New Orleans Saints' Defensive and Special Teams Player Grades @ Ravens
If I had to pick one reason the Saints lost to the Ravens, it would be summed up with one word: tackling. Forget the lack of balance on offense, forget the horrible coverage units on special teams, forget the stupid penalties, the Saints lost this game because they couldn't tackle to save their lives. It was surprising to see Ray Rice and Willis McGahee take turns gashing the Saints' porous run defense because the Saints have been so stout all season against the run. It was very out of character, particularly because the biggest runs featured blown tackles by Harper, Vilma and Clark - the three men most responsible for how good the run defense has been to this point. I'll go ahead and say this now: if they don't correct the tackling, expect Michael Turner to run for 300 yards next Monday night. If they put out a tackling effort that's anything close to the Ravens' game performance, Rice's output will look like a joke compared to Michael Turner. No one in the entire league is tougher to bring down than Turner. Below are the grades.
Will Smith: C (2.38) His most impressive play was early in the game where he bull rushed Michael Oher right into the backfield and right into Ray Rice, knocking the back down for a big loss. Oher had his hands full with Smith, having a couple of false start penalties to get try to get a good jump on blocking him. Smith's pass rush was about the same as we've seen all season - mediocre at best. Against the run he was ok at times, but I felt like his pursuit was lazy and he didn't always contain which led to huge cut back lanes for both McGahee and Rice that they took advantage of. He finished with 4 tackles. He also had a back breaking personal foul call late in the game which I still fail to understand, but talk about an idiotic move.Alex Brown: B+ (2.26) Definitely one of his better games of the season. He finished with 5 tackles, 2 of which were for losses. While Ellis was credited with a sack, Brown also finished that play off nicely up high to drive Joe Flacco to the ground. I thought he was outstanding against the run, and while he was never rewarded with a sack his pass rushing was solid as well. On a day where the Saints' defense was a huge flop, Alex Brown was one of the few that showed up.
Jimmy Wilkerson: B- (2.19) Nice to see him get a sack for once, but that was his lone tackle and all that he really contributed.
Jeff Charleston: C (2.43) He didn't really do anything special, and more times than not he was pushed off the ball. He finished with 2 tackles and a qb knockdown. Probably for the best, I'd hate to see his sack celebration again.
Sedrick Ellis: B+ (2.79) It was a solid afternoon overall for Ellis, who finished with 5 tackles and a sack. He got good penetration up the middle and he put his playmakers in a position to make tackles by breaking down the line of scrimmage. That's all you can ask for. He was also hustling in pursuit, and helped his teammates bring down runners.
Remi Ayodele: B (2.57) Like Ellis, he did a great job of standing his ground around the line of scrimmage. At times the initial surge the Ravens got was overwhelming, but more times than not, again, Ayodele did his job in the trenches. He finished with 6 tackles, and put his linebackers in a position to make plays. Ayodele's play has dropped off considerably lately, so it was nice to see him bounce back and be active in this one. He got a lot more reps thanks to the Ravens' running style and Anthony Hargrove being ruled out.
Scott Shanle: D- (2.50) Horrible would be one way to describe Shanle's performance. He finished with 1 tackle, and was completely useless in an effort to contain the opposing running attack. He was isolated in coverage a few times, as well, and he was victimized accordingly. Most notable was a big 3rd down play that saw him get beat by Ray Rice down the sideline for a 17 yard touchdown pass. He really struggled to make any impact whatsoever in this contest, and was consistently a step slow or out of place around the field.
Jonathan Vilma: C (3.02) He did lead the team with 11 tackles, so there's that, but this game was more about what he did wrong. Vilma was also beat a few times by Ray Rice in coverage, though late in the game he was fortunate that Joe Flacco missed Rice wide open down the seam. My main problem with Vilma in this game is he decided to go after Flacco on a secondary blitz when the Saints were already getting good pressure. Both times, the extra blocker would leak out as a security valve (Vilma's responsibility) and break free for a big gain because Vilma decided to join the blitz party instead of containing. Specifically, those mistakes led to a 34 yard touchdown pass to Ed Dickson and a 14 yard screen to Ray Rice. There was also a play where Willis McGahee gashed the Saints up the middle thanks to Vilma getting completely neutralized at the second level by a blocker. Vilma was active, but I thought he made a number of mistakes that hurt his team.
