Playcalling or Execution?

[Peyton]

(09-15-2010 06:59 PM)Tandy Wrote:  He targeted 8 receivers - but only hit 7 (Finn was a miss)

Of his 44 passes -
Roddy - attributed with 23 targeted passes - but 5 were throw aways - so really targeted 18 times (13 catches)
Tony - targeted 5 times (2 catches)
Finn - targeted 1 time (0 catches)
Harry - targeted 3 times (3 catches)
Snelling - targeted 1 time (1 catch)
Norwood - targeted 3 times (1 catch)
Turner - targeted 1 time (1 catch)
Peelle - targeted 2 times (2 catches)
Weems - targeted 4 times (4 catches)
+ the one throw away where he was originally called sacked - then it was reversed - no target named on that one.

You know what's fascinating about the numbers? Look at his completion percentage when he was throwing to somebody besides Roddy or Tony.

11-14, with two of the incompletions being flat drops by Norwood.

So.....that is interesting.

[JKH5785]

The problem is mostly the playcalling in my mind.

We play every team the exact same way, exact same offense week after week. We don't seem to adjust to our opponents strengths and weaknesses.

Since we know that Pittsburg is blitzing like crazy, and that our line is crashing, why did Mularkey keep calling plays with receiving routes that take time to develop. Comeback/curl/hitch type routes usually take a lil time to develop, time in which we didn't have Sunday...the playcalling should have allowed more slants/drags/post/ins.

We made it hard on ourselves by not adjusting to the pass rush calling plays with routes that take time to develop.

It's not just about throwing the ball deep to open up the defense, you have to be smart enough to take advantage of what they are giving us, which we didn't...
they blitz a LB - there should have been a RB running a fade route out of the backfield,
they blitz a CB - fine we'll send a RB into the flat,
they blitz a safety - okay we'll run a post/fly.

We've got to take advantage of the defense and where they're weakest on each play, with the amount of blitzing that was done, we could have killed them with RB fades and passes to RBs coming out of backfield.

[Tandy]

(09-15-2010 07:49 PM)Peyton Wrote:  You know what's fascinating about the numbers? Look at his completion percentage when he was throwing to somebody besides Roddy or Tony.

11-14, with two of the incompletions being flat drops by Norwood.

So.....that is interesting.

It's even more interesting when you start breaking down how those other passes developed.

Weems - all but one was from shotgun - and all were no huddle.
Harry - One pass he was in the process of being hit - and was immediately as he released it - one was from a true fake handoff and he went around to throw it - one of the nicer plays really. I didn't make notes on the other one - so I'd have to review it again.

Most of them were from an audible as well.

[nobkowski]

(09-15-2010 07:49 PM)Peyton Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 06:59 PM)Tandy Wrote:  He targeted 8 receivers - but only hit 7 (Finn was a miss)

Of his 44 passes -
Roddy - attributed with 23 targeted passes - but 5 were throw aways - so really targeted 18 times (13 catches)
Tony - targeted 5 times (2 catches)
Finn - targeted 1 time (0 catches)
Harry - targeted 3 times (3 catches)
Snelling - targeted 1 time (1 catch)
Norwood - targeted 3 times (1 catch)
Turner - targeted 1 time (1 catch)
Peelle - targeted 2 times (2 catches)
Weems - targeted 4 times (4 catches)
+ the one throw away where he was originally called sacked - then it was reversed - no target named on that one.

You know what's fascinating about the numbers? Look at his completion percentage when he was throwing to somebody besides Roddy or Tony.

11-14, with two of the incompletions being flat drops by Norwood.

So.....that is interesting.

I agree on one of the passes to Norwood just being flat-out dropped. But it looked to me like Ryan hit him on the back shoulder pad instead of leading him with the other pass. Maybe I saw it wrong.

[raysnill1]

[/quote]

I agree on one of the passes to Norwood just being flat-out dropped. But it looked to me like Ryan hit him on the back shoulder pad instead of leading him with the other pass. Maybe I saw it wrong.
[/quote]

yeah it hit Norwood on the numbers but he was turning back instead of running forward so while it was a good pass, it was a very difficult catch to make

[papachaz]

(09-15-2010 04:34 PM)raysnill1 Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 04:20 PM)Radical Wrote:  1. How are we not doing that? Examples? What are we doing that isn't playing to our strengths? What should we be doing specifically?

2. Same thing you said in the other thread regarding using heavy sided sets and Tony/White on one side of the field. Those are basic offensive concepts that are fundamental to football. You cannot compare that to the Wildcat, which is a novelty play that is based more off catching the other team off guard than a fundamental offensive concept.

3. For Ryan to drop back and air it out, he's going to need some good pass protection and other WRs who can go down field besides Roddy White. Jenkins isn't a deep threat and our offensive line is NOT an upper tier pass blocking unit, especially against the Steelers front 7.

4. Once again, you're simply getting whatever suits your views out of that quote by Gonzo. Hardly a conclusion at all.

1. we have Ovie who is good at picking up blitzes who could be used in pass protections, then slip out to become a screen pass option. we have Norwood who has good hands who would be a nightmare trying to matchup as a screen pass option. spread out our formations and allow our linemen one on one blocking opportunities so they an get a better push for running plays.

3. being predictable takes a few options away BEFORE the ball is snapped. remember against the saints when Vilma took Roddy out & they got a pick 6 before halftime, our offense is still like that. actually I'm impressed that our offense is able to pull off a lot of the stuff we do because we are that predictable. we have a lot of talent & speed at our disposal, they're just being wasted on come back & out routes that barely get YAC.

ok i'm co-signing this. esp the bold. I think it's the "predictable", why? take that play from the NO game, compare it to the Troy INT sunday. how many times can you expect to do something before someone of troys caliber gets the timing and jumps it? that fact that we have been able to do so much proves our talent in MOST areas.

Given, no player can play a perfect game. give me a single game where Manning, Brady, Brees, heck Montana or ANYONE can say they did not do ONE SINGLE THING the whole game they wish they could change. I doubt you could. so with that in mind, no one is going to have a perfectly executed game. Didn't Roddy say just this week "we're making it harder on ourselves"?? I wish I knew exactly what he meant by that! I can only speculate. Being predictable makes it harder on us? yep, it does.

Poor exection on the players? of course that factors in. No one is going to be perfect. Ok ok, Weems caught each ball that was thrown at him as did Douglas. Fewer chances means fewer chances to miff one. would either of them caught all 22 if they'd been given 22 chances? doubtful.

so I'm going with Coach Smith. my opinion of watching the interview AND reading the transcrip was that he was calling out EVERYBODY on the team, coaches AND players. I think in essence the answer is both, the playcalling AND the execution. everyone here has someone they think we should use more. For me, it's Norwood (screens) and Douglas down the middle, loved that play in chicago.

The biggest weakness I see is STILL the lack of pass protection

---

(09-15-2010 08:30 PM)Tandy Wrote:  

(09-15-2010 07:49 PM)Peyton Wrote:  You know what's fascinating about the numbers? Look at his completion percentage when he was throwing to somebody besides Roddy or Tony.

11-14, with two of the incompletions being flat drops by Norwood.

So.....that is interesting.

It's even more interesting when you start breaking down how those other passes developed.

Weems - all but one was from shotgun - and all were no huddle.
Harry - One pass he was in the process of being hit - and was immediately as he released it - one was from a true fake handoff and he went around to throw it - one of the nicer plays really. I didn't make notes on the other one - so I'd have to review it again.

Most of them were from an audible as well.

man i wish i could break things down like Tandy! great job ma'am

[BC Fan]

The one thing that jumps out at me is the Falcons run two basic offenses (base and no huddle) and then rarely vary the formations. There's motion, of course, Douglas at the slot, two tight end sets, but they're predominantly selling power run with the danger of the pass in the base offense.

What I'd like to see is some type of spread package for the base offense. Ryan took like 80 percent of his snaps at BC in OC Steve Logan's spread formations from shotgun. He's very effective when defenses have 4 receivers on routes to deal with, and then a back who stays home to block or cuts out in the flat.

I'm not talking about a complete change, but a wrinkle. The no huddle isn't really a wrinkle. It's just another package teams can prepare for at this point. But the base offense needs something to put defenses off balance when it's being defended well rather than just hoping execution will eventually break down the wall.

[Jesus]

Teams spend hours and days studying film on all of their opponents. They know what hey are going to run the moment they come to the line of scrimmage, usually. The defense will see an end around form but if the receiver is fast enough and the blocks are right they will spring one. The Colts are famous for being highly predictable on defense but still hard to stop. The 90's Cowboys ran the same plays over and over again sometimes out of different formations, similar to what the Saints did last year. You can confuse a team by changing up your style, like the falcons did in the 98 conf championship. Running team came out passing. In the end it comes down to success on the field which is dictated through execution.

[wordtobigbird]

Execution, execution. Every play is designed to work if executed properly. Even if the defense knows whats coming, execution can still make the play work. If a LB reads the run coming but gets blocked, well hes blocked and thats all that matters.

[Paulitik]

I'd say 60% Playcalling, 40% execution. We keep talking about the focus on Roddy and TG, but honestly, I don't see anybody else as open, or as able to catch in coverage. I think HD will get there, but is still a work in progress, and I'm not sure Weems will get the playtime at WR to get there.

We can call it playcalling, but I think it's mostly playbook. I don't think our route tree has more than a few pass plays. I'm not seeing screens, slants, or crossing routes used in our system. We need more plays in our quiver. It does us no good if they are not installed, and if they aren't in our packages, we can't execute them. I mean tell me if I'm wrong.

Mularkey is doing a huge disservice not only to his QB, but his young WRs.

I'm not saying that Matt doesn't share responsibility. I've just seen enough of his, Tony's, Roddy's. and the Burner's(and Norwood and Douglas to a lesser extent) ability to tell me what the common denominator is. There is no excuse that we shouldn't have put 14-20 on the Steelers, no matter how good their D is.

I'm not giving up on Matt Ryan, I am far more loyal to him than Mularkey. This is a common theme through Mularkey's career, and Ryan's resume has shown enough to have quite the following of NFL experts admiring him.