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

I wish coach Saunders luck...he never got a fair chance here. Continuity went right out the window. Oh well, maybe if we hire mooch we can have a respectable coaching staff...especially if it was him who chose them behind doors

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:Ok. This idea of Al Saunders being handuffed by Gibbs is BS. Joe Gibbs went out there to get Al Saunders because Gibbs felt that Al Saunders could help this offense instead it hurt our offense. I don't feel bad for Al Saunder, Build a bridge and get over it.

This post deserves to be laughed at.

Why don't you laugh at yourself because Joe Gibbs did not handcuff anybody. If Joe Gibbs was going to handcuff Al Saunders then why did he bring him in? Here are the stats for you. In 2004, Gibbs first year back as coach our offense was ranked 30th, In 2005, our offense was ranked 11th, In 2006, Al Saunders first year our offense was ranked 13th, In 2007 our offense was ranked 15th. Now, if you look at Gibbs first year and second year that is a HUGH change from 30th to 11th. It took Gibbs one season to finally get caught up from being out of the NFL for so long. With that in mind from 30th to 11th, Gibbs said this when they hired Saunders that he felt he could make their offense even better. From 30th to 11th if Gibbs knew that he was going to handcuff Al Saunders and hurt our offense then why did he bring him in? Go ahead and laugh buddy but your only making a fool of yourself.

jeremyroyce wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:Ok. This idea of Al Saunders being handuffed by Gibbs is BS. Joe Gibbs went out there to get Al Saunders because Gibbs felt that Al Saunders could help this offense instead it hurt our offense. I don't feel bad for Al Saunder, Build a bridge and get over it.

This post deserves to be laughed at.

Why don't you laugh at yourself because Joe Gibbs did not handcuff anybody. If Joe Gibbs was going to handcuff Al Saunders then why did he bring him in? Here are the stats for you. In 2004, Gibbs first year back as coach our offense was ranked 30th, In 2005, our offense was ranked 11th, In 2006, Al Saunders first year our offense was ranked 13th, In 2007 our offense was ranked 15th. Now, if you look at Gibbs first year and second year that is a HUGH change from 30th to 11th. It took Gibbs one season to finally get caught up from being out of the NFL for so long. With that in mind from 30th to 11th, Gibbs said this when they hired Saunders that he felt he could make their offense even better. From 30th to 11th if Gibbs knew that he was going to handcuff Al Saunders and hurt our offense then why did he bring him in? Go ahead and laugh buddy but your only making a fool of yourself.

You're the fool if you actually think that that was Al Saunders' offense. Even players have said that he wasn't totally in control. The rankings have absolutely nothing to do with whether Saunders was being handcuffed.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:

Jeremy81 wrote:i wish him the best. i think he was done wrong here and wasn't given and fair opportunity or enough time to showcase his play book or his play calling

He was given 2 years and our offense SUCKED. He had enough time to drill the players in their head his 700 page playbook. There is no excuse we couldn't hold a lead if our life depended on it.

I don't buy the the "Fan" and "media" propaganda that we went into a shell and got conservative in the second half or that Gibbs hand cuffed him.

The run/pass ratio wasn't significantly different in the second half, what was different was how the players executed the plays. Maybe that was how well the other team's D adjusted, maybe the Skins' players "tightened up", but the play calling was not significantly different.

I know I am going to get flamed and told I'm crazy, but unless someone can provide stats (other than what we scored) to back up the "conservative" claim, I am sticking w/the players just didn't get it done.

I wish Al all the best and I don't think he or Gibbs were the problem with our second half woes.

Can you spell J U M B O P A C K A G E? That is the stat that most jumps out at me with us going to one wide sets from the 20 and in.

This was not an Al Saunders trademark. This was Joe Gibbs football.

In one brief moment of frustration, when asked by a reporter if the players were starting to become more comfortable with his complex offense, he responded "there's no problem with the players!" That short comment says there was something going on behind the scenes.

PulpExposure wrote:

TeeterSalad wrote:

Kentucky Fried Hog wrote:So, Al to St. Louis, is TC next to follow him?

If Saunders, G.W. and Todd Collins end up in St. Louis we're really gonna be kicking ourselves by the next 2 seasons. T.C. + A.S. combo has proven to equal decent offensive production, they could be in the playoffs by next season with a good defense.

I know there's some crazy insane Todd Collins love on this board, but do you really think TC is going to unseat multiple Pro Bowl QB Marc Bulger?

Collins has had a nice 4 game stretch. Bulger's had a nice career.

T.C. probably wont replace Bulger, but I could see it happening, not only is Bulger injury prone but he had a pretty awful season.

Its official

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=344946

skinsfan#33 wrote:I don't buy the the "Fan" and "media" propaganda that we went into a shell and got conservative in the second half or that Gibbs hand cuffed him.

