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 should have seen this coming....


firstdayfan

Recommended Posts

Fanfest...preseason...the offense has been pitiful since the start. I can't believe we are so surprised at how bad the offense is, I've never seen them as bad as they were this year at fanfest. I can't exactly put my finger on why but we definitely should have seen this coming. Hopefully jimmy can spark the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true sir, it has looked like poo all along. We have to work in some more shorter quick slant/quick out passes. We run too many intermediate and deep routes which causes the quarterback to be under serious pressure by the time our receivers break on every pass play. With our sub-par O-line play we should run the majority of our pass plays spread out with those quick passes and work in the deep ones here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most (myself included), saw it was a continuation of last season. We were so dominant the last few weeks on offense with Matt that we thought it would continue when we got Smitty back.

We were dominate because we played the Bucks and one of the worst D's the league has ever seen (by the end of the season)...Most were blinded by the wins instead of seeing why we got the wins!

I will give it to Matt we beat Minn and that was a good win; that said, every dog has their day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were dominate because we played the Bucks and one of the worst D's the league has ever seen (by the end of the season)...Most were blinded by the wins instead of seeing why we got the wins!

I will give it to Matt we beat Minn and that was a good win; that said, every dog has their day!

There can always be excuses or reasons why we won or lost, but at the end of the day we won cause we were the better team on the field that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most (myself included), saw it was a continuation of last season. We were so dominant the last few weeks on offense with Matt that we thought it would continue when we got Smitty back.

Then again some of us said that the real problem is that this team is no where close to the team at the end of last year. With all the new faces and lack of veteran leadership this team has to forge their own identity and develop their own chemistry. So far that hasn't happen. Now we will see whether we get it together or fall apart. Whether we still have enough leadership to dig ourself out of the hole or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were dominate because we played the Bucks and one of the worst D's the league has ever seen (by the end of the season)...Most were blinded by the wins instead of seeing why we got the wins!

I will give it to Matt we beat Minn and that was a good win; that said, every dog has their day!

Not even close. That team had great chemistry, got on a roll and both the defense and offense played with great intensity and passion. This year's team isn't close to that one with the loss of so many veterans. This team plays with no passion or with no urgency. This team has to develop the fire and passion that we had last year. Otherwise we won't win 5 games this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • I have zero issues with this.  
    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...