Whoops

Anybody see this from Peter King this morning?

6. Carolina (13-6). I hung with Steve Smith the other day, and let's just say he wasn't in love with the Carolina offensive gameplan from the NFC Championship Game.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/02/06/mmqb.super.bowl/index.html

 

that's pretty obvious...

 

you mean there was a gameplan? Oh shit....

 

I was unaware that the gameplan varied from game to game.

 

it should, yes. You want to attack the team's weaknesses, not just run the same thing over and over into their strength.

 

We had a plan?

 

We had one, it just didn't seem flexible enough to change, that or we just remain too stubborn to change it. There were a number of things they did that you adjust in basic ways to attack, and we just didn't get there until it was too late - and ineffective when we changed.

I hate to put it on the gameplan as to why we "didn't show up", because I feel (just as I did re: Trgo early in the year) that players must show up regardless of coaching, good or bad; but that's happened at times, sometimes on things like deep 3rd down draws, though I can't think of many other specific in-game examples, just at a general scheme issue. It doesn't excuse the players fucking up, and execution seemed to be as big a problem as anything, but when it affects player performance, scheme does have to be examined closely. Putting a LB on Smith, with a corner playing double behind it, is a pretty good reason to not throw at Smith short, and certainly odd enough to be recognized by literally anyone.

And to their own blame, Chicago was too stubborn to change their scheme, in a move I'm still baffled by. So maybe that happens a good deal more than we assume.

 

We should have flown out on Friday.

 

What's the name of the play where Delhomme tries to throw the ball through 3-4 opposing players to Steve Smith?

 

Why were Peter King and Steve Smith hanging together?