Thread: Coaching Desision Chester OR Peterson

"Chazz" wrote:

"Mr" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"CCthebest" wrote:

This has to be one of the stuoidest threads if seen. AD is the best pure runner in the NFL. Not as well rounded as LT maybe, but a better runner. CT isnt even close to AD. Carry per carry he has more fumbles.

AD has fumbled the ball 3 times in 241 carries/passes this year or once every 80.3 carries/passes.

C-Tay has fumbled the ball once in 88 carries/passes this year or once every 88 carries/passes.

If you are just talking when rushing;

AD has fumbled the ball 3 times in 225 carries this year or once every 75 carries.

C-Tay has never fumbled the ball once in 88 carries.

AD might be the best pure runner, but when you are talking versatility as in running, blocking & pass catching abilities combined, Taylor wins out.

With under two minutes left on the clock, no time-outs left & you are at your own 36, running the ball was not an option.

AD was held in check all day long. What makes people think that in the final seconds of the game Jacksonville was going to miraculously let up on their pursuit of AD & he would finally break one?

Sorry to break balls, but it was Tampa, not Jacksonville, we're playing the Faguars this week.


And I stick with my decision of giving the ball to Peterson. It doesn't have to be a run in that situation. You know you're going to be passing the ball, they know you're going to pass the ball, the run is all but out of the picture, but that doesn't mean Peterson's out of the game. Taylor is better in the passing game, but once the ball is in his hands, he can not do what Adrian can. And with the game on the line, you have to assume your players are going to catch the ball.

The only reason I leave Taylor on the field in this situation is if he is definitely staying the backfield for pass protection, if a running back is going out for the pass I want it to be Peterson, I want the ball in his hands when the game is on the line.

Your right...lets cut Taylor as well as Hicks since there is never any reason to have anyone but AD in the game, Tahi can spell him here and there and it opens up 2 roster spots to add depth where we will actually use it.

That was exactly my point.

Ocho, I thought we won the argument but you are not helping our case right now.
The name calling and disregard of every post the other people are making is pretty pathetic.
I agreed that Childress made the right
call and I got flamed for it but now you are doing the same thing.
Everyone has backed up their posts and you've started to ignore responding to them with any substance.

"Mr" wrote:

"Chazz" wrote:

"Mr" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

"CCthebest" wrote:

This has to be one of the stuoidest threads if seen. AD is the best pure runner in the NFL. Not as well rounded as LT maybe, but a better runner. CT isnt even close to AD. Carry per carry he has more fumbles.

AD has fumbled the ball 3 times in 241 carries/passes this year or once every 80.3 carries/passes.

C-Tay has fumbled the ball once in 88 carries/passes this year or once every 88 carries/passes.

If you are just talking when rushing;

AD has fumbled the ball 3 times in 225 carries this year or once every 75 carries.

C-Tay has never fumbled the ball once in 88 carries.

AD might be the best pure runner, but when you are talking versatility as in running, blocking & pass catching abilities combined, Taylor wins out.

With under two minutes left on the clock, no time-outs left & you are at your own 36, running the ball was not an option.

AD was held in check all day long. What makes people think that in the final seconds of the game Jacksonville was going to miraculously let up on their pursuit of AD & he would finally break one?

Sorry to break balls, but it was Tampa, not Jacksonville, we're playing the Faguars this week.


And I stick with my decision of giving the ball to Peterson. It doesn't have to be a run in that situation. You know you're going to be passing the ball, they know you're going to pass the ball, the run is all but out of the picture, but that doesn't mean Peterson's out of the game. Taylor is better in the passing game, but once the ball is in his hands, he can not do what Adrian can. And with the game on the line, you have to assume your players are going to catch the ball.

The only reason I leave Taylor on the field in this situation is if he is definitely staying the backfield for pass protection, if a running back is going out for the pass I want it to be Peterson, I want the ball in his hands when the game is on the line.

Your right...lets cut Taylor as well as Hicks since there is never any reason to have anyone but AD in the game, Tahi can spell him here and there and it opens up 2 roster spots to add depth where we will actually use it.

That was exactly my point.

or why not have both on the field?
Maybe split Peterson out as a wideout or slot, stick Taylor at RB.
Would probably have worked out better than what happened.

Thats why CT is called the best back in the NFL and is going to Pro Bowl right?

