I don't disagree with anything Tyler says here. He is talking not just about the players ability to recognize what the defense is doing, but the ability of the coaches and players to find a solution from the list of choices they have available. And no, Pete isn't involved in that process directly but as the person who employs Russ, Waldron, and Dickerson then he is responsible for their efforts.
Many here do not seem to understand how much work goes into developing and practicing specific plays. There are a ton of specific nuances for each one that are hammered through with repetition. By the time it gets to game day, they aren't just drawing up new plays in the dirt like a Disney movie, they are looking at a list of 30 or so of their favorite plays that they practiced over and over and determining which would take best advantage of whatever wrinkles they are seeing.
I'm also going to keep mentioning that this is a new scheme under limited practice rules. Nobody should expect anywhere near 100% effectiveness yet. It would be nice if we were at 75% effectiveness, and when it looks like we are at 0% effectiveness that is a major problem that casts legitimate doubt on the whole endeavor. But it is a valid excuse, and excuses are explanations.
Another factor to keep in mind with play calling is that there is a factor of luck involved. It's akin to a game of rock-paper-scissors where there is a sizeable element of guesswork. A good play can look stupid if the defense guesses right, and a bad play can look great if the defense guesses wrong.
A good example of this is when you see the DB start off in press coverage, back off right before the snap, and then Russ looks immediately hesitant. That's because his first option was probably a shot to that receiver but now he doesn't want to throw it against off coverage. On the other hand, if we had a little quick out dialed up then it suddenly looks great and picks up 10 yards, with the only difference being pure guesswork from the defender immediately before the snap.
Many here do not seem to understand how much work goes into developing and practicing specific plays. There are a ton of specific nuances for each one that are hammered through with repetition. By the time it gets to game day, they aren't just drawing up new plays in the dirt like a Disney movie, they are looking at a list of 30 or so of their favorite plays that they practiced over and over and determining which would take best advantage of whatever wrinkles they are seeing.
I'm also going to keep mentioning that this is a new scheme under limited practice rules. Nobody should expect anywhere near 100% effectiveness yet. It would be nice if we were at 75% effectiveness, and when it looks like we are at 0% effectiveness that is a major problem that casts legitimate doubt on the whole endeavor. But it is a valid excuse, and excuses are explanations.
Another factor to keep in mind with play calling is that there is a factor of luck involved. It's akin to a game of rock-paper-scissors where there is a sizeable element of guesswork. A good play can look stupid if the defense guesses right, and a bad play can look great if the defense guesses wrong.
A good example of this is when you see the DB start off in press coverage, back off right before the snap, and then Russ looks immediately hesitant. That's because his first option was probably a shot to that receiver but now he doesn't want to throw it against off coverage. On the other hand, if we had a little quick out dialed up then it suddenly looks great and picks up 10 yards, with the only difference being pure guesswork from the defender immediately before the snap.