theJBexperience
09-02-2010, 09:39 AM
So you guys feel like we're not running the ball all that well because of our RBs?
Other teams cuts - and the obvious should we get them question.theJBexperience 09-02-2010, 09:39 AM So you guys feel like we're not running the ball all that well because of our RBs? EARTHQUAKE2689 09-02-2010, 09:58 AM So you guys feel like we're not running the ball all that well because of our RBs? No, I feel that once the season starts, the running game will pick up considerably CRedskinsRule 09-02-2010, 09:59 AM So you guys feel like we're not running the ball all that well because of our RBs? I believe a lot had to do with the fact that the other team had the #1 rush defense last year and they were run and gap blitzing nearly every play. Add to that the fact that we didn't see much help from lead blockers - because the coaches were evaluating individual blockers and RBs , I would have been shocked if we had seen large gains in the running game. Also I counted at least 4 big play deep balls where the qb had time to deliver and either the qb or receiver just missed it. As Rabach and Rex both said this team is focusing on and studying Dallas. So to answer your question, I think run blocking could have been better and would have if the game had counted but based on the level and quality of the last two opponents I am confident our OL won't be the same swinging gate it was last year. MTK 09-02-2010, 10:00 AM No, I feel that once the season starts, the running game will pick up considerably Agreed. By design I don't think the running game has been a big area of focus in these preseason games. theJBexperience 09-02-2010, 12:09 PM Interesting and comforting. The OL only looked good against the Bills, and I thought that success had to do more with it being against an inferior opponent. Aren't the coaches supposed to be taking a long look at DT tonight? I hope he rises to the occasion. Shanetrn1 09-02-2010, 01:33 PM i feel we need another servicable OL and I think we should be actively looking for a WR GTripp0012 09-02-2010, 01:45 PM Anderson has actually put up good numbers at one point in his career, with the Browns. Leinart has been HORRIBLE in every chance he's gotten, with weapons like Fitz and Boldin...on a team where his replacement took the team to the Super Bowl. No, Anderson didn't deserve that huge contract from Cleveland after one good year, but he was better than Brady Quinn (who isn't?) and he's better than Leinart too. Anderson: 2007 - 3,787 yds, 29 TDs, 19 INTs, 3 rushing TDs, 82.5 rating Career = 46 TDs, 45 INTs Leinart's best year: 2006 - 2,547 tds, 11 TDs, 12 INTs, 2 rushing TDs, 74.0 rating Career = 14 TDs, 20 INTsIf you're going to use stats, you do have to be responsible enough to not decide your argument before you go to them. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing -- just a "hunch" -- that the reason that you gave us full developmental year totals, but stopped at career TD/INT rate wasn't because lunch was getting cold. I'm guessing its because, career, Leinart either compares favorably to or just embarrasses Derek Anderson. /checks (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AndeDe00.htm) PFR (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LeinMa00.htm) All numbers career: Completion percentage Leinart -- 57% Anderson -- 53% QB Rating Leinart -- 70.8 Anderson -- 69.7 Sack Rate Anderson -- 4.1% (probably the one thing Anderson does really well) Leinart -- 4.6% Interception Rate Leinart -- 3.4% Anderson -- 4.1% TD Rate Anderson -- 4.1% Leinart -- 2.4% Yards Per Attempt Leinart -- 6.5 Anderson -- 6.4 Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt Leinart -- 4.9 Anderson -- 4.9 Clearly, at best, they are equals of each other, and there's no argument based on past evidence to suggest Anderson is better (perhaps that Cardinals O>Browns O, but even that, I mean don't forget about how bad Denny Green's Cards teams were). Leinart leads in all categories that are statistically stable, with the exception of sack rate. But it's not like Leinart is taking a ton of sacks, he's actually above average if not as good as Anderson. Problem is, when Anderson does throw the ball, bad things tend to happen. CRedskinsRule 09-02-2010, 02:03 PM For those saying we need another OL, who would you want, and who would you replace: 1st string - Not going to be cut or replaced with anyone coming through these next waivers LT T Williams LG D Dockery C C Rabach RG A Hicks LT J Brown 2nd String- Possibly cut or replaced LT W Robinson LG none listed C K Licht RG C Rinehart RT S Heyer Practice Squad -my guess - also could replace Heyer/Rinehart Capers, Cook Cut(my guess) Will Montgomery, Oldenburg. I just don't know enough other guys out there to say the Skins ought to get this player, and they will be a substantial improvement over these players. I think it would be more of a "fan-think" move to replace a player just because our OL last year stunk. Defensewins 09-02-2010, 02:07 PM If you're going to use stats, you do have to be responsible enough to not decide your argument before you go to them. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing -- just a "hunch" -- that the reason that you gave us full developmental year totals, but stopped at career TD/INT rate wasn't because lunch was getting cold. I'm guessing its because, career, Leinart either compares favorably to or just embarrasses Derek Anderson. /checks (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AndeDe00.htm) PFR (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LeinMa00.htm) All numbers career: Completion percentage Leinart -- 57% Anderson -- 53% QB Rating Leinart -- 70.8 Anderson -- 69.7 Sack Rate Anderson -- 4.1% (probably the one thing Anderson does really well) Leinart -- 4.6% Interception Rate Leinart -- 3.4% Anderson -- 4.1% TD Rate Anderson -- 4.1% Leinart -- 2.4% Yards Per Attempt Leinart -- 6.5 Anderson -- 6.4 Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt Leinart -- 4.9 Anderson -- 4.9 Clearly, at best, they are equals of each other, and there's no argument based on past evidence to suggest Anderson is better (perhaps that Cardinals O>Browns O, but even that, I mean don't forget about how bad Denny Green's Cards teams were). Leinart leads in all categories that are statistically stable, with the exception of sack rate. But it's not like Leinart is taking a ton of sacks, he's actually above average if not as good as Anderson. Problem is, when Anderson does throw the ball, bad things tend to happen. One huge factor in QB stat comparison is Leinart played on a good playoff Cardinal team and Anderson played on one of the worst teams in the NFL. Throwing to Boldin and Fitzy is a little easier. I understand the need to compare stats, especially with QB's. But as we have mentioned so many times before stats are a just a fraction of the entire picture. Especially with QB's. What I mean by that is Leinart or any Qb completes a 10 yard reception which statically is a big positive. But what gets missed is on that same play another receiver was running wide open for 20 yards further down and woud have been an easy TD and coaches will grade that as a big minus. It was a major blown opportunity. It is what the QB's do with the ball and where they choose to throw it to that is not reflected in the stats and is what is downgrading Leinart the checkdown king. It is not just TD's, Int's, and completion %'s and all the other stats. When I watch Leinart play I am nor impressed at all. Regardless of Anderson. Leinart is not comfortable and does not see the entire NFL field. GTripp0012 09-02-2010, 02:22 PM One huge factor in QB stat comparison is Leinart played on a good playoff Cardinal team and Anderson played on one of the worst teams in the NFL. Throwing to Boldin and Fitzy is a little easier. I understand the need to compare stats, especially with QB's. But as we have mentioned so many times before stats are a just a fraction of the entire picture. Especially with QB's. What I mean by that is Leinart or any Qb can completes a 10 yard completion which statically is a big positive. But what gets missed is on that same play another reciever was running wide open for 20 yards further down and woud have been an easy TD and coaches will grade that as a big minus. It was a major blown opportunity. It is what the QB's do with the ball and where they choose to throw it to that is not reflected in the stats and is what is downgrading Leinart the checkdown king. It is not just TD's, Int's, and completion %'s and all the other stats. When I watch Leinart play I am nor impressed at all. Regardless of Anderson. Leinart is not comfortable and does not see the entire NFL field.It could be seen as nitpicking, but it's not: Leinart didn't play on a good Cardinals team. He was the backup QB on a good Cardinals team, who started just one game on two teams that went to the playoffs. Leinart played on a Cardinals team every bit as bad as the worst Browns teams in the last decade, and a lot worse than the 2007 Browns offense, which was pretty good independent of it's quarterback, if only for ten games. Boldin was already a very good receiver when Leinart got in (and his stats reflect that), but Fitzgerald became an elite player in the 2008 playoffs, well after Leinart was buried, and certainly not because of Leinart. I also really don't like the argument about quarterbacks seeing the field or not. Didn't like it with Campbell, and don't like it with Leinart because it assumes far too much. Even if there is a field vision problem, the only thing that fans can do (and game tape does not help with this) is presuppose that it's correct. And that's fallacious thinking. For example, I can say from game tape that Mark Sanchez absolutely can't throw to his left. He's terrible there, both on film and on the stat sheet. There's nothing, however, to suggest that he has a vision problem to the left side. That's possible, but assuming as much would be wrong. With that said, Leinart likely is who he is. He's a very good backup in this league, and probably a marginal starter. He may just be Jason Campbell, without the running ability to extend drives when you have coverages that can take away your best targets on third down. And ultimately, the Cards are going to have to try to improve on that. But I disagree with Ken Whisenhunt (who has certainly earned the right to guess wrong at least once with his QB) that this decision can be made independent of Derek Anderson. Because that's who you have. I don't think he's necessarily wrong on Leinart, but this is how you take the revenue gained from at least making the playoffs in an absolute gimme division, and cost your franchise that revenue: by making decisions like this one. And I think your points here are good ones: the best QBs take their shots at the deeper plays when they need to. But while it's safe to assume that Larry Fitzgerald is going to get open downfield a couple times a game no matter what coverage the other teams play, it's not going to be Derek Anderson's added ability to find him that makes the difference in the Cards season. It's going to be the negative plays that Anderson routinely makes on plays where Fitzgerald is well-covered that will have them losing a game for every one they win. |
|
EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum