Time Management

[DarthMonk]

I have found Gibbs to be weak in time management since returning. You have all seen the wasted time outs. But there is more. Before I go on I say Gibbs is an excellent coach - but no one is perfect - not even me! Anyway, QBs make bad throws, runners, cough it up, and refs make bad calls. I need Joe to recognize a weakness and work on it. I will not say we lost the game because of what I am about to explain but it's one of the reasons. Running on 3rd and 2 with 2:40 left was a STRATEGIC ERROR. If there are 50 seconds left it is the right call. An unsuccessful run takes it down under 10 seconds before we punt. If we are at midfield running MIGHT be the right call. The extra 40 seconds burned compared to a clock stopping incomplete MIGHT matter if we are about to punt them down to their 10 yard line. But when a punt gives them the ball at midfield, 40 seconds out of 2:40 is not relevant. Heck, they left us almost a full minute as it was. Given the field position, TIME WAS NOT A FACTOR AND GIBBS SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR THE BEST CHANCE AT A 1ST DOWN AND NOT THOUGHT ABOUT TIME AT ALL.

[The Hogster]

I have found Gibbs to be weak in time management since returning. You have all seen the wasted time outs. But there is more. Before I go on I say Gibbs is an excellent coach - but no one is perfect - not even me! Anyway, QBs make bad throws, runners, cough it up, and refs make bad calls. I need Joe to recognize a weakness and work on it. I will not say we lost the game because of what I am about to explain but it's one of the reasons. Running on 3rd and 2 with 2:40 left was a STRATEGIC ERROR. If there are 50 seconds left it is the right call. An unsuccessful run takes it down under 10 seconds before we punt. If we are at midfield running MIGHT be the right call. The extra 40 seconds burned compared to a clock stopping incomplete MIGHT matter if we are about to punt them down to their 10 yard line. But when a punt gives them the ball at midfield, 40 seconds out of 2:40 is not relevant. Heck, they left us almost a full minute as it was. Given the field position, TIME WAS NOT A FACTOR AND GIBBS SHOULD HAVE GONE FOR THE BEST CHANCE AT A 1ST DOWN AND NOT THOUGHT ABOUT TIME AT ALL.

Hindsight is 20/20 and bottom line is the call was made and didn't work. I suppose you didn't see the Eagles/Cowboys game where the Eagles followed your logic and tried to throw the ball for a first down and got it intercepted.

The Redskins had rushed for over 200 yards against the Bucs, it was not 'the wrong call' as you call it to try and run for two yards.

If we convert the run into a first down this is not even an issue. We had converted an earlier 4th and 2 with a pass to ey...we could have tried a variatio of that play then, but who knows if we convert.

This game is over and there is really no productive reason to second guess every little play call, penalty etc.

[Irn-Bru]

Welcome to the board, DarthMonk.


I agree with you on this one. Going for the first down on a pass is a 'risky' call but the benefits far outweighed the consequences in this case.

[The Hogster]

Keep in mind, a call is only the wrong call when it doesn't work.

We had already run playaction in a similar situation earlier. And had a pass picked off on our quick hitch. If we pass again and the team anticipates it, then we would all be saying "why didn't we elect to run...they expected us to do the same thing...etc etc".

I think the call was right, but the execution was wrong. Portis was torching them on the ground all day...we should have been able to gain 2 yards there.

[Irn-Bru]

Keep in mind, a call is only the wrong call when it doesn't work.

We had already run playaction in a similar situation earlier. And had a pass picked off on our quick hitch. If we pass again and the team anticipates it, then we would all be saying "why didn't we elect to run...they expected us to do the same thing...etc etc".

I think the call was right, but the execution was wrong. Portis was torching them on the ground all day...we should have been able to gain 2 yards there.

I still think the benefits of passing outweigh the risks. We've thrown on 3rd and 2 all year and have consistently made them. I don't think a team has yet figured out how to stop our passes into the flat.

