Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Oct 01, 2014 at 07:21 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 ... 5  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: play calling  (Read 3273 times)
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: 8121
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,717



« 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: 4,816



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: 4,816



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
Pages: 1 [2] 3 ... 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!