-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
By LJpalmbeacher2 · Posted
But we don't know how he calls plays, do we? He might be worse than Frank.....or better? -
By EastStreet · Posted
Not sure about all the Reich stuff, in terms of wanting to be more explosive.... I certainly didn't see it. It was rare to see many first read downfield throws. And a lot of the big plays were running plays. Rivers was top 10 in deep ball accuracy, but as a team, we were bottom half of the league in deep ball attempts. That doesn't suggest he was trying to be more explosive. In short, if Reich's goal was to be more explosive, he succeeded perhaps in the running game, but not in the passing space. We saw glimpses at times of an intermediate to long attack (see MN game), but that was the exception, not the rule. While I agree there is always room for improvement, the O has far less room for improvement than the D. The Ds ranks were inflated due to horrible competition the first half of the year. The pass D was top 5. When we played better comp, the pass D tanked to 20th, and tanked darn fast. The run D is still very good, but the pass D was plain bad at times. You can only write so much of that off on bend/don't break. Personally, I do think scheme has a lot to do with it. Way too conservative zone, and way too conservative blitzing. But to the original point, the passing O had much less problems than our pass D, scheme or not. I'd also add that I think Reich's O scheme held the O back a decent amount too. You just can't say improvement is needed on O, and not on passing D if we want to win a SB, unless you are just blindly ignoring stats. Even DVOA is pretty clear that our O was better than our D. Not sure I've seen any type of rating, or grade, that would suggest our overall D is better than our O. -
-
-
By LJpalmbeacher2 · Posted
Just buying all those guys lunch would be expensive.
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts