Not to belabor the point ...

[GSPODS]

Redskins were ahead by 2 points. Four minutes left after trying to run it in. Absolutely necessary to get a FG, so the Eagles then need a TD. Otherwise, an Eagles FG wins. The defense has to hold a five-point lead.

Scoring 7 is good, a bonus, but the winning call is whatever ensures the extra 3 points.

I might have called one pass, but no more...and that's still a "might".

That play-calling sequence surely does not show that Gibbs has lost his mind.

Recall that Gibbs has coached several hundred games in the NFL, most of them high-pressure games when an loss could drop the Redskns from a chance at the playoffs.

Is there any reason to believe, seriously, that Gibbs has forgotten all that he learned about an NFL game?

Is there more reason to believe Wade and Rabach, who both said (see the Rock thread) that the plays should have worked, and implied that the blockers failed to do a proper job?

keep it on the ground, fine and dandy. i have absolutely NO problem with that. but, the same stupid heavy jumbo package on each down????

when playing poker, you don't show the other guy your cards. why would you do it in a professional football game? i just don't get it. NOBODY was fooled into thinking, 'this may be a pass'. NOBODY. i can sit at home and call most of the redskins plays, ESPECIALLY in the redzone before they even happen. what makes gibbs or anyone else think that opposing coaches can't do the same.

for the love of all things (un)holy, spread it out, for once, please, while i still have hair left to pull out. watching our redzone offense is like watching a couple of retards try to screw.

Actually, watching retards trying to screw is amusing. Watching the Redskins ineptitude is not. It's sickening. Sadly, the retards have a better chance of getting it right than the Redskins do these days.

[CanesSkins26]

Recall that Gibbs has coached several hundred games in the NFL, most of them high-pressure games when an loss could drop the Redskns from a chance at the playoffs.

In his first tenure he did very well in high-pressure situations. Gibbs 2.0 looks like a rookie coach in pressure situations. No stat shows that better than the 13 games we have lost after leading at half time in the past 3 and half seasons. That is worst in the NFL. In the clutch Gibbs looks uncertain and even scared at times.

[skinsfan#33]

Maybe it is just me and maybe I'm wrong but I'm much more upset over the 4 TDs the D gave up in the 2nd half instead of the 4 points Gibbs' "conservative play calling "MAY" have left on the board. There is no telling if the team would have scored a TD if THEY HAD SPREAD THE BALL OUT.

What is certain is the D gave up 33 points to a team that was only averaging 17 points prior to that game.

At the most Gibbs' and Saunder's play calling left 8 point on the board from not making TDs on two drives in the second half. The O scored three TDs and two FG when they got in the redzone. That is a 60% red zone TD efficiency. The NFL average is 50% and 60% would put you at #3 in the NFL.

The D gave up 3 TDs in 3 attempts to the Eagles (100%) well above the NFL average of 51%. This is compounded by the fact that the D gave up 2 more TDs from well over 40 yards away.

So maybe if I was a Sippy cup, or someone that watches more "B" horror movies than football, or a Greatly Sarcastic POD I would be obsessed over the 8 points the O [url]MAY[/url] have left on the board than the 26 points the D gave up in the 2nd half.

[die cowboys die]

Redskins were ahead by 2 points. Four minutes left after trying to run it in. Absolutely necessary to get a FG, so the Eagles then need a TD. Otherwise, an Eagles FG wins. The defense has to hold a five-point lead.

Scoring 7 is good, a bonus, but the winning call is whatever ensures the extra 3 points.

I might have called one pass, but no more...and that's still a "might".

and you would have lost.

That play-calling sequence surely does not show that Gibbs has lost his mind.

correct, it doesn't show he has lost his mind- it shows that he is a coward.

Recall that Gibbs has coached several hundred games in the NFL, most of them high-pressure games when an loss could drop the Redskns from a chance at the playoffs.

Is there any reason to believe, seriously, that Gibbs has forgotten all that he learned about an NFL game?

