| Redskins-Eagles Week 10- 11/12/07 by Stevo I have the utmost respect for NFL coaches (and astronauts). I know the hours these guys put into their jobs and that when decisions are made on the sideline during a game, only they see the full scope of things and it would be naive to assume I, a humble fan, could know any better. But it would also be naive to assume that there is no detectable reason for why the Redskins cannot put inferior teams away this season. I sit a few hours removed from yet another blown second-half lead (late in the 4th quarter to be specific) and I believe that someone is going to have to answer for this one. Matches this season against underwhelming opponents such as the Dolphins, Eagles (1st game duh), Cardinals, and Jets went unnecessarily down to the wire, but criticism was reserved because in the end, somehow things went our way. Well this time they didn't, and now letting your opponent hang around all game doesn't seem so harmless. Postgame, Gibbs has usually disregarded how close a game was as long as he got the win. Maybe Gibbs should've thought about the long-term, and realized that his game plan that is so prone to producing ultra-close games won't always win out. If you insist on making every game a nail-biter, you have to accept that some will bounce your way and some won't. Such is the nature of a close game, where one play can turn everything around, as Brian Westbrook's 4th quarter touchdown scamper did today. Of course, it's not as if Gibbs is purposely sending games down to the wire, he would love lopsided victories just as much as any of us. So how is it that Gibbs keeps landing the Redskins in these situations? Let's see...I would say that I am beating a dead horse, but I haven't heard enough criticism of Gibbs' ultra-conservative play-calling this season. He usually converts to this conservative mode in two situations: When the Redskins get into the redzone and when they hold a 2nd half lead. 1st and goal? Run the ball up the gut. Doesn't work? Do it again. If I see it coming every time, don't you think that opposing coaches would too? Well they do, and they're almost always ready for it. Gibbs might as well hold up a neon sign that says "We're not going to throw the ball" with how much he neglects receivers in the redzone. No better proof than this than the number of touchdowns for Redskins wide receivers through the first 8 games: ZERO. Not one. Is it safe to say that Joe Gibbs' "committing to the run" in these situations may be a euphemism for "afraid to pass"? Immediately reverting to power-running and sticking with it through several failed series can really throw off a once hot offense, especially one led by a young Quarterback who really needs to develop a rhythm. I say if the QB is hot, then give him the ball. Not every play of course, but at this point it seems that roping a tight leash around Campbell as soon as possible is a foregone conclusion for Joe Gibbs. In his mind, something around a 10 point lead is sufficient for 'clock killing' to rise as a higher priority than 'point scoring'. Unfortunately for Gibbs, clock-killing isn't as easy as it used to be. This ain't the 1980s, this is the age of parity in the NFL. Gibbs no longer has hogs who can dominate the line at will. A strong passing game is more essential today than ever. If Gibbs can accept this, then only one question remains: Can he trust Campbell? For all his endless lauding of the power-running game, the truth is that more opportunities for Campbell to get the ball down field will ultimately open things up for Portis and Betts. I think it's unfair that Gibbs not allow Jason Campbell an opportunity to get into a rhythm, to make his opportunities few and far between in the 2nd half and then, when the other team has finally caught up and things are completely fucked, to give him the ball and say "Now get us out of this, o.k? Now show us what you got." The Redskins running attack and defense are both decent, but they alone won't get Washington very far through the playoffs. It's time to let Jason Campbell be the leader. Not in the technical way a Quarterback is always by definition the "leader", but to trust him the way they trust Tony Romo in Dallas or even Jon Kitna in Detroit. Kitna is no Pro Bowler, but at least they had the stones to bank on their starting QB, and now he's led them to a 6-3 record. I think the supporting cast is good enough to put it on Campbell's shoulders and watch the Redskins go as he goes. If Campbell is who Joe Gibbs thought he was when he drafted him, then that shouldn't be a problem. |
Hurricane Stevo
| The Staff |
 | |  | |  | |  |
