StumpHunter wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 8:09 pm
Rick created a SB caliber roster that was at best 3rd in the NFL in 2017? Do tell.
uh ok? Was that 2017 roster not SB caliber? If you think it wasnt, does that mean the Bills and Packers didnt have SB caliber rosters this year either since they also lost in the conference championship? Do tell.
That isn't out of context, that is what you are saying. Everyone but the Packers and Titans knows that passing a lot is how you win football games, yet here is pushing for an offensive philosophy that works best for the team he has been given by the GM. A team that has a QB that requires play action and a strong run game to take pressure off of him and a team that has an oline that struggles in obvious passing situations. How dare he!
lol wow okay. So you are going to sit there and tell me what I'm trying to say when I tell you that's not what I'm trying to say.
Please listen to this podcast, it might actually teach you something and also explain exactly what I'm trying to say. This just came up the other day and they practically repeated exactly what I was saying and have a very similar take. Fast forward to about 9-10 minutes. It's actually a great listen and they make some excellent points.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cD ... IBxAI&ep=6
They say that Zim wants to bring in someone at OC that wants to do exactly what he wants so he simply doesnt have to deal with it and can focus on his defense.
The KEY point in this podcast at around 10:00 is exactly what I'm saying...3 of the 4 teams that played this weekend were at the bottom of the league in run percentage. I dont want that and we dont have Pat Mahomes under center to do that and we have a much better RB than all 3 of those teams (TB, Buf and KC). However the problem with the Vikings and Zim's philosophy is the splits that I pointed out. Zim uses Cook early and often to try and take leads to win games and if it doesnt work we're passing all second half and playing catch up.
He is saying that what Zim needs to do is be more dynamic in your passing game early on, take chances, use the skill set of Jefferson, Thielen, Irv, etc. to take leads and then use your running game as a weapon to maintain those leads. Like I said, Cook ran more in the first quarter than even Derrick Henry who had 66 more carries than Cook by years end. That's Zim's way to get ahead. Then he relies on good defense and hopes to continue that running game the rest of the game.
They also mention Klint Kubiak right after. I want Kubiak to be the OC but they make a good point and it's that they think he'll promote Kubiak for the wrong reasons. And those reasons would be Zim knows that Kubiak is aware of what he wants and that will settle the offense and he can put all his focus on his defense. Klint is 33 and I can bet money that he does have new ideas and is much more up to date with today's game than Zim given Zim still coaches like it's 1987. But Zim knows in the back of his mind that Klint isnt going to walk into his office and say, "okay here are my new wrinkles in the offense, lets do this, this and this and I think we need to do this more". NOT A CHANCE! Zim has established his philosophy with the Kubiaks and it's exactly what he wants, a smooth transition and he doesnt have to deal with it just like I said above. If he's hiring Kubiak for that reason, it's the wrong reason. If he's hiring Kubiak because he's young and wants him to bring UP TO DATE ideas to the offense, I'd be absolutely shocked. I can just about guarantee that is NOT why he brings him in as OC.
It is a constant carousel because he finds a good OC and they get a HCing job. We would be on 2 OC's if Shurmur didn't do such a good job in 2017 with "Zimmer holding him back". 4 OCs if Stefanski hadn't done the same thing. I am not sure who the sixth OC is it would be 5 in 7 years if Kubiak hadn't retired. 2 OCs who weren't very good, 2 that were so good they got HCing jobs and one who doesn't want to coach anymore. Not sure who the 6th is.
The new OC this year will be his 6th. And you dont find it odd that Norv all of the sudden stormed out of the building with no real explanation? Shurmur did a great job because he balanced the offense so well and used multiple RBs. He didnt drive Latavius Murray into the ground and play conservative with Case. With Flip, he was the complete opposite. He refused to use Cook or Murray and passed all game. As for Stefanski, he was so good for the same reason. He found a balance in the offense. Cook played 14 games in 2019 and in 2020. Cook had 62 more carries this year than he did under Stefanski. SIXTY TWO in the same amount of games.
Mattison only had 4 less carries this year than 2019 but the difference there is in 2019, when Cook was out, so was Mattison. In 2020 when Cook was out, Mattison started both games. So his carries are much more inflated in 2020 than they were in 2019. If Mattison was also out during the games Cook was out this year, he wouldve had 55 carries backing up Cook instead of 96. He had DOUBLE that in 2019 when the offense was much more balanced and when he was truly backing up Cook.
