What's your defnition of 'conservative playcalling'?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

The offense has been undoubtedly affected by the injuries to the o-linemen. Moreover, when JC drops back to throw and dumps it off, it's hard to know what play was actually called. Did Saunders call for JC to dump it off? Or were the wideouts covered and was JC, therefore, forced to throw to a back in the flats? So, it's hard to conclusively say that the offense is "conservative."

However, we did seem to be running the ball an awful lot. I understand that it is important to run the ball and get the d-linemen to back off of bliting JC. But, when the running game is your bread and butter, and it is ineffective because the D is stacking the box, it is important to at least establish the threat of going deep. We have been able to do that in some games and have failed to do so in other games.

Hopefully, our offensive woes are a function of the injuries and once guys heal, our offense will display the explosiveness that we all expect, or at least want, to see.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The offense has been undoubtedly affected by the injuries to the o-linemen. Moreover, when JC drops back to throw and dumps it off, it's hard to know what play was actually called. Did Saunders call for JC to dump it off? Or were the wideouts covered and was JC, therefore, forced to throw to a back in the flats? So, it's hard to conclusively say that the offense is "conservative."

However, we did seem to be running the ball an awful lot. I understand that it is important to run the ball and get the d-linemen to back off of bliting JC. But, when the running game is your bread and butter, and it is ineffective because the D is stacking the box, it is important to at least establish the threat of going deep. We have been able to do that in some games and have failed to do so in other games.

Hopefully, our offensive woes are a function of the injuries and once guys heal, our offense will display the explosiveness that we all expect, or at least want, to see.

True- and I'll be the first to admit that when i watch the game, I probably can't tell you what the aim of each pass call was...but i tend to agree with pain train with the perception of conservatism. We seem to run, run, pass, punt far too often with the lead. fact is, we aren't good enough to run for first downs consistently...

I also agree that the 0-line injuries are largely a part of it, but aren't these guys pros? Wasn't Wade supposed to be so good as to challenge jasen (teammate opinion? At this point, a lot of the line have played several games together not to mention practice (i'm not specifically talking about yesterday's game either), if they aren't good enough to fill the void (perhaps we should be more prudent about giving way draft pick- which deplete our depth).

at the same time, a win is a win...
i'll take it...4-2 ain't bad

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

We're going to be discussing the playcalling all week long again because there are a segment of us who are fed up with the offense we're seeing and a segment of us who would like to see more but feel we are doing what we can with what we have to work with.. Which camp are you in an what would you like to see different or stay the same?

I think we're too conservative, especially with a lead.. What seems to be missing from our offense once we have a 2 td lead is:

1. Aggressiveness-Gibbs seems to throttle back the aggressiveness once we've gotten a 'comfortable' lead on the other team and doesn't keep attacking. NE has a defense that rivals if not exceeds ours and they never play like they are comfortable with their lead.. I'm not comparing personnel, just philosophy.. Being aggressive isn't bombing the ball 30 yards downfield at every chance. It can be as simple as calling a mid range pass play on 1st and 10 rather than a dive play. It can be calling a screen on 2nd and 5.. Our mid range and across the middle of the field passing game disappears in the 2nd half of games. There are many ways to be aggressive without taking a 7 step drop and looking deep..

2. Imagination-When 90% of us can call the play before the Redskins break the huddle, that's bad. How many times have we seen run, run, pass, punt in the second half of games this year? As great as our defense is, how much better would they be if they weren't on the field for 20 minutes in the 2nd half? I believe Saunders has the plays and imagination to call a dynamic game plan (which we saw vs. Detroit) but is handcuffed..

3. Courage-How many times have we heard JG17 allude to he was 'afraid of what bad may happen' in post game pressers? He's afraid of turnovers, afraid to put his players in certain positions during a game, afraid of getting a FG blocked, etc.. Scared money don't make money in the NFL.. When you coach scared, your players play scared (see Brunell, Mark) and you can't be effective.. Against the Giants, we all felt like we went down with plenty of bullets left in the gun.. Same as yesterday, we got SO tight in the 2nd half once Portis scored it was crazy.. We all know about the OL injuries and that certainly has an effect on play calling and the game plan, but we've still got to man up and play OUR GAME with what we have.

Agree with everything here. Good post.

[BrunellMVP?]

can someone explain how the first half ended?
were we surprised that the cards went for the TD and thus called the TO? i feel like we really bailed them out there with the TO as they had NO chance of getting the play off in time...(in terms of play clock)...

if we had the wrong personnel on the field, that is fine, clearly, but seems like we bailed'em out of a 5 yard procedure penalty...

[The Zimmermans]

LOSING franchises make excuses

WINNING franchises make up for it....we are at a crossroads right now..and what happens this sunday in NE may set the trend

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by The Zimmermans

LOSING franchises make excuses

WINNING franchises make up for it....we are at a crossroads right now..and what happens this sunday in NE may set the trend

God i hope it doesnt set the trend, im already trying to forget it.

[firstdown]

For people here to say or act like they know so much about football I've read some pretty stupid stuff.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

1. Aggressiveness-Gibbs seems to throttle back the aggressiveness once we've gotten a 'comfortable' lead on the other team and doesn't keep attacking. NE has a defense that rivals if not exceeds ours and they never play like they are comfortable with their lead.. I'm not comparing personnel, just philosophy.. Being aggressive isn't bombing the ball 30 yards downfield at every chance. It can be as simple as calling a mid range pass play on 1st and 10 rather than a dive play. It can be calling a screen on 2nd and 5.. Our mid range and across the middle of the field passing game disappears in the 2nd half of games. There are many ways to be aggressive without taking a 7 step drop and looking deep..

