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

Snout wrote:Exactly. Most people when they ask "Can I do this?" mean "Can I do this without being penalized?"

In context of the game, the circumstances that the question was asked, and the way the answer was going to be interpreted, the official's response was a wrong answer -- even if it was technically correct.

I agree. There are two sides to this. On the one hand, the referee didn't lie when he said yes—and if you give him the benefit of the doubt it makes sense. On the other hand, Joe Gibbs obviously meant "can I do this without getting penalized", and if you give him the benefit of the doubt, it makes sense.

That's why I think most of this debate is a non-issue. It's like we're taking sides just for the hell of it. . .but that's what a message board is here for, I suppose.

A question: if I was a head coach and asked an official "can I punch you in the mouth?" on the sideline, the opinion of many people in this thread would be that the ref should answer "Why yes, yes you can" and leave it at that. Correct?

Got it. . .

We must have a few members here who teach high school, because they must be that teacher. . .the one who gets so obtuse about the question "Can / may I go to the bathroom?"

I knew it was a penalty to call consecutive time-outs, I just thought it was a 5 yard delay-of-game foul, not a 15 yard unsprtsmanlike conduct penalty. I know it used to be the 5 yard variety. My question is this. Is it only 15 yards when you are doing it to "ice" the kicker, as the ref explained at the time, or has the rule changed so that all consecutive TO calls are 15 yarders now?

DEHog wrote:Good point JP...they blasted him for not knowing the rule in the Bills game. Where is the credit for this call??

Indeed. The chalenging of the 12-men on the field, IMO, makes up for the 2-timeout call.

JG redeemed himself on Sunday night.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

JPFair wrote:Anyone who says that Gibbs doesn't know the rules of football are out of their minds. In addition, those that will inevitably say that it wasn't Gibbs who caught the 12 man infraction need to look at it from the proper perspective. The QC coaches job is to transmit that type of information to Gibbs, and it is Gibbs who makes the decision whether to challenge it or not. Passing that type of information to Gibbs happens all game long, and Gibbs is the one who has to decide in a split second whether to challenge it or not. In this case, it was his knowledge of the rules, i.e. whether you can even challenge such a call, that proved to be the winner in this case.

In other words, look at it this way....there were two officials within yards of the player who didn't get off the field in time, and they didn't throw a flag. So, the probability is that this type of thing happens all day long, but credit Gibbs's decision making at the right time that made this challenge work.

Kudos to the QC Coach, but ultimately it's Gibbs who should take the majority of credit for the challenge.

Anyway, the challenge in and of itself did not cost the Vikings the game, and conversely, it didn't seal the Redskins victory. The Redskins dominated every facet of that game, save for a few minutes momentum shift in the 3rd/4th quarter. Even if the challenge didn't work, the Redskins were in position to either get a field goal, or at a minimum, pin the Vikings deep in their own territory with a huge mountain to climb. The game did not hinge on this challenge at all...it is just all part of the game, and Gibbs should, although he probably won't, get credit for such decision that was pure genius!!

No offense, but you fail to make your point. If Gibbs was told by a spotter upstairs that there were too many Vikes on the field at that point, it was an absolute no-brainer to throw the flag. I'd have done it in a heartbeat, and I'm an old slow-thinking man.

Also, it probably did cost the Vikes the game. Without the penalty, we would not have retained the ball to kick a field goal or punt, as you seem to think. The fumble would have given the Vikes the ball and there would have been an extremely high probability they could have continued running through us like we weren't there and scored another touchdown.


That, of course, might have eliminated our last scoring drive, which occured chiefly because the Vikes gave up and played horrible defense after receiving the killing blow. Our last score was essentially a gift. That penalty you think unimportant caused a fourteen point swing.

I disagree, and no disrespect to yourself, but you're not getting the point, which really is quite simple. I'm surprised you don't get it. The point is this...the decision to challenge ANY call, not just the 12 man on the field challenge during the Vikes game, is Gibbs'.

That is the point, plain and simple. The scenario where Gibbs does not challenge the call was a hypothetical (maybe I should have made that clear), but it was a "what if" type of question. I'm sure there have been many cases of the coaches in the booth advising Gibbs of information that may, or may not be challenged, and he has gone against their recommendation. That's what head coaches do, they have the final say in the matter!!!

