I spoke to John Fox today

[Jsteve01]

He asked me to let you guys know that he fully endorses our take on risk aversion and predictable play calling. Ringing endorsement.

[dogfish]

any word from dan reeves?

[Simple Jaded]

I talked to Marty Schottenhimer ....... he just kept babbling about the gleem.

[Northman]

I tried talking to Dick Vermeil but he was crying so much i couldnt understand a word he was saying.

[Simple Jaded]

I tried talking to Dick Vermeil but he was crying so much i couldnt understand a word he was saying.

Cowher kept spitting on me.

[sneakers]

I talked to Charlie Weiss and fell into orbit around his body mass

[Poet]

I love how John Fox was on tv and defended that third and five playcall. When asked if the 2-6 record mattered, he avoided it. When John Fox is agreeing with being passive, you know that you're ******* wrong. Scangs was wrong for calling that garbage, and Fangio was wrong for not overriding it.

Joe Flacco "It's not that hard to get a field goal."

Scangs - Liar!

[Jsteve01]

I didn't know they had Fox on defending it

[Davii]

I love how John Fox was on tv and defended that third and five playcall. When asked if the 2-6 record mattered, he avoided it. When John Fox is agreeing with being passive, you know that you're ******* wrong. Scangs was wrong for calling that garbage, and Fangio was wrong for not overriding it.

Joe Flacco "It's not that hard to get a field goal."

Scangs - Liar!

You really think every play call gets run through the HC? That Fangs has veto power over every play? There's 40 secs per play, there's no way.

He should take the heat for overarching strategy (too conservative as a whole) but offensive play calling is 1,000% on Scangarello.

Has Munchack ever called plays? Might be time to give him a go!

[dogfish]

Has Munchack ever called plays? Might be time to give him a go!

don't quote me, but off the top of my head i don't believe he has. . .

either way, i'm not a fan of the idea. . . he's got more than enough on his plate as it is. . . let the man do the thing he's great at. . . we desperately need that job done right-- and if it is, it makes the job so much easier for any OC and QB. . . even skanks' sorry ass would have to look better if he didn't have his OL killing drives left, right, and center. . .

[Poet]

You really think every play call gets run through the HC? That Fangs has veto power over every play? There's 40 secs per play, there's no way.

He should take the heat for overarching strategy (too conservative as a whole) but offensive play calling is 1,000% on Scangarello.

Has Munchack ever called plays? Might be time to give him a go!

So you don’t hunk the big play calls like that do? Coaches make big decisions like going for it. They also make the call to run out the clock ir be aggressive at the end of games. Do you really think the HC didn’t know they were going for a conservative play/running the ball? That he was sitting there not knowing what was going to happen?

[Davii]

So you don’t hunk the big play calls like that do? Coaches make big decisions like going for it. They also make the call to run out the clock ir be aggressive at the end of games. Do you really think the HC didn’t know they were going for a conservative play/running the ball? That he was sitting there not knowing what was going to happen?

As I said, he made an overreaching strategy call at some point. Did he know the specific play call on that specific play?

**** no he didn't. It was in line with his desire to play not to lose though so it doesn't matter, but your contention that he should've vetoed the call doesn't hold water l.

[Poet]

As I said, he made an overreaching strategy call at some point. Did he know the specific play call on that specific play?

**** no he didn't. It was in line with his desire to play not to lose though so it doesn't matter, but your contention that he should've vetoed the call doesn't hold water l.

Okay, maybe we're talking past one another.

It's my contention that Vic, the head coach, knew that the play on third and five was going to be a conservative run play. Because Vic as the HC is the one who manages the clock. He's the one calling the over arching game. If Scangs decided that hey, we're going conservative, Vic should have said, oh **** no we're not. If Scangs was told by Vic to call a conservative safe play, a run play for instance, Vic was in the wrong, and Scangs was in the wrong because surely there was a better running play than that.

There is no way in hell Vic Fangio could not have made it so we're taking an aggressive play on the fourth down. So maybe he doesn't call the exact play, either the running play, or the hypothetical better play, but it doesn't really matter. He's on the hook for that garbage, and so is Scangs.

When I say veto that play, I mean veto the idea of being conservative. No matter how you slice it, it lays at the feet of our vaunted coaching staff.

Who suck. Badly, at their jobs.

[elsid13]

You really think every play call gets run through the HC? That Fangs has veto power over every play? There's 40 secs per play, there's no way.

He should take the heat for overarching strategy (too conservative as a whole) but offensive play calling is 1,000% on Scangarello.

Has Munchack ever called plays? Might be time to give him a go!

The HC is on the headset has ability to intercept calls or tell them what he wants. He doesn't make he calls but he listening in.

[Davii]

Okay, maybe we're talking past one another.

It's my contention that Vic, the head coach, knew that the play on third and five was going to be a conservative run play. Because Vic as the HC is the one who manages the clock. He's the one calling the over arching game. If Scangs decided that hey, we're going conservative, Vic should have said, oh **** no we're not. If Scangs was told by Vic to call a conservative safe play, a run play for instance, Vic was in the wrong, and Scangs was in the wrong because surely there was a better running play than that.

