It was 2nd and VERY LONG. Of course you have to pass it.
You cant just look at the number or runs and passes and say the OC doesnt know what he is doing, you have to look at each unique situation.
Rocket Science!
- Thread starter NBP81
- Start date
It was 2nd and VERY LONG. Of course you have to pass it.
You cant just look at the number or runs and passes and say the OC doesnt know what he is doing, you have to look at each unique situation.
See post above. Look at each individual play....the down and distance....the no huddle hurry up offense. There was also times in the 3rd quarter where we were down by 2 scores. YOU figure it out.
P
psfign
I did man. I feel you getting frustrated, but I showed examples of when we were down by 6 and not 12. And my main concern passing instead of running on first downs. So looking at each 'unique situation', I still feel we should have ran more in the 3rd.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was about to say the same thing. These coaches - and it isn't just Failbin - panic when down by two scores and abandon the run too quickly. Our yards per play running was higher than passing vs KC so I don't get why we didn't do more. And the other thing I can't figure out is it doesn't seem to matter if you get down 14-0 in the first quarter or the 4th - the offense responds nearly the same way. All pass w the occasional "see we're still gonna run one here or there".
At 21-13 and 21-15 the game was there to be taken. Had we run more than we passed I'm willing to be we score a TD or two FGs etx and take the lead or tie it up by early 4th. But we kept throwing and going 3-out.
It's almost like these coaches have a color by numbers chart that tells them "down by 14,chart says pass 80% of the time". Had we been patient w run like vs NE,we probably gain the lead in Q3 or early 4th
where's th'fish
Scout Team
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,749
- Reaction score
- 1,156
I'm sure someone has beat me to point out that teams run the ball more when they are winning than when the game is close than when they are way behind. All those stats about how team X wins when RB X gets 25 or more carries? Duh.
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
I'm sure if we had a true poll of the number one problem with the Jets 95% of us would answer Geno Smith. They run plenty at 48% yet they have the same record as us. Their fans are complaining about play calling just like us. I'm sure most fans of other teams would say our number one issue is the QB as well (especially Bills fans). I'm not sure how we can see the same problem time and time again yet still be so completely blind when it comes to our own team. I would say at least 19 times out of 20 the problem with bad teams is the QB. Generally when the problem is only the coach it'll be obvious because you'll see good QB stats but poor records. See the Lions, Cowboys and Chargers and maybe even the Rams over the past 6 years or so.
Hell, even Sparano was able to win 11 games when he had a good QB.
Poor QB stats=poor QB. That doesn't mean he'll be poor forever, but its not looking good. I think I saw a chart recently that showed quite a few broke out year 3 but only a miniscule amount broke out after year 4.
Joe Philbin is not the boogey man.
Hell, even Sparano was able to win 11 games when he had a good QB.
Poor QB stats=poor QB. That doesn't mean he'll be poor forever, but its not looking good. I think I saw a chart recently that showed quite a few broke out year 3 but only a miniscule amount broke out after year 4.
Joe Philbin is not the boogey man.
P
psfign
Good observation there!
How long did it take Bree's to go from bust to stud? Was it year 3 or 4 w SD?
Sporano won 11 games because of a running gimmick with Ricky Williams and Ronnie Brown... And about that Jets example, cool! let me bring up a random example that suits my argument then... Bottom 5 teams regarding pass attempts.. Houston, Buffalo, Seattle, Bengals and Cowboys combine for a 11-4 record, and only one of those teams QB is considered franchise in Russell...
Manning?
*Pop Quiz: Name one significant record breaking QB (yards, TDs) to win a championship in the year he broke those records.
None. :up:
No QB has ever won the championship in the year that he set any significant passing record.
I have several systems based on rushing/passing percentages at halftime. Last week we were doomed based on the first half numbers. Our likelihood of winning that game was lower than even the margin suggested. I posted last week that we needed at least 18 rushes at halftime.
