Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Why won't we help the tackles?


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

kinda looks like maybe ron prioritized hiring a person who makes him comfortable over someone who's the best for the job

That might not just be Ron.

Remember when we were looking for a receiver coach, our friend Roaring Riot was talking up a potentially exciting hire. But when the new guy was actually announced, it was someone that nobody recognized.

I couldn't help but wonder if Norv might have not wanted somebody on staff who had enough of a rep to potentially challenge Scott for the OC job once Norv retired.

Mind you, that's pure "tinfoil hat" stuff, but there's been similar speculation with Rivera before (i.e. that he'd never hire an assistant who could potentially replace him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, raz said:

if we helped the tackles cam wouldn't get plastered 3-8 times a game, and think of how many less hits he would take.  now do you see why your 'great idea' is really stupid.   honestly i think rivera puts hits on qb's in the spank bank, even if its his qb.   

"I'd have taken the shot" == "Oh fug yea, ruin his career. That poo makes me moist af"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2019 at 11:31 AM, Mr. Scot said:

An excerpt from Joe Person's latest article in The Athletic...

"Williams wasn’t given much help, either. While McCaffrey chipped Barrett a couple of times, the Panthers never used a tight end to double-team Barrett, according to No. 2 tight end Chris Manhertz. On a fourth-and-1 near midfield in the fourth quarter, Williams blocked down and McCaffrey helped on the other edge, allowing Barrett to come free and force a Newton incompletion. That can’t happen."

If you think back to Super Bowl 50, this might sound familiar. One difference of course, is that Mike Shula ran the offense back then. It's Norv Turner now, but the results are the same.

It's a fairly simple adjustment to make, even easier when you've got a good blocking right end (which is reportedly why Manhertz is second on the depth chart). Heck, we see other teams do it all the time.

So why don't we do it?

Why do we seem to be so reluctant to help our tackles when they're getting beaten?

Ron Rivera is (metaphorically) that driver who insists that he has to make a left turn across 4 lanes of busy traffic in the middle of the block instead of continuing another half-block to the intersection and turning at the light that has a left-turn arrow.

His thinking is utterly basic and linear.  He stands at Point A, sees Point B, and only sees one path and that path is a straight line.

How that translates to your comment above is that he picks the players that her perceives fits best into what he wants to do (p.s. I'm not saying he's very good at that) at that position and expects them to perform in the exact manner that he demands they perform.  If they are unable to do that, he recognizes "missed opportunities".  Actually adapting his football philosophy to the unique skill-set of the player or adapting a particular play to cover a weakness rarely crosses his mind.

The player has been provided the play-book and told exactly what is expected of him.  If the player screws up, well then, you can't blame Ron Rivera for that, right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Icege said:

When he was first signed, I won't forget this, he stated that he was going to plan based on the talent he had rather than trying to force square pegs into round holes to fit his system.

 

And then his first draft pick was the biggest honker of a Square Peg to fit into the Rivera Philosophy Round Hole as could possibly have been acquired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, raz said:

if we helped the tackles cam wouldn't get plastered 3-8 times a game, and think of how many less hits he would take.  now do you see why your 'great idea' is really stupid.   honestly i think rivera puts hits on qb's in the spank bank, even if its his qb.   

"I would have taken a shot too."

Edit: @Icege beat me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

    I saw Olsen help, as well as Manhurtz. Obviously, not often enough. Williams would have a good play, then turn around and screw the pooch. He'd give you just a glimpse of being adequate. Then break your heart for even thinking that.

 

    We had 9 possessions in TB territory, and got 4 FGs. That is not all on Daryl. But man, it sure did seem like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've actually been wracking my brain to try and find some kind of rationale where this makes sense.

I'd like to believe there is one, but I can't think of any.

its rons spank bank bro.  since we can't get to their qb, he's gonna have to fill it with ours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is one of my key concerns lost in the sauce that is the neverending conversation about him evading pressure and the OL. Eventually any QB is going to have to step up into the pocket and show the defense they can still beat them even if they get through. We have a limited QB who cannot consistently do this and as such we are relegated to going back and forth about how successful he was at evading pressure but we have little else to write home about. Tyler Shough stepped up into the pocket and made plays despite being pressured and sacked. He's played in about 35 less games than Bryce Young. That is a problem. And isn't just going to go away. The Bucs are going to do the same thing after watching the film.
    • Oh, absolutely! That doesn't absolve the absolute dogshit hockey that the team played in front of him, though. Only Cane that played well tonight was Bradly Nadeau.
    • Thanks for illustrating my point.  No one in the last several pages of this discussion is suggesting we should hang on to him, but anytime someone says anything less than "take him out back and shoot him" you act like they are. That's either you not understanding what you're reading or just being a nimrod because you can't keep up. (I would have said 'or just sh-tposting' but you're way too emotional on this topic for that) Either way, the result is the same 😆
×
×
  • Create New...