Football Research Question regarding Gibbs Era 1 Passing Game

[flave1969]

For those of you who clearly remember Gibbs Era 1 I have some questions regarding your perceptions of the Redskin Offense under Gibbs.

Some background first.

Under Gibbs we ran 11997 plays with a 50.8/49.2 Run-Pass Ratio. That is 6098 Runs and 5899 Passes.

Now we were perceived as a run heavy team and that certainly was true early on but we became a more pass heavy team once we had the Monk/Clark/Sanders Trio.

Under Gibbs there were 3340 pass completions and they were split as follows.

808 to Running Backs (24%)
491 to Tight Ends (15%)
2141 to wide Receivers (61%)

Now compared to the other teams I have researched this is a much higher % of passes completed to wideouts than other teams. This is only natural with the trio mentioned above.

My Questions.

1.) If your RB/TE combos do not account for a large % of completions, is it vital that you have a strong possession receiver?

2.) Would you say that for a deep threat too be effective you must have a combination of strong running game and an effective intermediate passing game that keeps a Defense honest?

3.) How much more important do you consider the excellent Ball Control in Gibbs 1 in comparison to the ability to go deep? Does the first open up the other?

4.)What is your overall assessment of the way Gibbs operated the passing game throughout his tenure?

I appreciate your thoughts.

[GeneralDisorder]

Crikey Flave...

Roll on the footie season, eh...?

[joethefan]

play action was his best friend I do know that.......

Monk was dominant in the medium passing game....I saw a documentary on him and it was unbeleivable how dominant he was....and how teams could not scheme against us ..... it's funny how we're moving right back into that same mode with a decent running game, three small recievers and pass catching tight end and a QB that is on the rise.....while those qbs in the past were almost throw aways but made things happen and fit Gibbs scheme of things.

very interesting

[wewantdallas]

Don't forget that when Gibbs first started, he wasn't just pass "happy," he was pass 'ecstatic.' When we were 0-5 in 1981, I believe we had the number one offense in the league, but we weren't winning. We were, however, racking up huge passing stats. That's when he started to commit to the run and John Riggins.

The possession receiver was always huge for a Gibbs offense, but yeah, the running game was the most important factor in setting up the pass, which remains one of the most important rules of football today. Gibbs still loved to heave it long, though. Especially when Schroeder came aboard in 1986 (TONS of long bombs that year), and then of course with Ryp. One of the league's top running attacks combined with THE top trio of receivers in the NFL made that approach so effective.

[flave1969]

You can probably figure that this is Monk related. I am concentrating on a line of thinking and stacking him up against Steve Largent and James Lofton who are the only true same era receivers in the Hall. If you use Largent as the template this is how each player looks through 14 seasons

Largent 819 catches 13089 yards 100TD's
Lofton 699 catches 13035 yards 69TD's
Monk 888 catches 12026 yards 65TD's

Is the Hall really just about yards and yards per catch?

You see Largent whose team Seattle had a completion ratio by position of 35/12/53 (RB/TE/WR) completed 1276 passes to Running backs and 452 passes to TE's. Largent caught an amazing 819/1903 Seattle passes to wideouts.

Lofton whose first 14 seasons were in Green Bay/Raiders/Buffalo, played on teams with an even higher completion to backs and tight ends. The ratio was 36/17/47. Thats 1293 to backs, 620 to TE and 1731 to wideouts.

Monk was a different case altogether. The Redskins split is 26/15/59 a breakdown of 1031 to backs, 572 to TE's and 2308 to wideouts.

Their careers are remarkably similar through 14 seasons in terms of games played and also in terms of contribution to the Offenses they played in.

The one major difference is that Washington over the first 14 years of monk's career ran nearly a 1000 more plays than Largent's Seattle. That too me is testament to the ball control shown by Gibbs Offense.

The basic number one question is:

If a team is more prone to throw short and intermediate routes, does that stop a Defense from cheating extra men into the secondary allowing your faster receivers to go deeper more often in favourable coverage situations?

The follow up question is did Monk really fulfill this role for Gibbs as opposed to our backs/ends,and this freed up Brown, Sanders and Clark to go deep in single coverage more often?

[redwolf1218]

play action was his best friend I do know that.......

