Is it conservative or just bad play calling?

[Portland Fanatic]

Flo and Allen, IMO, can not get it done in space. They don't pull well. If there forced to move around in pass protection, there going to get abused. Rivera is solid but he's kind of anchored to the RT. He can't really leave him. The WR corps are vets but you have to be able to pass block. You have to be able to pick up the blitz and our young RBs aren't there yet. I just believe that Parcells will not knowingly take the chance. Yeah, it might work but if it doesn't, he could get the QB killed. This, IMO, is what dominates his thinking.

You may be right on with that...even then we can still be more creative.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You may be right on with that...even then we can still be more creative.

I don't think there's any questions. Every time we've been forced to open up the offense, we've had a measure of success. Red Zone execution has killed us but we really haven't had a great deal of trouble moving the ball in the passing game. I think the opportunity is there to do more but I don't believe Bill will do it unless he has no other choice. Even then, I'm not sure he won't call Jones' number up the gut.

That's just how Bill thinks.

 

[Portland Fanatic]

I don't think there's any questions. Every time we've been forced to open up the offense, we've had a measure of success. Red Zone execution has killed us but we really haven't had a great deal of trouble moving the ball in the passing game. I think the opportunity is there to do more but I don't believe Bill will do it unless he has no other choice. Even then, I'm not sure he won't call Jones' number up the gut.

That's just how Bill thinks.

Not disagreeing...some good comments in here. I just ask why he opened it more with Vinny last year?

 

[blindzebra]

Flo and Allen, IMO, can not get it done in space. They don't pull well. If there forced to move around in pass protection, there going to get abused. Rivera is solid but he's kind of anchored to the RT. He can't really leave him. The WR corps are vets but you have to be able to pass block. You have to be able to pick up the blitz and our young RBs aren't there yet. I just believe that Parcells will not knowingly take the chance. Yeah, it might work but if it doesn't, he could get the QB killed. This, IMO, is what dominates his thinking.

It comes back to calling plays that we do not have the personnel to run, and they keep us from maintaining flow, and dictating the game.

We do not have the QB or OL to successfully run that stretch play, but we run it 10 times a game, and we keep stalling drives and setting up long yardage situations by doing it.

Parcells wants to make Jones a complete back, but he struggles with catching the ball and Bledsoe throws a poor short ball. Again we seem to be spinning our wheels.

I'm far from saying we should go run-in-shoot, but we have had far too many plays with max-protect and two receivers running routes, and rarely have we called it when the other team actually had a blitz. I NEVER want to see Witten in pass protection 4 or 5 times a game.

Why is Bledsoe under center on 4th and 5? Why are we calling a 3 step drop with a QB easily rattled by pressure up the middle?

Our coaches are not designing plays that fit our player's strengths.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not disagreeing...some good comments in here. I just ask why he opened it more with Vinny last year?

I think that he felt like he had little choice. I mean, he really had very little outside of the passing game until JJ got back. When JJ did get back, the games we one, IMO, were the games he played well in. Not the games we threw the football.

 

[AdamJT13]

It should be apparent to all that the large majority of posters on this board deal in absolutes.

If this, if that, OK but the reality is that we're 2-2. When you get finished Umen and OKing, the bottom line is that we'll still be 2-2. All the mad justification in the world is not going to change that simple fact.

You of all people should know this.

You sure have a burr under your saddle lately. I asked which team's play calling people would rather have and wouldn't complain about, and you came up with "the team that's winning" -- which basically says nothing. So you wouldn't complain about the offensive play calling if Roy had picked off Brunell and we had won, but since he dropped it and we lost, you blame the offensive play calling? That makes a ton of sense.

Put a little more tought into the question, and let me know when you come up with something.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You sure have a burr under your saddle lately. I asked which team's play calling people would rather have and wouldn't complain about, and you came up with "the team that's winning" -- which basically says nothing. So you wouldn't complain about the offensive play calling if Roy had picked off Brunell and we had won, but since he dropped it and we lost, you blame the offensive play calling? That makes a ton of sense.

Put a little more tought into the question, and let me know when you come up with something.

That fact that you would come to any of these conclusions is, at best, amusing to me.

I think it's interesting that you take the opinion that I am complaining. I am simply stating what is and how most are viewing this. If you review my posts today, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any of them that are critical of the play calling.

The fact here is that you choose to believe my post to you was of a critical nature. You do this because your predisposed to do so, where I'm concerned.

Perhaps it would help if you cleaned up your own back yard.

 

[AdamJT13]

That fact that you would come to any of these conclusions is, at best, amusing to me.

I think it's interesting that you take the opinion that I am complaining. I am simply stating what is and how most are viewing this. If you review my posts today, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any of them that are critical of the play calling.

The fact here is that you choose to believe my post to you was of a critical nature. You do this because your predisposed to do so, where I'm concerned.

Perhaps it would help if you cleaned up your own back yard.

So you weren't being rude when you said, "When you get finished Umen and OKing," or, "You of all people should know this"? Please.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So you weren't being rude when you said, "When you get finished Umen and OKing," or, "You of all people should know this"? Please.

No, there I used a consistant amount of JackAss as was received. My initial post, however, was not intended to be anything more then what it was.

