primetime said:
The playcalling that stuck out in my mind was the 2nd and 1 from the Jets 3 or 4 and they call a stretch play which loses a yard. Why not just pound it up the middle and get the first? Then on 3rd and 3 they line up in the gun with 4 wide, giving the Jets no illusions that they will be passing. Brady gets sacked by a 3 man rush (not McDaniels fault, but they never should have been in that spot in the first place, they should've just pounded Dillon up).
The second examples are on nearly every 3rd and medium play. Yes, on many, Brady overthrew or underthrew the intended receiver. But the receiver was almost always a good amount of yardage behind the first down marker anyways, and it was unlikely he would've gotten it. I can recall at least two examples of this (one an out to Watson, the other a hitch to Caldwell real early in the game), and I'm sure there were more. That's just bad playcalling, you don't call a play where the intended receiver does not go beyond the first down yardage.
I still can't say tht these calls are obviously wrong. Since when has running wide with a fast back not been reasonable. Also, I suspect the shotgun was to avoid backpedalling in the mud, because I also found it a little surprising. Then again, how many of you found the number of 5-wide sets surprising against Minnesota?
On the 3rd and medium, you are assuming that Brady is throwing to the "intended receiver" and that there is no plan for him to get a first.
It's interesting that the resident OC critic's mantra is "play action", but most people who are criticizing would have liked to see more running up the middle. I would have liked that too. But I also recognize that:
while there are good and bad calls, there is also good and bad execution;
that some plays are called to set up other plays, so there may be a context we do not see;
there may be schemes we do not see, and players who are having good games, and players who are having off games or temporarily out of the game; and
that there is a wide range of situations where there are many calls that are acceptable and that the decision is just a matter of taste or choice.
For those who share the views of Mr. NEM, I would suggest that if you did not like Weis for 4 years and have not liked McDaniel for 2 years, maybe you have a problem with whatever philosophy is being set from the top, i.e., BB. The problem for you is that you can't dump on the genius, so you need to blame the underling.
