Dear Mr Caldwell, why did you run on 10/12 first downs in the first half

[Haloti92]

Guys we are going to the Super Bowl!!!

Yes, but if some us don't invent something to bitch about (even if half-heartedly), we may jinx things around here. The current mix of irrational complaining and vociferous defending of everything the team does has served us well up until this point. ;)

[Paintballguy]

Yes, but if some us don't invent something to bitch about (even if half-heartedly), we may jinx things around here. The current mix of irrational complaining and vociferous defending of everything the team does has served us well up until this point. ;)

Touche :)

[pslholder96]

Dear Mr Caldwell, congratulations on taking the permanent job of OC next year...as announced by Harbaugh during his 4pm press conference earlier

[StingerNLG]

Stop with the Pitta drop nonsense. Full sprint, full horizontal lay out attempt to catch a lobbed ball into a sideways wind that barely hits one of your hands is by no reasonable measure a "drop." The only thing that can be criticized on that play is the throw, and I wouldn't even really do that considering the circumstances and weather.

It was a drop. I don't understand why it's a big deal here. It was in his hands and he didn't reel it in. Brandon Lloyd dropped one too. And the point wasn't to bash Pitta. Just pointing out it was a pass that if completed would have been a big gain. That might have changed the entire playcalling scenario for the rest of that drive, we don't know.

Oh, and stop with the condescending "Stop the Pitta drop nonsense". I don't know how many times I've asked people to be respectful of other people's opinions.

The problem with the argument that we were playing it safe due to field position, etc, is that 2 short runs equals a 3rd and long, and passing on 3rd and long when the other team knows you are passing and where you need time to get the required depth of routes is exactly the kind of play where you see more turnovers.

No need to beat a dead horse, but our first down runs were not effective in the first 5 drives (obviously, as half of them were for 2 yards or less, and a quarter of them were for 3 yards exactly), and other than possibly tiring out Wilfork at the expense of moving the chains (which we also did not do very regularly with the exception of a single drive in our first 5 drives), I don't see any benefit to calling them versus short passes or a good mix (like we called starting with our 2nd drive of the 2nd half).

Except they weren't thinking 3rd and long? Last week they were getting 3-4 yards a carry in the second half and getting into 3rd and short. While I'm sure they weren't looking to air it out from jump, I doubt they expected 3rd and 8 every series.

And as for playing not to get blown out, i.e. playing it safe, that to me is precisely the problem. We could have easily gone into half down 10 (if the Pats didn't fubar their clock management). I don't think greatly increasing your odds of going into the half down 10 is warranted just to avoid a very small chance you might go into half down, what, 17? 20?[/quote]

And my point is that if the wind does catch hold of a pass wrong, or if Taqib jumps a short route and takes the ball to the endzone, we're looking at a different game.

It isn't a huge deal, but it is still a lesser version (to Cameron's full blown version) of 'play it safe,' which imo indicates a lack of confidence in your offense, or specifically your QB. Which imo is not necessitated by any evidence and could end up being costly (though like most 'safe' coaching choices, the costs are hard to spot).

Well, I would agree with that if they didn't "unleash the Flakken" in the second half of the game. If they had no confidence in Joe, they wouldn't have put the ball in his hands. I think this was more of a gameplan to the conditions in the first half. If Rice breaks off big runs in the first half and we're at the 40-45 yard line, then I think you see them mix in more 1st down throws. Again, I believe Caldwell was playing the situation and the hand that was dealt.

[Haloti92]

It was a drop. I don't understand why it's a big deal here. It was in his hands and he didn't reel it in. Brandon Lloyd dropped one too. And the point wasn't to bash Pitta. Just pointing out it was a pass that if completed would have been a big gain. That might have changed the entire playcalling scenario for the rest of that drive, we don't know.

It wasn't a drop. And I don't understand why it is a big deal either. It wasn't "in his hands" and he didn't "drop" it. No matter how many times you state it, it will never ever become true. A "drop" is not defined simply as a ball that can be caught more than 0% of the time. I am not sure why so many keep pretending that this is the definition, though in most cases it is to defend the QB. It is however a plain fact that the throw was a bad throw. On that there can be no debate. Simms stated the obvious, too much air under it, too long, too affected by the wind (due to the amount of air vs. on a line nature). Considering the weather and circumstances was it a really bad throw? No, but it was a bad throw. Yes, perhaps a freakish catch of a bad throw would have changed the playcalling, but I am not sure why that changes anything we are discussing. I am talking about what was called and why it was called considering the continued results (not great).

Except they weren't thinking 3rd and long? Last week they were getting 3-4 yards a carry in the second half and getting into 3rd and short. While I'm sure they weren't looking to air it out from jump, I doubt they expected 3rd and 8 every series.

Well, it shouldn't take 30+ minutes to notice your 1st down runs aren't getting the job done. Pretending that the next one is going to be the start of different results, over and over, is exactly the problem, not a valid reason as to why the strategy was reasonable.

And my point is that if the wind does catch hold of a pass wrong, or if Taqib jumps a short route and takes the ball to the endzone, we're looking at a different game.

Yes, and that was the point I addressed.

Well, I would agree with that if they didn't "unleash the Flakken" in the second half of the game. If they had no confidence in Joe, they wouldn't have put the ball in his hands. I think this was more of a gameplan to the conditions in the first half. If Rice breaks off big runs in the first half and we're at the 40-45 yard line, then I think you see them mix in more 1st down throws. Again, I believe Caldwell was playing the situation and the hand that was dealt.

I don't see any "situation" that needed to be dealt with other than the game started. And I don't see any "hand" that was dealt other than the game started. It isn't a matter of never putting the ball in his hands or eventually putting the ball in his hands when we talk about trust. It is a matter of when you put the ball in his hands. And when putting the ball in his hands consistently leads to points, and when not putting the ball in his hands does not, then when you wait to put the ball in his hands until you are forced to, it means there is less than 100% trust. And for me, it doesn't really make any sense. And again, I am not talking about throwing every down, I am talking about throwing on more 1st downs (i.e. non-throwing downs) to keep the opposition off balance and move the chains. It can be attempted from the opening whistle (obviously), and I am not convinced it shouldn't be.

[Paintballguy]

Guys read this article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/sp...=tw-share&_r=0

[bacchys]

I don't see any "situation" that needed to be dealt with other than the game started. And I don't see any "hand" that was dealt other than the game started. It isn't a matter of never putting the ball in his hands or eventually putting the ball in his hands when we talk about trust. It is a matter of when you put the ball in his hands. And when putting the ball in his hands consistently leads to points, and when not putting the ball in his hands does not, then when you wait to put the ball in his hands only when you are forced to, it means there is less than 100% trust. And for me, it doesn't really make any sense. And again, I am not talking about throwing every down, I am talking about throwing on more 1st downs (i.e. non-throwing downs) to keep the opposition off balance and move the chains. It can be done from the opening whistle (obviously), and I am not convinced it shouldn't be.

The "situation" was having an average starting position inside your own 15 yard line for the first half.

[StingerNLG]

It wasn't a drop. And I don't understand why it is a big deal either. It wasn't "in his hands" and he didn't "drop" it.

It was and he did.

No matter how many times you state it, it will never ever become true.

I see. Yet you are the authority here on what constitutes a dropped pass. So you state that it's not a dropped pass, and it's true. Is that where we are here?

A "drop" is not defined simply as a ball that can be caught more than 0% of the time. I am not sure why so many keep pretending that this is the definition, though in most cases it is to defend the QB.

Can you send me the link to this definition please? Because most of the time the definition is "if it hits your hands, you should catch it.

Whatever. I was trying to make a wholly different point, which apparently included something that offended you enough to try to derail the conversation.

Well, it shouldn't take 30 minutes to notice your 1st down runs aren't getting the job done. Pretending that the next one is going to be the start of different results, over and over, is exactly the problem, not a valid reason as to why the strategy was reasonable.

Apparently the offensive coordinator who has turned the offense into an explosive one disagrees with you here.

I don't see any "situation" that needed to be dealt with other than the game started. And I don't see any "hand" that was dealt other than the game started. It isn't a matter of never putting the ball in his hands or eventually putting the ball in his hands when we talk about trust. It is a matter of when you put the ball in his hands. And when putting the ball in his hands consistently leads to points, and when not putting the ball in his hands does not, then when you wait to put the ball in his hands only when you are forced to, it means there is less than 100% trust.

Wow, ok. I don't even have an answer for that. Considering what they had Flacco do in Denver, to tell me there was less than 100% trust here doesn't jive. So there is nothing more that can be added to our conversation.


Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

[Haloti92]

The "situation" was having an average starting position inside your own 15 yard line for the first half.

And? You need to move the chains there, or the team fields punts at near midfield (which is what happened). And like I said, we weren't running into the line on the 3rd and 7s, we were attempting to pass. It is precisely 3rd and 6+ plays, when the defense can pin their ears back and can play pass 100%, where you are more likely to get a strip sack or INT. Any decrease of these turnover chances on 1st down, to me, are negated by the increase of chances in 3rd and longish.

We also started our 2nd drive of the 2nd half from our own 13 yard line with a medium throw to Doss that netted a 15-yard PI. Then followed it up with another 1st and 10 attempt to Doss that went incompete followed by a 22 yard completion to Pitta. So suddenly with 10:03 left in the 3rd quarter, down by 6 points, we don't care about starting at the 13? Apparently. At that point we were fully trying to score (thankfully).

Look, all I am saying is that I think more of the drives in the first half could have looked like the 2nd drive of the 2nd half. I don't see such drives as significantly more risky, and they seem to be significantly more effective.

