I like Saban, but...

[Shouright]

3-2-ATL22 (4:43) R.Brown left tackle to ATL 21 for 1 yard (K.Brooking; D.Williams).
4-1-ATL21 (4:12) R.Brown right tackle to ATL 16 for 5 yards (D.Williams).

That was on the series before gus threw a pick. So the OC did give it to R&R in a big situation. Now what is wrong with trying to go PA pass when on the last 3&2 you ran it?

Because it puts the play in the hands of the people who HAVEN'T done well for you all game rather than the people who HAVE. Let the people who have played the best WIN THE GAME. Put the game in their hands! If you fail then at least you can say you went with your strength, which leaves you SO much less open to second-guessing.

We ran a gimmick when we had a sure thing going all game. That ain't smart.

 

[fishypete]

This won't be settled here...

But I promise you we'll be back here next week discussing the consistent predicatbility of our offensive play calling, not sticking with the run, blitzing too much, and another slew of missed opportunities.

The call was Bad because it not only didn't get us the first down, it got PICKED!

The result is the evidence that it was a bad call. A good call would have been one that worked, regardless of the play.

Lets end it there. Noone can say it was a good call simply because it resulted in a turnover at a crucial game time situation.

Now...on to New England...

Miami recieved the kick.

1st down at our own 28 yard line.

What's the call?

A reverse?:eek:

 

[mbmonk]

Because it puts the play in the hands of the people who HAVEN'T done well for you all game rather than the people who HAVE. Let the people who have played the best WIN THE GAME. Put the game in their hands! If you fail then at least you can say you went with your strength, which leaves you SO much less open to second-guessing.

We ran a gimmick when we had a sure thing going all game. That ain't smart.

What if that pass is incomplete? Is everyone keying on that same play still? No. But since Gus made a bad decision everyone is jumping on that 1 play call. If you want to say we should have ran the ball more during the game, then it's a little harder for me to argue. I am not saying I couldn't but it would be harder.

PA pass is a gimmick? Then allot of teams run gimmick PA passes. I mean isn't that a huge reason you want to establish the run so it can help you pass?

In same situation 3rd&2 we ran the ball twice, so why not try to catch ATL of guard. Doing the unexpected is essientail in game theory.

 

[SCall13]

I didn't start this post to say I think Saban is bad coach. I just don't think it's a good idea to get into defending players or coaches with excuses when mistakes and problems should simply be owned up to and accepted and corrected. Again, excuses don't win football games and they don't correct mistakes or fix problems.

 

[Canadianfishfan]

I didn't start this post to say I think Saban is bad coach. I just don't think it's a good idea to get into defending players or coaches with excuses when mistakes and problems should simply be owned up to and accepted and corrected. Again, excuses don't win football games and they don't correct mistakes or fix problems.

Did you hear sabans day after PC? he owned up to it.

 

[DPlus47]

We ran a gimmick when we had a sure thing going all game. That ain't smart.

i wouldn't call the play they ran a "gimmick." but i am also taking mcmichael's word on how well they execute that play when they run it, so i am sure i am wrong. i'm not going to argue that they shouldn't have run the ball, but i do wish to argue against calling a simple play-action pass a "gimmick" and the idea that a team trailing by a touchdown should try to run out the clock.

when you're trailing by a touchdown, the primary objective is to score a touchdown. when you're trailing by a field goal and you're in field goal range, you can play it a little differently if you choose to be conservative. as this offense has shown, you're never clearly "in touchdown range," so you have to score a touchdown however you can get it. they didn't call a play that resulted in a touchdown. i can criticize them for that. i am not going to criticize them for failing to run out the clock when the team was behind. the other team had timeouts, anyway. you're not running out anything in that situation.

someone earlier mentioned that a "good play call" has a higher statistical probability of success than a "bad play call." woody hayes used to say "only three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of 'em are bad..." by this definition of a "good play call," the only good play call is a running play in most downs and distances.

 

[Shouright]

What if that pass is incomplete? Is everyone keying on that same play still? No. But since Gus made a bad decision everyone is jumping on that 1 play call. If you want to say we should have ran the ball more during the game, then it's a little harder for me to argue. I am not saying I couldn't but it would be harder.

