Haywoods play-calling

[Ray Herring]

Whats your opinion so far?

[reneg]

Solid, gets a little predictable at times in terms of the routes are WR's run. I wish we'd attack the middle more when teams really start to back the safeties off to defend the deep ball.

[Guest SirJohn]

Solid yet predictable is my vote as well. Charlie can over rule tho. I'm not cosnigant what the staff meetings talk about for the next opponent.I'dike more variety, but assume they are doing best they can with what they got.

[SpeedsterX]

I would like CW to take the calls over like he was calling with Brady and Co..

[irishwavend]

He tries to force the run at the wrong times. Wayyyy too predictable. Actually, I would call his playcalling rather bland and vanilla.

[hawaiiirish]

the san diego state game the play calling was generally poor but it was the first game for everyone-- michigan was a great attacking opening -- michigan state was a mistake-- in both cases it was more game plan then particular play calling-- good plan for michigan-- wrong plan for MSU-- in the last two games north carolina and washington a good team and a poor team - i liked the play calling-- we are getting good production -- starting to even get some running going--calling the WR reverse twice so quickly was too smart by half but overall i sorta like the playcalling--- fairly agressive and maybe even starting to find a nice flow mix !--- i was worried about charlie giving up playcalling but i have to say im not worried anymore my grade is a B- but two more back to back wins along with some Tds and that goes to B+

[ND FANATIC]

I think he's a little predictable when it comes to certain types of plays out of specific formations, he needs to mix up his plays out of the same formation.

[Donjuan]

Overall not bad, but for goodness sakes, abandon the damn stretch play!!

[dangeruss]

i think he's done a solid job but i'd rather have CW calling the plays, CW always had a lot of variety.

[Katzenboyer]

I'm glad CW isn't calling the plays anymore. I loved it when he was, but the overall health of our football team -- all phases of the game -- suffered when he had so much focus on the offense. He's our head coach now -- it's time to delegate responsibilities for almost everything, and that includes play calling.

 

I think Haywood has done a great job, considering that it's his first year in the position and he's never called plays before. Everyone has gotta start somewhere -- and I think things could be a lot uglier for anyone else walking into this situation.

[NicePost]

Couldn't disagree more. CW's play calling was anything but innovative. I think he even realized it, hence his handover to Haywood. In the game I attended two years ago, several fans in my section would call out Darius Walker's name when it became 3rd and 3,4,5,6 to go. They were usually right. What I remember of that game was screen, screen, darius,screen, slant, darius, screen, darius, etc., etc., etc. Yeah, there is a new offense now, but I much rather Haywood continue the playcalling. At least he's not afraid to go deep (and no, I'm not talking about last year, as the OL wouldn't allow time for the deep ball, rather I am talking the Brady years). Haywood's doing just fine and he doesn't mind testing Jimmy's arm.

Edited October 31, 2008 by NicePost

[IrishGuy]

It is MUCH better now than it was to start the season. He is getting more comfortable in his role. He is predictable, but is getting much better at mixing it up.

 

I am very happy with how he has progressed. He is a freshman in my eyes, and will get a lot better with time.

[IrishGrizz]

He is doing fine in my book. As the players get better and the execution gets more consistant, Coach Haywood gets better at knowing what they can do in the game setting.

[D Fence]

If you use the word "predictable" in describing the playcalling, that is not getting the job done. I think it has been subpar, and in terms of improving the jury is still out. Washington is not a good team, and anything we called would have worked against them.

 

As some of you mentioned, there were long lapses in SDSU and MSU where we hung with the run 2x then pass on 3rd and 7. We also did that some in the second half against Stanford. So, out of the 7 games we've had thus far, you have at least 2 or 3 where the playcalling suffered, and some halves of other games where we were more productive. You can make the argument that we don't have tools in place such as the running game when it should be used to run clock, but my argument would be the play selection needs to take that into account.

 

Haywood probably is taking a page out of CW's book in "taking what the defense gives you". In today's day and age, some of the "sexier" offenses are attacking styles, where they dictate tempo to the offense. We do some of that in terms of set-up (with the no huddle for example) but not necessarily in play selection. I am okay with that, but the adjustments need to come a little faster - i.e. at the LOS before the play is called. Too many times, we run a play and based on the result see something else that is open and then try to run that later.

 

One example was on the Tate TD in the Washington game. The play right before, we ran a dive with that reverse fake. If the reverse was actually run the play before, it was wide open and probably would have scored too. We came back the very next play with the reverse and popped it for Tate's TD. That is a pattern that defensive coordinators can fairly easily pick up on. It's just one concrete example on my point above, but I've seen many other instances of that in other games.

[chirodomer]

I like his playcalling BUT...................................when he gets up 2 scores he gets conservative! Dance with who brought ya!

[IrishGrizz]

I could get behind that thought. I think it will come with the consistancy of the players being able to execute on a regular basis.

[Guest irishrick]

CHIRO, I AGREE. oVERALL A STRONG B , but lets keep the pressure on . go irish

[Canadian_Irish]

I dont like the formations the team runs the ball in. Too many times everyone is close to the line and even if the OL blocks well the second level of defenders keep it a short gain on the ground.

 

This is obviously a passing team, so they should run more out of formations that the other team is thinking pass first.

[Irish Chris]

Solid, gets a little predictable at times in terms of the routes are WR's run. I wish we'd attack the middle more when teams really start to back the safeties off to defend the deep ball.

 

I want to see that too reneg.

Rudolph and Kamara are way to good in the slot for us not to use them in there.

I also see teams leak their backs right in the middle all the time and just let them sit.

AA would be great for this if Jimmy has enough time and the defenses are spreading out.

Quick drop off and let him go.

 

Of course this all depends on the O line giving JC 4 or 5 seconds to check-down everyone else.

Jimmy also gets a little antsy sometimes when he has more time than he thinks. This is crucial on plays like screens and dumps to backs in the middle.

In 4 or 5 seconds secondaries get deeper, backers vacate spots, and plays like these develop with more success.

 

The difference between 3 seconds and 5 seconds doesn't seem like a lot, but it can be the difference between a 5 yard gain, or a 15 yard gain.

[Irish Chris]

He tries to force the run at the wrong times. Wayyyy too predictable. Actually, I would call his playcalling rather bland and vanilla.

 

You're right wave.

I love vanilla, but it's my least favorite football flavor.

:/