From Barry Jackson: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...-sherman-coyle-address-dolphins-problems.html I thought this was interesting. I'd saw a concern mentioned in one of the threads that the coaching staff perhaps viewed the failed 3rd down as an execution issue. This quote seems to contradict that, as Sherman is implying that the playcall was the issue. Hopefully he learns a lesson from this and we won't try to get cute again with the play calling in situations like this. (It says "draw" in there, which I'm reading as "sneak" obviously.) Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Sherman is usually good about admitting that he ends up regretting certain play calls, but the thing he's not saying is that he made the wrong play call for the wrong reasons. He's acknowledging that he can regret a play call in hindsight based on the result of the play but that doesn't necessarily mean he's acknowledging that he made the wrong call at the time. Joe Philbin was a little less ambiguous in his defense of the play call.
You rarely hear coaches "unqualify" their mistakes. He admitted a mistake was made, that's all that he really needs to say. ...to the media. I think its safe to say that HC's rarely throw their coordinators under the bus to the media and that has no bearing on what was discussed behind closed doors.
You'd Think At Shermans Age, His Lessons Would Already Be Learned? He's Been A Coach For How Long Now? He Really Should Have Known Better. I Was Incredibly Disappointed In That Playcall. however, The Biggest Indictment On This Staff Is Continuing To Insist That Miller Is Not Far And Away Better Than D Thomas. That Is Borderline Bizarre IMO.
I truly believe you see this with older coordinators. I think when you've been around THAT long, you've seen everything, so you expect everything and because of that, you tend to over think certain situations. I think that's good thing in a HC when game planning, but its a real problem in coordinators calling a game in real time.
The defender did not make a great play, he merely passed Kung Fu Sad Panda Jerry's face as if he were a mammoth exhibit frozen in time at some museum and tackled Thomas. Saw Peria Jerry do the same thing in the Atlanta game, there are several reasons why Jerry should be benched these are among them.
Out of curiosity do you respond from your phone. I noticed the all caps and my phone does that too, but only on this forum.
Which means he is likely to repeat the same thinking the next time he is faced with a playcall. But let's hope not. Regret usually means there is some self-questioning going on. Some re-examination of how decisions got made.
It's caused by a shortage of microwave pulses from the wireless cell towers. You can correct it by placing your phone in a microwave and pressing the per-programmed "Popcorn" button.
It was a really bad call but, BUT,since 99.9 % of the people thought it was a QB sneak and If the play he called went for a TD we would be praising Sherman for a great call that had the defense fooled. If it works= hero . If it dont work= horrible call.
Well, in the Indy game we did a qb draw on 4th and 1 so maybe he's gun shy due to that? He still should've done it, tho
Jenkins was lined up directly over Pouncey and slanted playside immediately after the snap, he never crossed Jerry's face. That's an impossible block for Jerry to make w/o holding IMO. Maybe if Pouncey had held Jenkins up for a count Jerry could've gotten over but Pouncey (and Cogs) pulled around to help seal the edge and never laid a finger on Jenkins. If they slow Jenkins down for even a second he doesn't make the play and Thomas walks into the end zone. Having said that it was a strange play call and Tannehill should have audibled when he saw the alignment the Saints were in. A simple Iso play would have gotten the job done.
Running an outside zone play in short yardage is getting a little bit cute, but it's hardly the patent absurdity that people have tried to make it out to be.
DT's carries have been diminishing in relation to Lamar Miller. Unfortunately we had to abandon the run earlier because of Saints runaway scoring. Would it be less cute if it had someone quicker ... like Miller running it.
Agreed, IIRC we've run that play and gotten good yardage on it several times this year. I just don't like it vs that front, pulling the C and play side G when both of them are covered. It's a high risk-high reward kind of call in a situation where we only needed two inches.
I don't know if it's a given that Tannehill should have audibled based on the front. The alignment isn't an issue, it's that stunt from that technique that is an issue. The problem isn't that Miami picked paper, it's that they picked paper while the Saints picked scissors. Unless there was some sort of Rex Ryan tendency they failed to pick up on, I don't know it's a big deal.
I generally appreciate the effort to point out hyperbole and overreaction, bu in this case I'm not sure I agree. As noted in post #15, the blocking scheme left a penetrating DT completely unblocked right in the middle of the line on 3rd an inches. In that situation, the guy who should be the No. 1 priority to block is that DT. Any short yardage play that allows the NT to penetrate untouched is pretty absurd. And in my eyes, it was almost less forgiveable on 3rd and inches than it would have been on 4th and inches. Run a QB sneak or quick hit run that at least gives the option of going for it again on 4th and very short even if it doesn't work. But that play created a strong possibility (which was realized) of a significant loss of yardage that eliminated any chance of going for it on 4th.
My problem with the play call is that a qb sneak is an automatic first down. It was third and an inch. Even if Tannehill just ran into the line, the refs would give us the first down. Take the guaranteed first down.
Agree. In fact, it's an aggressive call, imo, because it's playing for the TD instead of the first down. For those who complain at times about this offense being too conservative, here is an example where were more aggressive and it cost us.
I think that's coahcing arrogance. Believing that because your play call has worked against their formation/personnel/scheme etc, that your designed play will beat their designed defense for it again, even though it's a different running back in there. Coaches putting more faith in the system than the talent, in that case. Gotta consider who's out there, coach!
The other thing is.. THIS is the problem with having runningbacks who are a bit predictable... Miller has outside speed. Thomas runs more up the middle with power (or so the coaches seem to think). So no matter which one is in, the defense is going to 'expect' a certain type of run. Sherman getting 'cute' was him playing with that tendency and figuring the Saints would expect Thomas to be in there because we intended to pound it up the middle for short yardgae.. so he'd out-tick them and run Thomas outside. Except there is a good REASON the Saints expect a guy like Thomas to run up the middle. Because he's no threat to get to the corner. If you have a balanced back, with the speed to get the corner and the power to take it up the middle, then you don;t need to get cute to execute because a defense truly doesn;t know what to expect.
given the behind the line shot seen in this thread, if tanny keeps it and falls forward to his right, he gets the first down. Literally theres no one in front of jerry! Maybe they even say to him in the film study. "You ever see the A gap like this again in this situation, just take it"
The scheme didn't leave the defensive tackle unblocked, the specific stunt left a defensive tackle in a very difficult position to block- And I'm not sure there was any way you should assume or expect the defensive tackle to take that specific stunt. A 350 pound player in either heads up or a backside shade isn't something you should logically expect to try and fill that gap, much less to be that successful at it I don't think. I think it's reasonable to assume you could safely block Jenkins on most of the things he could be called on to do vs. that play. I'd tend to think if anything doomed that play, it was how aggressive Mike Pouncey was in getting up field. I'm speculating but I think the ideal execution of that play would be for Pouncey and Jerry to double Jenkins, and Pouncey slide off play-side to the second level. If that was Jerry's guy all along I would have thought he'd have immediately dove for a cut block. I could be remembering the play incorrectly, though.
If Tannehill couldn't gain an inch on a sneak behind his twin of an All Pro Center, they should have just taken their ball and went home right then and there.
One inch at the most. Doesn't matter if everyone expected a QB sneak, with Pouncey, and Incognito, Tannehill should be able to gain an inch anyway. The man across from Incog was on his outside shoulder, the nose tackle was slightly shading Pouncey's right shoulder. There was a natural gap between them enough to gain an inch every time. Stupid ridiculous call IMO, even if it had worked.
Mike Pouncey, the identical twin brother of the 1st Team All Pro center Maurkice, says hello. It was a motherfvcking gimme 99% of the time. Stupidest call Sherman has made since he's been here. SMDH.
I am more concerned with Coyle right now, but I am concerned about the way Sherman is utilizing play makers on the team. But he knows Tannehill better than anyone.
When everyone questions a call, fans, former players, former coaches, probably players on the team, and lastly an acknowledge it wasn't the best call by the caller then it meets the criteria for "stupid". This call was stupid. John Jenkins just put a cherry on top.
Yeah, Jerry's uncovered. Get behind that big fat *** and get us a first down. Instead we got cute. Learning experience.
This play call was very reminiscent and equally as stupid as when Dan Henning dialed up that Ricky Williams pass against Buffalo a few years back. You go all the way down the field and get killed by horrible coaching. Very sad.
It was a dumb call. no analysis can excuse it. mp rc Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/spor...-address-dolphins-problems.html#storylink=cpy
It was an aggressive play call that was suppose to take advantage of NO overplaying the inside run. But when you look at the pre-snap alignment of the defense, they aren't overplaying the inside run so should RT have checked out of the play and taken what was given? If he had that option, it seems to me that the blame should be Tannehill and not Sherman. Given that Tannehill is still young and learning the position, I do think this is a live and learn situation.
