Wk 5 vs BEARS - REALLY OFFENSIVE PLAY-BY-PLAY
by bigdavis on Oct 12, 2010 10:33 PM EDT
Email
Print
Like a visit to the dentist, I might as well get this over with...
Something a little new this week, I'll BOLD a player's name when he or she deserves (IMHO) credit or blame for a particular play's success or failure. That way, it'll be easier for all you quick scanners to identify my biases more quickly. If any of you saw anything I've omitted, or wish to modify the judgments, please do so.
Series 1.
(After we're down early by 0-7, and Eric Norwood returns the short KO to our 39) Determined to establish our run game, we resort to nothing else, rushing every play on this drive.
Q1, 13:11, 1and10, CP39. Jimmy Clausen is under center on every play, with 2WRs split out (Brandon LaFell and David Gettis) wide, but only for show. The first play has Dante Rosario and Jeff King in at TEs, with DeAngelo Williams the lone set-back. A run by Williams gains nothing.
12:34, 2and10, CP39. As so often has happened on our first series of previous games, we rip off a good run. With Gary Barnidge in motion, and Tony Fiammetta in the I ahead of Williams, Williams gains 23 for a FD. Every single player makes a solid block, but special credit goes to Fiammetta and Travell Wharton.
11:55, 1and10, CB38. Williams makes another nice run for 6, with another good clearing block by Fiammetta.
11:18, 2and4, CB32. False start by Geoff Schwartz sets us back 5.
11:10, 2and9, CB37. In replacing Williams, Jonathan Stewart stumbles, for no gain.
10:25, 3and9, CB37. Stewart makes a great run, for 25 and a FD. Again, all block well, but especially Ryan Kalil, Mac Bernadeau, and Geoff Schwartz.
9:45, 1and10, CB12. A draw to Williams, now back in, gains only 1.
9:10, 2and9, CB11. With Rosario in the I ahead of Williams, the latter gains 3 more.
8:32, 3and6, CB8. This is, of course, the key play of the series, as we can tie the game with a TD. The Bears put 9 in the box, with tight outside coverage on our only wide-out LaFell, and a single safety. We have 2 TEs in on the play, King and Rosario, plus Gettis is in tight to the line, so a play-action toss to one of them would have a good chance of working - but the handoff is to Williams again, and he can only gain 2, as LB Lance Briggs is unblocked, making the stop. I bold the coaches for this play-call; very mundane and predictable. Winning teams score a TD here, with a play fake into the stacked line, and an easy toss to the corner, after reading the lone safety's reaction. Such as Moore threw last season, to Hoover, and to King.
7:53, 4and4, CB6. Kasay kicks the FG, putting us back 3-7. At this point, we can still be optimistic, as we've moved the ball well on the ground, blocked well, and only had one penalty, which didn't cost us.
Series 2.
(After Forte's 67 yard TD run made it 3-14.)
Q1, 7:29, 1and10, CP33. Under center, Clausen loses the snap, recovering for a 1-yd loss.
6:54, 2and11, CP32. From the I, a run attempt by Stewart gains nothing.
6:24, 3and11, CP32. 3WR, with Armanti Edwards out left, LaFell and Gettis to the right, we finally set up for a pass play. Unfortunately, Schwartz misses badly on a chop block on Judas Peppers, allowing him to bat down a low pass, with a big windup from Clausen, which luckily falls into his arms, for an INT. This is the first of 3 INTs the Bears get on the day, all lucky for them.
Series 3)
(After that INT leads to a Bears' FG, making the score 3-17)
Q1, 4:40, 1and10, CP20. A False Start on Jeff King sets us back 5.
4:37, 1and15, CP15. A predictable run by Williams gains just 1.
4:04, 2and14, CP16. Schwartz whiffs on his block, and against only a 4-man rush, they get a sack and a fumble, recovered by #74. This is also on Clausen, who had 3 receivers open, gave a poor play-action fake, and didn't hold onto the ball. He had time to avoid this particular sack, but appeared indecisive.
3:17, 3and19, CP11. Clausen scrambles and completes a pass for only 2 yards, leading to a punt. I won't bold this, but c'mon. Why 2 yards? We need 19.
Series 4.
(After all seems lost, and we're about to go down 3-24, DT Ed Johnson makes a sublime INT of a Todd Collins pass, saving a TD. And they talk about Peppers being a great athlete!)
2:03, 1and10, CP6. Stewart rushes for 2.
1:25, 2and8, CP8. UC, Clausen lobs to King, and the Bears are called for DPI, giving us a FD.
1:20, 1and10, CP28. UC, LaFell and Gettis wide, Fiammetta and Stewart in the I, Clausen makes a nice slant pass to LaFell, who drops it. Sweet and sour on that one. The slant pass should be our bread and butter, but the WR's got to catch them. LaFell has shown us time and again that he can't make this catch in traffic.
1:16, 2and10, CP28. From a 4-man rush, Clausen is sacked by a delayed blitz from LB Briggs. Fault here is on more than one: both Fiammetta and Stewart drift out of the backfield with no attempts at picking up the blitz, and Clausen stands immobile, his left foot never leaving the ground to avoid the rusher.
0:41, 3and16, CP22. From the SG for the first time, Fiammetta and Stewart in a full house backfield, Clausen makes a nice throw to Gettis, for 14 yds, but short of a FD. On the last play of the quarter, we punt.
Series 5.
(After our defense gets it back again, with an INT by safety Jordan Pugh, his first in the NFL.)
Q2, 11:00, 1and10, CP24. A rare Thumbs Up to the OC here, for going for the quick strike. Prior to this, he'd shown no inclination to air it out, so the play was well set up. 2 wideouts, off a play fake to Williams, the lone set back, Clausen fires it deep down the left sideline to LaFell, but he's well covered by the defender Tillman, and LaFell pushes off and is flagged for OPI. I don't fault Clausen here; the pass wasn't underthrown, as has been said, though his play fake could have been a better sell. LaFell just ran an indifferent pattern, which made it easy to shadow, and then compounded it with a penalty.
10:54, 1and20, CP14. A draw to Williams (so much for imagination; that last play didn't work, so back to our shell) loses a yard. There's a Hold called on Ryan Kalil, but it's declined.
10:32, 2and21, CP13. UC, attempting to hand off to Williams, Clausen has it slip from his hand, before the RB even has a chance to take it, and falls on his own fumble at the 1. Inexplicable unforced error. Small hands?
10:00, 3and 32, CP1. Williams runs left for 12 meaningless yards, but serving to make the punt easier.
Series 6.
(After a Greg Hardy sack forces the bears to punt, for the first time. How many times do we have to call for him to play more downs?)
Q2, 8:03, 1and10, CP16. Let's see...1st down? Let's try a run; that'll fool 'em. Stewart tries, and gains nothing. Closer examination of this play reveals that there was a huge hole created by the OL, off RT, but Fiammetta fails to block Briggs, who makes the stop. This is the play that Brad Hoover always made, which constantly freed our RBs for big runs through the second level. I can't state loudly enough that Fiammetta simply MUST hit somebody when he leads through the hole; looks as if he doesn't want contact to me. Were he to take Briggs out, the play gains at least 10.
7:28, 2and10, CP16. With 2 WRs out, Rosario in the slot, Clausen throws a nice screen pass to Stewart, the lone back, gaining 8, but it's negated by an OPI call against the new guy, David Clowney, for blocking downfield before the ball's released.
7:00, 2and18, CP8. No gain, on a rush by Stewart. They showed 10 (TEN!) in the box, daring us to throw, but we're all bunched together, and the play has no chance of succeeding. No fewer than 7 Bears made the tackle. I blame the staff here, for failure to take a shot. Hell, we're 0-4 for the season, getting beat 3-17, show some balls. This is the perfect time to catch them off guard, as they can't be more confident we won't pass than to put 10 in the box. Play action fake, rollout, boom! This little no gain play gets overlooked as unimportant, but from such things, games get turned around. I know it's deep in our territory, and a risk, but not much of one, when they've only got 1 player more than 2 yards back from the LOS. Anybody else see it that way, or do you agree the ultra-conservative call is better? (The more I think about it, this play is a microcosm of our play-calling inadequacies.)
6:10, 3and18, CP8. Now, on 3rd down, of course we pass, being the thoroughly predictable dolts we are. Putting 4WRs out, and needing 18 for a FD, from the shotgun, against a 4-man rush, Clausen has no pressure, but takes the easy way out, and dumps it off to Williams, coming out of the backfield. This play gains 5 on 3and18. I look at the stands, and the fans there are bored and disgusted. I see no wine and cheese, but bottles in their hands, and I marvel at their restraint in not throwing them. 3 and out, plus a penalty. We punt.
Series 7.
(After our 3rd INT, the tip by Nick Hayden that's hauled in by Everette Brown, giving our offense great field position.)
Q2, 4:23, 1and10, CB42. Armanti Edwards makes an appearance at QB. From the shotgun, he hands off to David Gettis on a reverse, but it's sniffed out, and loses 6. Credit to the staff for some imagination; the play itself wasn't a bad call; it just had no chance, because of no block by Schwartz, on Peppers, who strung the play out wide, and no block by Gary Barnidge, out wide right, allowing his CB Jennings to make the stop.
3:43, 2and16, CB48. Same set, but this time Edwards fakes the reverse, drops to pass, sees his intended receiver covered, then makes a nice run, faking 2 tacklers, picking up 7. Announcers called this the Wildcat, but I define that as when the regular QB flanks wide, and it's a direct snap to a RB. Since Clausen was on the sidelines for these 2 plays, this is really just Edwards subbing at QB, from the shotgun. Whatever. When Edwards is then taken out, for 3rd down, the crowd boos lustily. At least he brought some excitement in with him.
3:00, 3and9, CB41. Clausen back in, from the SG, with 4WRs out, he throws complete to LaFell on a rollout. Two problems with this play. LaFell didn't get both feet in bounds. More importantly, Clausen didn't know where the FD marker was. Had LaFell been in, it would've been 3 yds short. More blame to come: Fox challenges the call that LaFell didn't have control, or both feet in, wasting a T.O. Even had it been overturned, it'd still be 4th down.
2:52, 4and9, CB41. Here's another bone I want to pick with the coaches. Why punt from their 41? Sure Baker made a good punt, which was downed at their 10. But why not give it a shot to pick up a FD? After a rocky start, our D is stopping them every time. We're a winless team, and we're behind, and there's less than 3 minutes left in the half. Challenge your offense to step up. A punt's a pussy play.
