"UffDaVikes" wrote:
"V" wrote:

Early in the year, we tried to force the issue of passing, and it didn't work out well at all.
The GB and Detroit games come to mind. Chillys first adjustment was to realize that TJ was not yet ready to run the offense the way he wanted, and to switch to a more run-heavy style. He did it, and it worked. Several big games for our RBs. A 5 game winning streak.

As teams started to stack the box Chilly was slow to make his next adjustment: Passing at unexpected times. Furthermore, the types of plays being called by Bevell just were not effective. It's not all coaching. Execution is a big part of it too. If Berrian doesn't live up to expectations and TJ does not grow, we'll see the same problems.

I don't know the real solution. IMO keep on running it, call more diverse plays, and effective execution on passing plays should make a difference. I'm pretty sure screen passes don't work too well against 8 in the box. Someone will get to the QB before the OL gets in position. Maybe a WR Screen would work? Who did we have who could run a WR screen next year? NO ONE.

So I think we all agree that better execution will make for better playcalling. At the same time, good playcalling makes better execution easier. I can't get angry at the players when we pass three straight times and punt.
Explain to me what you mean by forcing the pass? Do you mean we called plays at the wrong time, with the wrong formation or with the wrong personnel?
I think the game that comes to mind as forcing the pass was week 2 against Detroit, which V mentioned.
We called 45 pass plays - 33 throws by TJ, 4 by Bollinger, 6 that ended with the QB taking off, and 2 sacks (boxscore).
Compare those 45 pass plays with the 27 called runs.
This wasn't a blowout either.
This was an OT game that was never more than 10 points apart.
A couple specific examples from that game are the first two drives.
Our offense was going, but both drives were killed on 3rd-and-1.
The first was a Tarvaris interception and the second was an incomplete pass to Williamson (play-by-play).


V also mentioned the GB game in week 4, and though Holcomb was starting it's more of the same.
We called 44 pass plays to 21 run plays.
We averaged 5.2 yards/pass play and threw 1 pick.
We averaged 7.4 yards/run play (box score).
Again, this was a game that was within one score until the fourth quarter, not a blowout.

The reason why we couldn't pass was that TJ (Or any other QB since 2005) was never given the protection to be able to get set, get comfortable, and make the right reads. The correct thing to do was not to go one dimensional and just run, run, punt. The right thing to do was to bring in line talent at the OT position if we didn't have it and go out and play the offense. If the talent was there, then there was no reason to not try to pass more.

To say it was Jacksons fault is hard to buy as he never had enough pass attempts that didn't work to prove he couldn't pass more. And when he was out of the game and more experienced QB's came into the game, there was no dramatic improvement in the passing game.
If there was, I would agree with you
There are two sides to that coin.
If Tarvaris were making faster reads, the protection would have been fine.
As it was, Tarvaris went down only half as often as Bollinger and Holcomb when they were in there (link).
If we had Dan Marino in the pocket, I think the protection would have been fine.
At the end of last year, and it should continue into this year, both the protection and Tarvaris' decision making improved.
If that continues we will probably be more than satisfied with the talent we already have.

Oh, and our backups were pretty bad last year.
Arguing that Tarvaris wasn't bad because Kelly Holcomb also struggled in the offense just doesn't do it for me.