The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I thought your analysis was very good, excellent in fact. kudos to you.

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

forgive me, but SO WHAT? this does not come close to defending gibbs in any way. "oh, we were GOING to throw it, but we had a penalty, so we're not allowed to try to throw it ever again"? that's just ridiculous, and you have to know that.
as for the "pass/run option" defense, that is also a joke. it is utterly preposterous for a run to even be included in the playcall in any way on 3rd and goal from the 7. go ahead and blame the rookie QB if you want (that was his 16th game, so he's just completed one year of game experience), but i would think reason demands more accountability of the hall of fame coach for offering up such a steaming turd of a play in the first place.
i'm just guessing here, and would instantly recant if someone can show me that the stats are against me, but i would have to think that the percentage of runs that get into the endzone from 7 yards out is probably somewhere around 10% at the max.

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

the deep pass to reggie brown was just an incredibly lucky fluke, and nothing else. what, are you going to convince me that was just a greatly executed play we got burned on? it was a hideously, HIDEOUSLY thrown pass, pathetically off-target. ironically enough it was such an attrocious pass that our defenders, who were in the CORRECT position, had no chance to break it up. the WR was lucky enough to be so slow that he was actually trailing the defenders, which put him in perfect position once the pitiful pass arrived, since it was way behind its intended targeted spot. (please, don't tell me it was a great throw and a great deceptive move by the WR- he is clearly going for a post pattern, and only at the last second does he turn around and see the ball way behind him- he was NOT expecting it there, it wasn't designed there. nor was the pass intentionally thrown there, the ball had to leave mcnabb's hands long before the defenders overtook the WR for proper position).

in any case, if gibbs had any testicles and had run Non-Laughable Plays on the infamous redzone series, we would have had a TD and a 9 point lead. then even if the eagles score on the absurd westbrook 57 yard play (holding or not), we have the ball, up by 2 (eagles would have just taken the extra point instead of going for 2 in that situation) with 3:16 left in the game, with the eagles out of time-outs.
the play clock is 40 seconds, plus about 5 seconds per run, so even if we run into the pile 3 times in a row, we end up punting it back to them with 1 minute left in the game. (the 4th down fumble obviously wouldn't happen since we wouldn't need to go for it there).

THEN the defense would've had a real chance to blow the game, the deserve all the blame. as it stands, yes they turned in a pitiful performance, particularly once taylor went out, but it probably shouldn't have mattered if gibbs would've stayed out of the way.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

GSPODS wrote: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.

But not in this game, particularly not in the red zone

skinsfan#33 wrote:Someone said, "why go away from what is working?" and I agree. Who has the most TDs on the Redskins? Portis!

He had zero against Philly, JC had three

skinsfan#33 wrote:If you pride yourself on being a running team, then when crunch time comes, darn it, run the ball!

What? So you run even when it makes no sense?

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

What?

skinsfan#33 wrote: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!

They did try to run it and it didn't work, repeatedly. Unless you are daft or insane, you don't do the same thing over and over again when it isn't working. Also, it's not like they remove the offensive line in passing situations, they still play a pretty integral role in the whole process.

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

Which is why I would MUCH rather have a nine point lead at that point

skinsfan#33 wrote: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!

Yes, actually, it did, it opened the door for them since a touchdown would win it, rather than just make the score closer. You do know the offense would get the ball back, correct? And then I'd be 100% in support of running the ball to eat clock and maybe even lock things up with a first down. Remember, outside the red zone the team was running the ball very effectively.
And, again, running just because they should is not a very good defense of the play calling. I'm not trying to be myopic about this, of course I understand that there are 99 other factors at play. I am saying, however, that the decisions in that fourth quarter series were wrong and costly.

Fios wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

GSPODS wrote: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.

But not in this game, particularly not in the red zone

skinsfan#33 wrote:Someone said, "why go away from what is working?" and I agree. Who has the most TDs on the Redskins? Portis!

He had zero against Philly, JC had three

skinsfan#33 wrote:If you pride yourself on being a running team, then when crunch time comes, darn it, run the ball!

What? So you run even when it makes no sense?

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

What?

skinsfan#33 wrote: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!

