It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:20 am
Posts: 5661
SP wrote:
I thought this thread was about Chef's waist size.

At any rate, the Nix/Watson combo has not been stopped all season on short yardage plays. Why not build a goal line package off it and work in some passes to the TEs to catch people off guard.


Common sense.
KC was reeling at this point in the game.
Were getting trounced against the run.
Primed to lay down and give up a rushing TD.

We have to stop trying to outsmart teams in the redzone.

Said it in the game thread on that series.

You put Nix in at FB.
two TE.
Ben under center.
And let them lead Bell into the endzone.
Who has a knack for slipping and sliding thru holes at the goal line.

I have no issue if you bring in Watson behind Nix for those plays.

And if you want to dare to be cute.
And trick a team.
Well then a pass play out of that set with Ben under center.
Will most likely free one of the TE's for a wide open pass play.

_________________
"Tomlin doubled down on dumb" JackSplat58


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Posts: 1595
steelclan wrote:
That was not Haley's call: Ben changed play at LOS to shotgun. Original call was a run play.

Yes, Ben has free reign of RPOs there, been saying it all year. Inside the five play calls effectiveness are mostly on Ben. Some of Haley's plan designs do us little favors, though. But, then again, it's been stated that Ben has a lot of say-so with that as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Posts: 1619
Our offense does not yet have a 2017 identity but maybe we're starting to see one. Bell is rounding into shape, McDonald is starting to show us what he can do, AB is simply magnificent, Ju Ju is a great draft pick, Bryant is still a sick weapon and is still a few games from getting back to where he was and the OL has had two good road games last 3 weeks. There's still a lot of stupid mistakes and Kinks that have to work out and maybe by mid-season we'll see what we thought they could be. Ben is still Ben, older but a talent like you'll never see again. When forced to call early time out his eyes said fuck you Haley.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:34 am
Posts: 5605
It is interesting that Haley plays rock pounding orgasmic strategy all the way down the field, then inside the 5 fucking yard line he starts running the Houston Oilers run & shoot. :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:40 pm
Posts: 3187
R S wrote:
It is interesting that Haley plays rock pounding orgasmic strategy all the way down the field, then inside the 5 fucking yard line he starts running the Houston Oilers run & shoot. :lol:


How do you know Haley called that 1st down play?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:18 pm
Posts: 10710
48 inches..ball in chiefs side..a chance for a dominating dagger needing 2 yards..we punt like bitches to allow chiefs to stay tight..after abusing them with runs..why not plan this shit with a quick formation and dive? noway I give ball back there that easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16809
steelclan wrote:
R S wrote:
It is interesting that Haley plays rock pounding orgasmic strategy all the way down the field, then inside the 5 fucking yard line he starts running the Houston Oilers run & shoot. :lol:


How do you know Haley called that 1st down play?

How do you know he didn't? I mean, I'm inclined to agree that it was an audible-- but the team has fake audibles, dummy signals, formation changes built into play call... I don't think anyone can say with certainty what the 'original' play call was. It might even have been a double play call, with the defense keying which play is run. In fact, I'll take that as the most likely play call.

For instance
Haley: "Hey Ben, let's run StrongRight-CounterTrey and if the Mike up in the A Gap, go to ZOutSlants".
Ben in huddle: Be ready for check with me! Strong Right-CounterTrey-ZOutSlantsAlert (look for me to confirm) On 1 (break).

The alignment is offset I with the TE as the Z in the tight slot. The play call is a CounterTrey (backside OG & slot TE pull right to left) handoff. The team waits for the QB to confirm or change the play call. If the QB raises close fists or says one code word, they run original play. If he raises open hands and/or says a different code word, it goes to the slants.

So, how do you know if Ben's hand signal was to confirm the original play call or to switch to the secondary call?

_________________
bradshaw2ben wrote:
PIT 30, LAC 17, NFL 16


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12074
bradshaw2ben wrote:
How do you know he didn't? I mean, I'm inclined to agree that it was an audible


I'm pretty sure we don't have an audible that is basically an iso fade to AB with almost no other options. And the fact that Ben held the ball and looked around says they all knew it was a pass play. He held the ball too long for that to be a "check with me" play on a running call.

I think that was actually a Haley call, and with the personnel and formation, Ben can audible to a run. But he had single coverage on AB so he stuck with the call.

It was a garbage play call, audible or not. Wasn't it just a few days ago we were discussing the lack of back shoulder throws? They've thrown a number of TD's on those the past few years, but I don't think I've seen one attempted yet. In fact, very few back shoulder throws so far, period.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 10:07 am
Posts: 232
Football is often like the sweet science. Sometimes its a thinking man's game. Bob and weave, do the unexpected, throw the punch they wouldn't see coming.

Of course, on the other hand, the sweet science also says that sometimes you just need to punch a mother fucker in the mouth.

Not just in the redzone but all over the field, Haley and Ben fail to understand the balance between the two. And it shows in our overall offensive scoring.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16809
Kodiak wrote:
bradshaw2ben wrote:
How do you know he didn't? I mean, I'm inclined to agree that it was an audible


I'm pretty sure we don't have an audible that is basically an iso fade to AB with almost no other options. And the fact that Ben held the ball and looked around says they all knew it was a pass play. He held the ball too long for that to be a "check with me" play on a running call.

I think that was actually a Haley call, and with the personnel and formation, Ben can audible to a run. But he had single coverage on AB so he stuck with the call.

It was a garbage play call, audible or not. Wasn't it just a few days ago we were discussing the lack of back shoulder throws? They've thrown a number of TD's on those the past few years, but I don't think I've seen one attempted yet. In fact, very few back shoulder throws so far, period.

a check with me RPO is different than what I'm talking about-- you're talking about when ben gives a hand signal to one receiver for a route and no one else knows. I'm talking about two plays called and one is confirmed before the snap.

_________________
bradshaw2ben wrote:
PIT 30, LAC 17, NFL 16


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:25 pm
Posts: 360
Dale Lolley said Ben checked out of a run play and called the pass.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16809
jewelsongs wrote:
Dale Lolley said Ben checked out of a run play and called the pass.

still doesn't indicate if the pass option was part of the play call

_________________
bradshaw2ben wrote:
PIT 30, LAC 17, NFL 16


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:25 pm
Posts: 360
bradshaw2ben wrote:
jewelsongs wrote:
Dale Lolley said Ben checked out of a run play and called the pass.

still doesn't indicate if the pass option was part of the play call

I would imagine if you are running out of a shotgun formation a pass play would always be part of the play call.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:14 pm
Posts: 3418
Location: Upstate NY
R S wrote:
It is interesting that Haley plays rock pounding orgasmic strategy all the way down the field, then inside the 5 fucking yard line he starts running the Houston Oilers run & shoot. :lol:


:lol:

Mind boggling. My hope is that this kind of shift gets figured out and we get on a roll into the playoffs. God forbid we don't want to peak early and then fizzle out. The red zone deficiencies have been wretched to say the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:40 pm
Posts: 3187
bradshaw2ben wrote:
jewelsongs wrote:
Dale Lolley said Ben checked out of a run play and called the pass.

still doesn't indicate if the pass option was part of the play call


Ben in his statements makes it clear it was his call. On that 3rd & goal play Bell was held so blatantly it was ridiculous. Johnson basically tackled him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:08 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7087
steelclan wrote:
bradshaw2ben wrote:
jewelsongs wrote:
Dale Lolley said Ben checked out of a run play and called the pass.

still doesn't indicate if the pass option was part of the play call


Ben in his statements makes it clear it was his call. On that 3rd & goal play Bell was held so blatantly it was ridiculous. Johnson basically tackled him.

Not only Bell. If you re-watch the play, focus on James and JuJu...both had there jersey stretched so badly, that they would fit Casey Hampton.

_________________
"They're standing around, Butz!" - Kevin O'Shea


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12074
bradshaw2ben wrote:
a check with me RPO is different than what I'm talking about-- you're talking about when ben gives a hand signal to one receiver for a route and no one else knows. I'm talking about two plays called and one is confirmed before the snap.


I think we're talking about different plays. I'm talking about the fade to AB. And I'm saying that WAS NOT a "check with me" because Ben held it too long if it had been a running play. Might have been an audible, but there only appeared to be two guys in routes. In either case, audible or playcall I thought it was garbage to have only two options, with one being the fade.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:33 pm
Posts: 16809
agreed.

Ben said he audibled out of the first run call because we didn't have the desired personnel to win the play vs what KC showed.

_________________
bradshaw2ben wrote:
PIT 30, LAC 17, NFL 16


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12074
bradshaw2ben wrote:
agreed.

Ben said he audibled out of the first run call because we didn't have the desired personnel to win the play vs what KC showed.


That might be something they should look at (they won't). I don't know how often Ben does that, but sometimes, especially on 1st down, you put on the big boy pants and just give the guys the chance to execute the play.

Then again, if the call was another slow developing run that they seem to like in the RZ, then Ben was probably correct. AB 1-on-1 is never a bad option, but there's not a lot of room to work down there and I always hate putting all the eggs in one basket. And I would rather have seen a back shoulder throw there than the fade. Would have to see the replay - I think if AB runs the slant there it's an easy TD.

Or - MAYBE - if that's the look and personnel KC showed, your audible is a PA to the TE. I just hate that was the audible choice in that situation.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1040
SP wrote:
I thought this thread was about Chef's waist size.

At any rate, the Nix/Watson combo has not been stopped all season on short yardage plays. Why not build a goal line package off it and work in some passes to the TEs to catch people off guard.


Goddammit! That made me shoot Mountain Dew out my nose! You know how painful that is?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 10193
randomsteelerfan wrote:
SP wrote:
I thought this thread was about Chef's waist size.

At any rate, the Nix/Watson combo has not been stopped all season on short yardage plays. Why not build a goal line package off it and work in some passes to the TEs to catch people off guard.


Goddammit! That made me shoot Mountain Dew out my nose! You know how painful that is?


I can't imagine shooting MD through your nasal cavity is much more painful than having to endure the taste of it while drinking it.

_________________
Orangesteel wrote:
We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:46 pm
Posts: 1463
I agree. First and goal from the two is about brutality. Line up jumbo with nix and Watson. I run 4 times if needed too. Send the message you’re not gonna stop us from scoring.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12074
it's still yggy wrote:
I agree. First and goal from the two is about brutality. Line up jumbo with nix and Watson. I run 4 times if needed too. Send the message you’re not gonna stop us from scoring.


And sometimes it's just about setting up the defense. NE runs plenty in that situation, and no doubt it contributes to a lot of easy TD passes Brady gets because the defense has to respect the run.

Empty set on 1st and Goal from the 2 is just mind-numbingly stupid. And I have no doubt Ben prefers shotgun/empty set....but, c'mon dude, it just isn't working. And if that isn't evidence enough, you can also go back and look at the 2-pt failures last year.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:58 pm
Posts: 7087
Kodiak wrote:
it's still yggy wrote:
I agree. First and goal from the two is about brutality. Line up jumbo with nix and Watson. I run 4 times if needed too. Send the message you’re not gonna stop us from scoring.


And sometimes it's just about setting up the defense. NE runs plenty in that situation, and no doubt it contributes to a lot of easy TD passes Brady gets because the defense has to respect the run.

Empty set on 1st and Goal from the 2 is just mind-numbingly stupid. And I have no doubt Ben prefers shotgun/empty set....but, c'mon dude, it just isn't working. And if that isn't evidence enough, you can also go back and look at the 2-pt failures last year.

If we're talking about the series that ended in the FG right before the half, they weren't empty on 1st down. Ben was in the shotgun, Bell as the sidecar.
I agree, run it down there, but screw that blubber package. Spread the D, run to the void. Makes it much easier than slamming into a wall of fat fucks. Just saying...

_________________
"They're standing around, Butz!" - Kevin O'Shea


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 72 inches
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:01 am
Posts: 12074
Jobus Rum wrote:
I agree, run it down there, but screw that blubber package. Spread the D, run to the void. Makes it much easier than slamming into a wall of fat fucks. Just saying...


Generally, but I feel like I've seen plenty of empty shotgun sets in that situation, or similar.

And I don't like shotgun much there, period. The defense is going to recognize pass quicker out of the shotgun. The pitches and delayed handoffs in those situations they've tried this year have mostly been hot garbage.

_________________
------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], H0bb3s, Jobus Rum, Laying the Wood, punum123, VASteelerGuy and 39 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group