Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 158

Thread: Out-coached ??

  1. #101
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Out-coached ??

    Keep in mind that in the SD game, we were not that dominant in running until Castillo went out with an injury and his replacement came in. It was at that point that the game turned and without that injury, we would not have had the day that we had.

  2. #102
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "ragz" wrote:
    oh yah.
    and keep in mind we were 3-6 and the season appeared to be lost before he fully commited to jackson and trying some new things with he pass game.
    so i feel as though childress and all the offensive coaches started to learn, but sometimes it felt as though it took too long
    What new things did he try?
    You don't think that the fact that we played Oakland, Detroit, San Fran, and Chicago in that 5 game winning streak had anything to do with it?
    When our skill level matched up better against the opponents, Childress and Bevell were more willing to open up the playbook.
    That is because those plays had a better chance of succeeding at that time...

    I do agree that Childress deserves some criticism for the offense being vanilla.
    But I think that the majority of the blame lies on the players and their skill level.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  3. #103
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "ragz" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:
    "V" wrote:
    "ragz" wrote:
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=46729.msg814795#msg814795 date=1217991132]
    [quote author=ragz link=topic=46729.msg814614#msg814614 date=1217975751]
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=46729.msg814349#msg814349 date=1217956351]
    [quote author=midgensa link=topic=46729.msg814299#msg814299 date=1217952848]
    In the loss against the Redskins we were ABSOLUTELY outcoached by a large margin. Our offense did not seem all that flustered by the Skins (just simple mistakes by T-Jack), but our defense had NO CLUE what the Skins were doing.
    We got hammered and had no clue how to stop it for a bit there and before you knew it, the game was out of reach.
    As some have said ... the conservative offense was what was working for us going into this game so I was not all that upset about our offense, but I was absolutely dumfounded by how lost our defense looked for a while out there.
    I disagree.
    Our defense was put in poor spots several times by the offensive turnovers.
    Not to mention that they were on the field a LOT in that game.
    I have a very hard time blaming them for the loss.

    The offense, however, gives up INTs, fumbles, and a safety.
    I would say that they were a little flustered.
    And I still don't see how that translates into being outcoached.
    We were out-executed, especially on offense.

    come on guys.
    don't twist that game.
    jackson was not in anyway special but lets not make it as if he was throwing picks that went back for tds.
    todd collins had all day to throw and we made him look like tom brady.
    we didn't do a good job stopping the run, and they totally took away our run.
    it was 25-0 before we started to get away from our run the ball and punt nature for 2 1/2 quarters.
    we did the same thing against green bay, the denver game, and the dallas game to be honest.
    you can't sit on your hands the whole game until you are down by 2 or more scores in the 4th quarter and then turn to your qb and say go get it.


    all i'm saying is, jackson got alot of heat from fans and media in games where he didnt even seem to be given a chance.
    what do we learn or for that matter jackson learns if we just wanted him to not lose games?
    i would have lived with more games like the first lion game where maybe he learns from that aggressiveness than games where we only let him throw ten times.
    you know what i mean?
    You're right... He was throwing picks that are returned 50 yards to the 8 yard line.
    Or throwing behind the TE resulting in a fumble.
    Or throwing another pick from our own red zone.
    In fact, all three of our turnovers in that game came on passing plays.

    Geez, people complain when we don't run the ball.
    Then they complain that we run the ball too much.
    Everyone thinks they could do a better job, when in reality I doubt any of us could.
    That is why we are fans, not coaches.
    And truth be told, there was not a single game in which TJack was only allowed to throw ten times.
    In fact, his average was 24.5 attempts per game, with a high of 41 against Washington (which we lost) and a low of 12 against the Giants (which we won).


    Asserting that we were too conservative in the first half of the Washington game is also bogus.
    Look at the drives.
    Out of 21 first half plays, we ran the ball 8 times and threw it 13 times.
    Of those 13 pass attempts, 3 were deep passes.
    Two of them became interceptions, and one was incomplete.
    Yeah, I can't imagine why we wouldn't do that more often.
    :

    Our conservative offense was a result of our inability to execute a decent passing game, not the other way around.
    I believe that certain players in the passing game have been dramatically improved in the offseason, specifically Tjack, Rice and AD.
    I also think we upgraded the WR with Berrian.
    With the improved ability to execute plays, you can expect to see the playbook opened up more this year.
    nodak, you're going to include pass attempts in the 4th quarter when we are down by 2 or more scores and have no choice but to pass.
    how many pass attempts did bollinger have in the first half of the packer game? 6.
    and we were down 20-0.
    the dallas game jackson had 9 attempts almost through 3 quarters.
    the denver game was basically given away until we spread the field and let jackson make some plays that didn't include 5 yard slants.


