Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Team Played For Their Coach Today


Daddy_Uncle
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CRA said:

Reality is the O played like utter dog poo

the D played against a hurt QB.  One who was clearly hurt and made the Saints O almost inoperable for most of the game. 

I mean you can’t really feel good about the Panthers at all through 3 games.  It’s the worst the Panthers have looked to kick off any season of the Rhule era 

Bad thing is that jameis with his broken ribs looked significantly better than a healthy baker 

  • Beer 2
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Actionman0z said:

See the problem on this board is all in this post. We assume that our staff doesn’t do these things because we base all of these things on the final outcomes. We don’t see what happens during the prep week. We don’t see what happens during halftime. We don’t see anything that goes on in the meeting rooms or between players. We view poor performance and outcomes on coaching prep, adjustments, etc. Sometimes it’s as easy as making one more play. Example: If Horn picks Winston or Shaq picks Winston we potentially prevent a score or score ourselves. Last week: if burns keeps contain and gets a sack the giants don’t score a TD drive, we win the game. Coaches coach. Players play. It’s that simple. Winston has been in NO for 2.5 years. Baker has been here 3 months, and split starter reps with Darnold during camp. We’ll figure it out. All these people here using Cincinnati as an example before have shut the fug up. They are exactly where we are. Chill and be a fan, or just pick the yearly winner.  

We don't have to see all that.

When a team looks unprepared, or they get penalized too much, or players make too many mental mistakes, or when other teams make adjustments that change the course of a game, or any number of other things, there are coaching issues.

The biggest sign of poor coaching though?

Consistent losing across multiple seasons.

We've been doing that...and still are.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, uncfan888 said:

Bad thing is that jameis with his broken ribs looked significantly better than a healthy baker 

 

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

Ummm? What?

Baker certainly hasn't been great but count him to champion that after pushing the Baker leads the NFL in INTs the last *X* years.... Meanwhile Jameis hands them out like candy and has the highest interceptions to starts ratio.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TrevorLaurenceTime22 said:

 

Baker certainly hasn't been great but count him to champion that after pushing the Baker leads the NFL in INTs the last *X* years.... Meanwhile Jameis hands them out like candy and has the highest interceptions to starts ratio.

That's cool. I'm talking about today. Jameis had an int off a tipped pass and one in garbage time. Baker looked like ass literally the entire day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Actionman0z said:

See the problem on this board is all in this post. We assume that our staff doesn’t do these things because we base all of these things on the final outcomes. We don’t see what happens during the prep week. We don’t see what happens during halftime. We don’t see anything that goes on in the meeting rooms or between players. We view poor performance and outcomes on coaching prep, adjustments, etc. Sometimes it’s as easy as making one more play. Example: If Horn picks Winston or Shaq picks Winston we potentially prevent a score or score ourselves. Last week: if burns keeps contain and gets a sack the giants don’t score a TD drive, we win the game. Coaches coach. Players play. It’s that simple. Winston has been in NO for 2.5 years. Baker has been here 3 months, and split starter reps with Darnold during camp. We’ll figure it out. All these people here using Cincinnati as an example before have shut the fug up. They are exactly where we are. Chill and be a fan, or just pick the yearly winner.  

Results are the only thing that matters. If it was just one or two games where things didn't work out quite right, it wouldn't be so bad. The problem with this team is that they are having issues every week. Every week it's a new excuse. There's excuses for things not going right, but eventually a good coach would help us win in spite of the things that go wrong...they'd make adjustments. 

And the argument for the lack of time with Baker under center with the starters.....that's on Rhule as well. He knew that time was short prior to the season, yet he decided to keep that ruse "competition" going. It was detrimental to the teams ability to compete early on....and that's if Baker sucking isn't a result of him just being a bad QB. 

Going back to the discussion of good coaches, though, good coaches make things go right, they redirect rhings, when things start trending wrong. 

This poo has been going on with Rhule love Ng enough to know he can't figure out how to make things right. 

Captains can't control the weather, but they make sure that their ship handles the storm and that their ship hands all do their job successfully. Rhule is a bad captain.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TrevorLaurenceTime22 said:

Not the disagreement the insult but that's completely fair am I allowed to use that one on the certainly obvious posters I disagree with? 😃

Just me. My job isn't to make sure I don't get insulted. If I do it right that's going to happen. My job is to make sure that when people do disagree they don't get too pissy with each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From most accounts I’ve heard and seen online or from media outlets - the players like Ruhle. I’ve said it 100x he seems like he is a straight dude and seems like a guy you could have a garage beer with I just don’t think he is a good NFL coach with X&Os and questionable football IQ. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...