Chan Gailey Play calling

[NorthDalal]

This offensive play calling is now following the stupidity of Chan Gailey.

Eliminate the Fullback as a threat, diminish the tight ends and backs as recievers, have block-only guys on the roster, simplify the threat, and utilize no more than three or four options, play favorites with the play calling.

I picked this up very early about Gailey and then I was proven right while listening to an interview with Moose Johnston on talk radio long after Gailey was fired.

If you think I have no right to question the greatness of Parcells/Payton on this one please bear in mind that I form my opinion from Tom Landry and Bill Walsh's views on offensive diversity.

Tom used to say "I want the defense thinking not reacting, I want them out of their comfort zone. Walsh turned Roger Craig and Ricky Watters into pass or run threats in the red zone. Moose caught passes on the goal line and led the lead draw niner fullbacks caught and ran.

Gailey and Parcells have dumbed down the options and are predictable in the red zone.

 

[Asklesko]

Hm, I had almost forgotten about the Chan Gailey era. Bah.

 

[Chief]

Hm, I had almost forgotten about the Chan Gailey era. Bah.

Yep, it was horrible.

Inherited a 6-10 team full of primma donnas and took them to the playoffs in back-to-back years.

It's a good thing he was booted out and Dave Campo was brought in.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yep, it was horrible.

Inherited a 6-10 team full of primma donnas and took them to the playoffs in back-to-back years.

It's a good thing he was booted out and Dave Campo was brought in.

LOL.....

Yeah, he was a Pariah alright.

 

[joseephuss]

Gailey was horrible. Just because they got someone worse to replace him doesn't mean he was good.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Gailey was horrible. Just because they got someone worse to replace him doesn't mean he was good.

I did not think Gailey was all that terrible. I thought Gailey was boring and a bit unimaginative but I also thought his offensive style was efficiant.

Our presonel would not buy into Gailey's offense. That, to me, was a big part of the problem.

 

[joseephuss]

I did not think Gailey was all that terrible. I thought Gailey was boring and a bit unimaginative but I also thought his offensive style was efficiant.

Our presonel would not buy into Gailey's offense. That, to me, was a big part of the problem.

He decided that Emmitt was not useful in the passing game. I liked bringing in Chirs Warren as a back up to spell Emmitt. I didn't like him coming in as the 3rd down back. Emmitt was still a productive running back. I don't see how you take him out of the game.

I saw receivers left in to block defensive ends one on one. Not a crack block on a running play, but pass protection.

He was supposed to be big on play action pass schemes. I saw games where the running game would be working well and they wouldn't use play action passes. Everything became straight drop backs.

I didn't like the hiring at the time and was just never impressed with how the offense was handled. Or the team for that matter, but I blame the team aspect more on Jerry.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He decided that Emmitt was not useful in the passing game. I liked bringing in Chirs Warren as a back up to spell Emmitt. I didn't like him coming in as the 3rd down back. Emmitt was still a productive running back. I don't see how you take him out of the game.

I saw receivers left in to block defensive ends one on one. Not a crack block on a running play, but pass protection.

He was supposed to be big on play action pass schemes. I saw games where the running game would be working well and they wouldn't use play action passes. Everything became straight drop backs.

I didn't like the hiring at the time and was just never impressed with how the offense was handled. Or the team for that matter, but I blame the team aspect more on Jerry.

Fair enough. Gailey's time was far from ideal but I think there is blame to go around where that deal was concerned.

 

[noshame]

Norv's offense wasn't too exciting. However; balance is the key. Not just balance as in runs vs pass. But balance on first downs, first down was a Novacek staple.

Fisrt down in the parcells scheme is...well, we all know. lol

 

[Peterman60]

Not like Chan Gailey, worse, like Ernie Zampese.

 

[AbeBeta]

Gailey came in with a new approach -- he wanted to rest aging guys like 22 and 88 to keep them fresh over the season. His first season he won the division but lost the WC game - second season we came in 2nd and got a wild card birth -- but again lost the WC game. Chan did pretty well here. To say differently is wrong. He inherited an aging team with a highly questionable O-line and about the worst D-line in the league.

With more rest, Emmitt had two very good years under Chan. In fact, post-Chan he never broke 1300 again (he did both seasons with Chan) - he actually got MORE touches under Chan than he did the previous year under Barry. People talked about Emmitt like he was done -- but he came back with two strong years. Chan clearly did something right here. Giving Warren some time paid off as he averaged 4.9 and 4.1 yards a carry -- Warren was very effective.

1999 might have been much better if we didn't lose 88 in Philly early in the season - that loss forced Rocket to be the #1 receiver -- guess who had the 2nd most catches that year? Dave Lafluer - that's tells you about the sort of depth we had (and why Jerry ended giving up so much for Galloway).

Gailey was a decent coach - he didn't have much experience and made some odd calls at times -- but saying he didn't do well with what he had is just wrong.

 

[ravidubey]

Like Gailey, Payton at times seems to be just calling plays. There appears to be a lack of focus and intensity. People gain intensity when they focus on a goal; if they are just running the next play it's easier to lose concentration. IMO, every play should be called working towards the same set of goals-- exploiting weaknesses, setting up big plays, chewing up the clock, keeping people fresh, and scoring.

