I think that is completely reasonable and fair, no question. I don't know Bill O'Brien from a hole in the wall, and have no knowledge on the inner workings of the Patriots whatsoever. If I did I sure as hell wouldn't be posting on the internet. I was simply calling things as I saw them, my speculative opinion.
I felt that it was presented as more than observation, which obviously influenced my response.
If you had said at the start that from where you sit it seems........
My reaction would have been very different.
Perhaps that is my fault for assuming too much, perhaps not.
I like to think that I'm pretty knowledgable about the game, and have a handle on gameplanning, adjustments, personell strategy, and a lot of the finer points of the chess match that are often times missed. If the podcasts I do can offer some degree of insight to some people then that makes me happy. If it's not a good fit for others, then I understand that completely.
I like to think that I have such insight as well, but I know that watching the game on TV, maybe rewatching 75% with focus on individuals and rewind, and posting here once in a while is very insufficient to have anything more that educated guesses that may or may not pass muster when studied properly. I am as guilty as any I imagine of seeing what I see and dismissing what a deeper look might reveal.
I said the things I did about O'Brien not as a character assasination, nor as a personal attack. When someone says "That linebacker is really hurting the team in the run game because he lacks the strength to disengage" it is regarded as a non-offensive statement. If I say "That coordinator is really hurting the team because he lacks the creativity to put his players in the best position possible" people get upset.
I have no issue with you evaluating the coordinator. What I took issue to was A) your statement that the 'good' game plan comes from the top, and the 'bad' adjustments are his, and then basing an entire evaluation on that being fact. B) Quesitoning his intellect is different than observing whether the LB disengages. I was not interested in defending OBs honor, but in the fact that its irrelevant and not 'analyzable' from the TV set. C) The other comments in that general area that followed. I guess my objection is you create an idea of how his mind works, then make that the problem. Thats not a football issue, thats an issue of decidng who to villify then connecting the fabricated dots.
I'm simply evaluating tallent just as you would a player. I know what creative gameplanning looks like, I understand cause and effect and the flow of a football game. What he displayed out there was quite clearly a lack of creativity and he got his butt whooped by Rex and their DC mentally.
Thats an opinion. I would say that a gameplan that results in the Jets abandoning the blitz, dropping 7-8 in coverage, clogging the middle and leaving Moss in single coverage with no help would be a smart one.
When we got that, we couldnt continue to do what we did that created it.
I think thats the biggest issue with the "Adjustment Beef". Of course we went away from what worked because the Jets changed their defense to specifically defend it. I could identify 3 execution issues, by players who were not put in a position to fail at all, that would have dramaitcally changed the success or failure of the second half.
When I say things like "The initial gameplan was great" and attribute it to Belichick, I am speaking in football generality. 99% of teams have the large picture gameplans drawn up by the headcoaches with specific coaching points included. It is on the OC/DC to draw up plays and handle the in-game adjustments. There is no way that BoB couldn't have known exactly how the Jets were going to counter the initial delegation; it's simple stuff, really. It is quite clear to me that when things got difficult he reverted to the line up and chuck predictible stuff.
Certainly game planning starts universally and is narrowed. I would agree that BB identifies an overall tenor for the game plan, and no doubt is involved in the crafting of it with the coordinator. But the coordinators (in our system because in a place like Dallas the HC never enters the room) handles the nuts and bolts. Also the level BB is involved, which we are purely speculating, in crafting the game plan logically figures to resemble his involvement in the adjustments. He isnt going to create a game plan then tell the coordinator to figure out how to adjust to the defense without him. This topic could go on for hours.
My issues are that its a self-fulfilling prophecy to blame the OC then back it up by assuming his role is heavy in whats bad and light in whats good, without really knowing that fact.
Sure, there were a lot of execution errors out there, specifically with Brady locking into Moss,
I did not see 'locking on'. I think that is a cursory analysis. If you watch the plays from the assumption that Brady has been coaches that when Moss is in single coverage with no help that is a huge advantage he should exploit, you will see that those were the instances when he threw.
I don't think the strategy is or should be that if you went to Moss X amout of times, avoid the mismatch.
