(10-10-2024, 06:42 PM)carp8dm Wrote:

(10-10-2024, 06:27 PM)TTechJag85 Wrote: Carp

I don’t deny the logic of what you are saying. I personally have always been a pass first guy by nature. And I do agree we have weapons, two of which (Kirk and BTJ) and Etienne as a check down have in recent weeks proven to be effective. And I also may be in the minority but I still belive in Lawrence’s potential and talent as you do. 


The only thing is I do think that although Lawrence played a great game against the clots, who were a bit undermanned, I am not sure he is ready to take on the role of let’s pass to set up the run at all times … or let’s come out with the intent of throwing the ball first against the best pass defenses in the league as a recipe for success for him. I do think we can and will feature Lawerence’s strengths and our skill players as the game goes on especially with Engram back. But just for opponents like this.. whose strength is clearly against the pass and are more mediocre against the run. It will benefit Trevor and the team to really try to get Bigsby and Etienne going early if possible. This will help both the d and the o line in protection as the game goes on if it can be accomplished. And if it can’t it may make things very difficult for us to sustain drives as I think it puts a lot of stress on Trevor and the o line to play to the level of a Burrow, stroud, mahomes etc if we can’t. And I don’t think he has shown he can be that guy against the top level defenses yet at a consistent level. I’m not saying it’s not in his wheelhouse forever,  but I think he hasn’t proven it on a consistent level yet … and us going quick three and out or worse turning it over which the bears do well on d is a recipe for disaster 


Just my opinion though. And philosophically I share a similar thought as far as airing it out with a franchise QB and good skill and  with a proven decent o line

I hear ya.  But if we're just gonna line up like we always do and run the plays we always run, we'll go 3 and out.  I don't mind running the ball, I really don't.  I just don't like the way we run the ball when we decide to start conservatively.  In my opinion, NFL D Lines that know you're gonna run the ball up the middle every time are going to wash out the play.  Heck, our D line proves that.  Our D Line is great against the run when they know it's coming.  Opposing D's are just as good.  

I don't mind them running it on 1st or 2nd down.  I just don't like the Shotgun formation where you just give the ball to the RB next to you and then he's got nowhere to go but up the middle.  If you're gonna run the ball, start under center and let the RB get some speed going downhill and then go off tackle/let him read the blocks.

Folks here lament that the O-Line is too finesse.  Well, if it's so finesse, you don't demand them to run block from shotgun when the entire D is focused on getting the single RB standing next to the QB!  For crying out loud... Give the RB a chance.  You normally don't give a RB a chance to be creative if you have him 7 yards off the line, snap it the to QB, and then give the ball to the RB.  That's 1.5 seconds right there where the D has figured out what's happening and the RB hasn't even gotten the ball.  At that point, you're just hoping for the best, but expecting a loss.  It's just a dumb strategy we've been doing for way too long.

No.

My issues with the offense are that it feels like it has only 1 real plan. If it doesn't work they just keep repeating it, but they cannot win in multiple ways. Then they have never really shown a whole ability to make in game adjustments based on injuries or certain match ups. That could be by product of the first main issue, but why wouldn't you have some ability to be adaptable?

On top of that, there is no offensive position group that has exceeded production with respect to the talent investment put into it, e.g. the coaches are not force multipliers and even much of the talent seems to have leveled off or been inconsistent with regards to development.

---