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!

     

Enter your logical reasons for not double teaming Fitz.


pstall

Recommended Posts

He was doubled on the first deep play and he went and got it between two defenders. Doubling Fitz will not stop him anymore than doubling Smith stops him, might as well use that extra defender to try to stop someone else/blitz/or stop the run. The only thing that stops Fitz is himself or Warner. I thought that was pretty evident.

With that said there were a number of plays where Fitz was all by his lonesome. I do believe we should have put at least one guy on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zod, I mean this in the most heterosexual way possible...... I liked your old Avatar better...

Fox wants Boldin. To do so, Fox wanted to make Fitz look REALLY REALLY good in a playoff game so he'll demand more money and the Cards are forced to cut Boldin allowing Fox to pick him up.....

I tried...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turds gameplan was to have so much room between defenders and Fitz that he would start to question whether he was actually awake playing the game or dreaming. Turd then hoped he would stop running routes and start pinching himself or run closer to defenders in the hope of waking himself up. Unfortunately not even in his dreams is Fitz that wide open so he never fell for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a stab at this.

They didn't know Boldin wasn't going to play until just before game time. They practiced all week expecting to face him and Fitz. You obviously can't double cover them both. Once they realized Boldin wouldn't play, it was too late to change coverage schemes?

I could be totally wrong. This game reminded me of what Smitty did to Chicago in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a stab at this.

They didn't know Boldin wasn't going to play until just before game time. They practiced all week expecting to face him and Fitz. You obviously can't double cover them both. Once they realized Boldin wouldn't play, it was too late to change coverage schemes?

I could be totally wrong. This game reminded me of what Smitty did to Chicago in 2005.

totally agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a stab at this.

They didn't know Boldin wasn't going to play until just before game time. They practiced all week expecting to face him and Fitz. You obviously can't double cover them both. Once they realized Boldin wouldn't play, it was too late to change coverage schemes?

I could be totally wrong. This game reminded me of what Smitty did to Chicago in 2005.

Yeap, Gamble was covering Breaston... Fox failed to adjust and it cost us. Fox never adjust... Hes one stubborn motherfuger..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a stab at this.

They didn't know Boldin wasn't going to play until just before game time. They practiced all week expecting to face him and Fitz. You obviously can't double cover them both. Once they realized Boldin wouldn't play, it was too late to change coverage schemes?

I could be totally wrong. This game reminded me of what Smitty did to Chicago in 2005.

why in the hell would you choose to double cover boldin over fitz, if they were both playing? boldin is good but fitz is on another level, even if boldin played they should have been double covering fitz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Really?  Back to this again? How many times have I said that I’d prefer to trade back from #1? Too many to count, but as I’ve pointed out, that’s going to be much easier said than done, as once we signal we want to trade back, teams will know we don’t want any of the QBs and they’d target the 2nd pick in a trade instead. All of my “T-Mac at #1” talk has been discussed under two circumstances… the first being that no QB or DE pop before the draft, and that we can’t trade back. But again, I know you don’t like to actually read that stuff when I say it, as I’ve said it numerous times.
    • Thanks for posting this. While this was far from a great performance, this critique shows what some of us noticed last week. Bryce played "a little better". There is some talent there. But, as you pointed out we really don't have a great pass blocking line for dropping back each down when we are behind. BY has got some bad habits and physical limitations. At times his teammates let him down. The play calling isn't always the best. I hope he can learn from last week and show us some improvement in the Saints game.
    • Oh, and yes, I’d take a WR first in this upcoming draft, but again, that’s not in a vacuum I wouldn’t have taken him over the QBs this past year or likely the ones next year either. It’s all relative to who is available in a specific draft, and I don’t think any of the QB’s are worth the risk at #1 this year. Also the fact that you’ve said you would take T-Mac #2 but scoff at him going #1 is just in itself, super weird.  How you can justify a player at #2 but not #1 solely because of their position and with complete disregard to the other players available, is absolutely crazy town talk
×
×
  • Create New...