Yes, Portis had been running well, too. Gibbs went with Portis. Hindsight is 20/20 and so on, but put me as a coach in that situation and I think I'd pass it, given the history of this year's offense.

[DarthMonk]

Hogster: You are missing many of my points.

This is NOT about hindsight. I was saying make the best call for a 1st down WHILE I WAS WAITING FOR THE PLAY TO HAPPEN. Burning 40 seconds given the total situation was not important.

I DID see the Eagle's game but that situation was different in many ways and using my logic would NOT have told the Eagles to pass. There was more time and they were near midfield among other things.

We HAD rushed for 200 but in Gibbs' own words he ran becuase of clock considerations which I say were irrelevant given the field position and the amount of time left. Since Gruden and company KNEW the run was coming it was much easier to stop.

You make my point for me when you talk about converting. Running there is a strategic error whether we convert or not. If we convert we are fortunate, I am still unhappy with the decision if it was made with time in mind, but I'm happy we won. Running was about burning clock and we left them plenty of time anyway as we only punted to around midfield. All we were really doing (ironically) was limiting OUR time in the event they scored (which they did).

I'm not 2nd guessing anything - especially every little play call. etc as you say. I'm pointing out an example of a Gibbs weakness that needs work. And contrary to what you say, there IS a productive reason to point out a weakness - to recognize it and improve it so we win more. Gibbs himself says it starts with him. Time management is a place he can make personal progress.

I still think he's a great coach.

Moving to your 2nd reply - the decision to run is wrong whether it works or not if that dies\cision in that situation was based on time which Gibbs says it was. Sometimes the wrong decision turns out OK. Sometimes it doesn't. My analysis has nothing to do with the play succeeding. My analysis is about the reason for the decision. I disagree with Gibbs' premise that burnnig 40 sec with an unsuccessful run makes it the better call. Again, It WOULD BE THE BETTER CALL with 50 sec left but not with 2:40 near your own 20 in a 7 point game.

[DarthMonk]

Welcome to the board, DarthMonk.


I agree with you on this one. Going for the first down on a pass is a 'risky' call but the benefits far outweighed the consequences in this case.

Thanks for the welcome.

[DEHog]

Your only second guessed when your wrong!! Remember the first game of the season?? We did the same thing and won, of course a agrument can be made that we were'nt stoping them etc..We made so many mistakes in the TB in my mind the only mistake on this play was not getting the first down...Jansen even said it Monday night thay fully expected to gain the two yards and that the O-line feels responable for the lost. As already mentioned...Think the Eagles would like to have that throw back??

[The Hogster]

Since I didn't do it before, welcome to the board Darth. The basic premise of your post while seemingly intelligent in hindsight, is still inherently inconsistent. You are claiming that Gruden 'knew' we were going to run in that situation. Based on what? As mentioned earlier, we had been passing in that situation all game, and all year for that matter. You don't think the Bucs have film of what types of plays we run in that situation? Even assuming that they weren't prepared for a pass, we had gone for 4th and 2 earlier in the same quarter with a play action pass to ey in the flats.

What you are doing is working backward with information that the coaches didn't have at the time. Like I said, you gain 200 yards on the ground and our quarterback has fumbled twice and thrown an interception in short yardage already. In your personal opinion the clock is irrelevant. Well, considering the offense we run, pounding out 2 yards to run the clock out seems to be a decent decision that didn't work. I don't think, as you seem to, that there is a "right" call in that situation. The 'right call is the one that works'. Sure Gibbs was considering the clock, but that was not the only factor Darth. If it were 3rd and 7 I don't think Gibbs would have run just to run 40 seconds off. It was under 3 minutes left, we had been more successful on the ground, we wanted to run some clock, and had passed in a similar situation earlier.

The bottom line is the play didn't work. But that is not neccessarily indicative of a 'weakness' in Gibbs that he must change for us to win games. I point our weaknesses as well, but considering the fact that he had no idea that 1) Frost would shank a 37 yard punt and 2) we would give up an explosion play, 3) we would get penalties on the Point After 4) they would go for 2. Your argument that it was a strategic error is not very fair to the reality of the situation.

We witnessed a highly unlikely scenario. Even if they score, they are kicking the PAT as they lined up to do. What happened after couldn't have been predicted by anyone short of Nastradamus.

Time management has not been an issue this season. Last year there were issues with Timeouts etc that were questionable, but considering Gibbs was tinkering with the challenges and all, that was to be expected.

All in all, we have been superb on 3rd down. The only time people say 'strategic error' is when a play doens't work. On 3rd and long, that coach that calls a draw play that gains just enough for a first down looks genius. But when that play doesn't work, the whole world says "Why call a draw in that situtaion." There is no Rosetta Stone with 'right and wrong' plays for every situation. Sometimes they work, sometimes not. That was all there was too it, we came up 6 inches short...nothing more nothing less.

[hkHog]

I agree that Portis was playing great but this year we have had absolutley no luck grinding the ball out. Just look at the Philly game where we almost lost. Our o-line just isn't good enough to do that when the defense knows a running play is coming. I think our most dangerous play in that situation is a screen to Sellers or ey. That play seems almost automatic.

[cvillehog]

Your posts makes the assumption that calling a running play there is equivalent to not trying for a first down. If you get the first down, who cares how you did it? Conversely, if you don't get the first down, obviously you should've called a different play.

Also, if we had even a half-decent punt in that situation, the time run off the clock would've been much more effective.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Also, if we had even a half-decent punt in that situation, the time run off the clock would've been much more effective.

You're onto something there. cville.

CUT DERRICK FROST!!!!

[Chris Luva Luva]

Thank goodness someone else feels it was completely stupid to not go for that 1st down via air at least once.

[cvillehog]

Thank goodness someone else feels it was completely stupid to not go for that 1st down via air at least once.

Yeah, maybe we could have Betts come out of the flat and then drop the pass.

[The Hogster]

There are a lot of coaches on this site all of a sudden. The play didn't work...period. No one knows what the perfect play would have been regardless to how great of a head coach we believe we are.

3rd and 2 is not a definite passing down...a run or a pass could work in that situation...especially when Portis was averaging 6.3
yards a carry. To say it was stupid is pure hindsight, speculation, Monday morning quarterbacking etc. I doubt anyone would have even brought up that play if Portis dashes off tackle for a 3 yard gain.

The same theme applies to the Bucs...we all know Alstott didn't get in, but because the refs called it a score, everyone says "Gruden is brilliant, gutsy...blah blach blah" Now if he doesn't get in, people say "what a stupid decision".

We can't ride the fence...we should have gotten the 2 yards...plain and simple. If it were 3rd and 4 or 5, then we definitely should pass, but when you've ran as well as we did there, you can't all of a sudden think that 2 yards is impossible to get.

[joebagadonuts]

i can't blame gibbs for running the ball, but i would have liked to have seen a play fake and a boot, with brunell having the option to run or pass.

[aswas71788]

As already said, hindsight is perfect but this thread makes for a nice discussion. What would you have done if we could have called the play?

Me, I would still have run. The only change would have been to use the type of play that Sellers scored his first touchdown with. Just because the other team knows what is coming doesn't mean it will fail. Everyone knew that Riggins was coming on short yardage and that he was coming inside. The only question was, which side and could they get enough men to stop him?

Portis is a gifted running back but he is not built for this type of inside power play. Someone with bulk is harder to stop on the inside.

Fantesy Football - How about putting Arrington in for an offensive play as a blocking back? Wouldn't that be interesting? LOL!!!

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Fantesy Football - How about putting Arrington in for an offensive play as a blocking back? Wouldn't that be interesting? LOL!!!

