Frank was bad tonight

[ColtsAC]

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

The pass / run mix or ratio is play calling... we beat Houston with a 40 pass 26 rush mix, and just lost with a 25 pass 39 rush mix. 

 

If the play calling was fine tonight, they conversely you're saying the play calling was bad when we beat them.

 

I agree we need a QB that can go vertical.... 

Even the announcers mentioned all of Brissett's passes were short dumps where any yards come after the catch. Maybe the brace affected him but I think it was more of a regression issue .... Brissett is a middle of the road game manager at best.

[Mr.Debonair]

6 hours ago, chrisfarley said:

there toward the end, we take williams out, ok that's fine, but don't telegraph what you are going to do on the next play, my grandma knew hines was going to run the ball when he strolls in the game there and lines up single-back.... I am screaming at the tv at that point because it was so obvious what they were going to do...and bam, they shut it down .... critical juncture...  but worse is at 3:00 mark, with 3 time-outs and 2-minute warning, we don't try to punt & pin them deep, we go for it on 4th down at Houston 47, game.  

 

I hate the obvious run play where, Jack Doyle comes in motion and stops in between the tackle. It's the most telegraphed run play, and Reich does it over and over again.

[CoachLite]

8 hours ago, King Colt said:

I love this. TY can no longer catch / Reich is an incompetent / Brissett stinks / Kelly is a wimp. One loss and the uniforms change colors. I guess everyone thinks Watson sucks too.

That's a little harsh, don't you think? Wasn't impressed with the uninspired game plan, but Frank tried it and it didn't work as planned. Learned something!

[Thunderbolt]

Play calling sucks, QB needs drastic improvement which translates to losses and more losses to come. The Ravens just beat the crap out of these guys the week before or let's just say Lamar had a big part and couldn't get it done. They should have taken the playbook from the Ravens, this would have been a win for sure. All around this was bad, defense should have blitz especially on 3rd and 4th downs. Colts definitely was out coach. 

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, Tombstone said:

I also shared your view on Fuller....  and saw this coming 

 

Yup.. Hopkins is easily the best Houston WR (overall production), and certainly the most reliable (healthy), but Fuller when healthy is a huge impact. Even gimpy like last night, he was a game changer. He can single handily flip field position on any down or situation. 

 

And in fairness, the troll that laughed at my previous posts typically gives most of my posts some type of bad review lol.. Hard to tell if he just dislikes me, or has little respect for Fuller. Probably both.

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, ColtsAC said:

Even the announcers mentioned all of Brissett's passes were short dumps where any yards come after the catch. Maybe the brace affected him but I think it was more of a regression issue .... Brissett is a middle of the road game manager at best.

The thing is, he missed some wide open easy dumps too.. 

 

I'm not buying the brace.... But... even as bad as JB was, I think we win with him had Reich used the Game 1 game plan.

[ManningGM]

10 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

One loss and the whole organization is kind of pathetic?  There's over-reaction, then there's this.

Try five losses. 

[Blueblood23]

10 hours ago, John Waylon said:

I’m sorry, it’s not just been tonight. It’s happened more than people seem to want to acknowledge this season. I like him, and he’s better than Pagano, but there’s still plenty that could be improved with him and I just don’t see it. 

Unfortunately Frank called such a conservative game is because he has a quarterback that can’t execute. The same problem exists in Chicago.

[DougDew]

He had no wide receivers.  (TY was rusty and spotty).  He had no RBs. His big play TE is unreliable.

 

All he had was a decent QB and a good oline, which is very little resources with which to run an NFL quality O.

 

Last night, he did not turn lemons into lemonade.  

 

Seems like very high expectations, IMO.

[EastStreet]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He had no wide receivers.  (TY was rusty and spotty).  He had no RBs. His big play TE is unreliable.

 

All he had was a decent QB and a good oline, which is very little resources with which to run an NFL quality O.

 

Last night, he did not turn lemons into lemonade.  

 

Seems like very high expectations, IMO.

 

Last year those same lemons were part of many delicious cocktails.

 

No RBs? Williams had 100+ for the second straight week. Hines even had a very good game.

 

Both TEs did more than fine on very limited targets.

 

So honest question.... we had the same personnel in Game 1 vs Houston. TY was ineffective there too, yet we won.... The total 180 on game plan is something so obvious, even Stevie Wonder saw it. So you're giving Reich a total pass? Help me understand G1 vs G2....

[DougDew]

11 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Last year those same lemons were part of many delicious cocktails.

 

No RBs? Williams had 100+ for the second straight week. Hines even had a very good game.

 

Both TEs did more than fine on very limited targets.

 

So honest question.... we had the same personnel in Game 1 vs Houston. TY was ineffective there too, yet we won.... The total 180 on game plan is something so obvious, even Stevie Wonder saw it.

 

I thought we were talking about game planning.  Frank having a bad night.  Like calling 17 runs on 18 plays. 

 

He didn't have Mack.  Can Williams pick up a blitz?  Is he comparable to Mack in catching the ball, can he get to the edge as quickly, or can he just run the same running play 10 times between the tackles?  

 

A HC doesn't do that if he feels he has a competent array of weapons. Last year we had TY all season, Ebron was reliable, and Inman was better than every other WR we have.   That's three better receivers than JB has, even if two of them are the same guys.  And JB isn't as good as Luck.

 

Totally different array of weapons....skilled position players....than what he had last night.

 

Nope, he couldn't make lemons out of lemonade.

 

Maybe last game he did.

 

Edit:  you seem to be focused on stats as a method of drawing a conclusion.  Willimas having a 100 yards last week apparently means he is as good as Mack because Mack also had a 100 yards last week.  TY not having stats in the previous game means he had the same impact on game planning as this week because he also had no stats.  I don't get that thinking.

[Restored]

3 hours ago, The Old Crow said:

In the total scheme of things, I think Frank is a very good coach, and Ballard has done a good job as GM. The loss of Luck was huge, because with him it could have been a Super Bowl contender. The overall talent on the Colts roster, particularly the defense , is much better than past Colt teams. I think it’s fair to say that the Colts have had more injuries than most teams. 
I think JB is a QB in the style of Joe Flacco. You can win with a good game manager , but he’s no Andrew Luck. With game managers you must have a good o line, running game , and good receivers. You have elements of all of these. 
The playoffs are still within reach, as the Texans are shaky. Long term, if I were Ballard, I would be looking to draft a young QB. I’m thinking Ballard held onto draft picks and didn’t trade this year  , to possibly move up in the draft, if the right QB presented himself. 

I agree with this. Brissett is a great leader and is capable of showing flashes and having a great game or two but his limitations as a passer are becoming more and more apparent.

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

I thought we were talking about game planning.  Frank having a bad night.  Like calling 17 runs on 18 plays. 

Like doing the exact opposite that won us the game earlier in the year.

 

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

He didn't have Mack.  Can Williams pick up a blitz?  Is he comparable to Mack in catching the ball, can he get to the edge as quickly, or can he just run the same running play 10 times between the tackles?  

The pocket was fine last night. JB had plenty of time. We had open dump offs open all night (even the announcers said so). 

 

Last night we were 22% higher than our rushing average (175 vs 144)

 

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

A HC doesn't do that if he feels he has a competent array of weapons. Last year we had TY all season, Ebron was reliable, and Inman was better than every other WR we have.   That's three better receivers than JB has, even if two of them are the same guys.  And JB isn't as good as Luck.

Ebron had drops last year too. X WR was a revolving door. Pascal is as good as Inman. His avg/pc is about the same, and Pascal had a much higher YAC.

 

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Totally different array of weapons....skilled position players....than what he had last night.

In game 1, TY was ineffective too. All the other receiving weapons we had in G1 were there in G2 with the exception of Mack. And Williams had more receiving yards last night than Mack had in G1.

 

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Nope, he couldn't make lemons out of lemonade.

He had virtually the same lemons. The recipe (game plan) was just very very different.

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

 

Edit:  you seem to be focused on stats as a method of drawing a conclusion.  Willimas having a 100 yards last week apparently means he is as good as Mack because Mack also had a 10 yards last week.  TY not having stats in the previous game means he had the same impact on game planning as this week because he also had no stats.  I don't get that thinking.

That's not what I'm saying. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that you can't explain away with anecdotal reasoning. The game plan was radically different with near the same personnel.  There's simply no good reason for not passing more vs one of the worst passing Ds in the league. And borderline insane when that already horrible passing D had so many injuries.  

[John Waylon]

49 minutes ago, Blueblood23 said:

Unfortunately Frank called such a conservative game is because he has a quarterback that can’t execute. The same problem exists in Chicago.

I mean the QB has nothing to do with the predictable play design and selection. You can tell by the formation when we’re going to run it, and usually which gap we’re going for. 

 

Frank has a QB who can’t execute, but... why?

 

Go back and watch that first Texans game. Brissett was looking all over the place ever play finding the right receiver. Making the right decision and having the best game of his career. So we can be sure he’s not just totally incapable of doing that. He did it that day and did it well. Why has he seemingly been excused from even attempting to do that just a handful of times per game before that and since? 
 

He does not have a favorable situation at QB. But there’s things that he could be stressing to his QB to improve the situation. Things he has a firm grasp on. 

[EastStreet]

@Superman did a wonderful summary of play calling by down, so going to link here as it's very relevant to FR's game plan last night. 

 

 

 

[Stephen]

11 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

One loss and the whole organization is kind of pathetic?  There's over-reaction, then there's this.

It's  not one loss. We lost to the Steelers  and dolphins  two teams we should have beat. Combine that with the loss against  the texans and mot only will we have to win out, but hope other teams lose just to get to the playoffs. 

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Like doing the exact opposite that won us the game earlier in the year.

 

The pocket was fine last night. JB had plenty of time. We had open dump offs open all night (even the announcers said so). 

 

Last night we were 22% higher than our rushing average (175 vs 144)

 

Ebron had drops last year too. X WR was a revolving door. Pascal is as good as Inman. His avg/pc is about the same, and Pascal had a much higher YAC.

 

In game 1, TY was ineffective too. All the other receiving weapons we had in G1 were there in G2 with the exception of Mack. And Williams had more receiving yards last night than Mack had in G1.

 

He had virtually the same lemons. The recipe (game plan) was just very very different.

That's not what I'm saying. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that you can't explain away with anecdotal reasoning. The game plan was radically different with near the same personnel.  There's simply no good reason for not passing more vs one of the worst passing Ds in the league. And borderline insane when that already horrible passing D had so many injuries.  

I'm sure Frank had his reasons.  I'm sure he sees limitations in his players and develops a game plan accordingly.  If we had the Eagles players, I'm sure the play calling would look different.

 

Are you saying Frank should have called the same plays because Williams is interchangeable with Mack.  (Essentially bashing Ballard and half of this board by saying that Mack is no better than a UDFA that has bounced around the NFL).

 

Wasn't Pascal on the team last year, then got cut?  How is he the same as Inman?

 

As far as stats.  I get really, really tired of stat people being unintentionally condescending by telling....telling...non stat people they "don't have the evidence" to form the conclusion they form.  If YOU can't form a reliable conclusion other than by using stats, that's your problem.  Don't assume everybody else lacks that capability just because you do.  

 

BTW, professional stat users don't use stats to form a conclusion. 

 

They are used to form questions. 

 

Then, after looking in the areas the stats guide them to look, every other mental process is used to then form the correct conclusion.  Like the differences in the causes of why TY had basically the same stats each Texans game.

[Superman]

11 hours ago, John Waylon said:

I’m sorry, it’s not just been tonight. It’s happened more than people seem to want to acknowledge this season. I like him, and he’s better than Pagano, but there’s still plenty that could be improved with him and I just don’t see it. 

 

I like Reich and think he's good. But I have questions. Set aside the play calling, because I think it's obvious, and I think there's an obvious reason why.

 

How about the timeout before 4th down?  Go back to the infamous 4th down attempt against the Texans in OT last year. He did the same thing. In the aftermath, he said he wished he had been more decisive and ready to just line up and run a play in that situation, which I agreed with. By calling timeout and then sending the offense back out, you're costing yourself some advantage. Just be ready, and run your best 4th down play.

 

He did the same thing last night. And he's done it at least once before (I need to research to find the play, but it's happened). 

 

Using that timeout there was very costly, and should have been unnecessary. You're milking clock the entire possession, they obviously wanted to score with as little time left as possible. They ran 10 plays on that drive, only moved the ball 36 yards, and didn't come close to scoring range. They should have been ready for 4th down.

 

This might go back to my usual concern with head coaches who also call plays -- it takes something away from game management. I think it's showing itself with Reich in these specific situations, and they have to figure it out.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wasn't Pascal on the team last year, then got cut?  How is he the same as Inman?

 

 

That's basically Inman's profile. Inman isn't and wasn't anything special.

[stitches]

@Superman you are correct. He does it all the time on 4th down...He would line up the offense and try to draw them offside and if they don't bite he would take a time out and then send the offense out again for the 4th down again and run a play. He has done that multiple times. Not 100% certain, but I think he did the exact same thing on the failed 4th down in the first game vs HOU this year too...

[EastStreet]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I'm sure Frank had his reasons.  I'm sure he sees limitations in his players and develops a game plan accordingly.  If we had the Eagles players, I'm sure the play calling would look different.

Every coach that makes a bad decision has his reasons. Reasons don't excuse the decisions.

