Nathaniel Can't Hackett

[bbb]

Did you change your name from Edward's Arm? I don't remember seeing a Manuel's Arm handle though or a Tuel's Arm.

 

I've been wondering this myself.

[filthymcnasty08]

Nice work OP

 

This idea that our winning = Hackett immunity from criticism is insane. The numbers don't lie.

 

Were not going to start drives inside the opponents 40 every week.

[CardinalScotts]

the 80 yard drive to start the game was good, the bomb to watkins, another bomb to watkins the 1 yd drive after the Aaron Williams interception was also good. When you play a team that wins through their defense with sacks and turnovers and you hold at least a two score lead 90% of the game you don't do anything to help them and put them to sleep. Hackett called this game like you have to

[die hard bills fan]

maybe he wants to bore teams with his monotonous run, run, pass routine then spring a long pass on them once in a while when there half asleep.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Oh you mean like these threads???

 

Another overused cliche is "What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

[Orton's Arm]

Of all the "Fire Hackett" and "Leave Hackett Alone" threads, this is possibly the best post, although there have been a few other good ones as well.

People saying to leave him alone because the Bills currently have a winning record remind me of that internet joke, "How can you say I'm a bad driver? Nobody died."

Just because the Bills have a winning record doesn't mean there is nothing wrong. The predictable and ineffective runs on first down are stupid. Another overused cliche is "What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

 

Thank you.

 

In answer to some people's questions, my screen name was once Edwards' Arm. (As indicated in my sig.) I fully expect Orton to be a better answer at quarterback than Edwards or Holcomb.

 

In answer to those who argue that Hackett was "playing it safe" and "protecting the lead"--if a team that averages 2 yards a carry runs the ball every down, the typical result will be 4th and 4. That's fine if your goal is to run three plays, punt, and avoid turnovers. But if you only have a one or two score lead in the second or third quarter, hopefully the offensive coordinator will set his sights a little higher than that!

 

If you get a 2 yard carry on first and ten, or 2nd and 8, you increase the odds of the team having to punt. Passing on third down represents a belated attempt at decreasing the odds of having to kick the ball away on fourth down. A strong preference for run, run, pass represents a multiple personality approach. On third down, the offensive coordinator acts like he cares about moving the chains. But on first and second downs, he acts like moving the chains is not a priority. He acts like his only objective is to avoid turnovers, and to keep the clock ticking until the punting unit arrives on the inevitable fourth down.

 

It almost never makes sense for an offensive coordinator to adopt this multiple personality approach. He should choose one objective, and call plays which advance that objective. If his one objective is to punt the ball on 4th down (after having used clock on the first three downs), he should call run, run, run. If, on the other hand, his goal is to move the chains, he should emphasize the things which are working, while de-emphasizing the things that aren't. If you have a weak offensive line, and the other team's defense is known for the strength of its defensive line, running the ball up the middle into a massive pile of bodies may not be the best option available.

 

I realize that a weak offensive line is a liability not just on running plays, but on passing plays. But it's possible to design pass plays which reduce emphasis on the OL's protection. Three step drop/quick passes are a good idea. As are screens. The Jets had a weak secondary. The Bills have a good quarterback and a good WR corps. Any reasonable set of pass play calls would likely have been successful, as long as the play design didn't call for the OL to block for very long periods of time.

[Wayne Cubed]

 

 

Thank you.

 

In answer to some people's questions, my screen name was once Edwards' Arm. (As indicated in my sig.) I fully expect Orton to be a better answer at quarterback than Edwards or Holcomb.

 

In answer to those who argue that Hackett was "playing it safe" and "protecting the lead"--if a team that averages 2 yards a carry runs the ball every down, the typical result will be 4th and 4. That's fine if your goal is to run three plays, punt, and avoid turnovers. But if you only have a one or two score lead in the second or third quarter, hopefully the offensive coordinator will set his sights a little higher than that!

