Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Sep 01, 2014 at 02:32 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 ... 5 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: play calling  (Read 3159 times)
jasonic
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: 1580
Offline Offline

Posts: 685



« on: Nov 27, 2007 at 02:01 »

i know this has been a recurrent thread, but..............how many times am I going to see FWP roll up the front to be stopped for a loss or at best, a one or two yard gain?  IT'S NOT WORKING, HE'S NOT JEROME BETTIS you fucking retards......other that that, tyrone carter looked really good tonight.  too bad it was against the worst offence in the league.  although it was with, and i'm not one to buy into this but, the conditions that were less that favorable either way so i guess i am one buy into this....i love how that one punt landed like a tiger woods chip shot.  surprised there was no backspin on that.  Either way, i can't believe we BARELY beat the dolphins with :20 seconds left in the game

 
Logged

"If you make every game a life and death proposition, you're going to have problems. For one thing, you'll be dead a lot."
Big Virgil
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3768
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,245



« Reply #1 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 07:51 »

If the Dolphin receivers could catch, they would have won that game.

I was cringing waiting for Ginn to catch an out pattern and go 65 yard for a TD.
Logged

Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
ICFan
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


WWW
« Reply #2 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 08:24 »

I like how we ran slow developing run plays with pulling guards when the footing was absolutely terrible.  Didn't make much sense to me.  

Willie could have had a hell of alot more yards last night if we just put a hat on a hat.
Logged
mzimmerman81
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 311
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,569


WWW
« Reply #3 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 08:26 »

Najeh Davenport should not be getting the ball on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, matter of fact I question where he should get it at all.
Logged

2007 MGS Bracket Challenge Winner
Greygrizzly
N00b
*

Karma: 100
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #4 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 09:14 »

JASONIC
i know this has been a recurrent thread, but..............how many times am I going to see FWP roll up the front to be stopped for a loss or at best, a one or two yard gain? IT'S NOT WORKING, HE'S NOT JEROME BETTIS you fucking retards......

 I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that is discusted with the offense. The play calling and use of personel.
If we don't fix our problems now we will not be able to beat the better AFC teams in the playoffs.  
Logged
Greygrizzly
N00b
*

Karma: 100
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #5 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 09:17 »

Quote
Najeh Davenport should not be getting the ball on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, matter of fact I question where he should get it at all.
I disagree. Davenport gets yards when Wilie parker doesn't. Davenport is more like the prototypical Steeler tailback. He should be starting because he is big enough to wear down defenses and parker should be brought in as a change of pace back.
Logged
mzimmerman81
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 311
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,569


WWW
« Reply #6 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 09:23 »

Quote
Quote
Najeh Davenport should not be getting the ball on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, matter of fact I question where he should get it at all.
I disagree. Davenport gets yards when Wilie parker doesn't. Davenport is more like the prototypical Steeler tailback. He should be starting because he is big enough to wear down defenses and parker should be brought in as a change of pace back.
Ummmm

No
Logged

2007 MGS Bracket Challenge Winner
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #7 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 09:40 »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Najeh Davenport should not be getting the ball on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, matter of fact I question where he should get it at all.
I disagree. Davenport gets yards when Wilie parker doesn't. Davenport is more like the prototypical Steeler tailback. He should be starting because he is big enough to wear down defenses and parker should be brought in as a change of pace back.
Ummmm

No
I agree with Zimm on this point as well. Dookie is not at all a JB clone. He goes down on the first hit as often as any small back I have seen. If you are wanting a JB clone, which I don't necessarily agree with, DARFT Owen Schmitt from WVU. Very powerful runner. I think FWP can do the job with a decent O-Line. Hell look at what he has done with a sub par O-Line.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Winters in Holland
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: -1001
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #8 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 09:59 »

I agree with grizz and ICfan.

Davenport has had a higher YPC and overall, has been more effective than Willie Parker over the past few weeks.

When the line is blocking well, Parker will be more effective, but when they're not, Davenport will be, IMO.

