Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stillmotion

We're an aggressive team, we play aggressive to win - Baker

Recommended Posts

 

Baker said this during his presser. That they need to play aggressive, and "attack". He also went back and kept saying that they had all they needed to win in the locker room now and that he trusts Higgins and his other receivers to make plays.

This is exactly what we needed to win, and the exact opposite of what Hue did.

Hue complained about the talent and played passive. He would've kicked the field goal and tried to stop them. Point is, if they make that first down, no one even questions the choice Gregg made. Having balls, attacking, and playing aggressive wins more football games than playing passive. I think Baker and company wanted to attack earlier this year and Hue wanted them to play more conservative. Also, when someone says there isn't enough talent like Hue did, will that inspire/motivate players? Great coaches and players make players better around them. Baker is doing that with giving these fellas confidence. Gerbil has confidence now and played lights out last game.

I think Gregg Williams is what we need, and I look forward to seeing Hue's depressing, sad, uncle fester looking face vs. Cincinnati next week.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat I was all in for that 4th down call. It tells your team that you trust them to end the game, and leave it in their hands. 

Foremost, playing aggressive means playing with no fear. And that's what teams that considere themselves better do. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s called playing to win. And Williams has instilled a road dawg mentality into the team too. A QB that’s a leader along with a tough nosed yet work with you type coach is just what we’ve been needing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nero said:

I repeat I was all in for that 4th down call. It tells your team that you trust them to end the game, and leave it in their hands. 

Foremost, playing aggressive means playing with no fear. And that's what teams that considere themselves better do. 

I'm in the "kick the FG" camp, but I can definitely appreciate the aggressive nature of the coaching staff. It seems to be the personality of the team, and it's kind of working. The jail-break blitzing really worked at the end, and it's difficult to argue with results! However, I do think Gregg should've mixed it up a bit more early with his blitzes. For instance, on the Broncos first TD drive, we had them 3rd and long a few times and the Broncos converted because they were ready for the heat. Had we shown the typical Gregg Williams 3rd and long pressure, but then pulled back into max zone....I would have been really interested to see if the Broncos' plays would've worked. Obviously there's no way to know, but Gregg has to be careful not to be too predictable. On the Broncos last 3rd and 10, I thought we were ripe for a screen. We brought the house and it worked flawlessly because there were no short routes. 

But hey, it's working right now and I LOVE IT. We'll have to be dialed in next week even though the Bengals are starting their backup QB. Something tells me we're in for an absolute war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can still play aggressive on the most important side of the ball in that instance - defense. 

Bottom line, being up one and Denver playing for a FG puts YOU on your heels.    Forcing the other team to score a TD with little time and 1 TO puts THEM on their heels.     Things worked out and I get that.  But it was handled wrong then and you won't find a coach worth their salt that would disagree.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we were running the ball efficiently and it could have worked. If we were getting stuffed all the time and with our on and off passing game I wouldn't have called for it.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

You can still play aggressive on the most important side of the ball in that instance - defense. 

Bottom line, being up one and Denver playing for a FG puts YOU on your heels.    Forcing the other team to score a TD with little time and 1 TO puts THEM on their heels.     Things worked out and I get that.  But it was handled wrong then and you won't find a coach worth their salt that would disagree.  

Not sure l follow this logic. There are probably degrees to which either side is on their heels in either scenario. The Broncs were technically still losing at that point of the game, backed up and no time outs. To say they weren’t at least a little bit on their heels seems silly.

I was in camp field goal too l guess. But l do have a certain appreciation that Williams gift wrapped his balls, put a little bow around it, and then presented it to the opponent at such a crucial part of the game.

No one ever confused balls with brains. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder how praiseworthy our "aggression" would be around here had Denver made a 60+ yard FG as time expired...

 

I posted in another thread that going for it on 4th was fine when the clock was running. We hustle to the line, snap and sneak. We had them off balance.

However, once we called time out and allow their D to prepare for the next play a cooler head kicks the FG... THE 27-YD FG.... and force DNV to score a TD to win.

It's the smart play.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the call to go just not the play call.  When they came to line and baker saw they were selling out to stop the run that’s when he could change the play and bootleg out and leak the te across the formation. Him being mobile gives him two options pass or run.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Babernakle said:

I love the call to go just not the play call.  When they came to line and baker saw they were selling out to stop the run that’s when he could change the play and bootleg out and leak the te across the formation. Him being mobile gives him two options pass or run.  

I was calling for a Run/pass option in the Tavern. But like Tour once we screwed up the TO before the offside jump, I wanted the FG and let the D keep them out of the endzone. Ball carries a long way for FGs in Denver and a kick from the 50 can make it easily. And the stadium is a true bowl so crosswinds are not too bad unless you have a front flying through. Thank God & Williams for those last two all-out blitzes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Not sure l follow this logic. There are probably degrees to which either side is on their heels in either scenario. The Broncs were technically still losing at that point of the game, backed up and no time outs. To say they weren’t at least a little bit on their heels seems silly.

I was in camp field goal too l guess. But l do have a certain appreciation that Williams gift wrapped his balls, put a little bow around it, and then presented it to the opponent at such a crucial part of the game.

No one ever confused balls with brains. 

 

One will more than likely get you burned over the other.     It's pretty simple though, do you want to face a team that needs a FG to win or a TD?  Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

One will more than likely get you burned over the other.     It's pretty simple though, do you want to face a team that needs a FG to win or a TD?  Exactly.

I want to face a team that doesn't have the option to do either. Conservative football doesn't win championships. It might have backfired, but we won. Who knows if we kicked it if the same thing could've happened. One big play or one big penalty and we could've lost.

With one yard to win the game, you try to get the yard in my book.

Hue could've kicked the field goal, had it blocked, and had the Broncos run it back for a TD. I prefer not even giving them the option to win.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stillmotion said:

I want to face a team that doesn't have the option to do either. Conservative football doesn't win championships. It might have backfired, but we won. Who knows if we kicked it if the same thing could've happened. One big play or one big penalty and we could've lost.

With one yard to win the game, you try to get the yard in my book.

Hue could've kicked the field goal, had it blocked, and had the Broncos run it back for a TD. I prefer not even giving them the option to win.

Sure, all of that is POSSIBLE.  But I tend to live off of what is most probable.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

One will more than likely get you burned over the other.     It's pretty simple though, do you want to face a team that needs a FG to win or a TD?  Exactly.

I know, that’s the fun part! Taking the road less traveled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tour2ma said:

I have to wonder how praiseworthy our "aggression" would be around here had Denver made a 60+ yard FG as time expired...

 

I posted in another thread that going for it on 4th was fine when the clock was running. We hustle to the line, snap and sneak. We had them off balance.

However, once we called time out and allow their D to prepare for the next play a cooler head kicks the FG... THE 27-YD FG.... and force DNV to score a TD to win.

It's the smart play.

That's what I don't get. Kicking the FG is the smart play there, and it really doesn't seem that complicated to me. So they'd have to go 75 yards with just under 2 minutes, AND they'd have no timeouts? A running clock makes people do crazy things, like spike the ball at the 50 when they should've had a play ready to go, even if it's a 3 yard out route. 

But hey, we won and our defense held. And it's sooo fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

I know, that’s the fun part! Taking the road less traveled.

It's football, not the game of life there guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

It's football, not the game of life there guy.

Right, it’s a game, with like 50 some people and their own personalities and motivations in the mix. 

All we know for certain is the path they chose worked, and the path either of us chose? We don’t know. Because it wasn’t attempted at that point in time, with those set of people. 

And the game of life is a terrible analogy. That’s an awful and boring game involving one person and their own motivations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 6:18 PM, stillmotion said:

Baker "GX" Mayfield

General Dorsey 

Lt Baker Mayfield

Sgt Peppers

gotta love it🗡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×