Mike Sheppard. Telll me why?

Saint_LB · 02-18-2005, 12:31 PM

Do you really expect me to take posts like that serious. Tell me ONE play in that playbook?

QB sneak!

I know you weren\'t talking to me, but, I just couldn\'t resist. If you would like for me to explain how that one works, I will be glad to do so!

GumboBC · 02-18-2005, 12:43 PM

The only thing I\'ve heard is that our offense is going to be the same under Sheppard as it was under McCarthy.

What was wrong with McCarthy\'s PLAYBOOK?

Was the PLAYBOOK the problem, or was it the PLAY-CALLING?

I don\'t get some of you guys.

For one, I\'ve never heard ONE person here say that McCarthy\'s playbook was the problem. All I\'ve heard anyone say is that McCarthy\'s play calling was predictable.

Now, all of a sudden, some of you want to say the plays were disigned poorly?

According to some, there ain\'t a damn thing about anything you like.

Playbook sucks.
Play calling sucks.
Coach sucks.
QB sucks.
defense sucks.
Saints sucks.

I think some of the fans suck...LMAO!!

Saint_LB · 02-18-2005, 12:57 PM

According to some, there ain\'t a damn thing about anything you like.

What is there to like. 37(38, whichever) years, ONE playoff win. Wooo f--king Hoooo!!

Playbook sucks.
Play calling sucks.
Coach sucks.
QB sucks.
defense sucks.
Saints sucks.

Very accurate observation.

I think some of the fans suck...LMAO!!

I wouldn\'t touch this one with a ten-foot pole.

[/quote:ec877adc46]

Tobias-Reiper · 02-18-2005, 01:39 PM

You\'re one of those guys who I have a hard time understanding.

Let\'s examine some of your brilliance!!

Sheppard is going to use the SIMPLIFIED MCCARTHY\'s PLAYBOOK ( or, as it is now known around the league, QB\'ng for Dummies)

I respect the fact that you have an opinion. I respect that fact that you posts those opinions. But, it sounds more like you hold a grudge rather than bringing something that someone can take seriously.

Given the fact that you\'ve NEVER seen the playbook. And probably wouldn\'t know how to read it if you had seen it ... how do you know it\'s so simple?

Do you really expect me to take posts like that serious. Tell me ONE play in that playbook?

... now I know why they keep you around... you are a freaking riot...

..lemme explain you a couple of things here...

... because YOU say something is a FACT, it doesn\'t make it so...

... a football playbook actually comes with lil\' drawings of the plays, you know? .. so it really isn\'t that hard to read, you know?...

... want me to tell you one play? How about 2? or 3? Or 10? .. it doesn\'t matter... how would you know whether is there or not, anyway? Oh, wait, yes, you are the only person in the whole wide world who actually has the Saints playbook, right?(could be so, the Saints surely play like it.).. or is it that you want me to get in that lil\' game you got going on the \"defensive scheme\" thread when you explained this so-called \"change in scheme\" with 3 situational plays (man to man vs zone, shooting the gaps vs holding them, etc...)?

..keep up the good work...

had to go and edit because I forgot one thing, this lil\' link to a Times Picayunne where Haslett says that the current playbook is going to be trimmed down, not that they\'ll have a new one...

http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf...61470.xml?nola

[Edited on 18/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]

yasoon · 02-18-2005, 01:46 PM

There\'s no real mystery as to why this promotion is a problem.

The QB position has experienced no real improvement under Shepperd\'s watch. AB still has problems with his fundamentals. (stepping into his throws, getting the ball out quickly on plays designed for the a 3 step drop and throw).
He reduced his fumbles and increased his picks. He actually regressed this year. I know it\'s not all on coaching, but I think AB has gotten somewhat of a pass from this staff and I wanted to see someone come in and try to get more out of him, that\'s all.

Listen to Tom Brady talk and then listen to AB. Brady won\'t accept the \"great\" tag while Brooks offers it up for himself. I think he needs some tough coaching and a reality check to push himself and I don\'t see this move as heading in that direction.

Danno · 02-18-2005, 01:47 PM

I thought the original comment was about reducing the complexity of the signals. It always took 15 to 20 seconds getting the play in.
I don\'t think they\'re dumming down the playbook, I think they\'re revising the excessive language.
If you can say the same thing in 3 words, why use 6?

And would it matter? It seemed like our opponents owned the complicated version of our playbook anyway.

This ain\'t Sheppards 1st rodeo fella\'s.

JOESAM2002 · 02-18-2005, 02:30 PM

Enough children! NO personal attacks!!!

yasoon · 02-18-2005, 03:35 PM

The amazing thing about all the terminology addressed in the Haz article is this:
What evidence have we seen that this is an overly complex offense?
The run plays are very plain, with no traps or pulling guards ala Denver/Green Bay. There is a handoff to both sides and a pitch to both sides kinda like Tecmo Bowl.
The passing game consists of 7-15 yard slants/curls, a few dump offs to the RB, the WR screen, and your basic crossing pattern.