Joe Gibbs Beta through 9 games in his 4th season:
41-17, including 2 superbowl appearances and 1 superbowl victory

Joe Gibbs 2.0 through 9 games in his 4th season:
27-32

i am stymied at this point how so many still seem to willfully elude the truth: this joe gibbs shares only a name with the original. he bears no more resemblance to the original than if you or i were to legally change our name to "Joe Gibbs" and be hired as redskins coach.
would you still maintain "that guy named Joe Gibbs who was the Redskins coach used to be really good, so this guy must be really good too, since his name is Joe Gibbs and he's the coach"? of course not, but that is exactly what you're doing here.

i don't think any of us saw that coming, and obviously NONE of us wanted that to be true, but from now on your judgement would be better served by thinking of the current coach as "Lester Feldman".

so, how's ol' Lester doin'?

[roybus14]

Redskins were ahead by 2 points. Four minutes left after trying to run it in. Absolutely necessary to get a FG, so the Eagles then need a TD. Otherwise, an Eagles FG wins. The defense has to hold a five-point lead.

Scoring 7 is good, a bonus, but the winning call is whatever ensures the extra 3 points.

I might have called one pass, but no more...and that's still a "might".

and you would have lost.

That play-calling sequence surely does not show that Gibbs has lost his mind.

correct, it doesn't show he has lost his mind- it shows that he is a coward.

Recall that Gibbs has coached several hundred games in the NFL, most of them high-pressure games when an loss could drop the Redskns from a chance at the playoffs.

Is there any reason to believe, seriously, that Gibbs has forgotten all that he learned about an NFL game?

Joe Gibbs Beta through 9 games in his 4th season:
41-17, including 2 superbowl appearances and 1 superbowl victory

Joe Gibbs 2.0 through 9 games in his 4th season:
27-32

i am stymied at this point how so many still seem to willfully elude the truth: this joe gibbs shares only a name with the original. he bears no more resemblance to the original than if you or i were to legally change our name to "Joe Gibbs" and be hired as redskins coach.
would you still maintain "that guy named Joe Gibbs who was the Redskins coach used to be really good, so this guy must be really good too, since his name is Joe Gibbs and he's the coach"? of course not, but that is exactly what you're doing here.

i don't think any of us saw that coming, and obviously NONE of us wanted that to be true, but from now on your judgement would be better served by thinking of the current coach as "Lester Feldman".

so, how's ol' Lester doin'?

dCd

[Fios]

Redskins were ahead by 2 points. Four minutes left after trying to run it in. Absolutely necessary to get a FG, so the Eagles then need a TD. Otherwise, an Eagles FG wins. The defense has to hold a five-point lead.

Scoring 7 is good, a bonus, but the winning call is whatever ensures the extra 3 points.

I might have called one pass, but no more...and that's still a "might".

and you would have lost.

That play-calling sequence surely does not show that Gibbs has lost his mind.

correct, it doesn't show he has lost his mind- it shows that he is a coward.

Recall that Gibbs has coached several hundred games in the NFL, most of them high-pressure games when an loss could drop the Redskns from a chance at the playoffs.

Is there any reason to believe, seriously, that Gibbs has forgotten all that he learned about an NFL game?

Joe Gibbs Beta through 9 games in his 4th season:
41-17, including 2 superbowl appearances and 1 superbowl victory

Joe Gibbs 2.0 through 9 games in his 4th season:
27-32

i am stymied at this point how so many still seem to willfully elude the truth: this joe gibbs shares only a name with the original. he bears no more resemblance to the original than if you or i were to legally change our name to "Joe Gibbs" and be hired as redskins coach.
would you still maintain "that guy named Joe Gibbs who was the Redskins coach used to be really good, so this guy must be really good too, since his name is Joe Gibbs and he's the coach"? of course not, but that is exactly what you're doing here.

i don't think any of us saw that coming, and obviously NONE of us wanted that to be true, but from now on your judgement would be better served by thinking of the current coach as "Lester Feldman".

so, how's ol' Lester doin'?

dCd

I'm not ready to call the man a coward but apart from that I am in (reluctant) agreement.