They did try to run it and it didn't work, repeatedly. Unless you are daft or insane, you don't do the same thing over and over again when it isn't working. Also, it's not like they remove the offensive line in passing situations, they still play a pretty integral role in the whole process.

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

Which is why I would MUCH rather have a nine point lead at that point

skinsfan#33 wrote: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!

Yes, actually, it did, it opened the door for them since a touchdown would win it, rather than just make the score closer. You do know the offense would get the ball back, correct? And then I'd be 100% in support of running the ball to eat clock and maybe even lock things up with a first down. Remember, outside the red zone the team was running the ball very effectively.
And, again, running just because they should is not a very good defense of the play calling. I'm not trying to be myopic about this, of course I understand that there are 99 other factors at play. I am saying, however, that the decisions in that fourth quarter series were wrong and costly.

Some people are so set in their view that no matter how many fact I put up I get responses that make no sense like almost all of yours. I will agree that the team needed a TD intsead of a FG, BECAUSE THE D GAVE UP 3 TDs in 9 PLAYS. They didn't force a punt all second half. The TD still might not have ensured the win as bad as the D played in the second half.

Yet this is all about Gibbs' play calling in one series THAT WOULD HAVE SCORED A TD HAD COOLEY NOT JUMPED EARLY How retarded is do you have to be to not see where the problem was in this game?

Fios wrote:I am saying, however, that the decisions in that fourth quarter series were wrong and costly.

Which game? You could apply this statement to three different games this season. Let's truly belabor this point because it deserves belaboring.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Fios wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

GSPODS wrote: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.

But not in this game, particularly not in the red zone

skinsfan#33 wrote:Someone said, "why go away from what is working?" and I agree. Who has the most TDs on the Redskins? Portis!

He had zero against Philly, JC had three

skinsfan#33 wrote:If you pride yourself on being a running team, then when crunch time comes, darn it, run the ball!

What? So you run even when it makes no sense?

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

What?

skinsfan#33 wrote: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!

They did try to run it and it didn't work, repeatedly. Unless you are daft or insane, you don't do the same thing over and over again when it isn't working. Also, it's not like they remove the offensive line in passing situations, they still play a pretty integral role in the whole process.

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

Which is why I would MUCH rather have a nine point lead at that point

skinsfan#33 wrote: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!

Yes, actually, it did, it opened the door for them since a touchdown would win it, rather than just make the score closer. You do know the offense would get the ball back, correct? And then I'd be 100% in support of running the ball to eat clock and maybe even lock things up with a first down. Remember, outside the red zone the team was running the ball very effectively.
And, again, running just because they should is not a very good defense of the play calling. I'm not trying to be myopic about this, of course I understand that there are 99 other factors at play. I am saying, however, that the decisions in that fourth quarter series were wrong and costly.

Some people are so set in their view that no matter how many fact I put up I get responses that make no sense like almost all of yours. I will agree that the team needed a TD intsead of a FG, BECAUSE THE D GAVE UP 3 TDs in 9 PLAYS. They didn't force a punt all second half. The TD still might not have ensured the win as bad as the D played in the second half.

Yet this is all about Gibbs' play calling in one series THAT WOULD HAVE SCORED A TD HAD COOLEY NOT JUMPED EARLY How retarded is do you have to be to not see where the problem was in this game?

I am going to leave this to the board at-large, if my replies above "make no sense," than by all means, please tell me that. (My opinion is that you can't address the points I have raised so it's easier to just pretend I don't make sense.)
As for how retarded is do I have to be, personal attacks are not permitted outside of Smack.

If being 'retarded' means being able to write an article that generates four pages of response in four hours then maybe more of us should be 'retarded'.

Its like Bart Simpson. He never learns.


ZZZZZZap

"Ouch, quit it"

ZZZZZZap

"Ouch, quit it"

ZZZZZZap

"Ouch, quit it"

ZZZZZZap

"Ouch, quit it"

etc....

my problem isn't even with the numerous attempts on the ground. its they way they go about it. heavy jumbo????? over and over????

spread the defense out just a little with 2 or 3 receivers split wide, way wide. 8 or 9 smaller defensive players are going to be easier to move than 11 larger guys. that ain't rocket science.

