[Goose]

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .

[humor]Actually, I am his mentor.[/humor]

Great call?  Really?



And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.




(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

As you may have noticed, I did earlier post that I would have run the ball. However, Shaw's call was arguably reasonable IMHO. I know of no objective way to prove that it wasn't. However, there are some facts that we can objectively know. We know the intent of the play call was for Parkinson to either be not covered at all or to be covered by Weaver, because Shaw said so (quite vehemently). That was accomplished. If the call produces the coverage it was intended to produce, I submit it IS a great call, because that is the best case scenario. It is also a fact that Mills's pass was not in an area where Parkinson could catch it. That is just a fact.

It is also a fact that if a QB completes 74% of his passes, he is usually considered a good QB. The fact Mills missed doesn't mean he is no good. It just means he missed. It happens. Was it a real tough throw into a tight window? Not really. I am sure Mills will tell you that he has made that throw loads of times. Was it a totally trivial throw? No, he had to get it over Weaver so that Parkinson could get it and Weaver couldn't. We do this all the time.

[Goose]

I sometimes wonder if Goose is related to Shaw . . .

[humor]Actually, I am his mentor.[/humor]

Great call?  Really?



And I loved CC's response, which of course is what Shaw says about all his plays in the post game presser - i.e., the call was good/great, it was the players' fault for not executing.  Please.




(And I suspect CC knows that and was being a bit sarcastic).

As you may have noticed, I did earlier post that I would have run the ball. However, Shaw's call was arguably reasonable IMHO. I know of no objective way to prove that it wasn't. However, there are some facts that we can objectively know. We know the intent of the play call was for Parkinson to either be not covered at all or to be covered by Weaver, because Shaw said so (quite vehemently). That was accomplished. If the call produces the coverage it was intended to produce, I submit it IS a great call, because that is the best case scenario. It is also a fact that Mills's pass was not in an area where Parkinson could catch it. That is just a fact.

It is also a fact that if a QB completes 74% of his passes, he is usually considered a good QB. The fact Mills missed doesn't mean he is no good. It just means he missed. It happens. Was it a real tough throw into a tight window? Not really. I am sure Mills will tell you that he has made that throw loads of times. Was it a totally trivial throw? No, he had to get it over Weaver so that Parkinson could get it and Weaver couldn't. We do this all the time.