There is no way in hell Vic Fangio could not have made it so we're taking an aggressive play on the fourth down. So maybe he doesn't call the exact play, either the running play, or the hypothetical better play, but it doesn't really matter. He's on the hook for that garbage, and so is Scangs.

When I say veto that play, I mean veto the idea of being conservative. No matter how you slice it, it lays at the feet of our vaunted coaching staff.

Who suck. Badly, at their jobs.

I think it falls more on Scangarello but I don't entirely disagree with you. We hired Vic to run the D and an "innovative mind" to run the offense.

We can be conservative and still TRY to pick up a first down. A 5.1yd pass on 3rd and 5 is conservative IMO.

Anyhow... our defense is MOSTLY doing what we expected they would, they're a top 5 unit even without Chubb or a CB not named Harris.

Our offense is hot disgusting trash no matter whether they're being conservative or pushing the gas.

I don't blame our defensive minded HC for the offense. I blame Scangs and the personnel.

[Poet]

I blame the call in the sense that even if we were going conservative, surely there had to be a better call.

I blame Vic because I think he's where the idea to go conservative came from.

If he wasn't then I especially blame him.

I'm just grumpy. I should have been clearer in my original post, and I apologize for that lack of clarity. I also think I misread one of your posts, and do apologize for that. As punishment, I am rewatching all of Garrett Bolles holds and whiffs.

[Davii]

I blame the call in the sense that even if we were going conservative, surely there had to be a better call.

I blame Vic because I think he's where the idea to go conservative came from.

If he wasn't then I especially blame him.

I'm just grumpy. I should have been clearer in my original post, and I apologize for that lack of clarity. I also think I misread one of your posts, and do apologize for that. As punishment, I am rewatching all of Garrett Bolles holds and whiffs.

So you blame Vic for the call while simultaneously saying that EVEN IF conservative a better call could've been made?

Vic says - be conservative, don't take any chances, I want to burn as much clock as possible.

Scangarello calls the plays based on that. You admitted that even with that intent there were better plays to call.

[Poet]

So you blame Vic for the call while simultaneously saying that EVEN IF conservative a better call could've been made?

Vic says - be conservative, don't take any chances, I want to burn as much clock as possible.

Scangarello calls the plays based on that. You admitted that even with that intent there were better plays to call.

I blame Vic for being conservative. I also think if you're going conservative, as Mo pointed out in another thread, you can call a better running play.

No matter how you slice it, Vic deserves blame because we went conservative. Scangs deserves blame because in no scenario does he come out looking okay.

[Poet]

Let's just start over.

It's third and five - If you convert you win.

Scenario one - HC goes "in this scenario, play conservative and run the ball." That's on him, and it sucks. You're a two win team, be aggressive especially because you're trying to build a winning culture. We get that play, which is incredibly bad. That's also on Scangs.

Scenario two - Scangs calls that play and HC has no input at all. This is the disaster scenario because Vic should be deciding how we're going to approach the situation. Remember, we convert and we win the game. We don't and we punt, and they just need a FG to win, which as our Qb pointed out is "not that hard."

Scangs calls that play, and he's especially pathetic because he could have done whatever he wanted to, he's supposed to be aggressive in his nature, per his own words...we end up with that garbage.

Scenario Three - Vic says 'be aggressive," and Scangs then shits the bed and thinks that's aggressive. At this point we have to (1) execute Scangs so the football gods are appeased and (2) really hate the fact that our HC found a OC who thinks *that* call is aggressive.

I can't see a scenario in which Vic is totally off the hook on this.

[Poet]

Let's just start over.

It's third and five - If you convert you win.

Scenario one - HC goes "in this scenario, play conservative and run the ball." That's on him, and it sucks. You're a two win team, be aggressive especially because you're trying to build a winning culture. We get that play, which is incredibly bad. That's also on Scangs.

Scenario two - Scangs calls that play and HC has no input at all. This is the disaster scenario because Vic should be deciding how we're going to approach the situation. Remember, we convert and we win the game. We don't and we punt, and they just need a FG to win, which as our Qb pointed out is "not that hard."

Scangs calls that play, and he's especially pathetic because he could have done whatever he wanted to, he's supposed to be aggressive in his nature, per his own words...we end up with that garbage.

Scenario Three - Vic says 'be aggressive," and Scangs then shits the bed and thinks that's aggressive. At this point we have to (1) execute Scangs so the football gods are appeased and (2) really hate the fact that our HC found a OC who thinks *that* call is aggressive.

I can't see a scenario in which Vic is totally off the hook on this.

[Cugel]

I spoke to John Lennon yesterday and he thinks we need a new LT.

[MOtorboat]

Let's just start over.

It's third and five - If you convert you win.

Scenario one - HC goes "in this scenario, play conservative and run the ball." That's on him, and it sucks. You're a two win team, be aggressive especially because you're trying to build a winning culture. We get that play, which is incredibly bad. That's also on Scangs.

Scenario two - Scangs calls that play and HC has no input at all. This is the disaster scenario because Vic should be deciding how we're going to approach the situation. Remember, we convert and we win the game. We don't and we punt, and they just need a FG to win, which as our Qb pointed out is "not that hard."