Apparently it's more rocket science than we think...

VetSkinsFan wrote:Apparently it's more rocket science than we think...

no doubt.

Fios wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Someone said, "why go away from what is working?" and I agree. Who has the most TDs on the Redskins? Portis!

He had zero against Philly, JC had three

skinsfan's statement reminds me of the classic "Worst Movie Ever Made", Plan 9 From Outer Space. in the film, aliens resurrect the dead of the earth as zombies, who of course cause quite a bit of commotion.

people keep trying to shoot the zombies, to no avail. over and over, they employ their firearms to the indifference of the zombies, who continue their approach.

finally, somebody hits a zombie with a stick (only because he ran out of bullets, if i recall), and it is immediately vanquished.

so everyone around scrambles to find a stick, right? no, they keep shooting, shooting, shooting, until they are overtaken and get their brains eaten.


what's my point? i envision skinsfan#33 amongst the townspeople standing there, shooting away, thinking "why go away from what is working? we've killed millions of things with guns, they're by far our most effective weapon. historically, it's been much easier to kill things with guns than with sticks. and sure, the stick thing worked pretty well just now, but it's crunch time so we want to use our most historically reliable weapon."

Fios wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

What?

i think he is referring to just the general idea that since every team usually gets hundreds of yards in every game, it is obviously easier to produce yards on offense than to stop someone on defense.
but this is completely ignoring the fact that that is true mostly "between the 20s". skinsfan, once you get into the red zone, the amount of space the defense has to cover is extremely compressed. the defense has a decided advantage in the red zone.

for example, when you are at your own 20, the opposing defense has about 4,800 square yards of space to cover (including the endzone, and not even trying to stop anything 'til it crosses the line of scrimmage). when you get to their 20, however, they have only 1/3 that amount to cover (1600 square yards). when you get to the 7 yard line, where we were when we ran The Infamous Draw of Cowardice, the D has barely over 906 square yards to defend! --less than a 5th the amount than after a touchback.

or, to think of that in terms of how much space each defender theoretically has to cover:

*at own 20: 436 square yards per defender
*at opponent's 20: 145 square yards per defender
*at opponent's 7: 82 square yards per defender



the reason offenses move the ball more easily "between the 20s" is the same reason so many offenses are using more spread formations, even/especially in the red zone--

SPACE!

die cowboys die wrote:

Fios wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:Someone said, "why go away from what is working?" and I agree. Who has the most TDs on the Redskins? Portis!

He had zero against Philly, JC had three

skinsfan's statement reminds me of the classic "Worst Movie Ever Made", Plan 9 From Outer Space. in the film, aliens resurrect the dead of the earth as zombies, who of course cause quite a bit of commotion.

people keep trying to shoot the zombies, to no avail. over and over, they employ their firearms to the indifference of the zombies, who continue their approach.

finally, somebody hits a zombie with a stick (only because he ran out of bullets, if i recall), and it is immediately vanquished.

so everyone around scrambles to find a stick, right? no, they keep shooting, shooting, shooting, until they are overtaken and get their brains eaten.


what's my point? i envision skinsfan#33 amongst the townspeople standing there, shooting away, thinking "why go away from what is working? we've killed millions of things with guns, they're by far our most effective weapon. historically, it's been much easier to kill things with guns than with sticks. and sure, the stick thing worked pretty well just now, but it's crunch time so we want to use our most historically reliable weapon."

Fios wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote: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.

What?

i think he is referring to just the general idea that since every team usually gets hundreds of yards in every game, it is obviously easier to produce yards on offense than to stop someone on defense.
but this is completely ignoring the fact that that is true mostly "between the 20s". skinsfan, once you get into the red zone, the amount of space the defense has to cover is extremely compressed. the defense has a decided advantage in the red zone.

for example, when you are at your own 20, the opposing defense has about 4,800 square yards of space to cover (including the endzone, and not even trying to stop anything 'til it crosses the line of scrimmage). when you get to their 20, however, they have only 1/3 that amount to cover (1600 square yards). when you get to the 7 yard line, where we were when we ran The Infamous Draw of Cowardice, the D has barely over 906 square yards to defend! --less than a 5th the amount than after a touchback.

