This game could NOT have summed up the 'abandon the run' issue better.

[Lanky Livingston]

Well, we obviously disagree on the basic premise behind ball-control offense. They were able to dominate TOP because we weren't running more, not because we couldn't pass. We're essentially saying the same thing - but we kept trying to pass, instead of sticking with what worked.

Maybe El is articulating my point better than me - rather than try to get fancy in poor situations, we should just stick with the run. The stupid reverse to Hankerson is a prime example - WTF? Just run the ball straight ahead. Mike Shanahan won two superbowls doing just that.

 

[Henry]

Lanky, I don't think we are ever going to see a team that just crashes into the line play after play anymore. This isn't the 80s. No team does that. We run the ball more than pretty much any team in the league this year. Alfred Morris is second in the league in yards and fifth in attempts. What you want isn't going to happen. And that's not the reason we are losing.

Personally, I don't like the way the game has changed either. But it has, and that's not Shanahan's fault.

 

[Dead Money]

Meh. Kyle was obviously trying to set something up with the stupid reverse and a couple of other passing plays that didnt work. I watched ATL throw that stupid pass in the flat how many times yesterday saying that they were setting up big plays and they did. Sucked Gomes and others up to cover it and then went over his head not once but multiple times. (They threw the ball what 52 times?) They had time and plays to set up our defense for bigger plays. We could have run the ball more, but Kyle was late to the party, by the time he went run run run he was late they already started stacking the box. The gameplan for the day passing just never got off the ground. They didn't do enough to set anything up and floundered and honestly, didn't have the ball long enough to get the all-important rhythm we all here about.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I know, but we're having a chicken and egg argument. We didn't have the ball long enough to create a rhythm because we weren't running the ball, IMO.

 

[Goaldeje]

Look, I like to pound the rock as much as anybody. And I've had problems with Kyle's play calling many times, as well. But some of you have allowed your personal dislike for the guy to fog your friggin brains.

You're more interested in screaming how right you are, when you GUESS correctly.

I'm sure had the first two runs gotten stuffed, you be crying about how everybody knew we were gonna run, and therefore we should have passed.

Being wrong sometimes isn't anything to be ashamed of.
Being right sometimes is hardly worth bragging about.

Lanky and El are right. Ax, in chat, when Morris got stuffed a couple of times, El was very vocal about wanting Kyle to continue to run the ball. FWIW, he did not once whine about the play call being a run instead of a pass.

My problem with Kyle is that he thinks too damn much. He is trying to play chess out there, thinking one move ahead of his opponent, when his opponent generally knows Kyle likes to throw the ball. So opposing D's are gonna prep for that and defend the pass mostly. Instead of crushing them with the run until they adjust, Kyle wants to adjust his offense to what he anticipates the D will do, without seeing what they actually do. It's a problem. Atlanta was ranked near the bottom of the league in run D. Running the ball does so, so much for our own defense as well.

 

[McD5]

This is a passing league now. I felt like Gibbs2 was calling the plays yesterday.

We need to throw to score points.

 

[Ax]

Lanky and El are right. Ax, in chat, when Morris got stuffed a couple of times, El was very vocal about wanting Kyle to continue to run the ball. FWIW, he did not once whine about the play call being a run instead of a pass.

So what? Y'all make it sound like we can run at will, every time, and anytime we want. I'd imagine the touchdown pass to Moss should have been a run too. I mean, they knew we were gonna pass, right? We should have just run it in from there. Hell, we can do it from anywhere on the field. No one can stop us, ever. If any of you think you're that smart, do it for a living at the professional level. There are government run programs available to keep you from starving to death.

 

[Goaldeje]

So what? Y'all make it sound like we can run at will, every time, and anytime we want. I'd imagine the touchdown pass to Moss should have been a run too. I mean, they knew we were gonna pass, right? We should have just run it in from there. Hell, we can do it from anywhere on the field. No one can stop us, ever. If any of you think you're that smart, do it for a living at the professional level. There are government run programs available to keep you from starving to death.

Huh? The part you quoted was me responding to you saying those people who are crying for more runs would be the same people upset if Kyle called a run and it got stuffed, those people would then be calling for more passing. El is one of those people, and I was merely pointing out that exact scenario had happened during the game and El did not respond as you suggested.

As to your broader point, I don't think anyone is arguing that we run every down. Those of you saying that need to stop creating straw men. Of course there is a place for throwing the ball, and as McD points out, it is now a passing league. I just happen to think situationally, there are times to run the ball a lot. When our team is facing a D ranked near the bottom of the league in run D might be one of those times.

