Kelly the Dog Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Those guys are inactive because we lost 3 games last year due to special teams blunders. And our best special teamer is injured. And they, MW especially, suck at ST or don't even play it. Sucks for him he's the 3rd best WR on the roster. Get better or learn to play ST and you'll see the field. They don't need Larry Dean. The ST are fine without Larry Dean after Whaley picked up Graham, Boobie, Spikes, etc. The KO guy gets half the kicks out of the endzone and the punter barely gets half his kicks returned, too. Plus Marrone is playing a lot of other starters on ST.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Are we talking Hogan here? You just called him our 3rd best WR (and I agree).
FireChan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 You just called him our 3rd best WR (and I agree). I meant 5th best STer. You think Hogan is our third best WR?
Augie Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Hogan just makes plays. No, he's not perfect, but he's been a pleasant surprise to me with his production so far. Combine his WR and ST contributions and you've got the kind of glue guy good teams need.
Rob's House Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I think anyone who watched that game and came out crying about the play calling is predisposed to whining about play calling and will always blame that for every loss whether it's warranted or not. Of all the many things that cost us this game, play calling is pretty far down the list. Given what he's done, I don't think with foresight you can fault the decision to put the ball in Orton's hands in that situation.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) I meant 5th best STer. You think Hogan is our third best WR? No, I think that Mike Williams is. Edited November 11, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
FireChan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) No, I think that Mike Williams is. What makes you think Marrone is keeping a clear better option on the bench? I'll admit it's possible that MW is our third-best WR, but if he is, and he clearly is, why have the players not freaked out like they did when Marrone kept playing EJ over Orton? Do they have a one-mutiny-per-season clause in their contracts? And I think Woods is already better than MW. We don't and will not know the entire MW story. If he's dogging it in practice, does it hurt the team more to accept it and play him or bench him? Marrone ain't BB, but they both know if a player isn't giving you a total effort, he doesn't play, regardless of talent or past accolades. That's the only way to keep a locker room stable. EDIT: I am speculating on MW. But, IMO, it's the only scenario that adequately explains this situation. Edited November 11, 2014 by FireChan
buffalo2218 Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 You're right Rob, let's not blame the pathetic red zone playcalling that would have either put the Bills out of reach or given them the lead. Let's throw 48 times and only run it 22 against a top ranked pass D, when we gashed them in the second half and not even bother punching it in from the 2 yard line and throw 2 straight incompletions when Dixon or Summers from 2 yards out had 3 downs to score. Playcalling is pretty far down the list? You're clueless and self anointing yourself above other people only strengthens my assessment
Augie Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Mike Williams has actually had an outstanding season in the NFL. Has HAS done it. I don't know why he's not playing, but that's probably a good thing. I shouldn't know what's happening behind the scenes, that only happens on really horrible teams where people are whining and leaking things. I hope he finds a way to get back in good graces and shine.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 What makes you think Marrone is keeping a clear better option on the bench? I'll admit it's possible that MW is our third-best WR, but if he is, and he clearly is, why have the players not freaked out like they did when Marrone kept playing EJ over Orton? Do they have a one-mutiny-per-season clause in their contracts? And I think Woods is already better than MW. We don't and will not know the entire MW story. If he's dogging it in practice, does it hurt the team more to accept it and play him or bench him? Marrone ain't BB, but they both know if a player isn't giving you a total effort, he doesn't play, regardless of talent or past accolades. That's the only way to keep a locker room stable. EDIT: I am speculating on MW. But, IMO, it's the only scenario that adequately explains this situation. I think that you might be right on MW. There has to be more to the story. I in no way absolve the coaches from not making it work. The guy has had very productive NFL seasons and fills a role (RZ threat) that the team clearly lacks. Instead of resolving the issue they dress guys like Larry Dean, Lee Smith, Chris Gragg and TY Powell. Which one of those guys is more likely to impact the outcome of a game than MW? That is what we are really talking about. Is Larry Dean more likely to impact an outcome than MW? We both know the answer to that. It's more of a Marrone problem than a Hackett problem but it's a problem.
