One Decision Overlooked!

It was the right call to go for it. A 50 yard attempt on a sloppy track would have been dumb.I think if you felt that your team couldn't get one and a half yards running between the tackles, you should have kicked the field goal.

Now, that doesn't mean I thought we should have run between the tackles without thinking about it. 4th and short is usually a great time to go to the end zone off play action. The point is that we obviously didn't think we would get the first down if we ran between that tackles. Or at least Saunders didn't. That's why we ran a combination route to Betts in the flat.

Here's how the sideline conversation should have gone:

Gibbs: "What do you think about running Portis off the left guard here?"

Saunders: "I think that they will be ready for it, and I don't trust the injured line to get a push."

Gibbs then sends out the field goal unit.

Or it could have gone like this:

Gibbs: "What do you think about running Portis off the left guard here?"

Saunders: "Could work, but I'd like to take a shot now. If they bite, we could win the game right here."

And Gibbs sends out the offense.

Instead we pretty much spend two timeouts and run the worst play call possible. And Campbell too, he shouldn't throw that pass when it clearly isn't there. Come off that guy and go to your second read.

Now, that isn't what lost us the game at all, but still a major f-up by the offensive coaching staff.

If you know anything about football you would know a play has multiple reads. Those are options, like in Madden. Remember all those routes?? The ones that are orange are primary reads, and the rest are nonprimary. So it falls on Campbell, because he is suppose to read the coverage and notice Sellers was not open.

I really don't think is any room to criticize the coaching staff on that call, all Campbells fault.

Maybe you could chalk that one up to inexperience. Sellers was his first read and he dumped it off to him immediately. McCardell was his second read, was wide open in the flat, and probably could have had at least a 10-15 gain. I'd blame that one play on JC maybe, but he did too many other things right to hamper on that one decision...

Maybe you could chalk that one up to inexperience. Sellers was his first read and he dumped it off to him immediately. McCardell was his second read, was wide open in the flat, and probably could have had at least a 10-15 gain. I'd blame that one play on JC maybe, but he did too many other things right to hamper on that one decision...

Oh I am not talking about the entire game. Just that one play. I think Campbell did good overall. Just bad execution by other players. Aka wide receivers and perhaps backs.

SC Skins, I understand your logic, but look at it this way, we challenge the spot, it gets overturned, the Skins pick up an extra yard or yard and a half, they STILL get charged a timeout because they don't get the first, but now you have 4th a 1/2 and not 4th and 2. Net result.... you gained 1 yard to 1 1/2 yards during the timeout you were going to take anyway? Ok, I saw this and thought this during the game, not now on Monday afternoon. I don't get paid millions to tell Gibbs to challenge, but someone does!!! Why don't they see these things that we all see?

I still think some of you don't understand the Challenge Rule. If you challenge and they change the spot you are NOT charged a timeout. If you get a challenge right there is not a timeout, but you get all that time to come up with a play, even more time then a timeout. It doesn't matter hwether or not you get the first down that is not what you challenge, you can challenge a spot anytime you want. If you get it wrong you use a timeout you were going to call anyway, it is thinking like that gets us killed, why not gamble for an extra yard and more time when you have NOTHING to lose.

Maybe you could chalk that one up to inexperience. Sellers was his first read and he dumped it off to him immediately. McCardell was his second read, was wide open in the flat, and probably could have had at least a 10-15 gain. I'd blame that one play on JC maybe, but he did too many other things right to hamper on that one decision...Just so we're all on the same page, Betts was the first read in the flat, and McCardell was the second read on the slant. I agree that JC made his decision to go with the first read too quickly, and McCardell would have made good yardage after the catch. One thing about Campbell, he will watch the film today, and learn from it. I'm amazed at how many quick, accurate reads he makes after so few starts, even in the face of a killer pass rush.

I still maintain my stance against the reverse - the most likely guy to slip on a wet field when the reverse is called is the ball carrier, because he's going full speed and has to make the hardest cut to turn the ball upfield. Lastly, I hate it when Saunders has to revert to trickery when we're driving with momentum.

Of course had it worked we'd all be hailing Saunders as a genius for calling a play nobody would have expected.

Of course had it worked we'd all be hailing Saunders as a genius for calling a play nobody would have expected.

Exactly. People need to lay off the hate. If our players executed we would have won the game. Easily. Stop finding easy excuses people.

Look, fellas. Gibbs went for it on 4th. The play call has a number of options for Campbell. Watch the play again. He makes the wrong read. MacCardell is wide open on the screen and jumps up and down in frustration after the play. That's the young QB going with a read that worked last week--hello, everyone just forget that????--and should have come off to the slant (which of course, also worked last week for 30 something yards to ARE).

I don't see a fault in the playcalling--you had one wide open WR, and then you had a running back with the ball one on one against an LB, where you needed two yards. We didn't execute. Full stop.

Totally agree about the spot, and the reffing in general--just horrible. That "double foul" was one of the most dubious calls I've EVER seen. I can't recall that sort of thing. If there's contact, and both players push, and then the WR makes a catch, here's an idea: KEEP THE FRIGGIN FLAG IN YOUR POCKET! (That was just one of many very questionable things...)

HORRIBLE spot, I agree. But remember when Green Bay challenged the spot against the Bears last week. They moved the ball but GB still didn't pick up the first down and they were still charged a time out. I can't remember the reason (even though Mike Perrara gave his 'yes man' evaluation on NFLN last week). Would would the same rule have applied had Gibbs decided to challenge because Cooley probably didn't have the first down. The time out clearly made no sense. Not that it mattered the way the Skins couldn't move the ball at the end.

because i think it was something like it did not make it a first down. because when you challenge that you are basically challenging to try for a first down which in this case the spot was wrong but not enough to give them a first down..
But still why not challenge it hell you still get charged a time out. but you will have a longer time out with them reviewing it and give you more time to figure out plays and not rush to it. yeah i know it gives the def a time out to rest too but shouldnt rush when making a decision that will cost you the game. I would have gone for the FG i know it would have been a long 50yd but didnt suish make one that long before. or atleast line up to try and draw them offsides as i stated in another post. no worries about the center cuz rabach wouldnt be in for a long snap. but on that play i dont see why JC didnt go to Keenan McCardell, who looked wide oopen to me.
I may not have worded it right but thats how i think it was.

Look, fellas. Gibbs went for it on 4th. The play call has a number of options for Campbell. Watch the play again. He makes the wrong read. MacCardell is wide open on the screen and jumps up and down in frustration after the play. That's the young QB going with a read that worked last week--hello, everyone just forget that????--and should have come off to the slant (which of course, also worked last week for 30 something yards to ARE).


Exactly!!! We could've had a huge gain on that play (if not scored) if Campbell had seen MacCardell. I mean he was completely wide open. Considering the injuries to our offensive line, it was a good call.