    we could break down each game play for play, but overall the offense has been vanilla, it was under johnson who had more experience, but the excuse then was that he didn't have the arm strenght.
    i think even childress has learned he has to create mismatches instead of saying each individual just has to be the guy in front of him.
    if defenses are putting 9 in the box, you can't come out with your base offense and try to run right at it.
    i wish we could but it's gonna be taken away which it was in final games of the year.
    just like it was the previous year after chester had a very good 2/3 of a season.
    of course personel has been apart of the problem, but you acclimate to put the personel in situations to be most successful.
    to me we have not been very creative in doing that.
    we've put more pressure on a defense that was mediocre at best and left the offense painfully predictable.
    i think childress has been learning along the way too, and with more talent hopefully all that is corrected.
    i'm not asking for us to be in shotgun and throw the ball 40 times a game, but if a defense is coming in making a concerted effort to stop the run.
    coming out with a 2 wr 2 te set isn't exactly gonna pull the 9 guys outta the box.
    If the defense is coming in making a concerted effort to stop the run, effective passing is gonna pull at least 2 of those nine guys outta the box. The formation doesn't matter.

    The problem was that we would line up with 2 WR and 2 TE, the D would put nine in the box, we would pass, and the majority of the time it would be incomplete. That's why you run a play like a swing or screen pass. Get the ball to your best player in space.

    Even as TJ improves, I still think we see a conservative offense. There is no reason to change it, because the only reason it didn't work was an ineffective pass game. We suck at passing yet you want to pass more? I would much rather get better at passing. After a marked improvement is seen in the passing game, then we can talk about passing more often.

    I honestly think that if TJ has an average year (60% completion, 2:1 TD:INT ratio, 80 QB rating), AD will run for 2000 yards and our offense will be viewed as dominant. Of course, that will only happen if we stay committed to the run.

    IMO, Passing more won't change anything, Passing more effectively will make a world of difference.
    [/quote]
    but V i'm not saying we have to pass absurdely more, we have to pass enough to think teams think we will.
    and formations do create mismatches obviously.
    so if a team comes out gearing run, having a 3rd wr or a 4th wr going out on a pass pattern might end up matching him up against a lb or a safety with the greatest of cover skills.
    i dont have a problem with 3 yards and a cloud of dust, i'm just saying, that if you really believe petersen is gonna rush for 2000 yards there can't be 4-5 games during the year when we've attempted 10 passes and are down by 2-3 scores through 3 quarters.
    i understand you don't go away from what you do best, but we have to be more creative in games where those things aren't working.
    we just can't keep on doing the same things until the game gets outta hand and then we have nothing to lose.
    and it wouldn't hurt coming out that way every once in a while too, to keep teams really honest.
    i felt like childress started to do that more and more as the year went on and i'm just hoping that continues cuz just imagine what our run game can be like if teams start getting beat by the pass too.


    [/quote]

    - The kind of passing game we are capable of is still not good enough to make defenses think pass against us. The running game is our overwhelming strength and everyone knows it. 5 more passes per game isn't going to change that, especially if they are incompletions.
    - We had mismatches last year and were not able to take advantage of them. That is why I'm so much more concerned about being effective when we pass.
    - Peterson rushed for over 100 yards 6 times last year. In those games, we attempted 22.5 passes on average.
    - We were down by 2 scores going into the 4th quarter 3 times last year. Against GB our entire team flat out sucked. Against WAS the run game was stopped and TJ made costly errors, leading to easy WAS scores. Against DEN Taylor had two costly fumbles, the first of which would have been a TD on our first drive of the game. What I am trying to say is these deficits were not all caused by the same reason. Besides, it's only 3 games, and we came back in one of them.
    - No we can't keep on doing the same thing, but anything we do will still be in the mold of low risk, low reward. That is the definition of a ball control offense. Doing the same thing is not synonomous with passing more.
    - All I'm saying is lets make sure that our pass game is legit before we start passing more on the assumption that it will be. I think there is enough evidence that our offense last year was good/great when we had efficient passing. I break it down like this:
    1. @ Chicago, San Diego, Oakland, @ New York, Detroit, and @ San Francisco - Games where we fielded an adequate passing game and won. We will always use the run to setup the pass.
    2. Chicago - Our passing game was horrible with 3 TOs but we still won. With effective passing we would have blown them out.
    3. @ Detroit, @ KC, @ Dallas, Washington - Our passing game was horrible and we barely lost. We could have won these games with effective passing.

