Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post - Gibbs called the final 4 plays...(No he didn't)

JWsleep · 09-24-2007, 10:12 PM

Saunders called the plays--this report is off.

And listen to Gibbs in his presser on this today. He said they got what they wanted, did what they wanted, but failed to execute. There was no confusion on the sideline, no panic. They got to the two with no TOs and had three plays to score. They tried a roll out pass to Sellers, and two runs over the left side where they liked the matchup (and where they scored in the first half). It's tough to sneak or to give the ball straight to Sellers without a lead block because the gints are in goal-line D stacking the line. And Sellers is a good lead blocker.

Maybe when Campbell is a bit farther along, he gets more control there and can audible to something or call his own number or whatnot. But right now those were good plays, IMO. They just didn't execute.

Could we have run other things there? Of course. And if those had not worked, we'd be bitching about that. I would have liked a rollout on 4th down, but I completely understand why they didn't. We were on the friggin TWO.

I do think they need to reevaluate the "Portis and Betts are interchangeable" thing, but that's the way they've practiced it and played it so far. From what Gibbs says, it's really Byner that has the big say there. Interesting. No doubt they'll be thinking about all this in the weeks to come. What they want is a Holmes/Johnson thing like Saunders had in KC, but I think CP is really better. Saunders has always loved Betts (and he did gain over 1000 last season), but CP is more clutch, IMO.

09-24-2007, 10:12 PM	#23
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 56 Posts: 4,719	Re: Gibbs called the final 4 plays.. Saunders called the plays--this report is off. And listen to Gibbs in his presser on this today. He said they got what they wanted, did what they wanted, but failed to execute. There was no confusion on the sideline, no panic. They got to the two with no TOs and had three plays to score. They tried a roll out pass to Sellers, and two runs over the left side where they liked the matchup (and where they scored in the first half). It's tough to sneak or to give the ball straight to Sellers without a lead block because the gints are in goal-line D stacking the line. And Sellers is a good lead blocker. Maybe when Campbell is a bit farther along, he gets more control there and can audible to something or call his own number or whatnot. But right now those were good plays, IMO. They just didn't execute. Could we have run other things there? Of course. And if those had not worked, we'd be bitching about that. I would have liked a rollout on 4th down, but I completely understand why they didn't. We were on the friggin TWO. I do think they need to reevaluate the "Portis and Betts are interchangeable" thing, but that's the way they've practiced it and played it so far. From what Gibbs says, it's really Byner that has the big say there. Interesting. No doubt they'll be thinking about all this in the weeks to come. What they want is a Holmes/Johnson thing like Saunders had in KC, but I think CP is really better. Saunders has always loved Betts (and he did gain over 1000 last season), but CP is more clutch, IMO. __________________ Hail from Houston!