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

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/

Second-Half Misery, Quantified
I am off the rest of this week, but had a spare minute and figured I'd post one last time before starting a bit of a bye week break.

Was chewing over some numbers and called my friends at The Elais Sports Bureau to flush them out (they rock, great people, great resource, full credit to them always).

Anyway, we all know the Redskins have choked away their fair share of games since this staff took over in 2004. So I got to thinking how they stood up with other teams, and well, as in the overall W/L record the last 15 years or so, their company ain't pretty.

According to Elias, since 2004 the Redskins have 11 losses when leading at the half, which puts them ... worst in the NFL. Oakland (11) and Houston (10) are the only other teams with double-digit loss totals when leading at the half since Gibbs came back to the NFL.

Overall, Washington is a mediocre 15-11 in 26 games when leading at the half since 2004.

The Redskins used to be the team that got a lead and battered opponents like no one else in the game; now it's the opposite. The rosters aren't nearly as good, the front office not nearly as sound, and sawy what you will of ownership, game-day coaching decisions, what have you. Just pointing out the facts, as always make them what you will.

Also, wanted to give a big blog get well wish to former Skins D Lineman Cedric Killings - a great guy, tremendous self-made player and hard worker who filled some reserve duty here a few years back. He got hurt over the weekend for Houston and is said to be making a strong recovery.

Enjoy the bye week and catch back up with you next week.

Cheers.

-------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: I normally brush off whatever JLC has to say but he dug up some facts I thought were interesting. I honestly believe there is some truth to Gibbs playing scared. I'm not sure about you guys but being spoken in the same breath with the likes of Oakland and Houston is disappointing to say the least.

your disclaimer is blasphemous.... But it has some hint of truth.

The old wise man/men will get this turned around, and before we know it we will be ranting about wins again. Hail Skins

EDIT: Blasphemous meaning anything bad either said or implied is blasphemous (to me). Blind Faith? yes, I will go down with the Old man, just like I went down for lesser beings like Spurrier, Norval, etc.

There's truth to what JLC is saying here.

JLC also believes that if the Redskins would run the ball 40 times they would win the game. (Yeah, like that was working in the 2nd half).

In other words, any correlation between JLC and the truth should be seen as strictly accidental. I've got a clock at home that's right twice a day. . .


But what he said here was true, IMO.

It all sounds about right to me. Nothing comes to mind that can argue with these statements, even without facts. I wish it weren't true, but it appears that it is.

I want a second opinion.

I think that I have to agree with you on this. I was talking about this on Sunday that Gibbs is affraid to run up the score against the other team, and that he has a hard time putting the other team away early because he does not want to embarass the other team, however when you are 2-0 and have a chance to go 3-0 then you need to put the game away and that they did not do.

I don't know what accounts for that stat, but it is BRUTAL.

I didn't know Oakland and Houston even had 10 leads to blow since 2004. Being a member of this club really stinks. How does a team cancel its membership?

ahahahha GS, I second that!!!!

As soon as the other team's feelings come into play, you need to stop calling plays and leading the team. The only time I can see not going for a TD is when you can kneel your way through the last moments of the 4th quarter. Other than that, since when has trying to score points become a no-no in professional football?

Gibbs wants to play "Redskin football" which, in the past was hard-nosed, smash-mouth, pounding the other team. Now we play scared when we're up, blow multi-TD leads, and go to lengths not to make our opponents feel bad. I hope this isn't a continuing trend.

I wonder if Saunders would have let us play "Mommas don't let your babies grow up to be Cowboys" when we were destroying Dallas?

GSPODS wrote:I didn't know Oakland and Houston even had 10 leads to blow since 2004. Being a member of this club really stinks. How does a team cancel its membership?

If I had to guess a cancelled membership would require 1 of 2 things or maybe both. Not sucking or not playing scared in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

This pattern of not putting teams away has an underlying message to me that Joe Gibbs does not completely trust his offense. With the holes in the Giants secondary and JC's ability to run if necessary, they should have been exploited on numerous occassions in the second half to sustain drives and give our defense so rest. Run the ball on first down. Depending on the yardage gained, if it is second and long, go play action and find either ey or ARE across the middle or in the flats or tuck and run. Desperate times call for desperate measures and if that meant putting JC on his horse and telling him to run then so be it.

It's like this the coaches completely go away from what got us our leads in the first place. I don't know if that is Al or Joe but it really needs to stop if we want to be successful. I know it has to be extremely frustrating for Moss, ARE, and even Lloyd that we have all of this speed at WR and we are not utilizing it. We showed that Moss could get behind the Giants' secondary on several occassions but we stop going there. I'm not saying pass deep on every down but at least take more shots to lesson up underneath and the running game. The first half, the Giants were completely confused and befuddled and in the second half, we did nothing to continue that......

Gibbs was asked on Bram's show today whether or not the Giants made any adjustments. He said no, it was all on us and our inability to execute. BUNK!!! We didn't call what we called on in the first half and we got conservative.....

What an alarming stat! OUCH...I don't want to be in ANY category with Oakland and Houston........

Thanks for the info!

I don't know if anybody in here will agree with me but I don't see the Redskins spreading the ball to all receivers and getting them all involved. They need to open it up a little bit more and throw the ball down the field.

Overall, Washington is a mediocre 15-11 in 26 games when leading at the half since 2004.

That is a dreadful statistic.

GSPODS wrote:I want a second opinion.

You got it.

Honestly i totally agree with this. This team has lacked the killer instinct. It seems liek when they go up by 7 or 10 points, you can sense a change in the team like they let up or think they've won the game. When they have a team on the ropes they need to put their foot on their throat and finish them. I dont know if its because gibbs has preached that every game is "going to be a battle and super close" and its ingrained that they cant blow a team out, but we need some serious killer instinct.

The difference between this Redskins team and the good ones of old, the old teams never let up, whereas this team tries to nurse even the smallest of leads. My philosophy is, if it's working, don't change what you're doing. In other words, even if you get a lead, don't go into any type of a prevent anything. Keep playing the way you were playing when you were having success. This team doesn't do that.

After the game, Coughlin was all proud of himself about how he 'figured out what the Redskins were doing', made a few adjustments, and won the game. It looked to me like what he did was put 9 guys in the box on first down to stop the Joe Gibbs' predictable run up the middle, then wait for the predictable play-action on second down, which he was ready to defense. Then put in a strong rush on third down and it's three and out.

The fact is, that with this team, we don't have a strong offensive line so a predictable 1st down run up the gut is just playing into the defense's hands. We don't have enough good receivers to consistently get good plays on second or third and long.

This was a problem with Philly also, but fortunately their offense was not good enough to beat us. New York's was.

old-timer wrote:After the game, Coughlin was all proud of himself about how he 'figured out what the Redskins were doing', made a few adjustments, and won the game. It looked to me like what he did was put 9 guys in the box on first down to stop the Joe Gibbs' predictable run up the middle, then wait for the predictable play-action on second down, which he was ready to defense. Then put in a strong rush on third down and it's three and out.

While that description works for the first Redskins' drive in the second half, it doesn't match anything else that they ran.

The fact is, that with this team, we don't have a strong offensive line so a predictable 1st down run up the gut is just playing into the defense's hands.

So how does a reverse, or a swing pass to the outside, or a run to the outside sound? Those were some of our first down plays in the second half, outside of our final drive.

The bottom line is that the play-calling wasn't too bad in the 2nd half. . .but the Redskins couldn't execute a single play. Outside of the final two plays I don't see much room for criticizing the playcalling. It would also have helped if our defense could have stopped the Giants outside of the last 5 minutes of the game. Rythm was as much a problem as anything else.

We don't have enough good receivers to consistently get good plays on second or third and long.

This was a problem with Philly also, but fortunately their offense was not good enough to beat us. New York's was.