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Are you saying Frank should have called the same plays because Williams is interchangeable with Mack.  (Essentially bashing Ballard and half of this board by saying that Mack is no better than a UDFA that has bounced around the NFL).

Not sure how you came to this conclusion... My point is Williams did just fine with Mack out. The bigger question is why did Frank choose to go run heavy with a UDFA opposed to what he did when we won with Mack. 

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Wasn't Pascal on the team last year, then got cut?  How is he the same as Inman?

I have no idea what your point is. My point is that Pascal is every bit as capable as Inman. Losing Inman didn't turn the 6th rated passing team last year into the 25th ish rated passing team this year.

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

As far as stats.  I get really, really tired of stat people being unintentionally condescending by telling....telling...non stat people they "don't have the evidence" to form the conclusion they form.  If YOU can't form a reliable conclusion other than by using stats, that's your problem.  Don't assume everybody else lacks that capability just because you do.  

I'm not being condescending and apologize if you took it that way. I simply see nothing but anecdotal and subjective stuff being thrown around. I'm perfectly fine with sound reasoning that is absent supporting fact/data, but I'm not ok with reasoning that defies existing fact/data.

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

BTW, professional stat users don't use stats to form a conclusion. They are used to form questions. 

Stats are an input, nothing more. Sometimes, like in this case, the input overwhelmingly supports specific conclusions. 

 

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Then, after looking in the areas the stats guide them to look, every other mental process is used to then form the correct conclusion.  Like the differences in the causes of why TY had basically the same stats each Texans game.

TY this year has had very different stats from previous years vs Houston. Radically different.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's basically Inman's profile. Inman isn't and wasn't anything special.

No, he wasn't, but he was evidently better than Pascal last year, who was cut.   Which was based upon whatever evaluations are used by HCs to keep one player over another.

 

As far as Reich being bad last night, I'm sure he evaluated the limitations of the available players.  

 

Despite calling 17 of 18 plays as runs...which seems to be the criticism around why we should have called a similar plan to the plan we won with last time...those drives resulted in most of the first downs and the two TDs, if IIRC.  It seems like the deviation from the previous gameplan resulted in the score being closer than if we tried to air it out.

 

Fewer busted coverages from our defense may have resulted in a win, since the Texans could not stop the run even when knowing we had a plan to run.

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No, he wasn't, but he was evidently better than Pascal last year, who was cut.   Which was based upon whatever evaluations are used by HCs to keep one player over another.

 

You're arguing over the difference between a JAG 30 year old and a JAG 24 year old. It's inconsequential. Neither Inman nor Pascal make the offense better.

 

Quote

As far as Reich being bad last night, I'm sure he evaluated the limitations of the available players.  

 

I agree, but which players?

 

Quote

Despite calling 17 of 18 plays as runs...which seems to be the criticism around why we should have called a similar plan to the plan we won with last time...those drives resulted in most of the first downs and the two TDs, if IIRC.  It seems like the deviation from the previous gameplan resulted in the score being closer than if we tried to air it out.

 

My criticism isn't really about the amount of runs vs the amount of passes. It's about creating an opportunity for your offense to exploit the opposing defense.

 

And along those lines, if the conventional wisdom is you should establish the run to set up play action, then at what point was the run established last night? When was the Texans' defense primed for a play action fake? It makes me think that's not the strategy. They wanted to avoid throwing the ball as much as possible, is what I think.

 

Quote

Fewer busted coverages from our defense may have resulted in a win, since the Texans could not stop the run even when knowing we had a plan to run.

 

Yeah, and maybe a big play or two from our offense would have resulted in a win.

 

(Edit: And in general, when you give up 20 points on the road with a banged up defense, but only score 17 points, the focus isn't going to be on the defense. The defense was actually good enough.)

 

And the bolded didn't hold true at the end of the game, did it? First and 10, run play, 2 yards. Next first and 10, run play, 2 yard. Next first and 10, run play, 0 yards. Situational play calling is way more important than yardage totals.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Every coach that makes a bad decision has his reasons. Reasons don't excuse the decisions.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion... My point is Williams did just fine with Mack out. The bigger question is why did Frank choose to go run heavy with a UDFA opposed to what he did when we won with Mack. 

I have no idea what your point is. My point is that Pascal is every bit as capable as Inman. Losing Inman didn't turn the 6th rated passing team last year into the 25th ish rated passing team this year.

I'm not being condescending and apologize if you took it that way. I simply see nothing but anecdotal and subjective stuff being thrown around. I'm perfectly fine with sound reasoning that is absent supporting fact/data, but I'm not ok with reasoning that defies existing fact/data.