The run/pass ratio wasn't significantly different in the second half, what was different was how the players executed the plays. Maybe that was how well the other team's D adjusted, maybe the Skins' players "tightened up", but the play calling was not significantly different.

I know I am going to get flamed and told I'm crazy, but unless someone can provide stats (other than what we scored) to back up the "conservative" claim, I am sticking w/the players just didn't get it done.

Sorry for the length but it's pretty condensed.

Won’t waste (more of) my time doing every game but I believe this was typical.

1st Giant game, 1st half drives:

pass, run, pass = 1st down
run, pass = 1st down
run = 1st down
run, pass, pass = missed 39 yard FG

run, run, pass, = punt

recover fumble at 6
run, run = TD

pass = 1st down
pass = 1st down
run, run, pass = punt

pass, run, pass = 1st down
pass (49 yards to Moss) = 1st down
From 10
run, run, pass = TD

run = 1st down
pass, pass, pass = punt

pass, run, run = FG

17-3 at half

Opened 7 series with a pass, 8 with a run.
2nd half drives with lead:

run, pass, pass = punt

pass (screen), run, pass = punt

Tied now:

run, run, pass = punt

run, run = fumble

Losing now:

pass, pass, pass = 1st down
pass, pass = 1st down

At Giant 35 now:

pass, pass, pass = punt

pass, pass, pass = 1st down
pass, spike, pass = 1st down
spike, heavy jumbo, pass to Sellers, run, run = loss

In 2nd half with lead or tied opened 1 series with pass, 3 with run = 3 punts

While losing opened 5 drives with pass and zero with run. Moved smartly. One punt from Giant territory.

This is classic. We had a great mix on 1st down in the first half and built a 17-3 lead. We folded up in the 2nd half until we fell behind then became tough to stop again even though they rush the passer well and KNEW we HAD to pass.
2nd Giant game:

This was on the road, must win, cold and windy, conditions begging for a lot of running.

1st half drives:

run, run, pass = punt

pass, pass, pass = punt

After a fumble from Giants 45:

run, pass, pass = punt

run, run = 1st down

run, pass, pass = FG

run, run, pass = punt

pass = 1st down

pass = 1st down

run, run, pass = 1st down

run, pass, pass = punt

pass, run, pass = 1st down

run, pass, run = TD

Still 1st half leading 13-3 with 1:51 to go at our 28:

run = 1st down

run = 1st down

pass, pass, pass = FG

16-3 at half.

Opened 5 series with a pass, 10 with run.
2nd half drives with lead:

run, pass = 1st down

pass = 1st down

run, run = TD

BTW – Up 22-3 and went for 2 here. Silly. Guarding against 3 unanswered TDs with almost a half to go. Failed. Left them within 19 points. More on that later.

run, run, run = punt

22-10 now.

pass = 1st down

pass, run, pass = punt

They miss a short FG here. Thank goodness because they’d be behind by just 9 with a quarter to go and 10 more wins the game instead of just tying had we gone for 1 earlier. Going for 2 with a lot of time left is silly. Screw the “chart.”

run, run = 1st down

run, pass, pass = punt

run, run, run = punt

run, run, run = 1st down

kneel, kneel

Opened 3 2nd half drives with pass and before kneeling time 6 with a run. Same mix as the first half on a very windy day.

In this 2nd game in the 2nd half we were more aggressive while leading on the road in a strong wind than we were at home tied in perfect weather!
Teams didn’t figure us out at the half. They figured us out on FILM. What they figured out was old news, we are dynamic, unpredictable, and tough to stop in the 1st half and then go into a shell with a halftime lead. We kept trying to add on to our leads when we HAD to win (last 4 games) after having lost so many times doing it the other way.

Anybody want to compare the 2nd half of the Buffalo game to the 2nd half of any of the last 4?

Puh-leeze. It's night and day.

DarthMonk

I'm not going to go through the process of analyzing it, but if you want a perfect example of how the offense would shut down and get conservative in the 2nd half, just check out the game against Arizona.

DarthMonk wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:I don't buy the the "Fan" and "media" propaganda that we went into a shell and got conservative in the second half or that Gibbs hand cuffed him.

The run/pass ratio wasn't significantly different in the second half, what was different was how the players executed the plays. Maybe that was how well the other team's D adjusted, maybe the Skins' players "tightened up", but the play calling was not significantly different.

I know I am going to get flamed and told I'm crazy, but unless someone can provide stats (other than what we scored) to back up the "conservative" claim, I am sticking w/the players just didn't get it done.

Sorry for the length but it's pretty condensed.

Won’t waste (more of) my time doing every game but I believe this was typical.

