Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sundays game... A question

Expand Messages
  • Tracy Goyette
    I m still learning about plays and strategies and was really curious if anyone has some thoughtful guesses as to why the Pat s didn t become more conservative
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm still learning about plays and strategies and was really curious if anyone has some thoughtful guesses as to why the Pat's didn't become more conservative and try to run the ball more as they saw how much difficulty there was with passing / receiving in the 3rd quarter?  It seemed like for the most part the runs were doing ok, albeit perhaps just not enough yardage.  
       
       
      Tracy
    • RandyZ. Pierce
      To answer Tracy s question a little: Pittsburgh is notoriously tough to run against and Kevin Faulk is not a power runner so his style is better when teams are
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To answer Tracy's question a little: Pittsburgh is notoriously tough to run
        against and Kevin Faulk is not a power runner so his style is better when
        teams are expecting us to pass and he breaks up a delayed hand-off or draw
        play. We had experienced some success in the first half and in fact the 80
        yards we gashed them for in the first half was well more than their 65 yards
        rushing per game average they normally allow. The fact is we were also
        having success passing despite the drops and Matt being off his game a bit.
        Ultimately once we were in the hole the need to pass ramps up and makes it
        harder and harder to run since that uses more game clock. In the third
        quarter however, there was still time.

        In fact one play sticks in my craw as a particularly tough call. First
        drive of the third quarter and while mostly by penalty, we had moved to the
        Steeler 31 yard line which is virtually a field goal range. It was second
        and one and I thought for certain we'd run for the first down and get the
        yardage to better the field goal odd at the same time. Cassel dropped to
        pass and Casey Hampton levelled Dan Koppen on his way into Cassel. Tha tput
        us out of field goal range and made it third and long. I thought it a
        particularly bad call - especially given our woeful third down conversions
        in this game. At that point we still had the momentum but it shifted on
        that play as much as it did when we had the final ugly set of attempts to
        end the first half.

        After that play Pittsburgh had a 14 play drive for a field goal...then
        Slater...then Harrison's strip sack...you get the picture...it got ugly
        quick as Pittsburgh scored 16 unanswerred points and ate much of the third
        quarter.

        Typically you can expect three possessions every quarter which flexes up or
        down based on how long (or short) each drive proves. Down 16 points is two
        TDs with a pair of two point conversions...or two touchdowns and a field
        goal for the lead...by passing they were playing for the latter until it
        wasn't an option.

        Converting to all Seahawks now...

        Go Pats!
        Zip


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Tracy Goyette
        I'm still learning about plays and strategies and was really curious if
        anyone has some thoughtful guesses as to why the Pat's didn't become more
        conservative and try to run the ball more as they saw how much difficulty
        there was with passing / receiving in the 3rd quarter? It seemed like for
        the most part the runs were doing ok, albeit perhaps just not enough
        yardage.
      • George
        ***** As far as I m concerned, it goes into the books as another game planning, play calling gem by our Whiz Kid OC, Josh McDaniel. As we all know, this was
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          ***** As far as I'm concerned, it goes into the books as another game planning, play calling "gem" by our Whiz Kid OC, Josh McDaniel. As we all know, this was certainly a "team loss" than can't be blamed on any single player or coach. There were enough mistakes to go around. But McDaniel most certainly deserves his share for yet another poorly called game.
           
          ***** As I said earlier, I will not be at all sorry if BB has to replace him next year. If so, I hope he will select a more experienced, successful coach for this critical position.
           

          George

           

           
           


          From: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com [mailto:patriotzip@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of RandyZ. Pierce
          Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:00 AM
          To: patriotzip@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Sundays game... A question

          To answer Tracy's question a little: Pittsburgh is notoriously tough to run
          against and Kevin Faulk is not a power runner so his style is better when
          teams are expecting us to pass and he breaks up a delayed hand-off or draw
          play. We had experienced some success in the first half and in fact the 80
          yards we gashed them for in the first half was well more than their 65 yards
          rushing per game average they normally allow. The fact is we were also
          having success passing despite the drops and Matt being off his game a bit.
          Ultimately once we were in the hole the need to pass ramps up and makes it
          harder and harder to run since that uses more game clock. In the third
          quarter however, there was still time.

          In fact one play sticks in my craw as a particularly tough call. First
          drive of the third quarter and while mostly by penalty, we had moved to the
          Steeler 31 yard line which is virtually a field goal range. It was second
          and one and I thought for certain we'd run for the first down and get the
          yardage to better the field goal odd at the same time. Cassel dropped to
          pass and Casey Hampton levelled Dan Koppen on his way into Cassel. Tha tput
          us out of field goal range and made it third and long. I thought it a
          particularly bad call - especially given our woeful third down conversions
          in this game. At that point we still had the momentum but it shifted on
          that play as much as it did when we had the final ugly set of attempts to
          end the first half.

          After that play Pittsburgh had a 14 play drive for a field goal...then
          Slater...then Harrison's strip sack...you get the picture...it got ugly
          quick as Pittsburgh scored 16 unanswerred points and ate much of the third
          quarter.

          Typically you can expect three possessions every quarter which flexes up or
          down based on how long (or short) each drive proves. Down 16 points is two
          TDs with a pair of two point conversions. ..or two touchdowns and a field
          goal for the lead...by passing they were playing for the latter until it
          wasn't an option.

          Converting to all Seahawks now...

          Go Pats!
          Zip

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Tracy Goyette
          I'm still learning about plays and strategies and was really curious if
          anyone has some thoughtful guesses as to why the Pat's didn't become more
          conservative and try to run the ball more as they saw how much difficulty
          there was with passing / receiving in the 3rd quarter? It seemed like for
          the most part the runs were doing ok, albeit perhaps just not enough
          yardage.

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.