Not to belabor the point ...

[Fios]

Well, yes, actually, to belabor the point.

http://www.the-hogs.net/content/index.php?id=1034

I don't expect many Diggs for this one but, as always, if you dig it, Digg it

[GSPODS]

Your well-spent time and effort are worth a Digg.

"Gibbs went against empirical evidence"
Gibbs does this every week.
"he stopped trusting his quarterback."
Did Gibbs ever really trust J.C.?
And why would we think he would start now?

[HEROHAMO]

Ok that sounds about right.

You gave us some good facts there.

I still have to say, that is no excuse for our defense to play the way it did in the second half.

How about the screen play to Westbrook? Or the pass play to the other no name Iggle guy?

I know so much attention has been paid to the offensive playcalling, but Our offense still put up a good amount of points. Most of this game our offense was moving the ball. Even in the second half our team was moving it quite effectivley. The Red Zone offense still needs major work in which I totally agree with you.

So for me. That series you mentioned the playcalling was horrific. But that is only one series in the game. Why should we only focus on one series in the game?

The defense had the oppurtunitie to stop the Iggles dead in there tracks, but as we all know they did not.

So the way I see it. The offense and the playcalling had about one bad series. The defense had a number of bad series.

[Fios]

I'm making the point that scoring a touchdown on that series ices the game. It allows the defense to change its approach, knowing Philly has to score twice and do that as quickly as possible. It also gives the offense a series wherein all it has to do is eat clock.

[GSPODS]

I'm making the point that scoring a touchdown on that series ices the game. It allows the defense to change its approach, knowing Philly has to score twice and do that as quickly as possible. It also gives the offense a series wherein all it has to do is eat clock.

to your point.

to Gibbs & Company for still not getting it.

[Fios]

I should add that I know they understand what scoring a touchdown there means, my issue is with how they went about doing it.

[GSPODS]

I should add that I know they understand what scoring a touchdown there means, my issue is with how they went about doing it.

I though your article was 'empirically' clear on that point. One pass attempt was simply not enough balance against a team that likes to stack against the run, and is very good at red zone rushing defense.

[HEROHAMO]

The Redskins scored a total of ten points in the fourth Quarter.

The Redskins defense however gave up 20.

Yes that drive could have won the game, but We still came out of that drive with a five point lead.

To put so much emphasis on one offensive drive in that game is simply unfair to an offense that had performed well most of the game. Al Saunders and Gibbs had called a good game except maybe that one series.

We could easily say if we would have just stopped the Eagles from scoring on the next drive then we still would have had the oppurtunity to win the game. Or "what if" we would have intercepted the ball?

So yes we could have iced the game. But yes we could have stopped the Iggles from scoring too.

As far as the offense goes. I am happy with what I saw on Sunday. The playcalling and all. I will take this offense over the 2005 Redskins offense.

I still remember when Brunell was the Qb. All we had in the playbook for him was five yard quick dump passes. Occasionally passing down the field.

If you compare then to now. There is significant improvement.

[skinsfan#33]

I should add that I know they understand what scoring a touchdown there means, my issue is with how they went about doing it.

I though your article was 'empirically' clear on that point. One pass attempt was simply not enough balance against a team that likes to stack against the run, and is very good at red zone rushing defense.

They had two pass attempts. The one to Yoder that was negated by a Philly penalty and one that Thrash would have scored his third TD on that was negated by ey jumping off sides. This doesn't even count the pass/run option that JC chose to go with the draw to Portis instead of throwing the ball. He made that choice, not Gibbs, based on what he saw in the defense.

I saw no mention of how bad the Defense played. They gave up 3 TDs in the 4th 1/4 to a team that was only averaging 17 points A GAME! Lets take away the late TD that was set up by a 4th down fumble (never mind the D didn't even try to stop Westbrook on that last TD). With that TD gone the D still gave up two TDs in a 1/4. Had the D held the Eagles to a TD OVER their average score for the season the Skins still would have won 25-24.

Everyone is fixated on Gibbs because of the blood in the water and they are circling like sharks (retarded sharks).

If you want to blame this loss on someone blame the D or ey, but THIS ONE IS NOT ON GIBBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fios]

For god's sake, at least read the comments in this very thread, not once did I say the defense was without fault, I focused on A series that I think was the difference in the game. I said scoring a TD there changes the approach, for both teams, in the remaining four minutes. And, most importantly, all you have done is said "it's not Gibbs" you've not bothered to defend the decision to run there.

