Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Second Half Leftovers

A bunch of research on the Redskins' second half woes didn't make it in the paper (never enough space, eh?), so I'll post it here.

I can't get the formatting right for this chart, so I'll explain it here.
HT Score is the at the half of these games, then the second half scoring and the record for their opponent entering the game.

THE 11 LOSSES WITH A HALFTIME LEAD FROM 2004-2007 (Gibbs 15-11 with lead at 1/2; 9-7 at FedEx)

2004 HT Score 2nd 1/2 Opp. Record
at CLE 10-3 (3-14) 1-2
vs BAL 10-0 (0-17) 2-2
at KC 7-6 (14-22) 2-2
vs. OAK 13-3 (0-13) 3-6
vs. SD 10-7 (7-16)* 6-4
vs MIN 13-9 (3-10) 0-0
vs. TEN 14-13 (8-12) 0-5
at IND 14-13 (8-23) 5-0
vs. ATL 14-10 (0-14) 5-6
at STL 21-14 (10-23)* 6-8
vs NYG 17-3 (0-21) 0-2
OUTSCORED 185-53* Record 30-37
*Includes Overtime
Cumulative Record Includes Opponents Record Entering That Game
1981: 4-0
1982: 7-0
1983: 12-1
1984: 10-1
1985: 7-0
1986: 7-1
1987: 8-1
1988: 3-2
1989: 4-1
1990: 7-0
1991: 10-1
1992: 7-3

4 of the 11 came at The Vet, two more were against PHX/ARZ (looking back on those box scores amazing how tough the Cardinal generally played the Skins)

9/5/83 - Lead Dallas at home 23-3 at half - L 31-30
--first game after Super Bowl year

11/18/84 - Lead Philly 7-6 at half at Vet - L 16-10

12/13/86 - Lead Denver 13-7 at Mile High, get Elwayed - L 31-30

11/8/87 - Lead Philly 21-17 at Vet - L 31-27

9/5/ 88 - Lead NYG 13-3 at Meadowlands - L 27-20
9/25/88 - Lead PHX 14-9 at Sun Devil - L 30-21

9/17/89 Lead Philly 30-14 at home - L 42-37

12/22/91 - Lead Philly 13-7 at Vet - L 24-22

10/4/92 - Lead PHX 17-0 at Sun Devil - L 27-24
12/20/92 - Lead Philly 13-7 at Vet - L 17-13
12/26/92 Lead LA Raiders 3-0 at home - L 21-20
--last regular season home game for Gibbs at RFK

Gibbs in Playoffs with Halftime Lead: 12-0

By Jason La Canfora  |  October 3, 2007; 11:11 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Portis Update
Next: Moss Not Looking Good



Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: Tom Flick | October 3, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

waiting for the haters to say it's another slanted, emotional jasno outburst, that the 'skins rule and jasno just can't admit how great they've been under gibbs 2.0.

these are FACTS people. facts we can't ignore. our hall of fame coach simply hasn't had his old mojo this go around.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I'll steal one from the OK ST coach... "it makes me wanna PUKE". If that doesn't go to show you right there that Grandpa Gibbs isn't the most conservative man in the WORLD, I don't know what will...

Oh, and one minor correction just on the surface. It was 17-3 at half against the GMen.

Posted by: Ricky Bobby | October 3, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

i just lost my breakfast- what dreadful reading

Posted by: mile high | October 3, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

FedEx field gets so quiet after halftime when we have a lead... once again, we need a home field advantage. then again i guess it'd help to have something to cheer about

Posted by: sniksder | October 3, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Didn't JLaC already mention these depressing facts last week? While I'm all for bringing the team's shortcomings to light, it's old news and does JLaC really think this will accomplish anything other than making us hampsters feel even worse??

Posted by: Dlyne8r | October 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the kind words on the previous thread Dik, but they're dead to me right now so I won't respond on that.

There seems to be a lot of back and forth about whether Gibbs has lost his mojo in his 2.0 version. As you would expect, I have no insight, but to an objective outsider I have to say the evidence doesn't look good.

It's really hard to win games by only trying not to lose. You're always going to ask a lot of your offensive line (open gaps because you are going to keep running to control the clock) and defense (stall drives and keep getting off the field so that offense can run down the clock).

The only analogy I can think of is from back in my soccer days which is that you don't protect a lead by inviting the other team to attack you for the whole game - it might work once in a while but usually ends badly for the defending team.

Every team makes mistakes at some point, but if you at least make them going forward in the other guys' territory you give yourself a chance to recover. Gibbs 2.0 seems to be so intent on not bungling that he's happy to take predictable 3 and outs on offense and 'hope' that the defense keeps stepping up. You guys got how many turnovers from the Giants once you were 17-3 up and did nothing with them, not even eat up time. That's unforgivable.