Scangs calls that play, and he's especially pathetic because he could have done whatever he wanted to, he's supposed to be aggressive in his nature, per his own words...we end up with that garbage.

Scenario Three - Vic says 'be aggressive," and Scangs then shits the bed and thinks that's aggressive. At this point we have to (1) execute Scangs so the football gods are appeased and (2) really hate the fact that our HC found a OC who thinks *that* call is aggressive.

I can't see a scenario in which Vic is totally off the hook on this.

Again, it’s OK to run the football in this situation.

The problem is your playcall defies your team-building philosophy, and belies what we already know about your coaching style. If you insist, as the Broncos have, on building your team around smash mouth football with a fullback leading the way, then you need to rely on your bread and butter in that situation. Building a team for that system, and then going spread in the most important spot where you could salt a road win away is egregious.

I don’t care if that’s Scangarello or Fangio making that call ... get smarter whoever it is.

[Poet]

Again, it’s OK to run the football in this situation.

The problem is your playcall defies your team-building philosophy, and belies what we already know about your coaching style. If you insist, as the Broncos have, on building your team around smash mouth football with a fullback leading the way, then you need to rely on your bread and butter in that situation. Building a team for that system, and then going spread in the most important spot where you could salt a road win away is egregious.

I don’t care if that’s Scangarello or Fangio making that call ... get smarter whoever it is.

I referenced this argument you made in another post.

I don't like running the ball there at all. It was horrid. If Scangs made that call, he sucked. If the call to be conservative came from Fangio, he sucked. There's no way on God's green earth that the team didn't take the cue from Fangio. And if they did, and Fangio let Scangs make the determination to be aggressive/conservative, then Fangio should probably be fired for that anyway.

[Valar Morghulis]

I referenced this argument you made in another post.

I don't like running the ball there at all. It was horrid. If Scangs made that call, he sucked. If the call to be conservative came from Fangio, he sucked. There's no way on God's green earth that the team didn't take the cue from Fangio. And if they did, and Fangio let Scangs make the determination to be aggressive/conservative, then Fangio should probably be fired for that anyway.

Not sure you can win.

Pete Carroll threw and lost the superbowl....... every play if unsuccessful can be called a bad call

[Poet]

Not sure you can win.

Pete Carroll threw and lost the superbowl....... every play if unsuccessful can be called a bad call

It's a different scenario, though? In my opinion, even if the running played as called worked, it's still a bad call that just happened to work. It's like playing poker and winning with a six of clubs and eight of spades against Ace King suited. It can happen, but that doesn't mean it's sharp. A two win team out of the playoffs in that position shouldn't be so passive. I hate the mentality that we showed on Sunday.

[Elevation inc]

It's a different scenario, though? In my opinion, even if the running played as called worked, it's still a bad call that just happened to work. It's like playing poker and winning with a six of clubs and eight of spades against Ace King suited. It can happen, but that doesn't mean it's sharp. A two win team out of the playoffs in that position shouldn't be so passive. I hate the mentality that we showed on Sunday.

I was fine with the call to run the ball, but not the execution or the personnel set we did it from....it sucked.....I hurt from it.....but lets not forget Mr. Flacco throwing balls out of the back of the end zone like Christmas cards in the RZ. Those were aggressive play calls Flacco screwed up....We also threw on 1st down more then I think we have all year...The team and staff just isn't in sync offensively....I'm very worried about scags as a OC overall especially when he uses certain personnel groupings like on that run call above, but again execution by the players is a big issue to me also. We called 32 pass plays and number of them flacco overthrew badly especially in scoring range....

[Poet]

If it’s a Dan Reeves move I cannot approve.

If you want to think outside the box, don’t imitate John Fox,

If you want to have the game in hand, be like the prime version of Shanahan.

If you want to keep your season alive, throw it on third and five.

If you want to look like an *******, basically concede via a field goal.

[Cugel]

Not sure you can win.

Pete Carroll threw and lost the superbowl....... every play if unsuccessful can be called a bad call

He didn't throw the ball on 3rd and 5! He threw the ball when they had Marshawn Lynch tearing up the Pats defense for 4 or 5 yards on the previous play. They had 3 downs to run it in. Carroll outsmarted himself and it cost them a SB win.

I hate Seattle and their arrogant fans, but in no way was that satisfying to see Brady celebrating that win. :tsk:

[Poet]

If it’s a Dan Reeves move I cannot approve.

If you want to think outside the box, don’t imitate John Fox,

If you want to have the game in hand, be like the prime version of Shanahan.

If you want to keep your season alive, throw it on third and five.

If you want to look like an *******, basically concede via a field goal.

Bards are under valued.

[Simple Jaded]

It's a different scenario, though? In my opinion, even if the running played as called worked, it's still a bad call that just happened to work. It's like playing poker and winning with a six of clubs and eight of spades against Ace King suited. It can happen, but that doesn't mean it's sharp. A two win team out of the playoffs in that position shouldn't be so passive. I hate the mentality that we showed on Sunday.

I speak fluent Degenerate.

Transportation; Ballz vs Brains, there’s a time and place for both.