Things missing

[John63]

Why is it not a good game plan? Honest question. It's not about what we want, it's about what works. And it worked, yet again.

okay again just because it worked does not mean it was a good game plan. I again thought they were missing elements that made us so unpredictable and difficult for defenses. Now since my original statement a few civil people have pointed out I might have missed a few things, and that the weather may have played into it. I said yeah could be makes sense. That said at the time I felt the quick passing attack was not used enough, they did not put Wilson on the move, and Wilson did not run much till the 2nd half. All things that have been key to the success we had on offense in the first 3 games. However, a few on here pointed out a few things that I had not thought of. So why I still think there were some missing pieces to the game plan, they may have had a reason and as you pointed out we did win.

 

[John63]

it is amazing to me how some people do nothing but attack no matter what, and others can actually have a decent conversation. My alternation is in proportion to how I am treated. I started this thread with no aggressiveness or anything point out my thoughts, and I got attacked, so I got aggressive. Then someone actually made a civil comment and I also went civil and even apologized. Maybe if somewhere were more civil things would be better. I rarely start it, but I will not back down either.,

John, I'd like to bring up an excerpt from your introductory post here early last year.

I don't tend to say things without something to back up what I say, so you will not get much well it does not pass the eye test stuff. Mainly that is because I don't feel that is fair as we don't know what the player sees, what was called, what others should have done etc. Now that is not to say if it is obvious that I will not remark on it, like a high pass, or drop, or fumble etc. I do not resort to name calling or putting others down and am likely to just foe anyone who does.

See that? That's a perfectly reasonable way of conducting yourself that would play well in this community. But that is not what you've been doing.

You've been constantly posting definitive statements about the team that aren't even remotely backed by any objective evidence - the exact thing you said you wouldn't be doing in your very first post here. Naturally, posters here will attack the substance of your post, but you seem to take this incredibly personally and then start your head-in-the-sand "YOU'RE WRONG" routine while repeating the same thing over and over.

Everything you post is eye test, and then you blindly post a link that is vaguely related to your point, referring to it as "definitive proof." Kind of like you said Ethan Pocic was bad because he played badly for a 22 snap stint at a different position according to PFF, for example. People called out the logic, and you got defensive.

Maybe just ask yourself why you're consistently the subject of critical responses? Doesn't really seem to happen to most of us here... maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's got to do with your conduct instead of the conduct of others? Food for thought. Sorry, no PFF links to back it up for you.

Anyway, in regards to your critique of the gameplan for not passing quickly enough, allow me to quote that introductory post again:

I don't feel that is fair as we don't know what the player sees, what was called, what others should have done etc.

Exactly! You don't really know the gameplan. What we can look at is how the passing attack was largely successful, yet again. I really don't see a need to switch to predominantly quick passes when there really isn't much of any weakness being exposed by our current scheme.

know I don't know the game plan, that is why I said I felt, not I know, or provide some fact. It was my opinion, one that the few civil people on here have made me rethink. Also, I did not say it was awful, sucked PC should get fired. I said "I did not a see a lot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today." See these are things I did not see, not I know, not a fact. And again since some here have pointed out some things I had not thought of. As to why am I the subject, that is a question, here another. Ask your self why some here feel the need to be un civil so much? ask yourself why it is a select few can do and say what they want and others cant. Ask yourself why it is you and other do the same stuff I do but its okay., ask yourself why the select few who were civil in this thread and I had no problem? Seems to be, well let me put in another way, Before telling me how to run my house, be sure yours is in order. If not clear let me say it another way, before you point fingers at me point them at your self. It takes 2, and I know a lot of people who some of you chased out of this forum for the same crap you like to do with me.

That aside how about civility. If your civil with me I am civil back, your a but tto me I am a butt back.

 

[Mad Dog]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Dude, any ROAD WIN in the NFL is a GOOD WIN. The Dolphins are not a bad team. Those Phins play hard and with heart. It was a mostly excellent game plan by the Hawks, as evidenced by the outcome. I am with you on them needing to do something to slow down the rush, whether rolling Russell out more, or using screens more. I may have missed a couple plays, but don't really recall any screens. The bubble-screen-ish thing to DK that he nearly scored on doesn't count as a screen.

I did not say it was not a good win, only there were things missing to me. I did not think our game plan was good.

Because things that you think may have worked against the Dolphins weren’t tried? That’s a lot of hubris. Maybe the people that do this for a living didn’t think what you wanted to see would work? Maybe the game plan was more than adequate but a few more execution issues arose this week. We easily could have had 45 points with one less pick and one fewer drop.

Game plan was fine. execution was a bit worse.

 

[John63]

I did not a see alot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today.

Dude, any ROAD WIN in the NFL is a GOOD WIN. The Dolphins are not a bad team. Those Phins play hard and with heart. It was a mostly excellent game plan by the Hawks, as evidenced by the outcome. I am with you on them needing to do something to slow down the rush, whether rolling Russell out more, or using screens more. I may have missed a couple plays, but don't really recall any screens. The bubble-screen-ish thing to DK that he nearly scored on doesn't count as a screen.

