Game balls

Okay, on ESPN today they had lengthy discussion which made sense to me at least. We had Davis who was our bulldozer up the middle who could run over people. Foster was our change up guy. Now we have Foster as our Davis with Deangelo as our change up. But Foster isn't a Davis type back. He's not a bad back, but he's not a back who can create a hole simply by running over a big defensive guy. They said it isn't that he's a bad RB, but we're trying to replace a Davis type back with a back who isn't that. Certainly Davis wasn't that either at the end, but what we needed was another Davis in his prime with Foster still as the speed/finesse guy to break the long one when the D was tiring.

They also suggested since we're really not a running team because of both oline and not really having a bulldozer back, that we set Jake up to fail to some degree. He's not a QB who can carry a team and without a running game he sort of has to. They said we should shift more to a west coast "style" or at least influenced game which would help Jake.

We wound up not having exactly what we wanted/needed in spots, but are we just that untalented or could some adpating on the part of coaching help? During the 15 days they took a hard look at "us", but are they really willing to make adjustments to cover some of our weaknesses?

I know watching the tape today they talked about Gruden throwing his "144 plays at the new QB" and that they felt he should simplify the offense some at least to get the guy broken in more slowly but that he wouldn't consider changing "his plan". Maybe Grad will get through baptism by fire just fine and for the most part he seems to be, but is it good coaching when you force a person into a mold he doesn't really fit as opposed to adapting to highlight a player's skills and are we a little guilty of that as well?

 

Steve Young said that. He's a West Coast QB. Remember the saying about if the only tool you have is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail?

IMHO Jake would be a dismal failure as a WCO QB. He reads Ds too slow, and he's nowhere near accurate enough. The Dallas and Cincy 2nd halves we essentially tried to move the ball through mostly passing. What happened?

 

And your living at the bittersweet motel

 

There'll always be that misnomer. "Davis was the bulldozer, the reason he was successful was because he was big."

He was successful because he hit the holes and the holes were there. His size helped in the open field, sure. Foster isn't hitting those holes with authority, and still seems to struggle with the patience needed. And, of course, our run blocking sucks. Foster does think too much like the home-run back, and that hurts him at times. But Foster's big enough to bruise. And Davis wasn't mauling a hole where there wasn't one.

Either way, Foster was considered very much an inside runner in college. He still can be - with the right patience, and the right blocking. He looked good on straight ahead plays. Then again, he looked good on the lead plays at the end of last year. Right now, we need to build on what works, which IMO is more quick hitting runs, and maybe some counters, and less waiting for a guard to get to the outside shoulder of the end on the other side of formation.

Our offense and scheme aren't really set up to be a powerful, intimidating running game. Honestly, I don't know that it directly fits what Fox wants. I like it, but I don't know that it fits our line right now, and we really need to simplify a bit.

As for the WCO? The WCO is an awesome scheme. The thing is, though, it and every other offense can be tailored to do whatever you want. If you wanted the WCO to look and act like a run and shoot, it would be. If you wanted it to be an I-formation, bloody nose, playaction to the TE offense, it would be. Naturally, so can ours. Personnel obviously plays a part in that, too.

But in the end, the same things the WCO works on (short passing, deep passing, lead runs, stretch runs) are the same things we do. We do a lot of short passing, honestly. The WCO runs most of the same type runs we do. The WCO doesn't often run that damnable WR screen 10 times a game, but anything's adaptable. And with Key here, we're using the same principles. My only real concern with our offense and how it's being used is that we don't look to sustain drives (negating execution issues), and that our big-play attempts (reverses and other tricks, deep throws, and so on) are more ill-advised until we can execute, and until our defense shows more often that it can sustain itself regardless of a quick offensive series that has to go 3 and out because we tried to go for the throat on 1st down.

should be simplified some, but fewer plays alone won't cause the game to slow down. 144 plays - probably as simple as "12 plays for each of 12 situations" - are plays he needs to know regardless of what year he is. Gameplanning for, say, 96, could help, sure. I don't think it's "the problem", no. For him, that seems to be accuracy and reading the defense/reading the open man, both of which are things that will (or may) resolve in time.

 

The same thing happened as any time we get one-dimensional and have problems executing

 

WCO question. the one thing Young said that intrigued me was that he thought we should stop with the play action calls (since the running game wasn't working and therefore the play action was pointless) and having Jake turn his back to the defense. He think he said that we should let Jake dump and dink in the WCO where he would always be facing the defense. Does this make sense Mags or did i understand that wrong? Is that one of the principles of the WCO, it sacrifices trying to fool the defense with the playaction in order to allow the QB more time to read the defense?

btw, i don't think i agree with Young. i tend to agree with linda that we have to get a semblance of a running game going and the only way to do that is to stick to it until our excuse of an O-line grows up and starts playing like men. we have the RBs to get the job done. if we get the running game going and the playaction working, we have the QB and receivers to take advantage.

btw linda, i disagree with you on jake. i think he's a quick read.

 

Don't know if you can give a game ball on just one half of play to players, but imo Davis and Diggs deserve some big credit for the 2nd half they turned in. They both seem to play with a big spark that the entire team outside of Peppers didn't have the first half.

 

I have no idea what turning your back to the D means. Personally, my biggest problem with PA is that we
*run it too much
*it doesn't fool anyone
*it always picks on the S, and never tries to draw a LB in
*we always use all our blockers (a tie-in to exploiting LBs)
*Jake could sell it better


I like our pump fakes. Three-wides, with an underneath route and/or a double route by the deep man, has always been there for Jake. Even with Proehl.

As for the WCO, we need to establish a run game, just as does everyone. That we wouldn't in the WCO is folly. The difference the WCO would give? More eligible receivers in patterns. But as of right now, we're using our secondary guys allright.


Jake reads allright. His focus seems too intermittent, though. You've gotta see everything, and he misses some things.

 

I'll give that up, but I'll maintain he is no where near accurate enough to run the WCO.

Also, we don't have the recievers for it. We have 2, and no TE. You need about 4, with a really good TE. I'm abouit to give up on Carter for anything other than an occassional long route.

I like the pump fakes too. He takes too long on those too, but it doesnt seem to be a problem.