Random Commanders Thoughts

I say this with no specific QB in mind, but we underestimate how hard it is for a QB whose been on a team for years to switch to a brand new one. I mentioned awhile back that Brady struggled early in Tampa. Ryan is probably done, but it's no easy feat to learn a new offense, new players and coaches, new language and plays. It's not Madden.
 
Ryan was sacked 4 times that first half, and has 10 fumbles in 5 games. They feel our pain!!
 
Talk about maddening play calls. The Broncos just blew this game with some unbelievable play calls. 3rd down with less than 3 minutes left in FG range, they let Wilson throw and he throws an INT. The Colts drive for a late FG to send it to overtime. Then in OT, down 3 with 4th and 1 at the 5, they go for it. But instead of running the ball with either Gordon or Wilson, the lineup in shotgun and have Wilson drop back and pass. Of course it's an incompletion because anyone who watched the game knew they weren't completing a pass there. So it appears Scott Turner is not the only coordinator who makes dumb play calls at the most inopportune times.
 
Synchronicity.

FAEEF11D-3443-41F7-8A4F-8E5989F6A536.jpeg
 
Kel Varnsen said:
So it appears Scott Turner is not the only coordinator who makes dumb play calls at the most inopportune times.
Click to expand...
It turns out there are a lot of people who think Scott Turner has called excellent games this year and last. I finally found out the secret well of support he is getting, and I guess why. We all know that there are legions of stat-heads, and people who are sworn to the analytics that dictate what to do and when. I think we also know that Scott follows that. I just didn't know how much. I heard that the analytics are clear on:
- you CAN run play-action effectively without running the ball. In the last couple of days, I heard analytics guys cheer Scott's ability to break old norms and call for play-action without needing to run first.
- you CAN throw in situations that historically called for running. I think we have heard a lot of the analytics on this, about playing to win, win on offense, etc.
I don't remember all of the rest, but it's more of the same garbage. It takes no account into the defense you are playing, into the players you have nothing. It's pure statistical analysis. To me, it is a data point, but without context, I find it exceptionally weak. Further, if you are paying attention to an actual game, and you see your offense totaling less than 10-20 yards over 3 or 4 drives, and you see defenses keying on your tendencies, you have to change it up if you have any sense whatsoever.

Recently I heard some analytics guy saying that last year the players failed Scott; as an example, he said that when Gibson got "perfect blocking" (clear reference to some stupid stat) he got 4ypc, but meanwhile JTaylor on the Colts got more than double that with "perfect blocking." He said there were a lot of similar stats showing the players failed him. Then he said, the expectation was that Wentz would do better, but now it appears the players are failing him again.

You can't make this up! Turner is the problem, but to some of these pure stat analysts, because he follows the same thought-process, his consistent failure is allowed to be blamed all over the place except on himself. Ridiculous, and pathetic that it seems Rivera buys into this based on giving Turner that extension and not getting this situation fixed already.
 
In general, analytics has a role in all sports, but the best coaches have a feel for how the game is going and know when to buck the trends. More specifically, a play caller that follows the analytics becomes predictable. Calling plays is all about surprising the defense. If you are calling plays because statistically that’s the best play to run in that situation, than the other team knows that too.
 
Last edited:
I would add that if you have superior personnel or near-perfect execution, it doesn't matter if the other team knows what you are going to run.

Look at the Packers of the late 60s and the Redskins of the 80s. Much of the time the defense knew exactly who was getting the ball and where they were going but it really didn't matter.

This Commanders team is not in that category so calling a less predictable game is a requirement for success.
 
I'd like to recommend this be our alternate black helmet... Matte just like our 'full time' helmet

Black Alternate.png


or this one

Black Alternat 2.png
 
Last edited:
Boone said:
I say this with no specific QB in mind, but we underestimate how hard it is for a QB whose been on a team for years to switch to a brand new one. I mentioned awhile back that Brady struggled early in Tampa. Ryan is probably done, but it's no easy feat to learn a new offense, new players and coaches, new language and plays. It's not Madden.
Click to expand...

Ryan will ultimately have more success with the Colts than Wentz ever will with Washington, even though age has diminished Ryan. Ryan is a proven QB who would be a Super Bowl winner, if not for idiotic play-calling and an epic collapse in the second half of that game.

Wentz is a never-was.
 
Theismann To HOF said:
Ryan will ultimately have more success with the Colts than Wentz ever will with Washington, even though age has diminished Ryan. Ryan is a proven QB who would be a Super Bowl winner, if not for idiotic play-calling and an epic collapse in the second half of that game.

Wentz is a never-was.
Click to expand...

See - now that's where you lose credibility. Ryan has been GOD-AWFUL this year. 11 fumbles, missing throws even when he has protection, arm is gone. He's a very smart guy, and the reasons he has sucked probably have a lot to do with age, but also going to a new team (something that is always a factor but which you totally discount). I doubt you'd find many humans who'd say 'I'd rather have Matt Ryan than Carson Wentz' right now. He can't hold onto the ball, has thrown more INTs and fewer TDs than Wentz. He's been a disaster for an owner who thought he was an upgrade to Wentz.

But with Wentz, the struggles are only because he is the worst QB ever to suit up.
 
And I'm going to ask you to stop posting your Wentz diatribe/Heinicke love-fest posts in this thread, the game thread, and the Blind Pig thread. If you want to start your own thread on the topic, do it.
 
Boone said:
See - now that's where you lose credibility. Ryan has been GOD-AWFUL this year. 11 fumbles, missing throws even when he has protection, arm is gone. He's a very smart guy, and the reasons he has sucked probably have a lot to do with age, but also going to a new team (something that is always a factor but which you totally discount). I doubt you'd find many humans who'd say 'I'd rather have Matt Ryan than Carson Wentz' right now. He can't hold onto the ball, has thrown more INTs and fewer TDs than Wentz. He's been a disaster for an owner who thought he was an upgrade to Wentz.

But with Wentz, the struggles are only because he is the worst QB ever to suit up.
Click to expand...

How do I lose credibility? I didn't say Ryan will be successful. I said he will be more successful than Wentz.

Ryan actually knows how to play QB. Ryan understands the mental part of the game.

Wentz does not. Wentz is lacking both physically and mentally. His confidence is shattered and he stares down his receivers because he is a nervous wreck out there. Hence, that INT in the 4th quarter last week.
 
Theismann To HOF said:
Well, you'll get it by the end of the season when we are 3 - 14.

Or maybe not.
Click to expand...
I’m not going back and forth with if you if we sit at 3-14 at the end of the season trust me it’s not all on Wentz and further more tell me how many wins you think we would achieve with Heinike at Qb what’s the number
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 6, Members: 0, Guests: 6)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 116) Show all

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top