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!

     

Can anyone tell me what the offensive game plan was?


OnlyPantherFaninMaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CRA said:

That’s doesn’t = well coached. 

Browns blew coverage on the Robbie TD.  That 1 play drive.  That’s not an example of good coaching. 

Rhule went ultra conservative on the last FG because apparently he didn’t think a NFL can get in FG position with a minute (per him). That’s not an example of good coaching.  It also featured another QB/C fumble.   Something talked about here when the exchange issue showed in preseason when Rhule was having his QBs and C compete all season and miss out on working on that chemistry. 

well coached? I said he redeemed himself. that is it. nothing more and nothing less.

 

note: I believe we are discussing McAdoo and not Rhule. Rhule doesnt call our offensive plays. 

Edited by TheCasillas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CRA said:

The importance and lack of reps (specifically the QB/C exchange) was repeatedly brought in preseason when Rhule was having his pointless completions……and when we saw it was an issue in the preseason game Baker played. 
 

it’s a poorly coached/lead team

10000% I think the few quality players know as well.

CMC, DJ, Chinn, they see it and you can tell the way they talk about things and how you never really see Rhule interface with them. If DJ wants glory since he’s already got a new contract, it’d be smart for him to demand a trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rayzor said:

Until we have a winning record we are a losing team and we have a loser coach.

No amount of spin can change that. Rhule is hated because all he does is lose. He hasn't proven that he can do much else.

Yep. And If the Browns had an actual starting-level QB, the game wouldn't have been close.

Edited by top dawg
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Yep. And If the Browns had an actual starting-level QB, the game wouldn't have been close.

Yep. That's what is getting missed by the glass half full guys. ..  this was a friggin backup QB who was never any good and who had only a couple weeks working with the ones and we couldn't pull it off.

We're lucky this wasn't a starting quality QB we were facing or we would have lost by at least 2 Tds instead of 2 points.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

well coached? I said he redeemed himself. that is it. nothing more and nothing less.

 

note: I believe we are discussing McAdoo and not Rhule. Rhule doesnt call our offensive plays. 

Only way to redeem bad coaching….would be with good coaching

McAdoo sucks too.  It’s why no one but Matt Rhule would hire him.  McAdoo was decent under super micromanager and offensive minded Tom Coughlin.  But when Ben McAdoo was allowed to show his true game calling he was basically blackballed from ever doing it again.  

No one redeemed themselves. Rhule nor McAdoo.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMC saved the game from getting out of hand on a botched snap. That single play woke the team up. What the plan was prior to that is anyone's guess. 

I will say that they finally got tired of getting their ass kicked by the midway of the 3rd.  The one thing I did want to see win or lose was so fight in them. That took too long to show up in this game but it finally showed up. 

I also was hoping we didn't get embarrassed and I'm still not sure the comeback has taken the stench away completely.  But I'll take it.

At least we have that to take away from this beating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan was to throw a lot of passes, but that plan clearly wasn't going to work. Baker is only 6'1, and the Browns d-line must be taller than average, so they managed to bat down 4 passes in just the first half.

To make matters worse our o-line was unable to win at the LOS. Pass blocking was poor and so was the run blocking. The receivers did a good job of getting open, but with batted passes and near constant pressure it didn't matter.

Baker got jumpy as any QB would in that dangerously unstable pocket. When your o-line losses badly up front it's a wrap usually. However, our receivers were winning down field, and the Browns secondary was getting confused as well. There were opportunities down field, and we needed a plan to protect Mayfield and go deep coming out of halftime. We had one, and some deep strikes got us back into the game.

We could have won the game had certain players not committed bone headed penalties, and had the refs not called the game ultra tight against us (ticky tack to decide the outcome of the game) in our own f-king house.

Overall the biggest problem facing this team is pass protection. I would have drafted Slater, or Evan Neal in our past drafts, but we have who we have and the jury is still out.

We just played one of our easiest games this season and lost. If this level of play continues, especially the poor o-line play, then we're looking at 5 wins or less. That puts us in a position to upgrade the o-line further, or draft a top 10 QB to replace the less than stellar Mayfield.

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

    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...