Question about 3rd WR

[DUCKIN_TACKLERS]

OK so needless to say I had a ball at the game and sitting in the endzone I got a great view of Running plays, but one thing i notice was our formations...Tell me if im wrong but after most of preseason going 3 wide was it just me or did we revert to going to 2 WRs or Max protecting like last year. Maybe Gibbs was worried about pressure on Ramsey/Brunnell or maybe because Jacobs is hurt, I dont know but someone that has the tape tell me why we looked to be in a 2wr set most plays. Also when we did go 3 wide i seriously think most the time our 3rd WR was actually Cooley just split out in the slot. Im worried that this might be a bigger problem later down the road if Gibbs dosent have confidence in his WR or QB to spread out the Ds.

[redwolf1218]

i would think Thrash would be the 3rd wide-out until Jacobs is healthy. I wouldnt mind seeing a little more of Sean Taylor in there either. He could probably be counted on to function as a decoy and then block well on running plays, with his size.

[DUCKIN_TACKLERS]

i would think Thrash would be the 3rd wide-out until Jacobs is healthy. I wouldnt mind seeing a little more of Sean Taylor in there either. He could probably be counted on to function as a decoy and then block well on running plays, with his size.
I honestly would like to see anyone in there i think it is a nice tool for our running game. I hope Jacobs or Thrash can gain the QBs trust that will just open things up more if the Defense thinks we have more tools.

[OCSkinzFan]

At the end of last year Gibbs said he wished that he had gotten Cooley involved more. Putting him in the slot does that. He's got some of the best hands on the team, why not put him in the slot? You can always motion him back to wham block for the run from the slot too, something you can't do with the lil'uns that we got at WR now.

[smoak]

I think the preseason was used as a testing ground for the new plays and formations, and shouldn't be useed as a basis for determing how often we'll go 3 WR in the regular season.

[Skinz4lyfe]

Maybe it was Gibbs holding his cards for the Cowboys this week. Who knows?

[skins74]

Maybe it was Gibbs holding his cards for the Cowboys this week. Who knows?


I was thinking about that last night, maybe his is saving his good stuff for the Cow-thugs game. I would think Thrash would be a good 3rd WR he has good hands and runs decent routes.

[IowaSkinsFan]

OK so needless to say I had a ball at the game and sitting in the endzone I got a great view of Running plays, but one thing i notice was our formations...Tell me if im wrong but after most of preseason going 3 wide was it just me or did we revert to going to 2 WRs or Max protecting like last year. Maybe Gibbs was worried about pressure on Ramsey/Brunnell or maybe because Jacobs is hurt, I dont know but someone that has the tape tell me why we looked to be in a 2wr set most plays. Also when we did go 3 wide i seriously think most the time our 3rd WR was actually Cooley just split out in the slot. Im worried that this might be a bigger problem later down the road if Gibbs dosent have confidence in his WR or QB to spread out the Ds.

I noticed alot of 3 wide sets. Sometimes the 3rd wide was Cooley. I suspect it has a lot to do with Jacobs being healthy.

[BIGSEF3]

The main reason we used so many 3WR sets in the preseason was that we were behind by a TD or more most of the time. ALso, Brunell didnt practice much all pre-season. He only practiced the most BASIC formations. Gibbs would have been a fool to have Brunell run alot of the plays that only Ramsey had practiced. In addition, the Bears defense had essentially MURDERED patrick Ramsey. I'm sure Gibbs didnt want Brunell getting hurt, too. AND you have to remember that we were running the football nearly the entire game. We were playing clock-control, so we didnt need as many 3WR passing plays. Even still, we did run several 3 WR formations.

I think we will run more of them when we play a defense that isnt as good as the bears and our Oline proves it can keep its QB from being hit so much.

[skins74]

I noticed alot of 3 wide sets. Sometimes the 3rd wide was Cooley. I suspect it has a lot to do with Jacobs being healthy.


I don't know, I think you will see alot of Cooley lining up there.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't know, I think you will see alot of Cooley lining up there.

I'm sure we will, I was just throwing it out there as to why he didn't see as many sets in the Bears game, with Jacobs being out and Thrash still playing ST's.

[skins74]

I'm sure we will, I was just throwing it out there as to why he didn't see as many sets in the Bears game, with Jacobs being out and Thrash still playing ST's.


Oh, gotcha. :Peace:

[ChiefPowhatan17]

thrash is still one of our best ball players.

[IowaSkinsFan]

thrash is still one of our best ball players.

Definately the most versatile.