PA pass is a gimmick? Then allot of teams run gimmick PA passes. I mean isn't that a huge reason you want to establish the run so it can help you pass?

In same situation 3rd&2 we ran the ball twice, so why not try to catch ATL of guard. Doing the unexpected is essientail in game theory.

Yes but when do you stop basing your play calls on what the other team is thinking and doing and START basing them on what YOU DO WELL? How does an offense ever develop an identity if they're constantly playing based on what the other team is thinking or doing?

There's a place for doing the unexpected, and there's a place for going with what you do well. I'd say that at crunch time you go with what you do well. Do the unexpected at other times.

 

[Shouright]

i wouldn't call the play they ran a "gimmick." but i am also taking mcmichael's word on how well they execute that play when they run it, so i am sure i am wrong. i'm not going to argue that they shouldn't have run the ball, but i do wish to argue against calling a simple play-action pass a "gimmick" and the idea that a team trailing by a touchdown should try to run out the clock.

when you're trailing by a touchdown, the primary objective is to score a touchdown. when you're trailing by a field goal and you're in field goal range, you can play it a little differently if you choose to be conservative. as this offense has shown, you're never clearly "in touchdown range," so you have to score a touchdown however you can get it. they didn't call a play that resulted in a touchdown. i can criticize them for that. i am not going to criticize them for failing to run out the clock when the team was behind. the other team had timeouts, anyway. you're not running out anything in that situation.

someone earlier mentioned that a "good play call" has a higher statistical probability of success than a "bad play call." woody hayes used to say "only three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of 'em are bad..." by this definition of a "good play call," the only good play call is a running play in most downs and distances.

It's a gimmick compared to a run up the middle. Any fake is a gimmick by definition when compared to something that doesn't involve any faking. It's an attempt to trick the defense rather than just plow through them.

 

[flintsilver7]

i wouldn't call the play they ran a "gimmick." but i am also taking mcmichael's word on how well they execute that play when they run it, so i am sure i am wrong. i'm not going to argue that they shouldn't have run the ball, but i do wish to argue against calling a simple play-action pass a "gimmick" and the idea that a team trailing by a touchdown should try to run out the clock.

when you're trailing by a touchdown, the primary objective is to score a touchdown. when you're trailing by a field goal and you're in field goal range, you can play it a little differently if you choose to be conservative. as this offense has shown, you're never clearly "in touchdown range," so you have to score a touchdown however you can get it. they didn't call a play that resulted in a touchdown. i can criticize them for that. i am not going to criticize them for failing to run out the clock when the team was behind. the other team had timeouts, anyway. you're not running out anything in that situation.

someone earlier mentioned that a "good play call" has a higher statistical probability of success than a "bad play call." woody hayes used to say "only three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of 'em are bad..." by this definition of a "good play call," the only good play call is a running play in most downs and distances.

That's a far too simplistic way to look at this. Statistically, if you assume you have two downs to go two yards, then running the ball is going to be statistically the safest - the best chance of gaining positive yardage and the least chance of a turnover or a loss. If the defense knows you'll be running, then something might change. However, depending on the game situation, it's often better to pass. You wouldn't run the ball on 3rd and 13 or 4th and 8. The chances of converting those are slim to none.

Consider that point in the game. Gus is 13/21 for 103 yards. The average pass attempt has netted 4.90 yards. The average Ronnie Brown rush is netting 5.58 yards, and the average Ricky Williams rush is netting 5.2 yards. This would be a marked change from, say, Indianapolis, where James averaged 3.06 yards per carry and Manning averaged 8.68 yards per attempt.

 

[Shouright]

That's a far too simplistic way to look at this. Statistically, if you assume you have two downs to go two yards, then running the ball is going to be statistically the safest - the best chance of gaining positive yardage and the least chance of a turnover or a loss. If the defense knows you'll be running, then something might change. However, depending on the game situation, it's often better to pass. You wouldn't run the ball on 3rd and 13 or 4th and 8. The chances of converting those are slim to none.

