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!

     

Confirmed: Al Holcomb is not good at his job


Proudiddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

To a degree, but not one that’s make that performance ok. The Bengals OL has been pretty bad this year. 

Granted, but I think their biggest advantage today was in the brains department.

They figured out they could exploit the left side of our D and did it all day.

I'd add that sn NFL defense shouldn't be as vulnerable to simple draws and screens as ours was today. That's coaching.

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Smithers said:

Tried to tell y’all that the defense was going to be much worse off without Snow.  I despised Rhule, but Snows defense was good when not put in bad situations

Well you are looking correct. Particularly today.

 

You can’t openly disagree with the prior defensive coach…then take over…and make it look much worse. 
 

Oof. 

  • Pie 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thennek said:

If I’m not mistaken, I read somewhere that Wilks did not agree with the defense Snow built…one reason was he thought they were too light and needed more size. 

So he proceeded to fire Snow, promote his buddy and field a worse defence.

Good move, Wilks.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Well you are looking correct. Particularly today.

 

You can’t openly disagree with the prior defensive coach…then take over…and make it look much worse. 
 

Oof. 

Yeah that’s ugly.  Wilks has a track record of being a poor defensive coach.  I like him as a person, but didn’t really expect an improvement based on his resume 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

So he proceeded to fire Snow, promote his buddy and field a worse defence.

Good move, Wilks.

This season is a lost cause. They are trying to win with fired coaches players that don’t fit the scheme they want to run. Nobody can defend what we saw today but it does not matter as a new regime will start in January. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, thennek said:

This season is a lost cause. They are trying to win with fired coaches players that don’t fit the scheme they want to run. Nobody can defend what we saw today but it does not matter as a new regime will start in January. 

So why change the (successful) scheme mid-season when you know you don't have the players to run it?

Ego.

Edited by OldhamA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

So why change the (successful) scheme mid-season when you know you don't have the players to run it?

Ego.

This defensive scheme was not successful with Rhule/Snow. The entire team was terrible today. New coaches will be here in January 

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

    • No, the casual fan gets sucked into THIS^^^ kind of thinking, and it's so woefully incorrect that it's almost sad. The first is what I've said numerous times, NOTHING about non guaranteed contracts save the billionaire owners a single penny, because they still have to spend their cap floor, and the only reason teams ever don't spend the full limit, is to then roll it over into the next season to be able to spend more that year. But in the end, owners pay the same amount of money no matter what. The reverse is also the same, that the players in totality make the same amount of money as well, because in your example of Clowney not getting that money this year, it will go to another player, as the cap needs to be spent. And you say how we just cut Clowney after we gave him the 2 year contract, but everyone including Clowney's agent and himself, knew when it was signed, that it was more likely to be a 1 year contract than a 2 with how it was structured.  The 2nd year was just to be able to spread out the cap hit and he was always most likely going to end up getting traded or cut. It's why agents and players don't care about the total money in a contract, it's always and only been about the guaranteed money, as the years and overall value are meaningless, always have been, always will be.
    • Agents will have their 1st round picks hold out until the pay structure of their contract is to their liking, not how much money they'll get or even how much is guaranteed, just the when/how they will get the money over the course of the contract. If they're willing to recommend those players hold our, do you really think they won't do it for 2nd rounders to guarantee them an extra 10% of their entire rookie contract?
    • If BY continues to develop.  XL learns how to catch with his speed. Tet lives up to his hype... THEN Brooks comes back.. dammmmmmmmmmmmmm
×
×
  • Create New...