Why Didn't We Give Hill The Ball At The 5??

[BFritz21]

(11-03-2015, 11:44 AM)djs7685 Wrote: If Hill ran into a wall of defenders 3 times in a row, you and others would be complaining that we played too conservatively and that Hue and Marvin are idiots for not being more aggressive near the goal line.

It's a lose-lose situation when it comes to the playcalling for just about every NFL fanbase. There will be a section of the fans that always think the call was "wrong" no matter what. The facts are out there that Hill has had his obvious struggles and that Andy and the passing game has been one of the very best in the league this year. I have no issue with calling passing plays out of the gun in that situation.

First off, I never said three times in a row, but leave it to you to exaggerate and mis-quote me to try and make me sound like you're so much smarter than me.  

Second, it's five yards.  Put Hill behind a fullback, have him run off tackle, and he's a good enough runner not to just run straight into a wall of defenders in that situation.

Third, it's probabilities.  You bet on Hill being able to get five yards because it's probable.  If the first two had gotten him to the one, then maybe a third run would have been ok.

(11-03-2015, 11:54 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I'm just saying, I'd bet an awfully large amount of money that Brad would have made a thread called "Why did we get so conservative at the 5?!?!?!" had we been stifled 3 straight times trying to pound it in with Hill fumbling on the 3rd try.

Meh. Maybe not though since it was Hill and Brad thinks we need to give Hill the ball at any cost, whether our offense is really clicking without him or not. (here's where he flips out claiming that I'm "making up bullshit" because he never said the exact words that I'm joking about him saying in the exact order that I have them written)

I've been claiming that we need to establish a run game and let it open up our offense.

We need to give Hill the ball more and let teams try and stop that, while also figuring out a way to stop our high potent offense.  Running is a lot simpler than passing, especially when you have a back like Hill, and we'll need him as it gets colder and for when we play good offenses because incomplete passes stop the clock and give the other team more time to score, and also when we play good defenses.

(11-03-2015, 12:38 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I don't think it would have been wrong to try the run there either, I just really don't think throwing the ball 3 times is such terrible playcalling as some do.

Hindsight is 20/20 with a lot of people. If the third pass was a TD instead of an INT, this thread doesn't exist and not 1 person complains about what was called. I just don't see the point in a thread like this when it's just yet another "Hill needs the ball regardless of anything else working" rant from Brad.

So throwing three times worked?

Even if you disagree with me that we should run Hill more, it's called situational football.

(11-03-2015, 12:55 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Yes, calling 3 passes was fine when you have one of the best passing offenses in the NFL.

The execution just wasn't there. You can't cry about the OC's calls when it was just flat out poor execution by the players.

Like I said, 1 run/2 pass or 2 run/1 pass would have been a fine choice there too. There are a lot of options when you're that close to the goal line. Not many plays outside of telling the QB to close his eyes, turn around, and kick the ball into the stands is really "bad play calling" in that situation when you have the most efficient passing offense in the NFL and a solid run game.

One of those passes is executed better and we don't have this conversation. If Hill runs up the gut 3 times for 0 yards and a fumble, then we'd have a different conversation about how they were too conservative. OCs are always damned if they do, damned if they don't.

When you're that close to the endzone, passing is a lot more difficult because there's a lot less room, making throwing the ball a lot less effective.