Very disappointing Call Playing...could have cost us game!!!
 

I was very disappointed with Coach Gibbs and his decision to run the ball every down on the last 3 possessions. Detroit knew we were going to run and they stacked the line. On the last 3 possessions we didn't get a first down and barely took anytime off the clock. Now I wonder what, if any, confidence Coach Gibbs has in Brunell. IMO by choosing to run the ball on all 3 possessions, I think Coach Gibbs has very little confidence in Brunell or he respected the Lions D too much (I am sticking with the former).

However, I was very impressed once again with the Defense. I also see a much improved Offensive Line when it come to running the ball...or it just could be Portis is Awesome (going with the later on this one).

No Turnovers was the key to the game along with Special Teams play.

Anyways, that was a much needed win...no matter how pathetic our passing game is. One of these days it will click and LOOK OUT. I am still keeping my hope up..LOL.

Again post your opinions or thoughts.

GO SKINS!!!!!

Dragon: That playcalling was horrible. I hate the give-up mentallity he has when we have a slight lead. I think that alone cost us 1-2 games.

0 passes in the fourth quarter...

I agree. Does anyone watch comcast after a redskins game? After every game gibbs has a press conference. And after every game he defends the passing game and ALWAYS says,"we done some good things today" come onnnnnnn . maybe gibbs is watching another game on the sideline. They just talked with the so called QB. He had the nerve to say well,"we didnt need the passing game in the second half" I may puke!!

Gibbie is a stubborn old man that will not concede that he was wrong in going after and OVERPAYING and giving up a draft pick for Brunell when guys like Warner and Garcia have success this year (these guys are like Peyton Friggin' Manning compared to Brunell).

[QUOTE=Daseal]Dragon: That playcalling was horrible. I hate the give-up mentallity he has when we have a slight lead. I think that alone cost us 1-2 games.[/QUOTE] Daseal- I couldn't agree with you more. I think that this conservative mode shows me that HE doesn't have the Confidence with Brunell he claims to have. Whether it is with Brunell fumbling or throwing an interception. I remember the good old days where not only would Coach Gibbs chew up the clock, but he would also put the game out of reach every chance he had. I just hope he hasn't gotten soft with age. In this game and against Chicago, I felt he backed off too early. I understand the win is needed..but one of these days, he is going to get beat by being to conservative.

What also shocked me was the lack of Play Action that was called during the entire game. I only remember 2 or at the most 3 play actions the entire game. What is the purpose of running the ball so effectively and having a QB if you don't use him. Portis, Gardner or even Thrash could have run the offense in the 4th quarter.

[QUOTE=Duffman003]0 passes in the fourth quarter...[/QUOTE]We didn't want to give the offense a chance to lose the game

[QUOTE=dragontat7169]I was very disappointed with Coach Gibbs and his decision to run the ball every down on the last 3 possessions. Detroit knew we were going to run and they stacked the line. On the last 3 possessions we didn't get a first down and barely took anytime off the clock. Now I wonder what, if any, confidence Coach Gibbs has in Brunell. IMO by choosing to run the ball on all 3 possessions, I think Coach Gibbs has very little confidence in Brunell or he respected the Lions D too much (I am sticking with the former).

However, I was very impressed once again with the Defense. I also see a much improved Offensive Line when it come to running the ball...or it just could be Portis is Awesome (going with the later on this one).

No Turnovers was the key to the game along with Special Teams play.

Anyways, that was a much needed win...no matter how pathetic our passing game is. One of these days it will click and LOOK OUT. I am still keeping my hope up..LOL.

Again post your opinions or thoughts.

GO SKINS!!!!![/QUOTE]


I concur wholeheartedly.............. with the passing game reduced to nonexistent, the Lions concentrated on stopping the run. We couldn't get the first down and keep the clock going to seal the win. Luckily the Lions were out of time outs.....otherwise we might've lost this game. Other coaches have shown some innovation and plays to surprise the defense. I realize we have problems on the offensive line, but running the same play over and over was ineffective. Gibbs was counting on the defense to keep the win, but they do get fatigued being on the field all the time.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Dragon: That playcalling was horrible. I hate the give-up mentallity he has when we have a slight lead. I think that alone cost us 1-2 games.[/QUOTE]

That's not a give up mentality. That's a Brunell isn't going to give this game away playcalling. It made since to keep the ball on the ground when there is no consistency in the passing game. That's the kind of ball game that experienced coaching calls and it worked.