Danny Clark: C+ (2.78) Like Vilma, he had a very high tackle number of 10. Like Vilma, it was less about his tackles made, and more about his misses. Every big run that Ray Rice had featured Clark having a clean shot at stopping him, and whiffing severely. The extra attention that Vilma got left a lot of openings for Clark to make tackles. He had opportunities to make stops all game long, and he was missing plays just as much as he was making them. Still, he was involved in a lot of stops so he deserves some credit.
Marvin Mitchell: B- (2.44) He was credited with a sack for chasing Flacco harmlessly out of bounds on a play that featured good coverage. He finished with 3 tackles, and made no glaring mistakes, but certainly didn't help the leaky plays the defense was giving up all day long.
Tracy Porter: B (2.63) He missed a couple of tackles, but he was helpful against the run and excellent in coverage. Flacco mostly didn't even bother going after him because he was foaming out the mouth at the possibility of going after Shanle and Torrence. The one pass that came his way was intended for Derrick Mason, and Porter broke it up with a nice timing tip. He had 5 tackles and completely shut down Anquan Boldin. My only gripe is I wish he had helped more against the run.
Leigh Torrence: C (2.67) When the Ravens decided to pass, which was hardly necessary, they were either going after Shanle or Torrence. Torrence gave up a deep ball down the sideline getting beat very badly by Derrick Mason for 42 yards. Torrence also gave up a 15 yard pass to T.J. Houshmanzadeh because he gave the receiver about a 20 yard cushion. It wasn't all bad, though, because he had a really nice tackle on a short throw to Anquan Boldin, and he was able to force Houshmanzadeh out of the end zone on a deep pass that was ruled incomplete. There's no question that the injury to Jabari Greer was a big blow for the Saints, and Torrence struggled to replace him. Because the Saints were so bad against the run, it made every play Torrence gave up a little more pronounced. He finished with 4 tackles. Let's hope Greer comes back soon because Leigh Torrence starting at corner sounds like a shaky proposition.
Malcolm Jenkins: D+ (2.67) He whiffed on his fair share of tackles and was a complete non factor, finishing with just 2 tackles. For the number of big runs the Ravens had and the hitting ability and play recognition that Jenkins has, you figured he would have stuck his neck in more plays. Why the Saints didn't move him to corner in place of Torrence and just have Sharper play full time at safety, I'm not sure I understand.
Roman Harper: C- (3.15) He got flagged for a late hit out of bounds on Ray Rice late in the game that gave the Ravens a free 15 yards. It was a close call, but Rice was heading out of bounds and Harper should have used more poise. Give him credit for being vocal out there and trying to rally his troops, but he was a big part of the reason why the Saints couldn't tackle. He was too busy trying to strip every football as oppose to just making a clean tackle. He finished with 7 tackles, but I thought it was one of his worst games of the season overall. He did not play at the level we are accustomed to, and his tackling was horrible. Considering that's normally what he does best, add his already poor coverage skills and we had ourselves a pretty poor strong safety in this game.
Darren Sharper: D (2.22) The guy that played at an all pro level last season has all but vanished. I'm not sure who this guy was, but he wasn't good. He was good for a unnecessary roughness penalty on a completely unnecessary lazy love tap at the end of the play. It deserved a flag because it was so late, but the shove was so pathetic he almost got away with it. I feel like "unnecessary roughness" necessitates a minimum amount of "roughness" that Sharper barely met, it at all. He finished with 1 tackle, missing numerous others, and was late in both recognition and position getting to both of Flacco's touchdown passes. The recovery from microfracture surgery isn't going on that great, obviously. I still wonder if the Saints should start Malcolm Jenkins at corner with Greer out, over Torrence, and move Sharper back to full time free safety? I feel like maybe a full game at free safety would maybe yield a token turnover?
Garrett Hartley: A (2.64) That GPA is somehow creeping it's way back to respectable. Hard to say anything but good things about Hartley lately, who has really found a nice rhythm on kicks. He was perfect on all three extra points with high kicks right down the middle, and he made his lone field goal. That field goal kick, in my opinion, was a big time clutch make. From 47 yards out with brutal windy conditions, he was able to drill his attempt right down the middle. It's nice to see Garrett playing so well lately. He's really turned his season around.
