Time to look at changes?

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by Arky

Care to elaborate?

I certainly don't want to speak for NTB, but I can guess he is refering to our still spotty running game (although it was better this week), weaknesses in pass protection, lack of a pass rush besides Mario, and suspect secondary, just to name a few. All were concerns coming into this season and nothing I've seen so far has convinced me that we have made significant improvements in any.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by Joshua

I certainly don't want to speak for NTB, but I can guess he is refering to our still spotty running game (although it was better this week), weaknesses in pass protection, lack of a pass rush besides Mario, and suspect secondary, just to name a few. All were concerns coming into this season and nothing I've seen so far has convinced me that we have made significant improvements in any.

OK..... Can you explain why he would "like to agree with me but...."? I've said a lot of things in this thread and wondering specifically which one...

I see NBT post a lot here and a) it's usually one or two sentences, b) sometimes vague/general and c) sometimes "zingerlike".

[popanot]

Originally Posted by Arky

OK..... Can you explain why he would "like to agree with me but...."? I've said a lot of things in this thread and wondering specifically which one...

I see NBT post a lot here and a) it's usually one or two sentences, b) sometimes vague/general and c) sometimes "zingerlike".

I don't think he is necessarily disagreeing with anything you said. I think he's just using your comment "Maybe we're just slow starters" as a springboard and saying something to the effect of - 'don't count on any quick turnaround because the problems that have been there for years still persist today'. I think he's implying he 'wishes' we are just slow starters (thus he would like to agree with you but...). At least that's how I took his post.

[KJ3]

Originally Posted by mussop

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playby...&override=true

This should help. It has a recap, box score, play-by-play and drive chart. Its pretty cool.

very cool indeed, thank you.

so here is my count:
1st half totals 20 handoffs, 12 dumpoffs, 5 real pass attempts
2nd half totals 16 handoffs, 6 dumpoffs, 3 real pass attempts

while the defense did limit their drives with better 2nd half play, fisher helped out by not calling as many passes/dumpoffs. those dumpoffs really killed us in the 1st half but i think where the D actually put a foot in the ground is defending the run which was evident in the individual gains of their runs. of the 20 1st half handoffs 9 were for 5+ yard. the 2nd half defense only allowed 2. 7 of the 12 1st half dumpoffs were for 9+ yards to go with the 2nd half's 1 for 9 or more. i classified anything that was listed as "short right/middle/left" as a dumpoff pass if anyone was wondering.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by popanot

I don't think he is necessarily disagreeing with anything you said. I think he's just using your comment "Maybe we're just slow starters" as a springboard and saying something to the effect of - 'don't count on any quick turnaround because the problems that have been there for years still persist today'. I think he's implying he 'wishes' we are just slow starters (thus he would like to agree with you but...). At least that's how I took his post.

OK, that sounds logical.

Was just wondering because my first statement was in response to the "Tennessee sat on the ball" debate and the second statement was just a jest - maybe not a good one, but eh... thought the razzy face would help it out....

Time to move on.....

[southtexan]

Originally Posted by painekiller

OK we are seeing the bad side of Kubiak right now. He is stubborn and he panics/gambles.

Reasons I was not in favor of the hiring of Kubiak started with his lack of play calling experience, I still do not think he is very good at it and he gambles to much. Week one's game seemed to turn on the missed 4th down on the opening drive. This week he tried to send the message that we are a good red zone team and all he did was leave points on the field.

Another thing about Kubiak is he is stuck with a system. He is living on a scheme that worked for him over 10 years ago. Small quick OL work very well for a team that has a homefield advantage of high elevation, Denver and Atlanta are the 2 highest elevation teams. But when you want to power block you need a lot more beef.

In our division we have 2 team that have huge DTs that are quick and athletic, small guys get bulled over by them. I prefer the type OL that the Eagles and Ravens have. Huge maulers, they do not have to be super athletes but they have to be big.

While I am on pass protection and big maulers, the WCO was designed around the short pass = the run. The pass set up the pass, Bill Walsh's words. The Shanahan/Kubiak version of the WCO have decided to force the run to set up the pass.

I am not sure Kubiak can go outside his comfort zone and tinker with the offense and design an offense that highlights his guys strengths and exploits the opponents weaknesses.

His defensive philosophy, or lack of one. Having grown up watching Buddy Ryan and Jerry Glanville blitz on every play, I tend to like pressure and more pressure. I have always loathed the bend don't break guys. And I look at our defense and I cannot figure out what the heck we are.

All that said, Kubiak has shown me he was the right hire for the HC position. He has done an excellent job in changing the atmosphere at Reliant. So he needs more time, and one more draft. And the players need to play.

I hope we see some changes with the Defensive coaches next off season, and the last of the Casserly drafted players.

I'm not a football expert by any means but I think Kubiak was out coached the last 2 games, the play that appeared to be out of bounds in TN and the trick play by the Jags really bother the heck out of me, I believe that Kubiak is a very good OC but I'm having doubts about his ability to be a head coach. By the way Atlanta is only about 1000 feet above sea level, that elevation shouldn't affect anyone's performance.