Monk was dominant in the medium passing game....I saw a documentary on him and it was unbeleivable how dominant he was....and how teams could not scheme against us ..... it's funny how we're moving right back into that same mode with a decent running game, three small recievers and pass catching tight end and a QB that is on the rise.....while those qbs in the past were almost throw aways but made things happen and fit Gibbs scheme of things.

very interesting

Monk was the key. without him i really dont believe Sanders and Clark would have been as successful as they were. if we had a guy like Monk now it would really open things up for the other receivers.

[Spence]

My Questions.

1.) If your RB/TE combos do not account for a large % of completions, is it vital that you have a strong possession receiver?It's a good idea to have a strong possession receiver in any case, as it makes it much easier to throw touchdowns [or at least threaten to do so] in the red zone if the secondary can't just focus on your tight end position.

2.) Would you say that for a deep threat too be effective you must have a combination of strong running game and an effective intermediate passing game that keeps a Defense honest?A strong running game and good pass protection are the most important factors in developing a deep passing game. The strong running game makes the play action work and the pass protection allows the quarterback to give his receivers more time to get open. See the 1991 season as a perfect example of both those things.

3.) How much more important do you consider the excellent Ball Control in Gibbs 1 in comparison to the ability to go deep? Does the first open up the other?The first opened up the other. Our deep passing game worked only because of the strong running game and the great pass protection. We didn't have many receivers who could just run past wideouts. Gary Clark ran a 4.6 in the 40. Monk was slower than that.

4.)What is your overall assessment of the way Gibbs operated the passing game throughout his tenure?During Gibbs 1.0, he preferred to run as often as possible, throw deep only off play action, and he loved wideout screens to Monk and Clark, who could usually be depended upon to break a tackle [in Monk's case] or make a cornerback miss [in Clark's case], allowing a cheap, easily completed short pass to turn into a nice 15-yard gain. In other words, the most important thing to Gibbs as far as the passing game was concerned was avoiding turnovers and sacks. No matter how often Gibbs called a deep pass, he still ran a conservative attack because he always took as few risks as possible. Gibbs was, I thought, apart from Chuck Knox, perhaps, the most risk-averse offensive coach in the NFL.

[akhhorus]

1.) If your RB/TE combos do not account for a large % of completions, is it vital that you have a strong possession receiver?

Absolutely. You can pass on having a strong Flanker/Y if you have TE production(see KC with Tony Gonzalez)

2.) Would you say that for a deep threat too be effective you must have a combination of strong running game and an effective intermediate passing game that keeps a Defense honest?

I think you need a strong inside rushing game, that keeps the OLBs off the outside dump off routes and the Safeties playing a couple yards up(see the Colts with Tom Moore and Peyton). I think Gibbs also used matchups(with Sanders at the Z) instead of working exclusively deep with the inside rushing game.

3.) How much more important do you consider the excellent Ball Control in Gibbs 1 in comparison to the ability to go deep? Does the first open up the other?

Gibbs ran between the tackles to set up the deep PA, so yes.

4.)What is your overall assessment of the way Gibbs operated the passing game throughout his tenure?

1st tenure was great, I think he was hamstrung by talent in the 2nd go around. Moss has been his only WR of any note, and when he's been healthy, the passing game has hummed.

[flave1969]

Spence/Akh thank you for taking it point be point.

I know football well enough but the more i study Gibbs, Monk et al, the more different to other offenses I find him.

[Charlz]

play action was his best friend I do know that.......

" (under Gibbs 1.0) teams could not scheme against us ..... it's funny how we're moving right back into that same mode with a decent running game, three small recievers and pass catching tight end and a QB that is on the rise.....while those qbs in the past were almost throw aways but made things happen and fit Gibbs scheme of things.

very interesting"

We never had a tight end catch as many passes as CC, this IS a big difference with Gibbs 2.0. and if JC continues to develop and build on the 2nd half of last season then he will be the most athletic/powerful QBs Gibbs has ever worked with.

[firehawk157]

1.) If your RB/TE combos do not account for a large % of completions, is it vital that you have a strong possession receiver?

Echoing Akh, you just need a decent option in the short game IMO. Does he have to be a receiver? Does it really matter honestly???

2.) Would you say that for a deep threat too be effective you must have a combination of strong running game and an effective intermediate passing game that keeps a Defense honest?