 

If you get a 2 yard carry on first and ten, or 2nd and 8, you increase the odds of the team having to punt. Passing on third down represents a belated attempt at decreasing the odds of having to kick the ball away on fourth down. A strong preference for run, run, pass represents a multiple personality approach. On third down, the offensive coordinator acts like he cares about moving the chains. But on first and second downs, he acts like moving the chains is not a priority. He acts like his only objective is to avoid turnovers, and to keep the clock ticking until the punting unit arrives on the inevitable fourth down.

 

It almost never makes sense for an offensive coordinator to adopt this multiple personality approach. He should choose one objective, and call plays which advance that objective. If his one objective is to punt the ball on 4th down (after having used clock on the first three downs), he should call run, run, run. If, on the other hand, his goal is to move the chains, he should emphasize the things which are working, while de-emphasizing the things that aren't. If you have a weak offensive line, and the other team's defense is known for the strength of its defensive line, running the ball up the middle into a massive pile of bodies may not be the best option available.

 

I realize that a weak offensive line is a liability not just on running plays, but on passing plays. But it's possible to design pass plays which reduce emphasis on the OL's protection. Three step drop/quick passes are a good idea. As are screens. The Jets had a weak secondary. The Bills have a good quarterback and a good WR corps. Any reasonable set of pass play calls would likely have been successful, as long as the play design didn't call for the OL to block for very long periods of time.

 

You should have probably looked at the stats for plays on first down before starting this thread:

 

Total first down plays: 204

 

Run plays: 103

Pass plays: 101

 

It's 50/50... And before the Jest game was leaning more toward passing. Not exactly the run, run, pass game you are proclaiming it to be.

 

Also the Bills are averaging 4.8 YPC on 1st down. So that's working. 2nd down is where you may have your gripe.

[flmike]

You should have probably looked at the stats for plays on first down before starting this thread:

 

Total first down plays: 204

 

Run plays: 103

Pass plays: 101

 

It's 50/50... And before the Jest game was leaning more toward passing. Not exactly the run, run, pass game you are proclaiming it to be.

 

Also the Bills are averaging 4.8 YPC on 1st down. So that's working. 2nd down is where you may have your gripe.

 

The whole season so far is not the game at hand. With a one-score lead (or two), you need to get first downs to control the ball. When your opponent knows what you are going to do and CAN stop you, you need to do something different. Very few teams are going to give you the ball 6 times and plead with you to score on them.

[Orton's Arm]

You should have probably looked at the stats for plays on first down before starting this thread:

 

Total first down plays: 204

 

Run plays: 103

Pass plays: 101

 

It's 50/50... And before the Jest game was leaning more toward passing. Not exactly the run, run, pass game you are proclaiming it to be.

 

Also the Bills are averaging 4.8 YPC on 1st down. So that's working. 2nd down is where you may have your gripe.

 

> You should have probably looked at the stats for plays on first down before starting this thread

 

There are two separate questions here:

1. Was the play calling against the Jets good or bad?

2. If bad, was it an isolated incident, or part of a larger pattern?

 

The answer to the first question is almost painfully obvious. By calling run, run, pass, punt, Hackett allowed the Jets to hang around much longer than they should have. Thanks in part to the Bills' good defense, and also to their own self-destruction, they didn't use the opportunities to get back into the game that Hackett kept handing them. Had the Bills let a multi-win team (with a real quarterback) hang around like that, the result could easily have been disaster.

 

The answer to the second question is more complex. As you pointed out, the run, run, pass Hackett excreted in the Jets game was not part of a season-long larger pattern of run, run, pass. But I'd argue it was part of a larger pattern of a lack of creativity and general ineptitude. The way he used Spiller (mindlessly running him up the middle) compared to Gailey's use of Spiller is exhibit A. The offensive line's blocking scheme is another very serious problem. (Although some of the blame for that may fall on the shoulders of Marrone or the OL coach.)

 

The NCAA legalized the forward pass in 1906. Prior to that, if you wanted to score at all, you had to do so via your running game. Coaches couldn't just "mail it in" on running downs, choosing to bang their RBs uselessly up the middle into a pile of bodies. If running the ball is your only way of moving the chains, then that forces you to think a little more creatively about how to run the ball effectively than Hackett has done.

[bbb]

You weren't ever Matthew's Bag, were you?