Rushing attempts keep poor to average quarterbacks in the game. That's always been true. Bud Goode always emphasized the value of running the ball often. Unfortunately, with the recent rules changes and protection of the offense, premier quarterbacks can ignore the old standbys and throw the ball an extreme percentage of the time. They can also use empty formations, with are a disastrous choice for a lesser quarterback. Sites like Football Outsiders don't differentiate between varying levels of quarterback, and their top analysts are young guys who didn't experience the earlier eras, so all they do is look at examples of great quarterbacks succeeding without running the ball much early in the game, and announce that it's all a big myth. I always have to laugh because the systems I use are clear cut and the percentages haven't changed at all. It's been a struggle not to post a comment on that site and detail the stupidity but I'm still young enough that I don't want to give away angles that I plan to use for hopefully decades to come.
When we hired Philbin I posted that there was severe danger of him failing to recognize that an average quarterback couldn't be treated the same way as Aaron Rodgers. You can get away with otherwise idiotic choices and imbalance if you have an Aaron Rodgers, particularly the version when Philbin was there and the receiving corps was younger and deeper. Everything here has unfolded as I feared it would. McCoy was more likely to understand the value of running the football. After all, he managed miracles with Tebow, at least for a while, based almost exclusively on running the football as often as some college teams.
Also, while it's true that rushing attempts can be skewed late in the game based on score, you'd be amazed how many simple angles hold up, like first to 15 rushes, and stuff like that. We were lucky that New England threw the ball so often in the opener, specifically 29 times in the first half. Brady is an interesting case in that he's declined just enough to the point that team can no longer ignore how often it runs the ball. Belichick seems to be gradually accepting that, based on the numbers. Apparently he spent the offseason somewhat in denial but all it took was one pathetic game to revert to what they were doing so often last season.
Rushing attempts keep poor to average quarterbacks in the game. That's always been true. Bud Goode always emphasized the value of running the ball often. Unfortunately, with the recent rules changes and protection of the offense, premier quarterbacks can ignore the old standbys and throw the ball an extreme percentage of the time. They can also use empty formations, with are a disastrous choice for a lesser quarterback. Sites like Football Outsiders don't differentiate between varying levels of quarterback, and their top analysts are young guys who didn't experience the earlier eras, so all they do is look at examples of great quarterbacks succeeding without running the ball much early in the game, and announce that it's all a big myth. I always have to laugh because the systems I use are clear cut and the percentages haven't changed at all. It's been a struggle not to post a comment on that site and detail the stupidity but I'm still young enough that I don't want to give away angles that I plan to use for hopefully decades to come.
When we hired Philbin I posted that there was severe danger of him failing to recognize that an average quarterback couldn't be treated the same way as Aaron Rodgers. You can get away with otherwise idiotic choices and imbalance if you have an Aaron Rodgers, particularly the version when Philbin was there and the receiving corps was younger and deeper. Everything here has unfolded as I feared it would. McCoy was more likely to understand the value of running the football. After all, he managed miracles with Tebow, at least for a while, based almost exclusively on running the football as often as some college teams.
Also, while it's true that rushing attempts can be skewed late in the game based on score, you'd be amazed how many simple angles hold up, like first to 15 rushes, and stuff like that. We were lucky that New England threw the ball so often in the opener, specifically 29 times in the first half. Brady is an interesting case in that he's declined just enough to the point that team can no longer ignore how often it runs the ball. Belichick seems to be gradually accepting that, based on the numbers. Apparently he spent the offseason somewhat in denial but all it took was one pathetic game to revert to what they were doing so often last season.
Well yea, it is frustrating explaining to someone common sense football. Like in the drive you cited as an example - When it was 2nd down and 18....you pass the ball. Then it was 3rd down and 4.....you pass the ball again unless you get a great look. And when we passed 3 times in a row on 1 drive in the 3rd quarter, you call it abandoning the run. I call it playing situational football. The very next drive we started off with back to back runs.....because the situation called for it. We didn't abandon the run until we were down by 2 scores with 4 minutes left.