I think you need either an a) intermediate passing game or b) a great rushing attack. I don't think you absolutely need both to be effective downfield. Just think of it from a defensive coordinator's perspective. If you are going against an offense that has a great rushing attack, then there's no way you can just drop your safeties back every play to play against the deep threat. Also, if you know they have a good possession receiver, again, you gotta have somebody play the short routes and a good O coordinator can gameplan off of that.

3.) How much more important do you consider the excellent Ball Control in Gibbs 1 in comparison to the ability to go deep? Does the first open up the other?

Yes

4.)What is your overall assessment of the way Gibbs operated the passing game throughout his tenure?

So far, I think he's done pretty well but there's definitely room for improvement. I think in 04, he was hampered by not having a single decent QB on the roster. Brunell was still recovering from an injury and Ramsey was, well, Ramsey.

In 2005, I think showed what his offense was capable of, even though we were missing some key pieces still (and might still be). Cooley and Moss absolutely dominated and we still had Brunell, who was definitely losing his arm.

In 2006, the wheels came off early. Moss was in and out with an injury and Brunell was either not capable or not willing to throw more then 10-15 yards downfield, allowing the defenses to stack the box. Brandon Lloyd I think was a particular victim of this.

I have high hopes for 2007, offensively.

[BostonSkins]

Part of the reason those teams were so nasty was that you had a three tiered approach. Run game could pick up the short yardage, intermediate passes to Monk (and others, Didier, Warren et al) and the deep ball to Clark, Sanders, Charlie Brown. So at any given point they could hurt you for any length of play. The one consistent on all of those teams was Monk, but his value can't be understated as he was a garaunteed first down for a decade.

Basically the point is that it is a borderline national tragedy that Art is not in the HOF, but around here I'm preaching to the choir. Still, to be a part of all of those teams that were so great, and not be in is crazy and gets me more upset each word I type and the more I think about it.

[redskin_rich]

While everyone is focusing on the playcalling, running game, WR's and TE's of Gibbs era 1, what nobody has mentioned is the Hogs, both version 1 and 2. They were simply the best line ever and while we have a very good line now, it is not the same.
One of the reasons Gibbs could be so conservative is the fact that our line dominated. And it's not like we were playing the sisters of the poor. We could pound the likes of Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Randy White, Ed (Too Tall) Jones, Harvey Martin, Jim Jeffcoat, just to name a few. I didn't name any NY Giants, frankly, because their front 7 were our biggest problem. The Giants knew they could contain our run and could prevent our occasional deep pass and were the only team that could defend us. And by defend, I mean shut us down cold.

Anyhow, I just wanted to throw that out there. I know it has little to do with Monk but whenever talking about the Gibbs offense in DC, it has to start with the Hogs.

[Death_Venom]

Spence/Akh thank you for taking it point be point.

I know football well enough but the more i study Gibbs, Monk et al, the more different to other offenses I find him.


Spence & Akh did a great job breaking it down for us. And of course I agree with Rich's point-the Hogs were the best and completely dominant.......And I think they played a very large part as well..........Currently I think our O-Line is not at that level of play as of yet-but hopefully we will see a turn-a-round.........

[flave1969]

Echoing Akh, you just need a decent option in the short game IMO. Does he have to be a receiver? Does it really matter honestly???


It matters in the context that Washington actually threw to its Backs/Ends some 30-50 less plays per year than a lot of teams over the same period. So having a possession guy was critical to the success of Gibbs ball control philosophy. Monk fit the bill, and so did Clark.

[Meatsnack]

For those of you who clearly remember Gibbs Era 1 I have some questions regarding your perceptions of the Redskin Offense under Gibbs.

Some background first.

Under Gibbs we ran 11997 plays with a 50.8/49.2 Run-Pass Ratio. That is 6098 Runs and 5899 Passes.

Now we were perceived as a run heavy team and that certainly was true early on but we became a more pass heavy team once we had the Monk/Clark/Sanders Trio.My personal theory is that this was more dependent on the QB skills than the WRs. Joey T was a mobile, mid-range passer by nature. He could go deep but needed a huge wind-up to do so. Schroeder/Williams and Rypien were all gifted at the long-ball (see Super Bowls XXII for Williams and XXVI for Rypien). Rypien was the best deep-ball passer I have ever seen, bar none, when he had protection. The Fun Bunch prior to the Posse, could go deep on anyone - Brown in particular had both speed and amazing hops. Theisman just couldn't get them the ball as reliably as the later guys.