Talk about going down and not being able to break tackles- that to me, is the epitomy of Willie Parker.  Then at times when he loses his footing, he really doesn't need tackled at all.

Granted, I think Parker is a very good back, but I also think it would benefit the Steelers' lately-nonexistant running game to see what would happen if they started Davenport and brought Parker in as the change of pace back.


.WiH.
Logged

I don't care if Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are black. Good for them. But that doesn't change the way I feel about them. The longer we keep looking at guys like Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith as "BLACK HEAD COACHES" as opposed to just "coaches" the longer race will continue to be a problem. --DoctorJohnnyFever
jclaywell18
Been pimpin, since been pimpin, since been pimpin
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 106
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



« Reply #9 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 10:09 »

Quote
i know this has been a recurrent thread, but..............how many times am I going to see FWP roll up the front to be stopped for a loss or at best, a one or two yard gain?  IT'S NOT WORKING, HE'S NOT JEROME BETTIS you fucking retards......

A quote from Ben per ESPN:

"Early in the game, you take the chances but late, going into those last two series, I told Bruce [offensive coordinator Bruce Arians] and I told Coach Tomlin to let me throw," he said. "I can win the game. We can get it down the field. I have confidence in my line, my receivers and you see the last drive, we did that. We threw the ball. Hopefully, it just shows all the people who say we have to run the ball to win that we can throw the ball, too.''

I don't understand why it took BA until the last drive to let Ben throw the damn ball. Obviously Willie up the gut was not working, and by the 4th quarter ben had only 2 incomplete passes. 2..that's it, so it was pretty effective. I hate it when we starting beating a dead horse by running for no reason when it isn't working. I understand this is Steelers football and that's what we do, but when it's not working, throw in a wrinkle and spread the field a little bit, especially on a night when your qb is setting a record for highest completion percentage in horrid conditions.  
Logged

I'm just gonna walk this off....

Gold jacket, green jacket..who gives a shit
pensteel
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #10 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 10:11 »

Quote
Quote
Najeh Davenport should not be getting the ball on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, matter of fact I question where he should get it at all.
I disagree. Davenport gets yards when Wilie parker doesn't. Davenport is more like the prototypical Steeler tailback. He should be starting because he is big enough to wear down defenses and parker should be brought in as a change of pace back.
Clearly there is no doubt that the leading rusher in the AFC should be benched.

BUM!
Logged
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #11 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 10:16 »

Quote

Clearly there is no doubt that the leading rusher in the AFC should be benched.

BUM!
He ain't no Jerome Bettis </sarcasm>
« Last Edit: Nov 27, 2007 at 10:17 by vinman3 » Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,699



« Reply #12 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 10:35 »

There is no way, NO WAY, Davenport is good enough to be a starting back for the Pittsburgh Steelers for any reason other than injury.  It's not like the dude is some unknown quantity with huge untapped potential; he's been in the league for several years now, with two different teams.  If he had starter ability, he'd be a starter somewhere.

Hell, if Carey Davis did anything at all well, I'd have half a mind to see what we could get outta the Chiefs for #44.  
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
LambertsFrontTeeth
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1617
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,462



« Reply #13 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 11:09 »

Quote
Quote
i know this has been a recurrent thread, but..............how many times am I going to see FWP roll up the front to be stopped for a loss or at best, a one or two yard gain?
Logged

"Dreith said I hit Sipe too hard. I hit him as hard as I could. Brian has a chance to go out of bounds and he decides not to. He knows I'm going to hit him. And I do. History."
- - - Jack Lambert, after referee Ben Dreith ejected him from a game for knocking out Browns QB Brian Sipe.
DoctorJohnnyFever
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 102
Offline Offline

Posts: 75



WWW
« Reply #14 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 11:15 »

Davenport is a terrible, terrible short yardage back.

He was 5-of-16 in short yardage situations last year (anything with 3 or less yards to go). that's a 31% success rate.

Parker was 25-of-39 in similar situations. That's a 64% success rate.

I don't have the numbers for this year, but from what i've seen, i'd say they aren't much different.

Parker's ability to run between the tackles and, "move the sticks," is alarmingly underrated, while Davenport's is terribly overrated.



 
Logged

"The MGS board is regarded here as a board with adult rated content. There are virtually no rules. There are no words that are inappropriate and no subject that cannot be discussed. Should you feel the need to get crazy, do it there. You will be welcomed with open arms."

 
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #15 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 11:58 »

Quote
Davenport is a terrible, terrible short yardage back.

He was 5-of-16 in short yardage situations last year (anything with 3 or less yards to go). that's a 31% success rate.

Parker was 25-of-39 in similar situations. That's a 64% success rate.

I don't have the numbers for this year, but from what i've seen, i'd say they aren't much different.

Parker's ability to run between the tackles and, "move the sticks," is alarmingly underrated, while Davenport's is terribly overrated.
 :sheep2:  :sheep1:  :sheep2:  
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
JackSplat
Jerk Store Proprietor
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1541
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,311



« Reply #16 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 12:16 »

Quote
I don't have the numbers for this year, but from what i've seen, i'd say they aren't much different.

I dont think there is enough data to even compute due to the alarmingly low number of short yardage attempts for FWP in general.  I would say dookie is getting 95% of the short yardage runs.  

in fact the only time i can recall ATM is when willie last had a short yardage carry was the 1 yard TD run at the end of the half in cincy.  since then it has been an unhealthy dose of #44.

and last nights 4th down attempt with dookie getting stuffed had to be the slowest inside the tackle run I have seen in a while.

nothing like tipping our hats and telegraphing plays by playing dookie in the short yardage situations.  well duh, ya think were going to run dookie up the gut?

Im in the Fast willie parker business...i want to see him carrying the rock more often in the short yardage role.  at least he would be able to do more with less than "all-pro" Davenport could.
Logged

Jerry, it's Frank Costanza, Mr.
Steinbrenner is here, George is dead, call me back!
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,795



WWW
« Reply #17 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 12:28 »

Quote
nothing like tipping our hats and telegraphing plays by playing dookie in the short yardage situations. well duh, ya think were going to run dookie up the gut?

Davenport's main value to us has been coming in on early downs to spell FWP and making some solid runs.  I have no problem with us doing that, some, in order to give fwp a break.  But as for short-yardage, everyone in the world knows what's coming when he's in the game.  So why bother trying?  He ain't Bettis and ain't never going to be.  He's not going to make a hole where there is not one or cut to the open space or run anyone over.  That said, no one--OL, Dump, Ben, etc.--had a chance to make that fourth down because the Dolphins knew exactly what was going to happen.  I was SCREAMING at the TV:  "Play-action pass, pass, pass...it's wide open!!!"  My inlaws thought I had gone nuts.

More to come from me on the playcalling  :deadhorse:

And I fully intend to keep it up.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,795



WWW
« Reply #18 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 12:34 »

By the way, Davenport can't block, either.
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
nate07
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #19 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 12:44 »

On short yardage situations, instead of running Davenport right up the middle for little or no gain, why don't they put Parker in and pitch it to him?? He has enough speed to make the corner against most D-lineman and linebackers.  

Another problem I have with the play calling is the damn screen passes. Especially on 3rd and long. They just don't execute the screens like they used to. Probably because of the terrible O-line play.

Why did Ariens call a pass play at the end of the game right before the field goal attempt?? Ben was almost sacked and barely made it back to the line of scrimage. That was a terrible call, why not run in to set-up a better field goal attempt and run down the clock down since the dolphins were out of timeouts. Kornheiser and Jaws said this was a bad call too.  

 
Logged
oblongatta
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 264
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,449


WWW
« Reply #20 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 12:59 »

an apology for double posting what I wrote on the Pirates board but...

