Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   Offensive Philosophy (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/5857-offensive-philosophy.html)

dirtbag2112 04-13-2005 01:41 PM

Offensive Philosophy
 
I've been thinking about something Patrick Ramsey said on his NFL total access interview. I know that this was a "fluff" interview, but something he said stuck in my mind. When asked about changes in Washingtons offense he basically said that we had a lot of games that were lost by less than seven points and that we're looking for that extra touchdown. We have our minor problems with some players, but I think our main reason for concern should be this way of thinking. I don't want to question our coach and his philosophy, but I think it's been proven in today's NFL that having a lead and then playing conservatively to hold onto it does not work. I also know that Gibbs is going to be "opening the playbook" a little more and going vertical, but does anyone else see this as a problem? I think to be really successful we need to pour on the points even with a stellar defense.

Balmerskinsfan 04-13-2005 01:54 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
"I don't want to question our coach and his philosophy, but I think it's been proven in today's NFL that having a lead and then playing conservatively to hold onto it does not work."

I don't remember many games last year where we ever had any sort of commanding lead and lost (except for the Ravens game and that goddam Dallas game, Jesus that sucked). I thought our probelm was scoring any points at all, period, and I don't think our inability to score was the result of Gibb's offensive philosphy. Vince Lombardie couldn't have got the skins more than ten points a game with Fart Brunell in the pocket and our banged up O-line last year. If the line is healhty next year, and Gibbs still can't put up more than fourteen points a game, then I'll start to question his thinking, but I can't blame him for last year's offense, given our lack of talent at QB and the state of last year's offensive line.

JWsleep 04-13-2005 02:49 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
Look--I want to win games. I could give a rats ass about pretty, exciting, high-scoring football. We've got a good D a good running game. We need to use those in conjucntion with downfield passing to score about 21-22 points a game. We don't have to become Peyton Manning and the colts.

As for Gibbs not knowing how to open up the offense, I just don't buy it. He played it conservative last year becuase that gave us the best chance to win, given our team. I'm sure he'll open it up more, especially given the imporved O-line and a more confident and comfortable Ramsey. But Portis and the D is what's gonna win games. Portis will get his 1500, be an all-star, and be our team offensive MVP. And that's as it should be. When that's in place, the bombs will be there for the taking, and we'll get our 21-22 a game, probably much more.

FRPLG 04-13-2005 02:57 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
[QUOTE=offiss]I just wonder how much of last year's offense can be contributed to Gibbs having to re-remember how he used to run his offense...[/QUOTE]
The man played and coahced football for 40 years. He didn't forget how to run the offense. That's ridiculous to assert he had remember how he used to do it. I guarnatee he can recount entire game plans from 1984 if you asked him to. The Offense blew because we had less talent than anyone here wants to believe and no talent at the helm of it for 9 games. Our defense kept us in games and the best way to overcome a bad offesne is to keep them out of it as much as possible. Don't let them beat you. That's why we ran 9 plays all year. We'll have to see how much Gibbs is able to get guys to step up performances so he can use a more developed offensive strategy this coming season.

dirtbag2112 04-13-2005 03:04 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
JW- I agree with you. I'm not saying we need the Peyton Manning-5-touchdown-per-game offense, but I think that we need to attack a lot more to avoid those heart breaking losses especially when we're on the business end of horrendous officiating. I definately think with our line coupled with Portis and the emergence of Ramsey that it will be night and day compared to last year. I guess I'm just hoping that we'll take those "shots" a little more often.

Daseal 04-13-2005 03:12 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
[quote]The man played and coahced football for 40 years. He didn't forget how to run the offense.[/quote]

I guess he didn't forget how to manage the clock either.

Sorry - but playcalling killed us. Not talent. We have an improved Oline this year (praying there are no injuries between now and opening day) yet we've gotten worse at WR. Our offense is all about Portis, that's damn right. I like to watch Portis run, but we need to cater to Portis, and we need to spread the field a bit more. Maybe throw 5 more times a game, and establish in intermediate passing game. I'm not suggesting a west coast system, or a Spurrieresque system. When you have a back like Portis, work him like he should be worked, but you need to make the opposing defense RESPECT the passing game. With the next Montana under center, he has enough skill to make teams fear his arm.

Increase the difficulty of the routes, and run more than 3 plays out of certain formations. We do need to open up the offense, but not wide open. I want to see us throw it on first down from time to time, maybe even through it past the marker on 3rd and 7.

I think that last years goes on Gibbs for not changing the offense near enough. Didn't he used to be the master of halftime adjustments? What happened? Do the new defenses confuse him? Either way, I don't care. He's a smart man and will certainly work hard to try to figure out what causes him all these problems. If he stays this conservative during the next season, I think there should be serious concern and an overwhelming desire for a proven offensive coordinator.

As far as losing games from being conservative. Absolutely. He'd get one TD up in the 3rd and try to run out the clock. He lost any aggression he had built up. I hoped the skins would go into the 4th quarter by 3 down just so they wouldn't try to sit on the ball and make our tired defense defend a lead. Our defense was great, but if it's 3rd and something, THROW THE DAMN BALL! Sorry, but try to pick up that first down. You figure if you have a 50% completion rate you'll burn much more time off the clock trying to get that 3rd than running it for virtually no chance.

Either way -- I just want it to start!

SonnySamFrank 04-13-2005 03:34 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
I believe in Joe Gibbs ability to adapt to the players he has on hand.

He won 3 Superbowls with 3 different QB's and 3 different RB's. And I think that Art Monk was the only reciever on the team for all 3 Superbowls. Although he was hurt for the 1st one.

Last year was a learning year. Give him a good QB, a good RB, a good SET of WR's, and an outstanding Oline and I think the offense will have not problem.

Schneed10 04-13-2005 03:36 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
No Daseal you're wrong on that one. The playcalling was weak and conservative FOR A REASON. Our WRs were terrible and couldn't be trusted. Coles showed no ability to burn people deep. It's not like Coles was getting wide open on deep fly-routes and Brunell & Ramsey just weren't throwing it to him. Gibbs didn't trust Coles on a deep route because of his toe problems. And don't even get me started on Gardner. When the going got tough, the last thing Gibbs wanted to do was to throw a key 3rd and 7 pass to that inconsistent dipsh*t. He felt like Gardner & Coles couldn't get it done.

Now I think Coles can be a very good receiver if his toe is healthy. But the bottom line is Gibbs feels like he has gotten some receivers he can trust a bit better and that's why the play calling will open up a bit. Whether you think the WRs are better or worse is irrelevant. The only way Gibbs will actually change his playcalling is if he feels like he can trust the receivers and the rest of the offense to connect on deep passes. Hopefully he feels comfortable with this crop that he just brought in, Patten & Moss. If he doesn't trust them to catch the deep balls, then we can all jump on his case for poor personnel choices. But until then, I'll trust his evaluation of what makes a good WR. Because it sure as hell isn't Rod Gardner. Coles is OK for shorter routes with his bum toe, but he's worthless on long stuff. Good riddance to them, the new crop will allow new dimensions to develop in the offense.

Daseal 04-13-2005 03:56 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
Because his conservative playcalling got him so many wins. Okay, so why didn't they put Jacobs in to go deep, he has burning speed and great hands. There were times Coles was wide open and Brunell throws it out of bounds. I think blaming receivers is a fanboy copout. Watching two games this season at the stadium: Pittsburgh at Heinz, and Minnesota at Washington I saw fairly good seperation for an NFL game by our receivers. The MN game was played with a nice mix of playcalling and we made some good plays (Thanks to a dismal MN defense.)

Our receivers were limited by routes, and even opposing defenses laughed when they saw we ran a total of three plays out of every formation. Go check what Wilbon said after the Browns game when he talked to their defense. They had Gibbs's system read like a book.

FRPLG 04-13-2005 04:06 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
[QUOTE=Daseal]I guess he didn't forget how to manage the clock either. Sorry - but playcalling killed us. Not talent.[/QUOTE]
Could you step back for even one moment and consider the thought the play calling was a direct result of the lack of offensive talent last year? It's not like we had Indianapolis type talent or anything close to it. I would imagine that maybe, just maybe, we didn't run certain types of plays becasue WE COULDN'T. We didn't have the proper personell to run them. Not simply because we didn't think of it or didn't want to. The guy is an offensive genius and he didn't forget how to run a successful freaking NFL offense. There was a reason we ran those plays and I more than willing to give him and the rest of his staff the benfit of the doubt that they knew what they were doign since it seemed to work a little back in the day. If people want to argue that Gibbs' style of offense wont work in today's game then fine. I would disagree but that is at least a valid argument. But you cannot argue that he just sucked at play calling for an entire year when he obviously knows what he is doing based on a mountain of past success. You seem to think he thought he was running some grand offense scheme and never realized how vanilla and basic it was. That is an ridiculous assertion.
It is not as simple as many people have said. It's not like Gibbs could just one day say "Hey instead of running the 60 gut 14 times lets throw a couple bombs downfield. why didn't I think of that before?" It takes a comprehensive offensive strategy tailored to the personell you have to run it. Our offense was meant to maximize the talents of the the personel we had. Unfortunately the talent of our personel was far lower than many here want to admit.

FRPLG 04-13-2005 04:14 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
[QUOTE=Daseal]Because his conservative playcalling got him so many wins. Okay, so why didn't they put Jacobs in to go deep, he has burning speed and great hands. There were times Coles was wide open and Brunell throws it out of bounds. I think blaming receivers is a fanboy copout. Watching two games this season at the stadium: Pittsburgh at Heinz, and Minnesota at Washington I saw fairly good seperation for an NFL game by our receivers. The MN game was played with a nice mix of playcalling and we made some good plays (Thanks to a dismal MN defense.)

Our receivers were limited by routes, and even opposing defenses laughed when they saw we ran a total of three plays out of every formation. Go check what Wilbon said after the Browns game when he talked to their defense. They had Gibbs's system read like a book.[/QUOTE]
I actually get mad reading your posts on this issue. I don't know whether to simply give up discussing since it seems you have ability to see anyone else's point of view or whether to sit here and point out the error of your thought for three hours. I think I will simply give up. With one last shot though....
Every argument you have made is right but only in a certain light. In the end you have to ask yourself "Why?" Why was our offense so simple? If you can tell me why our offense was so bad based solely on the play calling of Joe Gibbs with absolutly no other direct causation from any other player or coach then you will convince me. The problem is that you cannot do that because it is plain and simple that our offense was the way it was because Joe Gibbs wanted it that way not because it was a good offense but because it was the best we could do based on talent and injuries. How do I know this? Because I watched every game Joe Gibbs ever coached in his first stint and he never called games like he did last year. We're not talking about some schmoe here. It's Joe Gibbs. He knows football and it is ridiculous to consider that he didn't know how to call a game properly.

bedlamVR 04-13-2005 04:35 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
I couldn't have said it better Schneed .

Balmerskinsfan 04-13-2005 04:45 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
Didn't Brunell have two games where he threw for less than 80 yards? Didn't Ramsey throw 6 INTs against the Giants? I don't care who's calling the plays, when your QB sucks, you can't go deep. Last year we had one noodle armed QB who couldn't throw farther than 10 yards and Ramsey, who can overthrow any reciever in the league and has perfected throwing the ball a gagillion miles an hour to a guy whos 7 yards out in the flat. When your QB sucks, you can't "open up the passing game."

Schneed10 04-13-2005 04:53 PM

Re: Offensive Philosophy
 
Daseal, why in the hell would you want to throw deep against Minnesota when you are up on them the whole game?? Even if the receivers are getting separation, that doesn't mean it makes any sense to throw 45 yard post patterns to them. When you're up on them, you keep the chains moving. The Skins won that game with conservative play calls down the stretch.

Against the Steelers, there wasn't time to throw the ball deep. Gibbs didn't send the receivers deep at any point because he knew the Pittsburgh blitz would be all over Ramsey in a friggin heartbeat. They don't call 'em Blitzburgh for nothin.

And that goes right to the heart of my next point, the separation receivers get isn't the only factor here. For one thing, in the beginning of the season the line was a freakin sieve. Brunell was getting chased all over the place. It doesn't help that he forgot how to throw a football this year, so I'm fine with criticizing Gibbs on that personnel move, but running limited pass routes was necessary because the QB was getting hassled all game.

The playcalling was not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem was poor offensive line play, receivers that couldn't run deep routes, receivers that couldn't catch the ball consistently (Gardner), a QB who forgot how to throw the football, and a general lack of familiarity with the offensive system. Gibbs adjusted to the team's problems by making the playcalling more conservative. His playcalling was one of the results of the root problem: generally poor play by the entire team.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.11416 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25