Rob's House Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 You're right Rob, let's not blame the pathetic red zone playcalling that would have either put the Bills out of reach or given them the lead. Let's throw 48 times and only run it 22 against a top ranked pass D, when we gashed them in the second half and not even bother punching it in from the 2 yard line and throw 2 straight incompletions when Dixon or Summers from 2 yards out had 3 downs to score. Playcalling is pretty far down the list? You're clueless and self anointing yourself above other people only strengthens my assessment I enjoy the irony. I look forward to more enlightening posts from you in the future.
FireChan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) I think that you might be right on MW. There has to be more to the story. I in no way absolve the coaches from not making it work. The guy has had very productive NFL seasons and fills a role (RZ threat) that the team clearly lacks. Instead of resolving the issue they dress guys like Larry Dean, Lee Smith, Chris Gragg and TY Powell. Which one of those guys is more likely to impact the outcome of a game than MW? That is what we are really talking about. Is Larry Dean more likely to impact an outcome than MW? We both know the answer to that. It's more of a Marrone problem than a Hackett problem but it's a problem. Ask the Bengals last year who helped them win more, punt coverage or worrying about another WR? Edited November 11, 2014 by FireChan
Kirby Jackson Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Ask the Bengals last year who helped them win more, punt coverage or worrying about another WR? So you are saying that Larry Dean is more likely to impact the result of a game than Mike Williams? Yes or no?
FireChan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 So you are saying that Larry Dean is more likely to impact the result of a game than Mike Williams? Yes or no? Yes.
NoSaint Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) I think anyone who watched that game and came out crying about the play calling is predisposed to whining about play calling and will always blame that for every loss whether it's warranted or not. Of all the many things that cost us this game, play calling is pretty far down the list. Given what he's done, I don't think with foresight you can fault the decision to put the ball in Orton's hands in that situation. Mixed bag but I'll echo that play calling was better but not great and the packages were odd far too often. I'll also say better but not great is emphasized in my assessment. I liked that we saw some shovels, a (so what that it flopped) screen to sammy, the fake pitch misdirection etc.... But hate that we run that fake pitch into a pass to lee smith. Sure there were plays or series I might question but every team has some. I'd call the play calling pretty average. Didn't lose it but could've won it with a great coach firing on all cylinders Edited November 11, 2014 by NoSaint
Kelly the Dog Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Yes. The Chiefs returned three punts for 8 yards and one KO. Larry Dean made no tackles.
FireChan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Mixed bag but I'll echo that play calling was better but not great and the packages were odd far too often. I'll also say better but not great is emphasized in my assessment. I liked that we saw some shovels, a (so what that it flopped) screen to sammy, the fake pitch misdirection etc.... But hate that we run that fake pitch into a pass to lee smith. What are the odds that Lee Smith is the primary route in that play? What are the chances Hackett dialed up that play and told Orton, "Hey, make sure you throw it to our blocking TE, because he's definitely gonna break it for 20 yards or a TD?"
Kirby Jackson Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Yes. Most people would beat around the bush; I have a great deal of respect for you answering that. While I applaud you for answering the question I can't imagine that you actually believe that. MW has impacted the outcome of a bunch of games in his career while Larry Dean has been a part time special teamer. He is probably no better than the 4th or 5th best cover guy on the roster.
FireChan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 The Chiefs returned three punts for 8 yards and one KO. Larry Dean made no tackles. Is the only guy who matters in punt coverage the guy who makes the tackle?
Kelly the Dog Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 What are the odds that Lee Smith is the primary route in that play? What are the chances Hackett dialed up that play and told Orton, "Hey, make sure you throw it to our blocking TE, because he's definitely gonna break it for 20 yards or a TD?" 100% probably. That was without question a play to go to the TE immediately.
Recommended Posts