Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 and leaves Reggie Bush on the sideline on a 4th and 1. BRILLIANT! Way to go, Fredo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark VI Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 He wasn't part of the 4th down " Package " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 and leaves Reggie Bush on the sideline on a 4th and 1. BRILLIANT! Way to go, Fredo! 554866[/snapback] Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Poor pom pom Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Poor pom pom Pete. 554886[/snapback] I agree. Eff him and Eff So Cal. Let's see how many shallow hollywood types show up next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Yeah why would he want his power back on the field in a shortyardage situation? All the guy was doing was scoring short TD's and shredding the interior of the Texas D all night. I guess he should have gone with his scatback who had only been able to get outside on the fast Texas D a grand total of one time on a broken play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 No coach....not Carroll, not Mularkey, not Belichick, not Dungy........is going to make the perfect coaching moves in every game. Lendale White was working in this particular game so I'm sure Carroll had faith in him and his O-line. Texas just executed better and won that play. That's football...not necessarily bad coaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Yeah why would he want his power back on the field in a shortyardage situation?All the guy was doing was scoring short TD's and shredding the interior of the Texas D all night. I guess he should have gone with his scatback who had only been able to get outside on the fast Texas D a grand total of one time on a broken play. 554907[/snapback] Right. Like all they ever do is RUN with Bush. Like you couldn't split him out and give the defense something else to worry about. Like you couldn't go with a two-back-split set and really give them something to think about. You want your best weapon, the college football player of the year on the field for that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Right. Like all they ever do is RUN with Bush. You wanted them to throw on that down? As good as they had been on 3rddown throughout the secondhalf, I think that would have truly been a questionable call there. Like you couldn't split him out and give the defense something else to worry about. They'd been trying that on 2nddown all night and couldn't get squat out of it. There was no reason to think it was suddenly going to work then. Like you couldn't go with a two-back-split set and really give them something to think about. Do they ever run White and Bush split like that? That wasn't the time to try something they don't do. White had been great betwen the tackles all night while Bush had struggled to get anything going outside against Texas' speed. USC was running up the pipe no matter what so White's number was going to be called regardless. If anything I thought USC should have had some WR's to spread the field, but Bush wasn't going to do them much good on that particular down. Pete Carrol is an insufferable jackass and a wildly overrated coach, but feeding his succesful powerback in a shortyardage situation is hardly reason to unfavorably compare him to one of the 50 Bills you have a hate-on for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Pete Carrol is an insufferable jackass and a wildly overrated coach, but feeding his succesful powerback in a shortyardage situation is hardly reason to unfavorably compare him to one of the 50 Bills you have a hate-on for. 554927[/snapback] I compared him to Mularkey thanks to Mularkey's brilliance in keeping Willis off the field on third downs. Or the call to use Moulds as a decoy. Or any other number of tricky calls he'd made last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I compared him to Mularkey thanks to Mularkey's brilliance in keeping Willis off the field on third downs. Or the call to use Moulds as a decoy. Or any other number of tricky calls he'd made last season. 554933[/snapback] Willis gets tired at the drop of a hat, doesn't catch well and shows little interest in blocking. Meanwhile Shaud Williams is fresh, has good hands and is a willing blocker. But somehow it's stupid to not put McGahee on the field for 60 snaps every week and in situations for which he's not particularly suited? As for Moulds, gee why would you want to feed Lee Evans in single coverage when opponents are rolling coverages towards Moulds' side? The Bills should have stressed to JP that he should always throw into double coverage, then it would have been just like if we had never let Bledsoe get away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Willis gets tired at the drop of a hat, doesn't catch well and shows little interest in blocking. Meanwhile Shaud Williams is fresh, has good hands and is a willing blocker. But somehow it's stupid to not put McGahee on the field for 60 snaps every week and in situations for which he's not particularly suited? My issue with