or, to think of that in terms of how much space each defender theoretically has to cover:

*at own 20: 436 square yards per defender
*at opponent's 20: 145 square yards per defender
*at opponent's 7: 82 square yards per defender



the reason offenses move the ball more easily "between the 20s" is the same reason so many offenses are using more spread formations, even/especially in the red zone--

SPACE!

you go from 'outer space' to just plain 'space'

i'm confused.

that zombie movie and the comments had me dying.. in fact i died, i'm back now; got a stick?

hailskins666 wrote:my problem isn't even with the numerous attempts on the ground. its they way they go about it. heavy jumbo????? over and over????

spread the defense out just a little with 2 or 3 receivers split wide, way wide. 8 or 9 smaller defensive players are going to be easier to move than 11 larger guys. that ain't rocket science.

This just needs to be repeated. It makes so much sense, it must be wrong!

Seriously, how many times do you see the Colts go into some sort of heavy jumbo package? Seems like they like to keep defenses guessing what they're going to do, even at the goal line.

I saw them go into a Home Depot once

I don't know whether this has anything to do with the subject, but I'm just wondering what sort of conversation we'd be having now if Gibbs had called a pass, which had been thrown incomplete, with the result of the game being exactly the same. But I'm just rambling...

Fact is, a draw play down there is just poor. What's more, I'm fairly sure that Gibbs rarely employed draw plays in his first go around, so I'm not sure where the idea came from? A symptom of confusion and muddle caused by having two geniuses on the sideline?

UK Skins Fan wrote:I don't know whether this has anything to do with the subject, but I'm just wondering what sort of conversation we'd be having now if Gibbs had called a pass, which had been thrown incomplete, with the result of the game being exactly the same. But I'm just rambling...

Fact is, a draw play down there is just poor. What's more, I'm fairly sure that Gibbs rarely employed draw plays in his first go around, so I'm not sure where the idea came from? A symptom of confusion and muddle caused by having two geniuses on the sideline?

I went back and watched this play again (yes, I enjoy pain - I was pulling out my toenails as I watched), and if the choice of draw or pass was given to JC, he made a bad call. 2 backers were at the line ready to blitz, the same 2 backers who made the tackle.

If you run, there are two outcomes - he scores or he doesn't score (*actuallty three outcomes - the last being that Portis fumbles, it gets run back for a TD, and all the Redksins tear ACLs). If you pass, there are more good things that can happen - JC runs it in, throws it in, a PI call, a holding call, etc. I don't blame Joe for the previous run calls, but that one call bugged me.

I know it's a horrific image but the idea of everyone tearing their ACLs makes me laugh

Fios wrote:I know it's a horrific image but the idea of everyone tearing their ACLs makes me laugh

They're already playing like they have torn ACL's.

Fios wrote:I know it's a horrific image but the idea of everyone tearing their ACLs makes me laugh

The most frustrating part of the game to me was JC was scorching the field with Thrash and then HE went out. I can't argue with you Fios and I agree with most of what you said.

I think just as a balancing point the question of who exactly was left for JC to throw to would have been a valid question to address. ey's great but if you're in the Red zone and they know he's the only guy with hands left it's not so effective.

The only thing I thought was a little unfair though was saying, "Joe Gibbs let the game get away from him because he stopped trusting his quarterback." I have a hard time seeing that. I can see Gibbs saying "with a depleted receiving corps, a lead and a running game that's clicking I want to avoid putting a guy with 1 year of starting experience in a high risk passing situation," but saying he "stopped trusting" JC doesn't sound like Gibbs. If that were true JC would not be starting next week either.

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?

skinsfan#33 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

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

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.

Great Point!!! Now this "Skins Fan" truly gets it!!!

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am proud!!!! SKINS FAN#33 You have made my day!!!!

Fios wrote: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.

For you to focus on that one offensive series is wrong.

The offense still scored.

The offense still gave the defense a five point lead.


The key word is OPPORTUNITY.

You need to realize that every play of the game is an opportunity to score.
Not just the aforementioned drive you keep mentioning. Every time our defense takes the field and the offense as well.

welch wrote: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.