 

[tshile]

this is such a ridiculous excuse for analysis, yet it's used every single time we lose.

50% run plays 50% pass plays through 3 quarters, almost 100 rushing yards in the first half, and we got 3 points out of it. thats 1 point a quarter.

lanky wants us to stay on the 1 point per quarter router. that'll lead to lots of success.

 

[Elephant]

this is such a ridiculous excuse for analysis, yet it's used every single time we lose.

50% run plays 50% pass plays through 3 quarters, almost 100 rushing yards in the first half, and we got 3 points out of it. thats 1 point a quarter.

lanky wants us to stay on the 1 point per quarter router. that'll lead to lots of success.

You really are missing the point. We were leading the game at the end of the 3rd quarter, so it was working. Once again you are looking at a bottom line expecting to make a point that refutes the argument being made when that bottom line doesn't represent what was going on in the game from a strategic stand point.

At critical moments throughout the game, Kyle Shanahan abandons what has been working. When you have a lead against the best offense in the NFC having held them to only 7 points through 3 quarters because you are running the ball successfully, that is a success! When you churn off 2 straght first downs from solid rushes, that is a success. When you are consistently getting good chunks of yards from your RB against the one of the worst run defenses in the league, you keep running the ball! Against this Falcons squad, the run/pass attempts should have steered more toward 65% run v. 35% pass, especially with the success we were having!

When it is raining outside, you don't try to send a lanky, moderately fast WR on a reverse. You pound it between the tackles. That is abandoning the run in favor of a trick play. When your RB has just rushed for 2 successful first downs, you run him again until the run stops working, not a play action call that was transparent to an obsessed fan like me. That is abandoning the run!

Bottom line, since you want to extend this argument with Lanky for another week, is the questionable play calling at critical moments in the game. When something works, use it until it doesn't work! If you're RB is in a groove against a bad run defense, don't send a WR on a reverse in the cold wet rain! It's simple, but you want to play semantics and argue for the sake of argument.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

this is such a ridiculous excuse for analysis, yet it's used every single time we lose.

50% run plays 50% pass plays through 3 quarters, almost 100 rushing yards in the first half, and we got 3 points out of it. thats 1 point a quarter.

lanky wants us to stay on the 1 point per quarter router. that'll lead to lots of success.

Yeah, that's exactly what this thread is about. I want to score 1 point per quarter! Spot on, T!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

You really are missing the point. We were leading the game at the end of the 3rd quarter, so it was working. Once again you are looking at a bottom line expecting to make a point that refutes the argument being made when that bottom line doesn't represent what was going on in the game from a strategic stand point.

At critical moments throughout the game, Kyle Shanahan abandons what has been working. When you have a lead against the best offense in the NFC having held them to only 7 points through 3 quarters because you are running the ball successfully, that is a success! When you churn off 2 straght first downs from solid rushes, that is a success. When you are consistently getting good chunks of yards from your RB against the one of the worst run defenses in the league, you keep running the ball! Against this Falcons squad, the run/pass attempts should have steered more toward 65% run v. 35% pass, especially with the success we were having!

When it is raining outside, you don't try to send a lanky, moderately fast WR on a reverse. You pound it between the tackles. That is abandoning the run in favor of a trick play. When your RB has just rushed for 2 successful first downs, you run him again until the run stops working, not a play action call that was transparent to an obsessed fan like me. That is abandoning the run!

Bottom line, since you want to extend this argument with Lanky for another week, is the questionable play calling at critical moments in the game. When something works, use it until it doesn't work! If you're RB is in a groove against a bad run defense, don't send a WR on a reverse in the cold wet rain! It's simple, but you want to play semantics and argue for the sake of argument.

Yep...you can look at the game summary and make statements about runs vs. passes all you want, but it completely ignores 1) the flow of the game, and 2) the obvious results on the field drive-by-drive. Thanks for this post, El, articulates my point very well once again.

 

[Henry]

Good grief, you guys are making it sound like that reverse was the worst thing ever. We got two yards on that play. Not great but not some devastating drive-killer. Hell, the very next play we went back to Morris and got ... 1 yard. If Morris was working so amazingly well why didn't he just get 10 yards and keep the drive going? Or even 4 or 5 yards so that we didn't get ourselves into a 3rd and long? Was 2nd and 8 some obvious running down or something?

Maybe the reverse was a dumb call but it wasn't a back-breaker or anything. The team just didn't execute when it needed to on Sunday. We were playing a good team and they beat us. It happens.