I get your first point though I disagree. The second point I made is that you seem to have forgotten that the penalty saved us from turning the ball over.
You say in your post that, even without the penalty, we could have kicked a field goal or punted and still won. Not so, the Vikes would have had the ball. The turn around number for the play was fourteen. That was enough for the Vikes to win.

The offense played a great game and the defense played a great first half and then packed it in. The defense collapsing in the last quarter is our greatest danger against Dallas and then in the playoffs, if we make it.

We were lucky to beat the Vikes. Not smart, as we like to believe. Teams I've played for used to spot players getting off the field late, even in High School. Nothing to it.
We were lucky.

JSPB22 wrote:I knew it was a penalty to call consecutive time-outs, I just thought it was a 5 yard delay-of-game foul, not a 15 yard unsprtsmanlike conduct penalty. I know it used to be the 5 yard variety. My question is this. Is it only 15 yards when you are doing it to "ice" the kicker, as the ref explained at the time, or has the rule changed so that all consecutive TO calls are 15 yarders now?

My last post should have had some sort of tongue in cheek emoticon.

In all seriousness -

I think Joe is still one of the best during the week.

I think he has been shaky at best during games this year.

His nadir was the consecutive timeouts blunder.

I knew it was an infraction as did the announcers in virtually every game I saw where kickers were iced.

I did not know it was 15 yards but that is fairly irrelevant.

Here is a quote that relates:

"First off, we can't have consecutive timeouts. That's number one," referee Tony Corrente told a pool reporter. "Number two, if that timeout is called to freeze the kicker, it becomes unsportsmanlike conduct."

I honestly believe that almost no other coach (staff?) would have challenged 12 men on the field in that situation. It's almost like we were ready for it. That's why this call redeems Joe.

Finally, when my HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ask to go to the bathroom I say "Sure - but it'll cost you 15 points!"



DarthMonk

You say in your post that, even without the penalty, we could have kicked a field goal or punted and still won. Not so, the Vikes would have had the ball. The turn around number for the play was fourteen. That was enough for the Vikes to win.

Umm, no, that's not what I said. I said it would put us in a position to get a field goal, OR, at a minimum, pin them deep in their own territory. Had we been forced to punt, there was a good chance that they'd have poor field position. You make it seem like if the Vikings got the ball back, no matter where it was, they'd win the game. The Redskins dominated them on both sides of the ball. Yes, there was a momentum shift at one point, but that doesn't equate to them automatically holding that momentum and coming back to win the game. And, the way the Redskins have blown leads this year, I doubt very much the Redskins were going to lie down and play conservatively. Their offense was able to move the ball, even after the momentum shift, which is evidenced by Moss's catch immediately prior to the fumbled snap.

But, ok....yeah, what you say! It's still Gibbs that decides whether or not to challenge a call, which is the subject matter of this thread.

Here's what you said:

JPFair wrote:Even if the challenge didn't work, the Redskins were in position to either get a field goal, or at a minimum, pin the Vikings deep in their own territory with a huge mountain to climb. The game did not hinge on this challenge at all...it is just all part of the game, and Gibbs should, although he probably won't, get credit for such decision that was pure genius!!

If the challenge did not work it is Vikings ball on OUR 47 yard line. That is not a position for us to get a field goal or pin them deep in their own territory with a huge mountain to climb.

I agree that that call did not decide the outcome but anyone who watched and has any understanding of momentum at all knows that it is bogus of you to say:

The game did not hinge on this challenge at all...

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:I knew it was a penalty to call consecutive time-outs, I just thought it was a 5 yard delay-of-game foul, not a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. I know it used to be the 5 yard variety. My question is this. Is it only 15 yards when you are doing it to "ice" the kicker, as the ref explained at the time, or has the rule changed so that all consecutive TO calls are 15 yarders now?

My last post should have had some sort of tongue in cheek emoticon.

In all seriousness -

I think Joe is still one of the best during the week.

I think he has been shaky at best during games this year.

His nadir was the consecutive timeouts blunder.

I knew it was an infraction as did the announcers in virtually every game I saw where kickers were iced.

I did not know it was 15 yards but that is fairly irrelevant.

Here is a quote that relates:

"First off, we can't have consecutive timeouts. That's number one," referee Tony Corrente told a pool reporter. "Number two, if that timeout is called to freeze the kicker, it becomes unsportsmanlike conduct."

I honestly believe that almost no other coach (staff?) would have challenged 12 men on the field in that situation. It's almost like we were ready for it. That's why this call redeems Joe.

