wileedog said:
The point was Lombardi had about 3 plays in his whole play book, and just ran 'em over and over and over.
And yet its his name on the trophy.
Then there's guys like Spurrier that come along with all kinds of X's and O's and lines and diagrams and formations and motions and hoodoo voodoo. And they get creamed.
Maybe you can't demand the type of execution Lombardi dd in his day, but you sure as hell can look for better than these players are delivering.
Pittsburgh aint running anything to fancy these days. Just ram the ball down your throat with an occasional play action pass. They don't seem to have a problem with 'gameplans'.
Thank you for the education about Lombardi. I saw those games before you were born.
Your choice of Spurrier as a counter point to Lombardi is ludicrous. How about Bill Walsh? How about just about every offensive system in the NFL for the last 20 years?
My point is this...EVERY time we lose, all we hear about is mistakes...the idea is to put together a system that doesn't grind to a halt when things aren't executed perfectly for an entire game.
You want an example of that?
The team we played Sunday had more penalties at more critical times than we did; by far.
Yet, they won.
The same can be said in the Commander game. We outplayed them for 55 minutes. Clearly.
Yet, they won.
I have no problem with a conservative game plan. But what we have seen is just flat out stupid. Every now and then, do SOMETHING to loosen up the defense so they can't load up against us.
And the irony is, we are playing as if we have a rookie at QB. Hell, the Jets weren't this conservative with Bollinger starting. Why have Bledsoe back there, with all his experience?
I'm not suggesting we throw the ball all over the field.
Even in the first half of the first season, with no where near the talent here, Parcells did some terrific game planning. We'd run out of three wide formations that were implemented in order to spread the defense..etc.
This version of Parcells is a caricature of himself.