I just know had AP gone in and done what he did in the last 3 quarters of the game we wouldn't have gotten anything

And I know they would blame it on Chilldress anyway

Im just looking forward to Jags now.. People need to quit suckin ADs shlong and realize there are other players on the team that can do things he cant

"V4L" wrote:

I just know had AP gone in and done what he did in the last 3 quarters of the game we wouldn't have gotten anything

And I know they would blame it on Chilldress anyway

Im just looking forward to Jags now.. People need to quit suckin ADs shlong and realize there are other players on the team that can do things he cant

Look ... I don't necessarily agree or disagree here. Part of me thinks it is silly to not have Adrian out there at that point ... part of me understands Chidress' decision, but if I think AD should have been out there it does not mean I am slobbing his nob.
There is nothing wrong with having an OPINION that the BEST player on our team should be out there when the game is on the line. He is the leading rusher in the NFL ... and there was plenty of time where running the ball could still have some effect. He is BY FAR the most explosive player on our team, and probably the most explosive in the league. So for some to have serious beef with Childress not having him out there makes sense.
I personally don't care ... I think either way you go in that situation is right if done correctly. I mean we were in decent shape without the fumble, but it does look awfully bad when your best player is on the sideline and you lose. Had we won, Childress should not be questioned.
But YES ... it is a fair question to ask after we LOST because questions should always be asked after a loss in a winnable game (which tends to be all of our losses). There have been good points on both sides of this, but just because someone disagrees and thinks AD should be out there doesn't mean they are on his nuts, it means it is their opinion and it is just as valid as yours.

Edit: I was a little wrong on the time of game ... there was not really time to be running the ball since we had burned our TOs ... I tend to lean toward Chester, but as I said ... that does not make everyone else's opinion stupid.

I like this thread. It's a tough question.

Late in the game, down six, offense needs a spark. Who gives you that spark? AD Duh, but wait, AD has been contained for a good amount of the game.

I would have been ok with Chester in the game if we had forced the ball to Berrian.

I think what happenned is we called plays for Berrian and he was blanketed, so Gus checked down.

Still, people are only angry because CT fumbled. At the same time, if AD is in, but we still lose, does this argument happen?

Bigger question: Was Chilly outcoached, or do we put otgether a game-winning drive if the fumbles don't happen?

"V" wrote:

I like this thread. It's a tough question.

Late in the game, down six, offense needs a spark. Who gives you that spark? AD Duh, but wait, AD has been contained for a good amount of the game.

I would have been ok with Chester in the game if we had forced the ball to Berrian.

I think what happenned is we called plays for Berrian and he was blanketed, so Gus checked down.

Still, people are only angry because CT fumbled. At the same time, if AD is in, but we still lose, does this argument happen?

Bigger question: Was Chilly outcoached, or do we put otgether a game-winning drive if the fumbles don't happen?

You bring up a very good point. I've got to say that Chilly was out-coached.

I realize that's a pretty predictable opinion coming from me... but you have to figure that we have both Peterson and Taylor on our team... yet our coach couldn't figure out a way to get both playmakers on the field at the same time.

We lost... so we were out-coached regardless.

"C" wrote:

"V" wrote:

I like this thread. It's a tough question.

Late in the game, down six, offense needs a spark. Who gives you that spark? AD Duh, but wait, AD has been contained for a good amount of the game.

I would have been ok with Chester in the game if we had forced the ball to Berrian.

I think what happenned is we called plays for Berrian and he was blanketed, so Gus checked down.

Still, people are only angry because CT fumbled. At the same time, if AD is in, but we still lose, does this argument happen?

Bigger question: Was Chilly outcoached, or do we put otgether a game-winning drive if the fumbles don't happen?

You bring up a very good point. I've got to say that Chilly was out-coached.

I realize that's a pretty predictable opinion coming from me... but you have to figure that we have both Peterson and Taylor on our team... yet our coach couldn't figure out a way to get both playmakers on the field at the same time.

We lost... so we were out-coached regardless.

Well, if we were outcoached, do you think putting AD in would have changed the outcome?

It's a yes or no question.

"V" wrote:

"C" wrote:

"V" wrote:

I like this thread. It's a tough question.

Late in the game, down six, offense needs a spark. Who gives you that spark? AD Duh, but wait, AD has been contained for a good amount of the game.

I would have been ok with Chester in the game if we had forced the ball to Berrian.

I think what happenned is we called plays for Berrian and he was blanketed, so Gus checked down.

Still, people are only angry because CT fumbled. At the same time, if AD is in, but we still lose, does this argument happen?

Bigger question: Was Chilly outcoached, or do we put otgether a game-winning drive if the fumbles don't happen?

You bring up a very good point. I've got to say that Chilly was out-coached.

I realize that's a pretty predictable opinion coming from me... but you have to figure that we have both Peterson and Taylor on our team... yet our coach couldn't figure out a way to get both playmakers on the field at the same time.

We lost... so we were out-coached regardless.

Well, if we were outcoached, do you think putting AD in would have changed the outcome?

It's a yes or no question.

Yes. I do.