On the other hand does anyone think this approach is going to win any games. Almost wins still are losses.
Its about which approach you think is more likely.
Who is to say? Could we beat Seattle by throwing 3 picks but maybe 2 more TDs? I don't think so at all.
By saying "we should have opened it up" you are assuming the exact same amount of negative plays with an increase in positive plays.
The Giants game was eminently more watchable because it was an up and down the field affair and it gave you more confidence in the offense being able to actually DO something. But I'm not sure at the end of the day it's more likely that Cassel can win a game like that.
Again for the record, I'd let him try. We saw the bus driver route with Weeden and we all hated it. That's why we switched.
But it people are acting like because the staff chose to go conservative that it means they have noodles for brains and are incompetent as football coaches when in fact it's actually a choice between two unlikely propositions and in all likelihood is a losing proposition either way.
Not something to go ballistic about, but some people are just looking for things to justify their pre existing sentiment.
2 other asides... The coaches did call plays that allowed the QB to choose to take shots and he didn't (or when he did, it misfired). I don't know to what extent they got into Cassel's head about playing safe, but neither does anyone else, and the fact is, he did just miss some open WRs on plays where he had a touchdown if he got the ball to them. So those "take a shot" plays were called, even in the realm of being conservative.
Secondly, a historical football genius liked to run his team the exact same way... Keep it close, don't make mistakes, win at the end... You might have heard of him... His name was Bill Parcells. So again I don't agree that calling the game like Linehan did makes him stupid.