Defensive minded coach or an offensive minded coach?
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
By richard pallo · Posted
I predict all of the players listed as questionable will play. The Steelers offense is meh. -
By John Waylon · Posted
The problem with hiring a defensive guy and tasking him with building that offensive support system is that most of them just don’t have it, and they’re not really capable of building it. There aren’t enough Tom Moore types out there to help institute that long-term knowledgeable stability. We got lucky with Pagano and Luck having Arians in the building, and largely being the head coach for the majority of Luck’s rookie season. But watching Pagano flail to fill an offensive staff post-Arians was painful, and most of the defensive head coaches struggle in the exact same way. It’s out of their specialty and out of their comfort zone and it just makes it harder than it needs to be on everyone involved. The most advantageous way to hire a defensive HC is with an already established QB and system that he can just come in and not have to build from the ground up. -
You should double check. I just did. Womack started both games, with Jaylon Johnson on the other side, and Kenny Moore at nickel. Against the Packers, Womack got 20 snaps, Flowers got 19. Against the Bears, Womack got 28 snaps, Flowers got 41 (and he left before the game ended, so maybe he would have gotten more). Maybe Flowers was on his way to taking Womack's spot in the lineup, but Womack was on the field as a starter in both games. -
Game on the line, inconsistent passer at QB, and the OL is the strength of the team. Everyone in the world knew that the first priority was to stop JT. And they couldn't. I don't know what's with this myth that there's something deficient about JT as a RB. It's nonsense.
-
I think he's probably only using 25% of his playbook so far, for various reasons. Some of that is intentional, as they work in some concepts with a young QB and a young-ish supporting cast. Another part of it is that the Colts game script has been heavily skewed, especially in the first two games, so the gameplan had to be reduced as the game went along. The offense couldn't stay on the field, and the defense couldn't get off of it. It was better against the Bears, but their offense still ran 30 more plays than ours. Total, our offense has run 87 fewer plays than our opponents. Teams usually script their first 15 offensive plays, and I wonder if the Colts have gotten through that opening script in any of the first three games. So I think there are some things that they'd like to have run, but so far they have not been able to get to them. I don't think it's a binary 'do we call winning plays, or do we call plays to develop the QB' consideration. I don't necessarily agree that those priorities have to compete with one another, but it does require a balance to do them both justice. I don't think it does this team any good, short term or long term, to restrict Richardson to 15 passing attempts/game, or to use him as an option QB like this is the Navy team, even if they felt like that could be a way to win some games. I also don't think they should coach him as if every game is "winner take all," and have him lay his body on the line or try to drop back 50 times a game. And we have to blame Richardson and the WRs to a certain extent. There have been a lot of missed throws, drops, and turnovers. Those plays have stalled or ended several possessions, and that's not on the play calling.
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now