Gibbs4Life wrote:Please. That would be fine if
Your name is Steve S the third enough said. If we have any brains we'll do whatever it takes to keep Gibbs and let him right this ship. REMEMBER this year is the first season we haven't gone through Brunell pergatory, next year will be better, let's lose all of the rest our games and get a top 5 pick.
And just who do you suppose was the driving force behind the "Brunnel Pergatory" you speak of?
Look, aside from a player generated 5 game winning streak to end 2005 and squeak into the playoffs, we might be looking at 4 straight losing seasons under Joe Gibbs. If you will recall, it was a similar slide in 2005 that put us in that 5 and O or we don't go situation to begin with. We were 4-2 in 2005 and proceeded to lose 4 out of the next 5 games....almost a mirror image of this season, when we started week 7 at 4-2, and have lost 5 out of the past 6 games.
Sean Taylor's death and the subsequent mourning was not responsible for yesterday's loss any more than it was for the previous 4 out of 5 losses. Yesterdays loss just made it that much more difficult as the team really wanted to win one for Sean Taylor.
And the 30 yard pass to set up the FG was not responsible for the loss either. The decision to play it safe and run Portis three straight times with just about a minute left in the game set up the all too familiar ending that is now becoming Joe Gibbs NEW trademark. Portis had been shut down all game long....averaging 2 yards per carry. And what did those three running attempts gain? Exactly 6 yards, leaving us 4th and 4 and punting, instead of getting a first down and running out the clock and winning the game. The decision was made to hope and pray that the other team makes the mistakes and loses, instead of making the decision to do what it takes to win the game.
The entire second half was 3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out. That's what allowed the Bills to hang around and win it in the end.
Have you not been watching the same games as the rest of us this year? Do you not see the distinct pattern here?
The double time out call was sad. Embarrassing, and very unfortunate. And I feel bad for Joe Gibbs. But that decision would never have been presented in the first place, had better decisions been made earlier.
Sure, you could say that it's on the o-line and our inability to run the ball. But the Bills defense dedicated themselves to stopping the run. They had their LB's rushing the gaps all day which made for no running room for Portis, and when a defense does that, you just aren't going to get much on the ground. However, that approach leaves them vulnerable in other areas for which we exploited greatly in the first half with
y and Moss.
But when we get down inside the 20, that stop the run defense being employed against us is less vulnerable, and those exposed areas are greatly diminished due to the short field. Yet we continue, week in and week out, employing the same flawed philosophy on offense. We haven't changed our approach in these situations, in spite of the fact that we keep failing. It makes ZERO sense.
Gibbs has become so fixated on this philosophical approach, and so predictable, and apparently so unwulling to change, that opposing teams know what we are going to do. That's why we seem to be able move the ball at will between the 20'sin the first half, yet can't seem to score TD's. They know we are going to run close formations in the red zone, and be very conservative. This plays right to the strength of the defenses that earlier in these drives couldn't stop us. And, more often than not, we wind up shifting to this conservative approach over the entire field in the second half, which explains why those potent first half stats disappear, and we just sit back and watch the games slowly slip away.
This explains why we've lost so many games in the second half. To not recognize this is just pure blind denial.
Quietly, the players recognize this too, though they have too much personal respect for Gibbs to be openly critical....but you can bet they discuss these same things amongst themselves. So, in essence, the team has totally lost confidence in Gibbs, while remaining quiet out of their respect for him.
That frustration level is building. There are tears in that locker room, and not just tears of sadness for ST, but also tears of frustration and disappointment for being so close to being a very good team with a a 10-2 or 11-1 record save for the miscues and miscalculations of a coaching staff that can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
Talent is not the issue here. It is the failure to utilize the talent that is the problem.
And the media is being kind to Joe Gibbs out of respect also. But there is constant talk (tamed down) about the myriad of questionable decisions. You hear very little talk about such things from anywhere else in the entire league except with reference to the Redskins. And if it were anyone other than Joe Gibbs, there would be a media and fan firestorm of criticism....anyone else.
Steve Spurrier's 12-20 record in two years is not much worse than Gibbs 26-34 to date. At Spurrier's percentage, he would be 22-38 over as many games. Not a big difference really, and look what happened to Spurrier. He only got two years.
So Gibbs has definitely received special consideration because he is Gibbs. But how long is long enough? And how can one be even remotely optimistic when we keep seeing the same problems over and over, with no real change in approach to fixing them?
Here we go again, another 2/3 years of rebuilding. Oh joy!