1st Giant game, 1st half drives:

pass, run, pass = 1st down
run, pass = 1st down
run = 1st down
run, pass, pass = missed 39 yard FG

run, run, pass, = punt

recover fumble at 6
run, run = TD

pass = 1st down
pass = 1st down
run, run, pass = punt

pass, run, pass = 1st down
pass (49 yards to Moss) = 1st down
From 10
run, run, pass = TD

run = 1st down
pass, pass, pass = punt

pass, run, run = FG

17-3 at half

Opened 7 series with a pass, 8 with a run.
2nd half drives with lead:

run, pass, pass = punt

pass (screen), run, pass = punt

Tied now:

run, run, pass = punt

run, run = fumble

Losing now:

pass, pass, pass = 1st down
pass, pass = 1st down

At Giant 35 now:

pass, pass, pass = punt

pass, pass, pass = 1st down
pass, spike, pass = 1st down
spike, heavy jumbo, pass to Sellers, run, run = loss

In 2nd half with lead or tied opened 1 series with pass, 3 with run = 3 punts

While losing opened 5 drives with pass and zero with run. Moved smartly. One punt from Giant territory.

This is classic. We had a great mix on 1st down in the first half and built a 17-3 lead. We folded up in the 2nd half until we fell behind then became tough to stop again even though they rush the passer well and KNEW we HAD to pass.
2nd Giant game:

This was on the road, must win, cold and windy, conditions begging for a lot of running.

1st half drives:

run, run, pass = punt

pass, pass, pass = punt

After a fumble from Giants 45:

run, pass, pass = punt

run, run = 1st down

run, pass, pass = FG

run, run, pass = punt

pass = 1st down

pass = 1st down

run, run, pass = 1st down

run, pass, pass = punt

pass, run, pass = 1st down

run, pass, run = TD

Still 1st half leading 13-3 with 1:51 to go at our 28:

run = 1st down

run = 1st down

pass, pass, pass = FG

16-3 at half.

Opened 5 series with a pass, 10 with run.
2nd half drives with lead:

run, pass = 1st down

pass = 1st down

run, run = TD

BTW – Up 22-3 and went for 2 here. Silly. Guarding against 3 unanswered TDs with almost a half to go. Failed. Left them within 19 points. More on that later.

run, run, run = punt

22-10 now.

pass = 1st down

pass, run, pass = punt

They miss a short FG here. Thank goodness because they’d be behind by just 9 with a quarter to go and 10 more wins the game instead of just tying had we gone for 1 earlier. Going for 2 with a lot of time left is silly. Screw the “chart.”

run, run = 1st down

run, pass, pass = punt

run, run, run = punt

run, run, run = 1st down

kneel, kneel

Opened 3 2nd half drives with pass and before kneeling time 6 with a run. Same mix as the first half on a very windy day.

In this 2nd game in the 2nd half we were more aggressive while leading on the road in a strong wind than we were at home tied in perfect weather!
Teams didn’t figure us out at the half. They figured us out on FILM. What they figured out was old news, we are dynamic, unpredictable, and tough to stop in the 1st half and then go into a shell with a halftime lead. We kept trying to add on to our leads when we HAD to win (last 4 games) after having lost so many times doing it the other way.

Anybody want to compare the 2nd half of the Buffalo game to the 2nd half of any of the last 4?

Nobody has the time to check this stuff, do they

AND that was the condensed version

SkinsJock wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:I don't buy the the "Fan" and "media" propaganda that we went into a shell and got conservative in the second half or that Gibbs hand cuffed him.

The run/pass ratio wasn't significantly different in the second half, what was different was how the players executed the plays. Maybe that was how well the other team's D adjusted, maybe the Skins' players "tightened up", but the play calling was not significantly different.

I know I am going to get flamed and told I'm crazy, but unless someone can provide stats (other than what we scored) to back up the "conservative" claim, I am sticking w/the players just didn't get it done.

Sorry for the length but it's pretty condensed.

Won’t waste (more of) my time doing every game but I believe this was typical.

1st Giant game, 1st half drives:

pass, run, pass = 1st down
run, pass = 1st down
run = 1st down
run, pass, pass = missed 39 yard FG

run, run, pass, = punt

recover fumble at 6
run, run = TD

pass = 1st down
pass = 1st down
run, run, pass = punt

pass, run, pass = 1st down
pass (49 yards to Moss) = 1st down
From 10
run, run, pass = TD

run = 1st down
pass, pass, pass = punt

pass, run, run = FG

17-3 at half

Opened 7 series with a pass, 8 with a run.
2nd half drives with lead:

run, pass, pass = punt

pass (screen), run, pass = punt

Tied now:

run, run, pass = punt

run, run = fumble

Losing now:

pass, pass, pass = 1st down
pass, pass = 1st down

At Giant 35 now:

pass, pass, pass = punt

pass, pass, pass = 1st down
pass, spike, pass = 1st down
spike, heavy jumbo, pass to Sellers, run, run = loss

In 2nd half with lead or tied opened 1 series with pass, 3 with run = 3 punts

While losing opened 5 drives with pass and zero with run. Moved smartly. One punt from Giant territory.