this statement is that McGahee isn't part of the third down "package". When you have concrete and inflexible "packages", it seems to me you're not effectively managing the ebb and flow of games. Even if it was 3rd and 1 it didn't seem McGahee was out there. As for Moulds, gee why would you want to feed Lee Evans in single coverage when opponents are rolling coverages towards Moulds' side? The Bills should have stressed to JP that he should always throw into double coverage, then it would have been just like if we had never let Bledsoe get away. That's great...so long as you have the QB in the game that can make the deep throw to Evans. Mularkey didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 and leaves Reggie Bush on the sideline on a 4th and 1. BRILLIANT! Way to go, Fredo! 554866[/snapback] Bush is rarely on the field in short yardage or goalline situations. I think White's 26 TD's this year are proof of that. The real idiotic play was the first 4th & 1 in the 1st quarter, when they emptied the backfield by putting Bush in motion and then sneaking Leinart. That is White's bread and butter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Bush is rarely on the field in short yardage or goalline situations. I think White's 26 TD's this year are proof of that. The real idiotic play was the first 4th & 1 in the 1st quarter, when they emptied the backfield by putting Bush in motion and then sneaking Leinart. That is White's bread and butter. 554942[/snapback] Thus the Mularkey comparison. Carroll let his concrete "plan" get in the way of putting your best players on the field when you need it the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 My issue with this statement is that McGahee isn't part of the third down "package". When you have concrete and inflexible "packages", it seems to me you're not effectively managing the ebb and flow of games. Even if it was 3rd and 1 it didn't seem McGahee was out there. Considering the dearth of 3rd/1's all year, it's hard to get an accurate read on it, but I got the impression that the Bills were willing to leave Willis on the field in those short yardage situations. Of course he usually got stuffed 2 yrds deep by 3 guys so it was a moot point. That's great...so long as you have the QB in the game that can make the deep throw to Evans. Mularkey didn't. From what I understand it was Wilson who didn't. And far more than Donahoe's firing, Wilson's "leadership" is the biggest problem I have with the Bills right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Wheels Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Even better question than why isn't Bush given the ball in the most important play of the game: why weren't they punting rather than giving UT the chance at good field position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Considering the dearth of 3rd/1's all year, it's hard to get an accurate read on it, but I got the impression that the Bills were willing to leave Willis on the field in those short yardage situations. Of course he usually got stuffed 2 yrds deep by 3 guys so it was a moot point. finally, a good point. It only took you all season. From what I understand it was Wilson who didn't. And far more than Donahoe's firing, Wilson's "leadership" is the biggest problem I have with the Bills right now. Yeah, I have to think Wilson is,w as and always will be the reason why this team hasn't won a Super Bowl. But I don't believe we'll have much longer to deal with him. I think the NFL at soem point is going to pull a Bud Adams/Modell on him and kind of push him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 Even better question than why isn't Bush given the ball in the most important play of the game: why weren't they punting rather than giving UT the chance at good field position? 554951[/snapback] This I can understand. The USC defense couldn't stop young no matter the field position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 This I can understand. The USC defense couldn't stop young no matter the field position. 554964[/snapback] Agreed, I'd have made the same move, too much time on the clock left for Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Pete Carroll is a cocky, arrogant jerk and he got exactly what he deserved last night. I could coach USC to a National Championship with all that talent playing a bunch of PAC-10 nobodies on a weekly basis. As soon as he had to coach a team to a win, he blew it. How in god's name do you not give the ball to Reggie Bush and 4th & 2? He wasn't even on the field. That is just insane. That would have actually been the time to punt. On the on the opponents 45 with 1:15 to go and a lead. If you lose, at least make the other team go 80-90+ yards to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 The best player in the country, Reggie Bush, was not on the field for the 3rd down play OR the 4th down play. I would have made sure he touched the ball on one of the two plays. Ahhh, fug it, I would have punted and made Texas go the length of the field. Carroll cost his team a National title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts