EGTuna
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,252
- Reaction score
- 1,662
I don't think they quit. They were in each game at the half. The coaches did them zero favors. This team has been built to win one way and one way only, and when that way fails, it all falls apart. This team has Plan A and Next Man Up philosophy, which will work if you don't have injuries to key cogs and the talent to execute plan A as we saw in 2014 and 2016. However, lose a key cog or three, and it falls apart like the ending of 10 Cloverfield Lane.
In 2017, you have to be able to win in a multitude of ways and have plans B, C, and D ready for the inevitable attrition of the roster and/or Plan A being ineffective. We've seen each week the coaches and players say, "we're not changing anything and going to execute the game plan." This is a fundamentally flawed paradigm in today's NFL. Look at Minnesota. They lost their starting RB, starting QB, and some defensive players, yet they continue to win. Sometimes they rely on D to win, sometimes O. Pat Shurmur (who'd be my choice for HC due to his success in Minnesota and also winning 4 and 5 games in Cleveland of all places as a HC) has been able to beat teams by getting chunk plays from the passing game (as they did vs. Wash) or being a dink an dunk coupled with power running (as they did vs LAR, DET). Of course the prime example of changing your plan to fit your current set of players and the opponent is NE and NO to a lesser degree. Even with TB12, the Pats roll out multiple different plans each week depending on the circumstances. As does New Orleans. Not here. It's a dang one-way street leading straight to the top-middle of the draft.
Alas, I don't think Garrett and his tired, out-of-date philosophy are going anywhere.
In 2017, you have to be able to win in a multitude of ways and have plans B, C, and D ready for the inevitable attrition of the roster and/or Plan A being ineffective. We've seen each week the coaches and players say, "we're not changing anything and going to execute the game plan." This is a fundamentally flawed paradigm in today's NFL. Look at Minnesota. They lost their starting RB, starting QB, and some defensive players, yet they continue to win. Sometimes they rely on D to win, sometimes O. Pat Shurmur (who'd be my choice for HC due to his success in Minnesota and also winning 4 and 5 games in Cleveland of all places as a HC) has been able to beat teams by getting chunk plays from the passing game (as they did vs. Wash) or being a dink an dunk coupled with power running (as they did vs LAR, DET). Of course the prime example of changing your plan to fit your current set of players and the opponent is NE and NO to a lesser degree. Even with TB12, the Pats roll out multiple different plans each week depending on the circumstances. As does New Orleans. Not here. It's a dang one-way street leading straight to the top-middle of the draft.
Alas, I don't think Garrett and his tired, out-of-date philosophy are going anywhere.