Fixed this for you. Cousins did really well when the game was out of reach in the 4th, but continued his sucking when we needed him to produce on the final drive to win the game.
Dude come on give up the garbage time crap. That wasnt the case and you know it.
-Week 1 vs. GB.... I'll give you the garbage time there (1)
-Indy....he had his worst game of the year and what he did when the game was out of reach by no means helped his stats.
-Tennessee....tight game, 0 garbage time
-Houston...win
-Seattle...tight game, 0 garbage time
-Atlanta...Ill give you garbage time (2)
-GB...win
-Det...win
-Chi....win
-Dal....tight game, 0 garbage time
-Car....win
-Jax...win
-TB....threw his lone TD when the game was still well in reach. Again, his stats after that if anything hurt his stats, not help them
-Chi...tight game, 0 garbage time
-NO.....yeah sorry he didnt keep up with the Saints 52 points. How dare he not score more.....How about stopping the saints for once. No less we were down by 10 at half. He more than doubled our 2nd half points and put up 33. 33 points wins 90% of football games but not when your defense gives up a pathetic 52 to a QB that cant even throw the ball anymore. Hell Kirk threw for 291 and 3 TDs 0 INTs. He threw his first two TDs early in the 3rd to cut the game to 4 two different times.
-Det....meaningless game but again what do you expect him to do? If he played bad, you'd rip him. If he played good like he did, you'd say it's garbage time. It's a lose-lose situation and you use it against anyone that tries to defend him.
blowing up in garbage time
Again, false, just proved that above.
We didn't struggle this year because the HC held back the offense. We struggled because we overpaid an above average QB like he was elite and didn't have money and had to start a bunch of rookies and bench guys on defense, and because our GM still hasn't figured out how to find a competent guard in the draft or FAs.
You can say overpaid all you want but Cousins in terms of cap hit this year for QBs was ranked 15th. You say we didnt have money but tell me this, what all pros did we miss out on BECAUSE OF Kirk Cousins contract? Who were we not able to resign?
-Linval was at the back end of his prime and was a predicted cut by everyone
-Rhodes was a horror show his last two years and was a predicted cut
-Waynes I'm sure we would've taken back but would you have paid him $42 million even IF we had the money? I'll answer...no.
-Alexander took a cheap deal due to being pissed at Zim for playing that meaningless week 17 game where he got hurt. That was quite obvious because if he really wanted to come back, we could've afforded that regardless.
-Griffen chose to opt out of his own deal and seemed like he wanted a fresh start...just to now realize that was dumb and wants back.
-our best FA in Harris was actually retained at a higher salary than what he would've gotten on a long term deal but we couldnt strike one. Come to find out it might've benefited because he had a down year.
Hell we even had enough room to trade for Ngakoue and take on his contract.
and then on top of all this, what free agent did we TRULY miss out on that we REALLY needed and REALLY would've helped but couldnt afford BECAUSE OF Cousins contract?
I. Will. Wait.
And please....dont sit there and say that "we didnt have any money and had to start a bunch of bench guys and rookies". I hope you're joking because the reason we were starting "a bunch of bench guys" is because Pierce opted out, Barr tore his pec week 2, Hunter was out all year and Kendricks missed 1/3 of the season.
What other "bench guys" did we have to start?
-A 3 tech DT? Yeah we've ignored that position since Shariff Floyd and I dont understand why.
-And Odenigbo? Who they clearly planned on being the starter opposite of hunter given the year he had prior. 7 sacks when getting the 4th most DE snaps on the team. He didnt pan out but I was on board giving him a shot too and talked about that last offseason. That was planned, not passed on due to lack of money.
And as for rookies, yeah the corners. But again, that is on ZIM. Are you going to tell me that if Zim really wanted a specific corner he wouldnt have twisted Spielmans arm for one? We could've easily afforded a guy like Darqueze Dennard or Dre Kirkpatrick. I mocked them to us in each of the two mocks I did that offseason. Zim clearly felt comfortable enough with who he had. Nobody is more adamant about getting corners as Zim. He even came out and said he underestimated the amount of veteran leadership he lost at corner in his final presser.
So idk what the heck you're talking about with having to "start a bunch of bench guys and rookies because we had no money". That is 1000% false. Stop twisting situations and creating your own narratives to fit your argument. If you want to talk reality then please do. If not, I have nothing else to say to you.
