Author Topic: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?  (Read 2096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Topic Start: December 02, 2007, 04:25:29 PM »
Can we finally all admit that Joe Gibbs II isn't Joe Gibbs I?

How many of us watching today knew immediately when the second time out was called that it was a violation?  I knew it, I remember when the rule was passed.  How is it that he didn't?

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 22334
  • Let's drink a few for Mathguy.
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #1: December 02, 2007, 04:31:55 PM »
Whether he knew or not is only part of the problem. He doesn't have an organization where someone is whispering in his ear "you can't call another one, Joe." It's still his fault, but I think the problem is a different one. He might be able to build a NASCAR organization, but he can't seem to see that football requires something different.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion.

Can we finally all admit that Joe Gibbs II isn't Joe Gibbs I?

How many of us watching today knew immediately when the second time out was called that it was a violation?  I knew it, I remember when the rule was passed.  How is it that he didn't?

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #2: December 02, 2007, 04:37:23 PM »
Whether he knew or not is only part of the problem. He doesn't have an organization where someone is whispering in his ear "you can't call another one, Joe." It's still his fault, but I think the problem is a different one. He might be able to build a NASCAR organization, but he can't seem to see that football requires something different.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion.


No you're not wrong, that's entirely it. What I'm saying is that the incident today is a manifestation of this dysfunctional system. There have been many subtle indications, but it has been inevitable that eventually something so blatantly revealing would happen.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #3: December 02, 2007, 04:42:45 PM »
Gibbs and Co. play to LOSE every week.. They were up 16-5 in this game after Portis' TD and instead of stepping on the gas and putting the game away they kept Buffalo in it by costly TOs and an inept offense.  The defense didn't play horrible today but they simply do not make plays at all.. No sacks, interceptions, fumbles, etc.  The line gets zero pressure and  they are the worst clutch/3rd down Defense in recent memory.  The offensive line is a waste of space and Campbell completely falters under pressure.  I just cannot believe we let a rookie QB and 3rd string RB beat us.  Shockingly terrible. We needed to make just 1 play in the last 2 minutes to win the game (Converting a first down to ice the game, Prevent the Bills awful offense to move the ball 60+ yards down the field in 50 seconds, etc)..

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #4: December 02, 2007, 04:43:40 PM »
Can we finally all admit that Joe Gibbs II isn't Joe Gibbs I?

How many of us watching today knew immediately when the second time out was called that it was a violation?  I knew it, I remember when the rule was passed.  How is it that he didn't?


It's been evident for quite some time. Sean Taylor's passing is no excuse for what occurred today. I was pissed the moment they stopped the game because I thought everyone was aware that you CANNOT call back to back timeouts. This was one time when I wish Gibbs had misused his timeouts earlier and been left with only one timeout. Having said that, this team gets beat consistently at the line of scrimmage. The DL cannot pressure the QB. The OL cannot maintain blocks and win battles at the point of attack. The defense played well but that lapse at the end was inexcusable. Gibbs also just admitted that he wasn't even aware that they would begin the game on defense with only 10 men on the field as a tribute. This organization is in complete disarray. 

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #5: December 02, 2007, 04:45:45 PM »
No sacks, interceptions, fumbles, etc. 

They had one fumble recovery. But your point is well made. They have no play makers. Every week we see opposing players make plays on the ball. Did you see that one play by the Bills CB to deflect the pass and cause an interception? Who makes those types of plays on the Redskins? The only one that could hasn't been on the field for weeks and will never play again.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 22334
  • Let's drink a few for Mathguy.
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #6: December 02, 2007, 04:49:56 PM »
And they turned the ball over one more time than the score shows - I think Cooley had possession of that long pass.

They had one fumble recovery. But your point is well made. They have no play makers. Every week we see opposing players make plays on the ball. Did you see that one play by the Bills CB to deflect the pass and cause an interception? Who makes those types of plays on the Redskins? The only one that could hasn't been on the field for weeks and will never play again.

Offline PC

  • Posts: 47236
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #7: December 02, 2007, 04:50:02 PM »
Well, I knew you couldn't call back to back timeouts.   :roll:

And it's not even a new rule, is what makes it even worse.  It should have been common knowledge, sort of like you have four downs to get a first down.  :(



Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33826
  • Hell yes!
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #8: December 02, 2007, 05:25:40 PM »
Gibbs didn't know.  After the game, Sonny interviewed him, and the first thing he did was accept responsibility for the loss, saying it was his fault the timeout was called.   He said he asked one of his assistants if he could call timeout, the assistant said yes, so he did, but he acknowledged that he should have known the rule.

A new low, in a season full of them.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #9: December 02, 2007, 05:29:47 PM »
Whoever that assistant was is ALSO a moron.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33826
  • Hell yes!
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #10: December 02, 2007, 05:46:26 PM »
Whoever that assistant was is ALSO a moron.

Yeah, I wish Gibbs had named him, so I'd know who else to be pissed at.  This team is so close to being pretty darn good, yet these lame brained decisions cost them week after week.

Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #11: December 02, 2007, 05:58:52 PM »
The Skins make me happy to have the Nationals around. ("Happier", I should say.) I can live with the Nats trial and errors. But I have completely disassociated myself emotionally from the Redskins. I feel very bad for my son; he was at the game and I haven't talked to him yet, but when I was his age a loss like today would have nearly killed me. Today, I'm disappointed but I just shrug it off. I have only so much emotional capital, and I'm transferring the entire account to the Nationals.

I'm listening to the radio, they're talking about how the Skins need to build from the bottom up. Fer crisake, we've been building since 1993! God, this would be depressing, if I really cared.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #12: December 02, 2007, 06:03:35 PM »
They need to start by brining in new leadership. Pat Gibbs knew something the rest of us did not know. She knew Joe Gibbs' return would be a mistake and that it would ruin his good name.

Offline nats2playoffs

  • Posts: 23905
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #13: December 02, 2007, 06:34:29 PM »
Gibbs didn't know.  After the game, Sonny interviewed him, and the first thing he did was accept responsibility for the loss, saying it was his fault the timeout was called.   He said he asked one of his assistants if he could call timeout, the assistant said yes, so he did, but he acknowledged that he should have known the rule.
A new low, in a season full of them.

He was interviewed by Comcast and Redskins radio and Gibbs said that he asked an OFFICIAL if he could call a second timeout, and that "I thought he said yes... I did ask.  I shouldn't be asking.  I should know."  Gibbs did try to get the penalty withdrawn, based on being misinformed by the official, but he wasn't certain about what the official said to him.  There's no way a coach could blame an official and get the penalty withdrawn.

I want to see that 6' 5" WR the 'Skins just got starting now.  No more shrimpie wide receivers.  No more "senior moments" from over-the-hill head coaches. 




Offline Ray D

  • Posts: 10073
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #14: December 02, 2007, 06:53:46 PM »
I was listening to the interview. It's even worse.  Gibbs said the official asked him "when do you want to call the timeout".   

I really do think the fans are owed a full explanation of what went on. 

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #15: December 02, 2007, 07:07:14 PM »
I was listening to the interview. It's even worse.  Gibbs said the official asked him "when do you want to call the timeout".   

I really do think the fans are owed a full explanation of what went on. 

That may have been in reference to the first timeout. I doubt an official would ask that concerning something that would obviously be an infraction. The rule that you cannot call back to back timeouts has been around for as long as I can recall. However, the 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct attached to it was added after the 2004 season and the incident in which the Panthers attempted the same thing in the Super Bowl. So the rule has been in place for 3 seasons! :?

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 22334
  • Let's drink a few for Mathguy.
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #16: December 02, 2007, 07:20:58 PM »
Maybe the official said something like "Can you call another timeout? You mean after this guy tries to kick another long one? Sure. What? NOW??? You want to call it NOW???"

He was interviewed by Comcast and Redskins radio and Gibbs said that he asked an OFFICIAL if he could call a second timeout, and that "I thought he said yes... I did ask.  I shouldn't be asking.  I should know."  Gibbs did try to get the penalty withdrawn, based on being misinformed by the official, but he wasn't certain about what the official said to him.  There's no way a coach could blame an official and get the penalty withdrawn.

I want to see that 6' 5" WR the 'Skins just got starting now.  No more shrimpie wide receivers.  No more "senior moments" from over-the-hill head coaches. 

(Image removed from quote.)



Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 22334
  • Let's drink a few for Mathguy.
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #17: December 02, 2007, 07:23:32 PM »
Joe Gibb's style with the media has been obfuscation and self flagelation all year. I'm sure half the conversations and thought processes he conveys to the media never happened. He makes them up later.

That may have been in reference to the first timeout. I doubt an official would ask that concerning something that would obviously be an infraction. The rule that you cannot call back to back timeouts has been around for as long as I can recall. However, the 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct attached to it was added after the 2004 season and the incident in which the Panthers attempted the same thing in the Super Bowl. So the rule has been in place for 3 seasons! :?

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #18: December 02, 2007, 07:36:22 PM »
Joe Gibb's style with the media has been obfuscation and self flagelation all year. I'm sure half the conversations and thought processes he conveys to the media never happened. He makes them up later.



QFT

But he is super smart and coaches his guts out.  :thumbs:

Offline shoeshineboy

  • Posts: 7951
  • Walks Kill!! Walks Kill! Walks Kill!!!!
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #19: December 02, 2007, 08:23:25 PM »
He was interviewed by Comcast and Redskins radio and Gibbs said that he asked an OFFICIAL if he could call a second timeout, and that "I thought he said yes... I did ask.  I shouldn't be asking.  I should know."  Gibbs did try to get the penalty withdrawn, based on being misinformed by the official, but he wasn't certain about what the official said to him.  There's no way a coach could blame an official and get the penalty withdrawn.

I want to see that 6' 5" WR the 'Skins just got starting now.  No more shrimpie wide receivers.  No more "senior moments" from over-the-hill head coaches. 

(Image removed from quote.)



BTW, it's spelled, "You're an idiot."

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 22334
  • Let's drink a few for Mathguy.
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #20: December 02, 2007, 08:33:05 PM »
It's hard to define the word irony, but you just pointed out an excellent example. :)

BTW, it's spelled, "You're an idiot."

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #21: December 02, 2007, 08:59:20 PM »
BTW, it's spelled, "You're an idiot."


It's hard to define the word irony, but you just pointed out an excellent example. :)


I think that's part of the gag.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33826
  • Hell yes!
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #22: December 02, 2007, 09:01:25 PM »
He was interviewed by Comcast and Redskins radio and Gibbs said that he asked an OFFICIAL if he could call a second timeout, and that "I thought he said yes... I did ask.  I shouldn't be asking.  I should know."  Gibbs did try to get the penalty withdrawn, based on being misinformed by the official, but he wasn't certain about what the official said to him.  There's no way a coach could blame an official and get the penalty withdrawn.

Yeah, I was listening in the car and my daughter was talking at the same time, I since learned he said "official", not "assistant".  I stand corrected.

natsfan1a

  • Guest
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #23: December 03, 2007, 06:54:24 AM »
:lol:

It's hard to define the word irony, but you just pointed out an excellent example. :)


Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Gibbs: is it finally obvious?
« Reply #24: December 03, 2007, 08:39:49 AM »
Gibbs is so clueless. It's pathetic. It's disturbing. He has changed his story of what happened yesterday. He went from not knowing to knowing but not making the right decision. Inexcusable. I saw that some morons on extremeskins are saying they believe Gibbs did it on purpose to shoulder the blame for the loss and get the negative media attention focused on him.  :|