Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by WoodysGirl, Jun 24, 2013.
What do voluntary mean.
I don't think Tim Brown ever said Callahan was a bad playcaller or a bad with the offense. His beef was that Oakland had a great offense which was a pass oriented offense but Callanhan decided to change it to more run heavy offense for the SB game.
Like Zman said... Brown has always said Callahan was a near genius offensively. He's said he is the best playcaller he ever played for.
He just doesn't understand why he changed the game plan 24 hours before the Superbowl when they'd practiced something different all week.
I'm sorry did I miss something here? Isn't this the same guy who said Callahan intentionally blew a Superbowl because he wanted to let a friend win the game?
Seems awfully weird that youd endorse a guy like that to be running an offense if you believe he's that type of coach. Tim Brown must have been hit a lot harder than I remember.
Callahan almost has to be an improvement over Garrett no matter what system we run. Also, some people need to get a clue, saying he is the best play caller he has played for and claiming he sabotaged the SB by changing the game plan the day before are not the same thing. The Raiders had a pretty good offense that year with Callahan calling the shots. His mistake was changing things right before the game.
#1 in yards, #2 in points (all that matters), #1 passing offense. All with Rich Gannon. (Whose game wasn't unlike Romo's, BTW.)
Problem is, Callahan isn't running the same type of offense in Dallas that he ran in Oakland. He's running Garrett's offense.
Garrett's offense has been pretty productive, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Plus, I have it on good authority that the issue on offense in Dallas has been play calling, so we should be good.
There's zero track record of Callahan's playcalling of the Gillman-Coryell passing offense. His background is calling the West Coast Offense. It's hard to know whether it will be an improvement without a sample size of his playcalling in this offense.
Garrett calling plays, to me, was not an issue. Critiquing playcalling is an inexact science, as people will point to the success rate as the only factor as to whether a play call was "good" or not. To me, Garrett giving up playcalling is only good so long as it was his decision to do that. If it was taken away from him, the head coach has been reduced to a gelding.
Not when it comes to scoring. JG's offense has been very average in scoring ever since Sprano left.
I think this is where Callahan calling the plays can/will make a big difference.
That is the thing that gets me here is that most fans and media people alike make it sounds like Garrett was some buffoon who didn't know offense, and yet doing his time here he has produced top 10 offenses 4 times during his six year tenure was he perfect no.
Bill Callahan is now the offensive "savior" to most people and when he calls a "bad" game and the team loses then they will want some other Joe Blow to call the plays and at the end it doesn't matter who calls the plays as long as the players execute their assignments then any play caller will be labeled a "genius", like you I don't have any problems with their current Coryell scheme and its not like Callahan can't learn it being he's a WCO type of playcaller and whose to say that Garrett won't let him add some of his own wrinkles to the current playbook.
At the end of the day all offenses are the same the only difference is the name of and terminology of each one.