(12-05-2023, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2023, 06:07 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]That Ridley reverse at 7 minutes????
Why??
Just such a trash play call...
That Ridley reverse messed up the entire drive, and then 2 plays later Trevor Lawrence got injured.
Press Taylor should go back to Cincy and help his brother out. This offense doesn't need this type of trash.
Press Taylor is from Oklahoma, not Cincinnati. Never lived there, never coached there, how would he go "back?"
But more importantly - this is the 4th thread you've posted in (over the past hour) to further your current campaign against Press Taylor.
Please stop littering multiple threads with a repetitive off-topic agenda. Just start your own little "Press Taylor Suxs" thread and put it all there, please.
Thanks.
I mean I wasn’t a fan of some of the play calls, but this is getting a bit old.
If Calvin broke one of those reverses for a good gain (like he’s done in the past) it wouldn’t even be a question. Though at this point he’s just find some other negative play to complain about.
Trevor was on his way to his most efficient day and highest PR game of the season, play calling was fine
(12-05-2023, 06:07 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]That Ridley reverse at 7 minutes????
Why??
Just such a trash play call...
That Ridley reverse messed up the entire drive, and then 2 plays later Trevor Lawrence got injured.
Press Taylor should go back to Cincy and help his brother out. This offense doesn't need this type of trash.
We scored over 30 points. The defense is why we lost the game.
(12-05-2023, 10:01 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2023, 06:19 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Press Taylor is from Oklahoma, not Cincinnati. Never lived there, never coached there, how would he go "back?"
But more importantly - this is the 4th thread you've posted in (over the past hour) to further your current campaign against Press Taylor.
Please stop littering multiple threads with a repetitive off-topic agenda. Just start your own little "Press Taylor Suxs" thread and put it all there, please.
Thanks.
I mean I wasn’t a fan of some of the play calls, but this is getting a bit old.
If Calvin broke one of those reverses for a good gain (like he’s done in the past) it wouldn’t even be a question. Though at this point he’s just find some other negative play to complain about.
Trevor was on his way to his most efficient day and highest PR game of the season, play calling was fine
we ran that stupid play multiple times and it never worked. It's like betting on the Washington Generals because they gotta be due, man.
We ran it with Agnew, it sucked. Most every time we run it with Ridley, it sucks. Maybe we can give Parker a go, see if he can suck too.
(12-05-2023, 10:06 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2023, 06:07 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]That Ridley reverse at 7 minutes????
Why??
Just such a trash play call...
That Ridley reverse messed up the entire drive, and then 2 plays later Trevor Lawrence got injured.
Press Taylor should go back to Cincy and help his brother out. This offense doesn't need this type of trash.
We scored over 30 points. The defense is why we lost the game.
absolutely, but doesn't mean that crap play calls shouldn't be deleted from the play sheet.
(12-06-2023, 09:04 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2023, 10:01 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]I mean I wasn’t a fan of some of the play calls, but this is getting a bit old.
If Calvin broke one of those reverses for a good gain (like he’s done in the past) it wouldn’t even be a question. Though at this point he’s just find some other negative play to complain about.
Trevor was on his way to his most efficient day and highest PR game of the season, play calling was fine
we ran that stupid play multiple times and it never worked. It's like betting on the Washington Generals because they gotta be due, man.
We ran it with Agnew, it sucked. Most every time we run it with Ridley, it sucks. Maybe we can give Parker a go, see if he can suck too.
(12-05-2023, 10:06 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]We scored over 30 points. The defense is why we lost the game.
absolutely, but doesn't mean that crap play calls shouldn't be deleted from the play sheet.
Ridley has carries of 10, 11, and 18 on that play, so it does work sometimes.
(12-06-2023, 08:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2023, 09:04 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]we ran that stupid play multiple times and it never worked. It's like betting on the Washington Generals because they gotta be due, man.
We ran it with Agnew, it sucked. Most every time we run it with Ridley, it sucks. Maybe we can give Parker a go, see if he can suck too.
absolutely, but doesn't mean that crap play calls shouldn't be deleted from the play sheet.
Ridley has carries of 10, 11, and 18 on that play, so it does work sometimes.
sometimes isn't a good look when there were better options to call. In my opinion.
Of course, if the play worked I'm sure you would be all about it. But the play just didn't work, and more often than naught, these slow developing plays don't work when you have a suspect O-Line that can't protect... For example the 4th and Goal against the Texans at the end of the 1st half. There was no reason to run a play like that when it was easy to get Lawrence to QB sneak....
I mean, it's been established by all of the forum that the O-Line is not good. Why call a play that is slow developing and puts pressure on our O-Line to execute?
Just bad play calling... Yes the O-Line is bad too. But when one acknowledges that a weakness is apparent, one does not push forward upon said weakness.
(12-06-2023, 08:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2023, 09:04 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]we ran that stupid play multiple times and it never worked. It's like betting on the Washington Generals because they gotta be due, man.
