Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stop assuming that this 'system' will turn us around...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JTC View Post
    So the head coach had little faith in a running game that was 28th in rushing attempts, 12th in total yards and 2nd in yards per attempt? If your 2 choices were the only explanations, I would go with the second option so as not to question the intelligence of the head coach.
    It's more like the head coach had little faith in the running game and therefore we ranked 28th in rushing attempts, and our averages were inflated as a result.

    Moreover, we had undeniably one of the worst defenses in history. A coach would ideally like to run the ball more to take time off the clock in such a situation. The fact that Shanahan didn't trust the running-game much despite this is again a poor indictment on our running game.

    Further, those two explanations I gave aren't mutually exclusive choices. It is possible for a defense to be as bad as ours was last year and for a running game to be as unreliable as ours was last year. The result of these two together usually involves the QB throwing a lot. With over 600 attempts for Cutler, that result was seen as well.

    Finally, when you are talking about a head coach who has had one of the best running games in history during his 15-year tenure, you won't have too many smart people questioning his intelligence, at least about the running game.
    Hoping for a defensive-minded head coach and a return to the ZBS on offense. At the very least, no more cheaters for head coach.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AC1 View Post
      It's more like the head coach had little faith in the running game and therefore we ranked 28th in rushing attempts, and our averages were inflated as a result.

      Moreover, we had undeniably one of the worst defenses in history. A coach would ideally like to run the ball more to take time off the clock in such a situation. The fact that Shanahan didn't trust the running-game much despite this is again a poor indictment on our running game.

      Further, those two explanations I gave aren't mutually exclusive choices. It is possible for a defense to be as bad as ours was last year and for a running game to be as unreliable as ours was last year. The result of these two together usually involves the QB throwing a lot. With over 600 attempts for Cutler, that result was seen as well.

      Finally, when you are talking about a head coach who has had one of the best running games in history during his 15-year tenure, you won't have too many smart people questioning his intelligence, at least about the running game.
      Assuming that your statement about having one of the best running games in history is correct and assuming that the head coach was the one responsible for that occurrence; then we must also assume that he is responsible for the (assumed) lack of a current (last year) running game. Logically, to say that his intelligence is not to be questioned due to having one of the best running games in history is also to say that his intelligence is now in question due to his lack of a good/great running game. Or are you saying that his intelligence was due to recognizing his earlier running game and not due to the idea that he built (for lack of a better term) it? Secondly, where is it written that a person who has been intelligent in the past will necessarily continue his intelligence in a situation that constantly changes and requires flexibility to adapt to changing times?
      Belichick stressed Saturday that he errs on the side of caution with NFL rules

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JTC View Post
        Assuming that your statement about having one of the best running games in history is correct and assuming that the head coach was the one responsible for that occurrence; then we must also assume that he is responsible for the (assumed) lack of a current (last year) running game. Logically, to say that his intelligence is not to be questioned due to having one of the best running games in history is also to say that his intelligence is now in question due to his lack of a good/great running game. Or are you saying that his intelligence was due to recognizing his earlier running game and not due to the idea that he built (for lack of a better term) it? Secondly, where is it written that a person who has been intelligent in the past will necessarily continue his intelligence in a situation that constantly changes and requires flexibility to adapt to changing times?
        If we hadn't lost 8 RBs to IR, the point in bold might have been valid.

        Also, are you trying to suggest that a coach who, apart from Bobby Turner, is the only common factor in 14 years of superior running game, loses his judgment and understanding of the running game for exactly one season?

        My point was that when your team ranks 28th in rushing attempts, it indicates that the head coach does not trust the running game much. I never said that Shanahan didn't trust his system. You made that assumption. The lack of faith in his running game for exactly one season also co-incided with 8 RBs going on IR. I'd say the reason for the lack of faith is obvious.
        Hoping for a defensive-minded head coach and a return to the ZBS on offense. At the very least, no more cheaters for head coach.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AC1 View Post
          My point was that when your team ranks 28th in rushing attempts, it indicates that the head coach does not trust the running game much.
          Statistically then Shanahan must not have trusted the running game since 2005 because our running attempts per year have gone down since then. What are your thoughts on that?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oldster View Post
            Statistically then Shanahan must not have trusted the running game since 2005 because our running attempts per year have gone down since then. What are your thoughts on that?
            Were they 28th?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jhns View Post
              Were they 28th?
              What in any way, shape or form does that have to do with my statement?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oldster View Post
                What in any way, shape or form does that have to do with my statement?
                Because that is his entire point. Look at how low we ranked on rush attempts. Not the fact that they went down. It is how far down.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by jhns View Post
                  Because that is his entire point. Look at how low we ranked on rush attempts. Not the fact that they went down. It is how far down.
                  Read the context of his statement, my response and if you have further questions I'll try to draw you a picture.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oldster View Post
                    Read the context of his statement, my response and if you have further questions I'll try to draw you a picture.
                    Draw me a picture then. I just read it again. Still says the same thing to me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jhns View Post
                      Draw me a picture then. I just read it again. Still says the same thing to me.
                      OK, one last time then I'm going out to talk to my plants who have better reasoning skills. He stated that Shanahan did not trust the running game thus having fewer attempts putting us 28th. I stated our running attempts per game has shown a declining trend since 2005 thus the trust factor has been ongoing. This was before the 7rb season so you may infer from that anything your fertile little mind can make up.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oldster View Post
                        OK, one last time then I'm going out to talk to my plants who have better reasoning skills. He stated that Shanahan did not trust the running game thus having fewer attempts putting us 28th. I stated our running attempts per game has shown a declining trend since 2005 thus the trust factor has been ongoing. This was before the 7rb season so you may infer from that anything your fertile little mind can make up.
                        Again, look at your decline. Them declining some is not the same as jumping down to 28th. That is exactly what the other poster was saying. Please though, show us how this was a trend. Show us the decline.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jhns View Post
                          Again, look at your decline. Them declining some is not the same as jumping down to 28th. That is exactly what the other poster was saying. Please though, show us how this was a trend. Show us the decline.
                          Plant time........

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oldster View Post
                            Statistically then Shanahan must not have trusted the running game since 2005 because our running attempts per year have gone down since then. What are your thoughts on that?
                            We ranked 9th, 19th and 28th in rushing attempts in 2006, 2007, and 2008 respectively.

                            The drop from 9th to 19th is easily explained by the declining defense. When your defense is poor, you have to pass more. Defenses as bad as ours - Detroit, Miami, Atlanta ranked 32nd, 27th and 29th respectively. This would suggest that Shanahan trusted the running game more than other teams did in 2007.

                            It also shows that he trusted the running game more in 2007 than in 2008, when we ranked lower in rushing attempts than at any point during Shanahan's tenure in Denver. Not only was it lower, it was lower by a huge quantum (we would normally be in the top 5 in rushing attempts).
                            Hoping for a defensive-minded head coach and a return to the ZBS on offense. At the very least, no more cheaters for head coach.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JTC View Post
                              So the head coach had little faith in a running game that was 28th in rushing attempts, 12th in total yards and 2nd in yards per attempt? If your 2 choices were the only explanations, I would go with the second option so as not to question the intelligence of the head coach.
                              We caught the league by surprise in the first few games by coming out throwing the ball much more than in the past. Instead of a balanced attack, we wound up heavily favoring the passing attack and neglecting the rushing attack.

                              By the time the 1st 3 games had been played? Any team facing the Broncos knew we weren't running the ball as we had in years past. By midway through the season, teams were actively gameplanning to stop our passing attack, and largely ignoring our rushing.

                              The emphasis for any defense facing us was to stop the pass and limit its effectiveness. We often got good yardage in the rushing attack simply because none of our opponents were keeping an extra man in the box to defend the run. Their safeties were too busy doubling up on our wideouts or giving over coverage on our tight ends. "IF" we had been as effective in the rushing attack as we had been in the past? You would have seen yardage being contested much more fiercely and extra personnel being brought up close to the line of scrimmage to counter it.

                              I personally believe that our opponents knew we didn't have a stellar RB that they needed to fear, when it came to breaking off the big run or scoring long yardage TD's. Our rushing attack was the most dominant when Hillis was running the ball and plowing through tackles. His longest runs were less than 20 yards though and even though he consistently got us 3-5 yards per carry there was no homerun threat. You have to account for what opposing defenses were preparing for and how they played the run or pass when facing us to get an accurate idea of why our stats looked the way they did in our rushing game.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AC1 View Post
                                We ranked 9th, 19th and 28th in rushing attempts in 2006, 2007, and 2008 respectively.

                                The drop from 9th to 19th is easily explained by the declining defense. When your defense is poor, you have to pass more. Defenses as bad as ours - Detroit, Miami, Atlanta ranked 32nd, 27th and 29th respectively. This would suggest that Shanahan trusted the running game more than other teams did in 2007.

                                It also shows that he trusted the running game more in 2007 than in 2008, when we ranked lower in rushing attempts than at any point during Shanahan's tenure in Denver. Not only was it lower, it was lower by a huge quantum (we would normally be in the top 5 in rushing attempts).

                                I could agree with your assumptions except our defensive rankings don't jibe with your analysis. Defensive rankings 2005/15th, 2006/14th and 2007/19th. I really don't see that great a difference in defensive efficiency to warrant the reduction in running attempts.
                                Last edited by oldster; 04-16-2009, 02:54 PM. Reason: Wrong about 2007

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X