Consider that point in the game. Gus is 13/21 for 103 yards. The average pass attempt has netted 4.90 yards. The average Ronnie Brown rush is netting 5.58 yards, and the average Ricky Williams rush is netting 5.2 yards. This would be a marked decrease from, say, Indianapolis, where James averaged 3.06 yards per carry and Manning averaged 8.68 yards per attempt.

My definition of "identity" is being able to do something well even if it's expected. So the defense is expecting the run -- big deal. Run it anyway. Then when you're successful you come away feeling like you can do something at will. All great teams are able to do something at will. But if you never put the trust in the players to DO that thing at will, they'll never develop that ability.

Here's the opposite of our approach. The Chiefs had the ball on the 2 yardline down 3 points with 2 seconds on the clock. Vermeil runs it in for the win. THAT's how you develop a team identity. Compare that with Linehan's play-action pass and you have the difference between a coach who knows how to develop a team and one who doesn't.

 

[DPlus47]

That's a far too simplistic way to look at this. Statistically, if you assume you have two downs to go two yards, then running the ball is going to be statistically the safest - the best chance of gaining positive yardage and the least chance of a turnover or a loss. If the defense knows you'll be running, then something might change. However, depending on the game situation, it's often better to pass. You wouldn't run the ball on 3rd and 13 or 4th and 8. The chances of converting those are slim to none.

Consider that point in the game. Gus is 13/21 for 103 yards. The average pass attempt has netted 4.90 yards. The average Ronnie Brown rush is netting 5.58 yards, and the average Ricky Williams rush is netting 5.2 yards. This would be a marked change from, say, Indianapolis, where James averaged 3.06 yards per carry and Manning averaged 8.68 yards per attempt.

i hear you. it was a bit "tongue in cheek" but there was no emoticon for that. the "depending on the game situation" part was glossed over in my wording "most downs and distances." a coach is going to have stats somewhere in the back of his head, but he's calling a game based on feel. we don't know what linehan was feeling (or why) because he can't talk to the media. he's likely to feel differently in the next situation like this one.

 

[DPlus47]

Here's the opposite of our approach. The Chiefs had the ball on the 2 yardline down 3 points with 2 seconds on the clock. Vermeil runs it in for the win. THAT's how you develop a team identity. Compare that with Linehan's play-action pass and you have the difference between a coach who knows how to develop a team and one who doesn't.

the chiefs don't have to "develop" an identity. their offense has been doing the same thing for years.

 

[Shouright]

the chiefs don't have to "develop" an identity. their offense has been doing the same thing for years.

Right, but once it's developed then you rely on it, which Vermeil did. That's how you maintain an identity. I'm afraid Linehan doesn't know how to develop one.

 

[DPlus47]

Right, but once it's developed then you rely on it, which Vermeil did. That's how you maintain an identity. I'm afraid Linehan doesn't know how to develop one.

there isn't enough evidence yet. i appreciate large chunks of your argument, but there are others i don't follow so much.

a hypothetical defense of the "indefensible" play call: what if linehan was hoping to get gus an open look on a play he had executed well previously in order to help build gus' confidence a little? a touchdown pass in that situation might have provided him with a little jolt, which we all know he could use. i'm not saying it's the right call to make, and i'm not saying it's the reason for the call, but things aren't always as simple as we want them to be. as much as we are second-guessing and kicking linehan for his decision, i'm sure he's doing it to himself. i'm looking forward to the next similar situation.

 

[SCall13]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/content/sports/epaper/2005/11/08/a1c_PBP_STODA08.html


This guy is basically saying what I'm saying. I usually don't agree with these guys often, but I do on this one. THis is not a slap at Saban from me personally, it's just the way I see it. It's protecting players and coaches unneccassarilly. Time to nip that crap at the bud early and hold them accountable. He doesn't need to direct the attention on to himself. He needs to say when someone (a coach or player) does something wrong or make a mistake and be specific. DOn't be so vague about it. Point them out and let us (or the party involved) know a correction will be made.