Finally, when my HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ask to go to the bathroom I say "Sure - but it'll cost you 15 points!"



DarthMonk

My post was not directed at you. But your quote of Tony Corrente pretty much answered my question. BTW, I can prove I knew it was a penalty.

JSPB22 wrote:My post was not directed at you.

Didn't think it was. I was just trying to clarify for you and everyone else not to mention myself.

But your quote of Tony Corrente pretty much answered my question.

Dig it.

BTW, I can prove I knew it was a penalty.

Excellent. So you knew (proven), many announcers knew it (we heard 'em), I knew it (can't prove but I don't watch with mute on), and Holy Joe didn't - evidently.

DarthMonk

In my opinion "Holy Joe" or Joe Gibbs (as most of us refer to him) did know (as do most of us that are familiar with most NFL rules) that it was some sort of penalty to call cosecutive time-outs - we have all seen or heard this referred to, most cases just being a 5 yard penalty but also 15 for unsportsmanlike conduct, when icing a kicker.

I think that at that time and given the frustration of what was almost inevitably going to happen he "reacted" and while I do not think he mean't to give away a 15 yard penalty he just flat out "lost it" in the heat of the moment. While I do not condone or make any excuse for that I think that is what happened - but to think that cost us the game is IMO also incorrect - we had lost that game before that moment. That was partly why Gibbs made such a horrendous decision.

Regarding the "decision" to catch the Vikings with 12 men - Joe Gibbs made the decision (AND gets all the credit IMO) but no way does that call win or lose the game any more than the other "decision" affected the outcome of that game - just my opinion

SkinsJock wrote:In my opinion "Holy Joe" or Joe Gibbs (as most of us refer to him) did know (as do most of us that are familiar with most NFL rules) that it was some sort of penalty to call cosecutive time-outs - we have all seen or heard this referred to, most cases just being a 5 yard penalty but also 15 for unsportsmanlike conduct, when icing a kicker.

I think that at that time and given the frustration of what was almost inevitably going to happen he "reacted" and while I do not think he mean't to give away a 15 yard penalty he just flat out "lost it" in the heat of the moment. While I do not condone or make any excuse for that I think that is what happened - but to think that cost us the game is IMO also incorrect - we had lost that game before that moment. That was partly why Gibbs made such a horrendous decision.

Regarding the "decision" to catch the Vikings with 12 men - Joe Gibbs made the decision (AND gets all the credit IMO) but no way does that call win or lose the game any more than the other "decision" affected the outcome of that game - just my opinion

I basically agree with everything in this post except the first line. ALL the evidence points to Joe not knowing it was some sort of penalty. Here is some of the evidence:

He called 2 in a row.

He (evidently) asked the ref.

He told us all about it and never mentioned (to my knowledge) knowing but "losing it" or otherwise forgetting.

In case anyone forgot, here is what Joe said:

"To be quite truthful, I made a decision there at the end that very likely cost us the game," Gibbs said. "That's on me."

and

"I asked the official. I felt like he said yes, but I'm not laying it on him," he said.

"FELT" like he said yes???

and finally

Gibbs: "I should have known the rule."

This seems to imply he did not know the rule. Maybe someone can "word mince" their way around that implication.

Again, I agree with everything else you said - 2 TOs did not cost us game, 12 man challenge did not win game (MAJOR contribution though)...

... though I would say the 12 man call was a much greater factor in our winning than the 2 TO call was in our losing.

By the way - I also generally refer to our coach as Joe Gibbs but Holy Joe felt nice when I posted. I definitely used it affectionately. In case you didn't know, the term Holy Joe refers to a chaplain in one of the military services - or in this case, our beloved coach who has been known to pray on the sidelines - in the Viking game in particular I might add.

DarthMonk

Point taken and much appreciated about the name!

I guess the real basis for his actions I felt were that at that particular time and with all that had happened both in the near time frame and for the game - Gibbs seemed to me to be trying to adjust to the horrid fact that we were self destructing which was very un-like a Gibbs team.

I can only say that I think that Gibbs later was trying to deflect all the attention from his players - they were making a very big mess of this game before this - i may be wrong but I think he knew the rule and was just reacting in the way that he did because of a lot of things that were happening to his team.



totally agree with the difference in the 2 calls as you also pointed out

thanks

SkinsJock wrote:Point taken and much appreciated about the name!