[Mursilis]

To put so much emphasis on one offensive drive in that game is simply unfair to an offense that had performed well most of the game. Al Saunders and Gibbs had called a good game except maybe that one series.

There were two, not one, offensive series in the 2nd half in which the team had to settle for FGs, not TDs, when they had the ball inside the 10. There was also this series in the 3rd:

1-10-PHI 14 (11:31) 17-J.Campbell pass short left to 83-J.Thrash to PHI 7 for 7 yards (96-O.Gaither).
2-3-PHI 7 (10:50) 26-C.Portis left tackle to PHI 5 for 2 yards (58-T.Cole, 57-C.Gocong).
3-1-PHI 5 (10:07) 45-M.Sellers up the middle to PHI 5 for no gain (98-M.Patterson).
Timeout #1 by WAS at 09:23.
4-1-PHI 5 (9:23) 6-S.Suisham 23 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-67-E.Albright, Holder-4-D.Frost.

Note the wasted time out, when a delay-of-game penalty would've only meant a 28 yard FG, still a chip shot. But more importantly, having 2 downs to gain 3 yards, the team could not do it. I'm not remembering exactly, but I believe in both those plays (2nd and 3rd down), the team lined up in some version of jumbo, which just screams run. And they got stuffed. Seemed like the offense worked much better when it wasn't so obvious which way they were going to go (run vs. pass), especially when you've got a mobile QB.

Speaking of JC, it's been said here and elsewhere that JC audibled out of a pass play into a draw on that 3rd and 7 in the 4th, but I don't remember reading that in the media. What's the source for that? I assumed it was Gibbs' call, not JC's, but I'm not certain of that.

[Fios]

I had wondered the same thing vis-a-vis the draw play:

Gibbs was unflinching in his defense of the draw play as well, although Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson commented after the game that he expected it. Gibbs allowed quarterback Jason Campbell to decide at the line whether to run the draw or pass. He praised Campbell for opting for the draw play, although Portis fell three yards short of the goal line. Gibbs also had a terse assessment of Johnson's comment: "Normally they do [know what play is coming] after it's over with. . . . They're always pretty sharp on that."

Again though, I would have MUCH rather that he run JC out of the shotgun there. It can't really be all that surprising that JC went with the safer option given the coaching mindset.

[DEHog]

Yes JC made the call on third down...people should really look at the facts before they start bashing Gibbs for every little thing. To say Gibbs didn't trust JC is wrong Gibbs allowed him to call the plays in the hurry-up???

As for penalties I saw two... one called and one not... calls that cost us dearly. The first was on ey...that play was a TD!! Game over!! The second was on LJ Smith on the screen pass. Look at the replay he grabs Landry so hard that Landry's shoulders pad come out of his jersey and after he did it he turned and looked back for a flag because he knew he was holding!! Not saying that the Eagles wouldn't have still scored...but you have to call that there is that spot it so help aid Westbrook on the run!!

[Fios]

Yes JC made the call on third down...people should really look at the facts before they start bashing Gibbs for every little thing. To say Gibbs didn't trust JC is wrong Gibbs allowed him to call the plays in the hurry-up???

As for penalties I saw two... one called and one not... calls that cost us dearly. The first was on ey...that play was a TD!! Game over!! The second was on LJ Smith on the screen pass. Look at the replay he grabs Landry so hard that Landry's shoulders pad come out of his jersey and after he did it he turned and looked back for a flag because he knew he was holding!! Not saying that the Eagles wouldn't have still scored...but you have to call that there is that spot it so help aid Westbrook on the run!!

1) Look at the post above yours
2) I didn't say "didn't trust" I said "stopped trusting"
3) I still don't see anyone defending the decision to run, which is my main point

[DEHog]

Yes JC made the call on third down...people should really look at the facts before they start bashing Gibbs for every little thing. To say Gibbs didn't trust JC is wrong Gibbs allowed him to call the plays in the hurry-up???

As for penalties I saw two... one called and one not... calls that cost us dearly. The first was on ey...that play was a TD!! Game over!! The second was on LJ Smith on the screen pass. Look at the replay he grabs Landry so hard that Landry's shoulders pad come out of his jersey and after he did it he turned and looked back for a flag because he knew he was holding!! Not saying that the Eagles wouldn't have still scored...but you have to call that there is that spot it so help aid Westbrook on the run!!

1) Look at the post above yours
2) I didn't say "didn't trust" I said "stopped trusting"
3) I still don't see anyone defending the decision to run, which is my main point

Wasn't directed at you...I had no problem with the call...Portis almost pop it! We had just tried to pass for and would have score a TD hadn't ey fast started, so to come back to a run was a chance JC took because of the blitz...Had it worked it would have been considered a great call.

