Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


My 1st anti-coaching thread

Locker Room Main Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-27-2005, 09:13 PM   #1
Sheriff Gonna Getcha
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 47
Posts: 8,317
Re: My 1st anti-coaching thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
Matty, you know I have been right there with you with the 'trust the coaches' mantra, but the playcalling the past 3 games especially has been terrible.. Execution has been bad, no doubt, but the predictability of the play calls has nothing to do with execution. The conservatism has nothing to do with execution.. IMO to be better than 8-8 in todays NFL you need to either score 24+ a game or give up less than 13 a game. We are nowhere near either of those benchmarks which is why we are constantly fighting ourselves for a win..
Ever since Moss made the headlines, the deep ball has been taken away via double-coverage. I don't think we are good enough to successfully use trick plays. I'm not sure what the coaching staff is doing that is so conservative. I think it's smart playcalling (i.e. our last "drive" against the Chargers). I think the execution and talent (see our #2 wideout and #1 tight-end) just isn't there.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2005, 09:23 PM   #2
Paintrain
Pro Bowl
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 55
Posts: 5,006
Re: My 1st anti-coaching thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
Ever since Moss made the headlines, the deep ball has been taken away via double-coverage. I don't think we are good enough to successfully use trick plays. I'm not sure what the coaching staff is doing that is so conservative. I think it's smart playcalling (i.e. our last "drive" against the Chargers). I think the execution and talent (see our #2 wideout and #1 tight-end) just isn't there.
From the 'Playcalling' Thread that I just posted in:

1-10-SD31 (1:04) C.Portis to SD 25 for 6 yards (B.Jue, D.Florence).
2-4-SD25 (:55) C.Portis right end to SD 25 for no gain (L.Castillo).
PENALTY on WAS-C.Rabach, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SD 25 - No Play.
2-14-SD35 (:50) C.Portis left end to SD 35 for no gain (R.Godfrey).
3-14-SD35 (:40) M.Brunell pass incomplete to C.Cooley (S.Merriman).
4-14-SD35 (:35) J.Hall 52 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-E.Albright, Holder-D.Frost.

From the 35 you are out of FG range. The highlighted playcall on 2nd and 14 is asinine to me. To me that is giving up on the drive by conceding 3rd and long and a long FG attempt. Are there no plays in the playbook designed to gain 7-10 yds?
__________________
Paintrain's Redskins Fandom
1981-2014

I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life!

Jay Gruden = Zorny McSpurrier
Kirk Cousins = Next Grossman
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2005, 09:26 PM   #3
SmootSmack
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
Re: My 1st anti-coaching thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
From the 'Playcalling' Thread that I just posted in:

1-10-SD31 (1:04) C.Portis to SD 25 for 6 yards (B.Jue, D.Florence).
2-4-SD25 (:55) C.Portis right end to SD 25 for no gain (L.Castillo).
PENALTY on WAS-C.Rabach, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SD 25 - No Play.
2-14-SD35 (:50) C.Portis left end to SD 35 for no gain (R.Godfrey).
3-14-SD35 (:40) M.Brunell pass incomplete to C.Cooley (S.Merriman).
4-14-SD35 (:35) J.Hall 52 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-E.Albright, Holder-D.Frost.

From the 35 you are out of FG range. The highlighted playcall on 2nd and 14 is asinine to me. To me that is giving up on the drive by conceding 3rd and long and a long FG attempt. Are there no plays in the playbook designed to gain 7-10 yds?
If I remember right, that play was a delayed handoff. Basically to freeze the defense into thinking it was pass then run. But the Chargers didn't bite
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2005, 10:37 PM   #4
Beemnseven
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 52
Posts: 5,311
Re: My 1st anti-coaching thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
From the 'Playcalling' Thread that I just posted in:

1-10-SD31 (1:04) C.Portis to SD 25 for 6 yards (B.Jue, D.Florence).
2-4-SD25 (:55) C.Portis right end to SD 25 for no gain (L.Castillo).
PENALTY on WAS-C.Rabach, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at SD 25 - No Play.
2-14-SD35 (:50) C.Portis left end to SD 35 for no gain (R.Godfrey).
3-14-SD35 (:40) M.Brunell pass incomplete to C.Cooley (S.Merriman).
4-14-SD35 (:35) J.Hall 52 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-E.Albright, Holder-D.Frost.

From the 35 you are out of FG range. The highlighted playcall on 2nd and 14 is asinine to me. To me that is giving up on the drive by conceding 3rd and long and a long FG attempt. Are there no plays in the playbook designed to gain 7-10 yds?

While I agree that the playcalling has generally been unimaginative and predictable, weren't a lot of us bitching last week in the 4th quarter against the Raiders for NOT running Portis enough?
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2005, 11:11 PM   #5
SmootSmack
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 45,256
Re: My 1st anti-coaching thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
While I agree that the playcalling has generally been unimaginative and predictable, weren't a lot of us bitching last week in the 4th quarter against the Raiders for NOT running Portis enough?
And the week before a lot were bitching that we WERE running Portis. It's kind of funny how at the beginning of the year there were a lot of threads about how awful the passing game was and how Brunell was just a limp-wristed has-been and how we needed to give the ball to Portis.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.69773 seconds with 11 queries