I agree and certainly hope that they can get those 2nd down or 3rd down plays on track. We are still very high, statistically speaking, on our 3rd down offense. One bad half cost us a game, but I think there is hope for the future.

old-timer wrote:The fact is, that with this team, we don't have a strong offensive line so a predictable 1st down run up the gut is just playing into the defense's hands. We don't have enough good receivers to consistently get good plays on second or third and long.

I'm not buyin' that. This team has plenty good enough players. It's the play calling that's the problem. When the other team knows exactly what you're going to do (which the other team does because the Skins do the exact same thing in every game when they get a lead), it doesn't matter how good your players are, they ain't gonna get it done. This team needs to stop going to a run run pass punt offense whenever they get a lead. They need to mix it up a bit, stay aggressive, and keep the defense guessing. If not, they're just gonna keep losing.

Irn-Bru wrote:

old-timer wrote:After the game, Coughlin was all proud of himself about how he 'figured out what the Redskins were doing', made a few adjustments, and won the game. It looked to me like what he did was put 9 guys in the box on first down to stop the Joe Gibbs' predictable run up the middle, then wait for the predictable play-action on second down, which he was ready to defense. Then put in a strong rush on third down and it's three and out.

While that description works for the first Redskins' drive in the second half, it doesn't match anything else that they ran.

The fact is, that with this team, we don't have a strong offensive line so a predictable 1st down run up the gut is just playing into the defense's hands.

So how does a reverse, or a swing pass to the outside, or a run to the outside sound? Those were some of our first down plays in the second half, outside of our final drive.

The bottom line is that the play-calling wasn't too bad in the 2nd half. . .but the Redskins couldn't execute a single play. Outside of the final two plays I don't see much room for criticizing the playcalling. It would also have helped if our defense could have stopped the Giants outside of the last 5 minutes of the game. Rythm was as much a problem as anything else.

We don't have enough good receivers to consistently get good plays on second or third and long.

This was a problem with Philly also, but fortunately their offense was not good enough to beat us. New York's was.

I agree and certainly hope that they can get those 2nd down or 3rd down plays on track. We are still very high, statistically speaking, on our 3rd down offense. One bad half cost us a game, but I think there is hope for the future.

I fault the play-calling because Gibbs does not seem to be aware of the limitations of the talent on this team. We have lost two starting offensive linemen, and we do not have pro-caliber backups. Moss may or may not be as good as Gary Clark and Randle-el may become as good as Sanders, but we have no-one even close to Art Monk.

Really, we should have lost the Philly game due to the poor offensive playcalling, but as the announcers kept pointing out, their receivers blow and their QB was consistently missing open receivers.

My basic problem with the offense is that Gibbs should be calling more play-action on first down. Our line is so bad that teams basically laugh when we call a screen. When was the last time we ran a successful screen?

I saw the Cowboys demolish St. Louis today. Based on the way our respective teams are playing, I expect they will demolish us too, in both games.

Well, that should save you the trouble of watching those games then

Fios wrote:Well, that should save you the trouble of watching those games then

Just calling it like I see it. Are you gonna cry?

I see you're not supporting Brunell anymore. You must have been the last guy doing that.

Yes, I'm weeping about it, you've mortally wounded me. I have no idea what you mean by my support for Brunell. How does my not wanting the team to cut or trade him have any bearing on this? I'll wait patiently while you scroll through my posts and realize you have no idea what you're talking about.

Fios wrote:Yes, I'm weeping about it, you've mortally wounded me. I have no idea what you mean by my support for Brunell. How does my not wanting the team to cut or trade him have any bearing on this? I'll wait patiently while you scroll through my posts and realize you have no idea what you're talking about.

I do believe I have the right poster. I'm not going to scroll through all of your posts, but if I'm wrong, I apologize. If I recall correctly, however, you got quite indignant when I said, right before Campbell was named the starter, that you have to be smoking something if you can't see that Brunell is done. I stand by that.