The size of the playbook further prooves my point about McCarthy. How could an offense as predictable and erratic as ours require a volume of encyclopedic size? I just didn\'t see that many looks from this offense. The fact that there was this bloated terminology behind an offense that I could predict at every turn is just amazing.

Maybe Mike thought it legitimized his \"young offensive genius\" by having a super complex framework. I would love to know how our playbook compared to the Colts\' playbook in size and scope.
Good coaches adapt to the strengths of their personnel.
Look at what Pitt did this year. They had a rookie QB so they simplified the offense. Power running game with some possession throws and a few deep balls to keep them honest. I\'m not saying their skills are the same as ours...they\'re not. But they gameplanned based on the players they had on the field.

Tobias-Reiper · 02-18-2005, 04:03 PM

I thought the original comment was about reducing the complexity of the signals. It always took 15 to 20 seconds getting the play in.
I don\'t think they\'re dumming down the playbook, I think they\'re revising the excessive language.
If you can say the same thing in 3 words, why use 6?

And would it matter? It seemed like our opponents owned the complicated version of our playbook anyway.

This ain\'t Sheppards 1st rodeo fella\'s.

... the wording on the TP article makes it sound as if they are going to primarily run the ball, but that\'s the same song we\'ve heard in the past...

..it says they are cutting the terminology too, but terminology alone is not going to cut a playbook in half...

.. but the \"downer\" is this lil\' snipplet:

The two-back set will be the base offense, although, as in the past, the Saints still will use multiple formations -- three wide receivers, four wide receivers and two tight ends.

Otherwise, the offense won\'t differ much from the one former offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy ran the previous five seasons.

\"The offense will be similar,\" Sheppard said. \"Mike did some tremendous things here during his time. We\'ve been pretty good on offense here. We don\'t have to reinvent how we\'re going to move the ball or find players to do that. We\'re fortunate to have a foundation in place. In that way, we\'re obviously ahead of the game.

... guess only time would tell whether this is a good or a bad thing...

... but again, my main beef with all of these is there is no real change, no new perspective, no new blood in this whole thing..

FireVenturi · 02-18-2005, 06:17 PM

The only reason I can think of is that he\'s not Charlie Weiss.

Or Norm Chow

02-18-2005, 12:31 PM	#11
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? Do you really expect me to take posts like that serious. Tell me ONE play in that playbook? QB sneak! I know you weren\'t talking to me, but, I just couldn\'t resist. If you would like for me to explain how that one works, I will be glad to do so!
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

02-18-2005, 12:43 PM	#12
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? The only thing I\'ve heard is that our offense is going to be the same under Sheppard as it was under McCarthy. What was wrong with McCarthy\'s PLAYBOOK? Was the PLAYBOOK the problem, or was it the PLAY-CALLING? I don\'t get some of you guys. For one, I\'ve never heard ONE person here say that McCarthy\'s playbook was the problem. All I\'ve heard anyone say is that McCarthy\'s play calling was predictable. Now, all of a sudden, some of you want to say the plays were disigned poorly? According to some, there ain\'t a damn thing about anything you like. Playbook sucks. Play calling sucks. Coach sucks. QB sucks. defense sucks. Saints sucks. I think some of the fans suck...LMAO!!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-18-2005, 12:57 PM	#13
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? According to some, there ain\'t a damn thing about anything you like. What is there to like. 37(38, whichever) years, ONE playoff win. Wooo f--king Hoooo!! Playbook sucks. Play calling sucks. Coach sucks. QB sucks. defense sucks. Saints sucks. Very accurate observation. I think some of the fans suck...LMAO!! I wouldn\'t touch this one with a ten-foot pole. [/quote:ec877adc46]
Saint_LB Deuce Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,894

