How is Wade Smith doing?

[ckparrothead]

BTW I'm watchin the game tapes now, both Perry and Nails make their fair share of foul-ups...Nails in pass protection, and Perry when he pulls. Todd Wade does a good bit of getting beaten too. IMO the line would definitely benefit from Dixon moving to LG and Nails moving to RG where honestly he would get as many opportunities to pull as he does at LG...if not more.

 

[ohall]

Originally posted by ckparrothead
I think that might be going a little far Oliver.

I have to say that Smith really surprised me tonight. He looked a little overconfident to me before the game, and Hugh Douglas really needed a strong performance to shut up the fans and his coach, and Hugh did not deliver. I think Dave Hyde summed it up the best really...



Wade Smith went in tonight facing questions about the validity of his own acquisition, and came away tonight leaving questions about Hugh Douglas' acquisition. Nice job.

BUT, keep a little perspective. He only went against Hugh Douglas for a real matchup 19 times, and he did not by any means handle Hugh on EVERY play. I'm watchin the game tape right now and it looks like Hugh managed to gain some minimal effect on the QB on two of the plays, and on one play Wade Smith was right...he got beaten by Douglas to the inside but Jamie Nails bailed him out. Even though Nails bailed him out it caused Fiedler to sense trouble, tuck the ball, and run forward for 4 yards. And on most of the 19 matchups, Hugh wasn't even given a chance.

I totally disagree, he did handle Douglas on every down. Douglas had ZERO tackles, ZERO QB pressures and ZERO sacks. IMO It doesn't get any more handled than that.

You are looking for perfection, that's not my opinion of perspective, especially in the brutle sport of football.

Oliver...

 

[ckparrothead]

Actually it does get better Oliver. If you check out my thread, I detail every single time Wade Smith went up against Hugh Douglas. Twice, Hugh backed up Wade Smith enough to where I'm pretty sure the QB was made aware of their presence and possibly they felt a little "Spidey Sense" like in spiderman. And on one play, Hugh Douglas definitely whupped Wade Smith for a sack, but Jamie Nails on this one play HAPPENED to be free of a man and was able to bail out Smith. Wade even admitted it to reporters. If Nails doesn't bail Smith out on that play, Fiedler doesn't even get the opportunity to run the ball for 4 yards...he gets sacked.

 

[ohall]

Originally posted by ckparrothead
Actually it does get better Oliver. If you check out my thread, I detail every single time Wade Smith went up against Hugh Douglas. Twice, Hugh backed up Wade Smith enough to where I'm pretty sure the QB was made aware of their presence and possibly they felt a little "Spidey Sense" like in spiderman. And on one play, Hugh Douglas definitely whupped Wade Smith for a sack, but Jamie Nails on this one play HAPPENED to be free of a man and was able to bail out Smith. Wade even admitted it to reporters. If Nails doesn't bail Smith out on that play, Fiedler doesn't even get the opportunity to run the ball for 4 yards...he gets sacked.

Sorry man, you are applying entirely too much brain power and scrutiny to this. This type of scrutiny is not a good thing IMO when talking about O-Line play. It's football, it's a simple game for simple ppl who like to beat each other into submission. It's no more RAW than in line play.

We disagree here; I think Wade Smith will stop those type of ppl from detaching Fiedler from his senses more often than not. We'll see where this goes with WS, but I think he graded out highly tonight, and I think you are being entirely too pragmatic here. I do not down grade a performance because his OL buddy or buddies helped him out. For all you know it's how the play is designed. This is why I think your logic is totally off in this case, seriously.

No one deserves that type of scrutiny IMO. Especially a player that just held a pro bowl DE to ZERO tackles, ZERO QB pressures and ZERO sacks. I do not think it's fair.

Oliver...

 

[ckparrothead]

Sorry man, you are applying entirely too much brain power and scrutiny to this. This type of scrutiny is not a good thing IMO when talking about O-Line play. It's football, it's a simple game for simple ppl who like to beat each other into submission. It's no more RAW than in line play.

Sorry, but calls for anti-intelligence just don't ever fly with me. The more you know, the more you know. How can you claim that you know more about how well Wade Smith did tonight by statistics than by watching game tape? This is EXACTLY what Rick Spielman and Dave Wannstedt do to evaluate players. They don't just look at the stat book and say "hey, no tackles, no sacks, Nails had to bail him out one time...wow you're the next coming of Richmond Webb!" They look at the tape. The tape doesn't lie. And on the tape it wasn't like Wade Smith did not get beaten by Hugh Douglas. He did. And on multiple other occasions, Douglas definitely gave him a handful. And, on most other plays where they butted heads, Hugh Douglas did not even have a reasonable chance to do anything on the play.

Sorry but you can't say to me "know less, and you'll know more!"

For all you know it's how the play is designed. This is why I think your logic is totally off in this case, seriously

This is false. I watched the tape, I know exactly what was going on on that play, and Wade Smith himself admits that he got beaten on this play but got help from Jamie Nails. Nails was free to help because his DT was stunting to the outside. If the DT rushes forward, Nails is not able to help Smith on the play and Jay Fiedler is sacked. That is the bottom line.

