iggles post game thread

Washington Redskins' Game Day discussions for 2003, 2004, and 2005
Skins History Buff
Posts: 4836
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby welch » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:40 am

as for who could we replace gibbs with,


- Perhaps Vince Lombardi...oops not available.

- Amos Alonzo Stagg...oh my, not available, either

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:50 am

Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.


Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

The problem is with a young QB in short yardage, would we have fooled them with another formation? And the two INTs were in short yardage throws, and not even on the goal line.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the opions were limited and the thing they did not want was a turnover. There was plenty of time on the clock.

mursilis
Posts: 2414
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:07 pm

Postby Mursilis » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:11 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.


Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

The problem is with a young QB in short yardage, would we have fooled them with another formation? And the two INTs were in short yardage throws, and not even on the goal line.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the opions were limited and the thing they did not want was a turnover. There was plenty of time on the clock.


Obviously, a INT doesn't help at all, but neither does being so obvious as lining up in formation (someone else called it 'heavy jumbo') which so obviously telegraphed the call, especially at the 3 yard line. We'll never know how a run from a different formation would've worked, but it's just so bitter to see the team get to the 3(!) and not get the go-ahead TD. :evil:

kazoo
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:18 am

Mursilis wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Mursilis wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:I'm going to go on record and say that it was a smart move to kick the field goal in the 4th quarter when we did.

Remember that we were looking at a 4th and goal from the 17 yard line. . .right after Campbell had been sacked and right after a penalty and right after a couple of broken plays.

I don't see how you can defend going for the TD on 4th and 17 when a field goal keeps you in it, especially with how our D had been playing in the 2nd half. It makes me glad that Gibbs is coach and not some media pundit.


Can't argue with any of that, so I won't. Still, it bothered me the first play of that series, 1st and goal from the 3, when they lined up in an obvious run formation (I think it was a 2 back, 2 TE set, with TJ in the backfield). Nothing wrong with calling a run on that down, but you might as well wave a sign announcing the play if you're going to do it like that. Why not keep Betts in there (he was obviously 'hot' today) and line up with 2 wide (or something similar), and make the Eagles guess what the call's going to be?

The problem is with a young QB in short yardage, would we have fooled them with another formation? And the two INTs were in short yardage throws, and not even on the goal line.

I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out the opions were limited and the thing they did not want was a turnover. There was plenty of time on the clock.


Obviously, a INT doesn't help at all, but neither does being so obvious as lining up in formation (someone else called it 'heavy jumbo') which so obviously telegraphed the call, especially at the 3 yard line. We'll never know how a run from a different formation would've worked, but it's just so bitter to see the team get to the 3(!) and not get the go-ahead TD. :evil:

I agree with that.

Return to Washington Redskins Game Day - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006