I'm not sold on that idea. After all, he might go for the highlight reel "pancake" and *WHIFF*. :-"

[The Hogster]

As already said, hindsight is perfect but this thread makes for a nice discussion. What would you have done if we could have called the play?

Me, I would still have run. The only change would have been to use the type of play that Sellers scored his first touchdown with. Just because the other team knows what is coming doesn't mean it will fail. Everyone knew that Riggins was coming on short yardage and that he was coming inside. The only question was, which side and could they get enough men to stop him?

Portis is a gifted running back but he is not built for this type of inside power play. Someone with bulk is harder to stop on the inside.

Fantesy Football - How about putting Arrington in for an offensive play as a blocking back? Wouldn't that be interesting? LOL!!!

I would have run in that situation. But maybe run out of a more spread formation. Put three receivers out there so the Bucs had to play pass..and run a stretch play or a power sweep.

Who knows if that would have worked. There are several plays both runs and passes that could have worked, the point is its impossible to know now...the right call is the one that works.

[joebagadonuts]

Fantesy Football - How about putting Arrington in for an offensive play as a blocking back? Wouldn't that be interesting? LOL!!!

I'm not sold on that idea. After all, he might go for the highlight reel "pancake" and *WHIFF*. :-"

actually, he would have done a lavar leap right over the linebacker filling the hole!

[KPrince1975]

Gibbs & Co. are 100% better at time management than last year. Joe Gibbs has progressed this year, the offense has, and next year will be even better. The Redskins will progress until we win a Super Bowl. It isn't rocket science, it's Gibb's Science.

[DarthMonk]

Since I didn't do it before, welcome to the board Darth.

THANKS.

The basic premise of your post while seemingly intelligent in hindsight, is still inherently inconsistent. You are claiming that Gruden 'knew' we were going to run in that situation. Based on what?

BASED ON HISTORY AND GIBBS STATED PHILOSOPHY. AFTER THE GAME I SPECIFICALLY HEARD GIBBS SAY "I WASN'T GONNA THROW THRE AND RISK GIVING THEM ANOTHER 4O SEC." MY WHOLE ARGUEMENT IS THAT THAT IS A BAD RESON AT THAT MOMENT.

As mentioned earlier, we had been passing in that situation all game,

NO NO NO!!! THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME ALL DAY WE HAD A 7 POINT LEAD WITH 2:40 TO GO AT OUR OWN 20. THIS SITUATION HD NOT COME UP YEY ... ALL GAME OR ALL YAER.

and all year for that matter. You don't think the Bucs have film of what types of plays we run in that situation?

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE. GIBBS RUB=NS HERE EVERYTIME BASED ON CLOCK.

Even assuming that they weren't prepared for a pass, we had gone for 4th and 2 earlier in the same quarter with a play action pass to ey in the flats.

THEREFORE .... ?

What you are doing is working backward with information that the coaches didn't have at the time.

NOT AT ALL. I AM WORKING WITH A PREMISE AND A CALM THEY DID NOT HAVE AT THE TIME. IT WAS MY VIEW THAT 40 SEC WAS NOT NEARLY AS VITAL AS THEY THOUGHT IT WAS.

Like I said, you gain 200 yards on the ground and our quarterback has fumbled twice and thrown an interception in short yardage already. In your personal opinion the clock is irrelevant. Well, considering the offense we run, pounding out 2 yards to run the clock out seems to be a decent decision that didn't work.

IT CLEARLY DIDN'T WORK. I'M NOT EVEN SAYING THE CALL WAS WRONG. I'M SAYING THINKING 40 SEC WOULD HINDER THEM FROM MIDFIELD WAS WRONG.

I don't think, as you seem to, that there is a "right" call in that situation.

THE RIGHT CALL WAS TO GO FOR A 1ST DOWN WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT THE CLOCK ...

was not the only factor Darth. If it were 3rd and 7 I don't think Gibbs would have run just to run 40 seconds off.

