Jump to content

The main reason for the offensive re-emerngence


What is the MAJOR factor in why we have been doing better in the last few weeks from the first few and from last year  

119 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the MAJOR factor in why we have been doing better in the last few weeks from the first few and from last year

    • Willis McGahee. Nuff said. He runs tougher, the defenses cannot blitz Bledsoe, he pass blocks better, he's a bigger threat.
      39
    • The offensive line. Pure and simple. Rueben is gone. Tucker and Villarial have come on. Big Mike is better. They are starting to gel. McNally's schemes have begun to sink in and the OL is drinking the kool-aid.
      12
    • Drew. The new Drew is playing better and not making mistakes. The coaches have reeled him in. He is avoiding the rush. He's getting better blocking and he's getting the ball off quicker. He's not turning the ball over and he's getting the ball in the endzone from the redzone.
      5
    • The coaches and coaching. No doubt. Killdrive is gone. Mularkey, TC and Wyche have reigned in Bledsoe, committed to the power run and McNally is working his magic. Not to mention addition by subtraction of the garbage we had before.
      4
    • Moulds not being hurt. Lee Evans replacing Josh Reed put speed and big play ability back into the line-up. With Moulds back, teams can't load the box and blitz Bledsoe like mad and force him into bonehead plays. Campbell and Euhus are getting open up the middle. Willis and Shelton are catching the ball from the backfield.
      2
    • None of them. This team still stinks.
      5
    • All of them pretty equally. One maybe a little more than the other, say, Willis more than the WRs, but they all have played a significant role and without all of these changes we would still suck.
      52


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I did choose, ya little green prick.

108625[/snapback]

I was talking to Tom. What do you think this is a public message board? Don't you have to go answer someones college questions or something? And I was referring to your inability to make any fukking decisions on anything. You're such a waffler. :w00t::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to Tom.  What do you think this is a public message board?  Don't  you have to go answer someones college questions or something?  And I was referring to your inability to make any fukking decisions on anything.  You're such a waffler.  :D  ;)

108626[/snapback]

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain: :w00t::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice, isn't it?  :w00t:

108695[/snapback]

Indeed. I honestly still think he wasn't ready to begin the season as the starter, but there's now no question as to who is the better RB.

 

OL: remember a few days ago, when most everyone was calling for Tucker to stay at C and stick Teague somewhere else (or even leave him on the bench)? I think I like this solution better. BarryBrady would call it the TinkerToys approach to the o-line, but IMO you have to get your best 5 on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I honestly still think he wasn't ready to begin the season as the starter, but there's now no question as to who is the better RB.

 

OL: remember a few days ago, when most everyone was calling for Tucker to stay at C and stick Teague somewhere else (or even leave him on the bench)? I think I like this solution better. BarryBrady would call it the TinkerToys approach to the o-line, but IMO you have to get your best 5 on the field.

108704[/snapback]

I liked Tinkertoys when I was a kid. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I honestly still think he wasn't ready to begin the season as the starter, but there's now no question as to who is the better RB.

 

OL: remember a few days ago, when most everyone was calling for Tucker to stay at C and stick Teague somewhere else (or even leave him on the bench)? I think I like this solution better. BarryBrady would call it the TinkerToys approach to the o-line, but IMO you have to get your best 5 on the field.

108704[/snapback]

 

Agreed. Tucker was a monster, and I was not fully impressed by Teague on Sunday, although he was OK.

I am trying to figure out how/why Tucker had such a great game. He was blocking all over the field, and there were no sacks in 30 attempts. Also, the wind made it easier for the jests defense to guess, but to no avail.

He IS from Princeton. Maybe he is smart enough to grasp what McNally offers. I dont know, but he was certainly a bright spot.

Next week will be very interesting. If the interior OL plays up to their last performance or improves, we can actually win this imo. :D

A few more plays from Kelsay wouldn't hurt the cause either, huh? :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Tucker > Teague, but Teague > Lawrence Smith. Using Bannan at LG should have told us the coaching staff was actively weighing different options at that spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thoughts here, despite a momentary eruption of inanity.

 

I voted for "all of the above".... but that said, this offense is different with #21 on the field.

108678[/snapback]

 

But isn't that the whole point? If I were to look at the one x-factor that finally got the offense rolling, I have to say it's Willis. It's great to see the OL pushing the line, but it's not as if they suddenly got religion 4 weeks ago.

 

When I get a chance, I'll look up the sack stats of when Willis is in vs Travis. I know that there are more variables that play into the sacks (like trying to come back vs Pats), but the trend is there. Of course, the true measure would be to compare the number of blitzes vs us when the two RBs are in.

 

I continue to go back to the first Jets game. After watching the replay, to me at least, the difference maker is obvious. (And the OL had probably one of its worst games in that one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about this past Super Bowl that really made an impression on me was the way NE's OL took control of the game. Those were a bunch of no-name players who really used some grit and brains to take control of the line of scrimmage from the very first snap. They did it against a vaunted DL.

 

Sort of like the way our OL played against the Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Tucker > Teague, but Teague > Lawrence Smith. Using Bannan at LG should have told us the coaching staff was actively weighing different options at that spot.

108740[/snapback]

They have been all along, as you well know. In fact, almost everything they have publicly said has come true, although they made a few missteps along the way. They said don't expect miracles early. Remember they tried to keep it open during training camp but then decided between the three guys playing LG they were not getting a good look at any of them. Then they decided they needed a back-up C and moved Tucker there, giving the first chance at LG to Pucillo. After they saw that he couldn't handle the job they gave it to the guy who was playing better in practice and games, L. Smith. Then that was okay but not great, so they experimented with Bannan on certain downs. Now that Teague was hurt and they saw what Tucker could do in the games in this system, they made the smart decision to get the best five out there and moved RT back.

 

I would have stuck Tucker in there over Pucillo early on, because Tucker has shown he can have very good games in his career before (NYG comes to mind last year) and Pucillo has proven to stink. But this staff is willing to tinker like you said until they get not only the right combination but half a season's work in this new blocking system and offensive system, and it looks like they may have hit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll start. I think it's all of them more than just Willis. Moulds not being hurt and Evans starting to make plays is huge. The coaching and philosophy is huge. Reigning in Bledsoe and not making him try to win games for you is huge. Not having Killdrive is huge. The OL improvement is huge. Willis has been great but all of it put together has been the key.

108382[/snapback]

 

What's all this talk of an offensive "reemergence"?

 

What? Of 51 offensive points over the last two weeks, ignoring the fact that they came against one of the worst teams in the league and then a Jet team coming off a MN game, 31 were set up by the defense or special teams.

 

Hell, how many teams if you set them up inside the opponents 25-yard line can't score against teams playing badly?

 

I just don't get it. The only "offensive reemergence" that I see is being conducted by the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's all this talk of an offensive "reemergence"? 

 

What?  Of 51 offensive points over the last two weeks, ignoring the fact that they came against one of the worst teams in the league and then a Jet team coming off a MN game, 31 were set up by the defense or special teams. 

 

Hell, how many teams if you set them up inside the opponents 25-yard line can't score against teams playing badly? 

 

I just don't get it.  The only "offensive reemergence" that I see is being conducted by the defense.

109289[/snapback]

It's called points scored. It's called efficiency in the redzone. It's called rushing for 100+ yards in each game by your RB. It's called holding the ball for 37 minutes against a very good defense. It's called 46 carries. It's called not turning the ball over. It's called no sacks. It's called no stupid penalties. It's called getting the ball in the hands of your play-makers. It's called two wins. It's called keeping the defense off the field. It's called making the other team play from behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called points scored. It's called efficiency in the redzone. It's called rushing for 100+ yards in each game by your RB. It's called holding the ball for 37 minutes against a very good defense. It's called 46 carries. It's called not turning the ball over. It's called no sacks. It's called no stupid penalties. It's called getting the ball in the hands of your play-makers. It's called two wins. It's called keeping the defense off the field. It's called making the other team play from behind.

109340[/snapback]

It's also called 75% of your drives starting on the opponent's front door step thanks to the D, not the O that put you there.

 

I mean how on earth do you credit the O for a drive which started at the 24 and kicked a FG?

 

Or a TD with the ball placed at the other team's 11, 19, 21, or 30?

 

What if the D doesn't put you there? Then what? The same team that can't score from it's own end of the field does what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also called 75% of your drives starting on the opponent's front door step thanks to the D, not the O that put you there. 

 

I mean how on earth do you credit the O for a drive which started at the 24 and kicked a FG? 

 

Or a TD with the ball placed at the other team's 11, 19, 21, or 30? 

 

What if the D doesn't put you there?  Then what?  The same team that can't score from it's own end of the field does what?

109397[/snapback]

Actually, you're right, I apologize, you convinced me. This ball control, excellent rushing, turnover free, redzone scoring, touchdown producing, non-penalized, mistake free, efficient passing, excellent blocking winning team is exactly the same and just as terrible as the error prone, non-rushing, non-scoring, overly penalized, three-and-out, non-blocking, erratic passing losing team.

 

Sometimes, a guy just needs someone to show him the light, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you're right, I apologize, you convinced me. This ball control, excellent rushing, turnover free, redzone scoring, touchdown producing, non-penalized, mistake free, efficient passing, excellent blocking winning team is exactly the same and just as terrible as the error prone, non-rushing, non-scoring, overly penalized, three-and-out, non-blocking, erratic passing losing team.

 

Sometimes, a guy just needs someone to show him the light, thanks.

109438[/snapback]

Very nice. And not a hint of sarcasm, either.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...