hoops scoops...fins bengals
- Thread starter hoops
- Start date
You got that right
hoops
Tua time!
i thought someone might say something about that...we were backed up something fierce in our own field i think given the way the game was going and the protection issues we have it was best to run that ball 3 times and kick and make the bengals burn their timeouts...i would have played it that exact same way...
and when cinci was backed up i said to myself we need to make them pay for trying to score backed up this deep with so little time left...plus i don't think that qbs very good...and sure enough he threw late outside and we picked it and got a fg...hell dalton made poor reads and bad decisions all over the place last night...he had one on one win option looks and missed em...he's not that good
add in some of those poorly placed too far inside balls i like to call weedens and i think they trust that qb too much...and they payed for it
hoops
Tua time!
solid in the run game..some break downs in pass pro...
Behind our O-line, I wouldn't want Aaron Rodgers throwing the ball as frequently as Tannehill has. I don't think it's an indictment on Tannehill to say that you have to protect him. 1. He's still really green. 2. Our O-line will otherwise get him killed. 3. It's just a good idea to protect your QB by running the ball - see what GB is now doing with the running game. If this team has the right plan for Tannehill, I think he can be our guy. He's a very talented passer, and he's smart. I don't think he's very instinctual (I'm hoping this will improve with time), and I do think we were on pace to absolutely ruin him. The bottom line is that you and I (and I think most posters here) want a team that consistently challenges for the playoffs and one that plays well in the playoffs. Given what we have, I think we agree that we'll have to run the ball around 30 times a game (from here on out) to get there. Would have been nice to have a guy like Zac Stacy - rather than Gillislee. I picked the Seahawks to win the SB for two main reasons: 1. Their pass D matches up well against the top teams in the NFC and AFC (though the Packers and Chiefs pose some interesting problems that I didn't anticipate). 2. They have three talented, physical RB's, and they (as a team) run often. And when they don't, they almost lose to the Rams. I REALLY hope that Sherman sticks with the run. If he/we do, I think the team is good enough to make the playoffs and maybe even good enough to win a playoff game. Conversely, if we don't continue to run the ball, I think we're bad enough to lose to anyone.
hoops
Tua time!
the problem with seattle is that if that run game isn't there the offense does nothing...it's all predicated on the run game opening up pa and bootlegs rollouts etc...you load the box on that team all game long...although harvin is gonna help with the fronts they face...st louis kinda showed what you need to beat em...make the wrs make plays one on one make the qb have to make plays in the passing game with that protection and shut down the run...it's tough though cause the d gives the o short fields all over the place
susser2000
Active Roster
What was Lamar Miller doing when he cut back and ended up fumbling? It appeared that he had an open field to the end zone the other way?
hoops
Tua time!
i don't really understand the tannehill doesn't appear to be instinctual...i'd like to hear more about why that is the case???
I agree, and if I knew the Packers would run the ball this often and this well, I would have probably picked them (first time I haven't picked the Packers to win the SB in 3 or 4 years). Aaron Rodgers with that running game is a nightmare. Still, look at the level of success Seattle has enjoyed despite their 28th ranked passing attack. Also, it's allowed the passing attack to be pretty damn efficient - 8.2 YPA 14 TD's to only 4 INT's. Seattle is doing with Wilson what I think we should be doing with Tannehill. Their team is better/more talented, but I think they maximize their talent by incorporating a physical, run-first philosophy. If Seattle was not committed to the run, they'd be a middle-of-the-pack team. The Colts (amazing as Luck is) wouldn't be as good without their commitment to the run. This, to me, is all encouraging. There's a formula for success. We have access to it, and we have the talent to make it work (if to a lesser degree than Seattle). We just have to remain patient and committed. A punt? All gravy, no worries. Sack fumbles and INT's are a different story.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 11,484
- Reaction score
- 14,704
Good points Hoops.
But, we ran a lot and only scored 13 offensive points. We ddon't have the sender terior linemen to make short yardage or goal line runs.
For this to work we need to bring in better offensive linemen.
But, we ran a lot and only scored 13 offensive points. We ddon't have the sender terior linemen to make short yardage or goal line runs.
For this to work we need to bring in better offensive linemen.
hoops
Tua time!
if we had a marshawn lynch we probably could...a back that runs thru contact all the time...all the time...daniel thomas does some of that but miller does not...ever
also that defense gives the ball back to the o all the time in great position...ours does not...and they dont have a weakness like philip wheeler to exploit like we do
that seattle oline isn't all that physical like the 9ers oline is...the physical player on seattle in the run game is marshawn run you over lynch
Also consider, however, that Lamar Miller and Mike Wallace would've had long TD plays in the kind of offense they were running last night had a couple of unusual events not occurred.
When the play breaks down, I think Tannehill gets wide-eyed. He does a good job of diagnosing the play before the snap, and I know you've covered that a lot. Totally agree there. But take Luck and Wilson. How many times do we see them make something out of nothing? There's no panic when the play breaks down. They use their feet to buy time and make plays. Tannehill does this sometimes. I really thought he turned a corner last season against the Bengals. There were at least two plays where he beautifully avoided pressure to make big throws down the field. Often, when there is pressure, Tannehill folds up like a TV tray. He's athletic enough to escape a lot of the pressure that overwhelms him. I don't think it's intelligence or athleticism holding him back here. I think it's instincts.
Canadi-Phin
I hate everyone else in the AFC East
We should of had two long TDs, Miller's fumble and Wallace with the PI on Newman. Wallace also had a nice 41 yard gain. I like the chunk plays. Going forward I totally agree we need to stick to the run. Biggest thing in the game was the pick 6. It actually killed us for the rest of the game on defense. We had nothing left after playing 13 minutes in the 3rd. That's just crazy. 3rd and long, why is this such an easy thing for other teams against us. I'd prefer 3rd and 6 or below than 3rd and 10 or longer. That's crazy. 3rd and inches, seriously use Tannehill. WHy are we so god damn afraid to do this? Why has Philbin not said QB sneak and shut up Mike? Also bad call was the two sweeps called in the second half one with Miller and one with Thomas. THey just lost Atkins, on their 3rd MLB, run it at them. Especially don't run DT outside, I could outrun him to the outside. I love what we are seeing from Egnew aka Warhawk. Getting him on the field at FB will allow him to learn more and more of the game in game situations. He has toughen up right before our eyes. Next he will start catching 3 or 4 passes and maybe a Td in a game. I love Matthews. I really like the kid. That catch on 2nd and 17 was just awesome. Tannehill is our QB, I don't care if he has plays that make me shake my head, the kid stands in there even with all the sacks his taken and delivers darts to all corners of the field. Love it.