If this is your lead protection strategy, why not just takes 3 knees and then punt each possession once you get in front?

After the first game this season people were talking about the 'rejuvenated' Redskins and how they might be able to compete into the post-season, but when you combine a "don't think differently" mental attitude with the still-bad Gibbs 2.0 clock management (I sympathise there as ours is atrocious too) it's a recipe for losing games because you're too timid to deserve to win them.

Unless St Joe decides that this is THE season when they have to go for it - every minute of every game - I think you're heading for disappointment.

My 2c, for what it's worth.

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Great job Jason on giving the kool-aid drinking fans a hard dose of reality. If this is not telling of how conservative the skins have become then I don't know what will. Yes true Joe Gibbs calls the plays and its up to the players to go out and execute but if Gibbs is not putting the players in the right position (Playcalling) then they are doomed to fail, and fail they will.

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

the man did his research.. the verdict is... we have no killer instinct, and no home field advantage for 4 full quarters...

Posted by: sniksder | October 3, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

There you go again hating on the Redskins!!!! Hater!!!How dare you present these facts as.....facts...oh wait never mind.

Posted by: Skinz | October 3, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Enough already! What's that old saying...if you can't say anything good don't say anything at all?

If the Skins had won the Giants game, would this even be written? I think not.

Posted by: Lisa | October 3, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Redcoat- That's about it. Playing by 'trying not to lose' you end up losing.

It's like the "prevent defense", which prevents you from winning.

Posted by: 4-12 | October 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at the average yards per carry in the first half of the games they lead in at the half and the second half of the games they lose. My theory is that they lack a dominate running game and that accounts for most of the differences from Gibbs 1 to Gibbs 2.

Posted by: BobD | October 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Who the F plays not to loose. That sounds like a mentality of a second place looser. Gee Joe! (Retracting bolt on .45 handgun and finishing a letter)

Posted by: Just F'n Kill Me | October 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

But they didn't Lisa. If I'd won the Powerball I wouldn't be working, but I didn't, so here I sit...

Posted by: Preston | October 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. (That ones for you RC)

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh, these statistics make the term "sloppy seconds" lose all of its former allure.

Posted by: dcsween | October 3, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Everybody gets the point. Stop trying to rub it in everybodys face. Just because you are actually shorter than D Synder doesn't mean you have to hate him.

Posted by: Tallerthan55 | October 3, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"Gibbs, asked about the trend this week, said he saw the issue as a series of isolated incidents and said it was not indicative of a systemic problem with the team or how it played in the latter stages of a game."

It's these types of responses from Gibbs that make me wonder whether he's just being tight lipped or totally out-of-touch with reality. I hope he's looking at these numbers and trying to fix a problem not take the head in the sand approach.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

12:17 was me.

Posted by: Skinz | October 3, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh, these statistics make the term "sloppy seconds" lose all of its former allure.

Posted by: dcsween | October 3, 2007 12:07 PM

Hilarious sween. Not that sloppy seconds ever had that much allure to me in the first place.

Posted by: Da Truef | October 3, 2007 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmmm....**how can I blame all of this on B Lloyd**

Posted by: Reppin TX | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis Redcoat- I agree. Lisa- well, perhaps- only, if we'd beaten the Giants, we'd have had to score more points in the second half, right? That would be bucking this trend in general.

This was always one of the most regarded attributes of Gibbs Part I; sadly, it's one of the 1st trends I noticed in the sequel.

Posted by: D7 | October 3, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

So when the Redskins are pretty good (2005), they're pretty good at holding leads. And when they're pretty bad (2004, 2006) they're not. Wow, insightful.

Posted by: Duh. | October 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

(That is, the Skins' ability/inability to be a better "2nd half team.")

Posted by: D7 | October 3, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm fine w/ 'objective' (as in 'not really'...) stats being thrown in my face by my own insider's blog.

And if it gets to the point where this kind of prognostication becomes reality, then - like I said, I'll eat crow.

But Jasno & all the downers - you're practicing 'is-outght'ism here. I'm with Lisa. Football is not Baseball (heck, even Baseball isn't Baseball...hehe). Stats do NOT predict future performance, or else we'd all be rich betting for who we knew the winner to be all the time.

Additionally, I don't believe the conservative D actually was the problem last week - it was the anemic 2nd half offense, due to an overmatched line.

The Giants figured something out against us and the following week tied an NFL record.


Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

***12/13/86 - Lead Denver 13-7 at Mile High, get Elwayed - L 31-30***

the skins actually got "Zendejas'ed" in this game. He missed a PAT and a 47 yard kick. That family always seemed to kick wide on pressure kicks.

Posted by: Shotgun | October 3, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Dik- true- past stats/performance don't predict future performance; but, they do illustrate possible growing trends. If these continue to be the case, and- though the thought makes me want to vomit- the Skins are 6-8 late in the season- it wouldn't surprise me if they repeated those established trends again. Especially against a team that is 10-4.

Posted by: D7 | October 3, 2007 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I actually believe most of the points everyone has posted. TRUE: The D has not held a lead...TRUE: The O gets "3-n-out" syndrome...TRUE: The crowd gets quiet, because we have all seen this act before...(TRUE: Once I get to typin, baby I can't stop !!!)

All of this doesn't predict the future, but using a wall street basic theory, these are trends. What would help is if we " distance "ourselves from these teams. How often in Gibbs 2.0 have we blown someone out?? ( I can only come up with SF in 2005 or 06...52-10?) We keep temas around and hope for nothing bad. When teams hang around, all it takes is a turnover...a missed FG...a fluke punt return...and momentum has shifted.

Posted by: Reppin TX | October 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I actually thought it was Mosley who missed those kicks at Denver, and that's what got him canned.

The 23-3 blown lead to the Cowboys was the worst, though. Ten times worse than that loss to the Giants.

Posted by: Jeff | October 3, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse


Our kicker in that game was Ali Haji-Shiekh (sp?)

We were Hajied.

Posted by: etrod | October 3, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Re: These stats don't predict the future

If a guy is engaged and he calls of the wedding 1 week before hand. And then repeats it the next time...then we can predict that he will get butterflies every time he gets engaged.

* Oh wait...I meant to save this info for my autobiogrphy *

Posted by: Reppin TX | October 3, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Enough already! What's that old saying...if you can't say anything good don't say anything at all?

If the Skins had won the Giants game, would this even be written? I think not.

Posted by: Lisa | October 3, 2007 12:01 PM

Damn almost on cue. As the old DMX song went "Here we go again". Let the pissin and moanin' begin. Everytime someone prints or verbally expresses something negative about the Redskins one of you gets on your personal attack armor, like someone is attacking YOU. Look face it, this team with the current structure is heading nowhere fast. The fact that they straight up tank games away from the 3rd quarter on, and in some cases in the first with 15min on the clock is just simply the facts. I'm tired of all the crying when the Redskins flaws are pointed out. What world are you living in. You think you can take all the W's with a coke and a smile, and not have to eat the fowl with the losses? C'mon, lets snap back people. It was what it was, It is what it is, and its going to be what its going to be.

Quit it with your "Everyone is always doggin' my skins" sob stories and comments. The stench from the BS being shoveled into the blog is reaching its capacity.

Posted by: But mommy, he said the Redskins were bad. WAWAWAWAWAWA. (Oh F'n please) | October 3, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

It's a little creepy that I can remember where I was and what I was doing during each of those losses in Gibbs 1.0.

Posted by: etrod | October 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I hate to speak well of the man, but you only have to look at what Belichick did to Cincy the other night for an illustration of how to win games, and more importanly crush the opposition's will to do anything about it.

With Brady having a good game and Randy Moss seemingly unstoppable, what did he do? He ran Sammy Morris down the Bungles throats until they gave up.

Not their lead back Laurence Maroney, who was injured, but Sammy Freakin's Morris!! Sammy's only other 100+ yd game in an 8-year career was last year against the Patriots, so he's hardly an 'elite' running back.

Belichick made a statement; no quarter, no easing up, ever. It's unlikely that New England faces Cincy in the playoffs this year, but how do you think the Bengals would feel about playing the Patriots if they did have to play them? They'd be scared.

I'm told Gibbs 1.0 was like that too, but if that's so, it's long gone. There's nothing wrong with being kinder and gentler people as we age, it just doesn't sit well with a sport like football which is a (mostly) testosterone-driven young man's game.

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

That Gibbs quote is actually more telling than the stats.

Now, let's build on the success of 2005!

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

"Stats do NOT predict future performance, or else we'd all be rich betting for who we knew the winner to be all the time."

If you truly believe that then let's start betting. I'll take the Patriots straight up every week no spread.

Whoever told you that teams past performance is not a STRONG indicator of future performance is not a very smart person. You should definately not take them on as a life coach.

I'm serious. If I can have the Pats each week straight up, let me know.

Posted by: Skinz | October 3, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The Skins play down to, and beneath, the level of competition from their opponents. Been a problem for over a decade. Past history is not an indicator of current performance. Gibbs was masterful in his first stint, with an excellent front office and a different league. These trends are atrocious - they are not isolated but a continuous struggle.

Posted by: DisgustedFan | October 3, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

In lieu of no Nate up here right now, let me reiterate for him, just so there's absolutely no confusion; F Receiver, The.

Posted by: 4-12 | October 3, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

RedC - I remember only two teams that ran over people w/ Gibbs 1.0. The rest of the time we competed it was like this now. Tight games and frustrating comebacks. But the payoffs were awesome and that has something to do with the Redskins fan base, why we're as weird as we are.

Nailbiters are our speciality!

Kneebiters are theirs...

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

More than our ineptitude is the leagues perception of the same.

As redcoat says, when Cincy got down to the Pats and Belichek, they knew they were not making a come back.

Maybe teams know we give up half time leads and are energized by that fact.

Either way it is a fact and until that trend changes, we are stuck with that label.

Posted by: Zebra | October 3, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

You take Pats 16-0?

We're on!

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I know why Redcoat feels that way toward Bill Belichick and all, but for everyone else, whats wrong with Bill Belichick? Oh and if your going to use the whole 'Spy Gate" thing as your excuse, nevermind the question, don't bother answering.

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah and while we are at it what's wrong with Hitler? If you are going to use the whole WW2, Holocaust thing nm dont' answer the question.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Parity now once again exists in the blog with the return of DisgustedFan.

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

But Mommy,

That was sheer poetry. I couldn't have said it better myself!

Posted by: Ricky Bobby | October 3, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I could help the team overcome its second half woes. I promise that I'll practice MGO.

Posted by: Jacobs, Taylor | October 3, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Redcoat, while I agree with you that running the ball helps to eat up the clock and protect the lead, I think that your comparision of Redskins-Giants game to the Patriots-Bengals game is misplaced. First, unlike Pats, we currently play only to two out of five starters from last years' offensive line. Simply put, Fabini is not Randy Thomas. Second, our best running back, Portis, was injured during the game. Third, Giant's have a better defense than Bengals. Fourth, Pats played against the team that was reduced to one linebacker after Lemar Marshall was injured on the second play of the game. Of course, they ran them into the ground. Finally, Redskins are simply not as good as Pats, who are a dominant team. Just compare at their respective game spreads this season.

Posted by: M | October 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Dude, whoever is disgusted by this team needs to be watching Novellas or something. It's like the crap from last year is stuck in your system. Get an enema.

This Redskin team isn't going to overpower anyone. So what. We have talent. We have good coaching. We will win some games. Watch.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

You can toss out that 12/22/91 loss to Philly at the Vet. It shouldn't count as the Redskins were 14-1 and had wrapped up home field for the playoffs. The Skins substituted in 2nd and 3rd stringers in 2nd half and still almost won the game.

Posted by: Taxman | October 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

SkinsR, I think Belichick is just one of those guys who everyone think they wouldn't like to have running their team, but secretly, they would. Why?

@. He's deeply intolerant of poor performance (consistency is essential to win respect of players).
8. He constantly emphasizes the value of the team over the value team of the individual (essential in the age of free-agency).
5. He has a reputation for 'coaching-up'.
(. He only wants to win, not just win a bit, but win BIG. He understands that it's possible to build a long-lasting psychological advantage against teams by not just beating them, but demoralizing them. Case in point, how long did it take BBM to get past that, and he is a GREAT player?

Ask yourself a simple question; would you rather he was coaching for or against you? I don't like him because he coaches against my team twice a year, but I respect what he's achieved, videotaping aside, we all know that's just his paranoia searching for even more ways to maintain ascendancy over rivals, but New England would still be winning without it.

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Dik and Lisa are just as delusional as Joe Gibbs.

What's that? You took a shart in my cereal??? OH WONDERFUL. Let me put some strawberries on top and get a spooooon

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

skinz, exactly!! That quote from gibbs about systematic problem scared the shti outta me
i too hope hes lying and is actually working on this problem

Man he better see the light or im gonna have to change my prediction to 13-3!!

Posted by: dealer | October 3, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs sais in the offseaseon that he would look at everything. This is something he needs to look at. Gibbs was once excellent at adjustments. Its clear that he doesn't know how to win in today's game. And while many here put it all on Gibbs, its also on the players. Its a mental issue. After all, that was not Peyton Manning hanging 21 pointslast game ... it was Eli.

Posted by: AL | October 3, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs seriously can't think that, right???? Is he that far out of touch with reality?

They should remove his bust from Canton, or at least put an asterisk on it like Barry Bonds' HR ball.

Or maybe they could shoot him into outer space like the ball. Wait, been there, done that with Clint Eastwood and NASA.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

M you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

With Cincy's defense in that state, Brady could have kept throwing to Moss and the Patriots might have scored 100, but rather than do that he said "I'm going to show you just how out of this game you are" and ran a journeyman running back down their throats, again and again.

Remember, they threw to Vrabel on the 3rd and goal ONLY because the previous two runs (with Junior Seau playing as full back!) were halted. Belichick wanted to demoralize Cincy even more than if he'd just thrown all over them by showing them they were physically overmatched even by the Patriots 2nd string running back.

Gibbs talked about "we thought about using HB Blades as full back and Sellers as half back", Belichick PLANS to do that. His defensive guys know that they have a chance of going out on offense and sticking it to the ir opponents.

I'm not singling out Gibbs here, most of the NFL is being outcoached by Belichick, Dungy notwithstanding, but I'm not sure that even Indy can stop the Patriots with the offense the Pats have this year.

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

You are the shart the cereal, dbag.

Lisa is a good fan. Optimistic, but good.

Reading you pessimists' posts, it's tough to believe there are any Redskins left.

Go join Dallas already - I hear they have some openings for fickle wusses there.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I think there's one strategy no one has tried with much success & I'm hoping Grilliams is up to the task. I know Wade will be.

That is: Pound the SJK out of Brady. Did you see him come apart in that series? Brady is a crybaby that has been protected by too good a line for too long.

That O-Line really is the secret in Beantown anyway - but no one wants to talk about that - they wan't to talk about mojo & skill HORSEPUCKY. Line, Big, Homegrown, Dominant.

Now - through everything else out the window and knock that QB around, we'll see what kinda majic they got.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, UP HERE we're a pretty concerned about using the shot gun. It could easily get over Sonny's head and we'd have some serious problems if that happened.

I'm seriously contemplating putting Riggo under center so we take away the QB-RB exchange too.

What??? WHAT???????????????

My hearing is bad UP HERE.

Posted by: Joe Gibba | October 3, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with what J-Lac wrote. That's his job! I agree with Lisa that had we beaten the Giants, this article may not have been written, but it's J-Lac's job to look at statistics and trends, but some of y'all are missing the point...The Washington Redskins are still 2-1 and just as much in this early on as anyone else. I don't care how we got the two wins. (See Saints, Eagles and Chargers). Some of you fans need to wake up though, because despite all of the mistakes we've made, we still have a competetive team. Aside from the Patriots, I cannot see any team on our schedule with the capabilities of blowing us out. I think we still have some personnel holes to fill. Rogers may not prove to be a #1 shut down corner. I think the "big receiver" issue is overrated. Santana Moss when healthy is a best who can go get the ball. That's why he's doubled every week. We need a pass rusher that the QB is afraid of, although Carter's been coming on lately. Portis needs to be the premiere back. I'd run him until he's gassed, then bring in Betts, I wouldn't run him once or twice then go to Betts.

Posted by: sicwidit | October 3, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Are you comparing Hitler and Bill Belichick? Get a hold of yourself, not your usual Saturday night extravaganza either.

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Skinrealist, here is my stance on Bill Belichick. Its not so much him as it is Brady. Want proof? How about 14 games under .500 when Brady isn't his qb. How about 2 seasons out of 6, in which he had a record better than 8-8, when Brady was not his qb. If he's such a genius, why did it manifest itself after Brady became the starter?? Shouldn't he have been a genius the first 6 years he was in the league?

He should have a bronze statue of Mo Lewis made. After all it was Mo who knocked Bledsoe out of the game, and started Brady's career.

Posted by: Greg(Boston) | October 3, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Very well said Redcoat, ITA.

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

dik..well put on your last 2 posts..

Posted by: sniksder | October 3, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

I hear what you're saying Dik but it's not that simple.

Miami sacked/battered Brady out of the game last year when we won 21-0, but I dare say that not one of the things we did last year to achieve that would work this year. Why? Because d*mn Belichick changes everything that doesn't work and makes you go find his teams' weaknesses all over again.

Sure that o-line can be dominant, but that doesn't explain why perfectly good quarterbacks come unhinged playing against that defense, and why the Patriots almost never give up big special teams plays.

He sets the tone for that team; mediocre performance anywhere puts you on the street, but the other side of that is that if there is something that you can offer to the team that doesn't sit in your normal job description (Vrabel, Seau for example) he'll find it, and use it.

Het gets 100% effectiveness out of every player on his roster, or he gets rid of them. Who else does that today?

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Um, yeah, up here I think I'd rather go ahead and take the risk of getting struck by lightning, with a 400-foot metal rod stuck to my head, in the middle of a bad storm, than go for it on 4th and 1 like Bellicheck did on Monday night.

Posted by: Joe Gibbs | October 3, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Great work there, Jason.
These second half numbers are mind-boggling.

