(01-11-2019, 12:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 12:53 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Lol I'm just busting your chops.
But you're basing you're bubble screen comment based on memory and emotion. Some people are going through play by play and giving you facts but you're ignoring them.
You can't go through play by play, because most plays aren't even on the internet.
I needed to get that out about Barkley though. I really whiffed on that one. I will admit when I know I am proven wrong and you simply cannot argue with the monster season Barkley had. At the time, I thought the Giants were idiots for drafting him, instead of a QB. It seems to have worked out for them though as they should have the best chance to get Haskins, unless we can leapfrog them.
You can acknowledge Barkley is a monster and at the same time think they made the wrong selection. I'm of that belief.
They should have drafted Darnold and then taken anyone from Royce Freeman, Nyheim Hines, Phillip Lindsay, or Nick Chubb. I'd much rather have Darnold and Chubb than Saquon.
(01-11-2019, 12:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 12:53 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Lol I'm just busting your chops.
But you're basing you're bubble screen comment based on memory and emotion. Some people are going through play by play and giving you facts but you're ignoring them.
You can't go through play by play, because most plays aren't even on the internet.
I needed to get that out about Barkley though. I really whiffed on that one. I will admit when I know I am proven wrong and you simply cannot argue with the monster season Barkley had. At the time, I thought the Giants were idiots for drafting him, instead of a QB. It seems to have worked out for them though as they should have the best chance to get Haskins, unless we can leapfrog them.
(01-11-2019, 12:58 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]pro football reference has all of it
And you've watched every single play he has called on video in Seattle, in the short time we've been arguing this? That's impossible.
LOL - I'm talking about the play by play. It's very simple to scroll through them and see plenty of deep pass attempts and short passes that go for 15+ yards.
Here's one from 2016 I was just checking out:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/b...tm#all_pbp
They are all there.
You really just sound like you were very put off by one or two series the guy called wherein he was likely trying to exploit something he saw on tape and it didn't work out.
I've scrolled through about 14 of these spanning from 2102-2016 and I've found one series that included three short passes consecutively. I just can't find anything to support what you are saying.
(01-11-2019, 01:02 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 12:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]You can't go through play by play, because most plays aren't even on the internet.
I needed to get that out about Barkley though. I really whiffed on that one. I will admit when I know I am proven wrong and you simply cannot argue with the monster season Barkley had. At the time, I thought the Giants were idiots for drafting him, instead of a QB. It seems to have worked out for them though as they should have the best chance to get Haskins, unless we can leapfrog them.
You can acknowledge Barkley is a monster and at the same time think they made the wrong selection. I'm of that belief.
They should have drafted Darnold and then taken anyone from Royce Freeman, Nyheim Hines, Phillip Lindsay, or Nick Chubb. I'd much rather have Darnold and Chubb than Saquon.
I rather have Haskins and Saquon.
(01-11-2019, 01:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 12:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]You can't go through play by play, because most plays aren't even on the internet.
I needed to get that out about Barkley though. I really whiffed on that one. I will admit when I know I am proven wrong and you simply cannot argue with the monster season Barkley had. At the time, I thought the Giants were idiots for drafting him, instead of a QB. It seems to have worked out for them though as they should have the best chance to get Haskins, unless we can leapfrog them.
And you've watched every single play he has called on video in Seattle, in the short time we've been arguing this? That's impossible.
LOL - I'm talking about the play by play. It's very simple to scroll through them and see plenty of deep pass attempts and short passes that go for 15+ yards.
Here's one from 2016 I was just checking out:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/b...tm#all_pbp
They are all there.
You really just sound like you were very put off by one or two series the guy called wherein he was likely trying to exploit something he saw on tape and it didn't work out.
I've scrolled through about 14 of these spanning from 2102-2016 and I've found one series that included three short passes consecutively. I just can't find anything to support what you are saying.
You can read what you see on some site. I don't care. I saw it and I know what I saw. I remember it as clearly as I remember Marshawn Lynch's monster run against the Saints.
(01-11-2019, 01:15 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 01:02 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]You can acknowledge Barkley is a monster and at the same time think they made the wrong selection. I'm of that belief.
They should have drafted Darnold and then taken anyone from Royce Freeman, Nyheim Hines, Phillip Lindsay, or Nick Chubb. I'd much rather have Darnold and Chubb than Saquon.
I rather have Haskins and Saquon.
If they end up with that pair, they are set for years to come.
Crossers > bubble screens.
(01-11-2019, 02:22 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Crossers > bubble screens.
of course , just used for different purposes
(01-11-2019, 12:54 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 12:27 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Have you seen him play? Doug Baldwin is very quick and shifty, so is Golden Tate, so is Lockett. All were the primary bubble screen guys along with some to Kearse who also wasn't slow. Not sure if you remember but Baldwin tested lights out at his pro day and had a 6.5 3 cone, he's really good laterally , which is what you are looking for with bubble screens.
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
I'll say it again, Tate was NOT on the team when I saw him using the bubble screens. Lockett was going long to draw off the coverage. If they would've used Lockett for the bubble screens, it would've made much more sense, since he is one of the faster guys in the league. Bevell didn't though. It was a bad decision. He used the wrong personnel and that goes straight to coaching.
Okay fine lets ignore Tate. Are you saying Bevell never used Lockett or Baldwin on bubble screens? Because thats not true either.
Lockett 2016 season tape cut-up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4H43bXJuzA
From the summary (a few seconds in the video you get to see numbers of targets/routes)
"With Tyler Lockett finally returning to the practice field, I felt it was time to do a film update. For this video, I tracked his 66 targets from his 2016 season and looked at the general trends of his role in the Seahawks’ offense. Since I did this last offseason, his potential change in role was actually of more interest to me. Well after studying his tape, his role was actually largely the same as it was last season.