Thomas Morstead: C+ (3.14) The Saints gave up big return yards in this game, and Morstead struggled to set the Saints up in the field position battle. His kickoff depth was poor thanks to the windy conditions, which you would think would mean less return yards, but the Ravens still managed a solid 24.3 yard average on 4 returns. He did pin two punts inside the Ravens 20, but his net average was only 36.3 on 6 punts, which saw Lardarius Webb get a couple of good returns off of. Morstead was fine, nothing great and nothing awful. He's still just a fraction behind Roman Harper as the best GPA on the team.
My Defensive Player of the Game: Alex Brown
My Special Teams Player of the Game: Garrett Hartley
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I noticed you gave our DB's much worse scores then our Dline and LB's for missing on tackles
Maybe if our D line and LB’s did their jobs running plays wouldn’t be left up to DB’s
World Champions at last
by mississippisaintsfan on Dec 21, 2010 12:40 PM CST reply actions
Maybe.
But that wasn’t the case. They were graded on what actually happened out there on the field. Not on what we WISH had happened.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Dec 21, 2010 1:34 PM CST up reply actions
Thats my point
D linemen and LB’s are suppose to tackle running backs before they get to the secondary
The fact that they didnt should lower their grade
World Champions at last
by mississippisaintsfan on Dec 22, 2010 4:55 AM CST up reply actions
I agree.
when you fail that specifically at exactly what you’re supposed to do, it should be a grading criteria of significance.
"I am a Saints player. Look, sir" Patrick Robinson
by CrazyforColston on Dec 22, 2010 8:37 AM CST up reply actions
Robinson and Young
I wonder what the thinking is behind having Robinson and Young inactive against the Ravens. When Greer went down, I would have liked either one available (Robinson to replace Greer directly, or Young to share FS with Sharper while Jenkins moved to CB). I’m with you, I have no idea why Torrence saw so much time at CB when they could have moved Jenkins over.
It was phenomenal (in a bad way) the number of times I saw a guy with “harper” in his last name miss tackles on Rice.
Is this the last year of good ole reliable Shanle?
Please understand i know Shanle is servicable, we’ve won with him, and many fans either love or hate for him……I neither love nor hate him….
all I am asking is when will we atleast bring in someone more athletic to compete against him in training camp?
also how far can we go with absolutley no push from the front four?
by blackandgoldbuddha on Dec 21, 2010 1:56 PM CST reply actions
Thanks for including that last option in the poll
Otherwise, I would’ve had a hard time voting for the other options.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Dec 21, 2010 2:12 PM CST reply actions
Play callilng, not tackling is reason for loss.
The saints have done poorly all season against teams with big bruiser type running backs. Michael Turner ran all over us when we played the Falcons earlier this year. If my memory is right, so did Frank Gore (49ers), Peyton Hillis (Browns), and Steven Jackson (Rams). I think our unbalanced play calling is more to blame for the loss than the tackling. It’s obvious that whenever we play a team that has a good run defense, we almost completely abandon the run. It doesn’t make any sense. We have a very good running game, and when we run the ball it greatly enhances our passing game. Sean Payton is the reason we lost this game.
Our fat punk kicker, Garrett Hartley, missed a game-winner and we lost for the second week in a row - Scott Fujita in 2009
Agreed. The mere fact that we ran more often against the Steelers, a team even more successful against the run than the Chargers, proves that it isn’t a matter of “we can’t”. We CAN run the ball. We may no longer be among the Top 10 in terms of effectiveness, but we’re at least capable of keeping our opponents off balance, as long as it’s utilized nearly as often as the pass. The same could be said of practically any team in the league. The fact that we’re an excellent passing team “when all cylinders are clicking” should be viewed as our trump card, NOT our entire poker hand. Granted, you can OCCASIONALLY get away with that sort of backass thinking against teams that are absolutely pathetic in on particular area. In no way, shape or form does taht describe the Ravens defense. They’re solid across the board. Weaker against the pass, but certainly not a 2009 Detroit secondary, where you’re going to light them up for six TDs. The Saints didn’t even pass as frequently in THAT game, btw. Insanity.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
by coldpizza on Dec 21, 2010 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I honestly think fantasy football has a lot to do with this misconception. People who play FF use statistical rankings in order to determine what QB to start. If a QB is starting against the Texans, for example, he’s bound to “light it up”. What they don’t seem to comprehend is that FF is not a timed game, nor does cumulative yardage necessarily equate to scoreboard points. Fantasy points yes, scoreboard points maybe. So, for all the gobs and gobs of real estate Houston is surrendering through the air cumulatively throughout the season, it really doesn’t mean much if they’re not giving up TDs and FGs to the teams being led by those QBs. Maybe they buckle down in the red zone. Maybe they had a couple of ridiculously poor performances early in the season and it’s skewing those rankings, in terms of how bad they really are now. No matter how you slice it, if you’re running a balanced attack against them … a.) those real world points are going to come, no matter HOW they’re actually being scored, and b.) odds are they’re going to be left with less overall time in the game on offense with which to offset them.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Uhh no.
Houston’s efense really is that bad. I get what you are saying otherwise, but no. The Texans have a horrendous defense.
Week 16 matchup: Falcons
Week 16 motto: BLACK PANTS MUST BE BURNED!!
Have a Merry Christmas
That doesn’t mean they can’t step up and stop the pass on any given week. They did it against Rusty Smith and Tennessee just a few weeks back. Obviously, Smith’s lack of experience played a factor in that, but what if it had been Donovan McNabb or Matt Hasselbeck? Even if it’s just a one series fluke, the more and more you continue to drop back and pass, the more their confidence grows, the more the Texans home crowd gets into it, the more they bring the blitz, etc. Have a tipped pass get returned for a pick six and suddenly the QB is rattled, second guessing himself. Should he just keep firing away, or should he tone it down, find a balanced rhythm, take control of the game’s tempo and remove the fire from DeMario Williams’s belly? If you answered “keep firing away” you’re basically Sean Payton with a smaller set of testicles.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
But the thing is, that hasn't happened yet.
Week in and week out, teams do the same things against the Texans and still get the same result. That is on the DC and even the players themselves if they don’t realize their mistake and adjust. Rusty Smith was such an anomaly it’s not even worth mentioning. Also it’s Mario Williams, who is on IR btw.
Week 16 matchup: Falcons
Week 16 motto: BLACK PANTS MUST BE BURNED!!
Have a Merry Christmas
Rght, I initially typed Demario Pressley, then backspaced, forgot to change the first name. And I don’t really give a cr** about the Texans. Teams aren’t passing 77% of the time against the Texans, just because they’re the worst team in the NFL against the pass. If they are, odds are they’re going to lose the game.
Take the Colts, arguably the most pass happy team in the NFL outside of the Saints. In their first game against the Texans, they passed the ball 85.1% of the time and lost by 10 pts. If playing to your opponent’s weaknesses is such a stellar idea, then why didn’t it work here? I’ll tell you why it didn’t work here. Because Houston’s weakness isn’t nearly as detrimental to team’s success as Indianapolis’s weakness is. If you remember correctly, that’s the game that Arian Foster ran hog wild all over the Colts. The Colts offense did absolutely nothing to control the clock throughout. Houston only needed to pass 28.8% of the time to beat them.
In the rematch, the Colts percentage dropped to 73.8% passing, while Houston’s climbed to 67.9%. End result? Colts win by 13. Again, why did passing LESS often lead to a win, particularly against the worst team against that aspect of the game in pro football?
Obviously, it wasn’t just number of carries that spelled the difference. It was Foster’s SUCCESSFUL running that rendered the Colts pressed for time and real estate to cover throughout. Regardless, they would have never enjoyed that SUCCESS without the handoffs that led to it. Who the hell was Arian Foster before that game? Just the guy that won the starting RB job by default, after Ben Tate went down in preseason.
And that’s pretty much my point in a nutshell. Maybe Julius jones or Pierre Thomas has that sort of game in them, if they’re fed the ball 33 times. Probably not. Reggie Bush is even less likely to, but he’s got speed, so you never know. Three 70 yard bursts and thirty 0-2 yard skip-to-my-lous. Probably the only way that’s happening. Far less likely for any of them against the Ravens front 7, but who’s expecting that sort of game anyway? Joe Flacco isn’t passing 70%+ of the time three times a month by design. We don’t need that sort of offset in order to keep them on their heels on offense.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Rght, I initially typed Demario Pressley, then backspaced, forgot to change the first name. And I don’t really give a cr** about the Texans
If you don’t give a crap about them why do you keep using them as an example, only to say you don’t give a crap when I give you an explanation as to why your ideas aren’t happening?
As to the Texans and the Colts: Colts have one of the worst rushing defenses in the league. Running against them is a good idea because of their weak rushing defense. So you are playing to their weakness, and that so happens to be the Texans strength. Which proves that you play to a team’s weakness. When the Texans passed heavily in the second game they were playing to the Colt’s strength and thus lost. The Texans decided both of those outcomes by being a smart play caller by playing to the strength of their team, and the weakness of the other in the first game. And being an idiotic play caller in the second by doing the opposite.
Week 16 matchup: Falcons
Week 16 motto: BLACK PANTS MUST BE BURNED!!
Have a Merry Christmas
The Texans’ strength was rushing going into the first game of the season? I guess that explains why no one knew who their starting RB would be going into the season, Matt Schaub being a vogue FF pick, Andre johnson on the cover of ESPN magazine, etc. Yes, all of that points to “run = strength”. No, that was more like throwing sh** at a wall and seeing what worked. There were no statistical rankings going into that game, merely what you saw the year prior and in preseason. Fortunately for the Texans, the more important aspect worked. The Colts passing is just Peyton Manning calling his own number. He does that regardless of who he’s playing. To his credit, he toned it down a little on the rematch. Like the Saints, they don’t have much of di** in terms of RBs, but still enough to play a more balanced style of offense. Addai’s missed a lot of this season though and Brown hasn’t panned out. As a result, there’s an outside shot they might not even make the playoffs.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
“And being an idiotic play caller in the second by doing the opposite.”
LOL! It’s called making adjustments, champ. Foster was a known commodity by then. The Colts may be bad against the run, but they’re a professional football team. They’re going to do what it takes to win, especially knowing what’s likely to come. That’s why they ran the ball more often. They wanted to help keep Foster off the field and control the tempo of the game. Let Schaub beat them, since he hadn’t proven he could do it the first time. It worked. Indy won, by running the more balanced attack. It wasn’t to their strength, nor was it to their opponent’s weakness. You can write it off to “idiotic play calling” all you want. It may have been idiotic for Houston to pass that often. I don’t know really know how that game unfolded, so it’s hard to say. If they weren’t down by more than 8+ points through the majority of the game, then it definitely was. Houston = the Saints, in this case. Who’s knocking Baltimore for running when it’s clearly working and keeping Brees off the field?
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Not to mention that Houston’s DC is just as aware of his shortcomings as the opposing OC is and is constantly looking to improve on them. That improvement can easily rear its pretty/ugly head on any given week. Inflexibly gear your offense to continue attacking it based on perceived strengths and weaknesses going in and you’re no less “slamming your head against a wall” than you are if you’re outright shying away from one aspect of the game or another based on those very same misconceptions.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
Actually Houston's DC is not as smart as you give him credit for.
It took until the Ravens game for him to realize to stop giving WR 10 yards of cushion. For instance, during the Hou-Jets game: from the 4 yard line, the CBs played off coverage giving the Jet’s WR an 8 yard cushion. Needless to say Sanchez threw a short slant for a TD. I live in Houston, I follow the Texans, trust me when I say don’t try and defend the Houston Defense or their coordinator.
Week 16 matchup: Falcons
Week 16 motto: BLACK PANTS MUST BE BURNED!!