We weren't doing anything but pounding it up the middle. Not even ATTEMPTING a first down. Gibbs admitted that himself in the press conference.

I have to agree. It's one thing to control the clock but three and outs were definitely tiring our defense. They're great but if you keep giving the opposition the ball, eventualy they'll get a score. I don't understand how if you don't trust your QB, he is still in the game? The lions didn't even pretend to play the pass the second half. we've got to bury these teams when they're down rather then letting them off the mat time and time again.

We only had one drive over 45 yards... our touchdown drive was 7 plays 71 yards. Here are the plays we ran that drive....

Portis Run 21 yrds
Portis Run 21 Yrds again
Portis Run -1 Yrds
Portis Run 1 Yrds
Brunell Pass 8 yrds
Portis run 2 yrds
Portis Pass to Coles 15 yrds...

The Moral of the Story.... Portis Rules and Brunell does nothing.

Gmac, we're not disputing that fact. I think even if it's not successful you need to throw time to time. SOmeone would have been so open after playaction Brunell coulda gotten it to them. Also, the method of running was different at the end.

Brunnel threw for a whopping 58 yards. How the hell is he still our Quaterback.

[QUOTE=skins009]Brunnel threw for a whopping 58 yards. How the hell is he still our Quaterback.[/QUOTE]

No INT's. No sacks. No fumbles. Even if he did, Ramsey won't be ready for what we are about to encounter in the next five weeks. Bengals,Eagles,Steelers,Giants and the Eagles again. Now if you think Ramsey can play in this atmosphere with no sacks, fumbles or INT's your'e kidding yourself. Brunell will stay in just long enough to hand the ball off to Portis and not throw INT's. That's it.

[QUOTE=Daseal]Gmac, we're not disputing that fact. I think even if it's not successful you need to throw time to time. SOmeone would have been so open after playaction Brunell coulda gotten it to them. Also, the method of running was different at the end.[/QUOTE]


Oh I'm not trying to argue with the playcalling. I just wanted to post that somewhere and figured this would be the best spot. Coach Gibbs has lost all confidence in Brunell, at least thats what the playcalling will tell you. You could say its just sitting on the lead, but it was just hard to watch. Thank god we won.

[QUOTE=SUNRA]No INT's. No sacks. No fumbles. Even if he did, Ramsey won't be ready for what we are about to encounter in the next five weeks. Bengals,Eagles,Steelers,Giants and the Eagles again. Now if you think Ramsey can play in this atmosphere with no sacks, fumbles or INT's your'e kidding yourself. Brunell will stay in just long enough to hand the ball off to Portis and not throw INT's. That's it.[/QUOTE]


If all we do is hand the ball off to Portis the next 5 weeks, as good as he is, we will be at best 1-4 during that stretch, maybe beating the Bengals. We cant just settle for no mistakes and hand it off to Portis, he will be stopped because the defenses have nothing else to worry about. I'm not reay to concede the season just to keep Brunell in there. I'll take the risk that comes with playing Ramsey, if were going to have a threatening pass offense.

I dont know , i will say that our O-line does not always give Brunell enough time to get his passes off, but overall, he still has not been anywhere close to what he use to be. As for the 4th quarter playcalling, Brunell defied the odds by not having a fumble OR interception, so i can understand why we didnt pass ....

Heybigstar, I'm in full agreement. Our entire offense isnt doing exactly what they should, and Brunell is under pressure. ITS NOT ALL BRUNELLS FAULT, I'm not going to ever say it is. However, enough of it is his fault, in my opinon that he should be benched. He's just not good anymore, and is hurting the team. Its that simple, hes not good, and hes not what he used to be.

There is no defense for a NFL quarterback throwing for 58 yards when he has the kind of running support that Brunnel has. The fact that he has these miserable games every week doesn't help. Even Gibbs said that the bye week would help to bring out a new, improved, healthy Brunnel. We won't win many more games with Brunnel at the helm this season. We have to have a QB put up points (not the RB throwing the pass or the special teams or defense scoring for him). I liked Brunnel but he just doesn't seem to fit and he doesn't seem to be getting better as the year goes on.

:frusty: I know..... Next year Gibbs can recruit Trent Dilfer to run the "just don't give the game away" offensive strategy.