We ran it with Agnew, it sucked. Most every time we run it with Ridley, it sucks. Maybe we can give Parker a go, see if he can suck too.
absolutely, but doesn't mean that crap play calls shouldn't be deleted from the play sheet.
Ridley has carries of 10, 11, and 18 on that play, so it does work sometimes.
against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
(12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2023, 08:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ridley has carries of 10, 11, and 18 on that play, so it does work sometimes.
against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
20% of the time it works everytime!
(12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2023, 08:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ridley has carries of 10, 11, and 18 on that play, so it does work sometimes.
against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
He has 8 total carries.
1 for 18
1 for 10
1 for 11
1 for 4
1 for -3
2 for 0
1 for -4
so 4 times he's been stopped for 0 or negative yardage, 1 time a short gain, 3 times a first down.
so 50% of the time it works, 50% of the time it doesn't. It's not a bad play.
(12-07-2023, 02:04 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
He has 8 total carries.
1 for 18
1 for 10
1 for 11
1 for 4
1 for -3
2 for 0
1 for -4
so 4 times he's been stopped for 0 or negative yardage, 1 time a short gain, 3 times a first down.
so 50% of the time it works, 50% of the time it doesn't. It's not a bad play.
Facts. It's a misdirection play predicated on overpursuit. As such it's good to run for bad blocking lines.
(12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (12-06-2023, 08:22 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Ridley has carries of 10, 11, and 18 on that play, so it does work sometimes.
against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
And he's actually better at it than Agnew.
(12-07-2023, 02:04 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
He has 8 total carries.
1 for 18
1 for 10
1 for 11
1 for 4
1 for -3
2 for 0
1 for -4
so 4 times he's been stopped for 0 or negative yardage, 1 time a short gain, 3 times a first down.
so 50% of the time it works, 50% of the time it doesn't. It's not a bad play.
Keeps the defense honest and potential for a big gain
(12-07-2023, 04:01 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2023, 02:04 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]He has 8 total carries.
1 for 18
1 for 10
1 for 11
1 for 4
1 for -3
2 for 0
1 for -4
so 4 times he's been stopped for 0 or negative yardage, 1 time a short gain, 3 times a first down.
so 50% of the time it works, 50% of the time it doesn't. It's not a bad play.
Facts. It's a misdirection play predicated on overpursuit. As such it's good to run for bad blocking lines.
(12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
And he's actually better at it than Agnew.
Agreed. The recency bias is showing here bc we ran it 3 times against Cincy and two were blown up. One went for 10 but it's overshadowed by the others that didn't work. For Agnew, the issue is EVERYONE knows if he's going in motion that's the play, or a screen to him. Ridley has the threat of running an actual route in the process so it works for him.
Ya'll sound like the Bubble Screens defenders back in the Mularkey era.
LOL.
Ridley was a high price WR because he was great at opening up the field... But we don't use him the same way Atlanta did...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYzNJZOtOeo
(12-07-2023, 05:10 PM)carp8dm Wrote: [ -> ]Ya'll sound like the Bubble Screens defenders back in the Mularkey era.
LOL.
Ridley was a high price WR because he was great at opening up the field... But we don't use him the same way Atlanta did...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYzNJZOtOeo
You really don't need to keep telling us you don't understand football, it's clear in your posts already.
(12-07-2023, 02:04 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2023, 11:35 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ]against how many losses/short gains?
I think 3 outta the bunch would qualify as "most every time"
He has 8 total carries.
1 for 18
1 for 10
1 for 11
1 for 4
1 for -3
2 for 0
1 for -4
so 4 times he's been stopped for 0 or negative yardage, 1 time a short gain, 3 times a first down.
so 50% of the time it works, 50% of the time it doesn't. It's not a bad play.
Agnew ran the same play 4 times, 0,-2,-1,1. So 3 of 12 (25%) first down; 1 of 12 (8%) 2nd and mid, 8 of 12 (67%) 2nd and long(er).
Interesting note: Every time we've run that play it was a first-down play call. Curious that we don't mix that up a little.
(12-08-2023, 10:10 AM)Mikey Wrote: [ -> ] (12-07-2023, 02:04 PM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ]He has 8 total carries.
1 for 18
1 for 10
1 for 11
1 for 4
1 for -3
2 for 0
1 for -4
so 4 times he's been stopped for 0 or negative yardage, 1 time a short gain, 3 times a first down.
so 50% of the time it works, 50% of the time it doesn't. It's not a bad play.
Agnew ran the same play 4 times, 0,-2,-1,1. So 3 of 12 (25%) first down; 1 of 12 (8%) 2nd and mid, 8 of 12 (67%) 2nd and long(er).
Interesting note: Every time we've run that play it was a first-down play call. Curious that we don't mix that up a little.
Probably due to the fact that we'd end up with 3rd and unmanageable most of the time if we ran it on 2nd down.