| Jump to bottom |
mistake on AP question
John, I made a mistake on my A. Peterson question and didn't realize it until I read your response. DOES THAT QUALIFY ME FOR BEING A MILLEN ASST.??? It was supposed to read if we had drafted AP instead of CJ, we would have had Kitna passing to ROY WILLIAMS AND FURREY, with AP running the ball. How much could this have changed the future??? We might have been able to run the ball enough to continue to win that first year. Martz would have kept his job. We wouldn't have wasted a draft pick on KSmith. Kitna wouldn't have been let go for insubordination. Roy would have been happy. We wouldn't have had to draft Staff or at least wouldn't have had to play him right away. I know Kitna wasn't a long term solution, bu we are not ready for long term solutions anyway. The bad part of the what ifs is we might have won with that combination and we'd still have Millen, but we were off to a good start that year. JOHN, COULD THAT 1 PICK HAVE MADE THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE? Too bad that this is more interesting to me than this years team. After that loss to the Rams, I did not watch the game Sunday, even though a received a call telling me they were up 17-0. Unfortunately I knew better.
AP
John,
If we had drafted A. Peterson instead of Johnson, we would have had Kitna at QB last year with AP as TB and CJ at WR. I know Kitna wasn't a long term solution, but we were not and are not ready for a long term solution anyway. That combo would have been good enough to not need to draft Staff or at least not need to play him. Of course all 3 probably would have argued with Coletto and got put on the inactive roster. Don't you think that 3 could have at least kept us more competetive than we have been while we filled in some of the missing pieces?
Well, you couldn't have gotten both Peteron and CJ. It was one or the other since they were in the same draft in '07.
Just Tired
I agree on Peterson. Which combo would more likely worry a D coordinator, (Peterson and Roy Williams) or (Kevin Smith and C Johnson)??? Without a good offensive line though, it might not matter but we'd sure have a better chance with the Peterson combo. Regarding E Murray, look back at his kickoffs, not his FG's. His last year here they were so short we'd bet on the yd line - 9,11,13,15 - and the starting field position after the kicks was consistantly very bad. They needed someone new for the kickoffs and there isn't roster space for 2 kickers.
Inept Offense
John,
Please rank some of the causes that contribute to our rank passing offense. Poor play design, poor play calling on game day, poor reads by Staff (passing to the guy that is triple covered instead of the one single covered), poor passes when Staff makes the correct read (over their heads, behind them, making them dive, making them catch the ball on their knees so there is no run after the catch), drops by the receivers (4 recent first round receivers and we have nobody that can catch in the game - Cowboys have an undrafted receiver setting reception/TD records), offensive line not giving Staff enough time. I guess it doesn't matter - we drove 1200 miles round trip to see that XXXX - I'M done for the year. Finally got local programming on DISH this year so I'm now able to get the Lions games, but the TV will be off and I'll finally get around to splitting firewood. I'll depend on your commentary to keep me informed and the TV will come back on with new hope on draft day. Thanks
1. Injuries to Stafford and C. Johnson.
2. Poor pass protection.
3. Inexperience at QB (Stafford)
4. Inconsistent play from secondary WRs.
hot receivers
The performance of CPepp and the receivers on the last possession was sad. The good news was we were still watching the game - that's an improvement. No moral victory for the team, but might be one for the fans. On the 2nd down sack, the 2 receivers on the right both disappeared off the tv screen as Pepp got sacked. Who should have been the hot receiver? On 3rd down whoever was the defender on our rightside wideout was so far back he wasn't even on the tv screen. Why wouldn't that be a hand signal from Pepp and a quick pass to him right there? Even without making someone miss, that could have been +15 rather than another sack and made it a manageable 4th down. Do they have a hand signal for that? They threw that early in the game, but the defender was only 7 yds off and unlike the Lions came up and made the tackle for no gain.
screens 2
John
I know the interception was on a screen call, but based on where he threw it I assumed it was a MIDDLE screen.
No, that was just where Stafford was trying to get rid of the ball -- or thought he was. He was on his back by the time Harris had gotten up off the ground and picked it off. Peterman let his man come free a little too quickly and while the screen was set up for Morris, Stafford didn't have a chance to get the ball to him because he was getting hit. Lions had trouble with the Bears' speed off the line all day. Coach Marinelli deserves some credit for that.
screens
John
In an earlier post I mentioned how optimistic some of us were about the coaching staffs use of the screen during the preseason, but weren't seeing enough of it now when it counts. I only remember one outside screen today, a TE screen. The people I was with were occasionally flipping to the Tiger game. Don't think I missed many offensive plays , but.. Also, not being at the game I don't know if any of the sacks were supposed to be screens. Were there more screens called and I just missed them.
Agreed. I put that as one of my keys for tomorrow's game, too. I thought the screen plays were one of the most encouraging signs about a more creative offensive approach this season, and I still like what I've seen from Linehan. But against some blitzing teams the next couple weeks, I expect to see more of it, especially if it's Culpepper, as he seemed to really work the screens well in the preseason.
abandoning the run
John,
I hope there is not another game where we can't run the ball and fall behind 14-0 early. But if there is I can't handle the coaches, ESPN, and FOX saying we had to abandon the run because we fell behind early. Don't let them get away with that. If a team quits running the ball because they are down 14 in the 1st Q, it's not because they are down early. It's because they can't run the ball against that teams D. If a team COULD run the ball, they WOULD. They would push the ball down the field and be down 14-7. (I agree that a team that can't run the ball trying to prove that they can would need to quit trying to prove it.)
No, you're right, it doesn't force teams to abandon the run -- unless it's the second half. A 14-point deficit in the NFL is a pretty steep climb, though, whether you're running or passing.
K Smith
John
What have you heard about Smith's injury? If he will miss any games do you think they can have any kind of running game with the rest of their backs or do you think they need to pick up a free agent? If you think they need to pick someone up, who's your choice? Although the Leos left room for improvement, I hope we can all just feel good about the win and talk about the good things they did for a week.
Schwartz wouldn't share what he likely knows about the severity of the injury with us after the game, saying only that Smith will undergo tests today. To me, it appeared to be more of a stinger-type deal initially, but since he didn't return after leaving in the third quarter, it could be more involved than that. Be warned: I don't know that we're gonna get much out of Schwartz on Monday on this one, either, though.
As for a replacement, unless he's out long term, they'll go with Maurice Morris and Aaron Brown, as well as more carries for Felton. Morris is here because he's a veteran backup with a good track record as a fill-in starter, and just because we haven't seen much of him doesn't mean he can't do the job. That said, there's option out there, including a bigger back like T.J. Duckett. I just don't see anything like that happening, unless Smith is out for awhile.
play calling
game 1: We were excited with how well the screen pass looked in the preseason - thought we finally had coaches that knew how to teach and use it. So the group of us watching the game were disappointed thru the 2nd and 3rd qtrs as we were screaming for the screen. Finally on 1 possession somewhere around the end of the 3rd or start of the 4th 2 successful screens.
game 2: Finally established a running game. What a great time to now be able to mix in play actions, screens, passes to Pettigrew, downfield shots - not this week. On the possession when we were 17 down with the amount of time left we had to pass, but on the drive when we were 10 down there was more than enough time left to mix runs in to keep the defense off balance - not this week.
best QB???
Remember the quote "We will only play Stafford if he is the better qb AND he is ready"? Based on the 1st 2 games, do you think he was ready? I know he can throw the long, hard one, but what good is that if can't do the other things? Other than his ability to throw the long passes, do you think he is better than Pepp (now, not potential)? How bad would Pepp have to be to be worse than Stafford? What worries me most is the fans. Remembering what they did with Joey and others, do you think the fans will be patient enough to allow Stafford to improve or will they be booing him during the pregame introductions before I get down there for a game (Nov. 1)?
Pettigrew
John, I'm glad you asked Gym Shorts about not using Pettigrew. But duh, what good is his answer after the game? If we can figure that out during the game, why can't an offensive coordinator, receiver's coach, QB coach, or head coach figure it out when it really matters?
I think the answer implied that the QB was a little too intent on going downfield a few times when he should've found his TE instead. It's also a bit of a sign to me, though, that he's not quite as far a long as they'd like to have him out there all the time, which isn't surprising considering all the time he missed in camp.
jumbo
John, a question for you to PLEASE ask the coaching staff. Why are the offensive coordinators so stubborn about using a "JUMBO lineup" for 3rd or 4th and 1? The offense will move the ball down the field running effectively with or without a fullback lining up with 2 or 3 wideouts, then in short yardage bring in 3 tight ends and a fullback allowing the defense to put 11 in the box - resulting in loss of the ball on downs. This may go way back, but for sure it started to bother me during the Bobby Ross years. Thought it would change with Morningweg, then Mooch, then with "the greatest show on turf" etc. Everyone enjoys watching me go nuts when the JUMBOS come running in to the huddle, but I keep hoping this will be the year to stop their fun with either no JUMBO or JUMBO only with a fake into the line with a bootleg.
Don't sweat it. It's Schwartz and Linehan using the preseason to test their offense, forcing them into difficult (and at times unwinnable) situations, much like they do with 9-on-8 drills, etc., in training camp. They're not hell-bent on running it in short-yardage situations, but the goal is to get better at it, and that's one way to improve.
| Jump to top |