    If defenses stop our running game, we need to be able to pass well enough to get a couple first downs. Then we get back to running the football, our true strength.
    [/quote]
    your making my point V.
    the giant game we went up top right off the bat.
    raider game same thing with a little trickery.
    1st chicago game could have gotten really outta hand early if rice and williamson don't drop slants that had alot daylight in front of them.
    the san diego game was a nail biter until petersen went off.
    i'm not asking to overhaul the offensive game plan, i'm saying they have to be a bit more of what we were during their win streak.
    it appeared as we got back into contention we reverted back to not losing games instead of going out and winning games.


    we have sidney rice, berrian, allison, wade, we now have guys that can make plays so that can't be the excuse.
    jackson can make plays with his feet when plays aren't there, or design plays where that athleticism gets used.
    if you or childress don't have any faith in jackson being able to do the job he shouldn't be in there.
    our run game is great, but we now have other weapons and if they dont get utilized, philosphy is gonna be where my finger pointing lands.
    there's no reason we have to be one dimentional.
    trust me, if jackson is coming out throwing 4 picks a game then he'll get my brunt, but we can't be a true contender if we use our qb like we are afraid he's gonna kill us.
    to have an effective passing game you have to use it consistenly enough to get some continuity and we started to go in that direction.
    i believe through tavaris learning as well as childress.
    i'm just hoping that cuz of the hype we dont go back to playing so conservative that we have to lose to the chiefs 13-10, or that we are one blocked field goal away from being in big trouble.
    the colts can score, green bay probably can score, dallas, new orleans, ect... i think our defense can be very good, but there are gonna be games where teams stop the run and are gonna score more than 10 points so we have to show we can beat you with more than the run.



    [/quote]

    Your theories are good but your examples are horrible.
    - TJ had 12 attempts in the Giants game, which we won, but you complain we don't pass enough?
    - Did we pass a lot in the Raiders game? No, but we were creative when we did.
    - Rice and Williamson dropping passes are a perfect example of ineffective passing. Attain an effective passing offense, and that game gets "out of hand."
    - What did we do in a close game with San Diego? We stuck to the run, and it paid off big time for us. Yet you complain when we stick to the run against Washington.
    - During our win streak, we played great, scoring defense, ran the shit out of the ball, and limited turnovers in the passing game. You are confused because you see a conservative offense as one that is not capable of winning games.

    Berrian hasn't taken a snap for the Vikings, Allison has taken a handful, and we are hoping that Sidney Rice can continue his success on a larger scale from last year. Wade did his job, but was hardly impressive. Jackson's feet don't mean crap if he can't be a solid passer. If he is going to tuck and run a lot , I would rather see the ball in AD's hands. Lets see them make plays before we label them as guys who can make plays, or even as weapons. Wasn't long ago that we were touting Shank as a new "weapon" at TE. I am not saying I don't think our offense is better. I am saying lets see our added talent perform in our current offense before we start changing the scheme for them. We can still have succes with the current scheme. I think there is a lot of work to be done with playcalling, but the scheme in place works.

    - We proved in several games last year that we could acheive effective passing without passing a lot.
    - The comment of the Chiefs loss is laughable. We attempted 28 passes that game, not including 5 sacks. Holcomb was horrible. That is why we lost that game. Ineffective passing.
    - Same with the Dallas game. Tavaris was 6-19. Ineffective passing.
    - There were only 2 games last year where we were unable to score more than ten points.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  4. #104
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "ragz" wrote:
    oh yah.
    and keep in mind we were 3-6 and the season appeared to be lost before he fully commited to jackson and trying some new things with he pass game.
    so i feel as though childress and all the offensive coaches started to learn, but sometimes it felt as though it took too long
    In 4 of those 6 losses our QB play was absolutely miserable. Ineffective passing. 75.7 QB rating during our first 9 games.

    During our 5 game win streak TJ played much better. Effective passing. 95.1 QB Rating during the win streak.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  5. #105
    jargomcfargo's Avatar
    jargomcfargo is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,776

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "ragz" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "midgensa" wrote:
    In the loss against the Redskins we were ABSOLUTELY outcoached by a large margin. Our offense did not seem all that flustered by the Skins (just simple mistakes by T-Jack), but our defense had NO CLUE what the Skins were doing.
    We got hammered and had no clue how to stop it for a bit there and before you knew it, the game was out of reach.
    As some have said ... the conservative offense was what was working for us going into this game so I was not all that upset about our offense, but I was absolutely dumfounded by how lost our defense looked for a while out there.
    I disagree.
    Our defense was put in poor spots several times by the offensive turnovers.
    Not to mention that they were on the field a LOT in that game.
    I have a very hard time blaming them for the loss.