Series 8.
Q3, 14:54, 1and10, CP30. (After a decent KR by Mike Goodson, to start the second half.) What else? We bring Barnidge in motion, further clogging the middle, and try a run from the I, with Williams only gaining 1 yard. Travelle Wharton jams his finger on this play, and comes out awhile, his place being taken by MacBern switching to LG, Schwartz moving to RG, and Gary Williams coming in at RT.
14:17, 2and9, CP31. They bring 5, but we have 7 in to block, D-Will picking up the blitzer well, and there's no pressure on Clausen, who has a stable pocket around him for a change. Despite Jeff King being open over the middle, 8 yds downfield, Clausen makes a hasty decision to run, and falls on his face (dives forward?) for no gain. Piss-poor decision-making.
13:37, 3and9, CP31. SG, 4WRs out, Clausen makes up for the last gaffe with a perfect pass, the bread and butter slant, to David Gettis, for 10 and a FD. This pass was on a string, and couldn't have been thrown better.
13:04, 1and10, CP41. Another 1st down run, by Williams, gains 2. Wharton's taped up by now, back in, and pulls on the play, which is pretty well blocked, but they have 8 in the box, and it gets the maximum that it could. The coaches get the fail here, as they've got to show a variety of plays on 1st down. Our tendencies are too well known, and we'll continue to see 8-9 in the box on 1st downs, until we show the willingness to throw off play-action.
12:30, 2and8, CP43. Here's the Judas Peppers second hilight play. Clausen takes a 12-yard drop, but rolls to the right side, where Pep's lined up. Mistake. It's compounded by Jeff King whiffing on Peppers, who for some strange reason, he's assigned to block. Here's one time I don't fault Clausen for throwing OOB, as it's all he can do to avoid a big sack. But he shouldn't have rolled onto Pep's side of the field. Avoid the big guy.
12:25, 3and8, CP43. SG, 4 rushers, good protection, all day to throw without any pressure, Clausen doesn't see King open over the middle again, and indecisively throws it OOB again, for no apparent reason. As it was, LaFell was flagged for Illegal Formation, but it was declined, anyway, forcing us to punt once again. Fox shakes his head in disgust.
12:16, 4and8, CP43. I only throw this in to give credit to Jason Baker, for a good punt, downed at their 16.
Series 9.
(After another defensive 3 and out forces another punt by the Bears.)
Q3, 11:10, 1and10, CP39. Same old, same old - run by Stewart gains 2. Fiammetta from the I again avoids blocking anybody, choosing not to lead the RB through the hole off tackle, but running pointlessly around right end. WTF?
10:40, 2and8, CP41. Short pass to Rosario gains but 2. Clausen comes up limping of his right foot, but without being touched on the play.
10:03, 3and6, CP43. SG throw to Rosario, who makes a nice leaping catch, but is forced OOB by the defender = Incompletion. Good throw by Clausen, but the LB just made a better play.
9:58 4and6, CP43. Here Fox makes an absolutely bonehead decision, IMO. We punt, and it's nicely downed at their 6. But hold on...there's a procedure penalty on the Bears, which would give us 5 yards, and make it 4and1 from their 38. Fox declines the penalty, and takes the downed punt, rather than punting again, as the announcers support his decision. But I say, why not take it and go for it on 4and1, from their 38?? If you pick up a measly yard, our drive is kept alive, and here I again reiterate we're 0 and 4, and behind in the game. Make something happen, for God's sake! Challenge your beleaguered OL to pick up a yard. He didn't even appear to consider the possibility. What kind of coaching is that? What's the worst that could happen? We don't get it, and the ball goes over to them at their 38? (Throwing up my hands in frustration, I know the game's now over.) Field position, hell; we're down 2 TDs. Show some balls, and some faith in your offense. Heaven knows they need some love.
Series 10.
(After yet another 3 and out forced by our D makes them punt, and we get great field position.)
Q3, 8:50, 1and10, CP47. UC, with 2WRs out, and Williams the lone back, Clausen rolls right, and throws a perfect strike to LaFell, who makes the catch at the Bears 37, for 16, and a FD. LaFell comes up limping, after making his only reception of the day. "Alright," Fox is thinking (if it entered his mind), "I was right to punt after all; now we're back where we were a minute or so ago, and it's 1st down." But what if we'd made that 4and1 count, and gone in for a score?
8:23, 1and10, CB37. Oh, no. Here we go again. Run on 1st down by Williams gains only a yard. Here's the setup: they've got 10 in the box, since we only have Williams in the backfield, Clausen UC, and our other 9 guys all bunched up, with 3WRs within a yard of our tackles. Duh? And who makes the tackle? Their CB, Coleman, who shouldn't have been near the LOS, except he was lined up there, in front of Gettis, who should've been out wide. Blame on the OC, for that alignment.
7:42, 2and9, CB36. David Clowney goes deep down the right sideline, but Clausen, under no pressure, overthrows him by 5 yards, and OOB, to boot.
7:37, 3and9, CB36. SG, with Clowney right, Gettis slot left, Rosario wide left, and King and Williams in the backfield. Clausen rolls right and completes to Clowney, but short of the FD marker by about a yard. The receiver's got to know where the marker is. Oh, the inhumanity.
7:10, 4and1, CB28. Finally, we set up to try for it on 4th down, but alas, Wharton makes a False start, and it's 4and6
6:40, 4and6, CB33. We try a 51 yard FG, but it's no good. (Pass the Pepto.)
Series 11.
(At this point, it's noted that our defense has forced 4 punts and 3 INTs on the last 7 Bears' possessions. Yet we have nothing to show for it. And then, Charles Godfrey gets our 4th pick off Collins, coming one play after a sack by Hayden and Anderson.) Godfrey now leads the league, with 4 picks.
Q3, 5:07, 1and10, CB43. Great field position once again. UC, single setback, plenty of time, no pressure, Clausen has LaFell wide open in the EZ, and underthrows him badly, the pass being batted away. Should have been a TD.
5:00, 2and10, CB43. A screen to Stewart gains 4.
4:20, 3and6, CB39. Clausen from the SG, with 4 WRs out, again makes a bad decision, choosing to run up the middle, diving forward, but well short of the FD. He's bailed out by an offsides penalty on the Bears.
3:42, 3and1, CB34. A rare handoff to Fiammetta gains 3, and a FD. This is probably a play we should use more often, as he's usually ignored in the middle, since LBs see him as avoiding a block, anyway.
3:10, 1and10, CB31. A 6-yard slant to LaFell is well-thrown by Clausen, but LaFell drops it again. Again, I'll say this is a great play for us, but should only be thrown to Gettis or Rosario, who've proven they can hold onto the pass.
3:00, 2and10, CB31. Stewart runs for 1. Ho-hum.
2:26, 3and 9, CB30. LaFell compounds his already numerous errors with a False Start penalty. Thanks for coming, Brandon.
2:26, 3and14, CB35. SG, 3WRs, Clausen rolls left, and throws OOB. The announcers said no one was open, but both Stewart and Rosario clearly were. Yes, Pep was closing on him, but Rosario was on the left side, too, and well within his vision.
2:18, 4and14, CB35. This time Kasay makes the FG, from 53!, cutting their lead to 6-17, still within reach.
Series 12.
(After yet another 3 and out from our D, against their new QB, Caleb Hanie, and giving us the field position we need, to make a game of it. Any game balls go to the defense, who didn't give up, and played stoutly.)
Q4, 14:49, 1and10, CP47. A delayed pass to Williams gains 2. At this point in the game, the graphic shows we've averaged a whopping 1.5 yards on first downs! Remember back when 3rd down conversions were our problem?
14:15, 2and8, CP49. Clausen takes a sack, and fumbles, but he's ruled down, or it'd been a turnover and a Bears TD. This is all on Fiammetta, who totally whiffed on his block.
14:00, 3and18, CP39. SG, 4WRs out. Another quick sack, as this time Schwartz fails to block anybody.
13:26, 4and30, CP26. What started as good field position turned into an ugly 3 and out, and we punt.
Series 13.
(After Richard Marshall's sack, our 3rd, forces them out of FG range, and into a punt)
Q4, 6:42, 1and10, CP15. I'll condense this series, as it was over quickly. Clausen made 3 very bad passes in a row, the first 2 being behind LaFell in the left flat, and the 3rd behind Gettis on the right. I think the second might be on LaFell, for running a different route than Clausen expected, but who knows?
Series 14.
(After they kick a 53 yd FG, Robbie Gould's career longest, makes it 6-20.)
Q4, 3:35, 1and10, CP20. Matt Moore is in, replacing Clausen. His first pass, a deep out to Edwards, is caught, but not with 2 feet in, and goes incomplete.
3:29, 2and10, CP20. Moore again goes to Edwards, this time on a quick slant, but Edwards can't hold it, the ball bouncing off his hands, then his thigh, and right into the lucky hands of a falling Brian Urlacher, for their 2nd deflected INT of the day. Shit just keeps on happening.
Series 15. (Incidentally, this is the most number of offensive series we've had this year; little good that it did.)
(After another Bears' FG made it 6-23., and their KO went OOB.)
1:56, 1and10, CP40. SG for Moore again, 4WRs out, Mike Goodson seeing his first RB action as the lone back. Moore throws a perfect pass downfield to Jeff King, for 14 and a FD.
1:38, 1and10, CB46. Running the no-huddle, Moore again completes to King, but this time for no gain, as he's tackled immediately.
1:14, 2and10, CB46. Incomplete to LaFell, as he ran the wrong route. The announcers and I both see it as he's the one who misran it, since both he and Gettis ran stride for stride next to the other, cutting in, as the pass went to the sidelines. With all the other mistakes LaFell had made, it must have been him.
1:10, 3and10, CB46. UC, 4WRs, Moore completes it, over the middle to Clowney, for 5.
0:49, 4and5, CB40. No time outs left, Moore goes to the no huddle again, and completes again, to King, for 6 and a FD. King makes a nice effort to pick up the FD.
0:30, 1and10, CB34. SG, 4WRs. Moore again completes it, this time to Gettis, for 9 yds.
0:15, 2and1, CB25. Moore spikes it to kill the clock.
0:14, 3and1, CB26. We go to 5WRs here, with an empty backfield. They rush only 4, keeping everybody deep, anticipating the Hail Mary that's coming. Moore throws to Gettis at the GL, but of course, he's double covered, and the pass is intercepted. A replay shows Gettis wasn't even looking at the ball, but hand-fighting the second defender. Regardless, it's the end of the game.
