Jump to content

Attack of the Mack....Hollins


blacklabel

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

@FireChans is furious!

No. I just don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Mack is more involved, Josh has pretty bad stat lines.

 

Mack’s great game and Josh’s 66 passer rating seem inherently linked imo. Just like when Mack got a team leading 6 targets vs Houston and Josh completed 9 passes. Or when Mack was second on the team in targets vs Baltimore and Josh had a 73.9 passer rating and we lost by 25.
 

I want Mack to be Hines Ward. I don’t think he is.

  • Eyeroll 3
  • Shocked 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Dislike 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuh king A neat!!!

 

I’ll tip one back for Mack “ shoeless joe “ Hollins! 
 

He’s been doing a pretty damn good job thus far, nothing to get all whiny about, and that’s a serious plus, 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

No. I just don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Mack is more involved, Josh has pretty bad stat lines.

 

Mack’s great game and Josh’s 66 passer rating seem inherently linked imo. Just like when Mack got a team leading 6 targets vs Houston and Josh completed 9 passes. Or when Mack was second on the team in targets vs Baltimore and Josh had a 73.9 passer rating and we lost by 25.
 

I want Mack to be Hines Ward. I don’t think he is.

You need to be looking at the other pass catchers that aren’t getting open, can’t blame the guy who’s catching his targets. Coincidence and causality…, 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

You need to be looking at the other pass catchers that aren’t getting open, can’t blame the guy who’s catching his targets. Coincidence and causality…, 

 

Exactly. I think it's more that "If Mack is getting so involved, we have other problems to deal with".

 

Mack doesnt cause Josh's lower passer rating. Whatever is bringing down Josh is also causing more targets to Mack. Which I assume would be the other team's game plan.

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FireChans said:

No. I just don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Mack is more involved, Josh has pretty bad stat lines.

 

Mack’s great game and Josh’s 66 passer rating seem inherently linked imo. Just like when Mack got a team leading 6 targets vs Houston and Josh completed 9 passes. Or when Mack was second on the team in targets vs Baltimore and Josh had a 73.9 passer rating and we lost by 25.
 

I want Mack to be Hines Ward. I don’t think he is.

Come on, now. Shakir had his worst game of the season, and Samuel was 4/8 for 35 yards. At 4/4 for 86 yards, and four first downs, Hollins was the best WR on the field on Sunday. Pretty hard to fault him for Allen's poor stats in that game. At this point, Hollins would have to walk on water while catching  pass for you to give hime the props he deserves.

  • Agree 2
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Exactly. I think it's more that "If Mack is getting so involved, we have other problems to deal with".

 

Mack doesnt cause Josh's lower passer rating. Whatever is bringing down Josh is also causing more targets to Mack. Which I assume would be the other team's game plan.

Missing two of the starting three WRs, with four total being on the injury report (including Hollins) doesn't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Exactly. I think it's more that "If Mack is getting so involved, we have other problems to deal with".

 

Mack doesnt cause Josh's lower passer rating. Whatever is bringing down Josh is also causing more targets to Mack. Which I assume would be the other team's game plan.

If the other teams gameplan is “let Josh throw to Mack,” that kinda tells you all you need to know, right?

 

1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said:

Come on, now. Shakir had his worst game of the season, and Samuel was 4/8 for 35 yards. At 4/4 for 86 yards, and four first downs, Hollins was the best WR on the field on Sunday. Pretty hard to fault him for Allen's poor stats in that game. At this point, Hollins would have to walk on water while catching  pass for you to give hime the props he deserves.

I think we are having two different conversations.

 

Mack can clearly be productive with Josh throwing him the ball. He was the most productive WR this week, so props for that.

 

Like I said above, if the opposing teams gameplan is “let Josh throw to Mack” that should be some kind of indicator to his ability.

 

I don’t blame Mack for Cooper/Coleman being hurt or for him being the best of a weak bunch otherwise. I still think that’s all he is, despite catching a deep pass that Josh had to scramble to create, that we’ve seen lots of lesser WR’s do in Josh’s tenure. 

  • Vomit 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FireChans said:

 

I think we are having two different conversations.

 

Mack can clearly be productive with Josh throwing him the ball. He was the most productive WR this week, so props for that.

 

Like I said above, if the opposing teams gameplan is “let Josh throw to Mack” that should be some kind of indicator to his ability.

 

I don’t blame Mack for Cooper/Coleman being hurt or for him being the best of a weak bunch otherwise. I still think that’s all he is, despite catching a deep pass that Josh had to scramble to create, that we’ve seen lots of lesser WR’s do in Josh’s tenure. 

Well, that is a different conversation than "he sucks."

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...