Based on his tape, a large portion of his role in the Seahawks’ offense was to horizontally stretch the defense. Quick bubble screens made up a good portion of his routes. In many zone based schemes like Alex Gibbs’ for example, teams will use outside zone to move the linebackers. Bubble screens in Seattle’s offense accomplish the same thing."
LOL this thread is getting fun.
Yo that throw at the 1:15 mark is so money.
(01-11-2019, 03:31 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Yo that throw at the 1:15 mark is so money.
Wilson is by a large margin the best downfield passer in the league. He's just insane.
My dream QB/OC pairing would be Russ with Shanny or Arians
(01-11-2019, 03:17 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 02:22 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Crossers > bubble screens.
of course , just used for different purposes
(01-11-2019, 12:54 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]I'll say it again, Tate was NOT on the team when I saw him using the bubble screens. Lockett was going long to draw off the coverage. If they would've used Lockett for the bubble screens, it would've made much more sense, since he is one of the faster guys in the league. Bevell didn't though. It was a bad decision. He used the wrong personnel and that goes straight to coaching.
Okay fine lets ignore Tate. Are you saying Bevell never used Lockett or Baldwin on bubble screens? Because thats not true either.
Where are you getting this stuff from?
I said, in the example I saw, he only used Baldwin and Rawls on the bubble screens. I didn't say he never used Lockett the entire time he was in Seattle. That would be a ludicrous assumption. He just didn't use him on bubble screens
in the game I watched. Instead, Lockett was used as a decoy. If Bevell was gonna keep calling bubble screens, I couldn't figure out why he didn't use Lockett, since he was the fastest receiver. It made no sense to me.
(01-11-2019, 03:54 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 03:17 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]of course , just used for different purposes
Okay fine lets ignore Tate. Are you saying Bevell never used Lockett or Baldwin on bubble screens? Because thats not true either.
Where are you getting this stuff from? I said, in the example I saw, he only used Baldwin and Rawls on the bubble screens. I didn't say he never used Lockett the entire time he was in Seattle. That would be a ludicrous assumption. He just didn't use him on bubble screens in the game I watched. Instead, Lockett was used as a decoy. If Bevell was gonna keep calling bubble screens, I couldn't figure out why he didn't use Lockett, since he was the fastest receiver. It made no sense to me.
"Seattle just didn't have the type of quick receivers needed to make that play successful, but it didn't stop Bevell."
You basing this off one game or what? The above statement is categorically false.
(01-11-2019, 04:06 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 03:54 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Where are you getting this stuff from? I said, in the example I saw, he only used Baldwin and Rawls on the bubble screens. I didn't say he never used Lockett the entire time he was in Seattle. That would be a ludicrous assumption. He just didn't use him on bubble screens in the game I watched. Instead, Lockett was used as a decoy. If Bevell was gonna keep calling bubble screens, I couldn't figure out why he didn't use Lockett, since he was the fastest receiver. It made no sense to me.
"Seattle just didn't have the type of quick receivers needed to make that play successful, but it didn't stop Bevell."
You basing this off one game or what? The above statement is categorically false.
I'm basing it off that one game and the sporadic games I've seen him call for Seattle over the years. I only comment on things I see with my own eyes. I don't live in Seattle or anywhere near it, so I can only base my opinion on games I see that are available in my area.
I'm just going to jump in and say the players are far more important than the play caller. So, that's who I'm more interested in. Can we some better players, please?
(01-11-2019, 01:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 01:07 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]LOL - I'm talking about the play by play. It's very simple to scroll through them and see plenty of deep pass attempts and short passes that go for 15+ yards.
Here's one from 2016 I was just checking out:
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/b...tm#all_pbp
They are all there.
You really just sound like you were very put off by one or two series the guy called wherein he was likely trying to exploit something he saw on tape and it didn't work out.
I've scrolled through about 14 of these spanning from 2102-2016 and I've found one series that included three short passes consecutively. I just can't find anything to support what you are saying.
You can read what you see on some site. I don't care. I saw it and I know what I saw. I remember it as clearly as I remember Marshawn Lynch's monster run against the Saints in the Superbowl.
(01-11-2019, 01:15 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]I rather have Haskins and Saquon.
If they end up with that pair, they are set for years to come.
Yeah... About that...... They never played each other in the Superbowl.... You know because they are both NFC teams and all...
(01-11-2019, 04:46 PM)JagsTilTheEnd Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 01:59 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]You can read what you see on some site. I don't care. I saw it and I know what I saw. I remember it as clearly as I remember Marshawn Lynch's monster run against the Saints in the Superbowl.
If they end up with that pair, they are set for years to come.
Yeah... About that...... They never played each other in the Superbowl.... You know because they are both NFC teams and all...
I was trying to type two different things in different tabs. I didn't even notice that. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix it. Maybe I should try to do one thing at a time. I'm a terrible multi-tasker. My bad.
(01-11-2019, 05:19 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2019, 04:46 PM)JagsTilTheEnd Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah... About that...... They never played each other in the Superbowl.... You know because they are both NFC teams and all...
I was trying to type two different things in different tabs. I didn't even notice that. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix it. Maybe I should try to do one thing at a time. I'm a terrible multi-tasker. My bad.
So what you are saying is you don't remember it then?
(01-01-2019, 07:46 PM)knarnn Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2019, 07:29 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Great, an OC that got fired and no one wanted so he sat out a year. He also is boring and let's continue to run the ball into the back of the OL.
Hopefully his relationship with the Falcons gets him the job.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Who would you like to see as a candidate?
Todd Haley. You could count on a fissure and discord, maybe allowing higher draft picks.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/kYsBThMhhalLG/giphy.gif)