Play Calling: Even when you win, you lose.

by Skin Patrol on Dec 20, 2006 5:30 PM EST in Analysis Comment 2 comments

As you probably know, the Redskins upset the 9 win Saints last Sunday. No one gave Your Washington Redskins a chance to win this game besides your homer host.

I'm the loudest and most obnoxious fan when bad decisions lead to losses as I have repeatedly questioned play calling on this website. Particularly against the Eagles, when a decision to kick a field goal (while losing) ultimately may have cost us the game. I also -- kind of sort of -- operate under the mindset that the right decision is the one that leads to a win. Winning cures all ills but it also vindicates decisions retroactively (note: to a degree).

With just over 4 minutes to go in the game, the Redskins hanging on to a 3 point lead at 13-10, your kicking unit jumps on the field on 4th and 3 on the Saints 4 yard line. Three yards gets us a first down. Four yards gets us a touchdown. Perhaps Joe Gibbs should have gone for it?

Water. Under. The. Bridge. as far as I'm concerned, but I'll sound off anyways. With about 4 minutes remaining in a game, there's a difference between leaving four points on the field when you're down by 5 points (Philly) and protecting a lead against the best offense in the league (New Orleans).

The reality is that Suisham (pronounced Your Washington Redskins Kicker) made the kick and the Saints were forced to go for a touchdown on their final drive. They couldn't convert, but had all the time necessary to march to the Washington 15 yard line -- safe FG territory.

You go for it and fail to convert the 3 yards, you're sending a message to your defense: I wouldn't trust you to baby sit my pet rock, let alone hold a lead. Then they have to go out there and stop Drew Brees' Saints? Not happenin'.

You kick that field goal you are telling your defense to win the damn game for once. I took more from the fact that our defense looked like a 2004 unit than I did from the win itself; Gregg Williams suddenly looks like the kind of coordinator we can trust. A "bad" defense can look like a mediocre one every blue moon. But never does a "bad" defense go into the Best Offense In The League's House and embarrass them throughout (of the first 7 possessions, 4 were three-and-outs and only one went for more than 26 yards) only to close the game with two downs of near perfect, clutch, defensive play.

Players remember that kind of thing. And now fans can remember that Joe Gibbs challenged his defense to win a football game and they did precisely that. Sometimes this is called Coaching.

[editor's note, by Skin Patrol] I should note that Tandler agrees and was a day ahead of me on this.

0 recs | Comment 2 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

4th down in the Saints game

Looking back on it in hindsight, I say they should have gone for it. Here's my breakdown:

Go for it, get the TD, Redskins go up by 10 with 4 min left. Game is pretty much over.

Go for it, do not get the TD, turn the ball over with 4 min left, leading by three. The Saints would be pinned on their own end zone, needing to go about 70 yards to get into field goal range to tie the game. Not win, tie.

Take the field goal, Redskins go up by 6, or a small enough margin that a TD+PAT wipes it out. The Saints get the ball back via kickoff, needing to go in for a TD. Average starting field position for the Saints in that game was their 22, so that's 78 yards, though the actual starting position for that final drive was their 38, so they needed to go 62 yards for the score.

What am I trying to say? That regardless of the outcome of going for it on 4th, the Saints were going to have to move the ball about the same distance to score. In the worst case scenario (obviously understanding that any NFL offense can break off a huge play at any time) where the Redskins did not get the TD, the likely outcome is a tying FG, giving the Redskins time in the 4th to get a FG or go into OT and get the win.

In the scenario the Redskins chose, taking the FG, the Saints had to drive the same distance, only the downside is not a tie, it's a loss.

If there is a message to be sent, send it to the offense in the form of WIN THE FUCKING GAME and not to the defense in the form of PLEASE BAIL THE OFFENSE OUT AGAIN

=====The Curly R: Blogging the Redskins=====

by thatguyben on Dec 21, 2006 10:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Regarding messages

Once you've made the decision to either kick the FG or go for it, the only message that's important is the one the defense receives as they're the ones who have to close out the game. It'd be nice if we had enough confidence in our offense to get 3 yards with confidence, but clearly that isn't the case. When you're playing from behind (with a 5-8 record, as we were against Philly last week) there isn't any excuse to settle for points.

Back to the message. If you go for it you send a message to your offense, but one way or another they're going to be off the field within 1-2 plays. If they succeed, you send the defense back on the field even though you clearly don't trust them. No big deal, even an untrustworthy defense can't blow that lead (right?). But if you fail, you send a defense you clearly don't trust onto the field with a 3 point lead. That's not necessarily an enviable position, especially against New Orleans.

The FG sends a defense you trust on the field with a lead. In this particular instance, the defense could be trusted.

I hate to marry myself dogmatically to a strategy like Gregg Easterbrook, but I think in general lead goes for sure points, from behind don't leave any on the field. A touchdown loses it, sure, but the defense kept them out of the endzone on 9 out of 10 drives. Saints got into field goal range 3 times.

Just my 2 cents.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Dec 21, 2006 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs