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!

     

what ever happened to fox/davidson being the problem?

nosuchthingasapanther

Recommended Posts

nosuchthingasapanther Explorer

nosuchthingasapanther

Posted
Posted

with all the finger pointing at the QB position, what ever happened to fox/davidson's ridiculous play calling being the achilles of the offense?

would any QB stand a chance under a system that had become as predictable as the sun rising and setting every day?

i am of the belief that the change in staff alone is the shot in the arm that the team needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nosuchthingasapanther Explorer

nosuchthingasapanther

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's a problem but it sure as hell wasn't the only one QB has been a major issue since 2008.

but what's the root of the problem, the QBs or the system?

since 2008, how many QBs (rookies and veterans) have come in and failed?

if the fans and game announcers can see what's coming when the team lines up, what do opposing teams' defensive coordinators see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jarhead Newbie

jarhead

Posted
Posted

Clausen was overwhelmed at the speed of the game.He threw it away because Fox told him when it doubt throw it out.I have seen even manning and Brady play bad when the defense had ther number.We were very predicible and that is not a good thing in the NFL.As Riveria noted we had many thing wrong in our offense but Clausen took the fall.He desevered most of it but not all. Evidence of that is Moore looked bad last year as well compared to the year before.I hope alot of lessons were learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

with all the finger pointing at the QB position, what ever happened to fox/davidson's ridiculous play calling being the achilles of the offense?

would any QB stand a chance under a system that had become as predictable as the sun rising and setting every day?

i am of the belief that the change in staff alone is the shot in the arm that the team needs.

we were arguably the best team in the NFC in 2008 despite the lame playcalling......that was the last year w/ had "average" QB play for a season. It was painfully predictable in 2008.....just as painful as 09 and 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ncbobcat Newbie

ncbobcat

Posted
Posted

Foxball was what it was and if the season was tanking because of it, so be it. Everybody knew what was coming. In years following the Fox's first several here, opposing teams got it. Here is what they run and they don't deviate from it. It's up to the defense to stop it. Finally people did figure out how to stop it for the most part and Fox never adapted to the fact that just lining up and running the ball will not always get the job done. He was blinded by the success, though spotty and not willing to ackowledge the shortcomings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • MHS831
      Some homers' opinions of the OTs that we may realistically be able to get at 19

      By MHS831 · Posted

      You could say that-- but if we don't need a starting OT this year, why would you draft a flawed one that is not going to play? (We are coming from different underlying assumptions and perspectives--I see your argument and don't disagree with the premise) Your thinking is based on the assumption that an OT for the future is more important than immediate needs at other positions, or that we can meet other needs in later rounds even if we take the OT in round 1.  I do not think there is but 1 OT worthy of a first-round grade---they are mocked based on need and demand--if we do not have a need for a starter right now, a team at 18 may grab a T that is the 33rd best player--worth it if you have no starting T, but not if you have a starter.  So just because they are mocked around the middle of the first it does not mean that the players are good values--teams get desperate.  QBs are a great example.  Simpson may be worth it in round 1 for the Cardinals, but not the Jets, because they have Geno Smith.  Sure, they will need a QB by next year, but taking Simpson is a reach. I do not see our need, with 2 starters (Walker and Moton) and another possibly returning by the end of the season enough to justify ranking OT over positions like Safety, Will LB--I do not think we replaced A Shawn Robinson (We gonna put a NT out there?  Wharton (280lbs)?  So do we reach in round 1 for a player who may not play much or do we get a Will LB that can cover?  A deep free safety?  A quality center? A playmaking TE?  A DT to replace Robinson?  A wide receiver to balance the secondary?  Long term, if the right player was there, you would be right.  Short term, OT is a luxury at this point, in my view.  
    • strato
      Off-season topic: WWYD? Total Branding Redesign

      By strato · Posted

      Put Huey P Newton on the helmet. With his AK. 
    • csx
      Baldinger on the 2026 LB Class

      By csx · Posted

      We arent switching. Evero is 3-4 to the core. Given how 3-4 has been a noticeable characteristic of top defenses recently and we have drafted and signed players fir it  I dont know why anyone would think that's a good idea 
×
×
  • Create New...