This is classic. We had a great mix on 1st down in the first half and built a 17-3 lead. We folded up in the 2nd half until we fell behind then became tough to stop again even though they rush the passer well and KNEW we HAD to pass.
2nd Giant game:

This was on the road, must win, cold and windy, conditions begging for a lot of running.

1st half drives:

run, run, pass = punt

pass, pass, pass = punt

After a fumble from Giants 45:

run, pass, pass = punt

run, run = 1st down

run, pass, pass = FG

run, run, pass = punt

pass = 1st down

pass = 1st down

run, run, pass = 1st down

run, pass, pass = punt

pass, run, pass = 1st down

run, pass, run = TD

Still 1st half leading 13-3 with 1:51 to go at our 28:

run = 1st down

run = 1st down

pass, pass, pass = FG

16-3 at half.

Opened 5 series with a pass, 10 with run.
2nd half drives with lead:

run, pass = 1st down

pass = 1st down

run, run = TD

BTW – Up 22-3 and went for 2 here. Silly. Guarding against 3 unanswered TDs with almost a half to go. Failed. Left them within 19 points. More on that later.

run, run, run = punt

22-10 now.

pass = 1st down

pass, run, pass = punt

They miss a short FG here. Thank goodness because they’d be behind by just 9 with a quarter to go and 10 more wins the game instead of just tying had we gone for 1 earlier. Going for 2 with a lot of time left is silly. Screw the “chart.”

run, run = 1st down

run, pass, pass = punt

run, run, run = punt

run, run, run = 1st down

kneel, kneel

Opened 3 2nd half drives with pass and before kneeling time 6 with a run. Same mix as the first half on a very windy day.

In this 2nd game in the 2nd half we were more aggressive while leading on the road in a strong wind than we were at home tied in perfect weather!
Teams didn’t figure us out at the half. They figured us out on FILM. What they figured out was old news, we are dynamic, unpredictable, and tough to stop in the 1st half and then go into a shell with a halftime lead. We kept trying to add on to our leads when we HAD to win (last 4 games) after having lost so many times doing it the other way.

Anybody want to compare the 2nd half of the Buffalo game to the 2nd half of any of the last 4?

Nobody has the time to check this stuff, do they

AND that was the condensed version

And it really didn't prove anything. I couldn't tell if DM was supporting my argument that the Skins weren't too converative or not. The plays he showed looked like they supported my argument, but his narative contradicted what the facts showed. Just confusing.

Al Saunders is going to unleash the fury of his offense on us next year. It's not even going to be funny.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Al Saunders is going to unleash the fury of his offense on us next year. It's not even going to be funny.

He has a "funny" offense as well? Was that the version we used or was it the "un-funny" one?

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Al Saunders is going to unleash the fury of his offense on us next year. It's not even going to be funny.

If the Lams are as banged up as they were this year, I'm not scared! It will be nice for Al to finally get to call plays for the Lams. People give him some credit for the "greatest show on turf" but that was Martz.

And it really didn't prove anything. I couldn't tell if DM was supporting my argument that the Skins weren't too converative or not. The plays he showed looked like they supported my argument, but his narative contradicted what the facts showed. Just confusing.

You are easily confused. Buffalo is a very simple example.

When building a 16-5 lead we started 3 of 5 drives with a pass (total ratio was 33 pass to 16 run).

Now that we had it "wrapped up" we changed philosophy.

When ahead we started 4 of 5 drives with a run (total ratio was 10 pass to 10 run, often run, run, pass, punt, ,or run, pass, pass, punt) and had a puntfest.

In the last 4 games we tried to (and did) add to leads in the second half as opposed to trying to hang on to them.

What I showed in the "too long" thing before was a team with a good mix on 1st down building a lead becoming a predictably conservative team which lost the lead in the 2nd half. That was early in the year. Later in the year I showed you an offense that did not change in the 2nd half and continued to move the ball and score points - and won.

DarthMonk

CanesSkins26 wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:Ok. This idea of Al Saunders being handuffed by Gibbs is BS. Joe Gibbs went out there to get Al Saunders because Gibbs felt that Al Saunders could help this offense instead it hurt our offense. I don't feel bad for Al Saunder, Build a bridge and get over it.

This post deserves to be laughed at.

Why don't you laugh at yourself because Joe Gibbs did not handcuff anybody. If Joe Gibbs was going to handcuff Al Saunders then why did he bring him in? Here are the stats for you. In 2004, Gibbs first year back as coach our offense was ranked 30th, In 2005, our offense was ranked 11th, In 2006, Al Saunders first year our offense was ranked 13th, In 2007 our offense was ranked 15th. Now, if you look at Gibbs first year and second year that is a HUGH change from 30th to 11th. It took Gibbs one season to finally get caught up from being out of the NFL for so long. With that in mind from 30th to 11th, Gibbs said this when they hired Saunders that he felt he could make their offense even better. From 30th to 11th if Gibbs knew that he was going to handcuff Al Saunders and hurt our offense then why did he bring him in? Go ahead and laugh buddy but your only making a fool of yourself.