I DO. AS I HEARD HIM SAY ON THE RADIO "I WASN'T GONNA THROW AN INCOMPLETE THERE AND GIVE 'EM ANOTHER 40 SEC."

It was under 3 minutes left, we had been more successful on the ground, we wanted to run some clock, and had passed in a similar situation earlier.

AGAIN, VERY DIS SIMILAR BECAUSE OF TIME, FIELD POSITION, LEAD, ETC.

The bottom line is the play didn't work. But that is not neccessarily indicative of a 'weakness' in Gibbs that he must change for us to win games.

I AGREE. AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT IT DIDN'T WORK. i THINK HE ATTACHED TO MUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE CLOCK ON THAT DECISION.

I point our weaknesses as well, but considering the fact that he had no idea that 1) Frost would shank a 37 yard punt and

NET 37 IS NOT A BAD PUNT AND THERE WAS NO RETURN.

2) we would give up an explosion play,

HAD GIVEN UP MANY AND THERE WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIIME TO SCORE WITHOUT ONE.

3) we would get penalties on the Point After

ALL YEAR.

4) they would go for 2.

BY THE WAY ... THE FACT THAT WE TRIED FOR 2 EARLIER WAS A MISTAKE TOO.

Your argument that it was a strategic error is not very fair to the reality of the situation.

IT IS BASED TOTALY ON THE REALITY AND I WAS YELLINIG AT THE TV TO NOT RUN FOR THE SAKE OF CLOCK BEFORE THE BALL WAS SNAPPED.


We witnessed a highly unlikely scenario. Even if they score, they are kicking the PAT as they lined up to do. What happened after couldn't have been predicted by anyone short of Nastradamus.

I AGREE COMPLETE. DON'T TRY TO PREDICT. ASSESS THE SITUATION AND VALUE CLOCK FOR WHAT IT IS.

Time management has not been an issue this season.

YES IT HAS. WE HAVE WASTED TIMEOUTS AND BLEW THIS PLAY.

Last year there were issues with Timeouts etc that were questionable, but considering Gibbs was tinkering with the challenges and all, that was to be expected.

All in all, we have been superb on 3rd down. The only time people say 'strategic error' is when a play doens't work.

I DISAGREE. THE WRONG CALL WORKS SOMETIMES.

On 3rd and long, that coach that calls a draw play that gains just enough for a first down looks genius. But when that play doesn't work, the whole world says "Why call a draw in that situtaion." There is no Rosetta Stone with 'right and wrong' plays for every situation. Sometimes they work, sometimes not.

WORKING IS THE BOGUS REASON TO CALL IT RIGHT. YOU DON'T WANNA LIVE THERE. YOU DON'T WANT TO DEFEND BONEHEAD DECISIONS WITH "WELL, IT WORKED" DO YOU?

That was all there was too it, we came up 6 inches short...nothing more nothing less.

I'M NOT EVEN SAYING THIS DECIDED THE GAME. BUT IT'S A PLACE I FEEL GIBBS CAN IMPROVE.

[The Hogster]

I would try and respond to your post, but basically you are taking my opinions and rebutting them with variations of "I disagree, therefore I am right."

To sum up your premise in short is basically that you don't thik that the play that works was the right call. You think that there is a hard, bright line rule that you should always throw the ball on 3rd and 2 when there is greater than a minute left in the game and we are in our own territory.

I don't think that reasoning holds much water, but thats my opinion. I don't think that you ALWAYS run any type of play in a certian situation. You have to see what the defense has been doing, what has been working, and what is best given the time left in the game. Also, the 11 guys on the other side of the ball get paid too...they beat us at the point of attack...period.

In my opinion, thats the rational way to look at things. You can't really believe that you ALWAYS run a certain play in a certain situation.

When you are trying to run the clock out with a lead, you absolutely pay attention to the clock.

Gibbs made a decision to run the ball. Clinton was only averaging 6.3 per carry.