02-18-2005, 01:39 PM	#14
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? You\'re one of those guys who I have a hard time understanding. Let\'s examine some of your brilliance!! Sheppard is going to use the SIMPLIFIED MCCARTHY\'s PLAYBOOK ( or, as it is now known around the league, QB\'ng for Dummies) I respect the fact that you have an opinion. I respect that fact that you posts those opinions. But, it sounds more like you hold a grudge rather than bringing something that someone can take seriously. Given the fact that you\'ve NEVER seen the playbook. And probably wouldn\'t know how to read it if you had seen it ... how do you know it\'s so simple? Do you really expect me to take posts like that serious. Tell me ONE play in that playbook? ... now I know why they keep you around... you are a freaking riot... ..lemme explain you a couple of things here... ... because YOU say something is a FACT, it doesn\'t make it so... ... a football playbook actually comes with lil\' drawings of the plays, you know? .. so it really isn\'t that hard to read, you know?... ... want me to tell you one play? How about 2? or 3? Or 10? .. it doesn\'t matter... how would you know whether is there or not, anyway? Oh, wait, yes, you are the only person in the whole wide world who actually has the Saints playbook, right?(could be so, the Saints surely play like it.).. or is it that you want me to get in that lil\' game you got going on the \"defensive scheme\" thread when you explained this so-called \"change in scheme\" with 3 situational plays (man to man vs zone, shooting the gaps vs holding them, etc...)? ..keep up the good work... had to go and edit because I forgot one thing, this lil\' link to a Times Picayunne where Haslett says that the current playbook is going to be trimmed down, not that they\'ll have a new one... http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf...61470.xml?nola [Edited on 18/2/2005 by Tobias-Reiper]
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

02-18-2005, 01:46 PM	#15
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? There\'s no real mystery as to why this promotion is a problem. The QB position has experienced no real improvement under Shepperd\'s watch. AB still has problems with his fundamentals. (stepping into his throws, getting the ball out quickly on plays designed for the a 3 step drop and throw). He reduced his fumbles and increased his picks. He actually regressed this year. I know it\'s not all on coaching, but I think AB has gotten somewhat of a pass from this staff and I wanted to see someone come in and try to get more out of him, that\'s all. Listen to Tom Brady talk and then listen to AB. Brady won\'t accept the \"great\" tag while Brooks offers it up for himself. I think he needs some tough coaching and a reality check to push himself and I don\'t see this move as heading in that direction.
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594

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

02-18-2005, 01:47 PM	#16
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,720	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? I thought the original comment was about reducing the complexity of the signals. It always took 15 to 20 seconds getting the play in. I don\'t think they\'re dumming down the playbook, I think they\'re revising the excessive language. If you can say the same thing in 3 words, why use 6? And would it matter? It seemed like our opponents owned the complicated version of our playbook anyway. This ain\'t Sheppards 1st rodeo fella\'s.

02-18-2005, 02:30 PM	#17
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? Enough children! NO personal attacks!!!

02-18-2005, 03:35 PM	#18
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? The amazing thing about all the terminology addressed in the Haz article is this: What evidence have we seen that this is an overly complex offense? The run plays are very plain, with no traps or pulling guards ala Denver/Green Bay. There is a handoff to both sides and a pitch to both sides kinda like Tecmo Bowl. The passing game consists of 7-15 yard slants/curls, a few dump offs to the RB, the WR screen, and your basic crossing pattern. The size of the playbook further prooves my point about McCarthy. How could an offense as predictable and erratic as ours require a volume of encyclopedic size? I just didn\'t see that many looks from this offense. The fact that there was this bloated terminology behind an offense that I could predict at every turn is just amazing. Maybe Mike thought it legitimized his \"young offensive genius\" by having a super complex framework. I would love to know how our playbook compared to the Colts\' playbook in size and scope. Good coaches adapt to the strengths of their personnel. Look at what Pitt did this year. They had a rookie QB so they simplified the offense. Power running game with some possession throws and a few deep balls to keep them honest. I\'m not saying their skills are the same as ours...they\'re not. But they gameplanned based on the players they had on the field.
yasoon 500th Post Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 594

02-18-2005, 04:03 PM	#19
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? I thought the original comment was about reducing the complexity of the signals. It always took 15 to 20 seconds getting the play in. I don\'t think they\'re dumming down the playbook, I think they\'re revising the excessive language. If you can say the same thing in 3 words, why use 6? And would it matter? It seemed like our opponents owned the complicated version of our playbook anyway. This ain\'t Sheppards 1st rodeo fella\'s. ... the wording on the TP article makes it sound as if they are going to primarily run the ball, but that\'s the same song we\'ve heard in the past... ..it says they are cutting the terminology too, but terminology alone is not going to cut a playbook in half... .. but the \"downer\" is this lil\' snipplet: The two-back set will be the base offense, although, as in the past, the Saints still will use multiple formations -- three wide receivers, four wide receivers and two tight ends. Otherwise, the offense won\'t differ much from the one former offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy ran the previous five seasons. \"The offense will be similar,\" Sheppard said. \"Mike did some tremendous things here during his time. We\'ve been pretty good on offense here. We don\'t have to reinvent how we\'re going to move the ball or find players to do that. We\'re fortunate to have a foundation in place. In that way, we\'re obviously ahead of the game. ... guess only time would tell whether this is a good or a bad thing... ... but again, my main beef with all of these is there is no real change, no new perspective, no new blood in this whole thing..

02-18-2005, 06:17 PM	#20
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Mike Sheppard. Telll me why? The only reason I can think of is that he\'s not Charlie Weiss. Or Norm Chow