You're the fool if you actually think that that was Al Saunders' offense. Even players have said that he wasn't totally in control. The rankings have absolutely nothing to do with whether Saunders was being handcuffed.

You my friend don't make any sence. It does not make any sence for Joe Gibbs to say ok I just got our offense ranked from 30th to 11th and I am going to bring in Al Saunders to handcuff him to make our offense worse. And yes rankings do matter. Get a clue. Build a bridge and get over it

RayNAustin wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

jeremyroyce wrote:

Jeremy81 wrote:i wish him the best. i think he was done wrong here and wasn't given and fair opportunity or enough time to showcase his play book or his play calling

He was given 2 years and our offense SUCKED. He had enough time to drill the players in their head his 700 page playbook. There is no excuse we couldn't hold a lead if our life depended on it.

I don't buy the the "Fan" and "media" propaganda that we went into a shell and got conservative in the second half or that Gibbs hand cuffed him.

The run/pass ratio wasn't significantly different in the second half, what was different was how the players executed the plays. Maybe that was how well the other team's D adjusted, maybe the Skins' players "tightened up", but the play calling was not significantly different.

I know I am going to get flamed and told I'm crazy, but unless someone can provide stats (other than what we scored) to back up the "conservative" claim, I am sticking w/the players just didn't get it done.

I wish Al all the best and I don't think he or Gibbs were the problem with our second half woes.

Can you spell J U M B O P A C K A G E? That is the stat that most jumps out at me with us going to one wide sets from the 20 and in.

This was not an Al Saunders trademark. This was Joe Gibbs football.

In one brief moment of frustration, when asked by a reporter if the players were starting to become more comfortable with his complex offense, he responded "there's no problem with the players!" That short comment says there was something going on behind the scenes.

I don't care what kind of packages were being run. It does not make any sence for Joe Gibbs to go out there after he just got his offense from 30th to 11th and for Joe Gibbs to say in the offseason we are going to bring in Al Saunders because I think that he can help out our offense and improve this football team only to handcuff him. And Dan Snyder wouldn't allow it.

DarthMonk wrote:

And it really didn't prove anything. I couldn't tell if DM was supporting my argument that the Skins weren't too converative or not. The plays he showed looked like they supported my argument, but his narative contradicted what the facts showed. Just confusing.

You are easily confused. Buffalo is a very simple example.

When building a 16-5 lead we started 3 of 5 drives with a pass (total ratio was 33 pass to 16 run).

Now that we had it "wrapped up" we changed philosophy.

When ahead we started 4 of 5 drives with a run (total ratio was 10 pass to 10 run, often run, run, pass, punt, ,or run, pass, pass, punt) and had a puntfest.

In the last 4 games we tried to (and did) add to leads in the second half as opposed to trying to hang on to them.

What I showed in the "too long" thing before was a team with a good mix on 1st down building a lead becoming a predictably conservative team which lost the lead in the 2nd half. That was early in the year. Later in the year I showed you an offense that did not change in the 2nd half and continued to move the ball and score points - and won.

DarthMonk

I guess I am easily confused because the games you broke down were the two Giants games - silly me I didn't know we were talking about the Bills game.

The from your plays list in the first Giants game:

> First half we ran the 16 times and threw 17 times. One TD passsing/one TD rushing. First downs not converted: passing 4/rushing 1. Pretty ballance.

> Second half. 19 passes/8 rushing atempts. 1 passing TD. First downs not converted: 3 passing/1 rushing. Too heavy on the pass. Yes I know we fell behind a little, but there was only one conservative series. A fumble on a first down run hurt more than the "conservative" play calling.

(poor execution on three straight plays on the goal line 1 pass/2 runs kept us from sending the game to over time)

The Second Giants games was much heavier on the run in the second half. I won't go into details, because just at quick glance you can see we ran many more times in the second half.

So again how are these to games supposed to show anything other than the fact the in the game we executed well we won and the game we didn't we lost?

You shouldn't pick facts that don't back up the picture you're trying to paint.

The Buffalo game all came down to Campbell's screw ups and the D giving up a two big plays on the Bills last drive.

Campbell took a safety, fumbled the ball on the Was 38, threw a pick at the Was 16 (resulted in 8 points for the Bills)

The D miised a tackel w/35 second left to go in the game. It gave the Bills a 1st down but more importantly it stopped the clock. The next play the D gives up a 33 yard pass that would have ended the game had the D not missed the tackel the play before. Bill kick FG and win 17-16.

So was it the one conservative series were they were trying to take time off the clock (and did) or was it the 8 points Campbell gave to the Bills or the the d-breaking down when they had played great the rest of the game?

check it out!
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29381&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=REG13

Silly me sounds more like the players blew that game, just like the first Giants game, and the Packers game, and the Bucs game, and the Cowboys game.[/url]

skinsfan#33 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:

And it really didn't prove anything. I couldn't tell if DM was supporting my argument that the Skins weren't too converative or not. The plays he showed looked like they supported my argument, but his narative contradicted what the facts showed. Just confusing.