Stats are an input, nothing more. Sometimes, like in this case, the input overwhelmingly supports specific conclusions. 

 

TY this year has had very different stats from previous years vs Houston. Radically different.

You are the one forming a conclusion about Reich's performance.  So what is it, that he should have called more pass plays because we won last time by doing that and we lost this time when we called more run plays?

 

That's it?

 

About Williams, as I said, perhaps Williams can't do things in the passing game that Mack can, and can only run between the tackles well and not the edge.  I pointed out that we ran the same between the tackles run play about 8 times.  I assume Frank made those calls because that's about all the player who was available could do, at least at this point with the team...not to mention it was working.

 

If you want to use stats to form conclusions, fine by me.  But it would be less condescending and inflammatory if you would stop insinuating that others who don't use them much have inferior support for their conclusions.  

 

  

[John Waylon]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I like Reich and think he's good. But I have questions. Set aside the play calling, because I think it's obvious, and I think there's an obvious reason why.

 

How about the timeout before 4th down?  Go back to the infamous 4th down attempt against the Texans in OT last year. He did the same thing. In the aftermath, he said he wished he had been more decisive and ready to just line up and run a play in that situation, which I agreed with. By calling timeout and then sending the offense back out, you're costing yourself some advantage. Just be ready, and run your best 4th down play.

 

He did the same thing last night. And he's done it at least once before (I need to research to find the play, but it's happened). 

 

Using that timeout there was very costly, and should have been unnecessary. You're milking clock the entire possession, they obviously wanted to score with as little time left as possible. They ran 10 plays on that drive, only moved the ball 36 yards, and didn't come close to scoring range. They should have been ready for 4th down.

 

This might go back to my usual concern with head coaches who also call plays -- it takes something away from game management. I think it's showing itself with Reich in these specific situations, and they have to figure it out.

The timeout. Things were crazy, it was late, I wasn’t sure who called it. Was it Reich or Brissett?

 

Honestly I can forgive Brissett there. When you’re in the heat of that moment you’re thinking about what you’re seeing and what you need and not the grand overall scheme. A QB needs to be on that Manning, Brady, Brees level to have the wherewithal to avoid that. 
 

If it was Reich (and I’m guessing now it was) yeah that’s inexcusable. I thought the decision to go for it in the first place was a bit silly. 
 

I still like Reich, but it’s definitely not all sunshine and roses with him. 

[Blueblood23]

56 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

I mean the QB has nothing to do with the predictable play design and selection. You can tell by the formation when we’re going to run it, and usually which gap we’re going for. 

 

Frank has a QB who can’t execute, but... why?

 

Go back and watch that first Texans game. Brissett was looking all over the place ever play finding the right receiver. Making the right decision and having the best game of his career. So we can be sure he’s not just totally incapable of doing that. He did it that day and did it well. Why has he seemingly been excused from even attempting to do that just a handful of times per game before that and since? 
 

He does not have a favorable situation at QB. But there’s things that he could be stressing to his QB to improve the situation. Things he has a firm grasp on. 

For the most part, Brissett won’t throw it if the receiver is not wide open. Brissett appears to hav trouble seeing the field if his number one option is covered. Texans must have adjusted from the first game and Brissett didn’t.

[bhougland]

1 hour ago, John Waylon said:

I mean the QB has nothing to do with the predictable play design and selection. You can tell by the formation when we’re going to run it, and usually which gap we’re going for. 

 

Frank has a QB who can’t execute, but... why?

 

Go back and watch that first Texans game. Brissett was looking all over the place ever play finding the right receiver. Making the right decision and having the best game of his career. So we can be sure he’s not just totally incapable of doing that. He did it that day and did it well. Why has he seemingly been excused from even attempting to do that just a handful of times per game before that and since? 
 

He does not have a favorable situation at QB. But there’s things that he could be stressing to his QB to improve the situation. Things he has a firm grasp on. 

 

 

I disagree.  In the first game Frank dialed up the perfect game plan to get our receivers wide open (which is really the only time JB will throw it).  This was not because our WR are great route runners or Jacoby diagnosed great matchups, but because his plays resulted in blown coverages and JB threw it to the first read.  This was not a validation of JB, but more of Frank Reich.  

 

Problem is that designed plays that result in blown coverage don't happen all the time.  The QB has to be able to manufacture plays by reading defenses, adjusting, throwing the receiver open, anticipation, etc.  Jacoby hasn't shown me ANY of that this year.  Even the Paris Campbell touchdown earlier in the year was clearly designed for him to be the first read, but that is the closest I can think of.

