|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Nope. I'm not assuming that other players would have done better. All I did was refute what Dj claimed, which was that we didn't have any other options.
A subtle, but big difference.
There are always other options. I apologize if I misread it because I inferred that your point was that there were BETTER options.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201 |
Quote:
There are always other options. I apologize if I misread it because I inferred that your point was that there were BETTER options.
It would seem to me from reading this thread, that anything you do in life has options. So to me that isn't making any point at all.
I drew the exact same impression from reading this that you came to which is..... Toad was trying to indicate that our FO could have done a better job at addressing the DL position than they did.
However, it doesn't appear they had a good chance of doing any better when given the odds and list of players he provided and now he's trying to back track on that.
I actualy thought that Rucker being added as a situation DL player was a great addition. We have youth in Hughes and Phil Taylor which nobody had a crystal ball and saw his injury coming.
So I don't really see any point at all that Toad made here.
JMHO
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
That's all?
Your argument is "there were other options"?
Holy Hell...not only are you a mind-reader who can't read minds, but you're an English reader who can't understand English.
That's quite the parlor trick! 
Reading comprehension...follow the bouncing ball...DC asked a question, I answered, then you twisted it to read...God knows what...something far away from reality...
Here we go...simplified so that even Pit can understand it (might have to remove the big words though )...
The unit isn't producing. Hard for anyone to argue they are. I was told there weren't any other options by Dj. I showed numerous viable options. I was told some aren't producing so they weren't options. I made the point what happens to a player at one place wasn't going to happen to that player at another place. Causality makes that impossible.
(whoops...sorry, prolly lost Pit there  )
DC then made this statement: Quote:
He (Dj) can't prove it's a success... you can't prove it would have been any more successful had we gone a different route.... I love these arguments where two people dig their heels in and fight about a hypothetical.
Ahhh...but you're making the assumption I am stating we would have had success if we went with different specific players.
If you followed the belief that I'm obligated to state what I would have done, and then would have stated that move would have worked, you'd be correct.
But I never did, and therefore I made no such prediction or statement. All I stated was that this group has underperformed, are part of the problem with 2 sacks and contributing to the 26th ranked run defense, and that whether it's Heckert or Holmgren or both, someone has failed to find a fix.
Simply put, I'm not stating my solution was better. All I'm stating is this solution, just like the last solution, sucks. Dj seems to believe that you have to have an alternative solution if you're going to make a case. You don't have to do that in order to have an opinion.  My comments about other players were to prove other options were out there. Nothing more. A specific response to a specific statement.
I'm not making any statements about hypotheticals. I'm stating a fact and opining on it. It can't be a hypothetical unless alternate moves are specifically being called factual or are being proposed as a solution.  I'm not doing that. My only point relative to that aspect of this is that there WERE other viable options, in specific rebuttal to Dj's erroneous statement. Did I say those options would work? Nope. Never did. Not once. I don't have to in order to say the RDE position is part of the problem.
Pretty interesting how we're the only winless team in the league and yet so many players are getting free passes.
Oh, wait, I understand why. Mac says we're mostly a bunch of idiot fans who aren't smart enough to see what he sees.
Quote:
Dj: when I hinted at the fact that none of the viable "options" is outperforming our guys (and are more expensive) you pull rhetoric 101 and call it hypothetical, as we don't know what wouldhave happened if a sack of rice in China falls...
Actually, it's not about what would happen to the sack of rice in China.
It's whether or not what happened to the sack in China is what would have happened to it had it fallen in Canada. But you knew that...right? 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201 |
Sorry Toad, but you do not lose me with your erroneous compilation of rhetoric.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Sorry Toad, but you do not lose me with your erroneous compilation of rhetoric.
Ummm...Methinks that's worth like 45 word-score points, Pit. Touche!
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
...And cue Dj in 3...2...1...
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
..or you could just admit to be wrong about something  but you've been "right" about me posting, so at least you managed to deviate from the topic... Triumvirate, huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
'Bout time you showed up. The suspense was killin' me!
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
After two sacks and a forced fumble deep in Browns territory while clinging to a lead, does anything really need to be said?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
After two sacks and a forced fumble deep in Browns territory while clinging to a lead, does anything really need to be said?
"good job guys" seems appropriate
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
After two sacks and a forced fumble deep in Browns territory while clinging to a lead, does anything really need to be said?
After one game? "Nuff said?"