You are easily confused. Buffalo is a very simple example.

When building a 16-5 lead we started 3 of 5 drives with a pass (total ratio was 33 pass to 16 run).

Now that we had it "wrapped up" we changed philosophy.

When ahead we started 4 of 5 drives with a run (total ratio was 10 pass to 10 run, often run, run, pass, punt, ,or run, pass, pass, punt) and had a puntfest.

In the last 4 games we tried to (and did) add to leads in the second half as opposed to trying to hang on to them.

What I showed in the "too long" thing before was a team with a good mix on 1st down building a lead becoming a predictably conservative team which lost the lead in the 2nd half. That was early in the year. Later in the year I showed you an offense that did not change in the 2nd half and continued to move the ball and score points - and won.

DarthMonk

I guess I am easily confused because the games you broke down were the two Giants games - silly me I didn't know we were talking about the Bills game.
The from your plays list in the first Giants game:

> First half we ran the 16 times and threw 17 times. One TD passsing/one TD rushing. First downs not converted: passing 4/rushing 1. Pretty ballance.

> Second half. 19 passes/8 rushing atempts. 1 passing TD. First downs not converted: 3 passing/1 rushing. Too heavy on the pass. Yes I know we fell behind a little, but there was only one conservative series. A fumble on a first down run hurt more than the "conservative" play calling.

(poor execution on three straight plays on the goal line 1 pass/2 runs kept us from sending the game to over time)

The Second Giants games was much heavier on the run in the second half. I won't go into details, because just at quick glance you can see we ran many more times in the second half.

So again how are these to games supposed to show anything other than the fact the in the game we executed well we won and the game we didn't we lost?

You shouldn't pick facts that don't back up the picture you're trying to paint.

The Buffalo game all came down to Campbell's screw ups and the D giving up a two big plays on the Bills last drive.

Campbell took a safety, fumbled the ball on the Was 38, threw a pick at the Was 16 (resulted in 8 points for the Bills)

The D miised a tackel w/35 second left to go in the game. It gave the Bills a 1st down but more importantly it stopped the clock. The next play the D gives up a 33 yard pass that would have ended the game had the D not missed the tackel the play before. Bill kick FG and win 17-16.

So was it the one conservative series were they were trying to take time off the clock (and did) or was it the 8 points Campbell gave to the Bills or the the d-breaking down when they had played great the rest of the game?

check it out!
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29381&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=REG13

Silly me sounds more like the players blew that game, just like the first Giants game, and the Packers game, and the Bucs game, and the Cowboys game.[/url]

I like this shrinking effect.

I got all this from play-by-play from gamecenter. Thanks anyway.

I WAS talking about the Giants games but you were confused so I went to an easier example and did the Bills.

Bills game "came down" to what you say it did BECAUSE we went into a shell until it was too late.

1st Giant game even mix in 1st half turned to ultra conservatism in 2nd half as data clearly show.

2nd game mix stayed exactly the same in both halves. That's the point. Of course we ran more in the 2nd game, very windy. But our mix did not change half to half like in the first game where we went into a 2nd half shell until falling behind.

You wanted stats and I gave 'em to you. Someone else mentioned going for game clinching 1st downs late in the year as opposed to burning a few seconds that the other team didn't need anyway with a "safe" run.

Gibbs himself said "Special Teams are heart and soul, D wins titles, and O puts 'em away." How ironic he went against that last maxim most of the year.

DarthMonk

Gibbs himself said "Special Teams are heart and soul, D wins titles, and O puts 'em away." How ironic he went against that last maxim most of the year.

OK, looks to me like:

- defense folded in H2 of first Giants game. Also, the Giants had played badly in H1...disorganized. No reason to expect them to play as badly in the second, and they didn't. As best I remember, the Giants began the second half with two long drives. Grinders.

- Bills game came down to blunder by defense on last few plays. That followed sme generally medocre QB play by Campbell.

- Given a QB competent in the Saunders offense, the Redskins did well. Yes, I agree.

- Given how important Campbell is, it made sense to start him rather than Collins. The offense probably would have done better with Collins throughout, and with a complete offensive line, and with Moss and Randle-El healthy. However, Campbell needed to learn, and the team could not re-wind time and avoid the injuries.

- My guess is that we began to see the Saunders offense at the end of the season. Next year, we would have seen more, because Gibbs/Saunders would have given Collins more playing time, and, perhaps, Campbell would have been sharper, but also because Gibbs was prepared to fill more of the holes.

- Recall that Gibbs started with a team of zeroes...Spurrier's leftovers plus whoever the team could snatch, at a high price, before the 2004 season. To repeat, Gibbs began 1981 with a better foundation: a team that had had only two losing seasons (off-hand memory) since Allen took over, a good QB, a good RB (remember Riggins), a good WR (remember Monk), and a great draft.

- Agreed: Gibbs brought in Saunders to be the offensive coach for the future...for a long time. If Snyder and Cerrato disliked him, and disliked Williams, well, I trust Gibbs as a team-builder more than I trust Snyder and Cerrato. Maybe that will change. I hope so.

welch wrote:If Snyder and Cerrato disliked him, and disliked Williams, well, I trust Gibbs as a team-builder more than I trust Snyder and Cerrato. Maybe that will change. I hope so.

Maybe Preston Marshall was not all that bad after all.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Kentucky Fried Hog wrote:So, Al to St. Louis, is TC next to follow him?

Great question. I think TC is also gone. Of course, that will spark the ontroversy with Marc BUlger.

Also, I think it's interesting that, for once, we're not seeing our talented players go to another team and flourishInstead, it's the coaches now.

LMAO... I wish we can do that with the owner and the Prez

I can't believe he's moving on already after just 2 years. This team is just falling to pieces! Whose gonna run the offense now?

DarthMonk wrote:
I like this shrinking effect.

I got all this from play-by-play from game center. Thanks anyway.

Yes but did you even look at the data you pulled, because it contradicts the argument you made?

DarthMonk wrote:I WAS talking about the Giants games but you were confused so I went to an easier example and did the Bills.

I was confused, because the evidence you presented did not support your claim and even though I showed you why, you still don't realize you picked bad games to try and support how you "felt".

DarthMonk wrote:Bills game "came down" to what you say it did BECAUSE we went into a shell until it was too late.

So you agree with me that Campbell (and the OL to some degree) GAVING the Bills 47% of their score and the D giving up two big plays that put the Bills in position to score the game winning FG in w/less than a minute to play and no time outs cost the Skins the game?

Thanks for agreeing w/me.

Gee, maybe I'm being too analytical about the whole thing and just need to be emotional and go w/what I felt and not the facts.

DarthMonk wrote:1st Giant game even mix in 1st half turned to ultra conservatism in 2nd half as data clearly show.

The facts simply don’t support that. They went conservative on one series. And maybe you could say down near the goal line, but all three plays should have scored. Sellers dropped the first pass for an easy TD, Betts took the wrong whole on the next play (and the Giants LB made a heck of a play to stop him), then on the last play Yoder and the OL were late off the ball but Betts still would have walked in had he not tripped over Sellers’ legs!

The Players lost that game, not the play calls!

DarthMonk wrote:2nd game mix stayed exactly the same in both halves. That's the point. Of course we ran more in the 2nd game, very windy. But our mix did not change half to half like in the first game where we went into a 2nd half shell until falling behind.

What are you talking about? We ran way more in the second half of the second Giants game, because Collins was picking up first downs. In the first game we threw the ball 19 times to 5 runs in the second half.

Come on dude, just admit it, you picked the wrong three games to try to prove out how you felt. The facts just aren’t on your side.
[/b]

I was about to apologize for being a bit of a jerk lately saying things like "you are easily confused." Sorry for that comment but ...

skinsfan#33 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:1st Giant game even mix in 1st half turned to ultra conservatism in 2nd half as data clearly show.

The facts simply don’t support that.

Yes they do. Check again. I'm talking about a change of attitude WITH A SECOND HALF LEAD.

They went conservative on one series.

Actually ALL 2nd half series while leading or tied!

And maybe you could say down near the goal line, but all three plays should have scored. Sellers dropped the first pass for an easy TD, Betts took the wrong whole on the next play (and the Giants LB made a heck of a play to stop him), then on the last play Yoder and the OL were late off the ball but Betts still would have walked in had he not tripped over Sellers’ legs!

I have issues here too but they are beside the point. The pass to Sellers was low and behind him. Either way, bad execution as you say. But a big lead at the time woulda been nice. You can say Betts took the wrong hole and that he tripped over Sellers legs but I've looked again and again and he's taking "wrong hole" and "tripping over legs" because people in front (including Sellers on the last one) are being blown up but again - beside the point.

The Players lost that game, not the play calls!

It was a combination but ...

... while we LEAD OR WERE TIED in the 2nd half 6 runs 4 passes. Those series began RUN, PASS (behind line for a 4 yard loss), RUN, RUN.

We started passing again AFTER we fell behind.

DarthMonk wrote:2nd game mix stayed exactly the same in both halves. That's the point. Of course we ran more in the 2nd game, very windy. But our mix did not change half to half like in the first game where we went into a 2nd half shell until falling behind.

What are you talking about? We ran way more in the second half of the second Giants game, because Collins was picking up first downs.

The facts. 10 runs and 7 passes before kneel down time in a very windy 2nd half. The first half mix was 18 runs and 19 passes. That is maintaining aggression until you've really put them away.

In the first game we threw the ball 19 times to 5 runs in the second half.

Again, 6 runs and 4 passes UNTIL WE FELL BEHIND AGAIN. Then, down 7 points with 5:25 to go we threw 15 straight times (and moved the ball against a team with a great pass rush that knew we had to throw) and then ran 3 times at the end.

Come on dude, just admit it, you picked the wrong three games to try to prove out how you felt. The facts just aren’t on your side.

As you should be able to see - they are!!

The facts clearly show that in the 1st Giants game we went into a shell UNTIL WE FELL BEHANID AGAIN. You cherry picked the fact that we passed a lot in that 2nd half while ignoring the fact that almost all the passes ocurred after we fell behind. While leading or tied we were ULTRA CONSERVATIVE - those series began RUN, PASS (behind line for a 4 yard loss), RUN, RUN.

The facts clearly show that in the 2nd Giants game our mix was almost a perfet 50/50 throughout until kneel down time. While maintaining this mix we added to our point total.

I am moving a little toward your position of bad execution but I picked perfect games to illustrate that my point is valid and sound though perhaps not the entire story.

One final point - applying Occam's Razor, one coach getting conservative with a lead (historic fact) is a much simpler explanation than a team full of people executing well in one half and then executing poorly in the next.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:I was about to apologize for being a bit of a jerk lately saying things like "you are easily confused." Sorry for that comment but ...

skinsfan#33 wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:1st Giant game even mix in 1st half turned to ultra conservatism in 2nd half as data clearly show.

The facts simply don’t support that.

Yes they do. Check again. I'm talking about a change of attitude WITH A SECOND HALF LEAD.

They went conservative on one series.

Actually ALL 2nd half series while leading or tied!

And maybe you could say down near the goal line, but all three plays should have scored. Sellers dropped the first pass for an easy TD, Betts took the wrong whole on the next play (and the Giants LB made a heck of a play to stop him), then on the last play Yoder and the OL were late off the ball but Betts still would have walked in had he not tripped over Sellers’ legs!

I have issues here too but they are beside the point. The pass to Sellers was low and behind him. Either way, bad execution as you say. But a big lead at the time woulda been nice. You can say Betts took the wrong hole and that he tripped over Sellers legs but I've looked again and again and he's taking "wrong hole" and "tripping over legs" because people in front (including Sellers on the last one) are being blown up but again - beside the point.

The Players lost that game, not the play calls!

It was a combination but ...

... while we LEAD OR WERE TIED in the 2nd half 6 runs 4 passes. Those series began RUN, PASS (behind line for a 4 yard loss), RUN, RUN.

We started passing again AFTER we fell behind.

DarthMonk wrote:2nd game mix stayed exactly the same in both halves. That's the point. Of course we ran more in the 2nd game, very windy. But our mix did not change half to half like in the first game where we went into a 2nd half shell until falling behind.

What are you talking about? We ran way more in the second half of the second Giants game, because Collins was picking up first downs.

The facts. 10 runs and 7 passes before kneel down time in a very windy 2nd half. The first half mix was 18 runs and 19 passes. That is maintaining aggression until you've really put them away.

In the first game we threw the ball 19 times to 5 runs in the second half.

Again, 6 runs and 4 passes UNTIL WE FELL BEHIND AGAIN. Then, down 7 points with 5:25 to go we threw 15 straight times (and moved the ball against a team with a great pass rush that knew we had to throw) and then ran 3 times at the end.

Come on dude, just admit it, you picked the wrong three games to try to prove out how you felt. The facts just aren’t on your side.

As you should be able to see - they are!!

The facts clearly show that in the 1st Giants game we went into a shell UNTIL WE FELL BEHANID AGAIN. You cherry picked the fact that we passed a lot in that 2nd half while ignoring the fact that almost all the passes ocurred after we fell behind. While leading or tied we were ULTRA CONSERVATIVE - those series began RUN, PASS (behind line for a 4 yard loss), RUN, RUN.

The facts clearly show that in the 2nd Giants game our mix was almost a perfet 50/50 throughout until kneel down time. While maintaining this mix we added to our point total.

I am moving a little toward your position of bad execution but I picked perfect games to illustrate that my point is valid and sound though perhaps not the entire story.

One final point - applying Occam's Razor, one coach getting conservative with a lead (historic fact) is a much simpler explanation than a team full of people executing well in one half and then executing poorly in the next.

DarthMonk

DM,
I'll agree that we won't agree.

I see that we went conservative for a series or two, but I still say that game, like most of our losses came down to poor execution or turn overs much more than poor play calling. And of course we have the second Philly and first Dallas game that the D blew big 4th 1/4 leads.

Could the play calling have been more argressive than it was? Sure! Of course if we had run every down in the Bills game after we scored the TD that put us at 16 then we would have won that game. Yeah, I know that would have resulted in a punt fest, but it also would have resulted in a win!