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You're arguing over the difference between a JAG 30 year old and a JAG 24 year old. It's inconsequential. Neither Inman nor Pascal make the offense better.

 

 

I agree, but which players?

 

 

My criticism isn't really about the amount of runs vs the amount of passes. It's about creating an opportunity for your offense to exploit the opposing defense.

 

And along those lines, if the conventional wisdom is you should establish the run to set up play action, then at what point was the run established last night? When was the Texans' defense primed for a play action fake? It makes me think that's not the strategy. They wanted to avoid throwing the ball as much as possible, is what I think.

 

 

Yeah, and maybe a big play or two from our offense would have resulted in a win.

 

And the bolded didn't hold true at the end of the game, did it? First and 10, run play, 2 yards. Next first and 10, run play, 2 yard. Next first and 10, run play, 0 yards. Situational play calling is way more important than yardage totals.

Inman and Pascal are JAGS for sure.  Luck is better than JB for sure, and the offense looks different with a QB like Luck over a QB like JB.

 

But we also have had more pass oriented games with JB-and-his-JAGS than we did last night.  Apparently, the last game with the same team.

 

I would attribute the difference as to not having a reliable TY (on a Thursday night game after being out the previous Sunday) and not having Mack in the passing game.  ( I could argue that Hines maybe should have got more PT, but I think of him as a JAG anyway, so it probably wouldn't have mattered.)  

 

I don't know why its being made out as something more complicated or deeply rooted than that.

[jvan1973]

5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Inman and Pascal are JAGS for sure.  Luck is better than JB for sure, and the offense looks different with a QB like Luck over a QB like JB.

 

But we also have had more pass oriented games with JB-and-his-JAGS than we did last night.  Apparently, the last game with the same team.

 

I would attribute the difference as to not having a reliable TY (on a Thursday night game after being out the previous Sunday) and not having Mack in the passing game.  ( I could argue that Hines maybe should have got more PT, but I think of him as a JAG anyway, so it probably wouldn't have mattered.)  

 

I don't know why its being made out as something more complicated or deeply rooted than that.

Mack isn't a significant part of the passing game.   He has 12 catches all season.   Williams had 3 catches last night

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

The timeout. Things were crazy, it was late, I wasn’t sure who called it. Was it Reich or Brissett?

 

Honestly I can forgive Brissett there. When you’re in the heat of that moment you’re thinking about what you’re seeing and what you need and not the grand overall scheme. A QB needs to be on that Manning, Brady, Brees level to have the wherewithal to avoid that. 
 

If it was Reich (and I’m guessing now it was) yeah that’s inexcusable. I thought the decision to go for it in the first place was a bit silly. 
 

I still like Reich, but it’s definitely not all sunshine and roses with him. 

 

Set aside the judgment of the 4th down call (I'm fine with it, btw). It was pretty obvious that they were going to go for it, right? Aside from a sack on 3rd down, they treated it like four down territory. 

 

And you're right, JB called the timeout. And yes, that's a tough situation, late in the game, big down, on the road, Thursday night... but I don't think you have to be a Mt Rushmore QB to handle that situation. I think a good starter should be able to line up and run a play on 4th down, and should be situationally aware going into the drive, especially as the drive is winding down, to know that some high leverage situations are coming up. 

 

So the sequence of plays leading up to 4th down bother me. Not having the QB ready for 4th down bothers me. 

 

Again, call a screen pass. You've established the run, now try a play action from under center (please, just try it!) Go back to the read option on an early down.  

 

The approach is just way too conservative right now. You have a super conservative QB, and now the play caller is pandering to him. 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I would attribute the difference as to not having a reliable TY (on a Thursday night game after being out the previous Sunday) and not having Mack in the passing game.  ( I could argue that Hines maybe should have got more PT, but I think of him as a JAG anyway, so it probably wouldn't have mattered.)  

 

I don't know why its being made out as something more complicated or deeply rooted than that.

 

I've been watching All 22 of recent game. I assure you, it's more complicated than you're indicating. 

 

You're boiling it down to no one being open for the QB to throw to, and that's not accurate. I haven't seen the All 22 of last night's game, but if it looks anything like the last few games, there were receivers open that didn't get targeted. 

 

There's also the question of using different elements, especially in the pass game, to help the offense stay in rhythm. 

 

So no, it's not just JB is bad, we can't win with him. But it's also not just the receivers aren't getting open.

[B~Town]

Game plan was fine execution was the problem . Our qb had a bad night defense blew assignments I am 100 percent positive that was not part of the game plan .  

