Help me to understand...

[gtyellowjackets]

CG has been quoted, several times this year, saying the following: An offensive coordinator tries to make himself look good in order to get a head coaching job in the future. Therefore, that OC may do things that hurt a teams chances to win in order to pad their stats. CG, on the other hand, has only the motivation to win and whrefore makes better game decisions.

That reasoning, on one level, seems acceptable. On another level it seems flawed. The flawed part is this: If an OC doesn't try to pad the stats and score as many points as possible then he is limiting the team's ability to score points. If a team was averaging 40 points per game then it would make sense to run the ball more (and run the clock out) and score less. But if you were scoring less than that (say 20 points per game) then you are jepordizing your team's chances to win. In other words, at some point, when you limit your offense, you don't score enough points to win. At what point does this occur for CG?

To me, it seems like his overriding approach as an OC is flawed...

 

[pocket_watch]

I haven't heard CG say this, but if he has isn't it ironic that most of his potential to be seen as a HC comes from what he has done as an OC?

"Just because someone is paranoid does not mean that someone is not stalking them" anonymous paranoid

 

[JoeCakeEater]

I personally think a lot of the problem with Chan's play calling isn't the plays called, but rather the player trying to execute it. Reggie cannot hit short passes which gives an offense 2 choices...An offensive scheme I like to call:run and chuck. We either run it or chuck it deep to CJ. And if the chuck to CJ isn't open...the chuck to Jim Bob in the front row always seems to work for Mr. Ball. A more accurate passer would greatly improve our offensive production imho.

 

[helluvaparamedic]

[ QUOTE ]
. A more accurate passer would greatly improve our offensive production imho.

[/ QUOTE ]

I CONCUR

 

[pocket_watch]

JCE, I agree with everything you just wrote. As most believe, poor QB play has killed us. Whether or not it is no depth at the position, that position has been the biggest problem.
I was replying to a statement I had not heard before.

 

[ncjacket]

Just imagine what a 55% completion percentage could do. I'm not asking for the world, just reasonable accuracy.

 

[ramblinwise1]

that sounds like a really...

stretching rationalization to me!!! The kinda excuses kids come up with to explain their grades.

 

[hiveredtech]

In a nutshell he is just saying most OC's are not willing to play a game of field position when it is required because it does not benefit their personal career. Not all OC's think that way, but I am sure many do.

It is similar to the business world where exec's can come in and make short term thinking decisions for the 'wow' effect just to set up their next big move without much consideration for the long term benefit to the organization.

I almost fell out of my chair when Urban Meyer punted from the opponents 27 yd. line last year in a game of field position. They did win the game...but wow.

 

[midatlantech]

Red, considering everything our offense has done the last five years, I think you would agree that Chan's statement was foolish. I think you're correct in his intent (field position, etc.), but it was still foolish.