[RayNAustin]

Maybe it is just me and maybe I'm wrong but I'm much more upset over the 4 TDs the D gave up in the 2nd half instead of the 4 points Gibbs' "conservative play calling "MAY" have left on the board. There is no telling if the team would have scored a TD if THEY HAD SPREAD THE BALL OUT.

What is certain is the D gave up 33 points to a team that was only averaging 17 points prior to that game.

At the most Gibbs' and Saunder's play calling left 8 point on the board from not making TDs on two drives in the second half. The O scored three TDs and two FG when they got in the redzone. That is a 60% red zone TD efficiency. The NFL average is 50% and 60% would put you at #3 in the NFL.

The D gave up 3 TDs in 3 attempts to the Eagles (100%) well above the NFL average of 51%. This is compounded by the fact that the D gave up 2 more TDs from well over 40 yards away.

So maybe if I was a Sippy cup, or someone that watches more "B" horror movies than football, or a Greatly Sarcastic POD I would be obsessed over the 8 points the O [url]MAY[/url] have left on the board than the 26 points the D gave up in the 2nd half.

I think what you need to keep in mind is that those Red-Zone numbers count from the 20 and in. The two cases we are talking about are goal-to-go situations in which the scoring percentages are higher....I think the average is currently 67%, with the better averages in the 80% range. We were 2 for 4 on inside the inside the 10 situations and 1 for 1 just outside the 10...which is below average, and way below the upper end of the stats for better teams. The real telling stat is that all 3 scores....the two inside the 10 and the 1 just outside the ten were all passes. The 2 we failed to score on were predominately run attempts.

Now I have no problem with running on 1st or 2nd down inside the 5. But I do have a problem with running the Jumbo formation that doesn't spread the defense. It helps the defense in my opinion to allow them to stack the line. That is the criticism.

Be that as it may, both the offense and defense deserve to be criticized in the Philly game. The defense for giving up too many late points, and the offense for failing to score TD's in critical, put the game away, situations. Both criticisms are valid.

But in defense of the defense, that 45 yarder to Brown wasn't bad defense. Prioleau was there ahead of the ball..the ball was poorly thrown behind the receiver ...Prioleau's momentum wouldn't allow for him to adjust back to a ball behind him and Brown made a great adjustment and catch. Not at all bad defense, just a fortunate turn of events for Philly.

[Fios]

Agreed ... in addition, the jumbo package gives the defense a single point of attack. Again, I missed the first run with Gibbs but my understanding is that there was quite a bit of pre-snap motion in that offense. When you purposefully minimize that in such a compressed setting yardage-wise, you make life easier on an already solid run defense.

[skinsfan#33]

Everyone that keeps posting about a lost opportunity for 4 points but know one cares about the 26 points the D gave up in 20 minutes.

Truly pathetic!

Never mind the fact that Saunders could have called all passes or ran out of a spread formation and still not scored. Or the team might have scored the TD and still lost as bad as the D was playing.

I though we had "knowledgeable" football fans here. Obviously not!

[skinsfan#33]

Maybe it is just me and maybe I'm wrong but I'm much more upset over the 4 TDs the D gave up in the 2nd half instead of the 4 points Gibbs' "conservative play calling "MAY" have left on the board. There is no telling if the team would have scored a TD if THEY HAD SPREAD THE BALL OUT.

What is certain is the D gave up 33 points to a team that was only averaging 17 points prior to that game.

At the most Gibbs' and Saunder's play calling left 8 point on the board from not making TDs on two drives in the second half. The O scored three TDs and two FG when they got in the redzone. That is a 60% red zone TD efficiency. The NFL average is 50% and 60% would put you at #3 in the NFL.

The D gave up 3 TDs in 3 attempts to the Eagles (100%) well above the NFL average of 51%. This is compounded by the fact that the D gave up 2 more TDs from well over 40 yards away.

