PDA

View Full Version : Offensive Play Calling



loudog
11-09-2004, 10:32 AM
I don't know if I am the only one, but it seems as if Linehan's play calling has not been as effective or efficient enough lately in order to utilize the resources to achieve the highest productivity.

The play calling has become way too predictable and way too simplistic.

If I recall correctly, at the beginning of the season (vs. Dallas, & 1st halves vs. Chicago & Houston), the play calling was much smarter (like what Indy did to us). I know that Moss enables us to be a little more creative, but we should not have to completely rely on one player (Moss), or we're in big trouble.

Whatever happened to using misdirections, play-actions, fake reverses, utilizing the halfback on swing plays, the bubble screens we were doing so well, and going deep once in a while? And the running game is also lacking versatility. We do the same running play every time we decide to keep the ball on the ground. The only decison being made is, "should we go to Birk's left or right?" Why not try some sweep plays or pitches to string it out from time to time?

I want the flea-flicker back, man. We used to do that kind of $hit all the time back in the day (in the late 80's and early to mid 90s).

We do gain a lot of yards and points (most of the time), but I still feel as if things could be much better with smarter, more unpredictable play calling. We need to keep the defenses guessing, and use what we have to our advantage. Otherwise we're f**cked.

cajunvike
11-09-2004, 10:35 AM
"loudog" wrote:

I don't know if I am the only one, but it seems as if Linehan's play calling has not been as effective or efficient enough lately in order to utilize the resources to achieve the highest productivity.

The play calling has become way too predictable and way too simplistic.

If I recall correctly, at the beginning of the season (vs. Dallas, & 1st halves vs. Chicago & Houston), the play calling was much smarter (like what Indy did to us). I know that Moss enables us to be a little more creative, but we should not have to completely rely on one player (Moss), or we're in big trouble.

Whatever happened to using misdirections, play-actions, fake reverses, utilizing the halfback on swing plays, the bubble screens we were doing so well, and going deep once in a while? And the running game is also lacking versatility. We do the same running play every time we decide to keep the ball on the ground. The only decison being made is, "should we go to Birk's left or right?" Why not try some sweep plays or pitches to string it out from time to time?

I want the flea-flicker back, man. We used to do that kind of $hit all the time back in the day (in the late 80's and early to mid 90s).

We do gain a lot of yards and points (most of the time), but I still feel as if things could be much better with smarter, more unpredictable play calling. We need to keep the defenses guessing, and use what we have to our advantage. Otherwise we're f**cked.

Didn't we suck in the late 80s/early 90s...flea flickers are for desperate times IMHO...what we need is simply more variety in the playcalling, but sticking to the basics variety, just mixing up the run vs. the pass for more variety, not trickery...if our offense is so great, we should be able to do what we want without trying to fool someone.

ADubya26
11-09-2004, 10:41 AM
Linehan is a crappy offensive coordinator who gets away with it because he has the best receiver in football to scheme around. We have all seen what he does without Moss in the game. If anyone should be fired after this season if should be him.

loudog
11-09-2004, 10:42 AM
Yeah, good point. The flea-flicker thing was just a joke, but as you said, more variety sums up the point I was trying to make. I just want smarter play calling. Is that too much to ask?

Jarhead
11-09-2004, 10:49 AM
It does seem odd to me that we couldn't throw the ball better against the worst defense in the league. Robinson, Burleson, and Campbell are as good as most other teams top three receivers.

I know Freeney was making McKinney his bitch all game long but c'mon. We still have three good receivers, decent pass catching TE's, and pass catching backs. We should have been able to throw the ball better than we did. 19 attempts for 154 yds is unacceptable.

Freya
11-09-2004, 11:49 AM
Would have liked to have seen better protection for Culpepper. Only rarely in the game did he have any.

And as far as the play calling is concerned......I'd like to know why it seems to take Linehan so long to shift gears. I would like to see faster modification of the play calling during the game.

Does anyone else notice that Culpepper isn't doing as many audibles as he was earlier in the year? I wonder what is up with that?

cajunvike
11-09-2004, 12:06 PM
"loudog" wrote:

Yeah, good point. The flea-flicker thing was just a joke, but as you said, more variety sums up the point I was trying to make. I just want smarter play calling. Is that too much to ask?

Nope, but Linehan is in exactly the same position that Billick was earlier in his career (I was calling for his head every week back then)...Linehan will get better and he has the rest of the year to figure it out, because come next year, my only expectation is winning the Super Bowl...we will have all of the pieces in place and will only need to do what we are capable of...I predict a top offense and a top 10 - 15 defense (enough to stop teams when they have to)...as for this year, I will take a playoff win or two and maybe losing to the eventual champion or NFC Super Bowl participant...of course, I will take a Super Bowl win if it lands in our lap (just not a fifth Super Bowl LOSS, it would be too much to bear).