    The offense, however, gives up INTs, fumbles, and a safety.
    I would say that they were a little flustered.
    And I still don't see how that translates into being outcoached.
    We were out-executed, especially on offense.

    come on guys.
    don't twist that game.
    jackson was not in anyway special but lets not make it as if he was throwing picks that went back for tds.
    todd collins had all day to throw and we made him look like tom brady.
    we didn't do a good job stopping the run, and they totally took away our run.
    it was 25-0 before we started to get away from our run the ball and punt nature for 2 1/2 quarters.
    we did the same thing against green bay, the denver game, and the dallas game to be honest.
    you can't sit on your hands the whole game until you are down by 2 or more scores in the 4th quarter and then turn to your qb and say go get it.


    all i'm saying is, jackson got alot of heat from fans and media in games where he didnt even seem to be given a chance.
    what do we learn or for that matter jackson learns if we just wanted him to not lose games?
    i would have lived with more games like the first lion game where maybe he learns from that aggressiveness than games where we only let him throw ten times.
    you know what i mean?
    Yes I do.
    “What takes a quarterback to the next level is not arm strength or mobility or any of that stuff. It’s the ability to play on critical downs. Manage third downs, or red zones or four-minute or two-minute situations"
    Dilfer

  6. #106
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Out-coached ??

    Your theories are good but your examples are horrible.
    - TJ had 12 attempts in the Giants game, which we won, but you complain we don't pass enough?
    - Did we pass a lot in the Raiders game? No, but we were creative when we did.
    - Rice and Williamson dropping passes are a perfect example of ineffective passing. Attain an effective passing offense, and that game gets "out of hand."
    - What did we do in a close game with San Diego? We stuck to the run, and it paid off big time for us. Yet you complain when we stick to the run against Washington.
    - During our win streak, we played great, scoring defense, ran the shit out of the ball, and limited turnovers in the passing game. You are confused because you see a conservative offense as one that is not capable of winning games.

    Berrian hasn't taken a snap for the Vikings, Allison has taken a handful, and we are hoping that Sidney Rice can continue his success on a larger scale from last year. Wade did his job, but was hardly impressive. Jackson's feet don't mean crap if he can't be a solid passer. If he is going to tuck and run a lot , I would rather see the ball in AD's hands. Lets see them make plays before we label them as guys who can make plays, or even as weapons. Wasn't long ago that we were touting Shank as a new "weapon" at TE. I am not saying I don't think our offense is better. I am saying lets see our added talent perform in our current offense before we start changing the scheme for them. We can still have succes with the current scheme. I think there is a lot of work to be done with playcalling, but the scheme in place works.

    - We proved in several games last year that we could acheive effective passing without passing a lot.
    - The comment of the Chiefs loss is laughable. We attempted 28 passes that game, not including 5 sacks. Holcomb was horrible. That is why we lost that game. Ineffective passing.
    - Same with the Dallas game. Tavaris was 6-19. Ineffective passing.
    - There were only 2 games last year where we were unable to score more than ten points.
    A few things on this.

    In the Giants game we only needed to pass 12 times because the defense scored all the points we needed to win. That is not going to happen too many times and when it doesn't, the passing game will be a necessary part of the offense in scoring. Atlanta was similar.

    In the San Diego game as i stated earlier, we only began to make big gains in the run when Castillo went out with an injury, requiring them to replace their best DL and thus giving us someone we could take advantage of,which we did. That was one time when we did capitalize on a mismatch and I commend the staff for that.

    I agree 100% with the comment about keeping the ball in AD's hands instead of TJ's if we are going to run.

    Some of the games where we scored more than 10 points, those points came from the defense and not the offense so you have to first remove scores by the D before you compile your stats.

    But good info.

  7. #107
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,279

    Re: Out-coached ??

    Childress has never been out coached. He taught Peterson how to run.

  8. #108
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    Childress has never been out coached. He taught Peterson how to run.
    lol

    he went from a QB guru to a RB guru. The guy is a renaissance man.

  9. #109
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    Childress has never been out coached. He taught Peterson how to run.
    lol

    he went from a QB guru to a RB guru. The guy is a renaissance man.
    I'm pretty sure he's a genius, the phenotypic similarities are remarkable.

    [img width=450 height=383]http://www.shamasportsheadliners.com/images/CHILDRESS_Brad.JPG[/img]
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #110
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is online now Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,495

    Re: Out-coached ??

    "Prophet" wrote:
    "UffDaVikes" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    Childress has never been out coached. He taught Peterson how to run.
    lol

    he went from a QB guru to a RB guru. The guy is a renaissance man.
    I'm pretty sure he's a genius, the phenotypic similarities are remarkable.

    [img width=450 height=383]http://www.shamasportsheadliners.com/images/CHILDRESS_Brad.JPG[/img]
    You're sig is almost the same thing...
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I out-coached a local legend.
    By 6-KINGS in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-06-2006, 10:05 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •