Offensive Coaching

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think he was bad at calling plays.  I thought the Wisconsin game was nice.  It was the inability of the players to do what he wanted them to do. Frankly it was not their gifting to be a power run game.  We are not going to have mammoth O line that he wants.  I think going back to a spread type offense will be just what we need. Even if he fails it gets us ready for the next coach. 

 

Are you serious? How many times did we run the ball on 3rd and 7-10? Countless times. Drove the field against Memphis at the beginning of the game, had 3rd and 7 inside the red zone. He ran a draw. Memphis averaged 34 points per game. FGs were not going to get the job done. I can only think of a handful of plays where I said wow that was a good play call. There are way too many times I can think of where I said    .

 

 

That's because people focus on things to support their feelings. How many times can you remember a play that was there but failed due to execution?

 

 

Because there certainly isn't a chance anyone would like at it objectively right? I can remember plenty where execution was the problem. However, that doesn't mean if half of the plays that were not executed, were, that any of those drives would've turned into points. Every single team in college football deals with some type of execution issues. Some more than others, but good play callers still find a way to give their team a chance to win the game by putting points on the board. Scheme/Play Calling/Execution all were a combination effort in making our offense trash. 

 

A good play caller finds a way to put points on the board. How many times has our offense been held to 10 points or less in the Taggart era. It's probably close to 40% of the games played, if not higher. 

 

 

It's a rarity in this discussion, and neither you nor I would qualify .................. and play callers don't put points on the board, play makers do.

 

 

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion, but whatever. Like Mark Sanchez? Especially with the Jets. Wait I mean the Eagles. Wait what's the difference. Wait, oh yea. 

 

 

I draw that conclusion because in your initial assessment you didn't mention the execution of the plays not always being there. An unbiased assessment would have included that glaring fact .... and the difference with Sanchez is in Philly, he's making the plays, in NY he didn't.

 

 

You're right. Probably has nothing to do with the fact that Chip Kelly is an offensive genius. It's because Mark Sanchez figured it out after being god awful in New York and sitting on the bench a little bit in another city. For crying out loud...

 

Mark Sanchez is 3-4 as Philly's starter. He has 14 turnovers .

 

He just lost them a spot in the playoffs by throwing a pick in Washington territory with only a FG needed to win the game.

 

He is rated the 21st QB out of guys with 150 or more attempts.

 

He played in 2 AFC title games in New York

 

You may want to come up with another example.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Bull94

[BDYZR]

Yes, it is ultimately the players responsibility to execute when called on. BUT, who's responsible for making sure they do execute as planned? It's the coaches.

[bullsfan97]

 

I dont think he was bad at calling plays.  I thought the Wisconsin game was nice.  It was the inability of the players to do what he wanted them to do. Frankly it was not their gifting to be a power run game.  We are not going to have mammoth O line that he wants.  I think going back to a spread type offense will be just what we need. Even if he fails it gets us ready for the next coach. 

 

Are you serious? How many times did we run the ball on 3rd and 7-10? Countless times. Drove the field against Memphis at the beginning of the game, had 3rd and 7 inside the red zone. He ran a draw. Memphis averaged 34 points per game. FGs were not going to get the job done. I can only think of a handful of plays where I said wow that was a good play call. There are way too many times I can think of where I said    .

 

He also almost cost us the SMU game (on of the worst teams ever in the FBS) by playing Flowers at QB.

[smazza]

everything about the offense was bad

from play calling to having right players in the game to execution

Edited December 21, 2014 by smazza

[Bear]

meaningless titles

 

it is all about competency and execution and cwt and his coaches have demonstrated neither

 

the dc wasnt bad and i dont know why he got canned

 

My thoughts exactly

[Apis Bull]

 

meaningless titles

 

it is all about competency and execution and cwt and his coaches have demonstrated neither

 

the dc wasnt bad and i dont know why he got canned

 

My thoughts exactly

 

 

The stats would suggest otherwise.

[USFbulls24]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think he was bad at calling plays.  I thought the Wisconsin game was nice.  It was the inability of the players to do what he wanted them to do. Frankly it was not their gifting to be a power run game.  We are not going to have mammoth O line that he wants.  I think going back to a spread type offense will be just what we need. Even if he fails it gets us ready for the next coach. 

 

Are you serious? How many times did we run the ball on 3rd and 7-10? Countless times. Drove the field against Memphis at the beginning of the game, had 3rd and 7 inside the red zone. He ran a draw. Memphis averaged 34 points per game. FGs were not going to get the job done. I can only think of a handful of plays where I said wow that was a good play call. There are way too many times I can think of where I said    .

 

 

That's because people focus on things to support their feelings. How many times can you remember a play that was there but failed due to execution?

 

 

Because there certainly isn't a chance anyone would like at it objectively right? I can remember plenty where execution was the problem. However, that doesn't mean if half of the plays that were not executed, were, that any of those drives would've turned into points. Every single team in college football deals with some type of execution issues. Some more than others, but good play callers still find a way to give their team a chance to win the game by putting points on the board. Scheme/Play Calling/Execution all were a combination effort in making our offense trash. 

 

A good play caller finds a way to put points on the board. How many times has our offense been held to 10 points or less in the Taggart era. It's probably close to 40% of the games played, if not higher. 

 

 

It's a rarity in this discussion, and neither you nor I would qualify .................. and play callers don't put points on the board, play makers do.

 

 

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion, but whatever. Like Mark Sanchez? Especially with the Jets. Wait I mean the Eagles. Wait what's the difference. Wait, oh yea. 

 

 

I draw that conclusion because in your initial assessment you didn't mention the execution of the plays not always being there. An unbiased assessment would have included that glaring fact .... and the difference with Sanchez is in Philly, he's making the plays, in NY he didn't.

 

 

You're right. Probably has nothing to do with the fact that Chip Kelly is an offensive genius. It's because Mark Sanchez figured it out after being god awful in New York and sitting on the bench a little bit in another city. For crying out loud...

 

Mark Sanchez is 3-4 as Philly's starter. He has 14 turnovers .

 

He just lost them a spot in the playoffs by throwing a pick in Washington territory with only a FG needed to win the game.

 

He is rated the 21st QB out of guys with 150 or more attempts.

 

He played in 2 AFC title games in New York

 

You may want to come up with another example.

 

 

Mark Sanchez is not a good QB. My point was not that Mark Sanchez is now a pro bowler. My point is in Philly he is much more serviceable and they're putting up points. Their FG kicker also missed 2 FGs in that game. Yea the turnover was bad, but if you know anything about football and watched Mark Sanchez in NY vs in Philly you know he's playing much better in Philly. 

[Triple B]

Yes, it is ultimately the players responsibility to execute when called on. BUT, who's responsible for making sure they do execute as planned? It's the coaches.

 

And that's all I'm saying. What plays are called doesn't mean **** if they're not executed properly ... and agree 100% that the coaches are the ones ultimately responsible to get all the players we have to execute properly or find players who will to replace the ones who aren't. Only question is how long you give the head coach to get them executing before moving on.

[Bull94]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont think he was bad at calling plays.  I thought the Wisconsin game was nice.  It was the inability of the players to do what he wanted them to do. Frankly it was not their gifting to be a power run game.  We are not going to have mammoth O line that he wants.  I think going back to a spread type offense will be just what we need. Even if he fails it gets us ready for the next coach. 

 

Are you serious? How many times did we run the ball on 3rd and 7-10? Countless times. Drove the field against Memphis at the beginning of the game, had 3rd and 7 inside the red zone. He ran a draw. Memphis averaged 34 points per game. FGs were not going to get the job done. I can only think of a handful of plays where I said wow that was a good play call. There are way too many times I can think of where I said    .

 

 

That's because people focus on things to support their feelings. How many times can you remember a play that was there but failed due to execution?

 

 

Because there certainly isn't a chance anyone would like at it objectively right? I can remember plenty where execution was the problem. However, that doesn't mean if half of the plays that were not executed, were, that any of those drives would've turned into points. Every single team in college football deals with some type of execution issues. Some more than others, but good play callers still find a way to give their team a chance to win the game by putting points on the board. Scheme/Play Calling/Execution all were a combination effort in making our offense trash. 

 

A good play caller finds a way to put points on the board. How many times has our offense been held to 10 points or less in the Taggart era. It's probably close to 40% of the games played, if not higher. 

 

 

It's a rarity in this discussion, and neither you nor I would qualify .................. and play callers don't put points on the board, play makers do.

 

 

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion, but whatever. Like Mark Sanchez? Especially with the Jets. Wait I mean the Eagles. Wait what's the difference. Wait, oh yea. 

 

 

I draw that conclusion because in your initial assessment you didn't mention the execution of the plays not always being there. An unbiased assessment would have included that glaring fact .... and the difference with Sanchez is in Philly, he's making the plays, in NY he didn't.

 

 

You're right. Probably has nothing to do with the fact that Chip Kelly is an offensive genius. It's because Mark Sanchez figured it out after being god awful in New York and sitting on the bench a little bit in another city. For crying out loud...

 

Mark Sanchez is 3-4 as Philly's starter. He has 14 turnovers .

 

He just lost them a spot in the playoffs by throwing a pick in Washington territory with only a FG needed to win the game.

 

He is rated the 21st QB out of guys with 150 or more attempts.

 

He played in 2 AFC title games in New York

 

You may want to come up with another example.

 

 

Mark Sanchez is not a good QB. My point was not that Mark Sanchez is now a pro bowler. My point is in Philly he is much more serviceable and they're putting up points. Their FG kicker also missed 2 FGs in that game. Yea the turnover was bad, but if you know anything about football and watched Mark Sanchez in NY vs in Philly you know he's playing much better in Philly. 

 

he took Ny to 2 AFC championship games. He just knocked Philly out of the playoffs with 3 straight losses and a terrible pick that sealed their fate against a team that was 3-11 and has the worst pass defense in pro football.

 

he played in 2 completely different systems. one was a ball control type offense while the other is a run and gun offense. of course his numbers will be better in the latter. He isn't playing much better he is just slinging it more. The sample size is much smaller for Philly so a few good games  stand out more. His numbers started to get worse as teams got tape on him in Kelly's system. His first game against Dallas he had a 102 rating. two weeks later it was 60.4.

[BDYZR]

 

Yes, it is ultimately the players responsibility to execute when called on. BUT, who's responsible for making sure they do execute as planned? It's the coaches.

 

And that's all I'm saying. What plays are called doesn't mean **** if they're not executed properly ... and agree 100% that the coaches are the ones ultimately responsible to get all the players we have to execute properly or find players who will to replace the ones who aren't. Only question is how long you give the head coach to get them executing before moving on.

 

For me, as long as we can see steady improvement, I'm good. The coach is doing his job and I can be patient enough to wait.

BUT,I don't think that we improved at all during the season and I don't think that CWT has shown the capability of improving himself as a head coach.

Unless he's willing to work WITH the offensive coaches, he/we won't improve next year either.