(James, your usual picture insert will be appreciated.)
The content of these posts are those of the user/fan making the post only
147 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks Big D.
Your efforts on these are greatly appreciated.
The only play I seem to remember different than your synopsis was the 3rd and 9 on the 10th series to Clowney that came up a yard short. I thought Clowney initially ran a decent route beyond the sticks, but the QB was hesitant in getting the ball out, forcing Clowney to come back several yards to stay alive and hence losing the FD. I could be wrong there, but when it initially happened I put that one on the QB.
There are those who feel I put too much blame on Clausen already.
That play was a toss-up. Both should know where the chains are. But at least the pass was completed. Baby steps.
Yeah, this is a toss up...
I’m really not sure what’s going on but Clausen has hesitated a little bit. I think part of the problem is the speed of the game and part of it is immaturity as an NFL quarterback. I’m not sure at what point Clowney is on his reads or where Clausen’s eyes are, but he should have been able to hit Clowney for at least a FD. This is part of the problem with the speed of the game (and the Oline not giving him enough time). He has to be able to make his reads faster so that he can survey the field more accurately. It’s something you can only learn with time. The same problem manifested itself with the horrible underthrow to LaFell, but another element is his range. The range can be corrected in a conditioning program though.
In an ideal situation, he wouldn’t be starting now, but since this is a trial by fire, sometimes he’s just going to get burned.
A few notes.
This’ll probably be a controversial point of contention for everyone (and it’s not something anyone can know definitively) but there was obvious miscommunication between the WRs and the QBs on several occasions. I’m not sure how many of those were related to the last drive of Clausen’s, but they did linger on into Moore’s take over. It’s impossible to say definitively which plays were on the WRs and which were on the QBs.
I can’t really comment on who is or isn’t open without the game footage, although I find one thing odd. I remember in the preseason, there was one play in particular in which Clausen throws across his body to (i believe) Goodson. Several people criticized him for that play, since that is a “text-book example” of what not to do as a QB. And yet, when he “doesn’t see receivers” on the opposite side after rolling out, it’s a bad play because he should have seen them. I’m not saying there’s no room to blame for him missing open targets, just that it’s a double standard at times.
Last, but not least, the sacks. Criticism early for standing in the pocket. Criticism late for rolling out to avoid it. It’s either one or the other, and you’re not always going to be able to make a play in that situation, so pick which one you’d prefer. Unless you prefer Delhomme’s answer, which was to force the ball into double (or more) coverage and we’ve all seen how that goes. It’s another double standard.
The only reason I brought any of this up was because you said to point them out earlier. Not meaning any of it personally; those are just my observations. Clearly, the QB play must get better. There is no denying that. I will write some of this off for Clausen being a rookie (to be fair though, I’d gave Moore the same slack his rookie year), but bottom line is the passing game needs improvement from all parts: QB, WR, and O-line. There is no excuse for the fumbles though. That is getting old…
Hear you loud and clear about the throws across the QBs body.
That’s why I specifically noted that, on one, Rosario was open on the left side of the field, as Clausen rolled in that direction – and other times, he didn’t see King or Rosario in the middle of the field, no more than 8-10 yards in front of him, on rollouts to his right. I think the no-no is what Favre so often tries, the pass back across the field.
About your comment on the sacks...
There were 3, I believe. The first one (Series 4), I blamed the bad blocking – yet also mentioned that Clausen made no effort to avoid it all, his left foot frozen to the ground. With some mobility, he MAY have been able to sidestep, but the fail is on the 2 blockers. The other 2 sacks were not Clausen’s fault, nor did I imply it – they were both caused (as have most of the sacks he and Moore have sustained) by missed blocks and failed blitz pickups.
As for rolling out to avoid a sack, I don’t know which plays you refer to. I credited Clausen for throwing OOB when pep was about to get him. Other times, I found him at fault for either running too early, or throwing OOB, when there was NO threat of a sack, and it looked as if he was just a little too gun-shy to stand in there and find an open receiver.
But enough about Clausen. It’s mostly what you were posting about, but it’s far from the scope of what I covered. How about all the coaching decisions I focused on? You’re a keen observer. I’d like you take on the ones I mentioned, like not going for it on 4th down, etc, or not play-faking to a pass when the defense has 9-10 in the box.
Oh, pardon me....
I do this a lot (unintentionally mind you). When I look at things that I see which I believe can be improved, I mention my thoughts and move on. When I see things that I think are already good, I don’t bring them up. That has the effect of making me look like I’m just cherry picking the stuff I don’t like and ignoring everything else and this is a prime example. I wasn’t trying to give an all-inclusive review, just picking out a few things that I had a slight different take on and what I was thinking at the time I read through it
What I didn’t mention, I’m in agreement with for the most part, particularly the coaching calls. I don’t necessarily fault Fox for not going for it on 4th and 6 (I mean.. it is Fox we’re talking about), but all in all the coaching was hit or miss, and mostly miss.
Good stuff BigD
Your analysis/biases appear to be right on…I’ve never seen so much ineptitude by an offense…it was so frustrating to watch…the entire game outside of the first drive.
mucho gracias
rec’d because of depth and revealing our incompetence and ineptitude
Great Job again BigD
The only problem with your post: God, it’s painful to revisit our offensive ineptitude.
This is my favorite part though, and it sums up so many things that have been worng this season:
After a rocky start, our D is stopping them every time. We’re a winless team, and we’re behind, and there’s less than 3 minutes left in the half. Challenge your offense to step up. A punt’s a pussy play.
Couldn’t have said it better myself…
My thoughts and a couple of questions for ANYONE to answer
Clausen had a bad day:
He needs to do whatever he has to do to handle the ball better in the next two weeks. The bobbled snap and the “toss to himself” …. that’s going to shake up your confidence. These are TOTALLY on him for putting himself in the situation.
That said it is clear that Clausen needs more support. Penalties and drops all over the place combined with first down runs when the defense is loaded in the box (Come on, man!!!!!!) and then you motion in the WR to drag the additional corner into fray (Are you $#^%$&^&$%& kidding me?? This last thing has been beaten to death but am I being thick here?
Can anyone tell me why we run on first down against more than 8 in the box? Can anyone tell me why we drag more people in to the bunch formation and insist on running? Is this a double bluff of some sort?
This is a serious question because I don’t understand it. I have never played the game (regrettably) so maybe this shows so please tell me if I have missed something.
It's not a 'double bluff,' but a sign of intransigent stubbornness, IMO.
Alignment of your forces in the trenches is a sort of chess match, or should be, between the opposing coordinators first, and then secondarily, on the field, through their designees, the QB and the MLB. The latter should make adjustments to what they first see has been set up against them, and if they’re good, they audible shifts to their men.
Initially, one side or the other will start with what they think is the best alignment to combat the historical tendency, % wise, that they expect to see, considering down, distance, time, time outs remaining, etc.
Really good teams will not stubbornly stick with their first impressions, but fluidly change, after they see what’s been thrown against them, even if the opponent throws a surprise at them. Look at how quickly Peyton Manning goes to the line with 15 seconds left on the play, surveys the defense, then calls another play, to take advantage of the weakness he perceives them to have showed him. Then a good MLB might change his guys, too.
But we seldom do that. Of course, we don’t have the talent at QB (few teams do, I was citing the ideal) to do it. We always hear our QB calling out something and pointing, but it’s just an identification of who and where the mike is on that play, pretty basic stuff; rarely will he call a new play, and put his guys in new positions, by shifting.
So our planning for a play should mostly come from the OC, in sending in a play that would best work against the defense he expects to see the opponent use, most of the time. And their DC’s doing the same to us, playing off our tendencies.
There’s our big disadvantage, as things now stand, and why you read so much griping about our play-calling. Our players have talent, a lot of it, but we go into a gunfight with knives, so to speak.
First of all, we’re too predictable in our play-calling, continuing to run on 1st down more than probably any other team. And every DC knows that, and aligns against it. We seldom use the element of surprise. The best % chance of success for a pass is on a “running play,” and vice versa. 2nd and 1 is a great time to throw, because the D is dug in to stop the run. 1st and 10 should be mixed up, and we rarely mix, by passing. The best play, therefore, that we made Sunday was when we went deep on 1st down, right after a turnover (Series 5) It didn’t work, but the element of surprise would’ve caught them off guard, had LaFell gotten separation from his man, and not pushed off. The separation would have come from raw speed, or some diverting move, and he had neither.
Now…what you alluded to isn’t so exciting as those long pass plays, but means as much, over the course of the game. I pointed out that, more than once, a run was stopped by a defensive player who shouldn’t even have been close to the LOS, but was drawn there by us, through the motion of the guy he was guarding, and in effect, we planned our own defeat on that play. The guys on here started to notice this the last game, and now we see that our OC paid no attention to its inherent weakness. He kept doing it. It’s so basic that, if you see the D put 8 or more in the box, they’re daring us to beat it with a pass, but we butt our heads against their wall, and try to run, anyway. Maybe if you’re got a superior OL, that might work, and you just assert your physical superiority, but when you draw even MORE defenders to the point of attack, you’re suicidal.
Davidson is inept, and shouldn’t have his job. Any one of a dozen or more of us could plan a strategy better than he does.
But it’s not just all his fault. Many other times, he’ll put in a play that should work, yet we get a False Start, or a dropped pass, of, worse yet, a totally missed block. The latter is mostly committed by Schwartz or MacBern on passing plays, or by Fiammetta on rushes. If we still had Hoover leading through the hole, Williams and Stewart would have far higher stats now. If Otah hadn’t gone out, we’d not have had so many sacks on the QB. If you read compaints about Stewart hesitating at the line, it’s not that he’s slower than last year, or hurt; it’s because he grew accustomed last year to see Hoover in front of him, taking out a guy that now stares him in the face. Where’s the FB? He’s gone someplace else, out of the mix.
So that’s why we’re 0-5. Bad play-calling, inability to change the play at the line, and bad execution of the basics.