Have a Merry Christmas
This isn’t about the Texans, it’s about playing to a team’s perceived weaknesses based on cumulative statistics. Fine if you want to build your game plan around that, but do it to the tune of 55/45 … 60/40 tops. Be it run heavy or pass heavy, 77/23 is retarded. Granted, if the 77% is run and it’s working (it won’t be, but if), then there’s truly no harm in that. I would actually be elated to see that. If the 77% is pass and it’s working (it won’t be, but if), you’re not really doing your defense any favors. At the same time, i’m not going to harp on it well into Tuesday, though I WILL be quick to point out that you would have won the game a LOT more comfortably had you not taken that approach. If the 77% is pass and it’s NOT working, then you need to quickly get back to common sense. Maybe even try to swing it the other way a little. You don’t just stand there with your stupid face hidden behind a laminated placard, calling the same one dimensional cr** over and over for 60 minutes. Think of passing as putting your car in neutral and allowing it roll down a hill. No big deal, as long as you have your hands on the steering wheel and your foot near the brake pedal, right? Well hey, what if I just, you know … close my eyes a little? And what if I … put my hands behind my head and relax? Maybe hang my feet out the window? Heck, what if I do all these things and casually toss a cinderblock on the accelerator? Is it still ok then, dad? Will you be equally mad at me, if I crash the car THAT way? Idiots.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
. Fine if you want to build your game plan around that, but do it to the tune of 55/45 … 60/40 tops. Be it run heavy or pass heavy, 77/23 is retarded. Granted, if the 77% is run and it’s working (it won’t be, but if), then there’s truly no harm in that.I would actually be elated to see that.
So if we run, just for the sake of running, even if we’re getting nothing or negative yardage you are happy just because we did not pass on that play. Got it.
If the 77% is pass and it’s working (it won’t be, but if), you’re not really doing your defense any favors.
It very well may be working, if the team’s secondary is that piss-poor, and we are barely ahead or ahead by enough that we can safely pass. I will agree with you on the point of the defense being tired however.
At the same time, i’m not going to harp on it well into Tuesday
Today is Tuesday. :-)
though I WILL be quick to point out that you would have won the game a LOT more comfortably had you not taken that approach.
I can see that. This can depend on circumstance however.
If the 77% is pass and it’s NOT working, then you need to quickly get back to common sense. Maybe even try to swing it the other way a little. You don’t just stand there with your stupid face hidden behind a laminated placard, calling the same one dimensional cr** over and over for 60 minutes.
If you are passing 77% of the time, most likely you went down 21 points early and were forced to abandon the run to get back on track so you can run. If that’s the case then there is nothing you can really do as your team just got beat that day. If the score is close however, I will concede your point.
Think of passing as putting your car in neutral and allowing it roll down a hill. No big deal, as long as you have your hands on the steering wheel and your foot near the brake pedal, right? Well hey, what if I just, you know … close my eyes a little? And what if I … put my hands behind my head and relax? Maybe hang my feet out the window? Heck, what if I do all these things and casually toss a cinderblock on the accelerator?
Well ok. What if running the ball is like running on a track? You start out fine and running and going places. Now I decide to hop on one leg to the end. What if I decided to crawl on my belly to the end? See, I can make a metaphor that makes absolutely no sense to prove my point as well.
Is it still ok then, dad? Will you be equally mad at me, if I crash the car THAT way?
Whoa Whoa Whoa. If I’m your dad then you are a lot younger than I thought you were and that girl owes me an explanation.
Idiots
No need to get frustrated. This is how friendly debating works. You try and prove your point, while I try to prove mine. No need to attack.
Week 16 matchup: Falcons
Week 16 motto: BLACK PANTS MUST BE BURNED!!
Have a Merry Christmas
You both make good points. I (surprisingly) am siding with CP a little more on this one though.
Our balance is imoportant to the big picture and the big picture is winning. When you face a team that has a very good run defensem I think it’s imperative to find a way to help your running game NOT be impoptent. Don’t abandon it, and don’t treat your opponent as if they DON’T have a great run defense, but aid your offensive running game with all of the techniques, strategies, weapons etc that you can come up with and there are many. Adjust your balance so that instead of 50-50 or 45 rush 55 pass, its maybe 40-60. But, I agree 77% pass id ridiculous. We have had some problems when Payton does that. I think the victory over Pittsburgh helped us towards this end. We passed too much there but still pulled the game out. It’s unlikely to win that way even though we did it once.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
I'm not saying I don't believe in no offensive balance.
