Reed83HOF Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Dareus was a huge piece missing and I'm sorry, but I'm over him - he can go fu%k himself with his bong. All of the coaches should just resign and leave now. The 4th down BS, the lack of any speed in a 4 minute drill down by 2 scores, the lack of field awareness by Clay instead of going out of bounds, the timeouts. Why challenge a 4 yard pass? Ragland wouldn't have mattered that much since he is a rookie run stuffer; maybe Shaq would have mattered. The problem was really the offense going 3 and out all the time and no pass rush with 4 players to force Fitz and help the CBs.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 3.4 ypc isn't great, obviously, but you can't factor out 3 rushing TDs - rushing TDs make the runs shorter than they actually would have been given that reaching the goal lines ends the yardage accumulation. My guess is that if the goal line wasn't there, the yardage total would have been closer to 110-120. And of course, you can't factor out giving up 3 rushing TDs as part of the defense's run stopping performance!! That's terrible. Fair enough, but if you think the run D was an issue, then certainly you'd think the fellas mentioned in the title of this thread would have had a big impact on the outcome. Right? Agreed. This is where I stopped reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Hard to say. I think with how Rex was going to use Ragland, as a blitzing LB, he certainly could have got more pressure. Shaq may or may not have gotten more pressure. Dareus would hav definitely occupied 2 people up front and would have freed up someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Fair enough, but if you think the run D was an issue, then certainly you'd think the fellas mentioned in the title of this thread would have had a big impact on the outcome. Right? Of course, but they weren't there and Shaq Lawson was never in the cards. Every team has injuries too ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 Of course, but they weren't there and Shaq Lawson was never in the cards. Every team has injuries too ... Right. But injuries/suspensions gutted more than a third of our starting defense before the season started. So, I'm punting on that maxim this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Fair enough, but if you think the run D was an issue, then certainly you'd think the fellas mentioned in the title of this thread would have had a big impact on the outcome. Right? Marcell would have helped collapse the pocket and that may have helped a ton with Fitzpicks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Hard to say because Rex's defense wears out your players if you keep going 3-&-out on offense. Plus Gilmore and Darby were getting lit up anyway. The defense only gets worn out when they can't do their job and get off the field...like almost all of the game yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 I absolutely think we are missing Ragland and Marcel Shaq Lawson? I think Lorax is playing pretty well....I wonder how much better the D as a whole would be playing as a rotation That said....our secondary was a tire fire last night....NOBODY should be talking about giving Gilmore top 5 corner money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dulles Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Brown plays okay, but on the occasions when he DOESN'T over pursue the hole and have to grab the RB from behind, he gets carried several yards downfield after contact. If Ragland is the thumper he's been billed at, a lot of 3-5 yard runs last night would have gone for 0 to -2. I turned to my buddy several times and noted precisely this. I can't see how Spikes would have played worse than McCray. If Spikes is in on 1st and 2nd, we contain the run. Then our LB's can run deeper zones and our safeties can give better help on the outside. It's like dominoes! I was surprised when Spikes didn't dress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Ragland. Lol. Only Rex wanted him and he only fits this scheme.....and the scheme doesn't work. It's like the model T didn't win Indy because we didn't have the golden crank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Ragland. Lol. Only Rex wanted him and he only fits this scheme.....and the scheme doesn't work. It's like the model T didn't win Indy because we didn't have the golden crank. If a snail can win the Indy 500 surely a model T can. Are you saying there is hope for Rex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Do these four players make a difference in last night's outcome? I'm perplexed by the Alex Smithing we got last night, and just like last year, that's on Rex. When a QB is picking you a part, you gotta go to something new, and on the first drive, under pressure, Fitz was helpless. Then we we stopped blitzing. Tough to explain that one. But could the injection of our marquee personnel have made a difference? Jerry Hughes can only do so much. Preston Brown had some great moments, and at other times he looked lost. Did Zac Brown even play? We have reason to be pissed about the scheme, but I can't help but think that we just didn't have the ponies last night to compete against a QB that was so on point (who expected that). On the flipside, the offense is a tire fire and it's because defensive coordinators, after 14 starts and an offseason, know how to completely neutralize Tyrod Taylor. So let's at least look at the pieces we DO have (the titular names minus Lawson 2 (who I believe they're waiting to heal so they can sign him again)). I think to much weight is given to the rookie High draft picks of both Lawson or Ragland (who at sometime will end up before being a 2 down player). These players as much hope and hype thrown their way have yet to take a single snap in the NFL. Not to mention both came with questions marks either health related or speed. No wonder whaley & Rex just thought they stole the crown jewels. No,one else had them ranked that high. If you are referring to these guys as marquee players? I think it is a tad premature yet possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 Seriously. The coaching/scheme blows. This wasn't evident last night or most of last year? I'm amazed that some still make excuses for Rex. Who made excuses for Rex? Are you seriously still framing it that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Who made excuses for Rex? Are you seriously still framing it that way? Dude you called the offense a tire fire and made excuses for the defense. Before the offense touched the ball there were 9 minutes off the clock. They scored on 3 plays. The defense got manhandled again and again all night. No adjustments were made.....which you pointed out. The title of this thread is basically an excuse for the defense. This defense sucks. And it doesn't just suck on the field, it also sucks in that it forces our hand into drafting otherwise marginally talented players like Ragland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 Dude you called the offense a tire fire and made excuses for the defense. Before the offense touched the ball there were 9 minutes off the clock. They scored on 3 plays. The defense got manhandled again and again all night. No adjustments were made.....which you pointed out. The title of this thread is basically an excuse for the defense. This defense sucks. And it doesn't just suck on the field, it also sucks in that it forces our hand into drafting otherwise marginally talented players like Ragland. An excuse for the defense would be: we shouldn't be upset about last night because we were missing key players. That's not even remotely what this is. No. We should be upset about last night. Execution and scheme were both piss poor. The QUESTION is whether having key pieces back would have a.) improved execution (it probably would have) or b.) allowed them to do less infuriating things from a scheme standpoint. The latter is completely unknown and THUS I brought it up for discussion. Discussions would stay on track a lot better if statements weren't falsely maligned. You mentioned "marquee" players we are missing . Outside of Dareus how are two rookies who haven't played an NFL down yet "marquee" players? Sounds like something Doug and Rex would say. That's totally fair to say. Ragland and Shaq are both rookies, I accept that. I do however, think that there's a exceptionally high likelihood of them being better/more versatile than their current replacements. Ditto Manny Lawson, who--as I stated--I believe is more hurt than was let on and will be brought back once he heals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Yes we absolutely missed those guys. A secondary depends on the front 7 more than people realize. The secondary was atrocious last night, not all because of who we were missing, but those guys not there in the front 7 certainly made their job harder and changed what we can do in terms of scheme too. Can you absolutely miss guys who have never played on a team before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 16, 2016 Author Share Posted September 16, 2016 Can you absolutely miss guys who have never played on a team before? You can assume that they'd be better than the journeymen who have had to stand in for them. Or not. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 You can assume that they'd be better than the journeymen who have had to stand in for them. Or not. Your choice. ...and then you remember guys like Maybin before he ever played a game for the Bills. You assumed the same with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts