statistics
 

Well i had duty yesterday so i didnt get to see the game so i followed it online and i couldn't believe how much we controlled this game we beat them in every catagory except rushing which they won that by 2 long runs. 1st downs total yards, passing, time of posession. we won but lost and yes there was some bad calls from what i hear, but we have to get the ball in the endzone we cant settle for FG's thats whats killing us right now. that shorter field. I think we will do much better against KC this week their defense is much weaker the Denvers and to be honest Denvers wasnt all that. I think we score 20 + this week.

Skins 24 chiefs 16

Re: statistics
 

Amen -- Gibbs really needs to find a way to punch the ball in. I feel Brunell made a lot of smart decesions (especially with throwing the ball away.) A few bad ones (intentional grounding, passing the line of scrimmage) but that's to be expected from every QB. The important one was he didn't commit any costly turnovers.

I don't think our power running game has what it needs on the 1 like Gibbs likes to do. Another problem is we shipped all the players who would be a redzone threat minus Cooley/Royal. All of our WRs are relatively small and short which doesn't give us that big guy who can catch the fade or outleap a DB.

Re: statistics
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Amen -- Gibbs really needs to find a way to punch the ball in. I feel Brunell made a lot of smart decesions (especially with throwing the ball away.) A few bad ones (intentional grounding, passing the line of scrimmage) but that's to be expected from every QB. The important one was he didn't commit any costly turnovers.

I don't think our power running game has what it needs on the 1 like Gibbs likes to do. Another problem is we shipped all the players who would be a redzone threat minus Cooley/Royal. All of our WRs are relatively small and short which doesn't give us that big guy who can catch the fade or outleap a DB.[/QUOTE]
Daseal, don't forget touchdown machine Mike Sellers. Two receptions this season, two touchdowns. You want to open up scoring, open up a can of Sellers. ;)

Re: statistics
 

I say throw Sellers in the backfield as a FB or even as the RB. Talk about heavy jumbo!

I think at some point we need to find a way to get Nemo activated to see what he can do at the goal line. Or why not try Betts?

That being said, I think the problem is more from the OL not blasting open holes.

Re: statistics
 

Am I the only one yesterday who was like "Seller has TWO?!" and had to let out a lighthearted laugh?

Re: statistics
 

I think this is more of Gibbs' playcalling than running backs not being able to punch it in.

Anyone notice how many playaction passes there have been at the goal line?

Portis and Betts really just haven't had their number called that much.

Re: statistics
 

The good thing is, unlike last year, Gibbs will throw it on 2nd or 3rd rather than just run it and hope for the best.

Re: statistics
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]I think this is more of Gibbs' playcalling than running backs not being able to punch it in.

Anyone notice how many playaction passes there have been at the goal line?

Portis and Betts really just haven't had their number called that much.[/QUOTE]

When they have had their numbers called it's simply not working, therefore the reason for more playactions.

I'm actually encouraged by this, last year we would have tried to smash it in 3 times in a row. I love a playaction call on 2nd and goal.

Re: statistics
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Amen -- Gibbs really needs to find a way to punch the ball in. I feel Brunell made a lot of smart decesions (especially with throwing the ball away.) A few bad ones (intentional grounding, passing the line of scrimmage) but that's to be expected from every QB. The important one was he didn't commit any costly turnovers.

I don't think our power running game has what it needs on the 1 like Gibbs likes to do. Another problem is we shipped all the players who would be a redzone threat minus Cooley/Royal. All of our WRs are relatively small and short which doesn't give us that big guy who can catch the fade or outleap a DB.[/QUOTE]I'd like to see us go more north-south on goal line situations. I'd also like to see them keep Sellers/Cooley in the down position and give it to one of them as opposed to Portis. Just to throw the defense. They think he's the lead blocker but he actually gets the ball. I think it's at least worth a try.

Re: statistics
 

Problem is when it's grind it time for our line they're not getting it done. we should try nemo, that is after all the reson they drafted him and why they kept him on the roster. but our's line's too good to be struggling with goalline running plays.we have to learn to finish

Re: statistics
 

On the subject of playcalling, here are a couple of things I’ve noticed about Gibbs this year...

I saw more slant passes thrown against Denver than I think there were in all of Gibbs’ career. But you never see screen passes – something you would think best fits Portis’ abilities. And while we used to see them all too frequently on third and long, short passes to Cooley and the tight ends on first down up the middle for 5 to 10 yards would be effective from time to time.

By my count, there’s only been one attempt at a trick play this year: A flea-flicker against Seattle last week that failed to connect. What happened to the fake end-arounds and reverses that were once a staple of Gibbs’ offense? I understand that you can’t be gimmicky, but once and awhile you’ve got to mix it up a bit and do things that defenses just don’t expect. Even under Spurrier you saw a little bit of imagination – remember the wideout screens to Rod Gardner where he threw it to wide open running backs on the other side of the field?

To his credit though, Gibbs does appear more receptive to actually attempting a long pass when it’s required to convert on third and long. Maybe he’s more confident in Brunell’s arm this year. There was a time when all you saw was a spread formation, with the running back lined up directly behind the tackle (ordinarily a pass formation) only to see a counter-draw that never fooled anybody.

Does anyone else get the sense that Gibbs may not yet be into a groove as a play caller? Don’t get me wrong, he’s not stinking it up by any means, sometimes I just feel there’s something missing. Or is playcalling overrated, as many NFL experts tend to say?

Re: statistics
 

I thought it was Jack Burns calling the plays anyway

Re: statistics
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I thought it was Jack Burns calling the plays anyway[/QUOTE]

Unless something has changed, it is Jack. I think the play calling is more a product of the coach's confidence in the personnel or their familiarity to execute his playbook. I think we all see the playbook opening a little more each week ( as they're confidence grows). I think Gibb's and Jack would love to, and will, in time throw out a lot more complicated stuff. We are just starting to click as an Offense, it should be very entertaining!

Re: statistics
 

I really, REALLY like that pitch to Portis against the grain. They ran it twice and both times got nice chunks of yardage.

Re: statistics
 

I'm actually pretty happy with the play calling overall. We did have a qb pass over 300, a rb get over 100, and a wr also get over 100. And let's not forget that a TE added another 80 receiving. I think as the offense develops more of a groove, we'll see more points on the board and more creativity in the playcalling. But from a yardage standpoint, we were excellent, especially against a very tough defense. And let's not forget that we didn't give up any sacks.

I would eventually like to see Nemo or Betts in short yardage situations, but I'm impressed with the likes of Royal, Sellers, and Cooley. Why complain about our offensive production inside the ten when we get TDs? My only concern is that we've had trouble elsewhere with petty mistakes (blocked FGs, penalties, etc.).