Posted by: Scott (DC) | October 3, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Skinz, in Week 9, the Patriots travel to Indianapolis. No spread. Who do you take? The Baby Daddy or The Forehead? The Hoodie or The Thinstache?

Posted by: dcsween | October 3, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Redskins are a better (not great)'s why...

1) We finally have a young QB that can throw the ball downfield. He keeps us in games now, so he'll only get better.

2) We have youth on defense.

3) They can run the ball when they decide to commit to it, even with reserve lineman.

4) Fans inderestimate some talented players we have (Cooley, Sellars, Rabach, Thomas, Samuels, Moss, Randle-El, Cartwright, Betts, Portis, Taylor, Landry, Fletcher, Washington, Blades, Springs).

Here's what the Skins need to do to be great!

1) The first three picks in the first three rounds of the DRAFT need to be O and D lineman. I wouldn't be mad if they drafted a big, fast receiver in the first round, but went back to lineman in rounds 2 and 3.

2) I'd get a QB in the 5th round. To develop behind Campbell. The other picks I'd use for a depth corner and lineman

This may kill some of you fans who are GM's but I would get a corner via free agency, someone young, big and has swagger that they can back up.

This team is not that far off. With a good draft next year and one or two free agent pickups, we can get there.

Sadly to say, Joe has to get that mojo. He can't hogtie this team with expectations of each game being decided by 3 points or less.

Posted by: sicwidit | October 3, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

F the Patriots.

We were the last team to beat them before their super-magical undefeated run, in their second barftastic Super Bowl season. We've also beaten them six straight times, including four games at their old place in Foxboro. I'm just sayin'.

Also, and of more immediate concern, F the Lions.

Posted by: Nate in the PDX | October 3, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Yay, Nate is in the house!!!

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

According to my calculations (watch out, I'm not a math guy...)

The losses in Gibbs 2.0, even though they were outscored 185-53 in the second half, the final score difference was only 70, which is an average of 6.4 points a game. That is less than a TD + XP per loss.

Granted, the first half leads weren't that great, but still... you have to hate losing so many close games. That comes down to coaching (IMHO) When Gibbs came back I remember some sports radio guy saying that a good coach is worth at least an extra TD to the score. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a FIRE GIBBS rant... Just an observation. No matter the opinion on the matter, it sucks losing close games. You either think the team is better than they really are or lose all hope and jump of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Posted by: Dorf | October 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, with my usual profound and insightful commentary.

(And a bit of a headache as I recover from two nights of the great and powerful Black Francis in concert. I've also been spending some time on one of his fan websites, which would have been a sacrilege during the 100k death march. It's okay, but nothing like RI on a good day.)

Posted by: Nate in the PDX | October 3, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

T'was once a boy name Heath. People thought Heath would get better also. I'm not saying...

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

More orange wedges at half time!!

Posted by: POOP | October 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Poop in the hizzie

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Man, we sick and tired of Coach Gibbs taking a nap at half time. That don't get none of us fired up to go back out there and keep the heat on them.

Posted by: Clinton Portis | October 3, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

You went to see him/them twice? Was it that good the first time?

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

My favorite all time musician, Black Francis of the Pixies AKA Frank Black. I catch every show I can. Two nights in Portland, a no-brainer for a dork like me.

Thank goodness it was the Skins' bye week, which made the two nights out much more tolerable from a spousal perspective.

Posted by: Nate in the PDX | October 3, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Who is the greatest football player of all time? Wait. Before you answer, I have another question. Would you say that todays players are more athletic than those of the 60's? If so, ask yourself, if the best players are those who have played the past 20-25 years than should the best player of all time come from this era?

IMHO I would say Jerry Rice.
Stats and rings reinforce

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

In lieu of no Nate up here right now, let me reiterate for him, just so there's absolutely no confusion; F Receiver, The.

Posted by: 4-12 | October 3, 2007 12:46 PM

so you don't have to hurt my feelings Nate in the PDX, i have already been f'd today.

Posted by: Brandon Lloyd | October 3, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Say, any of you people help me to stop using homophobic comments as a way of compensating for my pitiful self-image?

Posted by: fakeb55 | October 3, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I'm gonna guess Sammy Baugh (what a homer! hahahahah)

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

at KC 7-6 (14-22) 2-2
vs. SD 10-7 (7-16)* 6-4
vs. TEN 14-13 (8-12) 0-5
at IND 14-13 (8-23) 5-0

JLC, I get your point. But seriously do you really think that in these four games skins were really leading at the half?. especially 2006 INDY game at IND. When you are ahead by 1 point with 2006 INDY team at there home, you are actually trailing by 13 points as the were capable of scoring couple of TDs in a 2-3 mins time.
I guess same was the case with 2006 SD with hot LT.
I know these are facts and I agree that skins are not doing well under JG 2.0 but in some cases halftime facts does not mean anything.