 

[Elephant]

Good grief, you guys are making it sound like that reverse was the worst thing ever. We got two yards on that play. Not great but not some devastating drive-killer. Hell, the very next play we went back to Morris and got ... 1 yard. If Morris was working so amazingly well why didn't he just get 10 yards and keep the drive going? Or even 4 or 5 yards so that we didn't get ourselves into a 3rd and long? Was 2nd and 8 some obvious running down or something?

Maybe the reverse was a dumb call but it wasn't a back-breaker or anything. The team just didn't execute when it needed to on Sunday. We were playing a good team and they beat us. It happens.

And those 1 or 2 yard runs by your RB are fine Henry. It's part of the game. The point is that you don't call the reverse in the first place! keep your RB churning off those yards. He has a better chance of chewing off some yardage than a long legged WR who needs to be running vertical, not lateral. If you run the reverse, do it with someone faster and when the footing on the field is better...not a cold, rainy afternoon.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Good grief, you guys are making it sound like that reverse was the worst thing ever. We got two yards on that play. Not great but not some devastating drive-killer. Hell, the very next play we went back to Morris and got ... 1 yard. If Morris was working so amazingly well why didn't he just get 10 yards and keep the drive going? Or even 4 or 5 yards so that we didn't get ourselves into a 3rd and long? Was 2nd and 8 some obvious running down or something?

Its a wasted down, Henry. So instead of two cracks at the D, Morris just got one. The way Morris was running, it was going to be hard to limit him to 1 or 2 yards twice in a row very often - this is obviously speculation on my part, but its my opinion. Maybe on 2nd down he gets 5 yards, so they've got a 3rd & short. Some times you just have to stick with what works.

The team just didn't execute when it needed to on Sunday. We were playing a good team and they beat us. It happens.

I will agree with this, they did not execute. However its also more reason to adopt the KISS method against a superior team IMO.

 

[Ax]

I would rather have seen Robinson on the reverse.

And, had the reverse gone for big yardage, it would have been a "great call".

Armchair QB's call plays from their home, in a chair, for a reason.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I would rather have seen Robinson on the reverse.

And, had the reverse gone for big yardage, it would have been a "great call".

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

 

[Elephant]

I would rather have seen Robinson on the reverse.

And, had the reverse gone for big yardage, it would have been a "great call".

Armchair QB's call plays from their home, in a chair, for a reason.

I agree Ax, Aldrick would have been a far better choice in better weather conditions.

I remember Coach Gibbs calling a reverse against the Green Bay Packers the day ST intercepted Favre a few times. He ran Santana Moss on a reverse in the cold, rainy weather. It was a fumble and a TD return for Green Bay. Poor play call and they won the game. The reverse is not a good play call, it rarely works for big gains today because of the speed on the defenses in today's NFL. It was a poor play call, especially on a field with poor footing.

 

[Ax]

- this is obviously speculation on my part, but its my opinion.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Really?

No ****?

 

[tshile]

You really are missing the point. We were leading the game at the end of the 3rd quarter, so it was working. Once again you are looking at a bottom line expecting to make a point that refutes the argument being made when that bottom line doesn't represent what was going on in the game from a strategic stand point.

At critical moments throughout the game, Kyle Shanahan abandons what has been working. When you have a lead against the best offense in the NFC having held them to only 7 points through 3 quarters because you are running the ball successfully, that is a success! When you churn off 2 straght first downs from solid rushes, that is a success. When you are consistently getting good chunks of yards from your RB against the one of the worst run defenses in the league, you keep running the ball! Against this Falcons squad, the run/pass attempts should have steered more toward 65% run v. 35% pass, especially with the success we were having!

When it is raining outside, you don't try to send a lanky, moderately fast WR on a reverse. You pound it between the tackles. That is abandoning the run in favor of a trick play. When your RB has just rushed for 2 successful first downs, you run him again until the run stops working, not a play action call that was transparent to an obsessed fan like me. That is abandoning the run!

Bottom line, since you want to extend this argument with Lanky for another week, is the questionable play calling at critical moments in the game. When something works, use it until it doesn't work! If you're RB is in a groove against a bad run defense, don't send a WR on a reverse in the cold wet rain! It's simple, but you want to play semantics and argue for the sake of argument.

our offense scored 3 points.
if our defense didn't bail our offense out with a ridiculous play by Kerrigan we're losing going into the forth quarter 7-3.

it's not a bottom line look. it's being realistic about what happened through 3 quarters of the game.

it wasn't working. we were losing in terms of offensive points. if you're suggesting that 'what was working' is a ridiculous play on defense then fine, let me know how you can draw that up to happen more often. i'm sure the coaching staff would be interested as well.