I disagree that the playcalling was bad down the stretch. When the D is playing as well as it was today, you want to leave the game in their hands.

Most everyone on this board thinks Brunell is horrible and has no confidence in him, does anyone really want the ball in his hands down the stretch?? I don't think so.

Run the ball, run time off the clock and leave it up to one of the best defenses in the league. Sounds boring but that's the formula for winning with the way this passing game is going.

I think the forum would have exploded had Brunell thrown an INT or fumbled late in the game. Then everyone would be wondering why we didn't keep pounding it out on the ground since the run was working so well.

As we've seen this year, too many things can go wrong when you pass. An INT, a fumble, turnover taken back for a score, etc. Why risk that??

The reason we ran so much is that Gibbs doesn't dare trust Brunell's passing any longer. And the only reason we were in the position of being able to run, run, run was the fact that we had the lead. Had we been behindf by 10 or 14 points, we would have lost because Gibbs would have had to have called some passing plays to get us back into the game.

What's so sad about all of this is that our inept offense is wasting the wonderful talents and efforts of our defense. The way our defense has played, we should be 6-2 or 7-1 or 8-0.

Gibbs' has to shoulder the lion's share of the blame for sticking with that loser Brunell through the first half of the season. He must be the only person left alive who thinks that continuing to start Brunell is the right choice. Then again, he is the only one who pursued and signed him, isn't he?

[QUOTE=SUNRA]No INT's. No sacks. No fumbles. Even if he did, Ramsey won't be ready for what we are about to encounter in the next five weeks. Bengals,Eagles,Steelers,Giants and the Eagles again. Now if you think Ramsey can play in this atmosphere with no sacks, fumbles or INT's your'e kidding yourself. Brunell will stay in just long enough to hand the ball off to Portis and not throw INT's. That's it.[/QUOTE]

Well if you think we can beat these team's without throwing the ball your kidding yourself, and I guarentee you Brunell will have some turnover's, he won't be able to sit back and let the special team's win these games, those defenses are to aggresive he will have to make play's to even keep us in the game, the way thing's have been going with Gibb's I wouldn't be surprised to see him put Ramsey into an immpossible situation to justify playing Brunell, it seemed to me he stacked the deck in Brunell's favor as far as matchup's in the pre season, he has a real H***ON for Brunell.

if last week was a step forward for brunell , then today was two steps back. he looked realy bad today.

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I disagree that the playcalling was bad down the stretch. When the D is playing as well as it was today, you want to leave the game in their hands.

Most everyone on this board thinks Brunell is horrible and has no confidence in him, does anyone really want the ball in his hands down the stretch?? I don't think so.

Run the ball, run time off the clock and leave it up to one of the best defenses in the league. Sounds boring but that's the formula for winning with the way this passing game is going.

I think the forum would have exploded had Brunell thrown an INT or fumbled late in the game. Then everyone would be wondering why we didn't keep pounding it out on the ground since the run was working so well.

As we've seen this year, too many things can go wrong when you pass. An INT, a fumble, turnover taken back for a score, etc. Why risk that??[/QUOTE]

I can understand running the ball, but the same play...run up the middle for minus yards.......Portis's total yardage was going in reverse. Perhaps short pass to the Tight End?? Let's keep the other team's defense honest, that's all I'm saying......

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]I disagree that the playcalling was bad down the stretch. When the D is playing as well as it was today, you want to leave the game in their hands.

Most everyone on this board thinks Brunell is horrible and has no confidence in him, does anyone really want the ball in his hands down the stretch?? I don't think so.

Run the ball, run time off the clock and leave it up to one of the best defenses in the league. Sounds boring but that's the formula for winning with the way this passing game is going.

I think the forum would have exploded had Brunell thrown an INT or fumbled late in the game. Then everyone would be wondering why we didn't keep pounding it out on the ground since the run was working so well.

As we've seen this year, too many things can go wrong when you pass. An INT, a fumble, turnover taken back for a score, etc. Why risk that??[/QUOTE]

Good points. I think that part of successfully running the ball is that it allows for a play-action pass that would put the game out of reach. I think it's pretty apparent that Gibbs is not going to put Brunell in a position where he could influence the end of the game. He doesn't get any fumbles, INTs, or sacks because he's not in a position to get those.