I think you're grasping at wisps by trying to argue without being able to review the tape. I'm not saying I know more than you, I'm saying that I have a game tape right here handy and I've pretty much looked at and scrutinized each of the 19 times that Wade Smith matched up against Hugh Douglas. Therefore, yes, I am in a far better position than you to give a tad bit of judgement on how Smith did. He did very well, but to start making statements like "he looked more comfortable out there and better than Mark Dixon ever did" thats definitely going too far. He had less than a half work against Hugh Douglas, and it was only a coincidence that kept Hugh Douglas from getting a sack in that amount of work.

THOSE, are the FACTS. We're not talking about over-analyzation. Wade Smith faced off with Hugh Douglas 19 times over the course of about a quarter and a half, and on 1 of those 19 matchups, Hugh Douglas beat Wade Smith for what should have been a sack except for the coincidence of Jamie Nails bailing him out. And I say coincidence, because yes I did get a chance to see just about every play Jamie Nails ran and he very very rarely got afforded the opportunity to help someone else other than himself. There is literally a 0% chance that the play was somehow "designed" so that Nails could help Smith out. For that to be true, somehow Norv Turner would have to know that the DT was stunting...and Norv may be good, but he's not clairvoyant. Sorry.

 

[ohall]

Originally posted by ckparrothead


Sorry, but calls for anti-intelligence just don't ever fly with me. The more you know, the more you know. How can you claim that you know more about how well Wade Smith did tonight by statistics than by watching game tape? This is EXACTLY what Rick Spielman and Dave Wannstedt do to evaluate players. They don't just look at the stat book and say "hey, no tackles, no sacks, Nails had to bail him out one time...wow you're the next coming of Richmond Webb!" They look at the tape. The tape doesn't lie. And on the tape it wasn't like Wade Smith did not get beaten by Hugh Douglas. He did. And on multiple other occasions, Douglas definitely gave him a handful. And, on most other plays where they butted heads, Hugh Douglas did not even have a reasonable chance to do anything on the play.

Sorry but you can't say to me "know less, and you'll know more!"



This is false. I watched the tape, I know exactly what was going on on that play, and Wade Smith himself admits that he got beaten on this play but got help from Jamie Nails. Nails was free to help because his DT was stunting to the outside. If the DT rushes forward, Nails is not able to help Smith on the play and Jay Fiedler is sacked. That is the bottom line.

I think you're grasping at wisps by trying to argue without being able to review the tape. I'm not saying I know more than you, I'm saying that I have a game tape right here handy and I've pretty much looked at and scrutinized each of the 19 times that Wade Smith matched up against Hugh Douglas. Therefore, yes, I am in a far better position than you to give a tad bit of judgement on how Smith did. He did very well, but to start making statements like "he looked more comfortable out there and better than Mark Dixon ever did" thats definitely going too far. He had less than a half work against Hugh Douglas, and it was only a coincidence that kept Hugh Douglas from getting a sack in that amount of work.

THOSE, are the FACTS. We're not talking about over-analyzation. Wade Smith faced off with Hugh Douglas 19 times over the course of about a quarter and a half, and on 1 of those 19 matchups, Hugh Douglas beat Wade Smith for what should have been a sack except for the coincidence of Jamie Nails bailing him out. And I say coincidence, because yes I did get a chance to see just about every play Jamie Nails ran and he very very rarely got afforded the opportunity to help someone else other than himself. There is literally a 0% chance that the play was somehow "designed" so that Nails could help Smith out. For that to be true, somehow Norv Turner would have to know that the DT was stunting...and Norv may be good, but he's not clairvoyant. Sorry.

Sorry Ck, there's no way you can know what the Dolphins are or are not doing for sure. You cannot know what was planned and what was not planned. What the actual O-Lineman decided to do or not do while actually playing the game. There are entirely too many variables for anyone to make a good guess on any of this, outside of being a player or coach for the Miami Dolphins.

There is literally a 0% chance that the play was somehow "designed" so that Nails could help Smith out.

If you were this good, you would be a HC some where in the NFL. If my assumption that you are not an NFL coach, then sorry I misjudge you.

I have reviewed the tape, especially when WS is in there. Sorry there seems to be alot of assumptions being made by you. I have had the tape since after the game was over. And I spent alot of time reviewing it. We disagree, that's all there is to this.

If you think you know as much as the coaches then that's GREAT for you. I know I sure as heck don't.

Oliver...

 

[ZOD]

Thanks CK.

If he did well overall, I'm pretty much satisfied with what I'm reading about Smith. We got two more games for him to get ready. Even with the one gaff, holding off Douglas for 18 plays is pretty good for a rookie. Douglas should have owned him if he was not a quality player.

Also of note on the Dixon/Smith thing. If Smith's movement improves enough, I would rather see him out there. Dixon's height comes into play almost every game. It's not his fault, he's a guard.

Thanks for the analysis instead of the "homerism" as I haven't seen a single play of the game.