It is safe to say that the overwhlming majority of teams consider man coverage on their #1 with no help a huge advantage and want their QB to exploit it.
My issue is that Moss didnt get the job done.
On the 2nd Int, the ball simply should have been caught and the attempt to be cute and catch it with 1 hand bit him in the @ss. Change that one play and the game, and play calling look different.
On the first Int, I am convinced (does not mean I have to be right but I am sure of what I am seeing) if Moss went after that ball like the TD, he easily beats Cromartie to it. When Cromartie starts to turn his hips they are about even, and Moss loses ground from there. Moss giving 100% does not lose ground going after the ball to any DB still turning his hips. Watch the last 15-20 yards of both routes, it doesnt look like the same guy.
Add in the poor throw to Gronk, and the strip sack on 1st and 10 in the red zone, and solid execution means at least as many points on the board in the second half as the first.
but the one thing that the coaches can always control is putting their players into the best positions possible. He didn't do that. He hasn't done that for a long time
See above. It is certainly debatable whether players are put in position to succeed and dont or were not put into position to succeed. Above shows examples where they were.
He doesn't understand how to counter a counter, and it is quite evident if you know how to watch a game for the coaching.
Again that is opinion. I think that getting your best WR into single coverage and taking a blitzing team out of their blitz packages is a great game plan. But here is the problem. The adjustment to that is to attack them with the outside receivers, is it not? Thats what he did. It was the right approach and it failed. That is poor execution.
See, that is how I see it. Frankly, we would both probably have a different opinion than we do if we studied the coaches film for 20 hours. For example, what did the other receivers do on those passes to Moss, and what were the coverages? You cant really decide if the play call or execution was the problem/succes of a play unless you see the enitre field to know if the play was the correct reaction to what the D did, was not, and if the players executed it correctly.
My questions to you would be:
-Do you disagree that the read has to be throw to Moss when he is one on one with no help (esp with no Revis)? That answer isnt as easy as it would have been a week ago because of the results, but BB, Brady, or OB didnt have retrospect to make that call with.
-Wouldn't you agree that if the problem is throwing the ball to Moss too much that is a Brady problem, not a coaching problem? Consider this. If I am the play caller and I call a play that has my QB think his top weapon is open, Ive done my job. If the QB misreads that he is open, that is not the OCs fault. See, there were actual comments on this board yesterday suggesting the play calls were "Long bomb to Moss".
-Given that the Jets adjusted to what was working for us to take it away, wouldnt you agree we had to go away from that, and that we did attack the areas of the pass defense that were weakest in their adjusted scheme, but did it unsuccessfully?
I'd really like to know your opinions on that. My beef is more with Brady FTW for making cryptic implication about your 'connectness'. I suppose that shouldn't matter to me. But I don't think its good for the general discussion for the assumption top be that you have access to more information in analyzing what you see than every one else does, and I think that was happening.
The first time you were on, I simply asked what you background was so that I could understand where your opinion was coming from and was basically told "He has a lot, shut up, and how dare you ask that question'.
This time I felt that your comments were being construed as an inside analysis, because you spoke as if you had first hand knowledge, and I think the perception of the board is that you do. (I could be wrong there too)
I recognize I can come off as abraisive when not intending to. In most cases, I don't care to explain that because the responses indicate I should have been more abraisive on purpose, but yours does not.
I think we disagree on this issue, but I think we can both agree there is a lot gray in between and neither of have the tools we would really want to have to analyze it more confidently.
Crumpler has been doing what has been asked of him in the blocking game and has contributed as a pass catcher, but not in a big way. The one area where I can fault O'Brien is his use of Gronkowski so far. You don't draft a 6'7" athletic freak, walking, talking, match-up disaster of a tight end to keep him back and block 85% of the time. When you have a weapon like him on offense, you let him run routes as much as you possibly can. With the size of the Jets' safeties out there, I cannot possibly fathom why Gronkowski wasn't used more than he was. However, with that said, the one time Gronkowski was used in the passing game, he was WIDE OPEN down the seam and Brady horribly underthrew him. Again, this is an issue with the personnel and execution. In this case, though, it was compounded by coaching failures.