This is the NFC East. Running for two yards to seal a victory is not 'abnormal'. TO say that trying to convert on the ground was not 'going for the first down' is slightly irrational within itself.

No sane person would say a Double reverse in that situation, or a flea flicker, or even a QB sneak would be the right call, that would be a so called 'bonehead" decision. But running Portis off tackle to try and gain 2 yards is hardly boneheaded.

What is boneheaded is to take a footbal game (one of the best games this year) and take that 1 play and think that it cost us the game, or that it indicates that Gibbs needs to manage the clock much better.

It is your personal opinion, and your opinion alone that says passing is "right" in that situation. Obviuosly a HOF Head Coach disagreed...the play didn't work for enough yards...but neither you or anyone else can declare with any certainty that a pass would have.

All of this complaining is really moot and makes no sense whatsoever, after all the entire world except for the referee knows that Alstott was stopped short. We won the game 34-35. But if you insist on singling out that play, then fair enough. But keep in mind there are two ways to skin a cat....opinions held by indidviduals don't make a certain premise right or wrong.

Can we talk about the Raiders??

[DarthMonk]

[quote="The Hogster"]I would try and respond to your post, but basically you are taking my opinions and rebutting them with variations of "I disagree, therefore I am right."

To sum up your premise in short is basically that you don't thik that the play that works was the right call. You think that there is a hard, bright line rule that you should always throw the ball on 3rd and 2 when there is greater than a minute left in the game and we are in our own territory.

REPLY:
This is completely wrong. You might note I NEVER said we should have passed. NEVER SAID IT! My entire point can be summed up as follows: Gibbs overvalues time in that situation. Again, in a nutshell, GIBBS OVERVALUES TIME IN THAT SITUATION. He probably would've not condsidered time with 10 mins left. 41 seconds remaining would DEMAND a kneel down. I don't think anyone would argue with those last two points. We were in between those times. I think he overvalued 40 seconds in this situation. Maybe I'm wrong but that is my view. Running may have been correct but NOT BASED ON TIME THEN WITH THAT FIELD POSITION AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

I have seen many games, particularly against the Eagles, where I prayed Reid would throw to leave us time, and he did. But it wasn't when they were ahead by 7 with 2:40 left and a punt would give it to us at midfield. There have been other games where I have said "If you let them get a first down here you better not let them run for it. It's all about the time left, the score, and the field position. They all fit together. If I had been a Tampa fan in this situation I'd've been saying "It's Gibbs. Almost 100% run here. Please don't pass."

Yeah, let's talk about the Raiders but please don't twist my words.

And I still say you don't want to live in the place where you defend bonehead decisions (not that this was that bad) by saying "Well, it worked." One final time, it's not that he ran, it's that he was gonna run no matter what cuz he thought 40 sec was so important.

And I know if we get the two yards the 40 sec is moot but he called upstairs for their best RUN, not thier best PLAY (which may have been a run).

[The Hogster]

This is completely wrong. You might note I NEVER said we should have passed. NEVER SAID IT!

Hmm...well in your initial post you said that "running was a Strategic Error"...so Im curious, what are you saying we should have done if you aren't saying we should have passed??? Im not twisting your words, they are plain as day.

Do you think we should have just punted on 3rd down or lined up for a 90 yard FG try? Or maybe Brunell should have went to the line and clocked the ball into the turf. You absolutely implied that we should have passed.

Now, if you've changed your mind, thats cool too. We're all Skins fans here. But I can just agree to disagree. If it were 3rd and long, then I would agree, but I think Joe Gibb's reputation as an offensive genius is intact.

We needed to run the clock out and force Tampa to use its timeouts. Only problem is in order to do that you have to convert on 3rd down. 2 yards was reasonable to gain on the ground...we didnt get it done and THAT is what we need to work on.

We should have converted the 3rd and 2...no other excuse. Im not defending a "bonehead decision" Im just not convinced that you have shown that trying to run for 2 yards qualifies as "boneheaded".