The offensive game plan was horrendous last night. The fact he doesn't have a high power offense to mask his inability to adjust is really showing.
Is there any reason he is our OC?
Is there any reason he is our OC?
TomRicardo said:The offensive game plan was horrendous last night. The fact he doesn't have a high power offense to mask his inability to adjust is really showing.
Is there any reason he is our OC?
You have no real way of knowing this. At all. It could be true, but you don't know. None of us do.jsinger121 said:
Because he doesn't question Bill and is a yes man. Look at the entire staff. There are crappy coaches throughout that do not have experience or the balls to challenge Bill. That starts with the HC of the NEP.
jsinger121 said:
Because he doesn't question Bill and is a yes man. Look at the entire staff. There are crappy coaches throughout that do not have experience or the balls to challenge Bill. That starts with the HC of the NEP.
jsinger121 said:
Because he doesn't question Bill and is a yes man. Look at the entire staff. There are crappy coaches throughout that do not have experience or the balls to challenge Bill. That starts with the HC of the NEP.
crystalline said:Totally agree. That's why Dante left, after all. He couldn't stand being the assistant head coach and didn't have enough years of experience to challenge Belichick.
Pepper Johnson, too. The guy had so little guts that he was afraid to leave when he didn't get the promotion he wanted. Not a risk taker. He's probably cleaning the cold tub right now.
And Belichick keeps hanging on to those quiet yes men coaches like Mangini. Can you believe that guy? If only he had the self confidence to go coach another team and talk back to Bill. Those attributes are key to success at the head coach level. If only Mangini had them he might be able to win as a head coach someday.
[Look man, you polluted the game thread with mindless drivel. Don't bring it here too.]
Harry Hooper said:Dressing 3 real WRs would suggest a game plan going in that would feature a lot of running plays. That didn't happen, and MCD would likely cite the scoreboard as his explanation. There is a sense watching over time, though, that he is rather quick to abandon the run whenever the opponent gets a double-digit lead. Might not be true, but it feels that way.
Ralphwiggum said:
But they also came out and threw the ball three straight times from the shotgun formation on their first drive. So it wasn't just based on falling behind.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
This team has proven over the last handful of years - both pre-game planning as well as coming out at halftime - to have some very questionable play calling. I don't think there's any harm in asking, "why not adjust during the game?"
Ridley had runs of 6, 2, 7, 5, and 8 yards. The first 4 of those carries came with enough time for the game to be in reach. He may not rip off big 20 yard gains, but nobody is going to with this line.
If we're going to give Brady slack ("he's done it before, he can right the ship!") why aren't we willing to do the same with a 1200+ yard rusher? He hasn't fumbled the football this year which, by the way people were talking, I was expecting him to have at least 13 fumbles so far. He was averaging 5+ yards a pop. Why weren't we using him?
I heard a clip on the radio yesterday from the Pats/Raiders pre-game where McDaniels asked Belichick, "you want to run or pass this game?" To which Belichick responded, "Run." We saw them run the ball 32 times. I thought this was bizarre because, as the game dragged on, it became obvious that the Raiders were keying on the run and the Patriots needed to focus on the passing game. It is fair to assume that conversation happened again this week, and the answer was "pass", which is why they threw the ball on all 3 plays to start their first drive and only had Vereen/Ridley run the ball 13 times before the game got out of hand. If this team is so inflexible that they are going to stay true to their game plan without making any adjustments to what the defense gives them, then that is a serious problem and needs to be changed. Like, right now.
Not only that but the RBs had to stay back and block. Not chipping and releasing, full on blocking, so they only had 2 guys out in pattern for a lot of the plays. It's no wonder no one was open on passes. Yet they didn't run very often even though when they did run it worked pretty well. It made no sense.Harry Hooper said:Dressing 3 real WRs would suggest a game plan going in that would feature a lot of running plays. That didn't happen, and MCD would likely cite the scoreboard as his explanation. There is a sense watching over time, though, that he is rather quick to abandon the run whenever the opponent gets a double-digit lead. Might not be true, but it feels that way.
Hightower had a down game last night, but he was awesome the first three games and is a much better player than Spikes (who they are missing more than I thought they would given the pair of Jones, Collins, and Ninkovich are all not great against the run so far)Watching Hightower (and previously Spikes) try to cover/tackle in the open field has been dreadful.
dynomite said:I find it interesting how quickly both we as Patriots fans and the entire league have jumped on the Patriots. They are less than a year removed from an AFC Championship game, and here are their ranks in points scored under McDaniels since he returned:
2013: 3rd (444 points)
2012: 1st (557 points)
Going back further, they haven't ranked lower than 3rd in points scored since '09.
1) It's hard to judge an OC after a game in which literally everyone on the offense played so poorly -- they couldn't coach, block, throw, run, or catch. Or hell even tackle (after INTs).
2) As others have said, the Patriots have had something like the best offense in football for years, and without being part of the team it's hard to know who to credit for that success and blame for last night's disaster.
Overall I can't really express much of an opinion until I get a chance to see the All-22. That said:
- I credit McDaniels for going back to the shotgun formation on something like 17 of their first 20 snaps to try buy Brady some time, but I have to question his decision to only activate 3 WR to accompany it.
