombs every play or each drive.. What's missing in our offense is the a mid range passing game.. Where are the 10 yd slants, the 15 yard ins, the skinny post, the post corner routes, the out n ups from our offense? These move the chains by reception or penalty (we seldom get illegal contact penalties to our benefit, why is that?) Those loosen up the LB which open up running lanes.. Those invite blitzes which opens up the screen game..

Taking shots down the field (20+ yards) probably eqaute to less than 15% of successful plays in the most prolific offenses but they (Cincy, Indy, Dallas, Detroit) have the mid range game as a core component of their offense.. 1 big problem I've noticed in our passing game is other than the go route, most of our routes (hooks & curls) have the receivers catching the ball with their feet set or heading to or running up the sideline which limits RAC.

It's not as bad as with Brunell, but let's not be afraid of the middle of the field.. As other teams have shown on our defense, the middle of the field is a first down haven but we tend to ignore it exists..

I agree with you that we ignore the middle of the field it seems. Over the last 3 years, we've relied on Cooley for that yardage I think. But getting a more experienced "possession" receiver would help us in that regard. That's one of the strengths for Thrash. He grabs the ball with his hands, and then knows when to get his head down and avoid the "kill."

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well, I thought the stats showed that we didn't "run it down their throats" last week. Wasn't the pass/run ratio pretty high?

That said, I think we need to run more. For all the reasons I've mentioned in other threads-young QB, strong defense, hurt o-line, two great running backs.

Establish a strong running game will set up the passing game. And as Campbell gets better and learns to work better with his receivers, and vice versa we should be in good shape. It won't happen overnight. But I mean I look at what the Steelers have done with Roethlisberger. Isn't there some crazy stat about how he's undefeated when he attempts less 15 pass attempts per game? It doesn't need to be that extreme but I don't think, at this point in his career, we put the burden on Campbell and the passing game.

I've always felt that pass/run ratio can be misleading. If you're unwilling to try to get the ball downfield in your passing game, you give the opposing safeties no reason to respect the pass. Other than the missed shot deep to Moss in the second half, did Campbell attempt a single pass over 10-12 yards prior to the final drive? I feel that in addition to a great deep ball, he throws an excellent 15-20 yard pass over the middle, as he did to Randle El to set up the goal-line sequence. I'd like to see more of that type of passing play to force safeties to respect the pass. Campbell certainly has the gun to fire the ball into tight spaces.