Najeh is a decent change of pace back. His big runs are not as a third down back. He doesn't get out real well as an outlet receiver and he is horrible at picking up the blitz. Ok. he isn't horrible but he is nowhere as good as Veron Haynes was.

As bad as the offense looked overall in yetsreday's game, I have no doubt there would have been more points if Najeh didn't play. Yes DJF, I agree:

worst.short.yardage.b ack.ever.

BTW 3rd and 1 and the Steelers were actually running the ball well. I said to my dad, they should run here. Wait, they should run Willie here. I saw Davenport come in and said, well, maybe they'll try again on 4th down with Willie. No such luck.


Other than a couple plays here and there and the Davenport usage, I didn't have all that much of a problem with a bunch of the play calling.  I usually like to use the WRs on deep routes more when the field is crappy because of the idea that THEY know where they're going and the DBs don't.  But...the running game actually looked better than it has been and I think the field was so much of a sponge, the WRs couldn't get enough speed to separate  and take advantage.
 
Logged
Preacherman0
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5808
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,795



WWW
« Reply #21 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 13:43 »

Quote
Najeh is a decent change of pace back. His big runs are not as a third down back.

What he said...what I said...what we can all say

Quote
the WRs couldn't get enough speed to separate and take advantage.

The absence of one SanAntonio Holmes certainly didn't help.

My problem with the playcalling is the predictability.  As in, in the first quarter, I was calling the formation, motion by WR/TE, and the play we were going to run based on that--and I was pretty close.  Missed a few times on the direction of the play, but that was about it.  If a schmoe like I can figure it out, then certainly a pro defense can.  

Let me continue with my rant about the role of coaching and its importance.  Great coaches do not come up with great schemes.  They come up with schemes that put the talent they have in the best position to win.  They can "flex" the scheme according to the players' abilities.  We do not have an offensive line that can pound it vs. 8 in the box and have a lot of success, so you'd better come up with something other than run-run-pass-run on 4th down.  We do not have an oline that picks up the blitz well, so you'd better scrap the empty set and keep from getting into 3rd and 5+, unless you're going to throw short routes and 3-step drops.

And BTW, on 3rd and 1, why not PAP and throw a bomb?  That's a time when I feel we should use play-action, but rarely do.

The other thing that great coaches do--position coaches in particular--is teach great technique.  Our current Oline certainly doesn't have it.
 
Logged

We have traded Christ for the religion of Christianity.
Winters in Holland
Brownstains can suck my Member
****

Karma: -1001
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #22 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 13:55 »

Well, the stats may show that he is a poor short yardage back, but the stats also show that he's had a higher YPC over the past few weeks than Parker.

Don't get me wrong Parker >>>>> Davenport,

but the run game is struggling enough- especially against teams horrible at defending against it- that I don't think it would be too awful to start Davenport, and use Willie more on 3rd downs, and then switch to him almost entirely in the 2nd half.

People get hung up on the idea of Davenport "starting", but the reality is that Parker would still be getting most of the carries.


Frankly, going out with the same exact game plan as before is a recipe for an early playoff exit.  Parker has been relatively shut down ground-wise against teams like Denver, NYJets, and Miami, who each had the worst respective run defense in the league at the time of the game.  Granted, a lot of that is on the O-line, but it wouldn't hurt to try switching up the repetitions a bit, especially since Najei had a higher YPC in most of those games.


.WiH.
« Last Edit: Nov 27, 2007 at 13:56 by Winters in Holland » Logged

I don't care if Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are black. Good for them. But that doesn't change the way I feel about them. The longer we keep looking at guys like Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith as "BLACK HEAD COACHES" as opposed to just "coaches" the longer race will continue to be a problem. --DoctorJohnnyFever
jonzr
Asst. VP, Jonzring
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 11361
Offline Offline

Posts: 11,420


Have a cup o' joe.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 15:08 »

Quote
Hell, if Carey Davis did anything at all well, I'd have half a mind to see what we could get outta the Chiefs for #44.
C'mon man, otis just got through converting his Huntley jersey to a #44.
 