I would agree a little that JG looks a little to complacent to ride out a win but I would argue that this mentality has died down a little. In reference to yesterday I think a lot of people are forgetting that it wasn't like in the first half we were rolling on offense. We didn't throttle anything back at all. Our offense sucked first and 2nd halves.

[SmootSmack]

"Conservative Playcalling" is the excuse Redskins fans like to use when the team loses. When the team went 5-0 down the stretch in 2005 thanks mainly to mistake-free, smashmouth football and a tight defense that was "Redskins Football" Otherwise, it's "conservative playcalling" like it's the plague or something

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

"Conservative Playcalling" is the excuse Redskins fans like to use when the team loses. When the team went 5-0 down the stretch in 2005 thanks mainly to mistake-free, smashmouth football and a tight defense that was "Redskins Football" Otherwise, it's "conservative playcalling" like it's the plague or something

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death

Funny thing is that if Brunell was playing we would have a bunch of post saying that he always is dumping off the ball. People have to remember that we do have a young QB who is still learning. If we asked people before the season started would they be happy to be 4/2 after six games I bet 95% would have said yes.

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

"Conservative Playcalling" is the excuse Redskins fans like to use when the team loses. When the team went 5-0 down the stretch in 2005 thanks mainly to mistake-free, smashmouth football and a tight defense that was "Redskins Football" Otherwise, it's "conservative playcalling" like it's the plague or something

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death

After the fumble against GB expect even more 2nd half "Redskin Football".

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Call me SmootSmack F. Buckley, but I don't think conservative playcalling is always the kiss of death

It certainly is not. That very same conservative offense served us well in 2005, when our offense was running over everyone. The only problem is that, right now, it is not serving us well. As a run-first, smash-mouth team that cannot run the ball effectively, we do need to start passing a little more to open up the running lanes.

However, as I said above, the injuries to the O-line undoubtedly have a big effect on the offense and it is unclear if Saunders is failing to call deep/intermediate passing plays or JC is simply checking down. Moreover, the deep passing game has been there in weeks past, just not against the Cards.

Although all of our woes on offense cannot be attributed to the injuries to the O-line, it is pretty crazy to argue that they don't have a dramatic effect on the offense. Losing the entire right side of the line and playing with a wounded second-string right tackle IS going to affect your play-calling and player execution of those plays. Our team has relied on the strength of its O-line for awhile and that strength has become a weakness.

[BrunellMVP?]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

It certainly is not. That very same conservative offense served us well in 2005, when our offense was running over everyone. The only problem is that, right now, it is not serving us well. As a run-first, smash-mouth team that cannot run the ball effectively, we do need to start passing a little more to open up the running lanes.

However, as I said above, the injuries to the O-line undoubtedly have a big effect on the offense and it is unclear if Saunders is failing to call deep/intermediate passing plays or JC is simply checking down. Moreover, the deep passing game has been there in weeks past, just not against the Cards.

Although all of our woes on offense cannot be attributed to the injuries to the O-line, it is pretty crazy to argue that they don't have a dramatic effect on the offense. Losing the entire right side of the line and playing with a wounded second-string right tackle IS going to affect your play-calling and player execution of those plays. Our team has relied on the strength of its O-line for awhile and that strength has become a weakness.

in 2005 we had a solid/healthy O-line and a Moss that was catching the ball...but i think you've touched on a good point, what constitutes conservative play-calling?

In my mind, play-calling becomes conservative when you know you are unlikely to get the first down, but you do it anyway to eat clock. While there is certainly a time and place for this strategy (end of game or when you are up by 3 possession at the start of 4th quarter) i think we start playing the clock game too early (not enough of a lead). We seem to be willing to accept (though clearly they want to get first downs) burning a min or two off the clock via a run, run, short pass play calling that often results in 3 and outs, and then relying on the D to hold yet again.

In 2005, our line was good enough to run for first downs- and thus could legititmarely expect to achieve/obtain first downs via the run- with our current patchwork line, this is not the case...

[rypper11]

A good OL is not a collection of five great, talented players. It's 5 guys who play well as a cohesive unit. When the center misses the protection call the RT and RG both look in and the LE has a free shot. The best lines have played together. The biggest concern bringing Kendall in was the lack of time with his linemates and he worked extra time with Samuels and Rabach to help that. I contend that Wade is a good tackle (remember the game he filled in for Jansen last year) and that Fabini, Pucillo and Heyer are solid. But when you are learning about the guy beside you as you go you are already in a bad position.

[GTripp0012]

By my definition, I would say conservative play calling is simply calling any play that prioritizes limiting the chance of a mistake over gaining yards, and first downs and or points.

I think this is a GREAT thread because it does little good to criticize play calling with out first defining what conservative play calling is.

No offense can have success if the play calling is too conservative. However, it's my understanding that people in general don't themselves understand what conservative play calling is prior to voicing their opinion. By definition, a running play on third and eight is NOT CONSERVATIVE if it was called with the primary intent of picking up the first down. It can only be "conservative" if the intent was simply to waste a down without turning the ball over. Generally with the lead, you want to get more conservative as it gets later and later, and the Skins have adhered to this principle thus far. It's the execution that has prevented late game success.