Paton DID want to run more.

GoldRush26 · 01-25-2007, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Originally Posted by GoldRush26

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying.

Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called:

2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0

How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me.
For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry.
For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped.
Only 2 carries resulted in no yards.

How about this; Perhaps Payton was no longer getting the defensive fronts that allowed him to get the run gains he was getting earlier.
That's pretty straightforward. The Bears noticed they got gashed for those few plays and they adjusted not to give up those runs. I'm sorry but if Chicago is putting 7 or 8 in the box no RB is going to run effectively. You can't really look at our numbers and determine that they should've kept running no matter what. Too many factors came into play, the most important of which was turnovers.

Shawn Alexander did gash them for 108, even though the Bears KNEW Alexander was the only legitimate threat on offense, and they were actually putting 7-8 people in the box. So why not challenge them?

If you are getting 11, 12 yards a pop, just because they hold you to 2 in one run, you completely abandon the run?

And how many times did you see Urlacher on Colston, after he was right on the line of scrimmage? Their LBs were constantly dropping into coverage because the Saints were not even try to run it.

And how many hits does your QB have to take before you give him a breather with a couple running plays? There were plenty of 3-and-outs just passing the ball... why don't give the QB a breather from all the hits and the o-line a couple plays where they could attack the d-line?

And, lastly, how many times did you see the Bears defense line up one way and do something different after the ball was snapped?

I can see that you aren't going to sway from your position at all.

Man like it or not, coaches will make game decisions that don't seem to make sense to fans, even knowledgeable fans. But the fact remains is that he's an NFL head coach (and a friggin good one at that). Whether or not he had a "bad game plan" this game or not he's certainly had more than enough good game plans to justify his status as one of the top young rising coaches in the league.

He has made judgements throughout the year that most here wouldn't have agreed with had they not worked. This time his gameplan didn't work. It's all a learning experience for him, and I'm more than confident that the next time he faces Chicago he will know exactly how to beat them.

Payton isn't perfect, but just remember who we had calling the plays before him before we say how bad his gameplans are.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 01-26-2007, 06:26 AM

Man like it or not, coaches will make game decisions that don't seem to make sense to fans, even knowledgeable fans. But the fact remains is that he's an NFL head coach (and a friggin good one at that). Whether or not he had a "bad game plan" this game or not he's certainly had more than enough good game plans to justify his status as one of the top young rising coaches in the league.

Actually I think the original article stated that many runs were checked out. That means that Brees made the decision to pass the ball, right?

I think most of us are just arguing that sometimes you have to run against such fronts if only to set up better passing situations later on.

SFIAH

xan · 01-26-2007, 01:54 PM

I'm sure that Brees was well versed in the various fronts the Bears would show, however, if they kept dropping back into coverage, it would seem that the fronts shown were fake outs. So, when he checked out of runs, he was checking into the Bears' coverage schemes. He should have run just to keep them honest. Hell, on a couple of drives even 2 or three yards would have changed the dynamic of the game (safety, missed field goal to name a couple of instances). I'm sure that those here think that 11 runs considering we were behind most of the game would be fine, however there weren't many runs when the score was close - up to the beginning of the 4th quarter. I'm baffled as to how one could think that there'd be an uproar over trying to pound Deuce/Bush against a line that was suspect. And I don't think that we'd be worse off if there were but just 9 more runs!

But there was just too much "here, I don't really need this ball" attitude by the skill players. 4 turnovers and a safety negates any strategy you might employ.

01-25-2007, 07:41 PM	#21
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594	Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Originally Posted by GoldRush26 Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper ..and a lot of people just flap their yaps without actual thought of what they are saying. Again, here are the runs that Deuce, Reggie, and Karney had on the 11 run plays called: 2, 4, 6, -1, 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 2, 0 How is that that the run "wasn't working?" Please explain that to me. For those who love stats, that's 4.3 yds a carry. For those who don't, it is simply that the run was not stuffed, nor even stopped. Only 2 carries resulted in no yards. How about this; Perhaps Payton was no longer getting the defensive fronts that allowed him to get the run gains he was getting earlier. That's pretty straightforward. The Bears noticed they got gashed for those few plays and they adjusted not to give up those runs. I'm sorry but if Chicago is putting 7 or 8 in the box no RB is going to run effectively. You can't really look at our numbers and determine that they should've kept running no matter what. Too many factors came into play, the most important of which was turnovers. Shawn Alexander did gash them for 108, even though the Bears KNEW Alexander was the only legitimate threat on offense, and they were actually putting 7-8 people in the box. So why not challenge them? If you are getting 11, 12 yards a pop, just because they hold you to 2 in one run, you completely abandon the run? And how many times did you see Urlacher on Colston, after he was right on the line of scrimmage? Their LBs were constantly dropping into coverage because the Saints were not even try to run it. And how many hits does your QB have to take before you give him a breather with a couple running plays? There were plenty of 3-and-outs just passing the ball... why don't give the QB a breather from all the hits and the o-line a couple plays where they could attack the d-line? And, lastly, how many times did you see the Bears defense line up one way and do something different after the ball was snapped? I can see that you aren't going to sway from your position at all. Man like it or not, coaches will make game decisions that don't seem to make sense to fans, even knowledgeable fans. But the fact remains is that he's an NFL head coach (and a friggin good one at that). Whether or not he had a "bad game plan" this game or not he's certainly had more than enough good game plans to justify his status as one of the top young rising coaches in the league. He has made judgements throughout the year that most here wouldn't have agreed with had they not worked. This time his gameplan didn't work. It's all a learning experience for him, and I'm more than confident that the next time he faces Chicago he will know exactly how to beat them. Payton isn't perfect, but just remember who we had calling the plays before him before we say how bad his gameplans are.
GoldRush26 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 594

01-26-2007, 06:26 AM	#22
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,647	RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. Man like it or not, coaches will make game decisions that don't seem to make sense to fans, even knowledgeable fans. But the fact remains is that he's an NFL head coach (and a friggin good one at that). Whether or not he had a "bad game plan" this game or not he's certainly had more than enough good game plans to justify his status as one of the top young rising coaches in the league. Actually I think the original article stated that many runs were checked out. That means that Brees made the decision to pass the ball, right? I think most of us are just arguing that sometimes you have to run against such fronts if only to set up better passing situations later on. SFIAH

01-26-2007, 01:54 PM	#23
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,355 Blog Entries: 34	RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Paton DID want to run more. I'm sure that Brees was well versed in the various fronts the Bears would show, however, if they kept dropping back into coverage, it would seem that the fronts shown were fake outs. So, when he checked out of runs, he was checking into the Bears' coverage schemes. He should have run just to keep them honest. Hell, on a couple of drives even 2 or three yards would have changed the dynamic of the game (safety, missed field goal to name a couple of instances). I'm sure that those here think that 11 runs considering we were behind most of the game would be fine, however there weren't many runs when the score was close - up to the beginning of the 4th quarter. I'm baffled as to how one could think that there'd be an uproar over trying to pound Deuce/Bush against a line that was suspect. And I don't think that we'd be worse off if there were but just 9 more runs! But there was just too much "here, I don't really need this ball" attitude by the skill players. 4 turnovers and a safety negates any strategy you might employ.
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey