Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;749774]And lol, trashing Rak by comparing him to a roid user. Amazing insight. /sarcasm[/quote]

I'm not trashing Rak at all...

Just telling it like it is...

If I get to choose between Rak or the old Merriman..(without knowing about the Roid issues)'m taking the old Merriman..
It's just that simple SirClinton.

I love Rak and I hope he's here forever

The point I'm trying to make sirportis...
How would you like to have 2 Raks on the team?

That's what it would be,IF..

IF..merriman goes back to old form.

And to get him...?
Don't have to trade a pick for him..
Don't have to shoot him up with roids to get him ...
Don't even have to give him an Albert Haynesworth 100 Millions dollar Contract to have him....

But you will have to cut a player to get him....
Would you like a list of who?
There are some I would cut RIGHT NOW...

even [B]not knowing[/B] if Merriman can go back to old form...

Roydell would start the list...sir clinton Portis...
:food-smil
To not at least consider the option,would be foolish...
but then again sir clinton...not everybody has my "[B]amazing insight[/B]" lol

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=InsaneBoost;749689]I hate saying this, but I'd rather just switch back to the 4-3 till we get more 3-4 personnel here. I mean honestly, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

3-4: 32nd overall
4-3: 10th overall[/quote]

Well, last year we avg'd 21 points per game allowed(18th overall), this year so far we've avg'd 19.8 points per game(14th overall).

Also, last year we ended with a -11 turnover difference, so far this year we have a +5 turnover difference. Last year we had a TOTAL of 17 takeaways. So far this year we have 11 takeaways.

We scored one of our touchdowns on an extremely short field, thanks to Rak's strip fumble. We won the Dallas game thanks to an aggressive takeaway minded defense.

There are good and bad to everything, and if we had had just the one Kareem Moore INT run back for a TD, the game would have been a different animal.

[I hate total yards cited for SO Many reasons]

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

And another mistake/turnover thing, When Landry got that one fumble from Addai, he should have taken off running for the Endzone, maybe then the Refs wouldn't have blown it dead. I don't know, but the 3 and out after that hurt us too.

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;749782]And another mistake/turnover thing, When Landry got that one fumble from Addai, he should have taken off running for the Endzone, maybe then the Refs wouldn't have blown it dead. I don't know, but the 3 and out after that hurt us too.[/quote]

I saw Landry take off running but the refs blew it dead as he was running

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;749780]Well, last year we avg'd 21 points per game allowed(18th overall), this year so far we've avg'd 19.8 points per game(14th overall).

Also, last year we ended with a -11 turnover difference, so far this year we have a +5 turnover difference. Last year we had a TOTAL of 17 takeaways. So far this year we have 11 takeaways.

We scored one of our touchdowns on an extremely short field, thanks to Rak's strip fumble. We won the Dallas game thanks to an aggressive takeaway minded defense.

There are good and bad to everything, and if we had had just the one Kareem Moore INT run back for a TD, the game would have been a different animal.

[I hate total yards cited for SO Many reasons][/quote]

All true, but he didn't say let's switch back to BLACHE, just a 4-3 front with 4 down linemen. Those were the stats accumulated under BLACHE, who obviously was predictable as hell. His entire playbook was practically Cover 1, Cover-3, or all-out blitz.

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=aceinthehouse;749779]I'm not trashing Rak at all...

Just telling it like it is...

If I get to choose between Rak or the old Merriman..(without knowing about the Roid issues)'m taking the old Merriman..
It's just that simple SirClinton.

I love Rak and I hope he's here forever

The point I'm trying to make sirportis...
How would you like to have 2 Raks on the team?

That's what it would be,IF..

IF..merriman goes back to old form.

And to get him...?
Don't have to trade a pick for him..
Don't have to shoot him up with roids to get him ...
Don't even have to give him an Albert Haynesworth 100 Millions dollar Contract to have him....

But you will have to cut a player to get him....
Would you like a list of who?
There are some I would cut RIGHT NOW...

even [B]not knowing[/B] if Merriman can go back to old form...

Roydell would start the list...sir clinton Portis...
:food-smil
To not at least consider the option,would be foolish...
but then again sir clinton...not everybody has my "[B]amazing insight[/B]" lol[/quote]

Fair enough. Test drive the sucker just for the hell of it. It's gonna take 2-3 years for the revamp to finalized anyway. :food-smil

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=SmootSmack;749786]I saw Landry take off running but the refs blew it dead as he was running[/quote]

Yea, I don't get why they blow the whistle sometimes. If nobody is in danger and there is any question don't blow the whistle.

We did miss Rocky big time. Might be why we stayed Dime more than we should have (that and Peyton telling us we could not sub). Fletcher said earlier in the year, will look for quote, that it is not the 3-4 when we have issues, it is Nickle and Dime when we get blowed up. Not his words.

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;749792]All true, but he didn't say let's switch back to BLACHE, just a 4-3 front with 4 down linemen. Those were the stats accumulated under BLACHE, who obviously was predictable as hell. His entire playbook was practically Cover 1, Cover-3, or all-out blitz.[/quote]

But, the goal going to the 3-4 was to specifically improve turnovers and points allowed, along with closing out games. Other than Houston, I would say we have improved those areas, total yardage stats aside.

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=SmootSmack;749786]I saw Landry take off running but the refs blew it dead as he was running[/quote]
Yeah I know, but still ticked that the refs blew it dead, and he didn't take it to the house just for the effect! (would have been just like last week's INT, except this time I don't think he was touched.)

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;749802]Yeah I know, but still ticked that the refs blew it dead, and he didn't take it to the house just for the effect! (would have been just like last week's INT, except this time I don't think he was touched.)[/quote]

There were actually a few bad calls this game...

McNabbs TD called back on Williams holding..Really? (TD called back)
Landry's down by contact play after fumble (would have been a TD)
Colts wr catches ball...landry drills him on sideline and ball squirts out as he (huge play on long pass)lands...nothing said at all about this

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

What hurt us was Fat Albert sitting out and getting to watch the game from a luxury box that I assume he didn't have to pay for. Also, our despicable offense not being able to take advantage of every gift the Special Teams and Defensive guys gave them.

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

Rocky not being there last night hurt us, but I believe Albert not being out there because he has experience going against the Colts OL. He would have gotten us pressure and a hold or two, for sure.

All these coulda, woulda, shouldas about this game last night, and no one can just flat out say 'we lost to a great team last night, who has a hall of fame QB that makes great secondarys look shaky'

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;749800]But, the goal going to the 3-4 was to specifically improve turnovers and points allowed, along with closing out games. Other than Houston, I would say we have improved those areas, total yardage stats aside.[/quote]

The 3-4 is just an alignment. The SCHEME that utilizes it is supposed to generate turnovers and stop the points from coming. But hey, Steve Spagunolo was able to produce a nasty Giants D with the 4-3 alignment. His scheme was aggressive and creative, unlike BLACHE's.

[QUOTE=SirClintonPortis;749819]The 3-4 is just an alignment. The SCHEME that utilizes it is supposed to generate turnovers and stop the points from coming. But hey, Steve Spagunolo was able to produce a nasty Giants D with the 4-3 alignment. His scheme was aggressive and creative, unlike BLACHE's.[/QUOTE]

Ok so the point remains that in this ALIGNMENT and SCHEME we have been more effective at both areas of focus (points and turnovers) then the total yards statistic would lead one to believe.

Re: What hurt us last night, was not having Rocky!
 

Better than Blache, of course. Then again, Blache was so bad this isn't saying much.