I guess the real basis for his actions I felt were that at that particular time and with all that had happened both in the near time frame and for the game - Gibbs seemed to me to be trying to adjust to the horrid fact that we were self destructing which was very un-like a Gibbs team.

I can only say that I think that Gibbs later was trying to deflect all the attention from his players - they were making a very big mess of this game before this - i may be wrong but I think he knew the rule and was just reacting in the way that he did because of a lot of things that were happening to his team.



totally agree with the difference in the 2 calls as you also pointed out

thanks

You know what man, I bet I come off being way too critical of our coach. I love the guy and he had been through hell when that play came up. He was probably working on 10 hours sleep for the whole week. I could not do his job for a frickin' day. It's so easy for me to sip a brew and watch on TV and be critical. Hail to the 'Skins and I love Joe Gibbs. I'm glad he's our coach. Props to you too.

DarthMonk

...and my hunch, to agree, is that the second TO call was probably the only time Joe Gibbs has lost control of his emotions in a game. Lost concentration for an instant because he couldn't stand to see the Redskins lose. I think he might even have run onto the field to tackle the kicker.

But the ONLY time he has let his emotions blot his concentration in all the years I've watched him.

He's allowed.

I don't know how I would have faced the team to discuss Sean Taylor's death...and then asked them to prepare for a game.

We've seen other coaches kick things, smash headsets, punch their offensive coordinators, shout at players, go berserk. Not Gibbs.

He's allowed to be human once without "fans" who have never coached insisting that Gibbs has lost his mind. No, ex-players are not coaches. Terry Bradshaw and Howie Long are comedians. Brian Mitchell is an ex-player...not an ex-coach. Same with almost all the others.

Yes, I had the pleasure of working a couple of days near DC last week, and saw a broadcast of Larry somebody browbeat Bram somebody. As pompous as "Mike and the Mad Dog" in New York. Saw John Riggins...a sad sight. None of them, nor the clowns who will not be named but who work for the Post, are coaches. They are entertainers.

Yes. Comedians.

*

I know medical people who work with "alsheimers" and the various cogniitive impairments that people lump with the Big A. Victims do not organize football teams, or plan games.

No reason to think that Gibbs has "lost it".

*

Time to be serious. It is wildly unrealistic to expect Joe Gibbs to "deliver" a Super Bowl championship in <n> years.

We have already seen Gibbs clean out some of the rubbish that accumulated around the team after he left. It's a tough job. He did not follow Lombardi, Allen, and Pardee this time (Bill A, we hardly knew ya). He followed Turner, Marty S , and Spurrier. Only Schottenheimer is a pro football head coach, and he had only one season.

thanks welch - very well done

I have been reading some thoughts from ex players recently and as has been pointed out by many "pundits" as well - we could not have a better person in charge at this time - just a little shame that they have to even put a caveat to it

we are just so lucky that Gibbs decided to come back and coach again - that he chose the Redskins is not just luck that was just meant to be

SkinsJock wrote:that he chose the Redskins is not just luck that was just meant to be

Joe would coach no other team. He only entertained the Danny's offer. He wanted to restore us to the greatness we had when he left.

I don't know that anybody has ever said that Joe Gibbs doesn't know football. But some folks clearly have come to the conclusion that there are people available who are better able to lead the Washington Redskins. Some of those posters are not the "usual suspects", but people I respect who have reached the conclusion after much deliberation.

But these last few weeks have simply reinforced what I've felt about Joe Gibbs for a very long time. He is quite simply the greatest leader of men in professional sports. Since the death of Sean Taylor, the team has needed a leader, a father, a counsellor, a man who is able to judge perfectly the mood and the remedy. Without being crass, he has somehow been able to harness the energy unleashed by Taylor's death, and got the team moving forward.

How he's done it, I can only guess. But it also comes down to the kind of people that Gibbs has brought in around him, both coaches and players. This team has leaders everywhere.

Joe Gibbs knows about a lot more than just football, but he knows that particular game better than anybody who has ever lived.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Joe Gibbs knows about a lot more than just football, but he knows that particular game better than anybody who has ever lived.

Stretch. BTW -

HOW 'BOUT THEM COWGIRLS?!

Stretch. BTW -

...but not a long stretch. I can think of Lombardi in the same class, but it's hard after that.

Examples:

- Bill Walsh was a genius (he said so) and had Joe Montana with Steve Young on the bench.