 

Ty catches a few of those balls Brisset doesnt miss ebron or hits hines in stride and we won nobody would think it was a poor game plan. 

 

 

[EastStreet]

29 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You are the one forming a conclusion about Reich's performance.  So what is it, that he should have called more pass plays because we won last time by doing that and we lost this time when we called more run plays?

 

That's it?

 

About Williams, as I said, perhaps Williams can't do things in the passing game that Mack can, and can only run between the tackles well and not the edge.  I pointed out that we ran the same between the tackles run play about 8 times.  I assume Frank made those calls because that's about all the player who was available could do, at least at this point with the team...not to mention it was working.

 

If you want to use stats to form conclusions, fine by me.  But it would be less condescending and inflammatory if you would stop insinuating that others who don't use them much have inferior support for their conclusions.  

I've been very clear about my conclusion, what I thought he should have done, and the input used in forming those conclusions. Not sure what else I can say. Looks like most on the board are saying similar things, using similar reasoning. 

 

Sorry if you are offended. Most debates rely on supporting facts/data/stats and less on anecdotal points. 

 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I've been watching All 22 of recent game. I assure you, it's more complicated than you're indicating. 

 

You're boiling it down to no one being open for the QB to throw to, and that's not accurate. I haven't seen the All 22 of last night's game, but if it looks anything like the last few games, there were receivers open that didn't get targeted. 

 

There's also the question of using different elements, especially in the pass game, to help the offense stay in rhythm. 

 

So no, it's not just JB is bad, we can't win with him. But it's also not just the receivers aren't getting open.

I'm talking about the criticism of Frank last night.  Apparently, he called too many run plays.  I'm simply attributing that to his perception that we would have less success in the passing game because his top WR and top RB were not really available.

 

Frank probably did alright last night with what he had to work with.  Sure there are bad play calls in every game.  

 

As far as the broader topic.  I certainly don't intend to lay it all off on the WRs.  I'm simply saying that I don't see how anybody can conclude that we need to move on from JB at this point when he hasn't had his weapons yet. 

 

Ballard recognized the need for better talent at the receiver positions, that's why he signed Funchess and drafted Campbell rather than resting with what we had last year.  JB has not benefited from that talent upgrade.  Luck may not need it.  JB does.

 

 JB might not expect players to get open or be open and looks elsewhere.  They may be open at the incorrect point in the route, or have not displayed enough competence to be in the right spot for him to just throw to a spot on the field.  I assume route running is a reason we let Cain go, and he was taking up PT this year, IIRC.

 

Until JB or any QB is playing with the players Ballard intended him to play with and they become reliable options, I don't see where we have a clean, nonnoisy, universe of data with which to form conclusions about JB at this point, other than he his probably no gunslinger.  Not to mention he is learning. 

 

 

 

[Superman]

Just now, DougDew said:

I'm talking about the criticism of Frank last night.  Apparently, he called too many run plays.

 

That's a mischaracterization of the criticism of Reich last night. To boil it down to the number of runs called misses the point.

 

Quote

Frank probably did alright last night with what he had to work with.  Sure there are bad play calls in every game.  

 

There are bad/unsuccessful play calls in every game, but Reich did not do alright last night, IMO. His play calling was obvious and overly restrictive. Again, IMO.

 

Quote

As far as the broader topic.  I certainly don't intend to lay it all off on the WRs.  I'm simply saying that I don't see how anybody can conclude that we need to move on from JB at this point when he hasn't had his weapons yet. 

 

Ballard recognized the need for better talent at the receiver positions, that's why he signed Funchess and drafted Campbell rather than resting with what we had last year.  JB has not benefited from that talent upgrade.  Luck may not need it.  JB does.

 

Also not entirely true. But also not the point. His job is to throw the ball to receivers, fundamentally. Some have concluded that if he doesn't throw the ball, it means no one is open, and I'm telling you from actual observation of game film that that's a faulty conclusion.

 

Quote

 JB might not expect players to get open or be open and looks elsewhere.  They may be open at the incorrect point in the route, or have not displayed enough competence to be in the right spot for him to just throw to a spot on the field.  I assume route running is a reason we let Cain go, and he was taking up PT this year, IIRC.

 

You're offering hypotheticals to dismiss actual observation. JB misses open receivers, and fails to anticipate opportunities to target receivers. None of the above changes these fundamental facts.

 

Quote

Until JB or any QB is playing with the players Ballard intended him to play with and they become reliable options, I don't see where we have a clean, nonnoisy, universe of data with which to form conclusions about JB at this point, other than he his probably no gunslinger.  Not to mention he is learning. 

