Jets-Pitt

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
I certainly think he's a half decent coach, but he has huge lapses of reason like what I pointed out. Running three plays into a wall is really dumb. He could have easily called a different and more challenging play! He is a windbag of the worst kind.

I guess you're big PF fan? My teen boy is a huge fan and loves anything PF!

I am the most devoted Floyd Fan I know, though I'm sure there must be some folks with bootlegs and videos I haven't seen.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Reality is it is only possible to second guess what didn't work. You could argue all sorts of stats. If he made a call and it did not work it goes into the negative column. I may be wrong about the sequence, but not about the outcome. The read at the line should have indicated to coaches that Steelers were expecting run. When you see a stacked line and ...[text shortened]... id not. That is true for all four plays. You cannot possibly argue all four calls were good?

It's a waste of time talking to it a know it all blowhard like yourself, but just because a play doesn't succeed doesn't mean it was a bad call by the coach. There's this thing called "execution"; if a player misses a block or a running back slips or a QB messes up a hand off it's not the coach's fault. Maybe some day you'll learn enough about the game to realize this and to realize that how players play is what ultimately decides the game not how coaches coach.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's a waste of time talking to it a know it all blowhard like yourself, but just because a play doesn't succeed doesn't mean it was a bad call by the coach. There's this thing called "execution"; if a player misses a block or a running back slips or a QB messes up a hand off it's not the coach's fault. Maybe some day you'll learn enough about the game t ...[text shortened]... ealize that how players play is what ultimately decides the game not how coaches coach.

So it's always the players fault if it fails because of execution and a good call if it succeeds? I don't think so. It is a part of coaching to call plays likely to succeed. That's why odds are always being considered. Do you recall the Cowboys-Giants of the 90's when Reeves called a consevrative play to ensure a field goal instead of attempting a TD in the redzone? You don't think that dubious call lost the game for the Giants? That was the Emmitt Smith seprarated shoulder game. In this game I think it was a coaching blunder to run it on 4th and goal. PLain and simple. You keep defending a really dubious call. It is bad coaching when you have no better play than running straight at a wall. Think of the % of success of such plays. Jets had been held to below their average rushing total, which means they were not running well, which means the O-line was not performing up to their standards, which means a run straight ahead has huge odds against succeeding. How hard is that? If you think it might not work then call a time out. I'll give you a play where it was player execution and not a bad call. IN the Auburn NCG on Oregon's goal line stand. On 4th and goal a pass in the left of endzone is called, executed by all, but dropped by the receiver. That I would agree was not a bad call and simply not executed. Same as the instances you allude to. No accounting for bad snaps and such. But the four plays were bad cals in Jets' case.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
So it's always the players fault if it fails because of execution and a good call if it succeeds? I don't think so. It is a part of coaching to call plays likely to succeed. That's why odds are always being considered. Do you recall the Cowboys-Giants of the 90's when Reeves called a consevrative play to ensure a field goal instead of attempting a TD ...[text shortened]... o. No accounting for bad snaps and such. But the four plays were bad cals in Jets' case.

Like I said, it's a waste of time. I gave you the stats showing that the Jets had a 80% chance of success on a running play in such situations, but that doesn't stop you from ranting on and on and on and on about how what a "bad call" a run was. What's more they did call two pass plays that didn't work so of course they were "bad calls" too. Maybe they should have punted since both a run and a pass were "bad calls".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like I said, it's a waste of time. I gave you the stats showing that the Jets had a 80% chance of success on a running play in such situations, but that doesn't stop you from ranting on and on and on and on about how what a "bad call" a run was. What's more they did call two pass plays that didn't work so of course they were "bad calls" too. Maybe they should have punted since both a run and a pass were "bad calls".

There's an idea! Punt it straight at an opponent and recover in the endzone! Voila, TD! Of course it's either pass or run. What's your point? Four plays no TD's! Therefore all bad calls. Not a single one of these plays came even close to one saying great play, bad execution. Jets watch at home, Steelers live to fight one more day. Reality is Jets let the Steelers off the hook. But like sh76 syas, the game was lost in the first half and the hole dug too deep for Jets to climb out of, so we argue for naught since the game was in effect over. However, had the Jets scored, we woulda heard a big gush of air being let out the Steeler baloon. Momentum would have clearly swung jets' way. They did not lose on that series, but could have won in a comeback for the ages!