Powpow Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 12 hours ago, MaxAF said: Not sure if the ran a 4-3 in week 1 with Richardson suspended. But whatever the scheme was in that game should be the staple. It worked and worked well, why would Bowles move from that success. Since Richardson came back the pressure was gone and the sacks disappeared.. I'm not blaming Richardson but you go with what works until it doesn't work anymore. That's the way we played and that's the way I coached on a high school level. I think a professional coach would have a little more on me. We have this speedy LBer. Why doesn't he blitz. Mauldin had some success last year. I'm miffed at this point. McClendon rocked vs. the Bengals subbing for Richardson. Since then, Bowles has Sheldumb out of position again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powpow Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 15 hours ago, PepPep said: Shorter answer? The secondary. Phat answer. He been eating Bowles chocolate chip ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnleyJet Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Sheldon at OLB again, short passing and playing to much 4-3 without actually having a 4-3 End on the Roster. 300 pound D-tackles don't bend the edge very well. Why pound the rock up the middle when you can throw 70 yard bombs for TD's every game. I blame Bowles and Kacy Rogers. Think I'd sooner have Roy Rogers, or Casey Kasem.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 16 hours ago, Integrity28 said: Short answer? He got paid. That's not true, he shows every week he is playing with a high motor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 1 hour ago, MaxAF said: That's not what happened in Pittsburgh. Ben was dropping back 5-7 steps and in shotgun all day. No pressure. The ball was still coming out quickly in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 14 hours ago, greenwave81 said: Interesting fact: Even if paid in $100 bills, $22 million would weigh 464 lbs. That's some serious weight to be carrying around. Tell me about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Lonelyhearts Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Who cares how many sacks he has? The important thing here is whether he conspicuously emotes in the locker room after losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenwave81 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 That's not what happened in Pittsburgh. Ben was dropping back 5-7 steps and in shotgun all day. No pressure. I would agree with this...which is why this week was somewhat bothersome. Granted, Ben is a different animal back there, almost as large as the guys rushing him...but the lack of anyone getting even close to him? Inexcusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchmemory Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Face it. folks. He's just not as good as we thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepPep Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 17 hours ago, Integrity28 said: When the team is constructed from the DL back, with 3 first rounders on the DL... it is the DL that is supposed to make the secondary look good, not the other way around. I agree that they are complementary groups, but disagree with the idea that the secondary is where it begins... given how we're built. With Rex, is was built from the secondary forward, which helped the DL. Yeah, but the D-line is doing its job when it comes to pushing the pocket, collapsing it, and stopping the run. The one thing they are missing is actually generating sacks out of it. And from what i have seen, its evident that opposing QBs are successfully getting rid off the ball quickly on short underneath routes and actually gaining big chunks of yards at times. They seem to also be able to simply bomb the ball deep- successfully. Normally, it takes time to get the ball deep to your receiver. But on a 'go' route you can simply float one up deep. So while I agree with you that the investment has been made on the D-line (and there is nothing wrong with that-IMO) and they are supposed to make the secondary look good, its really not that simple in this case. The D-line HAS looked good, except for the sacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blocker Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Lots of excuses here for Wilk, but what gets me is he was up against a third stringer at Pitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blocker Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 29 minutes ago, PepPep said: Yeah, but the D-line is doing its job when it comes to pushing the pocket, collapsing it, and stopping the run. The one thing they are missing is actually generating sacks out of it. And from what i have seen, its evident that opposing QBs are successfully getting rid off the ball quickly on short underneath routes and actually gaining big chunks of yards at times. They seem to also be able to simply bomb the ball deep- successfully. Normally, it takes time to get the ball deep to your receiver. But on a 'go' route you can simply float one up deep. So while I agree with you that the investment has been made on the D-line (and there is nothing wrong with that-IMO) and they are supposed to make the secondary look good, its really not that simple in this case. The D-line HAS looked good, except for the sacks. This is another way of saying, unfortunately, that this D is overall poorly constructed if its strength can be defeated so easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodeawhodat Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 24 minutes ago, PepPep said: Yeah, but the D-line is doing its job when it comes to pushing the pocket, collapsing it, and stopping the run. The one thing they are missing is actually generating sacks out of it. And from what i have seen, its evident that opposing QBs are successfully getting rid off the ball quickly on short underneath routes and actually gaining big chunks of yards at times. They seem to also be able to simply bomb the ball deep- successfully. Normally, it takes time to get the ball deep to your receiver. But on a 'go' route you can simply float one up deep. So while I agree with you that the investment has been made on the D-line (and there is nothing wrong with that-IMO) and they are supposed to make the secondary look good, its really not that simple in this case. The D-line HAS looked good, except for the sacks. Ben had waaaaaaaay too much time on sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 25 minutes ago, PepPep said: Yeah, but the D-line is doing its job when it comes to pushing the pocket, collapsing it, and stopping the run. The one thing they are missing is actually generating sacks out of it. And from what i have seen, its evident that opposing QBs are successfully getting rid off the ball quickly on short underneath routes and actually gaining big chunks of yards at times. They seem to also be able to simply bomb the ball deep- successfully. Normally, it takes time to get the ball deep to your receiver. But on a 'go' route you can simply float one up deep. So while I agree with you that the investment has been made on the D-line (and there is nothing wrong with that-IMO) and they are supposed to make the secondary look good, its really not that simple in this case. The D-line HAS looked good, except for the sacks. I'm not clamoring for sacks. I disagree with the notion that they are doing the bold consistently. Yeah, they can stuff the run, but QBs are getting 3-5 seconds to scan the field. Especially on 3rd and long. QBs are standing back there like statues, and even a great secondary couldn't cover for this long. There is no pass rush, unless there are blitzes, and even then they don't get to the QB soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 17 hours ago, bitonti said: let's not mince words here Mo, Sheldon and Leonard are all DT's. We can call them 3-4 DE or whatever else but we've seen they aren't effective pass rushing in the 9 gap outside edge, it's just too far for a 300-pound man to run. And this is why I felt that giving Wilk JJ Watt money wasn't the right move. You don't pay a guy almost 90 million and he isn't a game changing talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain The Foe Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 15 hours ago, greenwave81 said: Interesting fact: Even if paid in $100 bills, $22 million would weigh 464 lbs. That's some serious weight to be carrying around. And it's a shame that our top 3 signings are not working out. Revis, Fitz, Wilk. I can understand the Revis signing, but the Fitz and Wilk signing in relation to the amount was just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 To everyone who was in a panic over giving this guy a $100 million contract: Hahahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said: And it's a shame that our top 3 signings are not working out. Revis, Fitz, Wilk. I can understand the Revis signing, but the Fitz and Wilk signing in relation to the amount was just ridiculous. I actually think if Revis moves to Free Safety it would be a huge help to our defense. We haven't had a safety who could cover or ballhawk since Victor Green Fitz is gone after this year Mo we are stuck with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.