PAvikesfan
11-09-2004, 12:42 PM
"ADubya26" wrote:

Linehan is a crappy offensive coordinator who gets away with it because he has the best receiver in football to scheme around. We have all seen what he does without Moss in the game. If anyone should be fired after this season if should be him.

again, i agree.

this coaching staff lacks drive as a whole. :pukeright:

VKG4LFE
11-09-2004, 01:11 PM
The thing that I don't understand is if our O-line is struggling, why don't we have some moving pockets for Culpepper. Get him rolling out to one side to buy him some extra time! That is what I would like to see more of, but my opinion doesn't really matter now does it!!

snowinapril
11-09-2004, 03:43 PM
"loudog" wrote:

Yeah, good point. The flea-flicker thing was just a joke, but as you said, more variety sums up the point I was trying to make. I just want smarter play calling. Is that too much to ask?

In the past few years we have scored at least 2 TDs to moss off the Flea flicker. Bennett and R.Smith both have been part of successfull attempts.

I am not suggesting more fleas, just stating that it is not just a joke.

There have been a ton of tricks this year in the NFL. Just this week, Portis TD throw and Vinatierri pass to the WR on the sideline uncovered.

snowinapril
11-09-2004, 03:51 PM
As far as a team, I think we have the talent on the O-line to play a sifferent style of football.

We rely on the Moss factor too much.

We don't know how to change it up. Sometimes it is just better to "dance with the one that brung'ya."

But I tell you what. We could score the same percentage of TDs in the red zone as the Colts if we used the play action fake to our RB's like they do.

Man you can see the effect on the linebackers by witnessing the fact that the TE's caught all those TDs. # of the 4 TD's caught by TE's. The LB's stop in their tracks on the play fake giving the TE just enough time for the TE to get in between the LB stuck in cement and the secondary.

sdvikefan
11-09-2004, 07:58 PM
We definately should have taken more shots down the field. Big surprise they brought Sanders up to stop the run a lot. I don't think they would have done that if Pep had hit Robinson a couple times deep.

CT Viking Man
11-09-2004, 08:52 PM
The Colts D knows they got lucky last night as the Vikings decided they were going to be the team that stops beating up on the secondary. Why does the play calling change so much when your playing a team whose defense calls for the same type of passing attack that had been utilized up to last week? Moss or no Moss with Culpepper's arm and good receivers in the other 3 the pass should still be a major part of your offense. Let that set up the run plays and vice versa. Make the play calling unpredictable and the defense will be on their toes.

cajunvike
11-10-2004, 10:10 AM
"CT Viking Man" wrote:

The Colts D knows they got lucky last night as the Vikings decided they were going to be the team that stops beating up on the secondary. Why does the play calling change so much when your playing a team whose defense calls for the same type of passing attack that had been utilized up to last week? Moss or no Moss with Culpepper's arm and good receivers in the other 3 the pass should still be a major part of your offense. Let that set up the run plays and vice versa. Make the play calling unpredictable and the defense will be on their toes.

Welcome back from the great beyond, CT! You are correct in that we should have passed more, especially once we got down by 14. If it looks like it might be a blowout, might as well take some chances. Once they caught up and made it a game, the offense actually looked pretty good...at that point, it was the defense's poor tackling that killed our chances at winning.

snowinapril
11-10-2004, 12:09 PM
"CT Viking Man" wrote:

The Colts D knows they got lucky last night as the Vikings decided they were going to be the team that stops beating up on the secondary. Why does the play calling change so much when your playing a team whose defense calls for the same type of passing attack that had been utilized up to last week? Moss or no Moss with Culpepper's arm and good receivers in the other 3 the pass should still be a major part of your offense. Let that set up the run plays and vice versa. Make the play calling unpredictable and the defense will be on their toes.

I found it ironic that both teams respected each others offense so much that they both came out to use ball control as a weapon and slow the game down to keep the others O off the field.

I really think that Manning(Colts O) dictated the decision for us to run the ball from the start(everyone knows that). But I also think that the Colts were playing the DB's back with the we will let them have the underneath stuff, just no one gets behind us. No big plays. Still we didn't pass enough. They were giving us the underneath ball. Our O mentallity has been and should be pass first run second.

But our offense was able to score 4 times(not including the special teams TD) in the offensive sceme we put on the field. If you look at it like that and then. We didn't get any turn overs. We probably would have scored on the Burleson punt return if he wouldn't have scored. The offense wasn't the problem. We just got started on the wrong offensive foot by fumbling. Mentally, even though we didn't loose that fumble, it was as good as a turnover because we really never had a chance to get the first down. We lost 20 yds or so on the play and ended up punting giving them a short field to work with.

You must dance with the one that Brung Ya. DC has to have more than 19 pass attempts.

CT Viking Man
11-10-2004, 05:54 PM
That fumble to start off was definitely a deflator. I remember looking at the scoreboard and seeing 2 and 38. I didn't expect the Vikings to get it in one shot but a good pass play on 3rd down may have helped get a conversion and perhaps get some momentum going.

VKG4LFE
11-10-2004, 05:59 PM
That damn play kept us from getting to 300 yards of total offense too to keep our record streak going! Oh well, time to start a new one!