So maybe if I was a Sippy cup, or someone that watches more "B" horror movies than football, or a Greatly Sarcastic POD I would be obsessed over the 8 points the O [url]MAY[/url] have left on the board than the 26 points the D gave up in the 2nd half.

I think what you need to keep in mind is that those Red-Zone numbers count from the 20 and in. The two cases we are talking about are goal-to-go situations in which the scoring percentages are higher....I think the average is currently 67%, with the better averages in the 80% range.

My numbers were facts from stats inc via the USA today. Please come back when you have facts not guesses!

Now I have no problem with running on 1st or 2nd down inside the 5. But I do have a problem with running the Jumbo formation that doesn't spread the defense. It helps the defense in my opinion to allow them to stack the line. That is the criticism.

That is your opinion. A three time SB coach disagreed with you and so did the "offensive guru" that called the plays (Saunders). Gibbs ran from the Jumbo package almost exclusively during his first tour with the Skins in those situations with pretty good results.

Be that as it may, both the offense and defense deserve to be criticized in the Philly game. The defense for giving up too many late points, and the offense for failing to score TD's in critical, put the game away, situations. Both criticisms are valid.

You're right both the D and the O deserve some blame for the loss. I have never said the O doesn't deserve some blame, but most here and in the media are raking Gibbs over the coals for a series that cost the Skins 4 point and totally ignoring the fact the D gave up 26 points in 20 minutes. That is more than one point per minute. Three TDs in NINE PLAYS is atrotious.

Not at all bad defense, just a fortunate turn of events for Philly.

Same could be said for the Eagles stopping the Skins on the one serious. I mean how fortunate were they that ey jumped off sides when they didn't have the people in position to stop a sure TD. And they were really fortunate Yoder didn't get one more foot and score the TD. They were also fortunate Portis didn't bounce the ball outside on the play were he cut it back inside and almost fumbled the ball.

Funny thing about hind sight being 20/20. All you "geniuses" can second guess a three time SB winning HoF coach until the cows come home!

[Redskin in Canada]

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.

How could THIS paragraph be ignored throughout the ENTIRE debate and this thread is beyond me. Why do we spend endless hours/days discussing the specifics of a particular disaster when one disaster after another shows us a consistent PATTERN???

Do you want to know how frustrating it can be to see a train wreck AHEAD of time and then see our team be put under the wreckage??? Some of the VERY SAME posters who now are questioning Gibbs were the VERY SAME ones who argued that the coaches knew more, that if the coaches made certain decisions not to improve our DL, for example, they were FINE with that.

Well, now we know what happens if we give enough time to Tom Brady and Donovan Mcnab to pass don't we??? Am I surprised? Place you favourite four-letter word here, please !!! NO!!!!

You all saw what D. Freeny did against the Pats! We do not have a good DL and our OL is not dominant. We do not have a GREAT strong receiver to help move the chains (Art Monk PLEASE return!). ALL OF THIS is PART of a long list of faults by the Front Office. There is a lot MORE to say. It is just a poorly run team by Committee.

Let us change the name to the Washington Camels. Yes, why not? A camel is a horse designed by a Committee, isn't it? Since player acquisition and recruitment and play calling and we are all on this toghether kind of (different four letter word again) is being played endlessly,the Washington CAMELS sounds pretty good to me. At least we could blame it on the two humps handicap not to be able to EXECUTE correctly either good/smart or bad/stupid defensive/offensive plays called by the coaches.

I am still sticking to 9-7 record at the end of the season, and this was the best and most optimistic outcome I see ahead of us. There is PLENTY of incompetence to be spread around from a single play to an entire drive, to an entire game, to the current season, to the past four seasons. ENOUGH is ENOUGH. There is a pattern and that pattern points to the top.

We need a good GM and that GM can not be the HC. Joe PLEASE make a decision to do ONE or the OTHER. You cannot possibly do both well. You cannot do it ALL alone. There are not enough hours in the day to do both jobs well. For God's sake: CHOOSE!!!

