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!

     

....Like I've been saying since PRE SEASON!! Ron Meeks needs to go.


MVP23

Recommended Posts

.Its one thing for a guy to have a good game. Its another for the guy to rape us play after play after play. No adjustments, no new schemes, no blitz..nothing. It takes this moron until 4 mins left in the 4th to dial up a blitz....Please fire this guy..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meeks held the patriots to nearly 20 points under what they average and the defense generated 3 turnovers, I think it was.

Are you really saying that it's the defenses fault...?

The fact is our offense is AWFUL no matter the QB. If you can't put up more than 21 points in a game (and when was the last time we did?!), you're not going to win games consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.Its one thing for a guy to have a good game. Its another for the guy to rape us play after play after play. No adjustments, no new schemes, no blitz..nothing. It takes this moron until 4 mins left in the 4th to dial up a blitz....Please fire this guy..

LOL that same moron held the patriots to 20 points and had 3+ turnovers.

Since were placing blame on the coordinators what did your boy Davidson do to help with the turnovers that Meeks' defense accumulated.

Football's a group effort and were simply being outcoached, outplayed, and outclassed. playing the blame game is retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were very fortunate the Patriots didnt score more

The pic thanks to Moss half-assing a route, a drop or two on 3rd down, and some good fumbles... honestly we were lucky to hold them to 20. They have a good offense, we were outmatched.

Its just dissapointing that with the turnovers helping us out we couldnt manage to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate being soft on the run. Meeks' defenses ALWAYS suck against the run. Always.

Personnel is part of the problem, but it's not all of it. We're a Meeks Defense to a T:

1. Good against the pass except against good OCs/QBs who exploit the zone.

2. Soft and get shredded on the ground.

3. Bend but don't break baby!

One of the main reasons I want a new Coach so bad is that it pretty much guarantees we get rid of our trash Coordinators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another major tenet of Meeks' defense is causing turnovers...something we've been doing very well this year. The major problem on defense today is that the defensive line was completely invisible. Johnson was the only guy doing anything out there. Peppers, of course, disappeared when we needed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...