...

My Questions.

1.) If your RB/TE combos do not account for a large % of completions, is it vital that you have a strong possession receiver?

2.) Would you say that for a deep threat too be effective you must have a combination of strong running game and an effective intermediate passing game that keeps a Defense honest?I am combining 1 and 2 since they seem to reflect each other. To answer what I see as your underlying question, Yes, Monk did allow the deep routes to work because safeties feared Monk and broke their drops short to account for him. This cleared the deep routes across the field dramatically and allowed Clark to work the deep out and Sanders to run his signature post and fade routes depending on where the remaining safety broke.

In my memory, if not in fact, many of the really long passes Art caught were off the hitch and go where Monk waited for the safety to cheat toward him before burning him with his 4.4 speed. Monk was the prototype "freak" receiver decades before Roy Williams et al. at 6'2" and 210# with legit 4.4 speed. According to Gary Clark, Art cracked off 4.5 forties with ease the year he left Washington.
3.) How much more important do you consider the excellent Ball Control in Gibbs 1 in comparison to the ability to go deep? Does the first open up the other?As you imply, the need to control the ball and the clock was the big "A-HA!" moment for Gibbs in 1981. He could score on anyone but they lost anyway because they scored "too fast" and the defense was dead by the third quarter. See also "Bills, Buffalo" and "Levy, Marv". More than ball control, since the WCO uses short passes for ball control, it was the commitment to the run game that forced defenses to play honest and opened up the play-action long bal when the play calling was right.

However, Gibbs wasn't married to 40 and 50 Gut all those years. We often used a two back backfield after Riggins left (and to a lesser degree while he was still here) to keep the DEs ond OLBs honest in their contain. We had some really accomplished pass-catchers and guys who could threaten the outside and go the distance with us in Gibbs I, something we haven't had in Gibbs II.

4.)What is your overall assessment of the way Gibbs operated the passing game throughout his tenure?

I appreciate your thoughts.
One of the real issues with Gibbs II has been the up and down play-calling. Gibbs had clearly lost his mojo in year one and it was markedly improved in year two. In fact, I'd wager that without the Saunders acquisition and the Prioleau/Springs injuries, we are a playoff team last year. Saunders will pay dividends, starting this season I believe but last year was a lost season. From a power-running, play-action deep team in Gibbs I to an offense that could not dictate any aspect of a game to a defense is a long fall. I agree with Redskin Rich that the Hogs had an awful lot to do with Gibbs I because once Gibbs understood that he could dicate the power running game on defenses, the rest fell into place. Toward the end of Gibbs I, with Rypien and the Posses in full schwing, we were much more a deep ball passing team who ran to keep teams honset rather than really trying to score on the ground because Rypien and our wideouts could dictate coverages and you couldn't double all of them.

The Gibbs II passing game, specifically, had to operate around limitations in receivers (50/50, the Toe) and the QB, as well as the lack of a proven RB and an O-line in flux. When your O-line starters include a guy who is 40 and a center who can't stand without assistance, you are doomed. This is one of the reasons for Gibbs lost mojo. He could never find that one thing the offense could do well all the time. So, he has set about the laborious task of rebuilding the offense into something that is competant. I think we are one scary WR away from being a frightening offense. If we can build some young o-line depth to account for Samuels and Jansen nearing the end in 2-3 years, we could be good for a long time. That, I think, will be the real legacy of Gibbs II, a team positioned for consistent playoff runs.

Anyway, that's one man's opinion. ;)

[morty55]

Gibbs's passing game was really unpredictable..it was taking what was given..

I guess the most predictable was the quick hitch to Monk..to loosen up the running game..

in the beginning..if it was 3rd and 17..Joe had a play for
Theismann and they hit them more than they did not..

If you look at all of the guys that played receiver for Joe..he found a way to call their number without giving up anything..there were games..like the MNF vs the Giants where Gary Clark was open and they hit him 10 or 12 times ..those stats just bore out the long haul..not game to game

at the end of the first era alot of it was to Brian Mitchell out of the backfield in long situations..before that they were always in shorter situations..with the Hogs, Riggo, Rodgers..Byner..

that is what is hard to watch this go around..it's hard to be patient
and wait to see what we used to have..