[CanesSkins26]

That is your opinion. A three time SB coach disagreed with you and so did the "offensive guru" that called the plays (Saunders). Gibbs ran from the Jumbo package almost exclusively during his first tour with the Skins in those situations with pretty good results.

Yea and he also had the Hogs in his first tenure. This offensive line, even with all starters healthy, is not the Hogs. Even Sonny and Riggins talked on Redskins Report tonight about how Gibbs doesn't have the type of players to be running out of heavy jumbo successfully. In today's NFL you can't just line up in jumbo and expect your offensive line to consistently out-muscle a defense. Look around the league. There is a reason why the vast majority of teams don't run these types of plays very often.

[broomboy]

I agree with you, gibbs is still thinking in the hogs mindset he wanted too outmuscle that philly D (mabye a slight senile moment?), but you think he would get it after the first few runs didnt work in the redzone. The jumbo package just doesnt spread the D whatsoever so its a no brainer what were doing and we dont have a great enough OLine to pull runs like that off consistently.

[welch]

Jumbo, and even Heavy Jumbo has pass plays. Remember when the '92 Redskins had made Russ Grimm into a utility lineman. He came is as the H-back several times down close, and dropped several passes from Rypien.

Banged up fingers.

Seller plays that position now, with a slight change in terminology.

How many TD passes has Sellers caught?

It still comes down to whether the blocker can beat his man. 50-Gut is an important play because the RB goes right at the DL. No fancy swings outside, and no elegant switch between left and right side blockers, as in the counter-trey.

Given the right blocking scheme, the team can move anybody a few yards at a tine, and the Redskins have that -- Gibbs was, I believe, an OL coach when he started coaching college, and he works with Joe Bugel.

[skinsfan#33]

I agree with you, gibbs is still thinking in the hogs mindset he wanted too outmuscle that philly D (mabye a slight senile moment?), but you think he would get it after the first few runs didnt work in the redzone. The jumbo package just doesnt spread the D whatsoever so its a no brainer what were doing and we dont have a great enough OLine to pull runs like that off consistently.

It all comes down to execution! If you don't wip the guy infront of you, it doesn't matter if you are in Jumbo or 5 wide. So maybe Gibbs thought his guys could actually do their job.

[die cowboys die]

I agree with you, gibbs is still thinking in the hogs mindset he wanted too outmuscle that philly D (mabye a slight senile moment?), but you think he would get it after the first few runs didnt work in the redzone. The jumbo package just doesnt spread the D whatsoever so its a no brainer what were doing and we dont have a great enough OLine to pull runs like that off consistently.

It all comes down to execution! If you don't wip the guy infront of you, it doesn't matter if you are in Jumbo or 5 wide. So maybe Gibbs thought his guys could actually do their job.

this is a mystifying mindset, yet seems to be encountered constantly. let's make this clear:

telling your players, "be stronger than the other players and push them out of the way" is not "coaching", it is an abdication of coaching. if that counts as coaching, heck, i could be a hall-of-famer.

as offensive coordinator: "score a touchdown on every play!"
as defensive coordinator: "don't let them score any points!"


there 11 guys on the other side who are being paid to 'whip the guy in front of them' too. your job as coach is to put them in the most likely situation to succeed based on their actual skillsets.

[Fios]

What about the execution? First, we're not really certain how to define that. It is a philosophy that lacks a crucial component. Fans say "well, the coaches call the play and the players should execute" and we understand that on a certain level. However, there are 11 players on the other team who are also trying to execute or, perhaps more accurately, are trying to disrupt their opponent's execution. So to say "go run play X and if that fails, it comes down to a lack of execution" strikes us as only half of the story. Yes, the players should ideally execute the play as it was imagined but if that play fails, the fault for that is not solely the people running the play. Sometimes the opponent does exactly what it is supposed to do and sometimes the choice of play was bad from the outset.

[BnGhog]

I've heard the statement "11 on 11" too many times IMO. Its not as easy as "Block the man in front of you" What it there is two men in front of you.