I assume you acknowledge the fact that I have not spoken ill of the play calling. The first post was not ment in an offensive manner. I suppose I could have immediatly chosen to clarify my position but you were so quick to take it in a negative conotation, I just thought to myself, why do that?

You posted, making declorations, suggesting I spoke ill of the play calling. In fact, I had not.

Suppose we both put away our Vodoo Dolls and just give each other the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps then we can actually contribute to the board, rather then bore everybody with our, somewhat, Juvenile displays of got ya last.

Agreed?

 

[Sarge]

Why can't you be conservative AND have bad playcalling?

That's what I'm seeing.

 

[Cbz40]

Why can't you be conservative AND have bad playcalling?

That's what I'm seeing.

Ummm..I've been saying the same thing Sarge. Careful, we will be considered idiots

 

[AdamJT13]

No, there I used a consistant amount of ------ as was received. My initial post, however, was not intended to be anything more then what it was.

I never said anything about your first response. I just questioned the assumption that nobody would be complaining if we were 4-0 with the same play calling (I'm sure they would be). And if they weren't complaining BECAUSE we were 4-0, then I'd question that, too. (Bad play calling is bad play calling whether you win or lose.)

It was your second response when you took it to a personal level, for no apparent reason.

You posted, making declorations, suggesting I spoke ill of the play calling. In fact, I had not.

I asked which team's play calling you'd rather have and wouldn't complain about, and your reply was, "The team that's winning, obviously." To me, that doesn't sound like you were happy with the play calling against Washington or Oakland, since we lost.

 

[Alexander]

Why can't you be conservative AND have bad playcalling?

That's what I'm seeing.

Conservative playcalling is not what is causing our problems.

Untimely conservative playcalling and poor execution of said plays is what the issue is.

You can be conservative at the right time and place. When you call a game with absolutely no regard to momentum or regard for the best play for that situation, you are butchering a gameplan.

And nobody that has half an idea of what they are looking at would be all happy if the record was 4-0.

That is an incredibly cheap way of trying to squelch a very valid argument.

 

[Cbz40]

Not any more cheap than yours......and I would say Sarge has as good of an idea as to what he is looking at as you do Sir.

 

[Alexander]

Not any more cheap than yours......and I would say Sarge has as good of an idea as to what he is looking at as you do Sir.

I was not implying that about Sarge's post.

I happen to agree with it. The cheap way out was suggesting that nobody would care if we were 4-0. I strongly doubt that.

 

[Cbz40]

I was not implying that about Sarge's post.

I happen to agree with it. The cheap way out was suggesting that nobody would care if we were 4-0. I strongly doubt that.

Then please accept my apology Sir.

 

[notherbob]

I imagine the play calling will improve the longer these guys play together; after all, there's a lot of new faces on the team and BP isn't going to turn them all loose until they're all on the same page. The game plan will be limited until these people become more cohesive. Then I think they're going to be pretty good.

 

[joseephuss]

Sarge, Cbz40 and Alexander got the right on.

I would be very happy with a 4-0 record, but I would still have the same concerns that I have now. I would have concerns that some of these things if not corrected would come back to hurt the team at critical times against teams like the Eagles. I think the play calling is consistent. Sure the execution hasn't always been great and I think you can to some extent play call around poor execution.

 

[Dallas4ever]

I think it is just bad play calling. We have to accept that Parcells is a conservative minded coach. He cares more about good execution than exotic play calling. I have no problem with that. That is a formula that has worked forever in the NFL.

I just think the play calling is bad, inconsistent and predictable. You can be conservative without being predictable. You can also be inconsistent while trying to be conservative.

Establish the run, but use multiple formations, sets and plays to do it.

I saw better use of the play action game plan when Quincy Carter was the QB. I think we can all agree that the offensive personnel is better now than in 2003, yet it seems like the play calling seems more limited.

I am not talking about just airing it out. I just don't think the play calling resembles what was used in 2003 or 2004. It looks to my amature eyes like the playbook was cut in half or something. Bledsoe and the rest of the players should be more than capable of handling more than what they are being asked to currently do. Okay, maybe not the offensive line.

I agree that it's been bad play calling and it doesn't require a professional to see this. Teams are all over what we're trying do on too many occasions. Not only that, there were some very slow developing plays called that the defense could've ran all the way from the locker room and been there in time to stuff them. The coaching staff not only has do better with the play selection but also in trusting the offense to make things happen.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I never said anything about your first response. I just questioned the assumption that nobody would be complaining if we were 4-0 with the same play calling (I'm sure they would be). And if they weren't complaining BECAUSE we were 4-0, then I'd question that, too. (Bad play calling is bad play calling whether you win or lose.)

It was your second response when you took it to a personal level, for no apparent reason.



I asked which team's play calling you'd rather have and wouldn't complain about, and your reply was, "The team that's winning, obviously." To me, that doesn't sound like you were happy with the play calling against Washington or Oakland, since we lost.

The response immediatly above was your first response I replied to. You were not asking me. It was an open question. You were asking the board. I simply replied in a manner that reflects what many of the board memebers seemed to be thinking. I did not say, that was what I thought. I replied, as if to say, The team that is winning at any given time is the way most would like to see the play calling mimic. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that BP sticks with the plan an calls the plays according to our style of football. Doesn't matter, this discussion has long since jumped the tracks.

It is clear you are more interested in justifying what you posted rather then putting a stop to this nonesense. So be it.