Quote:
Originally Posted by superpunk
When game in and game out you see this team come out flat and ineffective on offense, until they get behind and have to toss the gameplan out, I think you can pretty safely infer that there is some sort of problem with our coaching; either playcalling/gameplanning/having the team ready to play.
Combine that with the fact that as an organization we are making playcalling changes...
What in the heck do you want people to conclude?
There is an art to playcalling. It's why Norv Turner will have a job in the NFL as long as he wants one - because he's got a knack for timing and is regarded as one of the finest playcallers in the league.
The fact that it's a simplistic explanation doesn't make it untrue. It also doesn't mean we don't have other very serious problems.
[View Full Quote]But every sign in the universe points to Garrett as an incompetent playcaller/gameplanner/whathaveyou. We aren't overhauling the staff and (maybe) replacing him (idk guys we'll figure that out sometime between now and August, k?) because he's awesome at it. |
I am just a reductionist and put little to no stock in gross generalizations.
Was something wrong? Sure, that is obvious but stuff like "we can safely infer that something is wrong with our coaching" just sounds like throwing crap against the wall in a closed-minded way and "every sign in the universe points to Garrett as an incompetent playcaller/gameplanner/whathaveyou" just sounds like a butthurt extension of that to me.
I don't think it's an unfair standard to qualify assertions with something of quality and your 'deductions' hardly meet that standard. It's obviously heavy on emotion and generalization and short on empirical proof. You call others out on this all the time.