[wbbradb]

This is a well reasoned and well written analysis. However, I'd like to take issue with a couple points.

First, Al Saunders calls the plays, not Gibbs. In my opinion, the fact that Gibbs is defending that draw play is a dead giveaway--if he had called that play, then he would have taken responsibility for it and not have tried to defend the call. (Plus, Saunders loves draws.) If you have a problem with the overall system and balance, that certainly rests with Gibbs, but if you are criticizing particular calls in particular situations, I feel like that blame should fall on Saunders.

Second, it's a bit simplistic to view a run for 1 yard as a failed play or a bad call. Some plays are designed not to get huge chunks of yards (or score) but to set up other plays that will get those yards (or get the score). When judging playcalling, I don't think the results should be the only thing.

And if we have three passes down there, and the third one is picked off and run back for a touchdown, is that better playcalling? If you say yes, then that's fine. But if that had actually happened, I don't think anyone would have been praising the call this week.

But I think what has been happening in the media and on these boards is that if something works, it's a good call (by Saunders, who has finally been given the chance to call his own plays), and if something doesn't work, it's a bad call (by Gibbs, who has become a dinosaur and whose conservative philosophy will never work).

[Fios]

My understanding of the arrangement with Saunders and Gibbs is that anything within the red zone is filtered through Gibbs. He (Gibbs) has made it clear the buck stops with him, thus that's where I point my criticisms. I don't think it's any secret that the offense we have is Saunders-lite so to me its misguided to point to him when he doesn't have the full run as it is. I recognize the chess match inherent in using the run, both to keep the defense honest and to set up play action and the like but utilizing it that many times in that series is, in my view, bad play calling. You allow Philly to play a collapsed defense and give them a single point of attack. And I said this (to a friend) yesterday: I would much rather have watched JC try to throw it in and get picked off than die that slow death.

[GSPODS]

If you continually go away from what has been working and continually piss away leads and lose games, then everything from the coaching staff to the playcalling to the players execution of the plays is subject to scrutiny.

There is no one single person responsible for a collective implosion. The offensive coordinator calls a play. The head coach determines whether or not he wants that play called. The quarterback has the option of calling an audible. The center has the option of adjusting the line blocking scheme. That's all before the ball is snapped. Then once the ball is snapped, the quarterback still has the option of executing the original play or going to a "Hot Read", a safety valve, a bootleg, a scramble or throwing the ball away.

For every one thing that can go well, there are about twelve things that can go wrong on every play. The difference between the Redskins and successful teams is that regardless of what adjustments are made, successful teams know their adjustments and execute.

[wbbradb]

My understanding of the arrangement with Saunders and Gibbs is that anything within the red zone is filtered through Gibbs.

So the plays go from Saunders to Gibbs to JC in the red zone? And then from Saunders to JC otherwise? Has this been confirmed? And do you think that Gibbs is overruling Saunders and saying, no, we have to run here? Or forcing Saunders (or JC) to run certain plays? I just don't think that's happening.

And I said this (to a friend) yesterday: I would much rather have watched JC try to throw it in and get picked off than die that slow death.

All right, I respect that. But I'd rather try to punch it in and chew up the clock with the lead. And I don't quite remember, but I think ey's false start was going to be a pass, right? In any case, even I didn't think the defense would completely collapse the way it did. I just don't feel as much frustration over the playcalling as I do over the penalties and lack of focus. And for game preparation and focus, the blame definitely rests with Gibbs.

[roybus14]

Instead of 'nit-picking' the details of this last game and who called what when? Try starting with the front office decisions, period. What you are seeing with this team is in large part, a result of front office decisions. Which falls on the Team President and above. Which by the way includes HOF Coach Joe Gibbs.

This whole offensive thing was lost before it started. It's obvious that Gibbs does not have the "fear" factor with the players that he had in the first go around. Now you couple that with the fact that you bring in a guy with a different offensive philosophy than what you finished with the previous season. The players grumbled and who on the rest of the offensive staff are Al Saunders guy's??? The mistake with this offense was made in that decision to hire this dude in the midst of trying to win a SB quick. You have to account for at least one year to grasp his system which has passed but yet even after that year has passed, this offense does not have Saunders' footprint on it because the HOF HC is meddling in it.