But to boil down a long answer to your last question: it’s not a bluff, it’s just insanity. I guess the thinking (if you can call it that) behind motioning a WR in to the line, is to bring in another blocker, to help the run we’re stubbornly sticking to – but all it accomplishes is our own downfall, through adding the offsetting defender into the mix.
by bigdavis on Oct 12, 2010 3:53 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
bigD excellent article
and better post. Just don’t know if it is stubbornness or stupidity ???
by SerbianPanther on Oct 13, 2010 5:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with most of Big D's answer.....
but seriously the offensive coaching is getting way to much emphasis of the blame. With Jake last season and Moore early this season the chorus of griping was that we didn’t run enough, and now that we switch to rookie QB and try to emphasize the run more….the chorus is we’re too predictable . I agree we’re predictable but when we made the switch to a rookie QB… we took alot of things off the table. Think about it…. were we complaining about predictable running plays in the two games Moore started….NO, everyone was complaing about the opposite….the “insanity” of not trying to utilize our run game. In fact I remember Davidson getting lambasted (not by you Big D-but by others) for calling the 1st down pass against the Giants that resulted in the first INT.
Also, the occurrence of “dragging the extra defender” into these plays is seldom and I also see the Eagles use the WR in a similar manner. IMO, Our coaches are trying to play to our strength, working with an exteremely young group and at the same time trying to protect a rookie QB and thats we’re predictable.. IMO, I don’t necessarily see that as ineptness.
I think Big D nails it in his second to last paragraph where he states: “So that’s why we’re 0-5. Bad play-calling, inability to change the play at the line, and bad execution of the basics.” I would put an emphasizes the latter part of that quote. IMO we’re losing these games on the field and not in the coaching booth.
Adapt or die
You have to take what the defense gives you… When Jake was tossing picks, we weren’t facing anywhere between 8-10 in the box. Now our young guys are seeing at least 8 in the box on most plays. They are daring you to pass the ball and you have to make them pay dearly.
I’m beginning to wonder if Fox or Davidson allowed either Moore or Clausen audible since neither one of them ever does despite regularly facing a stacked box.
Regarding dragging the receiver into the box, that works ok if you have a decent passing game where the box is not already crowded. When the box is jammed with defenders, do you really think adding a single blocker is worth telegraphing run with 100% accuracy?
OC has yet to figure out how to make the defense pay for that
which is significant sin for an OC…he should be fired immediately
"I’m beginning to wonder if Fox or Davidson allowed either Moore or Clausen audible since neither one of them ever does despite regularly facing a stacked box."
Thats a great question.
I think our QB’s lack of LOS adjustments bear alot of reponsibility for things that our OC gets blamed for. As far as jamming the box with the wideout, first off, we’re not doing it all that frequently and to answer your question, yeah maybe once a game ask your O to man up and play some smash mouth offense.
I'm beginning to wonder..
If the OC and HC put our young QBs on audible lock down? During preseason, it appeared as thought Clausen was calling some audibles (I could be remembering wrong). Now all of a sudden, both QBs almost never audible (I can’t remember a single audible actually).
Interesting...
Do you remember any others during your analysis (maybe it wasn’t something you were specifically looking for though)? I love these breakdowns BigD. Please keep them coming! This week must have been especially painful thought. :-P
Thanks for the detailed responses BigD and paydirt
I was a little uncertain because I could not see why our team can’t see the answer when it is clear as daylight. I agree with you paydirt that we have a lot of problems but I still think that they are missing some fairly obvious fixes. Like Big D said, I think we should pass more than we do currently on first down – just mix it up so that we that they can’t key in on the run every first down. This, to me, seems to be a very simple thing to fix but our staff seems to be pigheaded about it.
I will take improvement anywhere – and it seems like the easiest thing to fix would be the play-calling on first down. I would imagine that moving the ball gets a lot easier once we get started with that. It might give us some confidence. We might be able build on that a little bit. We might start scoring a touchdown here and there. We gotta start somewhere – I say start with the play-calling.
Last MvC comment for me
If Clausen had the running game and the O-line blocking that Moore had last year, would he have been his equal? They are fairly equal (both offsetting strengths and weaknesses) now, so I thought I would throw that out there.
One problem I see
Is Clausen has an AWFUL PA fake…he doesn’t sell it at all. I wish he would make it a little more deceptive. I know its nerve racking to have your back turned to the defense a little longer but his play fakes don’t fool the defense at all because he doesn’t sell it at all…
by SouthernPanther on Oct 12, 2010 10:39 PM EDT reply actions
Someone that really sells the misdirection
Is Tony Romo. I do not watch them all that much, but I remember the last time we played them, he was selling the hell out of everything.
So I'm watching the replay...and its still very ugly
But noticed at the half when Pep is walking back to the tunnel he turns and looks into the stands and half smiles. You know fans are yelling stuff at him. I’m just wondering what was being said.
I’m really despising the Bears…
Nice recap
Painful to read (due to the subject matter, not the actual writing style), but I finally brought myself to click the link.
San Francisco could still be winless when we play them in two weeks (they have Oakland this Sunday). I can smell the ratings already.
Panthers vs. 49ers…only 1,900 tickets left!
10 in the box, man to man coverage? Well, what are you waiting for?! Motion our only wide out back towards the line, and let's PUNCH THEM IN THE MOUTH with a RB dive right up the gut for a big 1st down gain! OK, "Dead Horse" on 1...
Not sure what you mean by that question.
But had Edwards held onto that slant pass, it might have been viewed as such.
Or, in our last series, had LaFell not run the wrong route, it could have been 6 completions in a row for Moore.
I guess you could say that was a spark. Certainly more than Clausen did, at any point in the 13 series he led the team.
(and wasn’t “a spark” the phrase used by Fox, about Clausen, when he inserted him as starter to begin with? I guess that’s what you were alluding to. If so, nicely put.)
Clausen can’t hold onto the ball, runs under pressure, doesn’t scan the field, throws 3/4 with a wind-up (which leads to those tipped balls at the line), and talks about “progressing to ProBowl QB status” when he’s regressing. Moore can stand in the pocket long enough to complete a pass downfield, knows how to run a hurry-up offense, and when he runs, doesn’t continually slide short of a first down. Anybody ever notice that difference between the two?
Clausen looked better than Moore when he ran the hurry up too.
Maybe we really should just keep alternating between the two. Every time they come in will be a new spark.
What??
Go back to the Giants’ game, back when we still were filled with new season optimism…
Moore’s the QB. He hasn’t yet suffered a concussion. The score’s 9-14, their favor.
Mike Goodson’s just returned their kick to midfield. Our ball, but only 0:33 left in the half.
Moore completes 4 passes, to 3 different receivers, in 24 seconds, culminating in a TD throw to Steve Smith, to put us ahead 16-14, at halftime.
Show me a hurry-up offense that Jimmy Clausen has put together, to compare to that.
And that’s the guy (Moore) that loses his starting job, because our stupid, lame-duck HC wants a “spark.”
yeah, I'll have to agree here
Clausen’s hurry-up in both game 3 and 4 were mega fail. That’s one area Moore has an edge in at the moment.
Given that Moore's the three year veteran
that doen’t surprise me.
by Flowing Willow on Oct 14, 2010 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
It might make more practical sense to stick with Clausen at this point, but from a personal standpoint I would love to see Moore get another shot right now. Clausen really looked scared in the second half on Sunday and it was painful to watch. IMO Moore seems more willing to take risks on behalf of the team at the expense of making himself the “goat” in a losing effort.
If we’re gonna crash and burn I’d rather go down swinging and until we accumulate 9 losses I can’t bring myself to conceding the season.
I'm with you in every sense of that.
There seems to be too much of a give-up attitude, from those who want Clausen in there for “experience.”
That’s equivalent to making this a 16-game pre-season trial.
Moore isn't a big scoring threat
When Moore doesn’t have an elite running game, he and Clausen are virtually identical. Despite the risks, Moore’s results were no better than Clausen’s. I could see your point if Moore was throwing quite a few TDs but too many picks. I might lobby to keep Moore in if that were the case. If you’re just taking risks that don’t have a shot to translate into scoring, why do it? Why not give the reps to the guy who is going to be here next year?
When your 2 scores down late in the game or 0-5 you have to be willing to take some shots (hence "risks")
From my perspective that may have been Clausen was pulled in favor of Moore vs the Bears.
At 0-5 we still have a remote fighters chance, so why not go back to the guy who prepared all off season to be the starter and put your entire offensive scheme back on the table just to take one last desperate shot at saving the season. Once we lose 9 games than you can give the rookie his reps. But why rush into submission?
You don't do that because if you miscalculated and you still are terrible you just delayed the rebuilding for no good reason.
There’s a lot of operating under the assumption that Moore will be able to win games, when in reality he’s done nothing of the kind in 2010, nor has he been appreciably better than Clausen… and some would argue he hasn’t been better period.
So you bench Clausen, bring in Moore and what if Moore is just as bad as when he started the season? You just delayed the development of the WRs with Clausen, delayed Clausen’s development for a ‘remote fighter’s change’. Thus dragging this mess into 2011 for no gain.
It’s like poker, sometimes you’ve got to know when to fold so you can come back the next hand. Nobody likes to fold, but sometimes you have to.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
But James we don't have to fold yet! Its still way too early man!
Once we lose 9 games Clausen can come in and get his reps.
IMO, In professional sports if you have a “remote fighters chance” you have to take it. We as fans look at the long term, but the players and coaches live their lives week to week, game to game and even play by play. Clausen’s development will not be delayed by giving the rest of the players on the team a chance to save the season with our original lineup.
Do we even have a 'remote fighter's chance' at this point?
I’m not talking statistically, but realistically… logically.
Everything that’s happening right now screams “John Fox has quit” from his words, to his body language to the product on Sunday.
The fact we’re not seeing any game plan changes of Sunday typifies to me that the guys calling the shots are waiting for 2010 to end. If that is indeed the mindset then it wont matter… we could have Tom Brady at QB, but if the play calling never evolves, the game planning never evolves and the preparation never evolves then there wont be any difference.
I see two coordinators on the coaching staff who are trying: Ron Meeks and Jeff Rodgers. Is it a coincidence that the defense and special teams are the only two phases doing anything?
Fox knows he’s gone, Davidson knows with likely an offensive minded HC being brought in he’s probably done. For me, I’ll go back to thinking we have a ‘remote fighter’s chance’ when we make the changes to make sure we have an HC and OC with some fight left in them, until then 2010 is done.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
You're making the same arguments against Moore and for Clausen
That some of us made in vain all last season (until Fox finally wised up, put Moore in and the team started winning.). SO frustrating to see so many people do a complete 180 in philosophy from last year to suit their personnel preferences. I guess that’s what happens when you draft the Golden Boy. You ready to can Moore after two mediocre to poor performances, but Jake got the chance to ruin a whole season.