Logged

"I like David Bowie, he was always my favorite member of Tin Machine."
- Rodney Anonymous

It's a Steeler Nation
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,699



« Reply #24 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 17:34 »

Quote
the stats also show that he's had a higher YPC over the past few weeks than Parker.
 
Because he consistently picks up 8 on third and 10.  

Garbage time yards.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
msdmnr2002
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 2837
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,616



WWW
« Reply #25 on: Nov 27, 2007 at 20:53 »

To beat the dead horse a little further, last night convinced me that Dookie should never get the short yardage carries.  Did you see the replay on that 4th and 1?  Dookie got the ball, headed toward the hole, but instead of powering through to get the yard, he does this weird turn backwards and fall thing without any real contact.  There was a guy at his feet but he made no effort to step over him.

Completely unreliable.  Hell, we'd be better off putting batch in at QB and let Ben take the run.
Logged
Hercules50.
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 102
Offline Offline

Posts: 90



« Reply #26 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 08:13 »

Davenport's a weird back.

He's big, yet he's no inside runner.

He's strong, and while he can breeze past a single tackler in space like he's Jim Brown, he's on the other end of the spectrum (i.e., inept) whenever he's stacked up in traffic, and can get zero push.

He's a valuable player to have, I think, because the occassional big play is worth it.

My question, given his attributes -- when are we going to turn him into a TE? He can catch well and DBs, and sometimes even LBs, can't bring him down in the open field. Why not?
« Last Edit: Nov 28, 2007 at 08:14 by Hercules50. » Logged
LambertsFrontTeeth
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1617
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,462



« Reply #27 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 10:03 »

That's a good question, I've wondered the same thing.

He certainly can't be any WORSE than Tuman, and he probably blocks better than Spaeth.  I wouldn't mind seeing BA use him in a 3 TE set....
Logged

"Dreith said I hit Sipe too hard. I hit him as hard as I could. Brian has a chance to go out of bounds and he decides not to. He knows I'm going to hit him. And I do. History."
- - - Jack Lambert, after referee Ben Dreith ejected him from a game for knocking out Browns QB Brian Sipe.
Cogitobsw
Member
***

Karma: 154
Offline Offline

Posts: 190



WWW
« Reply #28 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 10:53 »

Quote


Why did Ariens call a pass play at the end of the game right before the field goal attempt?? Ben was almost sacked and barely made it back to the line of scrimage. That was a terrible call, why not run in to set-up a better field goal attempt and run down the clock down since the dolphins were out of timeouts. Kornheiser and Jaws said this was a bad call too.
I disagree . . . given the condition of the field, even an PAT length FG attempt could be an adventure . . . there were no guarantees of a good snap, a good hold, and a sure footed kicker being able to make that kick . . . I think the pass play was a good idea as short passes seemed to be the only thing working all night long . . . I believe the thought was to try to make a short pass for a TD and avoid what could be an adventure in the kicking game.

I bet the last thing communicated to Ben was don't turn over the ball, don't make a risky throw, thus why he held on so long (but admittedly, I don't know why he held the ball so long the rest of the game).
Logged

Cogito Ergo Sum
aj_law
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 5532
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,015


« Reply #29 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 14:15 »

IMO, what Ben should've done on the last play is try to find the best patch of grass (HA!!) 7-10 yards back from the LOS and try to take a knee in front of it, setting up Reed in the best possible spot.

I liked the passing play call when they crossed into the RZ, but when they got down inside the 10 or 5, no way do I have Ben drop back and possibly lose the ball in any number of ways.  I'll take my chances with them trying to kick the FG in those conditions over Ben trying to make a play in it.
Logged

We suck because our drafts have been THE SUCK.
otismalibu
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 7052
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,883



« Reply #30 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 14:25 »

Quote
C'mon man, otis just got through converting his Huntley jersey to a #44.



No, but I did turn an Amos Zeroue into a Wad Holmes.




 
Logged
Greygrizzly
N00b
*

Karma: 100
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #31 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 17:15 »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Najeh Davenport should not be getting the ball on 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, matter of fact I question where he should get it at all.
I disagree. Davenport gets yards when Wilie parker doesn't. Davenport is more like the prototypical Steeler tailback. He should be starting because he is big enough to wear down defenses and parker should be brought in as a change of pace back.
Clearly there is no doubt that the leading rusher in the AFC should be benched.

BUM!
Whats the differance weather or not Parker is the the leading rusher or not he doesn't make defenses adjust to stop him. Defenses do it with their front seven.  Parker gets a lot of yards over all,but he just doesn't force a defense to make any adjustment to stop him
 
Logged
Greygrizzly
N00b
*

Karma: 100
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #32 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 17:19 »

Quote
Davenport is a terrible, terrible short yardage back.

He was 5-of-16 in short yardage situations last year (anything with 3 or less yards to go). that's a 31% success rate.

Parker was 25-of-39 in similar situations. That's a 64% success rate.

I don't have the numbers for this year, but from what i've seen, i'd say they aren't much different.

Parker's ability to run between the tackles and, "move the sticks," is alarmingly underrated, while Davenport's is terribly overrated.
Stats can sometimes be misleading. Davenport probably in most of those situations was coming into the game cold off of the bench. And also in those situations when you see that bigger back coming into the game the defense can probably get the idea that the bigger back is going to get the ball right now.
Logged
Greygrizzly
N00b
*

Karma: 100
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #33 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 17:22 »

Quote
Quote

Clearly there is no doubt that the leading rusher in the AFC should be benched.

BUM!
He ain't no Jerome Bettis </sarcasm>
WOW GEE really. While that may be true he is that big back that the Steelers have always relied on.  
Logged
DoctorJohnnyFever
No longer a N00b!
**

Karma: 102
Offline Offline

Posts: 75



WWW
« Reply #34 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 18:46 »

Personally, I don't care what the reason is for Davenport getting stopped, the fact is he gets stopped and it doesn't work.
Logged

"The MGS board is regarded here as a board with adult rated content. There are virtually no rules. There are no words that are inappropriate and no subject that cannot be discussed. Should you feel the need to get crazy, do it there. You will be welcomed with open arms."

 
SCacalaki
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 4446
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,165


WWW
« Reply #35 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 18:51 »

Wes Ours was a big running back
Logged

Words to live by:  "Dick LeBeau is Dick LeBeau," Tomlin said. "Everybody knows Dick."
JackSplat
Jerk Store Proprietor
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1541
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,311



« Reply #36 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 20:52 »

Quote
Parker gets a lot of yards over all,but he just doesn't force a defense to make any adjustment to stop him

I beg to differ...every team we have played this year has done one thing and one thing only.  that is STOP willie parker at all costs.  The only time there is never 8-9 in the box is on 3rd and long.  Hell, the entire game plan of the Ravoons was to stop willie at all costs.  Its very rare that Parker just sees a 7 man front.
Logged

Jerry, it's Frank Costanza, Mr.
Steinbrenner is here, George is dead, call me back!
dcity21
Member
***

Karma: 154
Offline Offline

Posts: 214



WWW
« Reply #37 on: Nov 28, 2007 at 23:09 »

seems to me as though that qualifies as an adjustment being that most teams prefer to play with a 3-4 or 4-3, meaning 7 in the box is normal..  and going away from 7 would be some sort of adjustment..

