Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?

jdlea · 09-27-2007, 12:10 PM

The problem for me isn't that the system "won't" work, it's more that it's not. As far as why it isn't, I have a lot of opinions, I won't get into all of them in this post, but I think that much of the struggles in the past years have been a function of the quarterback. I don't know that I blame Gibbs for the offense not stretching the field before because that was certainly part of the gameplan the first time around. It would be a relatively run focused gameplan and then they would stretch the field. That's what I see this team evolving into. I think if Gibbs stays next season, this team could be amazing.

However, I think my main issue with a lot of the playcalling is that there were so many short passes. As I stated previously, I believe that was largely a function of the QB not throwing the ball down the field. Were they calling different plays with Brunell in then they are with Campbell? Possibly, I'm not sure. However, I think that for a run first team to be successful, the threat of the deep ball needs to be there. My main complaint from Sunday wasn't so much that the playcalling, as far as pass - run ratio was wrong, it was more th passes they were calling. I didn't like seeing so many play action passes when the G Men were getting some pretty good pressure on Jason, I'd rather him be able to come away from center looking downfield.

Sunday aside, however, I think that a lot of people look at teams like the Colts, Patriots, and last year's Saints (and this year's Cowboys) and see that a team who is predominately a throwing team, winning games they want that because it's "sexier." I agree with that notion, but most of those teams have good balance. I think that was the problem with Gibbs 2.0 under Brunell, while there was a decent pass - run balance, the pass was never that much of a threat because it wasn't downfield, so it didn't back anyone off. Because of that, the run was less effective. With a qb who can stretch the field when teams put 8 in the box, the gameplan can be successful, it just needs to be well executed.

09-27-2007, 12:10 PM	#62
jdlea Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Age: 41 Posts: 3,109	Re: Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins? The problem for me isn't that the system "won't" work, it's more that it's not. As far as why it isn't, I have a lot of opinions, I won't get into all of them in this post, but I think that much of the struggles in the past years have been a function of the quarterback. I don't know that I blame Gibbs for the offense not stretching the field before because that was certainly part of the gameplan the first time around. It would be a relatively run focused gameplan and then they would stretch the field. That's what I see this team evolving into. I think if Gibbs stays next season, this team could be amazing. However, I think my main issue with a lot of the playcalling is that there were so many short passes. As I stated previously, I believe that was largely a function of the QB not throwing the ball down the field. Were they calling different plays with Brunell in then they are with Campbell? Possibly, I'm not sure. However, I think that for a run first team to be successful, the threat of the deep ball needs to be there. My main complaint from Sunday wasn't so much that the playcalling, as far as pass - run ratio was wrong, it was more th passes they were calling. I didn't like seeing so many play action passes when the G Men were getting some pretty good pressure on Jason, I'd rather him be able to come away from center looking downfield. Sunday aside, however, I think that a lot of people look at teams like the Colts, Patriots, and last year's Saints (and this year's Cowboys) and see that a team who is predominately a throwing team, winning games they want that because it's "sexier." I agree with that notion, but most of those teams have good balance. I think that was the problem with Gibbs 2.0 under Brunell, while there was a decent pass - run balance, the pass was never that much of a threat because it wasn't downfield, so it didn't back anyone off. Because of that, the run was less effective. With a qb who can stretch the field when teams put 8 in the box, the gameplan can be successful, it just needs to be well executed.