When you take in to consideration that one of our "11" Is the guy with the ball (whos he going to block?) and another of our "11" is the QB(whos he going to block?). The fact is, its more like 9 guys trying to block 11. You have to run in a place that you DON"T have 3 blockers on 4 men when you narrow it down to the running lane and that's just hard to do.

[skinsfan#33]

I agree with you, gibbs is still thinking in the hogs mindset he wanted too outmuscle that philly D (mabye a slight senile moment?), but you think he would get it after the first few runs didnt work in the redzone. The jumbo package just doesnt spread the D whatsoever so its a no brainer what were doing and we dont have a great enough OLine to pull runs like that off consistently.

It all comes down to execution! If you don't wip the guy infront of you, it doesn't matter if you are in Jumbo or 5 wide. So maybe Gibbs thought his guys could actually do their job.

this is a mystifying mindset, yet seems to be encountered constantly. let's make this clear:

telling your players, "be stronger than the other players and push them out of the way" is not "coaching", it is an abdication of coaching. if that counts as coaching, heck, i could be a hall-of-famer.

as offensive coordinator: "score a touchdown on every play!"
as defensive coordinator: "don't let them score any points!"


there 11 guys on the other side who are being paid to 'whip the guy in front of them' too. your job as coach is to put them in the most likely situation to succeed based on their actual skillsets.

DCD,
Every time I read one of your post it convinces me the next one is not worth reading, yet I do it anyway. Silly me!

Try actually reading and comprehending what I said. If you can't understand how important proper execution is to a play than there is nothing I can write to help you.

[die cowboys die]

I've heard the statement "11 on 11" too many times IMO. Its not as easy as "Block the man in front of you" What it there is two men in front of you.

When you take in to consideration that one of our "11" Is the guy with the ball (whos he going to block?) and another of our "11" is the QB(whos he going to block?). The fact is, its more like 9 guys trying to block 11. You have to run in a place that you DON"T have 3 blockers on 4 men when you narrow it down to the running lane and that's just hard to do.

ladies and gentlemen, that post is the official WINNER of this argument.

it's been layed out in cold, hard data:
when you run the ball, there are automatically either 2 completely unblocked defenders, or four only getting partially blocked.

by running out of a tight, bunched up formation, you are ensuring that those tacklers are already in the same small area of the field as the RB. even if you hit all your blocks perfectly, there is still a very good chance of a free defender making his way over to the RB. and if even ONE guy misses his block, forget about it! you're toast. there's simply no room for error at all.

if you spread the offense out with 3 receivers lined up wide, you can go up to the line and see how the D lines up. if they are going to single-cover all of your receivers, you audible to a pass and probably get an easy TD. if they set just one extra guy in coverage, you still have a good chance of a pretty easy passing TD, and you have already created a much more favorable matchup of 6 blockers on 7 defenders for a run. now there is just ONE unblocked guy, and there is actually SPACE for the RB to make that guy miss landing a square tackle.

and if one guy misses his block, you're now back to having 2 unblocked defenders- just like heavy jumbo. except, the RB now has at least a tiny bit of space to try to evade them. so the spread formation gives the players more of a built-in margin for error, which is exactly the kind of thing coaches get paid millions of dollars to do-- provide advantages beyond the sheer physical ability of the players.

if the D decides they are more scared of the pass, and drops 5 defenders back, you now FINALLY have a glorious, even match-up on the ground (6 blockers, 6 defenders). the RB doesn't even have to plow through or evade ANYone if everyone gets their blocks. in this situation 2 of your 6 blockers, a full THIRD of your blockers, can mess up and you are only back to being as outnumbered as you were from the outset in heavy jumbo. but again, with more space for the RB to overcome the problem.


...all of this goes into why i say

telling your players, "be stronger than the other players and push them out of the way" is not "coaching", it is an abdication of coaching.

yes, tell them to block better, teach them how to do it. but since there are guys on the other side working hard to get better at beating YOUR guys, put them in a formation that minimizes any individual execution failures, instead of maximizing them.