It took 5 bad games to get to this point and one good one against a flawed Bengals team doesn't undo that.
The thread will still be around by year's end. We can check back then to see if we're fine with what we've got. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
After two sacks and a forced fumble deep in Browns territory while clinging to a lead, does anything really need to be said?
After one game? "Nuff said?"
It took 5 bad games to get to this point and one good one against a flawed Bengals team doesn't undo that.
The thread will still be around by year's end. We can check back then to see if we're fine with what we've got.
Now be honest Toad,, did you expect them to come out like a ball of fire and win a bunch of games early this year?
This is exactly what I felt would happen. In fact, they are actually doing better than I anticipated because some of those games they lost, they were in till the end.
I expected one blow out after another then close losses then wins.
The Giants are the only team that I think really blew us out.
Maybe my expectations were lower,, don't know, but they are about where I'd hoped they'd be.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
our biggest offseason needs will likely be (in some order):
CB2, DE, FS, OG, TE, FB, WR
That doesn't mean we cannot "get-by" with what we have today. Just that we will very likely look to upgrade them by the start of the 2013 season.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,024 |
I thought Stephens flashed some in preseason.
Glad he was able to make that play yesterday.
Winn got all the credit, but Stephens was the playmaker there.
Loved that Winn picked up the ball and attempted to run it back. Would have been really cool if he could have scored.
You could tell he wanted the TD.
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
The thread will still be around by year's end. We can check back then to see if we're fine with what we've got.
Well before you do that at the end of the season... define what "fine with what we've got" means. Does that mean we pass up a potential all-world DE in the draft, fine... or does that mean it's not a glaring weakness so we can address other areas, fine... or does it mean we have some potential there that isn't a total liability, fine....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
our biggest offseason needs will likely be (in some order):
CB2, DE, FS, OG, TE, FB, WR
That doesn't mean we cannot "get-by" with what we have today. Just that we will very likely look to upgrade them by the start of the 2013 season.
Looks about right to me unless they decide to roll with just Smelley. I really, really liked what I saw from Millard out of OU on Saturday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
Yep, I see it as a toss up in the first round next year ; CB / RDE ... Just depends whom is on the board when our pick rolls around ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Yep, I see it as a toss up in the first round next year ; CB / RDE ... Just depends whom is on the board when our pick rolls around ..
If those are the only two choices (and of course they aren't) I'd go CB.
We did pretty well yesterday with Sheard, Winn, Hughes, Parker, Rucker and some other guy whos name escapes me.. But he's the one that stripped Dalton when Winn picked it up. dang,,can't remember his name.
But if you put another Joe Haden or someone even better out there, wow. Tough as hell to throw on us.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201 |
Quote:
Well before you do that at the end of the season... define what "fine with what we've got" means. Does that mean we pass up a potential all-world DE in the draft, fine... or does that mean it's not a glaring weakness so we can address other areas, fine... or does it mean we have some potential there that isn't a total liability, fine....
Good question because we pretty much know that if he isn't nailed down on what "fine" means ( ala Clinton ), it could mean any of a number of things on any given day.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,201 |
Quote:
If those are the only two choices (and of course they aren't) I'd go CB.
I agree. What some fail to mention is that a good secondary makes your DL look much better.
Just look at yesterday with the return of Haden.
Haden was out and the DL looked like it sucked water. But most expected as much. When the coverage downfield is weak, that most certainly changes things up.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
If I had to set priorities right now they would be:
DE, FS, and CB.
However, DE would be my top priority. I want to see what we have with young players at CB and S.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I like our DLine.
I'd put priority on FS - I don't like what we have back there right now.
I put CB as a very close 2nd on that list.
I like a lot of what our DLine does, and I think that if we can cover just a little bit better, the DLine's numbers will start to look better.
Pending how the young kids pan out over the rest of this season, I think I might even put LB or WR on the list at 3, ahead of DE.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I want a game changer on the DL ..... a guy like Watt who demands attention, and makes plays anyway. The rest of out defense would be so much better if we had one of them.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I want a game changer on the DL ..... a guy like Watt who demands attention, and makes plays anyway. The rest of out defense would be so much better if we had one of them.