2009 is ancient history compared to the mindset this team is in now.
If you choose to believe this 2010 team is anything like 2009’s then I can’t help you… because it’s not.
2009 proved that the only thing needed to turn failure into success was reliable play at the QB position, 2010 has proven that it doesn’t matter who starts this team is destined for failure due to inept play and coaching at multiple other positions.
You can say that I am, James, ready to can Moore… you know, Moore canned himself and the coaching staff pulled the plug. I’m not the one calling the shots.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
by James Dator on Oct 14, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
You are saying Moore canned himself, James.
I still don’t believe that to be the case.
It was the combination of: 1) terrible blocking getting him a concussion, and 2) Fox thinking Clausen could give the team “a spark” that got him benched.
Well, the spark hasn’t been there, from Clausen.
And Moore was allowed to play a game too many, after the concussion.
I could make, and have made, the case, that many of the errors attributable to Moore, were the result of terrible play-calling by the OC, specifically and most telling, the passes inside the red zone, when we should’ve been staying true to our core and running it in. These calls led to Moore’s INTs, and his wearing the goat horns.
Even now, every writeup of this last game concludes with the glib conclusion, something on the order of “,,,and Moore came in and did no better, throwing 2 INTs.” Well, BS, Moore threw those 2 picks because Edwards couldn’t catch the slant pass, and the Hail Mary should never be counted as a pick on the poor QB who’s told to throw it up for grabs. All the other passes Moore threw in his assigned 3:35 were on target, and 2 moved the chains. He played FAR better against the Bears than Clausen did. He made no fumbles of snaps or handoffs, as Clausen did, and he ran a hurry-up offense just as efficiently as he did in the last 33 seconds of game #1.
I look like an apologist, but I’m not that. I call them as I see them, and I’m quick to come down on a player if he’s not earning his pay. Just think how many times I’ve castigated Fiammetta, or Schwartz, or MacBern, for all their costly, missed blocks. I wouldn’t be holding up Moore’s fallen flag so diligently, if it weren’t for so many guys here who have so quickly cast him aside, when he played so brilliantly the last 5 games of ‘09, and then got off to a rough start this year, through the fault of a lot of guys other than himself, plus bad play-calling, which I can’t stress enough. Then when Clausen was installed as the starter, I posted that I supported him, and wanted him to succeed, for the sake of the team.
But he hasn’t succeeded, and has shown far less command of the offense than has Moore, has only thrown 1 TD, due to a complete defensive breakdown by the Saints, and has generally looked skittish and disoriented. The coaches may not even give him a chance any more (but they’ve shown they can’t coach jackshit, so who are they?), but I still hold that Moore’s got the talent to be this team’s franchise QB, if given the chance, and some blocking support.
You see it differently, I know that. Time will tell.
Do you really think Moore's interceptions had nothing to do with his benching?
To me, that’s the #1 issue. Most of his interceptions were on mistakes in judgment; throws that simply should never have been thrown. Case in point is the Jeff King INT. Yes, it was a great play by the defender (forget who it was off hand), but there was literally no place he could have put that ball where a defender wouldn’t have had and equal or better shot at the ball than King. To Moore’s credit, he probably put the ball about the best place he could and it was still intercepted.
What does this tell you?
I don’t feel like rebuking the majority of your post because it’s all a difference of opinion and we both know that stance isn’t shifting. But to say that Moore’s playing had nothing to do with him being benched is just not true.
Right on BigD
…if it weren’t for so many guys here who have so quickly cast him aside…
The most infuriating part is that most of those on here who were ready to cast him aside after the NY game….were actually ready to cast him aside before he EVER played that game. They just used the failures of the whole team as a reason to give Moore the (undeserved) boot.
And as far as Fox being the one to make that decision. I’m, honestly starting to beleive that Foxy is letting the team tank this season (putting in an unready QB is part of it) as part of his bigger scheme to blame the FO and save face for himself.
An elite running game makes all the difference
With a stout running game, even a mediocre QB can look spiffy (i.e. Moore in 2009). The running game propped up Moore by making his job much easier since teams were respecting our running game but not putting 9-10 in the box with consistency. When our elite running game vanished, Moore looked pretty bad. To be fair, he probably looked worse than he actually is because of poor OL play and play calling.
That said, Moore is not good enough to put the team on his back and carry them like a P. Manning might. He’s not shown us that he’s good enough to break the log jam in the box and burn teams enough to make them back off. Everyone makes the assumption that we have the best chance to win with Moore this year, yet there is 0 evidence to support that conclusion, keeping in mind that 2009 and 2010 are completely different beasts for our young QBs.
I hear you there, but here's where we differ....
I think switching to the rookie, only two games into the season takes alot of the table in your game planning and preparation. I agreed with the decision to give Clausen a shot to provide a spark but that didn’t work. So I say go back to your orginal plan, put everything back on the table that you worked on all off-season and in training camp and give it your best shot, because I’m not sure we’ve done that yet …in giving it only two games.
Then what's the best case scenario?
At 0-5 what is the most you can hope to garner out of this football team? Ultimately, if you prescribe to the notion that all of the issues fall on the QB then sure, maybe it all turns around… but if you believe the problems are greater than Matt Moore or Jimmy Clausen then making a change doesn’t help anything.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
by James Dator on Oct 14, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Best case scenario is to take one week/one game at a time.....
and utilize our offseason and preseason work to its fullest and give our players every viable opportunity to make the most of this season. I agree there will probably come a time to fold our hand, but this early? No way man.
I think you can afford the 'one week at a time' mantra when everyone is pulling in the same direction.
Until I see some sort of evolution and modification from the coaching staff I don’t see any room for major improvement.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
by James Dator on Oct 14, 2010 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Our Realistic Outlook
49ers: 0-5
Rams: 2-3
Saints: 3-2
Bucs: 3-1 (bye in week 3)
Ravens: 4-1
Browns: 1-4
Seahawks: 2-2 (bye last week)
Falcons: 4-1
Cardinals: 3-2
Steelers: 3-1 (bye last week)
Falcons again.
That’s 4 teams (5 games) we will be facing who only have 1 loss right now, and the Steelers have been without Ben. 3 more teams have lost 2 games and are at 3-2 or 2-2. We only face 3 teams who have a losing record right now in the Browns, 49ers, and Rams.
We couldn’t beat the Bears last week when they threw 4 picks and we couldn’t beat the Saints the week before who also gift wrapped the game for us, but we left it under the Christmas tree. How is anyone thinking we will beat the Falcons, Ravens, or Steelers at this point? Honestly, it’s looking like it’ll be tough for us to beat the Saints, Bucs, and Cards on top of that. That’s 7 games right there that I really am going to be surprised if we win. I hope we do, I want us to, but I’m not blindly, woefully ignorant of the fact that we will be overcoming some long odds to do so.
That's pretty much the same conclusion I draw.
Ergo, making the change to Clausen didn’t help anything.
Did it?
It did, however, hurt a lot of things. One. showing Moore their confidence in his abilities was very tenuous, not what they should’ve been doing with a guy who showed so much last year, and Two, throwing Clausen in the cauldron before he was ready. Now you’ve got 2 QBs with little confidence in where they stand.
I'll agree with that much...
I don’t think it was wise to start Clausen, and if Moore hadn’t been injured I think he wouldn’t be starting now. But when Moore was injured, Clausen was able to move the ball. That, along with the issues Moore was exhibiting, is why the switch was made.
Hindsight is 20/20 though.
If I were the HC, here's what I would have done.
After Moore suffers the concussion, but gets cleared by tests to be asymptomatic, I would’ve held a presser and said the following:
“As head coach of this team, I want to make it clear that Matt Moore is our starting QB. But to insure that he’s fully recovered from the aftereffects of a head injury, we want to rest him this week. It won’t hurt to let our rookie, Jimmy Clausen, take Matt’s place this week, in fact, it’ll aid in his long-term development, but I’m here to assure everyone, especially Matt, that the work he put in for us last year is not forgotten, and that he’s still our guy.”
Anybody think that show of solidarity wouldn’t have been better for team chemistry than this on-again, off-again carousel we’re now witnessing, where Fox benches Clausen, and then doesn’t say 4 words to Moore?
Totally agree with this
Something along these lines would have been perfect.
I just get the feeling that Moore never had the confidence of coaching staff in Carolina. Now, I wonder if that is actually an endorsement for Moore.
That would have been the best way to go.
I personally fell prey to my impatience as a fan and supported the way Fox handled things at the time, but in retrospect, he as a head coach should have been wiser and handled things as you stated. As it is stands now, I can’t help but question what we left on the table by being so quick to abandon a full offseason-preseason worth of preparation.
dude, that quote is like 60 words
Our HC can’t remember more than 5 words man
You do realize that's more information in one presser than Fox has given in his entire tenure, right?
But I see your point. I disagree with you, but I do see where you’re coming from.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." ~ David Foster Wallace
I agree... to a point
I would have started Moore for at least another game or two. My point is that now Fox made the move to the rookie, going back doesn’t make much sense in the current environment.
Your presuming a loyalty to Moore that you may have as a fan, but the Panthers had no intention of.
It sounds cold… but who really cares how he feels about the Panthers’ confidence in his abilities?
Moore has no confidence in where he stands, but there is little to presume Clausen is having a crisis of confidence. Honestly, the best tool to gauge a player’s mindet is Twitter, because they have a tendency to throw stuff down in a stream of conciousness like manor, whereas they would normally prepare some key points for a press conference or interview.
There is nothing from reading Clausen’s Twitter that he feels:
a) He’s been started too soon
b) That he has little confidence in where he stands.
On the contrary here is what he’s said of note since the loss:
Tough loss today but we will keep workin everyday to get better! Panther Pride
Getting treatment on the body now…but learned alot from yesterdays tape! We will get better each day and each week
Those don’t sound like the words of someone who is concerned about their role on the team. I agree Moore sounds like a broken man, hence his comment re: John Fox not talking to him, and it’s an unfortunate situation… but it is what it is. Moore isn’t the first to find himself in this position, and he wont be the last.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
All Hail the Power of the Twitter!
Yeah, Clausen talks a good game.
Now if and when he EVER plays one, I’ll be all over him.
Until then, it’s just bravado, cleverly calculated to make him look like he’s the starter.
“…better each day and each week”
I would hope so! Pretty low benchmark to start from.
HE IS THE STARTER
People can wish for Matt Moore all they want, but Clausen doesn’t need to ‘look like the starter’ he IS the starter, and until further notice he’ll REMAIN the starter.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
Okay, enough dancing around...
