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!

     

Teddy Bridgewater's completions....


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

I anticipate our offense will look very similar.

And I'm OK with that.

I don't give a crap if we are dinking and dunking down the field as long as we are efficient and move the chains.

The biggest gripe with Shula/Norv and the old regime was how feast or famine our entire offense was. If it wasn'ta  huge chunk, it was a small to negative gain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*behind arguable the best oline in the NFL, that’s what our offense will come down to

thats what the offense of any great team in the last 20 years has come down to

if I were him I’d get the best health insurance 20m can buy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints played very vanilla offense with Teddy in there.  I think it was to limit injuries and make sure they didn't lose another QB to injury.  No reason to risk big plays when your team is stacked from top to bottom and in control of the division.  Wasn't he like 5-0 too?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this any different than a Tom Brady led offense? I'll take a qb getting rid of the ball instead of taking a sack allll day. The NFL is not about getting the ball down the field, its about getting the ball into the hands of players who can take it down field. Ball air travel time was at the lowest its ever been last year across the NFL. Dont expect that to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at Brady and Brees , most of their passes are less than 20 yds .  They dink and dunk allowing their receivers to make plays . they only try a deep pass when opportunity presents itself .  You don't argue with success .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I would say that he's pulling things out of his ass to get people to visit his site.
    • Yep. I was hoping for and calling for a day three guy. But I didn’t research the position to say if we should or should‘t have jumped at a particular guy at a particular spot.    And everything I read said it was a poor draft for RBs depth wise. I guess when Seattle takes a backup RB in the 1st, that kind of backs that up.    I definitely think we should keep 4 running backs and if King can play well enough then keep him too.    I believe I heard Canales say we are a running team (talking about drafting a WR he will be needing to block as well as catch). Well if we are gonna be a running team by identity we don’t need to stock the WR room to overflowing. If one room has to sacrifice, it should not be the RB room given our circumstances. 
    • If there's a pattern I'm definitely picking up from Dan and company is a philosophy of making trades where we try not to sacrifice the number of draft picks we have by day's end. In other words, we're not giving up three picks for one, or giving up a future pick to make a pick today. And even if we give up something at the start, we make trades later to make up for that initial loss. Here's how it stacked up for 2026: How we started: 19, 51, 83, 119, 158, 159, 200 How we ended: 19, 49, 83, 129, 144, 151, 227 (no future picks sacrificed) Ultimately, we moved up two spots in the second to ensure we got someone we coveted, gave up a few spots for our fourth round pick, but then had better picks in the 5th (and got really good value out of them), and had a worse 7th rounder which isn't that big of a loss anyways.  At this point, we can question who they draft, but they're pretty good maneuvering across the draft board.
×
×
  • Create New...