At the same time you have to adjust to what the defense takes away. Dallas is a balanced offense with short, medium, and deep receiving targets and inside (Jones) and outside (Thompson) running ability. If people are getting to the QB, then add more blockers, if they stop the inside run, run outside. If they stop the run, then pass. If they stop the short pass, go deep. If they clamp the pass, then run. The defense can't stop everything.

Dallas didn't throw deep until the end of the game when they had to score. Suddenly there are 63 and 57 yard plays-- sheesh, why didn't they try that in the 1st quarter?

 

[jcblanco22]

Gailey came in with a new approach -- he wanted to rest aging guys like 22 and 88 to keep them fresh over the season. His first season he won the division but lost the WC game - second season we came in 2nd and got a wild card birth -- but again lost the WC game. Chan did pretty well here. To say differently is wrong. He inherited an aging team with a highly questionable O-line and about the worst D-line in the league.

With more rest, Emmitt had two very good years under Chan. In fact, post-Chan he never broke 1300 again (he did both seasons with Chan) - he actually got MORE touches under Chan than he did the previous year under Barry. People talked about Emmitt like he was done -- but he came back with two strong years. Chan clearly did something right here. Giving Warren some time paid off as he averaged 4.9 and 4.1 yards a carry -- Warren was very effective.

1999 might have been much better if we didn't lose 88 in Philly early in the season - that loss forced Rocket to be the #1 receiver -- guess who had the 2nd most catches that year? Dave Lafluer - that's tells you about the sort of depth we had (and why Jerry ended giving up so much for Galloway).

Gailey was a decent coach - he didn't have much experience and made some odd calls at times -- but saying he didn't do well with what he had is just wrong.

Yes, yes, yes!! I think all of the Gailey detractors, and I include Troy Aikman in that list, forget what the 1998 season was like offensively. 3 or 4 favorite targets only? There were multiple games that year where they got the ball to 9 and 10 different people. LaFleur indeed had 2 good years under Gailey. Emmitt? Geez, look on www.coachgailey.com and read Emmitt's endorsement of his old coach on there. He mentions how Gailey helped him revive his career. Shoot, if he wouldn't have gone down in '99 for a couple of games, he would have topped 1500 that season.

Irvin's injury totally skewed the perception of Gailey's time here permanently. If McKnight and Irvin would've both been healthy that year, we were going to be in the NFC Championship Game against the Rams, no question in my mind.

 

[jcblanco22]

Yep, it was horrible.

Inherited a 6-10 team full of primma donnas and took them to the playoffs in back-to-back years.

It's a good thing he was booted out and Dave Campo was brought in.

Chief, I know from our previous conversations that I could count on you to stand up for the coach! He really did lead a solid turnaround in '98.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I honest to God don't know where all the hate for Chan comes from... I really don't.

 

[Doomsday101]

I honest to God don't know where all the hate for Chan comes from... I really don't.

I don't think Chan was able to sell his style to the players, I know Troy seem to have issue about the style of offense and Mike clearly did when Chan was taking him out of the games. I think all coaches know the X's and O's of the game but not all can sell their ideals to the team and that is a must. Players have to believe in what they are doing.

 

[jem88]

I picked this up very early about Gailey and then I was proven right while listening to an interview with Moose Johnston on talk radio long after Gailey was fired.

Agree that Gailey was a complete clown but is there anything more pointless than posts saying things to the effect of "I picked up on this 3 years ago..." Considering that there is no way of verifying this claim and it's really of little interest to anybody anyway, why bother?

 

[Asklesko]

Yep, it was horrible.

Inherited a 6-10 team full of primma donnas and took them to the playoffs in back-to-back years.

It's a good thing he was booted out and Dave Campo was brought in.

Mmhmm, mmhmm, and who did he lose to? Didn't he lose to the Cardinals and Panthers? BARRY SWITZER inherited a team of prima donnas and took them to the Super bowl and actually won the thing. How hard could it have been?

 

[jem88]

With more rest, Emmitt had two very good years under Chan. In fact, post-Chan he never broke 1300 again (he did both seasons with Chan) - he actually got MORE touches under Chan than he did the previous year under Barry. People talked about Emmitt like he was done -- but he came back with two strong years. Chan clearly did something right here. Giving Warren some time paid off as he averaged 4.9 and 4.1 yards a carry -- Warren was very effective.

1999 might have been much better if we didn't lose 88 in Philly early in the season - that loss forced Rocket to be the #1 receiver -- guess who had the 2nd most catches that year? Dave Lafluer - that's tells you about the sort of depth we had

Fair points, but I think Lafleur should be seen as a factor in Emmitt's production during those two years. Lafleur was a disappointment, but the guy certainly could block.

 

[Alexander]

I honest to God don't know where all the hate for Chan comes from... I really don't.

Are you joking?

Any coach, I mean any coach could have done a better job.

All he had to do is take the knife out of his back that Aikman and every other ego on the team was sticking in him and do his job.