Let’s cut to the chase.
I know why I’m all for Moore. He deserves support, after his high level of play last year, and also because of the shoddy way he’s been treated this year. And it’s not without some substantiation, based on the statistical production he’s put up (notwithstanding this year, much less so, but for many reasons other than his own errors)
But why are you all over Clausen, as savior of the Western World? He’s had exactly one game of the 5 he’s been in, when he’s had a QB rating over 54, has fumbled 7 times, and has only 1 TD, which was a fluke.
http://www.panthers.com/team/roster/Jimmy-Clausen/57ba15b7-9919-4f38-af52-84a816cb3a3c
http://www.panthers.com/team/roster/Matt-Moore/94a40463-9219-47b0-b489-cbdd5cbb8b34
The chse.
Against, NYG, Clausen was 0/2 and still had a better QB rating than Moore did. How is that even possible? When Clausen came in against Tampa, he moved the ball easily down the field to the 1 yard line. This was only one of two “sustained” drives, if you count the 6 play, 68 yard drive in which 37 yards were gained on a 4th down broke coverage that saw Smith reach the end zone. Take that away and Moore put up nothing the whole game. If you rule out the broken coverage against Cincy, you would have to rule out the this play on the same account. In fact, you could reasonably say this is the one time Jeff Davidson pulled his head out of his ass long enough to come up with a decent play call.
At this point in the season, given everything we saw not happening in the preseason, how can you argue that there weren’t serious doubts about where we were headed with Moore at the helm? Hindsight is 20/20.
My overall point is that we can pigeon hole both of them until there is nothing left. Clausen is the starter for now, whether we like it or not.
Addendum.
Make that 1 of 3 sustained drives. There was another 11 play, 76 yard drive that lasted 3:03 that was kept alive by a 25 yard DPI call before Moore was intercepted… again.
My two cents
But I’m not so sure that those who want Clausen necessarily think that he is going to be the “savior”, especially this season.
I think they don’t see Moore winning 9 out of the next 11 games which is what we would have to do at a minimum to get to the playoffs.
To be honest, I just don’t see how it matters who plays QB at this point as far as giving us a chance to win. When our OL plays the way it does and we call plays like we do Moore/Clausen makes minimal difference on the field.
It comes down what you think is best for the future of the team: starting Moore or Clausen. Those who want Clausen, see upside in him and it’s difficult to blame them. I mean Moore got pulled after two games for a rookie by John Fox of all people. It’s hard not to read into that.
This was exactly the reason behind my poll.
Most people who think Clausen should be starting do so because they think at this point no matter who we start our season is going to be a losing one and we are better served in the long run having him under center. Very few people believe he is better than Moore and I would wager most view them in equal light.
I don't like to waste my energy on fruitless efforts
So I don’t see any point trying to justify why the backup QB should start when there’s no indication from anyone with power that he will start.
I remember a time before the season when you said that you would support the starting QB whoever it was… I guess that only lasted until your horse fell out of the race.
I support the starting quarterback of the Carolina Panthers. I supported Matt Moore up until he was pulled, and now I support Jimmy Clausen as both the current starter, and the apparent future of the QB position. I say that because last time I checked Clausen has a contract running through next year, and Moore doesn’t.
So ultimately it does no good to even have the discussion. As far as anyone can tell we’re an 0-5 team, rebuilding and there doesn’t seem to be any indication that Matt Moore is part of the future blueprint for this team. If you think he’s been mistreated? Fine… but that doesn’t change what happened and what happened was that apparently the Panthers decided they were better starting Clausen.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
by James Dator on Oct 14, 2010 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
James, Help me out , Im out of the local loop. Did Fox name a starter for the Niners game?
Last I heard was after the Bears game when he indicated it was undecided.
Fox did his usual Fox thing
“No decision yet” but after all he never announced that Clausen would be starting in the Bears game… so normally if you don’t hear something it’s business as usual.
However, given he announced Clausen starting on a Monday morning, and that Clausen has been working with the 1st team this week, and when asked Matt Moore said Fox “hasn’t said more than four words” to him… there doesn’t seem to be any indication there will be a QB change.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
Fair enough. You stated it well.
I guess I’ve just been playing Don Quixote here.
Yes, I said I’d supprt the starteing QB, and I reiterated it before the last game. But after seeing how sloppy and tentative Clausen was, and seeing that Fox benched him (without a concussion) I thought Moore would be given another chance to start.
Apparently from what you know, that’s not gonna be the case.
So I withdraw.
Thanks for the response. Good debating with you, James.
figured I'd throw this out here...
Does anyone think that Jimmy’s problem may be TOO MUCH confidence? I know it sounds crazy, but think abuot it. Hes impervious on the presser, admits mistakes, and remains optimistic. He’s been in front of the press for a long time so he knows how to handle it, and may be just going through the motions. Does anyone think he may be saying this stuff but not taking his mistakes to heart?
Sometimes you gotta light a fire under someone’s ass to get their head in the right mode by shakin their ego. Problem is it can backfire and create a dud (see our current Moore).
Moore didn't have his fire lit. He had it put out.
They benched him, but not to send the message, “Get better or you’ve lost your job.”
They took his job after a game and half. A game and a half of missed blocks and all around inept coaching. Moore even suffered a concussion after the beating he took in the NY game.
Putting Clausen in the 2nd half of the TB game was not to light a fire under Moore’s ass, it was just a hasty change in the depth chart. Fox put the blame on Moore instead of taking any responsibility, and an angry fan base looking for answers with a vocal contingency of Clausen supporters went right along with it.
by dudemanhey on Oct 14, 2010 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Glass Ceiling...
so why not go back to the guy who prepared all off season to be the starter and put your entire offensive scheme back on the table
Because despite getting all of those reps Moore is no better than Clausen it seems. What we’ve seen is very likely Moore’s ceiling without an elite running game. Clausen as a rookie at least has a greater chance of improving with more reps than Moore does. Moore’s judgement is likely not going to suddenly improve. Clausen’s judgement might as the game slows down for him.
Moore's ceiling was seen last year.
Clausen so far wouldn’t be able to touch that with his fingertips, if he could jump.
I'm willing to bet...
Clausen would look just as sharp as Moore did if we had the offense we did last year. But it’s clear that we don’t (and you have to look no further than the difference in Moore to see that).
Jake Delhomme had similar success... it was just fewer, and father between
94.3 rating against Arizona, 115.8 vs. Atlanta the second time around.
Everyone can’t have everything their way to support an argument.
Moore can’t be the sole reason the offense was good last year, and the offense can’t be the sole reason he’s under performed this year.
The truth falls somewhere in the middle.
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
I agree with your point, but with all due respect......
I wasn’t trying to say Moore was the sole reason for last year’s success, I was pointing out the fundamental flaw in the extrapolation that was being made.
What flaw is that exactly?
All I’m saying is that Clausen is about as effective now as Matt Moore is which means he would likely be as good as Moore was last year in the same offense/situation.
He has consistency issues, but he’s a rookie. All rookies have consistency issues.
I actually understood what you were getting at......
but from a pure logic standpoint you you can’t make that extrapolation because Moore himself was an integral part of last years offense/situation. Basically Moore is a variable on both sides of the equation and therefore removing him alters the entire equation. I apologize for “geeking out” on you there Ace.
Oh no... I get what you're saying...
You can basically call the value of Q (the variable at Quarterback). So Qm = Moore at QB, Qc = Clausen at QB.
If Qm * O9 (offense in 09) = Qc * O9 then Qm * O8 = Qc * O8.
Have I scared you yet?
lol! classic.
Thats pretty damn close to what I was thinking. {offense 09} is a constant(k) that Moore is included in.
ie: QB + (k) =result
OMG…and now I will banish myself for a few days and hope no one remembers this when I come back.
Let's try this slightly differently..
Clausen so far wouldn’t be able to touch that with his fingertips, if he could jump.
I doubt Clausen would have played as well as Moore too. That’s completely beside the point. Note I entitled the post “Glass Ceiling” since it seems clear that Moore cannot get back to that level of play this year either.
We don’t have the luxury of an elite running this year and therefore comparisons to 2009 are not really valid. Every year in the NFL is a universe unto itself. While I really respect your loyalty and willingness to “Dance with the one that brought ya.”, I simply feel that Moore’s past success is not likely to translate this year.
I wish Moore would have played better and that Foxy wasn’t so fickle and so willing to take the easy and lazy way out by shuffling personnel. It sucks, but it seems like Fox turned out to be a quitter once he smelled smoke coming from our offense’s engine this year.
How do you know?
it seems clear that Moore cannot get back to that level of play this year either.
That is only true is if that is what one WANTS to see.
Mooer only had 1.5 games to show his stuff this season.
The first game at NY was an abomination for the OL and the OC. And while neither are sufficiently doing their jobs, the OL actually has improved to a degree since the first game.
In the .5 of a game against TB, Moore was playing behind a still porous OL and only a week removed form suffering a concussion. OC still sucked.
I do not believe we have seen enough of Moore in 2010 to say that he “cannot get back to that level of play” from 2009.
half a game against Tampa?
Clausen got the nod in the 4th quarter man… and I think he led what… 2 drives?
Dude...we gotta give this up.
We’ve got our numbers, and our belief; they’ve got their numbers, and their belief.
It’ll all come out in the wash, and nobody knows how that’ll turn out.
You and I believe Moore got a raw deal from Fox; everybody else feels it’s all for the best, long run. I’m exhausted. The sides of support are stalemated. Let’s save ourselves any more aggravation.
I said this before
i can imagine 2010 playing out very similarly to 2009: where i spent all season begging for Moore to play, then when it’s too late to save the season Fox will start Moore again and the team will have success.
Let me just throw something in here.
I hate to bring Delhomme into this, but some have used Fox’s loyalty to him last year in their argument regarding the treatment of Moore. Delhomme had a lot more leash than Moore last year, but that’s because his resume was more impressive. I’m not going to list it here as I have done that more times than I care to remember, but point is 2009 and 2010 are not comparable. I don’t think Moore was cut a raw deal, imo he should not have started againt Tampa Bay due to health concerns, but putting Clausen in would have elicited controversy regardless.
by Flowing Willow on Oct 15, 2010 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually...
I believe that Moore got a bit of a raw deal as well. I just feel that once you went with the rookie (without any sort of disclaimer) then absent exceptional circumstances you should probably not flip flop back and forth between QBs.
From NFL.Fanhouse.com
“# 32. Panthers (0-5) | Last Week: 31
Through five games — and remember that he only played a few snaps in Week 1 — rookie quarterback Jimmy Clausen has turned the ball over five times and has a quarterback rating of 52.2. His three interceptions and two fumbles sound bad enough. When you take into account he’s fumbled the ball five other times this year and not lost possession, you see just how not ready Clausen was to take over an NFL franchise. — KB”
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/10/12/nfl-power-rankings-week-6-ravens-jets-keep-leading-afcs-charg/
You forgot to mention...
The part where Moore has turned the ball over the same number of times, but in only 3 games.
You equate a turnover at the end of the game, from a Hail Mary, as equivalent to dropping it before making a handoff, without any contact whatsoever from a defensive player, and then losing yardage all the way back to your own 1YL?
And that wasn’t even a turnover by Clausen, just an 11 yard loss due to ineptitude. If he’s have been blocked out of the way, as could easily have happened, it would’ve been a T.O. and a TD against us. But not having been, you and the Clausen apologists just sweep it under the rug as another inevitable ‘learning expeeience’ growing pain for the Kid.
That was the football equivalent of playing air guitar.
Get him out of there! He’s clumsy and scared.
Now let’s not start up all over again, with another itemized list of mistakes they’ve both made. The point that I was replying to was the statement by patosan that only ‘exceptional circumstances’ (that is, the very incompetence by Clausen that I referenced) would be reason to go back to Moore. I cited them.
The only choices the Panthers have are:
1) try Tony Pike (fat chance of that happening)
2) try Armanti Edawrds (fatter chance)
3) hire a QB off FA (no chance)
4) keep going back and forth until either Moore or Clausen gets it right.
No...
I equal a “turnover” to “balls lost on the offense to the defense.” I’m pretty sure that’s the standard definition of “turnover.”
If you wan to pick apart something else (his fumbles specifically) have at it. I’m not arguing you there, because as I’ve said before it is something he needs to work on.
At least I can admit that about Clausen…
Your comment implies exceptional circumstances has already occurred and therefore some credence should be given to starting the guy who has the same number of turn overs in fewer opportunities.
OK, I've reinstated myself early from my brief self imposed exile.
Not all turnovers are equal…some are made playing balls to the wall trying to win , others are just made…..IMO Moore’s fall in in the first category and Clausen’s in the latter. With all due respect the kid has potential and I sincerely hope he pans out, but right now with still just 5 losses in the books, why not go back and give one last shot to to everything this team and players prepared for in OTC’s and training camp. Clausen can realize his learning curve once were eliminated from playoff contention, which being 3 games out with 11 to play has not happened yet.
If you listen to the CSR radio segment with James and ace, they've given up on this season, see no way we can make the playoffs, and therefore think the team should go to training wheels for the remainder.
It’s a whole different mindset than you and I have. I give up arguing the point.
They’ve just as intransigently given up, as you and I are intransigent about NOT giving up. They see only the long-range picture; we see it game by game.
I’m not sure if there’s a right and wrong to this difference. Just two differing ways to view things. Maybe they are realists, and we are dreamers.
In any event, it’s out of all our hands; the coaches will decide who plays.
So you think Moore is going to lead us to a winning season?
You really think that’s possible? What have you seen this season that leads you to believe that?
Although this may not have been directed at me...
I want to answer I don’t know for sure whether Moore can lead us to a winning season but I sure would like to give him more than two games to show whether he can. Based on what he did last season with a similar banged up offense combined with the fact all of our OTC and preseason was worked out with Moore as the starter, I think its crazy not to give him another shot
The 'exceptional circumstanes' have occurred, in the form of exceptionally poor play, vs the Bears.
Argue it all you want, does Clausen really show you anything, in his play with the Panthers so far, to give you any faith that he can be a “franchise QB,” who can manage a clock and lead his team to more wins than losses? I sure haven’t. All your faith is just that, a hopeful faith; it borders on religious fervor. If he were indeed the Messiah of the league, he’d have shown more signs of it by now than fumbling, bumbling, sloppy, time-wasting, can’t get the plays called at the line play. Or didn’t you see Smitty throw up his hands in frustration, “Hurry up, hurry up!”?
I'm curious...
What do you think about the numbers over at Football Outsiders that show when taking into account for the opposition’s defense, that both are terrible but Clausen is slightly less terrible? I believe Moore was around -50 and Clausen was around -40.
Finally, I haven’t seen anyone satisfactorily answer the question regarding why they think Moore can be serviceable without an elite rushing attach (which makes the QBs job a lot easier).
That would mean...
Exceptionally worse than your back QB. They’ve played about the same, so stick with the rookie.
They haven't played about the same, to my eyes.
Moore has had 2 bad games, after many more very good ones. Clausen has never had a good game.
(and I’m talking about playing against professionals.)
Followed up by 29.7.
Mr. Consistency.
Yeah, he’s our man.
His backup had 18.8 that game
Yeah… he should totally be counted on
Cat Scratch Reader's resident optimist.
Whatever...
I’m done with this argument.
Bigd, you said you were going to support our starter. Are you going to back out on that now? Moore isn’t the starter and there’s no indication he will be the starter and even if he is, we have more problems on hand than just QB so the end result will likely be the same no matter who starts.
Then we go into next season with a QB who looked bad his rookie year and a free agent who looked worse that probably won’t be resigned.
I’m done.
Hmmm...
Moore has had 2 bad games
Why are you not counting pre-season when our offense was a futility fest?.
Pre=season is to football, as a screen test is to a movie.
It means nothing to me.
There are too many players involved in the mix who will never play a single down in the real game. It’s not even a dress rehearsal.
I actually kinda agree here...
K.Moore was with the starters one game and he’s not even playing for us anymore. I think the preseason is informative, but not all-inclusively so. Clearly, there is a little bit of a carryover between the offensive ineptitude of the pre-season and the regular season, but I’m not sure it’s visible in such a way that we can distinctly make any assumptions based on it.
Plus, Moore played what… 6 quarters out of 16 I think it was?
If a movie screen tests very badly...
It generally gets reworked.
I didn’t mean to imply pre-season is the same as the regular season, however it certainly foreshadowed of awful things to come. Also, pre-season is all about evaluating players, why can we use it to help us evaluate Moore?
I like the foreshadowing comment, in connection with the movie analogy.
Other themes are a pattern of repeated actions, colorful characters, and unexpected subplot developments.
I guess you meant ‘why CAN’T we use it…’ If so, Moore certainly didn’t light it up in the pre-season, but he never had before, either. Problem was, neither did Clausen, Pike, or Cantwell. That has something to do with all the shuttling in and out of OL players who aren’t here (or sadly, still are!), and with all the new plays being taught.
Anyway you look at it...
A very bad beginning to our movie, let’s hope the story has a happy ending. :-)
Also, sorry about all the poor grammar, it had been a long day and I was more tired than I realized.
To me,
0-5 is exceptional circumstances. If the team can’t get it together under Clausen after the by against SF
I'd agree with Moore-Clausen comparison.
Clausen has been coached to throw away the ball or check it down when he can’t find something down the field. In that respect he plays a little too safe at this point. I did not like the idea of pulling Moore in the second game – but I don’t understand why they would do that unless they feel Clausen actually has a decent shot at improving the situation. I would imagine the saw enough from Clausen to give him a shot. The real stinker in Clausen’s performance was the fumbled snap and hand off. Without those, I don’t think people would be as down on Clausen.
I suspect that Moore might have more success moving the ball although I’m not totally convinced that he will make a difference. At the same time, benching Clausen would be like benching Moore earlier in the season. In effect, you are putting the blame on the QB. I think our problems start with OL. Those are the guys who have been in the game much longer than the rookie QB or the rookie receivers. As much as the OL, I would put it on the play-calling and they have been in business a while too (maybe too long). After that we can start pointing fingers at rookie QB and the rookie receivers.
"coached to throw away the ball or check it down when he can’t find something down the field"
That’s it in a nutshell.
Problem is, the “can’t find something down the field” part.
As I tried to show, he does this too early, without seeing that there ARE players open down the field. And not far down the field, either, but about 8-10 yards right in front of him, usually Rosario, but also King and Williams. He’s shown no pocket presence, to survey the field and find those guys. He’s taking the easy way out, to throw it OOB, when there are better alternatives. He got sacked so many times at ND, that his first instinct is to avoid that, at the cost of hanging in there long enough to see the open man. (And I’m NOT talking about times like the OOB throw to avoid Peppers, but the times he does it when there’s NO pressure, and the pocket’s held. You just don’t see Moore doing that. I know he’s a rookie, and rookies need slack, but his tendency needs to be corrected.
When he does hang in there....
No one is open and you say he looks “immobile” as he takes a sack, but when he does move out, you say he does it too quickly and/or can’t find open targets. You can’t have it both ways with a rookie; it’s just not going to be consistent. That’s what separates rookies from veterans.
I agree that he does need to shore up his downfield vision, but that’s only something that can be corrected in time. It’s a speed of the game issue.
Great write up
Rec’d btw. I had to write a paper, so I only saw two plays. I turned it off when Peppers got his own tip in the first quarter. What bugs me the most are the missed blocks. Second is the play calling. I don’t mind the run calls. It is a our bread-n-butter. But why bunch all the WRs right on the line. Spread them out some.
I understand the cutting of older players. But cutting Moose is killing us. Hoover would be hurt by now anyway, so it’s best for him. But we need Moose. If nothing else to teach all these young kids how to play the game.
A concern I’ve got is that Pickles is gonna turn into Carr behind our O-Line. If he gets happy feet, he’s going to be worthless long term.
I’m generally an optimist, but I’m starting to think more and more we’re going to hear…“and with the first pick of the 2011 draft the Carolina Panthers pick….”
I am a little envious of the success that Rams
are having with Bradford. So I looked into his numbers. In the first 4 games in the first half they had following pass-run ratio
Cards 9/6
Raiders 2/11
Redskins 6/8
Hawks 7/6
Puts them at about 60-40 run/pass. Then I wanted to look at passing yards through the air (adjusted for yards after catch).
They also have 1159 pass yards and 501 YAC. So that gives them 5.72 yards per completion through the air. Carolina has 796 yards with 276 YAC (I did not bother separating Moore and Clausen). That comes to 7.64 yards per completion through the air.
However if you look at yards per attempt adjusted for YAC, there is little to choose – Carolina has 3.47 yards per attempt. Rams have 3.24 yards per attempt.
Comments are welcome.
Well I have not seen the Rams games
but the numbers they are not afraid to pass on first down early in the game. A lot of this may have to do with planning but they mix it up regardless. Something which we refuse to do because we need to “establish the run”.
Rams are also clearly minimizing the burden on the QB – by calling short passes and accumulating YAC. This is something we did regularly with Smitty. In addition to this, they have higher percentage completed and this means that they are more likely to be in position to move the chains.
The reason I bring this up is that teams around the league seem to have an idea of how to ease the quarterback into the next level. What we are going for is trial by fire.
Thanks for the play-by-play breakdown!
Seeing as how I haven’t watched football for that long, it’s hard for me to take in and assess everything going on the field at one time. This really helps me get a better picture of all that happened.
I do think that Clausen’s talented and that he will probably be our franchise QB. But for the moment, I’m ready to give Moore another shot between what I originally saw when watching the game and from what I’ve read on here. I like them both, so I think my opinions are about as close to unbiased as possible.
In the first place, I thought they benched Moore too soon. Yeah, he definitely had some issues, but I think he did too well at the end of last season for that to have been a fluke. And keep in mind, he may have been in the league for a few years, but with as few starts as he’s had, there’s the argument that he’s almost a rookie himself. Also, the team should not have let Moore practice and play the week after his concussion – I think that’s just putting your QB at an unnecessary risk (especially in light of the O-line performance). I wish Clausen would have played the game that week, and then let Moore return the next. Additionally, when Moore came in at the end of the last game, I know his statistics on paper didn’t look as good as Clausen’s. But the “sample size” if you will makes it a little less reliable to base an opinion on. Based on what I saw, Moore brought a new energy to the field. Clausen was beginning to look scared near the end, and Moore came in, and he took charge. I’ve never been able to hear him bark out things to his players like he did. And I think the blame for the incomplete to Armanti and the INT on the hail mary really should be split between Moore and the players.
Then there’s Clausen. I started to have more confidence in him after the Saints game- especially with no fumbled snaps and no turnovers. But then the Bears happened. The repeating fumbled snaps and the frequent batted down low throws are worrying me. I like it when a player is willing to throw a ball OOB when the only other option is a sack – but I didn’t realize that he routinely missed multiple open receivers until this post. That also worries me.
As someone mentioned earlier, their strengths and weaknesses nearly balance out. Clausen is more willing to throw the ball OOB than risk a sack and fumble, but sometime he’s too willing to do that. He seems too anxious to get something done because I don’t think he really trusts the O-line (can’t blame him there). Moore on the other hand is more willing to take his chances waiting for an open receiver to make a play despite the fact he sees four or so defensive players flying into his face. What each of them does sometimes pays off, sometimes it doesn’t. I think their accuracy is pretty similar (some may differ in opinion – that’s fine).
My personal suggestion would be to have both QBs take reps with all of the receivers during practice instead of breaking it down with one working with the ones and the other with the twos. That way whenever either one needs to play, he will have a better feel for whatever players are in at that point – try to get chemistry with all of them. With our current offense, I don’t think either QB will have more success than the other, and our season’s pretty much a wash after an 0-5 start. I’m afraid of Clausen regressing, and since he’s the QB of the future, I really would try to save him mentally and physically, and only have him come in this season if Moore’s injured or looking exceptionally worse.
Here’s some exciting news – and it is related to this post because it has to do with the offense (and the team as a whole).
So, I was soooo angry and worked up during the Bears game that I wrote an email to the Panthers organization – saying basically everything that I’ve said on here. Someone from the organization actually called me back (I included my number in the email). I definitely didn’t expect a response – I doubted anyone would even look at the email. So maybe the organization isn’t as apathetic as it seems. The man said that he was happy to hear from a fan so passionate about the team, and that everyone from Richardson, the manager, the coaches, and the players are all disappointed in how the season’s started. He said that they really expected all of the young players who have been there for a few seasons to be able to competently step up into starting roles, and of course expected the remaining vets to play up to their previous standards. He said the only major concern they expected to have was trying to find a player to replace Moose. Also I did give props to some of the rookies – I pointed out Gettis. And I gave props to the defense.
So, anyway, basically the same song and dance that we’ve heard, but it was really cool that someone actually cared enough to call me back instead of writing some general email or completely ignoring my email.
Also – I did toss out the notion of looking to acquire Brandon Carter from the Tampa Bay practice squad before the trade deadline. Haha. I know that was mentioned in another post (the look back at the mock draft), but I just thought I would include that tidbit since it was part of my conversation.
You're a real asset to this blog, Jamie - keep it up.
Interesting that you got some communication back from the team. I’d have thought they’d only reply if you were a PSL owner. But having apparently made no pledges to improve, they’re basically just as stoic as Fox is, in his comments. It still is what it is.
On your response to my observations that Clausen misses open receivers, on plays where he chucks it OOB — if one watches the telecast, one is apt to assume the broadcasters know what they’re talking about. But such is not always the case. It’s not much of a stretch to believe that, when they routinely misidentify a player (one play last game, Moose said that “rookie Tim Duckworth” had been chipped on a block, when he wasn’t even in the game, and it was Greg Hardy.) What I’m pointing out is that they gave credit a few times to Clausen for making the heads up play to throw it away, because “no one was open downfield.” Well, after I replayed the play, in slo-mo, it was apparent that (at least 3 times) he DID have an open receiver available to him.
So…take what you hear on the air with a grain of salt.
I look at every play at least 3 times, to study the blocks (made and missed) , the alignments, the missed tackles, and especially the alertness and field awareness of the QBs, theirs and ours. Just watching the ball carrier on a run doesn’t begin to identify the reason he gains 1 yard, or 24.
Thanks for the compliment!
Yeah, I was shocked and happy to get a call from the organization, but at the same time, disappointed to hear the same old thing – like you said, Fox’s stoic comments, but just reiterated by a third party. I was at least hoping to be offered some free tickets for my passionate email. Haha.
And I definitely have noticed that the broadcasters aren’t on top of their games. I mean – “Stephen Smith”? Really? Nope, he goes by Steve, thanks. And fans who love him get to call him Smitty. So I do know that their commentary is often shoddy and suspect, I just don’t always catch all of the mistakes they make. So I really do appreciate your work in breaking all of that down.
Props to you for rewatching all of the plays so carefully – that has to take a lot of time. Maybe you should go give Monday tutorials to the coaching staff and the players on how to watch film. Do they even watch the film on Mondays? I’m starting to think they maybe just order in food and watch “Varsity Blues” and “Remember the Titans” and call it watching/studying the film. I seriously don’t see how they can watch themselves make the same mistakes over, and over, and over again, and not fix it. That’s partially an indictment on the players – many of them just seem apathetic. But I do give the rookies some slack – especially Clausen, Gettis, Edwards, Hardy, and Pugh – because they all obviously care and work hard. But even more than an indictment on the players, it’s a major indictment on Fox and Davidson. There is absolutely no excuse for Fox and Davidson to keep sticking to the status quo when it doesn’t work and hasn’t worked for the entire season. Good coaches and coordinators tailor their playbook and their calls to their players’ strengths and weaknesses. I can’t see that Foxy or Davidson have made any attempt to do that.
1st and 10? Clausen under center, hand off to Williams/Stewart to run it up the middle into a brick wall of 8-9 defenders for a loss or a gain no more than 2 yards gain. 2nd and 12? Clausen under center and off to Williams/Stewart to run up the middle into same brick wall for another loss or no more than 2 yrds gain. 3rd and 10 – back up to the original line of scrimage; false start on Schwartz. Now 3rd and 15? Bad PA fake followed by a pass (lucky if it’s actually a complete pass) to WR or TE X nowhere close to the 1st down marker. Punt by Baker.
This is followed by the D usually kicking ass under the guidance of Meeks.
Rinse and repeat.
That’s pretty much par for the course – occassionally a slight variation. Foxy and Davidson have been in this game forever. Their stubborness (or plain stupidity) to not change their plans is inexcusable. It’s just so frustrating because you really can see that there is talent on the team.
First example. Clausen is far less likely to fumble a snap if he’s in shotgun versus under center. Next exmple. Gettis and Clowney are ridiculously fast. Use that. Work on actually selling the fake hand off. Use your TEs and Fiametta to block the 8-9 defenders in the box to buy Clausen/Moore a few more seconds in the pocket, and throw deep over the middle. Third example. You have freakin’ Armanti Edwards! No – I’m not calling for him to become a designated QB. But design more than two Mountaineer plays – more that include passing rather than handing it off. He’s accurate and puts some major velocity behind the ball.
If I didn’t have work that I had to do, I’d be a dork and try my hand at drawing up a couple of formations and suggested plays myself. Hmmm…if they responded to my email with a call, maybe they’d look at a few suggested plays sent via fax. Haha.
Since you have a correspondence relationship with someone in the Panthers' organization...
…why not send them a link to his thread, with the suggestion they might glean something from the observations of a clinical outsider.
I very much doubt they notice how many blocks Fiammetta avoids on running plays, for example. For if they did, they’d bench the kid, and activate Tyrell Sutton, who knew how to block, and wasn’t afraid to do it.
I wish...
I wish I did have a correspondence relationship – but I was so shocked to get the call that I don’t even remember the guy’s name. Haha.
And like I said, I’m not really able to catch everything happening on the field, but I definitely did notice Sutton quite a bit last season, whereas it rarely even registers with me that Fiametta’s on the field. So it certainly wouldn’t upset me to see that switch.
One didn't see Hoover "register" last year much, either...
but that’s because he was down on the ground, having taken a LB there with him, to open a hole, or make one bigger, for our RBs.
As for Fiammetta, you’ll usually see a #42 standing over the just completed 1 or 2 yd gain, having knocked down no-one. Watch him on runs next game, and see where he winds up after the whistle’s blown. It’s called going through the motions.
+1
If I remember correctly, Sutton did a fantastic job at Fullback in the first Saints game last season.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cat Scratch Reader
Related FanShots on Cat Scratch Reader
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Report: Tebow sends cease and desist letter to maker of Jesus-y Jets T-shirts
- Joe McKnight says too much McDonald’s helped him gain 16 pounds in offseason
- Nick Mangold says goodbye to some chest hair on ‘Late Night with Jimmy Fallon’
- Saints will honor suspended Sean Payton with empty chairs
- Junior Seau’s home burglarized just days after his death