I like his 60-40 idea. I’m fine with passing more, so long as it is productive. Same with running more. I just don’t want to see no or negative yardage just for the sake of saying we ran/passed the ball. Because it ends up frustrating the team and making it harder to convert on second and third down, than if we did a productive move. No matter if it be pass or run.
Week 16 matchup: Falcons
Week 16 motto: BLACK PANTS MUST BE BURNED!!
Have a Merry Christmas
So if we run, just for the sake of running, even if we’re getting nothing or negative yardage you are happy just because we did not pass on that play. Got it.
Not just for the sake of running. For the sake of offensive balance. For the sake of unpredictably. Yes, nothing or negative yardage is better than not running at all, as it’s ultimately going to mitigate the pass rush and give the QB more time to pick out open WRs down field. Which will in turn have LBs dropping back to help out in zone coverages and loosen up the fron seven for more successful running.
It very well may be working, if the team’s secondary is that piss-poor, and we are barely ahead or ahead by enough that we can safely pass. I will agree with you on the point of the defense being tired however.
By working, I mean leading to victory. In the vast majority of cases, it will not. Most 77% passing performances are when one team is playing from behind much of the game, not by design going in.
Today is Tuesday. :-)
I said if it was working. It obviously didn’t work. The Saints lost because of it.
I can see that. This can depend on circumstance however.
Everything depends on circumstance. Give me another superfluous statement I can quote, please.
If you are passing 77% of the time, most likely you went down 21 points early and were forced to abandon the run to get back on track so you can run. If that’s the case then there is nothing you can really do as your team just got beat that day. If the score is close however, I will concede your point.
Leads of 8 or more points will typically serve as an exception to a run-heavy philosophy. You obviously have to assure yourself of another possession. That becomes more and more true the further you move away from a tie score.
Well ok. What if running the ball is like running on a track? You start out fine and running and going places. Now I decide to hop on one leg to the end. What if I decided to crawl on my belly to the end? See, I can make a metaphor that makes absolutely no sense to prove my point as well.
It wasn’t a metaphor, it was an analogy nased on how I view passing. I also wasn’t attempting to prove a point with it, merely illustrate one. If it truly didn’t make any sense to you, I can’t really help you. It appears as if you picked up on what i was saying though, as you associated careless, self-imposed handicaps with a person’s inability to meet his/her set goals.
Whoa Whoa Whoa. If I’m your dad then you are a lot younger than I thought you were and that girl owes me an explanation.
Yes Anakin, you are my father. And I would ask that you stop touching me inappropriately this very instant.
No need to get frustrated. This is how friendly debating works. You try and prove your point, while I try to prove mine. No need to attack.
And you are …? Ex post facto debates aren’t really my forte.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Re: #25 ... CUT THAT CHUMP.
if GW told Vilma to join the blitz, then the outlet back may not be his responsibility
we don’t know what the scheme was- if Vilma was supposed to blitz, then he can’t be in both places at once. Hard to know what his responsibility was unless you on the sideline or the field.
Also, I didn’t have the luxury of seeing film, but I find it hard to believe Ayodele and Ellis played well when they gouged us for a lot of rushing yards. When our tackles play well, there is no room for opposing RBs to run. No holes.
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress? Congress!
-Men's Restroom - House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Coldpizza is da man!!!
You have to run a balanced offense to keep the opposing defense guessing. Even if you’re making little to no gain, it will open up your passing game. Besides, last I checked, our run offense is halfway decent. They might get stopped for no gain or even a loss on occasion, but then can rip a 10 yarder out at any moment (as Pierre did on his first run against the Ravens). And also last time I checked, an incomplete pass gives you 0 yards…..and some of our completed passes have given us a loss of yards. So PASS does not necessarily equal POSITIVE YARDAGE. If your rationale for not running the ball is because we may be stopped for no gain or a loss, the same is true for a pass. Using that thinking, then maybe we shouldn’t pass the ball either.
JUST RUN THE DAMN BALL!!!
Our fat punk kicker, Garrett Hartley, missed a game-winner and we lost for the second week in a row - Scott Fujita in 2009

by 





