Let's not leave the players out of this either. Because they got comfortable with the offense that they finished on a roll with, they never, IMO, embraced Al's system. Then again, it could be a situation where Al is just a systems guy and not a people person to go through what he wants done. It was funny last year hearing Clinton talk about how he and Saunders don't talk to each other and hearing how Al was upset that Clinton took himself out of the game when he was sending down a play or plays specifically for Clinton.

Whatever it was that worked in KC for those years, ain't working here. And the last time I checked, those guys on that roster were paid professionals too.

[Fios]

My understanding of the arrangement with Saunders and Gibbs is that anything within the red zone is filtered through Gibbs.

So the plays go from Saunders to Gibbs to JC in the red zone? And then from Saunders to JC otherwise? Has this been confirmed? And do you think that Gibbs is overruling Saunders and saying, no, we have to run here? Or forcing Saunders (or JC) to run certain plays? I just don't think that's happening.

And I said this (to a friend) yesterday: I would much rather have watched JC try to throw it in and get picked off than die that slow death.

All right, I respect that. But I'd rather try to punch it in and chew up the clock with the lead. And I don't quite remember, but I think ey's false start was going to be a pass, right? In any case, even I didn't think the defense would completely collapse the way it did. I just don't feel as much frustration over the playcalling as I do over the penalties and lack of focus. And for game preparation and focus, the blame definitely rests with Gibbs.

Maybe someone else can find it but unless I've gone totally mad I thought the plays-through-Gibbs inside the 20 approach was confirmed by the man himself. I'd also say Saunders has probably learned what options will and will not be embraced by the boss at this point and thus probably does some self-editing, so to speak.
Yes, ey's penalty came on what looked to be a passing play. But when something akin to that happened in Philly, Gibbs decided to throw it in and, lo and behold, it worked. Why not do that again? Why allow an option that plays to the strength of the Eagles?

[Fios]

Not that this "proves" things one way or another but I just got an e-mail from a friend who is an Eagles fan, this was not a response to anything I'd said, I haven't seen the guy in a couple of weeks:

I also heard a lot of ranting on WIP about McNabb and Reid -- I don't know if last week's comeback win has muted any of that. Sorry from your perspective. I expected a Washington win. The Redskins' goal-line playcalling near the end was atrocious.

[GSPODS]

Yes, Gibbs did say in one of his pressers that he reviews all Red Zone offensive plays before they go to J.C.

Supposively, Saunders has free reign of the playcalling outside the Red Zone.

If you're continuing to look for an answer as to why the draw play was even an option on the play in question, you would have to ask Joe Gibbs. That is based upon the aforementioned Joe Gibbs self-admission that he does, in fact, have the final word on all playcalls inside the Red Zone.

[skinsfan#33]

successful teams know their adjustments and execute.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

This is a running team. Even with the make shift line, this team runs the ball better than they pass it. And this is certainly true over the last couple of weeks.

Someone said, "why go away from what is working?" and I agree. Who has the most TDs on the Redskins? Portis! If you pride yourself on being a running team, then when crunch time comes, darn it, run the ball! The rules in the NFL are set up so that if an offense executes properly and the defense executes properly, the O wins. Point blank.

This team should have tried to run the ball in and they SHOULD HAVE been successful at it. It would have been an insult to the OL to not give them the chance to win the game. THEY DIDN'T GET IT DONE!

My first thought when they kicked the FG, that put the team up by 5, my first thought was "There goes the game! There is no way our D keeps Philly out of the endzone" and I'm sure that is what most Skins fans thought.

Here's a stat for you. The Eagles had one drive in the third; 12 plays / 70 yards and a TD. Not counting the two kneel downs at the end of the game the Eagles had four drives in the 4th 1/4 a total of 9 plays / 146 yards a fumble and THREE TDs (IN NINE BLOODY PLAYS).

Boy that conservative play calling of Gibbs really had a lot to do with the fact the EAGLES SCORED TDs ON 4 out of 5 possesion in the 2nd half!

[wbbradb]

I know, I know, everyone thinks the playcalling was atrocious. And this view is compounded by what everyone thinks was terrible playcalling at the end of the Giants game (even though that was a case of poor execution). Maybe I'm crazy but I just think that you can call a brilliant game and still lose 45-0 and call a very poor game and win 45-0. You have the lead, you've been running the ball effectively, you want to give the defense a rest, I just don't think it's such a completely insane idea to try to ram it in on eight plays with say, two play action passes to tight ends thrown in. The last thing you want is to come away with no points at all.

Also, I agree 100% with roybus14. Obviously we need a GM.