I agree with your overall take on why Calvin isn't getting the ball more often. I never said we were successful at getting the ball to other options, I simply said I don't want to see us forcing the ball when there isn't much of a chance of being successful against whatever defense we're facing.
I personally don't have any problem with Chan's interview. If someone asks a stupid question it doesn't bother me one bit if the answer is a bit testy. Funny how no one minds when Fridge does it or when O'Leary did it. I don't think he lost his composure, I think he decided to try to explain what actually goes on during a game and why just saying "throw it to Calvin" doesn't work. I fully believe that we probably had 5-6 more throws per game that were designed to go to Calvin that never were thrown his way for all the reasons Chan mentioned. But I'm sure you can say the same about our other receivere too. You can't create mismatches unless you have other viable options...that's my point about using our other WRs more. Until they are perceived as threats there are no mismatches for CJ to take advantage of. Schemes don't matter, it's hurting the defense that makes them change.
To your point though, I do think the problem is Reggie. He's a competitor, but I don't think he's a complete QB. He may very well be the best we have, and if so it's fair game to blame Gailey for recruiting issues. But given who we actually have on the roster, not who we wish we had, he is evidently the best we have. Hopefully we can put more pressure on defenses this year or we have someone who can step in for him. But it's interesting, your complaints about those issues being "the game" is exactly what Chan's been saying. The problem is you can't just say to a player "here's what you do in every situation" and solve it. The player has to solve it. If Reggie can't do it we need to replace him. But to replace him we need to have someone else who can solve the puzzle. If you want to indict Chan for something, that's the offense in my mind. Not play calling or "fire" or lack thereof, or philosophy. It's having QB play adequate to a winning program.
I personally don't have any problem with Chan's interview. If someone asks a stupid question it doesn't bother me one bit if the answer is a bit testy. Funny how no one minds when Fridge does it or when O'Leary did it. I don't think he lost his composure, I think he decided to try to explain what actually goes on during a game and why just saying "throw it to Calvin" doesn't work. I fully believe that we probably had 5-6 more throws per game that were designed to go to Calvin that never were thrown his way for all the reasons Chan mentioned. But I'm sure you can say the same about our other receivere too. You can't create mismatches unless you have other viable options...that's my point about using our other WRs more. Until they are perceived as threats there are no mismatches for CJ to take advantage of. Schemes don't matter, it's hurting the defense that makes them change.
To your point though, I do think the problem is Reggie. He's a competitor, but I don't think he's a complete QB. He may very well be the best we have, and if so it's fair game to blame Gailey for recruiting issues. But given who we actually have on the roster, not who we wish we had, he is evidently the best we have. Hopefully we can put more pressure on defenses this year or we have someone who can step in for him. But it's interesting, your complaints about those issues being "the game" is exactly what Chan's been saying. The problem is you can't just say to a player "here's what you do in every situation" and solve it. The player has to solve it. If Reggie can't do it we need to replace him. But to replace him we need to have someone else who can solve the puzzle. If you want to indict Chan for something, that's the offense in my mind. Not play calling or "fire" or lack thereof, or philosophy. It's having QB play adequate to a winning program.