 

[finfan54]

Look, both you guys make valid points. If douglass doesnt get a sniff of a tackle then smith played well, considering. But CK makes some good points too. this offense was set up by norv to protect our QB and to give Smith some confidence. nothing wrong with that. that is smart. Just take it for what it is, which is what CK said as well, a good outing but dont think we are set. and i dont want to hear what the damn media says either. they are a bunch of sheep.

 

[bdwgroove]

I agree with the majority of what is being said about Wade's performance against Hugh and the Jags. He did a very good job in pass blocking Douglas. Wade has the feet and balance to be very effective even if he is missing the long arms that you like to see at that postion. Hugh's speed was pretty much a non factor but never once did I see him try to bull rush him. I still want to reserve my judgement on Smith until I see him compete against a good end who has the strength to drive him back into the QB. Personally I think this is where Wade is the weekest (upper body strength). Hopefully his atheticism will compensate for this and he will get the job done while playing for Mark.

Wade's run blocking is an entirely different matter. He looked good on most plays going away from him. I'm not surprised because he moves so well and his technique looked solid. On the few occasions that the Fins ran behind Smith I saw him get stood up by the DE and the plays were disrupted. Once again lack of strength is the major factor. Obviously the good news is that he can get stronger over time is it's much better for him to have those feet and just need to add to his upper body strength.

Right now, I think he'll be able to fill in adequately until Dix is back. He'll keep Fiedler off his butt but you're going to see Ricky running behind Perry and Wade for the time being. I do believe that we have found the LT of the future and I truly expect him to be the starter next year at that position...let's just hope, for Ricky's sake, that he's not there for the entire year this year.

Off the Wade Smith subject for a moment. I don't know what Turner is thinking but this kid Obafemi Ayanbadejo cannot block. I saw him repeatedly get in people's way but never once move them. Granted, he catches the ball well and he's decent on special teams, but if we lose Konrad for any length of time during the season I think that we are going to regret getting rid of Dyer which seems to be the direction that we are going. The primary function of our FB is to block for Ricky and then to catch passes. Well Dyer is head and shoulders a better blocker, not much of a pass catcher and adequate on Special Teams. I'd rather have the better blocker and not have the running game suffer without Konrad in there. What do you guys think?

One last thing, with the exception of the potential of Corey Jenkins, our back up LBs SUCK...including Tommy Hendricks. Thay are all Special Teamers at best and none of them have any instincts (remember I said with the exception of Jenkins). I have yet to see Hendricks be a playmaker in any of his preseason games over the years and am confounded when Wanny says he feels good about him. He's great on Special Teams and I love him when he's the sixth LB...but the first LB off the bench?!?!...I"M SCARED!!! The rest of the guys aren't even worth talking about. I just pray that Jenkins keeps progressing as he has been.

 

[ZOD]

BDW,

The bull rush protection comes from the legs. Which is why he is successful against it.

A bullrush/bounce to the outside combo though, that's a different story.

 

[Predaphin]

Originally posted by XoPhinsoX
It was going alright up untill the 3rd stringers took over.

thats wierd, arent those the same 3rd stringers that brought us back against Tampa Bay????

 

[ohall]

Originally posted by Predaphin34


thats wierd, arent those the same 3rd stringers that brought us back against Tampa Bay????

I'm not sure. There seemed to be alot of guys out there I had never seen before. I could be wrong, but it seemed like we totally emptied the bench, more so than it appeared we did in the Bucs game.

Oliver...

 

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by Predaphin34


thats wierd, arent those the same 3rd stringers that brought us back against Tampa Bay????

By that time in a game you don't really have a "set team" out there, but rather a rag tag of different players that you want to see handle different situations. If the O is opening it up, you put guys with questionable pass rushing skills out there to test them in game situations against their weakness, at that point in the game in the first 2 weeks of Pre-season, you'll very rarely see the same group of guys out there, 3rd and 4th week however is when coaches try and start locking things down out there, untill then it's all about testing individuals and units.

 

[juniorseau55]

Well let me imply this very simple and as narrow as possible.


When match-up's like a starting offensive tackle vs a top of the line defender such as Hugh douglas is not about domination, its not about who gets their *** beat. It's about protecting the Quarterback. If Wade smith gets beat down by douglas but alllowed enough time for Jay Fiedler to throw a pass down the field then Wade is doing a good enough job. You can't expect more from a young player, specially if he if playing against a veteran. He did a good job, he needs to work on coming off that stance because I seen wade smith come out of balance because he didn't set his foot work to the best of his abilities.

Getting back to the subject. As long as Wade Smith protects the quarterbacks blind side to give the quarterback some good timing then this is what we expect from him. He gave Fiedler time down the stretch to make plays and for his first start, he played good enough. He is a great player but there is a reason why he went down the draft that low. He has time to develop in an all-pro level and if he stays healthy and plays good enough then he will take it from there.


As far as moving dixon back to his original spot. I don't think Wade is ready to take 4 quarters of beating yet. Why? Defensive ends in the Nfl are smart. They will see all the weaknesses and try to exploit them. Let me try this move, or let me fake in the outside and go inside and push him off his balance etc. Until he improves his technique then we are better off letting dixon start. The reason Hugh douglas didn't beat him down completely was because we didn't play 4 quarters with our starters.