Obviously the game went well, but imagine a situation where the defense does not shut out the Pats and they score 17 second half points (vs turning it over 3 times) to go along with their 13 (and could have been 17) first half points. Suddenly we are scoring at will but are still possibly liable to come up a bit short.

[bacchys]

And? You need to move the chains there, or the team fields punts at near midfield (which is what happened). And like I said, we weren't running into the line on the 3rd and 7s, we were attempting to pass. It is precisely 3rd and 6+ plays, when the defense can pin their ears back and can play pass 100%, where you are more likely to get a strip sack or INT. Any decrease of these turnover chances on 1st down, to me, are negated by the increase of chances in 3rd and longish.

We also started our 2nd drive of the 2nd half from our own 13 yard line with a medium throw to Doss that netted a 15-yard PI. Then followed it up with another 1st and 10 attempt to Doss that went incompete followed by a 22 yard completion to Pitta. So suddenly with 10:03 left in the 3rd quarter, down by 6 points, we don't care about starting at the 13? Apparently. At that point we were fully trying to score (thankfully).

Look, all I am saying is that I think more of the drives in the first half could have looked like the 2nd drive of the 2nd half. I don't see such drives as significantly more risky, and they seem to be significantly more effective.

Obviously the game went well, but imagine a situation where the defense does not shut out the Pats and they score 17 second half points (vs turning it over 3 times) to go along with their 13 (and could have been 17) first half points. Suddenly we are scoring at will but are still possibly liable to come up a bit short.

3rd and 6 isn't a terrible down and distance. The defense can't just pin their ears back and rush the passer. Shorter routes and slants have a higher chance of making a first down than they do in 3rd and 8 or more.

The Ravens were getting positive yards with their run game in the first half, and I don't doubt those runs helped take the legs out of the Pat's d-line to some degree in the second half. Wilfork didn't have anything even close to the impact he had last year. Letting Birk, KO, and Yanda attack him more than letting him attack them likely had an effect, imo.

Sure, I'd like to have seen more playaction on first and second down, but the downside of passing on first down if you don't get anything is you probably have to pass on second and third, too.

I also would have liked to see more plays attacking the edges, especially since the Pats linebackers are big guys not known for their speed. But I don't have any strong criticism of the playcalling. I don't mind pounding the ball early in a game. Run-run-pass-punt is better than pass-pass-pass-punt. If you aren't going to get a first down, I'd rather have let the o-line be the aggressors.

[Haloti92]

3rd and 6 isn't a terrible down and distance. The defense can't just pin their ears back and rush the passer. Shorter routes and slants have a higher chance of making a first down than they do in 3rd and 8 or more.

The Ravens were getting positive yards with their run game in the first half, and I don't doubt those runs helped take the legs out of the Pat's d-line to some degree in the second half. Wilfork didn't have anything even close to the impact he had last year. Letting Birk, KO, and Yanda attack him more than letting him attack them likely had an effect, imo.

Sure, I'd like to have seen more playaction on first and second down, but the downside of passing on first down if you don't get anything is you probably have to pass on second and third, too.

I also would have liked to see more plays attacking the edges, especially since the Pats linebackers are big guys not known for their speed. But I don't have any strong criticism of the playcalling. I don't mind pounding the ball early in a game. Run-run-pass-punt is better than pass-pass-pass-punt. If you aren't going to get a first down, I'd rather have let the o-line be the aggressors.

Fair enough. I just don't like seeing 7 points in an entire half (plus one drive) based off virtually identical playcalling patterns, then 21 points in three drives once we start mixing it up and 'cutting Joe loose' as Harbaugh said. It makes me think that this kind of success could be had sooner than the third quarter, and the main reason it is not is because we are 'afraid' of something (and playing it 'safe').

I would prefer we play like the goal is to go into halftime up by 14 points in every game we play, even if this goal is hard to achieve.

[PerpetuallyBored74]

Fair enough. I just don't like seeing 7 points in an entire half (plus one drive) based off virtually identical playcalling patterns, then 21 points in three drives once we start mixing it up and 'cutting Joe loose' as Harbaugh said. It makes me think that this kind of success could be had sooner than the third quarter, and the main reason it is not is because we are 'afraid' of something (and playing it 'safe').

I would prefer we play like the goal is to go into halftime up by 14 points in every game we play, even if this goal is hard to achieve.

:word

I see no reason why in that "1st down run it up the gut" sequence we couldn't have run a stretch play or an off tackle to the left (KO is a good run blocker and McKinnie will seal the edge, he just doesn't do much at the 2nd level) and I think we could've gotten something off play action, after say the 4th time we'd run it on 1st down. Maybe we wouldn't have scored anyway or had to settle for a FG, but at least we wouldn't have given the Pats such decent field position and given our defense more of a breather by extending those early drives.

I'm just not a believer in being too predictable unless you are physically dominating your opponent so even though they know exactly what you're trying to do, it's still working because they just can't stop it.