Too Dependent Upon Smith?
Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:18 PM
Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:35 PM
Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:45 PM
Posted 16 December 2008 - 11:59 PM
90% locked in on Smith? That's just hyperbole.
are you serious?
Posted 17 December 2008 - 12:04 AM
Posted 17 December 2008 - 12:18 AM
Posted 17 December 2008 - 12:55 AM
Posted 17 December 2008 - 01:29 AM
The play was abused in 2005 because they had no run game, THAT was their run game basically. I also believe that it is always an option on any run play when Jake sees the CB playing off Smitty. When you have a great run game you don't have to try to "manufacture" one that way. But I'm not disagreeing that it is fine to use more sometimes.
I dont know why we dont get him the ball more. It seems like until the past 2 weeks we've almost completely ditched the quick screen pass to Smitty. We lived and died off that play in 2005 and it got us to the NFC championship game. Now that we have a balanced rushing attack (a very good one at that), we should be slipping this in there more than we do. Luckily we've done this the past couple of weeks and it's gotten a first down almost everytime.
Posted 17 December 2008 - 08:06 AM
when did Jones get any catches?
Mark Jones? In the first game against Tampa a couple weeks ago he had a big catch.
Posted 17 December 2008 - 08:22 AM
Delhomme needs to go through his progressions more. 90$ of the time he is just locked on Smith.
Smith has only caught about 35% of Jake's completions this year, so I think you are exaggerating a bit.
Posted 17 December 2008 - 09:27 AM
ding ding ding
I just saw Sunday Jake reading his progressions and making big time passes to Moose and Jarrett. Did you not see the game?
Posted 17 December 2008 - 09:35 AM
We could depend on smith more if our frickin running backs would quit getting so damn many touchdowns.
It's gets old. I want Smith to get more passes but Moose shows up and starts getting some of the action...and Williams and Stewart act like they can't get enough rushing yards...everybody wants in on the action...
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users