 

I disagree, but it's not my intention to reach conclusions about JB at this point. I don't need to be the first to solve the puzzle, but I can react in real time to what I'm seeing. 

 

Do you think Reich's play calling is a reflection of his thoughts about the strengths/weaknesses of the offense? And if so, do you think that if he thought more highly of the passer, that his gameplanning would be different?

[Moosejawcolt]

3 hours ago, Mr.Debonair said:

 

I hate the obvious run play where, Jack Doyle comes in motion and stops in between the tackle. It's the most telegraphed run play, and Reich does it over and over again.

Look at all the stats.  We should have won if not for one glaring stat.....129 yards passing.  That's inexcusable....inexcusable. Brissett lacks any type of anticipation.  I think teams know what he is moving forward.  I always said this was an evaluation year for Brissett. U can't have a stat line like the Colts did and lose the game. It's disheartening to the run game and the D.  I am very confident that  after 11 games the coaching staff  knows what this team needs moving forward. Trust me they know but won't go public with it. 

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I've been very clear about my conclusion, what I thought he should have done, and the input used in forming those conclusions. Not sure what else I can say. Looks like most on the board are saying similar things, using similar reasoning. 

 

Sorry if you are offended. Most debates rely on supporting facts/data/stats and less on anecdotal points. 

 

Hey, its a stat driven world these days.  They're a popular thing. Cheap computers make them available to the untrained masses, who routinely misuse them, IMO.  They tend to get thought of as being synonymous with being smart, so they used a lot.   Some people thought Al Gore was smart as measured by his command of stats.  I always thought he was pretty dense, but hey. 

 

I agree about debates.  The goal of most debates is to convince someone of your opinion in the contest of a short window, and that's what matters.  After the debate is over, no one cares how many people rethought the debate to then conclude the other guy was just full of * or cherry-picked his stats to win the short window.  Not saying that you did, just speaking conceptually about the popularity of stats.

 

I think Frank should probably assess the capabilities of his players and their limitations and plan accordingly.  Which is probably why he fed the ball to Williams on the same up the middle running play over and over again, since it was working, and a lot of the sideways plays went nowhere.  It also seemed to me that the Texans never blitzed, either pass blitz or run blitz, but tended to sit back in coverage.....probably because they got burned with the pass last game.

 

As to why we don't throw the ball deeper last night, that has been a question we've had here all season.  I don't think the lack of Frank doing that last night is specific to anything different he did or did not do last night.

 

 

[Thunderbolt]

You're a good coach if you consistently win and make the playoffs. Beating an above.500 team once in a awhile and loose on teams you're supposed to beat is an ineffective coach and not a winner.

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Hey, its a stat driven world these days.  They're a popular thing. Cheap computers make them available to the untrained masses, who routinely misuse them, IMO.  They tend to get thought of as being synonymous with being smart, so they used a lot.   Some people thought Al Gore was smart as measured by his command of stats.  I always thought he was pretty dense, but hey. 

 

I agree about debates.  The goal of most debates is to convince someone of your opinion in the contest of a short window, and that's what matters.  After the debate is over, no one cares how many people rethought the debate to then conclude the other guy was just full of * or cherry-picked his stats to win the short window.  Not saying that you did, just speaking conceptually about the popularity of stats.

 

I think Frank should probably assess the capabilities of his players and their limitations and plan accordingly.  Which is probably why he fed the ball to Williams on the same up the middle running play over and over again, since it was working, and a lot of the sideways plays went nowhere.  It also seemed to me that the Texans never blitzed, either pass blitz or run blitz, but tended to sit back in coverage.....probably because they got burned with the pass last game.

 

As to why we don't throw the ball deeper last night, that has been a question we've had here all season.  I don't think the lack of Frank doing that last night is specific to anything different he did or did not do last night.

 

Houston going zone didn't have a lot of impact on guys getting open. I saw plenty as did the announcers. I think you'll probably see some of the fine folks on here with all-22 publish some screen shot. 

 

Houston is worst in the league in QB pressures. Frank was not surprised by this. 

 

In terms of debate, an out come based debate especially one like sports (as opposed to a philosophical debate) will always lean heavy on stats and measurements. Anecdotal pondering about motive, intention, etc. just doesn't play well whether it's a short window or ongoing debate (like QB or coach performance over a season, etc). You don't always have to rely on stats, but you'll lose just about every time by ignoring them.

[colts8718]

This whole division is weak it's ashamed we can not take advantage.Do i miss LUCK