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!

     

OL looked bad last night


SBBlue
 Share

Recommended Posts

Darnold has better pocket awareness and bigger brass balls than Teddy Two Yards did so he's actually made our offense better than what it really is.  He steps up in the pocket, avoids sacks with some decent moves, and isn't scared to run the ball if he has to.

Our O-line is atrocious, there are no other words for it.  The two fumbles Sam had was because our line can't hold for three seconds - Sam has to know this and protect the ball from here on out.

I am also tired of Rhule and Brady trying to lift the O-lines spirits by trusting them to get one damn yard on 3rd and 4th and 1s....they can't do it.  Again, we need to implement zone blocking schemes, misdirection and designed runs to get outside....we won't be getting more than one or two yards a carry up the middle or off-tackle. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jayboogieman said:

Moton didn't look like a legit starter for a lot of the game either. That game was just an all around bad performance by the Oline.

He struggled, but obviously im not just talking about this game specifically. He isn't the one that needs to be replaced. We can count everybody else struggling more in the future than moton. 

Edited by CPF4LIFE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OL is definitely trash. It's extraordinarily obvious. 

We need just accept that is going to be the case for the bulk of the season. Maybe the younger players start to show some sign of being able to help us as the season progresses. That's about all we can hope for.

On the positive side, we have been able to win three straight games with a dumpster fire OL. Says a lot about the scheme and the play of the rest of the offense.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, outlaw4 said:

Not sure if the "last night" in the title thread is necessary.

I will say we were giving our backs an actual chance later in the game but unsure how much of that was attrition or better execution.

 

IMHO "last night" is necessary. The first two games were against excellent DL's. 

Seeing a substantial increase in pressure against a weaker opponent is NOT good.  

The first two weeks were serviceable.

Darnold should have seen less pressure last night, not more.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BlackPanther21_ said:

As long as we get some guys that are better at the game of football than the bush leaguers we have now (Elflein, Daley, Paradis), I will be happy. 

Miller is crap, Daley is a stop gap. Paradis is bad.

Move Elflein to C, give Brown first team reps this week at RG and fug it, see what Jordan or Christensen can do at LG.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...