[akhhorus]

They were in a spread formation for about 15-20 plays on Sunday, but most of the time it was a heavy Spread: 2 wideouts, and Cooley at the Z so he could either run a route like a WR, or shift to the TE spot or the FB spot. Its a good match up and allows flexibility. Cooley can read the LBs/Safetys and then come back to FB and point where the lead block will be.

[dirthogs]

Gibbs didn't want to throw and risk an INT, ecspecially late in the game, and put the D on a short field, like Antonio did. Jacobs health I think has alot to do with that to. Thrash, while a hell of a ST player, isn't a good WR, as far as route running, and Jacobs supposedly was running great routes before the injury.

[hockeygoalie29]

I think a lot of it had to do with the game plan against the offenseively challenged Bears. Once we found out that we could run at will and take time off the clock with a ball control offense there was no reason to spread it out and take chances. Just ram it down their throats and get out of there with the win.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think a lot of it had to do with the game plan against the offenseively challenged Bears. Once we found out that we could run at will and take time off the clock with a ball control offense there was no reason to spread it out and take chances. Just ram it down their throats and get out of there with the win.

What about scoring at least enough points so that a FG couldn't beat us?

[hockeygoalie29]

What about scoring at least enough points so that a FG couldn't beat us?

I don't think scoring only 9 points had anything to do with the formations we used throughout the game. We were able to move the ball very well up and down the field, we gained over 320 total yards. Our problems came inside the 10 yard line. If we could punch the ball over the goal line we would have scored 17.

[dirthogs]

I think we moved the ball pretty good we just need to get better in the red zone and FAST.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't think scoring only 9 points had anything to do with the formations we used throughout the game. We were able to move the ball very well up and down the field, we gained over 320 total yards. Our problems came inside the 10 yard line. If we could punch the ball over the goal line we would have scored 17.

Having only 9 points in the 4th quarter should have affected the formations a great deal. It seemed we got really conservative when the other team only needed a FG to beat us. Instead of trying to put points on the board, we closed in on ourselves.

[hockeygoalie29]

Having only 9 points in the 4th quarter should have affected the formations a great deal. It seemed we got really conservative when the other team only needed a FG to beat us. Instead of trying to put points on the board, we closed in on ourselves.

I'd have to disagree. If Chicago had shown the ability to stop the run then you would have a good point but they couldn't. You say that the play calling became conservative when we were only up by 2 points but we were still moving the ball very effectively.

Our last 3 drives averaged 45 yards a piece, took an average of 5 minutes of the clock and either ended in points or Chicago with an average field posistion of their own 40. I'd rather have that then put the ball in the air and either go 3 and out or turn the ball over on a short field.

[openallnight]

Maybe it was Gibbs holding his cards for the Cowboys this week. Who knows?
Exactly, expect a bunch of wrinkles to be revealed Monday night that you haven't seen yet.

Anyone, remember 1987 when we played the Giants in week 4. We had lost to them 3 times the previous year. But, this time we blew them out 38 - 12!

In the 1st 3 games he kept running the same off tackle run from 2 particular formations. In the giants game he play actioned off of these and burnt the giants for 2 long scores. They asked him about it and he admitted that he had set that up for the giants all season. He also came out with a few new formations in that game that threw the Giants off.

[redskin_rich]

Exactly, expect a bunch of wrinkles to be revealed Monday night that you haven't seen yet.

Anyone, remember 1987 when we played the Giants in week 4. We had lost to them 3 times the previous year. But, this time we blew them out 38 - 12!

In the 1st 3 games he kept running the same off tackle run from 2 particular formations. In the giants game he play actioned off of these and burnt the giants for 2 long scores. They asked him about it and he admitted that he had set that up for the giants all season. He also came out with a few new formations in that game that threw the Giants off.
I remember that being a scab game and as we all know, we had better scabs than anyone else.
Anyhow, I do think Gibbs saved some stuff for this week.

[JamesTrash]

nice call on saving something for Parcells.
I remember a game, I think it was in '91, where the Skins trailed Parcells' Gents 13-0 at half. Gibbs came out in the 2nd and scored on a pair of long passes, w/ Ryp rolling right and throwing left-- something that the Skins hadn't done all year. Gibbs acknowledged that he had planned for it all year, and Parcells admitted he had been tricked.

I think of the Bears game as the 5th preseason game as far as the playcalling goes. Gibbs didn't want to tip Parcells. Now we'll see what Gibbs has planned for '05!

[skins74]

What about scoring at least enough points so that a FG couldn't beat us?


You beat me to it. Gibbs should have mixed in a pass on that 3rd down. He was being ultra conservative. I can see why he trusts the defense but as we all know stuff happens especially to us.