Thing is I don't know that it would be any different with Ramsey at QB. He is, as Matty says, putting the game in the hands of Portis and the defense.

at least spread the field,put 4 wr out then run the ball up the middle, don't bunch everything up. portis needs a little space

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]We only had one drive over 45 yards... our touchdown drive was 7 plays 71 yards. Here are the plays we ran that drive....

Portis Run 21 yrds
Portis Run 21 Yrds again
Portis Run -1 Yrds
Portis Run 1 Yrds
Brunell Pass 8 yrds
Portis run 2 yrds
Portis Pass to Coles 15 yrds...

The Moral of the Story.... Portis Rules and Brunell does nothing.[/QUOTE]

The real deal is if there is no 100yd game from Portis, there's no win for that day. Now how do we mix up the playcalling to at least diguise the running plays? Double reverses? Draw plays?

I don't think the playcalling was that bad down the stretch. Detroit could not do anything against our D and everytime Brunell drops back, I have to hold my breath. After the blocked punt, all we had to do was "not F up!"

Exactly we won didn't we? Had Brunell thrown a TD one of the recivers cough up a fumble or even if Portis had on a sweap or delay then we would have lost. Sure it is conservative the play callinging but it sealed the win.

k, let me be the first to say it. move Portis into the QB spot and have another TE to block in Brunell's place. Portis can run AND throw form the snap. not much form, but he caught Coles right in stride in the corner of the endzone, something Brunell hasn't done all year!

The fourth quarter showed me that Gibbs does not trust Brunnell at all. Look, this is good playcalling if you've got no passing game. Gibbs has clearly recognized this, and he's trying to win without the pass (which is pretty incredible given Gibbs Air-Coryell pedigree).

Which of course begs the question: couldn't Ramsey do at least this? Is he so bad in practice that Gibbs is afraid to start him? Is he so fragile that Gibbs is saving him until the o-line becomes the Hogs, mark II? I say give the kid a shot. He won't have to do much given our D and Portis, but at least we'll begin to learn if we've got a good QB there, or if we have to look to the draft or free agency again.

Gibb's has alway's gone to the running game with a lead in the second half, with the way our D is playing I was all for it, but there is a bigger reason I was all for it, I didn't want Brunell throwing incomplete passes stopping the clock, or giving up a big play to the defense as he has been prone to do, let's face it the guy is not going to get better just look at his body language out there, he can't step up into the pocket or step into a throw, he drop's back not looking for reciever's but looking for on rushing lineman, you can see in his footwork and body language that he is preparing himself to move backward's in anticipation of a defender breaking through instead of focusing on reciever's down field, he then will throw off his back foot falling backward's and that is why his ball's keep riding high, the guy mentally is done, he is big time happy feet.

The playcalling worked today and we picked up a win. However, its just not going to be enough against other teams. We are going to have to pass the ball or other team will stack up the line just like the Lions did when they figured out we were not going to pass in the 4th qtr. I did watch Comcast after the game and B. Mitch was as "mindboggled" as we are. You are not going to win many games by throwing for 58 yards.

I understand running the ball to a) run out the clock, and b) keep Brunell from making a mistake, but three 3 and outs in a row by running 9 straight running plays is a little too much. The whole thing about running to run out the clock, is that you need to KEEP THE BALL! And this is done by getting first downs, so one or two high percentage passes would have at least opened things up a little and helped us keep the ball.
It worked this time and we won, so I'm happy, but against teams like Philly, the Giants, Minnesota, etc., giving the ball back to their offense like that is just asking for it..

Play action could have gotten someone so open even Brunell could have gotten it to him.

Also, it's not so much running the ball that bothered me as how we ran the ball. Up the middle, behind a fullback. How about letting Portis hit the hole like he did before. Make some first downs. Another TD and we wouldn't of had to worry about one mistake.

[quote=SUNRA]Now if you think Ramsey can play in this atmosphere with no sacks, fumbles or INT's your'e kidding yourself.[/quote]

i disagree and would like to say that if you think ramsey could possibly be worse than brunell, you're definately kidding yourself.

[quote]Run the ball, run time off the clock and leave it up to one of the best defenses in the league. Sounds boring but that's the formula for winning with the way this passing game is going.[/quote]

we switched the running game to pounding out 1 yarders instead of what was actually working earlier in the game though... we should have at least tried for 1st downs...

i don't see how ANYONE can justify starting a QB that's had [b]FOUR[/b] sub 100 yard games... thats 4 of 8, not 16... we're only halfway done.