Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
When I say playcalling is overrated, I mean playcalling from lay fans like you and I.
Can you intelligently discuss blocking schemes, techniques, route combinations, formations, coverage schemes, personnel limitations, packages, defensive fronts, etc.
I know I cannot.
I know it sounds good to say: run play action but I cannot help but think that a good playcalling decision needs to have all of what I just mentioned and more in the the decision.
I am an empirical reductionist so I guess generalizations like 'the playcalling is the problem' are not going to do much for me. I hear a lot of fans claiming that but when I read Sturm, Vela, Broaddus, CouchScout, Laughenburg, etc they do not say that and quite frankly they know better than us.
[View Full Quote]Sorry but i just do not believe that calling play action is suddenly going to make Cook not get blown up by the NT most running plays, Free suddenly have feet that are not in mud, Witten be able to anchor or catch passes that hit him in the hands etc.
You can call play action but who is to say that they can execute that either. Blaming Garrett and something as nebulous as 'playcalling' just doesn't do much for me. I think trying Parnell at RT and signing Holland to play RG would do much more than a couple more play action passes. |
The best example I would think of was the Green bay vs. Seahawks game.
Did you notice how much pressure he had in the 1st half? He was getting killed.
In the 2nd half look how their offense was managed. It was less predictable - they started running the ball and started using quick slants, roll outs and play action.
The Packers is a perfect example on how to run an office and how to adjust to pressure. As far as I know we didn't even giv up 8 sacks in one half.
By the coaches adjusting in the 2nd half, the Packers was able to dominate the Seahawks. The Cowboys didn't adjust. Thus the reason why we lost.