- Watching in real-time it looked like Stork played the C position about as poorly as anyone I've ever seen in an NFL game. On multiple plays he seemed to be unsure of his assignment or misread the defense, turning to block a gap no one was rushing from and generally using poor technique. He seemed overwhelmed both physically and schematically. To be fair, he's a rookie on the road against the loudest crowd in the league on MNF -- the fact that he started in the first place is another questionable move by the coaching staff.
I listened on radio and on the first possession, they said the balls weren't well-thrown. Basically, they laid the blame on the first 3 and out on Brady. Anyone think differently?Ralphwiggum said:
But they also came out and threw the ball three straight times from the shotgun formation on their first drive. So it wasn't just based on falling behind.
twothousandone said:I listened on radio and on the first possession, they said the balls weren't well-thrown. Basically, they laid the blame on the first 3 and out on Brady. Anyone think differently?
EDIT: Of course the first to Vereen wasn't the problem.
mt8thsw9th said:Man, Kraft has to be looking at the reigning NFL champion Seahawks and be kicking himself for letting Pete Carroll go. Dark days, these are.
soxfan121 said:
Yup. This starts right at the top. Bob Kraft's continued enablement of Bill Belichick is the problem. If only we had an owner like Jerry Jones. Not just a terrific stadium architect, Jones is also a noted football genius. He doesn't tolerate a coach who screws up the grocery shopping.
I don't think this team is ever going to win again.
TomRicardo said:It was obvious very quickly the shotgun was not going to work. The stadium was too loud.
This is obvious sarcasm, but Jerrah isn't looking half bad lately, with that good OL opening holes for Murray...soxfan121 said:
Yup. This starts right at the top. Bob Kraft's continued enablement of Bill Belichick is the problem. If only we had an owner like Jerry Jones. Not just a terrific stadium architect, Jones is also a noted football genius. He doesn't tolerate a coach who screws up the grocery shopping.
I don't think this team is ever going to win again.
Both. We are in the night in which all cows are black.SMU_Sox said:Yours or his?
Hence the wink, midnight rider.dcmissle said:Both. We are in the night in which all cows are black.
SeoulSoxFan said:I blame the invention of the ball. No ball, no football, no Kraft, no BB, no devastating week 4 loss. No SoSH too, so why I am typing?
Yep.Stitch01 said:As I said in one of the other threads, what frustrated me was that Denver ran well against KC's light fronts. The guys breaking down film for footballcentral figured out you could run inside on KC vs. their light fronts. Jon Gruden on the telecast said "Gee KC only has six in the box, have to run here". For some reason, the Pats didnt really want to run against the light fronts and, the one time they did, ran a long developing play around the end.
And Randy Moss outside, hell 2007 Donte Stallworth would be the second best wr on this team.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:Because McDaniels is operating under the illusion that he's got 2007-era Brady under center.
Tony C said:Blaming the OC for playcalling is the the unanimous occupation of every NFL team's fans. Either every single OC in the league is an utter f-ing idiot, or the OC is just a convenient scapegoat because "If they'd just run whatever the opposite is of what they ran it would have worked" is utter BS. I too think they should have run Ridley more, but Monday night was an utter and complete fail and pretending a few different playcalls would have changed anything is silly.
soxfan121 said:
Yup. This starts right at the top. Bob Kraft's continued enablement of Bill Belichick is the problem. If only we had an owner like Jerry Jones. Not just a terrific stadium architect, Jones is also a noted football genius. He doesn't tolerate a coach who screws up the grocery shopping.
I don't think this team is ever going to win again.
Tony C said:Blaming the OC for playcalling is the the unanimous occupation of every NFL team's fans. Either every single OC in the league is an utter f-ing idiot, or the OC is just a convenient scapegoat because "If they'd just run whatever the opposite is of what they ran it would have worked" is utter BS. I too think they should have run Ridley more, but Monday night was an utter and complete fail and pretending a few different playcalls would have changed anything is silly.
Bongorific said:The team adjusted pretty well to a power run team in the second half last season. Does McDaniels get credit for that?
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
McDaniels has a very long history of questionable and baffling play calling decisions. j44 points it out above: KC can't stop the run and the Pats set their personnel up to set up the run, and yet they called only 7 runs in the first half and came out throwing the ball all over the place despite a makeshift, shitty OL and a difficult KC pass rush. In what way does that plan make the slightest amount of sense?
McDaniels is a bad OC. He's been a bad OC for a very long time, and it's killing the team. He pretends that Tom Brady can solve all his problems, and doesn't realize that 2007 is gone. And I shudder to think what's going to happen to this organization once Belichick retires and he's named head coach.
Yes, primarily because his resume as a HC is atrocious and a good number of people cannot rise above the assistant level. And there is nothing wrong with that.Stitch01 said:Boy its going to be an interesting day around here when BB retires and McDaniels gets handed the keys
dcmissle said:Yes, primarily because his resume as a HC is atrocious and a good number of people cannot rise above the assistant level. And there is nothing wrong with that.