I did not say it was not a good win, only there were things missing to me. I did not think our game plan was good.

Because things that you think may have worked against the Dolphins weren’t tried? That’s a lot of hubris. Maybe the people that do this for a living didn’t think what you wanted to see would work? Maybe the game plan was more than adequate but a few more execution issues arose this week. We easily could have had 45 points with one less pick and one fewer drop.

Game plan was fine. execution was a bit worse.

really hubris or is it doing what a forum is for and stating my opinion. Also if me stating my opinion that the game plan was not that good, a thing I have since retracted, then I guess to say anything but positive is hubris since that would mean you know better than the players and coaches. Hmm So I bet if I look back in your posts you never questioned something they did, called or whatever, so I guess that was hubris. Of course questioning an NFL ref who has 10+ years experience would take hubris. Hmm seems to me we should close the forum since questioning anything about a player, coach or ref would take hubris.

Now that I got that point made, once again this is a forum I stated my opinion, and got mostly hostile uncivil replies, but the few who actually were civil made some great points, and as I just said a post or so ago perhaps the game plan was what it needed to be.

Not that it matters since we can't question anything because the show's hubris the site will just shot down now. :sarcasm_off:

 

[Maelstrom787]

it is amazing to me how some people do nothing but attack no matter what, and others can actually have a decent conversation. My alternation is in proportion to how I am treated. I started this thread with no aggressiveness or anything point out my thoughts, and I got attacked, so I got aggressive. Then someone actually made a civil comment and I also went civil and even apologized. Maybe if somewhere were more civil things would be better. I rarely start it, but I will not back down either.,

John, I'd like to bring up an excerpt from your introductory post here early last year.

I don't tend to say things without something to back up what I say, so you will not get much well it does not pass the eye test stuff. Mainly that is because I don't feel that is fair as we don't know what the player sees, what was called, what others should have done etc. Now that is not to say if it is obvious that I will not remark on it, like a high pass, or drop, or fumble etc. I do not resort to name calling or putting others down and am likely to just foe anyone who does.

See that? That's a perfectly reasonable way of conducting yourself that would play well in this community. But that is not what you've been doing.

You've been constantly posting definitive statements about the team that aren't even remotely backed by any objective evidence - the exact thing you said you wouldn't be doing in your very first post here. Naturally, posters here will attack the substance of your post, but you seem to take this incredibly personally and then start your head-in-the-sand "YOU'RE WRONG" routine while repeating the same thing over and over.

Everything you post is eye test, and then you blindly post a link that is vaguely related to your point, referring to it as "definitive proof." Kind of like you said Ethan Pocic was bad because he played badly for a 22 snap stint at a different position according to PFF, for example. People called out the logic, and you got defensive.

Maybe just ask yourself why you're consistently the subject of critical responses? Doesn't really seem to happen to most of us here... maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's got to do with your conduct instead of the conduct of others? Food for thought. Sorry, no PFF links to back it up for you.

Anyway, in regards to your critique of the gameplan for not passing quickly enough, allow me to quote that introductory post again:

I don't feel that is fair as we don't know what the player sees, what was called, what others should have done etc.

Exactly! You don't really know the gameplan. What we can look at is how the passing attack was largely successful, yet again. I really don't see a need to switch to predominantly quick passes when there really isn't much of any weakness being exposed by our current scheme.

know I don't know the game plan, that is why I said I felt, not I know, or provide some fact. It was my opinion, one that the few civil people on here have made me rethink. Also, I did not say it was awful, sucked PC should get fired. I said "I did not a see a lot of the short passing game. WILSON did not run much early. Very little roll outs. Don't understand any of it. Not a good game plan today." See these are things I did not see, not I know, not a fact. And again since some here have pointed out some things I had not thought of. As to why am I the subject, that is a question, here another. Ask your self why some here feel the need to be un civil so much? ask yourself why it is a select few can do and say what they want and others cant. Ask yourself why it is you and other do the same stuff I do but its okay., ask yourself why the select few who were civil in this thread and I had no problem? Seems to be, well let me put in another way, Before telling me how to run my house, be sure yours is in order. If not clear let me say it another way, before you point fingers at me point them at your self. It takes 2, and I know a lot of people who some of you chased out of this forum for the same crap you like to do with me.

That aside how about civility. If your civil with me I am civil back, your a but tto me I am a butt back.

Dude, the persecution complex is getting old.

It's a football forum with some pretty damned smart football minds who post here. If you're going to post strong, against-the-grain opinions, you should be able to back them up with some convincing data or logic. Otherwise, you can expect said opinion to be scrutinized. That does not constitute a personal attack.

As for this post, you made a STATEMENT that the gameplan was not good. You did not phrase it as an "I feel," you were making a statement, which was obviously scrutinized.

Before you point this around on me for "telling you how to run your house," please remember that you're the only one openly complaining about "your house" right now. Mine's fine, bub. I have no qualms with it.

If you'd like some honest advice, try putting some more effort into your posts. Proofreading, sourcing, etc. The reception you get will be much more positive.