Not that Watt isn't a great player, but Wade Phillips took a perennial bottom half defense and took them immediately into the top 5 (while shedding some of the players thought to be their best players)..... Not sure how much of their individual success is a result of it, but Wade Phillips is an amazing defensive coordinator.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
That he is, but Watt already has 32 tackles and 9.5 sacks through only 6 games. He has also defended 8 passes as a DE,  and has recovered 2 fumbles. He is a beast, no matter scheme, coordinator, or teammates. He is the very definition of a difference maker.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Absolutely true, DC, but part of being a good coach is knowing what your players can do and, as a result, how good they are.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
No_logo_required:
That doesn't mean we cannot "get-by" with what we have today. Just that we will very likely look to upgrade them by the start of the 2013 season.
Tying that in with what you'd asked, DC.
"Get-by" or "fine with what we got" kinda invoke the same feeling of adequacy.
I suppose the term I've used the most over the years is "are you part of the problem or part of the answer." I dont' subscribe to the "he's better than what we've had" viewpoint because that doesn't mean we've solved the problem. The truth is that Mitchell played like an expansion-level player for us, so by contrast, sure, these guys look better.
So put these guys on a team that has their sights on the playoffs. Are they then part of the answer? They don't have to be great. They can be serviceable, which means average.
The key guy here is really Rucker. He was the "big" investment, the guy who is supposed to be the answer for several years.
Now nobody is saying Rucker was supposed to provide this infusion of pass-rush ability. He's got nothing in terms of pass-rush. Parker is supposed to be our edge-rusher. The marketing on Rucker was that he's supposed to have been a big reason why the Bengals had a solid defense. The warning was that he'd never been able to play 16 games in a year, and that he was part of a defense that had plenty of talent. The stat most-trumpeted was that he had 11 tackles for losses.
After 6 games now, I can't see much of an impact. We rank 25th against the run in terms of total yards, but across the board we're consistently bad in that category. 24th in average yards per carry allowed, 22nd in attempts, etc etc. He isn't specifically to blame for that, but he isn't helping. He has one sack, and that lone sack represents his lone tackle for a loss.
Then there's the eye-ball test, which is the most subjective out there. It comes down to the level of trust in the eyeball doing the seeing, hehe. My eye-ball says that he isn't holding the edge against the run, and that he isn't very active.
It's early, but so far after 6 games it doesn't look like we're getting much of anything out of Rucker.
Stephens has been given more of a workload, but specifically to spell Sheard. When he has been on the right side, he's looked more active than Rucker, but he looks like such a limited player. 7 tackles on the year and his lone sack this past week aren't really helping either. Better than Jayme Mitchell isn't good enough.
Parker seems to me to still have some pass-rush to him, even though he doesn't have much to show for it. I think if there's a guy that is going to have a breakout defensive game, it's going to be Parker.
Now the sobering part is that Parker is 34 and by even the most ardent supporter's standards he's lost something. That's why the Eagles let him go. And he'll be a free agent at year's end where he won't be getting any quicker. He's a definitive liability against the run, as he's been neutralized by TE's far too often this year.
So assuming we lose Parker next year, that's going to leave the duo of an underwhelming Rucker who hasn't performed up to what he did last year, and Emmanuel Stephens who hasn't really done much outside of one sack.
Whether it's a high draft pick or a real DE signing, we gotta have an upgrade. I don't see two guys out of the three which are part of the answer. This year, just like in year's past, they fall on the side of being part of the problem. So what's the upside here? Rucker will never be a rusher, and will be 30 next year. Stephens is a waiver-wire pickup who is just a part. Parker is done and gone.
I don't see the positive here.
