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!

     

We gave up 571 yards to the Minnesota Vikings


joemac
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, joemac said:

Without Horn we cannot play bump and run man to man, and without Horn we cannot hold team long enough for our pass rush to get home. Maybe Gilmore helps with that next week. 

We also just played trash-tier teams when Horn was on the field. Our defensive woes have more to do with the level of competition than it does with Horn being out.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joemac said:

Without Horn we cannot play bump and run man to man, and without Horn we cannot hold team long enough for our pass rush to get home. Maybe Gilmore helps with that next week. 

If the key to the defense is a promising rookie CB that had never been tested then the defense has more issues than people want to look at.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mc52beast said:

It’s because they went hurry up and the staff didn’t know how to adjust… really sad if you think about it.

They were in zone this entire game. Horn being out negates our supposed strength of being able to man up. Again, Gilmore may help this next week. But our vaunted pas rush has been invisible the past 3 weeks. We’ve got 2 more sacks than we had after week 3. Not good. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 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

    • Teams do some super stupid stuff with mid-fairly good QBs. I think they are just absolutely terrified they will be stuck with a QB that is not the quality of the QB they have now, even if its someone like Daniel Jones. Lots of trash QBs go in the first round. I encourage you to take a look at the sad, sad list of first round QBs in the last 15 years.  
    • No, it will be a raw 6'7" 17-year-old European who just played basketball for the first time in March and who the idiot GM "had first on our board." He'll play the whole G-League season, get in 42 games for the Hornets and average 1.1 ppg on 35% shooting. Been there, seen that.
    • We missed on Burns at his peak value. That’s the problem with trading for picks 2-3 years away (which people were convinced the Rams would suck by now and these would be higher picks btw). Each year away the pick is the further in value it drops. Fitt was clearly hired based on turning us around quickly. It’s one of the many reasons tanking isn’t really a thing as our player JJ is telling you in this original article. It would take the whole organization from the owners down admitting they aren’t winning soon with Burns and picks 2-3 years away having more value because that’s when we are still rebuilding. It would only make sense if Fitt had a longer leash and would more than likely be the ones making these picks anyway which you wouldn’t want. The question is would you rather have those Rams picks with the strong possibility of Fitt still being here or would you rather Fitt try to “win now” like he did and expedite his firing? Altering the timeline would affect more than just the Rams picks. 
×
×
  • Create New...