[Deadskins]

One offensive player can often block several defenders, though, just by setting a pick like in basketball. Think of John Riggins' run in SB XVII. After he got past that one defender there was no one else in position to make the play because there were bodies between them and John. If an end can contain the defensive end, he can often impede the rest of the D line just by putting his and his assignment's bodies in between the runner and the rest of the defense.

[skinsfan#33]

I've heard the statement "11 on 11" too many times IMO. Its not as easy as "Block the man in front of you" What it there is two men in front of you.

When you take in to consideration that one of our "11" Is the guy with the ball (whos he going to block?) and another of our "11" is the QB(whos he going to block?). The fact is, its more like 9 guys trying to block 11. You have to run in a place that you DON"T have 3 blockers on 4 men when you narrow it down to the running lane and that's just hard to do.

ladies and gentlemen, that post is the official WINNER of this argument.

it's been layed out in cold, hard data:
when you run the ball, there are automatically either 2 completely unblocked defenders, or four only getting partially blocked.

This is true no matter what formation you run out of!

by running out of a tight, bunched up formation, you are ensuring that those tacklers are already in the same small area of the field as the RB. even if you hit all your blocks perfectly, there is still a very good chance of a free defender making his way over to the RB. and if even ONE guy misses his block, forget about it! you're toast. there's simply no room for error at all.

By bunching everyone together some of the defenders get caught up in the wash or take the wrong gap and no one has to block them. Rocky McIntosh has been guilty of this quite frequently this year. He either gets stuck behind one of our lineman or over runs the play.

Defenses don’t send everyone very often, even if they think the play is a run. For the "what if" factor. What if the play is play action or a naked boot or the RB bounces outside. It is extremely rare the D sends everyone to the point of attack.

if you spread the offense out with 3 receivers lined up wide, you can go up to the line and see how the D lines up. if they are going to single-cover all of your receivers, you audible to a pass and probably get an easy TD. if they set just one extra guy in coverage, you still have a good chance of a pretty easy passing TD, and you have already created a much more favorable matchup of 6 blockers on 7 defenders for a run. now there is just ONE unblocked guy, and there is actually SPACE for the RB to make that guy miss landing a square tackle.

and if one guy misses his block, you're now back to having 2 unblocked defenders- just like heavy jumbo. except, the RB now has at least a tiny bit of space to try to evade them. so the spread formation gives the players more of a built-in margin for error, which is exactly the kind of thing coaches get paid millions of dollars to do-- provide advantages beyond the sheer physical ability of the players.

if the D decides they are more scared of the pass, and drops 5 defenders back, you now FINALLY have a glorious, even match-up on the ground (6 blockers, 6 defenders). the RB doesn't even have to plow through or evade ANYone if everyone gets their blocks. in this situation 2 of your 6 blockers, a full THIRD of your blockers, can mess up and you are only back to being as outnumbered as you were from the outset in heavy jumbo. but again, with more space for the RB to overcome the problem.


...all of this goes into why i say

telling your players, "be stronger than the other players and push them out of the way" is not "coaching", it is an abdication of coaching.

yes, tell them to block better, teach them how to do it. but since there are guys on the other side working hard to get better at beating YOUR guys, put them in a formation that minimizes any individual execution failures, instead of maximizing them.

If you run the ball there are always two defenders unaccounted for in your blocking assignments. This is true in heavy jumbo and true in 4 wide. The difference being, now you’re asking a WR to block a DB, LB or DE. In jumbo you are asking an extra guard and extra TEs to block. Yes the D quite often puts an extra LB on the field but the block match ups still favor the offense, because they know when and where the play is going.

Every argument you have, I can counter. And the thing is, for the most part, WE'RE BOTH RIGHT! It all comes down to what a coach thinks his team can execute better, because you can pass or run effectively out of heavy jumbo and you can run or pass well out of 4 wide.

It all comes down to execution!