In fact, the truth is that while I see some solid parts along the line, none of them are at the RDE position. Rubin is solid an Sheard is a disruptor, even if the numbers aren't showing it so far this year. I still maintain that Taylor is given too much love because I saw him pushed around far too often last year, but he's a high draft pick who did flash enough to at least hope he's going to become part of the answer. Hell, I've even been singing the praises of Winn, who has a superb motor for a 6th round pick. He really does look like something of a steal. Hughes hasn't done jack, though. So where's the problem spot? What's the weakest link amongst the four positions? It's clearly the RDE position. If you can't stop the run in the AFC North you can't compete, so I think this position has to be a priority.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
I think nobody in here suggested to stand pat for 2013 with what we have at RDE...Parker will most probably be gone, so what's needed is a pass-rush complement to Rucker AT LEAST
It's a STOP GAP solution, always been. So, we're on the same page regarding RDE for 2013, no doubt we need some longer term solution. Only difference for 2013 between us is that I think that Rucker is a decent no2/no3 "tweener" DE..right now he's asked to be more of a no2 and thus "underperforms"...it's somewhat similar to the CB situation without Haden...it had a bad trickle down effect as they faced tougher matchups...with DEs it's not so much the matchup but the number of snaps they have to play
As I see it, we'll be good at DE with a solid no 2 addition as Sheard has no1/2 ability, Rucker would be a good no 3 and Stephens a solid no 4
That all said, I won't nail Heckert or whoever is GM next offseason if we, again, go with a stop gap solution...pass rushing DE is a position where you just can't force a move just to make one, similar to QB on Offense. If we draft a pass rush only guy in rounds 3-5 to take over for Parker...that could be our only option depending on draft day value and position and other needs etc
Speaking of other needs: By far our biggest problem is FS imho...then no 2 CB and no 2 DE. Our biggest need on Offense could be TE and FB...WR deserve another year, maybe a solid FA vet if Massa's career is done and/or we let Cribbs go, RB is set, QB is set and I may be te only one who would rather draft another OT backup (we have NONE...god forbid Thomas or Schwartz go down and we have Cousins in the lineup) over another G...we have solid youth and depth there now with Pinky, Lauvao, Greco and Miller...you don't need AllPros anywhere. If those guys improve a little bit (as they should with experience) and Mack a little bit to (also expected), then we're more than adequate on the OL...especially with a QB that doesn't hold the ball forever. You want more push in the run game? Try Miller at RG and let Pinky/Lauvao battle for LG...in my book OT is a bigger need than G because of the drop down in depth and esp. VALUE of the position...not often that you have a 2 starter position played all 16 games by the same 2 guys (think WR, CB, DE, OLB, S...and OT, G)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
If you can't stop the run in the AFC North you can't compete, so I think this position has to be a priority.
Steelers are a passing team and have been for several years.
Bengals are a passing team and have been for several years.
Ravens are trying to be a passing team this season and might have to be to keep up with the points their defense is going to let up.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
Projections for a 16-game season give us the following stats for the RDE position:
Rucker: 48 tackles with 3 sacks
Parker: 16 tackles with 3 sacks
Stephens: 16 tackles with 0 sacks
Grand total: 80 tackles and 6.4 sacks with an estimated cost of $6.5 million.
Update:
The "triumvirate" is now at 37 tackles with 5 sacks and 1 FF through 7 games.
Overall, the Browns are tied for 8th in the NFL in sacks with 18 and are tied for 13th in the NFL with 7.2yds/PA...the last stat is MUCH better in the 2 games with Haden (5.9yds/PA, that's be tied for 1st in the league with the 49ers)
....to be continued
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
When you gotta rely on Sheldon Brown for sacks and the leading sacker is your MLB, and when you rank 26th against the pass and 24th against the run...yes...TBD
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Yeah, I'm sure other Top 10 sack teams have no sacks from their DBs or LBs...at all. Cmon Toad, that's a pathetic argument....you think it's better if half the sacks or more come from 1 or 2 guys? Really? What if one of them is injured? So your argumentation has moved from trashing the "triumvirate" for THEIR in-effectiveness to suggesting they're the reason the D as a whole sucks? Interesting...because by your account our pass rush sucks because it's "only team effort or scheme", but when discussing the triumvirate on their own they suck because the "team effort on D and scheme" don't work? Huh? What is it now? The whole group sucking because of their parts, or the parts looking better because of good group play? Strange "argumentation"...but I've long lost the belief you actually argue cleanly...it's all about the Frog, white ink, a mirror and some spectators in your head Also, TRich gets all kind of passes from you because "he's injured", our D that misses half their starters (and the better ones at that) and the part of the D that outperforms your pathetic thread with every game since you gave birth to it, is the reason for it...of course you NEVER said it, you just suggested it Toad style Get over it, you're already 0 for 1 on sticking your neck out with this hilarious thread, actually 0 for 2 considering the even worse "Brandon Weeden, huh?" sig...that one should get on a TShirt as an insder Maybe you should stick to keep your neck where it has been the most productive...behind the fence. Just a friendly advice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I can't link to it because it's on the dis-allowed list here. But there is a breakdown of our DL play from the Bengals game on WFNY's site. It uses the all-22 views to show what our DL is doing against the run (it doesn't breakdown the pass rush on this article).
I can PM either you or Toad if you want to see. The DL (in that game at least) was definitely doing it's job.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum RDE: The triumvirate of Rucker,
Parker, and Stephens
|
|