Posted by: Mak35 | October 3, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Interesting question SkinsR. What is your definition of 'greatest'? The player who excels in their position compared agsinst all others, or is it the player with the ability to impact any game they played in.

The one-eyed homer fan in me says Dan Marino, but the NFL fan in me says that Laurence Taylor, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana and Jim Brown (although I've only seen film of him) were all better than Dan.

Players are more athletic (perhaps) these days but I think that's more to do with improved specialized training and diets than raw ability.

You look at people like LT and Rice and they would be great players in any era.

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious sween.

Dik, are you retarded or under the age of 16 or both? It's incredibly ignorant to extrapolate that people don't like the Redskins because A)They don't agree with you. B) They critisize the team and it's decisions.

Posted by: Skinz | October 3, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I think this means really nothing at all and all of you over analyze the Skins and Gibbs to death. To the point where it is ridicules.

Every single move that is made or every single play ran or step a player makes ...This is just stupid..It's a freaking football game. And most of you act like that Snyder and Gibbs and the staff are losing on purpose...All your opinions and what not...Funny thing is all of you would break the record and be 0 and 16 if you were the please feel free to shut up!

Posted by: Leevi | October 3, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"To the point where it is ridicules. "

Posted by: Leevi | October 3, 2007 02:17 PM

That is the funniest spelling of "ridicules" I have ever seen. It is so bad, it actually took me a few seconds to figure out what it was supposed to be.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with doing a critique on the team. I do have a problem with the baseless insults and overreactions I see here on a daily basis.

You loose one close game and you're ready to fire a hall-of-famer who's had more than enough adversity to deal with.

How is my extrapolation ignorant? Because you fit the description? Man up - be a fan.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I'm down w/ Leevi

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Fire JG2.0

He should be embarassed to be such a money hungry sellout. JG2.0 doesn't care about W's and L's as long as his wallet is getting fat.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Ricky Bobby jerks it to tony romo and then puts on his skins jersey and heads to fedex every week.

Seriously, does anyone NOT know all those Gibbs/snyder/cerrato etc posts are him?

Posted by: blog detective | October 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Feel free to take your own advice Leevi

Posted by: Just sayzin is all... | October 3, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

And most of you act like that Snyder and Gibbs and the staff are losing on purpose...All your opinions and what not...Funny thing is all of you would break the record and be 0 and 16 if you were the please feel free to shut up!

Posted by: Leevi | October 3, 2007 02:17 PM

Based on the fact that I'm merely an interested bystander on this Leevi I will feel free NOT to shut up, but you can feel free not to read if you wish.

All I sense here is that people are trying to understand if the Gibbs 2.0 regime truly grasps what is required to be successful playing football now - in 2007 - rather than in 1991 or previously.

There is no doubt that back then Gibbs knew it in spades and that bust in Canton is total validation of that - fact. In the absence of results (one 6 game run 2 years ago hardly counts) in Gibbs 2.0, all you can look at are the way the games broke down, and sadly for the Redskins, it doesn't look like the coaches know how to consistently win out. It's almost like there is no acknowledged 'closer' in the Redskins coaching hierarchy.

As you rightly say this speculation has no intrinsic value except for hard-pressed fans to manage their own expectations, as the team will never do that for them. But with that acknowleged, what is your point?

No-one here said they could do a better job than JJG, and I don't believe anyone here thinks they could, but does that mean that you can't comment or even hold accountable the leadership of your team?

Posted by: Redcoat | October 3, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Norv Turner can do a better job than JG2.0

Oh yeah...I went there.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse


Isn't there always a quality that's undefinable that goes into "greatest". Football can't be easily measured by stats, especially when you consider that certain stats have not always been recorded? Take Deacon Jones as an example. If they had kept sack stats when he played, Gap Tooth woould never be included in any "greatest" converstation.

I would tend to look at a guy like Jim Thorpe. He defined the way the game was played and was an amazingly courageous person and athlete.

Posted by: Larry Bud | October 3, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I do have a problem with the baseless insults and overreactions I see here on a daily basis.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 02:23 PM

Go join Dallas already - I hear they have some openings for fickle wusses there.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 01:09 PM


I have seen thy enemy and he is thee.

Posted by: Skinz | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Dear Redskins Season Ticket Holder,

As a valued season ticket holder, you are invited to take advantage of a very exclusive opportunity!

The Redskins have received tickets back from the visiting team, broadcast networks and other media. There are an extremely limited number of tickets, including lower level, available for sale for the game versus the Detroit Lions this Sunday, October 7th at 1:00 PM.

These tickets are available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Be a part of history as legendary Wide Receiver Gary Clark is enshrined in the Redskins Ring of Honor at FedExField on October 7th.

Tickets start at $74 with some great locations remaining.

Quantities are extremely limited so don't delay.

Please call the Redskins immediately on (301) 276-6800.

Posted by: SHOCKER RIGHT HERE | October 3, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

etrod - our kicker in that Denver game in '86 was one of the Zendejas' (either Max or Tony - I think Tony). Mosley was already cut (after the Dallas loss earlier that year). Then came Jess Atkinson. Haji-Sheik replaced Jess Atkinson (Terp), who was hurt by Andre dirty Waters.

Posted by: Shotgun | October 3, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

beep beep

Posted by: Zebra | October 3, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The only shocker is the one joe gibbs must have given ricky bobby. Wow...the

Posted by: blog dicktective | October 3, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm not raggin' on JlaC or anyone else who offers discourse.

But a FAN is someone who SUPPORTS the team, not someone who is hell bent on their own depression.

And my comment there is neither baseless nor an overreaction, Skins. It is an insult, however, and I would hope the only people insulted were the ones to whom it applied.

Posted by: Dik | October 3, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

JLC - Keep pouring the Hater-ade! It is sooooooooooooooooooooooo tired!

You are seriously DWELLING on the Giants loss...GET OVER IT!!! It is ONE GAME!!!

Could you have posted it a little more jumbled and distorted next time. I'd rather translate MEL scripting.

'Skins are 2-1 after losing TWO Pro-Bowl Offensive Lineman!! I'll take it!

Posted by: Mike C | October 3, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that the people drinking the Kool aid is signifiactly(spelled wrong) less when Jasno uses facts.


Posted by: Lee | October 3, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh man here we go again.

Someone posted a couple of days ago that they were posting a comment but really didn't want to because it would start a 75 post argument that wouldn't end in any closure other than we agree to disagree.

I couldn't agree more. Some people get angry when anyone expresses anything that perceived to be negatvive while others may be a little to analytic. Lets end the whole JLa article/Skins 2nd half collapse with simply agreeing to agree to disagree.

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that some people didn't grow up with the beverage powdered based substance in their household. But for all the people who didn't it is spelled
K-O-O-L A-I-D.

Never thought I had to do this but its funny when someone is so hell bent on an idea they will resort to sarcasm to prove their point. And as always...

I'm not saying, I'm just saying

Posted by: SkinsRealist | October 3, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Redcoat, thanks for further explaining your initial post. My first impression was that you were simply drawing an analogy between Redskings-Giants and Pats-Cincy games, which is unfair for the reasons I stated. But I agree with your follow up posting.

Posted by: M | October 3, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who cares to know, that other receiver, Jacobs, Taylor, was waived yesterday by San Fran.

Posted by: Gregskins | October 3, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Randy Thomas or Jon Jansen have never made a pro bowl. Sorry about that

Posted by: The NFL | October 3, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

To the poster that said New England is the only team on the schedule that can blow the redskins out.....WRONG---the Cowboys are going to stomp them twice with a combined score around 86-19. Romo, Owens, Witten, Barber, etc will run the redskins off the field and whiskers conservative offense will be hopeless. It will probably be 28-0 at halftime and he will come out in the 3rd quarter running ladell betts.

If his name were not joe gibbs everyone on earth would be calling for him to be fired. The lack of clock management, conservative offense, stubborness and refusal to admit mistakes/weaknesses by this coaching staff is unprecedented

Posted by: Jerry Jones | October 3, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Well jerry, Im not saying your team isnt playing well, but your defense isnt good, I dont think you will shut out anyone this year.

Posted by: SAK | October 3, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

And have the cowboys faced a decent secondary this year, maybe a hurt bears def. thats hasnt been able to stop anyone.

Posted by: SAK | October 3, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Blame Gibbs all you want, but in my opinion, its the players who let us down.

When Gibbs was winning the 1st time around, he had an O-line and running backs who could pick up first downs instead of going 3 and out. He also had a Richie Pettibon defense that didn't give up much in the way of points. JG2.0 doesn't seem to have the same level of performance from the players that he had the 1st time around.

Plus, every advantage the Redskins had then has been legislated away by the league:

(1) Salary cap min and max, levels the playing field against teams that have owners who are willing to spend any amount on their teams;

(2) game clock prevents situation substitutions that we used to use to such a great advantage.

Perhaps its JG's inability to adapt to the new rules that has been the long-term problem, but I feel the players gave up in the 2nd half and were to blame in the short-term for the loss to the Giants.

Posted by: rb | October 3, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Jason, great research! Wherever did you get such detailed information about the Gibbs I games?

Posted by: RTandler | October 3, 2007 11:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company