- Jimmy Johnson won with Troy Aikman

- Bilicheek has had Brady, and he hasn't been hurt much. Bili was not great when he had Vinny Testaverde at QB.

Who else might be in the Gibbs/Lombardi class? I'd have to go back to coaches I barely remember...Paul Brown, George Halas, Amos Alonzo Stagg.

JSPB22 wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:that he chose the Redskins is not just luck that was just meant to be

Joe would coach no other team. He only entertained the Danny's offer. He wanted to restore us to the greatness we had when he left.

In fact, Atlanta pursued him quite aggressively back in the 90's, offering him pretty much Carte Blanche... he was clear... the only team he'd consider returning to football for was... the Redskins....

This was all about UK's

Joe Gibbs knows about a lot more than just football, but he knows that particular game better than anybody who has ever lived.

welch wrote:

Stretch. BTW -

...but not a long stretch. I can think of Lombardi in the same class, but it's hard after that.

Examples:

- Bill Walsh was a genius (he said so) and had Joe Montana with Steve Young on the bench.

- Jimmy Johnson won with Troy Aikman

- Bilicheek has had Brady, and he hasn't been hurt much. Bili was not great when he had Vinny Testaverde at QB.

Who else might be in the Gibbs/Lombardi class? I'd have to go back to coaches I barely remember...Paul Brown, George Halas, Amos Alonzo Stagg.

This might be kind of hard to explain but it's much more specialized now. The head coach now is more of a manager and doesn't need to know as much about every aspect. So for instance, Lombardi coached the center on how to snap it (half turn or quarter turn and why), the linemen on how to block it, (not just scheme but individual techniques), the backs how to set up and read those blocks, the receivers how to run their patterns, the QBs how to drop back set up and throw, etc. Again, I emphasize, not just scheme but individual techniques at each and every position. Gibbs and his contemporaries relegate most all of this to assistants. It's just the way it is and was. Lombardi had assistants too but not nearly as many and he told them how he wanted it taught since he could not be at all places at once. Gibbs does not tell Bugel how to teach a roll block. Lombardi directly coached all linemen in that technique. Then he went to the corners and worked on their details of foot placement, positioning, force techniques, etc. Then he went to Starr and taught him, etc. Back then the head coach had to know a lot more about all the little details of all the techniques of all the positions. A great read is When Pride Still Mattered. Lombardi's interview for the O Coordinater job at Army is an awesome moment. They were already zone blocking in college and when he brought that to the pros they thought he was looney tunes.

I'd say many older coaches had a more complete knowledge of the game than Gibbs. That does not mean he is not an as great or greater coach. It's just a different time and he has different duties.

Lombardi has to be considered an equal leader of men, no?

Paul Brown was a good call.

DarthMonk

Lombardi has to be considered an equal leader of men, no?

Paul Brown was a good call.

Lombardi is the only leader who came to mind. Paul Brown coached when I was too little to understand, but that record of going to the playoffs says something, as does Brown's invention the the Bill Walsh offense. Curious people only think of Walsh, as if he created it.

I added Stagg because of all the games he won, coaching the University of Chicago in the Big Ten. I think UC was one of the first "western" teams to beat the might Ivy League...

Well, let me qualify my statement. I'm not talking about X's and O's. If we're talking purely about coaching techniques, then Gibbs wouldn't be the greatest encyclopedia in Washington. What he knows better than anybody is how to ring out every last scrap of effort and achievement from his teams, and that is what a head coach needs to be able to do these days.

And perhaps knowledge is the wrong term - maybe it's all instinct without rational thought processes going on.

Joe Gibbs knows more about leading a football team than anyone who has ever lived, in my humble opinion. And he's demonstrated that time and time again. And here he is again, taking yet another Redskins team into the playoffs, with yet another starting quarterback.

Walsh, Shula, Noll just don't stack up. The guy in New England needs to win with a couple of qb's who aren't All World to qualify for consideration. Lombardi and Brown certainly belong in the discussion and have legitimate claims.

I do not respect much those fans who go in the direction of the wind on any given day, ready to praise one day and ready to insult on another. I have little respect for those who just wish to win without character. I also have little respect for blind faith or blind criticism.

I respect very much those fans who have a thought-out position which can be defensible either way and have the courage to acknowledge that they were wrong if that was the case.

But the greatest respect of all from me goes to those fans who always knew and always remained loyal based on their knowledge and past experience. Those few knew and acted according to their convictions in the face of "a mountain of adversity".