Re: 4th and short
 

i was screaming at the tv when they did'nt take the 3 pts. horrible call.

Re: 4th and short
 

I don't mind the aggressive call- i agree that it may not have been the right time for it, turning a two possession game into one, but what happend? we failed (all good teams should get a foot), and then we forced a 3 and out on the bucs possession, and then kicked a field goal. So really, we got out 3 points, and the one possession game, we just lost a few mins in the process. Gibbs was trying to make a statement, his team let him down.

Re: 4th and short
 

I have to say I agreed with the call, we really needed a touchdown and if we had converted we probably would have won.

Re: 4th and short
 

[quote=Daseal;382259]Im totally with hurrykaine. Gotta go with a QB sneak there, not an uber predictable run to the *gasp* left. I like the aggressive nature of the call.[/quote]I agree with this logic. They can look for the sneak all they want, but they can't prevent us from getting the first.

On the other hand, if we get a 4th down running play blocked up front, Portis ends up in the endzone on the play. Kendall needs to give a better effort than a simple lunge at Derrick Brooks.

Re: 4th and short
 

i definately respected the decision to go for it, would i have liked to have seen a QB sneak, yeah sure. But i wont fault Gibbs at all on this.

Re: 4th and short
 

I too disagreed with the call. That said, something tells me that if Gibbs had NOT gone for it and we had lost the game, people would be ripping him a new one for not having any cajones. You just can't please some people.

Re: 4th and short
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;382982]I too disagreed with the call. That said, something tells me that if Gibbs had NOT gone for it and we had lost the game, people would be ripping him a new one for not having any cajones. You just can't please some people.[/quote]


I would have been one of those people, however i WAS pleased that we went for it even though we didnt get it. They went 3 and out after that and it really didnt change the outcome of the game, we had plenty more opportunities.

Re: 4th and short
 

I've heard that Gibbs said they gave Campbell the option of running the sneak on that play, which would have been the right call. My question: why give Campbell the option?

That said, the OL performed miserably once again on a short yardage play. It seems to be something we just can't do. I wasn't surprised at all we couldn't gain a foot.

Just why we can't do it does escape me however. Maybe our OL just isn't strong enough to move anybody. We get no penetration at all time and time again.

Re: 4th and short
 

There is no toughness on this O-Line. I know a lot of our guys were hurt but we always got blown off the ball. The defense would always create a new line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped. This has happened to a lot this year and it has killed in the time we needed the yard the most. Joe Gibbs should realize who his team is and take the three points. It's just very poor coaching we could have had a chance twice in the end of the game and took some pressure off of Campbell so he doesn't force two picks at the end of the game. Bottom line the coaches need to get it together and realize who their team is and put them in positions to succeed rather than fail.

Re: 4th and short
 

Horrible call. Like it has been said before: if we kick a FG there, and get 3 points, it's a one possession game. Never mind the fact that we had other opportunities after that play -- everything changes when you are only down by 6 as opposed to 9. Since we didn't cut the lead, we had to play differently. We made it harder on ourselves. Gibbs made it harder on the team. I never thought I'd say that.

Re: 4th and short
 

On the post game show both Gibbs and Campbell (rabach for the matter too) said that JC had the option but with the def the bucs were giving, it was the right call to run with portis. Rabach said that the line failed and he put it on their shoulders. I for one liked the call, Gibbs gave his players a chance to win the game, they didnt execute.

Re: 4th and short
 

This team will always be hit or miss in 4th and short because the OL is very inconsistent in the trenches. All it takes is one guy to get beaten, and on that play, Kendall couldn't hold his block.

After seeing repeated failures from the Skins jumbo package inside the opponent's 10, I hope to see more 3 WR sets in that situation moving forward. NE, GB, and many other teams eschew the run, and pass for TDs inside the 10. Our soft personnel dictates that a similar philosophical shift may be necessary.

Re: 4th and short
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;382147]Gibbs is putting it all on the line today.

I didn't hate the decision. We've been blasting him all year for not being aggressive.[/QUOTE]

I've been killing Gibbs all year for being conservative.. I like the fact he went for it, although I wasn't wild about the call.. I'd have rather seen a bootleg there, Portis diving into the line was a little too predictable..

That being said, those who are saying that play cost us the game are silly. That was in the 3rd quarter, we had 2 more drives into the red zone after that and didn't convert points..

Re: 4th and short
 

[quote=jdlea;382144]Yeah, a field goal would have been too, then it would be a TD game. Have faith in your defense![/quote]
I think by going for it you show faith in both your O and D. You show your O that you believe they can make the play and show your D if you do not make the play you have faith they can stop them. We cannot have it both ways one week everyone is ticked we kicked the FG and the next week people are ticked we went for thr first down. I know we use hine sight to go back to blame the coaching staff for the calls they make.

Re: 4th and short
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain;383042]I've been killing Gibbs all year for being conservative.. I like the fact he went for it, although I wasn't wild about the call.. I'd have rather seen a bootleg there, Portis diving into the line was a little too predictable..

That being said, those who are saying that play cost us the game are silly. That was in the 3rd quarter, we had 2 more drives into the red zone after that and didn't convert points..[/QUOTE]

If we kick the FG on that play, then those "2 more drives into the red zone" could have been FGs too. That would have tied the game. Anybody who thinks that play was insignificant isn't thinking clearly.