OWNED by jackSpizzlyat

and i basically agree with everything said here.. i have been cursing our staff every time Najeh is on the field in short yardage, this and LAST year.. Give it to your All-Pro runner and let him start to carry this team.. he isn't a bad player, but if it takes him not being around to get him out of that role then i am ALL for it..

and someone said he should only start if there is an injury.. and well i don't even like that idea.. if that were to happen (knock on wood, please football spirits not our willie) i'd rather see Russell than i would anyone else..

something about him just has me wanting to see him run for this team when it matters.. not that i want him over willie (i would never dare, there are only two or three backs in the league that i would rather have than willie, and all of them cost valuable picks and lots of cash. so, considering all of that, give me willie over anybody), i just want to see him get a chance here at some point, even if minimal..  
Logged

"i don't know Nutting about baseball.. but i know about Nutting over making some cash.." Ownership ROCKS!!!
kchopsteel
Member
***

Karma: 211
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


WWW
« Reply #38 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 07:16 »

Does anyone think that maybe some of the play calling issues are related to Ben making the calls at the line. In these threads it seems the coaching staff gets alot of the blame, and maybe they deserve it, but in the Miami game we were running no huddle and Ben was making alot of calls and adjustments. I guess I am just trying to reserve judgement on this game seeing as the field was an unmitigated disaster and stretching the field was not an option. From what I saw I truly believe we would have hung 40 on the Fins in normal operating conditions.

FWIW, the O-Line is sucking a hind tit alot but it seems that Ben holds the ball to damn long sometimes and if he would just get rid of it the line wouldn't have to hold the blocks for so long. Maybe it's just time to use the pass to set up the run which for our style of play may be the best pathway to success.

 :shrugs:  
Logged

I am the Padiddle champion
Big Virgil
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 3768
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,245



« Reply #39 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 08:11 »

Quote
Does anyone think that maybe some of the play calling issues are related to Ben making the calls at the line. In these threads it seems the coaching staff gets alot of the blame, and maybe they deserve it, but in the Miami game we were running no huddle and Ben was making alot of calls and adjustments. I guess I am just trying to reserve judgement on this game seeing as the field was an unmitigated disaster and stretching the field was not an option. From what I saw I truly believe we would have hung 40 on the Fins in normal operating conditions.

FWIW, the O-Line is sucking a hind tit alot but it seems that Ben holds the ball to damn long sometimes and if he would just get rid of it the line wouldn't have to hold the blocks for so long. Maybe it's just time to use the pass to set up the run which for our style of play may be the best pathway to success.

 :shrugs:
The play calling issues go a lot deeper than one or two drives against the phins.  When Arians is on the sidelines with that big laminated sheet, looking at it, and using it to shield his mouth while speaking into his headset, he is calling the plays, not Ben.  

I don't think we were in "no huddle" in the red zone on the last drive.
Logged

Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
pensodyssey
Halfsharkalligator halfman.
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 8119
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,699



« Reply #40 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 09:21 »

Quote
Quote
Quote

Clearly there is no doubt that the leading rusher in the AFC should be benched.

BUM!
He ain't no Jerome Bettis </sarcasm>
WOW GEE really. While that may be true he is that big back that the Steelers have always relied on.
We must do things the same way we've always done them, or it doesn't count.
Logged

A shabby Charlie Brown.
ICFan
N00b
*

Karma: 101
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


WWW
« Reply #41 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 11:55 »

Considering how bad the o-line has played, wouldn't it be wise to throw a few more short passes?  After 11 games FWP has only 16 receptions, the guy has a major speed advantage over safetys and linebackers that are covering him.  Get him in space so he can make a play.
Logged
vinman3
Global Moderator
Old School Member
*****

Karma: 1762
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,783


Master of the Obvious


« Reply #42 on: Nov 29, 2007 at 12:14 »

Quote
Quote
Quote

Clearly there is no doubt that the leading rusher in the AFC should be benched.

BUM!
He ain't no Jerome Bettis </sarcasm>
WOW GEE really. While that may be true he is that big back that the Steelers have always relied on.
Obviously, you didn't get the sarcasm.
Logged

It's a hot night. The mind races. You think about your knife; the only friend who hasn't betrayed you, the only friend who won't be dead by sun up. Sleep tight, mates, in your quilted Chambray nightshirts.
Pages: 1 2 ... 5 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!