If a person is not analyzing x with relevant data or facts, it's not analysis, it's called uninformed opinion, speculation, chasing red herring, or maybe even wild a$s conjecture. There's so much we don't know in terms of the input to the process (the play call - the cover assignments, whatever) that it's difficult in most cases to make an accurate assessment of the output (the result of the play) except for what we see of course. And we all know there's much more going on than what we see.
We don't know Carr's reads and progressions, we didn't know that Parker was not the responsibility of Aaron Glenn until the next day, we don't know when Carr checks off that it was really supposed to be a screen but instead it was a dive up the middle. John Granato gave an example this morning about a game last year where Peek made a tackle behind the line of scrimmage. Granato mentioned Peek's "great" play to the coaching staff after the game and he was told sternly that Peek missed his real assignment on that play and lucked into a tackle for a loss.
Minus 4 in turnovers, long yardage plays given up to Gates and Caldwell, 40 yard pass interference penalties, and lack of crucial 3rd down stops I can deal with. Play calling sometimes gets into the subjective, because what we see is not always what was intended. That's true for "good" plays and "bad" plays.
There was a guy who called in today and was beyatching about the Texans not throwing more "timing routes." What the hell does that mean? There was another guy who called in on Vandermeer's show and I can't remember the topic but it set Vandermeer off because he was obviously tired of hearing the left field analysis. Sure we have the right to criticize and we should. Many here and on the radio bring fair criticisms. But sometimes the herd mentality on certain things goes way beyond what's sensible imo, and it reflects poorly on us all.
Last edited by aj.; 09-14-2004 at 06:40 PM.